“encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” Titus 1:9
In the past few weeks, I have repeatedly been reading online about gossip and slander. I would heartily agree that real slander, gossip, and libel against our neighbor is a violation of the 2nd great commandment. However, the implication has been that critiques, debates, and discussions are really acts of slander, libel, and gossip, particularly when addressing patriocentricity. (see the comments on my Amazon review of the Passionate Housewives book for a prime example of this.) Several times I have been personally (and have seen others as well) admonished to go to those with whom I disagree and begin a Matthew 18 process with them. I have been asked numerous times if I did that with any of those whom I have critiqued and if I have discussed my differences with them, seeking reconciliation.
This has been a strange suggestion to me, since what I have always understood that passage of Scripture to mean is that when another brother or sister in Christ has sinned against you, you are to go to them and tell them how they did so, hoping that they will confess that sin and make it right with you. I have been on both ends of that experience and always thought I understood it well. But, wanting to maintain a teachable spirit, and being really confused when I heard these admonitions, I went to my husband who shared a passage of Scripture with me and suggested I research this topic. The fruits of that research were so good that I wanted to share them with you. I know this is long for a blog entry, but I believe it is so important that it must be said.
I began by looking at Matthew 18: 15-17, which is the passage in reference. It says:
“If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.”
If you read this passage and look at the end result for the one who is not repentant of the committed sin, it is damnation. So, you would need to be certain that the person you are confronting in a Matthew 18 process 1) is a believer 2) is in a relationship with you 3) has sinned against you in a personal way and 4) that you are willing to take the matter all the way through to the excommunication process, which also implies church courts, written documentation proving sin, etc. (the ramifications of this and the procedures themselves differ among various denominations).
This is a very serious matter and as such, the offense involved must also be serious as well. It must be named as an actual sin in Scripture and you must be able to open your Bible and show them a sin they have committed against you. Just because someone has offended you does not mean that that person has sinned against you, no matter how angry they have made you. It does not mean that you can read their hearts, their motives, or assign sin to them, allowing feelings about them as a person to override the truth of God’s Word. And the sin must be worthy of taking all the way to the end process if necessary.
So, after I confirmed what I had known about the Matthew 18 process, I listened as my husband read Galatians 2 to me and suddenly I understood the confusion and the problem. Here is what he read:
“Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. As for those who seemed to be important–whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance–those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.
When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. “If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”
In this portion of Scripture, Paul approaches Peter and, in an act that would certainly be called slander and gossip and libel had he done so on a blog, opposed him in front of them all! And then, of course, he later told people all about it, in fact, the Holy Spirit continues to tell all believers everywhere that Paul did this, because it is written in the holy writ via a letter to the Galatians, God’s warning and an example to all of us!
You see, Peter was a public figure and one who had great influence. Paul knew that he had to make a public statement for three reasons: First, Peter, because of his influence, was leading many astray. Because Peter’s ministry was public, Paul’s rebuke also had to be public.
Secondly, Peter was teaching the gospel plus Jewish tradition. Rather than instructing the Jews that their personal system was of no value to them, Peter was teaching legalism, rendering the Gospel of grace ineffective.
Thirdly, Paul recognized that many people who desperately needed Jesus were seeing Peter’s hypocrisy. Peter was, in essence, saying “do as I say not as I do” and Paul called him on it. I think, on one level, Paul even had to have been terribly embarrassed for Peter.
And this brings us full circle to the reason why understanding the differences between applying Matthew 18 and Galatians 2 is so crucial within the homeschooling community. You see, those who are currently raising the subject of “online gossip and slander” of late are within the patriocentric camp. They know that they cannot win their debate in the arena of public discussion. They think if they can make a case for privately talking, one on one, where they can say anything they want, free from public accountability, they can continue to teach what they teach. Those of us who are challenging these teachings MUST keep the discussion within the sphere of public discourse, where each and every word can be seen and heard.
I believe this quote from Dr. Jay Adams, in his volume “Grist from Adams’s Mill”, addresses this illegitimate use of Matthew 18 in an attempt to censure public criticism:
“Any Christian who sets himself up as a teacher in the church of Christ and publicly teaches anything thereby opens himself up for criticism by others (cf. James 3:1). If they think what he is teaching is harmful to the church, they have an obligation to point it out just as widely as it was taught. Such public warning or debate on the topic should not be considered a personal attack at all. The teacher’s plea that a critic should first have come to him about his disagreement on the basis of Matthew 18:15 does not hold. This passage has to do with personal wrongs known only between the two, who should privately discuss the matter that separates them. What a critic of a public teaching does in pointing out his disagreement with that teaching has nothing to do with personal affronts or lack of reconciliation; he is simply disagreeing at the same public level as that on which the teaching was given in the first place” (pg. 69).
I would encourage you to continue to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel message in this day when patriocentricity is worming its way into the church of Jesus Christ. Be a Berean and do not grow weary of well doing!
52 Responses to slander, libel, and gossip, oh my! understanding the difference between Matthew 18:15 and Galatians 2
Leave a Reply
Be sure to visit Relationship Homeschooling on Facebook!
And you can learn about my thoughts on developing your own philosophy of education as well as finding the methods of homeschooling that work best for you and your children by
looking for my presentations on Home Educating Family's media site.
Join me on an adventure as we study through Chuck Swindoll’s book The Grace Awakening. Each Monday I will post some thoughts from a portion of the book and we will discuss them in the comment section, making special application for moms. (Dads and singles are welcome to join us, too!) You can purchase a copy of the book (there are lots of used copies available via Amazon) or it is also available on audio. I don’t want you to feel like you have to read along to join in the discussion; I want this to be as stress free as possible. But I know you will enjoy the book if you read it……understanding and embracing grace is life changing and many have found this book to be a great encouragement after coming through paradigm based ministries, including some homeschooling groups. Please invite your friends, I know you will be blessed!!! We will be starting on July 23rd!
Karen,
This is a very good post and it really makes a distinction between a personal offense and holding public teachers accountable for their words, deeds and actions. These are two totally different things.
These accusations are almost always used in order to silence a critique. They are tactics of an abuser and a bully.
The Matthew 18 police are the ones who are above following their own rules. They can criticize, critique and discuss any and all things under the guise of warning the brethren and protecting the flock. When others do the exact same thing with their teachings, they start to cry that they are being persecuted and the publicly garner sympathy for their “righteous” plight.
The Matthew 18 police are easily identified. They will constantly use this verse to get someone who is actually taking them up on their word to question and examine their teachings to shut-up. But, they are the first ones to use Matthew 18 in the most sinful and egregious and self-serving ways. Oh, they like to employ Matthew 18 alright and they have a long history of abusing this passage in scripture. But, it only goes one way in their system. No one else is allowed to “Matthew 18″ them and if you try, you will get great dissimulation. If you hit really close to the heart of the matter, you might even get threatened.
In other words, they do not like when the shoe is on the other foot or when people actually expect them to practice what they preach.
Jay Adams’ words are so very important to understand because he hits the nail on the head. As wide as the teachings are taught then that is as wide as the critique should go.
Karen,
I noticed on the Amazon of Passionate Housewives Desperate for God review that one of the responders asked you for page numbers to clarify some statements you attributed to the authors. When will those page numbers be forthcoming from you?
Lynda, I saw that comment on Amazon and, frankly, have no idea how to answer Christy. My one sentence assessment, which she quotes, is just that, my assessment, my critique and opinion of what i gleaned from the book. Obviously it was not a quote where Stacey and Jennie quote themselves. Her comment made no sense to me or to a couple of other people I asked for input.
If you want to ask me a question that I can answer, or reword what she was saying, I am happy to do so.
You posted this November 24th. Stacy posted about a related topic November 25th.
Seems she is reading your blog and just trying fervently to keep up.
Karen, I think you are saying that you gave an assessment, but I read it as a literal translation of what the authors of the book said. Her (Christy’s) comment made sense to me after reading your views on the book.
My question is along the same lines. Where in the book do the authors say that Christian women should live just like them? If it doesn’t specifically say that, perhaps it’s a stretch for us to put words into their mouths. Just a word of caution for you — you may interpret something a particular way, but clarifying that you are stating an opinion helps the reader. From the way you stated your comment, I thought it sounded like you were simply conveying what the authors said verbatim.
Perhaps if you can’t give page numbers and quotes you can clarify your position by saying that the authors didn’t exactly state this, but that’s how you read it.
HTH!
Karen,
Your post helps me to better understand the line of thinking that some public critics might use to justify their actions. However, there is a distinct common ground between Matthew 18:15 and Galatians 2 that I believe is being overlooked here. The common ground has to do with the relationship between Peter and Paul.
John MacArthur acknowledges this bond in comments he made on Matthew 18:15-20. He actually uses Galatians 2 as an illustration:
“Is there any illustration in the New Testament of this kind of discipline? Yes there is, in Galatians 2:11. After Peter had sinned in cutting himself off from the assembly of God’s people to identify with some legalizers, Paul confronted him: “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” Did Peter respond? Yes he did, because later on, he wrote in 2 Peter 3:15, “…even as our beloved brother, Paul….” Evidently, one reason they were able to have such a love bond between them was that Paul cared enough to be willing to confront Peter with his sin. Often, when you confront a person on a one-to-one basis, your hearts will be knit together.” Source: http://www.biblebb.com/files/mac/2331.htm
Galatians 2 can easily be viewed as an example of how Matthew 18:15 should look between two believers with a close relationship. Galatians 2 is not about Paul criticizing a public teacher that he had never met.
Now in terms of Matthew 18:15, did Paul go to Peter in private first? No, but he did go face to face with him. Even if he had gone to Peter in private first the result would have required a public correction just to get the other believers who had been led astray by Peter back on the right path. So the public admonishment of Peter was unavoidable. However, Paul did go face to face with Peter first before going about branding Peter as a sinner and heretic. Galatians 2 tells me that even when public admonishment is unavoidable, we still have a need to go to the brother in person so that the relationship can be restored.
With God everything is about relationships with Him and with others.
Hank, your take on this is interesting.
When someone places their beliefs into the public arena, such as when writing a book or on a blog, do you believe that a Christian can critique those views without it being considered slander or gossip? Just so I understand what you are saying…..
Absolutely, a “Christian can critique those views without it being considered slander or gossip”. BUT! Many Christians do not stop at critiquing views, but step over the line and attack authors personally. That is when critiques can easily become slander and gossip.
The Galatians 2 example is about serious errors in presenting the gospel. I believe that the heart condition of Paul was in line with James 5: 19-20. Paul’s intent was to bring Peter back in line. When Christians publicly criticize other Christians, they should ask themselves, “how will God be glorified through this critique and does my criticism fall inline with the Word of God?” There are plenty of non-believers and new believers who watch Christians “debate and criticize” each other to the point that it makes them sick and they turn from God. This perspective on the body of Christ does not glorify God in any shape form or fashion.
I think that Christian critics must also try to discern when enough is enough. Sometimes we just need to stop and ask ourselves what our true motives are and do these motives represent the will of God? James 4: 1-3 is a good reminder that we may need to stop murdering people with our words and simply submit the issue to God.
I personally believe in putting your name on your opinions. Trying to hide behind screen names and aliases is cowardly. I appreciate the fact that you clearly identify yourself and your husband on your blog.
Hank, I agree that there is a fine line sometimes between slander and critique and that is why I want to place my own name on what I write and also why I do not moderate comments. (I have, however, deleted comments that I believed crossed the line. This has only happened here twice.)
As far as discerning the seriousness of an error, I am not sure exactly how that is done. If something misrepresents Scripture, ie calling something sin that is not sin or not calling something sin that is sin, it should be addressed. As far as Galatians 2 is concerned, it appears to be the perfect example for holding those accountable who are teaching patriocentric views….it is done by those in leadership positions whose views are more well-known and respected than the rest of us peons; it was an issue of legalism, ie calling sin things that are not sin according to Scripture; Peter was being a hypocrite and leading others astray.
Hanks, I want to thank you for using your own name and being honest about who you are. Sometimes people need to be anonymous because of past painful experiences and I understand that. But there have also been times when people I recognized from their IP addresses posted here using fake names and I was embarrassed for them.
Oh, and thanks for the reminder to me and others that we must continually search our hearts for motives that are wrong. I appreciate that admonition. It is one reason my husband reads what I write here and together we edit the podcasts before they are aired. Accountability is a good thing.
Lynda, I think what you are asking me for is specific page numbers where Jennie or Stacy actually used the phrase I stated. There is no page number for that. i was not quoting them. I was, however, stating, in one sentence, what I personally gleaned from their book, using the background we all know about them from their articles, blogs, and other writings.
It is really a matter of if A=B, and B=C, then A=C. For example, if the book is published by Vision Forum, which also has an article posted by Jennie Chancey where she says that a woman working outside the home in any season of life is “sin” then am I out of line to assume that Jennie and Stacy both believe this, since Jennie is one of the co-authors and VF publishes the book? There is much discussion about this going on on the TW blog today. Comment number 235 explains it in a way I hope you can understand. Here is a link: http://truewomanhood.wordpress.com/2007/11/21/visionary-daughters-thread-3-karen/#comment-4787
Karen, I just think you have to look at the Vision Forum site (which endorses the book) or the VF catalog to see that the whole surrounding context of the authors and the ministry that endorses them also endorses a particular period in Western Civilization, namely, the antebellum South. I believe your remarks about the Western world was what Christy was asking about, and not having read the book, but having been to the VF site a lot, where they post Jennie’s articles and have advertised her before, I understood your expressed opinion quite well.
“I believe the Word of God to be sure and true and applicable to all people in all times and in all places. Jennie Chancy and Stacy McDonald attempt to Americanize and Westernize Scripture, imposing their own worldview onto passages like Titus 2, instructing all women that it is a Biblical mandate, foreordained before creation, to live just like them. ”
Lynda,
Here is what Christy, Stacy’s moderator for Patriarch’s Wives, asked Karen about.
It is true that we American Christians tend to filter God’s word through our own culture. We like to superimpose our ideal American family model ONTO the passage instead of the other way around.
“Where in the book do the authors say that Christian women should live just like them? ”
It isn’t stated in the book but, then again, if they actually wrote what they truly believed on all levels, people would not buy this book.
Of course they do not state that everyone must believe like they do in order not to get an honorary badge to the White Washed Feminist Club. Stacy has left the definition of a WWF nebulous enough because of this very thing.
Do you know what a WWF really is? Would it be anyone who disagreed with her definition and interpretation of just what biblical womanhood is?
She tells her readers in Passionate about this “clandestine form of feminism”:
“These feminists claim to hold Scripture in high regard, yet they do not accept the biblically defined role distinctions between men and women, and they reject male authority to varying degrees. While some “evangelical feminists” admit to their belief in the limited authority of the Scriptures regarding their role, others simply try to twist the Bible’s meaning to fit their lifestyle. This more subtle version of feminism is particularly dangerous due to its beguiling cloak of Christianity, because, at its core, it is no different than its “secular” counterpart. While its face may be more polished and its manifestation less extreme, in essence, it is nothing more than whitewashed feminism.”
She goes on to explain that some “whitewashed feminists” advocate the ordination of women in the church. Then she tells us that others who are weakened in their “feminist resolve by the unyielding truth of Scripture, rightly agree that women should not be ordained in the church”.
That last sentence describes me yet I do not feel “weakened in my feminist resolve to the unyielding truth of Scripture”. I don’t “claim” to have a high view of Scripture, I DO have a high view of scripture.
The word “white-washed” feminist to describe her sisters in Christ is derogatory, no? Is it necessary or helpful to those “white-washed feminists” that might be helped by this book?
She then goes on to tell us that these same women who agree women should not be ordained reinterpret scripture that teach the differing roles for men and women in the family. “Ultimately, they reject the wife’s biblical mandate to submit to her husband as her head.”
Whoa! Talk about subject! How does she know this? What does she base this on? I will tell you. Her own opinions. You see, it is HER own personal interpretation that is lifted up as the true and right way and those who differ from her in very minor issues that are issues of liberty in the Bible are described as rejecting a wife’s biblical mandate to submit to her husband as her head.
Does she bother to explain how these WWF’s reinterpret scripture that teach differing roles for men and women? No. She just makes the accusation.
I once posted on her blog. She asked me pointed questions about what I believed about male headship and women as pastors. I answered her forthrightly without evading any of her questions. She then said that we agreed on those parts. But, we do not agree on her eisegesis of passages in Genesis and Titus and Timothy and her extra-biblical rules on college, working outside the home and other issues.
This section of the book thoroughly describes me and others that she disagrees with concerning some of the specifics that falls under the umbrella of “biblical womanhood”.
She also said, months ago, that white washed feminists use, as their “buzz words”, the term “patricentricity and hyper-patriarchy”.
I will tell you that no one before Karen used the term patri(o)centricity. I remember when she introduced that term in a discussion and I thought it was brilliant because the term “patriarchalist” and “hyper-patriarchy” was too cumbersome and I thought that patriocentric summed up exactly what was wrong with these teachings. Father at the center, Jesus off in the distance and God in the backseat.
I have been studying this issue for almost a decade and I am WELL-versed in the terminology used in these discussions. As soon as Karen coined that term (kind of like Stacy coined the term “white-washed feminist” after), Stacy started using it as one of the signs that a person is a white-washed feminist. After someone confronted her about this, she said that this is a well-used term and she saw it on several blogs. Well, I searched high and low and all I could find was it being used by secularists in research papers and evolutionary biologists. Not one example of it being used on a blog discussion by egalitarians or what she refers to as “evangelical feminists” was given nor could I find one on my own.
if you have been watching, Karen posts something, then the McDonalds follow suit. It is a repeated pattern and very obvious to others as “anonymous” above pointed out.
So, when Karen says that those who don’t agree with Stacy’s brand of biblical womanhood, she is right. We have nothing more to go on than what we read. If she wants to make those kinds of statements, then she should have been more specific because she has left a lot of people wondering just what it is that makes a woman a WWF.
I was on Stacy’s PW list for a while and I saw the same thing over other issues. For example, the dresses issue or Sunday School/VBS/Nursery. Women were told that they were abdicating their biblical duty to care for their own children and teach them in the ways of the Lord if they put them in the nursery for one hour a week!
I remember when Beth Moore became the topic of conversation. It was said that she couldn’t possibly be a good wife or a good mother if she was traveling around and speaking and writing books! Ha!
But, there was one time where women were talking about how they slapped their children’s face for a discipline technique and I was outraged that not one of those moderators stood up and told those women they were wrong. They were teaching other women to do this and telling them how great it worked. I was ashamed. I would never brag about slapping my children in the face. That is a shameful thing and one that needs to be repented before the Lord.
I finally did and I was chastised for being “judgmental”. I then was written off-list by one of the moderators and told that face-slapping was just one of the many tools, as parents, in our discipline toolboxes and that I cannot be too dogmatic about how other people choose to discipline their children.
This was a Titus 2 list that I had a duty to stand up and teach these women that this was wrong. But, my Titus 2 advice was not welcomed. I have been a mother for over 22 years and I think I have something to say.
But, when women were gobbled up in a flurry of rebukes for sending their kids to VBS, I was told that I was judgmental for opposing face slapping as a discipline measure.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Let us finish with Stacy’s words on WWF’s:
“While the whitewashed feminist may Christ, she does not fully embrace the Scriptures- she picks and chooses which of Christ’s teachings she feels like following. This is dangerous indeed.”
I agree. It is dangerous. But, WWFs aren’t the only ones who do it. I see many things in the Bible that are not being practiced by those who claim to have a leg-up on the WWFs.
My conclusion? Feminism isn’t the problem. It is a symptom of a much bigger problem. I am working on something for my blog concerning this point.
About Christians debated Christians….I have a different take on that. I don’t think it makes unbelievers sick. I think that unbelievers are smarter than we often give them credit for. I think they appreciate that there are Christians who tackle the hard issues and who do not fall into that lockstep mentality that infects so many believers.
If you do a Google search on these issues, it will make you cry. They are pointing out the things that we, the Church, should be exposing. They, the unbelievers, are doing our jobs for us. The can see through all of this stuff and when we ignore it, it just makes them all the more hardened towards Christ.
“(I have, however, deleted comments that I believed crossed the line. This has only happened here twice.)”
Karen,
And these were posts from people who were agreeing with you.
Hi, Hank! *grin* Glad you’re still reading my blog!
Hi Tulipgirl,
Glad to see you read this post. *grin*
corriejo,
Thanks for your response. It sounds like you’ve been hurt, and honestly, you do sound bitter. I’m sure that being hurt has made you want to crusade against a cause that you feel is wrong, but I honestly can’t understand why it’s wrong for women to believe the Bible says something and to want to encourage other women along the same lines? Isn’t that what Karen and ladies such as yourself are doing? Should we not honor and respect even those who we feel are shoving their philosophies at us?
I also was on the PW list when the slapping incident came up. It was not approved in any way by the moderators of the board. I think we ought to represent them as we ourselves would want to be represented – fairly. I e-mailed moderators personally regarding the issue and they were completely against the slapping technique for discipline.
Thanks again!
Lynda,
I must have missed something. Could you please quote where Corrie said she was bitter and hurt and that those were her motivations for standing against patriocentricity?
thatmom, can you quote where Stacy and Jennie say that everyone should be like them?
Lynda,
This is the only thing that you got out of my post was that I was “bitter”? That is a typical “go-to” button for people who really do not want to talk about the issues but just want to stir the pot. This is what Gothardites are trained to do when someone disagrees with them. This is evidence of being programed.
I quoted a lot of material that was in an effort to answer YOUR questions. Please email me and I will give you my phone number and you can speak to me in person and you can better judge whether or not I am “bitter”. I would warn you against the measuring stick you are using, though, because it will be used against you.
Sister, you have maligned me and falsely ascribed things to me that are not true. Why not go and call Stacy and Jennie “bitter” since all they do is rail against the so-called “feminists”? Why not charge them with bitterness when they share their stories about college and about life experiences? Why not accuse them on being on a crusade because of their hurt and bitterness? Your response was uncalled for and it shows much more about you than it does about me. You have to go ad hominem instead of keeping it in the realm of ideas.
“I also was on the PW list when the slapping incident came up. It was not approved in any way by the moderators of the board. I think we ought to represent them as we ourselves would want to be represented – fairly. I e-mailed moderators personally regarding the issue and they were completely against the slapping technique for discipline.”
Really? Who said something publicly about it besides me? You? Which moderators said something publicly? Was it after I left the list and I had written an email telling them that this is an abusive practice and they should in no certain terms say so publicly so readers do not get the idea that they approved? Do you know how many emails I received thanking me for standing up against such things and how frustrated women were that no one else would? Did you also get the private emails I received from the moderators? It sounds like you are calling me a liar? If they were completely against it why did I get an official moderator email telling me that it was one of many tools we can use and I can’t make a firm judgment on the practice?
Well, it looks like I will have to drag out my floppy drive that contains the private emails from the moderators and I will post them publicly. Would you do me a favor? Please, from the archives, send me the posts concerning that thread. Especially make sure you show where the moderators stepped in and put a halt to this and made sure everyone knew that this was an abusive practice, with time stamps. I will show you the emails I received where it tells me that this was an acceptable practice and only one of the many tools we as parents have available to us.
Since you have publicly accused me of lying, Lynda, you, at the very least, have the duty of providing me with the evidence that I am wrong.
I am representing this as fairly as I know how. And if you are so concerned about representing people fairly, then your accusations hold no proof to that assertion.
Hi Lynda,
“thatmom, can you quote where Stacy and Jennie say that everyone should be like them?”
They don’t say that, that would be silly. These teachings in Passionate are like an iceberg. You only see the tip in the book. What lies below the surface is much larger.
That is why I went through all of that effort to try and show you why Karen may have said that. I know we kind of got derailed by all the talk of “bitterness” and that is unfortunate but it is effective in getting a discussion off what it is focusing on.
You see, those who don’t believe like they do are guilty of redefining scripture, picking and choosing, denying wifely submission and husbandly headship, etc. So, now, they don’t say that you have to be like them but if you are different they put you in the WWF category.
Does this help you to understand why people might get the impression they do about their teachings? I really want to try and help you see the bigger picture.
God Bless!
p.s. I have my old floppy drive out, I am reinstalling Tiger so I can use the Classic OS 9 environment and then I should be able to post the letter from the moderator among the other posts in that thread. Thank you for getting the information for me on your end!
Dear Sister Corrie,
I have no such duty to prove you are lying. I will not become entangled in the trap you set. I am sorry for your unhappiness and that much of your time is spent on this crusade against your brethren. This is a never-ending mess (apparently). I feel that your heated response has proven my theory.
May God bless you and pour His mercy and grace upon your life!
Lynda,
So you accuse me of lying and of being bitter but you do have no such duty to prove that I am a liar? And then you accuse me of setting a trap?
Wow……..
What heated response? Am I missing something here? I am sitting here typing as calm as can be, so I am not really sure what you are saying. I did ask you to email me and then I will give you my phone number so you can call me but it doesn’t seem you will do that?
You are correct this is a never-ending mess.
I spend no more time on my “crusade” than Stacy and Jennie et al spend on their “crusade”.
Thank you for your prayers and blessings.
Well, actually, Lynda, I think if you believe Corrie is lying or setting a trap for you, you need to go to her privately and address that. If you find you were wrong, which I believe you will, then you should come back here and post your apology to Corrie.
Lynda, you also stated that this is a “never ending mess.” Actually, I believe that, as people learn the truth of the patriocentric teachings and their effects on families, especially innocent children, many will turn away from these ideals and will choose to build God-honoring one anothering relationships within their homes.
Here’s a suggestion for future podcasts. I suggest this with sincerity. Instead of your continued pursuit into what *some* may call gossip and slander, and you define as “encouraging others by sound doctrine”, why don’t you ask to interview Stacy or Jennie to ask about their beliefs?
Instead of talking about them for two weeks with a third party, why not ask them if they believe or teach the litany of things brought up in your posts and comments?
Hi Karen,
I think that’s a great idea! I spoke to Jennie and we’re both more than willing to speak with you on your podcast about Passionate Housewives! Perhaps we can clear up some misunderstandings. Just give me a call and we’ll schedule it!
Oh, oh Stacy is up to getting recruitments. I have seen that before. She sets her sight on something and will relentlessly play the victim. Now she wants free PR. What’s wrong all those other podcasts haven’t given her the sales she wants?
I suggest Stacy get offline and raise the family God has given her and when they are older she can come online and defend the teachings. I am an older woman and have more time, but for the life of me I can’t even figure out how she has time to write a book far less come online and read comments.
Karen and Stacy and Jennie, I am SO encouraged to hear this idea of you three speaking together on a podcast. I think this may be able to bring a little healing where it is sorely needed right now. Please do a podcast together. I believe that would glorify the Lord.
As far as I’m concerned a podcast would be an “ungood” way of dealing with a couple of issues, and I’ll name one. Jennie said on the VF site that wives who work outside the home for pay are in sin according to Titus 2, and Stacy does not think that all working wives are in sin. I’ve heard everyone from Gothard to people VF endorses (not Stacy or Jennie, but others) compare working women to harlots, using that Proverb Gothard gave so long ago (her feet never stay at home). So — like so many others, I wonder what the real take is on the issue from those who are sympathetic to VF and IBLP’s bents.
Apparently Stacy doesn’t teach this about working wives, or at least, I haven’t heard her teach this.
I would rather, instead of hearing this seeming contradiction (and others) hashed out in a podcast, see some kind of statement from Jennie and Stacy as to just what they really think at this particular point.
Reason being — because the differences in what I have read from both of them confuse me and I’d rather see something in written form than take notes from a podcast and try to outline it that way. Writing is just easier to deal with to make things clear.
Just my 2 cents.
Lynda, Corrie isn’t bitter; I have always known her to be a caring person to me, even when we’ve had our disagreements, of which there have been a few.
Karen, I just read Jen’s comment. If you ever do something like this, a panel where you have people like, say Don Veinot and Spunky with Jennie and Stacy, and you can interview all of them and they could do a point counter-point kind of thing would be very interesting.
Oh one more thing. I noticed Karen has graciously allowed Stacy to post which is something the McDonald’s don’t allow (they moderate and read all the comments before allowing them to post. I think I know of at least two women who can’t post on their blog, but I think it may be more). So, they muzzle people and then come here and post knowing a blog search engine will find their name and see them offering to do a podcast for more free PR (and an effort to look good to the public, why else the offer so publicly). That’s why it’s important we have a blog like this so we can post without the muzzle other blog owners like James and Stacy McDonald use (sorry, I have to use their names so a blogsearch will show up with the truth about why blogs like this are important for freedom of speech, and how comments on certain patriarchal blogs are being suppressed by the owners who only allow certain comments. A discussion and communication is two-way, and I don’t appreciate censorship. I fell it’s a form of bullying under the guise of protection. At my age I don’t need protected).
If income from her book is this important then something is wrong with the whole picture with the faceless passionate housewife. How can it be wrong for others to bring in income, but alright to fly all over the country and spend so much time writing, or promoting, or speaking at conventions, and all the other duties of homeschooling, housework, and church? If we are spending just as much time online, and other things then we find ourselves living in opposition to the very message we want to make money off of. This is not the picture of a content housewife.. Does the way they live exemplify their writings?
As I have shared before the feminist movement gave Jennie and Stacy the freedom they enjoy to fly around doing podcasts and conventions. I am against the feminist movement, and the fruit has not been good, but I have to admit that in some areas it forced men to be more involved, and it gave women the freedom to become involved outside the house as both Jennie and Stacy seem to enjoy very much.
Blessings!
Karen wrote:
“Actually, I believe that, as people learn the truth of the patriocentric teachings and their effects on families, especially innocent children, many will turn away from these ideals and will choose to build God-honoring one anothering relationships within their homes.”
I wish I would have read Karen’s blog and truewomanhood and these very discussions on the patriocentrist lifestyle when I was struggling with it several years ago. I put my family through a lot of crazy legalism. Praise God He reminded me of the Gospel and that it was for freedom that Christ had set me free!
These two blogs have been an encouragement for me, and a haven of sanity in the midst of strong “Men’s and Women’s opinions”. We’ve got seminars coming out our ears with some of this “how-to-live-a-biblical-life” stuff, but little “real” dialogue based on Bible study to know what we ought to believe according to the Word.
I believe Corrie to be someone who truly seeks after the truth in matters, after interacting with her for a while now. Her response was factual and clear, to me, and I appreciated her sharing her experience with us to show how the — for lack of a better term — psychology of people when they latch onto certain ideas/ideals.
I also believe Karen to be gracious, courteous and very fair in her approach of these hard subjects on her blog and podcasts.
This blog has made me dig into the Word more. Let’s keep our swords sharpened and our hearts afire with love for Him and each other. May God bless each one as they seek Him.
This is quite complicated for a number of reasons.
First, consider that patriarchalists and other Evangelical Christians outside of their system cannot even agree on the proper use of the term of the neologistic twist on the title of patriarchy. To me (and many others who have taken the pains to study the topic), I don’t even believe that the Vision Forum model of patriarchy is Biblical. There have been plenty of opportunities for Jennie and Stacy and others to discuss these differences both online and offline.
I have attempted to get straight answers from many of those affiliated with Vision Form, and the only person that would correspond with me at all (including ministries that I’ve supported for many years) was Chris Ortiz. My letters to him appear on my website and detail my issues with his outspoken support of Doug Phillips. He did write a thoughtful response to me that touched on only a few issues, primarily the Epstein issue. He did answer some of my questions, but he used the Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy as support (a document that I believe exemplifies a great deal of the problem). He dismissed the other writings that I sited, stating that they were unsubstantiated. He cited that other respectable Christian groups supported Doug. He stated that Doug and family have treated him marvelously. Then he (re)stated his low esteem of the Epsteins. He did not address my specific concerns about the spiritually abusive characteristics of the Vision Forum system which was the main crux of my correspondence.
When I responded to Chris Ortiz via email, in the interests of honesty and to avoid the risk of gossip, I copied the email to all those mentioned therein with whom I had a personal relationship. (At a CP meeting, since Doug would not even make eye contact with my husband, seated at the same small conference table for two days, I assumed that we have no relationship. We are deemed non-normatives.) When Chris saw that I had copied the emails to the parties that were discussed in the email, he refused further contact with me. The one person to demonstrate the most accountability did not address my main concerns, but he did acknowledge that he had likely not addressed them to my satisfaction. I’m very grateful for his respectful kindness to me, as I have been most critical of someone with whom he shares friendship and critical of him for what I see as avoidance of the critical issue – the spiritually abusive nature of patriarchy (synonymous with “cultic” per the cult exit literature). I believe that we both walked away from the exchange with great disappointment.
The recent exchange with Don Veinot and notable figures in patriarchy has been less hopeful, I think. In response to the MCO journal article, Veinot states that he had a very pleasant conversation with Brian Abshire, but the written correspondence has been very different in nature. Vision Forum was so accusatory and inflammatory, that I’ve been following their adversarial lead. So although Jennie and Stacy may wish to create the illusion of peace, the real antagonism has already been staged by the leader of their publishing house / Para church organization president-friend. Before the little guys on the front lines can get together, there needs to be some kind of directive that demonstrates that those who oppose their views will be treated with respect. That has yet to happen in written word. I think that it would then be very unwise to have even more intimate contact such as in the immediacy of a personal interview.
I think that a degree of trust must be built between those who ascribe to patriarchy and those who do not. When people like Gary DeMar and Chris Ortiz agree to review information on spiritual abuse and cultic behaviors in patriarchy, then I think that everyone will have a greater degree of trust. When Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware can sit down with Kevin Giles and Cheryl Schatz and debate without being abusive, then I think we can start to have better relationships with one another. (I mention them because I was a long-time supporter of their ministries and am no longer because of the increasingly aggressiveness of the patriarchalists.) And I think we need to have some good moderators when discussing these things. We need someone with a good ability to moderate between those who have a more fundamentalist/foundationalist approach and those who do not. One of the first people to pop into my mind is Greg Koukl. I don’t know that he does that sort of thing, but he is someone (one of the few) that I believe could be a great moderator.
So Stacy, consider this and approach Doug Phillips with this suggestion. Doug does a great deal of roaring and showing teeth to his critics. I have documentation of several whom leaders in patriarchy have threatened with legal action in the civil arena. When the big boys start demonstrating some reasonable trustworthy respect of those who are contending for their faith (just like Doug and VF does), then we can make some reasonable and meaningful progress towards peace.
Stacy, you can cry “peace, peace, peace” all you want. There is none, and the adversarial spirit originates at Vision Forum. They set the tone. They have to demonstrate that they are willing to change the tone. And it’s going to take some work. Trust building is a difficult thing, especially if we are planning to take sweet counsel together.
I made a couple of cut and drag errors in my prior post, but I think that my point was communicated well enough. I also want to clarify that I have not ever supported Wayne Grudem or Bruce Ware. It popped into my mind that the gender debate was another excellent example, so I went back and inserted that comment. I have however purchased materials produced/authored/sold by all the other individuals mentioned. (And I bought used copies of Ware and Grudem related books so as to purposely not see them benefit financially.)
And I’m sorry for sounding harsh, if indeed I have. But honestly, would anyone who falls into the cancerous evil of feminism category(quote Lancaster) per VF want to sleep in the bed next to some of the more verbal people in the VF camp? I do not want to be placed in any type of vunerable position. Why? Because of the history of both verbal aggression and action on behalf of leaders in patriarchy. I’ve been called a Canaanite. Israel was commanded to kill the Canaanites. Is that peace? If it is, then we’re all in far more serious trouble.
Be honest, transparent, non-adverarial in your writings and in all your interpersonal and private dealings. Then we can talk about working toward peace.
About people being bitter. I believe with all my heart that I am not bitter: my heart neither convicts nor condemns me and I have confidence before God that this statement is true.
I am angry about all the avoidance and passive-aggressive, back-handed commentary, lack of respect, cronyism and pretense that goes on as a consequence of this debate. And having been raised in an environment where the God-given gift of anger was improperly deemed a sin, I’m not all that experienced. I miss the mark quite a bit, but I am determined to grow in character and virtue. It seems that I’ve been thrown into the deep end and am learning to swim, so to speak.
But never, never, never will I sell out to the illusion of peace, civility and “love” in favor of doctrinal error. This issue is a doctrinal one, down to the very core. I’m angry and for good reason, considering that I believe that I am contending for matters of Biblical Authority. I contend that much of these things are declared Biblical when they are not. I would rather risk accusation of bitterness and stumble in that area than wink at salvation by works as a Reformed Biblical truth. And that, at it’s core, is what is being contended here. (Not to mention the Diety of Christ issues which men far greater than I have yet to resolve.)
There has been a lot of clamoring for both sides to come together and talk. Stacy and Jennie have graciously agreed to do that. It is not fair to them to assume the worst of their motives — for pure monetary gain. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and give them a fair, honest interview. This is, after all, what we have been asking for.
Karen, considering the sheer magnitude of conducting such a podcast, may I recommend that you have someone co-interview with you? I think two heads might be better than one in this situation.
Regarding Corrie, considering that she is one of my very dear friends (with whom I have had my share of disagreements as well), I can assure you, Lynda, that she is NOT bitter. Corrie is deeply concerned for the truth — on all issues. She is so serious about the truth that she is willing to go to a lot of extra trouble to make sure that the truth is heard. I admire that in her and wish more people were so dedicated to the truth.
I am with Lynn. I think a written statement clearly answering the questions that have been asked would be good at this time. Then, when that is out in the open, a podcast might be a great idea! I have baking and Christmas shopping and painting to do, so I am very glad to give up my seat to Jennie and Stacy.
I have already asked, twice, Stacy to explain how she decides when a woman can work outside the home and when a woman can go to college and what are the criteria she uses to judge whether that woman is within the prescriptive will of God and when she is rebelling against her role to be in the home. I have not received an answer yet. I think this is an important question to answer because it seems when others posit that a woman can work outside the home and a woman can go to college, they get accused of being a WWF or someone who is trying to redefine scripture’s roles for women.
I don’t think this is about misunderstandings at all. Clearly the writings speak for themselves and from what I see, people are reading what has been written just fine.
The confusion comes into play when people are trying to decide who believes what. The McDonalds vociferously defend the Botkin book which paints college girls as harlots but then Stacy states that the question about college girls being harlots is even too offensive to address. Well, the Botkins said it, we didn’t.
It really would be quite simple to clear these things up. Instead of responding as if people are pulling these things out of thin air, just state that you disagree with the Botkins on this point.
Jennie teaches that women who work outside the home are in sin and rebukes Pastor Andrew Sandlin very severely for expressing his view that it isn’t sin. Stacy says it is not sin but then teaches in other places that working outside the home and going to college are not what the Bible allows for women. Again, the confusion isn’t on our end, nor are there misunderstandings. What we are asking for is clarification.
Also, the term “white-washed feminist” needs to be explained so that it is not so nebulous. Just what constitutes a WWF? Stacy explained that the buzzwords of a WWF are “patricentricity” and “hyperpatriarchy”.
There are many of us who use those words quite frequently. It isn’t a stretch at all In Passionate Housewives, Stacy explains that a WWF can even believe that women should not be ordained but because they are weakened in their feminist resolve they redefine other passages concerning the roles of women. This term really needs to be fleshed out and there needs to be some firm guidelines on who Stacy sees as a WWF. Maybe an example of two of real live WWF leaders and some samples of a WWF’s teachings?
Those are my thoughts as far as questions I would like answered.
Corrie:
I have already asked, twice, Stacy to explain how she decides when a woman can work outside the home and when a woman can go to college and what are the criteria she uses to judge whether that woman is within the prescriptive will of God and when she is rebelling against her role to be in the home. I have not received an answer yet.
Oh, Karen, I must have missed that from Corrie. If Stacy isn’t willing to answer questions like this that would surely come up in a podcast, I don’t know what good that would do. This just doesn’t sound right.
You know that on my blog I’ve written 3 detailed entries about Jennie’s view of working wives. I know she claims the Scripture teaches it is sinful. Stacy, apparently, doesn’t agree. It is confusing.
Stacy, I think the upfront thing to do would be to answer Corrie’s questions first, and thatmom, I would’t do this kind of podcast unless it could be a panel with you interviewing Stacy, Spunky, Don, and Jennie, or some such configuration.
But to be honest, I’ve heard James Dobson do this kind of thing with young earth creationists and old-earthers, and it degenrated into somewhat of a bitter emotional exchange that OUGHT to have remained private and been dealt with that way. So this kind of thing could be a minefield. Just tread carefully, and if any of these women have not answered private questions, I’d wait until these matters could be cleared up.
Lynn and Corrie, this is the perfect opportunity to have Jennie and Stacy answer these questions. If they have previously refused to do so, here is a golden opportunity to get this issue settled. Both sides claim to be godly women. I would expect charitable behavior from everyone at all times.
Lynn, your panel idea is a very good idea. I firmly believe Karen shouldn’t do this one alone.
Podcast interviews/debates can be very tricky indeed. Frankly, I think that if Stacy really wants to clear up any misunderstandings generated by her book, she will do so in writing. It would be rather silly, after all, for a published writer to claim, “But I explain myself so much better verbally! Writing just isn’t my thing! I know — you should invite me on your podcast!”
Having been ’round the mulberry bush, so to speak, with these sorts of disagreements and even with Stacy herself, I tend to be a bit wary of people inviting themselves on others’ podcasts, radio programs, homeschooling panel discussions, home meetings, churches, and even dates with husbands! Often it is done just so that the person attempting to intrude can then take the high road and say, “Well, I graciously offered to go on her radio program/preach from his pulpit/accompany them on their anniversary dinner but I was rebuffed. I guess they really are bitter and uninterested in Christian unity. Just goes to show how sinful their motives are!”
But, if you try to avoid this sort of baseless accusation and accept the “gracious offer” (e.g., “I’m doing you a big favor by allowing you to host me!”) it has been my experience that little good comes of it. Answers that were refused in writing are even less forthcoming in person. Instead, the same sort of personality trait that results in people seeing nothing wrong with inviting themselves as guests also sees nothing wrong with seizing control of said podcast, radio program, pulpit, dinner table discussion, etc. Any attempts by the host to bring things back on target (“Tusnelda, we agreed that we would discuss X, Y, Z.”) will only result in Tusnelda insisting on discussing her agenda while chiding you for “attacking” her by expecting her to answer your questions. Then all of Tusnelda’s friends and admirers will listen to said podcast, radio program, homeschooling panel, etc., and say, “Tusnelda was so gracious and godly while that other women kept harping on something that Tusnelda shouldn’t even have to answer. I’m so glad she didn’t dignify the other woman with a response. It was so obvious who was bitter, ugly, mean, rude, etc.”
It’s a no-win situation, and Stacy knows it. If she was interested in true dialog, and in actually clarifying the controversy surrounding her book, she would have already issued a written statement answering the questions she has been asked. Actually, she would have made her book more clear to begin with.
If I were Stacy, trying to sell books (why write a book if you don’t want to sell it?) I would love for Karen to give me free publicity. Even if no one in the world listened to the podcast, I’d love being able to tell people, “Yes, even Karen asked me to be a guest on her podcast.” I wouldn’t have to lie…not directly…to imply some sort of endorsement or, at the very least, a lack of significant disagreement with the book.
Peacemaker, Corrie and I have no intention of “talking about them for two weeks.” We will be reviewing Passionate Housewives and other writings they have done that shed light on quotes from their book.
I have addressed the request from Stacy on the new thread entitled “a little podcast history”
I do not have time to read all comments so if this has been said, forgive me.
This is the best explanation of Matt 18 I have seen. Matt 18 has been used as a hammer in many Christian organizations including churches. I have seen it over and over.
You give some insight that is very important. The person must be a real BELIEVER and you must be in relationship with that person. The offense is sin and you must be able to show that it is sin.
There are some other examples in scripture such as John calling out Diotrephes in a letter for all to see.
But the we also see Paul and Baranabas separating over a disagreement. They go their separate ways. Yet neither one was damned over it. That should tell us something.
We need to get a grip on the application of Matthew 18 and quit using it as a hammer. We are responsible for how we use God’s Holy Word.
What is spoken or written by a Christian is fair game for critique in love. It is not gossip or slander to point out wrong teaching or wrong views.
Even where the scriptures are not clear, it is not wrong to discuss another view. We must be Bereans and drive the discussion to scriptures as a whole, in context were it belongs.
I would like to link to this from my blog. This teaching is excellent.
For those who want to buy the book, Passionate Housewives at a discount you can go to CBD. There are three good feedbacks on the book. If you purchase the right amount Old Schoolhouse magazine had a coupon code for 10% off. Or you can just wait and buy it on the clearance rack!
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product/644603705?item_no=455415&netp_id=510014&event=ESRCN&item_code=WW&view=details
Charles Spurgeon said:
At any rate, cost what it may, to separate ourselves from those who separate themselves from the truth of God is not alone our liberty, but our duty.
I have raised my protest in the only complete way by coming forth, and I shall be content to abide alone until the day when the Lord shall judge the secrets of all hearts; but it will not seem to me a strange thing if others are found faithful, and if others judge that for them also there is no path but that which is painfully apart from the beaten track.
“Attempts at the Impossible”
Sword and Trowel
December 1988
Reproduced at http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dg12.htm
As quoted in Elliott’s “Christianity and Neo-Liberalism” published by the Trinity Foundation
Pingback: questions for Stacy on being a keeper at home « thatmom
Wow – what an outstanding blog post. I was just recently directed to Stacy McDonald’s blog and was appalled at much of what I read there. My wife and I have posted some things on our blogs about some of the things she has said. In our personal discussion about all of this, we kept getting back to the Galatians 2 story of Paul confronting Peter. How fortuitous (providential) that I would then find this post today.
I would like to post the entirety of your blog entry on my blog, with your permission. I will credit you and provide links to your site, but would like the full text to be right there so my small readership may benefit from your thoughts.
You may see what I have commented on so far at: By His grace – For His glory and what my wife has written at The Chosen Child.
I will not post the full text without your permission. Thank you for your wise words and encouragement.
Richard,
Please feel free to post this on your blog/blogs. And also know that you and your wife are welcome to join the discussion here anytime!
Thanks for your permission. I plan on cross-posting this on my blog tomorrow (Monday, March 17, 2008). And I will be back here for further discussions. I’ve already bookmarked this site and directed my wife to it.
Have a blessed Lord’s day today!
Pingback: Matthew 18 vs. Galatians 2 « White Washed Feminists
Pingback: more thoughtful articles from sonlight’s johm holzmann « thatmom