Oh, Poor Poor Stacey!

[bea]

Did you know that people who call themselves CHRISTIANS are persecuting her?

http://yoursacredcalling.dotcom/blog/20 ... rsecution/

I think this is linked to the review of Quivering Daughters in Christianity Today, which singles out her anti-QD, no-comments-allowed blog (but not her) as one indication that some Christians are very loathe to believe patriocentric teachings can lead to abuse.

Giving further proof to the theory that there are some people who don't understand that disagreement isn't persecution.

[Austin]

Did you know that people who call themselves CHRISTIANS are persecuting her?

http://yoursacredcalling.dotcom/blog/20 ... rsecution/

I think this is linked to the review of Quivering Daughters in Christianity Today, which singles out her anti-QD, no-comments-allowed blog (but not her) as one indication that some Christians are very loathe to believe patriocentric teachings can lead to abuse.

Giving further proof to the theory that there are some people who don't understand that disagreement isn't persecution.

Ack. . . poor, poor Stacy, indeed.

This is from her post:

You aren’t here to please people – just to love and to serve them. Fear God, not man (Luke 12:4-5). That being said, remember your purpose. Remember not to respond to persecution or conflict “like for like.†We’re to demonstrate grace in the face of trials or persecution so that God is glorified.

So, Stacy, when scripture tells you not to respond to persecution or conflict "like for like", don't you think that rather implicitly includes not trying to sue or take legal action against everybody and their brother who gets into "conflict" with you and your husband? I don't see "We're to demonstrate grace in the face of trials and persectution so that God is glorified - unless that does not satisfy your need for vengeance, in which case, you should sue them".

Nope, that's not how that scripture reads, Stacy, is it?

OMG, I cannot stand this horrible woman.

[kb2]

It’s easy to be faithful when everyone around you lives and believes as you do. But, what happens when you suddenly realize you may have to walk alone?

It's easy to be a bully when you've got a legion of sycophants to back you up and you think that no one's watching you. But, what happens when those outside of your control call you out for your hatefulness?

[Burris]

Mainstream Christians found Stacy McDonald's dangerous rhetoric and called her on it, ergo she's being persecuted. Makes perfect sense. Because having a magazine publish a critical article about your own public writings is exactly the same as when jack-booted thugs break down your door at 1 AM, arrest your family, and ship you off to parts unknown where they'll torture you 'til you recant your faith - or something.

(Stacy McDonald called out Hillary McFarland, and CT called out Stacy McDonald. It's called "measure for measure" - a Biblical principle.)

EDIT: I posted to her blog. I don't expect my comment to see the light of day.

Just to clarify: You think an article that is critical of your public blog is akin to persecution? I’m genuinely flabbergasted by that view.

When I think persecution, I envision dead bodies in ditches. How on earth did your definition of that term become so skewed and self-serving?

You should be ashamed of yourself, and I'm not even joking.

I'm not snarking. I really don't get this. Stephen is stoned to death. John the Baptist is beheaded. Stacy McDonald is criticized for her own critical response to a book. One of these things is not like the others!

[thoughtful]

I think it's time for this visual:

Or perhaps, this one:

Or:

Or:

When I went looking for images, I came across some that showed real persecution of Christians, historical and current. Some were things that will live in my nightmares.

None of them were someone saying "I disagree with you, and here's why."

[bea]

Wait, is she BACKPEDALING?

yoursacredcalling.com/blog/2011/06/persecution-are-you-serious/

[knitwit]

So all the blogs and forums arguing against people like Stacey do so without offering any proof to back up their disagreement. No quoting of scripture or of the blogs they disagree with, or of historical sources. Just emotional appeals.

Yeeeah.

[Austin]

Wait, is she BACKPEDALING?

yoursacredcalling.com/blog/2011/06/persecution-are-you-serious/

Yes, indeedy. Stacy is so predictable.

From her discussions with "many Christians", here are specific examples of persecutions they've had to endure:

•A family who homeschools is labeled “cultish†by their very pro-public school church family, simply because they homeschool. “It’s just “weird†and reclusive to do something so clearly anti-social.†(Obviously, this concept is changing, as homeschooling has become more widely accepted; however, there are many, many homeschooling families who experienced this attitude in their own churches over the years.)

•A wife whose husband openly mocks her convictions, throws her Bible away, won’t allow “Christian†music to be played in the house (he will throw it away if it is left out), purposely plays pornographic films in her presence to upset her, and won’t allow her to have any Christian friends in their home. As long as she is not openly “displaying†the fact that she is a Christian (reading the Bible, using Christ’s name etc.), he is fairly nice to her. Yes, this was a real scenario.

•A woman is labeled a “legalist†by friends at church because she wears skirts (not because she thinks pants are “sinful,†but because she loves the fact that it’s easy to be modest and distinctly feminine in a skirt). She could care less what other people wear.

•A family is treated as “the problem family†because their large family wants to sit together during the church service. The church has an informal rule that children must either be in “children’s church†or the nursery. Even though they have shared their conviction that their children need to hear the Word preached, alongside them, it has been made clear that their children are not welcome in the service. And, because of that, other families treat them as an annoyance.

•A family leaves their fairly conservative church to pursue the “emergent life.†They get tattoos, body piercings etc., and decide their old church was “oppressive†and legalistic (no specifics, they just felt “judgedâ€). They proceed to post derogatory remarks about their old church and old friends on Facebook, blogs, Twitter etc.

•Blogs are set up to “warn†other believers about certain ministries that are “legalistic†or are teaching false doctrines; however, they give no proof of any significant problem. Huge numbers of ministries, pastors, and fellow believers are slandered without any specifics or proof of “false†teaching. No quotes, no links, and no facts are used. Only emotional hyperbole and gossip.

yoursacredcalling.com/blog/2011/06/persecution-are-you-serious/

How much entertainment can I be expected to take from this woman? :mrgreen:

[Witsec6]

"•A family leaves their fairly conservative church to pursue the “emergent life.†They get tattoos, body piercings etc., and decide their old church was “oppressive†and legalistic (no specifics, they just felt “judgedâ€). They proceed to post derogatory remarks about their old church and old friends on Facebook, blogs, Twitter etc."

HAHAHA!

The family that leaves Church and gets tattoos together, PERSECUTES together.

[bea]

I know, right? THAT isn't persecution, Stacey. I can see how she might be confused, though - having her publicly accessible and clearly attributed knee-jerk reactionary writing critiqued for being knee-jerk and reactionary in a well-known publication IS TOTALLY LIKE being burned at the stake.

[Austin]

I'm not a betting woman, but I would wager that of the six "examples" Stacy "cites", she and/or her family were the victims - in her mind - of the "persectution" in all but the second example.

Because she's so righteous, dontcha know, and the more righteous, the more persecuted. It's just a fact, ladies and gents :eusa-violin:

[Burris]

Blogs are set up to “warn†other believers about certain ministries that are “legalistic†or are teaching false doctrines; however, they give no proof of any significant problem. Huge numbers of ministries, pastors, and fellow believers are slandered without any specifics or proof of “false†teaching. No quotes, no links, and no facts are used. Only emotional hyperbole and gossip.

1) Well, most of us here quote the ever-living shit out of the blogs we snark, so she can't mean us.

2) No citation or fact? Reminds me of the very list from which I culled the above McDonald quote. McDonald is accusing other people of libel in the above without mentioning a specific example or offering specific counter-proof.

[Sunnichick31]

•A wife whose husband openly mocks her convictions, throws her Bible away, won’t allow “Christian†music to be played in the house (he will throw it away if it is left out), purposely plays pornographic films in her presence to upset her, and won’t allow her to have any Christian friends in their home. As long as she is not openly “displaying†the fact that she is a Christian (reading the Bible, using Christ’s name etc.), he is fairly nice to her. Yes, this was a real scenario.

:

Yea, that's not called persecution, that's called an abusive spouse.

[Austin]

Yea, that's not called persecution, that's called an abusive spouse.

Nit-picker.

Srsly, though, I had a hard time seeing how by even stretching it big-time, this scenario would represent persectution. A horrible husband who needs to be kicked to the curb, but not persection.

[demgirl]

1) Well, most of us here quote the ever-living shit out of the blogs we snark, so she can't mean us.

2) No citation or fact? Reminds me of the very list from which I culled the above McDonald quote. McDonald is accusing other people of libel in the above without mentioning a specific example or offering specific counter-proof.

Actually, she accued them of slander. Your rightly corrected her. I swear, if one more of these fundies throws around a legal term to sound smart and make their readers think they have some legal savvy, and then uses said legal term incorrectly, I am gonna lose my shit.

[ladypuglover]

Yea, that's not called persecution, that's called an abusive spouse.

That could have easily have been my first husband and never once did I ever think he was persecuting me but abusing me. No, I am not the woman in that scenario and that wasn't the only abuse he did and also he rarely was nice to me or the children no matter what he did. Abuse is not persection.

..... Now I feel persecuted by her stupid post. :o :shock: :x :lol:

[hoipolloi]

Stacey says:

[Note]

Stacey - you and your husband are genuinely false teachers.

[notsocommon]

The Bible uses the word 'slander' therefore, it is the right word to use. DERH!

[MamaJunebug]

Nit-picker.

...

Austin, you made me chuckle. Thank you!

Sunnichick, you said it well. Thank you, too!

ETA something I just thought of:

Did the owners of the Christian women's discussion list that Stacy and James hijacked feel persecuted by Stacy and James?

Did the German homeschoolers who were hung out to dry by Stacy and James - after S&J had told them they would help them - did they feel persecuted by the McDonalds?

Betcha they did! :whistle:

[Brainsample]

So all the blogs and forums arguing against people like Stacey do so without offering any proof to back up their disagreement. No quoting of scripture or of the blogs they disagree with, or of historical sources. Just emotional appeals.

Yeeeah.

Like the well-documented proof (pictures of James' first wife, Richard Guenther's testimony, an email from their printer that cited the $ they owed to their company which they tried to default on (one of several creditors), the testimony of the woman who co-owned the list serve/yahoo group from whom Stacy took the subscription list in order to defame that co-owner and then start her home business the next day, etc....) That's just an emotional appeal without proof?

What was the legal threat they issued to me through the printer who said that James would sue if I didn't take the info offline? When they wrote to me to ask me for my elders' contact information so they could draw me into an ecclesial court? When they named me as a co-defendant in a cease and desist letter that the sent to Karen Campbell, claiming I was in business with her and threatening us with a RICO suit? ????? A cease and desist letter that I understand that I was named in but a letter that they never sent to me? When their lawyer lied to Karen's lawyer, telling them that they made several attempts to contact me (that did not exist), claiming that I was unresponsive?

I guess that was all just an emotional appeal, too. Or did I dream it?

[Brainsample]

Mama Junebug,

We must have been typing at the same time, but I typed much more and then deleted it. If people don't believe the small portion of the information I've exposed, then that is their choice. They can't say that I knew of their behavior (devouring fellow Christians and their livelihoods for personal gain as well as the problematic doctrine) and said nothing.

It's America. They're free to say what they want, whether it's true or not. The people who follow Stacy seem like they would follow her off a cliff. No one can say that I didn't shout to them to ask them to change their mind. My hands are clean if they make the decision to continue.

[bea]

Oh sweet barking cheese - read the comments on the new post. She might as well start jumping up and down and pointing fingers at Quivering Daughters and screaming "UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN, EVIL, UNGODLY WICKED WICKED GIRLS!!! NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED TO YOU!!!"

[Austin]

Like the well-documented proof (pictures of James' first wife, Richard Guenther's testimony, an email from their printer that cited the $ they owed to their company which they tried to default on (one of several creditors), the testimony of the woman who co-owned the list serve/yahoo group from whom Stacy took the subscription list in order to defame that co-owner and then start her home business the next day, etc....) That's just an emotional appeal without proof?

What was the legal threat they issued to me through the printer who said that James would sue if I didn't take the info offline? When they wrote to me to ask me for my elders' contact information so they could draw me into an ecclesial court? When they named me as a co-defendant in a cease and desist letter that the sent to Karen Campbell, claiming I was in business with her and threatening us with a RICO suit? ????? A cease and desist letter that I understand that I was named in but a letter that they never sent to me? When their lawyer lied to Karen's lawyer, telling them that they made several attempts to contact me (that did not exist), claiming that I was unresponsive?

I guess that was all just an emotional appeal, too. Or did I dream it?

No, I'm thinking that you didn't dream it. I've read accounts of all of these actions that the McDonalds have taken or attempted to take written by numerous sources. I have a strong feeling that this is only the tip of the iceberg. These people are pretentious bullies, at their very best. I'm not snarking here: I truly believe something is seriously wrong and dysfunctional with the vaunted Mr. and Mrs. James McDonald. Something just bad at its core.

[MamaJunebug]

brainsample, what say we gather the urls of pages detailing the mis-adventures of R. Guenther et.al. with the McDonalds and offer them for the blog sticky?

People really need to have this info at their fingertips, about any and all dominionists. My first contribution will be the Ephesians 511 site that recounts the experience of the people in the Baptist Chruch that Scott Brown and Jason Dohm tried to steeplejack.

Ephesians511.wordpress.com

Also, they tried to get you with a RICO lawsuit? Oh. My. Goodness. That's not taking a howitzer to a fishing expedition, is it? RICO? srsly? srsly. These people are menaces.

Hey, Stacy, here's another bit of ... nah, nevermind. I was going to snerk about when she made a big deal out of how disgustingly homogeneous the Peoria, IL, area is, how there are just *no* people of color nor any good ingredients for Tex-Mex food.

Twerp.

OK, that's all the personal commentary for MJB for this month. Vicodin or more... I mean, Vicodin or no.

[demgirl]

How... hmm. How would that even work? RICO, I mean. That doesn't -- hmm. Yeah, I'm perplexed.