Did Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford Pass the Duck Test on Patriarchy?

***

Patriarchy or not Patriarchy – Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford respond to my recent article and reveal their true colors. Does it walk like a duck? Quack like a Duck?

***

Stacy McDonald, Kelly Crawford, Patriarchy medium_4478166158

photo credit: isfppoet via photopin cc

 

Suppose you see a bird walking around in a farm yard. This bird has no label that says ‘duck’. But the bird certainly looks like a duck. Also, he goes to the pond and you notice that he swims like a duck. Then he opens his beak and quacks like a duck. Well, by this time you have probably reached the conclusion that the bird is a duck, whether he’s wearing a label or not. ~Richard Cunningham Patterson Jr., United States ambassador to Guatemala during the Cold War in 1950

 

Are you familiar with the Duck Test?  It’s an inductive reasoning test.  This familiar expression is an example of inductive reasoning:

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

**

Not long after I posted this article: Queen Bees of Homeschooling Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford Don’t Like the “Victim” Word in the Lourdes Torres-Manteufel vs. Doug Phillips Lawsuit, there was some fallout, most likely related to the push back they received here. It’s always interesting to watch the responses to blog articles where we are exposing truth.  We typically see back-peddling, web scrubbing, but rarely an admission of wrong teaching, etc.

I think it’s important to document what happened so that people can see for themselves and discern. Do the behaviors match the message? What is the fruit that we see? Is this the kind of teaching we want to stand behind and pay good money to hear at conferences? Do we want these foundational teachings to influence our families for decades?

Last week, R.L. Stollar, co-founders of Homeschoolers Anonymous blog informed me that Kelly Crawford had written a blog article in 2008 entitled, Tired of Patriarchy’s Bad Rap.

Crawford’s article comes up here on a Google search:

 

Kelly Crawford, Patriarchy, removed article, Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 7.05.38 AM

 

But surprise, surprise.  If you click on the link to the original article, this is what you see:

 

Kelliy Crawford, Patriarchy, removed article Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 7.07.09 AM

 

QUACK, QUACK 

Homeschoolers Anonymous shared Crawford’s 2008 article on their Facebook page on recently (on April 29) and noticed the article was removed between 4/29 and 5/2.  Stollar also quoted Crawford in his comment:

For a clear definition of biblical patriarchy,” she said, you should “go here” — here being a link to the now-defunct Vision Forum’s “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy.”

The “Tenants of Biblical Patriarchy” has been long scrubbed from the Vision Forum website, but here is the cached copy.

Homeschoolers Anonymous has a copy of Kelly Crawford’s article on file here.  When will people learn that if they post articles on the internet and remove them, it makes them look like a fool?  Take a look at the first two paragraphs of her article, the article she scrubbed:

I guess I’ll be rehashing the same topics with new names until I die, but they won’t let me go.

There is something I’m so tired of. The word “patriarchy” is practically synonymous with an explicative in this culture. I’m tired of that. Patriarchy is not a new concept, but one as old as the world itself. It is biblical and if you don’t like it, and you’re a Christian, perhaps a new religion would suit you better.

 

So, did Kelly Crawford change her views on Patriarchy?

She said she would rehash the same topics until she dies. Why would she remove that article from 2008? What is she trying to hide?

 

QUACK, QUACK

After posting the Queen Bees article, both Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford came to the blog to comment, having never participated at SSB before. We saw their true colors:

 

Stacy McDonald, Patriarchy Screen Shot 2014-05-06 at 7.17.40 AM

 

 

 

APRIL 22, 2014 @ 11:02 PM

Seriously? LOL Okay – thank you for the confirmation of why I do NOT get into these fruitless online discussions…no more temptation here. Check out sometime, on the database of the mentally stable (or not), those who you allow to comment here. I recognize a scary person…

truly.

Yes, Stacy McDonald, publicly made a low blow about the mental stability of one of my commenters.

Stacy has had a couple of weeks to think about that comment, a couple of weeks to e-mail me and say that perhaps she was out of line with that wording, but she has not. That was a RUDE comment. People pay to hear this woman speak, they read her blog articles. They look to her for guidance in how to raise their families. Enough said.

I also want to point out another incident that occurred on the same day the article was being discussed here.  SSB reader, Taunya reported that Kelly Crawford privately e-mailed her after 6 years of silence between the two saying,

“Can’t you see what kind of people you’re running with now? The evidence, the fruit, is so clear.”  

Did you notice the 6-years-of-silence part?  Although Crawford doesn’t mention the silence, it’s important to the whole story. Obviously this hit a nerve for Crawford and is not something to be dismissed lightly.

Imagine Taunya’s surprise in receiving such an e-mail after so many years of silence. Let me put in my own words my interpretation of what Crawford is saying:  This information I am sending you is so important that I am breaking 6 years of silence to send it to you.  Listen to me!  If you don’t believe the way Stacy and I believe, you’re one of those bad-fruit people.  

Ewwwww – rotten fruit

 

What was the rotten fruit Taunya was talking about?  Things like this:

Furthermore it is not “God’s will” for adult daughters to live in the homes of their fathers until marriage. There is nothing biblically wrong with young women attending college, working or living on their own. This is wrong and any woman falling for this as “God’s Word” is deceived. These are cult-like teachings must like the idea that women need to wear skirts and dresses for the sake of modesty or that it is wrong to limit the number of children one has.

And:

The definition of priest says it all Kelly! No women needs a priest! A man goes directly to God through Jesus and a woman does as well. She does not need her husband to be her mediator nor does she need him to be her prophet. She can read Scripture and the Holy Spirit resides in her just as He does her husband, no need for a husband to be her prophet! And KING? Wasn’t that addressed in the Old Testament. None of us need a king, we have that in Christ.

 

Doesn’t that 6-year silence also say a lot? It reminds me of junior high.  “I’m not going to be your friend if you don’t like Suzy Q.”  Do you see what this is?  It’s my-way-or-the-highway mentality. You have to go along with my beliefs in order to be part of my group. It creates an us vs. them mentality. You are either in, or your are out.

 

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands. ~Douglas Adams

 

 

QUACK, QUACK

Stacy and Kelly left the conversation, but the conversation continued to over 400 comments, but look what happened within 24 hours on Stacy and James McDonald’s Facebook page.  The first is a rant from James McDonald:

 

 

Warning – rant alert…When I went into ministry, I answered the call of God, gladly leaving behind a six-figure salary as a corporate executive, yearly bonuses, stock options, the best hotels, fine dining, travels to exotic countries, and first class seating.I happily embraced being home with my family, a greatly-reduced pastor’s salary, a 15-passenger van, and family road trips to homeschool conferences.But I also inherited critics who hate my guts, defame my name, twist my doctrinal positions, question my motives, attack my wife, and gossip about my children online. Because, after all, I’m in the ministry for personal, financial gain and glory.Yes, I’m self-serving like that.

**

Attitude much, James?

**

On the same day, April 23, Stacy posted a note on her Facebook wall endorsing her husband’s article, The “P” Word , which is about Patriarchy. Her husband, in his article on Patriarchy discusses words and their meanings and how sometimes the meanings change. He tries to paint a beautiful picture of Patriarchy.

But check this out, is she really saying she is going to have to disguise that P (patriarchy) word from her vocabulary?

Stacy McDonald All that being said, I personally believe that, for the sake of clarity, and knowing that the word has been so ravaged in the eyes of so many, it’s best to not to use the word. Because the term is not as important as the principle. “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” Biblical order is important, but we don’t have to use a word that provokes people or causes them to misunderstand us.

Ok, so let’s just act like that word doesn’t exist. Is that what she’s saying? We’re going to continue doing the talk, and walking the walk, but we’re just not going to let anyone know what we’re really doing is Patriarchy.

 

When I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. ~James Whitcomb Riley

 

 What we see is a very familiar pattern of behavior:

  • anyone who disagrees is labeled in a negative way:  mentally disabled, rotten fruit, divisive, some might even question the salvation of one who disagrees
  • instead of addressing conflict or misunderstandings: remove article entirely with no explanation
  • completely mischaracterize a critic, claiming criticisms they never made like a “strawman,” then  talk only about the strawman instead of the matter at hand
  • publicly air a “woe is me” rant of martyrdom on own forum to garner support and “attaboys”
  • black/white thinking: you are for us or against us

 

Folks, the above patterns are the rotten fruit. It’s rotten fruit in attempt to defend more stinking, rotten fruit:  Patriarchy.

Stacy and Kelly have been promoting “Biblical Patriarchy” for years.  Now Stacy wants to quack about it, without using the P word. It’s time to call this heretical teaching down NOW. It is destroying families. It is keeping young ladies held captive in their own homes, not giving them choices to further their education, to be critical thinkers, to use the creative minds God created for them. Removing blog articles and not saying the P word is not going to change the fact that Patriarchy = Duck.

**

**

This video quacks me up.

 

124 comments on “Did Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford Pass the Duck Test on Patriarchy?

  1. Did Jesus ever say anything about women being second class in the Kingdom? Not once. And Paul made a great statement. Neither male nor female. As in, there is no inherent difference between men and women in the kingdom of God. All are priests, because they believe. That doctrine, which screams equality, is the Priesthood of All (each and every) Believers. Get the hierarchical teaching out of the church, treat all as equal in the kingdom, and you will have a generally happy flock, with a servant doing the preaching and other servants doing the teaching, and yet others carrying out the business of the church because their friends who are members have elected them to do that.

    Like

  2. Kelly Crawford stated:

    “Patriarchy is not a new concept, but one as old as the world itself. It is biblical and if you don’t like it, and you’re a Christian, perhaps a new religion would suit you better.”

    This is insulting to all of those men, including myself, who are Christian and choose to be in a non-patriarchal relationship with our wives. I won’t get into specifics, but I LOVE being in a non-patriarchal relationship with my wife.

    Furthermore, the last I checked, being a patriarch is NOT a requirement for being a Christian. To be a Christian, you need to have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in a core set of doctrines, such as the virgin Birth, the Trinity (as defined by the Holy Scriptures and the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon), and the physical death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t see patriarchy on this list, and if you read and examine the major Protestant and Anabaptist creeds, it is not in them either. (You’re full of crap Kelly, the study of the history of doctrine proves you wrong.) You can be a conservative Christian and not believe the garbage and lies of patriarchy.

    Kelly,’s line of reasoning reminds me of those within the YRR and New Calvinist movement, who think that you must be a Calvinist in order to be a conservative Christian. Also, her reasoning reminds me of other unsavory persons in our past, who stated that you must marry within your own race in order to be a Christian. And also, the early Mormons and current fundamentalist Mormons who believe that you must be involved in plural marriage in order to achieve salvation. Patriarchy is just another in the long list of human myths and inventions that we are NOT required to follow.

    Like

  3. Ryan, IF Kelly’s world is as patriarchal as she claims, then she can’t know this stuff because she is not capable of reading and studying the bible and history on her own, she can only parrot what her supreme ruler tells her. So how can you hold HER responsible. (Snark)

    Like

  4. This “now you see it, now you don’t” game has happened so many times it’s hardly surprising anymore. “Christian ethics” has become an oxymoron.

    Like

  5. nmgirl, excellent point! It may be that for the Queen Bee gurus in the patriarchy movement, they might be allowed extra privileges that are not allowed for other women. Sort of like the idea that some women are not as lesser compared to their man than other women are.

    Like

  6. Ok, so let’s just act like that word doesn’t exist. Is that what she’s saying? We’re going to continue doing the talk, and walking the walk, but we’re just not going to let anyone know what we’re really doing is Patriarchy.

    This is straight out of the Dark Side of Russian Bureaucracy; just change the name and start afresh.
    Ees no ChEKA, Comrade. Ees OGPU.
    Ees no OGPU, Comrade. Ees NKVD.
    Ees no NKVD, Comrade. Ees KGB.

    Like

  7. Right, now you see it now you don’t and let’s pretend the p word doesn’t exist and I’ll stay on the speaking circuit collecting your money so I can be a cough cough stay at home mom raising visionary warriors.

    Like

  8. “The word “patriarchy” is practically synonymous with an explicative in this culture.”

    Mrs. Crawford should cough up a few dollars for a dictionary. The word “expletive” makes much better sense in this sentence than “explicative.”

    Like

  9. Ryan, I liked that video because they are quacking nonsense around someone who is trying to mind their own business. These busybody ducks think they get to quack their nonsense into our lives. That’s what it looks/sounds like to me.

    Like

  10. That I recall, Jesus never said a word about the not to be said P word. He didn’t say you had to believe in that construct to be his disciple.

    Like

  11. It’s fascinating to me that Kelly emails Taunya to admonish her to look at the people she’s hanging out with because the fruit is so clear. It is certainly clear to me. The kindness, acceptance, thoughtfulness and understanding of salvation and God’s love couldn’t shine any brighter than it does here.

    This is a safe haven for those who were physically, sexually, and spiritually abused. Do Kelly and Stacy provide a safe haven or any comfort to those who are suffering?

    Like

  12. “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a Christian, it’s a duck.” –Me

    Like

  13. Ryan: “Furthermore, the last I checked, being a patriarch is NOT a requirement for being a Christian. To be a Christian, you need to have a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ, and believe in a core set of doctrines, such as the virgin Birth, the Trinity (as defined by the Holy Scriptures and the councils of Nicea, Constantinople, and Chalcedon), and the physical death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. I don’t see patriarchy on this list, and if you read and examine the major Protestant and Anabaptist creeds, it is not in them either. (You’re full of crap Kelly, the study of the history of doctrine proves you wrong.) You can be a conservative Christian and not believe the garbage and lies of patriarchy.”

    THANK you. You put this so clearly. It makes so much sense.

    Like

  14. Marsha: “This is a safe haven for those who were physically, sexually, and spiritually abused. Do Kelly and Stacy provide a safe haven or any comfort to those who are suffering?”

    I don’t recall what Kelly wrote, but I do recall Stacy’s “comfort” for DP’s victim: It was (at least partly) her own fault.

    (not my words. basically, a summation of what I took from SM’s words)

    Like

  15. ““Christian ethics” has become an oxymoron.”

    Seriously. I had someone tell me not long ago that Christians have a mix of good and evil. Really? Then what was the point of the cross? So we could do evil and still make it to paradise? NOT.

    Like

  16. Well Kelly has to read scripture through the Patriarchal lens to find any Patriarchy before what is commonly referred to as the Fall. It is not there. It has to be read into it with some very wacked out interpretations and ignoring Hebrew word meanings. If she would come back we could discuss it. :o)

    The fact of the matter is, these women are busy selling “sin” as a virtue. That is serious business.

    Methinks these women have found an income stream in Patriarchy and that is the overriding factor. However, things are scary since their guru has fallen and proven Patriarchy is is a breeding ground for sexual sin.

    Like

  17. “Right, now you see it now you don’t and let’s pretend the p word doesn’t exist and I’ll stay on the speaking circuit collecting your money so I can be a cough cough stay at home mom raising visionary warriors.”

    JA, they have to have a word. You had better let them know “complementarian” is taken. Perhaps they can be clever like Piper and make a new one up that is not so offensive but basically the same thing.

    Like

  18. “nmgirl, excellent point! It may be that for the Queen Bee gurus in the patriarchy movement, they might be allowed extra privileges that are not allowed for other women. Sort of like the idea that some women are not as lesser compared to their man than other women are.”

    I always found Dorothy Patterson amusing. She travels all over the world, has a PhD and is paid to speak at conferences teaching women to stay home, bake cookies and raise children.

    She never caught on to her own cognitive dissonance. I figured she thought she possessed special privileges.

    Like

  19. “Ryan, IF Kelly’s world is as patriarchal as she claims, then she can’t know this stuff because she is not capable of reading and studying the bible and history on her own, she can only parrot what her supreme ruler tells her. So how can you hold HER responsible. (Snark)”‘

    Not to mention she is also “easily deceived”. So why bother listening?

    Like

  20. “Patriarchy is not a new concept, but one as old as the world itself. It is biblical and if you don’t like it, and you’re a Christian, perhaps a new religion would suit you better.”

    Wow. If I don’t agree with Kelly on this patriarchy concept I should rethink being a Christian? Maybe I’m not really a Christian? This can so mess with people’s minds. This is the kind of manipulation that is so damaging. When you start to question and think for yourself, then you hear something like this, it can just shut you down. Don’t let it. They’re just using their bullying tactics.

    Thanks so much for continuing to show the true colors of this group.

    Like

  21. JA, Shortly after your Queen Bees blog, Stacy wrote about the “P” word on her blog. I asked her some questions in the comment section. I have to say, although I disagreed, her response was well thought out and respectful. However, the next comment came from Kelly and was directed at me. It was hateful, put words in my mouth and it seemed like she was badly threatened by my questions. Stacy had responded in the same balanced way that I had posed my questions. But everything she had written was totally eradicated by Kelly jumping in and making personal attacks. Why does Kelly react in such a way as to demonize even those who question? If Kelly truly believes that patriarchy is of God, why does she act in a way to alienate “outsiders?” Again, I am no apologist for Stacy’s view, but I respect the way she responded to me as a person worthy of respect. Kelly, on the other hand, lashed out like a two year old throwing a tantrum. Just an observation.

    Like

  22. Well I suppose I could follow her advice. It’d be like saying that if I just drop the word feminist from my Prolife Christian Feminist label that I could still keep preaching that biblically speaking wives are NOT ordered to be more in subjection to husbands than husbands are to wives and then patriarchalists in turn won’t be so touchy about my stance? She actually thinks that she can remove the label of patriarchy from…….patriarchy? What is funny is that Patriarchy is a system of hierarchy and hierarchy will always make someone less than someone else, just like a caste system. I bet even hinduism teaches that all people are equal because all people are human….for now. Feminism is just a system of equal rights, yet it seems to me that the patriarchalists get their pannies way more tied up over the feminist label than anything. Silly ducks. It won’t change anything except make conversations boringly long trying to explain something without the simple label.

    Like

  23. “Patriarchy is not a new concept, but one as old as the world itself. It is biblical and if you don’t like it, and you’re a Christian, perhaps a new religion would suit you better.”

    Just like Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles:
    If you’re not a Male Supremacist, you’re Not REALLY a Christian.
    Me Sheep, You Goat, HAW! HAW! HAW!

    Like

  24. @Ryan:

    Are those ducks having a conversation about gender complementarianism?

    Depends. Anyone out in the Massmind know the social structure of a duck flock?

    Like

  25. Ann,

    Thanks for sharing your experience. What you see with this kind of response is that you don’t get to choose for yourself, think for yourself. They have all the “right” answers. If you challenge or question it, it gets turned around to you being the “problem.” Those of us who lived thru spiritually abusive pastors might be familiar with this.

    They want to be your Holy Spirit and interpret the Bible for you. They with their platform get put in an authority-like position and the powers that be at homeschool conventions endorse them and their teachings because it only benefits the overall message the convention leaders want us to get fed. They want us to rely on them, buy their materials and need them.

    This is unhealthy, folks. They have the same access to God that we do. We need to stop giving them this power and certainly stop giving them money.

    Like

  26. It’s interesting that the woman Julie Anne writes about in the original post wants to stop using the word “patriarchy,” when some famous gender complementarian guy said a year or more ago that he thinks gender complementarians should drop all pretense and start using the word “Patriarchy” to describe their position, because he feels it’s more accurate. I found the quote:

    Russel Moore: “I hate the term ‘complementarian’…” (from the Bayly blog)

    Russell Moore: Because complemnetarianism doesn’t say much more than the fact that you have different roles.
    Everyone agrees that we have different roles, it just a question of on what basis you have different roles?
    So an egalitarian would say, “Yeah, I’m a complementarian too, it’s on the basis of gifts.” I think we need to say instead, “No you have headship that’s the key issue.
    It’s patriarchy, it’s a headship that reflects the headship, the fatherhood of God, and this is what it looks like, you then have to define what headship looks like…

    As I’ve mentioned before at the Wartburg Watch blog, Patriarchy and compelementarianism are nothing but codependency being passed off as biblical for women.

    Fostering Codependency in women makes them devoid of personal responsibility, or teaches them that they are, among other things.

    As to the original post and the lady saying that patriarchy is supposedly biblical because it’s in the Bible. Sigh.

    Even in my present half-agnostic, half-Christian (whatever I am now) state, I notice that’s very simplistic reasoning, the same sort I sometimes see on atheist blogs by atheists who hate theism and the Bible.

    They wrongly assume that because a behavior or lifestyle is mentioned in the Bible, and that the Bible says God did not put an immediate halt to whatever it is (such as polygamy or slavery), and/or that God put rules and restrictions around behavior “X” instead of instantly eradicating X, God must be oakey doakey and peachy okay with “X.”

    I think maybe God was having to work in the parameters of whatever culture he was dealing with, and some of them had long standing traditions of slavery, taking women as prizes in warfare, and whatever.

    I’m not a Calvinist. I believe humanity has free will (not just to sin, but in about every capacity), and I’m not sure how realistic it is to expect God to completely over-ride an entire nation’s culture in regards to marriage, slavery, and so on, and not in a month’s time, or a day.

    God had to weed the defeatist, slavery mindset out of the Hebrews he led out of captivity from Egypt. They wandered around for 40 years. God didn’t just wipe out their lousy attitudes in a single day, or force them to think a certain way.

    But anyway, my bigger point being that just because the Bible mentions that the ancient Jewish culture was patriarchal, with men having ten wives a piece and concubines, does not mean God approved or liked any of it but realized that was the hand he was dealt with humanity at that time period.

    Like

  27. Ann, don’t be deceived by that kind tone and respect. It is how they drag you in. You are never told the real truth about their leaven doctrines. If you confront a false teaching, she is apt to do exactly what she did here with patriarcy–hide and deny and readjust things, still cleaving to the false teaching. I was told that they like to win people’s trust, before they let them see what they really believe or teach. They told me this themselves.

    As for the rest, you are right Julie, God wants all these false shepherds brought down with all their false and blasphemous teachings. The only way that will happen is to expose them, but there will always be those who will stay with the false teachings/shepherds, and persecute the true believers, just as Stacy has done concerning DP. I think that these other false leaders in this movement, are just groping to remain in their deceit, so they have to try to change it up and cover it up, by alleviating the use of the “P” word.

    Like

  28. Sorry to go off topic.

    Headless Unicorn Guy said,
    Just like Young Earth Creationism Uber Alles:

    I was/am a Young Earth Creationist, but I never once felt or told anyone that if they rejected YEC they are not a real Christian. I recognize that other people can have differing views on the age of the earth and such and still be a Christian.

    As much as I sometimes enjoy participating on blogs such as Internet Monk or Wartburg Watch, I’m afraid that the constant drum beat of “All YECS make YECism a non negotiable of the faith, which results in teen Christians becoming atheist when they enter college” makes all YECs look like villains, which they/we are not.

    As I said at TWW a time or two, over my life, I’ve had Non-YEC Christians try to convert me to Old Earth Age and hound me about it, even when I asked them if we could just agree to disagree.

    So it’s not just some YECs who insist on their position, but also Non-YECs. YECs also get ridiculed by Christians on sites, in addition to scorn by atheists on secular sites.

    Like

  29. “Ann, don’t be deceived by that kind tone and respect. It is how they drag you in. You are never told the real truth about their leaven doctrines”

    Thank you. It is called Love bombing. They might have even been playing good cop/bad cop. The point is, what does Stacy teach and look her deeds going back over the last 15 years or so.

    I can put up with a lot of things but blatantly lying about God’s daughters of Abraham is not one of them.

    And that is the problem with that movement. Things are never what they seem.

    Like

  30. Great blog post JA! Thanks for your willingness to address these issues in such a bold fashion.

    “It’s fascinating to me that Kelly emails Taunya to admonish her to look at the people she’s hanging out with because the fruit is so clear. It is certainly clear to me. The kindness, acceptance, thoughtfulness and understanding of salvation and God’s love couldn’t shine any brighter than it does here.”

    Exactly Marsha! I really wish these ladies would stop the personal attacks they only succeed in making themselves look petty and immature.

    Also I wonder if Stacy plans to change the name of her Patriarchy Wives group since she is no longer using that word? 🙂 Anyone here a member/former member?

    Like

  31. Monty Python came to my mind when I first saw your title…

    If it floats like a duck, and weighs the same as a duck, it must be made of wood, and therefore a witch!

    Like

  32. I think my former fiancé was of the same mind as Kelly in that he never announced that he practiced the P word. I literally pieced it together by Googling his big issues: modesty, “God’s law”, Sunday School (totally against it), and homeschooling. Didn’t take long to find Vision Forum, and the lightbulb went on.

    Confronted about Patriarchy and VF, he said that he only practiced what was in the Bible. He threw out that if you don’t believe this, then why don’t you cut books X Y and Z out of the Bible? I’ve seen his profile on Christian Mingle recently, and he still isn’t announcing that he’s into Patriarchy, (but now he admits that he’s Reformed). Sneaky devil. Who would knowingly date someone who was? I was tempted to email all the brunette widows on that site and warn them about him, but I didn’t. It’s been a year, and I’m still disgusted by what he tried to ensnare me (and my daughter!) in.

    Like

  33. I’ve been out for quite a bit today, but checking in by phone. There have been some great comments.

    Thank you, Taunya, for your kind words. This needs to be dealt with strongly. You know, I missed the 6 years of silence part of your comment the first time I read it. When I read it again, it made me so angry. She was trying to lure you back to Patriarchy and painted us as evil. My former pastor tried to intervene behind the scenes and CONvince people they were wrong. There are so many similar behaviors.

    As much as many of these wives want to say Patriarchy is the way to go, many of the wives espousing patriarchy are really wearing the pants in their home, so to speak. They may have brought many of these ideals into their own homes by following the teachings of Stacy and Kelly or others women speakers promoting Patriarchy. And trust me, women will hold on to teachings by Stacy and Kelly and other ladies just as much, if not more than their own pastors. Why is that? Because perhaps their own pastors don’t hold to these ideologies. So, in many groups, it is the women who are keeping this kind of thing going in their groups.

    Cindy and Taunya and Karen Campbell (thatmom.com) and many others have been following this stuff for a long time. I participated in online forums, e-mail groups, (Titus2.com), etc, for years. The pressure to conform among women in the conservative homeschool community was very strong. We were the elite. We didn’t our kids in government schools. We let God choose the size of our family. We dressed modestly. This was the in thing to do in the Homeschool Movement.

    Doug Wilson wrote about us (bloggers) having glee that Doug Phillips’ ministry is gone. You better believe I’m happy that his ministry is gone. Am I happy that a man is fallen? No! Am I happy about the people that he hurt along the way? No way. I am happy that many people are taking a closer look at what a bunch of hooey this movement was. Is God happy when evil is removed, I’m sure He is.

    Like

  34. Wow. If I don’t agree with Kelly on this patriarchy concept I should rethink being a Christian? Maybe I’m not really a Christian? This can so mess with people’s minds. This is the kind of manipulation that is so damaging. When you start to question and think for yourself, then you hear something like this, it can just shut you down. Don’t let it. They’re just using their bullying tactics.

    Exactly, Monique. I saw that Wartburg Watch is covering a topic that is similar to what you’re talking about – – Christian leaders (women included) who bully people away from their faith.

    Like

  35. Julie Anne I was going to rant, but I decided to basically add one aspect. I would have walked away from the faith way back when if it was not for people like you, Michael, or Alex. It would have been easier to leave the faith, but I cant because I see what you folks do, and the folks I work with. Just wanted to say thanks. Keep it up.

    Like

  36. I always found Dorothy Patterson amusing. She travels all over the world, has a PhD and is paid to speak at conferences teaching women to stay home, bake cookies and raise children.
    Elizabeth Elliott is another one. The reformed world loooooves Elliott and doesn’t see the hypocrisy there, either.

    Like

  37. John Piper’s book “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood”:

    Elisabeth Elliot, writing on “The Essence of Femininity,” offers a fitting summary of God’s ideal for wives: Unlike Eve, whose response to God was calculating and self-serving, the virgin Mary’s answer holds no hesitation about risks or loses or the interruption of her own plans. It is an utter and unconditional self-giving “I am the Lord’s servant…May it be done to me as you have said” ( Luke 1:38). This is what I understand to be the essence of femininity. It means to surrender.

    Think of a bride. She surrenders her independence, her name, her destiny, her will, herself to the bridegroom in marriage…The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it “of great worth in God’s sight” ( 1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found it’s epitome in Mary.

    Like

  38. Hey Julie Anne, I hope to be seen as someone who seeks to faithfully serve the Lord and conform my life to His image. I try to follow Biblical direction on how to be a faithful servant, including submission to my husband. I have stopped using the term “patriarchy” because of the extremists who cloak their abuse in the term. I’m not running from anything – just trying to live the Christian life. So, I checked out the article by Stacy M. that you refer to and was disappointed to see they provide a link to RC Sproul Jr’s website. I think that if Stacy and her husband (who I respect) really want to be seen as more moderate/mainstream on this issue they should stop referring folks to others who have been documented as being an extreme patriarch. Anyway, just sharing my thoughts on the matter. 🙂

    Like

  39. Carmen (9.6:08am) I see no difference between the male and female in terms of submission. Both men and women’s hearts ring when they read Mary say: “I am the Lord’s servant…May it be done to me as you have said.” It is a call to us all, also reflected in “Love the Lord above all…”

    My daughter just married. She and her beau surrendered to each other and it was beautiful. Each person’s destiny was transformed into “our destiny”, to be worked out between them. Her will is as free and bound as his. They commit to the same kind of love, which is of shared intimacy and respect. She hasn’t quite decided what to do about her name, but will likely be taking the most pragmatic way—having one name is more convenient and her own name is an odd lengthy Dutch conglomeration of consonants.

    There is no need to define femininity in the way you do. I think it’s deeply problematic. When women follow your ideals, they purposely diminish their created capacities. I see your ideology as a denial of the generous and magnificent creations of God and I am convinced that God finds no joy in it.

    Like

  40. Good words from Stacy McDonald from July 2008:

    Why is it that so many Christians (many whose writings I usually appreciate) seem to think it’s cool to ignore 1 Corinthians 13:1 while “proclaiming the truth” (as if love equals weakness). Truth is paramount; however, humility and love must undergird all of our words. And the good of the hearer to the glory of God must be our motive.

    Malicious sarcasm, abrasive speech, and arrogant “rightness” have no place in the delivery of the Word of God, and only demonstrate prideful motives.

    and

    Regardless of a man’s eloquent speech, or his “right-on” blog posts, if he speaks his words without love, they fall on our ears like a rusty, out-of-tune trumpet. Instead of the music acting as a balm to our weary souls, we are assaulted by a cacophony of clanging. We run from the room with our ears covered not because music is bad, but because of the rusty trumpet that fails to communicate any sort of melody!

    and

    And for the record, this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t boldly and unashamedly proclaim the truth of God’s Word. It just means that we don’t pridefully use “the truth” to destroy one another. Because if we do, we prove that the truth is not in us.

    and

    This doesn’t mean that if I blow it, I am not a Christian. But it does mean that if I continue to walk in a way that communicates a distinct lack of love for my brother, my sinful heart is exposed and I better repent.

    So, it seems that the Stacy McDonald of 2008 would say that the Stacy McDonald of 2014 should repent of her very unkind words she left here.

    Like

  41. I always found Dorothy Patterson amusing. She travels all over the world, has a PhD and is paid to speak at conferences teaching women to stay home, bake cookies and raise children.

    Because if they all stay at home barefoot and pregnant, they can’t threaten her position as Queen Bee. Rank Hath It’s Privileges, and there is room for only One at the Top.

    Like

  42. There is no need to define femininity in the way you do. I think it’s deeply problematic. When women follow your ideals, they purposely diminish their created capacities. I see your ideology as a denial of the generous and magnificent creations of God and I am convinced that God finds no joy in it.

    I was almost thinking all of Carmen’s comment was the quote from Elliot. Carmen, can you please clarify? I can edit the comment for you, if need be.

    Like

  43. I think that if Stacy and her husband (who I respect) really want to be seen as more moderate/mainstream on this issue they should stop referring folks to others who have been documented as being an extreme patriarch.

    Angela,

    I think they’d have to ditch a lot of their friends. She wrote a book with Jennie Chancey. They have been long connected with people in Patriarchy. I don’t think they want to be seen as moderate or mainstream. In fact, most people in this group looks at mainstream/moderate as lukewarm and despise it.

    Like

  44. The sad result is they appear to be willing to “die on a hill” other than the Gospel. You know I’ve got faults, but I hope I’m at least willing to turn back when I realize I’m on a wrong path.

    Like

  45. Julie Anne,
    Thanks for catching that! Yup, that is an example of what Biblical Manhood and Womanhood ( and Elliot) promote. Not me!!!!

    JA note: Thanks for clarifying. I fixed it.

    Like

  46. The sad result is they appear to be willing to “die on a hill” other than the Gospel. You know I’ve got faults, but I hope I’m at least willing to turn back when I realize I’m on a wrong path.

    Exactly – that shows integrity and humility and the way it should be. I confused, however, about your phrase earlier that you respect the McDonalds. What exactly do you respect about them? I can respect the words that Stacy wrote in that 2008 article about “love,” but that’s not what we saw in action here. Do we respect people who behave like this? Do we respect Doug Phillips because he had some good teachings (all the while keeping a young thang as an object of sex at his beckoning call)?

    Like

  47. I respect Pastor McDonald because he is a pastor, and I believe he’s reformed as I am. I haven’t delved much into his or Stacy’s teaching. And I have no respect for DP – I’ve denounced his actions as much as possible. Frankly, I never read much of his work, either. I was shocked when I discovered how far off track VF was; but then again, I was promoting theonomy for over a decade, so I ignored seeing red flags from DP and his followers, which I now regret.

    Like

  48. I respect Pastor McDonald because he is a pastor, and I believe he’s reformed as I am.

    That’s an interesting response. I wonder if that is why people respect my former pastor? He’s a pastor and he’s Reformed. I do not see the Biblical precedent to elevate pastors and Reformed. Can you help me with that one, Angela?

    PS – I’m glad you’ve been able to see through DP. I know that was a process for you and remember seeing you question others and then finally come to your own conclusions based on public evidence.

    Like

  49. JA said.

    “As much as many of these wives want to say Patriarchy is the way to go, many of the wives espousing patriarchy are really wearing the pants in their home, so to speak. They may have brought many of these ideals into their own homes by following the teachings of Stacy and Kelly or others women speakers promoting Patriarchy. And trust me, women will hold on to teachings by Stacy and Kelly and other ladies just as much, if not more than their own pastors. Why is that? Because perhaps their own pastors don’t hold to these ideologies. So, in many groups, it is the women who are keeping this kind of thing going in their groups.”

    I have yet to come across a single account of a Christian husband and father hearing this stuff for the first time at some convention, becoming enthralled, and going home to immediately impose it on his family. It’s always the mom who gets it at a convention, reads certain homeschooling magazines, or (especially) is indoctrinated at the local homeschool support group by other moms with the patriarchal agenda. Then she goes home to try pressure her reluctant husband to “step up” into his proper leadership role and catch the home-centered, multigenerational “vision”.

    I guess the irony of patriarchy being spread primarily by women, or famous female authors addressing mixed Christian audiences doesn’t really matter, as long as they’re spreading -correct- doctrine.

    Like

  50. Yes, I sure can and it’s good you brought this up as I probably need to think more about that response. As a new reformed believer I was taught that while we might disagree with a reformed brother or sister, we were still in the same “family.” The implication is we maintain a reformed distinctive or brotherhood with others of reformed beliefs. (I’m not certain this is biblical – I need to think about it. )

    Like

  51. “Then she goes home to try pressure her reluctant husband to “step up” into his proper leadership role and catch the home-centered, multigenerational “vision”.” – NJ.
    Wow! I remember seeing this take place with friends and felt like an oddity as my husband is a domineering type; I often marveled that it wasn’t until I became a Christian that I had the courage to stand up to him. Now he is a wonderful (well, mostly) husband and treats me with respect. All credit goes to the Lord who changes men and women’s hearts. 🙂

    Like

  52. Yes, I sure can and it’s good you brought this up as I probably need to think more about that response.

    Great. Let me know what you find out.

    As a new reformed believer I was taught that while we might disagree with a reformed brother or sister, we were still in the same “family.” The implication is we maintain a reformed distinctive or brotherhood with others of reformed beliefs. (I’m not certain this is biblical – I need to think about it. )

    What about those who do not hold to Reformed doctrines? Are they part of the “family,” too? I have much more understanding of Reformed now than I did even 2 years ago and I can see how some might say that.

    Like

  53. Angela, the problem is if your husband is a true believer filled with the Holy Spirit, he would be submitting to you, too. (Eph 5:21 if we are approaching scripture as a how to manual. Check the interlinear for how that passage really reads.)

    The submission of believers to one another (think of all the one anothers) is mutual. In a marriage even more so as believers.

    Like

  54. I hope you will think it through Angela. it is sounding like you are worshiping a man made ST and not a real live Savior with whom you have a relationship.

    Like

  55. “I often marveled that it wasn’t until I became a Christian that I had the courage to stand up to him. Now he is a wonderful (well, mostly) husband and treats me with respect. All credit goes to the Lord who changes men and women’s hearts.” 🙂

    Angela, that’s wonderful.

    As far as reformed believers sticking together, ordinarily that does apply. It should be remembered though, that sometimes Christians of a reformed persuasion can and do come up with some horrid things. I was just reading this morning about how some of the teachings of Abraham Kuyper were pressed into service justifying what became the aparteid regime in South Africa; then there was R.L. Dabney’s published toilet paper on the negroes and slavery. The Bayly brothers would claim to be reformed according to the Word of God, but have you ever read their blog posts on abortion, feminism, or 2K theology adherents? I guess my point is the importance of being Bereans about any alleged Biblical teaching or famous teacher in the Church. This especially holds true whenever anyone is claiming to be restoring the Church to The Way Things Should Be.

    Like

  56. @NJ:

    I guess the irony of patriarchy being spread primarily by women, or famous female authors addressing mixed Christian audiences doesn’t really matter, as long as they’re spreading -correct- doctrine.

    Not “correct doctrine”.
    Pure Ideology, Comrade.

    Like

  57. “Thank you, Taunya, for your kind words. This needs to be dealt with strongly. You know, I missed the 6 years of silence part of your comment the first time I read it. When I read it again, it made me so angry. She was trying to lure you back to Patriarchy and painted us as evil. My former pastor tried to intervene behind the scenes and CONvince people they were wrong. There are so many similar behaviors.”

    Yes Julie Anne she was using shaming tactics to make me feel bad for taking a “step down” by consorting with you, and the people on your blog, instead of the higher calling of being among them like I was years ago. Thank God I am now immune to these practices. Her words only solidify my belief that the entire patriarchy mindset is a cult. When you leave, or attempt to leave, cult-like tactics are employed to pull you back.

    That said I want to say one thing in Kelly’s defense she did contact me just after Doug Phillips admitted his inappropriate actions with Lourdes to admit she had been wrong about him in the past. Years ago Kelly and I went back and forth over a period of months because I was trying to make her see that Doug Phillips was not the man he claimed to be. I had no proof to give her just a long list of things I had seen over the years. She did not believe me and vehemently defended Doug. When this story broke and Doug confessed I received an email from Kelly, after six years of silence, stating she had been wrong about Doug and that I had been right after all. I did think that was big of her, even though I am appalled by her actions on this blog.

    Hey Kelly is it possible that once again you are the one that is wrong? Will we be talking about all of this again in another six years?

    Like

  58. “As a new reformed believer I was taught that while we might disagree with a reformed brother or sister, we were still in the same “family.” The implication is we maintain a reformed distinctive or brotherhood with others of reformed beliefs. (I’m not certain this is biblical – I need to think about it. )”

    Angela I thought “the family” was the family of Christ and the “brotherhood” was all Christians. I think it is dangerous when we Christians divide and form distinct groups within Christianity that we term a brother or sisterhood. It sets up an “us vs. them” dynamic within Christianity that fosters feelings of superiority among some, and feelings of being “more enlightened” or “more mature in the faith” among others. This leads to pride and arrogance and also sets up the perfect environment for cults to breed.

    Like

  59. Reformed(TM) — who needs Christ when you have CALVIN CALVIN CALVIN CALVIN CALVIN?

    Like

  60. Not “correct doctrine”.
    Pure Ideology, Comrade.

    *grin* At least we haven’t yet seen any patriocentrists denouncing each other for subversive thoughts or holding forced meetings so everybody can denounce themselves to the ruling theonomic authorities… 😀

    Like

  61. They might be more like cousins. 🙂 I wonder if this attitude isn’t due to persecution during the reformation? Anyway, you’ve given me such to think about. 🙂

    Like

  62. Carmen quoted Piper or someone as having written,

    Think of a bride. She surrenders her independence, her name, her destiny, her will, herself to the bridegroom in marriage…

    That is codependency, and it is not healthy for anyone.

    Some women later go into therapy over it, where a counselor has to teach them to figure out who they are and what they want in life because for years, they were conditioned by their family of origin and/or church to believe their whole purpose and identity was tied up into being “wife” and “mother” or in what other people wanted.

    A lot of Christian women (based on Christian therapy books I’ve read about this) say after years or decades, such women are very miserable and filled with resentment, wanting to know why they are not experiencing the “abundant life” Jesus wanted.

    They don’t understand why, after years serving other people and not getting their own needs met, they are so tired, feel taken advantage of, unappreciated, unfulfilled etc.

    They have to be taught that the “you give up all you and your identify to serve a man, children, church (etc)” Christian gender complementarain teaching (it’s also still taught in secular culture) is what is causing them so much turmoil.

    They have to un-learn a lot of this stuff. I know I did.

    Being a “feminine” woman does not mean losing your identity in a husband, being subservient all the time, or having children. (And some of us women never marry and never have children anyway.)

    Like

  63. Hey Lydia, Hold on just a minute – I’m probably one of the most independent, reformed women you’ll ever meet. I also value my privacy and respect my husband enough to only disclose what I feel comfortable with. Just trust me when I say DP wouldn’t want me near any of the women under his leadership. 🙂

    Like

  64. Julie Anne, since you sometimes blog about home schooling and all its problems, as well as patriarchy/complementarianism, I was thinking you may want to do some posts on the similarities between pat/comp Christian teachings and their counterparts in Mormon views on marriage, and Islamic views on women/marriage, and…

    This Muslim group has been in the news lately for having kidnapped little school girls in Nigera.

    The Muslim group kidnapping school girls is called “Boko Haram,” which means “Western education is sinful.”

    I’ve seen a lot of Christian home schooling parents say they consider American public education sinful or a horrible influence, which is why they won’t permit their kids into public schools.

    (I am not saying all American home schooling parents are on par with the Boko Haram group, but I do find the suspicion, disdain, or hatred of public schooling, or the idea of girls receiving education as being bad, as similar).

    Or, if you didn’t want to do one big post comparing all the similarities, you could break it up into a series of two or three or however many posts.

    I just think when Christian groups have teaching that strongly resembles cultic, false religion, or terrorist group beliefs, they have gone way off the reservation. If you say you are a Christian, but your views and practices look about identical to terrorist Muslims or Mormons, you might want to re-think your views and life style.

    Like

  65. Carmen quoting Piper or whomever,

    The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it “of great worth in God’s sight” ( 1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found it’s epitome in Mary.

    I find it funny that Peter would pen that, because the dude was mouthy, blunt, brash, braggy, didn’t filter his comment before they came out of his mouth.

    One problem with the “be gentle and meek” passage as being applied to all women all the time is that it’s used by Christians, or, it is twisted I should say, to teach that Christian women should be compliant doormats at all times and never speak up and give their opinion on anything.

    Like

  66. I think it is dangerous when we Christians divide and form distinct groups within Christianity that we term a brother or sisterhood. It sets up an “us vs. them” dynamic within Christianity that fosters feelings of superiority among some, and feelings of being “more enlightened” or “more mature in the faith” among others. This leads to pride and arrogance and also sets up the perfect environment for cults to breed.

    I saw this first-hand with Chuck O’Neal. The more enlightened group, put themselves up on such a level that those who didn’t feel “enlightened” doubted their faith, could never measure up and I saw many leave church entirely. I also got e-mails from a number of people who said they experienced the same thing in the decade before we were there. I had no clue it had been going on for so long. Now, O’Neal and those enlightened would tell you those who left were never in the faith to begin with. That can really mess with your head, too. But the way to test is by looking at the fruit. Do we see ongoing evidence of love?

    So while Chuck O”Neal thinks he’s shepherding this amazingly godly and pure church with “perfect” doctrine, he’s actually bullying people AWAY from church and Christ by his divisiveness, legalism, extra-Biblical rules. And he prides himself on evangelism – – the irony!

    We see these patterns in “Christian” Patriarchy and the Homeschool Movement.

    Like

  67. The Muslim group kidnapping school girls is called “Boko Haram,” which means “Western education is sinful.”

    You’ve been in my head missdaisyflower. When I first read/heard this story, my first thought was that this is currently going on in the States and it’s called “Christian Patriarchy Movement.” I suspect there are far more than 200 young ladies who are held against their will (because they’ve never been allowed to have independent thought) in their Daddy’s home. It’s not quite the same, but there are certainly similarities.

    Like

  68. Carmen, I am glad you weren’t writing your opinion but were just quoting. It startled me! (Thanks JA)

    Like

  69. Yes, it is ELISABETH ELLIOT from her book “The Essence Of Femininity”. This is coming from a famous woman promoting patriarchy.

    Like

  70. At the risk of offending some of those commenting: I have no idea what a ST is – is it contagious? And the attitude towards Calvinism from the headless unicorn guy makes me wonder if I’ve just stepped into hell. I realize Julie Anne has an open comment policy, but if folks are going to bash one’s beliefs and question their salvation here, how are you any more loving than those you criticize? Can’t you see that you’re as obstinate as the “patriarchy” crowd? You might win more converts with a little common courtesy and respect for others. Julie Anne, I really like you and will keep you in my prayers, but perhaps from a distance. 🙂

    Like

  71. “The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it “of great worth in God’s sight” ( 1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found it’s epitome in Mary.”

    Well it is a stupid application. Peter is addressing believers who live with or work around unbelievers IN THE FIRST CENTURY. CONTEXT please. As for the wife, she was considered property in the Household codes. Just like a slave or children. Piper thinks that a good thing, of course.

    Like

  72. Angela – I have no idea what ST is either. Lydia? Can you please help us out?

    I have a lot of Reformed friends, Angela. But I also know of a lot of Reformed people who say they claim Christ as their savior, but when you hear them speak, they speak more of Calvinism than Christ. I think that is what HUG is trying to say. There is a distinction. If there was an Arminian equivalent, you better believe I’d be saying it, too.

    I find ANYTHING that becomes an idol instead of Christ to be troublesome. That’s where I stand. It could be Young Earth Creationism or Old Earth Creationism – – if that is an idol and becomes a primary doctrine issue, then that is wrong. If Patriarchy becomes the primary doctrine issue, that is wrong. If being a Titus 2 mom becomes a primary doctrine issue, that is wrong. The Bible is clear on what it takes to be a Believer. We must not let pet topics/ideologies take the place of what God’s Word says.

    Like

  73. “At the risk of offending some of those commenting: I have no idea what a ST is – is it contagious?”

    Systematic Theology. It is man made.

    “And the attitude towards Calvinism from the headless unicorn guy makes me wonder if I’ve just stepped into hell. I realize Julie Anne has an open comment policy, but if folks are going to bash one’s beliefs and question their salvation here, how are you any more loving than those you criticize?”

    But wait, you did bring an exclusive perspective here:

    “I respect Pastor McDonald because he is a pastor, and I believe he’s reformed as I am.”

    Anyone can be a “pastor” and what does being reformed have to do with respect?

    ” Can’t you see that you’re as obstinate as the “patriarchy” crowd?”

    It is not about the perception of obstancy. If you disagree with anything of that crowd you are labeled as such…. so that must roll off backs. That is how they communicate. The quest is for truth. And it is ok if people don’t agree if they don’t insist others must. The question is why does the quest for truth in dialogue make them so upset?

    “You might win more converts with a little common courtesy and respect for others. Julie Anne, I really like you and will keep you in my prayers, but perhaps from a distance. ”

    Why is it about “winning converts” and not about seeking truth? Who defines common curtesy? Most of the women in the Patriarchy movement define it as agree with them. That sort of non thinking is why we have had such an abusive patriarchy movement. Why not encourage people to question, seek truth on their own instead of having it shoved down their throats.

    Do you know how many abusive pastors have used “I do not like your tone” to dismiss serious abuse issues? They have to shoot the messenger and there is no “right way” one can deliver the message. They control using those ad hominem tactics.

    Like

  74. Hey, Angela W, it might be useful to ask HUG (Headless Unicorn Guy) directly rather than appealing to JA’s authority as blog owner. This is one of the things that make me sad about what happens within hierarchically-based movements—we tend not to talk eye to eye with each other but go behind/around to resolve issues.

    As to Calvinism itself, the unfortunate reality is that a significant number of people did find the experience to be like hell. The system takes a hard analytical approach to God and His/Her world and when not moderated by hearts of love, causes a tremendous amount of damage.

    I know this because I was brought up in a Reformed parsonage and actually went to an under grad college named “Dordt” after the Synod of Dordtrecht.

    Like

  75. “I have no idea what ST is either. Lydia? Can you please help us out?”

    Sorry guys. I have spent way too much time on pastor and seminary student blogs. Now that is a scary place to hang out, let me tell you. And no, I don’t respect someone because they have the title of “pastor”.

    Systematic Theology in case you missed it in the last comment. It is a man’s opinion concerning God. It usually starts with a certain premise and interprets scripture to fit the premise. It has nothing to do with a “relationship” with Jesus Christ. But it is very popular….and there are quite a few of them. Calvin’s being the most popular these days.

    Angela, I would suggest you read some secular history concerning what kind of person Calvin actually was. It is hard to even think of him as a true believer. And if you have read the Institutes and believe his theory of reprobation ( book III, chapter II, section 11) is true then you have to believe in a bait and switch God. A God that makes people think they are saved and even look saved while here but then sends them to hell because they were not predestined before Adam sinned or the world was formed.

    It is a good thing to do homework on what you believe and why outside reading and listening to someone else.

    Like

  76. Something that is new to me is when people say, “He was probably never a Christian”, after someone sins or has reevaluated a doctrine they formerly believed. How can a person judge another’s salvation, unless the other has denounced Christ? Doctrine and pastor worship seems to put a wedge between believers. Interesting aside, my husband experienced a blackout in the yard. A neighbor saw him pass out and was quick to respond. It may have saved my husband’s life. This man is very compassionate and giving, but is not a believer. We also have a young senior pastor in the neighborhood who was out of town at the time. As the news trickled out to my family, each one of the asked,”Was it the pastor who helped him?”, instead of just asking who helped him! The assumption was that only the pastor would come to the rescue! I guess they have never read the Good Samaritan! 🙂

    Like

  77. Need a quick music interlude? I *get* to sing this tonight, tomorrow night and Sunday. This piece is amazing – R. Vaughan Williams “Valiant for Truth.”

    My marks and scars I carry with me, to be a witness for me, that I have fought his battles, who now will be my rewarder.” When the day that he must go hence, was come, many accompanied him to the riverside, into which, as he went, he said, “Death, where is thy sting?” And as he went down deeper, he said, “Grave, where is they victory?’ So he passed over, and the trumpets sounded for him on the other side.

    Like

  78. “The gentle and quiet spirit of which Peter speaks, calling it “of great worth in God’s sight” ( 1 Peter 3:4), is the true femininity, which found it’s epitome in Mary.”

    LOL. Read the Magnificat lately?

    Mary was not a milquetoast

    dianeski, a Catholic who loves and venerates the Blessed Virgin

    Like

  79. Angela,
    You might want to visit one of the blog’s all encompassing Calvinist debate threads, here is one of them:
    It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 2

    There are a lot of people on this blog and other ones who loathe and detest Calvinism. You will also find some people who claim to be Reformed who swear up and down that Reformed is not the same thing as Calvinism.

    (I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, and I do not like Calvinism. I find many of its adherents, (not all, but a large number I’ve met online over the last ten years or seen from lurking at their forums), to be very arrogant, argumentative at the drop of a hat, and they give off an air of intellectual superiority, and they tend to be very condescending.)

    Like

  80. JA:

    “And he passed over
    And all the trumpets sounded for him…”

    You are lucky. May it go well all three times.

    Like

  81. “You might win more converts with a little common courtesy and respect for others. Julie Anne, I really like you and will keep you in my prayers, but perhaps from a distance. :)”

    Angela do you realize how arrogant that sounds? Almost as if “I came, I tested the waters and I see that you are not where you should be spiritually so I pray for you and leave.”

    Perhaps that is not how you meant it but that is how it sounded to me. I think that is the kind of spirit or attitude many have seen from those who wear “reformed” on their sleeve. It comes up often in conversations that have nothing to do with Calvin or reformed theology and it is always referred to by it’s adherents as almost a religion within a religion, A separate brotherhood for the super Christians. What is most irritating is when it’s introduced, especially in a blog or forum, it tends to dominate the comment feed and the original topic goes by the wayside while everyone debates Calvin.

    Like

  82. “You might win more converts with a little common courtesy and respect for others. Julie Anne, I really like you and will keep you in my prayers, but perhaps from a distance. :)”

    Ok, I did get a bit confused with this because both HUG and I were addressed in the same paragraph. I wasn’t sure if the 1st sentence was addressed to me because I allowed HUG’s comment. Maybe Angela can clarify.

    What is most irritating is when it’s introduced, especially in a blog or forum, it tends to dominate the comment feed and the original topic goes by the wayside while everyone debates Calvin.

    True that – – and that’s why I have a special thread for Calvin debates 🙂 haha! We don’t need to confuse this important topic of quacking ducks with Calvin.

    It’s Calvinism Free-For-All: Off the Top of Your Head, Part 2

    Like

  83. Moderator needs help!

    Lydia or Lydia(s),

    HELP!!! I cannot figure out if there are 2 Lydias posting. We have lydiasellerofpurple and also Lydia. Very similar posting styles, but the stuff I’m seeing behind the scenes is not matching up. Can you please confirm if you are the same person? Thanks 🙂

    ~ja

    Like

  84. Thanks, Cindy. That’s fine. We’ve had other duplicate names and I just like to make sure we know which one is which if there are 2 and create 2 separate IDs.

    Like

  85. “HELP!!! I cannot figure out if there are 2 Lydias posting. We have lydiasellerofpurple and also Lydia. Very similar posting styles, but the stuff I’m seeing behind the scenes is not matching up. Can you please confirm if you are the same person? Thanks ”

    This only happens on wordpress that I can ascertain. I sign in and it sometimes is one or the other. Cannot figure it out. She is not my evil twin. Both are me.

    Like

  86. “Something that is new to me is when people say, “He was probably never a Christian”, after someone sins or has reevaluated a doctrine they formerly believed. How can a person judge another’s salvation, unless the other has denounced Christ?”

    Ann, Just to clarify, I thought I was communicating that **I** have a hard time believing Calvin was a believer…but did not communicate that well. I don’t think I have the right to make any declarations at all. But we can judge fruit and his fruit….his deeds in Geneva…. were rotten. I have a hard time believing the Holy Spirit had him publicly punish people for falling asleep during his sermons, regulating the courses Genevans were allowed at each meal or imprisoning, banishing or torturing those who disagreed with his doctrine. There is more but I will stop. :o)

    BTW: I have a friend who blacked out like that but had a wreck which probably saved him as the ambulance came so quickly. After months of tests they found nothing and to this day it is inexplicable. Do you have any idea what happened to him? Thank God for your neighbor.

    Like

  87. Ok, so now it is reading Lydia for two comments. I am going to fool with it and see if I can make it stay that way.

    Like

  88. “It is the same Lydia. She’s having computer/system/network problems and other ID wouldn’t work.”

    And it also seems to do with what device I am on at the time. …seems on some of them one name never comes up. It is weird, I have not paid that much attention to it. Sorry to annoy folks. Maybe it is a subtle identity crisis? :o)

    Like

  89. Lydia, I have difficulty using my Word Press account on Word Press blogs. You’d think if I had signed into Word Press from my blog, Word Press would recognize me at other blogs. Weird.

    Like

  90. JA: for help with future use of Internet Archive and missing webpages: sometimes you can go back a few years to the main page and find that it has changed. So, some url addresses changed as well. Just go to the main page and look for the blog link and find the archives and look it up (it may be there). So, in this case the original Dec. 29, 2008 article *is* at Internet Archive, just under an older url:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130908224915/http://www.generationcedar.com/main/2008/12

    Like

  91. Thanks, Shawn. I didn’t spend time looking for it since Ryan had a copy, but that’s the kind of information that is important for all. I appreciate it.

    Like

  92. “You’ve been in my head missdaisyflower. When I first read/heard this story, my first thought was that this is currently going on in the States and it’s called “Christian Patriarchy Movement.” I suspect there are far more than 200 young ladies who are held against their will (because they’ve never been allowed to have independent thought) in their Daddy’s home. It’s not quite the same, but there are certainly similarities.”

    Sometimes this can happen to guys too. I’m no lawyer, but the account at Sheldon’s blog about trying to leave home at age 21, only to have his mom physically bar the front door so he couldn’t get out, sounds like false imprisonment to me. I wonder how many young adults in that kind of situation even know they can call the cops–assuming they even have an official birth certificate to verify their age.

    Like

  93. Re the kidnapped Nigerian girls, a relative is involved in Bible translation and works with the father of three of those girls, he teaches mathematics. Please pray. I am heartened by the international outrage over what has happened. Lord, be present with each young woman and bring them all home.

    Like

  94. the true femininity, which found it’s epitome in Mary

    I think of Mary as an example of faith, not femininity. This quote, however, makes me wonder why the patriarchs completely ignore her. In Mary they have their perfect dream woman – she’s a mother (which they love) who never had sex (which they demonize). You’d think they’d be on this but no. Probably because it would make them look too Catholic (cue dramatic music).

    And Julie Anne – can’t ever go wrong with Vaughan Williams (or most 20th century British choral music, from where I sit). But oh no – VW was apparently a distant nephew of Charles Darwin! I just looked it up, his mother was a Wedgwood. So maybe he’s really evil after all. 😉

    If we may swap awesome, my choir sang this a few months ago. It’s by a much more obscure Englishman named Sir Edward Bairstow.

    Like

  95. I’m a complementarian and at least a partial Calvinist (depending on one’s definition of that word), so I know I’m not going to be a popular commenter. However, I’ve noticed with concern a tendency in the above thread and in some previous posts to equate Calvinists with abuse. To debate, even to debate strongly, Calvinist and Arminian ideas is in my opinion fine, but to imply that Calvinists are inherently spiritual and sexual abusers is insulting to me as it slanders a great many godly people that I personally know. It would, I think, help your attempts to debate other ideas to keep the Calvinist/Arminian debates limited to the Calvinist/Arminian threads and to separate it from some of the other topics. I know this has already been suggested above, but I just wanted to offer my two cents as an outsider (who admittedly often does not agree with the viewpoints of this blog) looking at your discussions.

    Like

  96. ia, I have difficulty using my Word Press account on Word Press blogs. You’d think if I had signed into Word Press from my blog, Word Press would recognize me at other blogs. Weird.”

    And what is even weirder is that blogs that use discus sign me on using a defunct facebook page signon I have not used since early days of Facebook. I have no idea how to change it. I changed email addy because of my war with yahoo so I am seeing if that will change how I come up on your blog. This stuff is beyond me.

    Like

  97. Welcome, Cal!

    And thank you for validating one of the most challenging aspects of moderating. I agree with you that all Calvinists are not abusers. Thanks for the reminder.

    Like

  98. The issue is “Calvinism”, not Calvinists, of whom there seems to be 347 flavors. Until a few months ago, I hadn’t read one page in The Institutes. Go to the Bible first, before you read systematic theology.

    Like

  99. Carmen,

    347 flavors?

    Not sure why anyone would want to lay claim to being a Calvinist when they can’t come up with a consensus to their Doctrine..

    A large number of those abused were at the hands of the more Reformed, Hyper, YRR and New Calvinist Flavors. .

    Like

  100. Cal and Mark,

    I think it’s important to delineate all the doctrines and ideologies within Christianity, wherever they show, that set up environments where abuse can more easily thrive.

    Yes, some of the problems do lie in the traditional Calvinist doctrinal package, but the way that hyper-Cals grabbed/ran with it has layered issues that weren’t in the original, issues with which none but the most rigid trad Cals would agree.

    The Independent Baptists and SBC also have an ideology/doctrinal system that has allowed abuse to thrive. I’m not knowledgeable about that corner, but it would be good if they could be delineated more clearly. Because the problem is that not only has the SBC been taken over by hyper-Cals but also that the most rigid of the Independents are blending with the SBC. Plus, if there were no underlying tendencies, SBC would not have been open to the authoritarian system that hyper-Cals promote.

    ISTM good to remember what Brad and Cindy K have been pointing out: systems that allow abuse all look somewhat similar. So there are reasons why we see a blending of these subsystems and it would be helpful to build on our understanding of how abusive systems work by tracking back to the incorrect doctrines/ideologies in all the places they occur, rather than foist it all on one subsystem or another.

    This way we might be able to avoid some of the infighting and it would def give us a broader view.

    Like

  101. Mark,
    I can’t keep up with many people whose response becomes “that’s not what Calvinists believe”.

    You are correct. The abuse is coming at the hands of the YRR/New Calvinists. Old Calvinism has been watered down from the original, which New Calvinists hold to very closely. Read The Institutes. Would love to say more, but Julie Anne has provided the Calvinism thread to discuss this 🙂

    Like

  102. “The Independent Baptists and SBC also have an ideology/doctrinal system that has allowed abuse to thrive. I’m not knowledgeable about that corner, but it would be good if they could be delineated more clearly”

    Boy is that ever true. The IFB might take the cake. But what most people miss is that there is a doctrinal problem in the entire Protestant Evangelical mode of thinking when it comes to what is sin and sin itself. Something for another day.

    The reason the Calvinist get the focus is because of the resurgence started back in the 70’s that has become very public over the last 15 years with the advent of social media. We just know more stories. The Calvinist resurgence used the internet quite deftly to grow the resurgence so it makes sense many would use the same medium to point out the consistent parade of abuses.

    Like

  103. Cal,

    You gave yourself away with the Calvin/Arminian dichotomy. That false dichotomy has been used for years on pastor blogs to frame all doctrinal debate by Calvinists. I am not suggesting you mean anything nefarious when you frame it that way. It has probably just been presented that way to you as the norm. It isn’t. In fact, I had to look him up and do some reading. My take away is that Arminius is Calvin-lite in the wake of TULIP. Which I found most amusing and understood better why so many Calvinist YRR used that dichotomy to frame all debate.

    I am not Arminian. I am a 0 point Calvinist. :o)

    Like

  104. I’m surprised Stacy hasn’t been here to post” But i’m not THAT kind of duck.”

    If I recall, both Kelly and Stacy were informed of the article last time around, so likely that happened again. But let’s face it, they didn’t get too far in their arguments here before, did they? And really, how can you back peddle on your own public words? Their own words and behavior show the rotten fruit. I didn’t have to embellish anything.

    The proper response would be to apologize. Stacy knows it is the proper response. She wrote about it several years (and I quoted it earlier in the comments). Stacy and Kelly have behaved poorly publicly, so it’s time to publicly own up to it.

    Like

  105. Estelle said: “Re the kidnapped Nigerian girls, a relative is involved in Bible translation and works with the father of three of those girls, he teaches mathematics. Please pray. I am heartened by the international outrage over what has happened. Lord, be present with each young woman and bring them all home”.
    Amen!

    Like

  106. Julie Anne, Cindy K

    I think it would be fair to suggest that Spiritual Abusers have positioned themselves in their minds to be among the Spiritual “Elites” or modern day Pharisees. Whether I’m correct or not, I have tied “most” of the abuse to Doctrine.

    When Doctrine is the catalyst, and when the “Abused” can identify that “Abusers” stand behind the most reckless form of Hyper Doctrine, the “Abused will begin to develop understanding and finally discover the Abusers motives are out of hand and find freedom.

    Some of us may have friends and even family that embrace certain dialects that is part of the Hyper-Doctrine family

    The Pharisees held the sinner and tax collector in bondage while rebuking Christ for not conforming to them. Kind of like what Hyper Abusers are doing today.

    Like

  107. “The proper response would be to apologize.”

    But my guess is that they won’t, because Pharisees do not apologize. They simply look for bigger and better ways to persecute their victims for not abiding with them. The Bible and history prove this fact. Perhaps they might consider as their substitute word for the “p” word they currently use, the word — “perpetrator-al”. Now there’s a word.

    Like

  108. I have just heard from my relative that two of the sisters have been identified among the Nigerian girls shown in a video reciting the Koran. The third sister’s name is not on the list. Please hold them and their family in your prayers.

    Here is Psalm 27 (CEV), amended to the situation.

    You, LORD, are the light that can keep the girls safe.

    May they not be afraid of anyone.

    Please protect them, so that they have no fears.

    Brutal people have attacked and done evil to them,

    but they will stumble.

    You say that fierce enemies may attack, but they will fall.

    Even though armies may surround them, may they not be afraid;

    war may break out, but may they trust You.

    I ask only one thing, LORD:

    Let them live in Your presence every day of their captivity,

    that they may see Your goodness as they bring all their questions to you.

    In this time of trouble, You will protect them.

    You will hide them in your tent and keep them safe

    on top of a mighty Rock.

    You will let them defeat all of their enemies.

    Then they will celebrate, as they enter your tent

    with sacrifices and songs of praise.

    Please listen when we pray!

    Have pity. Answer our prayer.

    My heart tells me to pray.

    The girls are eager to see Your face, so don’t hide from them.

    We are your servants, and you have helped us.

    Don’t turn from us in anger.

    You alone keep them safe. Don’t reject or desert them.

    Even if they have been taken away from their fathers and mothers,

    You will take care of them.

    Teach us to follow, LORD,

    and lead the rescuers on the right path

    because of our enemies.

    Don’t let them do to the girls what they want to do.

    People tell lies and make terrible threats,

    but we trust that the girls and their families will live

    to see how kind you are.

    Trust the LORD!

    Be brave and strong

    and trust the LORD.

    Like

  109. Pingback: Do Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford Pass the Duck Test on Patriarchy? | H . A

  110. Pingback: Do Stacy McDonald and Kelly Crawford Pass the Duck Test on Patriarchy? | Homeschoolers Anonymous

  111. You also may want to check what she’s written on her blog recently. Kelly Crawford. She says she’s against Quiverfull. I honestly think I can remember a past blog about that too but it’s probably gone.

    Like

  112. This is the problem about these ideologies. There are some who are so extreme in this ideology that it makes others look like they are not part of it. What you have to do is look at the full picture and how much of the ideologies she promotes. She is clearly part of The Homeschool Movement.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

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