This blog is a work in progress!  It began several years ago when my daughter, Mollie, and I started the blog “Got Me A College Girl” with an emphasis on the very good reasons women have to go to college.  Over the course of time, it evolved into more areas of interest and became True Womanhood in the New Millennium and other contributors joined our ranks.  During the past couple of years, those contributors have come and gone and now I am in the process of revising this blog.  Most of the current  interest here has to do with the patriocentric movement, especially as it has affected the homeschooling community.  There are more changes coming here so stay tuned.  I welcome your input and comments so please send any correspondence to me at shesthatmom@gmail.com.

Karen is the wife of 34 years to one wonderful husband and a mother of 6 children. She is also the grandmother to ten of the most beautiful grandbabies ever born! She graduated from Judson College in 1974 with a major in human relations and education and a minor in communications. She has spent the past 24 years homeschooling her children and is currently pursing certification in Biblical counseling. Karen enjoys public speaking and is an accomplished Toastmaster, having won top honors in both the International and Humorous speaking contests. Karen’s hobbies include baking, sewing, writing, gardening, and reading. Karen can be found blogging and podcasting homeschooling encouragement on her blog at www.thatmom.com.


Advertisements

137 Responses to “Contributors”

  1. Anne Says:

    Well ladies, I LOVE your site!! However, Stacy McDonald has gotten wind of it!!! LOL
    Here is a letter she sent out warning us about you all!!!
    ************************************************

    Hi Ladies,

    I feel like I should warn you about something. There is a sly movement afoot and it’s very dangerous and very 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. 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 – but, it’s a philosophy from the pit. There’s a book out that has influenced certain women. The author claims that feminism is what God intended all along. He likens God’s “tolerance” of the patriarchal view of women’s roles in the church and in marriage to His “tolerance” of polygamy and slavery. The author’s twisting of Scripture is so acrobatic that I won’t take the time to address it here. Back to my point…

    The new buzz words are “hyper-patriarchy” and “patricentricity” . There are groups who claim Christ and hate patriarchy because it means “male-led.” When you see websites and blogs that are set up for the express purpose of complaining about Christians who are “holding women back,” be very, very careful. Compare everything you read to Scripture and discuss any questions with your husband and elders. Don’t be deceived.

    Elizabeth Elliot, in her essay called The Essence of Femininity, says this, “The feminist theology of Christians (I cannot call it “Christian feminist theology”) is a Procrustean bed on which doctrine and the plain facts of human nature and history, not to mention the Bible itself, are arbitrarily stretched or chopped off to fit.” (Please click on http://www.leaderu. com/orgs/ cbmw/rbmw/ chapter25. html and read the whole essay!)

    She goes on to share how feminists who claim their views are based on Scripture, must thoroughly revise the doctrines of creation, man, Trinity, and the inspiration of Scripture, and reconstruct religious history, with the intent of purging each of these of what is called a “patriarchal conspiracy against women.”

    You see, the two just don’t jive. Feminism is diametrically opposed to Scripture. And this white washed feminism is confusing and burdening the Christian wife and mother who is attempting to learn 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 “more” than what God has given us. Rather than help her repent and recover, the feminist voice says it’s not her fault because she’s being treated unfairly and she deserves more. We can waste our time arguing with these women, casting our pearls before…rebels, but what good would it do?

    I wrote this on my blog recently and it fits here…

    For when they [false teachers] speak great swelling words of emptiness, they allure through the lusts of the flesh. 2 Peter 2:18

    “Great swelling words of emptiness”.that pretty much describes it. “The lusts of the flesh.” Yep. Many false teachers know just what we want to hear. Since many are women, they know our fears, they know how we fail, they know what frustrates us the most, and they are fully aware of what we, in our flesh, DON’T want to do-which is repent.

    They teach us that we don’t need to repent, because it’s not really our fault. If we invite these false teachers to our pity party, we can expect them to be lively guests. They’re full of flattery and sugary promises. They pat us on the back and offer us microwave motherhood-a fast and easy fix.

    They point to those who teach about self sacrifice, a male led home, modest living, serving the family, and protecting our children and they accuse us of being judgmental, prideful, and legalistic.

    They see us living out a life they either don’t agree with or they’re not willing to live out and they assume we’re looking down on them. What they don’t understand is that it’s not all about “them” – it’s not about pointing to what someone else is doing, it’s about trying to live biblically ourselves in every area of our lives without worrying about what anyone else thinks.

    Yes, we’re going to share our convictions, it wouldn’t be much of a conviction if we didn’t. It’s about taking our eyes off ourselves, dying to self, and putting others first.

    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. 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). We must learn to study and think for ourselves.

    By His Grace,

    Stacy McDonald
    info@raisingmaidens .com
    Thankful wife to my beloved, James McDonald
    Contented mother to my precious blessings, Jamie, Christa, Tiffany, Melissa, Jessica, Caleb, Abigail, Virginia Grace, Emma Katherine, William Alexander, and our little one in Heaven

    My Blog: http://www.yoursacredcalli ng.blogspot. com
    Our Church: http://www.providencepeori a.org
    Our Ministry: http://www.familyreformati on.com
    Our Book: http://www.raisingmaidens. com

  2. thatmom Says:

    Anne,

    I did see this posted on her blog under the title of “Whitewashed Feminism” earlier today.

    Are you saying that she sent this as a warning letter to a group of people? If so, would you mind sharing what group that was, if she actually named us by name, etc? You can e-mail me privately if you wish.

    Karen

  3. Alisa Says:

    What amazes me is that they believe that they are under attack… but so many of us WERE THEM – have been where they are and back again – after so much praying and reading the Scriptures WITHOUT presuppositions.


  4. Does anyone know the title of the book she’s referring to in the first paragraph?

    Stacy writes:
    “We can waste our time arguing with these women, casting our pearls before…rebels, but what good would it do?”

    I would guess very few of the swine – oops! I mean rebels – here would like to argue. In fact I’ve seen almost no arguing. Discuss and learn? Yes. What good would it do? Well, for starters it might free a lot of folks from the bondage they have been struggling with for untold months or years.

    That’s all I can say right now. My stomach is churning too much from reading this. And now I have to go warn all my readers on my own blog to be careful because I’m sly and leading them astray.

    Sigh. This is enough to make me keep blogging EVERY DAY.

  5. Anne Says:

    It was on her Yahoo group! Actually another lady posted to the group, and asked if any ladies were up to a “good, lively debate” and sent them over to your site.
    I find it interesting that Stacy can say, “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.” Isn’t that what she herself is doing on her blog. Running everyone into the ground who doesn’t 1) agree with her, or 2) dresses like her. Look at the harsh words she had to say about the teenager in the store who had a t-shirt on that had the words “What Would Jesus Do” on it. Well I doubt Jesus would be out belittling someone.
    I follow the group because I see where it is leading young girls. You look at some of these moms who have troubled teens (ran away from home, in college (gasp), etc) and you look at where they were four years ago. My heart breaks for all these girls who are being taught this subservient mind set.
    Please, keep up the excellent job you are doing here. It is obvious that Satan is not happy with you getting the truth out in the open!

  6. Alisa Says:

    “It’s enticing because it feeds on a woman’s desire to be in control”

    Is it just me, or do I sense a woman trying to control the propaganda of this movement? Could this “warning” possibly be motivated by the fear of some of that control slipping out of her hands? I’m not trying to be malicious, I just find it rather ironic. We all need some bearing or control on our lives, so I don’t fault her for having a “cause” or “ministry”. I think she should, as a Proverbs 31 woman. I just find it funny that she says that women shouldn’t have any, when its obvious she has plenty in her position.

    “There’s a book out that has influenced certain women.” Forgive me, but couldn’t this also describe HER book? Also, does anybody know what book she is taliking about? It sounds really good. ;o)

  7. Spunky Says:

    I’m glad to see that Stacy has chosen to write about this. Honest dialogue about this topic will facilitate growth for all of us who claim the name of Christ and seek to live our lives for Him.

    Here is a copy of the comment I wrote on her blog and is awaiting moderation.

    Stacy you said, “Our conviction, which also happens to be the conviction of our adult daughters, based on our reading of Scripture, is that it is unwise for a girl to leave the protection and headship of her father until she marries. ”

    Thanks for your answer Stacy.

    We definitely believe in biblical patriarchy in our family. I don’t fear or despise male-led leadership in the home or in the church. I have enjoyed great liberty in being my husband’s wife and the mother of our six children. I am truly seeking to live my life in service to the Lord as His daughter and my husband’s wife.

    Further, I am not a “white-washed” feminist by any definition used. However, I do however have legitimate questions about some of the teachings coming from ministries that I have previously supported. Since you have been involved with the book, So Much More by the Botkins, I’ll use their text along with this post as an example of one of my questions within with how biblical patriarchy is defined and applied by those that teach its principles.

    On the back cover of the book in your endorsement of this book you wrote, “Anna and Elizabeth Botkin have managed to expose the feminist lies that have indoctrinated our western culture and even crept into the church.”

    One of those lies that they exposed was that of women foreign missionaries. (Chapter 17)

    They write, “One thing we never see in the Bible is women working in missions organizations or any first-century equivalent. What those godly women of the early church did do was serve in their homes, families, communities and churches, and they had a powerful witness serving God His way.”

    They make the claim that there is a “wrong way to do right” and young women serving on the foreign mission field is one such example.

    Contrast their teaching with your post in which you quote Elisabeth Elliot and hold her essay the “Essence of Femininity” as a defense against the sly movement of “white-washed feminism” that is creeping into the church.

    But wouldn’t Elisabeth Eliot be in fact one of the pioneers of this “Christian feminist movement?” She was a student at Wheaton College studying classical Greek when she went Ecuador alone as a foreign missionary. She remained there for a year before she married Jim. After his death, she continued working among the tribal region as a young single mother with a 10 month old daughter alongside her. The Botkin girls would call such service “not purely biblical” (p 263) and her service a “wrong way to do right.”

    To use your own words Stacy, the two just don’t jive. How can Elisabeth be instructing us about the essence of femininity and at the same time act in a manner that the Botkin’s book calls “not purely biblical?” As someone who endorsed their book, do you believe this as well?

    Stacy, I am sympathetic to your book deadline and home obligations. As a busy mother and writer, I can totally relate. But as a leader in this movement, clarity in the discussion is necessary so there is no confusion in what is being said or taught. Especially in an area where our young daughters are reading your blog and the books of those that seek to influence their lives.

    I ask these questions in the same spirit in which you asked Corrie about elders in the church. (Which I believe should be men.) Would you and your husband bless the decision of your young unmarried daughters to follow the path of Elisabeth Elliot and go to a foreign mission field to work?

    Can a young unmarried woman be the essence of femininity and at the same time live as a missionary in a foreign land?

  8. Corrie Says:

    Wow!

    I don’t know what book she is referring to? Mabye John Stackhouse’s book, Finally Feminist? That is probably the book she is referring to.

    I haven’t read it. I thinkt he book that has most influenced me and has shown me the many errors in the “hyper-patriarchal” circles is the Bible. I don’t own any feminist books at all. In fact, just the opposite. I own all the popular comp books and those are the ones that has influenced me to start comparing what is taught to actually what is taught in scripture.

    Anne, so was her letter in response to this blog?

    Alisa, I see the irony in the whole control accusation, too. 🙂

    Spunky, I answered her question about elders but my answer hasn’t shown up yet. I did answer that I believe only men can hold the position of elder in the church, too.

    I think you made a very good point about Elizabeth Elliot. I heard her speak on a Sunday morning during the sermon time at a very patriarchal type church. That WAS the sermon. She was a single woman who ministered to the Auca and took many risks in order to reach them with the gospel of Christ.


  9. Hi Corrie,

    You said:

    “Spunky, I answered her question about elders but my answer hasn’t shown up yet. I did answer that I believe only men can hold the position of elder in the church, too.”

    This is the second time you’ve posted on someone’s blog claiming that you tried to post something on my blog, but were never approved. I wrote you privately three times the last time you made this claim, asking you to please repost. You never returned my emails and you never tried to repost.

    Since I started my blog I have only had to reject one post – and it was when a non-Christian person was using profane language. If you would have posted, I would have approved it. (Unless you would have chosen to use profane language) 😉

    Here is a copy of one of the three private messages I sent you that you never responded to:

    From: Mrs. Stacy McDonald
    To: Corrie Marnett
    Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 11:13 PM
    Subject: Hi Corrie

    Hi Corrie,

    Our family left early this morning for Alabama and arrived late this evening. However, I noticed that on Karen’s blog, you refer to a post on my blog that never came to me. I just went to check and it’s not there. If you could repost, I would be more than happy to approve it. I didn’t find anything offensive with what you shared on Karen’s blog and would have gladly approved it had I received it.

    I thought your post was good and I will be glad to respond to it if you repost it. I’ll be speaking tomorrow, but I’ll be back in the hotel room tomorrow night. Blessings.

    By His Grace,

    Stacy McDonald

    I wrote you twice more asking if you received my email and you did not respond.

    You certainly are not obligated to respond to me, but please don’t attempt to lead others into believing I am ignoring your posts. This is just not true.

  10. molleth Says:

    I guess I don’t mind being called a tool of the enemy, since I once would have said the same thing about someone who thought like I currently do.

    I was a patriarchy supporter, through and through. I thought Debi Pearls CTBHH book was sent straight from heaven, and defended it as such (some of you, er, may remember that…*sorry!*).

    It wasn’t “feminist teachings” that led me away from patriarchy. It was the Bible. It didn’t require acrobats. It required putting the Scriptures about women alongside a whole TON of other Scriptures, letting them be intepreted as they fit into the whole. (Which was very different from my former days—I’d had to do a lot of Scriptural gymnastics when I was in patriarchy).

    It required taking off my patriarchal lens (the grid I used to interpret everything else in Scripture) and begin looking at the Scriptures simply as they stood. It took facing a lot of my presuppositions and realizing that they couldn’t stand next to what Scripture was saying.

    I laid patriarchy down in great fear and trembling—not with whoops of rebellion, but only after night upon night of anguish and TEARS (upon tears) and an open Bible, wanting to choose the narrow path (whatever that meant!), NOT wanting to make a huge mistake, wanting, above all else, to glorify God.

    Stacy, you said that you are, “living out a life they either don’t agree with or they’re not willing to live out.” I’m not sure if you’re aware just how wrong that statement is. I think if you could peek in many of our homes, you would be shocked. Many of us are moms of many. Many of us encourage other mothers regularly. Many of us seek to find ways to honor and bless our husbands.

    I *believe* in being a good mother (to the glory of God). I believe that one of my highest callings right now is managing this crazy joyful home of mine. I believe in honoring my husband. I believe in embracing where God has me—which is in the world of a homeschool mom with a bouncy pack of youngsters.

    You do not have to believe patriarchy in order to believe those things. Patriarchal teachings claim that either someone is in their camp, or they are a terrible mess. This is simply a lie, and it’s too bad so many people believe it.

  11. Corrie Says:

    Hi Stacey,

    “This is the second time you’ve posted on someone’s blog claiming that you tried to post something on my blog, but were never approved. I wrote you privately three times the last time you made this claim, asking you to please repost. You never returned my emails and you never tried to repost.”

    Hmmm? I posted this both times on THIS blog, not “someone’s blog”. 🙂

    I am sorry I didn’t see your letters. I just checked and my junk mail filter ate your emails. I had to totally redo my mail and I lost all my settings and had to start all over. My junk mail had to also relearn what is junk and what is not junk. Sorry about that!

    I just reposted my response to you on your blog. I didn’t infer that you didn’t allow my response. I just said it hadn’t shown up yet. I realize that your blog is moderated and you had already stated that you were under a deadline for your new book. I know I am not in the middle of writing a book and I still can’t seem to get to my blog very often! Truthfully, I didn’t think anything at all. I just thought it would be forthcoming but I wanted to answer your question to me here since Spunky referred to it in her post.

    “You certainly are not obligated to respond to me, but please don’t attempt to lead others into believing I am ignoring your posts. This is just not true.”

    I am not trying to lead others into believing anything. I am sorry you feel this way but all I said is that my response hasn’t shown up yet. I was under no impression that you had rejected since you had readily accepted my first post this morning.

    I know you mentioned that we should not assume motives in your response to me this morning. I would appreciate it if you did not assume that I was trying to lead others into believing something about you when I wasn’t. I assure you that I had no such ill motives towards you at all.

    I am truly sorry that I did not get your emails. I had totally forgotten about that post.

    This is such a little matter. I would like to hear about the letter you sent out to a group of ladies warning them about feminist blogs like this one? Do you truly think that the women who contribute to this blog are “feminists”?


  12. Hi Corrie,

    Yes, you are right; the other time you made the statement about my not approving your post was on this blog. I couldn’t remember where I read it the first time, but I just found it by tracking back from my site where you posted a link. Here is what you said:

    “I posted a response but she did not approve it. I have no idea why and I never received any information that would cause it to not be approved. I reread it and I don’t think it was offensive? Sometimes I can be pretty dense, though. I will put my response here…”

    I am glad to hear that you weren’t ignoring my emails where I questioned you about it. I see now and regret that I was assuming the worst of you. I ask your forgiveness. Misunderstandings can happen so easily. You are right; it is such a little matter.

    Thank you for the invitation, but the letter you’re referring to was a private email that was posted here illegally. In addition, I have never referenced this blog or the women who contribute here in any public forum, so I’m not sure why you are implying that I have. That being said, I am not interested in discussing anything in this forum. Thank you anyway.

    Thank you for posting on my blog again this evening. I thought your post was good and I even agreed with all of it – ‘magine that! 🙂

  13. Alisa Says:

    “…the letter you’re referring to was a private email that was posted here illegally.”

    Illegally??? Are there internet rules or etiquette that I haven’t heard of? I’ve not heard of people posting emails they received as “illiegal”, though I thoroughly understand the writer not appreciating something they intended for a specific group being made public…


  14. how is it a private email when it was also posted on your blog, stacy?

    alisa, i think that she’s referring to the stringent rules for joining her patriarch’s wives yahoo group. it says something like, “No posts are to be forwarded, copied, or distributed without permission from the author.”

    again, i’m confused as to why this was posted on her public blog, as well, and she is still viewing it as private material for certain eyes only.


  15. According to the Copyright Act of 1976, copying or distributing electronic messages without the author’s consent is illegal.

    The private email that was sent was not the same as the blog post – though both are protected under copyright law. Just an FYI.

    Not a big deal – it’s just the point.

  16. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Actually, Stacey, you don’t have to be a feminist to think that hyperPatriarchy is a heresy straight from the pit of Hell. All you have to do is read the writings of the people who promote it, and observe who they keep company with.

    For example, take Steve Wilkins — he had some articles on your Patriarch’s Path website, I believe.

    Rev. Wilkins, the pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, La., is a co-founder of the neo-Confederate hate group, the League of the South.

    Wilkins has said that the goal of the League of the South is to save America from “paganism” and restore it as “the last bastion of Christendom” — a Christendom that, in Wilkins’ view, sees slavery as “perfectly legitimate.”

    Worse, to Steve Wilkins and his associates and followers, LYING is perfectly permissible, and even virtuous, if it advances their cause.

    In an article posted on the web site of Wilkins’ church, Deacon Kevin Branson praises Rahab as “a spiritual hero” because “she deceived the wicked who sought to kill God’s own people.

    Branson said he writes about Rahab because “some of us don’t have a clue about honorable and necessary deception of the wicked.” His conclusion is that “sometimes God requires that we offer by way of our right hand a sweeping sword, and from our lips deception, that the wicked might fail, and Christ and His Bride might flourish.”

    Lying in the name of God…hmmmmmm….
    Anybody care to guess who the Father of
    Lies is?

    Could it be….Satan?

  17. thatmom Says:

    Wow! I go away for several hours to enjoy dinner and a movie with the husband of my youth and return to 4 new threads and this entire discussion on, of all places, the contributor page!

    I want to think through my response so it will be written with kindness and graciousness and that will take a good night’s sleep and a fresh hormone pill.

    I will also be sure to check with my attorney and get back to you.

    Until tomorrow……

  18. Spunky Says:

    Stacy said, “I have never referenced this blog or the women who contribute here in any public forum, so I’m not sure why you are implying that I have.”

    Hi Stacy, I think I can clear up at least one part of the confusion about how this blog was implicated by you even though you never mentioned it by name.

    In your post, you referred to the term Patricentric, which was coined by ThatMom (Karen). Before her use of the term, there was not succinct way to describe the philosophy of biblical patriarchy as defined by Vision Forum and others and a way to differentiate from how they would define biblical order and leadership in the home. So while you never referenced this blog or an individual directly, since Karen blogs here and is the author if the term, it was a natural and obvious deducation for many to make.


  19. The word “patricentricity” (which is what I used) is used all over the internet (do a google search). Patri (meaning father) and centricity (meaning pertaining to or situated at the center.)

    By the way, we are NOT patricentric, but we are patriarchal. Patri (meaning father) and archal (meaning ruler, leader, chief). According to Ephesians 5:22-24, a patriarchal family is a father-led family.

    She used the word “patriocentricity.” Perhaps she did coin that phrase, but since she seems to define it the same way patricentricity is defined, perhaps she misspelled it. Her word, “patriocentricity” is not the word I used.

    But, regardless of whether or not I was referring any one site in particular (which I wasn’t), I did not use anyone’s name, website, ministry, or family to prove a point.

    Like I shared on my blog, I am troubled when ladies (and men) claim they are championing the truth by naming a particular teacher, speaker, pastor, or writer, and then publicly question his/her motives and character. Often this is done without contacting their target or by using misquotes, assumptions (presented as probable facts) or insinuations that castigate.

    If someone posts with an opposing viewpoint they are quickly snuffed out by the smirking keyboards of the collective. It reminds me of a school yard taunting, rather than a godly exchange.

    Wise and profitable discourse does not include backbiting, arrogance, slander, or gossip.

    If you’re not doing any of these things, then I am glad, and it’s certainly safe to believe that I wasn’t talking about you.

  20. Chris R. Says:

    My wife is a contributor to this blog, and she told me about Stacie’s post claiming that republishing her letter here is a violation of her copyright. Sorry, Stacie, but that’s nonsense. Section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act deals with fair use. It states, in pertinent part: “the fair use of a copyrighted work…for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting…scholarship or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

    When the recipient of a letter (which can hardly be termed “private” given the number of people to whom it was disseminated) decides to post it online for the purpose of criticism or comment, that use is about as “fair” as you can get.

    Chris R.

  21. James McDonald Says:

    Dear Chris,

    The only reason I am posting it to help clarify the issue regarding copyright. This is an issue we have dealt with due to our publishing work and our websites. Our attorney has instructed us that electronic communication is indeed covered in the Copyright Act of 1976. In addition, here is the abstract for an article posted in the Kansas Law Review…

    A Copyright Conundrum: Protecting Email Privacy

    NED SNOW
    University of Arkansas at Fayetteville
    ________________________________________

    Kansas Law Review, Vol. 55, p. 101, 2007

    Abstract:
    The practice of email forwarding deprives email senders of privacy. Expression meant for only a specific recipient often finds its way into myriad inboxes or onto a public website, exposed for all to see. Simply by clicking the “forward” button, email recipients routinely strip email senders of expressive privacy. The common law condemns such conduct. Beginning over two-hundred-fifty years ago, courts recognized that authors of personal correspondence hold property rights in their expression. Under common-law copyright, authors held a right to control whether their correspondence was published to third parties. This common-law protection of private expression was nearly absolute, immune from any defense of “fair use.” Accordingly, the routine practice of email forwarding would violate principles of common-law copyright.

    The issue of whether common-law copyright today protects email expression turns on whether the Federal Copyright Act preempts common-law copyright. The Copyright Act includes a fair-use defense to infringing uses of unpublished works, and that defense likely applies to email forwarding. A strong argument exists, however, that the Act does not preempt common-law rights of expression which protect privacy. Federal preemption extends only as far as the Constitution permits. According to the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, federal property rights in expression are limited to rights that forward a utilitarian end. Rights of privacy do not forward a utilitarian end. The Act should therefore be construed as not preempting common-law copyright’s protection of privacy. Email forwarding must yield to privacy protection.

    ________________________________________

    I am not an attorney, I am a pastor. And there is no intent on our part to ask that the post be taken down. The person who posted it may not have known the laws with regard to copyrights, but she did know she was violating the charter of the ladies list to which she agreed.

    We (Stacy and I) pray that peace will come to the many Christian blogs that seem to be focused on divisions in the Body rather than reaching the lost.

    I remain your humble servant,

    James McDonald

  22. Corrie Says:

    “Like I shared on my blog, I am troubled when ladies (and men) claim they are championing the truth by naming a particular teacher, speaker, pastor, or writer, and then publicly question his/her motives and character. Often this is done without contacting their target or by using misquotes, assumptions (presented as probable facts) or insinuations that castigate.”

    Stacey,

    What is your recommendation for wise and profitable discussion when one side clearly has their mind made up that anyone who disagrees with them has been infected by the feminist mindset of this world?

    I could talk scripture until I am BLUE in the face. I could show these teachers that they are twisting scripture and adding to scripture to no avail.

    It is NOT that people are misquoting anything. Sure, that might happen once in a while but that is not the problem on this blog.

    It is that we ARE taking quotes in context. And when people contact the “teacher” they are made into a podcast or “anonymous” articles all of their own where they are called names and castigated for not being married and for being feminists.

    Can you honestly say that your side of the debate does not do the very thing you condem in others? Just think of the word feminist that is thrown around as a pejorative. There is such tight control in some groups that any sort of disagreement is pounced upon and squelched.

    “If someone posts with an opposing viewpoint they are quickly snuffed out by the smirking keyboards of the collective. It reminds me of a school yard taunting, rather than a godly exchange.”

    Two examples, Mrs. Binoculars and Still Fed Up. Obviously this blog is not what you are describing with those words, right?

    And, as far as school yard taunting, I consider the podcasts and books and articles that focus on hyberbolizing women who are not exactly what the hyper-patriarchal crowd wants them to be, just that.

    If you all are serious about being interested in not impugning the motives of those who disagree with you, then it should be easy to show. I haven’t seen any evidence of that but I would welcome a discussion where I wouldn’t be called a “feminist” or a “lesbian” or a “devil’s whore”.

    Chris R., thank you for weighing in on the fair usage laws. I was just about to post them.

  23. Corrie Says:

    “Kansas Law Review, Vol. 55, p. 101, 2007

    Abstract:
    The practice of email forwarding deprives email senders of privacy. Expression meant for only a specific recipient often finds its way into myriad inboxes or onto a public website, exposed for all to see. Simply by clicking the “forward” button, email recipients routinely strip email senders of expressive privacy. The common law condemns such conduct. Beginning over two-hundred-fifty years ago, courts recognized that authors of personal correspondence hold property rights in their expression. Under common-law copyright, authors held a right to control whether their correspondence was published to third parties. This common-law protection of private expression was nearly absolute, immune from any defense of “fair use.” Accordingly, the routine practice of email forwarding would violate principles of common-law copyright.

    The issue of whether common-law copyright today protects email expression turns on whether the Federal Copyright Act preempts common-law copyright. The Copyright Act includes a fair-use defense to infringing uses of unpublished works, and that defense likely applies to email forwarding. A strong argument exists, however, that the Act does not preempt common-law rights of expression which protect privacy. Federal preemption extends only as far as the Constitution permits. According to the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, federal property rights in expression are limited to rights that forward a utilitarian end. Rights of privacy do not forward a utilitarian end. The Act should therefore be construed as not preempting common-law copyright’s protection of privacy. Email forwarding must yield to privacy protection.”

    So, for example, Matt Chancey broke the law big time when he forwarded private correspondence and used it against others in order to do harm? Also, his whole site is based on illegally obtained private correspondence (pages and pages he claims) that “proves” the whole kinist conspiracy among other allegations.

    I am trying to understand how this all works.

  24. Sarah Says:

    This law review article represents a legal theory, not hard and fast law.

    Due to the high risk outpouring of lawsuits from disgruntled persons, I don’t think that interpretation of the Copyright act is going anywhere. You can try suing a person for email forwarding on this basis, but I doubt you’d get far, particularly given Stacy’s status as a public person.

    Email and instant message at thy own risk.

  25. Chris R. Says:

    James,

    That’s an interesting article that you posted. Just a couple of comments:

    First, it is clear from reading the article that the author is speaking of law as he believes that it may be or should be, not law as it is. E-mail is a new medium of expression, and hasn’t generated much litigation from a Copyright perspective. Consequently, the lines are still a little blurry in this area, and no one can be terribly dogmatic.

    Second, though, I think that the author of that law review article is wrong regarding common law copyright. The 1976 Copyright Act clearly preempts common law copyright. Post-1976, when any work of authorship is fixed in a tangible medium of embodiment, statutory copyright attaches. Before 1976, copyright only attached upon formal publication; therefore, a private letter would have been protected only at common law. This is only an issue today for a letter written prior to 1976. A blog post written yesterday does have copyright protection, but it is statutory, and thus the fair use doctrine applies.

    Third, I think that the author is wrong when he implies that rights of privacy are paramount in this area. Privacy is important, but so is the First Amendment. When the recipient of a mass e-mail posts it on the internet for the purpose of comment and discussion, it seems to me that the First Amendment interests trump the small privacy interests involved.

    Finally, in the interest of disclosure: I’m not an attorney either, or at least I won’t be for another month or so. I graduated from law school a few months ago and will be taking the bar examination next week. Intellectual property (and law in general) interests me a great deal, so when my wife told me about this discussion I thought I’d weigh in.

    Chris R.

  26. Jen Says:

    Alisa: “What amazes me is that they believe that they are under attack… but so many of us WERE THEM – have been where they are and back again – after so much praying and reading the Scriptures WITHOUT presuppositions.”

    Alisa, I couldn’t agree more. For seven years, I lived this lifestyle. And when I started writing about it, I simply quoted the Scriptures used as support for the “Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy.” And even when the Scriptures did NOT line up with the teachings and practices of Patriarchy, I was hard-pressed to change my mind. But I am sold out for the truth – the truth of God’s Word and His Word alone, and in much anguish and many, many tears, I had to leave Patriarchy behind.

    Stacy, I realize that I am one of the bloggers you are talking about, but you really couldn’t be more wrong in your assessment of me and, I think, of most other women blogging about this issue. We do not claim to be feminist, nor do we claim a feminist position in the least. It is NOT Patriarchy versus feminism, with nothing in between. Most of us here believe that the Bible’s position is a more balanced view between that of Patriarchy and that of feminism. You have presented a false either/or argument.

    James McDonald, you stated this on my blog: ““I do not feel I am a leader of the Patriarchy movement. I am certainly a pastor who teaches a complementarian view of marriage and adheres to a biblical view of family and culture, but I do not believe I am a leader of Patriarchy. I am really just a pastor trying to serve the Lord.”

    Stacy, did you know that your husband doesn’t claim Patriarchy either? In fact, your husband claims to be in the exact same camp as just about every woman on this blog – complementarian! I guess we have more in common than we thought!

    James: “We (Stacy and I) pray that peace will come to the many Christian blogs that seem to be focused on divisions in the Body rather than reaching the lost.”

    Is that what you and your wife are attempting to do on your blogs, James? Reach the lost? And you don’t cause any division where you go and in what you post? Wouldn’t you really agree, James, that there are times where division is necessary? Such as pointing out public hypocrisy?

  27. molleth Says:

    Stacy said, “Like I shared on my blog, I am troubled when ladies (and men) claim they are championing the truth by naming a particular teacher, speaker, pastor, or writer, and then publicly question his/her motives and character. Often this is done without contacting their target or by using misquotes, assumptions (presented as probable facts) or insinuations that castigate.”

    I’m glad you’ve brought that up, Stacy, because that is what your recent blog post did. The motives and character of those who disagree with your position were not only questioned—they were outrightly maligned with your assumptions presented as fact.

    For many of us commenting here, you have just publically taught that we and/or what we believe are, in your words:

    -sly
    -dangerous
    -enticing
    -feeding on a woman’s desire to be in control
    -claiming to be based on Christianity (but not)
    -arbitrarily stretching/chopping Scripture
    -revising basic doctrine
    -reconstructing religous history
    -diametrically opposed to Scripture
    -burdening the Christian wife
    -legitimizing sin
    -false teachers
    -speaking swelling words of emptiness
    -alluring through lusts of the flesh
    -tickling ears
    -slaves of corruption
    -dogs returning to vomit
    -pigs returning to mire.

    Stacy, I realize I could be wrong. Perhaps you’ve just had long conversations with some of the leaders on this site, contacting them personally *before* saying such words? Perhaps you’ve emailed back and forth, spending time trying to learn what they actually believe versus what you think they are saying.

    If so, I will happily apologize. But based on your blog post and your letter, it would appear this is not the case, just as it appears you misunderstand much of what many of us are saying. I don’t mind being castigated—all of us have the right to disagree with eachother. I just like it a lot better when the castigator *accurately* castigates. And what I see, instead, is a complete lack of comprehension as to what the “sly and enticing” side is actually saying.

    I am incredibly busy right now, and I am sure you are too, but I want you to know that I welcome private email conversation if you would ever like to discuss these things more. I don’t expect you and I to agree, but I would like to see an accurate comprehension of the arguments you are fighting against. Please know that while I’m understandably frustrated (at being called so many names and then being chided for calling names), this comment was typed in a conversational tone, not anger.

    Warmly,
    Molly

  28. Spunky Says:

    Stacy said, “Like I shared on my blog, I am troubled when ladies (and men) claim they are championing the truth by naming a particular teacher, speaker, pastor, or writer, and then publicly question his/her motives and character. Often this is done without contacting their target or by using misquotes, assumptions (presented as probable facts) or insinuations that castigate.”

    Stacy, how do then feel about the Botkin girls who in their book said, of Mary Slessor and Amy Carmicheal “We need to be very careful in the way we treat real-life examples careful that we don’t hold up real, fallible people as the infallible standard. We should give godly people honor for the worthy things they did and learn from their examples. But we should recognize that these godly women do not in fact feature in the Bible, and their examples can’t be used as a scriptural precept. Just because a godly person did a good deed in a certain way doens’t meant that it was God’s way of getting that deed done.” And they go on to make the point that there is a “wrong way to do right.” (p. 262-263)

    There point about not elevating peoople is well taken. And the point of women not going into the mission field is their personal belief. But did they need to name these two women specifically to do so? No. Did they contact them? They couldn’t, because they’re dead.

    So for the sake of their belief, they were willing to publically call out two women who chose a different path than their own, and declare that their choice was not God’s best and that they “chose the wrong way to do right.” In doing so they insinuate that these women acted in a way that is not “purely biblical.” They state that women who go into missions are acting not from the revelation from Scripture, but the imaginations of their own heart. Implying that such a direction isn’t from God but a heart that is selfish and darkly deceitful. ((p. 263)

    Talk about making assumptions and insinuations that castigate others. For two teenage girls who haven’t even lived two decades to castigate the character of women who have served God for decades is beyond anything that is being done here. Atleast those that we’re discussing are still alive to defend themselves. There point about foreign missions could have made just fine without the use of these two women. A brief sentence stated that they don’t “mean to criticize any well-meaning missionary” does little to clear the damage done to the reputation of these women.

    Amy Carmicheal was quoted by Elisabeth Elliot in a newletter from 2002 where Amy wondered why there are not more foreign missionaries. Her name being used to actively discourage foreign missions would no doubt grieve her greatly.

    Stacy, given that you endorsed this book, I pray that you are consistent in your correction and speak to the Botkin girls about their use of Christian women who are not able to defend themselves or their beliefs to champion their beliefs.

    I have written to the Botkin girls myself some of my concerns about their book , but they have chosen not to respond to my inquiry. Given their non-response, I feel totally comfortable addressing my concerns here. There book is a published work, open to review and examiniation like all published works.

  29. Alisa Says:

    Molly,

    As disheartening as it is to read such a list of adjectives (whether it was intended for the women of this blog or not), I was shocked to realize that I was able to remember one not on the list!

    REBELS.

    And yet, would this be an inaccurate description? To be honest… as much as it does offend me in the way it was intended… I don’t think it’s untrue.

    Why??? We ARE rebelling. We are rebelling against misuse and misapplication of Scripture… the same thing that Jesus did with the Pharisees and others, that Paul did with the Galatian teachers and others, and numerous others in the Bible set out to do.

  30. thatmom Says:

    You say patricentricity, I say patriocentricity…..

    I had never heard this word, one way or another, but decided to adopt the latter to define what is being promoted by Swanson, Phillips, Botkins, Chancey, etc. (Since I have heard of ecclesiocentricity, ad nauseum, my word is a spin off of that.) Thanks for pointing out a new word/my spelling error, or whatever it is. I will continue to refer to this movement with the word spelled in the latter way, so as not to confuse it with other meanings.

    However, whatever you call it, it well defines this movement and is unbibical.

    Fathers leading their families is Biblical. The universe of the home revolving around him, as though he were the sun and his family members are little planets, is not. Saying only he has a calling and the rest of the family is here to fulfill his calling is not biblical either. Referring to a father as the priest of his home is also not Biblical, nor is referring to him as the prophet or priest of the home. 1 Peter 2:5-12 says: you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For in Scripture it says: “See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.” Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, “The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone,” 8 and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message–which is also what they were destined for. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.”

  31. Spunky Says:

    We (Stacy and I) pray that peace will come to the many Christian blogs that seem to be focused on divisions in the Body rather than reaching the lost.

    The fact that this particular blog is dedicated to a certain topic is in no way an indication of a lack of focus on reaching the lost. My husband works as a financial planner. His website is dedicated to the subject of financial planning, but that is in no way an indication of a lack of interest or focus on the lost. yet through his business, he is reaching quite a large group of families in our area with the Truth.

    My own blog, SpunkyHomeschool, was focused on education and related topics. A timely topic, but certainly not focused on the lost. Yet, I have had the opportunity because of my blog to reach people for Christ in ways I never imagined possible.

    To assert that a blog or website dedicated to specific topic is an indication of their heart for the lost is a leap of logic that cannot be determined from the information given.

    A blog that is actively and honestly discussing topics of interest to the saved and lost, is by its nature evangelistic. It will attract the attention of those that are seeking answers to their questions. And those that know the Truth, will use the opportunity not only to share their opinion, but the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

  32. Spunky Says:

    Sorry, that first sentence is a quote

    “We (Stacy and I) pray that peace will come to the many Christian blogs that seem to be focused on divisions in the Body rather than reaching the lost.”

    said by James McDonald in an earlier comment. The rest of the commentary is my response.

  33. thatmom Says:

    Chris,

    Thanks for your efforts to get to the bottom of the law. I appreciate it. My attorney, who is also my son, is in Alaska on business and is spending the day on a glacier so I didn’t get to talk to him.

    By the way, let me know when you are taking the bar and we will pray for you that day. My son has taken and passed both the Wisconsin and California exams. He needed lots of prayer those 2 days so I would be happy to pray for you when your time comes!

  34. thatmom Says:

    Spunky,

    Do you think you could contact Elisabeth Elliot for a comment? I think it would be interesting.

  35. Corrie Says:

    “We (Stacy and I) pray that peace will come to the many Christian blogs that seem to be focused on divisions in the Body rather than reaching the lost.”

    James,

    Could you please tell us how YOU are doing this and encouraging all your fellow patriarchalists in doing the same? How is the new book on desperate housewives going to do this? How is your church doing this? How are all your conferences doing this? Are all these things about reaching out to the lost or bringing the message of patriarchy and talking about how this country and the churches have messed up?

    How are YOU leading the way in this?

    I don’t want to take your prayer in the wrong way but it comes off sounding like you are using prayer to criticize this blog and others who see a need to expose the extra-biblical teachings that go unconfronted.

    I would think if we stopped teaching others to be centered on man but to be centered on God, we would automatically have our focus where it needs to be.

    I wonder if the Reformers were much too focused on the divisions in the body and not on the lost? I mean, we could level this charge against anyone.

    Tackling an issue doesn’t mean that one is not also focused on reaching the lost. It isn’t an either/or thing at all.

    I would like to know how you would have us approach the issue of false teaching in the church?

  36. Spunky Says:

    “Do you think you could contact Elisabeth Elliot for a comment?”

    It would be interesting, but at this time I think I’ll pass. Elisabeth Elliot is getting older and has ended much of her public ministry. I don’t feel comfortable interrupting her retirement with my questions about her thoughts on missions. However, we do have her writing and the testimony of others to draw from to help us determine where she stands.

    Below is an excerpt of a comment I left on Stacy’s blog about where Elisabeth Elliot stands on foreign missions. Although, not a definitive answer it does give us clues to her current thoughts on foreign missions.

    I have a friend who was personally counseled by Elisabeth Elliot after the premature death of her husband. Elisabeth Elliot encouraged the young woman to go to the foreign mission field. She followed her advice and she along with her sister-in-law went overseas. But that’s a personal story without documentation that happened 20 years ago, so something more current would be helpful and more credible.

    In 2002, Elisabeth Elliot published her newletter where she featured Amy Carmichael and called her “God’s Missionary.” Clearly, a hero to Elisabeth, she publically praised Amy’s service and commitment to the Lord and the mission field. In the article she quotes Amy Carmicheal who said, ” “I would never urge one to come to the heathen unless he felt the burden for souls and the Master’s call, bu oh! I wonder so few do…”

    Elisabeth Elliots view on foreign missions hadn’t changed as of 2002. If they had, certainly she would have issued some caution at this time. None was given. (PDF link available on her website.) As an aside, I wonder how she would feel about a book where Amy is featured and used in a way to actively discourage missions?)

    In 2005, a young lady wrote to Elisabeth asking for her advice on foreign missions. Elisabeth sent her a short response which led to her going to Kona, Hawaii as a missionary. While not the “foreign” field as the others, this still was not “under her father’s roof” and within the local church that she returned to.
    (Here’s the link
    http://www.inspiredchristian.org/cyber/05/060505ld.html)

    We can see from three distinct sources that Elisabeth Elliot’s views on foreign missions are very much toward women going if that is God’s calling. I suppose it is possible that in the last 2 years her views have changed, but there is nothing written to indicate a retraction of her previous exhortations toward foreign missions.

    Her life and writings speak very clearly to a woman who is dedicated to serving God and reaching the lost wherever they may be. A lost soul on foreign soil is no less precious to our Lord than one here in the United States. He is looking for Christians willing to die to themselves and serve Him wherever HE leads. Elisabeth Elliot and Amy Carmicheal are two women who stand tall in my eyes, they were willing to die to self and go where HE called.

    Writing Elisabeth and calling attention to the those are actively discouraging work in the foreign mission field and calling it “not purely biblical” and the “wrong way to do right” could be heartbreaking to a woman who has dedicated her life and lost her husband on the mission field.

    Elisabeth Elliot is also the author of a book “A Chance To Die, the Life and Legacy of Amy Carmicheal” published in 1987. Quite honestly, I don’t wish to be the one who tells her that the woman she admired, is now being used by others to discourage young ladies from foreign missions work. And even more grievious that her calling to go to the foreign mission field is perceived by some as possibly coming from a selfish heart and not the Lord or His direction and guidance.

  37. Spunky Says:

    Elisabeth Elliots biography on her website also revealed some interesting information,

    1. She still calls herself Elisabeth Elliot. Her URL is identified by the name of her first husband, not her second or third.

    2. She allowed two unmarried men into her home as lodgers. One eventually married her, the other married her daughter.

    3. She was college educated and asserts that her studies in Classical Greek enabled her to work in the area of unwritten languages to develop a form of writing.

    Anyone of these items along with her ten years as a foreign missionary could be viewed as an act of feminism by a very independent minded woman, couldn’t they?

    However, given that Elisabeth Elliot is a Christian acting in such a manner, one COULD make the claim that she is an early pioneer in the “white-washed” feminist movement at odds with Biblical Patriarchy. Can you imagine what would happen if a single mother on this blog admitted that she is allowing two unmarried men to board at her house with her and her unmarried daughter?!?

    But I for one won’t be so bold as to make such a charge. Not against her, or any other Christian woman who disagrees with my own application of Scripture or decides to live in a manner differently than the way I would live.

    “Come let us reason together.” Let us talk about the substance of what each has written without the suspicious assertions of sly and dangerous movement directed by “white-washed” feminism. If one would not accuse Elisabeth Elliot of such a motive with all the choices she’s made, I think that the same can be safely said about those of us here.

  38. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Elisabeth Elliot would certainly be called a feminist, because she places Jesus, and the Great Commission ahead of woman’s highest calling — Marriage and Motherhood.

    That would also make her an idolatress, I suppose: she serves and worships Jesus instead of Fertility.

  39. Alisa Says:

    “That would also make her an idolatress, I suppose: she serves and worships Jesus instead of Fertility.”

    Oh Cynthia, I now know that I would be wise not to eat as I read your comments… I nearly choked in laughter!!!!

  40. Corriejo Says:

    I met Elizabeth Elliot on a couple of different occasions. One was where she spoke as the guest speaker during the sermon time of a very complementarian church. She was the only message heard that morning. She spoke for about 40 minutes.

    She is a very strong woman who speaks her mind. I enjoyed watching her and Lars. They have a very unique and special relationship. Lars is a hoot! He had me laughing a lot. Both of them together were surely better than any comedy team! Elizabeth played the “straight guy”.

    Certainly I was intrigued with it because it wasn’t the typical cookie-cutter marriage I was used to having preached at me all the time. But, it in no way compromised any biblical standard at all. I saw how their relationship took into account their individual strengths and used them for God’s glory. It wasn’t about Elizabeth and it wasn’t about Lars. It was about God. He did the sound and all the administrative work for her while they traveled and she spoke around the country. If anyone has ever intimidated me it was Elizabeth Elliot and I mean this in a good way. She could easily be someone I could look up to because of her strength and dignity and common sense and flint-like determination. I have a very funny personal story about standing in the breakfast line with her that I might share later.

    I can’t imagine anyone being bold enough to question Amy Carmichael’s motives or cast aspersions on her calling.

    Would we do that to a male missionary? Would we doubt his calling to minister to the lost? No. But we would do this for a woman?

    She was single and we already know the Bible says that it is better for a single woman because she can totally and completely devote herself to the things of the Lord. It never tells us that a single woman is free to devote herself to the service of her earthly father. She is free to be 100% devoted to the Lord.

    That is what Amy did. She was devoted 100% to the Lord. Not all of us were born to be wives and mothers, the Bible does NOT support this thought at all.

    Also, one of the arguments is that single women are not protected when they are serving the Lord in missions.

    Well, that is really not a good argument at all. The Lord is Sovereign over all. He most certainly is protecting His own. We are never more protected when we are doing what He would have us do. If this protection was so important, why did Paul send Phoebe all the way to Rome with the Letter to the Romans? Didn’t Paul violate his own standards by doing this? And it was Phoebe who was responsible for if there was a male who was the responsible one, then he would have received the mention.

  41. thatmom Says:

    Spunky,

    You are correct, why tell her these things now? I guess I wasn’t really thinking about her age. In so many ways I think of her as being in her 50’s….I guess I think I am still 25. Ha.

    We love to read biographies in our home and during June, I did a series of podcasts on women who have been used of the Lord in such amazing ways. Some of them were actual moms and others were spiritual mothers. I can’t tell you how blessed I have been by studying their lives. And I am so thankful that no one told them that it wasn’t an appropriate endeavor for a young woman.

    My daughter-in-law spent time studying with New Tribes and also spent time overseas as a missionary. She is the most creative and efficent homemaker and soon-to-be homeschool mom! I really believe that much of what she learned prepared her for being the perfect “ezer” for my son and her insightfulness and attitude of laying down your life for others has blessed our whole family.

  42. thatmom Says:

    Corrie,

    How blessed you were to be able to hear Elizabeth Elliot speak in person. I always wished I had had that opportunity.

    Spunky,

    Isn’t it interesting that so many of the things that she did wouldn’t past muster for any of the rest of us? I have repeatedly asked about that but never have gotten a straight answer from anyone who makes those rules.

  43. Spunky Says:

    “Isn’t it interesting that so many of the things that she did wouldn’t past muster for any of the rest of us? I have repeatedly asked about that but never have gotten a straight answer from anyone who makes those rules.”

    The rules don’t apply when they are inconvenient to those that make them.

    That’s why Doug Phillips can have a woman working in a warehouse doing manual labor alongside men as shown on a video on his website.

    That’s why Kevin Swanson can have a paid woman on staff at CHEC and at the same time call other women “vagabonds.”

    That’s why the Botkin girls can have female workers taking order for their book through Vision Forum’s call center based in Virginia through the night.

    That’s why Stacy McDonald can have a female customer service agent taking orders for her book. Raising Maidens of Virtue through the Vision Forum toll free number (800) 440-0022. I just called at 10:23 PM Eastern and a woman named Rebecca answered and told me she worked for Vision Forum and often that meant working through the night taking orders. She told me she receives a Vision Forum paycheck. I guess young ladies can leave their father’s protection to take orders for Vision Forum and Stacy’s book, but not to preach the gospel in a foreign land.

    But let a woman merely question the rules of patriarchy as they define it and God forbid blog about it, and she’s a “white-washed” feminist who has completely forgotten about the lost.

    This is not an attack on Patriarchy or those that I have just written about. It is about living out what we say we believe. As my son once told me, “Mom, I’m watching and if you don’t live out what you believe how can you expect me to?” Smart young man. He wants to know that I not only speak the Truth, but am willing to walk the walk as well.

  44. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “The rules don’t apply when they are inconvenient to those that make them……This is not an attack on Patriarchy or those that I have just written about. It is about living out what we say we believe.”

    In other words,
    Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men’s shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.

  45. Cara Says:

    Suppose these women who are working for the above mentioned are working alongside their husbands or fathers. Suppose that you don’t know everything based on a one-dimensional view of the situation. Perhaps Stacy’s daughters are filling orders from their home.

    The supporters of this blog open their mouths and reveal all. Thank you for confirming what others already knew about you.

  46. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “The supporters of this blog open their mouths and reveal all.”

    Better to open one’s mouth and “reveal all”, than to hide a heart full of who-knows what behind pretty words and dissembling speech…

  47. JRH Says:

    Thank you, Cara, for proving their point.

    Its our way (hyper-patriarchy) or the highway (white-washed feminism).

    Heaven forbid there be some middle ground where those of us live who believe in male headship in marriage, female submission in marriage, not allowing the ordination of women as elders and pastors, and liberty in dress (with true modesty the standard.)

    No, there’s no middle ground… what a shame.

  48. thatmom Says:

    JRH said:

    “Heaven forbid there be some middle ground where those of us live who believe in male headship in marriage, female submission in marriage, not allowing the ordination of women as elders and pastors, and liberty in dress (with true modesty the standard.)”

    This is so laughable! What do you think we have been trying to do?

    Picture one continuous line of thinking regarding the roles, values, worth, and postion of women in the 21st century.

    Far on the left end is radical, pagan feminism. Far on the other end is patriocentricity. And somewhere in the middle of that is true womanhood. The contribuitors on that site are at various places in the middle of that continium, some to the left of center, some to the right. JHR, would you not also be there with us?

  49. thatmom Says:

    JHR,

    I would also add that, your position on that line is not a permanent one. I moved down the line away from being pulled into patriocentricity, and away from hyper-patriarchy.

    A couple years ago, a friend challenged me to read through the Gospels and the book of Acts, reading as though I had never read it before. I read what Jesus did and what He said. I observed how He treated people, what his prioritites were, who He strongly rebuked and who He tenderly cared for. It was after that reading of the Bible that I began to see what grace means and how it looks in action. How powerful were Jesus’ words from Matthew 9:13: “I desire mercy and not sacrifice.” He was calling me to love beyond measure, to pour myself out for others, to show His brand of mercy, rather than follow some manmade rule.

    And then I moved into the epistles, observing the one another commands and noticing how they flooded the pages of Scripture. And my heart, too, was flooded with the desire to love and one another as we are commanded, beginning first with my husband and then my children and grandchildren and then other believers. Once I began seeing them as brothers and sisters in Christ, I realized that power trips and control issues are not of Christ’s Kingdom, they are of this fallen, sinful world.

    JHR, I would challenge you the same way I was challenged by my friend. Set aside your paradigm and read through the Gospels and the book of Acts, observing Jesus and listening to His words. Then read through the epistles, looking for one anothering commands. I guarantee that you will see this line so much more clearly and you will be able to identify your rightful place on it.

  50. Spunky Says:

    Cara asked, “Suppose these women who are working for the above mentioned are working alongside their husbands or fathers.”

    I supposed the same thing. So I asked them. They are working in a building NOT from home in Virigina. One of the men who answerd the phone was named Robert, that is not the name of the Botkin’s father (Geoff) or the McDonalds (James). He didn’t even sound old enough to be a father, let alone one who had daughters who were old enough to work. When I asked Robert if he worked alongside women, he chuckled and said, “Doesn’t

    “Perhaps Stacy’s daughters are filling orders from their home.”

    Stacy has three daughters living at home that could fill such a job, the others are too small. The young lady that answered the phone was named Rebecca. Stacy does not have a daughter named Rebecca. Further, I asked the young ladies who answered where she was working from. They work in a building in Viriginia. They are not filling orders from home. I asked them that specifically. She said she is often scheduled to work through the night. On a previous conversation with a young man, he said that he often works alongside women.

    “The supporters of this blog open their mouths and reveal all. Thank you for confirming what others already knew about you.”

    Cara, just what did I just confirm about myself by revealing all this information? I am open to correction. Please let me know how revealing that Vision Forum allows young women to take orders in the middle of the night alongside men is taking orders for their materials is wrong. It is public information. The young ladies shared it with me over the phone. You can call yourself and confirm it.

    Why are you upset with supporters of this blog and not those that say that young unmarried women belong at home working under the protection of their fathers and at the same time allow young unmarried women to take orders for their materials alongside men?

    If this information is upsetting to you, perhaps you ought to direct your questions at those who make these decisions not the ones who simply reveal it on a blog. If this information is painful for you to read, imagine what a young lady who works in this company would think if she listened to Kevin Swanson’s broadcast or read the Botkin’s book and heard that she was a “vagabond” for working for a company that takes orders for the ones who teach this stuff!

  51. Spunky Says:

    Oops for some reason I missed part of the first paragraph.

    My first paragraph shoud say, “I supposed the same thing. So I asked them. They are working in a building NOT from home in Virigina. One of the men who answerd the phone was named Robert, that is not the name of the Botkin’s father (Geoff) or the McDonalds (James). He didn’t even sound old enough to be a father, let alone one who had daughters who were old enough to work. When I asked Robert if he worked alongside women, he chuckled and don’t all companies? Doug Phillips doesn’t work in Virginia taking orders for his books and his daughters are also too young to be taking orders for his materials. No Cara, these are independent workers paid to take orders for Vision Forum materials?

  52. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “…imagine what a young lady who works in this company would think if she listened to Kevin Swanson’s broadcast or read the Botkin’s book and heard that she was a “vagabond” for working for a company that takes orders for the ones who teach this stuff!”

    She’d feel just like a Gentile kid who gets paid to push the elevator buttons for his ultraOrthodox Jewish neighbor on the Sabbath– glad of the money, but wondering what’s up, that it’s OK for him to push the buttons and even get paid for it, whereas for the fellow paying him, it’s a sin.


  53. as site admin, i do see the need to address a few things involving the posting of information that stacy intended to be private:

    1) no one who contributes to this blog culled and posted this information from stacy’s website or email digests. the woman who posted is a visitor to the site and shared this information herself. we are not responsible for her actions. we respect that no one is asking that the email post be taken down and do not intend to take it down at this time.

    2) the purpose of this blog is not to bash any viewpoint that we oppose, but to dialogue about views and subjects that we believe should be considered by Christian men and women, particularly subjects that prescribe a man-made stereotype for women.

    3) no contributor here has posted to stacy’s blog or on this blog in order to chastise her for her views on women. all contributors here are saddened by james’ and stacy’s unfortunate inability to understand that heated dialogue about an issue does not equate the promotion of a “philosophy from the pit” nor is it seeking to divide the body of Christ.

    4) perhaps at the heart of the issue is the importance that the contributors here attach to being informed and educated about issues from all viewpoints. when heated dialogue is viewed as divisive and when those who do not posess the skills necessary to dialogue about issues without resorting to name-calling, it becomes clear that being informed is not important (especially when it is labeled “dangerous”). those who wish to post opposing views are welcome to do so, but please equip yourselves with the tools to dialogue without taking personal jabs at those with whom you disagree.

  54. Spunky Says:

    Cara said, “Suppose that you don’t know everything based on a one-dimensional view of the situation.”

    I don’t know everything Cara. That’s why I ask questions. But if I recall in a previous comment you viewed asking such questions with suspicion. I don’t have an agenda Cara. I ask questions to challenge myself and learn the Truth. I don’t write because I am right, I comment to see if I could be wrong. I am very open to correction if I say something that is incorrect.

    I don’t glory in finding out this information. I was as saddened as anyone would be. I own the McDonalds book. I own So Much More. I own over $1000 worth of Vision Forum materials. I have been a supporter of their ministry since it first began in the late 1990’s. I’ve met Doug Phillips. I’ve endorsed his ministry on my blog and in talks that I’ve given. I’ve been challenged, inspired, and encouraged by some of what he has said and written. It isn’t easy to now see that maybe things that he says aren’t been applied in his own life. I have emailed Vision Forum seeking clarification on their views. They have not been responsive to discussing what they believe. As a supporter it’s important that the ministries I support are credible and trustworthy. I want to know that they are accountable both to Godly men and their supporters.

    Anyone can give a talk that sounds convicting and godly, but if they aren’t willing to live out the words that they speak, I don’t want to support them. Some might say then just don’t support them and move on. I suppose that is an option, and eventually that may be the direction I take. But for now, I am hoping that there is an explanation for some of their views that I have yet to hear. So I am open to the views of those that can present information that I may not have considered. I am open to being shown that there is more to the story and that the possibility that I a wrong. Blogging about these topics facilitates doing this quite well.

    Some of the blogs from Vision Forum supporters are moderated and don’t seem to want to engage in dialogue on these topics. CS Hayden deleted a comment of mine for some reason without explanation. I emailed him asking for clarification and correction and he did not reply. The comment was not offensive in anyway and asked legitimate questions.

    So I will use the blogs of those that show an interest in this subject and are willing to engage in open dialogue. I am not “white-washed” feminist but Christian woman who has a genuine interest in walking in Truth.

  55. Corrie Says:

    “Its our way (hyper-patriarchy) or the highway (white-washed feminism).

    Heaven forbid there be some middle ground where those of us live who believe in male headship in marriage, female submission in marriage, not allowing the ordination of women as elders and pastors, and liberty in dress (with true modesty the standard.)

    No, there’s no middle ground… what a shame.”

    LOL!!

    JRH,

    You are teasing, right? You are using sarcasm to get your point across?

    Your little paragraph concerning the “middle ground” is EXACTLY what I believe and so do many others who post on this blog.

    “White-washed feminism”? Now, where did that term come from? What exactly does that mean?

    Please, avail yourself of the facts before making such an obviously false accusation.

    The “middle ground” is exactly what this blog is all about!


  56. WHY ON EARTH DOES IT HAVE TO COME DOWN TO AN EITHER/OR MENTALITY WHEN DISCUSSING THESE ISSUES? You’re either for patriocentricity or you’re a feminist. You’re either in the will of the church, or you’re a jezebel. I could go on and on, but all of us here know the tactics and the game.

    And the threatening of legal action, attorneys and such? It sounds vaguely familiar. Sounds an awful lot like Vision Forum and that messy scandal.

    I like what Molly says above. I can relate to the patriocentric attitudes because I was once encamped there. Just because I no longer “die on that hill” for the patriocentric movement, that makes me a whitewashed feminist? WRONG. If you knew me, and knew my home and family and what we stand for, you’d be ashamed of yourself for even using the term “whitewashed feminist.”

    I’m not a feminist. I am a Christian. But I am NOT following extra-biblical convictions anymore that certain folks like to pass off as CHRISTIAN DUTY and MANDATES for all of us. If you want to follow it, fine. But leave me out of it. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  57. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “And the threatening of legal action, attorneys and such? It sounds vaguely familiar. Sounds an awful lot like Vision Forum and that messy scandal.”

    It sounds an awful lot like a comment I recieved from James Mcdonald on my Blogger blog, at about the same time that a certain “someone” pressured Homeschoolblogger (my other blogsite) to remove several of my postings, under the threat of legal action:

    http://cynthiagee.blogspot.com/2007/01/matthew-18-john-320.html

  58. Cynthia Gee Says:

    It sounds an awful lot like a comment I recieved from James Mcdonald on my blog, too, a comment made at about the same time that a certain “someone” pressured Homeschoolblogger (my other blogsite) to remove several of my postings, under the threat of legal action:

    http://cynthiagee.blogspot.com/2007/01/matthew-18-john-320.html

  59. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Sorry about that nearly double posting. I hit the send button before I was done, then rewrote it and posted it the way it should have been. The crazy thing is, the mistake post appeared, AFTER the repost. 😛

  60. JRH Says:

    Oh no! Ya’ll have totally misunderstood me! My comment was complete and utter sarcasm. I live in the middle ground!! Sorry that didn’t come across. See what happens when I only get two hours sleep!!

    My apologies.

  61. JRH Says:

    To add: the either/or mentality is what drives me crazy and that is what I very unsuccessfully tried to say in my response to Cara’s comment.

  62. molleth Says:

    LOL…I was wondering about that, JRH. 😆

  63. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “If you want to follow it, fine. But leave me out of it. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

    And that’s the whole problem with the patriocentric heresy — it’s dominionist.

    If the patriocentrics were content to worship as they please and mind their own business, it wouldn’t matter what sort of ancilliary things they believed — after all,according to Romans 10:9, as long as someone confesses Christ and believes that God raised Him from the dead, he can be wrong about everything else, and still conceivably be saved.

    But, the HyperPatriarchs are Dominionists — they follow Rushdoony and North — and they will not be content until everyone else believes and practices their heresy as well, BY FORCE OF LAW. They are not above lying, bullying, using the legal systems, influencing politicians, selling misleading,revisionist history books to homeschoolers, and collaborating with the racists and Kinists in groups such as the League of the South to achieve their goals.

    Because of this, we orthodox Christians have a fight on our hands, whether we want it or not.

  64. molleth Says:

    One correction: Not all of them are dominionists (the Pearls aren’t, for example), but there is a large persuasive group that are.

  65. thatmom Says:

    JRH,

    You are so good at parody, perhaps you ought to go into busines….sorry to have assumed you were being serious!

  66. thatmom Says:

    I have just reread everything related to this blog and did want to clarify something.

    Stacy’s blog entry did not name this blog by name. However, when someone on her Patriarch’s Wives loop suggested that women there might want to enter in on some lively discussion on the True Womanhood blog, Stacy sent the above letter out in response. So, clearly, the letter was directed at this site. I know there has been some confusion about this and I was contacted privately, asking that I make this clear.

  67. Corrie Says:

    JRH,

    Thanks for explaining. I am sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion. I thought at first it might be sarcasm but then I thought it wasn’t. Should go with my first instinct, right? 🙂

    Thatmom,

    Thank you for making that clear. I thought it was but I appreciate you even making it more clear.

    I am wondering if you could clear something else up?

    The woman who wrote into the PW list and informed the list of this site later wrote the PW list that Stacey had emailed her and informed her that this was a ‘ “Christian” feminist site’. The word “Christian” was in quotes so as to give doubt to whether Truewomanhood was really a Christian site. When a person puts the word “Christian” in quotation marks, it sends a message loud and CLEAR.

    I would like to see that cleared up. This IS a Christian site, is it not?

    If it is not a Christian site, then I would like to know what kind of site it is? What makes a site a Christian site? Is following the hyper-patriarchal extra-biblical mandates, dogmas and traditions of men taught as the very precepts of God a litmus test for whether or not a person is a Christian?

  68. thatmom Says:

    Corrie, absolutely.

  69. thatmom Says:

    FYI,

    Midwest Christian Outreach has just uploaded their Spring 2007 Journal and the lead article is about “hyper patriarchy.”

    Find it here:
    http://www.midwestoutreach.org/Pdf%20Journals/2007/spring_2007.pdf

  70. Corrie Says:

    Karen,

    Yes, absolutely this is a Christian site with no quote/unquotes?

    Or yes, absolutely agreeing with hyper-patriarchal dogmas and doctrines of men are a litmus test to whether or not one is a believer? 🙂

  71. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “The woman who wrote into the PW list and informed the list of this site later wrote the PW list that Stacey had emailed her and informed her that this was a ‘ “Christian” feminist site’.”

    Well Corrie… of COURSE it’s a Christian Feminist site. EVERYTHING that doesn’t support patriocentricity (including Luke 10:42, John 20:18, and Matthew 28:7) is “feminist”, don’t you know that? 😉

    (

  72. TulipGirl Says:

    Haven’t read all of this year. . . but wanted to comment:

    “In addition, I have never referenced this blog or the women who contribute here in any public forum, so I’m not sure why you are implying that I have. That being said, I am not interested in discussing anything in this forum. Thank you anyway.”

    “The new buzz words are “hyper-patriarchy” and “patricentricity”.”

    While I don’t doubt patricentricity has been used elsewhere, the term patriocentricity has recently had a surge in use due to this blog and thatmom specifically. The reference to this blog may have intended to be oblique, but yes, this blog and the Christian women here, and their influence elsewhere online were the stated concern.

  73. TulipGirl Says:

    *L* Of course someone else had pointed that out. . .

    “The word “patricentricity” (which is what I used) is used all over the internet (do a google search). Patri (meaning father) and centricity (meaning pertaining to or situated at the center.)”

    In spite of Stacy’s dissembling that “patricentricity” is used “all over the internet”–it is most commonly used in sociological and anthropological contexts. Her letter was clearly referring to the common discussions being played out within the North American Christian subculture–not academia, and that is where the terms hyperpatriarchy and patriocentricity (spelled however one wants–I like the “o,” like thatmom said, parallels ecclisiocentricity, which is appropriate within our subculture.

    It is disingenuous to assert that, even though was not named specifically in her letter, that this blog and others like it, and the women who are dialoging here, were not who were being identified. (Especially in light of the situation of her responding to someone who mentioned True Womanhood specifically.)

  74. JRH Says:

    Now Cynthia, why can’t my sarcasm come out more like yours? I totally got it in your comment 😉

  75. Cynthia Gee Says:

    LOL.. it’s all in the nudge-nudge wink-wink.. 😉

  76. thatmom Says:

    Tulip Girl,

    Thank you for wading through the muck, identifying it, and exposing it. Well said.

  77. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “In spite of Stacy’s dissembling…”

    LOL… maybe Stacey meant her dissembling to be disingenuous, Rahab-style… 😀

  78. Alisa Says:

    “LOL… maybe Stacey meant her dissembling to be disingenuous, Rahab-style… ”

    Oh, Cynthia, I owe a good laugh all to you… again!

    The way this story is used is forever grating at me!!! Why must people take her and say “So we can lie to promote our cause whenever we like!”, or, “She had no business lying! See, she is still just a sinning prostitue!!!”

    Why can’t they take Hebrews for what it says “BY FAITH, Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she welcomed the spies in peace”. So let’s see, it’s because of her FAITH, her fear of God more than man. We would do well to pray for a faith like hers that prompts us toward aiding His people.

  79. Corrie Says:

    “The new buzz words are “hyper-patriarchy” and “patricentricity” . There are groups who claim Christ and hate patriarchy because it means “male-led.”

    Can I just make a point?

    This is from Stacey’s letter to her PW list (you can see it above).

    This is an utterly FALSE statement. It is a total and complete misrepresentation of what any of us on TW or any other “blogs” believe.

    If one person could find one statement where anyone on this blog says that they “hate” patriarchy because it means “male-led”, I will send them a gift certificate to their favorite restaurant.

    Stacey was warning her followers against this particular blog. This particular blog was brought up on her women’s list.

    We do not “hate” patriarchy because it means male-led. We hate the scripture twisting and extra-biblical teachings that are being foisted upon believers in the name of Christ and being represented as the very teachings of God when they are nothing but the traditions of men. We hate when the Bible is used to say things it does not say.

    We don’t “hate” male leadership.

    I have been in this debate for a long while and it IS frustrating to have the issues constantly misrepresented.

    I have a suggestion. Drop all the accusations of “feminist” and just deal with the issues brought up by going to SCRIPTURE.

    So far I find scripture to be low on the totem pole when these charges are made. In fact, I find hardly any scripture at all.

  80. KellyH Says:

    Hello! I have been trying to follow this blog on and off, but think this may answer many questions without my having to wade through many posts.

    Can you tell me what these are? (below) What are the teaching being referred to, specifically? I have tried to piece it together, but think an answer here in one place would help.

    Thanks
    KellyH

    We hate the scripture twisting and extra-biblical teachings that are being foisted upon believers in the name of Christ and being represented as the very teachings of God when they are nothing but the traditions of men. We hate when the Bible is used to say things it does not say. (from previous post above)

  81. Spunky Says:

    “So far I find scripture to be low on the totem pole when these charges are made. In fact, I find hardly any scripture at all.”

    That is exactly the way I have felt when discussing this issue with some people. Here at TW, I asked a Anna S. under another thread to clarify whether her belief that the “highest calling” for a young lady is as a wife and mother was based on Scripture or if she was simply stating an opinion. I haven’t heard back from her.

    In an article written by Sarah Zes on the Vision Forum website she states (emphasis mine), “So I encourage you — give your heart fully to the Lord Jesus Christ and to your father (or if you are married, to your husband) and be under his authority. Find your mission in being his helpmeet. Your job is to honor and serve him as your leader, your protector, your head. The Word of God tells us as women to delight in being keepers at home and to love children. We are to make our father’s (or husband’s) home and work as productive as possible.”

    No Scripture is given to support the assertion that a daughter is to be her father’s helpmeet. In fact, 1 Corinthians 7:34 says just the opposite,

    “An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord’s affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband. 35I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord.”

    Further, the assetion that God’s Word tells “us” (meaning young unmarried women like Sarah Zes) that they are to be a “keeper at home” is not supported by any Scriptural reference.

    I’ll assume that since she referenced “keeper at home” she was referring to Titus 2.

    Titus 2 says, “3Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God. ”

    The first instruction the older women were to give the younger women was to “love their husbands and children.” But if a young lady has no husband how can we apply this scripture? We can’t. The application and teaching to be a “keeper at home” as given to MARRIED women which would support the opinion Paul gave us in 1 Corinthians 7. An older women can teach a young unmarried women about how she may treat a man who may one day become her husband. But to imply that she must be a “keeper at home” and a “helpmeet” to her father isn’t supported with by this Scripture.

    So the idea that a young UNmarried women is to apply the teaching of a married women to her life, is not supported.

    Even Sarah Zes seems to realize this because she points to Deborah and Sarah and says, “In the Scriptures, we see that Deborah and Sarah were strong and godly women — and they were under the authority of their husbands.” But this says nothing to a young unmarried woman about her decisions before marriage.

    I’m not saying that she can’t decide to live at home and be her father’s helpmeet if that if what she chooses, but there appears to be no scriptural command to do so.

    So if Scripture is low on the totem pole, Corrie, it is because the Scripture doesn’t seem to support what they want it to say.

    I am open to hearing more Scriptures about the idea that a young lady is to be her father’s helpmeet, so if any of those that agree with this notion would like to chime in feel free. I’m not claiming I am right, just that the Scriptural justification given thus far appear to be inadequate to make such a claim.

    Here is the reference to the Sarah Zes article.
    http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/family/the_feminism_of_the_mothers_is.aspx

  82. Spunky Says:

    Kelly if you look at the post in the archives here called “Visionary Daughters” and another called “Monstrous Regiment” you’ll find some discussion about this subject.

    Part of the prompting for the recent discussion is a book called So Much More by two young unmarried sisters, Anna and Elizabeth Botkin and a podcast by Colorado Homeschool Director Kevin Swanson at Generations. A throrough discussion of this book can be found in the Visionary Daughter thread, but here is one comment I posted there that might help you understand one aspect that they are teaching.

    The Botkin’s use of scripture to make their claims is often an example of “biblical gymnastics.” That is, a lot of tumbling and twisting to reach a desired outcome.

    Here is one such place that I have found,

    On page 39, in answer to the question, “How can I show my father love?” The girls begin their answer with the scripture Proverbs 23:26. They say, “Proverbs 23:26 suggests in a paraphrased form, that daughters give their fathers their hearts, “and let your eyes observe my ways.”

    It is a Scriptural slight of hand and the girls apparently know it. The verse says, “MY SON, give me thine heart, and let thine eyes observe my ways.” The girls don’t quote the first portion, why not? Because it isn’t addressing daughters but sons. (There are actually very few instances where the Bible addresses only daughters or young ladies.) They are using a Scripture intended for sons, toward young ladies. If the writers of the Bible intended a text to be applied to both sons and daughters they are referred to as “children.” Such as Ephesians 6:1 “Children obey your parents in the Lord for this is right.” While this slight of hand isn’t serious in its application, it is inappropriate and lacks true scholarship. If we can take such liberties and apply a Scripture intended for sons toward daughters in this instance, why not elsewhere?

    It should be unacceptable to use God’s Word in a sloppy manner simply to further our personal agenda. A case can be made that it is a good idea for a daughter to ‘give her father her heart,” but the argument cannot be made using this verse as the Botkins attempt to do. But as a reader, I was willing to excuse this in their zeal to make a point about a daughter’s heart toward her father.

    However, in other instances this Scriptural gymanstics has more serious consequences. That is, the Botkins attempt to make the claim that daughters are to be a helpmeet to their fathers until they are given in marriage. Quoting from page 62, “You may not immediately see how much your father needs your help and just how much you can help him, because the very importance of being a “helpmeet” has been forgotten.”

    The girls use, in part, the Proverbs 31 woman as a basis for this claim. Thankfully, in this case the girls readily admit that this was written to wives, but use it to show what a good helpmeet can do for a man. And I agree, truly a good helpmeet is a blessing to her husband. No problem there.

    The girls then go on to place the very success of men on the women around them. Page 46, “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”

    So how did we go from a Proverbs 31 woman as a good wife, to placing the burden of their father’s success on wives AND daughters? There is no Scriptural support for such a claim.

    Their assertion is not supported scripturally. In fact, scripture actually says the something distinctly different from their premise. (See my above comment and 1 Corinthians 7.)

    They also teach that a young lady is acting outside of “kingdom architecture” when she goes to the foreign mission field. And that such notions toward missions are not from Scripture but a selfish heart that is “not purely biblical.”

    Time permitting I’ll share other such cases where the use of Scripture doesn’t support the assertions claimed by the writer.

  83. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “We are to make our father’s (or husband’s) home and work as productive as possible.”

    “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”

    “They also teach that a young lady is acting outside of “kingdom architecture” when she goes to the foreign mission field. And that such notions toward missions are not from Scripture but a selfish heart that is “not purely biblical.”

    Now let’s take a look at this again: these people are preaching that it is our highest calling as women to make the men in our lives SUCCESSFUL and PRODUCTIVE. Even spreading the word of God comes second to this.

    What is presupposed here is that SUCCESS and PRODUCTIVITY are to be the primary goals of the MEN, rather than spreading the Gospel. No wonder being a “helpmeet” to a man takes precedence over foreign missions: it’s the 1980s Prosperity Gospel, all over again, all tricked out for the 21st century!

    Mat 6:24 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. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

  84. TulipGirl Says:

    “We hate the scripture twisting and extra-biblical teachings that are being foisted upon believers in the name of Christ and being represented as the very teachings of God when they are nothing but the traditions of men. We hate when the Bible is used to say things it does not say. (from previous post above).”

    Galatians 3.

    It breaks my heart to see women who love the Lord, begin to construct a life built on “oughts” and not built on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    It is so easy, oh so very easy, to set aside our first love. How easy it is to set up for ourselves “standards” and “principles” and “higher ways” of doing things–and lose sight of the Gospel, lose sight of Christ, lose sight of our very sinfulness and our need daily for Christ. It’s so much easier, as Christians, to form an image of what we think God wants from us, and in doing so stop leaning into the Holy Spirit moment by moment.

    And what I see in the the current Christian subculture that promotes patriarchy is just that–building a life on principles and losing sight of the the Cornerstone.

  85. Corrie Says:

    “What is presupposed here is that SUCCESS and PRODUCTIVITY are to be the primary goals of the MEN, rather than spreading the Gospel. No wonder being a “helpmeet” to a man takes precedence over foreign missions: it’s the 1980s Prosperity Gospel, all over again, all tricked out for the 21st century!”

    Cindy,

    LOL!! “All tricked out”….I love it!

    “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.””

    Hmmm? So, all the men in jail are there because the women in their life have not made them successful? All the homeless men are there because the women in their life have not made them successful? All the drunks and porn addicts who sloth away the day watching porn or drinking are not out working and being productive because the women in their life have not made them successful?

    I wonder if they have a Bible verse for that?

    It sounds very similar to me. I remember…”It is the woman YOU gave me, God!!!!”

  86. molleth Says:

    “If our men aren’t succesful, it largely means that their women have not made them successful. They need our help.”

    Hmm. This above-quoted thought is interesting, because it proved true in my own experience. The deeper into this form of patriarchy we delved, the more everything imperfect in our marriage and home became MY fault.

    It wasn’t just my husband pointing the finger at me, though (a husband who wasn’t like that in the early days of our marriage before we fell into hyper-patriarchy, interestingly, and who isn’t like that anymore)—it was also ME pointing the finger of blame at myself, spurred on by the “biblical womanhood” books I would read that heaped untold amounts of pressure on any wife who was dealing with a problem in her marriage.

    The key answer for any and everything: Submit, and it will make all your problems get better. And if you *do* have problems, you’re apparently not submitting enough or in the right ways—repeat ad infitum).

    I remember counseling a good friend with an alchoholic husband—-counseling her NOT to dump out his booze because that made him mad (and that was therefore sinful–a husband must ALWAYS be respected), but to simply submit to his get-drunk-nightly self.

    I honestly believed that if she would just submit, it would change him, and that even if it didn’t, that she would be in sin if she did not passively accept his alchololism. In my opinion, for her to challenge him AFTER having already talked about his drinking (and him responding angrily that it was none of her business), she was doing a great evil. To challenge her husband’s choices was aligning herself with the enemy, and nothing good could ever come of that—-in my view, to tell him that his drinking was unacceptable would be to make herself just as much of a sinner as he was being.

    I can’t even believe I said that stuff now. I wish I could erase aaaall of the counsel I gave during that period of my life, really…but I can’t. I believed that I was dispensing Biblical counsel—even when it didn’t make sense to me, I believed it because it appeared to me to be what Scripture was saying. 1 Peter 3 taken literally, as I took it, seems to say that a wife must submit to all things her husband dishes out, right? Hence my advice to the woman with the drunk husband.

    If only I’d known the cultural context to that passage—-if only I’d known it was advice being given to women who were required to be obedient BY LAW to their husbands—who’s husbands had the power to kill the baby the wife just pushed out into the world, for goodness sake—talking to people in a culture that did not view a woman’s testimony as viable in court because a woman couldn’t be counted on to think or to be trusted.

    THESE wives, in THAT kind of culture, were turning to Jesus, in DIRECT DISOBEDIENCE to their husband’s wishes (whether their husband was a Jew or a Roman, either way, the wife just left the family religion and joined a wierdo upstart cult that was punishable by death!)…

    Peter was talking to wives who ALREADY WERE in rebellion to their husband’s wishes!!!! And he was telling them to CONTINUE that rebellion!

    If only I’d known that, how differently I might have viewed the passage. Peter was telling these women to OBEY, as their cultures required them to do, and to just BE DANG SWEET to their husbands—having already disobeyed their husbands in such a huge way, to NOT ROCK THE BOAT on ANYTHING else, for goodness sake—and perhaps, even, by that sweetness, their husband’s hearts might be won to the Gospel, too.

    I think it’s a good thing to be a literalist. But it’s not a smart thing to be when you’re reading a book that was written to a COMPLETELY different culture than yours, and one that existed 2,000 years before you were born. So, YEAH, I want to take the Bible literally. But to assume Peter and Paul were writing to a culture that thinks the same way *my* culture does? That would be pompous and/or foolhardy. I wish we had more good Bible teachers in the Christian community, who could teach us to revere the Scriptures but also to read them in context—the context of each letter, and the context of the situation the letter was written to address, the cultural backdrop, etc.

    The only thing I can do now is actively promote, when it’s appropriate (like on this blog, for example) the fact that the form of patriarchy espoused by Vision Forum, Douglas Wilson, the Pearls, etc, is NOT the only “Biblical” way—that there *are* Biblically-solid ways of viewing male/female relationships that involve husband and wife standing together—not one in front of the other, but TOGETHER, side by side, bound in a love and respect for eachtoher that comes from Christ—-TOGETHER, just as man and woman were made to stand, before sin came into the world and the great rift between man and woman began.

  87. Corrie Says:

    Spunky,

    I am simply appalled at how they have misused scripture and how pastors allow that to be passed off as excellent material for believers?????

    A man is only “head” to one person and that is his wife. A father is no more a head to his daughter than he is to his son. The Bible NEVER refers to a father as the head of his daughter nor does it refer to the daughter as her father’s “helpmeet”.

    In fact, CHILDREN- both boys and girls are to SERVE and HONOR their PARENTS. Where are the sons? Where are all the books written to sons telling them to give their father their heart and serve him and make him successful?

    As far as the Prov. 23:26 verse, the Hebrew word for “son” is many times translated “child” or “children”. Genesis 3:16 uses this same Hebrew word and they translate it children.

    But, still! This is a perversion of this verse and to exclusively apply it to daughters is not at all the gist of it.

    And, if they want to be totally accurate they cannot leave the mother out of it.

    Pro 1:8 My son, hear the instruction of thy father, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

    The word “instruction” is a word for chastening or discipline. The word for “law” is a word for law, instruction or direction.

    Pro 6:20 My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:

    What all these verses simply mean is that children are to OBEY their PARENTS.

    It is not some mystical teaching about a daughter giving her heart to daddy and he will hold onto it until he gives it to another man. It isn’t about asking your dad what color pleases him.

    It is about obeying the word of God that is taught through your mother and your father.

    And, this is Solomon’s teaching to his son. A mother or a father could use Prov. 23:26 and say “My son or my daughter…..” and still be well within the bounds of scripture’s intent, especially since Solomon tells his son that he is to listen to both of his parent’s teachings. This proverb isn’t specifically about fathers. If that is the case, then it is specifically about Solomon and his son.

    That would be like saying that a father cannot use the teachings of King Lemuel’s mother in order to instruct his son or daughter. That those words are only for a mother to teach her son. We find those in the hyperpatriarchal movement doing this all the time with scripture. They make it specifically about the father when it is not. It is about God and His word and it is about parents teaching their children His word and children obeying their parents. It is NOT about a father’s flights of fancy and likes and dislikes.

  88. Corrie Says:

    “We hate the scripture twisting and extra-biblical teachings that are being foisted upon believers in the name of Christ and being represented as the very teachings of God when they are nothing but the traditions of men. We hate when the Bible is used to say things it does not say. (from previous post above)”

    Kelly,

    That is in response to a person who made the assertion that women on this blog and other alleged blogs hate patriarchy because it means “male led”. That is patently false.

    Many of us take issue to the extra-biblical teachings foisted under the banner of patriarchy. We take issue with the the twisting of scripture in order to make it say something it does not.

    For example, single women are never to have a calling of their own (missionary, nurse, teacher, etc). It is always their father’s calling. They are never to leave home or they will be “unprotected” which we all know to be false since God is sovereign and a person is never more safe when that person is doing exactly what God wants them to do. Single women should not go to college but should remain under their father’s roof so they don’t get an “independent spirit”.

    All one has to do is read Debi Pearl’s book to see the dogmatic assertions made about a wife and what she can and cannot do to get the feel for what I was referring to.

  89. Corrie Says:

    Spunky,

    Here is one thing, from the side bar of the article you linked to, that I see as a problem.

    ““We as daughters are not sufficient to guard our hearts — God has placed us under the authority of our fathers to protect our hearts.””

    Pro 4:23 Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it [are] the issues of life.

    It looks like the Bible is telling us that we are sufficient to guard our hearts. I can’t find any verse that tells us that women are insufficient to guard their own hearts and that a father is to do that for them.

    Keep: o guard, watch, watch over, keep
    a) (Qal)
    1) to watch, guard, keep
    2) to preserve, guard from dangers
    3) to keep, observe, guard with fidelity
    4) to guard, keep secret
    5) to be kept close, be blockaded
    6) watchman (participle)

    The father is telling his “sons”/”son” to guard his heart. Solomon isn’t telling the son that it is the dad’s job to guard his heart. He is telling him to guard his own heart.

    Also, this is the same Hebrew word that is translated “children”. This verse is applicable to female children, too.

    The father is telling his child to guard his own heart.

    Also, NO ONE is sufficient to guard their own heart. It is the Holy Spirit that does that for us as we yield to His working in our life. To say that a mortal is capable/sufficient of guarding another person’s heart is to lie about scripture.

    Yes, parents can offer protection and guidance and wisdom to their children concerning major life decisions but it is up to the individual child to keep his/her heart and to guard it.

  90. Corrie Says:

    “Feminism has affected the way we think — even the way we dress. Did you know that the lack of clothes we see women wear today is an effect of feminism? How many feminists — pro-aborts — do you know who dress modestly? We as Christian women need to make a distinction in our dress and make a conscious effort to dress modestly and femininely. We need to have a dress standard, and it needs to reflect Christ and not the world.”

    Actually, the feminists that I see on the news and the pro-abortion leaders all dress modestly. In fact, the spokeswomen for these groups dress like the wives of the presidents. They dress in classic, tailored and tasteful clothing. As for the pro-aborts, even the ones who work at the clinic look like your run of the mill modestly dressed woman. No, they are not wearing prairie dresses but modest all the same.

    The ones who dress immodestly are what Pink calls the “Stupid Girls”. They are not really feminists. They will give their bodies to anyone. They are boy toys. Feminists, in my view, are not women who dress like tarts and who consider themselves boy toys.

    Actually, most feminists can’t stand that sort of thing.

    I used to work for an organization that raised money for NARAL and NOW and Planned Parenthood. I say this to my shame. I was not a Christian at the time and I did end up quitting this job after I became a believer because I couldn’t work on these campaigns. The women I dealt with from these organizations were very professional, soft-spoken, lovely feminine women.

    Do we all realize that the lost canNOT do anything but sin? I think we are going at the feminist/abortion problem all wrong. We don’t point fingers at the lost! That is like telling a dead guy to get off the floor and bury himself.

    “We have been pressured by our egalitarian culture to look for our worth in peers, in education, in careers, and in individual ministries outside the home. I encourage you to heed the testimonies of Deborah and Sarah — who being dead, yet speaketh. In the Scriptures, we see that Deborah and Sarah were strong and godly women — and they were under the authority of their husbands.”

    Well, our worth is found in only One- the Lord Jesus Christ. All else is vanity.

    Now, to this testimony of Deborah statement?

    “Jdg 4:4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time.
    Jdg 4:5 And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment.”

    Is she sure she wants to use Deborah as an example. First, where does the scripture say that Deborah was in submission to her husband? I am not saying she wasn’t but where does it make this statement? The only mention of her husband stated that she was married to him. He seemingly played no part in her ministry to Israel.

    Second, Deborah sat under a palm tree and all of Israel came up to her for JUDGMENT. She was not only Israel’s civil leader but she was also its leader according to God’s Law/Word. And, add to that she was the nation’s prophet.

    Is this the picture that we are supposed to be getting about a woman in submission to her husband according to their definition? I would think that she would be an example of a feminist?

    “I have heard it said that the Heroism of the Fathers is the Legacy of the Sons. I would submit the reverse is also true. In our culture, the Feminism of the Mothers is the Destruction of the Daughters. ”

    That is not the reverse.

    The reverse of this statement would be something like “The Cowardliness of the Fathers is the Curse of the Sons”.

    I wonder what she would say the reverse of “The Feminism of Mothers is the Destruction of the Daughters”?

    “The Godliness of the Mothers is the Salvation of the Daughters”?

    After all, she is trying to get across the opposite of the above message.

  91. Alisa Says:

    “I believed that I was dispensing Biblical counsel—even when it didn’t make sense to me, I believed it because it appeared to me to be what Scripture was saying.”

    Molly,

    Giving what I believe to be “godly” counsel is something I take much more seriously after reading of God’s anger towards Job’s friends after their genuine but errant counsel and “comfort” to Him, because “they did not speak what is right about God as His servant Job had”. To be sure, I pray a lot more when writing even my comments here, that I am speaking only what is right about Him.

    And one of the reasons that such counsel didn’t make sense even to you, is because the basis of such views completely ignores the way God created relationships to work. Some concepts I recently came across can be found in a book called “Boundaries” and other books by authors Henry Cloud and John Townsend. Some people write it off as “pop psychology”, but nothing could be further than the truth, as they give a map of how to navigate difficult relationships (and often learning what the we the reader should be doing differently!) based one the interpersonal laws (like the law of gravity) that God set in place. These books are DESPERATELY needed in so many Christian circles, ESPECIALLY for wives who have been indoctrinated to submit in unhealthy marriages. I can’t recommend it enough.

    Corrie,

    “I am simply appalled at how they have misused scripture and how pastors allow that to be passed off as excellent material for believers?????”

    As you know all too well, Doug Phillips is not a pastor, but a lawyer posing as an “elder”, and the rest of them don’t believe in higher education, so it stands to reason that they would throw out what little they learned from it.

    It leaves the rest of the actual Biblical pastors in the country shaking their heads and picking up the pieces these guys leave behind.

  92. Spunky Says:

    Corrie, you are correct about the use of the word son and children. In fact, in just about all cases the Hebrew word for son and children appear to be interchangeable. Thank you for the correction.

  93. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Corrie said,
    “The ones who dress immodestly are what Pink calls the “Stupid Girls”. They are not really feminists. They will give their bodies to anyone. They are boy toys. Feminists, in my view, are not women who dress like tarts and who consider themselves boy toys. Actually, most feminists can’t stand that sort of thing.”

    That’s true. But people in the hyperPatriarchal camp are trying to give a NEW definition to the word, “feminist”.

    Truth doesn’t matter here — they want to create a new perception, so that when people hear the word, “feminist, they automatically associate it in their minds with a brainless “boy toy” who has had at least three abortions in college while moonlighting as a strident, man-and-baby-hating lesbian CEO.

    Never mind the dissimiltude — people juggle disparate ideas in their heads all the time. Just repeat the same lie until it becomes part of the collective culture, and people will believe it, however preposterous it may sound. In fact, the bigger and more illogical the lie, the more successful it will be.

    Derived from Hitler’s propaganda techniques, the “Big Lie” theory maintains that people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.

    This is known in political circles as using a “talking point”. As described by Wikipedia , a talking point is an idea which may or may not be factual, usually compiled in a short list with summaries of a speaker’s agenda for public or private engagements. Public relations professionals, for example, sometimes prepare “talking points memos” for their clients to help them more effectively conform public presentations with this advice.
    A political think tank will strategize the most effective informational attack on a target topic and launch talking points from media personalities to saturate discourse in order to frame a debate in their favor, standardizing the responses of sympathizers to their unique cause while simultaneously co-opting the language used by those discussing the specific subject. When used politically in this way, the typical purpose of a talking point is to propagandize, specifically using the technique of argumentum ad nauseam, i.e. continuous repetition within media outlets until accepted as fact.

    Whether it’s concerning Feminist-BoyToy-Lesbian-CEOs or the Final Solution, “SPIN” is definitely not about logic.

  94. Spunky Says:

    “Now let’s take a look at this again: these people are preaching that it is our highest calling as women to make the men in our lives SUCCESSFUL and PRODUCTIVE. Even spreading the word of God comes second to this.”

    Cynthia, You’ve probably read this before but for the benefit of those that are just coming into the discussion, let’s remember that to some families, Biblical Patriarchy means that a young lady is “owned” by her father and not just evangelism but God, Himself, takes a “back seat.”

    From Sarah Faith Schlissel’s article “Daddy’s Girl: Courtship and a Father’s Rights – The Chalcedon Foundation. (Emphasis mine)

    “As strange as it may sound, in the peculiar relationship of the father and daughter, God, as it were, takes a back seat. God has created a hierarchy such that the daughter is directly answerable to her father, and her father then answers to God. This doubles the father’s responsibilities, because he must account to God for the way he raises his daughter.

    The father’s ownership, of course, is an in order to thing. God has given the daughter to the father so he can raise her in the fear and admonition of the Lord, protect her from harm and want, protect her from other men, and sometimes, protect her from herself, even from foolish decisions she might make on her own.

    http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/92b.htm

  95. Spunky Says:

    Cynthia, Your thoughts on prosperity are interesting. Especially in light of the use of women working for Vision Forum to fill orders in the warehouse and taking orders at the Christian call center in Virginia. When I inquired of Vision Forum a few years back about why they switched to a call center I was told it was a business decision. Which typically means it’s cheaper and more efficient to use labor from another source than retain employees in house to do the work. In this business decision, the trade off to Vision Forum was that calls would no longer be handled by only young men, but women as well.

    Jennie Chancey in an article hosted on Vision Forum’s website wrote, “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.”

    So who is it a poor reflection of when women are allowed to work for the benefit of the profits of Vision Forum and not their own father as taught by the Botkin girls? I was told by one of the female operator at the Christian call center that the center was used to facilitate taking orders 24 hours a day. This is women working along side men round-the-clock to take orders.

    From the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy #14:

    “14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)”

    And let us not forget that Jennie Chancey, Stacy McDonald, and the Botkins all sell their materials through Vision Forum. Passionate Housewives, Desperate for God is soon to be published. Will its authors Stacy McDonald and Jennie Chancey use Vision Forum’s call center that employs so called “white-washed” feminist women to sell their book?

    Perhaps some may feel that I am being unduly harsh upon Vision Forum for their use of women to further their business and bottom line. Keep in mind here that these are not my rules, but the ones Vision Forum and its men write and teach. Some might argue that Christian liberty would prevail. However, Doug Phillips answers such a charge on his own website with the Tenets of Patriarchy #26.

    “26. While God’s truth is unchanging, the specific application of that truth may vary depending on facts and circumstances unique to each believer. Also, those who are further along in sanctification will see some issues more clearly than those who are less mature. For these reasons great charity must be maintained between believers who have differences of application, and liberty of application must be respected. However, an appeal to the doctrine of Christian liberty must never be used in an effort simply to avoid submitting to what Scripture plainly teaches. Believers should also bear in mind that things which are lawful may not be expedient if the goal is personal and family holiness. The biblical rule in judging behavior is charity toward others, strictness toward oneself. (Gal. 5:2-3 with Acts 16:3; Phil. 3:15; toward others, strictness toward oneself. (Gal. 5:2-3 with Acts 16:3; Phil. 3:15; Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 1:10; 6:12; 9:27; 10:23; Gal. 5:13)”

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/home/about/biblical_patriarchy.aspx

    So we would expect that Doug Phillips as one who teaches and preaches about Biblical Patriarchy along with the McDonalds and Chanceys would be further along in their sanctification and be above reproach and example to others in their use of women in the workplace. Clearly, we see this is not the case.

    So apparently, a woman is only to take orders from her husband or father under his roof, unless she is working in a call center taking orders for Vision Forum and its authors. Profit above principle seems to be the rule when it comes to some issues within patriarchy as defined by some of the men at Vision Forum and its most ardent and prolific supporters.

  96. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “….to some families, Biblical Patriarchy means that a young lady is “owned” by her father and not just evangelism but God, Himself, takes a “back seat.””

    Yes, and that’s odd, isn’t it… especially in light of Jesus’s statement, (Matt 23:9) “And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

  97. thatmom Says:

    Cynthia,

    I appreciate your comments about talking points. What bothers me, though, are all the things that are woven throughout the patriocentric teachings that, when push comes to shove, are not mentioned in a forthright manner. There is always “spin” placed on a belief, so as not to be too blatant, but once you have been around these teachings for long enough, you know exactly what they mean. I have a friend who says this is like “trying to pin jello to the wall” and I think it is true. Do you know what I mean?

  98. Spunky Says:

    “There is always “spin” placed on a belief, so as not to be too blatant,”

    What’s difficult for many of us who believe some of the same things as Vision Forum, is that we miss the underlying theology that drives the ministry. We assume certain things to be true because we apply our own theology to the writing. But a diligent reader must read not only for what they get out of the words, but seek to understand the intention of the author or ministry as well.

    For many Christians, the theology behind Vision would be problematic. So they stick to main themes and avoid many of the underlying theological beliefs. When I have attempted to ask Vision Forum about some of their positions like slavery and Dabney, they have been silent. Their silence speaks louder than any “talking point” ever will.

  99. Cynthia Gee Says:

    The silence, “spins”, and “talking points” boil down to two things: manipulation and deliberate deception.
    The racist leanings of this movement are BAD, but it is the “spin”, dissembling, and deliberate lying that really warn me away from the entire hyperPatriarchal movement — we know who the Father of Deception is.

  100. Corrie Says:

    “Perhaps some may feel that I am being unduly harsh upon Vision Forum for their use of women to further their business and bottom line. ”

    Spunky,

    I do not. I think it is a very good point. And, like you said, these are THEIR rules not your rules. These are the rules they tells us we must play by or else we are going to ruin our daughters and give them an independent spirit.

    On another note, I came across another good use for virgins. They are not only a help for their own fathers but they could be a great comfort and source of warmth for church leaders.

    1 Kings 1:1 tells us that when David was very old and dying, his body could not keep his temperature regulated. He was very cold. So, a virgin was brought to him in order to keep him warm. The scripture tells us that David didn’t cohabit with her (aka have intercourse with her) but what old man on the verge of dying (not being able to keep one’s body temp up is a big sign that death is near) is able to have sex with some teenage girl?

    Obviously, in order to keep him warm, she would have to be bare naked against his skin to bring his temp up.

    Funny how they didn’t get any of his wives that were already warehoused in the stables to do that job?

    Now, this doesn’t take away from David at all. My point is that I can take anything out of the bible and make it law simply because it is there. My point that there was some apparently bad attitudes because of sin and culture concerning the USE of women. Women were property to be used to their advantage. Just think of all the wives waiting to die in these harems?? Knowing a man once or twice, never conceiving a baby of their own and they are sent off to a different part of the palace to live out their life, deprived of what is rightfully theirs?

    This is what the patriocentric (you say patricentric, I say tomato, you say tomato, I say potato, you say potato….let’s call the whole thing off!) crowd does to scripture all of the time.

    Ignore the very real examples of women who had their own ministry apart from any man (how about all the married women who would travel with the disciplesall the while supporting Jesus and the disciples with their OWN money) and all the other gobbley-gook they put on women as restrictions to what they CAN do. It isn’t enough to tell women that they can’t be elders in the church, they have to put an even bigger hedge around God’s word, just in case.

    Some of these stories about women sound suspiciously like white-washed feminism and putting a stumbling block of sexual temptation in front of all those men. Women alone with men that are not their husbands? Women traveling alone in charge of one of the most important books of the New Testament? A woman insisting (Paul said she was very persuasive) that a church leader stay at her home and then hosts a home church in her very own home? These women sound very much influenced by the modern feminist movement.

    Another “talking point” is this new word “white-washed feminism”. That is a misnomer. This word, to describe the women on this blog, is no more accurate than if I would call all the patriocentrics a bunch of “white-washed wife spankers”.

    Well, there are patriarchalists who believe that it is their duty to discipline their wife if she is “naughty” or “sassy”. Just like there are feminists who believe a girl can go to college.

  101. Alisa Says:

    “The silence, “spins”, and “talking points” boil down to two things: manipulation and deliberate deception.
    The racist leanings of this movement are BAD, but it is the “spin”, dissembling, and deliberate lying that really warn me away from the entire hyperPatriarchal movement — we know who the Father of Deception is.”

    Cynthia,

    Earlier this week I read the end of Job. I was surprised at how vehemently God declared His anger against Job’s friends for “not speaking what is right of me as my servant Job has”. I thought how this is something still permeating the church today… people giving advice and directions to their brothers and sisters, believing they understand what God is doing in the lives of His children, or simply believing they have a grasp of how God works, and conclude that He has a blanket method for everyone.

    So a few days ago on another thread, I posted about how someone can have the best motives, genuinely believe themselves to understand God, but that doesn’t guarantee that they will therefore be correct, as was the case with Job’s friends. (This is something that we are constantly being accused of, and we DO need to examine ourselves… after reading of how seriously God considers the counsel we give friends, I watch my exhortations much more closely, even whenever I post here.)

    I’ll re-post my other comments below, but I when I wrote them, I chose to believe the best of Job’s friends, that they were sincere just misguided.

    But this morning I discovered that there was more than misguided ideas of God behind their assertions. I ran across Job 4, where Job’s friend Eliphaz makes his first speech. I was truly shocked. After concluding that Job cannot be innocent because it doesn’t coincide with what he knows about God, he reveals the truly scary encounter that he uses to back up his theory. Starting in verse 12…

    12 Now a word was brought to me stealthily, And my ear received a whisper of it.
    13 Amid disquieting thoughts from the visions of the night, When deep sleep falls on men,
    14 Dread came upon me, and trembling, and made all my bones shake.
    15 Then a spirit passed by my face, the hair of my flesh bristled up.
    16 It stood still, but I could not discern its appearance; A form was before my eyes; There was silence, then I heard a voice;
    17 “Can mankind be just before God? Can a man be pure before his Maker?
    18 He puts no trust even in His servants; And against His angels He charges error.
    19 How much more those who dwell in houses of clay, Whose foundation is in the dust, Who are crushed before the moth!
    20 Between morning and evening they are broken in pieces; Unobserved, they perish forever.
    21 Is not their their tent-cord plucked up within them? They die, yet without wisdom”.

    I don’t know about you, but this sounds very much like the “spinning” of a little truth mixed with a lot of deception of “an angel the He charged with error”. I got chills reading such about such overt demonic activity, that got turned into “godly” counsel, nonetheless!!!!

    I always felt that the bondage that results from patriocentricity had the fingerprints of Satan on it, but I was shocked to find that the parallels I was seeing between this story and this movement reached even this far.

  102. Alisa Says:

    This is from a conversation with Martha over at the Visionary Daughter’s thread….

    You are right in that it is sometimes hard to refrain from generalizations that by default become personal comments about a person and not the view they espouse… Very hard indeed. And yet we are still called to let ALL our speech be edifiying.

    I think nearly all of the comments here have succeeded at doing this. And while many here don’t, some here DO personally know people in these patriarchal camps (leaders or otherwise) and love them for various reasons; they are still God’s creations with some lovely things about them, as you’ve seen with Mrs. McDonald.

    Which is one of the things that makes it so hard. Most of these people genuinely love God and are making conscious, thoughtful decisions to follow Him. The frustration comes in trying to reconcile how such intelligent people can follow so blIndly and unquestioningly??? It is the same thing with those who follow the world… they blindly follow what sounds like a good idea, failing to judge the promoters or the arguments against the TOTALITY of Scripture. I hope you can see that, while it may not always appear so, most of us speak out of love and concern for these parents and their children. We genuinely desire them to be free in Christ. For “if the Son has set you free, you are free indeed”.

    Almost equally as frustrating, are those that put God in a box, and therefore His children also. I have never read Stacy McDonald’s book in full, but have heard enough of her beliefs to feel that she falls in this category. And yet, I’m sure she loves God tremendously.

    But the same can probably be said for Job’s friends, and yet God said to them “My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has” (Job 42:7) God then demanded them to sacrifice burnt offerings and said that Job would pray for them, and God would not do to them what their folly accorded. And what was their great crime??? They tried to give Job spiritual advise according to their knowledge of Him, and they were mistaken. They misrepresented Him to His own child.

    Apparently, God holds us accountable to how we represent Him even, maybe especially, to HIs own children. Our counsel to them is our responsibility, be it to one in a conversation or email, or to many in a book. You said it is hard to write an email, much less a book, and I’m afraid it SHOULD be, at least is seems that way after reading how God spoke to Job’s friends. Mrs. McDonald SHOULD feel the weight and responsibility of authoring a book, because if anything she writes misrepresents God and His heart to His children, and causes them to stumble (or they don’t even have to stumble, simply be frustrated or accused, in Job’s case!!!), then apparently God takes that very seriously.

    And we take it seriously because we love His children too, not to mention God and His truth. I have nothing against Stacy McDonald, except to see those I love take her words as “gospel” and they ARE stumbling because of it. I’m sure she means well, but so did Job’s friends.

  103. molleth Says:

    Agreed, Corrie, Spunky, and all.

    And, Corrie, I have to add that I *was* a firm believer in the fact that women are not to be elders in the church, until I started looking up some of the pertinent words in the NT (Romans and examining the culture. Now, I’m not so sure at all.

    Take Phoebe, for example. If memory serves me correctly, the word used to describe her in the Living Bible is something like a “loving helper,” while later, the SAME EXACT GREEK WORD is used to describe Timothy as a pastor/leader! (I pick on the Living Bible only because it’s treatment of Pheobe is such a stellar (and sad) example of what preconcieved ideas can do to tranlation and/or a paraphrase).

    The word Paul actually used to describe Phoebe is the word “deacon,” and, even more interesting, Paul wrote it in a male way, not feminizing it.

    Sadly, we will NOT see that in most of our Bibles. And this is the problem I’m talking about—-as we go to our Bibles, wanting to be faithful to the Word in whatever it tells us about women, we aren’t actually GETTING the truth because most translations are predisposed to assume that women are to not to be in any sort of leadership roles!

    Since Phoebe is a WOMAN, for example, they usually translate the word deacon as a “servant,” as in a feminine behind-the-scenes helper, even though that’s NOT how they translate the SAME word when it’s used for males.

    I could go on, but this is an excellent example that really got me wondering whether or not my former belief of “no female leaders in the church” was *actually* Biblical or not.

    Searching out the NT carefully, looking up words for myself, talking to translators for myself, has caused me to feel that women were, indeed, in church leadership during the early church.

    Again, this was not “feministic philosophies” that I was reading into my Bible to try to “make” it show women leading, but rather I was trying to read my Bible without a patriarchal color crayon, willing to obey whatever it was I found, including if that meant a return to patriarchy. What I found really shook the foundations of my nice tidy world, and let’s just say that I’m a lot farther from patriarchy than I thought I’d end up being.

  104. Alisa Says:

    Molleth,

    I am so appreciating how you are sharing your quests and what you are finding in them. It kind of reads like Lee Strobel’s “The Case for Christ”. I bet by now you have enough to compile a pretty cohesive volume. I know I would benefit from it. =o) Do you think you could at least share a couple of your resources with us? It would be interesting to look into this for myself…

    I’ve discovered the same thing about translations; nowhere are we guaranteed that Biblical translations would be inerrant, only the original Bible/text itself.

  105. molleth Says:

    LOL…a volume that would put most people to sleep, unlike Strobel’s books! 🙂

    I am living out of a suitcase right now (we’ve sold our house and are in the middle of building our new one), so don’t have any of my books in front of me, so this is a quick guess from memory.

    I started with the Scriptures themselves. I already HAD a library full of pro-patriarchal stuff, so there was no need to buy anymore of that.

    I also already had CBMW’s big manual on complementarianism, so I forked out the dough for the egalitarian response, another large book, “Discovering Biblical Equality,” which I highly recommend to anyone interested in studying both sides.

    Some of the chapters were incredibly powerful, particularly those on the Trinity (did you know that patriarchal doctrine on the Trinity, teaching that Christ is permenantly subject to the Father, is actually a doctrine that departs from the historical Christian definition of the Trinity?) and the couple chapters on the “equal, but having different roles.” WOW. I read that book inbetween gasps of shock and paradigm bombs. Even still, with the book packed somewhere in a box in a storage unit-lol, I am feeling “wowed” just thinking about those chapters and the impact they had on my patriarchal leanings.

    Though I probably worked through 20-30 books (that were disagreeing with patriarchy for Biblical reasons) during this last year, not counting all the patriarchal books that I re-read, I would also say that there was a little book called, “Beyond the Curse” that my husband found for me at a used bookstore…that gem of a book had to be one of the more powerful books I’ve ever read on this subject, Scripture by Scripture by Scripture by Scripture ripping through many of my “scriptural” assumptions about the place of women.

    Some somewhat scholarly articles I worked through (and recommend to those studying the issue, even if only for the purpose of accurately understanding the egalitarian position) include:

    NT Wright on the Biblical Basis for Equality:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/wright_biblical_basis.pdf

    The Bible and Gender Equality:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/groothius_bible_genderequailty.pdf

    The Cultural Context of Ephesians 5 (by Gorden Fee)
    http://cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/CulturalContext_Fee.pdf

    On the Trinity (and how the patriarchal concept of the trinity, which is the view I was taught from childhood, is actually NOT the same one that the church has held through the ages):
    http://cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/ETS%202006%20Paper%20Sons%20Authority.pdf

    And this one from renowned Bible scholar F.F.Bruce:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/pdf_files/free_articles/original_bruce_women_church_biblical_survey.pdf

    And this is an interesting Scriptural challenge to those who believe in female subjection:
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/free_articles/challenge.shtml

    I’m sure there are many many resources I’m forgetting, and probably a ton of good books that I can’t remember the titles of since they’re packed…

    I should close by saying that I’m not sure exactly where I’m “at” officially on all of this…I am still prayerfully standing in front of Yahweh about that. I want whatever it is that glorifies Him, you know?

    After embracing patriarchy so wholeheartedly (and parenting Pearl style, etc) and then finding myself so RADICALLY seeing the Scriptures disagreeing (those same Scriptures that I’d thought “proved” the very things I’d later reject), I’m just really hesitant to fully throw myself into a camp again. So though I lean heavily toward egalitarianism right now, I’m only willing to say that I’m following Jesus…maybe in years to come, I’ll feel like I have a clue where exactly that falls on the spectrum of all the issues. 😆

  106. molleth Says:

    PS. It’ll probably show up above this post before long, but I posted a response to Alisa that is likely found in the spam box, due to it having 4-5 links in it… If one of you could fish it out and post it, that would be great (and when it’s there, please ignore this note, everyone). 🙂 THANKS!

  107. Alisa Says:

    Molly, thanks for listing so much info. It looks like it could keep me busy for years.

    “I’m just really hesitant to fully throw myself into a camp again.”

    I think I’m in the same boat you are. I am constantly checking myself that I don’t throw myself into the purely egalitatian category, simply because it makes “sense” like you’ve said, with the middle of the road being so hard to process, though, on the surface that appears to be what the Bible is laying out. It sometimes turns out to be a whole different story, though, once we get into the original language and context. So that is my quest, to get into God’s original intentions in the Scriptures.

    But I realized… once I find out what the Bible is really getting at, I’m okay with WHATEVER IT IS, because it’ll be God’s heart and will, so it’ll be pure and holy and perfect and right, no matter what it is!!!! Whether it means that women aren’t to be official elders and pastors, or God wants them out on the frontlines waging spiritual battle with just as many of their brothers, in official and non-official functions.

    Having said that… *nervous shudder*… I AM scared of the reaction from people should what I find be more egalitarian than they are used to. I share much of this with my husband, and while we typically agree and he can be very supportive, he is not as invested in this as I am and not having all the info that I’ve taken in, he sometimes has a hard time accepting the paradigms I’m encountering (as do I! It’s not all that comfortable stepping out of one’s comfort zone!!!). And then there’s others to consider. But… I guess its just something to pray over then, eh?

  108. Joly Says:

    <>

    Mollie, can you explain where you learned this?

  109. Joly Says:

    Grr…my cut and paste didn’t go thru.
    Mollie, I’m wanting you to expound on your point above, #86 where you say that 1 Peter 3 was written to wives already in rebellion and that it was meant for that culture and time, not for today.
    My understanding is that everything written in the Bible was/is for our instruction, and stands for ALL time. It makes me nervous when people begin explaining away certain scriptures that they don’t like.
    Also, the Bible says a wife is to submit to her husband-how then can you say we are to stand shoulder to shoulder with them? Yes, we are equal in Christ…but in a marriage someone needs to be the final decision maker, the head, etc. and the Bible clearly says that should be the husband.
    (FYI-I am not saying that I disagree with you, although at this point I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from. I was also a VF follower since the 90’s and am “coming out of” patriocentricity, or however you spell it. It is deeply ingrained in me and I’m having trouble trying to decide how much of the bathwater to throw out with the baby, and what is worth keeping. So, bear with me!)

  110. Joly Says:

    Another issue I have trouble with, is the one where single women can become missionaries, work outside the home, etc.
    The Bible talks about being keepers at home, being busy at home, etc. (Titus 2 for example).
    Do you believe that scripture was cultural as well? If so, you’ll lose me on that one. I can’t believe God would give us the Bible, but have us keep in mind that many of the NT writings were to be kept in context, and not applied today. Think seriously, ladies, at what you’re saying. Women being at home has been the norm for thousands of years, and only changed because of the feminist movement. Do you agree with that movement? Do you believe it did our country good? Now women are free to have careers and do whatever they like, but it wasn’t so before. Why now? Why is the Bible only now not relevent for today?

  111. Joly Says:

    Per #100 above, do you ladies believe that women can be elders? The Bible always refers to elders as “he”.

  112. Spunky Says:

    Joly said, “(FYI-I am not saying that I disagree with you, although at this point I’m having trouble understanding where you’re coming from. I was also a VF follower since the 90’s and am “coming out of” patriocentricity, or however you spell it. It is deeply ingrained in me and I’m having trouble trying to decide how much of the bathwater to throw out with the baby, and what is worth keeping. So, bear with me!)”

    Joly, Since you admit to just “coming out of” patriocentricy, I’m curious, what specifically led you away from Vision Forum and their teaching on patriarchy?

    Also from your comment above there are still some aspects you are uncertain about and I totally understand. I curious, what parts of their teaching have you already rejected and why?

  113. Light Says:

    Joly said: “in a marriage someone needs to be the final decision maker” the head, etc. and the Bible clearly says that should be the husband.”

    Really? You have two grownups, supposedly mature and loving one another, submitted to Christ and each other, who can’t pray and wait on unity? There is nothing in the Bible that designates a husband as “the final decision maker.” Don’t you think it would be much healthier for the marriage, communication, and spirituality to wait until they are in unity?

    Joly said: “in a marriage someone needs to be … the head, etc. and the Bible clearly says that should be the husband.”

    Yes, the Bible does say the husband is the head. But you must look at it in 1st century context. To those folks, they believed that the heart was the seat of rationality, order, etc. The head was actually seen as a life-giving, nurturing organ. Most 1st century people would not have understood the metaphoric use of “head” as “authority.” Taken in context, in a passage about unity and sacrificial love, doesn’t it make much more sense that the husbands headship is not about who’s in charge, but rather sustaining and loving and giving life to his wife. And how radical a notion this was for the 1st century! Women were considered little more than a legal way to beget an heir. They had few rights. And here comes Paul and tells husbands that they are a source of life and giving to their wives!

  114. Joly Says:

    Gosh, what led me away from VF. That could be a long answer. 🙂
    First of all, I never fit in. I would read Doug’s blog and feel so inferior. My boys don’t like to read and Joshua Phillips would read, like, 26 G.A. Hentys in one year! (Or maybe that was his total so far? Can’t exactly remember.) Also, there is NO WAY my boys would sit for an entire day (with men) and read thru several books of the Bible outloud. We won’t even mention my poor dh, who would never submit to such a thing. And, bless his heart, he is no Doug Phillips! (Which I held against him for years, by the way.)
    Things like the above, and more, would make me feel really badly about myself and family, like we weren’t godly enough and would never be.
    Actually my whole legalism began in the 90’s with a magazine called “Gentle Spirit” which easily enabled me to get into the Pearls, Patriarch magazine, the Charity Fellowship people back in PA-Denny Kenaston. On and on it went. I’m the type of person who loves to study and learn, and I truly wanted to know what God required of me and my family, as I didn’t become a believer until my early 20’s.
    Bottom line-my legalism was wrecking havoc on my marriage and I had no joy. I was judgemental and arrogant. I looked down on couples who weren’t quiverful-they were so unspiritual. They didn’t “get it.”
    You know, I can’t remember now how I started to get out of it. I know that it’s taken years-it was very painful and confusing. I am no longer “dresses only” and don’t believe everyone should have a dozen children. I’ve let alot of the obvious stuff go. But-I am trying to be very careful to not dish the true biblical things. For example, I still believe that a woman’s most fulfilling place is in the home. I’m not sure yet if that’s because I have always been that way myself, even before I was saved, or because the Bible truly teaches that. So far I believe it does. I love being a homemaker, I’ve never wanted a career, and I want my two dd’s to desire the same thing, to “just” be a wife and mommy.
    I started questioning the tenets when they got weirder and weirder, like the teaching that a dd should be a helpmeet to her father-huh? That was a big red flag. I still am uncomfortable, to be honest, with a young girl going off to college or living on her own. I don’t want my girls doing those things. Dh agrees. It just makes sense to keep them close, in my opinion.
    So, I’m wrestling through what to keep that’s good, and what to let go of that isn’t.
    Sorry this is so long! I’ll answer your second question in a separate post.

  115. Joly Says:

    Gosh, what led me away from VF. That could be a long answer. 🙂
    First of all, I never fit in. I would read Doug’s blog and feel so inferior. My boys don’t like to read and Joshua Phillips would read, like, 26 G.A. Hentys in one year! (Or maybe that was his total so far? Can’t exactly remember.) Also, there is NO WAY my boys would sit for an entire day (with men) and read thru several books of the Bible outloud. We won’t even mention my poor dh, who would never submit to such a thing. And, bless his heart, he is no Doug Phillips! (Which I held against him for years, by the way.)
    Things like the above, and more, would make me feel really badly about myself and family, like we weren’t godly enough and would never be.
    Actually my whole legalism began in the 90’s with a magazine called “Gentle Spirit” which easily enabled me to get into the Pearls, Patriarch magazine, the Charity Fellowship people back in PA-Denny Kenaston. On and on it went. I’m the type of person who loves to study and learn, and I truly wanted to know what God required of me and my family, as I didn’t become a believer until my early 20’s.
    Bottom line-my legalism was wrecking havoc on my marriage and I had no joy. I was judgemental and arrogant. I looked down on couples who weren’t quiverful-they were so unspiritual. They didn’t “get it.”
    You know, I can’t remember now how I started to get out of it. I know that it’s taken years-it was very painful and confusing. I am no longer “dresses only” and don’t believe everyone should have a dozen children. I’ve let alot of the obvious stuff go. But-I am trying to be very careful to not dish the true biblical things. For example, I still believe that a woman’s most fulfilling place is in the home. I’m not sure yet if that’s because I have always been that way myself, even before I was saved, or because the Bible truly teaches that. So far I believe it does. I love being a homemaker, I’ve never wanted a career, and I want my two dd’s to desire the same thing, to “just” be a wife and mommy.
    I started questioning the tenets when they got weirder and weirder, like the teaching that a dd should be a helpmeet to her father-huh? That was a big red flag. I still am uncomfortable, to be honest, with a young girl going off to college or living on her own. I don’t want my girls doing those things. Dh agrees. It just makes sense to keep them close, in my opinion.
    So, I’m wrestling through what to keep that’s good, and what to let go of that isn’t.
    Sorry this is so long!

  116. Joly Says:

    I should also mention Jen Epstein because reading thru her blog and her whole experience as an insider at Doug’s church really, really has helped me let alot more stuff go than probably would otherwise have happened.
    I should mention one other thing-a friend of mine. Her family went to Texas a few years ago for her dh to have a reversal done and they somehow managed to find (you’d have to read Jen’s story to understand what that means!) Doug’s church and to visit there. They were appalled at how coldly they were treated. No one introduced themselves, they didn’t feel welcome, the service was very cold and formal, and Doug wasn’t there. When I read Jen’s story I remembered my friend’s experience and it substantiated Jen’s claims-at least to me.
    Also, my friend has spents hundreds of dollars on VF cds-she probably has them all. Her family really got deeply into Doug’s teachings and the deeper they went, the more they changed. With me coming out of all that now, we aren’t as close friends anymore. I really pray that she will come back more to the center where she was before. I don’t want to say exactly how she’s changed because she might stumble on this blog somehow and I don’t want to hurt her feelings or create a conflict. I’ve only told her I’m leaving VF behind but we haven’t talked specifics. I hope someday we can.
    Boy-reading over what I’ve written makes me think there needs to be support groups popping up all over the country for us ex-Dougites-lol!

  117. songbirdy Says:

    Light:

    Early Romans and Greeks believed in the mind/body dichotomy, but Hebrews didn’t.

    It would be interesting to see to whom the passages were written, because many, many of the early church believers were the diaspora Jewish Christians. They never would have read that passage in the way you said. To them the mind and soul and body are all one.

  118. Joly Says:

    Hi Light,
    You are using the “1st century context” argument, which is new to me and something I will carefully look into. So far I don’t buy it. The Bible stands for all time and it means what it says-otherwise, a person could twist it into whatever they want because we are living in a totally different world now.
    Secondly, two sinful people will not always come into agreement. One will have to “give in” and I have no problem letting my dh be the final decision maker. 🙂

  119. Alisa Says:

    Joly,

    I’d like to welcome you here. It looks like you are where many of us are or have been at some point. I’ve also thought that there needs to be a support group for those coming out of patriocentricity, and this forum has provided that for me, at least. =o) God has used it to work a lot of healing and restoration of “the joy of my salvation” in me; I hope the same for you.

    I don’t know if you saw my post right before your first one, but I was echoing Molleth’s thoughts that we still wish to be very careful as we learn what the Bible TRULY and ONLY says, and to not throw out what was truly Biblical in our lives before.

    So while some of what we say may sound crazy at first… bear with us. I think I can speak for all of us when I say that if we state something, it has come after long and thoughtful study and prayer. It’s not something we’ve taken lightly, just as you are still genuinely seeking God’s truth. And you may find that you aren’t able to come to the same conclusions others do.

    At least for myself, I don’t wish for everyone to be in a “mold”, but to find the true freedom in Christ that He died for.

  120. Alisa Says:

    Joly,

    The definition and explanation of the “head of” verse that I have heard that has mad the most sense to me is to think of the word “head” as the “source of”, like the head of a river is the source. Once I understood that, this verse made MUCH more sense to me.

    Like in 1 Cor. 11, verses 3-7, Paul uses the word “head”, and then in 8-12, expounds on it to explain it as “originates from”.

    It’s been a long time since I’ve read up on these particular definitions, so I’d like to before I get into it deeper. I’ll let some of the more”studied up” ladies explain this is greater detail. =o)

  121. molleth Says:

    Hi, Joly! Sorry it’s taken me so long to reply—busy day today. 🙂

    It would be so much nicer if we could sit across a cup of coffee…makes for less potential for misunderstanding. Also, please keep in mind that my comments don’t represent the views of blog—I’m just an opinionated commenter. 😆

    I want to strongly state that I do NOT believe in “picking and choosing” Bible passages, or in *dumping* some passages out because I don’t like them.

    However, IF we say that all passages should be taken literally or we’re not being faithful to the Word, then WHY are we not greeting eachother with a holy kiss everytime we Christians meet?

    Most people don’t realize this, but we are told SIX TIMES in Scripture to greet eachother with a holy kiss. Paul doesn’t actually say, “If you think you’d like to,” or “perhaps you might want to,” but he says commandingly, “Greet eachother with a holy kiss.”

    It *is* written in command form, not in optional form, and it is written multiple times.

    So why is the church today openly defying a Biblical command?

    I think we are in “defiance” because we read Paul’s words in context and know that he’s not actually giving a “for all time command,” but simply speaking to the people he was writing to in the culture they were in—telling them to greet eachother affectionately using the form of greeting that was the norm for that time period.

    Was Paul saying that the “holy kiss” is now THE Christian Greeting for all time, and that God wants us all to kiss eachother everytime we meet or we’ve sinned against Christ????

    Uh, no.

    Are we throwing out verses of the Bible and blaspheming God if we do not literally practice the commanded holy kiss every single time we meet?

    Again, no.

    We don’t practice the holy kiss yet we stand firm on the foundation of the inspired Scripture. To stand firm on inspired Scripture does NOT mean that we have to throw out the cultural backdrop. Our God works in space and time! Acknowledging a cultural backdrop is acknowledging that we have a God who meets us WHERE WE ARE, in the culture we’re in, in the world we walk around in! (This is awesome–whoopeee!). 🙂

    By not taking the holy kiss verses as literal commands, we’re simply acknowledging that the Bible is made up of letters written to real people in real time, and that while there are things that WILL literally apply to us NOW, not ALL of it is going to literally apply to us, particularly the things that are written to specific cultural issues or dealing with specific cultural practices (though we can and DO still learn spiritual lessons from practical things that no longer culturally apply).

    So… when I suggest that one possible way of looking at the “wife” verses is to acknowledge that the time period REQUIRED wifely subjection by law (both in the socially unwritten law and in actual legal Roman code), I’m *not* saying that we need to throw out part of Scripture at all. I’m simply asking if this might be something we were supposed to look at in the same way we look at the holy kiss verses, or the master/slave verses. Could it be? That’s all I’m asking. Is it POSSIBLE that there might be a cultural component that needs to be recognized?

    Because the fact is, culturally, women WERE required to be in subjection. We simply HAVE to admit that much, since history proves it without doubt.

    So I think asking whether or not (or how much) culture comes into play on the “wife verses” is a legitimate question—not one that seeks to sidestep difficult commands, but one that is legitimately wondering.

    And, really, if the wife passages are literal, then why aren’t the holy kiss passages taken literal (there’s more of those than their are of “wives submit,” interestingly, but I sure don’t see a bunch of books being written by Concerned Christians for Biblical Kissing). 😆

    More in a second—I have to go check on a napping toddler. Thanks for the great questions! Whether we agree or not, stuff like this is so good for us, I think–taking our minds, asking God questions, seeking Him for His answers…this is such a building-up thing. Thank you to the blog owners for letting this “support group” happen. 🙂

    Love,
    Molly

  122. Light Says:

    I am on the fly and only have a minute … but on the literal thing. We don’t still have slavery – that’s an obvious one. Nor do we take a little wine for our stomachs when we have indigestion. (I take Tums myself.) I don’t see men in my congregation “waving holy hands in the air,” and I often see women with braided hair and wearing gold, when scripture says they should not adorn themselves thusly.

    We must also remember that Paul was doing “task theology.” He was not writing a systemic doctrine, he was responding, letter by letter, to usually to offer a remedy for a problem that had cropped up.

    I must leave with those unfinished thoughts … I’ll try to come back later.

  123. molleth Says:

    I have a few more minutes now… 🙂

    Joly, you asked me about 1 Peter 3. I’ll try to type out an answer…hopefully I can not be too confusing!

    On 1 Peter 3, what I was trying to point out is that for a Roman or Jewish wife to turn to Christ meant that she *was* literally in marital rebellion in her culture’s eyes.

    It’s almost impossible to conceive of for those of us who’ve always lived in a world of individual religous freedom, but in the time period of the NT, wives simply did NOT “pick” their religious affiliation.

    You were whatever your husband said you were.

    To a Jewish husband, a wife that turned Christian meant you had a wife in total rebellion to your faith—something the Jews felt was worthy of stoning.

    To a Roman husband, if your wife turned to Christ, you now had a wife guilty of treason against Rome.

    Either way, pagan or Jewish husbands had a *serious* problem with a wife who became a Christ-follower.

    The context of 1 Peter 3 is clear: Peter is talking to women who do not have Christian husbands (we can assert that due to the note that these husbands “obey not the word” and apparently need to be “won” to the faith).

    This is very very very important to note, because of the reasons given above. By not submitting to their husbands religion, these women were seen as extremely disobedient in a manner worthy of the death penalty, if their husband chose to report them.

    It seems (to me) that Peter was telling these poor women that they need to continue to be faithful to Christ, yet not to forget that following Jesus included being attentive to their husbands demands. Peter here was giving these poor women hope—hope that there WAS possibly a way to reconcile these two apparently contradictory rulers (Jesus and husband) that they found themselves subjected to!

    I think Peter was trying to communicate that even though the Christian wife wasn’t going to be able to convince her husband through educated conversation (since women weren’t educated, nor were they considered worth listening—in fact, silence was one of the highest desired virtues in a wife—and if a woman witnessed a murder, even if she was the only witness, the case would be thrown out because her testimony was not admissable in court, simply because she was a woman!), Peter was sharing that she might be able to convince her husband that her being a Christ-follower was a BENEFIT to him, by way of her behaviour toward her husband.

    By following Peter’s advice, her husband could see that though she may have been loving before, following Christ only made her more so. If she was pleasant before, following Christ only made her more so. Following Christ, though it was rebellious, was not making her rebellious in any other way, but actually more enjoyable to live with.

    With a testimony like THAT, her husband *might* hear her—through her actions. And I also think Peter was telling these women not to fear—that they were not walking a path all alone, that Sarah herself—the matriarch of faith, as it were—had been in precarious situations too, but that God was faithful even through it, and they had that very same God and could trust Him to work all things together for good.

    Then the passage even gets more interesting!

    Verse 7 reminds the husbands in the congregation, therefore the Christian ones whom the earlier verses would not apply to, that their wives are in a weaker position (culturally, socially, economically, and physically, no less!) but that does NOT mean they are to treat them as lessers but are to give them that much more special treatment—to REMEMBER that they occupy a disadvantaged place and to NOT use that to take advantage of them.

    Peter even gives a stern reminder, telling men that GOD sees their wives as equals (fellow heirs—NO DIFFERENCE due to gender!) and that if they don’t treat their wives as such, their prayers will be hindered! Quite a big deal—I’m not sure if we have any other passage in the NT that tells us our prayers will be hindered. It’s also important to realize that this was during a time when women were emphatically NOT seen as equals in a very literal way, hence Peter’s words about “fellow heirs” would have shocked the people from this culture to the core, both men AND women.

    Looking through the Old and New Testament, we see a God who is VERY occupied with helping the less fortunate in society (widows and orphans, etc) and even, interestingly, often equating righteousness with the way we treat those in need, with the way we fight for those who have no voice (Isaiah 1:16-17).

    Perhaps this is why Peter says God won’t hear a man’s prayer if he is not treating his wife as a fellow heir (an equal in God’s eyes). It seems that stooping down and helping the helpless is a REALLY big deal to God. After all, it’s what He did when He sent His Son, and it’s what He says He wants to see in us.

    It is interesting that 1 Peter 3:12 tells us that “the face of the Lord is against them that do evil.” And verse 7 just said that God wouldn’t hear the prayers of a man who did not treat his wife with honor (unheard of in this women-devaluing culture). WOW. This seems like it’s saying God considers treating women as “lesser-thans” to be EVIL.

    Verse 8 says, TO EVERYONE IN THE CHURCH:
    “Finally, [be ye] all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, [be] pitiful, [be] courteous…”

    Peter is telling both men AND women to be of one mind, to have compassion on one another, to love as brethren (which is philidelphos, a word accurately translated brothers AND sisters!), to be pitiful (literally, “to have “strong bowels” for someone, meaning to be tender-hearted, to have pity for those in lesser circumstances—hello, that would CERTAINLY be the women!)…etc, etc…

    So, in light of the passage as a whole AND the cultural backdrop, I’m not sure this passage in 1 Peter is being used accurately when it’s used to say that God wants women to be in subjection.

    I used to read it without applying any cultural backdrop and without reading the passage in its entirety, and therefore felt that I was to obey my husband without question.

    But that application can only be true if we say that Peter wasn’t writing to real people in real time with a real culture, and if we leave out other parts of the passage.

    What I’m leaning towards is looking at it as if Peter WAS writing to real people in real time, answering a very real problem that they wrote to him about—as all of the other letters do (we don’t have ALL the letters, so are only getting one side of the story).

    I think Peter was sharing with these poor women a way that they could handle their dilemna, being BOTH faithful to Christ while not offending the very real standards of the culture they were in, perhaps even resulting in the salvation of their nonChristian husbands.

    I think there is a LOT to be gleaned from this passage, to be sure! I am NOT advocating throwing it out. I mean, WOW, we are seeing a very practical example of what Love looks like in action, of how to join our faith with our cultural reality in such a way as that we cause the least offense to those around us, if by any chance we might win some by the way they see us behave.

    But what I’m NOT sure we should do is act as if Peter was writing specific “rules” for our culture, instead of addressing a practical solution for a dilemna that happened in a culture two thousand years ago.

    Does that make any sense? Again, I’m not expecting or asking anyone to agree with me. I’m just pointing out the cultural backdrop of 1 Peter 3, as well as some of the surrounding verses, and wondering about the wisdom of leaving that (very real situation) out of our reading.

    Warmly, whether we ever agree or not,
    Molly

  124. Joly Says:

    Whew! You’ve given me alot to think about. Thank you for the time you spent writing that all out. 🙂

  125. Alisa Says:

    “Looking through the Old and New Testament, we see a God who is VERY occupied with helping the less fortunate in society (widows and orphans, etc) and even, interestingly, often equating righteousness with the way we treat those in need, with the way we fight for those who have no voice (Isaiah 1:16-17).”

    Could this be why we so often root for the “underdog”? Perhaps part of God’s heart (since we are created in His image) that comes out in us when we witness these situations? =o)

  126. songbirdy Says:

    So coming back to the when do you know if something is written because of the culture and when is something written for all ages…

    That is when we look at what is called the “cannon” of scripture. In other words what does the whole Bible say on the issue. Note: I have not done this yet.

    It is important not to say, “Well we’ll just look at the beginning in the Garden, because those were times without sin.”

    Then you also need to look at the church historical’s interpretation of the scriptures.

    I can tell you in the case of the Holy Kiss, there isn’t a lot of support for this. There is however support for more animated worship. Animated worship would be how my church likes to interpret anything other than being a pew potato. “Oh, that requires moving, it must be sacrilegious!”

    Anyhow! Hopefully that helps the thinking today. (and yes I was a tad bit sarcastic 😉 )

  127. molleth Says:

    Songbirdy, you share wise words. It was a few verses that brought me into patriarchy, and it was the entire canon of Scripture (and the God who breathed them) that helped walk me out of patriarchy.

    As for looking at the church’s historical interpretatino of Scripture, I think that it’s always good to look at (and love to, personally), but yet not to be confused with Scripture itself. We are fallible, and church history proves it. *sad smile*

  128. thatmom Says:

    Molly says:

    “Songbirdy, you share wise words. It was a few verses that brought me into patriarchy, and it was the entire canon of Scripture (and the God who breathed them) that helped walk me out of patriarchy.”

    Amen!

  129. songbirdy Says:

    And I agree Molly, church history is definitely NOT infallible! Anybody trying to tell you that is a heretic! The Reformation is a good example of a time where the church under went a great deal of good change.

    But history has a way of repeating so studying some historical debates on questions like these will hopefully allow us to move further along in the debate and not have to rehash all of the things that were already said!

    🙂

  130. Lady Helen of Alderaan Says:

    A woman’s desire to be in control? I’m sorry, but, that’s a human desire, from what I can tell during my brief 20 years on this Earth!

  131. Marcia Says:

    Hey, where are all of these contributors?

  132. Mrs. Pamela Mullen Says:

    Question:

    We watched your dvd on daughters. Peter and Kelly Bradrick shared how they approached courtship. They had biblical discussions on what they desired their home would be like.

    Are these thoughts available anywhere?
    What questions and scriptures did they uses?

    Thank You in for any assistance you can provide.

    God Bless,
    Pamela Mullen

  133. Cindy K Says:

    Pamela,

    (I wonder if we’re related? Mullen is my maiden name.)

    I was wondering what you thought of the “Return of the Daughters” DVD which is what I assume that you watched. I’m not sure if you realize that this DVD is anything BUT a “True Womanhood DVD.” I think that most of the contributors here are highly critical of the DVD, and you can search for discussion about it by entering “Visionary Daughters” in the thread search box on this blog. There are several long threads, or you can look at the thread indexes that have been developed to find specific discussions and comment numbers that relate directly to the film. I’ve done some writing about it on my own website as well, as have some of the others that participate here. I also have a blog called Overcoming Botkin Syndrome to which you can link from my other blog (click on my name) that discusses the major problems of the film producers’ belief system.

    The video was produced by the Visionary Daughters (just add www and DOT com) and are strongly affiliated with Vision Forum. I’d encourage you to read their sites but also consider the critiques of their views, many of which can be found here on this blog. I would also pray for God’s wisdom in this matter, asking specifically that the Holy Spirit open your eyes to the subtle nature of deception so that you might see the truth clearly.

    Please feel free to email me (via my blog) if you need further assistance.

    I’d wait for Karen to jump in here and comment (one of the blog hosts), but I believe that she might be out of town and unavailable.

  134. Joel Says:

    Very informative post – I’ll be back for more!

    Also, which theme have you installed on this blog? I’d love to know if it’s a free one.

  135. free2be Says:

    OM! this is totally nuts. Has Christianity become so trivial that we’ve lost the whole gospel in the shuffle of copyrights and new words competing for a listing in webster’s?

  136. thatmom Says:

    Hi free2be,

    I can certainly agree with you that the core of the Gospel message is often lost in the mess we are all discussing on this blog!

    If you aren’t familiar with the patriocentric movement, I would encourage you to read a ways before giving up. It is as important as undertanding the various worldviews that also threaten Christianity from the outside. And a huge part of this is in understanding the language and how various patriocentric leaders use it to influence their followers.

    If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me at shesthatmom@gmail.com

  137. mildred m. wright Says:

    June 22, 2010

    I read 98% if the comments about A Patriocentric Gospel. I was so encouraged to find this website, even belatedly. I am 56 yrs. old and married for 37 1/2 years. I have a Christian background from childhood; however I only embraced the faith personally the last 35 years of my life. As of late (the last two years) I have finally recognized that I was going to have to make a decision as to who my “first love” was going to be. My commitment to my husband and waiting for him to rise and take his place of leadership in regard to the GREAT COMMISSION was rendering me personally depressed and in effective. I noticed the Patriocentric World View of the Church, but no one in my circle was acknowledging it. I am so very pleased to read of other women who are daring to raise the question of allegiance to the Authority of the Word of GOD but rejecting the captivity of women. Where the Spirit is there is Liberty. (in Christ) AMEN! mmw54

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s