I’m trying to think of a way to start this blog post out with a clever intro or a cute story.
It just won’t do.
I’m frustrated. I’m frustrated and disgusted.
Against my own better judgment, I visited a blog today where I had no business being if I wanted to keep peace in my own soul. I knew better, but I couldn’t stay away. I read most of the comments under a few blog posts and I straight up could not believe what I was reading.
A woman had commented looking for encouragement and advice in a somewhat desperate and ongoing situation. What she received in return by a number of commentors, certainly not all, was at best, unhelpful and condemning- at worst, hurtful and heavy-handed. She mentioned that she had difficulty with some aspects of Vision Forum-style patriarchy and was given “I don’t believe what ‘they’ teach- I just believe the Bible” in return.
How nice for you. Would that it be clear for the rest of us who actually wrestle with these ideas!
I came away from that discussion so sad and quite angry. A common thread I find in blogs that espouse patriocentricity is an attitude of superiority. Because they have the true knowledge of what “God’s Way” is, they seem to think they can speak however they wish to people and no one can answer back or question it. There is very little grace extended to anyone who disagrees, even in the slightest respect. Frankly, its snooty. I don’t know what else to call it.
I have news for you folks- there are complementarians and egalitarian feminists who believe the Bible to be the sole, infallible rule of faith and practice for the Christian. They hold Scripture in the highest regard. And they disagree with what you think it says.
But that doesn’t seem to compute with so many patriocentrists. Instead of actually interacting with ideas, they shut down the conversation with labels and easy answers like “you’re just indoctrinated by feminism” or “these ‘Christians’ say they believe the Bible, but we all know the truth.” Can we say “straw man”?
When you start a conversation with something like “I don’t believe what ‘they’ teach, I just believe the Bible,” you take away all chances for discussion. You are certainly implying that those who disagree with you disagree with God’s Holy Word and that is often not the case.
These blogs exist to supposedly encourage wives and mothers, but they spend so much time (at least in the comments) shooting others down. In actuality, I think they exist to encourage wives and mothers who think like they do. And if you dare disagree, you’re labeled as a “Christian”.
These are my impressions. I could be dead wrong… but doesn’t it behoove these people to take an honest look at they way they come across when people challenge them? Its not the teaching that bothers me as much as the attitude behind it. There’s such an attitude of superiority- it reeks through each and every word. And instead of actually considering what the dissenter is saying, these bloggers label or condemn or make new accusations. Its really disheartening.
I’m guilty of this too- not so much the superiority complex, but of not considering that an actual person is writing these comments. A person with a heart and a soul and feelings… May God help me in this area. I know that many anti-patrio blogs are guilty of the same kind of rudeness I see on pro-patrio blogs, but the attitude behind the rudeness seems to be different.
We don’t all have a monopoly on the truth. Instead of being an encouragement today, the blog I visited ruined my day because of the owner’s treatment of several commentors. Its such a shame. She may have many valuable things to say. She may be the nicest person I’ll ever meet, but I’ll never have the chance to know that because her attitude put me off so much that I never want to go back. Ever.
My impressions are not always right… my experience with Stacy McDonald has proven that to me… but how am I ever going to be proven wrong when the guns come out blazing every time there’s a disagreement?
Remember that old saying “What you are speaks so loudly, I can’t hear what you say?” or in the case of blogging “What you SAY speaks so loudly, I can’t see who you are”…
Perhaps we should all take that to heart.
Note from Anne: Please know that this is a subject that Jennifer and I have dealt with ourselves. When we started this blog over a year ago, we were all fired up about what we perceived to be wrong within the Christian Community. We were frustrated and upset and had a lot to get off our chests. Of course, we eventually realized that the people we most wanted to hear us, couldn’t. We realized that we needed to change our tone, because we really do care about our brothers and sisters-in-Christ and believe that this dialogue is vital in continuing to live out our Christian lives to their fullest. Any of us could be 100% right, but no one will be able to hear us if we can’t approach one another with a spirit of humility and love.
She mentioned that had difficulty with some aspects of Vision Forum-style patriarchy and was given “I don’t believe what ‘they’ teach- I just believe the Bible” in return.
I had trouble following what you said, because it looks as though a “she” should be inserted in the sentence between the words “that had.” If I mentally insert that word, the meaning I get is she said she had difficulty with what VF teaches, and was told by someone else, apparently, that “they” didn’t believe it VF either, just the Bible — but this was a patriarchal blog you said you were referring to. I don’t understand.
Could you please clarify what you meant?
It sounds as though the response to that comment was the person agreed with the first person — that they had problems with VF, too, and just followed the Bible. That doesn’t strike me as a “guns blazing” response at all.
A little simplistic, perhaps, but not a conversation stopper.
Hi, Lynn, I fixed Jennifer’s typo. You were right, the word “she” was left out.
The first woman stated her personal struggles in regards to VFM type patriarchy, which the post clearly taught. The author then went on to state that it wasn’t VFM style Patriarchy, but simply “biblical”. I can understand why it set Jen’s teeth on edge.
Honestly, I saw why some commentors there were frustrated with the poster, whom they saw as trying to publicly disrespect her husband. And of course, anyone reading would only have her side of the story. But that’s the limits of the blogosphere. We have to work with what we’ve got, and do the best we can.
Because a blog that’s there to encourage and uplift Christian women will not be able to do so if they make everyone who is struggling with the ideas they espouse, feel like the enemy. Tone and approach is vital.
Sorry about that.
The commentor said that she had problems with VF-style patriarchy.
The response from the blog owner was that she (the blog owner) didn’t follow what any particular person or group taught- she just believed what the Bible said about marriage/gender roles etc. She does follow VF, but she claims that, because she believes their teachings to be biblical, she’s not following their teachings at all, but the Bible’s teachings.
Does that make more sense?
And I do think its a conversation stopper. Have you ever heard the saying “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” ? How do you go one and have a conversation with a person who has an attitude like that. You’re right that its simplistic, but its so simplistic that you can’t interact with it. I could say the same thing about my own beliefs and then we have a wonderful war of attrition going.
Its just not helpful and I think it undermines people’s efforts to truly understand where someone is coming from. Am I just supposed to take her word for it about what the Bible says and go from there? I’m not asking anyone in particular… just throwing that out there to anyone who uses such a simplistic answer when someone comes at you with an honest question.
I have, countless times, attempted to engage that blog author in an intelligent conversation about her beliefs. It’s about as effective as teaching my dog to use a flush toilet. Remember, I come from a stance that admires the faith of others – my problem with that blog is that she is always claiming wrong information and then is stunned when anyone calls her on it. (Example: She claimed that abortion rates are rising in this country, when the plain fact is that abortion rates have gone down in the last ten years. And I have the statistics to prove it. The Pill does not, in fact, cause spontaneous abortions – that has been debunked – and birth control is not inherently “bad” for women. The Pill might not be good for you, the jury is out on that and I don’t use it, but there are plenty of barrier methods that do not harm anyone – including, by the way, condoms.) She is breathtakingly defensive, telling me in so many words that since I am not a Christian I couldn’t possibly understand and I should really just go away since I’m going to burn in Hell anyway; while simultaneously refusing to explain anything about her beliefs besides “the Bible clearly says.” In what language does the Bible “clearly” say? Does she have her hands on the only copy of the Original English Version? Yes, my feeble little Non-Christian mind just can’t handle the truth!
But the fact that she’s nasty to me doesn’t matter. I’m a heathen, right?
I expect her to be nasty to me. What pains me is that she is cruel and judgmental and yes, snooty to anyone who doesn’t share her EXACT brand of Christianity. That she allows her “followers” to be equally cruel. That she insists homeschooling and patriarchy is the only path to Jesus. That working outside the home is comparable to homicide, and that if you must do so – you really aren’t trying hard enough to come up with a home business! I think in this way she is doing a world of harm to other women who view her as some sort of Oracle. It’s just a car wreck over there. I just can’t look away.
But you’re right, Cally (I love your name!), I need to stay away from that blog because I’ve often been so riled up I can’t sleep after reading it. Sigh.
[For what it's worth, during Yom Kippur, Jews ask forgiveness from their fellow (wo)man and not from God. The reason is because God has no problem forgiving you - but you know, your fellow man is a little sticky.
I know it's not part of her faith, but I often think that something that blog author might want to consider every now and then. ]
Mother, I like you a lot!!
Which blog was this?
“She may be the nicest person I’ll ever meet”
Doubtful, Cally. You believe your impressions about Stacy Mcdonald were wrong because you spoke with her, engaged her in conversation, and she was pleasant and open. This blog author, in the EXACT same situation, was cold, judgemental and closed.
She does follow VF, but she claims that, because she believes their teachings to be biblical, she’s not following their teachings at all, but the Bible’s teachings.
Does that make more sense?
Yes, thanks. I misunderstood what you meant.
I realized this evening that this can happen with a political discussion as well. It’s kind of odd that as a homeschooling, crunchy conservative, that I was told I was “blind” and “ignoring the obvious” for stating that I was having trouble following the logic of an argument on a blog. I was even accused of viewing Obama as my “messiah”. Uh, no, only have one of those, thanks, and His name is Jesus.
But it’s the same rationale. They are acting as if what they say is presuppositionally correct. So there’s no room for anything but a high-five and a pat on the back.
It’s especially funny considering the point was homeschooling freedom. Something which I’m on the same side about.
It’s kind of bizarre.
Those women are wired to argue and in general cause trouble, IMO. ALL they virtually do is attack feminism; they’re terrified of it, and think far more of feminists than feminists do of them. They make these blogs and their friends visit them to do nothing more than high-five and congratulate each other on their more-feminine-than-thou doctrines. One would think that, for people who have everything that these women say women should have, they’d be a little happier and less bitter. But then, I forget: the VF’s pattern for life is not Godly and not fulfilling. The proof is in the rotten fruit their women cast at others.
Thanks for this post.
The most galling thing I read on one of these blogs was that the author claimed she “hurts with” those who are hurting.
That’s hilariously offensive. It’s impossible to hurt with someone when you are trying to prove them wrong. It’s impossible to empathize with someone struggling with VF teaching when the whole purpose of the post is to defend VF teaching.
It’s equally grievous when the author is being PAID by VF to advertise their books, CDs, DVDs, etc.
Isn’t that called a conflict of interest? At the very least, it disqualifies her as being able to “hurt with” the hurting.
Additionally, this author conflates VF teaching with God’s Word. Thus we have VF=God’s word. No wonder she shuts down questions. God has spoken! The end!
What I would like to know is: if VF truly speaks for God, are they also willing to pay the hospital bills of battered women? Because if following God’s ultimate purpose for our lives=living out VF teaching, some women are definitely experiencing what this author called “temporary suffering.”
Except they’re experiencing it in a hospital bed.
“What I would like to know is: if VF truly speaks for God, are they also willing to pay the hospital bills of battered women? Because if following God’s ultimate purpose for our lives=living out VF teaching, some women are definitely experiencing what this author called “temporary suffering.”
Except they’re experiencing it in a hospital bed.”
As a home schooling Christian stay-at-home mom, I want these questions answered too!
Why are the patrios not all about loving their wives as Christ loved the church, being the servant of all in their household (the only path to authority Jesus endorsed), nurturing and cherishing their wives as their own flesh?!?!
Then they have the gall to demand respect for childish immature selfish behavior (yes, I am talking emotional, verbal and physical abuse!) and if a woman tries to get help, they say she is not being respectful and she needs to keep secrets so her husband doesn’t look bad!
The Holy Spirit, whom Jesus called the Spirit of Truth, wants you to deceive people about who your husband really is behind closed doors? Are you serious?
What about Christ’s words that you shall know them by their fruits? Put aside falsehood and deal truly with one another? Any takers?
Okay, I think the steam is done coming out of my ears now…
Note: Feel free to discuss in the comments section, but Jennifer and I decided that we did not want this to be a place to ask questions of Stacy McDonald. Too often that’s turned into a bash fest, and we don’t want that to happen here. Thank you for understanding.
I’ve been trying to decide for a couple of days whether to say anything here or not. I’ve been at that blog, not because I always agree with her, frequently I don’t, but she reminds me of people I know in real life. I think the blogger in question for the most part is well-intentioned, and sometimes has beautiful things on her blog–she really values children, and that is inspiring.
That said, I was very frustrated with the same post. First of all, the inspiration for the post from a previous thread, was someone recounting things that sounded *at the very least* to be warning signs of some kind of abusive situation, and possibly outright verbal abuse.
Then, when some people made quite valid points that in an abusive situation sometimes submission will not look like submission looks like in a healthy situation, the blogger got upset and said that the post had nothing to do with abuse. Which considering the inspiration of the post, didn’t seem like an appropriate response. And giving that kind of advice to that situation (or the pieces that she knows about it, which don’t sound good) seemed irresponsible.
Before that post, someone asked the blogger for alternatives to spanking since both she and her husband had been spanked abusively. The blogger just offered that she only spanked for disobedience (and through inference, advised the poster to do the same). Again, that seems terribly naive–to tell someone to use a tool with which they have been abused, without taking into consideration the way that abuse is frequently passed down through families. In the same post, the blogger did not address an issue where a young mom offered that she punished her 16 month old for two hours for not saying please (though she later clarified what she meant on her own blog, and reframed it more as “teaching” than “punishing”), and several people on that post asked the blogger to speak as an older woman to a younger, and she did not. I feel like there was irresponsibility in ommission and commission in that thread.
That combined with creating a falsehood by altering a poster’s comment (as Mother of Dog wrote here) saddened me deeply. As a Christian, I’m embarassed that that happened to you, MoD, and I’m glad, looking at your blog, that you have other Christians who have interacted with you in a more healthy manner.
I don’t want to be gossipy here, and I actually try hard to avoid controversy, but the fact is, there is some irresponsible advice being given out at that blog (by the blogger as well as by posters) and at this point, I feel like even clicking on the blog is supporting her (as she has google ads, on top of the many, many other things she’s selling on the site, including a lifestyle!). I’m not sure what the right response is, perhaps it is an avoidance of the blog, perhaps it is openly evaluating the kind of teachings going on there.
I think that Christians on both sides of the egalitarian/complementarian divide need to speak out clearly against abuse and the kind of teachings that facilitate abuse. Complementarians and egalitarians can assert that Biblical submission should not facilitate sin. Saying no, going to proper authorities, and not encouraging sinful behavior through just passively accepting it can all be forms of Biblical submission.
And we need to be very careful about going beyond what the Bible teaches about submission, especially in a teaching situation (as this blog in question is) and especially to those who might be in a damaging situation. Don’t tell them that they’ve made their bed so they should lie on it (as one commenter wrote), but come beside the hurting ones in their particular situations and love them through it.
JoAnna, I think you make good points. I know that neither of us want a post like this to be a commentary on the character or motives of someone else. That, of course, is something we can only speculate about, and I’d like to believe she has the best of intentions, and a beautiful heart. The concern that Jennifer had, and to some degree I shared, was with the tone taken.
For me, I found the tone taken to be harsher with some of the commentors than with the blogger herself.
And I agree with you about abuse. Abuse can happen in all kinds of relationships. Complementarian, Patriarchal, Egalitarian, Christian, Jewish, Pagan, Atheist, it really knows no cultural, religious, or economic bounds.
I think people in positions of authority have got to be trained on what the warning signs are for abuse and how to help.
Which blog was this?
You know, it really doesn’t matter. Some people obviously know which blog Jennifer was talking about, but the point is the same regardless of which blog it was. We, as Christians, if we’re going to build one another up, have to do so with compassion and humility. Because it doesn’t matter if we’re right if the way we communicate makes it so no one can hear us.
Personally, I think avoidance is the best way to deal with it. I am convinced that arguing with these people is not fruitful. The people who want to believe them will regardless of what I say. I have hundreds of better ways to spend my time and I’m fairly certain that everyone else does to.
Well said Joanna.
I have news for you folks- there are complementarians and egalitarian feminists who believe the Bible to be the sole, infallible rule of faith and practice for the Christian. They hold Scripture in the highest regard. And they disagree with what you think it says.
But that doesn’t seem to compute with so many patriocentrists.
It also doesn’t seem to compute with some egalitarians when speaking of complementarians or theonomist patriarchalists, and of some complementarians when they speak of egalitarians and theonomist patriarchalists.
Right now I’m thinking of how often the word “heretic” is used, and I’m also remembering how some people I’ve become acquainted with online (both egals and comps) have been verbally savaged in online conversations – by both egalitarians and complementarians.
I couldn’t agree more. I’ve been thinking about writing a post about the word “heresy” and its overuse these days. Heresy is a serious charge and not something that your average person should be throwing around. Heresy says who? You? We don’t have the authority to make that kind of determination. This is why church councils are called. Are we really prepared to say that daughters serving as helpmeets to their fathers is on par with Pelagianism?j Errant teaching? Scripture-twisting? Yes. Heresy? No, not hardly.
I like the term “theonomist patriarchalist” (or theonomic patriarchalist?) a lot because that probably sums up the Vision Forum/Chalcedon Foundation lifestyle/agenda while distinguishing it from average patriarchy/complementarianism. Maybe I’ll start using that…
Anne, I totally agree that people need training to recognize abuse (especially those that are teachers), and should be very careful. The only problem with “boycotting” sites like that is that sometimes naive people go there, looking for good advice, and get entangled in the extra-Biblical lifestyle requirements. Some people–I have done this in the past–want to go there to give counsel and encouragement to those sorts of people. You see someone hurting, you see poor advice at times being given, and you want to speak up. Avoid or speak up? I don’t know what’s best.
I think that we should be very careful when using the word “heresy,” but there are some within the theonomic patriarchalist movement (love that term, very specific) who have offered things that are, I believe, heretical. I think we need to be very careful, though, to distinguish between doctrinal statements and lifestyle choices. Statements such as these, I believe are heretical:
1) that a woman has to go through a human male to get to God (nope, Christ fulfilled that role, and he is the *only* mediator between God and humankind).
2) reworking the nature of the Trinity to fit some kind of theory of gender relationships (I don’t remember exactly how this is formulated, but something like, Christ is ontologically lesser than the Father to support an idea that woman is ontologically lesser than man) (one way that this has been formulated is a hierarchical chart of Father-Son-men-women-animals, having women rank somewhere in between men and animals).
*applause* to joanna!
Lynn, Cally, I so agree. Let’s save heresy for full on heresy, not for those we simply disagree with.
Ladies, please. In all seriousness, if you don’t believe that treating a father as a holy intermediary is heresy, what WOULD you define as heretical?
I like the term “theonomist patriarchalist” (or theonomic patriarchalist?) a lot because that probably sums up the Vision Forum/Chalcedon Foundation lifestyle/agenda while distinguishing it from average patriarchy/complementarianism.
I like your idea – theonomic patriarchalist. It seems to describe both their patriarchy, and the theology it stems from. But I’m not completely satisfied. Isn’t Andrew Sandlin a theonomist? I know he distances himself from what he believes are the extreme legalisms of patriarchy.
I’m going to let Jennifer answer you, Manda. =) Personally, I think there’s a big difference between a teaching that’s wrong and unorthodox and heretical.
Manda’s question is what is called a “complex question.” You can Google that term if you want. Probably the most famous example of this type of question is, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
I believe there are distinctions between reconstructionists (with their bizarre revision of American history) and theonomists (who embrace a bizarre theological system). All Reconstructionists are theonomists, but not all theonomists are reconstructionists. What do you think, Lynne?
I don’t know enough about Reconstructionists to say one way or another.
“Have you stopped beating your wife?”
Ech. I see no resemblance. That certainly wasn’t a TRICK question, just so you know.
“I believe there are distinctions between reconstructionists (with their bizarre revision of American history) and theonomists (who embrace a bizarre theological system).”
If that’s your answer, Cally, I think I get what you’re saying. Thanks
Hi Manda,
Forgot to mention here last night that I answered your question on heresy in the new post above.
Manda, I didn’t think you were trying to trick anyone, and I just wanted you to know that an English grammar and logic expert I asked said it was more of a problem with equivocation than it was a complex question.
The reason I thought it was “complex” was because I would define heresy as a father being a “holy intermediary,” and it appeared to me you claimed Cally and I wouldn’t call that heresy when you said, “if you don’t think that’s heresy, then what is.”
We would call it heresy w/respect to salvation and prayer, confessing sin (in general, one’s personal access to God through faith), but AFAIK, none of the patriocentrists teach this.
I think Cally answered the question by defining how most Protestants view the term (especially Reformed). You may not define the term that way, I’m sure neither would Roman Catholics, but I tend to agree with Cally’s definition, and it appears to be the one we are operating under in this discussion.