*****This thread has been indexed. Please download the PDF file here: visionary-daughters-thread-3 ******

This is thread #3 regarding patriarchy, patriocentricity, visionary daughters, and includes a discussion on the books So Much More and Passionate Housewives Desperate for God.

I would encourage you to go back and read through the past posts on these topics…lots of great discussion and thought-provoking insights.

For thread #1 on this topic, go here.

For thread #2 on this topic, go here.

Advertisements

724 Responses to “visionary daughters thread #3 (Karen)”

  1. thatmom Says:

    The last thread would barely load so here is the new thread…..

  2. Anne Says:

    Wow, Cyn, I’m really disappointed that you were unable to interact with the very real concerns, issues, and theological points brought up in these posts, which has been what the majority of the 1,700 comments have been in regards to.

    If you’ve only come to call the women here gossips and slanderers, it hardly seems in the spirit of Matthew 18, and seems you’re doing the same thing you’re accusing others of.

    I have gotten some amazing insights from this blog and think no less of the women on the other side of this issue. I disagree with their stance, which I think is perfectly acceptable within the body of believers.

  3. molleth Says:

    Whoops. 🙂 Didn’t see that a new thread had been started. I’ll repost over here:
    ————————-

    Cyn,

    I would posit that Stacy’s recent post on submission fits within the veil of what she calls slander/gossip (based on the site about Christian blog gossip that she links to on her sidebar).

    Why would I say that? Because she opened her post by explaining that people who obey God will agree with her views on gender, whereas people who have a hard time submitting to authority will not.

    There is no room in Stacy’s mind for people who submit to God but see things different from her interpretation. She paints with a broad brush: you’re in our camp, or you’re in rebellion.

    I tried to comment (warmly, politely) to this effect to bring up this point (that she was grossly misrepresenting those who differ with her opinion), but, of course, it was not published.

    Dissent is frowned upon in general in patriarchy-land. You’re either in the fold, or you’re anathema. It makes for a very difficult climate to have discussions in. I wish it were different. It would be such a benefit ( to ALL sides) if it were. This huge discussion wouldn’t be needed. Unfortunately, discussion is only allowed with the McDonalds, the Bayly’s, etc, if you first agree to submit to their viewpoints. Which, er, effectively ruins the possibility of discussing, doesn’t it? *sighs*

    We gave years to the cause of patriarchy, many of us commenting here. Please give us a gift of gracious patience as we slowly think our way out of it. It takes time to discover what it was that was wrong, and what it was that was right, and why it is we fell for it, and how to protect ourselves and others from falling for the same traps again. It is so helpful to think “together.”

    I realize that group conversation also comes with the danger of snippy comments, or thoughts that could have been better worded (such as working on attacking the idea, *not* the person). I apologize for my own part in any conversation that denigrated from the true issues. I’m human–I’m aware I can flap my jaw when I ought keep it shut. Forgive me?

    Patriarchal theology may not be a trap you were ever in, so I can understand your frustration and lack of empathy—it’s hard to understand where someone’s coming from until you’ve been in their shoes, and I think that’s true for all of us as human beings.

    Please know that we desire to see God magnified. Some of us were badly burned here, in the name of wanting God and wanting Him magnified. We are processing our own involvement in that, and also processing how we can better protect others from the same pitfalls. Thanks for reminding us to watch our tongues as we do it. It is always good to remember that!

    Warmly,
    Molly

  4. Lynn Says:

    Someone pointed me to the discussion of Passionate Housewives taking place on Amazon. I left a comment. So far, I’ve been encouraged to stop slandering and to stop talking so that my lying lips will cease. They are obviously referring to thatmom with those comments as well.

    I kid you not. All for offering my opinion on Karen’s review. Horrors! I don’t agree with a lot of what Jennie Chancey writes on wives, and I dared to talk about it in that review discussion. For doing so, you get called a slanderer and a liar. You get helpful links so you can better understand what slander is. You are told to repent.

    It will be a very chilling day for freedom to express one’s self if these people ever get political power . . . 🙂

  5. Cally Tyrol Says:

    Good grief! Is it so hard for just ONE hyper-patriarchalist to come here and actually deal with what’s being said instead of flaming the thread by accusing us of gossip and then taking her ball and going home?

  6. corriejo Says:

    I got accused of slander for commenting on the FACT that the book is only 200 pages long and is not of a high quality (not hard cover and the paper is that not of a high grade) and it costs $16 and because of this, people are not going to buy it just so they can review it.

    I think someone needs to read the dictionary before they start accusing. When someone makes a comment about the quality of the book compared to its high price, it is NOT slander. I have read many reviews on Bibles where people would say the same thing. When you spend that much money you want quality!

    And, not to mention the fact that I used to be a purchaser for a large company and buying paper was one of my jobs.

    Lynn, I agree that it will be a chilling day if these people ever get political power. It is okay to slander the working women and the “feminists” and even slander and libel your Christian sisters and call them “white-washed feminists” but woe to you who dare to disagree with what is taught in that book! Chancey and McDonald are free to disagree, slander and libel (I am defining these two words the way that Janet and others define it) but no one else is allowed to state their opinion.

    I think the whole Amazon thing is OUT OF CONTROL!!! I have never seen anything like it before and I read a LOT of Amazon reviews. I remember when Maidens of Virtue started getting some bad reviews and Stacy made a plea on her email list for people to go and put in positive reviews to counteract the negative ones. You can tell when that happened because the sheer number of positive reviews happening in a short time period.

    The woman who has libeled and slandered you, Lynn, has known Stacy for as long as I have. We all met on the Sisters in Christ list way back in the 90’s. Boy, do I wish I still had those archives but, alas, they were destroyed. That is a story in and of itself.

  7. Alisa Says:

    Jennie Chancey – “Do we really need to lose a generation or two before we stop this folly?”

    This is precisely my question for the patriocentrists.

    I’m weary of my heart breaking for the young hearts who are being raised in this belief system who try to hide the heaviness they carry around from the burdens placed on them by “biblical lifestyles” that Jesus NEVER prescribed.

    In fact, I’m righteously angry. Look at the several places in Scripture where God voices His anger at those who cause His children to stumble. Goodness, if He set the precedent, I’m not going to feel that I’m being one bit “ungracious” by sharing His sentiments.

  8. corriejo Says:

    Hi Cyn!

    How are you doing?

    “Corrie,

    In reference to #713, I couldn’t agree with you more. You said:

    “Unless a woman is really very obnoxious and constantly bad-mouthing the women around them who aren’t doing the same thing, I cannot relate to this claim that housewives are constantly denigrated.”

    And so, based on your comment, I have to conclude that you are denigrated despite the fact that your dh’s husband was VERY impressed with you and others think you’re fab. You say that this embarrasses you, but obviously you aren’t too embarrassed to post it on the Internet.”

    You must mean my husband’s boss? He wasn’t so much impressed with me as he was impressed with the fact that I am a stay at home wife and mother! The whole point of my post was that I have not experienced this so-called daily criticism for being a housewife, I have experienced the exact opposite. I am sorry that was not more clear.

    About the comment on being embarrassed- it does embarrass me that people put me on a pedestal for what I do. I am only using these illustrations to show that housewives are not denigrated in this society. That is simply an untrue assertion that many of us have not experienced. In fact, many of us receive an embarrassing amount of comments of praise for our work in our homes.

    I made the point that people are creating a crisis where there is none. Housewives are not denigrated; it is popular to be a housewife now. Just do a web search and search at Amazon for all the secular books written just for women who stay at home. Passionate Housewives is saying nothing new at all. Even secular women are doing these things.

    “You bash your sisters in Christ because they don’t do things the way you do.”

    Untrue.

    “They interpret the Scriptures in a way that you do not, and they seek to live by what they believe is according to God’s Word. ”

    False.

    “But you and your friends here are far superior in knowledge and doctrine, so instead of praying for your sisters and gently loving them, you hit them over the head with their “error.” ”

    The irony is delicious! 😉

    “Do you see a problem here? Contradiction, maybe? Completely inconsistent theology on your part (people should love and accept those who do things differently, unless of course it’s you)? Hypocritical?”

    You are completely off base. No one here is insisting that others do things OUR way. How you can make such a statement is beyond me. My whole reason for standing against these extra-biblical teachings is because I am tired of people trying to take others captive through their traditions of man being taught as the very doctrines of God.

    I could care less whether they personally hold these beliefs. I have MANY, MANY friends, Cyn, who do not send their daughters to college and who do not work outside the home. In fact, I do MANY of these same things. The difference is that they don’t call me a white-washed feminist because they know that their choices are simply choices and not bible doctrine or bible mandates.

    What I take issue with is when people put an official bible stamp on their teachings as if it was the very word of God and anything other is outside the will of God. I just am having a hard time understanding how you could write this way if you have read anything that we have written.

    In fact, Cyn, show me where I have taught anything as a mandate from the Bible and refused to dialogue with those who disagree with my interpretation of scripture or refused to recognize as my full sister in Christ a person who holds a different OPINION?

    This thread has not been a waste of time. You must have missed the hundreds and hundreds of posts filled with in depth studies on the Greek and Hebrew.

    “Apparently the frequent writers/commenters on this blog feel that it’s absolutely fine, no — necessary — for them to take other Christians to the cleaners. You discredit yourselves by distorting the facts, using information out of context, and putting labels on people when the label doesn’t apply.”

    I feel it is necessary to expose those who place burdens on the backs of believers where there is freedom in Christ.

    If you could point out some examples of this distortion and using information out of context, that would be helpful.

    I have heard more distortion from the patriocentric crowd and for you not to see this makes me concerned. Have you ever listened to a Kevin Swanson podcast on this subject?

    “The Scripture says that the world will know we are Christians by our love. You are bringing shame upon the gospel message because of your ugly and arrogant attitudes. I pray that you will, in humility, repent and love the brethren.”

    I agree with the above but I think your aim is off. 🙂 We love the brethren and that is why we stick our necks out and stand against false teaching. These teachings are sowing discords in churches and splitting good churches over ridiculous and petty reasons. The local authority of the pastor is not held in honor. I am tired of seeing the damage left in the patriocentric’s wake.

    “The Lord will hold those accountable who sow discord among the brethren. It is clear from the comments on this blog that there is very little, if any, fear of the Lord among these regular contributors. Consequently, there is no wisdom here. Women who frequent here have traded their bondage in patriarchy for bondage is time wasting and gossip.”

    Cyn, the Bible tells us that confusion and chaos and discord comes through false teaching.

    I will entrust myself to God who judges justly in whether this was a waste of time or not. I suppose Paul’s words against the Judaizers was a waste of time, too. Paul was just a big liar and a gossip. Paul was in bondage.

  9. corriejo Says:

    I hardly think this needs to be said again but maybe it does. No one here is saying that all girls must go to college. No one here is saying that girls are not to serve their parents in the home. No one here is saying that all women should go out and work. No one here is saying that working women are better than non-working women. No one here is saying that girls who go to college are more intelligent than girls who don’t.

    Most of us here are homeschooling moms of many who do NOT work outside of the home. Most of us here would highly promote the stay-at-home mom believing that is best for the children.

    We are taking issue with the dogmatic, cookie-cutter roles that is being promoted as biblical mandates. I know they say they are not dogmatic or cookie-cutter but that claim has been proved time and time to be patently false. Anyone who disagrees with what is taught is labeled even though we do the very things they do! The irony of this whole thing gets very deep at times.

    It is interesting that people have the freedom to challenge and disagree in this forum but not so on the other forums where what they teach is equated to God’s law and anyone who disagrees with their teachings is rebellious and not desirous of obeying God’s will.

    It is okay to call girls who go to college “harlots” but it is not okay to question teachings. It is okay to call sisters in Christ who homeschool and stay at home “white washed feminists” but when we disagree with the assertion that homemakers are denigrated daily and that this is a widespread problem we are accused of distorting facts? Again, the irony.

    Not one of us have made a dogmatic assertion that a woman must do thus and such in order to be accepted as a genuine bible-believing Christian. I cannot say the same thing concerning the other side of this debate.

    Many of us have tried to get these differences resolved in private but we are either ignored or our questions go unanswered.

    None of us make a profit nor is our livelihood beholden to our beliefs. This means we are free to be challenged without fearing losing money. We have nothing to gain or lose by what we are saying, here. Not so with a huge portion of the other side of this debate where their income is so tied to the promotion of patriocentric beliefs that to admit that their dogmatic teachings are not bible mandates would cause major loss of income. They are not free to learn and grow and change their mind because, to do so, would mean major financial adjustments. That is why words are carefully chosen and one gets the feeling that they are trying to nail Jell-O to the wall after trying get a grip on just what they believe.

    The Bible and the WHOLE counsel of God’s word should have supremacy in our lives and I just don’t see that in this movement.

  10. corriejo Says:

    “Spunky, I noticed that change on Stacy’s blog when I checked out that blog post tonight in responding to Cyn. It seems so underhanded to make changes like that without noting what was changed and why it was changed. How hard is it to say “Hey, I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have written that.” Or “I’d like to clarify something publicly- I don’t believe that daughters are helpmeets to their fathers…” Instead, we all know about the changes but newcomers to the table assume we’re libeling people and telling lies.”

    Carol,

    Can you do me a favor and check out that thread again and look at the last comment in that thread? Is that yet another change from when you wrote the above?

    http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/08/egalitarian-error-and-various-other.html

    It looks like she is saying exactly what you said she should say.

  11. Maureen E Says:

    I just wanted to pop in and say thank you to all of you ladies for keeping such a gracious and loving spirit while discussing these very difficult topics. Molleth, I was especially impressed by your kind words for Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald when you have come from such a difficult place within the patriocentric camp. God bless you all as you continue to try to discover His will in your lives!

  12. Cally Tyrol Says:

    Corriejo, I stand corrected. I didn’t read her retraction carefully enough. My apologies.

  13. corriejo Says:

    Carol,

    No problem. I just didn’t know if there was a 3rd revision of that comment section or just a second revision. 🙂

    Well, my peanut butter cookies are done and I must go to bed. My stepdad loves peanut butter cookies and I wanted to get them done for when my parents come down for Thanksgiving tomorrow.

    I had been baking all day long and I laid down for what I thought just a moment after dinner while I nursed my youngest but that turned into a few hours. Hence, the late hour and the second wind.

  14. Spunky Says:

    Cyn,

    You asked, “Did I say this blog is a silly waste of time? Please show me where I used the word “silly?” I did use the term “time wasting,” but be aware that you putting words into my mouth is a perfect example of the way you women distort and sow discord. Thank you!

    Cyn,

    My apologies for having offended you. I had no intention of putting words in your mouth.

    My comment with the word “silly” was a summary of your general thoughts that this is “time wasting” and “gossip”. Time wasting is by defintition silly, among other things. But I will remove the adjective if it helps you understand the point I was trying to make, which was; If this is such a waste of time, then why participate? None of us spend “hours” here. We drop by and add comments if we feel we have something to contribute just as you did.

    You also said, “You’re saying S. Mc referenced Mr. Stackhouse and I missed that. I thought you were implying that these folks you mentioned criticized on the level that I’m reading on this blog. But you’re only referring to one incident. Got it.

    I’m glad your blog served at least one purpose (correcting Mrs. McDonald and the Botkin girls), but do you think over 1,700 posts on one subject was really necessary to make one change?”

    Yes, I do think it was necessary. I approached the Botkin girls about their book privately, without success. I am banned from posting on the McDonald’s sites as well. So this blog serves a useful purpose, allowing those that disagree with the teachings of hyperpatriarchy to let others know about the errors it contains.

    There wouldn’t be half as many comments here, if the authors would open their blogs up to honest discussion and crticism. But they don’t. So this blog serves the purpose of providing commentary on the things these teachers write. Accountability is not a bad thing. Just as you callled me to account for using the word “silly” we are holding the other writers accountable as well.

    This discussion is not about THEM although they are frequently the source of information used here. This discussion is about “hyperpatriarchy.” The impact of hyperpatriarchy is huge in many families and churches. Just as you felt the need to hold the commenters here accountable for what they say, we do as well.

  15. Spunky Says:

    In his explanation about why Patriarch’s Path is no longer available, James McDonald wrote,

    Also, many of the articles we wrote were rushed – sometimes nothing more than an email post turned “article of the day!” Many times we discussed our need to schedule time to get back to our old articles to edit and delete where necessary. But months turned into years and we never found the time.

    Also, our theological views and teachings, as well as those of some of the authors hosted on our site, matured and changed over the years. How many people believe exactly the way they did on every point of Scripture ten years later? Sanctification is a process and God still shows me errors in my thinking.

    In addition to that, new divisions arose within the church. Debates raged over terms and definitions. We found ourselves in a conundrum as we studied these issues. While we agreed with the earlier writings of some of the authors, their newer works concerned us. While we certainly considered them Brothers in Christ, we could no longer endorse them wholeheartedly.”

    I am glad to know that James McDonald has matured and discovered errors in previously held ideas and beliefs. This is indeed true of all of us. But most of us don’t write books and magazine articles when we are still in the young more immature period of our life. They did and so did the Botkins as well as many other young fathers and mothers involved in this teaching on hyper-patriarchy.

    Removing a website is a good thing to do, but removing its impact is not so easy. There are many readers who read the ideas presented who today, have no idea which ones the McDonald’s now realized were errors and no longer believe. What authors today don’t they endorse as “wholeheartedly” as they did years ago?

    James McDonald doesn’t say in this article. But the “conundrum” is compounded for him because he made his teachings public as a teacher in the body of Christ. His words impacted fathers, families, and children. Yet, now he says he doesn’t believe some of the things he did earlier in his life. That’s great for him, but what about the fathers who are still seeking to implement the old ideas? Certainly, he has a responsiblity to share the errors and which teachers he believes have strayed since it was he who may have originally led those folks to those same authors. The articles are gone from the website, but the errors remain in the mind of many.

    James McDonald said many of the articles were “rushed” and that he never found the time to edit or delete them. That’ unfortunate but understandable.

    However, even if James McDonald never attempts to correct the errors previously published, we as believers are still free to discuss what we believe and are taught, thus potentially identifying false teachings that we ourselves may believe or that others may still be teaching.

    In doing so, the impact of “rushed” articles will hopefully be diminished in the lives of believers.

  16. thatmom Says:

    Amazon has dropped the price of Passionate Housewives to $10.88.


  17. CorrieJo (comment #9) is right on for me, anyway. This is the exact reason why I stay here and continue to discuss with you fine group of women. I have the exact same concerns that CorrieJo listed (so eloquently I might add!).

    I’ll give you my #1 reason of concern for the whole patrio lifestyle being sold as a biblical mandate:

    I DO NOT WANT THE VISION FORUM/PATRIOCENTRIC/HYPERP LIFESTYLE BEING ***THE**** MODEL FOR ALL HOMESCHOOLERS. I DO NOT WANT THEM BEING THE SPOKESPEOPLE FOR THE HOMESCHOOL MOVEMENT.

    And, they quickly are becoming that if we’re not careful. I just want to protect my homeschooling freedoms. I don’t want the vocal minority changing everything for the silent normal middle. So I’m no silent anymore.


  18. And to be certain, yes I did mean to say “normal middle.” When I re-read my comment I thought someone like Cyn would distort my words, so I felt the need to clarify.

    Just like politics, or economic class, the media and the world would have us all believe there are two great extremes. Homeschooling is no different. You’re either a staunchly conservative, religious right-winged homeschooler or you’re a left wing “secular” homeschooler. People like VF would have us believe there is no middle ground (thus the reason for the entire white-washed feminism argument).

    The fact is, there are FAR MORE folks in the “normal middle” than anyone would like us to believe. In fact, there are far more of us than the fringes, I’d suspect. I have no facts to back it up, just my dealings with people as a whole. If more of the “normal middle” homeschoolers would step up and begin to question the actions of the right wing (in this case that’s what we’re discussing with VF/hyperP) we’d be effective.

    But too often the normal middle is silent. Why? Because we’re normal and busy and don’t often see the cause for alarm until our freedoms start to erode away.

    Give the hyperP crowd enough time to say things like girls shouldn’t go to college, women shouldn’t vote, etc and eventually 20/20 or some major news outlet will pick it up. That will give the non-homeschoolers in America enough fodder to think that what they’re seeing on tv is in fact, the NORMAL MIDDLE of homeschoolers, and while not true, they’ll push for more regulations, which may or may not happen.

    That is why I’m concerned. Truthfully I don’t care if the Botkin sisters and their ilk care to stay home with Daddy forever. It is their choice. Just don’t bill it as MY CHOICE and put it in homeschool catalogues all over the country and call it the normal middle.

  19. thatmom Says:

    Regarding employing the Matthew 18 process for critiquing public teachers:

    The following is a statement from well-respected Biblical counselor and pastor Jay Adams from his book Grist from Adams’s Mill, where he addresses the illegitimate use of Matthew 18 in an attempt to censure public criticism:

    “Any Christian who sets himself up as a teacher in the church of Christ and publicly teaches anything thereby opens himself up for criticism by others (cf. James 3:1). If they think what he is teaching is harmful to the church, they have an obligation to point it out just as widely as it was taught. Such public warning or debate on the topic should not be considered a personal attack at all. The teacher’s plea that a critic should first have come to him about his disagreement on the basis of Matthew 18:15 does not hold. This passage has to do with personal wrongs known only between the two, who should privately discuss the matter that separates them. What a critic of a public teaching does in pointing out his disagreement with that teaching has nothing to do with personal affronts or lack of reconciliation; he is simply disagreeing at the same public level as that on which the teaching was given in the first place” (pg. 69).

    And here is another example of the same from Scripture:

    “The Apostle Paul wrote that the elders of the Church “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” (Titus 1:9). When the books, tapes and media broadcasts of “Christian” superstars begin to confuse believers and eclipse their understanding of the truth of the gospel, measures must be taken and the erroneous theology addressed. When false teaching is introduced into the Christian body, Galatians 2, not Matthew 18, should be the standard for the Church:
    “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. … The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, ‘You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’” (Galatians 2:11, 13-14).

    Peter suffered a cutting rebuke by Paul “in front of them all.” His false teaching and subsequent actions were public and influenced other believers. And, as such, his doctrine and practice were examined and exposed, not in the private confines dictated by Matthew 18, but in a public forum. Teachings that are harmful to the body of Christ, leading believers to not act in accordance “with the truth of the gospel,” are not intended to be resolved under the “personal offenses” banner of Matthew 18. “(from Personal Freedom Outreach, St. Louis MO.)

    I find the passage in Galatians 2 to be appropriate to this discussion on three levels:

    First, Paul had no qualms whatsoever about confronting Peter publicly about the false teachings he was teaching. Paul saw not only what had happened to Barnabas but he also saw what could happen if these teachings continued to spread. This is the main purpose of the TW discussion on this topic.

    Secondly, Paul was addressing the subject of legalism, of Peter placing unbiblical requirements on the backs of Christ-followers. Isn’t this what teh patriocentric crowd does. Isn’t this the central concern of the Passionate Housewives and So Much More books?

    Thirdly, Paul is pointing out Peter’s hypocrisy and in front of a crowd, in public.

    This notion that we must trot out a Matthew 18 process in order to address challenges made to what I believe is false teachings is ludicrous. Screaming for Matthew 18 is meant to shut down honest debate and discussion, to silence those who differ, to manipulate sincere Christians into feeling bad for the “victim” who is in the spotlight, and to, if followed through, entangle truth seekers in a church court debacle.

    What are the chances that this will put the misuse of Matthew 18 to rest?

  20. corriejo Says:

    Spunky,

    Excellent thoughts on the responsibility of those who presume to be teachers. James 1:1 says that those who presume to be teachers will be judged more strictly.

    James McDonald needs to abide by that rule and accept it as the truth. He has not only put himself up in the position of being a teacher but he has ordained himself and started a new presbytery since he didn’t want to submit to the old one. In fact, I know nothing about his credentials (ie., was he or was he not originally a southern baptist pastor and why did he leave his position in that organization?), his educational background or where he was officially ordained. I don’t know how he was ordained in the RCPGA after being a self-proclaimed homechurch pastor.

    I do know that the RPCGA took away his trial ordination (they deposed him) when he left that presbytery over a MINOR issue concerning RC Sproul Jr. The RPCGA is so very close to his beliefs that it makes one wonder why he would leave. If there is truly accountability in the body of Christ it will start with those who put themselves in places of leadership.

    This spirit of independence is not in accordance with Scripture.

    I am seeing this new trend where men in leadership roles act like rebellious wives who decide they will only submit to their husband if they agree with them and if they are ever put in a position where they have to submit they will just leave and find a new husband they can submit to. The preach submission but they do not practice it.

    http://hushmoney.org/Deposition-Is-Censure-040406.pdf

    The link above will take you to the RPCGA document on James McDonald.

  21. corriejo Says:

    Karen,

    They lowered the price?? You mean that this all might not be a waste of time? 🙂 It seems for such a waste of time a lot of errors are being corrected and prices are dropping!

  22. corriejo Says:

    Lindsey,

    I am right with you on the normal middle and not wanting VF and the rest of the hyperPs to represent me in the homeschooling arena.

    I have actually witnessed those who follow their teachings and how, for lack of a better description, “in your face” they are with those in churches and other Christian groups about their beliefs concerning public schooling, women and Sunday School. I have sat there and watched public schoolers denigrated right to their face all the while the hyperP is making broad, sweeping statements as to the motives of ALL parents as to why they send their kids to public school.

    That is what I was trying to say in my posts on the other thread about being obnoxious. Cyn obviously didn’t get that. She called me obnoxious. I am not. I may be obnoxious in the defense of what the Bible actually says but I do not go around picking fights with public schoolers and working women in my local church or local Christian group. I cannot say the same for the hyperP crowd who makes an “in your face” issue about the most nit-pickiest things. They don’t allow for liberty. It must be their way or the highway or they will go and start their own church.

    This is the only reason I can come up with for why someone might encounter daily denigration about being a housewife. If they are making broad sweeping statements about the motivation of working women and college-going girls and ascribing evil motives to these women, I can see why they might have some problems.

    I just do not encounter this. In fact, I experience the opposite.

    I believe that the hyperPs are some of the most rebellious and unsubmissive people in Christianity and they are the ones who constantly teach about how women should submit to men. Most of them end up an authority unto themselves because they won’t submit to anyone. Either they start their own church in their home and become a self-proclaimed pastor or they go from church to church causing problems over minor items of Christian liberty. If they are lucky, they have a VF family integrated church in their area that they can go to.

    The Body of Christ has become so splintered and so full of factions that it is sickening for me to think about and we are being blamed for causing those factions and divisions? LOL! No, we are just shining a big, old spotlight on the problem. But, in abusive systems the one who calls attention to a problem is often blamed for the problem. This is how abusers behave in the face of being confronted with their abuse.

    John the Baptist lost his head because he dared to point out the facts. How many other men and women in the Bible underwent persecution and even death for by those IN the church because they dared to point out abuses and problems or false teachings?

  23. corriejo Says:

    Karen,

    Thank you for quoting that statement by Jay Adams. I had thought of James 3:1 before I even read your post! Those are some powerful quotes about this subject.

    The fact is many of us have actually gone through the extra effort to talk to them privately and work this out in private. We have gone the extra mile.

    Galatians 2 is an excellent chapter that says so much about this issue.

  24. A Says:

    corriejo, surely you know that the “other side” has attempted to meet with Karen and others, and the request has been denied. The truth and the full story is NOT being told here, ladies. Very important details are omitted in this story.

  25. Cally Tyrol Says:

    A, care to share then?

  26. Spunky Says:

    I agree Cally,

    A. if the full story is not being told, then go ahead and share the missing links. And please be willing to use your name as Karen Campbell does. Karen is very willing to be held accountable for her words, but anonymous comments make it hard to know if the source is credible.

    Most of the fequent commenters here use their name so that they can be held accountable for what they write. So if you are going to share information previously unknown, please do the same and use a name so that we know that the source is credible and the writer is willing to personally stand behind the things they write.

    (BTW. For those that think I’m hiding behind a moniker, Spunky is my nickname on and offline. My real name is Karen Braun and my contact information available through the link to my website.)

  27. shilohmm Says:

    corriejo said:
    “Unless a woman is really very obnoxious and constantly bad-mouthing the women around them who aren’t doing the same thing, I cannot relate to this claim that housewives are constantly denigrated.”

    I don’t know that I agree with that. I think it has a fair bit to do with where you’re at and who is around. I’ve made it very clear to my parents that from my perspective our differences are stylistic, not an issue of right or wrong, but they gave me considerable grief about my choice to stay home and to homeschool, and my mom still gives me a lot of grief about them when she’s feeling stressed. While I know it’s just a defensive thing it does get wearing.

    I got more grief in Colorado than I do here, too, I think just because my choice was so profoundly different from the choices of my various long-time friends. A lot of adults tend to hang around with those who make many of the same choices – and some of them are threatened by people who make different choices. Sometimes it doesn’t take many people like that in your life before it feels like daily harrassment.

    Really, the same thing is happening here – people are saying there’s nothing wrong with the choices Stacy McDonald and the Botkin sisters made for them, but are arguing for the right to make different choices, and apparently some people find this message so threatening they can’t see the “choice” part of it.

    While I’ll agree that being obnoxious about your choices raises the level of harrassment where ever you are, sometimes all it takes is making that different choice and you get some harrassment. The environment plays a factor, I think.

  28. kyla Says:

    Lindsey: “I DO NOT WANT THE VISION FORUM/PATRIOCENTRIC/HYPERP LIFESTYLE BEING ***THE**** MODEL FOR ALL HOMESCHOOLERS. I DO NOT WANT THEM BEING THE SPOKESPEOPLE FOR THE HOMESCHOOL MOVEMENT”

    I totally agree. My parents were some of the first homeschoolers in Texas. They fought for the right to keep us home. The people in our first homeschool support group were from different religious, social and racial backgrounds.

    Imagine my parent’s horror when we moved to another area during their 8th year of homeschooling and my mother wasn’t allowed to speak at a support group. She had a decade of experience that she couldn’t even share. She watched as rules and regulations were imposed on an idea that was born out of freedom. My parents homeschooled b/c it was right for THEIR family and they followed God’s leading. However, they felt the judgment and persecution from their peers because they didn’t adopt the thoughts and ideas of Bill Gothard and the likes.

    My mother is now in last and 26th year of teaching her children. I am now thinking about my own kids and how we will educate them and all I can find on the web are homeschoolers that have another name for the same set of rules that suffocated my family 14 years ago. (Untill I met you all!) I told my mother that if I was a young mother unfamiliar with the “middle ground” homeschoolers I would run the other way. How sad!!

    So all of this to say. It is encouraging for me to see ladies like you who are stepping up and speaking out. It is important for the average American homeschooling family to have a voice. Because without your families, all that the world sees is VF, the Botkins, and the Passionate Housewives.

  29. thatmom Says:

    A says” corriejo, surely you know that the “other side” has attempted to meet with Karen and others, and the request has been denied. The truth and the full story is NOT being told here, ladies. Very important details are omitted in this story.”

    A, I, too, would welcome your story. Please give us your name, an accurate e-mail address, and share what you believe to be true!

  30. Spunky Says:

    Lindsey (#18),

    You said, “But too often the normal middle is silent. Why? Because we’re normal and busy and don’t often see the cause for alarm until our freedoms start to erode away.

    Give the hyperP crowd enough time to say things like girls shouldn’t go to college, women shouldn’t vote, etc and eventually 20/20 or some major news outlet will pick it up. That will give the non-homeschoolers in America enough fodder to think that what they’re seeing on tv is in fact, the NORMAL MIDDLE of homeschoolers, and while not true, they’ll push for more regulations, which may or may not happen.”

    You are so right Lindsey, how homeschooling is defined and perceived, and on whose terms does affect our freedom and our rights as parents.

    Your scenario is actually not that that far- fetched. Michigan (where I live) recently had a news story of a teacher pushing for increased regulation based on a flawed perception of homeschooling. Thankfully, at this point it’s not going anywhere in the legislature.

    Other states have not been as fortunate. In 1999 Arkansas, then Governor Huckabee actually signed legislation making it harder to homeschool by imposing a 14-day waiting period on homeschoolers before a child can be removed from the public school. (This was signed just a short two years after the laws were changed making it easier.) This was done at the request of a homeschool father, who felt the increased regulation was necessary!

    I don’t know what the exact issue surrounding the concerns of the homeschool father in Arkansas were, but it is clear that the best efforts of HSLDA failed and Governor Huckabee didn’t even veto it, but signed it into law.

    The result was a loss of parental rights and freedoms in Arkansas that remain in place today.

    If we are not diligent, these stories will become more common not less.


  31. Corrie wrote: Not one of us have made a dogmatic assertion that a woman must do thus and such in order to be accepted as a genuine bible-believing Christian. I cannot say the same thing concerning the other side of this debate.

    That’s why I put that quote by Jennie Chancey from the new book yesterday. She’s never heard or heard of a housewife look down her nose at someone who works outside the home?

    I was talking about the name calling that’s so prevalent in this movement, and I realized that although I call it “passive-aggressive,” it’s really just obnoxious and catty. Those in patriarchy don’t want to discuss anything or find a place of commonality to rejoice in with their brethren. They don’t treat their own flesh in the Body of Christ with the love that we’re to be known for as Christians. Paul parted agreeably with those with whom he did not share an identical perspective. But that is what patriarchy wants.

    They don’t talk or reason together with their flesh. They call them Canaanites and feminists and WWFs and “harlots”, etc.

    I’ve met some people, some Christian, who look down their noses at homemakers, but most just say “that’s not for me.” Having worked in a profession “dominated by women” as a nurse, most of them would love to be able to stay home most of the time. They don’t have distain for the ROLE, they have distain for the DICTATES of those who say that there is no alternative but to stay home. They have distain for the mindset that would bind women to their homes as an absolute rule. (And consider, if you came from a lousy family, this might be your only salvation.)

    My was saved when I was young, and my Dad got saved the year I graduated high school. I was blessed to have the benefits of a Christian education and the mature role models there that I did not have at home. That was a ministry to family, too. Most of those families were not ideal, but that school did nothing but minister to families. And this type of ministry is also maligned by patriarchy. But patriarchy will only concern itself with the clean, fresh slate of the controlled environment of ideal family — per their own narrow definition of what that means.

    Again, no one here is bemoaning the Amish or the Mennonites. They don’t aggressively recruit, nor do they throw stones at their neighbors. They don’t camp out on the doors of other Christian churches to shout monikers at them as they enter and exit. (That’s the 20th century equivalent of this aggressive speech online, and off that comes from the patriarchy camp.) Mennonnites (who do use technology for those who are unfamiliar) wear head coverings, but I grew up with Mennonites who sat in the pew beside me during revival meetings and special events when they visited my church. They never tell those who wear head coverings that they are in sin if they don’t. (But I’ve been on missions trips where I did wear a head covering because those congregations there did. I loved them and respected their beliefs. In fact, I learned to bake bread using a Mennonite cookbook that a Mennonite woman that I met at a continuing education conference after her encouragement to me to take on the new adventure. (My mom can’t bake bread to save her life. How non-normative of her! She can’t knit either, but she’s still a mighty saint in Christ.)

    This is a far cry from David Chilton’s total lack of respect for his brethren in a recently resurfaced conversation with his son where he lets his small child take communion while visiting a non-paedocommunion church! If you haven’t read it, he basically goes on to paint those who don’t share his perspective as fools that don’t think and people that don’t love Jesus quite right, where every man and woman beleives themselves an elder. I hear that it’s planned for inclusion in a camp that promotes the FIC model.)

    I could go on for days about this, but I think that I communicated my point. I read this at the top of the thread and skipped down to comment. I would add James McDonald’s pink links post as another example of how this movement only wants perfect specimens and perfect examples. They don’t want to talk about anything other than perfect, and the rest of us are left to bear the consequences of our sins under the law, I guess. They’ve turned providence and total depravity and irresistable grace into some kind of twisted karma. Yeah, TWISTED KARMA. Because God’s providence would certainly be easy to spot, because in their world, it’s the outward appearances that count. That, and total agreement with whatever they happen to be pontificating.


  32. Alisa in comment #7

    Amen! Shout it from the rooftops!

  33. corriejo Says:

    “corriejo, surely you know that the “other side” has attempted to meet with Karen and others, and the request has been denied. The truth and the full story is NOT being told here, ladies. Very important details are omitted in this story.”

    A,

    I’ll bite……

    Please fill us in on the very important details. There are no secrets on THIS side.

    Why meet with Karen? What is the purpose?

    Who are the “others” that you are referring to? If I am one of the “Others”, I have already stated that I was invited over for dinner after I attended the Treasure’s retreat. I also stated why I didn’t go. That doesn’t mean that things couldn’t have been worked out via email. I also found out days after a phone call was placed to my husband’s private office line that there was an attempt made to contact me via phone.

    As soon as you fill in the details, I will gladly fill in the details I know.

    I would also like to know who you are and where you heard your information from? This sounds suspiciously like the “other side’s” definition of gossip.

    Just so you know, I am not interested in playing games. Maybe that is just the Yankee in me but I would rather just get to the point. I am not interested in the concept of peace at any cost or shutting up those who disagree with me using gifts and sweet talk. Most of us just desire an honest and forthright discussion about these issues which has not happened yet.

    I also painstakingly outlined the exchange I had where one thing is said in one area and the exact opposite is said in another. I have yet to hear an answer to these questions.

    If I am to believe that Stacy and Jennie and others are not dogmatic and “cookie cutter” concerning their roles for women and then I am given the example of the token working wife and college-going daughters as the trump card that they are not dogmatic, then I would expect some major revisions in some of the things taught and some of the things they have supported (ie., The Botkin book).

    Is it wrong for women to work outside of the home?

    Is it wrong for a daughter to go to college?

    If it is wrong then it is sin.

    If it is, then Bible verses.

    If it is not, retraction of former teachings and an apology to all that were called WWFs who believe that it is a Christian’s liberty to do these things.

    You cannot have it both ways: Allowing certain people in your inner circle to break your manmade rules but all others are labeled and judged as inferior for doing the same.

    Finally, there is a very good proverb that keeps on ringing in my ears every time I hear of the invitation to dinner.

    I will post something I just found on a blog that does a very good job at explaining this Proverb. Read it carefully for therein you will find a good reason why some may declining the dinner invitation.

    “Table Manners
    For Thursday, July 5, 2007
    Proverbs 23:1-3

    When you sit down to eat with a ruler,
    observe carefully what is before you,
    and put a knife to your throat
    if you are given to appetite.
    Do not desire his delicacies
    for they are deceptive food.

    These verses open a section that goes through verse 8, presenting the scenario of a person being brought into the circle of the higher class. It seems the teacher disapproves of enjoying good fortune. What he is really addressing is how moving up to a “higher” class or entering into an “inner ring” can blind us to realities that accompany this seemingly better life.

    Why be so careful at the dinner table of a person of higher rank? For one thing, you are being watched and judged. However, friendly the “ruler” might seem, however much he may seem to want you to feel at home, he is watching and judging your behavior. You are not sitting among old friends who accept you as you are. You are sitting among persons who are still determining if you are worthy of being with them. You have to strike a careful balance – showing due appreciation without getting too excited, appreciating good food without over indulging.

    Another thing to be careful of is what will be expected of you afterwards. Once you accept the hospitality of the “ruler,” you are now in his debt. He may be expecting favors from you later. All the more, you need to watch that you do not over indulge in his “generosity.”

    How good it is to sit at our Ruler’s table of the most precious food – the bread and the wine that represent the body and the blood of Jesus Christ. How good it is to know that there are no strings attached. At this table is where our Ruler communicates that we are fully accepted.”

    http://aproverbaday.blogspot.com/2007_07_01_archive.html


  34. kyla wrote: Imagine my parent’s horror when we moved to another area during their 8th year of homeschooling and my mother wasn’t allowed to speak at a support group. She had a decade of experience that she couldn’t even share. She watched as rules and regulations were imposed on an idea that was born out of freedom.

    This is an excellent example of why I am concerned. I’ve been in similar churches and have had people email me about the resurgence of wearing head coverings. (And they aren’t Mennonnites!) And I don’t care if that’s one’s individual choice, but in conjunction with all of the other hard-line, no grace stance on other hot topics, the overall picture is legalistic. Christians are not called to be legalists.

    And is it Alisa who made the initial comment above about one day seeing all this stuff on TV? Do we want this on 20/20? I assert that if they showed the whole video of “Return of the Daughters” on TV tonight, I believe that some individuals on that film would suddenly find themselves under investigation. Why? Because of some really poorly worded language that sounds nearly identical, out of the patriarchal context, like the language used by one of the most horribly deplorable groups of people in secular society. They are so far removed from the society that needs evangelism that they no longer realize how far off they’ve gone off the edge. It has nothing to do with the main message of the movie or the premise, so I am not speaking against their very general intent. It’s just really poorly chosen language. And it’s so bad, that I wont produce what I’ve transcribed from the film.

    But Geoff Botkin says that when viewing the families that they portray in that film, The Return of the Daughters, people will get offended. And I think that they want people to be offended. They are thriving off the controversy. I mentioned it yesterday, I think, where Doug posts on his blog, saying that Passionate Housewives forces the antithesis between Biblical womanhood and the feminist culture or some such thing. They see in black and white and attribute any suggestion of grey (Rom 14 stuff as sin). Well let them. But don’t go parading it as the only acceptable example of Evangelical Christianity. It’s not. Half of it is preference.

    I understand their zeal as they have made these matters and argued these matters as those of Biblical Authority. If we are going to be agrressive about anything, as Christians, we’d better get zealous about Biblical Authority. What I don’t understand is all the passive-aggressive nastiness.

    I’ve made many serious charges, equating the behaviors found in these legalistic churches with the dynamics of manipulation that are practiced by cults. I also state, however, that the behavior does not overrride confession of faith in Christ (so long as He is the real one). I use serious language, drawing from serious literature on the topic (once confronted with it myself in very much the same manner), but I do not claim that any one “type” of Christian is better or higher than another. They mix up their ontogolgy with teleology with epistemology with roles with faith with works.

    These people who profess patriarchy clearly want to know and serve God. They (most) profess faith in Christ (and the right one, although I do personally question those who argue the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of Christ as this is a matter of Deity). They have just become distracted by seperate elements of the faith, getting too focused on one element at the expense of others. I believe that most if not all of those in patriarchy do not realize that they are slaves to a system of man and the traditions of men that they reinforce and now preach. Even Jesus said that these make the Word of God ineffective.

    But I do not say that these who disagree will be condemned to hellfire and will not see heaven. In fact, I’m counting on them sitting right up against me at the marriage supper of the Lamb! By God’s grace and only His grace, all of us will be there together. I do not call them Canaanites (impure people who were to be killed by God’s chosen). And I do not assert that I am a cut above anyone. In fact, I’ve got a long way to go and a great deal to learn — actually from this camp. But I don’t use langauge that draws their eternal fate into question and I don’t call them names. (I do name their behavior, and I’ve got about a five foot stack of documentation from both Christian, spiritual abuse and cult-exit literature to cite to defend my claim. I neither make it lightly nor as a pejorative.)

    But it seems that by presuppositon, we point to the same Scriptures along side the patriarchs who cite the same ones, coming to different conclusions. I don’t think that Dabney and Adam Smith have much relavence, and they feel the same way about VanVonderan and Zimbardo, to pick a few. This is a presuppostional issue that the patriarchy camp wants to mask and hide. So aren’t we called to part way and love one another, attending to our own pursuits? Well when the Vision Forum Camp stops its takeover of Evangelical Christianity at large, I stop, too. (But my door is open for anyone who wants information…)

  35. corriejo Says:

    “I don’t know that I agree with that. I think it has a fair bit to do with where you’re at and who is around. I’ve made it very clear to my parents that from my perspective our differences are stylistic, not an issue of right or wrong, but they gave me considerable grief about my choice to stay home and to homeschool, and my mom still gives me a lot of grief about them when she’s feeling stressed. While I know it’s just a defensive thing it does get wearing.”

    Shilohmm,

    You made some very good points and I agree with what you have stated. I, too, have dealt with family’s disapproval and I also stopped being defensive concerning my own choices and that allowed me to not take things personally. There are a lot of various issues behind the reactions we get, aren’t there?

    After the years of seeing the fruit that has been produced in my children through homeschooling, my family has come to embrace it. For the last several babies I didn’t even tell anyone I was pregnant. I just showed up with the new baby. 🙂 I knew that once the baby was born, no one would say anything negative! But, again, my family was just concerned about me and my health and that is where their “negativity” was coming from. What I saw as negative was actually love and concern on their part.

    I guess it was hard for me to understand this daily assault against motherhood and being a keeper at home. Many times I would assume that people would be hostile to what I do, as in my husband’s boss, but I have been pleasantly surprised.

    How much does our attitude towards others, the assumptions we make and the grace and understanding we extend affect the reaction we receive? Does anything have to do with how we look at others who are different than us expecting that they disapprove of us so that anything they say seems like an attack on our beliefs?

    I happen to think that if we were really doing our jobs as salt and light in this world we would be truly hated for righteousness’ sake. I am not talking about getting on our particular soap box but about actually sharing the good news about Christ and His life and death and resurrection.

    Thank you for helping me to look at this a bit differently. I value your input.

  36. corriejo Says:

    Cindy,

    “I assert that if they showed the whole video of “Return of the Daughters” on TV tonight, I believe that some individuals on that film would suddenly find themselves under investigation. Why? Because of some really poorly worded language that sounds nearly identical, out of the patriarchal context, like the language used by one of the most horribly deplorable groups of people in secular society. They are so far removed from the society that needs evangelism that they no longer realize how far off they’ve gone off the edge.”

    Excellent point. I know what you are referring to and I instantly thought of a very disgusting and perverse group that uses the same sort of lingo. I am sure they do not mean it in that way but your point about them being so far removed from the culture is a very valid one.


  37. Following on Corrie’s note about refusing invitations.

    Manipulative people use circumstances, language, social pressure, double binds and cogniitve dissonance to gain the upper hand. As an extreme example, if you were Jimmy Carter in the ’70s, would you have gone to dinner with a native Iranian? Would you have traveled to Iran, to meet in his territory? Would you go without the secret service?

    This absurd example demonstrates some of the more subtle things that we don’t consider. If I know someone’s reputation and am uncomfortable with it, I tend to be guarded. I should be guarded. Well, certain people have reputations. You can crash archives all day long, but I know well several people who have read them years ago. That’s why the ministry of information does not work as well as some would have it work.

    Another factor is a Yankee one, and this has been criticized since the 17th century. We uncivilized, unchristian Yankees just don’t know how to act. Having lived over nine years in the Deep South, a year and a half in OK and five years in MD, I can tell you that the rules are different. The Deep South is really different. And not all areas in the Deep South are equal either. Many of those social rules of politeness pass for Christian, and many of them couldn’t be further from Christian. Not all things pretentious equate to to things polite. Some Yankee girls don’t take well to some varieties of social pretense. In the Deep South, it is expected to smile while your brother is sticking in the knife and twisting it, kissing him with false words while he’s doing it. Yankees tend to declare their stance up front, avoiding the pretense. They don’t tend to pucker unless they want to kiss, and we don’t kiss people unless we know and love them. So I can say that some Yankee girls don’t follow all that passes for Christian descency when circumstances and reputations speak otherwise. Talk is cheap in some regions.

    Reputations (not gossip), false pretense, lack of transperancy and verbal aggression from the writings of one’s camp are very valid reasons to turn down an invitation.

    I think that many who are improperly maligned and called “egalitarian and feminist” (why is that not slander?) would be more than willing to opening up dialogue, but like Carter would have done, it must be done in a forum that is balanced with an arbiter that is unbiased. That’s hard to do when the patriarchy camp believes that everyone has been tainted with the poison of Marxism but them.


  38. I posted my intial comment about “The Return of the Daughters” on my blog if anyone is interested. I would really like to post the section that I transcribed, but I just cant do it.

    http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/11/disturbing-return-of-daughters_20.html


  39. Lindsey Cox. No need to hide my identity here.

    To give “A” an sense of how real this is for me, I’ve got one homeschool family in particular who will no longer speak to me because they heard “via the grapevine” that I spoke out against Doug Phillips. Before this, we were regularly invited over for playdates, lunch, etc. Our kids were excellent friends.

    And then I spoke out and now I’m blacklisted.

    My blog is spammed DAILY (almost hourly) with snide comments by those I believe are out to get some of us in this discussion. Why? I don’t know. Maybe because I get a decent # of hits daily, and they think it will get to me enough to shut me down (however, on my main blog I hardly ever discuss hyperP….but have on occasion).

    I have no idea. The funny thing is folks like yourself, won’t use a real name or real contact info. That says something to me.

    I’m open to an HONEST discussion. Heck, I’d even sit down to tea with Stacy McDonald, Jennie Chancey and any of them and have a civil discussion. I’d love to. I think we’d learn alot from one another, really.

  40. molleth Says:

    “I’m open to an HONEST discussion. Heck, I’d even sit down to tea with Stacy McDonald, Jennie Chancey and any of them and have a civil discussion. I’d love to. I think we’d learn alot from one another, really.”

    Me too.

  41. Spunky Says:

    Cindy said,

    “I assert that if they showed the whole video of “Return of the Daughters” on TV tonight, I believe that some individuals on that film would suddenly find themselves under investigation. Why? Because of some really poorly worded language that sounds nearly identical, out of the patriarchal context, like the language used by one of the most horribly deplorable groups of people in secular society. They are so far removed from the society that needs evangelism that they no longer realize how far off they’ve gone off the edge.”

    This is a common problem that I see in a lot of the literature written today. People so entrenched in their own world that they forget how they sound to those outside their own community. Thus, words and actions that are innocent to the writer, are perceived very differently by the reader outside their circle.

    One example, is Debi Pearl’s book where she used the term “heavenly marriage” with an unsaved spouse and in the “trash” story with Micheal Pearl. Both were poorly worded and failed to get the intended meaning across because most couldn’t get passed the langauge used to understand her actual point.

    One of the best ways to resolve such conflicts is by using a good content editor who will reword the passages to avoid unintended messages, confusion and the necessary clarity to get the point across. A content editor will say to the writer, “this is how this will be perceived” and provide a better way to communicate the same message.

    But sadly, many who write their books and materials publish them without taking this added step. They rely only on those within their circle to proof the text and such errors are not caught because they both use the words in the same way. It’s hard and humbling to submit your work to a content editor, but the result is a sharper message that avoids the confusing terminology and mixed messages.

    Submitting to a good content editor also requires the writer to have a teachable spirit, which welcomes critical review. If I were ever to write a book, I would send it off to those that disagree most vehemently with my point-of-view for their thoughts. If I can accurately handle their objections and concerns, then I know I’ve got a solid product to present, but if I can’t then I rework the text until I can.

    That’s why I prefer blogging to writing a book, the review takes place instantly and clarification is both easy and immediate.

    That’s why John Stackhouse impressed me so much. I disagree with his position, but his demeanor was teachable in sharp contrast to many in the patriarchy movement.


  42. I should say that I posted my intial “Keeper comment” on my blog. I tossed the first post that I wrote, because of the reasons that I mention above. What you can link to is the second thing that I wrote. I decided that in the best interest of all Christians, just putting only the quote online is inappropriate to say the least.

    Again, I know that what is actually spoken is not what a worldy counterpart sounds like and intends, but its valuable to note because it demonstrates how these guys (and gals) don’t see the forest for the trees anymore. As Zimbardo would say, the bad apples (or poor choice of words) are partly a result from the barrel and the system that maintains the barrel. The system of patriarchy is sovereign above all.


  43. Spunky,

    I agree with you about editing and feedback. Putting things out there on a blog is an educational and humbling experience.

    As I read what you wrote here (#42), I immediately thought of a great deal of the rhetoric used in the Federal Vision literature. It’s way out there. And look what happened there… Another schism — or so they say we are. (A vine destined to be cut off from the true one and burned.)

    As some one with lots of expereince “being way out there” as I am a unique mix of temperment and type, I NEED the Body of Christ and that kind of feedback. I need it desperately for my own good. What I don’t need is this CONDEMNATION that is passed off as feedback. There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus!


  44. I wrote above: is not what a worldy counterpart sounds like and intends,

    See, what I just wrote was wrong. It sounds like language from a secular group. The language is like a counterpart and sounds like a counterpart, but patriarchy and this other group are definitely not counterparts.

    Maybe some of that statement reflects some of my deep concerns about what this patriarchy might become later down the road. We’ve had nearly 10 years of Vision Forum and Doug Phillips’ driving influence now. What will another ten years bring? What will be the next soap box item on the list? What is the next moral imperative and where will it come from? We need to preach Christ and Him Crucified, not family roles. That’s what Paul told us to preach. If we stuck to that, we wouldn’t be in this quandry.

  45. Abe Says:

    Have you folks seen this?

    http://patriospeak.wordpress.com/

    Stumbled across it today and couldn’t help but think that it was in direct response to this conversation.

  46. Lynn Says:

    [tongueincheek]Oh, I just went there, and am SOOOO jealous that Spunky and Corrie are in the “rushing to mischief” cagegory and CJ and some others are under the heading “wolves in sheeps’ clothing.”

    I tried to comment to ask that *I* be put on the “wolves in sheeps’ clothing” list, but you have to log into WordPress to comment there.

    Drat! I would love to be a “wolf in sheeps’ clothing” on that list! I’m so jealous of all of you who made it I’m turning green.[/tongueincheek] 🙂

  47. Anne Says:

    I see that “True Womanhood” along with “Cynthia Gee” and “thatmom” are labeled as wolves is sheeps clothing. Nice, real nice. And who is slandering who?!

  48. Katie B. Says:

    Wow, I just checked out the patriospeak blog and can’t stop laughing!

    Since when did asking sincere and honest questions make you a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

    I am personally more scared of the real wolves, cloaked in extra-Biblical mandates and wearing condescending smirks.


  49. Oh, that was a good laugh. I’ve *always* been accused of rushing to mischief! It is part of my personality. 🙂 I don’t take it as a backhanded comment. The only thing I would have liked more was to be put under a category titled: Life of the party!

    Seriously, big eye roll here people! Did we say something earlier about how we here at truewomanhood strive to maintain credibility in the debate by remaining civil, not calling names, and using our real credentials? There’s something to be said for that.

  50. Zan Says:

    Thanks for the good chuckle, ladies.

    When will the little boys grow up? *sigh* Really, why doesn’t he just confront you on this blog with his questions instead of mocking you on his own? The patriarchs are big chickens and I am losing more and more respect for them. I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt which is why I purchased “Passionate Housewives.” I wanted to read it for myself.

    Happy Thanksgiving.

  51. corriejo Says:

    I am sure Deborah the Judge could relate to that bit of silliness.

    If that blog site isn’t an example of slander and gossip, then what is it? I am so confused by the patriocentrist teachings. They seem to be very inconsistent.

    Do you think it is a man or a woman who wrote that site? My bets are on a woman and the writing is eerily familiar. There were a couple of phrases that stood out to me and I know that I heard them used before. It will only be a matter of time before I figure it out.

    These are the people we are to look up to and who will lead us into a righteous and peaceful life?

    Lynn,

    Don’t worry. They are probably creating a special category just for you. 🙂

    But, Mommy Life as a wolf in sheep’s clothing? Hmmmm? Who did she tick off for all the world to see? Let’s think……..it is coming to me…..oh, yes! Jennie Chancey. Very interesting and very telling.

    Well, it looks like we struck a nerve. After all, people have books to sell and money to make and this must be very annoying to them.

  52. corriejo Says:

    Look at the first category entitled onlookers. That is our first clue as to who or what we are dealing with.

    INTERESTED ONLOOKERS
    Matt’s Independent Investigation
    Ministrywatchmen.wordpress
    Pooh’s Think
    The Still Fed Up boys


  53. But, Mommy Life as a wolf in sheep’s clothing?

    Well, Barbara Curtis does sell books, too. So maybe it’s an economic thing? Downplay the competition.

    I’m honored to be placed in such a distinguished category!


  54. They don’t say who or what they are interested in exactly…


  55. Hey,

    I took a longer look at that blog…

    They need to list Jon Quinn (www.divineprinciple.com) under patriocentrists

    And John Robbins with the Wolves

  56. Spunky Says:

    Ladies, that blog is all in good fun.

    Clearly, the brave, noble, and anonymous “Wizard of Patrio” would like to move the discussion away from here and make us all “tremble” at what he might say about us. Obviously, that’s not going to happen. The discussion isn’t about what the anonymous self-appointed “Wizard of Patrio” believes at all, but what the legitimate and known teachers of patriarchy believe. His thoughts are as irrelevant as the blog.

    Further, trying to figure out who it is, is like Dorothy trying to get to Oz to meet the great and powerful wizard. She finally arrives in the magical city of Oz only to discover it’s a short, little, cowardly man with a big microphone.

    Any man who won’t identify and take ownership of his own words, has no place taking ownership of anything else including the word, patriocentric.

  57. Anonymous Says:

    Just to clarify a few things. I am still struggling to find time to read this one blog. If I become a Passionate Housewife and have a few more kids will I have time to read not only this blog, but create my own, write some books (or rewrite other’s writings), call women and chat on the phone for hours, sign up for retreats, promote myself all over the internet and still have time to cook dinner and bring home some bacon? What am I doing wrong?

    Okay, the reason we don’t have to worry about the patriarchal types being in politics is because their party ….The Constitutional Party messed up bigtime (they had some good ideas, but my problems with them go further). Howard Phillips (Doug’s dad, who also, ran for president at one time. Wasn’t he the Y2K nominee? ) had started a libertarian party and was running for office. Doug dredged up a lot of support for dad and homeschoolers jumped on the bandwagon……..hook-line-and-sinker (particularly the group we are discussing). They didn’t think about it….didn’t even seem to pray about it. That party wasted millions while showing utter disrespect for President Bush and his family. Their writings were simply about promising to end abortion the first day in office (TV ads with slaughtered babies all over the place, and I don’t believe

    they could accomplish ending abortion the first day in office) and slamming the President. I am angry over all the money they wasted that could have saved babies, or promoted the gospel (but some of them are so steeped in Calvinism they don’t believe in evangelism. And if they believe so deeply in these five points and God’s Sovereignty they should quit reading this blog and just leave it alone and know that it was going to happen anyway……….it’s all preordained ya’ know! No free willers among many of them).

    Instead of starting at the bottom and running for Mayor or a school board…….no the patriarchal crowd has to start at the top and try for a hostile take-over (knowing they couldn’t win). RC Sproul, Jr had some writings at this time on his blog that made no sense (even when shown his error the writing remained uploaded). If we refuse to listen to good counsel we aren’t teachable. Sadly, he has paid a high price for not listening…….he was defrocked. Do you see a trend here? Isn’t one of his people running the McDonald’s magazine?

    Howard Phillips gets himself elected to office and what does he do? After all his parties writings about President Bush not being pro-life Mr. Philips goes and votes for a candidate who is not pro-life. When he is called to task he writes up an explanation.

    [http://www.covenantnews.com/deParrie060502.htm

    Excerpt from above URL: I recall meeting Howard Phillips—at least the old Howard Phillips—when I first became involved in the Oregon Constitution Party. One thing he said that I remember well was, “If some day I, or the Constitution Party, should ever abandon the core principles of the Party, don’t wait. Leave and start a new party.”

    I haven’t forgotten that, Howard.]

    Again I share this so we can see the trend. It’s simply so discouraging and a sign of the movement as a whole. If homeschoolers are supposed to be teaching their children to think…… then what about mom and dad? They run off to places like Rivendell to avoid pretend catastrophes like Y2K (a few of the leaders of this movement who said they heard from God should be happy God isn’t killing false prophets anymore). They run out to the boonies in a sincere effort to protect their families and usually end up working for the pastor who is living better than any of them. Some buy homes on land owned by these men (the ones who can’t serve, but only want to lead). When things go sour they have to leave their homes behind because they are unsaleable because the head honcho owns the land (a little item that isn’t shared when they move in and build on the land). One big writer currently has five or seven homes sitting there empty for years. People like his materials but wouldn’t live there because they don’t want to pay to be terrorized! You can’t get into his church unless someone knows you, and yet we are supposed to believe all his writings are truthful and that life is a beach and all his kids are great Christians. We’ll never know will we? We will be kept at arm’s length if you try to find out the truth.

    We have to use a discerning eye and have a heart that cries out to God with a true love of the truth to see beyond most of the smoke screens we are seeing.

    I could call myself a passionate housewife. I could come online and debate pridefully why it’s best to stay home, but if I do it without love I am but a banging cymbal. Don’t these so-called, self-appointed leaders see that all we hear is something simliar to the old Gong Show when they speak? They want to be right and speak with such self-righteousness it’s often hard to see the righteousness of Christ.

    They write books and tell us it’s a ministry? They chase down dissenters and call them names…..why? Or they get some weak-willed followers to do the negative writings. I believe they fear their income will diminish. They smooze up to other writers or those with big websites that will serve them well?

    I will stop now because I fear I, too, will have to repent. I want to say I share these items in the hopes that they will repent (and I am not talking about the ideologies, but the personal attacks and what seems like a hypocritical lifestyle).

  58. Rose Says:

    Dear Anonymous (#57),

    Wow. You bring a lot of information to the table. I’m not sure if you’re speaking from personal experience on many of these issues, which could explain the strong emotional tones of your post. So I want to say this gently, and please don’t take it as intending to shut you up or deny the veracity of your claims: I suggest that much of what you write belongs elsewhere, probably on a separate website in which you can devote the time and space needed to flesh out your concerns. (For instance, see how Cindy in comment #38 linked to her personal blog post to further develop a topic, without taking this discussion too deeply down a rabbit trail.)

    There are a lot of topics you cover in this post, and many of them would require much more substantiation than there is space here to devote to them. Also, many of these issues are only tangentially connected to the issue under discussion, though they do/may provide an insight into the thinking and working of many of these leaders active in the patriarchal movement.

    You make a lot of claims in your post. Some of them sound very shocking and alarming. I’m not denying the veracity of any of them, but without evidence supporting what you claim (for instance, on this homesteading/land situation, which I have never heard of before – again, that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t happening!), it would be all too easy for someone who disagrees with you to level the charge of gossip, libel, and slander (which words seem to be getting used all too interchangeably around here). We have seen this happen a number of times with several particularly unkind hit-and-run comments.

    Again, I’m not trying to criticize you for sharing your thoughts. That’s okay. We’re all processing information here and (hopefully) learning from each other. I just need to point out that this kind of emotional post can backfire because it can give the critics of this discussion potential grounds for stating that this blog is just a forum for gossip and rumors. We’ve seen how ludicrous the baseless claims and hyperbolic accusations can sound when they come from the other side’s anonymous comments (and now, entire blogs). We need to do our homework in order to be taken seriously.

  59. Neilly Says:

    Rose says:
    We need to do our homework in order to be taken seriously.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Hi! Rose all the hints are there for you, so you can do the homework. No need to give a diatribe, when the information is right online (and their own words, so I surmise it’s true! ) Look into Rivendell. For those of us who have been online since the Y2K stuff and the last election blogs it’s old information. I gave you one web site to start your searching. The defrocking incident is online. In the time it took to write your letter you could have found loads of on-line information.

    Go to: http://www.blogsearch.google.com and put in anything I shared. Try something like, “Sproul + defrocked”. For anyone who was in the movement and read their teachings this will all ring true. There are posters here who know I am telling the truth.

    If you go online and can’t find the information just ask for URL’s.

  60. Rose Says:

    Dear Neilly (comment #59),

    I’m sorry if my comment came off sounding like a diatribe. That certainly wasn’t my intention, so do accept my apologies for not expressing myself more clearly and kindly.

    You are probably correct in that I could have found a lot of information online regarding the topics you brought up in the time it took to compose my comment. However, just finding out for myself the truth of some of these things was not my sole purpose for commenting. I was reiterating – for myself, for you, for all the readers here – the need for accuracy and documentation in our writings. I have learned a lot from this discussion, and I don’t want to see the integrity of this thread compromised by charges of sloppy journalism, if you will. (I’m not saying that your comment was sloppy, per se, just that that is a charge that *might* be leveled against it because of its lack of specific documentation.)

    Respectfully, I don’t think that I, as your average uninformed reader, should need to follow up on the hints and do the homework that is entailed by unsubstantiated statements in a comment. Links to specific websites have been provided by other writers in other comments, and I have followed them up diligently and learned much about the McDonalds, the Bayly Brothers, and others, directly from their blogs.

    Yes, URLs would be helpful. So, consider me asking for specific links right here and now. =) You reference websites and topics that you seem to believe should be obvious. As it happens, I have not been following this particular saga since Y2K, so I don’t come to this discussion with all this background information. Many of the posters here seem to know much more about this, as you do, but many of those reading this blog may be as uninformed as I was/am. Please don’t make assumptions about what should be common knowledge.

    I am not trying to be difficult here, just approach this with an open mind and ask myself the question, ‘How would this look like to me if I just stumbled across this discussion?’
    In short, I want this conversation to have a persuadable quality for those who might be willing to reconsider their views.

  61. Shauna Says:

    Rose, I have found all of your comments thoughtful and respectful and appreciate how clearly and articulately you have expressed your thoughts.

  62. Anonymous Says:

    Links to specific websites have been provided by other writers in other comments, and I have followed them up diligently and learned much about the McDonalds, the Bayly Brothers, and others, directly from their blogs.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I gave you a link on the Constitution Party, the stuff on Sproul is easy to find, I gave no name on the houses on others property, so what topic do you want a URL for? There is so much online about the Constitution Party (which was the main gist of my letter) you could spend days reading. If you have been in the patriarchal circles you know about Y2K and Rivendell (just run a search), so I am clueless what links you want or are alluring to. Otherwise I just gave basic commentary about having little time and why this type of thinker doesn’t make a good political candidate.

    I don’t even know what you want a URL on? For a nameless accusation that others know to be true? If I had thrown out a big name with a wild accusation I could understand your concern, but at this point it sorta sounded a bit like sour grapes. Sorry, e-mail is difficult at times like this.

    I go back to my original caution from a month ago. Sometimes we respond too quickly without really going over the original thread, and that is what will cause the problems you suggested.

    Blessings!

  63. Kate Says:

    “but I am really glad my husband earns his living in the “world” and unsaved in a secular occupation,”

    Correction: I meant to say I was glad my husband works among the unsaved and in the world. My husband is definately born-again by the blood of Jesus 🙂

  64. Kate Says:

    I’ve come late to this thread, but wanted to lend my support to something Corrie said here (comment #9):

    “None of us make a profit nor is our livelihood beholden to our beliefs. This means we are free to be challenged without fearing losing money. We have nothing to gain or lose by what we are saying, here. Not so with a huge portion of the other side of this debate where their income is so tied to the promotion of patriocentric beliefs that to admit that their dogmatic teachings are not bible mandates would cause major loss of income. They are not free to learn and grow and change their mind because, to do so, would mean major financial adjustments.”

    Here, Corrie makes a good point to remember when dealing with anyone with a book, or seminar or any kind of idea to sell. This is one area I’ve become saddened about christianity and in particular, the homeschool area. I’ve noticed over the last 20 years, the homeschooling arena specifically has become so full of marketing, mostly books, but even seminars. It makes my head spin trying to figure out which way is the “right” way to do things. A dear friend/sister in the Lord told me just the other day that she came away from one of these homeschool seminars in tears, because she as a homeschooling mother could not “measure up”. She was not encouraged but DIS-couraged in her attempts at homeschooling and parenting according to the “experts” advice, all costing her probably around $40-$50. This woman is not into patriarchy but she still struggles with God the Father’s love for her.

    What kind of burdens are these patriarchy teachers putting on the Body of Christ? Maybe being “busy at home” can refer to them and their teaching, and them not presuming to teach everyone at all times their ways. I’m not trying to brag or gloat or boast, but I am really glad my husband earns his living in the “world” and unsaved in a secular occupation, (if there is such a notion). I think God has a blessing in it somehow, and someday I may be pursuing a livelihood out there with him, possibly.

  65. Kate Says:

    Regarding comment #51 and that patriospeak site:

    “Do you think it is a man or a woman who wrote that site? My bets are on a woman and the writing is eerily familiar. There were a couple of phrases that stood out to me and I know that I heard them used before. It will only be a matter of time before I figure it out.”

    I’m just thinking that they want the debate over there, and am cautious enough to believe she/he is baiting an argument. It’s very cowardly and dis-honest debate, and may be unruly “playfield”. I think that this truewomanhood blog has been, according to all the comments here I’ve seen, a safe place to have this discussion/debate. I’ve seen this kind of “shock-jock argument-baiting” happen before from other blogs. Don’t take the bait, my friends!

  66. corriejo Says:

    “She was not encouraged but DIS-couraged in her attempts at homeschooling and parenting according to the “experts” advice, all costing her probably around $40-$50. This woman is not into patriarchy but she still struggles with God the Father’s love for her.”

    Kate,

    I have felt the same way over the years and I have spoken to many other homeschool moms who have felt the same discouragement.

    I started homeschooling in 1993 and I think that was just before the homeschool movement started becoming commercial for lack of a better word.

    When I speak to moms who have been homeschooling longer than I, they tell me how things were truly a ministry and that people ministered to each other.

    I know that there is a lot of criticism towards mega-churches and their “vision-casting” for growing churches but sometimes the methods all seem the same.

    I will tell you that I have been greatly encouraged as a wife and mom by the Clarksons and their Whole-Hearted Child book. Her books on mothering are fantastic. To me, they are one of the few true ministries left to the homeschoolers.

    I have also been encouraged and challenged attending the Hearts At Home conference the last several years. It is so good to be with women from all different backgrounds, some homeschool, some do not, some work, some do not but we all have one thing in common- we want to be loving wives and good moms and we want, most of all, to live for the Lord in all we do.

    The last homeschooling convention I went to in Peoria was very good, too. There was a different emphasis and it was refreshing. I think we may be seeing a turning in the homeschooling movement as more and more people become fed up with all the agenda-driven businesses.

    Does anyone remember the whole Y2K debacle? I remember the homeschooling conventions were taken over by extremist views that the world was basically going to end. It was a dark time, imho. When I think about it, there was one driving force behind the Y2K hype and it was the patriarchal/reconstructionist/dominionist movement.

    I remember people teaching that we had to become proficient with weapons because neighbors would be hungry and they might come to our gardens in order to steal food for their families. I couldn’t believe that Christians were advocating killing another human being who was hungry?

  67. corriejo Says:

    “They run off to places like Rivendell to avoid pretend catastrophes like Y2K (a few of the leaders of this movement who said they heard from God should be happy God isn’t killing false prophets anymore). They run out to the boonies in a sincere effort to protect their families and usually end up working for the pastor who is living better than any of them. Some buy homes on land owned by these men (the ones who can’t serve, but only want to lead). ”

    Hi Rose,

    I mentioned Y2K totally not knowing that this conversation was taking place. 🙂

    The years just before 2000 in the homeschooling movement were filled with gloom and doom prophecies of destruction, despair and darkness.

    The leader in much of this was Phil Lancaster from Patriarch Magazine. He started a Christian commune up in Virginia called “Rivendell”. This was going to save people from the coming apocalypse. Gary North was another one who actually stated that he hoped that this would happen.

    The Y2K thing was big business for these people. From encouraging people to liquidate their assets and buy gold to buying generators and emergency food supplies. I knew dozens of people who had basements full of food, had hooked up their whole house to propane and a generator and had bought weapons. The preparation for this event dominated homeschooling conferences.

    As I think about all of that I am so surprised that we still haven’t really learned our lesson. I stood up back then to this nonsense and I was hated and despised by the blind followers who refused to engage their mind and ask the hard questions and actually search scripture for themselves. Who was anyone to go up against these “leaders”? Who was I to question them and what they were saying?

    This is no different. I am causing mischief? LOL! And I suppose I was causing mischief back in 1998 and 1999 when I questioned the leaders of the patriarchy movement and their teachings, too?

    No. I believe that the mischief makers are those who are taking the word of God and using it for personal gain, enslaving God’s people with teachings that are truly the traditions of man and not the precepts of God.

    I will go so far as to say that those who led their fellow believers astray during the Y2K era, need to stand up and warn their fellow brothers and sisters to sincerely look into the questions that are being raised. They have a duty to make sure that others do not repeat their same mistakes. They were deceived then and they could very well be deceived now.

    It really is just the same old tiring thing. People forget and just move on to the next thing that distracts them from our true purpose as believers.

  68. thatmom Says:

    Oh, Corrie, Y2K…..don’t get me started!

    I believe that all those folks who were making those preparations were so sincere in wanting to care for their families. But how many of them were so deceived by Gary North and the rest of those charlatans! Some people took tremendous personal loss and for what?

    My husband works in the electrical power industry and at the time was visiting many places that provide electrical service. He saw, first hand, all the upgrades factories and power plants were making. His prediction then was that, while there might be a few glitches, for the most part, industry was prepared. On January 1, he was proved correct.

    We knew many people who prepared for Y2K to the extreme and we were also shocked at the attitude some had that it would be perfectly ok to shoot and kill anyone who tried to take you food. Even in the worst of times, I think I might fair better with my own unsaved neighbors than with some of these people.

    Until you mentioned it, I had forgotten how it was those same patriocentric leaders across the country who were teaching these things.

    I also think you are correct that there were people who were HOPING it would all happen the way North predicted it would. Then they could step in and rule the country, bringing their brand of “leadership,” the kind we see in their homes, to the governmental level.

    As someone said in a previous thread, we have seen what this sort of government would look like by looking at their family and church governments and it IS a scary thought. I would not want to be at the mercy of patriocentric justice. The deception alone is no different than what we saw with Bill and Hilary.

  69. thatmom Says:

    Oh, I do have a funny Y2K story, though.

    The pastor we had at the time was not really into Y2K but he did make some preparations. My older sons were at his house one day and he showed them all the boxes and tubs of things he had stored, which included a big stash of Rogaine! I guess no one should meet the new millennium without hair!

  70. thatmom Says:

    Have a blessed Thanksgiving, everyone!

  71. Anne Says:

    I remember Y2K and I could never understand the panic people had. To me, it was another way for the wealthy to feed off the fears of others and make money.

  72. Kate Says:

    Our family didn’t even know the patriocentrists’ teachings during the Y2K fear-mongering, but we still got hoodwinked. After our daughter passed away we sold our house and tried to find property to build a “homestead” on. Instead, we watched as January 1st, 2000 came and went without even a cork “pop”, let alone an explosion of catastrophe. We were stuck in a 38 ft. travel trailer, 5 of us, with no home and feeling very foolish for about 18 months.

    You’re right about just wanting to protect our young children, but I was so full of fear during that time, and it took years after we moved into our current home before I could let go of that fear. It’s terribly cultish, and we didn’t even sit under direct teaching of Y2K/survivalism but just what we heard on the radio “preacher” programs, which were heavily influenced by Gary North. This just brings it to my point that those who would teach/preach their words as BIBLICAL mandates for christian living better be extra cautious to not cause their brethren to sin by preaching out of the motivation of selfish gain or fear-mongering. Perfect love casts out fear.

    I share my experience about Y2K because of the fear factor and the christian leaders doing the same thing in the homeschooling debate have this one thing in common. They take a good thing, like preparing for hard times, or homeschooling our children because we love them and want to nourish them and turn them into fear issues. How many people heard the quote, “If a man does not provide for his family, he’s worse than an infidel and has denied the faith” (regarding Y2K), or all the fear issues surrounding patriarchy, homeschooling (lose a generation?), submissive wives (remember Debi Pearl?) No wonder the world thinks Christians are a bunch of nervous nellies.

    When Voddie Baucham preaches in his sermons we will “lose a generation” because of the secular schools, I believe he’s not taking into account the verse where Jesus said He’ll not lose one of His sheep. God is/was Sovereign and strong enough to pull me (a willful rebellious sinner) all 12 years through public schools (when I never knew Him at all) to where I’m in love with my Lord now, and am striving to teach my children the love of God through my example and instruction in homeschooling. It’s about the love of God shed abroad in our hearts that should motivate us; not because of fear of not measuring up or swift destruction.

  73. Light Says:

    Corrie said: >>>”I have also been encouraged and challenged attending the Hearts At Home conference the last several years.”<<>>”The last homeschooling convention I went to in Peoria was very good, too. There was a different emphasis and it was refreshing.”<<<

    There are many people who feel like this – I am not a HS-ing mom, but I do read their blogs from time to time. Many are fed up with the dominionist-Vision Forum types taking over their conferences, and alternate conferences are starting to spring up and be very well attended.

  74. Light Says:

    Hmm, my comment got weird. I also wanted to say this – when I read the disparaging comment from Passionate Housewives about “professional mothers” it sounded to me as if they were taking potshots at Hearts at Home. It’s in the same part of the country, is it not? And isn’t that their slogan (at least, it used to be)? Professionalizing motherhood? Sounds to me like Jennie and Stacey are worried about competition.

  75. Corrie Says:

    “When Voddie Baucham preaches in his sermons we will “lose a generation” because of the secular schools, I believe he’s not taking into account the verse where Jesus said He’ll not lose one of His sheep.”

    Kate,

    Amen!

    We need to engage the culture around us and stop reacting to it. The culture is no worse than Paul’s time. I wonder why he didn’t preach on all of these soap-box issues? He just preached the gospel which in turned changed hearts which in turn changed lives.

    I am really enjoying a Christian apologist named Danesh D’Souza. He has written a couple of books about that really help us become proactive instead of reactive. He also has several debates on Youtube against a couple of atheists.

  76. shilohmm Says:

    corriejo said:

    How much does our attitude towards others, the assumptions we make and the grace and understanding we extend affect the reaction we receive? Does anything have to do with how we look at others who are different than us expecting that they disapprove of us so that anything they say seems like an attack on our beliefs?

    I don’t know that I could guess “how much,” but as I said I do agree that our attitudes influence the attitudes of those we’re talking to. My point wasn’t that combattive or defensive people have no impact on others; I just wanted to point out that sometimes people are defensive even if they’re dealing with someone who isn’t attacking. Being polite can minimize the grief you get but it doesn’t necessarily eliminate it; if there’s someone in your life who is very defensive about your life choices, the most gracious person can get “daily grief” for a while.

    After the years of seeing the fruit that has been produced in my children through homeschooling, my family has come to embrace it.

    I won’t go so far as to say my family has embraced homeschooling, but things have settled considerable over the years. I don’t know if they think I’m doing a good job or if they’ve just given up. :p And my most rabidly anti-homeschooling friend has settled muchly, too, but unfortunately that’s because her claim that schools will work with parents if the kids need special attention was hopelessly undermined by the teacher her son was assigned one year. I’m sorry her son had to deal with that teacher but I have to confess it was a relief for me that he did.

    Kate said:
    When Voddie Baucham preaches in his sermons we will “lose a generation” because of the secular schools, I believe he’s not taking into account the verse where Jesus said He’ll not lose one of His sheep. God is/was Sovereign

    Yes! So true. When my hubby went Y2k whacko my mother finally exclaimed in exasperation, “I don’t understand this at all – where is faith in all this?” Which summed up my frustration, pretty much – I strongly felt that my husband saw this as an opportunity for self-glory, which made me crazy.

    Hubby may fail sometimes or do things I consider wrongheaded where I’m not looking forward to the subsequent fallout, but he is normally a humble and godly man; it was that underlying “God isn’t enough” thing that made the whole situation so miserable for me. His lack of faith was far more upsetting than anything he was actually doing, frustrating as those various acts may have been.

  77. Anne Says:

    Happy Thanksgiving everyone!

    This year I am thankful for many things, and honored that someone put my homeschooling blog in the same category with some incredibly thoughtful and intelligent Christian women.

    I do wonder what mischief I’m running to, but will assume that the author doesn’t think that I’m in sin. Surely, if he/she thought I was sinning they would have immediately approached me privately to address my sin as a sister-in-Christ via Matthew 18. Certainly they would not seek to impugn my character, gossip about me, or libel my good name by calling me a mischief maker. I will assume the best from a brother or sister until they confirm otherwise.

    Again, Happy Thanksgiving to all. 🙂


  78. HAPPY THANKSGIVING Y’ALL!!!! 🙂

    Comment above: ” Many are fed up with the dominionist-Vision Forum types taking over their conferences, and alternate conferences are starting to spring up and be very well attended.”

    YES. This would be me. I’ve been a member of NCHE even before we started homeschooling. I *like* NCHE. It is a God-centered homeschool support with LOTS of power within the state. But here of late, they’ve gone whacked a bit, in my humble and personal opinion. It started when? When Doug Phillips was keynote about 3 years ago! The dominionist thinking is creeping into the NCHE very deeply, and I fear that many of the leaders are of that mindset.

    Just this week I rec’d my Greenhouse Report, which is NCHE’s quarterly newsletter. There was a FULL PAGE AD for the FIC conference in NC this upcoming weekend and it was and is of course, sponsored entirely by Vision Forum.

    I have absolutely no evidence, but VF and NCHE are quite cozied up. I’m thinking of calling and voicing my opinion on the matter, asking some hard questions, and I probalby will not renew my membership this upcoming year. I just feel like they’re bedfellows 😦 and our conference is suffering. People in the “normal middle” like myself are being pushed out.

    I have friends who are Catholic homeschoolers in NC and for a very long time they’ve been wary of the NCHE conference because they’ve never been made to feel welcome. I think a speaker once did the “Catholics are not Christians” thing in a workshop, and ever since then, well, would you feel welcome?

    Sadly, there isn’t much else. We have some Charlotte Mason & Unschoolish conferences in NC but they’re much smaller scale. NCHE is one of the BIGGEST and FINEST conferences in the entire nation, but it is quickly becoming a parade for the hyperP lifestyle, their books & their products. Voddie is a frequent speaker at NCHE. I actually really like Voddie. He’s a talented speaker and much of what he says is very good stuff, IMHO. But there again, he takes personal convictions and makes them mandates for all Christians.

    I could keep going, but well, I gotta go and eat more TURKEY!!! 🙂


  79. Is It Right: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names? article @

    http://www.exitsupportnetwork.com/artcls/judge.htm

  80. shilohmm Says:

    Happy Thanksgiving!

    Some website I ran across claims that turkey for Thanksgiving is a 20th century innovation – traditionally it was pork ribs. Maybe they mean when it was assigned to November it was pork ribs.

    I am thankful for this blog – it is mostly civil and yet goes deep into the Word regularly in conversations with many who don’t agree on the issue in question.

  81. Anne Says:

    I was hoping that the Patriospeak blog would mean that the other side (even if anonymously) was willing to dialog. But my latest comment there is awaiting moderation, and now I’m not so sure if there is to be dialog or if it’s just going to be censored to show one side of things. I’m still hoping for the best!

  82. Sara Says:

    I don’t take that site seriously. Sounds like someone having a lark. The language is just a little too consciously “patriospeak” to believe.

    Besides which, it’s a lot to hope that someone would start a site specifically to refute the claims made here, when the patrio circle hasn’t exactly made a habit of addressing concerns directly.

    — SJ

  83. shilohmm Says:

    Is It Right: To Judge, To Expose Error, & To Call Names? article

    I thought this a good article, but in the first section I come to much the same conclusion from a different perspective. The author argues that v. 1 in referring only to hypocritical judgment, but I think it goes further than that. Jesus says, “Judge not, that you not be judged. For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you.” (Matthew 7:1&2)

    I’ve always understood that to mean that we must judge by God’s standards, not our own, because if we set up our own standards we’ll be exposed as hypocrites because people don’t live up to their own standards any better than they do to God’s. In other words, if you use your own standard judging someone else, you will always be exposed as a hypocrite; since using God’s standard means you recognize no one achieves it on their own and we’re all fallen sinners, any judgment based on that should be from the perspect of “there but for the grace of God go I.”

    I suspect we are told to avoid those who insist on wrong theology not because we are better than they are but, at least in part, to protect us from sliding into the same false theology. Peer pressure has more influence than we realize, sometimes.

  84. molleth Says:

    A big agreement on the patriospeak article. Somebody is just having some fun. I doubt any comments will be responded to, etc (not that that means you shouldn’t comment—but just don’t be shocked if they’re never published or replied to).

    Please laugh back good-naturedly, as I did when I first saw it, but don’t waste any blood, sweat, or tears on trying to build bridges there. ‘Sides, the site is thus far doing an excellent job of making patriarchy look like what it really is. So sit back and enjoy it! *grins* They’re doing a great job of exposing it for us! 🙂

  85. molleth Says:

    Whoops, I meant to refer to the patrio *website*, not article.

  86. corriejo Says:

    My take on the patriospeak website? I think it is a spoof done by someone who is against hyperpatriarchy to make patriarchalists look bad. The post entitled “This Thanksgiving I am Thankful for Mrs. Patriocentrist” proved that to me and the phrase “best little helper” was meant to make patriocentrists look like they don’t truly respect women. I call my 4 year old daughter “my little helper” but grown adults do not call their wives “little helpers”. Maybe it is a feminist who is trying to send a message with such over-the-top stereotypical language?

    Also the quote by Gill where he says that the woman was made for man for “his use” and to serve him is another way to make patriocentrists look bad. We all know this runs against what the Bible teaches. We all know that marriage isn’t a one-way serving relationship but a mutually edifying relationship where each was made for the other. 1 Cor. 7 The woman was no more created to be used by the man than the man was created to be used by the woman.

    The quote concerning women being created for man’s “use” was meant to make patriocentrists look like users of women. That is definitely not a good thing. 1 Timothy doesn’t say anything at all like the below.

    “As John Gill so aptly tells us about 1 Timothy 2:13

    She was formed out of him, was made out of one of his ribs; and was formed for him, for his use, service, help and comfort; and here lies the strength of the apostle’s reason, why the woman should be in subjection to the man; not so much because he was made before her; for so were the beasts of the field before Adam; and yet this gave them no superiority to him; but because she was made out of him, and made for him,

    She is the best little helper a man could ask for and I thank God for making her for me and I thank her for making it easy to lover her as Christ loved the church.”

  87. corriejo Says:

    Oh, I also think this is a spoof done by an anti-patriarchalist person because it purposely links to all of our blogs and then to the silly blogs like SFU and Mrs. Binoculars. I am sure, like me, you are getting a lot more traffic at your own blogs. That can only be good news. More people will be exposed to blogs that expose the extra-biblical teachings in many of these books. This is such a great opportunity for us! People will finally get an objective review of these books.

    We should thank the person behind the Patriospeak website.

  88. Anne Says:

    I hope so. But the blogger has answered a few comments and sounded serious. Either way, I think I’m in very good company and am not bothered. 🙂

  89. thatmom Says:

    Corrie, I have seen a jump in downloads of the patriarchy podcasts. This is great advertising.

  90. molleth Says:

    LOL…I thought it was someone serious, at first, too. Now, I’m just laughing. 🙂

  91. Cally Tyrol Says:

    Wait, is that website a joke?

  92. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I think it is, Cally. But unless I’m mistaken, the jokers in charge of the site are former Little Geneva denizens, or something very similar. Until I know differently, I won’t be touching “Patriospeak” with a 10-foot pole.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CJ

  93. corriejo Says:

    Cally,

    Yes, it is a joke. The person writing that website is really against patriarchy and is trying to make patriarchalists look bad. They are doing a very good job at it, too. It is also bringing in a lot of traffic to all of our sites. Now, why would someone who thinks that this site is run by a wolf in sheep’s clothing want more people coming here to read the posts?

    It also obviously trying to make patriarchalists looks like hypocrites.

    And, I was told by the owner of that site that you are anonymous and that I should be bothered by that. The fact is, I am not bothered by her anonymous status or anyone else’s. I was just pointing out all the hub-bub coming out of Vision Forum and other blogs who speak against anonymous internet assassins. Surely the hypocrisy of the whole situation would blindside this person if it was a real site? The Patriospeak website IS a perfect example of an anonymous internet assassin!

    Also, the person behind that site wants us to think that James/Stacy McDonald or Carmon Friedrich or Matt/Jennie Chancey or Bob Renaud or Justin Turley (SFU writers) are behind that site. (I have gotten many emails wondering this very thing. Many people suspect that the McDonalds or the Chanceys are behind this new website.) Now, why would someone on THEIR side of this debate want to lead others to believe that one of these individuals are behind that site? That is just crazy! So, this just shows us that it really is a spoof site done by someone who is against hyperpatriarchy.

    Oh, the biggest tip-off to the fact that this site is just a silly, little spoof is that they listed Barbara Curtis as a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Everyone knows that this is NOT true! Barbara Curtis is a godly woman and certainly NOT a wolf! The only people who have a problem with Barbara are the Chanceys and they wouldn’t be so reckless as to be so obvious about the whole issue.

  94. Alyzza Says:

    I’ve read through many of the comments on all three “visionary daughters” threads and would like to speak up in defense of Carmon Friedrich. I’ve debated with several women who embrace and promote the “hyper-patriarchy” movement and have found Carmon to be (by far) the most gracious of them. She answered all my concerns and addressed all my points with candor – which is more than I can say for some of the other people with whom I’ve spoken. In short, she’s intelligent and thoughtful.

    I don’t agree with the woman, but she has my highest admiration.

    My problem with the hyper-patriarchal movement isn’t so much that I see it as a threat to my own liberty, but rather I see it as a snare for some women who make an idol of their husbands or their homes or their possessions.

    There’s more than a whiff of classism among some of the women with whom I’ve spoken. I’m not entirely sure if they themselves had a low view of the poor, or if they are merely ignorant of how close to the bone poverty can cut.

    One blog in particular contains all manner of slams against the poor for everything from how they dress to how they should “stop going to the hairdresser if they’re really serious about switching to one income.” In one memorable post, the author lauded a regular commenter and reproduced her opinion that the women fleeing Hurricane Katrina were too shabbily dressed: “No wonder marriages fail.” (I’m not kidding.)

    Most of these authors seem utterly – and I mean UTTERLY – oblivious to the fact that people come in all shapes and sizes; and that some are more able-bodied than others.

    Men with disabilities, for example, are all but forgotten when it comes to the advice the hyper-patriarchy supporters offer wives. They don’t like the idea that there could be any exception to the ‘rule’ about women working, and so they simply don’t address these issues except with flippant and thoughtless pieces of advice about how to cut spending by avoiding bingo or other nonsense.

    Likewise, they ignore disabled or “unattractive” women in their public relations and marketing efforts.

    Theirs is an exclusive little club, with a great deal of interlocking financial and social interest among the webmasters and authors who promote hyper-patriarchy.

  95. Corrie Says:

    Alyzza,

    You have made some very good points.

    Can you share the link to the blog you mentioned? Is it a patriarchal blog?

    I agree with you that there are many flippant and thoughtless pieces of advice given to women who don’t seem to fit they hyper-patriarchal box.

    Also, have your conversations with Carmon been public? If so, were they are on her blog? I would like to read them. I don’t have any personal experience with her but I have witnessed other times where she has been less than gracious and willing to dialogue and answer questions.

    What sorts of things did you address with her? How did she address your points concerning women with disabled husbands or poor women? Does she admit that these problems DO exist in the hyperpatriarchal movement?

    “My problem with the hyper-patriarchal movement isn’t so much that I see it as a threat to my own liberty, but rather I see it as a snare for some women who make an idol of their husbands or their homes or their possessions.”

    This is excellent and this is really where I see myself in the bigger picture. I am concerned about the snare they are creating for other women.

  96. Cally Tyrol Says:

    Okay, I am utterly dense. LOL! Glad to hear the site is a joke.

    BTW- did someone have an issue with my being anonymous? If so, my name is Jennifer and I can be reached at re4mdmom@gmail.com. I own my words and I’m not afraid to answer for them. I use the alias for internet safety issues really. I think I’m pretty far from an anonymous internet assassin though…

  97. Alyzza Says:

    CORRIE:

    That blog wherein one poster skewered Katrina victims for their ugly clothes is called Home Living Helper. Here’s the post in question: http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2005/09/letters-letters.html

    As to your other question…

    The first time I ever posted on Carmon’s blog was in answer to her claim that she would revoke women’s suffrage if she could change something about the world. The first part of our conversation is here: http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1564

    We then took our conversation to e-mail, and she was the first to defend a support system for the needy (etc.) She merely believes the government should not be in the business of providing that kind of social assistance.

    Carmon argued, rightly, I think, that government social assistance allows for people to abdicate personal responsibility: In other words, an individual is content to pay his taxes and let someone else care for the needy rather than playing a more active part in social development projects.

    Because her worldview is based on the Bible, Carmon believes a church should the primary source of social assistance; even as she believes parents should be the primary source of teaching for their children.

    From the conversations I’ve had with her since then, I can deduce that Carmon would be the first to admit she errs sometimes in speaking harshly, as do we all. She’s one of the best people with whom I’ve corresponded on the ‘net. When reading her Prairie Muffin Manifesto in that light, I developed a whole new appreciation for some of the points she raises.

    It’s interesting: Carmon believes many of the same things as other women (and men) in her movement, but it is in her presentation of them – her intelligent and impassioned defense of her beliefs – that she differs so markedly.

    Here was another conversation starter: http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1654

  98. Corrie Says:

    Alyzza,

    Okay. I thought you had to be joking about the Katrina comment. But, I just went to that blog and I see you were not. 😦 That blog is done by “Lady Lydia Sherman” from Ladies Against Feminism. “Lady Lydia”and Jennie Chancey run the LAF site.

    “Re: this comment: My husband was commenting on the looks of the elderly women in a farmer’s market we visited today. They seemed to have no idea what their rear ends looked like with their pull-up pants and big shorts that looked like giant diapers.”

    And

    “What does the phrase “die with dignity” mean to us? We have let the modernists liberal define this for us, making it completely contrary to real dignity. I’ve heard people say “I wouldn’t be caught dead in that outfit.” As a people, we used to be concerned with the impression and the influence we left others at our passing.”

    These are some of Lady Lydia’s words concerning the attire of old ladies and the women who were fleeing the hurricane.

    This seems almost too off the wall to be true.

    We are accused of wasting time for studying scripture and examining teachings and comparing them to the Bible like we are instructed to do IN Scripture but if Karen were to turn this blog into a place where we could talk like the above, we would be considered godly women?

  99. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “We are accused of wasting time for studying scripture and examining teachings and comparing them to the Bible like we are instructed to do IN Scripture but if Karen were to turn this blog into a place where we could talk like the above, we would be considered godly women?”

    No… we would then be old-school style “ladies”, who leave the theological stuff to the menfolks and never worry our pretty heads about a blessed thing…

  100. Cynthia Gee Says:

    ….except, of course, for dissing those women don’t measure up to our fashion standards for those professing Biblical womenhood.

  101. Kate Says:

    When I read that “Lady Lydia” website (a side note: do these women think they’re royalty?) at first I thought that quote was taken out of context, a joke, etc. It appears, though, to be such an incredibly blind and thoughtless thing to say about women they know nothing about, some in emergency situations no less. The comments seem to judge people only on the basis of outward appearance. That’s monstrous!

    Also, as I looked at LAF and saw her there in her lily-white dress I thought to myself, “Boy, with the mudslinging she just did toward less-than-affluent people (some elderly, some poorer) than her just puts her in the precarious position of getting a little “mud” on her pretty dress.” I try not to get irked by insensitive comments, but when I saw that she was a writer for LAF (a blog several women I know respect and look up to) I thought that a “Lady” should be more cautious in her words. Incidentally, if she lives in my neck of the woods, we’re a little more “progressive” than her in our views up here 😉


  102. Has anyone besides me noticed how certain camps can put the word “Biblical” in front of just about anything to make their definition be the ONE that is right?

    You know,

    Biblical womahood
    Biblical femininity
    Biblical marriage
    Biblical motherhood

    I’m not poking fun, but it is just this little moniker we’ve (they’ve) added to give their way a little more power and OOMPH so to speak.

    I mean really, we could go so far as to label certain things like Biblical Grocery Shopping for goodness sakes.

    Their ideas of Biblical womanhood and mine don’t jive, and we read the same Bible. There again, by George, it comes down to discerning what a PERSONAL CONVICTION is as compared to a true BIBLICAL MANDATE!

  103. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “We then took our conversation to e-mail, and she was the first to defend a support system for the needy (etc.) She merely believes the government should not be in the business of providing that kind of social assistance.”

    Certainly.. that way she can pick and choose whom she will help. Gotta love that libertarian sense of charity. But be careful: when Carmon quotes statistics, (such as this one claiming that half of all Americans recieve welfare ” …a news story today trumpets the fact that half of all Americans receive some form of welfare payment ” )
    … she uses biased sources which include Social Security, Social Security Disability, and even wages earned working in a government job as welfare payments! And, if you catch her red handed making such misleading statements, she ends conversations, deletes comments, or tells you to take the conversation to your own blog.

    “It’s interesting: Carmon believes many of the same things as other women (and men) in her movement, but it is in her presentation of them – her intelligent and impassioned defense of her beliefs – that she differs so markedly.”

    Her defense of her beliefs is impassioned, I’ll give her that much ….

    …and, do follow the link at the bottom.

  104. Kate Says:

    Lady Lydia’s linked blog entry reminded me of the tv show “Designing Women”. What she said reminded me of something the character, Suzanne Sugarbaker (Delta Burke), might have said.

  105. Cynthia Gee Says:

    …it reminds me of Marie Antoinette.

  106. Kate Says:

    Yes, and soon we may see more topics with that distinction:

    biblical cooking
    biblical health
    biblical homeschooling
    biblical bookwriting
    biblical car-repair
    biblical finances
    biblical occupations

    No, wait. I think it’s already called Gothardism or something like that.


  107. Lindsey,

    They’ve turned “biblical” into a thought-stopping cliche. It’s the positive sounding antithesis of “non-normative” or egalitarian.

    http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/11/term-biblical-becomes-thought-stopping.html


  108. “Be Ye Warmed and Filled”

    Did anyone notice that opening comment on the blog post? I take it that they are saying that no artist would paint a rose that was wilting and brown “without form or beauty”

    Did this woman ever read Isaiah 53? Jesus had none either. Or maybe patriarchy believes that this chapter is not Messianic?

    I guess that she never read the Book of James, either. “Be ye warmed and filled…” And in considering the elderly, what of “Pure religion pure and undefiled before the Father is this: to visit the widows and the fatherless in their affliction…” Looks like their well up on the keeping themselves unspotted from the world, but we are not admonished to do one in exclusion of the other. It’s tricky to mix the two because to minister, one often must get dirty on the outside, but the macules that the verse speaks of talks of keeping one unspotted spiritually.

    I read this to my husband who wondered why a man would be looking at elderly women’s backsides anyway? If he was so offended, has he considered the setbacks the elderly face? Most are on a fixed income and may not have means to acquire more aesthetic attire. (And many don’t care.) If they have physical disabilities, they may not have the physical reserve or ability to make themselves “more presentable.”

    As my response to those who criticize a filthy house of a young mother or a disabled person, I ask why they did not pick up a rag and clean it for them. (A miserable relative of mine once made this remark about a house of another relative who was confined to a wheelchair and without other family nearby to help.) Why did that offended man offer some charity to those women if he was so offended? Maybe they barely had money to provide for their most basic needs? Did he offer to find out or offer to help? Did he watch them load groceries or carry bags while he stared at them?

    But for grace…

  109. Cynthia Gee Says:

    You know, Jesus never criticized anybody for wearing ugly clothes.
    He never even criticized people for being NAKED, though He told those of us who have clothing to share it with those who do not (and the fact that He mentioned the naked indicates that the very poor sometimes WERE 😯 )
    About the only clothing styles that Jesus criticized were the enlarged borders and the long fringes of the garments of the Pharisees.

    The Bible also says,
    “Jam 2:2 For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?”

    Lady Lydia should be ashamed, and, perhaps, should read the SECOND half of Isaiah 3:

    Isa 3:13 ¶ The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people. Isa 3:14 The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor [is] in your houses. Isa 3:15 What mean ye [that] ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

    Isa 3:16 ¶ Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing [as] they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:
    Isa 3:17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
    Isa 3:18 ¶ In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of [their] tinkling ornaments [about their feet], and [their] cauls, and [their] round tires like the moon, Isa 3:19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, Isa 3:20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, Isa 3:21 The rings, and nose jewels, Isa 3:22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, Isa 3:23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.

    Isa 3:24 ¶ And it shall come to pass, [that] instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; [and] burning instead of beauty.

    Isa 3:25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. Isa 3:26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she [being] desolate shall sit upon the ground.

  110. Alyzza Says:

    I very much dislike Lydia Sherman’s blog, and I’m no fan of her opinions either. Nonetheless, and for some inexplicable reason, I’ve been reading her stuff for over a year now. The following is but a small sample from her series on how older women should behave:

    “One lesson to be learned is the art of visiting. An older person who wishes to call upon a younger person should first make an appointment. She should phone and find out when would be a good time to drop by. She can say, ‘I have a little something I’d like to give you. When would be a good time to drop by.’ She should prepare a gift bag with something in it for her home: maybe a scented candle, a set of measuring spoons, some jam or a new dish towel in her favorite motifs or colors….

    “The next thing she needs to know is that she must try not to over-stay. An hour, in my opinion is enough time. That way you won’t use up her day and she will look forward to seeing you again. While I love visits, I find there are older women to whom time means nothing, and they will stay from noon til 6 in the evening and only leave when they see me starting to get dinner for my husband.”

    http://homeliving.blogspot.com/2007/11/mature-audiences-only.html

    Lydia assumes that older women have the extra income for gifts, and moreover that guests should be obligated to entertain their hosts. She is also oblivious to the fact that many older people are lonely, and attributes their overstaying to the lack of appreciation for others’ time.

    She pines for a “Titus 2” lady to instruct her and other women in godliness, and yet she speaks over and over again of how she disregards older women (and their advice) if they fail to live up to the arbitrary standards that she herself has set for their behavior and deportment.

    It’s very difficult to call people out on their extra-Biblical attitudes even while keeping such commentary from degenerating into personal attacks. The former should be encouraged; and the latter, discouraged.

    Some folks, however, see any questioning of their statements and beliefs as an affront to them personally, and will malign anyone who dares to call them out for their lack of empathy. To them I say, “If you can judge other women by their appearances or incomes or jobs, then surely I can plumb you by your words without being accused of gossip-mongering.”

    Thus it is for Lydia Sherman.

    My own opinion is that older women can’t effectively counsel their younger counterparts through dark times and failures if they themselves have never experienced dark times or failures.

    This is equally true for the Botkin sisters, who were the original subjects of this thread. They can speak with some authority, I believe, on how girls might employ themselves while living at home. After all, they themselves are thus employed.

    But the Botkin girls are out of line even thinking that all the female folks of their age should or even could be living as they do. They receive lavish praise (and, I suppose, an unpleasant measure of criticism) for their uncompromising stance on issues about which they know very little.

    A thing I tell those who seek me out for advice – and for some reason I truly can’t fathom, some people do – is that near-universal praise is one of the first signs you’re doing something wrong.

    Such praise is poisonous, and oh-so encouraged on most “hyper-patriarchy” blogs and websites through the removal and subsequent mischaracterization of critical commentary.

  111. Anne Says:

    Ladies, I would urge us all to think about how we feel when the things we’ve said are disagreed with. Our thoughts and feelings, even when expressed publicly, are part of who we are, and most of us would take an attack on them personally.

    That said, if someone has a problem with my thoughts and ideas and it bothers me, it is a sign to me that I must re-examine them. I don’t want to just feel good about what I believe. I want to be right. And challenge should help me with that.

    I dislike much of what Lady Lydia posts. Just like I dislike the teachings of the Pearls, Visionary Daughters, VFM, and other teachers, ministries, blogs, and organizations. But as frustrated as we become, we must try to remember that those who write these things are human, just like us. They are trying to follow the Lord, just like us.

    I see such wonderful content in these threads, and I fear that in our own righteous zeal we may fall prey to the same judgmental attitudes that so bother us in the other side.

    I don’t mean for this to be offensive to anyone, and I’m not talking about anyone specifically. I just want us all to take care.

    Peace!

  112. Kimberly Says:

    Good evening!

    I’ve been reading for a while, but have not posted before. In reading all the posts, I wanted to thank everyone for such a lively, intelligent discussion. I used to be very much desiring to be in the “Lady Lydia” camp, but…real life just never quite worked out that way for me. As a result, I spent a very long time feeling like a waste of space because I couldn’t keep up. It took years to understand exactly what was wrong with the “programming” being offered.

    Father, in His tender mercy, finally brought it forward to me…this entire mindset is one of glorying in the flesh, which is absolutely disgusting to the Most Holy.

    As the recent blog link regarding how an older lady should “do” visitation points out so clearly…it’s all about Self. Bring me gifts, don’t bother me with your problems and for heaven’s sake, you’d better dress to my satisfaction so that my visual environment will remain unsullied.

    On the other hand, true communion in the Body is one of getting involved in the messy aspects of other people’s lives, to help bear burdens, warn about sin and give ourselves to serving each other. Contrast: Christ was buried beneath the filth of our sins so He could bear our unbearable burdens, but the blog writer sounds like she would be miffed if the demanded gift towel didn’t match her decor.

    The entire movement makes my skin crawl when I see how it continues to mutate, and I am ashamed to ever have been a part of it. How I must have made my sweet Lord grieve when I proudly walked about in my little dresses, disdaining so many struggling people when I was a mere whitewashed tomb myself! How my heart hurts to remember…

    But, He is so kind to the undeserving, and has taught me a great deal since then, for which I’m forever grateful.

    Keep on with the blogging…this topic needs to be kept in the open, for His Name’s sake.

    Blessings,

    Kimberly

  113. Joan Hathcote Says:

    I mostly just lurk here, reading everybody’s comments and feeling like you all have expressed my thoughts far better than I could. But today I wanted to come out of lurkdom to agree with Kimberly – the tone of this conversation is almost always kind and gracious. I so appreciate that!

    I think the hyper-patriarch issues get under my skin because the people who promote them are just SO SURE of what they believe…even on topics about which the Bible has not spoken specifically.

    Personally, I’ve gone through much over the past few years that has made me far less sure of the “rightness” of some of my favorite opinions.

    But so many of these patriocentric proponants – even the most well-spoken and gracious of them – don’t entertain even a smidge of room for dialogue, for possibly modifying their positions. They just KNOW they’re right in how they interprest Scripture, which stories in the Bible are “normative,” even about what God has personally “told” them.

    I think this absolute certainty is what can come across as smug arrogance. From their words, the “patriarchal” writers say they want to honor God above all, and of course I believe them. But so often, when “absolute certainty” comes into play about a non-essential doctrine, the first biblical attitude that goes out the window is “esteeming others more highly than we esteem ourselves.” I mean, if I “know” I’m right, then the corollary must be that everyone who disagrees with me is “wrong” and therefore “sinful.” Or, if I’m striving for a bit of political correctness, “not wise.” And at that point, I’ve set myself up as some sort of authority, even if it’s just in my own mind. I’m so sure I’m right that I can’t acknowledge the exceptions, or the possibility that perhaps in God, there is room for different parts of the body of Christ to pursue different paths in areas not specifically addressed in the Bible.

    I think this attitude is what causes the “hyper-p’s” to sometimes come across as unbearably superior. It’d be so nice, once in awhile, for them to openly say something like, “You know, I used to teach (or believe) that course A was the only biblical way, but after dialoguing with my brothers and sisters in Christ, I’ve realized that God has revealed something different to their consciences, something that is probably equally as valid as course A…”

    I can dream, right? 🙂

  114. Christine Says:

    Just as a point of clarification, “Lady Lydia” is a grandmother herself, so her posts on how older women should behave are more exhortations to her peers, not coming from a “this is what I want you older ladies to do for me” perspective. And in all fairness, she does give advice on how to do “more with less” on a limited income. However, I see the points that some of you have made about the emphasis on outward appearances.

    I have appreciated this blog so much. I was getting sucked into the whole patriocentricity thing, and ironically, was frustrated because my husband showed no interest in how to “improve” our family according to the VF style. And it’s a good thing, because with the slightest encouragement, I’d probably be living the whole thing hook, line, and sinker. That’s how appealing it all was to me.

    Here’s the appeal: I became a mom 2 years ago. Suddenly I had this precious daughter, and more than anything in the world I wanted her to grow up to be a godly, pure young lady. I started looking around and seeing threats everywhere: unsaved relatives, immodest clothes for little girls, television, the prospect of future college dorm life and sororities, BOYS!

    And there was VFM and LAF and Highlands Study Center and all these other sites that were showing me a way to protect my little darling from all those worldly things. It was so seductive! It still is, to be honest.

    As I continue to struggle with legalism (which I now recognize for what it is), I also continue to struggle with how to raise my daughters “in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” without isolating us from the world and imposing extra-Biblical requirements.

    Thank you everyone for being so open with this topic.

  115. corriejo Says:

    “I have appreciated this blog so much. I was getting sucked into the whole patriocentricity thing, and ironically, was frustrated because my husband showed no interest in how to “improve” our family according to the VF style.”

    Christine,

    Isn’t it funny when our husbands show absolutely no interest in improving the family according to the VF/Gothard model? We are tempted to think they are unspiritual and that if they just got with God’s program and became a biblical husband who played his role according to the script written for him by these “ministries”, then all would be great.

    I look back and I am so thankful that the Lord didn’t let my husband get sucked into the patriocentric vortex and from the beginning, in spite of my desires, he had absolutely no interest in living like that.

    You also raise a very good topic that would be great to discuss! I have 6 daughters and I would love to know how to encourage them to be godly young women without totally isolating them and without imposing these extra-biblical requirements.

    I also have 4 sons and I find the patriocentric teachings conflicting. The patrios concentrate on women so much and we RARELY hear about boys except when they tell us what a threat they are to our daughters. I am surprised (well, not really) that they are not focusing the lens on boys and making documentaries for boys and writing books for boys that teach them how to treat women so that our girls can be safe and rightfully so!

    They seem to be disproportionately focused (or obsessed) on girls/daughters/young women.

    If there are so many dangerous males who threaten our daughter’s safety, why are we not doing something to teach the males so that we are actually making this nation a safer place for our daughters?

    It just seems very backwards, especially since the patrios put such a heavy emphasis on male authority which necessarily means responsibility.

  116. Alyzza Says:

    Well said, ANNE; and I’m suitably chastened. Allow me to explain myself further.

    If you’ll look at my own site, you’ll see that its content is such as to draw the ire of many readers – including, no doubt, a few of the posters here. I’ve received more than my share of personal attacks, and am fairly accustomed to them. I expect such things in part because my site is the internet equivalent of an attractive nuisance: I believe everything I say there, but I knew even before posting it that many, many people would disagree in the strongest terms possible.

    Lydia Sherman should not only expect criticism, being as she’s linked up with the Ladies Against Feminism group, but it behooves her to address points from “the other side” in a candid and well-reasoned fashion.

    I don’t believe a lack of charity is common to all the proponents of hyper-patriarchy, but most of the all-stars who promote this way of life haven’t done anything at all to weed out the “holier than thou” attitude that crops up like crab grass among them.

    Now I must admit that certain aspects of their lifestyles appeal to me. I love my own husband, and respect him greatly. I’m careful in my speech around him in that I try my best to avoid saying anything he could take for an insult or a questioning of his competence. In fact, I honestly believe him to be very capable, and trust him implicitly.

    If I thought a course of action could better his life and increase his success, I would take it. The hyper-patriarchs claim to know the correct way of accomplishing this goal, and so I looked very carefully at their teachings.

    But when they dared malign my husband merely because I too must work for our bread, they stepped over a line that no one is permitted to cross with me. There are things I won’t permit beyond the threshold of my home, and that’s one of them.

    The double standard – their husbands are the representatives of God in their homes, but mine is mud in their eyes because he doesn’t have their physical advantages – was simply too much to bear.

  117. corriejo Says:

    “Personally, I’ve gone through much over the past few years that has made me far less sure of the “rightness” of some of my favorite opinions.

    But so many of these patriocentric proponents – even the most well-spoken and gracious of them – don’t entertain even a smidge of room for dialogue, for possibly modifying their positions. They just KNOW they’re right in how they interpret Scripture, which stories in the Bible are “normative,” even about what God has personally “told” them.”

    Joan,

    This is excellent and this is so true! I am right with you in being so much less dogmatic about the things I thought I was so sure about before. What has helped me was to get away from all of this for a while and just read the Bible without the patriocentric lens. I started to really see that the things I was formerly taught and had believed were not really in the Bible but had been read INto the Bible.

    I no longer make rules where God has made no rules. It is actually harder for me than one knows. I often think how much easier my life would be if I just followed the patriocentrists. It is much easier following rules and checking off marks on a list than it is walking by the Spirit.

  118. corriejo Says:

    “If I thought a course of action could better his life and increase his success, I would take it. The hyper-patriarchs claim to know the correct way of accomplishing this goal, and so I looked very carefully at their teachings.

    But when they dared malign my husband merely because I too must work for our bread, they stepped over a line that no one is permitted to cross with me. There are things I won’t permit beyond the threshold of my home, and that’s one of them.

    The double standard – their husbands are the representatives of God in their homes, but mine is mud in their eyes because he doesn’t have their physical advantages – was simply too much to bear.”

    Alyzza,

    I think many of us here, too, try and live in the same way with our husbands. I recently moved to a place that I would rather not have moved to because I knew it was important to my husband and I wanted him to be happy and fulfilled. It is so funny because many of the ladies on this list are called feminists, not because of the way they live their lives but for simply disagreeing with the patriocentrists.

    I am sorry that your husband was maligned. I read a bit about your situation on another blog and I totally agree with what you stated concerning your need to work. That is absolutely NO reflection on your husband at all. I can tell you that this whole thing riles me up a bit. There are many disabled men whose wives have to work. There is NOTHING wrong with that at all.

    There was a patriocentrist who threatened legal action against me for simply not giving him my husband’s email address after he had demanded it of me. I had kindly explained to him that I would forward his email to my husband and that my husband would get back to him. My husband was out of town at this time and instructed me NOT to give out his email address. I did what I was told. If it were up to me, I would have just given him my husband’s email address.

    I then received an email threatening legal action. I wrote back and told him that I couldn’t believe he was writing to me after I had CLEARLY told him NOT to write to me again and then threatening me when all I was doing was respecting the wishes of my OWN husband. He knew from the prior email that my husband didn’t want me giving out his email address. I clearly told him that my husband would get back to him.

    My husband’s clear wishes were not respected by this patriarch. I then began to get a clearer picture of what patriocentricity is all about. It really isn’t about what a husband of any given wife wants in his own home. It is about what the leaders of the patriocentrists want in other men’s homes that matters.

    I have seen, on the Bayly blog, where women were denigrated because their husbands believed in mutual submission. Have you read that blog at all? Talk about gossip, slander and maligning other believers in Christ! And to see who links to that blog and who the Baylys link to is very telling. When is the last time the McDonalds or Carmon (who both revere the Bayly Bros.) confronted the Baylys about their gossip and slander and the harsh way they deal with other believers? Not only do they NOT confront them, they applaud them!

    I saw how one woman was being treated and I stepped in to say something and I was immediately banned and slandered. And gossip? Bayly told my husband and myself that the reason why he immediately banned me is because he received several emails from some other patriarchalists who gossiped about me in private email. He acted on information he heard (hearsay) and not because of my conduct on his list or any other list.

    It is all hypocrisy.

  119. corriejo Says:

    Anne,

    “I see such wonderful content in these threads, and I fear that in our own righteous zeal we may fall prey to the same judgmental attitudes that so bother us in the other side.”

    Thank you for this reminder. I needed to hear that right now. Your whole post was spot on!

  120. corriejo Says:

    “You know, Jesus never criticized anybody for wearing ugly clothes.
    He never even criticized people for being NAKED, though He told those of us who have clothing to share it with those who do not (and the fact that He mentioned the naked indicates that the very poor sometimes WERE 😯 )
    About the only clothing styles that Jesus criticized were the enlarged borders and the long fringes of the garments of the Pharisees.”

    Cynthia,

    Excellent point!

    I was just reminded of the movie “A Knight’s Tale”when Paul Bettaney who played Geoffrey Chaucer, walked down the road totally buck naked because he was dirt poor. He just didn’t have any clothes at all because his only pair had been taken from him on the road by bandits.

    And talk about dying with dignity? Christ died with no dignity according to Lady Lydia. He was stripped and displayed for all to see.

    If dying with the proper clothes on was so important to God, then He would have set the example in Christ.

    I still remember the haunting faces of those people who were fleeing the hurricane down in the Gulf. The sheer terror on their faces for not only themselves but mostly for their loved ones and their helpless babies! I am crying just remembering. I had a new little babe and I remember seeing all these moms crying out to the reporters that they have no food for their little babies. It was hot and the conditions were HORRIBLE! All I could see was the face of the person and all I could feel was utter empathy that wouldn’t leave me.

    My daughter, Arielle, went down there a couple of years ago on a mission trip. She served all of these people by giving them clothing and food and toiletries. It changed her life. I am so glad that she had that opportunity to do that because I don’t think that she would ever write the things that Lydia and her friend did about the women affected by Katrina. Arielle has many stories of the women down there and she has a great love for them.

    In fact, I just read my daughter the quote and she said, with some stuff removed, “That is terrible!”

    We are talking about humanity here! Who cares what they were wearing. My goodness! I have seen people rescued from floods where their clothing has been totally ripped off! Maybe these people had on what they would wear to bed at night?

    What about the tsunami that struck the South Pacific a couple of years ago? A woman was found in a tree, half-dead, with not one stitch of clothing on. The men who rescued her tenderly took her down from that tree and covered her with a blanket and provided the dignity that the storm had robbed her of. It didn’t matter if she was wearing a modest dress or a pair of shorts and a t-shirt at that point!

    I am quite sure that Noah and Mrs. Noah, up until the very end, pleaded with the people of their land and had great empathy on all the lost souls who were perishing around them. I am sure that Mrs. Noah was not sitting their critiquing the women’s clothing as they were fleeing for their lives with their babes tucked under their arms.

    And, what does their clothing have to do with the state of marriages in our nation? LOL! That has got to be put on one of those websites like “FSTST”.

    In the town we used to live in there were a group of grown men who had diaper fetishes. They wore cloth diapers and plastic pants and you could see them bulging out from underneath their sweatpants. Some of them even carried around baby bottles and drank from them. I see men riding on their lawnmowers with no shirts on and with their HUGE gut hanging over their *shorts* and their cracks showing from behind. Their bellies covered their shorts so it looked like they were totally naked. I see men walking around in Speedos who have NO business wearing a Speedo. Or the guy who wears sweatpants with no underwear. Or the guy whose pants don’t fit right so you are always having to look at his crack sticking out the back.

    It was enough to make me want to be a nun! 😉 Honestly, maybe these ladies should contemplate what trauma it does to a married woman and her marriage to be exposed to such vulgar sights! These men were not fleeing from a natural disaster, either. These men were not decently dressed. I would have wished that they were wearing shorts and a t-shirt!

  121. Spunky Says:

    Since the Bayly’s were brought up here again, I’ve been confused about something for a little while. I’m not a reader of Tim Bayly’s blog, but I read the link that was given a while back when Carolyn Custis James was criticized for confessing that she wasn’t a “kitchen wife.” In that post, Tim Bayly talked a bit about his daughters and what they’ve done. Clearly, he seemed to have deviated from THE biblical model for a daughter as taught by Vision Forum.

    Their daughter Heather went to Taylor University and their daughter Hannah spent a month as a short-term missionary overseas with Operation Mobilization Ministries. Both of which are considered leaving a daughter “unprotected” by hyper-patriarchs.

    If I’m reading the details of his family correctly, he doesn’t appear to buy into a lot of the hyper-patriarchy teachings pertaining to daughter.

    Further, a quick perusal of Tim Bayly’s church shows that they are not age integrated but have a nursery, a youth pastor, a womens ministry complete with a Spring Retreat, and a MOPS group WITH childcare. (I guess Tim Bayly believes mothers DO need some “me” time.) Yet, he is a respected spokesman for patriarchy.

    It seems to me that Tim Bayly is at least “running into mischief” himself with the way he leads his family and his flock.

    So would it be correct to say that Tim Bayly is a “white-washed” patriarch?

  122. Spunky Says:

    I’d just like to clarify that the decisions Tim Bayly made are not a problem for me at all. He’s a father free to lead his family and his flock as he feels led. Yet, it is these same decisions that are what many within Vision Forum sees as a problem within the Christian church and much of the reason for the NCFIC ministry.

  123. Anne Says:

    Alyzza, I apologize if my words offended you at all. I have certainly taken offense at some of the ideas proposed by the modern Patriocentric movement myself. Like you, I am a mother who must work outside of the home to be a helpmeet to my husband.

    I took offense at a blog post of Jennie Chancey’s that had harsh words for men like my husband, whose wives work outside the home. My husband works long and hard and still finds time to help me with the house, and be an active parent for our children. I made sure to offer a rebuttal of her post on my faith blog.

    I think what Jennie Chancey wrote was wrong. And I don’t think she has the right to judge my work as sin, or to judge my husband. Likewise, I must try to remember that (even if she doesn’t think so) she is my sister. One day we will see each other in heaven, where these issues will seem petty and insignificant. We will see each other without the weight of flesh, no longer through the cloudy glass of the world, and we will embrace each other with joy in a way I can’t imagine now.

    I try to think about that so that I can remember to speak out against these teachings with kindness and gentleness. I may not always succeed as I’m passionate by nature. But I must try.

    My comments were not directed at you, Alyzza, nor were they directed at any one person specifically. I just wanted to put out a reminder to tread carefully.

    Peace.

  124. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I see men riding on their lawnmowers with no shirts on and with their HUGE gut hanging over their *shorts* and their cracks showing from behind….Or the guy who wears sweatpants with no underwear. Or the guy whose pants don’t fit right so you are always having to look at his crack sticking out the back.”

    I agree, it WOULD be nice if more of these fellows would cover up their backsides, or at least pull up their jeans, but in the case of overweight men especially, they are all about comfort first, LOL.

    But, did you ever think about WHY sights such as this bother us?

    It has to do, I think, with an often overlooked facet of the “modesty” issue (false modesty, in this case) — modesty is not just about covering attractive people up so they won’t lust after one another.

    Think about it — really, WHO does find fat men with plumber’s crack or elderly women in baggy shorts to be an inspiration to desire? Let’s face it — except for a few brief years in the prime of life, the naked human body is not a particularly beautiful sight. It wiggles and it jiggles, it gets spots and wrinkles, and it bulges out in the most ungainly places. Worse still, clothes that are non-constricting and healthful, especially in hot weather, tend to reveal all of this imperfection. We humans, being proud, would rather not admit to ourselves how we really look, and thus we strive to cover up our less than attractive parts; in addition, we desire that other people, especially the unattractive, misshapen, and elderly, do the same, so as to help us to avoid the fact of our human imperfection (and, ultimately our inevitable decreptitude.)
    It’s a pretty universal trait — we humans have always been into denial, and have for generations attempted to pretend that unpleasant things, such as old age, bodily functions, etc, etc, do not exist, all under the guise of modesty or decorum.
    It’s all about pride, really — we are mortified that we humans HAVE wrinkles and beer bellies and plumber’s crack — and a vain attempt to stave of the inevitable, which makes us especailly prone to disgust at the sight of an elderly person’s physique.
    But I don’t think that God cares one whit about beer guts and wrinkles — He only told us to cover our nakedness, not all of our other parts.
    AND, He KNOWS what we look like, dressed or un-.

  125. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Oh MAN, that last posting of mine is a spelling, style and grammatical mess — sorry about that. I wish WordPress allowed us to preview our comments. I never see the typos, etc, until AFTER my comment posts. Oh well..

  126. Alyzza Says:

    ANNE:

    I’m not offended 🙂 You brought up a good point, and I was responding to it regardless of where it was directed.

  127. corriejo Says:

    “t’s all about pride, really — we are mortified that we humans HAVE wrinkles and beer bellies and plumber’s crack — and a vain attempt to stave off the inevitable, which makes us especially prone to disgust at the sight of an elderly person’s physique.”

    Cynthia,

    Oh, my post wasn’t about elderly people.

    My point was concerning the ridiculous assertion that the women fleeing Katrina in shorts and t-shirts were the cause of bad marriages across the nation.

    Why do we look at female victims of a hurricane in order to blame all the bad marriages on them when every day we can see men dressed in outfits that satisfy their fetishes or walking around basically naked in public? This just smacks of agenda.

    I am quite sure that the the men that loved these women had no problem with their shorts and t-shirts.

    Truly, it is the most ridiculous thing I think I have ever heard. It reminds me of something Betty Bowers would say.

  128. corriejo Says:

    Cynthia,

    p.s. to my post.

    My examples were ones of obscenity and had NOTHING to do with one’s size or clothing preference or age.

  129. thatmom Says:

    Anne, this is so quotable…..”I think what Jennie Chancey wrote was wrong. And I don’t think she has the right to judge my work as sin, or to judge my husband. Likewise, I must try to remember that (even if she doesn’t think so) she is my sister. One day we will see each other in heaven, where these issues will seem petty and insignificant. We will see each other without the weight of flesh, no longer through the cloudy glass of the world, and we will embrace each other with joy in a way I can’t imagine now.”

  130. thatmom Says:

    I have been thinking about the Lady Lydia comments and it adds to the thought I have had for a long time, that many of these things are really differences of opinion about what is “proper” or “ladylike” or “decorum.” But the problem is when some people take their pet ideas and “Christianize” them and decide “proper” for all of us.

    In the “About the Authors” section of Passionate Housewives, Stacy’s bio says “She has been blessed with the opportunity to teach women around the globe on issues relating to the roles of a wife and mother, homeschooling, and Christian decorum.”

    After reading “Raising Maidens” I was struck by the fact that many of the things she attributes to being “virtuous” are actually things that are cultural and, in many ways, I think part of the “southern women” culture, even today.

    When my husband was in the military, we spent several months living in Georgia, renting a house from a sweet old southern lady, both she and her house being very much like Jessica Tandy’s character on Driving Miss Daisy. Everything she did was very “proper.” I know she looked askance at me, this young mother who wore blue jeans everywhere except to church but she liked us because I was friendly to her and she loved our baby! But, she and her friends dressed up, even wearing gloves and stockings, in that hot Georgia heat when they went “calling.” In fact, she wore stockings every day along with make-up, jewelry, and perfectly coiffed hair.

    As I read that quote from Stacy’s bio, I wondered exactly what part of the globe Stacy was in where she taught “Christian decorum?” Somewhere in Europe? I lived in Germany for nearly 4 years and that was an entirely different culture where I was, once again, looked at weirdly because my daughter rode in a baby backpack rather than in a large, padded pram. The men urinated on the sides of building, right along the street, thinking nothing of it. And this was in a lovely resort town!

    What does “Christian decorum” look like? Is it the southern culture from “Raising Maidens” superimposed over natives in the deepest parts of the jungles of South America? Is it having proper tea with one of the island tribes off of Papua New Guinea? Even where I live, some of this stuff would be considered too “high brow” especially in homeschooling families where one income barely meets the needs for food and shelter.

    As I think of it, I think this is Lady Lydia’s problem….superimposing her preferences and her views of “proper” onto everyone else and calling it “Christian” which also says that another way of living is “not Christian” or “unChristian” making it sin.

  131. Kim Says:

    “I have appreciated this blog so much. I was getting sucked into the whole patriocentricity thing, and ironically, was frustrated because my husband showed no interest in how to “improve” our family according to the VF style. And it’s a good thing, because with the slightest encouragement, I’d probably be living the whole thing hook, line, and sinker. That’s how appealing it all was to me.”

    Same here. SO thankful my hubby had no interest in it. SO thankful.

    I’ve been quietly lurking here for some time and want to thank you ladies for bringing me back to my senses with your sound arguments.

    I don’t feel I have anything of value to add, but I am so thankful that you all do!

    Bless you all!

  132. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Cynthia,ps to my post.
    My examples were ones of obscenity and had NOTHING to do with one’s size or clothing preference or age.”

    I know, Corri– and I wasn’t trying to pick on you, at all. But your post got me to thinking (dangerous thing, that) and extraploating, and wondering just WHY we find the human body to be so offensive. People always assume that modesty is all about sex, and it’s not — that’s just the part where our focus tends to lie. It’s about much more than that– much of what we call modesty is about a universal discomfort we humans have with the idea of being human creatures: mortal beings who have parts that are less than attractive, who not only procreate, but who also nurse young; who get fat, get skinny, sweat, eat, eliminate, suffer from illness accidents,and deformities, and eventually grow old and die.

    And it IS universal, this discomfort. Odd, isn’t it, that we should be so repelled by the humanity which God called “very good”, or perhaps, we are repelled by the fact that since the Fall, our bodies are mortal and subject to time and aging, and thus deviate from that perfestion of form which God called very good? Which is it, I wonder…

  133. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I am quite sure that the the men that loved these women had no problem with their shorts and t-shirts.”

    LOL!!!!! No doubt…
    If my husband loved me because I look nice in pretty clothes, we certainly would not be looking forward to our 28th wedding anniversary, he’d have left me long ago. I DO look nice in pretty clothes, but at 174 lbs, I don’t look all THAT nice.

    We aren’t Southerners, but we used to live in Florida (luckily we moved north just before all those hurricanes hit in 2004 and 2005), and if I had ever done something like dressing up in order to flee a hurricane, my DH probably would have taken me to have my head examined!
    I mean, come on — in a hurricane, it’s raining buckets, the wind is blowing like crazy, and there is widespread flooding. Any woman outside in a dress in those conditions might just as well be naked from the waist down, and pretty little shoes aren’t much good for wading through mud and debris. That’s the trouble with pretty, feminine clothes — though decorative, they just aren’t practical when you are in a situation where your body has to function as it was actually meant to function by its Creator.

  134. Lou Says:

    114 Joan you said it would be so nice to see the following attitude. “I’m so sure I’m right that I can’t acknowledge the exceptions, or the possibility that perhaps in God, there is room for different parts of the body of Christ to pursue different paths in areas not specifically addressed in the Bible. ”

    For what it’s worth from Stacey’s blog:

    “Recently, we have heard rumors of how rigid and harsh the “patriarchalists” are on non-essentials, like girls going away to college and women working outside the home. However, we have close friends who are not in agreement with us regarding girls going away to college (or to foreign missions) and we do not believe they are all feminists. In fact, most of these friends are patriarchal.

    In addition, we have close Christian friendships with women who work outside the home. They understand our position and we understand theirs. These friends (many are patriarchal) don’t agree with our stand and we do not agree with theirs, but we seem to be able to get along fine just the same. Not so on the Internet, it seems.

    I know many other “father-rule-believing” families who also have friendships with those who don’t see eye to eye on every point of Scripture. In fact, I can’t think of any who have such a rigid view as has been described. They believe what they believe, but they have Christian friends and family who aren’t in complete agreement – and somehow they still get along. Imagine that.”

    http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/07/patriarchs-feminists-complementarians.html

    Here are their express views:
    “If you have any questions about what we believe we are open to private dialogue. Since, we have a large, busy family and I am still in the midst of a book project, I cannot promise how quickly you’ll get a reply, but please don’t hesitate to ask. There have been a few myths flying around lately, so for the record:
    We are not patricentric. We are patriarchal. According to Ephesians 5:23, we believe families should be patri-archal (father-rule), not patri-centric (father-centered). (1 Timothy 2:12, Ephesians 5:22-23, Colossians 3:18, 1 Corinthians 11:3)
    We do not believe that all women should submit to all men, only to their own husbands (short of sinning) as Scripture describes.
    We do believe that women should be free to offer prayer requests or introduce visitors in church before worship. But, we do not believe women should hold position of authority in the church. We do believe they are to be silent (they should not teach) during worship (1 Timothy 2:12, 1 Corinthians 14:34).
    We do not believe that girls should avoid a higher education; only that it is not necessary (or wise) to send them away to school to obtain that education. We also do not believe women who choose not to pursue a formal education beyond high school are somehow “less” intelligent, less godly, or that they are wasting their gifts because of it. Their focus should be to train and prepare for their calling as a wife, mother, and keeper at home. (Titus 2:4-5)
    We do not believe that women are any less valuable, trustworthy, or intelligent than men.
    We do believe in servant-leader as much as we do servant-submitter. Both are servants.
    We do believe that women are created in God’s image (proving both her worth and value).

    “And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.”
    (2 Timothy 2:24-26, KJV)”

  135. Lou Says:

    I meant see the opposite attitude.

  136. Lou Says:

    Molly, I saw over at the patriosomething site that you had read the Mrs. Suzanna Spurgeon filled the pulpit for her husband and was a language scholar. Could you share where you got that info. I have been looking for it and all I could find in that regard was that she knew French well.

  137. thatmom Says:

    Kim, I miss your blog. Just stopping by there always made me want to cook and to do so well!

    I am so glad you are not lurking and have shared your thoughts!

  138. Kim Says:

    Thanks Karen. I have a private blog (now everyone reading here knows! lol), and just invited you. If you only knew all the thoughts I wish I could share! But I am learning to be quiet and listen. It’s been very profitable for me. So keep talking!

  139. Joan Hathcote Says:

    Lou (#136) –

    That’s great, that Stacey actually lives out a “live and let live” attitude.

    However, if that’s the case, then I wonder what the point is in all of this. Why endorse a book like “Visionary Daughters”?

  140. Joan Hathcote Says:

    And also…call me dense, but I’ve still never read anything written by any of the “patrio” folks that humbly acknowledges they’ve softened their stance.

    Instead, key words just disappear in the night (like the clearly documented flap over the Botkin girls’ use of “helpmeet”).

    If they really are so accepting and respectful of other Christians with differing “takes” on issues like women working outside the home and girls attending college, then why do they seem to be saying the exact opposite with their writings?

  141. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “That’s great, that Stacey actually lives out a “live and let live” attitude. However, if that’s the case, then I wonder what the point is in all of this. Why endorse a book like “Visionary Daughters”?”

    Maybe it’s a matter of $$$$?
    But, “no man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”

  142. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “…..key words just disappear in the night (like the clearly documented flap over the Botkin girls’ use of “helpmeet”).

    If they really are so accepting and respectful of other Christians with differing “takes” on issues like women working outside the home and girls attending college, then why do they seem to be saying the exact opposite with their writings?”

    As Christians we are naturally reluctant to call a spade a spade, but in this case, Joan, I’d say that the cause is plain old ornery pride, coupled with a fundamental lack of honesty.

  143. thatmom Says:

    Or what about calling John Stackhouse “Georgie Porgie” removing it and when someone reads what has been written here and then can’t find it on Stacys’ blog, assumes we aren’t being honest and Stacy doesn’t correct her wrong thinking? Shameless.

  144. louu Says:

    She says you can e-mail her and ask, it might be worth your while. I can’t answer that for her as no one can. We can only make assumptions also called answering a matter before knowing the whole.

  145. corriejo Says:

    As I was reading today, I came across this:

    Proverbs 27:6 says, “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”

    I started REALLY thinking about this and how this applies to this whole discussion.

    I truly believe the above.

  146. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “As Christians we are naturally reluctant to call a spade a spade, but in this case, Joan, I’d say that the cause is plain old ornery pride, coupled with a fundamental lack of honesty.”

    Sorry, upon rereading that, I see that I wasn’t quite clear. I mean, as Christians, we are rather reluctant to call a spade a spade, and thus are slow to ascribe less than honorable motives to someone when we see them doing something which is, essantially, dishonorable — we like to believe the best of folks, and give them the benefit of the doubt.
    That’s what we’ve been doing with the HyperP’s, thus our confusion when they keep on acting in a manner inconsistent with the basic tenets of Christianity.
    But, it is time to call a spade a spade, I think, and admit that what we are looking at when these folks say one thing in their writings and books and hold themselves to another standard in private, is plain old pride and dishonesty, and it is spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y .

  147. Lynn Says:

    If I’m reading the details of his family correctly, he doesn’t appear to buy into a lot of the hyper-patriarchy teachings pertaining to daughter.

    Spunky, I’ve seen two major problems with Tim Bayly — how he deals with people who visit his blog who have disagreements with him, and what he says about women in society at large w/respect to authority.

    Regarding the latter, Tim has said more than once that the heirarchy of the sexes, with women ruling over men, cannot be confined to the home and church. It has to extend to all of society, with all men being in authority over all women at all times, or the created order is violated. If you want citations I can provide them for you.

    So, if there is a woman in public office, on an education board, or a female head of a corporation, such as a hospital, or a Queen of England, or a PM of Israel, all these women are indicative of God’s judgment against mankind and they are in violation of the created order. Tim’s text is from Isaiah where “women rule over them.”

    The problem is, if you are in violation of the created order, you are in violation of God’s Word, and that is sin. But there are Bible women who were specifically raised up by God to be leaders, or else there were women who were commended who were leaders (such as the Queen of Sheba, whom Jesus mentioned) who had men serving them.

    Tim said these are exceptions which prove the rule, which begs the question, how do you know if you are one of the exceptions God allows and has raised up, or if you are not an exception and are in rebellion for, say, owning a diner and employing male short order cooks. 🙂

    The way he talks about females who speak and write is inconsistent. As regards Anne Graham Lotz, for example, Tim cited that verse from Isaiah against her when Billy Graham praised her for her ability to preach the gospel. Yet Tim also has praised Elisabeth Elliot, who has spoken often to mixed audiences, and in churches during the regular services, to mixed audiences. This hypocrisy and inconsistency has been noted for quite a while.

    In practice with his own family, Tim gives a lot more latitude to what women can do than Doug Phillips would, that’s for sure, though.

  148. Lynn Says:

    “Tim has said more than once that the heirarchy of the sexes, with women ruling over men”

    meant to say, “with men ruling over women”

  149. corriejo Says:

    “If they really are so accepting and respectful of other Christians with differing “takes” on issues like women working outside the home and girls attending college, then why do they seem to be saying the exact opposite with their writings?””

    Cynthia,

    Exactly!

    I was just thinking about this very thing. If what they say is true about not being dogmatic about these things then why are they so dogmatic about these things?

    That is the question I asked a while back when I showed you this same thing from an email conversation I had.

    I would rather deal with a dogmatic person. At least there is some substance that I can grasp. At least I can have some sort of logical debate about concrete facts! But, when we are dealing with this chameleon-like theology where sometimes it is okay for a daughter to go to college and sometimes it is okay for a woman to work but only when that woman or daughter happens to be in your personal circle, then it is hard to know what the rules are.

    When I read one thing and then the same person writes me and tells me the exact opposite, I am confused. I wonder how the patriocentrists want me to feel? I see that none of them addressed my post concerning this issue. I am really wanting someone to honestly dialogue with me. I want someone to tell me what it means when a leader in the patriocentric movement tells me, in private, that they allow working women and college-bound daughters in their elder’s households but publicly say that these activities are not allowed by scripture.

    What does scripture really say? Why are women who say the same things being labeled as WWF’s? In my thinking, either it is allowable for daughters to go to college and for women to work and that applies across the board or it does NOT.

    This is why I think it is a problem of perception. Those who say these things think of themselves as THE authority on these issues. They, alone, hold the scepter that gives permission for others to be able to do the banned activities. They extend the scepter to a very few select individuals who are in their inner circle.

    And this is where it gets dicey. On this board all we have said is that it is wrong to liken college-going daughters and working women to harlots and the Bible does not forbid these things but allows liberty for each individual. It is wrong to make laws and rules where God has not made any. It is wrong to read things into scripture that are not there. But, since we do not have the special scepter of authority, we are WWFs for saying such things.

    The conclusion that I have come to is that the patriocentric writings are written in cipher. In other words, they have their own code and they are the only ones who can interpret that code. We do not have the code so the words, in PLAIN English, seem to say one thing but since they are in code they mean quite another thing. And, at different times the code means different things depending upon who reads the cipher.

  150. corriejo Says:

    “But, it is time to call a spade a spade, I think, and admit that what we are looking at when these folks say one thing in their writings and books and hold themselves to another standard in private, is plain old pride and dishonesty, and it is spelled H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y .”

    Cynthia,

    Yes. It is time to call a spade a spade. I totally agree.

    Matthew 23

  151. thatmom Says:

    Corrie, as was observed by Captain Barbosa, the “code” is more “like guidelines really” unless of course, you happen to land on the deck of the wrong ship!

  152. thatmom Says:

    Lou, you need to go back to the past thread #2 and read Corrie’s account of what has happened to her just recently when she did just exactly what you are suggesting. I, too, have asked for clarifications that have never come.

  153. corriejo Says:

    “Recently, we have heard rumors of how rigid and harsh the “patriarchalists” are on non-essentials, like girls going away to college and women working outside the home. However, we have close friends who are not in agreement with us regarding girls going away to college (or to foreign missions) and we do not believe they are all feminists. In fact, most of these friends are patriarchal.

    In addition, we have close Christian friendships with women who work outside the home. They understand our position and we understand theirs. These friends (many are patriarchal) don’t agree with our stand and we do not agree with theirs, but we seem to be able to get along fine just the same. Not so on the Internet, it seems.”

    Hi Lou,

    See, I read this, too, and I just don’t understand how I can rectify this with the other things they say and do and write? Can you please help me see what it is I am missing?

    As far as these “close friends” she is referring to an elder in her church of which her husband is a self-made, self-ordained pastor and has even started his own presbytery where he is the authority. Basically, they make the rules and what they say goes. He used to be in the RPCGA but couldn’t submit to the authority there so he left, the RPCGA deposed him because the Presbyterian system doesn’t allow for “individuality” or being a Lone Ranger with no accountability except for hand-picked individuals. And before that? What were his credentials for being accepted into the RPCGA? I know that the RPCGA expects an man who presents himself for ordination to have some sort of credentials. Before that he was a self-appointed pastor of a church who met in his home (aka home church) and then that turned into a “real” church where he suddenly took on the moniker of “Reverend” and was appointing elders. And before the home church?

    Do you see a pattern? Those in authority do not submit to authority nor are they accountable to other respected and learned men who are truly possessing authority.

    Where are the men who are given the charge of guarding the church from those who do these sorts of things?

    When Stacy told me that she is not dogmatic about these issues, then why is she calling Karen and others White-Washed Feminists? Have you read her book? She has a whole chapter on what that exactly means. If she is not dogmatic, then what is all the fuss? We are saying the EXACT SAME THING!!! Why is she so whole-heartedly supporting the Botkin’s book, So Much More, where they dogmatically tell their readers that girls are not to go to college and women are not to work and if females do these things they are likened to harlots.

    What is your explanation for the hypocrisy?

    Well, obviously we are not saying the exact same thing because when we say that girls can go to college and women can work we are feminists who are leading people astray and not teaching the biblically mandated roles of women but promoting things outside of the prescriptive will of God.

    I would love to hear, Lou, how you explain their “do as I say not as I do” stance on these two issues?

    So they are friends with the elder’s wife and daughters in the church but Stacy has stated that they believe that their elder’s wife and daughter’s activities are unwise. How deep can that friendship be with that attitude? What is beyond me is how working women and college-going daughters can read the stuff they write and the writings they support and still think that there is a true foundation for a friendship. It is so obvious where they stand on these issues.

  154. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “What is beyond me is how working women and college-going daughters can read the stuff they write and the writings they support and still think that there is a true foundation for a friendship. It is so obvious where they stand on these issues.”

    Isn’t it though? Still, maybe they mean something diffeent by “friendship” — some people call other folks “friends” when they really mean “cordial acquanintances”. I wonder if Stacey would call Stackhouse a friend… if so, then I’d say, with friends like her, who needs enemas?

  155. Cynthia Gee Says:

    :blush: that should have read, “enemies”…

  156. corriejo Says:

    This is a perfect example of the dissembling and dishonesty. We saw exactly what was written in the Stackhouse discussion over on Stacy’s blog. We saw that she called him “Gorgie Porgie”. Spunky even posted the exact words on this blog.

    Recently, a woman posted this in reference to that discussion:

    “It has been sad for me to see sincere women led astray and start to disdain everything that has a smack of patriarchy about it. It is also sad to see the misrepresentation going on. I had read elsewhere that you and Carmon had been so arrogent and nasty to Mr.Stackhouse and then cutting him off and then doctoring things to make yourselves look good. It made me sad to think of women behaving that way, then I come and read the comments for myself and see none of that going–in fact the very opposite of that in the tone of the whole blog. ”
    November 23, 2007 1:38 PM

    Here is Stacy’s answer:

    “stacy mcdonald said…

    Hi, Leigh Ann. Thank you for your encouraging note! It is so good to see that God is perfectly capable of being our defense (though we knew that already). We are His.

    And I am so glad you were encouraged while visiting my blog. Please come back – I’ll look forward to visiting with you.”

    Huh???

    Women behaving what way? Reporting the truth of what actually happened? Or women saying nasty things and lying and then doctoring it up to make it look as if their critiques are lying about them?

    Here is the conversation on Stackhouse that sparked Stacy’s post on Stackhouse:

    http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=2086

    Here is the link to one of Spunky’s posts on the “Gorgie Porgie” comment that Stacy made. I don’t know if we have an actual copy of her original statement?

    But, if you read the exchange, Stackhouse did answer ALL of her questions, point by point. MUCH MORE than I can say for most of the patriocentrists I have questioned. Stackhouse was gracious, even though Stacy misrepresented him. You will see that she changed this blog entry a couple or more times because she was wrong. Why she just doesn’t leave up the original and write a correction and/or apology.

    Then a woman who is a participant at the Bayly blog comes and tells Stacy that Stackhouse has a nasty habit of not substantiating his claims he has been misrepresented. (She did and she retracted it but then said she still feels that even though he said he didn’t see himself any better than the patrios, he still feels better than the patrios. Basically, even though Stackhouse said he didn’t, she still felt he did and her retraction was not really a retraction because she just reiterated what it was she said in the first place.)

    The funny thing is that Stackhouse did tell Stacy in an earlier post in this thread just where he had been misrepresented. He had already answered her question and he was taunted anyways!


    Stacy McDonald said…
    Proffesor Stackhouse wrote me privately and pointed out to me that he never said anyone was “too stupid” or patriarchal to understand his ideas. So I have deleted that section from my blog. Though it is my belief that his book does imply this, I have deleted it based upon his claim.
    September 25, 2007 11:19 PM”

    Here is her retraction that isn’t really a retraction. Do you see what I mean? It is her belief that his book IMPLIES that he thinks he is better than the patrios even when he wrote to her and told her that he does not think this! And then she says she retracts it based upon his “claim”! LOL

    What utter hypocrisy when you consider her insistence that those who saw [clearly] that the Botkins were teaching that a daughter is her father’s helpmeet, both pro and con saw this, were pernicious liars and those who were purposefully trying to start rumors about the book! Even though Brandy showed her a blog with proof that others saw this book this way and the blog was in favor of the Botkin book! Even though the reviewers at CBD and Amazon saw it this way! Even though we quoted extensively from the book where it clearly IMPLIES that daughters are helpmeets! She retracted, after several attempts, the “pernicious” part of her accusation but insisted that it was those who said that this book taught that daughters are helpmeets to their father were guilty of starting rumors.

    But, she is the one in authority and she gets to decide which book implies something and which doesn’t. And if you look at what she views as an implication it is ridiculous compared to the mountains of actual quotes we had.

    Then, Stacy made a statement about how since Tim Bayly had come into the conversation, “Gorgie Porgie” aka Stackhouse ran away and wouldn’t participate any more.

    I will have to look for the original statement.

    What she should have done is leave the statement up and then made a REAL apology (not like her “apology” above) to Stackhouse. Stackhouse didn’t run away after making the girls cry. He was busy and he had answered all of her questions. I am still waiting for her to answer some of mine.

    I know that even though I disagree with Stackhouse on some issues, I would never have this sort of problem discussing these issues.

  157. corriejo Says:

    Spunky’s post on “Gorgie Porgie” is #971 in the original thread.

    There might be another one in the second thread.

    But, as Cynthia has said, the real point is hypocrisy.

    If you read Carmon’s comments in the Stackhouse thread over on Stacy’s blog you will see more of the double standard and inconsistent attitudes.

    http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/08/egalitarian-error-and-various-other.html

    “We are to speak the truth in love, not niceness, and love is based on truth (not making sure people believe you are right, and I’m speaking in our direction here). If Stacy and I believe that what someone writes about gender is a danger to families and churches (especially if it is becoming popular in our circles), out of love and concern for other women who read what we write, we will sometimes say so, for the benefit of those women.”

    You know? I could have written this very thing myself. I and many others do the very same thing that she says that they are doing but we are called names for doing it. I believe that what they write about gender is a danger to families and churches, especially since it is becoming popular in our circles. I don’t know anyone calling for “nice” but them. I am fine if they are not nice to me. I just want an honest, forthright answer to a couple questions I have! I would much rather have honesty over nice any day of the week. To my knowledge, I know of no one on this list who is calling for “nice”.

    “I’m done with this discussion as I don’t think it’s appropriate or productive to have an argument over this, but I wanted to say this for any women who might be reading, as an reminder to “test the spirits” and be Bereans about what you read and hear, even when it’s what Stacy and I write!”

    Okay. So, when women actually TEST what they say and are BEREANS about what they read and hear, then it is proof positive that these questioning, testing women are white-washed feminists?

    See what I mean about code-speak and double standards? You know how many men who ran cults tell their followers to “test” what they are being taught and compare it to what the Bible says? But, the problem is that they really don’t mean it because when the person actually tests and questions, they are ostracized and kicked out of the group. All the other people see this and get the unspoken rule that the one who tells you to test and question doesn’t really mean that you are to do that. The other problem is that when you are given “grid goggles” after being indoctrinated into a system, you will read all scripture through that particular grid, so the person


  158. from an earlier post: The men urinated on the sides of building, right along the street, thinking nothing of it. And this was in a lovely resort town!

    Just to prove that you can find a verse to prove just about anything in the Bible and call it Biblical because it’s in six verses.

    Sometimes I feel like sticking one of these references on to something completely unrelated, and using it as a proof text. Sometimes the ?logic? many used in the patriarchy camp is so esoteric and so thick with their neo-Victorian/neo-feudal/neo-puritan-patriotic worldview that I can’t figure out how or why they use a particular verse to support a statement. And this certainly is not true of just the patriarchialists, but it saddens me that they will not even discuss or explain (to us poor, ignorant “egalitarian feminist Marxists” how on earth they think that their proof texts apply). Instead, you get a playground bully style intimidation. Or they cry, “context, context, context.” Context indeed.

    Jesus shed His own innocent blood to save and REDEEM us, even our sins and our godless works for His Own USE. We have the Word in our hearts because of all the blood of the martyrs that died so that we might have the written Word so we might know the Living Word. And this is what we do with it?

    Above, someone wrote of their precious worship to God by working outside “kingdom architecture” to help support her disabled husband but that he is mud in their eyes. As I drifted off to sleep in the wee hours last night, I prayed that as Jesus healed that blind man, that the mud might heal blindness once again.

    I am blind about many things. I am unlearned about many things. Many of the doctrines that I have learned are not Biblical, but I know it well and admit it. I pray that the scales will fall from my own eyes as I press through the very different types of crowds that we have in this life today to get a firm grasp on the truth so that healing virtue might flow into me.

    God forgive us for turning away from our own flesh and not covering the naked, for not bringing the poor into our homes. Make us, through and through and not just on the outside, like trees planted by the living water with leaves and fruit that does not fade. Forgive us for drawing from streams that we’ve created and for making clean water bitter. Teach Your body how to exemplify Your True Religion, pure and undefiled, with care of the helpless and holiness in balance. Forgive us for treading on Your Word in our ignorance. Amen, Amen, Amen.

  159. corriejo Says:

    Cynthia,

    “We aren’t Southerners, but we used to live in Florida (luckily we moved north just before all those hurricanes hit in 2004 and 2005), and if I had ever done something like dressing up in order to flee a hurricane, my DH probably would have taken me to have my head examined!
    I mean, come on — in a hurricane, it’s raining buckets, the wind is blowing like crazy, and there is widespread flooding. Any woman outside in a dress in those conditions might just as well be naked from the waist down, and pretty little shoes aren’t much good for wading through mud and debris. That’s the trouble with pretty, feminine clothes — though decorative, they just aren’t practical when you are in a situation where your body has to function as it was actually meant to function by its Creator.”

    LOL! This is very true. I often think about what I would do if we ever had a fire. I can imagine that I wouldn’t always be dignified if I had to flee for my life! Especially because I would be more concerned about getting my children to safety than about my pajamas or lack thereof.

    I am sure that emergency situations don’t always leave one a lot of time to get properly dressed in order to die a dignified death. I had always thought that “death with dignity” meant a person’s attitude towards the death process and not what they were wearing?

    I know you weren’t picking on me and I also totally agree with what you said. You made a very good point and one that I have noticed over the years. I found the same attitude towards a woman’s body in some writings such as the “Sin of Bathsheba”. It almost seems that a woman should be ashamed and try to totally cover the fact that God made her a woman with hips and breasts. I am not talking about making sure others can read our private parts through our clothing. I am talking about the fact that we have curves and breasts and those are not shameful things. I don’t think we should be accentuating them by no means but I also don’t think we should be having to hide every trace of our femininity.

    The king could see that Sarah, Abraham’s wife, had a nice figure. Isaac could see that Rebekah had a nice figure. Esther’s nice figure was evident for all to see. It is obvious that women of old didn’t go to extreme lengths to cover up their figures like what some would like us to believe. If they were just wearing shapeless robes, no one would have been able to see if they had a nice figure.


  160. I don’t know if anyone has realized any of this, but I think that nearly every element of the Book of James has been addressed here over the past day or so.

    -Double mindedness and standards
    -Patience through tribulation
    -Bitter and sweet water coming from the same spring
    -Bridling the tongue
    -Prefering the well dressed
    -Praying for one another
    -Faith versus works and works versus faith and how to view the two in balance
    -Pride and strife “among us”
    -Judging bretheren on outward appearance
    -Boasting about tomorrow
    -Heavenly versus demonic wisdom
    -Hypocrisy

    In my own efforts to clarify the truth, I have not lived up to this standard. But neither has anyone else. I want very much to have a public debate about these issues and engage those who claim that I and others are blaspheming the Word of God. I’ve emailed questions and comments to many, many people. The one response that I did get was altered, and a haughty response to my true concerns was sent to me via email. That response was full of legalism (I hadn’t asked the right question in the right manner or in the right place) and condescension with a hint of accusation. It concluded with “you are certainly my sister in Christ.” Where was Christ in the first part? Christ’s love was not extended to me because I do not embrace the ideology of patriarchy. I had not merited concern because I did not jump through their hoops of sacredotalism. My beliefs, because of their lack of respect for any other interpretation of Christian standard different from their own narrow one, have been deemed, well — I guess reprobate or something — so now I am marked for discipline.

    I think I’m going to read James every day for awhile because I need it. Some of it has been driven down deep in my heart, but not all. And I love how it ends:

    James 5
    19 Brethren, if anyone among you wanders from the truth, and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that he who turns a sinner from the error of his way will save a soul[f] from death and cover a multitude of sins.

  161. Krista Says:

    While I admit I wish Stacy McDonald had elaborated more specifically about why she deleted her comment in which she called Stackhouse “Gorgy Porgie,” she did leave a comment elaborating on something she said of a sarcastic nature. I can only assume that she was speaking of that comment:

    An individual (as well as my husband) pointed out to me that one of my comments on this thread was less than gracious.

    I hope I am always willing to consider when my own sarcastic nature has risen up and gotten the best of me. I really do try to crucify that part of my flesh on a daily basis and, with God’s help, I’m making some headway (you should have seen me in high school!)

    Sometimes I can see it on my own and can repent, other times I’m blinded by my own sinful pride and someone else has to point it out. Either way, if you see a sentence missing from these comments, you’ll know why.

    As for Prof. Stackhouse and I, we parted company (via email) in peace. I think he’s wrong and he thinks I’m wrong. I pray that God reveals His Truth to Prof. Stackhouse for his own sake and for the sake of those he’s leading astray. It could be that the good professor is praying for me too – I hope so; I could use it.

    Grace and Peace

  162. TulipGirl Says:

    A pet peeve of mine in the online world is writing something, being confronted about it, and then changing what was initially said without being very clear about what was changed. When that has been done, the writer loses credibility.

    I have maintained an online presence for many years now. The Lord has changed my heart in many areas. I have removed things I previously wrote from the internet, with accompanying explanations. Any time, however, that I’ve rewritten my words it has been with full and transparent explanation of why and what was changed. (And the only time that was done in a significant way was to honor a brother in Christ.)

    I do believe there are legitimate reasons to remove ones’ words from the internet, or to modify what was said. But for truthfulness and transparency, it should always be done in a forthright manner.

  163. TulipGirl Says:

    Cynthia Gee, I can’t find an email address with which to contact you. Would you mind e-mailing me? tulipgrrl AT gmail DOT com . (Yes, two rr’s in grrl.)


  164. From Stacy’s quote above: As for Prof. Stackhouse and I, we parted company (via email) in peace. I think he’s wrong and he thinks I’m wrong. I pray that God reveals His Truth to Prof. Stackhouse for his own sake and for the sake of those he’s leading astray. It could be that the good professor is praying for me too – I hope so; I could use it.

    Herein lies the problem. She acknowledges the presuppositional dissagreements of them both believing the over to be wrong.

    But here’s the arrogance: I pray that God reveals His Truth to Stackhouse for his own sake and for the sake of those he is leading astray.

    Here’s where the patriarchs and I differ. There is one truth, and we are all clearly working towards that truth — to be like Christ. We do look through a veil of the flesh, and each person’s flesh has a different quality based on their experiences and natural differences. But neither of us has the truth in fullness as Ephesians says (until we all come into the unity of the truth). When we are one day like Jesus, when we are changed for we shall see Him as He is, we will be in unity.

    To foster unity, we must have respect for one another as they are, whether they look or think or act as we would have them be. I end up talking to all kinds of people with all kinds of different beliefs, and it is a challenge. When we hit that point of disagreement, I focus back on my own faith in truth and my faith that the truth will bear out my beliefs. I also add that I strive to live my life in such a way that the person that I’m talking to will see that truth borne out in my own life over time as another demonstration of the validity of my belief system. A major component of that is admitting my flaws and struggles very openly and honestly with the person. In a nutshell, it says “On matters of faith and presupposition, I cannot prove anything to anyone, but it’s my heart of hearts that one day, the truth will manifest itself so that you believe what I do.”

    There’s no anger. No pushing. No arrogance. In fact, these subjects come up time and again. The topic of abortion came up with one person about a year ago, and this person started ranting about pro-lifers. But she turned and looked at me and said “But I don’t mean to offend you, Cindy, because I know that this is how you believe.” I looked at her with a tear in my eye and said “You know my heart well.” This momentary intermission concluded, and she went back to complaining about pro-lifers again.

    We were actually waiting for treatment in a doctor’s office, but she came to find me in the treatment area before she left, and hugged me — something she’d never done before. I believe that she did because she was responding to the truth which clearly convicted her but also the respect that I showed her. In her, I loved my neighbor as myself, faults and all. She gave me the opportunity to say “This is what I believe” and I respected her. (And she was convicted!) But I believe that she was moved by my love for her, because I know that beneath her arguments that there are reasons for them. I can’t imagine that they are good reasons but borne out of the pain and helplessness of a life without Jesus. And although I a new creation in Christ, I don’t forget for an instant who and what without His righteousness. And I certainly don’t earn that righteousness through anything that I do, save repent and put my faith in Him.

    Stacy offered me her phone number to me so that I could talk. I didn’t call. Why? I surely would have, if she ever demonstrated any type of respect for so many others who hold my beliefs without calling me one who leads others astray or twisting my words. I have much more trust in the respect that woman in the doctor’s office has for me than those who throw monikers around and deem my highest and best worship to be like a filthy pig or dog or ingenuous Christianity or like a Marxist train falling off the track into an abyss.

    They can candy coat their intent and make all the public statements they want. Their disclaimers do not apply against the weight of their behaviors in secret and the passive animosity that oozes out in their monkiers and the doctrine that they’ve been forced to soften on the outside to conceal the bitter strife below the surface. Disclaimers do not make any of that go away.

    They can fool some of the people and make the arguments about ideas look personal, but they can’t fool everybody always.

    I have faith in God that time and truth will bear all these things out.


  165. I’m half afraid to go back and read that long post I just wrote. I’m quite emotional about this stuff and my heart aches terribly. I don’t know if any of it made any sense.

    The woman in the doctor’s office (where I spend a lot of time as a patient) is a 72 year old woman named Ethel. She IS a feminist and offensive and messed up in many ways. But for some reason, I am overwhelmed with sad compassion for her. Please pray for her so that the Holy Spirit moves on her heart and opens her eyes to see Jesus.

    It is my concern that this whole patriarchy thing readily throw people like Ethel in the trash to be burned in eternal fire because they are too pious to talk to them. (They’re certainly too pious to show me much, and what I receive, I have trouble trusting.) But all Ethel knows are Bible thumpers (what a Jewish friend of mine calls “God Squad.”

    How the more grieved I am that brethren who are to be known not only for holding one another accountable but for love for one another act this way within the fold.


  166. I was taught that an apology goes something like this:

    I’m sorry, I was wrong. Would you forgive me?

    Stacy’s “apology” as written above hardly fits it. It is more of a sarcastic, I’m-right-I-know-I’m-right-but-I’ll-play-sorry-to-make-somebody-happy type of response.

    Over and over the more I read, the more convinced I am that the whole movement is love-less. It is full of flesh, dressed so discreetly in pride of self, but made to come across as holier and more perfect.

    If the VF/patrio camp would come off as at least TRYING to win souls for Christ, I’d not be so bothered. But instead, it seems they’re just bent on winning other Christians to their own private circles. I think they’re trying to “perfect” the body of Christ and forget there is an entire dying world out there.

    I’m in the midst of a very deep and lonely faith journey in my own life, and this is timely for me. Why? Because I see more and more that I’m looking for:

    1. A PRACTICAL faith—one that works on good days and bad days and doesn’t require a list of things for me to check off

    2. An AUTHENTIC faith—one that is true. One that reaches out and lifts the dying man up to Christ. One that gets dirty, and dingy, and isn’t afraid to help the homeless, the poor, the broken hearted. One that embraces the harlot, instead of poking a finger and shouting “jezebel!”

    My mama always told me that the older I got, the more I’d understand what it is I want in life. The less I’d care about what other people think about me or how I live my life.

    I can truly thank the patrio camp for helping me realize this more and more daily.

    Less of me, More of HIM. Thank God for HIS Grace. I need none other.

  167. corriejo Says:

    Dr. Phil had an interesting segment on modesty so I TiVo’d it.

    There is a neat organization run by a former model who is a Christian called “Pure Fashion”. You can find her website at purefashion.com. Brenda Sharman discussed modesty and she did a very good job at it. She is a beautiful woman and pregnant to boot!

    I know someone was asking about things that help us raise daughters with standards without being legalistic and I think this is a good answer for this issue.

    Brenda spoke about how we have a duty to make sure we are not dressing in an immodest fashion and causing men to lust but she did in a way that was not legalistic and putting all the blame for lust squarely on a woman’s shoulders. I am glad to see that she thinks women can be modest AND feminine in pants, shorts and capris.

    They even discussed Bratz dolls and their effect on little girls.

    It looks like the “world” is concerned about this trend for girls to dress immodestly and there seems to be some very good answers to these problems.

  168. shilohmm Says:

    Here is the conversation on Stackhouse that sparked Stacy’s post on Stackhouse:

    I dislike the phrasing of this bit in Stacy’s original post there:

    In case you missed it, Stackhouse believes that God created Adam to be an androgynous being, neither male nor female, but both. This teaching, besides being a weird doctrine taught by the Jehovah’s Witnesses cult, is also promoted by members of Christians for Biblical Equality.

    While I rather agree that this is a weird doctrine in the sense that I personally find the idea bizarre, it has nothing to do with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This is a (or the) classic Jewish interpretation, based on the original Hebrew somehow. I don’t agree with it because it doesn’t fit for me with God “building” Eve (rather than dividing said androgynous figure), but I dislike this labeling it as a belief at some time peculiar to Jehovah’s Witnesses, because it isn’t and never was.

    While I recognize my history with the various representatives of patriarchy isn’t as long as that of many women’s here, I am just not to the point of considering any individual a hypocrite. But I do think a lot of what is said by those claiming Biblical patriarchy is poorly informed and unbiblical, and that either people are being mindlessly reactionary (“What? The Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that? Must be evil.”) or otherwise disinterested in doing their homework before flinging accusations.

    Again, not to say I’d agree with the ladies here who’ve come to the conclusion that people are motivated entirely by hypocrisy even if we had shared the same history, but I am not seeing here this sort of “connect your opponent to the bad guys” sort of statements like this one with Stackhouse, CBE, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, where it would be far more honest to recognize that the theory in question is one held by the ancient Jews rather than one originating with a modern American Christian cult.

    On the contary, where someone has tried to connect in to the “other side” here, as with that joke blog, it’s been clearly stated that, “No, this person is not actually on their side.”

    Perhaps it’s just that I am more comfortable with the rude but brutally honest than I am with the polite dissemblers. While it’s been suggested that the partiarchal literature is written in “code”, I wonder if it isn’t partly just a difference in style, where what seems obvious to one side is completely invisible to the other. Heaven knows my dad and I regularly clashed that way, where his “unwritten but completely clear rules” ended up causing huge trouble because I couldn’t see them, while to him they were so obvious they simply could not be the problem – assuming he was aware of them at all, since they were so fundamental to his nature they weren’t mentioned because he could not imagine human life independent of them. :p

  169. Kate Says:

    Corrie said, in comment #128, regarding the comment about fleeing hurricane victims:

    “Truly, it is the most ridiculous thing I think I have ever heard. It reminds me of something Betty Bowers would say.”

    Actually, the first person that came to mind was another Betty: Betty Butterfield of YouTube fame. 🙂

  170. Debbie from CA Says:

    Hello Ladies,

    Long time lurker here. Thank you for your grace, your wise words, and your ongoing posts–of which I’ve read in their entirety. (It took a while!) You give me hope for my dear friend who is deeply embroiled in patriarchy and suffering more than almost anyone knows. She is in utter denial. I pray she reads this website.

    A little suggestion here on something that I’m absolutely certain was written in complete innocence. The use of the phrase: “Call a spade a spade” actually has a racist meaning that I can’t quite recall exactly, but I do know it relates to the obvious color of the spade in a deck of cards. Most of us would not ever realize it. (I know I didn’t until my pastor had to apologize for using it the week before, not knowing its meaning until someone pointed it out.)

    I tell you this solely to help protect the reputation of this awesome website. You all are fantastic, truly. May the Lord continue to bless you in your work here. While there may be disagreement on women serving in ministry, this website offers hope and truth and you are all ministers for it.

  171. Amy R. Says:

    Hello, I’m Amy 🙂 I’ve been following this discussion, and I thank you all for it. I recognize many names here, from parenting and homeschooling internet circles, and it is so good to ‘see’ you all again. (you may know me as Weathertopmama, BluegrassMama, or amy3dulcimer)

    I recently almost fell into this “patriocentric” camp. It was entirely accidental! I hold several quirky beliefs, and I was searching for likeminded people. I found people who came to the same conclusions but now I realize that our reasons are very, very different.

    For example, because of past abuse issues, DH and I do not send our children to Sunday schools. We wish we could find a family-integrated church, because it is extremely uncomfortable to be a no-SS family in a non-FI church.

    I went looking for FI people online, and I found them! I was hopeful! I listened to Dr. Baucham’s podcasts and bought his book, ‘Family Driven Faith.’

    I enjoyed the information and perspective. Dr. Baucham is indeed a kindred spirit as far as individual family choices are concerned.

    I definitely have to part ways with him, though, when it comes to exacting opinions on others. After having opinions bound on me in the past, I can not turn and do it to others. And if it hadn’t been for this blog, I would not have known the greater movement with which Dr. Baucham is involved.

    Also, this information about changed definitions and code words is a scary, scary thing. When Dr. Baucham said, “The spiritual authority in my child’s life is me!” (from the SBC speech, the Centrality of the Home) “I” thought he meant that because of his God-given authority and responsibility to teach his child, he believed himself to be the primary teacher of spiritual things to his child. Now I know that he literally meant that a father is the spiritual authority over a child. That subtle difference is everything to a person who believes that my child is to answer to God first.

    You may have spared my family some unnecessary drama and heartache, in helping me to become informed enough to know to steer clear of this patriocentric movement!

    I imagine that Dh and I might have gone seeking for people who agreed about big families, no Sunday school, homeschooling, etc. and found ourselves in one of these Dominionist churches. We would have realized slightly too late that we were in the wrong place, there would have been a big ‘thing’ and yet another case where we are left holding the Bible and our confused kids after leaving an unbiblical church.

    My family does not need that. We have survived so many changes in churches, but can’t we please just have some normalcy??

    Christianity in America today is a mess, in my humble opinion. One can’t just worship in a sober and biblical way, with other simple Christians who strive to agree on doctrine but accept each other on matters of opinion.

    No, in 2007, to walk into a church building is to join a camp. To worship with a group is to accept an ideology outside of the Bible, and Groupthink is the standard of the day.

    I’m just tired of it.

    Thank you all for doing the legwork on this topic. I’m having a hard time keeping up with all the false doctrines that bounce off our front door, and I can’t catch them all in time. Your work here is important and helpful, please never believe those who accuse you of wasting time.


  172. Actually it is NOT a racial slur if you want to be technical. Some people have used it as such in the late 19th and 20th century, but the saying/term comes from Erasmus and originally had nothing to do with racial anything. It originally referred back to Plutarch’s Apophthegmata, 178 BC.

    More info:

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/83700.html

    Boy, we really are discussing all sorts of things here. I’m learning a whole lot.


  173. Somehow my comment got lost in cyberspace. I commented about how the term “call a spade a spade” is not a racial slur. It is deemed by some as negative, because as with anything some people have abused it. But in truth, the saying has been around for a long, long time and refers back to Plutarch’s Apophthegmata, 178 BC.

    More info:

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/83700.html

  174. corriejo Says:

    “The use of the phrase: “Call a spade a spade” actually has a racist meaning that I can’t quite recall exactly, but I do know it relates to the obvious color of the spade in a deck of cards. Most of us would not ever realize it. ”

    Debbie,

    Oh my. Thank you for telling me. I want to apologize to everyone for using that phrase. I certainly do not want to say anything that is offensive and has a loaded meaning, even if I didn’t know that at the time I said it.

    I would rather know than not know.

  175. corriejo Says:

    http://media.www.dailytexanonline.com/media/storage/paper410/news/2007/11/20/Opinion/Who-Wears.The.Pants-3112061.shtml

    Here is a college paper written by a history junior for the Daily Texan. His name is Ryan Haecker.

    I have a lot running through my head concerning some of the statements he has made but I need to let them settle down to the bottom before I comment. I just wonder where he got his ideas on women from?

    Who Wears the Pants?

    Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West’s Germanic barbarian heritage). Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs. Dresses are the indelible image of womanhood because of the symbolic nature of pants and dresses. If all fashions are symbolic, dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable. We all tacitly reaffirm these attributes in our attempts to find a partner. Flirtation and courtship are reaffirmations of what it means to be masculine and feminine because it is only by fulfilling the obligation of our form that we can attract the opposite sex.

    You might say these things were once true but times have changed. Not so. The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged. In this way, the ideal form of femininity is also unchangeable and without regard for cultural context or time period. What men find attractive in women – the form of a true lady – is objectively identifiable, just as it was in the time of Nebuchadnezzar. In short, femininity is sexy, and sexy is timeless and universal.

    What’s not sexy is feminism (not to be confused with femininity), which is directly responsible for the disappearance of our beloved dresses and the adoption of pants by the “new woman.” Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something – in this case masculinity – through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.

    In advocating the wearing of dresses, I must distinguish between the flowing elegant dresses of tradition and the more degenerate and immodest dresses of our present culture. The miniskirt, a dress of sorts that doesn’t extend below the knees, is both lacking in modesty and elegance. Elegance is essential to femininity, and the lack thereof implies a sort of masculinization. Modesty is essential to feminine virtue, and the lack thereof implies a state of whorification. Immodest, inelegant dresses constitute a degeneration and androgynization of true dresses.

    The androgynous masculinization of the modern woman, through the donning of pants, suits, uncovered shoulders and unveiled hair, has in a sense led to the slow whorification of ladyhood. In discarding feminine dress, women seem to have symbolically discarded femininity and modesty (the virtues of women) in favor of sexual virility, promiscuity and immodesty (the vices of men). The ideal form of a true lady is a constant, immutable aspect of humanity, and this strange new development can only represent a bizarre aberration of a perverse and ignoble culture. Dresses are an essential part of any true lady’s attire, and they should be worn.

  176. corriejo Says:

    I have been reading at a few blogs of Muslim women and I see a lot of parallels to what we are discussing here. These are discussions concerning practicing Muslim women. These are not secular women arguing against Islam. The consensus seems to be this:

    “Salahudin, I disagree with you very strongly, neither the Shari’ah or the Qur’an are patriarchal systems, they protect and honour women. Sadly though it is the people who misinterpret texts, and say that they are implementing Shari’ah when in all actuality they are choosing as they please.”

    Sound familiar?

    It seems that if the Muslim world knows the difference between the traditions of men and the teachings in their book of faith; it would seem that Christians should understand that much more.

  177. Kate Says:

    Corrie,

    I read that article you provided and a question came to mind: How does a blind man find a woman s*xually attractive? If the author’s theory holds true, than a blind man would have to envision a woman in a dress to find her attractive, even if he’s never seen before.

    I would have to say that Eve wasn’t wearing anything when Adam met her. I think it comes down to preferences and pre-conceived notions, not God’s design between the sexes that societies formulate attractiveness between the genders.

    I don’t know how to fit this in, but, has anyone ever watched a National Geographic program or read the magazine? Many of the tribal societies featured are very patriocentric and yet the women in the societies often wear no clothing on their torsos (no tops). Does this support his argument that dresses define femininity? I’m still thinking about that.

  178. louu Says:

    This is my heart and I hope you hear me out. I am very far away from the beliefs of Stacy, but my heart is aching for the way believers are speaking about one another. I have no doubt that the things she said are true but she says that she has spoken with Mr. Stackhouse and things are amicable between them. As a believer I am to believe all things. She might not have handled things as I would have, but condemning her for setting up her standards and requiring others to live by them while not living up to mine in the manner of apology is being quilty of the same thing.
    She also says that she will talk with you, yet you assume the worst that she will not listen. She didn’t respond to e-mails yet you assume the worst that she is unwilling to dialoge. Maybe she couldn’t right then or missed the e-mails, yet she is jumped on when she critizises Mr. Stackhouse for not responding to her e-mails when he had some other things going on.
    Does she have a double standard? Do we? Do we believe and hope all things about another believer? Or do we, when they fail to do things as we would have them, feel that then we are given liberty to make and spread assumptions about their character accusing them of hypocrisy, pride and dishonesty.
    If we are waiting for someone to dialoge with us, is not the wisest thing to wait without making assumptions until that happens. I’m sure Stacy wishes she had. If someone admits they were wrong, do we commend that even if it was not what we would have done, or do we condemn them and assume the worst of their actions.
    What I am pleading for is charity as described in 1 Cor. 13. I need more of it. I fail miserably at it. But it is needed if the peace of the church is to be maintained.

    “It is my concern that this whole patriarchy thing readily throw people like Ethel in the trash to be burned in eternal fire because they are too pious to talk to them. (They’re certainly too pious to show me much, and what I receive, I have trouble trusting.) But all Ethel knows are Bible thumpers (what a Jewish friend of mine calls “God Squad.” ”

    This is also another assumption. I have a friend who is a homosexual. I try my best to love him and encourage him however I can. The above statement is very hurtful. I am a sinner saved by grace. I am the least of the least. Can you not see the lack of grace in that statement? The lack of believing all things? I plead with you to consider the things you are accusing brothers and sisters in Christ of.

    “Over and over the more I read, the more convinced I am that the whole movement is love-less. It is full of flesh, dressed so discreetly in pride of self, but made to come across as holier and more perfect. ”

    Please consider you words. I bear no one any ill will. My heart is just breaking. I do not doubt your love for the Lord, but you will doubt mine? You will doubt the earnest longing of my heart to see the body of Christ to love one another and use that love to cover a multitude of sins. I come here and am told that because I believe a certain thing I am loveless, full of pride, without care for the lost and dying in sin. Ladies, let us love one another. Please. My heart is so heavy. I don’t agree with you ladies on everything, just as I don’t agree with Stacy on everything. But you have named the name of Christ, therefore you are my sisters. Can we not show the world that we are His by our love one for another? A love that will not assume evil but will rejoice in the truth. A love that will believe all things and wait and hope for the best out of one another. A love that will assume the best intent of another. Sisters, let us love one another.

  179. Lin Says:

    This may be off topic but it is relevant. I have been noticing a pattern in Patriarchy that I wonder if anyone else has noticed.

    The leaders (and some are women!) seem to have their income/royalties tied directly to their beliefs.

    They make money by selling a ‘lifestyle’.

    We see this in the books they sell, clothing lines they design and all the other chatkes they sell including materials to the homeschool market.

    This would make it very hard for them to question their beliefs and would even cause them to dig their heels in even further and refuse to ‘dialogue’. I can understand why.

    Think of the implications of having a ready made consumer market which dare not disagree or be labeled a sinner. I am a bit surprised that more women do not see the hypocrisy, though.

    Besides the hypocrisy we see such as quoting Elisabeth Elliot who lived a life they actually teach against, I am concerned for the hypocrisy of some of the women leaders who obviously are not tending to family while writing/selling books or even blogging. Let’s face it, you can’t do both at the same time very well.

    Is this a brand of do as I say, not as I do? And the fact that income/royalties (outside of a paid minister) are tied to selling a lifestyle, makes me question their judgement.

    I do find it ironic that these women have become ‘leaders’ by way of their blogging and books. But when others do it who do not agree with their extra biblical teaching, they are feminists and rebuked.

    If they were true women of what they teach, uber-Patriarchy, we would know nothing about them and never hear about them.

  180. Spunky Says:

    Lin, I agree with your statement. It is ironic that those that disagree with the writings of the Botkins or the McDonalds are rebuked for slander, or accused of lacking in love for their brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet, the teachers we examine are allowed to publically condemn the lives of others both living and dead and we supposed to just ignore it as a show of Christian love for our bretheren.

    Love does rejoice in the Truth.

    And the Botkins felt that the truth needed be told about Mary Slessor and Amy Carmicheal so they publically in writing said that these two ladies were not purely biblical in the way they lived their lives as women in foreign missions. In doing so, they were critical of two women who are not even alive to defend their own actions.

    Further, Stacey McDonald felt the truth needed to be told about John Stackhouse and his book, Finally Feminist, so she publically blogged about his error. And she did so WITHOUT having read through his entire book.

    Were the Botkins commiting slander or gossip when they wrote about Slessor or Carmichael? Was Stacey McDonald commiting slander or gossip when she wrote about Stackhouse? No. They were critically reviewing the work of people who they believed are in error and would lead people astray.

    Stacey said as much when she wrote in her amended comment, ” I think he’s wrong and he thinks I’m wrong. I pray that God reveals His Truth to Prof. Stackhouse for his own sake and for the sake of those he’s leading astray.”

    For the love of the truth, Stacey has publically called a man into account.

    For the love of the truth, we do as well.

  181. Lynn Says:

    Well, the Passionate Houswives book is back up to $16 on Amazon. The sale appears to be over at this time.

  182. Spunky Says:

    Barbara Curtis wrote on her blog today,

    “How I wish that some “Spiritual Icons” like Doug Phillips would risk the perfect photo ops to model for his followers that the Christian life is not about wearing the right clothes and reading the right books and dressing your kids in the right period dress – but that it is about taking risks, abandoning our fear of losing control and letting God move through you to be a witness to what the real Christian life should look like.

    I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink’…Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink?…’Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ Matthew 25:35, 37, 40

    It is a travesty that so much of the Christian world today is built on personalities and merchandising. By convincing others that he has a “perfect” family, a Christian leader can wield enormous influence – creating an empire that supports that family in a more-than-comfortable lifestyle and deluding followers into thinking they can have it too if they buy the right stuff.

    This is the hidden trap of this whole movement.

  183. Light Says:

    Corrie said: “Here is a college paper written by a history junior for the Daily Texan. His name is Ryan Haecker.”

    Thanks, Corrie – this little gem gave me a good chuckle. Ryan writes: “… the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility.”

    Young Mr. Haecker, I fear, is going to be quite embarrassed by this pontification someday when he gains maturity and wisdom. Objective understanding? What one finds attractive is by its very nature subjective, not objective. What data does he have to back his claims up? He has some research, I assume, that has surveyed all men and found them to all prefer these qualities in a woman. (I just asked my husband about passivity being attractive in women, and he just rolled his eyes. He said he finds passive women very UNattractive, and never would have married me if I were passive.) And childrearing … if the objective understanding of men is to that female childrearing so attractive, why is it that so many men abandon their wives/girlfriends with young children? Domesticity and fertility – is that why so many men prefer career women and choose women who, like them, don’t want to have children?

    I think Ryan is trying to justify his own ideal woman by claiming that all men “objectively” find these things attractive. He has yet to learn that people don’t fit into neat little molds.


  184. Llou,

    It was love that motivated me to write what I did. Re read the whole post, if you like. If you can show me where any of these groups offers any kind of compassion to the lost who know not their right hand from their left, I might have a different opinion. As offended as you are over my stated concern (not an accusation), I am more deeply grieved by a group of Christians that would sooner establish laws that would reinstitute stoning than minister to the lost.

    About 15 years ago, I could have written exactly what you have here. I believed all good things, and I was devoured and left for dead like an apostate for defending abused women and for calling elders on outright lies that they told to me personally. I was very good at being as innocent as a dove, but I lacked wise discernment. Those lessons came at a very high price.

    So say that I am unloving or ungracious, but I have learned from costly experience and the similar experience of others that trust must be merited. Can I say with certainty that a phonecall to Stacy would produce an undesirable outcome? No. Is it wise for me to anticipate one? From the vast experience I now have in dealing with closed spiritual systems, absolutely.

    I hear, honor and understand what you’ve said here, but you misunderstand my perspective, I think. I do take to heart, with all seriousness, what you have to say. I would ask however that you would consider that ther are factors that are not readily apparent here, and that I just might be speaking thoughtfully from experience in the Body of Christ that has come at a tremendously high price. It is possible to discuss ideas and practice without these things becoming personal. We are dealing with misguided if not false teachings and error here, and that type of thing is very much iron sharpening iron. That is love, however rough the process. I seek unity of the faith by bringing the teachings and practices under the authority of the Word. I’ve still got a long way to go on the learning curve.

  185. Spunky Says:

    “I would ask however that you would consider that there are factors that are not readily apparent here, and that I just might be speaking thoughtfully from experience in the Body of Christ that has come at a tremendously high price.”

    Cindy, I think this could be written by quite a few who have written here. I know it is true for me.

  186. corriejo Says:

    “The leaders (and some are women!) seem to have their income/royalties tied directly to their beliefs.”

    Lynn,

    Excellent post.

    I have said this time and time again. How can a person be open to correction when their source of income is directly tied to their beliefs? The answer is that they can’t. This is WRONG. This is NON-NORMATIVE and outside the prescriptive will of God. The scriptures clearly show that this is NOT how the ministers of the gospel conducted themselves. Not to mention that the ministers of the gospel preached about Christ and Him crucified. We should focus on what Christ focused on since it is His example we should be following.

  187. corriejo Says:

    Hi Louu,

    ” my heart is aching for the way believers are speaking about one another.”

    Mine too. This has been going on for far too long. I am tired of watching people who have a legitimate difference of opinion being cut down and called names and having their spiritual state constantly maligned. I am tired of watching my friends and their good names being dragged through the mud without cause. I watched one friend go through this and how a Matthew 18 email campaign was used against her and it was so unjust. Do you know how long this dissembling has been going on? I have witnessed it for about a decade.

    “I have no doubt that the things she said are true but she says that she has spoken with Mr. Stackhouse and things are amicable between them. As a believer I am to believe all things. She might not have handled things as I would have, but condemning her for setting up her standards and requiring others to live by them while not living up to mine in the manner of apology is being quilty of the same thing.”

    I don’t think you have the problem accurately defined. I have no problem with her critiquing Stackhouse’s book at all. She is free to do that. I am not sure how a relationship with Stackhouse can be amicable after she taunted him and emasculated him by calling him “Gorgie Porgie”, do you? I just looked up thee definition of “amicable”. It is the lack of serious disagreement and having a spirit of friendliness; characterized by friendly goodwill.

    So, I am to believe that they have a lack of serious disagreement and that they are on friendly terms with one another characterized by friendly goodwill?

    No one is requiring her to live up to “our standards”. We are requiring her to be consistent in doing the things she teaches others to do. Why is it okay to criticize and critique the writings of others but it is gossip and slander if others criticize and critique her writings?

    Louu, do you see the difference? She is free to critique whatever teaching she wants to but she is not free to turn around and claim she is being persecuted for righteousness’ sake when her writings are examined.

    Why is it that that the male and female leaders of the patriocentric movement constantly criticize and critique others and their teachings but when others do the same with their teachings, they circle the wagons and start crying about how everyone is assassinating them?

    That just makes NO sense at all.

    “She also says that she will talk with you, yet you assume the worst that she will not listen. She didn’t respond to e-mails yet you assume the worst that she is unwilling to dialoge. Maybe she couldn’t right then or missed the e-mails, yet she is jumped on when she criticizes Mr. Stackhouse for not responding to her e-mails when he had some other things going on.”

    Are you talking to me, personally here, Louu? How do you know this stuff? Who is telling you this? Where are *you* getting this information from? I find it funny that you are the one being assured of these things and not the ones who should be hearing these things? As far as emails, there is no doubt in my mind that she is unwilling to answer my questions about the contradiction between what she practices and what she preaches. I gave PLENTY of time for an answer. In fact, there were several emails coming my way that questioned a very minute, side issue that had NO significance to anything. But the one question that I really wanted addressed was never addressed. After days went by, I emailed again. Then, after days went by I relayed a bit of the story here. And still more time has gone by in which this question could have been answered but it hasn’t been.

    What I do know, Louu, is that she received my emails because she responded to them but only to the things she felt were important. I did everything to answer her questions even though they had no significance at all to anything being discussed. I also know she received them because she has been discussing them (she referenced some of the things I said) in private emails with others.

    Add to that a long history of this sort of, for lack of a better word, game playing and I feel that I have been more than generous when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt. I am not a Yo-Yo nor do I appreciate being handled.

    But, I am still willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, even now after all of the things that have gone on, including the new patriobabble blog. If that is the best that these people have to offer, then I am truly sad for them. They are truly blaspheming the name of Christ to the Gentiles. And when I tried to point it out, they mocked me and belittled me and insinuated that I had marital issues (look at the tags). But, did they address any of the points that I made? No.

    Is there no one in their camp that will rebuke and stand against such things? I have yet to see it. And when you ask them about blogs like these, you get an answer that is less than honest (ie., “I haven’t read that blog.” “I don’t know what you are talking about.” when you know for certain from other sources that they surely do know and they surely have read)

    I hope you don’t think that I have told you the complete story? I have tried to not go into all the details for many reasons. There are many things that I am leaving out. But, as Cindy so succinctly stated, there are factors that are not readily apparent here and I *am* speaking from experience and from a first-hand observation of a repeated pattern.

    I do not distrust people easily. I am very trusting by nature. This is not easy for me and it is actually an area where the Lord has had to teach me to not be so trusting by bringing some hard things into my life.

  188. louu Says:

    I’m sorry. I just wanted to plead for charity all the way around. I see that my naivity, lack of experience, not having all the details, etc. excludes me from asking that every believe treat every other believer in love. The funny thing is that I am not a big fan of VF and all the like. Yet to even ask that we be kind one to another like Christ was to us, remember we despised, mocked and mistreated Him yet He opened not his mouth, gets me a dressing down about how wrong I am for not seeing things your way and how much all of you know and how right you are in your positions. Pot=kettle=black.
    I’m always sorry when I get into these things because I am not taking sides. I am just asking that each side treat the other as they want to be treated. It seems to be too much to ask.

  189. corriejo Says:

    Since we are talking about Stackhouse, I thought I would read up on all the controversy.

    I don’t agree with his wording concerning homosexuality. I really don’t know what he means and that is one thing I would ask him to clarify. I also do not have the book so I can’t make any sort of substantive argument for or against based on the little that was quoted from his book.

    http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/08/rebuke-with-all.html

    Here is a reposting of Stacy McDonald’s critique of Stackhouse’s book.

    What I want you to notice is her comments in response to what Stackhouse writes:

    “I noticed that, Kamilla. In fact, he considers homosexuality a “personal deformity,” rather than a sin. Of course, that makes sense for him; a deformity is “someone els’es fault.” Promiscuity, self-righteousness, and violence are simply “deformities” as well. He says:

    “Homosexuality therefore incurs certain restrictions appropriate to its character, such as celibacy, just as the promiscuous must be chaste, the pedophiliac must avoid children, and the self-righteous must seek humility.”

    Therefore, are we to conclude “once a promiscuous person, always a promiscuous person?” Promsicuous people must remain in their state of “personal deformation,” and they’re fine as long as they abstain from sex – acting out their perversions?

    According to his logic:

    Pedophiles will always be sexual deviants, but must simply stay away from what tempted them.

    Self-righteous folks can stay prideful, but act humble? (we have plenty of that going around)

    You can stay violent as long as you don’t actually hurt anybody (video game anyone?).

    That’s his problem, he’s not recognizing heart issues. It’s “What can I get away with before it’s considered sin?”

    What is the homosexual to do with Matthew 5:28?”

    Do you see how his words are twisted and misrepresented.

    Now, I am only going by what I read here.

    When Stackhouse says that homosexuality is a deformity is he saying it is someone else’s fault? Or is he saying that those with genetic defects involving the lack of testosterone or hermophraditics may be more inclined to becoming homosexuals than others?

    Did he say that homosexuality isn’t a sin? No. He is talking about the desire and that is clear from the quote because he goes on to say that a homosexual must abstain. He said nothing about homosexuality activity not being a sin. Major misrepresentation.

    Is every desire a sin? If we are tempted, is it a sin?

    Also notice how she misconstrues his one statement on homosexuality and superimposes it on all other sins. This is not right. He did not say that self-righteousness and violence are deformities.

    This is where some thoughtfulness comes into play. There are a vast number of homosexuals that were molested by adult males when they were just little boys. It messed them up and how. That was their first sexual experience and that does something to a child’s sexuality. God FORBID that any of her boys are ever molested. It happens. It even happens right in the Church, even to the most vigilant parents. Inside many homosexuals is a person who has probably been wickedly used in perverse ways when they were just a child!

    What I see Stackhouse saying is that men who struggle with being tempted to sexually desire other men must resist that desire and abstain from it. He is saying that the homosexuals must be celibate. They cannot practice homosexuality any more. He is not saying that they cannot marry a woman and have legitimate relations. I don’t see the disagreement to this statement?

    He then said “just as the promiscuous must be chaste”. What is wrong with this? Before I was a believer I was promiscuous. After I was saved, I was to be chaste.

    He said that the pedophillac must avoid children. Well, YES!!! I would like to see one pedophile who has been totally reformed and no longer has urges to sexually violate children. A pedophile MUST stay away from children just as an alcoholic must stay away from alcohol.

    This seems to be a no-brainer. Weaker brother comes into play here. The same things that tempt me may not tempt you. You could go into a bar and not ever be tempted to over-drink. If I went into a bar, I would be tempted beyond measure to start up my old lifestyle. I stay away from that sort of environment.

    Then Stackhouse says that the self-righteous must SEEK humility.

    She misrepresents his words and tells us that Stackhouse says that the self-righteous can still remain prideful but act humble. This is a gross misrepresentation of what he said. This is not at all close to anything he said.

    He said that the self-righteous must SEEK humility. If you are especially prone to pride and self-righteousness, then you should seek humility. Just like if you were especially prone to anger, you should seek meekness.

    And then she tells us that Stackhouse says that the violent can stay violent as long as they don’t hurt anybody. Another example of gross misrepresentation.

    Talk about pernicious rumors! From the one statement on homosexuality she extrapolated all of this?

    “That’s his problem, he’s not recognizing heart issues. It’s “What can I get away with before it’s considered sin?”

    I don’t know about you but if I am amicable with someone I am not going to grossly twist their words. John Stackhouse did NOT say what she said he did nor did he even come within a light year of saying what she said he did.

    I have worked with homosexual men who have become Christians. I will tell you that they are not automatically zapped with sexual desire for females. They will struggle and they must go and sin no more. That is what Stackhouse was saying.

    She may disagree with his stance on homosexuality as a deformity but she may not twist his words into a pretzel.

    I will also suggest that even a born-again pedophile NOT be allowed to work with children. The recidivism rate for pedophiles, especially those who molest boys, is VERY HIGH. Just because one becomes a Christian we must not be fooled into thinking that he will not be sorely tempted in this area. I, personally, know a man who was in jail for many years for molesting boys. He became a Christian in jail. It was a true conversion. He got out and he will not allow himself to be in close contact with children. He is a wise man and he knows his own flesh very well.

    I also knew Jeffrey Dahmer. I didn’t know he was a killer at the time but I did know he was a bit “off” when I met him. I met him during the height of his killing spree and I still shudder at the memory. Many years later, I saw him on TV being arrested. This was after I became a Christian. I was in shock. I was attending a Bible study that also ran a prison ministry. Jeffrey Dahmer became a Christian through this ministry. Jeffrey Dahmer admitted that he could never trust himself and was glad he was behind bars.

    It is not an excuse to sin when someone admits that they are weak in an area and that they must avoid all temptation. I believe this is all that Stackhouse was saying. This is biblical advice, btw.

  190. corriejo Says:

    Mt. 5:28 But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    Lust is not the same as temptation. Lust is a passionate desire. It literally means to “turn upon a thing”. It is the Greek word epethumeo. Epe= upon; thumos=intense desire, anger, burning. It means to covet.

    That word is also used in regard to a good desire. Epithumeo is not always translated the same way. When it is an evil desire it is translated “lust” and when it is a good desire it is translated “desire”.

    Having a temptation is NOT the same as lust. Being tempted is not to have sinned.

    The Greek word is parazo and it means “enticement to sin” or a test of one’s faith, virtue or character.

    Therefore, a man can be tempted but that does not automatically means he has sinned. The only way he can sin is to give into this temptation and turn upon this temptation and allow his thoughts to burn for this thing he is being tempted.

    Hebrews 4:15-16

    For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

    What a beautiful, beautiful verse of hope for all of us sinners, even the homosexual sinners, for my struggles are no different in essence than a homosexual’s struggles. They may be different in nature but they are not different when looked upon by our Great High Priest.

  191. molleth Says:

    louu,

    I hear ya and agree. I fail in these areas daily. But I totally agree with the reminder to keep Love at the forefront.

    It is very easy to get offended when one feels personally attacked. It is very easy to be angry when one feels destructive teachings are being disseminated.

    It is very VERY very difficult to respond in strength against error and to yet do so in Love. It is also very difficult to feel personally maligned and yet to know how to rightly respond (“Spirit—should I speak here or be silent here?”).

    Scripture shows us there is a time for angry rebuke and a time for silent suffering. The tricky part is knowing what to do in each situation. (God! Help!)

    This conversation here is beneficial in so many ways…in the ways that a Body needs all of its parts in order to see/feel/taste/touch an object. All of these women putting thoughts and personal stories together helps make cohesive sense of a similar negative experience.

    Through the conversation, we learn to better define what exactly that negative thing was, how we fell for it, how it can be destructive, etc. In so many ways, it’s been a cathartic experience.

    But there is also the aspect of group-think, so common to all of us, where we get on sides and yell “hoorays” for those on our team, no matter what they say, and then “boo, hiss” the other team, no matter what they say. I think this is endemic to all humanity, Christians certainly not being excluded (even the NT shows the early church picking their “teams,” for which Paul admonished them).

    And here is where we run the risk of failing—in the name of Christ, forgetting that our “team” is His just as much as the “other team” is. In our cheering and booing sections, we can end up spitting on those He adores—and doing it in His name, of all things.

    I think we’ve all felt that has been done to us. It hurts, too. I know that I winced at the names I’ve been called on Stacy’s blog, for example. It’s no fun to have someone misrepresent what you stand for, call you names for it, and then refuse to publish your comments (even though they are politely and respectfully worded).

    But in reacting to that, do I just add more of the same, however am unable to see the sin of it because I’m blinded by a “my team is right” attitude? Er, probably the answer is a big fat yes, much as I’d like to deny it.

    It’s that delicate balance that can be very difficult to do…examining carefully a teaching, a doctrine, etc, and protesting (even loudly) where it deviates from Scripture…and yet doing so in such a way that Christ is the center, that the law of Love is obeyed, and that “teams” aren’t mistaken for the way God actually sees things. We see teams, but He sees one family (that should be operating under ONE Team Leader: Jesus).

    Bleh. Gimme a rule book anyday. It’s a lot easier on my flesh than navigating this sort of thing.

    I know it sounds cheeseball or eye-rolling, but I feel like I need to ask participants and lurkers alike to forgive me. I feel like I’ve been in the right spirit sometimes, but at other times am reacting totally out of my own flesh.

    I agree with others and feel this subject is vital and am so glad it’s being discussed on this level and so appreciate the vast range of thought, yet I’m also in agreement with louu that we can’t have enough reminders to watch the spirit of what we are doing. If we’re protesting a lack of Jesus and yet doing so with a distinct lack of Jesus, then, uh, what the heck are we doing, anyway? *groaning grin*

  192. Spunky Says:

    Lou said, “Yet to even ask that we be kind one to another like Christ was to us, remember we despised, mocked and mistreated Him yet He opened not his mouth, gets me a dressing down about how wrong I am for not seeing things your way and how much all of you know and how right you are in your positions. Pot=kettle=black.”

    Lou, your general encouragement to be kind to one another is well taken. I consider my words every time I write here. Further, at times I have asked those that vehemently disagree with my comments to hold me accountable for the words that I write. If there is a specific comment that I have written that you believe has been unkind, you are most certainly free to bring that up.

    Further, you have not be “dressed down” for what you have written. It is merely to demonstrate that there are two sides to the story, and it didn’t appear as though you understood completely what had transpired, especially as it pertains to Mr. Stackhouse. If you read the comments as they currently are on Stacey’s blog you would not understand the way things actually took place. The comments section had been turned off for a while and comments have been editted. So it’s not for the purposes of correcting or “dressing you down” that these things were brought up, but to add a perpsective that may help understand how things happened.

    Many of have been discussing these topics for quite a while and for those that come in at various points it may be difficult to fully understand exactly what is being said.

    Stacey has edited commets and posts for quite some time. This little exchange demonstrates the danger in doing it, it makes two different people come away with very different opinions about what happened depending on when the post or comment is read. Stacey is free to edit or delete comments as she sees fit, but in doing so credibility is lost when people go back and the text has changed or comments deleted.

    Further, it is not that you MUST see things any certain way or my way. Not at all. This is a discussion where all are free to contribute. Your comment about being kind is welcome here. Hopefully, we are all seeking to undertand the Truth, not to be right. Sometimes, topics where there is strong disagreement can be viewed as being “unkind” but that may not necessarily be true.

    There is strong disagreement about the interpretation concerning daughters and THE biblical mandate for them. The teachers that teach certain ideas or endorse them are being examined. This isn’t unkind it is expected. We are called to be Bereans. That said, if you do see specific examples of where my words are unkind or lacking in charity you most certainly can point them out.

  193. corriejo Says:

    Louu,

    “I’m always sorry when I get into these things because I am not taking sides. I am just asking that each side treat the other as they want to be treated. It seems to be too much to ask.”

    This is what you did say and I was trying to explain to you that this is just NOT true:

    “She also says that she will talk with you, yet you assume the worst that she will not listen. She didn’t respond to e-mails yet you assume the worst that she is unwilling to dialoge.”

    It appears you have been in touch with Stacy and she has been telling you these things? This is what it looks like to me from your words.

    I don’t see anyone dressing you down. What I do see are people trying to help you see that you are only hearing one half of the story (ie., willing to dialogue, willing to talk, etc). We are explaining to you that there is more to that story and that many of us have tried repeatedly to get our questions answered to no avail.

    So, all I see were people politely exchanging the other side of the story to you so some of the holes could be filled in and I didn’t see this “dressing down” at all. At least I know from my end that I was sincerely trying to show you that what you were relaying to us was not accurate. That is why I asked you who you were talking to and who was telling you these things? I was trying to clarify some of the question that arose from some of your statements.

    I totally appreciate your warning for charity and to be Christlike and I have thought about your words last night and this morning and they have helped me. We do need to hear that. I really like how Molleth and Spunky explained these things to you.

    Please give us the benefit of the doubt and do not read an explanation as an attack on *you*. It is not. What I see are two separate issues here. On the one hand you are exhorting us to be kind and tender-hearted which is good and necessary! On the other hand you are relaying information from Stacy as fact.

  194. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something – in this case masculinity – through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.”

    BOY, ignorant stuff like this gets my goat. Pants weren’t even invented until after the time of Christ — they were first recorded as being worn by the Scythians, and by both sexes — before that everybody wore “skirts”.

    Would Haecker have called King David a wuss because he didn’t wear the pants in HIS family? Sheesh!

  195. shilohmm Says:

    Post #175:
    dresses in particular symbolize womanhood by more fully embodying the ideal of a true lady, the objective understanding of what men find attractive in the fairer sex: passivity, domesticity, childrearing, coital love, piety and fertility. These defining aspects of womanhood are immutable.

    The nature of sexual attractiveness in women is objective, immutable and incontrovertible because it is directly related to the constant and unchanging physiology of men and women. What men find attractive in women is fixed because the physiology of humanity has been relatively unchanged.

    Yeah, right. Which is why the Bible refers to the ideal woman as girding herself with strength who develops strong arms (Proverbs 31:17), but doesn’t praise any woman for her passivity, of course. And why the women singled out as beautiful (Sarah, for starts) are also strong, assertive women (Biblical evidence indicates that Sarah rarely hesitated to boss Abraham around if she felt strongly about something). And the idea that coital love and piety are particularly feminine qualities rather than masculine is not only unbiblical but vaguely nauseating – nor does it fit with human history, where women are more often presented as the naturally promiscuous sex than as the naturally pious.

    Can someone explain to me the Christian American male obsession with pants? Which is not to say that all Christian American males share this tendency but that it seems to be peculiar to Christian American males (although admittedly some Christian American females talk about it, too, but they always back into the male obsession in arguing that women in pants incite male lust). Pants originated in Persia, where they were worn by both men and women for riding; the first time pants were introduced to Western society (4th century) they were considered women’s clothes and thus unmanly. When they were re-introduced in the Middle Ages, the clergy hated them and ranted against them as completely unseemly.

    Fashionable male pants through much of western history were knit and tightly fitted, on par with the tights a male ballet dancer would wear except of course the cloth was natural fibers and thus thicker. Western men were the first to wear skin tight pants (Eastern men and women wore much looser pants), AND the first to wear high heels and silk stockings. All these guys who want to wear the (only) pants in the family wouldn’t be caught dead in the pants most middle- and upper-class Western men have historically worn. Or probably those the peasants wore, either, which were not so tight but pretty roughly made.

    Personally, I think that pants are the one garment I’ve worn that is obviously more suited to the female build than to the male. I put on pants that are tolerably fitted through the waist, and I’m done. If it fits me at the waist it’s not getting past my hips without serious undoing of the respective fasteners. And this is true of most women, I believe – a friend of mine in high school whose torso seemed incredibly straight to me from armpit to hips once dealt with a guy trying to yank her pants off; he couldn’t get them past her minimal hips, either, and if she could keep them on I’m guessing most women can.

    Guys, however, are another story. Hubby and brother and father, despite their various builds, all need belts or suspenders to keep their pants in place, and I have never known a woman who had to hitch up her pants all day/every time she stood up but I’ve known dozens of men who have to. Pants are much more naturally suited to women – or maybe women are much more naturally suited to pants, which would explain why women in a number of cultures wore pants while the men wore skirts or robes.

    Women raised in cultures where pants are considered a female garment often find skirts immodest; a stray gust of wind, or an unscrupulous male with a cane or branch (the concern of one pants-wearing woman in a Victorian book I read), or an unscrupulous male with one of those cameras on his shoe who tucks the shoe under the woman’s skirt, and you’re exposed. Pants make sure you’re decently covered whatever the situation.

    It’s one thing to argue that skirts are culturally feminine while pants are culturally masculine – although I’ve never heard anyone but Christian or southern conservative guys who have tried that argument since the 1970’s, since in American culture as a whole pants are NOT culturally masculine – but quite another to argue that pants are somehow inherently (rather than culturally) unfeminine, as this guy seems to be doing.

  196. Lin Says:

    …”to be Christlike..”

    Louu, In scripture Jesus Christ has some very pointed and direct words for the Pharisees who put extra burdens on people. The Pharisees were the religious leaders of the time who had power and influence over people. Jesus pointed out how they taught one thing but did another and heaped burdens on people.

    The book of Matthew is an excellent source for this. So when someone says ‘Be Christlike’ I have to include how He dialogued with the Pharisees. See, I know from Biblical studies, that so much of what Patriarchy teaches are extra biblical traditions of men and also ignores much of the New Covenant.

    This offends me as a believer and one who must contend for the truth of scripture. (Jude) Patriarchy leads people AWAY from Christ. It sets up ‘little christs’ who claim earthly authority over people who must go through them first and obey their man made traditions. If not, they are labeled Jezebels, rebels, feminists, etc.

    This is Pharisetical.

    But we know the veil was torn in two on the Cross and we all have direct access to Jesus Christ now. We no longer need an earthly priest. We have one teacher, Jesus Christ who has been given all authority over heaven and earth! Praise the Name of Jesus!

  197. corriejo Says:

    Cynthia,

    The problem with your kind is that you think. 😉

    You are right that pants were not invented until after the time of Christ. That is a reason why the tired and misused verse in Deuteronomy cannot be used to “prove” that pants are an abomination for women because they are that which pertaineth to a man.

    Also, he equates pants to masculinity because it allows the man to have physical activity. Dresses are the antithesis of pants, he says, because they limit and restrict women from doing certain activities that only men are allowed to do.

    That is why women like pants, too. We like to be physically active. I hardly think physical activity is masculine.

    In fact, Elizabeth Elliott wrote of the tribe she worked with that women were the ones who carried all the heavy things and the men did not do any of the lifting and carrying. Women throughout history have had to do hard, physical activity in order to live. The female slaves picked cotton right alongside the male slaves. It has only been in the very rich classes where women were pampered and unburdened by such hard work.

    Wearing pants does not masculinize a woman. Most women are still VERY feminine in pants. And if you came upon a masculine woman, she would look just as masculine in a dress as she does in pants. As long as they are modest, there should be no problem.

  198. shilohmm Says:

    Cynthia’s right that some historians trace it to the Scythians rather than the Persions (they interacted a bit) – either way they had them by about the 4th century B.C., before Christ but long after the Mosaic law was written. And of course the cultures where the Bible was written didn’t embrace pants for hundreds of years after the canon was closed. There are Roman and Greek documents from the first two centuries A.D. poking fun at those “pants wearing warriors” the way modern men would make fun of men in skirts. 😀

  199. corriejo Says:

    Shilohmm,

    Thanks for that informative post. You bring up a great point about the safety for women concerning pants.

    I think I posted, a while back, a news story where they caught a guy on a store security camera looking up a woman’s dress as she was shopping for clothing.

    One of the top things a rapist looks for in a potential victim is a woman with easy access in regards to her clothing. If it is easy to remove or easy to gain access, that will be key to deciding who they will go after.

    I am not saying that one should not wear skirts because of the very real threat of perverts in this world. I am saying that the claims from “dresses only” advocates that dresses protect a woman is patently false.

    I still love to wear skirts and dresses but I also love the freedom in movement and comfort that pants allows for various activities.

  200. shilohmm Says:

    One of the top things a rapist looks for in a potential victim is a woman with easy access in regards to her clothing.

    Sadly, I have known a number of women who were raped and subsequently went through a period where they refused to wear skirts or dresses – they just felt safer in pants. Yet what they instinctively identified as safer or more modest is regularly condemned as immodest. And, yes, I too wear skirts – but the argument that dresses or dressing modestly somehow protect a woman is disproved daily.

    One lady I know who belonged to a “dresses only” church and was modest even by that standard was raped in the church building. Her faith was not destroyed – she had a son from the rape and named him “Nathan” because, she told me, that name means “gift of God.” When I knew her her son was about six, I think, and a sweetie; talk about God bringing good out of evil! (Romans 8:28)

  201. corriejo Says:

    I have one more topic to add to the “biblical” list:

    “Biblical gynecology”

    http://www.bible.org/series.php?series_id=133

    And, no, this has nothing to do with a gynecologist and what goes on in a gyn’s office.

    It used of “the study of women” and what the Bible has to say about women.

    This is no lie.

  202. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Sadly, I have known a number of women who were raped and subsequently went through a period where they refused to wear skirts or dresses – they just felt safer in pants. Yet what they instinctively identified as safer or more modest is regularly condemned as immodest. And, yes, I too wear skirts – but the argument that dresses or dressing modestly somehow protect a woman is disproved daily. ”

    Rapists DO look for “ease of access”, and a woman in a skirt, especially if she’s wearing shoes which make it difficult for her to run, is a prime target for rape.

    There was a 9th century Pope who wrote an interesting bit about pants, gender, etc.

    It seems there was a tribe, the Bulgars, where both the men and the women wore femoralia, or pants. Missionaries had been trying to get the Bulgars, especially the Bulger men, to adopt a more civilized manner of dress and wear robes, as did Western European men in that day.

    Pope Nicholas I wrote to them and said that pants were “ordered to be made” ie, suited to, use by men because they “restrain the seat of luxury” — in other words, pants limit access to the genital area.

    He then went on to say, among other things, that it is neither a sin nor a virtue for persons of either sex to wear pants, but that our spiritual state was far more important:

    Chapter LVIIII.
    “We consider what you asked about pants (femoralia) to be irrelevant; for we do not wish the exterior style of your clothing to be changed, but rather the behavior of the inner man within you, nor do we desire to know what you are wearing except Christ — for however many of you have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ [Gal. 3:27] — but rather how you are progressing in faith and good works. But since you ask concerning these matters in your simplicity, namely because you were afraid lest it be held against you as a sin, if you diverge in the slightest way from the custom of other Christians, and lest we seem to take anything away from your desire, we declare that in our books, pants (femoralia) are ordered to be made, not in order that women may use them, but that men may. But act now so that, just as you passed from the old to the new man, [cf. Eph. 4:22-24; Col. 3:9-10] you pass from your prior custom to ours in all things; but really do what you please. For whether you or your women wear or do not wear pants (femoralia) neither impedes your salvation nor leads to any increase of your virtue. Of course, because we have said that pants are ordered to be made, it should be noted that we put on pants spiritually, when we restrain the lust of the flesh through abstinence; for those places are constrained by pants in which the seats of luxury are known to be. This is why the first humans, when they felt illicit motions in their members after sin, ran into the leaves of a fig tree and wove loin cloths for themselves.[cf. Gen. 3:7] But these are spiritual pants, which you still could not bear, and, if I may speak with the Apostle, you are not yet able; for you are still carnal.[I Cor. 3:2] And thus we have said a few things on this matter, although, with God’s gift, we could say many more.’

    …. from the “Medieval Sourcebook:
    The Responses of Pope Nicholas I to the Questions of the Bulgars A.D. 866 (Letter 99)”

  203. Alyzza Says:

    I think it would be great if everyone could get together in a neutral forum, perhaps with the guidance of a mediator, and have a straight up discussion about these matters. Perhaps an online symposium can be arranged where women from each side of this camp are invited to air their views for consideration.

  204. thatmom Says:

    “Wearing pants does not masculinize a woman. Most women are still VERY feminine in pants.”

    Doris Day comes to mind. Remember her as Calamity Jane? Even in her buckskins, she was really feminine!

  205. thatmom Says:

    Alyzza, this blog has always been open to anyone, whether they are patriocentrists or not.

  206. thatmom Says:

    “I have one more topic to add to the “biblical” list:

    “Biblical gynecology””

    Ok, Corrie, this begs the question…..can pastors now be called gynecologists?

  207. molleth Says:

    Louuu, #195 made me want to stand up and cheer! YES. Yes, yes, yes!!!
    (Only those who’ve gone through the “dresses-only” phase can fully understand my smiles of joy).

  208. corriejo Says:

    “Ok, Corrie, this begs the question…..can pastors now be called gynecologists?”

    LOL!! Using the word the way it was used in that link, most definitely! 😉 They would need to qualify that, though. They would be a “biblical gynecologist”. That is a person who theologically studies women.

    Remember, he who defines, wins!

    I hear Ron Paul used to be a gynecologist….as in Doctor.

  209. corriejo Says:

    Alyzza,

    There is a new group starting up at Yahoo:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Patriarchy_discussion/

    Not that I want to see the discussion go away from here but this new group looks at the theology and teachings of many of the popular proponents of patriarchy and it is open to all sides.

    The wonderful thing about Truewomanhood is that it IS open to all sides of the discussion and the moderators do not moderate anyone’s viewpoint out of the picture like so many other places.

    The nice thing about Yahoo groups is that it is very easy to search the archives if you are looking for a particular topic.

    Here is the description from that site:

    Although “Patriarchy” comes in many variations, this group is devoted to the theology, philosophy, and activities of Christian ministries, churches, publications, and individuals who adhere to the “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy.” This would include but is not limited to: Doug Phillips (Vision Forum), Scott Brown (National Center for Family Integrated Church), Bill Gothard (IBLP and the ATII), Jonathan Lindvall (Bold Christian Living), R.C. Sproul Jr. (Highlands Study Center), James and Stacy McDonald (Passionate Housewives), the Botkin sisters (So Much More and Return of the Daughters), Phil Lancaster, David and Tim Bayly (the Baylyblog), Jennie Chancey (Ladies Against Feminism), Michael and Debi Pearl (No Greater Joy Ministries and Created to Be His Helpmeet), Kevin Swanson, and Voddie Baucham.

    This is a discussion of the theology and lifestyle espoused by those listed above and others who would call themselves Patriarchal. This list is open to all sides — those that hold to the “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy,” those concerned about problems with the teachings, and those just looking for more information.

    This is also a safe group to share your stories of how Patriarchy has affected you or people you know. To facilitate anonymity for those who want it, aliases are perfectly acceptable, and the membership list is not open to group members.

    We also propose to make this a group that welcomes questions, and a place where members feel free to share their views on what the Bible has to say about marriage, the role of young people, college, family integrated church, voting, women in the church, and authority; and these Patriarchy-related doctrines: Theonomy, Reconstructionism, and Dominion theology.

    WARNING: This is not a support group; it is open to critics and supporters both. We welcome polite disagreement, we encourage debate, and we seek correction where error is found. The Bible is the final authority here, and arguments are made on that basis.

  210. Joy Says:

    Corrie…
    thank you for posting that link- I have been wondering about the distinction between complimentarian and egalitarian for some time but couldn’t quite get a clear picture- that chart is a wonderful help! Now I finally understand some of the other issues at stake.

    ( I mean, I knew what they were by definition, but I wasn’t quite sure what all that meant in the practical sense regarding theology. I hadn’t even heard of the two terms before I started visiting this blog back in the Spring.)


  211. Okay testing y’all. All my recent comments have vanished into cyberspace not to be seen on this blawg at all! 🙂 I have no idea what happened.

    (you can delete this comment if you’d like…I’m just trying to see if it comes thru before I spend alot of time writing something that vanishes!)

  212. Alyzza Says:

    THATMOM and CORRIE:

    Oh, I know the site is open to everyone; I just don’t think some of the pro-patriarchy people would see it that way. A neutral site might be one wherein its operator has nothing invested in the conversation. An atheist, for example, could make a great mediator.

    Corrie – thanks for posting that link!

  213. Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:

    “Like all fashions, pants are symbolic of something – in this case masculinity – through their allowance of physical activity. Dresses, the antithesis of pants, symbolize femininity through grace and elegance. Men find elegance in women to be attractive, and dresses are a physical manifestation of femininity. The wearing of pants by women represents the masculinization of the fairer sex, which is not at all attractive.”

    BOY, ignorant stuff like this gets my goat. Pants weren’t even invented until after the time of Christ — they were first recorded as being worn by the Scythians, and by both sexes — before that everybody wore “skirts”.

    -You’re correct. The first woman to wear pants was Semarimis(that we know of.) She ruled Assyria- the only queen to do so- and she HAD to- she led troops into battle- I don’t think you can do that in a dress! It’s like what they did to Joan of Arc- burning her at the stake for dressing as a man. Sorry, but my legs chafe in a skirt. I like dressing up, but for day to day life? Gimme a pair of shorts or pants!


  214. Hey,

    Ron Paul still practices and he does obstetrics exclusively, I believe. From what I recall, he does not practice gynecology and only sees pregnant women. I think that I also recall that he does a lot of charitable work (not requiring payment for those without insurance and no ability to pay which is a big deal considering the malpractice insurance that’s required).

    For some that is probably a significant distinction, so I mention it.


  215. Oh, I know the site is open to everyone; I just don’t think some of the pro-patriarchy people would see it that way.

    Of course not! We don’t kow-tow to everything they say and we question their teachings…even in a neutral room with an atheist as a monitor, I doubt they’d regard our opinions as valid or credible because in the end, we would have to agree to disagree.

  216. Spunky Says:

    Alyzza said, “Oh, I know the site is open to everyone; I just don’t think some of the pro-patriarchy people would see it that way.”

    The internet is by nature a “neutral” environment. Anyone can start a blog and enter the discussion and share their views unmoderated. Those that feel uncomfortable commenting here can start a blog and reference this site, that will create a trackback and those that are interested in what this person has to say can click over and read it. Moderation by a “neutral” person is superfluous given how the internet works. It is open to all and unbiased. The fact that some would feel uncomfortable commenting here is understandable, but there is nothing preventing them from letting other know what they think on this topic.

  217. Joan Hathcote Says:

    Lindsay (comment #215), I think you nailed it.

    I don’t believe the extreme patriarchs are open to dialoguing about their views. Oh, they’ll come out swinging to defend them. But as for true give-and-take dialogue about the “non-essentials” of the faith – they don’t see the point in that, because they already KNOW they are right.

    And, they don’t see these things as “non-essentials.” That’s why there’s such black and white rhetoric about something like girls going to college. They have truly come to the conviction that the Bible speaks against it. In fact, girls who DO attend college are called names like “harlot.”

    Once they reach that point, it seems it becomes a doctrine as worthy of defending as something like the Atonement.

    (OK, I’m generalizing and exaggerating…but only a little.)

    The whole utter certainty of the hyper-patriarchs about these things just boggles my mind. Especially when you consider that they readily (almost proudly) admit that they DO make exceptions for certain folks.

    How can something like “no college for girls” be such a conviction that they’d never humbly admit (to those who disagree with them) that they (the hyper-p’s) might possibly be wrong…while at the same time they’re saying that there ARE exceptions???

    I remember one blog conversation on this topic from almost two years ago, where women were seriously debating what to do about midwives and female ob/gyns. Like, they believed college was “never wise” for girls, and yet they had to admit that they also preferred female nurses and doctors and midwives. To me, it was comical to see them doing all those mental gymnastics of compromise and rationalization to accommodate female ob/gyns…yet at the same time, they’d shoot down the people who suggested that maybe college WASN’T wrong for girls.

    I’d be thrilled if someone in that camp would just admit there might be an inconsistency. Or that possibly, they aren’t as ironclad sure of themselves as their writings would have us to believe.

  218. Connie Says:

    Light Says:
    November 13, 2007 at 1:58 pm

    “A few years ago, my church’s women’s group wanted to teach Bill Mouser’s “Five Aspects of Woman” study. Somehow it just got rubber stamped by the elders and was approved. I raised alarm bells, taking my concerns to the pastor and elders. When I pointed out the pagan concepts and eisegesis used in this study, they were appalled, and even though the Bible study had already met a few times, they yanked the study. We have a number of sister churches of the same denomination in the area, and word spread, and Bill Mouser’s material is now not permitted to be used in their Bible studies either.”

    This comment was quite a ways back on thread 2. However, my church recently began this study, and I’ve been trying to research it. So far I’ve not been able to find out much at all. Could you give me a few examples of what you meant by pagan concepts and exegesis. Also, it would be helpful to know what denomination won’t allow this material to be taught. If anyone else has anything to add, I’d appreciate it.

  219. Anne Says:

    I remember one blog conversation on this topic from almost two years ago, where women were seriously debating what to do about midwives and female ob/gyns. Like, they believed college was “never wise” for girls, and yet they had to admit that they also preferred female nurses and doctors and midwives. To me, it was comical to see them doing all those mental gymnastics of compromise and rationalization to accommodate female ob/gyns…yet at the same time, they’d shoot down the people who suggested that maybe college WASN’T wrong for girls.

    Oh, I see. They’d be the kind of patient that I get who only wants a woman to help them in the shower, or with issues of incontinence.

    It’s does seem like quite a contradiction if someone were to want to avail themselves of the service I provide, meanwhile judging the education it took to provide it, or me for doing the job.

    My work is part of my ministry, no different than those who would write books about how to be a better wife or mother. It is my privilege to care for the elderly and the dying. Age and death is something our society (for the most part) likes to pretend doesn’t exist. What would they do if women like me left the field entirely? Who would bathe their grandmothers then?

  220. Alyzza Says:

    SPUNKY:

    The internet is neutral in the same away as a residential street is neutral. Once you go to a specific address, you’re entering upon the intellectual property of someone else. On a blog, as in a home, the owner makes the rules.

    This blog is certainly an open area for discussion, but it isn’t neutral ground: the owner has her own position on the subject, and also an investment in these arguments.

    I’m in no way slamming this blog. I’m really glad I found it and have added it to my favorites.

    I’m simply saying that for straight up debate in which all parties feel fairly represented, nothing beats neutral ground under the aegis of a moderator who has no particular interest in the outcome.

  221. Corrie Says:

    Hi Alyzza,

    I hear what you are saying about a neutral site. I just don’t know if that is possible. Even with an atheist, I would think that they might even be MORE against the patriocentric teachings.

    I know an atheist (his description of himself) who runs a blog called “Church Discipline”. I really like him. He is a very neat and interesting person. I think you would like the things he talks about. He does make me think about things from a totally different point of view. It has helped me a lot.

    Here is the link to that:

    http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/

  222. thatmom Says:

    Alyssa said “the owner has her own position on the subject, and also an investment in these arguments.”

    Investment of time, for sure, but no financial investment as those whom we critique. What did you mean exactly?

  223. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “She ruled Assyria- the only queen to do so- and she HAD to- she led troops into battle- I don’t think you can do that in a dress!”

    Actually the ancient Assyrians all wore dress-like garments, both the men and the women. Here are some pictures:
    http://www.ancientreplicas.com/assyrian-archers.html
    http://www.ancientreplicas.com/sargon-and-official.html
    http://www.ancientreplicas.com/ashurbanipal-feasting.html

    As for Semiramis, it is not certain whether anyone of that name ever actually existed, or whether she was simply a legend: she is sometimes identified with Shammuramat, the Babylonian wife of Shamshi-Adad V, who ruled 811 BC–808 BC.

  224. Light Says:

    Connie, I am on my way to bed for the evening and so don’t have time to answer your question in full – I will get to that tomorrow. But I can answer your question about my denomination because it’s a quick asnwer. I’m a member of a PCA church, which is complementarian in its theology (I myself am egalitarian). Important to note that the decision to prohibit Five Aspects Bible studies was not a denominational decision (there are PCA churches all over the country), simply a decision by one PCA church (mine) that has close ties to about half a dozen sister PCA churches in our area. These churches do a lot of fellowshipping together, the pastors know each other well, etc., so they share concerns with each other quite often. You will find a wide range of “personalities” among PCA churches. I am embarrassed that my denomination is often given such a bad name by patriocentrists like pastors Tim and David Bayly, for instance.

    I will get to the more substantive issues of your question tomorrow. I’m about ready to turn into a pumpkin.

  225. Corrie Says:

    Joan,

    “The whole utter certainty of the hyper-patriarchs about these things just boggles my mind. Especially when you consider that they readily (almost proudly) admit that they DO make exceptions for certain folks.”

    This is what has been so frustrating for me. I am still waiting for someone to explain this to me! How are some people allowed exceptions but others who do the same thing are called all sorts of derogatory names? It really makes no sense to me and if they were honest with themselves and with others, they would admit that it doesn’t make sense to them, either.

    If it is okay for some women to work outside the home and for some daughters to go to college, even the wives and daughters of the elders in their very own churches (!!!), then it is allowable for all and it is between God and each individual.

    This is clearly NOT a sin nor does the Bible condemn these activities or else they would have to church discipline that elder and his wife and his daughters.

    I see no problem at all with this elder’s wife working or her daughters going to college. But, I am NOT the one preaching to others about how wrong it is to do these activities. I am not on my soap box making these two issues a litmus test for whether a woman is truly godly and in the prescriptive will of God.

    But, we are the bad guys, even to the very women we are defending?

    It makes me head hurt.

  226. Corrie Says:

    “I will get to the more substantive issues of your question tomorrow. I’m about ready to turn into a pumpkin.”

    Goodnight Cinderella, sweet dreams!

  227. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I see no problem at all with this elder’s wife working or her daughters going to college. But, I am NOT the one preaching to others about how wrong it is to do these activities. I am not on my soap box making these two issues a litmus test for whether a woman is truly godly and in the prescriptive will of God.
    But, we are the bad guys, even to the very women we are defending?”

    Do you know what this reminds me of?
    In Victorian times (and up until relatively recently), certain churches have taught that such things as drinking alcohol or gambling were permissible for some people, yet wrong for others. Ministers who had no real problem with rich men drinking socially, in moderation (as the Bible itself teaches that it is permissible to do), vigorously condemned this same behaviour in working class people, on the grounds that “base-born” folk are naturally MORE inclined to vice and thus are not strong enough morally to exercise moderation in drinkling or gambling, as gentlemen are easily able to do (!).

    Perhaps something like this double standard is happening here?
    And another thing — let’s remember that most of the HyperPs are very much in favor of a return to a stratified Victorian society, if not to outright feudalism. With mothers doing most the homeschooling, it is convenient indeed to keep the women of the lower classes relatively uneducated — you can’t have the teachers of the working classes becoming too knowlegeable, or else they will pass their knowledge on to their sons, who will become uppity and dissatisfied with their lot in life.
    As for the leaders of the movement, many of them seem to have college-educated wives and daughters.
    Sort of makes you say “Hmmmm”.

  228. Joan Hathcote Says:

    Corrie,

    When I first read some of these “no college for girls” essays, I found myself feeling deeply troubled. The way the proponants toss around Bible verses and “normative” situations, it made me begin to wonder if perhaps they actually WERE right and I’d just been a poor victim of modern-day liberalism, despite my Christian faith.

    But from the beginning, I noticed that these ladies were quick to make exceptions for nurses and midwives.

    And that led me to the conclusion of, “If formal education is OK for some, then rejecting formal education simply CANNOT be God’s law for ALL girls.”

    Then I read how you corresponded with Stacy McDonald and she told you how she’s “OK” with how the females in one family from her church do go to college/work outside the home. (I hope I’m remembering that correctly…I’m too lazy right now to go back and re-read that last thread.)

    That makes me wonder, what is the point of books like “Visionary Daughters,” where the “no college” thing is NOT portrayed as just an option? If the movers and shakers of the hyper-patriarch movement are willing to make exceptions for midwives or their friends’ daughters, then why are they endorsing and lauding “Visionary Daughters”?

    Why stand behind a book that asserts that something is “God’s best,” or the “wisest way,” when you REALLY believe that it’s just another option?

    Why make it into a moral choice?

  229. Alyzza Says:

    THATMOM:

    I’m talking about an emotional investment, and an investment in time.


  230. Joan Hathcote wrote: Then I read how you corresponded with Stacy McDonald and she told you how she’s “OK” with how the females in one family from her church do go to college/work outside the home.

    Hi Joan,
    I copied some of the correspondence that you reference here and created a blog post. In the comments section, someone who attends (or did attend) Scott Brown’s church (Director of the Vision Forum group for Family Integrated Churches)noted the same type of thing going on in that little “pocket of patriarchy,” too.

    I posted this reply in the comments section following and in response to the post:

    I see a trend among some of the leaders in patriarchy (as they are under scrutiny by their nature of their stations), a holding up of token “non-normatives” as token proof to mitigate some of the things that they preach. They don’t see this as contradiction, however. Those who know and question their teachings, in light of the “whole counsel” of their teachings find that it looks hypocritical.


  231. Alright, just had a post disappear…

    In response to Joan in comment #227 –

    Joan,

    I created a post on my blog from the emails you mention, and someone who attend’s Scott Brown’s church commented that the same type of thing occurs in their congregation. When questioned about the “no college” normative example, apparently Mr. Brown holds up the fact that his daughters attend(ed) a local Bible college as evidence that denies personal dogmatism and rigid intolerance. His family also reportedly pays someone to come into his home and clean for them which seems somewhat contradictory in light of the message of patriarchy.

    I guess it’s okay to employ someone to clean one’s home because that’s women’s work. It just happens to be done in a home of someone else and they receive compensation for their work (because I’m sure a workman –or woman– is worthy of their hire, biblically). I think that these things arise because the nuts and bolts of the idealism and theoretical plan were not completely thought out/anticipated when the teachings were drafted. It is also difficult for the parties involved to view their own examples with objectivity (which is true for all of us), but they generally perceive these types of natural and obvious questions as persecution and/or gossip. To people with some distance from the situation, it all just seems to be contradiction. Another good example of this is the fact that Doug Phillips states dogmatically that women should not be employed, but Vision Forum hires women during the Christmas season to assist with order fulfillment. He essentially baits women to sin, by committing an act that he forbids of his followers. Not only does his organization bait them, it compensates these women financially for sinning and for operating outside the Kingdom Mandate, right under the same roof as Vision Forum leadership.

    Here’s a portion of my reply to the person who posted their similar questions:

    I see a trend among some of the leaders in patriarchy (as they are under scrutiny by their nature of their stations), a holding up of token “non-normatives” as token proof to mitigate some of the things that they teach. They don’t see this as contradiction, however. Those who know and question their teachings, in light of the “whole counsel” of their teachings find that it looks hypocritical.


  232. And let me make the distinction that this is not an issue of being opposed to “no college” or family or the way that these individuals or groups choose to live and recommend as a wise way to conduct themselves.

    The problems and protest arise as a result of:

    1. Prescription of rigid, blanket rules that earn a “non-normative” a whole host of monikers, criticisms and the accusation of “blaspheming” the Word.

    2. The failure of leadership to live up to or comply with their own, rigid standards

    3. Their failures to maintain or achive the high standards that they themselves have set are deemed as vile gossip if they are discussed (in public or private).

    I tend to favor the public discussion because the criticisms are not personal but concern the inconsistencies and the impractability of the teachings. (I don’t expect anyone to be able to live up to the standards, least of all the leaders who teach these traditions of men.)

  233. Joan Hathcote Says:

    Cindy, I agree with you. I personally have NO PROBLEM with families who choose to have their daughters stay home and not go to college.

    I just wish they wouldn’t try to whitewash their choices with, “GOD SAYS girls shouldn’t go to college.”

    Or, if they must bring the Bible into this, then they should be careful in how they write. They could phrase it, “I base these restrictions on MY INTERPRETATION of Scripture.” Or even, “This is how God revealed His will to ME.”

    But in every discussion I’ve read on this subject, the anti-college group paints with a much broader brush, leaving no room for a young woman to pursue a formal education and still remain in “God’s wisest plan” for her life.

    I wonder why that is? Why so rigid? Why not just put “no college” out there as another viable option? Why must they portray it as the SPIRITUALLY SUPERIOR choice, as it seems the Botkins, at least, do?

  234. Light Says:

    Testing italics. This sentence should be in italics.

  235. Light Says:

    Connie asked about the Five Aspects of Woman Bible study, and asked me to explain what I meant by the pagan concepts and eisegesis in this study. This study is long, and the problems are numerous. I am just going to summarize some of them here; otherwise, I’d have to write a book.

    In this post, I’ll explain the pagan concepts that are so sneakily inserted into these “biblical” materials.

    Mouser asserts that God is masculine and Creation is feminine. I don’t want to spend much time on the masculinity of God, since that could be a book in and of itself. Suffice it to say that if God is masculine, and not feminine, then human males are more like God than women. First, let’s look at basic meanings. In Merrian Webster, masculine is defined as 1 a: male b: having qualities appropriate to or usually associated with a man. … Problem with Mouser’s claim: God is not a male (except in the Incarnation), God is Spirit.

    Let’s move on to the even more problematic claim that “Creation is feminine.” Open your dictionaries, folks. ☺ Merriam Webster defines the word feminine thusly: 1: female 2: characteristic of or appropriate or unique to women. Creation = that is all that is created. The universe, the stars, the planets, earth, trees, rocks, oceans, people, animals, bugs, yada yada yada. So stars, planets, all people, bugs, rocks … are feminine? This claim is so bizarre, and completely unsupported scripturally. It is, in fact, a pagan concept. (Example: The concept of “Mother Nature” is traced back to ancient Pagan Greek thought.)

    First, how can a male (human or animal), as part of Creation, be feminine? It’s an oxymoron. Males are masculine, females are feminine. Consider next the stars, rocks, bugs, trees, etc. – they are inanimate objects. When Mouser attributes femininity to them, he (wrongly) imbues these objects with a quality associated only with animate things. (From Merriam Webster: animate- 1 : possessing or characterized by life : alive 2 : full of life : animated 3 : of or relating to animal life as opposed to plant life 4 : referring to a living thing )

    Anyone see the problem here? I looked up animism on wikipedia, and here’s what it says:
    Animism is the belief that souls inhabit all or most objects; it attributes personalized souls to animals, vegetables, and minerals wherein the material object is—to some degree—governed by the qualities which comprise its particular soul. Religions that are animistic in this more restrictive sense generally do not accept a sharp distinction between spirit and matter, and they generally assume that this unification of matter and spirit plays a role in daily life. …
    “animism” may refer to a specific group of religions–specifically, religions that attribute souls to non-human entities. This is a popular belief in the majority of African religions and thus animism is often associated with Africa. The term also contains negative connotations, like the word “primitive”, and is used primarily to group non Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, particularly in Africa, and to mark them as less “sophisticated” in concept because they lack the anthropocentrism found in Judeo-Christian-Islamic dogma.

    Many Pagans and Neopagans believe that there are spirits of nature and place, and that these spirits can sometimes be as powerful as minor deities.

    I find this infection of pagan thought into so-called “Christian” Bible study materials to be very very alarming. I hope I am not alone in this.

    More later on the blatant eisegesis (the interpretation of Scripture by reading into it one’s own ideas) found in these materials.

  236. shilohmm Says:

    Cindy Kunsman Said:

    Doug Phillips states dogmatically that women should not be employed, but Vision Forum hires women during the Christmas season to assist with order fulfillment. He essentially baits women to sin, by committing an act that he forbids of his followers. Not only does his organization bait them, it compensates these women financially for sinning and for operating outside the Kingdom Mandate, right under the same roof as Vision Forum leadership.

    From what I have read of Vision Forum’s rationale, your explanation is in part right there in the last bit – “righ under the same roof as Vision Forum leadership.” I’m beginning to think that patriocentrists make no sense to me because I keep forgetting how central the father is. This may be partly because I tend to read the stuff addressed to women, where the centrality of the patriarch is somewhat muted.

    I think the justification is basically that the women are “serving daddy by serving Vision Forum” – as I understand it, many of the girls who help with the Christmas rush (or who work there regularly-?) are the daughters or relatives of men who either work for Vision Forum or have some other connection to it. In some cases, the girls may be literally serving under the same roof as their dad.

    The kind of unspoken but underlying rationale seems to be that a girl’s primary purpose is to serve her father (her physical father, that is); if he prefers her to serve through going to college or he needs her to go to college in order to serve, then that’s why it’s okay for some women to go to college. Because the primary issue is not so much “girls shouldn’t go to college” as it is “girls shouldn’t get out from under their father’s protection and control.”

    If dad is still in control, if she is still strongly subordinate to the male leaders of her family, then college isn’t a problem. It isn’t so much a double standard as a poorly articulated one – it isn’t so much that women are not allowed to go to college as it is that women must give up their own personal desires for college in order to serve the men in their lives. If a woman doesn’t want to go to college but her father wants her to get a college education to better serve him, then staying home would be an act of rebellion.

    On the other hand, might be an act of rebellion if the father wanted to keep his daughter home but the church leader wanted her to work for him. I suspect that when it comes to many patriocentrists, the chain of command, the umbrella of authority, is always the driving logic behind… everything. It seems to me a fair bit of stuff that confuses me starts to make a lot more sense if I go back and say, “Are they serving their authority by doing this? It’s okay, then.”

    I’m not sure the patriocentrists who’re confusing me are conscious of this underlying principle, or consciously apply it that way – I think it’s often more of an instinctive thing. “This is okay because it feels okay.” But that does seem to “justify” a lot of stuff that on the surface looks contradictory.

    Of course I say this as someone who periodically checks out the issues and has been peripherally involved rather than someone who was deeply invested in a patriarchal system. I’ve been in controlling systems that were similar, but the people in charge didn’t see themselves as being patriarchal. They were similar in that there was an unspoken rule that the authority is more important, and that obedience means to subordinate your desires to the desires of those over you.

    The “share your father’s vision” language is different, but the underlying rationale is very much the same. The leader’s personality, wants and needs ends up dictating what is right or wrong; if the leader says something is important, it’s important. The leader’s values become the group’s values, but some percentage of the group is simply mimicing what they have been taught and understand the system “instinctively”; the followers often can’t explain their position very well because their understanding is functional rather than grounded in some system of logic. But because they’ve absorbed the assumptions of the leader it all seems very clear to them, and they get frustrated when people don’t get it.

    In my experience there’s always logic to what people do; people are confusing when we don’t understand the underlying assumptions. Once we find the underlying rationale, we may still think the system crazed in terms of reality, but it will make sense in terms of the underlying assumptions. The people in every system are acting logically; it’s just that people in some groups believe in a reality outsiders are not living in.

  237. corriejo Says:

    On Stacy’s blog today she tells us this:

    “I do not believe that every instance of a woman working outside the home is sinful.”

    “But let’s stick to the facts. When a critic makes a statement that purposely misrepresents his/her neighbor (public figure or not), then that’s called slander (or libel). It’s bearing false witness, it’s a violation of the Ninth Commandment, and it is sin. This is especially true when the critic has been corrected and still insists on continuing with what she knows to be a misrepresentation of what her neighbor has stated, done, or believes.”

    She tells us that her book does not teach that women working outside of the home is sin.

    Either Stacy has to tell us that she disagrees with Vision Forum and Jennie Chancey, her co-author, on this subject or she has to apologize for falsely accusing her brethren of slander and gossip.

    Here is only one sampling of the writings coming from this movement, written by Jennie Chancey concerning working women:

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/jennie_chancey_responds_to_tit.aspx

    What truly amazes me is that Rev. Sandlin can state so confidently that the Bible does not call a woman leaving her God-given, home-based occupation for work outside the home “sin.” While he quotes the first portion of the famous Titus 2 passage, he neglects to carry it through to the final kicker: “that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Tit. 2:5b). I don’t know about anyone else, but my dictionary still defines blasphemy as showing “contempt or disrespect for (God, a divine being, or sacred things), esp. in speech” and uttering “profanities, curses, or impious expressions.” The Greek word used here is blasphemeo, which is used elsewhere to refer to reviling the Holy Spirit. It is interesting to note that St. Paul uses the word in 1 Cor. 4:13 to refer to the way the world reviles Christians, calling them “the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things.” Are Christians to blaspheme or to encourage others to blaspheme God’s Word? St. Paul writes in Col. 3:8, “But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.” I think we can feel fairly confident, then, that blasphemy is sin, whether it is spoken verbally or lived before a watching world.

    How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” St. Paul evidently believed it would be obvious enough to his readers that he didn’t need to say, “Leaving the home and going out into the workforce is sin,” as Rev. Sandlin seems to think is necessary in order for us to avoid Phariseeism. But do we need such bald statements in order to understand St. Paul? Apparently, blaspheming God’s Word involves doing the opposite of what St. Paul has just exhorted women to do: be “reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things — that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands.” Going to the Greek again, the word for “homemaker” used here is oikouros, which literally means “guard or watcher of the house.” Thayer’s Lexicon renders the meaning “keeping at home and taking care of household affairs.” A woman cannot both “keep at home” (or “guard the house”) and “keep” in a separate workplace. She cannot both “obey her own husband” (emphasis mine) and obey another boss (even if it is one for whom her husband has asked her to work).

    A simple glance at the domain which the wife is commanded to oversee and rule — yes, rule — should demonstrate beyond a doubt that it is not possible to be an effective, capable keeper at home while pursuing another (outside) occupation. The Proverbs 31 woman has been considered the ideal wife throughout the history of the Church.

    Regardless of whether or not she has an empty nest or is childless, this woman is busy! She is, first and foremost, her husband’s helper — not her children’s helper or her servants’ mistress. The man who is blessed with such a wife can truly find the Dominion Mandate an enjoyable challenge, because he has a serious partner on the home front. What is a second income when you do not have a ruler at home to manage and oversee the affairs immediately under her purview? But a “sin” to leave it and work elsewhere? Them’s hard words! People will get offended if we say a wife working outside of the home is a sin. Poor women who have to work will feel they are second-class Christians or looked down upon by their stay-at-home sisters in Christ. What about women whose husbands have abandoned them? But let’s try to look at this without knee-jerking if we can. We are living under a cursed economy. We are not living under God’s blessing. When the Church abandons “hard” teachings for soft words, the salt loses its savor and is trampled underfoot. When we follow pell-mell in the path of the “working world,” straining after the “American Dream” income, we’re going to fall into the same trap the rest of our culture is in: wives forced to work to make up a “shortfall,” debt, divorce, children handed over to government schools, etcetera. And we’re in it — knee-deep. Where are the older women who are supposed to teach the younger ones how to be sober keepers at home? Oh, their children are all grown, and they have “nothing” to do, so they’ve gotten “real” jobs. What about the women who are to be “washing the feet of the saints” and “ministering to the poor.” Ummm… too busy earning that second income.

    The Body of Christ needs its women! It needs singles, newlyweds, mothers, grandmothers, aunts, “spinsters” — every last one of them. And it needs them to embrace the role God has given them without looking back. We have so much to do, and we have so little time to accomplish it all. God has given us a great gift in calling us to the home. Our role is not inferior because it is “unpaid.” Our role is not of lesser importance because it isn’t out in the public sphere. When God created mankind “male and female,” He showed us that it takes both “halves” to make up the whole of humanity. That our roles differ is a cause for rejoicing and glory — not a cause for shame or depression. When both roles complement each other beautifully, we demonstrate to the world a picture of God’s divine image that is breathtaking to behold. We demonstrate the union of Christ and His Bride, the Church. Rejecting our roles or revising them to suit our individual tastes and plans is blasphemy. I didn’t say it; St. Paul did. Is it difficult for every woman to obey the clear command to be a keeper at home? Indeed it is, but, again, it is because we are living under God’s curse (He doesn’t bless an economy built upon fiat money, consumerism, and debt). Instead of seeking to extend the curse even further, we need to be lovingly helping our brothers and sisters in Christ so that those women in tough financial situations can stay at home. After all, when St. Paul writes about widows, does he say they just need to suck it up and get out in the workforce to fend for themselves? Far from it. He calls those who will not provide for widows and orphans “infidels” who have “denied the faith” (1 Tim. 5:7). When a woman has to work outside of the home, it is not an indication of some special blessing; it is a poor reflection on her provider (if she is married) or upon the Church (if she is widowed and has no family). The Body of Christ is to take care of its own.

  238. Connie Says:

    Light,

    Thank you so much for the information. You’re right; it is alarming. Thanks, too, for defining “eisegesis” for me. I was hesitant to ask about this study, thinking my question might be a little off-topic. However, once you defined the term, it’s obvious that much of the discussion here is about exactly that–“the interpretation of Scripture by reading into it one’s own ideas.”

    I’m not in the Five Aspects study (sorry, I don’t know how to do italics; this is my first time posting) for various reasons, one being that I was unable to find out much about it and was unwilling to commit to a study that, frankly, sounded rather odd. After reading your original post, I asked a friend who is in the study if she had noticed any strange teachings. She thought for a minute and then hesitantly said that a number of things taught are new to her. I told her that made me leery. My friend has been a Christian for many years and is a student of the Bible who takes theology seriously. She is not a new believer or someone who has not studied this topic in light of Scripture. If what is being taught in this study, or, for that matter, any study, is frequently new to a well-grounded Christian, I’m suspicious.

    Any additional information you or anyone else can give me will be much appreciated and put to good use.

  239. corriejo Says:

    From the Botkin’s cousin concerning their statements about girls who go to college being like harlots.

    http://missthewind.blogspot.com/2007/11/on-daughters-college-and-nouveau.html

    At this moment, in my family and extended family, there are just three females born Botkin who still remain Botkin: me, and Anna and Elizabeth. These two girls are more or less leaders in a Christian movement encouraging daughters to stay at home until marriage. They quote scripture to support this idea; Proverbs 7:11, for example, describing a harlot: “She is boisterous and rebellious; her feet do not remain at home.” This ideal of not straying from under a father’s roof means not going to college, and not going abroad alone, not even to translate the Bible.

    I can understand why, for these two girls, this seems like a feasible option. Their father is my uncle Geoff, who is intelligent, loving, and considerate. Their family has made a business producing films and going on speaking circuits; the girls help do research, write, and act on occasion. Their brother Ben creates the music; other brothers and their father direct, film, edit, or also act. They are good at it. Isaac, the oldest, and my best childhood friend, trained in New Zealand; at the ripe age of 14 he was already, by himself, constructing animation for the U.S. Navy. The family gets along, loves each other, even when working so closely. They are good people and I miss them.

    However, I do not think their proposed model is the best for all, or even most, families, and I think any movement that requires this lacks understanding and charity. I have certainly not stayed home my whole life, and this was not because I don’t respect my father or love my family. My father is a physician who worked chiefly in the emergency room; a family business is a little out of the question, especially if one is not allowed to go to school to get one’s credentials. I left my father’s house at 18, with his blessing, and, while he is the wisest, most multi-talented and loving man I have probably ever met, and while I have sought his good council for every major decision since then, I have learned a lot in the interim, away from home; things I wouldn’t have come across trying to keep the peace in Bonners Ferry, Idaho. My father has rejoiced with me in my journeys, which often led me back to his doorstep with something new; spices from North Africa, understanding of truly restrictive government from China, books from Europe and the ability to read them; intelligent people, a future son-in-law.

    I went to college; state-run college. The sisters’ major objection to college is its worldview: a Statist, “Marxist” worldview. They claim that “modern universities serve the State and teach their students to serve the State” (“So Much More” 133), warning that college curriculum would thus inevitably “do more harm than good.” The sisters have not been to college, by the way; I have been to four of them in the last 8 years. I encountered a lot of idiocy, but zero passionate loyalty to the State. Teachers typically dislike the government, for varying reasons; if anything, colleges promote an anarchist “down with the man” attitude. State colleges are paid for, in part, by the state, but so are roads, fire departments, 911 response units, and jails. The state gave me more money to attend college than I gave to it–no strings attached.

    What I learned from college undergrad classes is somewhat limited, but I did learn French, some Anglo-Saxon, philosophy, semantic theory, linguistics, and First Amendment law standards, all from teachers who were good enough and interesting enough to spark love for, and understanding of, the subjects. I looked at my own cells under a microscope, acted in a children’s play, wrote for the school paper, became an editor of the school paper, and learned how to get along with the kinds of people who fundamentally disagreed with me. I learned how to speak, and write, in public, and this aided my understanding of a whisper. I learned how to travel, how to save money, how to cook, how to weigh each word for meaning, how to balance health with study and friendship with introversion. I did this without becoming promiscuous, without becoming a drunkard, without bending to the attitude that in order to live you need to give everything under the sun a try.

    And this, I think, is the real objection to college: the fact that by attending it, many children have succumbed to this assumption. Thus, say the most careful, we must not even look the temptation in the eye; we must keep our beloved families close, where we can watch them, where we will be sure to never stumble. But this, my dears, is a great fallacy. People do not do stupid things away from home because everywhere away from home is stupid, but because people are stupid. If you require the security of a family’s rules to be good, your goodness is definitively based only on environment, and, likely, there’s a lot of error boiling already under your skin. Pride, for example, or lack of love for your enemy; two cherished Christian sins, damned in scripture more than drunkenness or sleeping around.

    I am now teaching at this Statist institution, and I hope I am not doing more harm than good. I am trying to do the opposite, as I have been given the opportunity to try. As I type, I am holding conferences with my students. I am asking them why. I am saying: this is idea is a good start, but have you thought further? I am asking them to formulate clear suppositions, unmuddied by cultural clichés. I am not even doing this as a rebel: the composition courses here, in this Statist institution, are based on Aristotelian rhetoric, a triumvate of ethos, pathos, and logos.

    And in the beginning was Logos. The word, logic; the expression of Being. Try it on for size sometime.


  240. Shiloh mm,

    You’re beautiful. You’ve been doing what I’ve been doing, assuming that some of these patriarchal folks are actually seeking to live out their ideology. According to Jen Epstein where Spunky appears to comment after attempts to corroborate (VF never responds), Vision Forum does not use volunteers or hire women who work for family of VF staff but rather hires women (and men) through temp agencies for holiday help. http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/doug-phillips-refuses-to-hire-women-at-vision-forum/

    It came out in that discussion online that Vision Forum also contracts out their order fulfillment now to an agency that employs women (intially they apparently handled all of that work in-house, using male interns). And I don’t care one way or the other, except for the fact that they preach and pontificate that it is a sin for women to work. If they believe it is a sin that condemns an unregenerate woman to eternal death in hell, then I think that they would be moved to keep from heaping more sin upon sin by caring for these women.


  241. Let me clarify, as I note that I didn’t write exactly what I meant. And having not ever placed an order with Vision Forum, I don’t know personally.

    They now contract with a telemarketer to take phone orders, and that agency employs women. They also hire local help in San Antonio to bring women in to work. Spunky can speak to the telemarketer issue, as I believe that it is on that above webpage that Spunky talks of asking question and trying to get through to Vision Forum staff via phone to clarify some of these things.

  242. corriejo Says:

    From Stacy’s blog this morning:

    “# I do not believe that every instance of a woman working outside the home is sinful.”

    I asked Stacy, more than once in private email, how she determines who is sinful and who is not. How does she decide and judge these matters? If she does not believe that every woman is in sin when she works outside of the home, then what

    “# I do not believe that girls who go to college are harlots (this one was so offensive that I had a hard time typing it!).”

    I am relieved to hear this but I wonder why she isn’t directing this towards the Botkins? The McDonalds were very much defending “So Much More” just a few weeks back and they had every chance to come out and tell the public how offended they were by this type of language.

    The Botkins compared a girl who goes to college as a boisterous harlot whose feet never stay at home. That was in THEIR book. This is not slander, gossip or libel. In fact, the only thing that could be considered slanderous here is what the Botkins said about college girls.

    It is not gossip or slander to discuss what someone wrote in a book. And this is certainly not a misrepresentation of what they said.

    If Stacy is so offended then she should have gone to the Botkins about this. I think this is a case of shooting the messenger. She is not aiming that statement at the right people. We did not say that she calls working women harlots (Kevin Swanson did say just about that very thing when he accused them of “selling their flesh cheaply in one-night stands with office coworkers”) and we did not say that she said that college girls were like boisterous harlots (the Botkins did).

    But, like those who promote Dabney and hail him as the “great defender of the South” and a great theologian without never mentioning that they do not agree with his writings on black people makes it look like they do agree with those writings.

    The same thing with the McDonalds. They greatly defended the Botkin book to the point where they totally ignored the obvious and even went so far as to contact the Botkins so an interview on the Visionary Daughter website could be changed so it looks like no one but us thought that the Botkins were teaching that a daughter is her father’s helpmeet. But, they did not tell us how they were greatly offended by the statement about college girls being like harlots.

    Before Vision Forum publishes these books, do they not read them? If this was an offensive statement that they didn’t agree with, I am quite sure they would have edited it out of the book, no? Especially because they are so very diligent with all the other content of the products they promote.

  243. thatmom Says:

    Corrie, thinking, though she didn’t state it outright, but assuming (maybe I ought not assume) ok thinking, I guess, that Stacy’s blog article yesterday (actually people have been contacting me to tell me it was about me I guess I should start out saying “since other people are thinking”), (can anyone diagram that sentence?), I left this comment on my Amazon review this morning:

    This morning, as I was reading a blog entry by Stacy McDonald http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/11/were-not-gossiping-were-networking.html) discussing this review I wrote and the topic of libel, slander, and gossip, I thought that, since she is using these legal terms, perhaps she thinks that I am wanting to bring harm to her business by discouraging others from reading this book or to harm her reputation. On the contrary, I think reading this book would be very helpful for those people who don’t quite understand patriarchy, patriocentricity, and the way patriarchs’ wives interpret Scripture. I would consider this book to be a primer, a place to start in understanding what they teach are the God-ordained roles of women. I would then suggest that readers go to Vision Forum’s (the book publisher) Doug Phillips’ blog and read this article, also written by Jennie: http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/jennie_chancey_responds_to_tit.aspx I believe reading everything these authors have available will give discerning readers the complete picture. I am completely in favor of everyone being as informed as possible.

    Amazon has now dropped the price of the book to, as of today, a little over $10.00 and used copies are starting to be available.”

    I felt it was important to publicly state my motives in case there is any question about what my motives are. I want people to be honestly informed and if it takes reading the Passionate Primer to know what it taught, then I am all for it.


  244. From comment #247: “People do not do stupid things away from home because everywhere away from home is stupid, but because people are stupid.”

    Can I get an AMEN on that one?

    From comment #240 above: “Before Vision Forum publishes these books, do they not read them? ”

    Actually I am beginning to think they don’t! If the book comes from a buddy (aka the Botkins, the McDonald’s, Voddie) then it is considered a trusted source. Someone in the “camp.” Then they have to eat their words later, just as Stacy is eating her words over the harlot-college-girl issues.

    So Doug, who is either reading this blog or not, or to his followers who obviously are, I challenge Doug to a blog entry on your blog where you discuss the issue and PLAINLY state—are women who go to college all harlots or not? Is it acceptable to send your daughter to college? Are women working out of the home in sin, or not? Let’s answer this once and for all and quit the back and forth.

    I’m not holding my breath.

  245. corriejo Says:

    “You’ve been doing what I’ve been doing, assuming that some of these patriarchal folks are actually seeking to live out their ideology. ”

    Cindy,

    Exactly! I have been suffering under this same delusion.

    “And I don’t care one way or the other, except for the fact that they preach and pontificate that it is a sin for women to work.”

    This is exactly what they preach. Just ask Andrew Sandlin. He was rebuked sternly and was put in his place by Jennie Chancey on the issue. I posted some of that response above.

    This is exactly like Stacy McDonald telling people that she doesn’t call people who disagree with her teachings on “biblical womanhood” white-washed feminists. But, what is a WWF? Who is she referring to when she calls evangelical feminists, WWFs? I am reading her newest book because she has a whole chapter on it. It is rather sort of nebulous.

    None of the women that I know on this list fit her descriptions of either secular or white-washed feminists.

    It would help if she would define the word since she coined it.

    She gives this explanation of the “religious feminist” on her blog today:

    http://theresurgence.com/paul_felix_1994_the_hermeneutics_of_evangelical_feminism

    Chapter 8 in her book contains some of the same information found at the above link.

    Here is what she wrote concerning “white-washed feminist” and, again, it makes me ask more questions instead of answering them:

    I haven’t called anyone a “whitewashed feminist.” I have defined the term and warned women what to look for regarding false teachings. If someone would like to define hyper-patriarchy (rather than randomly choosing the varying beliefs or alleged beliefs of different ministries and individuals and then lumping them all together as hyper-patriarchs), then perhaps we can all be “warned” (and perhaps agree) about the abuses of genuine hyper-patriarchy.

    Whitewashed feminism (evangelical feminism) has been defined. If the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t wear it.

    Here is a quote from the chapter “Whitewashed Feminism,” in our book, Passionate Housewives:

    The Evangelical Feminist: The Whitewashed Kind
    On the other hand, there is a more clandestine form of feminism which has crept into many modern churches. Observers have dubbed its adherents “evangelical feminists.” These feminists claim to hold Scripture in high regard, yet they do not accept the biblically defined role distinctions between men and women, and they reject male authority to varying degrees. While some “evangelical feminists” admit to their belief in the limited authority of the Scriptures regarding their role, others simply try to twist the Bible’s meaning to fit their lifestyle. This more subtle version of feminism is particularly dangerous due to its beguiling cloak of Christianity, because, at its core, it is no different than its “secular” counterpart. While its face may be more polished and its manifestation less extreme, in essence, it is nothing more than whitewashed feminism.

    Many whitewashed feminists, consistent with their egalitarian beliefs, advocate the ordination of women in the church. Others, no doubt weakened in their feminist resolve by the unyielding truth of Scripture, rightly agree that women should not be ordained in the church. Yet somehow they still insist on reinterpreting the passages that teach differing roles for men and women in the family. Ultimately, they reject the wife’s biblical mandate to submit to her husband as her head.”

    Now, just WHO is reinterpreting the passages teaching differing roles in the family but still holds to the belief that women shouldn’t be ordained in the church? Who are these women who have been weakened “in their feminist resolve” who do these things and believe these things? Just WHO is rejecting the wife’s biblical mandate to submit to her husband as her head and where are examples of those that believe such things?

    I haven’t seen anything like this. I do know that there are many of us who reject THEIR interpretation on some of these passages and we have gone to great lengths to back up our assertions and we also believe that women should not be ordained in the church. But, disagreeing with her interpretation is not tantamount to rejecting the mandate to submit. So, she appears to define WWFs but she refuses to give any sort of concrete example of who is teaching these things.

    I feel like Cinderella who knows that the shoe is really hers and she knows it fits but her step-sisters are making sure she never gets to try it on! 🙂

  246. corriejo Says:

    http://yoursacredcalling.blogspot.com/2007/07/whitewashed-feminism.html

    “There is a sly movement afoot and it’s very dangerous and enticing. It could be called Christian feminism, except that I don’t think it’s possible for feminism to be labeled Christian. Perhaps we should call it whitewashed feminism, because though it’s seemingly softened for the Christian pallet, it’s still feminism.

    It’s enticing because it feeds on a woman’s desire to be in control – and it’s sly because it claims to be based on Christianity. The current buzz words are “hyper-patriarchy” and “patricentricity.” There are groups and individuals who claim Christ and hate patriarchy because it means “father-rule.” When you see teachings that complain about how Christian women are being “held back” (either in the the church or the family) by men, be very, very careful.

    Compare everything you read to Scripture and discuss any questions you have with your husband and elders. God has given us our authorities for our protection, instruction, and ultimate good. (Hebrews 13:17) Of course, there are those who may tell you no one should rule over you, so why should you listen to your husband or elders? Don’t be deceived.”

    “You see, the two just don’t jive. Feminism is diametrically opposed to Scripture. And white washed feminism is confusing and burdening the Christian wife and mother who is attempting to die to self.

    As feminism has infiltrated even the church, there is a growing trend to legitimize the most common sins and weaknesses of women – rebellion to male authority, independent power, and a desire for what God has not given her. Rather than help her repent and recover, the feminist voice says she’s being treated unfairly and deserves more.

    For when they [false teachers] speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh. 2 Peter 2:18

    There are a plethora of false preachers, speakers, teachers, and bloggers who are willing to tickle our ears under the guise of “encouraging” us and “freeing” us from the chains of patriarchy (biblical living). They are deceived. True Christian liberty comes from having the freedom not to sin.

    While they promise them liberty, they themselves are slaves of corruption; for by whom a person is overcome, by him also he is brought into bondage. For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning. For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.” (2 Peter 2:19-21, NKJV)

    We must learn to study and think for ourselves. Don’t be deceived by smooth speech or sugar-coated words. Compare what you read to Scripture and be careful to “check out your sources.” Be Bereans. This is my prayer for you.”

  247. Light Says:

    It has long been my belief that the patriocentric movement is first and foremost about the fleshly desire for power, whether it’s a subconscious or conscious desire. This recent post on the Bayly blog is one more piece of evidence for this.
    http://www.baylyblog.com/2007/11/wooing-as-warfa.html#more

    It makes my skin crawl, this is so sick and perverted. Praise God my husband did not see me as a “foe” to be conquered, nor see my family as one to be defeated.

    One excerpt: But though a potential bride may be deeply loved, she’s also at some level the foe. To achieve victory the young man must not only win her, he must defeat her and her family, snatching her from their bosom, converting her to himself, breaking her natural bonds with father and mother, brother and sister, nurse and friend, dog and home. There’s little that’s tender about it.

    Bayly seems to have totally forgotten about Genesis 2:24.

    Having worked with abused women, this statement makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up. “Breaking the bonds” between a woman and her family and friends is a huge red flag for spousal abuse.

  248. corriejo Says:

    Lindsey,

    That quote would be from #241. 🙂

  249. corriejo Says:

    “I think the justification is basically that the women are “serving daddy by serving Vision Forum” – as I understand it, many of the girls who help with the Christmas rush (or who work there regularly-?) are the daughters or relatives of men who either work for Vision Forum or have some other connection to it. In some cases, the girls may be literally serving under the same roof as their dad.”

    It reminds me of the pharisees and their tithe of mint and cumin.

    “The Return of the Daughters” highlights one family from Puerto Rico whose daughter states that it is her “father’s vision for me to be a servant”. He is a custodian (janitor) so there isn’t any way she can serve him in his work. What was not highlighted on the film is that she serves (or had served) as a nanny in the Phillip’s household and her mother serves (served) as housekeeper in the Phillip’s household and her brother serves (served) by doing yardwork. She works for Doug in accordance with her father’s vision for her to be a “servant”. In fact, the whole family seems to be serving Doug. I am not sure if it was a paid position but there are some who said that she was no paid.

    They seem like a wonderful family and she is a beautiful girl and so very sweet and intelligent. This is NOTHING against them at all. This is to show you how the reality of this patriocentricity works itself out in real life.

    Whose vision is everyone truly serving?

  250. Spunky Says:

    Corrie,

    Thanks for the links to Stacey’s blog.

    Like you, I appreciated Stacey’s clarification. I had begun to think that perhaps some of what others teach within patriarchy was not exactly what she may think or believe.

    Clearly, Stacey’s stated beliefs in this post definitely puts her at odds with Jennie Chancey’s own writing on the application of Titus 2 teachings and working women.

    Jennie’s opening paragraph began, “What truly amazes me is that Rev. Sandlin can state so confidently that the Bible does not call a woman leaving her God-given, home-based occupation for work outside the home “sin.”

    Would Jennie be amazed that Stacey confidently states that a women who works outside the home is not necessarily sinful either?

    Stacey said, “I do not believe that every instance of a woman working outside the home is sinful.”

    Thus Stacey believes that it could be sin, but it is not always sin. Stacey clearly does not confidently call working women “sin” as it appears Jennie Chancey would like Sandlin to do.

    Obviously Jennie’s teaching goes beyond Stacey’s belief to say that women who work are in sin as blasphemers to the word of God.

    “How does a woman blaspheme the Word of God? This isn’t something we can just brush aside or take lightly as a “cultural thing.” St. Paul evidently believed it would be obvious enough to his readers that he didn’t need to say, “Leaving the home and going out into the workforce is sin,” as Rev. Sandlin seems to think is necessary in order for us to avoid Phariseeism. But do we need such bald statements in order to understand St. Paul? Apparently, blaspheming God’s Word involves doing the opposite of what St. Paul has just exhorted women to do: be “reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things — that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands.”

    Further, Stacey also said, “I do not believe that girls who go to college are harlots (this one was so offensive that I had a hard time typing it!).”

    If Stacey is offended by such a suggestion perhaps she ought to consider her endorsement of the book that likens girls who do not remain “under her father’s roof” to a harlot. This would be ANY girl who leaves home before marriage, not just those that go away to college.

    From p. 173 of the Botkins book, So Much More, they write about girls who do not remain “under their father’s roof.”

    The weight of biblical passages seem to strongly indicate that the home is the women’s domain. Why should this be true only for married women? Proverbs 7:11 describes of the wiles of a harlot. “She is boisterous and rebellious, her feed do not remain at home.” This description could match many of the Christian girls we know. They would be outraged and insulted to be likened to harlots, but they are unwittingly acting like them. The godly women loves to be in her home.”

    Cleary, a daughter who fails to “live under her father’s roof” and goes away to college (or for anything else) is likened to a harlot. Stacey endorsed and promotes the writers as young ladies who are “exposing the feminist lies that have indoctrinated our western culture and even crept into the church.” (From the back cover of So Much More.)

    If Stacey is frustrated with the words written here, it is perhaps of her own making. She has endorsed and written books with women whose beliefs appear to be contrary to her own beliefs. Up until this point, it was not clear that she disagreed with them on these points, because she defended them strongly.

    Stacey’s frustration is not really with us, although we are the source of exposing her conundrum. Her frustration stems from her close association, endorsement, and defense of writers and teachers who people who apparently believe things contrary to what she believes. We don’t all believe what our friends believe. But we don’t endorse and defend books that they write either. She could have saved herself much frustration if she had written these thoughts months ago instead of defending the people who believe them.

    That said, I’m glad she has written to clarify her beliefs. However, it will be difficult to distance herself from some of these ideas and those that believe them since she has endorsed the Botkn’s book and partnered with Jennie Chancey to write one of her own. Her blog post will not be read by many who pick up the Botkins book in the future. And when young ladies and mothers read that a daughter who leaves her father’s roof is likened to a harlot, it will be naturally assumed that those who endorse the book do so as well.

  251. corriejo Says:

    “At funerals we cloak harsh reality in kind words and soft colors. So too, at weddings soft words and vibrant colors disguise a bloody truth. The wedding ceremony is really a mini-Versailles, an Appomattox-in-a-nutshell of capitulation and triumph, the surrender of one woman to one man, the victory song of groom over both bride and family.”

    Light,

    This is just ghastly. Marriage, for a woman, is an act of capitulation??? That word means: the action of surrendering or ceasing to resist an opponent or demand. The man who wants to marry you is actually an opponent? No thank you! I will pass.

    This whole “sabre dance” reminds me of their post about birth control and the euphemism used concerning “sheathing the sword” and how each man will have to give an account to the Lord on whether or not he sheathed his sword. The sex act was likened to a weaponry thing, too, where the man had a sword and he used it to wage war against the culture. Blech!

    The Bible tells men that they are to leave THEIR father and mother and cleave to their wife. I wonder why he thinks this is some war against HER parents when the Bible instructs him to leave and cleave? What about the husband’s parents? Who wages war against them to make sure the groom obeys scripture?

    The Bible never mentions anything about a man snatching a woman from her parents’ bosom and defeating them????? Isn’t that called kidnapping? And what about all these teachings about how the father of the bride determines whether or not some sword-wielding Zorro will be able to even get close to her?

    I hardly think that the Bible was talking about this when it said “the way of a man with a virgin”. I got more of the Song of Solomon in my head; not some armed man making war against the woman and her family and then snatching her away from her family. Does he then shave her head and cut her fingernails and bathe her and give her 7 days to mourn for the loss of her home before he has his way with her, too?

    This really is extreme stuff. Shocking. Perverse. Weird. Scary.

  252. corriejo Says:

    I am sorry, I misspoke. The captive woman is given one full month to mourn her family before she is taken into the tent to be conquered. This must be what David Bayly is referring to.

    Is this what he meant by the way of a man with a virgin? It sounds like it.

    I will tell you, if some young man comes at my daughters with his sabre to do some weird sabre dance with her, he will be run through twice- once with my husband’s sabre and once with mine. I would rather my daughters be like Phillip’s virgin daughters for all of their lives than to marry a man with this view of marriage and women.

    “Deuteronomy 21:10-14

    Marrying a Captive Woman

    10 When you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, 11 if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife. 12 Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails 13 and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. 14 If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her.”


  253. Vision Forum, save when their in the middle of some polemic rant, is all about being vague. They are much like their predecessor, Bill Gothard and all of his ministries. (Read up on the history of their interractions with the Midwest Christian Outreach…) I personally know many families who have been devistated by the “vagueness” that resulted from Gothard’s well-intentioned but misguided teachings.

    Time and time again, as many have pointed out here, VFers ar permitted to claim “A” and deny “B” when A and B are used in the same way and mean the same thing in context. Whenever anyone points out that A=B or that A+B=C, they are a liar (ie. tale bearer because VF wants to get their point across but doesn’t want to look *too* accusatory.)

    So this is a step in the right direction for people to clarify their postitions on their blogs. Terrific. But to go much further than a nebulous statement will require biting the hand that feeds them, so to speak. Maybe some of them are willing to do so. As Lindsey says above, “I’m not holding my breath” to see any of these Dougites or VFers go much further, as it will require an outright challenge to or denouncement of their belief system.


  254. their should be they’re

    sorry, folks.

  255. thatmom Says:

    Stacy says in this same blog article:

    “I do not “believe anyone who is a Bible believing Christian, but who differs from [me] on any point concerning the roles of women, is a ‘white washed feminist’ and is headed down a path to worse destruction than secular feminism has produced.” (And our book, Passionate Housewives doesn’t teach this either.)

    In Passionate Housewives, page 143: Jennie says: “Then it hit me: the Church today is jumping on a train whose engine has already gone over a cliff. Instead of getting out and turning around, we’ve decided the train car will be just fine if we paint it a prettier color or call if by a different name. But feminism is still feminism, and the results of feminism will be just the same for the Church as they have been for the world—possibly worse, because we should know better. Quite simply, there is no such thing as “Christian feminism.” We wither embrace the Biblical model and call it “very good” (just as God did after He created it) or we reject it and plummet over the cliff with the rest of the passengers on the runaway railcar. Do we really need to lose a generation or two before we stop this folly?”

    isn’t this saying the same thing?

  256. thatmom Says:

    Corrie and Joann, setting aside all the flowery mumbo jumbo of the Bayly article, mumbo jumbo that is fraught with scary imagery, I think he is making a valid point.

    The “courtship” movement as interpreted by extremists want a “safe” courtship and marriage and we all know that that is impossible, that there is risk involved. I even know people who did all the right things, followed all the guru instructions, and still had huge problems. I know one situation where a young woman was “wooed” and her father was “wooed” and a few days before the wedding, the bride’s mom caught, out of the corner of her eye, a glance from the groom to the bride that sent a chill down her spine. She said it was sujbective but as a mom I know it was the mom radar that kicked in. Long story short, the wedding was called off and the family soon learned that the groom had purchased a trailer in the middle of the woods for the couple to live in, he had made arrangements for the bride to quit her job and for her car to be sold. She was basically going to be thousands of miles from her family, cut off for everyone else and with a man, many knew, had a reputation for being violent. And this was after the “perfect” courtship a la patriocentricity. What a horrible thing and yet doesn’t it tell us the necessary risk there will always be when your daughter or son marries?

    That being said, don’t you all find all this violent imagery regarding the marriage bed to be frightening and insulting? YIKES!

  257. Light Says:

    Karen, I absolutely agree with you that courtship offers no guarantees. You speak of this man who was going to take his bride thousands of miles and cut her off from everyone she knew. This parallels what Bayly’s description of the proper way to treat a bride – snatching her from their bosom, converting her to himself, breaking her natural bonds with father and mother, brother and sister, nurse and friend, dog and home. This man you mention who had a reputation for being violent – it parallels my point exactly, that it is a classic tactic of abusers to isolate their wives (or girlfriends).

  258. Light Says:

    And, I would add the obvious, patriocentric – because it’s all about him. She must love him only, give him her devotion only – she must not love her parents, her family, her friends, not even, apparently, her dog!


  259. I’m also bothered by something that I mentioned last week on this blog, stemmming from Matt Chancey calling girls from the church to scrub Jennie’s bathroom and clean house.

    Many patriarchalists hold up examples of friends that they have that do not follow their precribed lifestyles, yet others are blasted for blaspheming the Word of God.

    Another consideration is this “inner circle” distinction. Isn’t the person that Stacy holds up as a token of her “tolerance” of WWFs, etc., an elder’s family in her church? So this elder’s family would get the special consideration by their station (an inner circle position) and as one upon whom Stacy is somewhat dependent for support.

    It’s okay for Brian Abshire (who Jennie quotes in her book) to send his daughters to college and it’s okay for Scott Brown to send his daughters to Bible college, too. Inner circle.

    Stacy’s comment does not clarify the problem of the “inner circle” and that double standard that they enjoy. Joanne Q Public (Conservative Christian) who is a single mom or who is not inner circle and who might be obese or not so pretty is held to a higher standard?

    I suppose that we will now see a list of tokens paraded on some of these patriarchalist blogs now, as a result of what’s been written here?


  260. And all this begs the question—

    Is there NOT room at the cross for the “white-washed” evangelical feminist?

    Why is there even the need for such a term in kingdom-speak?

  261. corriejo Says:

    “That being said, don’t you all find all this violent imagery regarding the marriage bed to be frightening and insulting? YIKES!”

    Yes, Karen, it is frightening and insulting. These are not images I get from Scripture at all. When Solomon’s Bride was describing his body, I don’t remember her mentioning anything about swords.

    Breaking the bonds between a woman and her family and even her pet? Your story was a scary one, Karen, but I think that Bayly’s post could very well be encouraging to any aspiring Lothario who sees it his job to conquer a woman, seduce her and steal her away. I am getting images in my mind of silent movies and shieks and heroines!

    “The way of a man with a woman is one of life’s great mysteries. From every perspective the process is mysterious, resembling a blindfolded sabre dance on uneven ground. The young man who pursues marriage enters a foreign land where he wages war. On the hinges of that battle lie happiness or shame.”

    I wonder what an FBI profiler would have to say about all of his thoughts on women and marriage?

    Here are some quotes by Tim Bayly written 10/06 where he compares the male’s “organ” to a sheathed/unsheathed sword.

    I really don’t care for the imagery, to tell you the truth.

    “God creates man’s sex organ to penetrate and deposit sperm where it can fertilize an egg, but man covers his organ with rubber and refuses to make the deposit. God creates woman’s sex organs to receive man’s deposit and provide a safe environment for that sperm to fertilize one of her eggs, but woman uses a pill, a plastic obstruction, or a chemical poison to stop the sperm and egg from uniting and becoming a living child. ……

    So out of fear we block the womb, sheath the rod, and claim we’ve done it all for our Master…….

    God made her a woman and dignified her sex with His statement, “Woman shall be saved through childbearing” (1Timothy 2:15). But you’re a practical man, aren’t you?

    When the Master returns, though, what exactly will you say to Him to explain the fact that during by far the largest portion of your lovemaking through the years, your sword was sheathed, scrupulously kept from your lover’s womb?”

  262. corriejo Says:

    “War doesn’t have to produce long-term enmity. But it is a contest where there are strategic objectives and goals, including subordination and long-term relationships. Marriage ends in the submission of a bride to a groom and her departure from her family and friends for the groom’s family, God and home. Now, unless you think submission comes easily, that transfer of authority is perfectly natural, you’ve got to admit that the process leading to marriage is far more like war and battle than we generally admit.”

    See, this is the kind of stuff that makes me wonder what it is exactly that the patriocentrists believe.

    The Bible tells us that a man should LEAVE *his* mother and father and cleave to his wife. It does not say that the bride should be snatched away from her parents and brought back to his family and friends. In fact, it seems to say, specifically that the MAN should be the one leaving his family and friends and cleaving TO his wife. Nothing at all about taking her away from all of her family and bringing her to his clan.

    Also, a woman is not told to transfer her allegiance to her groom’s “God”. If she is a believer and so is he, it is *their* God. If he is not a believer, then he should be told to take his blindfold and sabre and go home. There will be no dancing, tonight, Lothario. If she is not a believer and he is, then he should not even be going after her for the goal of marriage.

    Also, whose goal is subordination? The Bible instructs the wife to submit to her own husband. It does not say to the husband that he has anything to do with this submission that is given of her own will. I do wonder if and how they see a man’s role in his wife’s submission? Does he enforce it? Is this part of the conquering that ensures her submission to him? Is this the war he is waging, the one against the woman and making her know just who is the boss?

    It seems that what is foremost on his mind is a woman’s submission and a man’s authority?

  263. Light Says:

    This is a continuation of my reply to Connie’s question earlier in this thread about the problems with the Five Aspects of Woman study.
    It’s most helpful to see the men’s study and the women’s study materials side by side. According to Mouser, men should pattern their lives after the following “righteous masculine archetypes: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Christ the God/Man and the last Adam, and Created Adam, the first man.” Women should pattern their lives after the following “righteous feminine archetypes: Wisdom the first feminine, Eve the first woman, Israel the wife of God, The Virgin Mary mother of Christ, The church the bride of Christ, and Jerusalem our mother above.” (page 300)

    This is quite interesting. All of the masculine archetypes are actual beings – including God. Of the six feminine archetypes, only two are real beings, and four are metaphorical constructions! None of them are God. By dividing the archetypes into two distinct groups, one that men should emulate, and one that women should emulate, this abnormal division leads us away from what the scripture actually teaches. The Bible calls all people, men and women, to a single standard of Christlikeness. In this study, by arranging it in this manner with a separate list of archetypes divided by gender, Christlikeness is articulated as the sole domain of the man. In comparison, women are encouraged to look to ametaphor as their model of holiness. Can’t we have the real thing as our model? Or do only men get access to that?

    Mouser believes that men are made more in God’s image than women are. It’s right there in black and white on page 334 in the Five Aspects bible study materials.

    “Man can picture God more fully in his roles than woman can. But he can also picture Satan more fully than woman can.”

    So I pulled out my Merriam Webster’s again to look up the verb “picture” as it’s used in Mouser’s claim above.

    picture, vt
    1: to paint or draw a representation, image, or visual conception of; depict; also, illustrate
    2: to describe graphically in words
    3: to form a mental image of; to imagine

    Picture = image. So men image God more fully than women do. That’s what he’s saying. Mouser may give lip service to men and women both being made in the image of God, but by making a statement like this one, above, he contradicts himself. As for the statement about men imaging Satan more fully than women – very strange. Where would he come up with a bizarre idea like that? There aren’t any scriptures to support it, that’s for sure.

    But wait, there’s more. I’ll get to that later. Meanwhile, Connie, I encourage you to share these concerns with your friend. I would be curious to learn what her reaction is! Better yet, share these concerns with your pastor.

  264. Anne Says:

    Wow. The marriage imagery is downright offensive. No wonder some feminists have turned their back on marriage completely. I wouldn’t want any part of that violence either.

    I was blessed to marry my best friend. On that day, through an act of love, I laid down my personal desires and submitted myself to him. At the same time, he laid down his personal desires and submitted himself to our family and it’s needs. Being the head of our home is not a job that is truly about power, but about leadership. And many times he has not gotten his way, because his way was not what the family needed. My husband’s role is more often one of service and self-sacrifice. It is one that brings him closer to God, and that I am blessed to be allowed to assist him with.

    In regards to Stacy M. and her thoughts on women’s role within Patriarchy, count me in as another who is grateful for her clarifications. I am happy to discuss my issues with Patriarchy as a whole, or with the teachings of specific people where relevant, but have no wish to hold one person accountable for the words of another. I certainly respect Stacy’s freedom to disagree with Mrs. Chancey on the issues of working outside of the home and college for young women.

    The whole thing does leave me a bit confused, however.


  265. Anne…what a beautiful picture you have painted. We have approached marriage the same way too. We were “best friends” for a year before we even dated. Then we dated for almost 6 years before marriage. I truly married my best friend.

    We’ve discovered in over 15 years of being together that I’m better doing the finances, and he cooks a better grilled cheese sandwich on nights when I’m tired and/or away. We’ve learned our PERSONAL give and take, and it has served us well.

  266. thatmom Says:

    Anne and Lindsay, at my house we call what you both described as “doing the dance” or the beautiful choreography called marriage. I, too am blessed to be married to my best friend. After 33 years of being together, I can say it gets more wonderful with each passing year!

  267. Lin Says:

    “This parallels what Bayly’s description of the proper way to treat a bride – snatching her from their bosom, converting her to himself, breaking her natural bonds with father and mother, brother and sister, nurse and friend, dog and home.”

    You know, it is a lot easier to to be a tyrant than to be Christ like.


  268. Karen (#268) “the beautiful choreography called marriage”

    By George, I think we have a book title here. Care to get started on it, friend??? You’d do an excellent job!!!!

    Might be a good balance to those passionate housewives. 🙂

  269. corriejo Says:

    I was trying to remember what Bayly’s “wooing as warfare” post reminded me of and I finally remembered.

    I have a family member who was involved with a man and my aunts were concerned, so I did some checking around. What I found was shocking.

    He was a pagan who dabbled in witchcraft.

    He had been court martialed from one of the armed services for having child porn on his computer. He did some time in jail.

    Not only that but I came across a stash of his drawings on one of his internet sites. He drew them himself. These drawings were very hard to look at. He was a good artist….too good. The likenesses of the women were very real. The various women were pictured in scenes where they were held captive. They were bound or gagged or held prisoner. There was clearly a theme of domination and subordination. What was most disturbing was the use of swords in his pictures. Some of the women had small gashes where they had been cut with various objects but the sword was often depicted sticking out of her private area. It was either a sword or a snake.

    Then there was his poetry. It was more disturbing than the artwork. He wrote about women and how he would dominate them and capture them and what he would do to them in order to subordinate them to his will. He wrote about how women were there to serve his needs and his pleasures; they were created for his use and to be used by him.

    I forwarded all that I found to my aunts and they were horrified. They waged war, alright! They stepped right into their warrior princess role and let him know, in no uncertain terms, that they had his number. I was so proud of them and it made me feel safe to know that my aunts would do the same for me if I ever needed their help.

    I think what was most disturbing was that this guy looked so normal but what was going on in his head was so NOT normal.

    I cannot find any justification for Bayly to use such imagery to depict marriage. None. Jesus does not fight against His Bride but He wages war against our enemy the devil. We do not wage war against flesh and blood but against the powers and principalities and the forces of evil.

    A suitor does not come to wage war against the woman and her family. He does not look at them as foes who need to be subdued. He does not come to force capitulation. He comes to let his intentions and desires made known.

    Jesus told us what true biblical authority is and it comes in the form of a *servant* not a warrior.

    To me, Bayly’s take on a husband is pagan in its origin, and has no foundation in the word of God. It sounds like the stuff of S & M novels. The way of a man with a virgin is one of tenderness and love; not one of blood, bondage, captivity, domination, subordination, swords and warfare. I had always thought that proverb described the wedding night where the couple consummated the marriage.

    There was another article, some time back, written by a dominionist pastor and he compared piercing and slavery to the sex act and women. He said that it was okay for women to have pierced ears because they, by the very nature of the sex act, are pierced, thus symbolizing their subjugation. The husband, being the one who pierces, is showing his domination over his wife. Because of this dominant role, men are not to have piercings because it is always humbling for a man to be pierced but women were created to be pierced so they may have pierced ears. To be pierced was a sign of slavery and subjugation, according to this article. (He forgot about how we are ALL bondslaves to the Lord and servants to one another?) Again, the imagery of the sex act and the weaponry in that imagery is highly disturbing and is NOT found in scripture but in pagan imagery.

    This is why accountability is so important in the church. There is such a dearth of it as we can readily see.

  270. Anne Says:

    That’s how I see true leadership, Corrie, in servanthood. And it may be the true heart of everything that bothers me about Patriocentrism. I believe that a family should be centered on Christ, and live in a spirit of humble servitude for one another. The father leads that first and foremost by example. Sacrificing and serving the needs of his family with grace, strenghth, and love.

    What an honor it is to be a helpmeet to that man.

    The way I see modern Patriarchy portrayed, it is with the father as a commander of a tribe or army. His will and vision is what the family is centered on, and he dominates. His dominion is at the expense of the Christian liberty of his subordinate family members.

    It doesn’t sit well with me at all.

  271. Connie Says:

    Light,

    I so appreciate the time you’re taking to answer my questions about the Five Aspects study. I wish I had the materials so I could see for myself, but they’re just too expensive, so I’m very thankful for your detailed insights. I certainly will be passing them on to my friend, and I’ll let you know what she says. My husband (who is also very concerned about these teachings) and I plan to speak with our pastor and elders about this study. Right now, though, I’m trying to gather all the information I can so that we’re well prepared.

    The teachings you describe are so strange and unbiblical–like nothing I’ve heard before. I assume Mouser uses Scripture to support them, but I’m at a loss to think of which Scriptures he could possibly use. I’m looking forward to your next installment. Thanks again.

  272. Light Says:

    Connie, it just gets weirder. Here’s the next installment. Much of it is so crafty and sneaky, it can be hard to discern. Here again it will be helpful if we look the Five Aspects of Woman side by side with the Five Aspects of Man. There used to be a nifty little chart of these on the Five Aspects web page, but it’s not there anymore. It is, however, in the printed study materials.

    First Aspect of Man:
    Lord of the Earth (Gen. 1) Man is created in the image of God to rule and subdue the earth for God.

    First Aspect of Woman:
    Mistress of the Domain (Gen. 1) Woman is created in the image of God to rule the earth for God.

    Genesis 1:27-28 gives both man and woman the exact same cultural mandate. Yet Mouser has assigned them two different labels here to introduce differences between the sexes that are not encompassed by the Creation account.

    “Lord of the Earth” is at the very least an unwise choice of words. In scripture, only God is given the title of Lord of the Earth (see Psalm 97:5), not man. Is Mouser equating man with God? This seems to be a theme with Mouser, as we shall see in the third aspect.

    And perhaps this is picking at nits, but for the “Mistress of the Domain,” Mouser seems to have missed the part of the bible verse that includes the responsibility of woman to subdue the earth.

    +++++

    Second Aspect of Man:
    Husbandman (Gen. 2) Man is created to cultivate the persons and things within his realm, so they fulfill their potential within God’s creation.

    Second Aspect of Woman:
    Helper-Completer (Gen. 2) Woman is from the man and for the man, an indispensable helper without whom the man, his work, and the whole creation are not complete.

    Mouser here also seems to be reading Genesis 2 as if the task of cultivation has been assigned to the male alone. Yet, clearly in Gen 1 that task has been assigned to all humanity; it is not until woman is created that the mandate can be fulfilled. It is important to note here that the woman is an ezer – it means helper or rescuer, and is used 21 out of 22 times in the NT to describe God as our helper.

    ++++++

    Third Aspect of Man:
    Savior (Gen. 3) Man is created to war sacrificially against evil and injustice until they are vanquished.

    Third Aspect of Woman:
    Lifegiver (Gen. 3) The means of man’s temptation, woman is also the means to physical and spiritual life. Through her comes the Savior and lesser saviors, who crush the Serpent. As a lifegiver, she is in partnership with God and nature.

    Eisegesis alert! Mouser imputes things to Genesis 3 that simply are not there. Genesis 3 says nothing about man being created to war against evil. Genesis 3 is about the consequences of the Fall. The only promise of life in Gen 3 is through the promise of Christ.

    Additionally, Mouser’s use of the word “savior” is disturbing. It smacks of the man-as-god concept found in the New Age movement. And man, a savior? Men are never referred to as saviors in the Bible. Savior is a word used of God, not men. The Bible clearly tells us:

    Isaiah 43:11
    “I, even I, am the LORD. And besides Me there is no savior.”

    Okay, that’s it for me tonight. The remaining two aspects tomorrow. I can’t prop my eyelids open any longer this evening!

  273. shilohmm Says:

    Cindy Kunsman said:

    Vision Forum does not use volunteers or hire
    women who work for family of VF staff but rather hires women (and men) through temp agencies for holiday help

    *sigh* This makes me think of some Jewish communities in the Middle Ages, where the surrounding peoples despised them – but also used them to do jobs the Christians were convinced were sinful. The Christians in those cultures basically wrote the Jewish off as lost, as the cursed murderers of God, so why not make use of them? Much like the hyper-Calvinist idea that, “well, either you’re saved or you’re not; and if you’re not, nothing I can do about it.”

    OTOH, maybe their theory is that these poor lost women who think the work world is a good thing for them will be exposed to the Manly Men of Vision Forum and find out what they’re missing. Hiring these women is their own form of witnessing to the lost world. 😉

    No, wait. The telemarket things puts me back to the Christians making use of those they considered lost anyhow. *sigh*

  274. corriejo Says:

    “First Aspect of Man:
    Lord of the Earth (Gen. 1) Man is created in the image of God to rule and subdue the earth for God.

    First Aspect of Woman:
    Mistress of the Domain (Gen. 1) Woman is created in the image of God to rule the earth for God.”

    Interesting.

    Why does he say that the man is created to rule AND subdue but the woman is only to rule? Genesis 1 doesn’t say that. Imho, this is taking away from scripture and it is not an accident.

    “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.””

    God said to THEM. Them’s Adam and Eve. God told THEM to subdue AND rule.

    “Lord of the Earth” is at the very least an unwise choice of words. In scripture, only God is given the title of Lord of the Earth (see Psalm 97:5), not man. Is Mouser equating man with God? This seems to be a theme with Mouser, as we shall see in the third aspect.”

    I have read where Mouser said that men can better relate to Christ because Christ was a man. Because of a man’s maleness, he is able to be closer to Christ and experience a union/relationship that women cannot.

    And, Genesis 1 never makes a distinction between the man and the woman in their assignment to rule and subdue.

    He needs to find another Bible verse in order to make that point.

    As far as man being the cultivator of persons, where does it say this? Genesis 2 tells us that God gave Adam the job of gardener. Adam was told to “work it and take care of it”. So, Adam was given the job to cultivate plants. Eve wasn’t even created yet. So how could this encompass people?

    And, not only does Genesis 3 not tell us that man was given the task of sacrificially waring against evil and injustice until it is vanquished, it tells us that man’s job is to continue to take care of the plants but it will be much harder now because of sin. You are right that Gen. 3 says NOTHING about man being the savior! Gen. 3 tells us that the woman’s SEED, Jesus Christ, will be the savior! How he feels justified in taking such liberties with the text is beyond me. This IS very disturbing, Light. VERY!

    In fact, it tells us almost the opposite thing. It was Satan who was told that there would be enmity between him and woman. This implies spiritual warfare and that WOMAN will be Satan’s target.

    In the NT we are all told that we are in a war and what the weapons of our warfare are. Man is not chosen out to be the vanquisher and savior. We already have One who has done that. We are all to war sacrificially against evil and injustice. Unless those verses on warfare are only for men?

  275. Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:

    they believe it is a sin that condemns an unregenerate woman to eternal death in hell-

    WHAT? Where does it say that? So men get more benefits from God’s grace then women? WHERE does it say that in Scripture- IT DOESN’T!

  276. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “In fact, it tells us almost the opposite thing. It was Satan who was told that there would be enmity between him and woman. This implies spiritual warfare and that WOMAN will be Satan’s target.”

    BINGO!!! And thus we see where all this false teaching and misogyny is originating.

  277. corriejo Says:

    I came across this description of Phyllis Schlafley on a blog. I found it on a woman’s blog who teaches the 5 Aspects of Woman and who appears to support Ladies Against Feminism.

    I am having a disconnect. I don’t understand and maybe it is just me? Maybe I am taking their teachings too literally and I am not supposed to? Maybe I just take what people write as if they truly mean what they write? I am being totally serious here. I cannot breach the chasm between what is taught and what is done/promoted.

    Take her name out of there and tell me if this doesn’t describe a feminist according to what we have read in the patriocentric materials? I am not saying she is a feminist at all. Please do not get me wrong on this. I think this is great and I am behind any woman who wants to get involved in government like this. I would love to get involved, especially in the pro-life segment and my former training and career would be very helpful to me. I would love to get elected, someday, to Congress and represent the pro-life, conservative vote. I would say that would be something I could see myself doing, one day, and that the Lord has been preparing me all my life to do something like that. If it is His will, I am more than willing at the right time in my life. God has given me some pretty powerful desires and I have been praying about them and when I read things like the description below, I am encouraged that these sorts of things ARE possible.

    ” [Phyllis] is the mother of six children, holds a masters degree from Harvard – 1950, and later a law degree. She wrote an analysis on the foreign policy of Henry Kissinger called Kissinger on the Couch as well as many other books. She put herself through undergrad school by working in a gunnery in Washington D.C. testing ammunition – sometimes 5000 rounds a night! Her husband coined the phrase “A woman’s place is in the House and Senate” when she ran for Congress. I’ve posted her picture here, because as an optional field trip for our study two weeks ago, about 12 of us went to hear her speak at UMass. If you know anything about Phyllis, then you know it was an evening of controversy! …….. After debating it on a college campus (she refused at first…….- she was much more interested in foreign policy), …….her resulting columns and speeches led many states to withdraw ratification……”

    Now, if I did the same thing, what label do you think I would be wearing? And I am not talking “Anne Taylor” or “Tommy Hilfiger”, either. 🙂

  278. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “The Bible never mentions anything about a man snatching a woman from her parents’ bosom and defeating them????? Isn’t that called kidnapping?”

    Actually, it’s one definition of the word “rape.” In its most archaic form, “rape” means, “carrying off”:

    rape /reɪp/ Pronunciation Key – Show Spelled Pronunciation[reyp] Pronunciation Key – Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, raped, rap·ing.

    [Origin: 1250–1300; (v.) ME rapen < AF raper < L rapere to seize, carry off by force, plunder; (n.) ME < AF ra(a)p(e), deriv. of raper]

    –noun 1. the unlawful compelling of a woman through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
    2. any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.
    3. statutory rape.
    4. an act of plunder, violent seizure, or abuse; despoliation; violation: the rape of the countryside.
    5. Archaic. the act of seizing and carrying off by force.
    –verb (used with object) 6. to force to have sexual intercourse.
    7. to plunder (a place); despoil.
    8. to seize, take, or carry off by force.
    –verb (used without object) 9. to commit rape.

  279. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “This parallels what Bayly’s description of the proper way to treat a bride – snatching her from their bosom, converting her to himself, breaking her natural bonds with father and mother, brother and sister, nurse and friend, dog and home.”

    I wonder — have either of the Bayly Bros ever been married?

  280. shilohmm Says:

    Stacy quotes provided by corriejo:

    It’s enticing because it feeds on a woman’s desire to be in control – and it’s sly because it claims to be based on Christianity.

    I am not an egalitarian – I do believe men are called to be leaders in the home and church in a way women aren’t – and I admit I haven’t read a lot of egalitarian stuff. But I have never seen an egalitarian arguing that women should be in power – on the contrary, they always seem to argue that God is the one in power, and that God is the ultimate authority, therefore none of us should have power over each other.

    I always look vaguely askance as people who argue against the egalitarian model by saying that it’s all about women who want power (the implication always being, “power over men”) because none of the egalitarians I’ve known have been power-hungry, and most of them have been male. And the stuff I’ve read pretty much supports that.

    Since most of the egalitarian stuff I’ve read I ran across following links from CBMW, maybe the CBMW authors I most like only link to the nicey-nicey egalitarians, and there are big name egalitarians out there lobbying for female rule?

    Or maybe the whole argument is a complete straw man, I dunno, but it always seems odd to me when any egalitarian sort of idea is dismissed as dangerous because it appeals to a woman’s desire for power. Most of the power-mongers I have known were men, and the female ones I’ve known were not interested in power over people so much as personal power.

    While I am sure there are women out there who love to dominate others whether the others want it or not, it sure seems to be something men are far more prone to than women, yet so much of the patriarchal stuff I’ve read seems to think male dominance is not a real threat, but female dominance is something we must guard against diligently.

    There are groups and individuals who claim Christ and hate patriarchy because it means “father-rule.”

    Yep, she’s pegged me. While I have claimed to be a patriarch a time or two (because I do believe men are called to leadership in a way women aren’t, and in certain circles that makes me patriarchal), when patriarchy is taken to mean not “men are called to lead in a way women aren’t/men are leaders in the family” but rather “men are called to rule,” I view that as ungodly and unbiblical and, when it carries a Christian gloss, I do hate it, because I believe it misrepresents God’s word.

    Jesus did not rule over those who followed him. He was in charge, most certainly, but he didn’t achieve that power by demanding his own way. And he did not demand that everyone follow, either; he didn’t bully or harrass those who rejected him. He confronted them with the truth, sure, but he never demanded they bow to him or treat him with respect or in any way tried to control them in their relationship with him.

    He was a leader because he led; people followed because they loved him, not because they knew he’d “make them pay” if they didn’t. Jesus clearly condemned rulership by force or coercion or bullying among his people when he told his followers they were not to rule as to kings, but to rule as servants.

    Although of course sometimes it’s just a difference in terminology – for me, “rule” implies someone who demands the rights of a ruler; others don’t see that implication. There are some versions of the Bible (King James, for one) that translate Hebrews 13:7, 17 and 24, refering to leaders in the church, as “those who rule over you”, the same word they use in Mark 10:42 and/or (depending on the version) Luke 22:25 when Jesus condemns the Gentile style of rulership.

    The translators who use “rule” for those three passages presumably see “rule” as being closer to authority than to dominate, because the original Greek uses three different words there, and the one in Hebrews is often more of a “leader” or “guide” sort of word than the ones in Mark and (particularly) Luke.

    I have claimed to be patriarchal because in the context of the conversation, patriarchal meant that men lead. I do not believe men have the right to rule, however, because to me “rule” implies domination, demanding the right to boss others around, “following through” by exerting force if necessary; I don’t think the Bible justifies that.

    I get the definite “vibe” from too many self-proclaimed Christian patriarchs that the husband does have the right to demand compliance to be comfortable with any group arguing in favor of male rule, even though I realize some percentage of those people are defining “rule” here much as I define “servant leader.” I kind of suspect Stacy is in that camp, but there are too many others who clearly define “rule” as I do AND feel that the husband has the right to that type of rule.

    I have no problems with the concept of male leadership. I have big problems with the concept of male rule – that puts men in a place that in my vernacular only God can fill.

  281. shilohmm Says:

    Anne,
    Your description of what your relationship with your husband was a blessing – rang true (I also have a servant leader), but was also a much-needed antidote to the Bayly quotes, which still have me shuddering.

    I wonder — have either of the Bayly Bros ever been married?

    I’m hoping not. I’m REALLY REALLY hoping not.

  282. shilohmm Says:

    Ouch. That first sentence was a mess. And I’m too tired to even figure out what I meant to say in the first place. How about, “Thanks, Anne, I needed that beautiful reminder just then.” 🙂


  283. I present, for your reading enjoyment,

    “I’m Lydia and So’s My Wife”
    (a melodramatic hyperpatriarchal saga — a farce in one act)

    http://www.undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/

    Keep reading prior posts — I’ve described and defined each of Lifton’s techniques of thought reform (used in Christian churches – of the genuine Biblcal type). Lifton wrote the first and still definitive techniques of coersive, surreptitious manipulation used by controlling groups. Maybe “Though Reform” is what is really meant by some of these “Reformed” patriarchs?

  284. Zan Says:

    I understand that there are huge problems with the courtship movement, but the Bayly’s are going about it all wrong. I told my husband what they described ‘wooing’ as and his first response was that they were very juvenile. It does seem like a gross teenage boy wrote that for shock value.

    Since when did a penis become a sword, btw? Did I miss that verse in the Bible. I thought that the Word of God was the sword.

    Normal Presbyterians do not talk this way about wooing and marriage. My pre-marital marriage counceling never mentioned wooing as warfare against the parents.

  285. Lin Says:

    “But I have never seen an egalitarian arguing that women should be in power – on the contrary, they always seem to argue that God is the one in power, and that God is the ultimate authority, therefore none of us should have power over each other.”

    I hate labels because they define groups who are not in lock step…but I have to say that what you wrote here is one reason i cannot be a comp.

    There are NO earthly priests. Our husbands our NOT our earthly priest or a little christ. He is a mere man with a wicked heart just like mine. He never takes the place of Christ and is NOT an intermediate between the wife and Christ as comps really are teaching even if they do not realize it.

    We have ONE authority and that is
    Christ. We graciously in love submit to one another in varying degrees for varying purposes. Never forget verse 21 when quoting that well known passage.

    This elevation of mere humans in Christendom scres me to death and is one reason for most of the false teaching we see out there. Hearts are wicked and Power corrupts.

    There are NO Christian leaders in the New Covenant. There are ONLY servants. It is glorious to submit to a SERVANT!!!!

  286. Connie Says:

    Light,

    Curiouser and curiouser, indeed!

  287. shilohmm Says:

    Lin says:

    He never takes the place of Christ and is NOT an intermediate between the wife and Christ as comps really are teaching even if they do not realize it.

    While I agree there are some complementarians who seem to be coming from the perspective that the man stands between the wife and Christ, I’m a complementarian and I don’t believe it. There are complementarians who also argue that God is the only true authority and thus no Christian should have (or try to take) power over another.

    I’ve only kind of poked at the Greek words involved, but from what I can tell the Greek supports my understanding of servant leadership; Christian leadership is never about forcing people to do things or insisting on your own way. It is about leading and guiding. One definition of the Greek word in Hebrews 13 that the KJV translates “rule over you” is “esteem”; I’ve also seen it translated “respect” or “honor.”

    Even Jesus, who has ALL authority, never demanded respect or obedience in the sense of punishing or pursuing or harrassing those who refused it to him. He offered guidance, he told them the blunt truth, but if it was clear people weren’t interested in listening, he walked away. The only time he took harsh action was in driving the moneychangers out of the temple; but first off they were literally doing evil within his own house, and even then their crime was against the poor, the people they cheated.

    In other words, Jesus did not defend himself NEARLY so powerfully as he defended his own. He had every right to demand every person in sight bow to him and pay him respect, and he had the power to force them to do precisely that – but he never made use of that power, and the only time he exercised any force over anyone, it was over those cheating the poor who tried to honor his law.

    I did not mean to imply only egalitarians argue that all authority resides in Jesus and that we are never to exercise personal authority over another person; plenty of complementarians argue precisely that. While it’s clear God gives secular authority the right to punish, there’s no evidence that Christian authority has any such power.

    I agree that all Christians are servants, but not that there are no Christian leaders. Hebrews 13 refers to leaders at least three times, and there are a number of other passages that refer to leaders as well. The difference, however, is that Christian leaders are chosen and empowered by those they lead. They lead not through personal power but because the others choose to follow. The Christian leader has no power of his own. He leads as a form of service.

    The Christian leader is not the boss. What he says does not go if those he is guiding think he’s heading in the wrong direction. They have the responsibility to challenge him when he goes wrong just as much as he has the responsibility to challenge them when they go wrong. No one has the right to force anyone to their opinion; everyone has the right to challenge others with Biblical evidence.

    This is how Christian leadership works with my pastor. This is how Christian leadership works with my husband. They are servant leaders who recognize that others are more important than they are – but they are still leaders. They still guide and direct. They take the responsiblity to initiate, whether that means to support and comfort or to exhort and point in the right direction or to apologize and seek reconciliation.

    They are active in the sense of initiating, but not necessarily in the sense of doing; a quadraplegic can be an excellent Christian leader, because the qualities of Christian leadership are to a great extent merely the qualities of being Christian. They know God’s word well and are glad to share it; they love with the love of God, and people are drawn by that love. The only power they weild is the power of their love and of their willingness to sacrifice for others.

    I can totally understand why some of the self-proclaimed patriarchs despise complementarians; many of the complementarians completely reject the idea that rulership is inherently male, and some of those who argue for male rule define that rulership as a service to the point where it truly is a service. Some patriarchs, OTOH, redefine service to excuse leaders who demand respect instead of humbly doing their best to earn it.

    One good I see coming from the patriarchal movement (I trust God will use it for many goods) is that it may get the complementarians to clarify their thought somewhat. I think because the movement formed in reaction to the feminist movement people were united more in their disagreement with some feminist ideas than in their unity of thought; the patriarchal movement will provide different pressures that I hope will show more clearly who is arguing for male rule and who is arguing for servant leadership.

    Right now both camps are using the same terminology, but one group is closer to the egalitarians while the other is much closer to the patriarchs. While the CBMW is way too hierarchical for me (I see leadership as a job, as the assigned work, rather than as an inherent quality), despite that a number of their authors emphasize service to the point that many of those who believe in male rule who started out there have gone looking for a more like-minded group.

    Our culture tends to equate leaderships with dominance; a naturally dominant person may end up in charge a lot, but dominance does not define a leader. The desire to dominate can actually handicap a Christian leader rather than providing evidence that leadership is his natural state. It’s natural, alright, but where else do we argue that a natural tendency toward a particular sin means someone has God’s approval to sin in that way?

  288. Kim Says:

    Well said, shilohmm. Thanks for your insight.


  289. Okay forgive me for asking, but…

    I believe that men have certain roles and responsibilities. I believe women have certain responsibilities. I am old fashioned, and yes, I think there are certain roles in the church/preisthood that are for men alone. (although I don’t go so far as to say women must be silent and can’t teach SS past 2nd grade!)

    I have always thought that was COMPLEMENTARIAN? As in the woman complements the man as leader, and they both have their unique strengths and weaknesses?

    Just curious. AT my old church you couldn’t talk about these things because if you questioned anything, you got X’ed.


  290. I think I’m a comp-sort-egali-tarian?? 🙂 A complegarian?

    I forgot to say above I do believe men and women are EQUAL in God’s eyes, that he loves no one more than the other and that he created each just as special and unique out of that love for mankind. I don’t think God made the man and then made the woman as some sort of “ooops, I better make something to fill in the gaps!” He isn’t that type of Creator in my book. He loves men and women equally.

    I guess I believe men have more leadership capabilities while women have more compassion/nurturing capabilities. But, I don’t think that means we can’t share roles in certain circumstances. My husband is by far and large the leader of our family. He’s a strong kind of guy. But, he hates dealing with telemarketers, salesmen, and business phone calls. He delegates that to me because I’m better at it.

    Am I makin’ any sense? 🙂


  291. When I started reading about this new egal/comp debate, I was just incredulous that so many strange and mystical teachings could come from otherwise trusted and reputable sources. Especially on the critical fundamentals, I would think that one would be “safe” trusting a dean of theology at a Southern Baptist Seminary (Bruce Ware of SBTS/CBMW and his Trinity book). I would not expect that such an organization would find the rest of the Word so impotent that they would reinvent the Doctrine of God and Trinity. I almost didn’t believe it at first.

    If you haven’t read it, the Battered Sheep website has a great article on this subject, talking about how authoritarianism arises. Primarily, he says that it is because pastors “speak as binding authorities” on sujects where God has not spoken in His Word and usurp the Holy Spirit by making decisions for individuals when the Word has remained silent on an issue. Of the many factors, idolatry and unbelief on the part of both shepherds and sheep figure highly. The author states that the sheep also suffer from the sin of the fear of man.

    http://www.batteredsheep.com/authoritarianism.html

    I’ve been reading “Uniting Church and Family” and “Family Man, Family Leader,” and find myself wondering the same thing about all this stuff about patriarchy. Where do they get this stuff and why do people get sucked in? And then I think about my own experience (stemming from idol-worship, unbelief and fear of man).

    As much as this topic is frustrating, somehow, even all of this deception ultimately brings God glory. The submission doctrine brought me deliverance from (some of the — I am still very human) idol-worship, unbelief and fear of man. Actually, it continues to do it’s work in my heart like a scalpel in the hand of my Heavenly Father. How much better for God to hold the instruments of healing than for me to hand them over to pastors, looking to them to sanctify me rather than trusting God with the task!

  292. Corrie Says:

    http://gotmeacollegegirl.blogspot.com/2006/02/theological-education-for-women-and.html

    A blast from the past. This is such a good example of how a little leaven leavens the whole lump.

    Here is a catechism for women. It was written by a pastor who is a friend of the Baylys.

    I think this catechism was written in response, in part, to the criticism surrounding Carolyn Custis James.


  293. Lindsey wrote: I have always thought that was COMPLEMENTARIAN? As in the woman complements the man as leader, and they both have their unique strengths and weaknesses?

    Lindsey, the problem is the twisting of language that has occurred over time. It’s “loaded language.” Consider that outside Christian circles, the term and it’s antithesis are not directly related to gender. Christians have applied these terms and given them meaning inside the culture of contemporary Christianity.

    As is true of such terms, different groups tend to use the term in a different way. Patriarchy (the people that make egalitarian out to be a sin) attaches this term to Biblical Authority. That’s not to say that everyone ascribes to the “direct connection” between the origins of both women and Christ, but this connection in some camps seems to have turned up the heat in all areas of debate.

    So even if Christian leaders don’t really believe that the “Christian feminism” issue is related to the “roles within the Trinity/Godhead,” they seem to unwittingly buy into the perception that they are fighting for Biblical Authority.

    That’s where the charge that compromising complementarians are “open theists” arises, even though it doesn’t make sense. Because so many Christians now think in terms of black and white, they often pick up the attitudes of those in other camps and pockets of patrairchy.

    So, Lindsey, define your own terms. Take Doug Phillip’s advice (“He who defines, wins.”)

  294. Corrie Says:

    This was Light’s response to the catechism for women and I think she brings up a very good point. I really think this point gets to the heart of the issue concerning college and any outside employment for a woman (referred to by patriocentrists as the “double curse” or the “husband only helper” theories- both of these are taught by Jennie Chancey and Vision Forum among others).

    “Michele said, “it seems to me that if you are going to have a catechism for women that flies in the face of societal trends then you should have a very strong exegetical reason.”

    Folks like the Bayly boys and that Phil guy have two fatal flaws in their approach to scripture. First, they use a double-standard hermaneutic. They say, “to see what women are allowed to do (in church and society), we have to look and see what women in the Bible did, and if they did it, then you can, too.” In other words, they take women of the Bible as a binding template for how women of all time should act, not taking into account a) that the Bible is not a “rule book” but rather the history of God’s relationship with individual people in individual cultures and b) that culture changes. But they don’t apply the same standard to men. They assume that because men are, well, men, they are not bound to how Bible-times men lived. They can forge ahead, build, create, and fashion their lives however they want assuming they love God and don’t sin. But women are not afforded the same privilege in their little world. Yet, if they really were applying the same hermaneutic, we wouldn’t have music ministers, youth pastors, etc. (because they weren’t in the Bible).

    Their second fatal flaw – which I believe drives the first one – is that they totally ignore the implications of Genesis 1:26-28: God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and every living creature that moves on the ground.” The Baylys and their ilk completely sever women from the creation account. They think men get to have dominion over the earth, but women’s dominion is limited only to the home. Yet nowhere in scripture does it say that. The NT verses about women being busy at home describe just one of womankind’s dominion mandate; they should not be taken as limiting. It makes no sense for God to give women and men equal dominion, and then remove a huge chunk of it for women a couple thousand years later in the NT.

    I believe that men like these, are, sadly, simply using the Bible as a weapon to unbiblically rob women of their inheritance as coheirs with Christ. For many, it is a pride and control issue. Satan got between men and women in the beginning, and this is a very real consequence of that. Thank God there are many men who do believe in the full humanity of women, in the full use of their gifts, and the full inheritance and responsibility of women in the dominion mandate.”

  295. Light Says:

    Next installment of Five Aspects problems for Connie and anyone:

    Fourth Aspect of Man:
    Sage (Prov. 1-9) Man is created to be trained by mature men, to gain skill and insight, to take his place among wise men, doing work which counts forever.

    Fourth Aspect of Woman:
    Lady of Wisdom (Prov. 1-9; 31) The “woman of excellence” patterns herself after the archetypal Lady Wisdom of Proverbs 1-9, and thus, enjoys a strength and dignity which are uniquely feminine.

    Comparing these aspects side by side, Mouser says that man’s work counts for eternity. He does not make that observation about woman’s work. He suggests that man alone should gain skill and insight (no suggestion woman should do the same). What’s more, Mouser says man should be trained by men, conveniently ignoring the verses in Proverbs 1-9 that exhort young men to listen to their mothers as well as their fathers.
    Mouser really misses the meaning of Proverbs 1-9 as he applies it to women. The passage is not about a pattern of femininity to be emulated (wisdom) or avoided (folly). Emulating wisdom is something both godly men and women should do.

    Fifth Aspect of Man:
    Glory of God (1 Cor. 11; Eph. 5) Man is created to display something of God’s glory in his bearing, roles, and activities. Made for God and sharing masculinity with God, man relates to nature, women, and other men in ways characteristic of God’s power, righteousness, grace, love.

    Fifth Aspect of Woman:
    Glory of Man (1 Cor. 11; Eph. 5) Woman is the last creation of God, and the quintessential creature. As the glory of man, her femininity embodies the characteristics and virtues of the believer and the Church — responsiveness, fruitfulness, and faith.

    Whoa Nellie! Eisegesis alert! 1 Cor 11 is about the issue of head coverings and proper worship, yet Mouser uses this verse to try to say that men and women image God very differently. By omitting the characteristics of righteousness, grace, and love from the woman’s aspect, Mouser is suggesting that women do not image God in this way. And conversely, by a similar omission he suggests that men do not image God by being responsive, fruitful, or faithful. If he is not suggesting this, then why does he assign some image-bearing characteristics to women and some to men?

    And, it bears repeating, if males share masculinity with God, they are more like God than women are. To claim that God is solely male/masculine, we are failing to heed this verse in Deuteronomy, which says:
    “You saw no form of any kind the day the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman.” Deuteronomy 4:15-16

    More weirdness to come.

  296. shilohmm Says:

    Lindsey said:

    I believe that men have certain roles and responsibilities. I believe women have certain responsibilities. I am old fashioned, and yes, I think there are certain roles in the church/preisthood that are for men alone. (although I don’t go so far as to say women must be silent and can’t teach SS past 2nd grade!)

    I think that this is the basic complementarian position. One debate within the complementarian camp would be how much these are assigned roles and how much they’re built in. I tend to think that men as a whole tend toward leadership in the same sense that women as a whole tend toward motherhood. But some women have a stronger tendency toward leading than many men, while some men are better with little ones than many women; leadership is not masculine any more than cuddling a little one is feminine (my pastor’s more of a baby cuddler than I’ll ever be!).

    Not every woman wants to be a mother, but even if she doesn’t she’s still female. Just as a man who doesn’t want to lead is still male. We’re male or female because that’s how God made us, not because of what we do.

    I think you can disagree over how much of it is “male or female nature” and how much of it is responsibility while still agreeing that God does lay different responsibilities on men and women within certain relationships – while still being complementarian.

    Personally, I am not convinced that all male-female relationships are complementary – I have huge problems with the idea that women can’t have leadership roles in secular society because there are a number of women in the Bible who have leadership roles and are praised for it. And then there are those who’re merely mentioned, like Sherah, who built three cities (one named for herself – 1 Chronicles 7:24) – I’d hazard a guess she didn’t build those cities by being shy and retiring. 😉

  297. corriejo Says:

    http://www.drslewis.org/camille/2007/11/15/frames-of-acceptance-and-frames-of-rejection/

    Great post by Camille and very helpful for spotting the logical fallacy of false dilemma.

  298. corriejo Says:

    “The passage is not about a pattern of femininity to be emulated (wisdom) or avoided (folly). Emulating wisdom is something both godly men and women should do.”

    Light,

    Exactly.

    Lady Wisdom cries to all mankind and all of mankind is to listen to her voice and learn from her.

    King Lemuel was instructed by his wise mother and he obeyed her law (Proverbs 31). Timothy was instructed by his wise and faithful mother and grandmother. I wonder where these two examples of men would fit into Mouser’s paradigm on the Sage?

    “Does not wisdom call out?
    Does not understanding raise her voice?
    2 On the heights along the way,
    where the paths meet, she takes her stand;
    3 beside the gates leading into the city,
    at the entrances, she cries aloud:
    4 “To you, O men, I call out;
    I raise my voice to all mankind.
    5 You who are simple, gain prudence;
    you who are foolish, gain understanding.
    6 Listen, for I have worthy things to say;
    I open my lips to speak what is right.
    7 My mouth speaks what is true,
    for my lips detest wickedness.
    8 All the words of my mouth are just;
    none of them is crooked or perverse.
    9 To the discerning all of them are right;
    they are faultless to those who have knowledge.
    10 Choose my instruction instead of silver,
    knowledge rather than choice gold,
    11 for wisdom is more precious than rubies,
    and nothing you desire can compare with her.”


  299. from the drlewis.org link: Fundamentalism bifurcates all of life. Everything is forced into an either-or. These dichotomies are not just false in the cosmic sense. They are false to everyone outside of their boundaries.

    This is one technique that LAWyers use to intimidate and force their conclusions. Paint an emotionally charged scene in a controlled environment, and you can create a dilemna or dichotomy with only two alternatives: One is unthinkable and the other is highly desirable.

    It’s a SALES technique.

  300. thatmom Says:

    “While the CBMW is way too hierarchical for me (I see leadership as a job, as the assigned work, rather than as an inherent quality), despite that a number of their authors emphasize service to the point that many of those who believe in male rule who started out there have gone looking for a more like-minded group.”

    So, here it is. Imagine that the Baylys left BBMW because it was way too liberal for them. And then picture the fact that Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald consider Tim Bayly as their mentor on feminism for this book. Explains a lot, no?

  301. thatmom Says:

    Oh, Corrie, that catechism for women is so funny. I personally knew Phil Henry when he pastored at a church near us. In fact, we sat under his teaching for a year. Amazing I survived it.

  302. Lin Says:

    “Our culture tends to equate leaderships with dominance; a naturally dominant person may end up in charge a lot, but dominance does not define a leader. ”

    I agree with everything you said. With the above, you hit the nail on the head and why I shy away from the word ‘leader’ in Christendom because it is translated ‘ruler’ too often.

    Lets be honest, leadership as you defined it, a job or assigned work, is exactly right. It does not mean dominance. Leadership changes according to the work needed to be done. This is also true in church as it is in a marriage.

    Elder simply means ‘mature spiritually’. It is a complete joy to submit to a servant who is mature spiritually. Thing is, I have to know my Lord, His Word and be guided by the Holy Spirit to know if the elder is really a mature spiritual person or not!

    Ironic, huh?

  303. Corrie Says:

    “This is one technique that LAWyers use to intimidate and force their conclusions. Paint an emotionally charged scene in a controlled environment, and you can create a dilemna or dichotomy with only two alternatives: One is unthinkable and the other is highly desirable.

    It’s a SALES technique.”

    Interesting. You create a problem and then you just happen to have the product that will solve the problem.

    It is like cereal. They are forever slapping on “new and improved” when it really is the same old stuff packaged in a different way.

    Solomon said that there was NOTHING new under the sun and that was over 2,000 years ago.

    I still remember when Debi Pearl’s book came out and all the women were flocking to it and buying cases of it was the cure-all and end-all. But, there wasn’t anything new at all.

    I have all I need for life and godliness right in the Bible. I have been given the awesome gift of the Holy Spirit who teaches me and leads me into all truth. I have wonderful believers in my life who challenge me and make sure I don’t stray off of the path.

    I get suspicious when a product comes out and it says it is “new”, “improved”, “fresh”, or just what is needed.

    Books are helpful. Don’t get me wrong. I have a LOT of books.

    I remember the encyclopedia salesman that came to my door and he had me convinced that good parents buy their children brand-new encyclopedias if they truly cared about their children’s education. He knew I desired to be a good parent and he honed in on that fact and exploited it in order to make the sale.

    It is one thing when that happens with an encyclopedia or vacuum salesman it is quite another thing when it comes to me via a brother/sister in Christ.

    We have turned Christianity into a product. We have become cheesy used car salesmen in order to sell our product. We falsely advertise that what we are selling is revolutionary and will change people’s lives. We use words that make it seem like it is new when the Bible says there is NOTHING new.

    Rarely is there someone who truly wants to minister to his/her fellow brethren without wanting to make a buck as their prime motivating factor. You can tell what their motive is because their product comes up in almost every conversation.

    Just as fast as the Created to Be His Helpmeet exploded, it died down. I knew it would. I even said so many times.

    It is either “buy my product, follow me” or your family is doomed and going to hell in a handbasket. It is either Feminism/Marxism or my product, my way, my teachings, my ministry.

    It is just too simplistic to point people to the Bible and to freely give of yourself in service to others.

    I often picture Jesus in the midst of some of these homeschooling conventions and other Christian events. I wonder if He would turn over the tables? I wonder if the apostles and disciples were coming up with their own products and pushing those instead of promoting God’s word?

    I remember hearing speakers who were very adept at working up the crowd and literally scaring them into buying their products. This was especially true during Y2K. It still is true today.

    One thing I have learned and this is true when it comes to buying more stuff at homeschooling conventions: if someone tells me that I need something, I don’t.

  304. Lin Says:

    “Especially on the critical fundamentals, I would think that one would be “safe” trusting a dean of theology at a Southern Baptist Seminary (Bruce Ware of SBTS/CBMW and his Trinity book). I would not expect that such an organization would find the rest of the Word so impotent that they would reinvent the Doctrine of God and Trinity. I almost didn’t believe it at first.”

    Me either. I have been stunned at some of the teaching I am coming across from those I would have trusted completely a few years ago. I came across a quote from a Dean at SBTS, Russell Moore, where he basically said that there is ‘eternal’ subordination in the Trinity.

    I wish I could find the quote…it was a while back. It stunned me.

    There was also some teaching from Ware that women are not created in the DIRECT image of God but indirectly.

    The heresy is creeping in from unsuspecting places. We have to know scripture and have an intimate relationship with our Savior to not be sucked into these heresies.

  305. amy Says:

    I listened to all the podcasts last night, and I just want to thank you all so much for this great discussion. There’s so much I’m learning from you all (terms I’ve never heard of as a Lutheran and BA in Religious Studies). I am one of those young mothers who has been frightened a bit of the Christian homeschooling community, as my only experience is through the websites (I was not homeschooled). It’s wonderful to learn that logic and open discussion are allowed and that the extreme patriocentric (great term!) views are not universal among Christian homeschoolers.

    So really I have nothing to add, just general thanks.

    God bless!

  306. molleth Says:

    “”There was also some teaching from Ware that women are not created in the DIRECT image of God but indirectly. “”

    John MacArthur says the same thing in different words: that women reflect God’s glory indirectly whereas men reflect it fully.

    And John MacArthur is certainly pretty mainstream.

    😦

  307. molleth Says:

    Amy,
    As with any large group, we’re about as diverse as it gets! 🙂 Nice to “meet” you.


  308. “Personally, I am not convinced that all male-female relationships are complementary – I have huge problems with the idea that women can’t have leadership roles in secular society because there are a number of women in the Bible who have leadership roles and are praised for it.”

    YES! I agree.

    And Cindy, I love the thought of making my own definiion! 🙂 (I’m quite the independent spirit if nobody’s noticed)

  309. Connie Says:

    Light,

    More weirdness to come? Oh dear.

  310. Joy Says:

    You know what amazes me? If you were just to give my family (that is, my parents and siblings) a passing glance, you would swear they were patriarchal- we’re home schooled and my parents go to a deeply conservative church. So when I was visiting with them over Thanksgiving, we got to talking about this blog and VF, hyper-patriarchy…my parents were pretty shocked. (I laughed when Dad immediately said, after I had outlined some of the “Biblical Tenets” that it smacked of Gotthardism. He then said, ‘there is nothing new under the sun- guess it just got a new name?) So my parents are checking out this blog too. My mother said that it finally explained some comments she was getting; she noted that she had observed the ‘swing’ to decidedly more conservative tones at the conferences the last few years, and that Doug Phillips had spoken at this year’s conference. But what I thought was most telling in her comments was the fact that she said that VF didn’t seem all that “strange” if a bit emphatic on a “bygone era”. They just struck her as another conservative Christian company with a really slick catalog. She noted that since my sister and I have graduated (and I am now married with four of my own) and my brother will graduate next year, she hasn’t been paying nearly as close attention to the wider homeschooling community. But in their regional homeschooling community, she hadn’t heard a thing about this at all. It took both of my parents so by surprise that they are now quite up in arms about it and researching like crazy, just as I did a way back in the spring.

    It just amazes me, as my dad said, that this crazy theology (mirroring comments #306 and 308, actually) is out there moving so quickly…

    All this to say, this blog is serving a vital purpose. I have learned so much. It has sharpened me so much, and I continue to appreciate the gracious spirit and careful reporting that goes on here. ((That, and ya’ll are single-handedly responsible for my parents, husband and I staying up till 3am Thanksgiving evening! We got into such a deep discussion regarding the whole thing. 🙂 ))

  311. Joy Says:

    Oh my- sorry for the awful grammar and comma splices. This is what I get for posting late at night sans coffee…I do so much better in the mornings…

    That, and all they Bayly stuff I’ve read this evening has me nearly cross-eyed and with a migraine. It is truly scary!

  312. Alisa Says:

    This is old. Corrie quoted this, I think from Carmon Friedrich:

    “We are to speak the truth in love, not niceness, and love is based on truth.”

    So… the Bible says “truth + love”, but somehow it turned into “love divided by truth”, essentially eliminating love where someone believes there to be little to no truth???

    Now, this phrase has some merit to it, IF in the context of not enabling someone to continue to live outside of reality (truth), but I don’t think that was what she meant.

    I’m just glad that God’s love for us isn’t based on the “truth” of how right or wrong He thinks we are… and I’ll be the first to admit that, like Molly has been saying, loving people like God does is really hard when you’re human, and I’m working really hard to have this attitude. ;o)

  313. molleth Says:

    Joy,
    That is awesome. Thanks for sharing that.

    If this stuff (VF) takes over, then let it take over with people FULLY KNOWING what exactly they’re buying into. If it takes over on the sly, then those of us who DO know didn’t do a very good job of exposing.

    If people choose this with full knowledge, then bless them. I’m all for freedom of opinion. Stacy has the right to believe and teach whatever she wants to, for example. I just don’t want to see people buying into it without fully knowing what the *whole package* is.


  314. Russell Moore’s online mp3 download.

    Complementarians have essentially sold out to feminism.

    We’ve therefore become open theists.

    Therefore complementarians are feminists

    Gender is a matter of Biblical Authority

    Moore, RD. Different By Design Conference Presentation — Minneapolis, MN. (audio message) Louisville,
    KY: CBMW, Feb 2007. http://www.cbmw.org/Conferences/Different-by-Design-2007/Different-by-
    Design-2007-Session-1

    Judge Roy Moore is quoted as saying basically the same thing.

    If you put Roy Moore’s name in a search engine with or without Doug’s blog and also complementarian, he basically says the same thing. The quotes from Roy Moore were made at an ETS conference and he says essentially the same things.

    Email me if you want the exact reference to Roy Moore. His statements are nearly identical to Russell Moore.

    It’s interesting to note that Bruce Ware has authored books on both Subordinationism in the Trinity and open theism.


  315. Women as the Indirect or Derivative Image of God…

    This is what I cited in my Amazon.com review of the Passionate Housewives book (ontological subordination) which someone informed me has mysteriously vanished. Carmon Freidrich said that the ontological argument meant nothing. (Guess she’s not that well read on this subject. It’s actually a major crux of it.)

    (This is connected to Grudem’s Subordinationism and Ware’s, etc.)

    Ontology = origins

    (Ontological subordination of both women and Christ connected for many in the CBMW camp which is why they connect all this with Biblical Authority. Why rejection of patriarchy or questioning of men is so vehemently opposed as if it is denying God’s Lordship over creation. I think that is nearly an exact quote from Russell Moore.)

    The best source of all these teachings on women can be most easily reviewed by getting a copy of Cheryl Schatz DVD series on Women in Ministry. She’s got all the audio there and references for these same concepts taught by John MacArthur, John Piper, and Bruce Ware.

    The series is a good review of the topic. I don’t ascribe to women as pastors, because I think — overall= if God had meant for us to have had a clearer interpretation, the ambiguity would not be there. Tyndale would have written it out more clearly. But having studied Greek (many moons ago), I cannot find any problems with her exegesis. There is more than one school of Greek, and the original language often opens up far more language issues than it would seem to solve. (Prior to study, I thought that the original language would be a type of theophany for me. What a let-down! But also a great blessing.)

    Anyway, if you’re interested in the topic, you don’t have to be egalitarian (or become one) by watching the DVDs.

    http://mmoutreach.org/wim.htm


  316. Roy Moore on complementarian vs egal quoted by some very concerned Jews….

    http://www.jewsonfirst.org/05a/pat001.html

    ALSO

    Molly (our very own “Molleth”) knows this stuff very well and contributes on another site

    http://complegalitarian.blogspot.com/2007/10/my-former-gospel-of-patriarchy.html

    I’ll look for stuff on the indirect image of God and post unless Molly has good links readily available.


  317. I’ll turn up my copy of Women in Ministry and transcribe some of Bruce Ware’s comments concerning woman as the derivative image of God. Some may also be online in the youtube clips that Cheryl has posted there.

    I really believe that this stuff comes out of the perversion of the Doctrine of God/Trinity and parallels/echos the teachings of Federal Vision on both the Trinity and the permanent subordination of women.

    CBE might have some stuff, too === If any dare go to that site of feminist rebellion and Marxism! GASP! If you want to risk catching sin cooties there!

  318. Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:

    All this talk about women being the indirect image of God reminds me of ancient Greek teachings that Zeus created women out of dung and men in the image of the gods. Shouldn’t Christianity be different?

  319. Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:

    PS: I realise my comment could be interpreted as accusing the posters on this board as believing women were not made in God’s image. I do not intend to say that, my comment was directed towards those teaching that.

  320. Elizabeth Says:

    This is such a fascinating discussion. I have a few random thoughts (and questions):
    1. Part of the allure of the whole VF catalog and website are the perfect, beautiful families. But when I think of my family, it’s not just my husband and children but our parents, brothers and sisters, cousins- the whole extended family. And if my husband and I were to ever get into the whole patriocentric thing, it would cause MAJOR problems with our families. I imagine that it could be a real source of family rifts and strife. Does anyone know if my speculation has any foundation?
    2)What are the marriage rates of young people brought up in these families? I’ve seen lots of blogs where pretty oldish daughters are still living at home and not too many of those VF interns seem to be marrying. How do these young people ever meet up and get to know one another? I would think it would be a particular problem for the girls because I can’t imagine that many young men who aren’t steeped in the patriocentric philosophy would be interested in going through a patriocentric courtship (or, frankly, marrying someone with so little education.’m not just speaking of not going to college- a lot of sites I’ve seen preach that a girl should be primarily trained in housekeeping.)
    3) What happens to a spinster whose father dies? How does she support herself?
    4) How has this movement become so influential in homeschooling circles? It is so extreme that it can’t have too much enduring appeal. (Seriously, how many people can really keep it up over the long haul? I’d think that more than a few would crack.)I can’t help but think that it’s influence far outweighs the number of its adherents. But it sure seems to have a strong foothold in some influential circles. Why?
    Thanks to you all for this great site- the level of knowledge and thought here is very high and it has certainly given me a lot to think over!


  321. Elizabeth,

    per your question #1

    On sermon audio, there is a series of sermons on patriarchy by Pete Hurst. His church divided over these things. You might be able to contact him to corroborate.

    Jen Epstein was also contacted by a minister who discusses some of these matters on his own churchblog and will probably be available to corroborate. If I recall, he says that this ideology has ripped families apart. http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/pastor-writes-in-to-say-doug-phillips-is-incredibly-dangerous/

    I’ve seen the lesser ideology of Bill Gothard do plenty of damage in families myself as have many others here. Corrie has a story to tell also. (Feel free to contact me by clicking on my name and going to my website for some of my personally observed experiences.)

    Last but not least — go to the Sept Oct podcasts by our lovely website host to listen to her series on patriarchy.

  322. Anne Says:

    Elizabeth, my mother’s question (when I brought up this topic) was “What happens to a woman if her husband dies?”

    I have a friend who was raised by a single mother and who is now an orphan. She is 30 and unmarried. I know for a fact that she’s grateful for her education and the ability to support herself.

    For anyone in a praying mood, I’m typing this from the hospital. My membranes have ruptured at 35 weeks gestation and it looks like we’ll be having a baby soon. Please pray that he’s healthy and strong despite his prematurity. I know God will hold us in His hands, but I’d appreciate any prayers from the ladies of True Womanhood. 🙂


  323. I’m awake with a HA, perhaps this is why? I pray that your little joy will have plenty of surfactant (not too much or too little), will need the minimum amount of oxygen and not for very long. He’s in a hurry to get here and get busy about living.

    You’re in my heart and mind tonight with peaceful anticipation of a good report. I pray that you get plenty of rest, too.

    God bless you, Anne.

  324. molleth Says:

    Praying for you, Anne. 🙂

  325. TulipGirl Says:

    Praying, Anne! I just saw that note elsewhere, and then I saw you posting here and thought, “What’s she doing typing while having a baby!”

    Lots and lots of prayers for you and your little one.

  326. thatmom Says:

    Anne,

    Praying this morning as I find your note.
    “Fear thous not for I am with thee, be not dismayed for I am thy God. I will strengthen thee, and help thee, and uphold thee with the right hand of my righteousness.” My favorite childbirth verse!

  327. thatmom Says:

    Joy,

    Thanks for sharing the comments regarding your family. And “hello”, Joy’s parents!

    You know, it is an interesting thing, but these groups talk a lot about seeking the counsel of parents. But I have heard many stories where parents warned their children about some of these sorts of alarming teachings and they were ignored. Even Bill Gothard talked about seeking the counsel of unbelieving parents and seeking the wisdom they have gleaned simply by living longer than you have lived.

    We we were going to begin homeschooling our children, it was truly considered a weird thing to do. We wanted to take our children out of public school at Christmas time and begin in January. We anticipated that our parents would have issues with this choice so we decided that if they objected, we would start the next fall, using that time to show them why this was important to us. We thought we would have the rest of that school year to put our plan together.

    We went to my mom and dad on Christmas Day and both of them were very supportive, my dad telling us that, as an appliance repairman, he had recently been in the home of a young man who was homeschooled and how impressed he had been. We were amazed and thought, “well, surely my husband’s parents will object since they aren’t believers anad won’t understand our goals.”

    That same evening, we called them and they were both very supportive, having just read an article in some obscure magazine about homeschooling. They said to go for it.

    So we did, though we were stunned at the complete support we received.

    I think many of the excesses in the patriocentric movement could be avoided if families actually sought counsel with those who have seen some of these sorts of things in the past. Remember, there IS nothing new under the sun.

  328. Elizabeth Says:

    Anne, my prayers for you, your baby and your entire family.

    Cindy, I have listened to the podcasts, and thought they were great. The discussions were both informed and well reasoned. Which is why I was astonished (and red flags wentup all over the place) to see the obviously coordinated attacks on so many patriocentrist sites regarding “gossip” and “slander.” To me, at least, it seemed like the response of people who have no real coounter-argument and are reduced to unconvincing name-calling.

  329. thatmom Says:

    Elizabeth, re comment #329..

    BINGO!

  330. thatmom Says:

    Elizabeth, you also brought up a lot of good things for discussion.

    What about the single woman whose father passes away? In the patriocentric world, using patriocentric jargon, this is “non-normative” ie isn’t supposed to happen.
    In fact, we aren’t really supposed to question the “biblical truth” that ALL women are called to be housewives or homemakers. From page 98 in Passionate Housewives ie Patriarch’s Wives’ Primer: “Homemakers? God created women to fulfill this unique role. That’s all we need to know to rest in our callings.”

  331. Lin Says:

    Cindy, Thanks for the information about Moore. Now, I know where to look. I had read something similar by him in a Christian Journal some time ago at an office and have been racking my brains trying to remember the name of the journal.

    This teaching that a woman is not the ‘direct’ image of God is very dangerous and I am very concerned that it is so mainstream.

    I am probably a bit older than most of you and I have thought about all this ‘gender role’ emphasis in Christendom in the last 20 years. I simply cannot remember this being an issue growing up. It was NEVER discussed and I cannot remember a study or even a sermon about it. Granted, I grew up in very evangelistic circles and our focus was missions. We had many single women missionaries staying at our home in those days and I cannot imagine how they would fare today.

    And this is coming from a gal who was in many different churches due to my mother’s music ministry.

    About 10 years ago, I mentioned to my mother the emphasis I was seeing on women’s roles in church, family, etc. and she gave me a very astute warning: Beware of teachers who focus soley on secondary issues not central to the work of Christ on the Cross and His Resurrection.

    When you think about it deeply: Patriarchy and it’s fellow travellors, lead us AWAY from an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ our Savior.

  332. Lin Says:

    “To me, at least, it seemed like the response of people who have no real coounter-argument and are reduced to unconvincing name-calling”

    Elizabeth, you have hit on something here. If a case for eternal subordination within the Trinity can be made, then a case for creation order can be made. In both these cases, ‘God appointed’ earthly authority is the natural outcome.

    With so called’God-appointed’ earthly authority comes certain priviledges…one being you should not question godly authorities. Questioning God-appointed earthly authority becomes sin. Know your place and submit. If you don’t, you are accused of gossip, divisiveness, rebellion, etc. There are a lot of people buying into this.

    An understanding of Biblical ‘authority’ is the crux of this whole gender issue in the New Covenant. Jesus turned ‘authority’ on its head in the New Covenant. We have tons of direct and indirect examples in the NT.

    I have to wonder what they do with the Bereans whom Paul commended!

  333. thatmom Says:

    Elizabeth, you also asked how patriocentricity has gained such influence within the homeschooling community. Here is what I think, my own personal opinion.

    I can remember the discussions within homeschooling circles, probably 15-17 years ago, as to whether or not HSLDA should speak for all homeschoolers, as they were prone to do. Many families who homeschooled but who were not believers or who were but didn’t homeschool for religious reasons, didn’t appreciate HSLDA speaking for them. So many of them went their own direction, sponsored their own conferences, published their own magazines, etc. After much debate all around, I remember those discussions quite well, Christian conservatives ended up in the HSLDA camp, since most of them were paying their annual membership fees, and the middle of the road influences were gone.

    Just yesterday HSLDA sent out their monthly updates via e-mail and ours came through the local homeschooling loop, via a post by James McDonald. Midway through the mailing was an advertisement for Passionate Housewives and an endorsement by Vicki Farris. When you clicked on the link, it took you straight to Vision Forum to order the book from them. I intend to contact HSLDA today and tell them that they no longer represent my interests as a homeschooling family. Conservative Christian does not equal patriocentric and their advertisement for Vision Forum products tells me all I need to know about this group.

    My prediction is that more and more people who are just learning about these teachings will become more vocal, both with HSLDA and with their local groups and will boycott conventions where patriocentrists are on the speaker list. They can find everything they need to purchase online. I believe when groups like HSLDA start endorsing the groups who are at the far end of the gender continuum, they need to realize they are alienating the majority of Christian homeschooling families.

  334. thatmom Says:

    Lin, I think your mom is a wise woman.

    A while back, Corrie made the astute statement that Genesis 1-3 is about man’s sin nature and our need for Jesus, not about gender roles.

    The same is true of the Gospel message. It is not about gender, it is about Jesus and His work on the cross.

    And you are also correct that patriocentricity places the father at the center of family life rather than Christ. It states that the Lord cannot call daughters to something other than what their own fathers want them to do. It states that there is only one role for women, for-ordained before the foundations of the world and that is to be housewives. If that isn’t patriocentricity, what is?

  335. Lin Says:

    Ann, I just read ALL the comments! My prayers are with you this morning. I am praising God for all the advances in medicine right now and for your comfort and peace.


  336. Anne, I’m praying here too. May this birth be a huge blessing and be filled with peace as you welcome a new little one into the world.

  337. Cally Tyrol Says:

    Hi all,

    Just wanted to update you on Anne- her baby boy was born about an hour ago. He’s in the special care nursery and getting a little oxygen. She doesn’t know much else as they took him almost right away. She says he looks wonderful, just small. He’s 4lbs 12 oz. As a mommy whose daughter spent 2 weeks in NICU just for being premature, I can tell you that this may be a hard, crappy trek for Anne in the next few weeks. Its exhausting and frustrating and peaceful and special. Her baby may not even need NICU care and that would be great- I’ll be praying for that every minute.

    She is rejoicing this morning! I’m just so happy for Anne and her family.


  338. I had a NICU baby too, so I understand those emotions well 😦

    I will continue to pray for all of them. Thank you for updating us…please continue to do so as you hear more, okay? And let Anne know her Truewomanhood buddies are praying for her and all the family.

  339. thatmom Says:

    Ditto to everything Lindsay just said.

  340. Debbie from CA Says:

    Anne, I join these ladies in prayer for you. May your sweet baby grow stronger with each breath he takes and may the Lord provide you and your husband strength with each day.

  341. corriejo Says:

    I am praying for Anne and her sweet new baby!

  342. molleth Says:

    If God is a Male (women are then the indirect image of God).

    I posted on this a while ago when I really began digging into VF and all the other patriarchal theology that I’d believed (and practiced) for years.

    If God is a Male, Part 1
    (Or, How a Woman Not Submitting Male Rule Was Really the First Sin):
    http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2006/12/28/the-real-original-sin/

  343. molleth Says:

    Whoops. That was the wrong link (though that’s an interesting article in and of itself–lol)!

    Here’s Part One
    “God is Masculine (Vision Forum on Male/Female, Part 1)”
    http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2007/01/03/god-is-masculine-vision-forums-on-malefemale-part-1/

  344. molleth Says:

    If God is Male (what that means for male/female relationships, and for defining what male and female is):

    http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com/2007/01/04/if-god-is-a-male-part-3/

    Sorry to do these comments one by one, but if I put more than one link in a comment, the spam catcher will eat my comment–lol. So…one by one is better.

    An aside, I felt SO SO SO alone when I was going through all of this last year (though less and less as I studied further and became more and more convinced)…but how much FUN it would have been if this thread would have been happening at the same time! I would have had a lot less fear that I was sliding off heaven’s slippery slope into hell. 😆

  345. Joy Says:

    Anne…praying for you, and your sweet new one! My David is just now 5 weeks old, and we had a rough go of it too…I will be praying extra hard in the ‘night watches’ tonite! Huge hugs…

  346. Denise Says:

    Lin said in comment #333

    “When you think about it deeply: Patriarchy and it’s fellow travellors, lead us AWAY from an intimate relationship with Jesus Christ our Savior.”

    I completely agree. That has weighed on me for quite some time as I’ve pondered this patriarchy movement. It’s as if our Lord is a ‘P.S.’ on all their teachings.

    When one thinks of patriarchy, ‘family integrated churches’, etc. many names come immediately to mind; Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, Voddie Bocham, et al.

    Why is it that Jesus Christ doesn’t?

  347. Kathleen (Kate) Says:

    Anne, her baby and family are in my prayers, too. I know what the NICU is like and it takes real professionals (many/most of them women) to work in that environment day after day. They have my respect. I pray for Anne’s peace and the baby’s health. My NICU baby was 2 1/2 lbs and is now 21 years old, healthy, serving in the military and engaged to be married. 🙂 God bless her during this time.

    God “shall gently lead those that are with young.” Isaiah 40:11

  348. molleth Says:

    Anne,
    God’s peace be on you, your little one and your family, sister. 🙂 Congratulations!!!

  349. Alisa Says:

    “Just yesterday HSLDA sent out their monthly updates via e-mail and ours came through the local homeschooling loop, via a post by James McDonald. Midway through the mailing was an advertisement for Passionate Housewives and an endorsement by Vicki Farris. When you clicked on the link, it took you straight to Vision Forum to order the book from them. I intend to contact HSLDA today and tell them that they no longer represent my interests as a homeschooling family. Conservative Christian does not equal patriocentric and their advertisement for Vision Forum products tells me all I need to know about this group.”

    This is really disconcerting. I was truly hoping that HSLDA and the Farris’s were and would remain free of these extra-biblical belief’s and be a source of light and level-headedness in this homeschooling sea of new-fangled teachings.

    I’m curious how far they really will go, since Patrick Henry College educates women, and the Farris’s second daughter did foreign mission work overseas on her own (away from her parent’s, I mean).


  350. This is really disconcerting. I was truly hoping that HSLDA and the Farris’s were and would remain free of these extra-biblical belief’s and be a source of light and level-headedness in this homeschooling sea of new-fangled teachings.

    …….

    I believe from his writings that Farris has actually been steeped in it, long before patriarchy took off as a somewhat consolidated belief system. I read some of his earlier books, trying to dig down to the bottom of all these things and put the pieces of this big patriarchy puzzle together. I thought maybe it was the source of the VF stuff, considering that Phillips worked there. All the elements of the paternalism concerning women is there, IMO. But like all the other new waves of this stuff, the new stuff is much more aggressive.

    I would like to know exaclty how Eric Wallace, Ovid Need, Farris, Lancaster, RC 2.0, etc., etc., etc. all fit together. It seems to trace back to Virginia… (Was it Ligonier in FL before then?) Who is the big granddaddy of the FIC idea and all this related “stuff”? Once they put their machines of FIC evangelism together, people signed up for their teachings as a result of marketing, books, convenience, etc. But who built the machines? How did they all come up with the same, basic plan?

  351. thatmom Says:

    Molly,

    Thanks for posting those links to the articles on your blog. I think we could all use a good dose of what we are dealing with right about now. These are REAL THEOLOGICAL ISSUES that have real consequences for the people who embrace them.

    I was also glad to see that comment posted by Cyntha Gee from Mr. Branson, regarding what I call the “Rahab clause.” That, too, helps us understand why blog entries mysteriously change or disappear altogether and why the things people write one day are amazingly different the next day.

    Keep posting your thoughts….I always learn so much when you do!

  352. thatmom Says:

    Alisa, thanks for reminding us that Michael Farris admits women to Patrick Henry. Now, I wonder how he feels about advertising HSLDA on Kevin Swanson’s blog, knowing that Kevin has stated that the “vast majority” of women who go to college will sell their flesh, have illegitimate children, etc.

    Why the disconnect? I honestly do not understand this.

  353. thatmom Says:

    My response to Stacy McDonald’s request to be interviewed on my podcast can be found here:

    http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/a-little-podcast-history/

  354. Lin Says:

    “thanks for reminding us that Michael Farris admits women to Patrick Henry. Now, I wonder how he feels about advertising HSLDA on Kevin Swanson’s blog, knowing that Kevin has stated that the “vast majority” of women who go to college will sell their flesh, have illegitimate children, etc. ”

    Coming from an upper management position in college circles, may I hazard a guess as to why they now admit women?

    Money.

    The stats on women in undergrad, graduate schools, med school, law school, etc., are astounding and are outpacing men by a ever growing margin. Even the SBC seminaries which are sliding toward Patriarchy have added undergrad degrees and homemaking degrees to attract women. Increasing the FTE’s. It is about money.

  355. Shauna Says:

    Kevin Swanson doesn’t believe that *males* should attend the vast majority of colleges–or even seminaries–either and sees Patrick Henry as an exception, so I don’t really see a major disconnect there. CHEC and HSLDA are so closely intertwined that as a newbie homeschooler, I assumed that the two organizations were affiliated with each other in some way.

    I know from reading the most recent CHEC newsletter that Swanson and CHEC are putting together a mentoring and apprenticeship program as an alternative (or in addition to) students pursuing degrees, and it will be interesting to see whether it will be geared for young men only.

  356. Marcia Says:

    NICU nurse here. Kathleen, thanks for the compliments, and Anne, congratulations, and if I can answer any questions, feel free to email me at nscu.rn AT gmail DOT com.

    Now. I’ve only read this thread and not the others; who has time?

    For heaven’s sake, people. Stacy is a real person who loves the Lord. She does not deserve all of this.

    I don’t agree with her beliefs but I have known her for a long time, and her intent is being totally misunderstood here.

    I have my own issues with patriarchy, as Molly knows, but this is ridiculous, you guys. Surely there are better things to spend your time on.

  357. thatmom Says:

    Marcia,

    What you are not seeing here are the many, many people who are so thankful that this discussion has been ongoing for nearly 6 months. Women who were trapped within patriocentricity are now finding relief, as are their husbands and families. We seek only to shine a light on patriocentric teachings and encourage others to hold them up to scripture. And please make time to read the other threads. I believe it will be worth your while.

  358. Marcia Says:

    Hi thatmom–

    I do understand that point; it’s just the hammering on and on of Stacy is so brutal. You know, claiming she is in it for the money, saying she is not sincere in her apololgies and corrections, those kind of things.

    It is one thing to disagree. It is another to pile on.

  359. Lin Says:

    “I have my own issues with patriarchy, as Molly knows, but this is ridiculous, you guys. Surely there are better things to spend your time on.”

    I am not so sure there are better things to do if one is in bondage to man made traditions.

    What you call ‘piling’ on are really questions or points made that there are inconsistencies in the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of their beliefs. Since these woman have gone public with their interpretation of scripture, it becomes a public issue. And yes, it does concern me that their beliefs are tied to their incomes/royalties.

    In any event, Stacy and Jenny are calling their sisters in Christ, “White Washed Feminists”…in public.

    That is wrong and ‘piling on’.

    As you said, “It is one thing to disagree…it is another to pile on.”

    When someone who disagrees on the tenants of Patriarchy is accused of ‘sinning’ as being a white washed feminist, it is only natural that we discuss these issues. We must contend for the truth of the scriptures.

    I think this blog has done an excellent job of focusing on the issues and treating these women with respect.

    What concerns me, though, is that those who disagree do not want to actually engage in defending their beliefs scripturally.

  360. Marcia Says:

    What concerns me, though, is that those who disagree do not want to actually engage in defending their beliefs scripturally.

    Are you talking about me? I’m not a patriarchist, a complementarian, and egalitarian, none of those things. I’m a follower of Christ. I would rather spend my time reading Scripture and serving others than I would debating my role online.

    The only reason I even commented here is because I feel I know Stacy’s heart, and her motives are pure. I have no issue with disagreement or questions, but the sheer number of comments here is overwhelming, and I simply wanted to point out that she is, in fact, real.


  361. Marcia,

    You wrote: For heaven’s sake, people. Stacy is a real person who loves the Lord. She does not deserve all of this.

    I don’t agree with her beliefs but I have known her for a long time, and her intent is being totally misunderstood here.

    No one has questioned or doubted that those in patriarchy do not love the Lord. In fact, their tenacity may actually demonstrate just how much they do love the Lord.

    But why would she not deserve to be responsible for the statements that she’s written when they are inconsistent? To say that someone loves the Lord but then to suggest that they cannot be challenged is not a valid logical leap to make. Apples and oranges.

    If Stacy’s intent is misunderstood, then why all the mystique? There is absolutely nothing stopping her from posting here or posting answers to questions posed here on her own blog, and many are grateful that she’s begun to do so. I hope she continues to do so until all the questions have been clarified. She can also correspond privately. She is however unwilling, as yet, to disagree agreeably. In my own interactions with her and hers, it seems that she is unwilling to do so, and I don’t understand why. What seems abundantly apparent is that she is unwilling to play ball unless she’s the pitcher or the captain of the team. Patriarchy’s way or the highway.

  362. Marcia Says:

    P.S. I noticed some of you visiting my sadly empty blog. I reposted what was once one of my most popular posts—about how I despise Christian “issues.”

    Come on by.

  363. Marcia Says:

    Hi Cindy–or maybe, as a mother of 10, she’s kind of busy.

    Look, I said I have no problem with questions or discussing things. I simply didn’t care for the tone of some of the comments.

  364. Marcia Says:

    Geez, could I be more of a comment hog?

    When I said this,

    “I’m not a patriarchist, a complementarian, and egalitarian, none of those things. I’m a follower of Christ. I would rather spend my time reading Scripture and serving others than I would debating my role online.”

    it didn’t come across the way I meant it; I shouldn’t have been so hasty to post.

    I simply meant that I’m not all that interested in the women’s role debate. I didn’t mean it as a judgment about those of you who are, though.

  365. Corrie Says:

    Hi Marcia,

    I hear you about reading the Bible and following Christ. I am a mother of 10 and I am very busy, too, but when I start something or say something about an issue, I am going to stand by it and see it through the end. If I can’t, then I am just too busy in the first place and I should have stayed out of it to being with.

    I do appreciate what you are saying but please understand there are several people who have not seen what you are saying. In fact, they have experienced the exact opposite. Will you allow that they might have a very genuine concern because of what they have witnessed? Please appreciate that there really might be another side to the story where things are not as some perceive them to be.

    “Are you talking about me? I’m not a patriarchist, a complementarian, and egalitarian, none of those things. I’m a follower of Christ. I would rather spend my time reading Scripture and serving others than I would debating my role online.”

    Amen to this! And I want to encourage others who are in bondage to manmade teachings to do the same. They need to hear the truth from someone so that they can finally free themselves from the letter of the Law and start living for Christ and heeding His individual call on their life.

  366. Marcia Says:

    Hi Corrie–weren’t you on the PW list at one time?

    Anyway, your first paragraph is funny, because I was just coming back here to delete my comments. I’ve spent a lot of time reading through all of this stuff when I should have been doing other things, and so I’m logging off and staying away.

    I don’t think it’s fair to comment and run, so I’ll delete mine.

    I’m also taking down the posts from my blog. I know better than that; I had no self-control when blogging and frittered away so much of my time online.

    Carry on.

  367. Marcia Says:

    Okay, or not. I guess WordPress comments can’t be deleted? Anyway, I’m outta here.


  368. Comment 261: I suppose that we will now see a list of tokens paraded on some of these patriarchalist blogs now, as a result of what’s been written here?

    It appears that I was wrong. They are now parading them on “egalitarian” blogs of choice. Well that’s what I think the patriarchs classify this blog as, despite the fact that most everyone that responds here is a complementarian (no women pastors) including the blog host.

    I love it. Oops! Don’t have time to defend my statements! Oops! Demand for Purity requires that I not blog! Agree to disagree and provide some support for your reasoning. Always be ready to give an account…


  369. This was addressed to me: Hi Cindy–or maybe, as a mother of 10, she’s kind of busy.

    But she’s not too busy to do all of the other things that she wants to do and deems important. So this is not important. And we’ll wait. (Where then are the committments to get back to the debate? I will answer your specific question by the end of December. I will address this after the holidays. They don’t acknowledge that which they avoid and any reasonable person would take that to mean that the unresoved issues will not be addressed. Dropped off the radar.)

    This reminds me of an excuse kids use.

    A 12 year old that I know uses this to skirt the responsibilities of caring for a cat that she begged her mom to let her keep. She promised to take full responsibility for the cat, but after the initial excitement, the litter pan is conveiniently forgotten. Mom is very torn because she’s reluctant to hold her daughter to the original agreement because she “doesn’t want to be mean.” The original agreement was that the cat could stay so long as said daughter could keep up the necessary care of the cat. But who end’s up getting the benefit and who does the heavy lifting?

    I’m also recalled of the old saying, “Don’t do the crime if you can’t pay the time.”

    I’m accused of the vile sin of gossip, but others can call me all manner of de-Christianizing names and terms because I don’t ascribe to patriarchy.

    Yet others can pontificate, but they are then too busy to clean up the proverbial mess from the stir that they create. They get a free pass.

  370. Lin Says:

    “I would rather spend my time reading Scripture and serving others than I would debating my role online.”

    it didn’t come across the way I meant it; I shouldn’t have been so hasty to post.

    I simply meant that I’m not all that interested in the women’s role debate. I didn’t mean it as a judgment about those of you who are, though.”

    Thanks to Marcia for clearing that up.

    Ironically, these ‘discussions’ drive me to scripture quite a bit. Iron sharpens Iron. (We have a wealth of translations, commentaries, Greek Lexicons, etc right online now! Praise God!)

    I pray these discussions do the same for others and they will be encouraged to read the Holy Word without the filter of man made traditions.

  371. Lin Says:

    “I would rather spend my time reading Scripture and serving others than I would debating my role online.

    it didn’t come across the way I meant it; I shouldn’t have been so hasty to post.

    I simply meant that I’m not all that interested in the women’s role debate. I didn’t mean it as a judgment about those of you who are, though.”

    Thanks to Marcia for clearing that up.

    Ironically, these discussions drive me to scripture and I pray they do the same for others. Iron sharpens Iron. We are blessed to have so many online tools for scripture study today that make it so much faster to check the Greek, translations, etc.

    My prayer is that women who may be in this bondage of Patriarchy will be encouraged to search the scriptures without the filter of patriarchy and with the liberty of Christ as their teacher.

    “What concerns me, though, is that those who disagree do not want to actually engage in defending their beliefs scripturally.”

    No, I was not referring to you but to the responses I have witnessed all over blogdom from many in the Patriarchy movement and their fellow travellors.

    There are many of us who are very interested in the women’s role discussion. It is a very serious charge to say a sister in Christ is in sin or a white washed feminist because she does not interpret NT scripture through the lens of the tenants of Patriarchy. As a matter of fact, it is a sin to do so. It is quite Pharisetical to teach that women should not work outside the home when that teacher is writing books, doing radio shows and promoting said book. I am speaking of Stacy’s writing partner, Jenney Chancey.

    I know that will sound ‘mean’ to some but it is a conumdrum I cannot quite figure out. If they really believe in these specific gender roles so much, how can they afford to be known as taking the time to author a book and promoting it? I believe Mrs. Chancey even had a clothing business at one time.

    If asking these questions is mean of these teachers then I will have to take the lumps.

  372. Joan Hathcote Says:

    Marcia’s comment about Stacy’s being a “real person” made me think back to something that was probably discussed about a hundred comments ago…

    And that is, remember how Stacy wrote Corrie about how one of their elders has his wife and daughters out in the workforce and/or college? And how she (Stacy) had no problem with this?

    I don’t know what brought this to mind (and I really am going somewhere with this story…it really does connect with the conversation at hand), but I have a dear childhood friend who ended up “coming out of the closet” after we graduated from high school. He and I went through all thirteen years (K-12) of Christian school together. He was a brilliant young man, highly respected by everyone, teachers and students alike. As our class president, he’d sometimes speak in chapel services, and to all appearances, he came across like a wonderful Christian. He and I had always shared a certain sense of humor, and after high school, we became very close.

    So it was quite the dilemma I faced when he revealed that he was gay. (Oddly, it was NOT a shock to me at all, that he felt that way about his sexuality…I think at some level I’d known all along thought he was “different” than other guys.)

    But here I was, this VERY outspoken “Bible-thumpin'” Christian young lady. A huge part of my brain almost couldn’t wrap itself around the conflict I felt, because I knew he was in sin (at that point he had a boyfriend), and yet…I STILL LOVED HIM as my friend. How do you love the sinner while “hating” their sin?

    It’s been 20 years since my friend’s big revelation to me, and I still hold essentially the same views about homosexuality as I did back then. Yet I’ll tell you, as the rhetoric has raged over the years among conservative Christians, it’s always made me feel completely conflicted. I know what I believe. I know what the Bible says. But I’ve never been able to drum up the same level of disdain for homosexuals that some Christians display, BECAUSE I cannot feel this disdain for my dear friend.

    Anyway, it hit me just now, as I was reading Marcia’s comment, that yes, Stacy IS a “real person.” (Of course she is!) And like all “real people,” Stacy might be facing the same sort of situation with her working-woman friend.

    (And please understand, I’m NOT equating working outside the home with homosexuality…it’s just an extreme example of a somewhat parallel situation.)

    If Mrs. MacDonald DOES truly hold to the belief that college and career are “not God’s best” (or even “sin”) for women, then perhaps she might be experiencing a similar level of disconnect between her spiritual convictions and her knowledge of her own friend.

    Maybe what she was meaning is that she “loves the sinner but hates the sin”?

    Or maybe the “realness” of being up close and personal to college girls and their mom who works outside the home is what changes her convictions in that situation?

    Just some food for thought.

  373. Corrie Says:

    http://titus2keeper.wordpress.com/

    http://titus2keeper.blogspot.com/

    I found these blogs today and I think they have some very good articles that will make us think. I haven’t been able to read much right now. I have a wild and naked 18 mo. old running around my house, chasing the other children and making them shriek, so I must lasso him and wrestle him to the ground and slap a diaper on him.

    Who says that naked and shame go together? 😉 Certainly not in my house that is not evident!

  374. Joy Says:

    Couldn’t it be said that many of the debates today within the conservative church revolve around the women’s role? Because depending on how one interprets that (i.e. complemantarian, egalitarian, comp-egalitarian, patriarchal, feminist- these crazy labels) is how one perceives how one should live their lives. It’s all based on interpretation of Scripture, though. Which again brings us back to the Bereans…These last six months, I have read more scripture than I ever have, studied theology to depths I didn’t realize possible. If there is good coming out of the discussion (and there is a lot of good), this is one: I have been sharpened and reminded to walk close with the only One who has the Wisdom to see through all the confusion. My faith has deepened immensely; I am seeking the counsel of my parents (which I have never done before), my husband and I are studying the Scripture together (another never done before). This blog is a blessing. Not a waste of time.

  375. Corrie Says:

    http://www.marykassian.com/about.htm

    I love Mary Kassian. I have done a few of her bible studies and they have been outstanding. I love the video presentations that go along with her bible studies. She really makes you think. She is an avid hiker so many of her talks are done while she is hiking in full hiking gear. She also has some good things to say about true feminists but that does not mean I agree with everything she says. She wrote one article about how to show love to feminists and I really think that is a message needed today instead of all the condemnation and blame we throw their way. I can see why feminists now consider it a joke when all the world’s ills are blamed on them. Visit some of their sites and you will see what I mean.

    I HIGHLY recommend her Bible studies. You will not be disappointed.

    Here is another woman that, imho, doesn’t fit the hyper-patriarchal mold. Not at all.

    Here is a description from her website and I don’t see any difference between how she describes herself and how Carolyn Custis James describes herself:

    Meet Mary…

    Author, teacher, conference speaker, theologian,
    poet, wife, mom…

    Mary Kassian is an award winning author, internationally renowned speaker, and a distinguished professor at Southern Baptist Seminary in Lousiville, Kentucky. She has published several books, Bible studies and videos, including: In My Father’s House: Finding Your Heart’s True Home, Conversation Peace, and Vertically Inclined. To find out more about Mary’s resources visit her Resource Department.

    Mary graduated from the faculty of Rehabilitation Medicine from the University of Alberta and has studied systematic theology at the doctoral level. She has taught courses at seminaries across North America She is a popular conference speaker and has ministered to women’s groups internationally. Mary has appeared on numerous radio and television shows, including Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, and Marriage Uncensored.

    At home in Sherwood Park , Alberta , Canada , Mary watches lots of sports! Three teenage sons play ice hockey, and her husband, Brent, is chaplain for the local professional football team. The Kassians enjoy biking, hiking, snorkeling, music, board games, mountains, campfires, and their family’s black lab, General Beau.”

  376. Mimi Says:

    “I’m a follower of Christ. I would rather spend my time reading Scripture and serving others than I would debating my role online.”

    Marcia, I couldn’t agree with you more, but why does it have to be either/or? I think I speak for more than just myself when I say there wouldn’t be a need to debate my role online if articles weren’t put online and books weren’t written talking about my prescribed role and how I can’t possibly be in God’s will if I don’t fit somebody else’s definition – if I don’t keep their list.

    Many of the women here have been involved with the patriarchal movement or have had loved ones in it and seen the effects of this rules-ridden ideology. And there are many, like me, who are so glad that there is a forum to come and discuss (I just mostly read) and work through the questions and the disconnect that come up.

    For years I have read what Doug Phillips had to say, I’ve heard him speak several times, and I’ve often come away scratching my head as to why he uses the inflammatory words he does to describe people he doesn’t agree with.

    And although I haven’t and won’t read Passionate Housewives, apparently Stacy makes comments in her book like, “Finally, after spending long days watching dancing alphabet people on television, making organic, fat-free baby food, driving Johnny to soccer, discovering that undisciplined children don’t obey, and washing dirty diapers in her marble sink, the exhausted “professional” stay-at-home mom burns out and goes back to work where at least she was appreciated and life was “easier”.

    Maybe I’m overreacting to what I hear, but statements like that are just full of criticism of other people. It comes across as, “If you do this, then you must be this…” Why? What’s the purpose in that? What difference does it make if you have a marble sink? It’s lumping people into a group and condemning them. It truly grieves me.

    I’ve been in Bible studies and been around some women that start going down these lists of what they deem to be indicative of what is considered ungodly. I remember one particular instance where the Bible study teacher said that if you left your home messy this morning then you shouldn’t be at the Bible study, you should be taking care of your husband, children and home first. I looked around the room and saw the shamed looks on some of these women’s faces…women with multiple little children who struggled just to get there to learn God’s word and be ministered to, and yet they were condemned. I witnessed these kinds of things more than once and I’m very sensitive to it when I see it.

    I honestly don’t think the people on this site intend to try and pile on…I think for the most part women are doing like me and trying to see their way clear of the wrong teaching they’ve been exposed to.

    I know many women who serve – their husbands, children and local body of believers. They are missionaries, teachers, nurses, doctors, entrepreneurs and take serving the Lord and others very seriously. I know how thankful I am when I am the recipient of their love and kindness. I hate seeing them condemned by other Christian women.

  377. thatmom Says:

    Mimi,

    You reminded me of one of my most fond memories. When my husband was in the army and we lived in Germany on a small military base, I got involved with the Women of the Chapel. The post was so small that there were no protestant/Catholic Bible study groups or officer wives/enlisted wives Bible study groups. We were one big group and didn’t even now the rank of each others’ husbands, which was a novelty at that time. And we studied the Bible, about 25-30 of us with little ones sometimes with us, sometimes in the post nursery.

    One of the women was an “older” woman…she was all of 35! To me, in my early 20’s she was a God-send. She welcomed all of us to her large apartment and we fellowshipped and prayed for each other and studied like crazy. We drank tea and exchanged recipes and potty training tips and we ministered to each other as a family because all of our extended families were thousands of miles away.

    But one of the things I remember best is that we all felt welcome, there was no shaming, no trying to fix each other, and we all listened and learned. Our teacher knew the Bible, we had a good study we went through, and many women came to Christ, their tough military men coming along behind them.

    I have often thought that had any of this patriocentic stuff been what we were hearing or the patriarchy expectations put on the men, it would have been a different story.

  378. Mimi Says:

    Thatmom,

    Yes! It is wonderful when that sweet fellowship happens. I’m so thankful to have that now through Community Bible Study. I went today and thanked the Lord as I was leaving for all that he is teaching me about Himself through Romans (not living under the law, Christ’s precious gift of grace to me…grace that he would give if I were the only one that ever needed it. He gave it freely but at a great cost.) We talked about the hope that we have here on earth and the hope that we have for all eternity. It is the Word as it should be, convicting and comforting – leading me to see that I fall so short (we all do!), yet there is a God who loves me and longs for relationship with me.

    I don’t have to clean up myself or my house to come to him…He loves me just as I am. That is some kind of good news!

    Hosea 6:6 – I don’t want your sacrifices, I want your love; I don’t want your burnt offerings, I want you to know me.


  379. You know, I can’t *make* anyone read all 2,000 comments on this subject, no more than I can read the last 3 chapters of a book and tell you the whole story.

    This is the deal; those of us who are “regular” commenters here at TWB have read, discussed, digested, questioned, asked, responded to ALL 2,000 comments.

    Trust me, I don’t stick around here because I have nothing better or different to do with my time. I have a plenty, let me assure you.

    Why do I keep on in this discussion?

    1. Because the matter at hand truly disturbs me, and I’m anxious to see it played out and how the homeschool community at large handles it. I’ve been-there-done-that with the “movement” and I have experience on both sides.

    2. I enjoy using my brain. I have been questioning and digging thru my Bible and my faith like never before.

    3. I have not been closer to God than I am right now in many ways because I stopped to ask a few questions.

    🙂 So really, don’t worry that I’m too invested in this thing. I don’t presuppose that this topic is important (or even should be important) to all women everywhere. I don’t care, honestly. It is important to me and my household for many reasons, and that is why I choose to continue with the discussion.

    And for the life of me, if something is so “not important” then why on earth do you even stop to comment?????

  380. Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:

    I want to say that I agree that this blog is a blessing. I was almost drawn into patriocentry myself, without evaluating it, and as I’m a very ‘take-charge’ type of person, I actually BELIEVED that I was damned to hell for not being docile and became bitter at God for not making me born male!

    But after a time, I found a church that told me I’m a unique once in a lifetime type of person for a reason- that I don’t have to be docile just because I lack a Y chromosome! (I have 2 contradictory aspects in my nature- gullible and fiery)

    After finding this blog and reading through the comments, I’ve been able to realise that it’s ok! God made me unique for a reason!

  381. shilohmm Says:

    Marcia said;

    “I’m not a patriarchist, a complementarian, and egalitarian, none of those things. I’m a follower of Christ.”

    The irony is that many of us here (or lurking here) feel much the same way – that with some groups there is much too much focus on people’s opinions about male/female roles, and not nearly enough focus on the fundamentals of the faith. I am not convinced that one’s attitudes toward male/female roles within marriage or society is so fundamental that we need to make it a criteria for being fully Christian.

    I would say the fundamentals of the faith are far more about who and what God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are and our relationship to them than about social roles. Going back to St. Augustine (perhaps beyond, but certainly since; I’ve seen it attributed to other stalwarts of the faith like Martin Luther), one summary of Christian attitudes toward fellow Christians is, “In essential things, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

    I am concerned less about whether someone is egalitarian, complementarian, or patriarchal in their own practice or personal beliefs than I am about their conviction that one cannot be a Christian if they do not share that particular slant on male/female relations. When people who embrace different male/female roles are called “white washed feminists”, and single Christian women who go to college are likened to the(married!) harlot in Proverbs 7, I am troubled.

    Regarding Stacy in particular, while I admit I have been reading this third thread with rather less attention than I gave the first (I have been thinking I needed to re-read the thread sometime when I was more focused), my impression has been that most people here hoped that Stacy’s words had been misconstrued and that she did not hold such radical opinions as some of the others discussed here, and that many people here were pleased with some of her clarifications – and with the fact that she would clarify her position at all.

  382. shilohmm Says:

    Corrie said:

    “I love Mary Kassian. … She wrote one article about how to show love to feminists and I really think that is a message needed today instead of all the condemnation and blame we throw their way.”

    I loved that article! That was my introduction to CBMW and thought it wonderful – while there is a great deal else I like there, after that introduction I was so dissappointed to later read some of the other articles on that site. *sigh*

  383. thatmom Says:

    Shiliohmm,

    As you mentioned the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, it is interesting to note that Tim and David Bayly, the infamous Bayly brothers, were once associated with CBMW but left their association with that group because they found it to not be conservative enough when it came to the roles of men and women. AND, Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald acknowledge, in their new book, that it was Tim Bayly who mentored them in their views of feminism. Explains much.

  384. Marcia Says:

    Good morning ladies–God doesn’t seem to be letting me rest until I apologize to you all.

    I came in here yesterday in distress because I felt a friend was being maligned. I don’t regret asking you to consider Stacy’s feelings, but I should not have implied that your discussion was not important or a good use of your time, especially given that I haven’t even read the other two threads.

    I wish I had the time to do that, but as I mentioned, I have very poor self-control when I’m online; I read this and link to that and get so absorbed that, like yesterday, I find myself still in my pajamas at noon.

    So I bid you farewell and hope you can forgive my words if they offended you.

  385. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Marcia, I think that Stacey is luck to have a friend like you.
    To begin with, not many folks would have the grit to come back and apologise , and whether you agree with most of us here or not, I for one am sorry to see you leave. I took a look at your blog, too, and I highly recommend it to everyone here.

    Well met… and I’m sorry to see you go.

  386. Lin Says:

    “I don’t regret asking you to consider Stacy’s feelings,…”

    This is where I will never fit into the specific gender roles that have been set out by the Patriarchists and even society in general. It is also where I think most woman are their own worst enemies.

    I think it is great that a friend defends a friend. But one cannot write and publish a book calling their sisters in Christ, White Washed feminists’ and be thin skinned when there are intense scriptural disagreements and inquiries into the authors views, lifestyles and previous writings.

    What does it mean to consider feelings? Would that have been good advice to Stacy and Jenney before they wrote the book?

    The whole topic of women and their feelings/emotions in light of scriptural commands and supposed gender roles would make a great topic.

  387. Rebecca Says:

    Marcia, thanks so much for that gracious apology. I just wanted to let you know that I understood what you were trying to say and didn’t take any offense with your earlier words.

    God bless you!


  388. Marcia,

    As a fellow nurse, if you like this neuro stuff, you should know that these internet relationships are much like being partially brain damaged. We are limited to what we can type into this box without the normal input of facial expression, body posture, eye contact, voice syntax and intonation… It’s as if part of the prefrontal cortex, the basal ganglia, the temporal lobe, etc. are deprived of input. It’s almost like we have “induced brain damage” them. And as a NICU nurse, you know how vital all that tactile stimulation is. We don’t have that here, so these are not full relationships. In that way, too, some of this can compare to the elements of fantasy that entice people into adulterous relationships. They see only one aspect of a person — a very limited one — and the imagination can run wild.

    My words are very trenchant when discussing the most dearly precious and vital force in my life — the Word of God — the most tangible and faithful thing connection with my Savior. People come and go, circumstances, etc., but the Word is always faithful, even if the heaven and earth pass away. I believe from the limited amount of information that I receive that through this box on my lap and the limited amount of information that I can read in a few books that your dear friend Stacy has added to and taken away from the only true and pure, precious element of my faith. Her organization (Vision Forum and ideology) has infiltrated many, many ministries that I was a supporting part of based on our common views. (That is displayed on my website if you want more details.) So I speak (write) with what so many independent voices have described as trenchant words in my fervent effort to clarify misconceptions, call out error and declare what I believe with all my heart and mind and spirit to be the most faithful representation of the Word of God concerning this thing called patriarchy.

    I have never believed that anyone in patriarchy does not love God and desire above all things, as much as is possible in this life in our fickle flesh. Therein rests our dilemma. Patriarchy and those who oppose it for the reasons I state are aiming at two different goals. I speak trenchantly so that my views are not squelched as some would have them in devotion to the Word. It is not personal but a contending for honesty and accuracy in discerning what the Word is saying to us in our time. (So I ask what kind of Christian would I be to not contend for the Word?)

    I believe that these, my brethren, are deceived. Why? Because I was likewise deceived. I laid in bed for months after my church leadership cursed me (“Bad things will happen to you if you act against our wishes” and “we will pray imprecatory prayers against you if you leave”), so that the cup of living in faithfulness to God’s witness of the Word hidden in my heart could pass from me for it required speaking the truth against these men I loved. But they were wrong. They were aimed and focused on their system rather than the Word. And I realized that in Gesthemane, Jesus prayed also that His cup could pass from Him and that He was also “saddened unto death.” But He also prayed that night that we as a body would be one.

    Out of love for the Word and in faithfulness to the convictions of my heart, I have rejected the many of the Pentecostal teachings of my upbringing in order to be faithful to what my devotion to the Word of God has taught me. As a result of that, my mother (and my father who capitulates to my mother because she has been a Christian for so many more years than he) have rejected me for turning from the Word of Faith teachings. They have required that I get “delivered” of the demon of Calvinism, and have severed meaningful contact with me as a result of my unwillingess to submit to their views of “multigenerational faithfulness.” If I am willing to go to those lengths with my own parents over my personal faithfulness to the Word, do you believe that Stacy should get more consideration than my own flesh and blood whom I do know and love?

    Prayerfully, in the wee hours of the morning, I posted a quote from Spurgeon online concerning this very thing with the matter of unity with my brethren heavy on my heart. From an element in the quote, I entitled the post “Painfully Apart from the Beaten Track.” I also posted it on thatmom’s website as a comment following one of Stacy’s comments. I ask that you read this and consider that love for our brethren and for the lost (and the meekness and “civility” in our communication) does not preclude a Christian from speaking the truth in contending for faithful representation of the Word of God and the practical application of the Word’s standards to the dealings of our lives within our contemporary culture). It is wrong (for lack of a better term as I’m sure there is another) to require any Christian to contend for their faith by requiring faithfulness to the Word to be sacrificed for another’s concepts of “civility.” (Yet your dear friend can say all manner of cutting remark, judging and weighing the faith of so many other Christians based on her own preferences with impunity.)

    I understand well that those in patriarchy believe that they are contending for the very same things. I respect and admire the tenacity and zeal. But until they start demonstrating less arrogance and more love for their brethren (in the persons of their critics by demonstrating an established pattern of accountability of submitting to one another in love and respect rather than the authoritarian domination that they have offered to date), I will and those here like me will continue to speak trenchantly. Our Faith demands it.

  389. Light Says:

    Connie, here are some more strange snippets from the Five Aspects materials. I have put Mouser’s material in italics. Note that very little here, if any of it, can be supported scripturally – to the point where I don’t think you could even call it a Bible study. Much of what Mouser says here is simply opinion, cultural stereotyping with a little psychobabble thrown in to make it sound important. Much of what Mouser says about women also describes men, and vice versa, but Mouser makes it sound as if they are completely separate species.

    “Woman, by created design, is fashioned especially to keep and maintain the civilization that has been attained. Man, by design, goes and tries to push the boundaries out farther.” p. 76

    “Another pattern of work is that man starts work, and woman completes it.”

    “Adam alone was given the garden mandate.” P. 94
    Does Mouser’s Bible have a different Genesis 1:28 than mine?
    “God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

    “Strong, leading women can be tempted to challenge or undermine the authority of God-ordained male leadership.” P 100.
    Just as strong, leading men can be tempted to challenge and undermine authority?

    “Men were created to be leaders, providers, and protectors. Women are to be helpers, nurturers, and completers.” P. 111

    “Sinful Imbalance
    Sinful cross type occurs when members of one sex choose to reject their created nature and adopt the behavior or roles of the other sex. … feminism … pushes girls in the direction of careerism, seriously hampering their ability to focus on relationships.”
    P 326 & 327
    Watch out, women. If you have a career, you are in sinful imbalance.

    “Women should pattern their teaching, reproving, and the hostessing of their inner domains after Lady Wisdom. Men should pattern their wisdom after Christ the Sage. Neither man nor woman is inherently wiser than the other, but the pattern and purpose of their wisdom is inherently different.” P. 333
    Note that in this study, men get Christ as their role model, while women don’t.

    “In many ways, wisdom will look the same in a man and a woman – careful speech, prudent financial policies, moral purity, etc. But in general, man pursues wisdom to possess it, in order to rule with it. Woman grows in wisdom to embody it, in order to fulfill all her feminine aspects. P 333
    Is anybody else cracking up here at this psychobabble?

    “The earth is the dust from which our Father God created us; it nurtures us, and is our home. The earth also teaches us about God through “general revelation.” Civilizations all over the world have seen and understood this truth. That some have gone into the error of goddess-worship does not negate the validity of the earth’s femininity, as can be seen in Psalm 139:13, 15, where David compares his mother’s womb to the earth itself. It is noteworthy that the earth was the only mother Adam had. For all these reasons, the earth is a mother to us, and there is nothing wrong with speaking of her as such, as long as we are careful not to embrace or communicate an idolatrous concept.” P 333,334

    Mouser can’t have it both ways. If David comparing his mother’s womb to the earth proves the earth is feminine, then using the same measuring stick, Mouser cannot claim that God is masculine only, according to Job 38:29“From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens?” (NIV)

    Then we move on to the just plain ridiculous:
    “If the man becomes much more nurturing and still stays in touch with all his other basic masculine aspects, then he will be a man with a very strong husbandman aspect. If, in his efforts to nurture his children, he becomes feminine, [how? by injecting estrogen?] letting key elements of his masculine nature slide, his wife and his children will probably be worse off for his efforts.” P 328
    So many of these hyperpatriarchalists seem to be terrified of the “effeminate” and “feminization”. What’s up with that? Are they that insecure?

    “Upper-class women have usually employed all manner of lower-class men – butlers, gardeners, chauffeurs, etc. That the women are the leaders did not make the women masculine, nor the men effeminate [perhaps it’s only nurturing the children too much that make a man effeminate]. It has often been noted that men have fought and ruled very well for great queens.” p. 328

    But that quote above is then contradicted by this statement, on p 245:
    “When righteously performed, these roles contain a consistent pattern of activities: men should be initiating lovers, leaders, protectors, providers, saviors and husbandmen.”
    I guess butlers and chauffeurs, then, since they aren’t consistently leaders but rather answer to a woman employer, are not righteously performing their manly activities.

    “Ultimately, all power and authority reside in God. He granted to men the honor of displaying these characteristics in their physical bodies and bearing.” p. 245
    We have talked about the patriarchalist teaching that says that men image God more than women. This is an example of that.

    “There are only two areas where a man can earn his glory and affirm his manhood. One is the world of work or combat (whether it is academics, sports, war, or business), where he goes out into nature to conquer, rule, and subdue. The other is the world of relationships and love, where he wins the response of woman.” p. 247
    Hey, maybe this is where David Bayly is getting his “wooing as warfare” ideas.

    When God glorified the woman, he made that delicate, transitory, needy, dependent nature beautiful and resplendent. p. 248
    I wonder if Mouser ever did a word study on ezer, which is how the Bible describes the woman at Creation. Ezers are not delicate, transitory, need, or dependent – ezer is used to describe a rescuer or helper, as of God (almost all the times ezer is used in the OT, it is used to describe God as our helper.)

    Men are not built physically or soulishly to be responders. P. 248
    Let’s take a poll. Raise your hand if you know any men who are responsive. You do? Perhaps your man is built wrong.

    “If she only wants to be like the man, by his side in the world, she will never be a beautiful garden for him, and he will never fulfill his husbandman role.”
    I direct your attention again to Genesis 1:26-28, where man and woman, side by side, are given the same task – to subdue and rule over the earth.

    “Man is the leader, woman is the helper. Man is strong, woman is beautiful. Man is brave, woman is merciful. Man is aggressive, women is conciliatory. Man is logical, woman is intuitive.” P 249
    Any one here know any leading women? Helpful men? Strong women? Beautiful men? Brave women? Merciful men? Aggressive women? Conciliatory men? Logical women? Intuitive men? Yep. Thought so.

    Can you see how damaging all these things could be to non-discerning Christian women in this Bible study? They will struggle with much anguish to be things they are not, go against the way God has uniquely created them, perhaps even ignore God’s calling on their lives – because Mouser says they must fit into a certain nice, neat, little box. It could also foster discontent in their marriage, if their husbands don’t measure up.

    Connie, I would be interested to hear what your pastor thinks of this.

  390. Corrie Says:

    Marcia,

    I echo what others have said. I didn’t take offense at what you said and I appreciate that you encouraged us to consider her feelings and I think that is an important reminder all the way around.

    I used to PW, in answer to your question. 🙂 I remember you and you seem to have a really neat family and I enjoyed reading your blog. You are an intelligent, thoughtful woman and from what I know about you, I do admire you.

    Many of us have been through the world of the extra-biblical mandates taught as the very precepts of God under the guise of “patriarchy”. We have seen how whole families and churches have been hurt by some of these practices and self-righteous attitudes towards others who just don’t measure up.

    Anyone who is different is accused of some spiritual malady or trying to justify their sin. This is exactly why I left PW. There was only one way of thinking and it was obvious that my thoughts and comments were not welcome there. I didn’t experience the graciousness that you spoke of. That was not my experience. I was the topic of private conversations between the moderators concerning how I was dressed (I have copies of some of those private emails that someone sent to me) and how I sent in an older picture and it couldn’t be current since I looked “too young”. Well, it WAS a current picture of me. I then was publicly accused of trying to justify my “immodesty” because I didn’t see that the OT taught that pants were men’s wear. I quit. I received a letter. I responded to THAT letter and then I was threatened with “legal action” simply for responding to the emails I was sent. I confronted the PW powers-that-be about this behind the scenes gossip, all I got were denials and evasion.

    What I see now is just the same ol’, same ol’. Blatant denial of what is obvious and then turning around and playing the victim. I have had good friends who were hurt by what they experienced at the hands of some of these people. Their names were trashed and drug through the mud. Matthew 18 only goes one way in their book. Slander and gossip only go one way, too.

    I think that if we put our own selves in the position to be a teacher and a leader and we promote ourselves as such and we write books and want to be renowned speakers, then we had better be mature enough and forthright enough to expect questions and clarify anything that is not clear. We cannot expect to have only accolades and turn around and accuse anyone who disagrees of being in the wrong. I have yet to see that. I see a lot of talk of that happening but the person who looks closely will see that the questions are not being answered.

    This problem is much worse than it had to be. And, calling people a “Grinch” is not going to help the problem, especially when that person violates their own comment policies by doing so.

  391. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Light said, “There are only two areas where a man can earn his glory and affirm his manhood. One is the world of work or combat (whether it is academics, sports, war, or business), where he goes out into nature to conquer, rule, and subdue. The other is the world of relationships and love, where he wins the response of woman.” p. 247
    Hey, maybe this is where David Bayly is getting his “wooing as warfare” ideas.”

    LOL!!… that, or maybe he read one too many bodice-ripper/fantasy romance novels.

  392. missionaryinukraine Says:

    http://www.mbn.org/GenMoody/default.asp?SectionID=409A05EE92AE4994AD5C79FCF3729205

    today, Carolyn Custis James was interviewed on midday connection. click on past audio and it’s 11/30. Very good. she mentions Passionate Housewives, etc., briefly. i’m listening to it now, not finished it.

  393. shilohmm Says:

    Marcia,

    Thank you for your apology. While I confess your first post sounded to me like a “drive by snipe”, I appreciated your later specifications (“claiming she is in it for the money, saying she is not sincere in her apololgies and corrections”). I don’t know that anyone directly accused Stacy of either, but I do know there have been comments heading in that direction that bothered me.

    Whilr there are patterns to people who use the Bible to bully, I think sometimes people who hang out with them can appear to be coming from much the same place while having very different motivations – unless we know someone very well, I’m not convinced we can state their intentions with any accuracy. I think it’s legit to say their actions fit a familiar pattern, but I question the idea that anyone can know for sure where someone else is coming from, unless they know the person well (and not just over the internet).

    Sometimes the difference can be hard to see when feelings run high, though. I’ve felt the conversation has gotten uncomfortably close to accusations that cannot be proved lately, accusations about motivations rather than actions, but on the whole I think this conversation has been pretty balanced.

  394. shilohmm Says:

    Light,
    I keep posting and forgetting to say how much I appreciate your critique of the Five Aspects stuff. I could tell from what I’d already read that it was going to be off base, but I did not imagine such goofiness as man only achieving glory through conquering and subduing or through getting a response from a woman.

    When God glorified the woman, he made that delicate, transitory, needy, dependent nature beautiful and resplendent. p. 248

    Can anyone be MORE influenced by secular society, or less aware that the Bible teaches that the ideal woman is strong and independent?


  395. About the charges of “Grinch” on Stacy McDonald’s blog.

    I’ve posted it on amazon (on page FIVE of the comments following Karen Campbell’s review of Passionate Housewives):

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R1SXSU1Z0JOT2E/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg5?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdPage=5

  396. Light Says:

    Shilohmm, what’s so sneaky is that as with many false teachings, there is truth mixed with it. As in the quote above – women are beautiful (and I would say men are, too). And women are dependent – but so are men. Both are dependent on God and each other. But saying that women’s nature is delicate, transitory, needy … there simply isn’t any scripture to back that up, and plenty of natural revelation to contradict it.


  397. Light,

    This is a beautiful way of stating how men and women can relate to one another in loving and mutually helpful ways. It’s lovely.

  398. thatmom Says:

    Marcia,

    I want to thank you for dropping back by and graciously apologizing to us. What a sweet thing to do!

    I hope you will drop back by again, you are welcome any time!

  399. Corrie Says:

    “Men are not built physically or soulishly to be responders. P. 248
    Let’s take a poll. Raise your hand if you know any men who are responsive. You do? Perhaps your man is built wrong.”

    Light,

    LOL!!

    I just don’t know how to delicately answer this.

    First off, a man is not built to be a responder “soulishly”? That is anti-biblical. A man responds to Christ and to God’s call on his life, does he not? Or is this saying that a man initiates any and all relationship with God and that man is always the initiator when it comes to doing things with his soul? A man is part of the Bride of Christ who is in submission to Her Bridegroom. How is a man different “soulishly” than a woman? You mean, there is a hidden, secret gospel for men that I don’t know about? There is a blue gospel for men and a pink one for women?

    Secondly, a man is not built to be a responder physically? Then, what is all this talk of modesty? Look at the book of Esther where she was trained in the art of getting a man to respond physically.
    I can think of a couple of dozen ways that a man responds physically. Men respond every day in dozens of ways to the stimuli from things and other people.

    In fact, why don’t we all do this experiment tonight: see if our husbands RESPOND to us. Yes, in spite of what you hear and are taught, you CAN initiate! 😉

    What does a person say to this teaching?

    ” That some have gone into the error of goddess-worship does not negate the validity of the earth’s femininity, as can be seen in Psalm 139:13, 15, where David compares his mother’s womb to the earth itself. It is noteworthy that the earth was the only mother Adam had. For all these reasons, the earth is a mother to us, and there is nothing wrong with speaking of her as such, as long as we are careful not to embrace or communicate an idolatrous concept.” P 333,334

    Mouser can’t have it both ways. If David comparing his mother’s womb to the earth proves the earth is feminine, then using the same measuring stick, Mouser cannot claim that God is masculine only, according to Job 38:29“From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens?” (NIV)”

    You are right. Also, if one would read Psalm 139:15, it does not compare the earth to a mother’s womb. The gist of that verse is to say that a baby is formed in secret, in the hidden place.

    “My frame was not hidden from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.”

    If this verse shows us the earth’s so-called femininity (pagan concept) then you are absolutely correct that Job 38:29 tells us that God must be feminine because He has a womb that gives birth. Also, let us not forget that one of God’s names is “El Shaddai”. Shad, in Hebrew, means “breast”. He is the breasted one; the all-sufficient. Just like a mother is to her newborn baby, so is God to us. He is all-sufficient. He is all we need. He sustains us. He is the breasted one which means that he has food/milk for us and sustains us by that food so that we may thrive and live.

    This curriculum seems quite selective to me. Also, it seems to be based on a pagan and extra-biblical concepts. There also seems to be a lot of reading INto the text of things and concepts that are just not there.

  400. KateinDC Says:

    A very quick note in regards to “Return of the Daughters,” and the various other patriocentric writings I’ve come across that claim an adult daughter’s decision to remain at home/return to her home until marriage is “revolutionary” and unheard of in modern times:

    “Census figures show that 56 percent of men and 43 percent of women ages 18 to 24 today live with one or both parents. Some never left, while an estimated 65 percent of recent college graduates have moved back in with their parents.”

    The above from the following financial article from 2004: http://www.newyorklife.com/cda/0,3254,13762,00.html

    And if this article is correct, the number of young adult daughters living with their parents has actually increased since 1970:

    “More than 22 million adult sons and daughters were living in a household maintained by one or both parents in 2005, compared with 15 million in 1970, according to Census Bureau statistics. Fourteen percent of all U.S. families included at least one adult child in 2005 — up 3 percentage points since 1970; a Census analysis attributed the increase to delayed marriage and increasing costs to set up and maintain a household.”

    The above from here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/286762_parents28.html

    I tend to look askance at anyone who claims their actions are “revolutionary” when they are shared by *nearly half* of the other individuals in their demographic.

  401. Anonymous Says:

    Someone shared that we may be speaking about people we don’t know on a personal level. For the record I know Stacy personally, not just over the internet. Maybe someday I will come out, but to be honest the lashback is so rough I dread coming out. I do have proof that other readers have seen. Just so you know it’s not just assumptions!

    Blessings!


  402. Anonymous,

    Your statement is subtle here. You dread the lashback from the contributors at True Womanhood or you dread lashback from the McDonalds?

  403. Corrie Says:

    “But saying that women’s nature is delicate, transitory, needy … there simply isn’t any scripture to back that up, and plenty of natural revelation to contradict it.”

    Light,

    I am going to break some laws of nature and actually try and apply some logic, here.

    If a woman’s nature is “needy”, then why did God create Adam a help/ezerp?

    If man is so independent, why did Adam need an ezer?

    Wouldn’t it be the other way around if women are so needy and dependent and men are so sufficient and independent? By Eve’s very creation, God showed Adam that he was needy.

    Forgive me if I do not think that his statement is proof that men are logical because I don’t see the logic of such a statement.

    “When God glorified the woman, he made that delicate, transitory, needy, dependent nature beautiful and resplendent. p. 248”

    Also, what does he mean by transitory? How are women transitory? I am trying to understand who women are different from men in this matter?

    Transitory means: short-lived, temporal, temporary, brief, impermanent, fleeting, here today- gone tomorrow, momentary, passing, LIT. means evanescent, fugitive

    And, it is funny that he says that women are conciliatory and men are aggressive. Over and over in the Scripture are we told that we must be peaceful and reconciled! Do a word search on reconciliation and peace. Is that not what Christ came to do on this earth, to make reCONCILIATion for all mankind?

    Now, do a word search on “aggressive” and tell me what you get?

    Christ told us to be like HIM. He told us to be peacemakers, or in other words, conciliatory. Our nature, before Christ, is not like this but after we are born again, we are told to possess the fruit of reconciliation and peace.

    Aggression? Not even in the Bible. We are never told that the fruit of the spirit is aggression. But, if we look at the deeds of the flesh we might just see something akin to aggression.

    Gal 5:16 ¶ [This] I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

    Gal 5:17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

    Gal 5:18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

    Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

    Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

    Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

    Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

    Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

    Gal 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.

    Gal 5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

    Here are some verses on peace and this is only the tip of the iceberg:

    Rom 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.

    Rom 15:33 Now the God of peace [be] with you all. Amen.

    Rom 16:20 And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

    1Cr 14:33 For God is not [the author] of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

    Eph 2:14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition [between us];

    Col 1:20 And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, [I say], whether [they be] things in earth, or things in heaven.

    2Ti 2:22 Flee also youthful lusts: but follow righteousness, faith, charity, peace, with them that call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

    Hbr 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;

    Jam 3:18 And the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace.

    1Pe 3:11 Let him eschew evil, and do good; let him seek peace, and ensue it.

    2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;

    2Cr 5:18 And all things [are] of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;


  404. I wanted to address shilomn’s comment #396

    I’ve probably made more comments about the money side of the issue than I should. However I want to point out that I have no way of knowing of the McDonalds, Doug Phillips, or anyone else is really in it for the money. No one can judge that, really.

    I’ve just learned in my experience (limited as it is) in life and business, that the bottom line is the bottom line, more often than not.

    If money wasn’t at least a strong key player in the whole thing, they’d be more apt to defend their statements. When you make a definitive statement on a hot topic such as women voting, you risk peeving off the people who pay your bills and write your checks and buy your books!

    So, forgive me if I use my own logic and determine that money does indeed have alot to do with the whole thing.

    I don’t mean to attack anyone on a personal level. I’m only raising questions.

    Would Doug Phillips and Stacy McDonald, and ANYONE in ministry for that matter, speak their truth so boldly that they may lose every dime they have invested? I can’t answer for them, but their vague answers are not convincing me that they would be willing to go so far.

  405. Corrie Says:

    Katie,

    “I tend to look askance at anyone who claims their actions are “revolutionary” when they are shared by *nearly half* of the other individuals in their demographic.”

    As well shall we all! Thank you for this information. This is the sort of thing we need to look at to test the claims of the patriocentric movement.

  406. Trish Says:

    Maybe it has to do with the season…more likely it has to do with the Lord and His work in my heart.

    Ladies, I want to ask your forgiveness. I have come here and posted a few times, and each time I have been contentious and ugly. I have not come here in a spirit of love as Christ would. I have posted with ugly, ungodly motives and I again ask your forgiveness.

    I continue to read here often, and although I do not know where I truly stand yet on all these issues, one thing is clear. I have not handled myself as the Lord would want.

    Perhaps someday I can put enough of ‘myself’ aside to post and discuss matters with you all, but until I can do that, I will most likely just continue to read, pray and search the Word.

    May God richly bless all of you.

    In Christ,
    Trish

  407. Corrie Says:

    Dear Trish,

    Thank you for such a humble, meek example that you have set for all of us. I am duly convicted by your apology and rebuked. I know I have not always handled myself as the Lord would want and I want to apologize to you for being impatient and too quick with my words.

    I want so much to discuss what the Lord has been teaching me and what I see scripture saying and I can easily allow my feelings of frustration to overshadow what I want to say. I also need to remember that this isn’t about me at all. I know when I most mess up is when I take things too personally.

    God Bless you for your godly example. Thank you!

    Our battle is not against flesh and blood and it is not with each other. May God work in all of our hearts and bring us ever closer to His truth on all of these matters.

  408. Lin Says:

    “Some never left, while an estimated 65 percent of recent college graduates have moved back in with their parents.”

    I know some of these folks and they are grudgingly restoring the new workout room back to the kids bedroom. :O)

    There is a big difference with what is taught in Patriarchy, though. The daughters are not to leave home. Very few go to college. They are to stay and serve the father until they marry.

    It would almost impossible to identify them out of a census because many young adults live at home through college or work.

    Incidently, in undergrad and grad school stats, woman are outpacing men in enrollment and graduation.


  409. Trish,

    (If you are the Mrs. H – Trish… that I’m thinking of…?)

    If indeed you are, I accept your apology and ask your forgiveness for pushing too hard. I was very frustrated when you aluded to my statements but never personally directed them to me or addressed me by name. I saw this as an evasion and lack of accountability and I was angry. I’m sorry that I pushed when I should have just died to self. And I so appreciate that you’ve clarified this. I am most grateful.

    I understand very well what it is like to fight for my perspective and for the Gospel. I continue to examine the claims of those with different opinions and respect them, even though I don’t agree. And I did hear you. My rejection of your claims was not personal, but I was frustrated that there was no opportunity for me to substantiate what I had claimed. I’m sorry if I offended you in my anger and frustration. I’m learning, too.

    I look forward to a time and opportunity when we can discuss these things in a loving, respectful way. And I believe that it will come.

    Thank you for this. It is like a kiss from heaven to me. God bless you and may He grant you more wisdom than you can hold — that which God gives us when we ask Him and never holds back. I know that you love the Lord and seek to serve him, and that is what He asks of us. You also clearly love the Word, Bible study and seek the truth, and I know that God will bless you abundantly for it. (Then He’s got to bring us into the unity of the faith! Good thing that He’s our miracle worker. 😉

    Thank you, thank you, thank you.

  410. Trish Says:

    Corrie…I too want to understand. I have let this take up a very large place in my life, and in order to work through it all I will need help. I am questioning so many things right now! And at times I am so very, very confused!!

    But one thing I know for sure, I have not handled myself well here. I want to do better, and I will!

    Thank you for being so nice! When I came back to check the comments, I was so hoping that there would be one from you…and yours was FIRST! I think of all the ladies here, I probably hurt you the most and I truly do regret that.

    So, here’s to future conversation that edifies us all and glorifies God!

    Trish

  411. Cally Tyrol Says:

    “Thank you for such a humble, meek example that you have set for all of us. I am duly convicted by your apology and rebuked. I know I have not always handled myself as the Lord would want and I want to apologize to you for being impatient and too quick with my words.”

    Trish, I would like to echo Corrie’s thoughts here. So often I end up speaking out of frustration when all I really want to do is understand God’s Word and stand up for the truth. I really try to post things that are thoughtful and helpful and stay away from reacting to posts. Needless to say, I don’t always succeed 😦

  412. Trish Says:

    Cindy..yes I am Mrs. H. But now I just want to be Trish.

    Reading your reply felt like breathing good, clean fresh air! Confession makes one lighter than air! I feel so much better right now!

    We interacted on Jen’s Gems and in my blind zeal to be right and to show you all that I was right I was so ugly. And the more I have thought about it all, the more I have been convicted that I have been a fool.

    Again, I do not know where I stand in all of this, but one thing is for certain, all of you are fine, caring, smart women and I will treat you like I should have all along…as my sisters in Christ.

    Trish

  413. Corrie Says:

    Oh, Trish! I think you are being way too hard on yourself. I don’t remember you in that way at all. See what you started! 😉

    We are all very passionate about what we believe. We are working through this and we must give grace and be quick to forgive and forget and to not hold grudges. I certainly wasn’t hurt by your posts nor have I held anything against you.

    I get more upset with myself that I am not communicating effectively. I truly want to communicate my heart about these things and sometimes I fail miserably.


  414. Trish, you have a beautiful heart. Thank you for taking the time to apologize, and I will say if we did anything to “stir the pot” I would ask your forgiveness as well.

    See? We *can* talk about these things in a womanly, Christ-honoring way! 🙂

  415. Spunky Says:

    Trish

    As one who has also discussed things with you I accept your apology. I never felt that you were “ugly” as I assume all who speak here have a genuine heart to speak the Truth in love. I have taken the words that those who have disagreed very seriously and your words have challenged me to consider my thoughts and ideas carefully. (I especially enjoyed your exchange while you were on vacation.)

    If I’ve said anything in our conversations that was offensive to you, I also ask your forgiveness.

    Thank you Trish for your boldness and courage to comment here today as well as in the past.

  416. Trish Says:

    Oh Spunky! Our private e-mail exchange comes to mind…

    Again, me wanting so badly to be ‘right’ and having an “I will show them” mentality. Yuck. You say that you never felt I was ugly, but I will tell you I thought some pretty ugly things and just never said them.

    The Lord has been working in my heart, showing me all of this. He has not allowed me to let this go! Believe me I have tried! I have tried fasting from the Internet, I have tried busying myself in other pursuits. But it continued to nag at me, the things I had said and some of the things I didn’t say.

    Thank you for your kind words. Someday I look forward to contributing in a meaningful, all-grown-up way in this conversation!

    Trish

  417. Spunky Says:

    Trish,

    Believe it or not, I never even thought you were the same Trish as the one who emailed me privately. Really, I never put the names together. But now that I know, I never even thought that exchange was “ugly.” You had a passion for what you believed and I just trusted that you heart was to help me understand things from your perspective. I never thought poorly of you in that exchange. Truly I didn’t.

    You also said, “Someday I look forward to contributing in a meaningful, all-grown-up way in this conversation!”

    Trish, it takes a very mature “all-grown” up person to comment as you have. God’s blessed me through your words and your example. May I always be willing to demonstrate the humility and grace you have shown here tonight.

  418. Corrie Says:

    “Again, me wanting so badly to be ‘right’ and having an “I will show them” mentality. Yuck. You say that you never felt I was ugly, but I will tell you I thought some pretty ugly things and just never said them.’

    Yuk is right but you don’t think you are the only one who has had these thoughts, do you?

    It is obvious God is doing a work in your heart and because you humbled yourself and were forthright and honest about what was going on inside, God is now doing a work in MANY hearts. I think this is what they would call “revival”. I wonder how many times that we are not honest about our own sins that we prevent another from being edified? I am going to remember this exchange the next time God is prodding me to do what you have stepped forward to do.

    I agree with Spunky. It takes a very mature and grown-up person to admit these things. And because you have been courageous, your openness and transparency has convicted and exhorted and taught, all by your example.

    “May I always be willing to demonstrate the humility and grace you have shown here tonight.”

    Amen, Spunky.

  419. thatmom Says:

    Trish, your gracious spirit has been a blessing to me this morning. Your are a fine example to all of us and I hope we will see you around here often.

    As Spunky so often reminds us, we are not about who is wrong and who is right. We are about the business of finding the truth. Thank you for showing us the proper attitude to have as we travel this journey.

  420. Corrie Says:

    “Yuk is right but you don’t think you are the only one who has had these thoughts, do you?”

    Trish,

    When I said “yuk is right” I said it because I know first-hand how “yucky” it feels to have those types of feelings. I didn’t make that clear and I didn’t want you to think that you are the only one who knows, firsthand, the “yuk” of being a fleshly, sinful human being.

    I can easily and honestly claim the position of the “chief of all sinners”.

    And, in the words of Cheryl Lynn (the one-hit disco singer) “You got to be real”. 🙂

    I am of the opinion, the more and more I study the scripture, that God meant us to be sharing in humility (NOT false humility and there is a HUGE difference) our failures and our struggles. It is a teaching moment and many learn from such a true and humble example.

    That is what, imho, is truly missing. If we would embrace brokenness and contrition more often, I think all of these other petty little side-issues would dim in comparison and then, in turn, we would have much more love and compassion for the lost.

  421. thatmom Says:

    This is a comment I found on Doug Phillips’ blog today. It was sent in by someone who was praising the Passionate Housewife book.

    “One thing that the modern feminist does not realize is that she will always be the servant to someone. She was created to be man’s helpmeet, and whether she is helping a boss in some ivory tower or her husband at home, she is always going to be the servant to man. It is God’s ordained estate for women.”

  422. Krista Says:

    Am I the only one who has noticed that Stacy has taken down all the comments on her blog and disabled it so you can’t leave any?

  423. Corrie Says:

    ““One thing that the modern feminist does not realize is that she will always be the servant to someone. She was created to be man’s helpmeet, and whether she is helping a boss in some ivory tower or her husband at home, she is always going to be the servant to man. It is God’s ordained estate for women.””

    Wow! And we get that from where? The term ezer and or “helpmeet”? It would be helpful, at this point, to define the term ezer because that is key.

    Ezer does NOT mean “servant”, btw. It doesn’t mean secretary and it doesn’t mean junior assistant.

    Now, if we truly want to get biblical, we will realize that we were all created to SERVE. As Christians we are BONDSLAVES to the Lord Jesus Christ. Before we were believers we were SLAVES to sin. No where in the Bible does it say that women were created to be servants to men.

    Christ set the example of servanthood for His followers. All people who name the name of Christ are to follow His example and be a servant to one another, washing the feet of those around us and doing it by donning the clothing of a slave, like Christ did.

    Where it is taught that women are servants to man and that it is “God’s ordained estate for women” I do not know.

    Men help their bosses all the time. Men help their wives all the time. Men help their children all the time. Men help their fellow believers all the time.

    Tell me this, is it God’s ordained estate for a man to serve his wife?

    If we are going to define “helper” as assistant or servant, then we are ALL helpers.

    To say that a woman will be always a servant to someone and not to also realize that so will a man always be a servant to someone, is to deny the Bible’s teachings on servanthood.

    We should all be striving to be a servant since this is what Jesus told us to do. If we take Him at His word, then the ones who are servants are actually the ones who are leaders!

    I would like to know just where this “God’s ordained estate [servanthood] for women” is found in the Bible as something unique to women.

  424. Corrie Says:

    I was just reading the chapter “The Dangers of Whitewashed Feminism” from Passionate as the above quote came in.

    “Feminism, blatantly secular or whitewshed, demands that we turn a cold shoulder to the beauty and grace of God-ordained womanhood and instead embrace the hollow barrenness of “personhood.” To follow the concept to its logical conclusion, we would also have to reject the complete truth that God fashioned Eve from Adam’s own rib and presented to him a suitable helper…..a “good” gift- a wife who complemented him perfectly (1 Cor. 11:2-16) and we must instead convince ourselves that God made for him a great partner-an interchangeable, androgynous roommate!”

    So white-washed feminism has us embracing the hollow barrenness of personhood? And it has us convincing ourselves that God made us roommates- interchangeable and androgynous roommate.

    What I would like to know is just what IS white-washed feminism?

    Her charges are very cryptic and vague that it leaves me wondering what she is talking about and referring to. She is talking about real people, after all, so I would have expected these dogmatic assertions about white-washed feminism to be a lot more concrete. Her writings on this matter tend to tarnish far more targets than intended and serves little constructive purpose.

    The reader is left with a “huh” feeling. Except, it seems that the those who really understand this book understand the unwritten code and formless assertions.

  425. Trish Says:

    Corrie,

    I knew what you meant! :0)

    As I sort through all of this (blogs, Scripture, my own convictions and (gasp) emotions) I will probably post and see what you all think about a couple of things that I am pondering.

    We are off to get our Christmas tree. Time to play A Charlie Brown Christmas and sip egg-nog with my sweeties!

    Trish

  426. Corrie Says:

    Trish,

    We are doing something new this year, a Jesse tree. I made a felt tree banner years ago when my oldest son, now 22, was only a little boy. I made felt ornaments to be stuck to it for each day of December. It told the Christmas story. I got the idea out of the Family Celebrations book. The Jesse tree seems to be about the same except it is a bit different. What we looked at was the prophecies concerning Christ and the actual fulfillment of those prophecies where the Jesse tree looks at the bloodline of Christ. Some of it overlaps so I am able to use some of my old ornaments for the Jesse tree.

    I bought a cute little “porch pine” in a nice planter from Target. It was prelit. We will hang our ornaments on there.

    Did anyone ever do a Jesse tree before? Any ideas on making the ornaments?

    We haven’t gotten our Christmas tree up, yet, but we do have some lights and wreaths and such.


  427. We use Ann Voskamp’s advent book, The Glorious Coming.

    You can buy it via ebook or in print. it is WONDERFUL!!!!

    http://www.theoldschoolhousestore.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=393

  428. Corrie Says:

    pg. 128 from Passionate:

    “Although the whitewashed feminists understandably don’t wish to be lumped together with the radicals, that connection is inevitably made when they resist their scriptural roles. One cannot be a partial feminist any more than one can be “kind of pregnant”. Once conceived, it is only a matter of time until the labor pains begin giving birth to rebellion against God’s creation order.

    As whitewashed feminism infiltrates the church, there is a growing trend for spiritual teachers to legitimize the sins and weaknesses most common to women: rebellion against proper male authority, independent power and ambition, and a desire to be something God never intended for her to be (Genesis 3:5). I encourage Christian women to carefully analyze their thinking and cautiously choose the books they read, blogs they visit, and teachers from whom they learn….”

    I gather that her blog is approved? I gather she is not asking readers to carefully analyze her writings?

    Always look up the scriptures that are given. Always. This is what woke me up to the errors in Gothard’s teachings. Yes, these books might be filled with scripture and scriptural references but that does not really mean anything unless what is being referenced actually proves the writer’s point.

    Gen. 3:5 says this: “For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

    I am not sure what this verse has to do with the point being made and it leaves a lot of room for confusion. This verse has nothing to do with rebelling against male authority and can only be taught when one reads into the scripture what they want it to say.

    Gothard taught that Eve’s sin was that she wanted to be like her husband and that is why she ate the fruit, to be like him, knowing good and evil. Yes, you have that right. She wanted to be like her HUSBAND and that is why she ate the fruit. But, what does scripture say? She wants to be like GOD, not her husband. You know why? Because she was already like her husband. They already had the same knowledge and they both did not know evil and good. When you have the presuppositional belief that Adam was like God and Eve was created as some lesser being this is the kind of teaching you get. This thought is implicit in Gothard’s statement.

    Going back to Stacy’s statements about the alleged sins common to women? Nope. They are common to mankind. In our flesh, men and women do not want to submit to authority, they are filled with power and ambition and they have a desire to be something God never intended them to be.

    For instance, men who see themselves as little christs and mediators for their wife are men who desire to be something God never intended them to be. Men who will not submit to their authority and throw off all authority and become an authority unto themselves, are an example of this common sin known to man. (ie., the micropresbyteries that are popping up because men cannot submit to proper authority or men who start up their own home churches where they become ultimate boss).

    The statements on whitewashed feminists are VERY confusing and one wonders why such dogmatic statements are so vague?


  429. […] article here at the Vision Forum Blog, Hat tip to a conversation here at True Womanhood, by that mom […]

  430. Corrie Says:

    Thanks Lindsey! Do you use her ornaments, too?

    Can you see that I am a little obsessive/compulsive about some things? 🙂


  431. Trish,

    I am so blessed and, well, overjoyed really to read all of this. And I echo all these others here. You’ve demonstrated such a wonderful example of how we can be in unity and hold different views. I feel like I have a billion things more to say, but I guess that’s a compulsion that only a huge hug and a good cry would accomplish. I’m undone (in the very best way).

    God’s grace is sufficient when we disagree if we can find that place of trust in God to reveal himself. I really believe that. And Paul says that He takes us from glory to glory, so I believe when we can agree in respect and love for one another that He does. (And often, that does not happen overnight.) So I am encouraged with even more hope for this whole patriarchy thing. One of the most destructive effects of it is the turning away from our own flesh.

    So, Trish, You’ve given me so much more reason to trust in the faithfulness of God and His Word. This is such a blessing.


  432. corrie, yes. We printed out the ebook, and then I cut out the ornaments, backed them with pretty paper, laminated, cut a hole, and added pretty string & ribbon.

    Just like Ann’s blog, her books are a wonderful, quiet inspiration.


  433. Trish,

    Calling Trish!

    I have a favor to ask.

    — for brevity — I want very much to improve my tone and manner in discussing these types of things online. (If there is a way that I can learn to be more Christlike without compromising my stand, I desperately want to learn.)

    I am perfectly to do this agreeably, either online or off, but I do have some questions.
    We can talk online on my blog if you have concerns about my honesty, you can email me where we can correspond offline, or we can briefly limit it all to one reasonably simple question here. (I’d ask it openly here, but I don’t want to put you on the spot.) If you agree, also, you could just post an answer here if that’s safer.

    With much gratitude,
    Cindy

  434. Connie Says:

    Thank you, Light (and also the rest of you who have commented on the Five Aspects study). You’ve helped me a great deal. I’m deeply appreciative of all the time you’ve spent on this. I’m in the process of carefully rereading all of your comments and studying Scripture so that my husband and I can bring our concerns before our pastor and elders. I’m also going to speak with my friend who’s currently in this study. Since I’m one of those slow, thorough types, it may take a while before I can get back to you with the results, but I’ll let you know.

    I do have two general comments to make. First, while many of the ideas taught in Five Aspects are new to me, I see a similar process used by many teachers: take a few Scripture passages, stir in some Bible words, and teach with confidence. The results are often devastating. Generally people will either drink the teachings in without questioning or will be afraid to question lest they appear ignorant or foolish or unspiritual or even rebellious. On top of that, if the teacher or teaching is popular, woe to the person who questions. Yet, that’s a thoroughly unbiblical notion—-witnesses the commendation of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and Paul’s public confronting of Peter’s wrong teaching (Galatians 2).

    Second, questioning a teaching is not the same as attacking the person who’s doing the teaching. As a Sunday school teacher, I’m thrilled when my students or their parents ask me to clarify something I’ve taught. Just recently, a parent called to ask if I’d told my students that the Jews are bad. Of course, I had said nothing of the kind. However, after speaking with the parent, I could see how this particular student had come to her erroneous conclusion. I thanked the parent profusely for calling and encouraged her to call again anytime with any questions. Just think, if this parent hadn’t called to question my teaching, that entire family would now suppose that I believe the Jews are bad and that I’m teaching this to my Sunday school class. I don’t even want to think about what a needless commotion that might have caused in my church!

    Speaking of Sunday school teaching, I’d better go finish my preparation for tomorrow. May you all have a blessed Lord’s Day worshipping the only true God.

  435. Lin Says:

    “…take a few Scripture passages, stir in some Bible words, and teach with confidence. The results are often devastating. Generally people will either drink the teachings in without questioning or will be afraid to question lest they appear ignorant or foolish or unspiritual or even rebellious. On top of that, if the teacher or teaching is popular, woe to the person who questions. Yet, that’s a thoroughly unbiblical notion—-witnesses the commendation of the Bereans (Acts 17:11) and Paul’s public confronting of Peter’s wrong teaching (Galatians 2).”

    Connie, you are singing my song. I know this is going to sound legalistic but please bear with me, friends. My SS class was doing all kinds of topical studies or studies by famous people, etc.

    A few in the class started questioning many things that were obviously proof texted. We
    have a great teacher and one day she said to me…you know, I am really convicted we should just study books of the Bible. Just exposit them. I agreed and it has been year since we started this.

    Hre are the results…one got mad and left because the teaching was ‘too hard’. (One left over the truth that parables were used so all would NOT understand…they could not accept this meanness from Jesus. Another got very upset over Hebrews 10: 26-31. Scripture convicts or hardens hearts.

    A few other woman have become so convicted of truth they realized they were not saved even though they had walked an ailse and got baptized years ago.

    The results from just studying the Word have been tremendous.

    Our rule is: It is NOT what we think it says… what is God saying? It has lead us as a group into Greek and Hebrew…a very big deal for some of these woman who never thought they were smart enough for that.

    My advice: Throw the topical man made stuff out. Let the Holy Spirit teach through us the Word! It is so exciting!!

    You know, doing this also keeps us safe from proof texting. We do match up parallel scripture throughout but we go right back to our book. proof texting…a horrible crime we see committed all the time…it also keeps you from dealing with issue of man centeredness with the personality of the author, etc.

    I know that sounds legalistic but it really isn’t. It seems we have so many studies these days and theylead us all over scripture. Scripture was not written like that.

  436. Lin Says:

    Sorry for all the mistakes in my comment…I was in a hurry. My bad.

  437. Trish Says:

    Cindy, I don’t mind at all discussing things here. I want to be held accountable for what I write here.

    Ask away…

    Trish


  438. Trish,

    You agreed to correspond with Spunky offline and addressed both Spunky and Corrie by name online. Why was I different? That really bothered me, manyly because of it felt like “non-person” status. (Dispensing of Existence)

    Did I do or say something in particular that put me in a different category than they were?

    And then there’s the big, general question which can get specific if you want:

    Was there anything in particular that I said/typed, apart from the message, that I need to stop doing or work on doing differently? (Anything that makes you say “That is absolutely not Christian” apart from the content of the message.)

    A huge chunk of this is the frustration element, and that’s very obviously an issue of my self-control. And I pushed you too hard to overcome being ignored (I guess that’s what you’d call it.)


  439. An ironic twist on the disapparing blog comment without any explanation or cause.

    http://undermuchgrace.blogspot.com/2007/12/christmas-monikers-and-cat-in-box-for.html

  440. Marcia Says:

    Oh, my gosh. You have got to stop this. Do you realize what an example you are setting for women who might be reading but not commenting?

    Look, what you all are trying to discuss in regard to women’s roles is admirable. Reading blogs of those who disagree with you and and going back and forth about it, over and over, though, serves no one but yourself.

    I’m not saying this as Stacy’s minion; in fact, I would guess that I pretty much fall into the definition of white-washed feminism.

    I’m saying this as a Christian who loves Scripture and theology and discussing concepts and learning things.

    The stuff you all are about, though, is edifying to no one.

  441. Spunky Says:

    “Oh, my gosh. You have got to stop this. Do you realize what an example you are setting for women who might be reading but not commenting? ”

    Marcia, who or what exactly are you asking to stop?

  442. Spunky Says:

    Cindy,

    You gave Trish the option of choosing her preference for correspondence. Trish has chosen to answer pubically for accountability reasons.

    Trish and I had no agreement to talk offline. Our email exchange happened because of a mix-up in comments at another blog where she asked to email me privately and I declined. But we ended up having a brief private exchange. However, all of my remarks were also publically posted on the blog. I did that for accountability reasons.

    Trish, has no obligation to correspond privately with you simply because she has with others. I’d encourage you to either ask your question publically or let the matter go. But being critical of Trish for a choice you gave her seems a bit unfair to me.

  443. Corrie Says:

    “The desire of women to seek after their own purposes was apparent in Genesis 3. Eve had her own plans and goals and she lured Adam into her scheme. Had he been protecting her, and had she been submissive to Adam, what a great disaster they may have avoided. Women are created to serve, which is a blessed calling because it is the call of the Savior. Jesus came not to be served, but rather, to serve.”

    Karen,

    This is another quote from the blog entry on Doug Phillip’s blog.

    Women are created to serve, which is a blessed calling because it is the call of the Savior. Jesus came not to be served, but rather to serve?

    Disconnect………

    So, men were created…..??????…..to be served??? Jesus is the example for women but not for men? (not that I disagree that Jesus is our example, I just thought we were all created to serve one another)

  444. Spunky Says:

    Or did I misunderestand your last comment and that was that your actual question to Trish? If so, my apologies for reading it incorrectly. I wouldn’t have commented at all except that you mentioned me by name and my exchange with Trish.

  445. Trish Says:

    Cindy,

    I should never have ignored you. Your comments and questions to me were just as valid and just as important as Spunky’s and Corrie’s. In my zeal to prove whatever point I wanted to prove at that moment, I stepped on toes, ignored those who wanted to dialogue with me and hurt you.

    Your questions deserves more of an answer than I can give right now, but I do again ask for your forgiveness. You are not a ‘non-person’ and the fact that I made you feel that way makes me realize even more just how hurtful I have been.

    Your forgiveness and your kind words to me mean more than I can ever say. The fact that my coming here and asking forgiveness has been a blessing to you gives me joy, and I will, Lord willing, try very hard from now on to continue to be a blessing here.

    Trish

  446. Marcia Says:

    Hi Spunky–

    I was referring to Cindy’s comment about Stacy’s comment. I just feel that all of this back and forth is not doing any good as far as talking about patriarchy and women’s roles.

    I probably shouldn’t have said it, though; I haven’t really been around long enough for anyone to really know my intent–which is to facilitate real discussion of Scripture and theology, not to continually dissect what he said/she said.

    Maybe that’s not even the purpose of this blog; perhaps I misread it. If it is, though, you may be turning readers off with this narrow-minded focus.


  447. Trish,

    Thanks for responding. It was a great temptation that I just absolutely laid down and surrendered to — attaching getting ignored to previous and past wounds of getting ignored. That was my sin in the matter, and I am so grateful to God that He’s used all of this and many other circumstances to help heal me since that time. The whole thing reminded me of a past situation that I had not been healed from — you didn’t make me feel anything — it was all my interpretation. And I wrongly became all the more offended. But you had nothing to do with the “familiar feeling” that I categorized in my head as something related. It was a temptation, and I fell right into it.

    I just come off like such a cold, mean, hard jerk sometimes, and I want to grow and learn not to do that. (kinda? commanded to do so!) I’ve had tremendous healing since that time — June? And all of this has been a huge part of it.

    Whenever, wherever. I believe that God will give me more than enough grace to take whatever it is that I dish out.

    Thank you, Trish. Thank you for being an instrument of healing, as I’ve given much consideration to all of that stuff, and that is what you’ve been. It’s just more wonderful to have it be more obvious!


  448. Spunky wrote: Or did I misunderestand your last comment and that was that your actual question to Trish? If so, my apologies for reading it incorrectly. I wouldn’t have commented at all except that you mentioned me by name and my exchange with Trish.

    Spunky,
    In all that heated mess a few months ago, Mrs. H put more than one long list of comments she found to be implorable by several people. Mine were included in them, I offered to defend them online because I had made them, but my requests for any opportunity to do so were not acknowledged. In fact, the moderator that week sent some of my redundant requests for opportunity to cyberspace. Others were addressed online by name and given an opportunity, but I never received an acknowledgement. In an attempt to demonstrate as much integrity as possible, I really wanted the opportunity to defend the specific statements I had made because I was more than ready, willing and able. In many ways, it’s a big part of the impetus for starting my own blog. I wanted the defense of my statements to be a matter of public record.

    So for all that, it was very important to me and an emotional thing, too.

  449. Cally Tyrol Says:

    Marcia, perhaps if the people we are discussing allowed public discourse about these ideas on their blogs, we wouldn’t need to come here to discuss them.

  450. Spunky Says:

    Thanks Cindy sorry for the confusion. I appreciated your comments then and still do.


  451. To be quite honest, Marcia, turning “on”
    or “off” readers really isn’t anyone’s purpose here, or so it is that I understand it.

    Whether it be five of us or five hundred, we’re just DISCUSSING ideas and issues within the whole “visionary daughters” thing.

    Don’t make it bigger, or smaller, for that matter. As my mama says, don’t go making mountains out of molehills.

    We’re all nice ladies here. We’re not bent on destroying the church, the body of Christ, or Stacy McDonald or anyone else. We’re discussing, digesting and learning. We’re questioning (and that I suppose is what most folks have a problem with).

    Like I have said before, before you get too huffy, I’d suggest reading all 2,000 comments (and growing) in your spare time, from the beginning to here. It would help clarify. But I can’t make you 🙂 of course.

    Trust me, I personally feel like the ladies here who are asking questions are doing far less “damage” to the Church and Body than those who began th is whole discussion. It is my personal feeling…but then again, I never thought asking questions and seeking answers about one’s faith journey was a BAD thing that might turn off a reader or two.

    I think the breakdown here is nothing more than semantics and personal preference.


  452. Marcia wrote: I was referring to Cindy’s comment about Stacy’s comment. I just feel that all of this back and forth is not doing any good as far as talking about patriarchy and women’s roles.

    Marcia,

    Stacy’s original comment was a very public, passive-aggressive attempt to “gossip” OH MY about Karen Campbell’s book review without being held accountable for it. I didn’t actually say that, so I can’t be held accountable? Who is Cat in the Hat? Who is Cindy Lou Hoo (besides me)? By hiding it behind goofy names did not make it any less gossip by my standard. And that’s hypocrisy. By her own standard, she should have contacted Karen to clarify things privately. Maybe she did, but then why did she go making a public statement about it? Because she didn’t come out smelling like rose and lavender? Because she didn’t get her way?

    I drew attention to her statement by posting it on Amazon in the comments following the review to demonstrate exactly what was going on. Rather than show integrity and accountability and humility, she deletes the post.

    So my blog post this evening had nothing to do with Stacy’s comment, it has to do with Stacy’s inconsistent behavior. She claims one thing and does another, and that is evident to me by the blog post itself as well as her deleting it. But if she is going to set herself up as a paragon of virtue and then demonstrate very publicly that she is just human like the rest of us new creations in Christ, she’s going to have to learn to take it on the chin. She ought to take some advice from Trish who has all along been far more accountable and genuine than Stacy in these matters. That’s one comparison Stacy should make.

    You also state that you feel that all this going round about patriarchy does no good. I wholeheartedly disagree. So far, it has pinned Stacy down to at least clarify some of the things she and her husband pontificate about. She made a good start towards stating that she does not think all women who work outside the home are feminists. This blogging has also pinned her down enough so that she has agreed to answer more specific question about her more extreme views, for as I’ve said many times, she has many views that are admirable.

    I hope that all of this leads to more accountability on behalf of all of these patriarchal people who usually just relent to calling names and threats. Scripture calls us to be living epistles to be known of and read of all men (and women). As you suggested to me a few days ago, did you go to my blog? Did you read what I posted?

    This is about accountability and facing the public music for making public statements that are either offensive or vague or indefensable.

    This is about demonstrating specifically how patriarchy demands the right to pontificate ipsedixitisms yet deems any question or dissent to be gossip, slander and blasphemy.

  453. Marcia Says:

    Okay, y’all are completely not hearing what I am saying.

    For the record, I am, and always have been, a working mother. I have four children, one in college, and three in public schools.

    I was at one time a member of a mailing list for Christian wives in which I got to know Stacy McDonald.

    I always found her to be a sweet, kind, understanding friend, and still do, even though it is obvious that I do not believe I have to live “just like her” to be a Christian.

    I have been trying to make two points here, and only these: first, Stacy is only trying to love her God in the way that she believes; no one will ever convince me that she has any malice towards those who feel differently, and second,

    this blog would serve much, much better as a place where folks could discuss Scripture and how it relates to this very different from Biblical times world that we all live in, and what does it mean to be a Christian woman today, as opposed to the impression that I have of it now, which is to take down those who believe differently.

    And isn’t that what you are taking others to task for?

    It’s not about patriarchy, and it’s not about feminism. It’s supposed to be about Him.

  454. Spunky Says:

    Marcia,

    I think the talk is doing a great deal of good as unpleasant as it may appear. Stacey’s comment about “Cindy Loo Hoo” and the Grinch was an obvious reference to commenters here and their differences of opinion.

    Stacey’s comments are instructive in that it helps us understand her better and how she reconciles her teachings on Biblical Womanhood in her own life.

    It is not to present a “gotcha” moment, but such examples illustrate that the teachers who encourage us toward a certain lifestyle often times don’t live that way themselves. Which is expected, in that none of us live up to our own ideals. The difference is that when some who teach on patriarchy are shown their own inconsistency, they cry “attack” rather than humbly admit that they were wrong in their inabililty to live up their own teachings or that the teachings themselves may be in error.

    The deletion and continual editting of posts and comments is an example of Stacey’s oddly inconsistent behavior. Rather than admit that the story was a silly thing to write and apologize it’s just easier to delete the comment and pretend you never said it. And apparently she has not only chosen to delete that comment but also all the others on her blog.

    The problem is that people have already read what’s written. And depending on when you’ve read Stacey’s blog you will come away with a very different impression of Stacey and what she thinks. Some who read here and then go read her blog to verify the information, will confusingly think writers here are not accurately presenting what she wrote.

    In doing such things, a writer loses credibility. Choosing to delete and edit rather than admit a mistake was made, noting the changes, and moving on is a much more upright approach for one who seeks to maintain the integrity of what they write. Noting the changes and deletions is helpful to the extent that readers will understand exactly what has happened in context. For some reason Stacey would rather just pretend the whole thing never happened.

    That’s why such changes are noted here instead.

    As was previously mentioned if honest public discourse were allowed about these ideas on their own blogs, this blog wouldn’t exist. Ironically, Stacey has left comments here in the past, and has asked to be interviewed by Karen Campbell by leaving a comment on her blog, but she refuses to even let many of us comment on her blog. And now she has shut off comments completely.

    If readers are turned off by the discussion they are free to move to the millions of other blogs that are out there. But from the letters I’ve received, I can say with certainty that there are quite a few lurkers who are thankfully that someone is finally willing to talk about these issues.

    The writers on the subject of patriarchy are undoubtedly feeling the pressure that comes with accountability. But that is a good thing not a bad thing. We all need to be held accountable for what we write. In the past, I have asked the McDonalds and others to hold me accountable for what I’ve written here. No one is above scrutiny. And to the extent that what someone has written is true it will be shown to be true. And that which is false will be shown to be false and discarded.

    Accountability is only a problem for those who value being right more than they value believing what is true.

  455. Rose Says:

    Hi Cally (#454) and Spunky (#446),

    I think I understand what Marcia is saying. While the discussion of ideas here has been helpful to me, I too find the frequent references to updates on Stacy’s blog irrelevant at times.

    Cally, you state that “perhaps if the people we are discussing allowed public discourse about these ideas on their blogs, we wouldn’t need to come here to discuss them.” I don’t think Marcia was arguing that we shouldn’t come here to discuss ideas, just requesting that we stick to ideas and not get into detailed histories of what has been posted and edited elsewhere.

    I realize that this is a little tricky because sometimes, quotes from the blog are used to make a point about the ideas under discussion. But does it really matter if someone has chosen to turn off comments for now? What bearing does that have on this discussion? We have the ability to talk about patriarchy here, so the original discussion – about the ideas, not about whether other blogs are providing an even playing field – can continue to take place right here.

  456. Spunky Says:

    “It’s not about patriarchy, and it’s not about feminism. It’s supposed to be about Him.”

    I agree Marcia.

    And in that regard many of us have been affected by the teachings of patriarchy that have shifted the focus from Jesus to a “rules” based religion seeking to apply Old Testament law to New Testament believers in Christ.

    Exposing that deception is a necessary step in refocusing the attention back on our Lord and Savior and the grace that comes from a relationship with Him.

    You also said, “I have been trying to make two points here, and only these: first, Stacy is only trying to love her God in the way that she believes; no one will ever convince me that she has any malice towards those who feel differently,”

    I agree that Stacey is trying to love God in the way that she believes. And part of that for her is writing her thoughts out in book and blog form. Just as it is not wrong for her to examine the teachers of “egaliatarianism” like John Stackhouse and find his teachings troubling, many of us are examing the teachings of patriarchy are finding some troubling issues as well.

    Just as Stacey is seeking to love her God in the way she believes, so am I.

    The fact that Stacey has or doesn’t have malice toward anyone here is not a point of debate. I believe Stacey to be a pleasant person seeking to do the the right thing before God. It is her public teachings and writing that we are examining in light of the teachings of patriarchy and those she has chosen to endorse like the Botkin sisters. A Titus 2 woman is required to teach according to sound doctrine, the only way we’ll know if the doctrine is sound is by examining it to see if it is true.

    We are not seeking to “take down” others who believe differently, but to examine whether what they teach is true and biblical. That’s exactly what Stacey is doing when she writes about the dangers of egalitarianism and writers such as John Stackhouse.

  457. Spunky Says:

    Rose you said,

    “But does it really matter if someone has chosen to turn off comments for now? What bearing does that have on this discussion? We have the ability to talk about patriarchy here, so the original discussion – about the ideas, not about whether other blogs are providing an even playing field – can continue to take place right here.”

    It’s not the turning on and off of comments that matters, it is what it reflects in terms of the credibility of the writer. It’s not about an even playing field. The blogosphere is an even playing field in that all can contribute. It’s about the credibility of the writer. For Stacey to modify and delete comments or turn them off when things get a little tricky is a problem.

    Her story about the Grinch was not a very gracious example of Biblical Womanhood. Many read it. Just as many read her comment calling another writer “Gorgie Porgie” and being careful not to be near “sharp objects” when she read his book. For her to just delete it and pretend she never said it, reflects upon her credibility as a teacher and an example to woman of Godly conduct.

    We all make mistakes, but to hide those mistakes creates issues often greater than the original blunder.


  458. All of this discussion has reminded me a phrase that I first heard my husband use when we were living in Louisiana where this was a huge problem:

    “Authority and Responsibility without Accountability”

    He said it was frequently discussed when he was in the military corps at Virginia Tech, a huge part of the education that you get for which you earn no credits. You cannot have the first two without the latter. It just does not make for a workable system and the effects can be disasterous.

    I plugged it into a search engine and most of the sites that came up said that the Bush Administration was a prime example of this inconsistency.

    I ask how we can stand around and bemoan our government and its leadership when we as Christians cannot demonstrate for the world what this looks like? A Christian wrote a book and established a postition of authority as a result. This demands accountability. She is responsible for what she has written. This demands accountability.

    What an excellent opportunity we have here to model it for all the world to see.

    Marcia, you said to consider all those who read and do not comment… Why is it do you think that I write here? And I think that those who are not Christians would have far more respect and admiration for our willingness as Christians to hold ourselves accountable to ourselves. It is a sign of great integrity to the unbeliever and a demonstration of the trustworthiness of those who bear the name of “Christian.”

    Didn’t Paul say that he would show his faith by his works? Here’s a great place to start.

  459. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “One thing that the modern feminist does not realize is that she will always be the servant to someone. She was created to be man’s helpmeet, and whether she is helping a boss in some ivory tower or her husband at home, she is always going to be the servant to man. It is God’s ordained estate for women.”

    And this is different from men in what way? Men are also servants — husbands serve their wives by going out and earning a living, small business owners serve their customers, laborers work for a boss who reports to a CEO, and CEOs serve their stockholders; even kings and rulers serve their subjects, if they are worth the throne they sit on.
    About the only people who are not servants are sick people and little babies, because they haven’t the strength and must be served themselves.

    About the only people who are not servants at all, are little babies

  460. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Sorry about that last line, it wasn’t there when I hit the send button. This computer needs an overhaul, I’m thinking.

  461. Corrie Says:

    Hi Marcia,

    I appreciate what you are saying and I do think we hear what you are saying just fine.

    “no one will ever convince me that she has any malice towards those who feel differently, ”

    You have every right to hold that opinion based on your own personal experiences. There are others, because of their own personal experiences and being on the receiving end, who do not see it this way.

    I am also sure the “professional moms” with the “marble sinks” and the “organic food” and who run little Johnny to soccer and what not might feel that the writer of those words holds a bit of malice towards them.

    Can I say that I am trying to be very careful here and only talk about what is being taught as God’s word when it really is merely an opinion based on eisegesis of God’s word?

    There are those who have experienced malice (ill will, falsely having motives ascribed to them) for being different in very MINOR ways and I will not discount what they have experienced based on what I have or have not experienced.

    I don’t think anyone is trying to convince you of anything but please be careful that you do not give the impression that those who have experienced something quite different than you have may be making it up.

    People may not convince you of anything but you will not convince those who have experienced these things that they never happened and are figments of their imaginations. 🙂

  462. Rose Says:

    Hi Spunky (#462),

    Our comments last night must have crossed in the mail. =) I appreciate the thoroughness with which you (#459) and Cindy (#457) explain why the documentation of the sequence of events is so important to this discussion.

    I understand the point you both are making, and I don’t discount the validity of this information, but just bear in mind that when you pursue this line of reasoning, you are presenting an ad hominem argument, which is different from an outright evaluation of the teaching under consideration.

    This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it’s not as conclusive a way to prove your point as a simple truth-value evaluation would be. Sorry if this is sounding complicated; please bear with me as I try to explain what I mean.

    The point of the discussion, as I understand it, is to examine the merit of Stacy’s teachings. Now, one way to approach this would be the simple truth-value approach, saying something along the lines of: “Stacy’s book states X, but Scripture states Y.” Here, you are directly challenging the merit of Stacy’s teaching based on a comparison with a known truth (Scripture!)

    You could also say, “Stacy’s book states X, but over here, Stacy claims Y, and then she later changes her statement to Z.” In this scenario, you’re challenging the merit of Stacy’s credibility in making Statement X, which is not quite the same thing as challenging the validity of Statement X. Statement X may very well be false. It may even be true! But its validity is clearly now more suspect because of the challenge to the credibility of the person who made it. That’s the nature of the ad hominem argument – it doesn’t prove anything categorically, but it can be helpful in tipping the scales if other conclusive evidence is lacking.

    So, all I’m saying is, questioning the validity of her tactics to assail the validity of her teachings seems like an unnecessary step if you already have enough information to challenge her assertions at face value.

  463. Spunky Says:

    Rose,

    Let me be a little more clear. One of the things Stacy has been teaching on her blog is about gossip and slander and the Ninth Commandment. Gossip and slander are both forbidden in Scripture. This is solid teaching and as a teacher on Biblcial womanhood, Stacy’s teachings is a great reminder.

    But Stacy’s credibility to teach on the subject is called into question if her own actions in the blogsophere reflect something different than what she teaches. And when shown to be different her response lets us know more about what she actually believes is the response for a woman following the biblical model for womanhood.

    That’s the life Stacy chose by choosing to enter the public arena and teach on biblical womanhood as a writer and author. Like it or not, when a someone teaches on a subject, their behavior will be examined by that standard they teach. That’s why it’s fair to examine Al Gore’s life in contrast to his teaching on global warming. It’s not an ad homenimen argument, but reasonable to expect that the standard they teach is the standard they live.

    Stacy wrote on her blog, “With the advent of the Internet we know way too much about what way too many people think on any particular day. Though a woman’s opinions may fluctuate as often as her choice of shampoo, her idle statements are “posted” upon a seemingly permanent and eternal blog-stone for all to see.” (Your Sacred Calling July 28, 2007)

    The editting and deletion of derogatory comments speak to actions that don’t appear to line up with what she believes or teaches. She condemns women who post opinions that fluctate like her choice of shampoo, but then repeatedly changes her posts to reflect her own changing thoughts and opinions. She is right to encourage upright behavior in the blogosphere, but is it wrong to expect that Stacy would uphold her own standard? Not at all.

    But as I said, we all sin and fall short of our own beliefs and ideals, but rather than humbly admit the error and apologize she instead chooses to edit or delete statements and pretend it never happened.

    The choice makes her appear to uphold her own teachings to some, but to others who have read her comments before editting her words and behavior creates a much different impression. Thus two readers will come away with a very different impression of Stacy McDonald depending on when they read her blog.

    If she hadn’t taught on the subject, you might have a stronger point that this is an ad hominem and irrelevant. If her blog was dedicated to knitting, pointing out that she edits or deletes posts is not really necessary, but the fact that she has chosen to teach on biblical womanhood and gossip in the blogosphere multiple times critical of those who appear to fall short of the Ninth Commandment, her own behavior in contrast to the teaching is very relelvant.

  464. Marcia Says:

    Lindsey–forgive me if I came across as huffy.
    I’m more perplexed than anything.

    Corrie–I also didn’t mean to imply that others’ experiences are “figments of their imaginations.” I simply didn’t want anyone else to waste more of her time trying to convince me.

    Rose said exactly what I meant–that the “he said/she said” back and forth is detratracting from discussing the issues.

    As far as this “You also state that you feel that all this going round about patriarchy does no good.”

    Um, no I didn’t. I said specifically that discussing the issues and what it says in Scripture is a good thing.

    What I said does no good is going round and round reading blogs and then talking about what was said.

    However, I do understand things a little better after Spunky’s clarification; thanks for taking the time to type that out, Spunky.

    I still feel, though, that the random outsider wandering into this thread in search of a discussion of women’s roles is going to come away with a different impression than what you would like.


  465. Comment from Rose: I understand the point you both are making, and I don’t discount the validity of this information, but just bear in mind that when you pursue this line of reasoning, you are presenting an ad hominem argument, which is different from an outright evaluation of the teaching under consideration.

    This is an untrue and illogical statement. It is a “red herring” which sounds like it’s saying something intelligent but is actually drawing attention from the main argument. I am not attacking Stacy or discounting Stacy for the sake of it. I am evaluating the consistency of Stacy’s behavior after she was pushed to the logical conclusion of her statements. So actually, your statement here, as quoted, is an attempt at an ad hominem abusive logical fallacy against Spunky and me for using both inductive and deductive reasoning based on the very public statements made by Stacy under scrutiny.

    To be an ad hominem argument against Stacy, we would have to be presenting criticism that was unrelated to the statements that Stacy has made. (The fact that Stacy made them does mot then make this an attack upon her person. If that were the case, we would never be able to question any action related to a specific person.) For example, If Stacy says A and I challenge A by saying that A is invalid because Stacy grew up in Kansas (I have no idea where she grew up), than this is ad hominem abusive. But to say that Stacy has lobbied to drop the speed limit to 45 MPH and to draw attention to the fact that Stacy was documented to be driving 60 MPH by naming her by name is not an ad hominem. It is a statement of a fact. To then demonstrate that Stacy found all the documentation and record of her speeding ticket and hid it away so that no one could examine it, then that is not ad hominem either, especially if it was observed that Stacy was in possession of the documentation. That is not ad hominem.

    Stacy has stated that she is open, honest and the innocent party in her dealings with Karen. Yet in a blog article wherein she condemns gossip, Stacy tries to say that Karen has misrepresented her because Karen’s impression of Stacy’s book does not agree with with Stacy. She tries to mitigate the passive-aggressive and indirect statement by giving the characters fictitious names with cultural significance to further communicate through connotation her meaning. I have stated that I personally believe that this is in fact gossip, a topic that was introduced by Stacy herself.

    When Stacy’s actions are made known on a wider scale, (when I posted Stacy’s own words online on the web page where Karen’s direct statement appears) Stacy reacted not by addresssing and defending her behavior while under the pressure of scrutiny by demonstrating accountability and transparency but rather by hiding what evidence she could from the public eye.

    Rather than moderate comments on her blog and not approving any of them for public post — already her practice before this event — she disabled all comment features on her blog. She then states that this was her only alternative course of action to limit her time online related to her blog. She could however, disable the “email comment” notification option on Blogger and just allow unmoderated comments to accumulate until doomsday and never look at them. She makes it seem as though her allowing comments to be submitted will require her review of them and that this is her only alternative to limit her blog time. Stacy’ statement about the Blogger options available to her, in and of itself, (in light of knowledge of how Blogger works) is actually a Black-or-White/either-or logical fallacy and a well known propaganda technique.


  466. Rose wrote: Now, one way to approach this would be the simple truth-value approach, saying something along the lines of: “Stacy’s book states X, but Scripture states Y.” Here, you are directly challenging the merit of Stacy’s teaching based on a comparison with a known truth (Scripture!)

    This is an example of “Doctrine over Person” and “Sacred Science” which are the logical fallacy based techniques of thought reform. Persons or events or actions cannot be questioned if they threaten to expose or challenge the documented inconsistencies in and of a sacred concept, object or person or event.

    This is illogical, but it is often an argument made by those who use an epistemology of foundationalism. Some believe that it is very wrong if not blasphemous to examine or question the reliability of those things which are deemed foundational. For example, it is sacreligious to examine the historical or cultural or scientific claims made in the Bible. Applied to a person, it looks at how well they practice what they preach. Paul set a high standard for all Christians by saying that he could demonstrate his faith by his works, even though works apart from faith have no saving merit.

    Also in regard to this statement, it is actually another black-or-white/either or fallacy. Examining a doctrine or statement can be very valid without looking at Scripture (although the process of examination can be under submission and under the authority of Scripture). If a senator presents a topic for discussion in Congress but does not present all of the facts in an unbiased manner and this is exposed, it does not preclude any Christian or anyone else for calling him to account for his actions if a matter like the
    senator’s topic is not presented in Scripture.

    Hipocrates taught the practice of medicine based upon the four humors – phlegmatic, sanguine, choleric and melancholy — and health problems were evaluated in relationship to personality. Herbs were used to balance these tendencies related to people’s constitution. Scripture (red letters) mentions the use of herbs. Surgery was viewed as desecration of the body and was not practiced. (That didn’t come along for hundreds of years, and when the study of human anatomy and physiology came along, it was considered to be spiritualism and scandalous.) In Christ’s day, Luke was a physician and most likely practiced Hippocratic medicine. This is simple application of Grammatical Historical Hermeneutic. Yet I have been called a liar for using this line of reasoning because Scripture does not specifically state that Luke practiced Hippocratic medicine. This is an example of either-or fallacy because it says that if a matter is not explicity stated in Scripture that it is unfaithful and immoral to make any kind of statement about it.

    This also implies an appeal to authority fallacy by implying that it is improper to question the actions of a Christian (that Christian being their own type of authority). To insinuate that it is wrong to do so is also an “appeal to fear” fallacy used to terrorize people into believing that to question the validity of authority (be it a person, system or a statement) is a moral evil.


  467. Rose wrote: It may even be true! But its validity is clearly now more suspect because of the challenge to the credibility of the person who made it. That’s the nature of the ad hominem argument – it doesn’t prove anything categorically, but it can be helpful in tipping the scales if other conclusive evidence is lacking.

    This statement is, in fact, another ad hominem abusive, attempting to “tip the scales” away from the claims of Spunky and me. It is an appeal to prejudice which uses connotation and emotion to sway opinion. You’ve made no attempt to discuss or defend or explain what Stacy has done, only that it is wrong for Spunky and for me to examine Stacy’s actions and her fruit. All you have done here, again, is to insinuate an appeal to fear of bringing criticism against a specific person.

    You also pontificate here a bit. This statement looks very much to me like an ipsedixitism. You said it with a tone of authority and in a manner that suggests that you have command of this type of reasoning, when in fact, you may or may not. Personally, I believe that you are wrong to authoritatively state what this is an ad hominem argument against Stacy herself as a person or a believer. Her heart and her character as a good friend are not under scrutiny. Her public statements and her accountability as reflected in her behavior are the matter at hand. No one has criticized her as a person, they have only questioned inconsistencies that she made public herself.

    I also disagree with the statement because my citing of Stacy’s written words does prove Stacy’s avoidant and passive-aggressive pattern quite categorically.


  468. Rose wrote: So, all I’m saying is, questioning the validity of her tactics to assail the validity of her teachings seems like an unnecessary step if you already have enough information to challenge her assertions at face value.

    This is an appeal to authority fallacy. Because Stacy is an authority, we should not be able to question what she says, what she does or how she does it in relation to an original statement that she made as a proclaimed expert within her community. Publishing a book qualifies one as an expert in many connotative ways. It is not a true evidence of expertise, but it does carry that connotative power. Citing noteworthy others who declare the book to be valuable is also an appeal to authority which lends weight to the argument that Stacy is an expert. I do not recognize this as a valid evidience of Stacy’s authority.

    This statement is another red herring because it seeks to draw attention away from the main issue of Stacy’s lack of accountability concerning her statements on her blog which demonstrate her inconsistency in and of themselves. They are no longer available for public review as a direct result of Stacy’s actions. Stacy has offered and explanation for her actions using logical fallacy. To say that her actions related to her blog statements that demonstrate her inconsistency are irrelevant is illogical, evasive and deceptive.


  469. What I failed to note here in regard to Rose’s statement above:

    I believe personally that this is a very good example of the propaganda technique of “The Big Lie” and intends to evoke a state of cognitive dissonance in the reader. It takes simple elements of truth and combines them with very complex elements in a confusing and erudite sounding manner in an attempt to mitigate the true issue at hand. By creating what appears to be a very confusing matter with complicated connections and conclusions, it evokes a suspension of the critical reasoning of the reader. With the temporary frustration of critical thought at work, the emotional appeal of the statement has a more powerful impact on the reader because the stress of the dissonance deprives the reader of his or her full mental resources. The reader is then in a debilitated mental state and is more easily swayed emotionally. This then naturally causes a person to doubt self and previously held ideas that under normal circumstances without the stress of all the fallacies thrown at them at once.

    Folks, this is an excellent example of how spiritual abuse and thought reform works, right here for you and the rest of the world to read. I’m not saying that the person making the statement, Rose, is necessarily aware that she is actually employing tactics of spiritual abuse –straight out of the textbooks. I’m sure Rose had little idea of why she was saying what she was saying but was most likely acting valiantly in defense of her beloved friend whom she believes to be mistreated. Why do I know this? I used to do it myself.

    Exit counseling (what I am attempting to do on a large scale on my blog) is nothing more than educating oneself about the tactics others use to manipulate people. It is becoming familiar with the patterns that manipulators use to change your thoughts and behaviors and feelings without your realization.

    Why do people do these things? Why would Rose learn to use these arguments? Because they work. I’m not saying that those who use these techniques have knowledge of them as “techniques” that have been studied to sway opinion. I believe that by life experience, people learn what works and stick with what works. Many of these things work very well.

    I suspect that Rose may be offended that I’ve made these statements, examined what she has said and/or believe that I have launched an ad hominem attack against her. I have no motive to do so. My motive for writing here today has been to educate unsuspecting sheep about the tactics that are used to manipulate or sway readers.

    As Christians, we are to keep our hearts with all diligence. Give your heart to whom ever and whatever ideas that you choose. But to keep our hearts, we need knowledge and understanding about deception. That is what I have endeavored to provide here.

    Please forgive any dangling participles. I think that there are a few in my previous posts “throw Papa down the stairs his hat.” My PA Dutch is showing quite readily this morning. If you are confused about what I’ve said as a result, please ask me here online or email me and I will clarify.

  470. Lin Says:

    “So, all I’m saying is, questioning the validity of her tactics to assail the validity of her teachings seems like an unnecessary step if you already have enough information to challenge her assertions at face value.

    Rose, One cannot separate tactics and teaching. This is one of the problems Jesus pointed out with the Pharisees. The Pharisees, in addtion to teaching man made laws, were teaching one thing yet doing another.

  471. shilohmm Says:

    Marcia said;

    I still feel, though, that the random outsider wandering into this thread in search of a discussion of women’s roles is going to come away with a different impression than what you would like.

    I am sure you are right, but that is true of any long-term conversation when someone hears only the last part of it. Context is lost, so what they “hear” is very different from what those who’ve been there from the first are hearing.

    Not to disagree with your points about discussing ideas rather than people, but I think to a great extent in this conversation many of the ideas have been dissected and compared to scripture and some conclusions made – I think a lot of people who’ve been in the conversation from the beginning have now moved beyond, “What does the Bible say is right here?” to “How does this work out in day to day life?”, using examples that’re public and easily accessible.

    I confess I don’t find the posts about what Stacy’s doing on her blog particularly interesting, perhaps because she’s one of the few topics of this thread I hadn’t encountered before so I have less context there myself, but I do at least understand why those comments are here. There is a logic to it; the original subject of this conversation (two threads back!) was a book Stacy publicly supported. Her statements of support ended up bringing in her opinions on some of the specific issues from the first book, plus the whole “gossip versus legitimate discussion” was discussed long before Stacy’s name came up, so it’s not surprising that her publically stated opinions on that topic showed up here as well.

    The fact that her actions fit a pattern already outlined has made her a focus of this third thread, partly because the original topics have already been explored and she provides another example of how these concepts work out in action, if you will. It’s not as if people are randomly sniping at various blogs here; Stacy’s blog appeared here because she chose to endorse the book originally being discussed and because she has had much to say on some of the topics under discussion.

  472. Rose Says:

    Hi Spunky (#468),

    Thanks for that clarification. I agree that, given Stacy’s specific teachings on gossip, her actions regarding the dissemination of information seem far more relevant.

  473. Rose Says:

    Hi Cindy,

    Thanks for your thorough responses. I’m so sorry that my previous comment wasn’t clear, and I’m definitely not attacking you or Spunky or trying to discredit anything you’re saying.

    For the record, Stacy is not my beloved friend, and I certainly wasn’t trying to valiantly defend her. I don’t know any of y’all personally. I was just trying to remain objective and make sure I understood why this conversation’s detour into Stacy’s posting habits was relevant.

    Let me try to briefly address your comments and clarify what I said, because I’m certainly not trying to work logical fallacies on you. =)

    Comment #470:
    “Comment from Rose: I understand the point you both are making, and I don’t discount the validity of this information, but just bear in mind that when you pursue this line of reasoning, you are presenting an ad hominem argument, which is different from an outright evaluation of the teaching under consideration.

    This is an untrue and illogical statement. It is a “red herring” which sounds like it’s saying something intelligent but is actually drawing attention from the main argument. I am not attacking Stacy or discounting Stacy for the sake of it. I am evaluating the consistency of Stacy’s behavior after she was pushed to the logical conclusion of her statements. So actually, your statement here, as quoted, is an attempt at an ad hominem abusive logical fallacy against Spunky and me for using both inductive and deductive reasoning based on the very public statements made by Stacy under scrutiny.”

    Well, actually, I would still stand by my original statement, which is that pursuing this line of reasoning (i.e. talking about Stacy’s actions regarding her blog rather than addressing the points she makes on her blog) was an ad hominem argument, but please understand that I meant nothing negative by that. (There is nothing wrong with an ad hominem argument: it just means, literally, that you’re arguing “to the man” and not to the issue.) I didn’t think there was anything wrong with you and Spunky doing that, it just seemed irrelevant to me. Spunky has explained further why it is, in fact, relevant to talk about Stacy’s “talk” in the context of her “walk,” so I understand where you’re going with that.

    Comment #471: Hmmm. Cindy, I’m not really sure where you’re going with this, but I agree with everything you say. I certainly wasn’t suggesting that Stacy’s teaching is above questioning. Far from it. In my rhetorical example, I was just demonstrating one way we could evaluate Stacy’s teachings by comparing what she says to what the Bible says. I’m sorry that my example wasn’t clear with where I stood, so here it is: I think that’s a GOOD thing! We should be able to hold others’ teachings up to Scripture. And you are right, Scripture is just one example of a place where we can go to for truth. Re-write my example statement to read, “Stacy’s book states X, but the 2006 Census report actually states Y,” and you still get the gist of what I meant.

    Comment #472: Cindy, again I must not have expressed myself clearly enough, because you are saying pretty much what I was saying. I’m definitely not trying to tip the scales away from you and Spunky here. My references to validity and credibility are addressing the hypothetical Statement X made by Stacy, not to the validity or credibility of anything you and Spunky said. Let me rephrase what I was saying. In my rhetorical example, Statement X (made by Stacy) may or may not be true. If you were to present evidence about Stacy’s credibility in making Statement X, without presenting any evidence about the truth or falseness of Statement X, then you would be making an ad hominem argument. In this case, it is a partly helpful argument, because it helps us discern that Statement X MAY not be true because the person who made it is unreliable; but if you had conclusive evidence proving that Statement X is, in fact, not true, then it would be even more helpful to just present that evidence! Does that make sense? (And, as I mentioned above, Spunky clarified why the evidence of one also supports the other.)

    Comment #473: Cindy, I’m definitely not saying that you shouldn’t challenge Stacy just because she’s an apparent expert. I just wasn’t clear why it was deemed relevant to monitor her actions with regards to her blog postings.

    Comment #474: I believe I’ve been hit by friendly fire! =) My dear Cindy, I have no hidden agenda, I’m not employing propaganda techniques, and I’m certainly not offended that you have taken the time to analyze my writing. Clearly I didn’t express myself well enough before, so I do apologize for the confusion.

  474. Marcia Says:

    Also, when I said this:

    “Oh, my gosh. You have got to stop this.”

    it probably didn’t sound very nice. All I can say in my own defense is that I had six chattering 9-year-old girls spending the night for my daughter’s birthday, so perhaps I can be given a pass for being a little irritable.

  475. Corrie Says:

    Marcia,

    You want a pass?

    You deserve a medal! 😉

  476. Corrie Says:

    ” Though a woman’s opinions may fluctuate as often as her choice of shampoo, her idle statements are “posted” upon a seemingly permanent and eternal blog-stone for all to see.” (Your Sacred Calling July 28, 2007)

    The editting and deletion of derogatory comments speak to actions that don’t appear to line up with what she believes or teaches. She condemns women who post opinions that fluctate like her choice of shampoo, but then repeatedly changes her posts to reflect her own changing thoughts and opinions. She is right to encourage upright behavior in the blogosphere, but is it wrong to expect that Stacy would uphold her own standard? Not at all.”

    I don’t know about any of you but I have used the same shampoo for years. Also, I don’t state an opinion unless I have time to truly study the issue and come to the table with something more than just winging it.

    So this whole thing about women changing their opinions as often as they change their shampoo is quite foreign to me.

    But, Spunky, I agree with you that the “creative editing” seems to belie the statement that our words are engraved on eternal blog-stone. If I made a statement that women who write blogs are basically fickle and constantly changing their minds in a flippant fashion, then I would make sure that my behavior didn’t resemble my sweeping condemnation. Comments are up, comments are down. Things are there, then they are not. Allegories are written, then they are changed, then they are gone. Interviews are promised, then they never materialize as expected. Statements in interviews disappear in the middle of the night after someone points out that the assertions of others really are NOT pernicious rumors.

    Oh, the way-back machine and accessing internet caches are great for retrieving these disappearing posts but for the most part, the casual observer just thinks that a bunch of people are just lying because there is no evidence to what they say.

    What is most bothersome is that a person who knowingly changes something then acts as if nothing was changed while they are receiving sympathy for all the “persecution” they are under. At that point, I think my conscience would bother me a LOT since I am knowingly allowing a person to believe something about me that is just not true.

    I think if someone wants to be a teacher/leader then they should at least be doing what they teach to others. At the very least.

    No one is perfect and everyone understands when a leader screws up and then admits to their error but if there is a repeated pattern with no acknowledgement that there was a problem, then people [rightfully so] come to not trust what that leader has to say.

    I think there is a lot of irony in the homeschooling movement. Anyone remember Cheryl Lindsey? Well, it seemed that people didn’t want her teaching and speaking and writing anymore because her behavior and actions didn’t line up with what she was teaching.

    But, there are some people who are off limits, even though they scrutinize people’s actions all the time for much less cause.


  477. Hi Rose,

    You wrote: For the record, Stacy is not my beloved friend, and I certainly wasn’t trying to valiantly defend her.

    Well, sometimes it’s hard to tell. It’s a very frequently used rationale (and sometimes as a tactic) that I made the hypothesis that you were someone running to Stacy’s defense. I was in error, and I’m sorry that if that’s an issue for some reason. (It is a bit comical though, because a few months ago, this was actually a blog post elsewhere.)

    I agree that ad hominem is not always used wrongfully, and I’ve read some texts that diferentiate between ad hominem (argue the man) and ad hominem abusive (abusively argue the man). I defer to the one or two cult exit texts that bring attention to this as my sources and they state only “ad hominem” only. It might be that the “abusive” element does make people ill at ease (as if the word cult does not??).

    But given the elements that relate to the disappearing texts over the past few days, I don’t believe that this is an ad hominem arguement. And I may well be wrong, but I disagree for reasons that Spunky lists in her comments, really.

    I disagree with you when you state that you did not use propaganda techniques. You did. You gave a very textbook example of them. The propaganda word is another that sounds like a pejorative for the sake of it, and I don’t use it for that purpose. I have not stated that I believe that you intended to use propaganda or thought reform techniques or spiritually abusive tactics. I believe that I stated just the opposite. Whether you intended to do so or not, does not negate the fact that you did use logical errors (which are the basis of thought reform and spiritual abuse) to state your case. Many people who are taught submission doctrine use these same rationales, but they are not valid ones when they are thoughtfully examined.

    About your comment about getting it by friendly fire: I certainly fired at the error in your statements, just as many here have aimed at the statements of others here. I’ve had online disagreements with many of the opinionated women here who do fall on the opposite end of the continuum from patriarchy. (For no special reason, Lin and Lynn come to mind.) Neither of us would budge, but that’s okay. I think that we understood that we respect one another but passionately disagree. I’d say that for me, I have deeper respect for the both of them. It’s not a personal issue at all. (Which is not to say that my pupils didn’t dilate or that the experience was not frustrating.) Another person with whom I disagree with on some points is Andrew Sandlin. I guess the bottom line is that neither of us is threatened by the differences.

    And for REDUNDANCY’s sake (something that could rightfully be called a propaganda technique), I’ll state again that You threw me a hanging curve ball. It had so many of the typical elements that one sees in this whole debate, so I chose to hit it out of the park. I analyzed it for the benefit of those reading here to demonstrate how one need not acquiesce to these types of arguments.

  478. Lin Says:

    “(For no special reason, Lin and Lynn come to mind.) Neither of us would budge, but that’s okay. I think that we understood that we respect one another but passionately disagree. I’d say that for me, I have deeper respect for the both of them. It’s not a personal issue at all. ”

    What? My brilliant arguements did not change your mind? :o)

    I remember the discussion and I learned a lot. And you are right…it is not personal, nor did I ever think to question your salvation over it. Maybe some of us enjoy going deep into issues. Iron Sharpens Iron.

  479. Rose Says:

    Hi Cindy (#482),

    No, it’s not an issue for me at all (whether I’m Stacy’s friend or not). I just pointed that out because it seemed to me that you assumed I was defending Stacy, and I just wanted to clarify that I’m not coming from any particular “camp.” Regarding the link, I would agree with Bryan on the idea that Stacy is my friend and you are also my friend. After all, we are all sisters in Christ, and I really do want to have a spirit of charity toward all. =)

    Really, though, I don’t think it matters whether I’m Stacy’s personal friend or not. The point I was trying to make in comments #460 and #467 was, Why are we talking about how Stacy runs her blog comments instead of talking about the ideas in her book? Isn’t bringing up Stacy’s comments policy irrelevant to the discussion of biblical patriarchy? Spunky did a very thorough and convincing job of addressing those questions in comment #468. I get it now. As far as I am concerned, that ship has sailed. =)

    As far as respecting each other, I certainly can respect you and I’d be happy to agree to disagree, except that there’s really nothing I disagree with you about, =) except your reiteration that, whether I intended to do so or not, I used logical errors to state my case.

    The things you cite about the nature of logical fallacies and the nature of spiritually abusive language (cognitive dissonance, suspension of critical reasoning) I grant you, fair and square. I just don’t see that my comment #467 illustrates all this. You can analyze it and you can hit it out of the ball park all you want, but with all due respect, I just think you’re reading a bit much into it.

    For instance, I’m really and truly at a loss to know why you would find an appeal to authority fallacy in the statement: “So, all I’m saying is, questioning the validity of her tactics to assail the validity of her teachings seems like an unnecessary step if you already have enough information to challenge her assertions at face value.” I wasn’t saying we should not be questioning her teachings. I was just wondering why we were questioning her tactics when it seemed we should be questioning her teachings. Which issue Spunky very clearly addressed in comment #468.

    I hope that helps. I’m all for iron sharpening iron. =)


  480. Rose,

    I’m very glad to know that we are friends! You are correct in stating that relationship with someone should have no bearing on an argument, unless that personal element is there. (I mean, what kind of a friend would one be in the event that you agreed the friend was in the right and you didn’t contend for them?) Friends should be able to disagree.

    I do believe that your comment did demonstrate the elements that I described. We are are entitled to an opinion, and here we disagree. The very best thing to do to get a wider perspective on this is to read on the topic. I’d start with VanVonderan’s book. Read Cialdini. Then, I would move on to many others. There’s lots of free stuff out there online, too. I’d check in with someone knowledgable then to get recommendations on the next line of reading. And many people prefer Ken Blue to VanVonderan as a first book, but I like the latter personally.

    Enroth is good. There’s also a book called Damaged Disciples if you find that you’re still sceptical (but I can’t imagine anyone getting through Blue or VanVonderan without either thinking that it was all rubbish or absolutely relavent and applicable in a creaturely sort of way. Duncan is excellent (available from VM Ministries). The best thing that you can do is read and read broadly on the topic. MCO’s book on Gothard is very good, but not as focused on the experience and realization of the processes but on Gothard’s inconsistencies. If then, all your bells and whistles are going off saying “This is so true…This is me!” then I would definitely read “Take Back Your Life” and/or “Captive Hearts, Captive Minds.” Hassan’s first book is also essential reading (written after he left the Unification church). The narratives “Combating Cult Mind Control” are so similar to what we see going on here, even on this blog that it’s interesting reading as a curiousity, if for nothing else.

    On a personal level, I really love Chris Thurman’s “The Lies We Believe” and “The Truths We Must Believe.” It’s essentially a guide to journaling about the reflections on the spiritual warfare that you did that day. “Boundaries” by Townsend and Cloud, and some of these other books are essential. I also love Harriet Braiker’s “Who’s Pulling Your Strings.” There are some Christian authors now that have similar sounding titles that I have not read, but I wholeheartedly recommend Braiker.

    And again, if we had the internet back when I was looking for a church seeking balance when I was still in the whole Word of Faith thing, my arguments probably would have been quite similar to your own. I suspect that they would be more like the nature and tone of Jennie Chancey’s or maybe even Carmon Friedrich’s, but with a different focus. But there came a day when what used to work no longer worked anymore, and in light of the what I’ve experienced, I had no alternative but to get out of the spiritually abusive mindset. When all these things seemed to fall apart and my whole religious understanding was brought into question as a result of following the Word, I was left with only the Word. These books either echoed my experiences or gave me new tools with which I followed the guidance of the Spirit and found deeper intimacy with the Lord. From a TULIP sort of view, the Lord pulled the rug out from under me, forcing me to learn to stand up without all these other “supports” of men.

  481. thatmom Says:

    shilohmm in #476 really summed up what I think is the right response regarding the legitimacy of what we have been discussing on this thread. Someone passing by might start with thie thread but be confounded as to what is being stated and why. It is kind of like reading only the first volume in a series.

    That is why Lindsay’s encouragement to go back and read through threads 1 and 2 is so important. And, Marcia, I think it might be helpful for you to read the exchange we all had with Stacy in the comments on the contributors page. The issue of “what” blogs” used the term “patriocentricity” at the time that exchange took place is still in question. Repeatedly we have asked for clarification on that but have never been given an answer. Perhaps it will help you put some of this into perspective.


  482. There are over 100 comments on the “Contributors” page! How did I miss them?

    I found this quote there to be perplexing and prophetic:

    Because, if we focus on the perceived sins of others and remain busy blogging about brother or sister so and so, our own sins are left fermenting in a pool of self-justification.

    This phrase, “the perceived sins of others” seems to be one of the strongest governing forces in patriarchy

    — not in the debate over the validity of the teachings of patriarchy’s ideology.

    Perhaps I don’t understand exactly how they apply the word “sin.” Has this term actually been redefined as so many other terms have? How exactly does patriarchy define sin and what passes for it (non-normative, living outside Kingdom Architecture, etc.)?

    Does this mean that they believe that we who take issue with the teachings of patriarchy view or perceive their doctrine as “sin” rather than misdirected service to the Lord? What are the ramifications of that belief, if true?

  483. Lynn Says:

    I’ve disagreed with Corrie, Cindy, CJ, perhaps Lin, Jen, once something Spunky said, and I still don’t care for Carolyn James’ bio!

    And none of us is losing sleep over whatever the matters were.

    But if you try to ask Stacy McDonald to clarify if she believes like her co-author and VF that all wives who work outside the home are necessarily blaspheming Scripture according to Titus 2, then you are treated to posts of “my husband has to protect me and get me away from all this internet gossip.”

    I left a comment on thatmom’s blog. Seeing Stacy refuses to answer questions, even about her public comments and teaching, this is just like seeing two men write a book on eschatology, but they overgeneralize and leave some things out, and in reality one is a postmillennialist and the other is an amillennialist.

    The postmillennialist is quite vocal in his views, and the amillennialist only hints that he is an amil.

    So, you ask the amil if he is an amil and you are treated to comments about internet gossips and this is so frustrating and I need to take a break and my husband said so too, and I am soooo glad for his protection from all the viciousness.

    Never a forthright answer to your question, which was totally based on their public comments to begin with!!!

  484. Lynn Says:

    So, you ask the amil if he is an amil and you are treated to comments about internet gossips and this is so frustrating and I need to take a break and my husband said so too, and I am soooo glad for his protection from all the viciousness.

    Should read, “and my WIFE said so too, and I am soooo glad for HER protection from all the viciousness.”

  485. thatmom Says:

    Lynn, this is exactly why I intend to post all the questions we have for Stacy since she requested the opportunity to respond so as to “clear up misunderstandings” and why I have provided a forum for her to answer those questions.

    The only way to prevent the internet gossip or libel and slander is to go straight to the source who claims to be the victim of such, and give her the opportunity to answer her critics.

  486. thatmom Says:

    Here is a link to the next list of questions regarding white-washed feminism.

    http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/questions-for-stacy-on-the-term-white-washed-feminists/

  487. thatmom Says:

    And another link to an update on patriocentric views of women causing a risk to homeschooling freedoms:

    http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/are-patriocentric-views-of-a-womans-role-causing-homeschooling-freedoms-to-be-at-risk/

  488. Corrie Says:

    “This phrase, “the perceived sins of others” seems to be one of the strongest governing forces in patriarchy”

    Cindy,

    This is a good point.

    I am reading “Passionate” right now and it seems that this is what this book focuses on much of the time.

    Marble sinks, organic food, soccer playing, etc. What a marble sink has to do with anything, I do not know. In fact, I would love a marble sink! In the “Return of the Daughters” I think I saw marble sinks, come to think of it.

    This book is examining the activities of other women and making moral judgments about them. Women who don’t fit into the mold are deemed to be “white washed feminists” even if they hold to male eldership and are homeschoolers and stay at home moms.

    I could care less if no one was named by name! That is just a silly thing to say because this book is talking about REAL people. I think it is worse to be so sweeping and nebulous without being specific. Look at the problems it causes and the political games people are playing to evade being forthright concerning what they mean and what they truly believe.

    If I coin a term, I am going to be prepared to defend that term and fully explain that term. If my teaching causes confusion, then I had better look at my teaching and not point fingers at others for being confused.

    We know that the buzzwords of a whitewashed feminist are “patricentricity and hyper-patriarchy”. We know that WWFs can still hold to male elders and be stay at home wives/moms.

    The shoe fits in my case. I am a WWF because I differ with the eisegesis of “biblical womanhood” and what that specifically entails. And it wouldn’t hurt my feelings to be called a white-washed feminist. I would much rather have an honest discussion than plan “bob and weave” with shadows.

    Why no one will take me or anyone else on when it comes to discussing scripture just doesn’t make sense. If this has become personal, I know why. As an observer, I have seen what happens to women who disagree with this particular flavor of biblical womanhood and it isn’t pretty. It becomes personal right away and a woman’s motives are impugned for the simplest of disagreements.

    “Passionate” is a rant (it says so in the beginning) and a protest against “me-ology” and “feminism”. Its birth was induced prematurely to counteract this blog. Now the “baby” is having problems breathing because it wasn’t given enough time to develop in the womb. When we do things as a REACTION to some perceived catalyst, there are always problems.

    Anyone have the statement about this book and how it needed to be rushed because of the debate surrounding the issues of biblical womanhood?

  489. Corrie Says:

    “Lynn, this is exactly why I intend to post all the questions we have for Stacy since she requested the opportunity to respond so as to “clear up misunderstandings” and why I have provided a forum for her to answer those questions.

    The only way to prevent the internet gossip or libel and slander is to go straight to the source who claims to be the victim of such, and give her the opportunity to answer her critics.”

    Karen,

    I want to thank you for your wisdom. This is exactly how it should be handled.

    You have done much more than any other person would have done.

    I can’t imagine going to the Bayly blog and volunteering myself for a podcast and then the Baylys turning around and giving me room on their blog, instead of a podcast, to make statements. That just would NOT happen. A post offering myself wouldn’t even appear let alone would there be ANY attempt to converse with me over these misunderstandings.

    I commend you for not returning like for like and for being so gracious with allowing opinions from all sides on your blogs. I think this is a great opportunity to show others that Christians can disagree but we can do so in a God-honoring fashion.


  490. I’m going to pose a question here…

    Is it okay to have “Biblical Feminism?”

    I say yes. For instance, I’m probably NOT the “feminist” that comes to mind when saying that word. I’m pro-life, anti-abortion, and I’m all for the traditional roles of mothers as keepers at home (but here’s a biggie—IF that is what they want!)

    Where I become a “feminist” is when it comes to social issues. I’m all for women being paid equally to do a job that a man can do. I’m all for women having the right to vote, if they so choose. I’m all for women being treated ethically and humanely across the globe (ever read about countries who circumsize WOMEN?) I’m for girls going to college, IF they want to.

    Now, in that laundry list of feministic traits I just read to you, would someone point out to me how it is UNbiblical to want women treated humanely and equally? I’m not talking about the marriage bed. I’m talking about LIFE. I’m talking about the single mom who has absolutely no choice but to work full time, because let’s get real, churches do NOT fulfill their roles for women like this!

    I guess I’m a Biblical Feminist. 🙂

    (should I have worn my fireproof suit?)

  491. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I guess I’m a Biblical Feminist.

    (should I have worn my fireproof suit?)”

    You’re in good company – Paul said that virginity was preferable to marriage, and Jesus told Martha that Mary had chosen the better part.
    But my guess is that you’ll need that fireproof suit — today’s Pharisees aren’t allowed to execute the people who disagree with their point of view, but their keyboards come equipped with propane tanks….

  492. Light Says:

    Apropos to this discussion, this little tidbit was in my December 7 issue of “The Week” magazine on the Health & Science page.

    When do-gooders do bad

    It’s a familiar story: A moralistic preacher [Ted Haggard is pictured to the right] or respected politician gets caught indulging in extramarital pursuits or dipping into funds that don’t belong to him. Why is such hypocrisy so common? A new study finds that people who think of themselves as highly moral can become the worst cheats, because they think their virtue entitles them to flout the rules that govern common sinners. “When people have a strong moral identity, their behavior tends to go to the extremes,” study author Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington tells LiveScience.com. In a survey of 290 workplace managers and 230 college students, Reynolds found that some of the subjects who described themselves as exceptionally moral were very frank in admitting that for them, their good intentions justified cutting ethical corners. People in this category were far more likely to cheat on tests, pad their expense accounts, steal, and lie, according to their own accounts of their behavior. Their breaches of ethics, moreover, were often major and frequent. Since these supposed do-gooders tell themselves they’re entitled to special rewards for their piety and their virtue, Reynolds says, “they do it in spades.”

  493. Marcia Says:

    I just want to say that all of this is making a little more sense to me.

    And Lindsey, your post reminds me of something I once wrote on my blog about feminism. I’m itching to repost it, but I know I can’t devote time to blog right now, so I’m just going to paste a little of it here:

    …Somehow, in our modern day and age, we have decided that Eve should take on both curses: that of bearing the children, and bringing home the income to provide for them.

    Man, of course, still gets to count wage-earning as a total contribution….

    Look, I’m a working mother. So I’m obviously not opposed to women working outside of the home.

    But if a bunch of unsatisfied women from previous generations had to liberate me, couldn’t they have done it completely? As far as I and any of my peers I’ve ever met are concerned, all they did is add to the load.

    We are still expected to keep our house immaculate, lead the PTO, bake the brownies so that the house smells good when the kiddies get home, and, oh, yeah, at the same time, bring home a major portion of the household income, will you?

    I’m sorry, this was a good idea why?

    Okay, well, here’s why, even if it’s not quite perfect:

    I made a vow to myself a long time ago that I would never, ever, find myself trapped in an abusive situation with no way out as my mother-in-law was.

    I have a hard time not being critical of her; in fact, I pretty much am. How any mother could allow her children to be raised in a horrific nightmare of abuse is beyond anything I can understand…..

    …At the same time, looking at her objectively, as a prisoner of her society, as a relic I don’t know personally, I can actually manage to feel some pity.

    It couldn’t have been easy back then. No one in that society wanted to hear allegations of abuse, and if they did, nothing was done about it.

    She was young, poor, uneducated. Her father was dead; her mother had no resources and in fact relied on them for support.

    She tried to leave many times, but he always found her.

    And so even while I tell myself that no matter what, I would save my kids from that sort of environment, I can allow her a little leeway for the times.

    And it is in that bit of clarity that I am grateful for feminism. I am grateful that because of the early feminists, however flawed they may have been, I can and will provide for my kids in any circumstance. They will never have to experience any environment that I deem unacceptable, and for that I say, thank you, feminism.

  494. Corrie Says:

    Marcia,

    Wow! Excellent thoughts on this. It is very balanced and I can totally relate to what you wrote. It is beyond me why someone stay in abusive situations (ie., Papa Pilgrim and his remote One Man Paradise) but I can also see the “Stockholm syndrome” and how many years ago this was the way it was. So, I both am angry at these women and I pity them at the same time. Very hard for me to understand how I can have the same thoughts for the same person at the same time!

    Thank you for posting this.

  495. Corrie Says:

    Lindsey,

    I have an extra suit, I will give it to you. 🙂

    After reading your post, I guess I would be a biblical feminist, too, based on your description. Of course, the NOW gang would throw me up faster than the fish threw up Noah but I am starting to not chafe at the label of feminist.

    Why is it okay to be a masculinist but not a feminist? Why is feminism wrong but masculinism right?

    Why is everything bad, immature, ungodly and sinful referred to as “feministic” but everything good, godly, righteous, moral and good referred to as masculine?

    When men debate, they call each other names like “junior high school girls” (see the Bayly blog and the comments under the newest brewha in FVland). Is that necessary? Why not just call them what they are? Hypocrites? Whiny? (males whine, too!) Immature?

    Why can’t we call things the way they really are? Why do we have to mock, deride and put-down females every chance we get? Basically, sinful=female and godly/good/right= male.

    Am I missing something? Why is it okay to put down females but it is not ever okay to put down males?

    Shouldn’t there be some consistency

  496. Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:

    Have you seen this site? It’s very disturbing…

    http://mymiscellanies.blogspot.com/2006/10/gospel-and-blog-slander-blog-slander.html

  497. Lin Says:

    “Is it okay to have “Biblical Feminism?” ”

    Read Romans 16 and tell me. But keep in mind that the word ‘feminism’ does not even begin to describe what our Lord did for women.

    Since the Talmud states that men cannot even talk to a woman who is not their wife, it is incredible that Phoebe was trusted to deliver the letter of a former Pharisee to the Roman church. Not only trusted but read what Paul says about her and the other woman he mentions in that chapter. Wow, Paul had a REAL conversion on that road to Damascus. It’s the only thing that could explain his untraditional behavior.

  498. Lin Says:

    “Is it okay to have “Biblical Feminism?” ”

    Read Romans 16 and tell me. But keep in mind that the word ‘feminism’ does not even begin to describe what our Lord did for women.

    Since the Talmud states that men cannot even talk to a woman who is not their wife, it is incredible that Phoebe was trusted to deliver the letter of a former Pharisee to the Roman church. Not only trusted but read what Paul says about her and the oth