Saturday, November 13, 2010

A Nip and Tuck (TSGA part 7)

The latest re-invention of Steadfast Daughters.

So, now Abigail loves Jesus, we have this "Christendombuilder" character (who many believe is fairly easy to identify), and an article which has nothing whatsoever to do with QDs from James McDonald. We also still have Stacy's review of Quivering Daughters, replete with condescending attitude and the body language, even if in type, of someone with no interest at all in any kind of reconciliation.

What we still lack is a complete and specific definition of reconciliation. Not Webster's. Steadfast Daughters'. I think the folks over at SD know that a genuine explanation and definition of reconciliation (from their perspective) would result in an abomination of desolation, with QD readers (and most others with minds of their own) fleeing for the hills to get away from it. Most cults operate this way, avoiding specifics that may steer people away.

James' article is confusing. Not the text so much as the context. I don't know of too many escaped QDs in unhealthy or unhappy marriages. I don't know of too many escaped QDs in power struggles with their husbands. So just what the heck is/was the point of his article? To reinforce the idea of submission and authority? It isn't like we don't already understand it to be their god. It's a shame that their message of "faith" is such a one-trick pony, and that they can't separate a simple, simple, simple gospel of relationship with Christ from the message of authority and submission.  Christ is an afterthought. I just can't understand the utter obsession with authority structures when everything Christ ever said about authority turned all human conceptions of authority structures totally upside down. Christ didn't leave a lot of gray area - "You want to be in charge? Then be the lowest on the totem pole and be a servant." A servant doesn't take offense or deal out retribution when his or her "rule" isn't followed.

From James' article, among the very few words dedicated to children obeying parents...

When we are taught as children to honor our parents, we are better able to honor authority in other jurisdictional spheres; and ultimately, we are better able to honor the Lord. The Westminster Larger Catechism demonstrates the extension of this principle:
Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?
By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, (Prov. 23:22,25, Eph. 6:1–2) but all superiors in age (1 Tim. 5:1–2) and gifts; (Gen. 4:20–22, Gen. 45:8) and especially such as, by God’ s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, (2 Kings 5:13) church, (2 Kings 2:12, 2 Kings 13:14, Gal. 4:19) or commonwealth. (Isa. 49:23)

Whenever I hear the word "catechism", I think an episode of "Tales from the Crypt" is about to break out. I think of musty, dark chambers, dim, heavily dripping candles, and cobwebs everywhere. I think of people who've surrendered their own Holy Spirit-driven ability to discern and divide the scriptures to some group of men hundreds of years ago, yet even more removed from the time of Christ, announcing bold declarations of "Here's what we've decided we believe - so it's what you believe too, or you're not one of us!"

Regarding the 5th commandment, the Westminster Catechism couldn't possibly be more wrong. The Hebrew words there are very much "father" and "mother". But be sure to tell the boys in Westminster that I appreciate their forefathers presupposing for me.

The Bible is clear. God has established a polity—a government in the home. By God’s decree, the husband is to be the head of the wife, and by default, the ruling authority in the home (i.e., Genesis 2:18-25, 3:16; 1 Corinthians 11:3; Ephesians 5:23, 6:1; Colossians 3:20). It is clear that this polity was established during the time of Creation, before any secular culture had been formed. The polity of the home is by God’s appointment—by His decree and for His glory.

I'm sorry, James, but it isn't clear at all that hierarchy was established at creation. That's a whopper of a presupposition on your part. There's no hierarchy in Genesis 2. None. Nothing that can even be presumed to be such a "polity" is seen until sin enters the picture and the fall takes place.

Generally, I'd dare to say that the submission being communicated in this article by James looks considerably more menacing in practice. He's giving it the wholesome, sugarcoated spin just as much as possible.

I think the wiser course of action for a married couple is to focus on Christ and be steered by the Holy Spirit. I've yet to see a single couple who did as much struggle continually with issues of respect, submission, and authority. Sadly, there's very little of this concept in James' article. There's a lot of biblical decrees, "Do this, this, and this because the bible says so or you'll be in defiance to God Himself."

Oh dear. Jesus gets lost as easily as the car keys.

And then, on the blog of one of the SD contributors, Kelly Crawford, in a "Feminism's gonna getcha! Run! Run for your lives!" article, offers this piece of apostasy as the solution to the injection of fear and paranoia she's just shot into her readers...

As feminists continue to destroy the blessedness of home, let us weep for their destruction and never stop proclaiming the truth that God’s blueprint for family is the only hope for salvaging society.

Well, we know where her bread is buttered, don't we. Family units, not Jesus Christ, are the only hope for society.

Where'd I put those car keys again?


  1. Lewis: "Christ is an afterthought. I just can't understand the utter obsession with authority structures when everything Christ ever said about authority turned all human conceptions of authority structures totally upside down."

    You know, people in general ARE obsessed with structure. It is true with who we are, what we were created to be, and the utter chaos the fall brought in to our world.

    Remember Maxwell Smart, Agent 86 from Get Smart?
    What were the names of the two opposing forces? Control and Kaos.

    The patris see a world in Chaos and see it as their personal duty, madated by God and the Bible to bring control, structure, stability.

    But as you said, they have forgotten Jesus in their formula.
    They are focusing on the outward appearance and outward structure as thought the outward will save you. They do not see the Pharisitical nature of such obsession to bring order to chaos.

    The chaos is real. Their perscription is false and only brings more death.

    Jesus was far less concerned with outward structure and preferred, instead, to give us inward structure and stability. He wanted to give us the structure and stability, a foundation, if you will, WITHOUT it breaking down into control.

    Sure, there is control. But the only control the Bible talks about is...

    Wait for it...


    Anyone trying to use any form of control over another and claiming the tells them too (except in cases where someone's out-of-controlness is hurting themselves or others like a toddler, teen, or criminal on a rampage etc.) is spritually bankrupt. They do not understand the Grace and Freedom and Foundation that Jesus won for us.

    Yes, they are utterly obsessed. And in their obsession and zeal, they are making matters far worse.

  2. The patriarchal movement isn't talking about how ugly and unhappy hierarchical relationships turn out for the people at the bottom of the heap, because mostly it's the people at the top doing the talking.

    The only underlings allowed to talk are the ones who adhere to the party line of worshiping hierarchy, that top-down power structure of ruler/subordinate, like Stacy McDonald and the pathetic blogger Candle.

    Candle parrots all she has been taught with the heartfelt conviction of a true believer, but her age and total lack of experience outside that paradigm make a farce of her "wisdom".

    There are voices in our society who tell what it's really like to be the underling in a Christian power pyramid, the very voices Stacy wrote her blog to intimidate and silence. Abused wives (No Longer Quivering) and destroyed daughters (Quivering Daughters) are talking where people have ears to hear.

    You'll also find many such stories at your local social services and domestic violence shelters. It is well known there that the "wife/children submit" doctrine of the Christian religion creates a paradigm in which abuse is inevitable when men embrace it.

    Not every complementarian home is abusive though, because many complementarian homes don't actually practice the male dominated hierarchy they preach, and thank Jesus for that! They actually practice mutual submission, service and love to one another as Jesus commanded us to do.

    It's only in places like the McDonalds world, where the doctrine of male privilege is the lens through which everything (even the words of Jesus) is interpreted that marriages and families go so very, very wrong. Other Christian homes, the ones that give Jesus and His words supremacy, are not so damaged by the male rule paradigm because they keep Jesus first. As well they should.

    It's all very personal for me. My husband is still recovering from that shame-based patriarchal fundamentalist religion family paradigm, and he's now in his fifties. To everyone on the outside, he and his whole family appear squeaky clean.

    But the reality is that he and his brothers are all still dealing with boatloads of repressed anger, and their wives and children carry the brunt of that subliminal hatred.

    Approval and love from mom and dad are so scarce that no one wants to disagree with or confront them about anything. They might lose the meager scraps of approval they have been awarded by mom and dad for being model fundamentalist/patriarchal children. And if those scraps are taken, they will have nothing left.

    That's how patriarchalists keep the children in line. Michael Pearl wrote it down in black and white for all to see, but patriarchal fundamentalists have apparently been making parental love and acceptance dependent on complete conformity for longer than Pearl has been published. I am married to living proof.

  3. Lewis,

    Of all the governments in the bible, self, family, church, civil, self-government is the highest form of government. In fact, it's the only one listed as the fruit of the Spirit. Gal. 5:23.

  4. I want to post an intelligent comment, but seriously steadfast daughters just makes me sick. It's so predictable and so self-righteous. It's focused off of the Jesus who loves me - the whole reason I am a Christian - and onto men. Literally stomach churning and I can't think straight about it to leave a comment that even resembles something intelligent.

  5. "Christendombuilder is a father of five and a husband of one. He believes that godly families are central for building a strong Christian civilization. In his writing and teaching ministry, Christendombuilder has always been keen to show that the good, the true and the beautiful are not just right but are actually more enjoyable than the shallow substitutes offered by paganism.

    Christendombuilder is passionate about learning to love Jesus and his wife better; he is a keen advocate of Christian education but has done his time as a teacher in the temples of Baal; he is reformed but wishes his fellow Calvinists were more sensitive to aesthetics; he loves to play Schubert on the piano but likes to drink port more; he crosses himself whenever the name of the Blessed Trinity is invoked but not at church because nobody else does; he hates contemporary Christian music but loves to listen to Keith Green; he claims Irenaeus as his patron saint but would never pray to him…except when the Gnostics are attacking."

    Just putting this up there in case they change anything else.
    Soooo... by writing for Stacy against us QDs, is he implying that we are "pagans" since the only other option is a person of their type?

    The rest of his bio sounds sarcastic and silly, to be honest. Trying to be more "down on the street" by saying that he drinks; then using words and terms that were antiquated last century. (more Victorian Fantasy Era, I suppose)

  6. I find it slightly amusing (or maybe disturbing) that the girl in the header of the Steadfast Daughters blog is facing away from the viewer, we can't see her face.

    Contrast that with Quivering Daughters, where we see Hillary's face and the faces of others, in any pictures on the blog. You can see their eyes, you can see their expressions, you can see their pain and their hope. They are human, and all too real.

    Is it because the contributors at SD don't actually believe that Quivering Daughters exist? They aren't real, or if they are, it is because of their own sin and rebellion, not because of patriarchy?

    Maybe I'm reading too much into it... but I find it interesting, anyway.

  7. "They aren't real, or if they are, it is because of their own sin and rebellion, not because of patriarchy?"

    This is exactly what they believe.

  8. The more I read "SD" blog, the more I realize it is utterly pointless. What they hope to achieve is a "coming back home" of "rebellious" people. In actuality, the ones who will read and agree will be the ones who ALREADY agree and the ones who DISAGREE will only be pushed further away. :-P

  9. Submission and acceptance as the providence of God, as when you have no choice in the matter, ie, a slave, or a minor child still living at home, is a wise and godly thing to do. So is learning contentment in such circumstances. What we are *not* to pursue and make as our goal is to be a slave, or to never grow up. In the QF/patriocentric world, women are perpetual children in need of constant oversight because, horror of horrors, what if they were free???

  10. @Bean-- Perhaps because in the SD worldview, people don't have faces. Faces show the fact that God made us all unique and special, and they can't deal with that; they can only think about their "roles." Roles are for actors, and actors wear masks; hence the term "hypocrites", Greek for "playactors"; actors in Greek drama wore masks that covered their faces.

    OK, now I know I'm reading way too much into that, but I enjoy Chesterton so hey. Who wants to bet the redesign of SD next week will suddenly show somebody's face?

    ...May I recommend this one.

  11. "Who wants to bet the redesign of SD next week will suddenly show somebody's face?"

    I'll take that bet... they've adjusted and trimmed and polished and preened everything else that has been commented on here so far.... except they haven't closed down their ridiculous blog, yet.

  12. It's also fascinating that the image SD has chosen to make emblematic of their site is a picture of somebody turning their back on you. Well chosen.

  13. The facebook page has the girl turned a little to the right so you can see her chin/the side of her...