This is a continuation of the Prairie Muffin Manifesto discussion. You can find part one here. The original document we are looking at can be found here.
March 22, 2008
Part Two of Prairie Muffin Manifesto discussion (Karen)
Posted by millenniumwoman under 1[614] Comments
March 22, 2008 at 1:04 pm
17) Prairie Muffins place their husbands’ needs and desires above other obligations, arranging their schedules and responsibilities so that they do not neglect the one who provides for and protects them and their children.
March 22, 2008 at 1:50 pm
I agree that we should all aim to meet our husband’s needs as we’re called to be our husband’s helper.
But why do those in patriarchal circles assume that only non- tertiary educated women are able to do this? Why this assumption that women with a higher education are unable or unwiling to serve their husbands?
It seems to me that those with such assumptions fail to ‘believe the best’ – therefore fail to love Biblically – those womn who have made different decisions about their lifestyle.
March 22, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Thanks for posting this. It gives me lots of insight to Stacy.
March 22, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Beatrice-
I wish I could say that there was an easy answer. I think Psalmist said it the best…I think it truly comes down to the leading of the Holy Spirit. It’s one of those mysteries that I swear we’re going to get to heaven and be smacking our foreheads because the answer is so clear and obvious There, but so muddied, twisted, and convoluted here on earth.
I have to say, the True Womanhood blog had done so much for me in this regard: really considering what I do and do not believe about things regarding women, feminism, patriarchalism, etc. I don’t have a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction much anymore- I see all the issues as so much more multifaceted than I had ever considered. And I certainly have been so encouraged to dig deep into the marrow of the Word.
March 22, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Lin,
I agree. But, compared to what she just wrote on her blog in response to “Kym” who was asking her about what was said on this blog, I am confused. What I just read here seems totally opposite of what she said there and it doesn’t seem like she even answered the questions that Kym asked her. I am still left wondering if her daughters ever go anywhere without her or her husband.
She states that their daughters don’t have their own individual social lives in her blog entry from the 19th but she then claims in that same comment that it is “twitter, gossip and nonsense” for someone to say such a thing about their practices.
From her blog:
“”Do you not allow your daughters out of your sight? In other words are your adult daughter not allowed to leave your house without you or your husband?”
LOL! No, this is not true. Our adult daughters are adults. They do honor my husband’s wishes when he requests that they not drive at night etc. And there are times when he lets them know he would prefer to chaperone them for an event or if they are going to a neighborhood that’s not so safe. Also, he doesn’t like me or the girls to drive alone at night.
We do most things together as a family and I suppose that seems odd to many people these days. We don’t have our own individual social lives, but that doesn’t mean we don’t EVER do anything alone. We aren’t joined at the hip – yet we are definitely together ALOT!
”
So that means that her adult daughters cannot go to an elder’s house for lunch after church or can they? Which is it? Can their adult daughters go out to lunch with other adult women from their church or does Stacy insist on making it a gathering with the young adult women AND the mothers of these women? Which is it? Because what she says does not seem to line up with what actually happens.
Also, do their adult daughters drive anywhere alone in the car? There is another post in her PW archives that says they do not drive alone and that they only have their temps because they have no need of a full driver’s license since they do not go anywhere without one of their parents. James claims that his daughters could go to a local community college. They have said different elsewhere. Would they or would they not allow their daughters to drive to the local community college and attend classes without being chaperoned? Or did he mean they can attend their local community college BUT via satellite/internet which was left off leaving the impression that they could go to college if they wanted?
If they have softened their extreme stance on these issues, then they should say so.
Here is what her husband recently wrote about the adoption issue. Since she adopted his four oldest children and he adopted her daughter (I am assuming since she has his last name), I would think they would be PRO adoption and much more positive about adoption?
Does the following sound consistent with what Marion posted?
“My husband recently put up a testimony of my adoption and in it he points out:
“Stacy was placed into the family of her adoptive parents when she was eighteen months old. By God’s grace, they chose to take on a child who was past infancy, loaded with hefty medical bills, and facing future difficult surgeries. Yet despite all that, they brought Stacy home and called her their own. Years later, when God captured the heart of my wife, He revealed to her the providential Hand that had protected and guided her throughout her life…
Since that time, not only has Stacy grown to appreciate her adoptive parents in new ways, she has also grown close to her birth family—especially her grandparents. When asked about her thoughts on God’s providential hand in her life, she says this: ‘I stand amazed and humbled that God spared my life and, by His grace, given me the chance to raise ten beautiful children for His glory.’””
March 22, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Mrsjoy,
“I don’t have a ‘knee-jerk’ reaction much anymore- I see all the issues as so much more multifaceted than I had ever considered. And I certainly have been so encouraged to dig deep into the marrow of the Word. ”
Exactly! The issues are very multifaceted and there is no one-size-fits all answer. There are general truths but within those general truths are many variables. God has a unique calling on each one of His children whether they be male or female.
I just really want to see people get over their knee-jerk reactions and start actually looking at what scripture actually says and what it doesn’t say.
March 22, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Corrie, It gave me insight in a totally different way. She felt less favored/loved than her sisters because she was adopted. That is her testimony.
We can act out these sorts of feelings in many ways. One is to join a cult where you feel protected and become very dogmatic about your beliefs insisting that everyone one else agree with you. There is alot of faux security in such a stance.
March 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Corrie- I love how you put that!
I just got to thinking as I was dealing with my son about something (somewhat unrelated)- I think it’s important that the whole male/female thing is celebrated. Even within one gender there is an incredible amount of diversity and variety expressed- each woman has unique aspects. We do share common traits, but at the same time, how we express them is so different. I think that’s where the legalism/prescriptive boxes get so in the way as Psalmist pointed out. It denies that God is a creative and unique God in Whose image we are all made… I was reading Isaiah 40 this morning- In it God says (in mrsjoy paraphrase): “Hey, don’t you know that I am so much more than you can ever imagine? And that I made you? And that I will deliver you?”
That convicted me- I keep trying to put God in a tiny little box, and well, He’s so beyond my imagination it’s laughable that I would dare to try!
March 22, 2008 at 5:01 pm
“but I caution
those that are so desperate for children that they may be manipulating God
to force His hand in giving them children. It can definitely be more than
you bargained for! Especially when you have other children still living in
the home. I know of cases where people have adopted older children and
their own children were molested or so
negatively influenced by the adopted children that they grew up to be very
rebellious and resentful of the adopted ones. I literally HATED my sister
(who was 5 years younger) when I was growing up because I saw how cherished
she was.”
Wow. this freaked me out. Molested? Negatively influenced?
She hated her sister?
I am a bit freaked out she put this on her site.
“I shared my story to challenge us to re-think our stand on adoption. It can
be a great blessing, but as with anything, it can be monstrously abused. In
some cases, it’s not much more than baby-stealing. Because my mother was so
young, she had no choice. She begged her parents to allow her to keep me.
She even found a boy (not the father) who said he would marry her. My
grandparents did not tell their other children I existed, so to allow her to
keep me would have exposed the sin and shamed the family.”
Baby stealing? If her mom died in an accident when she was 5, the the informaton she has about herm mother’s thinking is second hand.
I have not seen a rant against adoption like this before. I need time to process it.
March 22, 2008 at 7:11 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/complementarian-egalitarian-dialogue/
Here is a group that I own with another complementarian and a couple of egalitarians. We have had various discussions over the years but it is mostly a quiet list.
I am making it available for anyone on this list who would like to compare fact vs. fiction.
If you would like to look at the Planned Parenthood Discussion, you can go to 6/2004 to view the discussion between Donna and Pat Gundry and I even put in my 2 cents where I DISAGREED with Pat and AGREED with Donna.
I only know Pat Gundry from that list. I do not know her outside of that list and we may have corresponded 3 or 4 times outside the list but that pertained to a blog she was starting. She asked if I would submit some articles to this blog because she wanted the perspective of a homeschooling mom of 10. Basically she wanted start a blog with a number of women writing articles that had varied beliefs and opinions on theological topics. I have never read any of her books. She is forthright but she was never nasty when she participated on my list. Please read what she wrote on that list to see that she is being misrepresented along with everyone else.
If you want to really read where the issues with Donna started, you will find them back in 2004. They are quite interesting. She goes by “TigandTag” on that list as well as “dlkaijala” and “Donna”. You will soon see any missing pieces to the puzzle.
Re: [complementarian-egalitarian-dialogue] Re: Ladies Against Feminism
In a message dated 6/10/04 10:44:54 AM, dlkaijala@hotmail.com writes:
Pat Gundry (?): “The point I was making, which I thought was pretty clear, is that
before Planned Parenthood most women didn’t have much choice in the
matter, and after Planned Parenthood began their work, they had more
choices. And, that’s a good thing, so it’s not reasonable to denounce
Planned Parenthood for existing.”
Donna: “What about denouncing it for what it has become in our day?”
Corrie: “I think we can denounce it for what it originally stood for, too. Margaret
Sanger was a bigot and started Planned Parenthood to rid the world of less
intelligent, less well-bread (because those are the ones, in her mind, that were
having the most amount of babies), black, etc people. I could get some quotes
from her written in regard to this matter.
Planned Parenthood is not a good organization and I don’t think it ever was.
Its origin is grounded in Sanger’s warped philosophy and worldview.
There have always been ways to prevent children from being conceived, long
before Planned Parenthood made its appearance. Yes, childbirth and childbearing
were much more dangerous to women than they are today, praise the Lord.
Having many children is NOT a curse nor does it have to ruin one’s body. I am
in
better shape than many women who have had only one or two babies or none at
all. It is a myth perpetuated and ungrounded by false information. Of course,
every one is different and every circumstance is different and there are
times that a woman just cannot have a lot of children because of physical danger
or health issues. I have a good friend who has a serious liver disease and
made the decision to have her tubes tied after her last baby because another
baby
would have most likely killed her or the baby. I am not to the extreme where
I do not believe in any birth control at all.
The entrance of Planned Parenthood and Birth Control caused a lot more
problems than it cured. Many more pregnancies happened because of the failure
of
birth control and the increase of immorality because of birth control.
I will try and get some quotes from Sanger on this when I have some more free
time.
Corrie”
March 22, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I have not seen a rant against adoption like this before. I need time to process it.
I’m sorry to say they are actually far from uncommon. Because of a sickening degree of corruption in the adoption world (right through to today some states have really pitiful excuses for protection laws; Florida is probably one of the most corrupt states when it comes to infant adoption. Birthmothers are often really strong-armed into signing their babies over) as well as a wide range of parenting techniques and hereditary issues . . . adoption is a very mixed bag.
I say this as somebody who has a “family history” of adoption– we’re a delightful mix of birthed and chosen, and I wouldn’t have it any other way. That said, as I have felt from a very young age that God has called me to adopt, I’ve spent a long time digging through testimonies from every side of the issue, and some of what you’ll find out there is just . . . heartbreaking doesn’t even begin to describe it.
To say that I “understand” Stacey now would be false, but to say I have a much better understanding of how she can behave in such a confusing, conflicted way in other aspects of her life is definitely true. Adoption brings a lot of baggage with it, and from what she’s described it sounds like her family was not prepared to help her deal with that.
It’s a simple fact that in a perfect world, there would be no adoption– it was our very imperfect world that required God to adopt us, after all, wasn’t it? We were seperate from Him, but He has made us His. We have no right to our inheritance, but He calls us to it anyway. It’s beautiful and frightening and strangely wonderful, and when it plays out in the form of human adoption it can be just as much of a blessing. But on the other side of the coin, humans being humans, it can also go horribly, terribly wrong.
. . . this concludes the Sunshine Hour! lol, sorry, I read all that over and realised how depressing that sounds, but it’s all just . . . true, I’m afraid
March 22, 2008 at 8:21 pm
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/complementarian-egalitarian-dialogue/
This is a group I have co-owned for a few years. It is a quiet list but we do talk about many of the same things we have discussed on this list.
If you are wondering about the “Planned Parenthood” connection, please join and read in the archives, especially back in 6/2004. Donna is a regular poster on this list at during that time period. So is Pat Gundry.
Here is a post of mine where you see my clearly disagreeing with Pat Gundry and agreeing with Donna on the issue of Planned Parenthood. That post, in her opinion, was not good enough and not strong enough.
So, please join up and read if you are interested in the whole story.
“Re: [complementarian-egalitarian-dialogue] Re: Ladies Against Feminism
In a message dated 6/10/04 10:44:54 AM, dlkaijala@hotmail.com writes:
Pat Gundry (?): “The point I was making, which I thought was pretty clear, is that
before Planned Parenthood most women didn’t have much choice in the
matter, and after Planned Parenthood began their work, they had more
choices. And, that’s a good thing, so it’s not reasonable to denounce
Planned Parenthood for existing.”
Donna: “What about denouncing it for what it has become in our day?”
Corrie: “I think we can denounce it for what it originally stood for, too. Margaret
Sanger was a bigot and started Planned Parenthood to rid the world of less
intelligent, less well-bread (because those are the ones, in her mind, that were
having the most amount of babies), black, etc people. I could get some quotes
from her written in regard to this matter.
Planned Parenthood is not a good organization and I don’t think it ever was.
Its origin is grounded in Sanger’s warped philosophy and worldview.
There have always been ways to prevent children from being conceived, long
before Planned Parenthood made its appearance. Yes, childbirth and childbearing
were much more dangerous to women than they are today, praise the Lord.
Having many children is NOT a curse nor does it have to ruin one’s body. I am
in
better shape than many women who have had only one or two babies or none at
all. It is a myth perpetuated and ungrounded by false information. Of course,
every one is different and every circumstance is different and there are
times that a woman just cannot have a lot of children because of physical danger
or health issues. I have a good friend who has a serious liver disease and
made the decision to have her tubes tied after her last baby because another
baby
would have most likely killed her or the baby. I am not to the extreme where
I do not believe in any birth control at all.
The entrance of Planned Parenthood and Birth Control caused a lot more
problems than it cured. Many more pregnancies happened because of the failure
of
birth control and the increase of immorality because of birth control.
I will try and get some quotes from Sanger on this when I have some more free
time.
Corrie”
March 22, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Although I am very thankful to my adoptive parents for raising me and doing their best to love me equally with their birth-children, I have seen first hand, in several different circumstances, that it is not God’s best.
In response to Stacy’s testimony, I would like to offer some of my own. It’s long, but I beg your patience. I think it adds something important (that which my whole life has worked toward), and I couldn’t figure out a better way to condense it.
Within a few hours of my birth, my parents were told that I would die, and on the slim chance that I lived, I would be a “vegetable” and hospitalized. I had an APGAR of “2” and seized for days on end as a result of aspiration in September of 1966. My grandfather went out immediately, on the day that I was born, and bought burial plots for our entire family since we would need one within a day or two. My godfather’s aunt Aida was United Pentecostal, and my godmother phoned her to pray for me. I understand that about the time Aunt Aida phoned my godmother, the man who would become the chief of pediatrics in that town offered my mother explanation of a “miracle” when she asked “Is this the lull before the storm?” After lingering for about 10 days on a ventilator/respirator, I started breathing on my own and stopped seizing and awakened. I was sent home as a normal baby on day 14. (My husband contests this because I am a bit of a silly person!) But all was not peaches and cream.
I had colic, but from what I learned of colic in nursing school, this was far worse than colic for it lasted too long and seemed far worse from my mother’s description. I did not sleep for more than 15 to 30 minutes at a time, and I could not really be consoled, according to her account. A few years ago when my mother’s friend had a baby and my mom stood in as a surrogate grandmother for her, she talked about how she never understood how wonderful a baby could be. She talked about how this baby made eye contact with her and just looked at her like she was the sun, moon and stars. I asked if she had not had that same experience with me. My mother said that all she could remember about my infancy was the fear and anxiety that something terrible was about to happen, how I was never going to get to sleep, how I cried incessantly and how she was never able to get any sleep.
In nursing school and in my study of trauma and anxious attachment which is very related to trauma, I learned that a mother soothes her infant and thus teaches her baby how to be soothed. When brain waves of both mother and baby are monitored during breast feeding, the mother mirrors her infant by experiencing a state of relaxed alertness and attentiveness that looks identical to the brain wave pattern of the infant. It helps establish the relationship and bond between infant and mother, so that the baby knows to look to the mother as a mirror to take cues on how to respond to new situations in life. A bond is created as the mother teaches the child to discern safety, receive nurture and receive comfort. In a lecture by Bessel van Der Kolk that I heard in October 2007, he said that a parent’s effectiveness depends largely on the ability of the parent to teach their child how to self-soothe.
From my own personal history, I demonstrate that I am lacking in that area, most likely owing to the fact that both my mother and I were traumatized by what most people would describe as a birth experience and infancy of “less than God’s best.” We were given a miracle, but the circumstances were less than what the world and clinicians would call ideal. I had terrible school phobia, wet my pants in kindergarden several times, and would rather go to the emergency room with an illness than go to school (why I eventually enrolled in Christian school). It only became worse with every passing year. I was frequently sick with upper respiratory infections and I cried easily and frequently. I was an only child that, like all only children, preferred adults and shyed away from children my age. I had a barium swallow test at age 10 because I also wore my anxieties inside my gut as well as outwardly by emotional upset. My mother and father loved me dearly, but we had many “hitches” and complications along the way. My mother experienced a great deal of deep depression while I was growing up, and though I know it was her hightest aspiriation, we often “missed” the goodness in one another, I think.
Maybe because I behaved as a vulnerable little one who tended to wander near the back of the herd, I became prey for a sexual predator. From ages 8 to 9, I was regularly molested by an elderly neigbor’s grown son who appeared after her husband died. He raped me when I was about 11 or 12. (In the nightmare of it, I don’t remember some of those details.) I believed when my elderly neighbor’s grown son from another marriage came around that God had replaced this grandfather figure in my life with another silver haired man. This predator took advantage of this. It took awhile for me to discern that this experience was very wrong, and when I did, I feared that I would not be believed. I also feared that my sportsman and choleric-tempered father who was not yet a Christian would murder the man. I told my friends at school after puberty when these topics became matters of discussion, and I always gave potential male suitors “informed consent,” but I did not tell any adults until after the man died, many years later.
So I read this statement that Stacy offers here, and I find myself asking many questions about the same issues that deeply resonate with me because of my own experience. Stacy writes, Although I am very thankful to my adoptive parents for raising me and doing their best to love me equally with their birth-children, I have seen first hand, in several different circumstances, that it is not God’s best. I was not faced with her experiences, but I think that I can definitely qualify as one who experienced that which is “not God’s best,” even in the eyes of the world. But was it? I was given a miraculous oportunity to live, something that many parents of sick and dying infants would sell their souls to realize. Yet the experiences that followed were not ideal in the eyes of the world, leaving many tracks and footprints demonstrating that there were many things wrong, some traumatically and desperately so. I’ve asked a million times if these things were any less than God’s best, and my answer is that they were God’s best for me. They are not clear to me and they do not make much sense in the reasoning of this world, but I know in my heart of hearts that God’s grace was and is sufficient for me.
For me, if I say in my heart that I endured anything other than God’s providential plan in my life, it would be a witness against Him. He certainly didn’t order these things, but He was not absent. He was always there. Saying otherwise, for me, would be tantamount to Joseph telling his brothers that what they meant for evil was beyond’s God’s ability to change, or something that happened while God was sleeping and missed His attentive eye. It would mean that God was not powerful enough to save Joseph in the early part of the story, for how could slavery and false accusation and prison be a part of “God’s best” for anyone? Yet from those events, God provided for Joseph’s family and for all of Egypt through plenty and through famine. Joseph did not hesitate, and his misfortunes became opportunities to show God’s glory as opposed to something Joseph may have covered with his own shame.
When I was six years old, my godparent’s twelve year old daughter died unexpectedly. I remember the discussions that followed her death as we all struggled to make sense of this tragedy. I refused to believe that Death or Satan had more power to take her life than God had to preserve her. But God did preserve her by receiving her into everlasting glory. Some have said that it is detestable that my godmother made sense of it by writing a poem that proclaimed that God chose take her up into heaven. But to say anything else means that something escaped His watchful eye, His loving care and His great mercies. Any alternative says that God made a cosmic mistake, and I just can’t believe in my heart that this was ever true.
For some reason and in some way that I do not understand, all these unfortunate and sometimes grievious events will bring the King of Kings and the Lord of Hosts the greatest glory. Somehow, these things are all being worked together for His ultimate glory and to conform us all into the Image of His Son, Jesus. I will not confess that He has ever abandoned me or that I was ever outside of His great care, for I know that just hours old, He sustained my life. He gave it back to me and to my parents. Did my parents and did I suffer hurt and dissapointment? Sometimes it seemed to me to be beyond measure. But, I was spared to bear His Image and His glory, predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son to walk in good works prepared in advance for me. When things have been terribly painful, I ask that He use whatever has happened to bring many brethren unto Him. I will not cover His glory with my shame. There is no condemnation in Him, neither is there any in my past, under His Blood. Here I find forgiveness for myself and can extend forgiveness to others, though I may still be working out the details of all that this means.
John Donne wrote that brilliant passage in “Devotions” which begins with the passage “No man is an island unto himself.” It ends with “Send not to ask for whom the bell tolls – It tolls for thee.” In the middle of those lines, he says that suffering is a goldmine to those who find it. The trouble is how to figure out how to take that gold and make it into currency and coin so that it can be useful. I don’t know how others have managed to make use and glory and find value in their suffering, but this is how I have so managed. I offer my belly full of pain unto the Lord, not as shame but for His glory that speaks of love and forgiveness and preservation and of eternal treasure. The bell tone of the events of my life and your life and Stacy’s life don’t just toll for one man but for us all. And I ache so for that resounding bell to be full of grace and love and healing for that continent where we all stand.
There is also a quote from Fanny Crosby that I once read in “The Voice of the Martyrs.” She said that if the only way she would have ever come to God was through her need for Him because of her blindness, she would joyfully choose to be blind all over again. How can I say anything other than this? My life, held in the cleft of the Rock and within the palm of the righteousness of His right hand, has been His best for ME because His grace is sufficient. It was sufficient then, is now and ever will be by His grace.
Stacy also writes: I’m not trying to insult those who have lovingly and sacrificially adopted children that were so sinfully discarded by their parents.
I am also deeply troubled by this statement, but I see how it flows from the assumptions underlying the statement about God’s best. God’s best cannot be found in human perfection, but we find His best through our faith in Him as he extends His grace and healing to us while within our brokeness and weakness. Oh, when I was weak and powerless, He was ever strong and able to save!
What grace is offered here to someone who is pregnant, unmarried, 15 years old and shamed by her family? Is it not God’s sufficient grace that spares a baby’s life, keeping His loving hand of providence upon a baby, bearing it up so that it is born? Is it not then His loving care that provides a place for that baby, be it ever so “less than His best?” Christ was born and laid in a feeding trough, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, yet this was sufficient.
The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation, offered to the Jew first, but also to the Greek. That which was not mine was extended to me in benevolent love and sacrifice in exchange for a debt that I can never pay. So in a great sense, adoption is something that a parent opens up to God to work a type of salvation for both parent and baby. Adoptive parents, however imperfect, become examples of God’s love and Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross by receiving that little one who was not their own to be their own. In that sense, it is one of the most God-like things we can do in this life, receiving a child unto themselves as God has done for us. How, how, how can offering a baby for adoption be a sinful discarding? Abortion is a throwing away of human life, a discarding of God’s very image and gift of life, not adoption. It is imperfect, but we are imperfect when we come to the Cross. We can never be perfect outside of the Cross. It is not our efforts or our circumstances but His tender mercies, never ending compassion and great love for us through Jesus the Messiah that works His perfection and His best in us. There we find His best for us.
I know too well the heartache of rejection and confusion. I know too well what it is like to be damaged and used and thrown away. Yet I know God’s hand of mercy and providence, in spite of and because of this suffering in my own life. I don’t have a life of perfection and I have suffered other great losses in my life, but my Lord has received me with tender love and compassion as I have perevered. Those things which have seemed as less than His best and cause for my shame have been those places where His glorious presence has healed and shown forth like the brightest sun (Ps 4). It is my prayer for those who suffer the pain of rejection and shame, may they be healed. May they who mourn do so and be comforted. May the pure in heart see God.
A few years ago, I saw something with an interesting statement printed on it: “This is not the life I ordered.” I didn’t get the life I ordered, but I have had an abundant and blessed life, even with it’s pains. The blessings have been beyond my hopes and wonder. I started out rocky but ended up headed in the right direction. By His grace, I have and will continue to have the life that He ordained.
Glory to Him alone.
March 22, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Andrea wrote: Adoption brings a lot of baggage with it, and from what she’s described it sounds like her family was not prepared to help her deal with that….
It’s a simple fact that in a perfect world, there would be no adoption– it was our very imperfect world that required God to adopt us, after all, wasn’t it? …But on the other side of the coin, humans being humans, it can also go horribly, terribly wrong.
I suppose what I neglected to simply state in my preceding tome was that I believe that there is no guaranteed insulation from pain and suffering in this life. I was born to two wonderful, loving parents who both eventually came to faith in Jesus and new birth in Him. Yet I suffered deep rejection and problems with which I still wrestle, despite my faith in Jesus from a young age.
A perfect birth, a perfect home, a perfect parent, a perfect beginning in life, etc. is no insurance policy or guarantee that will save us from the pain of life or the unique struggles of the Christian life. Speaking in tongues did not help those young men in my mother’s first church from being sodomized. It didn’t keep me from being molested. It didn’t hold back death for my godparent’s daughter. But we are were sustained and built up together and continue to heal.
The rain falls on the just and the unjust, I’m afraid. Good stewardship helps, but we cannot hide from these things. But we have a gentle Father who longs to love and heal us.
March 22, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Wow, you all gave me so much to chew on in answer to my questions! Thank you!!!! Wish I could write more, but I’m thinking too much to write it all out.
But I will say that I am very encouraged in the observations about how many don’t fit the mold. I have female friends who don’t like to wear skirts or be girly or quiet or whatever. I used to look upon this as a defect. But now … I really believe God makes each of us unique, and I see strength and beauty that God is making in them where I couldn’t see before for distraction.
Well, I can’t write more about this at the moment because again I simply have too much to say and think about.
I feel mean disagreeing with Mrs. Macdonald’s testimony when she made herself so vulnerable, but her daughters could very well be raped, just as I or any woman can. Our fathers, husbands, other significant males are not invulnerable and they can be beaten. This is a fallen world. And the youth group thing is her and her daughters’ individual leading, but I went to youth group for years and never got raped! In fact, it helped break down a lot of the thinking that would reinforce rape, in helping me see the young men my age as potential friends, not heart purity robbers or whatever. And about her mother having her “”own” friends” and going to parties being a sign of an adult life? ?!?!?!? I have more than several friends who are very much my own friends and I or they initiated the friendships, not our parents, and I have been to lots of parties by myself or with only a sibling. My parents let things go like this, in fact I think they rather like it. It shows I am able to interact with others and have fun with them holding my hand. (Which I should certainly be able to do by now at the age I am! I won’t say exactly what it is, this is the internet after all.)
March 22, 2008 at 9:45 pm
-on comment 12
Oh, Cindy!
ALMOST FALLING OVER OR SOMETHING FROM SHOCK
What can I say in response to that? Nothing at the moment. I can say that I wish one could physically reach out for another through cyberspace.
March 22, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Beatrice,
It’s the past, and God has been really, really wonderful. There are some tender spots here and there, but for the most part, I am remarkably delivered from that junk. For my joy, Jesus endured the Cross and washed away my sins. His healing hand has been powerful in my life. The sufferings that He has even transformed into light afflictions are nothing compared to the glory that He reveals to me. I pray that He will reveal His glory to others through this as well. I am wrapped up in God’s love and I have so much peace about all of it.
Not that there hasn’t been a lot of crushing and stripping down of all that I thought I was, but this is what we pray for God to do in us — to transform us so that there is so much less of us and more of Him.
One thing that healed me tremendously and brought me much more peace and joy came when I let go of the idea that I could order healling and safety and restoration through “getting more faith.” Though it may seem very different, looking to “faith” for healing is much like those in patriarchy look for “safety” in following their safety plans. Phillip Yancey’s “Where is God When it Hurts” really helped me get a more workable perspective on some of these things, perhaps more than any other source. 15 – 20 years ago, RC Sproul, Sr’s teachings helped me learn how to trust in God’s sovereignty, too. That, more than anything changed my life for the better.
Regardless of who ordered what, be it God or the Devil, bringing these things into my life — even if it was me or something my parents or parent’s parents did inadvertently — God is working it all for good and using it to exploit the Devil and bring people to new life in Him. (How that all works out, I don’t know, but that’s what the Word tells us. And He’s taught me to rest in that and have joy.)
March 23, 2008 at 12:20 am
Oh Cindy…there aren’t words…
Thank you for sharing from the hurts of your heart.
Beatrice- I don’t think anyone here is exactly criticising Mrs.McDonald or even really disagreeing with her; rather we are examining/criticizing/agreeing with/disagreeing with her ideas.We are trying to ‘unpack’ and understand her statements since she has set herself up as a “teacher”. That being said, however, she has shown herself to be less than forthright a number of times… it always bothers me when “teachings” come from an over-reactionary emotional place instead of a quiet, founded, well-examined place. A teacher of the Word should never fear questions or criticisms if his or her heart is in the right place. They should be able to answer with a true, clear eye and straight-forward answers. When they don’t, I begin to question their motives.
March 23, 2008 at 12:24 am
Cindy K. said:
God’s best cannot be found in human perfection, but we find His best through our faith in Him as he extends His grace and healing to us while within our brokeness and weakness. Oh, when I was weak and powerless, He was ever strong and able to save!
What grace is offered here to someone who is pregnant, unmarried, 15 years old and shamed by her family? Is it not God’s sufficient grace that spares a baby’s life, keeping His loving hand of providence upon a baby, bearing it up so that it is born? Is it not then His loving care that provides a place for that baby, be it ever so “less than His best?” Christ was born and laid in a feeding trough, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, yet this was sufficient.
Amen, amen, amen, amen!
How these words echo my own life…
March 23, 2008 at 4:46 am
Cindy,
You said it all so well. What a beautiful picture of redemption you have painted for us.
I was thinking one thing, also. There are many of us who have not been adopted but have been born into a family that is not godly and where there is a lot of abuse. Really, being born into this world is a risk, not adoption. If we really want to stop the problem we should all stop having children and that way no child will have to suffer abuse, neglect, favoritism of one sibling over the other, etc. We can look at Jacob and Esau, the biological children of Rebekah and Isaac, and see that favoritism is not the fruit of adoption but of sinful flesh. Look at Joseph’s life and how his brothers hated him and were jealous of him because Jacob gave him gifts and God gave him prophetic dreams.
We are not looking at the root problem if we feel that certain ways of doing things guarantee protection and well-being. I just listend to Ravi Zacharius and he spoke about various fascists and Marxists throughout history and how all of it boiled down a humanistic, simplistic formula for making our problems go away. He spoke of how these men think that feeding the belly will satisfy a man. He spoke about how meeting one’s physical needs will never satisfy unless that person also has his spiritual needs met in Christ.
What I saw is that there are Marxist, materialistic and humanistic elements in patriarchalist doctrine. You can get all the Sports Illustrated off of the shelves but that will never cure the lust in a person’s heart. A person can be full in their belly, have plenty of sex with their spouse and have all their basics plus met and they will still be lusting for more unless they are receiving what they truly need in the Lord.
The “cure” that is marketed by the patriarchalists, imho, is just cleverly packaged humanistic and materialistic philosophies.
March 23, 2008 at 7:28 am
Wow.
Stunning stories. Thank you. Wow. Cindy, that was…good. Wow.
…
I wanted to comment quickly on this quote of Stacy’s:
I’m not trying to insult those who have lovingly and sacrificially adopted children that were so sinfully discarded by their parents.
It is NOT a sin to give a child up for adoption.
This is a common problem in the patriarchy (and fundamentalist) camp. Assuming that because sometimes a thing is bad or works out badly, it’s ALWAYS bad. For example, because sometimes birth control is bad, it’s ALWAYS bad. Because sometimes letting a daughter go out alone is bad, it’s ALWAYS bad. Because sometimes giving a baby up for adoption is bad, it’s ALWAYS bad.
But the logic is faulty. And not only is the logic faulty, but it’s not supported by Scripture (not ever clearly, in any case: only through the twists of interpreting stories like Dinah’s to mean that God intended us to learn a *rule* that daughters shouldn’t go out alone, etc. Note, the Bible never actually says that daughters are not to go out alone. That “law” is extrapolated from a story. Note the inconstancies, too: we don’t extrapolate similar laws from other stories, etc).
Stacy’s story sounds like it was very hard to live and likely very hard to share. And it was really good to hear it—helped me see a lot more where she’s coming from.
But the “rule” she has made from her own story (making adoption into a sin issue, etc) is not based on logic or on the Bible. It’s based on her experiences.
I don’t really care if Stacy wants to make that rule—-she can do whatever she wants—but it would be better if she said it was her *opinion* as opposed to using words like, “sinful,” to describe those who don’t agree with her and/or who’s situations may be FAR different. By using a word like “sinful,” she just said it wasn’t merely her opinion, but that it’s GOD’S opinion. So all those who listen to her as a leader now think it’s God’s opinion, too.
Sad.
I’m thankful for families who adopt, and I’m also thankful for mother’s who are big amd brave enough to give up their precious babies when they know that *they* aren’t able to provide them with a good home. Something like that takes a lot of guts.
As Corrie pointed out, the problem isn’t adoption or birth-family, the problem is SIN. The problem is that we live in a fallen world where bad things happen. Meaning, no amount of rules will solve it.
You can’t keep your daughter from being raped: you can’t guarantee that (much as I want to with my girls!), and I have a feeling that God doesn’t want us living in a world where our main concern is trying to keep bad things from happening. That is no kind of life.
Jesus was out there in the world, touching the things that were sick and dirty, NOT avoiding them, not “only doing things with His family,” and certainly NOT tsk-tsking those who made mistakes.
We live in a MESSED UP world. And, for our example, we have a Jesus who dive-bombed into it, unafraid—unfraid of the worst it had to offer, so much so that He often went and sought it out (much to the Pharisees chagrin).
And that same Jesus isn’t trying to keep us away from it either (no walls for us, just ask our brothers and sisters in the persecuted church), but tells us to go get smack-dab into it and to bring a message of grace-filled Love into the places where our hands will get dirty.
March 23, 2008 at 7:49 am
Cindy,
Your insights into how God’s sovereignty heals us were amazing. Isn’t God good? I heard a song on the radio today that said something about how we are never forgotten or forsaken. It seemed kind of incredible at the moment when so many things seemed less than “God’s best”, yet He does what no man can!
Frankly, I am much like Stacy in that I have opinions that are direct results of “trauma’s” or a lack of a healthy environment during childhood. If we’re honest, most of us do. The key, I think, is admitting that they are our PERSONAL BIAS’.
Stacy’s feelings regarding adoption are natural, and she is fully entitled to them. But it is the exact same process that leads a person from a “quiver-full” family to the conclusion that it can’t be God’s best for a couple to have numerous children because they felt like they didn’t get enough love growing up, or whatever other disadvantages came with the situation.
They both are entitled to their opinions, but to discourage adoption is to ignore that we are commanded to care for the fatherless, and likewise, to decline to have children or look down on those that have lots of them is to ignore that God says they are a blessing and reward.
And I think when Cindy said that it was GOD’S BEST FOR ME, that was the key. Some people should adopt, and other’s shouldn’t. Some people can have many kids and be great at parenting a large brood, and some can’t. God has a best for everybody, but all those “best’s” look as different as the people they belong to.
March 23, 2008 at 10:19 am
Cindy,
Thank you for so eloquently and transparently sharing your life with us. I read your story before I went to bed last night and found myself praying for you and thanking God for bringing you into this world and for the gift of your friendship. You are such a blessing to so many of us!
The first time I read Stacy’s story, it struck a different sort of chord for me personally. I was adopted when I was 6 days old and my birth mother was around 13 or 14 years of age. To me, and to my family, she is a hero. Here is my own story as I shared it in our local newspaper on a Mother’s Day a few years back:
October 1953.
Every year my mother tells me that the sky was the most beautiful azure blue that October of any fall she can remember.
She said they had forgotten to bring along a bottle and I screamed bloody-murder all the way from the courthouse to our home in Farmington.
When I was about four and first asked where I came from, my dad told me that I had been hatched on a stump. The wide eyed expression on my face made my dad laugh and laugh, then, the crinkles on his cheeks disappeared as he became quite serious. God had given me to them, he said.
I loved this story and listened each time he told it as if it had never been told before. As he spoke, I always pictured this young couple bouncing along a county road in the old Willes Coupe. Suddenly the blue sky turned golden and opened up, and as angels sang, a soft, round bundle was gently handed down into their arms. It is a wonderful memory. I was a planned and wanted child.
I was born October 9, 1953 at Crittenton Home in Peoria to a young woman who possibly came from the Champaign/Mattoon area. In those days, pregnancy for a teen meant a hasty wedding, an adoption, or a secret abortion, often self-induced. My very brave birth mother chose to make an adoption plan for me.
I know little about the woman who made this choice, not even a name. She was a young teen who had been in trouble and had become a ward of the court. She lived in a single-parent home with only her father so she was placed in a group home for unwed mothers.
Since most of their lives were spent in seclusion, church ladies from the community would often bring gifts to these girls on holidays. Because their identities could never be known, the packages were left in the yard under the trees and when the visitors left, the girls could go outside and pick them up.
Not a birthday or Mother’s Day passes that I don’t think of this frightened young girl, for that is the only way I remember her. She asked to see me on the day of my adoption so I was dressed in pink and a nurse took me in to her. She held me for a long time and said my name should be Karen. And she cried.
I must have seen her then, the memory of her face somehow recorded in my memory but never to be retrieved. I often wonder if she ever married or became a mother again, if she was able to go on with her life in some normal fashion.
I have a small porcelain music box, now a little charred from a house fire a few years back. It plays “You Are the Sunshine of My Life” and was given to me one Mother’s Day by my oldest son when he was just a small preschooler. How excited he was as his chubby little-boy fingers presented it to me!
My children ARE the sunshine in my life. I know the pain and joy of being a mother, of the sense of immortality that comes with being a part of the future through the lives of your children. I know the blessing of grandchildren. In their faces are the unfamiliar marks of a past generation. The round “kitty noses”, the green eyes, the maverick blonde hair, these are not of their father. These are secret gifts, left under our family tree by strangers we will never know.
But beyond that, I have tasted life and all the fullness it brings because of one woman’s great choice to give me that life. I may be the only child she ever had and she may not even celebrate Mother’s Day. But each year on this day, I thank God for her and for her part in His sovereign plan for my life. She held me close to her heart for 9 months. She didn’t scream that it was her body and somehow I was an intruder. She didn’t become a victim, though she may have been a victim of rape or even incest. Instead, she lovingly endured the shame of a teen pregnancy and the pain of childbirth so that I could have life.
In this day when a woman’s rights are the ultimate goal of some, I want to thank this young woman who set her personal rights aside for me. The spirit of our age is not one of nobility or sacrifice. My children’s generation knows little of doing the courageous or the inconvenient. But there are heroes today. The young woman who finds herself in an unplanned pregnancy and chooses to give her child life, she is my hero. The teenager who tenderly places her child into the arms of a mother who cannot bear her own, she is my hero. And wherever she is this Mother’s Day, my birth mother is also my hero. May she be blessed today and always.
March 23, 2008 at 10:48 am
There are a couple things that I want to add…
All of us, whether adopted or “regular” as I said as a kid, must learn two very important things, and when I say learn them I mean they must be woven into our lives until they become a very part of the fabric of who we are.
First, we have to develop a spirit of gratefulness. The Bible commands us to “Give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God’s will for you in Christ Jesus.” I Thessalonians 5:18 This is sometimes so far beyond what we think we can do. Sometimes it only happens as we age and get perspective on life. And once we allow a “root of bitterness” to take hold, it becomes even more difficult to practice. But once we learn to actually thank the Lord for the bad things, an amazing things happens. We begin to see the good in whatever the bad situation is and we are able to genuinely praise Him for those things. Brooding over and dwelling on the painful things and feeding our feelings of grief will only fertilize that root of bitterness.
The other thing that is essential is knowing, really knowing, that God is sovereign in all things. I love how R.C. Sproul Sr. has said it, “If God is not sovereign in all things, He is sovereign in nothing.” As Cindy has said, when you look back over your life and you see the things that were personally painful, you must come to a point where you realize that God meant all of those things for our own good. This is absolutely true.
When you are adopted, you come with lots of baggage, though as Corrie pointed out, we all do! One thing I have noticed is the tendency for moms to want to shield our children from the problems we experienced, to try to keep them from having any baggage of their own and I think this is especially true when we have experienced the fruit of bad choices, whether they were our own or those of someone else. But it will never happen. Living in a fallen world guarantees that there will be baggage and that ONLY God’s Grace is sufficient to lift the weight of it from our lives.
When I was first involved in pro-life work, a big part of my motivation was because I had been adopted. I had some mixed feelings about the whole issue and because I was superimposing my own prejudices and experience on to the issue, I didn’t think talking to unwed moms about adoption was that important. Because Clay and I had our own crisis pregnancy and had gotten married and I saw how the Lord used that to His own good, I also had that perspective. (Did any of you see the movie Juno? I won’t spoil the ending, but lets just say, as an adoptee who had had a crisis pregnancy herself, I was REALLY conflicted at the end!)
Then in 2000, I had a friend who had been part of a research project for Focus on the Family on adoption. He shared with me the big picture of what the impact is on our culture and families as a whole because so many young teens choose to keep their babies. I began to understand that it is a multi-generational crisis because all the stats show that a huge majority of teen moms are on welfare, have multiple unwed pregnancies, and, worst of all, their daughters usually are unmarried and pregnant as teens also. I also began to see the truth of what he was saying in the lives of the girls I had counseled at the pregnancy center. Typically they had more than one child and often with multiple fathers. Their little girls were being raised to accept this lifestyle as the norm. I saw up close what his research had proven….the cycle needs to be reversed. While I know that being adopted, on a personal level, carries with it some personal pain, I know that what we are seeing in our culture brings with it devastation to all of us.
I also know that the Gospel of Jesus is absolutely necessary in order for lives to be changed, whether it is what changes the heart of a young mom who chooses adoption over abortion or what will heal those who have been adopted and struggle from that situation.
One more thing….the number of orphans worldwide grows at an alarming rate every single day. My church has an incredible ministry of adoption and has even financially supported those who adopt, whether it be foreign or domestic adoptions. I am so thankful that there are Christians who are willing to put their money where their mouth is in this area of loving children. It isn’t just being willing to practice “militant fecundity” but it is opening our arms to little ones already born who desperately need the love of parents.
March 23, 2008 at 10:49 am
Beatrice,
I also found myself praying for you last night and thanking the Lord for bringing you here. Your questions and your “thinkng outloud” have really blessed me! Thank you.
March 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Thank you so much, thatmom! I’m glad if any of my thoughts were helpful to you! (I know the Lord guided me to your sites and other ones by other ladies here when I was first so upset by So Much More.)
Happy Easter everyone!!!!!!!
March 23, 2008 at 4:44 pm
As for keeping daughters at home or with family members for fear of rape:
2Sa 13:10 …. And Tamar took the cakes which she had made, and brought [them] into the chamber to Amnon her brother. And when she had brought [them] unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister. And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly. And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
2Sa 13:14 Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she, forced her, and lay with her.
March 23, 2008 at 4:46 pm
And here’s some more:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Story?id=189191&page=1
March 23, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“The other thing that is essential is knowing, really knowing, that God is sovereign in all things. I love how R.C. Sproul Sr. has said it, “If God is not sovereign in all things, He is sovereign in nothing.” As Cindy has said, when you look back over your life and you see the things that were personally painful, you must come to a point where you realize that God meant all of those things for our own good. This is absolutely true.”
Precisely. And if we (and Stacey McDonlald!) had not each come through all of the things we have which we have come through in our lives, who can say whether we would have ever found Jesus? Everything which happens to us up to the moment of our salvation is a step in our journey to the Cross.
March 23, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Cynthia,
What a great thought.
Also, this attitude that everything comes through the sovereignty of God helps to free us from bitterness and anger. We can be like Joseph who looked at those who abused him and mistreated him and say “You meant it for evil but God meant it for good.”
I am truly thankful for my life’s circumstances and all that I had to get through to arrive where I am now. It wasn’t an easy life nor was it picture-perfect but God works all things for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose.
March 23, 2008 at 9:12 pm
thatmom,
What an incredible piece you wrote. I have tears streaming down my face. What a blessing YOU are!
March 23, 2008 at 9:16 pm
“I wanted to comment quickly on this quote of Stacy’s:
I’m not trying to insult those who have lovingly and sacrificially adopted children that were so sinfully discarded by their parents.
It is NOT a sin to give a child up for adoption.”
Molleth, Thank you for expouding on that. It really bothered me, too. And I agree that they make laws from verses that are not laws at all.
March 23, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Cindy, Thank you for sharing your experiences and showing us that adoption or not, we live in a fallen world but our REDEEMER can use it all for HIS Glory if we are willing vessels.
March 23, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I just wanted to note that I deleted Marion’s post with all the details regarding Stacy’s adoption. Stacy contacted me today and asked me to do so. After rereading it, I agreed that it gave more personal information about her family than I was comfortable with here.
But I also asked her to do something else. I asked her to go back to the comment Kym made on her blog, which prompted the discussion here in the first place, and to explain to her readers that we didn’t lie when we stated her views of the protection of daughters and to explain that her views have changed since last summer. I am trusting that she will do this.
March 23, 2008 at 11:35 pm
I understand why Stacy may be embarrassed about the content of that letter and that it needed to come down. She used to be quite open to the public lists she was on before she started her patriarchal ministry.
I want you to know that what was posted was given to me by two people and they got it out of the archives of the Patriarchs Wives list. I also checked the archives to make sure it was the real deal.
What Stacy wrote was posted to a public list that numbers around 700 women. It was not a private email. It was not a post cut and pasted from several different posts. It was one whole post in its context and it is quite evident that the paragraphs flowed one to another with both a beginning and an ending. If this was some hack-job done by someone then the post she sent to her public women’s list would have read very disjointed.
She may claim that this was private but I don’t believe sending this to 700 people on a public list “private”.
She is saying one thing on her blog and another thing on her PW list. She cannot blame other people for actually reading what she writes throughout the years.
March 24, 2008 at 12:46 am
“I’m thankful for families who adopt, and I’m also thankful for mother’s who are big amd brave enough to give up their precious babies when they know that *they* aren’t able to provide them with a good home. Something like that takes a lot of guts.”
Molleth,
Yes! A woman who gives up her baby is not “sinfully discarding” her child. If we are truly pro-life we wouldn’t say these sorts of things because this is exactly the attitude that leads one to think that abortion is the only way out.
What message are we sending to young women who are pregnant when we tell them, basically, that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t? Do we want them to not abort? And then we turn around and tell them that they are sinfully discarding their baby when they give that baby up for adoption?
Molleth is right that we need to recognize and celebrate those young women who bring a child into this world in spite of some very painful experiences and then show the courage and bravery to admit that they are not in a place to raise their baby. I have to believe that many women have given up their babies that the LOVED VERY, VERY much. In fact, they loved them so much that they gave them up so they could have the home that they themselves could never provide.
March 24, 2008 at 12:57 am
Oh, Karen! The story of your birth and of your parents and your birth mother was so wonderful to read. Lin, pass a Kleenex!
Your story has touched me so very much.
March 24, 2008 at 1:03 am
Karen,
Thank you for being so gracious in taking down that post at Stacy’s request. I think that says a lot about you. There are many who would not have taken down the post and I appreciate that you were so willing to comply with her wishes.
It is a good reminder to all of us that we need to be careful to not post things to public email lists with hundreds of people that we would not want the people that our posts are about to read.
March 24, 2008 at 2:09 am
I’ve been incredibly moved by the stories several of you have posted. Thank you for sharing from your hearts. I admire your courage.
I have to wonder if there’s a legalistic desire for people to pay over and over for their sins (or imagined sins) in the judgment that a woman who gives birth must keep her baby, rather than give it up for adoption. Perhaps those who make such a judgment think it’s too easy to give up the child; they must continue to pay for the sin of having sex and getting pregnant by raising the child.
Of course, I would disagree with this, and I don’t know if that enters anyone’s mind consciously. It simply seems to fit in with the overall worldview that’s long on legalistic judgment and almost entirely lacking in grace.
I happen to believe that God takes the decisions we make in this life and, if we love God, turns them all–good and bad–into sources of blessing for us. Not always warm, fuzzy, feel-good blessings, but life-giving opportunities for growth and increased closeness to God through Jesus Christ. So whether a woman keeps and rears her child, or gives it up for adoption, God meets her there.
And we ought to remember that we’re all adopted children of God, rescued from our sin, and made heirs of eternal life. God, it seems, is all for adoption.
March 24, 2008 at 2:54 am
“What message are we sending to young women who are pregnant when we tell them, basically, that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t? Do we want them to not abort? And then we turn around and tell them that they are sinfully discarding their baby when they give that baby up for adoption?”
Everyone here knows that abortion is a sin, but ADOPTION is a SIN????
That’s a new one on me.
I thought that placing their babies for adoption is what poor unwed mothers are SUPPOSED to do, rather than abort.
What are these women supposed to do to support their children? Don’t forget, in the hyperP’s parallel universe, if a mother goes out and gets a job and supports her baby, she is a harlot and is sinning by working, and if she accepts welfare (or WIC or Medicaid), she is also sinning, because these folks believe that charity is the church’s venue, not the government’s. But where are these churches with their much vaunted charity when the rubber hits the road?
These patriarchal churches need to PUT UP OR SHUT UP — they need to quit spouting this kind of judgmental, extra-biblical dreck unless THEY are ready, willing and able to step up to the plate and foot the bill to house,feed and support every single unwed mother and widow in their communities, and thus allow unwed (or widowed, abandoned, or just plain poor) mothers to keep their children, and stay home, raise and homeschool them just like the rich Patriarchistas are privileged to be able to do.
If the Patriarchals whine that this is impossible, then they need to admit that adoption is no sin, welfare is no sin, and women who work are not sinning, because some people who are poor HAVE to do these things to survive. They have no chance of earning enough to be able to live according to the patriarchal party line.
Virtue should not come with a price tag, nor should its practice be limited to the to the middle and upper classes.
Mat 23:1 ¶ Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
Mat 23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men’s shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.”
March 24, 2008 at 3:21 am
Psalmist,
My husband said nearly exactly the same thing about all of this. We have been imperfect, we have tasted the sometimes sour grapes that first come on the vine as a result of imperfection. But I think that the best fruit comes from the tended vine and the later harvest.
This also reflects some of the working towards one’s own sanctification through works. Not only does this idea highlight the striving and compulsion for perfection, it has an inherent quality of atoning for one’s own sin or the shame of the effects of someone elses.
March 24, 2008 at 3:22 am
A few months ago, I referred to James McDonald’s absurd post about the futile egalitarian search for “missing pink links” about women in the Bible to counter the patriarchal view to which the McDonalds ascribe. The document painted many women as “non-normative,” the grossly overused, pejorative buzz phrase heard ad nauseum in patriarchy. To demonstrate the fact that his own family was far from normative, I cited another comment that referred to both Stacy and James McDonald’s divorces and their remarriages to one another. This was about the time that Stacy began marketing her book, “Passionate Housewives.” As someone wrote to me privately to verify what I had stated, this person said “It’s not like Stacy is writing and selling cookbooks.” James, who holds women to a narrow interpretation when it comes to favorite “pink texts” like I Timothy 2, is a minister and a self-professed teacher, but his own history clearly disqualifies him for eldership according to information found in the same epistle (I Tim 3). Considering that this couple markets themselves as teachers and public examples of Christian virtue, I believe that the demographic that they target for book and magazine sales would not be so likely to hold both James and Stacy in such high esteem with knowledge of their previous marriages.
True, people in contemporary secular society no longer focus on matters regarding divorce and remarriage, as such things seem to be commonplace and people seem gracious and forgiving. Personally, I have much grace and understanding for people in these situations, and for such, I am called antinomian. For another, unrelated reason, someone in this camp once called me a libertine. But many in the patriarchy movement at the very conservative markets to which the McDonalds cater do still find I Timothy 3 pretty compelling and a matter of Biblical Authority that should not be compromised, just as the complementarians hold their gender views and practices as direct matters of Biblical Authority. Here we see a double standard regarding matters about which Scripture is abundantly clear. Also, recall how intolerant the patriarchy movement can be regarding those who reject their ideals and moral imperatives regarding not only gender but other practices. Vision Forum once encouraged their followers to refer to those outside their ranks “Canaanites. Stacy herself originated the phrase of white washed feminism. Gothard said other similar statements about how ATI families basically realize a higher form of Christianity. Also consider that those in patriarchy including the McDonalds have a history of pursing those outside of their belief systems and those who hold differing interpretation of Scripture on intramural doctrine. Leaders in patriarchy, the McDonalds included, have and still actively approach the leadership of their critics, charging these fellow believers with violations of Matthew 18, compelling local leadership to discipline their own flock.
After I posted this example of the many inconsistencies in the teachings of the McDonalds, I promptly received an email from Stacy, first offering prayer on my behalf for the hurts that must have driven me to so cruelly make light of her “past sins.” I explained that I didn’t consider divorce a sin, as she focused on this within the letter, so I still assume this is the supposed sin over which she believes that I am offended. I explained that I wrote the post because it demonstrated the inconsistencies in James argument, and that even James himself cannot live up to the unreasonable high standards that the patriarchy movement establishes. My writing pointed out the hypocrisy in their teachings and brought attention to these and other inconsistencies.
Stacy interpreted the information concerning their divorce and blended family as gossip, asking that it be removed from my website. James also contacted my husband over concern about comments appearing on my blog. During that correspondence, I mentioned that I felt that it was dishonest and misleading to conceal the information about their past while promoting a Vision Forum image of perfection through their publications. Both my husband and I were informed that they had not been misleading, because they had been very open about these issues with 750 people on the Patriarch Wives list, with people whom they counseled, with another message board, with their church leadership and with people throughout the homeschooling community. It was then offered that by bringing this information to light, “shouting from the mountaintops” in a wider forum, that – I – had placed their younger children in harms way because they were not yet ready to disclose that information.
I take issue with this argument that they offered to me, especially in light of the recent citing of Stacy’s testimony concerning how they guard their daughters which also made reference to Stacy’s stated beliefs and feelings regarding adoption. Certainly, that is a different subject matter, but it demonstrates this same shifting of culpability for Stacy’s statements to the public, those who are expected to purchase her products and trust her as a teacher. This is a manipulation tactic that many call emotional blackmail. If I tell this inconvenient truth that is public or that was communicated to 750 people and countless others in homeschooling and through counsel, not Stacy but I have threatened her children with harm.
Consider why Stacy’s testimony concerning her adoption recently appeared here on this blog. Again, as Karen notes in her statement about the deletion of the post, someone posted this as documentation concerning more inconsistent and contradictory statements that Stacy has made. Stacy claimed that those who referred to her own testimony were gossiping and misrepresenting her. Someone posted Stacy’s own statement that demonstrated that she wrongly accused others of gossip. I myself was accused of the “vile sin” of gossip in a similar matter for contending for the truth, comparing the incongruence in the McDonald’s own testimonies and histories along with the Word of God. I am reminded of my own recent blog post quoting Paul Martin about noting the Scriptures speaking of behaviors and fruit of teachers, something mentioned far more frequently than the actual doctrine and motives of teachers in question.
I can understand that some of that personal information may have been sensitive, but it is sad to me that Stacy seems to again have shifted culpability for her own words onto others. Is it just coincidental that the statement also points out the discontinuity in her own statements, drawing attention to the fact that Stacy improperly called others of misrepresenting her views and of gossip? Is it also a coincidence that the post containing personal information also draws much attention to Stacy’s views on adoption that many found, at the very least, disappointing? I find this highly frustrating, especially considering the many emails that I get from a host of women, including many confused younger women who do not know how to evaluate what Stacy says, teaches and does.
Sadly, this is not an isolated phenomenon but a cultural trend. This weekend, I also received an email that expressed frustration with another, unrelated figure in this FIC movement. “He’ll then say off hand that he doesn’t really mean those who work for someone other than themselves are doing so unbiblical, but how else can it be understood? ….They strongly urge all families of the church to get on board whatever program, conference, book, etc. that their family will financially gain from. It gets sort of telling after a while. The thing is, the family can be incredibly persuasive. They all have a passionate way of persuading people, but when logic is applied, their arguments come down to sheer preferences. But, they are charming and bright on the surface.”
I think that some of this reflects the sacerdotalism (top heavy power of the priesthood over the follower) so prevalent in patriarchy. The leaders and teachers enjoy something closer to a status of infallibility or less accountability rather than the higher level of accountability and responsibility that teachers and leaders bear according to the Holy Word.
March 24, 2008 at 3:28 am
To everyone and especially Karen,
I appreciate everyone here so much. Thank you, all of you, for your candor and your words of wisdom. It is a refreshing blessing to me. Glory to the Lord.
March 24, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Cindy said:
“. . . it is sad to me that Stacy seems to again have shifted culpability for her own words onto others.”
That is certainly a familiar tactic, and not only from Stacy. Everyone EXCEPT the one who wrote the words in the first place, is guilty for even reading the words, and then for responding to the plain meaning of them. You’re “spying” if you read the site where they’re posted. You’re a feminist (whether “whitewashed” or “radical religious” depends on the accuser) if you disagree with the writer. You’re “gossiping” if you quote the words or discuss them.
Thank you, Karen, for doing a LOT to keep the nasty, untrue comments at bay here. I know it isn’t easy to run a blog that’s under attack. (When attacks come from certain quarters, you know you’re doing something right and speaking the truth!)
March 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Cindy, I never cease to be amazed and how you are able to zero in on the meat of what is going on in these circles. It sounds like you are reaping fruit from your conference!
March 24, 2008 at 3:00 pm
“What message are we sending to young women who are pregnant when we tell them, basically, that they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t? Do we want them to not abort? And then we turn around and tell them that they are sinfully discarding their baby when they give that baby up for adoption?”
Once when I was giving a pro-life presentation, a young mom raised her hand and shared her testimony. She are her now husband had conceived a child during their first year at a Christian college. The girl’s dad was a pastor and given all of that, they chose to abort their baby. She shared what this did to their marriage and how their families responded years later when they told them. She said the number one reason they aborted was because they heard the church ladies when they talked about unwed mothers and she thought it could mean that her dad would lose his job.
Ravi Zacharias also tells the heart-breaking story of a young Christian couple who were both in medical school. They had been pro-life leaders in their church and the model couple for all the teens. When they discovered that they were expecting right after they married, the decided to abort their child but didn’t want anyone to know. The young woman convinced her husband that he could perform the procedure and so he snuck home anesthesia, administered it to the wife, but before he could begin the abortion, he realized that he had given her too much anesthesia and she died on their bed.
BTW, the abortion stats show that 1 in four women sitting in any pew on a Sunday morning have had abortion and currently 250,000 born again evangelical Christian abort each year.
March 24, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Cindy…wow…what can I say? #13 was so, so powerful. It was my worship service this morning. Thank you so much for writing it.
March 24, 2008 at 3:14 pm
“What are these women supposed to do to support their children? Don’t forget, in the hyperP’s parallel universe, if a mother goes out and gets a job and supports her baby, she is a harlot and is sinning by working, and if she accepts welfare (or WIC or Medicaid), she is also sinning, because these folks believe that charity is the church’s venue, not the government’s. But where are these churches with their much vaunted charity when the rubber hits the road?”
Cindy,
This is a good point.
When I had first joined up on a women’s list on the internet in the mid to late 90’s, I had written a brief testimony about how I had become a Christian. I had my first child out of wedlock and never married his father. I was 19 when I had him. I worked full-time and I attended some night classes in order to advance my career. I soon worked my way up the ladder and I was in jobs that most college-educated people would have loved to have. By the time I was 21, I was doing quite well.
So, when I became a Christian at the age of 23, I kept on working because that is the only way I could support myself and my son. No child support was being sent my way and to be on welfare would have been something my family would have frowned upon since I was able-bodied.
Then, I tell a bunch of Christian women my testimony about how I became a Christian and how I was now a stay-at-home mom taking care of my children. In my mind, I looked at my past and the provision of a great job as God’s great mercy in my life!
But that is not how the patriarchalists looked at it. They began telling me, very sternly, that I should have quit my job when I became a Christian and I should have started a home business in order to support my son. (??????????????????) I was even told being on welfare would have been better than putting my child in daycare. BTW, the daycare was in a woman’s home and she is the one who ended up leading me to the Lord! She is a wonderful and godly woman. I was also told that my church should have supported me so I could stay at home with my son.
So, I was supposed to know that as soon as I became a Christian, it was a sin for me to work outside of the home even though I had no husband and there was no way I could move back in with my family. I was also supposed to know how to start a home business that would bring in enough money to support my son and I. Which sounded RIDICULOUS to my ears. I wondered if anyone actually lived in the real world?
They did not see my testimony as a credit to a merciful God who provided a wonderful job for a single mother.
The patriarchalist dogma does not translate to real life. Their way only works for people who can live like them. Try and translate their way of life to the inner city or to the poor or to the single mother and you will soon get frustrated.
March 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Karen,
What chilling real-life examples of how the PRO-LIFE [allegedly] contingent’s attitudes can betray their own words.
The premarital sex was the sin. Not the baby/resulting pregnancy.
How many people have had sex before they married and never “got caught” and they are in the church? And they are some of the same people that are so harsh in their judgmental criticism of the unwed mother.
I know a story of a pastor’s daughter who got an abortion because of the same reason. She didn’t want her dad to lose his position at the church. It was so sad to hear her story.
March 24, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Corrie,
You are well aware that that is not a public list. Even if there are 700 members, all of them, including you, agreed that the list was private and that you would not share any of the posted messages. It’s deceitful to agree not to do something like that and then turn around and do it anyway, regardless of the reason.
This is a good comment thread about unwed pregnancy and Planned Parenthood and one I came looking for–I’ve recently found out some things about PP that are appalling.
I’m just sorry this discussion started under less than stellar circumstances.
March 24, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Marcia,
I am not a member of that list and haven’t been for quite some time, therefore I do not have access to the archives. I am not “well aware” that it is not a public list.
I guess people who constantly accuse others of gossiping should be more careful before they gossip about others. If I was one of the relatives in her post that was being talked about to 700 other women, telling my deepest and darkest sins, I guess I wouldn’t think it was “private” at all. Would you?
She wants to blame Karen and others for the things she writes about others on her so-called “private” list of 700 women? That is…just..well……silly! This is so very convenient. You mean, I could have a list of hundreds and hundreds of people and then say anything I wanted on that list and as long as I called it “private”, no one could hold me accountable for anything I said? And if I talk about other people on my “private” list, does that mean it doesn’t equal gossip?
I will tell you that there is a lot of deceitfullness. Funny how it only works one way, though? I mean, when we try and point out the deceitfulness, we are accused of all sorts of things. It is deceitful not to tell the truth and to mislead people to believe something about yourself that is not true.
It was Stacy’s comment to Kym that precipitated the posting of what she wrote to the PW list, was it not? If Stacy had been honest with Kym about her practice with her daughters, then this would have never happened, no? IOW, if she would have told Kym the truth instead of dissembling and making it seem like others are lying (“gossip” and “twittering” about her when they are not, then “Marion” would probably have never posted that here.
We have already seen other people who have come here that are on that list that see that things are said on the PW list that do not line up with what is said on her blog or in her books.
And, having owned several yahoo groups myself, I have to wonder why someone would try and claim that what was written on a Yahoo group was “private”? It seems like we are straining at gnats here and missing THE point.
March 24, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Marcia,
What was it that you heard about Planned Parenthood that are appalling? It would be good to add those things to this thread so everyone can be forewarned and forearmed.
March 24, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Marcia,
This (#50) is a Red Herring fallacy. Stacy and James considered that email list and their message board to be public when they accused me of vile gossip. They want to be able to enjoy the venue when it suits their purposes, but when they promote false information, they want to be able to consider it private. If they are so foolish as to believe that telling 750 people is a private matter, then they are complete fools. This is a classic example of spiritual abuse the McDonalds expect those 750 to remain silent while they contradict themselves in public, calling others gossips in the process.
You are saying that the 750 people on that list have more duty to wink at and cover James and Stacy’s deceptions than their duty to the truth. You are also saying that people like Marion have more duty to trust Stacy’s contradictory statements than she has to the truth. Marion is also supposed to remain duty bound to truth, yet sit idly by and watch Stacy call people gossips and slanderers when Marion knows that this is done wrongfully? Marion just didn’t come on here and say “I’ve heard that it’s true,” but she provided Stacy’s own words to demonstrate the inconsistency. People are expected to have more duty to Stacy than Stacy has to those who are required to trust her. When she demonstrates that she is flawed regarding things that rightfully cast her in a bad light, suddenly, the issue is one of the violaton of HER trust, not her violation of the trust others have placed in her. That is emotional blackmail.
I’m going to throw out an analogy that is offensive, but the dynamics of this Red Herring are not much different. How is this different to my duty to the man who molested me? “Don’t tell anyone or else…” Or what? You will be exposed? I will be exposed? I’ve seen more of this kind of thing happen over and over again in my life, and I’ve been both silent and verbal. I’ve seen it more often in religious circles and the effects have been devastating. Covering up these things is like poison in the lives, families and churches of those who are “duty bound.”
If you tell the truth about someones profession, you are a gossip? It seems as though anything that makes her look bad, be it right or wrong, is gossip. And when people realize that they’ve been mislead and went along as a willing participant and have been “had,” it seems to be perfectly acceptable to shift responsibility into blame of others.
This is a classic example of Lifton’s thought reform techiniques and thought police. This behavior meets criteria of “Doctrine over Person” for the doctrine of the “private” nature of that list is more important than Stacy’s dishonest denials of the fruit of her own lips and keyboard. This also meets criteria of the criteria of the “Sacred Science” where the doctrines and leadership of the group remain above scrutiny. To challenge either is a crime in a thought reform program because it is “unthinkable” to do so. It’s “non-normative” and therefore sinful.
Marcia, you can certainly stick up for Stacy, but to blame honest people for reasonable desicion-making in light of these circumstances and accusations is unfair. I would also like to know where this thread mentions anything about planned parenthood? And you mention a “good comment thread” but do not link to the thread. What has that to do with anything and how do you know that the women participating on this thread would not find whatever it is we are talking about equally appauling?
March 24, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“You are well aware that that is not a public list. Even if there are 700 members, all of them, including you, agreed that the list was private…”
Marcia, Most churches in the US have less than 500 members. If you got up in front of the church and told this same story would you seriously expect it to be private? If you wanted it private, you would not tell 700 people.
Now, take that same scenerio and consider that she does not KNOW personally 700 people on an internet list. Just for future reference to be safe: there is no such thing as ‘private’ internet or e-mail.
“It’s deceitful to agree not to do something like that and then turn around and do it anyway, regardless of the reason.”
Now you are calling Corrie a liar? Read this again: If Stacy had been honest with Kym about her practice with her daughters, then this would have never happened, no? IOW, if she would have told Kym the truth instead of dissembling and making it seem like others are lying (”gossip” and “twittering”)about her when they are not, then “Marion” would probably have never posted that here.
“I’ve recently found out some things about PP that are appalling.”
There have been appalling things about PP for the last 30 years! So what else is new?
By the way, Marica, thank Karen for taking it down per Stacy’s request. We could only hope for the same grace from Stacy who calls us ‘gossips’ and ‘white washed’ feminists and makes money doing it!
March 24, 2008 at 7:28 pm
One last thing to consider. Stacy has positioned herself as a PUBLIC Christian teacher and author in a MINISTRY. Every word she writes on line is fair game. If one does not want their words parsed and analyzed against their teaching then quit being PUBLIC with your ministry and stop writing books.
March 24, 2008 at 7:41 pm
And on the subject of Lifton’s criteria, I forgot the granddaddy of them all: Milieu control. Keep information limited. If you cant get rid of information, you can terrorize people into being too afraid to get the information or you can appeal to their consistency by calling them names if they do not take the information away. If that doesn’t work, start laying blame and demonizing or dehumanizing the people who are diseminating the information so that if people read it, they will be highly unlikely to trust it. Controlling information keeps people in the dark about the truth of their ideas. If the truth comes out, people will be wise enough to figure out the truth about the ideological package that the slick salesmen sold them.
March 24, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Corrie, I am so sorry. I thought you were the one posting from the archives.
I’m not really arguing against what y’all are saying; I don’t have time to keep up with what’s being said or why it may be inconsistent. My only point is that in order to be a member of that list, the person joining has to agree that the list is private and that messages will not be shared.
So someone broke that agreement by sharing a private message. That’s all.
March 24, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Nothing; it’s just new to me. I mean, I knew what Planned Parenthood was; I just didn’t realize how far they go in promoting abortion and making it happen.
March 24, 2008 at 7:55 pm
thatmom wrote: Cindy, I never cease to be amazed and how you are able to zero in on the meat of what is going on in these circles. It sounds like you are reaping fruit from your conference!
Karen,
I didn’t learn this in any conference. I learned this from my exit counselor and from the exit counseling literature. It’s in the Bible, too. Think of the Pharisees getting us to swear by the temple and the gold in the temple — and how they pit one sin against another to keep people off balance and just confused enough so that they can keep them under control. It’s ages old: “Thank God I am not like that vile sinner…” This is dehumanization or at least keeping others at least one moral rung lower then they are on the ladder of holiness.
And I didn’t learn it at the conference, I actually saw it in action. Even there, I would say the majority of people believed that this modern day Pharisee stuff is all about doctrine. It’s not. It’s largely behavior, and sadly, the behaviors differ little if any from any given secular or religious overtly authoritarian system.
God have mercy on us and give us greater wisdom and discernment.
March 24, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Hi Marcia,
“Corrie, I am so sorry. I thought you were the one posting from the archives.”
Oh. I guessed I missed that! No problem. Thank you for apologizing. At first it seemed like you might have thought that because you said something about agreeing and then being deceitful but then I thought you were referring to the person who passed it along to “Marion” or to “Marion” herself.
I will have to admit that if I was on that list and I saw all these contradictions, I would find it very hard to think that my agreement to not post things that the owner and leader was saying trumped not telling the truth when it came to things that she was saying elsewhere. I will also admit that I have a LOT of old writings from the Sisters in Christ list and from back when I was on the PW list and there is nothing wrong in what Stacy wrote back then except when you compare them to what she is writing now. It is hard to sit on that sort of information when you know others are being accused of lying when they are NOT.
I guess we need to ask ourselves:
WWRD
.
.
.
.
.
What Would Rahab Do?
Lin is right. Stacy is a public leader and she is to set the example of how one must conduct themselves and how one must be honest in all communication and in relating the facts about one’s own life.
BTW, Patrarchs Wives is up to 798 people as of this afternoon.
The archives are “moderator only” now. I remember them being locked down one other time when I was still on the list when stuff was leaking out to the outside, too.
March 24, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Cindy,
It seems kind of inconsistent to say that everyone knows all this stuff because they have told people at homeschool workshops and on a public email list but then when people talk about this public information, they are told it is “private” and “gossip”?
When it is convenient to claim that these things are public knowledge because it was shared on the PW email list consisting of 750 people, then they will. And when it is convenient to claim that it is private when information is shared with the same 750 people, then they will.
I think I am missing something.
“I mentioned that I felt that it was dishonest and misleading to conceal the information about their past while promoting a Vision Forum image of perfection through their publications. Both my husband and I were informed that they had not been misleading, because they had been very open about these issues with 750 people on the Patriarch Wives list, with people whom they counseled, with another message board, with their church leadership and with people throughout the homeschooling community. It was then offered that by bringing this information to light, “shouting from the mountaintops” in a wider forum, that – I – had placed their younger children in harms way because they were not yet ready to disclose that information.”
March 24, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Cindy, I was referring to the conference where you spoke and are now hearing from people like the person who wrote to you this weekend regarding FIC.
March 24, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Karen,
Gottcha.
I became a little confused because the person I spoke with is just someone who contacted me after reading things I’ve posted online, including here.
This person is an example of the many who now have an opportunity to read an alternative to the many deceptive messages and promises that the evangelists for the family integrated and patriarchy models offer and promomte. She contacted me after reading things that I wrote here on True Womanhood.
March 24, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Corrie wrote: I think I am missing something.
Corrie,
You didn’t miss a thing.
March 24, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“I’m just sorry this discussion started under less than stellar circumstances.”
Marcia,
I am just curious about something. Why is it that you have the uncanny knack for showing up here when Stacy’s veracity is being questioned? I would also like to know what your response is to Cindy’s post #53. Do you think that there is a greater responsibility to not divulge information from the PW list archives than there is to prove that Stacy has been dishonest and has called us gossips for speaking the truth? What do you think about this, Marcia?
March 24, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Cindy, your post #53 was amazing. You really nailed it. I am waiting to see how Stacy handles my request. I have still heard nothing from her about it nor has she made things right with us. I will give it another day and then will respond appropriately.
March 24, 2008 at 9:09 pm
WWRD?
Can we get t-shirts?
March 24, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I want one of those WWMMD ones, but I want one with a head covering.
March 24, 2008 at 9:51 pm
thatmom wrote: I am waiting to see how Stacy handles my request. I have still heard nothing from her about it nor has she made things right with us.
Karen,
Are you referring to your request to Stacy to go back and look at what Kym wrote on her blog which stimulated the whole discussion?
From Comment #34:
But I also asked her to do something else. I asked her to go back to the comment Kym made on her blog, which prompted the discussion here in the first place, and to explain to her readers that we didn’t lie when we stated her views of the protection of daughters and to explain that her views have changed since last summer. I am trusting that she will do this.
So you are essentially asking not only for an explanation or clarification of her views that corresponds to how she conducts herself and family, but also for some sort of apology to people here for falsely claiming that people on this blog were misrepresenting her views?
I guess that I missed that you were actually hoping for an actual and direct response.
I am humbled by your optimism.
March 24, 2008 at 10:31 pm
“Even there, I would say the majority of people believed that this modern day Pharisee stuff is all about doctrine. It’s not. It’s largely behavior, and sadly, the behaviors differ little if any from any given secular or religious overtly authoritarian system.”
Cindy! Brilliant. this is sooooo true! This is why they needed the Talmud…the Tradition of the Elders.
It was NOT in scripture.
March 24, 2008 at 10:33 pm
“The archives are “moderator only” now. I remember them being locked down one other time when I was still on the list when stuff was leaking out to the outside, too.”
Hmmmm. Hiding their ‘light’ under a bushel?
March 24, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Lin,
So they lock down the archives so people cannot seek out the information and discern truth for themselves? Then they open it back up after awhile, presuming that everyone has forgotten all about it?
This is as about as good as Stacy disabling all the comments to hide the Dr. Seuss references when they were brought to attention online here and on Amazon’s book review blog. When they believe that the sleepy, forgetful public comprised of chumps and saps have forgotten about it, they open things back up? Another way of saying something but not having to be accountable?
But Stacy is “godly” and has a lovely family with her following, so she gets a pass for establishing this sort of pattern.
March 25, 2008 at 12:25 am
Um, no, they locked down the archives because members believed they were posting on a private list and shared things under that assumption.
It’s not just about Stacy; it’s protecting all of the members. Since EVERYONE who joined that list had to agree that it was, in fact, private, and that messages would NOT be shared, for any reason, many women may have posted things that they could not have foreseen might be made public later.
I am no longer an active member of the list, but several years ago I posted some things about my own marriage, and I would not be at all happy to find someone suddenly posting this stuff on another forum.
From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry:
1pri·vate
1 a: intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person, group, or class
Again, every member agreed to this.
March 25, 2008 at 12:49 am
Hi Marcia,
Would you be happy to know that one of your relatives was posting all sorts of private information about you on a “private” list of 800 members without YOUR consent and knowledge?
Would you be a bit irate if that same relative would turn around and accuse another of gossip because someone dared to expose a lie they read on another blog?
I don’t get how it is okay to gossip about other people and their lives and their pasts but it is not okay to talk about the lives and pasts of public personas, especially when those same people are misrepresenting their pasts and calling other people gossips and liars falsely.
I didn’t realize that Christians could gossip about other people and lie about themselves as long as the list was labeled “private”? This is a legal/technical loophole and it stinks. It is what dishonest people do in order to cover up the REAL problem.
This sounds like something the pharisees would do.
The rest of the members do not need protecting. It was Stacy. If the moderators were being forthright instead of stirring up fear amongst the list members, they would have said that it was only concerning Stacy and the things she has posted on that list for all to see for years. This has nothing to do with other members and Stacy and her moderators know it.
Now all the list members will be afraid when there was no need to be fearful. This is a very effective tool, btw. I won’t say the “c” word but when you control information and make people afraid of some “boogey man” that doesn’t exist, it is an effective means of control.
Wasn’t it you that told me, a while back that their divorce and remarriage is PUBLIC information and that it is readily available in the archives? And when I said that no one reads the archives unless they are members and they would have to be members for a long time to even know that this was in the archives, that seemed to go over like a lead balloon.
Well, is this public information or private information for the eyes of only 800 strangers?
What I don’t understand is why you are defending this? Do people on the PW list really think they can share whatever they want on a list of 800 people and think that it is “private”? I know I don’t post things to “private” lists and expect them to be “private”. Even the emails I send privately have the potential of becoming public.
I wonder why Stacy isn’t condemning the practice of news paper reporters using private emails and correspondence in order to expose the crooked? For example, Eliot Spitzer. Isn’t it gossip to talk about his hookers? After all, that was private business.
No one is talking about your posts concerning your marriage and family, Marcia. But, I have seen them and read them and so have others. No one is talking about anyone else’s posts, either. The PW moderators KNOW that this isn’t about protecting the members of that list but it is about protecting Stacy.
And protect they will because the truth really doesn’t matter.
March 25, 2008 at 12:52 am
Hey Corrie–
Thanks for your gracious acceptance of my apology.
The thing is, people did post there thinking it was private, and these archives go back years and years. I would be truly embarrassed if something I post
March 25, 2008 at 12:55 am
Grr….sorry; I’m trying to get used to using a laptop. What’s with this touch pad thing; every time my fat hand hits it my cursor goes somewhere into I don’t know where.
Anyway. My contention is that private should remain private, regardless of the content. Maybe there is gossip; maybe there are things said there that shouldn’t have been said.
But again, every single woman reading those messages agreed not to share them. This is my only point.
March 25, 2008 at 1:07 am
“I guess that I missed that you were actually hoping for an actual and direct response.
I am humbled by your optimism.”
Cindy,
I am, too.
I just checked and the [false] response is still there.
“Kym”: “Do you not allow your daughters out of your sight? In other words are your adult daughter not allowed to leave your house without you or your husband?
Also, I remember reading recently (on your husband’s blog I think) the story of your adoption. I don’t remember it being a negative experience, but on another blog I read where one woman said that because of your bad adoption experience, you’re afraid your daughters will get pregnant out of wedlock. Now I realize that isn’t even a logical statement, but I thought you should know what people are saying. If you’d like I can send you the link to where this was said.”
March 19, 2008 10:38 AM
Stacy McDonald said…
Hi Kym,
How unfortunate that people feel it necessary to gossip and twitter about other Christians. I’m sorry you were exposed to such nonsense. Thanks for asking me directly rather than blindly believing.
“Do you not allow your daughters out of your sight? In other words are your adult daughter not allowed to leave your house without you or your husband?”
LOL! No, this is not true.”
So, the truth is nonsense, gossip and twitter? Thanks for not blindly believing? Well, isn’t that what is really expected? Really, it is the opposite. Blindly believing is much more preferable than actually asking directly. We have all asked directly but I am quite sure that if we blindly believed, it is much more preferable.
It is true what Kym read on another blog about her negative adoption experience. All she had to do is read in the archives of PW to know that. And, the PW list wouldn’t be in “danger” right now if she wasn’t calling people liars and twitterers for telling the truth.
But, in recent history, the adoption experience is presented in a much more positive tone.
Is that our fault for noticing? No. It is her fault for being contradictory.
Kym is right that it isn’t logical to think that if one lets their daughter out alone that she will get pregnant or raped. But, that IS what was said in the post to PW. Using Dinah to justify this faulty premise is also illogical
Her adult daughters do not leave the house without her or her husband, at least that is their practice up until VERY recently. If things have changed, then all they need to do is say so instead of expecting people to just blindly believe what they say when it contradicts what they have said in other places.
“They do honor my husband’s wishes when he requests that they not drive at night etc. And there are times when he lets them know he would prefer to chaperone them for an event or if they are going to a neighborhood that’s not so safe. Also, he doesn’t like me or the girls to drive alone at night.
We do most things together as a family and I suppose that seems odd to many people these days. We don’t have our own individual social lives, but that doesn’t mean we don’t EVER do anything alone. We aren’t joined at the hip – yet we are definitely together ALOT!
”
And she doesn’t even answer the question.
They honor their father’s wishes for not driving at night, ETC. ETC being the operative word, here.
They don’t have their own individual social lives but there are times when their father wants to chaperone them?
Which is it? Don’t have their own individual social lives or do?
If their adult daughters are allowed to go to social events alone then they DO have their own individual social lives (which is healthy, imho), right?
Or am I missing something again?
All she had to do is tell Kym that their daughters do things apart from them and then give some examples. There is too much double-speak in this answer to know what the truth really is.
Blind belief expects us not to question double-speak when we see it.
But, the person who dared forward this out of the archives is really the culprit here.
Okay, if you say so.
March 25, 2008 at 1:16 am
“But again, every single woman reading those messages agreed not to share them. This is my only point.”
Marcia,
Point taken. I understand.
But, this is being used by Stacy as a cover for the real problem.
I would think that the greater problem would be the problem. The problem that caused this other lesser problem is the one that should be examined. We shouldn’t even be talking about the lesser problem until we take care of the REAL problem.
She has got to know that there are people on her list that are not there because they are like-minded. On the lists that I own, I KNOW that there are people there that are not who they say they are and I fully expect them to share what I say outside of that PRIVATE list. This goes on all the time.
March 25, 2008 at 1:25 am
http://www.acts1711.com/deity.htm
Good article on the deity of Christ. It was good to read and be reminded that Jesus Christ IS God.
March 25, 2008 at 1:34 am
Over and over I hear ‘them’ say that everything is copyrighted. Fine, dandy, good, whatever. However, what about the “fair use’ concept? That states that while an article cannot be posted in its entirety, parts can be posted for criticism, parody, education, etc. So while the messages on PW are copyrighted, they can be used as long as it is not the whole article to be posted for education. And is this not what this forum is all about? Education? We are learning how to be better Christians?
That is how it appears to me, but I could be wrong.
March 25, 2008 at 2:08 am
Anne, I don’t know what “fair use” concept you are referring to. These were not articles posted on a web page; they were email messages that were only received by women who agreed to keep them private.
March 25, 2008 at 2:24 am
Marcia, Are you telling me that you actually believe that 800 people (who could be anyone, by the way) can be trusted with information of a sensitive nature that you posted on the INTERNET. I hope you used a pseudonym.
BTW: If Stacy is teaching something contrary on that list to what she is teaching in public in her books, blogs, etc. then someone on that list has a DUTY to not only confront her but to make sure the public knows. The people who bought her book need to know, etc. she has a PUBLIC ministry and has made herself a PUBLIC teacher. It goes with the territory. She should also be very upfront about both their divorces.
March 25, 2008 at 2:26 am
Marcia,
Read 3 John to see how John publicly in a letter for all to read for 2000 yers confronted Diotrephes about his behavior that was contrary to the Gospel teaching. Also read how Paul publicly dealt with Peter and his behavior.
March 25, 2008 at 2:26 am
Marcia,
Why are they to be kept private? That is what bothers me. It is the why.
This is not the first time people have seen that things are not being presented as they once were. But, now we are to believe that our hands are tied when we see a public leader not telling the truth and calling other people liars when they are actually telling the truth?
If this isn’t a case of “shoot the messenger”, I don’t know what is.
And now, I am told, that the reason that the archives are being shut down is due to “radical feminists” trying to win by shutting down the PW list. This isn’t about winning or radical feminism. This is the funniest and saddest thing I have read. What fear-mongering!
This is about telling the truth. And, now the moderators are allowing people to believe a lie about the WHY and they are bearing false witness all the while they post the Westminster Confession on the 9th commandment that tells us to “promote the truth”. I bet the moderators won’t tell the list that it is because Stacy said people were liars and “twitterers” on her blog for telling the truth! Naah. Let them believe that the evil feminists are responsible for shutting down the archives. Why not? They blame everything on the feminists as it is. Feminism has become the patriarchal scapegoat. Make the feminists take responsibility and send them off into the wilderness. I am sure that makes people feel much better. It is easier than looking into the mirror.
That post that was posted to this list was in those archives for all to read. The same people who have read that post are the same people who read her blog and say nothing!
It is like I am living in an upside down universe. I just don’t get it.
Hello????
I am glad I am not on that list. I would feel responsible to “promote the truth” as the 9th commandment entreats us to do. And I would be swiftly and quickly banned so that everyone who is deceived can keep on being that way.
March 25, 2008 at 2:30 am
Lin,
Weren’t those private letters?
March 25, 2008 at 2:31 am
Corrie, Every ‘cult of personality’ has to have a common enemy to keep the followers in line and not thinking for themselves. For patriarchs it is the ever present- feminists lurking behind every corner.
They do not even realize that it is all about cult of personality. It is all they have because if people read scripture too closely for themselves, they will see it for the sham it is.
Corrie, you are the biggest feminist I have ever seen. 10 kids, homeschool mom, complimentarian.
Radical.
March 25, 2008 at 2:33 am
Marcia,
I am just curious about something. Why is it that you have the uncanny knack for showing up here when Stacy’s veracity is being questioned?
Marcia, I am curious about this, too.
March 25, 2008 at 2:36 am
About that scapegoat….
The Jews would tie a bell around the scapegoat before they sent it out into the wilderness. It would be a very, very bad thing if that goat came back. Can you imagine the fear of those who cast their sins up that goat’s head upon hearing the tinkling of that bell in the middle of the night?
They would have to be reminded of their sins all over again.
Maybe the scapegoat has wandered back into the camp with her bell tinkling?
March 25, 2008 at 2:36 am
Corrie,
When a listed is moderated, do you really think that the moderators would allow anyone to publicly allow any lady to call Stacy out on her flip-flops of beliefs?
I don’t think so either.
March 25, 2008 at 2:40 am
Well, Lin, if you must know, I’ve been lurking around TW in the past few weeks looking for guidance as far as unplanned pregnancy goes. Believe it or not, I think there is sound Biblical knowledge to be found from some of you.
I actually read here and don’t post more than I do post, because I don’thave the time to keep up with some of the things y’all discuss.
But when I got to this thread and found that someone had breached the privacy of a private list, I felt I should speak up. Rationalize away, but someone is completely unable to keep her word.
March 25, 2008 at 2:44 am
Anne, You know what bothers me about it? It is a bait and switch game. Just like the book. They present ONE face to the general public to sell books, trying to hide any teaching that would turn off potential customers…then they get followers and they reel them into their legalistic web with their endless lists of do’s and don’ts, rules and regulations for women and families.
People love a checklist religion. If they check things off the list then they don’t need a personal relationship with their Savior.
People are so gullible…always looking for answers in all the wrong places. They will go everywhere except to scripture and their prayer closet alone with the Lord and His Word. It makes me weep!
March 25, 2008 at 2:46 am
“I felt I should speak up. Rationalize away, but someone is completely unable to keep her word.”
Marcia,
And quite a few of us have been saying this VERY THING for months but we have been demonized for doing the very thing you are doing.
March 25, 2008 at 2:52 am
The thing is, I keep coming across as Stacy’s minion when really all I’m doing is pointing out that the email messages should not have been shared.
Corrie, I said above that I’m not commenting on what anyone, including Stacy, wrote for public consumption or what anyone said one place that might be inconsistent with with what she said somewhere else.
I’m a working mother, remember? I don’t have time to spend online comparing this article with that book.
ALL I was saying, and I continue to stand by this, is that if you agree not to share email messages, then don’t. share. them.
March 25, 2008 at 2:52 am
“Well, Lin, if you must know, I’ve been lurking around TW in the past few weeks looking for guidance as far as unplanned pregnancy goes. Believe it or not, I think there is sound Biblical knowledge to be found from some of you.”
Go to the Word and your prayer closet. I am not trying to be mean, Marcia, I am trying to tell you the truth. Jesus sent us a perfect COUNSELOR when He went to Heaven Who guides us in ALL things. He knows your every weakness, your every need. Pray without ceasing.
“ut when I got to this thread and found that someone had breached the privacy of a private list, I felt I should speak up. Rationalize away, but someone is completely unable to keep her word.”
No one is rationalizing, Marica. Anyone who thinks an 800 person list on the INTERNET is private is a bit naive. There are 10 year old boys who hack that sort of thing for fun.
We are telling you the truth. And you want to ignore that Stacy is a PUBLIC teacher with a ministry. Nothing she writes is private. She should kow that by now that she has published a book.
March 25, 2008 at 2:56 am
Oh, Lin, I have been on my knees. I know that no one, especially no one on some forum, has the answer for me. But when you get desperate, you look for answers anywhere.
As far as the list, well, yes, years ago when I joined that list, I was naive as far as internet privacy goes. And it does bother me that someone might breach what I thought at that time I was saying confidentially.
Would I do so now? No. But again, what is in the PRIVATE archives should stay private.
March 25, 2008 at 2:56 am
“The thing is, I keep coming across as Stacy’s minion”
I thought that a while back. I noticed that you showed up when Stacy and her teaching was being discussed. Now it has happened again.
Either it has been a huge coincidence or you have some sort of connection you don’t feel compelled to share.
March 25, 2008 at 3:00 am
Marcia, I will spend time this evening in prayer for you and pray that God will be Glorified in the decision. A child is so precious!
I mean that. I NEVER say I will pray for someone and then not do it.
March 25, 2008 at 3:02 am
Thank you, Lin. I mean that. And anyone else reading, please pray. This is out of my control, but it is not out of God’s hands.
As far as the rest of this, I’ve said what I meant to. I still do not believe a private email list should be breached.
March 25, 2008 at 3:04 am
And Marcia, we believe public teachers in Ministry should always tell the truth.
March 25, 2008 at 3:06 am
I am a moderator of the Patriarch’s Wives.
I am not going to enter the fray, except to say that I appreciate Marcia’s last comment: “Rationalize away, but someone is completely unable to keep her word.” All members of the list agree to not forward any emails without the permission of the author. Any author. We are protecting the privacy of a private list. Period.
By the way, I wear pants and worked away from home for a couple of years. Stacy didn’t kick me off the list or ban me from being a moderator. She has been nothing but gracious towards me.
When I joined the list about 8 years ago, the archives of PW were not available to members at all, until approximately two years ago, when members requested repeatedly that they be opened. So, the accusation that the archives are shut down willy-nilly at Stacy’s whim is unfounded.
Obviously, there is a person or persons who are unable or unwilling to abide by the promise made upon joining. Therefore, the archives are not available any more.
March 25, 2008 at 3:07 am
If y’all look at the “Purpose” link, you will see that I came here on March 17 looking for the topic I mentioned.
I didn’t say what I was looking for, and no one answered. I’m only bringing it up to show that I don’t just “show up” when Stacy is mentioned.
March 25, 2008 at 3:39 am
Don’t want to interupt the flow of what you ladies feel you need to hash out, but I thought it couldn’t hurt to ask a question. Warning: this is probably the silliest question EVER asked on the site.
I think that guys with long or longish hair are often very cute. Am I attracted to effeminacy and rebellion?
I mean, a certain person in my family really has this very strong opinion that long hair is rebellious in a man because of his interpretation of Corinthians 11. (if that’s where those verses are, you know where I mean, I’m sure.)When I’ve been around him, I’ve heard him say many times things like it was rebellion and disgusting for a man to have long hair (even if it was just a few inches longer than normal and not even to shoulder length (like people in the primitive, razor less Bible times were anything like as fussy as that.)
And this book someone I know likes is about how feminism supposedy destroyed Western culture. Somewhere the author makes the statement that “God is a man.” He says women wore hats to church and had long hair until this present day. He sees long hair in men as disobedience to God and a mark of feminization of the culture.
Do you see why I feel so guilty?
Some of you enjoyed my thoughts in the singleness thread. One of you said I was contented. I do believe God is bringing me more and more there. But I wonder how much credit I can take for contentment when I repress a lot of my emotions and attractions still, or treat them as dirty and think “Just forget them.” And I go on to other sins than the possible perversions of natural attraction. There’s always plenty of sin to do! Anyway, simple denial is not contentment.
I try to acknowledge attraction when I come to it. NOT do anything I want with it, but knowing it’s there and continually giving it to Christ. So I try to do this … but I rarely think that a guy with short hair is handsome. I can’t explain this or control it, it’s just one of those things. Unless it’s a sin of course, then I’ll have to change it somehow.
I think Mrs. Friedrich who wrote this Manifesto ya’ll are talking about wrote about how men shouldn’t have long hair. You also discussed what she and her likeminded friends think about women’s dress. It all ties into just how should we honor God with our appearance. Some Christians have said really crazy things. Tertullian, I think, thought that dying clothes was vain and wrong and said “If God wanted purple clothes, He would have made purple sheep.” (?!?) Obviously, not every idea should be accepted blindly.
If the Cor.11 passage means long hair for men is wrong, so be it. God does know what He’s doing. But hair length really seems such a relative thing, not something nature teaches at all. And that passage says women need veils to pray … I thought Christ died to rip the veil between us and God, to free us from earthly ordinances like “don’t taste, don’t touch”? It surely can’t mean that women need this mere outward custom of veiling to talk to their Father? This passage truly confuses me, because I feel guilty saying it was just a cultural thing. Because the language is sooo lofty and sounds very absolute.
Well, I can’t type about this forever …
March 25, 2008 at 3:52 am
Janet,
I am glad to hear that Stacy was gracious to you, but where is that graciousness to others? How do we become like you to be able to have Stacy be gracious to us? Because I have read her book, and there is no graciousness in there for a pant wearing, work away from home, white-washed feminist.
March 25, 2008 at 4:27 am
“When I joined the list about 8 years ago, the archives of PW were not available to members at all, until approximately two years ago, when members requested repeatedly that they be opened. So, the accusation that the archives are shut down willy-nilly at Stacy’s whim is unfounded.”
Janet,
That is not really what was said.
The archives of the PW list used to be open. Then they were shut down. Then they were opened again. And now they are shut down again.
I am fuzzy on why they were shut down back when I was on the list but it had to do with this same issue, I believe.
And why are they shut down now? Now because anyone on the list is in danger. If that is true, then you would have to shut down the list entirely. Posts are still going to come through and someone can clearly keep them on a hard drive somewhere. The archives were shut down because a post that Stacy wrote was reposted to this list.
The issue isn’t about protecting the members of the PW list or some member not being able to abide by your rules. The issue is about not telling the truth and calling others liars and gossips when they are not.
Funny how this all gets lost in the shuffle of obsfucation.
BTW, where did this rumor that radical feminists or Christian feminists come from? Who told the list this? Where did that idea come from?
If people are so against rationalization, they need to start at the root.
Shall the truth be covered up and other people called liars in order to keep to some rule? What trumps what? It seems like the rule is being used to suppress the truth and allow people to be falsely called liars?
If “Marion” hadn’t posted what she received from someone else, would you be the one to hold Stacy accountable for telling the truth?
March 25, 2008 at 4:34 am
I never knew that Stacy felt that way about adoption because back in October she was rejoicing with someone who had just adopted a child and even said how exciting it was. So what is really the truth?
March 25, 2008 at 4:44 am
“Well, Lin, if you must know, I’ve been lurking around TW in the past few weeks looking for guidance as far as unplanned pregnancy goes. Believe it or not, I think there is sound Biblical knowledge to be found from some of you.”
Marcia,
Well, it depends on the situation but I have been in various different “unplanned pregnancy” situations and I would be more than happy to share my experiences. In fact, I had a post typed up for this list and I am debating on sharing it and it was on just that.
I have been both unmarried and married when it comes to “unplanned pregnancy”. I don’t know if I have any solid answers but I can share from my own experience.
I will say that the babies I conceived out of wedlock were used by God to bless me even before I was a Christian. He used those situations to keep me from harm, to mature me and to bring me to Himself. My oldest son is the one that told me about the Lord when he was only 3 and his daycare provider eventually led me to the Lord. I had one unplanned pregnancy after I became a Christian and before I married. That, in and of itself, is a long story with a happy ending- I ended up marrying the father of that baby and we are still married to this day.
Sometimes, even when we are married, pregnancies that are not planned will throw us for a loop. They can strain a marriage, especially if the baby is not wanted by one or both of the spouses.
As you already know, abortion is not an option but compassion, empathy, and understanding is a must.
My grandmother, also a mother of 10, once sat me down in the midst of feeling very ashamed of being pregnant and not married. She encouraged me so much just by letting me know that I was doing the right thing by bringing this baby into the world and that doing this takes a strong person.
I will be praying for you as you ponder this question. I don’t know who this question is for but I want you to know that during the crisis, things are always the darkest.
What the Church forgets is that the baby is NOT the sin. How many people are having sex before marriage but they never “get caught” in a pregnancy?
March 25, 2008 at 4:47 am
“ALL I was saying, and I continue to stand by this, is that if you agree not to share email messages, then don’t. share. them.”
Just to reiterate (since this was said to me)…
I am NOT on that list. I haven’t been on that list for 2 or more years.
March 25, 2008 at 4:49 am
Corrie, you wrote, “What trumps what?”
A wise young woman recently said that if there is a trump verse, it must be this: Love God, and love your neighbour.
Love covers a multitude of sins, Corrie. It doesn’t keep a record of wrongs or seek to destroy.
I am getting older, but I sincerely cannot remember a time when the archives were opened then shut then opened again. Perhaps I am wrong – it’s been known to happen.
And now, I am bowing out of this discussion, which is neither loving nor edifying, in my humble opinion.
7 ¶ But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.
8 And above all things have fervent love for one another, for “love will cover a multitude of sins.”
9 Be hospitable to one another without grumbling.
10 As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.
11 If anyone speaks, let him speak as the oracles of God. If anyone ministers (serves), let him do it as with the ability which God supplies, that in all things God may be glorified through Jesus Christ, to whom belong the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Whatever you do in word or deed (speaking and serving) do all to the glory of God, Ladies.
March 25, 2008 at 5:22 am
“Love covers a multitude of sins, Corrie. It doesn’t keep a record of wrongs or seek to destroy.”
You are right, Janet. I do love that verse and it is so true. But, shall we use that verse to ignore what is wrong?
So, it is unloving to stand up when people are accused of being liars when they are telling the truth?
It is unloving to hold our leaders accountable when they are not being truthful?
It is not unloving to denigrate women for having marble counter tops and taking their children to soccer games?
Is it loving to call other women who love the Lord, “white-washed feminists” and then tell them when they ask just what a WWF is- “If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.”
Is it unloving to keep a record of the wrongs committed by feminists, too?
Is it edifying to just sit by and say nothing when we know that people are not being honest?
Is it seeking to destroy only when one of our favorites is being examined? Or does the seeking to destroy apply to all people equally?
I am all for mercy triumphing over judgment and love covering a multitude of sins. I just don’t know how this fits in with the bigger picture and it seems like it is inconsistently applied.
March 25, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Love covers a multitude of sins, Corrie. It doesn’t keep a record of wrongs or seek to destroy.
In my church, one that I would later learn employed all the techniques of thought reform, this phrase was used over and over again to keep women silent about the abuses of their husbands. They taught Bill Gothard’s garbage about a husband whittling off the sin of the wife as her authority, but they denied that the woman also did the same for her husband. He affected her, but she could not affect him, save to support him and love him.
I had the privilege of meeting the CEO of the only inpatient cult counseling center in the country. He was once a pastor for a Christian cult called “The Great Commission” who are primarily located in Iowa and Ohio. He asked me to write out my testimony of my difficulties in finding good counsel when I was cursed for leaving my church without my elders blessing before the church. I alluded to the counsel that a friend of mine was given in that church as part of my testimony, where the woman was told to do nothing about her husband’s taking pictures of his anatomy, exchanging pictures with women on the internet (in ‘96 when few had internet access) and arranging affairs. She was told to “let love cover a multitude” of his sins against her and to love him with “ooey-gooey love.” It was used so often, I actually included it in my account of how I found counseling. It’s interesting that just in a matter of days, I’ve heard both of these phrases in reference to the Patriarch Wives list.
Stacy wrote to me some months ago and urged me to be forgiving. Forgiving of what? Hiding the truth? That she was divorced and remarried? That her husband is in violation of the same epistle that he uses to beat women over the head with? Am I to forgive her for being deceptive on an ongoing basis? I’m to forgive her for talking out of two sides of her mouth? I’m to forgive her for mixing the Gospel with Vision Forum national folk religion?
We are not to forgive those brethren who believe that men sanctify their wives. We mark them and declare the truth. We are required to forgive when they repent and forsake their ways.
BTW, I’ve noticed that the language has been stepped up. No longer is it white washed feminist but it is now radical feminism. Good milieu control tactic.
One thing that struck me as I read the Passionate Housewives book is that there is no plan for reaching these feminists and soccer moms with their marble countertops. There is no love lost for them, dying in their sins, it’s just all about surviving this fearful world while the feminists follow their path to hell. Yet this movement uses language about taking dominion. Dominion over themselves? Over their manifest destiny? And let the God-hating filth follow right on down their path to destruction? Ever think that, assuming that you preached truth, that this supposed radical feminist infiltrator might get evangelized while visiting and hearing the “truth”? I suppose Marion couldn’t possibly one of your own with a twinge of conscience who may have just awakened a bit from the slumber of ignorant bliss of your particular flavor of unity?
March 25, 2008 at 12:35 pm
How about “touch not mine anointed and do my prophets no harm”? How often is that one used?
Has anyone found Marion and given her a tongue lashing about “sewing discord among the brethren” yet?
I’ve heard most all of the Scriptures that are used to beat people up and keep them quiet. Not to say that the people who do the fear mongering and such don’t believe their own press. That’s part of the problem. But this is what happens when you mix the Word of God in with someone else’s extra-Biblical tripe.
March 25, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“If the Cor.11 passage means long hair for men is wrong, so be it. God does know what He’s doing. But hair length really seems such a relative thing, not something nature teaches at all. And that passage says women need veils to pray … I thought Christ died to rip the veil between us and God, to free us from earthly ordinances like “don’t taste, don’t touch”? It surely can’t mean that women need this mere outward custom of veiling to talk to their Father? ”
Beatrice, LOL! Someone has taken a passage about FREEDOM in Christ and made into their own legalistic club to beat the sheep with!
If you would like to learn about this passage e-mail me and I will send you some information on what it means that exegetes the entire passage.
It is an absolutely beautiful passage that is about the Freedom believers enjoy in Christ. but evil man has twisted it. Let me give you ONE hint at how bad it has been twisted for evil man to use. In verse 10 some translations say wife and some say woman. But the words ’symbol of’ are NOT in the original Greek. The verse is actually saying a woman has authority over her own head.
Think very carefully what Paul is aying about what nature teaches us about hair. Do men and women’s hair grow long if not cut? yes. So how could nature teach us that long hair for a man is sin? Paul is using rhetorical language here. Just as he is using a bit of it in the beginning of the verse. (Keep in mind he is talking about women who were considered property)
If long hair on men is a sin then the Paul was in sin for it. He had let his hair grow long for a vow he took.
But finally look real close at verse 16. He is saying we have no custom (or law) about any of it: Length of hair or head coverings and NOT to be contentious about it.
So let your friend know he is being contentious about it and to stop!
)
March 25, 2008 at 12:46 pm
“And now, I am bowing out of this discussion, which is neither loving nor edifying, in my humble opinion. ”
Janet,
Truth is ALWAYS loving whether we like it or not and it is ALWAYS edifying. You may want to tell Stacy that as I don’t think she really understands that. She seems to be working very hard to keep certain truths from being known and leading many woman astray.
March 25, 2008 at 12:53 pm
“Stacy wrote to me some months ago and urged me to be forgiving. Forgiving of what? Hiding the truth? That she was divorced and remarried? That her husband is in violation of the same epistle that he uses to beat women over the head with? Am I to forgive her for being deceptive on an ongoing basis? I’m to forgive her for talking out of two sides of her mouth? I’m to forgive her for mixing the Gospel with Vision Forum national folk religion?”
This is classic. She wants forgiveness for herself but not for others. For others, she needs a common enemy to keep her followers fearful and in line.
Besides, we all know that Jesus loved the radical feminists of his day, healed them and ate with them. His love saved them. Like Mary M, Martha, Mary, Lydia, Phoebe, Junia, etc. All Radical feminists like us because they did not follow the Pharisee party line. Praise God!
However, He had VERY harsh words for the Pharisees who thought Jesus was in sin for having anything to do with them. Ironic, huh? It was the Pharisees who were in sin.
March 25, 2008 at 12:57 pm
BTW: The women I mentioned above would not be acceptable in the Patriarchy camp.
Janet, I thought it was clever that you told us you wear pants. Sometimes I cannot believe what is a big deal to you guys. I cannot believe you think Stacy is wonderful because she did not kick you off for wearing pants or working outside the home. A pioneer woman for the Patriarchs!
Can you hear yourself? The legalism? The lack of love involved that the wearing of pants is a big deal to you folks? You folks are so steeped in legalism it sounds normal to you. I pray so much that you find freedom in Christ.
March 25, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Janet,
I get all kinds of emails from people that I don’t even know, and sometimes I am forwarded things from the PW list. I don’t solicit these things — people get upset, feel powerless and I guess they believe that I will do something.
Someone forwarded me a comment from the PW list yesterday or last night, I’m not sure when. But the comment said that “radical feminists” had invaded the list and how horrible it was to fathom that these radicals were actually Christian.
So I was wondering again about the actual definitions of some of these terms. The question was posed to Stacy some months ago, but now that the terminology has changed, I’d like some clarifications.
I guess that people agree that we are Christians, but just seriously mislead Christians because we believe in the priesthood of all believers, not just the priesthood of men. We believe that sanctification is the internal work of the Holy Spirit on our hearts and not a process that is external and governed by our husbands or fathers. Many if not most people who frequent True Womanhood don’t believe that women should be pastors or elders, but many places have women deacons.
So that at one time made us all white washed feminists. But we were given no definitive criteria to evaluate where it is we fall on the so-called feminist continuum. Now, because a woman named Marion posted evidence that shows that Stacy was marketing to the most convenient audience at the time and wrongly called women on this blog gossips and twitterers or whatever, we have become radical feminists.
So what and whose criteria to you use? Am I like Betty Friedan? Am I like Margret Sanger? Am I like Phyllis Schafly? Am I like Aimee Semple McPhereson? Radical feminist sounds like the women who carried on in the early seventies, rallying for abortion rights and promiscuity. I am as opposed as I can possibly be to both.
So what are the criteria? Since we seemed to have moved from white washed to radical… Is it just in degrees of how much truth about Stacy has been exposed? Is this what makes one a radical feminist?
I think if we are really going to get accused here, we really ought to know why it is that we have been so called.
I wonder what Marion has to say. Hopefully she hasn’t been brow beaten back into mind-numbing submission to a promise to an email list that apparently “trumps” dishonesty and evidence of the truth.
March 25, 2008 at 1:02 pm
“One thing that struck me as I read the Passionate Housewives book is that there is no plan for reaching these feminists and soccer moms with their marble countertops. There is no love lost for them, dying in their sins, it’s just all about surviving this fearful world while the feminists follow their path to hell.”
To be accepted by Stacy and them means you must AGREE with them and NEVER question their motives or teaching. YOU MUST BE a good follower. That is the criteria and part of the checklist religion and cult of personality they have created.
They have NO concern for reaching the lost UNLESS they are willing to become like them and follow their legalistic religion they have created.
March 25, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Janet, I can see why you all are so upset over Marion’s comment. It shows conflicting teaching from Stacy. That is not good.
but, I have noticed that you have not thanked Karen for taking it down. Instead of thanking her, you only want to critisize.
Personally, I would have kept it up. Stacy is in ministry, teaching others and should be held accountable for every word she writes.
Recently, she has taken great pains to hide both their divorces. But when mentioned a while back on this blog, Marica let us know it was told on the list long ago. So which is it? You want to USE the list as a place to HIDE the truths about Stacy that are NOT for public consumption?
I get the feeling Stacy is trying to ‘re-invent’ herself for the Christian public and to sell more books. There are lots of people who would think twice about gettig involved in a church or giving to a ministry where both the pastor and his wife have been divorced. He was ordained when divorced, right? See, no one can even get him to answer a simple question like that. Perhaps as a ‘minister’ he thinks he is above answering such questions. It would be a much better witness if they both would come clean about all of it.
March 25, 2008 at 1:15 pm
One more thing I have noticed…when the truth about Stacy starts to come out..each time, she always reverts to some sort of attack by feminists. It is all she has to get the attention off her personal flip/flops.
It is never about the truth about HER. She acts very quickly to divert attention. She is clever.
And it works.
March 25, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Selahv wrote: she always reverts to some sort of attack by feminists. It is all she has to get the attention off her personal flip/flops.
Selahv,
This is a logical fallacy of the Red Herring, actually using a few different varieties of the fallacy. You get the bloodhound off the trail with a stinky fish! Hopefully, he will become so distracted by the pungent odor, he never picks back up on the original scent that he started looking for in the first place.
The main point is mitigated, the critics are falsely maligned, scapegoating is used, the power of slogans is employed, steriotyping comes into play. These terrible feminists are redefined so as to be less than Christian in the attempt to kill the messenger. The very thing that pulls people into the patriarchy movement is used to keep people entrapped: fear of fallen culture.
These tactics are very effective because they play on our deepest desires and our greatest fears. That’s where their power rests. But that power is very easily disarmed through information. Seeking information for the purpose of discerning truth is not gossip or a vile sin. It is a Christian’s responsibility before God to make wise choices and discern truth.
But you are absolutely right. These tactics do work. But they don’t work forever and they don’t work for everyone.
March 25, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Corrie, I meant that as a hypothetical “you”–it was not directed to you personally. Sorry for being unclear.
And thank you for sharing about your pregnancies. I truly appreciate it.
March 25, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Selahv,
“Recently, she has taken great pains to hide both their divorces. But when mentioned a while back on this blog, Marica let us know it was told on the list long ago. So which is it? You want to USE the list as a place to HIDE the truths about Stacy that are NOT for public consumption?”
Exactly.
We are told that their divorce is public information and then the PW archives are used as proof of it being public information. Stacy told us that she has made the info about their divorces public when she put it on her PW list and she shared it in workshops at homeschooling conventions and other venues where they were teaching.
And when I made the point on this blog that the archives are not available for everyone and only members can read them and only the older members would even remember them because the newer ones are not going to go searching for old posts….my point was put down.
I was told they were made public, this was public knowledge and the proof was that they were in the PW archives.
BUT, now that doesn’t apply in this situation. It is totally opposite because the former explanation doesn’t suit their purpose. Now, all of a sudden, those archives are private and they are not for public consumption.
March 25, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Hi Marcia,
I knew that you meant a hypothetical you but there are some that are confused and I wanted to clear that up for their sake.
March 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Actually, I believe I was responding to a claim that Stacy hadn’t shared her status with the PW list. I clarified that she had, on more than one occasion, some going back several years;some more recently.
I didn’t say this as proof that the knowledge was made “public.” Please don’t use my statement as an argument that the lists are public.
March 25, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Oh, okay, Corrie. I feel bad for my original blunder; I didn’t want to compound it.
March 25, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“Janet, I thought it was clever that you told us you wear pants. Sometimes I cannot believe what is a big deal to you guys. I cannot believe you think Stacy is wonderful because she did not kick you off for wearing pants or working outside the home. A pioneer woman for the Patriarchs!”
That is a standard reply, Lin, from those who defend her and her teachings.
But, send in a picture of yourself with your baby seated on your lap to be used for the PW member pictures and the talk that goes on behind your back amongst the moderators will make you realize what she really thinks about women who wear pants/skorts.
One of the other moderators is a Doctor and she certainly does not fit the criteria for a Passionate Housewife.
Tthis seems like another tactic to throw people off point. As long as you keep around women who wear pants, you can say you are not judgmental of women who wear pants. As long as you keep around an edler’s wife who works, you can say that you are not against working women (even though your teachings say something quite different) and as long as you keep around a mixed race couple, you can always fall back on that when someone asks for clarification concerning a relationship with a leader (this was easily documented from the kinist’s sites by doing a quick search) in the kinist movement.
March 25, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Selahv–
You are dead on about “re-inventing” women.
These patriarchal women are all about reinventing themselves. It is the only way they can live the lifestyle (or look like they are living it, hook, line and sinker). I know because I personally reinvented myself for many years while caught up in the movement.
I took my education and intuition and threw it aside because believing in the things I once held dear would be FEMINISM. So I chucked it. I took some of my passions like public speaking, debating, reading, and hey, even soap operas (!) and chucked them to the side as well, in exchange for more “admirably womanlike” things such as baking, thrifting, and trying to be domesticated.
In the process, some things stuck. I now love to cook and can and garden. But I hate making my own bread, and I buy it. I am now debating again. Heck, I’m really going one step further and putting my kids in public school and giving up homeschool so that I can go back to work and earn an income that we BADLY need.
I reinvented myself into someone I wasn’t for the sake of looking the part.
It works. For some, longer than others. For me, I couldn’t take squelching the “real me” in order to gain someone else’s standard of sanctification.
March 25, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Janet,
After reading Cindy’s thoughtful post #53, I was really convicted about handling these sorts of things in the future. The question to ask really is this: Which demonstrates a more consistent Christian behavior, exposing lies or concealing deceit? Love covering a multitude of sins does not excuse you or anyone else from dealing with deceit. In fact, I hold you very culpable in all of this as a moderator who helps to maintain these untruths. How do you feel about that? Following up on the analogy that Cindy made, is exposing a child sexual predator also failing to “cover a multitude of sins?” Spiritual abuse, which is exactly what it is when one behaves as a Pharisee, is not less devastating to those who have experienced it, and I believe it is even more destructive.
Rereading Stacy’s letter to me, I now realize how deceitful she was even in her request that I take the post down. Knowing that I know little about this list, she made it sound like this was a small, intimate group of friends. She didn’t tell me that it was an 800+ membership group of readers. She also told me that this was not one post but was a cut and paste job from several years of things she had written. Is this true? You have access to this so you know in your heart of hearts if she is lying or being honest. You also have highly praised her latest book. Do you not agree that she teaches that a woman working outside the home blasphemes God’s name? Surely you are sharp enough to realize that she considers herself being gracious to a blasphemer (you), not condoning what you do but seeing you as someone who is sinning by working outside the home. If this isn’t what she believes, why does she teach this? Someone sent me a quote where Stacy stated that the “official” position of the PW list is that women are not to work outside the home and that she even recommended reading Jennie Chancey’s article where she “proves” that women working are blaspheming God’s name. Is this true? You see, the only conclusion I can make is that Stacy hypocritically allows blaspheming working women as moderators on her list, gracious or not.
Janet, this isn’t about the personal. It isn’t about gossip or libel or slander or twittering or whatever phrase of the week Stacy is using. It is about honesty, integrity, and dealing with the eternal souls of real women. It is about being honest and transparent and not bearing false witness by leading people to think one thing when, in reality, the truth is something else. You have sat by and watched Stacy dissemble and downright lie about facts. You have watched us all be called everything from white-washed feminists to, now, radical feminist homeschoolers. You have watched people claim that some of the women who post on this list are rebellious grown homeschooled daughters when in reality some here are awesome young women who have escaped from abusive, and I mean abusive, homes. Janet, you are culpable and ought to be held accountable as well for watching this behavior and doing nothing. You are culpable for defending Stacy. Romans 1 calls this “palliation of sin.”
March 25, 2008 at 2:40 pm
“Do men and women’s hair grow long if not cut? yes. So how could nature teach us that long hair for a man is sin? Paul is using rhetorical language here. ”
Lin,
Right. The whole passage is Paul being rhetorical and basically arguing against what they were teaching as Truth.
I would like a copy of what you have on 1 Cor. 11, please.
Beatrice,
Thinking that a man with long hair is attractive is perfectly normal! If it isn’t, then I am in trouble!
I like masculine men and I have not find a conflict between long hair and masculinity. In fact, long before I was a Christian, I shared an apartment with a gay man. I thought the answer to their problem was to try and set them up with a girl, as if that was the cure. I knew many gay men because they happened to hang out at my apartment a lot. I would go to the gay clubs with my roommate because I could go and dance and have fun without anyone bothering me or offering me a drink along with cheesy one-liners. And, they were always helping in making sure that I looked just right before I left the house! Just let’s say that I know a lot about gay men and the Lord has given me a big heart for them and their salvation. I will tell you that I can’t remember any gay men with long hair. Hmmm? Interesting.
Oh, I don’t like the cheesy Fabio blowing-in-the-wind type of long hair. I like the Richard Gere as King David kind of long hair. I have always been attracted to men with this sort of hair. My husband had this type of hair when I met him. It was not the standard Baptist cut (as if they really cut their hair like that in the Bible????). It was a little past his shirt collar and it was thick and kind of wavy. He doesn’t have much of it left anymore and he blames me for it. He said that I ran my fingers through one too many times!
There is nothing unnatural about a man who has hair that is longer than the standard approved hair (not touching the collar, above the ears and cut with a #3).
Does nature teach us that it is a shame for a man to have long hair?
Uhh, no. Lions have manes. God instituted the Nazarite vow where men were not allowed to cut their hair. Would God cause men who were dedicated to Him to violate His own standards? A man’s hair grows if left uncut and sometimes is even more beautiful than a woman’s hair. There are many women who can’t grow their hair long because it is thin and it breaks off. So, no, nature doesn’t teach me that it is a shame for men to have long hair. There are a lot of women who would love to have long hair but it is physically impossible for them to do so. And why did the judges in England, a highly patriarchal society at that time, wear long, white powdered wigs if it is such a shame for a man to have long hair?????
Do you watch the TV show “Lost”? There is a character named “Sayid” on there. He has long hair. Does he look effiminate to you? Nope. He is quite masculine.
Beatrice, you have nothing to worry about. You are completely normal……..I think.
March 25, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Selahv,
I just now “got” your name… Selahv C’est la vie….clever girl, you are!
March 25, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Marcia,
I would be more than happy to e-mail you with questions regarding an unplanned pregnancy. I spent 12 years in a CPC and still have many resources I can pass along to you.
shesthatmom@gmail.com
March 25, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Beatrice,
I agree with the things Lin and Corrie said regarding long hair on guys. It is a matter of preference rather than sin.
I think some men are attractive with long hair. In fact, I never even saw my husbands’ ears until we had been married about 5 months and he went through basic training in the Army. I picked him up at the bus station and would have missed him had he not be in uniform! I have one son who sometimes wears his hair long. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I hate it. Right now the back is short and the front is long and curly. It looks just like my dad’s high school graduation pictures from the 1940’s.
Why is it that man looks on the outward appearance but God looks on the heart? There are many men with short hair who are evil and unregenerate and even look really creepy. (Can anyone say Hitler?) But there are men with shaggy or long hair who are in love with Jesus.
“I just love those guys with that floppy hair. It is so casual looking.” Miss Agnes Prescott in the Bachelor and the Bobby Soxer
March 25, 2008 at 2:53 pm
” How do you feel about that? Following up on the analogy that Cindy made, is exposing a child sexual predator also failing to “cover a multitude of sins?” ”
Karen and Cindy,
Well, actually, I have heard that very verse used when parents tried to hold the one who sexually assaulted their child accountable.
“She also told me that this was not one post but was a cut and paste job from several years of things she had written. Is this true? You have access to this so you know in your heart of hearts if she is lying or being honest. ”
I would like to know the answer to this, too. That email could not have been a cut and paste job from several emails over several years that was purposely taken out of context in order to make her look bad. Anyone reading it will see that it was written in one sitting because the paragraphs flowed from one to another.
Maybe you need to forward Stacy’s email requesting to take down her testimony to Janet so she can see for herself.
Karen, you took down the post and did not hesitate in doing so. You honored her request.
Her lies still stand on her blog even though you took down the documentation that proves that she lied to Kym and bore false witness of others.
I am not sure why she has not changed her comment on her blog to reflect the truth after reading exactly what she had written. But, she has plenty of time to fix the problem. How long did it take you to take down the post? Less than a minute? Well, it would take her less than 5 minutes to correct the problem on her end.
Why does she expect others to be gracious to her but she does not extend the same grace?
March 25, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I would just like to point out for all assembled that a yahoo group (even the so called ‘private’ ones) belong TO YAHOO. Not Stacy McDonald or her moderators. So while they [Stacy, et al] believe that they “own” it…at the end of the day, Yahoo owns the servers that run the message boards. As such, they are easily hacked. And Yahoo itself could say “Gee, these discussions look interesting…let’s post them on our main “group” page for advertisement for ‘how our groups can be used’! Because, YAHOO owns them. The same with a free WordPress, Blogger, Xanga etc. blog. At the end of the day, all of the content resides on the business’ servers, not your own. Even paid blogs or hosting sites such as Typepad (like my own) reside on Six Apart’s servers and as such, could be disseminated in a way that I have no control over.
That anyone thinks that these *free* “PRIVATE” lists are actually protected and ‘confidential’ is laughable.
The only way to get close to some semblance of so-called privacy on the internet is to host your own site, on your own server. That is very expensive, and it still isn’t foolproof. Multibillion dollar companies still can’t totally secure their private local networks. That’s why my husband has his job and do what he does for a living!
Sorry, carry on. The computer geek in me just had to shout this bit of info from the mountaintops…
March 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Interesting, Mrs. Joy. Maybe a little geeky, but still informative.
March 25, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“I didn’t say this as proof that the knowledge was made “public.” Please don’t use my statement as an argument that the lists are public.”
Marcia, Now we are splitting hairs. It was either on Indelible Grace or here where you said that her divorce was PUBLIC information because it was on that list. You said this in response to some comments about Stacy hiding her divorce. YOu were chiding us for saying it was being hidden.
Now we know it was hiding with 800 other people.
)
March 25, 2008 at 3:47 pm
It would be strange for long hair on a man to be a sin since that is where God put Sampson’s strength.
March 25, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Lin, I’ll admit that I could be wrong as I am old and have mom brain, but I am nearly certain that I was responding to claims that it had not been made public to the list. I really don’t believe I was saying that meant that she had made it “public.”
I don’t think it’s splitting hairs; I think it’s two different things.
March 25, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I don’t know if this is a proper place for a man. And I know the conversation has progressed far beyond Cindy’s personal story. But I didn’t read Cindy’s comment (#13 on this page) until this morning and have been mulling it over in my mind since then.
Cindy – Thank you so much for sharing your story, for opening up your inner-self, and for encouraging us all with your ongoing conclusions that have sprung as Easter lillies from the frozen ground of your “less than God’s best” past.
For Cindy and for all who have bared their souls here, I offer to poems that have gotten me through times of deep distress. They are preceded by the well-known encouragement of Romans 8:28:
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
First – in answer to the question What is grace? this untitled poem by John Piper:
Not grace to bar what is not bliss,
Nor flight from all distress, but this:
The grace that orders our trouble and pain,
And then, in the darkness, is there to sustain.
—————-
And then this poem, which is my computer desktop wallpaper. This has helped me to focus properly on Christ during times of tremendous pain (mendicant means beggar:
The Thorn
I stood a mendicant of God
Before His royal throne
And asked Him for one priceless gift
Which I could call my own
I took the gift from out His hand
But as I would depart
I cried, “But Lord, this is a thorn!
And it has pierced my heart.
“This is a strange and hurtful gift
Which Thou hast given me.”
He said, “My child, I give good gifts
And gave my best to thee.”
I took it home and though at first
The cruel thorn hurt sore
As long years past, I learned at last
To love it more and more
I learned He never gives a thorn
Without this added grace
He takes the thorn to pin aside
The veil that hides His face.
May God deeply bless each of you have have opened your hearts to us. May God bless each of you who were not able at this time to open the pains and hurts in your own past. And may each of us remember that while we are on this earth, there will be pain, disappointment, and struggles. But they have all been individually placed in our paths with love and care to guide us to all things that are being worked together for our good, because we love God. Because we are the called, according to His purpose.
March 25, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Richard, thank you so much for your kind words. And of course you are always welcome here!
March 25, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Richard…thank you so much for sharing those poems with us… and your kind,encouraging,words…please come around often!
March 25, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Lin, Corrie,thatmom,
I am smiling from ear to ear. You all said some hilarious, as well as thoughtful things. Lol about not seeing your husband’s ears, thatmom.
Lin, I would love to get more of your thoughts on the Corinthians passage. I’ve had enough of wearing a scarf over my hair to church, then deciding I didn’t have to, all the time wondering what in the world that passage means. I can’t find your email on your blog though. Did you just mean to ask you over here and you would answer here? thatmom has my email though, being a moderator here, so you can ask her for it if you like.
Corrie, what you said about gay men fascinates me for some reason. I guess it’s because I’ve become very interested in people who give in to homosexuality, and I love hearing testimonies of people who left that sin for Christ and how He helped them. What are some things you’ve noticed about these gay men, and how have you been able to witness to them? The man you were talking about sounds like you had some friendly interaction with him. Did you ever get the feeling from him or anyone else that these men don’t like women? Or was something else going on with them, do you think?
Ok, sorry if I hijacked the thread again, but ya’ll do seem to like that kind of thing if it doesn’t last too long.
March 25, 2008 at 6:48 pm
As I’ve read through the comments here, I’m slightly conflicted. I feel like there is a bit of a harsh, unforgiving attitude on both sides, and I can’t really point any one person out for being worse than another, but I feel like as a “white washed feminist” myself, I maybe have a right to say that some of what has been said on this side is a bit unloving.
I don’t really understand all the issues, but I agree that there is a conflict of interest when you post something to a “private” group, considering you may not know that someone you know well is also on that group, and that things can get out. Just because things were not supposed to be shared doesn’t mean that people don’t. I always find it sadly humorous that people are so trusting of others when gossip is so rampant. I would never post intimate details of my life–even to complete strangers–without expecting to be called out for it if it was wrong. To do otherwise is not only hypocritical, but foolish. I agree that Karen should have been thanked over and over for doing the right thing here, even though the right thing was probably not easy and we don’t all see how it benefited those in question.
On the other side of the issue, I feel like all of this with Stacy has an air of “Hilary Clinton” about it. I remember being in my last years of high school or first years of college, and watching Hilary go on the Today show to call the accusations against Bill a “Vast Right-wing conspiracy” only to eat her words a few weeks or months later. It’s the first thing that comes to mind when I hear her supporters calling people names like white-washed or now “radical” feminists. And the sad thing about it is that this isn’t about her husband, it’s about HER, and SHE knows the truth and has obviously had to eat her words on several occasions. But the excuses are also Hilary-esque, in that she never apologizes for her words or says she’s changed her mind and what was once true is no longer. She’s a spin-master, and in my opinion there is no place for spin-masters in the leadership of any church or ministry.
Now I sound unloving. But honestly, I just think that anyone who cannot own up to their own statements (PRINTED!) is questionable at best.
March 25, 2008 at 6:54 pm
This is a blog about womanhood and therefore has mostly women on it, but I’ve greatly benefited from it when men have posted here, like Richard just did. There was another one called David who was here quite a while back I believe. Anyway, what would we without our brothers?
March 25, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Abby, you have very well summed up my own feelings. I do pray that God will show everyone on both sides what to do, and I believe that He WILL work it out and make it right in some kind of way eventually, hopefully before Heaven.
“What would we do” is what I meant to say. Sorry.
Thanks for praying for me without knowing, Richard.
March 25, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Abby, well said- I totally agree…
To add: (I’ve been on here since the first thread regarding Visionary daughters):
Every other time accusations have been thrown TW’s way, I’ve just stayed out of it and waited for the “controversy” to blow over. But this new thing with the adoption brouhahaha had finally tipped me into speaking up. I cannot believe the rhetoric at this point, and I am offended that I would be called a ‘radical Christian feminist’. It’s getting a bit ridiculous.
Thank you Karen, for taking the high road and actually doing what you say you are going to do and clearly evaluating your decisions for all of us to see . I appreciate your transparency.
March 25, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Mrs. Joy,
The “Geek” in you might be amused by this….
a moderator at the PW list now declared what happened not only “IMMORAL” but “ILLEGAL”.
Hmmm? This isn’t the first time that I have seen this. In fact in the contributors section of this very blog, there was a similar accusation. I have to wonder why people are so quick to yell “Fire” in order to cover up the real crime.
March 25, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Richard, The Thorn was beautiful and is so true. God only disciplines those that are His!
Beatrice, I am so dumb. I thought my e-mail was clear on my blog but is not. Thatmom does have my e-mail address, though. I will send you some stuff to look at.
March 25, 2008 at 7:37 pm
It is very easy to get a clouded view of what is loving and what isn’t. I could be extremely loving and sweet and be the biggest phony in Christendom. Is that really being being loving?
Ever notice how nice Jesus was to the lowly and ignorant? Ever notice how He responded to the religious leaders of His day?
It takes a while for some people to see it, but when they do, they stop accusing people of being unloving just because they refuse to be phony.
March 25, 2008 at 7:44 pm
“I don’t really understand all the issues, but I agree that there is a conflict of interest when you post something to a “private” group, considering you may not know that someone you know well is also on that group, and that things can get out. Just because things were not supposed to be shared doesn’t mean that people don’t. I always find it sadly humorous that people are so trusting of others when gossip is so rampant.”
Hi Abby,
I sure do appreciate your words of wisdom. I do hope and pray that we are all quick to forgive and free from bitterness. I will tell you it is hard to be called a feminist or any other variation of that word simply because I disagree with how someone interprets the Bible. I have always, always tried to stick to exactly what the Scriptures say and I do have a problem when people consistently read things INto Scripture because it always seems to fit their own bias.
That being said, my biggest problem with this issue is this:
People are being called gossips for talking about a post that was filled with gossip? Why is it okay to talk about our relatives and their abortions and their children out of wedlock and not see that this is gossip if we are the first one to knee-jerk out the accusation of “gossip” of someone dares to mention that what we say about our past issues don’t line up with what we once said?
For example, and this is PURELY hypothetical, because I do not have an aunt or grandma that matches this description:
I need to understand why it is okay to talk about my aunt’s abortion or my grandma’s out of wedlock child but it is not okay for someone to talk about my divorce?
Why is it okay for me to call someone a liar or a gossip when they clearly are NOT lying or gossiping because they are merely relating back something that I said to an audience of 800!
Hypothetical situation done……
This isn’t about someone’s past because if it was, I would be the chief of sinners. This is about falsely representing our pasts and presenting ourselves as something we are not and then claiming that our pasts are public information and then turning around and claiming that people who use this public information are immoral and doing something illegal.
And, I would like to know if Stacy or anyone of her moderators ever forwarded out messages from that list to someone else? How about from another list? How about from the lists that I own or used to own? Those are “private”, too. I think I remember a time where some messages from a private list that I owned were forwarded around by some of the same people who are now crying foul.
March 25, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Beatrice,
When I said I had a heart for gay men, I REALLY mean it. I have witnessed to several. I have stood by their bedsides while they died of AIDS. I have held them when they are at the brink of suicide because their family has shunned them and forsaken them. I have wiped their tears when they told me about the sexual abuse they suffered from their straight male relatives/neighbors/teachers. And how those same abusive male relatives are now shunning them because they are gay!!!
I have LOVED them. My husband is amazed at how many times we go out into public and I just strike up conversations with gay men. When I lived with the one, I was not a Christian. So, I thought the answer was a girlfriend and I tried to set him up with one but he told me that I just don’t get it.
They loved me back. My roommate had a very good friend (they were just friends, and yes, gay men can be friends without having sex with each other) and we became very close. He was very good to me. He protected me and opened doors for me and he was the perfect gentlemen. They loved women but just not in “that” way. In fact, this particular man told me that if he could he would turn straight for me. His mother held out so much hope for us and his whole family was so excited that we were an “item”. No matter how many times he told them that we were just friends, you know they wanted to believe otherwise.
When I went to the gay nightclubs, I was always treated like a Queen. They were very respectful of me as a woman.
In fact, I was the “cover-date” for the gay police officers or fire-fighters who needed to show his buddies in the force that he was indeed straight. I did this as a favor and certainly not for money, so I don’t want anyone to get the wrong idea. But, these men feared they would lose their jobs or worse. I will tell you that the men that were hiding their homosexuality in these situations were quite masculine and you would never know they were gay.
So, the stereotypes of gay men don’t really work at all, especially not when you have been in that world.
I have some very finely tuned “gaydar”, if you will, because my roommate and his friend taught me all the signs. I could tell you a ton of stories about this.
As a Christian, I have no easy answers. It is like any other sin to me. Once you get to know them as a person, you realize that their sin is no more repugnant than your own.
I guess the Lord has given me great compassion for gay men and He has used my past to develop that compassion. They have stories like we all do and if we truly listened to some of those stories, we might understand a lot more than we do.
March 25, 2008 at 8:32 pm
You know the more I think about it, being called a “radical Christian feminist” isn’t really a slander or bad thing in my book.
I’m radical.
I’m Christian.
And by jiminy, I think I might be a feminist too.
Patriarchy says you can’t be both a Christian and a feminist. (because, if you haven’t noticed, all feminists love abortions! Just ask them. Grr).
But guess what? You CAN be both. And you can be a prolife feminist.
You can be all sorts of things in Christ.
March 25, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Corrie,
I also have had some very intense and rewarding experiences in my nursing career while working with gay men. I did IV therapy visits with a guy who I became quite fond of. And my hospice patients! Some of them and their families were the nearest and dearest to me. I had many opportunities to share the Gospel, and though many of them did not receive Jesus while I was there, they did graciously listen.
I did a lot of the admissions visits with them and their families, and it like an instant bonding with many of them. I think because of the nature of the disease and the nature of their woundedness emotionally, they were often ripe for the Gospel, perhaps more than my other patients. My heart would overflow with love and compassion for them, but also for their familes who I helped train to care for them. I remember most of these patients as having the most tender hearts of all. It was an honor to care for them and I was greatly blessed.
March 25, 2008 at 8:37 pm
www(dot)ireland(dot) com/newspaper/breaking/2008/0325/breaking35(dot)htm
Speaking of Hillary.
““I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. You know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things – millions of words a day – so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement,” she said. ”
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
Sinbad’s recollection of the trip he took with Hillary.
March 25, 2008 at 8:48 pm
TheNormalMiddle- You’re right.
If they (those of the Patriarchal mindset) treat fellow Christians this way, how then do they treat the Lost?
Oh wait. I remember.The Lost are dirty and untouchable.
*sarcastic eye roll*
March 25, 2008 at 9:01 pm
I had another Patriarch’s Wives post forwarded to me anonymously, and this one that calls Marion a liar, a thief and a lawbreaker.
From a post this morning:
What is written here *is* covered by copyright laws, and if you right a post ~ whether it be a question on cut lips, or a profound devotional ~ you *own* the copyright on that. Which means that you *don’t* own the copyright on what others write, and not only is it immoral to go against your word (in forwarding without permission), but it is illegal as well…
But we know that at least one person isn’t who she claimed, and is a liar and a thief.
TXXXX asked what is to stop someone from taking from current posts. Nothing. The reason the archives were closed is because that is where the problem was.
How interesting. God bless the immoral person who sent this to me. It seems she recognizes that this is intimidation with fear and namecalling.
The archives were closed because Stacy was caught in a lie. Are they afraid that more lies will be found if people continue to pour through them? I have never looked for this information and I certainly didn’t get it out of the archives. What is to stop people from forwarding the current posts to people like me, people who I assume that I might be able to speak the truth about what’s going on.
We are in discussion right now on what we can do, if anything to make our list more secure.
Wake up, Ladies! Someone in your own ranks who doesn’t identify themself is sending me this stuff because they are troubled by it all. This is a fine example of an authoritarian dynamic, milieu control, dispensing of existence, sacred science, doctrine over person…. This is thought reform and fear mongering.
Radical feminists infiltrated your list? Someone sent me this because they think your authoritarianism is out of control. Maybe they’re tired of watching Stacy talk out of two sides of her mouth and get away with it.
Once again, we would encourage you to be careful in the information you share ~ either checking with your beloved before posting or praying over it, or both.
A day late and a dollar too short for Stacy this time. Appealing to the patriarch of the home for his special wisdom to know what is okay to put on this list? Oh, yes. Well, the Patriarch’s Wives believe that husbands do sanctify them, so why not!
BTW, Groups like this often use this type of exposure as a verification that they are more pious and blessed than others. I can’t wait for someone to send me the post about how all of this proves that the Patriarch’s Wives list is God’s chosen way of communicating truth. “Look how we are persecuted! We are true so we are now persecuted just like Jesus was.” I wonder if anyone will send me the private letters that go out calling their sisterhood to imprecatory prayer against Marion and these radical feminist infiltrators. “Marvel not, my bretheren, if the world hates you.”
What’s another good one? I’ve heard ‘em all. And it’s been awhile since anyone’s forwarded an imprecatory email prayer to me. I feel a bit out of the loop! Maybe they only go to the people who post regularly
March 25, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Heard about this on BBC News: Hillary Clinton brought peace to Northern Ireland.
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/nobel_winner_hillary_clintons_silly_irish_peace_claims/
March 25, 2008 at 9:42 pm
“When I said I had a heart for gay men, I REALLY mean it. I have witnessed to several. I have stood by their bedsides while they died of AIDS. I have held them when they are at the brink of suicide because their family has shunned them and forsaken them. I have wiped their tears when they told me about the sexual abuse they suffered from their straight male relatives/neighbors/teachers.”
Oh Corrie, I am all but speechless from shock and awe. How amazing it is that God enabled you to do those things and be in those places.
It makes me wonder, how much more loving is God Himself, who enables you to be so loving?
Before or shortly after I was a Christian (I know I was a child) I remember going to a concert with my mom and she greeted a man who had played in it afterwards and maybe talked to him a little. Later on, she told me that this man she knew was gay. I wrinkled my nose (If only figuratively. I was disgusted) and wondered out loud why she was even talking to him. I so didn’t get the way God thinks and I leaped at any chance to gasp at someone I deemed a monster. I had yet to learn I was a monster too. God is still working on this error in me, of course.
And Cindy, thank you for sharing that too. I read a book by an evangelist, Mark Cahill, I think, who talks at the Summit ministry (a worldview conference for Christian young people) and he said that he often evangelises in gay bars and at homosexual conferences. He says they are awesome places to witness and that the people there are really so much more receptive to the Gospel than you might think. He thinks that the high amounts of disease and pain among them have a big part in this.
I’ve also heard a speaker (I think his name is Mike Haley) who used to be gay, and at Summit he’ll share his testimony of how God brought him out of that. It’s awesome. That’s probably one of the things that really sparked my interest in what Corrie brought up.
Thank you, Corrie and Cindy, for those beautiful testimonies.
March 25, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Beatrice, I will forward your e-mail address to Lin. Lin, could you also send me your study on long hair on men?
Beatrice, my son, Ben, attended Summit twice. E-mail me and we can compare notes. Maybe you were there at the same time and even know each other!
March 25, 2008 at 10:32 pm
And I also stop and think, these people need a dose of reality and some real problems. Email lists infiltrated by radical feminists?
Oh dear.
Try having a kid with cancer, a kid with special needs, a family who just had their one income lost in a job layoff, a family who had to sell their home or lose it….
Dear me, what mountains some people can make out of molehills. I don’t mean it to mean that I wish these people any ill will, I do not.
But a healthy dose of REAL LIFE might be in order.
March 25, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Cindy,
Don’t forget that Al Gore invented the internet.
March 25, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Just what is so threatening to these people, I wonder, that the accusation of people actually believing that men and women are equally human and should enjoy equal rights as human beings, is so frightening?
They’ve created a bogeyman out of “feminist” so that it stands for every possible sin imaginable, and is therefore just about the worst epithet they can hurl at those they don’t want to work to understand or converse with. And these are some of the educators of the next generation. What ARE (and AREN’T) they teaching their children?! Just what kind of example do they want their children to follow? Fearful and accusatory mentors are hardly conducive to developing healthy young people.
Let’s teach our kids to hate and despise all those people we don’t agree with. What a great way to settle for this world’s sinful ways and a cop-out from being conformed to the image of Jesus Christ.
There are Christians who are feminists; that is, we believe in the equal humanity and human rights of men and women. Those who would deny that one can be both a Christian and feminist simply aren’t in touch with reality. I suppose that’s why they just refuse to deal with the millions of Christians who are both. Easier to usurp Christ’s place of judgment than to recognize that their own thinking is flawed. Just keep tossing out the religously-popular “f-word,” my brothers and sisters. Perhaps you’ll stumble over your own error someday, or finally lay it down and allow the Lord to lead you into the truth about the rest of us.
March 25, 2008 at 11:42 pm
“From a post this morning:
What is written here *is* covered by copyright laws, and if you right a post ~ whether it be a question on cut lips, or a profound devotional ~ you *own* the copyright on that. Which means that you *don’t* own the copyright on what others write, and not only is it immoral to go against your word (in forwarding without permission), but it is illegal as well…
But we know that at least one person isn’t who she claimed, and is a liar and a thief. ”
Oh Brother! Cindy, this is a parody, right?
In an upside down world I suppose you can get away with this sort of drama.
So, not only is it allegedly “illegal” but the person is a liar and a thief? Anyone hear rumblings of “legal action” on the horizon????
Well, I will spill the beans.
I know that there are several people on that list who are not there because they are Passionate and Desperate. No, I do not know these people other than there email handles. In fact, I have read in multiple places on the internet where people are discussing what is taught on PW and the people telling others what is taught are not on the list for edification purposes. They are there for information purposes, only. There might even be a news person(s) on that list….anything is possible, especially since Stacy is making a name for herself by writing books and she is an authoritative leader in the patriarchal movement.
In fact, there are some who have forwarded me things from that list for the last few years just because they thought I might be interested. I had thought about joining just so I could read it and keep up but I really didn’t have an interest because I had heard it all before and there are so many who are on that list who do keep up with it and forward out things that they find interesting, disturbing or contradictory.
I didn’t read the offending post until just recently but I do remember others like it when I was on the Sisters in Christ list. So, when I read the recent adoption post stolen from the private sanctuary of the PW list, I had no problem believing that it was authentic because I had heard the story at other times.
Maybe it is time for some of the PW people to go undercover and execute a sting operation. They could then turn in the thieves and liars for prosecution.
Because after all, we all know that if this is illegal, they MUST report the crime to the proper authorities or else they are not obeying God’s word.
Smokescreen. Red herring. Tu quoque.
March 26, 2008 at 12:22 am
Well, thatmom, I didn’t technically go to Summit, but they allow anyone who wants to sit in on the lectures, at least at the place where I was. So I took much advantage of that fact!
I could still email you if you want, but I don’t have a big book or anything. 
I’ll just have to really go to it sometime not too far from now!
March 26, 2008 at 1:18 am
“And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the wolrd, and people loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. But those who do what is true come to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that their deeds have been done in God.” (John 3:19-21, NRSV)
March 26, 2008 at 1:25 am
Quoting Cindy’s anonymous email:
“What is written here *is* covered by copyright laws, and if you right a post ~ whether it be a question on cut lips, or a profound devotional ~ you *own* the copyright on that. Which means that you *don’t* own the copyright on what others write, and not only is it immoral to go against your word (in forwarding without permission), but it is illegal as well…”
My husband just got back from an ethics in computer science conference, so this [the Patriarch Women's list] is fascinating to him and to me…
According to US law, all electronic submissions whether public or private are deemed public (this comes into play during slander/libel cases particularly). They must be accompanied by a written statement executing copyright OR a symbol denoting such. They are otherwise considered within the public domain. The funny thing about this is that this is often used the opposite way of the way Stacy, et al are using it. The common excuse, particularly in a court case, is to state that the comment was made in the public domain and ‘could have been anybody’. I find it quite interesting that the PW owners/moderators are calling the legal status the opposite direction.
The internet is truly democratic- anyone can say anything anywhere (ok, except China… and the Patriarch Ladies List) and it be read the world over. This presents two problems: 1)integrity and 2)accountability. If there was ever a model case for ethics in internet usage, hello John and Stacy McDonald! Interestingly enough, because all internet sites are based on an open source HTML code, the internet is essentially self healing. As we have seen, it is not that hard to retrieve “erased” pages/blogs/lists/websites…so it is better to say, “yeah, I said that back there a few years ago, life circumstances have changed my mind, and I now feel this way… ” then to delete older posts. One is being truthful and operating with accountabilty; the other can lead to perjury charges in a court of law. Deleting information is enforced the same way burning or destroying evidence is treated.
Do I understand how upset many of the women on the list are about the possibility that their “private” thoughts/writings might get out? YES. Should they have considered what they wrote in light of the fact that anyone around the globe could read it, and evaluate it for gossipy elements? YES. Should they have shared deeply private information on a list? NO. Emails are much safer, but still.
Think of it this way. In the older days, there were often ‘private’ newspapers that a group of people subscribed too. Let’s say the Fall Branch Birders Association. Old Joe printed up the 20 newspapers to send to his birding friends. The headline read, “Rare Dodo Bird Seen in Fall Branch!” The postman picked it up from Joe’s mailbox and thought, “that’s amazing!” He put in the sorting box, where Melba the Clerk read it, and whispered to her friend Rhonda, “Can you believe it?” The mail is then handed to Tom, the postman, who takes it to all 20 of the birding friends, and he thoughtfully considers the amazing discovery. Before you know it, Metro Town News bigwigs are calling up Old Joe about the extinct Dodo bird. He’s suprised- his newspaper was talking about the rare Diodo bird.
That, essentially, is how a Yahoo Group works. It’s an old time newsletter in the new computer age, and although you were supposed to subscribe to the Fall Branch Birder, at least 5 people read it without being in anyway associated!
So give the whole legal/copyright thing a rest…I second Corrie:
Smokescreen. Red herring. Tu quoque.
March 26, 2008 at 1:27 am
The whole story on adoption didn’t sound too positive, did it?
“”…but on another blog I read where one woman said that because of your bad adoption experience, you’re afraid your daughters will get pregnant out of wedlock.”
I think this question disturbed me the most. I can’t imagine what would have posessed someone to make such an untrue statement about my adoption experience. ”
Untrue statement? Was “Kym’s” statement an untrue one? I think anyone that read what was actually said about her adoption experience will come to the conclusion that it was NOT a good thing.
Kym, if you are out there (obviously you have been reading here), would you share your opinion about what you think about the answers you received compared to what was posted by Marion?
March 26, 2008 at 1:42 am
This is completely off-topic but I figure that someone will be able to answer it. On site after site I have seen Easter referred to as “Resurrection Sunday” (in fact the very word “Easter” seems to be eschewed on some of these sites)- is there some problem with “Easter”? Some special significance to saying “Resurrection Sunday” instead of “Easter”?
March 26, 2008 at 2:03 am
Elizabeth,
This is only off the top of my head, but I think some people have a problem with the word “Easter” because it is a name of a goddess (fertility). It comes from a pagan celebration of the equinox.
So, because of its pagan origins, many people do not like to use that word.
March 26, 2008 at 2:04 am
“Easter” comes from the name of a pagan goddess, Eostre, or Ishtar, or Astarte, or some pagan goddess anyway. I don’t know exactly, I am very ignorant. Anyway, some Christians (particularly Reformed ones that get into regulative-principle-of-worship stuff) are uncomfortable with that. At least that’s my guess.
March 26, 2008 at 3:43 am
About Easter…
I’ve heard Hank Hanagraaf contend that it is actually an abreviation for “Eastern Star” having something to do with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Where is Anna who is married to the native Egyptian??? I would be curious to hear her perspective.
Anyway, Hank contended that it was not pagan in origin but did follow the Jewish feast dates.
Beatrice,
I also heard others use that Ishtar reference. Bunnies are related to the fertility thing. Then, I know people at church became upset over the whole egg issue because eggs are prominent in curandero medicine in Mexico and in Voodoo down in Louisiana. The bruhahs (sp?? witches) in San Antonio were always doing things with eggs…
None of it bothers me, frankly. I vividly remember a Sunday School teacher talking about the egg being a sign of new life and something like a seed that from which life will spring.
Techinically, we are called to preach Christ and Him crucified. We should be more interested in the preaching of the Cross and the Resurrection moreso than Christ’s birth.
March 26, 2008 at 4:06 am
Hi Richard D,
That poem was beautiful. Karen Campbell mentioned R.C. Sproul, Sr. in the post following that testimony of mine, and I did listen to a lot of his stuff. “The Holiness of God” and “Chosen by God” were very helpful to me in my quest to make sense out of all this stuff. That is part of why I ended up learning about patriarchy through the Presby and Theonomy connections. And that Fanny Crosby quote helped pull things together for me, too. (My piano teacher always told me about the authors of hymns when I learned them, so I always had a special place in my heart for Fanny.)
That poem reminded me of Hannah Hunnard’s “Hind’s Feet on High Places.” When Much-Afraid meets Jesus, he thrusts a painful and healing thorn into her heart. I cried and cried when I first read this book, and I was reminded of it when I read your post.
Having come from the Word of Faith background, I found the sovereignty message of the Reformed teachers very helpful to me. Yancey contrasts this perspective in “Where is God When it Hurts?” with Joni Erickson Tada’s view that God has blessed her in spite of and because of her injury. At some point, you don’t necessarily resign yourself to things that are “less than,” but you can accept them. The desperate quest for divine healing leads to a great deal of disappointment.
I wish I could find it… I had an old Katherine Marshall quote about hopeful anticipation versus resignation that was quite good, too. One is powerful and the other is pessimistic.
Thank you for your kind words. To God be all the glory.
March 26, 2008 at 4:55 am
Years ago Stacy took private mail and forwarded it all over the internet without the writer’s knowledge.
Is there a double-standard where it’s wrong to share her e-mail, but not wrong for her to share others?
Blessings!
March 26, 2008 at 11:59 am
I wanted to let you all know that I did receive a response from Stacy regarding my request that she correct her statements to Kym on her blog. She maintains that she has been completely honest and when I specifically pointed out the discrepancies, she told me she would be happy to meet me in person to discuss my misunderstandings as long as “an agreed upon mediator” was present. Mediator?
Once again, there is an attempt to apply Matthew 18 to a Galatians 2 situation. These things are not matters of a personal nature but are public statements that are contradictory and need clarification in a public realm. I addressed this in detail on my other blog in this article and am posting the link for those who missed it.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/slander-libel-and-gossip-oh-my-understanding-the-difference-between-matthew-1815-and-galatians-2/
I can understand why someone might think talking about one’s family is gossip. However, when one talks about one’s family in the context of teaching and instructing and others discuss those teachings, the discrepancies and dissembling, etc, it is not gossip. It is evaluating teachings and pointing out error.
She has also requested that I remove any references to the adoption topic and I am disinclined to acquiesce to her request. I went back and read through the Kym comments yesterday and was struck by something interesting. Stacy originally asked me to remove the comments about her adoption story because of how she thought it would affect her family members if they read them here. I put myself in her situation and agreed that some statements were way too personal for comfort. But yesterday I realized that she was the one who allowed the questions from Kym on her blog in the first place that prompted Marion to post here. Wouldn’t a reasonable person assume that Stacy’s family would be far more apt to read her own blog rather than search the internet far and wide to come up with our comments on TW? If I were Stacy and didn’t want my family to read what I had written about them, I would never have allowed Kym’s comments in the first place. Something does not add up in this equation.
March 26, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Mrs. Joy,
Thanks so much for your input on the ethics of the internet. Fascinating stuff and it confirms what an attorney told us the last time Stacy was unhappy that a PW list person posted here. There was quite a discussion under the contributors’ page and when we were told by James that the posting was illegal, the attorney explained the law to him.
Again, thanks to you and to your husband for keeping us informed!
March 26, 2008 at 12:47 pm
anything I don’t like = illegal
anything that makes me uncomfortable = illegal
anything that is “negative” about me = illegal
This seems to be the logic they employ on matters such as this.
Gosh, maybe they should have a future in politics!
March 26, 2008 at 12:49 pm
thatmom wrote: She [Stacy McDonald] maintains that she has been completely honest and when I specifically pointed out the discrepancies, she told me she would be happy to meet me in person to discuss my misunderstandings as long as “an agreed upon mediator” was present. Mediator?
Okay. Let me get this straight…
Stacy has a known history of stating that she does not let her daughters out of her sight, from the Patriarch Wives statement and other such statements on other lists like Sisters in Christ.
An elder’s wife in Stacy’s church admits that this is true. That Stacy and James don’t even permit their daughters to go to the elder’s house for an afternoon with their whole family there. And if the elder’s grown daughter in her early twenties and the McDonald’s daughter in her early twenties want to meet for lunch somewhere, Stacy stated to the elder’s wife that it would be okay if Stacy and the elder’s wife were seated at a different table in the same restaraunt.
Not only do you have statements from Stacy, one of which is Stacy’s own documented statement, you also have confirmation from others concerning their behavior. All of this was approximately a year ago, maybe a year and a half.
Kym gets on Stacy’s blog and asks if this is true, and Stacy says that this is gossip and untrue. They do allow their daughters out from under their direct supervision.
Marion posts Stacy’s testimony here to demonstrate the that people who have stated so about the McDonalds have not lied.
Technically, all Stacy needs to do at this point is either post on her own blog or post here to say something to explain her position. They may have re-evaluated how they conduct their family affairs and adjusted the family policy.
But rather than do that, this self-professed public teacher, book and blog author wants to MEDIATE the fact that she says one thing one place when it is expedient for her… then says something entirely different somewhere else when that contradictory answer is more expedient for her?
And you, Karen, are expected to go and listen to someone who you know has concealed information about her past in order to sell her books and image (specifically that both she and her husband are both divorced and remarried)and has accused you of being “uncivilized” for allowing these facts to be mentioned on your blog. You are also expected to go to a “mediator” with these people who believe doctrines that you believe are contrary to the Word of God and spiritually abusive to the point that they have approached your own church leadership, claiming that you are a “feminist,” per their weird doctrines and definitions which you do not share. You are expected to go to a mediator after Stacy has stated that you have borne false witness against her, even though you provided evidence to the contrary, with Stacy refusing to offer any sort of apology? Even after you removed the evidence from your blog?
Karen, have you considered removing the sensitive information from that deleted post of Marion’s (references to some of the personal family information) and re-posting it? Because, now, Stacy essentially gets what she wants. You have been “slandered” by Stacy by saying you misrepresented her, and Stacy has manipulated the situation to get the information offline. Her post is not available to compare to the accusations that she made against you.
Is there any possibility that, given that Stacy believes she is above criticism, you might repost Stacy’s statement?
March 26, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Hey Anonymous,
You wrote:Years ago Stacy took private mail and forwarded it all over the internet without the writer’s knowledge.
Got documentation?
March 26, 2008 at 2:15 pm
As for being infiltrated by those horrible radical feminists…
I simply don’t see the problem. The email list is moderated, isn’t it? If the radical feminists begin posting lengthy treatises that might mislead all the other PW readers, will those emails really go through? Won’t the moderators be able to stop them and kick the radical feminists off the list?
What is the harm of having radical feminists reading the list? Why, if Stacy is so convinced of the truth of her teaching, she should see this as a wonderful opportunity to speak truth into the lives of radical feminists! If they are unbelievers, she can witness to them and, who knows, God may even use her words to bring them into relationship with Him.
This reminds me of the small church that got all upset when a known witch showed up for services one Sunday. Afterwards, several people went to the pastor in alarm and asked if they could stop her from ever attending again. To their shock, the pastor was all excited. He thought it was simply wonderful that God had brought this women into their church meeting and that he had the opportunity and privilege to preach the gospel to her. He encouraged everyone to love on her and pray for her. She kept attending; he kept preaching; everyone prayed; people — despite their fear — tried to be as warm and friendly to her as possible. She eventually came to faith in Christ.
Stacy should be so excited to have radical feminists on her email list, especially if she believes they are as lost, misguided, and in darkness as she claims. If she truly believes in the sovereignty of God, she should thank Him for bringing these women into her life — and she should take it as her mission to love them and show them Jesus.
March 26, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Cindy, you summed it all up quite well.
Here is the pertinent part of her post that exposes the discrepancies:
“I shared my story to challenge us to re-think our stand on adoption. It can
be a great blessing, but as with anything, it can be monstrously abused. In
some cases, it’s not much more than baby-stealing. Because my mother was so
young, she had no choice. She begged her parents to allow her to keep me.
She even found a boy (not the father) who said he would marry her. My
grandparents did not tell their other children I existed, so to allow her to
keep me would have exposed the sin and shamed the family.
She was not protected by her father. She was allowed to live a very “adult”
life at a very young age. She had her “own” friends, had boyfriends and
went to parties. I found some letters and poetry she wrote before she died
and you can sense the deep desire she had for a relationship with her
much-too-busy father. She longed for his attention. Like Marysue pointed
out, it would be near impossible for any of our daughters to become
pregnant, either by rape or otherwise. We don’t do youth group etc. and we
do things as a family. They are very protected and sheltered. They’re also
showered with love and affection by their father. Not the oooey-gooey kind,
but the respectful kind that shows a cherished kind of love. This is the
way God intended. I don’t believe young girls need to be out and about
unescorted.
We have an example in Scripture of the dangers of this:
And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see
the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite,
prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled
her. Gen 34:1-2
If you made it this far, I thank you for hanging in there with me. It’s a
big chunk of my life, but by hearing my testimony, I thought it might give
others some insight into adoption, abortion and protecting daughters.
Blessings to you as you raise your daughters for His glory.
In His Service,
Stacy McDonald
mcmom@…
Joyful Wife of my beloved James
Thankful Mother of Jamie(18), Christa(17), Tiffany(16), Melissa(14),
Jessica(11), Caleb(5),
Abigail(3), Virginia Grace(1 year), our Little One yet being formed in the
womb, and our Little One in Heaven”
I will consider your suggestion. I am also going to be very careful in the future when it comes to removing things that are posted on this site. I do feel manipulated in this instance.
March 26, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Interesting info on the privacy of email issue.
1.) This article makes the point that email is free game. You can say it is “private,” but one email is stored at least four places… The sender’s the recepient’s and the servers for each. So for each email that is sent out on the Patriarchs Wives list, if subscription is currently at 800, then each email is stored in at least 1600+ places.
http://www.journalismnet.com/tips/privacy.htm
2.) Karen referenced this discussion that follows from the McDonald’s prior claims that putting the Patriarch Wives material on another site is illegal. Some might want it to be so, but it is not law.
(Read James’ post, then follow down to read the response) http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/contributors/#comment-1814
3.) “Some geek” just pointed out to me that James and Stacy claim all posts on that Patriarch Wives list to be under the copyright of Family Reformation Ministries, 2007. This contradicts what was posted to the group yesterday in comment #156. Though the page says that nothing can be used without express permission from the author, they also claim copyright as Family Reformation Ministries. They told their own readers and participants that each author owns the post. This is not entirely true. Family Reformation Ministries (James and Stacy) can use anything off that list and archive for their magazine, etc., claiming it as their own.
4.) See comments #134 & 166
March 26, 2008 at 3:00 pm
You mean email isn’t private at all? Yikes! Then even very private emails I just send to one person, I don’t have the right to say to someone, don’t forward this?
March 26, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I’ve got a comment awaiting moderation, but to just summarize a bit more…
In July of 2007, James claimed that per his attorney for Family Reformation Ministries, email is covered under the copyright act of 1976 and sited a theoretical article from a law journal that is not law but someone’s opinion. (I’m sure that James can appreciate this, considering the pending publication of Yurako’s article in the California Law Review speculates that Vision Forum’s policies encourage violation of the Federal Equal Protection Clause. http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/are-patriocentric-views-of-a-womans-role-causing-homeschooling-freedoms-to-be-at-risk/) A law school graduate who was at that time waiting to take the bar said that James citations do not apply to email. Also, given the wide distribution of the list in question (on 1600+ sites counting servers, senders and recepient) it is not remotely private. Joy discussed the current treatment of email and the ethics involved.
Also, while they tell the Patriarchs Wives list that each email cannot be used without permission and each person owns the copyright, they neglected to say that James and Stacy claim the copyright, too. They can use whatever they want. So the following was misleading when they posted that… What is written here *is* covered by copyright laws, and if you right a post ~ whether it be a question on cut lips, or a profound devotional ~ you *own* the copyright on that. Which means that you *don’t* own the copyright on what others write, and not only is it immoral to go against your word (in forwarding without permission), but it is illegal as well…
The writer owns the copyright, but so do the McDonalds. It could end up in the next book or in their magazines. If you missed that when you signed up, too bad.
Then they tell people that it is illegal to forward their list to others when that is not what the law currently says, nor has it been so.
So when guilting people into hiding their “errors” and “contradictions” does not work, and when pejorative Reducto ad Hitlerum does not work (wrongly and recklessly associating this blog with “radical feminism” to terrify people), they wrongly tell people they are breaking the law. Why? So people wont realize that Stacy is calling people gossipers and liars falsely and that Stacy is saying “I believe A” in one venue and also saying “I deny A” in another venue. Most people would call this a lie.
March 26, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Beatrice writes: I don’t have the right to say to someone, don’t forward this?
You certanly do have the right to say “don’t forward this,” but you are at the mercy and depending on the honor of the people of whom you make the request.
When I worked in case management, everything we sent out had a statement that the material referred to a person’s private medical information and included a “please destroy if you receive this in error.” But that’s only to cover the backside of the sender. What the sendee does with it is free game. It is a matter of trust.
Stacy asks that their readers have more duty to her when she says “A” and denies “A” elsewhere than the readers have to the truth.
March 26, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Wow, this all makes my head spin. Stacy can ask Karen to remove a post and Karen listens to her request and honors it. Karen asks Stacy to clarify on her blog that she is not a gossip or a “twitterer”( what a condescending term!)and Stacy says that they need to meet with a mediator.
Moderators on Stacy’s blog can call people here “radical feminists” and falsely accuse,but iof anyone calls Stacy into accountablility for false statements, then “love covers a multitude of sins”.
If anything, this solidifies in my mind the whole concept of patriarchy being a cult or cultish branch of Chhristianity. When people have to manipulate like this they are hiding from the truth. “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive”…
March 26, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Mary, You just nailed it! Yes, that is how Stacy operates. And yes, it is a cult as that is how cults operate. They manipulate and control. And they do NOT see the hypocrisy because THEY are the cult of personality and reciprocity of behavior does not apply to them.
Stacy is NOT stupid. She is very clever. She knows Karen is gracious. And she used her graciousness against her. Still she is all the while branding her as a gossip and twitterer. Oh, and a radical feminist.
So when Karen asks her to reciprocate and take down her nasty words about her, Stacy instead says they have to meet with a MEDIATOR.
This is a very typical tactic used in the Patriarchy world. It is all about control and is not very Christ-like.
What does this tell us about Stacy’s integrity? Her hypocrisy? Her walk with the Lord? Her teaching?
And people actually follow her. It is down right scary.
March 26, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Going back to the idea of being called a “radical feminist” and how it’s being seen as a bad thing by the patriarchal group, I find it truly ironic that I fit into that category, considering the attitudes of an atheist friend of mine.
Talk about a “radical feminist”! And she’s proud of it, too. I don’t believe abortion is right, and I certainly have a lot of issues with the whole NOW camp and a lot of what feminists teach and believe today. But those are feminists outside the church, not inside. Most women I know that I go to church with would fall into the patriarch’s category of a “radical Christian feminist,” yet they are the most loving and honest Christian women I know.
Considering my own mom, we went to the PCUSA for 14 years of my life, and she was head elder for several years during that time–my dad was NEVER an elder. She is pro-life, believes women can be pastors and is and always has had an egalitarian relationship with my dad.
On the flip-side of that, and I’ve shared some of this before, she was abused by a teenage boyfriend, had a baby at 15, had an abortion at 19, her third pregnancy was underway before she and my dad got married, and she didn’t fully commit her life to Christ until I was a few weeks old.
And the leaders of the church knew full well that she’d had a baby at a young age, most of them knew her during that time, since she’d been in the church as a child and teen as well.
My mom is probably more radically feminist than most non-Christian women, yet I think to call her that might be a bit insulting, because she just sees herself as being a Christian, and she doesn’t like the labels of the world. That’s probably what bugs me about the “feminist” label, because it’s so “of this world” that Christians shouldn’t be using it on one another, especially when they are using it as an insult.
As far as “being protected,” the notion that ANYONE is safe in their own home or when mom or dad is around is ridiculous. Christian men are not immune to the temptation of child molestation, and Christians are FAR more vulnerable than probably any other group to have this happen.
As much as anyone would want to make it look like the MacDonald’s are “protecting” their daughters, the truth of the matter is that they simply don’t trust their children. Danger is inescapable if it is eminent, but the choices that an individual makes are all about trust.
I find it sickly disturbing that anyone would not trust their 20 something daughter not to make good decisions, especially when they have been teaching them to make good decisions. How long can you baby your children? Until they are married? What if a girl gets married and her husband lets her go out with friends (without HIS supervision)? Hopefully these girls will marry men who trust them more than their parents do.
I know that there are mixed feelings about James Dobson, but something he said several years ago on a radio program really struck me. He was talking about how important it is to give our children choices and independence, even from an early age. The older they get, the more responsibilities you give them, and if they break your trust, both of you learn from that. Trust is built by allowing people to make their own decisions. How can you ever know if your children are trustworthy if you never give them a chance to prove themselves? This is so mind-boggling and disturbing to me.
I have a three-year-old that I trust more than that! *I wouldn’t just let her go anywhere alone–but I feel very comfortable that my friends and family are trustworthy enough to care for her without me monitoring the situation from afar.
March 26, 2008 at 4:48 pm
http://richgelina.blogspot.com/2008/03/matthew-henry-those-are-marked-for-ruin.html
March 26, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Cindy:
“You wrote:Years ago Stacy took private mail and forwarded it all over the internet without the writer’s knowledge.
Got documentation?”
I’m guessing the anonymous person is referring to Alice Robertson and what happened to her. I think that issue has been brought up on this particular site — I’ll go see if I can find what has been said about it. If it isn’t this situation then what was claimed about Alice fits that description to a “t” anyway.
March 26, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Well, I can’t search this site, but people who “were there” and “are now here,” would you mind stating again just what did happen to Alice at the hands of Stacy?
What I heard was that Alice was “set-up” to respond to some email which said negative things about a prominent Christian woman, and Alice did reply to it, and then a mass email was sent out to many people, against Alice, without her knowledge that this was being done.
That is what I heard happen. That, and that Stacy was responsible for sending out that email.
I don’t know anything about the contents of the email that Alice responded to, what Alice’s response was, nor do I know the contents of this mass-mailing campaign against Alice.
I was just told she was set up, and they did this behind her back.
March 26, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Lynn,
My girlfriend in Maryland knows all this stuff. I’m not entirely sure why most people don’t know about it now.
Is there a good reason why people never if ever reference why the Sisters in Christ Yahoo list archives crashed, who had access to the mailing list, who was made a moderator days before and then days later launched their own homeschooling business that just so happened to share the same email addresses as the Sisters in Christ distribution list?
March 26, 2008 at 5:25 pm
The owner of the site confirmed that this is true and who it was who was just made moderator… and what her opinion is of all this.
Is there a reason why this is not public knowledge?
March 26, 2008 at 5:27 pm
That is the owner of the Sisters in Christ site confirmed to me the circumstances of the crashed site that was then abandoned. I don’t know anything about Alice Roberts and the mass email.
Concerning the crashed Sisters in Christ site… I am also good friends with two former members of that list. And I confirmed things with the owner of the now defunct list.
March 26, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I know that one person who complained about this incident at the time said she got a threatening email about it, Cindy, and I’m hoping she will speak up about it.
But threats would be one reason people might be shy of speaking about it.
March 26, 2008 at 5:33 pm
OOpps! For the very litigious people out there, let me clarify.
I refered to the Yahoo group of Sisters in Christ as a website, but it was not a website. I was in error. It was a Yahoo group/list serve.
March 26, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Cindy, just so I’m clear — there has been a “SistersnChrist” Yahoo list that has been very active since 2000, and I’m a member on that list. That isn’t the group that crashed, is it? I’m getting a little confused here. Thanks.
March 26, 2008 at 5:47 pm
One thing I note is that the sistersnchrist list and the patriarchswives list started at almost the same time . . . I think Cindy must be referrring to another listserv that crashed on account of this letter being sent out behind Alice’s back. But as I wasn’t there, I can’t say.
March 26, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Mrs. Macdonald got back with the lady that asked her the question on her blog …
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2008/02/protecting-our-daughters.html
March 26, 2008 at 5:59 pm
Is there a good reason why people never if ever reference why the Sisters in Christ Yahoo list archives crashed, who had access to the mailing list, who was made a moderator days before and then days later launched their own homeschooling business that just so happened to share the same email addresses as the Sisters in Christ distribution list?
Cindy, was this how Stacy got her start? Is this the connection in this story?
March 26, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Lynn,
If it is the same list, then the person who started it and owned it gave it up after it crashed. The people that I know had little to nothing to do with it after that whole thing happened. This happened just before you would have joined.
March 26, 2008 at 6:12 pm
No, Lynn, the list you are on is the new Sisters in Christ list. There was another one. It was really one of its kind in its day. I believe that Alice started that in the mid-90s and that is when I joined it. Let us just there was a quasi-mutiny and that is why the list is no more. Alice’s name was drug through the mud and there has never been a public apology.
But, we have learned that gossip only counts when it is not about certain people. Otherwise, play ball!
March 26, 2008 at 6:33 pm
So ask yourself when the old Sisters in Christ site crashed. Who’s concerned about archives?
March 26, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Stacy McDonald said…
Hi Kym,
I appreciate your question very much. I know there has been a huge misrepresentation of our beliefs (purposeful or not is for God to decide – but it’s hard to fathom that it’s unintentional when I’ve contacted some of these people personally to let them know what they’re saying is untrue). Anyway, I’m glad you came to me to clarify.
The email you are referencing is an email I sent to my private email group over 6 years ago.
Someone is trying to claim that what I told you on March 19 is a lie. They are saying that we do in fact keep our adult daughters “in our sight at all times.” To be perfectly frank, they don’t know us and the burden of proof is on them; yet they attempt to use hearsay and disconnected emails from 6 years ago as proof of their accusations. They don’t have all the facts, but they want to judge a situation that’s none of their business.
Six years ago our older daughters ranged in age from 11-17; they are now 17-23 and one of them is married! Things obviously look different now, but that doesn’t mean our convictions have drastically changed since then (though I’m sure some have – we grow in Christ daily). Do you remember every little thing you beleived six years ago?
Not that I can fathom how anyone feels they have the right to demand details of our personal life, but I’ll repeat it again anyway: Our daughters are most certainly allowed to “leave our house without me or my husband.” Our daughter, who is fully licensed, drives alone at least several times a week. Our daughters, with Tiffany driving, have attended functions with church members without James or me. We do allow our daughters to drive (though we wait until they are older and more mature). Our daughters do vote (and so do I). We do not teach anyone that they must “raise their daughters exactly like we do or else they are in sin.”
I have been told that what is said about me is not gossip or slander because I am a “public figure,” but just because someone writes a book doesn’t mean everyone has automatic rights to their personal life. It doesn’t mean they are not human and the Scriptures against gossip and slander no longer apply. Even those who write the National Enquirer, which is filled with all sorts of gossip and slander (against “public figures”), are sinning when they do it (and so are those who read it)!
I do not take offense with the disagreement of my (actual) teachings. I take offense with the misrepresentation of them, and with the public discussion of my personal life. That is beyond the scope of honest critique.
March 26, 2008 10:36 AM
March 26, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Kym: “Again, I realize you could have changed your stand since then, but I’m wondering how this is consistent with what you just said about your daughters doing things on their own now.”
So, Kym sees that there is an inconsistency between what was used to be said and what was now said in response to her initial question.
Stacy McDonald said…
“Hi Kym,
I appreciate your question very much. I know there has been a huge misrepresentation of our beliefs (purposeful or not is for God to decide – but it’s hard to fathom that it’s unintentional when I’ve contacted some of these people personally to let them know what they’re saying is untrue). Anyway, I’m glad you came to me to clarify.”
So, Kym points out that Stacy’s answer was inconsistent and then Stacy answers by reiterating that she has been hugely misrepresented when she really hasn’t?
“The email you are referencing is an email I sent to my private email group over 6 years ago. ”
So? What has changed? She goes on to say that their girls have gotten older. Do older girls that are over the age of 18 not get raped? Didn’t she state that her girls would never get raped because they are always protected because they do things as a family? Then she sited Dinah who went out to see the daughters of the land. Well, Dinah was probably over 17 years old.
She could just have stated that they allow their girls to go out alone and that her former statement was too harsh in its interpretation of the rape of Dinah.
Either that or she is now opening her daughters up to being raped because they allow them to go out alone.
Don’t forget she just told Kym in the prior response that they do not have their own individual social lives. That seems to say that they don’t do things socially apart from one another, no?
“Someone is trying to claim that what I told you on March 19 is a lie.”
It is not a claim. Maybe it isn’t a lie but it is sure confusing to know what the real answer was. The answer given to Kym WAS inconsistent, even if we totally discount what was written 6 years ago. Again, one cannot have their own social life if they do not have their own individual social life.
” They are saying that we do in fact keep our adult daughters “in our sight at all times.” To be perfectly frank, they don’t know us and the burden of proof is on them; yet they attempt to use hearsay and disconnected emails from 6 years ago as proof of their accusations. They don’t have all the facts, but they want to judge a situation that’s none of their business. ”
I don’t think this is what is happening at all. Disconnected emails? Uhhh. That was ONE email containing a testimony where each paragraph flowed one to another.
“Not that I can fathom how anyone feels they have the right to demand details of our personal life, but I’ll repeat it again anyway: Our daughters are most certainly allowed to “leave our house without me or my husband.” ”
I hope I can clear up her misunderstanding. No one is demanding to know details of their personal life.
The problem comes into the picture when THEY tell people things that do not line up with the facts. When they write about their lives that give a totally different impression than what is fact.
Also, I don’t know why this would be a problem. No one is asking them personal details of their life. They own and operate a business that claims to reform families! She writes books telling women how to live biblically. Surely she can understand that people will expect those who take the position of teacher and leader where they are teaching people how to reform families will be practicing what they preach!
Are daughters who go out alone like Dinah in danger of getting raped? Wouldn’t this be a family reformation topic, especially if they believe that daughters should be protected by their fathers?
I don’t see why there is such a problem when someone asks her about what she has taught! This is weird. Who cares if it is 6 years ago. Who cares if her daughters are older. Don’t older daughters need protection, too? This seems contradictory to the Visionary Daughter message that she supports 100%.
I am reading the response but I still don’t understand what the answer is.
It would have also helped if she gave a couple of examples. They go to church events without parents? She said that they attended church functions without their parents. Is this when they were out of town at some other speaking engagement and someone else was chaperoning them?
What sorts of things do they do?
For example, my girls attend swing dancing events with other homeschoolers and teens. I drop them off and pick them up when the event is done. (My oldest daughter doesn’t have her license yet because we are saving up for a car and she can’t drive my 15 passenger and my husband has a company truck.) They do things with their friends. They go to movies with their friends. They go bowling with their friends. They do service projects with other youth from our church. They go to camp.
I wouldn’t be able to say that none of us have individual social lives and then claim that my girls do things without us!
But, then again, I just got an email telling me that I was theologically daft and proud of it.
It has been quite a week. I have been accused of being too legalistic and not understanding “grace” and I have been accused of being a liberal and radical feminist.
“I do not take offense with the disagreement of my (actual) teachings. I take offense with the misrepresentation of them, and with the public discussion of my personal life. That is beyond the scope of honest critique.”
No one is discussing her personal life. We are discussing what she has taught to hundreds and hundreds of women and what is promoted as and falls under the umbrella of family reformation.
Maybe, the heat is too hot being in the limelight? I mean, look at all the presidential candidates go through. Is that wrong to examine what they say compared to other things they say?
I suppose it is. It is really none of our business. Our job is to be good little followers and just take what is said to us as the gospel truth and we are supposed to lay aside anything that contradicts what is taught as truth.
March 26, 2008 at 6:39 pm
That is beyond the scope of honest critique.
Whaaa? Like she would know?
March 26, 2008 at 6:47 pm
“The writer owns the copyright, but so do the McDonalds. It could end up in the next book or in their magazines. If you missed that when you signed up, too bad.”
Cindy,
This is a good point.
“Then they tell people that it is illegal to forward their list to others when that is not what the law currently says, nor has it been so.”
The legal thing seems to be a “go to” mode. I learned that by personal experience.
“So when guilting people into hiding their “errors” and “contradictions” does not work, and when pejorative Reducto ad Hitlerum does not work (wrongly and recklessly associating this blog with “radical feminism” to terrify people), they wrongly tell people they are breaking the law. Why? So people wont realize that Stacy is calling people gossipers and liars falsely and that Stacy is saying “I believe A” in one venue and also saying “I deny A” in another venue. Most people would call this a lie.”
Yes. This is a good summary.
March 26, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Karen,
It doesn’t look like she is going to apologize to those she called gossips and twitterers and for labeling fact as “nonsense”. She seems to just reiterate all over again that people are lying about things she wrote in black and white.
Just like her claim that she wasn’t referring to this blog when she spoke of white-washed feminists but somehow her moderators and her PW list are under the impression that the attack on their archives has to do with radical feminists wanting to “smash their list to smithereens”. Where did that idea come from?
You know what? I don’t care anymore. I have witnessed this same behavior for almost a decade. They still owe a public apology for trashing the name of my good friend for no good reason. It is okay to spread around rumors that someone’s son is a drunk because he answers the phone out of a dead sleep and sounds groggy but it is not okay to examine what is written down in black and white? I asked for that apology in accordance with Matthew 18 which is so lovingly trounced out everytime someone crosses them and I was threatened with “legal action”. When people try and hold them accountable for their words or their deeds they are threatened, either outright or veiled.
I wash my hands of this mess. When the truth is not important and when people just want to believe what their itching ears want to hear, then what can you do?
March 26, 2008 at 7:07 pm
FYI: Mrs. Wilt over at The Sparrow’s Nest (www.thesparrowsnest.typepad.com) is going to interview Stacy McDonald and is taking questions.
I’m with you Corrie. This whole thing, all this drama (NOT created by us, btw), is tiring and obnoxious. I’m quite over it.
March 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Corrie wrote:
So, Kym points out that Stacy’s answer was inconsistent and then Stacy answers by reiterating that she has been hugely misrepresented when she really hasn’t?
This is all Stacy has now. What do the kids call that nowadays? Ah, spin
March 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm
“I have been told that what is said about me is not gossip or slander because I am a “public figure,” but just because someone writes a book doesn’t mean everyone has automatic rights to their personal life. It doesn’t mean they are not human and the Scriptures against gossip and slander no longer apply. Even those who write the National Enquirer, which is filled with all sorts of gossip and slander (against “public figures”), are sinning when they do it (and so are those who read it)!”
Kym, did you get that? You are sinning when you read this blog.
Also, Karen, did you tell her this? Did you say that because she is a public person that it is not gossip or slander?
That means we all better stop reading about Eliot Spitzer, Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton and John McCain in order to be consistent.
Oh, also, that means the McDonalds need to withdraw their support of the Bayly blog immediately. I wonder how Stacy can say she is a victim and not see that Mrs. James is also one?
ARgh! The inconsistency drives me bonkers! The “do as I say, not as I do” mentality is insane.
And all this “gossip and slander” stuff comes from their quadrant. You don’t see the radical feminists whining about being gossiped and slandered! You don’t see Gorgie Porgie…I mean Dr. Stackhouse crying about being called names and being falsely called a heretic. We have Matt Chancey’s Mrs Binoculars which is right on par with the National Enquirer but here the McDonalds work very closely with the Chanceys!
Stop with the accusations and just answer the question.
This is all I really have to say about this particular headache.
March 26, 2008 at 7:21 pm
Well, I just got confirmation that I can spill the whole “Sisters in Christ 1 Yahoo group” list story. This was the list started by Alice Roberston in the mid ’90s, a first of its kind.
Stacy McDonald used to be very forthcoming on that list, back before James was in the homeschooling/patriarchy biz. She spoke frankly about her divorce and how she was married and had that job as an apartment manager. And how he made her work while she was pregnant and how she had her child in daycare and all the rest.
When they went into the patriarchy biz, they had to create a perfect personna, so Stacy posed to Alice, volunteering to be a moderator. Her up on it, and the site crashed and the archives were GONE. The list remained, and days later, Stacy and James launched their Patriarch Wives and Homeschooling Family Reformation. Their stuff went out to what looked like a ready made email list that just so happened to overlap with Sisters in Christ.
So we don’t exactly have documentation of Stacy’s hands on the keybord deleting or crashing the archives or taking the email distribution list and all of whatever personal information would have accompanied it, but like Kwame Kilpatrick, the Detroit mayor, it all looks very bad.
I don’t know what all else went on with dragging Alice’s name through the mud and that stuff that Lynn mentioned, but Alice says I can call her tonight to get the rest.
March 26, 2008 at 7:24 pm
What on earth did I write:
Her up on it, and the site crashed and the archives were GONE.
I meant to say that Alice took Stacy up on being a moderator and days later if it was even that long, the site crashed, archives deleted and Stacy and James launch a new ministry.
March 26, 2008 at 7:44 pm
BTW, folks… It was the resident computer and internet geek that discerned exactly what the “Copyright by Family Reformation Ministries” meant. I wrote to her and asked her what it meant, and she picked up on it right away.
So all thanks to Mrs. Joy for pointing that out to me.
March 26, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Cindy, that story is outrageous. Is Alice Robertson available to giver her testimony on this?
March 26, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Personally, I think a group of you ought to go over that story in private, get all the ducks in a row, and then give an expose on it. I KNOW someone told me that when she tried to confront the mass email about Alice, back in the day, that she said she got a threatening email on account of her confrontation.
March 26, 2008 at 9:13 pm
When the truth is not important and when people just want to believe what their itching ears want to hear, then what can you do?
Keep talking. Keep pursuing the truth anyway. Really. I know it sounds cut and dried but I say this in all earnestness; I say it as somebody who could all too easily have fallen into the snares you ladies have been so diligent to illuminate, and I say it with every ounce of gratitude within me.
To refer back to the bloodhound analogy used much earlier in this thread, when describing how a red herring can lure a bloodhound off the trail . . . I am always of two minds when this phrase is used, simply as somebody who knows that the herring is actually believed to have originally been used to train hound pups to follow a scent. It’s only later that it seems to have developed into the idea that it was used in an a effort to put the dogs off the trail.
But that aside (and for me that is saying a lot!) I do love the way the analogy fits this situation. Because it IS true that sometimes false trails are laid in an effort to distract hounds (usually with an eye to prolonging the hunt for as long as possible) and it is also true that only the best of them will not fall for it. Younger, poorly trained and/or inexperienced hounds– all of them will often fall for the false trail and spend great lengths of time chasing it, only to lose it and have to circle around to pick up the true one again. It’s only the best scenthounds, the ones who have their life’s purpose bred into their bones, that will not follow the false trail. The original scent is too all-consuming for them. They lock onto it, and they will run it to the ground with unparalleled dedication. It’s what they were born to do. Now, reading the comments here, having the privilege of watching you scorn the red herrings as the insult they are to your devotion to Christ’s call on each of you . . . I am just so, so very grateful for each of you.
I think it’s also important to note that the best hounds don’t scorn the false trail out of spite for the one who laid the false track
Rather, they do it because their devotion to the real track, laid by the true track-layer, is too strong to ignore. It’s why I’ll never own a scenthound(!) and it’s why I think that however tiring this ferreting-out of the truth must be for you (goodness knows I get tired just reading it all, sometimes!) I urge you to see it as a vital service to the body of Christ, especially since far too many people are already lost on the wrong trail.
(very, VERY sorry for the lengthy dog analogy, but . . . let each do what she does best, right?!)
March 26, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Stacy writes: I do not take offense with the disagreement of my (actual) teachings. I take offense with the misrepresentation of them, and with the public discussion of my personal life. That is beyond the scope of honest critique.
March 26, 2008 10:36 AM
Then why not tell us exactly who is a ‘white washed feminist’ as you describe in a very PUBLIC book? You have been asked repeatedly.
March 26, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I am going to post the public Matthew 18 that Stacy sent to many, many women (a couple of hundred?). Alice never got a copy of this email, though Stacy claims she sent her one. Someone else who received this email had to send it to Alice.
Read it carefully. I left a couple of clarifying comments contained in brackets there but if you have any more questions, let me know.
—– Original Message —–
From: Stacy McDonald
To: Alice A Robertson
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 3:55 PM
Subject: URGENT!
This is being sent in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17. The Scriptural witnesses are listed at the bottom of this page. This decision has come from much prayer and counsel. It has been an extremely painful trial. I pray that ladies know my heart in this. If the truth is not known, it will continue to happen over and over again. I’m not prepared to have to answer for not having done something when I had a chance:
Dear Alice,
I am writing with a grieved and heavy heart. You have been a
close friend and I have learned much from you and from the ladies of Sis. It is just now hitting me that my days on Sis are over.
[It wasn't just now hitting her because she had already started the Patriarch's Path website and bookstore and her own list ThePatriarchsWives was started during this time, but she had not announced it (within days she did announce it. She wanted to make sure the Matthew 18 got out first).]
I have counseled with my husband and prayed and wept. This is
what I feel I must do at this time. I am writing this in accordance
with Matthew 18:15–17. Since this is email it makes a unique and
awkward situation, but I have prayerfully considered this and feel it is necessary.
This all began when you made a public outburst July 11, 2000 on Sis without taking responsibility and apologizing. “No and that’s why I am signing off. Sending junk like that when the sender didn’t even study it. If we spent more times in our bibles than trying to form an agenda and get followers we could have a great list.” Prov 29:22-23 An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression. A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
[What Stacy failed to explain is that they were sending inflammatory articles knowing I would respond. The list was
non-denominational and they knew many of my friends still believe in healing. My own son was miraculously healed, what do they want to do? Claim God isn't performing miracles anymore?]
You lied and told ladies that you were signing off of Sis
(never happened) [It did happen. Because of this Alice had to start a new list. Hence, the name "Sistersnchrist" instead of "Sisters in Christ"] and that Debbie would be moderating SIS alone, when in fact you had never had any such conversation with Debbie and no intention of “handing over” moderating privileges to her (which you knew she did not wish to take anyway). [Saying I didn't want the list, but that I knew Debbie didn't want the list. Debbie had quit. How do you give a list to a person who isn't a member?] This was proven when you exercised your moderator’s privileges and put me on “moderated status” so that you could screen my mail (what were
you afraid of and when Debbie un-moderated me, you took ALL of her moderating privileges away so that you were the only one in control of both lists until she unsubscribed last night!
This is an excerpt from your post on 7/11/00 at 9:20 pm: “Hello!!! Ladies I am going to sign off SIS. I need a break for introspection. Debbie will still moderate” [Stacy knew Debbie didn't want the list (see above where Stacy admits to this), and had signed off after Stacy got the membership list. How do you sign over a list to a person who isn't even a member?] Prov 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
3. When I confronted you in love with what I saw to be a need for
a public apology for your public outburst [She wanted
an apology for calling an article from David Cloud junk. He ran down Elisabeth Elliott and others calling them Catholic lovers.] , you did not receive it and I became suspect in your eyes simply because I did not agree with you. I was accused of taking up an offense. When I quit offtopic you immediately put me on moderated status. [ For some reason that list was suddenly deleted by yahoo without my permission. I woke up one day and it was gone. I wonder how that happened?] What did I do to deserve this? My mail has to be screened simply because I challenged? I would suggest that maybe the problem lies in your lack of accountability to the ladies on sis. You have made yourself accountable to no one. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I know now that you have done the same thing to other ladies in the past, that you have done to me in the last few days. I believed the things that you told me regarding those situations without ever asking their side of the story. They humbly, quietly and gracefully left sis without exposing the whole truth of the situation.
I pray for you Alice that you would not allow Satan to deceive you any longer. I implore you to repent of these actions so that you can properly lead the ladies of Sis. This has been such a wonderful and fruitful ministry. Don’t let Satan have the victory because your pride is in the way or because you love power so much. You told me that there are “those ladies” that have suggested to you that I want to run Sis and you have made vague comments about those who wish to “have a following” or have an “agenda,” I don’t know if you are speaking of me when you say that or not, but if you are, I assure you I have absolutely no desire to “run Sis” and my husband would NEVER allow it. [No desire? Her husband wouldn't allow it? Doesn't time usually reveal who told the truth? In this case it did, considering within just a few days of writing this her new list was on yahoo and she was writing far and wide for new members. She made the list and campaign for new members, bought a magazine, started a bookstore, a men's list, a bulletin board, blogs galore, write books, and rewrite already published books that had lost their copyright? And all of this was within days and weeks of this Matthew 18]
Sis has become too ecumenical in the last few months in addition to the fact that it would be too time consuming for such a large group and I would be in danger of neglecting my family. I may, for the sake of like-minded fellowship, start a small loop in the future, but I am no threat to you, if that is why you moderated my posts. You keep saying that I don’t know all that’s happened “behind the scenes.” That seems a bit convenient, don’t you think? Why should everything be a big secret? That’s how Satan gets a foothold. If there is sin or backbiting “behind the scenes,” EXPOSE it! It turns into speculation and gossip when everything is not upfront. You asked me several times not to forward your private notes to anyone. I would have to ask why?
4. You told SIS ladies yesterday that they could be assured that
you were doing everything in your power for reconciliation. Obviously you were not referring to me. I wrote you yesterday to ask why I was on moderated status since the only thing I had done “wrong” was to confront you on issues I thought were important, and you never even bothered to write me back. [Alice did write back, several times but then it only seemed to ramp up the situation and nothing was getting accomplished. Alice even called Loretta a few times but there was no answer.] Prov 25:23 The north wind driveth away rain: so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.
Original Message —–
From: Robert & Loretta Lanphier
To: Stacy McDonald
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Matthew 18
I have read Stacy’s post on Matthew 18 and am willingly and prayerfully serving as a witness to what she is writing and believe that what she is communicating here to be true and in accordance with scripture.
Blessings, Loretta
“It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed, because his
compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy
faithfulness. The Lord is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I
hope in him.” Lamentations 3:22-24
—– Original Message —–
From: James McDonald
To: ‘Stacy McDonald’
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: Matthew 18
I have listened to this sad story and had an opportunity to read
the thread of this discussion. As the spiritual head of my home, I
believe my wife’s heart and motives to be pure. I support her effort
to help those in error and pray this message succeeds in reaching through the bitterness and softens hearts.
James McDonald
March 26, 2008 at 9:23 pm
Stacy, since you are in a public ministry writing books, blogging, etc. we DO have a right to know about both your divorces when you want us to buy your books, read your blog and attend your church.
It goes to ‘qualifications’ for an elder (preacher) in 1 Timothy.
March 26, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I had problems getting this to format the right way after I retrieved it. This should read:
“This was proven when you exercised your moderator’s privileges and put me on “moderated status” so that you could screen my mail (what were you afraid of?) and when Debbie un-moderated me, you took ALL of her moderating privileges away so that you were the only one in control of both lists until she unsubscribed last night!”
March 26, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Karen,
Alice just got back to me and she forgot that she’s got church tonight. She’s tied up tomorrow night, so I will try to catch her in the morning tomorrow. I confirmed again with her that I have my facts straight, and she had no problems with me talking about all of this.
Again, I will have to ask her about what happened in the aftermath. I was just so astonished that it had actually happened, with her confirming that I had heard the story correctly, that I didn’t ask about why she didn’t say anything to anyone. An “Alice smear campaign” doesn’t sound too unbelievable for those in the patriarchy movement, so what Lynn mentions may actually have actually been a tactic to kill Alice the messenger so that no one would believe the stuff about the list. And I don’t know if that is true, but the other things I mentioned are absolutely true. It’s not exaggerated or hype or anything blown out of proportion. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the destruction of those archives would qualify as illegal.
But what do I know? I’m just a radical feminist twitterer that gossips and hates families and loves God knows what and hates God knows what else!
Regardless, what cause to does anyone have to trust the McDonalds, beyond the proof of “they have a lovely family” and the fact that I’m told that both of the McDonalds really know how to schmooze.
March 26, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Please note that Yahoo records the date of Patriarch’s Wives inception as 7/15/2000. Less than a DAY after Stacy tells Alice that her husband won’t let her run a list and that she doesn’t have the time and that running a list will take time away from her children.
When I confronted Stacy about her need to issue a public apology (I asked her to send a letter of apology to all the people she sent the Mt. 18 out to), I received the threat of “legal action” from James McDonald.
You see. Stacy tells us in her MT. 18 letter that things should be upfront and exposed and no one should have secrets behind the scenes.
Here are her exact words:
” You keep saying that I don’t know all that’s happened “behind the scenes.” That seems a bit convenient, don’t you think? Why should everything be a big secret? That’s how Satan gets a foothold. If there is sin or backbiting “behind the scenes,” EXPOSE it! It turns into speculation and gossip when everything is not upfront. You asked me several times not to forward your private notes to anyone. I would have to ask why?”
Indeed, Stacy. Why should we not forward private notes to anyone? Aren’t you and your moderators claiming that it is illegal, immoral and being a thief?
Alice seems to understand all too well what was going on behind the scenes of her list. Did you notice the offending post that Alice sent to HER list about agendas and such? She knew what was going on. Stacy would NEVER allow those things to go on at all. But, Alice is being called into question for putting Stacy on moderation? LOL!
March 26, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Oh, don’t forget….love covers a multitude of sins. I believe the same person who reminded us of that fact was on Alice’s old SIS list and also received the Matthew 18 letter over a petty grievance.
March 26, 2008 at 9:54 pm
This was posted on the SIS list. The bottom post was from a woman who received the MT 18 letter and was worried about the things the McDonalds were claiming concerning internet lists. They claimed that SIS was a “parachurch” ministry.
I am sure the irony will not be missed.
“Hi Ladies:
Not wanting to stir anything up or upset anyone, but since I have had some
requests, I thought it might be helpful to share that my husband and I have
both been told by Stacy and her husband that they believe the internet
lists that they are associated with are not just e-mail discussion lists
but rather that they are internet “para churches” and that members of these
internet para churches can and should send out e-mail messages across the
internet to other members at any time for the purpose of exposing sins if
they feel the need to. I am not comfortable sharing any of the e-mails
that I or my husband got, but I thought I should share this note that I
posted to the old SIS website guesbook just in case anyone is considering
joining the new list and may be interested. I would also be willing to
share our responses to their e-mails (privately or otherwise) if anyone
feels like it may help.
>>>>>> Posted to the old SIS website guesbook:
I do not know what is going on, but somehow I have been brought into
something because of my past affiliation with this list. I have received
e-mails from another subscriber (and even one from her husband to mine [this is a reference to the Mc's])
that they are sending out unsolicited e-mails to ladies for the purpose of
disciplining someone, and that they believe that the SISlist is an internet
para church. I don’t know if this agrees with the leadership of SIS, but if
this list DOES consider itself an internet para church that authorizes this
type of church “discipline” across the internet, I believe it MUST be
stated in the charter as such or else it is deception….and I believe it
is unbiblical to have a church (internet or not) that is not supervised by
men and/or has no elders, deacons, etc. I really would have never consented
to becoming part of the congregation of an all-ladies internet “para
church”. I hope this isn’t true. My understanding of the SIS charter was
that this is a ladies-only e-mail discussion list…..and only that. If
this list does consider itself some sort of internet para church that
should send out e-mails across the internet detailing the sins of others
and claim that it is SIS “church discipline,” then I believe that every
person that subscribes to SIS should be made aware that at any time, any
other member can and/or will send out their name and perceived “sins”
across the internet to every lady associated with this list (past and
present) as part of this “church’s” discipline…….and that it is done
with the full backing of the SISlist. I truly believe that if what I have
been told is true and that this list sees itself as an all-ladies internet
para church, then ladies should be made well aware of what it is that they
are subscribing to and what may/will happen with their names, perceived
sins, and e-mail addresses.”
March 26, 2008 at 10:11 pm
“I have listened to this sad story and had an opportunity to read
the thread of this discussion. As the spiritual head of my home, I
believe my wife’s heart and motives to be pure. I support her effort to help those in error and pray this message succeeds in reaching through the bitterness and softens hearts.”
Yikes!
Can anyone say “conflict of interest”???
I got a similar letter a couple of years later. It is really hard to respond to that. It is like someone saying “God told me.” Well, how can a person argue with God? Surely we cannot argue with the spiritual head of the home when he makes a proclamation about the purity of heart and motive in his wife. That, again, would be like arguing with God.
He supports her efforts to help those in error.
And prays that her message succeeds in reaching through Alice’s bitter and hard heart.
Of course. But, don’t mention the fact that this letter went out in the afternoon of 7/14/2000 and the Patriarch’s Wives list was up and running on 7/15/2000 with many of the members of SIS already joined up!
I wonder if Alice’s husband would claim that as head of his home, his wife is right? The could have a “Headship Arm Wrestle” to see whose wife is more pure in heart and motive and which spiritual leader wins the battle of the Dueling Headship.
How does a husband know if his wife’s heart and motives are pure? I thought only the Lord knows that? Honestly, what does claiming to be the “spiritual head of the home” have to do with this silly Matthew 18 letter? Do spiritual heads of home have a special insight given to them by God in order to discern the thoughts and motives of the heart? I thought that the Bible tells us we can’t even discern our OWN hearts. How in the world does a man discern someone else’s heart?
What was that line about “absolute power corrupts” in the Mt. 18?
In other words, it is like one dictator proclaiming that another dictator is pure in reasons for doing what he is doing. It just isn’t credible.
March 26, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Corrie:
“I wonder if Alice’s husband would claim that as head of his home, his wife is right? The could have a “Headship Arm Wrestle” to see whose wife is more pure in heart and motive and which spiritual leader wins the battle of the Dueling Headship.”
ROTFLOL
Back to lurking.
March 26, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I have just read through the last 40 or so comments that have evolved since I last read…and have to say, this stuff is truly TRULY eye-rollingly fascinating. Oh. My. I have two emotions that strongly well up within me: disgust and pity.
Disgust at how stupid and childish it all is, how FULLY it misses the gospel yet smatters the name of God all over it’s self as if by verse-dropping it will somehow magically be transformed into a good thing.
The pity stems from at how many people get caught up in it: and that includes a good dose of pity for the leaders of this movement, very few of whom likely do this stuff on purpose, but are themselves decieved, in matters of doctrine as well as decieved about the intentions of their own hearts.
I cannot believe I fell for this stuff. I cannot believe it. It all made so much sense, then, but I look at it now and it’s like so much manure. I pray that it composts into something life-giving for those currently mucking through this crap (which is what many here are doing with their experiences in the cult-of-the-family: using their stories to help others AVOID and ESCAPE this pit of hog manure!), because in it’s present state, it’s… pretty rank.
March 26, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Molly,
You know, I have thought so much about what you said the other day about Stacy’s testimony. Then it came down, and I forgot about it. Karen reposted that part this morning and it again included the point you made. When Stacy quoted that Scripture about Dinah getting raped/defiled, you said that this was not just Stacy’s rule, Stacy made it God’s rule. Corrie then aludes to it in her response to what Stacy wrote to Kym today.
Amidst the overwhelming number of things that came to light today, I just wanted to re-emphasize that. You pointed out incredibly well just how you put that out for everyone, and I know that Corrie got it, but for those who didn’t, it’s worth revisiting. No, it’s important to revisit.
http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/part-two-of-prairie-muffin-manifesto-discussion-karen/#comment-8138
March 27, 2008 at 12:03 am
In comment #218 (stacy’s email)
I loved this quote. Stacy says in her email:
It has been an extremely painful trial. I pray that ladies know my heart in this. If the truth is not known, it will continue to happen over and over again.
***************************************
Looks like she got her wish. It IS happening over and over again. Maybe eventually TRUTH will come out.
Be careful what you pray for.
March 27, 2008 at 1:04 am
Normal,
Yes, that is a good quote.
I also like this quote:
“You keep saying that I don’t know all that’s happened “behind the scenes.” That seems a bit convenient, don’t you think? Why should everything be a big secret? That’s how Satan gets a foothold. If there is sin or backbiting “behind the scenes,” EXPOSE it! It turns into speculation and gossip when everything is not upfront. ”
I agree. I am all for being up front so that things don’t turn into speculation and gossip.
March 27, 2008 at 1:43 am
My favorite quote of the day is from Corrie:
Stacy writes in round #2 to Kim on her blog to clarify:
“Someone is trying to claim that what I told you on March 19 is a lie.”
Corrie comments in response here:
It is not a claim.
It’s not a claim. It’s the God’s honest truth.
March 27, 2008 at 1:47 am
Let me try that again…
My favorite quote of the day is from Corrie:
Stacy writes in round #2 to Kim on her blog to clarify:
“Someone is trying to claim that what I told you on March 19 is a lie.”
Corrie comments in response here:
It is not a claim.
It’s not a claim. It’s the God’s honest truth….
I mean, of course, that it’s the God’s honest truth that we are not trying to claim that Stacy lied, but that it is the God’s honest truth that Stacy actually lied…
March 27, 2008 at 2:43 am
“You asked me several times not to forward your private notes to anyone. I would have to ask why?”
Here is another quote from Stacy. She is saying this to Alice in her Matthew 18 letter. Stacy seems to think there is something suspect with someone who asks a person not to forward PRIVATE emails out to anyone else. (Not to mention that Stacy’s correspondence is marked “PRIVATE” in the subject line and she expects the person to honor her wishes.)
Now, we are talking about emails that Alice wrote to Stacy, iow, private emails.
We are not even talking about testimonies written to Yahoo groups which have 800 members.
Marcia? Janet? Anyone else? Would it be fair to ask the exact same question of Stacy since this very question was part of her confrontation of Alice? IOW, this question was used to impugn Alice. It is only fair to turn it around, right?
So, here goes:
You have asked the PW list members, several times, not to forward out any posts to the 800 member PW list. I would have to ask why?
I would also like to ask Alice, if she is reading, or anyone else if during this process of the trumping up of Matthew 18 charges, was any of your private mail or list mail forwarded out by Stacy or those she was working with behind the scenes of this Matthew 18 letter?
March 27, 2008 at 2:59 am
So, let me see if I am understanding this all correctly…..
Stacy was a moderator on a list owned and created by Alice. But she planned a hostile take-over of that list and within a day of resigning from the list had her own PW list up and ready to go? And did she take a large mailing list with her? I seem to recall that this is also how Vision Forum began, with a pilfered mailing list.
Can this all really be true? And poor Marion was lectured about ethics? Oh my.
March 27, 2008 at 3:25 am
Well, Stacy can wiggle out of this a little. There was another person involved who wants no more to do with this debate because she is so traumatized by it all. There was another player in the mix with Alice and Stacy.
This nameless person and Alice started the whole internet thing when internet was complicated and mostly only geek high school and college engineering students had them because you had to know code… Stacy cozied up to the two of them, then lured the other person away from Alice. What I expect Stacy will say is that it was this other player that actually took the list and did the crashing, though that other player apologized and repented and sent out emails. But by the time she figured out what was up with Stacy, Stacy had already taken many of those women with her. Those women had already started drinking the McDonald Kool-aide, so they refused to hear anything in Alice’s favor.
Stacy then recruited this internet savvy person to work on their projects, and that all ended up so badly for this person that she wont risk getting mixed up in any more of this with the McDonalds.
This is often the case with spiritual abusers. There are about half a dozen people like this who had similar dealings with Doug Phillips, but they are so beaten down and miserable or sick with stress-related disorders after contending against him, and they are so aggressive, they just give up. It’s not worth it after awhile. And many fear that their kids are going to get harassed, too.
So the truth about why websites vanished may never be corroborated or documented. Unpaid bills from webmasters and printers trail behind the patriarchy movement. Much of this goes undocumented because people are just too freaked and pressed and tired to come forward after long contending with these folks. It really is a shame.
That’s where “radical feminists” open theist whatever we ares like Corrie and me come in. Right, Corrie?
March 27, 2008 at 3:33 am
I said unclearly:
What I expect Stacy will say is that it was this other player that actually took the list and did the crashing, though that other player apologized and repented and sent out emails. But by the time she figured out what was up with Stacy, Stacy had already taken many of those women with her.
Let me clarify…
Stacy cozied up to Alice and internet and website guru when the medium was in it’s infancy. (When we didn’t have WYSIWYG and all these “do it yourself” free blog sites…)
Stacy temporarily turns said guru/third player against Alice.
Guru/third player/ internet geek eventually gets wise to the McDonalds and sends apology letters and recants and repents to those who would listen and those on the list.
By this time, most everyone (the next day) had sipped the Koolaide at the Patriarch Wives website, and no one would listen or believe much positive information about Alice at this point. Alice has been largely unrecognized and falsely maligned for nearly eight years.
The internet guru/third player eventually gets wise to the McDonalds which created some other internet related problems for them. Hhmmm. What internet related problems have the McDonald’s had? Hmm…
What does James say on his new blog, following a day or so after commentary about a certain topic that was introduced here? The mystery of the amazing disappearing website….
You can fool some people some of the time, but you can’t fool everybody and you can’t fool everybody forever.
March 27, 2008 at 3:45 am
thatmom wrote: Stacy was a moderator on a list owned and created by Alice. But she planned a hostile take-over of that list and within a day of resigning from the list had her own PW list up and ready to go? And did she take a large mailing list with her? I seem to recall that this is also how Vision Forum began, with a pilfered mailing list.
This is the truth, absolutely, according to Alice, that webmaster/guru/third party who Stacy temporarily deceived, Corrie, and a few others.
Now what twist Stacy will give it is another story. She will likely shift all the blame on the webmaster/guru/nameless third party because she eventually parted ways with them and bludgeoned her. She did the stealing and she did the crashing, and she may well have participated because she was recruited by the McDonalds to do their thing. But that did not last and she did repent and own up to what she did.
Alice claims that before surgery that she had scheduled not long after this event, she called James to say, “before this surgery, I’d like to have a clean slate, etc.” James reportedly referred Alice to Stacy. Stacy refused to talk to Alice because Stacy said that she doesn’t cohort with liars.
Alice also received threatening calls while she was still in the hospital, in pain and on pain meds, soon after her major surgery… I know others who are terrorized by other people in patriarchy who are connected to the McDonalds. There are similar things that go on with others, so this is not atypical behavior. These others are also unwilling to come forward because they are either ill or too stressed or too traumatized to do it. It’s just not worth it to them at this point, and they would like to enjoy their lives and livelyhoods, not walking around under the pressure that some of these folks can dish out.
I can’t document any of this other than to say that I talked to Alice and this was her account. I can’t document the other information because people wont come forward. So take that for what it’s worth, but this is a faithful account of Alice’s experience and what Alice told me. I really believe her, partly because she put herself in harms way to speak to me, and partly because I’ve heard the same types of stories from many others in patriarchy who are affiliated with the McDonalds. These are a threatening, aggressive, brave new breed of karma Calvinist, discipline loving folks.
March 27, 2008 at 3:48 am
I talked with Alice and I have been corresponding with her for some time as well. She’s got an awesome testimony. I fell in love with her right away, and she has been a great encouragement to me in my life outside of patriarchy as well. Corrie would definitely have the same thing to say and more. She’s true blue.
Karen,
You and TW definitely are owed an apology, but Alice! Alice has waited for vindication for almost eight years. I’m proud and honored to help bring it to light. God bless her for all she endured with all of this.
March 27, 2008 at 4:02 am
Oh, before I forget….
Alice approached the McDonalds and asked that they work things out. Alice told James McDonald or perhaps both James and STacy both that she didn’t even want an apology. She was quite happy to have the McDonalds contact those to whom they sent that letter (the bit Matt 18 one with the two witnesses at the end, one of whom was James), and to say simply and only that Alice had “reconciled” with the McDonalds without details or apologies or anything. Short and sweet. James deferred to Stacy and Stacy outright refused.
And here’s the kicker. This is what spiritual abusers do. This is what con-men do. This is what cult leaders do. They can look you right in the eye, know they’ve lied or used you and never bat that eye. They are glib, they feel entitled to whatever they want and they aren’t bothered by ethics. So Stacy can get up in the morning and can call me and whoever else the biggest liars on the planet and call for fire and brimstone to fall from heaven and play the victim… all the while knowing they are fully culpable. And they can do so without a twinge of conscience, as a general rule.
I don’t have a twinge of conscience, because I have told the absolute truth and I did so with a good intent: so that people can avoid the garbage I went through with other people in another group. The dynamics are the same and the stories are all similar, only the details change. They read like the textbook.
March 27, 2008 at 4:10 am
“Stacy was a moderator on a list owned and created by Alice. But she planned a hostile take-over of that list and within a day of resigning from the list had her own PW list up and ready to go? And did she take a large mailing list with her? I seem to recall that this is also how Vision Forum began, with a pilfered mailing list.”
I don’t know if she resigned from that list or not? As you can see by Alice’s comments that Stacy quotes from Alice’s PRIVATE SIS list and sent those PRIVATE comments to a couple hundred people or more, that Alice knew something was up.
Alice moderated Stacy and the other moderator unmoderated Stacy and gave her moderator privileges. Stacy started attacking Alice and Alice’s family on the SIS list after Alice called an article that Stacy or the other moderator (in cahoots with one another) sent in to make Alice angry. It was an article bashing Elizabeth Elliot. Alice defended Elliot. (The irony!) Alice called the article “junk” and told the list that some ladies need to study their bibles more instead of formulating their own agendas.
I believe that she even made a false accusation against Alice’s son and tried to use some information about Alice’s family to try and discredit Alice and she used it to prove to the SIS list that Alice was not fit to be owner of the SIS list because of a situation in her family. Alice had confided this in Stacy at one time thinking she could trust Stacy with the information but it was later used against her during, what I like to call the “mutiny”.
I am not sure why Stacy thinks that Alice’s personal life factored into the running of a dinky list like SIS when her personal life doesn’t factor into her growing and very public ministry?
Stacy did take a lot of the SIS members with her by using the SIS member roster. I even think a couple of her moderators were on the SIS list at the time this all went down.
I don’t know if she wanted to take over SIS as much as she wanted to destroy Alice and overthrow her. She sent out the Matthew 18 letter where she stated that she doesn’t want to manage a list (Alice had it figured out) because her husband wouldn’t let her and she didn’t want to neglect her children and she didn’t have the time. Stacy claimed that she just needed to do the right thing and this had nothing to do with wanting to be in control of the SIS list.
Less than 24 hours after making these declarations in that Mt. 18 letter that it was not about running a list and that there was no desire to own her own list, Patriarch’s Wives was up and running and plans were underway for the bookstore and the Patriarch’s Path website. Why would you make those statements one day and the very next day do exactly what you said you can’t/won’t/weren’t allowed to do?
Tell me that this was not a coup and I will show you a great piece of swampland for sale.
Surely calling an article “junk” written by David Cloud which was slamming Elizabeth Elliot because she had a Catholic brother was not the REAL reason for that Matthew 18 letter and all the junk that went on in the few days beforehand.
The PW list is heavily moderated and so is Stacy’s blog. What Alice did in moderating Stacy is peanuts compared to what goes on in her realm.
I remember thinking, at the time, that this whole thing was too weird because it seemed over the top. It was too irrational for me so it made it hard for me to understand.
The other moderator has since apologized to Alice and has had her own problems with the McDonalds.
When I requested Stacy to go back and make this right by going to her list and all the women she sent that letter out to, I was quickly shushed with a threat by her husband.
It seems that helping those in error is only for a certain elite few. Matthew 18 only goes one way.
I do know that there were quite a few that would have loved to speak out against this whole thing but they were too afraid. I don’t blame them.
March 27, 2008 at 4:18 am
“I talked with Alice and I have been corresponding with her for some time as well. She’s got an awesome testimony. I fell in love with her right away, and she has been a great encouragement to me in my life outside of patriarchy as well. Corrie would definitely have the same thing to say and more. She’s true blue.”
Cindy,
That is certainly true. Even though Alice and I have had our differences and we don’t see eye to eye on everything, I love her like a sister. She IS true blue. She has helped shape me as a mom and wife and has given me some great advice throughout the years, even if I didn’t want to hear it at the time.
And I don’t do this at her request, at all. She never has put me up to this. I just know that I have been in situations where injustice has been done to me and everyone is too afraid to stand up for what is right. I do this all on my own initiative. I didn’t ask her for permission at all.
After reading the response to Kym and the responses from the PW moderators and then reviewing the Matthew 18 letter, it just could not have been suppressed any longer.
March 27, 2008 at 4:31 am
“By this time, most everyone (the next day) had sipped the Koolaide at the Patriarch Wives website, and no one would listen or believe much positive information about Alice at this point. Alice has been largely unrecognized and falsely maligned for nearly eight years.”
I also know that there were a couple who were double-dipping on both the SIS and PW list after all of this took place and anything said on the new SIS list about this situation (Stacy was still talking about it in “private” email to others) was sent back to Stacy. So, those on the SIS list were taking posts and forwarding out to others outside of the SIS list.
That is why I find this whole new drama about the “archive prowler(s)” to be so amusing.
“The mystery of the amazing disappearing website….
You can fool some people some of the time, but you can’t fool everybody and you can’t fool everybody forever.”
I didn’t get this at first but now I do. The Path website went down and the reason given was weird. I remember that.
There is so much more to all of this and there are many who have shown amazing constraint, especially when constantly being barraged with false accusations of “liar” and “bitter”.
I am still going back to the statement about being up front and honest so that there is no gossip and speculation. I think that honesty is the best policy.
Maybe I have been ruined because I worked in politics for a while but this stuff is as plain as the nose on my face.
March 27, 2008 at 4:34 am
http://www.cephasministry.com/evangelists_elisabeth_elliott.html
This is kind of like the article that Alice commented on that earned her the Mt. 18.
If you want more such articles, just go to wayoflife(dot)org
March 27, 2008 at 5:02 am
I was having trouble sleeping, so here I am with a nice and quiet, late night activity. I cranked the computer back up…
Another thing that Alice told me that came up with Stacy that Alice said was stupid was another article that Stacy wrote wherein she said or implied that Pentecostals/Charismatics were not Christian. Alice says that she told Stacy that this idea was just stupid as well.
What’s so odd about it is that the McDonalds were Pentecostal/Charismatic for a long time. Most Pentecostal denominations do not ordain elders or pastors that have been divorced and remarried. The Reformed church does… Hmmm… Think about it. SBC ordination? Where does that fit in if James came from “under the spout where the glory comes out.” (Commonly used phrase of RHB…) Fool proof plan if no one is the wiser.
So it all boils down to whether you believe that Stacy is a fallible, very human person and that James is also very human someone who cannot live up to his own standards, something I’ve said several times before. But for grace there go I.
OR
You believe the press and the damage control and the pejoratives and the hiding of information and the theft and the deceit. And you believe the bad press and the deChristianization if not dehumanization of people like Alice and Corrie and Karen and me. I have nothing to gain but a lot of time and energy and frustration to loose.
But as George Elliot once said, what good does it do to gain that which you cannot keep to gain that which you cannot loose? Truth is going to prevail and outlast heaven and earth. I can live with out the hassle, but I can’t and don’t want to live without the truth.
March 27, 2008 at 5:04 am
This quote SO applies:
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.”
–Blaise Pascal
March 27, 2008 at 6:12 am
There’s something else that’s sad. I know of one situation in which a very vulnerable, unstable person has been frequenting Stacy’s site lately; I know this because the person herself proudly states that she has and that she really admires Stacy.
Just in the past week or so, she’s taken to using distinctive phrases and pet epithets that Stacy uses, and she’s parroting Stacy’s denouncements, even down to accusations against people who quote from her blog as “stealing” from her.
Stacy is leading at least one very vulnerable woman astray and into a pattern of false accusations and railing. Given the number of people reportedly on her list, it’s almost certain that many more naive or vulnerable women are getting the idea that Stacy’s MO is how mature Christian women ought to behave.
Teachers are held to a higher standard, because there is so much at stake. Stacy has accepted a “teacher’s” mantle; she ought to face up to her responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is to admit wrongdoing even before she’s caught red-handed in it; this nonsense of defending her sinful behavior to the bitter end is turning up in some pretty sad quarters here on the ‘net, and it’s neither pretty nor christlike.
March 27, 2008 at 8:44 am
“Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides
Who covers faults, at last shame them derides”
Shakespeare – King Lear
Having read this last lot of posts, I find the behaviour exposed sickening, and disgusting, and so very very typical of the behaviour that turns people off Christianity. Where is it said in the new Testament “See how these Christians love one another”? Not in this cult atmosphere.
I think you’re doing an excellent job here, but I feel sorry that you should have to get involved in all of this. The Vision Forum message is so seductive . . . does anyone know what the statistics are on ‘Vision Forum’ homeschooled/keepers at home daughters and granddaughters who have turned their backs on it? Are there any men who speak out against the party line? And how many of the blogs I read espouse this mix of poisonous misogyny, separatist and supremacist racism/kinism and sheer panic-stricken retreat from reality. The sugar coating disguises the poison very prettily, doesn’t it?
Perhaps it’s true that for some people truth is what they can persuade others to believe . . .
March 27, 2008 at 10:04 am
If I may come in somewhat off-topic, this all goes against my sense of what should and should not be in the world–my sense of right and wrong, good and evil.
If someone succeeds in a hostile takeover, such as what has been discussed here with Stacy against Alice, they should not be rising in apparent success eight years later.
But I know that this is true. The same thing happened many years ago when a person from National Right to Life left the organization and took their mailing list with her. She formed her own organization, American Life League, by contacting every single person on the huge mailing list that she stole from Right to Life. She’s now a big shot in the pro-life movement, regularly seen on the news, and having face time with presidents, cardinals and even Pope John Paul before his death.
Psalms 2:1 Why do the heathen rage?
March 27, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Would someone consider making this story on what happened to Alice a separate entry of its own? Reason as follows:
My absolute conviction is this — it appears that James and Stacy, from their own words, are like the Baylys, in that they view their online activities as extensions of their church ministries. Hence, the “Matthew 18-ing” of Alice.
If that is the role they think they have, then, according to Scripture, it is not just their teaching which should be examined, but also their character. And that is completely fair, given what they did, and what they have said about how they view their online work.
And this kind of **** that happened to Alice, if it happened as some of you testify that it did (and I do believe you, I’m just reasoning here), reveals character. And not in a good way. And it ought to be dealt with.
From the history of what happened, down to the threat Corrie got when she tried to confront it — I think it ought to be made a separate expose all its own.
March 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm
There’s something else that’s sad. I know of one situation in which a very vulnerable, unstable person has been frequenting Stacy’s site lately; I know this because the person herself proudly states that she has and that she really admires Stacy
I know this person you are referring to.
I’ve read the blog articles, and yesterday this woman claimed her husband thinks I and others are “kooks.”
I don’t know if her husband actually said that or believes that about me, but, thankfully, that comment is now down and this woman is singing the praises of Stacy McDonald and Passionate Housewives Desperate for Power . . . oops, I mean Passionate Housewives Despearate to Play God . . . oops, I mean . . . you know what I mean.
March 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Even if all this behind-the-scenes stuff about list takeovers and archives destroyed, and so on isn’t true (which I am pretty sure it is) you have to admit that the one glaring area Stacy et al obviously struggle with is that of NAME CALLING.
White washed feminists
radical feminists
marble sink mothers
gossips, liars, slanderers
kooks and who knows what else!
It cheapens their “witness” to such a degree I doubt they’re PASSIONATE about being housewives as much as they’re passionate about being in power and being right.
(Lindsey—in case any of you were confused by my handle)
March 27, 2008 at 1:22 pm
And here’s the kicker. This is what spiritual abusers do. This is what con-men do. This is what cult leaders do. They can look you right in the eye, know they’ve lied or used you and never bat that eye. They are glib, they feel entitled to whatever they want and they aren’t bothered by ethics. So Stacy can get up in the morning and can call me and whoever else the biggest liars on the planet and call for fire and brimstone to fall from heaven and play the victim… all the while knowing they are fully culpable. And they can do so without a twinge of conscience, as a general rule.”
that is because they do not understand Hebrews 10: 26-31. If they did, they would fall on their face in shame and repent before it is too late.
March 27, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Corrie wrote:
I also know that there were a couple who were double-dipping on both the SIS and PW list after all of this took place and anything said on the new SIS list about this situation (Stacy was still talking about it in “private” email to others) was sent back to Stacy. So, those on the SIS list were taking posts and forwarding out to others outside of the SIS list.
That is why I find this whole new drama about the “archive prowler(s)” to be so amusing.
Oh, my. In addition to messing over Alice for so long, they NOW claim that Karen has to take down the email sent to the PW, but THEY spied on other groups and felt nothing about forwarding the archives of other groups?
The hypocrisy is past hip deep right now.
March 27, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“The Vision Forum message is so seductive . . . does anyone know what the statistics are on ‘Vision Forum’ homeschooled/keepers at home daughters and granddaughters who have turned their backs on it?”
Johanna,
I think the VF movement is too new to be able to have many statistics. Another problem is that these daughters who have walked away are basically excommunicated from their families or not spoken of. There are sons, too, who have “forsaken” their father’s/mother’s vision.
On the PW list, recently, someone made reference of this blog being made up of radical feminists and “rebellious daughters”.
Hmmmm….I didn’t know that there were rebellious daughters taking part in this discussion?
March 27, 2008 at 1:35 pm
“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.”
–Blaise Pascal
Molleth! Perfect quote.
You know why this stuff works, folks? Because it is so blatant and obvious that no one believes it because it is done in the Name of Christ. It is like what another commenter said that they can look you in the eye and lie.
Sending the Matt 18 letter was nothing but a cover for sin. It is called ‘pre-emptive’ strike or playing ‘offense’. Always remember, evil people have planned several steps ahead. The whole thing was planned out.
All of this has been done to promote a personal ministry, obtain more power and make money off these poor ignorant souls. They are receiving their reward now. Matthew 6
This is why Stacy’s syrupy sweet pretense wrapped in twisting scripture and being ‘persecuted’ by anyone who dares disagree, has never fooled me.
March 27, 2008 at 1:48 pm
“There’s something else that’s sad. I know of one situation in which a very vulnerable, unstable person has been frequenting Stacy’s site lately;”
Psalmist,
Not only has she been frequenting the blog but they are in contact via private email. I can only imagine.
March 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Oh, if y’all DO make a main message about how Stacy stuck it to Alice, etc., I think it would be good to use Stacy’s own words about getting everything right out in front as part of the main entry.
March 27, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Corrie, I agree about this individual and Stacy emailing each other.
I read an exchange on one of her blogs, where comments used to be turned on.
Stacy asked her to email her privately. That comment was taken down. But I’m sure they are emailing now.
March 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Oh, yes, I’m well into middle age now, helping when I can to care for my mother, who would see through Stacy McDonald in a heartbeat, and my father, if told the details, and knowing what I’ve heard him say about religious hypocrites, would tell me her face belongs on a three dollar bill.
I’m a rebellious daughter?
When I KNOW my mother thinks the same way I do, and I know almost exactly what my father (now passed away and with the Lord) would say?
Right.
March 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Cindy,
I have images of you cranking up your computer ala “Green Acres” and you playing the part of Zsa Zsa Gabor!
“Where does that fit in if James came from “under the spout where the glory comes out.” (Commonly used phrase of RHB…) Fool proof plan if no one is the wiser.”
LOL! I have never heard of this euphemism. What is “RHB”?
“I can live with out the hassle, but I can’t and don’t want to live without the truth.”
Exactly.
Hey, us peons are being called all sorts of things for daring to hold our leaders accountable because they run roughshod over other peons for the silliest reasons? Why is it they can “splatter” the smelly stuff all over the internet about others but those “others” are not allowed to hold them accountable for their unbiblical and ungodly actions? Not to mention, hold them accountable for their rank hypocrisy as evidenced so very clearly in the Matthew 18 letter.
Then we get to the ridiculous majoring on minors concerning the Archive Assassin. It was a public testimony sitting in plain view of 800 people (and more if you think about how many people have come and gone throughout the years, including me) and the reason people are throwing stink bomb accusations at the person or persons who dared to break rank in order to show the blatant breaking of the 9th Commandment is because they don’t want us to see the real problem.
Well, when people lie (break the law) and bear false witness against their neighbors and expect to get away with it, they often go to extremes to cover up the truth.
Please.
Can I just say this:
“Woe to you teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices — mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law — justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel” (Matthew 23:23,24)
Yes, they have not practiced the latter- justice, mercy and faithfulness in order that they can go after the letter of the law and throw the book at people when they are 100X more guilty of the very same offense.
March 27, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Does anyone know if Stacy writes about her experience with what I think she referred to as the “laughing revival” or the Charismatic church online, or was that in something someone forwarded me? (Reference to the “Toronto Blessing” that swept through the Pentecostal church starting circa 1994-95 — RHB and all that.) Was it in one of those illegal, private emails, or does she write about that publicly? I know that I read it, but I don’t know where.
Generally when people send me that Patriarch’s Wives stuff, I don’t read it. Most people don’t offer explanations for why they send me things, so I don’t know sometimes what it is they want me to pick up on. So I may have read this in one of those comments from that list. I wonder if that’s supposed to be privledged information — where the McDonalds attended church before the whole RPCGA thing.
And this all could be crystal clear if James would tell the world where he was ordained and when in the SBC. Find the pastor or the archives or an elder or two and a little old lady or two that never missed a Sunday service in 40 years… There would be someone that could verify that there was a church and an ordination.
If an explaination is ever offered as to why there is no documentation or why the ordination is the biggest secret since who shot JFK, it will be some disaster sob story as to why there are no living, breathing bodies that can confirm anything. I suppose it is some church that fell apart in scandal and people changed their names so you can’t track down the elders, and it just so happens all the records were washed away in the great flood that overtook the church and washed it off its foundations. Or everyone in attendance one Sunday disappeared, and all they found were the initials “CRO” carved in a nearby tree. (Actually, that’s Virginia history.)
Another of the many unanswered questions that would be so entirely simple, putting to end all of this “twittering.”
March 27, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Oh Corrie,
If you get enough of the Word of God into you and you get enough of the tangible anointing, surely the Spirit will take you to that higher level of understanding, very like unto that higher living of patriarchy and living the Vision Forum 200 year plan for multigenerational faithfulness, and you would know who RHB is. In fact, I wonder if the men in the one anointed group could out-arm wrestle the great patriarchs.
Did you know that many of the ideas that Federal Vision teaches are actually also taught in the Word of Faith movement. Did you know that you can get so full of the Spirit and the Word that you will not sin and not get sick? Just like patriarchy… Do the right stuff and conduct your visionary family in the right visionary way per the right visionary plan, and you can have a perfect, lovely family with virtually guaranteed outcomes. It’s all about taking dominion, but each group goes about it in a little different way.
And I bet I know who could tell you, who RHB is and what that phrase means….
March 27, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I had to do it the fleshly, old-fashioned way, not the spiritual way.
I Googled “RHB charismatic” and came up with the name “Rodney Howard-Browne.”
March 27, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Wow, what a run of fascinating posts!
I have a couple thoughts this morning.
First of all, isn’t it interesting that the PW list began in 2000? (Does the Patriarchs’ list for the boys have the same sorts of issues? Does anyone here have a husband or dad who is on that list? Did it start at the same time? Do they maintain the same sorts of deception and control?)
I have been thinking about where this all came from and I believe that there is a correlation between the great disappointment of Y2K and the start of the patriarchy movement. Let me give a mini-history.
I know many people are under the assumption that the patriarchy movement actually started modern homeschooling etc. but that is absolutely not true. In fact, this new patriarchy movement is a johnny-come-lately group of homeschoolers for the most part though they are certainly not the first to dream up some of the things the newer homeschooling leaders have taken to such extremes.
We began homeschooling in the early 80’s and came in on the coattails of the Moores and Holt and others who promoted homeschooling mostly for academic reasons. Bill Gothard had just begun his ATI program…we were in the 3rd year group where all the curriculum was still a prototype. Even then, Gothard was far more mainstream than today’s patriarchs. He always spoke of mothers in very lofty terms, not as on some pedestal, but recognizing her value in the home. In fact, in the Advanced Seminar, the father is exhorted to acknowledge this and even to acknowledge their shared authority in the home. Christian homeschooling began to grow in those days but it was built on the foundation that had been built by others, many of whom were not even Christians at all.
Also in the early 80’s, Jonathan Lindvall began making the speaking circuit and he held to all the views of hyper-protection of children, especially daughters, that were now being promoted by VF, McDonalds, Botkins, etc. Every time I read some of the stuff these people write, I have to chuckle because they present it as though they are sharing some grand revelation bestowed upon them and they HAVE to write about it. The truth is, I have yet to read a single original thought from these people. But the group of their devotees think they are “so wise” and they NEVER give credit to others for these notions. It is amazing to me. It is deceptive and thievery. It is also a now a system that has taken these views from years ago and devised legalistic, abusive ways of furthering their message, their vision, and their cause.
Which brings me back to the Y2K theory. We had a lot of exposure to Y2K zealots during the late 1990’s and one thing that you could hear in their rhetoric was that they were actually looking forward to the total collapse of civilization as we know it because they honestly believed that they were the ones who were going to save the world and take dominion.
After January 1, 2000 arrived without nary a glitch, how were they going to be able to take dominion? Society, after all, hadn’t collapsed requiring all dominionists to be called forth to run the government, health care, education systems, etc. It would have to be through patriarchy, neo-hierarchy, neo-legalism in the church, militant fecundity, etc., those areas over which they could take immediate control. They could begin their own churches, even their own denominations. They could toss out the birth control. They could write their own school curriculum, teach it to their children and, heck, they could even sell it to others. The could write books and articles and take advantage of technology, especially the internet. And the best way to do it would be by targeting the homeschooling families, playing upon both their fears of the culture and their frustrations within the local church. So the NCFIC was dreamed up and with it came the ever moving-to-the-far-end-of-the-spectrum patriocentric movement. It was a perfect plan.
The reality that many of the PW’s and their friends don’t realize is that it isn’t those in the normal middle who have moved (thanks for that great phrase, Lindsey) but it is them. Those of you who have been around homeschooling for many years, tell me who has gotten whacky? I still believe all the things that I believed when I started this adventure 23 years ago. I still teach my children the same things I always did. But now, I am the “radical feminist” because I don’t cotton to being lied to and because I won’t make the father the central part of home life? Because truth is more important than paradigm to me? Because I dare to challenge self-appointed gurus or guruesses who have scratched and connived and abused their way to the top?
You know, it all came together for me in one, just one, moment last summer. It was that one experience that brought all the crossroads together and made the whole map make a whole lot of sense. A woman who had been a friend of mine told me that I was misinterpreting Stacy’s teachings. I told her I had read every single thing available online and in print that I knew of that Stacy had written and I addressed my concerns, concluding with the proof that Stacy had lied publicly. Her response to me was “What difference does it make if Stacy lied?” That was the turning point for me. It was then that I realized how very dangerous this movement was becoming and that people like Stacy, though I really wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt, are dangerous. When homeschooling moms start to lie and cheat and threaten, as we have seen done repeatedly, and other homeschooling moms come to their defense, as we have seen Janet and my friend and countless others do, then we have reached a place that I suppose was predictable. After all, we are talking about dominion ends justifying the means.
God help us all.
March 27, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Karen,
I’ve been lurking here reading the visionary daughters thread as you suggested but following this thread as well. I’ve de-lurked just now because as one who also began home schooling in the 80s, I want to give a hearty amen to your last post. You are NOT screwy but right on target.
I never heard the term “dominionist” until the early to mid 90s and then from an Ezzo mom. It just wasn’t that popular or well known. I also agree that the teachings are not new but “borrowed” from earlier sources. Remember “The Way Home” in which Mary Pride discussed some of these issues and how she even taught there was only one correct way in which to be intimate with your husband? Augh. Don’t get me started!
As my daughter in law says, “You go, girl!”
March 27, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Sandy,
Thank you for de-lurking and your comments are welcome any time.
You know, I remember reading The Way Home for the first time and finding it to be such a breath of fresh air, at least most of it. Now, while I still like many of the points she makes, I cringe at other points and especially the tone.
Back then and from my vantage point, I had no older women encouraging me to home school or have as many children as we had, etc. In my zeal to “exhort” other moms, I shared that book with a couple people who were really offended, especially by the section you mentioned on intimacy. Naively, I thought that these women would read the book the way I did, not taking every word as equal to the Gospel. Ouch, is all I can say. I don’t think those women have ever looked at me the same since!
And, hey, is a daughter-in-law a terrific thing or what? One of mine just sent me a box of Godiva chocolates just because she loves me! I am blessed.
March 27, 2008 at 3:44 pm
OK, I know I would horrify some people (not people here, hopefully) by saying what I’m going to say and I don’t care. I Would Rather Live In A Country Run By Levelheaded Unbelievers Than Nutty Christians. *gasp* I really would.
comment 264 – WOW very enlightening
The conversation has gotten quite depressing so I personally need to not get too much into it till it dies down. But I thought I would say that.
March 27, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Hi Sandy!
I remember reading The Way Home when I was a very very impressionable young girl. *sigh* Of course I swallowed everything trustingly. But you said not to get you started, so …
March 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Beatrice, I’m with you. I’m not at all convinced that Hillary Clinton is the she-devil that dominionist types make her out to be. I probably won’t be voting in the general election because I don’t have a candidate (unless McCain gets Condaleeza to be his running mate and then I’ll march myself down to the polling place when they open to cast my vote for him)… but I’m not really all the concerned with who wins. I probably should be, but I’m not.
I read much of “The Way Home” and, frankly, I was incensed and disgusted. The overall tone of that book is so heavy-handed. Mary Pride just seems like a bitter, rude woman. And her sections on sex are just ridiculous. Yep, using birth control turns men into homosexuals. That’s what Paul is talking about in Romans 1. That book was given to me by a well-meaning friend who has caused a lot of problems in our church in her attempt to spread the VF ideals. Its really a shame… I’d NEVER give THAT book to evangelize someone over to the QF mindset. Ever.
March 27, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Karen,
Thanks for the blast from the past. You are correct in stating that the patriarchalists do NOT own the credit for making homeschooling legal. They were Johnny-come-latelys and it wasn’t until the mid-90s did they really start taking over the conventions and turning them into Fearfests where people prepared for the up and coming trauma of Y2K.
Also, if you think about it, the McDonalds didn’t even marry until mid-1995. That would make them not even starting to homeschool until 1996 or later because that is when they had their first child together. She could have homeschooled her daughter from her first marriage but I believe she was only 5 at the time so she wasn’t really even legally compelled to go to school yet. Also, James’ four older children didn’t live with them right away and they didn’t come to live with them until Stacy was expecting their first child together. So, they were very new to the whole thing but were the expert by the year 2000? How in the world did that happen in such a short amount of time? Where did they come from? What were their backgrounds? And why does no one care? It causes me concern when all of a sudden people who just got married (second marriages for both) and haven’t even been homeschooling for any length of time comes onto the scene and starts telling everyone to follow them! Do they tell how they first got into the homeschooling movement and how long they have been homeschooling? Do they women on PW know that they have been married and homeschooling for much less time than many of the members on that list?
I started homeschooling in 1993. That is when Jonathan Lindvall was pretty popular at homeschool conventions and his “sheltering” teachings were really the rage. He advised parents not to let their children out of their sight. That families should fellowship with other whole families and not children with only children….ever. He taught that they should not have their own individual social lives. Sound familiar?
The Y2K debacle was an embarassment for the patriarchal movement. I think that opened a lot of people’s eyes. It is not as claimed on a list that must not be named that too many liberals are homeschooling and have now perverted the pure homeschool conventions. The McDonalds started getting in with Phil Lancaster and I believe it was after the whole aftermath of the clock hitting midnight on 12/31/1999. I believe they even were talking about moving to Virginia (Rivendell) during this time, too. This was the “bunker” where they were going to survive in a Christian utopia while all the other worldly Christians went to hell in a hand basked…which they rightly deserved, btw.
Even Bill Gothard spoke up against all the hysteria that was going on in the homeschool movement. I saw many people sucked into all of it and gave up their life’s savings and then some to get equipped with propane and generators and survival food and guns and ammo. I sat back and watched. And I am called “gullible”! LOL And we are accused of wanting to hear things that tickle our ears?
I will tell you that these people were rabid. I you would even dare to give your take on the whole thing and how we need not fear but trust the Lord and your head would be on a spit.
I prepared. I had refried beans, tortilla chips and diet coke.
We were set! I remember sitting on the couch, nursing my new little baby and it turning midnight. I never lost a minute of peace or rest because I knew Who was in control.
And, then when the whole thing was over, the patriarchalists suddenly got quiet and you heard nary a word about how wrong they were. No apologies for their gleeful and boastful predictions of gloom and doom and certain chaos for all the stupid Christians who wouldn’t listen to their prophecies.
All their prophecies evoked by the “spiritual heads” came to naught. Good thing they do not have their OT theonomic system in place yet or they would be lying under a pile of rocks.
And, because some speak the truth and tell their opinion they are called “kooks” and accused of having “daffy theology”? Yeah right!
Well, if this is daft, I don’t want the alternative!
An another note, Alice was the first to speak up against Gwen Shamblin way back before anyone ever got a whiff of what was wrong in her doctrine. Alice got her head bit off for speaking the truth about their favorite guru. I still remember Alice telling the ladies that they must be really hungry to behave in such an ornery fashion and that they should just go ahead and eat a donut! LOL
I am also very happy that the homeschooling conventions seem to be going back to NORMAL. My husband got to the point where he refused to go because he said it was like going to a cult event.
I would like to interview the husbands of these women who are following after Stacy and the like. I would LOVE to know what they have to say about the whole thing. I am sure it would be enlightening.
March 27, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Oh Karen…
I have been trying and trying to put some of this stuff into perspective. I just wrote to someone not an hour ago about whatever it was that sparked the aggression and antagonism within these circles. I kept pondering 9/11, but that didn’t make sense.
But I was very distracted through all of the Y2K business, so I didn’t see and process a lot of what was going on. I was well primed, though. I used to read the McAlvaney report (or however you spell it) and we were buying a house when I read a book called “Bankruptcy 1994.” I wondered if we should or should not buy, asking the loan officer a million goofy “What if..” questions. But then we walked from our “more mainstream” group affiliated with Gothard in ‘97.
We moved to Texas, and my husband’s job and health crises absorbed our lives, and we were concerned with a different sort of survival. Things were rough for a number of years with health issues and such, and I didn’t “watch” things happen as many others have. In fact, in December ‘99, we were in Philadelphia, getting medical care that was not available in Texas. I just didn’t see things happening with everything else going on, and now I’m glad because we were influenced by the Gary North type of writing to some extent. I just didn’t see things in that perspective because I didn’t have the time or energy after surviving the day.
It was right there, and I had missed it. Talk about finding a big puzzle piece! I had not seen it in this light. The patriarch boys went into commando mode after Y2K, and I just figured that it was the loss of people like Rush Rushdoony who kept some of the more aggressive elements under control and restrained them. But I stayed away from those apocalyptic Y2K people because of the cultic factors, having recently left a culitc church.
I just didn’t see it in this light, but you are right on target. Most of my friends pre-Texas are about 10 years older than I am, and they didn’t get caught up into this new homeschooling movement, as all had the Gothard flavor and not the Lindvall flavor. People my age and younger took to more of the Phillips model which is worlds away to me from Gothard, even though the underlying principles are all basically the same.
I just didn’t see that as a critical factor. I can’t believe that I didn’t see that until now.
March 27, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Remember “The Way Home” in which Mary Pride discussed some of these issues and how she even taught there was only one correct way in which to be intimate with your husband? Augh.
Okay, I must de-lurk to ask what IS that one correct way to be intimate with your husband? I am very curious.
March 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm
I hate to keep playing the role of the eternal cynic on this (and former VFesque threads I’ve participated on)…BUT…
In regards to Corrie’s excellent comment right above—Why does nobody care that this is marriage #2 for both the McDonalds and that they really are’t the credentialed experts they claim to be? Why does nobody seem to ask these questions?
Well, for one, most people, alas even Christians are too LAZY to find out. They want a guru (although Christians wouldn’t say the word guru!) to spoon feed them. They don’t want to do the hard work. They just want it all in black and white. No grey areas. Just give me some rules to live by so that I can be holy and acceptable.
And, why doesn’t the McDonalds themselves come right out and squelch these questions we are raising with truthful answers?
MONEY.
They are making money from their books and such, and hey, money talks right?
Folks, the bottom line IS ALWAYS THE BOTTOM LINE with most mankind. We’re naturally sinful that way.
We are lazy consumers, and on the flip side of it, we are greedy marketers.
Pick your poison.
March 27, 2008 at 4:23 pm
*snort* Rebellious daughter! *snort*
Oh that’s rich. How else would I know the whole “history” of the homeschooling movement that Karen just detailed in #264?
MY FATHER! He got all sucked in the Gothard paradigm…like Cindy K., he can ’smell it a mile away’, as can my mother.
The whole conversation is getting a little ridiculous. What ever happened to keeping one’s word?
I am going to see if my husband can get on a little later… he made a point similar to Richard’s that conversations like this make him (my husband, James) realize just how far we’ve fallen as men and women in this world. I’m trying to remember exactly how he said it because it struck me as so very true, especially in regards to the whole Stacy thing…I want to make sure I get it right and it would just be easier for him to post it!
TheNormalMiddle (yeah, I knew it sounded familiar, but you said not to say who you were!
)—I think I am starting to like this crazy list of names we are constantly called. I think I shall sign off as Drs are want to do…
Joy
Radical Christian Feminist, White Washed Feminist, Marble Sink Mom, and Rebellious Daughter.
Praise God that He is bigger than all of this and all my sins and loves me in spite of them all!
March 27, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Cally Tyrol wrote: I read much of “The Way Home” and, frankly, I was incensed and disgusted. The overall tone of that book is so heavy-handed. Mary Pride just seems like a bitter, rude woman.
Cally,
My husband ordered a copy of that book after RC Jr. talked it up in his newsletter. Of course, he never read it and gave it to me, just saying that RC said this book changed the way he thought about kids and having them.
There were parts of it that I liked, but there was a seething anger in it and such a condemning spirit that I cried through much of it. I’d been married not quite 10 years around that time, and had not made it far into a pregancy by that point, and both my husband and I were ill at the time I read the book. The one passage I remember most was a little discourse on how women who had given birth didn’t have to worry about chin hair because they had been faithful to do what God designed their bodies to do… and I wished I could have asked the author about people who couldn’t conceive or about all the moms that I knew who were going around, pulling out chin hair. One pregnant mom I knew once talked about chin hair as a sign that she was having a boy. It was a mean passage, but a bit prototypical of what you mention.
And then, I kept having concerns about my husband’s interest in RC’s clever newsletter and how his compound in Virginia sounded like a cult to me. I remember when my husband got offended that I said that to him and how sweet it was when he finally realized that I was right.
March 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
“Okay, I must de-lurk to ask what IS that one correct way to be intimate with your husband? I am very curious.”
Basically, the missionary position sans birth control. Everything else is perverted and she really dislikes Ed Wheat and Tim LaHaye and their ideas about intimacy in marriage.
March 27, 2008 at 4:32 pm
I hate to cause any more consternation, trauma, anxiety and twitter for those women already frightened by the lock-down of the PW list but how do they know that the person forwarding out things from the archives is a she?
It could very well be a he, could it not? In fact, I wouldn’t doubt that some of those “shes” are actually “hes”. And, how do they know that someone’s husband isn’t accessing those archives through his wife’s membership? If my husband was acting weird and suddenly dressing funny and talking funny and changing the way that he has always discipline the children, I would go checking out to see where it was he was getting these funny ideas. Why wouldn’t a husband be concerned when he sees his wife suddenly change in everything she does?
And, really, they need to stop blaming the person on the membership list that forwarded out something about Stacy to prove that she was not being honest.
From what I know about that particular post that Marion (she is not even a member of that list and it came to her inbox, she did not go looking for it) posted, is that it was “stolen” from the archives over a year ago and it was then forwarded out and it has been sitting on people’s harddrives for quite some time.
I also want to know why there wasn’t a big la-ti-da made over the postings from the PW archive over the divorce issue? Why was it said that their divorce/remarriage and blended family are issues of the public precisely because they were posted on the PW list but now this other issue was “private”?
March 27, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Light — um — just think of Patriarchy and which person they think should be on top.
March 27, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Karen, that is correct about the proper way to have sex. It must always be fruitful sex….meaning, the sperm has to be deposited in the right place so as life may begin if it is so ordained. Anytime sperm is deposited in such a way that it would not bring about life, then it is not fruitful sex and it is an abomination.
Another blast from the past….one I had forgotten about. It is all coming back to me now.
March 27, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“Light — um — just think of Patriarchy and which person they think should be on top.”
ROFLOL!!!!!!!! Lynn, next time warn me so that I am not taking a drink while I am reading!
March 27, 2008 at 4:48 pm
This “standard style of sex” talk reminds me of the Amish and mennonites. I’ve done TONS of research on the anabaptist lifestyle (I grew up Quaker, an offshoot but entirely different in most ways)
Anyhow, this is such a spin off of the anabaptist lifestyle regarding sex.
In fact, in some circles, a wife must NEVER enjoy or like sex too much because having too much passion or interest crosses the line into murky waters.
Oh, how I could not be an anabaptist! I think I enjoy it more than my husband sometimes!
(feel free to pull this comment if it is too racy!)
March 27, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“In regards to Corrie’s excellent comment right above—Why does nobody care that this is marriage #2 for both the McDonalds and that they really are’t the credentialed experts they claim to be? Why does nobody seem to ask these questions?”
Lindsey, this reminds me of the way Bill Clinton devotees were during the whole Monica Lewinski debacle. While I agree that that whole thing was out of control, what amazed me was that so many of his supporters didn’t care one whit that he was having illicit sex in the Oval Office. In fact, it really didn’t matter to his staunchest supporters what he did. As long as he supported the things that would make THEIR lives better. The feminists who ought to have been the first to scream “sexual harassment” only cared about their own personal rights,which they knew he would endorse.
I will say this again because I think it is so important to realize….the reason that Passionate Housewives has such rave reviews is because first Stacy made these moms victims by setting up a straw man stereotype, an unidentified person or persons who belittled homemakers. Then she had the solution for them, a book that created caricatures of women, like the marble sink moms and the soccer moms, all the women her target audience ISN’T, and then the target audience can feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, thus the warm and fuzzy book reviews, and the warm and fuzzy Stacy accolades. These same moms are not, in reality, belittled. They have only been told by Stacy that they are belittled, thus needing to be encouraged, $16.00 thank you very much. The truth is, yes moms need encouragement but not by training themselves to compare themselves…Scripture says this is unwise. Their worth is only in Jesus and His finished work on the cross, not in the fact that they choose to not have marble sinks, have their kids play soccer, or not attending retreats.
March 27, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Which by the way is another example of hypocrisy big time with that woman.
After all her ranting about retreats and meology in her book, James’ church website now shows that Stacy is sponsoring 6 mini-retreats a year. Don’t you love it….
March 27, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Hey, Lindsey, I will only pull your comment if you decide to include links to a You Tube demo…..yikes!
March 27, 2008 at 4:58 pm
“The one passage I remember most was a little discourse on how women who had given birth didn’t have to worry about chin hair because they had been faithful to do what God designed their bodies to do… and I wished I could have asked the author about people who couldn’t conceive or about all the moms that I knew who were going around, pulling out chin hair.”
Oh yeah? Well someone needs to tell my chin hair that little fact!
LOL!
The author of that book was recently interviewed for the “Monstrous Women” documentary. Do you remember seeing her, Cindy? She was the one talking about boys and how schools discriminate against them and how it is the feminist’s fault. She is well over 300 lbs (she was never that heavy before) and she has talked about struggling with PCOS or some other hormonal condition (I am told) that caused the weight-gain. I am pretty sure that PCOS brings with it chin hair.
It just makes me realize that we have to be very careful not to be so dog-gone dogmatic about stuff like this and stop thinking that everything fits into a neat little, black and white box.
If giving birth ensures I do not get chin hair, then I want my money back! LOL Now, I am going to promptly rebuke that rebellious little chin hair that always grows back in the same exact place and tell it to get off of my face forever!
March 27, 2008 at 5:02 pm
And what about the part in Pride’s book about how if you have “unfruitful sex”, you’ll turn your husband into a homosexual. That did it for me. I couldn’t finish it after that.
March 27, 2008 at 5:04 pm
A clarification. I, personally, know someone who refused to sign the PW form and decided to just let them delete her entry when, suddenly, they approved her without anything being signed. She was shocked. They seemed so desperate for members they just approved it without her giving them any information. So, ladies shouldn’t assume that just because they want to rewrite the law that allows sharing they are free to carry on as they please. Would anyone join a woman’s bible study that said it’s top secret and banned you to secrecy if you joined?
I believe it’s tempting because some women will join believing it’s titillating to join. I realize in the future they have learned their lesson and will watch what they say, so why lock archives? Why protect adult women from their own posts and try to look like a hero to these women? If this is true how can they even talk over the back fence or be trusted to go to a bible study lest they speak ill of someone? Why can’t the members see this is to shut down the remarks of the owner and that is the whole gist behind the archive lock-up? But, instead, they blame someone for sharing a post on adoption?
Blessings!
March 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Lynn,
You won the prize. Direct from South Africa to a special visit to Toronto, Ontario,……..It’s Rodney Howard-Browne! Ah. Some people went there to get the blessing and others got it from people who had been there. Oh, do you have the fire? Did you catch the fire?
Oh, and look out when RHB cleaned out his inventory — it was a fire sale.
The unbalance in both movements (Word of Faith and patriarchy) leads to something nearly identical — man with power and man with authority and a type of dominionist uber-Adam. It was in Ken Copeland’s teachings years before as well. It’s much of the same stuff, just one method is more “etherial.”
March 27, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Beatrice wrote: “I Would Rather Live In A Country Run By Levelheaded Unbelievers Than Nutty Christians.”
LOL! You sound like Martin Luther, who said, “I would rather be ruled by a smart Turk than a stupid Christian.”
March 27, 2008 at 5:11 pm
“Then she had the solution for them, a book that created caricatures of women, like the marble sink moms and the soccer moms, all the women her target audience ISN’T, and then the target audience can feel warm and fuzzy about themselves, thus the warm and fuzzy book reviews, and the warm and fuzzy Stacy accolades. These same moms are not, in reality, belittled. They have only been told by Stacy that they are belittled, thus needing to be encouraged, $16.00 thank you very much.”
Oh, don’t forget the “woman-in-the-designer-outfit-with-clickety-heels-and-a-little-dog” caricature. She is the one who came and knocked on the poor bedraggled housewife who was having white-washed feminist thoughts invade her psyche.
Really, I have yet to find these feminist blogs that are running down stay at home moms! In fact, I have read at the Happy Feminist many times and that has never happened ONCE that I know of. And the Happy Feminist says that she is not a Christian.
Do you know that there was a man writing a book in the 30’s or 40’s which sparked the radical feminist writings? He was saying that housewives were useless and they were leeches and all they did was take, take, take. I am sorry but if I had to listen to that “junk”, I would go out and get a job, too. I know a woman and her husband does talk like this. He thinks that stay at home moms are worthless and that they don’t do anything and that anyone can do what they do. He called his wife lazy for not working for 2 1/2 years during the time she had their two children. He derided her for not pulling her weight even though she kept an immaculate home and it was nicely decorated and took good care of her children.
Well, she went out and got a job and now she is doing MUCH better than her husband and HE HATES IT. So, now he complains about her and derides her because he is no longer empowered to keep her under his thumb by ridiculing her for not having a job. The problem lies in his own person and not in her but he just doesn’t get it.
I think that situation is very indicative of why we have the radical feminists in the first place.
March 27, 2008 at 5:15 pm
OH, so Joy, YOU are one of those rebellious daughters?
That explains everything now! Aha!
March 27, 2008 at 5:23 pm
You know, as a second generation homeschooler, this stuff is fascinating. In a ‘driving by a car crash, can’t help but gawk’ sort of way. I can’t get over that people actually feel this way, but then, there again, I can…
It’s deeply saddening.
But along with Lindsey, I have to hope that the Normal Middle is a lot larger than it appears.
In other news- I’m going to one of the biggest homeschooling conventions on the east coast this year and guess who the headliners are? Geoff, Elizabeth, and Anna Sofia Botkin. I can’t wait…one of their sessions is ‘how to write a bestselling book…’
Which begs the question? Where is their mother? Isn’t that interesting?
March 27, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“And what about the part in Pride’s book about how if you have “unfruitful sex”, you’ll turn your husband into a homosexual. That did it for me. I couldn’t finish it after that.”
LOL! Cally, I forgot about that. You are right. “Unfruitful sex”- aka oral sex-will cause your husband to want to be intimate with men. This fell under the verse in Romans 1 where the man left the natural use of the woman (vaginal intercourse) and in turn became enflamed with lust for other men, men with men working that which is unseemly.
Now, think about it. When have you ever heard of a man becoming enflamed with lust for another man because his wife has oral sex with him?
And, before you blame me for being crass, many of us have had to sit under this teaching for how long and be afraid to speak against the illogic of it all for fear of being labeled a “pervert”.
March 27, 2008 at 5:26 pm
I, personally, know someone who refused to sign the PW form and decided to just let them delete her entry when, suddenly, they approved her without anything being signed.
Must one sign a “covenant” and mail it into them? OR is this an online thing? What are the criteria by which they evaluate whether one is acceptable to the group and qualified for membership? Do you have to get the word of a current member to get on the list?
Or do you just have to agree to their terms and belief to enroll, and then they approve you?
March 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm
“Which begs the question? Where is their mother? Isn’t that interesting?”
Joy, this is one question I have asked myself over and over again. I have seen no pictures of her, either, but there are plenty of her husband, daughters and sons. I don’t understand it at all.
It is going to be hard for these girls to go from being in the limelight all of the time to being the hidden woman who is never seen or heard.
March 27, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“After all her ranting about retreats and meology in her book, James’ church website now shows that Stacy is sponsoring 6 mini-retreats a year. Don’t you love it….”
With or without chocolate? That is the question.
March 27, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Archives and Questions
Posted by: “Mrs. Stacy McDonald” mcmom@patriarchspath.org mcmomathome
Wed Mar 26, 2008 8:35 pm (PDT)
<<>>
Don’t worry ladies; no need to panic.
I’m the big target right now. A
private email I sent to our list over 6 years ago, that had personal and
sensitive information about my extended family, was posted on a public blog
for the purpose of maligning me.
Although having the archives open puts everyone at risk for the same
treatment, I doubt there is any immediate danger for anyone else. Again, I
am the main target, so relax.
Still, as I’ve learned by experience over the last few years of being on the
Internet, you must be careful with what you post on any list – including
this one. I naively believed that everyone, who promised not to forward or
copy emails, would feel obligated as a Christian to keep her word – it’s an
honor thing. However, not everyone who claims Christ acts like a Christian –
or in some cases, not everyone who claims Christ IS a Christian. So please
be careful.
When I shared my heart about a very sensitive issue with the ladies here six
years ago, we were a small list and it felt very intimate and private.
Nobody knew me “in person” and I assumed everyone here kept her word (as
naïve as that may have been) and since I had a desire to use my testimony
for God’s glory, I shared things that I thought would help others.
Unfortunately, I did not use as much discretion as I should have and I
foolishly shared stories about extended family members. Not to speak ill of
them or dishonor them, but to give an example of how God turned tragedy into
triumph, as well as to warn women who may stumble from the same mistakes.
Though I sincerely regret having done this, my motives were pure. I never
dreamed someone would maliciously post information about my adopted/birth
family on a blog where my family might be hurt by it. Never did I dream a
Christian was capable of such a thing. Go ahead and hate me – but please
leave my family out of it. Are hits on a blog that important?
Please know we will continue to minister here without fear – by God’s grace,
perfect love casts out all fear (1 John 4:18).
Many things are being said – a little fact mixed with enough lies to twist
and spin. God is our Strength and our Defender.
“Whoever hides hatred has lying lips, and whoever spreads slander is a fool.
In the multitude of words sin is not lacking, but he who restrains his lips
is wise.” (Proverbs 10:18-19, NKJV)
March 27, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I naively believed that everyone, who promised not to forward or
copy emails, would feel obligated as a Christian to keep her word – it’s an
honor thing. However, not everyone who claims Christ acts like a Christian –
or in some cases, not everyone who claims Christ IS a Christian.
The irony! The irony!
*deep sigh*
March 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm
“In fact, in some circles, a wife must NEVER enjoy or like sex too much because having too much passion or interest crosses the line into murky waters.
Oh, how I could not be an anabaptist! I think I enjoy it more than my husband sometimes! (feel free to pull this comment if it is too racy!)”
Normal,
No kidding. It adds a new dimension of “Passionate Houswives”, no?
Seriously, though, these teachings make women feel dirty and icky and like a pervert.
I don’t know if the Missionary position is the authorized version in some of these teachings but it makes you think. Especially if you couple it with the whole “piercing” idea, where sex symbolizes the authority of the piercer over the piercee. Men were made to pierce and women were made to be pierced and all that stuff that makes me want to lose my lunch.
What do they think about a woman in a “dominant” position? Are some hung up on position because the man is always supposed to be on the top of the heap? Is a woman usurping her husband when she is not on the bottom? Where did the whole missionary position thing come from?
And why in the heck are people even thinking about this in the bedroom! Who cares who is where! Why not just have fun for once instead being concerned who is the greatest in one’s kingdom? How boring and dreadful.
March 27, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Maybe Stacy should consider using her blog to issue an apology (a sincere apology for forwarding mail and taking personal hits against another woman falsely. Not the typical apology that makes her look like a victim. Since she went public with falsehoods she would go public with the apology and have James and Loretta sign it. If their sin remains hidden how can they prosper?
Surely, as her public letter of woe and hurt proclaim she realizes the very foundation of her list and “ministry” were built on sand? And, clearly, we know why her “ministry” has not produced much fruit. It’s because we labor in vain if the Lord does not build the house.
Where are her moderator defenders now? Posting apologies for defending someone guilty of the same sin they leveled at the ladies here. Is running a list THAT important that you value your “leadership” over doing the right thing?
In the early days of the list I don’t believe any members had to sign they wouldn’t forward anything. They were campaigning on every list or bulletin board out there (they even tried to buy a QF Digest on EBay that had archives wrote by other woman. One woman Corrie knows well begged and pleaded that the digest not be sold to ANYONE lest her personal testimony be seen by her daughters. If you put something in writing beware……it lasts forever [and, clearly, a magazine editor would know this]).
Instead of playing the damsel in distress I pray she asks for wisdom and uses it to repent. Repentance is the key to our relationship with God, but we are called to rebuke in and out of season and I am sure this season is very painful to her. I pray she sees that the truth sets us free. Imagine a Matthew 18 you wrote falsely so long ago would come back to you in this manner? Take heed! Long ago you would have been asked to leave a church and Matthew 18′d if you had pulled this. And if your reputation is in such disarray you would have been asked to step down from leadership.
March 27, 2008 at 6:10 pm
“When I shared my heart about a very sensitive issue with the ladies here six years ago, we were a small list and it felt very intimate and private.”
Uhh..small? As in 400-500 people instead of 800?
I might feel intimate and private in an elevator with my husband but does that make it intimate and private?
I wonder if her relatives would agree with her? Would they think she had the right to be intimate and private about THEIR lives and THEIR sins in front of several hundred ladies?
Adoption is a sensitive issue? No, that is not the sensitive issue. The sensitive issue is that what was said then and what is practiced up until recently is not what is being portrayed accurately to others.
“Nobody knew me “in person” and I assumed everyone here kept her word (as naïve as that may have been) and since I had a desire to use my testimony for God’s glory, I shared things that I thought would help others.”
Why can’t she still use her testimony for God’s glory sans the juicy details of other people’s lives? The problem was not her testimony but her “sharing” (gossiping) about her relatives. Add to that her statements about adoption and rape which are now probably uncomfortable for her to admit to.
“Unfortunately, I did not use as much discretion as I should have and I foolishly shared stories about extended family members. Not to speak ill of them or dishonor them, but to give an example of how God turned tragedy into triumph, as well as to warn women who may stumble from the same mistakes.”
I didn’t get that from her testimony at all. I didn’t see her show how God turned tragedy into triumph, did you? In fact, I saw her show how tragedy LED to tragedy and even more tragedy. I saw her highlight how people were forced to do things they didn’t want to do and the bad affects that had on many others. That is a good testimony, in and of itself and it is necessary, but now she is trying to make it into something it wasn’t. I guess I missed the triumph part of the whole post.
“Though I sincerely regret having done this, my motives were pure.”
Of course. But, as we will soon find out, her motives are the only pure motives in any situation that arises. Do you see the trend, yet?
“I never dreamed someone would maliciously post information about my adopted/birth family on a blog where my family might be hurt by it. ”
Here we go. The person who posted that info had BAD motives. (What if their spiritual head posts to this list that their wife’s motives were pure for posting that information? Would that do it for her? After all, she did that as a “witness” [false] against Alice.)
She has pure motives, always and forever. When she exposes her good friend Alice for allegedly lying, she has pure motives. But, when people expose her for her lies, they have bad motives.
“Never did I dream a Christian was capable of such a thing.”
Me neither.
“Go ahead and hate me – but please leave my family out of it.”
Uhh, WHO exactly brought your family into it?
“Are hits on a blog that important?”
Ah. Now we get to the heart of the matter.
Karen is doing this in order to get “blog hits”. Aha! Karen is a shameless self-promoter! And Stacy is pure of heart and unconcerned about “blog hits” all the while Karen is trying wrack up blog hits!
Enter the Spiritual Heads, once again, where they sing another rousing chorus of:
“My wife is purer in heart than your wife…… because I said so!”
March 27, 2008 at 6:13 pm
“Would anyone join a woman’s bible study that said it’s top secret and banned you to secrecy if you joined?”
Now, there is a clue for you that it is not of Christ. PERIOD.
March 27, 2008 at 6:21 pm
To Whom it May Concern,
I have listened to this sad story and I have read through all of this discussion. I am witness to the fact, as spiritual head of my wife, that she posted said information with the most pure of motives. And, being the spiritual head of her makes me authorized to speak authoritatively about the pureness of my wife’s heart and motives, since I regularly wash her and sanctify her. I support her fully in her effort to be a helper to those in error and that her message succeeds in breaking through the bitterly malicious and twittering hearts and softens them so that they will come around and see that we are right.
Since I am spiritual head, my word cannot be refuted. If you do argue with my word as the spiritual head, you will be arguing with God for the Bible tells us so. I thank you for taking what I say at face value and not challenging my authority to speak authoritatively about the state of my wife’s heart and motives.
I assure you that I am doing my job as her Redeemer, Sanctifier, Washer, King, Priest and Prophet and performing all offices in her life on a daily basis.
If you did challenge my authoritative statement concerning the purity of posting Stacy’s adoption testimony, I will have to confront you in accordance with Matthew 18.
Sincerely,
Mr. Marion
March 27, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“Don’t worry ladies; no need to panic. I’m the big target right now. A
private email I sent to our list over 6 years ago, that had personal and
sensitive information about my extended family, was posted on a public blog
for the purpose of maligning me.”
Here we go with the persecution. Malign? You do that to yourself with your flip flops on beliefs and teaching. Why not just admit you changed your mind so you could be a Patriarchs wife.
by the way, do your readers know you and James both have been divorced? Or is that another little secret that must be hidden?
“Although having the archives open puts everyone at risk for the same
treatment, I doubt there is any immediate danger for anyone else. Again, I
am the main target, so relax.”
Aha! She fears they will stop coming to her little private, secret cult party.
“Still, as I’ve learned by experience over the last few years of being on the
Internet, you must be careful with what you post on any list – including
this one. I naively believed that everyone, who promised not to forward or
copy emails, would feel obligated as a Christian to keep her word – it’s an
honor thing. However, not everyone who claims Christ acts like a Christian –
or in some cases, not everyone who claims Christ IS a Christian. So please
be careful.”
No Stacy, you wanted them to be obliged to ignore your false teaching and your flip flops on your beliefs. You are a PUBLIC figure with a MINISTRY. Every word you write online is fair game. There are NO secrets on line and besides, there is nothing hidden that will not eventually be known.
And now we know you STOLED the list to create your own following in your cult.
Was James ordained? When? By Whom? Was he divorced after he was ordained?
Simple questions for one in public ministry to answer. And you cannot say it is persecution to ask if a public teacher in ministry has told her followers both she and her husband have been divorced….recently…before or after the book? It goes to scriptural obedience as an elder.
March 27, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Mr. Marion,
Perhaps Mr. Stacy will propose a headship duel at sunrise on the grassy knoll.
March 27, 2008 at 6:26 pm
“Karen is doing this in order to get “blog hits”.”
This is hilarious. The True Womanhood blog has always had so many hits that it isn’t funny. Since I usually go days without logging in to the TW dashboard, I am always shocked at the numbers and where people come from and what they goggle to get here. Believe me, it is not right wing Stacy conspiracy!
What has blessed me so much more than any numbers, by the way, is the fact that there are so many thinking women who contribute to this forum. My husband consistently remarks that the women here are thinkers and love the Lord and how refreshing it is! I agree whole-heartedly.
March 27, 2008 at 6:26 pm
LOL, Mike! I hadn’t heard that quote, but I’m not surprised I sounded like Martin Luther because I LOVE Martin Luther.
Much as I love Luther,*changing the subject a little* I do wonder about some things he said, like his extreme swing from Roman Catholic teachings on sex. I do think that some people like in Vision Forum really really ran with his teachings on marriage and celibacy. They, like him, make marriage the norm, unlike the Catholic church, and so miss appreciating the beauty of that undistracted life God gives to some. I more favor a balanced position between Luther and Catholicism.
Oh, Corrie and others, you brought back some memories. Would you believe that when I read that stuff in Pride’s book, I was TEN OR ELEVEN YEARS OLD?!? Not to mention I so did not know how to disagree or differ with whatever I read? I still remember her saying it was wicked and lascivious to wear designer nightgowns or something of the sort. Wow, I don’t like to think how all that might have harmed my outlook on sex. Ugh, ugh, ugh.
I remember her on birth control too. I see how people think that the no birth control position stems from the Bible, but what I can’t get over is that the people who advocate this position always seem to be tied into stuff I want no part of. And something bothered me about it, which I could not articulate, until I read what someone was writing about Jewish thought on sex, and he said that the Jews thought it was not primarily to make children, but to cement the bond between couples. I read that and a light switched on – that was my trouble with this stuff. Now I talk of something I’m somewhat ignorant on of course, being an unmarried young girl, but it seems as if God did give it to married couples for bonding and wonderful pleasure, and the quiver full movement or whatever you want to call it, in its focus on conquering the world through procreation, was largely missing that? Being a young lady, I am really curious as to any thoughts you married ladies might have.
March 27, 2008 at 6:30 pm
“Karen is doing this in order to get “blog hits”. Aha! Karen is a shameless self-promoter! And Stacy is pure of heart and unconcerned about “blog hits” all the while Karen is trying wrack up blog hits!”
Karen, have you been interviewed by Nancy L DeMoss lately?
There are a few problems with what Stacy has written: They went to loads of trouble to keep negative reviews of their book off Amazon. Shameless promoting. Same with the articles in the Peoria Star Journal. Shameless, Stacy.
You STEAL a list from someone to start your own forum to promote YOURSELF. Shameless! Then cover yourself with a phony Matt 18 letter trying to paint the victim as the perp. Shame, Shame Shame.
Stacy, you need Jesus. I mean that. I am dead serious.
March 27, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Here is what the intro page at PW at Yahoogroups states.
The moderators have agreed to hold each other accountable? Who is going to hold them accountable in making sure they hold each other accountable?
Description
The Patriarchs’ Wives exists to encourage and edify women in their ministry as Christian wives and mothers in the spirit of Titus 2:3-5. This list is moderated by a group of ladies who have agreed to hold each other accountable.
While we invite ladies to encourage their husbands to moderate their participation in The Patriarchs’ Wives, men are not allowed to be members of this list. Since we are committed to providing ladies a safe haven where we can freely discuss like-minded issues with ladies of similar concern, we ask that those seeking membership prayerfully determine that they are truly like-minded with us. All members must be born-again Christians, believe in the Trinity, believe in the Bible as the complete inerrant Word of God, believe that faith in Christ is the only means by which one can be saved and eternally secure in the Father’s arms. Although we believe God is all-powerful and does perform miracles, we do not believe the current charismatic trends in the Church are Biblical. He is Lord of all, sovereign and holy, and He does not violate His Word.
In addition, we also lift up traditional Christian standards such as…
- a belief that it is God who truly sets family size
- a belief that women are to be modest in dress and behavior
- a belief that women should be keepers at home
- a belief that it is God’s best for children to be schooled at home
- a belief that it is God’s will for wives to be in submission to their husband’s authority
- a belief that women should not hold positions of leadership in the local Church body.
Although we know these convictions are contrary to the world, we believe they are keys to true Christ-centered womanhood.
No posts are to be forwarded, copied, or distributed without the express permission of the author. Copyright © 2007 Family Reformation Ministries.”
March 27, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“Now I talk of something I’m somewhat ignorant on of course, being an unmarried young girl, but it seems as if God did give it to married couples for bonding and wonderful pleasure, and the quiver full movement or whatever you want to call it, in its focus on conquering the world through procreation, was largely missing that? Being a young lady, I am really curious as to any thoughts you married ladies might have.”
Well, Bea, I could give you the talk my godly mother gave me before my wedding that would make a sailor blush but I would be banned from this blog. And my mom was the ultimate sold out to Jesus woman!
I was too stunned to properly comprehend it!
March 27, 2008 at 6:40 pm
“Oh, Corrie and others, you brought back some memories. Would you believe that when I read that stuff in Pride’s book, I was TEN OR ELEVEN YEARS OLD?!? ”
GADS!!! Horrors!!!!
That is like me reading “50 Things Men Wish Women Knew About Sex” when I was 10 or 11 years old. It is like two opposite ends of the spectrum!
Beatrice, are you another one of those so-called rebellious daughters?
March 27, 2008 at 6:44 pm
LOL Selahv, I understand!! I guess I sounded too prudish, I just meant I guess that there are some things an older and married woman is more qualified to talk a LOT about, like the birth control thing. I’ve had the talk and other things a while back, I am blessed not to be a Victorian girl and be so in the dark. I read a novel about Lady Jane Grey and in this novel she had no idea about any of you-know-what until her wedding day when her mother told her. That was Rennaissance, though. Anyway, I was thinking out loud about the birth control issue and Mary Pride, ect and wondering if an older woman here agreed or had any other thoughts.
LOL “would make a sailor blush” hahaha
March 27, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Beatrice wrote: until I read what someone was writing about Jewish thought on sex, and he said that the Jews thought it was not primarily to make children, but to cement the bond between couples.
Beatrice,
Sex in marriage is a mitzvah, a word that is a right, a duty and a privlege and a joy. It invokes the idea of happiness and all that is good about man as God’s creation. It is a mitzvah to give to the poor. It is a mitzvah to up unto the House of the Lord and worship Him. A baby is a mitzvah, but sex without conception is no less a mitzvah.
And according to the book “The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage,” that author says that it is the woman’s mitzvah to choose, order and direct the couple’s sex life, not the man. It is the wife’s perogative, and that tradition says that it is the man that must submit to the wife’s desires, not the other way around. In my old church, an elder’s wife was upset that I shared this with other women in the church. She was of Jewish descent, and she asked to borrow the book. When I asked for the book back, she said she didn’t know what I was talking about, we’d never had that discussion, I’d never given her a book and she’d never heard of the book. Like fun…
Daniel Amen (the Christian psychiatrist, author, brain imaging specialist) talks about how sex initiates a cascade of wonderful neurotransmitters in the brain for both men and women. And I don’t know if he talks about oxytocin in his book, but this is the neurochemical that causes milk let down when nursing an infant. It is thought to also enhanse bonding. Isn’t it interesting that that same neurochemical is what causes the height of sexual pleasure during intercourse, also enhancing bonding. (I’m sure that moms here with experience breast feeding can attest to the effects of oxytocin when it kicks in during intimacy.) We are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God designed our bodies to be blessed with pleasure and love and goodness.
Why do you think Solomon went on and on about these things? He talked about them at length in Ecclesiastes, too.
March 27, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Ah, *gasping LOL*, Corrie!
Well, it depends on what you mean by rebellious daughter. I do feel very rebellious about all this junk (please excuse me, everyone teaches crud at some point and it’s just out there.) that is getting dished out to Christian girls. So if that makes me a rebellious daughter, yeah! But my dad thought So Much More sounded really wierd when I told him about it, and helped me see the error in something Jennie Chancey said about the Bible and college, and my mother gave me some very dirty looks when I was reading SMM. (that kind of this-is-not-good-for-you look) Even if they LOVED the Botkins or whoever, I would NOT be rebellious for disagreeing with them or wanting college, whatever. I’ve heard disturbing stories of kids called rebellious just because they disagreed with their parents, and there was warped thinking going on.
March 27, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Cindy, It is strange how different the Talmud is about such things. Women are considered ignorant vile creatures that are only good for pro creation
March 27, 2008 at 6:55 pm
comment 313
Oh, what a BEAUTIFUL post, Cindy!
March 27, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Beatrice, Just to make clear. I had the birds and bees talk at age 11. Complete with charts and a pointer. (I am serious)
The ‘wedding’ talk was about hot jungle love.
March 27, 2008 at 6:59 pm
It’s printed here in black and white. Or in your case, black and pixels.
No posts are to be forwarded, copied, or distributed without the express permission of the author. Copyright © 2007 Family Reformation Ministries
Any writer worth their salt would never post a word to this list! Author not authors. Thats one of the first lessons in Writing 101 in a Bachelor of Arts degree. Copyrights. BECAUSE PEOPLE DO NOT KEEP THEIR WORD, NOR SAFEGUARD THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS. If we did not ALL live in sin there would be no reason for laws, like copyrights and slander and libel.
That’s what my husband said, he just reminded me…
He (James) said:
” I wouldn’t even have a job doing what I do if people would just do the right thing. But the fact of the matter is, we are ALL sinners, and we ALL do things we know we shouldn’t do. So I find it ridiculous that people would set themselves up as judges in an anonymous internet forum with no true-to-life relationships! ”
[Context:He is a systems administrator for a multi-million dollar company- he is essentially responsible for monitoring the company/employee's internet usage and safeguarding company information.]
March 27, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Haha, I get the picture.
March 27, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Beatrice wrote: I remember her on birth control too. I see how people think that the no birth control position stems from the Bible, but what I can’t get over is that the people who advocate this position always seem to be tied into stuff I want no part of.
It was really interesting learning NFP (natural family planning) at a Catholic nursing school. My very first semster in nursing was the 101 class, but we concurrently took “maternal and infant care,” as a first class. When we got to the contraception lecture, it was this huge deal. They said about 5 times during the class that contraception was not the policy of the school. Then the “sold” NFP. Now I thought it was all pretty fascinating, as it was very much like assessment that a nurse does anyway. It was very artful and they taught it well with great respect for the woman’s body and the whole cycle. It was lovely, really.
But the thing I came away with was how strange everyone acted. It was almost surreal, because the college had to be careful that everyone understood that they were 100% pro-life. But then, in some sense, NFP is essentially using your will to control your urges so as to not get pregnant. Barriers, etc. are active, but NFP is a passive avoidance. (And I did not hear the stuff about the pill being abortifacient, oddly enough.)
You could make two cases for this. If you are exercizing your will to not get pregnant, is that a sin. Is it a shaking your fist at God in rebellion? Is a barrier shaking your fist at God in rebellion? Is an oral contraceptive? Or is it only that if that is what is in your heart?
I was taught that what goes on in someone’s bedroom was their business. If it came out of the bedroom and was inappropriate, then that is a problem. (Think homosexual agenda and some of that stuff that even heterosexuals don’t talk about.) As long as you were not violating the Word of God as a Christian, it was no one’s business. We have enough basics in the Word from which to make sound decisions, and there’s nothing about this Mary Pride stuff in there. Paul is clear in Romans and other epistles, and these things are also explained and understood from the OT. But aside from that, that stuff is between man and God or a couple and God. The church is not going to be there answering and interceding for them on judgement day. And once I gain rightful and righteous access to the marriage bed, why does the church need to intrude. (Again, save that it is not violating the Word and some specific contraceptive methods invite that discussion…)
March 27, 2008 at 7:30 pm
there’s nothing about this Mary Pride stuff in there
Well, there is enough general stuff in the Bible to have good sense about what is going on, but the depth of the specifics is just not there.
You can give your opinion, such as patriarchy and those who push it can give it as their opinion. The problem comes from making doctrines from arguments of silence or from preference and passing it off as Holy Writ. Molly referred to that with Stacy’s citing of Dinah in reference to how they supervised their daughters.
March 27, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Ok, I think the phrase of the day certainly has to be “hot jungle love.” I’ll bet we will never see that phrase on a PW blog no matter how passionate those housewives claim to be!
March 27, 2008 at 7:32 pm
“Beatrice, Just to make clear. I had the birds and bees talk at age 11. Complete with charts and a pointer. (I am serious)
The ‘wedding’ talk was about hot jungle love.”
LOL! Will your mom come and do a talk for our homeschool mom’s support group? Sounds like a girls’ night out for sure!
March 27, 2008 at 7:34 pm
Lynn – I love it … Passionate Housewives Desperate to play God.
Ask and ye shall receive
Thanks for the idea. Feel free to use this in anyway you see fit.
March 27, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Dr. Ruth…err….uhhh…….Dr. Cindy…..
“We are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God designed our bodies to be blessed with pleasure and love and goodness.”
Great post!
March 27, 2008 at 7:45 pm
*hopelessly giggling at you ladies*
This question may have been dealt with, but does the Onan and Tamar story really mean birth control is bad?
Mary Pride also said it was wrong for a woman who couldn’t have children to have operations and things to combat that, because God had expressly closed her womb so she would be going against God’s will. This argument makes NO sense to me. Are we to believe that God also doesn’t want us to have operations or medicine for defects and deformities, or get organ transplants if we need them? (“God didn’t give you that pacemaker, you’re stretching the time he has for you.” Just imagine telling someone that.)
March 27, 2008 at 7:48 pm
About the Jungle Love…..
Well, now I have ……
“Oh-wee-oh-wee-oh ! I think I want to know you! Oh-wee-oh-wee-oh” running through my head!”
Thanks!
March 27, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“We are fearfully and wonderfully made, and God designed our bodies to be blessed with pleasure and love and goodness.”
And hot jungle love…
Andrew Sandlin said it rather colorfully and sent Vision Forum into a fluster ~
We here know that Christians won’t win back the culture by sad-sack “quiet times,” funeral-dirge “worship services,” fifth-rate apocalyptic fiction, tofu Sunday school socials, and Little House on the Prairie bonnets, but by boisterous invocations of the Almighty God, ear-blasting steel guitars, full-bodied Napa Merlots, exotic marital sex, and God-drenched avant-garde teenagers. We won’t win the culture until we get over being embarrassed by our robust, world-affirming Bible. Embarrassed by Song of Solomon’s stunning eroticism.
http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2004/01/634.aspx
March 27, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Beatrice,
Thanks for giggling with us. I know my sides hurt! And it is such a joy to converse with such “rebellious” daughters!
As far as Onan, yes, that is taught to show us that the Bible says birth control is sinful.
But, the way I see it is that Onan is a story of disobedience to God’s law. He was not only disobedient but he was selfish and he used his wife for his own gratification. That is why he was struck dead. Not because they chose to space their children or use birth control but because he selfishly used his wife for his own gratification and he broke God’s law.
It, again, is about the heart. A person can use birth control without being selfish. A person can not use birth control and be guilty of the “sin of Onan” but selfishly using another human being for their own sinful gratification.
Sex is about the OTHER person. Biblical sex is not about our own need. It is about meeting the needs of the other person and in the process having one’s own needs met.
Now, take what I say with a grain of salt. It has been said that I am theologically daffy. And it may be true.
March 27, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Beatrice wrote: Mary Pride also said it was wrong for a woman who couldn’t have children to have operations and things to combat that, because God had expressly closed her womb so she would be going against God’s will.
Paul also wrote that if a believer was a slave and had an opportunity to make him self free, he should. I think the argument is valuable because they don’t want to open up any possibility that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. They would risk pragmatic arguments that could work towards contraception. My husband has a debilitating genetic disorder and so does his mother and father. Most of us carry something genetic. You could take this and make an argument. Then, where do you draw the line.
But remember, this is a group of people that likes all black and all white for all people. They are uncomfortable with discrepancies and the messiness of life. They don’t even like to sully themselves with the messiness of the Christian life and family life. This is a messy topic and it is intensely personal, falling into what I believe falls under eating meat sacrificed to idols that Paul mentions in Romans 14.
Selahv wrote about Hebrews 10 earlier today, and it talks about the law of God being written on mens hearts and minds. Jesus gave us liberty to follow the Holy Spirit and sent the Comforter to us to guide us. So if a woman chooses to try to boost her fertility, then fine. Here again is this funny issue of will and active and passive choices. I think that God knows our intent, and that’s the big issue that we will give an account for before Him.
Transplants are sticky, though. Not a good analogy. I am not an organ donor, but I have intense feelings from all of the ethics of “donors” from my profession as well as my husband’s experiences and accounts at the medical examiners office. If you can give it up and still live, I think it’s great. If you have to die, there’s a problem. But that’s me and my heart based on my experience. I also know more intimately some of the outcome problems of heart transplant patients and how some of them are. I would not tell someone it was a sin to get a heart transplant, but I have been through too much that dehumanizes the “donor” and the poor outcomes and ongoing care issues. I wouldn’t do it, and they can’t have my heart, should it ever become available.
March 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Just finished seeing clients and got caught up reading the posts since I was here earlier. Good thing I was in my office by myself. I think people would be wondering about this counselor laughing outloud by herself!
March 27, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Cindy,
This might not be the right forum for talking about transplants but I would love to hear your opinion on organ donation.
Could you write an article for your blog?
What about actively trying to get pregnant? Such as, cutting the breast-feeding of an already existent infant short so you could have many pregnancies/births/babies in rapid succession? Or not breast-feeding at all so your fertility returns quickly and that way you can get the most babies in the least amount of time?
I have been asked if I used birth control because my babies were spaced “far” apart. My babies average from 20 to 22 months apart. That means I was pregnant again by the time my baby was a little over a year old. Some are closer, some are farther apart. That seemed close enough to me and I didn’t have to artificially sever the nursing relationship in order to have my next one.
How healthy can it be for the mom for babies to come one right after another with no breaks in between?
I think the modern-day QF movement little resembles the families in the Bible. They are trying to have tribes of children with just one woman when in the Old Testament one man had multiple wives AND slave wives and had just about as many children as one of our modern-day QF men are doing now.
March 27, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Personally, I would see forceful weaning in order to become pregnant again as putting a yet-to-be-conceived child ahead of one that is living and breathing and right in front of you. I’ve always understoond the mechanics of breastfeeding (and not ovulating) to be the way God designed spacing of children. I do think it is unwise to constantly be pregnant or recovering from a birth.
March 27, 2008 at 9:36 pm
“Mary Pride also said it was wrong for a woman who couldn’t have children to have operations and things to combat that, because God had expressly closed her womb so she would be going against God’s will. This argument makes NO sense to me.”
ARGGG!!
We live in a fallen world and there are tons of things that could cause infertility. It rains on the just and unjust. I think of Luke 13. Were those people bigger sinners? No. They just need to be ready when the end comes.
But, does anyone ever think of having him checked? I mean, our problems were not me all along…after clomid, tons of tests and I even tried the Creighton method. turns out that the swimmers would not get off the beach. So what does that mean? God did not want them to swim? What if it was just a matter of his briefs being too tight?
For crying out loud. These people make me want to scream.
” Are we to believe that God also doesn’t want us to have operations or medicine for defects and deformities, or get organ transplants if we need them? (”God didn’t give you that pacemaker, you’re stretching the time he has for you.” Just imagine telling someone that.)”
LOL. My 88 year old step dad just had a pacemaker put in. He is like the bionic man.
But I totally agree with Cindy about organ donations. I am with you, sister.
March 27, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I would like to urge Stacy to tell her PW list the TRUTH. You know, like make sure they don’t get the wrong idea by your misleading explanations. They need to know that it is not your views that are being attacked. It is that you did not tell the TRUTH to Kym on your blog and not only did you not tell the TRUTH but you bore false witness against Karen and ???? when you called them “twitterers and gossips” and you called what they were saying “nonsense”. You know that isn’t the truth and we know it. And, then someone posted the TRUTH in order to set the record straight and to protect those you are falsely maligning with your false witness.
Now, you have everyone in a tizzy, thinking all sorts of things and now they are beginning to suspect one another! You have even allowed them to think that the reason you are being attacked is because Christ said those that hate Him will also hate his followers. So, we are exposing this because we hate Christ and therefore hate you? Shame!
All you have to tell them is to check out the TW blog and they can judge for themselves. They will soon see that you are not being attacked and maligned but you are being held accountable like you so much like to do to others. We are merely helping correct error like you helped correct error in Alice. Surely you can’t be upset with that?
It is obvious that you have a list of fearful, gullible and easily upset women and this is not fair to them to allow them to think all sorts of crazy ideas. Sure, there are some of them who do think outside the box once in a while but most of them just issue for praise for you and accept everything you tell them as the gospel-truth. And your moderators are complicit in this cover-up and subterfuge.
You need to teach them how to think and how to stand on their own. You need to point them in the direction of the battle and not distract them with fake bomb-threats. They will not grow if they can never think for themselves.
You should have cut this off a long time ago and told them that people are saying you lied about your past and your practices and that you bore false witness against people and maligned them when they were telling the truth.
March 27, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Basically, the missionary position sans birth control. Everything else is perverted and she really dislikes Ed Wheat and Tim LaHaye and their ideas about intimacy in marriage.
Ah, then she would go much more for this, eh?
March 27, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Wow, Richard, your revised picture looks as though the housewife is holding the 10 Commandments, or something!
March 27, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Lynn – wasn’t that the point?
Moses McDonald, in a manner of speaking. Or may Stacy was approached by Moses and asked why people were worshiping the golden calf and she answered, “We took all the jewelry and makeup, the short skirts and low-cut blouses, the free-thinkers and the white washed feminists and we threw them in the fire and out came this blog with really nasty stuff about me … WAAAAAAAAAHH!
March 27, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Okay, Lynn – how’s this?
March 27, 2008 at 11:24 pm
“In other news- I’m going to one of the biggest homeschooling conventions on the east coast this year and guess who the headliners are? Geoff, Elizabeth, and Anna Sofia Botkin. I can’t wait…one of their sessions is ‘how to write a bestselling book…’”
I almost forgot that I was going to comment on this.
Don’t you find it strange that they would be giving a workshop on writing a best selling book? I think that proves the agenda…sell lots of books, make lots of money. I am embarrassed for them. I would rather give a workshop on “How to write a book that touches the heart of your readers.” This just sounds like instructing people how to push their own agendas and make lots of money. Let’s just hope a lot of non patriocentrists attend, get good tips, and write some great books.
March 27, 2008 at 11:29 pm
“I think the modern-day QF movement little resembles the families in the Bible. They are trying to have tribes of children with just one woman when in the Old Testament one man had multiple wives AND slave wives and had just about as many children as one of our modern-day QF men are doing now.”
Corrie, this is such am important point. Having just read about Jacob who had two wives and each of their handmaidens having children for him, I was struck by how many men expect their wives to have as many children, all on their own. I love large families and have my own personal convictions about birth control, but I have also seen women suffer miscarriage after miscarriage because they didn’t allow their bodies to recover from childbirth, which I believe pro-longed nursing generally allows for. And it is good for the baby, too.
March 27, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Karen(thatmom) said:
Don’t you find it strange that they would be giving a workshop on writing a best selling book? I think that proves the agenda…sell lots of books, make lots of money. I am embarrassed for them. I would rather give a workshop on “How to write a book that touches the heart of your readers.” This just sounds like instructing people how to push their own agendas and make lots of money. Let’s just hope a lot of non patriocentrists attend, get good tips, and write some great books.
I know. I thought it was incredibly ironic and very mercenary. James says he can’t wait cause he knows there will be fireworks because you know I won’t be able to keep my mouth shut…he keeps teasing me about making sure ‘he invests in plenty of popcorn’.
Speaking of writing books…bwahahaha…I am tempted to write that book you and Corrie say you wish someone would write…
March 28, 2008 at 12:03 am
Which just reminded me—
What is was that James (my husband) said. He said, quote:
“ It shouldn’t be a question of ethics for a Christian, at all. We should be known for our integrity and ethical behavior. Instead, we are vilified in the secular marketplace because we do not, and the lost see right through that kind of two-facedness in the business place.It is appalling“
March 28, 2008 at 12:50 am
My main interest in this whole patriarchy cult of personalities has been the effect that it has had and is having on the homeschool community.Having been involved in homeschooling since the late 80’s I have seen many gurus come and go but I am most concerned about the patriarchs. It is interesting though, on a side note, to see how quick Christians are to hero worship. So many are critical of Roman Catholics for the Papacy – yet we persist in creating little popes all over.What sheep we are!I remember going to a Raymond Moore seminar- oh so many years ago, where he publicly accused Gregg Harris of similar types of ministry stealing as we have seen here with Stacy.Then Harris suddenly had his material out there and was doing conferences all over.I never heard the other side to that story but it did make me suspicious at the time of all these “ministries” and their competition for survival. I recently read Crazy for God by Frank Schaeffer. Now, say what you will about Frank , but he does make some excellent observations about the Evangelical community. Namely, there is a lot of money to be made there. I see that now in Kevin Swanson’s stuff. He is ‘executive director” of Christian Home Educator of Colorado, pastor of his church, radio personality, author of a few books, “sought after speaker”, and now he is putting together a high school curriculum so we can all teach like him.The chec homeschool conference that I’ve attended for so many years is now renamed the chec “family conference” so they can bring in all these patriarchal guys and gals who only spout their own stuff and none of it really is very helpful to homeschoolers. We will have doug teaching us an entrepeneurship so we can all have a home business, Voddie will teach us about keeping our daughters home, etc…..sad..sad.Because when you really start listening to all of this its about money and power. They are invoking Gods name in vain as far as I can tell, using Him to sell their wares,using His word to protect themselves from any scrutiny…..I am appalled. Years ago we had Doug
Phillips speaking at the chec conference. The women crowded the room, so much so that they had to ask a bunch of them to leave because of fire regs and then moved his next talk to the big conference room.I was there, I listened and could have easily been taken in at the time, because I loved the picture that he painted of that perfect Christian family. However, my husband is not Doug- (would never wear one of those ridiculous hats, lol)and we still went on to live our lives as best we could without Doug intervention. But I do remember some of my friends having huge fights with their husbands over this stuff. They just were not living up to Doug’s standards for fatherhood. It caused so much strife in marriages…just ones that I actually knew of.Women were complaining about their husbands for months after that conference because they did not have the “vision”.I bet they sell more of their cd talks to women who want to beat their husbands with them than anyone else.
Anyway, this thread has been fascinating.Thanks for all of your hard work and self sacrifice on this topic. Thanks for your willingness to hang in their amid the criticism and bring the truth to light.
March 28, 2008 at 12:51 am
Why doesn’t the person going who is forwarding the emails to here send them to as many ladies as they can on PW to let them know what is going on?
Ironic that I was let go on that group Sunday when this all hit the fan. I think they think it was me who released that email, but it wasn’t. I never even knew Stacy was against adoption until I read it on here.
Oh well, if they want to feel better for letting me go, so be it.
I guess Stacy got my email though from here, because I did get an email from her. While she was gracious, I don’t know what to believe. The past speaks too loud for me, and I am scared to get caught up in it. I will just let it all go. I will go back to lurking, but I have learned a lot.
March 28, 2008 at 1:05 am
Oh Anne, how this breaks my heart. I am sorry that you have been hurt. Go to God, and the Scripture. ALONE. That is the only Truth that is important. Don’t listen to any of us humans. Listen to God.
Truly, I am praising Him that you are finding your way out of the patriarchal mess, but at the same time, I am deeply saddened that you have been hurt.
((((hugs))))
March 28, 2008 at 1:18 am
Oh, Mary, I very much want to read Crazy For God. (And not to nitpick Francis and Edith Schaeffer either because I very much look up to them. It’s just that I think it would very soothing to read someone’s problems with Christianity and his experiences and how he still stuck with it, not his issues.)What all did you think about it?
I’m so young, but sometimes I think “Christians are really nutty. How much longer can I take this? I’m already nuts without trying.”
March 28, 2008 at 1:19 am
Okay folks – another departure from the line of conversation. Who is Donna L. Carlaw? She just posted a couple of bizarre and psychotic comments to my blog and said you folks are real bad people. Check out the comments on this post and let me know what the story is about this wacko.
March 28, 2008 at 1:35 am
Beatrice says:
“I’m so young, but sometimes I think “Christians are really nutty. How much longer can I take this? I’m already nuts without trying.”
Beatrice, We are all born with a sin nature, Christians included, so we are just as nutty as everyone else. The only difference is that our hope lies in Christ. Thank God we have Him!
Signed, One of the nuts
March 28, 2008 at 1:41 am
Beatrice, the secret is to look only to Jesus.
A few years ago when we had been so mistreated in a crazy church, a friend suggested that we read straight through the Gospels and then the book of Acts, noting how Jesus treated those who He ministered to. Those who came to him in sincerity were treated graciously and tenderly. But His harshest words were for the Pharisees, those who had their own agendas and sought to place burdens on the backs of others, often burdens they weren’t even willing to bear themselves.
Beatrice, it is sad to say, but the Jesus of the Bible, the true Son of God, is often not even close to the one these people present to the world. Remember that.
March 28, 2008 at 1:42 am
Anne I am so sorry. I know Stacy reads this blog, so I would hope she would pray for wisdom and discernment and stop the witch hunt. Corrie was on PW and probably had that post from long ago. Corrie was banned also, along with Rebecca (I believe she posted on another message board??). When dealing with the McD’s it’s best to save as much e-mail as you can because they do switch stories as it please them.
I know for certain you were not the one who shared that e-mail, but I do know you aren’t missing much on the list. Nothing truly enlightening, or any light bulb moments. And what’s very sad is Stacy has only received about three letters expressing any sort of concern for her (out of the 800 number posted as members). And those letters were of the “How dare them” assumption type and one used the word “wolf”. I don’t think she gave the URL for this blog, so that’s pretty telling. If someone was lying about me I would be shouting the URL from the rooftops in an effort to show the lies and give me a chance to share the truth.
Anne what will you do without Stacy’s protection? Are you sure you will be alright? Of course, if I were Corrie I think I would go out incognito (those black trench coats are pretty modest, so she should be alright! )
March 28, 2008 at 1:42 am
Richard, that is amazing.
March 28, 2008 at 1:43 am
Anne, I just want to assure you that there is no way someone can have access to your e-mail from here unless you have a website, blog, or profile that lists it that links to your name.
I have hoped that someone would fill in those women. What a tragedy that this charade must continue as it is.
March 28, 2008 at 1:56 am
“They are invoking Gods name in vain as far as I can tell, using Him to sell their wares,using His word to protect themselves from any scrutiny…..I am appalled.”
Oh Mary, this is exactly what they are doing. I am so suspicious of people who make their living off selling Christian books, literature and merchandise. It is such a lure for them. If they dare admit to any wrong doing or wrong position, the sales dry up in the Christian market.
Can you imagine Paul setting up a table selling his sermons on papyrus for profit as he travels from city to city ?
2 Peter 2
3And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
March 28, 2008 at 1:59 am
“Ironic that I was let go on that group Sunday when this all hit the fan. I think they think it was me who released that email, but it wasn’t.”
So the witch hunt has begun. When we operate in the open instead of in secret, witch hunts are not needed.
Count it as joy, Anne. You are free to love your Savior and be loved. YOu are free of a check list ‘religion’.
March 28, 2008 at 2:02 am
Well, Richard, the first picture is more for general consumption. I think the second picture is more for the theonomists!
LOL
March 28, 2008 at 2:04 am
I think you’re right, Lynn. Did you notice that each of the tablets actually had six commandments on them instead of five?
I just love Photoshop.
March 28, 2008 at 2:08 am
“Speaking of writing books…bwahahaha…I am tempted to write that book you and Corrie say you wish someone would write…”
Mrs. Joy, I say go for it!
March 28, 2008 at 2:15 am
Did you notice that each of the tablets actually had six commandments on them instead of five?
LOL! No, I didn’t.
March 28, 2008 at 2:24 am
Re. Biblical Sex:
The Song of Solomon was written using Babylonian sexual imagery. It would NEVER never EVER pass Mary Pride’s test of purity, let me just put it like that.
Hint: Rose/flower/lily means female sexual organs. (Sorry, folks, but Jesus is not the “Lily of the Valley,” that was actually the male lover talking about the female lover).
Apple tree/tree means male sexual organs. Remember the line where the female is sitting under the, um, apple tree, and then says, “His fruit was sweet to my taste.”
Gee, whaddya think was going on there?
I always love it when we come up with “Bibical” rules that the Bible breaks. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Song of Solomon talks about good sex, inside and outside, upside down and right side up.
Seems like some of the patriarchalists need to un-canonize Song of Solomon, don’tcha think?
Btw—I’ve handed out more than my fair share of The Way Home. I loved that book. It was one of my top 5, right next to To Train Up a Child. I read that book (and TTUAC) as a new mom wanting to live fully for God, having come out of a very UNstructured church where the pastor was sleeping with some of the female staff…we were ripe for a “system” style of faith, something that would protect us from being hurt again, you know? We fell RIGHT INTO the black-and-white world of hyper-patriarchy, and in our zeal to help others be as safe as we were, spread the news by handing out books and preaching the “gospel” of no birth control, husband-as-priest, etc. My heart goes out to the young women who are wanting to “sell out” completely to God and therefore get decieved by wolves.
The Gospel of Christ is LIFE-CHANGING. Not the kind of life-changing that makes you concentrate on externals: the kind of life-changing that makes your heart cry out in joy and causes the Spirit inside of you to gently birth more love, joy, patience, peacefulness, gentleness, etc in your marrow.
It’s the kind of life-changing that opens your eyes to foreign concepts like grace. When someone is preaching and teaching a graceless Gospel, the most dangerous thing you can do is stay and dabble.
There is no dabbling with this legalistic law-centric stuff. It’s insidious and it will eat the heart right out of your faith. I speak with the experience of PAIN: the deep pain of leaving my First Love for the head-spinning seductive beauty of the Law.
As far as dangers to our Love for Him goes, this one is on the top of the list. THink about it—what was the biggest thing competing for the hearts of the New Testament Church? The Law!
Galatians was written precisely to combat the insidious nature of the Law—-and Paul said in no uncertain words that when we find our righteousness in ANYTHING we do, the cross of Christ is “of no use to us.” Paul said that we have “fallen from grace,” when we use outward lists to show/prove our faith! (Gal. 4 and 5).
The Law is like a wildfire—you can’t play in it without getting burned, and usually critically so. In many cases, I am all for turning a blind eye and just forgiving, but when it comes to leaders who are leading lambs along the paths of a corrupted law-centric gospel, the right thing to do is to jump up and down, scream, shout, and shine Light, no matter how much the “shepherds” may squirm and spit.
In the Membership Description list on Stacy’s list (comment #307, I believe), WHERE IS JESUS? He’s there in name, but did you notice how many things on there have nothing to do with Him?
It’s a whole bunch of stuff you have to DO in order to be a righteous person—in order to “be a Christian.” My advice? RUN. Get back to Jesus and follow Him. It’s not always so black and white with Him—meaning, it’s not NEARLY as comfortable as the soothing world of the Law, but it’s the way to LIFE—and lots of it.
March 28, 2008 at 2:34 am
Molleth,
I had a copy of TTUAC by Fugate that I absolutely wore out. When my daughter in law was expecting our first grandchild, I went out and bought a new copy but then, thank God, decided to read through it to refresh my memory. That book went into the garbage.
After reading Mary Pride, I struggled so much because I was unable to have more than 2 children due to some bad things that a not so nice person had done to me when I was a small child. Instead of being able to view the two healthy, full term sons as the real miracles they were, I struggled with wondering what more I could do to please God. Obviously, if I couldn’t have any more children, I must have been doing something wrong, right? What a load of shame that placed on me for a while. Yikes. Thank God He is not the God of shame but of freedom from that.
“It’s a whole bunch of stuff you have to DO in order to be a righteous person—in order to “be a Christian.” My advice? RUN. Get back to Jesus and follow Him. It’s not always so black and white with Him—meaning, it’s not NEARLY as comfortable as the soothing world of the Law, but it’s the way to LIFE—and lots of it.”
Good advice!!!! He is the way, the truth, and the life and no law, no rule, no man made way of life can compare!
March 28, 2008 at 2:34 am
Btw, I highly recommend “Crazy for God.” Those who’ve been involved in fundamentalism of any sort will really appreciate much of it.
March 28, 2008 at 3:12 am
I looked back through my posts and it was comment #315 Part One of Prairie Muffin Manifesto.
That is the comment Stacy emailed me about. My name on here is not linked to any blog, email, etc., so I don’t know how she knew what email address to email me on. Oh well, it doesn’t matter.
I need to focus on Jesus not on a man/woman and what they teach.
March 28, 2008 at 3:26 am
Wait a minute. I went back and read the comment. You did not repost anything from the list in that comment such as an email or anything. I thought that this was the issue at hand. You mentioned the name of a moderator or some such person, someone whose name, I assume, can be accessed by exploring the Yahoo group site.
So not only may you not repost anything from their list, you are also not permitted to participate if you speak negatively online about the group outside of their forum?
This is not an issue of privacy and protecting members but rather a thought police issue. If you have a criticism and you voice it, you can no longer participate.
That’s very different from putting someone else’s personal information out for everyone to see. Participants beware!
March 28, 2008 at 3:33 am
Cindy,
To be fair to Stacy, that was not the issue. The issue was how I felt there was a double standard. That was the issue.
March 28, 2008 at 3:37 am
Anne,
I’m sorry that you were put off the list. A line from “My Fair Lady” popped into my head ~~
Something about – “As a warning to other presumptuous flower girls… And the angels will weep for you.”
Well, don’t weep. I would wear it as a badge of honor and you are in good company.
March 28, 2008 at 3:39 am
comment 360
Thank you, Molly, MORE THAN I CAN SAY.
You have deeply convicted me of my dangerous ways. If only I can hold and treasure your eloquent warning …
March 28, 2008 at 3:40 am
thanks to all the other “nuts’ who have encouraged me, too.
March 28, 2008 at 3:53 am
Anne,
You felt that there was a double standard. Fine. You had an opinion and stated it outside the group.
So if you believe that there is a double standard concerning elements of the group, and you express this to others, then you are no longer welcome to participate?
March 28, 2008 at 3:54 am
I wish I could be as encouraging as others have been to me. I probably can’t. But – Molly, you’ve said you are so rueful about all the time you wasted in legalism. Obviously it didn’t kill your soul for good, and … would you have been able to speak so passionately for Jesus if you hadn’t made those mistakes, but then come out of them by His grace? He is able to take everything and make it resound to Him. The same for every other lady here who has shared about things she’s done wrong, or things she revered too much, and on and on. You all know, all of you, that much more about just how gracious our Lord is, don’t you?
March 28, 2008 at 3:57 am
I have just read all the posts concerning Prarie Muffin Manifesto 2. Before I did, I read the Purpose section of your site.
I am appalled and disgusted.
Let me clarify: I do not belong to Patriarchs Wives, though I know people who do. ( Not because I don’t agree with them, but because I’m new to the internet thing and have not gotten around to it!)
I DO work outside the home ( Manager of a Pub & Grill.) I wear pants, make-up, dye my hair, my tongue is peirced and I have a couple tattoos. I used to smoke, and I do drink occasionally.
I also am a reformed baptist, married to a wonderful husband ( who is the head of our home) and a homeschooling Mom to four children.
You cannot call me legalistic.
And yet, I agree with the ideas in Patriarch Wives. I read Desperate Housewives and was really blessed. The desire of my heart is to serve my family at home, to be a keeper at home. I was not at all offended by what was in that book. I agreed with most of it. I did NOT feel that Stacy was saying if I didn’t do things her way, I was going to hell.
Maybe I’m just not as sensitive as some people.
Why work?
My husband requires me too.
There’s some background on me.
Now on to why I was disgusted.
In your statement of purpose you claim
“The true woman of the new millennium seeks to honor the Lord Jesus Christ with her heart, soul, mind, and strength and to LOVE HER NEIGHBOR AS HERSELF.”
In all these 350 some odd posts, maybe 10 were not personally attacking Stacy Macdonald.
I shudder to think of non christians coming to read these, seeing “Christian” women attack other Christian women.
Really, what did she do that was so bad? Do you really think it’s all a big conspiracy?
The issue of her trying to “hide” the fact that she is divorced. She didn’t try to hide it!! She shared that info when it was pertinent. What, is she to introduce herself,” Hi, I’m Stacy. BTW, I was divorced.” Sorry, but nobody shares their past like that.
And WHAT is so wrong about her wanting her daughters to look femenine, and wanting to protect them? I just do not see the point of attacking someone based on these issues!!
“She is gifted by God with amazing and unique gifts and she is empowered by the Holy Spirit to use those gifts for HIS GLORY ALONE. ”
I fail to see how all these rude comments and snide remarks are bringing glory to God.
Seriously ladies, take a step back and look at what you are saying. Look at the example you are setting.
Even when “leaders of the church” ( which is what you like to call the Macdonalds, in order to justify what you are doing) are wrong, it is not opened up to public debate.
OTHER leaders are called on to talk to the transgressors privately.
I hope you soon have some new MEAT on which to feed, and leave that poor woman alone.
March 28, 2008 at 3:57 am
Cindy,
I don’t know if it was that I expressed my opinion outside the group, or never emailed Stacy back.
And now, it no longer matters to me. I am moving on. May those who are seeking on PW find Jesus.
March 28, 2008 at 4:04 am
My Husband just got home from work, and I explained to him what I was doing. His comment was short and to the point. “Who are they to judge? The only One with the right or power to judge her is God, and God Alone.” The Truth.
March 28, 2008 at 4:05 am
Anne,
Thanks for clarifying that. I was thinking that they explained their purposes in the email in addition to mentioning the post from the previous thread.
Move on and God speed. And I would hope that the women on the list and expect that they have already found Jesus. I don’t doubt that a bit. I pray that they find what they are searching for which I pray for all of them is the Truth of the Word of God. I pray that for us all here as well.
March 28, 2008 at 4:09 am
Oh dear……..Heather took the time to rebuke us which is fair, and yet she completely missed the point. She turned her letter into a convictions post (again, that’s fine)then missed the point claiming the vast majority of the posts are personally against Stacy. I fear she reacted without seeing that if it’s fair to use Karen’s statement on the blog to show what she feels is error, then it’s fair for us to show Stacy’s error.
I hope she is able to come home, but if she is going to obey God before man as Acts 5 says, and if this conviction is so strong then she needs to come home as God requires her to (she stated her husband requires her to work, but if you feel this strongly I would suggest either prayer and fasting or quitting your job. You see what she shared shows the danger in Stacy’s teachings because a husband is not above God. The chain of command in 1 Cor. 11:3 says it’s God, Christ, then man).
Blessings!
March 28, 2008 at 4:28 am
Heather,
I was contacted by someone from the list today and they asked me what the bare bones of all this was. What was really going on?
The crux of my response was this. I am against all spiritually abusive groups and systems. From my own experience and from my study of this group, I believe that the term applies well. And I speak to this group of patriarchy because I value so many of the same things, but I recognize the dynamics. If you can honestly say that you are aware that all spiritually abusive groups and cults and cultic groups these dynamics, then fine. But I believe that, after some experience with the group, that you will see these features pop out at you eventually.
From Watchman Fellowship’s Profile of Spiritual Abuse:
1.) Authoritarian
Systems and leaders over-emphasize authority
2.) Image Conscious
Maintains high standards to validate specialness to God
3.) Suppresses Criticism
No questioning of doctrine or leadership is permitted
4.) Perfectionistic
Blessings come through performance and noncompliance is punished
5.) Unbalanced
Abusive religions must distinguish themselves from all other religions so they can claim to be distinctive and therefore special to God
There was a time when I doubted my group and would have fought like a bulldog to defend my pastor. Then I saw the abuses with my own eyes. Eventually, I realized that I was being manipulated and left. (But not before much heartache and after I was wounded in the house of my friends.) But the blinders came off.
I believe that if you pray and ask God to reveal the truth, and if you seriously consider the elements of spiritual abuse, you will eventually realize that this is what is taking place within the patriarchy movement and within Stacy’s system. The Word promises that the Holy Spirit leads and guides believers into all truth.
I don’t doubt that you were blessed by the book and the list, but I ask that as a supporter, that you would give a moment or two of serious attention to the elements of spiritual abuse. The Holy Spirit will do the rest. And then you will look back and understand.
Talk to Mollie. She was once one who contended hard for patriarchy. Read her testimony on her blog. It’s amazing.
March 28, 2008 at 4:30 am
Note: “You will look back and understand”
EVENTUALLY
March 28, 2008 at 6:21 am
Ladies,
Please hear me out before you tar and feather me for what I am about to say!!!! ;oD
I’ve been an on-and-off again lurker during the recent months, but some of you might remember me from the Visionary Daughters threads and the like last summer. You have all meant so much to me and helped me grow more than I can say. I consider many of you to be wonderful friends even though we’ve never spoken IRL. So I really hope you’ll still consider me an asset to TW after this post!
Since I haven’t been able to follow all that well, I am finding that I am having many of the impressions that some new-comers have to what they find here. And yet I know that there is valid reason for some of the scrutiny of persons who are teachers and leaders of others, having witnessed these inconsistencies in their lives and dogma’s for myself. However, not everyone has that insight and therefore, I am able to understand why Heather would post what she did.
In short, I know that we are called to sift what is being taught and who is teaching it. There are several verses that have been shared to back this up. I guess all I am trying to say is, let’s not forget the other verses, the “One Another’s” and the others that exhort us how to act toward our brothers and sisters in Christ WHILE we are faithful to expose fallacies.
Trust me, I am not immune from a cynical attitude, and as Molly posted a while back, sometimes it is too much of a challenge to keep a positive morale going when constantly faced with such frustrating issues. Well, actually, this is pretty much nearly all the time that I struggle with this. ;o\
Which is why I felt like God has been continually setting before me the issue of PARTIALITY. After praying for wisdom last week, this verse cried out to me:
“But the wisdom that is from above is first
pure, then
peaceable,
gentle,
willing to yield,
full of mercy and good fruits,
without partiality and
without hypocrisy.”
Yeah, it was the “without partiality” part that got to me. Because I certainly know that I have my biases!!
I just thought that maybe it would behoove us (and of course this is easy for me to say since I’m not commenting much!) to remember that Stacy is made in His image also. To remember that she is an object of Divine affection, and that whatever deters her from Him grieves Him, and should us as well.
“They will know they are Christians by our love”. Again, this is easier said than done, but is it at all possible that we could engage in exposing error in such a loving MANNER that even those that don’t understand the issue we are speaking of would want to stick around simply because of the love that they see we have for those we wish to bring closer to Jesus’ arms?
Please, feel free to correct me if I’m misusing anything. I don’t post often because I know just how capable I am of that! Am I just being a liberal. unrealistic “peace child”? (I’m half-way serious about that question!).
March 28, 2008 at 6:49 am
Are We Too “Negative”?
I realize some people reading this won’t like the author’s books or viewpoints, but look at the scriptures here. We do have a right to an opinion, a right to call out sin (even publicly at times), a right to discuss what may be false teaching or false teachers (and thank God we live where we can do this. We need to pray for our Chinese brothers and sisters who are being persecuted as we speak because China is in clean-up mode because of the Olympics). It seems some would find fault with Paul calling Ananias and Sapphira to the mat (so-to-speak! *S*)
At the very least this article makes me think and brings perspective on this type of blog that discusses what they believe to be false teachings. I don’t agree with everything here, but I will fight for the right to discuss it and expose leaders who are tapping into a part of women that makes them feel good and worthy. Who wants to think all their hard work could be for naught? I am sad to think that there are leaders who plead humility, while pursuing vain ambition. I am aghast at some of Frankie Schaeffer’s stories and conclusions, and yet I know it’s the reality of what happens behind the closed doors of some of the best leaders families. I feel certain if the internet had been around somehow someone would have blogged about it if they could get the wiring up to L’Arbri! *S* I, also, believe Mr. Schaffer would have dealt with it much better than we are currently seeing. Yes, discipline hurts, and it’s painful to watch but God does discipline those He loves and if we embrace it we are the better for it.
I feel certain God wants to bless the McDonalds (as He does all His saints). If they could embrace this and try to make right their wrongs, and at least attempt reconciliation they could look back with thankfulness. But everything rests on “if”.
Are We Too “Negative”?
Hunt, Dave
September 30, 1991
Critics have long leveled the charge of “divisive” and “negative” against those who would warn the church of unbiblical teachings and practices. I prayerfully consider such accusations, for my heart echoes the same concern. I long just to preach the gospel and to put behind me the controversy that has become such an unwelcome part of my life. Yet in preaching the pure gospel one must carefully distinguish it from the clever counterfeits all around.
How negligent it would be not to warn the sheep of poisoned pastures and false shepherds who promote lies in the name of truth. Yet the odds are staggering. Norman Vincent Peale’s magazines, for example, have 16 million readers monthly, many times our small circulation! The flesh faints with weariness and frustration. Then why persist in a task so lonely and burdensome? Yes, why this burning passion?
There are, thank God, the many letters of encouragement from those who offer their love, support and prayers. There are, too, the earnest “thank you’s” from the thousands who have been set free from the delusion and bondage of false gospels—from Catholicism and “Christian psychology” to positive/possibility thinking and positive confession. Yet even without any such encouragement we would be compelled to carry on and would urge you to do the same.
Jeremiah was hated, maligned, imprisoned and threatened with death because he preached repentance and warned of God’s impending judgment when the “positive prophets” promised peace and prosperity “by the word of the Lord.” Popular opinion opposed him. He became so discouraged that he declared that he would no longer speak for God nor even mention His name. But God’s Word was in his heart and burned like a fire in his bones, so that he had to speak (Jer 20). Yes, above all, it is God’s Word burning within that compels us.
Distressed by accusations of “negativism,” I cry out to God and turn to His unfailing Word. And what do I find there? The very message I am constrained to preach! Christ himself was far more “negative” than I have dared to be. He continually warned of judgment and hell, exposed sin, demanded repentance, rebuked the religious leaders and indicted them as hypocrites, whited sepulchers, blind leaders of the blind, fools. Without doubt, He would be banned from most Christian pulpits and media today!
The Sermon on the Mount is not intended to enhance one’s “self-esteem.” It encourages one to be poor in spirit, to mourn, to be meek and merciful, and promises that those who are true to God and His Word will be hated, persecuted and vilified (Mt 5). But didn’t Jesus say, “Judge not, that ye be not judged” (Mt 7:1)? Isn’t it unbiblical, then, to accuse a Christian leader of any wrong? On the contrary, Christ could only have meant that we were not to judge motives, for He clearly told us to judge teaching and lives: “Beware of false prophets [i.e., teachers]… by their fruits [lives] ye shall know them” (15-20). Surely He is calling us to judge false doctrine and deeds!
When Paul exhorted Timothy to “preach the word,” he explained that to do so one must “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” (2 Tm 4:2). Paul warned of “vain talkers and deceivers… whose mouths must be stopped [from teaching false doctrine].” He urged Titus to “rebuke them sharply” (Ti 1:10-13). He told Timothy, “Them that sin rebuke before all [i.e., publicly], that others also may fear” (1 Tm 5:20). Clearly such reproof requires a judging that does not violate Christ’s prohibition but which, in fact, He commanded and the apostles practiced—a judging which Satan hates because it unmasks his lies.
The International Genocide Treaty signed by President Reagan, though not yet enforced, makes it a crime to try to convert anyone of another religion or to suggest that their beliefs are wrong. It will soon be a serious crime to call homosexuality a sin. The day is coming when, to protect “minority rights,” we will be prohibited by law from preaching the gospel except in the most “positive” manner. Sadly, much of the evangelical church has already conformed.
It is not enough simply to “preach the truth” when there are lies which counterfeit it so closely that many can’t tell the difference. It is both logically and scripturally essential to expose and refute today’s pernicious false gospels. Yet to do so is to be opposed by church leaders and barred from most platforms. I am banned even from such evangelical networks as Moody Radio lest I expose the humanism they promote in the name of “Christian psychology.” Why not allow an open discussion of vital issues before the whole church? Are church leaders concerned for truth—or with protecting their own interests?
“Christian psychology” may seem to help for a time, but it undermines our real victory in Christ by redefining sin as “mental illness.” This heresy inspired a host of new terms such as obsessive-compulsive behavior, dysfunctional families, addiction—and more recently the increasingly popular co-dependency myths and Twelve Step recovery programs spawned by Alcoholics Anonymous. In 12 Steps to Destruction, the Bobgans point out that Bill Wilson, founder of AA, based his system upon what was a revolutionary new theory: that drunkenness was not a “moral defect” but an excusable “illness.” Wilson was relieved to learn that he was an “alcoholic”—a new term at the time.
Enlarging upon this lie, “Christian psychologists” have redefined as mental illness all manner of behavior that Jesus, the Great Physician, diagnosed as sin. John MacArthur tells of hearing a woman call into a “Christian psychology” radio program to confess that she couldn’t keep from having sex with anybody and everybody. She was told that her problem arose from an overbearing mother and milquetoast father and that it was an “addiction” that could take years of therapy to cure. So much for Christ’s “Go, and sin no more” (Jn 8:11). Disobeying God is no longer sin if one has a compulsion or addiction or has had a traumatic childhood.
In his new book, Our Sufficiency in Christ, MacArthur writes, “The depth to which sanctified psychotherapy can sink is really quite profound. A local newspaper recently featured an article about a 34-bed clinic that has opened in Southern California to treat ‘Christian sex addicts.’ According to the article the clinic is affiliated with a large well-known Protestant church in the area.” Several leading “Christian psychologists” interviewed for the article “scoffed at the power of God’s Word to transform a heart and break the bondage of sexual sin.” The director explained that his treatment center would serve to rescue many Christians who had been taught that “the Bible is all you need.” Yet that is what the Bible itself claims and the entire church believed for 1,800 years until the advent of Christian psychology.
In The Journal of Biblical Ethics in Medicine, Dr. Robert Maddox warns that “all manner of sin…from gluttony to fornication, from stealing to bestiality…is [being] labeled as disease, to be cured with chemical, electrical and mechanical treatments.” The Bobgans also quote from University of California professor Herbert Fingarette’s book, Heavy Drinking: The Myth of Alcoholism as a Disease: “I just don’t understand why any churches would go for the disease idea…[it] denies the spiritual dimension of the whole thing.” They also quote Stanton Peele from his book, Diseasing of America: Addiction Treatment Out of Control: “…disease definitions undermine the individual’s obligations to control behavior and to answer for misconduct… [and] actually increase the incidence of the behaviors of concern.”
How astonishing that as the secular world is abandoning the sinking ship of psychotherapy, Christians are jumping aboard, imagining that this doomed vessel will not only stay afloat but add needed buoyancy to the ark God has provided!
It makes me weep to watch the growing deception, to cry out against it, and to be heeded by so few and opposed by so many. Why is that essential correction which Scripture so clearly demands left to a few of us nobodies and shunned by church leaders who would be heeded by millions? Write to the most influential evangelical leaders and ask how they can “preach the Word” without involving themselves in the reproof and rebuke of rampant error that Paul said must be at the very heart of biblical preaching!
Today I received a memo from a researcher who, along with her husband, is among the nobodies crying out against heresy in the church. Her concern was The Ragamuffin Gospel by Brennan Manning, a Catholic, published by Multnomah Press. In part she said, “Manning teaches…that [a Christian] may continue to live a life of debauchery….describes himself as a [heavy] smoker and someone who became an alcoholic after conversion…wants active homosexuals accepted into full fellowship (p 26) along with other immoral people… teaches an eastern-type meditation (pp 43, 205-206)…twists scripture (pp 23, 28, 73, 173); he says that everyone, but the self-righteous [those that obey God by Manning's definition], will go to heaven (pp 17, 26, 29)….This book is dangerous…a ploy by a new age Catholic to invade the evangelical church….Christian[s] must be warned that…the once trusted names of Multnomah, Thomas Nelson and Fleming Revell [to name a few] are no guarantee of orthodoxy. What a shame!”
I called her to make certain she hadn’t overstated her case. She read excerpts from the book to prove she had not. Christian publishers can no longer be trusted to publish truth but have become purveyors of death! A dump truck would not have been large enough to haul all of the heresy out of the recent Christian Booksellers convention in Orlando. Even Roman Catholic publishers of the most awful blasphemy and incredible nonsense,such as Paulist Press, were represented alongside evangelicals.
Take, for example, the booth of another Catholic publisher, Our Sunday Visitor. One of their books on display told the story of Padre Pio, a recently deceased Catholic monk admired by Pope John Paul II. Pio manifested the “stigmata,” a bleeding from his palms to make up the deficiency in Christ’s redemptive work on the cross! Pio believed he was suffering for the salvation of sinners! He claimed that literally millions of the spirits of the dead, whom he saw with his physical eyes, came to him on their way to heaven to thank him for gaining their release from purgatory! This is only one of Rome’s many heresies. I confronted Sunday Visitor employees concerning the demonic delusion promoted by their books and objected to their presence at a convention of evangelical publishers. They pointed to a nearby booth promoting horrendous, allegedly “Christian” rock music and declared, “We have as much right to be here as they do!” I could only agree.
Today I also read Mission Frontiers, the bulletin of the U.S. Center for World Mission in Pasadena, California, Vol. 13, No. 4-5. They have a biblical passion for world evangelization. In contrast to the Manning/Multnomah justification of smoking, the editorial declared, “Tobacco causes more deaths each year in the United States than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, AIDS, fires, homicides, suicides, and auto accidents combined….More Colombians died last year from smoking American cigarettes than did Americans from using Columbian cocaine.” “Addiction,” or sin?
The editorial also highly commended Pope John Paul II’s recent encyclical on world missions. Disappointment was expressed that the encyclical was “marred by reference at the very end to the idea that…the work of the church is done ‘together with Mary.’” Yet the encyclical was praised and an address given where it could be purchased because it spoke of “people groups,” a term in vogue at the World Center. Sadly, however, 950 million Catholics who need to be evangelized—a special “people group” comprising nearly 20 percent of the world’s population—were overlooked! The editorial, in fact, implied that Catholicism’s evangelism is biblical.
Throughout Central and South America, Catholicism is in the most blatant partnership with spiritism and paganism. Recently, in Brazil, I visited Aparecida, the largest cathedral in the world next to St. Peter’s in Rome. It is dedicated to a small idol of a “Black Virgin”—pulled from a nearby lake in a fishing net—which now performs “miracles.” The Pope came recently to honor this idol. At the Mass the priest led the people in prayers and songs to the idol, asking it for salvation and dedicating their lives to it. Aparecida’s large bookstore carries many of the same “positive” books that delude Protestants—books in Portuguese by American authors, from Norman Vincent Peale to “Christian psychologists.”
Today’s evangelical leaders shun their duty to oppose heresy. Many of them promote Catholicism, occultism and humanistic psychology. Therefore we, the nobodies, though few heed us, must cry out even louder to warn the sheep of poisoned pastures and false shepherds. “Positive” or “negative” is not the issue, but truth and simple obedience to our Lord and His Word.
March 28, 2008 at 6:56 am
Negative?
Dave Hunt certainly has his opinions! For those who disagree it would make for good discussion, and that’s really why we are here.
Blessings!
March 28, 2008 at 7:09 am
Heather,
There is so much wrong in your post I hardly now where to begin. But first let me say that I hear something coming through your words that make me want to weep for you.
You want to stay home and care for your family but your husband requires you to work. Therefore what Stacey teaches resonates with you on a very deep level. You want what she has on some level…being at home, caring for your children, a husband who supports that view.
Where you are going astray is thinking that by reading her books and hanging out on her site, you can get that life. It is a trap. A snare. And you are falling into it. We know how it works.
if we told you the all the years of history with Stacey and her false teaching, flip flops, lies, manipulations, etc, you would not believe us right now. If we told you that she TONED DOWN her legalism for the book so it could sell to more people you would not believe us.
There are quite a few biblical things you have wrong. I urge you to study scripture very deeply before you take any biblical advice from Stacey.
Just one example: her and her husbands divorce is quite relevant. In 1 Timothy 2, Our Lord has laid down qualifications for an elder (pastor) that are quite clear. Pastors are to be ‘above reproach’ to the OUTSIDE world. Get that?
James was divorced as a pastor and remarried as a pastor as far as we can tell. he refuses to answer questions about it. Those that follow his legalistic teachings about family and marriage have a right to know. Those who buy Stacey’s books have a right to know about both their divorces. They CHOSE to have a public ministry.
“OTHER leaders are called on to talk to the transgressors privately”
This quote from your comment is also another false teaching you have bought into. A public ministry figure needs to be called out publicly for false teaching or wrong behavior such as lying. Paul rebuked Peter publicly on purpose so others could learn and Peter be held accountable. John called out Diotrephes publicly.
You say that OTHER leaders should do it. It grieves me to see you are being taught there is a caste system in Christendom. There isn’t. All true believers are ‘ministers’ in the Holy Priesthood. All, who are saved, have ‘anointing’. (See 1 Peter and 1 John)
But Stacey and James teach a hierarchical Christianity that does not exist in the true Body of Christ. Everyone: Elders, teachers, pastors, etc., are servants and God is NO respecter of persons.
You know what elders are? They are simply spiritually mature people who care about your soul. Real ones would never lie, manipulate or harm you in any way.
We serve an awesome God. If He had favorites and gave special revelations to a few who were ‘over others’, that would be horrible. The temple veil was torn in two so that all of us, men and women, could have DIRECT access to our Savior, Jesus Christ.
I do not feel insulted by your comment at all. I hear a young woman crying out who wants a life she does not currently live. Thinking you are closer to receiving that life because you read Stacey’s books or read her forum is just not true.
Trust Jesus Christ. Get to know HIM. There is not ONE human being who can save you. Only He can.
Blessings to you.
March 28, 2008 at 7:15 am
” just thought that maybe it would behoove us (and of course this is easy for me to say since I’m not commenting much!) to remember that Stacy is made in His image also. To remember that she is an object of Divine affection, and that whatever deters her from Him grieves Him, and should us as well.”
Hi Alisa, Jesus used very harsh language with the Pharisees for a reason. Stacey is a false teacher who is leading women astray from their Lord. What she teaches is NOT of Christ and has nothing to do with Christianity. Sorry, but those are facts if we know our scriptures.
Karen removed the offending post after Stacey asked her to in an e-mail. Instead of being gracious and thankful she attacked her, lied about her and used Karen’s graciousness against her to feather her own nest and manipulate her readers.
Please send her the information you shared with us. She needs it desparately since she has a public ministry. James has some very pertinent words for teachers.
March 28, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I just finally got through the last day and a half worth of comments, and I’m a little bit shocked at Heather’s response to all of this!
Personally, I do feel like there is a lot of negative about Stacy on here, but I think it’s a good thing. I say that not because we are “judging” her, but because of what everyone else has said about her being a spiritual abuser.
I said before she is clearly a spin-master, but she’s also a double-talker, and I see so much of the pharisees in her.
Here’s what Jesus had to say about the pharisees (the ’seven woes’ in Matthew 23:1-33)
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. “Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’ “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
The greatest among you will be your servant.
For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.’
You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.’
You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
And he who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean.
In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
I find it truly ironic that this side of the issue is being called “white-washed” when in fact it is quite the opposite. There’s nothing hidden about our agenda, how can we be “white-washed”?
I actually wanted to focus on the “heavy loads” because that is exactly what is happening. It seems like there are more and more rules associated with Christianity, when in reality, we have SO much freedom!
In college, I learned what the “seat of Moses” was, and it is scary to me to think that there are people who promote themselves as leaders when they weren’t given that authority by ANYONE! Self-proclaimed leaders are the scariest type, because often they have very little training or grace to deal with those they have subjugated (is that the right word?), and therefore pile on abuses.
My husband and I had been desperate to lead in our church, but both of us nearly wept over the attitude that we were greeted with by our “so-called” leaders–who were very much our peers long before they were ever our leaders. We wanted to SERVE our fellow Christians and share what we had learned as well, and serve God in the process!
There was a woman who was leading our Bible study and we had discussed with her and the other leaders our desire to lead a Bible study, and she flat out told us that she thought that we weren’t “connected” to our group enough to make a recommendation for us to start a group. Sadly, less than a year before, this very woman–who was not the leader at the time–had asked us for prayer for a very sensitive issue and we talked and prayed for her for over an hour, not sharing the details of her need with anyone, and counseling her in some issues (YES–counseling HER). Aside from that, we had prayed with multiple dating couples in our group, and were good friends with almost everyone in the group of 20-30 people.
Later, it was shared with me by my mom that this young woman had been a member of a Bible study my parents been a part of (I think even led) for several years, and my mom, after me telling her the story of our discussion, was very clear with me that she was a spiritual abuser. Just a few months before, I had read a book about healing from spiritual abuse (Ken Blue’s book), and recognized the signs immediately when they were pointed out to me.
In particular, it was this woman’s attitude and the cutting words she spoke, above the other 3 leaders we met with, that sent us through a very trying time, and left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth for several months. She even tried to stop me from leading a women’s group that ANOTHER leader (and pastoral staff member) had approved me to lead with full confidence.
I’m sharing all of this because I want you all to know that spiritual abuse can happen in ANY church circle. It is NOT a sign of the patriarchal groups, because my church is egalitarian and charismatic.
Ironically, I think if I anonymously shared this story with a person like Stacy McDonald she would agree that this was spiritual abuse and that I should have no part with this woman. Yet the things I am reading here are NO different than exactly what happened to me and my husband.
I know it’s not our place to judge, as much as well are all so good at it! But my problem is more with the idea that leaders are above reproach. Leaders are, and should be, under FAR MORE scrutiny than any other member of the church. The teenage girl in the back pew who gets pregnant is not leading people in worship, whereas, the pastor up front IS, and his or her life should read like an open book, because even though pastors can sin and make mistakes, to err is human, but to admit that error takes a lot of courage, and says a lot about a person’s ethical and moral life.
March 28, 2008 at 3:09 pm
I feel a lot like you, Alisa. I don’t know what else to say.
I guess I could say that I think some of her thought is not essential to Christianity and she makes it seem like it might be. That doesn’t mean I don’t think she is not a Christian or never said anything right. Molly gave a very, very good warning about drifting from Christ into the Law a little while ago. For me personally to heed this warning, I am going to need to stop reading Mrs. Macdonald’s blog regularly. (I was doing so so I could understand a friend who loves it and what is being discussed here, but most of all, because it irritated me and I enjoyed that in a perverse way.) I need to stop doing this not primarily because of Mrs. Macdonald, I feel, (though I think she has probably made some things essential that are not essential, i.e. been legalistic.) but because of ME. My legalistic heart takes everything it hears, even if it is offered in the most gracious, non-absolute way possible and makes a rule out of it. I blindly followed the convictions of someone I know well in exlusive skirt wearing and other things. For this person, it was their real conviction, for me, it was a destructive distraction. I made it legalistic. I am a sinner and I can’t understand grace. I am just as much as a sinner, maybe more, as any teacher we’ve discussed here. I need to take responsibility for that. I have upset myself so many times, and it wasn’t really the Botkins or Mrs. Macdonald or whoever. I’ve been more extreme that they are, even not praying once because I thought I would be wielding authority over the men around me. I’m the Pharisee. Maybe you ladies could lambast me instead?
That post with Dave Hunt was very interesting. I had a very different reaction to The Ragamuffin Gospel. I remember thinking when I came to his rather odd prayer techniques …”Hm that sounds rather Eastern or something … I wouldn’t get into that.” I just found it a wonderful, encouraging book and took what I could.
About the whole psychology thing, I definately see the concerns there and think they are legitimate. BUT, I don’t think psychology needs to be thrown out altogether. I have some traumatic events in my life that make temptations to certain sins VERY HARD indeed. If I give in to the sin, it’s no less sin, and it IS my responsibility. But … the trauma and everything else involved does play a part, it does indeed make the temptations worse, and not all that in itself is my fault. Someone gave me an article by a nouthetic counselor that basically said something upsetting in my life wasn’t that big a deal after all, and that I was just using it as an excuse to sin. I had to throw that article in the trash before it became a source of despair. This is why the knee-jerk thing that Hunt and MacArthur do on psychology is troubling to me.
March 28, 2008 at 3:17 pm
I really appreciate those thoughts, Abby.
March 28, 2008 at 3:37 pm
I forgot to respond to this:
“Apple tree/tree means male sexual organs. Remember the line where the female is sitting under the, um, apple tree, and then says, “His fruit was sweet to my taste.”
Gee, whaddya think was going on there?”
BLUSHING AND HIDING IN A HOLE
Really fascinating in light of those things Pride said. Thanks for sharing that gem of knowledge with us … I wonder what Bible study resources you use.
March 28, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Being critical of wrongdoing is not being judgemental. Asking questions, hard questions…demanding clarification and so forth is not being judgemental either.
If we take that attitude that it is, then we’ve reduced being a Christian to nothing more than constantly blowing sunshine…and that, my friends, cheapens what Christ did for us.
To sit around and pretend all is well in the church, and to smile and refuse to be responsible Christians all in the name of “not judging” is a cheap, counterfeit thing.
Jesus himself asked very hard questions of those in religious leadership in his day.
If you want to blow sunshine, then so be it. But there are some of us who are not content, and pardon the pun, but we crave “so much more” from our so-called Christian voices & leaders in the world.
Like it or not, we ALL will be held accountable one day for our actions, words, and indeed, our thoughts.
I do believe Stacy et al are my brothers and sisters in the Lord. But I would be remiss if I didn’t think many of them in authoritative roles have some explaning to do.
Christianity, life, and anything with purpose is rarely easy.
You may not ask the hard questions but somewhere, someone will. I don’t mind being one of those someones.
March 28, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Selahv – “Jesus used very harsh language with the Pharisees for a reason.”
Yeah, He did. And I agree that Stacy’s “brand” of Christianity appears to be in that category, and I already admitted that, not knowing ALL the facts, I may just be being an unrealistic/head-in-the-clouds “peace dude” hippie. ;oD
“Stacey is a false teacher who is leading women astray from their Lord. What she teaches is NOT of Christ and has nothing to do with Christianity. Sorry, but those are facts if we know our scriptures.”
I completely agree.
“Karen removed the offending post after Stacey asked her to in an e-mail. Instead of being gracious and thankful she attacked her, lied about her and used Karen’s graciousness against her to feather her own nest and manipulate her readers.”
It was great that Karen took down the post. She did the right thing. It was the facts of what followed that I am still trying to put together.
“Please send her the information you shared with us. She needs it desparately since she has a public ministry. James has some very pertinent words for teachers.”
Again, I agree. And I actually am currently working through James! You can send Stacy my post if you want. ;o)
It’s just that I have recently had some progress in a situation with someone who reminds me of Stacy A LOT, and it just reminded me that “they are people too”, and as obvious as that may seem I needed reminding of it! And trust me, I am well acquainted with the types of twisting and manipulation that can happen in a situation with people that hold to this mindset. I just had to do a lot of work on my attitude and perspective to remember that I am a recipient of grace just like those I disagree with and believe to be in error. We just have to be engaging in the standard that we are calling Stacy to, and I think Karen has done an excellent job of that in taking down the post.
I cannot get into this, I wish I could do the subject justice, but I don’t think I am the person for the job right now; there are just too many demands on my resources to enter the conversation. I know I’ve just bungled it anyhow.
Please don’t take what I have said as a censure so much as an exhortation. I wholeheartedly approve of what happens here! Carry on!
March 28, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Excellent thoughts, Abby!!!
Beatrice, you’re fun to have around. ;oD
Normal, that distinction is critical, thanks for that.
March 28, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Beatrice,
You are not a pharisee. Instead, you have clearly seen the damage that attitude can bring, and you have been trying to save yourself from being a victim of the Pharisaical teachings.
I’ll be honest that it’s very easy to fall into a “system” not unlike the OT laws, mostly because it makes life a lot less complicated. But I’ve never been good at sticking to any system, myself, in the church or in getting myself in shape or getting my house cleaned. Arbitrary rules don’t make sense to me, and I’m constantly questioning not only my OWN expectations of myself, but how I treat others, my expectations of them, as well.
I think a good example of arbitrary rules is the daycare/elementary school setting. I remember in elementary school thinking how stupid some of the rules the teachers gave us were, and how they didn’t really seem to make any sense. Then as an adult, I started implementing those same rules when I worked in a daycare setting, and I caught myself doing it. I had to stop and think really hard about why I had those rules, and if it was really going to make things better or safer for the kids in my care. I realized it wouldn’t, and that giving them a little more freedom to make the right choice on their own (along with teaching them HOW to do that), I was much more comfortable and the kids enjoyed being in my care a lot more.
It’s very much the same with church leaders and members. There are members who crave “rules” because they can’t think for themselves, but because the good church leaders don’t hand out a list of commandments, they seek abusers, because abusers are more rule-oriented. And it’s really hard to get out of that kind of church, because people who need rules are compelled to remain under a ruler, rather than seeking freedom in Christ.
I’ll also admit that I find the discussion on both sides incredibly fascinating and compelling, and in the same way, I get sucked in. I’m coming at it from a different angle, so maybe I struggle less with seeing how the other side makes any sense–but I have caught myself getting indignant and stubborn, and I want to scream “JUSTICE, MERCY!” because I know that those things are absent from the patriarchal groups more often than not.
As Christians it is SOOOOO easy to sit up on our pedestals and condemn the world for its sins, but Jesus never did that! I find it so hard to buy into anything the patriarchal groups say because this is how they act toward the world. I am really surprised that they don’t LIVE in communes and shut out the rest of the world like the Amish. (I’m not necessarily criticizing the Amish here) I remember a girl in college railing on women who have had abortions in a speech class and I wanted to pummel her because she missed the point completely! My mom had an abortion and struggled with the guilt and shame from it for nearly 20 years before telling anyone about it. Does a woman like that need to be told she’s an evil sinning murderer? Absolutely not! The woman at the well, and the adulteress in Jerusalem were both condemned by the Pharisees, yet Jesus loved and spared them both, and never once did he treat them as second class because they were sinners.
Sorry to go off on a tangent there, but there are very real reasons why this issue is deeply important to me. Social Justice is something that is missing in most of the fundamentalist churches today, and I hope that God stirs up more and more leaders to do something about that. Won’t that change the face of the church–to actually do justice and love mercy???
March 28, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Sometimes the negativity really gets me, too. But here’s the problem: confronting Stacy about the lies and deceptions she is involved in don’t change anything. Will she repent?
No—she keeps on spinning the story to her favor. And keeps on looking for ways to add other sheep to her fold. Do I think Stacy, Carmon, etc, are doing this on purpose? No. I believe they are completely decieved. I honestly think they feel they are being faithful to God and doing His work. And that’s what makes me wince sometimes: I really think Stacy means well.
So…it’s not really a fun business, but…for the sake of the sheep being suckered into her fold, SOMEBODY has got to turn on their flashlight and show the sheep that they’re not being led to green pastures. It’s not fun or glamorous to stand in a big pit of manure hollering, “Look Out,” but for the sake of the sheep, somebody ought to do it.
I’m glad that some “somebodies” are doing it. It’s not pretty work, but it’s good.
March 28, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“Do I think Stacy, Carmon, etc, are doing this on purpose? No. I believe they are completely decieved. I honestly think they feel they are being faithful to God and doing His work. And that’s what makes me wince sometimes: I really think Stacy means well.”
Well said, Molleth. Thanks; you said it WAY better! ;o)
March 28, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I have been reading all of these posts and keeping you all in my prayers. Abby and Beatrice your last two posts really resonated with where I am right now. I have been studying James this semester and have been struck by the simplicity of Jesus’s teaching. We watch what we say b/c our words keep us from loving the Lord and loving others, we don’t show favortism b/c Love cant coincide with favortism, etc. We are called to Love. thats it the rest is helpful in becoming a more loving Christlike follower but none of those commandments are greater than the Jesus Creed. I have been a Christian since I was five and I feel like 26 years later it has clicked. I find myself praying that I will learn to truly love others and I find that the more I love the more happiness I encounter.
I don’t say any of that to downplay the importance of uncovering false teachings. I am encouraged by you all to weigh what is taught by the so called leaders around me. I think for me it has become so clear to me that in order to truly know my Saviour’s heart I have to get back the very basic element of love.
I know that this isn’t any kind of earthshattering theology but I have suddenly found so much joy in just the simpleness of my faith. I think thats why the Patriarchial teachings hurts my heart so much. They have muddled and made rules for situations where Jesus would have just loved.
March 28, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Aw, thanks Alisa. That brightened what has been a rather gloomy day.
More good thoughts, Abby! That I-need-rules mindset is soooooooo insidious, isn’t it? There’s this verse somewhere (I hope I’m not taking it out of context) that says something like “What more does the Lord require of thee than to do justly and love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” So simple, and it ties into what you said about social justice too. I think you actually refer to this same verse in your comment now I think about it. I totally forget where this verse is.
I agree, Alisa and Molly.
March 28, 2008 at 5:02 pm
*waves to Calamity Jean*
Oh, yeah! I only disagree with you in that I think this IS an earthshattering theology!:D Think about it, could you or anyone else have come up with it on your own?
March 28, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“It’s not fun or glamorous to stand in a big pit of manure hollering, “Look Out,” but for the sake of the sheep, somebody ought to do it.”
Exactly, Mollie. It is not fun.
To everyone else:
Is anyone reading the MT. 18 and the false witness and the lies that have been clearly documented? I hope so. I know some of you are but I am a bit disappointed that it appears that some people think it is not a big deal and then have replaced the REAL issues with issues that are not issues at all. This isn’t about protecting daughters and dressing in dresses.
There seems to be a lot of phone calls going on. If you are told something via the phone about someone else YOU (collective YOU) have the responsibility to go to the other person and check it out. And don’t be flattered when someone you think has “high standing” or “prestige” calls you. We are not to show preferential treatment just because someone may be “famous”.
This is how some people operate. Phone calls. Sweetness. Light. Even gifts. But no substance. They get you to think something that is just not true.
I would rather know the truth no matter what the outcome than to swallow a lie wrapped in a sweet package.
We really need to read our Bibles. “Nice” is not a biblical term. “Nice” describes those who deceives others. The Cult of Personality is not biblical, either.
I am not saying that we shouldn’t be genuinely “nice” but I am saying that we must be aware of fake “nice” and the real McCoy. Would some of us really just sit here and lie just for the fun of it and because we have nothing better to do? I could present hard copy evidence all day long and I think some people would rather plug their ears and cover their eyes and tell me that I am being “mean”.
A lot of people have mastered the art of manipulating the English language and have become master manipulators by being “nice” and by becoming very adept at knowing which buttons to push to evoke sympathy from others.
So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?
Gal. 4:16
I have just gone through an experience of hearing someone’s story that seemed very convincing. It looked like the evidence was being presented fully. I always had my niggling doubts about some things but I asked questions….a lot of questions. I also didn’t want to automatically believe everything I was told since the person that was being “confronted” was a person whose theology I disagree with on many points. I knew I was vulnerable to being deceived because I was already biased because of my theological differences.
So, I kept my eyes open. I sometimes played the “game” being played and hope that God would give me wisdom concerning this person’s story about the other person I differed with theologically.
But, I have come to realize that I was not getting the whole truth and that the truth was being cleverly manipulated in order to achieve the desired outcome.
We need to be careful who we follow. I do care what people think about me, maybe sometimes too much but I care more about the truth and getting to the truth even if it not something I personally want to believe or hear.
There is a choice to be made: either you will do the hard work of digging for the truth in spite of your own personal bias or you will continue to have knee-jerk reactions because you choose to believe a cleverly cloaked lie.
March 28, 2008 at 5:23 pm
“Is anyone reading the MT. 18 and the false witness and the lies that have been clearly documented?”
Corrie,
Where can we find this? Is it further up the thread, or somewhere else?
March 28, 2008 at 5:51 pm
“Yeah, He did. And I agree that Stacy’s “brand” of Christianity appears to be in that category, and I already admitted that, not knowing ALL the facts, I may just be being an unrealistic/head-in-the-clouds “peace dude” hippie. ;oD”
Alisa,
I can totally relate.
Beatrice,
“Gee, whaddya think was going on there?”
BLUSHING AND HIDING IN A HOLE”
Well, I do declare! I shall never look at an apple tree the same again?
March 28, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Alisa and Molly,
I have said the same things many, many times. Karen Campbell has also said very much the same thing, especially pointing out the concept that the main issue is not personal (regarding Matt 18) but that of a doctrinal issue. Karen did not mention the McDonalds until about a year ago when she posted a critical comment about Stacy’s “Maidens of Virtue” book, if I recall correctly. That is not a personal attack but a critique of a book. Karen does not embrace or recognize the ideology of patriarchy as a legitimate, orthodox Biblical worldview, and she is outspoken about this. That is not personal, it is doctrinal.
Stacy contends that Karen has refused dinner invitations and that this is personally offensive to Stacy. Stacy apparently does not understand that Karen does not want to get involved with them because she does not share their doctrines, and for many, this uncomfortable. Ask yourself if you want to go to the house of the publisher for the Watchtower Society when the only thing you have in common with them is disagreement over their doctrine and their practices that flow from that doctrine? What do you think will happen? Don’t you imagine that you would be uncomfortable, let alone likely decline. I believe that the central doctrine of patriarchy is just as disparaging and as diametrically opposed to orthodox Christianity and the priesthood of all believers as JW doctrine. In my estimation and in those like Karen and Corrie and Selahv, patriarchy and the McDonalds do not share the same core doctrines. I think we share some common doctrine, but not enough to make for comfortable fellowship.
Stacy and James want to compel Karen Campbell to accept a view to which she is opposed. Karen has read their views which they have made very public, has evaluated them and deems them to be contrary to what she believes. The McDonalds opine that Karen is actually an egalitarian, holding to a different definition of the term. The McDonalds opine that Karen’s views are therefore feminist, borrowing from literature cited in the writings that Karen rejects, many of which imply a view of the Trinity that is very questionable and what some have deemed heretical.
Please go to http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com to read the lists of questions that she has posed to Stacy online, inviting a less threatening and more comfortable venue in which to discuss these disparaging views that concern both doctrine and practices that flow from doctrine. Those were posted months ago, yet Stacy has not responded. She tells people that she did respond, but where are the responses? Karen did not delete them. They don’t appear on Stacy’s or James’ blogs. They weren’t addressed offline, either.
Also consider that Karen’s friends have been maligned and threatened by the McDonalds in the past, some of which has been brought to light in this forum. We have demonstrated that Stacy has contradicted herself in her own writings. Karen has cooperated with the McDonalds in the past, deleting blog comments that the McDonalds felt were offensive to them.
Stacy, in a post on her own blog condemning gossip, accused Karen of intentionally maligning her when all Karen did was express an opinion of another book. By changing names to Seuss characters, I guess we are supposed to believe that this passive-aggressive comment is not gossip because we are told that “Stacy doesn’t gossip.”
http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/11/were-not-gossiping-were-networking.html
Nov 30, 2007, 6:23AM
Excerpt from Stacy McDonalds’s own comment after very many previous ones in response to her post:
This would be especially true if Cindy Loo Hoo explained to the Cat in the Hat that he was mistaken about her beliefs and the Cat in the Hat still continued to publicly insist otherwise.
And this would be doubly worse if Cindy Loo Hoo and the Cat in the Hat lived in the same small town and knew many of the same people; and if Cindy Loo Hoo offered to meet with the Cat in the Hat repeatedly to discuss where he got these crazy ideas about her; and if the Cat in the Hat refused to meet with her, yet still proclaimed to as many people as would listen that Cindy Loo Hoo was a grinch.
Alas, even though Cindy Loo Hoo never said she believed anything grinchy, the Cat in the Hat justifies his “review” of her beliefs based on the “impression” he got from something she wrote – no quotes, no page numbers, just an “impression.”
Stacy continues to assume and behave as though she believes that she and Karen share a belief in the same Gospel. They don’t. Karen believes in what she understands as Biblical, orthodox doctrine. Stacy preaches a doctrine of patriarchy that denies essential beliefs about sanctification, the Trinity, the priesthood of all believers and certain points regarding essential Christian conduct. Stacy doesn’t understand that this is doctrinal and not personal. They follow two very different belief systems, but Stacy continues to misinterpret this as a personal attack. She is very wrong in believing this in my opinion and she is very wrong in promoting this view to others.
Recently, Stacy has recently claimed online that Karen has born false witness against her. Stacy did not contact Karen offline before she posted this response on her own blog. She is not “taken to the woodshed” for this, but she chose to discuss this online in her response to Kym on Stacy’s blog. Karen’s informed opinion was called “nonsense” and gossip. Karen and others demonstrated that there was good reason to hold to this opinion and summary of what Stacy believed.
Stacy offered no apology to Karen, but continues to state very inconsistently that is not inconsistent and that her own contradictory and incongruent statements are no-contradictory. Additional evidence and testimony of others demonstrates that this is an ongoing pattern with Stacy. We have demonstrated that the McDonalds have been dishonest about their own personal and professional histories. We have even presented evidence here that James has failed to produce documentation of his alleged first ordination in the SBC, that James never provided documentation to the RPCGA documenting and supporting this alleged SBC ordination, that James never provided his divorce degree to the RPCGA, that he ordained himself after that provisional ordination from the RPCGA expired, that he has not disclosed the details of the alleged SBC ordination, and the account of a personal friend of the McDonalds stating that they left a Charismatic/Pentecostal denomination because James did not qualify for eldership or pastorate because of his remarriage and that they became Reformed so he could be considered for ordination. Personal testimony was presented here with supporting documentation of Stacy’s “hostile takeover” of the Sisters in Christ Yahoo Group from Alice Robertson. I confirmed all of this personally with Alice on Wednesday. Corrie added to this witness and documenation.
Again, I will present here what Dr. Paul Martin of the Wellspring Center taught at a recent apologetics conference:
Of the 210 verses that refer to false prophets, priests, elders and Pharisees, here is a summary of their content:
99 verses (47%) concern Behavior
66 verses (31%) concern Fruit
24 verses (13%) concern Motives
21 verses (10%) concern Doctrine
I don’t know why Stacy does what she does, but I am required by the Word of God to evaluated her behavior, her fruit and her doctrine. Though we have copious reason to declare her doctrine false, we have much information here about her behavior and her fruit.
This is not personal but it is a contending for the Word of God and the central elements of the faith.
Stacy teaches a different gospel concerning sanctification, a different gospel concerning submission, a different gospel concerning the gender as reflective of a very, very questionable doctrine of the Trinity (per Stacy’s reliance upon Grudem’s work) and a very different gospel concerning the works in the life of the believer.
In addition, the dynamics that she demonstrates in dealing with her critics and her followers corresponds and conforms with Spiritual Abuse and Thought Reform.
This is not personal. This is not mean. This is not harassment. Stacy can cry that she is being unfairly persecuted for personal reasons all she wants. But we disagree. This is a contending for the faith and a demonstration that Stacy qualifies as a false teacher in the eyes of many and that she also demonstrates the behaviors of a false teacher. She’s made all of this public and her own testimony speaks against her. Plain and simple.
Do with that what you want, but you are now responsible for this information and your own conduct before God, just as I believe I was responsible before God to make this known publicly. Paul Martin also mentioned that apologists are often concerned about what the sheep skins look like that wolves wear, but that the footprints and the bitemarks are all the same. A wolf kills its prey in a particular way.
We have shown you the foot prints. We have shown you the bite marks. We have shown you the deceptive nature and the details of the sheepskin. Now, the choice is yours.
March 28, 2008 at 6:07 pm
What Molly said.
However. There are accusations being made that are not documented, and there are assumptions being believed as fact.
For instance, someone above said that James McDonald was divorced and remarried as a pastor. (381, and hinted at in a number of other comments.)
Documentation, please? And don’t say that he could clear this up; of course he could.
But you all are presenting this as fact. I personally know that this is not fact. So what’s being said is a lie. Doesn’t matter if he has the ability to clear this up or not; it’s a lie.
And are y’all really going to claim that something like comment 303 was said in love? How about 338?
Also. The SIS list thing. Corrie, I don’t know what really went on, but you have twisted Stacy’s words. Read Stacy’s quote that you yourself posted here: “I assure you I have absolutely no desire to “run Sis” and my husband would NEVER allow it…
I may, for the sake of like-minded fellowship, start a small loop in the future,”
But you, Corrie, go on and on about how she said she would not take on ANY list, and then started her own, when what she actually said was that she would not take on the SIS list.
A while back–in another thread, I think–someone claimed that Stacy had never shared her marital history WITH THE PW GROUP. I said that there was documentation that she had, more than once throughout the years.
Y’all took my comment and have repeatedly claimed I said this to prove that Stacy said this to the public, and therefore the list should be considered public.
I DIDN’T SAY THAT! But it’s splitting hairs when I correct this misinformation.
When Anne showed up and explained why she thought she was banned from the list, Cindy tried to twist it into something it was not (364), and Anne had to correct her.
And this, Cindy:
“Alice also received threatening calls while she was still in the hospital, in pain and on pain meds, soon after her major surgery… I know others who are terrorized by other people in patriarchy who are connected to the McDonalds.”
An accusation like this warrants documentation. You can’t just throw this stuff out without it.
And again, just now: “Also consider that Karen’s friends have been maligned and threatened by the McDonalds in the past,”
Is there actual proof of this?
Also: does anyone have proof that Stacy stole the SIS member list? I can’t remember if there has been proof posted in these 400 comments, so that’s a genuine question by me.
But if no one has definitive proof, then stop saying it over and over.
Look, I get what you are trying to do. You believe that the McDonald’s are teaching some things that are false to Christianity, and you are trying to clear that up.
But by riddling this thread with errors, and yes, lies, you’re not helping your cause any.
For the millionth time, I am not a patriarchalist or the McDonald’s minion. I am simply someone who can’t stand unwarranted hysteria based on untruths.
March 28, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Alisa,
Yes, it is further on up the thread. #218, #222, #240.
This is the MT. 18 letter. The other posts above show some other information. You will see Stacy claiming that she doesn’t want to run an email list because she would neglect her family and that her husband doesn’t want her to. That was on 7/14/2000 and on 7/15/2000 her email list, Patriarchs Wives, was born and she had taken Alice’s list and used her roster to invite people to her list.
“I am going to post the public Matthew 18 that Stacy sent to many, many women (a couple of hundred?). Alice never got a copy of this email, though Stacy claims she sent her one. Someone else who received this email had to send it to Alice.
Read it carefully. I left a couple of clarifying comments contained in brackets there but if you have any more questions, let me know.
—– Original Message —–
From: Stacy McDonald
To: Alice A Robertson
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 3:55 PM
Subject: URGENT!
This is being sent in accordance with Matthew 18:15-17. The Scriptural witnesses are listed at the bottom of this page. This decision has come from much prayer and counsel. It has been an extremely painful trial. I pray that ladies know my heart in this. If the truth is not known, it will continue to happen over and over again. I’m not prepared to have to answer for not having done something when I had a chance:
Dear Alice,
I am writing with a grieved and heavy heart. You have been a
close friend and I have learned much from you and from the ladies of Sis. It is just now hitting me that my days on Sis are over.
[[[[[It wasn’t just now hitting her because she had already started the Patriarch’s Path website and bookstore and her own list ThePatriarchsWives was started during this time, but she had not announced it (within days she did announce it. She wanted to make sure the Matthew 18 got out first).]]]]]]
I have counseled with my husband and prayed and wept. This is
what I feel I must do at this time. I am writing this in accordance
with Matthew 18:15–17. Since this is email it makes a unique and
awkward situation, but I have prayerfully considered this and feel it is necessary.
This all began when you made a public outburst July 11, 2000 on Sis without taking responsibility and apologizing. “No and that’s why I am signing off. Sending junk like that when the sender didn’t even study it. If we spent more times in our bibles than trying to form an agenda and get followers we could have a great list.” Prov 29:22-23 An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression. A man’s pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.
[[[[[[What Stacy failed to explain is that they were sending inflammatory articles knowing I would respond. The list was
non-denominational and they knew many of my friends still believe in healing. My own son was miraculously healed, what do they want to do? Claim God isn’t performing miracles anymore?]]]]]]
You lied and told ladies that you were signing off of Sis
(never happened) [It did happen. Because of this Alice had to start a new list. Hence, the name “Sistersnchrist” instead of “Sisters in Christ”] and that Debbie would be moderating SIS alone, when in fact you had never had any such conversation with Debbie and no intention of “handing over” moderating privileges to her (which you knew she did not wish to take anyway). [Saying I didn’t want the list, but that I knew Debbie didn’t want the list. Debbie had quit. How do you give a list to a person who isn’t a member?] This was proven when you exercised your moderator’s privileges and put me on “moderated status” so that you could screen my mail (what were you afraid of?) and when Debbie un-moderated me, you took ALL of her moderating privileges away so that you were the only one in control of both lists until she unsubscribed last night!
This is an excerpt from your post on 7/11/00 at 9:20 pm: “Hello!!! Ladies I am going to sign off SIS. I need a break for introspection. Debbie will still moderate” [Stacy knew Debbie didn’t want the list (see above where Stacy admits to this), and had signed off after Stacy got the membership list. How do you sign over a list to a person who isn’t even a member?] Prov 6:16-19 These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
3. When I confronted you in love with what I saw to be a need for
a public apology for your public outburst [She wanted
an apology for calling an article from David Cloud junk. He ran down Elisabeth Elliott and others calling them Catholic lovers.] , you did not receive it and I became suspect in your eyes simply because I did not agree with you. I was accused of taking up an offense. When I quit offtopic you immediately put me on moderated status. What did I do to deserve this? My mail has to be screened simply because I challenged? I would suggest that maybe the problem lies in your lack of accountability to the ladies on sis. You have made yourself accountable to no one. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. I know now that you have done the same thing to other ladies in the past, that you have done to me in the last few days. I believed the things that you told me regarding those situations without ever asking their side of the story. They humbly, quietly and gracefully left sis without exposing the whole truth of the situation.
I pray for you Alice that you would not allow Satan to deceive you any longer. I implore you to repent of these actions so that you can properly lead the ladies of Sis. This has been such a wonderful and fruitful ministry. Don’t let Satan have the victory because your pride is in the way or because you love power so much. You told me that there are “those ladies” that have suggested to you that I want to run Sis and you have made vague comments about those who wish to “have a following” or have an “agenda,” I don’t know if you are speaking of me when you say that or not, but if you are, I assure you I have absolutely no desire to “run Sis” and my husband would NEVER allow it.
[[[[[[[No desire? Her husband wouldn’t allow it? Doesn’t time usually reveal who told the truth? In this case it did, considering within just a few days of writing this her new list was on yahoo and she was writing far and wide for new members. She made the list and campaign for new members, bought a magazine, started a bookstore, a men’s list, a bulletin board, blogs galore, write books, and rewrite already published books that had lost their copyright? And all of this was within days and weeks of this Matthew 18]]]]]]]]
Sis has become too ecumenical in the last few months in addition to the fact that it would be too time consuming for such a large group and I would be in danger of neglecting my family. I may, for the sake of like-minded fellowship, start a small loop in the future, but I am no threat to you, if that is why you moderated my posts. You keep saying that I don’t know all that’s happened “behind the scenes.” That seems a bit convenient, don’t you think? Why should everything be a big secret? That’s how Satan gets a foothold. If there is sin or backbiting “behind the scenes,” EXPOSE it! It turns into speculation and gossip when everything is not upfront. You asked me several times not to forward your private notes to anyone. I would have to ask why?
4. You told SIS ladies yesterday that they could be assured that
you were doing everything in your power for reconciliation. Obviously you were not referring to me. I wrote you yesterday to ask why I was on moderated status since the only thing I had done “wrong” was to confront you on issues I thought were important, and you never even bothered to write me back. [Alice did write back, several times but then it only seemed to ramp up the situation and nothing was getting accomplished. Alice even called Loretta a few times but there was no answer.] Prov 25:23 The north wind driveth away rain: so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.
Original Message —–
From: Robert & Loretta Lanphier
To: Stacy McDonald
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Matthew 18
I have read Stacy’s post on Matthew 18 and am willingly and prayerfully serving as a witness to what she is writing and believe that what she is communicating here to be true and in accordance with scripture.
Blessings, Loretta
“It is of the Lord’s mercies that we are not consumed, because his
compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy
faithfulness. The Lord is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I
hope in him.” Lamentations 3:22-24
—– Original Message —–
From: James McDonald
To: ‘Stacy McDonald’
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2000 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: Matthew 18
I have listened to this sad story and had an opportunity to read
the thread of this discussion. As the spiritual head of my home, I
believe my wife’s heart and motives to be pure. I support her effort
to help those in error and pray this message succeeds in reaching through the bitterness and softens hearts.
James McDonald
March 28, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I think Cindy K. has given an excellent synopsis of what has occurred here.
In agreement with Alisa,
(I’ve been here since thread 1 of the Visionary Daughters),
IT IS really hard to follow the general direction of the thread. Sometimes we get off on rabbit trails that lead to great discussions…other times there are distractions…I know exactly what we are talking about (as does Corrie and Karen and Cindy and Molly) because we’ve been at this for nearly a year now. But I sincerely wish we could kind of break this down for newcomers so that they could see the “roadmap” of the discussion. I find it quite funny that Heather said almost the exact same thing that I had said just a few posts up about ethics- but that we were saying it from two different perspectives. ( I was saying it regarding those who make money off their teachings).
WE DO NOT HAVE AN AGENDA—
none of us here are trying to sell a book or lead a yahoo group. (At least, as far as I personally know). Unlike many of the patricarchal leaders (Doug Phillip, Cameron Manehiem, James and Stacy MacDonald, Matt and Jenny Chancey) who are all making serious $$$$$$ off of their ‘teachings’.
OUR ONLY AGENDA IS TO SEEK THE TRUTH.
March 28, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Well, Marcia,
I went to the source and owner of the original group to verify the testimony of two other people about the events of the Sisters in Christ list. I went to Alice. I have corresponded and spoken with Alice. I relayed Alice’s testimony that confirms Corrie’s testimony and the testimony of the other source of this information. Corrie has provided documentation of Alice’s response to Stacy’s Matthew 18 letter of 2000 and documented the circumstances.
You can choose to believe that this is all lies. You can call Alice a liar. You can call Corrie a liar. You can call Dr. Talbot of the RPCGA a liar. You can call Karen a liar. You can claim that these documents are falsified. Fine.
Stack that up against the fact that James has not ever disclosed the location and date of his own ordination in the SBC. James did not even present this to the RPCGA and left under censure. This was well documented.
All James needs to do is disclose the details about his SBC ordination so that his claims can be verified independently. That’s all that has to be done to make that abundantly clear. There must be a living, breathing body that can confirm and witness that this took place. But there are no papers, no pictures, no people, no nothing.
Don’t talk to me about this, talk to James. I have a post or two to the patriarchs wives list wherein Stacy talks about being in the Toronto Blessing movement. I know all about this as I was also witness in this movement as I was in the Pentecostal Church. Many people know the churches that they attended in Texas. Many know about their activities there. James did not qualify for eldership because of his divorce and remarriage within the Pentecostal church they attended. Alice told me that Stacy told her this and admitted it to Alice.
I can tell you that there are about a dozen “moles” on that patriarchs wives list. I get information and forwarded messages from more than one person on that list. I should email them back and encourage them to start posting some of these things online here.
And Marcia, you can state ad nauseum that you are not the “McDonald’s minion” but 95% of everything you post here says that you, in fact, do little but defend Stacy and bring up red herring argument after red herring argument. Saying a disclaimer does not make something true. We are listening to what you say and are drawing conclusions from what you say. Some people may be sleepy enough to believe you, but most people are not that simple and stupid.
March 28, 2008 at 6:32 pm
“Sis has become too ecumenical in the last few months in addition to the fact that it would be too time consuming for such a large group and I would be in danger of neglecting my family. I may, for the sake of like-minded fellowship, start a small loop in the future, but I am no threat to you, if that is why you moderated my posts.”
Does this seem consistent to anyone who knows anything about Stacy and her PW list and their Patriarch’s Path, Bookstore, and the other plethora of ministries????
Too ecumenical? What does that mean? I will tell you what she is referring to- Charismatics. Are there any Charismatics on the PW list? I wonder why it is okay for her to be “too ecumenical” on her list but Matthew 18 Alice and cut her down in public on Alice’s own list for being “too ecumenical”. After all, that is why she sent in the article about Elliot. Elizabeth Elliot, in that article, was being accused by David Cloud of being too ecumenical.
And then Stacy tells us that she is not dogmatic nor does she think that everyone has to agree with her or think like her? Well, then why the beef with “ecumenical”? It is a women’s list, not some theology list. How many times have I or someone else been “shushed” on PW for talking about doctrine and not talking enough about household chores and child-rearing and everyone’s own opinion (and sometimes weird and OFF) concerning submission? If it is not a theological list, why care whether or not there are too many Charismatics on that list?
“You keep saying that I don’t know all that’s happened “behind the scenes.” That seems a bit convenient, don’t you think? Why should everything be a big secret? That’s how Satan gets a foothold. If there is sin or backbiting “behind the scenes,” EXPOSE it! It turns into speculation and gossip when everything is not upfront. You asked me several times not to forward your private notes to anyone. I would have to ask why?”
This paragraph earns a capital “H” for hypocrisy.
Now Stacy has told Jen Epstein that Stacy has apologized to Alice and told Alice how very wrong she was to send out that letter. When I spoke to Stacy on the phone about this way back when, she blamed everything on Alice and made Alice out to be a liar. There was no sorrow for what she had done to Alice. When I called Alice to tell her about what Stacy claimed, I told Alice that it was scary to talk to Stacy. She nearly had me convinced that she was telling me the truth, even though I had a floppy with SIS archives, the MT 18 letter and a LOT of correspondence showing me she was not right.
She even sent me a baby gift. That was very nice. But it was later brought up to some people as “proof” to them that she had tried to work things out but couldn’t because I wouldn’t let this go.
When I heard she was bringing up that gift, I realized that it was not simply a gift at all.
This is what Stacy told Jen:
“Was Stacy right in how she handled the whole situation? No, but she readily admits ! that not only was she wrong, but that she apologized and l earned a lot from this mistake. ”
There was no “readily” admitting of anything. And how would Jen know? Well, Stacy told her! Does it matter what Alice or I or any other firsthand witness has to say? Nope. The only thing that matters is what Stacy would like us to believe about that situation.
That is not exactly true that they were sorry for what they did to Alice. If it is, then why did I get a threat of “legal action” from the McDonalds for going to them privately and telling them that they have a duty to make things right with Alice and clear her good name by sending out an apology to EVERY PERSON they sent the MT. 18 letter out to and EVERY PERSON they spoke to on the phone in order to badmouth Alice and slander her falsely.
If they were so sorry, why didn’t they do the right thing and publicly apologize to Alice for sinning against her?
Jen has publicly stated that this is an old “nit”. Really? I didn’t realize that God had a statute of limitations on doing the right thing and being honest.
If this was handled in a biblical manner and the ones who sinned against Alice were contrite, then we wouldn’t be here talking about it.
And this situation exemplifies many of the core problems with what is going on in the here and now.
And we are accused of being judgmental? Please. Passionate Housewives is a judgmental book. There is no grace for those who think or live differently. There is one biblical way and that is Stacy’s way. She may not say that but her actions say something different.
If pants are okay and she is fine with them, why was I falsely accused by Stacy on her PW list for saying that the Bible does not prohibit pants on women and that they can be modest? Why was I twittered about by Stacy and her moderating team because of a picture of myself with a baby on my lap in a pair of skorts?
It is not what is told to your face, it is what is said behind your back that counts.
March 28, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Wow, it’s going to take me a while to catch up!
March 28, 2008 at 6:34 pm
“OUR ONLY AGENDA IS TO SEEK THE TRUTH.”
Mrs. Joy, you are correct. I have really struggled reading through this week’s comments because sometimes it is so hard to help people see the truth. Many times they cannot see it for various reasons. But the bottom line is that our only agenda is to get to that truth.
I have nothing to personally gain from any of this. In fact, there are women who used to like me, women I have known in some cases for decades, who have written to me and told me I have gone over to the side of the enemy because I have taken a stand against patriarchy. Rather than discuss the issues, her mantra to me was “but they have such lovely families.” How do you respond to that? AS I said before, I guess she forgot that she knows my lovely family, too.
Just this morning I received the most incredible e-mail and perhaps I will post it when I have permission to do so. The sender was wanting me to see what Stacy is telling people about me. I was stunned that there was not one single factual truth in it. In fact, she claims I have persecuted her openly for the past three years as “thatmom.” Well, I had never even heard of James or Stacy McDonald until August of 2006 when they moved to Peoria. I began my thatmom blog officially in March of 2007. She claimed that I had been a member of their church (never have been, though we attended there 4 – 5 years ago) and that I left because of James’ teachings. I have heard that man preach once and that was at the memorial service for an elderly church member that we attended last summer. Lies, all lies.
I have a couple new takes on what is going on and I hope to get them on paper and posted today. If not, then over the weekend. But after a while the puzzle pieces begin to fit and it makes more sense. Mrs. Joy, I agree that there needs to be some sort of time line that could also go back and reference some of the things that have come to light here in the last year or so. Maybe I can work on that next week.
March 28, 2008 at 6:35 pm
OK, dare I ask…who is Cameron Manehiem?
March 28, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“My legalistic heart takes everything it hears, even if it is offered in the most gracious, non-absolute way possible and makes a rule out of it.”
Bea, It is so much easier to follow legalistic rules than it is to have a deep intimate relationship with your Savior. That is why we get sucked in so easily.
March 28, 2008 at 6:59 pm
“For instance, someone above said that James McDonald was divorced and remarried as a pastor. (381, and hinted at in a number of other comments.)
Documentation, please? And don’t say that he could clear this up; of course he could.”
Marcia, here you go again. I think Cindy pretty well summed up my take on you, too. And yes, you do show up at the most convenient moments. I have also noticed that you NEVER engage in actual content about their false teachings, lies and flip flops on issues.
Really Marcia, it is so simple. James could clear this up easily. Why doesn’t he? Do you know what causes speculations? Secrecy. If he did not have apublic ministry with his wife leading people AWAY from Christ, I could care less about both their divorces.
So, I can only surmise that you approve of Stacey’s behavior against Karen and I think you should thank Karen for allowing you to comment here. See, Stacey does not allow those who disagree with her to comment. Ask Corrie, Karen, Cindy, et. al. if they are allowed to comment there and defend themselves as you are allowed to here to defend Stacey. Don’t you find that interesting? Does it make you wonder what she is so afraid of?
March 28, 2008 at 6:59 pm
thatmom(karen)-
Not Cameron Manehiem…Carmon Friedrich (Prairie Muffin Manifesto)…
that’s what happens when I type too fast!
I’ll try to work on a roadmap too…
March 28, 2008 at 6:59 pm
i honestly have no idea how I mashed that up!
March 28, 2008 at 7:01 pm
“OUR ONLY AGENDA IS TO SEEK THE TRUTH.”
We are not trying to sell books, literature, gain members for mailing list, recruit followers nor do we receive our income from people’s tithes and offerings.
March 28, 2008 at 7:04 pm
“Also. The SIS list thing. Corrie, I don’t know what really went on, but you have twisted Stacy’s words. Read Stacy’s quote that you yourself posted here: “I assure you I have absolutely no desire to “run Sis” and my husband would NEVER allow it…
I may, for the sake of like-minded fellowship, start a small loop in the future,””
Marcia,
I didn’t twist anything. Stacy wanted to take over SIS and when Alice wouldn’t back down, Stacy made her own list and used Alice’s PRIVATE roster to build her list with.
You don’t see any inconsistency? She is claiming that she doesn’t want to run SIS BECAUSE her husband doesn’t want her to, she would neglect her children and she doesn’t have the time. Then she throws in there that she might (that is a lie in itself- she should have said “I did start a list”) start a SMALL list? Come on, Marcia! PW is a small list? It never started out that way at all. They had already begun their plans for the Patriarchs Path and all their other patriarchal business ventures.
“But you, Corrie, go on and on about how she said she would not take on ANY list, and then started her own, when what she actually said was that she would not take on the SIS list.”
Did I say this? You want people to be careful with your words but you are not very careful with my words, though. I don’t think I said that Stacy stated that she didn’t want “any list”. She said she has no time to run a list (again, SIS was a small list!) and that she would be in danger of neglecting her family. How could she honestly say that when she already had a list that was going up the very next day?
Her statement in the MT. 18 letter IS deceptive. She wanted the SIS list and there was no “might” or “future” about her own “small loop”! It was “am” and “now” and LARGE group with all sorts of other patriarchal endeavors. You don’t think this formed in the matter of a couple of hours do you? Didn’t you read what I wrote?
Do you have the stats for the PW list?
“Sis has become too ecumenical in the last few months in addition to the fact that it would be too time consuming for such a large group and I would be in danger of neglecting my family. I may, for the sake of like-minded fellowship, start a small loop in the future, but I am no threat to you, if that is why you moderated my posts.”
SIS was a couple of hundred women. PW started out with that amount or they were up to that amount very quickly. She may start a “small loop in the FUTURE”? Is that an honest thing to say when she already had the PW list in the works when writing this MT. 18?
It is deceptive, Marcia and I have no idea why you are grasping at straws and ignoring the obvious.
Stacy wanted the SIS list. She was mad that Alice wouldn’t step down. This is confirmed by the other moderator. You can see it in the MT. 18 letter. Stacy stole Alice’s membership list and slandered Alice and turned many against Alice.
It was not the future when she started the PW list. PW was being formed that very day!
Also, how do you know the facts about James and when he was a pastor and when he was divorced?
Why don’t you fill us in? He claims to have been ordained in the SBC? He could not or would not supply this information he promised to the RPCGA and then he left to start his own. Was he ordained before or after he and Stacy married in July 1995? Was he ordained between his divorce from his first wife and his marriage to his second wife?
Why all this secret stuff? Didn’t Stacy, herself, say that facts should be brought out in the open or they would lead to gossip and speculation?
Why don’t you clear up the lie, Marcia? I don’t get it. This makes no sense. It would be so easy to supply this information so that people wouldn’t have to speculate because of all this silly secrecy.
March 28, 2008 at 7:20 pm
This really weird analogy came to mind today. If you don’t mind, indulge me a bit and I think I can sum up how I feel about this whole thing.
We are currently living with my inlaws. Good people. I am buying groceries for all 7 of us. I love good, expensive cheeses. I’d rather spend $6.00 on a pack of good cheese than $6.00 on three packs of imitation processed cheese. My FIL however, does not like good cheese. He is happy with good ole fake kraft processed cheese slices (pause for a big YUK here….)
For 7 weeks now I’ve been buying my yummy deli cheese and asking him to try. He turns me down every time. Last night, my hubby and I made our famous cheeseburgers with—you guessed it—my deli cheese (chipotle cheddar, in case anyone cares!?! this is getting silly, sorry)
Well, my FIL ate it up and wanted to know just what kind of burgers these were. They were the best burgers he’d ever eaten. It had a little spice to it.
I told him, in a word, it was the CHEESE.
He smiled and said, ” I think I *DO* like your cheese!”
So all that to say, we get stuck in our own ways of living. Our own ways of “doing church” and our own ways of thinking. We cannot appreciate someone else’s cheese until we take the time to try it and see what it is like.
This is the dumbest analogy I know, but it really made me smile. To me, there are too many Christians out there eating old processed cheese slices because they’re too stuck in their ways to try something new.
This is the crux of why one side refuses to see the other side and really get down to the serious issues and find our commonalities and admit our shortcomings and differences. Look, I know Stacy and these PW women are GOOD people. I’m not accusing anyone of being the antichrist. I think most people’s motives are pure and they honest to betsy believe that processed cheese is just better…but they’ve never stopped to try the good stuff.
Now, I’m done. If she can do dr. seuss, I can do cheese!
March 28, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“Look, I know Stacy and these PW women are GOOD people. I’m not accusing anyone of being the antichrist. I think most people’s motives are pure and they honest to betsy believe that processed cheese is just better…but they’ve never stopped to try the good stuff.”
please do not take offense at this but there is a lot of bad theology here. None of us are ‘good’ and none of us have pure motives. Our hearts are deceitful. It is ONLY Christ within us, living in us, that is the good. We are born evil and born with bad motives: Selfish, prideful, etc.
The ONLY thing that can save us is Jesus Christ who regenerates our hearts.
Please do not take offense at this but we should not believe ‘we’ are good. This is exactly the type of thinking we see every day on the news when a young man murders someone and his grandma says, he is a good boy. We see this all the time in even less serious circumstances. It even causes us to look the other way when our children sin. We say, they are really good. No they are not. We must pray that they will be broken by their sin and repent.
Stacy is a FALSE teacher. I do not know why people cannot see this. The ‘letter’ kills. Only the Spirit is life. Her cult religion kills souls, moves them AWAY from Christ and sends them into eternal damnation. We can NEVER be good enough. We can only be regenerated and sanctified by the Holy Spirit.(Not a husband who is depraved, too) Those who are really truly saved, know just how depraved they really are. They KNOW and are humbled by a Glorious God’s Grace even though not one of us deserves it.
Let us not fool ourselves.
March 28, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I meant to add that Heather’s comment should have made us all see the sinister result of Stacey’s teaching.
March 28, 2008 at 7:44 pm
I leave for two hours and there’s 100 more comments!
As an outsider who has just started following this whole discussion in the past 3 weeks or so, I’m starting to get a better picture this week of why it is so important to expose false teaching in this particular issue.
There IS a lot of splitting hairs–on both sides of this issue. What I’m trying to understand, and what I’m starting to see in all of this, is why it’s so important to expose the lies of this particular couple.
It’s not just the legalism, but the “gospel” that is being preached. There are a lot of discrepancies in behavior as well, which make it difficult to trust anyone who calls themselves leader. I have no problem with leaders who fully disclose that which is relevant to their ministry–particularly when it comes to divorce and remarriage, how you raise your children, etc., and are not afraid to admit it, and even to apologize and clarify if there has been confusion about what they really said, but that’s not what has happened in this case.
The real issue, Marcia and others, is that these people are NOT being honest with anyone, and have false motives for why they suddenly shut down an archive, or don’t accept apologies, or whatever else.
I am on several Yahoo! group lists, none of which are considered “private,” and I am very careful about what I share. The fact that Stacy shared intimate details about family and names, etc. shows that she obviously didn’t understand at the time that even a private group doesn’t give her the right to expose family members–even if it is to complete strangers.
I didn’t get to read “Marion”’s post, nor do I really care, I get the gist that it contained personally sensitive information.
What I’m wondering, in response to #413 Corrie: “Why all this secret stuff? Didn’t Stacy, herself, say that facts should be brought out in the open or they would lead to gossip and speculation?” is the very same thing.
Except I almost wonder if she likes it this way, because she can continue to call us “gossips and twitterers.” Obviously I’m speculating, but don’t you wonder about her motives when she won’t come out and clear the air, instead inviting the controversy by not exposing the truth herself?
I, too, am very concerned about the ordination issue, because that should be public information, and I can’t really see why anyone would have a reason to hide their ordination date/whereabouts from the public. If it were not a big deal, then where’s the information? Only people with something to hide will say “I don’t have to tell you that” or in police terms “You’re going to need a warrant.” Come on, if there’s no wrongdoing or lie to expose, then let’s get it out in the open. There’s no sense in prolonging the secrecy and allowing for continued speculation.
March 28, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Selahv, I’m a born-again Christian so I know all the jargon
but thank you for pointing that out.
Let me explain what I meant by “good people”
I would venture to bet that most of the women on PW including Stacy are women who love God, love their families and truly have NO CLUE that we are the same type. We are all cut from the same mold—we are all made in God’s image.
I think Stacy is a false teacher and I have HUGE issues with her, but in the end, I do not think she is akin to an axe murderer or anything of the like.
So that is what I meant by my statement of “good people.”
I honestly think if we all sat down (both sides them and us, boy does that sound like a feud or what) we’d realize we actually like one another and we are all decent women.
But, your mileage may vary.
March 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm
And, for further record, yes, I think Stacy is living on processed cheese
Sorry to be so silly. I thought maybe we could use a little bit of mood lightener.
Weekend’s here, hubby is home, so I’m out for a few days. I am sure I will return to a bunnnnccchh more comments. Have a great weekend everyone.
March 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Nice dessert on PW some time back.
Not everything on the list is dismal and some of it is sweet! May we all be a sweet to one another.
Fri Mar 14, 2008 8:06 am (PDT)
What about a cherry crisp? You can put the cherries in whatever size pan and top with a mixture of butter and oatmeal (and maybe a little bit of sugar) and cinnamon (or whatever spices). And bake until heated
through and the oats are lightly browned. You can also do it a less healthy way with some yellow cake mix (dry) sprinkled over the top and topped with melted butter. Add nuts if you like.
March 28, 2008 at 8:01 pm
“I, too, am very concerned about the ordination issue, because that should be public information, and I can’t really see why anyone would have a reason to hide their ordination date/whereabouts from the public. If it were not a big deal, then where’s the information? Only people with something to hide will say “I don’t have to tell you that” or in police terms “You’re going to need a warrant.” Come on, if there’s no wrongdoing or lie to expose, then let’s get it out in the open. There’s no sense in prolonging the secrecy and allowing for continued speculation.”
This is what was written to me from two reliable sources: James was deposed from the RPCGA. (public record) He was also asked to produce his ordination papers from the SBC, where he claims he was ordained, but never produced them when he came into that denomination.
March 28, 2008 at 8:06 pm
I have a solution to this ongoing situation….
Stacy can publicly post an apology, long overdue, imho, to Alice.
This is what I asked for back in 2002 and my hand was slapped with a threat of “legal action”. In the aftermath of that action, I spoke to Stacy on the phone concerning Alice. It certainly seemed that Alice was still considered guilty of all that she was charged with in their MT. 18 letter. It seemed nothing changed at that time.
If they are truly sorry for all they said about and did to Alice, then they would have no problem apologizing publicly since their offense was public. The apology will admit to and take responsibility for the things that happened without obfuscation and dissembling.
March 28, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Green Eggs and Ham comes to mind…..
March 28, 2008 at 8:10 pm
As Charles Spurgeon once said,
“There are two great certainties about things that shall come to pass– one is that God knows, and the other is that we do not know.”
It is true that we do not know all the truth about the future, but we do know the truth. It is the truth that abides within us, the truth that sanctifies us, the truth that makes us free, the truth that ensures our future. And although we don’t know the future, we know the Onewho sovereignly holds the future. ~ Burk Parsons
March 28, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Sigh. No one is getting my point. Either I’m not clear, or you just don’t want to hear.
I’m saying that there is nothing wrong with your main purpose. If there are inconsistencies or false teachings that can be shown, have at it.
Just don’t muddy the facts.
Now, I have to get ready to go out for a night on the town with my girlfriends. We’re heading downtown to the Surly Girl Saloon; I don’t know what this is, but I love the name.
You know. Because women followers of the McDonald’s are always out partying.
Good Lord. I couldn’t be less like them.
March 28, 2008 at 8:23 pm
What you are doing is wrong!
“But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.” 1 Peter 4:15
What is a busybody? In this passage, she is a woman who delights in other people’s business. Instead of being focused on her own home, her own duties, her own family, the busybody is interested in everyone else’s
business. A busybody is “busy” gathering and passing on information. Of course, saying these things is sinful, but knowing them may be equally sinful.
March 28, 2008 at 8:33 pm
“I think Stacy is a false teacher and I have HUGE issues with her, but in the end, I do not think she is akin to an axe murderer or anything of the like.”
Here is what Jesus said about the Pharisees in John 8
44 You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 45But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. 46Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? 47 Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not hear them is that you are not of God.”
One cannot be under the law (whether tradition of men or Mosaic) and be IN CHRIST at the same time. It takes NO faith to follow laws. We cannot be saved without faith.
March 28, 2008 at 8:39 pm
What you are doing is wrong!
“But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters.” 1 Peter 4:15
What is a busybody? In this passage, she is a woman who delights in other people’s business.
If what some are doing is wrong, by pointing out that Stacy is wrong by lying and what she did to Alice, then that is the EXACT SAME THING YOU ARE DOING, or attempting to do.
So take your own advice.
March 28, 2008 at 8:39 pm
What you are doing is wrong!
Jude 1
3Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our(C) common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you(D) to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.
Legalism of man kills the soul
2 Corin 3
(A) Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but(B) our sufficiency is from God, 6who has made us competent[a] to be(C) ministers of(D) a new covenant, not of(E) the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but(F) the Spirit gives life.
7Now if(G) the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with such glory(H) that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses’ face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, 8will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? 9For if there was glory in(I) the ministry of condemnation,(J) the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory.
By the way, verse 6 includes women contrary to what James and Stacey teach.
March 28, 2008 at 8:40 pm
“Just don’t muddy the facts.”
Documentation Please!
March 28, 2008 at 8:42 pm
gentlewife: Wouldn’t it be nice if Stacey allowed us to comment on her blog or forum like you are allowed to here. Can you ask her why she will not allow us to defend ourselves on her blog or forum? Thanks.
March 28, 2008 at 8:54 pm
gentle wife,
What you are doing is wrong!
So was Esther wrong when she learned of Haman’s plan and went to the king?
Was Jeremiah wrong when he pleaded with leaders to stop their evil ways?
Was Paul wrong when he said that it’s good to expose deeds done in darkness?
Of course, saying these things is sinful, but knowing them may be equally sinful.
Why is it sinful to learn that a “leader” is involved in questionable activity? Personally, I think that’s a positive beneficial thing: the more God’s sheep are aware of the danger, the less of them will fall into the pit the leader is walking them into.
I do not think it is good or kind to run others down. But it is LESS good and kind to know that a certain leader or group is dangerous and to say nothing about it for the sake of keeping oneself or others comfortable.
What is a busybody? In this passage, she is a woman who delights in other people’s business.
Was Paul a busybody? Was Esther a busybody? Is being concerned for the welfare of God’s people being a busybody? Aren’t we supposed to be about God’s business?
There may be attitudes here that are right and attitudes that are wrong (or, in my own case, sometimes right and sometimes wrong! Ha!). But please don’t let that detract from the truth.
The truth is that Stacy has been caught in some very dubious behaviour and, instead of responding humbly and graciously (either by apologizing or by carefully explaining the documented truth), is engaging in name-calling and story twisting. Yet Stacy is a leader and is teaching others to follow in her footsteps. A wise Man once said, “If the blind leads the blind, they both end up in the pit.”
If you saw a group of blind women walking on the road outside your front window and they were about to walk into oncoming traffic, I am sure that you would run out and shout a warning, or even grab a hand and lead them to safety.
You wouldn’t be a busybody for doing that—you would be a lover of souls. If the leader yelled at you and called you names and told the women that you were lying to them and that they should KEEP on following her, you would probably keep on trying to help them, right, even though it made her mad? You would, because you would see the cars whizzing by and would know that those women were going to be flattened if they kept following that leader. It wouldn’t be fun for you, of course, but you would feel a duty to warn the followers, even in the face of the leader’s anger.
If James and Stacy are leading God’s people into a pit, if they are mixing the beauty and grace of the Good News with a lists of “do’s and don’ts and righteousness by works,” then those who love God’s people have the duty to run out and shout a word of warning so that, at the very least, those being led can be aware that they choose to follow at their own risk.
Warmly,
Molly
March 28, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Selahv (an awesome nick, btw) said:
Please do not take offense at this but we should not believe ‘we’ are good. This is exactly the type of thinking we see every day on the news when a young man murders someone and his grandma says, he is a good boy…. It even causes us to look the other way when our children sin. We say, they are really good. No they are not. We must pray that they will be broken by their sin and repent.
Amen, Selahv, amen! We are so prone to view ourselves and others as basically good. This skewed view of man terribly disturbs our theology and lifestyles. Thanks for the reminder.
Even my heroes are bad
March 28, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Lin,
gentlewife: Wouldn’t it be nice if Stacey allowed us to comment on her blog or forum like you are allowed to here. Can you ask her why she will not allow us to defend ourselves on her blog or forum? Thanks.
I would have loved to engage with Stacy on her own blog, btw, and have written numerous politely-worded comments that were never allowed to see the light of day. Same goes for Carmon’s blog. I long since learned my lesson. Don’t try to talk to them, don’t try to discuss with them: they don’t want to. They are right, you are wrong, the end.
Hence I moved my thoughts over here. I would much rather interact with the people in question themselves, but they do not provide a forum where those who disagree with them can speak. *shrugs*
Anonymous (re. Comment #379),
I would like to (very politely, because I appreciate much of what you say) ask you to be careful about posting things about the evil Catholics, emergents, etc, such as the (questionable-ahem) negative review of the Ragamuffin Gospel book, etc. John MacArthur has some questionable teachings, particularly in his vilification of the emergent church (completely misunderstanding it and taking a few questionable groups and painting them to be the whole thing) and his teachings about women, for example.
There are many different commenters here with a wide range of theological views and I think some just got whopped upside the head bigtime. I’m one of them.
I’m sure some of the Catholic commenters didn’t feel so great, either. I don’t mind, because I’m a big girl, but I just thought I’d mention it for those who aren’t ever going to say anything. I’m not sure this is the right forum for getting into theological debates. There’s a wide range of us here, and I think it would be a good idea if we could be as ecumenical as we can. The patriarchy-family-idolatry movement affects MANY Christians from many walks of life. We don’t have to agree on specific theology to agree that what the patriarchs are teaching is dangerous and damaging.
Warmly,
Molly
March 28, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Okay, so I was upstairs getting ready, and I thought of this comment:
“And yes, you do show up at the most convenient moments”
And it just made me laugh. I mean, I assume it means moments when y’all are talking about Stacy, and, well, when are you not?
March 28, 2008 at 9:13 pm
anne,
I’m verrrrry sorry you were thrown off the list. I don’t want to be and I’m sorry if I caused this to happen. I’m mad about the archives. This doesn’t make sense to me.
Don’t worry, though. There is some good advice to be had here. Actually, after riding on the PW list for many years and coming here, the advice is good or better. there is alot i don’t like, but there are some real ladies here and they dont seel books. And everybody gets an answer here evenif you dont like what you here. I agree that not everyone is answered on the PW list. I’ve been coming here for some time.
Call vision forum! Call vision forum! I wonder if they did???? They know and see all and know all about the paranoia. Thats what it sounds like to me.
Thu Feb 14, 2008 1:28 pm (PST)
I will call Vision Forum.This is the second call I’ve gotten from this
guy. The time was spaced over a year between though, so that I didn’t
automatically remember him. This time he went into a great deal more
detail and asked more questions in conversation. He stayed on the
phone alot longer too. I didn’t remember it at all until he started in
on the weird spanking stuff. The most scary thing was the personal
stuff. I took it as an interesting coincidence at the time. Now, I
wonder…..It is kind of nice to know that it is happening across the
country at least. Maybe he won’t be on my doorstep. What if he had
taken me up on my dinner invitation!? Ha!
March 28, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Stacy on my hard drive, Georgia on my mind
<<<<>>>>
March 28, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Shortly before I married my ex-husband, I was saved. Nobody warned me about
being unequally yoked, but I knew in my heart I was making a huge mistake.
He was abusive and consistently unfaithful. We had one daughter together.
During the years after he left us, I raised my daughter without child
support since there was no way to make him pay child support unless I filed
for divorce. I remained married and faithful to my ex-spouse, praying and
begging for reconciliation for 3 years after he left us to live with another
woman in another state (who he eventually married).
James was technically married for 12 years, although he only lived with his
ex-spouse for a total of 2 or 3 years collectively. She frequently left
him, disappearing with his children, sometimes for months at a time. Many
times, while he was at work, she met with men in front of the children and
instructed them not to tell their father. She eventually left him for good
to marry a man who she eventually *left* to live with another boyfriend.
March 28, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Moer Stacy onmy harddrive
I guess I have been on both sides of this in some way. I was adopted, while
my two younger sisters were not. There was obvious favoritism while I was
growing up (to the point that I was coddled by extended family members
because they felt bad for me). I grew up very bitter (probably compounded by
the coddling) and didn’t forgive and become truly free of this until several
years after my salvation. I now have a wonderful relationship with my
parents, though it is probably different in many ways than my younger
sisters’. One thing that helped me understand what my mother must have had
to deal with in her relationship with me, was having “step” children. Oh how
I shudder when I say that word. That is a non-word in our household. You
might as well have said a curse word! Our children are our
children…period.
Some of you may not know this, but I did not give birth to my oldest four
children. Regardless of this, they are all ours. Our other five children do
not feel slighted by having to share our affection, but instead are blessed
with more brothers and sisters. Actually, four of them (since they are so
young) have absolutely no idea there is any “difference” between any of
them. We do not separate children by using words that distinguish one from
another. I have seen women introduce their families by saying, “This is
Rachel, my daughter and Lisa and Tammy, my step-daughters.” How insulting!
If I were a child, that would make me feel like I was being pointed out as a
“less-than” daughter somehow. I wonder, if in turn, they are looked at as a
“less-than” mother. Why not hug them all and say proudly, these are my
three beautiful daughters, Rachel, Lisa and Tammy?
This does not mean it has always been an easy road. When the four oldest
first came to live with us, they had been living a VERY different life with
their birth mother. In fact, that is why we won custody – long story. She is
no longer in their lives. It was quite a culture shock for them to come live
with us. It was for me too. In fact, I can remember struggling with feelings
of even liking them, much less loving them. I was pregnant with our first
child and secretly wished for a quiet, clean home to bring our new child
into. Instead, it was noisy and full of disrespectful, untrained children
who challenged me daily to keep it clean and neat. Hormonal, tired and
pregnant, I didn’t seem to be able to keep up and resented the fact that I
had to.
However, I made a conscious decision to love them, no matter what I “felt.”
After all, love is not a feeling. The natural affection that a mother has
for a child was not there. I remember feeling very guilty about this, and
pretended for some time. However, once I finally broke down in tears and
admitted this to my husband, he knew how to pray for me and he was able to
help. I prayed and begged God to give me a mother’s heart for these children
He had placed in my hand, though not in my womb. I now knew what my own
mother had struggled with, and she was not a Christian! It was easy to
forgive her.
Over the years we’ve dealt with many issues in their lives. Some more
serious than others. But God has been faithful and has given me a mother’s
heart for them. When strangers find out that I did not give birth to all
nine children, they are shocked. Giving birth to them is the EASY part! LOL
These ARE MY children. All nine of them. They are mine and I love them and
I’m thankful for every minute of their lives. I wish I had them since birth,
but God in His sovereignty had different plans and I’m thankful and content.
God has worked miracles in our family and the testimony of their lives speak
of God’s goodness and mercy.
We need to remember that people – families are coming into the Kingdom from
all kinds of backgrounds. Because of our sinful hearts and increasingly
feminist/secular society, there are more and more Christians wondering what
to do with their past. God calls people to Himself at different stages in
their lives. If a person becomes a Christian and is divorced, remarried, or
has children from another marriage, or maybe no marriage at all, what then?
What about the single parents who don’t seem to fit in anywhere? What about
those with homosexual backgrounds? Do we pretend they don’t exist? Do we
sentence them to a life of celibacy somewhere? Many do.
I suggest that we do what God intended. We forgive. We point them to Jesus.
We begin to teach them about Christian families and how they function. Does
that mean we buy them a book or direct them to a class at church? No. It
means we begin to function as a Covenant community. We bring them into our
homes. We practice hospitality constantly. We point the fathers to their
wives and children and direct the wives to submit to their husbands. We
don’t try to steal the hearts of the youth by buying them pizza and offering
a Bible study, but instead point them to their fathers. Teach the fathers to
love their wives and lead their families and the mothers to love their
husbands and children – ALL of her children.
Don’t buy into the world’s version of step-children. If you are married to a
man who previously had children, you ARE the mother of that house. If they
still have a relationship with their birth mother, respect that. But you are
the mother of YOUR household. Be the mother – not the “step” mother. Kiss
your child, not your “step” child. Let’s stop dividing the family and start
reforming it.
In His Service,
Stacy McDonald
mcmom@…
Joyful Wife of my beloved James
Thankful Mother of Jamie(19), Christa(18), Tiffany(17), Melissa(15),
Jessica(12), Caleb(6), Abigail(5), Virginia Grace (2 years), Emma Katherine
(8 months), and our Little One in Heaven
March 28, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Popping in between shopping and supper just to say that Lindsey, I loved your cheese analogy! Very apt. I will also definitely try that Chipotle cheddar idea the next time I make burgers; I just picked up some lovely extra-old cheddar today, but it’s herbed, so I am not sure whether or not it would work properly– I may well make an experiment out of it!
I also wanted to say that I continue to follow this closely, even if I don’t have time to comment as fully as I’d like. I have spent the past three months following these threads and wanting so desperately to believe the best of people like Stacy, Jennie, Carmon and their ilk (much like Molly posted, I want very much to believe Stacy truly thinks she is following God with all her heart) but it’s becoming increasingly difficult to do so as more facts come to light. “Deceptive” is probably the nicest thing I could say of her behaviour right now . . . I keep remembering how a friend and I researched and made a presentation on cults for youth group, and while at the time I thought the things we said about cults and cultish organisations were rather silly and dramatic, I’m starting to see firsthand the things that, at 15, I thought people would surely be too clever, too clear sighted, too completely focused on God Himself to actually believe (but then, at 15 everyone thinks they have all the answers, right?!).
Really, if it’s been this difficult for me, somebody with no personal connection to Stacy or her “ministry” whatsoever, to accept the possibility that she may be willfully deceiving her followers for her own purposes, I can only imagine what it must be like for women who have ordered their entire lives around her teachings to contemplate that possibility. I just ache for them, and am not at all surprised that they would choose to be slow to see the truth; they must feel they have so very much to lose.
March 28, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I didn’t think of myself as a mole, but I guess I am a white washed feminist now.
WWF, I see your hand and will raise you one more; this came to my box in the digest some time ago. I don’t read the archives and never did.
With all the discussion on working mothers, I would like to remind everyone
that it is the position of this list that wives should be keepers at home
according to Scripture. (I have an article in the Jan/Feb issue of
Homeschooling Today magazine that goes into this further). I understand
there will be unusual circumstances where a wife is forced to work.
Specifically abandonment, widowhood, or temporary emergency situations. That
said, they should still NOT have to work. I have personally been in this
situation, so I am not ignorant of the difficulties these women face.
If the church were functioning properly and scripturally, these women would
be completely provided for and their and their children’s needs would be
met. When the church sends the abandoned mother off to work with a wad of
cash to help cover daycare expenses, the church is sinning against God and
this woman. If the abandoned wife does not have family to care for her, she
should be supported by the church until she is remarried or reunited with
her repentant spouse. Period.
The following “article” is a response written by Jennie Chancey on a website
called razormouth. There are plenty of “offensive” (arrogant etc.) posts on
the site, so I would not send you there to go browse without warning you.
However, I am including a link in case you would like to read the thread
from which she is responding. Here goes…
“Blaspheming the word of God…?”
http://www.razormouth.com/archives/00000268.htm
Jennie Chancey offers a response to Sandlin on working moms
My surprise upon reading Andrew Sandlin’s response (“Are working moms
okay?”) to R.C. Sproul, Jr.’s article (“Feast in a box”) could not have
been greater. Rev. Sandlin accuses those of us who believe that a woman’s
place is at home (serving as her husband’s helpmate) and not in a
“full-time” job of “inch[ing] toward…Phariseeism”. Mrs. Valerie Jacobsen
has already provided a thorough portrait of the “non-working” wife’s role in
the home, the Church, and the community, so I won’t bother to rehash those
facts. Suffice it to say that there is no such thing as a mom who does not
work – “working mother” is a handy misnomer for those who have a “real” job
outside the home in addition to all they must accomplish at home.
What truly amazes me is that Rev. Sandlin can state so confidently that the
Bible does not call a woman leaving her God-given, home-based occupation for
work outside the home “sin.”
While he quotes the first portion of the famous Titus 2 passage, he neglects
to carry it through to the final kicker: “that the word of God may not be
blasphemed” (Tit. 2:5b). I don’t know about anyone else, but my dictionary
still defines blasphemy as showing “contempt or disrespect for (God, a
divine being, or sacred things), esp. in speech” and uttering “profanities,
curses, or impious expressions.” The Greek word used here is blasphemeo,
which is used elsewhere to refer to reviling the Holy Spirit. It is
interesting to note that St. Paul uses the word in 1 Cor. 4:13 to refer to
the way the world reviles Christians, calling them “the filth of the world,
the offscouring of all things.” Are Christians to blaspheme or to encourage
others to blaspheme God’s Word? St. Paul writes in Col. 3:8, “But now you
yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy
language out of your mouth.” I think we can feel fairly confident, then,
that blasphemy is sin, whether it is spoken verbally or lived before a
watching world.
How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just
brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” St. Paul evidently
believed it would be obvious enough to his readers that he didn’t need to
say, “Leaving the home and going out into the work force is sin,” as Rev.
Sandlin seems to think is necessary in order for us to avoid Phariseeism.
But do we need such bald statements in order to understand St. Paul?
Apparently, blaspheming God’s Word involves doing the opposite of what St.
Paul has just exhorted women to do: be “reverent in behavior, not
slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things – that they
admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to
be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands.”
Going to the Greek again, the word for “homemaker” used here is oikouros,
which literally means “guard or watcher of the house.” Thayer’s Lexicon
renders the meaning “keeping at home and taking care of household affairs.”
A woman cannot both “keep at home” (or “guard the house”) and “keep” in a
separate workplace. She cannot both “obey her own husband” (emphasis mine)
and obey another boss (even if it is one for whom her husband has asked her
to work).
A simple glance at the domain which the wife is commanded to oversee and
rule – yes, rule – should demonstrate beyond a doubt that it is not possible
to be an effective, capable keeper at home while pursuing another (outside)
occupation. The Proverbs 31 woman has been considered the ideal wife
throughout the history of the Church. To some, she is a marvel; to others,
she is a bane (how can one woman possibly do all that stuff?). Let’s just
consider what this woman accomplishes as a “non-working” mother:
As ruler of the home, the wife was entrusted with all of the management and
stewardship of the family estate. Note that the things the Proverbs 31 woman
does (besides providing for the immediate needs of her own husband and
children through meal-planning, creating clothing, etc.) all add to the
wealth and productivity of the family estate. This woman buys a field and
plants a vineyard (verse 16), augmenting the family holdings and investing
long-term (it takes many years before a vineyard becomes productive and
profitable). And how can she purchase a field? Because she has saved money
from her own home-based industry, spinning wool and flax (verses 13, 18 &
19) and creating garments she can then sell to the merchants (verse 24). She
is no idle consumer! When she purchases something, it is because she has
worked hard so that she can save and buy the highest quality items (imported
food, verse 14; fine linen, verse 22) for her family and further invest in
the family land. In addition, she ‘extends her hands to the poor’ (verse
20), providing for the needs of the less fortunate around her. (And it
should be noted that her charity isn’t given grudgingly or under compulsion
but freely and personally out of her own hands.) Her management of the
entire household (including servants who work under her) is so capable and
thorough (verse 27) that her husband has absolutely no need to micro-manage
or worry about the state of things at home (verse 11). Because she oversees
a hard-working, productive household, she is not merely spending her husband
’s hard-earned money, she is doubling it and tripling it and supplementing
it with her own! She shares a vision with her husband for the long-term
health and well-being of her family�and for the inheritance of her children.
Regardless of whether or not she has an empty nest or is childless, this
woman is busy! She is, first and foremost, her husband’s helper — not her
children’s helper or her servants’ mistress. The man who is blessed with
such a wife can truly find the Dominion Mandate an enjoyable challenge,
because he has a serious partner on the home front. What is a second income
when you do not have a ruler at home to manage and oversee the affairs
immediately under her purview?
But a “sin” to leave it and work elsewhere? Them’s hard words! People will
get offended if we say a wife working outside of the home is a sin. Poor
women who have to work will feel they are second-class Christians or looked
down upon by their stay-at-home sisters in Christ. What about women whose
husbands have abandoned them? But let’s try to look at this without
knee-jerking if we can. We are living under a cursed economy. We are not
living under God’s blessing. When the Church abandons “hard” teachings for
soft words, the salt loses its savor and is trampled underfoot. When we
follow pell-mell in the path of the “working world,” straining after the
“American Dream” income, we’re going to fall into the same trap the rest of
our culture is in: wives forced to work to make up a “shortfall,” debt,
divorce, children handed over to government schools, et cetera. And we’re in
it – knee-deep. Where are the older women who are supposed to teach the
younger ones how to be sober keepers at home? Oh, their children are all
grown, and they have “nothing” to do, so they’ve gotten “real” jobs. What
about the women who are to be “washing the feet of the saints” and
“ministering to the poor.” Ummm…too busy earning that second income.
The Body of Christ needs its women! It needs singles, newlyweds, mothers,
grandmothers, aunts, “spinsters” – every last one of them. And it needs them
to embrace the role God has given them without looking back. We have so much
to do, and we have so little time to accomplish it all. God has given us a
great gift in calling us to the home. Our role is not inferior because it is
“unpaid.” Our role is not of lesser importance because it isn’t out in the
public sphere. When God created mankind “male and female,” He showed us that
it takes both “halves” to make up the whole of humanity. That our roles
differ is a cause for rejoicing and glory – not a cause for shame or
depression. When both roles complement each other beautifully, we
demonstrate to the world a picture of God’s divine image that is
breathtaking to behold. We demonstrate the union of Christ and His Bride,
the Church. Rejecting our roles or revising them to suit our individual
tastes and plans is blasphemy. I didn’t say it; St. Paul did. Is it
difficult for every woman to obey the clear command to be a keeper at home?
Indeed it is, but, again, it is because we are living under God’s curse (He
doesn’t bless an economy built upon fiat money, consumerism, and debt).
Instead of seeking to extend the curse even further, we need to be lovingly
helping our brothers and sisters in Christ so that those women in tough
financial situations can stay at home. After all, when St. Paul writes about
widows, does he say they just need to suck it up and get out in the work
force to fend for themselves? Far from it. He calls those who will not
provide for widows and orphans “infidels” who have “denied the faith” (1
Tim. 5:7). When a woman has to work outside of the home, it is not an
indication of some special blessing; it is a poor reflection on her provider
(if she is married) or upon the Church (if she is widowed and has no
family). The Body of Christ is to take care of its own.
As co-editor of the BeautifulWomanhood.org site, I receive dozens upon
dozens of letters from readers each month. I’ve yet to hear from one woman
(aside from the militant feminists) stuck in a “real” job who doesn’t long
to return home. A woman working in a nearby post office stopped me one day
to ask me if I stay at home. When I affirmed that I did, she told me how she
wanted nothing more than to go home, garden, sew, and care for her family.
She feels trapped, because her husband has grown dependent upon the second
income. Is this blessing? God has built into women the desire to rule the
home. It is part of the Dominion Mandate. It is not Phariseeism to proclaim
homekeeping God’s standard for women. This is not an excuse to feel superior
to women in the work force or to look down our noses at those who have been
shackled into a “second income” and all it entails (that would be sin, plain
and simple). Rather, it is a call to be extremely thankful for faithful
providers (husbands, fathers, churchmen) who care for the ones God has
entrusted to their shepherding and to pull together as a Body to help those
not as fortunate. I am simply overwhelmed with gratitude for a husband who
cherishes my role and does not seek to pull me out of it to supplement his
income or take over his God-given role. I am a blessed woman–not a
superwoman, but the thankful wife of a truly super man.
Mrs. Jennie Chancey is the wife of Matthew and the mother of five children.
She keeps home in Virginia, where she enjoys sewing, designing patterns for
her home-based business, and co-editing BeautifulWomanhood.org in her
“spare” time.
In His Service,
Stacy McDonald
mcmom@…
Joyful Wife of my beloved James V
Thankful Mother of James VI (20), Christa(19), Tiffany(17), Melissa(15),
Jessica(13), Caleb(7), Abigail(5), Virginia Grace (2 years), Emma Katherine
(1 year), and our Little One in Heaven
March 28, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Posted by: “Mrs. Stacy McDonald” mcmom@patriarchspath.org mcmomathome
Tue Feb 19, 2008 7:17 am (PST)
“My family used to attend a traditional liturgical Lutheran Church before we moved across the province to Sylvan Lake. I found with this church, that I eventually started to lose the relationship aspect of my life in Jesus. I basically became like a robot, I sit now, I stand after the offering etc. We are now attending a so-called “mega-church” of 2,500 members and I have found that my relationship with Jesus is starting to come back to me. I no longer feel like a robot while in church, but I am free to express my love of the Lord in a way that has true meaning to me. Not that there is anything wrong with using the liturgy during worship, but I felt myself being stiffled in showing my love to the Lord.”
Hi Jamie,
I wanted to point out that liturgy can be a wonderful expression of worship when our hearts are in it. In fact, it’s a beautiful way for us to participate in the worship (in an orderly, corporate way) rather than “watching” someone else worship. I was raised Catholic and when I first became a Christian as a young adult I began attending Charismatic churches. I rejected anything structured or liturgical. I rolled my eyes when I saw pastors wearing robes and preferred the easy going casual churches where everyone could express themselves at will (even dancing and shouting out in the middle of service). Because of past experiences, I erroneously viewed liturgical churches as dead churches.
As time went on, God began to show me the error and chaos in some of the churches I had loved (James even went to Ontario for a business meeting and attended one of the infamous “laughing churches.”
I never would have thought I’d attend a church with liturgy, but it has been such a wonderful change. I love the order and the emphasis on sound doctrine. I so enjoy corporately reciting what we believe with our children. I am humbled during our corporate public confession of sin and when we rejoice “with one voice.” I look forward to the Lord’s Supper every week and am moved as I watch each family go forward together to receive communion. I love singing doctrinally sound hymns and beautiful Psalms from the Psalter in harmony.
March 28, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Not to change the subject, but did someone post the Botkin sisters are teaching a seminar on how to write a best selling book? Wouldn’t it behoove them to write a best selling book then teach others how to? Has their book made the NY Times bestseller list yet? Some Christian authors do make it there. Also, some conservative Jewish authors like Wendy Shalit’s, Return to Modesty were on the list. But the Botkins? And again I ask why is it Stacy’s book and the Botkin’s book has faceless women on the covers. Is this a new trend at their publisher? And why does this haunt me?
March 28, 2008 at 10:18 pm
“And it just made me laugh. I mean, I assume it means moments when y’all are talking about Stacy, and, well, when are you not?”
For very long stretches and you seem not to be around during those stretches. The comment streams are the documentation.
March 28, 2008 at 10:20 pm
Marcia,
I think you are unclear. I am listening to what you say. I heard you loud and clear. I just disagree with what you are saying. All I am saying is that you were not accurate in what you said I was saying. The point was the obvious deceit which you seemed to ignore.
The very line you clipped out was the line that was one of the most deceitful in the whole letter. There was NO “might” and there was NO “future”. That was a falsehood because the PW list was being formed that very day. And she clearly made it seem that a “large” list was not in the near future because she would neglect her family and it would be too time-consuming.
You know how big the SIS list was at that time? 200 people! LOL
Large? And I suppose 800 is small? How about 400 which was what it grew to in a very quick time, thanks to the use of Alice’s membership list. And then add to that books, bookstores, websites, articles, magazines, speaking engagements…WHEW! And she was telling everyone that a group of 200 was too large to manage?
I hope you have fun tonight. The Surly Girl Saloon? Hmmm…
That would surely be a great blog name.
I thought that surlyness is frowned upon?
March 28, 2008 at 10:47 pm
Lindsey,
I like your cheese analogy, too!
And it came at the perfect time. I just made a ton of cheeseballs (all different kinds) for a renewal vows ceremony at my church tomorrow. And being from Wisconsin, I always love to talk about cheese. We used to live very close to a cheese factory and we really miss being able to get decent string cheese down here.
It was not cheesy at all.
March 28, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Hi Marcia,
This is what Molly said:
“I would have loved to engage with Stacy on her own blog, btw, and have written numerous politely-worded comments that were never allowed to see the light of day. ”
Now, I understand that you have respect for Molly, right?
What is your thoughts on what she wrote? Does it make sense to you?
March 28, 2008 at 11:12 pm
What ARE your thoughts…..:-)
March 28, 2008 at 11:15 pm
http://www.marshillchurch.org/sermonseries/religionsaves/week_01.aspx
Interesting Mark Driscoll sermon on Birth Control.
HT: Amy Scott
March 28, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Since proof is being asked for maybe the ladies asking could contact these website owners.
They say McDonald was disposed of as a pastor, and then another page says he was trying to start a new denomination and inviting RC Sproul Jr. over. Can someone give us the short version? I am guessing this was discussed on another board here?
According to this first article James McDonald is not ordained:
******For several weeks James McDonald of Family Reformation Fellowship and Marion Lovett of Heritage Presbyterian Church have been quietly soliciting pastors to join a new denomination that they’re trying to get off the ground. McDonald and Lovett were co-conspirators in RC Sproul Jr’s paedo-communion plot against the RPCGA. McDonald and Lovett bailed out of the RPCGA within days after Sproul Jr was defrocked and immediately began working on getting their new denomination together.
We have it on good authority that McDonald and Lovett issued a standing invitation to Sproul Jr to join their new denomination, Covenant Presbyterian Church Presbytery, some weeks ago. The origins of this “denomination” are dubious, at best. None of the founders are ordained. They left the RPCGA minus their credentials. In point of fact they were deposed, although unlike RC Sproul Jr they weren’t deposed under charges. Are they planning on ordaining themselves? Numerous other questions loom large that challenge the legitimacy of what these men are doing, but we’ll leave those concerns for a future article.**********
http://ministrywatchman.com/?cat=6
**McDonald wasn’t given a vote in the decision because he hadn’t been a member in the RPCGA for the requisite one year period to have Presbytery voting rights. So he voted with his feet instead. Now there’s a fine way to keep your vows to submit to the authority of your Presbytery!
McDonald didn’t request to be transferred to another denomination. Rather, he asked to be released into independency. Not very Presbyterian of him on that score either! His buddy and fellow RC Jr paedocommunion conspiracy cohort Marion Lovett also left the RPCGA at the same time, and in the same defiant way. Together they’ve now formed the Covenant Presbyterian Church Presbytery.
Presbyterian denominations have most typically been formed over significant doctrinal disputes, but not the CPC. Presbyterian denominations have always been formed by ordained Presbyterian Elders, but not the CPC. McDonald and Lovett were deposed by the RPCGA.
******
March 28, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Um that should read “deposed” not “disposed” but then again…..
March 28, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Here is Amy Scott’s thoughtful post on QF. It was pointed out to me on another list. I really appreciated this article and I am glad to see that people are causing us to think about these issues.
http://humblemusings.com/archives/2008/03/04/thoughts-on-contraception-and-the-quiverfull-movement/
March 28, 2008 at 11:43 pm
For the record…
…I did not know about the whole “Alice” ordeal when I made my previous posts.
I warned you guys that I was not “up” on current events! ;oD
That said, of course there is no loop-hole for not being loving when correcting. And of course, the truth said in love is not always interpreted as such. But hey, I’m preaching to the choir; you guys are all pro’s at this! “Carry on…”
March 28, 2008 at 11:47 pm
While we are waiting for Marcia to clear up our misconceptions surrounding McDonald’s ordination in the SBC (he is the one who has claimed this) and WHEN he was ordained (we are not picky, the year give or take a year on either side will be sufficient) in the SBC, is Lovett ordained? Where?
I find this stuff important. I don’t understand why these sorts of reports are unimportant to some people? This is alarming to me. I mean, I may not get upset at the really important stuff like people actually reading what I write on “private” lists and holding me to it when I say something contrary, but this does upset me. Maybe I am just too sensitive or not sensitive to the correct things?
Archive prowlers and recipe stealers don’t really scare me all that much. I mean, I would have been the one laughing in 1938 during the “War of the Worlds” radio broadcast. I think the best job in the world would be chasing tornados and getting as close to them as possible.
But, those shepherds who do not enter through the gate but climb up over the wall do scare me. The Bible calls them hirelings because they have to sneak into the sheepfold under the cover of darkness and they cannot enter through the gate but they must gain entry illegally. Maybe I was a border collie in another life?
Who are those who are guarding the flock? Who is sitting on the wall watching out for those who are not true shepherds?
A true shepherd would be able to tell the year and the place of his ordination. But, McDonald was never able to even verbally confirm the requested information he promised to those at the RPCGA.
Surely that shouldn’t be very hard to remember?
I remember the date I was baptized after I became a Christian.
Surely that pales in comparison to remembering an ordination date? Maybe not. Most of the pastors I know can rattle off that information in a heartbeat. Most pastors I know include that info in their resume that is available to the public when they are being taken into consideration at any church for a position as pastor.
I would hope you all would call me into question if I showed up on the scene, claiming I was ordained in the SBC and starting my own presbytery, putting gender aside for just a moment for the sake of my illustration. If I was unable to give you a direct, clear and forthright answer to that very simple question, you had better run from me.
March 28, 2008 at 11:58 pm
Alisa,
I do appreciate your cautions to be loving. I really do. So, thank you. Constantly being put down and kicked out because you dare to even voice your own thoughts gets frustrating at times. It is funny to me that the patriarchalists like to think that their interpretation of scripture is authoritative but our interpretation is merely our own opinion.
I also know what it is like to trust someone and what they are telling me and to later find out that they were not telling me the truth. It is not a pleasant feeling to invest so much in an ideology and have to hear that there is something wrong with it.
I will tell you all that I have known Alice since the mid-90’s. We do not see eye to eye on all the issues and we have had a couple of bumps along the road. But, she has always been honest with me (even when I would have rather she wasn’t so bluntly honest with me) and her story has never wavered. She is truly a friend.
March 28, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Anonymous,
There are emails and archives that people posted as proof, and Marion’s must have been accurate because Stacy shut down the archives so that no one could verify. There are other emails that came off of another group that was closed. There were people who witnessed it. Cindy called the group owner and posted here, telling what she said. Corrie confirmed the story. What court are these other website owners supposed to send their records to?
The McDonalds will just keep saying that all these evil people lied and the Devil is after her because she is special to God. They can say that there was no Alice. They can say that thatmom is making up all these stories so she can feel important in homeschooling. I don’t buy the feminist name in the way they say it on PW, but some of the people there believe Stacy and wont change unless Stacy does this kind of thing to them.
I know that the other ladies on PW will believe Stacy because they are comitted to her. They don’t want to get thrown off the list. They just don’t know about the things that go on outside of PW.
If that ministry watchman gives up evidence, what will that prove and who will believe it? People are lined up to believe Stacy no matter what. People here have given testimonies about their lives and what happened to them with Stacy. thatmom said today that Stacy is telling other people a whole different version than what she knows is true. For the PW list, it is Stacy against Karen.
I am creeped out almost that they blocked the archives. I am also nagged that Stacy never answered any of the questions on thatmom’s site. And I don’t like the individual emails. It doesn’t sit right with me, and now people are leaving the PW because they cant go to Yahoo and just on the group page read when they have time. They act like they have something to hide.
March 29, 2008 at 12:29 am
anne Says:
March 28, 2008 at 12:51 am
Why doesn’t the person going who is forwarding the emails to here send them to as many ladies as they can on PW to let them know what is going on?
Anne
I cant figure out how they figured out who you were so they could send you an email. Did you change your name or are you using your real first name here and Stacy was able to put 2 and 2 together?
Who do you think will believe me if I send everyone a email? I can think of one or two people but not very many that would take this seriously. Im with whoever it was who said it was one persons word against another and almost like the letter Stacy sent out about Alice. They will fawn over Stacy like they always do when something happens like this and it will make some people worse, dont you know? And there will be messages from Janet. It will just turn into 100 messages of symapthy for Stacy and people getting upset about the saftey and privacy.
March 29, 2008 at 12:29 am
“They act like they have something to hide.”
They do. Stacey’s behavior speaks so loudly I cannot hear her lamentations about being persecuted by radical feminists.
)
March 29, 2008 at 12:40 am
“I know that the other ladies on PW will believe Stacy because they are comitted to her. They don’t want to get thrown off the list. They just don’t know about the things that go on outside of PW.”
Anne got thrown off the list for merely expressing her opinion.
Anne is just one of many who have been escorted to the door. Why? Because they called names? Because they swore? Because they told dirty jokes? Because they posed naked for Playboy? Because they ran off with the Schwan’s man and left their husband and 10 children?
No. None of the above.
It is because they were not “like-minded” enough. In my case, and it is still in the archives, I think, I was reminded that when I joined PW, I was to be “like-minded” with them concerning modesty of dress. It says nothing like “dresses-only” on their main page. It only says “modest”. Well, I think pants are modest if they are not too tight or or too low which allows your thong to show when you bend over. Because I said that I do not see the Bible not prohibiting pants on women and I backed it up with scripture, I was treated to an official Moderator post about how I knew the list rules when I joined and I was told that ladies are getting confused by my statement about pants. The protection of the ladies on the list was of primary importance in this case. Also, I was accused of trying to justify my immodesty and desire to lead men to lust after my body. I was shown the door.
If the posts are not there, I can supply the actual posts.
Then I joined up again after the “threat” in an effort to keep me quiet about the truth.
Not soon after I joined, the face-slapping thread started. Well, I couldn’t keep quiet. I was emailed and told that I shouldn’t be so judgmental of parents who slap their kids’ faces because that is just one of many tools in the toolbox for parents to use.
It started when a woman wrote about how her parents were very upset to see her husband slap one of their children in the face as discipline. I guess he did this often enough. Then other started to talk about the success they achieved through slapping their children’s faces.
Then people started posting about how the wife should not confront the husband because that would be equal to disrespect and that would be much worse for the kids than being slapped in the face. Really? I would think that a child who has been slapped in the face by either parent would welcome the other parent’s protection and defense of that child. And if the other parent in her/his right mind didn’t protect them and stand up for them, then that would actually CAUSE disrespect towards the parent who knows better. But, the spiritual head is not to be disrespected (aka corrected or held accountable) because that is a sign that the wife thinks she knows better than her husband. Well, duh! She DOES in this instance! A wife isn’t supposed to know better than her husband? What if she is right and he is wrong? Or maybe that just never happens.
Thank God that the grandparents had common sense! I hope they pushed the issue.
I chimed in, of course, and said that slapping our children across the face is abuse and has no place in our parenting. Of course that went over like a lead balloon. Not one of the moderators would step in to cut off these women who were talking nonsense. (After I left, one might have stepped in but I know of no such instance before I left.) So, I quit and wrote a letter to Stacy and/or one of the moderators and told them I am very upset that I had no back-up from them and that they allowed people to give the list the impression that this is okay. So, here, the protection of the ladies was not important. It was the fact that I had a differing opinion.
It was that I cried out when the dog was hit by the car and that let everyone know that I was not one of them and it was a signal to plant the pod under my bed that night.
Titus 2, anybody? I mean, I am not exactly chopped liver in that department. I think I might know a thing or two by now. But, the mystical position of the husband as prophet, priest and absolute ruler over his home is what is most important.
Well, at least one of the moderators, the one who wrote me back, told me that face slapping is an issue of liberty and I shouldn’t be so judgmental. It was a tool in our parenting toolbox.
So, I was being too loose for saying pants were okay for women and I was being too legalistic and judgmental because I stood up for these children whose parents thought that they could slap them across the face? Is that logical?
And people come here and tell me that I am too judgmental? LOL! And they tell me that Stacy is tolerant of pants and tattoos and other sorts of body jewelry? No way. Talk is pretty cheap. Put it to the test. Start expressing a different idea in some of these areas and see what I mean.
Of course I am making this all up and my version is all twisted and gnarled and wrong. That is until you read the actual posts and private email from the moderator. But, even then, there is some secret stuff we are always missing whenever anyone tells their experience with this group. Only some have the gift of telling us what really happened.
What did that Matthew 18 letter say about saying things like that but never backing it up with facts?
March 29, 2008 at 12:47 am
I’m going to comment on #442, about liturgy and all that, since it was brought up.
As far as what Stacy said about “our hearts” being “in it” when it comes to liturgy, I know very few people who “get” liturgy, and often go to those kinds of churches simply because it’s where they were raised. I’ve heard so many times from people who were raised liturgical how offensive it is when the drum set at our church is directly below the cross–WHO CARES??? I mean, that just seems really silly to me to nitpick about such things.
I agree that liturgy CAN be really beautiful sometimes. Our church did an Ash Wednesday service 2 years ago based on the Book of Common Prayer, and it was totally awesome! It also had our own elements that were from our church background, but the ashes and the recitations were “old” stuff.
It’s okay to mix the old with the new, I love some old hymns mixed into the newer worship sets.
But the person Stacy was addressing had a very valid concern. If church is always liturgy, always the same week after week, it can bore you, and that’s not what Christianity is supposed to do.
Frankly, after reading that exchange, I’m starting get that Stacy will say “Oh, I understand your point of view” at first, and then turn and say “But in order to be a ‘good’ Christian, you have to do it THIS way.” Just like how she said that it’s a sin to read National Enquirer, but was really saying it’s a sin to read this blog–because in her mind they are the same (gossip).
I am having trouble with the “new” definitions of gossip and slander that she has come up with, because they don’t really fit.
I was also incredibly disturbed by Jennie Chancey’s misrepresentation of Scripture that Stacy quoted, simply because the whole argument was so full of holes! If her interpretation of Titus 2 is really what she says in that “article” it completely CONTRADICTS Proverbs 31. Am I mistaken when I read Pr. 31 and see a woman who DOESN’T sit at home all day, but is out working her tailend off?? Please tell me I’m wrong here! I also found her “ruler of the home” thing ironic, because as soon as the man steps in the door, she calls him “ruler.” So she’s only queen until the king gets home? Then she’s a servant? Or is she both? I’m so confused and annoyed right now I don’t know where to begin. The inconsistencies are Glaringly obvious, and I can’t figure out why their followers don’t see them!
Maybe it’s my super pregnant brain or something, but it makes me want to cry! I have never seen the scriptures so misused by CHRISTIANS that interpretations actually contradict one another so obviously. I thought the Bible was supposed to support itself, not contradict.
Sickening. I’m really angry right now! Sorry if I come off too harsh.
March 29, 2008 at 12:57 am
“But, the spiritual head is not to be disrespected (aka corrected or held accountable) because that is a sign that the wife thinks she knows better than her husband. Well, duh! She DOES in this instance! A wife isn’t supposed to know better than her husband?”
Well, if she is never supposed to know better than him on anything then she is only good for one thing. Can you guess what that is?
Hint: You can find it in Islamic countries, too.
March 29, 2008 at 12:59 am
Hey Neill Clerk~~~~~~~`
Mrs. Joy is going to a conference where the Botkins are speaking.
http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/part-two-of-prairie-muffin-manifesto-discussion-karen/#comment-8414
March 29, 2008 at 1:04 am
Excuse me…. Corrie, did I understand you correctly that there are some women who defend slapping children in the face and say this is an ok thing for a parent to do??? I’m praying I’m not understanding some how. If this is so, what Biblical grounds did they give for this?
March 29, 2008 at 1:05 am
“Please tell me I’m wrong here! I also found her “ruler of the home” thing ironic, because as soon as the man steps in the door, she calls him “ruler.” So she’s only queen until the king gets home? ”
Check out 1 Timothy 5
14So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, …”
The Greek word for ‘manage the household’ is Oikodespoteo
Definition
-to be master (or head) of a house
-to rule a household, manage family affairs
It is where we get the word: Despot.
)
So the verse is translated badly esp in the NASB where it says, ‘keep house’. It should say rule her home like a despot.
)
Hey, you can’t make this stuff up! Ya just gotta read and do some research to see how badly these folks mangle scripture for their own profit.
March 29, 2008 at 1:27 am
Marcia, Marcia, Marcia,
What are your thoughts about
- Stacy moderating any posts on her blog that make her look bad?
- Stacy and her “other Minion” on the Peoria newspaper blog claiming that they answered all of the questions posed to her by Karen when she didn’t. Please tell Stacy that if she emailed a response to Karen, please ask her to resend…
- The fact that Stacy wants all these matters of “disagreement” handled privately when her public teachings are concerned, but when she was upset enough to call people twitterers and say a practice of hers (documented on the list serve and confirmed by the statement of people in Stacy’s church who thought it was weird)was “nonsense,” she can just put that accusation online?
People gloss right over these elements without commenting… but I would like to hear your thoughts…
I’m curious because the
BACKGROUND NOISE is deafening. ANY SUGGESTIONS?
March 29, 2008 at 1:41 am
“Well, if she is never supposed to know better than him on anything then she is only good for one thing. Can you guess what that is?”
Uhh……….
Making his favorite dinner? Making his coffee in the morning? Dusting? Laundry?
Am I getting warm???
Oh, I know! Picking the apples off of the apple tree?
In order to make an apple pie, that is.
March 29, 2008 at 1:42 am
Corrie, being slapped can be a hellish experience for any human being, child or not, naughty or not. I actually know someone who struggled with intense depression after being slapped by one of their parents in the middle of a disagreement. Thank you SO MUCH for addressing this. How do you come to your conclusion that this is unjustifiable?
I had some other thoughts on something else that I might write down after a bit …
March 29, 2008 at 1:45 am
“14So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, …”
The Greek word for ‘manage the household’ is Oikodespoteo
Definition
-to be master (or head) of a house
-to rule a household, manage family affairs
It is where we get the word: Despot.
)
So the verse is translated badly esp in the NASB where it says, ‘keep house’. It should say rule her home like a despot.
)
Hey, you can’t make this stuff up! Ya just gotta read and do some research to see how badly these folks mangle scripture for their own profit.”
Selahv,
Where are you getting this new-fangled theology from? Is this that ear-tickling stuff I hear about so often? Are you one of them thar white-warshed feminazis? That sounds like feminazi talk to me.
Who cares what the Greek says. Just give me the traditions of men taught as the precepts of God.
March 29, 2008 at 1:54 am
Just a little observation as I have begun a rough outlining of all the patriarchy/patriocentric discussion threads on True Womanhood…
Stacy MacDonald has not actually been the “actual” subject of any of these threads. She and her husband and many different aspects of her ministry have been discussed at different points in conjuction with the main topic of the thread.
The first discussion was about the book by the Botkin girls So Much More that went to six threads- in which there were a few sub-discussions including discussions about Doug Phillips, Jenny and Matt Chancey, Jen Epstein of Jen’s Gem’s, Kinism, and John and Stacy MacDonald. This current discussion’s main focus until recently was actually the Prairie Muffin Manifesto. Another thread up for discussion was what a ‘definition of terms’ of feminism was…another was about coming of age ceremonies for young girls…responses to the Kevin Swanson broadcast of the interview with the Botkins…preparing our daughters for life…who defines feminine modesty?…Monstrous Women (a refrence to the Bayly documentary)…Godly Womanhood in the 21st century…
JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THROUGH THE BACKGROUND NOISE THAT STACY MACDONALD HAS NEVER BEEN THE FOCUS HERE ON TRUE WOMANHOOD…
Carry on…
March 29, 2008 at 1:55 am
Hi Beatrice,
Maybe I will dig out my copyrighted post from the PW list and post it on here.
Basically, slapping a child’s face is humiliating. Like you said, it is humiliating for anyone to slap their child’s face.
Was the face made to be slapped? No.
I went so far as to call it sin because it is abusive and unnecessary and it is not doing unto others as you would have done unto yourself. It is not treating the least of these as better than your own self.
I know. It is a SCANDALOUS concept to say that slapping a child’s face is sin! It ranks right up there with when I told the PW list that no one in the OT wore pants at the time that “a woman shall not wear that which pertaineth to a man” was laid down as the Law. In fact, everyone- both men and women- wore ROBES in the Old Testament. Talk about unisex! Sure, the ladies had doo-dads on their robes but really- a robe is a robe is a robe. Now, that is a scandalous concept. Shockingly so. Do you see how much trouble I caused on that list? I just wouldn’t get in line and go along with the flow. I always had to have a dangerous opinion of my own that would disrupt the peace and tranquility of a group whose collective mind was lock-step.
There were many would would email me and thank me profusely for standing up for the truth but they told me that they were too afraid to speak up for fear they would be kicked off like others.
I can’t remember Rebecca Prewitt’s story about getting ousted from that list but that is another quite comical one.
Maybe Marcia has an explanation for why she was kicked off?
March 29, 2008 at 1:59 am
OK. You all probably already know the principle of this. But I might as well say it in my own way. I think it is something that is very important for people on all sides of this discussion and others.
When deciding the meaning of a text, the text itself determines the meaning and has the final say, not what is said by the author of the text about the meaning, or the self percieved intent that the author has in his mind regarding what he wanted to say. I was writing a paper on a famous Western novel for my English teacher, and I was very confused about how to interpret it. He told me that whatever I thought Bronte had intended to mean was not the final issue, what she actually said in her text was. He said that if one keeps a diary, you communicate so many things about yourself that you never realise consciously, never mean to write at all. But they’re still there. We are not perfectly aware of what all goes in inside ourselves, but it still comes out in what we write. Thus, whether Bronte meant to mean something, or thought she meant something, is not the final question. What she actually ended up meaning, what is actually THERE in the book is what we’re trying to figure out. This is especially important as we are fallen or confused creatures and often seek to evade expressing what we really are inclined to think.
A while back, you all talked about the “girls who go to college are harlots” thing and how the Botkins denied they said that. This is just one example of what can happen when something is debated like this. The text actually says that many girls scorn their homes, thus having harlot hearts. College is implictly linked to this, if not explicitly. What is the real diff between that and what people understood this to mean? They tried to say they mean something different, and their explanation didn’t sound really different. If that’s what they meant, why split hairs? If they changed their minds, why not say so and admit that people had understood the text? Now I know we haven’t talked about the Botkins for a while, but it’s just a good example. The principle goes for anything we read on a blog and in a book.
I love literature and reading, and I thought my experiences in that came in handy about thinking about some of this stuff.
March 29, 2008 at 1:59 am
Sandy,
“Excuse me…. Corrie, did I understand you correctly that there are some women who defend slapping children in the face and say this is an ok thing for a parent to do??? I’m praying I’m not understanding some how. If this is so, what Biblical grounds did they give for this?”
Yes, this is what I am saying. They gave no Biblical grounds. But, I did and it earned me a headache for my troubles.
Basically, the moderator told me that this is one of many tools in a parent’s toolbox and I should not be so judgmental and use such strong language when I call it a “sin”.
I prayed I misunderstood, too. But, I didn’t. It was still in the archives just a little while ago because I put this story up over at Karen’s other blog and someone named “Nancy” called me a liar and then several people from Stacy’s list wrote me and told me they saw that what I was saying was the truth but they couldn’t come forward publicly and defend me from being called a liar.
Too afraid of the consequences for speaking out.
Anne is the poster girl for such rebellious list members who speak out.
March 29, 2008 at 2:01 am
Anne,
Obviously your name has been cleared. You are no longer on that list and the crook who stole from the archives is still stealing from the archives and posting the stolen merchandise on this list. They even stole a recipe! What next?
As, Dora would say: “Swiper no swiping!”
March 29, 2008 at 2:03 am
And just a giggle…
I wonder how our men feel about being called old hens cackling and twittering…
David? Richard? Neill?
Do tell!
That, and I know for a fact that quite a few husbands of these women read the blog too- mine does!
March 29, 2008 at 2:05 am
OK…. my counselor’s heart is hurting at this moment. Slapping children in the face… I think I’m going to go pray for a while, especially for these children. May God forgive us for what we do in His Name!
March 29, 2008 at 2:08 am
And all that I just said … I believe that some people here may have been told “If you have a problem with these people, you need to talk to them, how do you know what’s up with them until you ask them?” Well, they miss the point in that some people want to discuss what a book or article actually says! If something is in print, it IS supposed to mean something and be understood and read. Lol
March 29, 2008 at 2:14 am
Where to start? Take a day off, and 50 posts later…
Abby,
I love that beautiful thumbnail photo, BTW. And you have a delightfully pregnant brain, I think. Seems to be working quite well.
I guess that was another patriarch’s wives posting from several years ago as I remember well the Razormouth Site and the very day that comment was made by Andrew Sandlin. How weird, because I actually quoted from the source she mentions here on this blog yesterday (RE: hot jungle love) but linked to Vision Forum’s citation of it. (Razormouth no longer has that active blog). I guess it’s the exotic marital sex and discussion of Vodka martini commentary that evoked the warning from her!
I am surprised that Stacy draws attention to the home despot language at all for the very reasons you mention. Once the king comes into his castle, is she the despot, or does that fall to the king through some patriarchal argument from silence. But we are just supposed to understand Scripture through the lenses of presupposition that the woman is the despot. Maybe she becomes the “little despot” when Big Daddy gets home from work? But she’s always Daddy’s “big ezer” and the child helpmeet daughters are always the “little ezers”?
That is why patriarchy is more an issue of presupposition and reading through the lenses of assumption about “roles” rather than a doctrinal problem. You must understand the Scripture in terms of their doctrine rather than understanding doctrine in terms of Scripture. They start from the patriarchal assumptions, so it is nearly impossible to conceive of anything else. Scripture then just becomes a means to an end.
I’d rather start out with few, more liquid assumptions and then frame out what we know from Scripture. Then plug in the rest, even with the patriarchal arguments from silence. Then your house is built with the rafters of the word rather than whether women wear dresses and play with dolls.
I wish I would have had access to this when I wrote my Amazon review of the Housewives book back in the Fall! I referred to Jennie’s article, but I didn’t have this direct of a statement to cite from Stacy’s own hand!
Reading this post, I got stuck on this:
What truly amazes me is that Rev. Sandlin can state so confidently that the Bible does not call a woman leaving her God-given, home-based occupation for work outside the home “sin.”
While he quotes the first portion of the famous Titus 2 passage, he neglects to carry it through to the final kicker: “that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2:5b).
I don’t know about anyone else, but my dictionary still defines blasphemy as showing “contempt or disrespect for (God, a
divine being, or sacred things), esp. in speech” and uttering “profanities, curses, or impious expressions.”
Here, Stacy states that she believes the Bible states that it is a sin to work outside the home by stating her incredulousness over Sandlin’s strong statement that it is not a sin.
She does not state that this is God’s desire and best plan but to do so is “not wise” as James says on his blog and as she softens in her Housewives book interviews. Either she believes with confidence that the Bible says working outside the home is sin or she believes that there is a good case in the Bible for this belief that would cause Sandlin to have some pause.
Then she goes on to say “read the whole passage” by pulling in the blasphemy association. She neglects to discern the source of the blasphemy. Is it
an unkept home?
OR
working outside the home?
If you can do both and your home is well kept, then why cant you work outside the home? The central issue for the home despot is to perform the job well, right? What if, like the Proverbs 31 woman, a woman today can do both? In Stacy’s black and white world of logical fallacy, the two cannot be simultaneous and concurrent.
Ergo, working outside the home and not a poorly kept home is the source of blasphemy, that which curses and profanes the Word of God.
Yet in all these interviews and questions about her book where she tries to say she believes that we should support women who work, based on what she clearly says here and what her co-author had to say, she now claims that she supports women in their efforts to go out and profane the Word of God?
Publicly, she says she thinks it’s fine for women to work outside the home and that it is just not wise or ideal. But in private, she says what will be most advantageous to this audience on her email list that says this is blasphemy for a woman to work outside the home.
But what do I know? I’m a lying feminist and hate monger or whatever and I’m trying to help get blog hits for Karen.
Yeah. I just don’t understand. Maybe I need mediation? Maybe someone need remediation. (?) (!)
March 29, 2008 at 2:27 am
Mrs Joy,
LOL! Are you getting the PW emails or are you just trying to pick up on what Cindy Kusnan was saying?
One of the topics on the PW emails today was about a background noise machine and where you could buy them.
So are you a rebellious homeschooled daughter or are you another mole? ROFLOL!
So we know that I’m still on the list, and Cindy may be a mole somehow, or she is taking contraband from PW thief.
Liars, lawbreakers and thieves, Oh My!
March 29, 2008 at 2:34 am
As, Dora would say: “Swiper no swiping!”
I am sick to death of Dora. And we have never even seen the show! And yet! I know who swiper is. How bad is that?
March 29, 2008 at 2:39 am
Sandy said: OK…. my counselor’s heart is hurting at this moment. Slapping children in the face… I think I’m going to go pray for a while, especially for these children. May God forgive us for what we do in His Name!
Sandy,
You know, I hate this stuff. I think that slapping is a power thing and acting out of anger, too. It is outright demeaning and cruel. I know some parents, years ago and now, that use corporal punishment with both their young children and their teens, but it is very methodical. They get five whacks with a paddle because 5 is the number of grace. The kids are informed in advance of a time when this is scheduled and the father always does the paddle. I don’t know how this works for the older kids and might just be more for embarassment value, but what is nice about it is that the punishment is NEVER done out of anger or in a heat of passion. And often, the teens tell me that they get mercy and don’t often get the punishment.
The slap in the face, to me, is defiance and fury. (Defiance on behalf of the parent against the frustration of the situation.)
BUT, all that said, it is better then that Einwechter guy who recommends stoning wayward teens.
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/stndisob.html
March 29, 2008 at 2:47 am
Corrie wrote: Oh, I know! Picking the apples off of the apple tree?
In order to make an apple pie, that is.
Oh this is stinkin’ cute!
March 29, 2008 at 2:51 am
Did someone write a book in the ’50s about spanking 5 times? I’ve heard my old Bible Class teacher who was the assistant pastor at the church where I went to Christian school talk about this. Five was the number of grace so you spank five times. He was a Lee graduate.
I wonder where this comes from. Maybe it will end up in somebody’s next how to book next year.
March 29, 2008 at 2:53 am
Who is Dora and what is swiping?
That was my husband’s grandmother’s name, and he says that she did a lot of swatting and him when he was little!
March 29, 2008 at 4:21 am
Mrs. Joy wrote: “And just a giggle…
I wonder how our men feel about being called old hens cackling and twittering…
David? Richard? Neill?”
HEY! I’m not just a potted plant over here, ya know!
March 29, 2008 at 4:30 am
How many Marions are there?
http://www.spiritual-research-network.com/abusequestionnaire.html
March 29, 2008 at 4:58 am
Just wondering – who all is husband to who?
March 29, 2008 at 5:25 am
Cindy,
You really must get out more.
Dora is a Spanish cartoon person. Swiper is the naughty fox who tries to steal things from Dora. The audience is cued to say “Swiper no swiping!” 3 times and then Swiper can not steal from Dora.
Lin,
Try to give poor Dora a break, okay? What did she ever do to you?
About Marion….it seems like she may have multiple personality disorder?
Mike,
I am sorry. I didn’t notice you over in the corner. Please take that silly lampshade off of your head and join the party.
We welcome all the Roosters to this board and you can cockle-doddle-doo anytime you want. That is if you can get a cockle in between all the cackling of us hens.
March 29, 2008 at 5:36 am
Marion M,
Whoa! I just went to that link concerning the Spiritual Abuse Questionnaire and here are a few of the questions it asks.
You mean it isn’t out of line to ask certain questions about our leaders backgrounds and practices?
I will tell you that if my feet were in the McDonald’s shoes, I would have no problem with people checking these things out. I wouldn’t want it any other way. If I were a leader, I would want people to feel like they can trust me and that I am not hiding anything.
Maybe somebody would like to evaluate my answers below and tell me what it all means.
“Are you allowed to freely ask questions about the background of your leader(s) and your group without being looked down upon or being considered ‘divisive’?
YES / NO
“No”
Would you be ‘rebuked’ by your leader(s) if you researched the background and history of the group and its leader(s)?
YES / NO
“YES, YES, Most definitely I have been, YES”
Are you allowed to freely discuss teachings, prophecies, or so-called new revelations that your groups leader(s) have stated in the past or present?
YES / NO
“NO, those are “private” ”
Are you allowed to ask your leader(s) questions regarding their background in ministry, education, teaching, policies, etc.?
YES / NO
“NO. Definitely NOT. We are not supposed to speculate either. We are just supposed to accept things that are said at face value even though a simple date of an ordination cannot be provided. We are not at the level of being privileged to know this information. Some are but they will not share.”
Are your leaders above reproach (without blame) in morals, ethics, teaching and financial issues?
YES / NO
“Uh, No.”
Do any of your leaders have a criminal record?
YES / NO
“I don’t know. I know one of them had an alias.”
Would your leader(s) freely allow you to research their background in order to find out if they have any criminal record?
YES / NO
“No, they won’t even answer a simple question. ”
Has anyone in your group ever tried to persuade you to NOT research the personal background of the leaders?
YES / NO”
“Definitely YES. People are called “obsessed” if they want to know some simple, straight forward details.”
March 29, 2008 at 6:07 am
Just wanted to de-lurk for a moment:
Wow! I’ve laughed and cried, studied and prayed because of this thread (as well as past discussions). I’ve not even made a significant dent in reading all the comments here but the ones I have read — they make my heart feel like a burden has been lifted. My peer-driven “guilt” over not measuring up because of so many issues has been on my heart lately: medically unable to conceive more children (I already had 4) within a very QF/performance-based/homeschooling church; my inability to just take others’ interpretation of the Scriptures
; my beef against those who preach patriarchy/family business/the whole enchilada; my questioning of the book writing/merchandising christian circuit; etc., all has made me question just “what DID Jesus DO (for me)?”
It’s a good thing I have never read Mary Pride’s book(s) when I started homeschooling — I couldn’t handle the extra pressure to measure up to such legalistic standards. BTW: I’ve read up on the whole Raymond Moore thing, too, and my response from the other party was that they were disappointed I’d read about all that. I see it now as an insight into how the whole homeschool “machine” got it’s fuel and started operating in many regards.
I’m also going through a difficult time with not agreeing with some of my church’s beliefs right now. They are starting to promote VF/Botkin ideas more openly, and the Gothard presence is felt there in some circles, though some of the church’s leadership has it’s own design to reform the family and congregational worship.
I just love Jesus and His Gospel of Grace, and I’m dealing with frustration and sadness. Thank you, Everyone, for your wonderful insights! Richard, I’m coming to really enjoy your line of thinking (I especially agree with your Modesty post/McDonald) and have been reading your blog, too. This group here, Karen, has been my retreat away from the feeling of always having to DO something to gain access to fellowship, and it would be so much more lonely if I didn’t have my husband and family to support me in my concerns about those extra-biblical teachings.
March 29, 2008 at 6:32 am
Go, Kate~!
March 29, 2008 at 6:42 am
“Dora is a Spanish cartoon person. Swiper is the naughty fox who tries to steal things from Dora. The audience is cued to say “Swiper no swiping!” 3 times and then Swiper can not steal from Dora. ”
Cindy, You would like Dora books. There is a chocolate tree in the woods where you can go and pick big hunks of chocolate to make hot chocolate with Abuela. (I always wondered if it was dark chocolate
)
Now, does that appeal to a sanguine or not?
)
March 29, 2008 at 1:17 pm
I just stumbled upon the Christian Feminism site through Molly’s blog, and the first thing I read is about women in ancient Israel asking for their right to an inheritance. here’s the link:
http://christianfeminism.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/daughters-who-claim-their-inheritance/
My pastor just talked about this on Sunday, he’s been on the topic of women lately, for some reason! He pointed out that the world was (and still is) largely misogynist, and when Christianity comes around, women’s status is elevated. Sure, this is OT stuff, but it’s a foreshadowing of what was to come.
I thought it was really neat that these two things connected in my mind, because in much of the Middle East, the laws are derived from Islamic law (Qur’an) and Tradition (Hadiths), and women DO get some inheritance, but 1/3 of what their brothers get–wives get 1/3 as well–even in Christian circles, because it is LAW. The way Christians get around this? Buy their wives lots of expensive jewelry (as much as they can afford) throughout their marriage, and the wives can cash in on it if they ever need to if their husbands die.
My husband’s Mom has 2 sisters and 1 brother, and her dad died many years ago. It seems so unfair the way women are treated.
Anyway, all this just begs the question of what happens if a daughter never marries in the patriarchal society? If she is obedient and stays at home being daddy’s little helper, does she get any compensation for that if he dies?
I look to the New Testament and see so many women who were widowed with children, and it’s no wonder the church had to set up a deacon position, because the Roman law at the time did exactly what Jewish law had done previous to these poor women who lost their father.
The more I learn about the patriarchal movement, the more backwards it seems to become. They aren’t just looking back to “better times” on the prairie, they are looking at the ancient customs and practices that demean and devalue women. If I am against that, and someone wants to call me a feminist (or a feminazi), then so be it. I am proud to be one!
Church history has been riddled with these kind of roller coaster rides, up and down, back and forth throughout the history of the church people have gotten it right and they have gotten it wrong. The problem with church is that a lot of times we have the same attitude as the Israelites who asked for a king. We don’t get that we don’t need “one person” ruling over us (or a couple in some cases). Why would we rather be ruled by Jezebel (NOT referring to anyone specifically!) than be “judged” by God ordained leaders?
Another thing that has bugged me is: why do people seem to put more stock in what “Calvin” said or some other religious leader of the past, than what the BIBLE says? And a lot of times, I think people are reading Paul without reading Jesus’ words first. Even Paul warned us about following him over following Christ. Why don’t we heed that warning anymore? Just because he’s been canonized doesn’t change the fact that he’s still not the Son of God!
That was a totally random rabbit trail, but I think it’s relevant to the origins of this discussion–the PM Manifesto, that is.
March 29, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“The problem with church is that a lot of times we have the same attitude as the Israelites who asked for a king. We don’t get that we don’t need “one person” ruling over us (or a couple in some cases). Why would we rather be ruled by Jezebel (NOT referring to anyone specifically!) than be “judged” by God ordained leaders?”
Food for thought, Abby.
March 29, 2008 at 2:03 pm
The patriarchal movement is definately BACKWARDS. It is based on good intentions and good things (families, etc) but at some juncture it has taken a very sharp turn south.
I mean, who as a Christian doesn’t want a strong family unit? Even pagans and non-Christians of other religious backgrounds tend to value family. We all like to be liked and we want someone to love us. The family is a core in this.
But, the family is not the Saviour of the world. It cannot be, and it is not the role of the family to provide some sense of salvation.
March 29, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Abby, how very true. I was having a similar line of thinking when I responded to Anne a few posts back. Why can’t we be content with God and His Word? Why are we constantly seeking after the next book, the next “quiverful movement”? The next preacher/teacher? How long will it take before we realize where the real Answer is?
It’s something I struggle mightily with.
Soli Deo Gloria!
March 29, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Mike…
:O
ROFL!
I’m not sure who’s husband to who…my husband has read this blog for at least six months, but he’s never actually commented.
March 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Munching on the popcorn over here.
March 29, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“The more I learn about the patriarchal movement, the more backwards it seems to become. They aren’t just looking back to “better times” on the prairie, they are looking at the ancient customs and practices that demean and devalue women.”
and
“Another thing that has bugged me is: why do people seem to put more stock in what “Calvin” said or some other religious leader of the past, than what the BIBLE says?”
Wow, Abby. I think you may get the prize for most succinctly summing up the basic theme of 5000+ comments in more than a half dozen threads that have looked at the patriocentric movement!!!
March 29, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Welcome, James. Are you watching Real TV or a tennis match?
March 29, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Maybe Rebecca could share more about her banning from PW, but to my knowledge she posted on Cheryl Lindsey message board and on the same day was banned from the Patriarchy message boards and PW.
March 29, 2008 at 2:41 pm
“But, the family is not the Saviour of the world. It cannot be, and it is not the role of the family to provide some sense of salvation.”
Amen
March 29, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Just this morning I received the most incredible e-mail and perhaps I will post it when I have permission to do so. The sender was wanting me to see what Stacy is telling people about me. I was stunned that there was not one single factual truth in it. In fact, she claims I have persecuted her openly for the past three years as “thatmom.” Well, I had never even heard of James or Stacy McDonald until August of 2006 when they moved to Peoria. I began my thatmom blog officially in March of 2007. She claimed that I had been a member of their church (never have been, though we attended there 4 – 5 years ago) and that I left because of James’ teachings. I have heard that man preach once and that was at the memorial service for an elderly church member that we attended last summer. Lies, all lies.
Sifting back through the many topics and things presented here, through things cherry and cheesey…
I didn’t absorb this initially.
Was it Alisa who urged us all to be loving? And then some words of “admonishment” to not be busibodies. Very surreal. And Marcia saying that we have no right to consider the details of James past. (another of many topics)
I again think of Revelation and the lampstands and the churches and their problems. Overcoming is a process. I often think of how easy my First Love can get displaced amist all this confrontation and exposing of the heartwrenching abuses. Molly spoke about having one’s heart of love eaten out of them by patriarchy itself, then there is the coming back from spiritual abuse, be it patriarchy or something other, like patriarchy’s big daddy — the submission teachings. There is much that I’d rather be doing… So we need the admonishments to remember love, as it is a challenge. In our righteous anger or from that place, we must not sin but paradoxically love one another.
And then I get back to reading through this. We’ve heard how Stacy has been “maligned” with the truth that some would say we should wink at because it is unpleasant. It’s unpleasant for both companies, but it is truth. “The truth hurts!” At least this does. Unpleasant things have been brought to light here. We have been tough, holding the McDonalds up in the light of scrutiny like the Bereans we are called to be. Karen and others are painted as the “heavies” here, perhaps appearing overly harsh or rough on a fellow believer whose shoes I would not want to stand in. God have mercy on us all.
But then I read this… Why do so many people so quickly forget that Karen was just doing what she’s been doing for many years, being thatmom in Peoria. And into her backyard, a little patriarchy movement camp sets up shop in Karen’s backyard. There is an abbreviation that was used on medical charts when I worked in Louisiana: SOMPMMOBRMB. “Sitting on my porch, minding my own business, reading my Bible” usually followed with “and someone just came up and shot me.” Well, I think with Karen, it was absolutely true. She was minding her home and her homeschooling “sphere” of ministry, and I know she was reading her Bible! And one day, say late in 2006, things changed.
And they’ve been changing ever since. Karen was affiliated with the McDonald’s church plant and left that arena years before she had heard of the McDonalds. Yet Stacy maintains offline to at least this one person about years of persecution, ect., etc. What happened to Stacy’s “no gossip zone,” or is it only when you’re on one of their own blogs? She can do whatever she wants in “private.”
Funny how people venturing over from the McDonald camp to complain gloss right over things like “nothing factual” and “lies, all lies.” The lies of the McDonalds, added to the long list of outright lies and subtle redefining and obfuscation about their pasts. Are these Rahab related, and permitted because of the great McDonald cause? Where’s the love in that, and why does this not qualify for gossip?
Then Corrie post this:
“Are you allowed to freely ask questions about the background of your leader(s) and your group without being looked down upon or being considered ‘divisive’?
YES / NO
“No”
Would you be ‘rebuked’ by your leader(s) if you researched the background and history of the group and its leader(s)?
YES / NO
“YES, YES, Most definitely I have been, YES”
Are you allowed to freely discuss teachings, prophecies, or so-called new revelations that your groups leader(s) have stated in the past or present?
YES / NO
“NO, those are “private” ”
Are you allowed to ask your leader(s) questions regarding their background in ministry, education, teaching, policies, etc.?
YES / NO
“NO. Definitely NOT. We are not supposed to speculate either. We are just supposed to accept things that are said at face value even though a simple date of an ordination cannot be provided. We are not at the level of being privileged to know this information. Some are but they will not share.”
Are your leaders above reproach (without blame) in morals, ethics, teaching and financial issues?
YES / NO
“Uh, No.”
Do any of your leaders have a criminal record?
YES / NO
“I don’t know. I know one of them had an alias.”
Would your leader(s) freely allow you to research their background in order to find out if they have any criminal record?
YES / NO
“No, they won’t even answer a simple question. ”
Has anyone in your group ever tried to persuade you to NOT research the personal background of the leaders?
YES / NO”
“Definitely YES. People are called “obsessed” if they want to know some simple, straight forward details.”
Pass the cherry pie and Koolaid?
And what is with the alias business, or do I not even want to know? Is that what’s hidden in the archives? Is that where they bury the bodies? (I mean, other than Alice…)
March 29, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Corrie – In post #470 you talked about a robe being a robe being a robe. You’re absolutely right – pants was not even in the concept when those restrictions on dress were given.
But the problem you’re making here is expecting those who use the Bible to further their own agenda to actually use original intent when they interpret the scriptures.
IfSince the Bible doesn’t actually say what they wish it said, they make claims that don’t even come close to the original intent. And then they force their claims on all others as a works-based salvation method.This is how the Church down through history has gone off the deep end. Had someone stood against the abuses of the Church leaders in the first thousand years of the Church, perhaps 1/3 of the men in Europe would not have been killed by the Inquisition and Papal warring. I commend those who are leading the charge against spiritual abuse as seen in the Patriarchy movement. Good job, ladies (and a few of us guys too).
March 29, 2008 at 3:15 pm
James wrote: Munching on the popcorn over here.
Not rolled oat, honey sweetened, wheat berry snacks or muffins baked by the good lady prairie wife? Very telling. Popcorn’s for city slickers, probably popped in one’na them new fangled microwave bags.
March 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm
(Re: #471) Beatrice said: When deciding the meaning of a text, the text itself determines the meaning and has the final say, not what is said by the author of the text about the meaning, or the self percieved intent that the author has in his mind regarding what he wanted to say.
Right on the money! I responded to a personal email from Stacy McDonald and pointed out that a “Clarifications Page” to clarify what she had said in her “Walking Billboards” post and then further comments, intimidations, and private emails are strong indication that she is a bad communicator (or else that we all understood perfectly well what she said and now she’s trying to backpedal–but the bicycle doesn’t go that way).
I haven’t heard back from her, but I was pleased to find out today, through my wife, that Stacy has removed the “No Gossip Zone” graphic and its accompanying link to the redefinition of the terms gossip and slander to mean “anyone who disagrees with me and states it is gossiping and slandering me.” My wife wrote about this in her post “I do not think that means what you think it means.”
I think in an effort at fairness, we should recognize that Stacy has done a good thing here in rejecting Carmon’s ridiculous redefinitions and stupid sayings (don’t stop me now, I’m on an alliterative roll), assuming of course the best in motives on the part of Stacy.
March 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I gotta tell you, I don’t know how y’all keep up with all of this. It seems to me it must be all you do.
I will try to answer the comments addressed to me, but I’m sorry if I miss any.
Okay. Cindy, you said:
I’ve never said I believe this is all lies. The only thing I said was an outright lie was the claim that James McDonald was divorced and remarried after his ordination. The rest of it, I’ve said time and time again that I don’t know the truth of all of it.
The reason I don’t contribute much here otherwise is that I don’t have anything to offer. I read, but I mostly don’t comment because y’all are way ahead of me in your knowledge of the things you discuss.
Also, I my questions and comments are genuine. I truly do not mean them as “red herrings.”
Now. Corrie, you quoted what Stacy said about not wanting the SIS list because it was too time-consuming, etc., and then said:
No, it doesn’t; I get what you’re saying. My only point, though, was that you misquoted her by saying she did not want the responsibility of ANY list, when that was not what was said.
Then you said:
Again, this is all speculation. I’m not defending Stacy because I DON’T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. All I know is that no one has proof of this.
Onward.
I read his testimony somewhere–I think on his blog but I don’t have the time to check right now–about how he was a high-powered businessman, traveling frequently, when God called him to be at home with his family, which included Stacy and their children, and he eventually became a pastor. I don’t have any knowledge of his ordination; just the timeline.
zzzzz…anyone still reading?
Well, my thoughts is
I totally agree with Molly in this instance. But I would be the reason Stacy doesn’t do this on her own blog is because of time. Look at this place; hundreds and hundreds of comments that need clarified and discussed. I’ll say it again: how do y’all have time for this?
I love Molly. Even when I don’t agree with her, we can discuss things without calling the other person’s comments red herrings. Sometimes comments and questions are simply comments and questions.
Actually, Corrie, I feel the same way about you–that you genuinely listen and engage even when you completely disagree. I don’t feel that from Cindy or Lin; I feel as though they have already made up their minds that whatever I say, they aren’t going to like.
This is already far too long, and I must nap so I can stay up lovin’ babies tonight.
March 29, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Why watch? Clean up those fingers and start typing and join in!
Blessings!
March 29, 2008 at 3:38 pm
“And Marcia saying that we have no right to consider the details of James past. (another of many topics)”
AAAARGH!! Where on earth did I say that? I didn’t! Provide the quote already and stop freakin’ twisting what I’ve said.
March 29, 2008 at 3:57 pm
James does “talk” on the blog alot- I just happen to be typing.
I have to say, we’ve had some pretty fascinating and in depth discussions because of this blog. And some epic bible reading sessions too…we love that it makes us both think and search out the Word!
March 29, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Mrs. Joy … “old hens cackling and twittering” – I wear it as a badge of honor!” I haven’t gotten around to it yet, but maybe I should actually create a button for us “TW Men.”
Okay – I couldn’t resist: Here it is. Place your orders now.
March 29, 2008 at 4:01 pm
I don’t feel able to jump into the controversial side of this thread. It is hard enough to simply THINK for myself at times, at this point ofr me, and some things seem very unreal. But I am praying hard for the ladies here, the ladies reading, and everyone else involved.
March 29, 2008 at 4:07 pm
He’s outside putting up a clothesline for me right now- he was referring to the Botkin conference thing. (comment #342)
March 29, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I’ll be honest, being 9 months pregnant with a very self-sufficient three-year old, this is pretty much all I’ve done for the last few days! I’ve tried reading through other things, too, but the threads are very long. I am just trying to keep up here, because I think that this discussion is finally getting to the bottom of the issue.
I really think that the lies are only a small part of the issue, and yet Marcia and others keep coming over to keep us on that subject! Okay, so we know that they have lied or mislead people about the past, but that’s old news. The point is the GOSPEL they are trying to spread. That’s the real issue. If we ignore their past, fine, whatever, but we can’t ignore what is being TAUGHT in the PW group and on Stacy and James’ blogs. And the Botkin sisters’ book, and Carmon’s blog and Jennie and Stacy’s book.
I do think that the truth should prevail, but on the other hand, it seems like it’s far more important for us to discuss the part about the Biblical matters than who was married/divorced/ordained or not ordained, etc., etc., etc… It would be nice if those things came out into the open, but truthfully, what is out in the open NOW is a heck of a lot more scary. Scripture twisting trumps lies about ordination or misleading about whose children are whose in my book.
March 29, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I think it’s all important. If someone wants to be in leadership and they don’t qualify it’s vital that other Christians do the whole body of Christ a favor and reveal the truth. This was such an important message it’s in Malachi 2, and Tim. 2 and Titus 1. If we can’t get the leadership in order in the church what does that say about the church?
March 29, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Unbelievable. You know, it’s almost humorous how y’all denigrate Stacy for not allowing other opinions. Almost. Because you are completely unable to see that you are doing the exact thing to me.
March 29, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Waiting for my downloads to download so I can Mp3 the rest of my day… Argh. Why is radio so bad nowdays?
Marcia wrote: The only thing I said was an outright lie was the claim that James McDonald was divorced and remarried after his ordination.
Marcia,
I think you missed the point, and I’m sorry if I didn’t communicate it very well.
I’m suggesting that, without documentation and supporting testimony that can be verified, James may have never been ordained in the SBC. Until the RPCGA business, he may never have been ordained at all. When and how the marriage/divorce thing fits in there is irrelevant, particularly if there was no SBC ordination.
The SBC as opposed to another denomination is important. Without knowing the specific church, there is NO WAY to verify James claims about SBC ordination. They don’t keep such a registry and it is documented only at the church that actually ordains the person. And he wouldn’t even tell the RCPGA.
What’s that secret about? Though a matter of controversy in SBC churches, divorce and remarriage is a cause for disqualification from an eldership or pastorship in many of their churches. So whether he was already divorced and remarried or whether he was not when he was ordained is not the main issue.
And it wouldn’t be a big deal, were it not for the secrecy and for the fact that under censure from another ordaining body, he put together his own ordination. And then he even touts himself as an SBC pastor in that Peoria Star Journal newspaper article.
March 29, 2008 at 4:32 pm
” I gotta tell you, I don’t know how y’all keep up with all of this. It seems to me it must be all you do.”
Marcia,
Yep. That is all we do. Just sit here at the computer.
My armpit hair is down to my knees. I have a uni-brow. I have toe-jam football. I smell like the feral animal exhibit at the zoo. My kids are running around outside with no clothes or shoes. We haven’t eaten in days. There is fungus growing on my countertops. You don’t even want to know what is crawling on my kitchen floor.
Thanks for commenting.
BTW, could you let us know when James was ordained?
Go back and read the MT. 18 letter and then let me know that you DO see the deception in those statements.
March 29, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Cindy,
I absolutely agree with you that this is important. I have no knowledge of any of that, though. What I have been saying over and over is that if you just stick to the facts like this and not embellish them with speculations or absolute untruths (the timing of his divorce), you would be much better served.
March 29, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I DON’T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT JAMES MCDONALD’S ORDINATION!!
Or lack of same, for that matter.
Corrie, you’re grossing me out, girl.
I don’t know if I see deception in the letter because I truly don’t know what happened. I do see inconsistency.
And, again, if that was all that was said–this is inconsistent behavior–I would not have had a problem with it.
Speculation about list stealing and motive were added when it wasn’t necessary to the point.
March 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm
I think Marcia said that Stacy was nice to her over the remarriage issue. What she can’t see is what how she would feel if the Matthew 18 was directed at her. She likes Stacy and that’s it. Waste of time trying to open her eyes while the warm fuzzies are covering them.
March 29, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Marcia,
Karen had made this point several times over the past few months concerning these folks…
If they would be straight about it, there would be no cause for speculation. This too is a red herring, whether intentional or not. We would stick to the facts if we had some solid ones, but they are all facts merely on the word of two people who contradict themselves, name-call and accuse people of lying.
And it would not be such an issue if they were low key. These folks push hard and throw a lot of stones, all while they live in glass houses.
And the timing of the divorce thing… That’s kind of weird, too. When and where was he divorced? That one post from the “private” Patriarchs Wives list says that James had 4 children, was married 12 years but lived with his wife for fewer years than he has children. Now, was he an ordianed pastor then? Was he actively pastoring? Why would a good SBC pastor keep siring children with a woman of such ill repute? These are great causes for speculation because they DONT ADD UP.
Is James yanking Stacy’s chain? What is that story. Frankly, I am oblivious to most of this kind of thing, but it is the McDonalds that keep bringing it up and then also by making themselves targets for criticism by making outlandish and abrasive statements about fringe doctrine.
I tried ONCE to post on James’ website, and he even altered what I wrote before he posted it. Then he wrote to me via email, was condescending and then became snide. He twists up people’s online comments as well as he does Scripture? Why would I think otherwise, especially when I then hear that others have the same concerns.
The bottom line is that they want to do what they want to do and be above all scrutiny. But they also want to parade around in public and get all kinds of attention and market their wares with doctrines that are abrasive. They invite scrutiny, then they whine about abuse and persecution when people take issue, They retaliate with passive-aggressive tactics like telling people concocted stories, such as the one Karen related.
Look at the Amish. They have their own doctrines and practices. They are separatists. But they leave other people alone. That is not the case with the dominion minded, book and CD pedaling patriarchs.
Copied from above:
James was technically married for 12 years, although he only lived with his ex-spouse for a total of 2 or 3 years collectively. She frequently left him, disappearing with his children, sometimes for months at a time.
March 29, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Corrie,
I hope that you didn’t get any axillary hair in those cheese balls you made! Maybe you could have your girls braid it up and you could draw it up and make an Easter renaissance headress out of it? Ah, but Easter is over. Maybe for your vow renewal? It will be like prepping for and fluffing up your marriage bed. That is if you can get of the computer long enough to get clothes on your children and give them some instruction.
March 29, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Marcia,
I apreciate that you said that the issue of James’ ordination was important. I think that this got lost in translation along with your zeal for defending the McDonalds. That was absolutely not obvious in your posts.
And it is rough. It’s hard to draw those who have shown us kindness and compassion in a time of need into question. It’s harder still when we like them, when we like to be around them and when we like the same things we do. It makes it very confusing and complicated when one gets something that one does not expect. One day your father gives you a piece of bread, and the next day, your father gives you a stone. And if you are used to asking for eggs and getting eggs, when you are handed a scorpion, it puts you into coginitive dissonance. “Does Not Compute.”
In studies with animals, some of the earlier ones showed that animals would press a button and then receive food. Press the button, get the food. But they did studies where they only intermittently and without consistency dispensed the food. What happens to the animals? They get obsessive and anxious and dependent. They repeatedly hit that button obsessively as if they fear not getting food, start to hoard food, and they react when they do not get the pellet of food.
The studies with negative reinforcement are even more telling, with both people and animals. They’ve done studies with mild electric shocks, and before people became more concerned about ethics. People get into modes of learned helplessness. When they get irregular and contradictory treatment, they will either get obsessive about avoiding the discomfort, or they will just lay down and take the shocks, abandoning all attempts at self-protection.
I think the “We love you no matter what crowd” is much like the obsessive response, either going to great lengths to procure food or avoid pain. Some are like those who just lay down on the grid and take the shocks (about 30%), those who take what warm fuzzies they can get from these people and endure the rest of the junk that makes no sense. And then we have the people who have felt a couple of jolts and missed a couple of pellets and can walk away with doubts and questions. Sadly, with my own groups and persons of interest, I’ve done each one of these things at some point in time. Under these circumstances, it’s VERY HEALTHY to ask questions and get off the gerbil wheel to figure things out. It’s healthy to go to a place where one consistently gets a pellet that makes sense when the button gets pressed, and nothing else.
March 29, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Cindy K, regarding the inconsistent dispersal of food, wasn’t that done with pigeons or something, too? They were taught that if they pecked a button, they got a serving of seed. One group was given food each time they pecked the button, one group was given food every other time they pecked (alternating) and the third group was given a completely randomised dispersal pattern. Then they shut the food off for all of them, and the first group to give up trying to get the food were the pigeons who’d been getting food every time they asked; the ones who got it on alternating pecks tried a little longer, then gave up too. But the third group was so used to the inconsistent feeding schedule they pecked themselves to death just trying to get something to eat.
If I were less distracted right now, I would try to whip that into some spiffy analogy, but really, I think it’s just sad that a bunch of pigeons had to die to prove what thousands of years of human history has already taught us– no matter how inconsistent a provider/leader you might be, if people think you’ve got what they need and they don’t believe they can find anywhere else, they’ll pretty well run themselves into the ground in an effort to get what they think you have to give.
Even if all they’ll end up with in the end are empty stomachs and … um … broken beaks.
March 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I think Marcia said that Stacy was nice to her over the remarriage issue. What she can’t see is what how she would feel if the Matthew 18 was directed at her. She likes Stacy and that’s it. Waste of time trying to open her eyes while the warm fuzzies are covering them.
I had a connection with Michael and Debi Pearl, and because of that it took me a LONG time to rationally hear the facts against what they taught. What I could have heard quickly, had they been people I did not love, took a LONG time to hear, because my love for them blocked the cold hard facts.
So, yes, sometimes if you love/like someone, it can cause your normally rational brain to check out.
That said, my friend Marcia is someone I like a whole lot and have to admit to wincing at how she’s treated sometimes here. It’s easy to forget sometimes that the people we’re typing to and about are real people. Can we give her the benefit of the doubt—her questions are genuine.
Maybe she doesn’t see things quite the same, and maybe she truly loves Stacy (and why is that bad? Er, can only those who hate Stacy post here?). In any case, a gentle response would probably go a lot farther than accusations.
Warmly,
Molly
March 29, 2008 at 8:20 pm
Marcia,
I am really sorry that you took what I said as a personal attack. I was just pointing out that most of us had moved on to the theological issues, yet every time you come back, you seem to go straight back to the issue of the ordination and the divorce timing. I agree with Neil that yes, it is all important, but for me, the doctrinal issues are much more important. If they really are teaching false doctrine and heresy, then it doesn’t matter to me whether they have lied about their past, since they are in error anyway.
If they were good teachers teaching sound doctrine and we found out that they had lied or are lying about something, that would be the fundamental issue, but the teachings outrank the covering of past sins in this case.
I’ll try to help everyone understand. In the church association I am a member of, there was a pastor in a church who was found out to be having multiple affairs with several women across the country–he often attended conferences and this is how he connected with those women. He was discovered, and removed from the pulpit. But everything he taught was in keeping with the church beliefs and values, which are good (at least in my opinion! Some may disagree, but we’re definitely not talking about heresy).
In reverse, take a few people who have questionable pasts and won’t reveal the truth about their pasts because they say it doesn’t really matter. That would surely bug me i