I am opening a new thread since the other one is, once again, so difficult to open. Please continue discussion from the last thread here.
April 14, 2009
April 14, 2009
I am opening a new thread since the other one is, once again, so difficult to open. Please continue discussion from the last thread here.
April 14, 2009 at 7:43 am
In looking back through past articles and their comments on my “thatmom” blog early this morning, I came across an article that I think needs to be brought back out, specifically because the discussion in the 95 comments is so good and helpful. Sometimes I find I have forgotten some of the reasons the patriocentric movement is so dangerous as it is a movement that has been growing and heading further and further down the continuum away from sound doctrine. If you want a mini refresher course, go and read here:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/the-great-divide-patriocentrists-on-one-side-thinking-women-on-the-other/
April 14, 2009 at 8:00 am
Okay, quick response to Kris..
I don’t want 666! I’m askeered of that. : ))
Anyway:
How can anyone be blessed by their “flawedness” if the McDonalds cover up their flaws?
I guess I have just not seen that. Perhaps it’s because I was on the the PW list from way back, but as I’ve said, Stacy did share the details of their background with all the women there.
It is also a hard line for them to walk in that they did not want to glamorize or promote divorce.
It is THEY who have downplayed their imperfections in order to (I would suspect) not hurt their money-making businesses ministries.
Come on, Kris. Catty phrases like that shouldn’t have a place in civilized discussion. And I can’t imagine the McDonalds went into ministry for the money; I would be that James made a lot more as an engineer in the business sector.
We see a smaller example of how they aren’t very open or honest in the way that they handled their poor daughter’s betrothal
Did you read the post I linked to about this? I thought it was a very honest admission of mistakes that were made.
The last part of your post mentioned hypocrisy. I just don’t see that.
April 14, 2009 at 8:02 am
I would bet. Typo.
I wish that I hadn’t posted the comment about counting Stacy as a friend. I do, of course, but this isn’t about me sticking up for someone because I like her and she’s nice to meeee.
It’s about the principle. Go after the teaching, not the person.
April 14, 2009 at 8:06 am
Last comment. : ))
Emmy, you said, “but which discussed the training (recorded on video) of young girls to groom and dress and shave their fathers. ”
Ick. Haven’t seen it; don’t want to. It’s a great example, though. Talk about why this is bothersome. State that you don’t see any biblical mandate for this sort of behavior.
But don’t attack the people in it. They’re your family in Christ.
April 14, 2009 at 10:17 am
Marcia said, “I was on the the PW list from way back, but as I’ve said, Stacy did share the details of their background with all the women there.”
I’m not familiar with the PW list. Is that an internet fellowship? did you have to be a member? Was that before she published her book and their sponsorship by Vision Forum?
I only heard of Stacy McDonald from Passionate Wives Desperate for God, in which there is NO mention of the ten children being from three marriages.
I also saw an interview in which I heard her answer every question except the one I am asked most: Are they all yours?
I thought that was unusual.
As for this being public knowledge, I can only refer you to the first comment on Part 2, who said she had followed Stacy’s ministry “for years” and read her blogs and met her at a homeschool convention booth…yet never realized hers was a blended family.
Go figure.
April 14, 2009 at 10:22 am
Marcia said, “I was on the the PW list from way back, but as I’ve said, Stacy did share the details of their background with all the women there.”
I’m not familiar with the PW list. Is that an internet fellowship? did you have to be a member? Was that before she published her book and their sponsorship by Vision Forum?
I only heard of Stacy McDonald from Passionate Wives Desperate for God, in which there is NO mention of the ten children being from three marriages.
I also saw an interview in which I heard her answer every question except the one I am asked most: Are they all yours?
I thought that was unusual.
As for this being public knowledge, I can only refer you to the first comment on Part 2, A woman who said she had followed Stacy’s ministry “for years” and read her blogs and met her at a homeschool convention booth…yet never realized hers was a blended family.
Go figure.
April 14, 2009 at 10:46 am
Marcia,
I read James’ blog post that you linked to. It’s good that he expressed regret for sharing too much info, and it’s good that he admitted he doesn’t have all the answers. I really hope that he later expresses regret for teaching that breaking off a betrothal is virtually the same as getting divorced. And I also really hope that at some point in the not-so-distant future, he and Stacy repent of their air of superiority that simply oozed from the betrothal writings that were removed, the ones in which they decried how “post-modern” engagements are so easily broken, in comparison to the “biblical” betrothals that are produced by their own system…the betrothals that would only end under the most dire of circumstances, sexual immorality or mental illness.
As far as whether or not the McDonalds’ ministry now is big business – well, I think from the way James threatens lawsuits, it surely must be making them significant amounts of money, or he wouldn’t be so protective and would simply produce documentation of his ordination and answer his critics’ honest questions. If you’re correct and an engineer’s salary is really better than what they’re earning from all their patriocentric publishing and other activities, then James has nothing to lose. He could always just go back to his previous career, no harm, no foul, rather than trying to use the legal system to strong-arm his critics into silence.
I stand behind what I said before, about how it sure appears that the McDonalds went out of their way to avoid mentioning that theirs is a blended family. You yourself saw Stacy as being open about her past because you were privy to information distributed via a private list. Once their patriocentric careers really took off, though, those struggles were never mentioned. I don’t have time to go back and find the link, but fairly recently, Stacy went on record for a news article (I think it was to promote her Passionate Housewives book) discussing her single days in such a way that NO ONE would ever be able to figure out that she had already been married and had a child during the time she was describing to the reporter, about being a lonely unmarried gal in her apartment, pining away for a family. (What was the son she already had at that time, if not her family?)
I would agree with you that we should not attack false teachers personally. But the errant teachers in the patriocentric world have, by definition, built their false doctrines around certain specific lifestyle choices and then have used details from their own personal lives to market those doctrines. That creates a really strange gray area. It becomes almost impossible to discuss some of the silly declarations these folks make without pointing out the glaring inconsistencies in their supposedly “more biblical” ways…which then, because of how they MARKET these ways, veers into discussions of their personal lives.
I mean, in that article you linked to, James himself refers to their “desire to share their lives with others,” and how they make an effort to “teach by example.” If their teachings are, by their own admission, all tied up in their own EXAMPLE, then it simply cannot be wrong to discuss their example. And it’s not “attacking” them. It’s merely analyzing their teachings…because they’ve already said that their lives (their “examples”) ARE their teachings, in effect.
April 14, 2009 at 10:50 am
sorry about that double post!
but the comment I was referring to is on Stacy’s blog where she recently explained they were a blended family.(Part 2)
April 14, 2009 at 11:50 am
For what it’s worth, mine is a blended family (my oldest child born out of wedlock a week after my 20th birthday and my husband’s oldest child from his 1st marriage) and I don’t discuss it too often because it’s simply not a factor in our daily lives. My step-daughter is amazing and our kids are all just siblings (we don’t use the step or half designations) so someone reading my blogs might not pick that up. And it’s not that I’m hiding it, it’s just that it’s not relevant to what’s going on now.
My husband and I have both made mistakes in our past. We are grateful for the Grace and Mercy that has washed us clean of our sins and we hope to raise children who don’t make similar ones.
April 14, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Curious,
You can’t possibly have read what I wrote. It’s not about the cucumber sandwiches. (Besides, I’m a hamburger kind of gal.)
I don’t have time to restate stuff again and again, but I do feel I have already addressed your thoughts.
April 14, 2009 at 3:38 pm
interview with Geoff Botkins:
http://www.worldviewradio.com/episode.php?EpisodeID=11593
April 14, 2009 at 3:46 pm
from my Bible reading this morning:
“Titus 1:11 (New International Version)
They must be silenced, because they are ruining whole households by teaching things they ought not to teach—and that for the sake of dishonest gain.”
April 14, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Curious, what a picture you have painted for us. Thank you so much for sharing this insight. And thank you for being so clear in your message. Appreciated.
April 14, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Kris said:
“I mean, in that article you linked to, James himself refers to their “desire to share their lives with others,” and how they make an effort to “teach by example.” If their teachings are, by their own admission, all tied up in their own EXAMPLE, then it simply cannot be wrong to discuss their example. And it’s not “attacking” them. It’s merely analyzing their teachings…because they’ve already said that their lives (their “examples”) ARE their teachings, in effect.”
Bingo.
April 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm
momgodin says: “sorry about that double post! ”
Don’t worry about it…it was worthy saying and reading twice!
April 14, 2009 at 4:25 pm
re: Botkin
There is no historical context, nor any kind of engagement with the ideas of Marxism in this lecture.
All sorts of things are equated with Marxism (diversity, multiculturalism, youth groups, the demise of the “great American South,” political correctness) without querying how they are connected.
There are some appaling fallacies in here, something a philosopher could really have a heyday with. A is partially based on B is partially based on C is partially based on D is partially based on E, so obviously, F must equal A. That sort of thing.
Once he has fear-mongered up a Marxist state that we live in, he advocates building a Christian culture to compete with the “Marxist” culture he has set up. And you can build this culture through buying his and his children’s materials.
Also, the defense of Joseph McCarthy was very strange. If Marxism takes away from American freedoms, why support an era and a subcommittee that took away basic rights–rights to a fair trial, right to trial on what you’ve actual done or not done, not on guilt by association, trial for what you’ve done, not what you think?
April 14, 2009 at 4:26 pm
re: Botkin
There is no historical context, nor any kind of engagement with the ideas of Marxism in this lecture.
All sorts of things are equated with Marxism (diversity, multiculturalism, youth groups, the demise of the “great American South,” political correctness) without querying how they are connected.
There are some appaling fallacies in here, something a philosopher could really have a heyday with. A is partially based on B is partially based on C is partially based on D is partially based on E, so obviously, F must equal A. That sort of thing.
Once he has fear-mongered up a Marxist state that we live in, he advocates building a Christian culture to compete with the “Marxist” culture he has set up. And you can build this culture through buying his and his children’s materials.
Also, the defense of Joseph McCarthy was very strange. If Marxism takes away from American freedoms, why support an era and a subcommittee that took away basic rights–rights to a fair trial, right to trial on what you’ve actual done or not done, not on guilt by association, trial for what you’ve done, not what you think?
April 14, 2009 at 5:45 pm
(oops, don’t know how that double-posted!)
April 14, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Thatmom, I’ve thought of that Titus verse so many times. I don’t think the dishonest gain is necessarily limited to the monetary kind either; for instance, how many in patriocentricity have benefited from the undivided devotion of their children, peers, leaders etc., in emotional, psychological, AND monetary ways?? Frankly, I consider devotion (either of the passionate or reluctant nature) gained through illegitimate means (taking Scripture out of context to garner a desired response) to be dishonest gain for an ego’s sake.
April 14, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Curious, I have at times also been sorry that I shared too much. Granted, the same standards don’t apply to me since I’m not a teacher or minister nor do I play one on TV. But I found out the hard way that when you put things out on the internet you can’t control how people will interpret them, etc. It’s not that I wish I’d been dishonest, I just wish people could have better known my heart.
My dad used to say (and I know he’s quoting someone else) that you don’t need to defend yourself because your friends don’t need it and your enemies won’t believe you anywhere.
Frankly, I have no doubt that the McDonalds probably need to repent for errors they have made, as do we all. I have not always acted graciously and pray that God would continue to show me the aspects of my character that need to be refined.
But if tomorrow the McDonalds were to freely admit to everything which they’ve been accused of and repent, it wouldn’t change much for me. I would still have major issues with what they’re teaching and the Patriocentric message they are busy sharing with the world.
April 14, 2009 at 7:42 pm
That should say “anyway”. *facepalm*
April 15, 2009 at 7:22 am
Alisa, you are correct that that verse has many implications when you study it. I just spent several months looking at 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus and have been amazed at how, now, all the passages of Scripture relating to false teachers, seem to pop off the pages at me!
I also am just finishing Kathryn Joyce’s Quiverfull book and getting ready to write a review. One thing that was new information to me was how much money there really is in marketing to homeschoolers. And how easy it is to be deceived. I remember subscribing to Gentle Spirit magazine for several years and I loved it. I loved all the simple living ideas and the creative suggestions for homeschooling. I loved Cheryl Lindsay (now Seelhoff). But the whole time I was reading it, I admired her family so much because it appeared that they were just getting by on so little, that they were making sacrifices out of their convictions. And I felt so good to be a part of helping them with their little cottage industry.
This is what Joyce says:
“With the endorsement of Dobson, Seelhoff’s stapled paper newsletter, which started with twenty-three subscribers, grew over five years to a glossy magazine with a circulation of seventeen thousand that brought her an annual gross income of approximately tree hundred thousand dollars.”
And that was 15 or more years ago. This is big business, even more so today. I would think that evangelicals should have learned their lessons about accountability by now. And how does this compare to even the bank business today and the lack of accountability that has resulted in such a financial fiasco?
April 15, 2009 at 7:23 am
Has anyone heard from Cynthia Gee? I haven’t seen her around here and the last we heard she was having terrific leg pain.
April 15, 2009 at 7:24 am
oops, that should read “annual gross income of $300,000.00.
April 15, 2009 at 8:00 am
Here is an interesting link that was sent to me:
http://www.christianexodus.com/
Be sure to check out the items on the main menu, the blogs and articles, and the daughters stuff. Also scroll down to the second video with Glenn Beck and listen to the scenario of militia takeover and what is called the “bubba” affect. Very interesting and related to some of the things we have discussed here.
April 15, 2009 at 8:45 am
Thatmom, I’m here… I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you about it. The hospital checked out the leg, and didn’t find a clot,(though I do think that there was probably a small clot in a superficial vein somewhere near the tibia, and they missed it) but the pain continued, so I went home and upped my aspirin dosage, and increased my intake of fluids and vitamin C, and gradually the swelling and pain have subsided.
Sorry I didn’t let you know, and thanks for your prayers.
April 15, 2009 at 8:51 am
Regarding the “Bubba Effect”, Karen, all I can say is that the secessionists are really coming out of the woodwork lately — the internet is FULL of this sort of chatter, and it’s as prevalent in non-religious and pagan conservative groups as in Christian ones.
April 15, 2009 at 10:15 am
“This is one issue that, IMHO, is not really our business but theirs. I will pray for all of them.”
I agree.
April 15, 2009 at 1:55 pm
[C]hildren are generally willing to forgive! that is, unless they’ve been *taught* otherwise.
Anne said, “I think that kind of speculation is dangerous. It allows us to assume things we don’t know and make judgments we’re ill equipped to make.”
I would agree with you that musn’t base judgments on speculation. But it isn’t speculation about what the children were taught about their mother. Stacy wrote about her mortification when Christa? stood up in church requesting prayer for her “promiscuous mother”. Her mortification wasn’t in having taught the child thus but that the church assumed she was the mother in question.
My mother protected us from all those things until we were of such an age to have a proper perspective and maturity in the faith to choose how best to relate to Dad.
April 15, 2009 at 2:09 pm
“I don’t see how anyone can defend what they did to these children? If these children are Christians, and adults, surely we should pray reconciliation on a basis of unity (even if you don’t care about the real mother).”
Who is “defending wrong acts,” “defend[ing] what they did to these children” or indicating that they don’t care about the real mother?
April 15, 2009 at 3:30 pm
In the weeks before Easter, my pastor did a sermon series about Jesus (specifically restoration, reconciliation, and redemption). The sermon about reconciliation was really poignant, because he specifically discussed this very issue. Not that we should forget what people did and allow them to mishandle us, but that we should try to make peace of some sort with those who have hurt us or whom we have hurt in some way. That is really the basis of God’s entire plan of salvation! God makes man, man screws up, God gives man an option to reconcile to Himself. The funny thing is, reconciliation is up to US. In this situation, I don’t know any of the facts, but the mother has clearly asked forgiveness (it’s right there on the web!), and the children are using their free will to not reconcile with her. Sadly, I don’t think at this point there is anything that can be done, outside of the intervention of the Holy Spirit convicting their hearts. In Christa’s comment (mentioned previously here), though she said she forgave her mother, the attitude clearly does not say full forgiveness, as she is unwilling to reconcile. I’m not saying that anyone should just kiss and make up, but we ARE supposed to live at peace with everyone, should she not make every effort? How is ignoring the woman who gave you birth living at peace with her? I can’t see it.
It reiterates the idea that this whole mess is very sad. But even sadder is that it happens EVERY day in families all over the place. This one just happens to be more public.
April 15, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Could anyone lead me to a place where the teachings in Stacy and Jenny Chancey’s book are laid out? I would like to see what people claim are the flaws, and I think I’ve missed any reviews that have been posted here. It’s been a while, I know!
April 15, 2009 at 3:39 pm
I’m sure we’re reading the same threads, but we’re not reading them the same way. Which comments specifically are you referring to when you say there are some here who “don’t care about the character of a pastor”? No one has said anything even suggesting that from what I have read, yet you have still ascribed that motive to their words.
I remember posting on an online forum years ago, and the topic of discussion was the US’s response to the 9/11 attacks. When I shared that I didn’t agree with our government’s response and explained why, someone immediately accused me of being a “terrorist supporter” and a “Saddam lover.” In her mind, there were only two possibilities: I could either fully support the actions of my country, right or wrong, and keep any dissenting viewpoints to myself OR I was on the side of the terrorists and didn’t care about the attacks on our country at all.
Though the context is quite different from what we’re discussing and the specifics in that example are not intended as a metaphor to be applied to this situation, I’m reminded of that conversation and see similar false dichotomies being perpetuated as I read some of the reactions to dissenting points of view in this thread.
April 15, 2009 at 4:40 pm
I guess what is difficult for me, as I read the last few comments, is that there is ample evidence (documented) that is contrary to the McDonald’s Lifetime Channel blog. So which topics are relevant and able to be discussed? Or should everything that deals with personal behavior be off limits? I think that is what I am hearing from people here. If that is true, then are we only supposed to address doctrinal differences?
Let’s look at another subject that has documentation. What about the ordination? What proof has been given that James McDonald was ordained? And how do you explain the differences between what he stated and what is documented by the RPCGA? Or is it even valid to be bothered with. Marcia? Anne? I would be curious to know what you think.
April 15, 2009 at 5:06 pm
BTW, Curious, I am in touch with Stacy McDonald and will ask her anything I think is relevant or my business.
I take issue with your posting second and third hand information anonymously and then acting offended when I won’t accept it as evidence of wrong doing.
Any parent who would tell their children things that aren’t true about the other or attempted to damage the natural relationship between their child and another parent is clearly in the wrong. But it has long been done, often with the best of intentions. So, no, I’m not defending that behavior. I’m saying that I don’t know that’s what happened, and even if it is what happened, his children (my first concern) aren’t benefited by my having this information. No one is. All I can do is pray for them, which is what I’d do regardless.
Beyond that, I won’t respond to the rest of your comment. I’m only going to get snarky and that doesn’t benefit anyone at all.
Peace.
April 15, 2009 at 5:42 pm
#45 is a perfect example of what I was referring to in #43. I actually laughed out loud when I read it!
Anne, I appreciate your perspective and agree with your take on these issues. Beautifully said.
April 15, 2009 at 7:02 pm
Karen, you said, “If that is true, then are we only supposed to address doctrinal differences?”
Well, yes, in my perfect world. State the teaching or writing you oppose, back it up with scripture, and let the reader discern for herself what she chooses to believe.
As far as the ordination thing, um, I have to admit I don’t exactly understand it. I mean, I get that you all are asking him to provide his credentials, or whatever it is called.
But as far as I know (and please correct me if I’m wrong) the McDonalds never respond to your requests for information about anything. I know you see this as a huge problem; I see it as not wanting to engage in debate.
(And on a side note, a lot of the time I think they remain silent because they are not willing to badmouth someone else. I think they would rather let people believe untruths about them than to disparage another human being.)
Anyway, I’m kind of lost in the whole James McDonald leaving one denomination and where all the controversy comes in.
I guess if someone provided me rock-solid evidence, that is, not something that Curious posts in her hazy way, and said that James was pretending to be an ordained minister when he was not, I would have to take issue with that.
Speculation, though, is not evidence.
April 15, 2009 at 7:26 pm
In regards to Mr. McDonald’s having ever been ordained, it didn’t take me long to find evidence that he was. I googled lists of rpcga ministers and McDonald and soon found an article that actually provided documents from the rpcga which stated:
That was written by Dr. Randall Talbot and can be found here under the heading “Clarification From the RPCGA Moderator On the “Deposition Is Censure” Issue” where the document is available to view.
I can’t find evidence of his current ordination in the Covenant Presbyterian Church, but since they are an independent body I would think it would be easy for them to ordain him.
Whether one accepts that ordination as having authority really depends on their own beliefs. I’m not a Presbyterian, and not a member of their group, so it has no authority for me. But, at the very least, I know he has been ordained by someone and went through the proper training by that body. He wasn’t removed from his office for misconduct but because he wanted to be and that’s the way they appear to do things since they don’t acknowledge independent churches.
April 15, 2009 at 7:37 pm
Anne,
As I wrote to Stacy and as I posted on my blog to clarify, I think you are falling for a red herring here.
I, for one, am not offended that the McDonalds are remarried, and that is not the issue at all. In fact, I think that they could do much good by writing about what it is like when one tries to blend families with older children. I’ve said that many times here in this forum.
What I find offensive is that the McDonalds, while making strong ethical statements and setting what they call and present not as interpretations of what is Biblical (something that I think falls under the liberty with “the eating of meat sacrificed to idols”) to a very conservative, largely “Quiverfull” audience, they concealed their blended family status and evaded answering direct questions about this. Stacy went on about how she felt personally about certain choices, repudiating women who made choices (daycare, marble counters and sinks, soccer, strong academic interests, those who work and use money to obtain a higher standard of living) that differed from her own which she establishes as negative when they, in fact, fall under liberty. Jennie also goes on to talk about those who choose differently are on a train that is falling off a ledge.
Stacy then got on national radio programs, and even before then when speaking at homeschooling conferences, the “his, hers, and ours” status of their family was carefully controlled, using the appearance of their family to establish themselves as experts for other QF families, large homeschooling families like Momgodin has (where SHE is frequently asked “are they all yours”), and many conservative Baptists and Charismatics whose doctrines preclude remarried men from serving as pastors. It is not a matter of the actual remarriage but the fact that certain information was conveniently ignored. And it was ignored while simultaneously setting some pretty rigid ethical standards for families.
Stacy wrote to me via email in ‘07 and referred to her remarriage as one of her sins, suggesting that I was unforgiving and intolerant of both her remarriage and James remarriage. It suggested that I was untouched and unconcerned about the plight of what she now calls a “grace widow.” I explained to her that I never personally defined remarriage as a sin. She misses the point. The issue that people find offensive about this is not the remarriage — it is the fact that they deceived people for personal gain without being honest about the truth. Those who spoke to the truth were rubbed with red herrings, making this an issue about REMARRIAGE. This is not an issue of remarriage for me at all. It is about the HYPOCRISY of taking I Timothy 2 to the nth, rigid degree but conveniently ignoring I Tim 3, showing disregard for those who interpret this passage differently than they do, yet hiding the truth for their own gain and to advance their status and persona in homeschooling communities.
I have, to date, read no statements of contrition on behalf of the McDonalds. They should be applauded for publicly telling the truth this past March online. But again, this is not an issue of whether it is right or wrong to remarry. it is an issue of their DECEPTION, playing the homeschooling community for fools. People may not have cared if they were a blended family, but they were not given the common respect of disclosing that information and people’s beliefs about Scripture (that which establishes a pastor as an expert in Christianity and in homeschooling)were disregarded.
Did I miss the blog post about how Stacy has phoned Family Life Today, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Moody Radio, Covenant Radio, the Urban Homemaker and other such ministries to apologize for evading their questions and for talking about the million descendants that will be brought forth from their worshiping God through what they saw as faithful service to Him through raising children? Not that I am downplaying the terrible difficulties that Stacy has written about concerning her physical difficulties that she experiences while pregnant, either. She should proudly be noted and honored for the six children she has borne. But it is almost a mockery to women who post here like Corrie or Momgodin or my friend who has adopted 12 children in addition to the ones she has birthed and breastfed herself not to be honest with people about how the family came together.
Personally, I do not think there is a more godly thing that a person can do than to take a child, particularly an older one, in as one’s own. It is following God’s example who once only offered salvation to the House of Israel but out of His great love opened up salvation to people of all creeds and tongues and nations so that, according to what John wrote of in Revelation, will one day reign on the earth. He not only gives the foreign son his love and pardon, he establishes them (us)as priests and kings, too. Adopting a child is wonderful and follows after this wonderful embrace, echoing how God has sought after us and loved us so, that we might be called the sons of God. I applaud and have applauded the McDonalds online for this. What they have said that I have supposedly called a sin, I count as a great blessing and honor for the love God shows the Gentile.
What is an issue is the deception that was crafted to promote the McDonalds so that they would be accepted, using the outward appearance of a large and lovely family to give them credibility and to establish them as experts. They are experts of sorts in how to create a blended family, and they are experts in the very human frustrations of accomplishing this as Stacy so wrote about at length on the Sisters in Christ list which she conspired to delete. Many remember her frustration and struggles, as she spoke of them openly. But that his hidden from the world in order to promote a pious status of painstaking perfection, promoting the patriocentric ideal and their cruel requirements that not even the McDonalds themselves can honestly attain (least at not without deceiving people about how they accomplished these things).
If they have offered statements of contrition to the public for deceiving them through their outward appearance and dishonesty about their blended family status, as opposed to justifications about “grace widows,” could someone point those out to me? I will praise them for doing so, but I have not seen contrition but a brazen and audacious self-justification and ad hominem criticism and playing on people to feel sympathy for being scrutinized. As I have said also, the truth and doing the right thing by making an effort to pay their debt to Maury Boyd is a fantastic step in the right direction. And it is good that they have presented an apologetic for their beliefs about remarriage for pastors. But it is not a demonstration of either attrition or contrition regarding their disregard for the convictions of the people whom they ask to follow them as experts, buy their products and use their services.
And I have to say it that contrite Christian people who seek to be transparent about their mistakes generally don’t use threats of legal action or confabulations to hide their mistakes. They repent and confess their sins to one another that the whole Body might be healed. It gives the person that has been deceived and opportunity to forgive them and be reconciled, and it works patience and humility in the person who has made mistakes. But as Rushdoony wrote of, justice must be established and clean hands presented in a court of law. Then and only then, a higher court can choose to offer forgiveness and pardon in a separate and different legal action. I believe this is exactly what Jesus says when he says, “if he repents, forgive him.” The McDonalds are asking earnest people to extend to them what God does not even offer to us: forgiveness and reconciliation without repentance and contrition. Yet they write long discourses on the sins of others and the required pious standard.
Mercy loves justice, and I pray to see mercy triumph over justice in this matter. But justice must be established first. I missed the repentance for deception. I’ve never seen this written anywhere. Please direct me to where they have apologized to the Christian homeschooling community for promoting themselves by concealing their status and evading questions about the nature of their family. Can someone redirect me to that?
April 15, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Cindy, I understand your position, I really do. I just think that it’s become so much more. It’s become how they got the kids and their relationship with their mother, etc. And I’m just not convinced that their “lack of transparency” was deceit. I don’t explain to everyone I meet that our family is blended. My kids don’t differentiate between half and step siblings. We’re just a family.
Even if the McDonald’s are being hypocritical when it comes to this (and I’m not convinced at all that they are) it doesn’t change my arguments with what they teach. In fact I’ve often said that one of my issues with the hyperpatriarchy movement is the lack of a place for women like myself. What upright young hyperpat man is looking for a young single mom to marry?
But just as we can’t prove what has happened within their family, we also can’t prove their motives. We can speculate that it was greed and ambition, but we can’t know. On top of that, I feel like it would be uncharitable to assume such negative motives. I don’t even know them!
I look at it this way: I’m called to live a life as Christlike as possible. I fail regularly, often, and miserably. Should one judge the message of Christ based on how well I follow him, or based on the message itself. Because we all know that His grace will cover all of my imperfections.
I don’t expect any leader/teacher/minister to lead perfect lives or to never make mistakes. And I can only pray that if they have done something wrong in this regard, the Lord would convict them of it, and they would make it right with those they have harmed. But that’s between them and God. I have no issue with their divorces, remarriage, or the idea of “grace widows”. I actually think that’s a very compassionate term that could be very helpful to us in ministering to those who need it.
April 15, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Anne, this is how I understand the ordination situation. This is what was presented to me so I could understand the “presbyterian” situation. “ Mr. McDonald at his request was deposed without censure. The removal of any minister from office in the RPCGA is done by ‘deposing’, but it can be with ‘censure’ or ‘without censure’, and yet, being removed from office and his vows, thus removing his credentials is still an act that states that the RPCGA would not recognize him currently as a valid minister. Mr. McDonald is considered to have left the RPCGA as a layman, and is still considered a layman from a Presbyterian polity point of view.”
Further, the RPCGA never saw any ordination paperwork from the SBC. So, I think it is reasonable to ask where he was ordained. This should be a simple thing to do. Just post the name of the church and the dates. What is the big deal? It would certainly bring an end to the questions.
April 15, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Anne, I really understand what you are trying to say and the position you are taking. But I am asking you if you think Scripture ever demands that we evaluate the fruits of those who are teachers? I have been immersed in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus the past few months and have come to the conclusion that we just don’t take false teachers seriously enough. And, as has already been pointed out here several times, MOST of the Scripture addressing false teachers addresses their actions and behaviors rather than their teachings. I am trying to see why this isn’t important.
April 15, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Cindy, your perspective on repentance and forgiveness is really an interesting one. I would imagine that most Presbyterian churches would also hold to those views, given that Jay Adams has written extensively holding to the same position.
April 15, 2009 at 8:24 pm
“I can’t find evidence of his current ordination in the Covenant Presbyterian Church, but since they are an independent body I would think it would be easy for them to ordain him.”
This is the crucial point. In the Presbyterian world, there is no such thing as an independent body. “Independency” is considered to be errant and unbiblical, ie, sin.
April 15, 2009 at 11:54 pm
One would think that would put an end to the question. It probably would for some people. For others they’d assume he was lying. What matters to me was that he was ordained by a legitimate church body, which he was, I was able to verify it rather quickly. We have many “pastors” who are only such based on their own say-so. I guess I’m not sure why it matters when and where he was ordained by the Baptists unless one thinks he’s lying about that, and I just can’t figure out why he would.
Absolutely! And were Mr. McDonald my pastor I’d be much more concerned about his personal life. Then again, I’d also be in a better position to evaluate it. But the scriptures you’re talking about are dealing with local church leaders. I think they were dealing with local leaders whose lives and teachings were all wrapped up together and out where all the local church could evaluate it. I can’t do that for the McDonald’s.
How do we apply those teachings to the modern age we live in? How do we evaluate appropriately the conduct of teachers whose lives we don’t know, and of whom we only hear in second and third hand accounts? How do we do that and still be charitable and filial?
That’s true of the Presbyterian body he was a part of before, but he and the other churches have started a new denomination as I understand it. As their own denomination, they can ordain whomever they please.
April 16, 2009 at 12:20 am
Just out of curiosity, would they have asked to see the paperwork from the SBC? The rpcga, as I understand it (feel free to correct me) wouldn’t have recognized that ordination, so it seems reasonable that they might not have ever requested it.
April 16, 2009 at 8:11 am
Anne, lemme see if I got this straight:
James & Stacy McDonald operate a Family Reformation ministry, speak to audiences (including IFB-my denom) with the authority/title of PASTOR and publish books used in *our* denomination’s church Sunday Schools and Ladies Bible Studies.
Yet, you don’t think they should be scrutinized for their personal character- you think we should stick to questioning their doctrine.
EVEN though the scriptures warn us about false teachers, describing their behaviour.
You don’t think we should look at behaviour.
EVEN though they claim to be EXAMPLES.
I admit this statement shocked me:
“We have many “pastors” who are only such based on their own say-so. I guess I’m not sure why it matters when and where he was ordained…”
Why it matters?? Because IFB’s believe we must “PROVE all things.” I Thess 5:21 (test, approve, establish, demonstrate. -OED)
Now THIS I do not understand. We are IFB- independent- yet NOBODY can call themselves pastor without presenting credentials of an official ordination to the church he joins.
And I can tell you that if folks in my denomination knew he could not produce such evidence, they wouldn’t recognize him as such.
And they sure wouldn’t recognize a newly created denomination.
April 16, 2009 at 9:22 am
Regarding the scrutiny of Stacy’s personal life. Upon reading her book, she makes such uncharitable charges against women for their biblical liberty, that it BEGS we look at her own life for evidence that she herself lives up to her standards. That’s just common sense and it’s biblical. “Physician, heal thyself!” (Prove that you’re a physician!) Prove that you’re an authority on family issues.
The FIRST standard would be honesty- forthrightness. You say that because your blended family doesn’t feel it’s an issue, that the McDonald’s might feel likewise.
While this is charitable, I must say it cannot be in their case because their ministry makes such matters significant in their evaluations of family situations. How can you argue this?
If I am reading a book that adamantly states the biblical standards of relationships in the family, wifely submission and women’s roles, it is a relevant and reasonable concern that the author was once divorced!
NOT because people must be “perfect”, (really tired of that straw man…) but because Christians must be HONEST.
I guess I don’t think like you, Anne. Does your reasoning about James’ claims also apply to Stacy: “Well, I see no reason to question [her] unless you think [she] is lying…”
Now here, it seems that you think the only reason one would seek to prove things is that one must be thinking someone is lying? and does that, to your mind indicate “evil thinking” rather than “cautious prudence”?
I’m trying to understand.
I’m really not picky. I have friends in various denominations.
I basically read her book looking for just ONE thing: fruit of the Spirit. namely, charity.
I thought to myself, “I should have a lot in common with this woman with ten kids. But, after birthing ten babies, I have more sympathy for women- not LESS…??” So, what happened?
Well, it turns out she didn’t have the ten kids and she has a bitter root. I think that is relevant. I’m not here to judge her, this information was gleaned by proving her. I do disagree with many of her conclusions and biblical mandates. But my first issue was the charity, bcz her book is a stumblingblock to young women.
So I had to ask who was this self-proclaimed authority? Because the teachers of good things mentioned in Titus are ladies who can be known personally, and as such can be trusted. So maybe you’re right after all- we don’t know. We can’t know. If such is the case, then we can’t trust her opinions on marriage and family because she cannot be proven.
I do appreciate your Christian charity here:
“..we… can’t prove their (McD’s) motives. We can speculate that it was greed and ambition, but we can’t know. On top of that, I feel like it would be uncharitable to assume such negative motives. I don’t even know them!”
Yes, it is just as uncharitable as their book. Hence, the biblical truth:
“For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”
April 16, 2009 at 10:08 am
Has anyone shared this link, yet?
http://ministrywatchman.com/?cat=19
About Sproul and McDonald’s new, unaccountable denomination that will “ordain” anyone.
It also has a Vision Forum “Patriarchy Weirdness” article with pics and videos.
April 16, 2009 at 11:44 am
momgodin, you referred to the Passionate Housewives book and the way nonpatriocentric women are portrayed….I found that part of the book to be so offensive, too. And here is an example of the hypocrisy that drives you crazy. Recently Stacy printed R. C. Sproul Jr.’s essay on people feeling judged by the standards and convictions of others. He says that people need to realize that people aren’t judging you they are just living out their convictions. But how does that mesh with the belittling women for having marble sinks or wearing highheels? Or what about the judging of the girl’s spiritual state by her wearing the WWJD t-shirt, as Stacy wrote about? And wasn’t it Stacy that told us in the Monstrous Regiment of Women DVD that outward appearance defines us, specifically what we wear as women? Again, saying it here for the 100th time, it is about the hypocrisy, the holding others to standards they won’t be held to. That is so much of what this movement is all about.
April 16, 2009 at 2:11 pm
For what it’s worth, momgodin, Sproul, Jr. and McDonald are not currently in the same denomination.
The site you referenced has contains many factual errors. Be careful.
April 16, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Jane said, “For what it’s worth, momgodin, Sproul, Jr. and McDonald are not currently in the same denomination.
The site you referenced has contains many factual errors. Be careful.”
”… He (James McDonald) left the RPCGA with no credentials; therefore, he is no longer a minister of the Gospel. He would, of necessity, need to be re-ordained by some independent group or join another denomination who would then re-ordain him.”
-Dr. Randall Talbot, Moderator, Westminster Presbytery, RPCGA
http://hushmoney.org/Deposition-Is-Censure-040406.doc
This was dated ‘06.
Has James been re-ordained? Should he be calling himself a pastor if he is no longer an minister of the gospel?
April 17, 2009 at 9:13 am
No, Momgodin, you don’t have that straight. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to clarify. My apologies for not coming back sooner. My mom had surgery yesterday and has been officially diagnosed with uterine cancer. Yesterday was a bit rough for me. If anyone has a heart to do so, I’d appreciate any prayers for her.
Yes, Mr. McDonald uses the title “Pastor”. It was not difficult to find proof of his ordination within the Presbyterian Church, so it seems he does have the education and skill that came along with that title, though he no longer has authority from that denomination. While he’s no longer with that denomination, I’ve seen no evidence that he wasn’t ordained with the denomination that he belongs to now. A denomination that he and the four other churches who left the rpgca founded.
I can understand if ordination from their new denomination is not authority enough within your church. It wouldn’t be in many churches. But I don’t see this as dishonesty on the part of the McDonald’s. They’re not passing him off as a pastor of the rpgca. They’re quite honest about having left that denomination. If they shouldn’t be accepting him from a new denomination, I think that’s something worth bringing up with your church.
Yes I think behavior is important. But as I said, I think it’s going to be very difficult for me to evaluate the behavior of people I’ve never met.
When I discuss my issues with the Ezzos, I bring up their excommunication from 2 different churches. I haven’t seen their behavior and I don’t know them. Their excommunications are verifiable facts, however. What I’ve seen with regards to the McDonalds, especially regarding their family, is a lot of stories and not a much verifiable information. We know that they’re divorced, that their family is blended, and that there were pastors involved in their decision to remarry. Why should I assume that I know more about the rightness or wrongness of their situation than those pastors? Based on information shared by an anonymous source over the internet?
When challenging the behavior of pastors/teachers/leaders/brothers or sister in Christ I think we have a duty to proceed cautiously, to assume the best instead of the worst, to give the benefit of the doubt. Shouldn’t we be doing unto others as we’d have done unto us? If you were accused of something wouldn’t you hope people wouldn’t leap to believe it? Especially not based on someone anonymously posting things they heard?
April 17, 2009 at 9:55 am
I totally see what you’re getting at. As I’ve said before (here and at the WWF blog) I have issues with the Patriocentric movement for just this reason. I feel that someone like me would have no place in their world. What young upright Patricentric young man would have wanted a young single mother with a past, like me? There is such a focus on creating members through fecundity, where is the place for New Creations in Christ?
I have two issues with the idea that their blended family is a strike against them.
1) I had an abortion when I was 17. Now I’m pro-life. Some people discount my opinion because I was once pro-choice and had an abortion. But I think I’m in a better position than many to explain how harmful abortion is, not just to innocent babies, but to the women who think it will help them. I think the same is true for divorce. Who is better to explain how divorce can damage people than those who’ve lived through it?
2) To see this as a mark against their family, one has to see their divorces as wrong. But according to them, they both obtained biblical divorces after infidelity. And they were brought together and given the gift of being able to create a family together that brought joy and stability to their children. I see their family as a prime example of how God can take the worst things in our lives and turn them into great gifts!
The only reason their divorces would be an issue is if they were unbiblical and they were teaching that one can never divorce under any circumstances (like the Pearls do). That’s not the case here.
And when we’re looking at teachers who are setting a standard of perfection, I think there are many who are doing so much more stringently than Stacy McDonald. See my rebuttal of Jennie Chancey’s piece here on working outside the home.
Well, when it comes to circumstances in one’s personal life, what reason do you have to question their account unless you think they’re lying? Unless there’s actual evidence to make you question them? I see every reason to question teaching, to study them, and prove them. That’s not what I’m talking about. If someone tells me the circumstances of their divorce, I’m supposed to doubt them? Question them? Make them prove it? It just doesn’t sound right to me.
When it comes to the teachings, I think we can eat the fruit and spit out the pits. But I will judge those teachings by scripture, not by anyone’s personal life.
When faced with what we perceive to be a lack of charity, it is my prayer that we would rise to a higher standard in order to show the love of Christ to one another.
April 17, 2009 at 9:57 am
Anne, to begin with, I will be praying for your mom and you as well. I am so sorry to hear this.
“so it seems he does have the education and skill that came along with that title”
I was wondering what that means exactly. What would you consider to be an “education and skill” to go along with that title?
Scripture has the only requirements I believe are necessary to go along with the title of pastor:
“An overseer must be above reproach,the husband of one wife,) sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable,hospitable,able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome,not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.” from 1 Timothy
“if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”
To sum these qualities up, beyond reproach and sound in doctrine.
I am also wondering what you consider to be “verifiable” information. For record, I have been really careful to not post anything on this site and have in the past also removed things posted here that have not been verified to my satisfaction, things that I thought ought to remain private. When I state something, I have the official documentation to back it up.
April 17, 2009 at 9:59 am
From what I understand, James McDonald was ordained in the new denomination started by the churches that left the rpgca. I have no evidence of this ordination, nor do I have any reason to doubt it. So, it really depends what your standards are. If you believe that as long as one is currently ordained with some church, then they have authority as a minister of the gospel, he’s fine. I’m not a Presbyterian, a member of their denomination, or a member of their church. Mr. McDonald’s opinion for me will carry more weight than someone who’s never studied theology and never been ordained anywhere, but I’m still going to test all things against scripture.
Honestly, I have a bigger issue with the authority of those who proclaim themselves pastors.
April 17, 2009 at 10:00 am
One more point I would like to make. One of the reasons I ask so many questions is to find out the facts. I have asked many questions, repeatedly, regarding the patriocentric teachings and/or claims only to receive no response at all. Anyone have any suggestions on how we can get those things answered?
April 17, 2009 at 10:07 am
“1) I had an abortion when I was 17. Now I’m pro-life. Some people discount my opinion because I was once pro-choice and had an abortion. But I think I’m in a better position than many to explain how harmful abortion is, not just to innocent babies, but to the women who think it will help them. I think the same is true for divorce. Who is better to explain how divorce can damage people than those who’ve lived through it?”
Anne, I disagree that you cannot have a voice in the pro-life debate because you were once pro-choice. In fact, you have a powerful voice in this arena that needs to be heard. But, I also disagree that you are in a “better position” to discuss this issue. The truth of Scripture is the final authority in all areas of life and practice and doesn’t need to be propped up by anyone’s experiences.
“The only reason their divorces would be an issue is if they were unbiblical ”
What constitutes a biblical divorce? How can a divorce be determined to be biblical or unbiblical without statements from both spouses and documentation from the judge that granted the divorce? And since all sorts of denominations have all sorts of opinions on this, which one makes it “biblical?”
April 17, 2009 at 10:10 am
Karen, I have always belonged to churches that required seminary before ordination as a pastor. I don’t know of Mr. McDonald not meeting any of the requirements made in scripture, but many of them I would be in no position to evaluate. If his church only uses the standards set forth by scripture, I would have to trust that they evaluated his appropriateness for leadership.
And, I have NEVER seen you share anything unverifiable or untrue. But others have shared here, like “Curious” who posts anonymously and has shared information that she says she has often second and third hand. There’s no way to hold her accountable for what she’s shared that impeaches the character of two Christians because I don’t even know who she is. The information she’s shared is not verifiable at all.
And to be clear, I’m not saying that she’s a liar. I’m saying that I nothing by which to weigh her statements.
April 17, 2009 at 10:19 am
Good point, Karen.
In Matthew 5:22 Jesus gives adultery as a valid basis for divorce. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says that if someone is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever leaves, it is permissible to let them go. So, for me, those are both biblical grounds for a divorce. According to the McDonald’s, there was adultery in both of their divorces. Those things aren’t always brought up in court, especially in states with no-fault divorce. But those details would have, presumably, been known to the pastors counseling them.
I have no reason to doubt the McDonald’s in this. I think they’ve tried very hard to be circumspect when discussing this issue not because they’re trying to hide anything, but because it would be unkind to the ex-spouses to put all the gory details out there and because there are children involved.
If the pastors involved thought their divorces and remarriage was biblical, I don’t see a need to question it.
April 17, 2009 at 10:44 am
(((prayers for Anne’s mom)))
Don’t worry about this thread..it’ll be here when you return.
And thanks for not being offended at my questions. I live among…kids. And I probably think like them- suspicious of everyone over thirty!
April 17, 2009 at 11:47 am
Curious, your “information” should hold zero weight with any thinking person who is concerned about this situation. I have no reason whatsoever to believe you. Why would I take you at your word when you don’t even have the guts to identify yourself.
For all I know, you don’t know the McDonalds at all. Anne has been and can provide evidence of that fact. We actually HAVE been checking out the facts with the actual people involved.
I believe if you think I am sharing innuendos the burden of proof is on you, not me, because you could easily have wrote to both of them and then presented it to me. Maybe you did this and I just lack time to scroll up.
I have a hard time believing this is a serious statement. These people are our brother and sister in Christ. We are to extend them charity and the benefit of the doubt unless proven otherwise. The burden of proof is on YOU to PROVE their guilt. So far, you have offered ZERO credible information.
Stacy is welcome here? Is that a joke? If she showed up there to “defend” herself, she would be ripped a new one in a second- not by everyone, mind you, but it would happen.
And FTR, I’ve posted on her blog before and she has always approved my comments. I haven’t posted as “Cally” because James has told me that he cannot approve comments by me using that name. I can only assume that would remain true with Stacy.
April 17, 2009 at 12:17 pm
I should’ve said “Anne has been in contact with them”- sorry for the typos
April 17, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Am I supposed to want it to be true? I’m supposed to want to think the worst of a sister in Christ?
How can I verify this information? How can I hold you accountable for your testimony regarding this situation? I don’t know who you are. And, yes, I am in contact with Stacy McDonald, but I will not share that correspondence here. To do so would be a violation of her trust. I am in contact with her because she contacted me. I would consider it to be rude to contact Sandy and ask her for the intimate details of her divorce when it’s none of my business.
And if you know her to be in unrepentant sin, sin which you can’t prove to others but you know to be true, I would encourage you to go to Stacy and speak with her. Not share it with strangers on the internet. If you are concerned with Stacy’s spiritual welfare, I don’t think your contribution here will help her.
And, to be clear, Stacy is quite clear on her blog with her story regarding her family, that the oldest four children are not hers biologically, and that the fifth child is not James’ biologically. As the mother of a child who has long been parented by someone not biologically related to them, I cannot say that Stacy is not their mother. Regardless of how the family came to be, she has been doing the job of “mother” to those children for the past 14 years.
I will not ask her why she isn’t helping reconcile with those she has hurt. Fist because I have no evidence that she has hurt anyone, and second because I am in no position to know whether or not reconciliation is a good idea. I will trust that those closer to the McDonald’s will counsel them appropriately.
I respectfully disagree. When sharing information that impeaches the character of another believer, one should be prepared to defend and prove those charges. I should be able to hold you accountable for what you say. I can’t do that. I don’t know who you are. And one should be expected to show evidence of their accusation. You have provided none.
In Islam, one must bring forth three witnesses to testify to the sin of another if it is to be believed. Are we less charitable than Islam? Are we less charitable than the secular justice system which believes that one is “innocent until proven guilty”?
On this issue I have no evidence that the McDonald’s have done anything wrong. Until I do, I will continue to believe and hope for the best.
Again, Curious, I have not called you a liar. But at this time, I can give no weight to your evidence, because the only evidence you have provided is uncorroborated and anonymous testimony.
April 17, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I have finally finished Quiverfull and posted a review of it. I know some of you are or have read it and would welcome any discussion if you are interested.
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/book-review-of-quiverfull-inside-the-christian-patriarchy-movement-by-kathryn-joyce/
April 17, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Curious, I don’t even know what to say… so I’m not going to say anything at all.
I release you with love. God be with you.
April 17, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Methinks a troll is at play.
April 17, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Dear Curious,
You did not answer my questions and instead attacked my character. It seems that if I choose not to give your evidence weight without knowing who you so that we, as believers, can hold you accountable for your testimony, I am in the pocket of Stacy McDonald. If that is how you see it, I won’t try to change your mind. Like Jennifer/Cally I will release you with love.
To be clear, I will always defend my brothers and sisters in Christ without knowing that they are totally innocent. In fact, I assume that they are not. I am not totally innocent. None of us are. We are all sinners, covered by the blood of the Christ.
I don’t know what else I can say. Anyone is able to give anonymous testimony as much weight as they think it should have. But my point would be the same regardless of who were talking about. When accusations are being made against another believer, I believe we must demand solid evidence, and we must expect those accusations to be proven, giving our brother or sister the benefit of the doubt. It is certainly what I would hope for if being publicly accused of wrong doing.
April 17, 2009 at 9:46 pm
You know, I was so stunned that Curious could actually be that inane that I forget I did have something I wanted to say.
I think part of my disagreement with some of you stems from a difference in personality. I read Passionate Housewives, and what I took from it was a gratefulness that I am able to be a mother. To me, it promoted the beauty of family and caused me to refocus my priorities a little bit.
I’m a working mother, and while I don’t have marble sinks, I do have granite countertops. : )
But I was not at all offended, and did not feel judged, by the fact that Stacy or Jennie Chancey viewed my having a career as unbiblical. They have studied scripture and come to their conclusions, and they shared them in the book.
I read their thoughts, realized that they felt differently than I, took the positives from the book and moved on.
If I became offended every time I read something by someone who didn’t believe exactly as I do, I’d spend a lot of time disgruntled. Seriously, how much Christian non-fiction have any of you read where you agreed with every word? I know that most of you are avid readers (and boy, am I sitting on my hands to stop from saying something uncharitable here) so I know you have read lots of theology/Bible studies, etc.
There are always going to be those who study the same verses you have and yet come up with a different conclusion. Do you always feel judged by that?
Anyway, I’m trying to say that I’ve really been thinking about how some of you may have taken those things to heart, whereas I was able to just put them aside. If this aspect of my personality caused me not to take concerns seriously, I apologize for that.
But I also suggest, in the nicest possible way, that you learn to lighten up a little bit, and trust your own judgment at least as much as you trust a stranger who writes a book.
April 17, 2009 at 9:54 pm
Marcia, are you a nurse by any chance?
April 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Yes ma’am. : )
April 17, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Except…I’m a baby nurse. I work in a neonatal ICU. So I’m not much help with adult stuff…
There are other nurses here, though.
April 17, 2009 at 10:05 pm
The 12 hour shifts gave it away.
I’m also a nurse and I think being involved in a career that I also feel has a large component of servanthood and ministerial value makes it easier for me.
April 17, 2009 at 10:07 pm
I was afraid you needed advice. I don’t mind giving it within my area of expertise, but when my MIL wants to ask me about her GI problems..
Now we’re off-topic.
April 17, 2009 at 10:17 pm
That post should say “easier for me to be a working mom”
But I know what you mean about advice. I’ve been in transitional and long term care for years. Grandma broke her hip? Granpa has Alzheimers? I’m your girl! Other areas and well…. LOL
April 17, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Marcia- “There are always going to be those who study the same verses you have and yet come up with a different conclusion. Do you always feel judged by that?”
Of course not, bcz we’re not talking about folks simply “feeling” judged. We’re talking about her literally judging people.
She admits doing this in the book, when she spoke of being in a store and seeing a younger pregnant woman, she thought to herself, ‘She thinks I’m just riding in this wheelchair bcz I’m lazy. Of course when she gets old like me she probably won’t be having babies anymore..’…I realized bcz of my own sinful pride toward others in the past, I was making assumptions about what others must be thinking of me now.”
Yet, she continues to make such assumptions about the motives of people throughout the book. This not simply being fully persuaded in your own mind, or having a conviction, this is judging people.
She admits here that she does this because of her pride, which obviously is not in the past as she thought.
April 18, 2009 at 8:39 am
Curious, I don’t know how to make my position any clearer. I feel like I keep trying to find different ways to make a point, and you’re unwilling or unable to see it.
I don’t have a horse in this race, and the outcome does not affect me personally. My posts have been about principle and directly related to the specific issue of the McDonald’s family and divorce. I’m not emotional about the topic at all, because it’s not about emotion for me.
I don’t think further discourse on this subject, at least with you, is going to be fruitful in any way.
April 18, 2009 at 9:24 am
I certainly felt that way when I read Jennie Chancey Responds to Titus 2 Cynics
That article made me a little upset. Not because she felt differently about the passages than I did, but because she flatly stated that I was in sin for believing differently, or doing differently.
April 18, 2009 at 9:51 am
Alice, is this the story you’re referring to?
http://Www.homeschoolingtodaythetruth.blogspot.com/2009/03/sisters-in-christ.HTML
April 18, 2009 at 9:54 am
Ahem..Alice?
April 18, 2009 at 11:46 am
White washed feminists are hosting an interesting discussion and it looks like Stacy McDonald is willing to participate, even offering to discuss the Passionate Housewives book. And, Marcia, Molly is there, too, so I think you might enjoy the exchange.
http://whitewashedfeminist.com/2009/04/16/happily-agnostic/
April 18, 2009 at 11:50 am
MDS, I found Stacy’s side of that particular story here. Your link appears to be broken.
This is yet another red herring in my opinion. A mistake made 10 years ago that Stacy reports she has since made right with the wronged party.
Just to be clear, I have done MANY things wrong with the best of intentions, handled many things a certain way that I would do differently now.
What’s the point of bringing this issue up? What can it possibly accomplish?
April 18, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Thanks, Karen. I’m off to a dance recital, so I’ll check it out later.
April 18, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Where has Cindy K been? Is she perhaps writing under “Curious?”
April 18, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Jane you need a real e-mail address and IP to continue posting here.
BTW, Cindy is really busy these days and she is not Curious. Most people here know who she is.
- Show quoted text -
April 18, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Thanks, Karen. I didn’t realize you required personal info to post here. I understand the desire to know that a person is real. However, you have to realize that this site is not exactly hospitable nor is it known for its charity and grace. Who in her right mind wants to reveal her identity and be sliced apart online?
Anne and Marcia are a breath of sensibility and charity here. They have given this thread the check it needed. Hallelujah. Thanks for letting them post.
Ladies, I exhort you to exercise your biblical love and faith outside of blogs. Put your feet on the pavement and DO something. Healthy discussions and dialogues are great and are not wrong. But when a topic goes on and on and on and on and on, one has to wonder if the husband, the household, and even one’s personal faith is being neglected. Just a thought. Let’s get off of the keyboards and put our hands to the plow.
April 18, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Again, I’m defending a principle. And that principle is larger than the McDonalds.
Here’s what I got from Curious’ post:
1) She doesn’t know that amends weren’t made. She says “as far as I know” and it seems plausible that since Stacy says amends were made to the moderator in question, not the group as a whole, she wouldn’t be privy to that exchange.
2) Then, after admitting that she doesn’t know, she calls Stacy a liar, anonymously, without presenting any evidence to back up her claim.
I don’t know Stacy McDonald, have openly spoken out against the Patriarchy movement and have no reason to defend her, except that I think she is being treated unfairly, in a way I would not want to be treated.
Regardless of what the circumstances were with regards to this Matthew 18 letter, I have to wonder what the point of bringing it up here is?
The tongue has the power of life and death, and those who love it will eat its fruit. Proverbs 18:21
This must apply for what we write as well, mustn’t it? Mustn’t we be very careful what we say and what we write, especially when it has to do with someone else and their character and reputation?
April 18, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Hi Alice.
I’m not a Sherlock Holmes. First of all, your name has been brought up here at TW, and second, I remember you. We actually talked over email, ages and ages ago.
I remember you as being a completely different sort of person than Curious.
April 18, 2009 at 5:51 pm
Alice, were you the moderator this letter was written to?
At the very least Stacy’s testimony in that piece is that she admits wrongdoing and is sorry for it.
(taken from the post at the link above)
April 18, 2009 at 5:52 pm
Also, I don’t blame the McDonald’s for changing their stance re: the internet and para-church. Karen wrote a great piece about why Matthew 18 isn’t applicable on the internet, and this seems like a story that proves why.
April 18, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Hi Anne, my fellow nurse. : )
I wanted to ask you about my MIL.
Okay, kidding.
Yes, that’s Alice. And yes, Stacy has said she regrets how all of that was handled. She has also said that her part in all of it was greatly misrepresented. This I totally believe.
April 18, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Hey Karen–
I had some thoughts I wanted to post, but they are somewhat off-topic. Basically, it’s along the lines of why someone believes in God, but in my case, it has a little bit to do with stuff that happened at this here forum.
Could you start another thread along this line, or do you prefer to stay on women’s issues only?
April 18, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Oh,and thank you, Jane. I wish I could be as gracious and eloquent as Anne, though.
April 18, 2009 at 11:31 pm
“Basically, it’s along the lines of why someone believes in God, but in my case, it has a little bit to do with stuff that happened at this here forum.”
That would be an interesting topic.
A related idea I had was for a chapter-by-chapter discussion of C.S. Lewis’s book, “Mere Christianity” (which in my opinion is one of the best modern commentaries on the Christian faith extant in the English language.)
April 19, 2009 at 1:04 am
Thank you for letting me know where you fit into this, Alice. Considering this happened on a private Yahoo list a very long time ago, I’m going to apply 2 Proverbs to myself and not discuss it further. I am not the woman I was 10 years ago, and I don’t know that many of us are. I think we all leave casualties in the wake of our enlightenment and learning from time to time. I hope that I can make amends for all of them, and if I cannot, I trust in the Lord to bring healing, peace, and forgiveness. And I hope in another 10 years I’ve become better and less likely to leave such casualties.
For now, with this, these are my sciptures:
Proverbs 26:17 “Like one who seizes a dog by the ears is a passer-by who meddles in a quarrel not his own.”
This quarrel is not my own but one between you and Stacy, so I will bow out at this point. I wish you both the best.
Proverbs 26:20 “Without wood a fire goes out; without gossip a quarrel dies down.”
I in no way want to add fuel to the fire by discussing a situation that is not only not my quarrel but an argument which I have no knowledge of. I would much rather allow the quarrel to die down and for you both to find peace.
April 19, 2009 at 2:19 am
Anne, why the heck are you still up. Go to bed!! LOL
April 19, 2009 at 9:56 am
Alice, I don’t actually know Stacy, though we’ve had a very gracious e-mail exchange. I would hope that every one of us would grow, change, and learn over ten years.
My point here has been to defend a principle regarding the discussion and impeachment of the personal character of other believers. It just happens to be that right now, the personal character being called into question is that of the McDonald’s. And I’m loathe to think less of someone based on a lot of she said/they said. I’d prefer to give the benefit of the doubt and believe the best about people until provided with solid evidence not to.
If you would like to work this out in love, as you say, I wish you the best and will pray that happens. As I said earlier, this isn’t my quarrel and I think continuing to discuss the particulars can only stir things up, not allow the atmosphere needed to have peace on the matter.
April 19, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Anne,
(Comment 55)
I understand that you are arguing that we should be kind and forgiving. But I see you arguing situational ethics and your own personal standards here. Many people do not share your personal standards, and those people have the right and responsibility to make those decisions on their own. The McDonalds, out of respect for the Word and out of respect for others in the Body have the duty to be honest, particularly because they operated in venues that involved people who observe different standards.
I would like to remind you that you do not count yourself as a pastor’s wife, you do not sell books that promote yourself as something you are not while using a pastor’s title.
Baptists and groups like the Assemblies of God where I was raised disqualify all previously married people from ministry. By not being transparent and an open book about this, they are falling short of the standard established for Christian leaders. I have talked to many and answered copious emails from people who had no clue that the McDonalds were previously married and by trusting them, they were pulled into what they believe was sinful by honoring the McDonalds with a status they did not hold. That was not the McDonald’s judgement call to make for these people, and they had the duty to be honest about who they were. You can qualify this however you want to personally, but you are not the arbiter of truth. The Word of God is. So it is incumbent upon the McDonalds to be honest about who they are so that individuals who believe differently can have informed consent. Think about it.
Would you dare go up to the Apostle Paul and argue this? I certainly would not. They robbed people of their ability to responsibly honor the Word of God by concealing information. Paul called all Christians to be an open book to be known and read of all men. You might not be offended, but you do not speak for all Christians. I know you don’t intend to do so, but you are arguing situational ethics based upon your own personal beliefs. But you do not have the right to impose that on all Christians. Other Christians interpret passages like I Timothy 3 very differently than you do, and neither you nor the McDonalds have the right to make that judgement call for them. To do so pits situational ethics up against the standard of the Word. That is not what Christians are called to do. In so doing, you are calling your personal interpretation of this Scripture an essential point of doctrine when it is a mater of intramural debate. You have no right to rob other believers of that liberty to follow God as they see fit. As much as it is wrong to say all Christian women must wear dresses and cant wear T-shirts, it is equally wrong to decide for people how they should interpret I Timothy 3 for the whole Body of Christ. For those who believe that those who remarry are disqualified from the pastorate, and they are required to accept a remarried pastor without their knowledge, you have baited them and deceived them into violating the Word of God.
Your personal choices are personal choices, but those who promote themselves as ministers are held to a higher standard. You are not the arbiter of the standard and neither are the McDonalds.
I also have several people that have given testimony that James McDonald was never a pastor or elder. I have testimony from people that state that Stacy herself bore witness to them that James was not a pastor. I have been told by three witnesses that the RPCGA did try to find support to James’ claims of ordination in the SBC and could not find anything to corroborate his claims. They did investigate it however.
So I find myself almost embarrassed for you as you so strongly defend Stacy because of a kindhearted email from Stacy. It is to your credit that you are compassionate and forgiving of them personally, but these are not personal matters but matters that concern the Word’s standards for pastors. You are free as an individual to embrace them, but you are not free to make that case for those who have different doctrinal standards. It is also a slap in the face to every seminary graduate who was denied a position as a pastor or missionary because of their remarriages. I know pastors that had to step down from their pastorates because of divorce, and they did so to remain under the authority of their denomination. I know seminary graduates who were granted the right to attend seminary but who were denied placement in missions. I watched an elder in my church step down because of sin in his life and I have watched otherwise well-qualified men passed over for ministry opportunities. Your decision for them based on your own personal beliefs does injustice to them and makes a mockery of their faith.
April 19, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Just for the record, I am Independent Baptist, and SOME, though not many, Independent Baptist churches DO allow divorced and remarried men to be pastors. Our church is one of the few that doesn’t treat divorced people like second class citizens.
April 19, 2009 at 2:42 pm
I have a great many other commitments and am not going to be participating here much at all. If there is something I have not responded to that has been posted here, it is likely that I’ve been unavailable to read it. You’ll have to send me an email.
Mrs. W.,
People in the denominations who hold to a tight interpretation of the “husband of one wife” qualification for pastors and elders do not treat the remarried as second class citizens. They only preclude them from service as pastors and elders. They are given lots of opportunities to minister, but they cannot hold these titles or offices, but that is well-known to those members of these denominations and is not a standard that is concealed from their members. It is not a means of demeaning people but it is a matter of holding to the Biblical standard. It does not mean that compassion, love or anything else is held back from these members (save these high offices per the writings of Paul) that would make them second-class citizens. I am sorry if I stated something that would give anyone the impression that this is the case. It is not.
April 19, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Cindy, I don’t know how to respond to you. I feel that you have missed my point entirely. But please, don’t waste any time being embarrassed on my behalf. I have said and done what I thought was right, not because of a kind e-mail as you assume, but because I thought it was the right thing to do.
Peace to you.
April 19, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Hi Cindy,
I am aware that there are churches who believe different on the divorce and remarriage issue from us who do treat divorced people with love and respect. But I have also seen some that don’t, some churches not letting them serve in any capacity etc. Anyhow this is the first Independent Baptist church I’ve been in that does think it’s ok for a pastor to be divorced and remarried, provided the divorce itself was Biblical. So I grew up with the other belief all my life. Some still are nice to those people and some not so nice.
April 19, 2009 at 5:03 pm
I, too, am taking my little girl knickers and going back under my comfortable rock at WWF. Clearly, this blog is not a safe place for anyone who dares disagree with Cindy or Alice or whoever hates the McDonalds the most and refuses to accept “take my word for it” as evidence. Several people on this blog seem to forget that we do actually stand AGAINST patriocentricity and that we are actually on the same side.
If you have hard evidence that James McDonald is unqualified to be a pastor, take it to those who can do something about it. Don’t just say you have it (even if you do!), expect people to take your word for it, and then get your knickers in a knot if they don’t!
Cindy, I have greatly appreciated your wisdom and your experience in the past, but with that last comment to Anne, you have crossed the line with me. You have succeeded in bullying away at least three people who have supported you in the past and would have continued to support you if you could show even the least amount of grace to those who disagree. I hope you’re pleased with yourself.
No need to write a novel to me. Frankly, I’ve had enough all around and I won’t be back to read it.
Karen, I deeply love True Womanhood. This discussion has changed my life for the better. Unfortunately, the discussion here is one that I no longer feel I can be a part of in good conscience.
Blessings to all of you,
Jennifer (Cally)
April 19, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Anne, I wanted to comment on your “Rumors” post for March 20, but I guess it’s closed to comments?
“The bottom line for them seems to be that if a person does not share THEIR exact mindset regarding one or more of the above, then that person is unregenerate, heretical, unsaved, lost, in need of repentance, apostate, or a deceiver.”-Abanes
Then Anne finished with, ” felt like shouting, “Amen!” when I read that paragraph. It’s what has frustrated me to no end with the Hyper Patriarchy movement. To have my salvation questioned because of extrabiblical requirements placed on women in particular and families in general, has been disheartening and frustrating.”
I think you’re missing it.
Christian lawyers need a market. But, rats! the Bible forbids them to sue the brethren.
Why- they can just excommunicate a whole new market of folks they CAN sue!
It sounds incredible, but how else can you explain their readiness to threaten lawsuits?
They MUST declare us to be heretics. Couple that with their “take dominion” drive and anything’s possible.
I think…I think we are underestimating these people. I don’t think they’re interested in dialog anymore than they’ve proven to be interested in reconciliation with those who have earnestly sought it.
April 19, 2009 at 6:06 pm
Bullying?!
What we are discussing here is REAL bullying, but your conscience can’t abide the discussion of real threats, real slander and real lawsuits that are really documented here and elsewhere.
plus, the Bible says that two or more (first hand) witnesses are enough to establish the truth, but apparently you won’t accept those witnesses.
I understand you to be saying that you aren’t obligated to accept secondhand hearsay. That’s reasonable, and no one expects you to.
But I think for all the work Cindy has done to obtain and present the facts, and keep hearing you call it “hearsay”, she has been pretty patient, repeating everything to exhaustion. She should be leaving for that rocker.
Some of the reasoning has been frustrating to hear:
“If Stacy says it’s so, why would we question it?”
Because of her book.
“If the pastor thought their divorce was biblical, who are we to question it?”
Because there are many pastors who will approve any divorce.
http://www.moriel.org/articles/discernment/ruckmanism/what_about_peter_ruckman.htm
“Many men I know call themselves pastor. Who cares if they’re really ordained? What difference does it make?”
I can only think that such people have never been victims of fraud, and so do not see any value in questioning, rather, see it as troublesome and negative and their conscience is hurt.
“The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going.”
“It is wise to be cautious: The prudent man will try before he trusts, will weigh both the credibility of the witness, and the probability of the testimony and then give judgment as the thing appears or suspend judgment until it appears. Prove all things, believe not every spirit.” -Matthew Henry
April 19, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Some of those people have shared information with me at their own risk, and they fear retaliation from James, Stacy or both of them.
Either share the emails and the names of those who sent them, or don’t post this kind of accusation. I could say that I’ve received emails where Cindy K. threatened folks. And maybe I have. Or not. Or maybe I did, but the people involved were delusional. Give real, substantiated evidence that EVERYONE has access to, or don’t post accusations like that.
real slander and real lawsuits that are really documented here and elsewhere.
Again: where? In what county were these lawsuits filed? This should be public record and not difficult to produce.
Provide this sort of evidence, please, or admit that you are posting things that cannot be proven.
April 19, 2009 at 8:13 pm
“What we are discussing here is REAL bullying…real threats, real slander and real lawsuits that are really documented here and elsewhere.”
My point is that you are calling an ungracious manner of disagreement “bullying” when we’ve been discussing REAL bullying: the patriocentric movement comprised of powerful laywers who excommunicate Christians for “rebellious attitude”, who frequently threaten and intimidate folks who publicly disagree with them and who sue believers; a propaganda film maker with cult background,Pastor James McDonald who has no credentials, Defrocked ministers creating their own denomination that will re-ordain them, and Family Integrated Churches w/o accountabily,Sponsoring Seminars to our churches that teach bizarre “biblical roles”, seminars that invite families to move to New Zealand.
In all, the articles I’ve read include bullying, slander, threats, lawsuits and fraud.
I wouldn’t call ungracious manner of disagreement “bullying” after all of that!
April 19, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Alice, if you have the *legal* letter, why do I have to ask Cindy for it? Post it.
You have phone company records proving the McDonalds called you? Post them.
Your personal witness to the conversation put it in writing? Broken record here, but, um, POST IT.
remember I have a fantastic personal witness who could very well exist in your imagination. Your saying that this person exists means nothing.
Anyone can say they have proof of anything. I don’t have to believe any of it.
You made the claims, though, that you have these things in writing. Show us.
April 19, 2009 at 10:24 pm
If you post public, legal records, how could I possibly say you made them up?
And as far as your trustworthy source, how can anyone believe this person exists? I could say the same thing–I have a Completely Reliable Source who is going to tell you that Alice called me and threatened me.
Also, there are probably phone records to back me up, but you would have to be the one to find them.
Oh, and I have a Completely Legal Letter from Pastor John MacArthur, in which he threatened legal action against me for saying that he owned chickens in a neighborhood where it was against the homeowners association. But you’re going to have to email Karen if you want to see it.
Alice, I don’t mean this to be as hateful as it probably sounds. I’m just trying to get you to see that anyone can pretty much say they *have* well, anything.
If you truly have the documentation you say you do, why won’t you share it?
April 19, 2009 at 10:28 pm
We both live in Ohio…so you do remember me.
I hope you recall me fondly, as I do you.
What I am saying here is nothing against you personally. I am saying that no one should be able to bring accusations of that nature against someone else without actual proof, and saying that you possess such proof is not anywhere near the same as exhibiting it.
April 19, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Tonight I am asking that everyone take a break from this discussion. I am getting e-mails left and right from both sides of this argument and there are some pretty distressed people out there. At this point I feel like people have stopped listening to each other and are becoming more and more polarized.
I would like to suggest that Alice consider posting what she has as documentation on a blog that she has control over. She is welcome to link to it from here as Cindy has done to her blog where she has provided documentation. I would suggest if anyone has concerns about the content and/or documentation, it is best to take it up with those who post the content since they are aware of the sources, etc.
The saddest thing to me is that this blog has been such a tremendous help to so many people over the past years and tonight I feel as though we have lost something important.
Marcia, you requested that I open a new thread and said that you would post there. Why have you not done so but are insisting on adding fuel to the very fire you helped to start? This has become a pattern with you that frustrates me. You have never posted here other than to do this and some people have contacted me and think you have been sent to do this. I don’t want to think that of you.
April 19, 2009 at 10:46 pm
To clarify something Anne said…
My article on the Matthew 18 process was not about internet issues. I was addressing the difference between approaching those who are false teachers and those who have personally offended us. Matthew 18 applies to the personal offenses, requiring that we go to individuals one on one first. False teachers are another matter and ought to be dealt with publicly as their teachings are public.
April 19, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Abby, you asked a few posts ago where you can find the teachings of Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald from the Passionate Housewives book. I would encourage you to read the book itself. Used copies seem to be under $10.00 these days and I think it would probably be the best way to get what they are saying and place it against the backdrop of their other teachings such as on their blogs. I am in the process of writing book reviews on their book and will note some of these teachings. On thatmom under the questions for Stacy, there are quite a few quotes from the books, too.
April 19, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Hi Karen–
I apologize; I truly didn’t mean to add fuel to the fire. I was actually working on typing out a post to the thread you mentioned when I saw that Alice addressed me by name and felt I had to respond.
I am more than happy to let this go as long as no one else posts something directed at me.
And I have not been sent here; I have said many times that I read here often, but rarely post because I just don’t have time to keep up with the number of responses.
Who on earth would send me here–I’m a heathen career woman, for Heaven’s sake. (Hopefully you can see I’m joking..)
Back to my other post.
April 20, 2009 at 8:27 am
Karen, (I think it was you) thanks for the link over to the discussion at WWF. I have found Cally’s post to be really refreshing and I wrote a few comments over there.
I think one thing we all need to be continually reminded of whenever we are dealing with a false “philosophy” (in the words of Paul), is that we need to look to Scriptures to figure out what to do.
There are certainly people who come here because they disagree with the patriarchy forum, and those who come because they feel that they have been sucked in by this misleading teaching and are trying to find the right track. And still there are others who come here because they don’t like what we are saying and want to know who exactly to throw their stones at. (very very few of them actually comment, they linger in the background just as Saul/Paul did at the stoning of Steven)
But sometimes in our discussion, it feels like preaching to the choir. Yet, at other times, it feels like those of us who agree on one thing: Patriarchy is a false teaching, somehow have other things we disagree on, and those things always cause the conversation to degrade.
I have personally started reading Colossians, and I think it is a good idea to go next to Galatians. Both of these are a prescription for dealing with false teachings.
I think that when we fight accusations with accusations, we are no better than heathens, but if we fight lies with Truth, Christ will certainly win out. We shouldn’t worry about saving our own skin, or looking smart. We should only be concerned with the Truth.
April 20, 2009 at 8:57 am
Abby, you are correct, the Scriptures do tell us how to deal with false teachers. 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus make it very clear that we are not to remain silent about these things.
Titus 1:10-11: “For there are many who are insubordinate, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision party. They must be silenced, since they are upsetting whole families by teaching for shameful gain what they ought not to teach.”
April 20, 2009 at 9:37 am
Karen,
In Titus 1:10-11, the word subordinate refers to those who are unruly. They will not submit to church authority and they are careless — not in a state of peace nor able to leave things alone.
Vain talkers refers to those who give themselves to useless chatter. It includes trivial and frivolous speculations that contribute nothing to the advancement of the Kingdom.
Those of the circumcision party are the Jews who were not acknowledging the sufficiency of Christ, but wanting to place themselves under the law or at least live under a combination of the two (Christ mixed with the law).
I think you have cited a Scripture that has, in fact, shown more light on what happens here at TW. Do the women here engage in empty talk? Do they deceive for the purpose of continuing a conversation?
Do those who post here make frivolous speculations about other Christians that contribute nothing except division and bitterness toward the Kingdom of God?
And are there women here who will not submit to authority? Are they unruly? Do they fall under the church authority (are they members, in good standing, of a church body?). Karen, are you under the authority of a local church? If you are willing to facilitate these kinds of discussions, under whose government do you fall? Is there a pastor who watches out for your soul?
April 20, 2009 at 10:02 am
Jane, I am still waiting for a real e-mail address and IP for you. I will be happy to answer your questions when I see those. Until then, I am encouraging anyone here to not interact with you. You are not willing to follow what I have asked of you to be involved in this discussion.
April 20, 2009 at 1:01 pm
““Many men I know call themselves pastor. Who cares if they’re really ordained? What difference does it make?”
HUH????
Many people I know consider themselves to be “married” too, who have never gotten a marriage license or been before a minister or priest in a marriage ceremony.
They consider themselves to be married, but the truth is, they are shacking up — they’re living together in fornication.
The same reasoning applies to unordained men who style themselves as “pastors” — Jesus instituted the Sacrament of Ordination for a reason, and these unordained posers are rebels acting without His authority.
April 20, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Cynthia Gee,
That was my “take” on Annes post#63:
“We have many “pastors” who are only such based on their own say-so. I guess I’m not sure why it matters when and where he was ordained by the Baptists unless one thinks he’s lying about that, and I just can’t figure out why he would.”
-was her actual quote. I admit I was frustrated with her lack interest in credentials.
Sorry everybody! :embarassed:
April 20, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Momgodin, either you missed my point completely, or I didn’t make it clear enough in light of my other comments. I care very much about whether or not a pastor is ordained.
But ordination is something that varies in importance from congregation to congregation. Many Christians accept only 2 Sacraments: baptism and communion. Many churches have pastors who are only such because they declare themselves such. Many churches appoint pastors as opposed to ordain them.
Because Mr. McDonald isn’t my Pastor and he doesn’t answer to me, and I’m not a part of his denomination, and I’m not going to judge what I think of what he teaches based on whether or not he’s an ordained minister. I’ve rejected teachings by ordained ministers, and accepted teachings by people that don’t claim ministry at all. I accept or reject those teachings based on how valid I find them.
It would matter, however, if he were lying about it. But it would be the lie that was important, IMO. Unless we’re making a big deal about all pastors who aren’t ordained as such?
And heck! Maybe he is lying about it, in which case I’d like to see actual evidence of that deceit before I accept it. Not because of any loyalty to the McDonalds, whose views I do not share, but because I believe it’s wrong to believe the worst about people without evidence.
If you don’t want to understand where I’m coming from, that’s fine, but please do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting what I’ve said here. Believe me, I’m as frustrated with that as you are with anything I’ve said.
April 20, 2009 at 2:00 pm
You know, I’m sorry I even posted that. I will happily leave this conversation entirely if those who stay would kindly stop bringing my name up. If you have a question about anything I think, feel, or believe, you’re welcome to e-mail me at AnneBassoATgmailDOTcom
April 20, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“If you don’t want to understand where I’m coming from, that’s fine, but please do me the courtesy of not misrepresenting what I’ve said here.”
Anne! I just now quoted you exactly to correct what I felt misrepresented you. (even tho I didn’t attribute the quote to you in my post #133, I just admitted I had you in mind.)
April 20, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I understand what you were trying to do, and appreciate that you didn’t allow a quote to be wrongly attributed to me. But you misrepresented my point in the quote you provided. You said that you were “frustrated with her lack interest in credentials.” when that wasn’t the point I was making at all. I don’t have a lack of interest in the credentials of a Pastor. I just know that different churches and groups have different expectations for what someone should have to be a Pastor. So, ordination might not be an issue for everyone. However, deceit is.
Again, please just leave me out of it. According to Curious I “don’t care about the truth, [am] an emotional type, not logical, don’t read posts carefully, just want to rant, just like looking wise in [my] own eyes, [am] contentious, [and] a spitfire.” #84 And of course, Cindy kindly reminded me that I am not the arbiter of truth and that she was embarrassed for me.
What you call an “ungracious manner of disagreement” I call an environment that is not conducive to feeling open to share. Which is a shame, since it’s through this kind of discourse that I have been sharpened. Sadly one has to feel safe in order to do that, and I no longer do here. So, please, leave me out of it, so I can go away.
April 20, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Aw, heck, I’m sorry I stuck my foot into it. Anne, I didin’t mean to criticize or hurt you.
But I do think that this whole thing underscores why ministers ought to be ordained in the first place.
Regardless of what modernday denominations choose to do, Jesus instituted ordination as a prerequisite to ministry, and this was practiced by all of Christianity up until the Anabaptists started doing otherwise in the 1500’s.
Doing things God’s way works, but doing things man’s way results in the sort of confusion we see demonstrated in the McDonald mess.
April 20, 2009 at 5:08 pm
((I’m sorry, too!))
And the truth is… I didn’t know that there were denominations that didn’t ordain their ministers.
That is why I compared the trust level of pastors with that of physicians in a previous post:
“We assume that the *physician (pastor) is acting in our own best interests.
We assume that *doctors (pastors) are highly educated, so they must know more than we do.
We assume that *doctors’(pastor’s) licences are a certification of their competency.
We assume that prestigious medical centers (seminaries) would never allow incompetent *physicians(pastors) to practice (preach) there.
And finally we assume that if they weren’t competent, we’d all know about it, and someone would do something to stop them from practicing.
More often than most people realize, these assumptions are terribly wrong.”
-Harvey Wachsman M.D. , J.D. “Lethal Medicine: the epidemic of malpractice in America”
April 20, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Anne, don’t go. You don’t know who may be reading here, never commenting, but appreciative of your calm, rational (not in any way emotional), educated take on things.
Seriously, this forum needs your voice.
April 21, 2009 at 6:46 am
I just wanted to let everyone know here that I have turned on comment moderation for the time being. I HATE doing it but find it to be necessary since some posters haven’t been willing to comply with the rules! I hope that eventually we won’t need to do this!
April 21, 2009 at 12:06 pm
Anne,
” I just know that different churches and groups have different expectations for what someone should have to be a Pastor. So, ordination might not be an issue for everyone. However, deceit is.”
Exactly.
That is why James McDonald should have no problem providing the Church and city/state where he was ordained since HE is the one who made that claim and represented himself to the RPCGA (POIQ) as having been “ordained”. Contrary to what he claims, the RPCGA did ask him to provide that paperwork.
If there is no deceit, then what is the big deal about providing the name of the Church and its location?
Anyone can make a claim but if the person making the claim is not hiding anything they would have no problem providing details.
April 21, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Anne,
I am truly sorry that you feel unsafe here.
April 21, 2009 at 1:54 pm
sort of off topic, but I know this issue exists in patrioland. Chuck Colson is doing a series right now on domestic abuse in the church. I subscribe to his BreakPoint commentaries and this is the topic he is talking about this week.
April 21, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Maybe they did ask him. I don’t know. I do think it’s odd that they’d want to know since that ordination wouldn’t have held any weight with the RPGCA from what I understand. I also don’t understand why, if it was so important that he prove he was ordained (and as I understand it he was ordained as a youth pastor only, though I have no evidence of that) as a basis for his ordination in the RPGCA, why they didn’t make sure they saw that information before they ordained him.
But that really sounds like an issue for the RPGCA, only, he’s no longer ordained with them so the point is moot on their end, they no longer care from what I understand. This issue is starting to feel like beating a dead horse. He’s not my pastor, he doesn’t answer to me. If he’s not telling the truth, I’d like to see some evidence of that before I believe it. And at that point it’s something for his church to deal with and it would be up to them to determine his ability to serve his congregation.
And, thank you, Corrie. I don’t know whether I should be posting here right now. This whole blow up may be the Lord trying to teach me to sit on my hands (and I’m so often far too stubborn when the Lord is trying to teach me something). And I feel like I’m talking in circles.
This isn’t me trying to be the “arbiter of truth” for everyone by the way, a comment that I found particularly insulting. I’m just trying to find the truth, gain understanding, learn as best I can, and keep some measure of charity at the same time.
April 21, 2009 at 8:05 pm
An OT question:
I was just reading a fella’s blog, who says the wife should call her husband “lord” bcz it shows she recognizes him as her master.
The word in Hebrew does mean “lord, master, owner” But Strongs notes the difference between 1. LORD- deity and 2.lord- “a human title of honor” which I think is the understood meaning because in Gen 24:18 we have Rebekah calling Eleazer “my lord” when he was neither her master nor her owner. It seems to be a respectful manner of addressing a man. Do you think Rebekah was calling Eleazer “master”? Or simply addressing him respectfully?
April 21, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Thanks for sharing that info, Kelli.
Here is another interesting article. It is Bill Gothard’s response to some of the things Michael Pearl wrote about him in the previous issue of No Greater Joy magazine. I think Mr. Gothard has some good things to say and seems to be as concerned as the rest of us are regarding some of the teachings on young women.
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/fileadmin/template/PDFs/2009-May-June.pdf
April 22, 2009 at 8:53 am
momgodin, would you be willing to share the link to that blog, or at least lead us in the right direction?
April 22, 2009 at 11:19 am
Sure. I just stumbled on it, so I don’t even know anything about the blogger:
http://umbl0g.blogspot.com/2007/01/call-him-master-what.html
thanks!
April 22, 2009 at 6:04 pm
oops. sorry- wrong link you guys. It’s my birthday, so I posted and ran. I gave you the abuse link that I searched for. :p I’ll try to find where I was reading last night.
April 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm
momgodin, happiest of birthdays to you! May all your wildest dreams come true!
April 22, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Thanks for the link momgodin. Great blog here. I’m a conservative believer in Jesus with a wonderful wife, two daughters and a son. I’m always on the lookout for good explanation of 1 Timothy 2. If you need a pigeonhole for me, consider me a reluctant complementarian, but that’s on odd days of the month. On some even days I am egalitarian on women elders and pastors. But on average I’m a complementarian.
God is good
jpu
April 23, 2009 at 12:28 am
tee hee! I’m feeling too old for those wild dreams, let me tell you. “Forty-eight” girls! Actually I feel pretty good today, considering I’m seventh months pregnant and we won’t say how much I weigh. After losing the last baby, I wanted to make sure I was getting all the nutrition I could, and taking natural progesterone to sustain the pregnancy. Don’t know if that helped, but I’m very thankful to have just one more.
I got some opal earrings, and some comfy flip flops. It is also my son Samuel’s b’day. He was best birthday present.
Um, now I guess I *know* who John the family man is, lol. Sorry, but that is the first time I’ve read your blog- in a long chain of links.
All those terms just confuse me. Nobody stays in their box when they say they’re one or the other, so I will never learn which is which or what I am. I believe the Bible- usually the simple interpretation.:)
I believe it was a snippet from CTBHH about actually calling husbands “lord”.
So now I’m wondering if terms of endearment like “hon” and “dear” and “babe” and “bay-buh” are not respectful enough for hubbies. Is there a modern day equal to “my lord”?
April 23, 2009 at 11:36 am
Anne,
McDonald was on probation for a year and did not have voting rights. He was asked for the documents concerning his divorce and ordination and he was to supply them during this probationary period. The ordination is important because it is McDonald who claims he was ordained. That gave him credibility and the aura of experience in this presbytery’s eyes, I suppose. No pastor worth his salt would have a problem giving the name of the church and the city/state where he was ordained. It would be a reflex action for a pastor. In fact, I have conducted my own little experiment. I have asked several pastors where they were ordained and they rattled it off like they were rattling off their social security number. It was reflexive, no thought involved nor hesitation in providing me with this information.
Having experienced the shenanigans and witnessing them for a decade, I know how these people operate. Since I have experienced these things, firsthand, I am aware of how they operate. I have no time for the b.s. at this point in my life.
I would like to know why the burden of proof isn’t on the man who claims that he was ordained? This makes no sense to put the burden of proof on those who question it based on good reasons.
April 23, 2009 at 1:22 pm
In those denominations which require their ministers to BE ordained in the first place, doesn’t a prospective pastor have to produce proof of ordination in order to be allowed to preach?
April 23, 2009 at 2:25 pm
It is interesting, Cynthia Gee, because several people have made the observation that this is really the responsibility of the church that calls and hires a pastor or the denomination that welcomes him in. But what if those people neglect their responsibility and the pastor is not just a pastor but a public teacher to those outside of their group? It seems that being ordained lends credibility to their position.
I don’t necessarily believe that a pastor has to have attended seminary in order to preach or be ordained. But they have to be men of integrity who are honest among other things.
April 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Corrie, I have had the same experience. Most pastors are thrilled to talk about their training and education. And if you ask how ordination works in their denomination, they jump at the chance to tell you.
April 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Wow! Joy, I just went back and read through the Contributor’s page and the discussion there and it is a good and FRESH reminder of many things. Talk about marketing, Lin! That is exactly what people are doing in an effort to reinvent themselves and come across as “tolerant” and “kind” but they haven’t changed their teachings or beliefs at all. It is all so very patronizing and very obvious, at least to me.
I was castigated on the PW list for merely saying that the Bible does not condemn pants for women. Stacy, herself, told the list that women, like me, who say these things are just trying to justify their immodesty. And she doesn’t want those kind of ladies there causing confusion on her list. Now she says that pants are okay?
What I want to know is when did she change her mind and where is her public retractions of such teachings and apologies for those, like me, who she publicly castigated for saying the very same thing she said.
Oh, I still have that discussion from the PW list.
This is the problem. These leaders teach things but when confronted, they obsfucate and play kissy-face. They do not stand by their teachings but cast aspersion on those who question them about their teachings. They use people for their own gain and they do it by making nice and making it appear that they are, once again, “victims”.
There is NO middle ground with Stacy McDonald as I have personally found out from my own dealings with her. She has been VERY intolerant towards me (and others) when I have disagreed with her teachings on pants and other things. In fact, she told me that when I signed up for PW, that I had agreed to the charter of PW and that meant I was not to talk about it being okay for women to wear pants.
Really? So, now pants are okay as long as they meet her stringent standards of being loose enough?
When I came out of the patriarchal movement, I had no problem telling people that I was WRONG about things I used to believe. I didn’t just act like I never taught or believed those things. That would be silly.
I hear none of that from her. She just changes (not really) and then goes on the defense when people hold her to her teachings.
April 23, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Momgodin,
Don’t you know that flip-flops are evil?
Anyone remember the discussion about flip-flops?
April 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Corrie, oh please provide a link to the flip-flops discussion! I have heard notions of them being evil and would love to read that. At least they are not stilettos…now stilettos truly are evil…think of what they do to your feet. LOL.
April 23, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Mrs.W, it was all sandals in general, but only if men wore them. But only without socks, because they cause girls to stumble… ironically.
April 23, 2009 at 4:49 pm
The flip-flop discussion was over on WWF. A Lutheran pastor talked about flip-flops showing off women’s pedicures and not being fitting for church for either men or women because they looked “lazy” or something like that. He then went on to say that he wants to see women wearing feminine shoes to church that don’t show off their pedicure.
I like flip-flops but I don’t wear them to church, but that is my preference. I am pretty sure biblical Christians wore something very much like flip-flops in the early days of the Church.
I don’t wear flip-flops to show off my pedicure, either. I don’t know what it would bother someone to see a woman’s feet that were pedicured? But, I do wear open-toed sandals with heels to church.
http://latifhakigaba.blogspot.com/2007/08/what-women-wear.html
As you can see, this man’s post is all about “what women wear”.
“Pants are an interesting case because the danger, it seems to me, goes in both directions with the choice to wear pants. It is very difficult for pants not to show off your rear end, unless a girl is determined to utterly hide the fact that she is a girl, and in that case will end up wearing loose blue jeans that make her fit in with the guys. So girls who like to utterly hide their girlhood can find the pants to serve that purpose, while the girl who wants to be flirty knows precisely what she is doing with pants. In the area of blue jeans she will find the tight, low rise fit. And outside the realm of jeans there is a whole world of flirty pant styles. Indeed, in between these two types of girls, there is the girl who does not want to be a man, and is not aiming necessarily to be “sexy.” She, nonetheless, I contend, will find it difficult to find pants that do not either show off her rear, or on the other hand make her look like a man.”
Here is what he said about pants. Guys do not, for the most part, wear loose, baggy jeans that hide their “manhood” or do not “show off their rear”.
Not sure why I should feel like I have to hide my rear just because I am a woman? I mean, not that I should show it off, either but why should I have to hide the fact that I have one when men walk around all day long “showing off their rears”?
April 23, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Anyone know what “flirty pant styles” he is talking about besides the low-rise, underwear showing tight ones? It seems, from the article, that all pants on women are “dangerous” (he says something like this later on in the article).
I looked around at the women in Walmart in pants and I didn’t see one that looked like a man and most of them were not “flirty”.
But, then do not have this guy’s mind on what is “flirty”.
It scares me to think that a man thinks most pants show off a woman’s rear and that they are “flirty”.
April 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Oh, he also says that women shouldn’t go shopping in flip-flops..that it is not fitting. I guess I am in trouble.
April 23, 2009 at 5:53 pm
This guy sounds cranky.
I just linked to a George Will article on thatmom where he sounds cranky, too,as he rails against people in blue jeans. Honestly, does anyone here notice what people are wearing all the time?
April 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm
About those immodest pants… what about pants on MEN?
Now, it’s a sin for a woman to lust after a man, but it’s an abomination for a man to lust after a man.
Aren’t all those men who wear pants worried that they will tempt their weaker brothers into homosexuality?
April 23, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Regarding that Lutheran blog, you can tell a person by the company he keeps — get a load of who’s posting, it’s “Father Hollywood”, misogynist extraordinaire…
April 23, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“It scares me to think that a man thinks most pants show off a woman’s rear and that they are “flirty”.”
So he’s a pervert. Hopefully he confines his prurience to being unduly aware adult women’s rear ends, and doesn’t go around thinking that pre-teen girls who wear pants are also being “flirty” and “know exactly what they are doing”.
April 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm
I went to that Lutheran blog and it gave me a chuckle. Let’s see, ladies. You shouldn’t dress flirty. But be careful, because you shouldn’t go in the other direction and go frumpy, either. You should just be feminine. By whatever arbitrary standard or entirely subjective whim that that guy deems fit. That reminds me of the CCC list, where they once said that a woman’s garment should be loose enough so that you couldn’t see her shape, but then you had to add a lace scarf or something frilly so they’d know you were a woman.
April 23, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Maybe men shouldn’t wear jeans either. Some of them have quite sexy looking bottoms in them, and I think they should stop trying to tempt me. They’re obviously only wearing them to show off their sex appeal and lure me into adulterous thought, right?
April 23, 2009 at 11:29 pm
What a depressing blog! It’s disturbing to read sooo many thoughts devoted to such serious spiritual warfare.
“[flip flops] do betray a laziness, and a lack of effort at dressing for the ocassion.”
Yep. I did get new flip flops because I wanted shoes I could just slide on. What of it?
His attention to pedicures makes me wonder if he has a foot fetish or something. GET HELP!
(and don’t be doin’ no foot washin’)
April 24, 2009 at 9:25 am
Well our family has reasons for choosing for us that the girls (only me right now haha) will not wear pants, but it is a preference rather than us thinking the Bible actually says not to.
My husband thinks skirts are more feminine, and I certainly feel more feminine AND get treated in a more feminine matter when I am wearing a skirt. However, I don’t think that my pants wearing sisters are in sin for doing so.
We also just like the testimony it brings. In our particular local area here in the deep south, it is only the baptist or pentecostal women that wear long skirts AND long hair, and the pentecostal ones have slits up to their thighs with tight skirts, and the baptist ladies wear long skirts without slits and loose fitting. I happen to be Baptist. My husband says it is a testimony issue here because it is ONE way for people to assume immediately that I am a Christian.
But again, it’s all a personal choice and should be left as such.
This is the deep south. Everyone wears flip flops to church, and yes, right now I do have a pedicure. I even paid for it. My baby belly is so huge that anyone who thinks I am going to try to do my own pedicure is nuts LOL.
We do know some people in this area that think that women should wear long skirts AND pantyhose any time they are in public. Excuse me people, but this is MS/LA/AL/FL and it is HOT here!!!
Oh and I’ll even admit to this…I do wear the occasional pair of culottes…carefully selected ones that I like. They are just very comfortable to me and I only wear them around the house anyway.
April 24, 2009 at 9:37 am
Cynthia,
That is how I found that article….through James McDonald’s blog who links to Father Hollywood’s blog….which is one of ONLY 6 blogs he links to.
April 24, 2009 at 9:53 am
And reading through Father Hollywood’s blog should be eye-opening and send up a red flag for anyone
April 24, 2009 at 9:55 am
Cynthia,
That is a good point about homosexuals. Shouldn’t these men be obsessed about making sure that they are not wearing pants that “show off their rear” or “cup their butt cheeks”?
It is my opinion that men should go back to biblical dress and wear robes so as to not to tempt other men to lust after their backsides.
April 24, 2009 at 10:33 am
Congratulations Momgodin! I had to smile…I am sitting here nursing my toddler. Never thought thats what I would be doing at 50! God is so good. He gave me a gift that ONLY He could give. I am so grateful to be an ‘older’ mom.
April 24, 2009 at 1:01 pm
Corrie, I missed your earlier comment to me, so I apologize for not answering it.
I would think that the people to demand such evidence would be the church through which he has been ordained. I have seen no evidence that the RPGCA required proof of his prior ordination. No evidence that his personal testimony to them wasn’t enough. And if they did ask and didn’t get it, I’d wonder why they ordained him anyway if it was so important.
What I do know was that the RPGCA would not have recognized his prior ordination. And it couldn’t have been too big a deal since they ordained him without the evidence. He apparently passed their examination and they found him worthy.
From what I’ve seen, no one has any evidence that he’s lying. They think he is, and want him to prove himself. But if these charges are serious, it’s something for his church to look into, not me.
Honestly, I really believe (and of course it holds the “just my opinion” disclaimer) that even if they did offer proof (if it still exists anywhere) that it would never be good for some.
So, I guess the answer to your question is mixed. I think if his church questions his honesty, they have every right to bring that to him. But me? A stranger on the internet? I have no good reason to question him.
April 24, 2009 at 1:05 pm
BTW, I understand that I don’t have the same history with the McDonald’s as others, and that may give me a very different perspective.
April 24, 2009 at 10:15 pm
re: “what women wear” — seems to me like this guy is paying way too much attention to womens’ rear ends and cleavage.
April 25, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Hey check out this guy, calling a woman rebellious because of what she is wearing!
April 25, 2009 at 7:13 pm
JR Corry sent me an email with a link to NGJ’s latest. (Thanks Jennifer!)
http://www.nogreaterjoy.org/index.php?id=86&tx_ttnewstt_news=564
Bill Gothard denounces some of Vision Forum’s teachings on young, unmarried women. Even Gothard’s distancing himself from Vision Forum these days but cannot see all the other similarities. I guess Brother Bill doesn’t get that he’s one of the main tap roots from which VF draws their doctrinal inspiration, taking his own teachings to the next (il)logical conclusion.
My question is whether this makes Bill Gothard a “tale bearer” that warrants getting “Matthew 18ed.”
How bizarre it all is.
April 25, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Oh, Cindy, that made my day.
One black pot, imho, reporting on another black pot calling another kettle black.
So, when these men start to denounce and correct other men’s teachings, that’s okay, but when women do it, even instructing other women, we’re gossips and tale-bearers?
The whole house of cards will eventually all fall down. Things are shaking up around my neck of the woods, too.
BTW, I really like JR Corry’s reviews.
April 25, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Mrs. W-
Those look like his daughters out there with him. What on earth are they doing out on the street!? If Hillary should be at home doing dishes, why aren’t his girls up to their elbows in suds?
I have very un-Christian feelings towards IFB street pastors, simply because I’ve seen the incredible, sometimes irreversible damage they do when they show up at my campus. It’s horrible that the people I have the most difficulty loving also profess to be Christians.
April 26, 2009 at 12:46 am
I have been having a lot of issues on the homefront, so I’m here after a really long time.
Reading the discussion I am reminded of only one thing. One of the pastors in our church had a problem with the head pastor. Initially the head pastor ignored him and then he started threatening the local pastor. When more and more people started supporting the local pastor, the head pastor just changed his tactics. Instead of browbeating the local pastor into submission, he promoted him and made him area pastor! Problem solved!
So when I see Anne & Carol Tyroll, I can only say that Stacy McDonald has sucessfully brainwashed them into thinking we have misjudged here.
And again if they can continue correspondence with Stacy McDonald (despite so many allegations and proof against her), they can very well continue talking with Cindy, Momgodin, Cynthia, Karen and the rest.
If they were really honest, they wouldn’t try to hide their new-found fondness for Stacy McDonald with a lot of piety and quotes from the Bible. They can just state they are Stacy’s friend and are going to defend her actions, instead of making it out to be a doctrinal or theological discussion.
If they were really honest, they would ask Stacy these uncomfortable questions, instead of trashing Cindy. When confronted and cornered they act childish and refuse to answer questions or discuss issues, saying that they are being holy and nice
April 26, 2009 at 9:33 am
I actually had a lot of respect for Anne and Caroll, but their statements and desire to placate Stacy at the discussion on http://www.whitewashedfeminists.com has lowered it.
If Anne and Caroll want to be friends or “sisters in Christ” with Stacy fine by me.
But saying Cindy K is “bullying” people, when she has been engaging in meaninful discussions is plain spite.
Getting Stacy to comment on http://www.whitewashedfeminists.com might be making ur site more popular, but it definitely is not increasing ur credibility.
April 26, 2009 at 12:26 pm
#”So, I guess the answer to your question is mixed. I think if his church questions his honesty, they have every right to bring that to him. But me? A stranger on the internet? I have no good reason to question him.”
If Anne doesn’t want to question unBiblical practises, then she shouldn’t even be discussing on TW or hosting a blog called white washed feminism- that was the first line of attack by Stacy in Passionate Housewives.
April 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Anne & Carol,
If what Stacy McDonald does is of no concern to you, why did you start a blog called White washed Feminism – in response to Stacy’s book Passionate Housewives Desperate for God?
April 26, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Dear Rachel, if you’re honestly interested in having your questions answered, please feel free to ask them at the WWF blog. There’s also a page regarding our purpose which should answer at least one of your questions.
If you’re not interested in discussing your concerns with us, I would respectfully ask that you stop talking about us here.
Peace,
Anne
April 26, 2009 at 8:04 pm
“Hey check out this guy, calling a woman rebellious because of what she is wearing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVjNA-TMxeM”
Who on earth IS that nut, anyway?
He also says that no Catholic goes to heaven. Does he think that everyone from the time of the Apostles up until the “Reformation” ended up in Hell?
Sheesh!
And as for the two women with him, since when does covered up equal virtuous? Check out the third chapter of Isaiah, which tells of women who were covered from head to toe, and were judged for their haughtiness and made naked.
April 26, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Cynthia, that guy leaves me speechless. The women may be virtuous, but my first though is that it’s far more likely that they’ve simply bought into the spew coming out of Mr. Lyman and have simply been cowed. How incredibly sad to be less than the creature God made you to be.
April 27, 2009 at 7:44 am
“If what Stacy McDonald does is of no concern to you, why did you start a blog called White washed Feminism – in response to Stacy’s book Passionate Housewives Desperate for God?”
That seems like a fair and relevant question.
April 27, 2009 at 8:39 am
Curious, I well remember all that Jack Hyles nonsense because at that time we had attended a Hyles church that promoted the college and often had speakers who taught there. We had never heard of the guy and once we googled (or whatever it was called back then in the pre-google days)we were stunned to learn of all the shenanigans. Our local church had a young “preacher boy” who molested several of the high school girls in their school. We later found out how common that was in these churches. We also saw a video introduction to Hyles-Anderson…scary stuff. Hyles kept referring to himself saying “I am your daddy.” Creepy. Several of those who had witnessed this believed it was the result of some of the weird gender and male/female “roles” teachings that came from the school. I agree completely. When you are taught all your life that women are here for the use of man, how else do you expect these guys to act?
April 27, 2009 at 8:40 am
Not surprisingly, Mr. Lyman misquotes Scripture. He says women are to be meek and quiet. Doesn’t Scripture say women are to possess a meen and quiet spirit? Big difference.
April 27, 2009 at 9:02 am
“We also saw a video introduction to Hyles-Anderson…scary stuff. Hyles kept referring to himself saying “I am your daddy.”
This is what happens when we leave the Biblical model of ordination and accountability, with bishops, pastors(AKA elders, priests, etc) and deacons, and try doing church our own way — you get people teaching all sorts of error, not to mention doing the nasty behind closed doors –
“1Ti 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron…”
April 27, 2009 at 9:10 am
“Not surprisingly, Mr. Lyman misquotes Scripture. He says women are to be meek and quiet. Doesn’t Scripture say women are to possess a meen and quiet spirit? Big difference.”
We’re ALL supposed to be meek, both men and women:
Mat 21:5 Tell ye the daughter of Sion, Behold, thy King cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass, and a colt the foal of an ass.
Mat 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls…
Mat 5:5 Blessed [are] the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
But this guy isn’t meek, he’s a blustering loudmouth, displaying the kind of behavior that Saints Peter and Jude warn us against:
1Pe 3:9 Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.
2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.
Jud 1:9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
April 27, 2009 at 10:08 am
Karen,
Is that the Christianized version of the world’s “who’s your daddy?”
Cynthia G,
You are very right about the meek. We are all to possess a meek and quiet spirit. The word “quiet” does not mean silent. It means “tranquil” or “calm”.
1Ti 2:2 For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.
We are all to be quiet.
Funny how these guys want to use that one verse as a cudgel to beat over a woman’s head to bring her under subjugation but they forget that they are to be the same as what they are preaching.
In fact, Moses was the “very meek”. It looks like “meekness” is not a female only quality.
Here are some more verses on “meek” and we will all see that they are NOT gender-specific:
Psa 22:26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the LORD that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
Psa 25:9 The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way.
Psa 37:11 But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.
Psa 76:9 When God arose to judgment, to save all the meek of the earth. Selah.
Psa 147:6 The LORD lifteth up the meek: he casteth the wicked down to the ground.
Psa 149:4 For the LORD taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation.
Isa 11:4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.
Isa 29:19 The meek also shall increase [their] joy in the LORD, and the poor among men shall rejoice in the Holy One of Israel.
Isa 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD [is] upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to [them that are] bound;
Amo 2:7 That pant after the dust of the earth on the head of the poor, and turn aside the way of the meek: and a man and his father will go in unto the [same] maid, to profane my holy name:
Zep 2:3 Seek ye the LORD, all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the LORD’S anger.
April 27, 2009 at 10:38 am
“From what I’ve seen, no one has any evidence that he’s lying. They think he is, and want him to prove himself. But if these charges are serious, it’s something for his church to look into, not me.”
I don’t think anything. Anne, have you ever dealt with a con-artist? Have you ever been swindled? Have you ever been snookered by a very good liar who is very adept at getting people to believe whatever it is they want them to believe?
What evidence do you need? Why not ask Stacy where James was ordained? The name of the church and the city/state. Shouldn’t that be simple enough if they were not hiding anything?
People who hide things have something to hide.
When I tried to hold them privately accountable for what they did to Alice, James threatened me with “legal action” and was very unwilling to take my word for it that I would pass his email on to my husband. He had demanded my husband’s email and I told him that I would pass it on. He again demanded my husband’s email address…badgering me and trying to intimidate me.
He just picked the wrong person to try his shtick on. People like him do not scare me nor am I intimidated by threats. In fact, it causes me to become bolder and wiser.
Why does a “pastor” behave this way? Well, they were launching their octo-patrio business at that time and they wanted to shut me up. What they did to Alice was despicable and Stacy has the you-know-whats to whine about people daring to question her teachings and calling it “gossip” and “tale-bearing”. Give me a break.
The hypocrisy, alone, makes me sick.
Then, for a decade, I have read their sob stories about their first marriages claiming to be victims and the “innocent party”. What if this is not the whole truth? What if those first spouses have something to say about their stories? Oh, it is okay for the McDonalds to trash, gossip and slander their first spouses but no one had better DARE check their story to see if it holds water.
What if James mistreated his first wife? What if his first wife had to file a restraining order against him for her own protection? What if he neglected her basic needs? What if she isn’t the slut that they have made her out to be?
Again, the burden of proof is on them since they made the claims.
“Honestly, I really believe (and of course it holds the “just my opinion” disclaimer) that even if they did offer proof (if it still exists anywhere) that it would never be good for some.”"
This is unfair and untrue. They are in this pickle because they make claims and then refuse to offer any sort of proof and then they go after those who expose their lies with lawsuits, harassment, gossip, slander and the like all the while whining about how people are gossiping about them. Now, they are untouchable and above being questioned? Convenient.
I am going to say this again: They have made the claims. People have asked questions. If they had nothing to hide, they would have no problem supplying the simplest of details.
Some people are very good at writing things that have just enough truth but greatly mislead the reader.
I am “on” to them and they know it. They are just hoping that they are persuasive enough with their slick and smooth words to convince as many people as they can to believe their sob stories.
They are bewitching others and I have got to say this, they are very good at what they do. When I read/hear the truth, I will know it by their FRUIT/ACTIONS. No more whining, no more hiding, no more threats.
I am not sure what is going on but I can make some educated guesses based on years of seeing how they operate. There is no middle ground with them. You and I are white-washed feminists according to Stacy’s own writings, even if Stacy is not honest enough to say it to our faces. We are “less-than” Christian women just like all those women who have marble sinks or take their kids to soccer practice or wear heels and have little dogs or work outside the home thus BLASPHEMING the word of God.
This is all about integrity. And if that is not of primary importance when it comes to a teacher, I am at a loss for understanding.
I have been trying for YEARS to have an honest and open conversation with them about some of these issues to no avail. I will not back down on the issues. And I will not be swayed by smooth words and flattery and bribery. Nor will I ignore what I know to be true.
April 27, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Oh yeah…Jane , Is your life an open book?
(what IS your e-mail address and real name?) you MUST answer all the questions so we can know if you are qualified to ask your questions.
April 27, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Jane, you are welcome to go to my website and read the articles on the family integrated church for all the information you need to have from me. I am not going to play any ecclesiocentric games with you. You are not welcome here.
April 27, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Where is the post from Jane?
April 27, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I deleted it because I have told Jane I have to have a real e-mail address and IP for her to post here.
April 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Curious, I’m not sure if you’re trying to insult my integrity or if it’s just an accidental coincidence. So, now on top of the other insults you’ve hurled my way, you’re now accusing me of being dishonest. I have NO idea what I’ve done to make you think I’m a dishonest person, but I am not. Our comments at WWF are currently moderated, yes. The comments here are currently moderated, too and that was done in an effort to keep the conversation on track and prevent anonymous people from using our blog as a forum for the personal attacks.
And, this may be nitpicking on my part and ungracious, but please, if you’re going to attack me in a post, don’t follow it with “Blessings!” which really feels condescending to me. It’s hard to believe you wish any “blessings” on me after basically calling me a liar.
April 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm
My apologies. I just realized that TW is no longer moderated, but it was. And for a reason. Just like our blog. Comments weren’t moderated for a long time, and I hope it’s something we won’t need to continue for long. But it’s what we’re doing right now, and that doesn’t change my offer to Rachel.
April 27, 2009 at 6:07 pm
My last thought and then I have to take a TW break. I’ve found this conversation upsetting and my husband is concerned about my health (he’s always nervous about my stress level during pregnancy).
I stated a differing opinion. I’ve made it clear repeatedly that I’m interested in the truth. Truth that’s my business. I don’t have a personal connection to the McDonalds. I don’t know them and the people I considered my friends were the women here. I’m still a working-outside-the-home, pants-wearing, only-partially-homeschooling mama and I don’t think any of those things makes me sinful (though I fully admit to having sin in my life, as do we all).
I have only wanted to discuss issues over character, and to make sure that when character issues do come up that they are handled with care. I have only tried to stand up for what I believe in. And believe me, that’s much harder when it’s in a forum like this, with people whom I’ve always respected. It would have been much easier to back down, say you all were right, and keep to the safe road. But I didn’t. Because, even if I can’t make anyone understand what I’ve tried to say (and that may be more my fault than anyone else’s), it is a matter of integrity for me to state what I believe and stand by it. Even if it’s unpopular. For that exercise on my part, I’ve been basically called a liar by someone who continues to post here anonymously.
I had hoped to continue to discuss issues here, but it’s gotten too personal. Obviously others have taken things I’ve said personally (I never meant that you wouldn’t believe evidence, Corrie, only that it’s my general experience that there’s always someone out there who wants to believe the worst no matter what), and I’ve definitely taken things personally (though in fairness I think Curious was pretty open with her attacks).
I hope to return to the conversation at some point. But I think, for now, my continuing to post here only encourages the argument and it will not bear good fruit.
I will continue to pray for everyone here. This is an amazing group of smart, well informed women who have a heart for the Lord. I wish you all the best.
Peace.
April 28, 2009 at 8:49 am
I finally borrowed my mom’s NGJ newsletter that Mike Pearl wrote about “Dysfunctional Patriarchy”. I’m trying to see the whole picture here. In the seventies, we had Vision Forum presenting us with the upscale biblical homeschooling family (a little too pricey for us) the Pearls (a little too earthy for us) the Gothards ATI (too authoritarian) Unschooling (too loose) and Michael Farah of HSLDA, giving us the confidence to do our own thing. That’s where we jumped on this train. (Sorry, never read Mary Pride, though I was told to once!)
Now that the book “Quiverfull” has hit the market, folks are trying to distance themselves from the Vision Forum excesses of the patriocentric cult they have created. Mike Pearl says that though he would never hold Bill Gothard responsible for the excesses, he believes his Umbrella Theory and the “Divine Chain of Authority” were the seeds of the excesses.
We could argue that the Pearls likewise seeded excesses with CTBHH, and TTUAC, could we not? Pearl has always advocated raising independent children, which I can see no practical use for in their type of patriarchal marriage. Still, I am very glad he repents of the ‘daughters giving their heart to their fathers’ notion
.
There has also been a backlash against the corruption (excesses) and abuses discovered in our denom (IFB) which I attribute to an unbiblical doctrine of “Pastoral Authority”. The local pastor has replaced the Holy Ghost and the scriptures as the authority of the believers, and the result is a generation of weak, dependent, immature, ineffective witnesses. We have numerous “Dysfunctional Churches” seeded by Hyles’ Pastors’ School. Pastors drunk on their Hyles-ordained authority commanding churches full of dependent, mindless, obedient slaves who sacrifice their children on the altars of Baal. From sexual abuse to fornication, many of these men will not be held accountable by the weak and cowardly sheeple, and so I fear it won’t be long before Big Brother steps in to the rescue.
April 28, 2009 at 9:11 am
Yes Mike Pearl is just as responsible for excessive patriocentric teaching as the next person. The fact that he is trying to distance himself from it is, to me, amusing. He thinks that adult children should be independent, but that once an adult daughter gets married, she is suddenly a doormat. And children are little doormats too. It is only in those few years where you are a “single adult” that Mike Pearl thinks you are able to do anything. I guess that is part of his culture with living in an Amish community. Think about it…the Amish have a time when the child grows up that the child can “run wild” to see if they want to remain Amish or not. Mike Pearl has just changed up this belief into the adult child thing.
The guy is an idiot.
April 28, 2009 at 9:24 am
Momgodin, I have seen exactly what you are talking about regarding Hyles churches. Where is the accountability? And where is the spiritual maturity? From what I have seen, everything is kept at a surface level and any application is made only in areas of personal preference.
“many of these men will not be held accountable by the weak and cowardly sheeple, and so I fear it won’t be long before Big Brother steps in to the rescue.”
This has long been a concern I share, especially when it comes to this attitude toward women in the patriocentric circles. One of these days there will be some sort of lawsuit brought against a family who refuses to give their daughters an education equal to what their sons are given and it will be ugly for everyone. This is one reason I am so frustrated with those who are offended when we expose the true behaviors and teachings of those within the patriocentric movement. If the church isn’t willing to hold false teachers accountable, the state will do it.
April 28, 2009 at 9:28 am
Mrs. W, you have made such a good point….these teachers who have created this mess ARE trying to step away from it. They are attempting to be the “kindler gentler” patriarch or matriarchs of patriarchy. The truth is, the only way any of us will see them as sincere is when they repent of their teachings that have proven to be based on man’s (or woman’s) ideas, in some cases through the pain of their own children) and will speak honestly and transparently. I believe Reb Bradley is one of these people and for that I respect him. Sadly, the blame passers will reap what they have sown.
April 28, 2009 at 9:40 am
I actually appreciate some of Gothard’s stuff and never knew till I started reading here that he was considered part of the patriocentric movement.
I read a child training book by Reb Bradley. What has he said in recent years that might change what he said in that book? I liked some of the stuff but also thought that some was a little unrealistic.
My husband and I are fairly patriarchial in beliefs, and for a long time now I have struggled with what the difference is between a Biblical patriarchy and just over the top patriocentricity. I think I have finally figured it out. Patriarchy, in certain aspects, if done right, brings glory to GOD. Patriocentricity brings glory to a MAN.
April 28, 2009 at 9:46 am
I just saw something else- “Church growth at all costs” is kinda like Quiverfull.
There is a lot of discussion about what churches have sacrificed for [the appearance] of growth. That suggests God’s blessing, dontcha know? This is why it is a mistake to assume that a large family equals godliness!
(Lots of big churches out there deader than a doornail!)
April 28, 2009 at 10:18 am
Hi Anne,
I understand the need to take care of yourself when you are pregnant and cut down on the stress. It is sometimes necessary for all of us to step away from these discussions since they can produce some very intense emotions and confusion.
“I have only wanted to discuss issues over character, and to make sure that when character issues do come up that they are handled with care. I have only tried to stand up for what I believe in. And believe me, that’s much harder when it’s in a forum like this, with people whom I’ve always respected. It would have been much easier to back down, say you all were right, and keep to the safe road. But I didn’t. Because, even if I can’t make anyone understand what I’ve tried to say (and that may be more my fault than anyone else’s), it is a matter of integrity for me to state what I believe and stand by it. Even if it’s unpopular. For that exercise on my part, I’ve been basically called a liar by someone who continues to post here anonymously.”
This is exactly what I have tried to do for years. When I was on the PW list, there were times I had to stand up for what I believed the Bible taught and what I thought was right. One example was the conversation where moms were talking about slapping their kids in the face for discipline. I was horrified, especially because none of the moderators stepped in and rebuked the ones promoting this. In fact, I got a letter from the moderators explaining that I was being judgmental and that we, as parents, have various “tools” in our “toolbox” for administering discipline to our children. Many women from the PW list wrote me, privately, and thanked me for standing up against this ghastly “tool” but it earned me a ticket off of that list, once again, for not going along with the flow. It was very distressing for me to hear women promoting this and seeing none of the leaders rebuke this. So much for Titus 2, huh?
When I stated that wearing pants was not against the Bible, I was excoriated, publicly, for trying to “justify” my immodesty. And this was done by the owner/founder of the PW list.
I have tried to stand up for what is sound doctrine for a long time and I have taken a lot of verbal assaults and I have been accused of a lot of things. It gets hard, for sure.
When I was threatened with legal action for simply standing up for what was right and true (and this was a PRIVATE email that I sent, it was not done publicly), I was pregnant and my husband was out of town. It was very stressful. Who would have thought that Christians would issue threats and demands, especially those who claim to be teachers? James 3:1
I think people are confused by your sudden turn, maybe? Just recently you offered to post the documentation of proof that McDonald owed over $75,000 to a printer. It was an old debt and he had not attempted to pay it until it was made public 4 years later. That isn’t the only thing he owes, either. This is the same “pastor” who recently (about 6 months ago) posted on his blog how we are to owe nothing but the debt of love. Such hypocrisy, especially considering how much he owed to just one creditor and how he refused to pay his debt for so many years. And, when I read that blog post, knowing how much he owed to that printer and to other people who set up their website (Patriarchs Path), it was just one more example of the dishonesty being practice. And, as a believer, I have every right to compare what I know to be true with what a teacher of God’s word claims. This is what blasphemes the word of God. We are told to beware of the leaven of the Pharisees which is hypocrisy. They teach one thing and live the opposite. They tie up burdens on the backs of their followers but won’t lift a finger to help. He taught his readers to owe no debt but the debt of love when he is up to his eyeballs in unpaid debt. And the spin over on their self-justification blog is really too much. They are NOT telling the whole story, only parts of it and the parts they are telling are the parts that cast them in the most positive light. Partial truth is not truth especially when used to mislead others into thinking something that is less than true.
Thankfully, because of the efforts of Cindy K, the printer now has $7,000 more than he would have ever seen if she hadn’t stood up for what was right and true. Hopefully someone will hold McDonald accountable for making regular payments to this printer until his debt is paid off and this public show won’t lull his followers into forgetting that he is far from done in fulfilling his duty to pay for the services he knowingly solicited.
It wasn’t a “popular” thing for her to do and for her efforts, she was threatened with a law suit, but it was the right thing to do. Talk about stress!
So, when you say things about it not being right to question a public teacher because we are not part of their church, it might confuse people. When teachers refuse to be accountable to legitimate bodies of believers (RPCGA) and go out, independently, in order to form their own churches and be their own bosses, who is going to be on the wall warning the sheep? His former presbytery does not recognize him as a legitimate pastor. This, alone, should cause us to take heed. Where do we see, from Scripture, that we are not to expose those whose doctrine does not match their practices? We don’t. Teachers are only legitimate when they are teaching according to God’s word and not playing the hypocrite.
I wasn’t taking your comment personally. I was just thinking about the people who have tried to talk about these issues and I couldn’t think of one person on this blog who wouldn’t accept documentation if it was given to them.
It goes the other way around, too. We could come up with reams of documentation and I KNOW there are people that will never believe it because they run on emotions and they are subjective in their reason and judgment. If these people have been “nice” to them, they will not believe the documentation because of their personal experiences. This is dangerous.
April 28, 2009 at 10:26 am
Momgodin,
Great point!
I was reading James 4 today and I thought of the multi-generational model and so many other teachings in the patriocentric movement. James tells us it is boasting and arrogant to assume we know what tomorrow will hold and that we will do “such and such”. Our lives our a vapor, that is here for a short time and then vanishes.
They are building their own kingdoms, not God’s, and boasting in their arrogance what they will do tomorrow.
April 28, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Momgodin, you are right on target with your comment. First, I thought of Harold Brown’s book on Heresies.
pg 150
“The spiritual contrast between these variant views and what we now call orthodoxy lay first of all in the goal that each sought to accomplish:
the heretical positions had in common a desire to understand the mystery of God;
the orthodox sought to preserve the salvation Christians find in Christ.”
To avoid false teaching or error which can eventually drift off into an heresy, we have to be dedicated to preserve “the salvation that Christians find in Christ” rather than having the endpoint of revealing definitive truths about a mystery, something that by its very nature cannot be revealed, or it would not be a mystery. If our desire is to shove God in a box, a paradigm and thus create some theophany, we will certainly end up in an aberrant view or one that might drift into heresy itself. If we keep our sight fixed on Christ (as opposed to family or authority or being kind to all at all costs or anything other than the person of Christ) we will not get off course.
When we dedicate ourselves to anything other than the Word of God, something that the title of this blog and the background of the listed contributors here defines as an evangelical Christian standard of Biblical Authority, we cannot but help to fall into a place that is not centered.
As a society and as a church and perhaps as a blog, we are confused about what exactly serves as the “glue.” What does it mean to be Christian? If we make our personal standard and what we feel is Christian or what we would like to be Christian, we will not only loose our glue, everything becomes personal. As it stands, the “glue” is outside of ourselves. We can go back to the Word of God which stands with us or without us. If we are rooted and grounded into anything else, it becomes personal at some point. The standard itself is external to each person and faithful without us. If we base it in our ideas and not the Word’s ideal, it will have to eventually become a personal thing.
In our day, we are confused about what being a Christian is. And this is no uncomplicated and no easy matter for the Christian. We are to be in the world and not of it. We are to be both innocent as doves (an animal of sacrifice) and wise as serpents (an animal of prey). We have many things to balance. We have forgiveness and grace and wisdom and justice and faith and reconciliation and mercy and truth. It takes a lifetime along with the Holy Spirit to work that into us as we follow the Lord. The Apostle said it is done so in fear and trembling. It is not simple at all and should take us down to the core of who we are where we daily recognize that God is God and we are not, learning how to not live as we see fit or how the world tells us to live but as the Word determines. The Word is our glue and our one sure standard.
But we live in a world where we are expected to be politically correct, nice to everyone at all costs and Christians are expected to be forgiving and kind at all costs. Essentially, what passes as Christianity is not based in what the Word says it is but what we or what society or what a religious group thinks about what Christianity ought to be. But is that what it says? Does the Word say daughters’ hearts and helpmeet status belongs to their fathers as Gothard now recants, though he established the idea that one must serve the wishes, wisdom and authority of the parent to remain under one’s covering? Is what people claim to “Biblical” really Biblical? We are not expected to show the fear and trembling, and Paul’s advice for the Galatians to castrate themselves does not exactly attract new followers, yet we are given the idea that we have to “sell the Gospel.” God doesn’t woo us to repentance through His kindness, but we are to be developing sales pitches rather than preaching the Word itself. There must be a balance between grace and truth, and often, that does not bring us to a place of total forgiveness without repentance and a place of innocence. This is messy, complicated, fear and trembling business. People don’t like the idea of the church being messy. So we have the emergents on one hand, what a minister friend of mine calls the “Nicer Than Jesus” crowd, and we also have the range of patriocentrists from Gothard to Lindvall and Pearl and all points in between.
James Sire says in “The Universe Next Door” that when we move the standard from the Word to what we think the Word says, giving it our twist of what we want to find there, we accommodate the Word instead of accommodating ourselves within Biblical theism with God at the center. We become the factor that determines the truth. It is subtle, because all the same elements remain, but the focus is different. I move that which determines the truth from the Word (which can stand on its own) to my esteem of the Word (I cannot stand on my own without becoming personally involved). Truth becomes, as Sire puts it, “inextricably bound to the knower” when personal esteem determines the truthfulness, weight or value of a belief.
When these truths are challenged, and if we are investing ourselves in truth from a place of our esteem of it, it cannot help but become a very personal thing. It becomes painful when our esteem of the truth is challenged or rejected. Because the truth then is inextricably bound to the person, all truth becomes personal. Defending the truth and contending for it becomes personal. If the truth is rejected, it is not a matter of rejecting God but also of rejecting me. It is a huge and growing problem as our society becomes more postmodern and as a group of people are raised with the expectation that one can never offend another because of belief. It is responsible for the ecumenism in our churches.
If I am a Biblical theist, and a person rejects the Word of God, it might disappoint me, but it should not be a personal thing. If you reject my understanding of the Word of God, it may also be painful, but it should also not be personal, if I am trusting God as the truth which is established outside of myself. If it is truth, it will stand as truth, right?
Well, I believe that these guys, the Gothards and the Pearls, are feeling the personal pain. I think that on a deep level in their minds, they know they have displaced the truth and used their own esteem of what is true rather than vesting that all in the Word. They are moving away from some and moving together with others, but I think that they realize, on some subconscious level, that they have not done much different. They need the support from one another, not so much to declare the truth but to assuage themselves. I think that is why the patriocentrists fight so hard and dirty. Part of it is that they feel above the law because they believe they are elect, but part of it seems to be because the ideas are their ideas. It is personal, and they need the input from the esteem of other people to establish the truth. So they are going to rally the troops and close ranks and circle wagons. It will be very interesting to see who falls into what troop and rank and division as the pressure heats up. It will likely further define the continuum.
Those who vested themselves in truth will stand strong, in quiet confidence, for their security in the truth does not depend on them personally. It depends on the integrity of the Word of God – an external locus that does not diminish them on a personal basis. Those who create truth and who pull their security and their “locus of control” from popular opinion or acceptance will be quite busy. They’ll have to come up with new proofs, arguments, justifications and press to keep drawing either MONEY or support for their egos, their personal sense of self, from outside of themselves. And it will be interesting to watch. Watch what they do more closely than you listen to what they say. Watch to see if these things match. Watch to see how they react. Are they protecting a wound? Are they rushing to protect themselves from pain? Are they putting themselves in a place of safety and protecting themselves from a challenge? It may tell you what their standard of truth is or how much they have invested in those things external to themselves. We are to draw our strength by being hidden with God in Christ — in truth.
If you are drawing truth from the Word, it does not hurt. If you feel pain, you are not quite dead enough to self. And we all die daily, just like the Apostle Paul said that he did himself.
It is interesting to watch to see how they react, feeling the sting.
April 28, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Something else about all this…
What is it that has actually caused Gothard and Pearl to call out Phillips? (It amazes me, as I recently read PFO’s page on Gothard, and just reading the subtitles in it that summarize what Gothard teaches sounds identical to Vision Forum. VF just takes Gothard to the next logical conclusion.)
What was the impetus or collection of them that has caused people to start to move away from Phillips? Or Phillips from his own position?
There was the Midwest Christian Outreach article about Vision Forum…. That brought attention to the household vote issue and how women were not to vote. (I see much of that drawn from Dabney and the agrarian writings.) So VF and Doug took the heat for that from MCO. Then in November ‘08, Doug annonuces that Beall votes, always has voted, and the Abshire article has disappeared. I didn’t think until now to look to see if Doug also removed his “tale bearer” post from the blog, too. So was it the pressure and heat from the MCO article that caused VF to essentially drop no voting for women? Was it Beall? Was it the email that Lady Lydia sent out that claims that Jennie Chancey has voted all along and didn’t even abide by her own teachings, and how accurate was that info, considering that Beall voted?
What exactly has caused Gothard to move away from Phillips’ teachings about daugthers and arrows that must be kept in the house rather than used in warfare? Was it all Pearl’s articles?
Did the MCO article prompt Michael Pearl in some way? Or is it just that he finally got one too many letters from VF folk that disturbed him?
God’s timing is interesting. I am always amazed. I wonder what he chain of causality really is?
I do find it terribly interesting that Gothard is willing to side with Michael Pearl over Phillips (though no specific names are mentioned), and much of this could go right back to Lindvall, too.
And how far will they take things and how much discomfort will it cause for the patriocentrists? Will the protect their wounds and defend their case? How far will they take it. It will be interesting to see how far they will go to address Brother Bill. Very strange stuff. Maybe they will come up with a new moniker for Gothard?
April 28, 2009 at 4:25 pm
I should have specified –
How far will they take things and how much discomfort will it (Gothard and Pearl) cause for Vision Forum?
That was confusing as they are all patriocentrists to varying degrees. They are making more distinctions among themselves, as the togetherness factor has been outweighed by the discomfort factor for Pearl and Gothard, apparently.
April 28, 2009 at 4:56 pm
I vividly recall the blog piece that Phillips wrote about “tale bearing” as a response to the MCO article because my husband and I cracked up over the TAIL bearers in our house. You have to label everything with some weird “Biblical modifier” or Gothardesque sounding title. (Which reminds me of reading in Quiverfull the other day where it sites the VF catalog selling slips for girls, but they are called “modesty slips” and not just slips. Why do they sell girls undergarments anyway?)
I don’t know if this is still on Doug’s blog, but it is on the VFM website with ALL OF THE ABSHIRE references and MCO references removed. It only links to Doug’s other blog pieces and talks about people being critical of VF on blogs. There is no reference to anything having to do with Abshire, actually, and I don’t know why they left him in the title of the thing.
It is then followed by anything they have put on the Doug’s Blog having to do with cults including a lame piece that Botkin wrote about 2 years ago about “the c word.”
Naturally, they don’t define spiritual abuse as “the c word,” nor do they list the objective evaluation of using Lifton’s thought reform criteria, as you can well imagine. It’s all pejorative and name-calling.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/how_to_respond_to_a_talebearer.aspx
It is like they just wiped every reference to their hard line position (Dabney’s teaching) about women not voting off the face of Vision Forum as if it never existed. No comments. No disclaimers. No nothing. It’s just conveniently missing.
Yeah well, they did that revisionist art history with Leighton’s painting, so why not do it with their doctrine?
And I am upset now that I wasted an hour more of my life on this nonsense.
April 28, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Cindy said,
“When we dedicate ourselves to anything other than the Word of God … we cannot but help to fall into a place that is not centered.”
Yes! This is the heart of what is the warning against all the extra stuff we “prone to wander, Lord I feel it” humans, who need to return to the feet of Jesus to listen to Him, in His Word, by His Holy Spirit.
I shared these patriarchal teachings with my friend who attends a church where patriarchy is not taught. She was stunned when I showed her some printed teachings coming from hofcc’s visitor’s booklet about women and speaking at the open mic in the congregation. They are to ask their husband/father/elder for permission with their word of encouragement, while men 13+ age and up are free to have their own authority to speak at the mic during the service. (?!) They cite scripture. Her response to the teachings was immediate and she said, “They’ve axed out the Holy Spirit”, in other words, they’ve taken God’s still, small voice guiding us into all truth, and replaced Him with these rules and hierarchies and structures. I have to agree.
April 28, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“God’s timing is interesting. I am always amazed. I wonder what he chain of causality really is?”
It’s like a celestial alignment.
You have the QF book, NGJ, the internet blogs with No Longer Quivering chronicling the horrors.
Now you have the fruit finally speaking out.
I don’t know about the VF and Gothard, but NGJ is a mag read by the whole family. So when Pearl addressed this, the adult children of this movement answered for themselves, deluging him with their letters.
Many of them wrote that the MOTHERS are running the dysfunctional-patriarchy home!
But how can this be, when their readership embraces CTTHH? How can so many people have misunderstood- misinterpreted NGJ all these years?
And don’t forget- the secular world is looking at this cult like it’s an epidemic. You can see how they react to something they fear is a disease. That should be taken seriously.
What’s next?
Exodus to New Zealand to escape persecution!
April 28, 2009 at 6:00 pm
I have something I would like to discuss that we touched on earlier in this tread to some extent.
What actually constitutes a “biblical” divorce?
Also, what would constitute a “biblical” divorce as per the Westminster Confession?
April 28, 2009 at 7:37 pm
What actually constitutes a “biblical” divorce?
Google David Istone Brewer. He is a Hebrew scholar at Tyndale House in London and has done a ton of research on this for meaning in both OT and NT. He has some video clips that are excellent.
http://www.instonebrewer.com/divorceremarriage/
April 28, 2009 at 11:26 pm
I wonder if Covenant Theology or a claim of being ersatz “Reformed” (the brave, new, angry, elitist Calvinist) makes any difference on getting a get?
As I was taught, under Mosaic Law, there was much more leeway for a granting a get. This differs from the New Testament which provides only one single reason for divorce — fornication on the part of one’s partner. It is the option but not requirement of the faithful, innocent spouse to obtain a divorce after the sexual infidelity of their partner.
I’m assuming that a “Biblical divorce” (like “Biblical manhood and womanhood”???) refers to what is granted to the innocent spouse is granted by the civil court when their partner has been sexually unfaithful outside of the covenant of marriage. Any sex outside of the marriage covenant is fornication. I never heard the term “Biblical divorce” until I read the term regarding Stacy and James McDonald.
The church also does not grant divorces like the rabbis give permission for divorce. We follow the priesthood of the believer and do not require the oversight of the synagogue because Jesus is our High Priest, and we are priests unto God through the granting of the authority of the Name of Jesus to the NT Believer.
And it is not so much an issue of divorce, but a problem of remarriage as a choice of will. Some denominations believe that the faithful partner who is granted a divorce based upon the sexual unfaithfulness of the partner as the Old Testament does — the woman reverts back to the status of an unmarried woman — a status of “available to all men” or available for marriage. (This language is also emphasizes that fathers do not own daughters purity, but the unmarried and never married young woman is not set apart for union with one man, BTW.)
Other denominations, based upon Jesus speaking to the woman at the well in John 4, I think, Matthew 5, Matthew 19, Mark 10, Luke 16, etc., that Jesus placed a higher significance on marriage than the Mosaic Law did, providing far fewer reasons for divorce and innocent remarriage. Jesus, when speaking to the Woman at the Well considers her relationships of fornication to be marriages of a type and clearly states this.
So far as I understand, there are the Matthew 5 and 19 verses that specify “but for the sake of fornication” that provide for the innocence of spouse who has been faithful to the marriage, keeping themselves from fornication. Some denominations will not consent to marry the faithful spouse to another, despite these verses. Certainly, the spouse that has fornicated does not get a pass. They are guilty of fornication and have to return to their faithful spouse if the faithful spouse will have them. If not, they are never granted freedom to remarry.
But this is all immaterial for pastors, if one takes the 1 Timothy and Titus verses literally and not something to be mitigated either way. Some denominations and many believers consider that a REMARRIAGE, regardless of the circumstances, disqualifies a person for holding the position of episcopos or shepherd (pastor or elder). It says “husband of one wife,” and it states this clearly. They interpret this as an issue of sexual purity and as a reflection of the character and integrity of the individual, so they interpret any fornication or remarriage (according to how Jesus qualifies things with the woman at the well) as something that would make a man a husband of more than one wife. Those sexually impure people are viewed as disqualified from pastoral service.
Some denominations believe this is meant to disqualify the not terribly common but still present polygamous Rabbis or Jewish men who had more than one wife from holding this office in the church, as polygamy was still practiced under Judaism in Paul’s day. Those denominations may completely dismiss this issue for pastors altogether because of this interpretation and perspective.
All that said, based upon how Jesus qualifies divorce and the “save for fornication” that the only divorce permitted in the NT that does not make the faithful spouse guilty of adultery is fornication on behalf of one’s marriage partner.
The only person that can therefore claim a Biblical divorce, as I understand it is a person who had an unfaithful spouse, and they remained faithful, never having sex outside of their marriage covenant.
April 28, 2009 at 11:42 pm
On that subject, I think that it is interesting to note that Matthew 5 talks of remarriage as adultery, but the same chapter and addressing of the crowd includes the statement that if a man looks upon a woman in lust, they have committed adultery already in their hearts. God looks to the intent of the heart.
Also, Romans 7 opens with a discussion of remarriage as adultery. This has been interesting to me, as one who, by Jesus’ standards and because I was molested, had a husband at age 8 and was sexually impure. That passage opens with a discussion of remarriage as adultery but ends with Paul’s statement about being unable to fulfill the law. He fails to do that which he wants to do, and he does things that he does not want to do — and who shall deliver us? We are all guilty and all dependent on the grace of God. I took a lot of comfort in Matthew 5 and Romans 7, receiving the Blood of Jesus as my pardon, reading in Romans 8 that there is no condemnation in Christ.
But that is also apart from qualifications for shepherds, something I assume to be the purpose for asking about the “Biblical divorce” issue in the first place (again, something I NEVER heard as a term until I read James and Stacy’s own material). We are offered great grace and forgiveness under the Blood, but the NT sets the standard that is higher than that of the OT standard for obtaining a get from the Rabbis. That is a whole separate issue from that of qualifying a pastor.
April 29, 2009 at 12:29 am
Anne,
I have some issues on the homefront. I don’t spend much time online, if you checked my blog you can see the proof of it.
Anne,
I don’t want to dicuss anything on WWF. I’d rather say anything I have to say here on TW.
This is because:
1)You moderate comments. You change your posts. You have changed the “Our Purpose” page to reflect your new-fondness for Stacy. And have deleted all initial posts that were critical of her and her brand of ideology.
2)You are not logical! You would never use logic in your arguments. You would just hit out at irrationally at me! You called Cindy, a well-respected Christian and theologian, a “bully.” I don’t know what names you could call me. You didn’t attack Cindy’s arguments. You attacked Cindy as a person.
3)You have changed many things on your blog without telling us – the readers and contributers why you are doing so. I know that your past convictions and disapproval of Stacy http://whitewashedfeminist.com/2008/07/31/doug-phillips-lydia-sherman-jenny-chancey-and-stacy-macdonald-reject-the-virgin-mary/ must clash with your new friendship with Stacy.
But honesty is appreciated. Just like Stacy you are also making changes on your blog to suit your conveniences. That shows you prefer increasing the popularity of ur blog and its acceptability among the hyper-pat crowd – instead of a devotion to the truth.
4)I remember all your outspoken remarks against Lydia Sherman, Stacy McDonald and Jennie Chancey. I am not likely to forget that WWF was once very eager to make catty remarks against this crowd. If you search the archives, you can still find Cally and Anne’s remarks on Stacy. Cindy, Karen or Corrie have always stuck to attacking their ideology and actions – they have never made catty remarks as to how some people were snobs, who would even reject the Virgin Mary.
5)You are not mature enough to handle arguments. You would only resort to name-calling when you are cornered in arguments.
If you are sincere in wanting to discuss things, you can start by apologising to Cindy for calling her a “bully.” It was unwarranted and unnecessary.
Then next you can put an explanation on your blog as to why you edited and made changes on your blog.
Unless you are honest and upfront, I don’t want to be dicussing anything with you and getting myself into a cat fight.
Theological dicussions interest me, but not below-the-belt name-calling tactics.
April 29, 2009 at 7:07 am
The first time I ever heard the phrase “biblical divorce” was in our first experience in a Presbyterian church and a man had been nominated for elder who had been divorced twice and was currently married to his third wife. One of the men who sat on the elder board at the time stated that it was nearly impossible to determine whether or not the man had a “biblical divorce” because there was no record that included a statement from the former spouse (spouses) or any legal documentation from a judge who granted the divorce or a church body who was in oversight of this man at the time. I assumed then that those were the documents that would be required when determining a “biblical divorce.”
This was confirmed to me later when I asked someone who was in just such a position of leadership and who was responsible for determining such things in a pastor’s ordination. I was told that testimony from a former spouse (spouses) and documentation from the judge who oversaw the divorce (divorces) would be used to determine a “biblical divorce.” Since I learned this from Presbyterian elders in both cases, I assumed then that this proof would constitute the paperwork necessary to determine these things when it came to ordaining elders in a Presbyterian church.
Last night it occurred to me how someone might interpret these things…perhaps an elder was the defendant in a divorce case and was determined to be the one who was at fault in a divorce. And perhaps the term “biblical divorce” could include any or all of the reasons in the articles Lin linked to, ie, abandonment, lack of care of basic needs, physical harm, etc. So it reality, the divorce was biblical, even if the perpetrator was the elder in question but that elder had repented of the sins against the former spouse (spouses) so he could “technically” be considered to have had a “biblical divorce.” Is this plausible?
I would really be curious to know if anyone has ever heard or or seen these sorts of documents written that could be used within churches to show that, indeed, the elder candidate was “cleared” for leadership.
BTW, the elder I mentioned who was in question was a “ruling” elder not a “teaching” elder, a distinction I never did get since biblically elders are required to be able to teach. In other words, he wasn’t the pastor. Wouldn’t the requirements for a pastor be even greater?
April 29, 2009 at 7:21 am
I had the most interesting, early morning and vivid dream that I think provides an excellent analogy for this issue of pastoral qualification. (I think, anyway.)
I am distressed by comments made here that seem to view those who are remarried as lesser citizens or sub-standard people in the Body of Christ within those denominations who restrict those who have been remarried from holding ordination as pastor and elder or as a missionary. With that on my mind and with an analytical matter that my husband mentioned last night, I dreamed something that expresses an aspect of all this that might help people understand.
My husband runs a lab for an ME, and they have a whole host of instruments used to detect therapeutic and drugs of abuse in blood and tissue. They are not called instruments by mistake. He discussed two analytical problems with some instruments or perhaps with the conditions that affect how they perform. One relates to how calibrators or known substances are run on an instrument at different and known concentrations to evaluate performance. The results are then evaluated, and if the instrument and method of testing are consistent and proper, you should see a linear regression in the math. Plotted on a graph, you would see a straight line connecting 10 ng/ml to 50 ng/ml to 100 to 200, etc. If you don’t get a straight line, you’ve got a serious problem. He’s got an issue with one of the instruments and it pertains to only one drug, and he has been busy troubleshooting to figure out what’s been causing the issue.
Last night, with all these things on my mind, I dreamed that I was given an instrument on which to play music, but frankly, it looked more like a wrought iron piece of art that resembled a graduated radiator, but I was able to pluck it to get harp-like sound. But it was bent and certain notes would not play. I worked on the instrument, but I decided that it was too damaged to be fixed well enough to use it for the purpose the person who commissioned me to play it — before a vast audience in worship of the Lord. I awakened thinking about how I would tell the person that the instrument they provided was just not an appropriate instrument for the purpose they desired. To properly aid and lead a congregation in worship, you must have good instruments and follow certain standards. I have dealt with this personally, because I have been asked many times to lead worship for women’s meetings using some specific songs that my range (an alto) does not accommodate. Unless I choose songs that are all on the high end of my range which limits the number of songs I can lead, I cannot lead worship. I will not break the rules that I was taught as a musician for LEADING worship, though when performing solo work or in performance where I am not leading others, I will sing lead. Corporate worship is a different thing, and the requirements put upon the musician are different. The voice God gave me is more of a harmony voice, and though I can sing alone well, I am not an ideal voice to lead. (At the end of the “Choir of the Bells” Christmas song, I’m the one who gets that final bell chime note in the basement. Most people don’t sing down there!)
Thinking of this dream of trying to repair an instrument and wondering what solution my husband will find in solving his analytical instrument problem, I awakened thinking about four of the instruments I own. I have two guitars that perform very differently, and they each have their tuning idiosyncrasies. Each guitar has strengths and weaknesses and its own personality regarding tuning. One needs a lot more attention than the other. I have a mandolin that rarely needs tuning, and I always think that it would need more because it has more strings in tandem than the guitars. I have a small harp that I love to play more than I do the guitars, but it is a pain, because the lower octave never stays in tune. I spend more time adjusting the tune than I have time to play. Then I have a bowed psaltery, and I have never found it necessary to tune it once. It is sharp and crisp and perfect. It has steel strings as opposed to nylon ones, and as an instrument for me because of the bow, any error produced is mine through bowing improperly, not an issue of tuning or adjusting the instrument.
I thought this was a good analogy, as each instrument has its own personality. Even from instrument to instrument that is an identical instrument, there will be issues like this, and I see this with issues in my husband’s lab, too. Some instruments and methods are what he describes as “more robust” and do not need constant tweaking. Some can sit on a levelled area, or like a scanning electron microscope, it must be situated in an area of the building in the basement so that it does not pick up the vibrations in the building. It always must go in the basement, and it has to generally be in the center of the building in the basement, because it will be affected by the subtle movement of the building’s structure. Every instrument has its quirks, but each one performs a separate, vital, unique and necessary function. Some are more general purpose and can be used for a great number of things, while some are highly specific.
If I had to pick from the instruments that I have mentioned for one that is reliable and true, requiring little ongoing maintenance, I would pick that bowed psaltery. The tone is near-perfect and pure, loud, easily heard, with practice is not too trouble free to play, etc. Then I would pick the mandolin second, because it holds a good tune. Though I think it is my favorite to play and has more versatility (the psaltery is only an octave and a half), the harp would be last on my list because it is labor intensive and is the most quirky. There is more opportunity for more strings to be out of tune, and my experience with that particular harp tells me that it will require almost more work than it will produce. If you have a job to do, it is not a workhorse like that psaltery.
Now bring that analogy in to the Body of Christ. If you need a leader, you need a leader that does not have issues like my celtic harp. Though a person may be very talented and versatile and have a very large range of ability, because of the nature of the work with so many other people depending on the support of a pastor and the role model issue that a pastor carries, it is not in the best interest of the Body to put a person in that position that has a problematic history. You want someone with a history and track record that is reliable. You want a linear regression that produces a straight line and not a biphasic or triphasic wavy line when it comes to a certain substance (even though every other area is sound). Just like you don’t want an alto leading music, though one with good range can lead with a limited number of songs. You don’t make that alto your worship leader, lest you have no other choice. If you’ve got 20 tenors or baritones there, you don’t give the job to an alto.
That is what we want in a pastor. My harp is a beautiful instrument and is by no means a second class one. It is my favorite, but it makes me nuts because it is so quirky. That bowed psaltery produces the best tones and requires the least work, but I do not like using the bow as much as I like using my fingers to strum or pluck. For setting a reliable standard that is not problematic, it is the bowed psaltery as it has less potential for error with little work required. They are different instruments with different purposes, and they are all precious to me — even equally so. But I would not want that harp for leading music for people to follow if I had one instrument upon which to rely heavily for a practical job.
I think such is true for pastors which is likely why Paul set the standards he did for them. The stakes are just too high, as is the potential for error. A person who does not meet these qualifications is not second class or lesser, they are just better suited for another office or place in the Body. Tender flesh cannot be a backbone or a support. The tender eye cannot do the function of a hand. Etc, etc, etc…
April 29, 2009 at 7:34 am
Biblical divorce IIRC is allowed when there is infidelity and also when there is hardness of heart and when the couple is “unequally yoked.”
Cindy I wanted to make one clarification: For Orthodox and ultra Orthodox Jews, the get is a last resort and there is stigma attached to the family (marriage brokers consider divorce a “problem”). In other words, divorce is easier to get but the stigma in a way is greater and it extends beyond the divorcing folks and their kids.
Hope that helps!
I do pray the patrios learn and grow and mature in Christ.
April 29, 2009 at 7:49 am
Gail,
Thank you for bringing that balance into the discussion. I was not taught and didn’t mean to imply that a divorce or the get was a light matter or not reflective of a serious problem — really nothing less than a wound with serious consequences. I apologize if I gave that impression.
What I posted here was what I was taught in the Assemblies of God and does not really reflect any other training. I actually have not heard divorce presented outside of an adult Sunday School class, and I have not heard it preached or taught as a subject in a sermon in at least 15 years. But from that study, and as I mentioned here, there is a distinction between the OT and the NT qualifications for divorce with the NT’s being quite tighter than those allowed under Mosaic Law. And the Assemblies, at that time anyway, did not remarry anyone. You could come and join if you were, but most pastors would not do the ceremony if they were even permitted to do so, and you could not hold the status of elder or pastor.
I also never got the impression that they looked down their nose on anyone who was remarried or other denominations that did not hold to their convictions and doctrine. (They seemed to limit all of that “us and them” stuff to the Holy Spirit and whether a group or individual spoke in tongues which was seen as a necessary higher level of spirituality. No one needed any further cause for looking down their nose at another group. There was plenty to do within those limits.)
April 29, 2009 at 10:35 am
Historically, King Henry VIII defied what had been the traditional Christian position on divorce and remarriage for 1500 years. The Church had never seen the NT as allowing it – believing that “porneia” refers to an “unclean” union of some kind, incestuous or “unblessed” between the two married people. In other words, the union wasn’t binding because of a flaw in its inception.
Another word, “moicheia” means adultery, apparently, and was not used by Jesus in this statement. And certainly, many other NT verses describe the marriage bond as “two becoming one”.
The early Church fathers, who lived when the original NT language was still commonly used, had the interpretation I’ve expressed here.
I just think it’s important to realize that the many different Protestant views of divorce and remarriage (all thinking that they are the most “biblical”) are of relatively recent invention.
Anyway, it’s a thorny problem, indeed!
(I’ve previously posted as CatholicMom, but that name is used often by others on the blogosphere)
April 29, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Maybe this is old news (I haven’t been able to check in here as often as I would like lately) but Doug Phillips has a new column up lashing out against Kathryn Joyce’s book on the Quiverfull movement:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/news_and_reports/the_return_of_the_child_catche.aspx
Phillips’s column is stunningly dishonest. First, he portrays the book as pillorying prolific mothers. He asserts that the central claim of the book is that large families are a danger to society. In fact, the book isn’t about large families per se but about a philosophy by which women are subordinated to he tries to discredit her based on her amen.
Rather than tackling Joyce’s factual claims or her pointed analysis of the problems with the Vision Forum philosophy, Phillips tries to discredit her by her association with a semi-well-known feminist. He also claim that her sources are unreliable. Apparently, in his world “disgruntled ex-communicants” (like Jennifer Epstein) or radical feminist lesbians are by definition lacking in credibility just because of who they are. As someone with a J.D. and a college degree from a respectable university, Phillips knows better than to believe that this kind of fallacious argument proves anything. But he thinks he can get away with it because he thinks his audience isn’t very bright. And it’s so much easier to yell, “Ew lesbians!” then to actually address the substantive claims Joyce is making about his movements.
April 29, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Whoa — something weird happened in the last sentence of my first paragraph. Here is my whole post repeated without the error:
Maybe this is old news (I haven’t been able to check in here as often as I would like lately) but Doug Phillips has a new column up lashing out against Kathryn Joyce’s book on the Quiverfull movement:
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/news_and_reports/the_return_of_the_child_catche.aspx
Phillips’s column is stunningly dishonest. First, he portrays the book as pillorying prolific mothers. He asserts that the central claim of the book is that large families are a danger to society. In fact, the book isn’t about large families per se but about a philosophy by which women are subordinated.
Rather than tackling Joyce’s factual claims or her pointed analysis of the problems with the Vision Forum philosophy, Phillips tries to discredit her by her association with a semi-well-known feminist. He also claim that her sources are unreliable. Apparently, in his world “disgruntled ex-communicants” (like Jennifer Epstein) or radical feminist lesbians are by definition lacking in credibility just because of who they are. As someone with a J.D. and a college degree from a respectable university, Phillips knows better than to believe that this kind of fallacious argument proves anything. But he thinks he can get away with it because he thinks his audience isn’t very bright. And it’s so much easier to yell, “Ew lesbians!” then to actually address the substantive claims Joyce is making about his movements.
April 29, 2009 at 2:21 pm
There’s an old fellow I know named Richard who’s about as patriocentric a curmudgeon as they come, but I count him as a Christian brother, and love him and pray for him often.
Richard has a saying,namely, “If ANYONE, even a drunk in the gutter, stands up and tells you the truth, you ought to listen to him.”
Wise man, that Richard….and DP ought to take a page from his book.
April 29, 2009 at 5:17 pm
“I just think it’s important to realize that the many different Protestant views of divorce and remarriage (all thinking that they are the most “biblical”) are of relatively recent invention.”
Exactly. Which is why I linked to Hebrew scholar David Instone Brewer who has studied this indepth. There is a lot that is misunderstood but it is indepth and goes back to the law and then how Jesus responded to the Pharisees on this issue.
April 29, 2009 at 8:47 pm
This blogger has occasionally posted about Vision Forum, and he also commented on the strident (hm, is there any other?) “tone” of Doug Phillips’ post.
http:// ematthaei dot blogspot dot com/2009/04/wow_29 dot html
April 29, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Laurie,
Thank you for that link (I think!).
Adding to your observations, I would add the hypocrisy in Phillips’ complaint that the book was not footnoted. I actually agree with Phillips on the point he makes. Knowing some of the sources, Joyce does shift between sources, quoting them but not footnoting them. That is a deficiency in the book that I agree with.
In his RL Dabney booklet, a collection of quotes from his laudable prophet, Phillips himself presents a grouping of quotes, presumably pulled from a collection of Dabney sources, all organized by topic. Phillips applies goofy subtitles like “Dabney on No Fault Divorce.” (I seriously doubt there was no-fault divorce in 1850.) It is reminiscent of things like the “tale bearer” post and the on on “John Knox on Blogosphere Gossip.” Everything has to have a kitschy sound-byte title.
So I find it bizarre and hypocritical that Phillips observes that there is a problem with footnotes. In the Dabney book, you have to take for granted that the quotes came from a Dabney source and “Trust a Lawyer,” because the only references listed are a general list of a group of somewhere between five and ten Dabney sources. He provides no sources or footnotes, just this general list at the very end of the booklet, almost like an afterthought.
In other words, to find a selected quote, such as the quote of Dabney on no-fault divorce, one would have to have access to every book and reference listed in the back of the booklet, and one would have to read every single reference and hope that the quote could be recognized.
It amazes me that the patriocentrists can just twist the truth so that about 5% of their accounts of things or their observations are accurate, but 95% of the rest amounts to little more than a carefully worded collection of unstated assumptions and implications that will give them loopholes in which to dance and spin, claiming innocence, truth and forthrightness. They can also be blatantly guilty of the very charges that they make of others with bold, audacious arrogance, and they do it with impunity. And if you do it all with sugar and a smile or while you hide behind the guise of a lovely family, you are exempt from all standards.
The virtuous end and and the higher cause give these patriocentrists some kind of bizarre boldness to dissemble, twist and distort in self-righteous self-justification. It is astounding to me.
Are they blind, fearful, seared in conscience, clinging to the Rahab clause, irreverent because they believe they are elect and the election is sure, or do they have a clinical diagonsis? Or is this all just a game to make a buck? Do they think the world and the Church is full of chumps, as Laurie suggests might be the case, and Phillips believes his following is too unsophisticated to challenge him? Or do they feel pretty secure so that they are confident that the fear is sufficient to keep the following in a hyper-suggestible alpha or theta state?
Either way, they are bold hypocrites. I hope that they are just blind for lack of being able to see. And I pray that the Lord moves on them so that they will see and repent.
God have mercy on all of us in our hypocrisy, as we all draw breath and are so much like Paul, the chief of sinners. We all have our proud looks and dispositions of heart, though we are offered grace and the opportunity to repent of that which God hates. None are righteous in ourselves, only under the Blood. May we all have all things under the Blood while we still have the opportunity to do so. God have mercy on us all.
April 30, 2009 at 9:48 am
Kathy, no combination in that mix is working.
Could you post it again as a real link and I will be sure to let the link go through?
April 30, 2009 at 10:07 am
I finally made my way through Doug’s rant about the Quiverfull book, which I understood he also did at the Homeschooling Leadership Summit.
As usual, Doug can only evaluate these things by putting his own spin out there in terms of black and white, biblical and unbiblical, which would be valid if what he is promoting is clearly defined in Scripture but it is not. As my husband has pointed out many times, these people always paint with such a broad brush that you can’t take them seriously.
Last week he and I watched the Monstrous Regiment of Women. It was the first time my husband had watched it. He was blown away. The entire message in the film is that either you agree that feminism in all forms, including women having the right to vote, is unbiblical and heresy, or you are a baby killer. Every topic is simplistic and labeled as “Marxist” and I don’t even think Jennie Chancey understands one wit about Marxism.
Doug is doing the same thing in his evaluation of the Quiverfull book. He says “Christianity is inherently pro-life. Feminism of all stripes is implicitly anti-life. That is one reason why the dark, anti-family mockery coming from feminists sounds increasingly like the rantings of the Child Catcher of Vulgaria.
Within Christianity, the single most pro-life group is the homeschool community. The Christian homeschool movement is a work of God made up of diverse individuals, many of whom share certain basic commitments about the Bible, the family, the role of men and women, godly education, and the preciousness of life. For many of these families, the same spiritual revival which led them to turn their hearts to Christ, and then to their children, has also given them a biblical desire to reject a selfish, feminist vision of life by returning to principles of biblical manhood and womanhood. ”
Do you see what he has done? He has “made the case” that anyone who doesn’t hold to HIS views of men and women isn’t pro-life and pro-child.
He also uses this article to scare the daylights out of homeschooling moms, much like all that mumbo jumbo Stacy McDonald wrote talking about all the blogs that are against mothers and especially stay at home moms. Where are those blogs? I know Corrie and I both spent a great deal of time looking for those blogs and they just aren’t there. We found no articles in either Chrsitian or secular publications that would substantiate those claims. We asked what those are but she never produced proof of those claims. IN FACT, being a stay at home mom and even homeschooling is sort of trendy right now! And as Corrie and I both can attest to, we are praised all the time by people who are in awe of large families. In fact, I am sometimes embarrassed by the admiration. Why do the patriocentrists insist on telling women these things? And then they set up straw men to be the bad guys, which only causes hurt and confusion. In Passionate Housewives, women wearing high heels and owning marble sinks were the bad guys and the antecdotes about them only served to make moms who don’t wear/own these things feel better about their own choices. The truth is, many women own marble sinks and wear high heels who love Jesus and love their families and appreciate large families and the moms who have them.
Doug rants on about how dangerous the anti-children crowd is. I need to see who this crowd is for myself…..give me quotes, Doug. Let’s see it. The patriocentrists aren’t playing fairly.
April 30, 2009 at 10:51 am
Karen,
I read Doug’s latest article and I am embarrassed for him and all the others who align themselves with all this fear-mongering and propaganda.
April 30, 2009 at 11:43 am
Sorry Karen, was trying to make this easier for you and I made it worse. Here is the unadulterated link.
This blogger has occasionally posted about Vision Forum, and he also commented on the strident (hm, is there any other?) “tone” of Doug Phillips’ post.
http://ematthaei.blogspot.com/2009/04/wow_29.html
April 30, 2009 at 11:49 am
Oops, Karen, I see you already found a way to make the link work in #257…(gulp more coffee down)
April 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm
I’m still laughing at Laurie’s comment that all Doug needs to do is yell “Ew Lesbians!” in order to “define and win.”
Karen,
Doug really does read right off the script of thought reform here.
There is milieu control through fear mongering where you are safe in God’s narrowly defined group, mystical manipulation by predicting all of these terrible things, the language is definitely loaded as usual (and is complete with picture and a new fairy tale analogy), the demand for purity is there in black and white thought, there is the sacred science (Doug’s homeschooling doctrine), doctrine over person, and the dispensing of existence to those within the group. It really is classic Doug Phillips. Not much opportunity to pressure people for confession in a written document, or I”m sure that it would be there, too. It is like a textbook example of how groups use thought reform in their published propaganda to manipulate their following. It’s better than something right out of the Watchtower and an exemplar.
April 30, 2009 at 12:30 pm
That is (last sentence),
It is better as an example of thought reform in written form than something right out of the Watchtower AS an exemplar.
April 30, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Oh, little rain, Catholicmom,
You bring up a good point. The Assemblies of God program and the church I was in did not do so well on church history. It seemed for me to jump from John at Patamos (since that’s the last book in the Canon) to these two guys named Luther and Tyndale (though they were not crazy about their supposedly dead churches), to Charles Finney, to Jimmy Swagart. They bypass the rest, though I think they put the United Pentecostal Church in there as the history of departing from heresy (and you never hear of Arius). Defining the Episcopal church as Protestant wouldn’t fit the timeline.
And it is “Good to be the king” when you have the Archbishop of Canterbury in your back pocket and can lop off the head of a wife you suddenly find contentious.
April 30, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Thanks, Cindy. The early Church fathers are fascinating and the earliest were instructed directly by the twelve apostles long before there was a NT canon. Reading the Didache (which expressly forbids abortion and gives such a vivid glimpse of the early church’s practices) and other early documents by living so close to Christ’s own time can add much depth and breadth to “being a Berean”.
Doug Phillips has lost it! Chitty Chitty Bang Bang – puh-leeze.
April 30, 2009 at 2:46 pm
The author of the Quiverful book is probably doing a happy-dance over Doug Phillip’s review. After all, by his response, he just confirmed many of the things that are asserted in that book.
Why is it that he can impugn the people that Joyce used in her book (ie., a lesbian and a woman he put out of his church) but all those that belong under his umbrella are unimpeachable as far as their character and conduct and life history and it is called “gossip” and “slander” when others do the very thing he engages in all the time?
April 30, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Well, she’s at least noticed it.
http://kathrynjoyce.com/
Personally I’m more interested in how Doug Phillips tracks with Sara Robinson’s current essay. But I’ll put that up on my own blog in the next day or so.
May 2, 2009 at 10:22 am
#268
Do you think it was wise of the author to use Jen Epstien as a witness against Doug Philips? Didn’t you impugn her, Jen Epstien, character as well? Unless of course I’m thinking of the wrong Corrie.
May 2, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Hi Jonathan,
I would rather not go into the whole Jen Epstein issue on this blog. It is long and involved and, frankly, sordid. But, imho, using Jen Epstein in that book is not a good idea, especially after all I learned when I dug for the truth concerning the situation of the Epsteins and Doug Phillips. I am not popular with people on my side of the debate when I say that Doug Phillips got a “run for his money” when he met Jen Epstein. She should have NEVER gone public with her story with her history and behaviors. And I have stated, publicly, that I probably wouldn’t have handled that situation as patiently as it seems that Phillip’s church did. And this just proves that I only care about truth. I will change my mind based on FACTS, EVIDENCE and TRUTH.
I got very close to Jen during the year she had her story up and I learned a lot and I weighed the facts. Much of what was written by Boerne/Matt Chancey was right on. They were guessing at some of it, so they weren’t completely accurate in all the details, but I learned much of it straight from the source. During the course of that year, I was horrified at what I learned and I repeatedly told Jen to get her site down and stop misrepresenting herself and her situation.
The whole situation is very sad and I have prayed, consistently, about it and for all involved. She needs help and not the kind of help that says “get right or get left” nor does she need “biblical counseling” and told to “just submit”. She needs professional/medical help. I have no problem talking about character and behavior when it applies to what people say as compared to what they do.
My point was that the Phillip’s crowd doesn’t allow any criticism of the character/behavior of the people involved with that ministry (ie., authors, teachers, etc) and they label it as “gossip” and “hearsay” and “misrepresentation” and “not any of our business” and “there is always two sides to the story” but they have no problem talking about the character of Jen and Cheryl.
I have no problem with them talking about it, either, but it is highly hypocritical for them to not allow this to go both ways.
You see, they impugn the character of anyone who opposes their teachings (ie., “marble sinks”, “little dogs”, “white-washed feminists”, “marxists” etc) but they plug their ears up and obsfucate when it comes to it coming back to them.
This is a good case of “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
If Jen and Cheryl’s character can be brought into question, then so can their character. That was my point.
May 3, 2009 at 7:48 am
Corrie, I agree that Jen and Cheryl were bad choices for Kathryn Joyce to use in her book. In my opinion, it took away much of her credibility in a book that otherwise really presented many of the patriocentric views accurately. I did post a full review on the book on my other blog if anyone is interested:
http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2009/04/17/book-review-of-quiverfull-inside-the-christian-patriarchy-movement-by-kathryn-joyce/
May 3, 2009 at 7:51 am
This is a good case of “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
If Jen and Cheryl’s character can be brought into question, then so can their character. That was my point.
Corrie, this really is part of the problem is it not? Where does accountability of homeschooling leadership lie? Cheryl was a homeschooling leader. Those who are invited to attend an HSLDA leadership conference must consider themselves leaders. Kevin Swanson is a leader and who holds him accountable for the over the top statements he makes? I just wonder about these things. I mean, there was a time when I would attend a homeschooling conference and never give the time of day wonder if I am listening to the real deal. A few years ago that changed and now I am much more of a Berean.
May 3, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Jonathan,
This brings up an interesting point all of it’s own.
What exactly qualifies as “impugning someones character” specifically?
I never knew Jen well enough to make any kind of assessment of her character, but I can cite several instances where it was demonstrated that she hid very critical aspects of the truth from her readers. For instance, if I had known that she was aided by racialists, I would have not become involved with her discussion to the degree that I did by so strongly defending her. I took her at her word, the image she presented.
My point is that anything I said regarding Jen was related to this deception she created and promoted. It involved a particular act on her behalf.
You state:
Didn’t you impugn her, Jen Epstien, character as well?
I didn’t impugn (to attack as false, to challenge in an argument) Jen Epstein personally, only her behavior as it affected me because she lead me to believe something that was untrue. I impugned her statement that she had nothing to do with a certain group, but then she admitted openly that she was involved with the group and a number of individuals in it.
Another analogy, as I have also laid that particular matter to rest and “set forth” or released those people from any personal debt owed to me (forgiveness, where I no longer expect anything from those who have offended me, not to be confused with reconciliation).
If my neighbor borrows my shovel and my tiller and never gives them back, claiming he does not have them when he does (they are in his garage and are marked with my name), if I confront him about the tools, does that mean I have drawn the whole of his CHARACTER into question? The neighbor might be the truest friend that I have, and I might trust him in all other areas, save for the issue of the lawn tools which may have some other explanation. Is it not fair to say that I can impugn his behavior related to only the tools (that he well may not remember or may find a great issue of shame for some odd reason related only to that), but that I have not impugned the whole of his character?
The same is true of ideas. Karen Campbell and I went around on the issue of oral contraceptives a few months back. We disagree and accept different information as reliable, so I hold to a different assessment on a matter that I know she holds intensely strong convictions about. That has nothing to do with her character (and actually, it engenders more respect in me for the fiber of her character). It’s something that is even, at times, an intensely personal subject, but though I openly challenged her stance and argued against a presupposition she held (I impugned her presuppostion), I did in no way impugn her personally.
I would think that to impugn someone’s character would be to say that you find them to be without any good character traits on a deeply personal level. I don’t even have those kinds of opinions about those who have directly abused me so as to personally impugn them. I’ve impugned their behavior or their statements, not them as human beings or even as personalities.
Where is the dividing line between challenging or rejecting a person’s behavior or a statement of belief and actually impugning them personally? If you contain the challenge to specifics, why would it be a personal matter to impugn?
Now, it does add to the way a person is perceived. It does cause people to draw character into question, but that is quite different that impugning one’s character.
I think that the same is true of Kathryn Joyce’s “Quiverfull” book itself. I read some facts in the book, such that Joyce claims that Phillips was homeschooled. I understand that Phillips was not homeschooled and confirmed with others that he has said in the past that he was not homeschooled as a child or young man. If Joyce missed that fact, what other fact did she also miss? I also question why half of the introduction discussed that Haggard pastor from Colorado who was caught in sexual sin. What does he have to do with the Quiverfull movement? Not a whole lot. It gives reason to ask questions, but it does not mean the book is without value and should be thrown in a dustbin. It just makes the book weaker than it could be in those areas. Certain aspects of it, from my understanding of the topic, are right on target and should be qualified as such.
May 3, 2009 at 7:14 pm
Jonathan,
That statement wasn’t directed at you necessarily but is a question that I have from a broader perspective. You framed it as such, so I used the example, though it is my intent to pose it as a general question directed at whoever reads it would want to respond.
I would like to better discern what constitutes that which is specific and factual as opposed to that which is personal. I honestly wish to understand better what qualifies one from the other for my own benefit and growth.
May 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm
“This is a good case of “people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones”.
If Jen and Cheryl’s character can be brought into question, then so can their character. That was my point. ”
yes, but even more to the point, when it comes to homeschooling “leaders” like Phillips and the McDonalds, people in glass houses shouldn’t stow bones.
Jen was not above reproach, but her blog was very useful in that it brought VisionForum and the Patriarch’s Path crowd into the internet spotlight, and aired their dirty kinist/secessionist/Constitution Party/League of the South laundry for all the world to see.
May 3, 2009 at 7:16 pm
I wrote:
It just makes the book weaker than it could be in those areas.
meant to say:
It just makes the overall book weaker, is is not as strong as it could be in those areas.
May 3, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Cynthia Gee, this is too clever:
yes, but even more to the point, when it comes to homeschooling “leaders” like Phillips and the McDonalds, people in glass houses shouldn’tstow bones.
That is why Paul lists so many requirements for leaders and shepherds in the New Testament. They aren’t there as a nice idea, but they are there to protect the people who entrust themselves to the leadership of those men. It also protects those who are in leadership positions from being drawn into question before a great bunch of witnesses, having to defend themselves against public charges of deficiency. No closets full of bones and you don’t have a whole lot of room to criticize.
May 3, 2009 at 7:39 pm
Another thought to consider –
I loved Jen and I believed the best about her, so I did confront her several times in many settings and venues. I did so because I believed and hoped the best that she would own up to the problem and we could pursue reconciliation.
If I did not believe the better of her, I would not have put myself to the painful trouble of confronting her and would have walked away. If I had not believed the best of Karen Campbell in our discussion, I would not have gone through the painful effort of challenging my friend. It is when I don’t think that there is any hope of contributing towards a positive outcome that I refrain from commenting. The confrontation is a show of respect and concern, and I would not confront someone, throwing down pearls when I would assume they would be trampled. Those people only turn again on you and rend you.
May 3, 2009 at 10:53 pm
So then is Dougs criticism of the book unwarranted or wrong?
“Her un-footnoted work draws from the bizarre and inflammatory testimonies of a former homeschool mom turned lesbian-feminist activist;[6] from a disgruntled excommunicant with an exposure “ministry” whose personal behavior led her to be criminally cited, cuffed by police, and ultimately lose custody of her children; to pseudononymous individuals operating anti-pastor hate sites.”
Is this true?
“Joyce’s book is full of numerous half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright falsehoods.”
Is this true?
“None of this should surprise us, because Beacon Press, Joyce’s publisher, is well-known as a purveyor of ultra-radical, pro-homosexual, feminist, anti-Christian propaganda…”
Is this true?
Here’s the clincher though.
“but she and the anti-patriarchy movement she hopes to advance are the true spiritual progeny of the founding mothers of some of the most vicious, life-destroying branches of radical feminism…”
Doug wasn’t wrong in attacking this hatchet job. Unfortuantly for you, True Womanhood, is that it allowed Doug the opportunity to lump you and Kathryn Joyce together. So now True Womanhood, as a representative of the anti-patriachy movement, is synonymous, atleast in the eyes of his followers if not reformed christianity in general, with radical marriage hating, child hating, man hating, baby killing, God hating feminism. And attacking Doug for defending himself only lends credence to his argument that you are nothing more than the above mentioned. It sounds like the quiverfull book only made your job harder.
May 4, 2009 at 1:01 am
I’ve never commented here before, but I’ve followed the discussion here off and on for a year now. The last comment, though, made me want to respond, which is a little funny to me since so much of what is discussed here I have strong opinions about. While I don’t speak for the whole movement, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that I feel fairly confident that reformed Christianity in general will be able to read Doug’s review of Joyce’s book and not necessarily agree that those who disagree with his interpretation of Scripture or even his tone toward those who disagree with him are “radical marriage hating, child hating, man hating, baby killing, God hating feminism.” Even though the discussion around here has been more difficult lately, I want the regular participants to know that you have a large community of regular readers who appreciate the commitment to refuting error as it is being taught in subtle ways.
May 4, 2009 at 8:02 am
Jonathan:
Beacon press is Unitarian press. So what? Please define who comprises all of “Reformed Christianity in general”. And keep in mind most Reformed folks say “Vision what? Oh the wacko homeschool folks.” And that should be more of a concern than anything: Homeschoolers are under the microscope and the kinds of antics Mr. Phillips and his co-horts engage in are harming the community they profess to love and support.
May 4, 2009 at 8:15 am
Johnathan: What? When did Doug Phillips mention True Womanhood? How has True Womanhood been slighted?
True Womanhood criticised Vision Forum. So does Ministry Watchmen. So do numerous individual blogs. And so does Kathryn Joyce’s book. But I hardly see how the way one goes about it makes another look bad,. We aren’t connected in the slightest. And True Womanhood has always been about the scriptural refutation of patriocentric theology.
It’s a shame Quiverfull is a secular book that isn’t interested in scriptural accuracy. But it still has valid and interesting points to make, and it hasn’t made our job any harder.
Now, if Doug Phillips (and co) would ever grow up and say ‘True Womanhood’ when they refer to us, not ‘gossips’ ‘anonymous critics’ ‘whitewashed feminists’ and other childish euphemisms, THAT might effect how his followers see us. But to the casual reader of his blog, all his sideways references to us just make him look a bit mad and paranoid. Casual readers of Doug’s Blog have no idea who we are, so his words just make him look strange. Non-casual readers might guess, but only if they’ve been here already – and then I think they can determine our legitimacy for themselves
May 4, 2009 at 9:08 am
“Doug wasn’t wrong in attacking this hatchet job. Unfortuantly for you, True Womanhood, is that it allowed Doug the opportunity to lump you and Kathryn Joyce together. So now True Womanhood, as a representative of the anti-patriachy movement, is synonymous, atleast in the eyes of his followers if not reformed christianity in general, with radical marriage hating, child hating, man hating, baby killing, God hating feminism. And attacking Doug for defending himself only lends credence to his argument that you are nothing more than the above mentioned. It sounds like the quiverfull book only made your job harder.”
Jonathon, LOL! DP and many others like him ALWAYS ‘lump’ folks into narrow categories. It is profitable to do so. It sells more trinkets.
I am not taking your bait. The bait is that we must defend against those accusations. That would be ridiculous and those who have read here for any time know how silly you are being. Karen has 6 kids. Corrie has 10 as one example of your silliness. Child hating?
If other so called ‘reformed’ Christians are that shallow in that they follow DP and what he says instead of Christ FIRST, then there is little we can do about it except question the teaching publicly and pray for these people.
And I certainly would not expect ‘Zondervan’ to publish that book. What you are really upset about is that anyone dare analyze the book.
However, I think the book is instructive in another way.
Those women were following extra biblical rules and roles developed by mere depraved humans that have nothing to do with being IN Christ. It only goes to prove that they were never IN Christ in the first place. They were in a cult. He Who begins a good work finishes it. Those who are IN CHRIST would leave a cult and follow HIM.
Now, how many are still in the cult and not following Christ but playing a ‘role’? That is the question this book should rise.
The book only proves that much of the patriarchal fruit is rotten.
May 4, 2009 at 9:18 am
Lin, you’re exactly right. And Doug was lumping us at True Womanhood in with baby-hating, abortion-promoting feminists LONG before Kathryn Joyce’s book ever came out.
May 4, 2009 at 9:45 am
Jonathan,
I’m surprised that you would find Phillips himself to be credible enough for people contributing here to care too much about his opinion. A pejorative moniker from Phillips is a badge of honor. As Corrie said in a comment a couple of days ago, Joyce must be jumping up and down with glee because Phillips just validated much of her message. What’s sad is that he doesn’t even get that he is doing so.
Doug Phillips does not present any tangible and substantive criticism, save that Joyce does not footnote her book at all. Phillips is guilty of the very same thing, and I half wonder if he didn’t (or had an intern) copy it right out of thatmom’s review of the book! If you watch, he rarely says anything that is original but is always something he heard someone else say or do. Phillips has also published outright lies with http://www.raisingthetruth.com documenting his own confabulations for financial gain.
All Phillips has done in this this latest ridiculous bombastic exercise is demonstrate his multiple attempts to kill the messenger. Joyce is not secretive about her perspective, and she’s not published by Zondervan. She doesn’t falsely claim to be a Christian or use a pen name. The reader is free to consider the source, something every discerning reader should do when they first pick up a book. I think the fact that half the intro discusses Ted Haggard who has nothing to do with the Quiverfull movement says much about the book — that it was poorly titled and does have a particular agenda and focus. But that, again, is up to the discerning reader to figure out. Phillips is left looking like an angry little boy who is kicking mud and stomping in the dust. If people find that credible, more power to them.
You have to understand something of Phillips, too. He lives by the distributive fallacy. He takes a tiny part of a thing and discredits the whole, and takes the whole and determines that the part of a thing represents the small part. He is a black-and-white thinker who spiritualizes everything. He turns everything into a sacrament of sorts, spending a great deal of time sanitizing the world so that he and the followers he objectifies don’t have to exercise ongoing discernment. Follow his list or Brother Bill’s list of 10 things to get a perfect, pious outcome, and you will be able to circumvent the messiness of life and relationships. It is an illusion that he sells, and people are weary and willing to buy.
May 4, 2009 at 9:49 am
(Just checking in after some time out-of-town away from the internet — enjoying all the comments, and looking forward to reading them in more depth.)
Jonathan, You are correct to point out that Joyce’s book should not immune from criticism on issues of accuracy, footnoting, etc. The problem with Phillips’s posts is that he simply makes blanket, conclusory statements about the book. Phillips’s post provides no information whatsoever about what specific alleged inaccuracies he is criticising.
Also, it is awfully suspect that his main line of attack is arguing against Joyce by her association with another feminist with whom he disagrees. He has two more posts up about things said by Ellen Willis, who apparently was some sort of mentor to Joyce. Things uttered by Ellen Willis tell me nothing about what is supposed to be wrong with Joyce’s book.
May 4, 2009 at 10:52 am
“I am not taking your bait. The bait is that we must defend against those accusations. That would be ridiculous and those who have read here for any time know how silly you are being. Karen has 6 kids. Corrie has 10 as one example of your silliness. Child hating?”
Indeed. And I only had two, but we would have welcomed more. In fact, I’m 50 now, and I’m a stay-at-home wife and daughter — my 81-year old mother lives with us, and I take care of her, BUT I would welcome another baby more than ANYTHING before it’s too late (and anyone with extra prayer time on your hands, who wants to pray for that with me, I welcome your prayers — “from your lips to God’s ear”, as they say…)
May 4, 2009 at 10:53 am
“Also, it is awfully suspect that his main line of attack is arguing against Joyce by her association with another feminist with whom he disagrees. He has two more posts up about things said by Ellen Willis, who apparently was some sort of mentor to Joyce. Things uttered by Ellen Willis tell me nothing about what is supposed to be wrong with Joyce’s book.”
It’s far easier to attack the author than refute what she says, dontchaknow…..
May 4, 2009 at 11:32 am
Since mentors and associations are such a concern for Doug Phillips, perhaps he can appreciate my questions about his friend Geoff Botkin- a man not just associated with a cult, but a partner with the founder, who was paid to acquire and manage media sources to propagate it.
1.When exactly did he come OUT of/repent of that cult and it’s unbiblical practices?
2.Did his family (daughters)ever receive therapy for the mind control they undoubtedly were subjected to their entire lives?
Or are they peddling the same to the homeschooling community through Vision Forum?
Since mentors and associations are of great concern to Doug Phillips, why are the Botkin authors free from such scrutiny?
3.How can such young ladies write of anything but their own experience? And since their youth was spent in that cult, why are his readers not discerning this?
May 4, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Jonathan,
It looks like you didn’t really read what I said in response to your question to me? You missed the whole point, I see. If it is okay to question the associations of people who oppose his teachings, then it is okay to question the associations and behaviors and histories of those who are in his own camp. But, when we do that we are called gossips and talebearers.
Phillip’s critique is ridiculous and silly. There is no substance. Just a lot of ranting and raving.
And, I, in no way, feel lumped into some child-hating group of people and neither should anyone that posts here at True Womanhood.
Doug may want, through his fear-mongering, his mindless followers to believe that anyone who opposes his extra-biblical, manmade, cultural teachings to be child-haters and feminists but that is asinine. The truth is that the women who post on this blog are anything BUT what Doug is trying to make them out to be.
As a homeschooling mother of 10 (all birthed from my body), Doug would look like a complete fool to do what you say he has done. Why would I or anyone else at True Womanhood think he was directing his comments at us?
The fact that his teachings are rife with error does not mean, just because we point out these facts, that we are somehow radical feminists who hate men and children.
Cindy,
“All Phillips has done in this this latest ridiculous bombastic exercise is demonstrate his multiple attempts to kill the messenger. Joyce is not secretive about her perspective, and she’s not published by Zondervan. She doesn’t falsely claim to be a Christian or use a pen name. The reader is free to consider the source, something every discerning reader should do when they first pick up a book. I think the fact that half the intro discusses Ted Haggard who has nothing to do with the Quiverfull movement says much about the book — that it was poorly titled and does have a particular agenda and focus. But that, again, is up to the discerning reader to figure out. Phillips is left looking like an angry little boy who is kicking mud and stomping in the dust. If people find that credible, more power to them.
You have to understand something of Phillips, too. He lives by the distributive fallacy. He takes a tiny part of a thing and discredits the whole, and takes the whole and determines that the part of a thing represents the small part. ”
Exactly. His review reminded me of a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum in the sandbox.
May 4, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Momgodin,
Excellent point! I would like to know about Botkin’s cult involvement and how that has influenced his current teachings and ministry. That has more relevance than going after an author who doesn’t claim to be a Christian. It is much more dangerous to have false teachers IN our churches behaving as wolves in sheep’s clothing than it is for a “feminist” to write a book about her own perspective of the practices she sees among a certain set of Christians.
May 4, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Now, if Doug Phillips (and co) would ever grow up and say ‘True Womanhood’ when they refer to us, not ‘gossips’ ‘anonymous critics’ ‘whitewashed feminists’ and other childish euphemisms, THAT might effect how his followers see us. But to the casual reader of his blog, all his sideways references to us just make him look a bit mad and paranoid. Casual readers of Doug’s Blog have no idea who we are, so his words just make him look strange. Non-casual readers might guess, but only if they’ve been here already – and then I think they can determine our legitimacy for themselves ”
Claire,
Great point.
Yes, it all has to do with growing up and being honest and being accountable for one’s teachings.
When these people are confronted and asked to give an example of these so-called “white-washed feminists” that teach “patricentricity” they give some sort of insipid and vague answer along with cowardly and dishonest back-peddling. We all know who they are referring to but they refuse to give an example of all the “blogs” that teach this sort of “white-washed” feminism. They hide behind a cloak of Scripture that, in their own deceived minds, make them feel invisible from the truth. For example, in their world, they like to quote the Proverbs verse that says there are “two sides to every story” but what they really mean is there is only one- their side and all other sides are “lies” and “misrepresentations”. They don’t even give the other side the chance to tell the other side of the story. Classic double-speak.
Who do they think they are fooling? And why do people allow this kind of dishonesty to go unchecked? And how does anyone take anything they say seriously when they throw out labels so willy-nilly and act like spineless jellyfish when confronted?
May 4, 2009 at 12:27 pm
I know that in the past, some young women have posted here that deal with self-injury, cutting, etc.
Over on my blog, after lunch, I am hosting a psychologist there to talk about her new book. We are going to discuss self-injury after lunch today. It’s a topic that I don’t see discussed very often in Christian circles, so it might be a good opportunity to learn more about this. The rest of the book is good too, and the title proves that God’s got a sense of humor. (We set her cyber tours stop up about 2 months ago…)
May 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm
The prophets prophesy falsely, And the priests rule on their own authority; And My people love it so! But what will you do at the end of it? Jer. 5:31
And there you have the patriocentric movement in a nutshell.
May 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Cindy,
I’m so glad you’re hosting the psychologist on that very important subject. I know several young women (Christian and not) who’ve been burdened in this way, and it’s heartbreaking to watch and not be able to do anything but pray at times. This is where all the “restoring the biblical family back to ye old paths” teaching is just empty and so full of man’s interpretation, and IMO, ineffective to touching the heart of hurting souls. What we need is the Gospel in Living Color, and caring hearts and helping hands.
I’ll be gone today, so I won’t be able to ask any questions in real time, but will be looking forward to the discussion when I get back.
May 4, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Momgodin,
I have not read or been otherwise informed that the Botkins ever had any counsel after leaving the thought reform system of the Great Commission Ministries Intl.
I did, however, learn more about where the Botkins were recruited. Jim McCotter visited the campus of Oklahoma University in Norman in the ’70s. This is where Geoffrey, his brother Greggory and his wife were all recruited — from the campus at OU. Go Sooners! They called themselves the Saints, and they also practiced a rigid betrothal process. Geoff and “Vickie,” as she was known then, were placed together per the oversight of the GCM group. The “Botkin boys” were from Tulsa, and no one remembers any of them or the Botkin family from Tulsa being a bunch of committed Marxists.
One of the leaders in the group was a man named Ilgvars Vermelis, someone who did grow up in a Communist country and apparently protested in the late ’60s. But he was later born again and recruited by the Great Commission. He was an interesting leader in Geoff Botkin’s religious system and a role model for this young man (all while McCotter was on campus there for his “Blitz” at OU, all in the mid ’70s as is well documented). So perhaps Geoff Botkin has absorbed the testimony of Marxism from this interesting leader in the group, someone who might be considered a type of father figure??? People did not identify the Botkins as Marxists at this time from those who have written to me and were well acquainted with them.
I guess if you were attending school and church with a couple of people from the same family, you would have heard sometime that they were committed Marxists. Many people from the group relocated to the DC area, and the Norman activities that were ongoing in the ’70s are not active, so far as I am aware. Many followed McCotter to Montgomery County, MD so they could take dominion of the government! That’s how the Botkins ended up in Laurel, MD.
I can find no evidence that the group ever renounced their legalism (the Great Commission group). There is also no evidence that I can find (personal or otherwise) that the Botkins renounced the legalistic practices either (No women talking in services, though they were permitted to sing, head coverings, strict betrothal, ecclesiocentricity to the max, strict and brutal church discipline practices, etc.).
May 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Willis is to Joyce as Dabney is to Phillips
Need I say more?
May 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm
“Willis is to Joyce as Dabney is to Phillips”
Well, almost. As far as I know, Joyce doesn’t adulate Willis or write poems about her:
““Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist… And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth: Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!”
Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks
May 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Right on, Cynthia G. That is exactly what I was thinking.
If it is okay to examine who Joyce looks up to then it is just fine to examine who Phillips looks up to (an issues no caveats about Dabney’s racist rhetoric).
Hail Dabney? Right there Phillips is dead in the water and his “review” (better known as his tirade) concerning Joyce’s book is hypocrisy, at best.
They can whine all they want about being called “racists” but what is good for the goose…… How many times have they called someone a “feminist” or a “Marxist” when there is So Much More evidence to paint Phillips as a racist? Not saying he is but just applying his own brand of “logic” to himself.
May 4, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Especially read one of the last paragraphs where Doug Phillips is quoted saying that Dabney was “forumlative” to his way of thinking and that he was the “greatest defender of Southern heritage, Christian faith, and common sense” and how Phillips thinks that we are left with no other option but to “run and hide- we can’t deny it- or simply to embrace the truth” of Dabney’s “prophecies” and “conclusions”.
“Here are some choice quotes from Dabney:
It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…
The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…
The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.
How does Doug Phillips regard Dabney? He calls Dabney “the greatest southern theologian of the 19th century.” He exclaims: “Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist… And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth: Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!”
In Doug’s lecture on Dabney, he says Dabney was “formulative” to his way of thinking. He introduces Dabney as one who would be “in the front lines at Gettysburg, charging toward the Yankees.” Doug calls Dabney “the greatest defender of Southern heritage, Christian faith, and common sense.” He praises Dabney “for being bold enough to say things that others today are afraid to say.” He laments that Dabney is “resented by those Christians who don’t want to hear his prophecies.” He said we may be uncomfortable with Dabney’s conclusions, but we are “left with no other option but to run and hide – we can’t deny it – or simply to embrace the truth…” He calls Dabney “a prophet in the fullest sense,” and after announcing that he might name his next child after Dabney, recites a poem he has written for the occasion entitled, “Hail Dabney, Prophet of the South.”
Doug Phillips also edited a book entitled Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.
Oh, but we’re just getting started.”
http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/what-thinketh-yall-robert-dabney-28917/
May 4, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“Not saying he is but just applying his own brand of “logic” to himself.”
Yep… and you know what they say about people who try to remove the speck from their brother’s eye while ignoring the two-by-four that’s stuck in their own.
May 4, 2009 at 2:24 pm
Just applying more sauce for the gander…
And then we can talk about Phillip’s promotion of the RM Ballantyne and Henty books.
http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/rm-ballantyne/#comments
This is also from the same site:
“G.A. Henty
June 13, 2007 by Elaine
For many years, Doug Phillips and Vision Forum have sold books by G.A. Henty and hosted an essay contest in his honor. You can see how often Henty is praised there.
One of the books included in the 40-volume set for sale at Vision Forum is By Sheer Pluck. Here is Henty’s opinion of black people, which any young child may find in its pages:
They are just like children. They are always either laughing or quarrelling. They are good-natured and passionate, indolent, but will work hard for a time; clever up to a certain point, densely stupid beyond. The intelligence of an average negro is about equal to that of a European child of ten years old. A few, a very few, go beyond this, but these are exceptions, just as Shakespeare was an exception to the ordinary intellect of an Englishman. They are fluent talkers, but their ideas are borrowed. They are absolutely without originality, absolutely without inventive power. Living among white men, their imitative facilities enable them to attain a considerable amount of civilisation. Left alone to their own devices they retrograde into a state little above their native savagery.
White superiority is the theme that runs through all of Henty’s books. He once wrote of “the utter incapacity of the Negro race to evolve, or even maintain, civilisation without the example and the curb of a white population.”
Note: Doug Phillips is selling the original, unexpurgated (racist) versions of these books, not the versions edited by Mantle Ministries and Preston Speed.
It’s astounding that racist books are being sold to impressionable youths under the guise of Christianity, but Henty is just the beginning. For example, Vision Forum also sells Elsie Dinsmore, which contains the “n-word” and borderline pederasty. Elsie even tells her slaves that “they wouldn’t be Negroes in heaven.””
May 4, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“The feminist, the plutocrat, the wiley carpetbagger,
The Darwinist, the bureaucrat, and transcendental braggart;
The scalawag, the suffragette, the surly Statist simp
Were by your pen defrocked, exposed, and wounded, left to limp.”
Well, there are still some “wiley carpetbaggers” left, alive and well, in the patriocentric movement.
May 4, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“Well, there are still some “wiley carpetbaggers” left, alive and well, in the patriocentric movement.
”
Uh huh. But, sometimes I wonder if the patrios themselves AREN’T especially racist, but are POSING as racists in order to sell their theonomist agenda to impressionable Southerners, like folks in the League of the South.
These guys are power-seekers, and usually, the only thing that is carved in stone with power seekers is gaining and maintaining a power base.
I think that they saw the southern/secessionist/racist/agrarian crowd as an easy mark, and so they tailored their whole message to fit what that particular audience wanted to hear.
May 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm
So let me get this straight……
Jen Epstein is a liar. Most of what Matt and Doug have said about her is true.
Jen Epstien is used as a source for the quiverfull book.
Doug Philips points this out.
You attack Doug Philips criticising him for making the same observation of Jen Epstein as you did.
You harp on doug asking him to refute this and he ends up offereing the same proof of Jen Epsteins dishonesty as you did. Which so far has been none.
Guess I’m just being silly again. You may through me under the bus now. Maybe Jen will keep me company…….
May 4, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Jonathan,
Who are you talking to? You are not being logical.
I am not saying that the whole book is to be discredited because of a couple of examples.
I am saying that if Doug is able to criticize others then so are we but that doesn’t go both ways in the Patrio-world.
I am not throwing anyone under the bus. Truth is truth, Jonathan. I am not going to ignore the truth about Jen’s situation because it suits my own personal purposes.
May 4, 2009 at 4:21 pm
“You attack Doug Philips criticising him for making the same observation of Jen Epstein as you did.”
I will say this a bit slower….
No, I did not.
I criticized him based on the rabid hypocrisy in the patriocentric movement. I have more than adequately explained this and given quite a few examples.
If that book is to be discredited because of Jen and Cheryl then so are most of the books that Phillips sells based on the same “logic” that he is using.
May 4, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Question. And keep in mind that I have not read Quiverfull yet, we’re picking it up tonight.
How much of Doug Phillips rant is about this book and it’s commentary/interviews/reviews coming out in the Liberal political sphere. I mean, when I told people about the Patriarchy movement before they would look at me blankly. Now they nod and reference the book, or the Salon article. Now knowledge of this movement is getting out into larger circles, and not at all in a flattering way.
May 4, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Annie, do you have that link to the Sara Robinson article you mentioned? I would be interested to read it. I am very interested in how the mainstream media treats homeschoolers – as Karen has been saying for so long, these VF extremists make the rest of us look so bad. It’s no excuse for sloppy reporting (ie, making us all look like patriocentrists) but I am very interested to know what’s being said.
May 5, 2009 at 1:22 am
Doug’s response to Quiverfull is not aimed at his critics nor the general public. ‘Tis aimed at his followers, the only ones who take him seriously anymore.
I wonder if he knows what a ridiculous joke he’s made of himself. Outside a narrow group of persons, he looks the fool. His actions alone speak for themselves. Feminists, lesbians, abortion lovers, and gossips are not required to point out the absurdity of his blatherings and bankrupt theology.
Pray for his children. They are on a collision course with pain and disillusionment, as are so many home school children from extreme families.
He’s an intelligent person with many talents. I am saddened to see what he’s become. Of course, there are many who say the same of me.
May 5, 2009 at 4:23 am
—Random comment here as the result of a great epiphany—
I finally figured out why I can’t stand courtship!
The guy has to jump through hoops, hop on one leg, reveal everything about himself to the dad, all for a chance at this girl, but NO ONE FROM THE BOY’S FAMILY GRILLS THE GIRL!
Courtship is all about determining if the guy is good enough for the girl without stopping to think if the girl is good enough for the guy!
I mean, what dad is going to say “My daughter is a manipulative, passive-aggressive, high maintenance diva who will destroy you. Run.”
A man of 20-25 years is supposed to have great insight into a woman’s character/personality, and be sure she is right for him, however he is inherently “unworthy” of her. A woman of the same age is must have her father grill him because she is too emotional to ask herself, yet she is inherently a “blessing/prize” to him.
I just had to get this out.
Please continue with the normal conversation.
May 5, 2009 at 9:18 am
Nicole,
Very insightful. I agree that is a major problem with the courtship model as practiced by the patriocentrists.
I have a son that is almost 24 and I totally KNOW what you are saying. He is a great guy and I have seen the kind of girls you have described.
I think that the girl should have to jump through the same rigorous hoops with the boy’s family as the girl’s family expects him to jump through.
May 5, 2009 at 9:50 am
http://www.truewoman.com/?id=641
Just when you think things might be on the normal side:
“It reminds me of what the first man exclaimed when he saw the first woman. When Adam laid his eyes on her, he broke into an exuberant, spontaneous poem:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman (Ishsha), because she was taken out of Man (Ish).” Genesis 2:23 (ESV)
The first man called himself “Ish” and the woman “Ishsha.” This appears to be an extremely clever and profound play on words. The sound of these two Hebrew words is nearly identical—Ishsha merely adds a feminine ending—but the two words have a complementary meaning. Ish comes from the root meaning “strength” while Ishsha comes from the root meaning “soft.”
The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood— his potency, virility, and procreative power (Ps. 105:36; Prov. 31:3; Gen. 49:3). By contrast, a woman’s “softness” has to do with her pregnability, penetrability, and vulnerability (in a very positive sense). One commentator has suggested English equivalents of “Piercer” and “Pierced One.”
The bodies of male and female reflect this idea. A man’s body is built to move toward the woman. A woman’s body is built to receive the man. But the pattern goes beyond the mere physical difference between men and women to encompass the totality of their essence: The man was created to joyfully and actively initiate and give. The woman was created to joyfully and actively respond and receive. The woman is the “soft” one–the receiver, responder, and relater. The man is the “strong” one with greater capacity to initiate, protect, and provide. Each is a perfect counterpart to the other.”
May 5, 2009 at 9:55 am
http://www.truewoman.com/?id=662
“When Adam saw Eve for the first time, he exclaimed, “She shall be called ‘Woman’ (Ishsha) because she was taken out of Man (Ish).” In an earlier post, we learned that Ishsha means softness/receptivity, while Ish means strength/initiation.”
May 5, 2009 at 10:02 am
Can anyone find any sources where “ish” means “initiation” and ishsha “receptivity/softness”?
I can’t. This is the first time I have heard of this.
May 5, 2009 at 10:04 am
please don’t tell me it’s unbiblical for a woman to initiate…
May 5, 2009 at 10:07 am
please don’t tell me it’s unbiblical and unfeminine for the woman to initiate!
May 5, 2009 at 10:08 am
Now now Corrie, don’t you think it’s bad enough to be sick while pregnant without posting something to make me puke?
May 5, 2009 at 10:12 am
Hey where did my comment go?
I have several diapers full of yellow or brown runny stuff that my boys have provided…just saying that it adequately describes what that article is to a tee…
Just sayin.
Made me want to puke.
May 5, 2009 at 10:18 am
288-
Claire-
She wasn’t writing about the homeschooling movement, but about politics, domestic terrorism and a couple of Department of Homeland Security reports that have come out recently. Yes, from a Liberal POV.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/04/far-rights-first-100-days-shifting-into.html
She’s written before about a paper by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (“that’s the CIA with a maple leaf on its hat”) which I will link to in another post, hopefully so this doesn’t get stuck in moderation.
Comparing her almost-checklist to the recent Child Catcher of Vulgaria screeds, I have to wonder if Doug Phillips has finally gone ’round the proverbial bend. No, I don’t think he’s dangerous. But I’m trying to figure out if he’s covered 4 steps out of 9, or 5.
May 5, 2009 at 10:21 am
One more try, since I think my comment was just eaten as well.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/02/are-they-crazy-dangerous-or-just-plain.html
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008_02_03_dneiwert_archive.html
May 5, 2009 at 10:22 am
*sigh* The other two articles are in moderation.
May 5, 2009 at 10:28 am
Oops, didn’t realize there was a part 3
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/02/crazy-dangerous-last-running-up-to-edge.html
May 5, 2009 at 10:50 am
Okay, when all else fails, look at the scripture used to back up someone’s assertion:
“The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood— his potency, virility, and procreative power (Ps. 105:36; Prov. 31:3; Gen. 49:3).”
Psa 105:36 He smote also all the firstborn in their land, the chief of all their strength.
The word for strength is ‘own. “specially of virile and genital power”, “first fruits of strength”, firstborn.
The lexicon says it is “probably” from the same root word as “aven’” which means to “pant or to exert oneself, usually in vain”
Gen 49:3 Reuben, thou [art] my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power:
Same thing with Gen 49:3, the word for strength is ‘own.
Pro 31:3 Give not thy strength unto women, nor thy ways to that which destroyeth kings.
The word for strength here is chayil which simply means strength. The root word is khul which means to twist, whirl, dance, writhe, fear, tremble, travail……
So, I have no idea where Kassian is coming from when she says that “ish” means strength or initiative. I have yet to find a lexicon that proves this to be true. Ish simply means man/male.
May 5, 2009 at 10:53 am
Sorry Mrs. W! I felt a bit urpy and I am not even pregnant!
Momgodin, yes, since you are a woman, you are the “piercee” and you are to be only “soft” in your “softspot” and to be a receptive participant, waiting for initiation of the one who “pierces” you.
May 5, 2009 at 11:34 am
Ugh that’s like the pastor that did our marriage counesling telling my husband to have fun ravishing his wife on his honeymoon…my husband didn’t want to ravish me. He wanted to lovingly have sex. He waited till I was ready to try.
May 5, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Mrs W,
Well, what I want to know was if you were sweetly terrified and gently alarmed when your “priest” came into perform his priestly duties? Did you know that all the angels were watching in hushed anticipation and reveling in the terrified look on your face?
I have no idea how “piercer” and “piercee” are gotten out of “iysh” and “‘ishshah”.
Ish means man. And “sha” is the feminine ending. She was called the woman (‘ishshah) because she was taken out of the man (‘iysh). I think that is the significance of those two words because this is what the Bible says.
I find nothing about her being the “piercee” or that this word indicates that she is soft and receptive and that man is strong and the initiator/giver.
Yes, women have soft skin. Both the husband and wife are told to be receptive to the sex act (1 Cor. 7). Both are told to be givers (ie., servants). Both are told to be initiators of love and not to wait for someone to initiate (love your neighbor as yourself).
But, to get this much out of those Hebrew words is really stretching, imho. I have yet to find a source that defines these words in those terms.
Not to mention that the sword-piercing imagery is a bit icky and not at all something that most people want to think about when they are making love. Swords and piercing and intimacy really don’t belong in the same sentence much less the same category.
May 5, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Corrie, neither of us certainly thought that my husband was a priest, praise God! We still don’t. LOL. Although we HAVE been told that. I don’t know what look was on my face…ha!
Anyhow, sometimes it is SUCH a blessing to be KJV only, but not only KJV only, but to believe that the English is all we need and we don’t need to go back to Greek and Hebrew. Whether others agree with it or not, at least I don’t have to battle through “the Hebrew REALLY means…” nonsense. Otherwise, I might have been hoodwinked earlier about some of this stuff.
I emailed that stuff to my husband at work and he wanted to puke too.
May 5, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Corrie,
who’s weird fantasy was that again? (sorry…I have some-timers)
Was it a Vision Forum fella?
(yeah, and I’m nauseous too, ladies.) :p
May 5, 2009 at 2:25 pm
http://familyreformation.wordpress.com/2009/02/12/a-valentine-reflection/
“On the threshold of wedding nights stands a smiling angel with his finger on his lips.
The soul enters into contemplation before that sanctuary where the celebration of love takes place.
There should be flashes of light athwart such houses. The joy which they contain ought to make its escape through the stones of the walls in brilliancy, and vaguely illuminate the gloom. It is impossible that this sacred and fatal festival should not give off a celestial radiance to the infinite. Love is the sublime crucible wherein the fusion of the man and the woman takes place; the being one, the being triple, the being final, the human trinity proceeds from it. This birth of two souls into one, ought to be an emotion for the gloom. The lover is the priest; the ravished virgin is terrified. Something of that joy ascends to God. Where true marriage is, that is to say, where there is love, the ideal enters in. A nuptial bed makes a nook of dawn amid the shadows. If it were given to the eye of the flesh to scan the formidable and charming visions of the upper life, it is probable that we should behold the forms of night, the winged unknowns, the blue passers of the invisible, bend down, a throng of sombre heads, around the luminous house, satisfied, showering benedictions, pointing out to each other the virgin wife gently alarmed, sweetly terrified, and bearing the reflection of human bliss upon their divine countenances. If at that supreme hour, the wedded pair, dazzled with voluptuousness and believing themselves alone, were to listen, they would hear in their chamber a confused rustling of wings. Perfect happiness implies a mutual understanding with the angels. That dark little chamber has all heaven for its ceiling. When two mouths, rendered sacred by love, approach to create, it is impossible that there should not be, above that ineffable kiss, a quivering throughout the immense mystery of stars.
Victor Hugo – Les Miserables”
May 5, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Here are some other links talking about ishah meaning soft or in one case ‘weak’. One is a John MacArthur article from 1999. I also found it referenced in a book by Arthur Bell, whoever he is, on page 258 you can find it on Google books.
http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/90-228.htm
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=45#P496_93911
http://www.balashon.com/2008/10/ish-and-isha.html
I presume this is where Mary Kassian has got it from? I dunno there are quite a few sites that mention it, one attributes the idea to a Dr Charles Ryrie. Also on bible-truth.org.
I couldn’t possibly comment on the correctness of this, I just like to Google stuff.
May 5, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I think my comment went into moderation due to a shed load of links.
May 5, 2009 at 4:14 pm
The word is “איש” — Iysh — and the prophet Hosea uses it in telling of two types of husbands — the “Baal” type (“Baal” means “lord, master, deity, or owner”) and the “Ishi” type (“Ishi” means man or male, contrasting and complementing woman or female — in other words, “spouse” or “husband”), which is what God desires to be to His bride, Israel:
“Hsa 2:16And it shall be at that day, saith the LORD, [that] thou shalt call me Ishi; and shalt call me no more Baali.
Hsa 2:17 For I will take away the names of Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name.
The same word is used to describe Adam as the husband of Eve:
Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her HUSBAND with her; and he did eat.
May 5, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Annie C, those articles are spot-on.
May 5, 2009 at 6:39 pm
thanks (lol, I think!)for that link, Corrie.
Mr. Hugo has quite an imagination.
I’m so thankful Dan didn’t need the help of hallucenogenic drugs to heighten his experience on our wedding night.
We just made a baby.
May 5, 2009 at 7:18 pm
I took some time off, but the current Hebrew discussion intrigues me. I am always bothered by people who try to manipulate the “original,” because what most are trying to do is add their own “meaning” to it. They hope that most of the people listening aren’t smart enough to go and look it up (the internet does have a few Hebrew lexicons, doesn’t it?), and take the pastor (or writer) at his (or her) word that this is in fact what the Hebrew means.
I love being one of those people who knows how to look these things up and call people on their reinventions, because that’s really what it comes down to.
I think that for some people, going back to the original for study purposes is a really great thing. I’m a scholar, so I like to do this kind of thing. For the average reader who just wants to read the English (whichever version), these manipulative tactics by false teachers are really damaging. I’m not trying to sound haughty, because I think I might. I mean to say that not everyone finds pleasure in studying the Hebrew, but some of us do. I think that there are many ways that we worship God, and Bible studies are just one of those ways.
May 5, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Nicole, my dad did tell my husband he shouldn’t marry me.
Yep.
May 5, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Sarah,
Thanks for the links. They were interesting. Still can’t find where the root of this word means “soft” in the Hebrew lexicons. The writers claim this but give no reference as to what source they are deriving this claim. The Hebrew word for “soft” isn’t a root word for the word used for woman. I will keep on reading those links to see if I can find why they make this claim and based on what.
I still have to wonder what man as the “piercer” and woman as the “piercee” have to do with those Hebrew words. Better yet, how this gives us a picture of Christ and the Church when Jesus, Himself, was the one who was pierced.
May 5, 2009 at 9:44 pm
http://www.jewfaq.org/root.htm
This is interesting.
“A substantial amount of rabbinical interpretation of the Bible is derived from the relation between root words. For example, the rabbis concluded that G-d created women with greater intuition and understanding than men, because man was “formed” (yitzer, Gen. 2:7) while woman was “built” (yiben, Gen. 2:22). The root of “built,” Beit-Nun-Hei, is very similar to the word “binah” (Beit-Yod-Nun-Hei), meaning understanding, insight or intuition.”
May 5, 2009 at 9:49 pm
http://www.ldswomenofgod.com/blog/?p=98
Another interesting look at these two Hebrew words.
May 6, 2009 at 8:03 am
I would like to read a healthy marriage book. Do you have a good suggestion?
I heard a comment recently about bedtimes/waketimes and newlyweds. If one of the couple is a morning person and the other a night owl, where is a compromise reached? How is it reached? Is the woman to “get converted” to the man’s way? (Am I asking the wrong question??? Am I stuck in perfectionism?)
Would patrios say “go with the man’s way”? Would complementaries say “come to an agreement”?
What does Jesus say???
I have read marriage books (that talk in generalities and theories) and the Bible, but for the nitty gritty, I get stuck in the “how.” Does each couple have to “write their own book,” so to speak?
My conscience (Holy Spirit?) says one thing and then dh or another source says another. How do I stay true to God’s word and will for my life?
May 6, 2009 at 8:18 am
Just wanted to note that we are on comment moderation again in case you all wondered what happened to your comments!
We have a couple of spammers who just don’t quite get what we are trying to accomplish here and what the rules are.
I am enjoying the discussion, btw, though have been too busy to write much….
May 6, 2009 at 8:34 am
Rae (Karen aka thatmom here)
You are asking good questions about marriage. If it is any consolation, after 34 plus years we are still working through some things. But that is the beauty of what a marriage should be, continuously growing as Christians, side by side, practicing the one anothers of the faith.
I think one of the problems with looking for a marriage book for the “how’s” is that just as soon as you begin to practice one of them as outlined in the book, you find out that it isn’t the right “how” for you and your husband.
My friend, Deanne, tells the story of how she had thought that being a great wife meant baking homemade bread so she put a lot of energy into it only to discover that her husband didn’t see it as a priority at all and didn’t want her to bake bread!
In earlier years, I would have listed a bunch of books to help but now have come to see that seeking to place my husband first, as he does me, and to practice ALL the one anothers of Scripture in ways that they relate to our own relationship is the key to a healthy marriage. I would encourage you to make a list of the “one anothers” of Scripture and then sit back and evaluate your own marriage and your own husband.
Begin asking yourself questions about that “one another” and how it would apply to how you relate to him. For example, “serve one another.” As yourself what you could do to serve him today. Does he take a lunch to work? Bake something delicious to slip inside his lunch box. Does he need clean running clothes when he gets home from work? Be sure they are ready and waiting for him. What about “show hospitality to one another?” What can you do to welcome him home tonight? “Exhort one another?” As you read your Bible today, select one or two things that the Lord impressed on you as you read and share them with him. “Bear one another’s burdens?” Is there some particular struggle he is having right now? Is he having to work long hours? Does he have a boss that drives him crazy? Take time to listen to him and ask questions to show you are interested in him. Let him know that his struggles and burdens are yours as well.
I think this is the counsel the Lord gives us for relationships with our children, too.
As for the going to bed at the same time thing…is it that important? If you are talking about a sexual relationship, does that include having to go to sleep at the same time? I am not certain this is that important unless it is really important for one of you. Is it a big deal?
May 6, 2009 at 8:35 am
Rae, I’m not a marriage expert but I am a morning person married to a night person. (For 25 happy years, btw) At first I couldn’