In a recent email exchange with a certain patriocentric blogger with a penchant for Victorian decorating, we White Washed Feminists were accused of being obsessed with Stacy McDonald, Jennie Chancey, Doug Phillips, and Lydia Sherman. I wanted to see if this was true, so I did a little counting. Out of 115 blog posts, approximately 18 of them have directly discussed teachings of the aforementioned public figures/teachers and specifically name their names when discussed. That is approximately 15.6%. Does this qualify as being obsessed?
Pages
Email Us At:
-
Recent Comments
- Heather on Christina, the Great Martyr of Tyre
- Cally Tyrol on Saint Olympias the Deaconess
- Lynn on Saint Olympias the Deaconess
- Cally Tyrol on The Mother of God
- Stella on The Mother of God
-
-
Top Posts
- Our Purpose
- In Christ Alone
- Stacy McDonald: Be Careful Little Mouth What You Say!
- What We Believe
- Doug Phillips, Lydia Sherman, Jennie Chancey, and Stacy McDonald Reject the "Virgin" Mary
- Not Your Mama’s Handmaiden
- Quivering Daughters Interview!
- Blog Review: Keeping the Home
- Archives
- Saint Olympias the Deaconess
-
-
Blog Stats
- 160,312 hits
Meta
-
Archives
Well. . . maybe some will admit you aren’t “obsessed,” but just wait for the accusations that you are “on a crusade!”
*sigh*
Write about discernment and questionable teachings, and you’ll have all sorts claims made against you. Yet your faithfulness to encourage brothers and sisters in the Lord does bring fruit. . .
I’ll confess that there have been times when I have deliberately used names rather than make generic citations so that the web crawler will pick it up if someone googles them.
I don’t think of it as being obsessed, nor crusading; just getting the word out, that’s all. I wish I had this site thirty years ago at my fingertips and the information found here. What a wonderful difference it would have made in my life. Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou WWF ladies.
*Shaking head* Maybe they are obsessed with being criticized?
I’m guessing almost every single adult, from time to time, or very often, has some hobby horse or a central organizing principle to their day.
I am not going to speculate as to whether anybody is obsessed or not.
Not all obsessions are bad, or pathologic.
So what if one or more of you are a bit focused on them?
They have their “obsessions,” too. And their blogs, where they can respond to anything you write they don’t agree with. Or, they can come here, as Lydia did, to clarify some things and give us new information.
I’d say you are “obsessed” but not with LAF, Mrs. McDonald or VFM. You are “obsessed” with seeking God and His will, not with what others say you must do.
“They can come here, as Lydia did, to clarify some things and give us new information”
I’m glad Lydia came here, rather than lurking in the shadows and making snarky comments about the ladies here, like some have.
I find the accusation of obsession amusing. Obsessed? Like Phillips and Chancy are with working mommies and single ladies who don’t stay home like good little girls? THAT kind of obsessed?
I can’t wait for the day when the only Name we all have to be obsessed about is Jesus.
“[They] doth protest too much, methinks.”
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing their aberrant doctrine. In fact, I think this is one of the only ways I get to discuss it, since where I’ve come from (FIC) the ONLY ones encouraged to “discuss” it are the men. Keep it coming!
If someone is going to make judgments on her blog about women she doesn’t name, then she’s doing several things:
* Either lying (and there’s NObody doing whatever she’s judging the unnamed women for doing), or making a judgment about real live women;
* Setting herself up as better than the women she’s judging (or else she wouldn’t judge them); and
* Opening herself up to scrutiny for making those judgments publicly.
She really shouldn’t expect anyone to buy the “it’s not judging because I didn’t name names.” Yes, it is. And yes, it’s judging for us to notice. That’s the kind of judgment we should be making: judging the actions of another in order to discern the validity of what they’re teaching, to see if what they do matches up with what they say they believe.
So now we’re being judged as “obsessed” with these false teachers. Good. It shows their flawed judgments for precisely what they are: they’re presumed to be the centers of their own little universes, believing themselves to be the focus of attention elsewhere if their names are mentioned even once.
Please…don’t flatter yourself, dear! It’s your flawed teachings and hypocritical pronouncements that are being scrutinized, along with a whole lot of other issues in the discussion. You’ve merely provided a few of the many possible examples of the flaws in patriarchal-focused teachings.
Can we PLEASE get out of the kindergarten sandbox?! Be a grown woman and own the responsibility for what you say in public! Now THAT might be a GOOD object of some obsession!
Obsessed? Kind of like being obsessed with modest and feminine dress so when you watch the coverage of Katrina, all you can see are what women are wearing instead of praying for their very lives?
They really need to meet the kettle which is just as black as they claim the pot to be.
“I can’t wait for the day when the only Name we all have to be obsessed about is Jesus.”
Amen. And add to that being obsessed with actual truth of the Word…not what is added to it by mere humans who use it to control others.
these folk are so well trained in what I’d call
“argumentation”–I’m sure they’d think of it as rhetoric or apologetics or something like this, but they can cut the opponent down in really creative ways and not look back.
I’m not so much obsessed as amazed–in college we learned about groups of our mothers and grandmothers generations very similar to this, and I’m just awestruck that it’s still going on.
Right now I’m obsessed with laundry and trying to get this house whipped into shape before I start work officially Friday.
Yeah, I have time to be “obsessed” with people I don’t even know.
It is just another generic insult, hurled at us like the other ones. Chalk it up to their cries of “gossip!” and “be sweet!” and other such nonsense.
THINKING WOMEN think. Period. Clones, drones, and such do not. They just puppet what they are taught.
I like being a THINKING woman.
the claim that others are obsessed with them makes them seem more important to their following, don’tcha know
rightly or wrongly, I would suspect that this prideful claim is being made because WWF and sites like it are making HUGE inroads on this humanistic and ungodly dictatorship known as patriarchy that follows along in the footsteps of ancient Rome
they have a NEED to start making outrageous claims like this in order to let their readership know they are still on top of it all … when they are not … they NEED to send over folks to make false claims (which I think is what, Mick, the so-called young man was doing yesterday)
take it as a compliment ladies! you are doing your work well! you are being effective!
keep up the good work!
again, you have no idea of how many are praying for this important work!
may our Lord & King continue to bless you, keep you, guide you, & direct you as you fight against such unholiness that tries to masquerade as so-called “Christianity” … continue to let your light shine! … set it high upon the hilltop for all to see … continue to expose, expose, expose!
I would hardly called anyone here obsessed with Jennie Chancey, Stacy McDonald, et al. It’s just those two and preach such outrageous things that you can’t help but comment.
And wait a minute, did they really rip apart the way some women were dressed while escaping Hurricane Katrina? WTH?
And I like being a thinking women, too!
“Obsessed? Kind of like being obsessed with modest and feminine dress so when you watch the coverage of Katrina, all you can see are what women are wearing instead of praying for their very lives?”
Corrie, I was going to mention that, too, but I thought I might look “obsessed” with the niggly details of her judgement when I read her article a while back.
I remember watching the news and seeing a suffering diabetic woman who desperately needed her insulin, but had to run for her life and was stranded without it. I prayed for her and certainly couldn’t have judged her for her clothing.
Could anyone give me a link to the article in which Mcdonald judged the Katrina victims for their clothes??
Jennifer, if you look through older posts, you will find your answer because I asked the same question and was given the link
I don’t remember that being Stacy McDonald. I think that was in a comment on either Stacy’s or Lydia’s blog. It was something like you never know when a disaster will strike….so always dress modestly in preparation. You might end up on TV. I guess it should be filed under “always wear clean underwear when you leave the house”. lol There was also something said about “they couldn’t believe how some of those people were dressed”. Sad. Very sad.
I couldn’t tell you one thing those poor people were wearing when I saw them stranded on that bridge in New Orleans in 100+ degree heat. It just broke my heart that I couldn’t help them.
try looking at this article …
http://whitewashedfeminist.com/2008/06/23/stacy-mcdonald-be-careful-little-mouth-what-you-say/
okay … I don’t think the above cited article is it … I DO know it was an older post … I absolutely KNOW folks gave me a link and quoted her directly on what she said
Thanks, One. Dang, I wish I could see it; I searched the word “Katrina” on Stacy’s blog and came up with nothing.
Jennifer, have you tried doing a search for ‘Stacy McDonald’ on this site … there’s a wee little box thingee on the uppermost top of the page on the right hand side … it is right next to What We Believe
Thanks for all the statistics and studies OWHBB. I’ve been looking over them as I have had time.
That Katrina post was on Lydia’s blog, not Stacy McDonald’s. She’s removed the offensive parts of that post without mentioning her edit, but you can find it if you use the way back machine. I’ll see if I can find the link and post it later.
It was on Lydia’s blog. I think she removed the damning evidence already since we have talked about it here and on TW.
I do think that someone on the WWF blog copied what was said on her blog and posted it in one of its own posts, though. It was a month or so back.
Also, add to the list that it is okay to be obsessed with one’s standing and authority OVER people and being obsessed with the submission allegedly due to one’s self but it is not okay to be “obsessed” about this Pagan paradigm of authority OVER others.
How self-serving and arrogant it is to write book after book and article after article and come up with programs and mission outreaches all so that my own precious authority OVER those beneath me is constantly in the foreground!
Where are all the books obsessing about how to be the greatest servant? the least of these? how one is to die DAILY to one’s own desires, wants and so-called “needs” in order to serve and love and honor their wife?
I guess we are just not obsessing about the right things. We need to obsess about what the Gentiles and Pagans obsess about- power, authority, money, control, clothing…..
Thanks, Cally and Corrie
Hi,
Thought I’d drop back by anyway even though I said I wouldn’t.
About your latest post…from a passer-byer it does seem like this blog is obsessed with Stacy, Jennie, Lydia, etc.
You haven’t mentioned that there are religions out there who actually do say it is a sin for a woman to wear pants. I’m not going to mention any religion in particular because respectfully I don’t want to single them out.
Where I’ve shopped in a nearby city (a open vegetable market) the owners even posts signs that ask women to respect them by not wearing spaghetti strap shirts, etc.
I have to bring up Lydia’s blog because I’ve read a lot of her posts. I can’t recall her ever saying it was a sin to wear pants. I wear pants, but do try to make sure they’re not too low or too tight, etc. for modesty sake as well as comfort.
What I’ve gathered from Lydia’s blog is that women look more feminine and lady-like if dressed modestly. I’ve always come away from her blog encouraged and challenged.
I’ve been married for 22 years and a Homemaker for 17 years. Even Mrs. Lydia’s post on first time Homemaking are encouraging to me.
I guess that’s why I find it so amazing that there is such disapproval, to the point of venomous, of what she writes.
I tend to disagree that because someone has a blog it’s open territory for using the “pen” to purposely cut someone down…especially by name. I don’t put that type of writing into the category with Free Speech. I put it in the category with–being less than gracious.
Just my two cents.
Kaye
I rarely get into debates here (because I don’t have the time to keep up) but questioning those who set themselves up as teachers is NOT cutting them down. I used to frequently read Lydia’s blog and, while it is mostly flowers and sunshine, there is a distinct vibe that the best place for a woman is in the position of full-time homemaker. And if they aren’t that? Well, let what she doesn’t say speak for itself. She mentions a lot about the importance of home, how a woman should and can always be busy…as a full-time homemaker, how a husband benefits from having his wife at home full-time. Even if she never discussed “career women”, it wouldn’t take a genius to figure out that, “if you’re not at home full-time, you’re not giving your husband or your God your best”. It doesn’t have to be spelled out; the implication shines through, loud and clear.
“You haven’t mentioned that there are religions out there who actually do say it is a sin for a woman to wear pants”
So? Christianity is not one of them.
“from a passer-byer it does seem like this blog is obsessed with Stacy, Jennie, Lydia, etc.”
Not of that “passer-by” looked deeper, at the list of blog titles. In the same vein, it looks to a passer-by like Jennie, the Botkins, and the horrid Phillips man is obsessed with fashion and cutting women down to their places.
“I tend to disagree that because someone has a blog it’s open territory for using the “pen” to purposely cut someone down”
You mean the way dear Jennie Chancey and her sweet hubby did to “Mrs. Binoculars”? They created an entire website dedicated to tearing that woman to shreds. It’s hard to beat that, honey.
To those who think that these concerns are obsessions…
I supported two specific ministries, sending money to them for more than 15 years. We gave to a few others as well, one for over 18 years. If you look in the front of many Chalcedon books published during that time, you will find my name. (You will also find “The Doug Phillips’ family, too).
In the mid-90s, there was a different flavor to these groups, but I also do not abandon the idea that I was willingly blind to some of their beliefs, another cause for my grief and concern. But then came the late ’90s and Y2K and Rev. Rousas Rushdoony’s death. In the late ’90s, I ended up at Doug Phillips’ church (Grace OPC, not his self-created, self-established Boerne Christian Assembly). I also watched the increase in strange articles about beliefs that I found to be ranging anywhere from odd to unChristian and against both American and Christian liberty from people I had long loved and trusted. And then, each month, there was just one more additional Vision Forum advertisement. The last “Biblical Worldview” from American Vision featured many full-page adds and special deals on Vision Forum products and a few of the articles mentioned Doug Phillips. There were two other full-page adds in that magazine, one for Answers in Genesis and one for New St. Andrews College (the self-ordained Doug Wilson’s school).
So I’m interested in speaking out about these folks and their odd ideas, not because I am obsessed but because I am responsible for furthering their cause. I helped pay for much of the paper and ink and their electric bills that have enabled them to propagate their beliefs — some of which I did not see changing and those beliefs and approaches that did change since I first started supporting them years ago. They are shouting from some of the edifices that I helped build.
I’m not obsessed. I’m taking my responsibilities seriously and doing what little I can to speak the truth that I have since learned about these groups because I helped create several of the platforms from which these people now speak.
I do not think anyone should tear anyone down…especially calling them by name.
I do not know if it is good practice or fair to look at the Home Living blog and try to determine what Mrs. Lydia means by what she does not say.
I still find it hard to understand what is wrong with a blog that teaches women how to better keep their Home or encourages a different way of dressing instead of letting the world tell us…or to be slaves to the fashions of today.
I have never left the Home Living blog feeling discouraged.
In a world where everyone seems to be mad about something I find the Home Living blog refreshing.
I am not interested in debating, but just wanted to let whoever cares to know that there are people who appreciate such Homemaking blogs And, as far as I know I am not a hyper-pat, as the phrase has been coined here. I do not even know what qualifies one to be hyper-pat or what qualifies one to determine who is a hyper-pat. I have learned to avoid labels.
Thanks.
Kaye
I, for one, wasn’t even referring to Lydia’s blog in my last post, Kaye. You seemed to defend Jennie Chancy as well, and she’s pretty much beyond defense.
A hyper-pat isanyone who’s obsessed with keeping women below men in church, home, society, government, etc. The Botkins, Chancys, Phillips, Lancaster’s, and Mcdonalds certainly qualify (at least James Mcdonald). A hyper-pat is also one who limits women to the home and spreads the lie that women cannot have any authority over men and ESPECIALLY that men are women’s covenantal heads and spiritual leaders/shields/teachers.
I just mentioned a few of the names I’ve read at this blog. I am not very familiar with Jennie. I’m not certain if I’ve read anything she wrote. And although I have been to the LAF blog several times, I don’t keep up with who writes what in order to be offended by them or to defend them.
I don’t know who you had in mind when you commented. I brought up Mrs. Lydia’s name myself because I am familiar with her writing.
By the definition of hyper-pat it’s probably safe to say that a hyper-pat can be a man or a woman. I suppose I don’t know the true definition of a feminist or a white washed one so I won’t act like I do, but my perspective of a feminist (and I’m speaking outside the blog world) is that women tend to be their own worse enemy. I don’t see how we can say we women offer all women fair and equal choices and then decide a women who says her husband is over her shouldn’t talk her choices or teach about her choices.
Thanks.
Kaye
Kaye,
The Apostle Paul named names and taught us to call out people that were teaching false doctrine.
I don’t think that anyone could care less about the lace and lavender, and we probably all have affection for these types of things anyway. I have a penchant for old depression glass and have a small doily collection, and I’ve tied my fingers in knots trying to teach myself to tat. More power to people to pursue their interests. That’s not what people protest.
What is a matter of concern is that this domesticity and such is seen as a means of salvation through fulfillment of gender roles, etc. It is the passing of them off as Biblical when most of what is being taught as essential and Biblical is actually cultural. Call it whatever you want and do whatever you want. Don’t call it “Biblical Christianity” and certainly do not call it “Reformed Christianity.”
There are some matters of interpretation and what have traditionally been beliefs that fall into the non-essential elements of the Christian faith are claimed to be essential. Rather than treat other Christians with charity, these groups declare that those who do not share their views to be blasphemers and apostates and of a lesser order of Christian. Intramural issues have not be respected but called sin, and whole groups of Christians are then treated with disdain.
So I am all for people praising domesticity. Just don’t call that Christ and Him Crucified. And if people do, they should expect to be treated as Paul treated people who added or took away from the Gospel — they were called out by name.
I never got the impression that domesticity and salvation were equated…at least not from the blogs I have visited.
Generally, speaking women do have an appeal for lace, etc.
And we are known to be nurturers. That is why blogs such as Home Living are appealing to me. It embraces the part of me that wants to do things in a lovely way.
As far as gender roles. I like being Queen of my Domain.
Thanks
Kaye
Kaye, dearest, …
• we ALL love pretty things
• my home IS appealing to me
• I embrace my role as a spouse
I, basically, have no problems with the gender roles my society & culture has set forth. Rightly or wrongly, I identify with the history of my culture.
I truly enjoy reading about the history of Christendom—that is usually how I spend my spare time (at home). I have my heroes—male & female—during various stages of Christendom.
I love seeing how various Christian cultures—Wales, Scotland, Ireland, English, Anglo-Saxon, German, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, etc.—have enriched my culture as an American. It makes for a fascinating, worthwhile study. It is FUN to read about honorable Christian women and men throughout time and learn from them and their particular set of circumstances.
However, to equate my culture & give it the high status of a Biblical mandate is wrong. That is what the pharisees did and they got in big time trouble for it!
I find it interesting to say you do not want to debate, but continue debating and if anyone counters something you present, you bow out.
I find that interesting AND telling.
I did not realize we were debating. If I did I would not have continued. I do not have time to get into lengthy debates, however fun that might become.
When I wrote about the lace stuff I was agreeing with one of the other comments. None of my comments have been addressed to anyone in particular.
I do not consider it bowing out. I freely choose where I want to spend my time at the computer. When a discussion becomes condescending I find it not as gracious a discussion as I had hoped. That is usually when I decide to go elsewhere.
Thanks.
Kaye
interesting Kaye
Thanks.
Why are some so obsessed with who is over who [whom?]?
In a marriage between two mature and Christlike individuals, I just cannot understand why there needs to be a “tie breaker” or a boss/underling relationship.
It would seem to be that people who are mature and Christlike would be obsessed with being a servant to others.
If Christ came to serve and not to be served, isn’t that the example both men AND women should be following? Are we above our Master?
And no one here is against domesticity, doilies, lace, dresses, cooking, or being Queen of their home. In fact, the ladies that I know personally are into a lot of these things.
But, being domestic is not my role, calling or sole purpose as a woman. That is something I do. Just like mowing the lawn and taking out the garbage. That is my purpose, as a woman, in being created.
“I still find it hard to understand what is wrong with a blog that teaches women how to better keep their Home or encourages a different way of dressing instead of letting the world tell us…or to be slaves to the fashions of today.”
Kaye,
Who said that this is wrong? You are not really hearing what has been said over and over again or you are confused as to what the issue is.
It is wrong to revise history and make it seem as if female Christian slaves were good homemakers who stayed in their nice, little, warm slave quarters and birthed babies and made dinner for their cotton-picking “husband”.
It is wrong to be so obsessed with clothing that when one sees women in distress during a hurricane all they can do is focus on what they are wearing and how that they wouldn’t be caught dead wearing those items of clothing. Remember, we are talking about the very poor here, too.
It is wrong to judge old ladies at vegetable stands and make fun of their shorts when they are probably wearing clothing like that and having short hair because of their arthritis or other health problems that make it hard for them to be elaborate in their outer appearance.
It is wrong to equate Lydia’s preference for Victorian dress to godly/biblical femininity.
I am just as feminine and lovely in my workout wear or capris as I am in my skirts and neither makes me more so.
Well said, Corrie!
Did you have a chance to read Alisa’s statement (see Comment #84) at …
http://whitewashedfeminist.com/2008/08/09/the-public-eye-responsibilities-and-privileges/#comment-2592
she said in part …
Alisa Wrote: “I recently came across this gem of what Jesus had to say on the topic of hierarchies in the world verses the way Christians mutually submit. Very eye opening!”
Then she gave some Scriptural backup …
“But Jesus called them to Himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave; just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His love a ransom for many.”
The question ought to be: “What is my duty and responsibilities as a Christian to the world around me be they nonChristian or Christian?”
“About your latest post…from a passer-byer it does seem like this blog is obsessed with Stacy, Jennie, Lydia, etc.”
Kaye,
You are entitled to your opinion as are we. It seems you are obsessed with people who are obsessed with Stacy, Jennie, Lydia.
Would that be a fair thing to say?
Stacy has risen from obscurity and has now seated herself in the high places of leadership. Are you not at all concerned about her credentials? Why is the fact that her four oldest children actually are her husband’s children with his first wife (also a Christian marriage) not widely known? Why is the fact that the 5th child is really her and her first husband’s child (also a Christian marriage) not widely known? Between the two of them, 5 out of the 10 actually belong to the both of them but you would never know that from how they promote themselves. Why isn’t her husband honest about his self-claimed ordination? How in the world did a twice-married man start his own presbytery because he wouldn’t submit to the presbytery he was already in? What actually has qualified these two individuals to be leaders in the “family reformation” movement?
Lydia says some things that make me ashamed.
And, unlike Stacy McDonald, who you never know what she truly believes because of all of the double speak, Jennie appears to be pretty much what you see is what you get.
“Jennie appears to be pretty much what you see is what you get.”
And that is something I have always appreciated about her. I may disagree with some of her scriptural conclusions, but she is always clear about what she actually believes and teaches.
Its why I enjoyed her sections of Passionate Housewives. I actually understood what she is trying to say. She is a much better writer, IMHO, then Stacy McDonald.
“The question ought to be: “What is my duty and responsibilities as a Christian to the world around me be they nonChristian or Christian?””
Exactly!
And that is why the patriarchal paradigm is so not biblical.
Their question is: “What are the duties and responsibilities those under me have towards me? What are my rights as the ruling authority in my household?” And in the same breath, they turn around and tell women that they have no rights and that their whole purpose in being created was to serve a man and pour their whole beings into his vision because God does not give vision or calling to women.
Whole books are written how to lead the servant but it is couched in the term of “servant leadership”. Even the self-important title usurped for their own selves- Patriarch- is full of pomp and circumstance. The Bible calls them very simply – husbands and fathers. It would seem that if they are serious they would drop the “leadership” bit and just go by the name of servant but they are above their Master Christ who came to serve and not to be served. How can any many look at their wife as put on this earthy solely to serve them and take care of their needs and promote their own vision and dare to claim that they are servants to their wives?
The fact is that God made both men and women for each other and the scripture plainly teaches this. (1 Cor. 7 tells us that the husband is to be concerned with how he may please his wife, for one.)
The Bible says nothing about men leading their wives, it only tells them to die to their OWN selves and put their wives first before their own needs and to love their wives as they love their own flesh (which is a LOT) and to honor their wives and to be concerned with how they may please their wives.
Somehow they ignore all of the commands that are to men and erect a doctrine found in a command to their wives.
Maybe in dying to their own selves and their own desires to be Chief, they might actually find that they get more than they could ever hope for in their marriages?
Why does anyone besides Christ have to be “over” the other?
The patriarchal way of thinking seems to be so foreign from the true nature of the Gospel that I am surprised people do not more easily see it.
Corrie wrote: “The patriarchal way of thinking seems to be so foreign from the true nature of the Gospel that I am surprised people do not more easily see it.”
I think this is so because it is so much easier to follow a set of rules & regulations than to constantly be transparent to the Lord. One can ALWAYS hide behind rules & regulations while “lording it over” others presenting one’s self as holier than thou.
Being a Christian is HARD WORK and totally impossible without the Holy Spirit.
Wow.
I do not feel I have misunderstood. Nor have I made any statements regarding how other women should be. I have merely stated what I personally like. I like the Home Living blog.
I do not have time for a long, drawn out debate. Thats not what I stopped by for. I have written to share my own point of view.
I am not sure where all the reasoning for the other commentors come in. I have not said anything opposing toward this blog. I d not know enough about everyone who
comments to make generalizations.
This has been entertaining for sure.
Thanks.
Kaye
Also, It is not up to me to defend the Stacy person. I do know much if anything about her. I could not even begin to tell you what she writes about.
Kaye
Jennifer wrote:
“A hyper-pat isanyone who’s obsessed with keeping women below men in church, home, society, government, etc. The Botkins, Chancys, Phillips, Lancaster’s, and Mcdonalds certainly qualify (at least James Mcdonald). A hyper-pat is also one who limits women to the home and spreads the lie that women cannot have any authority over men and ESPECIALLY that men are women’s covenantal heads and spiritual leaders/shields/teachers.”
I am just curious as to why you omitted Stacy from this list. How do you see her as different from the others in her writings and teachings?
Kaye, think of it this way,
Imagine you had a blog and you were talking about how you didn’t like someone teaching that to be a Christian you HAD to go on a mission trip.
Then a poster comes on and says, “I really LIKE mission trips. I believe that I was born to do so and that it’s my place in the world.”
Wouldn’t you be a little frustrated? After all, the point wasn’t that no one should take mission trips or that people shouldn’t enjoy mission trips. The point was that they were making mission trips a point of law.
The same holds true here. No one said that you weren’t welcome to enjoy homemaking blogs or homemaking. Have at it! Your posting that way seems to be saying that we’re against homemaking, which we’re not.
We’re against making homemaking a point of law.
Get it?
“As far as gender roles. I like being Queen of my Domain.
”
Now that’s what like to hear!
“I am just curious as to why you omitted Stacy from this list. How do you see her as different from the others in her writings and teachings?”
Hi Karen; thanks for asking. I think Stacy’s views are as severe or almost as severe as her husband’s, but I don’t find her nearly as obnoxious and blatantly, er, idiotic in her reasoning as he is. As for the other folks I mentioned, though, (Botkins, Lancaster, Phillips and Chancy), I do find them all more severe than Stacy. The Botkins, while they hold to almost all the same views as Stacy, seem more cloyingly syrupy and annoying than she does, as well as the fact that they harp on about not going to college and seeing daddy as a covenantal head more often.
Phillips, Lancaster, and Chancy are definitely more severe. Unlike Stacy and her grown daughters, Chancy does not even vote and writes whole sermons about how women shouldn’t vote. Lancaster is so severe about men ruling women and being authority sources “in the image of Christ” that he’d make the Pearls toss their cookies, and Doug Phillips? Well, he puts them all to shame by sheer volume of idiocy (though I think that Lancaster, at least, is his equal as far as evil is concerned).
I don’t hold Stacy on any pedestals, but I find her far more tolerable than the others. I don’t really find her any more guilty of double-speak than Jenny Chancy (at least not when Chancy starts with her Scripture “knowledge”) and, though I know Stacy is, like the other hyper-pats, not always totally open about all her beliefs, I find what I’ve read of them to be far more palatable. She doesn’t harp against women voting, men being their wive’s shields, or call women who abort to save their lives murderers. I’ve been told I can’t always take Stacy at face value and I’ve never forgotten this, but from what she’s said personally, both on her public blog and to me privately, I find her beliefs less severe. I know I could be perfectly wrong and that, ultimately, her views of women are not drastically different from any of the other hyper-pats but, ultimately, I just find her general writings more enjoyable.
You may have noticed that I also omited Lydia from the list. This is because, while I have by no means decided her exempt from the other damning qualities, I’ve found that her blogs lately have been more focused on “pretty things” than controversial issues. Plus, I appreciate that she came here directly and addressed some issues, rather than hiding and making another hissing blog about the ladies here.
I understand what you’re saying, but what I’ve been writing is to merely say I like the Home Living blog because of what is written–simplistic as that sounds.
I suppose it’s a matter of interpretation.
Thanks.
Kaye
Well, Kaye, thanks for sharing that you like Lady Lydia’s home living blog. Good to know.
Corrie, your words are so right on! Especially about how these proud folks feel themselves above their master Christ. Want something that’ll really make your blood boil and explain these dangerous beliefs? Little Phillip Lancaster wrote a book saying that men are supposed to model Christ in being kings!! He even claimed that Christ died so He could make men kings of the world again, as God “originally planned as said in Genesis”!!
Jennifer,
Why do you believe that James has more severe views than Stacy?
I believe that it might be the other way around from many things I have witnessed over the course of the last decade. It was Stacy that got them into the patriarchal movement. Stacy calls herself a patriarchalist but James has, several times, insisted that he is a complementarian not a patriarchalist. Her views seem to be as extreme as any other patriarchal woman I know, including Chancey.
What the McDonalds say and what they actually believe are not always the same thing.
And while Stacy doesn’t call women who get surgically treated for ectopic pregnancies “murderers”, what does she think of the issue? That is what bothers me the most. Can’t burn those bridges!
Like I said, I know where I stand with Chancey and Phillips but that can’t be said of the McDonalds. The things they are silent on are the things that speak the loudest to me.
Also, Stacy apparently reads what James writes and approves of his reasoning and logic since he has commented about something his wife found lacking in one of his blog posts and corrected the problem after being corrected by his wife.
Sarcasm doesn’t become women.
Kaye
I’ve been here long enough. I have things I must attend to.
Thanks for the “talks”
Take care ladies.
Kaye
Sarcasm shows that one has a sense of humor, which I do.
“I believe that it might be the other way around from many things I have witnessed over the course of the last decade. It was Stacy that got them into the patriarchal movement.”
Well, you know them better than I do. I guess she is as severe as James, then; I’ve just never seen her rant about it as much, or with as bad logic. Maybe she hasn’t trained him well enough; I WILL say I can readily believe that she’s smarter and more cunning than he is.
“Stacy calls herself a patriarchalist but James has, several times, insisted that he is a complementarian not a patriarchalist.”
Then he’s lying or very confused. Famous complimentarians like John Piper wouldn’t dream of uttering the filth that he has.
“And while Stacy doesn’t call women who get surgically treated for ectopic pregnancies “murderers”, what does she think of the issue? That is what bothers me the most.”
I don’t know what she thinks, I’ve never heard her mention them. Have you?
“Also, Stacy apparently reads what James writes and approves of his reasoning and logic since he has commented about something his wife found lacking in one of his blog posts and corrected the problem after being corrected by his wife.”
Hmm. I wonder if she really is the power behind that marriage? If so, I’ll have to rub that in James’s face one of these days.
As I said before, Corrie, I don’t know if Stacy is more of a victim or a viper. On her writings in general, though, I just find more palatability than in others. If she is as severe as the others (and I’m pretty positive she is) at least it’s not as stressed.
“Sarcasm doesn’t become women”
But it does become men? Oh please. I don’t buy into any of that “delicate and genteel lady” stuff for an instant. Anne’s right: it shows a sense of humor, rather than a sense of stuffiness.
Kaye, may be I am being thick, but could you explain your statement, “Sarcasm doesn’t become women”? I have not read any sarcasm … yet …
I have read frustration and concern, but sarcasm?
nope
#55- Jennifer, what book is that you are quoting from by Lancaster? Love that kingly philosophy.
Also, what did happen to Lancaster’s utopian community? Can someone give me the synopsis of that?
Thanks, great posts going here.
Sarcasm doesn’t become YOUR TYPE of woman, Kaye. Leave me out of your idealism, please.
Hi, Kathy! The book is “Family Man, Family Leader” and you can read inside the loathsome work on Amazon. Also, my review for it is on the product page, the only 1-star review there (used to be three negative reviews. Strange..)
I read your good review, Jennifer, and rated it helpful–can’t believe there aren’t more 1-star ones, either. Sheesh!
Aw, thanks so much! It needs helpful votes, in the midst of the patrios-R-Us crowd.
There were more 1-star reviews, but they all got deleted shortly after mine was submitted. I know this isn’t by coincidence; my review was deleted too, and so, temporarily, were all the negative reviews for the “Passionate Housewives” book. The VF crowd tries to hoard all popularity for its own.
In the latest chapter of you-can’t-make-these-things-up, Michael Pearl has an essay in the current (Sep-Oct 08) No Greater Joy newsletter that is a diatribe against the patriocentric ministries. He really goes after the notion that unmarried adult children should be controlled by their parents. Looks like it’s the first of several articles he plans to publish.
It’s not clear, of course, how he can square his opposition to patriocentricity with the CTBHM mindset!
how very interesting Mrs. X
I loved Michael Pearl’s article and I think he’s right on about controlling parents. I wish he and Debi could speak to other silly families like that (cough, cough Botkins, cough) I’ve always liked the Pearls a lot better than the VFs of the world. Even though they have some old-fashioned views, they don’t believe in the same kind of mind-control others do. That’s why CTBHH is rather alarming; it’s a huge exception to their usual rule, or at least parts of it are.
Mrs X, thanks for telling us about that article; I LOVE it! Indeed, I just kindly sent it to the Botkin daughters for them to enjoy. I do hope they like it
LOL!!!!! Jennifer!!!!!
girl you are a hoot!
Jennifer – good on ya!!! I’d love to be a fly on the computer screen when they or their father reads that!
I have to agree with others. I strongly disagree with most aspects of the Pearls’ ministry but, like a dead clock that tells the correct time twice a day, they are RIGHT on this issue.
Well, thank you!
Thanks to you too, Mrs. X. I too would love to see their reaction. It didn’t even occur to me that their father might read their mail; sounds pretty typical, though. I used to think that if I came across a good point by the Pearls, it was just a fluke, but they actually have lots of wonderful articles. I have many favorites and three of the most powerful ones are “It’s possible to correct the Future”, “BOUND”, and “To see through a Glass Darkly”. I’m very glad I found their good points
[...] Are we Obsessed? [...]