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?