There She Goes Again

Stacy McDonald is at it again...


If I may be very human for a moment, I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry...or vomit. I know one thing for certain: it makes me very angry. 


I see desperation all over it. I see a person having made total sacrifice of the heart, soul, and mind to a lifestyle and it's agenda, feeling that agenda being threatened and exposed as extremely flawed, and lashing out - dishonestly - against the perceived threat. I believe Stacy has been far less than genuine in her interactions with me, so I don't expect anything less when it comes to issues of her defending her true god - the patriarchal/quiverfull lifestyle. She's declared war...not just on Hillary, but on ALL quivering daughters.



Nice work, Stacy.


Agenda and conviction aren't the same thing. A conviction is a firmly held belief, but not a belief held so firmly that it isn't fluid to truth as it's revealed. When you think of conviction, think of the early church. An agenda is a plan or course formed exclusively for reaching a specific, unchanging goal. It has no regard for the revelation of truth, as the goal is the priority. When you think of agenda, think of shrewd and crafty politicians like Hillary Clinton, who want what they want and it's what they want and nothing's gonna knock them off course of getting what they want. New truth revealed? Just tweak the story and maintain the agenda, and find some way to diminish the source of the truth. Play dirty if you have to.


I'll give you three one guess where I believe this new blog of Stacy's falls in that scenario.


Now...to the blog itself...


It should be titled "The Passive/Aggressive Response to Quivering Daughters". I'm having trouble getting past the scriptural sub-header. 2nd Peter 3:17-18. 


You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen.


Given the verses that preceed it, it's something of a proof-text - a favorite tactic of patriocentrics and dominionists. Immediately preceeding it is this in verses 14-16...


Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation—as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. 


Wow. Unstable people twisting the scriptures. Right idea and the better description of her blog.


I'm trying to figure out if she's calling Hillary "wicked". Her choice of scripture would seem to suggest as much. Boy, would that ever render her first few paragraphs a heaping helping of flaming hypocrisy, so surely she's not suggesting Hillary's wicked, right? I mean, it's not likely that, in her haste, she did a bible search for "steadfast" since "Steadfast Daughters" is the crux of the title, this popped up, and she didn't weigh the remainder of the verse to see if it fit the agenda, too, right?


Imagine if I started a new Contemporary Christian band, found a "biblical" name for it, and created a website header and scriptural sub-header that looked like this...


Jawbone of an Ass
"And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men." ~Judges 15:16


Or, imagine if I were an atheist and wanted to start an atheism blog, yet still went for the scriptural sub-header thing. I could do that, too...


God Isn't Real (Living in a God-free World)
"There is no God." ~Psalm 53:1


(See what I did there?)


Yikes. And we haven't even moved beyond the sub-header, people.


I believe Stacy is being utterly disingenuous in her first several paragraphs, painting a picture of herself as sympathetic, attempting to set the book up as emotionally manipulative by feigning it's influence on her. Stacy hated the very idea of this book, had likely drawn her conclusions about it before it was ever completed, much less before she actually read it, saw it as a threat, and most likely was planning to fight and resist it and whatever influence it may have long before it's release. Let's be real here; you don't start a new blog, a blog full of legalistic and narrow interpreting contributors, talk about the "error of the wicked" in the sub-header, and then commend the women whose work is the target of the blog for having a "passion for God".


I find that disingenuous and reprehensible.


I'm also fascinated by the fixation on theology, as if theology is the answer to everything. You don't fix hearts that have been damaged, scarred, and in some cases corrupted, with theology. I've also come to understand that when Stacy, and those like her, speak of theology, they're speaking of proof-texts and presuppositions which form a patriocentric culture and way of life in which role-playing and a human authority structure are the true gods worshipped. It's a theology where Jesus isn't even really necessary. I don't see how apostasy is the answer to spiritual issues in Christian lives.


She describes Hillary as a "confused young woman". Hmmm. Like any other firmly grounded person, I don't think Hillary makes any claims to have everything figured out... but confused? Really? Not a particularly honest way to describe her, and if Stacy were to choose the route of honesty she'd say "confused - because she doesn't believe like me - young woman".


Stacy's comment that Hillary's writing evoked emotions "I had not experienced, at least to the same degree, since before I became a Christian over 20 years ago" is also a subtle jab, not to mention a feigned one, at Hillary's spiritual life and state. It's an attempt to set up the haze that spiritual abuse created in Hillary as a girl and young adult as being the result of her mean ole deceitful emotions and her sinful, rebellious heart. Common tricks of cultic groups. Subtle, manipulative forms of mind control and coercive persuasion. Deception and diversion. Same kind of stuff that Jim Jones excelled at. Stacy then tries to bolster the notion by pointing out how she, personally, wasn't raised in a protestant Christian home, and thus, she could relate to Hillary's emotions. In other words, it's un-Christian to feel what Hillary, and other QDs like her, feel and have felt. Very Deceitful.


Stacy then goes into the "show me the blood" mode of defense, a common defense of abusers. Stacy attempts to subtly manipulate her readers into concluding that Hillary's problem was her own sinful, rebellious heart, that she wasn't truly abused because there was no physical or sexual violence, and essentially slaps everyone who has ever suffered from emotional and spiritual abuse in the face, discarding their claims as menial. She does all of this without ever actually outright saying as much. Well played, Stacy. Manipulate much?


Stacy goes on to downplay the issue of spiritual abuse (which, for the record, Stace, is the result of the abusive, apostate system of religion you're immersed in and promote) even more, referring to it as "common conflict and parenting weakness". I heard the same tripe from the dominionist circle of people surrounding my former future in-laws. Lots of crapola about "emotional stretching". Oh, so that's what you call it when dear old dad uses threats of suicide to manipulate his children, and then the next morning is "leading" family worship in all of his patriarchal glory. Dang. If only I'd have known it was just emotional stretching, common conflict, and parenting weakness. Parenting weakness, hmmm. Does that apply to threatening to estrange a grown daughter if she doesn't cede to mom and dad's choices for her life? Or is that common conflict? What about a lifetime of indoctrination which resembles the rituals of Islam, right down to the like it and accept it or else application? Common conflict or parenting weakness?


From Stacy...


It is likely that a child who has experienced true familial horrors would be happy to be in a home where he is loved, nurtured, protected, and taught the Scriptures, even if he felt his “feelings and individuality” weren’t always “respected” or that he didn’t have enough one-on-one time with Mom and Dad.


A common response to abuse from the practitioners and defenders of the system that causes it. Recast the abuse as misinterpreted love, nurturing, protection, and scriptural teaching. Nice touch. Lots of heart for the wounded.


I'll be writing some more about this in the days ahead, addressing the remainder of Stacy's "review" of Quivering Daughters, and making some further comparisons of the beliefs that Stacy peddles to the Jim Jones/Jonestown dynamic.


My own thoughts on Quivering Daughters can be found here. In that article from a couple of months back, I spoke a bit to the opposition that was arising to the book...


The less than glowing reviews and depictions of this book have all come with their own solution..."IF" these stories of abuse are real (because, miraculously, these folk have never witnessed any such thing), and not just the product of rebellious hearts, QDs should take their issues before proper church authority. So, they suggest fixing authority gone amuck with more authority. For those offering this course of action as the solution, what would be the result of this process in the churches YOU preside over? I don't really think I need to say more, because, upon pondering that question, it's difficult enough for me to keep a straight face.


And, I still can't keep a straight face when I think about it.


It's a crying shame when you reach the point with certain people that you always expect the worst from them, and they never disappoint your expectation.