thatmom

Terri, in response to #121 and anyone else….

My Cd’s on pariocentricity are now available for $4.00 for the set postage paid. Just drop me an e-mail at shesthatmom@gmail.com.

“the church was fairly quick to obey the “Jew or Greek” part, very very slow to obey the “slave or free” part, but continues to dig in its prideful heels against the “male or female” part.”

Cheryl, this very true. I believe that the issues of women in the church and home are problematic for many people in the same way slavery was a problem for people during the 19th century. There was the potential for personal loss for even Christians and thus they had to find a way to maintain those views and still practice their faith.

Paula,

I would personally consider kinists to be white supremacists because part of their agenda is to remove all African-Americans, Jews, and Hispanics from the United States. If that doesn’t make them out to believe whites are supreme, what does?

Here is the link to the blog of those who founded kinism:

http://spiritwaterblood.com/

Cheryl, I will perfectly understand if you choose to delete this link.

Terri,

YOu might be interested in this week’s podcast segment I did with Corrie Marnett where we discuss the idea some women have that they cannot be women, but rather, little girls with their husbands. It parallels what Carolyn is saying about her brothers. It is the February 15th segment.

http://www.thatmompodcast.com or
www.http://thatmom.wordpress.com/2008/02/15/february-15-podcast/

Please feel free to comment and participate in discussion…all of you!

re: slavrey parallel

I have been studying the patriocentric movement now for years and in the past few have made many connections with the nouveau patriarchs and an affinity for the Old Dominion. I kept seeing various bloggers in these camps refer to readings in a book entitled I’ll Take My Stand. A person who is quite knowledgeable of all things hierarchal recommened it to be so I bought a copy and it has been very informative. It was written by a dozen southern men in the 1930’s and is a lament of the loss of the southern white male. They blame the second industrial revolution for many of their woes and encourage a move back to agrarianism which, to many people, I believe is a code word for “kinism” which is the modern “Christian” white supremacist movement, That is a mini take on a very complicated issue and, while not all patriarchialists are racists, I believe that their views of hierarchy are only a hop, skip and a jump to the real thing and that is where the kinists come in.

In the past couple of years, I have come to the conclusion that labeling each other with either “egalitarian” or “complementarian” really doesn’t tell us much about teach other or our marriage relationships, our convictions, etc. I tend to think in terms of a continuum. On one far end are those who embrace the extreme, secular feminists views of abortion-on-demand, gay lifestyles, etc. On the other end of the spectrum are what I call the patriocentrists, those who believe that only men have callings from the Lord and as such, women are placed in a box where only certain roles and behaviors are acceptable, both within and outside the church. The picture I see is somethings like a number line or, if we are talking about numbers of people in these groups, perhaps a bell shaped curve. As Sarah Sumner said so well, I am somewhere in that middle area. I am not comfortable with being labeled. At one time I would have called myself complementarian but that title has been embraced by the Baylys, McDonalds, and many others who are so far down toward the extreme end, if not holding up that end of the banner. So I cannot call myself that because I would not want to have anyone think I agree with those extreme views.

A couple weeks ago our pastor mentioned in his sermon that we tend to look at church history and wonder how in the world believers could have accepted some of the horribly abusive things they did in the past…child labor in England, slavery, etc. I think that, one day, the same will be said about our generation. How was the church ever so passive about abortion? (We have to admit that we are….there is little sense of outrage, IMHO.) And I think the same will be true as far as the roles of women and ministry. There is a spiritual blindness that has its roots in the notions of hierarchy in the same way that slavery and child labor did. And at the root of it was financial gain. I believe there is money to be made in the patriocentric camps and that that is driving much of their agenda. That and the control issues these people have.

I would encourage us to abandon the labels of complementarian and egalitarian and to listen to each others’ perspectives, all believing that God’s word is true. Just my thoughts….

Cheryl,

I am so happy to see yet another blog given to the discussion of what I call “patriocentricity.”

Someone dropped me an e-mail and told me that my name came up here and in not such favorable terms! Jayne, I am sorry to disappoint you, but if you had really read my writings or listened to my podcasts, you would know that you are hot on the wrong trail and are misrepresenting me. And Lin is correct, there have only been a handful of times I have removed posts but have never done so to stop the dialogue, only to ask others to behave nicely.

I have been reading the Bayly blog for a long time. I had never heard of these men until Terry Shiavo was taken off of life support and they made the mecca to Florida to lead protests against that action, their presence making news in World magazine. As much as I am strongly pro-life, I was bothered that two such highly emotional men where the spokesmen for our movement and when I came across their blog, I immediately recognized them because of the same traits in dealing with everyone. These men are the most arrogant and ungracious bloggers I have ever come across. I cannot begin to imagine what it would be like to be in a church where they pastored. While I have made a couple comments here and there, I have never engaged them in any serious conversation because they aren’t interested in dialog, only adoration from like-minded rude people. Their standards baffle me. A godly wife and mother, like for example, Rebecca Prewett, is banned for asking Tim Bayly to explain his very odd interpretation of a passage of Scripture, while they join others who wax on and on about the virtues of proven liars and those who live much less than transparent lives. I am truly in awe of these men and want no part of them. I have asked why in the world they are so afraid of Carolyn Custis James and can only conclude that they are girly men, so unsure of the validity of their own beliefs that if they are ever asked to explain something they write, they either magically become too busy with their own congregations and families to have time to answer or they ban the offender from ever posting again. Why does anyone ever bother with them? They ought to start their own singing group and call it the Self-Righteous Brothers.