Thursday, November 8, 2007

Responding to Stacy (Threats Used to Silence Critics)

A March 2019 Addendum in light of the February 2019 Botkin Letter:

Addendum to original post at the request of and with permission from Stacy McDonald, 8Nov07 AM:

Hi Cindy,

I just wanted to let you know that I’m praying for you. I am not sure where your hurt is coming from, but I know that God can heal your heart as He has mine.

You are very right. My past sins are great and they grieve my heart; they make me that much more thankful for all God has done in my life – a life I surely do not deserve.

I am thankful for the family that God has given me and take no pride in what He has done – it is His holy work in our lives that has healed our broken hearts. Though I rejoiced when I gave birth to each of my six children, I rejoiced just as much when God blessed me with the four I adopted. All ten of my children are precious to me and I thank God for each one. We are certainly not a perfect family, but we are a thankful family resting in God’s sovereign grace.

Ironically, I too was adopted at 18 months old – I was born to my birthmother the day after her 16th birthday. She, like me, had much to be forgiven. Yet, I am thankful she chose life for me and not death. Though she died when I was young, I have since met and become very close to her parents and brothers and sisters. Though this was obviously not the way things “should” have played out in their family, it was part of God’s sovereign will and was for our good and His glory.

Praise God for a merciful God who loves the unlovely – and clothes them in His loveliness. If you have any questions or concerns about my beliefs or anything else, I invite you to ask me. I’m quite easy to get a hold of.
{(Phone number omited by site host.)}

Blessings to you and your family.

By His Grace,
Stacy McDonald

Thankful wife to my beloved, James McDonaldContented mother to my precious blessings, Jamie, Christa, Tiffany, Melissa, Jessica, Caleb, Abigail, Virginia Grace, Emma Katherine, William Alexander, and our little one in Heaven

My Blog:
Our Church:
Our Ministry:
Our Books:

Original Webpage Post and Response to Stacy McDonaldNote: Posting of this communication was criticized as "uncivil."

Dear Stacy,

I gladly receive any prayers unto our Father offered in my behalf.

Clearly, you’ve read the posts on my Google blog, so I would draw your attention back to the letter that I posted to Family Life and Nancy Leigh DeMoss. It well describes my position on these matters and my concerns about the promotion of your book. I doubt that I will take much issue with large portions of your book, but as I state in that letter, I am concerned about the notoriety that the patriarchy movement will receive.

I make the point about the blended family issue because it’s never mentioned publicly and is very pertinent to the subject matter that you present. Unlike the high demand for purity within patriarchy, I believe that our failures show forth God’s glory. I bring attention to these omissions, not as a personal matter but a practical point regarding the subject of family.

We have primary presuppositional disagreements over patriarchy, and I am unwilling to change my mind. What more is there to be said? From my experience regarding matters of this type, this email is likely a pleasant attempt at “damage control.” It’s a time-honored tactic used to limit the dissemination of information and control the milieu within closed systems such as patriarchy. May we agree to disagree? Granted, I will continue to voice my well-informed opinions regarding this ideological movement, however.

Stacy, may you prosper and be in health, even as your soul prospers. I pray that you will prosper financially as well; although, I hope that your prosperity comes from a source other than your endeavors as an evangelist for patriarchy.

In Christ,


Cynthia Mullen Kunsman, RN, BSN, MMin, ND, CHt

"It is one thing to show a man that he is in error,
and another to put him in possession of the truth."
John Locke
A Second Response to Stacy McDonald
Dear Stacy,

Perhaps you failed to recognize my intent in my first response which clearly states that this is not a matter of personal judgment regarding the past. This is a matter of inconsistency within your ideology that hallmarks the double standard that characterizes patriarchy. Because of the extremely pious nature of the patriarchy movement and in light of I Timothy 3, these are relevant matters of informed consent and not gossip. (Another presuppositional issue?) You state that they are matters that have been previously communicated to many in a variety of forums, represent a vital part of your testimony and are true; therefore, by your own admission, I am not misinformed. (They have gone without remark concerning your formal, public support of patriarchy and the marketing of your book, however.) Like damage control, accusations of gossip also characterize milieu control (as well as the “sacred science,” “doctrine over person.” and the “dispensing of existence” as defined by Robert J. Lifton) within closed systems, so I am not surprised that you believe that this is an accurate charge.

I will gladly post your original email to me online and appreciate the opportunity to do so. I will be most happy to post any and all communications online. I posted my response because it contained content that was already available online. Because the patriarchy movement so aggressively suppresses criticism, I desire that this debate be as public as possible, including this correspondence with you.

Until we all come into the unity of the faith,