January 26, 2010 by Stacy McDonald

From a Reader….

Print Friendly

I received this comment from a reader today, and I thought she made some very valid points, so I’m sharing it with you here. It’s in reference to the article, The Real Women’s Liberation Movement: Christianity

Hello Mrs. McDonald,

I followed a link from another blog highlighting this article as a must-read. I am new to your blog and wanted to say hello, and that I appreciated the very good and valid points you made in your article.

The one caveat I would make, which would not contradict anything you wrote, but perhaps be an addendum, is to remember that, sadly, the church over the centuries has often been corrupted in various forms by the world’s thinking. Whether it be devotion to an unjust political cause or leader, or racial or cultural bigotry, or any number of social or moral injustices, sadly we have seen the church fail to hold Christ’s standard perfectly, and the body has had cause to repent over these issues across time.

Sadly, the same can be said about valuing women. You make an excellent point that women fair better in Christian societies than in those of other religions. That does not mean, however, that the church over time has had nothing to repent of in it’s attitudes towards women. Christians have been the majority in western societies where women had not enough protection before the law when it came to physical abuse by their husbands, were not offered basic protections as individuals before the law, and were ultimately not viewed a ‘equals’ to men by society.

Living in a post-feminist society, I can embrace God’s calling to me to as a wife, a home maker, and a mother, and be confident that a different role than my husband does not make me inferior to him. Sadly, though, I do not believe that same understanding was present in earlier generations for all Christian women. Just recently I was watching an episode of a 1950s family sitcom, which I quite enjoy, but was unsettled by the fact that when the teenage daughter expressed interest in a career in sciences, she was not admonished against it by her parents because a career as a wife and a mother was preferred track for her as a woman, but because she would be not up to the task intellectually because she was a female. These attitudes have been pervasive in the past, and have been supported by Christians, and they are attitudes that should be recognized as unbiblical and something that the church needed to repent of and change.

You are right that feminism was not the answer to this problem of devaluing women as different. My heroes of women’s history are not Anthony and Stanton, for reasons mentioned above, but rather women like the Beecher sisters, who campaigned that a woman’s contribution in the home and in the feminine realms of society were just as important as the contributions of men, and thus should be valued as such. But it’s important to remember that these women were still reformers in their day, advocating for the important of education for women when that was still rather debatable.

I bring all of this up because as someone who came to CHrist in her adulthood, and as a recovering feminist myself, I know the importance of Christians being willing to say that the church has not been perfect in living out Christ’s example of valuing women equally with men, and that because of that poor witness it is easy for the outsider to confuse worldly thinking with what the bible actually has to say about the value of women. Scripture teaches us that it is ont our roles that define us and give us value, but the fact that we are made in God’s image and are redeemed by Christ. That has not always been the message of the world, however, nor of the church, in relation to the value and equality of women, and is sometihng I believe if we want to be light and salt for Christ in a post-feminist world, that we have to be willing to own, and point with humility to the perfect example of Christ, rather than the imperfect example of Christendom.

Sorry that was so long, love the blog and I’ll be back again for sure!

In Christ,


Similar Posts:

36 Responses to “From a Reader….”

  1. Armchair Housewife says:

    Well bless your cotton socks, Mrs. MacDonald. Here I was returning to your blog's main page to see what else you were discussing, just to find you had reposted my comment.

    It was gracious of you just to read the whole long thing, let alone repost it! :) God Bless you and I look forward to more of your blog in the future.

    In Christ,


  2. Chelsey says:

    oooooooohhhhhhhh Nicole… I LOVE what you have said and in such an incredible and refreshing way!! Yes, Yes, Yes! It isn't that women are inferior in anyway to men, but that we were created for a wholly different role.


  3. Persuaded says:

    Well said, Nicole. I (rather uncharacteristically) have nothing to add;)

    And well done, Stacey for being willing to hostess such potentially contentious subjects, and spurring us all on to discuss them in an intelligent, gracious and God honoring way?

  4. Civilla says:

    That was a great comment.

  5. Jennifer says:

    Everyone has a different role, Chelsey. It's no wonder some women have gotten caught up in the can't do's, when that's all they get to start with.

    My gosh Nicole, how awful! What a terrible show, and so ignorant. Thanks for your thoughts and thank you, stacy for posting them!

  6. L says:

    Loved the post by Nicole. Thanks for posting it Stacey.

  7. Lanita says:

    A lot of churches are still not doing their jobs now on the way they treat women, because they are allowing them into the roles that men should be taking. They are not encouraging women to get married and have children. They encourage young ladies to leave the shelter of their fathers to attend college. They don't encourage fathers to shelter their daughters until marriage. The church needs to return to God's Word and teach what it says concerning women and their roles.

  8. Stacie, A Firefighter's Wife says:

    Nicole, these are some great points and I thoroughly enjoyed reading them!

  9. Jennifer says:

    I see churches today progressing, Lanita. They don't tell young women what to do because they know only God knows His plans for each individual.

  10. Chelsey says:

    I couldn't agree with you more! Unfortunatley, the world and feminism has greatly infiltrated the Church. You are right in that most Churches have gotten so far away from what Scripture says about the roles of men and women. I am greatful to ministries such as Vision Forum that are helping to change that and organizations such as the National Council of Family Integrated Churches.

    If women (and men) could only see that it isn't about what "I can't do", but who we are in Christ. We have to come to a point where we understand that it's not about us, but ALL for His glory.

    Great thoughts Lanita!

  11. Chelsey says:

    I have been mulling Nicole's words over and over for some reason since you posted this.

    The world (and even modern Chirstendom) would have us to believe that the gifts and intellect that God has given to women is wasted away when we choose to stay home and be "busy at home and homemakers. I would consider myself to be an intellegent woman. I did go to college and even worked outside the home for a while. I don't think it arrogant to say that I could be a very successful business woman if I wanted to. I worked my way up in a company, and that I had I stayed with, would proably be paying me close to six figures by now.

    I am not feeble, week-minded, doormat of a woman. My husband would indeed tell you otherwise.

    What I think is a waste, however, is that the gifts and intellect we have been given, are wasted on the world. There is NO greater use of my gifts and intellect then using using them to watch over the affairs of my household.

    I have embraced my role that God has placed me in, and not because I am inferior in anyway to man, or up not up to the task intellectally to do othersie, but because this is my HIGH calling as a woman of God.

    Thanks Stacy, for such thought provoking posts. I always appreciate your Godly wisdom and insight!

  12. Love Acts says:

    Very thoughtful observations/comments.

  13. Jennifer says:

    Wanting to serve in the church has nothing to do with feminism, Chelsea.

  14. Mrs. Webfoot says:

    I have embraced my role that God has placed me in, and not because I am inferior in anyway to man, or up not up to the task intellectally to do othersie, but because this is my HIGH calling as a woman of God.>>>>

    Yes! You have expressed these concepts in an eloquent way. "The role that God has placed in me" is an especially perceptive statement.

    What would make a woman – or many thousands of women for that matter – walk away from a career like yours so that they can serve their families? This is a trend that has bothered feminist activists for a long time. Why would a woman, after being "liberated" return to the place of her "enslavement"?

    It has to be something deeper that calls us to return home. Isn't it our Maker's design, that "role that God has placed in me" that tugs at us? I think so.

    Feminism has tried to get women out of the home and into the work force where they supposedly belong and where they can find fulfillment. What they have not been able to do is get the homeward call out of the women, and many go back home. Others wish that they could.

    I don't see that feminism has an answer for that trend.

  15. Kara says:

    The essence of feminism is rebelling against God. We are wretched sinners. When Jesus saved us we "switched sides" so that we no longer are at war against God, but against the world. Because Christ is now in charge of our lives, we must follow what he says. Scripture makes it very clear what our roles are. Scriptures such as Proverbs 31:10-31, 1 Peter 3:1-6, Ephesians 5:22-24 speak of our role at home and how we should conduct ourselves in society. Other scriptures such at 1 Timothy 2:9-15 speak of the roles and conduct of women in the church. These came from God, telling us how we should behave, to ignore or disregard them is to be disobedient and rebellious. As Nicole very eloquently put, this is not to say that women are of lesser value then men. We fulfill a different role. Ephesians 5:22-28 explains this. By taking on our roles, we are modeling for the world the relationship between Christ and the Church. However, that does not change that we are both made in the image of God. Gen 1:27

  16. Stacy McDonald says:

    Nicole – I am grateful for your insight. Thanks for sharing it.

    Persuaded – Oh come on! Surely you can come up with *something* to add! ;-)

    I think it all boils down to the fact that the Church should be leading the culture by following Christ, not following the culture while dragging our Bibles behind us.

    Lanita – the Church (Christ's bride) is in the midst of being perfected. Until then, we need to look over the whole span of history to see her progress – and she has progressed. Contrary to what some modern Christians say. We tend to look at such a small portion of history (the last hundred years) and judge progress that way.

    "That he might sanctify and cleanse [the Church] with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." (Ephesians 5:26-27)

    Jennifer, if, when you say the church is "progressing," you are referring to things like ordaining women as pastors, then that is not progress at all. That's one of the many things the modern church must repent of and reform.

    Chelsey – thank you for your very, very good points. I especially loved this:

    "What I think is a waste, however, is that the gifts and intellect we have been given, are wasted on the world. There is NO greater use of my gifts and intellect then using using them to watch over the affairs of my household.

    I have embraced my role that God has placed me in, not because I am inferior in anyway to man, or not up to the task intellectually to do otherwise, but because this is my HIGH calling as a woman of God."

    Amen! Our intellect and our education should all be used for God’s glory, not our own.

    Mrs. Webfoot – thank you again for your excellent points.

  17. Stacy McDonald says:

    Jennifer, you said:

    "Wanting to serve in the church has nothing to do with feminism…"

    That depends on what you mean when you talk about women "serving in the church." Feminism has crept into the church and attempted to twist God's clear guidelines for men and women in the church and how He wants corporate worship to be structured. We have churches across the world that are offering up strange fire to the Lord.

    Women are certainly called to serve the Church, but I have a feeling you and I wouldn't agree on what that looks like. ;-)

  18. Jennifer says:

    "We fulfill a different role"

    We fulfill different roles, more than just one. The Scripture uses the word "role" very rarely; every different person has one. Woman as a whole has the same role as man: subduing the earth.

    "Women are certainly called to serve the Church, but I have a feeling you and I wouldn't agree on what that looks like. ;-)"

    Yup. Well, partly. I'm glad we're sisters anyway :)

    I do disagree with your interpretation of Timothy, Kara; I don't think God created women to be silent in His Work, at least not across the board. I won't argue it with you, partly because this alone isn't the biggest issue for me; what is, is how this "women be silent" attitude has spread throughout more areas than the church. I remember how an atheist man once came to a board where I, a sweet lady, and a few other women and men were talking. The men, several of them, became very rude towards the atheist, inexcusably. I called them up on it, and the sweet lady said, "Hush, and let the men bring him to repentence." My horrified response was, "Is that your general reaction in matters of Christianity? 'Be quiet and let the men'?" Never mind that the "men" were behaving abominably, and bringing the atheist to repentence? Fat chance. I know many, many strong complimentarian women who are not silent in general and who are very strong. Elisabeth Elliot, Nancy Demoss, Elizabeth George, and Debi Pearl I admire a lot; even if I disagree sometimes, I've learned so much from them. Other women, however, seem cowed and don't appear to speak unless they have man, not God's, permission. The opposite behavior is what makes the above female writers I admire strong: they speak on God's authority, not man's.

    "Why would a woman, after being "liberated" return to the place of her "enslavement"?"

    All depends on how she's treated at home, how she views home, and how she works outside home, if she does the latter at all. I wonder so much about Elizabeth Stanton, ladies; was it just her perception that was wrong? Was her husband good and kind and unappreciated? Or was she like the author of the story "The Yellow Wallpaper", who nearly went mad because her doctor advised her husband confine her to household tasks because he thought this was the cure for her post-partum depression? (Her doctor actually believed doing intellectual things would harm her, because this wasn't a woman's place in his mind; she was forbidden even to write, and this was her profession).

    I should also add that feminism does not have anything to do with women wanting to be more than silent; why would a power-hungry woman influenced by feminism want to be a pastor?? A pastor is not a last-word getting, congregation ruling, intermediary between God and the rest of the flock as other people have claimed in the past; knowing our culture, it's actually shocking what the definitions of pastor and other church offices really mean, and they are NOT higher rung hierarchy positions like many churches now portray. In short, they are not positions for power mongers or anyone wishing to make a name for themselves, so to claim that feminism pushes women to them is simply fallacious in argument altogether.

  19. Armchair Housewife says:

    Mrs MacDonalnd and the rest of the lovely sisters here,

    I have I loved being able to be part of the conversation here, and have enjoyed all the insights!

    I did want to clarify that while I was pointing out that the church as a whole has not been perfect in it's treatment of and attitudes towards women, I didn't want to give the impression that I was 'church bashing'. Goodness knows there is enough of that going on today… and Mrs Macdonald you make an excellent point that Christ IS perfecting His church, and purifying her, and we can see true progress and change in the church in positive ways.

    What I think is a genuine shame, however, is that while the church seems to have gained in it's willingness to value women equally in our post-feminist world, instead of looking at its past mistkaes, repenting, and moving forward by embracing a Godly vision of gender equality and complimentary roles, and encouraging women to embrace those talents and gifts that God has given us for our homes and our families and service to those in the church, instead too often it has gone with the unbiblical views of feminism and encouraged and even pushed women into roles they were not created for.

    But, as Christ died for His church and loves her, I continue to love the body and pray for His will to be done in all of our hearts and minds.

    God bless, ladies :)


  20. Mrs. Webfoot says:

    I said:
    "Why would a woman, after being "liberated" return to the place of her "enslavement"?"

    All depends on how she's treated at home, how she views home, and how she works outside home, if she does the latter at all.

    Hi, Jennifer,
    How are you doing?

    Jennifer, women have been told that house wives are being taking advantage of whether they know it or not. According to the world, women who have not realised that they are being mistreated need to be made aware of how bad they really have it – they need to have their consciousness raised. Anyone who tells a woman to submit to her husband is putting that woman in grave danger, even if the woman doesn't know it. If she doesn't know it, she should at least respect those women who have been abused.

    How many times have all of us heard these kinds of arguments?

    Women must be set free, according to the feminist model, even if they do not want to be free.

    I have run into this kind of thing online, even among Christians. There is a group of women who have done all they can to show women that if they follow the Complementarian model, they will be in danger of being abused. Some even call themselves "soft comp", but then argue against pretty much every complementarian position, writer, and theologian.

    This is no secret, and I think that most if not all of us have run into these crusaders. It doesn't matter if a woman says that she is happy in her help meet, child bearing role and doesn't feel a need to be set free.

    The crusaders will not leave that woman alone, especially if she defends and promotes the complementarian position. It is even worse for her if she actually dares to oppose feminism.

    Feminists have been doing that kind of thing to home makers at least since the printing of Betty Friedan's book The Feminine Mistique in '66.

    Some pay a huge price for defending Biblical Complementarianism. Sure, women can do whatever they wish. It's a free country. However, what should women be doing? What were we made for?

    Feminism gives us no real answers since it cannot explain why what they call "the biological clock" has such power over women. The Bible explains why women are so tied to their husbands, the home, and family and affirms women in their help meet, child bearing, keeper at home roles. In the church, women support and encourage those feminine roles. Women in the church have always been involved in Dorcas and James "true religion" kinds of ministries. These doors of service in the church are wide open to women.

    If we give ourselves to those things, there is no time to be envious of men.

    As far as missionaries like Elizabeth Elliot go, she was primarily a home maker on the field. She helped her husband, of course, but her main job was caring for him, their children, and making a home for them even in the jungle.

    She was a home maker and she encouraged women in their home making role. In fact, her daughter is part of the "quiver full" movement. Elizabeth is a staunch Complementarian you know. One of the books she recommended – and got into trouble for with some women – was What? Me Obey Him?

    So, make sure you understand who she really was and how she lived. The vast majority of missionary women I know are home makers, just in a different cultural context. Yes, there are home makers who even write books.

    I know quite a few missionary families that home school.

    Things are not as you are imagining them, it seems to me.

    God bless,
    Mrs. Webfoot

  21. Chelsey says:

    Jennifer, you said, "Woman as a whole has the same role as man: subduing the earth."

    Can you explain what you mean by "subduing the earth" and share the Scriptural reference for this please? Thanks.

  22. Armchair Housewife says:

    Just wanted to weigh in on a few things that Jennifer said in her post.

    Jennifer, I do think that you bring up a good point with the issue of Stanton. It may very well be that she didn't feel appreciated in her role of wife and mother and homemaker, and that led to her discontent and her idea that perhaps doing something else would bring her true 'happiness'. I actually believe rather strongly that, again, the world (and yes, sadly the church in its adoption of the world's values) was guilty in the past of defining a woman's role, but not giving it the same *Value* as that of men. I touched on this in my first comment, but again just to reiterate that I do believe that because the world view for so long has been (and continues to be) that the only 'work' that has value is that which has a dollar amount prescribed to it (and of course the more the dollars, the more the value) that women's "work" was traditionally incredibly undervalued by society, and this led to the incorrect assumption that women were of lesser intellectual ilk, etc. These are the sins of which I was referring to in my first post, and so I think you do raise a good point in that regard.

    I would still suggest, however, that feminism, particularly in it's second and third waves, but to some extent even that which Ms Stanton advocated, was not the answer to this problem. If you take Ms Stanton's reflections, for instance, the assumption that doing something other than caring for her children and home would be the solution to her malaise and her discontent, this is the lie that feminism HAS sold us, that it will be some sort of career or 'work' outside the home that will bring us joy, fulfillment, and purpose. But of course only Christ, and a right relationship with Him, can bring us those things at a core level, and whatever God then calls us to in the way of work or calling or role after that be done in obedience to Him, not as a means of seeking fulfillment or curing what ails us.

    (to be continued! : )

  23. Armchair Housewife says:

    Jennifer (part two!),

    Regarding women in leadership in the church, and feminism, etc. I think you raise a very good point,Jennifer, which is that the world's view of leadership is not God's. In Matthew Jesus admonishes his disciples who wish to have a high status in the kingdom and points out that Christians leaders are those that serve, that lay down their lives for their sheep, that should be humble and not self-seeking in their position of leader.

    Where we disagree, however, is that feminist thinking does not lead women to desire to have leadership roles in the church such as pastor and elder. And here is why I disagree. The plain fact is that God's word is very clear, both in specific word and in general teaching, that women are to not teach or exercise authority over men in the church. I believe if we uphold a biblical world view, a Christ-centered world view, which is that 1) we are all created equally in God's sight and that the jobs or roles we fulfill here on earth have nothing to do with our value and 2) that leadership is a servant role, and nothing to be coveted above and beyong any other duty in the body, that we as women would not chide at the idea that we are not called to be teachers of men, pastors, or elders in the church. Instead, we would see this merely as a different calling, that we are called to lead women and children, that we are called to serve and exercise our gifts in the myriad of ways that God has designs us especially to do as women.

    And yet, because of the feminist perspective that 1) equality and egalitarianism are the same, and any suggestion of 'difference' automatically implies 'inequality', and 2) that in order for women to be truly equal in society they must have equal 'power', I believ that our worldly thinkng makes us believe that if we have a different role to fulfill, and if we are not clled to leadership in certain aspects in the church, that htis makes us less, and not equal, and therefore this is something to be overcome. If God's word, when taken at face value, is clear that women are not to exercise authority over men, and yet women seek to find ways to do so in the church, I believe they do so out of a misunderstanding that the only way to have equal value is to be the "same'. And I believe very strongly that this is a false teaching of feminism, that equality must equal sameness.

    So, all that to say, for my two cents, I think Jennifer yo make some excellent points, but that ultimately I would have different conclusions about some of those points when I look at the Word of God and human nature. :)

    Ok, that was enough typing! geesh! :)

  24. Jennifer says:

    I'm well aware of who Elisabeth Elliot is, Mrs. Webfoot, and I clearly acknowledged that she's complementarian. I'm also painfully aware that homemakers write books; I am not imagining anything and see quite clearly how things are. When I mention egalitarianism, you revert to the harms of feminism which are not the same and focus on these instead of MY words. You seem to be missing my point quite greatly if you think feminism or envying men has anything to do with what I've been saying.

    Nicole, you too entirely miss the point.

    "The plain fact is that God's word is very clear"

    Yes it is, about men and women concerning themselves with fellowship, not hierarchy. If you read the Bible correctly, you'll see that there is NO SPIRITUAL HIERARCHY in the church. There is NOTHING for women to envy; they suffer from stifled voices, not hungry power. Everyone in the church is to teach and lead in different ways with their gifts; this was my point, which leaves no room for petty jealousy for a hierarchal position that doesn't really exist in God's world.

    I have been studying this for five years and I've had countless complimentarians gently condescend to me and tell me what a sweet wrong young thing I am; you ladies are not the first, by far. I've heard it all: "equal in person just not in roles", "selfish" women, "envious" women, feminists in denial, ungrateful for God's design, and of course "I used to be just like you, then I grew up, became submissive and am happy now". You say human nature is not like God's, Nicole? You couldn't be more right: in God's world, men are not prophets priests and kings while women are silent. In fact, the worldly idea of prophets and priests is distorted to begin with.

    I used to see a pastor as being in a position of glorious humble hierarchy, one that women were entitled to; not until later did I see how wrong I was. I read an astonishing piece by a scholar who revealed that while human authority exists in the church, human hierarchy does not. In fact, all the "power" positions that have been preserved so sweetly for men don't even hold the power many men practicing them think they do. For example, bishops are simply guardians (episkopi), not high-church officials; pastors are caretakers (poimen), not professional pulpiteers; ministers are busboys (diakonos), not clergymen; elders are wise, old men (presbuteros), not ecclesiastical officers (excerpted from the book by the scholar I mentioned).

  25. Jennifer says:

    Here's more from Viola:

    "The hierarchical leadership structure, which characterizes the Western church, is derived from what we call a positional mindset. This mindset casts authority in terms of slots to fill, objective job descriptions to carry out, titles to sport, and ranks to pull. The positional mindset resonates with concern over explicit leadership structures, offices, and hierarchies. By contrast, the NT notion of leadership is rooted in a functional mindset. It portrays authority in terms how things operate organically ( = by the spirit of life). It lays stress on functions rather than on offices, tasks rather than titles. Its main concern lies in pastor-ing, prophesy-ing, oversee-ing, etc. In other words, positional thinking is hung up on nouns, while functional thinking stresses verbs. In the positional framework, the organization of the church is modeled after the military and corporate managerial structures that are part and parcel of our own cultural ontology. In the functional framework, the organization of the church is grounded in the mutual ministry of every member according to his or her own various gifts. The worldly leadership model is based upon a positional/official orientation, while the Biblical leadership is based upon an organic/functional orientation. The hierarchical form of leadership is rooted in the benighted idea that power and authority flow from the top down in a chain-of-command social structure. The hierarchical leadership style is based on a worldly concept of power, explaining why it's endemic to all traditional bureaucracies".

    In short, ladies, church is about fellowship, not one leading all others. You don't have to agree, but this is what I've been convicted of and I have ample reason for it. Men were deceived by what their "male" church roles meant long before women ever were. Do you see now why women who truly what pastors etc. are cannot possibly be power-desiring feminists?

  26. Stacy McDonald says:


    You have been posting here for some time now, and I know you are fully aware of my position on the roles of men and women. I have no problem with discussing our differing views, but when you speak to older women here as if you are instructing them, and do so in an angry and stubborn way, you appear unteachable; and I have to wonder what your purpose is in being here.

    You said:

    "If you read the Bible correctly, you'll see that there is NO SPIRITUAL HIERARCHY in the church."

    "I have been studying this for five years…"

    "I used to see a pastor as being in a position of glorious humble hierarchy…"

    It sounds like you've made up your mind on what you believe, and you are not willing to discuss anything more, other than to say you've studied it and we're all wrong.

    If you want to post here with a heart to better understand one another, you are welcome. But if you have come here looking for a platform to convince my readers of egalitarianism, I would ask that you not comment here on these subjects.

    Again, I don't mind you sharing your thoughts, or sharing what you believe as a point of discussion, but please consider the tone you are using.

    I do enjoy hearing how you think. You are an intelligent young lady and a good writer. I have to wonder what God has in store for you. I pray you receive this in the spirit it is intended.

  27. Jennifer says:

    I understand your thoughts Stacy, and thank you for them. Likewise, however, I don't appreciate being condescended to; I don't like being told that I am "imagining things" differently than they are, or others presuming I don't know about matters and people I speak of, and I gave examples for why I was feeling angry. I also think I have reason to share why and how I have my convictions. I mentioned how long I'd been studying this to make it clear that I'm not some naive young woman just making things up, and certainly not a feminist! Over and over, people have thrown the term "feminist" at me, as if they don't hear what I'm saying. I don't really care about convincing anyone here of egalitarianism; I just want to be taken seriously in my own beliefs. Plenty of times in the past I've been told that I don't read the Bible with an honest heart and if I ONLY accepted God's good design and trusted Him more.. *sigh* Most of the ladies here are lovely and gracious and I don't think you're ALL wrong about anything; I've never felt condescended to by you either Stacy, but I have been freely chided over and over in various places and after a while, it gets tiring. My words last night came from a thirst to be heard and understood, and a tired spirit. I'll be more than happy to drop the argument if I'm not addressed further on it; I really don't like debating at all on public forums, as it makes me anxious. Please email me if you want, ladies.

    Thanks for listening, Stacy.

    Btw, I did in fact send you an email last night explaining some things, but the only address available was the old patriarchspath one. Is your current one still familyreformation.org?

  28. Stephanie says:

    There is so much wisdom here! I (and my hubby to whom I rambled about things like this for forever) am so glad I've found this little blogging community. :)

    Stacy, I emailed you after I got your comment but the email bounced back. My email address is stephaniecastoclark@gmail.com if you still need to contact me.

  29. Jennifer says:

    Ok, just so you know, I found the family reformation address from an old email and re-sent the email, and so far it hasn't bounced.

    Nicole, thanks for your nice thoughts. Chelsey, I meant the passage in Genesis, when God spoke of what He'd create mankind for.

  30. Mrs. Webfoot says:

    Jennifer? Are you okay? I must have missed something.

    Hey, have a good week, okay?

    God bless,
    Mrs. Webfoot

  31. Jennifer says:

    Thank you for asking, Mrs. Webfoot. I'm all right, just had some pressure lately. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your tone.

  32. Mrs. Webfoot says:

    Well, actually I think you misunderstood what I was driving at, but not to worry. I didn't mean to have a "tone", but hey, we're sisters.

    Take care, okay?

  33. Jennifer says:

    Well, I guess that's what I meant. Thanks

  34. Armchair Housewife says:

    Mrs Macdonald,

    Thanks for coming over the Armchair Housewife… yes we do live in Canada (I married a Cannuck :) ) but we live in Ontario, so we're nowhere near Winnipeg. I'm closer to Toronto, which is closes to say Buffalo, NY depending on where you are in the country for a frame of reference. :)

    Thanks for thinking of me, though!

  35. Anna says:

    Hi Mrs. McDonald, I just wanted to share my deep appreciation for the grace you show in your posts. It saddens me that many Christians with strong convictions fall into an attitude of spiritual superiority/judgment towards other Christians who don't agree with them. I don't think this attitude honors God. You show that a Christian can boldy share strong convictions and yet show God's grace to other brothers and sisters. Thank you!

  36. Lanita says:

    Thank you for the reminder that the Church as the Bride of Christ is being perfected. As are the individual members of the Body. It is easy to get tunnel vision and only see what is right in front of our faces and see the bigger picture. We must have grace for each other and the Church as a whole. We must continue to pray for the Church that she will be what God created Her to be and that each of us will do our God given part. What an awesome dialogue.

Leave a Reply

Please note: Comment moderation is currently enabled so there will be a delay between when you post your comment and when it shows up. Patience is a virtue; there is no need to re-submit your comment.