What exactly do I mean by the title of this blog?
In early church history the term Christian was a derrogatory term for those who followed the Christ. Patriocentrist is a term coined by vicious people on the internet to misconstrue the Biblical Patriarch’s call to examine our modern lives in light of God’s eternal standards.
So I’ve decided to own the term. I’ll be that big bad patriocentrist that I keep hearing about. I my mind it’s better than a matriocentrist or a individuocentrist, or even a slanderocentrist.
This blog is an issue driven blog, it has a narrow focus that is examining the claims of the busy bodies, gossips, and other malicious nagging tounges to see if there is any truth. I contend that everyone of the leaders of this little band of wagging tounges has an agenda or has bought into the lies of someone who does.
I will occasionally serve up for your enjoyment patriarchs from past and present in their own words so you can see for yourself.
November 20, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I feel very honored to be on your blogroll.
One question: are you sure that the folks involved are all busybodies, or do you think they may have actual issues worth discussing? I ask because your first post makes it sound as if you’ve already assumed the dissenters do not have anything valid to say because their character is such that they exist only to bite and devour.
Personally, I bought into the patriarchal paradigm, hook, line, and sinker. Because of the great personal pain it brought to me and to my family, I ended up being driven back to the Scriptures. It was there that my patriarchal mindset was “reformed,” as it were. Coming out of patriarchy was a long painful process, not something I did because I wanted out, or because I wanted to nag or wag my tongue.
It’s much like escaping a house fire. After coming out of something I found to be personally destructive, spiritually destructive, and culturally destructive, it would probably come as no suprise that I would then be interested and involved in actions that would help douse the fire.
I personally believe that most people involved in patriarchy are well intentioned and full of zeal for the Lord. I know that is how I was. I wanted God glorified, whatever that meant, and was willing to do whatever He asked of me. I believe most of my patriarchal brothers and sisters feel the same way. And that part of me hasn’t changed–that part that wants God lifted high through my little life on earth, that is willing to do whatever He asks. What has changed is my view of what He has asked.
I would respectfully ask you, as you blog, to consider the actual claims in the least biased way possible. Meaning, please do not do yourself the disservice of applying one standard to opposing claims but another standard of measurement to the patriarchal counterclaims. Let the same logic, the same research, the same Scripture-digging methods apply to both. And one more favor, if you don’t mind. Please PLEASE do not assume that one can only exit patriarchy if one is in personal rebellion to Yahweh or if one is decieved by modern self-serving culture.
Your sister in Christ,
Molly
November 21, 2007 at 12:07 am
PS. I was looking through your links (found some new places I’d never been to before–thanks) and noticed that you have Spurgeon on your Patriocentrist list.
While I’m sure he probably believed in gender roles to some extent or another, I’m guessing you are not aware that his (highly-trained-in-Biblical-languages) wife would go and preach in the pulpit for him when he was sick (and was outstanding, or so they said). So you may want to take him off your list, because I’m not sure that behaviour fits into the Tenants of Biblical Patriarchy as espoused by Vision Forum. [You don't have to publish this comment--I'm just sharing this for your own personal information].
Warmly,
Molly
November 21, 2007 at 3:40 pm
Hi Patriocentrist,
Happy Thanksgiving to you! I am going to be reading Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Day Proclamation to my children along with Psalms of Thanksgiving from the Bible.
Just wondering if you could define the word “slanderocentrist” for me and explain to me how this blog doesn’t qualify? Are you not exactly what Doug Phillips and others define as an anonymous internet assassin?
I have found that anonymity only lasts for a while, especially with the technology now available. You would have much more credibility at presenting your case if you would come out behind the skirts of the internet and show, by your own example, the proper way to address falsehoods in the church.
I also am curious as to why you listed Pooh’s Think? He is certainly not of the patriocentrist mindset nor is he in line with most of the patriocentrists you linked to.
I am looking forward to you examining the issues and the claims of the so-called busy bodies and gossips and other malicious nagging tongues.
Instead of rushing to mischief, I am going to rush to make Abigail Adam’s cranberry recipe.
God Bless!
November 22, 2007 at 11:09 am
First of all, thank you for having me in such incredible company in your blogroll. I’m honored to be listed with such intelligent and thoughtful Christian women. Which, for what it’s worth, is also something I think about the Patriocentric Christian women. We are filled with a love of the Lord and a desire to carry out His will. We have different ideas about what that means and are all working to discern His truth.
So, my question to you is: what mischief are we running to? Is there some sort of sin that we’re in? And if you believe me to be in sin, why have you not approached me privately using the model described in Matthew 18? My contact information is right there in the sidebar of my blog which you have linked to. Interestingly, the blog that you listed isn’t one that I’ve actually discussed Patriarchy issues on. My faith blog is. It’s also linked from my Homeschooling blog.
In any case, I would appreciate it if you would clue me in as to my mischief. Otherwise it sounds to me like someone doing exactly what we have been accused of: gossiping and libeling. I hope that by saying that I’m rushing to mischief you are not attempting to attack my character. Since you are a brother or sister in Christ, I will assume the best as I await your answer.
In Him and Happy Thanksgiving,
Anne (who is trying to to overdo it on Thanksgiving since I’m supposed to be off my feet trying to cook my own little turkey for a few weeks longer before giving birth to yet another little Blessing)
November 22, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Corrie,
I am heartily glad that you will be in the kitchen tomorrow serving your family. Unfortunately the feet of your slanderous words constantly run to and fro on the internet and there have been plenty of them to cause mischief without your active presence.
So while I am grateful that you will be reading Psalms to your children I will be more grateful when you begin repenting of the maligning you’ve been about for the last 11 and a half months.
Remember as you write “When words are many sin is not absent but he who holds his tongue is wise”
“come out from the skirts of the internet”?
lol
Corrie you sound positively chauvinistic!
Why is it with you mischievous types that anonymity only bothers you if you feel critiqued and criticized?
What if had used the name anne or Cally Tyrol or Jen or cd-host or shilohmm?
The fact is you don’t truly know any of these people they just happen to align with your grid so their anonymity doesn’t fret you one bit.
November 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Molleth you ask me to
“consider the actual claims in the least biased way possible.”
Molleth I am sitting here stunned that you could actually type that request after you just biased the entire discussion with your existential claims and admitted that you are presuppositionally biased is that because your former pastor (allegedly) abused his trust then you know the inside scoop on all patriarchs. How does the least biased interpretation of the facts lead us to the conclusion that all patriarchs are basically bullies and are all making the same mistakes when interpreting scripture?
Biblical patriarchy is just a fancy modern way of saying historic protestant view of the family. I think that many people will be amazed to see that the views of the biblical patriarchy’s critics are the novelty and not the other way around. This is why I intend to post quotes and commentaries from past church fathers.
One last thing: I have myself been around men who styled themselves patriarchs but were thinly veiled bullies who cloak their sin in their authority and convince their families not to expose them to the church. This is
1.) not patriarchy and
2.) sinful and
3.) not something that any of the men involved in the modern biblical patriarchy would stand for, Jennifer Epstein’s claims not withstanding.
The fences against bullies and tyrants are all there. If you and your compatriots were not busy doing yourselves “the disservice of applying one standard to opposing claims but another standard ” to the patriarchs you would see them, but after “escaping a housefire” you all are more than a little guilty of putting out every campfire with a tank truck.
November 22, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Patriocentrist,
I’m thrilled to hear you say that the “fences against bullies and tyrants are all there”. Especially since that’s been a major concern of mine. Could you please elaborate on what they are and how they’re enforced? If I were the wife of a man who liked to hit me, what recourse would I have within the church? Sadly, what I’ve read thus far seemed to tell me that the opposite was true. I wasn’t basing my fear on nothing.
Also, I’d like to ask whether or not you as a representative of this movement believe that to disagree with the Patriocentric ideas of the family means that one is not truly a Christian, or that one is in sin.
I’d also love an answer to the questions I asked in my previous posts about my mischief making.
Peace in Him.
November 22, 2007 at 5:19 pm
BTW, Cally Tyrol while being a screen name, is not anonymous to me. She’s been my real life best friend since I was 13 years old. I’ve known her since I was 11. We grew up together in California, and talk daily by telephone even though we now live across the country from one another. She’s not just a friend, she’s family to me. Like my sister. And, in fact, through Christ she is my sister. Just because you don’t know who someone is doesn’t mean that they’re not a real person with real thoughts and feelings, or have genuine ideas and thoughts to share.
If someone is sharing something legitimate, that information will bear it’s own weight. The truth is the truth, no matter who’s lips (or fingers) it comes from.
I have not been anonymous (Anne Basso being my real name), and have certainly given out more information about myself than is probably safe in this day and age. But that’s not the point. Just because you don’t know me doesn’t mean I’m anonymous.
Still, if what you’re saying is true, it will bear out whether or not I know who you are. It just seems odd that so many on the True Womanhood blog have been quite open about who they are, first and last names, etc. and have stood behind their position, open for critique and criticism. But this blog is anonymous.
If you are right, and proud of your position, it seems that you would be willing to be open about who you are. Not that I think it will affect how right your statements are.
November 23, 2007 at 10:38 am
Hi Patriospeak,
You are right that was chauvinistic of me to tell you to come out behind the skirts of the internet. What I should have said was that you should come out behind Mamma’s apron.
(Hi Mom!!!)
I am not at all disturbed by someone who wants to remain anonymous. If you had read what I wrote you would see that I was pointing your hypocrisy. I am not the one complaining about slander and gossip and “anonymous internet assassins”. I am not the one pointing the finger at these so-called “gossips” for merely questioning what I teach. So, please don’t think that your anonymity is the thing that bothers me because it is the hypocrisy that I was referring to.
BTW, I know who Cally is and I also know who CD AND who CD-Host is. And if I felt that they were wrong about something, I would have no problem calling them on it as I know that they would have a problem with doing the same, either.
We don’t operate in the grid. I thought you knew that? We have become free from the grid and that is why those who still operate in the grid are so very angry with us. Your blog is just another example of how so many have truly exposed the Grid for what it is.
Figuring out who you are isn’t Rocket Science.
Oh, also, you might want to correct the spelling of Stacy McDonald’s name.
God Bless!
November 23, 2007 at 11:12 am
P.S. you also spelled “Dabney” wrong. We all know that those who highly revere Dabney would never spell his name wrong! I just want to make sure that your links are correct because I do want people to read up on Dabney and see what it is you are promoting.
November 23, 2007 at 1:37 pm
NOTE TO JENNIFER (and Mark):
You are not welcome here! Carmon is a wise woman and you are banned from here as well.
Reconcile with the authorities who disciplined you.
This is what Faith PCA told you.
They were right.
November 23, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Corriejo
I’m honored that we caught your interest so thoroughly! Spelling is not one of my strengths. Thanks for the heads up.
BTW what grid are you talking about? I read the guys and gals who have you in such a tizzy; they are arguing from the Bible not from any “grid” .
They say over and over that they see freedom in how Christians run their homes and how fathers educate their children. Yet like Karen and Karen, you keep insisting that they don’t mean what they say but you have the secret keys of communication to tell everyone what they really mean.
Sounds cultic to me.
When it comes to Spurgeon, or Dabney or even Luther I may not agree with everything they taught or wrote (I think Dabney’s views of the Eucharist were way off base) but I can still appreciate them for the wisdom they taught and learn from them even where they made mistakes.
The way through all of this is for you ladies to spit out the artfully crafted lies you been told and turn your back on the really bad scholarship you keep embracing (hi Don!) and treat the biblical patriarchs and their helpmeets the way you would want to be treated!
Last time I checked that wasn’t a grid. That was the Second Great Commandment!
~Pat
PS as for my anonymity…operative word is assasin. I haven’t assasinated anyone. I haven’t made anything out of whole cloth or spun and twisted people’s words to mean what they did not say. (like you and Karen and Cindy, and Karen, and Cynthia)
Cheers!
November 23, 2007 at 3:55 pm
Patriocentrist, should I be offended that you haven’t addressed my comments at all?
And can you address any specific lies that I have told, or any abuses I am guilty of? If I have acted in error, or have sinned in some way, I would appreciate the opportunity to make it right. But you have yet to point out my error, sin, or even mischief.
Peace in Him,
Anne
November 23, 2007 at 6:54 pm
“When it comes to Spurgeon, or Dabney or even Luther I may not agree with everything they taught or wrote (I think Dabney’s views of the Eucharist were way off base) but I can still appreciate them for the wisdom they taught and learn from them even where they made mistakes.”
Oh, so you don’t like Dabney’s views on the Eucharist? Is that all about Dabney that was “way off base”.
“They say over and over that they see freedom in how Christians run their homes and how fathers educate their children. Yet like Karen and Karen, you keep insisting that they don’t mean what they say but you have the secret keys of communication to tell everyone what they really mean.”
Oh, like calling girls who go to college “harlots”? You mean they don’t mean they are harlots? That in their patriospeak, when they call a woman a harlot, they mean something else by it?
I don’t understand about your brand of freedom. How is not allowing daughters to go to college if they so wish called “freedom”? What if a daughter wanted to be a nurse like Florence Nightingale or Clara Barton? (BTW, those were to women Stacy McDonald suggested we honor in a scrapbook of virtuous women and they were two of the foremost feminists of their day)
How is teaching that women who work are actually selling their flesh cheaply to their co-workers in one-night stands in some hotel room or that they are outside the prescriptive will of God?
Could you point to ONE thing that I have said in the last “11 months” that has been slanderous or just pulled out of thin air? Just ONE thing, that is all you have to come up with.
Oh, your name isn’t “Pat”. Nice androgynous name (I see you visited my blog).
Also, what does Don have to do with all of this? I am not of Apollos. I am of Christ. I don’t follow anyone who doesn’t follow Him.
I hope you and your mom are enjoying your new blog. I know I am appreciating it and so are others. You are actually just more proof of the points we have been making.
Anne, I hope Patriospeak answers your question. I would like to know the abuses your are guilty of, too. What sin have you committed? What mischief have you caused? What is your error? Patriospeak should have come to all of us and tried to get us to see the error of our ways. This is personal with Patriospeak. This is not about you or anyone else that they have falsely accused.
In fact, if our young friend understood the concept of hypocrisy, our young friend would actually practice what they preach. At least we outline specifics and don’t talk in nebulous and clearly undefined terms and throw around false accusations. We deal with the issues and we quote directly from the sources. If you notice, even when we quote from direct sources, it is made out to be something it really isn’t. If Patriospeak could come up with just 3 slanderous statements from all of the combined people, I will take this blog seriously.
It is typical of the hyperPatriarchal movement to put themselves as the final arbiter and authority of all truth. As their leader says, “he who defines, wins”. That about says it all.
November 23, 2007 at 10:56 pm
“The way through all of this is for you ladies to spit out the artfully crafted lies you been told and turn your back on the really bad scholarship you keep embracing (hi Don!) and treat the biblical patriarchs and their helpmeets the way you would want to be treated!”
It would be helpful to give an example or examples of the lying. It is obvious you want Corrie to repent, and that you are accusing her of lying, but until you spell it out, she has no way of knowing just what it is you are referring to.
Generally speaking, when a new blog like this gets started, it isn’t a good idea to come out making accusations without first providing arguments and presenting solid evidence for your claims. Unless you don’t want to be taken seriously. If that is the case, I guess you can say pretty much whatever you want.
November 24, 2007 at 7:34 am
Molly,you claim that Mrs. Suzanna Spurgeon filled the pulpit for her husband and was a language scholar. Could you share where you got that info. I have been looking for it and all I could find in that regard was that she knew French well.
November 24, 2007 at 2:46 pm
I’m sorry, I just now saw this. I got that information from a very patriarchal source, actually—Denny Keneston of Charity Gospel Tape Ministries, etc, on his tape, “The Hidden Woman.”
I have also read somewhere that she was trained in Hebrew and helped her husband with his sermons, but I do not remember where. Sorry.
November 24, 2007 at 6:41 pm
I know she helped her husband with her sermons. They would discuss different passages when he was trying to find a passage to speak on. She even wrote one out one night when he was talking in his sleep! She was a great woman whose goal it was to put good doctinally sound books in the hand of every pastor who asked for them since they were very dear.
I’m wondering if Mr. Keneston’s information is correct since I can’t find it in a number of sources I have been searching.
November 24, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Dear Patriospeak,
I have been going around trying to encourage fellow believers to speak kindly one to another. I understand you feel quite strongly about your beliefs as I do of mine but don’t you think that some aspects of this site might provoke fellow believers to wrath rather than love and goodworks?
I hope you “hear” me in the manner in which I am speaking. One of love and not anger or hurt.
November 28, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Why give all these cackling hens another place to dishonor the order of our Creator? You ought to say what you have to say and turn off the comments.
Let the women be silent. They only feign propriety; they are busy bodies if there ever were any! I am constantly amazed at their inability to examine themselves.
July 21, 2008 at 5:44 pm
It looks like this blog is dead. However this thread turned up in a search. First off if you want to address stuff I wrote, you probably should let me know.
As for the opinions of historical Christianity being in line with Abshire’s piece I wrote a very detailed refutation (link) of that. The opinion you hold is modern. BTW email me with a reverse link if you want to keep discussing here or we can do it on my blog on the patriarchy thread I just linked you too.