Breaking News: Doug Phillips of Vision Forum steps down from office of president at Vision Forum Ministries.
Doug Phillips has been very influential in the sub-culture of the Homeschool Movement. He was a popular keynote speaker at state-run homeschool conventions, speaking on topics of Biblical manhood, Patriarchy, men taking spiritual leadership of the home, creationism, a proponent of family-integrated churches and full quiver lifestyle. He and his wife, Beall, have eight children. We heard him speak numerous times.
Doug Phillips issued this statement yesterday:
* * *
Statement of Resignation
by Douglas Phillips, Esq., October 30, 2013
With thanksgiving to God for His mercy and love, I have stepped down from the office of president at Vision Forum Ministries and have discontinued my speaking responsibilities.
There has been serious sin in my life for which God has graciously brought me to repentance. I have confessed my sin to my wife and family, my local church, and the board of Vision Forum Ministries. I engaged in a lengthy, inappropriate relationship with a woman. While we did not “know” each other in a Biblical sense, it was nevertheless inappropriately romantic and affectionate.
There are no words to describe the magnitude of shame I feel, or grief from the injury I caused my beloved bride and children, both of whom have responded to my repentance with what seems a supernatural love and forgiveness. I thought too highly of myself and behaved without proper accountability. I have acted grievously before the Lord, in a destructive manner hypocritical of life messages I hold dear, inappropriate for a leader, abusive of the trust that I was given, and hurtful to family and friends. My church leadership came alongside me with love and admonition, providing counsel, strong direction and accountability. Where I have directly wronged others, I confessed and repented. I am still in the process of trying to seek reconciliation privately with people I have injured, and to be aware of ways in which my own selfishness has hurt family and friends. I am most sensitive to the fact that my actions have dishonored the living God and been shameful to the name of Jesus Christ, my only hope and Savior.
This is a time when my repentance needs to be proven, and I need to lead a quiet life focusing on my family and serving as a foot soldier, not a ministry leader. Though I am broken over my failures, I am grateful to be able to spend more time with my family, nurturing my wife and children and preparing my older sons and daughters for life. So, for these reasons I want to let my friends know that I have stepped down as a board member and as president of Vision Forum Ministries. The Board will be making provision for the management of the ministry during this time. To the friends of this ministry, I ask for your forgiveness, and hope that you will pray for the Phillips family at this time, and for the men who will be responsible for shepherding the work of Vision Forum Ministries in the future.
Updated to add related articles:
- Doug Phillips Resigns from Vision Forum, Cancels Speaking Events, Due to “Inappropriate” Relationship
- End Child Protection: Doug Phillips, HSLDA, and the 2009 Men’s Leadership Summit
- Are Daughters the Biggest Threat to the Christian Patriarchy Movement and Reconstructionism? (spiritualsoundingboard.com)
- On Doug Phillips’ Cultic “Patriarchy” Movement, Under Much Grace blog
- Video of Patriarchy Workshop (video), Cynthia Kunsman, RN, BSN, MMin, ND
- Stop the Ministry Madness, Ingrid Schlueter’s The Hope Blog
- The Heavy Burden of Doug Phillips’ Legalism Leads to His Resignation From Vision Forum, Jen’s Gems – Doug Phillips’ Ecclesiastical Tyranny and Abuse
487 thoughts on “Doug Phillips Resigns from Office of President at Vision Forum, Discontinues Speaking Engagements”
lydiasellerofpurple on November 3, 2013 at 6:24 AM
“There is no pink or blue inheritance if we are really believers.”
I am going to steal that and repeat it to myself whenever the old wounds come back to sow self-loathing in my heart.
There is much to grieve for. Where is the grace for a child who is beaten for not greeting an adult https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/06/17/voddie-baucham-prescription-for-spanking-and-the-shy-child/
Where is the grace for a wife who is excommunicated for desiring to leave a church, (see jensgems story).
Where is the grace for young people who decide to leave their patriarchal families only to be shunned.
When Doug Phillips begins to make restitution for ALL of the people he and his movement have harmed, I will believe he has truly repented. I can not give a “grace” pass to someone who has shown no mercy to his followers, and whose teachings continue to foster abuse to this day.
Why are so many willing to defend an errant leader while his wounded sheep continue to bleat in pain? Where were the raised voices when the sheep were being wounded? Who was grieving for them? Who was pleading grace for them?
“But for the grace of God, there go I!”
I understand we were sinners saved by God’s grace. Key word being WERE. We are children of God now. I fully agree we repent & receive grace & forgiveness, restoration & love.
This christianese statement makes me wince. In reality, each one of us are responsible for our actions. This is what we teach our kids, right? And there are consequences, even with repentance sometimes. Do we want to live in a world without penalty? Is it right for a wrongdoer to speak of their wrongdoing this way? Is that what we want to teach them & the rest of the world?
There seems to be a double standard in Christianity, supported by these types of “God made me do it” statements. It is no better than “Satan made me do it” that some wrong-loving unbelievers say. And it’s usually applied to the most unloving hypocrites of our day whose grace-dispensing well held no refreshing water.
BTW, all my comments are opinion. As if it wasn’t already clear. 🙂
“There is much to grieve for. Where is the grace for a child who is beaten for not greeting an adult https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/06/17/voddie-baucham-prescription-for-spanking-and-the-shy-child/
Where is the grace for a wife who is excommunicated for desiring to leave a church, (see jensgems story).
Where is the grace for young people who decide to leave their patriarchal families only to be shunned.”
“There but for the grace of God, go I” is one of my pet peeves. It sounds like people believe that God controls their sin or lack of sin. Not sinning the same was because of God’s grace. Not personal responsibility for behavior.. And I have heard it used by Christians after meeting a deformed child. As if God gave them special grace not to be born deformed but withheld His grace from the deformed child.
And you ask good questions. Why wouldn’t God provide grace so that people are not molested, spiritually abused, etc by other professing Christians?
It takes away human responsibility for their sin and in effect, blames God.
BTDT, we were on the same wave-length. Just read your comment. 100% agree. 🙂
Funny you mentioned that grace comment, ““But for the grace of God, there go I!”, A Mom.
After I posted my comment, it occurred to me that I was meaning it in a different way than he was. I was talking about God’s grace that we receive when repenting of our sins. I was later thinking about other ways of looking at it: grace as a license to sin, or, that we are not responsible for our sin – – God ordained it – – and it’s grace that we make it to heaven.
Oh, where to start with all of this. We have an individual Doug Philips who admits emotional involvement with a woman who is not his wife. He has preached to others about how to structure and control their family lives, yet he does not abide by them himself. I at least give him points for admitting his sin. But, I’m suspicious and like Gary W, am adopting a “wait and see” attitude. What needs to be done is that he needs to withdraw himself from any position of teaching and/or pastoral leadership.
Doug Philips and his sin is one thing, but his mindless zombie followers are another. They must love that Jim Jones style Kool Aid. They are more than pathetic actually. Instead of following Jesus and His example, they choose to follow their favourite alpha-male guru, like a pack of wild chimps. There is so much wrong with the so-called complimentarian and patriarchy movements, but it bears a striking resemblance to Mormonism, only without their “little gods” theology, and with a dash of Trinitarianism. The mothers in these families are essentially relegated to breeding factories, pumping out children at the husband’s whim. Implicitly, they believe that having children gives them extra brownie points in heaven, just like the Mormons explicitly believe. The boys all wear matching polo shirts and tan pants, while the girls all wear frilly sissy white party dresses. It is creepy! They idolize some Platonist or Romanist concept of the family, dress it up with some select quotes from the Holy Scriptures, and then claim that it is Christian. In keeping with their Reconstructionist and Dominionist theology, they also have more children in the hopes of raising up an army to control the government. Completely unbiblical.
Not only that, but the comp/pat movement is a place where insecure men can go to get their power and control fix. That is why this movement is so dangerous – it sets up structures where abuse is inevitable to occur. Men who are narcissistic and/or sociopathic can have their little fiefdoms, and can potentially abuse their wives and children in the name of God. No checks and balances.
It’s not uncommon for people to confess lesser sins instead of the real deal. We all do it all the time. Thus we read in 1 John 1:9 that if we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous (just) to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness, but we all know about confessing sins and finding that nothing changes. In light of the scripture, it’s clear that we are still failing to confess the real problem – and no surprise, since “Who can discern his errors?”
Phillips’s problem, as you explain well Ryan, is his doctrine by which he oppresses people. Granting that he is sincerely deceived, as is probably the case, does not absolve him of responsibility, just as Nazis were not absolved of mass murder by being sincerely deceived, just as the Pharisees, being sincerely deceived, were still hypocrites and got sincerely deceived by willfully blowing off the truth when they encountered it in Jesus.
For indeed why are we sincerely deceived? Are we really innocent, or have we chosen to believe what we want to believe? If we are so haughty-minded as not to pay attention to those that raise questions, we’re asking to be deceived, and receiving. It’s the innocence of evil.
FYI: Looks like SunshineMary is taking quotes from some of you and bringing it to her own blog post: http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/11/03/submitting-to-corrupted-authority/
She didn’t quote me. I’m insulted!
I had to respond to this rude quote:
Thanks for the heads up JA. I don’t usually click through to such links because I am well aware of how the Patriarchy crowd operates when they have your ISP. I have no idea if sunshinemary is in that cult but since she came here to defend her pet doctrine of a mediator between a woman and Jesus, I am not taking any chances. Made that mistake years back. Never again.
If by “Romanist” you mean Catholic, I’ve got news for you.
I’m Catholic and this goes way beyond anything I have ever seen in the RCC except for the REAL lunatic-fringe Catholics. On the level of “every Pope since Pius XII is An Antipope/50 kids per family who will all become Priests and Monks and Nuns/Tridentine Latin Mass Forever” lunatic fringe.
Somebody mentioned that a lot of these Male Supremacist preacher types seem to be five-foot two, 100 lbs minus steroids, and with thin whiny voices. No wonder they like their wimmenfolk as animate property — any woman who was a person would throw them out the window.
I would like to point out that in 21st Century English, the word “fornication” is used ONLY in Christianese.
A simple matter of Black and White:
Which end of the Whip does Doug Wilson picture himself on?
Because in a slave society, you either Hold the Whip or you Feel the Whip. Nothing in-between. And “Freedom” comes to mean “Now *I* Hold The Whip!”
There’s a story from the 1950s Civil Rights era of an interview with a Ku Klux Klansman of the time, one of the trailer trash who made up a lot of the rank-and-file of the Third Klan. Said Klansman was reported as saying “If I can’t be better than a n****r, who can I be better than?” As in the only thing this loser could brag about was “Ah’m WHITE!”
Substitute “woman” for “n****r” and “MALE” for “WHITE” and you’ve got the same dynamic. A loser finding someone he can put his boot on to show himself he’s better.
A Mom, these guys take Clericalism a LOT farther than I’ve ever witnessed in Catholicism. (And Clericalism — the doctrine that “only priests/monks/nuns count in the sight of God — is a HERESY.) This level of control-freak Clericalism hasn’t been seen in the RCC in a couple centuries.
Maybe “Reformed” means only “Now *I* Get To Be Pope! Not the guy in Rome!”
JA, I’m with you. I knew what you meant, sister. I am upset with myself when I fail & I ache, desire grace & a new day to do right.
I could not agree with Ron. I have a hard time feeling sorry for men who’s grace-dispensing wells appear to never have been dug for fresh water for the thirsty. I see bullies using grace for themselves as a license to continue their bulling, IMO. But I’d love to be wrong at least once.
Ryan, Well said. There’s so much mixing of rules & doctrines. Wrap a bun of truth around a piece of baloney & some people will eat it because the bun is right, looks good. We need to pay attention to what’s inside the bun as well. It’s not good enough to only inspect the bun before eating what’s in it. That’s how wolves in sheep’s clothing work. They’re phoney baloney wrapped in a wool sweater AKA a sheep AKA a truth-bun.
“You’ll always have Nazis among you;
Next time they won’t come in brown shirts and boots,
They’ll come speaking softly in three-piece suits;
But you’ll always have Nazis among you…”
— Donna Barr, Desert Peach, the Musical
Just for the record, my site is safe. I usually fight feminism, not other Christians, and I have received hate and aggression like you would not believe. I used to blog anonymously, but after clicking on a feminist site and leaving a response, I had my name, address, phone number, and husband’s name and employer doxxed. They hacked into my Facebook account and posted pictures of my children with my sister and also posted a pictures of someone whom they claim was my husband but isn’t. It’s been crazy, so I don’t blame you for being wary of unknown sites. Always use anonymous proxies, keep good anti-malware programs running, and consider using something like sandboxie.
I haven’t had that problem on any Christian sites, though; I did not use an anonymous proxy to comment here, for example, and if JA has Statcounter, she can confirm for you that my real IP address is being used and is coming from Ann Arbor, Michigan, exactly where I say I am from.
And to the commenter upthread who implied that I must be a man: please, that’s such a lame comment. You know who always accused me of being a man? Radical feminists. But I blog under my real identity and you can even find pictures of me on my blog:
“Ask them to show the same degree of contempt and scorn for the men with whom they had fornication, as they do for Mr. Phillips, or for their own husbands.
Go ahead, insult the man they used to sleep with and ask them to join in.”
If SunshineMary wrote this then she seems preoccupied with where the sun…. Anyhoo, it sounds like in her world women that see DP’s hypocrisy are automatically moved into the “fornicator” designated line of the concentration camp. Talk about personal attacks. Sounds like she would classify women as witches if she thought drowning & beheading were still in fashion. That’s where standing against wrong gets women in these camps. No wonder these people worship the Puritans & Calvin.
Does sunshinemary believe sin destroys? Well, maybe the peon pew-sitters must beware, but the leaders are immune? Really?
Anyone who decides & types that a bunch of women are “fornicators” sight unseen is not trustworthy. Just my 2 cents. Especially if they are a woman, for heaven’s sakes!
@ A Mom
I did not write that. One of my commenters did, but his quote was taken out of context. He has never read this site; he was referring to a conversation on another post, not this one. He did not refer to anyone here as fornicators.
No, she did not write that, A Mom,
@sunshinemary – Ok, well, thank you for clearing that up (and I’ll have to go back and reread the thread again).
sunshinemary, Glad you didn’t write that. Do you hold to those commenter’s opinions?
Thank-you for the correction HUG – I meant Roman as in the Roman Empire, not Roman Catholicism.
Thank you for answering my question about whether you are a woman.
I was not accusing you of dishonesty or anything, I am simply aware that one can rarely assume gender from someone’s handle on the internet; the handle may be an allusion to a poem or something just as easily as a real description of the person. Headless unicorn guy for instance, is probably not headless or a unicorn, although from reading his posts, he sounds like a guy but then I’ve never met him. I didn’t catch anything in yout post that indicated your gender to me, just discussions of Bible verses.
I also know (from personal experience) that many women in patriarchy are not afforded the freedom to speak as you do and I wanted to encourage you to continue speaking and writing, even if I disagree with you. That is what I was trying to say; if you reread that entire paragraph I hope you can hear my heart.
sunshinemary, Someone posted at jens gems with your moniker defending patriarchy using the typical backdoor way. When I see that sort of activity on several blogs with the same celebrity guru topic, I have learned to be safe than sorry.
“I usually fight feminism, not other Christians, and I have received hate and aggression like you would not believe.”
I have absolutely no idea what “feminism” is these days. It could be anything from voting without your husband telling you HOW to vote to having a professional career. I am surprised to hear you say you do not fight with Christians but “feminists” ? Very confusing but I guess it has a lot to do with your definition of feminism as you may believe a feminist cannot also be a believer?. Anyway, Paul has an interesting take on that in 1 Corin 5.
“Conservative,” “progressive,” “liberal,” “feminist,” “left,” “right,” and so many other words like them are little mental golf-carts that allow your mind to run around the world of ideas and thought without getting any exercise.
Whenever I hear them, I like to make people tell me what they’re talking about.
If you’re a conservative, what are you trying to conserve? G.K. Chesterton’s idea was that a conservative is someone that before he knocks a wall down wants to know why somebody put it up. Any professional programmer gets that – I’ve learned to be conservative! I don’t get how people can call themselves conservative and be eager to get into any war – the least conservative and predictable thing imaginable, and the only way that Communism ever became a force in the world.
If you’re a progressive, what kind of progress do you have in mind. A lot of that seems to be the progress we get in an egg. If it’s progress on the broad road that leads to destruction, I don’t really feature that progress.
Likewise, when someone claims to be a feminist or against it, I want to know what this is that you’re for or against, because until I know that, how can I understand your position. Indeed, how can you understand it yourself?
Most important – and atheists really help us on this – what do we mean when we say “God?” In a lot of conversations with atheists, I find that the God they don’t believe in, Jesus, the prophets, and the apostles never believed in either.
I haven’t read all of sunshinemary’s post yet, but I had to comment when I read the paragraph containing this line.
“We women have our own temptations; sexual sin is men’s.”
I LOL’d when I saw that. I mean, what is she saying? That women are incapable of being tempted sexually? Or that men are more susceptible to it? If there’s a biblical basis for that idea, I can’t see it. Certainly experience and common sense say otherwise.
In the same paragraph is this chestnut:
“If you doubt that a lack of authority leads to an evil end, just ask yourself this: who is the original usurper of authority?”
I can just hear the voice of Dana Carvey’s Church Lady adding to the end of it: “Could it beeeeeeeeEEEEEE…. SATAN!!!!!!” 😀
I half expected to see a video of mary doing a little Superiority Dance. 😉
This was my main point on the last thread. Since their doctrine teaches that believing adult women are perpetually deceived (even after redemption which is why they need a phallocentristic authority) then why would we ever take them seriously? Where is the credibility since they are decieved?
Julie Anne and friends, I wrote my thoughts here: http://watchtheshepherd.blogspot.com/2013/11/vision-forum-and-friends-turn-your-eyes.html
I have really enjoyed this thread. I’ve known DP was a narcissistic “cult” leader after leaving a Christian cult (Be in Health) myself 3 years ago and finally understanding what the signs are.
As to his letter of “repentance, for anyone who understands how abusers operate, this letter is just par for the course. People who doubt the letter aren’t being judgmental, just discerning – we just know the signs and have seen them before many times.
Abusers are very consistent across the board in how they operate (after all it all comes from he same source- the enemy, and he is consistent.) Doug Phillips has the track record and hallmark of being an abuser by nature; a narcissist, a man who enjoys power and control, etc. These types of people are not the same as repentant Christians and can not be looked at the same. They are manipulative liars, and sociopathic in many regards (no empathy for others) . These types of people love to prey on Christians because of our quick forgiveness and grace. But we are getting eaten for lunch. We must be mature and wise in these matters. Unfortunately it usually takes being hurt to understand the nature of what we are dealing with in abusers, and to start to recognize them. I often wish I could shout from the rooftops “Beware” to stop other from the harm I have gone through, but naivety and the desire to be “good and loving” are hard shells to break through- I was that way myself.
My abuser ex wrote many letters of “repentance,” after I confronted him (ie he was caught) and they had no meaning to him personally, they were just all part of the abusive CYCLE meant simply to draw me back in to his abuse again so he could continue his control and power. This is a very well known ploy of abusers. We must not be unaware of the enemy’s schemes as he operates through humans.
On a lighter note, I found this and thought may here would enjoy it:
10 Reasons Why Men Should Not Be Ordained For Ministry.
How about you?
10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. The pastoral duties of men who have children might distract them from the responsibility of being a parent.
8. The physique of men indicates that they are more suited to such tasks as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do ministerial tasks.
7. Man was created before woman, obviously as a prototype. Thus, they represent an experiment rather than the crowning achievement of creation.
6. Men are too emotional to be priests or pastors. Their conduct at football and basketball games demonstrates this.
5. Some men are handsome, and this will distract women worshipers.
4. Pastors need to nurture their congregations. But this is not a traditional male role. Throughout history, women have been recognized as not only more skilled than men at nurturing, but also more fervently attracted to it. This makes them the obvious choice for ordination.
3. Men are prone to violence. No really masculine man wants to settle disputes except by fighting about them. Thus they would be poor role models as well as dangerously unstable in positions of leadership.
2. The New Testament tells us that Jesus was betrayed by a man. His lack of faith and ensuing punishment remind us of the subordinated position that all men should take.
1. Men can still be involved in church activities, even without being ordained. They can sweep sidewalks, repair the church roof, and perhaps even lead the song service on Father’s Day. By confining themselves to such traditional male roles, they can still be vitally important in the life of the church.
[original source is still unknown but apparently, this list was adapted to the current list by Dr. David M. Scholer, a former professor at Fuller Theological Seminary]
Over 400 comments? It’s scary that enough people have even heard of this weird, bizarre, Patriarchy, Gothard movement to reach over 400 comments. Why are you nutjobs surprised over this? How about trying to run from these cults instead of being “surprised” over this.
Jack B. – Welcome. I think for the most part, the readers here have already run from the cults. And I also think that most of us are not surprised.
PS – -Please identify which one of us is a nut job?
I just found your post on FB. Thank you for being a voice of reason Julie. Much love and stay strong 😀
Thanks much, Matthew, I appreciate it. 🙂
Yeah, I love stuff like this. Because Eve was deceived and fell into trangression, therefore all women are perpetually deceived. Does it not follow, then, that because Adam was not deceived but chose to willfully, in full knowledge of what he was doing, disobey God, that therefore all men are perpetually willing to choose to disobey God? And what better way for God to draw us back to Him than to place the perpetually deceived under the authority of, and owing strict obedience in everything to, the perpetually willfully disobedient to God. That makes a lot of sense, doesn’t it.
Julie, the nutjobs are the ones who follow these weird, bizarre Gothard-type movements that are obsessed with sex and bizarre teachings and then are surprised when the leaders have affairs. I’m just surprised that people still follow these types of groups. I am surprised that apparently enough people even know about these types of cults to have garnered this much response to it.
What’s interesting is these “nut jobs” also are the same ones who obsess on modesty and purity.
“Does it not follow, then, that because Adam was not deceived but chose to willfully, in full knowledge of what he was doing, disobey God, that therefore all men are perpetually willing to choose to disobey God”
Yes Pam….. and Adams willfully sinning qualifies all men to lead their women!!!! You got it! Makes total sense, right?
People keep bringing up Gen 3. I know this will rankle some but Genesis is Hebrew Poetry and even so we can see the gist of what is communicated if we eat our Wheaties and do some digging around.
An interesting thing to discover is how the word “desire” which is teshuqa in Hebrew was translated way way back. The trajectory of how that word was translated from “turning” to “desire” is interesting. Seems a monk named Pagnino is our guy who decided “desire” bit better. (Yes, I am aware of how it was translated with Cain, SOS, etc)
But look at the different. Eve was “turning” to Adam (instead of God) and Adam would rule over her. Or the meaning can be like turning to and fro. Back and forth. Anyway, God predicted (not commanded) what Eve would do because of this horrible separation from God that sin brought into the world.
Here is a chart that shows the trajectory of how teshuqa has been translated over the centuries.
Click to access teshuqa_chart.pdf
What is more interesting is that the LXX is quoted from quite a bit in the NT (even by Jesus) and that translation would have used “turning” not desire. But the Jews had mostly been taught the oral law which was horrible for women. They had done to women what they had done to the tithe system.
Julie Anne, this is good that we can have a friendly chat. I don’t mean to be unkind to you or this guy or this group. I was harsh with my words and I apologize to you and them.
Although, I still have some serious questions about groups such as this that are just over-the-top obsessed with purity, dating (or how evil dating is and real Christians only “court”), and all things sex. What red-blooded American male ISN’T obsessed with sex? But these types of groups carry it way, way too far, in my opinion. I won’t mention any names, but it’s not uncommon for pastors/leaders/teachers from these schools of thought (or sometimes literal schools) to end up being the very personification of all they profess to be against. If all you’re known for is your teaching on modesty and your obsession with female bodies, do you seriously wonder why the people in the group end up the way they do, when the ONLY thing you can ever talk about is sex, sex, sex (under the veneer of “modesty” , proper ways to engage in sex as a married couple, etc.)!? I hate to tell you, but there actually is more to life than sex.
By the way, modesty and purity are great and I’m for them! But like I said, what red-blooded American male isn’t already obsessed with sex? 🙂 I’m just not sure that I agree with this complete and utter obsession with the topic. It seems like if anything, it’s making people even MORE obsessed with sex than they normally are anyway.
Jack B. – – When you train your boys to focus on how immodest females are dressing, you are training them to focus on body parts instead of who they are. I’m sure they still notice body parts, but their focus is on the person now.
” I’m just not sure that I agree with this complete and utter obsession with the topic. It seems like if anything, it’s making people even MORE obsessed with sex than they normally are anyway.”
Yes. Isn’t lust just a form of covetousness?
“For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, “You shall not covet.” But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead.” (Romans 7:7b-8, ESV)
More harping on lust by preachers yields greater and greater concentration by men on not lusting, and the more time and effort men expend thinking and concentrating on not lusting (how can they do that without continuously envisioning what they are attempting not to lust after?), the more and more uncontrollably they lust.
And then they blame women for not being modest enough. I say it would not suffice to curb preacher-engendered lust were every American woman to begin wearing burqas 24/7.
As others have already suggested, we are observing the Islamization of wide swaths of American Christianity.
Bless you Julie. Will be praying for you because I know there are stones being thrown your way.
Rose, I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m not throwing stones; I’m simply engaging in a civil conversation where the two parties just happen to have very different views.
Adult people are free to join whatever cult they want. I found this forum through another board called Sharper Iron. I am not a representative of SI and I’m not even a member, although I do enjoy the site from time to time. I thought SI was fairly steady and even-keeled, but now I’m beginning to wonder. I’m shocked and saddened that when this story was linked over there that people actually bought into this whole cult and seem to whole-heartedly support it. It’s sad to see otherwise intelligent people buy into this Dominionistic, sex-crazed philosophy. But to be fair, Dominionism, just like Socialism, seems like a fun, cool idea. But spend 5 minutes actually studying it and you see how both systems are Pollyannaish dreams with absolutely no hope of success in this world. I have friends who are Socialists and I think they mean well and are good people; they are just naive and gullible. I’m sure that many of the people in this movement mean well, but they just are gullible.
I believe most of the regulars here would agree with most of your statements. I don’t think Rose had you in mind at all. Thank you for your contributions to the conversation.
Thanks, BTDT. I’m very late to this conversation (by a few days), and in the blog world, that is like ancient history, akin to the fall of the Roman Empire. That’s why I’m basically the only one talking now, and with this comment, I will be quiet.
I just don’t want to leave a foul taste in anyone’s mouth. I came across as blunt, and probably too blunt. I don’t mean to be unkind. Please accept my apologies. I would have a great, great deal in common with this organization. Only God can see a person’s heart and motives, but I certainly think that most people, from the leadership on down, mean well. And many of their beliefs I would give a wholehearted endorsement of. But I just happen to think that on a few key things they have a radically wrong emphasis and are putting their energies into the wrong areas. And I’m sure they really do mean well in this, I just happen to disagree. But in the basics of the faith and life, we probably have a lot more in common than any disagreements and I think they are good people…..Anyway…..that’s all for me.
Jack – I’m a member over there, do not participate much. I was surprised that my blog article was linked there when they could have just linked to the Vision Forum statement. There are a lot of pastors over there who are clueless about this situation as well as Sovereign Grace Ministries situation. It seems they come on quickly to defend pastors simply because they are pastors.
I’m glad you’re here. I still haven’t figured out what comment you consider as harsh. It obviously didn’t register with me (I’ll dig a little later because now my curiosity is up).
I bought into the Patriarchy ideology at a young, impressionable age. I was attracted to people to seemed to be living a more “Godly” life than what I was accustomed to. Your description of “Pollyannaish dreams” is very apropos. Instead, this ideology proved to be very unloving and abusive. And, you are correct that the hyper focus on purity has the exact opposite effect of what they intend. That was also my experience.
I would like to point to a similar dynamic I have seen in Furry Fandom and (to a lesser extent) around Bronies (My Little Pony fandom): The Pathological Furry Hater. Always foaming at the mouth about Perversion and Bestiality and Perpetual Arrested Development, you name it. Yet they seem totally incapable of detaching from such a Perverted(TM) Fandom, attending Furry cons and haunting Furry art and fiction Websites. Like they would cease to exist without constant contact with the object of their hatred.
(Many years ago, I was falsely accused of Bestiality in an email harassment campaign, including the slur that the only reason Anyone ever went to a furry con was to fantasize sex with animals. The next major Furry con I attended, I observed my harasser/accuser enjoying the con and hobnobbing with the big-name Furry fans and artists.)
All I can figure is that they are just as obsessed as any drooling fanboy, except they have flipped one-eighty from Total Blind Adoration into Total Blind Hatred.
Well, Dana Carvey said he based The Church Lady on actual Church Ladies he saw in church while growing up; she’s based on real life….