This is thread #4 regarding patriarchy, patriocentricity, visionary daughters, and includes a discussion on the books So Much More and Passionate Housewives Desperate for God.
I would encourage you to go back and read through the past posts on these topics…lots of great discussion and thought-provoking insights.
December 12, 2007 at 8:36 pm
“prosletyzing not evangelizing”
YEP. That little ditty of a statement is a perfect synopsis of my entire frustration with the whole FIC/patriarchy/patriocentric/VF/DP/Chancey/McDonald stuff!
Why o why could we not have said it 2,000 comments ago!
(just kidding…I for one love this discussion and all the many turns it has taken!)
On pastors and ordainment: I’ve never put alot of stock into it and thought about it much, but I guess I should. The pastor at our former church was not formally trained. He did a good job with the “emotion” side of ministry, but didn’t do such a hot job with the intellectual discussion. He couldn’t tell you Latin, Greek, or anything inbetween. He didn’t care either.
My husband works at a job with alot of part time pastors. They don’t get paid enough to pastor full time so they have to take on paid jobs thru the week. They’re all mostly decent, very good guys. But they’ve got some screwy theology going on, and I’ve often thought that these days anyone can proclaim themselves a pastor in some church, some where, with some sort of belief system.
The term “preist” or “pastor” used to be a very regarded term because one knew it involved a decent amount of study and work behind the scenes. Not anymore. We’ve got lots of little popes running around proclaiming THEIR version of it, and prosletyzing the already saved, all in the name of “he with the most convictions, wins.”
December 12, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Lin wrote: ….Don’t be too quick to the laying on of hands. The problem comes not from the education or the ordination. It comes from ignorant followers. The Body should be knowledgeable about scripture and passionate about Christ. Then, all these problems would not be so wide spread.
This is the crux of the issue. If followers had knowledge and exercized discernment, then people might get sucked into these groups, but after a time, people would realize what they were dealing with and would walk away. In the previous post, Lin states that her pastors aren’t the least bit deceived by these teachings. Neither should be the body of Christ.
There’s a saying that answers why people keep doing either immoral or undesirable things… People do things like this because they work. Their followings and unconcerned others in the Body of Christ let all of these things go unchecked and unquestioned in the name of avoiding controversy. Do we ask where the pastor was trained, who he trained under, what were the greatest influences on him, etc. If we know, do we care?
We are overwhelmed with a great deal more information to deal with on a moment to moment basis, depending on our daily dealings. We have more to sort through, but this does not relieve us of our duty to discern our way through it all. It’s hard work.
December 12, 2007 at 11:48 pm
If followers had knowledge and exercized discernment, then people might get sucked into these groups, but after a time, people would realize what they were dealing with and would walk away.
This is something that Paul dealt with the in the early church and I think is somethign we will have to deal with on earth until time is rolled up like a scroll.
There’s just no away around the fact that “we are like sheep,” easily led by shepherds down whatever path they take us.
I fully agree that we all should be better trained to discern, but sometimes the best training is the simplicity of “learning” the Good Shepherds voice. Sometimes that doesn’t come through intellectual knowledge but strictly from the heart. I know that I’ve had friends who *knew* something was wrong with a certain teaching—-and while I intellectually got caught up in it, they instinctively knew something was off and stayed away.
You couldn’t have got them to intellectually explain why they stayed away, or to label the specifics of what was off. They just knew that Jesus wasn’t there the way He should be.
Once again, the answer comes down to needing Jesus more.
But as for *how* that happens, I think it’s a complex mix of individual desire and the community of believer’s ministry of growing us up into Christ, and despite what the marketers and packagers would like us to believe (with their, “this’ll fix all your problems” books on Christian living), there’s not a “one-size-fits-all” way of opening the eyes of our hearts to see Jesus.
December 13, 2007 at 1:48 am
molleth said:
I fully agree that we all should be better trained to discern, but sometimes the best training is the simplicity of “learning” the Good Shepherds voice. Sometimes that doesn’t come through intellectual knowledge but strictly from the heart. I know that I’ve had friends who *knew* something was wrong with a certain teaching—-and while I intellectually got caught up in it, they instinctively knew something was off and stayed away.
I would definitely fall into this category. I remember the first time I got the VF boys catalog…my husband and I were like, “cool stuff!” (This was back when the catalogs came separate) We considered ordering a few things, eventually did…and then we started getting the other catalogs. The media catalog arrived a few months later- and sitting down to read it, I felt a little weirded out by it, but couldn’t put a reason to it. Not too long after that, my husband ran across the controversy over Jen Epstein in the blogosphere while googling something else. We both began to research, which eventually led me here, to the very first discussion. So I went from a vague heart reaction to an intellectual understanding of why I was weirded out. It was, actually, the page in which So Much More was featured, along with some other things aimed at women, that bugged me- but I couldn’t quite figure out why.
You ladies here have been the catalyst for change, for challenging me to become a Berean. I realize that when it comes to a lot of non-essential things, I tend to give in to the tyranny of the urgent and not closely evaluate companies I am buying from. Slap “Christian” in front of the business, and I just accepted it at face value- I trust “their good name” as thatmom put it in thread #3. Particularly if they are acknowledged by other “names” I trust- which is why Chancey/McDonald getting on other radio hours is so dangerous.
For that matter, not only am I spending a lot more time evaluating my pastors teachings against the bible (and what we are discussing here, of course), James and I have both been talking about and researching a lot of the ministries and companies we’ve associated with over the years against Scripture,and making sure that those we continue to support line up with what we believe. Before this, I would have never even blinked. But as Lindsey(enjoy the journey) has said, not only am I awake now, it’s going to take quite a bit before I’ll give up my freedom to carefully examine everything against the only Word I know to be True.
Lindsey @ETJ said:
“prosletyzing not evangelizing”
YEP. That little ditty of a statement is a perfect synopsis of my entire frustration with the whole FIC/patriarchy/patriocentric/VF/DP/Chancey/McDonald stuff!
Exactly!!!! Couldn’t have said it better.
December 13, 2007 at 3:58 am
not only am I awake now, it’s going to take quite a bit before I’ll give up my freedom to carefully examine everything against the only Word I know to be True.
Well said, both of you.
December 13, 2007 at 5:43 am
In response to a young woman on Amazon.com, in the response section to an unfavorable book review of the Passionate Housewives, states that she has written to Stacy McDonald. Stacy apparently wrote back, stating that she and her daughters McDonald all vote.
I’ve read excerpts from Stacy McDonald’s “Maidens” book and did not note anything in the Passionate Housewives book. I responded that I believed that Jennie Chancey has written on the one vote per household issue or whatever you want to call it. If any of you have these references on hand (if you’ve already researched it), I wonder if any of you could address the questions of this woman on the Amazon site? There are so many more people who participate here that have so much more experience with this issue than I do, so I defer to you.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R3BNPNVLKKHW0R/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg2?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdPage=2
December 13, 2007 at 7:17 am
I commented there, Cindy. Thanks for the heads-up.
On Chancey’s article about voting, it has disappeared. That may be a coincidence, or it may have something to do with the fact that their book is being marketed to mainstream Christians and a no-voting article might not sit well with the audience. Then again, perhaps the Chancey’s have changed their opinion. Hard to say, especially when the article is all gone without explanation. *shrugs*
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.org/artman/publish/article_1266.shtml
(This was the former link).
December 13, 2007 at 10:37 am
One of the most troubling aspects of this entire subject has been the disingenuous behavior we have seen. The fact that Jennie’s article has evaporated into thin air, just like the dozens of posts off of blogs, is so troubling. It really is not an option for the Christian to behave in this manner. If you have changed your mind, you must be willing to state so. If you haven’t changed your mind, then removing your writings is only lying to the public about what you really believe.
One thing that has come out of all of this for me is that I now question not only everything the patriocentrists teach but their own personal testimonies as well. How do we know that what they tell us about their own lives is even true? In retrospect, how many public figures have harbored secrets that would really impact their public ministries were the public to know? Is there an obligation for information to be made public when it directly applies to a ministry? If there is hypocrisy and deception when it comes to teachings, I believe there is personal hypocrisy and deception as well.
December 13, 2007 at 1:33 pm
It’s not called “changing their mind.”
Instead, I’d call it:
HIDING SOMETHING, or perhaps, smart marketing in order to sell more copies of a book. Or, it might be called “trying to make the nay-sayers look bad” (aka: us!)
It troubles me too.
December 13, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Chancey’s article on voting is still available. It just takes some digging to find it:
Here it is:
“Should Women Vote?”
By Mrs. Jennie Chancey
Aug 19, 2004 – 10:00:00 PM
Email this article
Printer friendly page
Do you believe that women should use their votes and cast them at a ballot box? I personally feel that God wants me to use my vote as, even though I do not work outside the home, I am still a citizen and therefore should use my voting rights to honour Him. I would be interested to hear your opinions. ~ Curious
Should women vote or hold any political interest? ~ A Reader
When we approach the issue of suffrage, it is important to note right up front that this is not a male versus female issue. It is really an issue of individual versus household suffrage. When our Founders laid down voting laws for the colonies and the states, they did not create universal suffrage (“one man, one vote”).[1] This may sound foreign to our ears, but it is only because we have grown so used to the idea in the past century of every individual casting a vote at the ballot box. Our nation is not a Democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic. The difference may seem unimportant at first blush, but it really affects our view of everything from the way American government is structured (three branches rather than one) to how power is divided (checks and balances between the branches).
A Republic is a government that is made up of legislators who represent their constituents in Congress. When Americans go to the ballot box, they elect leaders they believe will represent them fairly and accurately at the state and national level. When an important issue comes up for consideration, constituents can call or write their representatives to express their views, but they do not personally vote on the particular issue in question. If a representative consistently votes in a way that does not reflect his constituency, the people can vote him out of office next time around. In a Democracy, each individual citizen over a certain age votes on every single issue (this process is called “referendum”). If 51% of the people vote a certain way, the majority carries the day. So Democracy always results in the rule of the majority of the people who vote (and sometimes very few people actually vote). The reason our Founders chose to create a Constitutional Republic was to protect the rights and interests of the minority. With divided powers and a system of checks and balances, the majority cannot run roughshod over the rights of the minority. Of course, this doesn’t mean a Constitutional Republic is a perfect form of government or that it never tramples the minority, but its intent is to protect the “common good.”
After that (very brief!) introduction, we can move on to suffrage and the purpose of voting. At the founding of our nation, there were many men who were not allowed to vote. Depending upon the state in question, men could be denied the right to vote if they didn’t pay taxes, if they didn’t own property, if they were indentured servants (like my ninth great-grandfather), if they were convicts, etc. One reason that suffrage was limited was to prevent a man who had little stake in the community from having authority over community affairs. He might, after all, pick up and move elsewhere at the drop of a hat. He might not put down roots and become involved in his community. And, finally, he might not pay any taxes. It should also be noted that the very thought of anyone on “public assistance” being allowed to vote would have been abhorrent to the founders of our nation. That man’s judgment would be biased by the money in his pocket. All of this is simply to demonstrate that women were not the only ones who couldn’t vote. And, in fact, there were many women who did!
Single or widowed women who owned property were allowed to vote in most of the colonies (they did this under the so-called “Dame” laws).[2] During colonial times (1600-1776), the right to vote was linked directly to land ownership (as mentioned above).[3] This practice did not end until the 1820s, as Enlightenment philosophy began to creep into the notions of franchise. (The unfortunate results of the Enlightenment are discussed in The Woman’s Place by R.J. Rushdoony.) The founders and lawmakers who didn’t give the vote to married women were not woman-haters out to suppress the opinions of half of the population. They had an entirely different view than we do today–a view built around landowning households rather than individuals. According to English Common Law, man and wife become one not only in the spiritual or romantic sense, but in the legal sense. They are one force to be reckoned with legally rather than two individuals. The family (not the individual) has always been considered the foundation of society and the bedrock of government. Therefore the vote was given to the head of the household and not to each member residing within the household. The head represented his household when he went to the polls, much as our senators and congressmen represent us when they vote in the Senate or the House. This is one of the foundation stones of a Republic. Certain people are elected to represent others within their district. In this sense, the husband (or head of the landowning household) was “elected” to represent his household at the ballot box. If a husband was incapacitated or otherwise unable to exercise his right to vote, there were laws allowing the wife to vote for the household. In this way, each household was fairly represented at the ballot box.
We have a completely different notion of franchise today, which is not based upon households but upon individuals within the household. Each eligible individual may vote his or her own opinion. In this way, a husband and a wife can completely cancel each other out at the ballot box. Many commentators in the 19th century (when women began demanding the vote) found such an idea absurd, since it conflicted with republican principles of government. But instead of appealing to the law or making rational discourse about the representation of households, most men who opposed votes for women did so on the grounds that women weren’t smart enough to vote or shouldn’t be bothered with politics. Those arguments proved weak and ineffective (as they should have). The issue has nothing to do with brains or ability. This brings us to another facet of this discussion, which is addressed in the following question:
What about women voting in church? Do you believe only heads of households should vote, or should every member of the church have a vote? ~ A Reader
One of the best ways to illustrate household voting versus individual voting is to consider the practice of individual church members voting on issues in the church meeting. When my husband and I were first married, we were members of a church that practiced individual voting. The church was not large, so it was immediately obvious how the results of such a practice played out in real life. First of all, the family with six (member) children could outvote four young couples without children–they had eight votes, after all, and each couple had just two. (This is assuming, of course, that every member of the household voted the same way. In a family that prays, studies, and worships together, this is almost always the case. But there are times when this does not happen, and the results are painful to observe.) During a discussion of whether or not the church elders should serve on a rotating basis, a majority of the members expressed a certain opinion. The man seated in the pew in front of us stood to explain why he would endorse the majority view. After he sat down, my husband rose to express his concerns with the majority view and propose a different plan. Right after he did so, the wife of the man in the pew in front of us stood to say that she felt bad that my husband was the only one expressing his viewpoint, so she would vote with him! She had just cancelled out her husband’s vote, effectively curtailing his leadership of his family–and publicly. He flushed red and managed to stammer out a joke as a cover for his embarrassment. But both my husband and I felt awful about the division. This is absolutely not to say that a wife’s opinion does not matter and carries no weight. A husband should seek his wife’s counsel on important issues. Then, when the head of the household votes, he carries the responsibility on his own shoulders, but he does not act as a “lone ranger.” He has weighed the issues carefully with his wife beforehand.
The Bible is filled from beginning to end with the phrase “you and your household.” God’s promises to Adam and Eve were also to “their seed.” His promises to Noah involved his entire family. His promises to Abraham involved “you and your children after you.” The government of the household is a small republic. The husband may represent the household in public and when he votes, but his “constituents” stand right behind him. They speak with one voice. Now, this doesn’t mean there are never times when a wife disagrees with her husband’s decision. But, in the end, she models the Bride of Christ and submits to her head. She does so without rolling her eyes or fretting, knowing that God is ultimately in control, and she can trust Him. When voting is done by heads of households in church (and this includes older widows who run their own households and make their own vows — see Numbers 30:9), each household has one vote. The Joneses with eight kids cannot outvote the Smiths with three children and the Harrisons with no children. Surely we can agree that this is wise and maintains a balance (not to mention harmony, since small families will have no reason to resent the power of the large families).
Now, how does this principle carry over into the political realm outside the church? Was the 19th amendment misguided? Should all women (or all people, for that matter) have a vote?
We have to walk carefully here. Let it be understood that there are good, thoughtful people on both sides of the suffrage issue. There are godly Christians who disagree on this matter. This is not an issue that should divide brothers and sisters or cause one person to judge another. What we all must commit to do is to go to the Scripture (all of which is “profitable…and able to equip [us] for every good work” – I Tim. 3:16-17), think, pray, talk about the issue, and live out our decisions with love instead of pride in our own view. So, if you disagree with me on this one, I am not going to think harsh thoughts about you or write you off as a liberal.
The model of household suffrage is based upon biblical precepts for government. When God commanded that the people of Israel should be numbered, it was done by heads of household (men twenty years old and above; see Exodus 30:14 and 38:26). “Now the LORD spoke to Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai, in the tabernacle of meeting, on the first day of the second month, in the second year after they had come out of the land of Egypt, saying: ‘Take a census of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’ houses, according to the number of names, every male individually, from twenty years old and above–all who are able to go to war in Israel. You and Aaron shall number them by their armies” (Numbers 1:1-3). Did God do this because He was not concerned with individuals, including women and children? No, He did it because He has always been concerned with households from the beginning. And for thousands of years, a household has been considered a force to be reckoned with. Splintering the household into individuals has only occurred in the past 140 years in these United States. This has effectively rendered the household a non-entity (the dream of the radical individualist as well as the socialist–and who now gets to define what constitutes a “family?”). It has pitted fathers against sons, husbands against wives, mothers against daughters. Now, you may argue that it has actually increased the power of the household, since all the members can unite to vote together, multiplying the power of their opinion at the ballot box. But here’s the rub: “Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12). Put yourself in the shoes of the widow at the ballot box. As she casts her vote, the family with three children of voting age comes right along behind her and casts five dissenting votes. They’ve outvoted her five to one, even though she represents one household, just as they do.
“But think of the opportunity we have as Christians these days!” someone might exclaim. “We can unite to outvote our enemies!” But what does Jesus say? “Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:43-45). The ends do not justify the means. We are to model the justice of our Heavenly Father, who “sends rain on the just and on the unjust.” Multiplying votes in this manner simply does not fit a biblical pattern of government (or even of charity toward our neighbor).
“So what about women? Can’t we get back to the point here? Why should men represent their families at the ballot box?” Well, why not? Someone else represents you in Congress; you do not directly vote on every issue. If you have a problem with men voting for their households, you must necessarily take issue with the republican form of government our Founders laid down. How can 535 representatives possibly represent the votes of 280 million people? If we don’t like this fact, we have the right to “alter or abolish” our government, but we don’t have the right to do so at the expense of our neighbor. This is why a system of checks and balances is so vital–and this brings us back to women voting. Should women vote? Yes! Here’s the point: Every woman does vote, whether or not she physically pulls the lever or puts the paper in the box. A wife casts her vote every time she discusses the issues of the day with her husband. A daughter casts her vote every time she asks her father about an article she has read or a speech she has heard. A wife votes by the very virtue of the fact that she is the “queen” of the household and rules by her husband’s side. In this respect, all women “hold political interest,” as our reader said above. It would be foolish indeed for a husband to pat his wife on the head in a condescending manner and say, “There, there, dear. You don’t need to think about that; I’ll do the thinking for our household all by myself.” The wise husband seeks the counsel of his wife and enoys hearing her opinions. He is able to represent his household well because he is listening to those he represents. But, in the end, he does the representing, just as our congressmen represent us in the House and Senate on a daily basis.
God is the one who defines the household and declares who shall be the head of it. A married man is the head of his household. A widow “indeed” (over sixty and not obligated to remarry) is the head of her household (like Lydia in the book of Acts). Single young men like Samuel or Daniel were leaders even while single and so headed their own “households” (they were not dependent upon anyone). If a father died without a son, his daughter could become his heir, basically becoming the de facto head of the household and bearer of the family name (Numbers 7:1-11). But the normal pattern God has clearly laid out in Scripture is that of a young woman living under her father’s roof until she is given in marriage and a young man leaving home to “cleave to his wife.” When Ruth was widowed, she placed herself under the protection of her mother-in-law’s male relative, Boaz. It is not the scriptural pattern for young women to seek to be heads of their own households and remain single for life. It must also be noted that it is not a scriptural pattern for young men to avoid marriage and become parasites to their parents! God’s pattern is for the creation of households that follow after Him. When God covenanted with Abraham, He said He did it “in order that he [Abraham] may command his children and his household after him, that they keep the way of the LORD, to do righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19).
Are you a woman who is vitally interested in the issues of the day? Talk to your husband (or your father, if you’re a daughter)! Draw him out into conversation and get to know his mind on the issues. Most of all, be willing to listen. You may be astounded at how well your husband can articulate his viewpoints when he is asked for them. Ask lots of questions! And be willing to be wrong! When your viewpoint cannot hold up to scrutiny, accept defeat gracefully. If your husband ends up changing his mind, be humble. And when you really feel your husband is wrong, commit your feelings to the Lord and pray for your husband as he represents your household “in the gates.” It is a solemn duty to serve as the “magistrate” of the household and not one to be taken lightly. Much rests upon husbands and fathers as they represent their households, so lighten that burden by being supportive, encouraging, and involved. And besides serving as an interested counselor, there are many ways women can be involved beyond the ballot box. Are you passionate about pro-life issues? Write articulate letters to the editor from a woman’s point of view. Offer to counsel young women in crisis pregnancies. Is your family excited about a political candidate? Work together to help his campaign by placing signs, handing out brochures, and opening your home for a “Meet the Candidate” coffee (we’ve done this as a family many, many times). Together, families can work as a team to influence our nation for godliness. Gender has nothing to do with our success.
NOTES:
[1] Einwechter, William. “The Christian Colonial Foundation of America.”
[2] Banner, Lois. “Woman Suffrage,” Microsoft Encarta Online Encyclopedia
[3] For a very thorough treatment of the history of women’s property ownership in America, see Women and the Law of Property in Early America by Marylynn Salmon. While the book is written from a feminist perspective, it covers dozens of interlocking aspects of the history of property ownership (including a woman’s legal status when it came to voting) in detail.
* Daniel Crittenden also has a fascinating take on the 19th Amendment in her book, What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us. Mrs. Crittenden takes a pragmatic look at what has happened to political campaigns since women have received the vote and asks if we are really any better off. Would a presidential candidate’s hairstyle really have been an issue 100 years ago? Image and emotion are big players in modern politics. While women’s suffrage certainly isn’t the only cause, isn’t it possible that it has played a major part in this shift, Crittenden asks?
December 13, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Well, our Founders didn’t intend for black people to vote either (anyone remember the 3/5 compromise?). Are we going to suggest that they shouldn’t vote? Of course not! The Founders were not right about everything. Its as simple as that. If laws in this country affect me as an individual, I should be able to cast a vote about it. After all, if I speed on the freeway, my husband doesn’t get the ticket- I do.
Its part of why I don’t believe in the federal representation of the husband before God. Who will stand before Him at the Judgment Seat? My husband will not be standing there for me, answering for my sins. It’ll be me and my gracious Savior, Jesus Christ.
December 13, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Interesting use of the Bible. Really, are we to believe that Lydia was under the authority of a patriarchal figure, or are we to believe that she was an elderly widow and the head of her household??
I guess what we are to believe depends upon who is teaching us today and what their extra-biblical agenda might be.
December 13, 2007 at 5:36 pm
“After all, if I speed on the freeway, my husband doesn’t get the ticket- I do.”
Cally,
That is your problem. You not only think that women should be able to vote but you also drive a car which was historically something that only men did.
Driving promotes an “independent” spirit in women and only men are allowed to have an “independent” spirit. I am trying to find that particular bible verse that teaches this but I have not found it….yet. It seems to me that the creation account proves that men are NOT to be any more independent than women because we are all dependent upon each other.
For example, this is what Jonathan Lindvall said about the issue:
“My wife regrets the independence that was cultivated in her own life when she got a driver’s license. This is an area we’ve chosen to avoid for our daughter. It’s not all that long ago historically that driving was considered something women should leave to men. If Bethany’s husband, when she marries, wants her to get a driver’s license, that’ll be up to him. But we’ve decided not to rob him of that decision. Bethany is grateful for the protection from such seemingly innocent influences toward independence.”
December 13, 2007 at 5:46 pm
Lindsey,
I agree with you about the softening of the patriarchal teachings in order to break into the mainstream.
I would call it “white-washed”. The teachings have to be toned down and obsfucated in order to even have a chance of being received as credible.
I think it is high time that a thorough document is put together that highlights all the teachings in the hyper-patriarchal camp, complete with headings and actual quotations right from the source.
I am going to start putting together the skeleton of such a document and if anyone would like to email me with things they want to be included in this document, I would very much appreciate it. I am seeing a huge need for such a document at this time.
That way when someone comes here and makes the false claim that people are simply misrepresenting and misconstruing the hyper-patriarchal teachings, we can point them to a concise document for reference which heavily relies on source material.
I think the problem is that those in the hyper-patriarchal camp are white-washing their teachings and that they have two or three messages they are teaching depending on what their target audience is. It is not that we are misconstruing their teachings, it is that they are changing them and white-washing them in order to get in with a particular group.
I would like to include a section on the 5-Aspects, the Trinity, and the Genesis account where major hermeneutical errors are committed and then who teaches this things.
Another good source is patriarchy.org for articles written by complementarians who do see the errors in the hyper-patriarchal teachings. I know that people will have some disagreements with some of those articles but I believe it is a credible attempt by those who hold to complementarian beliefs in dispelling the myths and false teachings promulgated by the hyper-patriarchalists.
December 13, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Oh, at the time that Lindvall wrote about his daughter Bethany she was 22 years old. That should shed even more light on his beliefs about women.
December 13, 2007 at 5:56 pm
As many of you have already watched the Harry Enfield video included “Women Know Your Limits”, I thought I would now point out that he has a skit entitled “Women Don’t Drive”.
Before someone gets upset that these are far-fetched, make sure you watch the “Women Know Your Limits” video and then look at what the Botkins said about college causing derangement in women. This particular skit was merely mocking the actual teachings of many leading “experts” of their day concerning women and education. They actually taught that a woman’s brain would go basically “haywire” from too much education and that she was not made for things like that. They did teach that beard growth and mental derangement were two side effects from too much education. One of the leaders in Salem among the separatists wrote a letter to a friend which stated that a prominent member’s wife [of their village] had to be institutionalized because she concentrated too much on reading and learning in her leisure time instead of domestic pursuits suited for females.
One of the reason why these videos are so funny is because they are based on what was once believed as truth about women.
December 13, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Here is a good quote from Barbara Curtis concerning Matthew 18:
“I always find it interesting that the people who are quick to hurl Matthew 18 at believers – even when they’ve exhausted the direct channels of confrontation – are apt to lapse into accusing others to third parties themselves.”
This is so true. In fact, I would extend this to people are are so quick to hurl out accusations of “gossip” and “slander” are more often very guilty than the ones they are accusing. It is just that they burn up the private channels instead of directly confronting the subjects of their gossip and slander in truth.
December 13, 2007 at 7:17 pm
This is going back quite a while (somewhere in the 500s of the last comment thread). Someone mentioned that many of the patriocentric productions are labeled ‘controversial,’ so why all the fuss when the produce controversy? I think the answer is that the patriocentrists are expecting arguments from outside the church, from the feminists, from the ‘Other’ they’ve identified as the enemy to be fought against. They’re not expecting argument from inside the church. Hence the white-washed feminists label; it fixes whoever is labeled as an Other, as an enemy, instead of as a fellow believer with possibly valid concerns.
Sorry if that’s full of academic-speak; I’m writing a paper for my literary theory class so my head is full of jargon.
December 13, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“so why all the fuss when the produce controversy? I think the answer is that the patriocentrists are expecting arguments from outside the church, from the feminists, from the ‘Other’ they’ve identified as the enemy to be fought against. They’re not expecting argument from inside the church. Hence the white-washed feminists label; it fixes whoever is labeled as an Other, as an enemy, instead of as a fellow believer with possibly valid concerns.
Maureen,
Great point! Good question. Yes, why all the fuss? If something is billed as controversial and provocative isn’t that the purpose of such a thing- to produce controversy?
December 13, 2007 at 8:22 pm
Maureen,
You are right. And I would add that these people feed on the need for “us versus them” type issues. They want it to be controversial (and they also want to be the one on top, being declared the “winner”).
It would be entirely too easy to say that there are various beliefs within the Christian Church and to agree to disagree.
It’s called SENSATIONALISM SELLS! And once again, I shout, THE BOTTOM LINE IS PROFITS!
How else does Doug Phillips afford his big house and elegant dresses & suits and hats? How can he pull it off?
By swearing there is some sort of controversy, and that most of God’s people have got it all wrong. If we’d just listen to him and his side of the story, we’d all be better off and so would his pocketbook.
I’m sorry if it is below the belt, this is how I truly feel. He is nothing more than a peddler selling his wares and pawning off a (cheap) product.
There is no grace there.
December 13, 2007 at 8:41 pm
“One thing that has come out of all of this for me is that I now question not only everything the patriocentrists teach but their own personal testimonies as well. How do we know that what they tell us about their own lives is even true? In retrospect, how many public figures have harbored secrets that would really impact their public ministries were the public to know? Is there an obligation for information to be made public when it directly applies to a ministry? If there is hypocrisy and deception when it comes to teachings, I believe there is personal hypocrisy and deception as well.”
Thatmom,
It is hard, isn’t it?
I mean, when someone gives their testimony and makes it look like they were alone in their quiet apartment before they met their husband when in fact they were married (or recently divorced) to another husband and already had a child, it does make it hard to believe everything else they say. When someone already has a family and a child and then makes it look like they didn’t and were pining away for one in order to cook dinner for them and care for them, it makes you wonder. When someone already has a child yet makes it appear that they were praying for many children, as if they didn’t have any yet, it makes it very hard to truly believe what they tell you in other areas. When one already has a child to love and nurture and care for, why make it appear as if one is just a single, lonely woman who only wants to marry and have a lot of children?
But, it may be how I look at things. I was a single parent for 5 years. I would never write that I was “alone in my apartment” at night as part of my testimony because I wasn’t alone. I would think my son would be insulted to read such a testimony. I already had a child to love and nurture and that would be in the forefront of my testimony when I was speaking about the time before I met my husband. I had never married, that is true, but if I had been married, I wouldn’t make it look like I was pining away for a husband to serve and make a home for when I already had one. If I was giving my testimony for the time before I met my current husband, I wouldn’t leave out details that would totally change the impression my readers are getting when I don’t include them. I also wouldn’t leave out the details if my husband brought many children into the marriage, making me a ready-made mother of many.
I know people who have been called dishonest for a lot less but there seems to be a double standard for behavior. It is backwards. Those who are in positions of leadership and are considered teachers should be the ones who are the most transparent and who are held to very strict codes of honesty. But, the opposite is the case.
December 13, 2007 at 9:10 pm
“When someone already has a family and a child and then makes it look like they didn’t and were pining away for one in order to cook dinner for them and care for them, it makes you wonder. ”
Let me clarify that….
When I was a single parent, I was not a Christian for most of those years. But, as soon as I became a Christian, I had a family- the family of God. I was finally a whole person because I had Christ. I no longer needed anyone or anything else, because I knew at that moment that Christ was all in all. I was complete with Him. I was fulfilled and I had a purpose in Him.
My son, Adam, was my family. I also had my parents and my sister and the rest of my blood-relation to serve. I was content in whatever season of life Christ had me in. I had learned from my many years of pursuing things that do not fulfill that nothing, not a husband or more children or being able to stay at home instead of work would make me happy or fulfilled. Christ made me full.
In fact, when I met my husband it was at a college and career age group meeting. I was almost 24 and he was almost 27. In our small group we had to write one word that describes how we were feeling. I wrote “full”. I was full! I had pine away for a husband and for other things I thought would fill me but when Christ came, I no longer pined for any of those things. I was content.
My husband said he fell in love with me because of that one statement. He was tired of the Christian girls wanting one thing and striving for one thing- marriage. Oh, he wanted to marry but he didn’t want someone who made that their life’s goal. He said he felt he was constantly being attacked and pursued by desperate single Christian women who would use every manipulation to get across their desire for marriage. He wanted someone who had Christ as their goal. He said that this is what was most attractive about me- even though he thought I was pretty attractive in a lot of other ways!
I made a home for me and my son and I had the family of God as my family. Getting married and having more children were just an addition to what I had in Christ. But getting married and having more children has not been my fulfillment. It will always be Christ, first and foremost.
And maybe that is why I don’t understand true “biblical womanhood” because I have never viewed marriage as the end all and be all of my existence as a woman. I can so identify with Paul when he said he is content in all circumstances. Whether I was a single parent or whether I was married, I have learned to be content in the circumstances God has had me in.
December 13, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Corrie, I get weepy whenever I hear your amazing testimony. God gives us so much more than the desires of our heart.
You have really hit on an important truth in this whole visionary daughter thread, that of a young woman not making an idol of being a wife or a mother, but rather, trusting God for all He has for you. Our eternal purpose is NOT to be housewives or mothers. We were created to glorify God, no matter what calling He gives us or what the various roles we will perform during our lives.
Thank you for so candidly sharing your life.
{{{{{}}}}}
December 13, 2007 at 10:08 pm
You have really hit on an important truth in this whole visionary daughter thread, that of a young woman not making an idol of being a wife or a mother, but rather, trusting God for all He has for you.
Amen, and Amen, and Amen.
My story is a little different, but similar in some ways. I don’t have the wherewithal in me right now to plunk it all out, but I can relate to you Corrie. I really can.
Thank you for sharing.
December 13, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Thatmom said:
“You have really hit on an important truth in this whole visionary daughter thread, that of a young woman not making an idol of being a wife or a mother, but rather, trusting God for all He has for you. Our eternal purpose is NOT to be housewives or mothers. We were created to glorify God, no matter what calling He gives us or what the various roles we will perform during our lives.”
You know, making an idol out of becoming a wife and mother is exactly what I was doing when I was steeped in this patriocentricity. Being a 24-25 year old single reading that a woman’s highest calling is to serve her husband and children, I felt constantly lacking. I was desperate to find a husband, and angry with God for not sending me one. I felt like I wasn’t really living life yet, wasn’t fulfilling my purpose, and wasn’t complete because I wasn’t married and was without prospects. I thought life would start when I walked down the aisle in a white dress. I certainly was not content, not at all. I really struggled against being in college, despite it being my parents’ wishes, not to mention God’s clear direction (though I didn’t understand that at the time).
Now, a year or so later, after examining the teachings of patriocentricity and leaving that movement, I have complete peace in being single and am slowly but steadily completing my degree. To say that I feel full in Christ, as Corrie so beautifully described it, no, I’m not there yet, but thanks be to God He is healing me and continues to draw me near to Him. I now understand that it is Him living in me that makes me a complete person, not anyone or anything else. My goal, purpose, what have you, in life is to love and serve Him, to seek Him and His kingdom. He may call me to do that through marriage, being a teacher, doing missions, all three, or something completely different.
The whole visionary daughter/patriarchy thing really concerns me because it seems to be a one-size-fits-all pattern. God does not have a cookie-cutter pattern that He uses for us women (or men!); we are individuals created in His image, each given unique gifts and abilities.
December 13, 2007 at 11:23 pm
You have really hit on an important truth in this whole visionary daughter thread, that of a young woman not making an idol of being a wife or a mother, but rather, trusting God for all He has for you. Our eternal purpose is NOT to be housewives or mothers. We were created to glorify God, no matter what calling He gives us or what the various roles we will perform during our lives.
AMEN. Good stuff. Wow.
On my comment about wondering why Jennie pulled the link off, I want to apologize for openly wondering if she took it off on purpose. Looks like I just didn’t search hard enough for the right link. I apologize for “wondering” aloud before being CERTAIN that the link was gone. As I said, I’ve had dealings with Jennie before and have absolutely NO reason to believe she would be underhanded in any way. But after the Mrs. Binoculars debicle with her husband, I really was surprised to see such dishonesty and underhandedness…and so wasn’t sure if I was right in my initial estimation of Jennie. I know it’s not fair, though, to judge her based on her husband’s behaviour (even though federal headship would tell me that I should, sadly). Anyways, long story short: I apologize, and am glad to hear that Jennie is still openly advocating her views despite whether or not they harm book sales.
In Christ,
Molly
December 14, 2007 at 1:47 am
Corrie…
I think putting together a “master list” of all the current hyper-patriachial teachings is a great idea. Some of us that have been on this thread from the first one are pretty familiar, so we forget that others may not be ‘up to speed’ on everything we are discussing. I’ve got some rough notes myself, but one handed typing with baby doesn’t work so well!
I am continually shocked by how little of the Bible is actually used in these teachings. It seems like the same five or six verses over and over and over again.
December 14, 2007 at 4:13 am
“Oh, at the time that Lindvall wrote about his daughter Bethany she was 22 years old. That should shed even more light on his beliefs about women.”
Scary.
This statement also bothered me:
“My wife regrets the independence that was cultivated in her own life when she got a driver’s license. This is an area we’ve chosen to avoid for our daughter.”
Chosen to avoid FOR their daughter… while THEY got to make their own choices. Making decisions for an adult human being like this is wrong — they have reduced their daughter to the level of a perpetual child…. or more precisely, to the status of a family pet.
I wonder what will happen, the day that Bethany wakes up and realizes that she has been swindled.
December 14, 2007 at 4:40 am
Wow, Corrie. Those sentiments about women and driving completely boggle. Setting aside for a moment the concept of preventing only daughters from driving, I have to say that in my opinion denying any child the opportunity to learn to drive — like denying a child the opportunity to learn to swim — is *dangerous*. There are too many circumstances under which being able to drive is necessary to summon help or remove yourself from a bad situation. What if you’re the passenger in a car travelling in a remote location, you don’t know how to drive, and the driver has a heart attack or stroke? I think even if you plan to live in New York City for the rest of your life and rely on the subway for everything, you should at least learn to drive.
December 14, 2007 at 4:55 am
they have reduced their daughter to the level of a perpetual child…. or more precisely, to the status of a family pet.
Actually, to be more specific but also more general, they reduce *women* to the level of perpetual children.
A woman must be given permission to drive, to speak, to make decisions, through her male head (father or husband).
In other words, men grow up. Women don’t (they weren’t made to, they say).
But in the same breath, they swear up and down that they believe women and men are equal.
What they actaully mean by that is “equal in right standing with God” though, not equal in anything else.
December 14, 2007 at 5:19 am
Molly,
It’s worse than that….
It’s actually worse than having to check with your male head. You are also obligated, through multigenerational faithfulness, to obtain the counsel and approval of the oldest patriarch at the head. As Don Veinot said in his article — you must check with Uncle Ned!
December 14, 2007 at 5:28 am
Well, you have to check with Uncle Ned in theory. If you are in the inner circle of the privileged class, you can get away with all kinds of things.
Like for instance, you can say on your blog that you won’t be blogging because it’s a vice or something and that your husband wants you to cool it — but then you can go to an obscure blog and blog your little heart away. Find yourself some friends by virtue of the fact that you don’t like the same people…
December 14, 2007 at 5:39 am
“It’s actually worse than having to check with your male head. You are also obligated, through multigenerational faithfulness, to obtain the counsel and approval of the oldest patriarch at the head. As Don Veinot said in his article — you must check with Uncle Ned!”
Of course, to do patriarchy right, the males would have also have to obtain counsel and approval from “Uncle Ned”.
Also, in Old Testament times, the family head wasn’t always old — when the patriarch of a family died, he passed on his position to his son; usually, but not always, as the Bible shows us, sucession passed to the eldest son.
The whole family, including all the younger brothers and their wives would then be subject to the NEW, younger patriarch.
So, do these modernday patriarchs advocate that men be in subjection to their eldest brother?
December 14, 2007 at 5:51 am
Who knows?
Due to the use of propaganda techniques in their delivery of information, they tend to by very sly on the finer points of distinction. Intentional vagueness and unstated assumption by inference leave this quite open-ended.
Apparently, it is not a system transposed onto a religious hierarchy, otherwise the Chanceys would not be able to support Ron Paul (since the guy at the top of the food chain is a Constitution Party -third party only guy). Or are the Chanceys possibly taking flack for it now?
Another example would be the fact that Stacy McDonald states that she votes (though this was a reference to a private email that was mentioned on Amazon.com) and she either allows her daughters to vote as well. This is not patriarchy policy. So if patriarchy transposed the OT system on to the church government, then the McDonalds would be in hot water with Doug Phillips, I would imagine.
I wonder if any of these mentioned here will be destined for church discipline?
Or do they get inner circle privileges and get out of discipline free cards? I mean, James McDonald sent my husband and email about my supposedly disturbing deeds, and I reject their doctrine outright. So if they attempt to start the process with me, then why would they not be subject to discipline themselves?
December 14, 2007 at 6:01 am
KatieinDC,
“What if you’re the passenger in a car travelling in a remote location, you don’t know how to drive, and the driver has a heart attack or stroke? ”
Exactly. And this isn’t far-fetched. My husband is a Type I diabetic and there are many times I have to drive just to be safe because his insulin may be off or he may be too low or too high to drive. Also, on long trips I tend to drive so my husband can work on his computer, Blackberry, do paperwork or make business calls. He is in sales so he is always on the road and it is nice for him to get a break once in a while.
Also, if I had to depend on my husband to take me shopping or get me to and from places or to run errands and go to doctor’s appointments and homeschooling functions and bible studies at church, etc., I would be one unhappy person. Yes, I enjoy the freedom and convenience I have because I DO drive. If this makes me a feminist, that is just fine.
I just got back from a lovely evening at church where we made cookies for the shut-ins and people with new babies or that had surgery and put together some beautiful platters and then split up to deliver them. These were all women doing this. Then we came back to church and had a late soup supper. Then I ran to Walmart and did my grocery shopping in total tranquility. I find I can clear my mind at night while I am shopping and I come back refreshed and renewed. I am just the type of person who needs some time to think ONCE IN A WHILE.
We are all so different and being “independent” is not always a bad thing. I look at the Proverbs 31 woman and I see a very strong woman who didn’t run everything through her husband and who did many things “independently”. It is only bad when a person thinks they don’t need other people and that they are able to do everything on their own. Because of my past I had to be able to support myself and get through a LOT of “ick”. God used that for my good and built some strengths into my character because of my experiences. I do not for one second believe they are bad. My husband is glad that I can make decisions without constantly consulting him and relying on him for *everything*. It frees him up to do his work.
The emphasis on an “independent spirit” as a bad thing for only women in the patriarchal teachings baffles me. Being able to drive to the store independently is not a bad thing, imho. I think this is more an issue about control over than independence from.
Joy,
I would gladly take your notes and use them in the making of the list of patriarchal teachings. I will take any help I can get and the more input I get, the better rounded it will be and the less chance of error I will have.
All,
What was that guy’s name that wrote several books about how home-church and not allowing his wife or daughters to go out without a male chaperone and had all their adult children living on their land after they married? Was it Barth? Anyone remember his teachings?
December 14, 2007 at 6:12 am
“So, do these modernday patriarchs advocate that men be in subjection to their eldest brother?”
Cynthia,
If I remember correctly, Doug Phillips basically said that a father/husband has no higher authority. It was in an article that discussed who a woman’s authority was.
Does this ring a bell with anyone? I know it was on one of these threads. I will have to go back and get it because it is a good quote to have.
It appeared as if a husband/father wasn’t even accountable to his elders because when the statement was made there was no mention that elders were in authority over them.
December 14, 2007 at 12:04 pm
These stories of independent vs dependent women reminded me of a situation I once observed. I was on a women’s leadership team in a church. When we sat down make plans for things….inconsequential things like potluck dinners or child care during special services etc., the pastor’s wife would always say “of course, we need session approval for that.” So, since I was the secretary, that job became mine. So I would send an e-mail to the clerk of the session and make my request. One day, he wrote back to me, very kindly, but, in essence, saying to me “why are you women bothering us with all these details?” These men had better things to do than to micromanage things under our jurisdiction. Whenever I hear stories like women not getting a driver’s license, etc., this scenario comes to mind. My husband has way too much on his own plate to hold my hand while I take care of the things under my jurisdiction, things like taking children to piano and art classes, grocery shopping, going to Wal-Mart for toilet paper, taking my elderly mom to the doctor, etc. Independent spirit? Absolutely. He wouldn’t want it any other way.
Oh, and as an interesting aside to the story, eventually I found out why the pastor’s wife always called for “session approval.” At one meeting we made a group decision and she said nothing but “we need session approval.” We got it but at the next meeting she stated that her husband really wanted something different than what we had already planned and announced and she told us she just knew that would be his response. When we asked her why she didn’t mention it during the initial planning, she told us her method, laughing about it. She says that when she sees something being planned that she disagrees with, she just goes to her husband and tells him and them he can get the session to disapprove of it.
Moral of the story: What some people perceive to be a woman’s submission to authority is actually manipulation at its finest. Remember that.
December 14, 2007 at 12:09 pm
One more story along these lines…
I was at a church committee meeting one time and was part of a discussion. (all appropriate for the “approved” context.) The next day the pastor came to me and told me how offended one of the other women had been by my comments so I immediately went to her and asked her how I had offended her. She said that she had not been personally offended at all by what I had said but rather by the fact that I had said anything in the first place. She explained that she came from a background where women didn’t speak at all in church meetings, not just in worship services but AT ALL. I asked her if she realized that that wasn’t the policy of this denomination and she said she did but that I had offended her anyway by speaking. (How do you answer that?) She then went on to tell me a similar story to what the pastor’s wife said in my last comment, that she always goes home and tells her husband what needs to be changed and then he goes back and does it. She said that was how she interpreted the passage in Scripture that talks about women being silent in church and asking their husbands at home. I was truly speechless.
December 14, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Again, this all goes back to the thread of honesty vs dishonesty with women in this movement. Of course the patriocentrists will say that men should listen to their wives etc. But I believe there is much manipulation that goes on behind the scenes and, again, many of the screwball ideas within this movement are coming from women who have decided that proper “ladylike behavior for a Christian” includes a whole list of things that no man would ever dream up. At least the men in my home aren’t going to dream up these sorts of detailed paradigms. They are too busy going to real jobs and bringing home real paychecks and spending real time with their wives and children to attend to the patriocentric silliness that seems to be sillier by the day.
December 14, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Corrie, thanks for your insights on integrity in the details. I, too, am concerned for the children who witness the hypocrisy. I can’t help but wonder this week what sort of hypocrisy Matthew Murray witnessed that contributed to his reactions, mental illness etc. not withstanding.
December 14, 2007 at 12:53 pm
all this driving/not driving and not being out without a family male chaperone is eerily reminiscent of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities and even orthodox Muslim households. Next thing you know married patrio women will have to cover their heads with wigs to avoid the light of day falling on their married hair!
Didn’t Christ come to set us free from BONDAGE?
Don’t these patriarchists remember THAT key, key point?
December 14, 2007 at 2:22 pm
“Moral of the story: What some people perceive to be a woman’s submission to authority is actually manipulation at its finest. Remember that.”
That is exactly what this teaching does to a woman. It teaches her to be manipulative and dishonest. How many times have you heard a speaker say, “The man is the head but the woman turns the neck”?
That is nothing but pure manipulation and it teaches grown women to act like little girls to get what they want. Have you ever witnessed a 60 year old woman acting like a girl to get what she wants? It ain’t pretty.
I have seen this over and over. I have never been involved in patriarchy directly but this issue interests me because I see the exact same teachings infiltrating many churches. It has gone from agreeing on no women pastors to specific women’s roles in church and society. I have been amazed at seeing how intense it has become even in the last 20 years.I know it is a backlash to the culture but there is now a legalism to it that is not scriptural at all.
What is really interesting is when a woman gets caught doing this. Once a woman used her husband as an excuse for not being involved in a conference and it was mentioned in passing to her husband that she would be missed at this function…he said, what? I would love for her to go!
Kind of reminds me of Stacy saying she has to get off her blog when the questions become too specific because her husband (all of a sudden) wants her to.
) Yeah, right.
December 14, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“What is really interesting is when a woman gets caught doing this. Once a woman used her husband as an excuse for not being involved in a conference and it was mentioned in passing to her husband that she would be missed at this function…he said, what? I would love for her to go!
Kind of reminds me of Stacy saying she has to get off her blog when the questions become too specific because her husband (all of a sudden) wants her to.
) Yeah, right.”
And all of the dissembling and dishonesty –read, LYING, folks — going on in the patriarchal movement is a pretty sure sign that the devil has subverted it, if he didn’t originate it outright.
December 14, 2007 at 3:31 pm
“But getting married and having more children has not been my fulfillment. It will always be Christ, first and foremost.”
Corrie, this is so very true. And it is what is missing in these poor patrirarchal women’s lives. They, in effect, have earthly priests they must go through.
Who was it that said and I am paraphrasing, ‘if my family were all around me, my children hanging on me yet if Christ were to come, I would throw them all off and run to Him’.
December 14, 2007 at 4:30 pm
“What is really interesting is when a woman gets caught doing this. Once a woman used her husband as an excuse for not being involved in a conference and it was mentioned in passing to her husband that she would be missed at this function…he said, what? I would love for her to go!”
Lin,
I have seen this very thing several times and it makes me angry. Don’t these women realize they are making their husbands look bad? They are grown, adult women and they should be able to stand on their own two feet. If they don’t want to go, they shouldn’t blame it on their husbands, they should just say they don’t want to go. They shouldn’t say “I have to check with my husband” in order to keep from looking like the “bad guy” when they know their husband wouldn’t care.
December 14, 2007 at 5:55 pm
On another forum, someone was asking for examples where the patriarchal position teaches that women are inferior to men.
This person doesn’t want examples of where women are treated as inferiors to men (ie., by denying the right to have a driver’s license to adult women, treating adult women as if they are still children and under the “dominion” of their father, or by asserting that the Bible allegedly teaches that there are differences in freedoms and responsibilities based on gender), this person wants an actual verbatim teaching coming from the mouth of a patriarchal proponent that specifically states that women are inferior to men.
Now, I can find plenty of such statements in older commentaries. In fact, it was just a given that everyone knew that women were inferior to men in intellect and spiritual understanding.
In fact, just read the “Blast of the First Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women” by John Knox and you will see him say exactly this- women are inferior to men. Not only that, but Vision Forum is heavily promoting their newest film produced by the Gunn Brothers entitled “Monstrous Women”.
They may not say that they think women are inferior but when they promote such a film whose title is derived from a paper which was written on the premise that women ARE inferior to men intellectually, spiritually and in all ways, then it makes one wonder.
When any male, even a woman’s 4 year old son is more fit to go up and serve her communion, isn’t that saying that females are inferior to males? When they teach that a woman is more easily deceived (another lie/myth from the patriarchal cache that needs to be debunked) is that not saying that God created her inferior to men?
What am I missing? Do actions speak louder than words?
December 15, 2007 at 11:27 am
This is a bit off-topic….
But I will risk it. I put an article on my blog that I copied from Ministry Watchman under the Jamestown 400 post.
It seems that the Visionaries at Vision Forum have orchestrated a change in venue for Joe Taylor’s objection to the arbitration that took place regarding the Allosaurus video ordeal. Joe anticipated filing this objection in Lubbock, but I am told that the Phillips’ attorney had the venue changed to Austin, the location of the original arbitration. It’s thrown a major monkey wrench into Taylor’s attempt to exonerate himself and to prevent Phillips or the DeRosas or whoever it is from seizing everything that Taylor owns, including his livelihood.
Please pray for him. As it stands and without divine and/or other intervention, it does not look like it will fare well for him if the venue does not get moved back to Lubbock. From my limited understanding, it is highly unlikely that the venue will be changed now that it has been relocated to Austin. It just does not sound at all favorable.
So please say a prayer for Joe as Monday approaches.
It is so frustrating, because it is the habit of these schoolyard bully patriarchalists to go about threatening legal action. Many who post here have been threatened for stating their opinions or suspicions or clear facts for much less. They threaten to haul their critics into ecclesial courts and civil courts. They claim that they can hire attorneys to write nasty letters and that they are not guilty of violating Paul’s admonishment to keep our matters out of the civil arena. (Frankly, if attorneys are writing letters, this is the first step towards going to civil courts. Many Dougites make references to legal action against bloggers to keep people quiet. It’s obscene. It is not Christian.)
December 15, 2007 at 3:01 pm
While I know that the patriarchalist teachings are often phrased in ways to “honor” and “protect” women, I think often they are so very naive. For instance, the issue of women not having a driver’s liscence.
While I believe that Reb Bradley and Doug Philips truly love their daughters and want to protect them and give them the best, sometimes I think they forget that we live in a fallen world and we are all vulnerable to being deceived and being in less-than-protected circumstances. Within their paradigm, they will be very cautious with their daughters’ future husbands–whether it is courtship or betrothal or what have you. Still, as fathers, they are not the omniscient Father God and as careful as they are, there is no guarantee that the husbands they choose for their daughters will always honor, cherish and protect them.
I’m speaking from the experience of a close personal friend (from San Antonio, even!) Courtship was the model. Protective parents, on both sides. Model young man who had completed an apprenticeship. (Okay, so it was old-school Gothardism in the early 90s.) Everyone loved these two young people, approved of the match and they were wed.
And divorced within two years. Why? The young man had everyone snowed. His wife, his parents, her parents. He lived a double life. No one foresaw the sin he would continue and the unfaithfulness. Thankfully, it did not extend to physical abuse and harm. Thankfully, his wife had her driver’s license and parents who believed her and provided a “safe place to fall” through the separation and divorce.
Doug Philips, et al, may believe that could *never* happen to their daughters. But that is naive. That–and worse–is possible in our fallen world. Good “family men” can be abusers of their wives and children. Can be unfaithful. Can deceive and desert their families. It doesn’t just happen to “other” families, to “whitewashed feminists” or to evangelical or “worldly” Christians. These sad abuses happen even among those families who start out wanting the best and wanting to do everything “right.”
I find it very disturbing when parents leave their children little protections.
December 15, 2007 at 3:23 pm
“Many Dougites make references to legal action against bloggers to keep people quiet. It’s obscene. It is not Christian.”
No, it’s not Christian.
The Bible says that Christians are not supposed to sue one another, but the bully-boy pastors get around this by clubbing people upside the head with Matthew 18:17, saying that because the person won’t knuckle under to their “spiritual” authority, they are free to treat them as a “heathen man and a publican.”
Now, I don’t for a minute think that Joe Taylor is the person acting like a “heathen man” in this situation, but let’s consider: How does the Bible say that we are to treat those heathens and publicans with whom we have a disagreement?
Should we sue their socks off, or should we “resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also?”
Just maybe, “if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, we should let him have [thy] cloke also.”
Perhaps if someone “compels thee to go a mile”, one should “go with him twain”.
It might be a good idea to “give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away.”
We’ve heard that it’s been said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.” But maybe we ought to go it one better, and “love our enemies, bless them that curse us, do good to them that hate us, and pray for them which despitefully use us, and persecute us.” Gee, do ya think?
And just maybe, we should do all this, that we may be the “children of our Father which is in heaven” instead of acting like publicans ourselves, who love only their friends and feel morally justified in suing the socks off anyone else.
December 15, 2007 at 5:42 pm
“No, it’s not Christian.
The Bible says that Christians are not supposed to sue one another, but the bully-boy pastors get around this by clubbing people upside the head with Matthew 18:17, saying that because the person won’t knuckle under to their “spiritual” authority, they are free to treat them as a “heathen man and a publican.””
This is disgusting.
The games people play, especially behind the scenes. I know of several cases where these pastors threaten Matthew 18 and even being to carry it out. They demand to know what church you go to and what your elders’ names are. They will even go so far as to go to your elders or some other group in order to shut you up from daring to question their teachings. I have been watching this go on for years. It must come from some secret playbook for the clerical fascist.
Folks, don’t ever go by what meets the eye. There are images to keep and there is a lot of P.R. work going on. There is a lot of deception and a lot of “funny-business” going on, too. Many of us have been personally threatened in various forms. Don’t be so quick to dismiss things because the appearance looks so good. There is a lack of integrity to be sure. And I probably don’t even know the half of it!
Here is what Augustine said:
“We who preach & write, do so in a manner different from which the Scriptures have been written. We write while we make progress. We learn something new every day. We speak as we still knock for understanding…If anyone criticizes me when I have said what is right, he does me an injustice. But I would be more angry with the one who praises me and takes what I have written for Gospel truth than I would be with the one who criticizes me unfairly.”
If this attitude is not in those who write and preach, then leave for the nearest exit.
We are so busy following the cult of celebrity that we refuse to take our blinders off and actually investigate what is being taught and said and making sure it lines up with reality.
Do not take for Gospel truth what mere man says or writes.
December 15, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Cindy,
On the Joe Taylor thing……I am just sickened.
The Bible says that it is a shame to go to court one against another and God asks us if there is not one wise man among us that can decide the dispute?
Well, I guess not. I don’t understand this obsession (and it is an obsession) to follow scripture so closely when it comes to “biblical womanhood” but everything up is tossed up in the air and is up for grabs and is open to reinterpretation and the ignoring of the weightier things of the law in favor of tithing mint and cumin.
Is there no one wise at Vision Forum? Is there no one that can put a stop to this? I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night knowing I took everything from a man over something so petty. I would be sick to my stomach. How can these people sleep at night? That is something that really bothers me.
Is there no man wise enough? Is there no man godly enough? Who are these people accountable to? Might makes right? The wealthy overlords with attorneys are able to run others in the ground who dare stand up to them simply because they don’t have the “might” and the wealth and are not as clever in the smoke and mirrors department?
When we neglect the weightier things of God’s law there is something very wrong. What does God require of us? But, to do justice, to love kindness and walk humbling with our God.
I can’t, in good conscience, support people or ministries that are so quick to go to court or threaten lawsuits or threaten Matthew 18 over every little thing.
December 15, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Cynthia,
What you have said is so powerful. Shouldn’t we be doing those things as believers? Shouldn’t that be what marks us as believers in Christ?
Instead of being marked by commination and threats, we should be known for our deeds of mercy, our love of kindness, our deeds of justice (God’s vision of justice, not sinful man’s vision), and walks of humility and our love for those who are our brothers and sisters in Christ and our love for our enemies.
This discussion has really caused me to see that if leaders are not marked by the things that are important to God, then they are not leaders.
December 15, 2007 at 6:39 pm
“Is there no one wise at Vision Forum? Is there no one that can put a stop to this? I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night knowing I took everything from a man over something so petty. I would be sick to my stomach. How can these people sleep at night?”
It all has to do with the difference between serving God, and serving Mammon.
December 15, 2007 at 10:09 pm
http://poohsthink.com/?p=805
At the above links are some notes taken after listening to one of Doug Phillip’s lectures on girls and women.
I think they are insightful in many ways.
This is the same link that “Patriospeak” [Anyone figure out who is behind that site? I think there are a few of us who have pretty much figured it out] gives as one who is “watching”. Yes, I believe that is right but maybe not in the way that Patriospeak meant it.
December 15, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Cindy K . . . thanks for pointing us to that comment on the MW blog. I copied the comment on my blog, and gave a link back to the page. I will remember to pray about this situation.
December 16, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Corrie, I read that piece when it was first on that blog and let me tell you I saw several more things this time I read it than I did back then. I will get back to you.
December 16, 2007 at 10:12 pm
“Oh, at the time that Lindvall wrote about his daughter Bethany she was 22 years old. That should shed even more light on his beliefs about women.”
Scary.
This statement also bothered me:
“My wife regrets the independence that was cultivated in her own life when she got a driver’s license. This is an area we’ve chosen to avoid for our daughter.”
Chosen to avoid FOR their daughter… while THEY got to make their own choices. Making decisions for an adult human being like this is wrong — they have reduced their daughter to the level of a perpetual child…. or more precisely, to the status of a family pet.
I wonder what will happen, the day that Bethany wakes up and realizes that she has been swindled.
What country is this- the US, or Saudi Arabia? (Women in Saudi Arabia aren’t allowed to learn to drive, or even sit in the front seat, the last time I checked.
A woman must be given permission to drive, to speak, to make decisions, through her male head (father or husband).
In other words, men grow up. Women don’t (they weren’t made to, they say).
What religion is this- Christianity, or fundamentalist Islam? What era am I living in, the post modern, or the medieval?
December 16, 2007 at 11:28 pm
“What religion is this- Christianity, or fundamentalist Islam? What era am I living in, the post modern, or the medieval?”
If certain factions in the theonomist movement had their way, we would all be living in a feudal society. Universal homeschooling would insuure that everyone only attained the educational level of their parents, and a rigidly stratified society would emerge, with slaves and serfs at the bottom and men of “vision” at the top. Only male landowners would be allowed to vote, and women would not be allowed to work outside the home, persue higher education, or travel without an escort.
Marriages would be arranged between the fathers of the prospective couple, and women would remain under the authority of their fathers until marriage. If their fathers died before his daughters were married or if a woman was widowed, she would reside in the custody of her nearest male relative. Families with upwards of twenty children would not be uncommon, as birth control would be outlawed.
I do wonder, however, what the daughters of the serfs and slaves would do in such a system, since neither their fathers nor their male relatives would be in a position to support them in their middle and old age if they did not find a husband. In feudal times, such women often became servants of wealthy families, but this system frowns upon women who work, so, just what would they do with the glut of unmarried lower-class women?
December 17, 2007 at 12:14 am
It’s important that the whole truth be known about Joe Taylor. Yes, what Doug Phillips and Vision Forum did to him was wrong, but there’s more to it than that.
When Joe Taylor made disparaging remarks almost a year ago, he was called in for another meeting, which was simply to determine whether or not he had broken the terms of his previous mediation agreement. Other people offered to help Joe pursue overturning the original mediation, which would have negated the purpose for this meeting, but he wanted to go ahead anyway. At the very last minute, hours before the meeting, Joe’s attorney quit. That is grounds for having the date changed, but against advice from others, Joe went to the meeting only with another friend. They ruled that Joe did indeed make disparaging comments when he had agreed in his mediation agreement not to do so.
At first Joe attempted to not accept the penalty for this, but finally he agreed to hire a lawyer to try to get the original mediation overturned. He worked diligently with that lawyer for several months and they filed for a hearing to have the mediation overturned. The DeRosa’s attorney filed to have the location and the date of the hearing changed and it was granted. Joe did not like the new date and place but there was no legal reason for him not to attend so it was set for the early part of October, 2007.
Joe realized that he didn’t have enough money to pay the witnesses he wanted to have on his behalf so, instead of asking for help, he simply refused to show up at his own hearing which he filed for. Obviously there was a default judgment in favor of the DeRosas. This means that Joe forfeited his opportunity to have the original mediation overturned, and it was highly likely that it would have been overturned, as there were seven legal violations, one of which was that Doug Phillips refused to sign the agreement.
This now meant that the penalty assessed against Joe Taylor for making disparaging comments was now in effect and that Joe owed something like $130,000. Joe has no money and cannot pay, so the court has the right to seize his assets to pay his fines. Unfortunately, Joe Taylor forfeited his own rights in this matter.
December 17, 2007 at 2:01 am
at reply 58. wow. Women actually did better off in the real middle ages.
Some women worked in the cities, and actually managed to live a relative life of independence in some medieval towns.
And at least some of them could become nuns, and, like you said, if a poorer woman’s husband couldn’t support her, she would become a servant, but since they have no room for women working…
December 17, 2007 at 2:21 am
“Universal homeschooling would insuure that everyone only attained the educational level of their parents”
Are you saying that this is what theonomists believe, or do you believe that a student’s education while being homeschooled is limited to the educational level of his or her parents?
December 17, 2007 at 3:17 am
I’m saying that if you were to put the more radical of the theonomist’s and hyperP’s beliefs into practice, this is what you would end up with in a couple of generations, as a natural result.
Think about it — if you had universal homeschooling, no public libraries or public schools and no sort of welfare system, you would end up with the poorest of the poor disenfranchised and earning a subsistence wage in the employ of the rich, voting landowners.
With no public libraries the poor would have little access to educational materials, and with no public schools a person’s educational level generally would not rise above that of his teachers — ie, his parents. Society would become stratified, with the rich, educated, voting landowners at the top, a few tradesmen and merchants in the middle, and a large mass of barely literate workers at the bottom, just as it was at the beginning of the 19th century, an era which many theonomists and hyperPs view as a sort of Golden Age.
December 17, 2007 at 5:12 am
About this Two Sides post #59:
This opinion is poorly informed based on the information that I’ve received. I can’t believe that any honest person had the audacity to post it here either. Joe has made some poor decisions, but the conclusions that are made here are just miserably false and fall to the level of Doug Phillips tactics.
Care to show yourself accountable by using your real name and defend your claims with some documentation?
Please, I’d like to know who you are and what EVIDENCE you have to defend these things that were said here. From the evidence that I’ve reviewed, this mean-spirited bias is poorly informed.
Please, pray for Joe Taylor. He’s a man who has made some very costly mistakes, but that does not negate that he has been exploited and visciously treated by liars and deceiful manipulators that have no respect for Joe or the science of creation science.
If Joe’s naivete makes him undeserving of God’s grace and care, then don’t pray. If you don’t believe that people can receive mercy for making mistakes don’t pray.
If you believe in repentance and mercy after making mistakes, pray your socks off for him. And pray for Doug. They’re both in need of ours prayers.
December 17, 2007 at 5:41 am
“I do wonder, however, what the daughters of the serfs and slaves would do in such a system, since neither their fathers nor their male relatives would be in a position to support them in their middle and old age if they did not find a husband. In feudal times, such women often became servants of wealthy families, but this system frowns upon women who work, so, just what would they do with the glut of unmarried lower-class women?”
Cynthia,
Those in the Old Testament referred to them as “concubines” or “slave wives”. Basically, they were not real wives, just women sold to men as concubines so that their fathers or other male relatives could pay their bills/debts from the money they received on the sale of their females.
December 17, 2007 at 6:19 am
Oh, Cindy, I do love Joe very much and I do pray for God’s mercy for him. I only know that we must tell both sides of the story. It is not fair to leave out important facts. When the other side becomes known, then you have to wonder why the first side only told part of the story.
Can people receive mercy when they mistakes? Oh, I sure hope so, or I will be doomed for eternity. BTW, I am a friend of Joe’s but I just can’t stand by and see only half the story being told.
December 17, 2007 at 7:39 am
Thanks, Two Sides, for sharing the full story. Sounds like it’s a typical case of the nice trusting good-natured guy getting the shaft. And all that serves to do is to let us know more of VF’s true character.
This is SO sad.
December 17, 2007 at 11:06 am
Two Sides,
Thank you for identifing yourself to me privately, however, I hope that you will identify yourself here. And give some substantial evidence.
You’ve mentioned facts that are truthful about Joe Taylor in isolation of one another, but you’ve weaved them together using faulty causality. This is precisely what patriarchy has repeatedly done to you.
(For example, the seizure of property has nothing to do with any violation of the arbitration from my understanding but is due to execution of the arbitration ruling itself. The court date today concerns Joe’s objection to the arbitration ruling — Joes attempt to assert his rights and protect himself — the process that was intiated months ago.)
There are really three major parties involved here, but that major third party has been devastated as well. Stating your opinions about Taylor’s failures doesn’t help that third party at all at this point. It serves the VF affiliated aggressors.
December 17, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Cynthia,
One thing that always interests me is the anti-industrialization facet of the patriocentric movement, the longing for simpler times. I, too, often think simpler times would have been nice. I love reading the Little House series. But then I come to my senses and realize that God placed me in this time and place in history for a purpose and that part of being content is listening to how He would want me to be used of Him in the 21st century. And isn’t it a little funny to be anti-industrialization on your lap top?
December 17, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Sometimes I wonder if the Luddites had some things very right and why Tolkein once said that he thought that the internal combustion engine was the end of Western Civilization. (as opposed to feminism?) Ha, ha, ha.
I’m also reminded of Thoreau’s encouragement to “simplify.”
This is good advice and something that the patriarchy movement really gets right, when viewed in balance and wisdom.
December 17, 2007 at 3:27 pm
“Thanks, Two Sides, for sharing the full story. Sounds like it’s a typical case of the nice trusting good-natured guy getting the shaft. And all that serves to do is to let us know more of VF’s true character.”
Molly,
Exactly! The whole thing is just sickening. Why are they in this in the first place?
I don’t think a lack of sophistication and a bit of naivete mean anything when looking at the bigger picture.
December 17, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Corrie, this going after Joe Taylor reminds me of Potter keeping the thousands of dollars Uncle Billy left in his lap, and then doing his best to stick it to George Bailey and destroy him on “It’s a Wonderful Life.”
December 17, 2007 at 5:54 pm
“I, too, often think simpler times would have been nice.”
Yes, they do seem nice until we start digging deeper and realize that people died of simple infections, small pox and pnuemonia all the time. They had horrible sanitary conditions…especially in the cities and slavery. Mothers died in childbirth and many babies did not make it, either. I can remember reading of one mother who had 12 children and only one made it to adulthood. And many could not read!
We are so blessed to have most of the translations of scripture at our fingertips along with many study tools (Lexicons, Concordances, etc) that were only available to those who could afford them. Really, we have no excuse for not studying scripture in depth.
The challenge is staying simplified. Most people I know are downsizing everything…homes, stuff, etc. But, I won’t be downsizing my laptop!
)
December 17, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Lynn,
Excellent example! That scene in “It’s a Wonderful Life” left the same bad taste in my mouth that this Joe Taylor thing has. I couldn’t put my finger on it but you have just given me a wonderful analogy.
Not only is that an excellent example but it is also very timely since we are just about to celebrate Christmas!
I think a good word study on what the Bible says about greed and the love of money might be appropriate.
Speaking of money, I was recently floored to learn how much some keynote speakers make for speaking at homeschool conventions. I was very naive and I thought that their travel and lodging was covered and a modest and appropriate fee was paid. Come to find out that some of these keynotes get upwards of $25,000 for a day and a half?
Is there a place where someone can go to find out what the various keynote speakers make?
I would think that the average homeschool single-income family might want to know these things. Is there some Christian financial reporting agency like the ECFA that oversees these things?
I am finding out that the homeschooling movement, for some, has become a very lucrative affair. Here I thought it was a “ministry”? Isn’t that how the homeschooling movement started? Now it seems to have turned into big business on many counts and it is bothersome to me, especially when so many families are following the advice of no birth control, single income living and other such things.
December 17, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Those in the Old Testament referred to them as “concubines” or “slave wives”. Basically, they were not real wives, just women sold to men as concubines so that their fathers or other male relatives could pay their bills/debts from the money they received on the sale of their females.
-Sick. Sick, sick, SICK! How can they still view women as property in this day and age? Why not view women the way Christ did, instead of the way the Law did? It makes me think these people are just control freaks!
December 17, 2007 at 11:52 pm
“Why not view women the way Christ did, instead of the way the Law did?”
Because they are worldly. The World to which they wish to return is the World of an earlier age, but it’s the World, just the same…..
1Jo 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things [that are] in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
…..and as far as the nostalgia trip is concerned, God is the God of the living, not the dead.
December 18, 2007 at 4:53 am
“I am finding out that the homeschooling movement, for some, has become a very lucrative affair. Here I thought it was a “ministry”? Isn’t that how the homeschooling movement started? Now it seems to have turned into big business on many counts and it is bothersome to me, especially when so many families are following the advice of no birth control, single income living and other such things.”
It does have its dirty little underbelly, doesn’t it? There’s a reason why some of these fellows started promoting homeschooling way back when.
Traditionally, most Christian parents who became dissatisfied with public schools sent their children to parochial schools, and the churches taught that this was a commendable thing. Then a couple of decades ago some fellow came up with the idea that even parochial schools violated scripture and they (mis)used Deut.11:19 to support their new-fangled teachings, and thus it was that the 11th commandment, “Thou shalt homeschool” was born.
Isn’t it curious that many of same fellows eventually ended up with a “ministry” of selling homeschooling curriculum?
December 18, 2007 at 3:15 pm
” Then a couple of decades ago some fellow came up with the idea that even parochial schools violated scripture and they (mis)used Deut.11:19 to support their new-fangled teachings, and thus it was that the 11th commandment, “Thou shalt homeschool” was born.”
Cynthia,
I believe this is an important point to make.
Deuteronomy 11:19 says nothing about homeschooling and it is a misapplication for teachers to teach that this verse tells us that we must homeschool.
I have always been uncomfortable with the application of that verse in this way, even in “the day”. It just never sat right with me.
I had read that verse as saying that when parents are with their children they should take the opportunity to teach God’s word. Whether that be milking the cows, walking down the road, sitting down on a bench or when lying down at night. I believe that verse simply means that parents should take advantage of these opportunities to teach their children about the Lord using everyday life experiences to convey God’s truths.
I also have seen this verse to using as a whip to the backs of women who “abdicate” their duty as a mother when they put their children in Vacation Bible School, the nursery, or Sunday School, even if that mother is with them 24/7 all week long because she homeschools them. She is never to be apart from them because this is where her fulfillment lies- in being totally, 100% absorbed by her children and husband. If she has an outside interest or desire, that is a sign that she is not following the Lord and she has been infected by the feminism of this world.
It is kind of like saying that the Bible teaches that women shouldn’t vote. It just isn’t there, no matter how hard we look and no matter how much we want it to say such things.
December 18, 2007 at 3:40 pm
“I also have seen this verse to using as a whip to the backs of women who “abdicate” their duty as a mother when they put their children in Vacation Bible School, the nursery, or Sunday School, even if that mother is with them 24/7 all week long because she homeschools them.”
Which is odd, considering that many of the people who preach this are of the “the-Bible-is-written-primarily-to-men” persuasion.
Deuteronomy 11:18-19 was given by God to the Israelites along with many other instructions as they were about to cross the Jordan and take possession of the land of Canaan. For all practical purposes,they were headed into a war.
It’s ironic — if ever there were times when God spoke primarily to the men of Israel rather than to the women, this was such a time; yet it seems that today, the homeschooling dictators have reinterpreted this verse and have applied it primarily to the women.
December 18, 2007 at 6:02 pm
http://www.spiritofelijah.com/chariot/chariot1207.html
Here is a message by Norm Wakefield and it makes some very good points about being a Standard Bearer vs. True Image Bearer. It is his second in a series.
Here are just a couple of quotes from the article. Read the whole thing. It is very good, especially how this affects our children.
“Although this is a hypothetical situation, it isn’t difficult to imagine the outcome had Joseph felt compelled to live by the righteous standards of his religion and peers – Mary and her unborn son would have died at the hands of a stone-throwing crowd. Everyone would have walked away feeling quite “righteous”, having “protected” their community.
Fortunately, despite his sin nature, Joseph was a righteous, loving, and spiritually mature man by the grace of God. Matthew records this about him. “And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly” (Matt. 1:19). The love of the Father protected His Son through Joseph even before He was born. A Standard Bearer would have put her away with shame and felt justified and even compelled to do so. Marriage destroyed. The Son of God murdered.”…….
“Can someone be right but wrong?
William Young, author of The Shack, described a man’s encounter with God. It caught my attention, and I think it relates to Satan’s scheme. He wrote that there are a lot of smart people who are able to say a lot of right things from their brain because they have been told what the right answers are, but they don’t know Jesus Christ at all. So really, how can their answers be right even if they are correct? Even though they might be correct, they are still wrong.
I think this is insightful. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that all Standard Bearers don’t know Jesus Christ, but I would say that they might not understand Satan’s scheme or know intimately the love of God in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, they must be supernaturally oblivious to the destruction they cause. Once a person thinks a good name is the ultimate blessing of God, he will justify everything he does and will exercise whatever power he has to control events and people. His causes may be right, commendable, and worthy of emulation, but his methods may be wrong in God’s eyes. If methods do not spring from the fountain of the life and love of Jesus Christ within, then they are not only wrong, they are evil.
The evil methods knowingly perpetrated by the Standard Bearers include using rejection, shame, accusation, gossip, and acceptance as tools to manipulate those they say they love. That’s what idolaters do with their idols. The idolatry is exposed when Marty disappoints his parents or when John and Megan don’t get with his parents’ agenda and put on the appearance that everything is wonderful in their family. Thus issues become more important than relationships for Standard Bearers.
Standard Bearers control public perception
How do Standard Bearers explain the gulf between them and their children and maintain control of their reputation? The scheme established by Satan prevents public honesty. The Standard Bearing parents or spouses certainly aren’t going to admit the problem. To do so would jeopardize their reputation and significance. If the person is a leader in their community, homeschool group, or church, to be honest would bring down the entire structure upon which Standard Bearers find their significance and security.
What do these people say when others notice the breach in relationship? You may observe that they usually hide behind a facade of spirituality and religious reasoning supported by scriptural commands. Their friends might hear something like this when they ask about the ones of whom they obviously don’t speak or with whom they don’t associate: “We’re so grieved about our children (wife, husband, in-laws) right now. We’re just trusting God to work in them. Won’t you please pray that God will open their eyes to see the light and turn their hearts back to us? We’ve done everything we know to love them and bless them.” And the curse advances through the ranks of the Standard Bearers. From that moment, all their peers are defiled toward their children.”
December 18, 2007 at 9:07 pm
I have been reading back through Doug’s blog archives…it is truly fascinating reading. This post seems to encapsulate exactly where he’s headed; what concerns me is that we are still called to minister and witness to the lost.
Replacement Culture
Our mission is not to reform the government schools…
Our mission is to replace the government schools.
Our mission is not to reform Hollywood…
Our mission is to replace Hollywood.
Our mission is not to reform paganism…
It is to build Christian culture for the honor of Jesus Christ.
Tear down the high places!
Posted by Doug Phillips on November 11, 2005 | Permalink
December 18, 2007 at 9:12 pm
And this:
Friday, October 21, 2005
The Offense of Biblical Orthodoxy
I am assuming that this is going to the President of The Vision Forum, Inc. I am requesting to be removed from your mailing list. As a Christian, I believe in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes and it is clear that your “Vision” and philosophy is quite the opposite. Thank you. —Walter S.
Dear Mr. S: We are happy to honor your request. Regarding your concerns: If by political, economic, and social equality of the sexes you mean the modern feminist view that there is no distinction of roles or division of labor between men and women, then you are correct — our vision is the opposite of that. We begin with the understanding that value and worth are separate concepts from jurisdictional duties and biblical hierarchies. We know of no difference in value between men and women. Furthermore, we believe that God is not a respecter of persons, which means male and female, rich and poor will be judged by the same law. Both are objects of God’s love, His grace, His wrath, His judgment, and His redemption.
As to the issue of jurisdiction, hierarchy, and division of labor: We stand with the Apostles in affirming the biblical teaching that woman is made for the man (and not the other way around); that man is declared by God to be the head of the woman who is to cherish woman as his own flesh, providing for her, protecting her, and leading her; that men are jurisdictional leaders at home, in the church, and in the gates, and that women are to be fruitful mothers and helpmeets to their husbands as keepers at home and skilled managers of the household economy on behalf of their husbands (Genesis 3; Proverbs 31; Titus 2; I Corinthians 11; Ephesians 5).
Posted by Doug Phillips on October 21, 2005 | Permalink
December 18, 2007 at 9:32 pm
“…that man is declared by God to be the head of the woman who is to cherish woman as his own flesh, providing for her, protecting her, and leading her; that men are jurisdictional leaders at home, in the church, and in the gates, and that women are to be fruitful mothers and helpmeets to their husbands as keepers at home and skilled managers of the household economy on behalf of their husbands (Genesis 3; Proverbs 31; Titus 2; I Corinthians 11; Ephesians 5).”
Basically, what Doug is saying here is that women have still have earthly priests and the temple veil was NOT torn in two for them…only men. They still have an earthly mediator between them and God and Jesus Christ. Basically, the Levite priesthood has been retained and redesigned by Doug for his followers.
He has to stretch and READ INTO the verses he references to get all of that out of them. But then, that is exactly what cults do.
December 18, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I’ve been trying to find specific statements of belief- there are a ton. I think what greatly concerns me in reading back through the archives is his consistent ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us, and we’ll destroy you mentality’. How in the world is that calling people to a relationship with Christ? How is that a good Witness? I truly sit here shaking my head, yet again. I just don’t get it. I want to go back and find where he gave some biblical references for his mindset, and see if they line up.
December 18, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Honorably Leaving a Church
Christians are in a state of covenant with the Lord. One way that supreme covenant finds expression is through the “mini” covenant of their relations and duties to Christ’s local church. Because Christians are in covenant with Christ, they are to be in covenant with a local church. They are not “married” to the local church, but they are to be in a state of formal covenant with it. This “mini” covenant (an extension of our covenant with Christ) carries privileges and responsibilities, and is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, it is designed as a covenant of blessing and should be viewed with profound gratitude by the believer.
Contrary to what some say, there are sound biblical reasons for leaving one local church to attend another, but the reasons for departure must derive from sound biblical reasons, not personal whims and preferences. Biblically leaving a local church involves transferring covenant duties and privileges from one local body to another. It does not involve breaking a covenant.
To put it another way, the believer’s covenant with the local church can be transferred to another Christ-honoring local church, but it cannot be “resigned,” abandoned, or simply disregarded without the professing believer becoming a covenant-breaker. Furthermore, the way a family leaves a local church is an evidence of their maturity, integrity, and honor as a Christian. Every effort must be made to act honorably. This may take time, effort, and patience. This means candidly sharing your reasons with the church leadership, affirming your desire to avoid schism and division, and asking for their formal blessing for a membership transfer. Dropping off the face of the earth without candidly discussing issues with the elders with whom you are in covenant is simply dishonorable conduct.
Similarly, the willingness of church leadership to work with departing brethren (even discontent and divisive brethren) to transfer membership to other Christ-honoring church works is a sign that the leadership are men under authority, not dictators or autocrats. Membership covenants do not mean that local churches own people. Pastors and elders must never behave as if it is a crime for people to want to leave a church. It is a crime to be a covenant breaker, but it is not a crime to desire and act to honorably transfer your membership. Furthermore, a church member who is genuinely convinced that he should abandon his belief in paedo-baptism for credo-baptism, or credo-baptism for paedo-baptism, has not de facto “departed the faith.” He should not be denied transfer to a church that upholds the foundations of Christian orthodoxy (e.g. justification by faith, sufficiency or Scripture, the Trinity, etc.), because of his view on baptism.
Even in the midst of disagreement and conflict, every effort must be made by the party seeking to leave a local church to work within the God-appointed chain of authority. This means the Christian seeking to depart must sincerely strive to honor the very leaders with whom he disagrees, to honor the terms of his membership covenant with the local body, and to treat all men with integrity. The goal is for the departing believer to leave with the blessing of his elders and to receive from those elders a formal transfer of his covenant membership to a church of Jesus Christ.
Sometimes, sin on the part of either or both members and church leaders prevents these goals from being accomplished. It is my sense of things, however, that most church shepherds are happily willing to grant membership transfers to disagreeing brethren where (1) those brethren are genuinely trying to approach things in an honorable and respectful manner; and (2) where they seek a transfer to an orthodox Christian work (i.e., not into oblivion, or to a church which is at war with the foundations of Christian orthodoxy).
Perhaps the worst thing a disgruntled church member can do is to insinuate that the body with whom he disagrees is “a cult” or simply “cult-like” — as some form of a pretext for privately declaring his covenant with the church to be null and void. Cults do exist. They are wretched abominations which rightly should be denounced. But if a person is going to raise the “C” word publicly, they had best be prepared to defend such a charge before the world, and if found guilty of defaming a legitimate work of Christ, they must be prepared to face the consequences which are rightly due to those who divide brethren and slander the servants of the Lord.
Equally problematic is for church leaders to respond with hostility to those who go through the proper channels to raise concerns over doctrine and practice and who wish to peaceably depart because of matters of conscience. I know of one pastor who was so antagonistic to a confrontation and departure by some of his own co-elders, that he engaged in an ongoing campaign of slanders (and was confronted for such) that involved public Internet sermons, wild and unsubstantiated charges of legalism, gross mischaracterization of the views of those with whom he disagreed, and ultimately took the form of a formal Web site ostensibly dedicated to eradicating the cause of the split in his eldership, but clearly focused on his own self-justification. Such behavior divides the brethren, harms the body, is not the sign of mature leadership, and (no matter how carefully couched) is the mark of tyrants. In this case, the one pastor may not like the fact that one of his co-elders (and others in the congregation) fundamentally disapproved of his practice to endorse Christians placing their children in government schools, or promoting youth culture over family culture, or of having the daughters of his congregation join the United States military, but he would have been better served to address individual issues charitably and biblically than justifying irresponsible behavior on the grounds that those who disagree with him are simply pharisees and legalists.
Ninety-nine percent of the time, the problem of amicable membership transfers in the local church (like the problems in marriage, employment, and most of life) is a problem of honor. One or both parties acts lawlessly and dishonorably toward the other. Honor is key. Honor is crucial. Those who have true Christian love will act honorably.
Even as it is wrong for individuals to claim the status of “martyr for conscience and doctrine,” when they have acted dishonorably toward their local church and its leadership, it is wrong for pastors to use Christ’s pulpit for personal vendettas, or to arbitrarily refuse to transfer membership on some pretext of protecting Christ’s church.
The fact is this: Honorable men can disagree and still be friends. Honorable men can disagree and still work through problems. Honorable men can determine that it is necessary that they take separate paths to be truthful to their conscience. Only dishonorable conduct will absolutely guarantee division, discontent, and heartache.
From its inception, the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches and those leaders in association with it in the cause of unity between church and home have vigorously and vocally emphasized these principles and the duties of both shepherds and church members. Neither self-serving shepherds nor radically individualistic believers like this counsel, but it remains our deep abiding conviction.
December 18, 2007 at 10:34 pm
To put it another way, the believer’s covenant with the local church can be transferred to another Christ-honoring local church, but it cannot be “resigned,” abandoned, or simply disregarded without the professing believer becoming a covenant-breaker.
Spoken like a true everyone-needs-to-submit-to-me-me-me leader.
Scary. The thing that scares me the most is how blind I was to all of this, how I just easily sluffed off what I didn’t agree with (because of how much I liked other things in the paradigm), instead of looking more carefully, instead of being a Berean.
All I can say, yet again, is… IT IS GOOD TO BE FREE!
Jesus wasn’t joking. The Truth does set us free. Thank you, Lord, for Your good good grace and Your beautiful smile!
December 18, 2007 at 11:17 pm
I’m telling you, the more I read this stuff (thanks for the hard work Joy!) the sicker I get at his absolute ARROGANCE.
The gospel is not arrogant. The gospel is humble. The gospel is peace. The gospel doesn’t require “permission” to change fellowship/churches.
I’m with Molly, it is so obvious that it is about “me-me-me” when it comes to these patrio circles.
December 18, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The Little Boy Who Cried ‘Legalism’
Matt Chancey offers the following insights:
…Legalism in the Church has traditionally been viewed as any teaching of practices and principles that go beyond what the Scripture teaches or necessarily implies. For instance, Jesus hammered the Pharisees for replacing the Scriptures with their own “traditions” (such as hand washings in Matthew 15). It wasn’t that the Pharisees were interpreting Scripture in a way Christ disagreed with; they were simply avoiding the Scriptures altogether.
But today, politically savvy pastors have redefined legalism to mean exegesis that they personally don’t understand or agree with. For instance, if someone teaches against tattoos or body mutilation, the syncretistic pastor cries “legalism!” even though the issue of body mutilation is not outside the domain of Scripture. How do we know this? Because the Bible tells us so:
“Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the Lord.” Leviticus 19:28
Some Christians might disagree with teachings against body mutilation on the grounds that Leviticus 19:28 was a law tied to the redemptive ceremonial system fulfilled in Christ. But this disagreement should not be grounded in a charge of legalism against the other side. A Christian might be wrong in his exegesis on body mutilation, but that, by default, does not make him a “legalist.” Unfortunately, many theologians dismiss contrary views by crying “legalism” in much the same way that liberals blow off conservatives by calling them “intolerant” or “bigots.”
Far too many theologians today are more concerned about wrapping the gospel in a package that is acceptable to liberals than they are about affirming what God says in His Word. If an issue is the least bit controversial in contemporary culture, theological dogma is ditched and theological pluralism is embraced. Anyone who dares offend this standard is charged with being a Pharisee or “legalistic.”
I find it odd that, in an age marked by an explosion of licentious antinomianism in the Church, most pastors are preoccupied with “legalism” so-called. Teenagers in the church can be fornicating with one another; wives can be leading their husbands around by the nose; or husbands can be passive and withdrawn from their responsibilities, but is this kind of open rebellion against the law of God attacked by pastors? Hardly. They’re too busy condemning the father whose daughters wear head coverings and Pilgrim dresses. “Legalism!” he cries, and most of his sermons denounce such “false piety,” while temple prostitution takes place right under his nose.
It seems to me that our priorities are all bent out of shape. The primary problem in the Church today is not an over-zealous, legalistic application of God’s Word to all areas of life. The primary problem is rank, unadulterated antinomianism. It is a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture. It is theological pluralism. It’s the “I’m okay, you’re okay” theology of syncretism. It’s the ear-tickling, hip, Burger King (“have it your way”) Christianity.
The answer is to go back to the Bible. The answer is to affirm that the Bible is sufficient to tackle all subjects of life, from nose rings to nuclear proliferation. We may disagree with the Biblical exegesis of our brothers, but let us never attack them for presuming that the Bible actually teaches on a particular subject. People who do this usually want to reserve part of their lives for themselves. But God wants every part of us — and He’ll have it. Better now than later.
Make sure to read the entire article.
Posted by Doug Phillips on June 21, 2005 | Permalink
The rest of the article is linked to Mr. Chancey’s blog, which is password protected, by invitation only
December 19, 2007 at 12:11 am
“Contrary to what some say, there are sound biblical reasons for leaving one local church to attend another, but the reasons for departure must derive from sound biblical reasons, not personal whims and preferences. Biblically leaving a local church involves transferring covenant duties and privileges from one local body to another. It does not involve breaking a covenant.”
What about the “leaders” and “authorities” that up and leave presbyteries to start their own over “personal whims and preferences”? Does this covenant thing apply to the ones in so-called authority or does this only apply to the underlings? Who holds them accountable? Where are the true shepherds who are guarding the flock against such things?
Should the sheep have to do the work of the shepherds? Should the sheep have to take the heat for the shepherds who do not do their jobs?
Biblical authority isn’t vested in a position or in anatomy or in anything else but the word of God. The Gentiles think they have authority because of these things but Jesus told us that true authority is exactly opposite of the pagan version of authority.
If our so-called leaders aren’t demonstrating a meek, humble, quiet, gentle, submissive spirit towards those in authority over them then why should they expect anyone to do what they themselves refuse to do?
Joy,
” I think what greatly concerns me in reading back through the archives is his consistent ‘if you’re not with us, you’re against us, and we’ll destroy you mentality’. How in the world is that calling people to a relationship with Christ? How is that a good Witness? ”
Yep, if you are not with him and you make trouble for him or you expose a bit of heat and light to his practices, then you are a target for destruction. If not destruction then a lawsuit or some legal proceedings or threat of legal proceedings. In Joe Taylor’s case, it might cost him everything. Why? Because he doesn’t know how to use the law in a wily way.
And what does the Bible say about justice and the rich oppressing the poor and greed and selfishness and law suits. None of that matters when the “real evil” of the day are feminists and white-washed feminists and women who don’t know their place and sewing circle gossip. Yes, these are the REAL evils! How dare anyone challenge ME, that is gossip! But, when they challenge others and put up numerous anonymous hit sites, that isn’t gossip. How they justify their actions I will never know.
I hear that “The Taming of the Shrew” starring Elizabeth Taylor is something that is used to train these young bucks at Vision Forum on how to handle a woman. How come I am not surprised? Anyone familiar with the film knows that the father is trying to marry his older daughter off but she doesn’t want to marry any of the men he has chosen for her. He finally forces her to marry some beast of a man and she is supposed to like it. But, a good spanking subdues the most stubborn of all women.
December 19, 2007 at 12:16 am
Thought you all would enjoy some light reading.
I’ve noticed an interesting trend that a lot of what we’ve been looking at in the last three threads was developed and posted during 2005.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Family Excommunications
At the risk of opening a complex can of worms, I would like to ever-so-briefly address a common misconception held by some Christian parents struggling with children in rebellion.
The point I want to make is this. No Christian family has the authority to excommunicate one of its own members. No individual has the authority to excommunicate. In fact, no one has the authority to excommunicate except the local church which (pursuant to Holy Scripture) is required to excommunicate habitually rebellious, unrepentant, covenant-breaking members.
Excommunication is an official ecclesiastical pronouncement of the local church. When conducted pursuant to Scripture and under the authority of a local church, it carries the authority of Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 18:18). It is an enormously serious determination because the legitimate excommunication of a genuine Church of Jesus Christ binds not only the members of the local church, but all true believers to treat the excommunicant individual as a “heathen and a publican.” This is not a statement that the local church or the individual know the eternal destiny of the excommunicant person, only that pursuant to Matthew 18 (et al.), the individual is acting like a heathen and is to be treated as such until they demonstrate genuine repentance and are restored by the same body which excommunicated them. In the meantime, no Christian is to eat with, or treat as a “brother,” an unrepentant excommunicant.
Families with rebellious children who profess faith in Christ may petition their local church for formal church discipline of those children. This is possible only when the children are members of the local church where discipline is to be enforced. Whether or not a parent requests and the local church brings ecclesiastical discipline on a habitually rebellious family member, a family may discipline its own members. But note: The discipline of the family is different from the discipline of the church.
Parents may (and should) withhold blessings from unrepentant, covenant-breaking children. This may include withholding birthrights, inheritances, and a host of privileges which rightly belong only to covenant-keeping children. Furthermore, there may be serious implications for the “who, what, when, and why” of how godly parents direct their interactions with unrepentant, covenant-breaking children. In fact, there must be serious and significant implications. But none of this is the same thing as an excommunication.
Rebellious Christians may cease to be members of a local body. But rebellious children never cease to be the children of their parents. The parental bond is essentially non-severable.
The State bears the sword. The family bears the rod. The Church holds the keys to excommunication. Each jurisdiction must be honored and respected. No family has the authority or the ability to “excommunicate” a child.
Posted by Doug Phillips on May 10, 2005 | Permalink
December 19, 2007 at 12:27 am
On Jenny Chancey:
Though her critics include atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and feminists of all stripes, I am not surprised to sometimes observe that the nastiest persecution comes from the wolves within the flock. Anti-patriarchs and cultural syncretists loathe Jennie and the vision of hope she communicates to Christian women. The plain teachings of Titus 2 (which are in sync with the rest of Scripture on the subject) throw a colossal monkey wrench into the pragmatic agenda of those who want to build empires of relevancy (from Christian schools to political armies) on the cheap labor source of working mothers. The ancient paths simply don’t shuck and jive with the hip and trendy, which is why some delight to mock and minimize her message to ladies with unfortunate — but all-too-typical — ungentlemanly decorum (not to mention impoverished theological banter).
This message represents the antithesis between Christianity and paganism, and notwithstanding their protestations to the contrary, syncretists by their nature oppose antithesis.
But Jennie has never been phased. She is the type of woman whose message puts fear into the hearts of those who close the womb for economic convenience, or who believe that the occupation of female tank-commander is just as blessed in the kingdom work of the Lord as that of wife, helpmeet, and mother. In short, Jennie, and women like her, are the antidote to the savorless salt of twenty-first century Evangelical womanhood.
Intelligent and articulate, submissive under authority, and genuinely gracious, Mrs. Chancey is a champion of godly, Christian womanhood. Because she is unflinching in her commitment to be a keeper at home, feministic Christians take much of their time to aim their pens at her, rather than the humanists and liberals of the world.
Posted by Doug Phillips on April 27, 2005 | Permalink
December 19, 2007 at 12:28 am
Well, I think there is enough here to unpack for a while…
I just thought it was important that we hear it in his “own words” so as not to be accused of gossip.
December 19, 2007 at 2:09 am
“…. This may include withholding birthrights, inheritances, and a host of privileges which rightly belong only to covenant-keeping children….ad nauseum”
My goodness, who would dare to question daddy the Levitical high priest? Wanna wear pants? You are in rebellion. Wanna go to college but you are a young woman…you are breaking the covenant and all your priviledges are taken away.
Where is the grace?
You gotta wonder how they interpret the prodigal son parable. Bet that is interesting.
By the way, what on earth is ‘covenant-breaking’? Do people ‘sign’ something when they join these churches?
December 19, 2007 at 2:16 am
“The plain teachings of Titus 2 (which are in sync with the rest of Scripture on the subject) throw a colossal monkey wrench into the pragmatic agenda of those who want to build empires of relevancy (from Christian schools to political armies) on the cheap labor source of working mothers.”
In sync with what other scripture? I am simply amazed at the empire these people have built on this verse.
Anyone notice how they say all these things with complete and total confidence…a declaration…not a teaching. Notice that?
Well, that is why people follow them. Their boldness is translated as ‘rightness’ only because people do not know scripture for themselves or WANT to believe it.
” The ancient paths simply don’t shuck and jive with the hip and trendy, which is why some delight to mock and minimize her message to ladies with unfortunate — but all-too-typical — ungentlemanly decorum (not to mention impoverished theological banter).”
What ancient paths?
Insults always work: You are ignorant…we aren’t. Any questioning or criticism means that person is delighting in mocking. Problem is, they never exposit scripture…in context…notice that? They cannot afford to.
December 19, 2007 at 4:09 am
“…that man is declared by God to be the head of the woman who is to cherish woman as his own flesh, providing for her, protecting her, and leading her; that men are jurisdictional leaders at home, in the church, and in the gates, and that women are to be fruitful mothers and helpmeets to their husbands as keepers at home and skilled managers of the household economy on behalf of their husbands (Genesis 3; Proverbs 31; Titus 2; I Corinthians 11; Ephesians 5).”
Basically, what Doug is saying here is that women have still have earthly priests and the temple veil was NOT torn in two for them…only men. They still have an earthly mediator between them and God and Jesus Christ. Basically, the Levite priesthood has been retained and redesigned by Doug for his followers.
He has to stretch and READ INTO the verses he references to get all of that out of them. But then, that is exactly what cults do.
-I knew there was a reason these teachings just struck a nerve in my spirit- and it wasn’t because of what my second chromosome is….
December 19, 2007 at 4:43 am
“By the way, what on earth is ‘covenant-breaking’? Do people ’sign’ something when they join these churches?”
Yes, they do. Moreover, I am told that if one of them wants to leave his church and go join another, even within the same denomination, he has to get his pastor’s written permission.
I have never belonged to a covenanting church, so I know little else about it, but perhaps some of the other folks here could tell us more.
Personally, I always thought that we are all in one Covenant, the New one that we enter into with God through Jesus His Son: and I was taught that through that covenant we all belong to one invisible Church, the Body and the Bride of Christ.
December 19, 2007 at 5:29 am
Lady Helen wrote: Basically, what Doug is saying here is that women have still have earthly priests and the temple veil was NOT torn in two for them…only men. They still have an earthly mediator between them and God and Jesus Christ. Basically, the Levite priesthood has been retained and redesigned by Doug for his followers.
I believe, as does Kevin Giles, that the reasoning behind this comes from the concept that woman is essentially a lower order of being than man. They can argue until they are blue in the face (the hard-line complementarians like Bruce Ware) that they believe that women are equal to men, but they are not. It’s garbage doctrine that springs forth from this filth that they teach.
They’ve done exactly what many RC Catholics have done in vilifying women so badly that they had to come up with a doctrine of the imaculate conception of Mary to account for why a woman conceived in sin could birth the Holy One. If the complementarians took this all the way out to the end working of the logic of it all, they would have to say that women are given some kind of special dispensation to be able to birth a male child. For a lesser creature to contribute to and carry a male of greater integrity and such, they really need to come up with some doctrine like unto imaculate conception. Male babies are half of the input from the mother. They need to develop some kind of “Y” chromosome doctrine so that the Y cancels out the greater amount of genetic material carried by the “X” to make it work to the logical end. Women are receptacles for carrying demigods, unless they are carrying a baby girl. Greater cannot be born of lesser. Man born of woman can’t be greater than the man in essence. And this is exactly what they argue.
Women are lesser. Women are corrupt. Women are so much lesser that these men actually believe that they are demigods for women –and this is pure, unadulterated idolatry.
I can be supportive and accepting that all people are equal just as God is no respector of persons. This does not give me liberty to ignore the command of Scripture to submit to my husband or to a legitimate spiritual authority. I can still believe that I am of the same value as any other human being regardless of gender, yet still be different and unique. I can believe that my value the value of my salvation is equal to others based on grace alone and still choose to submit in accordance to God’s Word. Headship is not essence and need not at all mean that woman has less potency or that the Word is less effective for her, to her and through her.
I believe that unlike every other religion in the world that Christianity teaches egalitarianism. In many ways, egalitarianism by definition of the term is a uniquely Christian concept. I believe with all my heart, particularly because this is all wrapped around the doctrine of the subordination of Christ (that Christ is of lesser essence and authority than the Father and the Spirit less than Christ), that this is a finely crafted and subtle perversion of true Christianity. These guys can get as furious as they want –Calvinists no less — and carry on that I am denying sola scriptura and blaspheming the Word all they want. I don’t buy it. They’ve gone so far, making the means justify their end that they’ve perverted the Doctrine of God and sent it flying right towards outright heresy.
December 19, 2007 at 6:18 am
” The ancient paths simply don’t shuck and jive with the hip and trendy, which is why some delight to mock and minimize her message to ladies with unfortunate — but all-too-typical — ungentlemanly decorum (not to mention impoverished theological banter).”
ROFLOL!!
Ungentlemanly? You mean like SFU, TOTC, Mrs. Binoculars and Patriospeak? In fact, 3 of the 4 are run by little men behind curtains with patriobabble being run by not only a little man but also by his “little helper”. SFU/TOTC which is run by Doug’s little helpers, really did some very slimy things and was responsible for leaking some highly inflammatory and confidential information to a racist site which then called for a woman to kill herself. The hypocrisy is starting to pile high.
The first paragraph is a direct reference, along with the name calling of “wolves”, to Andrew Sandlin. Now, go and read what he said and try and find the ungentlemanly behavior and the impoverished theological banter. And, Mr. Sandlin, unlike the other cowards, signed his name to what he wrote.
And talk about impoverished theological banter! How about “the Bible tells us that women can’t vote”? Or that girls who go to college are like harlots. Or that whomever doesn’t agree with how I interpret scripture is a white-washed feminist? Or that men were given the task of taking dominion over the earth when the Bible CLEARLY tells us that men and women were given the task?
December 19, 2007 at 7:01 am
Or that men were given the task of taking dominion over the earth when the Bible CLEARLY tells us that men and women were given the task?
No, no, don’t you remember? It’s not JUST the earth, but in Genesis 1, the man was CLEARLY given dominion over the woman…
*laughing groan*
December 19, 2007 at 12:02 pm
From Post #85
Molleth – You quoted and said:
“‘To put it another way, the believer’s covenant with the local church can be transferred to another Christ-honoring local church, but it cannot be “resigned,” abandoned, or simply disregarded without the professing believer becoming a covenant-breaker.’
Spoken like a true everyone-needs-to-submit-to-me-me-me leader.”
For the most part, I did not find anything too outrageous in that particular Phillip’s article. I didn’t have the same reaction as you and I was wondering what was ‘scary’ about it. You seemed to be reacting to more than was there, or at least from my perspective. Is the concern over the use of the term ‘covenant-breaking’ which is a heavy charge? (Or I think so, anyway, – akin to lying.) Or a concern that this kind of charge is then used as a tool of manipulation?
To clarify where I’m coming from: I do see ‘church-hopping’ as something that seems to happen with a ridiculous frequency and for seemingly silly reasons and as a result, a lack of commitment to the particular body where God has placed one. After all, for better or worse, we Christians do play a role in one another’s sanctification and if we simply jump ship when things get rough, how is that to take place? Please don’t misunderstand – I think there are certainly supportable reasons for leaving a church, (we’ve done so!) but I do think it does need to be done in a honourable manner and I do believe one of the things one ought to do is let the leadership of your church know why you are leaving and make sure things are put to rights with the leadership as far as you are able.
Hmmm, so is that the concern? That the first pastor has the authority to ‘withhold’ one’s ‘covenant-moving.’
Just wondering and thinking aloud. Thanks for bearing with me.
[slinks back to lukerdom, with and even higher level of awe and respect for the women here who so articulately continue this discussion, now that I've had to take my hand to a simple comment.]
December 19, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Cindy (#96)
This is EXACTLY why I’m passionate about this subject. Christianity is the ONE world religion that puts men and women on equal footing…or at least, I feel very certain that is what Christ came to do.
Other world religions put man as the mediator on earth for the woman (some straight out, others much more under the radar) —-but Jesus came and died not just for man, but also for woman.
I just shake my head and get so discouraged at times to see how twisted we’ve made it. How we’ve tried to un-do exactly what Christ did for us. He came to set us free, if we so choose the Gospel, yet it is often ministers of the very same Gospel who are locking people up in bondage and rules, all in the name of Christ!
I don’t get it.
Call me a WWF, a simpleton, a jezebel, whatever. I just don’t get it. And even worse, I FELL FOR IT once upon a time, which makes me angry and sad all over again.
Now, as for the church hopping thing, I just wrote about it myself on my blog. I have a huge problem with church hopping for the sake of church hopping—you know, always changing churches because we get our feelings hurt, or because we want more programs, or a more dynmaic youth leader, or a ski retreat once a year, or whatever….
But, I don’t believe you need permission or even advice on when/how to leave a church. Only the Holy Spirit can nudge one, truly. There again, we’re setting up little man-preists to make decisions for us.
It really is a pride and power struggle for some of these folks tripped up in the legalism that is packaged so prettily as “patriocentricity.”
December 19, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I just posted more questions for Stacy here:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/19/more-questions-for-stacy-on-the-meaning-of-white-washed-feminists/
feel free (please do!) add any related thoughts to the comments.
December 19, 2007 at 2:16 pm
“Women are lesser. Women are corrupt. Women are so much lesser that these men actually believe that they are demigods for women –and this is pure, unadulterated idolatry.”
I really don’t think that these fellows have elevated themselves to the status of demigods… they don’t have to do that, because they have reduced women to the status of demi-human. Therefore these men can lord it over women while remaining mere men.
“Or that men were given the task of taking dominion over the earth when the Bible CLEARLY tells us that men and women were given the task?”
And herein lies the problem with patriarchy. Adam and Eve were created as equal partners, who complemented one another. Given the perfection of Eden, I surmise that their wills were in perfect harmony, and thus there was no need for either to be “more equal than the other”, and be boss. It was in this state that our first parents were given dominion over “the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
After the fall, Adam and Eve’s wills were no longer in harmony, and their God-given predisposition to take dominion became twisted. In addition to ruling over the animals, Adam’s drive for dominion would now cause him and men ever after to seek to dominate other humans, particularly women; and to lower them to the level of animals and rule over them: history bears this out again and again.
Christ came to overturn the curse of the fall and to put things right. These fellows who relegate women to a demi-human status are practicing a fallen, worldly sort of dominion; to borrow from the reconstructionists, they are not allowing Christ to restore and reconstruct that portion of their lives that pertains to the relationship between the sexes.
And as a side note, I think that the whole “Headship Order” would have been the other way around, had Adam sinned first and not Eve.
It is my theory that because Eve did sin first, she was, for a very brief time (specifically, until the moment that Adam took the fruit and ate) indeed the lesser being of the two, being in a fallen state while her husband was as yet unfallen.
Now, that doesn’t seem like much — an extra two minutes or so of virtue retained; yet in the grand scheme of things, any virtue retained, for however brief a time, is infinitely more estimable than its absence.
This may have been why Adam was selected to rule over Eve, rather than vice-versa. Regardless, it is a good thing for us all that Eve was granted a natural tolerance for Adam’s propensity to rule over her, and that her “desire [shall be] to thy husband”; otherwise, she would probably have gone off to live on her own away from such nonsense, and the future of the human race would have been very brief, indeed.
December 19, 2007 at 2:17 pm
#99: Jessica-
I can’t speak to what Molleth is scared of.
My concern with this piece has more to do with the “permission giving” aspect. I agree with everything you said: church membership should not be taken lightly, that when we leave we should act with honor, talk with the leadership as to why we are leaving, and not just abruptly leave. We should stick around when the going gets rough.
BUT…
(keep in mind this was written in 2005, I think at the height of the Jen Epstein controversy, if I am not mistaken)
Basically, if you enter their church and find that your beliefs and theirs just don’t jive, you can’t say, “well, let’s agree to disagree, and my wife and I will move on…” There is a permission that must be granted by the church leadership. If they don’t grant it, they act with some dishonor and pursue you to wherever you are currently attending, and speak ill of you to your current church leadership.
This is short, removes some of that checks and balances against a false teacher- clearly, if many people are “covenant-moving” something is afoot. By requiring them to “ask” the church or that very same ‘false leader’ for “permission” they can maintain indoctrination.
December 19, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Molleth said (#85):
The thing that scares me the most is how blind I was to all of this, how I just easily sluffed off what I didn’t agree with (because of how much I liked other things in the paradigm), instead of looking more carefully, instead of being a Berean.
I think this is key. James and I were both looking back through the archives (hat tip to my husband for all the researching!) and we both commented at various points when we first began that in so many ways, where Doug Phillips and VF stands is smack in the middle of conservative Christians; that is, there’s a lot that we agree on. But as James said, it’s one butter and jelly issues. Yet, when it comes to the “bread” issues, Doug and VF suddenly have some bad yeast, that corrupts everything else. (Which I should say, by extension, the NCFIC shares). I was struck by how, on the surface, everything looks so “good” and pretty that at one point I began to think maybe this stuff really was all made up. But then, there it was in black and white, written in his own hand. We are not gossiping— he said these things, not us. We are simply evaluating what he had to say.
And Lindsey and thatmom: You do not even want to see all the crud he says about homeschooling. It is truly, unbelievably scary.
Interestingly enough, it seems that in 2007 he kind of toned down the blog- most of the stuff James and I have come across is actually early 2006-2005 and back through the years. He also seems to get really, really dogmatic after a national event, like Katrina or the Virginia Tech masscare…as if these “judgements” (as he labels them) give him permission to be more judgmental too.
December 19, 2007 at 2:34 pm
*groan* I apologize for the awful grammar and run-on sentences. I really should wait until I’ve had my coffee!
December 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm
“This is short, removes some of that checks and balances against a false teacher- clearly, if many people are “covenant-moving” something is afoot. By requiring them to “ask” the church or that very same ‘false leader’ for “permission” they can maintain indoctrination.’
Also, the idea that a person is to be in a covenantal relationship with a particular congregation is not subtantiated by scripture; indeed, Scripture seems to warn AGAINST being tied to closely to a particular pastor or teacher, HERE:
“1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. 1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?”
AND
“1Cr 3:4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I [am] of Apollos; are ye not carnal? 1Cr 3:5 ¶ Who then is Paul, and who [is] Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?…………………………………………1Cr 3:21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours; 1Cr 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; 1Cr 3:23 And ye are Christ’s; and Christ [is] God’s.
December 19, 2007 at 2:56 pm
“And Lindsey and thatmom: You do not even want to see all the crud he says about homeschooling. It is truly, unbelievably scary.”
Not half as scary as ideologies of Robert Lewis Dabney and Otto Scott (two dead racists whom Philips idolizes), or that of the League of the South (an organization of very-much-alive racists and kinists who for years have been cozy with Doug Phillips, his father Howard Phillips, VF, the Constitution Party, and the Patriarchal Movement in general.)
December 19, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Speaking of kinists, Cynthia, I had only learned about those people a couple years ago when I linked and linked and linked and ended up at some pretty outrageous sites. What can you tell us about these people? I have seen a list of some of the leaders in this movement and was recently shocked to see one of them, Chad Degenhart, pictured with his family in James McDonald’s church photograph. What is the connection? Do you know?
December 19, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Joy,
thanks for the response. That makes a lot of sense. After posting, the more I thought, the clearer that became.
December 19, 2007 at 3:30 pm
Oh, my… there is so much to tell that I don’t know where to start, especially since I am doing any blogging right now in between doing my Christmas decorating and baking fruitcakes!
Here’s an article from my blog, CommonSense, which covers a lot of the basics:
Lately I’ve been reading about a still darker side to the Reconstructionist/Patriarchy movement. What I have learned is scary, and bad enough that my conscience demands I warn folks about it.Quite simply, it is this:There are those among the movement who claim that since SLAVERY is not condemned in the Bible, it is a perfectly legitimate thing, and advocate a return to the same.J.R. Rushdooney, the father of Reconstructionism, advocated a return to debtor slavery. So does his son-in-law, Gary North.And so do a number of patriarchal successionist “religious” groups in the south today:
“Key members of a white supremacist organization called the League of the South are moving to take control of conservative churches around the South, prompting a possible split in a major Presbyterian denomination. The central player in this little-noticed drama is the Rev. Steven J. Wilkins, pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, La., and a founder and current board member of the neo-Confederate League.Wilkins has said that the goal of the League of the South is to save America from “paganism” and restore it as “the last bastion of Christendom” — a Christendom that, in Wilkins’ view, sees slavery as “perfectly legitimate.” “:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=432
Sites linking to Steve Wilkins articles and books include Ladies against Feminism (whose owner, Jennie Chancey, is associated very closely with Phillips and VisionForum), and The Patriarch’s Path website, (run by James and Stacey McDonald), which links extensively to articles by both Steven J. Wilkins and Doug Wilson, and Doug Phillips as well.And it seems that Wilkins himself has been a very busy man: in addition to teaching his worldview to his own congregation, he and pastor Doug Wilson, another well-known figure in the Patriarchy movement, have been writing what many would term racist curriculum for a large North Carolina private school:
As printed in The News and Observer, 12/04:“Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using “Southern Slavery, As It Was,” a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren’t treated as badly as people think. Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.“You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective,” he said.”
The booklet isn’t the only connection its two co-authors have with the school. One of the authors, Douglas Wilson, a pastor in Moscow, Idaho, wrote a book on classical education upon which the school bases its philosophy. Wilson’s Association of Classical and Christian Schools accredited Cary Christian, and he is scheduled to speak at the school’s graduation in May. Some school leaders, including Stephenson, founded Christ Church in Cary, which is affiliated with Wilson’s Idaho church.
The booklet’s other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group.“Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have essentially constructed the ruling theology of the neo-Confederate movement,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report.”
More chilling is the fact that to Steve Wilkins and his associates and their followers, LYING is perfectly permissible, and even virtuous, if it advances the Patriarchal cause. From page two of the same article:“An important tool of the movement is stealth. Theonomists justify this strategy with a Biblical story, “Rahab’s Lie,” of a young woman who lies to protect the lives of Israelite spies in Jericho. In an article posted on the web site of Wilkins’ church, Deacon Kevin Branson praises Rahab as “a spiritual hero” because “she deceived the wicked who sought to kill God’s own people.”Branson said he writes about Rahab because “some of us don’t have a clue about honorable and necessary deception of the wicked.” His conclusion is that “sometimes God requires that we offer by way of our right hand a sweeping sword, and from our lips deception, that the wicked might fail, and Christ and His Bride might flourish.”
Doesn’t sound very Christ-like to me. These men advocate lying in the name of God, what could be more blasphemous than that… yet we trust the homeschooling materials they sell to tell the truth to our children, the very people they are trying hardest to influence and bring round to their way of thinking. And Steven J. Wilkin’s and Doug Wilson’s materials are everywhere
December 19, 2007 at 3:35 pm
And, here’s another article along those same lines. This letter drew a lot of comments from a lady who styled herself as “GenerationKeeper” — some of you might recognise her writing style.
December 19, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I believe that much of patriarchy comes right out of the writings of the pro-slavery, Presbyterian Confederates. League of the South affiliated people like Lloyd Sprinkle (whom Doug Phillips is well acquainted from the dedication in his booklet of poorly referenced Dabney quotes) has republished a bunch of these antebellum characters writings via Sprinkle Publications. I recently read a book by Benjamin Morgan Palmer who basically sketches out the basis for the whole Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. He defines it at a natural religion that stems from the general revelation of truth that Paul speaks of in Romans chapter 1. The confederates wanted to withdraw from the union and have their theocracy which was heavily Presby, and they argued as much for weird family ideals as they did for slavery. They pull so much of their warped patriotic folk religion from these guys.
The seeds for Wilson’s wacked Trinity are there. The seeds for multi-generational faithfulness and worship of Adam are there. The ontological subordination of women is there. Calvin’s language of spheres is all there. And there’s a ton of Victorian social ideal there that is viewed as synonymous with Christianity. So, really all these guys did was get out some old Confederates’ books and dress them up for late 20th century mass consumption. Even Phillips veneration of Dabney as a prophet is copped from a Southern seminarian while Doug was still in diapers. The facination with daughters seems to be a new twist however.
Supposedly, the league of the south was not a kinist organization but was marketed as an orgranization that sought decentralization of the federal government, but they eventually could not avoid their love for the white brotherhood, their skin color and gender related hierarchy and their love for slavery as a type of Christian philanthropy. It is the answer to the welfare state. But somehow, it seems much less innocent than just philanthropy.
So I don’t know what the guys like Wilson and McDonald and Wilkins really get out of slavery. Do they think that they are really going to be able to vote their desirable people into office so that slavery is re-established? I guess that in the process, they have reasons to practice tying ropes and throwing stones for corporal punishment and they can work out their frustrations.
December 19, 2007 at 3:51 pm
And finally, there’s this article , which brought threats of a “Matthew 18-ing” and a thinly veiled threat of legal action from the McDonalds, due to links which show the connection between their (now defunct) Patriarch’s Path site and the League of the South racists Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson. These links to the Patriarch’s Path website no longer work, but to read the articles to which they once led, go to the updated version, here.
Just a note… this was also the start of my Blogspot blog. Previously these articles had been on my Homeschoolblogger site, but legal pressure from “someone” in the homeschooling movement caused the owners of Homeschoolblogger to censor and remove a number of them. I thought I had been hacked, until Homeschoolblogger finally got around to notifying me of what had transpired…
December 19, 2007 at 3:54 pm
ThatMom, I think that a couple of my answers are stuck in the moderation queue…..
December 19, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Cynthia, I am wondering if those articles from the Patriarch’s Path website began to disappear about the same time that the Little Geneva site and other kinist links disappeared. Do you know? Do you have any articles or comments written by Chad Degenhart that are now gone, too? He has been listed several places as being one of the founding fathers of the kinist movement here:
http://forums.yesand.com/showthread.php?t=278
and here:
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Christian_Reconstructionism_-_The_Reconstructionist_perspective/id/1226612
So, Cynthia, if you took James up on his offer to visit his church, I guess you wouldn’t begin to think there were any kinist/racist connections now would you? Interesting.
December 19, 2007 at 4:16 pm
oops, that last comment was from me, thatmom.
December 19, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Cynthia Gee,
This is just too rich. On that one link (“threats”) to your blog, I note that James McDonald states: I would recommend visiting our church sometime – this will help you to visibly observe that I am certainly not a racist.
I guess maybe he said that, hoping that you wouldn’t recognize Chad Degenhart (as he appears in the photo on James’ blog). I guess the fact that he posts on Chad’s website, Date-Dab, on a regular basis doesn’t mean anything. Wikipedia used to list Chad as one of the founders of the modern kinist movement, but that has disappeared. You can also put in his name along with Kinism and a couple of kinist sites pop up with links to Chad’s site as well as places like Little Geneva and a bunch of other kinist sites. Hmmm. That goes without saying that many of these guys are chums of Wilson (who is buddies with Wilkins). When all your buds seem to like the whole idea of slavery so much that they write books about how great it used to be and could be again….
You know, when I lived in Shreveport, LA, they had KKK rallies, and with as many people that turned up at them, you know that most everyone had to be in church the next day. So showing up in church on Sunday to see the show does not rule out kinism or any other varieties of racist leanings. Not to say that League of the South membership means that one is automatically associated with the Klan… I actually went to a couple of their presentations and was a member, thinking that it was a Christian, freedom loving organization that fought government tyranny and argued for state sovereignty. So I do have some degree of Rebel Yell expereince, so I can speak to this garbage with some intelligence and first hand knowledge.
I also have the experience of working for about three weeks at “the rich white peoples hospital” in Shreveport before I left in disgust and went to work at the “charity hosptial.” I lived with this garbage down there and I know what goes on. Visual observance has nothing to do with it, but now that the photos are up on line, James has saved everyone the trip to Peoria.
December 19, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Honestly, I don’t know much about Chad Degenhart. I never really noticed him until recently. None of the old Patriarch’s Path articles linked to him, as I recall.
December 19, 2007 at 4:40 pm
“I lived with this garbage down there and I know what goes on. Visual observance has nothing to do with it, but now that the photos are up on line, James has saved everyone the trip to Peoria.”
You “ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie”, LOL….
I used to live and drive a cab in central Florida, near Ligonier’s stomping grounds. Racism is rampant in Florida, too, among the church-going crowd.
December 19, 2007 at 4:49 pm
“So showing up in church on Sunday to see the show does not rule out kinism or any other varieties of racist leanings. ” I can attest to this since 3 members of my own family once heard an elder say “The Klan has done some good things.” Scary.
December 19, 2007 at 4:50 pm
So, this begs another question….how does Voddie Baucham connect with all of this?
December 19, 2007 at 4:56 pm
There is a phenomonon where some people identify with those who hate them, and adopt their viewpoints. I don’t know the polite name for it (there disparaging term that I won’t use, that is borrowed from a Harriet Beecher Stowe novel), but it has been observed among many peoples, including American indians, Jews in Nazi Germany, and black Americans today.
Whether this is going on with Pastor Baucham I couldn’t say.
December 19, 2007 at 4:58 pm
There’s racism everywhere. And things are different than they were 20 years ago. If there was overt racism in Philadelphia, I knew nothing about it. (The PA Dutch didn’t like anyone, and they were the closest thing to racism that I remember. They didn’t like any outsiders.) We had a large influx of people from Puerto Rico, but I don’t remember any kind of overt racism concerning them. Today it’s different. My pastor there was named Nieves, so I never had a problem, and the church didn’t either.
I remember that I first noticed a change in the climate during Bill Clinton’s first election. Now it’s a whole different kind of world. The church is no longer immune either.
December 19, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Racism went out of style in the 70′s. It started to make a comeback near the end of Reagan’s second term, along with prosperity preaching and prejudice against poor people. I remember a 700 Club episode, where the speaker (I don’t recall if it was Robertson) pointed out that poverty is the result of sin, and that most people were poor as a result of sin.
From there is is a short leap to actively condemning the poor, and by extension disparaging minorities, who are more likely to BE poor.
December 19, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Sorry about all the typos.. my hands are very stiff today. I love the holidays, but I do hate winter!
December 19, 2007 at 5:13 pm
Someone posted on Jen Epstein’s blog (now no longer there) stating that they knew Voddie and that he was wonderful but got pulled into the patriarchy movement. It seems that patriarchy got the better deal when Voddie joined up.
I went to his blog to see if there was any history, and I noticed while I was there that he lists “The Real Lincoln” as one of the books that influenced him significantly. I’d like to hear the story behind that.
My dear friend Willie from Phily says that he is glad that his ancestors were brought here as slaves as it has brought him the Gospel as a result. He’s now not dying in Africa with AIDS or getting slaughtered by some waring faction of communists or Muslims. But considering all the time that I’ve spent talking frankly about race and stuff, I never heard him argue against emancipation or for any kind of confederate ideal. He thinks pretty highly of Lincoln.
So I’d love to hear some of Voddie’s story and the specifics that drew him into VF’s “kingdom architecture.”
December 19, 2007 at 5:21 pm
You know, a lot of these people who disparage Lincoln do so because they claim that since he was an agnostic, everything he did must therefore be evil. I don’t know whether Lincoln was a believer or not, but even if he was a thorough-going pagan, it doesn’t necessarily follow that God didn’t use him to accomplish good, in freeing the slaves, holding this nation together, and serving as an instrument whereby God chastised those erring southern Christians who held their fellow men in bondage.
God can use anybody, and He has a record of using unbelievers who are men of good will.
Remember King Cyrus?
December 19, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Karen,
About the guy who thought that the Klan had done some good things — from whence did he hail? North or South?
The thing to remember is that the Reconstruction period in the South was just about as bad as the war, so there was a great deal of nasty stuff that took place for a long time after the “Waa of Nawthan Aggressian” ended. It was pretty bad, so a bunch of people got together (the Klan) to take it out on the carpetbaggers and the rest in protest to the evils of the Reconstruction which was essentially an occupation — like an occupied territory with the North running around exacting their “dominion.”
Considering that people protested the reconstruction and occupation might be good thing as a stand against tyranny could be reasonable if the Klan had been reasonable. But they were wild animals who were bent on bloodshed and retaliation. They may have had good cause to act, but I don’t know of any act that was good. Maybe that will be a future publication of Wilkins and Wilson, or a new release from Sprinkle Publications?
December 19, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Cindy, he was born and raised in central Illinois, though in a community that has a history of racism.
December 19, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Have any of you seen Birth of a Nation, that was based on the novel The Klansman?
December 19, 2007 at 5:32 pm
About agnostic Lincoln.
In my Accelerated Christian Education PACES in the early eighties, they taught that Lincoln became Christian while in office. They talk about the transendentalism that was prevalent then, and note that Lincoln actually attended a seance in the White House. But they also taught that Lincoln turned his life over to the Lord before he died. I don’t know how well documented it all was, and I do know that some of the books like “The Real Lincoln” say that he denied being a Christian right up until soon prior to his assasination. It may be in that book, but I’ve read other similar ones, too.
Guess it depends on who’s writing the history book. And then we have the foundationalists who don’t want to sully themselves with the likes of anyone unholy. They’ve got their neo-tribal fear of culture, that which Kevin Swanson called separatism.
December 19, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Cynthia Gee wrote: God can use anybody, and He has a record of using unbelievers who are men of good will.
Remember King Cyrus?
They’d probably accuse you of following the Social Gospel for making a comment like this. They would misread God’s providence and miracle of working all things together for good into some belief that you are arguing the goodness of all men. Black and white. Everything is absoultely black and white.
December 19, 2007 at 5:44 pm
” Black and white. Everything is absoultely black and white.”
LOL… well, some folks are Red and white……
(ducking and running)
December 19, 2007 at 5:56 pm
“Hmmm, so is that the concern? That the first pastor has the authority to ‘withhold’ one’s ‘covenant-moving.’”
Where on earth do you find such a thing in the NT? (Which means ‘New Covenant’) Where are we taught to sign man made covenants?
Where on earth do you find that kind of rulership placed upon any depraved sinner saved by grace in the NT? That is why the NT says we are a Holy Priesthood (Peter) and that all believers are ‘anointed’. 1 John. there are NO special people with ‘rulership’ authority in the NT. There are only servants who are spiritually mature and rebuke in love with the goal of restoring an erring brother or sister.
Please show me the scripture on covenant breaking with a local church. I need to see it.
December 19, 2007 at 6:42 pm
There is no scripture on covenant breaking with a local church. But there are scriptures which show that elders and bishops have authority within the church, and ordained ministers a special anointing passed down from Jesus to the Apostles.
However, it was to the first 12 of these that Jesus said, (Mat 23:11) “But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant”, and at a later date, after He had washed their feet, He said, (Jhn 13:13) “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for [so] I am.” (Jhn 13:14) If I then, [your] Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.”
How much of the history of the world would have been different, had the Church only better heeded His words!
December 19, 2007 at 6:50 pm
OHHHHH, Cindy, you had to get me going again. I just had to write a blog post about your comment #117. In it, I ask why Matt still has “mrsbinoculars” up (where he makes all these kinist associations with the Epsteins), after he allowed his wife to co-author a book with people who associate with kinists!
Sorry, everybody, but this was just too hilariously funny (and grossly hypocritical) to pass up pointing out.
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-hilarious-kinism-connections.html
Hey, Matt Chancey,
Why have you allowed your wife to associate with people who run around with white separatists who are among the worst racial bigots on the Internet? . . .
December 19, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Re: #134
Lin,
As I mentioned before, I have amazing respect for the ability of you all here to articulate yourselves in this medium! I, on the other hand, left some holes.
Backing up: I think one ought to commit to a congregation (as the Holy Spirit leads – and then perhaps leads away!), but I don’t think that signing anything, or entering into a covenant, is Biblical either. I won’t answer your questions, simply because I agree: there isn’t anything in the NT!
When I said ““Hmmm, so is that the concern? That the first pastor has the authority to ‘withhold’ one’s ‘covenant-moving.’” I wasn’t supporting that statement properly. I should have followed that up with an ‘Oh – NOW I’m starting to understand where Molleth was coming from with her concerns and I agree with her.’ I have a *major* problem with pastor’s having that kind of authority, too. Going back to my original comment, I don’t think I’m then that far off-base in saying that this kind of attitude can really be used as a tool of manipulation!
I was/am simply, honestly, trying to understand her perspective because on the surface, Phillip’s article didn’t seem disconcerting to me at first. However, I have generally agreed with Molleth’s previous perspectives and that of many of the women here. I was simply trying to see what she saw; my eyes/ears/heart just aren’t as trained to notice, I think. And based on the comments others have left in the wake of my original comment, I have a better understanding and agree wholeheartedly with them.
And that’s what I see happening a lot here and it’s great: individuals trying to shine light or clarify things that *seem* ok on the surface, but aren’t. I’ve followed all 4 threads, have been challenged and encouraged. I’ll echo what others have said: keep it up. Shining light into dark places is never a waste of time.
hoping it all made sense,
-jessica
December 19, 2007 at 8:11 pm
“This letter drew a lot of comments from a lady who styled herself as “GenerationKeeper” — some of you might recognise her writing style.”
Cynthia,
“Generation Keeper” is now “anonymous”. Remember when “they” kept on taking down your blog posts because “they” were being pressured by “someone” to take them down? At the same time, Generation Keeper’s moniker was changed to anonymous. Weird, huh?
Also, I see a lot of similarity between Generation Keeper and “Mrs. Little Helper” from Patriobabble.
December 19, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Well, I can’t say about who caused anything that happened in regards to my blog, as per a certain letter from the blog admin. But that doesn’t mean that everyone else isn’t free to speculate…
December 19, 2007 at 9:58 pm
” I was simply trying to see what she saw; my eyes/ears/heart just aren’t as trained to notice, I think.”
Well, join my club, friend! The extra biblical authority teaching is not just for patriarches…it is even in the seeker world. At Rick Warren’s church you sign a ‘covenant’ when you join and one of the items is that you agree not to critsize the church or leadership! This extra biblical teaching is everywhere.
I came out of that venue knowing something was not right with most of the teaching…thanks to my mom’s early scripture teaching.
Still, I could not put my finger on it because it sounded right and lets face it, many believe these things. I did not know what so I just studied the New Testament for years. For example: I read Acts 17x in row in a span of 2 weeks using 3 different translations and made a ton of notes. I read Matthew 10x in a row. (Great book for Jesus’ teaching) I studied it all as intently.
I kept seeing that everything I was taught was turned on its head. I learned that proof texting can be akin to spin on any doctrinal issue. I read the epistles and ignored the verse numbers…I read them like letters…as they were intended! I studied the Greek and found all kinds of questions as to why this word was used instead of this word in certain translations, etc.
Here is what I learned: Scritpure NEVER contradicts itself and many things I had been taught were not making sense in light of that truth.
Here is an example: In Acts 1 we have ALL (men and women) devoting themselves to prayer in the upper room.
Then in Acts 2, again they were ALL (men and women in the Greek) in one place when the Holy Spirit gave them tongues. ALL of them.
This was heresy! Women, too? They are all drunk! so Peter stands with the eleven men and explains from the book of Joel to the Jews in town for Pentecost:
17″‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy…..”
Which ‘last days’ is he referring to? These last days…the whole church age. Now, why have women prophsying only on Pentecost? I mean we know Phillip’s daughter did on at another time. We know Anna did at another time, etc. If it is only on Pentecost then our Lord has sent a very confusing message in 1 Timothy 2. And who are these male and female servants? Ever wonder about that? It is very interesting to study who they are.
I have heard every conceivable arguement about why this is only for pentecost…one is that they were not in a ‘real church’. My goodness what is a real NT church (ecclesia)? It was quite informal…not what we have today at all. It is also confusing becuase 1 Corinthians gives us instructions for EVERYONE in the Body as to how to use their gifts. Why would that include a Greek word for both men and women to do this and then tell us not to? There are many more examples but I will stop here!
As you can see, I had many questions. Things were not making sense and I know that scripture does NOT contradict itself.
I am still studying and discovering the Real Jesus I never knew before and guess what? He is WONDERFUL! He freed us from the earthly priesthood.
December 19, 2007 at 9:59 pm
Women are lesser. Women are corrupt. Women are so much lesser that these men actually believe that they are demigods for women –and this is pure, unadulterated idolatry.
-That is not Christianity. That is more like the ancient Greek or ancient Roman religion.
December 19, 2007 at 10:26 pm
See, I told you you’d enjoy the light reading.
I have plenty more from Doug whenever you want them. I wonder how long it’ll take for VF to ‘take down’ the archives? But I’m already a few steps ahead of them. I even have screen shots.
It seems the deeper you dig, the more twisted it becomes. I questioned Voddie’s involvement all the way back in thread 2- it really makes me wonder. Is he, to borrow a phrase, the “token” guy to hide Vision Forum’s real stance on the matter?
December 19, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Responding to Jessica (sorry, I just saw your comment), on #99.
You said,
For the most part, I did not find anything too outrageous in that particular Phillip’s article. I didn’t have the same reaction as you and I was wondering what was ’scary’ about it. You seemed to be reacting to more than was there, or at least from my perspective. Is the concern over the use of the term ‘covenant-breaking’ which is a heavy charge? (Or I think so, anyway, – akin to lying.) Or a concern that this kind of charge is then used as a tool of manipulation?
To clarify where I’m coming from: I do see ‘church-hopping’ as something that seems to happen with a ridiculous frequency and for seemingly silly reasons and as a result, a lack of commitment to the particular body where God has placed one. After all, for better or worse, we Christians do play a role in one another’s sanctification and if we simply jump ship when things get rough, how is that to take place? Please don’t misunderstand – I think there are certainly supportable reasons for leaving a church, (we’ve done so!) but I do think it does need to be done in a honourable manner and I do believe one of the things one ought to do is let the leadership of your church know why you are leaving and make sure things are put to rights with the leadership as far as you are able.
Hmmm, so is that the concern? That the first pastor has the authority to ‘withhold’ one’s ‘covenant-moving.’
Just wondering and thinking aloud. Thanks for bearing with me.
I do not see the New Testament supporting the idea that Believers are to submit their lives to their church leaders, which would include asking their permission to go to a different church.
If a Believer can’t even decide to attend a different church without getting his church leaders *permission,* what does that say about the level of authority the church leaders have over that Believers life! Not even his choice of church is given to him to make. Wowzers.
Yes, as believers, we are to submit one to another, but I don’t think that means that church leaders are to act as the authority figures when it comes to what decisions a family makes in who they gather with to worship, etc.
Some of us, unfortunately, have been in churches that were cultish, if not cults. What Phillips is saying is standard “I-must-control-you” language. It comes from the type of person who needs to control everyone. It’s not a healthy thing. Especially when you use God to justify it.
Btw, I agree with you regarding church-”shopping.” Church-hopping JUST to find a place that tickles ones fancy is not the sign of a mature Believer. *wry grin*
I just don’t think the answer is to give church leaders the same level of control that a parent has over a child—-to grant permission or to deny permission for making a choice that a free servant of God should be able to make for himself.
The kind of leader that wants that level of control is NOT leading like Christ did…it’s a major red flag.
Glad you came out of lurkdom, though!
Comment anytime—it’s nice to have a good assortment of voices in the mix. It helps everybody.
Warmly,
Molly
December 19, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Molleth,
Thanks. I do see where you’re coming from now, and find we are in the same place. I just needed it re-worded is all.
December 19, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Molly wrote: Btw, I agree with you regarding church-”shopping.” Church-hopping JUST to find a place that tickles ones fancy is not the sign of a mature Believer.
This is a problem though for a very good reason. It’s tremendously hard to find a church where one feels comfortable after spiritual abuse. People tend to get out of one group and jump into one that has the same familiar features as the first abusive group. In fact, I think that it’s most likely a result of the spiritual abuse learning curve. My husband and I made very carefully planned decisions about finding a new church, and we ended up in a church that had many of the same issues that the really bad one had.
It was funny. Although I went to a church that used to have a covenant type sacerdotal ideal, it was no longer a practice when we started attending. In fact, their past issues had been so scathing (the number of churches dropped from 30 + to seven because of some of the fallout from “ownership” of the flock. They moved away from membership altogether, but they still governed as though the agreement was in place. (For instance, you cant leave from under the umbrella of covering superstition without the approval of the church.) Oddly, none of this was included in their doctrinal info in their membership/non-membership class of 3 nights. But they did say about 10 times that they only had a membership class because it was to meet the needs of those in attendance.
But “church hopping” and cult hopping is common in and among these groups anyway, and people will have trouble after a really painful and threatening experience. That should be a consideration for which people should offer themselves some personal grace and understanding.
December 19, 2007 at 11:33 pm
“I wonder how long it’ll take for VF to ‘take down’ the archives? But I’m already a few steps ahead of them. I even have screen shots.”
And, web archives that you save to your computer are a wonderful thing!
December 19, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Whoops, Jessica: I hadn’t read through allthe comments yet and so didn’t see where you’d already responded back! Sorry!
Agreed, Cindy. After coming out of a legalistic/cultish group, one tends to be a little gun-shy. You are so right: Grace is what is needed, and lots of it.
Also, grace for the angry/bitter phase as a person comes out of a “broken” paradigm… There is a phase in the process of grieving that is one of anger…giving people the grace to go through that phase (while, yes, privately PRAYING that they go *through* it as opposed to stay *in* it forever, as some do) is so important.
I know that as I began questioning and deconstructing and exiting my former tidy little “Biblical” paradigm, some of my friends didn’t understand, PARTICULARLY the angry phase (nor did I, in the middle of it!). They reacted negatively to it, as if there was something wrong with me. It made a difficult time only more difficult. All I needed was a big hug, not more condemnation.
December 19, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Jessica,
I’ve read your comment a few times now, and I have to say it. You sound as though you’ve been heavily marinating and steeping in patriarchy and are still oozing some of the “sanctifying one another” doctrine. And there’s lots of the use of the word “role.” I’m sure that you don’t notice this as this is a subtle and easily overlooked distinction, but I hits me like a ton of bricks. It’s a very difficult thing to put under the authority of the Word once you start recovering from the teachings (and the process takes a lot of hard work and study).
This is heavily Romanist wherein man and man’s activities work sanctification rather than it being a 100% work of the Spirit in the life of the believer. Though modern Catholics deny a great deal of this in theory, despite what they say, they actually argue for the doctrine of infused grace which is merited through attitude and works. Sanctification, I believe and always have, is 100% the work and role of God, not man. I believe that if you commit yourself to honest study of the Word with a committment to let the Spirit open your eyes, you will begin the process of spiritual warfare against this pattern of thought and will see that sanctification is God’s work alone. We are certainly His instruments of righteousness and iron that sharpens iron, but it is God’s operation. Patriarchy and Gothardism still confuse the cause and the effects of sanctification. It is a focus upon the outward things of man’s orientation rather than God’s inner work on the heart of the believer. Any other concept of sanctification argues against the priesthood of all believers and is NOT reformed at all. It’s not Protestant either.
Traditional Christianity, prior to these patriarchal people, does not support that anyone sanctifies themselves or others. This is one of the subtle trappings of theonomy if theonomy is placed on equal footing or higher footing than Scripture, for example. How can unholy, fallen man can set another being apart and cleanse them when they lack the capacity to do so for themselves? We are fellow sojourners in that sense then. Church leadership is primarly commissioned with distributing resources to the needy and for teaching sound doctrine (feeding sheep). This governing aspect is the responsibility of every believer and not the main “job” of church leaders. It’s a problem because individuals shirk their personal responsibility and have institutionalized their personal accountability and authority that they’ve wrongfully displaced by making such endeavors the primary function of church elders and such. If every believer did the hard work of discernment instead of abdicating discernment to church leadership, Patriarchy never would have had a chance. Part of it is unjust authority’s fault for picking up the slack and getting drunk with the power, and part of it is the fault of sheep who just hand over their responsibility to avoid the price of the duty of personal discipline. If we all followed Matthew 18 and healthy assertiveness, there would be very little “Matthew Eighteening” going on by all these patriarchal pastors.
Back to the Dostoyevski quote and man’s tendency to trade freedom and liberty for the ease of a full belly. “We have perfected Thy work and founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority. And men rejoiced that they were again led like sheep.”
December 19, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Lady Helen wrote: That is not Christianity. That is more like the ancient Greek or ancient Roman religion.
Shout it from the rooftops. Climb the high mountain and shout it to the cities of Judah!
December 20, 2007 at 12:05 am
Molly wrote: Also, grace for the angry/bitter phase as a person comes out of a “broken” paradigm… There is a phase in the process of grieving that is one of anger…giving people the grace to go through that phase (while, yes, privately PRAYING that they go *through* it as opposed to stay *in* it forever, as some do) is so important.
I know that as I began questioning and deconstructing and exiting my former tidy little “Biblical” paradigm, some of my friends didn’t understand, PARTICULARLY the angry phase (nor did I, in the middle of it!). They reacted negatively to it, as if there was something wrong with me. It made a difficult time only more difficult. All I needed was a big hug, not more condemnation.
Molly,
The process if grueling at times. It’s like recovering from the death of a loved one — perhaps worse, because if you face it, you are abandoning all the security and your ties to the approval of man. It’s like getting smacked with the death of many plus the death of a very central element of self (but that’s essentially what we are called unto).
I’m also reminded of something Seamans once said (author of “Healing for Damaged Emotions”). This changing of our lives is not some easy process. We repent, we meditate on the Word and wage the warfare that comes along with establishing our thought in the Word. We then bring our emotions to the altar until we are transformed and healed. We then have to build and work at good habits and the skills of living differently. Seamans said that when we get saved, there’s not some magic imputation of all these things. Or if we repent or develop an awareness of some sin or lack in our life. That is only the beginning of the forging process. The fire of purification and the tempering process like one prepares a fine sword has only just begun. A sword is thrust in and out of the fire, pounded while red hot on an anvil, ground, grated, polished (an abrasive process) and tested until it becomes perfectly balanced and beautiful and ready for use.
I beleive that like the prepping or the “proving” of a sword, the process that one submits to when leaving spiritual abuse is very much this same process. Lots of fire, lots of pounding on the anvil, lots of abrasive polishing. There’s just no other way to make it happen.
December 20, 2007 at 12:17 am
Cynthia Gee wrote: “I wonder how long it’ll take for VF to ‘take down’ the archives? But I’m already a few steps ahead of them. I even have screen shots.”
Doug is not really obvious about it, but VF has already done it. In addition to moving things around, they also have taken things offline. Much of that Allosaur stuff had disappeared when it was realized that VF was not an innocent party in the debacle. There are also other things missing that I can document. Copy everything if you think you might need the reference later.
December 20, 2007 at 2:42 am
Definitely believe that anger and ups and downs of emotions and thoughts are a *normal* and designed-by-God *human* reaction to leaving behind harmful and dysfunctional situations and belief sets. Been there, done that. Learned to lean into the Lord more. Learned to know that I’m not infallible, and that even I am susceptible to being deceived. (And isn’t that a hard lesson for those of us who always thought of ourselves as “faithful Bereans.”)
Like Molly, Cindy, et al, have said. . . it is normal and can be positive. Especially when we learn to recognize grace during that time of healing–and when we learn how to extend it to others.
December 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm
“At Rick Warren’s church you sign a ‘covenant’ when you join and one of the items is that you agree not to critsize the church or leadership! This extra biblical teaching is everywhere.”
Lin,
That certainly is a nice set-up for a cult, isn’t it?
December 20, 2007 at 3:48 pm
Lin in comment #140 said:
” am still studying and discovering the Real Jesus I never knew before and guess what? He is WONDERFUL! He freed us from the earthly priesthood.”
He is wonderful. I also saw alot of the same things you mentioned about the early church in the book of Acts, too, that men AND women were together in receiving the gift(s) given by the Holy Spirit and the Spirit Himself! How can the Spirit of God be lesser just because He is in a woman instead of a man? This has been a particular study of mine in the past and was blessed to find out the early church actually had less restriction on women than we would think.
“17″‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy…..”
Which ‘last days’ is he referring to? These last days…the whole church age. Now, why have women prophsying only on Pentecost? I mean we know Phillip’s daughter did on at another time. We know Anna did at another time, etc. If it is only on Pentecost then our Lord has sent a very confusing message in 1 Timothy 2. And who are these male and female servants? Ever wonder about that? It is very interesting to study who they are.“
Now I’m very curious. Who are the “male and female servants” referred to by Peter in reference to Joel’s prophecy?
December 20, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Speaking of women, prophets, etc…
The kings of Israel were anointed by prophets.
Who anointed Jesus?
December 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm
James McDonald wrote an excellent article about The Christmas Truce.
I do not understand why he refused to post my comment:
“I agree, James. I took down my site. I am so tired of all the fighting. We are brothers and sisters in Christ. We are the body of Christ. It’s time we started acting like it.”
He has written comments since that time, so I know he’s been to his blog.
December 20, 2007 at 8:41 pm
Well, as I see it, there are fights, and there are fights.
There are disputes over nonessentials, ranging from the color of the carpet to the events surrounding the Second Coming.
Then, there are the fights against savage wolves who would destroy the flock, either by bringing in false doctrine about salvation, sanctification, or the Bible, or else they abuse other people around them, some who carry scars for years and have to take years to recover.
I am very thankful for people like Luther and Calvin who kept on fighting and didn’t say they were tired of it. I am also thankful for people who deal with autocratic spiritual abuse and speak out against it, and do not say they are tired of it. There are many hurting sheep out there who are grateful for those people.
I think it is good to remember also this is nothing like the period surrounding and including the Reformation.
You really don’t know why James hasn’t approved your comment?
December 20, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Jen, you know too well why he didn’t post your comment. You are guilty by association (to them…) and even if you apologize til you are blue in the face, you’re still “out of the circle”
I don’t mean to hurt you, but it is painfully obvious with these people, as we say in our house, “how they roll!”
You did the most honorable thing Jen. I read your Closing the book post and I sat shocked. I was so proud of you, yet crushed in a way, because I felt like your story has helped tons of people….but I completely stood by you and thought that you were the bigger person. And I still do!
Just don’t expect miracles from these patrio folks. They don’t seem to forgive and forget. He’s probably thinking it is a ploy by you and that you’re really not asking to be forgiven.
Oh well. Let’s let God judge him. I’m glad it is not my job to do so, because I’m not very forgiving.
December 20, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Maybe James McDonald should make sure those who are going after Joe Taylor to destroy him see his post “The Christmas Truce.”
December 21, 2007 at 12:03 am
These passive-aggressive people are going to have to contact me personally if they want me to cease and desist for the holidays. I only read some of these blogs when someone asks me if I’ve read certain posts.
December 21, 2007 at 1:14 am
Same here Cindy. I read very little of their blogs anymore because it is simply futile and gets my blood pressure up.
If James McDonald truly wants peace in the camp, he’d stop endorsing/publishing/writing stuff that says “marble sink” women are selfish and women shouldn’t vote or write blog posts without their husband’s permission.
December 21, 2007 at 2:09 am
Lindsey wrote: If James McDonald truly wants peace in the camp, he’d stop endorsing/publishing/writing stuff that says “marble sink” women are selfish and women shouldn’t vote or write blog posts without their husband’s permission.
If you look on the responses following my book review on Amazon, JR Corry said that she wrote to Stacy and Stacy said that she and her daughters do vote. So your statement may be inaccurate, unless James believes that, in contrast to VF doctrine, women can and should vote.
And I can’t pass up that marble sink comment. What kind of sinks and counters does it look like Stacy has in those photos on her blog? Look at that one of her son wearing a flowered apron. That counter is pretty reflective. Not to pick, but someone contacted me to point that out, so I went to look. Then I had to wonder about the Biblical boyhood or whatever they call it when noting the flowery apron. It’s all just so ironic, it’s laughable. I’m not the one that posted those photos. If they don’t want people coming up to their glass houses with a squeegie and a bottle of windex, they’d better hang some curtains.
December 21, 2007 at 2:13 am
“Jen, you know too well why he didn’t post your comment. You are guilty by association (to them…) and even if you apologize til you are blue in the face, you’re still “out of the circle””
Lin, I’m inclined to think that you are correct…. still, you never know, maybe the internet ate it. That WOULD be nice, if that was what happened.
As C.S. Lewis said,
“”Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one’s first feeling, ‘Thank God, even they aren’t so bad as that,” or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if allowed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black.”
I don’t expect much of the patrios, still, one can always hope for the best.
December 21, 2007 at 2:15 am
“If they don’t want people coming up to their glass houses with a squeegie and a bottle of windex, they’d better hang some curtains.”
And remember….. people in glass houses shouldn’t stow bones.
December 21, 2007 at 2:19 am
RE #162
I went back to Stacy’s blog to copy that picture before it disappears. I was surprised to see that it blows up to be quite large.
The whole thing is just so funny. Who cares what kind of sinks and counter tops one has? And if you have the money and want marble, why not have it? I still don’t get the point of the book that supposedly admonishes us to heed the Word about refraining from comparison, yet the book is chocked full of references to comparisons.
December 21, 2007 at 2:32 am
Can’t say anything about sinks, but there’s nothing like marble for rolling out pastry.
December 21, 2007 at 2:50 am
Perhaps I didn’t explain myself well enough for those who haven’t read the book, but the purpose in this comment surrounds a quote from Stacy in her book. She makes disparaging comments about “Professional Mommies” (who are affluent enough to stay at home and make organic baby food) and have marble sinks. Having sold a house just a few years ago and opting out of remodling the kitchen, I recognize that solid surface countertop which is the the same approximate price of both stainless and natural stone countertop. I have laminate which is 75% – 90% cheaper than solid surface/corian or natural stone counter top.
The bottom line is her inference. I could care less what kind of counters someone has and it wasn’t my interjection or use as an identifier. This was Stacy’s comparison. I don’t begrudge anyone a wonderful kitchen, considering how many hours one spends in it.
What I’d like to know is what the specific definition of a professional mommy is. If it’s the price of one’s kitchen countertop, she classifies as a “professional mommy.” Well, she did mention sinks, so perhaps it only applies to the sink area and not the whole countertop. What do I know? That’s the definition she gives, along with the nebulous WWF moniker.
A SAHM that goes to a former church of mine has a son with chemical sensitivity (like my husband and me but much worse). If she opens a cake mix or a packet of preservative laden food, her son goes into anaphylactic shock and must be given emergency epinephrine and taken to the hospital. I can completely relate, as I spent a night in the ER at a local hospital two years ago for a similar problem. That mom has to cook organic or her child will die, quite literally without any exaggeration. This mom homeschools her four (lovely) children and does not work. Sometimes she even wears a scarf to church (to tame her wavy hair). Can she get point for the head covering? Or is she a “professional mommie” too?
Man looks to the outward things, but God looks to the intent of the heart. But in that book, the most notable thing that I saw was comparison, over and over again. It’s chocked full of propaganda techniques such as unstated assumption and vague inferrence and demonization and red herring such as the examples that I note above. But this I “extrapolate.” Right after I posted my first Amazon review of the Housewives book on line, I received an anonymous email from someone who said that they pitied me, asking where I came up with my conclusions. “Did you extrapolate” the person wrote.
In the comment that Cynthia Gee links to on her blog wherein James McDonald responds to one of her articles, he accuses her of “extrapolating.”
I can’t help but to think that the use of this very term exemplifies the dulled ability to think critically that spiritual abuse fosters. Followers are trained to avoid connecting the dots with logic and analytical thinking, preferring the ipsedixitisms of the leader to tell them what they are permitted to believe. Critical thought is punished with negative reinforcement and threat such as those that are mentioned recently in this thread concerning the emergent church’s signing of convenants.
December 21, 2007 at 3:17 am
Cynthia Gee wrote: And remember….. people in glass houses shouldn’t stow bones.
Is that dinosaur variety or regular closet skeleton variety?
December 21, 2007 at 3:17 am
Okay. . . . I’m sure I’m not the only one who googled ipsedixitisms. . .
December 21, 2007 at 3:28 am
She makes disparaging comments about “Professional Mommies” (who are affluent enough to stay at home and make organic baby food) and have marble sinks.
I’m surprised that kind of disparaging remark made it to the final version. Someone told me the Phillips have an indoor swimming pool (is that right?) and that beats marble sinks and countertops by a long shot for cost. [NB-I am NOT saying anything positive or negative about having an indoor swimming pool.]
December 21, 2007 at 3:39 am
I must admit that I did recently learn the word and love it. It’s in John Robbins book (coauthored) “Not Reformed At All.” Made in reference to Doug Wilson, it says that he “ejaculates his ipsedixitisms” (a word that also required me to pull out the trusty Oxford dictionary). So three cheers for John Robbins!
I’ve been more reticent to replace “ejaculates” with “pontificates” most often. But the word is so abolutely perfect!
December 21, 2007 at 3:41 am
Is that dinosaur variety or regular closet skeleton variety?
Doesn’t really matter… either one can come back to dog you.
December 21, 2007 at 3:48 am
Were there not also marble counters and sinks in that home that was rented for the filming of “Return of the Daughters”? I remember seeing fine stone counters (like every good cook doesn’t drool over them when they see them) in the Bachaum section of the film, too. They are hard to miss.
It isn’t about the countertops. It isn’t about the specifics. It’s about righteousness, peace and joy in the Spirit. The other stuff is a focus on performance.
December 21, 2007 at 4:10 am
Hey, ladies, I’m not trying to get back “in the camp.” I just thought that James must surely have meant what he said when he posted that article.
Lynn, all I’m saying is that I’m tired of Christians fighting one another. I think all of this should be handled in a Christ-honoring fashion. Yes, shine the light of truth on false teachings, but I’m tired of the he said/she said stuff, and now here I am doing it with James. I apologize for participating in that kind of stuff.
December 21, 2007 at 4:24 am
“Now I’m very curious. Who are the “male and female servants” referred to by Peter in reference to Joel’s prophecy?”
Notice how He says “YOUR” sons and daughters shall prophesy…
Then He says MY male servants and female servants. (Some translations say ‘the’ but they are no longer YOUR…)
The “YOUR” sons and daughters are the descendents of Israel who would believe in Jesus Christ and spread the Gospel. The ‘MY’ or the male servants and female servants are followers of Christ who are poor and may be Gentiles.
Why poor? Because the Jews taught that the Holy Spirit or gifts were never given to poor ‘men’ and NEVER women. But now he not only adds poor men but also poor women. He is also pointing out here that there will be no age distinctions, either, in this gifting of the Holy Spirit. (No slave nor free, Jew or Gentile, Male or Female…)
The word ‘Prophesy’ here signifies to teach and proclaim the great truths of God, especially those which concerned redemption by Jesus Christ.
Exciting, huh? It was counter culture at the time, to say the least. It must have infuriated the Jewish leaders to hear Peter quote this from Joel.
So, teach the gospel all you want to anyone who will listen…male or female! It is ok, God said so.
“17″‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
and your young men shall see visions,
and your old men shall dream dreams;
18even on my male servants and female servants
in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy…..””
December 21, 2007 at 4:48 am
Posted on Amazon by Jenney Chancey:
It has been such a blessing to see the response to Passionate Houswives Desperate for God. I want to offer a sincere thank-you to the women who have taken the time to post encouraging reviews or send thoughtful notes about the book. This truly was a labor of love for Stacy and me, and I still feel rather amazed that the book is in print after the on-again, off-again process of writing and editing over two and a half years!
For anyone who is confused about my core beliefs or wants answers to sticky questions, let me recommend the following items from the Ladies Against Feminism site (which I edit as time allows):
“Dear Readers…” (A starter post to explain what LAF is and is not about. Start here to debunk the myths!)
“What Is Feminism?” (Defining the terms.)
“You Don’t Know Feminism” (The words of feminism’s “founding mothers” speak for themselves.)
“The Myth of Superwoman” (For the past generation, our society has tried to foist upon us the idea of the woman who “has it all” and “does it all.” As we stand gaping at these idols of domestic and economic success, we wonder exactly where we fell short of achieving their outstanding merits.)
God bless you as you study, ponder, and consider how to apply the truth of God’s Word to all of life!
In Christ,
Jennie Chancey
Comments disabled
December 21, 2007 at 5:14 am
I went to James McDonald’s blog. He writes:
“This week, my heart has been heavy as I have considered the many facets of Christendom that seem to be at war – not with the world – but with each other. Denomination stands against denomination, church shoots at church, and believer wages war with believer. Sadly, most of these battles are over non-essentials.”
I could not agree more. And the very reason all this is going on is mainly because of non essentials….like women’s roles. They are making it a hill to die on and it just isn’t. I find it hard to understand how they can read the NT and not see that.
They can do what they want in their denomination or church. But when professing believers are publicly teaching that others who do not follow their extra biblical teachings are in sin or ‘white washed feminists’ we must speak up.
So I publicly ask Mr. McDonald what he believes: Is the woman’s role an essential or non essential to the Gospel?
December 21, 2007 at 5:47 am
Lin,
I’m afraid that those who believe in a patriocentric Gospel will say like Russell Moore and like Phil Lancaster that the gender issues are central and essential to the gospel. It is one of the major issues that Kevin Giles discusses in his works on the connection that these men make between the ontological subordination of both Christ and of women.
Even without embracing the Eternal Subordiantion of Christ, if one believes that it the chief role of a husband to sanctify his wife as they contend, then a woman’s role and related issues are central. As Moore contends, any challenge of patriarchy (which includes rejection of their accepted gender roles) emasculates the very Gospel of Christ. That is why they contend that feminism or compromising complementarians are at fault for the perpetuation of the decline of Western civilization. It is their winning horse and primary scapegoat, just as it was true in the church after the third century until the medivial period within the Church. I think that is also why it is so easy for them to see man as a mediator for woman and why they believe they are capable of sanctifying woman, an act that they are incapbable of for themselves.
Is a woman’s role essential? SBTS and CBMW (many there anyway) contend that it is very essential. Russell Moore says precisely and exactly that in the Different By Design Conference lecture 2/07.
December 21, 2007 at 7:07 am
Jen,
Did James give you a reason why he won’t post your comment?
Just wondering.
December 21, 2007 at 11:06 am
“I think that is also why it is so easy for them to see man as a mediator for woman and why they believe they are capable of sanctifying woman, an act that they are incapbable of for themselves.”
You are so right. They cannot even sanctify themselves!
That is so dangerous. To believe that another depraved human being who can only be saved by grace can sanctify another for eternal life? The implications of this are quite serious.
Wonder who Russell Moore believes sanctifies a single woman? Or is it only in marriage that a man can step into Christ’s role?
December 21, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Lin wrote: Wonder who Russell Moore believes sanctifies a single woman? Or is it only in marriage that a man can step into Christ’s role?
Lin,
After having recently read Eric Wallace (“Uniting Church and Home”), a Confederate Presbyterian that he references named BM Palmer and what I could tolerate of Phillip Lancaster’s “Family Man”, I believe that consistent with the teachings of Vision Forum related persons, that the unmarried woman is sanctified by her patriarch of closest affiliation. Therefore, a single woman’s father or brother could fill the role in the absense of a spouse.
I find this consistent as well through the symbolism and implication of the Lord’s supper/Communion practices observed in many FIC churches. Hypothetically speaking, a husband were out of town and a mother went to church in his absence, it would be perfectly acceptable for their 3 year old son to dipsense or administer the host to his mother. It would not be permitted (in some FICs and not all) for the woman to reach for the host herself because of her gender and the implied message that she requires an intermediate. It is the role of the male who assumes responsibility for the woman who is in attendance without her “covering” to make the judgement as to whether the woman is worthy of partaking and may withold the host in judgement. So not only does this apply that the woman is a lesser being than a man, she is also of lesser moral integrity than even her three year old son.
In that respect then, because of this “adoption by normative families” that is sometimes neeedful in the FIC, one might argue that a brother or a son could act in the “sanctifying role” for any woman in the absence of a husband or brother. In the absense of other family, this may be delegated or assumed by another man who is willing to officially assume the role for a woman with no other “recourse” before the Lord. It’s like an “any port in a storm” version of Bill Gothard’s umbrella of protection and chain of authority gone one more step further than Gothard took it, as Gothard recognized that a Mother could fill the role as an authority for a son.
Consider this link: Publisher/Owner: Steve Murphy – Steve is the Publisher of Homeschooling Today magazine…. He has served as a regional support group board member leading the charge to exhort homeschooling fathers and husbands to assume their God-given duty to be the leaders of their homes, including sanctifying their wives and educating their children. Steve is committed to the discipleship of his eight children, of men of God, and of his wife, Kara.
December 21, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Cindy: “I think that is also why it is so easy for them to see man as a mediator for woman and why they believe they are capable of sanctifying woman, an act that they are incapbable of for themselves.”
Lynn: “You are so right. They cannot even sanctify themselves!”
You are both so right — nobody can sanctify themselves. Jesus sanctifies us, and after we have bathed in Him, the whole body is clean — only our feet get “dirty”, and so we sanctify one another’s “feet”, by serving and loving and forgiving and ministering to one another. When Jesus washed His Apostles feet, no mention was made of sex — they were all men in the upper room.
(And it is curious to note that the only person who is recorded in the Bible as having washed Jesus’s feet, was a woman.)
December 21, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Found my typed notes from Russell Moore in that 2/07 Different by Design Conf. in MN
I dont know that this is a word for word quote, but this is what I wrote –
>>>>>>>>
Recovery (Gender not an intermural debate)
Gender roles are the Gospel. All about the fatherhood of God throughout the totality of Scripture.
Eph chapt 5 argument is the extension of the argument from chapt 1 (husband wife relationship is prototype for Christ and the church).
When we apologize for this, we lose something of the Gopsel (“vital portion”). Must change our language.
• Futility of battling with proof texts with feminists
• Gal 3:28 Inherently patriarchal
o Paul was showing the audience that they are in Christ, then goes on to mention sons (and not daughters)
o Jews understood this, we take it out of context
o We received sonship and not sonhood and daughterhood
o This is proof of male headship
• We act as though there are more important issues such as open theism
o We must agree with those on the points that we can agree and that unity washes out the Gospel message like open theism
……..
o Treating gender as an intermural issue does the same thing as standing in agreement with open theists
“Feminism is just another way of saying open theism”
•Not suggesting that this is sin (Cindy says “No???”) but the reason for egalitarian argument is because it seems right to us: we are creatures shaking our fists in the face of authority at every opportunity
December 21, 2007 at 2:00 pm
“Gender roles are the Gospel”?????
Cindy, I wish you could find out if this is an exact quote.
If it is exact, it is an utter blasphemy, and is at the heart of what is wrong with the patriarchal movement.
December 21, 2007 at 2:10 pm
“We received sonship and not sonhood and daughterhood”
“Paul was showing the audience that they are in Christ, then goes on to mention sons (and not daughters)”
It looks as though Russell Moore is saying that men can become sons of God, but women cannot become daughters of God.
It follows that if God is not the Father of women as well as men, the only way for women to be saved would be for them to marry men who are sons of God.
This was once a tenet of Mormonism, though today even most Mormons believe that a woman can be saved in her own right.
I guess Mr. Moore missed the scripture where Jesus stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
December 21, 2007 at 2:13 pm
“ipsedixitisms”
I had to look up the word, also, and it IS the perfect word! We shall use it more often!!!
December 21, 2007 at 2:13 pm
From Phillip Lancaster “Family Man, Family Leader”
pg 319-321
A Patriarchy Cult? (Appendix subtitle)
“To be clear, we do not believe that patriarchy is the central theme of the Bible…”
“But again, the role of men is just on of many teachings of Scripture, so why do we make it so central in our teaching?
We emphasize the biblical doctrine of patriarchy, not because it is a doctrine above other doctrines, but because it is a keystone issue of our day…. The effectiveness of every other stone in the arch depends on the presence of the keystone. The reason our culture is in decline, our churches are impotent and our families are failing is the absence of patriarchal leadership. All other efforts at reform and restoration are failing and will fail unless men take up the full scope of their God-given duties beginning at home….”
“Without the groundwork of patriarchy, no other efforts at renewal and progress will succeed. They will fall flat. No efforts of governments, churches, agencies, or organizations can compensate for the failure of men to lead their families….”
“So should we use the term “patriarchy” and seek its restoration in our day? Absolutely. The hatred of this term is an evidence of the degeneracy of our culture. But, it is indeed, a euonym, a good name, an appropriate designation for a very hopeful movement of God’s Spirit. Because the path to future blessing is a path back to patriarchy.”
Published by The Vision Forum, Inc. 2003
December 21, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Cynthia, I will go listen to it again to be sure. I think that I would have written the exact quote.
Also, I forgot that I was going to transcribe some of Bruce Ware’s teachings about women being the indirect image of God and just realized that I never did so.
Be back….
December 21, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Here’s the URL for the Russell Moore download: (in case you need something to listen to as you scrub the kitchen floor or something — work out that rebellion against authority)
http://www.cbmw.org/Conferences/Different-by-Design-2007/Different-by-Design-2007-Session-1
December 21, 2007 at 2:20 pm
“We received sonship and not sonhood and daughterhood”
Reminds me of several things. Reminds me of the pious Jews who would weep and almost mourn when the firstborn was a daughter, and not a son.
Reminds me of the baby girls abandoned in China because of the one child rule…and everyone wants a son.
In Christ, we’re all God’s CHILDREN. The whole daughterhood/sonhood has completely been blown up into something bigger than it should be in the patrio camps. It is their lifeblood…and the only lifeblood we need is Jesus. Not gender roles.
December 21, 2007 at 2:21 pm
It appears that these fellows have taken a good idea — “No efforts of governments, churches, agencies, or organizations can compensate for the failure of men to lead their families….” — and made an idol of it.
Insofar as patriarchy HAS become an idol, that which was supposed to be a cure, may in the end become a more deadly disease than that which it was supposed to remedy.
December 21, 2007 at 2:22 pm
And I wanted to point out the me and Lin are two different people….just in case anyone is confused
And…I wanted to wish you all a Merry Christmas. I’m off today for a while and won’t be back around here for a few days so I wish you all the best!
December 21, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Exact quote:
“As our brother mentioned at the beginning, when you come to the issue of gender roles you are dealing with the Gospel.”
>>>>>>>>>
My paraphrased notes here:
“The Apostle Paul says I speak to you of a mystery”
Moore immediately goes on to point out that Eph 5 (speaking to you of a mystery) is not divorced from Eph 1 and is actually continuing that Eph 1 argument. Paul talking of the mystery in Eph 1 when he is speaking about husband and wife in Ephesians 5:25-27.
Stop paraphrase
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Quote:
“When you understand the mystery of Christ, you understand why God did not create Adam as an amoeba to just subdivide but He creates someone who is like Him and yet different from Him. Someone that He protects that He provides for, someone who comes into a one-flesh union with Him. The Apostle Paul says that is an illustration of Christ and the Church. He is not here saying, “Husbands love your wives; Wives submit to your husbands; and I’m trying to think of an illustration of this. It’s kinda like, umm… the sun and the moon? No. The dew and the and the rain. Christ and the Church. That’s not what Paul is doing. He’s doing the exact opposite.”
“He is saying Christ and the church is the prototype and the illustration is Adam and Eve. When God gives you Adam and Eve, He is showing you a picture that you can’t quite understand.
What’s he doing here? What’s he doing here? You follow through all of human civilization and you wonder why is the sex drive so powerful? Why is Satan coming at human beings in terms of sexuality so often? Why is the marriage relationship such a battleground all throughout human civilization? And Paul says, I’ll tell you why. It’s because this is the illustration of a Christ-Church union where everything that belongs to Jesus now belongs to His bride. They are flesh of each other’s flesh, bone of each other’s bone. That’s the reason why the principalities and powers hate male headship. Why they hate female submission. Why they hate a loving marital relationship. Why they hate children. Because it pictures the mystery of the Gospel that they hate.
December 21, 2007 at 3:25 pm
“As our brother mentioned at the beginning, when you come to the issue of gender roles you are dealing with the Gospel.”
Well, that’s a bit of a relief — that’s rather different than saying that gender roles are the Gospel.
But the quote, “Why is the marriage relationship such a battleground all throughout human civilization? And Paul says, I’ll tell you why. It’s because this is the illustration of a Christ-Church union where everything that belongs to Jesus now belongs to His bride.” is almost as disturbing. Certainly Adam and Eve, and marriage in general, are an illustration of Christ and His church. But the hyperP’s take the fallen marriage relationship which is the result of the Curse and hold it up as an ideal, rather than the original marriage relationship which existed in Eden before the Fall. And it is true that the “principalities and powers” hate that beautiful and un fallen relationship. That’s why they have been attacking it for centuries through the promotion of the fallen marriage model, via way of hyperpatriarchal religions such as fundamentalist Islam, fundamentalist Mormonism, etc. which relegate women to the status of chattel and breeding stock, and through the world’s portrayal of women as sex toys and prostitutes. Feminism is merely the devil’s latest innovation.
December 21, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“Here’s the URL for the Russell Moore download: (in case you need something to listen to as you scrub the kitchen floor or something — work out that rebellion against authority)”
ROFLOL!
December 21, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Cynthia Gee wrote: But the hyperP’s take the fallen marriage relationship which is the result of the Curse and hold it up as an ideal, rather than the original marriage relationship which existed in Eden before the Fall.
I really believe that this is true. In an interview with Moody Radio, Bruce Ware (also on staff with Russell Moore at SBTS and CBMW) says that we pay far to much attention to Christ’s Deity and therby neglect His humanity. In a parallel view (as I think that Federal Vision is just a different retelling of the same idea), I believe that Federal Vision, though I’m sure that they would deny this like they deny being Romanist, that Christ is essentially a catalyst to get regenerate man back to Adam’s pre-sin state. They go on and on about the federal representative, and on and on about Christ as the Second Adam, as if the first one was meant to be the ideal.
I don’t know if any of you have read the Federal Vision book, but there’s a chapter by a guy named Jordan who argues that Adam’s sin was not willful disobedience, but was rather the SIN OF IMMATURITY. If Adam had waited long enough, God would have invited him to partake of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Depending on what Mormon you talk to, this is also a belief that Mormons held, as all men are demi-gods in process, essentially. Adam was actually supposed to partake of the tree of knowledge. I wonder if Jordan knew that when he concocted the idea?
December 21, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Cynthia Gee wrote: But the hyperP’s take the fallen marriage relationship which is the result of the Curse and hold it up as an ideal, rather than the original marriage relationship which existed in Eden before the Fall.
Another case in point. In the Benjamin M. Palmer book, (Pastor of 1st Presby in New Orleans in 1876,
Palmer says “At the very beginning, under a system of natural religion, Adam was constituted the head and organ of a religious Commonwealth. God entered into a covenant with him, distinctly religious in its character, and which proposed for its end its natural felicity.” pg 197
And there’s more…
“It was the joint worship of himself, and of her who was the partner of his being, offered officialy by him for her, of the conjugal union from which Family should spring: an organic worship, in which were represented the countless tribes into which the Family should spread, to the end of time. By the force of his position, as the root and representative of all his offspring, he was constituted the prophet, priest and king of that religious empire….it had been his high office, as prophet, to teach the doctrines of natural religion to his descendants…. (pg 199)
From the chapter entitled “The Church Under Natural Religion”
It will be more accurate to define natural religion as the religion of man in his natural condition, as a holy being, created in the image of God; whilst revealed, religion is simply the religion of grace, suited to man’s condition as a sinner. The antithesis is then, perfect and intelligible: natural religion is the religion of law; revealed religion is that of grace…. The religion of nature is the privilege only then of beings who are holy; the religion of grace is the refuge of such as are fallen and sinful.” pgs 218-19.
Now this is fine, but given that last sentence, I am reminded of my Word of Faith days and Ken Copeland’s insistance that one could achieve a state where one no longer sinned. If we are given to the idea that we have mastered ourselves, we might think in terms of this religion of nature rather than the fallen mess that we all really are.
I wonder if that is the trap into which some patriarchs have fallen?
December 21, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Karen,
In all your copious spare time, I wondered if you could insert something into my comment above so as to reflect the full quote from Russell Moore? Just what you wanted to do on Friday before Christmas! I don’t want anyone to get wound up, even though I do clarify it later. It is not exactly what Moore said, though for my own purposes, I understood this to mean that headship and gender was a matter of Biblical Authority and not an intramural debate. Shorthand to describe the longer quote that I eventually posted here.
Thanks,
Cindy
into Comment #183
Cindy Kunsman Says:
December 21, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Found my typed notes from Russell Moore in that 2/07 Different by Design Conf. in MN
I dont know that this is a word for word quote, but this is what I wrote -
>>>>>>>>
Recovery (Gender not an intermural debate)
Gender roles are the Gospel. All about the fatherhood of God throughout the totality of Scripture.
Could you alter the comment to note that the exact and full quote is listed in comment #193.
December 21, 2007 at 4:54 pm
… that Christ is essentially a catalyst to get regenerate man back to Adam’s pre-sin state. They go on and on about the federal representative, and on and on about Christ as the Second Adam, as if the first one was meant to be the ideal….
This idea isn’t far from being correct. Adam was ideal, but he fell.
Fortunately for us, our God is famous for taking lemons and making lemonade, and, being the God of the living, He doesn’t look backward. Man is being turned into something better than Adam’s pre-fall state, and the second Adam infinitely surpasses the first, even in his pre-fallen state.
God doesn’t settle for “good enough.” As C.S.Lewis writes, “no one is ever told what would have happened”, but when God comes to the rescue, what does happen is always far better than what would have happened anyway.
December 21, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“o Jews understood this, we take it out of context”
This one made me spew my coffee….Of course they did! They added all the man made traditions. The Talmud states: Better to burn Torah than teach it to a woman. It contains many more such statements..
“ •Not suggesting that this is sin (Cindy says “No???”) but the reason for egalitarian argument is because it seems right to us: we are creatures shaking our fists in the face of authority at every opportunity”
Lets change that thought to this: We are creatures shaking our fists in the face of our humble servants at every opportunity. (Just does not carry the same ‘authoritarian ring’, does it?)
But one thing that puzzles me is how these men conveniently do not focus on what earthly human is THEIR authority. (grin) But even still, why they do not spend more time teaching on what is meant by loving their wives as Christ loves the church…and on a daily basis.
Anybody ever notice how the teaching revolves around what a woman has to do? As if he cannot be the proper ‘authority’ unless she lets him. Ever notice that?
December 21, 2007 at 7:52 pm
“Anybody ever notice how the teaching revolves around what a woman has to do? As if he cannot be the proper ‘authority’ unless she lets him. Ever notice that?”
Lin,
Patriarchal teachings are full of this thought. If a man isn’t the authority he should be it is because the woman isn’t (leading, sanctifying him) doing what it takes to make him actually be that leader.
If a leader can only be as good as his underlings make him then the patriarchal movement is in a heap of trouble. And when I say this, I mean they are in doctrinal trouble. If a wife is responsible for making her husband a good leader and a great man of God then she is really the one who is leading, sanctifying and teaching him in the way he should go. By the very definition of the word, the wife is the leader and he is the follower if we put the emphasis and responsibility on the woman.
I do wonder why the “leaders” in the patriarchal movement don’t put as much emphasis on their submission to their authorities as they do on the submission due them from their wives and children.
I may be simple-minded but I think actually modeling the very submission they expect of others might be more effective. If they don’t respect and submit to their authorities why would they expect anyone to respect and submit to theirs?
Just a thought.
December 21, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“We received sonship and not sonhood and daughterhood”
“Paul was showing the audience that they are in Christ, then goes on to mention sons (and not daughters)”
It looks as though Russell Moore is saying that men can become sons of God, but women cannot become daughters of God.
It follows that if God is not the Father of women as well as men, the only way for women to be saved would be for them to marry men who are sons of God.”
Does anyone know what Russell Moore really meant by what he said?
I agree with Cynthia that this looks like what he is saying but I would find it odd that no one is holding him accountable for making such an unbiblical statement? Again, where are the pastors who hold each other accountable for what they teach? I would think that years and years in seminary would allow for someone to spot the error in Moore’s statement right away.
Here is just one verse that would kill his statement in a heartbeat:
“2 Cor. 6:17-18
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you,
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.”
Do you see that? We will be His sons AND DAUGHTERS!!! I guess God does recognize females as His daughters and gives them an equal inheritance with their brothers? Just like righteous Job did.
Also, where the Bible tells us that He will adopt us and make us “sons” it is speaking of adopting us as children or offspring. It does not specifically mean that we will all be male children.
Eph 1:5 says this in the KJV:
“Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will”
The word for children is huiothesia, a feminine noun, which simply means “adoption”.
Where is this so-called “sonship” in this verse?
In Gal 4:5-6 the meaning of sons goes back to v. 3 where it talks about children. The word sons is not being used in the restrictive sense of “males” but in the wider sense of children/offspring. The word is “huios”, a masculine noun, and it means children/offspring or male children depending upon the context. Obviously, from the context and the whole counsel of scripture we should be taking “huios” to mean children- both male and female and not just male children.
That should be clear from the text.
No where does it say that we receive “sonship” as opposed to sonhood or daughterhood. That is something that was made up because I can’t find any support from it from scripture.
In Phil 2:5 it says “sons” but it is the word “teknon” (neuter noun) which means offspring or children.
“That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;”
The reference to sons in 1 John 3:1 is again the word “teknon” which means children or offspring.
“Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.”
Sometimes I feel like I am not even reading the same Bible as some of these people read.
Again, I ask, just what was he truly saying and what significance does he think his assertion means to men and women?
A lot of this does sound like Mormon teaching. It used to be that a woman wasn’t even allowed in the Mormon temple until the day of her wedding. She didn’t step foot in it before she was married.
Interesting, huh?
December 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm
“Again, where are the pastors who hold each other accountable for what they teach? I would think that years and years in seminary would allow for someone to spot the error in Moore’s statement right away.”
At the seminary where Moore teaches, no one would DARE disagree openly if they want to keep their job. Moore reflects the beliefs of the President and other high positions there. That is why they have those positions.
December 21, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Lin,
In reference to comment #175:
“The word ‘Prophesy’ here signifies to teach and proclaim the great truths of God, especially those which concerned redemption by Jesus Christ.
Exciting, huh? It was counter culture at the time, to say the least. It must have infuriated the Jewish leaders to hear Peter quote this from Joel.
So, teach the gospel all you want to anyone who will listen…male or female! It is ok, God said so.”
Exciting indeed! It’s my passion and am grieved when I meet with women who only want to talk about what types of food they feed to their families, how their childbirths have gone, etc., and I’d rather be talking about all the wonderful facets of the Gospel and how it’s changed my life, or how I want to help others see the Truth (who is Jesus) of scripture.
On another note regarding Patriarchal teaching:
I’ve also got a copy of Philip Lancaster’s book, “Family Man Family Leader” at our house (bought at my church’s book table) and had to slam it shut in disgust at what I read there about men’s authority, referring to how a woman should respond to a man other than her husband,
“..This does not mean that my wife must submit to you because you are a man: you are not her head and have no authority over her. However, she should practice a womanly deference and respect for you because you are a man. In God’s chain of authority, men outrank women, and so a woman owes any man a measure of deference to his rank even though he is not in authority over her.“ page 281
This book is full of opinions on the husband/father as being Prophet, Priest and King of his family, but no scripture to actually point out the man’s EXCLUSIVE role in being those things. It also addresses in a confusing part where he skims over the teaching of 1 Cor. 11:7 that describes “man as the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of the man.” He doesn’t explain it clearly and he also doesn’t apply how that relates to us now as believers. Lancaster basically makes a brief reference to females also being included in the priesthood of believers, but the husband/father has SPECIAL priesthood on behalf of his family. That book is full of fear-based teaching and doesn’t fairly treat the position of women in Christ — the only position that matters, in my belief. The book has a copyright of 2003, so it looks like they all sort of learn from each other and repackage their teachings in various forms, such as the Botkins books, McDonald’/Chancey books, etc.
In my own personal walk with Christ, I’ve been the evangelist of the family and even have shared some doctrinal truths with my husband that he wasn’t aware of. How does that gel with the teaching of total spiritual leadership of the man?
December 22, 2007 at 8:58 am
“In God’s chain of authority, men outrank women, ”
Oh, wow! LOL!!
Kate, thanks for that quote. I can understand why you might have slammed the book shut!
Men outrank women.
I think that about says it all. Close up the thread. No discussion.
ALL men outrank ALL women . And the scripture verse for that would be???????
After all, it is all about who ranks the highest in the kingdom of God.
Shouldn’t we show deference to all people in like manner just because the Bible tells us to consider others better than our own selves?
The translation to considering others better than your own self is this:
Everyone else OUT RANKS YOU regardless of gender. So, YOU must show deference to others regardless of gender. Men and women both must be shown deference because human beings are made in the image of God.
I would like to know how Lancaster thinks that this deference doesn’t go both ways. Or, on second thought, maybe I don’t.
I am ready to take a break from the toxic waste dump extra-biblical teachings called patriarchy.
December 22, 2007 at 9:03 am
Kate,
You make another good point.
The husband is never called the prophet, priest and king of his wife.
In fact, the Bible doesn’t even hint at this.
The Bible DOES say that ALL believers are part of the royal priesthood and that we are ministers one to another.
The Bible DOES say that the believing wife sanctifies the unbelieving husband and vice versa.
The Bible DOES say that we are all to encourage one another with God’s word.
The Bible DOES say that believers are given the Holy Spirit and are to be filled with the Spirit but it never says that male believers have an extra portion of Holy Spirit.
If people are really honest they would have to admit that the marital relationship is a two-way street when both are believers. Both are priests one to another. And we no longer need a high priest because Jesus is our High Priest.
December 22, 2007 at 11:45 am
““..This does not mean that my wife must submit to you because you are a man: you are not her head and have no authority over her. However, she should practice a womanly deference and respect for you because you are a man. In God’s chain of authority, men outrank women, and so a woman owes any man a measure of deference to his rank even though he is not in authority over her.“ page 281″
Kate, thank you for posting that quote. And to think there was a point when we nearly had Phil Lancaster as a pastor…..I am cringing.
You know, that is the first time I have heard those exact words from a man in the patriocentric camps but it certainly IS the attitude I have picked up on. I can remember meeting a young man who was about the age of my oldest sons. His entire demeanor said “I don’t have the time of day to speak with you because I am a man and you are a woman.” Don’t these guys get it, that we are ALL brothers and sisters, joint heirs with Christ? Just think what so many people are missing by having these views of each other within the kingdom! Will we not be held accountable one day for not being willing to treat each one better than the other?
December 22, 2007 at 11:46 am
This prophet, priest, and king of the home idea goes back before Phil Lancaster but I don’t know the source of that teaching. Did Elisabeth Elliot ever teach this? Does anyone know where it originated?
December 22, 2007 at 11:52 am
“It’s my passion and am grieved when I meet with women who only want to talk about what types of food they feed to their families, how their childbirths have gone, etc., and I’d rather be talking about all the wonderful facets of the Gospel and how it’s changed my life, or how I want to help others see the Truth (who is Jesus) of scripture.”
Kate, I really can relate to this. I LOVE being a homemaker, taking care of my family, decorating, schooling, baking, cooking, etc. BUT, there is so much more to who I am. I love to read and study and research. And I love to bounce ideas off of people and learn from them and what they have studied. I love to share what the Lord has been showing me. I can remember being in patriocentric churches where the women put on a good potluck dinner and cleaned up while the men talked theology across the room. Then the women sat together (when they weren’t chasing babies and changing diapers) and talked about homeschool curriculum and recipes etc. My husband would often suggest that the men include the women in the discussion and we know that was irritating and frowned upon. Where is the biblical precedence for this pattern? I see women learning from Jesus all the time and also sharing the truths they learned with others. But where did this view originate?
December 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm
thatmom wrote: This prophet, priest, and king of the home idea goes back before Phil Lancaster but I don’t know the source of that teaching. Did Elisabeth Elliot ever teach this? Does anyone know where it originated?
I think that it came from BM Palmer and others from out of the Victorian/Antebellum period. I posted a partial quote from this section of the book (because it goes on with lots of rhetoric). This is why I think it came from Confederate Presbyterians and is not original to these modern patriarch fellows…
I posted more in comment #197 but here’s a portion of the section that talks specifically and at great length about kings and priest and prophet as the man’s station in family:
“It was the joint worship of himself, and of her who was the partner of his being, offered officialy by him for her, of the conjugal union from which Family should spring: an organic worship, in which were represented the countless tribes into which the Family should spread, to the end of time. By the force of his position, as the root and representative of all his offspring, he was constituted the prophet, priest and king of that religious empire….it had been his high office, as prophet, to teach the doctrines of natural religion to his descendants…. (pg 199)
Palmer calls worship of God within the family unit a type of “natural religion” which preceded special revelation. Family has it’s own quality of natural religion about it and serves as a type of building block used by God. Family (and family worship) is a building block used in the structuring of “special revelation” — like one of the bricks in the structure of the Gospel, if you will.
December 22, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Again, I did not properly reference this quote. It is from Benjamin Morgan Palmer, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church in New Orleans, 1876.
The Family in Its Civil and Churchly Aspects: An Essay, in Two Parts (Hardcover)
Republished by Sprinkle Publications (Lloyd Sprinkle is a League of the South supporter and has also republished the works of RL Dabney. Doug Phillips infers that they are acquainted in the dedication section of his booklet on Dabney although it should be noted that Phillips does not include any quotes concerning race or slavery in that booklet.)
I bought it from Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0873779339
December 22, 2007 at 3:24 pm
Note: Palmer goes on to discuss prophet, priest and king of the “religious empire” of family. He discusses each aspect in detail but it just says what I find to be flower rhetoric, otherwise I would have transcribed a bit more of it. It doesn’t really say anything, just like Lancaster doesn’t really say anything that means anything. I find it all to be much like listening to one of Bill Clinton’s political speeches. He says stuff, but it doesn’t really hold together for me and seems too full of inference and indirect references that dont appear to me to be related.
If anyone is really interested in this stuff, I can work on some stuff and put it on my website. email me if this is of great interest.
It just seems to me that these guys took this book and others like it and revamped their esoteric ideas for modern day consumption. All the basic elements are there — even some implication of the multi-generational faithfulness is there in the form of this natural religion stuff which smacks of the fascination with Adam as an ideal example of mankind, federal (covenant) representative and such. It’s like the folk religion of Adam and family under “general revelation”.
I have trouble getting through Lancaster, but I have not found where he references BM Palmer. Eric Wallace in “Uniting Church and Home” does reference him which is how I found the reference to Palmer.
December 22, 2007 at 3:45 pm
“It’s my passion and am grieved when I meet with women who only want to talk about what types of food they feed to their families, how their childbirths have gone, etc., and I’d rather be talking about all the wonderful facets of the Gospel and how it’s changed my life, or how I want to help others see the Truth (who is Jesus) of scripture.”
Just a reminder, though. . . sometimes when we are in the nitty-gritty trenches of mothering–especially when infants and toddlers make the bulk of the children in the family–sometimes our energies only allow us to focus on discussing what is immediate. While I was learning and growing while my children were very little, my energy level was such that discussing theology? Ha! Totally beyond where I could focus at the moment. It was relaxing and encouraging to talk to women about birth and toddlers and homemaking. But talking about other matters? I could listen, but really it was too tiring to contribute.
I believe it is important to not imply that women who are only talking about babies and birthing are only THINKING about those things. I believe it is important not to disdain the immediate and practical discussions that many of us as mothers need when we’re knee-deep in toddlers.
December 22, 2007 at 5:16 pm
“However, she should practice a womanly deference and respect for you because you are a man. In God’s chain of authority, men outrank women, and so a woman owes any man a measure of deference to his rank even though he is not in authority over her.“ page 281″
Mormons teach this and I can remember how the media could not understand why Elizabeth Smart did not escape sooner when she had so many opportunities. Her captor used the teachings of her church to keep her in submission. Ironically, it was the other woman who urged her to escape.
Can anyone see the danger in this teaching from just a physical safety view?
December 23, 2007 at 4:37 am
In God’s chain of authority, men outrank women, and so a woman owes any man a measure of deference to his rank even though he is not in authority over her.
-Has this man read his Bible? Jesus often broke up his disciples’ arguments about who would be the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven- he said to Peter- “If I want John to remain alive until i return, what’s that to you?”
What about “many who are last shall be first, many who are first shall be last?”
Jesus wasn’t big on chains of authority. What Jesus preached about- and preached AGAINST- was this kind of hypocrisy. Ultimately- if we look at the perspective of eternity- only one person is in charge- God.
Also, ultimately, I believe at judgment day, God’s not going to say, “So, Helen, you played with video games instead of Barbie dolls. Guess I’ll have to send you you know where.”
No, I hope to hear “Well done, good and faithful servant. When I was hungry, you fed me. When I was thirsty, you gave me drink…”
Where does it say only men can feed the hungry, give to the needy? What about women like Corrie ten Boom, who preached the Gospel and held onto her faith in God during her suffering in a concentration camp? Mother Teresa? I’m certain those women are in Heaven now- if only I had as much forgiveness as they did
Sorry, Amazon-like rant over
Anyway, Lin, yes, you are right. Lancaster’s teaching DOES remind me of Mormonism. Also, the teaching of men being gods only applies to males. Women can only become ‘goddesses’ with the approval of their husbands. (Hmmm- that wouldn’t be much of being a goddess, now would it? ) And only if they’re ‘sealed’ in the Mormon Temple. They also teach women will be eternally pregnant, bearing spirit offspring. I’m not certain, but I also believe Mormonism teaches that non-whites don’t have souls? Please correct me if that’s false.
December 23, 2007 at 4:46 am
I find this consistent as well through the symbolism and implication of the Lord’s supper/Communion practices observed in many FIC churches. Hypothetically speaking, a husband were out of town and a mother went to church in his absence, it would be perfectly acceptable for their 3 year old son to dipsense or administer the host to his mother. It would not be permitted (in some FICs and not all) for the woman to reach for the host herself because of her gender and the implied message that she requires an intermediate. It is the role of the male who assumes responsibility for the woman who is in attendance without her “covering” to make the judgement as to whether the woman is worthy of partaking and may withold the host in judgement. So not only does this apply that the woman is a lesser being than a man, she is also of lesser moral integrity than even her three year old son.
-This sounds like a tenet of Confucianism to me- that is, the tenet of “The Three Obediences”- that a woman obey first her father, than her husband, than, as a widow, her oldest son! In fact, that’s what the whole movement reminded me of- keeping a woman a child!
Obeying your father is a commandment- but so is obeying your mother. But having to obey your son is a direct reversal. Think of the chaos that would lead to within the family!
December 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Lady Helen, you bring up a good point and I think this is a total inconsistency between what they say and what they do. They say that they believe that men and women are equal and that wives are subordinate only to their husbands and the elders of their church. Okay, I agree, although I would add the government in there as well. However, when it comes to what they practice, it seems to be a different story.
The very fact that a woman cannot receive communion if it isn’t handed to her by a male (whether husband, father, brother or son) is proof positive that they, in fact, believe something very different than what they say.
They take their argument all the way back to Creation, but they fail to understand that woman was created for man in the context of marriage, not in a general context. It is not the role of a daughter to be a helper to her father any more or less than it is a son’s role to be a helper to his father.
I can only be one man’s helper and that is the man to whom I am married. If we’re talking about the helper role, than I guess I’d better never suggest that anyone read my pastor’s books because he makes money off of those sales and if I help him make money then I’m his working as his helpmeet.
It gets ridiculous, after a while.
I watched Return of the Daughters last night (thank you, thatmom!!!). I have loads to say, but I want to watch it with my husband and take notes. I’ll put a review up on my blog and link to it here, if anyone is interested.
Have a blessed Lord’s Day, Ladies!!
December 23, 2007 at 10:27 pm
“They say that they believe that men and women are equal and that wives are subordinate only to their husbands and the elders of their church.”
The Baylys don’t even say that. They say that the subordination of women to men doesn’t stop at the home and church, but extends to all of society.
December 23, 2007 at 10:35 pm
““..This does not mean that my wife must submit to you because you are a man: you are not her head and have no authority over her. However, she should practice a womanly deference and respect for you because you are a man. In God’s chain of authority, men outrank women, and so a woman owes any man a measure of deference to his rank even though he is not in authority over her.“ page 281″
I just read this to my husband and he had the same EXACT thoughts I did: We should ALL have a deference and respect for EVERYONE ELSE as brothers and sisters, NOT just women to men.
The Apostle Paul made no distinction in the sexes when he CONTINUALLY instructed us how to interact with ONE ANOTHER (*wink, wink*, thatmom!)
December 23, 2007 at 10:40 pm
The Baylys don’t even say that. They say that the subordination of women to men doesn’t stop at the home and church, but extends to all of society.
-That infuriates me. I’m sorry, but I just can’t be the sweet, submissive kind of woman they idealise. I can’t. My determination and fire is part of WHO I AM- and there’s no reason that I can’t use that to channel it into a desire to proclaim the Gospel and help other people who’ve been in my position(struggles with eating disorders and severe depression.) My greatest testimony is that I’m alive, and faith in Jesus Christ KEPT me alive. I guarantee you, had I been a member of any other religion, I’d have killed myself, probably assuming I’d just pay for my bad karma in my next life, or that there was nothing after death.
But I remembered God has a plan for me. Why do I keep that silent? I shouldn’t. Think of the seeds that would not be sown! Think of the harvest that could be lost. I don’t know how much I’m doing when I tell my testimony to my friends-that’s up to God. But I’m not going to let these people shut me up. Having this kind of personality isn’t a sin in and of itself- look at Paul who used that to proclaim the Gospel!- it’s who you choose to serve with it.
December 24, 2007 at 12:11 am
I said:
The Baylys don’t even say that. They say that the subordination of women to men doesn’t stop at the home and church, but extends to all of society.
Here is an entry that explains their view:
http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/04/what_is_feminis.html
Ironically, a great number of those who call themselves “complementarian” join the feminists in denying any application of Scripture’s doctrine of sexuality outside explicitly Christian contexts. Many who call themselves “complementarian” claim to hold to male authority in the Church and home, but deny any connection between sex and authority in the secular worlds of law, politics, the military, and business.
This is the halfway covenant that confuses many of good conscience.
It is good that these souls still accept the order of the sexes in the home and church, but they are on a collision course with themselves, biblically. Scripture is clear that the order of the sexes is a product of God’s creation, not the Fall. So it’s binding on all men and women through all time. That means it’s no private revelation to Christians or Jews and Christians. Just as Adam being given Eve (not Steve) demonstrates that heterosexuality is universally binding on all men and women through all time, so God’s creating Adam first, and then Eve, demonstrates that patriarchy (or whatever you want to call it I sometimes call it “father-rule”) is universally binding on all men and women through all time.
Down through history, there has never been a matriarchal culture. Never. In other words, man has followed God’s order of the sexes all through history until, that is, the past couple of decades. But even now, women leaders in the secular world are the exception, not the rule. Those exceptions, though, are part of God’s judgment:
The expression of their faces bears witness against them, And they display their sin like Sodom; They do not even conceal it. Woe to them! For they have brought evil on themselves. Say to the righteous that it will go well with them, For they will eat the fruit of their actions. Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray And confuse the direction of your paths. The LORD arises to contend, And stands to judge the people. (Isaiah 3:9-13)
December 24, 2007 at 4:43 am
Is there something wrong with me if I dislike the idea of either gender ruling over the other? It just doesn’t make sense to me that God would approve of patriarchy OR matriarchy- both ways seem evil-(there have been, by the way, indigineous matriarchal cultures in the Americas- but they didn’t keep written records.)
It just doesn’t make sense that God would approve of customs like female genital mutilation, dowries, killing off girl babies at birth, and husbands having the power of life and death over their wives, s well as the double standard that a man can have as many sexual partners as he wants, but if a woman has one other partner, she could be killed- literally! It’s a sin for BOTH partners! I just don’t view patriarchy as God’s will, but rather, as a result of the curse.
December 24, 2007 at 4:47 am
Lynn, I’m sorry- I thought you were the one that wrote that- I should’t write blog posts when my insomnia is tormenting me…. Sometimes I wish God hadn’t created us with a need to sleep…
Nonetheless, I stand by what I’ve said- I can’t imagine the God I worship condoning the massacre of infant girls in the name of patriarchy
December 24, 2007 at 4:56 am
You know I probably should have posted the announcement in this thread, since you are all familiar names.
OK well here is my announcement I won’t repeat the details but…
part 6 of defense against patriarchy is finally done.
December 24, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Good moring and Happy Christmas Eve to all.
(I thought that I had an extra day before the Holy day, somehow. ??? Big surprise.) I just realized it (despite looking at a calendar all along) that today is not tomorrow.)
Anyway, It seems that CD host has come back from sabbatical from these discussions, continuing his next section on his review of patriarchy. What I’ve read of it is excellent and more meaningful to me personally, I guess because it catches up to periods in history in which I am more interested.
Definitely go and read it, but if you get overwhelmed (it’s dense with history, some of which I cannot yet process fully and properly), JUMP DOWN to the comments section. I posted a quote there from a book that I have not yet decided is a secular work that comes from a Libertarian Left or a Libertarian Right perspective, so that should be noted. Here is some of what I just posted in that comment:
http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2007/12/defense-against-patriarchy-part-6.html
I have to re-read that section about the conservative reaction to Wollstonecraft’s writing, something you identify as a “key point in terms of refuting the patriarchal position” and the church’s reaction to women’s rights. I’m new to the thought of looking back that far as a root to some of the patriarchal thought.
…..
In an attempt to get a larger perspective of things, I’ve started reading a book most in the Christian Right would consider scandalous: “Right Wing Populism in America” by Berlet and Lyons.
In there, the authors write the following, and I wonder how this also plays into what you’re stating in the section of your “Part 6.” Those who are masticating on the modern concept of how men could view women as ontologically subordinate beings to whom “huiothesian” (adoption as sons – a singular accusative feminine term in Greek) does NOT apply as found in Ephesians 1:5. As Eph 5 is not divorced from the first chapter, Russell Moore argues that Eph 5:25-27 represents something more mysterious — a statement that I find to suggest an argument for a male demigod. It’s all like some gnostic hidden knowledge that no one has been able to figure out until now, something Moore actually says in the talk. (Statement of Russell Moore, dean of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in CBMW “Different by Design” conference, MN in Feb07.)
Anyway, here is something also reflective of the patriarchal argument that troubles the living daylights out of me (from Berlet and Lyons). I have not decided whether I want to believe it.:
pg 24-25:
Today it is widely acknowledged that the leaders of teh American Revolution excluded women, Black people and the American Indians when they declared that “all men are created equal.” Many patriots at the time embraced this contradiction, treating human rights as a limited commodity that only be enjoyed by a select group if others were excluded and subordinated. In this view, as Joan Gunderson has commented, “Independence was a condition arrived at by exclusion….by not being dependent or enslaved.” Thus a male head of the household was independent by contrast with his dependent wife and children, thus White patriot writers expressed outrage that Britain had reduced them to “slavery” — on the grounds that slavery was only intended for Blacks.
Our description of the Revolution as a repressive populist movement focuses on two points. First, by equating tyranny with the British crown, the struggle for US independence promoted a form of antielite scapegoating that delflected discontent away from inequities within colonial society. Second, the drive for independence was also a drive to expand and intensify the system of White supremacy. People of color were not simply “left out” of the Revolution — they were among its major targets.
Is this accurate, I ask myself, wondering how the modern, patriarchalists and “Christian Nationalists” would respond?
I’ve got all kinds of bells and whistles going off because of recent events and posts on my blog about this, but I am considering, for the very first time, that our founding fathers argued that equality did not extend to women at all. I’ve never believed this, nor have I been taught by anyone who did believe this.
I find this sickening. The CBMW crowd would say that I am sick because I’m convicted by my own “feminist sin” and that God is greater than my heart (quote from I John 1), subjective proof of my own fallenness. I disagree! I’m sickened by the INAPPROPRIATE intermingling of patriotism and religion (not that all or a great deal is an evil). I claim the postion of Mark Noll who sites also that the American Revolution was not an ethically innocent enterprise that, at times, wrongfully misrepresented Christian religious fervor with patriotic fervor, all wrapped up in what was then a conveinent bundle. Today, that is not the case and is the source of many woes in both the Church and in America. (Again, I am not arguing for “separation of church and state” but against the logical fallacy of confusing one for the other.)
So, as I try to understand the global picture of this dilemma — a major motivator is my understanding of the TRUTH for my own personal Christian conduct –
I can’t help wondering how all these different threads interweave, considering that they all occured in the belly of history at about the same general time. ….The common theme being “Who is woman?” in light of Scripture, according to the Church and – now for me – according to our founding fathers in the US at the time of the American Revolution. The question to next consider is “Who is right?”
You may get to that, but I just couldn’t process anymore because of all the different players and implications here. For me, it is suddenly like a ball of thread to untangle before I can knit it all into something meaningful.
December 25, 2007 at 3:20 am
Just a quick note for everyone here to tell you that my one star review of Passionate Housewives and Cindy’s one star review have been removed from the Amazon site. Any thoughts?
December 25, 2007 at 3:29 am
They don’t want any bad publicity? Someone might read what the two of you wrote and not buy the book? Stacy needs to pay for her kitchen and “frilly” aprons for her boys to wear somehow, and you are costing her money? Her husband threatened Amazon with a lawsuit if they did not remove them?
I have no idea, I can only guess. I am sorry to hear that they were removed though!! Can you write Amazon and complain. Who has the authority to remove them? That is really insane. Author’s receive negative reviews all the time and they are not removed.
December 25, 2007 at 4:20 am
They removed mine as well- I write as Re4mdmom. I am beyond angry. Amazon sure as heck had better give me an explanation. As of right now, i will not be making any purchases from them until I get an explanation. I sure hope the authors are not responsible.
December 25, 2007 at 4:43 am
I just went and checked, all 5 star reviews except for one 4 star. This is just wrong on so many levels. I am furious, and I never wrote a review!
December 25, 2007 at 4:50 am
Here are Amazon’s guidelines for removing reviews:
Can Amazon.com customer reviews be removed?
In certain cases, yes. A customer review should focus on specific features of an item and the customer’s experience with it. The best reviews include not only whether they liked or disliked an item, but also why. Customers are free to mention related items and how a particular item rates in comparison.
What’s not allowed:
* Commenting on other reviews visible on the page. (Other reviews and their position on the page are subject to change without notice.)
* Profanity, obscenities, or spiteful remarks.
* Single-word reviews.
* Phone numbers, mail addresses, URLs.
* Availability, price, or alternative ordering/shipping information.
* Solicitations for helpful votes.
* A review is not an appropriate place to tell us our catalog has typos in it. If we need to be notified of a specific problem, please send an e-mail to your buyer.
Any review in violation of these guidelines is subject to removal.
My review did say that I felt the book was overpriced but that’s a pretty paltry reason for removing it.
December 25, 2007 at 4:59 am
Merry Christmas, Everyone!
Carol, I can’t believe that your review was removed. The comments following the review section contained documentation that was really quite harmful to the authors of the book. I cut and pasted Stacy’s “Cat in the Hat” nastiness there. There were Stacy’s and Jennie’s own quotes from the book…
You only intimidate the weak! Ha, ha, ha. In it’s own way, it’s really quite satisfying to realize how effective the reviews really were. And these are the Theonomists we’re supposed to elect into office? The Vision Forum Ministry of Information?
Well, when I called Amazon to see what was going on with things after my first review disappeared, as per Amazon’s written policy, they can do absolutely anything they want with their own website. They have guidelines that state that, essentially, you are not permitted to be abusive. So if they get complaints, they have the perrogative to do whatever it is they choose without notice.
So I suppose that if the author calls to complain, it’s not worth Amazon’s time to be to concerned about it.
I’m reminded of a Scripture. Think of sin as what the word means “missing the mark” and consider the many inconsistencies therein.
Proverbs 28:12-14
12 When righteous men do rejoice, there is great glory: but when the wicked rise, a man is hidden.
13 He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.
14 Happy is the man that feareth alway: but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief.
They can cover and hide all that they want. We are called to be transparent people and a living epistle to be known and read of all men. They can’t even stand to read a book review.
Lin posted Jennie’s statement that appeared on Amazon’s webpage for the book earlier this week. It essentially said that they don’t profess the things that we documented in the review section (save for Carol who may have been abusive by virtue of the fact that she mentioned the price of the book –when last I looked was 14 and change). They can spin it all however they like.
These reformed folks need to get out the basics and re-read them. God’s got everything worked out and reigns in providence over His creation. The “heathen may rage and the people imagine a vain thing” but “He that sitteth in the heaven laughs and has His enemies in derision.”
They are showing their true colors. They can hide and hide and hide all the evidence that they want. God is still God, and their “misses” continue to accumulate. It’s just a matter of time before it all catches up to them. If not here, then in the life to come.
But ye have not so learned Christ. Hallelujah!
December 25, 2007 at 4:59 am
anne, I noticed that too. It certainly looks as though the authors might have something to do with it. Were it just the one-star reviews, I might be less suspect, but my review was pretty innocuous. I just didn’t like the book and said so. The one-stars were particularly biting (and right on the money), but MINE?
December 25, 2007 at 5:04 am
Cindy, just a quick note- not all Reformed believers think like them. Most of us are not theonomists. In fact, I’ve been attending my Reformed church for nearly ten years and have yet to meet a one. In fact, most of us don’t hold to their tenets and pretty much laugh at their ridiculousness and shoddy theology. Vision Forum / Doug Phillips is NOT Reformed. If the McDonalds are Presbyterian, then they are, but if they are theonomists, they would be in the minority.
December 25, 2007 at 5:08 am
I just said in fact twice. Sorry, I’m coming off a massive sugar high… LOL
December 25, 2007 at 5:11 am
You know, I am not going to say anything right now because of what I want to say about Stacey and Jennie. I am so furious words cannot describe how I am feeling. I do know that my opinions of them hit an all time low.
December 25, 2007 at 5:12 am
If they had anything to do with the removal of those reviews, I am right there with you, anne.
December 25, 2007 at 6:53 am
Well, Merry Christmas, Ladies.
What I had copied from the Amazon site is now posted on my website at http://www.UnderMuchGrace.com
(Under the subtitle in the vertical Navigation Bar under the Heading
“Passionate Housewives Desperate to Eradicate Criticism”)
Cally, if you have a copy of your review, I am happy to post it.
I don’t have all the commentary, but what I had I posted online.
Cally,
The Vision Forum leadership claims to be Reformed (Independent Baptist) and claim affiliation with Theonomy. They posted Bahnsen’s statement of hermeneutics (which they do not follow in practice but probably believe that they do in theory).
I wish that they’d post an apologetic about how they believe it is appropriate to steal other people’s intelllectual property (and real property concerning the allosaur) if they deem it right for the Kingdom of God. Rahab’s Lie and all…
Rousas J. Rushdoony, if such a thing were possible, would be spinning like an out of control pinwheel in his grave….
Oh yeah. I wish VF would post their apologetic for how they are permitted to treat fellow Christians (in the general sense regardless of how offended VF is by their lifestyles) whom they believe are outside of their camp.
I attempted to ask James McDonald, but it resulted in his extraction of all the controversial material that would make him look bad, he posted a completely different response on line, then sent me an email privately. He did at least claim that we were brethern. I wonder how he feels now after my recent online posts?
Anyway, I asked for him to post guidelines as to how he believes or how VF believes they can respond to critics that are Christian. Perhaps Doug threatened to sue Amazon since that seems to be his MO? He cant very well report them to their elders, so what would be the next step? I would like for them to deliniate everything specifically. You know, how to deal with Christians. How to deal with Christian gossips and WWFs. How they determine whether or not Christians really are Christians with Biblical support. How they are permitted Biblically to treat those who they deem wayward Christians?
Why don’t they just come out and declare who they really are? People need informed consent before they get tangled up with them.
December 25, 2007 at 6:58 am
Well, my work is dont for this very long day. I would have rather slept, but what I had copied from the Amazon page is available for the world to see. I just wish that I had the whole thing.
Merry Christmas.
In the words of Boyton from a 25 year old greeting card, “Don’t let the turkeys get you down!”
This is all going to catch up with them. I read the Book and that’s how this all ends.
Glory unto God alone!
Glory to Him in the Highest. Peace and goodwill toward men. (I just wonder sometimes if we are ever going to have peace and goodwil among us who call ourselves by the Messiah’s own Name? I’ve quit holding my breath.)
God bless us everyone, all of us who claim the Name of Jesus.
December 25, 2007 at 7:06 am
Duh.
Cally, I failed to note that I know that Calvinism, Dominionism, Dominion Theology, Reformed Theology and Theonomy are separate animals. I made the reference in such a way because of how Vision Forum leadership identifies and affiliates themselves.
That’s a huge part of the problem. As you say and I completely agree — they are a small portion of the fringe. But they are growing.
I wonder what the Vision Forum attrition rate is, if such a thing can be measured? I wonder what the job turnover is at VF/VFM? I would guess that it’s high. They probably send you packing if you act too upity or ask too many questions. Just a guess. I wonder things too, like how many people Doug Phillips had disciplined, stimulated discipline for in other local bodies and how many people he has turned away from BCA. I’ve received confidiential emails from a few people who did attend there who were told they would suffer and their families and churches would not prosper because of rejection of Phillips’ leadership.
The more I learn about VF and Phillips the more I wonder. And the more I wish that I had never learned.
December 25, 2007 at 7:09 am
Oh, Yeah..
The Duh was meant Duh for my own ommission in my first response, not for you pointing out the distinction that Theonomy is not synonymous with Reformed Theology and that Doug Phillips does not behave like one who ascribes to a Reformed faith.
It was my intial reason for responding, and I failed to state what I had intended.
Back to bed for me.
December 25, 2007 at 8:14 am
VF is a weird animal because they do claim to be Reformed and they use the Westminster Standards for their doctrinal statement, but they are Baptists. Well, then you’re not Reformed. Its as simple as that. Both the Westminster Standards and the Three Forms of Unity (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession and Canons of Dordt) make positive affirmations regarding paedobaptism.
Most theonomists I’ve encountered are rabid paedobaptists… another reason why DP is a strange bird…
To put it another way- all Reformed are Calvinists, but not all Calvinists are Reformed.
I know these distinctions will drive some posters on this board crazy and I apologize. Can’t we just be Christians? Well, of course we can, but here’s why I’m passionate about it – I believe the Reformed doctrines of grace to be biblical. These distinctives seem to be lost within your average evangelical church these days and so I think the identification with these doctrines is important. For better or for worse, when I say I’m Reformed (hopefully) people know automatically where I stand regarding any number of issues- the Gospel, salvation, baptism, communion, ecclesiology, etc.
That’s why it frosts my cookies in a major way to be identified theologically with Doug Phillips. He’s not Reformed. He is a Calvinist. He is a Reconstructionist. I’m not sure how he can be a theonomist and keep his children out of the covenant by denying them baptism, but that’s probably not a post I want to be writing at 12:07 am, Christmas morning. And I really HATE when people think that most Reformed folks think the way Doug does and that is simply not true. I wouldn’t want anyone to be turned off to the doctrines of Grace because Doug Phillips might believe them too, KWIM? Kind of a throwing the baby out with the bathwater thing.
As for the turnover rate at VFM- I actually think its probably the opposite. After watching Return of the Daughters and the group-think that seems to exist, I sort of think they wouldn’t even hire someone who didn’t talk the talk very well. I’m sure they fire folks quickly who start to get “uppity” (LOVE the way you put that), but I think they probably go for the like minded men and women (but of course, the women don’t actually work for VF or they’d be suborning sin in those women…)
Okay, back to wrapping presents.
Happy Christmas Ladies!!
December 25, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Lots and lot of things to add to this recent discussion but won’t until tomorrow! Just wanted to drop in to tell you all Merry, Merry Christmas.
Last night we watched The Nativity and the beauty of the Gospel story and the wonder of God’s love for us overwhelmed me once again.
God could have chosen to come in the flesh as a priest or another very important man. He could have been a political leader or wealthy dictator. The religious leaders of that day expected as much.
Instead, God in His wisdom and sovereignty, came to earth in the simplest of ways, as a tiny, helpless baby, born to a young woman and a confused and struggling man. What blessed hope there is for us, that, though we are sinners and simple folk, Christ’s message of salvation is for you and me.
Have a blessed day!
December 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm
My Christmas Surprise….
http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/12/christmas-kiss-from-heaven.html
December 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm
Well, I heard back from Amazon. They said my comment was removed due to inappropriate language, edited, and reposted. Whatever. My post did not contain inappropriate language. They edited out where I said the book was too expensive and the printing shoddy. I guess that’s inappropriate. Lame.
December 25, 2007 at 7:26 pm
My goodness. Amazon loses credibility in this matter. Why should I trust the reviews of any book now when I know the authors can complain and have them edited? My guess is that the Patriarches formed a cabal to write and complain to Amazon and they reacted. However, I am going to complain, too that I can no longer trust ANY reviews on Amazon due to this. The one stars fit the guidelines…this is just nothing but censorship because the Pats cannot compete in the real marketplace of ideas.
I have lost tons of respect for Amazon.
December 25, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Interesting about the disappearance of reviews. That would explain why the one negative review of Mouser’s “Five Aspects of Woman” materials went “poof” awhile back, leaving only glowing reviews.
December 25, 2007 at 10:24 pm
What’s to stop you from posting a review again? If you are concerned about how unbiblical the book is, please don’t let the censors discourage you. Just keep posting new reviews as the old ones mysteriously disappear. Perhaps it will also send Amazon a message. Most of all, it will at least give exposure to your point of view for a period of time … the authors can’t prevent a review from appearing, even if they can get one taken down once it’s been up.
December 26, 2007 at 1:26 am
I’ve posted two reviews. They held one in moderation overnight but posted it. I’m not willing to put up another one.
Lin nailed it…. They cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.
December 26, 2007 at 3:56 am
“Just a quick note for everyone here to tell you that my one star review of Passionate Housewives and Cindy’s one star review have been removed from the Amazon site. Any thoughts?”
Perhaps someone in the HyperP movement has a lot of “pull” and was able to influence Amazon, in much the same way that HomeschoolBlogger was strongarmed into censoring my blog last year.
December 26, 2007 at 4:03 am
The next question is, just WHO in the movement has that kind of power and money, to push Amazon around? DeVos comes to mind, as do Howard Ahmenson and Scaife, and there are a number of other possibilities as well.
December 26, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Cynthia, my guess is that it really doesn’t have anything to do with who is powerful enough to push Amazon around. Rather, it probably has to do with them being a squeaky wheel and Amazon taking the path of least resistance. Rather than have to take the heat from the authors demanding reviews be removed, they just take them down. The answer to this, however, is to create heat from another direction, with as many of us as possible emailing Amazon complaining about it, asking to speak to a representative from their customer service center for a quote for our blogs about why they allow this to go on, etc.
December 26, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Just wanted to add, that while to you and me these HyperP’s may seem to hold too much influence, in the larger realm they really don’t. They are just a small group of people and most Americans perceive them as inconsequential lunatic fringe. Don’t imbue them with power they don’t have. That doesn’t make what they do harmless, and we need to speak the truth about who they are and they harm they do, but they aren’t the bogeyman, either.
December 26, 2007 at 2:13 pm
I agree about the path of least resistance idea offered by Light.
These guys are trying to sell books and are not dedicated to the forum of free thought and free, public exchange of ideas.
Consider also that patriarhcy likes to threaten legal action… That’s one of their big MOs. It does not benefit Amazon to have book reviews (with pages and pages of comments following) up there that people are willing to sue over.
There mission is to sell books and run a profitable business selling books to as many people as they can. All someone needs to do is say “lawsuit” or “libel” or “slander” and Amazon has no impetus to keep up a couple of reviews.
How many find it a hard stretch to believe that Vision Forum or agents thereof would not call and make such statements? They are more than willing to do this among Christians.
December 26, 2007 at 8:53 pm
I have written Amazon about this.
This of this in a big picture way. If they remove all bad reviews so easily because people complain… then what is the point of having reviews? Get rid of them altogether.
December 26, 2007 at 9:40 pm
If I had to bet my last cent on it, I would venture a guess that someone in the Passionate Housewives camp, got mad at the bad reviews, did a little research, posted our little conversation here with some “threats of legal action” if Amazon didn’t take them down, and Amazon did what most of corporate America does these days—they took the path of least resistance as someone said above.
The whole thing stinks. They have indeed lost credibility with me, and I’m one of those who read reviews quite frequently before purchasing a book.
December 26, 2007 at 10:43 pm
For lack of anything better to say- all that comes to my mind is what a bunch of immature jerks.
No puns intended, but if they hyperP’s can’t stand the heat, then stay out of the kitchen!
December 26, 2007 at 11:37 pm
That’s part of the Hyper-P camp, though. I mean, do you know of *any* of them who don’t moderate comments on their blogs? Free discussion is not allowed. Letting people have the right to think and to disagree is not allowed.
You will not find many hyper-P’s okay with diversity in discussion because the way of the theonomist is to bring all the world under the rule of their very authoritarian God and His black-and-white rulebook for Christian living. And that includes reviews on Amazon.
December 27, 2007 at 1:10 am
Concerning the disappearing Amazon reviews…
Don’t forget that there was a great deal of documentation contained in those comments following the reviews, detailing much of the authors’ own contradiction and equivocation.
At least it was available for the short period of time. I’m sure more than one person saw the reviews (in addition to the people that wrote to counter them). I received some emails from people when the reviews disappeared who wanted to know what happened to them — one who never even commented online, neither here nor on Amazon. So people were aware of them…
In the long run, I think that it looks worse for them when people find out that the critical reviews were deleted… It all may be part of the “give ‘em enough rope” and they’ll do all the destruction themselves in enough time. And that’s the thing to consider, too. God is at work and truth is at work here. I’m waiting with anticipation to see what tremendous things God will do with all of this.
December 27, 2007 at 2:17 am
I’m not sure if I mentioned this, but Amazon did repost my review, however edited. I post under “Re4mdmom” on Amazon.
December 27, 2007 at 3:30 am
That’s part of the Hyper-P camp, though. I mean, do you know of *any* of them who don’t moderate comments on their blogs? Free discussion is not allowed. Letting people have the right to think and to disagree is not allowed.
-All I can think of to answer that, then, is these people are in the wrong country. I wonder how they’d like it if they lived in a REAL dictatorship?
December 27, 2007 at 3:37 am
“All I can think of to answer that, then, is these people are in the wrong country. I wonder how they’d like it if they lived in a REAL dictatorship?”
As long as they WERE the dictators, they’d like it just fine, and if they weren’t running things, they’d scream “Persecution!” to high heaven.
My dad had a saying about people like that. He said that they were “like a dog — they can put it out but they can’t take it.”
I never did figure out what dogs had to do with it, and Dad didn’t tell me. But the rest of the saying does fit the HyperPs to a T.
December 27, 2007 at 3:54 am
I read Amazon reviews regularly, and check out both the positive and negative ones before making purchases. Often it’s the negative ones that convince me to buy the product!
December 27, 2007 at 4:11 am
Lindsey,
“If I had to bet my last cent on it, I would venture a guess that someone in the Passionate Housewives camp, got mad at the bad reviews, did a little research, posted our little conversation here with some “threats of legal action” if Amazon didn’t take them down, ”
Naahhh! They wouldn’t do that! You have quite the imagination.
December 27, 2007 at 5:01 am
A week ago, I got a phone call from the religion editor of the Peoria Journal Star, the local newspaper that has a huge (for this area) circulation. He is in the process of writing an article for the January 5th religion page on Stacy McDonald and Passionate Housewives. (My guess is that they or VF contacted the paper or sent a press release.) Anyway, this man read the Amazon reviews, saw my negative review, remembered my name because he had interviewed me a couple years ago about the mom’s retreat, and decided that he wanted to interview me for this article as well. So he called me, just two days after several of us discovered the picture of one of the founders of the Kinist Institute on their church site. We talked for about 30 minutes and he asked me questions that, I believe, in part, came from having already talked with Stacy. For example, he asked me if I had ever sat down and talked with her and I told him I had not. But I did tell him about her asking to do a podcast with me and that scenario, telling him about all the questions I had gathered from others and then asked her but that she had refused to answer them. He then said “well, she answered them on her blog didn’t she?” (where did he get that idea?) and I replied “no she didn’t.” Then I went on to tell him how many, myself included, have attempted to e-mail with her and have gotten either no answer or answers that didn’t really answer our questions. He asked me if I believe that women should submit to their husbands and if I believe that women should be keepers at home, etc. He really pushed me and at the end I felt that I had answered well, though who knows if he will use any of it or if he will write things in the context in which I put them. I am terrible at sound bites.
In the course of the whole thing, I tried to explain to him (nearly impossible!) that there are “layers” of teachings within the patriarchal movement, that you have to place this book in context because, otherwise, there are many things that you don’t “get” when you read them. When I mentioned some of the things Jennie has written, such as her opposition to women’s suffrage and her belief that a woman working outside the home blasphemes God’s name, he asked if I had any documentation which I said I did. So he asked me to send him any helpful links. So I did, including the links to some Kinist sites and the information about Chad Degenhart, telling him that Degenhart’s picture was included in the church family photo which had just appeared, two days earlier, on James’ blog. I felt that if he was writing an article about Stacy for the local newspaper and referenced their church (he has since told me he is writing an article about the church, too.) that it would be wrong for me to withhold that information. This man is a Christian and, I believe, should have been fully informed since the kinist theology certainly does reflect yet another facet of views on hierarchy.
So, he sends one of the paragraphs I wrote to him to James for a comment on his Kinist connections. Then, it becomes unclear to me what exactly happened. Somehow others ended up with that quote and are accusing me of contacting the press about Chad, putting his job in jeopardy, etc, even though I have tried to tell them what exactly happened. I believe in their zeal to get free publicity, no one ever thought that my Amazon review would be given the time of day by local media, who, wisely, had been doing their own research, as have many people I know of who, have been watching the relationships those in the patriarchy camps have maintained with Kinists and others with questionable behavior over the past few years. I think one of the reasons those reviews are now gone is that these people know that there are those who are credible critics and they don’t want anyone else contacting those of us who wrote those reviewers as they have already done.
I will put up links to the article, if and when it goes to press. Then, if there are “facts” that we know are inaccurate, anyone interested can leave a comment about those facts on the newspaper website and some of those might be used for print.
December 27, 2007 at 10:08 am
Karen,
This is an excellent example of how I’m apparently maligned for “contacting the press” according to James McDonald.
I believe it was a few months ago (I have the original email), I was contacted quite unexpectedly by a supposed reporter for the Wall Street Journal. (Frankly, if I were going to contact anyone, I’d have contacted the Hastings Society or some professional psychology group to investigate what I believe is dysfunctional family dynamics and emotional incest in Patriarchy…) I don’t think that I’ve ever read the Wall Street Journal in my life!
The email stated that the reporter was investigating church discipline and wondered if I would cooperate. I explained the basics as I understood them, mainly that these groups represent spiritually abusive systems that meet the criteria put forth by the social psychologicy literature and would be considered cultic because of their dynamics. I told her that no article would be complete without a comprehensive understanding, so I recommended reading “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” and “Take Back Your Life.” That is all to say that I don’t recognize what I deal with as a legitimate and true represenation of most Christian churches but an aberrant fringe. I included links to the websites of CD Host (Church Disicpline), Jennifer Epstein and that Ephesians511.wordpress.com site. I did explain the MO of attacking other people’s doctrine by the false application of Matthew 18 in an attempt to silence critics or deal with those whom patriarchy identifies as “competition.”
I heard nothing more about any of this as that reporter never made any attempt to contact me after that one and only email that I received. (And believe me, I get all kinds of emails from all kinds of people… All kinds of stuff that no one knows anything about…. Mostly people who have been terrorized by certain leaders in patriarchy with threats of legal action and more…) The only reference I’ve seen to this was from Jen Epstein in a now deleted article/post on her blog wherein she states that she even declined speaking to this reporter. (Actually, since I dicovered that I supposedly contacted the press, I asked someone who suggested that the Wall Street Journal may be trying to smear Huckabee and help the other Republican Presidential Candidates.) I painted this as a cultic group which really would not stick to Huckabee, so perhaps that’s why I never heard back from this reporter.
Anyway, I’ve received emails that have explained that James McDonald now accuses me of contacting the press. (Keep in mind that the only person that I know that did hear from the WSJ was Jennifer Epstein by her own comment on her blog — someone accused of having deep kinist ties.) I was asked point blank if this was true via email.
If James McDonald tells anyone that I have contacted the press, it is a LIE. I can quite easily prove that it is a LIE. The question is whether the lie came from his own special twist or whether it came from whoever told him about the Wall Street Journal? I contacted CD Host who was never contacted by the reporter about chuch discipline. I went to go to the eph 511 site and realized that there is no contact information dispayed on that website. But I do know by her own admission that Jennifer Epstein was contacted.
Also note that on Lynn’s website, she states that someone has requested that she take down links and other information from Lynn’s blog posts. Read about it in the comments. I have the emails that I received. Jen was contacted by the WSJ. James thinks he knows all about this reporter, so much so that he says that I contacted the reporter.
So my questions are these?
Is it Jennifer Epstein who now rallies on behalf of Chad Degenhart or is it someone else?
Is it Jennifer Epstein who now rallies on behalf of James McDonald?
Has Jen been a kinist all along, or is she just falling for the fallacy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” if she is associated with kinists?
Is Jen Epstein now in contact with James McDonald, since she is the only person who knew anything about the Wall Street Journal?
If that’s the case, is it Jen or James that cooked up the LIE that I contacted the press?
(Again, if I did contact anyone, it would be to convince those in patriarchy of the dangers of what I believe to be a church that appeals to family disfunction and perpetuates the generational effects of enmeshment and trauma that started long before patriarchy to protect young women from what I believe to be emotional incest.)
We are still left with the questions about the inconsistencies in James McDonald’s affiliations. As I noted on Lynn’s blog, is James burning the candle at both ends, perhaps pumping his kinist connection for info that he funnels back to Vision Forum, or is it the other way around? Or is James just catering to every different group like a chameleon like his wife does?
Stacy said on her Monstrous Women video clip online (time mark 2:10) that if a pregnant woman wears maternity clothes that she should not be surprised if people think she’s pregnant. If she dresses provocatively, then she should not be surprised if people think she’s “loose.” Well, if these people are gossiping and making up lies and are affiliated with “racialists,” then should any of them be surprised if people ask honest questions.
Now, it is perfectly fine if Christians want to believe that “racialism” is Biblical, but they better be able to face the music and give a ready defense. If public people like James McDonald want to have friendly long term relationships online (in public) with known kinists, then he should not have any kind of problem with it. If he’s ministering to kinists, then he should be proud of that too. But why all the secrecy? And why all the cries of persecution when people want to know exactly what he believes as a public figure who solicits donations for his ministries and publications? All he has to do is post a statement on kinism and have his denomination post a statement on kinism so that everyone knows where he stands and can treat him accordingly.
So Karen Campbell has been falsely accused of calling the press. I’ve been falsely accused of calling the press.
Why? Maybe someone should call the press to expose these liars and manipulators and these chameleon Christians to the world for what they are, marking them for the benefit of all.
If you’re a kinist, have the integrity to say so. If you’re not a kinist, come out and have the integrity to say so and hold kinists accountable for claiming the Name of Jesus Christ. Show your self-established denomination accountable and develop a position statement on kinism so that people know who they are dealing with without question. If you have a mission outreach for kinists or if you are a kinist yourself, please make that clear to the public and those who support you and to those who buy your family’s books. We are all to be open books, to be known and read of all men.
What’s the big secret?
December 27, 2007 at 10:49 am
Here’s evidence that I have not yet had my morning coffee.
I wrote: (Again, if I did contact anyone, it would be to convince those in patriarchy of the dangers of what I believe to be a church that appeals to family disfunction and perpetuates the generational effects of enmeshment and trauma that started long before patriarchy to protect young women from what I believe to be emotional incest.)
I believe that patriarchy uses family/children and religion in appropriately (much like an addict uses a drug) in order to meet unmet needs and to resolve or mitigate unresolved conflicts from the patriarchalists own childhoods.
I believe that the copious literature (trauma, addiction, recovery) on the subject demonstrates and defends my point, so this is not just some ignorant person shooting off their mouth using pejoratives to offend. I believe that this represents a terrible clinical pathology for many in the movement, especially for those who remain within the movement.
Incest is the using of a family member to meet an need in an inappropriate manner through inappropriately manipulating relationship. This runs rampant in patriarhcy on a non-sexual gender basis, as well as emotionally, physically and religiously.
Consider also that this theory of family dysfunction was developed in the latter half of the 20th century based on data, not on Jungian or on Freudian theory or evolutionary theory. It derives from observation and data collected from addicts and their families and was forumlated from study of the dynamics within that group.
December 27, 2007 at 11:03 am
Let me clarify.
If I had contacted the press, I would contact a professional source that could help demonstrate what I believe to be family dysfunction which poses a gender related problem for young women, based on the clinical type of men or fathers who are attracted into patriarchy. Anything I would have done would be directed at helping those young women get free of the dysfunctional patterns (that were the cause for attracting their parents into the system of patriarchy).
Like an addict uses drugs, I believe that many hurting people use patriarchy, the gender stuff and the religious performance and the authoritarianism like a drug which helps them avoid or dysfunctionally resolve the unresolved problems in their own past.
Incest is then the using of a family member in an inappropriate way to meet a need. This need not be sexual but can still be gender related. It can also be physical, emotional and religious. I don’t just throw the term out there as a pejorative but as a legitimate use of the term from the body of copious professional literature on the subject.
December 27, 2007 at 11:28 am
thatmom said: Then, it becomes unclear to me what exactly happened. Somehow others ended up with that quote and are accusing me of contacting the press about Chad, putting his job in jeopardy, etc, even though I have tried to tell them what exactly happened.
Karen,
Are you at liberty to say who accused you of contacting the press about Chad? I don’t get from what you’ve written here that you were contacted by either Chad or James McDonald. Was it Stacy? I completely understand if you are not at liberty to say anything, but from my perspective, it can be none other than Jen Epstein.
Am I way off base about my deep, nagging, sicknening unction that the accuser is Jen Epstein? I am willing to eat a ton of bitter crow if I’m wrong, so consider that I am so sure of it that I am willing to take the risk.
If Jennifer Epstein is a kinist, she needs to publicly own up to it because she has made herself a public figure. If there is any degree of truth to the charges that Vision Forum has leveled against her, she needs to be accountable to them because otherwise, it scandalizes all of those who have supported her. By concealing such information, she is hurting everyone who is trying to free themselves from the very tyranny she claims to rally against.
I’m not willing to apologize or repent of charges I’ve made against Vision Forum on other counts, but I am willing to concede that they may have been right in making that claim, given all that has transpired.
December 27, 2007 at 11:33 am
Matthew 10:27-28 (From a passage that I believe discusses spiritual abuse in the full context of the passage)
“Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops. And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
December 27, 2007 at 11:39 am
To any patriarchs out there,
Just so you’re aware, I reviewed everything with my husband before I posted any of this online. He said that I had a duty to declare the truth of the matter and expose the truth.
So for those who would like to email him and call him a liar again, save the effort. He’s well aware of all my activities.
December 27, 2007 at 11:45 am
Oh, forgot to make it blatantly clear…
What does all of this say about James McDonald? He’s got very loose lips.
Ah, could that be gossip? Maybe he ought to consult with his wife… Oh wait. I’ts not gossip if you give all the players the names of Dr. Seuss characters.
December 27, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“Is Jen Epstein now in contact with James McDonald, since she is the only person who knew anything about the Wall Street Journal?”
Cindy, there is a third (and perhaps a fourth) person who knew about it — the reporter who contacted you both, and whoever sent him to the two of you.
I really doubt that it was the Wall Street Journal.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the “reporter” business was a SETUP, to try and trap both you and Jennifer?
December 27, 2007 at 12:18 pm
I have considered that. There may have been no Wall Street Journal reporter at all. And trap me in what or for what?
The reporter was a woman, FYI using a WSJ email. That reporter works there.
I have considered that it may be a setup. A set up for what — telling the truth?????
Trap me into telling the truth????
Did you also fail to read that I am also stating this based on other information such as my own dealings with Jen? From other information that I’ve received?
I appreciate your comments, also aimed at revealing the truth, but I am not persuaded do doubt what I’ve asserted here at all. There is so much more that I could say here and cannot, but I am convicted enought and persuaded enough to make this bold assertion.
December 27, 2007 at 3:42 pm
“Often it’s the negative ones that convince me to buy the product!”
Me too. Ironic, huh?
December 27, 2007 at 4:41 pm
So I did, including the links to some Kinist sites and the information about Chad Degenhart, telling him that Degenhart’s picture was included in the church family photo which had just appeared, two days earlier, on James’ blog.
Karen, if I were you, I would also relate the issue of a kinist leader in association with the McDonalds to the Passionate Housewives book, but only in this manner:
Matt Chancey blasted Jen Epstein for her posting to Harry Seabrook’s site, and overall blasted her for associating with kinists.
Meanwhile, it is clear from information we have that James and Stacy McDonald associate with kinists.
It seems there is a gross double standard going on here with Matt Chancey.
Basically, it’s as though he allowed Jennie Chancey to co-author a book with Jen Epstein.
I see no difference. Matt Chancey’s site asks why Jen associates with those “who are among worst racial bigots on the Internet,” yet he allows his wife to write a book with those who, according to Matt’s own words, associate with those who are among the worst racial bigots on the internet.
So, in effect, it’s as though Jennie Chancey was allowed to co-author a book with Jen Epstein. There is no difference. Matt blasted Jen for her association with kinists, but he let his wife write a book with a woman whose husband has a long time association with a kinist, and Stacy does as well now, because this kinist goes to their church.
December 27, 2007 at 4:48 pm
“So, he sends one of the paragraphs I wrote to him to James for a comment on his Kinist connections. Then, it becomes unclear to me what exactly happened. Somehow others ended up with that quote and are accusing me of contacting the press”
Karen,
Since I know this situation, firsthand, I will attest to what you are saying is true.
The other problem with “others” is that they are taking issue with your use of the word ‘white supremicist” to describe his kinist beliefs. They claim that is loaded language and unfair. I have read a ton of kinist blogs and I know enough to know that kinists write things that would definitely make one think that the white race is superior and that other “races” are less evolved than whites (hence, the old earth position since that helps bolster their view on the supremacy of the white race). Reading Dabney’s own words on this issue, he certainly believed that the white race was superior since he described other races as “vile”. Seabrook’s blog, Little Geneva, contained many statements concerning other races being likened to “animals”.
http://spiritwaterblood.com/
His new blog gives one the impression that white people are superior to other races. (“Jew” is not a race, btw.)
Degenhart and Seabrook founded the Kinist Institute in 2005. One would think that they share the same views on much of this issue? Everything I have read written by kinists makes it seem as if the white race is superior. I can’t remember reading anything that asserts anything different. In fact, if I was black, I would very well get the impression that I am inferior to whites by reading kinist writings.
I am told that I am assuming too much in thinking that kinists generally believe the same thing. I am told that I am unable to make an informed opinion on an individual kinist’s beliefs based on their founding of a kinist foundation and the praise they receive from other kinists.
All I can say is that I wasn’t born yesterday and I am pretty good at addition.
Dabney:
” If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.”
What kinist doesn’t just love Dabney?
In my opinion, your language was not loaded or unfair and it accurately describes the beliefs of kinists. If these beliefs are good and right and we have the liberty in Christ to believe these things then what is the problem?
I happen to think that the Bible verses used to support kinism are misused and perverted to say things they do not say in order to bolster one’s own prejudices.
Kinists would like to form a state where only white people can live and any “race-mixing” would be punishable by law. I was just reading where some would actually exile a white woman raped by a black man if she were to get pregnant with her rapist’s child. Oh, but the woman isn’t to look at exile as a punishment. She needs to look at it as doing a favor to her white country, kind of like the leper that lives outside of the camp for the good of those in the camp.
In the words of the famous Church Lady:
“Isn’t that special?”
Kinists also want to send all Jews and Muslims back to the Middle East. That is where they belong, they say.
December 27, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“The xenophobics, the racists, those who feel they are a superior race…they are deciding the future of this nation,” says the former president of Mexico. Why didn’t someone tell me? Sounds like things are finally looking up.”
http://spiritwaterblood.com/index.php/116/
Looks like he agrees that whites are the superior race?
Read the rest of this entry and follow the links, please.
Calling Jews “Christ-killers” is not thinking that one is superior to them when scripture clearly tells us that we are all Christ-killers and that not one is righteous, no not one?
December 27, 2007 at 5:02 pm
“It seems there is a gross double standard going on here with Matt Chancey.”
Lynn,
Exactly! This isn’t “guilt by association” as some claim. This is pointing out the obvious. This is a lesson to those who refuse to stand up for right and cavort about with those who do wrong to others. It is a lesson to those who make it a practice to be dissembling and duplicitous. It will soon turn on you and the trap you set for others, you will fall headlong into.
In fact, Jen called upon James McDonald to hold Matt Chancey accountable for Mrs. Binoculars a while back on her blog. James stated to Jen, in a private email, that he was not close personal friends with Doug Phillips. Jen published that. Well, that embarrassed McDonald so Jen had to write a correction and tell her readers that McDonald was friends with Doug after all.
But, the real question is this: Did McDonald hold Chancey accountable? Whatever happened with that article? What has changed since then?
Nothing.
“Basically, it’s as though he allowed Jennie Chancey to co-author a book with Jen Epstein.”
Exactly.
“I see no difference. Matt Chancey’s site asks why Jen associates with those “who are among worst racial bigots on the Internet,” yet he allows his wife to write a book with those who, according to Matt’s own words, associate with those who are among the worst racial bigots on the internet.”
And the very same ones to boot.
December 27, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Do kinists see whites as superior?
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/10/damn-white-males-keep-benefiting.html
December 27, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Wow, Ladies. I’m kind of shocked at what is happening here. Cindy, did you come to me or James McDonald to ask us any of these questions before you posted all this? I will say that Karen has at least asked me a couple questions and some other ladies have asked me some questions. I, in turn, went directly to those involved, and asked them questions. May I please suggest that rather than jumping to conclusions, and very false ones at that, that you attempt to find out the truth first, before posting?
However, I shall be glad to answer all the allegations here. First, I had no idea until a couple minutes ago when I read this blog that Cindy had been contacted by the Wall Street Journal. When I was contacted, I did check out the name of the person who contacted me and she was a real reporter for the WSJ. After praying about it and talking with my elders, I turned it down for two reasons: first, when you give an interview, you give up all control to the reporter and they are free to write whatever they desire, meaning that they can spin the story into anything they want it to say. I did not want to see Doug Phillips falsely maligned in any way, so I rejected their offer. Second, while a blog is public, it is not nearly as public as a major, national newspaper. People come to my blog by Googling for certain search terms or word of mouth; people who read the paper generally read it every day no matter what the topics are. Therefore, my blog attracted probably 99% Christians, while the WSJ would have thousands of unbelievers reading it daily. So I chose not to put my story out there in front of unbelievers in that manner.
Having said all that, Cindy, I have no clue what you are talking about in regard to someone saying you had contacted the press. I do know what Karen is talking about, though, and I would be glad to address that. I was told that Karen had contacted the local newspaper about the story she related up above here. I was concerned about why she would bring in the fact that a kinist was attending James’ church when the reporter had approached her for her opinion about Stacy’s book, so I asked around, trying to find out more information. I was originally told that Karen contacted the newspaper and was given a copy of part of the email she sent them which said this was “probably more than you want to know.” I said that Karen had said that the newspaper was the one who contacted her, but this email looked otherwise. HOWEVER, I was NOT going to accuse Karen until I found out more information, which I did. Karen’s version above is the truth and I am very glad to know that it was all a misunderstanding. Although the newspaper initially contacted Karen, Karen in reply sent them an email. End of that story.
My main concern, however, was why Karen felt it necessary to tell the newspaper about one family that attends James’ church, and that only recently. James McDonald is NOT a kinist. I am NOT a kinist. Chad Degenhart is a kinist. We are all also believers. Chad, as a kinist, has many friends – black, white, what have you. It is not a requirement to be a kinist to be friends with Chad and his family. He does not shun ANYONE. Does that mean that everyone he associates with must be a kinist? Of course not!
So James McDonald decides to open his church up to anyone who wishes to attend, sinner or not. (I’m not sure how many “nots” they have there!) James does not require people to “clean up” their act before they attend his church. There are no prerequisites to sign a statement of faith to attend his church. How many churches do you know of that allow anyone except kinists to attend? Don’t kinists need to hear the Word of God as well? Don’t kinists need to be loved and ministered to as well? Do kinists have anything to share with the body of Christ or are they all about kinism? Take a look at this site and see the 60-day program that Chad Degenhart wrote to help Christians get free from the addiction of smoking. He has mentored up to 200 people at a time in his spare time here. I don’t think he cares what color they are.
Cindy, you ask if I rally on behalf of James and Chad. I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I have certainly expressed my concerns that James, as a pastor, allowing anyone to attend his church, is the RIGHT thing to do. If you are persuaded that Chad’s beliefs need to change, then what better place for him to be than in church, hearing the Word of God preached expositorily week by week? Since I went directly to the sources and asked questions, I know that Chad’s beliefs were addressed privately the first week he attended there. There are mixed race families there and there are black people there as well. Chad loves them all and has absolutely no problem attending church with them. In fact, Chad has been friends with people of all colors for many, many years. Chad is not causing any problems in this church and he is not preaching his beliefs to anyone in this church, and certainly not to James.
In fact, the original reason I questioned if Chad was even going to James’ church was because I saw a blog article Chad had written about communion and he and James disagreed on the elements aspect. I thought that was a rather significant thing to disagree with your pastor about, but apparently James doesn’t require that everyone believes just like him to attend his church. That seems like a good thing. James will preach what he considers to be the truth of God’s Word to his congregation and Chad will not only be afforded the opportunity to hear the Word of God, but I’m sure he will not be divisive in any way. That sounds like a good thing to me.
I think that’s enough for this comment. I will go back and see if there is anything I need to address in another comment. But please, Cindy, feel free to go directly to the source and ask all these questions. There might be simple answers.
December 27, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Jen,
How can I believe what you say when you say one thing on line on your blog, then you write to me privately and tell me that it’s not true? You’ve played me for a fool many times over. I’ve told you this. And you blew me off many times with duplicitous responses. For those reasons, I refuse to play your “Matthew 18″ games with private emails and such. You’ve burned me before doing just this very same thing and treated me like a fool in the process. No more. I’ve confronted you privately. I’ve confronted you among others. So don’t make this look like I’m making charges that are not supported or that I have not followed Biblical standards for contfrontation.
You’ve made public statements and claimed that Doug Phillips was wrong. You made them public matters. I think that it’s perfectly appropriate to discuss these things publicly then, especially considering that you are untruthful with me offline. If you would like me to air all of these matters, just let me know.
Please directly answer the question. (Do you ever answer a straight question with a straight answer? No sugar coated, softened rhetoric.)
Are you a kinist?
Do you believe what the kinists believe about race and racialism?
Are you now in collaboration with James McDonald?
Were you involved in these accusations that Karen Campbell contacted the press?
Yes or No? Specifically. No mitigating garbage about whatever… We are not debating kinism here. I am asking that you answer a straightforward question with definitive answers. I’ve asked the same of James McDonald as well.
Were Matt Chancey and Doug Phillips correct about your kinist friendships and ties?
December 27, 2007 at 5:49 pm
It seems a lot more got posted while I was writing my comment.
Here is the statement from Karen’s email to the newspaper reporter that concerned me:
As Corrie stated, I was concerned about the loaded language Karen used here – founding father of a white supremacist group. Why couldn’t Karen have just said that Chad was a kinist? That would have sufficed. Chad is NOT a white supremacist. Go ahead and search Chad’s own writings and dissect them. Then you will know what Chad believes. Go ahead and search Harry’s own writings and you will know what Harry believes. Or better yet, ask them, like I did with Chad. Chad does not believe in mixing races, but that is a far cry from white supremacy. Are there some kinists who are white supremacists? Probably. Are there some kinists who are racists? Probably. But from what I know of Chad, he does not fall into those categories.
Second, why did Karen need to bring this up anyway? She admittedly told the reporter that this was probably more than he wanted to know – and she was right about that. If it was important to talk about the kind of people who attend the McDonald’s church, why didn’t she tell him about all the other families there as well? Why didn’t she tell him about the man who recently came off the streets and isn’t “cleaned up” yet? Did she tell him that not everyone at the McDonald’s church lives by everything written in Stacy’s book AND that they don’t require any of their members/attendees to follow Stacy’s book in order to attend there?
That is why I call it guilt by association. James is no more a kinist than I am, and that means that neither one of us is a kinist. Just because James ministers to a fellow believer who has some different beliefs than he does, does not mean James believes what Chad does. We have it backwards, folks. The pastor doesn’t believe everything everyone in his church believes; the pastors teaches everyone in his church what they should believe.
December 27, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Corrie Said:
If a wife is responsible for making her husband a good leader and a great man of God then she is really the one who is leading, sanctifying and teaching him in the way he should go. By the very definition of the word, the wife is the leader and he is the follower if we put the emphasis and responsibility on the woman.
Yep. My big problem with many patriarchalists (and I agree with many who’d be labeled patriarchal from a feminist perspective) is that they essentially give the woman all the responsibility but none of the power. This is a characterisitic of all abusive situations – the abused person is denied actual power but gets all the blame – and it is the exact reverse of the Biblical situaiton. In the Bible, those with more power always have more responsibility, even when that power is something as minor as being the one teaching (James 3:1).
I think the unBiblical definition of “leader” is “someone who has power over others” – which is to say, a leader has no real power in himself and NEEDS the power of others in order to be a leader in the first place. But the Biblical definition of “leader” is “someone who has power over himself and leads others through inspiration.” A Biblical leader doesn’t need followers, because a Biblical leader doesn’t need other people’s power in order to feel complete.
Jesus did not lead by bossing around, and he did not demand people obey him or he’d punish them. The only people he ever punished (if he did so in his rage at the moneychangers in the temple), he punished NOT because they refused to follow or obey (he regularly walked away from or otherwise ignored those who refused to follow or obey), but because they were injuring those who loved him.
Although Biblical leader acts to protect those who are his responsibility, a Biblical leader also has enormous tolerance for the disobedient and rebellious, and enormous tolerance for those who insult him (Galatians 6:1, Ephesians 4:1-6, Galatians 3:12-17, Paul’s advice to Timothy on how to lead, etc.). A Biblical leader leads through sheer force of character, and through his (or her) dependence on Biblical principles; the number or quality of his followers is completely immaterial to his leadership, because that leadership is inherant, not something he depends on others for.
A Biblical leader expects and appreciates followers who challenge him and hold him accountable to God’s highest standards – an unBiblical leaders will be highly threatened by those same followers.
Russell Moore (From Cindy Kunsman’s notes):
o We received sonship and not sonhood and daughterhood
o This is proof of male headship
Ah, no, I don’t think it proves male headship at all. I would argue that any verses that refer to sonhood but not daughterhood (if there are any) are proof that we recieve our sonhood or daughterhood through Christ, the Son. None of us are legitimately sons or daughters of God by any other route – we are saved through Christ’s efforts, not through our own efforts. I see this as another example of patriocentrism taking the focus off Christ to put it on man.
And as a reminder that when we keep our focus on Christ, we’re spared many a manipulation.
Cynthia Gee Said:
“The next question is, just WHO in the movement has that kind of power and money, to push Amazon around?”
I don’t think it takes much power or money to have negative reviews pulled. I’ve had mine pulled more than once – one on Larry Christianson’s The Christian Family and one on Thornhill and Palmer’s A Natural History of Rape, for sure, and I don’t know that those authors are particularly powerful. I also have never been able to figure out the rhyme or reason when I’ve noticed negative reviews pulled – matter of fact, right now with Thornhill and Palmer’s book, 33 of the 68 reviews are one star, and some of the negative ones make much the same points mine did. I suspect Amazon just pulls any review questioned or challenged by… just about anybody. :p
December 27, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Jen writes: “Cindy, did you come to me or James McDonald to ask us any of these questions before you posted all this?”
I find this a bit incredible considering the reponses and actions we have seen from the McDonalds on a score of things. So far, they have not modeled honestly and openess at all.
Jen writes: “I was told that Karen had contacted the local newspaper about the story she related up above here.”
First of all, it would help to know who originally told you that Karen contacted the newspaper. At the very least, I hope you told Karen who said that.
” I was concerned about why she would bring in the fact that a kinist was attending James’ church when the reporter had approached her for her opinion about Stacy’s book, so I asked around, trying to find out more information.”
Asked around? Asked whom? I think the fact a kinist attends their church is quite relevant to Patriarchy and what it teaches as a whole..whether it is a book about housewives or not.
“I was originally told that Karen contacted the newspaper and was given a copy of part of the email she sent them which said this was “probably more than you want to know.”
Who gave you the copy of the e-mail?
Openess and transparency would be very helpful in this situation.
Some things are just not adding up.
December 27, 2007 at 6:00 pm
(I don’t know what’s going on with the formatting in my comments. Sorry about that.)
Well, Cindy, I refuse to treat you the way you are treating me today. I don’t know what I have done to offend you, but I have been 100% honest with you at all times.
Are you a kinist?
No. I have stated that many times.
Do you believe what the kinists believe about race and racialism?
No.
Are you now in collaboration with James McDonald?
No. I called him one time to ask him questions. I chose to go directly to the source.
Were you involved in these accusations that Karen Campbell contacted the press?
I told that story up above. I was initially told that Karen contacted the press, but I chose to find out whether or not that was true. It turns out that they initially contacted her and she, in reply, sent them the email I was given a portion of. That is why it appeared as if Karen had contacted them first. Once I found out that she had just replied to them, I was fine with that. That made sense to me. The “allegations” were nothing more than my trying to find out the truth rather than falsely accuse Karen.
Were Matt Chancey and Doug Phillips correct about your kinist friendships and ties?
No.
December 27, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Jen, I sent you this this morning, asking, again, where you got your information. I will repost it here for you:
Jen, it is well documented that Chad is a Kinist and his own name appears on official government documents as one of the founders of the Kinist Institute, which promotes white supremacy. How can you not see that that organization, along with their blog, promotes the white race?
In my opinion, if Chad is not now a Kinist, all he needs to do is to publicly state so, informing people of his past ties with this group, explaining why his name is on this paperwork (along with Harry Seabrook) and then talk about his conversion from this evil. It is that simple.
I still need to know from you where you got my quote. I also need to know where you got the idea that I contacted the newspaper and that Chad is friends with this reporter. Could you please forward to me what you sent to Corrie?
Karen
December 27, 2007 at 6:03 pm
For the record, this was response I received from the reporter when I asked him if he and Chad were friends:
“I have had no contact with Chad Degenhart whatsoever. I have never met the man and have no idea where he works. All I have done is ask James McDonald if he was aware of any of the information you sent me. He is the only person I’ve discussed this with.”
So, my quote got from James McDonald to you. How? And at what point was is said that I had contacted the newspaper and who said it?
December 27, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Jen,
What exactly makes one a kinist? I’ve learned that you are very good at twisting statements and selectively withholding information, so I would like to specifically know what you believe classifies one as a kinist. This is very significant considering that you’ve been charged with collaborating with kinists in your efforts to expose Doug Phillips. Many have defended you in this and this is not a private matter. So spin this and twist this all you want. You say that you are not a kinist, but can you tell us what specifically and exactly makes one a kinist? Do you have to be involved in the organization and a card carrying member?
Have you had assistance from kinists in your efforts to expose Phillips?
Were you the person that approached the host of Indelible Grace and requested that Chad’s name be taken offline?
Do you have a personal relationship with Harry Seabrook?
Most of what you’ve written above is Red Herring material. I don’t care whether Chad Degenhart has raised the dead. Is he your confidant?
I don’t care if James McDonald raised the dead. Is he your confidant?
Straight answers.
December 27, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Chad sent me the email and told me Karen contacted the press. That is how it appeared to me as well, when I read the email, BUT I was not going to accuse Karen without finding out for sure. I think it was a couple days before Christmas and I was really in a bind time-wise, so I called Corrie and talked to her about the whole situation. She volunteered to talk to Karen for me. That would save me a lot of time, so I was glad for that. Corrie came back and said that Karen didn’t contact the press. But I had the email, so I sent it to Corrie and asked her about the email. She went back to Karen and that is when we found out that Karen had sent it in reply to the reporter contacting her initially.
Lin, whether you think someone is telling you the truth or not, I believe we have a responsibility to hear it directly from them. If they do lie, then deal with the lie, but it is simply not fair to assume that they are not going to tell the truth so we might as well not even bother asking them in the first place; we’ll just write about them. That’s called gossip.
December 27, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Here is a quote from the Southern Poverty Law Center regarding “kinism:”
Neo-Confederates
The leading neo-Confederate group, the League of the South (LOS), continued to show signs of increasing radicalization. Last year, after the Intelligence Report revealed that Florida LOS official Michael Tubbs had served time for his role in a terrorist plot, some LOS officials suggested that Tubbs was a liability. LOS boss Michael Hill, however, deemed Tubbs “a reformed man.”
More importantly, Hill, who has repeatedly told anyone who would listen that his group is not racist, explicitly endorsed white racialism by publicly backing something called “kinism” at the September convention of the Virginia LOS.
This ideology, derived from the word “kin” and elaborated at a Web site for The Kinist Institute (www.kinism.net), calls for laws against racial intermarriage, ending all non-white immigration, expelling all “aliens” (“to include all Jews and Arabs”), and restricting the right to vote to white, landholding men aged 21 or older.
Many of the LOS’ harder-line views on race are detailed at a Web site (www.littlegeneva.com) run by Virginia leader Harry Seabrook. “The non-white immigration invasion is the ‘Final Solution’ for the ‘white’ problem of the South,” the site argues. “Whites face genocide. We believe the Kinism statement proposes a biblical solution for all races. If whites die out, the South will no longer exist.”
Notice the ties with the League of the South, whose founder, Steve Wilkins, was linked to on the Patriarch’s Path website before they were removed when Cynthia Gee asked questions a year ago. So, Jen, do you still wonder why I might be thinking there were dots to be connected? If I am way off base, I would welcome it. I would just like to see a denunciation of these beliefs. As with Phillips’ and Chancey’s embracing of Dabney, we are still waiting for this.
December 27, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Jen wrote: I don’t know what I have done to offend you, but I have been 100% honest with you at all times.
Jen, this is not true at all. You know it. God as my witness, this is not true.
If you think that this is true, I don’t know what to tell you.
You’ve been nothing but manipulative with me and if you didn’t get my straightforward private emails, hopefully this will get your attention.
December 27, 2007 at 6:17 pm
Jen wrote: I told that story up above. I was initially told that Karen contacted the press, but I chose to find out whether or not that was true. It turns out that they initially contacted her and she, in reply, sent them the email I was given a portion of.
Who told you that Karen contacted the press?
That should be easy to answer.
Who gave you that portion of the email?
That should be easy to answer as well.
December 27, 2007 at 6:19 pm
“Chad does not believe in mixing races, but that is a far cry from white supremacy. Are there some kinists who are white supremacists? Probably. Are there some kinists who are racists? Probably. But from what I know of Chad, he does not fall into those categories.”
Jen, you are falling for the ‘separate but equal’ arguement used so much with not only this issue but women as well. How can one be a Kinist and NOT be a racist? It makes no sense.
There are mixed couples in my church. In Christ, we have to move beyond these distinctions. My daughter plays with children of mixed couples. In Christ…there are no distinctions. Being a kinist is sin. Yes, it is sin that is in the heart.
” The pastor doesn’t believe everything everyone in his church believes; the pastors teaches everyone in his church what they should believe.”
James McDonald teaches what people should believe? Do you really believe this, Jen? To tell you the truth, I am not sure what these people really believe. Many times their ‘public’ stance does not jive with other things they have written or practiced.
Are you now defending Patriarchy…James McDonald style?
I am going to be totally honest here because your actions/words have been public for a year now. Your behavior with your blog has been very confusing for quite sometime now. You seem to be jumping around and very confused in your beliefs.
You seem willing to extend lots of grace to James McDonald but very little to Karen.
December 27, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Jen writes: Were Matt Chancey and Doug Phillips correct about your kinist friendships and ties?
No.
How is it then that Chad Degenhart is someone who you correspond with and yet you deny that Matt Chancey was wrong about you having kinist ties?
December 27, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Jen wrote: Are you now in collaboration with James McDonald?
No. I called him one time to ask him questions. I chose to go directly to the source.
Okay, so you called him once and now you defend him. But are you in email contact with him? You failed to mention that. Are you in email contact with James via Chad?
Sounds like you are very much a friend of Chad Degenhart’s and one of his greatest defenders. Now McDonald, too.
That sounds like you’ve been connected for more than just the purposes of smoking cessation… I don’t understand how that makes Matt Chancey and Phillips wrong.
You’ve played us all for fools in the process and made a scandal of all of this.
December 27, 2007 at 6:27 pm
“As Corrie stated, I was concerned about the loaded language Karen used here – founding father of a white supremacist group. Why couldn’t Karen have just said that Chad was a kinist? That would have sufficed. ”
Jen,
For those of us who do not understand the subtle nuances between supremicist’s lingo and separatists lingo, please do not ascribe malicious motives to Karen for using that word. It is a very understandable description.
I hope you held James McDonald just as accountable for his wife’s use of her loaded language? White-washed feminist comes to mind? In fact her use of that term is a prime example of using loaded language. Karen’s was not. At least Karen isn’t taking the snotty tone of “well, if the shoe doesn’t fit don’t wear it” when she is questioned about her usage of the term.
If I were to call Chad and others “white-washed ractists”, would you take issue with that? Would James and Stacy have a problem with that term? If you or anyone take issue with that term, then I would hope that you and anyone else would take them to task for using the term “white-washed feminist”.
I find this whole issue to be rather quite babyish.
December 27, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Jen, it is obvious you have kinist friendships and ties. I don’t know how you could say “no” to that question.
It is just as obvious the McDonalds have kinist friendships and ties.
That is why I said Matt Chancey is operating with a double standard, and really, after you read mrsbinoculars, it was just as though Jennie Chancey co-authored a book with you.
If Matt is so suspicious of people with kinist ties, and tries to publicly ruin them, then he should never have allowed his wife to author a book with a woman who has such obvious kinist ties.
December 27, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Good grief, Cindy. Why the third degree today? Haven’t I always been forthright in answering questions? I will answer your questions, but I will tell you that you seem to be reading more into this than is really there.
What exactly makes one a kinist? You say that you are not a kinist, but can you tell us what specifically and exactly makes one a kinist?
I think there lots of issues, but the one that stands out to me is that they are opposed to race mixing, as in whites should marry whites and have white children, and blacks should marry blacks and have black children, etc. I have not really studied kinism past that.
Before I go on, I will tell you that I have two friends left in San Antonio – just two. One of them is a black lady who is married to a white man and they have six mixed-race children. I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours with that family. The other friend is a white woman who has adopted two very black children. I have also spent hundreds of hours with all of them. You may see pictures of them on my old blog at the very beginning of it. My friends would be quite surprised to hear these allegations today.
Do you have to be involved in the organization and a card carrying member?
I think a kinist is probably defined by his beliefs much as we label ourselves according to our theology. I am not a card-carrying Calvinist, but I do believe in the doctrines of Grace. I don’t believe in kinism and therefore am not involved in it in any way whatsoever.
Have you had assistance from kinists in your efforts to expose Phillips?
I don’t know what you mean by this. Harry wrote about my story on Little Geneva but I had nothing to do with that. I didn’t know anything about him when he started linking to my stories.
Were you the person that approached the host of Indelible Grace and requested that Chad’s name be taken offline?
Not Chad’s name, but I asked her to tone it down a bit for Chad’s sake.
Do you have a personal relationship with Harry Seabrook?
No. I’ve communicated with him a bit since Matt wrote his lies about us because Matt wrote about us.
Most of what you’ve written above is Red Herring material. I don’t care whether Chad Degenhart has raised the dead. Is he your confidant?
Wow, Cindy. Where’s some of that grace you say you are under? I don’t know what you mean by confidant. I have emailed him, yes. Beyond that, you will have to explain what you mean, please.
I don’t care if James McDonald raised the dead. Is he your confidant?
Same as above.
Look, Cindy, I don’t mind answering questions, but I don’t think it’s necessary to treat me in this fashion. I’ll show you love; I hope you’ll do the same for me.
December 27, 2007 at 6:37 pm
PS, Jen, of course you know I believe you and the McDonalds are free to associate with whoever you wish to associate with.
I am merely talking about Matt Chancey’s standards. Why blast you for associating with kinists, but let his wife write a book with woman who does?
December 27, 2007 at 6:44 pm
“To tell you the truth, I am not sure what these people really believe. Many times their ‘public’ stance does not jive with other things they have written or practiced.”
Lin,
This is exactly correct. For the most part they are chameleons who believe change and alter their beliefs for those they are currently with. They are the soft, squishy type of complementarian for the those types and they are the Jennie Chancey/Doug Phillip’s type of patriarch when they are with them.
What they believe is anyone’s guess. But, I will tell you where to look to find out some major clues as to what they do believe. Look at the women’s list and see how they handle those who disagree with them on very minor issues. Grace? No way. There is one way and if you believe different you are often accused of having some hidden sinful motive as to why you don’t do it their way. They might be nice to you if you wear pants but they are not so nice in their comments of you when you are out of ear shot. How do I know this? Years of experience and dealings but I guess that doesn’t count for much, at least not on my part.
December 27, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Jen wrote: Good grief, Cindy. Why the third degree today? Haven’t I always been forthright in answering questions? I will answer your questions, but I will tell you that you seem to be reading more into this than is really there.
Jen, go back and read all the emails that I’ve sent you. I’ve been rough with you. I don’t know how you can even ask me this. And why the third degree? Because you’ve turned on Joe Taylor and you’ve turned on Karen Campbell. And you’ve documented your own lies to me in emails over the past month. And you have no right to make fools out of any more people with your knowledge and power broker manipulation. Because I’ve heard from all the people that you’ve run off in your lust for information that can run Doug Phillips into the ground. They don’t trust you.
Jen, I believe that most of the answers to these questions that you’ve offered here are lies. Lies, Jen. There is evidence, and you can’t spin your way out of all of it. But by all means, spin away. The end does not justify the means. I believe that time and truth will bear me out, and I don’t really care what you think because you have been rude, condescending, dishonest and deluded in my offline dealings with you when we’ve had conflicts.
You’ve made fools of all the people who have supported you and cruely used us all.
This is truely terrible.
December 27, 2007 at 7:12 pm
Jen wrote: Wow, Cindy. Where’s some of that grace you say you are under?
Don’t you dare turn this around with emotional blackmail. This is right out of Lifton 101 and the tactics of spiritual abuse. This is another logical fallacy of the red herring to distract attention from the deception that you have propagated.
And to quote a favorite of Gothard, God gives grace to the humble, not the proud. That has nothing to do with answering the fact that you’ve been deceptive about your kinism all along. There is evidence. If you would like me to start posting your emails here, demonstrating how your “Out with the Old and in with the New” was riddled with lies, then just let me know.
I can post the emails about Joe Taylor, too.
I’ve got all the emails that dealt with your friend who called me the devil’s whore.
Grace abounds in excess of where sin abounds, but I am not in sin by holding you accountable for being dishonest with all the people who you used to gratify your own desires.
If you want grace, be humble. God offers us grace for salvation and repentence and righteousness, not sin. We treat each other graciously, but we are never supposed to wink at abuse or lies or sin. You’ve misused everyone who trusted you. If you want grace, repent.
December 27, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Jen, you hope that I will show you love. I am now and I have been. Don’t confuse placation with love or allowing deception to go on without accountability as lack of love. The Book of James says that he who turns a sinner from his ways saves a soul from death and will cover a multitude of sins. Love covers a multitude of sins, but that does not mean that the sins are to be buried and winked at and not exposed.
I dear friend of mine in the cultic church was told, regarding her husband’s terrible sin, to love him with “ooey gooey love” and was given 1 Peter 4:8 as a proof text and told to suffer under her husband’s outright sin. That’s not love. That’s not Biblical.
December 27, 2007 at 7:33 pm
“Lin, whether you think someone is telling you the truth or not, I believe we have a responsibility to hear it directly from them. If they do lie, then deal with the lie, but it is simply not fair to assume that they are not going to tell the truth so we might as well not even bother asking them in the first place; we’ll just write about them. That’s called gossip.”
Nice try, Jen. But it just won’t wash. Here are your own words posted above:
“…do know what Karen is talking about, though, and I would be glad to address that. I was told that Karen had contacted the local newspaper about the story she related up above here. I was concerned about why she would bring in the fact that a kinist was attending James’ church when the reporter had approached her for her opinion about Stacy’s book, so I asked around, trying to find out more information. I was originally told that Karen contacted the newspaper and was given a copy of part of the email she sent them which said this was “probably more than you want to know.” I said that Karen had said that the newspaper was the one who contacted her, but this email looked otherwise. HOWEVER, I was NOT going to accuse Karen until I found out more information, which I did”
You seem to have been doing quite a bit of ‘asking around’ before you got around to Karen.
So, what are you doing about Chad’s lie?
December 27, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Cindy Kunsman Said:
Sounds like you are very much a friend of Chad Degenhart’s and one of his greatest defenders. Now McDonald, too.
I’ve read a fair chunk of Jen’s blog and I think she speaks of these guys just as she spoke of Doug Phillips for quite some time – and still does, from time to time. She has always extended a great deal of grace towards those she sees as having authority, even when she’s been shafted by them.
I know people here have been wounded by James McDonald and others, but this does not change the fact that they are sinners, just as we are sinners, just as Jen is a sinner. I agree that Jen comes across as confused, but the fact is she’s very exposed in a confusing time in her life.
I think Jen does tell the truth as she understands it, and I do not agree that she has “made fools of all the people who have supported [her] and cruely used us all.” It is possible to challenge someone without flinging ungrounded emotional accusations like this one, as everyone involved in this argument proves regularly. In what sense has Jen made fools of those who support her? In what sense has she used us? By turning out to be less than perfect? By possibly being a racist? I call them ungrounded, but to be honest I am at a loss as to what these accusations actually mean.
I thought the whole point of the post that started out this digression was that it’s foolish to accuse someone of sharing another’s opinions simply because they associate with them. I’ve seen no evidence that Jen’s a kinist according to the quote thatmom provided, but even if she were that wouldn’t make what happened to her in Doug Phillips church right, and since that’s what most of her defenders were defending her against, why would Jen being a kinist mean she has made fools of or used those who supported her? This is the only blog I am following right now, so maybe something’s going on I’m completely missing, but I am at a loss, here.
December 27, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“There are mixed couples in my church. In Christ, we have to move beyond these distinctions. My daughter plays with children of mixed couples. In Christ…there are no distinctions. Being a kinist is sin. Yes, it is sin that is in the heart.”
Lin,
Dabney would say that these “mixed” children are from a “vile stream” and that their race is “vile”.
But, please do not mistake Dabney for being a white-supremicist. He was a separatist. It is “obvious” that he doesn’t think white people are superior! No, “vile” means something else in Spinland.
Hail Dabney, wise apologist and defender of the South!! Now, I am a Yankee- one of those heathen, ill-mannered, evil abolitionists so all the Dabney accolades gets lost on me. But, here is another quote I borrowed from Lynn’s blog from last January:
“Dabney’s virulent racism — he saw blacks as a “morally inferior race,” a “sordid, alien taint” marked by “lying, theft, drunkenness, laziness, waste” — also supported Rushdoony’s dislike for the civil rights movement and ongoing desegregation. Dabney explicitly defended slavery as godly, a theme Wilson and Wilkins would later repeat.”
Oh, when Dabney said that blacks were “morally inferior”, he really didn’t mean that whites were superior. He meant something other, I am sure. Benefit of the doubt and all that good stuff.
What is a “sordid, alien taint”? Look up sordid in the thesaurus for a taste of what Dabney really thought about blacks. Now look up “taint”. Get the picture?
If you think that the kinists’ favorite theologian is a supremicist, you are wrong. Whatever would lead you to believe such a silly thing! Can’t you people read?
Seriously, we have to go to Politiking School in order to know how to twist the English language and use it skillfully so it has a double meaning to suit whatever purpose we want it to suit.
I was just telling someone it is like when I confront one of my children and ask them if they hit their sibling. They say “no”. Come to find out, they really pinched their sibling so they were technically correct. But, they knew what I meant by the question I asked. Another name for this is dissembling. It is what the pharisees did when they put things aside and called it Corban so they didn’t have to support their aging parents.
December 27, 2007 at 8:02 pm
I think Jen does tell the truth as she understands it,
There is a great deal of evidence to the contrary. Jen has not been remotely honest here in discussing her ties to the kinists. There is evidence that kinists helped her write her blog from the beginning and that they wrote some of the posts. I have emails from Jen that contradict that her last blog post was untruthful and that she had a new means of doing Phillips far more damage than her blog did, so it didn’t matter that it came down. Jen told me that, contrary to her plea on her blog for everyone to take down anything copied from her blog that she made online over the past few weeks, that this was untrue and that I could post whatever I wanted. She said that I could pull it up in a cache — that this same information was still publicly accessible and told me how to link to it. It was all a rouse.
I am an honest person and I don’t make statements like this without documentation. There is documentation. Jen can own up to this publicly, or she can be exposed. There is very little here that is truthful.
This has been a matter of grief for many for some time, but because James McDonald is now using Jen to direct his aggression at these others, I’m no longer willing to sit quietly by and do nothing.
It is wrong to lie and wrong to manipulate, even if the ends are positive.
I’ve said a couple of times here and elsewhere on line that none of Jen’s being a kinist or consorting with kinists mitigates how Doug Phillips has dealt with her. But for those of us who so strongly defended Jen directly stating that the kinist business was unfounded, (say for instance me arguing with Chalcedon over all of this, defending Jen and saying that she had nothing to do with kinism which was brought up as a point in all of this, I was arguing a lie.) Someone that I had offline dealings with (though this was not the central issue of my problems with Doug Phillips) specifically said that they’d talked with Harry Seabrook and confirmed the truth of Jen’s connection. I denied that this was true, and now I have evidence that I argued for a lie. I went toe to toe over the whole patriarchy thing with many people, and one of the main thrusts was that Jen was in league with the kinists. (And the connection mentioned was not related to Chad Degenhart.) Others have argued that this was not true, and we argued wrongly because we did so under deception thanks to Jen’s omissions. That’s how I have been made a fool. Other people have as well.
There is evidence that originates with Jen. No scams or traps or rouses. I’ve received all kinds of emails verifying this privately this afternoon from multiple people. I’m not at liberty to divulge their names per their request because of their personal concerns. One person even claims that they’ve been threatened. What does that mean?
December 27, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Ladies, I need to homeschool my children and go be a Proverbs 31 woman, getting my food from afar, for a while, but I will be back later to try to clear up this confusion.
Please let me just say this for now. I am NOT a kinist, nor have I ever been a kinist. During the course of telling my story, two kinists were interested in my story, just as all of you were interested in my story. I did not shun them and I will not shun anyone. Sorry, I’m just not that way. I am grateful that Harry and Chad were willing to put their kinist beliefs aside to stand against Doug’s ecclesiastical tyranny in whatever ways they chose to do so. I know very little about either man, but I have had brief contact with both of them. That does not make me a kinist.
shilohmm is right. I will extend grace to anyone, even Doug Phillips, and I do have a certain respect for elders above the average person as well. I think that’s biblical. When I was first arguing with Mike online, for instance, I didn’t know he was a retired pastor. As soon as I found out, I immediately apologized to him for not treating him with more respect. I guess Doug taught me that.
Anyway, I’ve got to run, but I haven’t shafted anyone here. I will try to be as clear as possible when I return to answer.
December 27, 2007 at 8:10 pm
I thought the whole point of the post that started out this digression was that it’s foolish to accuse someone of sharing another’s opinions simply because they associate with them.
I agree with this.
I also think Matt Chancey was very right about Jen’s associations with kinists. He was very wrong to smear her with guilt by association, and it is a clear double standard he employed when his wife co-authored a book with those who have long-standing close associations with kinists.
They have freedom of association, and shouldn’t be smeared with guilt by association, either. It’s just interesting that Matt tried to smear Jen, but allowed his wife to author a book with a woman who also has close association with kinists.
Double standard.
December 27, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Jen has sent me an email that states that she has no idea of what I’m talking about regarding our email exchanges. I refuse to correspond offline about any of this anymore. I’ve stated here, Jen, that if you are clueless, I would ask that you read the emails that I’ve sent in response to you over the past month. Look at the last few emails that I sent to you over the Devil’s whore business. If you still don’t get it, email them to Lin or Lynn or Cynthia Gee or Karen or Corrie and see if they understand what I’m talking about. I called you on these things, point blank. What about the fact that you deny the whole cultic thing and that you will not read any of the literature on spiritual abuse. I was very hard-line with you on this either.
You’ve already got everything that you need to read. If you need to play dumb with me, then go ahead. I’m not getting into an offline, fruitless discussion with you on this. I’ve done that before and it was fruitless.
December 27, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I agree that Jen comes across as confused, but the fact is she’s very exposed in a confusing time in her life.
.
I’m feeling like I’m missing something too. I’m not sure it’s fair to ask Jen to have all her ducks in a row, considering she just had them blown up (figurative speech, of course). I am admittedly a little surprised by the turn this conversation has taken, as well as troubled. I don’t understand.
December 27, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Corrie, this is why what Jen said about McDonald’s church does not add up. Here is what she wrote:
“So James McDonald decides to open his church up to anyone who wishes to attend, sinner or not. (I’m not sure how many “nots” they have there!) James does not require people to “clean up” their act before they attend his church. There are no prerequisites to sign a statement of faith to attend his church. How many churches do you know of that allow anyone except kinists to attend? Don’t kinists need to hear the Word of God as well? Don’t kinists need to be loved and ministered to as well? Do kinists have anything to share with the body of Christ or are they all about kinism?”
Let’s change the word Kinist to male prostitute. Sounds different, doesn’t it? I mean we would think the church would eventually confront the prostitute about his sin and try to lovingly restore him. Should he be allowed to stay in the body if he does not repent? Same with the kinist because what they believe about another human created in the image of God is sin.
” Take a look at this site and see the 60-day program that Chad Degenhart wrote to help Christians get free from the addiction of smoking. He has mentored up to 200 people at a time in his spare time here. I don’t think he cares what color they are.”
I would rather have my child around a smoker than a kinist any day. (I can hear the gasps now) Don’t forget, even Spurgeon was a smoker. Smoking may hurt the body but it does not blacken a heart like a Kinist would.
December 27, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Molleth, I have seen some things above that concern me, but I am going to deal with them off-line.
I am trying to bring this back to what I think is the main point of bringing up Degenhart in the first place, and that was what I wrote about in my last entry above.
I deliberately chose to stay out of the “Micah” business, because it wasn’t my business, and I hope that others who were involved will discuss this off-line. As usual, please don’t copy me in on those emails.
I agree, Molleth, it can get very confusing. I don’t understand all of the Micah issue, either, and my gut reaction is this needs to be taken off-line.
Perhaps Mike and Corrie can be brought in on it, Jen.
December 27, 2007 at 8:30 pm
“Corrie came back and said that Karen didn’t contact the press. But I had the email, so I sent it to Corrie and asked her about the email.”
Jen,
Did you have the email when you talked to me on the phone and asked me to talk to Karen about this? If you did, why didn’t you tell me about it, first? Was it a trap?
“She went back to Karen and that is when we found out that Karen had sent it in reply to the reporter contacting her initially.”
I knew this all along, Jen. I only confirmed what I had initially told you. Your first question to me was basically “Did you know that Karen contacted the press?” I told you that she did NOT contact the press and that they contacted her because of her Amazon review.
December 27, 2007 at 8:39 pm
“..and I do have a certain respect for elders above the average person as well. I think that’s biblical. When I was first arguing with Mike online, for instance, I didn’t know he was a retired pastor. As soon as I found out, I immediately apologized to him for not treating him with more respect. I guess Doug taught me that.”
They are depraved sinners saved by grace just as you and I are. The term ‘elder’ simply means spiritually mature. It is NOT an office and there are NO earthly priests. It is a function of teaching/discipleship and one must be a Berean if one tends toward such trust so easily as not to be mislead into a cult or errant teaching.
Every believer is anointed. See 1 John. Every believer is a ‘minister’. We are a Holy Priesthood. There are no ‘great men of God’. There are only the spiritually mature that we joyfully and voluntarily submit to. But, if they are real teachers of the truth, they will want you to grow spiritually and they will never get upset if you question what they teach.
To say you respect them above the ‘average’ person is scary. Earthly titles mean nothing in Christendom. Don’t ever forget that Jimmy Carter was a supporter of Jim Jones before he went to Gyana…I could give you humdreds of such examples.
My former church proves that anyone with enough money/gravitas can become an elder.
Isaiah 2:22
December 27, 2007 at 8:41 pm
” During the course of telling my story, two kinists were interested in my story, just as all of you were interested in my story. I did not shun them and I will not shun anyone.”
Jen,
They were interested in your story like we were? Or was there more to that? I wouldn’t volunteer any more information unless you are willing to tell the whole story. They were not merely interested in your story like some of us were. I merely posted on your blog as did some others that posted on your blog but that is where my involvement began and ended. The extent of my involvement is very public and known.
No one is asking you to shun anyone. That is a red herring.
You have repeatedly stated you are concerned about the truth. So am I.
December 27, 2007 at 9:02 pm
And here I thought since I don’t watch TV that I’d miss out on daytime dramas!
December 27, 2007 at 9:04 pm
Molleth,
It is confusing. I don’t think anyone is asking anyone to have their ducks all in a row. There is a lot going on behind the scenes and there has been a lot going on for a long time. I am trying very hard to know where I fit in all of this and what my duty is to the truth. Truth is truth and I cannot play favorites when it comes to truth. I have had a bit of cognitive dissonance for some time now.
If anyone has any questions for me they can get my email address from my blog.
December 27, 2007 at 9:28 pm
“I have had a bit of cognitive dissonance for some time now.”
Me too. It started some months back. I thought I was alone in this…now I see I am not.
December 27, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Cindy, I agree with what you said, especially in comment #300.
This is a prime example of the cognitive dissonance I’ve been experiencing, too, over the last year going through all that I did with my pursuit of the truths in these twisted matters. God reigns in the hearts of His people, and those that worship Him truly worship Him in Spirit and in Truth.
December 27, 2007 at 11:25 pm
Someone contacted me to defend this statement that I made:
I’ve said a couple of times here and elsewhere online that none of Jen’s being a kinist
I should have more properly stated that it was not necessarily that Jen is a kinist but rather that Jen collaborated with more than one kinist as the VF camp asserted.
But at this point, I have no confidence in anything Jen says and I haven’t for awhile. She can say until she’s blue in the face that she did not have kinist help, and I will believe her to the degree that I believe that Bruce Ware is not arguing for an anthropomorphized Christ or that Federal Vision argues that they are not arguing for Romanist theology.
December 27, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Thanks for the correction/clarification, Cindy! I didn’t think that was what was bothering you, and I’m glad that was set straight.
December 28, 2007 at 12:35 am
Karen,
You made a wonderful reference here:
“Last night we watched The Nativity and the beauty of the Gospel story and the wonder of God’s love for us overwhelmed me once again.”
SPOILER
: The scene where Jesus is born, made me realize once again, but with tears, how Christ came as a very humble, vulnerable baby to break the power of evil and sin. I was also overwhelmed to ponder the very God of all creation did that for me, and orchestrated it all in order to ultimately go to the cross for me and those whose hearts are His. That the heaven’s truly did proclaim the glory of God when the angels sang in the presence of lowly shepherds, and they humbly bowed before the King of all Kings. May we all seek him and be filled with “exceeding great joy”.
December 28, 2007 at 3:13 am
“an anthropomorphized Christ”???
Anthopomorphize means, “To ascribe human characteristics to things not human.”
You can’t anthopomorphize Christ, He’s fully God AND fully human already.
…and I do wish you would say, “Roman Catholic” instead of “Romanist”. As an Anglican, I resemble that remark, just a wee bit,
.
“Romanist” is one step removed from “Papist”, which is a flat-out slur.
December 28, 2007 at 5:12 am
“Romanist/Papist” is something I have a wee problem with too (as a person who is rather post-Evangelical in her thinking). I wince everytime that word gets tossed. Though I know you enough, Cindy, to know that you don’t mean it to be offensive but are just sharing from your (passionate!) heart (which I love about you, girl). *hugs*
.
I just think we probably have a vast array of readers here, and think this isn’t the best place to get into fights between Protestants and Catholics, when we all have our fair share of problems.
The issue is Patriarchy (ie, males *ruling* over females being taught as a Christian virtue), something that Christianity as a WHOLE needs to deal with, not just those in different camps within Christendom.
I’m all for rabbit trails, as any good conversation often goes a myriad of directions, but at the same time, I think it would be really helpful if we remembered that this thread is being followed by a WIDE group of readers.
For example, when I talk about my own 99.9% egalitarianism, I try to mention that the egal opinions are MY opinions, NOT those of this entire group, particularly because I don’t want to turn away people who would otherwise be interested in the conversation (but won’t listen to you all if they think you all are egalitarians like me).
I think that something like that might be a great policy for all of us to try and hold to, when we are expressing our vehement/passionate/opinionated opinions.
It gives us the ability to have a voice, and yet it doesn’t step all over the toes of the others in the conversation.
Warmly,
Molly
December 28, 2007 at 5:14 am
You know, I have been seriously struggling in my faith the past year or so. I don’t know at this very moment if I believe or not.
I have to tell you, though, that what I have read on the supposed “true womanhood” blog over the past months would make me run screaming from Christianity if I had no other information about it.
The McDonald family has never been represented to me as anything other than Christ-loving. I have never seen anything hateful come of any of their publications online or in print.
What I have seen from Karen, the Cindys, and the Lynn/Lin camp is nothing but gossip and single-minded, well, I don’t even know what to call it. I mean, don’t you all have anything better to do than to spend HOURS every day online talking about other believers?
I am the worst of sinners. I can’t even tell you the things you all would pick apart in my life. So I am not attempting to speak from some kind of moral superiority platform.
But as someone searching, I am finding NOTHING of Christ in this blog. Not one thing.
Where is He?
December 28, 2007 at 6:56 am
Hi Ladies! I’ve had a couple traumatic events this afternoon, so it took me longer to get back to you than I had originally planned. I will answer in several comments. This comment will just be to tell the story of what I know about Karen and her local newspaper – from start to finish. I didn’t know all the details here until just today.
When I was first contacted a few days ago, I was merely asked if I was aware that Karen had contacted her local newspaper about a kinist going to James’ church. That was all I knew at the time. When I called Corrie about something else, I told her the story and she volunteered to ask Karen for me. I appreciated that. Corrie came back to me and said that, no, Karen didn’t contact the paper, that they contacted her. In the meantime, I was given the following portion of the email that Karen wrote:
Now having more information, I went back to Corrie and sent her that quote, not wanting to accuse Karen of lying, but giving her a chance to explain. Corrie then talked to Karen and then me and told me that when the newspaper contacted Karen that they had asked for more information and Karen had written a long email with all kinds of information in it, this being one of the quotes. I was very glad to hear that there was a legitimate side to this story.
My greatest concern with Karen was her use of “white supremacist” rather than kinist. I have since spoken about this issue at great length with Lynn and Corrie and I noticed Karen’s comment here about this and I think I understand what is happening. I shall try my best to explain it.
I have never thought of a kinist as being a white supremacist. I think Karen probably sees them as one and the same. I think of kinist as being one who is opposed to mixing the races within a family – not as having anything against someone because of their skin color. When Karen reads certain quotes, she sees just racism. I can see that now. So I was thinking that using the term “white supremacist” was using loaded language while Karen probably thought it was an accurate description. Karen, I apologize for assigning a motive to you which probably didn’t exist. I think we were both seeing this from two very different perspectives. I was looking at one person as a kinist who is not a racist, and you were thinking that all kinists must think that whites are better than others. Am I correct in this?
I hope this settles the newspaper issue.
December 28, 2007 at 7:36 am
Lin: “Are you now defending Patriarchy…James McDonald style?”
This question had to do with what James teaches at his church. Lin, all I am saying is that it is a pastor’s responsibility to teach his own flock, not that a pastor is guilty by association of the beliefs of those in his church. If James teaches patriarchy in his church, that is his right. It is his church.
Am I defending patriarchy? I just had an interesting conversation with Corrie about this. If the basics of patriarchy are just the biblical roles, then I support that. I am strongly opposed to patriocentricity, as Karen calls it.
Lin: So, what are you doing about Chad’s lie?
Lin, what lie? I am not aware of any lie.
Okay, so you called him once and now you defend him. But are you in email contact with him? You failed to mention that. Are you in email contact with James via Chad?
I didn’t fail to mention something that wasn’t asked of me. No, I am not in email contact with him, but I would like to establish a relationship with both James and Stacy. Why? Does that mean I’m “selling out”? No, it means that I intend to be a sister in the Lord to all believers. It means that I am tired of all these kinds of accusations flying around about people. It means that I intend to find out the truth for myself. James and Stacy are open to people contacting them and I am not afraid of finding some common ground. I can be friends with all kinds of believers. I don’t have to agree with everyone on every issue. Are there issues I don’t agree with James and Stacy about? Probably. Are there issues that I don’t agree with kinists about? Probably. But they are my brothers and sisters in the Lord and I intend to treat them ALL as such. I also intend to treat each one here that way, whether you reciprocate or not. Now, if that makes me guilty by association because I now choose to be friends with kinists or I now choose to pursue a Christian relationship with patriarchs, then anyone who says so is being just like Matt Chancey.
I hope you held James McDonald just as accountable for his wife’s use of her loaded language? White-washed feminist comes to mind?
I don’t hold James accountable; I don’t hold elders accountable; and I don’t hold men accountable for their wives. Now, I am free to ask James questions and I am free to ask Stacy questions, just as any of you are. Perhaps I will ask about white-washed feminism the next time I talk to them.
Jen, it is obvious you have kinist friendships and ties. I don’t know how you could say “no” to that question.
It is just as obvious the McDonalds have kinist friendships and ties.
Is it a sin to be friends with a kinist? Would Jesus shun them? Since Matt wrote that article, I have two kinist acquaintances. I don’t know them very well at all, but they both seem like very nice men. They are brothers in the Lord and that is how I will treat them. So far, I have had very little contact with them, but I think this experience has shown me that they need Christian friends just like I desperately need Christian friends. I know what it’s like to be shunned. If a kinist wants to be my friend, from now on, I will be a sister in the Lord to them.
I also think Matt Chancey was very right about Jen’s associations with kinists.
No, he wasn’t. At that time, what he wrote was a pure lie.
Lin: Let’s change the word Kinist to male prostitute. Sounds different, doesn’t it? I mean we would think the church would eventually confront the prostitute about his sin and try to lovingly restore him. Should he be allowed to stay in the body if he does not repent? Same with the kinist because what they believe about another human created in the image of God is sin.
Lin, I heard kinism being compared to abortion yesterday. Kinists don’t kill babies and they don’t solicit illicit sex from anyone, especially in church. While you are certainly free to speak out against kinism, it appears that you are really taking issue with racism. I don’t believe a kinist would say that a human being of a different color was not created in the image of God.
Lin, this is why I show extra respect for those who are elders:
1 Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”
Lin, I understand that there are some elders who should not be elders. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I know otherwise.
December 28, 2007 at 8:03 am
Cindy, I suppose you can come on this blog and call me anything you’d like, including a liar. I know what it is true and I am sorry you have decided to attack me like this. But I will respond to your questions anyway and you may believe anything you’d like.
Cindy: you’ve turned on Joe Taylor and you’ve turned on Karen Campbell.
I sought to find out the truth about Karen Campbell. We had a disagreement on the words she used. I have spent the last couple days trying to find out why she used those words. I think I understand her perspective now and I do have a different perspective. I have not turned on Karen Campbell; it just took time to sort it all out.
I have never turned on Joe Taylor. I have supported him even when I didn’t agree with some of his decisions. I still support him even though I don’t agree with all of his decisions. If they are honest, those who are his most ardent supporters will say that they don’t agree with all his decisions either. But that does not mean that any of us are turning on him. If stories are going to be told about him, I only think it is fair to tell the whole story and not just the parts that make Joe look good.
I look at these two situations the same way I do with being friends with kinists or the McDonalds. I don’t have to agree with everything Karen says and I don’t have to agree with everything Joe does, but I can still be friends with them. Do you agree with all your friends on everything? I would guess not.
Cindy: Someone that I had offline dealings with specifically said that they’d talked with Harry Seabrook and confirmed the truth of Jen’s connection.
I have had some minimal communication and dealings with Harry SINCE Matt Chancey wrote that deceitful article. We were forced into it when Matt wrote that. But that doesn’t mean that he is a close personal friend or that I have “connections” or anything. He is a brother in Christ and I will treat him as such, now that I do know him a little bit.
Cindy, if you are going to make accusations like that, please be forthright and tell us what you know or retract such a statement.
Cindy: I’ve received all kinds of emails verifying this privately this afternoon from multiple people. I’m not at liberty to divulge their names per their request because of their personal concerns. One person even claims that they’ve been threatened. What does that mean?
What does that mean? It means that I don’t believe you unless you prove it. That is no way to behave and I don’t believe you, Cindy. Someone is not telling the truth or it is being taken all out of context and the burden of proof is on you, Cindy.
Regarding Micah, if anyone wants to know that story, I will post it on my blog. You let me know. It is a fascinating story. It shows the proper way of using Matthew 18.
I really don’t know what Cindy is referring to in all these private emails between us, but I will tell what I do know. When I took down my story, I put in a request that others take down my story as well. Cindy wrote to me and wanted me to post certain parts of my story or wanted to know if she could use them. She asked a couple times, so I told her they were still cached. I asked once on my blog for people to take down my story. That was all I was going to ask. It was up to each person after that. I am not going to insist that adults not write about my story or use my story. That is their decision. Then I wrote this to Cindy:
Cindy was confused about this and apparently took it to mean that I was going to do something against Doug, when that was not what I was referring to at all. Although I am not at liberty to say what is going on behind the scenes, I will say that my intentions at that time were to write articles about the issues in a way that I could not have while I was focusing just on Doug. IOW, changing the focus of my blog was going to free me up to write about larger issues.
I think I have now answered all the questions here, so Good-night!
December 28, 2007 at 8:14 am
Cynthia Gee wrote:You can’t anthopomorphize Christ, He’s fully God AND fully human already.
“Romanist” is one step removed from “Papist”, which is a flat-out slur.
I use these terms quite faithfuly from Christian literature dealing with cults. I also learned both terms in seminary. I’ve also had my own writings concerning both terms peer reviewed by Orthodox Presbyterians as well as Dispensationalists and they did not correct these writings in the editing processes. So based on all that information, I believe that if I do use these terms unfaithfully here, I would have been corrected long ago. Those are the citiations that come to mind.
I agree that no one can anthropomorphize Christ literally, but they can certainly twist the doctrine to deceive others into believing that God is a glorified man.
To anthropomorphise Christ (anthropos meaning man) is to remove entirely or in part Christ’s deity. It is what Mormonism does. It is what Jehovah’s witnesses do. It is what I believe that patriarchy and federal vision and Bruce Ware effectively and quite subtly do to some degree to Christ. They make him the “Second Adam” that becomes a catalyst that takes them back to replay the first Adam dynamics. Bruce Ware says that we put too much emphasis on Christ’s deity and focus too little on His humanity. It is what the doctrine of the eternal subordinationism of the Son does in part and is part of what these men argue.
The term Romanist refers to earned salvation or merited sanctification and is a commonly used term in discussing doctrine. Cynthia, I even referred you a few months ago to many things on John Robbins’ website that he reproduced from another group concerning Romanist distinctions. It had the term “Romanist” in the title, you read it and came back and commented about it, so I don’t understand why you now argue the term itself. And for another example, the term is used by Veinot and Henzel to describe Gothard regarding sanctification. It refers to earned and merited grace for sanctification. I’ve read where Norm Geisler has used the term, and Robbins uses it all the time.
December 28, 2007 at 8:32 am
Jen wrote: Cindy was confused about this and apparently took it to mean that I was going to do something against Doug, when that was not what I was referring to at all.
Jen, this was not just one paragraph in one email. This is email after email after email. You’re cherry picking what you think you can twist to explain. Twist away. And dance. Go right ahead. We are called as Christians to be truthful, honest and transparent, not those who split hairs, strain gnats while swallowing camels. That’s exactly what you’re doing here. If I had the integrity to say those things to people like Chris Ortiz and those like him, they don’t fall into some utilitarian category. If you are guilty of it to, I have a duty before God to do so.
I have called you on every instance when you pulled this stuff, Jen. The last few emails, I’ve said that you’ve been deceptive when you come back with this stuff. And that’s all you ever come back with is a scheme. We are not called to be those who scheme. What you’ve written here is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. There are elements of truth in it, but in context it is dishonest and misleading. It is spin.
In case anyone here wonders what on earth I write about here or why….
It is not to pick Christians apart.
It is to expose insidious, subtle doctrinal error. I reject the Rahab’s lie business outright, so the employment of lies or deception does not get a pass. The end never justifies the means. Not for Doug not for Jen not for me.
It is hypocritical to say that it is okay to call Doug Phillips on error but then not call Jen Epstein on error. In many ways, to fail to do so is much worse because it is utilitarian. It’s situation ethics at its finest.
I refuse to spend any more time or energy spiting hairs over lies, getting caught up in futile discussions with one of the most dishonest people I have come to deal with. I’m done here.
It that makes me out to be a hypocrite and a liar and someone with no credibility then so be it. I call upon those who know the truth of these matters to make these matters known. I am not in this to win popularity contests but to be truthful and honest. And I refuse to play futile games with someone who has repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be a legalist with me.
December 28, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Jen says: “I hope this settles the newspaper issue.”
Actually, Jen, you still have not answered the questions I have asked you, both in e-mail and here.
Who contacted you and told you that I had called the newspaper? Secondly, what exactly did they tell you?
Also, Jen, I understand that you were planning to contact the reporter yesterday/ Did you talk with him and what did he tell you?
December 28, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Jen, this isn’t a matter of semantics. How can one not see white supremacy in a group that states that only white landowning males should vote? I can’t wait to hear this explanation.
December 28, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Marcia,
I am sorry that you feel that you cannot see anything of the Gospel of Jesus Christ on this blog. That really grieves my heart. While I do not personally know most of the women here, I do see Jesus in their lives via their blogs and what they write.
I am always amazed at the various gifts God has given to each woman who posts here. Some of us have bents toward exposing truth, others are inclined toward research and in-depth Bible study, others are motivated by a strong desire to encourage others in the faith, still others are tender-hearted and hate to see their sisters in the Lord suffer, and there are evangelists among us who are determined to witness the Gospel, even to those who find their way here and who do not yet embrace Christ.
Marcia, it is the variety of gifts I see here every day that is so inspirational to me and what motivates me to continue to discuss difficult issues with these women. I might only look at a topic from one perspective. But when it is introduced in this forum, I know many people who have a variety of gifts I do not have will also look at it and share what they think and see. It is awesome to me. My guess is that you, as a believer, have certain gifts that determine how you are looking at these issues. I would encourage you to consider what others are saying rather than determining our motives with a broad brush.
For those people who are deeply offended when truth is twisted and who have seen blog entries change repeatedly or who don’t have their questions answered, the behaviors we have seen are unbearable. For others who really want to see women encouraged in their walks with the Lord, the list of rules are infuriating because we know how spiritual abuse leads to discouragement. Still, for those who are meticulous students of the Word, the handling of Scripture by the patriocentrists is enough to make you want to hurl yourself over a cliff!
Let me give you an example of this. This thread was started to discuss the treatment of daughters and wives within the patriocentric world, especially as presented by the Botkin sisters and others published by Vision Forum. Several women immediately picked up on the misuse of certain key passages of Scripture that were being misinterpreted so as to promote daughters being at home until marriage. (Numbers 30 for example) and they posted their concerns here. I so appreciated the contribution to the discussion those women added. Others quickly noted the hypocrisy that runs rampant in these groups, and others have pointed out all the double standards that are held. Each person’s insights have brought us to this point where we can more easily lay a finger on what our gut instincts had told us initially. Thanks to this discussion, I can pick up a book or article and almost predict what it will say if it is written by someone in the patriocentric movement! And I so look forward to Corrie’s outline of this movement because I believe it will be an invaluable document for those who are just starting to examine these teachings. How I wish I had had it in hand already last week to pass along to that newspaper reporter!
Marcia, your experience with the McDonalds are just that, your experience. What I have seen on this board is many people being willing to set aside their experiences, for good or for bad, in order to examine the teachings in the light of Scripture. To do so is not gossip or slander or libel. Public figures are just that, they are public. As such, their writings or their lives that contradict those writings are laid open. When we first began to look under the hood at the Botkins book, several came here and said “But they are such lovely girls.” But that isn’t the point. We needed to examine their teachings. Man’s looking on the outward appearance can often be deceptive. That is why we only have their words and writings and teachings and associations to go on. The same is true in the rest of the patriocentric world. I hope that you will consider these things.
December 28, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Molly, ie #324.
Your words are quite wise. We are each pilgrims along this path. The point of these discussions is to examine the use and abuse of patriocentricity and its effects on women. I know we will each have a different theological bent and, frankly, it is quite interesting to me personally to see how people with those different views look at patriarchy. Thanks for your words and for your gracious spirit.
December 28, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Jen, one more thing that puzzles me……if you were so concerned about what I did or didn’t do or what I said or didn’t say, and you keep talking about going straight to the source to ask questions, why didn’t you e-mail me directly to begin with? It seems to me that you felt that you could do that with the McDonalds or Chad. But why not me?
December 28, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Let’s try this again, without the links:
Cindy,
You’re not alone in all your dealings. This is the same exact way I’ve been dealt with by Jen and her other “unaccountable” entities/online friends (primarily the anonymous kind) over the past year.
The people she has duped are victims of her games. They have names and families. They want the truth. This is not poo-flinging; this is standing up for the truth. I believe many who oppose Jen’s claims on the VF/whatnot side to be wrong in their patriarchy, etc. teachings, but it is very subtle and deceitful the way that Jen has used people. Please, everyone, reconsider what I’ve posted in the past on my blog (others can direct you there) with my dealings with her, before believing any more of her twisted schemes.
Jen Epstein and her “crew” have used these same techniques and more with me, nearly IDENTICAL to what Cindy has expressed here in her dealings with Jen, privately and online. When she’s asked a direct question, her questioners’ motives are questioned back at them, they’re given a convoluted, unrelated answer and run through what someone (I think Cindy) termed “emotional blackmail” (“how are you showing me grace?”, “Matthew 18!”, “why didn’t you contact me privately?” — when I did, etc). That’s exactly what she did to me, and had other anonymous entities rail on me on her blog (remember PFR? and others?), when I’d ask her pointed questions. Funny how I asked her the same questions about why it was okay for her to rail on about Doug’s obvious connections to the League of the South (kinist ties), and yet she herself laughed it up on reportedly LG’s kinist site and The Barn Cat’s blog with Frank Vance back in 10/06. Mark Epstein can also laugh it up in 11/06 with Chad Degenhart about how Christmas is a pagan holiday, the most of that post being very condescending towards us who celebrate, but it’s okay for them (Epsteins) to associate with kinists but not for others to associate with kinists? And how can Jen state that kinists don’t necessarily have racist views? Did she and her husband and Frank Vance who was so cozy with them at Ministry Watchman not even read a single other thing on those blogs, or who the commenters were? Two of the commenters on those blog posts “sc…b..ed” and “th…nh..e” hold to terrible racist views and are arrogant to boot.
My comment has nothing to do with whether or not these people are kinists (unbiblical) or not. It has everything to do with dissembling, subterfuge, lies, deceit and using people for their own personal agendas.
And, I looked at some pretty recent photos of Jen’s hands, and yes, they do look like MW’s binocular “header” hands. So, we all have our idiosynchrasies, I guess
I just don’t want Cindy to feel like she is alone in her dealings with unscrupulous people like I have for this whole past year, with no one coming alongside except for a couple of people who have believed me. I felt my credibility was completely destroyed when I posted my article on the phone call I received from Jen nearly a year ago. She responded to Cindy here nearly EXACTLY how she responded to me. With spin. Now, I’ve just exposed a very vulnerable area for me, but do ya’ want to know something? I’m confident in my walk with the Lord enough to know that no lie of the devil can separate me from the love of Christ.
Where’s the truth in all of this VF-Epstein-Ligonier-McDonald-Degenhart-Seabrook-etc. thing? Somewhere between when Jen decided to post to her blog and MW blog about the extra-biblical “man’s rules” created by sinful men (DP/et. al)and when she and others (still sifting through the details) decided to twist words (fabricate, lie) in order to fulfill their agendas, which were not to build up the Body of Christ.
Can we give her a pass? Didn’t we give her a pass when she posted someone’s real name here, knowing full well that that blogger never posts with her/her family’s real names? Coincidentally, that blogger used to be her friend in TX and caught her in some lies and confronted her about it. I don’t know that blogger, but I’m not willing to sit back and watch another wonderful blogger, Karen, have her comments twisted around (“loaded” accusation comment from Jen) just like Jen’s done to me in the past. I need to support, for that matter, Cindy’s new revelation, because many parts of it could have been taken right out of my own experience with the Epsteins, it was that similar. I could post more about that, but suffice it to say, it’s all been documented on my own blog. I’m not going to fall again for “taking down my blog posts” for the sake of peace, in order to let the scheming continue.
BTW, many of the old posts on Jen’s blog seem to not be able to be accessed through even a cache. I even saw where, before her blog was shut down, she told another blogger who comments here, “Cynthia, that site [Patriospeak.wordpress] is not related to anyone from Little Geneva”. How could she know that, when all of the rest of us were trying to figure out who wrote that site? When I blog-linked to that quote in her comment section, she quickly removed just it. Also, on the patriospeak site itself, it made a nutty reference that the Epstein’s weren’t welcome there, I believe, just to fool people. My blog has all my journey over the last year, with the phone call information.
Okay. I’ve posted enough for tonight, I think. I’m still following the Lord in truth. I’m not bitter, nor angry. Just protective of others who may be led to believing more lies. Let’s continue to strive to understand the truth revealed to us in the Scriptures by His Holy Spirit.
December 28, 2007 at 2:06 pm
I tried to post my comment #338 with the links to the 2 blogs before, but it wouldn’t let it go through unless I unlinked them. Just google “The Barn Cat’s blog, farce” and “Happy Jesus Bowl” to find the 2 blog entries to which I’m referring.
Also, when I said, “So, we all have our idiosynchrasies, I guess” I only meant that about myself referring to what people may think/say about my perceptions of things, not about the “hands”. I was very tired when I posted early this morning.
December 28, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Call me a dolt, but would someone clearly explain to me what a “christian kinist” would believe and why?
The ideas I have in my head are revolting and sickening if I am correct in my assumptions.
I’m not going to jump in the foray of what is going on right now, because I do not have a dog in the fight on any side. What troubles me is that there are “Christians” out there who think that white males are the elite race????
Does ANYONE remember the holocaust?
December 28, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Lindsay, you can have that answered by checking out the links above. These people claim both and you are correct, it IS sickening!
December 28, 2007 at 3:05 pm
If anyone accused me of being a kinist, I would VEHEMENTLY and ADAMANTLY, and HEAVILY fight to clear my name.
I would do everything under the sun to make it perfectly clear that I was NOT of that mindset.
That is all I have to say about it.
December 28, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Karen,
Thank you for your response to Marcia. It was right on the mark.
Marcia,
I do appreciate you and I do hear what you are saying. I know many of these women on this list, personally, and they DO have a heart for Jesus and that is why they are doing it. You are doing to these women what you are accusing us of doing to your friend. Some of us have had experiences that do not match yours. Does that make us liars? Does your experience nullify our experience?
I will not give you examples (I could give you quite a few) of my experience of nastiness and gossip just for being different but they are REAL, just as REAL as what you have experienced.
December 28, 2007 at 3:38 pm
I’ve written to a couple of people that I respect very highly about whether I should cease my assertions about all of this kinism mess. One person pointed out that they had concerns that they did not want to alienate anyone who was Catholic. (And I have not heard anything else but encouragement, BTW, from sources solicited and unsolicited.) So please let me take this opportunity to clarify why I used the term “Romanist” per the established Protestant usage.
I’ve never said that Catholics were not Christian and I don’t think that anyone who uses the term would make such a claim. It is used in making the distinction between the structure and doctrines of Romanism and Protestantism. They are different. The issue that I take with all this is that Reformed Protestants argue what is Romanist doctrine. That’s fine if they want to do that, but they need to properly define it and delineate it as such.
I’ve discussed this before on Jens Gems wherein I would be a hypocrite if I dared suggest that Catholics were not Christian. I attended a Catholic college, participated with campus ministry, sang in mass with the folk group and played guitar, went to on campus prayer meetings and attended their Bible Studies. Unlike a short-lived participation with the League of the South, I never intend to repent of my participation there, something that many of my Assemblies of God friends thought was scandalous and from whom I received much persecution. And to escape and find solace from the weirdness of patriarchy, I have sought solace in the Anglican church, one that I appreciate but not a church that is very familiar to me as I would much rather prefer an Evangelical one. But this is where I find myself and many who equate the similarites between Catholicism and Anglicanism have harrassed me about this as well. So I would ask that people refrain from ascribing inappropriate associations to my legitimate use of a commonly used theological term in Protestantism (my religious persuasion).
That being said, that is the very same type of issue discussed here — calling oneself by appropriate terms. As I have contended on my blog for a couple of weeks now, there are many overlapping groups associated with patriarchy, and it behooves one to know the stance of each group if one is going to participate because of the “mixed bag.” For that reason, if a person takes great issue with kinism for whatever reason, they have full right to know and should be given informed consent about the group’s beliefs because of the overlap. Caveat emptor.
Also, here is a clarification of my stance on Vision Forum, patriarchy and Doug Phillips:
Someone has asked me via email if because I am holding Jen Epstein accountable on the specifics of her kinist connections and her advocacy on behalf of this founder of the kinist movement and her advocacy for the kinist position as an acceptable Christian one — Am I going soft on Doug Phillips?
Let me state again as I have at least twice on this blog over the past day or so that I do not believe that any of Jen’s (alleged?) deception in any way exhonorates Phillips and his own behavior. I do however owe apologies to people who told me that they had their own personal, first-hand and independent information from well-known and established kinists that Jen Epstein was collaborating with them, getting help on her website from them. I contended that this was not true. I have discovered that a degree of it has been true all along, and I argued that this was fallacious when I now am in posession of evidence that Jen was in contact with kinists. For that and only that portion of their claims against Jen, I am duty bound before God to repent to them for contending for her on this count only.
As I wrote in my letter to Chris Ortiz which can be read on my website (non-blog), I held my very opinionated opinions about Doug long before I believe that Jen ever attended BCA. I knew nothing about Jen until the end of May of this year. I also argued with Chris Ortiz that the Epstein issue represented a very small portion of my claims against Phillips. None of that has changed. I contend in that letter that Ortiz ignored my argument and focused primarily on the Epstein issue, turning my problem with patriarchy into a slam of Jen Epstein. I also contended with this long and hard on SharperIron.com and on ibelieve.com. My entire argument was discredited because of Jen Epstein, to the fault of the people who did so, even though the Epstein’s represent about 5% of my evidence and claims against the heteropraxy in patriarchy.
Over the course of the past six months, I don’t believe that anyone even need mention the Epstein example to build a very damning case against Doug Phillips, if the people that have been silenced by fear, bankruptcy, legal threats, very ill health, retaliation against their ministries and fear of having their children harrassed would find the faith and ability to come forward and hold Phillips accountable. There are many of great reputation who testify to this privately but who cannot say anything publicly for these reasons.
Again my issue with Phillips has not changed, but I believe that everyone has the right to informed consent, especially those who have argued for Jen on her behalf as I have specifically regarding her ties to kinists. It may not have been Harry Seabrook or Chad Degenhart that helped her with her blog, but it may have been another kinist. This is a classic case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” here, but it goes much deeper from getting help from Phillips’ common kinist enemies, too. I believe that it is intertwined with the people who for kinist reasons were out to attack Sproul, Jr in an “enemy of my friend is my enemy” twist on things. I believe that this is very bad news and I am appauled that I was used, just as I was appauled and mortified to eventually learn that the whole League of the South thing was tied to kinism.
Was there anything overtly or notably racist at the League of the South conference that I attended? Not really, or I would have walked right out (with or without my husband). But I knew nothing at that time about Steve Wilkins and his pro-slavery books nor about the kinist favorable statements that the board of the League had made. So I distanced myself from them when I did learn of these things. I am doing the same with Jen Epstein here. I disagree that as she contends on some email groups and such that polygamy is a defendable Christian doctrine and that kinism can be supported as Christian on the same level of whether or not a Christian can dance or drink alcohol. I denounce these things as very anti-Christian under the New Covenant, a theology about which Jen now believes herself to be an expert.
December 28, 2007 at 3:49 pm
“This question had to do with what James teaches at his church. Lin, all I am saying is that it is a pastor’s responsibility to teach his own flock, not that a pastor is guilty by association of the beliefs of those in his church. If James teaches patriarchy in his church, that is his right. It is his church. ”
No, here is what you said:
” The pastor doesn’t believe everything everyone in his church believes; the pastors teaches everyone in his church what they should believe.”
Catch that? SHOULD believe. Big difference.
“Am I defending patriarchy? I just had an interesting conversation with Corrie about this. If the basics of patriarchy are just the biblical roles, then I support that. I am strongly opposed to patriocentricity, as Karen calls it.”
Seems to me Patriarchy focuses on roles exclusively to the detriment of the true Gospel. I find your answer interesting considering what your blog has been about for the past year.
“Lin: So, what are you doing about Chad’s lie?
Lin, what lie? I am not aware of any lie.”
You led us to believe that Chad told you that Karen called the press. That is not true.
” Are there issues that I don’t agree with kinists about? Probably. But they are my brothers and sisters in the Lord and I intend to treat them ALL as such.”
This is like saying one can hold two diametrically opposed views at the same time. I am going to be very bold and say what others may think but will not say. One cannot be a follower of Christ, sold out to Him totally and hold Kinist views. I am saddened to see that you think they can.
” I also intend to treat each one here that way, whether you reciprocate or not. Now, if that makes me guilty by association because I now choose to be friends with kinists or I now choose to pursue a Christian relationship with patriarchs, then anyone who says so is being just like Matt Chancey.”
Actually Jen, you are being like Matt Chancey. None of this is a question of being “friends”. It is a question of truth.
” I don’t hold elders accountable”
Which is why you were in this situation in the first place. I see you doing the exact same thing again. You seem to be impressed with pastor/elder titles. Not a safe position for you.
“Is it a sin to be friends with a kinist? Would Jesus shun them?”
How silly. Jesus would rebuke them and did. Their counterpart in scripture were called Pharisees. Even Paul rebuked Peter for thinking he should not eat with Gentiles. The problem is your kinist ‘friends’ are not repenting.
If your kinist friends did not call themselves Christians there would no problem…as Paul said, we cannot go out of the world. But you have a serious problem when they profess Christ and hold these views about their ‘neighbors’. This would be the perfect scenerio for you to practice Matthew 18, by the way…with the kinists.
“Lin, I heard kinism being compared to abortion yesterday. Kinists don’t kill babies and they don’t solicit illicit sex from anyone, especially in church. While you are certainly free to speak out against kinism, it appears that you are really taking issue with racism. I don’t believe a kinist would say that a human being of a different color was not created in the image of God.”
My goodness. What exactly do you think a kinist believes? You seem to spin better than the comps do. Equal but different? Separate but equal? What they believe is disgusting, Jen. On the same level as murder because Jesus raised the bar to what is in our hearts. Remember?
“Lin, this is why I show extra respect for those who are elders:
1 Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.””
The Greek word rule there is proistēmi which is better translated ‘to stand before’. But do not ignore the last part of that verse…because if YOU do not know scripture then you can be led astray easily with your seemingly total devotion to an earthly title. this verse is talking about the spiritually mature…not false teachers, wolves or hirlings.
Follow Christ only and joyfully listen to spiritually mature elders. Quit putting so much faith in men.
“Lin, I understand that there are some elders who should not be elders. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I know otherwise.”
Even if they are kinists? Patriarches? They teach a false Jesus, Jen. After all your ‘study’, I am amazed you do not see that.
December 28, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Lindsey, Hallelujah AMEN! Kinism is despicable, repugnant and wrong.
I’ll get back to lurking again…
December 28, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Marcia,
In the book of Jude, we are told to contend for the faith. There are tons of false teaching out there that comes in subtly, like Kinism, Patriarchy, etc., that may sound plausible but is a perversion of the Gospel of our Precious Lord. All false teaching has bits of truth or it would be found out very quicly and would not lead so many astray. It is very insidious.
Please do not fall into the trap of ‘If I like them, I will like their Jesus’. It does not work that way. There are way too many false teachers out there and that kind of thinking is very dangerous.
I pray this discussion will drive you to scripture to learn about the True Jesus Christ. He did not teach Patriarchy, He was not a legalist and He most certainly was not a kinist.
His precious Blood was NOT cheap. He took the Wrath we deserve on that Cross. And we cheapen it with all these extra biblical teachings that negate what He did for us on that Cross.
December 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm
I just want to let everyone know that I am trying to figure out what exactly it is that I need to say in response to some of these posts. I will clarify anything I know for sure but if I am quiet about some of these things, it is not because I am ignoring them. I am really just trying to get a grasp and I am keeping quiet until I am confident of what I am saying.
” I think of kinist as being one who is opposed to mixing the races within a family – not as having anything against someone because of their skin color. When Karen reads certain quotes, she sees just racism. I can see that now. So I was thinking that using the term “white supremacist” was using loaded language while Karen probably thought it was an accurate description. Karen, I apologize for assigning a motive to you which probably didn’t exist.”
Jen, it is not “probably”. There was no motive to do harm by using that term. I have read the material on kinism and from all I can tell it is supremicism. These subtle nuances in terminology do not impress me. When the rubber hits the road and all the Hail Dabney dust has settled, people of different races are a “vile stream”. That to me is thinking of the white race as superior to all others. Since I have stumbled upon Little Geneva a year ago when I had never heard of the word “kinist”, I have done a LOT of reading and following of links to various blogs. It isn’t just about breeding within one’s own color grouping.
For instance, I wonder if it would be okay for a black man to own white slaves?
If ever the term “white-washed” should be used, it is here. I think much of kinism is just “white-washed racism” and I am quite sure that the McDonalds will heartily agree with my usage of that term since it is more than consistent with the way they have used the term in their own writings.
“I think we were both seeing this from two very different perspectives. I was looking at one person as a kinist who is not a racist, and you were thinking that all kinists must think that whites are better than others. Am I correct in this?”
I know you are asking Karen but I think this is much deeper than just seeing this from different perspectives. Kinism, in its very nature, is heirarchal and whites are considered to be the supreme race and the most highly evolved.
Kinism has many layers as does patriarchy and Gothardism and such. You cannot know all that Gothard teaches just by going to the Basic seminar. I have been called a liar many times for explaining what he has taught in his other materials but that is because people do not know what exists in the other layers of his teachings. The same is true for kinism. Do some digging and some research and you will soon find the layer of teaching that whites are better than all other races. They are smarter, more beautiful and more capable and more moral.
December 28, 2007 at 4:11 pm
I am getting the opinion that so-called evangelical feminists or white-washed feminists are much more repugnant than kinists or white-washed racists according to those who support the hyper-patriarchal paradigm? I wonder if that has to do with the fact that kinists, for the most part, agree with Doug Phillip’s and Jennie Chancey’s teachings on women and their only calling/role being that of wife and mother?
December 28, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Cindy: “I refuse to spend any more time or energy spiting hairs over lies, getting caught up in futile discussions with one of the most dishonest people I have come to deal with. I’m done here.”
I’m willing to be held accountable, Cindy. It is a sin to slander my name like this without presenting proof.
December 28, 2007 at 4:17 pm
To get the first link The Barn Cat’s Blog, FARCE — don’t use the quotation marks; it won’t bring it up in the google search for me.
I’ll try a modified link:
thebarncat (dot) blog spot(dot) com/2006/10/ facts-ch-19-farce-plots-against (dot) html
and the Date-Dabitur site, post “Happy Jesus-Bowl Sunday” (Nov. 22nd 2005):
date-dabitur (dot) com /?p=192
Chad Degenhart’s Date Dabitur blog has racist/kinist views on it but they are guarded. The links he references in one of his posts for support against porn in the U.S. is from kinism(dot)net and several commenters are also kinist on his site, one who I’ve seen play these same sort of “hiding their true colors” game many, many times before, as I used to read alot of what he said until I found him to be an outright liar (caught him in lies directly). He was also the one who had first directed me to The House of Degenhart to learn the “evils” of industrialized society, LOL! All the while the “teacher” I was listening to used ebay, paypal, etc., and solicited funds for his online teaching and laid guilt trips on his readers (thankfully, I didn’t fall for that). He is the “biblicalagrarianism” cult-leader I referred to in an earlier comment. (funny how that word “biblical” can lay such guilt on people, huh?)
My account of coming out of cultic spiritual abuse even via the internet was similar to what Molly has shared about her past. It was all my desire to follow that wacky teaching and my husband didn’t have the discernment then to prevent me. We’ve come out of that together, now, and are now following one central theme, the Gospel, by the grace and strength of God.
December 28, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Karen: Actually, Jen, you still have not answered the questions I have asked you, both in e-mail and here.
Who contacted you and told you that I had called the newspaper? Secondly, what exactly did they tell you?
Karen, I answered your question in comment 289 yesterday, but I will repost it here:
Chad sent me the email and told me Karen contacted the press.
Now, Karen, you are changing the words here. No one said you “called” the newspaper; both Chad and I said you “contacted” the newspaper. Now, we did not know at first that the newspaper initially contacted you, but when you sent them the email, that was a form of contact as well. The confusion for us seemed to be in the fact that when we heard “contact,” we assumed that meant initial contact, but it did not, as I made sure to find out.
But you want to know exactly what was said? Here is what Chad sent me:
Karen Campbell contacted the local newspaper and told the religion editor that I was “one of the founding fathers of kinism” and a white supremacist and thought he should know that I was attending McDonald’s church.
Is that a lie? Isn’t that exactly what Karen did tell the newspaper reporter? Dictionary.com says that “contact” means to communicate with.
And here is what I sent Chad after I first spoke to Corrie:
Corrie also spoke to Karen about the newspaper editor. Karen did not contact him; he contacted her. Karen says that she did not say anything at all about you; she surmises that the editor found those things online. Did you just assume it was Karen?
And then Chad sent me this quote from your email which he had just received:
“I know this is much information and probably more than you want to know. One interesting development I discovered recently and that you might notice in the most recent discussions at TW, there is a corresponding movement within Dominionist groups called “kinism.” This is a white supremacist group and one of its founding fathers, Chad Degenhart, lives in Washburn, Illinois and attends the McDonald’s church.”
Karen: Also, Jen, I understand that you were planning to contact the reporter yesterday/ Did you talk with him and what did he tell you?
Yes, I did, Karen, and here is exactly what he said when I asked him if he was going to cover this issue:
”At this point, I don’t have any intention of pursuing the matter.”
Karen: Jen, one more thing that puzzles me……if you were so concerned about what I did or didn’t do or what I said or didn’t say, and you keep talking about going straight to the source to ask questions, why didn’t you e-mail me directly to begin with? It seems to me that you felt that you could do that with the McDonalds or Chad. But why not me?
Karen, I would have if Corrie had not volunteered to contact you herself. I was gone for most of the day and I had to talk to Corrie on the phone about something else anyway. She volunteered to take care of it for me. However, you are right. It would have been better for me to wait a day or two and email you directly. At the time, I didn’t know that the article wasn’t coming out until January 5, and I thought there was a time crunch, that it might be posted immediately in the paper.
Karen: Jen, this isn’t a matter of semantics. How can one not see white supremacy in a group that states that only white landowning males should vote? I can’t wait to hear this explanation.
This is all I’m saying, Karen. Did Chad write that? Does Chad believe that? Here’s my point. If you want to attack kinism here, that is fine. Everyone has that right. If you want to attack Chad’s own writings here, that is fine. Everyone has that right as well. However, if you attack kinism and then claim that Chad must believe that because he is a kinist, then, in my book, that is stepping over the line.
When I wrote my story, I was careful to state exactly what Doug said, did, or wrote. I didn’t lump him in with all the other patriarchy leaders unless he himself did so, such as when he wrote “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” with Phil Lancaster and RC Jr. That is all I’m asking anyone here to do as well.
However, as to your specific question about only white, land owning males voting, my guess, and it’s only a guess at this point, is that if they advocate that each race live together in their own countries, then only whites would live here to begin with. Point one. In a perfect world, males would love their wives the way Christ loves the church and therefore they would vote responsibly and women would not be suppressed like they were before women were allowed to vote. So point two would be that in a perfect world, having only males vote would never harm, only protect, women. But we don’t live in a perfect world, so that ain’t gonna happen. Land owners have a vested interest in voting. Much of our taxes come from property tax, so those who own property are much more inclined to study the issues for themselves and vote responsibly. Point three. I personally favor having only land owners vote as well. So you are free to attack me on that issue, if you’d like.
December 28, 2007 at 5:16 pm
“Is that a lie? Isn’t that exactly what Karen did tell the newspaper reporter? Dictionary.com says that “contact” means to communicate with.”
Jen,
As a noun, yes, contact means communicate but not as a verb. You used the word as a verb and it conveyed to me the idea that Karen initiated contact with the reporter. I told you that no, she did not contact the reporter but that the reporter contacted because of her review on Amazon. I said that the reporter called her and asked her questions. He contacted her and she responded.
Those are important distinctions.
When you called me it was clear to me that you were under the impression that Karen contacted the reporter.
“Karen, I would have if Corrie had not volunteered to contact you herself. I was gone for most of the day and I had to talk to Corrie on the phone about something else anyway. She volunteered to take care of it for me. ”
Actually, I was under the impression that you were calling me because you wanted me to ask Karen and I agreed to ask Karen for you.
I know these might sound like unimportant distinctions but I just want to be as accurate as I can about what I was thinking and perceived.
December 28, 2007 at 5:25 pm
My dear Kate, are we going to go through all this again? For your sake, however, I will. I will answer all your direct accusations. For all your other slander, please back it up.
I did not have PFR “rail” on you on your blog. Whatever they said was purely their own decision.
When have I railed “on about Doug’s obvious connections to the League of the South (kinist ties)”? I did no such thing, Kate.
Yes, Kate, I left a comment on Little Geneva and one on The Barn Cat. Does that make me guilty by association? Someone sent me that link to the Barn Cat’s blog. That was probably the only time I ever went there. The article I commented on was not racist or kinist or whatever. It was a farce and it was funny.
I don’t have any control over Mark’s comments, so please don’t attribute them to me.
Kate: it’s okay for them (Epsteins) to associate with kinists but not for others to associate with kinists?
When did I ever say this, Kate? I think all Christians should befriend all other Christians, kinists, McDonalds, Kate, Cindy, Doug Phillips, etc.
Kate: “And how can Jen state that kinists don’t necessarily have racist views? Did she and her husband and Frank Vance who was so cozy with them at Ministry Watchman not even read a single other thing on those blogs, or who the commenters were? Two of the commenters on those blog posts “sc…b..ed” and “th…nh..e” hold to terrible racist views and are arrogant to boot.”
Kate, a kinist view in and of itself is not racist. Some kinists do have racist views, but I don’t believe all do. Do I read the other stuff on those blogs? No. I didn’t know that was a requirement. And just because some racist comments on the same blog I left a comment on, does that make me guilty by association? If so, then you must be guilty of everything I am being falsely accused of here because you are commenting on the same blog I am commenting on. See how silly that is?
Kate, first it’s my nose and now it’s my hands? I will tell you again, Kate, that picture on Ministry Watchman is NOT me and never has been me. In fact, I had absolutely nothing to do with it at all.
Kate, I never called you. That is not spin. That is simply the truth.
Kate, yes, I posted a blogger’s real name here and I apologized for it as well. Aren’t you the one who has railed about people not using their real names? Now, what lies did this blogger catch me in? That would certainly be news to me, Kate. She is welcome to come here and post those lies for all the world to see because I know they don’t exist.
Kate, just so you know, I don’t have any control over Google’s caches.
Kate: “Cynthia, that site [Patriospeak.wordpress] is not related to anyone from Little Geneva”. How could she know that, when all of the rest of us were trying to figure out who wrote that site?
Kate, I analyze writing styles. Patriospeak is NOTHING like Little Geneva. Also, if Little Geneva linked to my story originally, why would they put up something against me like Patriospeak? That was simple to figure out.
Kate: When I blog-linked to that quote in her comment section, she quickly removed just it.
Kate, I’m not sure what you’re talking about here. I just checked and I saw that you made one comment about Patriospeak on my blog. It was up there until I cleaned up all the comments that had to with my story. It wasn’t just yours that I made private; I did it with all comments that were about my story when I took my story down.
Kate: Also, on the patriospeak site itself, it made a nutty reference that the Epstein’s weren’t welcome there, I believe, just to fool people.
Am I going to be blamed for writing Patriospeak now, too?
December 28, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Lindsey, in case I wasn’t clear enough — I am not a kinist.
But I also want to make it equally clear that I will not shun kinists either.
December 28, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Jen wrote: However, if you attack kinism and then claim that Chad must believe that because he is a kinist, then, in my book, that is stepping over the line.
This is as senseless as those on Sharper Iron who stated that I could only talk about heterdoxy and not heteropraxy that flows from the concepts and the “consequences” that “ideas” promote. Jen had no problem doing this with Phillips, but it’s wrong to do it with a kinist — a national leader???
This sounds pretty duplicitous to me.
Jen thinks that it’s open season on Phillips and goes across the country trying to persuade people who have evidence that can prove Phillips’ sins with all fervor, but she thinks that it’s wrong to hold a kinist accountable for their mixing of racialism and Christianity? Hmmm. How can that be?
The proof will come. And I state that I am in possession of evidence that concerned people and sources have not given me permission to divluge but I find it credible enough to risk all my credibility because I believe that it is true without equivocation.
None of this makes any sense and I don’t see how these answers Jen has offered to both Karen and Lynn explain or clarify anything. It’s more spin.
Jen, I believe — just as I and others have told you — that you are deceived and that you are still deceived. I think that if you don’t understand this from my previous offline contact with you that there’s something very wrong with your perception. Let this all be an online intervention then. You need to get help. You’ve lied and lied to so many people over the short six months that I’ve known you. And you are continuing to lie here. I don’t know why you choose to do so or if you really believe that you are innocent. I’m just one of many to whom you’ve lied and attempted to manipulate, and if you can rest in peace with that knowledge, then something is very very wrong and you need to get help.
As every person is entitled to an opinion, I am of the opinion that you are and have been spinning out of control for quite awhile. I know that many like myself and some far greater have offered you help and you’ve rejected it. You’ve lied to them and manipulated them when they’ve tried to hold you accountable. But enough is enough. You need the help of a good counselor and the accountability that comes along with that. I’m so sorry that Doug Phillips was not able to provide that for you and it still breaks my heart, but you cant continue to run around like a hurt, wild animal from distraction to distraction. One clinical pattern that you fit is the pattern common in patriarchy: love addiction to men that results from abandonment or abuse at the hands of a male parent. You cycle just like the pattern that is very common in spiritually abusive churches. You are hopping from one obsession and one religious drug to another, and I love you enough to tell you this. You’ve blown me off in private, so I am doing it here. Maybe those with compassion for you will likewise encourage you.
That’s my opinion and it’s not going to change, not in light of what I’ve expereinced over the past several months. And if people want to deem me as of little to no credibilty in the process, then I am willing to take the risk. You are not fooling me, and I will not be silent and watch you accuse innocent people. I will not let you continue to twist my own words and those of others and spin facts without making that known to these people here. Spin all you want, but don’t draw in any more innocent people into your activities and stop the deception.
December 28, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Wow. Yesterday I finally had some time to catch up on the discussion here, and I have to say that I am distressed on many levels. I can understand Marcia’s dismay at reading here, but I also appreciate the necessity of discussing errant teaching and holding it up to the scrutiny of God’s World. I also understand the need to expose the deeds of darkness.
I can’t bring myself to comment any further without addressing Jen’s comment:
“However, as to your specific question about only white, land owning males voting, my guess, and it’s only a guess at this point, is that if they advocate that each race live together in their own countries, then only whites would live here to begin with. Point one. In a perfect world, males would love their wives the way Christ loves the church and therefore they would vote responsibly and women would not be suppressed like they were before women were allowed to vote. So point two would be that in a perfect world, having only males vote would never harm, only protect, women. But we don’t live in a perfect world, so that ain’t gonna happen. Land owners have a vested interest in voting. Much of our taxes come from property tax, so those who own property are much more inclined to study the issues for themselves and vote responsibly. Point three. I personally favor having only land owners vote as well. So you are free to attack me on that issue, if you’d like.”
In a perfect, sin-free world, we would gladly and lovingly embrace all humans as sons and daughters of Adam. I feel a need to go on record as stating, as strongly as possible, my complete and vehement opposition to kinism in any form. It is, I believe, a completely ungodly philosophy, with no redeeming value whatsoever.
Chad may be a gentler, kinder kinist, according to Jen, but I doubt it. He is certainly not a bit player or fringe member in the movement. I don’t know the man, but just googling his name makes his involvement abundantly clear.
To change the subject just a little:
It is obvious that emotions are running high, and for good reason. A number of you — of us — are struggling with the issue of wondering what/whom to believe, of trying to process contradictory claims, of having been betrayed, of having been used. In light of that, the restraint shown here has been admirable.
Without making light of or overstating the personal cost here, I want to offer something that has often encouraged me when I’ve been betrayed. I remind myself that this is but a small, tiny glimpse into what Christ suffered. I also take it as a challenge to examine myself: am I honest in all my dealings? am I trustworthy? am I ever, in even the smallest way, a Judas?
Then I remind myself that, in the end, God will sort it all out. Those who appear to “win” may end up paying a great price in the end. Do I really want to be in their place?
December 28, 2007 at 5:40 pm
From dictionary.com:
“con·tact
–verb (used with object)
9. to put or bring into contact.
10. to communicate with: We’ll contact you by mail or telephone.
Corrie: When you called me it was clear to me that you were under the impression that Karen contacted the reporter.
Correct, as was Chad. From this definition, contact is still the correct word, but we didn’t realize at the time that Karen did not initiate contact with the reporter. She did, however, tell the reporter about Chad.
December 28, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I am probably a complete outsider regarding many of the issues discussed here. I’m young, and neither a wife nor a mother. I come from a very mainstream egalitarian Christian perspective, but I have been fascinated by the comments and the discussions on this topic, and very inspired by the bravery of people who are willing to challenge extreme patriarchical thinking.
But from my point of view, it seems that the conversation has degenerated into name-calling and accusations – that the overall tone of the thread is no longer as rational or civil or well, loving, as it was (and I’ve read through practically every single comment on all four threads). I believe that many important, well-reasoned arguments are probably being lost in the haze of personal attacks, and that a new visitor to the site might miss the original message(s) of this discussion.
This is only an expression of hope that the conversation might turn back to its initial tenor and focus. But before that, one last digression:
To me, a woman of color, kinism cannot be anything other than racism. First, it expresses the erroneous viewpoint that we can even really divide ourself into pure “races” to begin with – instead of recognizing that, if you look far back enough, we all have ancestors from all across the globe, whatever our present skin color or culture might be. Second, if someone tells me that they don’t want “my kind” “mixing” with “their kind,” that to me is an unmistakeable signal that they believe my “blood” is “dirty” and “impure” – which, in the end, is about as racist as you can get. To say that I need to live in a separate land other than my home (America) because of the color of my skin is, well, racist. To be clear, I would not “shun” a kinist. I believe we are to love everyone. But I could never defend their particular beliefs even one iota.
December 28, 2007 at 6:06 pm
“Correct, as was Chad. From this definition, contact is still the correct word, but we didn’t realize at the time that Karen did not initiate contact with the reporter. She did, however, tell the reporter about Chad.”
Jen,
Agreed. I understand that. I guess this is like a game of “telephone”?
It started with the person who told Chad and did not get their facts straight before making the assertion.
December 28, 2007 at 6:09 pm
A few more comments:
Jen, I hope you prayerfully read and re-read what Cindy wrote in #355. Please.
For those who wonder what on earth kinism is, and whether or not it is racism (I really think Corrie’s term “white-washed racism” is right on), here is what I found on search.com:
“Supporters, known as kinists, say the word kinism means “love of one’s own kind.” Kinists are primarily Reformed Christian apologists for Southern slavery and the antebellum South. They believe that God segregated the races after having dispersed mankind, following the biblical story of the Tower of Babel.
Some opponents refer to them as skinists [1]…
Although Kinism is a new movement, it attempts to reflect the traditional racial views of the rural South before desegregation. Supporters typically express strident opposition to interracial relationships and direct numerous derogatory remarks toward black, Jewish and multiracial people. They also regularly criticize other Christians, especially Presbyterians, who endorse more egalitarian views on race and culture…
Many kinists are charged with holding to anti-semitic conspiratorial views. Interestingly, kinists insist that they oppose racism, on the grounds that kinism simply means “love of one’s own kind.” They also say they disavow violence and hatred toward anyone based on race alone. Critics, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, argue that this claim is disingenuous, because hate groups commonly use similar façades — and racism is not limited to threats of violence.”
I ran across a site comparing kinist writings with KKK writings and making the point that there was no discernible difference. However, I found the site so offensive that I’m not going to link to it.
Certainly Jen is welcome to pursue friendships with anyone she wishes. It certainly makes her sound very accepting and open-minded and loving to want to be friends with the entire world and not “shun” anyone.
However, I have a different view of friendship. The truth of the matter is that no real kinist would want to be my friend — at least not once they got to know me. It has nothing to do with my “shunning” anyone. It has to do with light and darkness — in more ways than just skin color.
Maybe the kinists can somehow prove that their racial DNA is “pure”. I come from a much more interesting and delightful family history. I’m exactly the sort of person that kinists want to prevent.
Quite honestly, I don’t have a great desire to be friends with someone who wants all the people in his country to be the same color. You see, I enjoy being friends with people of all races, and I don’t want to be friends with someone who wishes some of my friends would be removed from our borders.
December 28, 2007 at 6:10 pm
[...] There’s been a turn of events at the Truewomanhood blog, a place I go to learn what women are really thinking. Read to the end in the comment section; [...]
December 28, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Catherine, thanks so much for your powerful words. You stated the truth so eloquently.
December 28, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“Second, if someone tells me that they don’t want “my kind” “mixing” with “their kind,” that to me is an unmistakeable signal that they believe my “blood” is “dirty” and “impure” – which, in the end, is about as racist as you can get. To say that I need to live in a separate land other than my home (America) because of the color of my skin is, well, racist. To be clear, I would not “shun” a kinist. I believe we are to love everyone. But I could never defend their particular beliefs even one iota.”
Catherine,
Amen! You said perfectly what I was trying to say. That is why I will not couch my beliefs about kinist beliefs in sweeter sounding terms. I am offended for my brothers and sisters because of these beliefs. It makes me angry to read such teachings.
Thank you for your cautions concerning the tone of this discussion. These are emotionally charged issues and things can quickly degenerate.
I would love to put a spotlight on the kinist teachings and bring them to the light of day. I agree with you that I would not shun a kinist. I would apply as much understanding to them as I would to an alcoholic or sexually immoral person. I would love them but I would not defend their beliefs or practices.
December 28, 2007 at 6:31 pm
James McDonald made a statement about kinism on his blog (in his heavily nuanced and fence-walking way) under the Beauty for Ashes title. He compares a black church’s response about being unashamedly black to the kinist teachings of being unashamedly white?????? I am having trouble understanding what it is exactly he is saying amidst the double-speak.
Here is what he says:
“A few days ago, I came across the mission statement of the church where Senator Barack Obama worships (Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago). As a Christian, the words hit me as racially divisive. I was troubled the news media ignored these words. Judge them for yourself:”
Obviously we are to compare this statement from Barack’s black church to the kinist statements about race mixing and such?????? Am I getting this wrong here? Is he trying to convey the message that this is apples and apples and that kinism just sounds racist?
He then welcomes the pharisees or those who already claim Christ to come as they are as if this is what Jesus did. When, in fact, Jesus welcomed SINNERS, those withOUT God, to come as they are. But, once they were saved, He told them to go and sin no more. I will eat with a prostitute, alcoholic or the sexually immoral but I will not eat with pharisees who lead God’s lambs astray. I am following Christ’s example in this. He did NOT do what James said He did. James has turned around this for his own benefit.
If a person claims Christ and is a prostitute or alcoholic it is different than a person who does not claim Christ and is a prostitute and alcoholic. Is James saying that Jesus accepted the pharisees and their false teachings and that Paul coddled Peter when he was straddling the fence in order to please the pharisees? Or did he sternly rebuke them and tell them to repent so the Gospel would not be perverted and people would not be led astray by the Judaizers example?
When people claim to be religious but hold on to aberrant beliefs, they are not to be welcomed “just as they are”. If this is his response to kinism and their beliefs, it sounds more like an excuse and a “wink, wink” than a rebuttal.
I am amazed and perplexed by his message. It sounds like double-speak to me and it is riddled with misuse of scripture.
Sorry, I am having to be blunt here. I am very disturbed by his stance and light treatment of this serious error. To compare kinist beliefs to Barack Obama’s church’s statement about being unashamedly black is disgusting. It is apples and oranges and for people not to see that is beyond my comprehension.
December 28, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Lin Said:
One cannot be a follower of Christ, sold out to Him totally and hold Kinist views. I am saddened to see that you think they can.
I cannot agree with this. I can agree with the idea that someone who is sold out to Christ totally cannot hold Kinist views, but the fact of the matter is that none of us are completely “in Christ” while we are on Earth. Sanctification is a process, and every one of us holds onto sinful perspectives until that process is completed. Christ did not hold kinist views, but to argue that everyone of his followers completely duplicates him on this point at all times is to argue that perfection is possible this side of heaven; the Bible clearly teaches it isn’t.
Earlier someone compared kinists to a male prostitute; my initial response to kinism, in an attempt to understand why people react so strongly to is, was to compare it to rapist. I was sexually abused as a child and as an adult, and I am still dealing with fallout from incidents that happened over forty and over twenty years ago; I do not view rape lightly.
But neither do I argue that someone who has raped is necessarily not Christian. I know a man who date raped and admitted to it and who essentially became a Christian through confessing that sin – he still battled with not raping his wife when she turned him down and sometimes raped her for years. Clearly, becoming a Christian did NOT free him of the attitudes of a rapist; while he’s moved past acting on those attitudes and learned to respect his wife to the point of accepting her viewpoint totally on these issues (due to the repeated evidence that his opinion is completely unreliable), these attitudes are still with him. For whatever reason, God did not instantly heal these issues, although God certainly did instantly heal other aspects of his personality.
Much as I hate rape and would like to simply despise rapists across the board, as a Christian I do not believe this is the right response. It may be the only response some people who’ve been recently wounded are capable of, but it is not the response of someone who has healed to the point of being able to rest in Christ on this issue. Rape is no more the “unforgivable sin” than kinism is. A Christian can slide into and even rest in unChristian attitudes without by that fact disproving the fact of their Christianity.
Many here were at one time patriocentrists – at one time they reduced women to a lesser being just as it is claimed kinists do to people of color. Does this mean they were not truly Christian when they held these beliefs? I would say it does not; someone can be fully Christian and fully confused on some particular issue. I would assume many Christians in many slave-holding cultures went to their death believing wrong things about other races or peoples; this does not mean they weren’t Christian, it means that God, for whatever reason, did not challenge that particular sin in their lives before they died. All of us will die believing some cultural lies rather than God’s truth; the Bible promises that Christ will complete the work of sanctification, not that he will accomplish it on our timetable. (Philippians 1:6 & Hebrews 12:2)
Back in one of the earlier versions of this thread, people justifiably bristled at the patriocentrist implication that those who don’t embrace their view of patriarchy are in some way not fully Christian; how is this statement any different from the patriocentrists’? In both cases, a position viewed as sinful is used to “prove” that someone is not truly Christian.
It is a sin to view men and women as of greater or lesser value; it is a sin to view people of different races as of greater or lesser value; but the fact remains that Christians are sinners, and sinning per se is not evidence that someone does not belong to Christ.
I have prayed for years that God would deal with a particular sin in someone’s life while God made absolutely no effort to do so; but even as I prayed desperately that God would challenge sin X, I could see that God was instead working on sin Y in that person’s life. The fact that God did not challenge the sin I wanted him to says nothing about whether the person in question was a Christian; the two cases that immediately come to mind I’ve known the guys for literally decades and have little doubt in either case that they were Christian when I started praying or are Christian now. Yet their particular prejudices remain just as stubbornly there as ever; God, for his own reasons, has changed them in many ways and I rejoice in those changes, but he has not chosen to challenge the particular issues that most bother me (or, in another case, he left them there for nearly two decades before beginning work on them – long after that particular sin had no direct impact on my life or on anyone else’s, either).
At any rate, I do not see any logic in challenging Jen’s statement that she views kinists as “her brother’s in Christ.” When we shun another Christian as a Christian, this puts up a barrier should God call us to challenge that Christian’s wrong beliefs. We are to approach our brothers in sin with meekness, in the knowledge that we are fellow sinners (2 Timothy 2:25 and a half-dozen other verses); the Bible teaches that it is words spoken in meekness that sink deep and change hearts.
Someone who listens to kinists as fellow Christians, allowing them to define their own beliefs rather than labeling them, and then gently guiding them to see where some aspects of their beliefs do not align with the word of God is more likely to be heard than someone who views the kinist as inherantly inferior and gives the kinist a label the kinist rejects and then condemns the kinist for sharing the attitudes behind that lable. Whether Jen will actually challenge people I cannot say; but I do think her attitude of viewing people as Christians first and hearing them out on what they believe before challenging them is the right first step.
For all I know Jen has totally embraced the worst aspects of kinist philosophy; I am supporting Jen’s statement that she will view kinests as Christian brothers, not Jen per se. I really think this thread has slipped horribly from the original position of “discuss theology, not persons” – Jen’s stated positions are legitimate targets of attack, IMHO, should anyone dislike them, but what I’ve been seeing here is people insisting they know Jen’s HEART, and that, in my book, is mind reading.
Someone earlier used the illustration of a child who denies hitting a sibling, when it later turns out the child pinched the sibling, and the poster said, “The child lied (in saying he didn’t hit) because he knew what I meant.” (I am paraphrasing from memory so feel free to go back and check me.) My immediate response was that, if the child is strongly autistic, he was NOT lying in saying “I didn’t hit him,” because an autistic is not going to make the “obvious” connection that the parent wanted to know if they’d in any way injured or attacked. A parent may know a child well enough to say that the child “knew better”, but OTOH I’ve seen many parents who did not know their child well enough at all.
If someone thinks very differently than we do, we can perceive them as lying or misdirecting when they are truly being as honest as they know how; they are simply using language so differently than we do, and coming from profoundly different assumptions about reality (NOT in terms of moral issues, but simply from a difference in experience or perceptions), that communication is difficult.
Jen indicates that kinists believe “that each race [should] live together in their own countries” – if this is the case, then Malcolm X, at the height of his popularity, was a kinist. Does anyone here seriously argue that Malcolm X was a white supremist? I agree with Jen that Chad Degenhart needs to be judged, if judged at all, by his own words rather than by a label.
I am profoundly disturbed by the turn this thread has taken. Things have admittedly drifted into the personal before (I’m referring to all four threads), and I have been irked by this stray comment or that one, but that is the risk of sinful people discussing issues they disagree with, held by particular people who’ve irritated them. But I do not remember the thread becoming outright attack on a person to this extent before. I strongly disagree with Marcia that “there is nothing of Christ on this blog,” but I do think the conversation is outside of Christ at the moment in the sense that people are being judged and attacked, when I think the Biblical approach is to explore or challenge ideas in the light of scripture.
If someone wants to challenge Jen as a liar, that’s fine with me; but the point where the issue needs to be pursued between Jen and God – between those who may truly know Jen’s heart or have all the evidence – has long passed, IMHO. Rather, the issues have become (or were initially) personal, and I’ve seen no evidence myself of anything except misunderstandings and contrary assumptions clashing, and I am frustrated that this issue has derailed the thread. That may merely be my personal intolerance showing, but this seemed an appropriate place to display it.
December 28, 2007 at 6:51 pm
“But from my point of view, it seems that the conversation has degenerated into name-calling and accusations – that the overall tone of the thread is no longer as rational or civil or well, loving, as it was (and I’ve read through practically every single comment on all four threads). I believe that many important, well-reasoned arguments are probably being lost in the haze of personal attacks, and that a new visitor to the site might miss the original message(s) of this discussion.”
I completely agree, Catherine (with the part I quoted above as well as the rest of your comments regarding kinism).
So much of the recent conversation seems to be based on behind-the-scenes, personal information and disagreements that simply don’t involve the majority of readers here. I also think that accusations of posters making red herring and logical fallacies are being made quite inconsistently, and in some instances, erroneously.
December 28, 2007 at 7:10 pm
“Then I remind myself that, in the end, God will sort it all out. Those who appear to “win” may end up paying a great price in the end. Do I really want to be in their place?”
No one ‘wins’. It is about truth. Patriarchy and Kinism are not Christianity. They are a perversion of the Work of the Cross. And you know, if we are to leave everything to God to sort out then why the Epistles?
shilo wrote:
“Lin Said:
One cannot be a follower of Christ, sold out to Him totally and hold Kinist views. I am saddened to see that you think they can.
I cannot agree with this. I can agree with the idea that someone who is sold out to Christ totally cannot hold Kinist views, but the fact of the matter is that none of us are completely “in Christ” while we are on Earth.”
This is the old ‘sinners sin’ arguement. As if we should be feasting on milk all our lives. When in fact, when we are saved, we should have a totally different relationship with sin. What we once loved we now hate because God hates it. It breaks us, leaves us brokenhearted for displeasing our Savior and cheapening His Blood. We are in repentance daily over our sin.
If we study 1 John very deeply we see this. We all sin but if we are ‘walking’ in the light…which suggests a lifesyle…a way of living and thinking…then we are different. Being Born Again means that God has taken out our hearts of stone and replaced it with a heart of flesh. He separates us, purifies us. (Ez 36) We do not wander from the narrow road too far before He disciplines us.
Hebrews 10:26-31 is another wake up call about the seriousness of sin. Scary stuff.
The point is this: If a kinists is bearing fruit of salvation, they will hate the sin that is in their hearts of this insidious belief system. They will beg God to deliver them from this ‘hatred of their neighbor’ crouched in the soft language of ‘separatedness’.
I know I don’t sugar coat stuff as well as others. please know that I am writing the above with a heavy heart and tears in my eyes. This is not a game. And it is not about winning. It is about the truth of our Lord and His Holy Word.
December 28, 2007 at 7:13 pm
“I really think this thread has slipped horribly from the original position of “discuss theology, not persons” ”
This was an original position of this thread?!
I just snorted my coffee.
December 28, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Comment #264: Somehow others ended up with that quote and are accusing me of contacting the press about Chad, putting his job in jeopardy, etc, even though I have tried to tell them what exactly happened.
Shiloh states that this has degraded into personal attacks and that many here are arguing whether individuals are Christian or not. I don’t see that at all. I don’t even see this as a forum discussing whether kinism is Christian. It is a matter of accountability about whether people are aligned with kinists and whether they have been open and honest about their affiliations. If private attempts to confront some of these people have been fruitless and it is taking place here, that makes this a very Christian endeavor and very much Christlike. Jesus said to shout this stuff from the rooftops.
Jen is the person responsible for this email to Karen Campbell. Jen has yet to adequately explain why she could rally against Doug Phillips yet can write this to Karen Campbell. Unless Jen is brutally honest with us here, I believe that the evidence that proves her involvement with the kinists who have helped her write her blog all along are forthcoming. I believe that the reason why Jen is so quick to falsely accuse Karen of this, either by making those connections herself or by listening to what either James McDonald or Chad Degenhart have told her because of her alignment (in whatever capacity) with kinists, showing her allegence to them.
If we do not hold our own accountable, who will? The secular world? Jen needs to show herself truthful and accountable here because of what she’s said to Karen. She needs to show herself accountable because of all those she has enlisted in her own crusade against patriarchy — a crusade wherein she deceived many of us into believing that the claims of VF concerning her involvement with the kinists to be 100% false.
For those of you who believe that the whole issue of racialism and race has nothing to do with patriarchy, do not deluded. I believe that it is perhaps one of the strongest common threads that runs through all of the leaders in the patriarchy movement. This is why I believe that it is vital to make these distinctions.
Kinism is deeply and directly tied to the writings of the Confederate Prebyterian writings. Phillip Lancaster’s material corresponds well with the writings of these Confederates, some of which I’ve posted here. There is a reason why Phillips hails Dabney as a prophet and a reason why Lloyd Sprinkle, a League of the South advocate, republished all of these antiquated, pro-slavery authors. I believe that there is a reason why Phillips quotes Dabney yet never makes any qualifying statements denouncing servitude or slavery. It’s the same reason why McDonald can make it look like he’s not racist but will not produce a public statement about kinism.
So this is an accountability issue here that relates directly to patriarchy and the kinist and racialist implications that involve patriarchy. If you read this older literature and compare it to the modern patriarchy literature and the writings of Giles that speak about the opression of women and race per the doctrine of subordinationism, you will clearly note these common threads. I challenge anyone who denys this to read this literature and see it for themselves.
December 28, 2007 at 7:25 pm
Lin quote me and then wrote:
““Then I remind myself that, in the end, God will sort it all out. Those who appear to “win” may end up paying a great price in the end. Do I really want to be in their place?”
No one ‘wins’. It is about truth. Patriarchy and Kinism are not Christianity. They are a perversion of the Work of the Cross. And you know, if we are to leave everything to God to sort out then why the Epistles?”
Thanks for responding as you did. I didn’t realize how unclear my words were. Certainly I don’t mean that we shouldn’t sort out theological issues or contend for the truth of the Gospel — I was speaking to the interpersonal issues of betrayal that some participants here are dealing with. Sorry if I’m being cryptic, but I don’t want to add fuel to the fire, so to speak.
A return to the Biblical issues, in my opinion, would be very welcome. Sorting out who is lying and who said what when on whose blog and what “is” means when so-and-so says it versus what it means to the rest of the world — maybe I’m just feeling old and weary, but I’d prefer we not drag this discussion down any further with more of that.
Or maybe the godly thing would be for me to give everyone a Dr. Seuss nickname and write some sort of oddball story about the whole thing…sorry, I couldn’t help myself.
December 28, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Cindy: I do however owe apologies to people who told me that they had their own personal, first-hand and independent information from well-known and established kinists that Jen Epstein was collaborating with them, getting help on her website from them. … I now am in posession of evidence that Jen was in contact with kinists. … It may not have been Harry Seabrook or Chad Degenhart that helped her with her blog, but it may have been another kinist.
Cindy, please, this is getting ridiculous. Whatever proof you have, you need to present it, or retract these false accusations. I am quite curious as to know what “other” kinist helped me with my blog. I will tell you this much. If some “other” kinist helped me with my blog, he sure hid his kinism VERY well, because even I don’t know about it. Cindy, I know exactly who helped me on my blog, so that narrows it down real quick. You need to provide some proof real fast.
Cindy: the New Covenant, a theology about which Jen now believes herself to be an expert.
No, Cindy, actually, I am just in the very beginning learning stages of this, which is why I am in online study groups to learn more about it.
Cindy: Jen thinks that it’s open season on Phillips and goes across the country trying to persuade people who have evidence that can prove Phillips’ sins with all fervor, but she thinks that it’s wrong to hold a kinist accountable for their mixing of racialism and Christianity? Hmmm. How can that be?
I have gone across the country trying to persuade people with evidence of Phillips’ sins? Cindy, this is getting more ridiculous by the post! Please tell me what your evidence is of this latest lie?
Rebecca: Jen, I hope you prayerfully read and re-read what Cindy wrote in #355. Please.
Rebecca, I so appreciate you. Could you please tell me what are meaning here? I did read that post twice and I only see Cindy lying about me. If Cindy wants to provide proof of her lies and it turns out I am wrong, I will repent. But just slandering me by her keeping on calling me a liar without presenting any facts, evidence, or proof is a sin, Rebecca, and she can couch it in all the psychological language she wants, but I will say again that I am willing to be held accountable for all that I do.
You see, I know I am not perfect. I know I have sinned – a lot – in this past year. And there may be things I still do need to repent from and apologize for, but without stating the facts, I can’t do that. Cindy’s deceptive claims are simply slander at this point.
December 28, 2007 at 7:29 pm
“Rape is no more the “unforgivable sin” than kinism is.”
Shilohmm,
I do agree with what you have written and the “gist” of it.
I don’t think anyone is advocating the shunning of kinists, patriarchalists or rapists.
I agree with what Rebecca said, I don’t think that a kinist would want to be around me for very long, especially once they got to know me.
From what I read on McDonald’s blog it sounds more like an excuse FOR kinism than a strong statement against kinism? Paul opposed Peter publicly because his duplicitous behavior was causing confusion for other believers. Peter would not take the difficult stand against the Judaizers and their false beliefs. Instead, he cow-towed to them and excused them by being soft on them and appearing to go along with such things.
Paul made a strong statement. That is what leaders do. I have seen no strong statement against kinism. I have seen several strong statements against evangelical feminists and “white-washed feminists” but none against kinism.
I have challenged those who have wrong beliefs on this issue and I am still their “friend” (that term is used loosely and it means different things to different people in different situations). But, I could not “agree to disagree” on the issue of Kinism. Some people in this discussion see it as a grey issue or an issue of Christian liberty like they would see drinking wine, dancing or listening to rock music. That means that they do not challenge it because they believe the Bible doesn’t speak against Kinist beliefs and that the Bible actually allows for freedom in these issues. I STRONGLY disagree. But, if one to have this attitude that kinism is just a Christian liberty, then one is not going to challenge this issue and to me, that friendship would come across to the person as acceptance of their beliefs.
I totally see what you are saying. I really do.
But, I think I am more with Rebecca that this is a light and darkness issue.
If a known child molester were in the church, I would love that person but from a distance. I would not put my children in danger nor would I allow other people’s children to come into danger. If I would have that known child molester to my home and allowed my children to go to his house and never warned anyone, others might unsuspectingly think that I tacitly approve of him. I would love that child molester but I would never give the impression to onlookers that he is trustworthy around children.
It is a tightrope to walk for sure and we must be wise because we have a duty to expose false teachings and not give the appearance by our associations and actions (like Peter) that we approve of such things. I am all for grace and love and loving the sinner and hating the sin. I am a little perplexed that the patriarchal movement who claims to be tough of false teaching and hold people accountable is all of a sudden mushy, gushy with warm fuzzies and claiming grace on this issue?
I am seeing a bit of an inconsistency here. Are they tough on sound doctrine or not? Or are they just a different brand of the “anything goes” church that they so loudly come against? I guess it depends on the issues that unite them? Feminism and egalitarianism seems to be the great evil in the eyes of patriocentrists and kinists, so that may be why they are all love and grace and tolerance on this issue and then on other issues claim they are the only ones who see God as He is- Justice, Truth, Judgment and Mercy. The balance seems to be tipping to the love and mercy side where it usually tips to the other end on other issues.
A strong statement that kinism is a false belief would be nice. I guess the explanation I just read looks more like an excuse for than a refutation of.
December 28, 2007 at 7:35 pm
<<<<>>>>>…
I would write something up but I don’t have time to read Dr. Seuss. Guess I am not “passionate” enough! Is Dr. Seuss sold by Books on the Path? Is it on the proper reading list? Is it classical enough, godly enough? I have been avoiding it thinking it would corrupt the soul and, yet, here I sit viewing writings from someone who seems to know the characters quite well and has the time to reinvent a story in an effort to exonerate herself, while avoiding real questions in the real world! Hmmm…………………..must be something psychedelic in those green eggs and ham (maybe they are adding mushrooms?)! LOL
Blessings!
December 28, 2007 at 7:42 pm
Oh Jen, just keep it up. You are just digging yourself in deeper and deeper. You’ve gone on pilgramages to spend time with some of these people to pump them for info. You’ve contacted all kinds of people (who have contacted me from all over the country! so I know well from them) all that you’ve tried to solicit from them. You ran them off by your aggression and lack of demonstrated trustworthiness. This is no exaggeration at all. Not by any stretch.
I’ve talked to two people who state that they spoke with kinists personally who state that they have helped you, but they have contrained me from divulging their names. I’ve stated that already. There are others in addition to these people who are giving you time to repent here. So if that makes me a liar, so be it. I am constrained from making their identities known but I am not constrained from making that public knowledge.
Call me a liar all you want because there’s not shred of truth in it.
December 28, 2007 at 7:43 pm
“So much of the recent conversation seems to be based on behind-the-scenes, personal information and disagreements that simply don’t involve the majority of readers here.”
Shauna,
I can understand this but please understand that it is very hard for those who do have a greater depth of insight. It is a hard thing to navigate.
When personal information and disagreements shed light on public statements, well……that is a hard thing to know when to be quiet and when not to.
For instance, Jen’s blog is this very thing. She has exposed Doug Phillips for a year and much of it is based on her personal insight and behind the scenes experiences. Her blog was a sorting out of some of these private things, was it not? Personal issues and disagreements that simply don’t involve the majority of her readers? How much emphasis does practice have on what a leader teaches? What does the Bible say? Like I said, I am struggling greatly with all of this.
Marcia,
I understand about the “snorting” of drink. I have done that often. Can you help me understand how one separates a person’s teachings from their practices and their dealings with other people, especially those who disagree? I know your experience is different and I appreciate that. Are you saying that your experience is truth for all people or do you allow that other people might have had a different experience? You are free to state your opinion and experience, are others free to voice their concerns and relay their experience?
I am not loyal to people, I am loyal to truth. Whatever side the truth falls, that is where I want to be. I will not discount another person’s pain and experience because my own experience does not bear their experience out. I will hear them out and I will investigate because TRUTH is my goal. Not loyalty to a person. And, this is what gets me into trouble. If I found out that the truth fell down on the side of someone I have great disagreement with, I would not cover it up nor would I pretend that truth doesn’t exist. I will hold even my friends accountable. Even if they have been wonderful to me.
I have made the error of not believing someone who has been abused in horrific ways because my experience with the alleged abuser was nothing but peach pie and fluffy kittens. I will not re-victimize another victim based on my own warm and fuzzy feelings again. There is nothing worse for an abused person than when they venture out to tell what they have suffered or experienced only to be told that they are a liar.
December 28, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Jen, Cindy had written: “Jen, I believe — just as I and others have told you — that you are deceived and that you are still deceived. I think that if you don’t understand this from my previous offline contact with you that there’s something very wrong with your perception. Let this all be an online intervention then. You need to get help.”
When people have told me that I am deceived, I’ll admit that it’s hard not to bristle, go on the defensive, and want to make accusations of slander (although, on the internet, given the written medium here, “slander” is the wrong term). It’s even harder to handle accusations of being deceptive.
But it is important to stop and pray. It is important to allow God to let us know whether or not our “accuser” is really being used of God to speak truth into our lives.
I will freely admit that I am not beyond being deceived. I have been deceived in the past. As careful as I try to be, I will probably be deceived in the future. I am not infallible, nor am I all-knowing, nor am I so brilliant that I cannot be duped.
To make things worse, I am still in the process of being sanctified by my Savior. I have a long ways to go. I am prone to wander.
Jen, you are an intelligent woman. But this past year should have taught you how easily you are deceived, and how quickly you are drawn into extremist teachings.
Set aside your differences with Cindy. Just carefully consider the paragraph I quoted above. Pray about it. That’s all I’m saying.
In the meantime, make sure your words are beyond reproach. Allow others to correct you when they are not. Don’t quibble over what “contact” means. Allow God to lead you into all truth, and be willing to follow.
December 28, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Rebecca: Chad may be a gentler, kinder kinist, according to Jen, but I doubt it. He is certainly not a bit player or fringe member in the movement. I don’t know the man, but just googling his name makes his involvement abundantly clear.
Then, Rebecca, by all means feel free to discuss anything you see online with Chad’s name on it. That is really all I’m asking here. All I’m saying is that many people are attributing certain statements to Chad just because he’s a kinist, and not bothering to find out if he actually believes everything every kinist believes. I think that’s only fair.
Catherine, I want to state again that I am not a kinist, nor am I a racist. I have black friends, and Chad, as a kinist, has friends of all colors. Since I am not a kinist, I am not defending their position, but I do think it is only fair to state that one of the reasons they don’t believe in mixing the races is because of many verses like these in the Bible, where God Himself separates the nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues:
Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying: “ You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
Revelation 7:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Revelation 11:9
Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.
Revelation 13:7
It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people—
December 28, 2007 at 8:04 pm
“Or maybe the godly thing would be for me to give everyone a Dr. Seuss nickname and write some sort of oddball story about the whole thing…sorry, I couldn’t help myself.”
Thanks for clearing that up! I am always a bit worried when I see statements like that. A few years back, a staff minister at a mega church was outed by his own adult son for repeatedly raping him when he was 12-13. The son had finally come up with the courage to tell the senior pastor see to it his father got out of the ministry.
The senior pastor kept it a secret but when it became public said that the man had repented to him and that God would ‘sort it all out in the end’. The man was kept on as a staff minister until the public outcry was such that he resigned.
So that statement always scares me and I am so glad you cleared it up.
But please…no Dr. Suess!
)
December 28, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Corrie, thanks for letting us know about James’ article, “Beauty for Ashes.”
Corrie: Obviously we are to compare this statement from Barack’s black church to the kinist statements about race mixing and such?????? Am I getting this wrong here? Is he trying to convey the message that this is apples and apples and that kinism just sounds racist?
That’s not how I read it, Corrie. I think James was trying to say that there are many churches out there who are exclusive – black churches, Korean churches, Hispanic churches, what have you, even many family integrated churches would exclude many from their fellowship. However, James is not going to exclude anyone who desires to come to their fellowship. James is going to welcome the kinist, the man off the street, or whosoever will come to worship.
I don’t think James is at all condoning sin in his church either. It seems to me that he is saying that they are not required to clean up their act and change all their beliefs to match James’ beliefs just to attend church there, as some churches do require. As a pastor, he is going to preach God’s Word from the pulpit and he will deal with individual needs, sins, and beliefs as they are warranted.
Corrie, I do think it is absolutely fair to show that many blacks, and other races as well, segregate themselves. Kinism is not just a white idea. Did you read how segregated Obama’s church is and how much they themselves want to retain the culture of Africa? If that in any way parallels kinism, then I think James did an outstanding job of showing that kinists aren’t the only ones saying these exact same things.
December 28, 2007 at 8:22 pm
“I am not defending their position, but I do think it is only fair to state that one of the reasons they don’t believe in mixing the races is because of many verses like these in the Bible, where God Himself separates the nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues:”
Now I am very confused. Why is it only ‘fair’ to show what they believe that is a perversion of the Gospel? Can you actually find any correlation here with these verses and being separate from other races? You actually believe this has credibility for Kinism?
If God is communicating ‘separate’ with these verses then your kinist friends must not be with those who speak other languages, either.
But then, that is not what is meant by these verses at all. What a perversion of the Holy Word! No, it is NOT fair at all, Jen to defend what they believe. I am shamed to even see this.
Do you realize how much defending of Kinism you have been doing on this thread?
By the way, earlier you said that you believe only landowners should vote. So those renting apts in NYC, Chicago, Miami, SF, should not be allowed to vote?
For about 8 years, I lived in an apt because I was starting a business. I employed 25 people, traveled all the time and did not want to be bothered with upkeep on anything. So, I should not have been allowed to vote during those 8 years?
December 28, 2007 at 8:24 pm
shilohmm, I don’t know you at all, but in comment #365, you captured my heart perfectly. You have expressed my true intentions here and I thank you for your kind words.
December 28, 2007 at 8:26 pm
Then, Rebecca, by all means feel free to discuss anything you see online with Chad’s name on it.
Jen, seeing anything with Chad’s name online is disappearing before my eyes at least. Blogs are being altered, and information is being taken off the internet. Fortunately, I have saved some altered comments on my hard drive. I just wrote a blog entry about this.
December 28, 2007 at 8:27 pm
“Then, Rebecca, by all means feel free to discuss anything you see online with Chad’s name on it. That is really all I’m asking here. All I’m saying is that many people are attributing certain statements to Chad just because he’s a kinist, and not bothering to find out if he actually believes everything every kinist believes. I think that’s only fair.”
Jen,
To be fair, if kinists were able to achieve their agenda, there would be no black people or Asian people in order to be friends with. The borders would be strictly enforced and a kinist nation would contain only “white” people.
If I claimed I was a feminist and started a feminist institute it would be my responsibility to clearly articulate what I did believe and what I did not believe. There are plenty of kinist writings out there and he is one of the founders of the Kinist Institute and every kinist I have read lauds him and highly reveres him. I have yet to come across an area where a particular kinist disagrees with the statements of the founders of the Kinist Institute.
I will keep looking, though. I think a statement would be helpful. It isn’t that we aren’t bothering. I have “bothered” to find out many things and I have “bothered” to find out what many people actually believe but there is only so much red tape I can keep on trying to cut my way through before I get the hint.
No one is assuming things. A reasonable person will see that many of us have done our research. This seems to me to be a tactic to fly under the radar more than it is an honest effort to be upfront and forthright about one’s particular beliefs.
Like Stacy McDonald said and Cindy insightfully pointed out on her blog, if a woman dresses in immodest clothing, that woman should not be surprised when people think certain things of her. She also said if a woman dresses in maternity clothes, then they should not be surprised that someone thinks they are pregnant.
Does this not apply to other issues?
If I said I was a member of N.O.W. and N.A.R.A.L and Planned Parenthood and that I started an institute for women with Betty Friedan, would it be unthinkable for people to think certain things about my beliefs? Should I retain the right to accuse them of painting a false picture of me when my alliances and activities clearly portray what I believe? Wouldn’t it be my responsibility to make sure no one got the wrong picture? Maybe I am just hanging around with sinners and that is why I belong to all those places? Is that reasonable? Maybe I am just tolerant of other people’s beliefs and I am just sharing the love and hoping to win these places over to Christ?
Now things are disappearing? This seems to be modus operandi with the patriarchal movement. And I am accused of being “sneaky”?
Let us talk about the Amazon reviews disappearing right after a reporter reads Karen’s review and contacts her for her input on that particular book? Poof! Reviews disappear. Who made it go “Poof!”? Will anyone who can even hope to have the scepter extended out to them ask that question? Was it the McDonalds? The Chanceys? Don Hart, Doug’s lawyer? Who complained to Amazon? Anyone? And why are we so afraid of free speech? Who petitioned [threatened with legal action?] Homeschool Blogger to take down Cynthia Gee’s posts about James McDonald- several times?
Maybe Dr. Suess isn’t such a bad idea but then I view that sort of thing as “sneaky”. I view disappearing blog posts and statements in interviews in the middle of the night as “sneaky”. I guess sneaky is as sneaky does. As for me? I may be irritating and annoying but I don’t even know how to do “sneaky”? I got voted “Always gets caught” in High School, if that tells you anything. My husband tells me that I am the worst liar in the world. I can’t play poker because my face gives me a way. I have never been accused of being “subtle”.
As Dr. Phil says, “Those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.”.
I know what Dr. Seuss says, too.
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.”
For some this is good logic:
“I have heard there are troubles of more than one kind. Some come from ahead and some come from behind. But I’ve bought a big bat. I’m all ready you see. Now my troubles are going to have troubles with me!”
I like this one:
“I meant what I said and I said what I meant.”
And this is pretty good, too:
“The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.”
December 28, 2007 at 8:29 pm
Jen,
I’ve been watching your behavior spin out of control, and even predicted as much on my blog months ago. I won’t be manipulated by you again and believe your answers after I’ve explained all my reasoning in the past for not believing you here (comment 337) and on my blog.
You bring up red herrings (what kinists believe, etc.) to divert from the main point: you have given vague answers to our pointed questions and you point out others’ sins while ignoring your own involvement with people that we’ve gone toe-to-toe with on your account(s), and their messed up teaching.
You’ve tried to patronize me and seem to actually think I’ll be pursuaded by your many, convoluted words. I spoke up when I saw Cindy, a regular commenter in the past on your site and who defended many of your allegations, get run through the same treatment I received when I started asking you questions, yes, in private emails AND on your blog, where you demanded I bring my questions — not on my own blog. Well, I’m not going to be silenced when I see the same treatment done to someone who has spent a great deal of time and effort really trying to expose false teaching, unlike you, who can’t even discern that kinism = racism, (which is an affront to the Gospel of Grace and Love and Truth, where there is no distinction between colors of our skin and heritage) and you won’t answer a simple “yes” or “no” question when asked, on any particular subject that has cornered you. Remember my other questions in the past (on my blog) that you’ve given the same type of spin as you do here.
One question, I would ask of MW: Where’s the source photo for the MW header located and where did it come from? I know where I got mine from, Karen’s explained where truewomanhood’s came from (if memory serves) — why can’t they answer that without all the weird backpeddling and sidestepping to direct to red-herring arguments? I suppose nobody from MW is around to read this lively blog exchange, though.
Also, how is it an attack to ask you questions that should for most believers be easy questions to answer? Yes, I’ve gone through this before with you, and am going through it again because I see the very same M.O. used on others that was used on me in the past. Not again. I’m one of the most evangelistic people I’ve ever met, (sharing with people at the checkout, on my blog, other’s blogs and even from my church’s open mic) in my circle of influence, so you must know that I have been praying for the revealing of the knowledge of the truth to be known to all, especially in this situation.
“Wisdom is justified of all her children” Luke 7:35
Let’s examine ourselves to see if we are in the faith of our Lord Jesus, who came to set the captives free.
I’m not angry, just being upfront and open about my past dealings with you, so that others can be aware. Read my comments #337 and #338 and I urge you to not spin my main point I was trying to make: What you cherry pick out of my comments doesn’t reflect the overall theme of how you’ve used people to further your personal grief with Phillips or whoever has offended you. Your blog is conveniently silent these days, in reference to my linked posts to your blog. I’ve pointed out your seeming manipulation with those who’ve trusted your words. Don’t add to your burden by dismissing my points; I resist any word-crafting, Lord willing, so that the truth will finally be exposed, by myself and others involved and people can receive the healing they need and the discussion about the wonderful truths in God’s Word can be taught and learned of all. I’m very sorry if this seems like a strong tone, but I did seem to get a second wind when Cindy brought up her dealings with you, and want to encourage her and others who’ve been affected negatively or who have nursed some serious doubts about certain allegations.
December 28, 2007 at 8:39 pm
As unsettling as this discussion currently is, I see some good in it all. The disturbing concept of kinism is now under a microscope for all to see and analyze. Now I see new meaning in Vision Forum’s obsession with the Civil War and dressing up in period costumes, as well as their ideas of women and voting. I would like to say they are unaware of the connections but they are too smart for that.
As for Jen, I’m afraid she’s lost credibility to me. She’s changed courses way too often and seems unstable. I pray she does get help in sorting out her life, as others have suggested. She’s been deeply hurt over the years and deserves compassion for that, but she would be better served directing her energies into her own healing instead of here on this website.
December 28, 2007 at 8:42 pm
‘“Correct, as was Chad. From this definition, contact is still the correct word, but we didn’t realize at the time that Karen did not initiate contact with the reporter. She did, however, tell the reporter about Chad.”
Jen,
Agreed. I understand that. I guess this is like a game of “telephone”?
It started with the person who told Chad and did not get their facts straight before making the assertion.”
And, Jen, according to the e-mail I received from the reporter, the ONLY person he had shared my e-mail with and had spoken with at that time was James McDonald. So it was either you, or Chad, or James who made the false claim about me.
December 28, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Hey ladies,
Perhaps it’s time to put this discussion to bed? I have been a cheerful lurker, have learned and thought about a lot,but now I believe that a lot of what I am reading is not too edifying-or at least not for public consumption.
(I am also the mom of an adorable mixed race baby so I am getting a bit hot under the collar here with some of this as well.)
Can we go on to the next subject, maybe?
December 28, 2007 at 8:44 pm
scuse me, I meant grandmom-I’m the mom to a gal married to my adorable african american son-in-law.
December 28, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“As for Jen, I’m afraid she’s lost credibility to me. She’s changed courses way too often and seems unstable. I pray she does get help in sorting out her life, as others have suggested. She’s been deeply hurt over the years and deserves compassion for that, but she would be better served directing her energies into her own healing instead of here on this website.”
Debbie, Wise words. I pray that healing will come from Jesus Christ only and His Word and not from searching for and following more mere men and ‘their’ teachings. That is what started this whole thing and she seems to be headed that way again!
If we are going to make mistakes…let’s make new ones. Not the same ones over and over.
/
Go to the SOURCE of all LIFE, Jen. Alone.
December 28, 2007 at 8:46 pm
“For about 8 years, I lived in an apt because I was starting a business. I employed 25 people, traveled all the time and did not want to be bothered with upkeep on anything. So, I should not have been allowed to vote during those 8 years?”
Lin,
Don’t be silly! You are a woman. You can’t vote. The Bible (and Doug’s blog) says that women can’t vote.
I think we need to welcome polygamists, too. We need to understand that they have freedom in Christ to pursue their polygamous nature. After all, polygamy is biblical. I can make a very good case for polygamy.
I have often wondered how long it will be before one of these patriarchal groups who allows for polygamy breaks into the mainstream? After all, there is NOT one verse that says that polygamy is wrong. Polygamy and kinism are all subsets of patriarchy and they use the same faulty arguments that patriocentrists use in order to promote their beliefs.
Jen,
“Corrie, I do think it is absolutely fair to show that many blacks, and other races as well, segregate themselves. Kinism is not just a white idea. Did you read how segregated Obama’s church is and how much they themselves want to retain the culture of Africa? If that in any way parallels kinism, then I think James did an outstanding job of showing that kinists aren’t the only ones saying these exact same things.”
I wrote to this church and I will let you know what I found out. I hardly see that this church is promoting an all-black state where only rich, black males can vote. Nor do I read anything about “race-mixing anti-Christs” or Jews who need to be deported back to Israel. I don’t see anything about exiling black women who were raped by white men in order to protect the “camp” just like the leperers protected the people in the camp.
This is a comparison of apples and oranges and it looks like a defense FOR kinism and not a rebuttal against kinism’s false beliefs.
I find this very odd that James’ is promoting his church as “accepting” and “tolerant”. It sounds just like the Emergent churches’ message, one that he would take issue with. Would homosexuals be tolerated in that church, too? I mean, they would be accepted and loved and treated just like a brother, too, right?
I hardly see that Obama’s church as “kinist”. I see it at saying that they are proud of being black because many throughout history have called them VILE and likened them to animals and taught that they were created to serve the white man and they are against racism and discrimination based on one’s color of skin.
I am not saying that there is not racism among all different colors of people. What I am disturbed by is that James did not issue a strong statement against kinism but took the opportunity to call people names for pointing out the hypocrisy of his friend Matt.
December 28, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“Her blog was a sorting out of some of these private things, was it not? Personal issues and disagreements that simply don’t involve the majority of her readers?”
I really can’t answer that, as the few times I visited her blog I was too uncomfortable with the personal nature of the discussions and didn’t go back.
December 28, 2007 at 8:54 pm
What I mean is that I can’t answer that in any depth, as I am only familiar with Jen’s blog in passing.
December 28, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Lin,
“But please…no Dr. Suess!
)”
Awww…I am so disappointed! A silly aside of no importance: I had always wanted twins, but God apparently saw fit to prevent me from carrying out my many joking “threats” of nicknaming them “Thing One” and “Thing Two”, or naming them all sorts of ridiculous twin names that only I found amusing.
Jen,
I’m really not interested in hijacking this thread any further and turning it into a discussion wherein we speculate what Chad may or may not believe about kinism. I think we can all safely assume that, as a leading proponent of kinism, Chad at the very least holds to the beliefs listed on the kinism.net website — or why would he refer to himself as a kinist?
The fact that Chad may or may not have “friends of all colors” means nothing to me. I once worked in the same office as a hardcore KKK member. (We had some…um…interesting discussions before agreeing, for the sake of office harmony, never to bring up the topic again.) She had “black friends”. Her relatives had “black friends” at the same time that they were terrorizing other blacks. She was one of the most frightening racists I’ve ever met, and it was all the more eerie because she was so motherly and kind and nice and polite, even to our black coworker. But get her started on the topic of race…!
As a kinist, surely Chad believes in “loving his own race” and in race separation — or else he would not be a kinist. Trying to cover up his racism by having “friends of all colors” does not impress me. The fact is that, in the kinists’ ideal society, I would not exist. Neither would most of the people I love the most. This is ugly. This is arrogance, pride, hate — in short, it is white-washed racism. I don’t care how polite and charming and endearing you find Chad. I’m sure he would be nice to my face. That doesn’t change how ugly and wrong kinism is.
My racist co-worker was one of the “nicest” people I’ve met. It practically broke my heart to discover her racist beliefs and attitudes. But I didn’t try to sugarcoat them just because she was so “sweet”.
December 28, 2007 at 8:56 pm
(I am also the mom of an adorable mixed race baby so I am getting a bit hot under the collar here with some of this as well.)
As you should. There is NO place in Christendom for this insidious teaching of Kinism. There is no acceptable defense of it and no rebuke strong enough for it.
And Congrats on the grandbaby!
December 28, 2007 at 8:57 pm
About the Dr. Seuss references. I brought that up yesterday as an alusion to the now twiced vanished online sources of Stacy McDonald’s Nov 30th comment on her own blog post about gossip wherein she condemned others for gossip but did so herself. I copied this from her blog comments and put it on the amazon review under Karen Campbell’s review (as it is essentially gossip about the review). Within a day, Stacy deleted all of her blog comments. Now the Amazon post has disappeared too.
For those who were unaware, that is what I alluded to in a post which may be why it was mentioned here today in slighlty different context.
I have a copy of this post from Amazon on my blog under Karen Campbell’s review. If you scroll down to the Nov 30 comments following the review, you can read Stacy’s now twice deleted commentary where she attempts to soften her own gossip with Seuss characters.
http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=368351
December 28, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Corrie, thank you for quoting from James’ blog entry for December 27, 2007. In it, he stated:
“Why do I mention these things? Recently, someone looked at our church photo and took issue with one of the families who have been visiting with us. However, instead of calling the church office with their concerns (or better yet, going to the family directly), they decided to gossip about it. It turned out that their concerns and assumptions about this family were incorrect.’
Since when does KNOWING that a certain person is attending a church and KNOWING, via a government document that that person is one of the founders of a white supremacist group, and KNOWING there is a relationship between the pastor of that church and that white supremacist leader and giving that information to someone who is asking about that church GOSSIP? What constitutes gossip and what constitutes giving facts? I gave facts. As with all sorts of other things we have discussed here regarding patriocentricity and the topics that come under that heading, documented facts combined with quotes are considered to be “gossip.” Almost makes someone want to give up. Almost.
December 28, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Hi Lin! I was attempting to answer the comments in order and I knew I saw one from you that I hadn’t answered yet, so please forgive me for accidentally missing it.
You quoted me as saying: ” The pastor doesn’t believe everything everyone in his church believes; the pastors teaches everyone in his church what they should believe.”
And then you said: Catch that? SHOULD believe. Big difference.
I’m sorry, but I’m not following the difference. James teaches what he believes at his church. That is his right and his responsibility. In so doing, he is teaching what he believes his congregation should believe. That is why different people choose different churches and that is why I am so cautious on joining a church. The pastor will teach what he believes those in his congregation should believe. If I knowingly go to a church that teaches something other than what I do believe, there will be a conflict of some sort. However, my main point in all that was that James is not expected or required to believe anything any member of his church believes; rather, he is the preacher and teacher of God’s Word to them. They learn from him.
Lin: Seems to me Patriarchy focuses on roles exclusively to the detriment of the true Gospel. I find your answer interesting considering what your blog has been about for the past year.
I thought about this last night and realized that I wasn’t very clear in what I said here. I had just talked to Corrie about it, so it was fresh in my mind, but I just didn’t put it down on paper very well. I guess what I’m trying to say is that plain patriarchy believes that the man is the head of the wife and loves and serves his wife, while the wife is to submit to and respect her husband. Short version. I have no problem with that. However, patriocentricity, as Karen so aptly calls it, is when life now revolves around the man of the house. That is what my blog opposed, and that is what I still adamantly oppose. And anything that adds to Scripture as being mandated, just as young ladies MUST stay home until they are married, falls in the patriocentric category as well. So, if you find it in Scripture, clearly, I’m all for it. Otherwise, I reject it as a mandatory issue and think it then falls into the area of Christian liberty.
Lin: You led us to believe that Chad told you that Karen called the press. That is not true.
No, Lin, I said that Karen “contacted” the press, which is technically accurate and was the word that was passed on to me. I think the lie falls on another. Look at comment #351 and it should be obvious.
Lin: Actually Jen, you are being like Matt Chancey. None of this is a question of being “friends”. It is a question of truth.
Truth of what, Lin? That Matt Chancey lied about me? That I have since become acquainted with some kinists and refuse to hide that fact? That I won’t shun anyone?
Me: ” I don’t hold elders accountable”
Lin: Which is why you were in this situation in the first place. I see you doing the exact same thing again. You seem to be impressed with pastor/elder titles. Not a safe position for you. … this verse is talking about the spiritually mature…not false teachers, wolves or hirlings.
Lin, I’m not quite following you here. Are you saying I should have held Doug accountable as my elder? I am not impressed with titles, Lin, but I will give honor where honor is due. If an elder misuses or abuses his position, then I will not show him extra honor. If an elder is a false teacher, I will not show him extra honor. Goodness, that should be more than obvious in my case! Until I am aware of that in each individual case, however, I believe it is biblically mandated to show them honor.
Me: “Lin, I understand that there are some elders who should not be elders. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I know otherwise.”
Lin: Even if they are kinists? Patriarches? They teach a false Jesus, Jen. After all your ’study’, I am amazed you do not see that.
Lin, I’m not aware of any kinists who are elders. If you are referring to James McDonald as a teacher of patriarchy in this statement, then I would refer you to his own statement of what he believes and teaches: “What is Family Reformation?” I believe it to be far more balanced than the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. While I do not agree with everything presented there, James does believe in Christian liberty in many areas other patriarchs do not. Now, I do not know much at all about James McDonald. He was not my focus this last year. I am basing pretty much everything I know about him from one phone call recently, a few emails when I wrote an article about him, and a couple articles I’ve read on his blog. I don’t know much more than that, although I do remember meeting him a couple times in Texas.
Lin: This would be the perfect scenerio for you to practice Matthew 18, by the way…with the kinists.
And if I see them sinning against me, Lin, then I will do so. Matthew 18 is for a personal offense against me.
December 28, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Jen, you wrote:
“No, Lin, I said that Karen “contacted” the press, which is technically accurate and was the word that was passed on to me. ”
No, it is not technically accurate. The press contacted Karen. She responded. If I were trying to be completely accurate and honest, I would quite defending my misuse of this word. I would repent for being misleading, whether I had intended to be so or not.
December 28, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Regarding a comment that racialism is not limited to “occidentalists” or kinists….
When I first moved to Louisiana, my husband and I started attending “First Baptist Bossier” Church. In a town with the first “minority majority,” there was not one “person of color” that could be found in the church. A local newscaster did attend and one day brought a fellow newscaster who was Black. (I’ve been told that African American is now offensive language because it insinuates to some people that people are not really fully legitmate Americans…) They fussed over him because he was a celebrity. I was so offended that I asked one of the pastors about this. He told me that “they had their own churches.” It was then explained to me where the Missionary Baptist Church denomination came from. The Whites in the South didn’t want sullied with the Blacks in “their” churches, so they founded and financially supported “missionary churches” for Blacks.
To them this all sounded very good and right.
Well, we lasted about two months there, with me protesting the whole time, and we started attending a church where there were people of all varieties and race and color, but under the creed of Christ. I was told by this minister that there were separate churches, not because of choice of those who attended but because of the wealthy Whites who manipulated things all through money, way back when. It was not right in the eyes of some but “we don’t do it thata way” here. So I don’t believe that it is accurate to say that it is true that all people of different cultures and ethnicities want to segregate. Much of this is the culture that one is brought up in, and some of it is tradition that is fading away.
About a week after I heard this from this assistant pastor, the main pastor talked about their missionary churches in town from the pulpit. That’s when I refused to ever go back there. They were absolutely Christian there and I loved many there, especially the chior director named Jerry Abels. If you ever drive through the Ark-La-Tex area, they are still on TV on a Sunday morning. Something happened since 1990 when I drove through there, and I saw all different faces of all different colors in their chior on TV. Hallelujah. Miracles never cease. I hope they abandoned the “Missionary Church” and realized that we are all God’s children, working to heal those sister cities of the racism of the past.
December 28, 2007 at 9:39 pm
In one of my favorite books of the Bible, it says:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:28)
Every Communion Sunday for years in my old, sweet little Baptist Church, we would all hold hands at the end of the service and sing, “I’m so glad I’m a part of the Family of God…” Sweet, a little corny, but I miss that monthly reminder.
Christ made us one. No matter your color, your station in life, your gender — in Christ we are family.
I don’t want my family divided. I don’t want anyone to try to tell me that God intended for my family — His Family — to be divided along the very lines He said no longer exist in Christ.
Sorry, Karen. I know I said I wouldn’t hijack this thread any further. But I couldn’t bring myself to be silent about what God’s Word really says about the evil of kinism.
December 28, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Jen wrote: “No, Lin, I said that Karen “contacted” the press, which is technically accurate and was the word that was passed on to me. ”
Rebecca:
No, it is not technically accurate. The press contacted Karen. She responded. If I were trying to be completely accurate and honest, I would quite defending my misuse of this word. I would repent for being misleading, whether I had intended to be so or not.
Rebecca, I agree, and Jen, I am appalled with what you are doing. Mainly because I don’t like seeing the truth manipulated like this. You remind me of what you’ve said about Doug and “he who defines, wins,” and you’re not doing so well at defining here. Another example of this is the following:
Jen also wrote:
While you are certainly free to speak out against kinism, it appears that you are really taking issue with racism. I don’t believe a kinist would say that a human being of a different color was not created in the image of God.
Jen’s clear implication is kinists are not racists because they don’t say people of different color are not created in God’s image. This is too narrow a definition of racism/racist.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/racism
rac·ism
NOUN:
The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
Discrimination or prejudice based on race.
OTHER FORMS:
racist (Adjective) (Noun)
Kinists most definitely are racists, and Kinism is a subset of racism, because it is all about making discriminations between people based on race. Whether they are “kinder, gentler” discriminations of just quietly moving out west into like-minded, like-colored communities, or whether they are wretchedly evil like what was on the Kinism site about deporting all non-whites out of the country, Kinism is nothing if not racist.
December 28, 2007 at 9:42 pm
One more thing: we are not just God’s Family — if we belong to Jesus, we are truly part of the Body of Christ.
His very Body…how can I tolerate those who claim that parts of the Body of Christ should not live and minister and worship side by side with other parts? that parts of the Body of Christ should not be united with other parts? that the Body of Christ should be rent asunder?
December 28, 2007 at 10:04 pm
“There is nothing worse for an abused person than when they venture out to tell what they have suffered or experienced only to be told that they are a liar.”
Corrie, exactly.
December 28, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Jen,
I have been asked to take this offline. I will in the presence of those who I believe that can hold you accountable on some of this. You are splitting hairs here, and I believe that there’s no way that you can deny the truth to these others offline who have personal evidence. I’m not going to make this into a prolonged thing, but I intend to address the fact that you’ve lied about your relationship with Chad, that you’ve lied about kinists helping you write your story, that you’ve lied to manipulate several counselors that have endevored to help you when they tried to hold you accountable, etc.
December 28, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Kinism sounds like “nicer” more PC word for racism. Kind of like sexual predators wanting to be called child-lovers, and that nonsense. I won’t stand for it. It is evil and it has NO place in the body of Christ. It has no place in a God-less society either. People are people—red, yellow, black, brown, white. I don’t care. We’re all humans with the same needs, feelings, emotions.
The fact it is EVEN being discussed in church/Christian circles absolutely disgusts me. I am ignorant and naieve I guess—I never thought I’d see the day that we would even be talking about this as a church issue anywhere, anytime in the USA.
Thank God for His saving GRACE….we need so much of it these days.
December 28, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Corrie wrote, “To be fair, if kinists were able to achieve their agenda, there would be no black people or Asian people in order to be friends with. The borders would be strictly enforced and a kinist nation would contain only “white” people.”
And I shudder to think what they would do about Native Americans, or those who are part Indian, part black, etc.
I’m not saying I approve of such, but there are those among us who WOULD be willing to fight for the right to survive and live in this country, especially those of us who were here first to begin with.
December 28, 2007 at 11:53 pm
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” (Galatians 3:28)
-EXACTLY! That is why racism just makes me mad! I’ve broken up with 2 of my former boyfriends because they were VERY racist- I just can’t live with that!
The more I read into these hyperP teachings, the more I realise that I was right to be suspicious.
December 29, 2007 at 12:06 am
“Kinism is nothing if not racist.”
Kinism is far more than racism, kinism is a blatant and insidious heresy, as it is essentially a deliberate division of the Body of Christ:
Col 3:10 And have put on the new [man], which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him: Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond [nor] free: but Christ [is] all, and in all.
Kinism in its purest form is the worship of one’s own progenitors, the placing of one’s earthly father ahead of our Heavenly Father and holding one’s own bloodline and progeny in preferential place to of the Body of Christ.
We are all kin in Christ:
Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
…because we now have only ONE father. The age of the Patriarchs is passed away, for God Himself is our ONE Patriarch, and there is no other:
Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
We are all His children, and must be brothers and sisters if we wish to dwell in Him.
Kinism is also a denial of the Holy Ghost, who came on Pentecost to undo the curse of Babel and unite men of all nations and tongues in one Church.
Further, since we have died to the world and the flesh and are alive in the Spirit, the family of God must come first, before mere blood relations.
It follows that Kinism is an abomination, for Jesus’s one prayer for His followers is that they be one, without division:
Jhn 17:20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; Jhn 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, [art] in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And, here is Jesus’s answer to Kinism:
Mar 3:31 ¶ There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him. Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee. Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
AND…Luk 14:26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
December 29, 2007 at 12:18 am
Cynthia, thank you, thank you so much for #408. Those were exactly the Scriptures we needed to read — and you stated the truth so powerfully with them.
December 29, 2007 at 12:21 am
You’re welcome, Rebecca, but I didn’[t really state anything. God said it, I just hooked them together with some commentary.
December 29, 2007 at 12:46 am
“I’m sorry, but I’m not following the difference. James teaches what he believes at his church. That is his right and his responsibility.”
Just like the emergents?
” In so doing, he is teaching what he believes his congregation should believe.”
Your new found ‘Grace’ is not a lisence to believe all teaching is acceptable. How on earth do you even know what they really believe? There have been so many versions based on what audience they are talking to and when things get a bit hot…quite a bit of their writings disappear. That does not sound like people with rock solid beliefs.
“The pastor will teach what he believes those in his congregation should believe.”
What ‘he’ believes they should believe? Where do you find this in the NT?
“If I knowingly go to a church that teaches something other than what I do believe, there will be a conflict of some sort.”
Jen, you have been all over the board with your beliefs, I cannot imagine why.
” However, my main point in all that was that James is not expected or required to believe anything any member of his church believes; rather, he is the preacher and teacher of God’s Word to them. They learn from him.”
Nice spin. But you are floating a strawman and you know it. The whole point was that Chad is a kinist and you say he is accepted there…professed public kinists beliefs and all. (Too bad all the internet proof has disappeared so quickly)
My point (and others) was that in a real church Chad would be confronted and rebuked in love about his abhorant belief in Kinism. As would a homosexual who came to a real church thinking he could continue in that lifestyle.
“I guess what I’m trying to say is that plain patriarchy believes that the man is the head of the wife and loves and serves his wife, while the wife is to submit to and respect her husband. Short version. I have no problem with that.”
That may be a variation of what they teach. Not what they model.
“No, Lin, I said that Karen “contacted” the press, which is technically accurate and was the word that was passed on to me. I think the lie falls on another. Look at comment #351 and it should be obvious.”
I think others have covered this one.
“Lin: Actually Jen, you are being like Matt Chancey. None of this is a question of being “friends”. It is a question of truth.
Truth of what, Lin? That Matt Chancey lied about me? That I have since become acquainted with some kinists and refuse to hide that fact? That I won’t shun anyone?”
I am not convinced at this point that Chancey lied about you and Kinism. This is not a question of you not ‘shunning’ kinists and you know it. that is another strawman. You are purposely courting and defending kinism in this whole thread under the guise of Christian Liberty while likening it to some sort of cheap Grace that you are not ‘shunning’. No, as a matter of fact, you seem to be seeking them out. I have to agree with the others here… Most kinists would not like me at all.
“Lin: Which is why you were in this situation in the first place. I see you doing the exact same thing again. You seem to be impressed with pastor/elder titles. Not a safe position for you. … this verse is talking about the spiritually mature…not false teachers, wolves or hirlings.
Lin, I’m not quite following you here. Are you saying I should have held Doug accountable as my elder? I am not impressed with titles, Lin, but I will give honor where honor is due. If an elder misuses or abuses his position, then I will not show him extra honor. If an elder is a false teacher, I will not show him extra honor. Goodness, that should be more than obvious in my case! Until I am aware of that in each individual case, however, I believe it is biblically mandated to show them honor.”
I stand by what I said above. You are not getting it or do not want to. You have been following ‘mere men’ this whole time. As I have mentioned before…elders are nothing more than the spiritually mature. You must take the CONTEXT in which that verse was written in the early church to really understand it.
“Lin, I’m not aware of any kinists who are elders. If you are referring to James McDonald as a teacher of patriarchy in this statement, then I would refer you to his own statement of what he believes and teaches: “What is Family Reformation?” I believe it to be far more balanced than the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. While I do not agree with everything presented there, James does believe in Christian liberty in many areas other patriarchs do not. Now, I do not know much at all about James McDonald.”
My former mega church has a What We Believe Statement, too. They practice very little of it. Now, many of us have had too much experience with some of their extra biblical teachings/writings online disappearing after being questioned. So, who knows what they believe? At this point, my personal opinion is whatever sells at the moment.
“Lin: This would be the perfect scenerio for you to practice Matthew 18, by the way…with the kinists.
And if I see them sinning against me, Lin, then I will do so. Matthew 18 is for a personal offense against me.”
Ok, Kinism is not an offense against you. But it is to me and others here. It is a personal offense against some of my brothers and sisters in Christ who it targets so it must be to me as I am to carry their burdens and contend for the truth. So, yes I would confront a professing brother about it.
Go back and read the whole chapter again. Jesus Christ is continuously teaching in the entire Chapter 18 on ONE subject. Pay attention to verse 7 because it says a lot. Then we see ONE lost sheep and how important that ONE is. then we come to verse 15 about a brother sinning against you. Kinism is a sin of the heart. It is a lifestyle sin just like Homosexuality. It begins in the heart. Your ‘brother’ Chad is in sin.
Pay close attention to verse 18 because it is chilling.
Jen, I read you publicly saying on the sound of grace blog that Polygamy is not listed as a sin in the Bible. And since it is not listed we cannot say for sure it is a sin. I think Lamech, if he could tell us, would disagree with you.
)
December 29, 2007 at 12:51 am
Gee Whiz…my spell checker is off duty tonight..
December 29, 2007 at 12:58 am
“Ok, Kinism is not an offense against you. But it is to me and others here. It is a personal offense against some of my brothers and sisters in Christ who it targets so it must be to me as I am to carry their burdens and contend for the truth. So, yes I would confront a professing brother about it.”
Right. Jen, you might want to consider these scriptures:
1Cr 12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but [that] the members should have the same care one for another.
1Cr 12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
AND, concerning kinists like Chad, who may not offend you personally but who grievously offend your brothers and sisters in Christ, there’s this:
1Cr 5:9 ¶ I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
1Cr 5:10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.
1Cr 5:11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
1Cr 5:12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
1Cr 5:13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
December 29, 2007 at 12:59 am
The whole point was that Chad is a kinist and you say he is accepted there…professed public kinists beliefs and all.
Actually, Lin, to bring it back to the topic of this thread, the point is Matt Chancey blasted Jen Epstein’s connections with kinists at mrsbinoculars, but we know James McDonald has been friends with Chad for years, and it is a gross hypocritical double standard for Matt to write that mrsbinoculars site about Jen, and then allow his wife to associate with Stacy in co-authoring a book, when Stacy has very close connections with kinists herself.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. It’s just like Jennie Chancey was allowed to co-author a book with Jen Epstein.
That’s what it amounts to.
December 29, 2007 at 12:59 am
Karen, I want to clarify that I have only read these 4 threads, not the whole blog. So while there may be some posts that show women who truly have a heart for serving Christ on the TW blog, I haven’t seen any.
Nor will I venture outside of this thread. This is no place I want to participate in regularly. I don’t know what missteps Jen made, but the way you all are raking her over the coals, I get the impression that she, like, shot Mother Theresa and tried to hide it.
And Corrie, you have written five long posts to me on this blog and another one to try to show where your obsession with Stacy McDonald is valid.
All I really needed to do was read this one quote from you:
“From the documentation I have she lived in that apartment 3 years as an officially married woman before she filed for divorce.”
Documentation? From where Stacy lived some 15 or 20 years ago? That’s bizarre, and scarily obsessive on your part.
I mean, come on–stalk people much?
December 29, 2007 at 1:20 am
Marcia, I am in awe of this statement:
“Karen, I want to clarify that I have only read these 4 threads, not the whole blog. So while there may be some posts that show women who truly have a heart for serving Christ on the TW blog, I haven’t seen any.”
I would certainly not want to place myself in the position of judging the hearts of all these dear ladies as you have done. I certainly hope you will think long and hard about what you have just said.
December 29, 2007 at 1:21 am
Cynthia, thanks so much for sharing all that Scripture. It blessed me, too. Kinism is a lie from the pit of hell and as such demands that we speak out against it. The fact that all the writings of these people disappears every time they are pointed out tells the whole story, imho.
December 29, 2007 at 1:25 am
Karen,
You are absolutely right; what I said didn’t come out as I meant it and I apologize.
December 29, 2007 at 1:29 am
Cindy said..
(I’ve been told that African American is now offensive language because it insinuates to some people that people are not really fully legitmate Americans…)
Actually, it’s an incredibly inaccurate description because all black people are not from Africa. I am sure there are many Haitian Americans who tire of being called African..there are black people from all over the world.
Kinism is racism pure and simple.
I am a white woman with 5 black sons. How incredulous that anyone would feel that our skin color should prevent us from being family…
Perhaps we should start sorting people by eye color too… then hair color..after all what is the difference?
The Bible teaches Amazing Grace for every Race…Praise Jesus!
December 29, 2007 at 1:32 am
“Perhaps we should start sorting people by eye color too… then hair color..?”
It’s been done before, by the Nazis.
December 29, 2007 at 1:33 am
Marcia,
Huh? I wrote 5 long posts to you? Where? You said here but you are bringing this quote from another blog. Is it on this blog or another blog or a combination of both blogs? I am trying to answer your question. At least I make the effort to answer your questions.
Now you call me a stalker? Please. How can you pose as if you are better than everyone else when you so readily make false accusations? First I am “sneaky” and now I am a “stalker”? Anything else you want to call me Marcia? I didn’t have to “stalk” very far, btw. It came right to me. Right into my mailbox. Yes, people who mislead others will have the truth come up and bite them. That is just the way it goes.
You consistently come here to make accusations and to ignore that your experience may not be all encompassing for all others. Basically, you are calling people liars. You refuse to actually listen to what anyone else has to say. You do not check out the facts. You demand proof. And then when I say I have it, you call me obsessed? My saying that I have proof is proof that I am obsessed? Wow! Isn’t that a catch-22?
I don’t have proof from where Stacy used to live. Where did you get this from? You really need to read more closely. I said I have documentation because you demanded it. And why are you bringing a discussion from another blog onto this blog?
I have documentation from an email list I used to be on. It was sent to me by someone else.
I have to wonder what your point is? You emailed me some time back, privately, and confirmed to me that I was right about the face-slapping conversation over on Thatmom’s blog. But, did you confirm that publicly while I was being called a liar? No. You just keep on plugging along, ignoring the truth. A little biased?
What is bizarre is your seeming obsession with ignoring the facts and then turning around and calling people names. I will wear the badge of stalker right next to the badge of white-washed feminist and right next to the badge of liar. It will be an honor. Thank you.
God Bless you, Marcia.
December 29, 2007 at 1:37 am
Marcia I am not Corrie, but there are personal e-mails from Stacy to a large list she destroyed through her own ambition and mean spiritedness with a false Matthew 18 against an innocent woman (and she never contacted the people to tell them she lied. She did eventually apologize to the woman directly yet left all the others who received the false Matthew 18 with the impression the innocent woman is the liar). Why was the woman Matthew 18′d? Because she called an article “junk” and was then ripped apart on a personal level to hundreds of women on her own list and all around the world.
I hope Corrie feels free to share the rest of it (and I am not anonymous, either, nor am I Corrie
), but that stalking accusation is really wrong, especially if you are aware of what happened in the wake of that Matthew 18 email that was sent out to scores of people.
December 29, 2007 at 1:38 am
“The fact that all the writings of these people disappears every time they are pointed out tells the whole story, imho.”
Sort of like this?
Jhn 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. Jhn 3:20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
December 29, 2007 at 1:42 am
“Perhaps we should start sorting people by eye color too… then hair color..?”
It’s been done before, by the Nazis.
Exactly Cynthia, and THAT is what terrifies me about the thoughts these kinists are throwing around. It is an evil seed that will grow into something unbelievably wretched if left unchecked. The idea that Christians are promoting this chills me to the core.
December 29, 2007 at 1:47 am
Hey, it looks like Cindy Kunsman and I have come to the attention of the big bad Kinists themselves.
Check it out, and while you’re over there, maybe you can help me find my handbag, LOL:
http://www.kinism.net/index.php/weblog/more/coming_full_circle_on_kinsim/
December 29, 2007 at 1:57 am
If anyone is confused about what Marcia is referring to, she is talking about the discussion on Lynn’s blog and a comment I made. The quote she referenced from me was in answer to a question she asked me.
Marcia, you need to realize that this blog has one thing going for it:
You are free to disagree and post here even though you have posted on “other blogs”. Yes, James McDonald engages in guilt by association all the while he complains that this is what is being done to him when he has totally missed the point. His good friend Matt Chancey wrote Mrs. Binoculars that has RAKED JEN over the coals. And yet you come here to point a finger at us?
You see, I am not allowed to even ask a question on his blog because I have posted on other blogs. You know whose blog? Jen’s blog. Yes, the same Jen that you said has shot Mother Theresa. Because I went to bat for Jen and I have posted on her blog, my comments, no matter how respectful are not welcome on his blog. I don’t think I need to get into the hypocrisy of the whole thing, especially if you have been paying attention? James and Jen have talked on the phone and he has invited her to dinner and he has told her that she is welcome in his church and now his wife wants to talk to Jen on the phone. But, I am not welcome to post on his blog because I have participated on Jen’s blog. Weird huh?
If you understand how an iceberg works, it really is fascinating. I was amazed that most of the mass of an iceberg is really under the water where you can’t see it. Even though the iceberg above the water looms large above the landscape there is 3 times or more beneath the surface.
That is what we are dealing with here.
December 29, 2007 at 2:03 am
Lynn,
You are correct.
The Matthew 18 story is quite a story in and of itself. When I tried to hold them accountable for doing the right thing and correcting their slanderous and libelous statements of this woman that they sent out to a hundred or more people BUT NOT HER, I was threatened with “legal action”. And, I did this privately and not in the public fashion that they humiliated my friend.
If anyone is guilty of stalking it is not me. Also, if anyone was obsessed it was not me. I innocently sent in a picture of myself holding my 7th child and I was sent emails from women who told me that I was being gossiped about because of my sleazy attire and that I looked too young and therefore I was lying about what number child I was holding on my lap.
Marcia, I have been called a liar so many times it doesn’t phase me anymore. Time has been my friend in more ways than one. Oil of Olay is my secret.
December 29, 2007 at 2:03 am
Not only that, but Jen told us that James refused to post a very amicable comment on his blog — the “truce” post.
Jen isn’t welcome on his blog, either, Corrie.
December 29, 2007 at 2:08 am
“Witness the confusion that can arise when a person sets an a priori equalitarianism doctrine above scripture. This falls under the rubric of female “sympathy”, a beautiful force for benevolence that was intended to be channeled and restrained by Church, father, and husband.”
LOL! So, man restrains and channels the woman’s beautiful force of benevolence? Does that mean that woman restrains men’s lust for power, hierarchy and domination?
Is there a Bible verse for this job of restraint entrusted to the husband, father and Church?
Wow!
Lynn,
That is right. I forgot about that. Jen is welcome in his church and in his home for dinner but she is not welcome to post a nice comment on his blog because it would cause controversy. As long as all this is kept in the shadows and on the down-low, everyone stays fooled.
Image is everything. Truth is relative. Post-modernism at its finest.
December 29, 2007 at 2:28 am
Oh, you know whooo!!!! You know, you just joined the Patriarchy group with an anonymous ID, and you came on telling us kinism and patriarchy have little to do with each other???
Go read THAT link Cynthia (CJ) provided and it’ll help get your thinking straight that kinists are VERY patriarchal!
CJ, THANKS for that link, and Cindy and CJ, I hope you don’t feel the need to defend yourselves much on account of that screed. I got a good laugh out of it, and I hope you two do as well.
December 29, 2007 at 2:36 am
I tried to reply to that link, and GET THIS: they accuse us of attacking from shadows, but they didn’t allow me to post a reply in the comments section!!!!
So, I’m posting my comment here (where more of them will see it anyway, LOL), and on my own blog, as well:
Well, hello there. I found your site while looking at the referrals on my site meter. Gotta love those referrals — if it weren’t for them, sites like yours might get a lot less traffic.
Not that you don’t enjoy sniping from the shadows, mind, but if you’d come out into the open and discuss your views on larger, more public blogs, such as True Womanhood in the New Millennium , you might build a bigger audience for your own little blog…. unless of course you and your views not up for a bit of discussion and debate (and if you’re not, you can always send “Kinswoman” over in your place…..)
December 29, 2007 at 2:37 am
Corrie, and others,
Forgive me for not responding to some of the comments that addressed me. This thread moves so fast that I’ve missed them.
Now, Corrie, let’s talk. : )
First of all, here’s the thing about me: I communicate in a blunt and often sarcastic manner. It’s just me, but it does sometimes take people I know in real life a while to get used to me, so I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that you attach more seriousness than I intended to some of my flip comments.
I think I’m being humorous, but others sometimes don’t get it. (But come on, the Mother Theresa thing was a little bit funny, wasn’t it?)
Second, I meant that you had replied to me in comments, not posts as I wrote. And I didn’t know I was breaking rules by referring to comments that were on the same subject but made on a different blog. I was just trying to tie things together–I shouldn’t have commented on the other blog; I can’t even keep track of responses here.
Third, here in public for everyone to know, I did in fact agree with Corrie about the face-slapping issue, and we agreed on another concerning matter on that list as well. I didn’t know I had to bring this up in order to participate here, but by not mentioning it Corrie believes I’m being deceitful, and that was not my intent.
Finally, Corrie, I misunderstood your statement about “having documentation.” I had the impression that you had gone sleuthing around, tracking Stacy’s whereabouts throughout her life, and that seemed to me to be quite obsessive. Thanks for clarifying.
Now. I could use some of that Oil of Olay; I’m guessing I’ve been around longer than you.
December 29, 2007 at 2:40 am
“Maybe materialism, which I have claimed in the past to be the religion of Amerika, is simply a species of equality, or a consequence of it. Yes, that’s it. Materialism is a consequence of equality. Kinism asks people to “come out from among them, and be ye separate”. That is the ultimate separatism, is it not? The cultural (and we would argue racial) “secessionism” of the Bible precedes the political, it is not subsequent to it. Kinism merely points to the bible and asks people to “submit to this”. It is in this sense that Kinism can be understood as essentially a hermeneutic idea. ”
Cynthia Gee or Cindy K? I think someone has you confused over at the Kinist Institute.
You are two different people, are you not?
So, materialism is the consequence of equality? Is that why the early believers sold everything they had and lived in common and shared all things? Kind of like the modern-day precursor of socialism, no? Is that why so many ancient patriarchal societies were obsessed with wealth and the power it brings and the STUFF you can buy with wealth and killing and conquering others in order to get more stuff, wealth and power?
I think materialism is the consequence of sin and not keeping one’s eyes on the Lord. Really. Not all the evils of this world boil down to feminism. Materialism was alive and kicking in the patriarchal world. Nothing new under the sun and all that.
And when the Bible tells us to come out from among them and be separate it is talking about it is talking about separating the blacks from the whites from the Asians? How in the world did I miss that meaning all of these years?
Cynthia Gee, you don’t strike me as a fickle hand-bag buyer. You strike me as someone who, if they even carry a purse, it is practical and you keep it until you need a new one?
And why do kinists spell Amerika with a “k’? Is that for ku, klux or klan?
How long before we can hear a rebuttal from a man of God on this nonsense?
Cindy K, it looks like you should have gone for Door #2- the League of the South. Your beautiful benevolence is the source of your error. Are you a fickle handbag shopper or one who buys a handbag and keeps it until it wears out? You seem to me like someone who likes to buy books and you skip the handbags?
Funny, about a year ago the kinists launched an attack against Jen Epstein and her husband in the most vicious manner and called for her suicide and called her all sorts of despicable names. Several of us came to her defense (where was James and Matt and Co.??) and we were called vile and hilarious names.
Yes, a couple of them took the heat for allowing a race-mixer to get away with her “crime” but that is another story for another time.
December 29, 2007 at 2:50 am
Hi Marcia,
I didn’t think you were being dishonest. I just could have used the public confirmation that I was not a liar.
Thank you for your explanation. You were not breaking any rules, in my book, by bringing up that post on this blog. I was just confused the reference to 5 posts.
Your bluntness is what I like about you. At least I know where I stand with you.
I am not good at guessing. I did think the Mother Theresa thing was funny. I wish you could have seen me chuckle. Truth is that many of us love Jen, dearly, and we want to see her restored to full fellowship in the church. The sad thing is that she is not allowed to go to church anywhere and it makes me angry that some people have so much power.
We took the whole thing offline so we can confront the issues with some witnesses. I will tell you one thing. I spoke with Cindy K. on the phone today and she wept and prayed over these issues. She does have a heart for Jesus and for people to be free from oppression and free to serve Christ in all of His fullness. We may get growly with each other but we hold each other accountable and when all is said and done, we do not abandon each other or write one another off.
Marcia, I appreciate your cautions to maintain Christlikeness.
Again, thank you for your explanation and for clarifying.
Now, about that ticket you got back in 1989? Do you have an explanation for that?
December 29, 2007 at 3:03 am
“Cynthia Gee, you don’t strike me as a fickle hand-bag buyer. You strike me as someone who, if they even carry a purse, it is practical and you keep it until you need a new one?”
You’ve got me pegged. And it’s a shoulder bag, spacious enough to carry books, cosmetics, hairspray and a light lunch (and extra rifle shells in deer season), and hefty enough to “deter” a vicious dog or a would-be mugger.
“Cynthia Gee or Cindy K? I think someone has you confused over at the Kinist Institute.
You are two different people, are you not?”
Hmmmmm….
“And why do kinists spell Amerika with a “k’? Is that for ku, klux or klan?”
Not sure, but it could have something to do with that curious combination of red blood, a blue nose and a white sheet….
December 29, 2007 at 3:08 am
OK, let’s get this straight. I did NOT accuse Karen of ANYTHING. I was a go between, as was Corrie. I was given this message:
Karen Campbell contacted the local newspaper and told the religion editor that I was “one of the founding fathers of kinism” and a white supremacist and thought he should know that I was attending McDonald’s church.
I attempted to find out who contacted who first. After I spoke with Corrie, she volunteered to ask Karen and she told me that the newspaper contacted Karen, not the other way around. She also said that Karen denied saying anything about Chad.
Here is what I sent Chad immediately after I first spoke to Corrie:
Corrie also spoke to Karen about the newspaper editor. Karen did not contact him; he contacted her. Karen says that she did not say anything at all about you; she surmises that the editor found those things online. Did you just assume it was Karen?
So the contact issue was settled. The newspaper contacted Karen. However, Karen said that she did NOT say anything at all about Chad, so I go back to Chad and asked him if he was mistaken.
And then Chad sent me this quote from Karen’s email which he had just received:
“I know this is much information and probably more than you want to know. One interesting development I discovered recently and that you might notice in the most recent discussions at TW, there is a corresponding movement within Dominionist groups called “kinism.” This is a white supremacist group and one of its founding fathers, Chad Degenhart, lives in Washburn, Illinois and attends the McDonald’s church.”
This email clearly states that Karen did indeed tell the newspaper about Chad after all. Why did she say she didn’t?
December 29, 2007 at 3:16 am
Cynthia,
LOL! The good old red, white and blue!
I find it funny when they accuse you of sniping from the shadows when you have done nothing of the sort. You post under your real name and you confront these issues head on. But, then they turn around and snipe from the shadows and refuse to allow you to comment?
Lynn,
Yes, it certainly seems that there is no question that patriarchy and kinism go hand in glove. I don’t know any egalitarian kinists, do you? And I know they do not hate Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson and RC Sproul Jr because of their patriarchal views. That is one area of agreement not disagreement.
December 29, 2007 at 3:20 am
“Are you a fickle handbag shopper or one who buys a handbag and keeps it until it wears out? You seem to me like someone who likes to buy books and you skip the handbags?”
Ok, that was funny. Cindy probably carries a book tote. See, I have accused her of being an academic before.
)
December 29, 2007 at 3:26 am
“You’ve got me pegged. And it’s a shoulder bag, spacious enough to carry books, cosmetics, hairspray and a light lunch (and extra rifle shells in deer season), and hefty enough to “deter” a vicious dog or a would-be mugger”
When you see a deer, are you like Barney Fife digging out those rifle shells under all the hairspray and makeup?
I’m gettin a picture here….:o)
December 29, 2007 at 3:29 am
“Kinism is not an ideology, it is simply the pointing to the corpse of Christendom and the asking of the question cui bono. Kinism is nothing but orthodox Occidental Christianity, as it was and as it might again be.”
Ummm??? To whose benefit? To whose advantage? Being good for whom?
So we need kinism in order to answer this question? Kinism is a return to true Western Christianity? Kinism is orthodoxy?
“Kinists are rather accustomed to attacks from the shadows. Rather than confront Kinists directly, its opponents, such as Cythia Gee, seek to use fashionable opinion to ruin lives and reputations. People have stopped arguing directly with Kinists on the merits, because they grew tired of losing the arguments in publicly humiliating ways. Their new strategy is to employ the tools of the terrorist. In all of this one thing is clear to me: the New Jerusalem is not Suffragette City. ”
Oh, is this like the attacks by kinist bloggers on RC Sproul Jr, Doug Phillips, Doug Wilson and the like? Kind of like when the kinists argue directly with these three men? Kind of like the kinists who have set out to destroy the reputations of these men and others that they don’t like? Kind of like the tools of terrorism that kinists employ on their victims? Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black?
http://spiritwaterblood.com/
The writer of the above blog is one of the founders of the Kinist Institute where we found this new expose on the Siamese Cynthias.
Please take a moment to peak around that site and follow the links.
December 29, 2007 at 3:32 am
Nah… I carry about five shells in my pocket (really), and the extras in my handbag. And usually the box is clear down at the bottom, underneath a bunch of documents and a couple of Louis L’Amour novels that I take along to pass the time in the deer blind.
December 29, 2007 at 3:36 am
While you’re checking out the site, check out the names of some of their members:
http://www.kinism.net/index.php/forums/
“Newest Members: Bilbo, pcomitatus, DJH, Grizzly Adams, My Brothers Keeper, sherod, Klaus, kinswoman, cdhale, marlon”
PComitatus. Hmmmm.
December 29, 2007 at 3:41 am
I could not pass up this unbelievable false teaching on that horrid site:
“Kinism asks people to “come out from among them, and be ye separate”. That is the ultimate separatism, is it not? The cultural (and we would argue racial) “secessionism” of the Bible precedes the political, it is not subsequent to it. Kinism merely points to the bible and asks people to “submit to this”. It is in this sense that Kinism can be understood as essentially a hermeneutic idea.”
Oh yes, that is quite a hermeneutic. What a perversion of the Holy Word!
December 29, 2007 at 3:57 am
Lin,
How about this hermeneutic:
“But is not a woman’s understanding of things biblical, things holy supposed to proceed from the judgment of men under proper authority? Men under the authority of an orthodox church and a church under the authority of the Holy Spirit and the revealed Word? This is why widows and divorcees were asked to be under the male leadership of the church, that the feminine tendency to “freedom” lead not in its excesses to anarchic forces in society and the church itself.”
In other words, it is the same old hyper-patriarchal mantra.
How about a scripture verse to back up such a statement? I was under the impression that a woman’s understanding of things biblical and things holy proceeds from the same place as a man- the Holy Scriptures and the Holy Spirit? Surely they are not teaching that men are more capable of hearing God’s truths?
December 29, 2007 at 4:12 am
“But is not a woman’s understanding of things biblical, things holy supposed to proceed from the judgment of men under proper authority? ”
Here we go again with the earthly priests. See, in their world, the temple veil was torn in two on the Cross for men only. Jesus left a Levite Priesthood for anyone with a title of: Elder, pastor, husband or man.
That Samaritan woman was really a man in drag. The women did NOT prophesy on Pentecost and Phillip’s daughters were only singing.
Where is that verse about widows and divorcees? I missed that one.
I love that phrase…feminine tendancy to ‘freedom’ lead not in its excesses to anarchic forces in society and the church itself. Sounds like a ‘monsterous regiment’!
)
What it all boils down to is this: They are scared of women.
December 29, 2007 at 4:14 am
“But is not a woman’s understanding of things biblical, things holy supposed to proceed from the judgment of men under proper authority?”
Here we go again with the earthly priests. See, in their world, the temple veil was torn in two on the Cross for men only. Jesus left a Levite Priesthood for anyone with a title of: Elder, pastor, husband or man.
That Samaritan woman was really a man in drag. The women did NOT prophesy on Pentecost and Phillip’s daughters were only singing.
Where is that verse about widows and divorcees? I missed that one.
I love that phrase…feminine tendancy to ‘freedom’ lead not in its excesses to anarchic forces in society and the church itself. Sounds like a ‘monsterous regiment’!
)
What it all boils down to is this: They are scared of women.
December 29, 2007 at 4:16 am
Hey, look where ELSE the folks at the “Christian” Kinism.net site hang out:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/quotes-parenthood-286413p8.html
Laurel1861 is Laurel Lofland.
Oh, and remember post 420 and 421, about hair and eye color? Check out Laurel’s blog, where the poor dear complains that she got brown hair from her mama:
http://naturalconsequences.blogspot.com/
December 29, 2007 at 4:18 am
Sorry guys, I did not the above comment went through.
Anyway, check out this link
http://web.archive.org/web/20050203164953/http://kinism.net/
if you scroll down to the middle right hand side, you will see who the curriculum director for the Kinist institute was.
December 29, 2007 at 4:23 am
“This email clearly states that Karen did indeed tell the newspaper about Chad after all. Why did she say she didn’t?”
Sigh…..
Jen,
If you are going to hold others to such legalistic and rigid standards of truth and transparency then you must hold yourself to the same standards.
When you asked me to go to Karen and talk with her, I agreed. You said to me “Did you know that Karen contacted the newspaper and told them about Chad….” or something to that effect. I said that I knew that the newspaper contacted Karen and that she answered his questions concerning the book, Passionate Housewives. We spoke shortly after she was done with that phone call and at that time I knew that she had not said anything to him about this situation. The reporter asked her to send him information. She did.
I specifically asked Karen about the phone call and asked her if she had contacted the newspaper or if they had contacted her.
That was the first phone call. I think you are getting some things confused. The first question you asked me to ask Karen was if she contacted the newspaper. That was it. I asked Karen and then I told you that she did not but that they had contacted her. The question was did Karen contact the newspaper. That was it. That is the question I asked. And she gave me the honest answer.
Then you sent me the quote from James McDonald and stated that you hoped she was not lying. Then I asked Karen about that quote and that is when I told you that Karen had emailed him information due to their conversation.
This is all very confusing and maybe Karen can help me remember but I do remember that the first conversation was only about who contacted whom. Then you sent that quote. Then I went back to her and told her that you had sent me a quote and then she explained that this was part of a larger email that contained information that she told him that she would send during their phone conversation.
What are you saying here, Jen? What point are you trying to make? There was no lying. It was the way you asked the question and the way the information was slowly leaked to me. I have to wonder if it was purposeful.
Why wasn’t that quote sent to me right away? Or, why didn’t James, instead of gossiping to Chad, send it to Karen and confront her on it? I have to wonder why James, who constantly rails about gossip and Matthew 18 and the like, contacts Chad who then contacts you who then contacts me who then contacts Karen when James could have gone right to the source like he teaches other people to do. It kind of seems inconsistent and hypocritical, don’t you think?
There was no purposeful deception on Karen’s part. Is that what you all are trying to prove? This is kind of like straining at gnats in order to swallow a camel considering the big picture, no?
Why not put the same spin on this minor thing that you have on other glaring and major omissions of truth? What happened to the benefit of the doubt that you give to everyone? It almost seems like you are straining to make something into something it is not. I can assure you that Karen was not trying to hide anything. I asked her exactly what you asked me and you got a straight forward answer to your question.
I am not very good at chess and I certainly don’t like being played like a pawn but that is how I am feeling right now.
December 29, 2007 at 4:23 am
Here is another thing I want to set straight – kinism. I am NOT a kinist, for the umpteenth time. When the subject of kinism was brought up, I saw many things being said about kinism in general. I am of the opinion that if we are going to discuss an issue that it is only fair that all sides be discussed, so I brought up some things that a kinist does believe. That does not mean that I believe them; I don’t. But it is not fair to discuss things in such a one-sided fashion as many here are doing. Give your opinions. Attack the kinism writings. But be fair.
Also, I have been accused of all kinds of relationships with kinists by this point. When Matt wrote his article, it wasn’t true. I now have two slight kinist acquaintances. Maybe some of you wouldn’t choose to associate with them, but I do.
I see a difference between kinism and racism, although I am neither. Kinism does not involved hatred, as racism does. Kinism is NOT white supremacy; racism is. You can read me all the Scriptures you want, but you are preaching to the choir. I am NOT a kinist.
I have not studied kinism beyond what very little I have presented here. I know very little about it. I do not feel called to study it in detail so that I can “confront” my friends with their doctrinal errors. On another group I belong to, a seminary professor said this:
“I am about 80% correct on my doctrine. I just don’t know which 20% I am off on! “
I’m sure I’m not even 80% correct yet. Someday I hope to get there.
December 29, 2007 at 4:38 am
“That Samaritan woman was really a man in drag. The women did NOT prophesy on Pentecost and Phillip’s daughters were only singing.”
LOL! And don’t forget Mary. God came to her and not her husband or her father or her nearest male relative or Rabbi. Lydia insisted that the apostles stay with her and they did and she established a church in her home.
Then there was Anna the prophetess:
“36There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37and then was a widow until she was eighty-four.[a] She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.”
Where was her male authority to okay her prophecy through his all-wise judgment on all things biblical and holy? Oh, that is right. Widows don’t have a “head” because they are not married. They are just like widowers, beholden only to the Lord and free to serve him with all their heart with no distractions.
“Where is that verse about widows and divorcees? I missed that one.”
Me too. We seem to be missing a lot of verses.
December 29, 2007 at 4:38 am
“I am NOT a kinist, for the umpteenth time.”
A fellow travellor, then?
December 29, 2007 at 4:38 am
Hey, look what I dug up, from John Marshall, the same felow who wrote that letter I linked to on Kinism.net:
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Kinism
Quote on Kinism by John Marshall over at Kinism.net in the Forums
The way to be a Kinist is to live like one:
Homeschool your kids and support homeschooling
Ensure your curriculum advocates Western pre-industrial values and culture.
Grow as much as you can and try to buy local where you can’t
Support the aims of Theonomy
Support/advocate a return to either republicanism or monarchy and eschew direct democracy
Try to foster a love of agriculture, eschew materialism and capitalism as ungodly.
Advocate a return to hard money and barter
Support groups that advocate for ethnic nationalism and immigration control
Eschew all forms of imperialism
Teach all the above to your children and support our activities here
Attend a Bible-believing church that either openly or tacitly eschews interracial marriage
If the former is unavailable, home church
Conduct family worship and steep your kids in the Bible
If you vote, vote your conscience and not pragmatically
Expose corruption in Government and decry Plutocracy
December 29, 2007 at 4:42 am
To the moderator… it seems I have another post tied up in the moderation queue..
December 29, 2007 at 4:44 am
from #428: If anyone is guilty of stalking it is not me.
Corrie, no patriarchal story is complete without the demand for contact info to the nearest male relative/church elders.
You left out the best part of this story!
December 29, 2007 at 4:52 am
“I do not feel called to study it in detail so that I can “confront” my friends with their doctrinal errors.”
You don’t have to study it to know it is sin.
December 29, 2007 at 5:01 am
Corrie, just read the direct quotes in #437.
December 29, 2007 at 5:34 am
I have never seen such a mess in my life, and I never hope to again. I’m sure you all know what you mean with the “he said, she said” portion of this discussion. I partially waded thru it and gave up, but I hope you get to the bottom of it eventually.
I just want to speak for myself and probably many others when I say that this conversation is (thankfully) well over my head, but I am grateful for it.
Why? Because I simply did not know that we had a racism problem in conservative homeschooling circles. I had not heard of the ideas behind the patriarchy issues. I had never heard of dominionism or kinism.
I might not be able to decipher this meta but I can use a search engine, and I have now studied these issues thoroughly.
I now know who will not be getting this homeschooler’s dollars. I now know what to check on and discuss with my local convention organizers. I now have direct questions that I intend to ask of my legal counsel (HSLDA).
I now know the buzz words and catchphrases to listen for, from the pulpits and homeschool communities both. I see how terms have been redefined, and I will neither be fooled nor will I allow those who participate in this wickedness to believe that we are all on the same side.
This has been a grim and shocking experience for me. It has sickened and saddened me, and crashed up like a stormy wave on my usually rock-solid faith. Painful separations and losses in my own life are now explained and confirmed. I never would have known why “I” was not accepted because I never knew I was being judged by these disgusting standards. At the end of the day I’m proud to be seen as unacceptable for failing the test; still it hurts to know why.
Nonetheless I am glad to know. I am glad to be forewarned and able to teach my sons about the ugliness of these ideas that skulk and plot in the corners of our community.
As awful as it all is, I thank you for the heads-up.
I’m praying that exposure will help to bring a swift demise to this so-called patriocentric movement that can be so harmful to women and children. I’m praying that Christian homeschoolers will drive out these sins of racism from the camp, and that those who hold and teach these ungodly beliefs will repent and turn from them. I’m praying for healed relationships for people who used to stand together in Christ, and for us all to be blessed with both time and wisdom to fix the things that are wrong.
Amy R, Indianapolis
December 29, 2007 at 5:38 am
OK, lets try this one again, the last one got hung up somehow:
Look where ELSE the folks at the “Christian” Kinism.net site hang out:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/quotes-parenthood-286413p8.html
Laurel1861 is Laurel Lofland.
Oh, and remember post 420 and 421, about hair and eye color? Check out Laurel’s blog, where the poor dear complains that she got brown hair from her mama:
http://naturalconsequences.blogspot.com/
December 29, 2007 at 6:44 am
I am going to bed very grieved over what I have seen here (and elsewhere) today. Do you think that you are going to get any kinist to change his mind by the way you have spoken here today? Is it right to bring up very old offenses that have long since been settled? How about all the accusations that were made without any evidence? Slandering many people’s names here today for what? To give glory to God? I beg of you to read through what has happened here the last two days and come with a different attitude tomorrow. His mercies are new every morning!
I’m sorry I used words that seemed to cause confusion here. I tried to be as clear as possible. I did my best to return reviling with the love of Christ today. I did my best to tell the truth as I know it. I stated facts and I left out a whole lot of stuff I could have said about other people here. I was put on the defensive and I don’t know if I handled it all in the best way possible. I have no animosity and no hard feelings toward anyone here, but I am deeply hurt tonight.
I came here to defend the right of another brother being allowed to go to church because I know what it’s like not to be allowed to go at all. I will continue to defend any Christian’s right to go to church and be loved and ministered to. False accusations and shunning are terrible things and no way to treat fellow believers.
If you don’t agree with someone’s beliefs, win them over. I retract what I said about being free to attack them. That won’t do any good and I see as much hate here towards kinists and racists as you claim comes from them. This is indeed a very sad day.
December 29, 2007 at 7:47 am
“I came here to defend the right of another brother being allowed to go to church because I know what it’s like not to be allowed to go at all. I will continue to defend any Christian’s right to go to church and be loved and ministered to. False accusations and shunning are terrible things and no way to treat fellow believers.”
First, I’m not sure anyone has advocated shunning, and I must have missed the posts where people were insisting that some people be barred from church attendance.
I think you must have missed the posts about why this topic was brought up — to demonstrate the hypocrisy behind smearing one person for associating with kinists while gladly associating with others who associate with kinists. (Does that last sentence even make sense?)
What accusations have been made here without evidence?
I don’t think that disagreeing with the major tenets of kinism — and finding the entire philosophy both racist and unbiblical, and backing up this point with Scripture — is slander or false accusation.
There is no way that I could possibly win over a single kinist. They, by definition of their own philosophy, are opposed to my very existence, as I am not “pure” or “separate” enough for them. They advocate a society where I might very likely be driven from my home and forced to live elsewhere. Why would they listen to me? Why would they care one tiny bit about anything that I might have to say?
Jen, you can defend them all you want. You can pretend their beliefs and desires are not hateful. Apparently they have not offended you. They have offended me. Even more, they have offended far more deeply all my brothers and sisters in Christ who are people of color.
But far worse than all that is what they want to do with the Body of Christ. God forgive them. God lead them to repentance. Until then, I’m not going to stand up and say that every unrepentant sinner has a right to attend church — even the Bible does not grant that right.
Are you winning them over, Jen? Or are they winning you over? Or have you already been won over long before now?
December 29, 2007 at 10:38 am
Rebecca wrote:I think you must have missed the posts about why this topic was brought up — to demonstrate the hypocrisy behind smearing one person for associating with kinists while gladly associating with others who associate with kinists. (Does that last sentence even make sense?)
That was not the original reason for bringing this whole thing up. It was introduced because Jen Epstein (who received info from either Chad Degenhart, her kinist friend who helps write her website, or the infamous spin master James McDonald) falsely accused Karen Campbell of calling the press to harrass Chad Degenhart and get him fired from his job.
Considering that the McDonalds called the press for free publicity and the reporter called Karen Campbell because he interviewed her for the religion section of the paper in the past because he saw the Amazon.com reviews of the Houswives book, I wonder who the psychotic person is that cooked up the story?
Jen is the one that took it upon herself to “contact” Karen Campbell with these false allegations for harrassing her kinist friend.
So how did that resolve?
SPIN.
I guess we are all to stupid to recognize when someone tells us a lie. That’s about the way the McDonald’s deal with things. “You poor sap! You just aren’t enlightened enough to understand. Join our gnostic group and come to our house for an evening of cognitive dissonance and love bombing. Then you will understand perfectly.” I’d rather go to dinner at an Amway salesman’s house or beat off the Shaklee salesmen.
Kinda reminds me of something I read in the Bible: “You shall not surely die…”
“That isn’t quite what this means and that is never what was said, ladies. You just don’t understand.”
This all also reminds me of a former president to talked about the distinctions of sex and the definition of the word “is.”
So I can’t tell the truth from a lie.
Karen cant tell what an accusation is.
Just put a spin on it.
December 29, 2007 at 10:53 am
You know what else is interesting?
I think that this is all a propaganda technique and an appeal to emotion:
Per the urban myth, Matt Chancey supposedly went to Harry Seabrook’s boss and harrassed him an attempt to get him fired.
Mark Epstien told me to leave Harry Seabrook alone because he had “been through enough.”
Isn’t it against the contitution to discriminate against someone for their beliefs as long as they keep them out of the workplace?
Here’s the next twist,
Jen claimed in her note to Karen that Karen was attempting to interfere with Chad by falsely stating that Karen contacted the press. But wait… The old, trusty red herring of getting someone fired from their job was mentioned by Jen.
Now, I don’t know if either of these men were harrassed at their workplaces, but this is ridiculous!
The same red herring from the same source — they tried to have the kinist fired.
Given the weight of the number of lies that I’ve heard about this whole affair…
Given the lies that I’ve been told from the same source then told that I’m too stupid or biggoted to realize that they are not lies,
I have to wonder if this claim that people have tried to interfere with the employment of these kinists is just another red herring.
December 29, 2007 at 11:15 am
Cindy, LOL!
I just had a real chuckle reading comment #461 and had a funny thought:
Why do these confident, strapping, motivated, self-sufficient, “racially-pure”, morally and intellectually superior, patriocentristic-patriarchs fear losing their jobs if their kinist beliefs are made known? (you know, Harry Seabrook and Chad Degenhart)?
Why, couldn’t they just plop down a stake and technically take dominion over any land God has blessed them with? (as per their ridiculous Utopian-style rhetoric taught with such boldness on their kinist.net website (anonymously, of course)?
It seems they either DON’T have their jobs in jeopardy (as you seem to be alluding to, and I agree — red herrings ) or they are just like the rest of us poor slobs: they have to answer to the MAN, too! LOL!
Alright, Corrie and Cindy, NOW I’m ready to go to bed
Good nite.
December 29, 2007 at 11:42 am
Why do kinists spell Amerika with a “k’?
The k is used as part of foreign spellings most importantly the German spelling. It was first popularized domestically in 1927 by Franz Kafka. Politically, the spelling was used in Irish and Anglican communities in 1940 to attack Kennedy / Lindberg (Kennedy / Lindberg were attacking Roosevelt on the fact that his policies were likely to draw America into world war II and that being neutral meant not assisting the British). That is the term was being used regarding Americans of Easter European descent generally. By the late 1950s it was being applied to the fact that American Jews (often of eastern European descent) had positions of power, in other words an anti racist term had become racist. The term then got adopted by conspiracy nuts (a group called the Order) in 1976 to refer to the America now ruled secretly by Jews (as part of the whole ZOG philosophy). The term was used as the title of the 1984 ABC miniseries to refer to America after the soviet take over. The Aryan nations adopted the term as well around 1996.
In using the spelling I’d say the Kinists are associating themselves with the Order and the Aryan nations and their beliefs.
December 29, 2007 at 11:48 am
Amy wrote: Why? Because I simply did not know that we had a racism problem in conservative homeschooling circles. I had not heard of the ideas behind the patriarchy issues. I had never heard of dominionism or kinism.
Again, let me restate what most people do not realize.
Patriarchy and this modern movement of the VF version of patriarchy has been lifted right out of the writings of the Confederate Prebyterians. Get a copy of BM Palmer and read about how family and family worship is natural religion under general revelation. It’s the earth religion of Adam that God used as a building block for the Gospel.
I can’t believe that Phil Lancaster did not reference BM Palmer somewhere in his book because it sure looks to me like he cribbed from him. Eric Wallace had the integrity to cite Palmer. Dabney is the next favorite and his views are drawn from to build this pagan kingdom of worship of God through the natural religion of family.
This stuff was all republished by Lloyd Sprinkle of the League of the South, friend to Doug Phillips per Doug’s Dabney booklet dedication and Doug’s fellow “Dabneyophile.” And where’s another big camp of patriachy? The more intellectual one? The Monroe-Moscow Axis. Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins, authors of their largely plagaraized apologetic to set the record straight on the virtues of Southern Slavery.
Sevitude, domination and “racialism” is at the heart of the modern patriarchy movement. They lifted it all out of the writings of the Presbyterian Confederates.
Slavery and racism is patriarchy’s dirty little secret. Dabney is a prophet indeed. There’s a bit of neo-Victorian idealism thrown in there for good measure, and a bit of Elisabeth Elliott’s revival of Peter Marshall’s WWII sermon about the “Family Pew.”
December 29, 2007 at 11:52 am
Oh, sorry.
When I get really wound up, I pass by important things like the media of the English langauge. (Oh the details!)
I should have more properly said that slavery and racism are patriarchy’s dirty little secret.
It’s nothing but regurgitated social ideals of the Confederate South in new millenium packaging.
Jennie Chancey called EQUALITY a pig that people put bows and ribbons on to dress it up and make it pretty. I think that her analogy is a better descriptor for her version of patriarchy.
December 29, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Hi CD Host,
Ah, Kafka…
I wonder if these fellas would be so apt to mispell the name of their country with a K if they knew the spelling originated or was first popularized by a Bohemian Jew? Though Kafka, depressed by everything anyway, would find that both depressing and ironic, as many hail him as the prince of literary irony.
No, defenders of kinists,
that was not a solicitation for a lecture on how kinists don’t hate Jews or look down on other cultures. We’ve heard it all already, and I don’t think that any of us here
(?Christian “biggots” for rejecting kinism and close, personal relationships with kinists?)
need a refresher.
It was a point of irony.
December 29, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Amy R—-I could have written what you wrote. I’m obviously too stupid to follow this debate well, but I know trash when I see it, and kinism is trash.
Jen, you may not be a kinist, but you sure do a heck of a job defending these people and their beliefs for some very odd reason I can’t quite put my finger on. Why do you defend them so if you do not agree with their RACIST beliefs?
You can tell me a thousand times that kinism is not the same thing as racism or white supremacy, but you’re falling on deaf ears.
To semi quote Jenny Chancey, you can dress up a pig with nice clothes but in the end, it is still a pig.
And that my dear, is what kinism is. It is a “prettier” version of racism, intended to keep those stupid folks like me from marching in the streets demanding a end to it all.
I am sickened and horrified at this whole debate and the entire issue. We are taking the gospel and virtually stomping on it with our dirty, muddy feet when we say that kinism is not racism.
Blech, blech, blech.
I love most of the ladies here and have enjoyed this debate for weeks now, but I think this may be my swan song. I can’t take it.
December 29, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I started to read this thread but found it became tiring and sad. Would the reporter have been told about adultery or another sin? If so, why?
What place is it of anyone’s to bring up something that had nothing to do with a book about women?
Should any of us cast the first stone or ANY stone? Matters like this should be handled according to the Word of God. I do not see anywhere that would include taking problems to reporters or non-Christians or posting it on Blogs.
Would any of us like our lives and mistakes (real or imagined) to be handled in this way?
I think most of us can look back over our lives in many instances and thankfully say but for the grace of God, go I.
December 29, 2007 at 3:35 pm
“In using the spelling I’d say the Kinists are associating themselves with the Order and the Aryan nations and their beliefs.”
CD Host,
Thank you for that history lesson. I had no idea. I just knew that whenever I saw the “k” used instead of a “c” in words, that it was usually coming from a racist source. It was more intuitive but now that I realize it was used by racists and now white-washed racists, it makes much more sense.
Jen,
I am sorry you feel that way. I see no false accusations, slander or lies here. I am surprised that you would say this, especially because of the fact that you have been doing the same thing on your blog and other blogs for over a year.
As I wrote to you privately, I would appreciate you giving examples to back up these accusations.
For the past year I have defended you against ad-hominem attacks and false accusations and it is a sad day when I have to call you on the carpet for doing the very thing that I defended you from. Accusing people of “hate”? You don’t dare accuse your beloved friends of hate even though their very words constantly drip with hateful language. But, now we are being hateful because we tell the truth? Because we stand up against oppression, false teaching and tyranny?
I am NOT advocating shunning and neither is anyone else. I am not saying that they should not be allowed into a church. We have explained over and over and over and over again in private emails that this is all about hypocrisy and double standards. And now the very people who you are trusting are the ones who refused to stand up for you when you needed it the most. But you won’t trust those who have stuck their necks out for you and have taken blow after blow after blow because they dared go to bat for you?
This isn’t about hate at all. It is about love. I LOVE my brothers and sisters in Christ too much to allow fellow believers to call them “animals” and “a vile stream” and “race-mixers” and “nigger-lovers”. That literally sickens me. I remember first stumbling onto the Little Geneva site and I felt like I was going to vomit when I read the sordid mixture of bible verses and racial hatred. This is the first I had ever heard of such a thing and I thought I knew just about every weird group out there. I don’t want to be separate from my brothers and sisters who have a different color of skin. I remember weeping the first time I heard Ken Ham’s sermon at a homeschool convention on “One Blood”. That pricked my heart and amplified my desire to contend for my brothers and sisters of color.
If a person even has a chance of winning over a kinist to the truth, they cannot compromise and allow for such beliefs. You call it Christian liberty, Jen! You are not going to win them over to the truth by calling what they believe “Christian liberty” and making excuses for their beliefs or laughing at the horrible, horrible comparisons they do with animals and people of another color. People are not going to win them over by making excuses and throwing out red herrings by pointing out black church sites and lumping in kinists and their beliefs with these black church sites. That is called “excusing” not “refuting”.
I have ministered to many homosexual males and I have showed them the love of Christ, even as they died a horrible death from AIDs. I know how to love, Jen, and I want with all my heart to win over the LOST and love them with the love of Christ. Kinists are not claiming to be lost. We do not twist the gospel and say that Jesus ate with the pharisees. He openly rebuked the pharisees. He did not fraternize with them and laugh at their racist jokes. He even mocked them and employed sarcasm. How was that winning them over?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend business must go. I don’t understand it at all. And I don’t understand why you are so easily turning away from the very people who stood by you through thick and thin and who tell you the truth for your own good in exchange for a man who is tickling your ears with things that make you feel good. Smooth words taste good going down but later on they are bitter and bite. Have we not stood by you through many things? Many private and time-exhaustive things? We are still here, Jen. We would not be your friends if we just invited you for dinner and tickled your ears and then as soon as you turned away acted duplicitously.
You are allowed to post on this site. We are not afraid of the controversy and false accusations (guilt by association leveled by the very ones who whine when they get a dose of their own medicine) that come because of it. We do not despise the shunning we receive because we have been your friend. You are not shunned by us. We are not embarrassed of our association with you. Think about it. This is loyalty and my track record with you should speak volumes. But, I will not be loyal to you and ignore the truth. I cannot do that. I have no problem admitting that someone was right and I was wrong if that is what it comes down to. You don’t know how freeing that would be for me right now to do that very thing.
December 29, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Cindy, in #464, you have summed up, quite well, my motivation for giving the kinism links to the newspaper reporter and telling him that Chad is part of James’ church. This layer of patriarchy is not even well understood by many who are smack in the middle of it.
I do not remember ever NOT saying that I had told the reporter about Chad. Corrie, did I ever give you the impression or say that I had not mentioned Chad? What I do remember is that my motives for giving this information to the reporter were suspect and being told that his job was in jeopardy and that I had contacted the reporter. I made it very clear that I had sent links to the reporter as he asked for documentation for these extreme views. AND, I was also told that Chad was friends with the newspaper reporter, which was why his job was now threatened. So, again, I went straight to the reporter and asked him this and he told me he had never heard of Chad in his entire life.
That being said, I had every intention of sharing these links for one reason, which had absolutely nothing at all to do with Chad personally or his job. But it had everything to do with assisting a man who, after speaking with him on the phone, I realized knew little to nothing about the sides of patriarchy that are so extreme. For example, he knew nothing about the views of women and college, he was incredulous that anyone would believe that women’s suffrage ought to be repealed, and he wanted documentation that showed these things as well as anything else to prove my point that the hierarchal views within patriocentricity go beyond a father leading his home.
Providentially, the very day he called me on the phone, a group of three of us had identified Chad Degenhart in the picture on James’ blog, having suspected for several weeks (my suspicions go back several years) a connection between kinism and reformed believers in Illinois. Prior to that picture, I only had circumstantial evidence of this connection, albeit I have QUITE A LIST that I have gathered. So, after seeing the picture, I knew I should suggest to this man that he examine the kinist views as well. To omit that would have been irresponsible, in my opinion.
I know this element of patriarchy is beyond repugnant. Lindsey, I hear what you are saying and would like to shut down this discussion right now. (It would make me very, very sad if you felt you could no longer participate here. Your insights are always right spot on.) But I can’t. For a long time I have known that this element of the patriarchy movement existed and needed to be exposed. There are people I care about very deeply who are being lured into these teachings. There are families who are affected and will be greatly affected when it comes to courtship and marriage for their own children, whether they realize it or not at this point. There are people who are unsuspecting, who only think how wonderful it would be to have fellowship with like-minded believers, never dreaming that, under the surface is a view that perhaps their children or other family members are lower down the ladder than others in the church. It is tragic. When I think that these views might, for example, prevent children from one godly family from marrying children from another or keep a family from considering adopting mixed-race children because of the beliefs or even teachings in their church, it breaks my heart. It is wicked and it is vile. To consider it under the guise of “Christian liberty” is abominable.
So, when a reporter contacted me to talk to me about Passionate Housewives, asking me about the now-removed Amazon review, of course the various elements of patriocentricity would come up. And of course your average ordinary Christian who hasn’t been exposed to this before is going to ask a lot of questions, based on the concerns I was expressing. How irresponsible would I be if, knowing this man is writing an article about this book (I later learned from him that he intends to write about James and his church, too, in that article, which I suspected), I would not tell this man the root of my concerns, that being the hierarchal views that include gender, race, and church authority? Wouldn’t I be remiss, leaving this man to possibly promote this church or this book without knowing about the other layers? As with everything else that has been brought out into the light, this is called “gossip.” The hole is just being dug deeper and deeper.
One more aspect of this which I shared with the reporter….had I wanted to go to the press and expose some sort of “kinist cell” in the Peoria area, would I have chosen the religion page editor to do so? In fact, if I wanted to do this, I would have gone to the one reporter I know who sees a race issue under every stone. I don’t think any of us who have researched this aspect of patriocentricity would see that as the first avenue we might pursue. But, as with the essay by the law professor, I think that these teachings, if fully exposed, could bring about scrutiny by those who might have reasons to want to bring an end to homeschooling. This is yet another reason for us to contact HSLDA and request that they reconsider their support of Vision Forum etc.
December 29, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“I am going to bed very grieved over what I have seen here (and elsewhere) today. Do you think that you are going to get any kinist to change his mind by the way you have spoken here today?”
Well (though I admit that my “red, white and blue” joke WAS a bit over the top), the scriptures I provided in comment #408 were intended to have that effect..
December 29, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Re: Amerika
I am third generation German. I write to my relatives in Germany and many use the “k” in America. They will also use a “k” in Jakob and Mikel instead of Michael. They mean no harm and there is no hidden meaning. I use the “k” sometimes when I write back in German.
December 29, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Karen, I’m not asking you to shut it down. In fact, I think it would be sad if you did.
I just don’t think I have the intellectual insight nor the emotional wherewithal to continue myself as long as we focus on this kinism stuff (see, my use of the word “stuff” is evidence enough of my lack of smarts!
)
I am a decendant of Jewish heritage. I am a Christian, but I love, love, love my Jewish heritage. I cannot and will not buy into ANYTHING that seperates races, either ethnical or cultural. It cheapens my heritage.
To talk about kinism is almost like condoning the holocaust, to me. It makes me physically (truly) ill. I have been ill just reading it.
So please, continue on with the discussion, but I will just bow out for now. I love you all, with a heart for God, and nothing else. I pray that the dark parts would be exposed for what they truly are, so that we can all move forward in love and unity for the FATHER.
Pax Christani.
December 29, 2007 at 4:04 pm
“Jennie Chancey called EQUALITY a pig that people put bows and ribbons on to dress it up and make it pretty. I think that her analogy is a better descriptor for her version of patriarchy.”
A Pig? no, pigs can be disagreeable, and even savage upon occasion, but they are fairly straightforward, honest animals.
The Chanceys’ version of patriarchy is more like that Biblical animal who at first glance appears to resemble a Lamb, but upon closer inspection is found to speak (Rev 13:11) “as a Dragon”.
December 29, 2007 at 4:06 pm
I just read my comment again and I need to clarify something. TALKING about kinism doesn’t cheapen my heritage. But making excuses for it, condoning it or valuing it at any level does.
That is why I am so upset over Jen’s insistance that it is not white supremacy or racism. I’ve spent a year of my life supporting Jen Epstein and truly felt her cause was just. Knowing she stands up for something, or these people (either supporting it or not) is almost like a punch in the stomach, really.
December 29, 2007 at 4:12 pm
This is from the thatmom blog in the comments under “a little podcast history”
Let me add some more insights that might help.
I believe that the Passionate Housewives book and the subsequent interviews have various layers to them. On the surface, a casual reader or listener who is a stay-at-home mom responds by feeling affirmed in her convictions about her life, especially after a difficult day of pouring out her life for her family. By reading the examples in the book of women like “Carolyn,” a career woman who doesn’t want children, or the soccer moms with their marble sinks, she is satisfied the she has made not only the right choice for her life, but she has chosen the role for women that God has ordained before the foundation of the world. This is an understandable response, since we all like to feel that our choices are validated, especially by God. But these sorts of caricature examples encourage the temptation to “compare ourselves among ourselves,” which the scripture tells us is not wise. ( “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” 2 Corinthians 10:12)
However, if that same woman steps out of her own life and her own experience and examines the many presuppositions in the book and holds them up to the light of Scripture, she will have another level of understanding. She will see that yes, she is being obedient to what the Lord has called HER to do, but that her calling is not the same as another woman’s calling. She will begin to question the fact that there are examples throughout Scripture of women who were called to serve the Lord in a variety of ways. She will examine church history and see that many women who have been mightily used of God, even in our day, did not fit into the mold of a passionate housewife as described by these authors. She will begin to see that this worldview isn’t really a biblical one, but rather, one that is Americanized, especially if she is in tune at all to world missions.
Then, finally, if she looks at these same presuppositions in light of the other writings of the authors, she begins to understand on an even deeper level. She begins to be aware of an overriding, extra-biblical, patriocentric agenda that is being promoted. She measures what she is reading in the book with not only the authors’ other writings on women and their roles, and not only the ramifications of those writings, but she begins to see the inconsistencies between those writings. She starts to be able to recognize “patriospeak,” as it were, and suddenly her eyes are opened.
If you have listened to any of the interviews that have already been done with Stacy and Jennie, you quickly realize that they keep their interview on the first level and even state things that are not what they say elsewhere, including in the book. They are betting on the fact that most listeners have not read their other writings or have not watched any of their spots on documentaries. They are very shrewd, because if they were to openly state that women’s suffrage was a terrible idea or that women are blaspheming God’s name if they work outside the home, they would not be allowed on any speaking circuit. (It all reminds me of politicians whose views are radical and their handlers warn them not to tell the audience their real positions on issues. Just think presidential debates.) They are being the “kinder and gentler” patriarch wives.
So, you see, I am not willing to be party to the charade by handing a microphone to Jennie and Stacy, allowing them to give their first level presentation. I care too much about those who listen to the podcasts and I know that, before the Lord, I have a great responsibility to present things honestly and in an upright manner, which includes the deeper levels of understanding of this book and how Scripture has been used in it.
I also want to take Stacy at her word, that she honestly and sincerely wants to have an audience to be able to “clear up any misunderstandings.” That will be done in a format that allows for questions and follow-up questions that will enable us to not only look at the shiny new car, but under the hood as well.”
December 29, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Here is an interesting item….you now need a password to access Chad Degenhart’s blog.
December 29, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Rebecca wrote:I think you must have missed the posts about why this topic was brought up — to demonstrate the hypocrisy behind smearing one person for associating with kinists while gladly associating with others who associate with kinists. (Does that last sentence even make sense?)
Cindy:
That was not the original reason for bringing this whole thing up.
Cindy, it was you who brought up Degenhart in the first place, which immediately caused me to make a blog entry about Matt allowing his wife to co-author a book with kinist associates.
The original comment was from you to in answer to someone’s claim that McDonald says he isn’t racist — you pointed out that a kinist goes to his church, and gave the picture.
Then, I noted Matt’s double standard vis a vis mrsbinoculars and Jennie writing a book with Stacy, and wrote about it, and the subject has snowballed from there, including discussing the press issue, internet links about Chad disappering, and everything related.
Btw — to the person who complained that Degenhart’s association with the McDonalds has nothing to do with the book — technically that is true. But it has everything to do with the double standards of one of the authors of the book, and her husband. And this is all public information, and as such, is open for discussion.
December 29, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Lynn, I disagree that Degenhart’s association with the McDonalds has nothing to do with the book. I live about 50 minutes from their church and know, personally, many homeschooling families in the Peoria area. How many women might read this book, see only what is on the surface, and then decide to be a part of this fellowship? Again, the hierarchal views, whether they involve race, gender, or church authority, are cause for concern.
December 29, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Thatmom, I hope that you DON’T shut this down. But, we have to stop and reassess what we are going to do next.
We have examined HyperPatriarchy and found that it is not biblical.
We are agreed that Kinism is evil.
We have found solid connections between HyperP and Kinism.
The Kinists ARE connected to white supremicist groups, Christian ID, militias, etc.
Now, it remains for us to determine, what are we going to do with this information?
We can talk about it here on this blog until the cows come home, and that IS a very good thing, but this information needs to be made public knowledge, inside the Body of Christ, so that other Christians will be aware of these heretics, AND, IT NEEDS TO BE MADE KNOWN OUTSIDE THE CHURCH AS WELL.
It is very important that NONChristains be made aware of these people and that they be made DOUBLY AND TRIPLY AWARE that these bigoted heretics are NOT representative of Christianity as a whole.
Back a couple of decades ago Christianity got a major black eye when when the escapades of the televangelists became a public scandal. Pagans felt justified in their paganism and heathens in their heathenism and a lot of NEW converts also fell away from the church in disgust as they judged all of Christianity to be like these TV preachers.
Kinism in the Church has the potential to cause far more damage to the Church than the televangelists ever did, unless we the Christian community publically admit that this evil exists, and then OUT AND DISAVOW these evil men, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
While all sorts of sexual variations and perversions are tolerated nowadays in “the World”, when nonChristian people see such things taking place in the lives of prominent evangelists, who for them represent “the Church”, they are outraged.
Nowadays when even most pagans and athiests have renounced racism as evil, how much more will they revile Christianity and feel justified in their unbelief should they come to see the KINISTS as being representative of our faith?
People, the onus is on us.
It is time for normal, orthodox Christians to show the world WHAT THE FACE OF TRUE CHRISTIANITY LOOKS LIKE!
No one will do it for us!
WE, the CHURCH, must and rise up and PUBLICLY CONFRONT AND REPUDIATE KINISM AND PATRIOCENTRICITY, ONCE AND FOR ALL.
December 29, 2007 at 4:45 pm
Lynn wrote: Cindy:
That was not the original reason for bringing this whole thing up.
Cindy, it was you who brought up Degenhart in the first place, which immediately caused me to make a blog entry about Matt allowing his wife to co-author a book with kinist associates.
Lynn, that is not true. You’ve stated that many times, but I am not the one who first made the association. I am not the one who identified Degehnart. Read back. It was not me who brought up his name or the picture.
December 29, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I don’t really care why it was brought up or how. The point is that people are learning about the connections between Patriarchy and Kinism that exist right now.
They are seeing not only the hypocrisy in the Patriarchy movement, but some of their more vile beliefs about race and ‘separateness’.
I think it is downright bizzare that Jen would have a problem with Karen giving reporter information about Chad who was the curriculum director for Kinism and goes to James McDonald’s church.
Not only that but the defense of them here is shocking.
Jen? The Jen of Jen’s Gems? Jen, I never knew ya. I think I have been had all along. But I will tell you this, Jen. I will NOT give Kinists a ‘pass’ as you are trying in a clever way to do here under some guise of cheap grace. Kinism is NOT simply some doctrinal error. It is heresy and negates the Work of the Cross. The Christendom ‘tent’ is not big enough for kinists.
They are wrong and even if you are not a card carrying Kinist, your words here tell me you are a fellow travellor.
December 29, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Cynthia, you are thought=provoking!
Let me ask you this related question…
what do you know about the kinists teachings on heritage, especially the Scottish clans that came to the Carolinas in the 1700″s? Is there one particular clan that stands out as the “true” heritage? I have picked up a copy of Albion’s Seed but haven’t read it yet. Will this be helpful?
I have seen where some reformed believers are promoting a Scottish heritage. My father-in-law was into this when he was living, though for what I suspect are more legitimate reasons. We have had reformed believers question our background because of this other connection, I would imagine. Can you shed any light on this? Or anyone else?
December 29, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Lynn wrote: The original comment was from you to in answer to someone’s claim that McDonald says he isn’t racist — you pointed out that a kinist goes to his church, and gave the picture.
Lynn, I connected the dots. I read the reference to Degenhart in the photo, I went to Cynthia Gee’s blog and read what McDonald wrote and I connected the obvious blundering irony between what McDonald said and someone else’s identification of Degenhart here.
Not that I care. If you want to give me credit, I did point out the irony in McDonalds comment about seeing visually. I think it’s pretty hysterical how his own words tied a nuse for him and he walked right into it by posting a “visual” wherein he stands beside Degenhart. I had not even seen that picture at the time. I looked at it later.
December 29, 2007 at 4:53 pm
“Lynn wrote: The original comment was from you to in answer to someone’s claim that McDonald says he isn’t racist — you pointed out that a kinist goes to his church, and gave the picture.”
Lynn, Am I missing something? You seem to be very focused on ‘getting back to the topic of the thread’ and ‘who brought what up’.
I feel like I am missing an important piece somewhere because I could care less about either at this point. Why does this matter?
December 29, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Lynn quoting Rebecca: I think you must have missed the posts about why this topic was brought up — to demonstrate the hypocrisy behind smearing one person for associating with kinists while gladly associating with others who associate with kinists.
Ah,
I considered the introduction of the accusation of Karen calling the press as the main topic, not this kinism mess.
To me, the whole McDonald Degenhart thing was a separate topic.
What I stated then in my previous post “introducing the topic” referred to Jen writing to Karen with an accusation about calling the press and the dissapearance of the Amazon reviews.
December 29, 2007 at 4:54 pm
ThatMom, can I email you privately?
December 29, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Lindsey wrote: “To talk about kinism is almost like condoning the holocaust, to me. It makes me physically (truly) ill. I have been ill just reading it.”
That is my feeling as well.
I rarely write or speak of the holocaust. Members of my family lived through it, as Christians, and have wonderful testimonies of God’s providence and protection.
My mother remembers the Gestapo bursting into their home, demanding my grandparents to decide, then and there, between Hitler and Christ — and telling them that they would die for their insistence on standing firm in their faith. God spared my family.
I have grown up with stories of friends who disappeared, relatives who died, relatives who barely escaped death, etc.
There is at least one incident that, over half a decade later, still makes my mother cry every time she recounts it. And she is not a weepy sort.
While my family was targeted for being Christian, we also have an ethnic heritage that includes two of the groups that Hitler was in the process of utterly destroying.
On my father’s side, we are also an interesting blend of this and that. I was just one generation shy of being able to get a complete scholarship for one particular ethnic group.
We have friends who are holocaust survivors. I have seen their tattoos. I have seen them suffer with health issues and with the tremendous emotional aftermath of life in the camps.
So…yes…this is personal. Maybe not as personal as it is for others. As I once said to a black friend of mine, racists have to get to know me quite a bit before they realize I am descended from groups they target with discrimination. People of color don’t have that “privilege”.
We owe it to the Body of Christ to speak up on behalf of all our fellow members, and not to allow racism to divide us. And certainly we should not defend white-washed racism, no matter how kindly and gently and attractively it is presented.
Forgive me if I do not feel called to befriend kinists, to laugh at their jokes, and to defend them. They are, in my opinion, indefensible. The Bible tells us to expose the deeds of darkness. It does not tell us to try to convince others that those deeds are not as sinful and wicked as they appear.
December 29, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Oops — I wrote in #488 about an incident that makes my mother cry “half a decade later”, when I meant to say “over half a CENTURY later”.
December 29, 2007 at 5:08 pm
James McDonald has now posted three consecutive posts on his blog using black people. He has not come out with a definitive statement against kinism and has not refuted anything. It seems as if he is just making excuses.
In one of the posts, he uses Will Smith as a scapegoat. Will Smith made a statement about Adolph Hitler (irony???) and how Hitler didn’t plan to do evil when he got out of bed in the morning. A reporter made a statement that Will Smith believes everyone is basically good. Then Smith gets upset that his words were misunderstood and what does he do? Obsfucates and back-peddles and trots out a bunch of Jewish friends to prove he is not excusing Hitler? No! He does something that James and Stacy will not do when they are confronted with something they write or say that confuses their readers:
“Smith “took immediate steps to clarify his words” and condemn Hitler, Foxman said.
Foxman said words “can be twisted by those with hate and bigotry in their hearts.”
“This is why all celebrities bear a special responsibility to weigh their words carefully, and an obligation to speak out against racism and bigotry whenever even a whiff of it appears, as Will Smith has done in this instance,” he said. [AMEN!!]
The Daily Record, a Scottish newspaper, recently quoted Smith as saying: “Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, `let me do the most evil thing I can do today.’ I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was `good.’”
The quote was preceded by the writer’s observation: “Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.”
Many celebrity gossip Web sites posted articles alleging that the 39-year-old actor believed Hitler was a good person.
In a statement Monday, Smith called that “an awful and disgusting lie,” and said he was furious about his remarks being misinterpreted.
“Adolf Hitler was a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on this planet,” the statement said.”
Now, there is NO misunderstanding where Will Smith stands on the issue, is there?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jlc94tbWgxe5R-2CZ2pkbCN3PILwD8TPB91O0
Will Smith came out with a definitive and swift statement to explain his comment and state in no uncertain terms that he thinks Hitler was a vile, evil man. Another men recognized that people in the public’s words can be used by hateful people (meaning racists) and twisted into something else and said that public personas have a responsibility to make sure that they clear up any misunderstandings CAUSED by their words (and actions).
Another thing that strikes me as ironic is how McDonald is hiding behind this article and using it as an attack against those who would dare point out his double standards and duplicitous ways. He doesn’t get the big picture here. He cannot even begin to relate to Will Smith at all and he cannot compare himself to him. He doesn’t know how he feels. Will Smith would not agree with James McDonald on this issue. That is a laughable joke.
And notice how he doesn’t say anything about Will’s original statement. He is a pastor and he should see that this statement is not theologically consistent with his own Reformed beliefs. But, it looks like whatever looks like it will work is the name of the game.
“The Daily Record, a Scottish newspaper, recently quoted Smith as saying: “Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, `let me do the most evil thing I can do today.’ I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was `good.’”"
A reporter prefaced his quote with this:
“Remarkably, Will believes everyone is basically good.”
Now, I didn’t quite get this out of Will’s statement. I understand what Will was saying but that doesn’t mean that his statement doesn’t need clarifying. I think Hitler was pure evil and nothing he did was out of good motives. I do agree with Smith that Hitler employed twisted, backwards logic in what he did but that stems from his evil, black heart and the Devil who was using him as his tool to kill innocent men, women and children. In Hitler’s mania he probably was deluded enough to think that what he was doing was “good”. Hitler was a nut. I point to Hitler and ask the same thing the Kinist institute claims to ask the dead corpse of Western Christianity: cui bono?
But, as a pastor, James is not teaching theology and what is wrong theologically with such a statement but he is grasping at straws, trotting out black people to excuse away this controversy instead of being like Will Smith who came out with a definitive, strong statement totally clarifying any misunderstanding. I am quite sure that black people will see what he is doing in his last three blog posts and I am a little surprised that he would use Barack Obama’s church during election time. Not good. It is the same thing that his wife did with me by using the “elder’s wife is a working woman so that proves I am not dogmatic”. People are not tokens to be whipped out when it is convenient. I was even told that James has a black person in his church so that proves he isn’t a kinist.
Will Smith is a wonderful example of what James SHOULD be doing.
Why does McDonald engage in all of these torturous gymnastics and token displays when he could just come out and make a definitive statement like Will Smith? Does he really think he is fooling anyone with three posts that essentially look like he is using black people as “proof” that he is not a kinist? Will Smith has my respect and admiration. I also love his music and listen to it while I work out. I also love Men in Black.
Next we will have blog articles about David Duke and how unfair it was for people to bring up the racist beliefs of Duke during his campaign and his relationships with other people and how people gossiped and slandered David Duke and misunderstood his beliefs.
December 29, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“Forgive me if I do not feel called to befriend kinists, to laugh at their jokes, and to defend them. They are, in my opinion, indefensible. The Bible tells us to expose the deeds of darkness. It does not tell us to try to convince others that those deeds are not as sinful and wicked as they appear.”
Rebecca,
As always, you say things just the way I wish I could.
December 29, 2007 at 5:18 pm
“So…yes…this is personal. Maybe not as personal as it is for others. As I once said to a black friend of mine, racists have to get to know me quite a bit before they realize I am descended from groups they target with discrimination. People of color don’t have that “privilege”.”
It’s personal for me as well. I look white, but I am white, Mexican and Indian.
My husband is black and Indian (and is in fact related to civil rights worker Rev. Joseph E. Lowery).
Our two beautiful daughters take after the Indian sides of the family in appearance and our grandchildren run the gamut from blonde to dark Latina, AND, we have one Father, in Christ.
This IS personal, any way you slice it.
December 29, 2007 at 5:23 pm
“I think it is downright bizzare that Jen would have a problem with Karen giving reporter information about Chad who was the curriculum director for Kinism and goes to James McDonald’s church.”
Lin,
This is what perplexes me, too. Jen went to a homeschool convention and handed out flyers. Karen merely responded to a reporter’s request for an interview after HE contacted her because of her Amazon review which has now conveniently disappeared [Soviet Union.....Pinochet......].
Jen says that Karen gave out extra information and I wonder how she can say that after all the hundreds and hundreds of extra infos she gave out? What does much of what she exposed on her blog have to do with Doug Phillips and her excommunication? I find it hard that she is riding Karen’s rearend like this when she is far more guilty of doing the very thing she accused Karen of.
Karen,
“I do not remember ever NOT saying that I had told the reporter about Chad. Corrie, did I ever give you the impression or say that I had not mentioned Chad? ”
I admit that I am confused. I have been in these situations with Jen over the last several months and it is the same confusion I feel there, too. Sometimes I have felt like I don’t even know my own name. I could have it in black and white right in front of me and clear as a bell but somehow it is not what it appears to be.
I asked you if you contacted the paper. That is all I asked you. You answered that you did not. I already knew that and I had explained to Jen before I even contacted you. You only confirmed what I already told her. Then she emailed me with what appeared to be the “smoking gun” (at least to them) and I went back to you and you readily admitted that you sent him a list of links and other information. But, that was not the original controversy/question as I understood it. They didn’t ask if you sent the reporter information. They asked if I knew that you had contacted the press. You merely responded to HIS inquiry. All Jen did was ask me if I knew you had contacted the press. You did NOT.
I feel like the question is being switched all of a sudden in order to prove what they wanted to prove from the beginning. Brother! I am so sick and tired of the whining about gossip and slander and guilt by association and assumptions when that is all some people do! Do they not know that their deeds will all come to light some day?
Who’s on first?
December 29, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Jen said
I see a difference between kinism and racism, although I am neither. Kinism does not involved hatred, as racism does. Kinism is NOT white supremacy; racism is. You can read me all the Scriptures you want, but you are preaching to the choir. I am NOT a kinist.
I have not studied kinism beyond what very little I have presented here. I know very little about it.
Jen please point me to how kinism is not about white supremacy and racism. Please explain to me what the difference is because I am just not seeing it.
You say you know very little about it yet you feel confident that you know enough to know that your statement is true. So, please enlighten me to what you see as the difference.
Jen said..
If you don’t agree with someone’s beliefs, win them over. I retract what I said about being free to attack them. That won’t do any good and I see as much hate here towards kinists and racists as you claim comes from them. This is indeed a very sad day.
I have not seen any hatred towards kinists or racists..I have seen hatred towards kinism and racism. There is a big difference there.
December 29, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Rebecca,
My husband’s father is a survivor of the concentration camps. He is still living. His whole family was shot to death in Lithuania along with the rest of the village. His parents sent him out into the woods when the Gestapo came through in order to save him. He lived off of the kindness of strangers until he was captured and put on a train and sent to Poland.
But, then again, I read in white-washed racist materials that the Holocaust really wasn’t that bad and Hitler was not a bad guy and that the Klan has done some good things.
I am probably slandering and misrepresenting the true meaning of what I read. I need that magic mushroom that helps me understand what the true meaning really is.
December 29, 2007 at 5:41 pm
The fact is, Hitler DIDN’T think that what he was DOING was evil (and, I believe that this is also what we are seeing in the Kinists).
That is because Hitler himself was so thoroughly evil that he no longer knew evil from good. In this world evil is invariably tempered by some residual good, if only dimly in the conscience of the perpetrator. Even if a person wakes up and says, “I’m going to do evil today,” this proves that they still have enough of a conscience left to know that what they are going to do IS evil. Such a person may be swimming in sin, and enjoying it thoroughly, but they still have enough of their head above water to know air from liquid. Someone like Hitler is thoroughly submerged in evil, and he has been beneath the surface for so long that he no longer remembers the existance of the world above.
This gives rise to a peculiar state in the thoroughly evil person where the UNAWARENESS of one’s own wickedness almost begins to resemble innocence. The best description of this true evil I have come across is in a fictional work. In “Perelandra”, C S Lewis describes an encounter between the hero, Ransom, and the “unman”, Weston, who is demonically possessed:
“It looked at Ransom in silence and at last began to smile. We have all often spoken – Ransom himself had often spoken – of a devilish smile. Now he realised that he had never taken the words seriously. The smile was not bitter, not raging, nor, in an ordinary sense, sinister; it was not even mocking. It seemed to summon Ransom, with a horrible naïveté of welcome, into the world of its own pleasures, as if all men were at one in those pleasures, as if they were the most natural thing in the world and no dispute could ever have occurred about them. It was not furtive, nor ashamed, it had nothing of the conspirator in it. It did not defy goodness, it ignored it to the point of annihilation. Ransom perceived that he had never before seen anything but half-hearted and uneasy attempts at evil. This creature was whole-hearted. The extremity of its evil had passed beyond all struggle into some state which bore a horrible similarity to innocence.”
As the Jesus says,
“Mat 6:22 ¶ The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.
Mat 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great [is] that darkness!”
December 29, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Here is another quote concerning Will Smith. Another direct contradiction to James’ own behavior.
“Smith later issued a statement saying he had been misunderstood, declaring “Adolf Hitler was a vile, heinous vicious killer responsible for one of the greatest acts of evil committed on his planet.”
That “unequivocal condemnation” was good enough for the ADL. “We would have expected no less from a celebrity of his standing,” Foxman said.”
If we can expect no less from a Hollywood celebrity than can we expect any less from a pastor, Christian and a man who started his own presbytery?
James, where is the “unequivocal condemnation” concerning Kinist beliefs? I know you have plenty of “unequivocal condemnation” towards anyone who would dare hold you accountable for anything you say but how about issuing a statement concerning kinism? It is time to do the very least.
December 29, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Well, exactly, Corrie. These guys should at least say that Kinism is as bad as, say, women wearing pants.
December 29, 2007 at 5:51 pm
“Ransom perceived that he had never before seen anything but half-hearted and uneasy attempts at evil. This creature was whole-hearted. The extremity of its evil had passed beyond all struggle into some state which bore a horrible similarity to innocence.”
Cynthia Gee,
That is chilling. How appropriate for an analogy to Hitler.
December 29, 2007 at 6:05 pm
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2005/11/little-hitler-creating-old-kind-of-jew.html
Great article about how to respond to kinists from a Christian point of view.
“To make one’s racial identity one’s primacy source of self-identity and social identity is simply idolatrous. For a Christian, his Christian identity is first and foremost.
Here’s a third irony. Unlike an ascribed status or an achieve status, race is something you are born with. It is a matter of being, not becoming. It is a state of nature, not a state of mind.
That being the case, the racial self-consciousness of the white supremacist betrays a profound radical insecurity. If you are a white man, you don’t need think about being a white man. You don’t need to study the part, as if you were going to play the role of Hamlet.
Whites who try to be white are inauthentic. Whites who try to be white are play-acting. Either you’re white or you’re not. If you are, you just do what comes naturally to being white—whatever that is. But the problem this poses for s white supremacist is that, at that basic biological level, blacks and whites, Arabs and Asians all have the same passions and drives and fears and longings.”
December 29, 2007 at 6:06 pm
“Moving along—on the one hand, Seabrook is opposed to the Another good quote from the article above:
“Jacobite” doctrine of equality. This is an allusion to the French Revolution, filtered through Dabney.
On the other hand, Seabrook resents the fact that the victors in the Civil War (or should I say, the War of Northern Aggression?) treated the Southerners as second-class citizens.
I appreciate that particular complaint. My own mother is a daughter of the South. But if equality is a Jacobite doctrine, then why should Northerners treat Southerners as equals?”
December 29, 2007 at 6:08 pm
More quotes:
“As such, Dabney, Thornwell and other S. Presbyterians misappropriated the Bible in their attempt to justify the Southern institution of slavery. In this respect they acted as Southerners who happened to be Christian rather than as Christians who happened to be Southern.
Even if, for the sake of argument, race-based slavery were generally licit, that admission would not favor or disfavor one race over another. In principle, a black or Latino supremacist could just as well redeploy Seabrook’s appeal to justify the enslavement of the white race by black masters or Latino overlords.
Seabrook also appeals to Acts 17:26. In context, the Greeks regarded other peoples as barbarians. Hence, the verse, with its allusion to the creation account (Gen 1:27-28; 2:7), is a slap in the face of Greek racism.
In addition, Seabrook disregards the contrast between the OT and NT. In the OT, God did, indeed, partition various people-groups (Gen 10-11; Deut 32:8) so that the heathen could not unite to extinguish the godly remnant.
But as the setting of Acts 17 in particular and the program of Acts generally (1:8) make plain, the point of the New Covenant is to evangelize the nations and thereby incorporate them into the one people of God as members of a common covenant community. This already has its background in the terms of the Abrahamic covenant.”
December 29, 2007 at 6:14 pm
“What was the founding race of America? Isn’t there more than one contender for the title? The Spaniards. The French. The English. The Indians.
It’s amusing to see Seabrook wax nostalgic for the antebellum order. One consequence of slavery is that white masters felt free to turn the slave-quarters into their private harem or brothel. If racial purity is your objective, then slavery is a very counter-productive institution to facilitate your objective. Many a white supremacist has been a staunch segregationist during business hours, but an avid integrationist after the lights were out.”
From the same article.
December 29, 2007 at 6:17 pm
This is the author’s reason for writing that blog article:
“This raises the question of whether I should respond to Seabrook’s misuse of my material. Is it worth the time and effort?
On the one hand, I suspect that Seabrook is just spoiling for a fight with any Christian blogger he can bait in order to raise the public profile of his own little cult. In addition, I have better things to do with my time than get into an open-ended debate with a bunch of fanatical dead-enders.
On the other hand, I’m a Christian apologist of sorts. Christianity is a missionary faith. So it is worthwhile to make some effort at evangelistic outreach.
I don’t expect to win over Seabrook. He has found his cause in life. He would lose face were he took recant his racism.”
December 29, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Lynn, Am I missing something?
Just let it go, then. I was talking more to Cindy’s comment than anything else, and if you’re not interested, ignore it.
December 29, 2007 at 6:37 pm
Lynn, I disagree that Degenhart’s association with the McDonalds has nothing to do with the book.
Is Kinism promoted in the book? That was what I meant.
December 29, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Does anybody know if a “Mark Trantham” is a kinist? I looked up his blogger ID on account of the comment he made on my blog today, and it sure seems he is a kinist from his blog and reading descriptions. Here is his comment:
All of you stupid women s*** tremendously. That any of you could care about this is just pathetic.
Go to hell. And I’ll see you there, cause I s*** enough to actually spend 1 minute commenting on here.
December 29, 2007 at 6:43 pm
http://donovan.covblogs.com/archives/023214.html#comments
This blog has a lot of good articles on this subject. Read the comments to this blog article. They are revealing.
Accusations of Marxism is another thing that patriarchalists and kinists have in common.
December 29, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I am married to a Jew. Our children are mixed – part Jew, a little Indian, and white.
I had a half-black baby.
Do I sound kinist to you?
Would a kinist ever defend someone like me? Not according to how worked up you ladies are!
So, if two kinists have in any way been loyal to me, and obviously put their kinist beliefs aside to do so, is it any wonder that I would return that loyalty as a sister in Christ?
If they were really as racist and hateful as you are trying to make them out to be here, they would have turned on me a long time ago.
Concerned asked me to explain the difference between kinism and racism, as I see it. I will try — again. A kinist believes in keeping the races separate by families. Let me turn this around and see if it is any clearer. Blacks should marry blacks. Hispanics should marry Hispanics. Asians should marry Asians. And whites should marry whites. They do not say that one race is superior to another. They are separate, but equal in value. In its purest form, that is kinism as I understand it.
I have also been told that because I had a half-black baby that the only true repentance for me would be to commit suicide. THAT is racism. Racism is when someone considers one race to be superior to another.
I will say that there are MANY racists of every color. And they have NOTHING to do with patriarchy. Are there some racists who are patriarchs? Yes. Are there some racists who are Presbyterians? Yes. Are there some racists who are Baptists? Yes. Are there some racists who are Republicans? Yes. Are there some racists who are Democrats? Yes. Are there some racists who are libertarians? Yes. Are there some racists who belong to the Constitution Party? Yes. Are there some racists who are independents? Yes. So, does that make every American who votes a racist? Of course not! Does that make every Christian who belongs to a denomination a racist? Of course not! Just because there are a few people in a certain group who have something in common does NOT mean that the whole group is that way. That is a fallacy called part-to-whole. What is true of part of the group does not make it true of the whole group.
Now, let’s translate all that to kinism. Kinists believe in some form of patriarchy (I’m finding that “patriarchy” means something different to nearly every person.) There are a handful of kinists online. There are thousands of patriarchists. If a very small group of those who call themselves patriarchists also call themselves kinists, does that mean then that all patriarchists are kinists? Absolutely not! There is no reason to be afraid of a kinist jumping out from behind every patriarchy bush. This is being magnified WAY out of proportion here.
Now let’s bring it down one more notch. One kinist goes to church. Does that mean that the whole church is now kinist? Of course not! That kinist stands next to the pastor. Does that mean that the pastor is now kinist? Of course not! Is kinism like some cootie you can catch just by standing next to someone?
Or is kinism like using the race card to tear down a fellow believer like what is being done to falsely accuse James and now to falsely accuse me? I strongly disagree with Karen that she was just being “responsible” by throwing out the race card to try to prove that kinism and racism are part of patriarchy. Karen was using the logical fallacy of part-to-whole by falsely alleging that kinism is one of the many layers of patriarchy.
There are many layers to patriarchy, you know. If you dig deep enough, you will find them. Stacy wrote a book about patriarchy. She is married to James, who is the pastor of a church. A man attends that church who is a kinist. Therefore, one of the layers of patriarchy is kinism. Part-to-whole, folks. Just because some kinists believe in patriarchy does NOT mean that all patriarchists believe in kinism.
If Karen were going to be responsible in THAT way, she would have had to tell the newspaper reporter about the “sins” of every person in James’ church. Oh, no! James doesn’t have a perfect church after all! I’m shocked! Therefore we should do all that we can to keep anyone from going to a church that isn’t full of perfect people. Did you ever think that maybe that’s why imperfect believers go to his church? To grow in their walk with the Lord?
Jesus — “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”
December 29, 2007 at 6:50 pm
http://www.blogger.com/profile/12887916385634666023
Here’s Mark Trantham’s blogger ID, which links to kinist sounding blogs, although I don’t know that he is one. This is the ID that was used to post the foul comment on my blog.
I also have an email of his foul language in my inbox, as I receive emails for each of the comments.
Is there anything I should do about this comment? Is this a “complaint worthy” comment? I don’t know. Normally, I just delete this kind of garbage. I don’t know how to go about lodging a complaint.
December 29, 2007 at 7:00 pm
“If they were really as racist and hateful as you are trying to make them out to be here, they would have turned on me a long time ago.”
James McDonald invited you to dinner yet his wife coauthored a book with Jenney Chancey, wife of ‘mrsbinoculars’ creator.
There is not a lot these people could do anymore that would surprise me.
December 29, 2007 at 7:16 pm
“Now let’s bring it down one more notch. One kinist goes to church. Does that mean that the whole church is now kinist? Of course not! That kinist stands next to the pastor. Does that mean that the pastor is now kinist? Of course not! Is kinism like some cootie you can catch just by standing next to someone?”
Jen,
Are these like feminist cooties and all that guilt by association that goes on with that subject? Or how about the Marxist cooties? Is it fair to say that kinism is just “white-washed racism”? If not, why not?
I am a little surprised that after all the actual statements and writings of kinists and those they Hail that you actually think they do view themselves as superior to all other races?
I understand that you had a black baby and that you are married to a former Jew (he is a Christian now) and that Harry took heat from a lot of other kinists for not exposing your race-mixing ways but what does that have to do with anything? Did he ever come out and publicly state that you were not a “race-mixing drama queen”? Did he ever come out and defend you and say how wrong that was for his friends to say what they did about you?
The fact is that Harry hates race-mixers. It is evident from his blog. His friends were mad at him because they viewed him as selling out. Harry’s beliefs about race-mixers are no different than the beliefs of the people who called you those horrible, vile names. It is just that Harry wasn’t rude to you like he is to other race-mixers. And likely he is a tad more restrained than people like Badonicus and TominTulsa. You and your children would not be welcome in his kinist society. Something else overrode his disdain for race-mixers and that is your story about Doug Phillips. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Your race-mixing ways and “Jew husband” were put on the back-burner because of your shared vision for Doug Phillips. But, that doesn’t mean that Harry changed his mind about what he really thinks about Jews (anti-Christs, evil, lying, devils, etc) and blacks (and I won’t even mention the monikers I have seen attached to them).
Your beautiful children are from a polluted and vile stream according to Harry and his beliefs. He may not say that to your face but that is what he believes, is it not? I mean, I read his Little Geneva and I can read the other things he teaches. It seems so clear to me.
I can understand that this is hard for some kinists, especially since they meet families that are not “pure” and in their humanness come to care about them. It would cause a lot of cognitive dissonance to realize that “mixed race” people are just as human and wonderful to be around and sometimes more so than people of our own “kin”. But, his beliefs are no different than Greg McDivitt’s, are they? It is just that Greg didn’t have that human bond that Harry had with you, so Greg didn’t understand Harry’s caving in on this important issue.
“Would a kinist ever defend someone like me? Not according to how worked up you ladies are!”
Worked up? Do you realize that you are doing the same thing to us as your nay-sayers did to you? When you feel passionately about something you are just righteously exposing the truth. When we feel passionately about something we are gossips, slanderers, making assumptions, not caring about the evidence even though we have a semi-truck of it and now we are “worked up”?
December 29, 2007 at 7:22 pm
Oh yeah, and by coincidence, Chad Deganhart, curriculum director for Kinism, just happens to attend James’s church and helped you write your blog articles? (But that means nothing because as you say, only sinners go to church. Has James confronted Chad about his beliefs yet? Just curious.)
Then this thread starts getting hot about kinism and poof! stuff disappers off the internet and Chad has his site now password protected.
Not to mention the stuff that disappeared off off Stacy’s blog, and stuff from Vision Forum that Jenney wrote while they are trying to sell that book. Then the reviews are deleted.
These are not people who stand up publicly for their beliefs, Jen. These are people who hid their beliefs for a reason.
So, Jen, what is the point of believing something one cannot be open about?
Haven’t you noticed these people never discuss the content of an issue? They never really answer questions? They just, conincidently, put related stuff on their blog that supposedly will make people think different?
And now, you have been beating the drum over the word ‘contact’ and spinning quite a tale about Karen’s ‘intent’ with the reporter. But then we really do not know what is truth in all of this because of Rahab’s lie.
You live in a world I want no part of. Don’t throw out verses to cover up horrible sin of Kinism, Jen. If no one can point out the sin of Kinism because they have sin in their lives then we might as well quit going to church at all because the pastor sure cannot preach on sin, can he?
December 29, 2007 at 7:27 pm
“Corrie, this statement about James grew out of several statements that you put together and then you added the part about the fellow elder’s wife working outside the home.”
Jen,
That is a bold-faced lie. You told me that James told you that he believed that people who married people of another race to be unwise in the same way that he believed girls going to college to be unwise. You were praising his stance on this issue because he was not being legalistic and using the “unwise” explanation instead of dogmatically saying it is wrong. This is exactly what you said to me and this was in one chunk, not pieced together.
I now see what you are doing more clearly than ever.
I never said that he said anything about the elder’s wife. Stacy did and she said it to me in private email and she told the story on her blog. Both of them use the “unwise” thing in order to appear that they are not dogmatic in their beliefs. That is what I was saying.
I admit that I was confused and now you are going to use that to paint me as being someone who just pieces together information?
I am NOT confused about what I said. You are the one who is confusing because you keep on changing your story. I know what you told me and that is almost verbatim. You have done this for months with your dealings with others behind the scenes. I hear one story from someone and then you spin it the other way.
You, yourself, told me that you have short-term memory loss. Shall I use that to try and get out of admitting the truth just because it is inconvenient for me?
“Corrie, you are doing this to me in other areas as well. Please stick to the facts.”
Stick to the facts, Jen? I am and you know it. I would have never thought you would blatantly deny something that you clearly said to me more than once over the phone but you just have. And I am NOT doing this to you in other areas. I provided actual quotes that show that you were not being completely honest.
I am not confused. My eyes are finally fully open for the first time. I should have trusted my gut way back when Michael Metzler tried to get me to see some things. I should have gotten totally out a few months back when your “counselor” contacted us about this very same thing.
December 29, 2007 at 7:40 pm
“I am a little surprised that after all the actual statements and writings of kinists and those they Hail that you actually think they do view themselves as superior to all other races?”
That should be “don’t”.
December 29, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Kathleen/Kate,
I want to officially apologize to you and ask you to forgive me. I am sorry that I doubted what you were trying to convey and that I gave you a hard time about that phone call.
Will you please forgive me?
December 29, 2007 at 7:55 pm
“I don’t expect to win over Seabrook. He has found his cause in life. He would lose face were he took recant his racism.””
Ah, but what a victory for Christ that would be!
I wouldn’t give up on Seabrook or any of those poor, deluded bigots just yet. It’s likely they will never recant, but then again, never underestimate the determination of the Holy Ghost when a soul is on the line.
December 29, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Count me as someone who was reading. *was*
This conversation is great and all, but can you take it to a private email—-do a “Reply to All” or something so that all interested parties can be a part. But the rest of us here…? We don’t need to hear this stuff and we don’t need to know all about it.
I’m seeing what was a good conversation disintigrate into personal issues that really should be dealt with personally.
This just flat out looks bad and leaves a bad taste in my mouth—-and I don’t really care who’s right and who’s wrong. Please please please listen to others who’ve said the same thing: move this conversation out of a public venue and continue it in private.
December 29, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Just to give a little perspective here, on my first interaction with Jen . . .
I was floored that she was so supportive of Kent Hovind, who was sentenced to prison for tax evasion. Jen told me at the time that Kent was kind to her and her family.
I firmly believe the same thing is going on here. I don’t know whether Harry and Chad “love-bombed” (a phrase used to describe what cults do to lure people in) the Epsteins or whether they were trying to demonstrate, sincerely, that kinists treat every human being with respect, or whether they thought they had some kind of “in” to “get” Phillips, but the fact is, Jen has met with perceived and felt kindness in them, and she is finding this conversation very difficult.
I have never had any kind of problem expressing disagreement with Jen, either on-line, or off-line, and she has shared some extremely sensitive information with me and Corrie, and trusts us to keep it private, and so far, I have seen the same from her regarding any personal issues I may have told her about.
Jen, you know that I call things like I see them. I think the best way to describe this is as someone else put it, and I said to you in private some time ago — “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” You’ve got to listen here why we are discussing kinism like this. It is because it is on beyond what Doug Phillips teaches, and it is on beyond what Bill Gothard teaches, and we are very surprised at your remarks that it is an area of “freedom,” which you said to me off-line.
Jen, the teachings of kinism go beyond Doug’s tenets, which we know you attempted to thoroughly dissect and disagree with much of what is in them.
The teachings of kinism go on beyond what Bill Gothard teaches in some respects. I remember being at Indy once when Gothard’s “adopted father” who was black, spoke, and as far as I was concerned, looking back now, that man was a great blessing. He was a great blessing to people I know of, personally, as well, in individual counseling.
Jen, people are flummoxed at how you could so vocally decry some of the patriarchy teachings, and that you are now beginning to see how much Gothard has influenced your life and are seeing how legalistic his teachings are, that you are rushing to defend kinist doctrine.
I wrote to Cindy off-line when she called you a kinist, and she publicly retracted. Nobody is calling you a kinist. I think what most people are reacting to is how you are downplaying kinist views. They specifically said they base their views on the Bible. We have saved a lot of their quotes.
As with Hovind, so it is now. Many of us stridently disagree with some of Hovind’s claims, and his actions, and we are appalled at the legalistic teaching of kinism that claims it is God’s will.
GOD’s WILL??? When He allowed foreigners to be attached to Israel because they sought Him? When Paul rebuked Peter for being a kinist, if you will, for only associating with Jews?
When He turned Miriam white with leprosy because she complained about Moses’ racially mixed marriage?? How about that one? It is no small potatoes that God struck her for complaining about something that wasn’t sin, just because she didn’t like that her brother had married a Cushite woman. If Moses had sinned by marrying a Cushite, don’t you think the Lord would have dealt with that, and not chastised Miriam?
Jen, you can’t get kinism from the NT OR the OT as a mandate for believers. It doesn’t matter how nice people are, if their doctrine is poison. In the end, the poison still has its effect.
December 29, 2007 at 8:23 pm
This may or may not have any weight here, but I think it does.
This morning I was discussing this whole thread with my virtually non-religious mother. Do you know what she said?
“Lindsey, the reason people fall for this stuff is because they are weak. And falling for these kind of schemes makes them feel powerful.”
I had the most revelation from her, my non-religious mother than I have had in a long time in many circles with this one statement.
I believe it is true. Kinism is just another way to feel better about yourself (your kin, you clan, your family, whatever)
And what does this mirror?
P-R-I-D-E
I’m done with the arguing back and forth. I think we need to find a way to confront these teachings and move ahead with GRACE and expose the lies for what they are.
There is but one Truth, friends. And it isn’t found in any one “circle” or any one leader/pastor/author/writer. It isn’t found in me.
It is in God alone. Christ alone.
December 29, 2007 at 8:59 pm
Thank you, Lynn. Perhaps I have misplaced loyalties. I just don’t like seeing other people treated the way I have been. Maybe my love for my brothers and sisters in Christ surpasses their beliefs. Maybe I am more concerned about Chad and his family having a safe place to fellowship, a place where they will hear the Word of God, a place that God can use to teach them the things He wants them to know, than I am about tearing down my now kinist friend for his beliefs.
My goodness, if everyone tried to get me to change my patriarchal beliefs in this manner one year ago, I would have run straight back to Doug.
Lynn, thank you.
December 29, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Lindsey (re: #526)…
EXACTLY.
I was having the same thoughts.
When Jen listed the following verses, she was correct that God was the one that separated the nations. But the fact of the matter is, is that He did it as a PUNISHMENT, a CURSE, because man’s was taking PRIDE in something that he had absolutely nothing to do with.
But man couldn’t accept the consequences as consequences… that would require accepting the reality about himself that he’s not all that! So where man once found pride in the fact that they were “one great people”, he now had to conjure up something wonderful about his current state (his particular race) in the midst of the curse… then he’d have something to make him feel alright about himself.
Man did the same thing with the Fall; he turned the consequences around and said “Oh, God intended it to be this way!!!”… hence, your rampant complementarianism and patriarchy.
So the kinists take the Tower of Babel and instead of grasping God’s original heart in the matter, they take the consequences and instead of learning from them (because that would require accepting culpability), turns it around and says, “Oh, God intended for us to be separate!”
Sorry, the common thread I see in the following verses is God UNITING them and declaring them ALL to have access to the Gospel… He is pulling them back together! Showing us our commonality in His redemption.
Revelation 5:9
And they sang a new song, saying: “ You are worthy to take the scroll, And to open its seals; For You were slain, And have redeemed us to God by Your blood Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
Revelation 7:9
After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
Revelation 11:9
Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three-and-a-half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves.
Revelation 13:7
It was granted to him to make war with the saints and to overcome them. And authority was given him over every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Revelation 14:6
Then I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth—to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people—
December 29, 2007 at 9:18 pm
“My goodness, if everyone tried to get me to change my patriarchal beliefs in this manner one year ago, I would have run straight back to Doug.”
No kidding. And if folks who aren’t Christians stumble upon this thread, I would bet they’d run away screaming. THIS is how the members of the body of Christ treat each other? Include me out.
Anyway. I just came back to clarify something that probably matters not to anyone except possibly Corrie, and, of course, to me.
I stated something like a hundred comments ago that I agreed with Corrie about the “face-slapping incident” that was discussed in the PW list.
What I meant by that is that I believe that slapping a child’s face is wrong and unnecessary.
I did not mean that I was in any way involved in what went on between Corrie and the moderators, or that I condoned one side or the other. I was completely clueless that any of that was going on.
Now. Y’all continue to snipe and argue. I’m out of here.
December 29, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Hi all–I’ve read all four of these threads with great interest–and this last with some confusion since I don’t know all the backstory with Jen Epstein (although I did read her story before it was taken down).
First of all, thank you to all of you who are thoughtfully sorting through these issues. I’ve had multiple tabs open in firefox for weeks now, as I’ve followed up on the many related issues.
Second, Jen, can you clarify something? You said in 517: “James has a white deacon in his church who is married to a Hispanic lady, which I also told you. James has absolutely no problem with that couple and he went to Chad to see if there was going to be a problem.”
…Why would a pastor go to a congregant to ask if there would be a problem with an interracial couple? What kind of “problem” might there be–that Chad would refuse to be in a photo with these people? What would James have done if Chad HAD said the couple was problematic for him?
I don’t mean this in a “gotcha” way; I’m just genuinely curious about this interaction because it seems to indicate some deference on James Macdonald’s part to kinist views, at least that he took the initiative of checking in with Chad on the matter.
It’s not like saying to an alcoholic, “Will it be a problem if we serve wine for communion?” because in that case the alcoholic faces what could be a genuine stumbling block in his/her efforts toward recovery. In the case of Chad, no “recovery” or desire for it seems to be in view, so what is the goal behind asking if an interracial couple will be a problem?
December 29, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“This just flat out looks bad and leaves a bad taste in my mouth—-and I don’t really care who’s right and who’s wrong. Please please please listen to others who’ve said the same thing: move this conversation out of a public venue and continue it in private.”
Molleth, Some people have been duped into supporting Kinism without even realizing it. It reminds me of what is taught in Jude of them coming into the church subtley.
With any false teaching,lies and deception, there is always a person involved.
It has been a serious shock for some of us to discover the Kinist ties that have been a part of this all along, even after many denials of that.
I am praying that the misuse of scripture here in defense of Kinism being about Freedom will wake many more up.
December 29, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“And if folks who aren’t Christians stumble upon this thread, I would bet they’d run away screaming. THIS is how the members of the body of Christ treat each other? Include me out.”
Why does everyone seem to think this ‘If they like us, they will like our Jesus’ stuff is how it works? It is not like God is up there wringing His hands hoping His creation will get it right. Sheesh.
Are we talking about the same God who can make the very rocks cry out? Trust me, He will save Whom He has forordained to save and He does it by the preaching of the Word.
Which brings me to this point. If they aren’t Christians and they come to this blog…they have been warned to look very close before they join just any church that proclaims to follow Jesus Christ. Some are wearing masks.
December 29, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Lin wrote: Some people have been duped into supporting Kinism without even realizing it.
I hope that everybody got that loud and clear.
let me repeat it:
Some people have been
DUPED INTO SUPPORTING KINISM
without even realizing it.
Patriarchy is the revival of Confederate Natural Religion of Family.
It was revived from the writings of the Confederates.
Kinism, slavery, subordination, servitude and lust for power undergird it all.
December 29, 2007 at 9:43 pm
“No kidding. And if folks who aren’t Christians stumble upon this thread, I would bet they’d run away screaming. THIS is how the members of the body of Christ treat each other? Include me out.”
Marcia,
Yes, it is horrible. I agree. I wonder how many brothers and sisters in the body of Christ this horrible doctrine of kinism has harmed? I bet many have run away screaming. Just like I could not sit by and watch mothers defend their husbands slapping their children across the face in the name of submission or mother slapping their children across the face in the name of discipline, I can’t sit by and watch my brothers and sisters in Christ be put through hell on earth because of their skin color or because they married someone who was a different color. Sickening! I agree.
I will also not allow people who are in leadership to sit by and not come out against this teaching. Just like during the face slapping discussion no leader would put a stop to it and condemn it. Just like when I was told in private email by a moderator that I was being too judgmental and that face slapping was just another tool in the parent’s discipline tool box.
I am now a legalist and judgmental because I speak out against abuse, against white-washed racism? But people are not legalistic and judgmental when they judge a woman to be a hooker because they go to college or wear certain clothing?
Something is butt-backwards in Denmark! And you better believe that people are going to run screaming from the body of Christ if they don’t see that there are Christians who are willing to shed the light of God upon these ungodly practices.
We are worried about offending racists and child abusers but we are not worried about offending women who wear pants or girls who go to college? Sheesh! My head feels like it is going to blow into pieces from the illogic of it all!
December 29, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Lin wrote: Which brings me to this point. If they aren’t Christians and they come to this blog…they have been warned to look very close before they join just any church that proclaims to follow Jesus Christ. Some are wearing masks.
The world looks to religion today to find stability and standards. This is part of the reason why Islam has an appeal for so many and why it is growing so rapidly.
In a world of relative meaning and morality, these religions provide that for them. Just like children look for guidance and beg for it sometimes, so it is with the world.
What does that say of us as Christians if we are unwilling to hold ourselves accountable for truth an honesty? If we give our friends and easy pass, what does that say to the world? We are just like the world is. But if we hold fast to the standard and keep ourselves accountable to one another, then that says a great deal to the world.
I would hope that they would look and say, “You know, those Christians are pretty tough, but they are consistent and they don’t play favorites. There’s something different that the world doesn’t have.”
How can we judge the angels if we cannot govern our own household of faith? It’s scandalous if we don’t.
December 29, 2007 at 9:49 pm
Here’s another goodie that Lin wrote:
It has been a serious shock for some of us to discover the Kinist ties that have been a part of this all along, even after many denials of that.
December 29, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Corrie addressing Jen: You, yourself, told me that you have short-term memory loss. Shall I use that to try and get out of admitting the truth just because it is inconvenient for me?
??? WHAT ???
What??!!!
December 29, 2007 at 10:11 pm
“It has been a serious shock for some of us to discover the Kinist ties that have been a part of this all along, even after many denials of that.”
I hate to say I told you so, but I did, almost a year ago over on Lynn’s blog. I was told that I was using a broad brush then, LOL, but even I didn’t realize that the situation was a bad as it apparently is.
But no matter, that. The question is, now that we KNOW, what are we going to DO about it?
Really, somebody ought to be calling the Wall Street Journal.
Newsweek would be even better.
December 29, 2007 at 10:28 pm
My suggestion, for what it’s worth — let’s all agree to:
1. Declare a moratorium on lying and accusations of lying.
2. Quite rehashing who said what when and to whom.
3. Have the basic human courtesy and compassion not to defend kinism in front of those of us who have good reason to be deeply offended by this ungodly philosophy. I’m going to be blunt here and frankly no longer care whose toes I’m stepping on. I’m simply not impressed with statements of “I’m not a kinist!!” coming from an obvious kinist sympathizer. Defend the doctrine on their blogs, among your friends, where I don’t have to have it rubbed in my face. Please. Show a tiny shred of sensitivity to those of us who have laid bare our hearts in an attempt to explain why kinism is so deeply egregious to us. (This is the kinder, gentler version of what I really feel like writing. God help me.)
4. Perhaps declare this long thread dead, open up a new one, and have Karen set some ground rules so as to prevent things from degenerating again.
5. Examine the issues raised — I am certainly not suggesting that the topic of kinism be swept under the rug. Frankly, I would like to examine some of the points that have been raised here and elsewhere about hierarchical systems, about why some view kinism as a subsystem of Christian Reconstructionism, and how all this fits in with the discussion of gender roles and the homeschooling movement that — if I still remember? — we were having way back when.
December 29, 2007 at 10:41 pm
“Quite rehashing who said what when and to whom.”
I think Karen has every right to defend herself on this blog. What was said about her contacting the press is just one small example of a tiny thing giving a HUGE wrong impression. I call it ‘planting seeds of poison’ and if someone is not allowed to confront it, those seeds grow into flowering plants. that is wrong, too.
Everyone wants all this sort of conflict to somehow be nice and pretty and sweet. Evil is not nice and pretty and sweet.
And evil always calls out those who confront it as mean and hateful. If evil were obvious, it would not sell so well. (Notice how all the Kinist stuff is disappearing off the internet as of yesterday?) but those who call it out end up being called the sinners for pointing out evil! It is quite ironic.
What you call dengenerating…I call getting to the truth.
If more Christians were interested in truth and not so squimish about getting at it, the SBC would not be full of molesters, embezzlers and adulterers who go from pulpit to pulpit.
And that is JUST one example.
December 29, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Cynthia, Spunky said it best, but I will try to repeat the original point I made in what I think was the first entry I made about mrsbinoculars . . .
I DON’T CARE IF LITTLE GENEVA CLOSED UP SHOP, and I DON’T CARE CARE ABOUT ANY CONNECTIONS MATT MADE, BECAUSE . . .
Matt’s purpose in doing that was to divert attention away from the fact that the Epstein’s excommunication was conducted without a trial, and there are no minutes, and that Doug Phillips breached information to BCA that had NOTHING to do with why he was excommunicating Jen, especially since he had a documented repentance letter about the issue he blabbed to the church, and the Epsteins claimed he was touched by it.
Now Spunky (or was it JP) said that we could find out tomorrow that Mark and Jen had been involved in a murder-suicide and one buried the other in the garden, and that still wouldn’t change what Doug Phillips did. It also doesn’t make the Epsteins kinists.
To try to connect them with kinists was exactly what Matt wanted. He wanted people to stop criticizing Doug for what he did to the Epsteins, and keep in mind this is not just Jen. Mark was hurt. Natasha was dealt a spiritual death blow by it all, it appears, and I don’t know how Joshua feels about it all. We were all incensed by the story that Mark attested to of Alicia being shoved away when she went up to a BCA lady for a hug.
You know, people, when you have been screwed over (there, I said it) like this, and someone, anyone, offers you a life preserver, you are going to be grateful, and this is what happened here.
I think what Jen is doing is trying to help Chad run for cover, and I just told her privately this is going to backfire, because this kind of behavior multiple people can attest to — links being changed, taken down, etc., is only going to make people MORE suspicious. People don’t like the idea of something out there that is lurking, and this kind of behavior only makes people more suspicious.
December 29, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Let me try this from a different angle. I am NOT defending kinism. Maybe I’m just a terrible writer and I should quit. I just think it is only fair that both (all) sides of the issue (whatever story or issue that may be) be presented. If people are going to attack kinism, I felt it only right that they attack what it really is. Many here are attacking mostly strawmen, and even though I am not a kinist, it is simply not right to create a strawman of what kinism is, and then attack the strawman.
For instance, when I wrote about the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, I presented them EXACTLY as they were and we discussed them according to Doug Phillips’ own words. I don’t ascribe the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy to James McDonald, then, because he might be a patriarchist (that’s somewhat debatable). I refer people to what James’ own words are on the subject, as I did on TW yesterday. So if you want to take issue with James regarding what he believes, then use James’ own words, not Doug’s.
That is really all I’m trying to do with the kinism stuff as well. There is a tendency on the TW blog to say that all patriarchs are alike. They are not. Likewise, now all kinists are alike. They are not. The most common logical fallacy is a hasty generalization and that is what is happening a lot on TW. That is what I am trying to speak out against — logical fallacies.
So, ladies, thank you for interacting with the verses. I think that is fully appropriate. I think it is possible that they may be mixed up in whether they are prescriptive or descriptive.
Let me try a different approach here. Here is a statement from the beliefs stated at kinism.net What do you think of this statement?
“Mankind was designed by its Creator and Law Giver to live and to thrive in extended family groups, and all other “alternatives” to this pattern are inhibitory of the chief end of man, which is to Glorify God and to enjoy life with Him forever.”
December 29, 2007 at 10:52 pm
May God give me the strength to let this thing rest. This is the last “personal” post I want to make on the subject, but I feel like I’m going to explode if I don’t get it out. Please forgive me for this one more thing:
I wasn’t born yesterday, nor did I just fall off the turnip truck. I am not impressed with those who claim they are not racists because:
1. They once stood next to a black person and had their picture taken.
2. They have “friends of all colors”.
3. They are married to a person of color.
4. They have biracial children.
5. They allow people of color to attend their church.
6. They hire people of color.
7. They like to eat ethnic food.
8. They own all of Stevie Wonder’s albums.
9. They once held hands with a person from a different ethnic group.
10. They have traveled to Africa.
11. They aren’t rude and obnoxious to everyone they meet who doesn’t share their ethnicity.
12. The believe in separate but equal.
13. They don’t hate other races; they just love their own SO VERY MUCH, and for good reason. In fact, they don’t mind if other ethnic groups love their own races/ethnicities also, as long as they do it over there…way over there.
14. They have never killed or even injured a person of color.
….or whatever reason/excuse/”evidence” is going to be trotted out next. I’ve probably heard most of them.
When I was a child, I knew a man and his Asian wife. He, of course, was not a racist, and the obvious proof was that his wife was Asian. But, if she burned the dinner, he screamed racial epithets at her. If she made any sort of mistake, he did the same. He mocked her for her appearance, her culture, her intelligence, and pretty much everything about her. In fact, he rarely referred to her by name, but only by racial slurs. But, when called on it, he would say he was only joking. How could he possibly be a racist when he had married a woman of another race?
I could tell more stories.
Don’t trot out your associations with people of color in an attempt to disprove your racism/kinism. That’s as ridiculous as a misogynist trying to claim that having sex with women is proof that he loves and respects them.
You know what convinces me that someone is not a racist? Their complete disdain for racism in all its forms. Their willingness to examine their own hearts for whatever racism and prejudice still lurks. Their sensitivity and grief over racism. Their unwillingness to whitewash hatred and prejudice. That’s a start in convincing me. And frankly, just saying, even if it is for the “umpteenth” time, “I’m not a kinist!” isn’t even remotely convincing. So you’re just a sympathizer and defender. And the difference is…?
December 29, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Jen, so we’ve raised strawmen? Kinists don’t believe in separation of the races? Kinists don’t believe “that the God-ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal”? Kinists don’t believe that “White peoples have an inalienable, that is, God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families”? They don’t “denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait”? They don’t misuse Scripture time and time again, such as in their belief that “It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking”? They don’t believe that “we stand or fall with no other but the White peoples of Europe, and their standards of beauty, their cultural achievements, the achievements of their civilization, established through the confluence of pagan and Christian traditions, are both irreplaceable and vital to our survival as a people”? They don’t believe in “an end all non-white immigration”? They don’t believe that “suffrage would be restricted to landed white males 21 and older, as we work toward a godly, free republic”?
So are you trying to tell us that kinism.net does not speak for the kinist movement? If so, Jen, please give me the website that does.
December 29, 2007 at 11:11 pm
I agree with Anon and others. You all keep saying the sammmmmeeee thing–over and over and over and over….ad nauseum. Please take it off line and let us move on to other topics.
It is beyond the “umpteenth” time and we get it!!
December 29, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Sorry to post the garbage and filth of #545 here. They were direct quote from the kinist website. I did it only to expose the deeds of darkness.
Jen, please, in the name of all that is decent and holy, I beg of you, please do not defend those quotes. Please. If they don’t represent true kinism, please direct me to the website that does. But — and I am pleading with you — do not attempt to defend what has been written there. For your own sake. For my sake. For the sake of Christ. Please.
December 29, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Dear Jen,
I did not meant to accuse you of being a racist or a kinist. Please believe me when I say that I have absolutely no desire to lobby accusations at any one person who has commented here.
I only wanted to point out what I believe is a fundamental fallacy – that the doctrine of kinism is not, in itself, racist. I believe that it is possible for a person (again, not anyone in particular – just speaking in the abstract) to have friends of a different race, and yet harbor racist feelings and tendencies in his or her heart. In my opinion, beliefs are even more important than actions. Right belief, true belief, will oftentimes produce right action. But right outward action – having friends from across the racial spectrum – does not, to me, mean that a person possesses right belief.
December 29, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Jen wrote:
“Let me try a different approach here. Here is a statement from the beliefs stated at kinism.net What do you think of this statement?
“Mankind was designed by its Creator and Law Giver to live and to thrive in extended family groups, and all other “alternatives” to this pattern are inhibitory of the chief end of man, which is to Glorify God and to enjoy life with Him forever.””
I read this statement, plus most of the rest of the “what we believe” page last night and… do you really want my honest opinion???
HOGWASH.
Mankind was NOT designed that way. Like I said before, the dispersion of peoples and tongues at the Tower of Babel was a consequence (or the best possible spin on it could be a “redirection” away from their pride and egotism). God had already created them; whole, together, one large extended family.
And frankly, the claim that different cultures learning to get along is “inhibitory” to the chief end of man is the MOST RIDICULOUS argument I have heard since Numbers 30.
Different cultures are not “inhibitory” to man’s chief end.
SIN is inhibitory to glorying God.
December 29, 2007 at 11:19 pm
I still have not yet transcribed Bruce Ware’s comments about women being the indirect image of God. I hope that it stays up until I can unearth the Ware material.
Also keep it up again until we hit 666 again. Who want’s the honors? Corrie already had a chance!
December 29, 2007 at 11:20 pm
“Don’t trot out your associations with people of color in an attempt to disprove your racism/kinism. That’s as ridiculous as a misogynist trying to claim that having sex with women is proof that he loves and respects them.”
Excellent point, Rebecca!
December 29, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Whoops – that should say
“But right outward action – having friends from across the racial spectrum – does not, to me, NECESSARILY mean that a person possesses right belief.”
December 29, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Jen, not only do I disagree with that very toned down statement you provided, acuz I don’t think a tribal form of government is mandated biblically, but I think you need to cut to the chase. Here is what was originally on that site:
(From the Kinist Institute, posted on this web page in October, 2005)
http://jesuspolitics.typepad.com/jesus_politics/2005/10/a_kinist_nation.html
“We will work to end all non-white immigration, We believe that all aliens (to include all Jews and Arabs) should be removed to their own areas and separated in due course from Kinist held territories, without respect to persons. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the worth and value to God of all ethnic division of men and would labor diligently to establish godly, honorable relations with our ethnic neighbors. The borders of a Kinist nation would be secure, and sensible anti-miscegenation laws would be enacted, while suffrage would be restricted to landed white males 21 and older, while we work toward a godly, free republic. In a biblical society, the exercise of the public franchise will not be permitted to be used as a means of subjugating America’s founding people, nor will it be permitted to become a tool to transform us through law into a nation of godless, hedonistic automata, in hock to the company store.”
(Comment number 1)
Too bad the Kinist Institute never knew Jesus in whom “there is no Jew nor Greek male nor female slave nor free.” Racist religion is not “orthodox Christianity” no matter how many crosses adorn its church buildings. This is just pure, unadulterated heresy.
Another day another cult masquerading as “the truth.” Makes me want to invite the JW’s in for a stimulating argument about the Trinity.
(Comment number 2, by MARK GODFREY, another kinist leader along with Seabrook and Degenhart. Note that Mark does NOT say the above is a misquote. He merely takes issue with the commenter)
Cult? Hardly. This is what merely the entire Western church, in all of its manifestations, accepted presuppositionally throughout the course of its history. If you are satisfied with throwing out shibboleths, then perhaps you should stick to less, uh, challenging topics, like what constitutes Western orthodox tradition.
Uh, that verse (Galatians 3:28) has only a soteriological application, not a sociological one -that is, unless you believe Paul was desirous of negating gender differences. But then, uh, why would he ask women to be silent in church? Ah, the questions, the questions…
December 29, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Rebecca, I am not here to defend kinism. I have absolutely no interest in defending any of those quotes you provided because I don’t believe them. That was all I was asking though — interact with the quotes.
Not everything here has been a strawman, but there is plenty of it. I shall provide a list in a bit.
Lynn, I wasn’t intending to provide a toned-down comment. I thought maybe it would be a better approach if we took one statement at a time from that kinism beliefs page, and dissected the statement biblically and logically and rationally, without so much emotion. I provided a direct quote. I’m sure you already know that I don’t agree with it, but I’m sure there are many reasons why we don’t agree with it. I would seriously like to hear logical, biblical reasoning against that quote.
Then perhaps we could move on to the next quote. This conversation is all over the place and I thought it help to bring some order to it.
December 29, 2007 at 11:45 pm
OK, Jen, I’ll take it slower for all the hysterical people out there who are being so illogical.
How about this:
“We will work to end all non-white immigration, We believe that all aliens (to include all Jews and Arabs) should be removed to their own areas and separated in due course from Kinist held territories, without respect to persons.”
Not only do I hope people see how unbiblical this is, I hope that they understand this is what was ORIGINALLY on that site, and I don’t care if they are outraged and angered by it.
Hot emotion and logic are not always mutually exclusive.
So let’s go ahead — have at that quote, both from a biblical standpoint, and feel free to tell everybody how you feel about it as well!
December 29, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Kinism and patriarchy are not the same thing, but as I poke around in the dark corners of the internet, the theme that binds them is very clear.
Let’s review:
With Doug Wilson, it’s all about who is the alpha male (him, of course). You only have to see how he speaks to and about others to see the shriveled meanness of his soul.
With RC Sproul Jr, it’s all about power to do whatever he wants to do, with zero accountability to anyone else.
With Father Bill Mouser, who actually believes that men are more like God than women, (I can quote you chapter and verse), it’s all about being a god and making maleness an idol.
With Tim Bayly, it’s all about power over others – a man who is apparently so insecure about his masculinity and his place in God’s world that if a woman police officer dares pull him over and give him a ticket, he’ll “gnash his teeth.”
With Doug Phillips, it’s all about his own personal vision becoming reality, no matter whose backs he stomps on (spiritually, commercially, legally) to get there.
With Jennie Chancey and Stacey MacDonald and the Botkin sisters, it is about cozying up to the powerful men so that some of their power may rub off.
And with the kinists, as I am learning to my horror, it is about thinking yourself so clean and perfect and lily-white that you cannot sully yourself by becoming too intimate with others of another race or ethnicity.
All of them – Wilson, Sproul Jr, Bayly, Mouser, Phillips, MacDonald, Chancey, the Botkins, the Kinists – are desperate to be lifted up and exalted. I can see their very souls crying out for it. And in this misogynistic, racist desperation, they by necessity must oppress others. For if no one is below them, how can they be higher up? If we are all equal, how can they ever be special and exalted, which is what they desire above all else? So they oppress – women, people of lesser economic classes, other races/ethnicities.
Notice what is glaringly absent from their paradigm: Servanthood. Agape. Oh, they will rationalize it, of course. They believe they love you and that they are in fact washing your feet – serving you by exerting their authority over you, subordinating you to their will and whim, shackling you with legalistic rules and laws, speaking to you with a “serrated edge.” They are so convinced of their moral and intellectual and spiritual superiority that they must take dominion over you. Because you, of course, are not capable of self-government. (Perhaps you don’t have the Holy Spirit indwelt within you?) Your voice is not valid. Your only valid calling is to support the calling of the man in your life. For the protection of society, by golly to protect your very soul, they will give you all these rules (like not voting, or not going to college, or worshipping in FICs only).
They. Don’t. Get. It.
The gospel, that is. They so desperately want to be exalted, but they are blind to how they have already been exalted in Christ. They live in spiritual poverty, and I weep for them. To believe as they do means that they have not grasped the very essence of the gospel.
Some of you (Karen, Corrie, Cindy, and others) have been tireless in your examinations and study, bringing everything alongside the gospel to measure it. Thank God for you! You are doing God’s work, and God knows you must find it so wearying at times. But remember this: “Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” (Galations 6:9) You hardworking women of God are the torchbearers in a very dark tunnel. Keep up the good work.
December 30, 2007 at 12:02 am
A couple of quotes from the current kinism.net site:
This seeking of prosperity and distinctness for our European peoples is primarily to be achieved by conversion to the religion of our only Savior, Jesus Christ. We therefore, we denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. We appeal to God’s creation mandate of “kind after kind.”
Question:
Does the use of the word “kind” taken from Genesis really mean that there is more than one “kind” of human? And that proves that a black man and a white woman are violating Genesis 1 if they marry and have children?
It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking.
Question:
Does the phrase “unequally yoked” in Corinthians have ANYTHING REMOTELY TO DO with, say, a black Christian man marrying a white Christian woman?
December 30, 2007 at 12:06 am
First of all, I think we should ask Karen whether or not she wishes this blog to be a dissection of kinist teaching.
We have interacted with what is taught. We have posted Scripture verses that clearly demonstrated that the very foundation of kinism is, by its definition, wrong and very contrary to Scripture.
I don’t think we need to examine each tiny little nuance phrase by phrase to know the whole thing stinks to high heaven.
December 30, 2007 at 12:09 am
Lynn, since I’m one of the hysterical people, I wanted to thank you for taking it slow on my behalf. Great post.
December 30, 2007 at 12:25 am
Rebecca, I wrote something about asking if this was too off-topic in a comment, but then erased it. My thought when deleting it was they can always say when enough is enough.
I agree we don’t have to examine each phrase bit by bit.
One of the things I was doing is on account of links disappearing and changing, is just to put some sample quotes up there, before they, too, go “poof.”
That has been happening quite a bit in the last couple of days.
December 30, 2007 at 12:59 am
Here are a few strawmen just from this thread. Some of these may be true, but I haven’t seen any proof of it here. This is what I’m speaking out against. Rather than saying these things, let’s go directly to their own beliefs and dissect those, biblically and logically.
Kinists’ actions and words don’t count; they are all really racists in their hearts.
Kinists are white supremacists.
Kinists agree with everything Dabney wrote.
Kinists think white males are an elite race.
The whole League of the South thing is tied to kinism.
Kinists teach a false Jesus.
Kinism is a perversion of the gospel.
Kinism is just white-washed racism.
Kinists believe that whites are the supreme race and the most highly evolved.
Kinists teach that whites are smarter, more beautiful and more capable and more moral.
Kinists are hiding their true colors.
Kinists think that blacks have dirty and impure blood.
Kinism is one of the many layers of patriarchy.
Kinists have been compared with rapists, sexual predators, male prostitutes, child molesters, homosexuality.
“Kinism is deeply and directly tied to the writings of the Confederate Prebyterian writings. Phillip Lancaster’s material corresponds well with the writings of these Confederates, some of which I’ve posted here. There is a reason why Phillips hails Dabney as a prophet and a reason why Lloyd Sprinkle, a League of the South advocate, republished all of these antiquated, pro-slavery authors. I believe that there is a reason why Phillips quotes Dabney yet never makes any qualifying statements denouncing servitude or slavery. It’s the same reason why McDonald can make it look like he’s not racist but will not produce a public statement about kinism. If you read this older literature and compare it to the modern patriarchy literature and the writings of Giles that speak about the opression of women and race per the doctrine of subordinationism, you will clearly note these common threads.”
“Now I see new meaning in Vision Forum’s obsession with the Civil War and dressing up in period costumes, as well as their ideas of women and voting. I would like to say they are unaware of the connections but they are too smart for that.”
“Polygamy and kinism are all subsets of patriarchy and they use the same faulty arguments that patriocentrists use in order to promote their beliefs.”
Kinism is evil but it’s fine for Obama’s church to be proud of being black “because many throughout history have called them VILE and likened them to animals and taught that they were created to serve the white man and they are against racism and discrimination based on one’s color of skin.”
Kinists try to cover up their racism by having friends of all colors.
“Kinism in its purest form is the worship of one’s own progenitors, the placing of one’s earthly father ahead of our Heavenly Father and holding one’s own bloodline and progeny in preferential place to of the Body of Christ.”
“Kinism is also a denial of the Holy Ghost, who came on Pentecost to undo the curse of Babel and unite men of all nations and tongues in one Church.
“Patriarchy and this modern movement of the VF version of patriarchy has been lifted right out of the writings of the Confederate Prebyterians. Get a copy of BM Palmer and read about how family and family worship is natural religion under general revelation. It’s the earth religion of Adam that God used as a building block for the Gospel.
“I can’t believe that Phil Lancaster did not reference BM Palmer somewhere in his book because it sure looks to me like he cribbed from him. Eric Wallace had the integrity to cite Palmer. Dabney is the next favorite and his views are drawn from to build this pagan kingdom of worship of God through the natural religion of family.
“This stuff was all republished by Lloyd Sprinkle of the League of the South, friend to Doug Phillips per Doug’s Dabney booklet dedication and Doug’s fellow “Dabneyophile.” And where’s another big camp of patriachy? The more intellectual one? The Monroe-Moscow Axis. Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins, authors of their largely plagaraized apologetic to set the record straight on the virtues of Southern Slavery.
“Sevitude, domination and “racialism” is at the heart of the modern patriarchy movement. They lifted it all out of the writings of the Presbyterian Confederates.
“Slavery and racism is patriarchy’s dirty little secret. Dabney is a prophet indeed. There’s a bit of neo-Victorian idealism thrown in there for good measure, and a bit of Elisabeth Elliott’s revival of Peter Marshall’s WWII sermon about the “Family Pew.”
Stories of the holocaust, stories of racists married to someone of a different race, stories of all kinds of racists – kinism?
December 30, 2007 at 1:14 am
LIght wrote:
“They are so convinced of their moral and intellectual and spiritual superiority that they must take dominion over you. Because you, of course, are not capable of self-government. (Perhaps you don’t have the Holy Spirit indwelt within you?) Your voice is not valid. Your only valid calling is to support the calling of the man in your life. For the protection of society, by golly to protect your very soul, they will give you all these rules (like not voting, or not going to college, or worshipping in FICs only).”
This may seem like harsh language/accusations to some of you.
And Marcia, I understand where you are coming from; I’m much like you seem to be – let’s extend grace and not have needless conflict.
But I have to testify to this excerpt that Light wrote. I don’t know her and I’m sure she doesn’t know me, but I have to say that I have watched EVERY WORD OF IT PLAY OUT IN REAL LIFE, WITH REAL PEOPLE who are told that they must come under the patriarchal prescription for their life for their soul’s sake, that they can’t hear the Holy Spirit for themselves, only their “authority” can, that you are not capable of self-government. We aren’t making this stuff up… I doubt I even have the imagination to make this kind of stuff up.
So while I HATE conflict with a vengeance, THIS CONFLICT IS NOT NEEDLESS.
December 30, 2007 at 1:14 am
I have been gone all day and just got home and read through all the posts since this morning when I last posted. I am processing what direction I think this should go. I will get back to this tomorrow. It is hard to decide what things ought to stay public and what should not, since much of this has to do with sorting through truth. I have found it very helpful for people to fill in the blanks for me and much of what I have learned about this topic and related topics has gone through that.
I also know the kinism discussion is uncomfortable but I believe it is necessary and that it absolutely relates to the topic of patriarchy and hierarchy.
December 30, 2007 at 1:15 am
Cynthia Gee,
Please do e-mail me.
shesthatmom@gmail.com
December 30, 2007 at 1:37 am
Concerning patriarchy as a Confederate creation. I quoted extensively from Benjamin Martin Palmer a few days ago from his Essays on the Family dated 1876, I believe — without pulling out the book. It reads nearly exactly like Phillip Lancaster’s book. Eric Wallace does reference the book.
What is not specifically found in Palmer which defines what we would understand as patriarchy in the VF sense was lifted right out of this work.
So I have referenced this, provided that evidience and offered quotes from the book, demonstrating that the concepts of patriarchy were lifted from Palmer’s work and dressed up in new millenial language.
Last week, I even posted a link to the limited info on the book.
December 30, 2007 at 1:40 am
Marcia,
“These are powerful accusations, and I haven’t even included Corrie’s drama, where she goes on about the hell that certain races have been put through, which is absolutely true, but fails to link it TO THE CONTENT OF THIS THREAD.”
I am not really getting you at all.
What drama? Are you saying that people of other races love reading the stuff that kinists, their Christian brothers and sisters, say about them? Is that what you are saying? And how in the world does what I said about how kinism negatively affects people of different races fail to link to the content of this thread?
I am really too tired for this kind of stuff. I don’t like kinism. I have quoted extensively from the source documents. I have given lots of links. I have studied this subject. I will NOT defend it in any way, shape or form, nor will I excuse its existence nor will I sit there and white-wash it.
If people from different races have been put through hell because of racist, supremicist, separatist, WHATEVER spin/word you want to put on it, then what is your problem? And as for your comment about “drama”???? You think I am making racism into a drama? I find that very offensive.
Marcia, it is obvious you don’t like me. I really don’t care. If you are going to make excuses for kinism and white-wash it and make fun of me for standing up for my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, then so be it. Your allegiance in spite of the truth is truly amazing.
Talk about drama, Marcia! You keep on coming back, making your judgments and then leaving in a huff saying you are never coming back. That IS drama.
December 30, 2007 at 1:42 am
What is not specifically found in Palmer which defines what we would understand as patriarchy in the VF sense was lifted right out of this work.
oops. Got interrupted and left out half a sentence
What is not lifted directly out of Palmers book is the “multigenerational faithfulness,” but this is strongly implied in Victorian language by all the worshipful attention paid to Adam and the mysterious homage that should be paid to the seed contained in each man’s body, etc.
Does that suffice for support for my comments stating that Patriarchy derives from Confederate Idealism?
I know that someone argued on the Patriarchy discussion list under the name kline, stating that patriarchy and kinism, or at the very least servitude, have nothing to do with one another, but I absolutely disagree with this as I did on that discussion board.
Would you happen to be Ms. Klein, Jen?
December 30, 2007 at 1:45 am
“If you are going to accuse me or James or anybody, back it up. If it’s not backed up, ladies, be VERY careful about what you believe. There have been a lot of unfounded accusations here and reputations are being sullied and good names slandered. When I had my blog, it was required to back up accusations. As a Christian, that should be an unwritten rule.
If you are going to discuss kinism, back it up. If you are going to discuss patriarchy, back it up. If you are going to discuss public people, back it up.”
Jen,
LOL! You are kidding right? You think your blog was the example of righteously exposing people? Are you the example you would like us all to follow? It was required that accusations be backed up? Not that I remember. I wonder if anyone would beg to differ with you on that?
You are right. If a Christian is going to make an accusation, they should back it up.
What has not been backed up, Jen? Why don’t you back up YOUR accusations? I just don’t see what you are saying. I see people doing research, quoting from sources and doing their homework.
I see you accusing people of saying things they didn’t say and even if they correct you and tell you that is not what they were saying, you keep on doing it.
December 30, 2007 at 2:00 am
“If you are going to discuss kinism, back it up.”
Huh? We have to ‘prove’ Kinism is evil? Are you serious? Mormons call themselves Christians. JW’s call themselves Christians and so do Kinist. What is the difference? All are a perversion of the Holy Word.
By the way, it is going to even be harder to discuss what they REALLY believe because they are deleting stuff off the internet faster than you can say Kinism. What is up with that? If they are so proud and sure of their beliefs, why are they taking their names off writings and associations and working so hard to make the proof trail cold?
I think this is kind of disingenuous of you to make a statement that we must back up any accusation when they have deleted and passcode protected so much in such a short time.
Jen, why don’t you prove to US Kinism is NOT evil? You have made a good start of ‘trying’ to do that already.
December 30, 2007 at 2:03 am
Having an OPINION on something isn’t a crime, you know. I personally get sick of the entire Christian idea that we must have a bible verse and mini-Sunday School lesson or devotional for every single feeling or thought we have.
This is a revelation some patriarchist types might find interesting. Hold on to your hats, here it goes:
SOME PEOPLE THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
I don’t need scripture, sermons, leaders and such to do that for me. I can do it myself. While the Word of God influences my entire life, I am free to think on my own (yes, I realize I’m committing a mortal sin/crime here to some).
Therein lies the problem.
I think, therefore I am.
I get so tired of the shouts of slander and lies! To have an OPINION is not slander. For me to think kinism is a sick twisted game similar to the atrocities of the holocaust is not slander, nor is it “drama”. It is simply MY OPINION and I’m more than entitled to have it, air it, and Marcia, Jen, and others you are entitled to yours as well.
I’m sorry, but standing up and saying my piece is okay with me, even if it is not okay for you. It doesn’t make me less of a Christian. That is the problem with the church today. We’ve got a bunch of wussies too afraid to stand up, ask questions, and solve problems. We’re wimpy for the sake of the cause, because somebody might get upset and run away.
Grow up.
December 30, 2007 at 2:03 am
“Does that suffice for support for my comments stating that Patriarchy derives from Confederate Idealism?”
Cindy,
No, it doesn’t suffice. You could quote source materials until the cows come home.
You are wasting your time. I am convinced of it.
Jen,
I just read your list of “strawmen” and I provided many actual links, including Harry’s own blog, where it does say many of those things. Also, go to Mrs. Binoculars and look at the cached pages from Harry’s blog. Did you bother to go look at any links I provided? I find this unreal that you are saying that those statements are all strawmen when many of us are providing you with quotes and links in the very posts we make them. I quoted Dabney where he said that a black person’s blood is a “vile stream from the fens of Africa” and that it is “tainted”. Harry’s blog contains quotes about how white women are more desirable and beautiful than women of color. Another kinist blog that I linked to discussed how white males are smarter. I also suggested that we read the comments from all the rest of the kinists on these blogs to get even a fuller feeling of what they believe.
It seems like you are standing there with your fingers in your ear, your hands over your eyes and making these accusations?
Where are the kinists who publicly disagree with Dabney’s racist views? In fact, your friend is doing a series on Dabney right now but we are no longer able to read his views since he password protected his site.
You stated emphatically that Patriospeak was not a kinist invention. But, now that I think about it, Patriospeak did say that the only thing he disagreed with as far as Dabney was his views on the eucharist. I asked again and there was no answer if there was anything else.
Have you ever heard a kinist say they disagreed with Dabney’s views on the races? Shouldn’t it be easy to find a statement concerning this somewhere on a kinist site?
I tried to show you for about a week, in private email, where kinism is indeed a subset of patriarchy. And now you dare say it is a strawman? Find me ONE egalitarian kinist? Just one, Jen. We provided quote after quote after quote that proved that they are just as far to the right in their kinist views as Doug is. Remember?
You are making false accusations and you are insulting every person on this list who has actually done the work to dig into scripture and learn what is actually taught under the banner of kinism (aka white-washed racism).
Sheesh! I am getting literally sick from having to defend this poop. It seems so obviously wrong that I can’t believe we are sitting here trying to defend what is taught all over the internet? You want proof? You have a truckload of it.
If Chad doesn’t agree with the statements at his institute, just say the word! If he doesn’t agree with his friend, Harry, just say the word! Remember Will Smith? He had no problem clearing up the misunderstanding that came about because of his statement.
What am I missing here?
December 30, 2007 at 2:08 am
” There have been a lot of unfounded accusations here and reputations are being sullied and good names slandered.”
Really? Such as?
” When I had my blog, it was required to back up accusations. As a Christian, that should be an unwritten rule.”
As I remember it, everyone gave you the benefit of the doubt. There was quite a bit you could not prove.
Do you even hear yourself, Jen?
December 30, 2007 at 2:08 am
Corrie wrote: Does that suffice for support for my comments stating that Patriarchy derives from Confederate Idealism?”
Cindy,
No, it doesn’t suffice. You could quote source materials until the cows come home.
You are wasting your time. I am convinced of it.
WHY does this not suffice and why am I wasting my time.
I spent a lot of time reading that book, through all kinds of victorian stuff like “man, the organ of love”
It describes family as man’s earth religion and basic worship center that is the building block for special revelation.
Like Lancaster says, without patriarchy as the keystone, nothing else works.
So Why is this not even remotely sufficient?
December 30, 2007 at 2:10 am
“Kinists have been compared with rapists, sexual predators, male prostitutes, child molesters, homosexuality.”
You have got to be kidding? Go back and read those posts again and actually see the point people were trying to make.
Talk about straw!
“If an alcoholic visited our service, he would be welcomed – and encouraged to repent and be restored. Does this make us a church full of alcoholics? If a prostitute walked in off the street, she would be warmly greeted – and would hear the Gospel proclaimed. She would be prayed for and taught the ways of God. Does this make us a congregation of prostitutes?”
This is from McDonald’s blog and it was his response to the kinist discussion. Is this a strawman, too?
December 30, 2007 at 2:15 am
Do you even hear yourself, Jen?
For people who suffer with the terrible disorder of short term memory loss, this could be a problem. Patients will often confabulate to fill in the gaps. They know some elements, and they weave them together in as best a working order as possible. It’s really difficult for the stroke patients that I’ve worked with who suffer from it as this is the largest population of people who suffer. People with Borderline Personality Disorder have small hippocampii in the brain– where memory is processed. People who suffer with this disorder do not remember emotionally charged events because of the presence of cortisol in the brain affecting the already small structure and the hyperactivity of the amygdala.
So perhaps a person with STML can hear, but they just don’t remember what was said five minutes later.
This is very significant to me, as much of what I might actually perceive as lying might actually be compensatory confabulation.
I wish that I had had this information much, much earlier in my relationship.
December 30, 2007 at 2:24 am
Another question….
Did Jen post those items to distract attention and divert the flow of conversation?
I’ve responded to my supposed “strawmen” –
but I ask again –
Is this bait to get us to commit ourselves to discussing kinism on Jen’s terms so that we can all participate in our own proving how wrong we really are about kinism? Are we to prove this to my satisfaction or to Lin’s satifaction or Corrie’s?
Or is this all for Jen’s benefit.
If that’s the case, is it wise to get drawn and baited into a red herring of “you are all illogical and hysterical over kinism” when we are in fact very sensible and reasonable about it. This is Cialdini’s trap of consistency. We don’t like to think of ourselves as illogical or irrational, so we will be more than willing to demonstrate that we are not so. But this is a great sales and manipulation technique because it is a distraction. If this is what Jen is doing here, I’d rather look inconsistent.
Again I ask, to avoid the same circumlocution with one person and for only the benefit of one person –
Is Jen Ms. Klien from the Patriarchy discussion list who argued that kinism and patriarchy are entirely separate and do not overlap?
December 30, 2007 at 2:32 am
Oh, Don’t want to get anyone snagged on a technicality.
Is Jen over on that Patriarchy discussion list using the name
“maribethkline”?
I’d spelled it wrong the first time, so techinically, a person could say that they didn’t use a name if the name was spelled incorrectly.
I think it’s significant because it will avoid redundancy, and I don’t want to waste my time in circumlocution here if I’ve already done so elsewhere. Maribeth Kline argued, much like Jen does here, that patriarchy and kinism have no common elements. She stated there that kinists were not remotely patriarchal and that patriarchs were not kinists, though maybe some are.
December 30, 2007 at 2:36 am
In the meantime…(hide the wine, hide your kids, hide the people of color and don’t discuss scripture with the kinist or let him teach your kids)
Lin, you left out one — and whatever you do, don’t let Jen Epstein post amicable comments on your blog!!
Jen, I can’t believe you can’t yet see this — you may post freely here, but over there they really would rather you not comment on anything.
Can’t you see the difference?
December 30, 2007 at 2:37 am
“If that’s the case, is it wise to get drawn and baited into a red herring of “you are all illogical and hysterical over kinism” when we are in fact very sensible and reasonable about it. ”
this is why I told Jen she needed to prove to us it was NOT evil. She has been trying to do that all along and it has not been working. So, she is trying to change the terms of the discussion to suit her strategy. I will not discuss it on Jen’s terms at all.
I maintain that believing in Kinism and believing in Christ are diametrically opposing beliefs. One cannot be both.
yes, I am VERY narrowminded about Kinism. Even seeing those statements Jen wrote above gives me the creeps.
A more interesting discussion would be how Kinism and Patriarchy intersect and/or parallel each other. How one feeds the other.
December 30, 2007 at 2:49 am
“Kinism is evil but it’s fine for Obama’s church to be proud of being black “because many throughout history have called them VILE and likened them to animals and taught that they were created to serve the white man and they are against racism and discrimination based on one’s color of skin.””
Are you asserting, Jen, that Obama’s church is the black equivalent to kinism? Is that what you are saying? That is what it sounds like you are saying but I just want to make sure. I have contacted this church and I am awaiting an answer from them. I want them to see what it is they are being accused of and likened to. This might make a good story just in time for the elections, especially considering the whole situation and the statements made comparing kinism with their “about us” statements.
December 30, 2007 at 2:55 am
Supposed strawman, according to Jen:
“Stories of the holocaust, stories of racists married to someone of a different race, stories of all kinds of racists – kinism?”
I’m not sure what you’re saying here.
Jen, you have shown that you have absolutely no compassion whatsoever for those of us that you are offending with your kinist sympathizing. You don’t see it as racist to tell someone, “In my perfect world, I will be able to live in a country free from you and everyone else of your race”? You really don’t?
I am not going to prove to your satisfaction, Jen, that the stories I shared — which obviously moved you only to irritation rather than compassion — are true. I’m sorry that you are so cold. I’m sorry that I wasted my time trying to stir a sense of Christian love for others who are not of your ethnic background. I’m sorry that kinism matters that much to you, and that the suffering of others obviously matters nothing.
Yes, I’m emotional. This impacts people that I love deeply, Jen. It’s not just an intellectual exercise for me.
The holocaust was real. Much of what people said back in that day was exactly the same sort of things that I quoted — DIRECTLY, VIA CUT AND PASTE — from the kinism.net website. I didn’t make up those quotes. That is from the kinist’s own website.
They don’t want me to be able to live in the same country as some of my friends. That’s fact. Ugly fact.
I call it white-washed racism. You can call it whatever you want.
But you know what — I think your kinist friends will be disappointed to discover that there is no racial segregation in Heaven. Or perhaps the kinists long for a different heaven than I do…
December 30, 2007 at 3:48 am
I don’t know if I would like to be the poster-child mixed race couple or the “one black woman” of any particular church and used as proof that a certain church doesn’t have a problem with mixed race couples. I would find that a bit off-putting.
“Welcome to First Church of the Lamb. As you can see we have Corrie and her Jew husband and their 9 lovely mixed race children. Over there we have a black woman. You see, here at the First Church of the Lamb we have no problem with race mixers.”
I don’t think I would want hundreds of people looking at my picture on the internet as proof that a particular church welcomes mixed race couples and mixed blood children. If a church ever used our family in this way, I would be out of it.
Is this the best way to handle the problem? I would think that a straightforward, no-nonsense statement explaining that such sentiments of “race mixing” is anti-biblical and will not be tolerated would suffice.
December 30, 2007 at 3:59 am
Rebecca,
I understand completely how you feel, that these things are personal. They are for me, as well, since I have counted the couple in question as friends. When I look at the picture, I see people I love and care about, people whose lives have touched mine. How very sad that, if Jen is accurately telling the story, that family’s pastor would have to talk to them about someone with such vile beliefs. Any way you look at this, it is ugly.
December 30, 2007 at 3:59 am
“Kinists teach that whites are smarter, more beautiful and more capable and more moral.”
This is one of Jen’s alleged strawmen.
There is NOT enough room on this blog to list all the examples I personally have read concerning these sentiments but I will list a few. These were found on Harry Seabrook’s site, a co-founder of the Kinist Institute. He is considered to be a kinder, gentler, more polite type of kinist. Now, consider that these statements are from a kinist that is less offensive than most kinists.
I am not going to hold my breath in hopes that these will convince anyone of anything. I am sure that Marcia will come back and tell me that this is just a bunch of drama and that I am stalking kinists and that I am obsessed with racists and then tell me how unChristlike I am for exposing these teachings. Oh well.
““Watson’s “hate speech” consisted of being “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really.” He acknowledged the liberal desire for all races to be equal but “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true.” The amazing part – or not so amazing if you’ve ever personally been embraced by the tentacles of political correctness – is that this Nobel Prize winner, the most famous biologist in the world, was fired in just two days from the New York laboratory of which he has been director then president then chancellor, even though he apologized. Can you imagine a scientist expressing a scientific opinion, and a true one at that? How dreadful. Naturally, if Watson had said that not all races are the same because blacks can run faster than Whites, there would have been nary a peep.”
“This is why lying pastors argue that Africa will someday be a glittering civilization. And what better way to help it along than to breed mulattoes? It is a “promissory note” freely given to the stranger, as someone explains here: “The measure of the intelligence of the white race is based on actual, historical achievement (literature, music, science, mathematics, etc). The intelligence of the black race is never based on actual achievement but on potential – what could happen if the black race is ‘unfettered.’ But most promissory notes from intellectual arguments never become actualized. Darwin’s ‘promissory note’ that macro-evolution will one day be proven through the fossil record has never materialized. Marxism’s promissory note that the dictatorship of the proletariat would eliminate financial inequality and do away with the state never occurred… The whole of liberalism is based on a set of promissory notes concerning the human race and society – all of which continue to recede like infinite regresses. That is why it takes so much time, resources and money to implement liberal agendas and programs – they are forever out of reach.” Thus, in our upside-down world, neo-Christians share a great deal in common with Darwinists. Watson transgressed the promissory note to minorities, just as Summers transgressed the promissory note to feminists on behalf of women. Christians have merged all of it into their theology.”
“Here are some interesting statistics on the black share of Ph.D.’s awarded: zero in astronomy and astrophysics; 0.9% in math, 1% in physics, 0.7% in computer science, less than 1% in atmospheric science, 2.3% in chemistry, 1.3% in earth science; 2.5% in biological science; and 1.6% in engineering.”
A very useful new word, Afrocosis: “A chronic, debilitating and ultimately ruinous, self-reinforcing syndrome of increasing chaos and decay which arises anywhere that Africans or those of African descent represent a significant proportion of the population.”
http://spiritwaterblood.com/index.php/blog/2007/10/
“Listen to the Bray interview on the Pool. The interview mentions that Bray’s story has become well-known through “Kinist circles.” Christians don’t give 10% of their income to churches. It’s more like 2% on average. Still, the thought of giving one cent to the typical race-mixing, postmodern, relevant, Jew-worshiping church of today turns my stomach. If you want to do something useful with your money – and you should – I can think of at least two worthy recipients.”
“Look at Miss Mexico and her predecessors for 13 years. How can this happen if mestizos are two-thirds of the population? It’s very simple. Everyone understands and appreciates beauty, and beauty is White. “Dark-skinned women don’t win beauty pageants in Mexico.”"
Jen, are you still going to tell me that kinism isn’t about thinking the white race is better than other races? Or that these teachings don’t represent the beliefs of most kinists?
December 30, 2007 at 4:10 am
“The holocaust was real. Much of what people said back in that day was exactly the same sort of things that I quoted — DIRECTLY, VIA CUT AND PASTE — from the kinism.net website. I didn’t make up those quotes. That is from the kinist’s own website.”
The ONLY difference, Rebecca, is that we have laws that are enforced. Germany slowly but surely started changing their laws. It all started with ‘thinking’ like a Kinist.
but think of it this way, it only works when people are convinced there is a common problem and can produce the common enemy. The solutions start presenting themselves…deal with the common enemy.
That is why Jen’s statements gave me the creeps.
The enemy is Satan in people’s hearts.
By the way, Jen claims to be defending a loyal friend who has been nice to her who just so happens to be a Kinist. This only made me think of Traudl Junge. She was Hitler’s secretary from 1942 to his suicide. She was in the bunker at the end. She said (in a documentary) that he was the nicest boss you can imagine. He was always patient and kind with her and her many mistakes.
But if she had been Jewish, black, a real Christian or a gypsy, she would have been in a camp or gassed.
Hilter started out as a kinist. Read Mein Kampf. Without restraints…where would Kinism lead us?
December 30, 2007 at 4:41 am
And where does Vision Forum fit in with all this? I can’t help but remember “Joe Friday” telling Matt Chancey that those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Vision Forum associates with kinists via the Constitution Party. I don’t know if this ad on the same page of Harry Seabrook’s work exactly proves that (it doesn’t, actually), but it’s amazing to me Vision Forum’s hypocrisy in this matter:
http://tinyurl.com/ywyc4b
There are other places you can go to see the kinist ties to the CP.
It seems as though VF was trying to cut their losses and run — put out mrsbinoculars and “kill two birds with one stone” — prove that they think kinists are bigots (making them look good), and smear the Epsteins so nobody thinks Doug Phillips did anything wrong in excommunicating them.
But instead, it only raised the question of why Doug Phillips, who is such a tireless promoter of the CP, would blast a sizeable segment that supports the CP.
And why are the kinists running and hiding?
Could it be that Vision Forum is only pretending to loathe kinism in order to make the CP look more attractive? Could it be that kinists are rushing to get stuff off the internet in order to make themselves quietly appear much more mainstream, in order to help the CP?
These are issues I’ve been wondering about.
It is a major Presidential election year coming up, after all.
December 30, 2007 at 4:48 am
Corrie quoting Harry Seabrook:
“Still, the thought of giving one cent to the typical race-mixing, postmodern, relevant, Jew-worshiping church of today turns my stomach.”
Yep, come to think of it, I do worship a Jew.
;oD
December 30, 2007 at 5:24 am
Lynn,
In the sidebar of the link you gave under the Constitution Party logo, you will see a logo for Covenant Radio.
Check out you speaks on that site.
December 30, 2007 at 5:24 am
Lynn,
In the sidebar of the link you gave under the Constitution Party logo, you will see a logo for Covenant Radio.
Check out who speaks on that site.
December 30, 2007 at 6:21 am
“So perhaps a person with STML can hear, but they just don’t remember what was said five minutes later.
This is very significant to me, as much of what I might actually perceive as lying might actually be compensatory confabulation.’
It’s real, certainly, and frustrating. My 79-year-old mother lives with us, and she is beginning to suffer from this problem.
December 30, 2007 at 6:35 am
Cindy, I see your quotes. You say that the VF version of patriarchy has been lifted out of the writings of the Confederate Presbyterians, such as BF Palmer. You then say that Phil Lancaster and Eric Wallace used his works, although only one of them cited him. So far, so good. Dabney is another Conferedate Presbyterian they use, per Doug’s booklet and Lloyd Sprinkle of League of the South republished this stuff. So, for VF, you have connected Dabney and Palmer accurately.
Then you talk about Wilson and Wilkins and their apologetics for slavery. That is a BIG jump. Are they in any way connected to VF, which seems to be the basis of discussion here? How are they connected?
Then you say, “Servitude, domination and “racialism” is at the heart of the modern patriarchy movement. They lifted it all out of the writings of the Presbyterian Confederates.
“Slavery and racism is patriarchy’s dirty little secret. Dabney is a prophet indeed. There’s a bit of neo-Victorian idealism thrown in there for good measure, and a bit of Elisabeth Elliott’s revival of Peter Marshall’s WWII sermon about the “Family Pew.”
So where did neo-Victorian idealism, Peter Marshall’s sermon, and Elisabeth Elliott’s use of it come in? Do they have anything to do with VF? How did you get from Palmer and Dabney, with a legitimate connection to VF to your conclusion? Also, in the middle, you say that “servitude, domination, and “racialism” is at the heart of the modern patriarchy movement.” How did you come to that conclusion? Are there Presbyterian Confederate writings that VF sells or endorses that say this or promote this? If so, what are they? You also say “Slavery and racism [are] patriarchy’s dirty little secret.” How do you get to that conclusion? And is your conclusion now ALL of patriarchy or are you still talking about VF?
December 30, 2007 at 6:46 am
Jen, you are responding to my comment using Cindy Kunsman’s quotes. SHE made those comments you are quoting, not me.
December 30, 2007 at 6:54 am
Well, this is the third time I have tried to post the following information, the first two tries are still stuck in the moderation queue. So this time, I will break the links with a space. Please remove the space to follow the links.
“December 29, 2007 at 5:38 am
OK, lets try this one again, the last one got hung up somehow:
Look where ELSE the folks at the “Christian” Kinism .net site hang out:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/quotes-parenthood-286413p8 .html
Laurel1861 is Laurel Lofland of kinism .net , and Kinism .net writer John Marshall also appears to be a Stormfront member.
Oh, and remember post 420 and 421, about hair and eye color and Nazis? Check out Laurel’s blog, where the poor dear complains that she got brown hair from her mama:
http://naturalconsequences. blogspot.com/ “
December 30, 2007 at 6:56 am
Well, this is the third time I have tried to post the following information, the first two tries are still stuck in the moderation queue. So this time, I will break the links with a space. Please remove the space to follow the links.
“December 29, 2007 at 5:38 am
OK, lets try this one again, the last one got hung up somehow:
Look where ELSE the folks at the “Christian” Kinism.net site hang out:
http: //www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/quotes-parenthood-286413p8.html
Laurel1861 is Laurel Lofland of kinism .net , and Kinism.net writer John Marshall also appears to be a Stormfront member.
Oh, and remember post 420 and 421, about hair and eye color and Nazis? Check out Laurel’s blog, where the poor dear complains that she got brown hair from her mama:
http: //naturalconsequences.blogspot.com/ “
December 30, 2007 at 6:58 am
I give up. The FOURTH time I posted it WITHOUT working links and it still went into moderation.
HELP,PLEASE???????
December 30, 2007 at 7:12 am
OK, Jen, I’ll take it slower for all the hysterical people out there who are being so illogical. How about this:
“We will work to end all non-white immigration, We believe that all aliens (to include all Jews and Arabs) should be removed to their own areas and separated in due course from Kinist held territories, without respect to persons.”
ROFLOL!!! If you really want to see how illogical this statement is, try reading it from the Native American point of view!
December 30, 2007 at 8:19 am
Cynthia, if you are talking about comment #598, then I did say “Cindy.” If not, I’m not following you.
“We will work to end all non-white immigration, We believe that all aliens (to include all Jews and Arabs) should be removed to their own areas and separated in due course from Kinist held territories, without respect to persons.”
Cynthia: “ROFLOL!!! If you really want to see how illogical this statement is, try reading it from the Native American point of view!”
Right, Cynthia! But I’m not so sure they are all in agreement on this one. Here is from kinism.net:
“We believe that an extended tribalism is the normative system for our people, the White races of Europe, the Americas, South Africa, Australia, Transcaucasia, or wherever our extended family finds itself in its modern diaspora.”
To be consistent, I guess each continent would be a different color.
December 30, 2007 at 9:05 am
Corrie you said (#522)
“Kathleen/Kate,
I want to officially apologize to you and ask you to forgive me. I am sorry that I doubted what you were trying to convey and that I gave you a hard time about that phone call.
Will you please forgive me?”
Corrie, my sister, my friend,
I was and am very glad and full of joy to have told you before and now here that I have forgiven you completely (it’s in the sea of forgetfulness) and have absolutely no bitterness AT ALL for your words (that I understand now why they were spoken) spoken in the past. I also have no bitterness against anyone else who may have fallen victim to some of the games from the pit. I love you and consider you someone very dear.
I also want to publically ask your forgiveness for the times in the past where my frustration and flesh came out on you and others on blogs when my credibility quickly went down the tube, as a result of the same games some here may recognize are being played in light of this discussion. Will you please forgive me for my fleshly rants in my desire to be believed?
I hold no grudges against anyone for their unwitting participation in some of those past hurts. I’ve been praying about this particular situation for about a year and am amazed at how our God works all things out (for our good). I’m still praying, only, with a deeper focus: that His Spirit will continue to come in and heal those who are wounded.
My passion is to see the light of truth shine in the darkness.
December 30, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Jen wrote: Then you talk about Wilson and Wilkins and their apologetics for slavery. That is a BIG jump. Are they in any way connected to VF, which seems to be the basis of discussion here? How are they connected?
I never said that Wilson and Wilkins were connected to VF. They are patriarchalists and teach patriarchy. They teach the concept of salvation as preferrable through the womb and not the cross. The Covenant Community baby born into the Kingdom is far preferrable to salvation of those who are saved from the secular world. Wilson says in “Mother Kirk” that we should pray imprecatory psalms and prayers so that the unborn children of the heathen would die in utero and never be born, citing the psalm that says that the heads of the children of the heathen should be dashed upon the rocks. Wilson goes far above and beyond Phillips’ quest for godly seed and a call to return to the admonishons of Adam Smith and the other antebellums that I’ve heard him quote in advocating for large families (a sign of opulence to their parents). He teaches a concept of Trinity that is nearly identical to that which is taught by CBMW and SBTS. He teaches the roles of women and submission that are identical to the patriarchy movement.
Doug Phillips and Doug Wilson both rely on Dabney extensively. Phillips does not quote Dabney’s information on servitude, slavery and race in his writings (in any place that I’ve ever read), but Phillips has reproduced all those poorly referenced Dabney quotes out of RLD: The Prophet Speaks. It’s divided into sections — all listed with some modifier like “beautiful” or “Biblical” or “godly” — pertaining to marrriage, family children education, government, etc. Wilson relies on these same writings by Dabney.
The Dougs may have nothing directly to do with one another, but they both lean hard and heavy on the writings of the pro-slavery Confederate Presbyterians.
And I’ve said it before and it was something I guess that I was supposed to defend because Jen believed it to be a strawman. I took it right out of Phillips Dabney booklet. He states in the introduction that he has known Lloyd Sprinkle (publisher of Palmer and Dabney), credits Sprinkle with the honor of “turning him on to Dabney,” calls Lloyd a fellow Dabneyophile. In the “bibliography” Phillips again praises Sprinkle, his friend, for bringing back Dabney for modern consumption.
If you put Lloyd Sprinkle into a search engine, in a Canadian Journal online, you will learn all the Confederate connections between the League of the South, Lloyd Sprinkle and these old authors. I mean, look around for yourself. Where did all these people meet do you think? Doug spent a lot of time in Virginia, did he not? In the neighborhood where Lloyd Sprinkle conducted his business? I contacted Eric Wallace to inquire about where he learned about BM Palmer, but he won’t get back in touch with me. I asked these questions via email, so he knows exactly what I’m most interested in. (I told him that if he would agree to tell me one thing, I would like to know about where he learned about BM Palmer.)
BTW, a Southern seminarian first “hailed Dabney as a prophet” when Doug was still in diapers.
December 30, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Jen wrote: So where did neo-Victorian idealism, Peter Marshall’s sermon, and Elisabeth Elliott’s use of it come in? Do they have anything to do with VF?
At least two places further back in this thread, I posted several quotes from Fishburn in “Confronting the Idolatry of Family” and completely defended this. It has everything to do with VF. Stacy McDonald quotes all kinds of Elliott which sounds EXACTLY like the neo-Victorian sermons of Marshall. So I feel a bit like Cynthia Gee here. You come late to the party and claim that I haven’t done my homework. For those of you that have heard this already, I’ll try to give a short version and beg your patience.
Both of these authors discuss how Christians take for granted that social standards are actually Christian standards right out of the Bible and mitigate the two. Noll also looks at American patriotism and the revivalism of the early 20th century. Jen, I sent you a copy of the article that I wrote on this to counter Phillips, so at least some of this should be familiar territory. I now have the article online at http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=340954 where I quote extensively from Noll on this topic. My favorite quote from that book is something like “wholesome living was viewed as the unmediated agency of God.”
Coming out of the same Victorian Era and concurrent with the antebellum period, Pope Leo XIII said something quite similar like a “wholesome life is a life well-lived” or something. I would have to search a bit for the quote. Sandlin (short article also on my website) and Veinot have observed in their writings that the “wholesome living” standards are also comparable to pagan Roman culture as well. The point of this is that the standards of “patriarchy” are not Biblical.
Fishburn (a seminary professor and expert on the Social Gospel that also sprang from Victorian idealism — a subset of the study of the Social Gospel) examines the origins of the Victorian standards that Christians of today and the past. She addresses the admixture of Victorian idealism (lovely family and the whole family seated in the pew at church as a measuring rod of spirituality), Christianity and patriotism as well. She focuses primarily on the Victorian social standards, as opposed to Noll who focuses on American Nationalism and Fundamentalism (fundamentalism on the heels of the Victorian period and concurrent with the social gospel).
Fishburn notes that every time the middle class in the US experiences financial prosperity, there is a Victorian revival. Peter Marshall, the chaplain for the senate X two terms just following WWII, published a book of sermons containing one called the “Keepers of the Springs.” The content sounds nearly identical to the quotes from Elliott that Stacy McDonald sites in the Housewives book, wherein Marshall in the sermon coins the term “family pew.” It looks to the externals of what people of Victorian eras viewed as the outward manifestations of healthy Christianity, and Marshall calls for a return to this in the post-war aftermath. He could see that society had changed, so he rallied for a return to the traditions of the wholesome Victorian period. Now he does not say “Victorian period” but his admonishments are consistent with its ideals according to Fishburn.
I could go on for hours on this subject, but I would refer the reader here to the books cited and can recommend a couple more if you want. I can summarize about four more for you here, or have I demonstrated with a degree of sufficiency that I have at least some support for my claims?
December 30, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Also, in the middle, you say that “servitude, domination, and “racialism” is at the heart of the modern patriarchy movement.” How did you come to that conclusion?
…Remember how I used to say that these patriarchalists are actually arguing for an epistemological difference between men and women? I was just starting to see what they were doing. It was not an epistemological distinction but one of essence or ontology, sometimes by way of origin or ontogeny…. And I was not the only person to pick up on this….
If you consider CBMW as a siginificant contributor to the patriarchy debate, and since Phillips likes to quote their theorists, this one is very easy. Read Kevin Giles. He discusses at great length how the anthropomorphized view of the Trinity (as preached by Grudem and Ware and nearly identical to Wilson and Federal Vision) provides the ontological basis for the subjugation of race and women. It really is amazing how functionally identical Ware and Wilson are in their teachings on both women and Trinity. They are integrally connected. Documentation of this trend began in the ’70s, most notably with George Knight III’s book in 1977 when he connected the Doctrine of Eternal Subordination of the Son within the Trinity (lesser essence and lesser authority, equivalent to Wilson’s “covenant” within the Trinity demanding hierarchy) with the Ontological and Permanent subordination of women (this is why all the “woman is the indirect image of God” stuff comes in. That is why Wilson teaches this concept of submitted sonship as applicable for women.
All of this, on a level of essence (ontology and in some instances ontongeny), it gives them the philosophical and what they claim is the theological framework to be able to say that women are subjugated and that some races (based on their origins both physical and cultural) are lesser than others. The trick is to find yourself at the top of the food chain.
Read more from Giles. “Trinity and Subordinationism” goes into the slavery and the gender aspects, and I haven’t even read it cover to cover yet because I cried like a baby when I read the section on slavery. I was depressed for a week and my husband told me to set the book aside because he couldn’t watch me process it.
Are there Presbyterian Confederate writings that VF sells or endorses that say this or promote this?
Jen, I’ve been singing this tune to you for months now. EVERYTHING they sell has it woven through it because they’ve turned Christianity and social ideals that aren’t Biblical at all (be they pagan Roman or Victorian) and American Nationalism all up into a mish mash mix that cannot be discerned very readily. Then they use propaganda to say that if you challenge any one aspect (when you can differentiate one), you are trashing everything. If I challenge patriarchy, I challenge the Bible. If I challenge their theology, then I hate babies and want to be a liberal and have three abortions before I’m 18. If I criticize their theology, sometimes that makes me anti-American.
So yes, because they have mitigaged and blurred all these distinctions between Christianity, social ideals that are in fact cultural (and generally not bad but not expressly Biblical), and Americanism –
in many ways it is in every single product that Vision Forum sells.
There is all kinds of literature to back me up on this. I’ve already touched on Noll…. That’s the scandal of the evangelical mind. Fishburn says that we will be unable to correct the problems in the church until we make these distinctions. Society is changing and the changes are pulling all of these aspects apart from one another. Patriarchy and groups like Vision Forum are a desperate (and may I say ultimately ineffective)attempt to stop this from happening, just like Peter Marshall tried to do with the “Keppers of the Springs” and his cry to the return to the neo-Victorian, outward signs and practices that so many people associate with healthy Christianity of old. Noll talks extensively about this.
The problem with all of this that these and other authors cite is that groups like Vision Forum tell you that you will get the inward results of spirituality by following and mimicing the patterns. Because they have a view that grace is merited and sanctification as a collaborative process {what some Protestants term -rightly or wrongly – as “Romanism”) to which man contributes significantly (remember the theonomy discussion, Jen?), they promise that the outward manifestations have the power to do this. But they don’t.
So in a way, Vision Forum sells this concept of merited, enhansed sanctification through their amalgum of Chrisianity, neo-Confederate natural religion of family, American nationalism with Victorian idealism in every single product they sell. It’s all part of their big promise.
December 30, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Jen wrote: You also say “Slavery and racism [are] patriarchy’s dirty little secret.” How do you get to that conclusion? And is your conclusion now ALL of patriarchy or are you still talking about VF?
Well, from all of the above. Confederate idealism undergirds all of this. Consider also that patriarachy didn’t spring right from a Peter Marshall sermon from the ’40s. Consider that this didn’t all come out of some Jane Austen novel. What’s the common thread? Confederate idealism. Who republished those works of men like Dabney and Palmer? The League of the South followers. Who reads them — or at least who provides the largest market for them? The League of the South, people like Doug Phillips. Kinism runs throught all this, be it cultural only in some groups. Servitude runs through all this — women and children serve the needs of the patriarch. It is all about getting power and keeping power and pursuading others to surrender and fall into line under the power of the power — and that’s hegemony. With the magnitude that I’ve read on this subject, I cannot see kinism in any other light. And I have the experience of operating in some of these subcultures myself. You’ll never be able to convince me now, with all this information in my mind, that kinism is not patriarchal.
I recently wrote a blog post called “Escaping Criticism” and I discuss how some of these things overlap. Patriarchy is a very mixed bag, but hierarchy is the strongest thread. Servitude and Confederate Idealism is another one of the strongest.
Jen, you would have to read about 20 books and demonstrate that on the subject of the history and structure of these social conventions that all these books are fallacious, that the experts are completely biased and ignorant, and that their sources are entirely faulty. I don’t believe that there’s a soul alive that could do this and convince me otherwise. You’d have to deconstruct every one of these elements for every book. I don’t believe that it can be done.
Now, in contrast, I’ve got several books here — like “Right Wing Populism” that might fall into that category of books that can be pretty easily deconstructed. I also bought a copy of American Fascists, and that book is full of wholes –big ones. So I don’t just believe everything that book says on blind faith. I’ve got all kinds of secular authors on the larger subject that I’ve read and am still reading. I’ve got a couple of books on this subject of the Confederacy and servitude and patriarchy that are weak that I would not include as solid references to support my conclusions.
But the ones that I rely on to form a very well-researched conclusion (something I’ve been studying voraciously since I first found Jen’s Gems website) have convinced me that patriarchy and kinism and slavery and servitude and Confederate Idealism are INTERGRALLY CONNECTED in ideology. And Patriarchy hooks people because those connections are not readily available.
This is not guilt by association at all, when you dig down through the happy surface layers, the soul of patriarchy , such that it is presented in the contexts we discuss here, is SLAVERY.
December 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I just read a the last sentence to my husband before I posted it, as we’ve dicussed all these issues at great length as I’ve studied them, trying to dig down below the layers and layers and layers. Following my comment of “the soul of patriarchy is slavery,” asking him if he thought I was making a fair statement, he said:
Patriarchy seems a lot like the type of slavery where the women went out into the fields and picked the cotton, and the men stayed in the house and served as their masters house servants. Then the women came in from the fields and served their husbands.
That just struck me.
December 30, 2007 at 3:05 pm
Jen,
Quickly before I have to run, I see a trend in your questions wherein you contrast Vision Forum with other teachings on patriarchy. Given what you’ve been through, I don’t doubt that patriarchy in general might seem different in quality than Vision Forum’s variety.
I don’t view patriarchy that way at all and see VF as basically the same as the other pockets of it. Each group has its own special features, but it is pretty much the same thing in every different camp.
I use Vision Forum often as a prototypical example quite often because the connections are easier to make because Phillips has done a better job at specifically clarifying the practices for the larger, very diverse group. There are, however, very common basic beliefs that all the groups share to varying degrees. And they draw from one another’s capital. I love that mug shot list further up the thread that gives the distinctions of each group — some I think that you (Jen) listed as straw men. But in the larger picture, Phillips is not all that distinct, especially when you consider how much he “borrows” from everyone else. I recently read the “Uniting Church and Home” by Wallace, and it IS the tenets of biblical patriarchy. Even that is not original. I’m not even sure why Phillips needed the input of Lancaster or Sproul, Jr. to develop them. They are lifted right out of Wallace. I mean, right outta there.
The fact that patriarchy is so basically non-distinct in it’s basic beliefs might also be why other religions that incorporate strict patriarchy into their religions love to quote the writings of the patriarchalists. (It’s not directly Biblical as they claim and it is just a general system of social order, though it looks neo-Victorian on the outer surface.) The Moonies LOVE Phillips and every other “Biblical patriarchy” and patriarchal author because it is not really Biblical but cultural and social.
So if this line of questions continues, please understand that I don’t see VF patriarchy much differently than I do CBMW or the Moonies or the Mormons or the Confederate social order. They are all strikingly similar to me in all the ways that matter. If you need this statement explained, I would as that you go and re-read the other detalied posts I’ve written this morning as they do make this point.
You know, I started out with hunches about some of these things — a very obvious common thread might be Dabney or the League of the South for example. For anyone who has spent any time in a spiritually abusive environment, you are taught to avoid if not punished for critical thinking and for “connecting the dots.” You are taught to ignore your “hunches” in favor of being told what everything means and what you are supposed to believe. I see it in Stacy McDonalds comments in spades. In some respects, I see a lot of it in Doug Phillips. They are shrewd and crafty, but they are not deep or analytical about these things. When everything is dictated and scripted, and people have told you (even well meaning ones) what you need to think, your own abilities get weak. All you need to do is exercize them, and you will get better and better at it.
The term cognitive dissonance has been mentioned here recently, and that just means that your mind as two or more conflicting thoughts or concepts flying around. This puts you into a state of hypersuggestability by altering your brainwaves. You may feel this happen as you read things that challenge those ideas that you’ve been told to believe — so it can happen when you are reading the good stuff. Sometimes you just have to put down what you’re reading and process it emotionally and physically. Recently, I’ve had this happen when I started reading CD Host’s latest installment on the review of patriarchy. It hit a point that was emotional for me if not threatening to think about and I had to stop. So this does happen, and it can be a good process. The difference between this process experienced on your own and the cognitive dissonance that the patriarchalists throw at you under pressure is that you are in control of the process. You have the freedom to stop and pick it back up at your own pace. Patriarchy and spiritually abusive groups throw you into situations and force the stuff on you so that you must convert to what you are being told or you feel uncomfortable. They give you no means of respite or escape because their goal is conversion. If you want converted, convert yourself. But don’t be too afraid of cognitive dissonance (stress when you are reading something challenging), but use it as an indicator that you are being pushed or stressed. Then take the initiative to put yourself into a safer place or slow down the process.
If you’ve just come out of patriarchy and this stuff seems very overwhelming, keep at it. Read, read, read and keep at it. Some books suggest that sleeping with a TV or radio tuned to a news network can help your analytical abilities recover. This blogging stuff is wonderful for working these things out.
All that to say, Jen, if this seems threatening or stressful to you — considering that patriarchy and kinism might be connected (since I see you fighting it and arguing against it tooth and nail),
ask yourself why it is stressful to think of them as similar?
I can’t say with any certainty, but it seems that you are stressed, juggling your loyalty to those (male?) kinists or kinist supporters who where kind to you in an hour of need, your distain for patriarchy Phillips-style and the commonalities between patriarchy and kinism. This would have to be stressful. It should be stressful. I see you dancing to keep your head above the flood of discomfort that this produces, producing some of the behaviors that we’ve seen here over the past couple of days.
I would encourage you thought to press through the discomfort (if that’s what it is) with the help of the Holy Spirit ONLY, and with the Word. As Lin has noted here yesterday, you are bouncing from man to man and between their ideologies, but you need to go to the Lord ALONE. (And there are plenty of people here like Lin who would be happy to help you understand what that means.)
December 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm
“Rebecca: “You don’t see it as racist to tell someone, “In my perfect world, I will be able to live in a country free from you and everyone else of your race”? You really don’t?”
Rebecca, where have I said that? I said that in a perfect world, husbands would love their wives the way Christ loved the church. Now if you are saying that kinists would like to see everyone who is not 100% white removed from this country, then yes, I would agree that that is racist. But I have said all along that some kinists are racists.”
Just some? So there are, according to you, some kinists who, while they call themselves kinists, really don’t believe in kinism? This does not make sense, Jen, and you know it. If it does make sense, then please show me the documentation for this “other” form of kinism. I’ve shown you direct quotes from kinism.net. I have asked you to show me your documentation for any kinists who supposedly hold to different, non-racist beliefs. So far, you have done nothing of the sort.
My stories, which moved you in no way and which you misinterpreted, were not about kinism per se. They were about racism. They were designed to show you why the racist philosophy of kinism is so deeply offensive to me and to others here, and why we recognize it for the whitewashed racism that it is. But I realize that your lack of compassion in this area made my intended message incomprehensible for you.
Kinism is nothing more than whitewashed racism. It is very similar to the beliefs shared by many of those in Germany who saw nothing wrong with the “relocation” of Jews and with governmental mandated segregation. One led to the other. I’m not saying that kinists are all Nazis. I’m just saying that the tenets of kinism, Jen, are awfully familiar to me.
I understand that, to you, this is all about your relationship with several of your dear friends. In your mind, how can kinism be so bad when the kinists are your good friends and have been so loyal and so kind to you? Maybe there is something of worth in what they say. Let’s find an innocuous statement on their website, run it past everyone here, and try to find common ground.
You may have common ground with whitewashed racists, Jen. You may sympathize with kinism. But don’t expect us to do so.
I’m sorry that you are more concerned about the feelings of a few kinists than you are about those in the Body of Christ who are deeply offended at the very thought that the Body should be separated along racial and ethnic lines. I am sorry that you show such callous disregard for the sisters of color who have posted here.
Ask your kinist friends this, Jen — in their perfect world, where would I live? How “white” do I have to be in order to live next door to “real” white people? How much blood from other races would it take to disqualify me? How far back are they going to want to trace my ancestry? Ask them that, and let us all know the answer.
Because, you see, this is personal for us.
And, while you’re at it, maybe you should ask them what they would do about you and your Jewish husband. Would they want you to go with him when he leaves the country? Or do you even care?
December 30, 2007 at 3:46 pm
If some of my friends were leaders in an organization that held, as some of its beliefs and goals, that highly nearsighted men in their 50′s should really be separated from the rest of us and, ideally, would live in a separate country…uh, well…I would quickly cease to be friends with those people, because those would be fighting words. You see, they would be talking about my husband. I’m far more loyal to him than to any friend, no matter how dear this friend is to me.
But then, I really don’t see anything wrong with being nearsighted or 50 or male. I see everything wrong with being prejudiced and hateful.
And I love my husband.
Just sayin’.
December 30, 2007 at 3:50 pm
I just found a comment made by “someone” on Rebecca’s blog: If your beliefs comfort you and allow you to make meaning out of the events of your life, i’m not about to waste my time arguing with you.
But when i come across a site like yours, i like to provide the information you don’t get when you gather with others who share your socially sanctioned delusions (i.e. fellow church-goers.)That way you can’t say you weren’t exposed to the facts.
I wonder if this “someone” believes that our beliefs — those opposing kinism — are “socially sanctioned delusions” as well?
Just wonderin’.
December 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm
That someone or any other someone… You know..
One man’s socially sanctioned delusion is another man’s righteous code of living?
I still am having trouble understanding why kinism could be considered legitimate under the New Covenant, in the grand sense with all of it’s central and peripheral beliefs — without even thinking about the connotations and implications.
The apologeic for kinism is rooted in Theonomy and the Old Testament (or vice versa, depending on how all that works for the people that associate kinism with Christianity). In that sense, is it not of the law? Why then is this not a moot point as far as Biblical, Christian beliefs are concerned.
The kinists claim that this is their interpretation of Protestant Christianity, but they fulcrum on the OT writings without consideration of the New Covenant. Do some kinists refrain from eating what used to be considered “unclean animals” too? That was the significance of the lifting of those restrictions throught Peter’s vision in Acts — seeing the animals as all clean, and the unclean had passed away. The significance was for the Gentiles. We were no longer to be separate nations but one holy nation in Christ. In that sense, we should seek unity, not separateness. (is that a word – separateness? it looks weird.)
That kinist article sorely misuses “come out from among them” as a call to separate and applies it to race? It was a call for Christians in Christ to live holy lives in Christ and come out from among the sinful world, specifically those who practiced idolatry.
2 Corinthians 6:16-18
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
We’ve got more admonishments to come together under the Cross of Christ than we could imagine almost. To say that we are called to separate into racial or ethnic groups is an affront to Christ.
I was recently told that kinists favor an old earth as it supports evolution. Forget the arguments that Ham was acursed and his descendents all made slaves — many kinists jump right back to evolution to support their beliefs that other nations are inferior by means of evolution.
Is that another reason why Doug Phillips hates them so badly?
Anyway,
Jen, I think that I see you arguing here that kinism is a perfectly acceptable Christian belief system that is perfectly Biblical. I think that you are arguing that we reject kinist beliefs merely because they are offensive and are hysterical as a result. Nothing could be further from the truth for me.
I reject kinism because it denies the Great Commission and the fact that the Gospel is the Power of God unto salvation, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. In Christ, all the distinctions of race and the arguments against race passed away.
What you are arguing as a rejection of liberty and hysteria against something that many Christians just don’t understand is not an issue of liberty.
It is an issue of false teaching. Kinism is a false teaching based on rotten hermeneutic and it is an affront to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
That does not mean that people cannot receive ministry at any church, but you are confusing rejection loving kindness and fellowship with declaring doctrinal error and false teaching.
The Word is very clear about rejecting false teachers. This is false teaching
That is why we find kinism offensive, not because of social implications.
Lin said this yesterday, but it was stated so subtly. I’m not making that mistake today.
December 30, 2007 at 4:44 pm
Jen quoted this from the kinism website:
“We believe that an extended tribalism is the normative system for our people, the White races of Europe, the Americas, South Africa, Australia, Transcaucasia, or wherever our extended family finds itself in its modern diaspora.”
I’m getting ready to go to church, to fellowship with my family of fellow believers. I find it incomprehensible and offensive that kinists place their racial and ethnic loyalties above their loyalties to the very Body of Christ.
That speaks volumes of their devotion to Christ.
December 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Jen,
I understand from several concerned individuals that you are also participating in an email group that argues that polygamy is a perfectly acceptable Christian belief system. I find this much more distressful than the whole kinism thing, because polygamy is definitely a false teaching and clearly against the writings in the New Testament.
I understand that you argue that both these concepts fall under “Christian liberty.” If no one has told you before, these are not points of different Biblical interpretation or “meat sacrificed to idols.”
Get this and get it good:
These are not matters of liberty but of false teaching
If you have been swayed by these groups or these individuals, break your connections to them and get away from them. They are affecting your judgement with their own systems of spiritual abuse.
I told you back in July that unless you learn the techniques of spiritual abuse and unless you go before God alone and examine why you found these spiritually abusive systems desirable, you would fall right into another cultic, abusive group. YOU HAVE. You have demonstrated to everyone here who understands something of spiritual abuse that this is what is happening to you.
Many of us are crying out to heaven for God to turn your heart like he turns the hearts of kings and the paths of the rivers to turn you away from these self-destructive patterns. Many of us know. In our way out of one bad system, we got caught right up into another. It’s horrible to realize this. But I’m calling to you know and I ask that every person that reads this bombards heaven with prayer like they’ve never prayed before for You, Jennifer Epstein, to come out from among these false teachers and people who have abused you and USED you. Ministry Watchman USED you. Phillips USED you. Degehart and McDonald are USING you for their purposes. They may have been kind to you at a critical momemnt, but my wounds are faithful. Because I don’t want anything from you, Jen. No one here does. We just want you to be free from all of this.
You may think that I am the most arrogant and hateful person that you’ve ever encountered, but go ahead and shout it from the rooftops — but just get free from all of this in the process. None of this is about people. It’s about the Word and the Gospel and the simple, simple saving grace of Jesus Christ. It’s not complicated. It’s free. None of us want anything from you, except to see you free and healed.
You can stop this bouncing from man to man and false teacher and novel idea and come to Christ. Get the milk down. Forget the whole big ball of theology and just come to the Cross. Let it happen. Just simply let God minister to you. And if you think of yourself as so marked by VF that you can’t find a friend, remember Cornelius and how he went to find Paul. God will definitely do that for you.
And I don’t trust many Christians in San Antonio after what I’ve endured, but here’s a thought. Go to Emmanuel AME Church and find Anita Price or anyone else there. In the odd event that she doesn’t remember me, tell her that I’m Shai’s friend. She will love you and help you and minister to you. She was a loving and kind person and she will not turn you away. That church is over in the same quadrant of San Antonio where you live, so it’s not like driving to the other end of the universe. They will love you and minster to you. And they definitely wont let you bring any kinism along with you and they’ll help root out any that ya got left.
December 30, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Cindy, what a wonderful, loving comment to Jen.
Once again, I am way behind in my reading.
Corrie, I’m sorry you think that I don’t like you. I need to keep in mind that I am not debating with my fellow edgy night-shift nurses in one of our middle of the night discussions about politics, religion, ethics and anything else you can think of.
I can disagree with them passionately and I would have no problem saying, Oh, please, can the drama.
And we would still be friends. But you and I don’t have that background.
I don’t mean to storm off in a huff; I don’t have the time to keep up and I am sometimes offended by what I perceive as the manner of some of these comments.
But I guess I should extend the same grace I would like extended to me in that I don’t really *know* any of you, and I should NOT have judged anyone’s intent.
And I guess I should stop saying that I’m leaving, because I obviously can’t stay away. Lindsey, it’s funny that you said this:
“I’m sorry, but standing up and saying my piece is okay with me, even if it is not okay for you. It doesn’t make me less of a Christian. That is the problem with the church today. We’ve got a bunch of wussies too afraid to stand up, ask questions, and solve problems. We’re wimpy for the sake of the cause, because somebody might get upset and run away.”
Because standing up and asking questions and discussing things is something I could do all day long.
I was merely stating that the appearance, my perception of some of these comments is that they were less than loving, and I was concerned about the message that sends.
Anyway. I may stick around, but y’all have to take my mouthy self in context.
I also think that if there is a way to do it, these comments and discussions about kinism should be moved to another thread, for topicality’s sake if nothing else.
And please, for the love of God, leave Elisabeth Elliot out of it. As Scrooge says to the spirit, “I can’t stand more!”
December 30, 2007 at 5:23 pm
So Marcia, tell me then…what are you asking us to do?
What is it you want to see happen here?
Be specific. I’d like to know so we can all work towards a mutal agreement. It seems to be one of those “rock and a hard place issues.” If we quit talking about it, we offend believers and non-believers. If we continue talking about it, we offend or bother others.
So what do we do? We can talk this thing to death, and I believe we already have in some ways. But, something has to be done.
Talking isn’t enough for me. So Marcia, in a perfect church world, what should we do now?
December 30, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Okay, Lindsey, let’s go.
First of all, from a format standpoint, this is less than optimal. Keeping threads on topic would be a huge help; who wants to wade through 600 comments on a post that started out about one thing, but is now focusing on something else? Can anyone start a new thread here, or only moderators?
Second. Keeping the focus on the concepts and scriptural backing, or lack of same, not zooming in on particular people and making the thread about that. You want to talk about patriarchy and why you believe it is not biblical, great. Cite scripture.
What bothered me tremendously in this thread was assigning motives and attitudes to people who believe differently than you. I use Stacy because, as it has been noted, I have experience with her.
For someone to say, as was said above, that she is only embracing patriarchy because she wants to cozy up to the men in power is not okay in a civilized Christian discussion.
I don’t think talking about issues in and of itself offends either Christians or non-believers. I think it is the manner in which things are presented that causes dismay.
December 30, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Oh, and Lindsey, this is just my opinion. I am the last person to speak about a “perfect church world.”
I am also guilty of doing some of the very things I don’t like, such as assuming I know what is in someone’s heart based on what she has written–for which I have apologized.
December 30, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Marcia wrote: And please, for the love of God, leave Elisabeth Elliot out of it.
Can someone please explain to me what this means? Elisabeth Elliot argued the same points that Peter Marshall did in his sermon “Keepers of the Springs.” Some books compare them as similar. Both spoke at at time and called for people to return to Christ and called for women to be good mothers as those “keepers.” These are very good things, and I’ve stated such.
What I did comment about was the fact that people fail to differentiate the social and societal from that which is Christian. I noted how patriarchy essentially captializes on these and other writings to promote their package. It is the amalgum and the blurring of many distinctions that creates problems, not the ideals. I’m not criticizing the ideals but the promotion of them as entirely Christian as something that can be feigned to bring about spirituality.
How does that do any disservice to Elisabeth Elliott?
Or is this a sacred cow because Elliot is quoted in Passionte Housewives?
Please explain this because I’m apparently too dense to understand and I’d really like to do so.
December 30, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Should I take a Sharpie and cross Elliott’s name out of Fishburn’s book every time it appears?
December 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm
Cindy, I was kidding.
December 30, 2007 at 6:04 pm
And, yes, the Sharpie thing would work for me.
December 30, 2007 at 6:06 pm
What color? I have teal, lime green, red, blue and black.
December 30, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Cindy, I read all your comments “proving” how everything in your original “strawman” was connected. Thank you for taking the time to do so. However, I think you have just proven my point, as you say here:
“patriarchy and kinism and slavery and servitude and Confederate Idealism are INTERGRALLY CONNECTED in ideology.”
You went through a whole spider-webbing process to try to prove that patriarchy is connected to kinism – ideologically. And then you conclude with:
“This is not guilt by association at all, when you dig down through the happy surface layers, the soul of patriarchy, such that it is presented in the contexts we discuss here, is SLAVERY.”
Cindy, you know I am opposed to VF’s brand of patriarchy, but I couldn’t disagree more strongly with your conclusion. This really is guilt by association and that is what I am attempting to get you to see, as in this comment:
“So if this line of questions continues, please understand that I don’t see VF patriarchy much differently than I do CBMW or the Moonies or the Mormons or the Confederate social order. They are all strikingly similar to me in all the ways that matter.”
Cindy, there are legitimate comparisons and then there are those that actually tear down your own arguments. In your statement above, Cindy, if I were FOR patriarchy, and I was trying to discern the truth of the issue, I would totally disregard everything you ever had to say because that is guilt by association magnified to the nth degree.
Here was my main point in all of that exercise, Cindy. If you are going to talk about VF, as you began in that strawman quote I provided (strawman because no kinist has ever claimed anything near the things you said in that quote), then you must stick to evaluating VF, their words, their spokesmen, and their products. Now, if want to discuss Wilson and Wilkins’ apologetics for slavery, fine. Discuss away. Just don’t connect it to VF because they both quote Dabney. Has VF ever quoted Dabney in relation to slavery? Not that I am aware of.
Same thing with discussing patriarchy. I don’t have to know the McDonalds at all to see that they have a very different view of patriarchy than VF does. Some of their views overlap and it is legitimate to discuss what we do know overlaps. But it is guilt by association to say that Stacy believes everything Jennie believes just because they wrote a book together. (Cindy, I am not saying you have done this; this is just an example that comes to my mind right now that I have seen done.) It is fine to discuss what Jennie and Stacy have written together and what we know they agree on, but it is totally unfair to say that just because they wrote a book together that Stacy, and by extension James, believes that women shouldn’t vote because Jennie believes that. Do Stacy and Jennie need to agree on that issue to write a book about being a stay-at-home mom? Not unless that is one of their topics of the book, which it isn’t. (All the of-age McDonald girls vote.)
Same thing with VF. They published this book by Stacy and Jennie. Does that mean that VF, Stacy, and Jennie are identical in all their beliefs on every issue in the world, or even on every issue in patriarchy? Does a book publisher normally require that an author be in 100% agreement with all their beliefs? I don’t think so. So, this is just an example of the extreme guilt by association I’ve seen in some of these discussions (again, that was not an example I got from Cindy, but I wanted to point out something that maybe would make this clear). So, discuss the book. Use quotes from the book. That is what they have in common.
Now back to Cindy’s arguments for the ideologies of patriarchy. Cindy, there is very much a place for arguing for ideologies, as you have done. It appears that you are a big picture type of person. We need people like you. We need to see the ideologies involved. However, I would just like to encourage you to NOT begin by speaking of a certain person or group and loosely connect them to another person or group because they have one or two things in common. That really is guilt by association. What you can do is to take all that material you have presented above and focus on the ideology itself. Talk about the social issues. Talk about the spiritual impact. Talk about the practicalities. Talk about how the confederacy is interwoven into patriarchy. Talk about what slavery then has in common with patriarchy today. Those are all great. But be careful not to then take those ideologies and assign them to certain persons in the patriarchy movements unless you can show a direct association.
You see, I’m not a big picture person as much. I focus on the details more. My husband is very much a big picture kind of guy, so I’ve had this conversation with him oodles of times. There are places for both. We need to see the big picture, Cindy. But be careful not to assign the big picture to specific individuals, even if you didn’t intend to, unless there is something directly associating them.
Thanks for addressing this in a reasonable manner, Cindy. I’m glad to respond to you in that fashion.
December 30, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Cindy, which Fishburn do you keep talking about? I may be related to him in a way that would probably drive you over the edge if it turns out to be true.
Cindy: “The Moonies LOVE Phillips and every other “Biblical patriarchy” and patriarchal author because it is not really Biblical but cultural and social.”
Now, Cindy, really. Please. This is what I’m talking about.
Cindy, I do see that kinism is very much rooted in theonomy, although I didn’t know that a week ago. In fact, I didn’t know much of anything about kinism a week ago. It’s been a steep learning curve for me this week. It is interesting that you brought up the unclean meats issue, as I do know that some kinists are opposed to eating unclean meats still (and I’m sure Corrie and Lynn could tell many stories about me and that issue, too!). I may address it in my article.
I think I will address the Christian liberty aspect of it there as well. It might be safer.
As far as asking my kinist “friends” what they believe, I’m afraid that you think I have more of a relationship with them than I do. I do not at all know what they believe specifically, and we have never discussed kinism, nor do I know them well enough to ask. I have had extremely limited communications with any kinist, contrary to what is being said here.
Now, Cindy, regarding polygamy and my email groups, I would please ask you to get your facts straight before you come online and say such silly things about me. You really make me look bad over something that simply isn’t true. You are free to ask me any questions you want about all these so-called accusations you keep referring to from “concerned individuals,” but so far from everything I have seen, both here and privately, you are quite confused.
Now, I appreciate the prayers and I will take all the prayer I can get from anyone here, but it might be a bit more helpful if they were based upon truth.
Just sayin’.
December 30, 2007 at 6:43 pm
“I’m just trying to point out that if we are going to logically discuss an issue, then we need to be careful not to use logical fallacies and there were a whole lot of those lately.”
You have used the words logic and reason several times in this thread. You have also said, Let’s be fair several times.
It does not escape me that much about the Gospel is not ‘logical’. Paul said that the Cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. God making Himself a helpless Baby who is fully human and fully God is not logic or reason in the Enlightenment sense. Yet it is Truth.
So when you say that you have seen several logical fallacies here and want to focus on fairness, I see a red herring. Our view must be scriptural…in context.
The irony of your need for fairness does not escape me, either. A Kinist or even a Patriarch usually refuse to discuss their beliefs in context of whole scripture. They say things like: You don’t disagree with me…you disagree with scripture. Or that we are ignorant or in sin. Or simply will not discuss it with me becasue I am a woman. So your need for ‘fair’ is a logical fallacy in that sense. Another irony is that you want us to be fair about Kinism while they are deleting writings/associations and pass protecting their sites. Have you discussed ‘fair’ with your Kinist friend who just pass protected his site?
“I know it is harder to find direct quotes and then discuss those than it is to give an opinion, but opinions won’t sway anyone. Lin, I know lots of stuff are disappearing offline about kinism right now. That may mean there are less direct quotes, but it also means there’s less teaching about kinism online right now and that should be a good thing!”
Should be. But then this stuff sneaks into the Body and is harder to refute when they will not make their real views public and debate them with other Christians. Sort of like the softer gentler version you have been defending here. You keep telling us your friend does not believe certain things yet he is a Kinist.
So basically we are to believe there are different levels of Kinists. Since I am an amatuer historian and my favorite era is mid 20th Century, I have read oodles of books on rise of Nazism in Germany and the founding of Israel. You would not believe the parallels in Kinism and the rise of Nazi thinking. It is too vast to even discuss here but what is interesting is the interviews of common every day Germans after WW2. They could not pinpoint the time they started believing in this separatism. I maintain, it could be in all of our hearts and only the Grace of God keeps us from being Himmlers.
Without restraints, where would Kinism lead us? Every belief must eventually have an action. We ‘act’ on our beliefs whether we realize it or not. Whether that action is to spread that belief or act on it. That should give anyone pause who thinks Kinism is not a threat to the Body of Christ.
“Lin, you asked me to “prove” to you that kinism is not evil. I think that no matter what I say here on the issue, it will be taken out of context, so I will write up what I believe and put it on my blog in the next day or two. I’m finding this format to be less than ideal. I will make a formal statement there.”
There is only ONE context for Kinism. That it is unscriptural and evil. What is to discuss on that score? What we need to discuss is how it has permeated the Body of Christ. When, how and why and what to do about it.
“Lin, I provided ample documentation for my story and I offered multiple opportunities (such as open comments) to refute my story. What do you think I didn’t prove? I worked very hard to make sure that I could prove everything. There is much that I DIDN’T tell because I didn’t have proof.”
Well, since your blog is down, that makes it a bit hard. There are certain things, perhaps in comments or something that were not proven such as women not being allowed to get their own communion without their husbands there. Or that their young son has to serve it to them. I do not remember seeing any proof of that. Things such as that. We have no proof of things you wrote that Doug said to you.
December 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm
“I still am having trouble understanding why kinism could be considered legitimate under the New Covenant,..”
It can’t be. Neither can Patriarchy.
December 30, 2007 at 6:52 pm
“That speaks volumes of their devotion to Christ.”
Rebecca, you just hit on something important. Kinism is idolatry.
December 30, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Janet Fishburn author of “Confronting the Idolatry of Family”. It’s a book. Look it up.
Many times on your own blog and here both Cynthia Gee and I discussed how the Unification Church loves the system of Patriarchy. They quote all the Christian authors of Christian books in their writings including those on militant fecundity.
http://www.divineprinciple.com
I’ve provided books, references from those books, links and information on my websites and have explained my position.
You admitted offline that you did have the kinists write your website from the beginning, then when you found that unavoidable, you tried to say that you didn’t know that they were kinists when we all have copies of and links to websites where you posted on kinist sites right along with these named kinists by name. You expect us to believe that you didn’t know who they were and what they were about and you still contend that you never lied to anyone and that there is no degree of truth to Matt Chancey’s claims. And that you wont admit to knowing Harry Seabrook until I give up the names of the people who talked to Harry, because you have more dirt on the people I spoke with than they have on you. You equivocated and told everyone offline that they were all confused, too. How is that?
And I’m the one that’s confused here?
You wrote to me yesterday that you can’t believe how people like me could be so cruel to you when your friends Harry and Chad have treated you so much better.
See it. See it for what it is. I’m so sorry that they were the only ones who reached out to you when you were broken, and that breaks my heart because I’ve had the same kinds of things happen to me. You said that you couldn’t believe that I was abusing you == someone who had been abused and abused and abused and abused.
Jen, so have I. In every posssible way, over and over again. So have many, many people who read here. In that sense, you are no different. What makes us different here is that we have determined to no longer be victims again, but the grace of God. And most of us have been vicitmized again since we got out. Most of us did get involved in sticky situations again with spiritually abusive groups — but we didn’t stay there. Don’t stay there. Run to the Rock. Don’t run to liars and theives. Run to the Rock.
But you cannot find the answer in doctrinal error. You will never find it there.
December 30, 2007 at 6:58 pm
“You can stop this bouncing from man to man and false teacher and novel idea and come to Christ. Get the milk down. Forget the whole big ball of theology and just come to the Cross.”
Absolutely. Go alone to a private prayer closet and sincerely cry out. Do not stop. Do it as long as it takes. It is Christ Alone.
There is ‘knowledge of God’ and then there is ‘Knowing God’. (The Trinity)
We can have knowledge of God without ever knowing Him. (Read Matthew 7 very closely…lots of professing Christians are not really saved)
December 30, 2007 at 7:24 pm
“First of all, from a format standpoint, this is less than optimal. Keeping threads on topic would be a huge help; who wants to wade through 600 comments on a post that started out about one thing, but is now focusing on something else? Can anyone start a new thread here, or only moderators?”
You must be a meloncholy?
) What you are asking is like trying to herd cats.
“Second. Keeping the focus on the concepts and scriptural backing, or lack of same, not zooming in on particular people and making the thread about that. You want to talk about patriarchy and why you believe it is not biblical, great. Cite scripture.”
Much of what refutes Patriarchy is inferred in scripture simply by lifestyle we see there. Take for example: Romans 16. What does it tell us?
On another note: False teaching only comes from False teachers. Unlike the communists…we must name names.
)
“What bothered me tremendously in this thread was assigning motives and attitudes to people who believe differently than you. I use Stacy because, as it has been noted, I have experience with her.”
this is hard too. For example, Stacy has taken things off her blog that relate exactly to what we are talking about in a timely fashion to WHEN we are talking about it. Coincidence? Are we allowed to mention that? Or is that assigning motives? Same with Jenney and VF. Are we allowed to mention that? See the Pat women are not real upfront.
Stacy wrote a bizarro world piece using Dr. Suess to assign motives instead of confronting those who disagree with her. Which one is more honest? Are we allowed to discuss that?
“For someone to say, as was said above, that she is only embracing patriarchy because she wants to cozy up to the men in power is not okay in a civilized Christian discussion.”
Perhaps not. But what else is there for the poor women in Patriarchy? Unless…your husband allows you out of the house and away from your family to go on a book promotion.
/
“I don’t think talking about issues in and of itself offends either Christians or non-believers. I think it is the manner in which things are presented that causes dismay.”
this is going to sound mean but I am going to say it: If we love God we love what God loves and we hate what God hates. If we love babies we hate abortion. If we love Jews we hate the holocaust. If we love God we hate His Word being misused.
I love Jen and I hate Kinism. But confronting her with her position looks like hating her to you. I am calling her out on her wrong beliefs and her jumping around I have witnessed in the past few months. I will try to put some chocolate syrup on it with whipped creme and a cherry. It is hard, like you, I am a bit blunt. I have more work to do on myself…perhaps I think like a man too much.
(
December 30, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Rebecca, you first said, “You don’t see it as racist to tell someone, “In my perfect world, I will be able to live in a country free from you and everyone else of your race”? You really don’t?”
I thought you were taking a direct quote from somewhere, but I cannot find that quote. What I did find are these quotes from you from kinism.net:
Kinists don’t believe in separation of the races? Kinists don’t believe “that the God-ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal”? Kinists don’t believe that “White peoples have an inalienable, that is, God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families”? They don’t “denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait”? They don’t misuse Scripture time and time again, such as in their belief that “It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking”? They don’t believe that “we stand or fall with no other but the White peoples of Europe, and their standards of beauty, their cultural achievements, the achievements of their civilization, established through the confluence of pagan and Christian traditions, are both irreplaceable and vital to our survival as a people”? They don’t believe in “an end all non-white immigration”? They don’t believe that “suffrage would be restricted to landed white males 21 and older, as we work toward a godly, free republic”?
Now, I think you are asking me if those at kinism.net are racist. I don’t quite know how to say this, but I don’t see that. Maybe we should define racist first. When I think of “racist,” I equate it with hatred of other races or an attitude of superiority. From what I read on kinism.net, I see them arguing for each race remaining with their own race. I have read through the beliefs and distinctives and I cannot find anything that shows that they think whites are superior to anyone else or that they hate anyone of another color. Remember that I said we should use their own words? Please tell me how you see hatred or superiority in these statements from kinism.net. I know you don’t AGREE with them, but for right now, the topic is just “Are these racist statements?”
“We at Kinism.net believe that our White peoples have an inalienable, that is, God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families. … We believe this right extends to all other genetic and ethnic families, be they Oriental, African, or otherwise.
We further recognize the value, uniqueness, and preciousness of all the Families of Man to God, and their equal theoretical participation in the salvation offered by God through election. This insistence distinguishes us from Christian Identity groups that hold to the belief that other people groups are either not in need of salvation (all have fallen short of the glory of God), or are in any sense subhuman, or worthy of less than the decency owed by all Christians to all men.
We do not claim perfection, nor even a broadly based notion of superiority to other ethnic-racial families.
We believe in treating all men with decency and justice.
I don’t know if this is a change from what it used to be or not, but it seems to me that they are quite clear that they do not believe they are superior to any other race, JUST DIFFERENT. They don’t hate people of other races, they are JUST DIFFERENT. In fact, with Corrie’s example from James’ article yesterday about Barak Obama’s church, it sounds to me like they would be in favor of that.
Rebecca, I am not addressing the “sin of miscegenation” above. I am only addressing your statement that they are racist. I am sure that some kinists are racist, but I cannot categorically state that ALL kinists are racists when I examine them merely by their own words. And since I don’t know any of those people at kinism.net, that is all I have to go on at this point.
Rebecca: “My stories, which moved you in no way and which you misinterpreted, were not about kinism per se. They were about racism.”
I know. That’s the whole problem. You are using the strawman of racism and applying it to kinism. I agree that racism is evil. I just don’t agree that all kinists are racists. Perhaps you have a different definition of racism?
Rebecca, please don’t assume that I have no compassion in the area of racism. That is not true at all. I detest racism. But my point here has been to try to argue the facts of kinism and if racism is not a provable fact of kinism, then it is not on topic. Rebecca, some kinists are racists. I fully agree. But I have not seen proof that ALL kinists are racists and that is all I’m trying to get across.
You know, Rebecca, I think you have been listening to the lies of some here about my relationship with kinists. I know two kinists – barely. They are not dear friends, although some day they may be. I have had extremely limited contact with either one of them. I am just arguing for fair logic here.
I didn’t consider that statement I posted from kinism.net to be fairly innocuous and that is why I posted it. I started at the top of the document and was going to post, in order, all the statements that were race related. I didn’t even agree with that statement, Rebecca! So you can call it innocuous, but I stood against it!
Now, Rebecca, it is unfair for you to say that I show disregard for the “sisters of color” who post here. That is so far from being true that I am offended. I have argued for years that we are treat each person individually and not as a group based upon their skin color. One of the things I really like about the internet is that we cannot look on the outward appearance here, but we see more of the heart. I am glad that I don’t know what color most people here are because it doesn’t make any difference to me. My black friends sure would be shocked to see you make such statements.
Now, as far as what kinists would do with people like you and me, Rebecca, who already have mixed families, I don’t know. And since I think I would be greatly attacked for expressing a guesstimated answer on that, I will refrain. Rebecca, do you not see? We are in the same boat!
“I see everything wrong with being prejudiced and hateful.”
Yep. I agree.
December 30, 2007 at 7:56 pm
Ah Rebecca, Jen is finding the softer, gentler Kinism quotes just for you.
Too bad they are deleting so much stuff or pass protecting sites we cannot quote here. that is one reason I find Jen’s insistence we only use ‘direct’ quotes so disingenuous.
BTW: Jen, your friend Chad must be reading Lynn’s blog. He has already deleted the archived Kinism page we found that listed him as curriculum Director for the Kinists. I sure would like to see that curriculum. Can you ask him for it and put it on your blog?
“But my point here has been to try to argue the facts of kinism and if racism is not a provable fact of kinism, then it is not on topic.”
Then why do they want to be separate? What is the point?
And, What if they ‘hide’ their racism by deleting all their writings just as we are to beginning to look for it?
December 30, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Jen, I am noticing a pattern. Earlier you say Chad is a dear friend and tell us many things he does not believe that some think may be related to Kinism. You also seem to know much about his experience at James McDonald’s church. And some are saying you told them he wrote some of your blog articles and you even paid him.
Now, you seem to be saying you barely know him.
Which is it?
December 30, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Lin, we need to use logic to interpret the Scriptures. The doctrines and theologies presented in God’s Word may not always seem logical to us, granted, but in order to derive a doctrine or theology, we use a combination of logic and hermeneutics to arrive at a conclusion.
I am the last one to shy away from using Scripture in these discussions. In fact, when I posted that one quote from kinism.net, I said that I couldn’t find any Scripture to support it. Therefore, since it tells us about God’s plan, and there is no Scripture than can support that, I reject that statement. See. That is both logical and biblical.
Lin: “But then this stuff sneaks into the Body and is harder to refute when they will not make their real views public and debate them with other Christians.”
Lin, do you see a bogeyman behind every bush, too? I’ve seen this with you a lot. You see one church who does or says something, and suddenly all churches – let’s say emergent – are just like them! Kinism is SO tiny, I don’t know what you are so afraid of. It has NOT crept into the church and it has not even crept into patriarchy. It is a very tiny subset of both – very tiny. And if it ever does creep in, you will be able to readily identify it and speak out against it. It is not a subliminal message that is being flashed for a micro-second on the big screen at every mega-church in the country!
And now this is the second or third time I have seen the strawman of kinism being compared to Naziism. Really.
Lin “There is only ONE context for Kinism. That it is unscriptural and evil.”
So, take a quote from a kinist site, SHOW that it is unscriptural, and then prove that that makes it evil. There are plenty that you should be able to do that with. Do you see, Lin? If you do that, the whole thing will topple. Isn’t that what I did with the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy and the theonomy stuff? It was hard work, but I systematically tore them down, both logically and biblically. I’m sure I could have done an even better job based upon what I know now, but that is the best way to disprove kinism. Emotions won’t do it.
If you can prove how kinism has permeated the body of Christ, Lin, go for it.
December 30, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Here’s a thought. What happens when you throw fuel on a fire that just loves to burn? It blazes all the more. Stop fueling the fire.
People hate to be seen as inconsistent, and it’s a real trap — a difficult one to resist sometimes.
And I played along. I was baited into defending my supposed strawman comments. Lotta good that did. Kinism advocate number one is still on the stand, singing away. Center of attention.
Let’s try being inconsistent for awhile and see if the flame goes out.
December 30, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Cindy: “You admitted offline that you did have the kinists write your website from the beginning, then when you found that unavoidable, you tried to say that you didn’t know that they were kinists when we all have copies of and links to websites where you posted on kinist sites right along with these named kinists by name. You expect us to believe that you didn’t know who they were and what they were about and you still contend that you never lied to anyone and that there is no degree of truth to Matt Chancey’s claims. And that you wont admit to knowing Harry Seabrook until I give up the names of the people who talked to Harry, because you have more dirt on the people I spoke with than they have on you. You equivocated and told everyone offline that they were all confused, too. How is that?”
Good grief, Cindy, I laid it all out for you in detail several times and you still come up with something TOTALLY different from the truth. I hesitate to do this, but this will be the last time I address this issue. Here goes, for all the world to see.
One kinist, who I did NOT know was a kinist until recently, contacted me last fall about an area we had in common. We spoke on the phone and emailed a few times. When I submitted my very first article to MW, he asked me some questions about it for clarification. That is the sum total of the extent of his “help.” We had no communication again for a year and then exchanged a couple emails.
I posted a couple comments on some blogs that belonged to kinists. I did not check to see if they were kinist blogs or not; I was only concerned with what I was commenting on. I was brand new online then and didn’t know how rampant guilt by association is.
Then Matt wrote his article.
Then I exchanged a few emails with another kinist and met him once for dinner in a group of about a dozen people or so.
Cindy: “You said that you couldn’t believe that I was abusing you == someone who had been abused and abused and abused and abused.”
The difference, Cindy, is that I won’t abuse you and I won’t abuse others because I know what it’s like to be abused.
December 30, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Cindy: “Let’s try being inconsistent for awhile and see if the flame goes out.”
Here’s another thought, Cindy. I came here because I was being lied about. I tried to defend myself and I tried to defend James and Chad from false accusations and slander as well. The underlying issue in all of this was kinism. It became an emotional issue, so I appealed to logic. It was being wrongly interwoven into patriarchy. Although kinists are probably all patriarchists, not all patriarchists are kinists, and kinism is not creeping into our churches. I’ve made my point clear that while some kinists are racists, no one has proven that ALL kinists are racists, and so, to argue from the basis that all kinists are racists is unfair. I’ve asked for proof — logically, biblically, and using direct quotes. I have tried to show HOW to argue.
I have not argued FOR or AGAINST kinism. That was never my intention here. I saw what was happening and refused to put my beliefs out there to be trashed like this. I may write an article about what I do believe, but I’ve given you many clues here. Most of you have chosen to conclude that because I argue FOR logic that I am also arguing FOR kinism. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
I am here to see people treated fairly and individually. All people. I won’t abuse anyone, even if I disagree with their beliefs. I can be friends with those who have different beliefs, and in time, we can talk about those differences, in a civilized manner. I will not hammer them over the head with how I think they should change their beliefs.
But, I need to bow out of this discussion now. If I write an article about it, I’ll let you know. But it will have absolutely NOTHING to do with patriarchy.
In fact, I will not be participating in any more discussions about patriarchy for now. I only beg of you not to personally attack others, not to use strawmen, not to prove guilt by association, and not to group everyone together as if they are all the same. They are not.
I love each one of you, no matter what color you are!
December 30, 2007 at 9:04 pm
“Lin, we need to use logic to interpret the Scriptures. The doctrines and theologies presented in God’s Word may not always seem logical to us, granted, but in order to derive a doctrine or theology, we use a combination of logic and hermeneutics to arrive at a conclusion.”
The Holy Spirit illuminates the truth to us. That is why prayer must accompany scripture study. We must pray for wisdom and discernment. The Holy Spirit teaches us.
The North and South read the same Bible during the Civil War. So did the Germans before WW2….in German of course.
)
Do you see the point? Anyone can use a faulty system or faulty hermeneutic and come to the wrong conclusion. Grumden wrote a book about Systematic Theology yet uses a false hermeneutic to come to a wrong conclusion about women in scripture and the Trinity.
“Therefore, since it tells us about God’s plan, and there is no Scripture than can support that, I reject that statement. See. That is both logical and biblical.’”
I would be a much happier camper if the Holy Spirit had convicted your heart of it instead.
“Lin, do you see a bogeyman behind every bush, too? I’ve seen this with you a lot.”
Yep. I do. Guess it comes from what I was doing for so many years and my experiences working with the pastors and staff in hundreds of churches across the country. We have a HUGE problem in the Western Church. We should be afraid. Very afraid.
We could learn a lot from persecuted Christians in hostile countries.
Most people spend very little time in prayer and deep scripture study. if they did, they would not fall for much of what we see happening out there. And it is on all ends of the spectrum…seeker, emergent, reformed, etc. I was one of them for a very long time.
If we would just get back into the Word. Get rid of our commentaries,topical Bible studies and ignore anyone who is called ‘an anointed man of God’. Let us simply BEG the Holy Spirit to teach us as we study. He knows EXACTLY what we need, when we need it for abundant life (which is spiritual).
“Kinism is SO tiny, I don’t know what you are so afraid of. It has NOT crept into the church and it has not even crept into patriarchy. It is a very tiny subset of both – very tiny. And if it ever does creep in, you will be able to readily identify it and speak out against it. It is not a subliminal message that is being flashed for a micro-second on the big screen at every mega-church in the country!”
How do you know it is so tiny? You just said earlier you don’t know much about it at all? I am much relieved to know it is not being subliminally flashed on IMAGs at Megas. Whew! That had me worried!
)
“And now this is the second or third time I have seen the strawman of kinism being compared to Naziism. Really.”
??? Strawman? Read the early stuff. Read the men whose writings Hilter was studying while in prison. It is Kinism. It was softer and gentle like you are proposing here. It was simple: Be separate. Nothing wrong with that, right?
“So, take a quote from a kinist site, SHOW that it is unscriptural, and then prove that that makes it evil. There are plenty that you should be able to do that with. Do you see, Lin?”
Where? They are deleting the strong stuff
faster than we can say Kinism.
“If you do that, the whole thing will topple. Isn’t that what I did with the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy and the theonomy stuff? It was hard work, but I systematically tore them down, both logically and biblically. I’m sure I could have done an even better job based upon what I know now, but that is the best way to disprove kinism. Emotions won’t do it.”
No Jen. The Holy Spirit does it.
“f you can prove how kinism has permeated the body of Christ, Lin, go for it.”
You? Here on this blog? Do you consider yourself part of the Body of Christ? It seems to have gotten a toe hold on you.
December 30, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I want to talk about the claim that we can’t attribute general teachings about kinism to Degenhart if we don’t have direct quotes.
This is what Jen said:
Rebecca, by all means feel free to discuss anything you see online with Chad’s name on it. That is really all I’m asking here. All I’m saying is that many people are attributing certain statements to Chad just because he’s a kinist, and not bothering to find out if he actually believes everything every kinist believes. I think that’s only fair.
This is sort-of like saying ideas that IBLP directly puts out in publications are oh so unfairly claimed to be Gothard’s teachings because we don’t see quotes. Try that on the Gothard board and see how far you get!
Now, that would be fair if you were just talking about any run of the mill ATI mom, dad, student, or Seminar attendee. BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT IBLP TEACHES, you cannot attribute all of IBLP’s teachings to what they may personally believe or not believe. But it’s different with Gothard. He’s still the head of IBLP, and the buck stops with him.
Chad Degenhart is one of the co-founders of the Kinist Institute. In one link that Brandon G. showed me on my blog, Chad was listed as THE curriculum director for Kinist Institute, either in general, or at one point, I don’t remember.
Being a co-founder and a curriculum director of an institute, and it’s a SURE BET that he is responsible for the content of the teaching AT LEAST in the statements of belief and general statements from that site, which I remind everybody, USED to include this:
“We will work to end all non-white immigration, We believe that all aliens (to include all Jews and Arabs) should be removed to their own areas and separated in due course from Kinist held territories, without respect to persons.”
One of my many unanswered questions was did they modify the language because they no longer believe it, or because they are trying to hide what their real beliefs are?
I don’t have an answer to this question.
And yes, Chad, as one of the co-founders of the Institute, is responsible for the teaching above, if not the direct quote.
And I have no way of knowing if in his heart of hearts he really beleives it and wishes he had the power to deport everybody who was not like him in color either out of the country, state, or territory, or whether he doesn’t believe it any more.
December 30, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Cindy, your post (#616) brought tears to my eyes. God bless you.
December 30, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Jen quote me and then wrote:
” Kinists don’t believe in separation of the races? Kinists don’t believe “that the God-ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal”? Kinists don’t believe that “White peoples have an inalienable, that is, God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families”? They don’t “denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God’s created order which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait”? They don’t misuse Scripture time and time again, such as in their belief that “It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking”? They don’t believe that “we stand or fall with no other but the White peoples of Europe, and their standards of beauty, their cultural achievements, the achievements of their civilization, established through the confluence of pagan and Christian traditions, are both irreplaceable and vital to our survival as a people”? They don’t believe in “an end all non-white immigration”? They don’t believe that “suffrage would be restricted to landed white males 21 and older, as we work toward a godly, free republic”?
Now, I think you are asking me if those at kinism.net are racist. I don’t quite know how to say this, but I don’t see that.”
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
racism
Function:
noun
Date:
1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Jen can now argue that the kinists do not claim white superiority. However, they do believe in race separation and in discrimination based on race (e.g., not allowing non-white immigration, etc.)
Try this on for size:
Let’s pretend I invite your family over for dinner, Jen. But then I make you eat in a separate room from my family. It’s not that I believe that our family is better than yours. We just don’t believe in mixing with Epsteins. We’re sure you are a wonderful family. But we are “familyists”, you see. And we want to keep ourselves separate and pure from Epsteins.
Actually, kinism goes further than that. We wouldn’t even let you in our house, because we believe in separate houses for separate families. In fact, we’d prefer you live in a separate country from us, and that our borders be closed to you. That would be our “perfect world”.
Isn’t that loving? Isn’t it just an expression of Christian liberty and unity and the love of Christ?
I don’t think so. I think it’s hateful.
To me, kinism is whitewashed racism. I’m not surprised, Jen, that you don’t see it. In fact, this is just more evidence, in my opinion, of your being a kinist sympathizer.
Have I been listening to other people? No, Jen, I’ve been reading your own posts right here. Please answer Lin’s questions in #636. I’m just as confused as she is. Which of your posts am I supposed to believe?
December 30, 2007 at 10:35 pm
Lynn wrote:
“And I have no way of knowing if in his heart of hearts he really beleives it and wishes he had the power to deport everybody who was not like him in color either out of the country, state, or territory, or whether he doesn’t believe it any more.”
But, Lynn, that doesn’t necessarily make him a racist, as long as he deports the people of color in a kind and polite sort of way, does it?
December 30, 2007 at 10:39 pm
“To me, kinism is whitewashed racism. I’m not surprised, Jen, that you don’t see it. In fact, this is just more evidence, in my opinion, of your being a kinist sympathizer.”
Rebecca,
Thank you so much for your input in all of this. I would have thought myself crazy if it weren’t for so many rational, logical and well-studied women confirming what I see.
Jen probably doesn’t think making blacks ride at the back of the bus, or drink out of separate bubblers or go to separate bathrooms made only for blacks as racist, either. If she doesn’t see any of the other stuff as racist, then she won’t see these things as racist, either.
If I started an organization with Betty Friedan, Paula Poundstone and Ellen Degeneres for women and called it the “National Feminist Institute”, would I retain the right to claim that I don’t believe what most feminists believe? Would it be irrational, ad hominem, strawman for people to make the connection from the people I ran with and the organization I started to the major beliefs held by that organization? What if all the feminists lauded me as a great feminist and one that was well-respected? Would that mean that I really didn’t believe much of what feminists believe?
We are talking about layers here. Just like patriarchy. You read enough and you soon know how these teachings turn into practice. And it is repugnant to me that anyone would even attempt to defend such things.
Jen can claim all she wants that we are reacting emotionally and not presenting firm data but it is nothing more than strawman and adhominem and obsfucation.
I go to a conservative church with several “mixed race” couples and people of different races and I can’t imagine my pastor asking me if it would be a problem for me to attend there. That in and of itself tells me something is QUITE wrong. If someone has to ask me if I would be offended by mixed race couples in the church I wanted to attend, that might be a good indication that I am a racist. Just saying.
I never noticed the various races until today. I literally cried as I looked around at all the beautiful people in my church and thought about how much I appreciated all the different ethnicities and how that brings a rich, rich facet to our church and to my life. I look at my neighborhood and think of my white, black, asian and hispanic neighbors and I am so glad that my children are able to interact with such diversity.
I am not ashamed to decry white-washed racism aka kinism. I am ashamed of those who so readily condemn their fellow sisters in the Lord with pejorative terms when they shrink and cow-tow and act all tolerant to others with such abhorrently false beliefs.
Marble sinks and professional mommies? Give me a break.
December 30, 2007 at 10:40 pm
““And I have no way of knowing if in his heart of hearts he really beleives it and wishes he had the power to deport everybody who was not like him in color either out of the country, state, or territory, or whether he doesn’t believe it any more.”
But, Lynn, that doesn’t necessarily make him a racist, as long as he deports the people of color in a kind and polite sort of way, does it?”
Exactly.
December 30, 2007 at 10:42 pm
Rebecca, thanks for the definition of racism, but I’ve already provided essentially the same definition from another source in an earlier comment. Jen is still trying to define racism.
I don’t believe Jen is wanting to talk about what racism actually means, but what racism means TO HER.
You know, “he who defines, wins?” I already said I won that point when I provided that definition, and that kinists are racist, and she still went on her way to redefine the term to have to include superiority and hatred, although objective sources — most of them tell us racism can mean discrimination based on race. It doesn’t have to include hatred. The second definition doesn’t even have to include superiority.
Kinism discriminates based on racial features, therefore, it is racist.
It’s not “what racism means TO ME,” it’s all about what the term “racism” means, period. There are enough dictionaries out there to check.
December 30, 2007 at 10:43 pm
“Chad Degenhart is one of the co-founders of the Kinist Institute. In one link that Brandon G. showed me on my blog, Chad was listed as THE curriculum director for Kinist Institute, either in general, or at one point, I don’t remember. ”
Lynn, I totally agree with your comment. I have found the continual insistence of direct quotes totally disingenuous and even wondered if that was requested so adamently because most of it has been deleted!
I have requested that Jen ask Chad for any of the curriculum and that she post it on her site. But then, who knows if it is the original or this new softer gentler Kinism that is being floated.
On this site, kinism.net, most of the stuff is subtle and you really have to read it deeply to see the vast error in thinking. It is nothing like say, LG, used to be. But, it has some very sneering comments like this on the front page in the right hand side bar:
“Russell Eugene is 1 day old.His mother is 15….Leticia is a grandmother at 29.” Guess which ethnicity they are members of?
There is the link in the copy…
http://www.kinism.net/index.php/forums/viewthread/19/
…which leads you to a picture and news story.
What is the point of this sort of thing?
December 30, 2007 at 10:47 pm
“This is sort-of like saying ideas that IBLP directly puts out in publications are oh so unfairly claimed to be Gothard’s teachings because we don’t see quotes. Try that on the Gothard board and see how far you get!”
Lynn,
Exactly. It is farcical and ludicrous to make such a claim.
Also, add to this the fact that some people have been very clever about attaching their name (maybe they posted under an pseudonym?) so that they would fly under the radar for such a time as this.
Spin, spin, spin. This IS a political year. We should be used to it by now.
“Yeah, sure, I am pro-life. Oh, what? You think just because I belong to NARAL and I am the vice-president of NARAL and support Planned Parenthood and hang out with abortionists that I am pro-choice? You say that just because I vote for pro-abortion candidates, I am not pro-life? You strawman maker and adhominem abusivist!! How dare you draw such a conclusion! I am pro-life I tell you and what I belong to has nothing to do with what I actually believe. Prove that I am NOT pro-life!!! Just do it, I dare you! Find where I have ever promoted abortion. ”
What a crock.
December 30, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Everyone does know that Seabrook’s new blog is spiritwaterblood.com, right? Little Geneva is dead but this is his new blog.
December 30, 2007 at 10:52 pm
No Corrie, I did not know that.
December 30, 2007 at 10:56 pm
” Although kinists are probably all patriarchists, not all patriarchists are kinists,”
Jen,
You came here to set us straight and teach us logic? LOL!
I told you this a week or more ago in private email and you argued the beans out of me. Who is arguing that all patriarchalists are kinists? That would be stupid and it would be instantly shot down.
Here is what I see. No one is lying about you. I admit that it is very hard to get our facts straight because the “facts” keep on changing or morphing into other things. No one is lying about James or Chad.
You keep on making these accusations but you never back them up with actual proof.
Please, exhort James to follow Will Smith’s example. We don’t need to see pictures of him with black people. Just tell him to make a clear statement of his beliefs about this matter.
December 30, 2007 at 11:21 pm
“Yes, Corrie, that is exactly what I’m talking about. Did a kinist say those things or quote Dabney saying those things? Maybe they did, but if so, I think that would be the significant issue. We can argue against Dabney till we’re blue in the face, but if the kinists don’t agree with him anyway, would good would it do? But overall, Corrie, you are still doing the best at providing direct quotes.
Corrie: “Where are the kinists who publicly disagree with Dabney’s racist views?”
Corrie, do you think everyone should post all kinds of statements on their blogs or websites stating everything that they are against? It seems to me that you require too much from others in this respect. It is enough to comment on what they have posted, not on what they haven’t.”
Jen,
It seems as if you fancy yourself as someone who is logical, rational and a toppler of the tenets of patriarchy as if we just fell off a turnip truck and this is all new to us? That is the impression I am getting from your posts. Do you really know how long many of these women have been studying logic and the issue of patriarchy? Please don’t treat them as if they are stupid.
So, if someone hails Dabney and loves him and his writings and they NEVER once mention that they disagree with his views on race, this proves nothing? Funny how you have used this against Doug Phillips but now that your “friends” are threatened with exposure, you flip the tables and do the opposite.
I am requiring too much of people who say they love Dabney? That is hyperbole, right? You really don’t mean that, do you?
How about just ONE statement, Jen? Like Will Smith? If he can do it, can’t one of these lesser known men do it? How long would it take? I will take ONE definitive statement over 3 posts parading black people any day of the week. In the time it takes to expunge the internet of all traces of proof, one statement could be written about what one truly believes.
This is a red herring, Jen, if I have ever smelled it. That means that your stance IS illogical and you are using hyperbole in an illogical fashion to keep from actually answering my rational questions.
Did I ever say that all kinds of people should state on their blogs all kinds of things they are against? That is just…well….I can’t think of a nice word to describe that.
How about just ONE issue, the one that is facing us right now? I mean, if a person can talk about abortion, can’t they bring up their views on kinism, especially if it is looming huge over their church?
Is this too much to ask, Jen? Is this irrational? Illogical? Is this just me expecting too much out of people again?
Chad is writing a whole series on Dabney right now. Too bad we can’t read it and we can’t also read James’ own responses to his series. Indubitably my dear Degenhart, indeed.
December 30, 2007 at 11:39 pm
“Russell Eugene is 1 day old.His mother is 15….Leticia is a grandmother at 29.” Guess which ethnicity they are members of?”
Scots-Irish in the mountains of Appalachia?
December 30, 2007 at 11:43 pm
“Russell Eugene is 1 day old.His mother is 15….Leticia is a grandmother at 29.” Guess which ethnicity they are members of?”
Of course, they COULD be members of a cult which doesn’t believe in education for women, but instead arranges marriages for them by age 14 and encourages them to have lots of babies ASAP.
December 30, 2007 at 11:45 pm
In case anyone’s interested, I’ve decided to do a series of posts on racism on my blog. It will be mostly my hysterical, emotional thoughts on the topic, so be forewarned.
December 30, 2007 at 11:50 pm
Marcia,
I appreciate you helping me understand you. I am not afraid of confrontation and debate. I also have perceptions about things that I have read on other blogs and in books and I believe those are just as valid as your perceptions. It is just at the point that my perceptions intersect with your perceptions that it seems to be a problem.
To everyone else…..
Here is a quote that comes to mind when I think of kinism:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” ~~ Edmund Burke
If we do nothing about this and say nothing about this and if we do not stand up against oppression in any and all forms, then we are allowing evil to triumph. Just as we stand against abortion, we must stand against the principles of kinism. We must do our homework and realize how closely it reads like the pre-Nazi era where everyone was boiled in this thought. How did one very nutty “nobody” rise to such levels and take over so many people’s thoughts? It is because people shrugged this off as a minor or tiny movement.
I fight racism in my own life and in my own thoughts. The Bible does not promote a separate life based on the color of one’s skin or if one is a Jew or not. That is the biggest bunch of heretical nonsense.
It starts small and if it is not stopped it will grow big. Shall we not learn from history? Shall we just fluff off the lessons of history and think they can never happen again? How did it happen in Nazi Germany? How did so many Christians get taken unaware? Why did they sing louder so they couldn’t hear the crying and screaming as the trains bound for the concentration camps go by? Is that what some of us are doing? Are we plugging our ears and white-washing an insidious ideology? Do we have the attitude that “as long as it doesn’t affect us, we don’t care”?
I will not minimize racism and I will not make excuses for it and I will speak against it in definitive terms. I will not commit the logical fallacy of “you too” by pointing falsely at others while I compare their apples to my rotten oranges.
When a man of God will not even make a public definitive statement against such heresy, it should outrage us all. I can see it no other way. All the other stuff looks like excuses and ad hominem tu quoque and red herrings.
If there is nothing to hide, why are the links disappearing? Shouldn’t we expect more of our leaders? Shouldn’t they be setting the example of integrity and honesty? Does it pass the duck test?
December 30, 2007 at 11:53 pm
“In case anyone’s interested, I’ve decided to do a series of posts on racism on my blog. It will be mostly my hysterical, emotional thoughts on the topic, so be forewarned.”
Rebecca,
Thank you for warning us. You have the habit of being terribly irrational and illogical and I want to make sure I have my nit pik available for when I read your posts. Maybe a nice warm bath and a glass of wine before you write them would help to calm you down?
December 30, 2007 at 11:54 pm
“Russell Eugene is 1 day old.His mother is 15….Leticia is a grandmother at 29.” Guess which ethnicity they are members of?”
“Scots-Irish in the mountains of Appalachia?”
I guessed white from the backwoods of Tennessee because, in college, I met a guy matching that description whose mother was 14 when she had him. Her mother was 13 when she had her first baby. He said this was quite common where he grew up.
December 30, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Corrie, you’re right. I do need to calm down. But the warm bath and wine might make me too sleepy to write!
December 31, 2007 at 12:12 am
“When a man of God will not even make a public definitive statement against such heresy, it should outrage us all. I can see it no other way.”
As I see it, when a man of God “will not even make a public definitive statement against such heresy”, it means one of two things. Either he believes in the heresy himself, or he is a bit of a chicken…., or both.
December 31, 2007 at 12:14 am
Oops, I guess that would be THREE things. I are eggycated, yes I are…
December 31, 2007 at 12:28 am
“Of course, they COULD be members of a cult which doesn’t believe in education for women, but instead arranges marriages for them by age 14 and encourages them to have lots of babies ASAP.”
Perhaps they’re referring to that patriarchal (and all white) polygamous cult run by Warren Jeffs in Colorado City, Arizona. You know, the ones where girls don’t go to school and are married off to 70-something men.
December 31, 2007 at 12:33 am
This is a revised version of what I sent to some ladies here privately. The last several paragraphs are revised for those of you who already saw this personally, but this whole letter is to everyone here.
Dear Ladies,
I just finished reading a sermon from the book of James that talked about how Christians fight one another and it was very convicting. I have not at all enjoyed all the fighting of this past week, but was at a loss as to what to do about it. This sermon convicted me that fighting always stems from our own personal desires and selfishness, in some way, so I am looking into my own heart right now to see how selfish I have been in all of this.
I can see that right now one of my greatest personal desires, if not the greatest, is fellowship. I am so starved for fellowship that I grasp at any hand that is offered to me. I do have fellowship with Lynn and Corrie, and I so treasure it, but in real life, I am SO lonely, and so I try to make up for that in whatever little ways I can.
So, when I saw Chad being treated in a way that I did not deem fair, all I could see was that here was a family that was SO desperately lonely, just like me, that they were willing to make sacrifices in their own beliefs just to have the fellowship that they so intensely craved. I can’t have any real life fellowship right now, so I knew that I wanted to protect that right for Chad and his family with everything I had. There is nothing worse than being an outcast.
It appeared to some of you that I was sacrificing my friends for Chad, who was an acquaintance before I met any of you. I assure you that was not my intent. I wanted to appeal to my friends to accept my other friend. I wanted to say that we are ALL brothers and sisters in Christ. I wanted to stop the fighting.
But instead, it was because of me that it escalated, and for that I am very sorry.
James 1:15 says, “Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.”
I had a personal desire for fellowship. That desire grew and grew until it gave birth to the sin that I have caused great dissension among the body of Christ. Part of that dissension came in my trying to justify everything that was said against me. I realize that if I don’t take care of this sin, it will bring forth death — the death of the relationships I do have — and I don’t want that. I want to put an end to all this right now.
I’m not going to say anything about who was right or wrong in any of this. I’ll leave that up to God to decide, or our own consciences. I will take responsibility for what I can, however. If I have forgotten anything, please bring it to my attention.
In trying to protect Chad’s and my reputation online, I was not fully truthful in my answers about our relationship. Throughout much of the behind-scenes stuff regarding my story, I have been sworn to secrecy on so many areas. They are not sinful, just secretive. I have come to detest that and I hope all is made known someday. I apologize for not being as honest as I should have been. Will you please forgive me?
In trying to be as accurate as possible, however, I disagreed with Corrie online over whether James said something or not. Since I am the one who has a less than perfect memory, I shall say that Corrie must have a better memory than I do in this area. Corrie, I am sorry I argued with you about this, I’m sorry I argued about it online publicly, and I’m sorry I even made an issue over it. It was not important enough to argue over. Will you please forgive me?
I was tightly focused on this TW thread and in so doing, I missed opportunities to be friends to my true friends — Corrie and Lynn. Lynn stood up for me on several occasions and I did not properly acknowledge it. I’m sorry for taking you for granted, Lynn. Corrie was called a stalker by Marcia, and as her friend, I should have stood up for Corrie. I’m sorry for taking you for granted, Corrie. (I thought you were practicing getting a thicker skin — remember?
) Will you both forgive me?
Karen, I am sorry for escalating the situation with the newspaper reporter to a level that was totally unnecessary. I should have stated the facts once and left it at that. Better yet, you were very right; I should have just come to you in the first place. If something like this happens again, I shall remember to take my own advice and go straight to the source. Karen, will you please forgive me for not coming straight to you and for subsequently escalating the situation unnecessarily?
Cindy, I know you are really trying to help me. I do appreciate that. We have a unique bond that the others here don’t. I am sorry for calling you arrogant. That was totally unkind. I am sorry for refusing to deal with you any more on these issues. I should have patiently worked through them with you. Will you forgive me for brushing you off and responding unkindly?
To Karen, Corrie, Lynn, Rebecca, Lin, Cindy, Cynthia, Kate, Lindsey and anyone else who was offended: I am sorry for all the fighting, bickering, and less-than-kind replies and remarks I have made to each of you here. Will you please forgive me?
To all the ladies here, and especially Corrie, Lynn, Rebecca, Lin, Cindy, Cynthia, and Lindsey, with whom I interacted regarding kinism: I am sorry that I was not more forthright in expressing my own beliefs in this area. I realize that I only escalated this situation in the way that I handled it and that was wrong. I have caused unnecessary quarrels and fights among sisters in the body of Christ. Will you please forgive me.
To try to put an end to all the confusion I have caused, I will make a statement about what I believe regarding kinism. Although kinism consists of much more than just race-mixing, that was the subject of concern, so that is the subject I will address. Miscegenation (race-mixing) is NOT a sin according to Scripture; therefore it is NOT evil. To the extent that kinists (and others) use race-mixing to promote intolerance, prejudice, separation, hatred, an attitude of superiority of one race over another, or any other aspect of racism that might be found as a result of decrying miscegenation as sin, I am adamantly opposed to this sin of not loving your neighbor as yourself. The parable of the Good Samaritan would be a good one for us to use to see what Jesus had to say about separating the races.
Have I missed anything that I need to apologize for?
I hope I learned a big lesson from all of this — not to take my friends for granted, not to let personal desire for anything grow into sin, not to argue the small stuff, and not to cause dissension among the body of Christ in any way.
I do love you all.
December 31, 2007 at 12:41 am
“Perhaps they’re referring to that patriarchal (and all white) polygamous cult run by Warren Jeffs in Colorado City, Arizona. You know, the ones where girls don’t go to school and are married off to 70-something men.”
I read that book. The entire time I kept seeing parallels with Patriarchy and this brand of Mormonism. Do you think they know how much they are alike in their views of women?
One major reason I think Pat is much like Mormonism is because ‘roles’ are more important than the Gospel.
December 31, 2007 at 12:55 am
Jen, you haven’t stopped being a friend just because of all this. It is because I/we care about how you think, and also accuracy in reporting that we responded to you at all.
Thank you for your last post.
December 31, 2007 at 12:56 am
I read that book, too. Fundamental (polygamous) Mormonism, Islam, and patriarchy all share the same sinful paradigms. I find it disgusting that American patriarchalists treat their women the same way Islamic and FLDS Mormons treat their women – not permitting them to vote, drive, or get higher education, believing their subordination to male authority defines their very personhood – and the Christian community gives them a free pass because they claim to be Christian. I have heard the Christian patriarchalists actually praise the Islamic culture for knowing how to properly handle their womenfolk. I think the secular culture at large sees these parallels far more than the Christian community even does. That is why forums like this one are so essential.
December 31, 2007 at 12:56 am
Rebecca, try chamomile tea instead if you don’t want to get too sleepy.
December 31, 2007 at 12:58 am
Corrie was called a stalker by Marcia, and as her friend, I should have stood up for Corrie.
Heh. I think Corrie is capable of standing up for herself. : )
December 31, 2007 at 1:22 am
Jen,
PLEASE do not take this the wrong way. It is intended in love and truth. I never felt like I was ‘fighting’ with you. I pray I was contending for the Truth of the Scripture. We need Christian fellowship but NEVER at the cost of the Truth of the Word. Never. HE always gets first place. (As my daughter says, He is number one, then you mommy, are number 2…well, daddy is number, two, too…):o)
We can even disagree on secondary doctrines…I have comp friends…amill friends…but never on the essentials of which I believe Kinism goes against. In Christ we are neither slave nor free, male nor female, Jew nor Gentile. That is essential. The Body NEVER separates over race. The Body is ONE in Christ. His Bride. And HE WILL present a sanctified Bride to Himself.
Jen, there are some things worth dividing on. Not that one does not love that person but the divide is so great, it cannot be bridged because it is so essential to the Gospel.
You are NEVER alone. Jesus Christ will never leave you nor forsake you. In Him you find rest, peace and joy. Unfortuantly, mankind will always disappoint us. Jesus Christ never will.
Lin
December 31, 2007 at 1:24 am
Jen,
I have been reading here for a couple of days and though I have not commented, I have been thinking and praying about all that has transpired.
Your humility and grace have truly blessed me. I thank God for you.
Trish
December 31, 2007 at 1:26 am
Rebecca, Camo…I can’t even spell it …is for wusses. Sort of like what the Disney Princesses would drink. What you need is a sultry Cabernet. Mondavi is good and inexpensive. You probably need some sleep anyway.
)
(No Baptist jokes, please)
December 31, 2007 at 1:38 am
“I think the secular culture at large sees these parallels far more than the Christian community even does. That is why forums like this one are so essential.”
I agree about the secular culture, too. One thing that has bothered me to no end is how many ‘Christians’ are going along with calling Romney a Christian. He is not but I have been totally amazed at how mainstream the belief that Mormans are Christians by professing Christians! They do not know enough to understand the differences.
We had better define ourselves by the truth of Jesus Christ and not by roles or a check list of do’s and don’ts.
December 31, 2007 at 1:48 am
Off topic now, but someone, I believe it was ThatMom asked me the other day about the connection between Scottish heriatge and Kinism. Here is a somewhat lengthy article by Ed Sebesta which explains things reather well.
Please note the article by noted Kinist Michael Hill, “The real Symbolism of the St. Andrew’s Cross”.
This article was published on the Caledonian Fire website back before Mcdonald shut down his Patriarch’s Path website; interestingly, “The Caledonian Fire” was on the Patriarch’s Path listing of favorite links.
The Confederate Memorial Tartan:
Officially Approved by the Scottish Tartan Authority
By Edward H. Sebesta
Biographical Note: Edward H. Sebesta is an independent scholar researching the political and social applications of the historical memory of the Confederate States of America. This includes the modern Neo-Confederate movement and its predecessors. He supplies authors, journalists, students, and anti-racist organizations with research materials.
Contact Address: P.O. Box 383234, Duncanville, TX 75138, United States of America
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank Euan Hague for his generosity in the many hours he has given in helping me with this paper: proofreading; guidance in Scottish Studies; mailing overseas reference materials; and advice. Even more important has been his encouragement and moral support for me to write this paper.
I also wish to thank those who can not be named, but also made this paper possible.
Introduction
In the United States a neo-Confederate movement has arisen in the last twenty years. It has adopted theories in which they see themselves and Southerners as being “Celtic.” Part of this has been to adopt Scotland as the mother country and Scottish nationalism as their second nationalism. It identifies Scottish secession with Confederate secession and their current hopes for secession. The neo-Confederates are impacting upon Scottish culture, most notably in their proudest accomplishment, the Confederate Memorial Tartan. Books on Scottish culture also project Confederate identity into Scottish identity. They are strong supporters of the Scottish Nationalist Party.
What is the Neo-Confederate Movement?
Neo-Confederacy is a reactionary movement with an ideology against modernity conceiving its ideas and politics within a historical framework of the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865) and the history of the American South. This includes more than a states’ rights ideology in opposition to civil rights for African-Americans, other ethnic minorities, women and gays, though it certainly includes all these things. Opposition to civil rights is just a part of a world view desiring a hierarchical society, opposed to egalitarianism and modern democracy. Two articles in the Southern Partisan magazine are examples of these sentiments. One is by Tom Landess which condemns the Statue of Liberty for the ideas which it represents, such as the American idea of freedom and the story of immigration to America (Landess 1984). The other is by Robert Whitaker, who condemns as a sham to pander to Parisian liberals of the 18th century, the Declaration of Independence, known for the statement concerning the “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal (Whitaker 1983).
Essentially neo-Confederates believe that with the Civil War, 1861-1865, Abraham Lincoln was able to expand the power of the federal government beyond constitutional limits, and that with the defeat of the Confederacy the ideals of states’ rights were defeated. They believe that the Fourteenth Amendment to the American Constitution, extending citizenship to all persons in the United States, in particular African-Americans, guaranteeing due process for all citizens and penalizing states for disenfranchisement, was illegally adopted during Reconstruction (1865-1876). To the neo-Confederates these measures resulted in the growth of federal government into what they call a “Leviathan,” a monstrous beast.
The neo-Confederate historical world view encompasses all of American history, not just the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the South. The early founding era of the American Republic, the American Revolution (1763 -1783) until the Ratification of the American Constitution and adoption of the Bill of Rights (1791) in particular has a prominent place. Neo-Confederate writings on the subject work to define original intentions to justify both current political beliefs and the actions of their historical heroes, such as secession. In this historical view big government, racial
December 31, 2007 at 1:50 am
Ugh.. sorry about the typos. The brain-to-fingers connection is on the fritz tonight, it seems..
December 31, 2007 at 1:56 am
Whoops, it seems I didn’t copy all of it. Here’s the rest:
In this historical view big government, racial integration, especially landmark Supreme Court school desegregation decision Brown vs. Brown (1954), gay rights, civil rights, feminism, minorities, taxes, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, immigration, and other issues can be viewed as the result of the American Republic jumping the tracks during the Civil War and being out of control. The neo-Confederates seek to capitalize on discontent with these issues.
Since these issues are national, the movement is national, and neo-Confederate organizations are opening up chapters across the country. Since certain segments of the American public are highly discontented, the movement is growing rapidly. The League of the South starting from a small meeting in 1994 of around fifty people, has grown to 8,000 in 1999.
The neo-Confederates also focus on the usual historical questions, such as, “What caused the Civil War?” This serves to maintain the Confederate pantheon and the “Lost Cause” as supporting elements in their historical world view to justify their efforts.
Origins
The neo-Confederate movement sees as its progenitors the Southern Agrarians, (also known as the Nashville Agrarians.) Their foundation stone was the publication of the book, “I’ll Take My Stand,” 1930, in which the twelve contributors take their stand against modernity and what they saw as attacks on the South. Robert Penn Warren’s contribution was “The Briar Patch” an offensively racist defense of segregation (12 Southerners 1930). In Frank Owsley’s contribution, “The Irrepressible Conflict,” an apologetic for slavery writes (12 Southerners 1930, p.77), “For the negroes were cannibals and barbarians, and therefore dangerous.” The presence of Scotland in their thoughts is revealed in the following by John Crowe Ransom in his essay, “Reconstructed But Unregenerate,” (12 Southerners 1930, p.24) discussing the position of the South in the United States:
Its net result might be to give to the South eventually a position in the Union analogous more or less to the position of Scotland under the British Crown – a section with a very local and peculiar culture that would, nevertheless be secure and respected. And Southern traditionalists may take courage from the fact that is was Scottish stubbornness which obtained this position for Scotland; it did not come gratuitously; it was the consequence of an intense sectionalism that fought for a good many years before its fight was won.
The leading figures of the Southern Agrarians were frequent contributors to the American fascist publication American Review which folded in the late 1930s. A tradition of not very convincing apologetics has arisen over time to excuse this fascist period. Their publication, “I’ll Take My Stand,” was immediately rejected as reactionary and by those familiar with agriculture as impractical. However, it was taken up as a defense of the South by reactionary intellectuals to promote a theme of an Agrarian pre-modern South against an industrial modern North. From a Neo-Confederate viewpoint Mark Malvasi describes the Southern Agrarians as founders in his Ph.D. thesis, “Risen From the Bloody Sod: Recovering the Southern Tradition” (Malvasi 1991). It was republished as a book with the title, “The Unregenerate South,” by Louisiana State University (Malvasi 1997).
From the 1940s to the 1980s the neo-Confederates theorists were generally in retreat in positions in the universities and academic journals, primarily in the South. M.E. Bradford, late professor of English at the Catholic University of Dallas, edited and published with George Core, “The Southern Tradition At Bay,” (1968), a posthumous compilation of University of Chicago English professor Richard M. Weaver’s neo-Confederate writings. At the height of the American Civil Rights movement the title accurately described the fortunes of the neo-Confederates. Nevertheless they continued to write and be active.
In the late 1970s the Neo-Confederate movement begins to come to life. In 1979, Southern Partisan is first published with the lead article by John Shelton Reed a famous writer on the South. One Southern Agrarian, Andrew Nelson Lytle, ended up on the masthead of the Southern Partisan.
In the 1980s, as it has continued to be, the Southern Partisan was the primary vehicle for the dissemination of neo-Confederate thinking. It is directed by Richard Quinn a political consultant for Republican candidates such as Ronald Reagan and Strom Thurmond. Neo-Confederate professors and Reagan administration officials appear in the pages of the Southern Partisan. By 1999 an impressive list of prominent Republican Federal elected officials will have appeared in its pages: U.S. Representative Dick Armey; U.S. Senator, then Rep. Phil Gramm; U.S. Senator Jesse Helms; U.S. Senator John Ashcroft; and U.S. Senator Thad Cochrane and others. Also, an impressive list of Conservative leaders have been interviewed, from anti-feminist Phyllis Schalfy to televangelist and religious right leader Pat Robertson.
The Citizens Councils of America were the leading organization against civil rights legislation in American in the 1950s and 60s, popularly known as the White Citizens Councils or the Uptown Klan. A later day successor organization to the old Citizens Councils of America, is the Council of Conservative Citizens that was organized in the late 1970s. The Council of Conservative Citizens is steadily growing.
The 1980s and the 1990s would see two changes which would cause the neo-Confederate movement to surge with growth, moribund organizations expand, and new organizations to be created. One was the challenge by African-Americans and others to the Confederacy being the civil religion of the former major slave states and the reaction against their efforts. The other change was the break up of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Communist governments in Eastern Europe. This was a theme that has been brought up repeatedly by neo-Confederates. A tremendous world power, with armies, secret police, regular police, and all the institutions of politics and industry, disintegrates without any battles or assaults. This gave the neo-Confederates the idea that secession of the South could be done. Also the growing strength of secession in Quebec and Scotland has also given them hope.
Neo-Confederate Organizations
The League of the South, a group seeking “Southern Independence by all honorable means” started in 1994 with four founding directors, Thomas Fleming, Grady McWhiney, Rev. Steve Wilkins, Clyde N. Wilson and founding president J. Michael Hill. Other more minor groups also have come into existence. The League and the Council of Conservative Citizens are the two major organizations which their own publications, videos, and books. They have memberships of 8,000 and 10,000 respectively. The major publications are Southern Partisan and Chronicles, the latter magazine in its advertisements in the Southern Patriot boasts that all Chronicles editors are members of the League of the South. The Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian organization in Auburn, Alabama, promotes the idea of Southern secession and its officers are members of the League of the South. During the 1980s and continuing to the present, the neo-Confederate movement broadens the Lost Cause into a position on a range of issues, until a full reactionary agenda is derived from the Confederacy.
The neo-Confederate movement is not monolithic, having different emphases. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) focuses on race, African-Americans, Hispanics, and others with a program against immigration and civil rights. The League of the South has a similar position, but avoids the notorious and explicit racist language of the CofCC. The League of the South also supports a wider “culture war” program and supports secession. The CofCC is against secession, feeling that it is not viable, and perhaps might result with an African-American dominated South. Chronicles and Southern Partisan have writers from both groups, so the two groups are not separate.
Neo-Confederates are not isolated in these organizations, but are widely dispersed in conservative organizations. The Conservative Book Club, with an editor that is a League of the South member, recommends in the Dec. 1998 catalog, a book, “Was Jefferson Davis Right?,” which asserts that the American Pledge of Allegiance is the propaganda of a socialist plot. This is the leading American conservative book club with full page advertisements in almost all the conservative publications in America. This is just one example of the neo-Confederate penetration of the wider U.S. conservative movement.
The Confederate Celt
Grady McWhiney, founding director of the League of the South, popularized the concept of the Southerner being a Celt, after previous journal articles and conferences, in his book, co-authored with Perry D. Jamieson, titled, “Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage,” (Jamieson and McWhiney, 1982). “Attack and Die” was reviewed by Rod Gragg, (Gragg 1983, Southern Partisan, p.38). He summarizes the theme of this book as follows:
The Southerners insisted on offensive tactics, the authors suggest, because the South traced its lineage to the ancient Celts, who loved combat and always fought aggressively. The Civil War, the authors claim was really a war between the Celts – represented by the South – and the English – represented by the North. “Southerners lost the Civil War because they were too Celtic,” the authors believe, “and their opponents were too English.”
Also, noted by Gragg, “conventional historians were not likely to accept this theory.”
McWhiney expanded his Celtic ideas in his next book, “Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South,” (McWhiney 1988). The forward to this book is written by Forrest McDonald, former Southern Partisan contributor. In this book McWhiney asserts that the culture of the white American South is a Celtic culture. This book is reviewed in the Nov. 1988 issue of Chronicles, by Clyde Wilson, another future founding director of the League of the South (Wilson 1988). Chronicles Chief Editor then and now is Thomas Fleming another founding director of the League of the South.
The first third of Wilson’s review discusses the meaning of the Civil War before mentioning McWhiney. From Wilson’s review are the following ideas.
1. Poor white subsistence farmers in the South, which McWhiney calls “Crackers,” are an ethnic Celtic group in America.
2. The Civil War was “the largest ethnic rift in American history.” Celts versus English Puritans.
3. The Southerner and Celt have a common culture of honor, unindustriousness, and willingness to fight.
Wilson summarizes, “McWhiney believes the distinctiveness of the South is in its redneckery, so to speak, and he gives that phenomenon historical depth by examination of similarities and continuities ranging over many centuries of Celtic Britain and the American South …” (Wilson 1988, Chronicles, p. 24).
Wilson does bring up the older standard ethnic self-concept of the South, that is that they are descended from the southern English and cavaliers. This identity of the South as a region of Anglo-Saxon purity had been strongly believed in for generations, now it was suddenly and rapidly being erased from Neo-Confederate thought. Wilson, however argues for some inclusion of it. This is last argument for an “English” south that I know of in the entire neo-Confederate literature. Even the title “Cracker & Roundheads” is a play on the classic Southern theme “Cavalier and Roundhead,” a theme which this article would eclipse.
Chronicles magazine, in the March 1989 issue, has an article by Grady McWhiney titled, “The Celtic Heritage of the Old South” (McWhiney 1989). The article is introduced with a drawing of a man somewhat horizontal, pouring what I assume is beer into his mouth with some of it running down his face onto the ground. He is in a field with a couple cows looking on. McWhiney starts his article by stating his view that Southerner and Northerners are culturally divided and “such cultural disharmony has divided the South from the North for more than three hundred years.” McWhiney believes the South was settled by various Celtic groups and the North from the English lowlands resulting in “fundamental and lasting divisions” and eventually, he explains, the American Civil War (McWhiney 1989, Chronicles, p. 12) .
McWhiney explains what Celtic culture is by contrasting it to what he feels is English culture. Often he contrasts two paired groups, that of Celts and Southerners versus that of English and Yankees (McWhiney 1989, Chronicles, p. 13).
Unlike Yankees and Englishmen, who were compulsive plowers and often obsessed with agricultural improvements, Celts and Southerners, cultivated crops reluctantly and haphazardly.
Celts and Southerners, whose values were more agrarian than those of Englishmen and Yankees, wasted more time, rarely read or wrote, consumed more liquor and tobacco, and were less concerned with the useful and material.
McWhiney characterizes Celts and Southerners as a pastoral group that likes gambling, drinking, “raucous music,” dancing, hunting, fishing, horse and dog racing. The Celts and Southerners lack ambition, are lazy, and avoid work because they are not materialistic. If these qualities do not sound good, McWhiney becomes a multiculturalist and says they are good in the values of Celtic civilization. The English and Yankees are repeatedly described as censorious and intolerant of Celtic culture. However, McWhiney wishes the reader to know that “when outsiders supply the discipline and constancy, Celts are capable of mighty achievements as British history has shown” (McWhiney 1989, Chronicles, p. 15) With friends like this, who needs enemies?
Grady McWhiney’s next step in the popularization of his Celtic theories was with the publishing of the “Encyclopedia of Southern Culture” edited by Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris. Southern studies scholars considered it a monumental work, a landmark, and a major reference in Southern studies. It was reviewed in many newspapers. In the chapter on “Ethnic Life,” McWhiney provides the entries for “Irish,” “Scotch-Irish,” and “Scots, Highland,” (McWhiney 1989) The entries contain elements of his theories, though not in an obvious way to a person unfamiliar with his Celtic writings. McWhiney’s Celtic ideas were no secret, but despite this the editors chose McWhiney and he and his theories are made authoritative, instead of being the fringe views of neo-Confederates.
The Southern Partisan also promotes McWhiney’s Confederate Celt with David R. Wade review, “Cracker Culture” (Wade 1991). Wade we are told, is a “Southern Illinois Copperhead.,” and he clearly approves of McWhiney’s thesis.
The Rise of the Confederate Celtic Identity
Rising Secessionist Hopes
With the fall of the Soviet Union, secessionist movements seemed to be thriving all over the world. The rise of the Quebec, Scottish, and Northern Italian secessionist movements excited the imagination of the neo-Confederates. Quebec separatists only lost an independence referendum by a few percent. Political observers noticed that English speakers, especially racial minorities, had started to leave Quebec and that in a revote in a few years the secessionists were likely to win. The League of the South studied Norwegian secession and published an analysis in the Southern Patriot (Kibler 1996). Thomas Fleming repeatedly has reported in Chronicles magazine his visits to the secessionist Northern League in Italy. Their initial success in getting massive popular interest, inspired Fleming to propose a “Southern League,” the former name of the League of the South. Fleming declares the Northern Italians to be Celts, in an article that is reprinted from the Southern Patriot, the official publication of the League of the South (Fleming 1996, 1997a). The Scottish movement was also increased in strength and the Scottish parliament was revived after almost 300 years. Suddenly the slogan, “The South Shall Rise Again” no longer seemed to be a romantic expression, but entered the realm of possibility in the minds of many neo-Confederates.
Devolution
The Neo-Confederates were not slow to pick up the idea of devolution. A collection of essays on the Southern Agrarians, the book, “A Band of Prophets: The Vanderbilt Agrarians After Fifty Years,” was published in 1982. One essay in this collection is “For Dixieland: The Sectionalism of I’ll Take My Stand” (Reed 1982) In this essay Reed gives the racist and reactionary Southern Agrarians a 20th century third world revolutionary gloss.
In it Reed writes that Southern Agrarian Allen Tate’s ideas “would now be called the ‘Yugoslavian’ model” (Reed 1982, p. 49). The Agrarians and Scottish nationalists are compared and devolution is brought up as follows:
But like the Scottish Nationalists, some of the Agrarians came to believe that toleration was not sufficient. Both Davidson (in Who Owns America?) and Owsley (in that essay approved by “quite a number of the others) called for what the British now call “devolution” – “a new constitutional deal,” in Owsley’s words, that would put most of the domestic functions of government in the hands of the regions.
Reed actually states the follows (Reed 1982, p. 51):
So what? What profit is there in putting Ransom, Davidson, and the others in a category that included Herder, Mazini, and Ataturk; Kenyatta and Lvesque; Ho Chi Minh and Gandhi? (Never mind that Gandhi shared Andrew Lytle’s enthusiasm for spinning wheels.)
Reed after posing this question then goes on to prove to his satisfaction that they all do belong together. The fact that Random, Davidson, Owsley, and Lytle all contributed frequently to the notorious fascist magazine American Review is not discussed or mentioned by Reed. It is interesting to think of what Kenyatta and the others would have thought on reading the following by Davidson in his essay “Still Rebels, Still Yankees” from his devolutionist book, “The Attack on the Leviathan: Regionalism and Nationalism in the United States” (Davidson 1931, p.142):
Lynchings, the work of hot-heads and roustabouts, were regrettable; but what did a few lynchings count in the balance against the continual forbearance and solicitude that the Georgian felt he exercised toward these amicable children of cannibals, whose skins by no conceivable act of Congress or educational programs could be changed from black to white. [Emphasis mine.]
Davidson renewed the copyright for “I’ll Take My Stand” in 1958 (12 Southerners 1930, copyright page) while directing the Tennessee Federation for Constitutional Government, a group he founded on states’ rights principles to fight civil rights and preserve segregation (Malvasi 1997). More recently other Neo-Confederates in national publications have jumped on the idea of devolution and have grouped Neo-Confederate secessionism and states rights in with other secessionist and devolutionist groups around the world.
Thomas Fleming had a cover article in National Review, the leading conservative magazine in the United States, with the cover lead in, “Secession – Coming to a Town Near You,” and titled “America’s Crackup.” (Fleming 1997c, National Review, p. 48). Various secessionist movements across the United States are discussed to give the impression this is not a sectional phenomenon and not exclusively Neo-Confederate. However, the other movements with the exception of the Republic of Texas which is not mentioned, are little more than a few individuals and an Internet webpage. Fleming compares these secessionist movements to other secessionists outside the United States. Fleming asserts there is some fraternal feeling between these secessionist movements and the League of the South as follows (Fleming 1997c, National Review, p.64):
But Dixienet is the most attractive stops on the information highway, and “rebmaster” George Kalas is swamped with messages of congratulation from all over the world, particularly from regions with their own independence movements – Scotland, Italy, and Quebec.
However, Fleming’s opinions might make the reader think more of the Bosnian model of devolution when later in the same article he states (Fleming 1997c, National Review, p.64): :
In any major city, the peace is disturbed by Latino, black, and Asian nationalist gangs, which is some cases are only the shock troops of ethnic movements seeking the racial dismemberment of the United States.
Donald Livingston, League of the South theorist on secession, professor of philosophy at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, writes on secession for neo-Confederate publications. The University of Chicago has published his book, “Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium: Hume’s Pathology of Philosophy,” in 1998 which explains his secessionist theories (Livingston 1998). Also, in 1998, Society, a periodical of Transaction Publishers at Rutgers University published an 8,000 word article by Livingston on secession and devolution explaining many ideas from his book (Livingston 1998). The article contains many classic Lost Cause justifications for the Confederacy which is unsurprising as Transaction Publishers is a leading publisher of Neo-Confederate books. Finally the Texas Law Review incredibly published a nearly 10,000 word neo-Confederate essay in 1999 by League of the South member Marshall L. DeRosa (DeRosa 1999). The ideas of Livingston are extensively mentioned in the essay.
These Neo-Confederate appropriations of the European theories of devolution demands a review of what roughly similar ideas have meant in the United States.
In the United States, “devolution” was not a political term until recently. The anti-national government concept was “states’ rights” and in Lost Cause mythology is given as the justification for the secession of eleven slave states. The advocacy of states’ rights has always been seen as a restoration of the Constitution, as they see it was in the past, usually prior to the American Civil War.
States’ rights has been invoked by various movements briefly from abolitionists in Wisconsin before the Civil War to anti-Prohibitionists in the early 20th century (Prohibitionists advocated making alcohol illegal.) However, primarily and overwhelmingly, States’ Rights in the United States has been invoked in the support of white supremacy in the former major slave states in opposition to all legislation that might undermine or oppose it. States’ Rights was given as a rationale to oppose the ratification of the 13th amendment to the American constitution abolishing slavery (Nation, August 5, 1865, p. 133). Opposition to the proposed Dyer anti-lynching legislation in 1922 was based on supposed dangers of centralization that it would bring. States’ rights was the theme of the 1948 Dixiecrats in revolt from the Democratic party over civil rights. Endless other examples could be noted.
A comparison of the United States of America and Europe on the issues of political centralization and decentralization should be written, but it is beyond the scope of this paper.
Braveheart and Rob Roy
Into this juncture of secessionist hopes and growing popularity of Celtic identity theories with neo-Confederates came the movies Braveheart and Rob Roy, both released in 1995. These two movies were enthusiastically viewed by Neo-Confederates and reviewed by the neo-Confederate press. Movie reviews in the neo-Confederate press explain Braveheart and Rob Roy in a Confederate context and their meaning for the neo-Confederate movement.
Inspired by these movies, the theories of Grady McWhiney swept over the neo-Confederate movement. Scottish nationalism became the second nationalism of the Confederate nationalists. It results in a Confederate Celtic cultural programs run by neo-Confederate organizations and a world view in which ideas and events are explained in reference to Confederate Celtic theories. An example is the conceptualization of Northern Italians as being Celts by Thomas Fleming as mentioned previously.
This movement results in a League of the South Celtic Conference in 1996, see below, and a Confederate Tartan being designed in 1995 that was later approved by the Scottish Tartan Authority. This tartan is eventually sold in neo-Confederate publications and on the Internet.
Mary Alice Cook reviews Rob Roy in the Southern Partisan in an article titled “The Scottish-Southern Connection: Part I.” Cook first explains her Celtic roots, then gives some historical background on the conflict that is the basis of the movie. The review primarily draws parallels between Rob Roy’s struggle and the Confederacy. Early in the article Cook writes (Cook 1995, Southern Partisan, p.42):
The Highlanders generally accepted a king in common with the Lowlanders, but did not feel bound to him by feudal ties as did the people of the South. The connection to the attitudes of the people of the American South to central government is obvious. In so far as the “rulers” recognize and respect the limits of government, those in authority can be tolerated. But when the boundary is crossed, as it was in the United States in 1861, a spirited and freedom loving people will rebel.
For Cook, Rob Roy’s wife Mary’s ability to withstand suffering, “calls to mind the stories with which we are all familiar of the great sacrifices made by women of the South for the protection and aid of the fighting men.” Cook feels that the description of Rob Roy’s character is “wonderful” and “could fit any number of American Southerners at any time in our history,” and says “I feel compelled to name them.” So she does name a series of Confederate heroes from General Nathan Bedford Forrest, the first Imperial Wizard, the head of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction, to Gen. Robert E. Lee, head of the Confederate armies (Cook 1995, Southern Partisan, p.43).
Finally Cook compares the Scottish Highlands to the Appalachian mountains in the American South. This is somewhat strange, since Appalachian residents in the South during the Civil War are known to have been strongly against secession and the lowland slave-owning interests. They did rebel against the Confederacy with a history of successes such as West Virginia being separated from Virginia and being persecuted and the victim of massacres elsewhere. The fact that this rebellion of the Appalachians against the lowland Confederates might be the more obvious analogy to Rob Roy does not occur to Cook. About half as many Southerners fought against the Confederacy as those who fought for the Confederacy. Many Southern unionists came from the Appalachian mountains and other areas in the South where there was subsistence farming and little or no slavery. The other article, “Scottish-Southern Connection: II” describes article’s author Steve Du Roches’ visit to a placed called the Grand Ole Opry in Glasgow, Scotland.
Braveheart is the film that has been the central focus of the Neo-Confederates. It also has had an impact on the general American public. J. Michael Hill, president of the League of the South, professor at a historically African-American Stillman college in Alabama, has a review of Braveheart in the November 1995 issue of Chronicles. (Hill J M 1995b). The issue’s cover theme was “Free-Minded Scots” with a large tree growing out of a map of Scotland with a banner with the word “liberty” in its boughs. In the background is a red shield bordered with Celtic intertwinings. J. Michael Hill has published two books on Scottish history, “Celtic Warfare,” J. Donald Press, Edinburgh (Hill J M 1986), and “Fire & Sword: Sorley Boy MacDonnell and the Rise of Clan Ian Mor, 1538-90,” (Hill J M 1993) Aegis Press, Fort Worth, Texas. Hill runs a mail order store for Scottish books, Dalriada Books.
Hill’s review is titled “Angry White Males.” This title is not a satiric disparagement of the movie. His opening sentence is (Hill J M 1995b, Chronicles, p.45):
In recent films, “angry white males” are generally portrayed as psychopaths, therefore, almost astonishing that even a good conservative like Mel Gibson should have chosen to make a movie on the life of William Wallace.”
To Hill, Wallace is a hero because he “displayed all the characteristics deplored by our prevailing anti-European, anti-heterosexual male culture.” The movie was criticized in New York, Hill believes, “because it appeals to all the things that New York despises, namely, Christian devotion, populism, patriotism, home rule, self-defense, well defined sex roles, traditional morality, and self-sacrifice for a noble cause.” All this is in the first half of the first paragraph of the review (Hill J M 1995b, Chronicles, p.45) . Hill recommends the movie as follows (Hill J M 1995b, Chronicles, p.46):
Apart from a few bits of gratuitous sex the film seems aimed at Chronicles readers. The men are men, the women are women, and the in-between are portrayed as silly and incompetent.
Then finally Hill describes the story of William Wallace. Edward the II is compared to Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant. The concluding paragraph draws Confederate parallels.
Celtic peoples whether in 13th Century Scotland or in the 19th Century American South have been targets for subjugation and extermination..
Wallace’s army is compared to the Confederate army. Hill draws an Anti-Civil Rights lesson about independent Scots from Braveheart, “And perhaps this legacy is why Celts have refused to present themselves as government-protected group ‘victim’ group,” (Hill J M 1995b, Chronicles, p.45).
The Scottish Issue of Chronicles Further Reviewed
Besides Hill’s review of Braveheart, the entire Nov. 1995 issue of Chronicles bears a short review. Douglas Young, Scottish National Party (SNP) official during World War II, taught both Fleming and E. Christian Kopff their Ph.D.’s. E. Christian Kopff has also been a contributor to Southern Partisan. In this issue Fleming has an article titled, “The Winter of Scottish Discontent” which starts at a Highland festival in Rockford, Illinois, and ends up in a visit to Scotland, including SNP offices, and complaints about American cultural influences there. It is a wandering essay of his thoughts on Scotland from history to whiskey (Fleming 1995).
The E. Christian Kopff article, “A Free-Minded Scot” is a biography of Douglas Young focusing on his efforts to undermine the British war effort against the Nazis. Young is portrayed as a hero for his efforts (Kopff 1995).
League of the South President J. Michael Hill has an article, “Scots Nationalism, Yesterday and Today.” The article interweaves neo-Confederate ideology with the history of the union of the Scottish and English parliaments, bringing up Richard M. Weaver, and includes statements such as “…, could not survive without the means to defend itself from the alien ideologies of the 18th-century version of the New World Order,” (Hill J M 1995a, Chronicles, p. 18). League of the South lecturer, Don Livingston has an article on “Dave Hume and American Liberty.” Jeremy Black, has an article on “Contingency and Chance in Scottish Culture,” G. Douglas Nicoll, author of “To the Immortal Memory,” a history of the Burns Club in Rockford, Illinois writes on the “Caledonians of the Heartland,” the “Heartland” being a term for the American Midwest. Marian Kester Coombs, in “Mad Scots and Indians” compares the Scots to Native Americans and concludes her article with (Coombs 1995, Chronicles, p. 48):
We are all, German, Brit, Scot, and Lakota alike, the pitiable relicts of free ancestors. And their final round for the One World Reservation, we are all redskins now.”
Buaidh! – The League of the South Adopts Scottish Nationalism
In the July – August 1997 issue of the Southern Patriot, the official publication of the League of the South, J. Michael Hill, thanks the members attending the Fourth Annual Conference in Biloxi for their support. He also thanks the attendees for “your exuberant cheers of ‘Buaidh! Buaidh!’ at the conference’s end.” A footnote informs the reader that “Buaidh!” is pronounced “BOO-ay and is the Gaelic word for victory” (Hill J M 1997a Southern Partisan, p. 26). The League of the South by now had convinced their members that the neo-Confederate movement was a Celtic movement.
The League of the South started in 1994. Early in its history it would start to promote the idea of the Celtic Southerners in its publication. In the Southern Patriot is a short unsigned editorial on the movie Braveheart staring, “The Southern League highly recommends Mel Gibson’s movie ‘Braveheart’” and ends the article with, “Unreconstructed Southerners will find it difficult to miss the parallels between the Scot and our Confederate forebears,” (Southern Patriot, May-June 1995, p. 18). After this, occasional articles would make occasional references to Celtic or “Anglo-Celtic” ideas concerning the South.
In 1996 the Celtic theories receive heavy emphasis in the Southern Patriot. In the March-April 1996 issue, J. Michael Hill (1996a)discusses a strategy to draw in the supporters of Pat Buchanan into the League of the South. The strategy is stated in terms of neo-Confederate Celtic theories. Hill (1996a p.10) writes, “Key to our success will be the regeneration of Anglo-Celtic cultural solidarity in the South.” Hill claims, “Many of the Founding Fathers and our Confederate forebears were of Anglo-Celtic origin, …” and sees their ideas under attack from multiculturalism. The idea of the Founding Fathers being Celtic is repeated in Trent Lott’s Tartan Day resolution in the United States Senate. Hill believes there needs to be a program to teach American Southerners their Celtic past of “our Anglo-Celtic cousins.” Additionally he wishes to teach Southerners, “the striking parallels between Southern Nationalism in the 19th century and Scottish Nationalism in the 13th and 14th,…” Hill continues in the article to pair what he sees as historical parallels: the Highland Clearances and Reconstruction; “War for Southern Independence” and “the 18th century Scottish Jacobite uprisings” as Hill states it. Hill concludes his article, that unless Southerners learn this Celtic history they will be unable “to counter a mounting campaign of cultural genocide” (Hill J M 1996b, Southern Patriot, p. 10).
In the article Hill announces the first Southern Celtic Conference, April 6, 1996 in Biloxi, Mississippi where he will be speaking. The Conference is later released as a set of tapes. The lectures are: “The ‘Anglo-Celts’ – The Celtic Foundation of Southern Culture by Barry Reid McCain; “The Southern Celtic Contribution to the Church/State Debate” by Rev. Eugene C. Case; “The Highland Clearances & Southern Reconstruction” by Dr. J. Michael Hill; “An ‘Anglo-Celtic’ Cultural Renaissance” by Dr. J. Michael Hill; “Saving the South,” by Dr. Grady McWhiney; and “Scots and Southerners” Two Captive Nations” by Dr. Thomas Fleming.
McCain’s speech is reprinted in the Sept.-Oct. Southern Patriot (McCain 1996). McCain is a member of the Mississippi League of the South board, and is also president and founder of Trans-Alba. We are told he travels extensively in the Celtic fringe and speaks Gaelic. This four page article starts with the Celtic settlement of the South and the South as having a Celtic culture. The article ends however on how he sees this identity being persecuted by “The coalition (the usual suspects: various Leftists, Europhobic academics, Feminists, the media, etc.) aggressively works to deconstruct the ethnicity of the indigenous Southerner.” to force Southerners to become “cogs in a multi-cultural, nihilistic ‘global village’,..” (McCain 1996, Southern Patriot, p.37).
In the same issue J. Michael Hill has an editorial against immigration which he states in terms of defense of “Anglo-Celts” and concludes with his goal of ethnic supremacy in the South as shown in the following quotes (Hill J M 1996b, Southern Patriot, p. 34):
Instead, the present day South is the remnant of a nation built on the realities of place and kin that we must revitalise to the best of our abilities. At its core is a European population, especially Anglo-Celts that must be preserved as the dominant majority.
It is past time that we can turn a deaf ear to these bogus charges and set about undermining any attempts to reconstruct a modern Tower of Babel on the rubble of our ancient Anglo-Celtic civilisation. [Hill is referring to charges of racism.]
The Southern league envisions a South where our borders are sealed against massive Third World immigration; a South where the interests of the core population of Anglo-Celts is protected from the ravages of so-called multi-culturalism and diversity.
The theme of the persecuted Southerner is repeated endlessly in neo-Confederate writing.
When Scotland voted for a parliament, the Southern Patriot had an unsigned short one-column article with an illustration of the Charleston Mercury newspaper of 1861 with the infamous headline, “The Union Is Dissolved.” The Scottish referendum vote directly goes to the question of Southern secession. The first sentence is devoted to the vote. The second sentence states that the vote is 290 years after the Act of Union. The third and fourth sentences compares the population and area of Scotland and Tennessee. The rest of the article discusses the possibility of Southern secession with the statement, “If the Scot can do it, why cant we.?” (Southern Patriot, Sept.-Oct. 1997 p.10). [Note: The League of the South has adopted its own spelling rules. Can't is spelled cant. It is not an error in quotation.]
The progress of the Scottish National Party is followed in the Southern Patriot in the May – June 1998 issue. In the same issue there is a call published for an international conference of secessionists and similar groups in Italy 1999. Among the several proposed groups to be invited is the SNP. Scotland and the SNP fill the thoughts of the League of the South. There is not any evidence that the SNP has reciprocated that has come to my attention. However, the SNP has not made any clear statement rejecting the Neo-Confederates either.
In summary the neo-Confederates have come to think of Scottish history as their history and their concept of Celtic identity infuses every aspect of their own identity as Confederates. Even in so-called more mainstream groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) the Celtic identity theories are finding their way. The SCV offers a Scottish Dirk as a fund-raiser. It will be given to “a proud new owner during the awards and banquet ball at our next SCV national convention in Mobile, Alabama” (Confederate Veteran, Vol. 1 1999, p. 3)
The Cross of St. Andrew
The Confederate Battle flag has a blue “X” on a red background. The “X” is the same shape as the “X” in the Scottish flag. The Confederate Battle flag pattern is on the second and third National Confederate flag as a canton in the upper left hand corner. One of the beliefs of the neo-Confederate movement is that the American Civil war was a theological conflict between an Orthodox Christian Confederacy and what they feel is a godless North. Neo-Confederates argue that the Confederate flag is a Christian symbol of the Christian South.
The most famous expression of this belief was during a controversy in 1996 in South Carolina. Gov. Beasley had decided to attempt to remove the Confederate Battle flag from the State Capitol Dome and transfer it somewhere else. The neo-Confederates lead a furious opposition. During this some Christian ministers in South Carolina released a paper titled, “The Moral Defense of the Confederate Flag: A Special Message for Southern Christians” prepared by “15 Ministers” which received wide publicity there and later was reprinted in the Southern Partisan (15 Ministers 1996). The introduction of this address informs the reader that the article is modeled on an April 1863 address by Confederate ministers then in an address titled, “An Address to Christians Throughout the World.” The 1996 address expresses the idea of an Orthodox Christian South and the American Civil War being a theological conflict.
One section is titled, ‘The St. Andrew’s Cross.” It opens with, “It is important to emphasize that the Confederate flag itself is a Christian symbol.” (15 Ministers 1996, Southern Partisan, p. 17). The section goes on to explain that the Confederate flag is based on the Cross of St. Andrew. The next section is titled, “Confederate Flags as Christian Symbols,” with a section following titled, “The Theology of the Flag.” This belief about the Cross of St. Andrew and the Confederate flag is not specific to this one neo-Confederate group, but has been mentioned in other publications.
Violence
One disturbing aspect of the Neo-Confederate movement’s adoption of Celtic identity theories is the belief by Neo-Confederates that a Celtic heritage is a violent heritage.
In Chronicles, Aug. 1997, J. Michael Hill, president of the League of the South has an article titled, “Honor, Violence, and Civilization.” It starts with a discussion of a sociological study which claimed that Southern white males were more prone to violence and had testosterone surges when they were aggressive. Hill is pleased with this image, and Hill quotes someone else that southern “men still had their anatomy intact after several decades of government-imposed feminization” (Hill J M 1997b, Chronicles, p. 17). This leads to Hill quoting the Celtic theories of Grady McWhiney, another founding director of the League of the South. After this, Hill follows with a long string of people Southern or Scottish who have had martial or bloody histories, ending with traditional American frontier hero David Bowie and his bloody brawls. The article concludes with Hill’s hope that this tradition will continue or otherwise, “with the South will go the last remnant of a vigorous, self-confident, and manly Western civilization,” (Hill J M 1997b, Chronicles, p. 19).
It if is not clear what this all means, the Jan. 1998 issue of Chronicles, makes it absolutely clear. The cover theme is “Private Justice, Blood Feuds, Armed Citizens, Private Armies, and Direct Action Against Bullies, Child Molesters, and Other Creeps.” If you are wondering what “direct action” means, it does not mean picketing. It means direct violent attacks on someone they feel deserves it. Most people would call it lynch law.
J. Michael Hill’s, article, “Celtic Justice,” is a long article in which Hill describes his ideas of what Celtic justice is (Hill J M 1998). In his discussion of the 1997 summer peace talks in Northern Ireland, Scottish clans and the Irish Republican army are compared as follows:
“Justice administered by private associations, whether a medieval Scottish clan or the Irish Republican Army, is along standing tradition in the Celtic world,” (Hill J M 1998, Chronicles, p. 13). The article then ranges over the centuries from the 11th to more modern times as a prolog to his discussion of the Irish Republican Army and their history for the purpose as Hill says, “To understand how the Celtic idea of private justice has evolved up to the current century …” , (Hill J M 1998, Chronicles, p. 13). One interesting passage is as follows (Hill J M 1998, Chronicles, p. 15):
Alasdair MacColla, the champion of the Clan Donald during the Royalist-Covanter war in Scotland in the 1640s, was known by the rival Clan Campbell as fear thollaidh nan tighean — the destroyer of houses. His Royalist campaigns against the hated Campbells of Argyll in 1644-45 exhibited a fierceness unknown under the restrictions of the common blood feud. To use the words of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest, it was “war to the knife, and the knife to the hilt.”
Clan or Klan, evidently to Hill they are the same. Finally Hill concludes this article about Celtic justice with his view of America’s future (Hill J M 1998, Chronicles, p. 15):
:
But Ulster could be a harbinger of things to come. As Western civilization crumbles around us, one can only wonder when that day will come again and how modern Americans will handle the messy business of administering their own justice.
Thomas Fleming, founding director of the League of the South, and editor of Chronicles, and president of the Rockford Institute, makes it even more clear in an article by him titled, “Playing God, or Being Men.?” (Fleming 1998) It starts out with neighborhood group picketing convicted child molesters in their neighborhood upon their release from authorities and a long denunciation of the criminal justice system. After stating that “civilization is in collapse” it concludes with a case in Northern California where a mother walked into a court room and shot a man being tried for child molestation. The concluding last two sentences (Fleming 1998, Chronicles, p. 12).
She was taking the law back into her own hands, picking up the sword of justice which the state had cast aside. As Ellie Nessler said in her statement: “I had played God … but I don’t think I’ll lose any sleep over it.”
Sexual transgression as the justification for vigilante violence, instead of referring to the courts for punishment, has an old history in the South. Except here it should be seen that there will be a new class of targets of justified for vigilante violence; instead of the old standby of African-American men accused of being rapists. However, the League of the South has a article by nationally syndicated columnist Charlie Reese, a member, on their webpage titled, “Race War Will Continue Until We Can Talk About It Honestly” with a leading topic of blacks raping whites. The old issue behind lynching is evidently not forgotten either.
The application of these Celtic theories is also demonstrated clearly in an article in the same issue, by James Hill, about a Larry Naman whose attempted assassination of elected official, Mary Rose Wilcox failed when the shot to her head went into her “backside” (Hill J 1998). The article makes it quite clear that they consider her a very deserving target of Naman’s violence, and that Naman is some type of hero. The article quotes a Barry Graham, libertarian candidate in Phoenix, Arizona, “The violence will start small, and it will grow. And it’s all due to the fact that you are violating the rights of individual people and elimination peaceful alternatives.” (Hill J 1998, Chronicles, p. 6)After then discussing a string of violence incidents and threats in the Phoenix area where Wilcox was shot, James Hill concludes (Hill J 1998, Chronicles, p.6):
Did Wilcox deserve to end up in a hospital bed? Of course not. But as Barry Graham concluded, “it was her arrogance that put her there, and what happened to her should serve as a lesson to her and everyone else.”
It should not be surprising that a Mississippi League of the South candidate for public office had his first campaign meeting on the Klan Hotline as reported by the Southern Institute at Tulane University in Louisiana. A man called Carl Ford is the “Attorney General” for the Mississippi State Chapter of the League of the South and; according to a Vicksburg Post article, the attorney for Sam Bowers, the KKK leader being tried for the murder of Vernon Dahmer during the civil rights movement era in America (1960s) (The Vicksburg Post, May 20, 1998, p.A3). This case has had major coverage in the press. A man called Carl D. Ford is a former Commander-in-Chief of the Mississippi Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) who along with others, including U.S. Senator Trent Lott, produced a recruitment video, with Lott as the spokesperson, for the SCV in 1991.
To have a real revival of Klan type violence, you would also have to have the indifference of the Federal government to such violence. In this, the stand of the League of the South and other neo-Confederates is very consistent. Southern Partisan and Texas Republic condemned Housing & Urban Development Secretary Cisneros’ actions against the KKK actions in public housing projects in Vidor, Texas. Samuel Francis condemns Hate Crime legislation in the pages of Southern Partisan (Francis 1993). The first paragraph in the first issue of Southern Patriot, the publication of the League of the South, President J. Michael Hill condemns Janet Reno for her use of Federal agents to protect Camp Sister Spirit, a hog farm and retreat run by a Lesbian group in Mississippi from violent attacks (Hill J M 1994, Southern Patriot, p.1). Both the magazines Texas Republic and Southern Partisan attack the Federal government’s actions in Waco, Texas.
Will the Neo-Confederates get violent in the immediate future, probably not. However, they are working on characterizing violence as a part of Celtic Heritage, and politically working to disable every and any thing that might act as a restraint against violence. Should the Federal government slack off for a moment in its stand against hate crimes and vigilante violence, they will be prepared and ready to take advantage of it. In the meantime they will talk of their dreams and justifications of violence. Founding League of the South board member, Thomas Fleming, is actively fighting a Federal Court order for the integration of the Rockford, Illinois school system. In the Rockford Register Star, Jan. 28, 1997, Fleming is quoted as saying in an article published in the Feb. 1997 issue of Chronicles, “Once upon a time in America, people like Judge Mahoney would have experienced the exquisite sensation of tar and feathers applied to sensitive skin that has never felt the heat of a day’s work.” (Fleming 1997b, Chronicles, p. 9) He also held up as heroes vigilantes who had burned down a newspaper office in Rockford during the frontier era of Illinois in response to the papers denunciation of a lynching as being lawless. The newspaper which was burned down then by vigilantes was the Rockford Register Star which today opposed Fleming who calls for “spirit of community outlawry” (Fleming 1997b, Chronicles, p. 11).
The Popular Legitimization of League of the South Propaganda Activities
More recently, the Celtic activities of Neo-Confederates have received a major breakthrough in being portrayed as a spontaneously arising and authentic folk practice in the South by a leading Southern Studies academic periodical.
In Southern Cultures there is an article titled, “Scottish Heritage Southern Style” by Celeste Ray (Ray 1998) The comment in the table of contents under the title states: “Scottish and Southern heritage meld into a new kind of southern identity, founded on lost causes but refashioned for today’s South” (Southern Cultures, Vol. 4 No. 2, p. i). The article discusses romanticism, Sir Walter Scott, and what John Shelton Reed calls a “grievance identity.” Ray shows a re-enactor Carl Ford who in his outfit who, “combines Confederate and Scottish garb at the Biloxi, Mississippi Scottish Games & Celtic Festival,” (Ray 1998, Southern Cultures, p. 29). Under another photo, the caption reads, “A color guard from the Scottish-American Military Society leads a ‘Tartan Parade’ as the pipe-band following plays ‘Dixie.” (Ray 1998, Southern Cultures, p. 37)
Ms. Ray does mention that at these Celtic events they burn crosses, and that the KKK burning of crosses comes from the film “Birth of a Nation.” However, Ms. Ray sanitizes these doings by saying, “Participants seem unaware of the implications such an event might have had in Griffith’s day. In fact, heritage lore leaves a gap in southern-Scottish awareness between the Civil War and the ‘revival’ of the latter twentieth century,” (Ray 1998, Southern Cultures, p. 35). This in itself is rather remarkable. Is there someone, anyone in America who does not know what a cross burning is? Especially Southerners which are frequently claimed to have a love of history? Especially these Southerners burning crosses and wearing Scottish and Confederate costume, are we to believe that they are really that historically illiterate?
I find Ms. Ray’s article to be misleading. The entire article does not mention the neo-Confederate movement once or anything about neo-Confederate Celtic racial identity theories. Ms. Ray’s article does not even allude to it. However, she could hardly have missed it. For example, she states (Ray 1998, Southern Cultures, p. 40) :
In 1997 the interweaving of Scottish and southern heritage found expression with the Alabama introduction of a Confederate Memorial Tartan featuring a set of Confederate gray and battle-flag red. In this way, through costume and imagery, simplified visions of both “Highlandness” and “southerness” are comparable and blended by those raised on the latter. Southernerness becomes an unproblematic outgrowth of ancestral proclivities.
Well how “unproblematic” this tartan is, is open to question. This particular Confederate Tartan was the background on the League of the South website one year and is designed by a Mississippi League of the South Chapter Chairman John Cripp. (League of the South, http://www.dixienet.org, Vol. 2 No. 2). Who Carl Ford is has already been mentioned. Unaware of the meaning of cross burning indeed!
The neo-Confederates are attending Scottish games, and are pushing this Confederate-Scottish ideology. The Council of Conservative Citizens, (www.cofcc.org), reports on the Capitol CofCC chapter visit to Highland games festival (Citizen Informer, 3rd Quarter 1998, p. 4) as follows:
Over the weekend of July 25-26, a group of members attended the big Scottish Highland games festival in Alexandria, VA, and handed out over a thousand specially designed fliers warning that American Scots will be an “endangered species’ when the U.S. has a non-European majority. Chapter Chairman Mark Cerr reports that the fliers were “greatly received” and quite a few have already joined the CofCC. Over the coming months they plan to visit more Scottish and other ethnic European festivals.
On the same page is an advertisement for the Confederate Tartan by Strictly Southern.
The bibliography of Ray’s article includes the neo-Confederate Celtic writings of Grady McWhiney, founding director of the League of the South. The League of the South is currently (Feb. 1999) advertising the Confederate Memorial Tartan by Strictly Southern on their webpage which is proudly proclaimed as being an approved tartan of the Scottish Tartan Authority.
Ms. Ray tries to redeem it all by showing Creek Chief Chinnubbie who is a Native American who is wearing a Native American Headdress combined with a Tartan because he is both Scottish and Native American. Under the guise of diversity, mentioning Alex Haley’s “Roots” and this individual, Ms. Ray concludes the following (Ray 1998, Southern Cultures, p. 44):
Scottish heritage is absorbed into the southern identity on the Old South model, but in the 1990s, even old mythologies can be further romanticized in a multicultural form.
Chief Chinnubbie is Chinnubbie McIntosh, son of Dode McIntosh famous for his Creek and Confederate hybrid rebel yell. Dode’s obituary in The Daily Sunday Telegraph also noted with approval that he was opposed to Native American militants in the 1960s. His great-grandfather Daniel McIntosh raised a Creek cavalry for the Confederacy. His great-great-grandfather William McIntosh was assassinated by the Red Stick Native Americans for his betrayal of his fellow Native Americans in the infamous episode of the “Trail of Tears.” (The Daily Telegraph, Sept. 9, 1999, p. 19) (The Tulsa World, Sept. 19, 1999)
John Shelton Reed is the co-editor of Southern Cultures and he certainly knows what is going on. He formerly contributed to the magazine Southern Partisan in its early years both under his name and as “J.R. Vanover.” He has been on the masthead of Chronicles magazine as a Contributing Editor since October 1985 until July 1997. He started with Chronicles shortly after Thomas Fleming, another founding director of the League of the South, became the magazine’s Editor. John Shelton Reed is also one of the two pioneers of what the neo-Confederates call the “Southern Nationalist movement.” From the cover article of the Southern Partisan “The South As a Nation,” by William (Bill) Lamar Cawthorn Jr. writes on the origins of this movement (Cawthorn 1997, Southern Partisan, p. 19):
Long before the fall of Communism and the new possibilities for nationalism which that momentous development unleashed, Robert Whitaker and John Shelton Reed in the early 1980s raised the issue of Southern Nationalism in the pages of Southern Partisan.
First Cawthorn discusses Whitaker, then he returns to the topic of Reed as follows (Cawthorn 1997, Southern Partisan, p. 20):
Noting influential separatist movements in Scotland and Quebec and in other Western countries, John Shelton Reed asked why the United States was immune. He gave some very cogent reasons, but also wrote in 1982 that he wouldn’t be surprised to see a Southern separatist movement emerge. “I for one would find an American politics where the proper balance between federal power and decentralization was subject to debate preferable to one where an arrogant central government recognizes no limits on its authority.”
With this understanding of who Reed really is, we can see why this article by Ms. Ray was published in Southern Cultures.
Academic Acceptance and Rejection of Confederate Celtic Theories
The response in scholarly venues to the Confederate Celtic theories has been mixed. A major response, if not the predominate response, is that the theories of McWhiney and others are nonsense. The theories are held to be proposed in defiance of the facts of Celtic and ethnographic history, use badly flawed methodology and very questionable reasoning and, especially, shuffled definitions.
Michael P. Johnson’s final sentence in his devastating review of “Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South,” is “surprisingly, the book has no index entry for ‘malarkey’” (Johnson 1989).
Rowland Berthoff systematically dismantles and lambastes the “Confederate Celtic” theory in an article titled, “Celtic Mist Over the South” in the Journal of Southern History (Berthoff 1986). The following section of Berthoff’s article exposes Neo-Confederate reasoning:
McDonald and McWhiney seek to disarm such criticism by conceding that “a more accurate phraseology than Celtic … would be ‘people from the British isles who were historically and culturally non-English’ but somehow,” they plead, “that phrase seems less catchy.” If that, together with their recognition that “the various peoples we treat as Celtic were far from identical …,” seems to throw the game away, they nevertheless insist that all the non-English were “a single general cultural group,” so that contemporary descriptions of Welshmen or Highlanders can be indiscriminately applied to Lowlanders, Ulster Scots, or the English on their fringes.
However, much more important is the concluding section of a letter by Berthoff to the American History Forum criticizing a Confederate Celtic article that had been published in it. After tearing the article apart Berthoff writes (Berthoff 1982):
But why harp on what anyone with the least interest in such matters will recognize as a hopeless muddle? Unfortunately, three of our leading journals have now placed their editorial imprimatur on it. Even newspapers feature writers have been more skeptical (Houston Chronicle, November 30, 1980, sec. 2, p. 10). But, then, perhaps the display of proverbial indolence in research and impetuosity in publication by two Southern historians is itself a demonstration of their thesis.
Indeed, there has been the acceptance or indulgence of Confederate Celtic theories in the American press. An example would be a review by Herman Hattaway of “Attack and Die” by McWhiney and Jamieson (Hattaway 1983). Two notable quotes are:
Some readers will find this book fun, others will think it frivolous, but many will consider it thought-provoking. It is a veritable kaleidoscope, showing pictures ranging from as seemingly hyperbolic as the authors’ opening statement …. to those that are clearly representative of the finest scholarship to be found anywhere.
Hattaway concludes:
Most interestingly, they say, “Had Civil War armies still been armed with smoothbores, the Confederates well might have retained their independence.” But the Rebels, far less than their more reasonable (though not always prescient) foe, continued to attack … and die.
Hattaway is fascinated by a dream of the Confederacy that might have been.
In The Journal of Southern History, “Attack and Die” is reviewed by James I. Robertson, Jr. who writes (Robertson 1983):
Yet it should be emphasized here that McWhiney and Jamieson are not merely tossing out sensationalistic statements or expressing unfounded opinions. Copious footnotes adorn every page, and the bibliographical essay reflects a mastery of the literature of the literature relating to the subjects.
In a work as sweeping as this, an error or two is inevitable. Hence the authors may perhaps be excused in their Chancellorsville discussion for relying on the totally untruthful “reminiscences” of Union general Alfred Pleasonton.
James I. Robertson is a former editor of the scholarly Journal Civil War History: A Journal of the Middle Period. In the 1960s James I. Robertson was the executive director of the U.S. Civil War Centennial Commission. James I. Robertson is on the masthead of the Neo-Confederate publication the Journal of Confederate History, famous for its promotion of the myth of Black Confederate soldiers. He has written a letter to Southern Partisan expressing his admiration for the publication and he has been interviewed in the same magazine concerning his book on Stonewall Jackson. Robertson is considered a major and respected figure in Civil War history.
However, in considering these “copious footnotes” the review of Elizabeth A.H. John gives an estimate of their worth (John 1989):
Unhappily, this volume poses exasperating barriers to the thorough consideration that the thesis deserves. There is no bibliography to facilitate examination of the evidence. Instead, one must comb densely packed omnibus footnotes that do not always show clearly which citation supports which particular. Even more disappointingly, McWhiney begs key issues of methodology, merely referring the reader to articles that he and McDonald have published in sundry journals, without even supplying a convenient list of them. In short, this book muffs the chance to display in full evidential and methodological context a thesis of considerable import.
Grady McWhiney and the other Confederate Celtic theorists get published in refereed journals, and get favorable reviews in referred journals. McWhiney’s theories did not keep him from being chosen by the Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, which gives him further credibility. All have found Southern universities presses and even a Scottish publisher for their books. This indulgence for Neo-Confederate authors is by no means confined to the Southern universities. Harvard University Press published, “The Confederate War,” by Gary Gallagher, another respected historian and member of the masthead of the Journal of Confederate History. This book is nothing more than the Lost Cause gushings of Mildred Rutherford, First Historian General of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, reformulated for modern audience.
Regardless of what Berthoff and others might write, the Confederate Celtics will and are being accommodated by American academics. This will facilitate popular acceptance of their theories. In the author’s opinion the Civil War historians are largely still on Paul H. Bucks “Road to Reunion” and Southern Studies embraces a sort of cotton Brigadoonery, and both often look the other way in the presence of white supremacy.
In reading the demolition of the Confederate Celtic theories by Berthoff , the other Neo-Confederate invention, the Black Confederate soldier comes to mind. It also has been rejected as nonsense. Yet the masthead of the Journal of Confederate History which promotes this historical myth, is a “Whose Who” of prominent historians: Dr. Anne Baily, current editor of Civil War History; Edwin C. Bearss, retired former Chief Historian of the National Park Service in America; Dr. Gary Gallagher; Dr. James Marten; Dr. Archie McDonald; Dr. Gr
December 31, 2007 at 1:59 am
In reading the demolition of the Confederate Celtic theories by Berthoff , the other Neo-Confederate invention, the Black Confederate soldier comes to mind. It also has been rejected as nonsense. Yet the masthead of the Journal of Confederate History which promotes this historical myth, is a “Whose Who” of prominent historians: Dr. Anne Baily, current editor of Civil War History; Edwin C. Bearss, retired former Chief Historian of the National Park Service in America; Dr. Gary Gallagher; Dr. James Marten; Dr. Archie McDonald; Dr. Grady McWhiney; Dr. James I. Robertson; Dr. Frank Vandiver; and others. Copious footnotes were also available for the Black Confederate articles, but they proved to be useful to find references that Black Confederates did not exist.
Confederate Celtic theories are part of a larger context of the invention of historical fantasies over the decades to serve the needs of Neo-Confederates and the willingness of the American academy to indulge them.
Impact on Scotland’s Image
Events in American constantly drive the identification of Scottish cultural elements with the Confederacy and white supremacy.
Two recent events show this. The Washington Post, in an article “Reopening Old Wounds: Confederate Ceremony Angers Some in Howard,” reports that a Howard County, Maryland, Confederate ceremony was met with an African-American counter protest. Bagpipe music is reported as one of the major parts of the Confederate ceremony. The article reviews the controversy over Confederate symbols in Maryland and Virginia over the last few years as background. (Washington Post, Sept. 24, 1998, p.D1)
Reporter Alice Lukens covered the same event. She reports on the Sons of Confederate Veteran’s anger over the states refusal to declare a Confederate Heritage Month (Baltimore Sun, Sept. 28, 1998, p. 1B).
“There is a lingering cloud of political correctness in this state that impairs Gov. Glendening’s vision,” said Patrick J. Griffin III, commander in chief for the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
“Grab a rail, a bucket of hot tar and some feathers, and head for Annapolis,” he said, eliciting applause from the crowd.
She also reports the view of the African-American counter protesters.
After their march down the hill, the Rev. Stephen W. Williams of True Life Church in Columbia gave a speech accusing rededication participants of racism.
“We cannot tolerate this kind of attitude in Howard County,” he said, while members of the crowd shouted “Right, brother” and “Amen” and the sound of bagpipes drifted from the celebrations down the Hill….” [Emphasis mine.]
A similar story is “Virginia Wars Over Confederate Graves; State Maintenance Funds Draws Complaints From Black Legislators,” in the Washington Post by Mark Allen. (Washington Post, Feb. 22, 1997, C5). In the article is reported:
On Memorial Day in Salem, the Southern Cross chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy place 300 rebel flags in the cemetery as a flute and bagpipe lay mourning music. [emphasis mine.]
In political clashes between African-Americans and Neo-Confederates, the sound of bagpipes is the Confederate music. Southern newspapers routinely report bagpipes as part of Confederate observances. (Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Jan. 24, 1999, April 22, 1999), (The Herald, Rock Hill, S.C., April 1996), (The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Jan. 11, 1998) (Richmond Times Dispatch, Feb. 23, 1997), (The Tampa Tribune, Nov. 26, 1998).
The Confederate Tartan is another visible symbol of the fusion of Confederate and Scottish identity. It is on the webpages and in the publications of the League of the South and the Council of Conservative Citizens, groups which each have received the specific condemnation of KlanWatch. The Confederate Tartan is advertised with half page advertisements in the Confederate Veteran, sometimes on the outside cover.
The image of Scottish cultural themes being that of white supremacy surely is developing in the consciousness of persons of African ancestry in the United States and elsewhere. You will know when this image change is fairly far along when a person feels the need to explain that the tartan is ancestral, and has nothing to do with white supremacy, and senses they are disbelieved. This will be a cultural influence on Scotland in itself.
Summary
Neo-Confederates are developing a Celtic concept of themselves supported by extensive writings. This Confederate Celtic movement is influencing public perceptions and has penetrated extensively the academic literature. Scotland, with its recognition of the Confederate Memorial Tartan, is unwittingly facilitating this movement.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
12 Southerners 1930, “I’ll Take My Stand: The South and the Agrarian Tradition”, (Louisiana Paperback Edition, 1977, [1930] Harper & Brothers, New York)
15 Ministers 1996 ‘The Moral Defense of the Confederate Flag: A Special Message for Southern Christians’, Southern Partisan, 16 Fourth Quarter, pp. 16-21
Berthoff R 1982 ‘Comparative History in Theory and Practice: A Discussion’, American Historical Review Forum, 87(1) p. 123-143
Berthoff R 1986 ‘Celtic Mist Over the South’, Journal of Southern History, 52(4) Nov. p. 523-546
Cawthorn, W 1997 ‘The South As a Nation’, Southern Partisan, 17 Third Quarter, pp. 18-24
Cook M 1995 ‘The Scottish-Southern Connection, Part I’, Southern Partisan, 15 Second Quarter, pp. 42-43, 54
Coombs M 1995 ‘Mad Scots and Indians’, Chronicles, 19(11) Nov. p. 47-48
Davidson D 1931 “Attack on Leviathan: Regionalism and Nationalism in the United States”, (Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill)
DeRosa M 1999 ‘The rule of law v. the misrule of ideology: The confederacy and constitutional interpretation’, Texas Law Review, 77(3) Feb., p. 789-806
Espinosa, R 1999, ‘A good time is hat by all Tulsa’s various ethnic groups showcase their cultures, foods’, The Tulsa World,
Fleming T 1995, ‘The Winter of Scottish Discontent’, Chronicles, 19(11) Nov., p. 10-14
Fleming T 1996 ‘From our board …’, Southern Patriot, 3(6) Nov.-Dec., p. 43-44
Fleming T 1997a ‘Cabbages and Worms’, Chronicles, 21(1) Jan., p. 8-11
Fleming T 1997b ‘Here Come the Judge’, Chronicles, 21(2) Feb., p.8-11
Fleming T 1997c ‘America’s Crackup’, National Review, 49(14) July, p.48-49, 64.
Fleming T 1998 ‘Playing God, or Being Men?’, Chronicles, 22(1) Jan., p. 10-12
Francis S 1993 ‘Hate Crime Decision Leaves Dangerous Legacy’ Southern Partisan, 13 Second Quarter, p. 56
Gragg R 1983 ‘The Strategy of Gettysburg’ Southern Partisan,3(1) Winter, p. 37-38
Hattaway H 1983 ‘Book Review’ The Journal of American History, 70(1), p. 153
Hill J 1998, ‘Cultural Revolutions’, Chronicles, 22(1) Jan., p. 6
Hill J M 1986 Celtic Warfare (J. Donald Press, Edinburg)
Hill J M 1993 Fire & Sword: Sorley Boy MacDonnell and the Rise of Clan Ian Mor, 1538-90 (Aegis Press, Fort Worth)
Hill J M 1994 ‘President’s message ….’, Southern Patriot, 1(1) Sept.-Oct., pp. 1
Hill J M 1995a ‘Scots Nationalism, Yesterday and Today’, Chronicles 19(11) Nov., p. 15-19
Hill J M 1995b ‘Angry White Males’, Chronicles, 19(11) Nov., p. 45-47
Hill J M 1996a ‘Extreme Traditionalism’, Southern Patriot, 3(2) March-April, p. 9-10
Hill J M 1996b ‘Kith and Kin’, Southern Patriot, 3(5) Sept.-Oct., p. 33-34
Hill J M 1997a ‘Name Changes: Principles Remain the Same’, Southern Patriot, 4(4) July-Aug., p. 25-26
Hill J M 1997b ‘Honor, Violence, and Civilization’, Chronicles, 21(8) Aug., p. 17-19
Hill J M 1998 ‘Celtic Justice’, Chronicles, 22(1) Jan., p. 13-15
Jamieson P, McWhiney G 1982 Attack and Die: Civil War Military Tactics and the Southern Heritage (University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa)
John E 1989 ‘Book Reviews’, The Western Historical Quarterly, 20(2), p. 206-207
Johnson M 1989 ‘Book Reviews’, The Journal of Southern History, 55(3) p. 488-489
Kibler J 1996 ‘More Than Y’all: The New Southern Language’, Southern Patriot 3(1) Jan. – Feb. p. 3,4,6,7
Kopff, E 1995 ‘A Free-Minded Scot’, Chronicles, 19(11) Nov. p. 15-19
Landess T 1984 ‘The Statue of Liberty is falling to pieces, and I’m glad’, Southern Partisan, 4(3) p. 8
Livingston D 1998a Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium: Hume’s Pathology of Philosophy, (University of Chicago, Chicago)
Livingston D 1998b ‘The very idea of secession; meaning of secession according to Thomas Hobbes and Johannes Althusius; Symposium: Secession and Nationalism at the Millennium’, Society, 35(5) July p. 38
Malvasi M 1991 Risen From the Bloody Sod: Recovering the Southern Tradition, (Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Rochester, Rochester, New York)
Malvasi M 1997 The Unregenerate South (Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge)
McCain B 1996 ‘The Anglo Celts’, Southern Patriot, 3(5) Sept.-Oct., pp. 35-37
McWhiney G 1988 Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South (University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa)
McWhiney G1989 ‘Irish’, ‘Scotch-Irish’, Scots, Highland’, from Encyclopedia of Southern Culture, p. 433-4, 439, 440, respectively, (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill), Charles Reagan Wilson and William Ferris, editors.
McWhiney G 1989 ‘The Celtic Heritage of the Old South’ Chronicles, 13(3) March, pp. 12-15
Ray C 1998 ‘Scottish Heritage Southern Style’, Southern Cultures, 4(2), pp. 28-45
Reed J 1982 ‘For Dixieland: The Sectionalism of I’ll Take My Stand’ from Band of Prophets: The Vanderbilt Agrarians After Fifty Years, (Louisiana State University Press, Baton Rouge), William C. Havard and Walter Sullivan editors.
Robertson J 1983 ‘Book Reviews’, The Journal of Southern History, 49(1) p. 128-129
Sons of Confederate Veterans ‘Scottish Dirk: SCV Heritage Fund Raiser’ Confederate Veteran, Vol. 1 1999, p. 3 [Note: Volume enumeration's are not volumes, but really numbers]
Wade D 1991 ‘The Celt as Southron’ Southern Partisan, 11 Third Quarter, pp.50-52
Whitaker R 1983 ‘The Declaration of Independence as War Propaganda’ Southern Partisan, 3(3) Summer, p. 16
Wilson C 1998 ‘Crackers & Roundheads’ Chronicles, 12(10) Nov., pp. 22-25
Wilson C R & Ferris W. (ed.) 1989 “Encyclopedia of Southern Culture” (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill)
December 31, 2007 at 2:12 am
Question for everyone: how do you think the following verse should be applied to kinists that may visit our church, attempt to befriend us, etc.?
Titus 3:10 tells us, ” Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.”
December 31, 2007 at 2:15 am
Cynthia, You khow what I thought as I perused this Scottish/Celtic South stuff?
Idi Amin. He was a major ‘Scot-o-phile’. Ever read about the raid on Entebbe? The hostages talked about him wearing a Scottish Military wool Kilt and plaid beret when he came and promised them comfort in the unairconditioned building where they were held. That had to be bizarre.
I wonder if these guys know that Idi claimed Scotland first?
)
December 31, 2007 at 2:18 am
“Rebecca, Camo…I can’t even spell it …is for wusses. Sort of like what the Disney Princesses would drink. What you need is a sultry Cabernet. Mondavi is good and inexpensive. You probably need some sleep anyway.
)
(No Baptist jokes, please)”
A Baptist pastor, a rabbi, a priest, and a nun went into a bar. The bartender demanded, “What is this — a joke?”
Sorry…
You’re right. A sultry Cab sounds good…or else just the right Merlot with some dark chocolate on the side…
December 31, 2007 at 2:27 am
I read from 613 to 659 and wrote these thoughts. Then I refreshed and now we’re up to 680! So, I hope they are not too passe.
#626 Jen: “Just don’t connect it to VF because they both quote Dabney. Has VF ever quoted Dabney in relation to slavery? Not that I am aware of.”
This line of thinking drives me crazy. Yes, it sounds logical on the surface. But in reality, just because they are too “smart” to say some thing, doesn’t mean that they don’t believe it. They are just careful. BUT, you are correct, that if they don’t say it, then TECHNICALLY (not logically), we don’t know what they think.
However, my question is, where are the quotes where they say, “We agree with Dabney, except on the issues of race relations and slavery and other places where he is Biblically wrong and repugnant.” Additionally, is there not another person they can lift up as an example besides someone who was essentially so WRONG in so many areas?
Jen: “I don’t have to know the McDonalds at all to see that they have a very different view of patriarchy than VF does.”
No. You cannot see this any more than I. I can only see what they say that they believe. I make this point because patriocentrists have shown themselves very good at double-talk and are media-savvy enough to know that once they put something into print, then they’ve lost control of it. No, I’m not seeing demons behind every tree – but I refuse to look at what someone says. I will look at what they live.
Jen: “Same thing with VF. They published this book by Stacy and Jennie. Does that mean that VF, Stacy, and Jennie are identical in all their beliefs on every issue in the world, or even on every issue in patriarchy? Does a book publisher normally require that an author be in 100% agreement with all their beliefs?”
No, but generally people use disclaimers like, “the views of this person are not necessarily the views of the publisher.” And, VF is certainly not like Random House or even Baker Books. They are a very private, limited publishing company. This is “apples and oranges” comparison.
# 627
Jen: “but so far from everything I have seen, both here and privately, you are quite confused.”
This is doing to Cindy what you are unhappy about what you believe is being done to you. She may be wrong, but to just say, “you are quite confused” is patronizing at the very least. It is certainly very easy to just say, ‘oh now, you’ve got it all wrong – you’re confused.’
#628
Lin: “It does not escape me that much about the Gospel is not ‘logical’. Paul said that the Cross is foolishness to those that are perishing. God making Himself a helpless Baby who is fully human and fully God is not logic or reason in the Enlightenment sense. Yet it is Truth.
“So when you say that you have seen several logical fallacies here and want to focus on fairness, I see a red herring. Our view must be scriptural…in context. “
Well said, Lin.
#637
Jen said, “Lin, we need to use logic to interpret the Scriptures. The doctrines and theologies presented in God’s Word may not always seem logical to us, granted, but in order to derive a doctrine or theology, we use a combination of logic and hermeneutics to arrive at a conclusion.”
This is absolutely wrong.
The Word of God (Is. 55: 8 & 9): “For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways” declares the LORD. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways highter than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.”
Without the Spirit of God, we will use fallen logic, faulty hermeneutics to arrive at disastrous conclusions. And simply being regenerate does not automatically mean we are relying on the Spirit. God has told us to love Him with all our minds, yes.
But His word says (Prov. 3:5) “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. . . Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord and turn away from evil.”
And again (Prov. 1:7), “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowlege.” (the beginning, not the end.)
And again (James 1: 5), “ If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all men generously and without reproach, and it will be given to him.”
In relation to our use of logic, Paul prays in Ephesian 3: 19 that we would “know the love of Christ which surpasses knowledge, that we may be filled up to all the fulness of God.” The love of Christ is what fills us up to all the fulness of God. Not logic.
#640
Jen: “I tried to defend James and Chad from false accusations and slander as well. The underlying issue in all of this was kinism. It became an emotional issue, so I appealed to logic.”
Why not refer James and Chad here themselves? I’m sure they can defend what they believe better than anyone else. Especially since you really don’t know either one. It is very unwise to rely on someone’s writings, and then defend core, heart-held beliefs. You can only take what they have put into print. But that really says nothing more than what they are willing to put into print. And if they are not willing to defend their beliefs themselves, then I would simply leave it alone. You are putting your “neck on the line” for people you don’t really know!
Jen: “Most of you have chosen to conclude that because I argue FOR logic that I am also arguing FOR kinism.”
Again, human logic will always bring about faulty conclusions. We will never, ever, ever get it 100% correct in this lifetime. But relying on one’s own cleverness or logistics won’t even get it close.
Paul (1 Corin 2): “And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. . . and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God. . . For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God, which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.”
#649
Lin: “I have found the continual insistence of direct quotes totally disingenuous and even wondered if that was requested so adamantly because most of it has been deleted!”
It has always been our experience with those steeped in VF’s Patriarchy to do this. It is, again, a “you can’t prove it unless I’ve said it/put it into print.”
Jesus (Matt. 7): “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.
Paul, Sinvanus and Timothy (1 Thes. 5): Do not quench the Spirit; do not despise prophetic utterances. But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form/appearance of evil.
Anyone (Degenhardt, Seabrook) who ascribes to kinism is embracing a form/appearance of evil. Anyone (Phillips, et. al.) who promotes someone’s teaching like Dabney and does not make it abundantly, prolifically and undeniably clear that they abhor racism/slavery is embracing a form/appearance of evil.
You don’t need a direct quote to see this.
December 31, 2007 at 3:06 am
I finally caught up reading to 681 and read Jen’s letter (665).
God bless you, Jen. “Delight yourself in the Lord; and He will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the Lord, trust also in Him and He will do it.” (Psalm 37: 4 & 5)
I join others in exhorting you not to rely on another man’s or woman’s commentary or Bible Study or sermon. They have their place. But it is always far behind the primary place: communion between just you and God.
Jen, you said: “This sermon convicted me that fighting always stems from our own personal desires and selfishness”
Actually, what James asks (4:1) is “What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you?” (writing “to the twelve tribes who are dispersed abroad” 1:1) And follows up with exhortation on lust, envy, wrong motives, pleasures, etc..
However, he does NOT ask, “What is the source of ALL quarrels and conflicts among ALL believers at ALL times”.
Just food for thought.
December 31, 2007 at 3:08 am
Uh, speaking of Celtic…
There really is, in my neck of the woods, a lot of Celtic ancestry. In my county area, back in the 1700s, even the SLAVES spoke Gaelic. No kidding. (I live in North Carolina, and right down the road from Ft Bragg if you’d like to research it yourself.) The racists aren’t making it up about the Scottish and Scots-Irish heritage around here, but I hope folks won’t confuse that with racism. Two different things.
December 31, 2007 at 3:33 am
“The racists aren’t making it up about the Scottish and Scots-Irish heritage around here, but I hope folks won’t confuse that with racism. Two different things.”
No, there really IS a lot of Scots and Irish influence in the South. The trouble with the kinists is, they like to pretend that the other ethnic groups in the south don’t exist.
However, the early Scots and Irish were NOT Kinists, lol. Most Southern folks with Irish ancestry have almost as much Indian heritage as they do European.
December 31, 2007 at 4:38 am
About that Caledonian Fire site that Patriarch’s Path used to link to – it seems that the webmaster there was a fellow named David Henreckson. Henreckson was also the managing editor of Christiandom.com, and that site said this about him:
David Henreckson is a member of Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church in Prairie View, IL. (RPCNA) and is the essayist and webmaster of Caledonian Fire, a theological and cultural web center. His articles have appeared in the Christian Statesman and the DixieNet Gazette. He loves all things Scottish and can usually be found curled up reading a good book while humming “Scots Wha Hae.” Someday he plans to learn to play the bagpipes. “Now’s the day an’ now’s the hour…”
The kicker is that the Dixienet Gazette publisher is none other that the League of the South!
On top of that, Christaindom.com also employed Rick Capezza, who was listed as studying at Auburn Avenue’s R.L. Dabney Center for Theological Studies .
And, look who Caledonian Fire linked to:
http://web.archive.org/web/20010411165114/www.mistymountain.org/links.htm
That’s right, it’s Rivendell…and then scroll down to Rivendell’s Christian Citizenship links, who do you find?
The League of the South, and the Southern Party!
Nowadays, it seems that Caledonian Fire is well hidden. There is still an active “Reformed” site which links to it — the link appears on the “Reformed Theology Resource Center” run by William Hill, but it seems that the link to the brand new Caledonian Fire site is broken… Shucky DARN!
December 31, 2007 at 5:16 am
“To Karen, Corrie, Lynn, Rebecca, Lin, Cindy, Cynthia, Kate, Lindsey and anyone else who was offended: I am sorry for all the fighting, bickering, and less-than-kind replies and remarks I have made to each of you here. Will you please forgive me?”
Jen, of course! But I am worried about you, hanging out wioth the liokes of McDonald. Unless he has changed his tune since he ran Patriarch’s Path, he has ties with guys who are really bad news, LoS, kinists, and what-have-you, kinists will use you, abuse you, and hang you out to dry! I’m prayiong for you… (((hugs))) CJ
December 31, 2007 at 5:32 am
Good heavens… my typos and (lack of) punctuation are teling me that it’s time to go to bed.
Sheesh. Why do the “o” and the “i” keys have to be right next to each other anyhow…
December 31, 2007 at 5:35 am
“Titus 3:10 tells us, ” Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.””
Rebecca,
Wow! What a great question. It is like a break in the clouds that allows the first rays of sunshine to escape through after a stormy season!
I think it should be OBEYED. Kinism, at its very core, is DIVISIVE. Kinism is not of the bible. It is false teaching. Those teaching kinism claim to be Christians. That means they are not just regular old sinners without knowledge of the Savior. Kinists should be treated just like we would treat a false teacher. We oppose them to their face like Paul did to Peter and you do it publicly and swiftly so that no SHADOW OF DOUBT is left standing as to what the rest of the believers should think is acceptable.
December 31, 2007 at 5:36 am
I know this is going way, way back, but it has been rumbling around in my mind since I read it.
In post 328, Jen writes: “Lin, this is why I show extra respect for those who are elders:
1 Timothy 5:17 “Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.”
“Lin, I understand that there are some elders who should not be elders. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt until I know otherwise.”
Here’s what bothers me: this passage is NOT telling us that we should automatically give elders honor via “benefit of the doubt.” However, this IS a passage that is frequently used by those in VF-type patriarchy to literally cement the authority of all elders and squash the authority of the believers who are not elders.
The passage says, “Let the elders who rule WELL be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who WORK HARD at preaching and teaching.”
This means the elders have proven that they are ruling WELL. Proving that they are working HARD at preaching and teaching. This inherently involves inspecting fruit, not automatically giving the benefit of doubt.
And we are ALL supposed to be fruit inspectors – that means I, for one, cannot take someone else’s word for it.
Additionally, from all I can see both in reading it plainly and in the context of the whole Bible, plus from other commentaries, this passage speaks more of physical, financial honor to make sure that such worthy teachers who spend their time laboring over the word are more than adequately supported.
This is how I understand it. Not that we automatically grant deference to anyone who carries the ecclesiastical title, “Elder.”
(I am not speaking of the kind of general respect and deference that is due to those who are much older than oneself.)
I just couldn’t let this one go because it is a passage that I have heard twisted too many times and used to trap unwitting sheep.
December 31, 2007 at 5:38 am
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/caledonian/messages/10301?viscount=100
This is an interesting list with many interesting names. William Hill is one of them.
December 31, 2007 at 6:02 am
Jen,
I echo what Lin has said. This isn’t a fight with you but a contending for the truth. We have certainly been through a lot and the Lord knows how deeply I care about you and have anguished over many things concerning your situation. I am deeply distressed about so many things. I am so very saddened that your family has gone through so much. You have so much going for you and you have so much to offer. As I told you on the phone just recently, I was amazed, when I met you and your lovely children, at what a wonderful job you have done with Alicia. Anyone who looks at her can see the love and time and effort you have poured forth into her life. I truly, truly care about you and that is why it has pained me to see some things and to see you (in my honest opinion) jumping from the frying pan into the fire. I care about you, Jen, and because I care about you and that care has been proven to you over and over again, it alarmed me that you it seemed you so readily abandoned those who truly cared for you for those who do not. I am not ashamed to know you or to have you post on my blog or to post on your blog. I am not ashamed to associate with you. I have not hid my relationship with you under the cover of darkness.
I am trying to grow thicker skin. Although, I think my skin is growing thicker in a way that I didn’t want! It has been birthday week, here, starting with my then two of my daughters. I am starting my diet on the 1st!
Anyone want to join me? It does hurt to be misunderstood, though.
Friendships prevail through the thick and the thin or they aren’t really friendships. I also don’t trust people who always say what I want to hear. Our #1 allegiance is to God’s word and to truth. I am fiercely loyal to my friends but I must stand for what I believe is true. I am also concerned that you are getting in with people who really don’t give a darn about you. I do not want to see you have to suffer any more rejection in your life or any more pain and hardship. Many of these women I have known for a decade or even longer. They know my warts and all.
Remember what the Bible tells us about the wounds of a friend and the kisses of an enemy. Protect yourself and your family from any more nonsense. With all my heart, Jen, I want to see you healed and your family knit together in love and enjoying sweet fellowship with other believers. I would give anything to see that happen. I just feel so inadequate to know what I need to do. I am praying and I am heartsick this. This has not been easy for any of us. Just look around you and see who you have been sparring with! Are these your enemies or your friends? They are your friends, Jen. They refuse to lie to you or to tickle your ears. Those are your true friends. I have heard Cindy weep in prayer over the phone for you. Heartfelt weeping. I have had people contact me with great concern. You are loved.
December 31, 2007 at 6:17 am
Dear “Friend”,
Thank you for sharing your wisdom on so many scriptures. It truly is appreciated and has been a blessing for me. You have brought out many truths and a lot to meditate upon.
To All,
Please pray for me. I have been struggling with, as odd as it sounds, some sort of post traumatic stress since I witnessed an accident on Interstate 39 in LaSalle, IL on December 26th. We were on our way home from Wisconsin, where I am from to our home in the St. Louis area. We had 9 of our 10 children in the car. I was driving and my husband was on his laptop, blackberry, doing work. It was a nice, calm drive and things were going well. We approached the construction near the Lincoln Memorial Bridge. I moved into the right lane because the left was closing. The car in front of me did the same. We were slowing way down because of the posted speed limit. A car on the left came zooming up and cut right in front of the car in front of me causing us to slam on our brakes. The traffic in front of the car who cut in front of us had to slam on our brakes because the traffic came to a stand still because the construction on the bridge backed up everything.
I instinctively looked in my side mirror because I was afraid the trucks and cars behind me would not be able to stop in time. That is when I saw that a truck was not slowing down, I saw a car go flying into the air like a child’s toy, I saw the truck strike other cars and explode into a fireball. I thought for sure our van would be next. I imagined all of my children being run over by a semi. I was frozen and could only utter “On my God”, over and over again in some sort of simple prayer for His help as my husband “shushed” me because he was making an important business call. This was not done in a mean way, he was just trying to explain a very technical chemical thingy and he had no idea why I sounded like we were about to die. I could see the people in the cars as they were hit. I witnessed the very last moments of their lives.
I have seen a lot in my life and I am usually quite stoic but this has hit me like a ton of bricks. I am grieving for those people who died. A beautiful 21 year old girl, who just happened to be a friend of one of my children’s friends and a couple on their way home from visiting their sons. I am also grieving for the truck driver who fell asleep. He is a Christian man and he is a godly husband and father. Can you imagine what he will have to live with for the rest of his life? It was an accident. It was not a deliberate thing.
I am the only one in my van who saw this. The rest saw the huge, thick, black cloud of smoke rise into the air from the burning semi and autos.
I am having dreams about the details and the faces of those people and there is not an hour that goes by that I do not grieve. I prayed for them and their souls at the hour of their death and that gives me little comfort. I know that God is in control, I do not doubt that. It is just that I can’t turn my brain off and this constant moving picture in my mind.
December 31, 2007 at 6:20 am
Lin,
I am passing my #666 crown to you.
I have worn that for the last two threads now and it is about time someone else got to wear it.
December 31, 2007 at 6:27 am
” In the meantime they will talk of their dreams and justifications of violence. Founding League of the South board member, Thomas Fleming, is actively fighting a Federal Court order for the integration of the Rockford, Illinois school system. In the Rockford Register Star, Jan. 28, 1997, Fleming is quoted as saying in an article published in the Feb. 1997 issue of Chronicles, “Once upon a time in America, people like Judge Mahoney would have experienced the exquisite sensation of tar and feathers applied to sensitive skin that has never felt the heat of a day’s work.” (Fleming 1997b, Chronicles, p. 9) He also held up as heroes vigilantes who had burned down a newspaper office in Rockford during the frontier era of Illinois in response to the papers denunciation of a lynching as being lawless. The newspaper which was burned down then by vigilantes was the Rockford Register Star which today opposed Fleming who calls for “spirit of community outlawry” (Fleming 1997b, Chronicles, p. 11).”
Wow! I lived in Rockford for the past 8 years and this whole school thing was a huge issue. I can’t believe anyone was fighting it? I think Rockford might have been the last school system to desegregate in the U.S.? All I know that the schools are still paying for not doing what they should have done a long time ago and the children are all suffering because of it. When we moved there in 1999, we could care less about the school system because we were homeschooling but we were warned that it was one of the worst before we moved there.
I never heard of Thomas Fleming or the Rockford Institute. I shall have to check that out.
December 31, 2007 at 6:31 am
Corrie, I have been praying for you since you first told me about this accident. That’s what true friends are for.
Thanks for being my friend and caring.
Thanks for the kind words, Cynthia, Lynn, Lin, Trish, a Friend. I’m going to bed feeling much better about the ending to this day!
For all those who are worried about who my friends might be, thanks for the concern. I shall pray for wisdom and discernment.
December 31, 2007 at 6:36 am
Corrie, what a horrible, horrible accident to witness! I’m glad your children were spared from seeing all the details.
It is certainly traumatic to see people die in such a way. My prayers are with you and with all those who are grieving this accident.
December 31, 2007 at 6:41 am
Thank you for your prayers. There were 5 cars/2 trucks in that accident and there are still people in the hospital. One car was a young family- husband, wife and two little ones. I pray they are doing okay.
I just checked out the Rockford Institute and I was wrong. I do know where the institute is after checking out the address. In fact, my oldest son took a class there with some other homeschoolers. I will have to ask him which one. Sheesh! If I would have known the background, we would not have taken that class. I was going to sit in with him because it sounded so interesting but I had a baby who was quite young at the time.
It certainly is a small world!
December 31, 2007 at 6:47 am
“Good heavens… my typos and (lack of) punctuation are teling me that it’s time to go to bed.
Sheesh. Why do the “o” and the “i” keys have to be right next to each other anyhow… ”
Oi?
“Oi! is a working class street-level subgenre of punk rock that originated in the United Kingdom in the 1970s.[1]
The music and associated subculture had the goal of promoting unity between punks, skinheads and other non-aligned working class youths (sometimes called herberts).”
I know that was a bit naughty but I can’t resist.
December 31, 2007 at 10:35 am
http://ccfcorp.dos.state.fl.us/scripts/ficidet.exe?action=DETRPL&name=&docnum=G05104900066&rdocnum=G03260900083
I don’t understand this link. Why does it say “fictitious?”
December 31, 2007 at 10:46 am
http://ccfcorp.dos.state.fl.us/pdf/30884923.pdf
That’s a pdf of the same link in #699.
December 31, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Concerning apologies.
I’m required by the Word to forgive and I gladly do, but there are things left unaddressed here.
Look at Mel Gibson a few months ago. He was driving drunk (breaking the law), then went totally off on the police. He apologized profusely for his very inappropriate remarks, but that does not absolve him of the drunk driving or the penalties for mouthing off to the cop. Nor did it belie to anyone his underlying antisemitism.
As in this example, there are still serious issues that have not been even remotely addressed in this blanket apology, but at least that’s a start.
This is definitely a first step in the right direction.
December 31, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Cindy, again, I have to tell you that you are a gifted woman and are able to see things so clearly and to put them into their proper context. (comment #610 for esample)
You said:
“You know, I started out with hunches about some of these things — a very obvious common thread might be Dabney or the League of the South for example. For anyone who has spent any time in a spiritually abusive environment, you are taught to avoid if not punished for critical thinking and for “connecting the dots.” You are taught to ignore your “hunches” in favor of being told what everything means and what you are supposed to believe. I see it in Stacy McDonald’s comments in spades. In some respects, I see a lot of it in Doug Phillips. They are shrewd and crafty, but they are not deep or analytical about these things. When everything is dictated and scripted, and people have told you (even well meaning ones) what you need to think, your own abilities get weak. All you need to do is exercise them, and you will get better and better at it.”
This truly sums up what I have witnessed
REPEATEDLY over the past year or so. This is why we cannot get REAL answers to our questions. If someone only has a script to follow, answering the REAL questions is impossible.
But here is the kicker, I think. Most homeshcoolers learn at least some critical thinking skills and even if they do not, they provide resources so their children can learn them. As I have often said before, these teachings in the hands of children who have thinking skills will be the undoing of some of these families. What happens when Johnny Jr. and Susie Q read the word for themselves?
December 31, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I am getting ready to begin thread #5 and when I do I want to begin with a few comments regarding posting. I was up until the wee hours of the morning talking with my son about his views on comments on blogs, what can and cannot constitute “gossip, slander, and libel” and which comments ought to be removed and which ones should stay. We both agreed that people should not have their comments edited and that they should not be removed unless they are making claims that cannot be substantiated or documented. Of course, this can be difficult when this blog seems to “inspire” so many patriocentrists to sanitize and bleach their websites once we shine a light in their direction. So, I would encourage you to save every single thing you come across that might be removed down the road. I will try to get the new thread started today.
December 31, 2007 at 1:03 pm
One more comment….I haven’t begun to catch up on the past 2 days’ worth of comments!
December 31, 2007 at 2:42 pm
“As in this example, there are still serious issues that have not been even remotely addressed in this blanket apology, but at least that’s a start.”
Cindy,
I agree.
December 31, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Lynn,
Here is the info on the “fictitious name”:
Fictitious Names – Frequently Asked Questions
What is a fictitious name?
A fictitious name means any name under which a person transacts business in this state, other than his legal name. Business means any enterprise or venture in which a person sells, buys, exchanges, barters, deals, or represents the dealing in any thing or article of value, or renders services for compensation. Legal name means a person’s given name, or an entity that has been properly registered. Examples: trademarks, service marks, corporations, limited partnerships.
What is the intent of the Fictitious Name Registration Act?
The intent of the Fictitious Name Act is for public notice as to ownership. If the name(s) (first and last) of the owner(s) is/are included in the business name, the intent of the Act is satisfied and no registration would be required. The first name or last name in the title does not satisfy the intent of the Act as ownership is not clear.
What is the effect of registration?
Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, registration under the Fictitious Name Act, 865.09 Florida Statutes, is for public notice only, and gives rise to no presumption of the registrant’s rights to own or use the name registered, nor does it affect trademark, service mark, trade name or corporate name rights previously acquired by others in the name or a similar name. Registration under this Act does not reserve a fictitious name against future use by another party.
Who is exempt from filing?
A business formed by an attorney licensed to practice law in this state, or a person licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation or the Department of Health, for the purpose of practicing his licensed profession need not be registered under the Fictitious Name Act, notwithstanding that it transacts business ancillary to the practice of such profession. Note: The individual licensing board at the Department of Business and Professional Regulation or the Department of Health should be contacted to determine if the individual licensing board requires registration regardless of the exemption stated in 865.09 F.S.. The Division of Corporations does not make this determination.
When would the Division of Corporations not require the filing of a fictitious name?
When the applicant is a licensed attorney forming a business for the practice of law in the State of Florida.
When the applicant is registered with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation and their licensing board has not imposed requirements for the registration as a fictitious name.
When the applicant is a corporation, partnership or other legal entity filed or registered and in good standing with the Division of Corporations and is not transacting business under any other name.
When the applicant is a Federally chartered corporation and is not transacting business under any other name.
If the name(s) (first and last) of the owner(s) is/are included in the business name. Example: Susan Brown’s Flower Shop is not required to register. Susan’s Flower Shop must register. John Smith and Joe Brown Plumbing is not required to register. Smith and Brown Plumbing must register.
Other exceptions may apply. They would have to be addressed on an individual basis.
Are there any penalties for failure to file a Fictitious Name Registration?
Failure to comply with the fictitious name registration provisions of section 865.09, Florida Statutes, is a misdemeanor of the second degree and punishable as provided in section 775.082 or section 775.083, Florida Statutes.
Will I need proof of my Fictitious Name Registration?
Yes, section 205.023, Florida Statutes states: “Requirement to report status of fictitious name registration. – As a prerequisite to receiving a local occupational license under this chapter or transferring a business license under s. 205.033(2) or s. 205.043(2), the applicant or new owner must present to the county or municipality that has jurisdiction to issue or transfer the license either:
A copy of the applicant’s or new owner’s current fictitious name registration, issued by the Division of Corporations of the Department of State; or
A written statement, signed by the applicant or new owner, which sets forth the reason that the applicant or new owner need not comply with the Fictitious Name Act.”
Also, banks and financial institutions may require proof of registration before engaging in any transactions.
8. Does the fictitious name need to be advertised in a newspaper?
No, a fictitious name registration no longer needs to be advertised in a newspaper. 15.16(6), Florida Statutes, states “Notwithstanding s. 865.09(3)(d), the Department of State may waive the requirement that a person advertise the intention to register a fictitious name if the department indexes the fictitious name registration in a central database available to the public on the Internet.”
What is the fee to file?
The fee to file the application for registration of a fictitious name is $50.00. The fee is a non refundable processing fee.
How long is the Fictitious Name Registration valid?
The fictitious name registration is valid for a period of 5 years and expires on December 31 of the 5th year. The Division of Corporations will mail a renewal application to the last reported mailing address at least 3 months prior to its expiration. All fictitious names registered must maintain a current mailing address with the Division. Address changes must be made by letter or other written communication to the Division of Corporations.
Is there any written acknowledgment sent to this business?
Upon registration the Division sends an acknowledgment letter stating the name registered, its registration number, and date of registration. For an additional $10.00 a Certificate of Status can be requested, or an additional $30.00 a Certified Copy can be requested.
What is the Division of Corporations responsibility?
The Division of Corporations is responsible for the administering of the Fictitious Name Act, 865.09 Florida Statutes. It is the applicant’s responsibility to insure that they have complied with all other applicable statutes and regulations not administered by the Division of Corporations. There may be instances where the Division will not deem a filing necessary but another agency or institution will. The applicant in this situation would need to file the fictitious name in order to comply with all parties. Additionally, the Division of Corporations is not responsible for any name infringement which may occur in the use of a fictitious name. Names are not screened against any other recorded information. It is the applicant’s responsibility to insure that name infringement does not occur. The Division of Corporations is a filing agency and as such does not render any legal, accounting, or tax advice. The professional advice of your legal counsel to ascertain exact compliance with all statutory requirements is strongly recommended.
If I want to register as a “partnership”, do I register my partnership name as a fictitious name or do I register as a partnership under the Revised Uniform Partnership Act?
Effective January 1, 1996, partnerships can be filed with the Department of State under Part II of Chapter 620, Florida Statutes. Under this statute, filing is not required but is “permissive”. As a partnership you should file under either the partnership act or as a fictitious name. You should review both statutes to determine which better fits your needs.
Home Contact us Document Searches E-Filing Services Forms Help
Copyright and Privacy Policies
Copyright © 2007 State of Florida, Department of State.
HomeContact UsE-Filing ServicesDocument SearchesFormsHelp
December 31, 2007 at 3:06 pm
“Lin,
I am passing my #666 crown to you. I have worn that for the last two threads now and it is about time someone else got to wear it.”
I regret to say that I cannot accept the honor of this crown. But I want to thank the judges and other contestants for nominating me as Miss Congeniality. It is a title I will endeavor to live up to. Oh, and I want world peace, too.
December 31, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Hi. I tried to publish this last night, but lately anything I publish with links on this list goes into the moderation queue, never to be seen again — I have five messages in there now, counting this one. So, I am republishing this without working links. If anybody wants them,email me privately, cindyjeanne2003 @ yahoo. com
Yesterday, I wrote,
“About that Caledonian Fire site that Patriarch’s Path used to link to – it seems that the webmaster there was a fellow named David Henreckson. Henreckson was also the managing editor of NewChristiandom(dot)com, and that site said this about him:
David Henreckson is a member of Westminster Reformed Presbyterian Church in Prairie View, IL. (RPCNA) and is the essayist and webmaster of Caledonian Fire, a theological and cultural web center. His articles have appeared in the “Christian Statesman”(link deleted) and the “DixieNet Gazette”(link deleted). He loves all things Scottish and can usually be found curled up reading a good book while humming “Scots Wha Hae.” Someday he plans to learn to play the bagpipes. “Now’s the day an’ now’s the hour…”
The kicker is that the Dixienet Gazette publisher is none other that the League of the South!
On top of that, NewChristaindom(dot)com also employed Rick Capezza, who was listed as studying at Auburn Avenue’s R.L. Dabney Center for Theological Studies (link deleted.)
And, look who Caledonian Fire linked to:
http: //web.archive.org/web/20010411165114/www.mistymountain.org/links (dot) htm
That’s right, it’s Rivendell…and then scroll down to Rivendell’s Christian Citizenship links, who do you find?
The League of the South, and the Southern Party!
Nowadays, it seems that Caledonian Fire is well hidden. There is still an active “Reformed” site which links to it — the link appears on the “Reformed Theology Resource Center” run by William Hill, but it seems that the link to the brand new Caledonian Fire site is broken… Shucky DARN!
December 31, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Corrie wrote:
““As in this example, there are still serious issues that have not been even remotely addressed in this blanket apology, but at least that’s a start.”
Cindy,
I agree.”
I feel the same way.
December 31, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“So, I would encourage you to save every single thing you come across that might be removed down the road. I will try to get the new thread started today.”
I’ve been doing that for over a year now. I’ve got quite a lot of stuff saved, too.
December 31, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“Here’s what bothers me: this passage is NOT telling us that we should automatically give elders honor via “benefit of the doubt.” However, this IS a passage that is frequently used by those in VF-type patriarchy to literally cement the authority of all elders and squash the authority of the believers who are not elders.
The passage says, “Let the elders who rule WELL be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who WORK HARD at preaching and teaching.”
A friend,
Thanks so much for your biblical teaching in this thread. There is something else that needs to be very clear about this and other passages that are used by the Pat types for power. The word RULE was a very bad choice by the translators. I keep in mind that the KJ translators were laboring under a state church mentality.
But if the Holy Spirit through Paul had seriously meant a ruler type elder with power over others, he would have used the Greek word, Arche, meaning power to rule or rule over and the word, Archon, as one who has authority, a ruler.
But the word The Holy Spirit has Paul use here is proistemi and it means to ‘stand before, hence to lead’ indicating care and diligence in caring for others.
Now, we know from Jesus’ own teaching that we are not to lord it over others, seek to be first and that the greatest is the servant of all. He taught the Apostles this!
An elder is a spiritually mature servant who diligently cares for the souls in his care. he is a humble servant for the Lord.
With this in mind, can we see why Paul was saying they are worthy of double honor? Think of a servant being worthy of double honor. That is what is communicated here. In the early church, these were not usually men of means, either.
It has NOTHING to do with a title. It is a function and one can discern who are real elders are who are not if they know what it means.
December 31, 2007 at 3:45 pm
Just an “oh, by the way”:
Cynthia’s name popped up on the kinism.net website, as did some other interesting stuff. You can read it directly there, or read about it on my blog, where I wrote:
“Hhhhmmmm…if kinism is so Biblical, so non-racist, and so impossible to refute (the anonymous author of the above later wrote, “While we don’t hold out hope that she will prove more formidable than any of Kinism’s previous opponents, who now speak into their beards, as it were…”) then what on earth do kinists have to fear from anonymous calls to employers and pastors? They should be able to quickly convince these men as well. Or perhaps they are really afraid of more of their own numbers becoming “former kinists”?
These men so lack the courage of their convictions that they lurk in the shadows. My only hope is that they possess enough of a conscience to be rightly ashamed of the philosophy they espouse. If so, may that shame grow into true repentance.”
December 31, 2007 at 4:29 pm
Oh, and one more comment from many, many ago that really made me irate:
……………………………………………….
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
…..There is NO good red wine. It all tastes like nasty vinegar.
If any one is going to recommend wine, it needs to be a nice Viognier, or perhaps a Semillon-Sauvignon Blanc blend.
That is all.
December 31, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Manechewitz Concord. Pure, sweet ambrosia.
December 31, 2007 at 4:38 pm
I’ll think about it.
Here I go, breaking my own topicality rules. Sigh.
December 31, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia. You must repent at once. We all know that the wine Jesus made from water was RED WINE.
I will be praying for you today, that you will not go into the new year in such a sinful state.
December 31, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Cynthia,
I visited the kinism site and they have invited you to be a guest blogger at their site! Isn’t that special?
I love how people keep on asserting that we know nothing about what they believe when all we do is quote from source materials?
Obviously we can’t tell what people believe from their own words, actions, writings or the people they hang with.
We can only tell things about people by the clothes they wear and this is the only reliable marker of a person’s thoughts and motives and what makes them tick. Oh, and if women go to college they are like harlots. And if women have marble sinks and take their kids to soccer practice, they are professional mommies. And if they get a pedicure they have succumbed to “meology”.
But, oh NO, please do NOT gossip about others by inspecting their actual teachings and words!!! Just play by the book and strictly judge women’s hearts by what they wear and whether they go to college or not.
I am going to give me good friend, Kim Gandy, a call and chat about old times. I also want to find out how the institute we run together is going. Please do NOT draw any conclusions from my associations. They mean nothing!
You can check out her website here: http://www.now.org/officers/kg.html
Again, let me caution you from drawing any conclusions about me concerning my involvement in this institute. It means nothing and it would be illogical, irrational, hysterical and slanderous for you to do so.
Judge me by what I am wearing, instead.
December 31, 2007 at 4:54 pm
I am sorry, Rebecca, but Marcia is right. I also think you should try a good Pinot Grigio. You would repent of your red wine heresy in a heartbeat!
December 31, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Well, ladies, I asked if there was anything else I needed to address. If there is, please spell it out. But to make statements here that this is only a beginning makes me look quite bad, doesn’t it? I have seen more true colors here this week than I ever wanted to know about.
Now, why are people contacting Cindy Kunsman and Corrie about me? That sounds like pure, unmitigated gossip to me and has caused much harm. If you have a concern regarding me, please contact me directly.
December 31, 2007 at 7:07 pm
My dear Corrie,
“I am sorry, Rebecca, but Marcia is right. I also think you should try a good Pinot Grigio. You would repent of your red wine heresy in a heartbeat!”
How can you write such slander? (Well, you can’t WRITE slander, by definition, so I guess maybe you’re just writing libel…)
I am ecumenical when it comes to wine. I am not a wine bigot, nor am I a wine separatist. (Although I do believe each wine should be served in its own glass.)
It deeply grieves me to have red wine maligned and mistreated in this fashion, especially by someone I consider a friend. And then to call me a brazen sinner on top of it is more than I can bear.
I don’t know if I’m going to be able to sleep tonight. (The fact that it’s New Year’s Eve, and our house will be full of guests, has nothing to do with any lack of sleep, I’m sure.)
December 31, 2007 at 8:52 pm
“They should be able to quickly convince these men as well. Or perhaps they are really afraid of more of their own numbers becoming “former kinists”?”
So just who is this “former kinist”? I doubt that it’s Chad, since as far as anyone knows, he still is one. And who made anonymous calls to employers and pastors? I seem to remember something of that sort going on, about a year sgo — I believe that Kinist Harry Seabrook took down his blog after it was hacked, and Matt Chancey commented on that; when Brandon Giromini disagreed with som of what Chancey had written, a fellow from Malaysia emailed him and threatened to tell his boss that HE was a kinist, unless he went along with what Chancey had written:
(from “Simply Christian”
” I received the following threat from “Marco Hansen” via the contact form on my website supposedly somewhere in Malaysia:
Hey Brandon:
Are you really sure you want to take exception with Matt’s analysis of LG? I have it from the horses mouth that the reason why Harry took down LG was because he was afraid of losing his job. Notice that Matt’s article mentioned his place of business? His site wasn’t “hacked.” If you keep this up you are going to be branded as a Kinist. I don’t want to believe you are probably a “kinist” or at least comfortable dialoging with them just like Jennifer Epstien is? I guess you wouldn’t want people to make the same association with the Kinist as they did with Jennifer now would you? If I were you, I would get out of this whole debate because you are going to make yourself look really bad once the truth comes out.
So, please take this advice from someone who doesn’t want to see you go down like the rest of the MW cabal.(emphasis mine)
So unless I agree 100% with “independent investigator” Matt Chancey’s analysis in regard to the alleged hack of Little Geneva, I will be labeled a kinist? In my article correcting Matt Chancey’s analysis I focused on hacking the WordPress database username and password. I clearly stated that I did not support Little Geneva or it’s kinist theology.
“Red and Yellow, Black and White: They are precious in his sight. Jesus loves the little children of the world.”
It is written that man is made in the image of God1. Furthermore, man, as God created him, was very good2. The Lord Jesus Christ came to save all men, first the jew and then the gentile3.
I affirm that all men and women have fallen from the grace of God and are in desperate need of a Savior, regardless of race4. I affirm that through the Lord Jesus Christ, those that are foreknown of God are predestined, called, justified and glorified, regardless of race5. I affirm that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him6. I affirm that the world is not spiritually divided by race but only by saved and lost, sheep and goats, the quick and the dead.7. I affirm that Christians should not separate one from another8, but be joined in charity9.
This entry was posted on Monday, January 22nd, 2007 at 8:20 pm and is filed under Christianity, Matt Chancey, Threats and Allegations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
4 Responses to “Threats and accusations Part 2”
Lin Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
This is just about the sickest thing I have seen. You and Elizabeth are in my prayers.
Lynn Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Brandon, this kind of thing is like lancing a real big sore and having all the ugly pus come seeping out, and it only serves to show me how political these people are. There is nothing Christian or biblical about a threat like that. It also makes me very suspicious about how much Doug Phillips really wants reconciliation. You are in my prayers.
Frank Vance Says:
January 22nd, 2007 at 10:18 pm
Brandon, as you say you’re not the only one who’s been threatened like this. Even long before Matthew Chancey started writing his “independent investigation” I received mysterious emails implying that if I didn’t exercise my influence to silence Ministry Watchman’s exposés of Doug Phillips that I would personally be labeled as a “kinist.” These men are only helping to confirm what we already know of them.
BGiromini Says:
January 29th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Lin and Lynn, thank you for the prayers. The first time I read the email, I thought it was a veiled threat, but after subsequent readings, it is so blatantly obvious what the author was trying to convey. I keep it up on the refrigerator to remind me of the mentality of those who resort to threats. I do believe that the phone call to Harry Seabrook at work was a power move to show that he can be found and they could get him fired for his online activity. 100% politics. I also strongly believe that the comments in the threat against me about naming Seabrook’s place of business are a subtle reminder that if they found where Harry worked they can find where I work. If you read my wife’s post on Ministrywatchman.com you will know that I have talked to my boss, and already warned him about potential phone calls.
Oh, and if anyone had any doubts, I am 99.9% certain the name is a fake and that the person was using a proxy service to hide their true IP address. Also, does anyone else find it highly coincidental that the night before Chancey names me as a small player in the conspiracy, I get a threatening email warning me to get out of the whole debate…
I was doing my bible study this past weekend and noticed something interesting about threats and who makes them. I might post an article soon about it.
December 31, 2007 at 9:08 pm
The Passionate Housewives reviews are back up at Amazon that had been deleted. thatmom and undermuchgrace reviews have been reposted.
Thank you, Amazon.
December 31, 2007 at 9:46 pm
That’s great news. Anybody have any idea why they were reposted?
December 31, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Happy New Year to all of you!
My husband is making a very large amount of stiff eggnog for the party we’re hosting tonight for friends. I’ve been mopping the dining room floor, which reminded me I needed to listen to the Russell Moore talk that Cindy linked to back in #189.
That’s a very interesting talk, and I recommend that any of you who haven’t listened to it, do so.
To add to the comments Cindy already made:
RM makes the point that complementarians are big on the “servant” part of “servant leadership” but go light on the leadership part and what that entails. I actually agree with this: I’ve long been confused about what the difference is, exactly, between submission and servanthood. I believe that Light has made this point more than once – memorably on the Bayly blog.
In 13 years of marriage, my husband and I have never faced the sort of impasse situation that requires a “tiebreaker.” IMO, if the matter is trivial, you work through it together. If it’s a matter of conscience, then I don’t believe the woman is called to obey man rather than God (again, you work through the matter together). I am not sure what types of issues are left.
So yes, I do believe that complementarians should offer some clarification on this issue. But to get back to Russell Moore: He says that Christ leads the church, sometimes in ways the church doesn’t want to go. Examples offered: When Peter protested against Jesus’s washing of the disciples feet, and when he protested the idea of Jesus’s offering himself as a sacrifice.
Okay. Those are both examples of Christ’s sacrificial servanthood. Is this really the kind of behavior that women are likely to object to in their leader husbands??
In another example, RM counsels a young husband to ask his wife, who is unhappy with her job, whether the real issue is that she’d like to have a child. It turns out that this is the case, and RM then counsels the man to show leadership, sacrificially, to make this possible for his wife. This is a wonderful story; but what generalizations can we take from it? Is it fair to assume that every woman employed outside the home really wants to be a mother? If she doesn’t, what form does the husband’s “leadership” take then?
To sum up, it seems to me the Russell Moore’s examples fit the same “kinder, gentler” mold as the complementarians’. Everyone ends up happy, but there was not really much conflict to begin with – just, perhaps, a misunderstanding. But what about situations in which this is not the case?
December 31, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Katrina, You are right. They rarely get into the serious questions that arise from this teaching. When it comes up, they show themseleves. For example: Paige Patterson, President of SWBTS tells women who are physically abused to go home and submit more and pray. The man’s behavior is never confronted. The responsibility for the man’s behavior is put onto the woman.
In the end, the teaching on submission is taken totally out of context to assume a leadership role that is NEVER mentioned. We can get into the details of this but here is an answer from Cheryl Schatz which I think sums it up well:
“The one thing that is added by complementarians that isn’t in the text is “leadership”. The husband is told to sacrifice for his wife and she is told to submit (to his sacrificial servanthood) but he is never told to lead his wife nor is she told that he is to be her leader. For some reason complementarians read in “leadership” when this is foreign to the text. Women don’t need a husband to “lead” them. They do need a husband to sacrifice for them. Never once does scripture ever position a husband in a leadership place over his wife. If this was the case then she would not be able to mature in Christ. As it is, the wife is given the responsibility to also mature in Christ without the need for a mediator between herself and her Lord. The husband can “lead” if he would like and a good thing for him would be to “lead” in humility and “lead” in servanthood. But the husband is not the “leader”. The ideal is the husband and wife working together as one, not one or the other “leading” the other. I still find it amazing that we so readily attach the position of “leader” to the husband when the scriptures never given him that place. Servant – yes; Leader – no.”
They read ‘leadership’ into the word ‘head’ and that is not what it means at all. Had the Holy Spirit meant that… the Greek word Kephale would have never been used (Meaning Origin or Source.) Anyway, the Greeks would have never used ‘head’ to denote rank or authority. the Head was an entryway to the rest of the body to them…a source for things.
If you read it like it is meant, it makes total sense: Christ is the origin of the church and man is the origin of woman. Get it? A ONE FLESH UNION as described in Genesis.
Again, I will quote this from Cheryl:
“Never once does scripture ever position a husband in a leadership place over his wife. If this was the case then she would not be able to mature in Christ.”
We are seeingthe effects of this immaturity in Christ with women played out all over Christendom, aren’t we? We must be very careful who we take teaching from. Let the Holy Spirit teach us!
January 1, 2008 at 1:56 am
Serious problem with your comment, Lin.
The Scripture says, “For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church.” Ephesians 5:23
Your post declares that God doesn’t put the husband in a leadership position. Does that mean that Christ doesn’t lead? The husband’s role is analogous in this Scripture to the role of Christ. Surely you would agree that Christ is the head, the “leader,” the ruler over the church.
Your post says: “Never once does scripture ever position a husband in a leadership place over his wife.”
Hogwash.
The Scripture is quite clear that God indeed did put husbands in a position to lead their wives.
January 1, 2008 at 2:24 am
I’ve been travelling all day, and I’m ridiculously behind, so I’m not even going to try and go back and read for tonight.
Just to address “W’s” comment above: I am with you that the Bible states the husband is the HEAD of the wife, but does that necessarily mean LEAD in the way we’d interpret it in 2008? It doesn’t say that outright. Sure, one could suppose it, and make it say that, and I tend to agree with you. But it doesn’t say lead. It says the husband is “the head”. And even if it does say lead—that may mean many different things to any one individual, not to mention married couple.
For some, leading is full blown submission like the patrio’s are teaching. For others, lead does NOT mean domination/submission.
Happy New Year everyone. May 2008 be the best yet.
January 1, 2008 at 2:29 am
“For some, leading is full blown submission like the patrio’s are teaching. For others, lead does NOT mean domination/submission.”
Like this?
“Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.”
“Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.”
Indeed, Happy New Year everyone. And May 2008 be the best yet, and may His Kingdom come.
January 1, 2008 at 2:55 am
Amen! Cynthia! (in response to those wonderful verses, Mark 10:44 and Isa 11:6. If only more men and women even, would model those verses by the grace of our Lord Jesus’ Spirit. I love how I see Jesus in my husband when he gives of himself for me and his family, and it wasn’t always that way. It’s irresistable and I believe the way people are drawn to Christ — by Jesus’ sacrificial love for us and His innocence as our Lamb.
I’m feeling farclempt right now
Have an wonderful New Year to you all! May His light shine brighter in the coming new year.
January 1, 2008 at 3:24 am
“The problem with all of this that these and other authors cite is that groups like Vision Forum tell you that you will get the inward results of spirituality by following and mimicing the patterns. Because they have a view that grace is merited and sanctification as a collaborative process {what some Protestants term -rightly or wrongly – as “Romanism”) to which man contributes significantly (remember the theonomy discussion, Jen?), they promise that the outward manifestations have the power to do this. But they don’t.”
Oh, Cindy, your comment #612 was so informative and helps to sort through some of the deep roots of these anti-Gospel or performance-based or dead works teachings. You’ve been such a source of knowledge and growth in my understanding and I thank God for this discussion, and for the 4 threads that deal with these things. We need our First Love to reveal His truth to us so that we grow in the knowledge of Him, not what man’s preferences are.
January 1, 2008 at 3:38 am
Cindy said in #615:
“The term cognitive dissonance has been mentioned here recently, and that just means that your mind as two or more conflicting thoughts or concepts flying around. This puts you into a state of hypersuggestability by altering your brainwaves. You may feel this happen as you read things that challenge those ideas that you’ve been told to believe — so it can happen when you are reading the good stuff. Sometimes you just have to put down what you’re reading and process it emotionally and physically. Recently, I’ve had this happen when I started reading CD Host’s latest installment on the review of patriarchy. It hit a point that was emotional for me if not threatening to think about and I had to stop. So this does happen, and it can be a good process. The difference between this process experienced on your own and the cognitive dissonance that the patriarchalists throw at you under pressure is that you are in control of the process. You have the freedom to stop and pick it back up at your own pace. Patriarchy and spiritually abusive groups throw you into situations and force the stuff on you so that you must convert to what you are being told or you feel uncomfortable. They give you no means of respite or escape because their goal is conversion. If you want converted, convert yourself. But don’t be too afraid of cognitive dissonance (stress when you are reading something challenging), but use it as an indicator that you are being pushed or stressed. Then take the initiative to put yourself into a safer place or slow down the process.”
This is very much the process I went through when coming out of cultic teachings (patriarchalist, sabbatarianism, separatist and anti-industrialist). God is working in people to bring them to His goodness and rest in Him. It’s painful, but such it’s such a tender time to press in to the Lord.
January 1, 2008 at 3:45 am
W, you said:
‘The husband’s role is analogous in this Scripture to the role of Christ. Surely you would agree that Christ is the head, the “leader,” the ruler over the church.’
Agreed that Christ is all of those. But “head” is the only parallel drawn between this relationship and that of the husband and wife. Not “leader” or “ruler.” Nor “prophet, priest, and king”–though Christ is all of those to the church.
What did Paul mean by “head”? I am not sure exactly. As I’ve said, the “tiebreaker” thing has never been an issue in my own marriage. Mutual submission is definitely commanded; if there’s another layer of male “leadership” or “rulership” in marriage implied, I would like to know how that plays out in real life. That’s all.
January 1, 2008 at 4:38 am
Katrina,
If you are the head of a committee, an organization, or the church picnic, you are leading the endeavor.
How, then, can God say in His Word that a man is the head of a wife, yet we can say, “Well, he doesn’t really mean that.”?
We may not all interpret Scripture exactly the same, but some things are clear. When God says that the husband is the head of his wife, that clearly means that he is the leader.
Why is there so much opposition on this blog to God’s design for marriage?
The Greek word for “head” in this passage is “kaphale” and means:
2) metaph. anything supreme, chief, prominent
a) of persons, master lord: of a husband in relation to his wife
b) of Christ: the Lord of the husband and of the Church
c) of things: the corner stone
Can you still be in question about what head means?
January 1, 2008 at 5:06 am
Cynthia, thank you for that information on the Kinism-scottish heraldy link. I think more of what I used to read on the biblicalagrarianism website year ago is beginning to make more sense.
Those people there were big, big into Southern Secession and HATED Lincoln. I couldn’t understand it at the time, but now I can see all the subtle “code-speak” for what it was now. They loved and referred to Braveheart often. They often quoted Malcomb X, though I don’t know why, as I have never seen the movie or read his writings. They also nearly hated women, and treated them as way below men, and the leader of that group wrote a series of articles entitled, “The Plague of Women” and they were all about how Eve and her progeny are accursed and followed the typical patriarchal teachings on women. I was exposed to this teaching very soon after I came to the teachings on grace, and the birds of the air were trying to peck away at the good seed God planted in my heart. Thank God he took me out of the teaching.
January 1, 2008 at 5:21 am
W said: Why is there so much opposition on this blog to God’s design for marriage?
W, please do not judge our motives. I think I speak for all of us when I say that we all desire to be obedient to scripture. I am going to assume, too, that everyone here believes in the infallibility of the Word. However, we also should be humble enough to admit that our interpretations may be imperfect. It is arrogant of me, you, or anyone else to believe that we can perfectly and without error interpret every single word of scripture.
Kephale meaning ruler is one interpretation, but it is not the only reasonable one. There is an excellent body of research that points to head/body as a metaphor for unity, and more excellent research that suggests kephale means source or origin, not ruler of. I will not belabor the arguments there.
I get very tired of people assuming that people who see mutuality instead of hierarchy as God’s best for marriage are willfully rebelling against God’s word. I wonder if you would ascribe the same motives to someone who believes in infant vs adult baptism, or vice versa, or speaking in tongues vs cessation of tongues, and so on.
January 1, 2008 at 7:03 am
“Can you still be in question about what head means?”
Of course. If the Holy Spirit had wanted Paul to make it an authority position He would not have used the word Kephale. I explained this above. There are other Greek words that would fit that meaning in a very clear way.
Very old Lexicons do not have Kephale meaning authority over or to lead. This word has been a conumdrum for 2000 years. Some decided to give it a distinct meaning a while back. In Ancient Greek writings, which Paul would know very well growing up in Tarsus, it was used as source or origin.
In the context of that verse, source or origin works best.
There would be no church without Christ. There would be no woman without man. Think of it…it speaks of a ONE FLESH UNION not only in marriage but with Christ.
Now, let’s turn it around. If the verse means the husband is the head of the wife… meaning authority over her… then he is repsonsible for her salvation and sanctification. How can that be? She would have two masters. What if her professing Christian husband came in one day and said, I have met a wonderful preacher by the name of Jim Jones and we are moving to SA. He told us to pack lots of kool aid. Do I follow? (Yes, i am being absurd to point out absurdity)
What if my professing Christian husband decided we must join a Kinist church? Do I submit?
Why is it that people are so quick to accept earthly priests for women? Or to expect wives to serve two masters? Or to assume that all professing Christian husbands are really saved? (Matthew 7) This interpretation negates the Cross and makes a mockery of …In Christ there is no male or female…
And, this interpretation makes no sense in light of a lot of other scripture in the NT and in the lifestyle we see presented in the NT.
I know it is ingrained in our thinking. A wife should yeild submit to a husband who is like Christ. That is very clear in the verse. But it is voluntary…a yielding. And who wouldn’t want to submit to a man like that? But don’t forget the verse preceeding that one….very important.
January 1, 2008 at 7:10 am
Corrie wrote:
““As in this example, there are still serious issues that have not been even remotely addressed in this blanket apology, but at least that’s a start.”
Cindy,
I agree.”
I feel the same way.
I am also in agreement with Cindy, Corrie and Rebecca here (#707, #711, #715).
My prayer is for God’s truth to be revealed through His written Word on our hearts, and our
love for Him and His Bride, the Church would be paramount, but also that His Light would shine
in the darkness.
Also, Corrie, I’m praying God’s peace for your thoughts and heart concerning the trauma you’ve suffered
recently with that accident you witnessed. I pray for Him to give you His rest in your weary thoughts. “For so he giveth his beloved sleep.”— Psa 127:2
I found a wonderful sermon by Charles Spurgeon on The Blue Letter Bible website called , “The Peculiar Sleep of the Beloved” that describes the sleep and rest in Christ and includes some poetry:
“He that hath made his refuge God,
Shall find a most secure abode;
Shall walk all day beneath his shade,
And there at night shall rest his head…
…To you and me by grace ’tis given,
To know the Saviour’s precious name;
And shortly we shall meet in heaven,
Our end, our hope, our way the same.”
He concludes with this statement that’s a wonderful reminder to look to the Author and Perfecter of our Faith:
“Now let me beseech thee, you, by the frailty of your own lives—by the shortness of time—by the dreadful realities of eternity—by the sins you have committed—by the pardon that you need—by the blood and wounds of Jesus—by his second coming to judge the world in righteousness—by the glories of heaven—by the awful horrors of hell—by time—by eternity—by all that is good—by all that is sacred—let me beg of you, as you love your own souls, to search and see whether ye are amongst the beloved, to whom he giveth sleep. God bless you.”
January 1, 2008 at 7:13 am
“If you are the head of a committee, an organization, or the church picnic, you are leading the endeavor. ”
It is so hard to get past our fleshly thinking. After all, there must be a leader for everything…even picnics!
The Body of Christ is different. On purpose. Scriptural ‘Leaders’ are really servantsnow in the NC. They serve other believers by teaching, loving, rebuking (with tears) etc. They are mature in the faith, humble, sacrificing. There is NO personal glory in being such a servant. As our Savior attests in scripture.
The Holy Spirit leads the Body. And when the Body is seeking the Mind of Christ together..it works. The Body cannot do without all its eyes, hands, feet, etc. All are important. There are no special anointed men. All believers are anointed. See 1 John.
Of course, we don’t see this modeled very often which is why we do not understand it. But scripture is clear.
Christianity is not a cult. It is not like Islam or Mormonism. Quite frankly, it was quite radical compared to Judaism of it’s day but unfortuantly we have allowed the Judaizers to bring in many temple traditions.
January 1, 2008 at 7:18 am
“Why is there so much opposition on this blog to God’s design for marriage?”
God’s design for marriage is beautiful! Think of it…a ONE FLESH UNION. It is only our sin and seeking of being important, lording it over another and selfishness that gets in the way of His design.
January 1, 2008 at 7:20 am
I’m also getting a chuckle out of the conversation about wine, especially comment #726 by Rebecca:
“It deeply grieves me to have red wine maligned and mistreated in this fashion, especially by someone I consider a friend. And then to call me a brazen sinner on top of it is more than I can bear.
I don’t know if I’m going to be able to sleep tonight. (The fact that it’s New Year’s Eve, and our house will be full of guests, has nothing to do with any lack of sleep, I’m sure.)”
I don’t know if I can continue to comment here in this conversation. The scripture says in Pro 23:20 “Be not among winebibbers; among riotous eaters of flesh:”
Is that winebibbers or “winebloggers”? Is there also a “biblical beverage” category in the Patriarch’s Tenets of biblical living? I’m a lightweight enjoying Mike’s Hard Lemonade.
January 1, 2008 at 11:37 am
I really find it unbelievable and unacceptable that anyone would contact employers to get another person fired and especially anonymously. That is way over the line and if they really believe what they are doing — then step up to the plate and go directly to the person as they should. I sure would not want that type of person as a “friend” or turn my back on someone like that. Wow.
January 1, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Question, since I don’t know where to throw it out. Can we start a new post/thread to discuss the different ways you look at life/marriage/raising and educating children depending on if you consider yourself complimentarian or egalitarian or patriarchal, or other? I know I’m new to some of this, but for example, I don’t see why being a member of a church is such a monstrously huge deal, or why it seems that they can get between you and God, or…well, a dozen different things. But that doesn’t seem to be the purpose of this thread, so can we have that discussion, either here or elsewhere?
Thanks.
January 1, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Looks like W has fallen for the CBMW distortion that states that gender is synonymous with “roles” within Trinity.
It is an anthropomorphized (to make God like men) view of the Godhead, suggesting that gender and Trinity are connected directly and a two-way street. God means gender and gender means God. I don’t believe that it is a bi-directional represenation, nor can it be. We can understand things about how God loves us through the imagery, but to use that relationship in a reciprocal fashion is Man-centered IDOLATRY and making God in man’s image.
HERE’S the CRUX of the HUGE FLAW:
(and I think it was Karl Barth who first made this argument) —
It’s the analogy of being
Since the Creator is always greater than the creature, anything that’s represented in the creature has to be found somehow in the creator, but not in equality — in analogy. (Save sin, but sin is a negation and a twisting of the original truth in the Creator — an action, not essence.)
You can never create anything greater or equal to yourself. Anything you create is less than yourself — it must be so. By definition we are less than God and anything in us is less than God. The essence can’t go backwards.
So what the patriarchs are actually doing by projecting this relationship of humanity back onto God with equal meaning, they are actually creating a God in their own image which by definition can only be lesser than themselves. They’ve seen the representation and reflection of the creator in the creature. They’ve then taken the creature and fashioned their own representation of it, sanded it, varnished it, put it on display and kneeled down before it.
W, without knowing it because he’s trusted in the supposed understanding of others and their vain deceits, has called us all to come and behold an idol of God that man has fashioned for us.
No thanks.
God can be fully man, but man can never BE LIKE GOD. All man can be is man and forgiven his sins. To suggest that God is like man is the height of human hubris and an affront to Christ.
January 1, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Consider then what this CBMW junk teaches about the nature of women in regard to the
ANALOGY OF BEING –
The CBMW crowd touts “equal but different” then tells a hundred different ways and reasons why women is functionally lesser in essence and origin. You are supposed to listen and memorize what they have told you that everything means and believe them when they say that they are not downgrading women into lesser beings.
By definition of the analogy of being, patriarchs have reduced women to a rib that can produce ribs and somehow produce patriarchs, too?
I guess that all the virtues of the full image of God in male offspring, delivered by way of a woman’s body and from half of her own essence in the flesh, come entirely by way of the male who sired the offspring. Do you see what they do? As Andrew Sandlin was so abused by VF for stating in several sermons — the patriarchs have reduced their wives (by virtue of the analogy of being) to baby machines. They may like their baby machines and treat them very well, but in the first and final estimation, they are just vessels for producing demigod patriarchs. We are ribs that might get to carry a demi-god in our wombs if we are lucky. We women are holding tanks for that which is greater than ourselves, not really mothers in the full sense of the word. In a way, sons aren’t really ours at all. They belong to the father and not the mother — the incubation chamber.
Now I don’t think that these patriarchs have thought any of this out to these ends, but when you apply this logic to it, you see it in a more comprehensive way. And it sure does not seem Biblical or Christian at all.
January 1, 2008 at 1:00 pm
“Can we start a new post/thread to discuss the different ways you look at life/marriage/raising and educating children depending on if you consider yourself complimentarian or egalitarian or patriarchal, or other?”
Annie, I think that all fits this discussion so go right ahead. I am starting thread #5 this morning.
January 1, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I’m going to address something here that won’t be popular, and you may want to burn me at the stake and throw rotten tomatoes at me, but if I don’t say it, I’m not being honest with y’all and myself.
Not every CHRISTIAN (namely me) believes in a gut-literal translation of the Bible. I believe God’s Word is truth. I believe it is His love letter to us, mankind. I believe scripture is God-breathed and inerrant, because God himself is inerrant.
But I don’t believe the same of humans. We’re grubby, dirty, sinful beings who are not capable of doing the TRUE WORD justice. We twist and distort, even in the name of goodness, and we miss the mark. We’ve changed and twisted scripture to our own selfish benefit and in many cases, we’re just plain ignorant and incapable of understanding the deep ways of God.
Do I think the KJV is the ONLY “true” Word of God? No. I think it probably has errors in it, due to human flaws and sinfulness. I don’t think it is a perfect picture of God.
That is just me. I admit it, and I open myself up to ridicule and criticism.
But because YOU think marriage is one thing, and I look at it another way, it does NOT call salvation, mine or yours into question.
The gospel, the Word, is MYSTERY in so many ways. We will not figure it all out this side of heaven. We focus too much on the rib issues of the Word and we miss the central spine issues.
Jesus himself proved this mystery. The OT tells us to stone an adulterer to death in the streets, yet Jesus tells us “he who is without sin to cast the first stone.” Song of Songs tells us that a woman’s breasts are like gazelles and towers, and such, but that is just beautiful, poetic imagery….it isn’t literally true.
For me, the same holds true with other verses of scripture. They are beautiful imagery, a mystery. I look at the verse we’re discussing, the man as the “head” of the wife, as beautiful, poetic, mysterious imagery.
I’ve seen people take the husband as leader thing to all sorts of levels. I’ve seen it taught that the husband is the only source of the wife’s salvation and sanctification. (that is a huge responsibility that no husband can bear) I’ve seen women who let their husbands lead to the point that they are alienated from all their friends and family. One such example is a man who became “convicted” and convinced that his wife must cover her hair, with a full cape, like the muslims do. This woman had no want to do so, but because she was knee deep in the patrio stuff, she did it to be “dutifully submissive” to her husband, afterall he must know better than she. Her family was concerned and worried at the change in her. Her husband repeatedly told her that they were just in rebellion, and that they did not understand. It turned into such strife, that now the wife doesnt’ speak to her own parents or siblings because they are “in rebellion” and just not “enlightened” enough.
We could go on and on with examples. I’ve actually heard it taught that married women should not enjoy intimacy too much, because it takes away from the husband’s role as leader if she’s too vocal about her needs and wants! (seriously….now that is misconstrewing the gospel)
The fact in the end is that many Christians take a very hardline, literal look at the Word. Others do not. We argue with one another over who is right, and who is wrong.
I may not believe in submissive marriage to the level you do (I tend to go the “tiebreaker” route like described above, and I am very deferential to my husband’s desires and wishes). But, you can’t question my salvation because I don’t believe in 100% literal interpretation.
The constant quest to be right is what gets all of us believers in murky water, I think. I’m no better or different. Here I’ve written my heart out in an effort to get YOU to understand ME.
In the end, it shouldnt’ matter if you understand me. I need only God’s approval, really.
January 1, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Lindsey,
It appears to me that you are giving a basic argument for the hermeneutic of grammatico-historical method, one that is most widely accepted by Biblical Christians who believe sola scriptura. Wiki probably has a whole page on all the different hermeneutics that one can use of which an absolute literal hermeneutic is most likely included, too.
Doug Phillips posted a statement about hermeneutics online this summer that describes the grammatico-historical method, but one must wonder to what degree he actually uses it himself. It’s a hermeneutic that requires constant work for one to see things clearly and in proprer perspective.
The other thing here that gets complicated is what a person will except as truth and how they validate internally those things that are true.
I believe (per coherentism) that truth will show itself to be true and the quality of truthfulness will transcend anything that anyone (Christian or secular) will throw at it. Take creation science. I believe in a young earth by faith, and I love to see people throw whatever science at it that they can, because I believe that truth will prevail. Call me a liar, too. If I have not lied, then truth will exhonerate me eventually. It all comes out in the wash, and I’m sure that your wise mother would agree.
Where I think some of these other folks get caught is in their view of the validation of truth.
There are those who are selective about where they get their truths, and they put truth in a category in their minds, so part of their experience is involved in determining what is true.
For instance, if a psychologist comes to them and tells them that they have all the hallmark signs and symptoms of a mental illness, they might reject the truth of the evidence of the signs and symptoms themselves because psychology is not classified in their minds as something that is a reliable and true source. They know about Freud and his sex obsession because of his adulterous relationship with his sister-in-law. They know about how Jung talked to a demon named Philemon when he walked in his garden every morning. So they determine that all psychology is bad because it originated from a bad source. Any truth that these guys accidently stumbled upon can’t be true either. If Jung said the sky was blue and had clouds in it, they very well might argue or reject the truth of Jung’s statement because it came from Jung.
Or if a true statement came from an egalitarian, a person who has demonstrated that they do not lie, they have impecable credentials, they have the utmost of character and are consistent….
A foundationalist (truth can only come from pre-approved, predetermined true sources) very well might reject information from the egalitarian, even though their true statement had nothing to do with gender. It works the other way, too. We see this when someone contends the truth of a statement because it came from a source that they deemed true. “It has to be true because this wonderful, trusted person — like Billy Graham as a great example — said it was true.” I love Billy Graham, but I disagree with him on several things and he’s disappointed me greatly in recent years. And I don’t believe that everything he says is truth — it still must be challenged.
I suspect that many of the pats defer to foundationalism rather than trusting in truth as truth.
Something to think about.
But you did a great, basic description of a good hermeneutic and one that most Christians today prefer. You’re right in there with the best theologians, Lindsey. Keep it up!
January 1, 2008 at 4:17 pm
“Because they have a view that grace is merited and sanctification as a collaborative process {what some Protestants term -rightly or wrongly – as “Romanism”) to which man contributes significantly (remember the theonomy discussion, Jen?), they promise that the outward manifestations have the power to do this. But they don’t.””
The difference between the Roman Catholic (and the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican) concept of the Sacraments, and the Partio’s idea of becoming spiritual through mimicking certain patterns, is the differance between night and day. This is NOT the same as the “Romanist” view of the Sacraments.
The Catholics, Anglicans, and Orthodox hold to the ancient belief that Jesus (and the Holy Spirit, through the Apostles) instituted certain rituals — namely, baptism, Communion, confession, ordination, anointing of the sick, etc, and that when we are obedient to Jesus and do these specific things, God gives us grace. The sacraments are NOT some sort of a “lifestyle” — there are seven of them, they are SPECIFIC acts, and every one of them (except confirmation) is directly based in Scripture and date back to the beginning of the Church. They are, in fact, God’s way of reaching DOWN to us, an invitation to partake of Him.
What the patrios are doing, on the other hand, is trying to claw their way UP to God by following patterns of living that THEY have defined — in other words, they have made an idol, a new model of holiness for themselves — a New Law — and believe that if they follow the Law, they will become holy.
That didn’t work before Jesus came, and it won’t work now.
Psalm 127:1-2. “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.
January 1, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Kate wrote,
Those people there were big, big into Southern Secession and HATED Lincoln. I couldn’t understand it at the time, but now I can see all the subtle “code-speak” for what it was now. They loved and referred to Braveheart often. They often quoted Malcomb X, though I don’t know why, as I have never seen the movie or read his writings. They also nearly hated women, and treated them as way below men, and the leader of that group wrote a series of articles entitled, “The Plague of Women” and they were all about how Eve and her progeny are accursed and followed the typical patriarchal teachings on women.
Things were much the same in ancient Judea. A rabbi would usually neither look at nor speak to a woman (modernday ultraOrthodox rabbis have been known to literally bump into buildings because they closed their eyes to avoid looking at a woman!); this is why Jesus caused a stir by talking to women, teaching women, and fraternizing with sinners and prostitutes!
These Southern fellows are not doing anything new – they despise women, hate foreigners, and seek to sanctify themselves by keeping their version of the Law. They are Pharisees wrapped in the Confederate flag, whose phylacteries contain the words of Dabney and Jefferson Davis.
“As Andrew Sandlin was so abused by VF for stating in several sermons — the patriarchs have reduced their wives (by virtue of the analogy of being) to baby machines.”
It’s a good thing that men can’t have babies, isn’t it? Otherwise these fellows could and would dispense with Eve (and the Bride of Christ) altogether, and be completely self-sufficient, just like the more radical lesbian feminsts would like to do, with men.
January 1, 2008 at 6:04 pm
“They also nearly hated women, and treated them as way below men, and the leader of that group wrote a series of articles entitled, “The Plague of Women” and they were all about how Eve and her progeny are accursed and followed the typical patriarchal teachings on women.”
It’s not surprising that they should do so — they are heretics after all.
HERE is where the hatred of women comes from:
Gen 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou [art] cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
Gen 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
January 2, 2008 at 5:05 am
“The constant quest to be right is what gets all of us believers in murky water, I think. I’m no better or different. Here I’ve written my heart out in an effort to get YOU to understand ME.”
Lindsey,
I just love you! Thank you for speaking your heart and speaking honestly. I love that about you and we need more of it.
January 2, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Just to end this long thread with a correction that should have been made a long time ago . . . I mistakenly asked Cindy K. off-line why people were saying she contacted the press, and that was the cause of Cindy K.’s questions in some of the entries above. She wanted to know who said that about her.
After being privately corrected by Corrie, I wrote Cindy K. off-line and said I made a mistake — that it was someone who claimed Karen contacted the press, not Cindy.
Just want to clarify where that issue came from, in case anybody even remotely remembers that issue.
January 3, 2008 at 1:03 am
I understand Vision Forum and others discussed here are big Ron Paul supporters? I thought you would be interested in this video where they ask why there are so many men supporting Ron Paul (with a video clip at this URL). If you go to this page and scroll down someone says Ron Paul ran a newsletter with racists remarks (which another claims Ron Paul says was a ghostwriter or someone else who wrote them). I just thought both of these subjects tied in with the racism, patriocentric debate you are having here.
Ron Paul HQ: Few women, loud chants
My colleague James Kotecki visited Ron Paul HQ yesterday and files this report:
Early Monday afternoon in downtown Des Moines, I happened upon a hearty band of Ron Paul supporters cheering outside their Iowa headquarters.
Almost all of them were men, and to find out why, I asked one of the few women who was there. Her answer may provide a clue as to why, despite his impressive fundraising, Paul is still polling in single digits in Iowa and New Hampshire.
— James Kotecki
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0108/Ron_Paul_HQ_Few_women_loud_chants.html
January 8, 2008 at 4:16 am
Doesn’t Harry Seabrook have a new website?
January 26, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I am wondering does anyone recall the “veiled” threat I received on Jen’s blog? The comment was made that they “knew my family” – it was very creepy and that is why I took down my blog etc with my name on it. Jen also allowed my name out . . . Brandon made a comment about threats to him but how does he know the threats came from who he thinks? How does he know it is not from the Epstein’s? See if the comment allowed on Jen’s blog was not from one of the Epsteins then why did Jen allow it through?