**
Media and blogosphere are abuzz with sex abuse stories coming from Patriarchy proponents, Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips. Gothard releases a statement, other Christian leaders defend Patriarchy.
**
I tell you what, my head is spinning this week with so many items of news regarding scandals by Christian leaders, especially within Christian Patriarchy. But one thing is very clear, Patriarchy is under the spotlight. Patriarchy defenders will be quick to blame this attack on feminists (or women bloggers), or from a society who has turned its back on “proper Biblical gender roles”, etc. This is to be expected. But there is indeed damage control going on these past months and will likely continue as investigations and court cases continue.
A couple of newsworthy items:
**
**
Bill Gothard recently issued a statement. Here is an excerpt from the middle of the statement which addresses boundaries he crossed with young ladies. Be prepared to yawn.
My wrong focus produced a further consequence. Families were made to feel that they must “measure up.” This resulted in some parents putting undue pressure on their sons and daughters in order for the family to be accepted. When there was a lack of love or consistency, sons and daughters saw this as hypocrisy and rejected it. Also, many felt that the expectations where so high that they could never measure up to them. This resulted in a feeling of deep defeat.
This emphasis on outward appearance was also manifested by bringing selected young people to serve at the Headquarters and causing others to feel rejected and offended by my favoritism. My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.
Ahem, Mr. Gothard, “touching of feet,” the kind of accounts I read from personal testimonies is not normal behavior:
Foot fetishism, foot partialism, foot worship, or podophilia is a pronounced sexual interest in feet. (Source)
*********************
**
Doug Wilson, the pastor who said this about marital sex, “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts,” shared a few words about the Lourdes-Manteufel vs. Phillips case in this article: Vision Forum and Confessing Your Virtues.
What’s interesting is in the first paragraph, he uses the word “affair.” Does this refer to “extra-marital affair” or “affair ” meaning an event:
Lourdes Torres-Manteufel was 15 when she met Doug Phillips, leader of Vision Forum, back in 1999. On her account, she was an adult when the relationship became sexual. The whole tangled affair is now in the courts, and it looks to become even more tangled and tawdry before we are all done.
It’s important to consider Wilson’s views on sex (the conquer/surrender) issue as we continue digging through his article. Now, keep in mind, that conquer quote had to do with marital sex. Phillips and Torres-Manteufel were not married, so how does he look at this issue for Torres-Manteufel as a single young woman who was an employee of Phillips, one of his church members under his spiritual guidance? (Bolding is done by me for emphasis.)
Now, with brazen threats of suits, Doug Phillips is disobeying the Word in a flagrant way (1 Cor. 6:1-8), and all to avoid paying consequences that he brought down on his own head. The Pauline injunction does apply to Torres-Manteufel also, but Phillips is the one was a teacher for many years, and who professed to understand this principle, and who should be willing to pay every dime he has to prevent this from becoming a greater laughingstock than it already has.
Wilson then goes on to defend Patriarchy and tells us to not view Patriarchy as the issue – that many people get abused without Patriarchy. Patriarchy is Wilson’s core belief, he must defend it. But Wilson claims it was the wrong kind of Patriarchy that caused this problem, not Patriarchy, in general.
Now, what’s interesting is this statement:
But the tell that the wrong kind of patriarchalism was operative in this (along with wrong notions of forgiveness, elder qualifications, etc.) was that after the first incident there was no insistence that Torres-Manteufel be moved to safety.
Moved to SAFETY? Wait a minute. He just said that the Pauline injunction implies to Torres-Manteufel. If she needed to be moved to safety, that implies a risk involved to her. Oh, so this wasn’t consensual and she should have been moved to safety? Did he forget himself for a minute? Which one is it? Is she responsible for her part or not? Keep in mind in the State of Texas there is a clergy ethic law that says there is no consensual relationship between pastor/church member when sex is involved, regardless of the age.
There were a couple of interesting comments in the article. The first came from K. Swanson. Could this be the Kevin Swanson (of Womb Tomb fame)?
**
************************
Michael Farris, founder of Homeschool Legal Defense Fund Association (HSLDA) and founder of Patrick Henry College has now come out against Doug Phillips. Doug Phillips at one point was an attorney working at HSLDA. It was after his work at HSLDA that he moved to San Antonio area and started Vision Forum.
I appreciate the fact that he is now coming out against Phillips, but it’s a little late. Farris’ primary place for promoting HSLDA has been at homeschool conventions which were essentially a Patriarchal Pleasure Party. This has been going on for over two decades now. So, I suppose again Farris has problems with Phillips’ brand of Patriarchy, but the rest of Patriarchy is okay? (And I haven’t even touched the rape culture at Patrick Henry College which does not receive Title IX funding, so they are exempt from reporting alleged sex abuse cases.) I am concerned when a college that is heavily into law, seems to sneak around the Title IX issue, leaving young women more vulnerable if they are sexually violated on campus.
**
**
Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard have wreaked havoc on Patriarchy. Proponents of Patriarchy will be quick to say that these two men were in sin and believed in the wrong kind of Patriarchy, because when Patriarchy works the right way, it is beautiful, yada yada.
It’s not a matter of what kind of Patriarchy, or the wrong kind of Patriarchy, or substituting a nicer word. When women are treated as objects, as personal property, when they are not allowed to question, to think for themselves, that is wrong. When a woman has to surrender to a man who uses sex to “conquer” her, that is wrong. When a woman must go through her husband as mediator to get to God, that is wrong.
If you haven’t had a chance to read Pastor Jeff Crippen’s article, Attitudes that Promote Abuse in the Church: Major System Flush Needed, he touches on Patriarchy and legalism which is something that were in both Phillips’ and Gothard’s teachings. Jeff brilliantly shared about abuse in the church with an illustration of his hot tub needing maintenance. I think you will appreciate this brief article and the simple truths he presented.
Consider the following kinds of unhealthy, disease-breeding germs that inevitably start growing if we neglect the regular maintenance of the application of God’s truth:
- Patriarchy: the notion that men, by virtue of being men, are superior to women (who are inferior, more faulty beings by virtue of being women),
- Legalism: the teaching and practice that announces (overtly or covertly) that faith alone in Christ alone is not sufficient to be justified and loved by God. Works on our part must be added to Christ’s work. This is a particularly nasty spiritual bacteria that doesn’t get flushed out easily. We need regular doses of a loud and clear announcement that Christ is our righteousness! Perhaps banners by the front door of the church, behind the pulpit, on the….well, all over the place.
**
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Amen!
LikeLike
Doug Wilson is caught red handed with his cogntive dissonance. Thankfully, for him, he rules over his own little kingdom where no one dares question. And if you question him on his blog, he comes back with a biting answer then demanding the name of your pastor so he can call for your discipline. These guys are the Medieval.
So, it was “consensual”. Yet, his brand of Patriarchy teaches that men not only conquer and women surrender but that women are easily deceived and don’t know their own mind and need a man to lead them. So which is it?
And for my Reformed friends do not forget that Doug Wilson (who defends slavery) recently became the darling of not only Reformed guru John Piper but The Gospel Coalition folks. They gushed over him.
As these guys start to lose control over not only people but their message, watch for the rhetoric and behavior to become more confusing.
LikeLike
In his Confessing Your Virtues article, Wilson says, “I have before defined masculine headship as the glad assumption of sacrificial responsibility.” Yeah, like the sacrificial responsibility a man assumes when he “conquers, colonizes, plants,” as the woman “receives, surrenders, accepts.”
LikeLike
Doug Wilson’s attack on the victim isn’t surprising given his own sordid history of coverup:
http://newwest.net/main/article/two_child_molestation_scandals_break_over_moscows_christ_church/
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2006/fall/neo-confederates
LikeLike
No kidding, Nicholas. I don’t recall Wilson ever making a public statement about that situation, do you?
LikeLike
And more:
http://thewartburgwatch.com/2012/07/18/the-real-doug-wilson-encouraged-presided-over-the-marriage-of-serial-pedophile/
When I suggested to a Doug Wilson follower that he watch the above video of Wilson marrying off a young woman in his church to the convicted child molester Steven Sitler, the Wilsonite responded with a dismissive “no.”
LikeLike
I know that response, Nicholas. It looks like this:
LikeLike
@Julie Anne
Wilson’s responses have amounted to simply screaming “lies!”:
http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/joan-opyr-cub-reporter.html
http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/brazenly-lied-about.html
LikeLike
@Julie Anne
Absolutely!
Everything Wilson’s blogged about the Sitler scandal can be found here, although he hasn’t discussed the Sitler wedding: http://dougwils.com/?s=sitler
Wilson accuses his critics of simply using the Sitler scandal to “score points” against him for ulterior motives.
LikeLike
@Julie Anne
My “Absolutely!” was in response to the photo.
LikeLike
Just came from Wilson’s blog. He has a followup post on the Phillips lawsuit. As far as I can tell, his argument seems to boil down to: she was an adult when the sexual stuff got started, therefore she knew what she was doing the whole time. Her sin is fornication and she is not a victim. Doug’s sin is adultery, not assault. Wilson seems completely ignorant of the dynamics involved in clergy sexual abuse.
Then there is his proposed remedy of private christian mediation, which I understand has already been tried in the past with Phillips, without success. Even if there was no potential criminal liability here, for that to work depends on the genuine repentance of the wrongdoer. And given the ecclesiastical situation at BCA, in the end there is no one to whom Doug Phillips is functionally accountable. He is a law unto himself.
Speaking of which, I just read that excerpt of Gothard’s. It includes:
“Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.”
This directly contradicts some of the things said by some of the victims as posted at the Recovering Grace blog. I don’t know what the statute of limitations is in Illinois, but that is practically inviting multiple lawsuits, or a class action, whichever would apply.
LikeLike
Big Bill Gothard can’t even keep his own carefully crafted passive-voice straight: “ My actions of holding of hands, hugs, and touching of feet or hair with young ladies crossed the boundaries of discretion and were wrong. They demonstrated a double-standard and violated a trust. Because of the claims about me I do want to state that I have never kissed a girl nor have I touched a girl immorally or with sexual intent.”
So his little ole hands and feet crossed boundaries, were wrong, violated trust, carried double-standard, but had nothing to do with immorality or sexual intent. Maybe it was twitch&spasm set off by the sight of “young ladies” but not by “girls”?
LikeLike
Lydia, you wrote that Wilson teaches “women don’t know their own minds and are easily deceived.” You hit the nail on the head about the dangers of patriarchal practices. Lourdes was raised under this teaching of submitting to and obeying men from a young age. Also don’t question authority. This becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Patriarchy creates women who don’t question and are easily deceived. If Lourdes had been raised to think for herself, question things that don’t add up and that blind obedience will cause her tremendous harm, she would have been given the tools to handle potentially harmful situations. She would have been taught the value of her own opinion. Most of all, she would have learned how to set personal boundaries. Growing up under patriarchal oppression molds young women into easily deceived victims, who were never allowed to voice opposing opinions. It, instead, teaches young women that they have no power. It takes years to heal from such brainwashing!
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Floating on Tiptoes.
LikeLike
I am stunned that this foul teaching has raised its ugly head once again. It is not Biblical. Women are not property and do not have less value or esteem than men. Notice how it is always men promoting this disgusting teaching? We are no longer in the dark ages and thank God for that. These men should and DO know better, but choose to hide behind their own man made laws so that they can pursue, conquer, assault and oppress women without any shame. And any woman who dares speak out against it is naturally called a feminist.
LikeLike
Oh, the shudders called up by the drawing from the IBLP textbook.
LikeLike
“Just came from Wilson’s blog. He has a followup post on the Phillips lawsuit. As far as I can tell, his argument seems to boil down to: she was an adult when the sexual stuff got started, therefore she knew what she was doing the whole time. Her sin is fornication and she is not a victim.”
That is so low.
The only good thing I can say is that at least he is spelling it out this time. So, for those who think some read way too much into DW calling Phillips’ victim a Delilah, here ya go:
http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html
******MOD Note: In the above article that BTDT linked, there is a whole lot of victim blaming going on and some of it is coming from women. I feel like I need some brain bleach after reading some of the comments. Tread carefully if you are triggered by sex abuse and this kind of talk. It is very disturbing that even women will blame other women. ~ja
LikeLike
More damage control, today’s post from Kevin Swanson.
LikeLike
BTDT: “This is so low” Yes, it was beyond low, seriously Wilson is a creep & a pharisee on steroids.
Off topic, but good to hear your voice again Gary W. I have been missing your comments, was praying that all was well with you.
LikeLike
Juxtapose Kevin Swanson’s knee-jerk bombastic daily radio show, with this deliberately scaled back response on Wilson’s blog.
He has no problem whatsoever badgering every minute thing he perceives to be evil in society (per his most authoritative and unbiased filter) – but when it comes to calling out real sin in his own ‘patriarchy camp’ – he demonstrates the sanctimonious capacity to hold his tongue to 3 noncommittal sentences. #chameleonkevin
I recommend asking for the Holy Spirit to guide you instead of seeking confirmation bias’d blogs. Of course Doug Wilson is going to claim the real problem isn’t patriarchy. The fish can’t stink from the head down, can it? Inconceivable! (insert lisp)
Two of the biggest names in this deal are getting caught red handed – but they are an aberration. Young women are coming out of the woodwork writing books, blogs, and filing lawsuits. But hey, it’s ok! Nothing to see here.
LikeLike
BTDT: I am L.I.V.I.D. at Wilson’s new post. There is no hope for ladies/girls in Patriarchy. Unreal.
LikeLike
Just want to point out that there is nothing wrong with being a feminist.
LikeLike
Notice too how Gothard essentially says that it’s the victims’ fault for feeling excluded by his favoritism? It’s not, “I’m sorry.” It’s “I’m sorry you feel badly.” His ignorance and arrogance is breathtaking. How can anyone possibly conclude that an 50+ year old man who strokes a teen girl’s hair, holds her hand, and stares deeply into her eyes, at all hours of the night, while in a position of authority and power over her, is just “grandfatherly” loving behavior? If I saw a grandfather playing footsie with his 15 year old granddaughter under the dining room table, I’d be calling for intervention. This is inappropriate, gross and dangerous. Moreover, the hypocrisy is that he is engaging in the same behavior that he condemned as sinful when done by two consenting adults in a mature relationship. I guess it’s only OK when you are creeptastic, powerful old guy and the object of your obsession is a teen girl.
LikeLike
This is funny. I do this post today on Patriarchy and spent a considerable amount of time looking up Swanson, Baucham, Botkin, Scott Brown, trying to find recent stuff on Patriarchy and now after I hit “send” Wilson adds more and Swanson comes through. Here is Swanson’s latest article. He claims he’s not patriarchal. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
LikeLike
I can’t tell if Gothard is lying to us or lying to himself.
LikeLike
Ruth it is so disgusting. Creepstatic is a good word. I’m still trying to get over the last Wilson article. I might need to play some loud music or yell or something.
LikeLike
LikeLike
(I posted the following comment at Blog & Mablog/Doug Wilson. I’m not holding my breath that it’ll actually be allowed–or answered.)
Dear Mr. Wilson,
I’m curious as to what you believe would have been the correct response of a culturally isolated (i.e. no steady diet of Lady Gaga, The Hangover 2, episodes of “family” TV, or crass porn-innuendo “money shot” references) 21-year old virgin and sexual innocent upon having a father/pastor/Patriarch figure masturbate and ejaculate on her face and thigh (as cited in legal filing)?
What should she have done, Mr. Wilson? Wrapped the top sheet around her and fled for the front door and “hit the road”?
You type so many words, Mr. Wilson, and, yet, say nothing in acknowledging the visual, mental, spiritual, and sexual confusion, fear, and shame his actions would have had on such innocence. The rape and stripping away of Ideals, Mr. Wilson, in those minutes of his lust; the assault and annihilation of what she had been told was true. Trustworthy. Honorable.
If that 21-year old woman were your child, Mr. Wilson? Your granddaughter? And if that father/pastor/Patriarch-figure was someone you knew? Her family knew? trusted? worked for? Would your words of advice remain the same? Would you write with the same detachment? Would you be as (seemingly) cavalier regarding her experiencing the sexual act of his ejaculating on her face–and act which some married women would find demoralizing? Would your words to your daughter or granddaughter be, “Why didn’t you hit the road sooner–or at all”?
Again, so many words, and so very little substance.
Julie
LikeLike
“Just want to point out that there is nothing wrong with being a feminist.”
Marsha, To them, a feminist is a woman who votes without asking her husband who to vote for. That is how bad it is in that movement.
I should not be surprised that Beall would pull a Hilary Clinton– but I am. She won’t recognize that, of course. She thinks she is nothing like Hilary in trying to protect her philandering husband’s career/power.
LikeLike
Patriarchy is a refuge for predators.
LikeLike
Excellent, Julie. Thank you for posting your comment here so we can all see. In general, it seems Wilson generally accepts opposing comments on his blog. I’m hopeful that he will allow yours, but fear if he does, his article will become a major distraction for me this weekend 😉
LikeLike
Doug Wilson, on his post http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html, said:
“if his [Doug Phillips’] attentions were entirely unwelcome to her [Lourdes], and she was freaked out by the creepster, then we have to ask why she wasn’t down the road at the first opportunity — that night or the next morning — with Doug Phillips receiving notification of her opinion of what transpired via the sound of sirens. That’s not what happened, on anyone’s account, and so I don’t think we should identify her as a victim.”
This is classic victim-blaming language. Which is what we would expect from the Patriachal Doug Wilson.
I’d like to share here an excerpt from a post I wrote at A Cry For Justice, as a rebuttal to Doug Wilson’s horribly hurtful victim-blaming words.
You can read my full post here:
http://cryingoutforjustice.com/2012/06/15/the-bibles-view-on-premarital-sex-is-the-remedy-always-get-married/
Deut. 22:23-24 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”
In ancient towns and cities of Israel, houses were close together, there was little traffic noise or other audio distractions like we have today, and the cry or scream of a victim of crime would generally be responded to. In a city like this, if a woman did not cry out in objection to the sex, then the inference is she agreed to have sex with this guy. She bears guilt because was betrothed to another man. Likewise, the fellow who had sex with her bears guilt because he had “taken his neighbor’s wife” – he had sex with a woman who had been promised to another man.
Of course, we must remember this is case law. Mosaic case law didn’t set out every possible legal case in precise detail; its intent was to set down principles which could be applied with wise common sense to particular situations. Consider a variation to the case above; let’s imagine that an abusive man pressured a betrothed woman into having sex with him ‘in the city’ and she was unable to cry out because he had gagged her, or threatened her life, or intimidated her by some other threat. So she underwent the rape silently without crying out. A reasonable person would not claim “She didn’t cry out, so she must have been complicit.” God didn’t intend case law to be applied in such a wooden way; that kind of rigidity is anathema to the spirit of the Law, and one of the hallmarks of the abusive mentality. Common sense would say it was a case of rape because of the threats and intimidation, and the innocent woman would not be penalised.
***
Lourdes is not to blame for not reporting the assaults to the police early on. She was a victim of the brainwashing of the Total Institutional Control which DP and his fellow patriarchs taught and enforced with their velvet-gloved iron fists. Rather than blaming her for not going to the police, we ought to praise her for her amazing courage in eventually recognising the abuse, disclosing it, and fleeing from it.
Doug Wilson needs to go and eat glass, it might give him a tiny sense of the pain, horror and mind-boggling trauma that women and girls have had to suffer under this ‘c’hristian Patriarchy.
LikeLike
Alas, Mr. Wilson (and/or Blog Moderator), rejected my query and observation–at least in that it no longer shows as queued for consideration. Why doesn’t this surprise me?
LikeLike
Well, that’s too bad, I shall have to tweet the comment now. I’ll be sure to tag him, too 🙂
LikeLike
Michael Farris said “I wish I had spoken up sooner. . . . I knew that he was involved in unscriptural views about women in his teaching. . . . I thought my actions would speak louder than his words. I wish I had used words too.”
Not good enough Farris. You have fallen WAY short of godliness, let alone the Biblical standards for godly leadership.
why do you idly look at traitors
and remain silent when the wicked swallows up
the man more righteous than he? — Habakuk 1:13b
His watchmen are blind;
they are all without knowledge;
they are all silent dogs;
they cannot bark,
dreaming, lying down,
loving to slumber. — Is. 56:10
Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. — Eph. 5:11
We will never be able to stop abusers abusing altogether, but by speaking out and exposing their distorted teaching and dangerous practices, we can make it harder for them to get away with their evildoing. Farris has been pathetically lacking in discernment and courage. And why? because he subscribes to a very similar mindset that DP subscribes too.
LikeLike
Libby Anne has written two good articles addressing not only Farris’s failure to speak out against Patriarchy, but even the ways in which HSLDA has supported it.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/04/michael-farris-patriarchy-and-doug-phillips-an-expose.html
(JA: You have a link to this first article on the Lawsuit Resource page, but it seems to be broken. I got one of those “error-page not found” messages)
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/04/michael-farris-admits-he-messed-up.html
LikeLike
Hi Julie Anne,
I just read another account of Patriarchy which speaks of a father’s emotionally incestuous relationship with his daughter. That seems to be the key dynamic that some are missing here. The ‘leaders’ in the movement (and, by extension, the ‘heads of home’) just can’t GET that the patriarchal system is damaging to these young women, PERIOD. (there doesn’t have to be sexual abuse involved for it to still be wrong)
Lana Hobbs the Brave has the story, called ‘Patriarchy’ on her Blog – the young woman gives a very moving testimony. I can’t do the links (sorry, technological dunderhead).
LikeLike
E.I.E. “Alas, Mr. Wilson (and/or Blog Moderator), rejected my query and observation–at least in that it no longer shows as queued for consideration. Why doesn’t this surprise me?”
My comment at D.W. blog also went into moderation then disappeared. I usually avoid those blog waters, too many sharks swim there. I was furious though. The women over there along with Mr. Wilson left me gasping for breath, I felt I was drowning in a sea with all their self righteous words.
O my, why are these people so long on words & short on mercy, understanding, and grace?
LikeLike
@Carmen:
Didn’t Voddie “Beat Fluttershy until you turn her into Rainbow Dash” Baucham say that in just so many words? About how when wives get too old a man goes after younger women and that’s why God gave him daughters?
LikeLike
@EnoughIsEnough:
“She’s only a WOMAN. A Handmaid. Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”
“Only a WOMAN. A Handmaid. Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”
“Stone her to death for her Harlotry. It Is Written!
She’s only a WOMAN. Penetrate! Colonize! Conquer! Plant!”
LikeLike
@BarbaraRoberts:
Since when have Gawd’s Speshul Anointed EVER been “reasonable persons”?
Especially when THEY’re the ones personally benefiting from the arrangement?
LikeLike
Gail: I was left fuming reading a few of the comments by women, too: Stacy McDonald (long history in the Homeschool Movement) and Kelly Crawford. I was disgusted.
If you ever leave a comment on any blog and suspect it might not get published, copy it (or screenshot it) and post it on the blog or send it to me. I’ll tweet it and it will likely get more publicity in Twitterland than on the blog because people love to click and read when I say: “This is the comment Doug Wilson didn’t want you to read.” haha
BTW, I jokingly tweeted this last night and Doug Wilson responded to it. LOL
LikeLike
BTW, here’s the tweet I sent out yesterday (copying the comment that was unapproved at Doug Wilson’s blog). I think I have over 1,000 Twitter followers. As of right now, there are 7 retweets. When people retweet it, it goes to all of their followers as well, so it really gets spread around – probably far more than the actual # of people who would read through all the comments on the actual article. So, I really think it is an effective way of showing people how Wilson is shutting down comments he doesn’t agree with. It causes them to look more closely at what he is shutting down and ask “why” does he not like the comment. Why does he view it as a threat? This is good stuff. It is exposing Patriarchy for what it is.
LikeLike
Ok, I just went to Doug Wilson’s blog and he has now released the comment. What I find very odd is that it had disappeared from Julie’s screen, but hadn’t posted. That means that someone intentionally put it somewhere (trash or spam). We only have so many options: approve, trash, or spam.
Now I see Wilson posted this (probably after I tweeted the above):
I’m not sure what is going on. This is peculiar. Anyway, I’m glad to see it posted. As I said earlier, I have seen vigorous debate on his site before, so it made me very curious why Julie’s comment seems to have been held for a time before it was approved.
LikeLike
Ann said: “Growing up under patriarchal oppression molds young women into easily deceived victims, who were never allowed to voice opposing opinions. It, instead, teaches young women that they have no power. It takes years to heal from such brainwashing!”
How long can these patriarchy leaders turn a deaf ear to the victims now speaking out? How long can they ignore the realization that patriarchy creates an environment where this young woman could not speak up and go against DP without severe consequences? The whole “system” is wrong, wrong, wrong.
LikeLike
Michael Farris said, “I sent my oldest daughter off to Cedarville University and my second daughter off to Romania as a missionary. I thought my actions would speak louder than words.”
Those words speak plenty. Not “my daughters chose to go to Cedarville and Romania, and I was pleased with their decisions to follow where the Lord led them,” but “I sent them off….”
The mindset of women as male property is so ingrained in the patriarchy crowd that they don’t recognize it in themselves even when they think they are not being patriarchal.
LikeLike
@Monique,
As long as their followers continue to worship them, follow blindly, and give them all the power.
LikeLike
Excellent observation, AnotherTom.
I’m just blown away by the comments from the Patriarchs this week. Both Farris and now Swanson are distancing themselves from the Patriarchy word.
I think all the negative publicity with the Doug Phillips case is giving Patriarchy a bad name. They don’t want any connection with it. Look at this screenshot I swiped (with permission) from Homeschoolers Anonymous and tweeted:
LikeLike
I just can’t get over Stacy McDonald’s latest comment on the Wilson post. Apparently having compassion for the oppressed and carrying out justice is too much to ask of patriarchy anymore.
LikeLike
AnotherTom,
Wow…good eye!
Ed
LikeLike
Tom Lemke,
I loved your posts on Wilson’s blog. Your use of scripture to counter is fantastic.
Ed
LikeLike
Tom – – I am so angry at Stacy’s words. She is drinking some thick Patriarchal Koolaid.
This is a prayer her husband, James McDonald posted on his FB page April 7:
The “role” he’s talking about is the mandates put out by Patriarchs. And when he cloaks it with a prayer and surrounded by “God,” it sounds legit.
LikeLike
Ed, You’re doing a great job over there, too.
LikeLike
chapmaned24: If you’re the same Ed Chapman that I’ve been reading and re-reading over there, then back at you! Your comments have been exceedingly helpful to my thinking this through.
LikeLike
Julie: Oh, she’s married to that James McDonald? I didn’t realize he was into patriarchy, but I knew there was a reason I didn’t care for him.
LikeLike
“I just can’t get over Stacy McDonald’s latest comment on the Wilson post.”
Warning: Stacy’s victim-blaming comments might be triggering to anyone who has experienced abuse.
Tom Lemke and Ed,
Thank you for your comments on Wilson’s blog.
LikeLike
Well, I my comment didn’t get past Wilson yesterday. I guess the word pornographic activity was too worldly. I wasn’t caught up in the minutiae of Deuteronomy or Ephisians. Why are so many comments on Wilson’s blog about “Biblical Doctrine”? Are they hiding behind scripture, twisting it in such a way that they lose sight of the real, flesh and blood people in this situation? How does all of this abstract discussion further repentance, healing and justice? For some, it seems the Phillip’s case is a chance to debate Biblical doctrine and treat the people involved as abstract figures. These are flesh and blood humans who are all hurting. Lourdes needs justice and healing. Doug needs strong men who tell him the truth and hold his “hand into the fire”. He will find no grace as long as he stays in denial and refuses to acknowledge his abusive behavior. And Beall, I just don’t know. What I do know is that debating scripture adds nothing to help the situation!
LikeLike
“How long can these patriarchy leaders turn a deaf ear to the victims now speaking out? How long can they ignore the realization that patriarchy creates an environment where this young woman could not speak up and go against DP without severe consequences? The whole “system” is wrong, wrong, wrong.”
Monique, That is really part of the problem. Too many people are waiting for the abusers, cult leaders, etc to “wake up”. Not going to happen. They don’t want to. It is their identity.
But let’s say they start changing their message without any announcement why– like someone mentioned that Voddie has been doing. They are responding to market forces not a change in their belief system. And it is often very subtle. I have seen it a lot when they are trying to make course corrections because the other course was costing them in dollars or followers.
Remember: This is how they make their living. Never forget that. And the followers are attracted to it for reasons of their own which should be our focus. What is missing in their lives that they think Patriarchy will fill? Why do they think such a belief system pleases God? Christians don’t elevate mere men.
The focus should be on their followers. We need to stop expecting them to change. You can wait, pray and beg God to change a cult leader who most likely has some tendancies of sociopathy/narcissism (or they would not be a cult leader) and waste your life ending up disappointed in God for not answering your prayers. And the sociopath or narcissist ends up going on to wreck more havoc in people’s lives. God gives us all free will. And He does not want us enabling evil. He wants us to expose it. He most often works through His people who have the indwelling Holy Spirit.
Have you ever thought about who Jesus prayed for? It is an interesting thing to research in the NT. The religious leaders of His own Israelite tribe should have known better. Jesus did not give them a blanket pass. He did not spend his time praying for them to change. He spoke truth. He pointed out their falseness publicly (Matthew 5-23)
They were expected to “metonia” just like everyone else who believed. When he prayed on the cross for God to forgive “them”, who was He praying for? Who carried out the crucifixtion? The Romans. And it is true that they did NOT understand what they were doing. The point is, had the Pharisees really known God in the first place, they would not have existed as they did. That is the irony.
Phillips, Wilson, and a whole other host of charlatans who pass themselves off as Christianity today are the “religious leaders” of our time. It is amazing how history keeps repeating itself. They are corrupt priests. And they are well aware of how to be saved. But their goal is the same as the Adversary’s. They want followers for themselves. They want the adoration and veneration. They want to be obeyed.
When my daughter was very little she once asked me if we should pray for Satan. Boy did that throw me for a loop because we are not pentecostal types here and believe we have victory over evil because of the cross. But she asked if God can save any sinner can’t He save Satan? I answered wisely: Go ask your dad. :o)
If we understand correctly, the Advesary had his opportunity of free will and chose different. He does not want truth and light. He wants to kill and destroy and take as many with him as possible.
What I have a hard time with is how many Christians blow off base evil by a “leader” when it becomes known. Or they blame Satan for the evil free will choices in the Name of Jesus, We are to flee from evil and warn others. Anything less is an afront to the Savior we claim. Anything less is like spitting on Christ as He hangs on the Cross. Because the evil these men teach and do in deed, they teach and do in the Name of our precious Savior. That is a whole other scary point to consider.
We are to be the light in darkness. We are not to judge the world but those in the Body. (1 Corin 5). That passage is interesting because Paul does not teach praying for the person in heinous sin. He literally says to hand them over so they might be saved. To make “judgements” in the Body. He did not ask for cheap grace and cheap forgiveness for the person. That only enables more of the same.
LikeLike
I read Bill Gothard’s statement. After doing so, I can’t help but wonder if lawyers either helped write it or reviewed the statement.
I give Gothard credit for finally making a statement, but he needs to do more – a lot more.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that Gothard’s defenders are using the *lack* of any court case to attack the victims (i.e. it must not be that serious, otherwise there would be a filing), and Phillips’ defenders are using the *presence* of a lawsuit to attack his victim (i.e. she’s motivated by money and revenge and is being unscriptural). I think if Lourdes hadn’t filed suit,the Phillips camp would have been using the Gothard argument (it wasn’t that serious). Expect that if there are filings in the Gothard case his supporters will switch to using the Phillips defense (money, revenge, unscriptural).
You just can’t win with these people, and you shouldn’t try.
LikeLike
Lydia,
Oh I know…sigh…I was just exasperated after reading the comments on the Wilson blog. I don’t expect any momentous change soon, but I hope this is the start of a wake up call for the families that got caught up in this movement. Maybe then these leaders will be hit in the pocketbook and they’ll take more notice.
But I also saw a number of comments from victims of abuse stating, from their own experience, how you can be in this abusive situation and not speak up. These are realities that these leaders need to hear and take serious. Unfortunately, the connection between the teachings in these patriarchy circles and abuse is not going to be recognized by some of these leaders. But I hope that more and more homeschool families/patriarchy followers are willing and able to put the pieces together and get out.
“Because the evil these men teach and do in deed, they teach and do in the Name of our precious Savior. That is a whole other scary point to consider.”
Yep, spiritual abuse all wrapped up in a “Christianese” package.
LikeLike
BTW – I just added this note to BTDT’s comment above. If this stuff is affecting me and I have never been sexually violated, I cannot imagine what it might do to someone who was. Be careful if you decide to read the article/comments:
http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html
******MOD Note: In the above article that BTDT linked, there is a whole lot of victim blaming going on and some of it is coming from women. I feel like I need some brain bleach after reading some of the comments. Tread carefully if you are triggered by sex abuse and this kind of talk. It is very disturbing that even women will blame other women. ~ja
LikeLike
@JulieAnne:
Disturbing but not surprising.
As in “Catfight” and “Queen Bees”.
LikeLike
@Monique:
UNTIL THEY’RE NO LONGER PERSONALLY BENEFITING FROM THE ARRANGEMENT.
LikeLike
Lydia wrote: “Too many people are waiting for the abusers, cult leaders, etc to “wake up”. Not going to happen. They don’t want to. It is their identity.”
I completely agree. Trying to convince them that they are wrong is equally as pointless. IMO, after letting them know, they should be ignored. Continuing to try to coax them, to appeal to them, is to remain obedient to their system of authority.
Only when we own the authority that is already ours, will we finally defeat such people. So our job (if we have one) is to help other Christians recognize their own authority and then understand how they’ve given it away to these ridiculous men.
LikeLike
I’m curious what you all think of Pastor Wilson’s response to me here. I’m still ruminating myself, other than to note what others have that she was not in a position to find help for herself in an immediate sense, and echo an astute comment left here:
So much wrong with this.
“But if his attentions were entirely unwelcome to her, and she was freaked out by the creepster, then we have to ask why she wasn’t down the road at the first opportunity”
But then he goes on with:
” I do not believe that Paul prohibits taking disputes into civil courts, but rather taking disputes before unbelieving civil courts”
So this young woman grows up in a culture where authority is paramount, where adult women are expected to be silent and submissive to men, where leaders are treated like gods, where outside authority is summarily rejected – but she’s not a victim because she didn’t report it immediately to the secular authorities which he says you shouldn’t report things to?
LikeLike
Tom asked about Wilson’s response to him which I have copied here:
One thing to understand about Wilson is he (and many others there) sifts everything through OT Biblical law. It’s easy for him, a guy, to say she should get the heck out of there after the first incident. He has NO CLUE what it is like to be owned as property by men in that environment. Remember, he’s the one who thinks that husbands have the right to conquer their wives sexually and wives in turn must surrender to their husbands sexually. He tries to convince us all that this conquer/surrender thing is beautiful and godly.
Don’t you find it interesting that Lourdes “surrendered” which is exactly what he expects of women, and now he’s freakin’ blaming her. Women will never be fully respected in Patriarchy.
LikeLike
I won’t be reading Wilson’s blog. Thanks for the warning. I would be too easily triggered by the blame shifting onto victims. My own grandmother blamed me at the age of four when my older brother molested me. I’m the one who was punished/beaten for it, and thus my endless cycle of abuse began then and there.
LikeLike
So many insightful comments.
Ruth. Love the new term: ‘creeptastic’!! Meaning: a mega level creep.
Patrice. Agreed! There is much work to do and many people to love and assist.
“Only when we own the authority that is already ours, will we finally defeat such people. So our job (if we have one) is to help other Christians recognize their own authority and then understand how they’ve given it away to these ridiculous men.”
“
LikeLike
It is very triggering, WFTT2, and so much victim blaming.
LikeLike
Tom Lemke,
Wilson says: “if his attentions were entirely unwelcome to her, I believe that she was responsible to get the heck out of there after the first incident.”
Wilson is playing a total hypocrite here. He knows very well that women in these hierarchical systems are taught to submit to a chain of authority. (Like Gothard’s umbrella of authority.) That not only includes their parents, but also pastors/ministers. Wilson himself has written that he believes pastors have authority over the families. So, Lourdes would have been taught to obey. This sometimes entails very harsh methods of child training such as what Michael Pearl espouses. (I can’t say that Lourdes parents used those methods, just that they are prevalent in these environments.)
When confronted with a situation where Lourdes must choose between disobeying authority or accepting behavior she knows is sinful, it places her in a double bind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
“A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, in which one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation. . . . For example, this situation arises when a person in a position of authority imposes two contradictory conditions but there exists an unspoken rule that one must never question authority.”
Wilson is making these statements now because the failures in the Patriarchal environment have been exposed through one of it’s leaders. However, he knows Lourdes was not raised to be assertive and independent.
LikeLike
@JulieAnne:
Of course it’s beautiful to him. He’s the one on top doing the conquering and all the rest of us are on the bottom doing the surrendering. And women surrender the most of all. (When he gushes over the Confederate States’ Peculiar Institution involving Animate Property, does he see himself as White and Holding the Whip, or Black and Feeling the Whip?)
Because he’s (a) MALE and (b) GAWD’S ANOINTED LEADER.
He PENETRATES! COLONIZES! CONQUERS! PLANTS!
By Divine Right!
LikeLike
@Barb:
Men so ridiculous they rant about beating people up while dressed in Mickey Mouse T-shirts and kewpie-doll fauxhawks or bring MMA cage fights into their church or polish the shaft in public or cosplay as General Patton outside of a re-enactment.
LikeLike
“Scott Clark once compared the work here in Moscow to Jonestown.” Good for Dr. Clark! Have we heard a peep from Piper? The Gospel Coalition? Wilson blasts Christians resorting to unbelieving courts, something this large group tries to prevent from happening at any cost. Handle it in-house. Don’t call 911. They tell us they have the power of the keys and no one has authority over them. Hypocrites.
LikeLike
HUG, I know, right? What is *wrong* with people, thinking that’s all kewl and righteous, bruh? My incomprehension of its attraction often makes me ineffective. Maybe I’m just too old, I don’t know.
LikeLike
Yeah, Doug Wilson appears to believe that half of humanity is created in/for a perpetual state of surrender and colonization, yet they should also be mature adults. Which is a psychological and intellectual impossibility. It’s idiotic to actually believe such. And since he isn’t an idiot (although not as bright as he believes himself to be), he’s simply doing his gangland best to stay king-of-the-mountain.
If I had my druthers, I set up reincarnation just for Doug Wilson, send him back as a black woman in the southern US, circa 1820 or so. After that, I’d be glad to sit down with him and hear him out.
LikeLike
I’d love to be a bug on the wall.
LikeLike
Tom Lemke, yes, that was a very astute comment. I will add to it the sexual component. People are biologically made to be responsive to sexual overture, especially when it comes from someone you have grown fond of. But when it comes from someone who is ineligible for it, someone who is an authority figure, the natural response feels like corruption.
On the one hand, one reaallllyyy doesn’t want the sexualization, feels that something is horridly awry about it, and longs to to return to trust and safety. On the other hand, one enjoys the “special” attention and the body response can feel great. So a person falls into deep shame, and that’s paralyzing. For a young person who has had little/no experience of sexuality, it’s even more confusing.
What’s so icky for me here is that when my father sexually abused me, he made certain, just as Doug Phillips did, that he didn’t actually know me “Biblically”. Everything/anything short of it. For a long time, it kept me from granting myself the label of sexually abused. It’s a nasty nasty trick, and I’m sure it added another layer of torment to this young woman.
LikeLike
“Wilson blasts Christians resorting to unbelieving courts, something this large group tries to prevent from happening at any cost. Handle it in-house. Don’t call 911. They tell us they have the power of the keys and no one has authority over them.”
This really needs to be addressed.
Attorney Greg Love, founder and director of MinistrySafe dot com, was interviewed concerning the sexual abuse of children in my former church. I’m going to paraphrase what he said to avoid google exposure. He said when things are handled “in-house” that children are at risk. I just finished watching the following video, and took a few notes. (It’s about 30 mins long, so I don’t expect everyone will watch it.)
“More than 95% of the problem happens on this side of the fence.” [He means within the church.]
“Abusers go where the protection barrier is the lowest. Where is the protection barrier the lowest? Church.”
The church is woefully unequipped to handle sexual abuse cases. Wilson’s prescription will continue to put sexual abuse victims at risk.
LikeLike
Looks like Doug Wilson will be able to put an end to sex traffiking since women are free to leave at anytime.
LikeLike
“I’d love to be a bug on the wall.”
No fair, JA. If you are going to hear, I want you sitting next to me, so if he hasn’t learned a dang thing, I have someone to exchange eye rolls with.
Or else we could both be bugs, and let God do the sitting/listening. Yeah, I vote for that. I’m that blue-bottle fly in the window, which one are you? w00t
LikeLike
Carmen, is it the “keys to the kingdom” given to Peter that they think they have?
I’d need some concrete evidence that they were given those keys before I’d believe that story. And at least two witnesses.
LikeLike
I’ll gladly pull up a chair next to you. BTW, Patrice, fantastic comments over at that blog. If you hadn’t noticed this stuff has really gotten to me today.
LikeLike
Patrice,
“is it the “keys to the kingdom” given to Peter that they think they have? ”
I think they have to fight the Catholics on that claim!! LOL!!
Ed
LikeLike
JA, yeah it got to me too, that’s why I went over there even though I am actually too busy prepping for my daughter’s wedding (next Saturday!).
The owner of *that* blog is one of the ridiculous who needs to be relieved of authority. To engage him is to feed him. But I tried loving a couple of his followers who need to take back their authority. I’m semi-serious about this. How do we love an enemy in comment threads? How do we be uncompromising and relentless—in love? Part of it might be about disarming them while also not giving an inch. I don’t know, I’m practicing.
I’m glad you think I did ok. I find it fascinating.
LikeLike
Ed, well, if the Catholics can provide concrete evidence and two or three eye-witnesses, who am I to get in the way? lol
Now if they all come up with evidence/witnesses, we will have to become as Solomon. Hmmmmmm…Well, maybe we’ll just have to cut everyone in half and then exchange halves. This way everyone will get an equal portion of whoever actually has the power. Voila.
w00t
LikeLike
Patrice,
Yes, they do believe that they have been given the power of the keys that were given to Peter. This is why SGM and C.J. Mahaney based their case on being allowed to shepherd their churches as they see fit. It’s also why The Gospel Coaltion sides with Mahaney.
By “they” I am referring to Calvinistic reformed churches. The Westminster Confession states that there is no salvation outside the “visible” church.. a slight change from the Catholic church-with a capital “C”. You are sanctified through the preaching of the Word by the ordained minister on Sunday, in the temple of the Lord, and through the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. ( I thought that I, as a regenerated believer, a new creature in Christ, a “new man”, was the temple of the Lord. Because of the Lord Jesus Christ I am one of the priesthood of believers.) I heard all of this first-hand as I sat in a service at an Orthodox Presbyterian church. John Calvin was a Roman Catholic, as was Martin Luther, and both were followers of Augustine.
LikeLike
I’ve heard from several people in this community this dumb line about her losing her rights to be considered a “victim” if she was consenting for even a brief period of time and did not literally yell and cry out. I think they are being excessively literal and legalistic on purpose to narrowly define the problem.
If a girl was coerced 6 times and shamed or threatened into silence, she STILL has the right to cry out the 7th time people! Also, this whole deal about keeping it silent is wrong. Tamar, in the Bible went around in sackcloth and with her robes torn after her encounter with her half-brother. That is what my wife and I perceived when we ran into Lourdes when we first thought something was wrong. she didn’t even come out and tell us initially, it wasn’t like she was trying to get us in on some conspiracy.
In recent weeks I have been contacted by Doug’s attorneys hired private investigator, a Charlie Parker from San Antonio and he launched into some conspiracy theory that he wanted me to elaborate in. THERE is NO conspiracy. Doug’s friends love and care for him and wished to see him change his ways, repent, and act honorably. That is all! The farther this goes however, and when I get calls from PIs and suspicious emails, the more I am inclined to think false prophet than I am inclined to think fallen hero.
LikeLike
“Only when we own the authority that is already ours, will we finally defeat such people. So our job (if we have one) is to help other Christians recognize their own authority and then understand how they’ve given it away to these ridiculous men.”
This sums it up. It took me while to figure this one out and actually practice it. And it can mean serious changes in ones life by leaving behind enablers, toxic people and spiritual abusers.-
I have a new personal position which might sound strange to some people.Only if I am paid well to do so will I have any interaction with such people. And I have serious boundaries even then. And I say this because we all have to deal with toxic people at work/career. So why would we deal with toxic people voluntarily when we do not have to?
LikeLike
“John Calvin was a Roman Catholic, as was Martin Luther, and both were followers of Augustine.”
Calvin was also trained in law which is why the Institutes read the way they do. :o) Augustine was trained in Greek pagan philosophy which is all over his writings if one knows what to look for. And all that spread West like wildfire and was ingrained in what so many call “orthodox” Christianity. Which is why I always find that term ridiculous. Whose “orthodoxy”?
LikeLike
Here is Wilson’s “orthodoxy”:
Lourdes is taught in the movement at a young age to obey her male authority figures, to surrender, that she is easily deceived and many other Patriarchal doctrines
On the other hand, she is held responsible and to blame for actually “obeying” the teaching of Patriarchy when the scandal comes out. She is blamed for not thinking for herself when she has been taught that is wrong.
Me thinks Wilson has a bad case of “cognitive dissonance”. But he thinks he is smart, of course.
The bottomline is women cannot win in that movement. They are guilty no matter what they do.
LikeLike
Lydia:
You said:” The bottomline is women cannot win in that movement. They are guilty no matter what they do.”
IMO, every woman that can needs to get out of this movement.
LikeLike
Ryan said:
Ryan, thanks for sharing about this. I have heard from a number of people about this situation, so you can be sure you are not the only one. Narcissists are paranoid people. As soon as I heard about the PI, I immediately thought of my former pastor and his behavior. These guys are all alike. They must know who is talking about them. They must know everything. They go from person to person wanting the scoop on what has been said about them. That’s why the obsession about looking up themselves online, going after anyone who says anything they perceive as bad about them (Bob, Jordan, Peter). They make up conspiracies about people going against them. I don’t know how much sleep Phillips gets a night, but it was commonly known that my former pastor got very little. It makes sense – he was so busy conjuring up conspiracy schemes. I’ll bet Phillips is similar.
Inclined? Oh please, Ryan, we have far too much evidence already. Just say it. Here, I’ll help you:
Doug Phillips is a False Prophet.
LikeLike
“IMO, every woman that can needs to get out of this movement.”
Those that want to are going to need lots of help. Many are under-educated, have very few “survival in the real world” skills, most are co-dependent and their thinking of themselves is warped. It is not all that different from a “wife” who wanted to escape Warren Jeffs. (BTW, do you all know how they afford all those wives? Government welfare. I kid you not! I remember reading a book by a reporter who did an indepth investigation on the Mormon run cities out West and was blown away)
I would liken it to leaving your country and moving to a foreign land alone with no job, money or support system. How many people do that?
Guys like Doug Wilson and Doug Phillips have a lot in common with the Mormons when it comes to how they view women.
LikeLike
G’day, Carmen, on this Easter!
I was raised on the Westminster Confession but have accidentally on-purpose forgotten it all lol
But I still have a few remaining Reformed Calvinist friends and they don’t believe that salvation comes only in the visible church and do not put emphasis on communion. They do over-emphasize preaching and under-emphasize the Holy Spirit, tending to a more intellectual faith. They are hard workers because of a focus on the here/now of God’s kingdom. They see the keys of the kingdom in that context, as something we all own, to be used (say, as Julie Anne does) for evaluation of the integrity of belief within the church. They generally think it presumptuous to use these “keys”, which I suspect is more about fear than humility but, well, that is a flaw common to US Christianity these days.
The Orthodox Presby denom is on the harsher legalistic end of Reformed spectrum. Unfortunately all that is austere, authoritarian, and wormy in the doctrinal set will appear more clearly in them compared to, for eg, the general Reformed and Christian Reformed denoms, to say nothing of the gentler Presby bunches.
FWIW
LikeLike
I wish all you dear people a beautiful and remembrance-full Easter!
LikeLike
This Easter morning, when so many are claiming God-like authority they do not possess, even unto the subjugation of women, and even to decree who is and is not saved, a few verses come to mind:
There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6 ESV)
And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18 ESV)
For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. (Galatians 5:1 ESV)
Concerning those (unfortunately) influential people who have shown themselves quick to come to each others defense:
How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? (John 5:44 ESV)
And concerning those who twist scripture to gratify their own lusts for power, money, fame and even sexual gratification, I dare say we can apply this passage:
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies. (John 8:44 ESV)
LikeLike
lydiasellerofpurple,
Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On The Way ( Michael Horton)
Part One: Knowing God… Chapter Three: The Source Of Theology: Revelation, Page 140
“The ancient Greek school of Stoicism ( founded by Zeno in the third century BC) taught that divinity permeates nature with its seminal reason. The apologist Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) adapted this Stoic idea to Christianity by arguing that the divine spark or seed of rationality and can be found in the best philosophies of noble pagans. Just as Moses and the prophets prepared the Jews for Jesus Christ, Socrates, Plato, and Stoicism prepared the Gentiles for the gospel.”
This is why the reformed ordained ministers will not walk away from Plato? Gnosticism was the #1 nemesis in the New Testament church. It still is the #1 nemesis.
LikeLike
@Lydia:
Actually, they seem to have a LOWER view of women than the Mormon men I’ve encountered. (Granted, those were California Mormons, considered the mellowest of Mormons; Utah Mormons have the rep of being the strictest, and then you have the FLDS who represent the Mormon lunatic fringe.)
LikeLike
@Patrice:
Somewhere on this blog or Wartburg Watch there’s a comment that says it all:
“He never knew Christ; only Calvin.”
LikeLike
Ryan Short — April 20, 2014 @ 6:15 AM — said:
“I’ve heard from several people in this community this dumb line about her losing her rights to be considered a “victim” if she was consenting for even a brief period of time and did not literally yell and cry out. I think they are being excessively literal and legalistic on purpose to narrowly define the problem.
“If a girl was coerced 6 times and shamed or threatened into silence, she STILL has the right to cry out the 7th time people!”
* * * * * * *
It seems to me that all of this is an ironic reversal of the story of the little boy who cried, “Wolf!” He taunts people with a lie for so long that when the real danger comes along, no one believes him.
Instead, Lourdes is like a woman who cried, “Lamb! Lamb!” for all those years, as did everyone else in the community, so no one really cared one whit because she was just another voice in the chorus adulating the “shepherd” of the sheep who was supposedly representing the Lamb on the throne.
Then finally when she cries, “Wolf! Wolf!” the townspeople go into an uproar. “You can’t say that! You don’t deserve to — you aren’t worthy!”
And the apparent wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing cries out “It’s a conspiracy to deprive me of my lambship!” And he gives interviews with the bards to distribute his partial mea culpa so he appears humble. And he sends out royal scribes to distribute his story of who is at fault so he appears strong. (And he dispatches secret agents to search out supposed enemies who seek to depose him from his throne.) And so it works to implant doubts, and the law of the land is that he must be proven guilty beyond doubt, right?
Actually, could it be that the man’s own depositions will depose him from his throne? Ultimately, the courtiers of the “shepherd” cannot save him from the court of the land nor from the court of the Lamb.
It is sad when no one hears a clarion call to truth. But I get it. When people in a community prove to be disposable when they aren’t perfect, it seems more important to criticize the imperfect others so you don’t look imperfect yourself. After all, who wants to be thrown outside the gates to be ravaged by the wolves, when inside the gated community seems safe?
P.S. I’m sure I mixed a lot of metaphors there, for which I apologize. It’s an imperfect metaphor. But hopefully the drift is clear enough. And P.P.S. the thing is, in a civil lawsuit, it isn’t about guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt (say, 90+% sure), as in a criminal trial. It’s about responsibility for damage based on the preponderance of evidence (at least 51% sure).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof#Preponderance_of_the_evidence
LikeLike