To steal and kill and destroy

I am more angry at patriocentricity than I have ever been, triggered by what might seem like a small thing. Tonight I stupidly, at the end of a long and stressful day, took a look at a few patriocentric websites that I hadn't been around in a while. As a result, I missed being able to really talk to my best friend [who I've been almost too busy to talk to the last few days]. I was engaged in becoming rapidly more upset and depressed by the sanctimonious blather of people who recommend a recent anti-feminist film ['The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women', by the Brothers Gunn] as excellent material to show to girls in pregnancy crisis centers, who are so hard up for something to criticize that they lambast the recent film about that gal who lost her arm to a shark a few years ago [and happens to share my name] as not being distinctively Christian and promoting personal fulfillment [and even manage to get in a knock against long-haired guys in the same post! What depth! What virtuosity!], who say that girls who declare they 'don't like pink' and 'aren't girly' are actually insecure, competitive for boys' affections, intent on covering up their own social awkwardness or lack of beauty, and generally feel superior *, who ......you get the idea.

* For the record, I have often declared that I don't like pink, am not a 'girly girl', don't like feminine High Drama, detest sewing, am proudly willing to shoot and clean a wild rabbit with my bare hands, and otherwise done my best to distance myself from my perception of the fluffy-headed female. Apparently half the rest of the female population of the world is bent on doing the same thing. And it is no longer socially acceptable [in patrio circles] to be proud of who you are, just as in less conservative circles it is ONLY socially acceptable to be proud of who you are.

So I'm no longer original, just feministic. And bitter. And insecure. And proud. And to heck with it, because I will not change for the anti-feminists. They can just TAKE my quirks and geekiness [they'd say they don't give a hoot, I'M the one who will have to deal with people disliking my contrived unoriginality!]
-------------

To conclude this little anecdote, I wound up so rattled by the anti-feminists that my distant-time-zone friend was forced to retire by the lateness of the hour and my steadfastly terse responses. Ah, small thing, but it shocked me to my senses, a bit......I became first miserable that I'd missed talking with someone I deeply care for and hadn't been able to talk with in longer than I'd like, and then enraged. 

Enraged because this is only the latest small event to convince me that patriocentricity, legalism, and faithless 'religion' will steal everything I have. Friends, college, happiness, love, enthusiasm, peace. And Jesus. [On that note, just about all of Galatians is applicable....] 

Friends, rather stereotypically, because you can't trust someone if you are convinced they are bent on leading you astray. 

College [self explanatory].

Happiness [also self explanatory].

Enthusiasm and peace, ditto. 

And love. Patriocentricity, for all its grand words, is NOT about loving your husband or anyone else, least of all God. I had rather a shocking, though not unexpected, thing said to me recently. In essence, that the worst thing this person could imagine was that his future wife might someday succumb to patriocentricity in its most extreme form. And that he wouldn't WANT her to.

Surprising, no? [Or maybe not.] Isn't the stereotype of conservative homeschooled Christian men that they [secretly or not] want a wife who is bent on 'generational faithfulness' and Submission to Men in General [including the woman's own younger brothers] and being a 'keeper at home' [to the exclusion of all else] and fulfilling her 'dominion calling' and remaining silent in the churches and being MEEK AND QUIET and steadfastly refusing to be an equal. 

Stereotype or no, accurate or no, I think I've encountered a specimen of that rare species, the Non Patriocentric Man.

---------------

But I got a bit off topic. I am angry at patriocentricity and its associated cadre of legalism. Remember that passage in John about how 'The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy'? *   That's patriocentricity for you.......to steal joy, kill love, and destroy hearts. 

* Remember too the rest of the verse, spoken by Jesus Christ:  'but I am come that they might have life, and have it to the full'. 

Really, all this ferocious rhetoric is partly a cover for the fact that I am still a very scared person. And sometimes being angry is a good way to shake off despair. 

And as a reminder, down in print, that patriocentricity holds nothing good for me. 

A Steadfast response to charges of legalism

Stacy McDonald has responded to charges of legalism, both at Steadfast Daughters and her personal blog Your Sacred Calling. Classically, I felt the need to compose a lengthy [and probably inarticulate] reply, which I posted on YSC. 


I am very irked at the steadfast refusal to address specific concerns, and the equally steadfast assumption that 'quivering daughters' are by and large still the guilty parties. 

The Romans 14 quote is one which ought to be at the forefront of any movement which claims to combat legalism [all too often, it isn't]. 

However, I see a gap between what that verse prescribes and the application that I think you would extend it to. 

It is, I think, fair to assume that the person who 'eats everything' could be compared to 'Quivering Daughters' and their allies. 

Hence, we can also assume that the person who 'does not eat everything', because he feels it wrong, is represented by 'Steadfast Daughters'.

In my experience, those who hold to the Steadfast Daughters view are 1) 'not eating everything' which we are told we must NOT treat with contempt [Romans 14:3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.] but also, 2), they are judging those who do not believe as they do. 

This is the key point.  I hope that none of those who battle against legalism would object to an individual's opinions on whether it is right for them to do anything from only wear skirts, to decline to attend college. The line becomes blurred when one individual would seek to impose that idea on their entire family, and it is crossed entirely when an individual or an organization teaches an entire community that it is wrong for all of them to attend college or leave home. [Usual disclaimer applies: those are examples, I would prefer not to debate whether or not you or your followers have actually taught those exact things.] 

The examples you gave of the four people who might be called legalists, did not fit my definition of legalism.  However, had there been any suggestion that, for instance, Jennifer imposed her dietary restrictions on her sister-in-law, or indicated that following Mosaic dietary laws is the only 'correct' action, then I would have indeed cried 'Legalism!'. 

--------

You talk about false accusations of legalism rather a lot in this post. Do you 1) believe that false accusations are being made about the actions of those in the patriarchy movement? or 2) the actions they have committed are not legalistic? or 3) a combination of the above? 

I agree with your view, that those of us who say we have left legalism are still prone to it. 

I also agree with your reader's comment: 'Calling others legalistic based on outward appearance is itself legalistic and hypocritical.' 

However, it is not legalistic to state that a person's beliefs as imposed upon or suggested to others are legalistic. One could not call the Pharisees legalists solely based on the fact that they tithed: one could, however, call them legalistic based upon what they taught to others as God-ordained fact. 

I think it is fair to state that your writings on Your Sacred Calling are mostly read by those who could find themselves being accused of legalism [whether true or false]. You rightly devote a lengthy section to how to respond to incorrect accusations of legalism, based on their appearances. You do not, however, speak much to how to avoid actual legalism. 

The readers of Steadfast Daughters, however, also include many who are leveling charges of legalism against others. You speak of the abuses of power that you have seen, but fail to mention the key points that these readers are likely to be objecting to. Throughout the history of Steadfast Daughters, and indeed everything I have seen written from a patriarchal perspective in recent months, there has been a distinct unwillingness to come to terms with the tangible protests of 'quivering daughters'. I think this is because you know that many WILL disagree with your presuppositional views, and you are trying to smooth things over. I can understand this, but it is doing a really bad job of 'reconciling' those who disagree with you. To be fair, most of those who disagree with Steadfast Daughters already know they disagree with your views, and many are familiar with years of 'reconciliation' as suggested by those in the patriocentric movement who [supposedly] were in fact their abusers. It is all too familiar for most 'quivering daughters' to buy into. Many have already received [they believe] healing and freedom, and NOT at your hands. They are not going to be happy when you produce 'a biblical response' to something [namely Hillary McFarland's work] that they already believe to be helpful, Christ-honoring and in fact BIBLICAL. 

My apologies if I have worded any of this confusingly. I am rather prone to do that. And yes, feel free to pick apart my arguments in any way, I have certainly done so to yours.