By His grace – For His glory

Family idolatry

April 3, 2008 at 4:37 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

Idolatry can arise unexpectedly from the strangest areas of our lives. And as Christians, we sometimes realize that we have placed something that we love above God. We tend to react immediately to eliminate this newly realized idolatry by viewing that thing as an evil. This is an overreaction in most cases. Many of the things that we find we are idolizing are actually good things given to us by God for our pleasure. We just have a habit of taking good things from God and placing them in higher regard than the God who created them.

Romans 1:25 speaks of those who “exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator.” We must fight hard to not place good things given to us by God for our enjoyment in the place of the God who made them. But we also must not diminish those things once we have realized that they have been placed in a position of an idol. We simply need to return to a biblical and God-honoring view of these things.

I have recently read some articles from the Patriarchy crowd that seem to hold the family in a position of an idol. They especially place the father of the family in a position that seems to usurp God’s own position. As we are told in Luke 14:26 (the verse in the callout box to the right), our love for our families should, by comparison to our love for God, seem as if it is actually hatred. Luke 14:26 is not telling us to hate our families, but rather to love God infinitely more than we love our families.

May we all be careful to hold all of the good things God has given us in the proper place, remembering always that God is the giver of all good gifts (James 1:17) and, therefore, should be held in infinitely higher regard.

Permalink 1 Comment

T-shirts & tattoos

April 1, 2008 at 9:00 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

Although no t-shirts are available in our men’s line, this tattoo will be a wonderful addition to any TRUE man’s functional wardrobe. Proclaim loudly and boisterously your dedication to your White Washed Feminist.

WWF T-shirt: $18.95 (OBO)

For the ladies we have this fine t-shirt modeled by Kelly. Made of soft cotton cloth, the WWF historic photo has been strategically placed to cover anything that might provide titillation to others, causing them to stumble and fall when they realize that women are made differently than men, which is obviously a result of the fall and could not possibly have been God’s plan in the first place.

For purchase of more than 3,000 shirts, 10 additional WWMMD? buttons will be included free of charge. Free shipping will apply as always, except to New Zealand, which is far too Patriocentic-friendly for free shipping (or for these t-shirts, for that matter).

This is the small print disclaimer rejecting all responsibility for any potential sins resulting from these products. All fault for such sin rests firmly upon any nearby female and not on the creator of these products, as he is a male and therefor free of any responsibility for his actions, whether good or bad.

Permalink 1 Comment

White washed feminists graphics

April 1, 2008 at 7:52 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

By request – WWF graphics

WWF Bumper Sticker:

Permalink 1 Comment

Persisting in error

March 26, 2008 at 3:33 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

“To err is human, to persist in error is diabolical.”

I have often seen a tendency in myself and in others I have observed to develop personal favorite activities and to eventually come to a point where we hate to give those activities up. The obvious example of this is something like drinking or smoking, which may develop into addictions that require intervention to break. The smoker or the alcoholic refuses to quit, even when he is told how very bad continued indulgence in this activity will be for him. In fact, even the good of exercising may lead to addiction and become a bad thing. The Apostle Paul directly addressed the fact that we need to keep even these good things under check by saying: “For bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come” 1 Timothy 4:8.

Many other activities we get involved in may have bad consequences as well, especially if we persist in them after we have been alerted to a problem. Consider the concept of propounding or defending a particular doctrine. Let’s say we have been convinced of the truth of evolution. We are determined to convince folks that evolution and not creation is the force that brought our world into existence. We push and push and push that line of thinking.

And then one day we run into a well-educated and well-spoken Intelligent Design proponent. We present our argument to him, laying out each tile in the mosaic of our complete system, complete with our interpretation of the archaeological data backing our idea and statements from experts who agree with our position. But as we lay each tile, this Intelligent Design guru obliterates every one of our arguments with solid fact, science, and philosophy. In the end, we find that we have not been able to answer his positions in the way he has answered ours. He has won the debate, and done so clearly.

And yet, the next day, we accost the first person we see and present to them all the same things we said before because this new person probably doesn’t know the things the Intelligent Design guy did and he will likely be persuaded by our presentation.

This is called “persisting in error.” It happens when we have a “pet” doctrine that we like to proclaim, but then our arguments in support of that doctrine are shown to be wrong, say by scripture and by a demand on using proper terminology and historically accurate definitions. Nevertheless, we continue to push our defeated arguments on other unsuspecting victims.

I have recently been made aware of a group of bloggers who are promoting a non-biblical use of the word modesty. Although many people have pointed out the error in definition that is giving rise to a tremendously inaccurate interpretation of the scripture, these folks persist in their use of the inaccurate definition. No defense has been made along the line of why this inaccurate definition is being used. The simple fact is that the only reason someone who cannot defend their position will post that position again after it has been refuted is that they choose to “persist in error.”

This scenario played out over the past couple of week’s on Mrs. Stacy McDonald’s blog, Your Sacred Calling. She was made aware of the errors she had made in her application and interpretation of a scriptural passage. She made no defense of her position, and yet persists in her error.

This is the passage in question:

1 Peter 3:3-4 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

The blogs I have seen covering this passage are almost all making the same mistake—that of thinking that this verse is talking about women dressing in a way so as to entice men. That is quite clearly not what this passage is talking about. The blogs not making this mistake are discussing the passage to point out that the mistake has been made by others.

Because words may have multiple definitions, we sometimes clarify our speech with qualifying phrases using parallels, examples, antonyms and synonyms. These techniques help us to more clearly convey our thoughts and help keep people from misunderstanding what we were saying.

The inspired words of scripture here use such techniques to help keep us on track. Peter says, “Do not let your adorning be external.” He then ensures the reader’s understanding by giving some examples: “the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing.” He then continues the clarification with an opposite parallel: “but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit.” Quite clearly this passage is not encouraging women to be careful that they cover themselves appropriately with clothing. It is in fact saying that this should not be their primary focus. We can probably agree that proper covering will be an outworking of that gentle and quiet spirit, but it is certainly not being demanded by this scripture.

A similarly misused scripture is found in 1 Timothy 2:9-10, which says:

Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Here Paul is telling Pastor Timothy that he should instruct women to be modest in their appearance. Again he uses communication techniques to qualify and focus his statements. He begins with: “Women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel.” He then focuses that “respectable apparel” with the phrase: “with modesty and self-control.” To make sure that Timothy understands what he means by “modesty and self-control” when regarding apparel, Paul then gives some negative examples: “not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire.” He is obviously using the more common meaning of modest here: living in a simple way rather than in an ostentatious way, as in “he is a man of modest means.” He is saying that the women should not be slaves to fashion, worrying incessantly about what they’re going to wear. This parallels exactly the requirements in the previous passage that the women dress themselves in a “gentle and quiet spirit.”

Paul then continues the clarification with a definitional phrase to make clear what he meant. He does this by way of a material example: “but [they should adorn themselves] with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.” Paul is saying that the woman’s focus should not be on her manner of dress, but rather on the good works “which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them” Ephesians 2:10.

I know that we are all prone to this sort of idolatry of our “favorite” doctrines—holding them in higher regard than scripture at times. But the fact that we are all prone to this does not make this right. I urge all who see the name Stacy McDonald attached to a book, a blog, an article, a group, or a conference to beware. Don’t fall for the veneer. Do some research. Find the truth. You won’t find it in their books, blogs, articles, interviews, groups, etc.

• Under Much Grace – Perception, Prevarication, and Gathering Our Scattered Words
• Under Much Grace – A Review of Reviews of Passionate Housewives
• Under Much Grace – Prevarication in Patriarchy
• ThatMom – November 24
• ThatMom – December 1, 2007
  (regarding Tim Bayly)
• ThatMom – December 1, 2007
  (regarding women’s roles)
• That Mom – December 3, 2007
  (on the term “white washed feminists”
• ThatMom – December 7, 2007
  (on Christian Decorum)
• True Womanhood – Prarie Muffin Manifesto in the New Millennium

True Womanhood – Prarie Muffin Manifesto Discussion Part 2

I will add more links to this list as I become aware of more documentation of this persistence in error ADDENDUM: See the comments to this post for more links (thank you to my commenters).

Permalink 27 Comments

What’s the difference?

March 17, 2008 at 7:52 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

I found the following article at the ThatMom blog and thought I ought to share it with those who have been following the modesty discussion. This ties in with my wife’s recent post on I Do Not Think That Means What You Think It Means.

Slander, libel, and gossip, Oh my! Understanding the difference between Matthew 18:15 and Galatians 2

“encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it” Titus 1:9

In the past few weeks, I have repeatedly been reading online about gossip and slander. I would heartily agree that real slander, gossip, and libel against our neighbor is a violation of the 2nd great commandment. However, the implication has been that critiques, debates, and discussions are really acts of slander, libel, and gossip, particularly when addressing patriocentricity. (see the comments on my Amazon review of the Passionate Housewives book for a prime example of this.) Several times I have been personally (and have seen others as well) admonished to go to those with whom I disagree and begin a Matthew 18 process with them. I have been asked numerous times if I did that with any of those whom I have critiqued and if I have discussed my differences with them, seeking reconciliation.

This has been a strange suggestion to me, since what I have always understood that passage of Scripture to mean is that when another brother or sister in Christ has sinned against you, you are to go to them and tell them how they did so, hoping that they will confess that sin and make it right with you. I have been on both ends of that experience and always thought I understood it well. But, wanting to maintain a teachable spirit, and being really confused when I heard these admonitions, I went to my husband who shared a passage of Scripture with me and suggested I research this topic. The fruits of that research were so good that I wanted to share them with you. I know this is long for a blog entry, but I believe it is so important that it must be said.

I began by looking at Matthew 18: 15-17, which is the passage in reference. It says:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

If you read this passage and look at the end result for the one who is not repentant of the committed sin, it is damnation. So, you would need to be certain that the person you are confronting in a Matthew 18 process:

1. is a believer
2. is in a relationship with you
3. has sinned against you in a personal way
4. that you are willing to take the matter all the way through to the excommunication process, which also implies church courts, written documentation proving sin, etc. (the ramifications of this and the procedures themselves differ among various denominations).

This is a very serious matter and as such, the offense involved must also be serious as well. It must be named as an actual sin in Scripture and you must be able to open your Bible and show them a sin they have committed against you. Just because someone has offended you does not mean that that person has sinned against you, no matter how angry they have made you. It does not mean that you can read their hearts, their motives, or assign sin to them, allowing feelings about them as a person to override the truth of God’s Word. And the sin must be worthy of taking all the way to the end process if necessary.

So, after I confirmed what I had known about the Matthew 18 process, I listened as my husband read Galatians 2 to me and suddenly I understood the confusion and the problem. Here is what he read:

“Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. I went in response to a revelation and set before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. But I did this privately to those who seemed to be leaders, for fear that I was running or had run my race in vain. Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. This matter arose because some false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you. As for those who seemed to be important–whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance–those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I was eager to do.

When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. “If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!”

In this portion of Scripture, Paul approaches Peter and, in an act that would certainly be called slander and gossip and libel had he done so on a blog, opposed him in front of them all! And then, of course, he later told people all about it, in fact, the Holy Spirit continues to tell all believers everywhere that Paul did this, because it is written in the holy writ via a letter to the Galatians, God’s warning and an example to all of us!

You see, Peter was a public figure and one who had great influence. Paul knew that he had to make a public statement for three reasons: First, Peter, because of his influence, was leading many astray. Because Peter’s ministry was public, Paul’s rebuke also had to be public.

Secondly, Peter was teaching the gospel plus Jewish tradition. Rather than instructing the Jews that their personal system was of no value to them, Peter was teaching legalism, rendering the Gospel of grace ineffective.

Thirdly, Paul recognized that many people who desperately needed Jesus were seeing Peter’s hypocrisy. Peter was, in essence, saying “do as I say not as I do” and Paul called him on it. I think, on one level, Paul even had to have been terribly embarrassed for Peter.

And this brings us full circle to the reason why understanding the differences between applying Matthew 18 and Galatians 2 is so crucial within the homeschooling community. You see, those who are currently raising the subject of “online gossip and slander” of late are within the patriocentric camp. They know that they cannot win their debate in the arena of public discussion. They think if they can make a case for privately talking, one on one, where they can say anything they want, free from public accountability, they can continue to teach what they teach. Those of us who are challenging these teachings MUST keep the discussion within the sphere of public discourse, where each and every word can be seen and heard.

I believe this quote from Dr. Jay Adams, in his volume “Grist from Adams’s Mill”, addresses this illegitimate use of Matthew 18 in an attempt to censure public criticism:

“Any Christian who sets himself up as a teacher in the church of Christ and publicly teaches anything thereby opens himself up for criticism by others (cf. James 3:1). If they think what he is teaching is harmful to the church, they have an obligation to point it out just as widely as it was taught. Such public warning or debate on the topic should not be considered a personal attack at all. The teacher’s plea that a critic should first have come to him about his disagreement on the basis of Matthew 18:15 does not hold. This passage has to do with personal wrongs known only between the two, who should privately discuss the matter that separates them. What a critic of a public teaching does in pointing out his disagreement with that teaching has nothing to do with personal affronts or lack of reconciliation; he is simply disagreeing at the same public level as that on which the teaching was given in the first place” (pg. 69).

I would encourage you to continue to hold fast to the truth of the Gospel message in this day when patriocentricity is worming its way into the church of Jesus Christ. Be a Berean and do not grow weary of well doing!

Original posting at ThatMom

Permalink 3 Comments

What does the Bible say about modesty?

March 15, 2008 at 1:11 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

Okay – time to dive into the topic. My thoughts on the topic of modesty begin with the fact that the word modesty no longer communicates what it meant a hundred years ago and earlier. There are shades of the original meaning still lingering, but for the most part the original meaning is lost in our current understanding of that word.

When the topic of modesty comes up in a youth group or a women’s bible study or a picnic table conversation, everyone’s thoughts immediately turn to clothing. This is somewhat odd since we still understand the statement, “they live modestly.” This statement means, of course, “they live simply” or “they are not ostentatious. The opposite would be someone who lives in a flashy way, drawing attention to themselves, living in the spotlight.

In the blog post I referenced yesterday (Walking Billboards), Mrs. McDonald used the King James Version’s translation of 1 Peter 1:14 to address the topic of modesty, which to modern society’s ears means clothing. In the King James, 1 Peter 1:14 says, “As obedient children, not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts in your ignorance.” It’s an interesting choice of verses to use, especially in the KJV.

Another word that carries a different meaning today than it did more than a hundred years ago is the word “fashion.” Fashion magazines are about … clothing. The fashion column in the local newspaper is about … clothing. A person of “high fashion” is a person who wears designer … clothing. So using the King James version of 1 Peter 1:14 was evidently an attempt to make the reader think that 1 Peter 1:14 has something to say about … clothing. In a distant, indirectly connected way, it may. The phrase “not fashioning yourselves according to the former lusts” is translated in a more modern version (one in our language) as “do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance” (ESV). The Greek word ( / suschematizo) that was translated “fashion” in the KJV and “conform” in the ESV is the same Greek word used in Romans 12:2 when we are admonished: “Do not be conformed to this world,” and I have never heard anyone make the argument that Romans 12:2 is speaking of clothing.

These verses do touch indirectly on our manner of dress, as we are told in these verses that our dress, along with all other areas of our lives, should not be patterned after, molded after, fashioned after those who make up the secular, non-believing world. That doesn’t mean that we are to reject everything the world does, as the Amish have done in their rejection of automobiles and incandescent lights, but that we should not be striving to live like the world. In other words, blending in with the world should not be our focus. But rather, our focus is to be on living lives worthy of our calling as children of God. So then, these verses are teaching us not what we should wear, but they are teaching us the proper target of our mind’s focus.

But now on to the topic of clothing and its related fashion accouterments. The bible does directly address these things. Here is one of the verses that deals with dress:

1 Peter 3:3-4 (ESV)  Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious.

In this verse, examples are offered of the word “adorning” in order to establish a definition. The examples are: “the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing.” And then to further the definition an antonym is given in the phrase: “but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit.” And to show how very important this is we are told that this type of adornment “in God’s sight is very precious.”

If we take this verse on its face without using our ability to discern, it seems that this verse is telling us that we should not ever wear clothing (Do not let your adorning be external, … the putting on of clothing). But that’s not the point of the verse. What it is, in fact, saying is that we should not be consumed with interest in such things as fashion, manner or style of dress, and personal presentation, but rather with being a Godly person.

So then, Mrs. McDonald’s blog, which reveals that she writes often of matters related to clothing and dress and has even written books and magazine articles on the topic, is in direct violation of this verse. We are not to concern ourselves with this sort of focus.

Purchase your WWMMD
buttons here!
(not really)

Does this topic come up elsewhere in the bible? 1 Timothy 2:8-10 says:”I desire then that in every place the … women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

Once again, the parallel is given. Women are admonished to adorn themselves in “respectable apparel,” which is then defined as “good works.” In other words, Paul is saying that women’s focus should not be on how pretty they are, but on good works. These verses actually head in the opposite direction of essentially every discussion of modesty that I have ever heard. The typical conversation about modesty focusing the minds of the young ladies directly on their clothing and then encouraging them to be as plain and unappealing as they can possibly be. And I think the reason is because we misunderstand the meaning of the word modesty. Or perhaps because we know that if we redefine the word modesty, we can use the redefined term to force other people (say that teenage girl we happen to see walking with her mother through the store) to wear what we personally prefer to wear.

So what did modesty mean to people who used the word a hundred or more years ago? Perhaps we can get an idea by looking at something written back then:

What made the violet modest in Spurgeon’s perspective? What made it modest was the fact that, although the violet had incredible beauty, it did not call attention to itself. It wasn’t modest because it had shunned the blue petals in favor of long, loose-fitting earth-toned petals that were thick enough to cover any bumps that might have lain beneath them. It was modest because its beauty was not being thrust upon the watching world.

This is what modesty means in the Bible. We are to be concerned with our inner man, with our spiritual condition, with our sanctification, with becoming more Christlike. Outward adornment, clothing, hair and other matters of fashion are still to be considered, but they are secondary to our primary interest of focusing our attention and the attention of others on Jesus Christ.

But as a side issue, I think it is unscriptural to develop ministries and careers based around advising young ladies about what clothing they should wear—as long as the only thing we’re telling them is don’t wear this and don’t wear that. The appropriate ministry, if one feels so called, would be to teach young ladies that their spiritual life is of utmost importance and undue focus on external fashion is of secondary importance (not unimportant, but secondary).

Permalink 3 Comments

Modesty – Misuse of Scripture – Pontification, etc.

March 14, 2008 at 11:53 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

I’d like to point you to a blog post: Walking Billboards. From the blog Your Sacred Calling, in this post blog author Stacy McDonald deals with the issue of “modesty.”

What Would Mrs. McDonald Do?

In my estimation, Mrs. Stacy McDonald is way off-base in her thoughts about dress. If you follow the comments at her blog post, you will come across further comments that make me think that she is also incredibly off-base regarding how we should teach our children about sex. And if you factor in her consistent misuse of scripture, you end up with some pretty serious problems that actually become the perfect example of the I’m-better-than-you blogs I mentioned in my recent post, “I’m better than you are…”

Further discussion of this topic (modesty and Christians’ use of scripture) has followed, both through various blogs and in personal conversations with fellow church members and friends. And this has made me think that I should address this topic here on my blog. That way folks may interact with me directly if they would like to agree or disagree and, perhaps, we can further the discussion.

As time allows, I will make a few posts regarding the individual topics and my thoughts on them. I will try to make my comments biblical. If you disagree, please comment and show me how I have misinterpreted scripture. I promise not to delete your comment whether you agree or disagree. But I do ask that you refrain from using profanity. I will try to write my posts on these topics as soon as possible, but wanted to post this right now to open up a line of communication for those who would like to discuss this issue.

A few primary comments to lay the foundation for the discussion. Because I am disagreeing with folks who I believe are presenting the topic of dress inappropriately, I may seem to be encouraging immodesty or even public nudity. I am not encouraging that at all. I am encouraging Christians to follow scriptural teaching on this and every other topic and not to think that we must help God because he just didn’t get it quite right.

Permalink 2 Comments

By request

March 1, 2008 at 7:28 pm (Patriocentric idiocy)

Permalink 2 Comments

I’ve been nominated

March 1, 2008 at 11:56 am (Patriocentric idiocy)

Here it is. Will this work?

I posted this on March 1 instead of today’s date because I don’t want to seem like I’m piling on. I know I’m being watched.

Permalink 2 Comments