A Real Gem from the Bayly Blog « White Washed Feminists

A Real Gem from the Bayly Blog

August 22, 2008 by Cally Tyrol

Here’s a real gem from the Bayly Blog… Its not the poem, so much, as the comments below it. All points indicate to the Bayly brothers’ obsession with being the boss. If you have to keep reminding people that you’re in charge, you aren’t doing a very good job leading.

Posted in Quotes | 136 Comments

136 Responses

on August 22, 2008 at 10:56 pm Anne2

I really truly honestly don’t get the Bayly brothers. Every time I read them, I imagine two bad little boys who need a darn good smack on the rear end and sent to bed with no supper. They come across as smart alecs puffed up with themselves who sorely need to be brought down a few notches. No other writers provoke this sentiment in me. They make me want to go let the air out of their tires. They tick me off that much.

I wonder if they speak in person the way they write. They are an embarrassment representing the Gospel. The attitude doesn’t seem very likely to convince someone to consider Christ. (God forgive me for the hypocrisy of this.)
on August 22, 2008 at 11:20 pm Cally Tyrol

Frankly, I can’t believe they haven’t been censured by the PCA. They are just plain rude and they couch their attitudes under the umbrella of their pastorate. Talk about an abuse of authority.
on August 22, 2008 at 11:22 pm Jennifer

Those two men are a couple of the biggest sob’s I’ve ever seen. I have NEVER seen such loudly inflated pride in my life; not even Doug Phillips usually shows all his pride and hatred towards women at one time. Can you BELIEVE these disgusting people?? I just can’t believe this; I’m so numb with disgust I hardly know what to say. The AUDACITY of those two repulsive people, posting a poem pushing servanthood, outrightly admitting that men are not to support their wives, and then that jerkoff Tim telling Maggie, who presented an opposite opinion, that she’s trying to rebel against him and that she should just be quiet and not rebel against God’s order!! My God..this is so upsetting..

Ladies, I’m sorry if this comment is too harsh, but please don’t delete it; venting my feelings here is the only thing keeping me sane and restraining me from posting on that loathsome blog and then worrying until the horrid curr posts some arrogant response. My senses are just in shock; I think God must have taken my anger from me, otherwise I would have suffered a heart explosion. Those men, in all honesty are, in blog appearance at least, utterly disgusting human beings wearing rotting crowns. The stench of their spiritual rot and decay must attract God knows what kind of demon carrion. That’s actually all that comforts me: the knowledge that God will not be mocked and that these men will have to be rescued from their own doctrine, else they’ll be pierced through like a rat in an eagle’s talons. Please forgive my seeming vengeance: I do NOT wsih hell on these men, I swear it. However, I think God will give them a huge lecture before He allows them to enter heaven and if He does, if they have the fear of hell in them for even a moment, that’ll be enough for me. My God, these men’s words are so evil, so repulsive, they make the Botkins and the likes of Jenny Chancey and James Mcdonald seem like saints.
on August 22, 2008 at 11:33 pm Jennifer

Ok, here is a gem, Cally love: HERE is a gem. Did you see that horrible Tim’s response to Maggie, the one I mentioned? Well, I’m going to post it, and then I’m going to post a HILARIOUS and brilliant revised version of it that someone else wrote, who was apparently disgusted with it as much as I was. This is too good!

Here’s the original awful post:

“Dear Maggie,

Despite your kind and reasonable and calm presentation, you are a rebel against the order of nature I myself have decreed that God has ordained. And speaking personally, I wonder at your audacity using my dear daughter-in-law’s testimony as a means to seduce others for your rebellion.

Above, you mentioned three options you had to resolve the dilemma of being in love with a man who honored His commands. There was a fourth.

You could have repented of your rebellion against God and lived with that man in love.

Yes, yes; I know you can write endlessly of how unreasonable I am, and how enlightened you are, and how your choice was for the best for everyone, and that the whole world would be a better place if women were free to be men. And of course, how sorry you are that I take offense at your trampling my daughter-in-law’s meekness, and how that wasn’t your intent at all, and how you respect her for her choices–oh yes, always those precious little choices–and that it’s the sign of weakness to shut down dialog.

Well, my dear woman, despite all this would you please be quiet, here under this post? I would be grateful–I can’t bear your charming, enlightened, and ever-so-reasonable armed revolt against God any longer.”

*edited*Here’s the revised edition; pay close attention for the new words:

“Dear Maggie,

Despite your kind and reasonable and calm presentation, you are a rebel against the order of nature I myself have decreed that God has ordained. And speaking personally, I wonder at your audacity using my dear daughter-in-law’s testimony as a means to seduce others for your rebellion against me.

Above, you mentioned three options you had to resolve the dilemma of being in love with a man who honored my commands. There was a fourth.

You could have repented of your rebellion against me and lived with that man in love (at least my version of love)–as I think a woman should.

Yes, yes; I know you can write endlessly of how unreasonable I am, and how enlightened you are, and how your choice was for the best for everyone, and that the whole world would be a better place if women were free to be men. And of course, how sorry you are that I take offense at your trampling my daughter-in-law’s meekness, and how that wasn’t your intent at all, and how you respect her for her choices–oh yes, always those precious little choices–and that it’s the sign of weakness to shut down dialog. Especially since the comments on this blog are only enabled to feed my giant ego.

Well, my dear woman, despite all this would you please be quiet, here under this post? I would be grateful–I can’t bear your charming, enlightened, and ever-so-reasonable armed revolt against me any longer and I certainly can’t possibly come up with a rational argument against anything you say. As one who knows what God clearly means, I need my ego fed constantly and am not interested in hearing what anyone else might have to say if it is not in agreement with what I have decreed.”

I must find the man who wrote this. And when I do, I shall marry him.

*edited by Admin to remove a personal attack and to make quotes more clear.
*Please note that there is an error in the first quote and it contains material not penned by the original author. This was an error made by the commenter and has been left intact only because it is referred to and reflected in the ongoing conversation in the comments.
on August 22, 2008 at 11:39 pm Jennifer

Ons econd thought, maybe that poem isn’t so bad. Does anyone else think it actually appears to be a subtle statement AGAINST wife slavery instead of for it?
on August 23, 2008 at 3:09 am JohannaS

I had to chuckle at the implication of the boss who had “Rosie” posters in her office…ooooh, feminist. Rosie the Riveter was a characterization of a generation of women who stood up and supported their husbands (“helpmeet”!) by working in jobs they were unable to work because they were overseas finding for freedom. They prided themselves at doing their part to help keep their husbands, brothers, and sons safe. The same is true of their much-beloved antebellum south during the civil war: the women didn’t stay on the veranda fanning themselves once the war dragged on. Instead they went out to the fields and did more work their first day out there that they’d done in their entire lives.

In reading those comments, what really made my blood run cold, was another implication: if you do not believe in utter and total submission to the husband by the wife, are you really saved? That’s totally unscriptural. “Do you believe in the Christ, the Son of the living God?” is the only measuring stick of our salvation.
on August 23, 2008 at 3:44 am Lynne

I’m glad that some of you were able to read through that and tell me what it said later. I couldn’t, it was making me feel physically sick — it cut way too close to real life experience of narcissistic abuse.

You know, if that poem were addressed to Jesus, instead of to a human being, I would have no trouble with it, but it is a yielding to man what should only be yielded to God, i.e. our core identity. that’s idolatry.

They have it back to front. By yielding to Christ (“it is no longer I who live, but Christ”) we are empowered to love others (husbands, kids, friends, enemies etc) with christ’s own love flowing through us to them. We are able to give ourselves to them because in Him we have a renewed self to give. but these guys want to do it all topsy turvy. The concept seems to be that by yielding ourselves totally to a husband, that is our way of submitting to Christ. My husband does not come between me and God, we are “heirs together”. And I think the bible makes it plain that when a husband is wrong, a wife is supposed to disobey him in order to obey God. Two examples spring to mind, the positive one is Abigail, the negative one is Sapphira. we are christians, our salvation is through the cross of Christ, not some hideous form of crucifixion by marriage!!
on August 23, 2008 at 5:27 am RichardD

I have been struggling recently with the egal/comp viewpoints and trying to come to terms without overreacting emotionally.

Here’s what has jumped out at me in this specific exchange. Had I read only the Bayly blog, I would have been bothered by the fact that the poem was posted, as I think that sort of thing should be posted by the woman and not her husband. It seems almost like a man showing indecent pictures of his wife in order to brag about what a great catch he has. I would also have been concerned with some comments and amused by some comments.

But when I read the reaction here I tend to agree with much of what is said, but I also see intentional lying with the intent of making Tim Bayly look bad. I think he accomplishes that pretty well all by himself, so lying about what he has said with the intention of making him look worse is not necessary.

Jennifer quoted Tim’s comment from the blog, but she edited it without giving indication that she had edited it. This is lying. It hurts the cause of those who would stand against the Baylys’ teaching. And the somewhat regular instances of this sort of mischaracterization have given me pause for thought.

I think we all need to try to stick to the truth because I, for one, cannot sift through the actual truth very well anyway (there’s just so much data to consider), so when untruths are presented as truth it makes it that much more difficult. And I have found these untruths to dwell more consistently on the egal side of this debate. I’m trying to remain supportive of this side of the debate but am finding it harder and harder as I go along because I am not seeing so much of the lying coming from the comp side. I see a lot of judgmentalism coming from that side, and scripture twisting from some camps (mainly Stacy McD and Jennie Chancey), but I have not been privy to the outright lying about others.

Please … could we try to just stick with the facts and our responses to those facts (emotional responses included). These are helpful things. But misrepresentation causes the conversation to lose its value. At least for me.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:56 am JohannaS

Actually, the Tim comment is from someone who calls themselves “Revised Tim”. I think it’s a sarcastic jab at the real Tim because this comment by Jack’s Pipe follows it down the page:

“Cute, “Revised Tim.” If you spend any time reading the board, you’ll see the arguments addressed time and again. The Scripture really isn’t all that hard to understand on the matter, which is why there’s always been historic unanimity on it.

Of course, if “rational argument,” as you call it, precludes the authority of Scripture… Well then, I guess we can all happily spout our autonomous opinions.”

I read it a couple of times and I think that was a person who copied Tim’s comment and added their own spin on what he was saying in the body of it.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:58 am JohannaS

Ignore my last message; I see that’s already been discussed. It’s early and I’ve had no caffeine yet…lol
on August 23, 2008 at 6:05 am Debra Baker

I just took them to task for their rudeness and postulated they are compensating for some shortcoming.
on August 23, 2008 at 7:10 am On the Outside

The arrogance of these people is simply astounding.

One of them actually accused Molly of not being a Christian, because she is an egalitarian.

I actually feel physically sick after reading that blog and the following comments. Strangely, I am also overjoyed, to have the kind of marriage that I have with my husband. We serve each other, sacrifice for each other, and love and respect each other. There is no “boss”, there is a partnership, built on a foundation of love and mutual respect, looking to Jesus as our leader.

I honestly feel sad for those people, who think they must fulfill some type of “role” in order to be closer to God.

Methinks that sounds like WORKS, not grace.

~Oto
on August 23, 2008 at 8:28 am Jenn

I have never been involved patrio camp (just the evangelical one ) but in reading the links here, it just breaks my heart. It breaks my heart that there are women, young and old, who think that their life (goals, dreams, visions) should be those of their husbands. I’m not saying that supporting your husband is wrong but wrapping your whole life up in it is so sad. It is one thing to choose to stay home, it’s another to have it ingrained into you as the truly Godly thing to do. This is coming from a gal who’s hubby’s dream job was to be a firefighter. To actually achieve this, he had to leave his job making double the income which sent his wife (happily) back to work. I say this because I wonder what these groups think about couples who need 2 incomes to survive. I know that they would say it needs to be “brought to the Lord” but couldn’t one of God’s ways of providing be a fulfilling job for the wife? (sarcastic gasp)
To suggest that a marriage built on the headship of a husband and submission and obedience of a wife is the only way to salvation (in response to Molly’s post) is assanine. Arrgh!!
God bless all of you strong women here who have endured and come out of the trenches of this camp.
on August 23, 2008 at 8:33 am Lynn

Richard, as has been said, that comment Jennifer posted is not lying. It was a parody of Tim’s comment to Maggie, that somebody posted on the Bayly blog under the name of “Revised Tim.”

I’ve said this on the True Womanhood blog, my blog, and Rebecca’s Random Musings blog, that the poem is unbiblical.

The greatest defense against this poem’s false teaching about wives is to go straight to the chapter in Proverbs 31, which is the chapter on what a virtuous wife is.

Strength and dignity are her clothing.

Mrs. Bayly says a wife should purge herself of her dignity, and she should be weak.

Now, granted, there are occasions where it says things like this, “when I am weak, then I am strong.” But note the “I.” It is not “Will you be weak so *He* will be strong?”

And there is NEVER a Scriptural command to purge you of your dignity in order to be a good wife — in fact, Proverbs teaches the opposite.

The poem teaches ascetic means to spirituality. Asceticism is unscriptural, and it does not work. As I said somewhere else, I half expected a call to “walk the aisle and lay your all on the altar” upon reading it.
on August 23, 2008 at 8:50 am Cally Tyrol

I don’t usually bother to comment on their blog due to the Bayly’s blatant misogyny, but I couldn’t resist this time. Not after Kamilla questioned Molly’s very salvation. Here’s what I wrote:

Kamilla, thank you for so aptly demonstrating the legalism that permeates hyper-patriarchy. I will forever refer to your disgraceful, ungodly comment to Molly when discussing this issue on my own blog and in any possible conversation I have with people about this issue. You have made the kind of judgment that is forbidden in Scripture. I pray you repent of your sin and apologize to Molly. You have solidified my belief about the inability of most hyper-patriarchalists (including the two pastors who maintain this blog) to dialogue respectfully about differences which are allowed within the pale of orthodoxy. Check out the Westminster Standards if you disagree with me. Thank you for showing the true colors of this movement.

Sincerely,

Your average, everyday kitchen wife
on August 23, 2008 at 9:03 am MennoGirl

So… they think women only marry for selfish reasons? Women should debase themselves constantly for the sake of gratifying the egos of the power-mad patriarchs? What happened to “heirs together?”
BTW: I’m not married, so I don’t exactly have experiance here.
on August 23, 2008 at 10:01 am Jennifer

Oto, Cally, Debra, I read your comments to those awful men and I LOVE YOU!!!

You said it so much better than I ever could. And, best of all, Tim appeared and only offered a fairly brief and typical warning against feminism before closing the comment. Thank God it didn’t get any nastier. I LOVE you ladies!
on August 23, 2008 at 10:04 am Waffle

I know I’m new here, but am I correct in stating that people like the Baylys believe strength = feminism when exhibited by a woman? Why does one spouse have to be weak for the other to be strong? Strength is not like a finite pie, where the bigger one slice is, the smaller the other slice. If my husband goes to the gym and lifts weights, it doesn’t cause my own muscles to shrink (or vice versa).

Shouldn’t both husband and wife seek to be strong, in the spiritual, mental, emotional, and physical senses of the term? Regardless of the nature of their relationship? Do the women in patriocentric marriages strive to be weak (oxymoronic?), or are they equating submission to weakness? I am confused.

If you can only demonstrate your strength by keeping the company of someone weak, then I hate to break it to you, but you aren’t really *strong* at all.
on August 23, 2008 at 10:06 am Jennifer

“Jennifer quoted Tim’s comment from the blog, but she edited it without giving indication that she had edited it.”

Richard I said very clearly that someone edited Tim’s comment. I posted the comment in its originality (before the edited version) and if I slipped and put “me” where “God” should have been once or twice, that was an honest mistake. Other than that, I made it PAINFULLY clear I posted first Tim’s letter and then the revised edition of it. I’m very surprised you’d think I’d so outrightly lie, especially about something that could be so easily figured out.

And for the record, I really don’t think I could make that man into any worse of a monster than he already appears to be.
on August 23, 2008 at 10:25 am Jennifer

Ah, here was my typo in copying Tim’s original post:

“Despite your kind and reasonable and calm presentation, you are a rebel against the order of nature I myself have decreed that God has ordained.”

Obviously, that should read: “Despite your kind and reasonable and calm presentation, you are a rebel against the order of nature that God has ordained”

Sorry; my mistake.
on August 23, 2008 at 11:15 am RichardD

Here is the quote that I took issue with:

Here’s the original awful post:

“Dear Maggie,

Despite your kind and reasonable and calm presentation, you are a rebel against the order of nature I myself have decreed that God has ordained.

I copied this directly from your comment Jennifer and when you say it is “the original awful post,” you imply that you are quoting directly what Tim Bayly said. You then post the fake “Tim” comment. But in your original quote (which may not have been your intention) you included the words I have bolded above. They were not in Tim Bayly’s comment. I agree that he seems to think that way.

My issue here is that I am more and more moved to consider the patrio/hard comp camp because of what I am seeing spewed by the anti-patrio/comp camp.

No – I haven’t spent a lot of time reading their stuff – at least not the Baylys or Phillips. But I have read tons and tons from the normal comp sources (Piper, MacAurthur, Dever, Baucham, etc.) and found them to be compelling and thoughtful, even when I disagree with them. I have found quite a bit of positive discussion in the anti-comp camp as well. But so much is pressed beyond what I think is reasonable that it turns me off of the egalitarian viewpoint.

What I am suggesting here is that if any of us is hoping to convince others of the truth of our position, we need to make sure we do it in a gentle and respectful way, always presenting the truth (not our interpretation of the truth or how the truth sounds to us based on our experiences). If, on the other hand, the goal is not to convince others but simply to commiserate, then all of this is fine. And there is a place for both of those things. I’m just beginning to struggle greatly with the egalitarian viewpoint.
on August 23, 2008 at 11:29 am Jennifer

“But in your original quote (which may not have been your intention) you included the words I have bolded above.”

No, it wasn’t my intention, Richard; thanks for acknowledging this. In fact, I just corrected that quote in my last post; please check it out.

“I have read tons and tons from the normal comp sources (Piper, MacAurthur, Dever, Baucham, etc.)”

I LIKE Piper and MacArthur, Richard; as I said in my previous post, I was not criticizing any normal complimentarians. Piper and MacArthur I enjoy greatly, though not for their comp views. Still, even in the comp department, they are a LOT more honoring of women than the patrios are; there’s really no comparison. I’ve gained a lot of respect for Piper after reading his sermons on marriage, and MacArthur’s a lot more honest about Scriptural empowerment for women than the patrios are. Piper and MacArthur are not on my list of offenders; what’s more, no one on this blog has criticized them (to my knowledge).

“I’m just beginning to struggle greatly with the egalitarian viewpoint.”

You never did completely agree with it anyway, did you? I’m not asking you to; as long as you’re respectful of women and aware of the harm the patrios do (as you’ve always been thus far), I don’t ask anything more. Please, don’t change!
on August 23, 2008 at 12:10 pm Anne

Please note, that we at WWF do not support lying about the other side. I agree that their views should stand or fall based on the truth of scripture, reason, and common sense. I have edited Jenifer’s original comment and made clear the quotes as well as the error. I apologize for the confusion this has caused.

To all of our commenters: Please remember that those who teach these things are still our brothers and sisters in Christ. We may attack teachings, beliefs, or ideas, but not those who hold them.

Please remember to pray for them. The bible tells us that teachers will be held to a much higher standard than the rest of us, and in the spirit of loving our neighbor as ourselves, we must pray that they come to the truth in all things as we hope for ourselves.
on August 23, 2008 at 12:36 pm Jennifer

Thank you Anne; I apologize for my careless mistake.

I do hope these men will find the truth. It would better and more healthy for them as well as their loved ones.
on August 23, 2008 at 2:57 pm Psalmist

Can you imagine what kind of a church and family it would have taken to convince a young woman that such an attitude about marriage is godly? I can only hope that her husband has told her in no uncertain terms that he is not to be worshiped. However, given the attitudes of her husband’s father, I wouldn’t be surprised if he heartily approves of his wife’s idolatry of him.
on August 23, 2008 at 2:59 pm Psalmist

At least the heat of the truth was intense enough to make TB decide to shut down any further comments. As usual, his misogynistic attitudes can’t stand up to the light of scriptural truth, so he stands on his “authority” to shut others up.
on August 23, 2008 at 3:08 pm Jennifer

I know; it is too, too monstrous and disgusting. Like I said before, though, that poem almost seems to be a statement against wife slavery. I mean, those comments about being laid in a casket and disappearing?? If she’s not speaking against such treatment, she’s describing her own spiritual murder with fondness. “I know who killed me and I remember how I died,” the dead wife’s ghost says dreamily, brushing the gossamer of her blood-matted veil. “It was a sweet death; the man had such a sweet smile, as he swore to die for me, carved out my heart and let me so dearly die for him instead”..

Even if that wasn’t the author’s intent, I saved the poem and read it that way; in that sense, I find it beautiful and dark, a somber warning.

Notice they didn’t even put her name; they called her “Mrs. Joseph Tate”. I guess she did lose her identity. And of course, rather than her posting the poem on her own blog, her husband sends her freshly killed heart to his father for him to mount on a wall, inviting the other killers to admire his trophy and congratulate him on such a fine kill.
on August 23, 2008 at 3:17 pm Mark Dove

Anne,

Perhaps a bit more editing is due? This site says, “We simply ask that you refrain from personal attacks.” I was kinda wondering where calling someone disgusting or a jerkoff fits.
on August 23, 2008 at 3:35 pm emr

I just found it interesting that Mr. Bayly closed with a poem by Amy Carmichael — a single woman who followed God’s call, alone, to India as a missionary. I would have thought that is the kind of thing he would discourage women from doing.
on August 23, 2008 at 3:55 pm Jennifer

Ah, so little Tim couldn’t resist one last little spittle of venom; big surprise. Still, just something for me to chuckle at.

He whines about people mistreating his poor little daughter-in-law (even though he’s the one most people targeted, for obvious reasons), even though their treatment of her is nothing compared to his, but the ironic thing is that if he’d just posted the poem and kept his mouth shut, letting it speak for itself, many probably would have assumed that it spoke AGAINST wife mistreatment, and in that case she would have received praise. Typical for him to call critics “God haters”; the arrogance of those words knows no bounds. I would be angry, if I didn’t know this was clear proof of his extreme discomfort. Heh.

Is there a contact button on that page somewhere? I’d like to ask Tim for his daughter-in-law’s real name, not her tacked-on husband’s name.
on August 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm Jennifer

Heh, they started another thread about a totally different subject and somehow, Cally came up and this site with her. They were questioning the “whitewashed” aspect of it. I have no porblem with that, except that the sweet girl Molly showed up and was once again slandered by little Tim. My revulsion for them grows stronger with the letter, especially after Kamilla responded to Tim’s filth by pandering to him and practically smooching his ego.

Someone stop me from going over there, please..
on August 23, 2008 at 4:35 pm Anne

Dear Dave,

We have a lot of comments on this site, and not a lot of time to always read them all. Thus far we’ve been very trusting of our readers. More recently we have reminded people of our wishes and put several commenters on moderated status (although even those commenters sometimes get on through that none of us have approved). I’m honestly starting to consider putting all comments on moderated status.

We really wanted this blog to be a place to freely speak about the issues bothering us. At the same time we don’t want this to be a place so full venom toward the people who hold these beliefs. It’s very frustrating.
on August 23, 2008 at 4:59 pm Jennifer

You’ll have to excuse me, Mark. I tend to get rather upset when someone writes about women dying for men and worshipping them. Not to mention attacking people who disagree and threatening them with hell, accusing them of rebellion, and treating them like utter dirt. That tends to get me a little upset.

I freely admitted that I was practically in shock when I wrote that post; I had never, ever seen such venom towards women in my entire life, or dissenters for that matter. Don’t blame Anne for my upset; I try to abide by the codes around here, though sometimes it’s terribly frusterating to keep from expressing my utter disgust and heartbreak at people who speak such monstrosities. I guess you could say it’s like swallowing venom: when I get a mouthful of it, my first urge is to spit it out. Perhaps you could talk to the Baylys about editing their own comments; if they lessened their venom, I wouldn’t have to spit so much out again.

Thanks for stopping by.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm Mara R.

Wow, that will teach me to be away from my computer for two days. So much reading to catch up with.

Tim on the Bayly blog:
“I have said again and again that feminism is not heterodoxy, but heresy. It’s not a slight matter over which people of good conscience disagree but an extremely weighty matter through which the destiny of immortal souls is determined.
“Someone who opposes the order of creation established by our Heavenly Father places his own immortal soul in jeopardy. And someone who seeks to lead others into rebellion against that Divine order does something much worse.
“Feminism is a highway to Hell–one of the broadest in our day.”

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I’m still undecided on whether I’m easy egal or super soft comp.
But this holding salvation for women hostage based on whether or not they accept this pet doctrine of “divine order” concerns me greatly.

I work in social sevices and have either seen or heard of terrible situations.
I heard tell of a couple little girls who lived in a situation where they were subject to nine perpetrators of sexual abuse.

And I’ve heard the bitterness of women who came out of similar situations and their hate and distrust of men was staggering. It wasn’t because they were feminists. They became feminists because of the abuse.

What does this have to do with Mr. Bayly’s words above?

I know the deepest healing available is through the cross of Christ. I know one of the names of God is Jehoveh Rapha, the LORD your healer.

There are deeply wounded women who have terribly warped view of men. All because of the disgraceful acts of just a few few men. And these women need Jesus… way bad.

But if you come to them with a gospel that demands that they must submit to a man in order to please God… Well… you might as well tell them that God expects them to submit to abuse. Since they grew up in a profoundly warped world, their mind just may not be ready for that pet doctrine.

Anyway, all this to say:
Whether I totally agree with CBE or not, there’s a few things I like about them. They make the words of Jesus, His two love commandments, His golden rule, and His urging to learn to be servants of all the foundation of salvation, not the much lesser concerns of gender.

I profoundly disagree with Mr. Bayly.
What he sets up as “Divine Order” has become a different gospel than the one Jesus preached.
Paul had a few good things to say about marriage in Ephesians 5. But those good words have to do with marriage and nothing to do with salvation.

A woman who had nine perpetrators as a child may be so emotionally damaged that a healthy marriage won’t be possible for years after she gives her heart to Jesus. The last thing she needs is militant submission doctrine shoved down her throat the day after she gives her broken heart to Jesus.

Her healing comes first and foremost. God is concerned for the salvation of her soul and the healing of her heart far and above some man’s preferred interpretation of scripture.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm Jennifer

Btw Mark, on your last post in the Bayly Brothers’ blog, you questioned Cally’s intentions with her words about having compassion for women who abort to protect themselves. You challenged her words (or maybe Anne’s) about everyone deserving Christ’s compassion and said, “What about compassion for those in the dark of the womb?”

For fetuses in ectopic pregnancies, Mark, there is no compassion due to sheer biology. Babies in those circumstances hardly, if ever, survive and the mothers only abort to keep from dying with them. For the babies, life is already doomed; for the mothers, the only option is to abort the pregnancy. Just thought you’d like to know what these ladies were referring to, before questioning their compassion.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:16 pm Mark Dove

If I see the Baylys calling someone a spittle spewing, disgusting jerkoff I’ll try to remember to ask them to edit the post.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:40 pm Jennifer

Cute that you try to claim I used all three of those words at once. You know as well as I do that they spit great venom in a far more cloaked fashion than I do and that Tim treats those who disagree (especially women) as nothing more than mud at his feet. Nice try at masking their nature, though.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:41 pm Anne

Can anyone who is talking about things on the Bayly blog please provide links? I can’t find anything that mentions Cally nor can I find this feminist essay. Thanks.
on August 23, 2008 at 5:44 pm Jennifer

Oh yes, and did I mention (again) threatening people with hell? Not very nice, Mark. I at least have never once wished hell for the Baylys or even expected it for them, whereas they describe it as the supposed destination for their dissenters wih great relish. Are they sadists as well as bullies and misogynists?
on August 23, 2008 at 5:47 pm Jennifer

Oh sorry Anne: the thread I mentioned which referenced Cally is called “Discernment was discouraged” and you can find it probably by clicking on the original link here that Cally posted; the one with the title about discernment should be listed at the top of that page. I’m sorry, I don’t know how to post links! :S
on August 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm Cindy K

In the event that anyone finds these ideas new and perverse, they are not. They’re an old Confederate Presbyterian tradition. Eric Wallace (some time before Phillips touted “Uniting Church and Family” as his own brain child) quoted from this Confederate Presbyterian minister named Benjamin Morgan Palmer in his (Wallace’s) book entitled “Uniting Church and Home.” This stuff is good, old fashioned Southern Patriarchy and little is added to these concepts here. The concepts of patriarchy are NOT original. It’s their preferred brand of old-time religion.

Actually, they are not new to the Confederate Presbyterians either, but there are so many other Old South connections here, I could not help but quote this. Note, this old work was republished by Sprinkle Publications the same year that Dabney’s Defense of Virginia and the South was republished. Doug Phillips states in his booklet on Dabney that he is well-acquainted with Lloyd Sprinkle, notable member of the League of the South.

The patriarchy movement is nothing new, folks. It’s old, Southern tradition passed of as God’s highest, best and only way of living. It’s a national folk religion that has been woven into and within Christianity.

From Palmer’s “The Family in it’s Civil and Churchly Aspects.” 1876 (Pastor of 1st Presby in New Orleans)

Pg 57:

She was at the first builded out of man; she must now build upon man. Nature itself teaches that the rib must find its place in the side from which it was taken. The wife only obeys an original instinct in the voluntary submission, which sweetly expresses the harmony of two distinct personalities, and nothing more.

Pg 69:

The woman existed as yet only potentially in the man; and was formed afterwards, by what may be termed a secondary creation, out of his substance. According to nature, then, her being is never to be viewed as apart and by itself; for immediately upon her creation, marriage is instituted, but which, in a higher, because moral sense, she is incorporated with him again… It is “fit,” therefore, that the woman should recognize her subordination, as taught in the history of her own creation; for anything else would be unnatural, monstrous and grotesque.

Pg 102-103

The woman, by the law of marriage, is reintegrated into the man, from whose side she was originally drawn. She never exists afterward as an independent person. By her voluntary act she is merged, civilly and legally, into the man. With her office in the household perfectly defined, her status in the same is determined by her relation to her husband. All her privileges and rights flow from her association to her head. It is demanded of her, therefore, a blending of the will, which shall, so to speak, make the two organically one. There must be, on her part, a cleaving to him, which shall, in some sort, mingle together their distinct personalities.

Pg 240 -243

We have seen, in a previous chapter, how the first father was the organ of primeval worship, and the prophet to convey the tenets of the primeval faith to the offspring of his loins. Also when sacrifices were instituted under the dispensation of grace, the patriarch was invested with the functions of priesthood; and as the appointed mediator, conveyed in the patriarchal blessing the utterance of divine approval…

Beyond this, however, mediation is interwoven into the very texture of the Family… Indeed, the whole of parental duty is a system of mediation, often attended with suffering and self-denial, but always impelled by love. If these hints should be deemed obscure, and the analogy but faint, it must be remembered that the doctrine of mediation by Jesus Christ as the greatest revelation of God’s grace to man. It is enough if, in the daily outworking of Family life, there should be found even this analogy to hold up the principle against oversight and forgetfulness.
on August 23, 2008 at 7:02 pm ahunt

Again, briefly delurking…because I too wonder about the intent of the poem’s author.

Still not clear and hoping for further info…

…because, as a “call out”…the poem is brilliant.
on August 23, 2008 at 7:21 pm Laura Croft

What strikes me, that no one has really mentioned so far, is that the poem is a piece of crap. No personal attack on the author, just plain poor poetry. I wish Christians could learn to appreciate good art regardless of who writes it as well as learn to discern when Christian authors produce sub-standard dribble. I know she isn’t asserting herself as a poet, but these men are heralding her work as so profound and so true. Well, it is neither true nor well-written.
on August 23, 2008 at 7:26 pm ahunt

I dunno, Laura…degree is in business and poetry has always sailed right over my head…

…but I’m not sure if this poem isn’t a plea for…help?
on August 23, 2008 at 7:47 pm Jennifer

Those Bayly men are now posting an essay on their site that claims there to be iron links between sodomy and ordaining women as ministers! To their credit, they at least actually state a disclaimer that they don’t agree with everything in the essay, or even understand it. It’s the essay itself and its silly author that I find offensive. It’s not in the least surprising, though.
on August 23, 2008 at 8:28 pm ahunt

Jennifer…my thoughts in a nutshell…

If the poem is not “affirmation” but “desperation”…some woman, somewhere, has been heard…despite all efforts to silence her.
on August 23, 2008 at 8:42 pm ahunt

Apparently…the poem is in fact the product of Balyism, as comments are closed and the author is a relation.

Seeing the treatment of my dear daughter-in-law here, I’ve found myself wondering if I was right in posting her poem in public where the despisers of God would gnash their teeth at her witness and attack her. (What’s been said here is nothing compared to the venom spewed against her on other blogs.)

Uhm…disagreement with Balyism is …poison? Who knew?

G’night Kids.
on August 23, 2008 at 8:49 pm Jessi

As an English major with a concentration in creative writing, I’m going to have to agree with Laura Croft here; subject matter alone does not make poetry. I would like to offer some constructive criticism and suggest that a closer reading of her KJV Bible might provide Mrs. Bayly with a deeper appreciation for and understanding of the English language.

As a history minor, I wonder if this doesn’t all go back somehow to the legal concepts of Femme Sole and Femme Covert that the Puritans and Congregationalists brought with them to New England. Of course, the fact that the terms are French suggests to me that these concepts are even older than British Common Law; Norman, maybe, and therefore Catholic. Because I’ve concentrated on American history, though, I don’t know if this suspicion of mine is accurate.

Femme Sole was a transitional state of legal existence, applicable to women who had reached majority but not yet married, and to widows who had not yet remarried. Femme Covert referred to a woman under the authority of her father, husband, or other close male relative (such as an adult brother or son). Legally, she had no identity, no property, no rights, and no voice apart from whatever man was responsible for her.

The English major in me can’t help but delight in the meaning of covert – hidden, secret. It would be an awful way to live, but it makes so much sense linguistically.

Thank y’all for putting up with a long comment from a long-time lurker. I feel like I’ve learned a lot here.
on August 23, 2008 at 8:59 pm Jennifer

“Jennifer…my thoughts in a nutshell…

If the poem is not “affirmation” but “desperation”…some woman, somewhere, has been heard…despite all efforts to silence her.”

Exactly. My original comment was erased, so thanks especially for responding to it. I do think the fact that the poem could go both ways was brilliant, and the poem’s simultaneous spareness and darkness appealed to me. I hope we’re right, though it could be a longshot. If we are, this lovely ladybird is singing her heart out from her cage, and her would-be masters have naively shared her song because they thought it was in praise of them.
on August 23, 2008 at 9:01 pm Jennifer

Sorry, what’s Balyism? Is this a nickname for the doctrine of the Baylys?
on August 23, 2008 at 9:30 pm ahunt

Is this a nickname for the doctrine of the Baylys?

Yes…as opposed to…I dunno…scripture?
on August 23, 2008 at 9:38 pm Jennifer

Yup, definitely opposed to Scripture. That’s Balyism: you can tell women they should die for their men, worship them, kill all dignity and ambition, and will go to hell if they don’t agree. But criticize one of their slave-women’s poems? You’re a big meanie!
on August 23, 2008 at 9:53 pm ahunt

LOL…oh c’mon Jessi and Laura…we pragmatic types were hoping for the obscure message and brilliant internal rebellion. Such was not the case, but can we at least pass the class on wishful thinking? Give us a C+ .
on August 23, 2008 at 9:58 pm Jennifer

Hey, even if the poem’s not brilliant by literary standards, we could still be right, hunt.
on August 23, 2008 at 10:10 pm Jessi

Oh, ahunt, of course you get full credit for participation in the group discussion and close reading of your classmate’s work. I was just suggesting that she consider a revision before submitting that poem as part of her final portfolio. *hehe*

Furthermore, I can’t help but hope (and suspect) that your interpretation is spot-on, especially given her use of parallel narratives.
on August 23, 2008 at 10:24 pm ahunt

But we were wrong, Jen. And my skin is still crawling.
on August 23, 2008 at 10:36 pm Mara R.

Tim Bayly: (What’s been said here is nothing compared to the venom spewed against her on other blogs.)

Anybody know what other blogs he’s talking about?
I’ve only been following this one.
on August 24, 2008 at 7:44 am On the Outside

“Someone who opposes the order of creation established by our Heavenly Father places his own immortal soul in jeopardy. And someone who seeks to lead others into rebellion against that Divine order does something much worse.”

Again, the only proper (emotional) response, is: “WHAT?!?!?”

There are some things that MUST be believed if you are a Christian. I think the Nicene creed sums it up nicely.

But to ADD to the Bible by saying you MUST agree with the “order of creation” they propogate, or you will be going straight to HELL….?

THAT, ladies, is heresy.

~Oto
on August 24, 2008 at 8:30 am Mark Dove

Is there a reason my final post wasn’t allowed? I checked my email in case there was some explanation of the post not being allowed, but there was not.
on August 24, 2008 at 9:09 am Jennifer

“someone who seeks to lead others into rebellion against that Divine order does something much worse”

Then Tim may be in great trouble. He should speak with far more caution.
on August 24, 2008 at 9:29 am Anne

Mark, we’re trying very hard to maintain a discussion here that revolves around the issue. Your last post was a direct response to a comment that was removed, thus your comment was also removed.
on August 24, 2008 at 9:31 am Anne

You know, Mark, as long as you’re here, it seems that you have some issues with us using the term “whitewashed” and with our pro-life stance. Did you have any desire to discuss that with us, or anything you’d like us to clarify?
on August 24, 2008 at 9:31 am Cally Tyrol

And Mark, if you have an issue with our 100% pro-life stance, would you be so kind as to discuss it on this blog so that we can at least defend our position in a place where we will be treated with dignity and respect? We’d really appreciate that. Thanks.
on August 24, 2008 at 9:32 am Cally Tyrol

Anne, are we sharing a brain again?
on August 24, 2008 at 9:36 am Jennifer

“But we were wrong, Jen”

What makes you say that?
on August 24, 2008 at 12:07 pm Jennifer

That extremely unpleasant woman, Kamilla, has just insulted a man who dared show confusion at the Bayly’s article about iron links between sodomy and female pastor ordination. What’s wrong with that woman? She attacks anyone who even whiffs of disagreement, which is beyond even the Baylys, and this guy just showed mild confusion at the essay’s intent!! Even though the Bayly brothers themselves admitted they didn’t understand all the particulars of the essay, Kamilla jumped on the man who said pretty much the same thing and challenged him to offer reasons for his dissent, calling his confused state a “foolish condition”! I really can’t stand her attitude; she acts as though the Baylys have hired her to be their own snarling watch dog.

Btw, my attempt at commenting was “held as possible spam” and will be “held until reviewed by the Bayly brothers”. What the heck’s with that? Is this just because I dared show friendliness to Anne?
on August 24, 2008 at 12:09 pm Anne

Jen/Cally ~ Yeah, probably. =)
on August 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm Mark Dove

Anne,

I appreciate that you are trying to keep the thread on topic. I assume you honestly kept my comment from being approved for that reason. The problem is that the comment that didn’t get approved was directly answering post 37 from Jennifer, which still exists,and in which she suggested I was being cute and, I think, deceptive. I explained how Jennifer mischaracterized my post. But it is a little mater.

In my missing post I also retired from posting on this blog. I came back only to read Jennifer’s response, which of course doesn’t exist, and can’t. As long as I am making this next last post, I will comment briefly on the main brain sharing point. Of course I ado this with only one brain, and no one sharing it, so I am not certain this is fair.

I don’t hear 100% pro-life when I read your statement on abortion. Hard choices, protect themselves, dark times, no option, etc. It sounds to me like a statement that paves a fairly wide road that people can travel without fear of judgment. I don’t believe that this is compassion.
on August 24, 2008 at 1:26 pm Anne

Dear Mark,

The comment I deleted did not respond to comment number 27. Perhaps we are talking about different comments. If a comment you’ve posted has been lost, please feel free to repost it.

In regards to our pro-life position, I think you have misread it. It acknowledges that some pregnancies are ended to save the mother. We believe that the mother is also a life that deserves protection and make a distinction between a medical therapeutic abortion for the life of the mother, and an elective abortion.

At the same time, women who have had elective abortions and are now living with their decisions need the compassion and healing that comes from Christ. We didn’t say that they had no option. We said “We also understand that many women encounter dark times in their lives when they believe that no option is available to them, other than abortion.”(bolding mine)

I have sin in my life. I always have and I always will. I have made choices that I am not proud of, and I trust in God’s mercy to make up for my short-comings. I don’t feel that it is my place to judge someone for a decision made under those circumstances, even though I don’t agree with it. Not when I have been forgiven so much.

Saying that we have compassion for those who are living with their choices is not the same as saying that we agree with them. And making clear that we believe that some choices are made to save lives differentiates us from those who believe even ending a tubal pregnancy is morally illicit.
on August 24, 2008 at 6:42 pm Psalmist

Jennifer, Kamilla hates egalitarians because she claims that a group of egalitarians (she never actually names the group) treated her badly. This is when she was an egalitarian, to hear her tell it. So she has made it a mission to embrace the Baylys’ brand of male rule and be a cheerleader of sorts for them. I’ve watched her for a couple of years now, and it’s pretty sad. She blames equality for the fact that she has never (yet) gotten married. From what she’s said, she’d have gotten married if she hadn’t been an egalitarian. Trouble is, she’s one of those condemned “career women.” I’m surprised they haven’t booted her. She’s their token “former egalitarian,” I suppose, so for the time being she suits their purposes. And as you noticed, she’s gained a reputation for attacking anyone who dares to look cross-ways at the Baylys. She has called the Baylys and Bill Mouser her “heroes.” That should tell you something about her character right there. The saying about birds and feathers comes to mind…
on August 24, 2008 at 8:13 pm Lynn

What I despise about Kamilla’s writings isn’t her shift from egalitarianism to patriarchy. It is her holier than thou judgmentalism, the most recent one being her characterization of Molly as an unbeliever in both Bayly blog threads that Molly recently participated in on. Both Kamilla and Tim were in agreement that Molly said what she said because she was pridefully trying to elevate herself, and that she was in rebellion.

Without trying to find out where Molly was coming from, or without acknowledging that there are extremely legalistic Patriarchal groups that are causing great harm in families (Vision Forum, Gothard’s ministries), without realizing that Molly used to be an internet champion for patriarchy, without any understanding about what she suffered physically in childbearing due to the quiverfull teachings, or what went on in her marriage (according to her), without trying to find out anything, they make these snap judgments that she is in rebellion and that she is not a Christian.

I cannot stand that kind of holier than thou judgmentalism.

And Tim says he goes to great lengths to talk to people before rendering a “judgment” about them. Yah, right!

Molly, he says he talks to people off-line before these kinds of pronouncements. Did he do that for you?

You don’t have to answer. I know what the answer is.

Both Donna Carlaw and Kamilla seem to have picked this so-called “discernment” up from the Baylys. On my blog, Donna kept going after Psalmist to become a Christian, and I eventually had to moderate my blog on account of her ranting, not only against Psalmist, but also Corrie. Psalmist was unsaved, and Corrie was a pro-choice feminist, in those rants.

On the CCC forum (a Yahoo group), both Donna and Kamilla got into it about how bitter egalitarians are, how they are like Gollum, just feeding on their bitterness until it becomes a monster inside them, etc..

But that group views the Baylys as their role models.

It is on account of this intractable, vicious, snap judgmentalism that I refuse to engage myself on the Bayly blog. But I think their problems are so severe I feel compelled, from time to time, to write about their behavior on my blog, just to help warn, if I can. I can see their example filtering into the people who hang out with them, or have email groups where they are admired, and it is just sickening.

*edited by Admin at the request of the poster for grammatical purposes only.
on August 24, 2008 at 8:31 pm Jennifer

Lyhn, you are SO right. I’m sorry, but I was so utterly disgusted with Kamilla’s nasty attitude that I wanted to throttle her. Add that to her kiss-butt attitude towards the Bayly brothers, and we have a pretty pitiful scenario.
on August 24, 2008 at 8:39 pm Jennifer

“What I despise about Kamilla’s writings isn’t her shift from egalitarianism to patriarchy”

When was she an egalitarain??

I’m sorry, but your words about Kamilla and Donna’s rants about egalitarians being bitter just gave me a good laugh. Egals are bitter?? Who do they think they’re kidding? Firstly, egals have nothing to be bitter about; patriarchs, on the other hand, do. The patrio men glare at the egal men who have truly healthy marriages and actual helpmates, and the patrio women are jealous of the egal ladies and their freedom and power, sparing no opportunity to slander them and call them unChristian. Which brings me to the second point: Kamilla and Donna, sweeties, look at yourselves before you call others bitter. The egalitarians are not the ones sitting around and snarling about those horrible patrio women. We actually have better things to do.
on August 24, 2008 at 9:08 pm Psalmist

Isn’t it great to know that Jesus Christ is our Judge? Really, whatever judgment the Bayly Boys, Kamilla, and any other champions of patriarchy presume to make about those of us who see through the tissue of lies that is patriarchy, is just so much wasted use of air/bandwith/brain cells. Seriously. They haven’t a shred of authority to judge us “heretics” or “rebels” or “God-despisers” or whatever insult du jour they might cook up. They’re merely sinners saved by grace–one presumes–just like the rest of us. And friends, we will know them by their fruits.

Most of the time, I can just laugh at their self-important, nasty attacks. What I don’t laugh about, though, is when they go after someone like Molly, who has bent over backwards to cut them FAR more slack and show them infinitely more grace than they’ve ever even tried to show their self-declared “enemies.” I feel protective about Molly (not that you need my protection, Molly, seeing’s how God is both your and my sure, ultimate Protector), and I get angry when they pull the same stunts that kept that sweet woman knuckled under for such a long time under the lie that patriarchy is “godly.”

Yes, the Baylys and their admirers are poisonous to the body of Christ. Various body parts do that from time to time when the body becomes ill. Tissue attacks other tissue and body chemistry gets out of balance and the body is at war with itself. I honestly don’t think there’s ANY place in the body of Christ for those who refuse to accept the truth, that we egalitarians are fellow members of that dear body. Sorry, but there’s not. They’re trying to cut us out of the body. That doesn’t work. Paul was right: various members can’t tell other members “I have no need of you.”

They’re being immature, selfish, and giving in to the evil one’s lies. I think they need to be left alone to foul their own little sandbox until even they can’t stand the stench anymore. They’ve proven they can’t play well with others, and frankly, it’s time to move out of the pre-school mentality of “wow–boys have doo-hickeys and girls don’t!” and “girls have cooties; they all have to get out of the sandbox and let the boys make the rules.”
on August 24, 2008 at 10:24 pm Psalmist

Jennifer, Kamilla was an egalitarian for many years. She had a paper published in Priscilla Papers, the journal of Christians for Biblical Equality, back sometime in the ’90s, if I remember correctly.

And I don’t think I’ve ever encountered a more vitriolic, more apparently bitter, person (patriarchalist or egalitarian) than Kamilla. All because her egalitarian friends displeased her. They probably proved to be as human as Kamilla herself. She never includes any facts in her bitter rants about her “former friends.” And of course, she was utterly blameless in whatever the falling-out was about.

As a fellow not-married, it’s my opinion that her former egalitarian beliefs have zero to do with her unmarried state. I know I wouldn’t choose a rude, bitter name-caller as a potential spouse. Unless I were attracted to rudeness, bitterness, and name-calling, I suppose. Check out the fruit. It doesn’t lie.
on August 24, 2008 at 11:12 pm Lynn

Jennifer, her name is Kamilla Ludwig, and she has a paper published on CBE:

http://www.cbeinternational.org/new/publications/pp_indice.shtml

The Subjection of Women by Kamilla Ludwig
on August 25, 2008 at 12:02 am Lynn

Another staunch supporter of the Baylys was, as mentioned, Donna. Donna used to regularly speak against Anne Graham Lotz, and Carolyn Custis James, who are two soft complementarians, egalitarians in general, and she was very supportive of the Baylys on their blog, and the CCC-forum (the Yahoo group).

I once told Donna she lived her life in a manner she was very critical of online. That online, she was on a patriarchal tear, but in real life she was something quite different.

Psalmist said something about laughing at the Baylys. I stopped feeling extreme emotion after I saw this link:

http://www.actionintl.org/index.php?page=missionaries&item=1322

If you click on the picture where Donna is teaching as a missionary in Cuba, you will find that her audience has more than one male in it. This looks like an example of very soft complementarian teaching at least, or egalitarianism at most.

But one thing it is NOT — it is NOT an example of what Donna was speaking FOR on the Bayly blog and on the CCC-forum. In fact, it is an example of the OPPOSITE, for she is publicly instructing other men in a Christian setting, which in very certain terms is frowned upon as being against the order of creation on the Bayly blog.

When I saw this, and more, I immediately stopped taking all of them so seriously, or at least, stopped letting it get to me the way in which it did.

I find it the height of irony that I would not feel free to teach a mixed Sunday School class, much less preach in church, and yet I and others were upbraided because according to her we were egalitarian, pro-choice feminists. All that was said to us by a woman who is pictured in the link acting in keeping with egalitarian ideals.
on August 25, 2008 at 7:02 am Jennifer

Thank you for all the information, dear ladies. I just woke up (it’s only seven-thirty where I am) and will be reading your posts in detail later
on August 25, 2008 at 9:25 am RichardD

Lynn – thanks for the link to the Donna Carlaw photo. I’ve wanted to see what she looks like ever since she had the meltdown on my blog. She doesn’t look nearly as scary as she sounded.
on August 25, 2008 at 10:03 am Mara R.

Uhm… Richard

Could you give a brief overview of the meltdown for those of us new to WWF. What was it about?
I’ve seen Donna’s presence before at another place.
She’s rather illogical and a worse “woman hater” than the men she hangs out with.
on August 25, 2008 at 10:48 am Jennifer

Psalmist, so wonderfully said! Indeed, these folks are acting poisonous to the body of Christ. I’ve learned to laugh at the likes of Doug Phillips most of the time (except when he’s shooting demonic arrows, such as the ones on ectopic pregnancy) but the Bayly brothers are new to me. It’ll take a while before I can dismiss them as heartily as Phillips.
on August 25, 2008 at 11:36 am Lynn

Oh, btw, those from the Bayly blog reading here – just a public notice that the reason I’m making comments here and naming names the way I am is because it really isn’t cool to tell people who name the name of Jesus, who come on your site respectfully disagreeing with you, and give their real names, that they aren’t saved, that you know they are in rebellion, that you just know they are pridefully elevating themselves, yada yada yada.

Just in case any one of you is inclined to call this an “incestuous, feed-on-each-other, gossiping blog.”

Yes, we’re talking about it, so those hurt by your insane, unchristlike, uncharitable snap judgmentalism will learn to not be hurt and to laugh at you the way some of us have learned to laugh at your silly, pride-filled know-it-all antics.
on August 25, 2008 at 12:37 pm RichardD

Mara – here’s the link.

http://richgelina.blogspot.com/2008/03/matthew-henry-those-are-marked-for-ruin.html

I had just come across the whole patrio concept and was in completely new turf than what I was used to. Donna’s meltdown surprised me and truly frightened me for her mental state. I have since seen more of this and realize now that it is a rhetorical style used by folks on both sides of this issue. Hyperbole is a valid method, and I think that is what Donna was doing here, although I may be wrong. I really have no context on which to hang my one run-in with her.
on August 25, 2008 at 2:11 pm Jennifer

Richard, I LOVE your response to Tim Bayly on your blog. My gosh, SO well-said!!!

Donna’s words to you were even more alarming than the mental thing she did on Amazon. She really does need severe help, poor thing.

*Edited by Admin
on August 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm ahunt

Again delurking to share with Richard my own eye-opening experience with the the patrio concept.

(Don’t get me wrong, rural here, but not entirely isolated, and I was aware of rumblings in the distance)

I own an art and beading supply retail store in town, and I get a lot of homeschoolers in for the obvious reasons.

Some time back, a young couple came in…looking for supplies to set up their eldest daughter with her own jewelry making class at their homeschooling co-op.

Utterly cool. I’ve helped other homeschooling folks in a similar fashion, specifically in terms of getting these youngsters the most bang for their teaching buck, and so set about reviewing the young wife’s list, offering suggestions, pulling up alternative internet sources for possible school discounts for better budgeting and the like.

What followed was very nearly creepy in the excess of testosterone dispaly. There was virtually no aspect of my store that did not come under some kind of negative critique from the husband…the jewelry made by my students was gaudy and immodest. The Celtic pewter dragon charms and Celtic crosses were pagan. There was no suggestion that was not challenged, despite the fact I was the individual with the knowledge, skills and experience…no alternative that was good enough…and every single idea put forth by his young wife was wrong…or bad..or stupid. The negative micromanagement of this young woman was chilling.

Fifty years on this planet, and as the only female in a household of men, I tend not to put up with much, especially from boy puppies. I proceeded to “housebreak” the young husband in a kindly, authoritative manner that made it clear he was finished talking, and “marking” his territory. This pup immediately ceased peeing in my store.

The young wife is now a regular customer, usually simply to hang out for 30 minutes or so. Apparently she feels safe in my store to express an opinion, and to enjoy the suppressed “flamboyant” side of her artistic nature. I’m very careful of her sensibilities, and delighted to give her some “playspace.”

I have, without probing, gleaned that the background is VF related.

Eye-opening.
on August 25, 2008 at 4:32 pm Jennifer

Lyhn, thanks for your awesome words! You’re exactly the sort of woman they shrink in fear from.
on August 25, 2008 at 4:35 pm Jennifer

Hunt, I commend you for your bold words to the hell-hound pup. I’d love to visit your store some time, for both products and dialogue
on August 25, 2008 at 4:51 pm Light

Celtic crosses are pagan? I’m in big trouble then, I collect them.
on August 25, 2008 at 5:28 pm RichardD

Thanks, Jennifer. I really didn’t know what I was in for at that time. Donna was a big surprise. At the time, I had no idea how bad some of the Baylys teaching was. My only experience with this was through Stacy McDonald’s blog, which I found to be simply appalling. I don’t really know much about the people who follow these teachings.

ahunt: I’m glad you put that husband in his place and that the wife is still a patron of your store. I think God has protected me from meeting men who teach this sort of thing because I think I would be inclined to do a bit more than verbally put such a man in his place. I am not sure what it is about this particular thing, but it really raises my ire. Men who treat women in this disrespectful way make me want to act a bit less civilized than I was taught to act.

Pray for me. I need to control this. But for now God has seen fit to protect me from myself.
on August 25, 2008 at 7:31 pm Jennifer

We’ll pray for you, Richard. But for what it’s worth, I’ve never seen you be uncivilized yet about this. You always had a balance of cool civility and calm indignation; it’s worked well in getting your point across.
on August 25, 2008 at 7:38 pm Anne

Celtic dragons and crosses are just that: Celtic. They’re part of our heritage. Look at the Welsh flag for heaven’s sake!

I wish that people who are ignorant about things simply wouldn’t speak.
on August 25, 2008 at 8:22 pm ahunt

Bu, bu but Anne, I also stock Chinese cinnabar dragon cuts and the brass Chinese charm symbols of “peace” “love” and “unity.” Not to mention the black and white enamel renditions of “yin/yang.”

And there are Native American findings at my shop…porcupine quills, pewter and stone arrowhead replicas…all manner of stuff that innocent minds ought not to be exposed to…

Sad really, that the world is so small for the Patriocentric. It is a world that will continue to get smaller, while the rest of us come to know and enjoy the larger world.
on August 25, 2008 at 8:52 pm Anne

Good heavens, Ahunt! Allowing symbols from other cultures or faiths, or even, dare I say it, nature?

God hates nature, dontcha know? For shame!
on August 25, 2008 at 10:14 pm Jennifer

“Sad really, that the world is so small for the Patriocentric. It is a world that will continue to get smaller, while the rest of us come to know and enjoy the larger world.”

No kidding. They pretty much get what they deserve: little worlds, petty marriages (sometimes), and great fear.
on August 25, 2008 at 10:42 pm Jennifer

And, of course, did I mention they miss out on women in all their true glory? For the patrio-bots, there are two kinds of women: sweet and silent, or strong-minded and wicked; there are no in-betweens. If a woman’s sweet, she must also be submissive or she’s not a true believer. If a woman is not submissive and dares disagree with any resident males, on the other hand, she’s rebellious. If the latter type of woman is well-educated in her “rebellious” egalitarian mindset, she’s accused of being educated by Satan or some evil equality-thinking secular person. If she’s the former type of woman, on the other hand (sweet and submissive), it’s best if she’s not educated, so men can tell her what to do and what’s best for her life before she can get any harmful thoughts of her own; also, this way she’ll never threaten her husband’s fragile ego. If she DOES happen to be educated (and submissive), she’ll be told never to make this too clear lest she steal glory from any men around her.

I’ll say this for the Botkins: they’re very educated. I think they’re pretty much wasting their talents and are very deceived in what they view as their “Biblical” education, but they are very gifted. The problem with the Botkins is that they probably only believe in educating women for their husbands’ entertainement; they just posted an article telling girls to read books written for boys because they were designed to, one day, be a grown boy’s helpmeet and should know boys’ interests. Good grief: they even manage to take away the fun of adventurous reading!! And why should there even be a question of whether girls can read “guy” literature? (They posted this as a question, as though it’s a really tough issue they feel girls are lost about without their help). Misses Botkins, I already read “boys’” literature for several reasons. Some of them are:

1) I love boyhood/manhood and think they should be celebrated.

2) If you’re merely referring to books with male protagonists and adventure tales, I don’t consider those as “boy” literature anyhow! Which brings me to

3) I, as a woman, am just as fit by my very gender to rule a country, play outdoor games, slay monsters, ride dragons, and conquer evil as a man is, thank you very much. I think girls should read books about fighting evil and conquering with authority because girls were made by God to do this too! Girls, by their natures, are meant to be knights and soldiers in God’s army and this is our birthright as well.

It’s a shame the patrio men miss out on real women and patrio women let their birthrights of authority and soldierism be taken, but it’s their loss. And, ultimately, their just desserts.
on August 26, 2008 at 8:35 am Corrie

ahunt,

#85

LOL! What a great story!

I am glad that the young wife comes to “play” at your store. Probably the only bit of peace she gets on this earth.

I am well aware of the type you described and the habit of “marking” their territory wherever they go.

It is obnoxious and many times I have found that the VF paradigm has influenced these types.
on August 26, 2008 at 8:38 am Corrie

Lynn,

“that they aren’t saved, that you know they are in rebellion, that you just know they are pridefully elevating themselves, yada yada yada.”

Great response!

One thing that I find so darn ironic is that these guys are the ones pridefully elevating themselves but they don’t even see it.
on August 26, 2008 at 8:46 am Corrie

“Tim Bayly: (What’s been said here is nothing compared to the venom spewed against her on other blogs.)

Anybody know what other blogs he’s talking about?
I’ve only been following this one.”

Mara,

Rebbeca’s?

They always call any critique of their blog “venomous”. Silly.

Especially the way they go after women like Carolyn Custis James and taunt her husband by putting down his manhood and they dare to whine about the fair critique of their dil’s “poem”?

They falsely accuse other women all the time but commenting on their dil’s poem is foul? Crazy.

Please. Why do they feel that they are off limits but everything else is fair game? They are constantly critiquing other people but no one can critique them and theirs without it being “venomous” and “hateful”?

Schoolyard bullies about sums it up.
on August 26, 2008 at 11:08 am Jennifer

Which man is Tim Bayly in the Bayly blog picture? The round one or the sharp-looking one?
on August 27, 2008 at 6:06 am Psalmist

Puts me in mind of Spanky & Alfalfa and the He-Man Woman Haters’ Club.

Google “LIttle Rascals” if this reference is new to you.

(heheheh)
on August 27, 2008 at 6:12 am Psalmist

Oh, and you know we’ve all just been dismissed as not Christian, by Kamilla on her blog. Her comments have been critiqued and found wanting here, so in rather typical fashion, she just declares that we’re not Christians and that’s that.

Predictable.

Let me clarify. Anyone who identifies (or whom Kamilla decides to identify) as egalitarian, isn’t a Christian. Which I suppose, sadly, means that she wasn’t a Christian when she was an egalitarian. Since you can’t, in her little world and by her little dictionary, can’t be both simultaneously.

But since biblical equality IS biblical (as Kamilla, despite her bitter railings against egalitarians, knows perfectly well), it’s just another lying attempt to deny the faith of brothers and sisters — strike that, she made the additional error of saying it’s just women — sorry, Richard — so she can justify herself in her error.

What’s NOT to laugh at with this kind of nonsense? Really, Kamilla just spews more and more false judgment. I do wonder sometimes how such people will answer the true Judge when an accounting is demanded.
on August 27, 2008 at 11:27 am ahunt

What is strange is Kamilla’s persecution complex. My words were singled out as if they were directed at her and her “friends” personally…when I do not even know who she is, (until now).

Moreover, my remark was taken out of its context of the experience…the reference was specifically about my first experience with patrio concept at my business.

Reading more into my comment than precisely what was written is a trifle paranoid.
on August 27, 2008 at 11:45 am Anne

Funny thing is that I don’t think I am an egaliterian. I think the Bayly’s and company think that anyone who disagrees with their idea of father-rule is an egaliterian.
on August 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm ahunt

I think the distinction, Anne, is that WWF make egals feel welcome…and dialogue proceeds.
on August 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm Lynn

Anne, I’m not egalitarian, in so far as I believe the Scriptures limit the callings of elder and overseer in the church to the men.

Regarding marriage – if a husband and wife were doing what the Bible commands each to do, they would both be so busy serving each other, that whatever else you believe or don’t believe about a hierachy, such a marriage looks egalitarian in practice.

I don’t qualify as an egalitarian. Where I differ from the Baylys is their interpretation of Isaiah 3:12, and their emphasis on a pre-fall hierarchy, which leads them to say that male rule over females goes beyond the home and church and must extend to all of society, or else the order of creation is violated.
on August 27, 2008 at 7:37 pm ahunt

Regarding marriage – if a husband and wife were doing what the Bible commands each to do, they would both be so busy serving each other, that whatever else you believe or don’t believe about a hierachy, such a marriage looks egalitarian in practice.

Lynn…this is exactly my experience. Among my family, peers, acquaintances and business relations, whatever is professed ends up looking like an egal arrangement.

The Better Half claims that this is more a matter of personal masculine health…and less a matter related to scripture…he can die young with the stress of micromanaging the world at large…or live long tormenting me with his ridiculous puns.

I’m all over a long life of ridiculous puns.
on August 28, 2008 at 1:23 pm Jennifer

Ahunt, you won’t believe it; I have the most wonderful news. You and I were right about the poem on the Bayly blog! I spoke privately with Bayly’s gem of a dil and as it turns out, the poem was NOT supportive of wives disappearing, dying, losing dignity to their husbands, etc. It turns out the author was actually warning against both independent, I’m-a-goddess women and slave-wives in the two sections of her poem. So, we were also happily wrong about her being stifled at home; she’s not at all, she’s a healthy and smart lady! I can’t believe this, I’m so happy we were both right and wrong, in the best possible ways
on August 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm Corrie

Jennifer,

You, too, spoke with Heidi? There is a Gwen on Bayly’s blog that spoke with her, also.

Which part is warning against the “slave-wives” mentality?

Why is her poem so hard to understand?

Why does it seem that she is saying that it is the job of the wife to worship her husband and spend all her time stroking his ego and affirming him and disappearing so he gets preeminence?

I am really trying to figure out, after reading the poem, yet again, how what you are saying can be true? How is her poem a warning against wive-slaves AND wive-goddesses? I just do not see it.

I am not saying that Heidi is stifled, nor have I ever thought it. In fact, I don’t think that she is because my experience has taught me that the most vocal hyper-pats are the ones who do not practice what they preach and are actually more of a feminist than most of us are.
on August 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm Corrie

What were Heidi’s intentions for writing her poem?

Gwen stated this on Bayly’s blog:

“Tim, I just spoke to your gem of a daughter-in-law about her poem and I must say, people DID misunderstand it! Even I at first wasn’t totally sure what to make of it, but I knew upon reflection it couldn’t be what certain people were saying it was. Sure enough, Heidi’s intentions were far deeper than many guessed and she is a wise and clever lady! Thanks very much for sending my request to her; she’s a delight to speak with.

Posted by: Gwen | AUGUST 28, 2008 AT 10:12 PM”

I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I would like to be enlightened as to the cleverness of her poem.

Why does it seem that there is a shroud of mystery around it?
on August 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm Jennifer

Hey, Corrie! Yup, I’m Gwen

When I first saw the poem, I thought it was (or could be) subtly speaking AGAINST women who worship their husbands and give up dignity; it certainly didn’t have a happy tone when speaking of such things. When I spoke to Heidi, she confirmed this: she said that the first half of the poem speaks against women being too independent (“You are salvation, Isis herself”). In the second half, which begins with “lay yourself in a coffin”, Heidi addresses the flipside of independent women and challenges those who are like mere automotons to their husbands, believing they must mentally die for them.

I’ll tell you something else, Corrie: Tim doesn’t realize the poem’s true intent. He thinks it means the same thing we did (only he believes that’s a good thing). That’s why he assumed everyone would know this and attacked those who saw the poem the same way he did, but who criticized it rather than praised it. I thought Tim would have to know the true meaning, when Heidi first confirmed what it was, but I suspected otherwise and my suspicions were confirmed when I recalled that, upon first approaching Tim about the poem and asking after his dil’s first name, I referred to it as “lovely and dark” and he reacted with surprise, saying, “Dark? You mean just the first part, right? About confessing sin?”

Sure enough, he thought only the first half of the poem, about independent women, qualified as dark. Apparently, the second half about dying, losing dignity, and disappearing didn’t appear as dark at all to him.

*Edited by Admin
on August 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm Anne

So, are you Jennifer or Gwen? And how do you know Tim Bayly’s DIL?
on August 29, 2008 at 4:38 pm Jennifer

I’m Jennifer, Anne; “Gwen” is a nickname I chose while visiting the Bayly blog (it comes from Guinevere, which I found out is the name Jennifer came from)

I don’t at all know Bayly’s DIL except online, just a few days ago. I thought I explained: the fact that the author of the poem was simply called “Mrs. Joseph Tate Bayly VI” or some such nonsense, tacking her husband’s whole darn name on her, didn’t sit well with me so I asked Tim what her first name was. He thought I wanted to contact her, so he thoughtfully sent my info and compliments to her and she contacted me a while later. I couldn’t be happier that she did; she’s a delightful and intelligent person.
on August 29, 2008 at 4:39 pm Jennifer

You don’t think it’s weird that I chose a nickname while visiting a strange (and frankly unfriendly) blog, do you?
on August 29, 2008 at 4:51 pm Anne

Thanks for clearing that up, Jennifer.
on August 29, 2008 at 4:59 pm Cally Tyrol

Dude, Anne, get on google chat! Its sooooo dead around here!
on August 29, 2008 at 5:02 pm Jennifer

No problem, Anne I was just concerned for a moment; I didn’t want anyone to think I was being sneaky by posting under a nickname on the Bayly blog, when I was really just playing it cautious!
on August 29, 2008 at 5:35 pm RichardD

Anne’s a dude? Whoa!
on August 29, 2008 at 6:42 pm Andrea

Why is her poem so hard to understand?

Corrie, I think if the poem had something as simple as a title like “Two Different Kinds of Death” then there would be much less that is confusing about it. Of course, then Tim Bayly would possibly not have misunderstood his daughter in law’s intent, either, and it would never have gotten posted, so in this case maybe a little obfuscation was not a horrible thing

I think the trouble is that on the Bayly blog we can only see the poem through the lens of Tim’s reading of it. I finally made myself go and look at the blog post itself (light text on black background always gives me a headache so I held off til now!) and I found that it seems like it would be tricky to tell for sure what parts of the introduction to the poem were written by Tim and what parts were written by Heidi herself.

(on a totally random note, I think that Heidi Bayly a very pretty name; I know it wasn’t the one given to her at birth, but some wives probably don’t luck out with such pretty names lol!)
on August 29, 2008 at 10:48 pm Corrie

“I think the trouble is that on the Bayly blog we can only see the poem through the lens of Tim’s reading of it. ”

I honestly do not think that is my problem. I am only taking the plain meaning of what was written. I do not see a hidden warning to wives who are too slavish.
on August 29, 2008 at 10:53 pm ahunt

Poetry invariably flies right over my head, but Jen, I’m happy to learn that we got it very roughly half right.
on August 29, 2008 at 11:43 pm Andrea

Corrie, that’s fair enough That was just what was my problem, then
on August 30, 2008 at 10:25 am Corrie

Do we really believe that Heidi was trying to pull the wool over her fil’s eyes? I don’t. I believe she wrote that poem to be readily understood and I don’t think Tim or anyone else has misunderstood what she was conveying.

The first half is about a wife who wants her husband to do for her what she was created (only) to do for him, namely worship, adore and affirm him.

The second half is the remedy for such a selfish wife, she is to lay herself in the casket, be his helpmeet, lose herself, her dignity and her strength in order to be the kind of wife the Bible commands of her. Read the second half of the poem again and there is no warning in it whatsoever. It is instructional and totally in line with their view on the role of “help mate”.

There is no hidden meaning or warning to wives that tells them that they shouldn’t become slavish or idolatrous towards their husbands.

And, until I hear from Heidi, herself, I am going to take the plain meaning of the poem and believe that she was not trying to snowjob her her father in law. To me, that is just utterly implausible. I cannot believe that she would do that and the poem, imho, doesn’t seem to support this premise, either.
on August 30, 2008 at 6:05 pm Jennifer

Corrie, I don’t think Heidi was trying to fool anyone. Tim clearly got a different impression from the poem than I did and Heidi seemed to agree with mine. I don’t know why she’d lie about this.
on August 30, 2008 at 7:59 pm Jennifer

In response to my earlier comment, “Sure enough, Tim thought only the first half of the poem, about independent women, qualified as dark. Apparently, the second half about dying, losing dignity, and disappearing didn’t appear as dark at all to him. ”

Tim confirmed that he thought both husbands and wives should do this (die to each other, disappear, etc). Alrighty, but it still sounds a little alarming in the poem.

Very sweet of him to make a post thanking me personally, I will say (for my comments about Heidi)
on August 31, 2008 at 1:30 am Psalmist

So Tim Bayly misunderstood Heidi’s meaning of the poem. He’s clearly not the only one.

Plus, he’s borne false witness yet again, about other people’s blogs and their beliefs, and denying that he has indeed deleted comments that are critical of him.

Just why, I have to wonder, does anyone lend that man and his brother any credibility?

His hatred of his brothers and sisters in Christ is obvious in his own words, and his arrogance is quite evident in his frequent false judgment about their salvation and beliefs.

For the record, Tim Bayly, I am a feminist: That means, since you obviously have no clue what one is, that I believe God created men and women equally human, with equal rights and responsibilities as the sole species created in the image of God. I trust in Jesus Christ as my Savior and Lord. I reject your false witness about me and the many other Christians who embrace equality in Christ as God’s intention for life in Christian community. I invite you to deal with it.
on August 31, 2008 at 7:10 am Corrie

Jennifer,

Just what did Tim Bayly misunderstand about his dil’s poem?

Also, are you saying that the second half of the poem is Heidi’s attempt to warn women AWAY from doing what the second half of the poem instructs the woman who wants a husband to do?

First half- describes selfish woman

Second half- describes what that selfish woman must do to be biblical?

OR

Second half- describes slavish woman and warns women from being slavish to their husbands?

My bet is on the first.

I also do not believe that Tim misunderstood anything about his dil’s poem. I think we are all reading it and understanding it just like it was intended.

The confusion comes into play by the repeated assertion that Bayly misunderstood his dil’s poem and that there is some hidden meaning in it that went unnoticed by Bayly.

And Psalmist is right. Why does anyone lend them credibility?
And she is also right that he has borne false witness against others and he has misrepresented his practices when it comes to deleting things that he doesn’t agree with.
on August 31, 2008 at 9:39 pm ahunt

I remember way back in the “comp1 ” prereq…

…the mandatory “poetry” segment.

Annoyed and frustrated, I simply asked my prof if I could analyze the poetry in terms of my annoyance and frustration.

“Absolutely” was his somewhat surprised rely.

His point was that one takes from poetry what one does…or not. Author intent aside…poetry, unlike other literature…carries a far greater risk of varied interpretatations. While I am entirely willing to cut the author the benefit of the intent…I’m not willing to give the author the authority to define what others come away with after reading the poem. If such is the goal, write more straightforward stuff.
on August 31, 2008 at 10:32 pm Corrie

ahunt,

That is interesting about poetry. I agree.

It is her problem if people are not getting the deeply hidden truth about her poem.

This seems to be a problem amongst patrios. They write stuff that is very clear but when called on it, they back-peddle, obsfucate and double-speak and then turn around and blame others for misunderstanding what they really meant.

I would think James 3:1 would apply here. They are not fit to be teachers if people have so hard of a time understanding what it is they really are teaching.
on September 1, 2008 at 8:23 am Mara R.

I don’t know gals.

If you were a strong and smart woman that lived deep in the patrio camp…

If you hadn’t matured to the point of out-right resistence because you are still figureing out the full extent of what has been shoved down your throat since… forever…

If things are peaceful because you’ve sort of coasted along in your life not making any waves while your brain is furiously re-examining the position that you have been completely brainwashed in…

Well, what I’m trying to say is.
In the enemy camp, is it better to send out your messages in code or say it outright?

How many people have seen this poem because Tim thought it totally supported his male superiority postition?
How would it ever see the light of day over there if it didn’t appear that way.

Sometimes, when a female is so totally immersed in such a male prefering culture, it takes time and many baby steps, even for a strong woman, to get from point a to point b.
Sometimes they have been so conditioned to cushion their words to not get fragile male egos all up in arms that they are trained to not say things out right. They have to hint around to things. And much of the time the hints are not understood.

These black and white, “either you are a 100% with me or you are 100% against me” male brains don’t get an honest question. You’ve seen that on their blog. Someone 90% in agreement with them who also has a 10% question is viewed to be apostate.
Saying things out right will bring certain consequences over there.

It takes time to break such deep and severe indoctrination.

I really don’t know where Heidi stands.
Only God really knows her heart.
But it is interesting to consider.
on September 13, 2008 at 4:00 pm madame

Corrie, I agree with your understanding of the poem.
The telling words are in the first verse: “I think you want a wife, not a husband”. The rest of part one says what a wife should do for her husband but she is expecting her husband to do for her.
That’s the way I understand it.

Very disturbing poem, I think.
on February 16, 2009 at 11:13 am Clint Mahoney

There’s a lot here to comment on. Some shorts:

Homeschooled families are actually often run by the wives even if it appears to the contrary.

Abuse of biblical authority is what many feminists are afraid of – yet this abuse doesn’t proove that the scriptures are wrong in this but merely that sin corrupts, which we already know.

Most women I’ve known (including my wife) who have had feminist ideas had abusive fathers or other male authorities in their life. It wasn’t until my wife and I stopped being fearful that we’d become like our abusive or neglectful fathers and started adhearing to God’s truth that my wife took a place of true honor becoming more bold, more capable – and yes also more submissive – I ceased being a tyrant – I didn’t become one.

Also, never is the evil of feminism seen more is at the abortion clinic.

God will not be mocked, correct, by Tim Bably, me or anyone here.

As one recovering from the evil and sin under which you all on this blog currently suffer, I pray that all of you here will someday see the beauty of God’s order as shown very well (but obviously not perfectly) on the Bayly Blog.
on March 5, 2009 at 8:28 pm Anne

Dear Clint, I think it’s highly presumptuous of you, a man certainly not my husband, head, or minister, to tell me and my fellow authors that we are under evil and sin. After all, we are believers, followers of Christ, forgiven and beloved of the Father, like you. Not perfect, mind you, but doing our best in an imperfect world. Again, like you.

That you and your wife have found peace and joy in your way of life is wonderful. I would never try to take that from you. Where I bristle is in the insistence of some that your way of life is the only right way for everyone, especially when I don’t see that backed up in the Scriptures against which I challenge all opinions.

Believe me, Mr. Mahoney, I see the beauty of God’s order. I live in peace with my husband and our growing family. That we don’t do things the way you and your wife do does not make us any less Christian.
on March 21, 2009 at 10:16 pm iamtheenemy

Anne,

I’m not really in a great rush to be against any way anyone lives.

One way is biblical another is not. I don’t actually even really like it – not what I would have chosen but God’s way works and that isn’t egalitarianism, as much as society taught me to love that, and as much as I did it early in my marriage.
on March 22, 2009 at 4:28 pm Anne

Dear Iamtheenemy,

You’ve presupposed that what you believe is true, so if anyone disagrees, we’re simply not biblical. But many of us, who read the same bible you do, have come to a different conclusion.

You know, I don’t know that I’m an egalitarian. I’ve never claimed to be an egalitarian. But I don’t believe that headship has to look the way that VFM teaches that it does.

And because of that, I’ve had my very salvation questioned.
on June 4, 2009 at 12:19 am Mrs. Webfoot

Oh, my! I read the whole thing. LOL Now this makes me laugh!

Sorry to bother you ladies.

I won’t take these comments so seriously. Sorry to have been offended.

This is pretty typical of all the times I have interacted with these women, except they’re usually telling it TO me instead of just ABOUT me… and writing me angry emails…

If you ever wonder why a person “joins the dark side”… Whatever side they are on, I don’t want to be on it.

They don’t want to be on “my side” either, so I guess we’re even.

Weird. Very weird, but not surprising at all.

Hey, I think you ladies are trying to get at the truth, so I pray that God will help all of us in that way. Just forget what I said, okay? I want it all to stay up. It’s priceless!

God bless,
Mrs. Webfoot
on June 11, 2009 at 6:25 pm deb

What an interesting thread. I stumbled here by mistake and really enjoyed reading all the comments. I will have to read through this site later.