Christian Marriage, Doug Phillips & Vision Forum, Doug Wilson, Extra-Biblical Nonsense, Failure to Report Crimes, God's Design for the Family, Homeschool Legal Defense Association, Homeschool Movement, IBLP and ATI, Kevin Swanson, Legalism, Mandatory Reporting, Marriages Damaged-Destroyed by Sp. Ab., Mike Farris, Patriarchal-Complementarian Movement, Patrick Henry College, Reconstructionist-Dominion Movement, Sexual Abuse/Assault and Churches, Spiritual Abuse, Spiritual Bullies, Vision Forum, Women and the Church

Patriarchy: Doug Phillips, Bill Gothard, Doug Wilson and Damage Control

**

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
Image from my old Basic Seminar Textbook (teachings by Bill Gothard)

**

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 fetishismfoot partialismfoot worship, or podophilia is a pronounced sexual interest in feet. (Source)

*********************

Wilsontweet
Thanks to CRECmemes.com for use of this image.  Quote refers to this article by Wilson.

**

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)?

**

Swanson, Doug Phillips, Patriarchy, Doug Phillips, sex abuse lawsuit Screen Shot 2014-04-18 at 9.22.25 AM

Kevin Swanson, Doug  Phillips, Doug Wilson, Patriarchy, sex abuse lawsuit Screen Shot 2014-04-18 at 9.25.19 AM

************************

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.

**

Michael Farris, Doug  Phillips, sex abuse scandal, Patriarchy, Lourdes Torres-Manfeutel Screen Shot 2014-04-18 at 9.47.28 AM
Source

**

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.

 

**

 

211 thoughts on “Patriarchy: Doug Phillips, Bill Gothard, Doug Wilson and Damage Control”

  1. @Ryan:

    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.

    Just out of curiosity, what was his Conspiracy Theory? Everyone outside Douggie ESQUIRE and VFI, orchestrated by “powerful forces” controlled by Satan himself? (I played D&D when The Satanic Panic went down; this is very familiar.)

    Did you tell the gumshoe that if The Conspiracy doesn’t involve Deros shining their Telaug Rays up from inside The Hollow Earth(TM), Shapeshifting Cannibal Alien Lizards from the Constellation Draco and/or The Hollow Earth(TM), or Communist Gangster Computer Gods on the Dark Side of the Moon Parroting Puppet Gangster Assassins through Frankenstein Earphone Radio Controls(TM), he’s not even trying? (I mean, can’t these guys come up with something original?)

    THERE is NO conspiracy.

    Which once Grand Unified Conspiracy Theory logic is in effect, is EXACTLY what The Conspiracy would say. Denial of The Conspiracy is PROOF of The Conspiracy (and a Sure Sign of Who Is Part of The Conspiracy).

    The Dwarfs are for The Dwarfs, and Won’t Be Taken In.

    Like

  2. @BradFuturistGuy:

    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?

    “Once did a Preacher who outshone the Son
    Look out on his kingdom and sigh:
    ‘Surely in all world there is no ESQUIRE
    As Humble and Godly and HUMBLE as i’
    So great was His reign, so Brilliant His Glory
    That long was the shadow He cast;
    A shadow that fell on the sheep of his flock
    And grew ever Darker as days and nights passed…”

    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.

    I’ll add a couple more:
    * A feral dog pack turning on each other for no reason at all. And the only way to avoid being eaten by the others is to attack first.
    * Chickens pecking a “defective” to death in the barnyard.

    Like

  3. 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.”

    Chapter and Verse, Leviticus.
    Word for Word.
    Scripture Scripture Scripture.
    Q.E.D.

    Like

  4. @Patrice:

    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.

    And guess which half of humanity he puts himself into —
    the half who Hold the Whip or the half who Feel the Whip?
    (And when you bring in Divine Right, God just Holds the Biggest Whip of all.)

    Like

  5. “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.”

    There’s this Argentine guy in Rome who can claim the power of the keys via Apostolic Succession from Peter. What does PCCP Wilson in Moscow have to say about that?

    P.S. Said Argentine Guy in Rome also has to deal with a long-standing high-profile sex scandal which his predecessors tried to “handle in-house”.

    Like

  6. @Patrice:

    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.

    And what would the KEWL and RIGHTEOUS think of me? I’m 58 and today I’m going to a one-day at a local comic book convention wearing a Derpy Hooves T-shirt.

    Like

  7. Lydia:

    I said to you:”“IMO, every woman that can needs to get out of this movement.”

    I realize it would be very difficult, but those that can IMO should get out.

    Like

  8. ‘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.’

    I believe Augustine did huge damage with his concept of original sin/total depravity which fits the Greek Philosophy of a strict adherence to: material bad/spiritual good. Then there is the teaching we that “inherited” Adam’s guilt instead of the fact we actually inherited “consequences” of sin and are guilty of sins we actually commit. Our very existence is not a sin but that is where Augustine’s doctrine goes. And many are taught they are born guilty

    What is interesting is how these concepts play out in real life and how hypocritically they are played out. In Calvin’s Geneva, it was a punishable sin to fall asleep during one of his sermons. But glorifying to God to burn a supposed heretic. Figure that one out doctrinally. In Doug Wilson’s Kirk, it is a sin for a women to get above her station in gender hierarchy life but the woman is also held accountable for not only the mans behavior but stopping bad behavior. It is actually a lot like Islam in that regard. And Islam is pure Gnosticism. So is much of what passes for Christianity. There is a special secret knowledge that only a few have and can pass on to us. That is the “philosopher king” part we took from the Greeks.

    It makes no sense when people start really analyzing these doctrines. The very people who should be accountable, aren’t. And women who are told that certain men are accountable to God for them, ARE actually the ones made accountable for how these men behave toward them! In real life application the doctrines they teach are turned on their heads!

    Is it any wonder people emerge from these sort of cults dazed, confused with a false sense of right and wrong? These are people who do not know themselves much less those around them. There is a long hard journey ahead. Few make it. And they need a break from organized/institutional Christianity to think.

    Like

  9. “Actually, my birthday was last November.
    Going to the comic con is unrelated.”

    Lol! Well, I probably didn’t wish you Happy Birthday in Nov. So, I’ll take this opportunity.

    Like

  10. What I am seeing from Doug Wilson and his clan, even from the women, is a lack of empathy. Major lack of empathy. There is no empathy. No compassion, either. No tears, or weeping. Except for their leader. There is no humanality even being expressed. They are ice cold people that send shivers in my spine. I ponder this, a question that how can people be so cold and insensitive and lack empathy? This is a very strange doctrine that they follow, that they can be so cold, yet not find anything wrong with what they believe, and defend it.

    Ed

    Like

  11. Wow, Ed … who knew that sociopathology with its characteristic lack of empathy was contagious?!

    Or is it maybe in the theological DNA …?

    Injected or genetic … with either etiology, the results of ice-ology make for Easter melancholy.

    Like

  12. What I am seeing from Doug Wilson and his clan, even from the women, is a lack of empathy. Major lack of empathy. There is no empathy. No compassion, either. No tears, or weeping. Except for their leader. There is no humanality even being expressed. They are ice cold people that send shivers in my spine.

    Essentially, Ed, there is NO love shown for Lourdes. That says it all for me.

    Like

  13. Agreed, Ed and Julie Ann. In my experience with patriarchy (and ya’lls as well apparently), the double-standard is palpable.

    When it’s a woman that is clearly guilty, there seems to be unequivocal condemnation, to the hearty applause of all.

    When it’s a man – much less a spiritual leader – that is clearly guilty, there is half-hearted condemnation, and plenty of speculation and casting of aspersions on the woman’s character who he fell to. Almost as if their condemnation of the man isn’t for his actions per se, but more of a disgust that he could be so week as to fall to a woman.

    Like

  14. One thing I’ve been interested to see is how loudly the patriarchalists are protesting that they are not minimizing Phillips’ offenses, may it never be! He’s an animal, and deserves what’s coming to him! But methinks they do protest too much – it’s just a smokescreen really.

    When they speculate that Phillips was led on, or that the relationship was welcome and consensual, they do in fact minimize Phillips’ offenses. In effect, such insinuation lowers the crime from out-and-out abuse of power and frank sexual perversion (which would be the case in a non-consentual scenario) to a mutually gratifying and welcome extramarital quasi-sexual affair (which would be the case in a consensual scenario). It takes the situation from grotesque down to unfortunate.

    Given that it seems they cannot make a post condemning Phillips without sliding in maybes and perhapses that call into question Lourdes’ character, I think I’m on the right track. Whether it’s deliberate or subconscious, I can’t say. But what I can say is that we need to be calling them out on this every time they make the false statement that they are not diminishing Phillips’ sin (just wonderin’ ’bout that Lourdes is all). It is rank dishonesty.

    Like

  15. Tom – Your comments are excellent – really! I appreciate you taking on the challenge to keep discussing this at Wilson’s blog. I don’t think you will change any of their minds; however, others are reading and I’m sure there are those who have felt something “not quite right” with patriarchy and your words will help them to see the truth.

    I’ve noticed a few comments regarding Lourdes and going to her father for protection. I’m not sure if you have read my articles on this case, but Lourdes’ dad does not speak English well at all. Not only that, he would consider himself culturally subservient to Doug Phillips and most likely any American because of coming from another country. The power differential between the two is large and might have played a part into why Lourdes’ father wasn’t proactive until Phillips attempted to break into Lourdes’ bedroom window. Another issue is that Lourdes herself took quite some time before she revealed the extent of the relationship to her parents. So her father likely did not know the full extent of sexual involvement until Lourdes’ bedroom incident.

    Like

  16. It is so, so despicable, Tom. I have been so worked up over this. There is no way a woman can be judged fairly in Patriarchy. The obsession with trying to find a specific Old Testament law that lines up with this situation is really showing their true colors. (And I’ve seen it on several other sites, too, so I know this is not isolated to just Wilson. This is a doctrinal issue we are wrestling with.)

    Where does Christ come into their picture? What is His new law? Love. Where is the freakin’ love here? The Old Testament law is their god.

    Like

  17. Patrice……….”someone who is an authority figure, the natural response feels like corruption.” For me, I can’t understand why it doesn’t feel like corruption to all complementarian believing wives because it always did to me when I tried to force myself to believe that God said that my husband had authority over me. No matter how gentle and arousing it still felt like rape and I wanted to puke. Since I had experienced violent rape I was led to believe that my past hurts were why I felt the same way about intimacy in marriage. That was a lie. That evil corrupt feeling only went away with the comp burden lifting when I could see in the scriptures that God is egalitarian.

    Like

  18. Tom, I agree with Julie Anne, you are doing a great job on Wilson’s blog! I considered commenting but I think it would just upset me too much.

    There is something else I was thinking of that would make someone hesitate to ‘cry out.’ Doesn’t Phillips teach that families are under the authority of the pastor? If I am right about this, then wouldn’t Phillips’ own authority trump the victim’s father’s? Isn’t Phillips’ church a ‘covenant’ church? This is a new concept to me but I gather that once you join one of these churches, you can’t just decide to resign your membership and go elsewhere. You have to have permission to leave. And I believe that Phillips would put his critics (who naturally wanted to leave as one would if one lost confidence in one’s pastor) into church discipline and warn other churches against allowing them to attend.

    Maybe someone more in the know can comment.

    Like

  19. Okay, I’m a little late to the party, but I am so confused after reading the Wilson sight. And yes, it is very triggering, especially when the girl at age 7 says that she shared some blame in her abuse? I know as an abused child I did not truly realize the extent of my abuse until I was an adult. You think that every family must be the same as yours. Anyway, I am also really confused with the crying out portion. Am I wrong in believing that we are no longer held to that law. We do not have to be circumcised, refrain from pork, etc? I have just a really sick feeling that these women would hold someone accountable that is in fear of their abuser. Unless you have been abused you do not realize how much you rationalize in your mind that it must just be you or something you did. And I’m not talking about this case in particular, but it sounds like they would say the vast majority of victims were in sin because they did not tell anyone until decades later. Do they really beleive this?

    Like

  20. @Marsha. A follow-up. I did a search for “Mark Dever” on the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches. You find a few references to him there, Mr. Dever’s 9 Marks movement is one of the key influencers for this kind of “membership covenant” with its forms of authoritarian leadership and emphasis on church discipline.

    http://www.9marks.org/what-are-the-9marks/

    Another key influencer is Acts 29, a church planting network begun by Mark Driscoll/Mars Hill Church. Quite a few links to “Mark Dever” on that website as well.

    http://www.acts29network.org/

    I have a few acquaintances in 9Marks/Acts29 churches and have found them to be stringent and harsh, despite how soothing and “biblical” the language on their website may sound. The way I sometimes describe their overall outlook as it comes across to me is that they believe in an “inerrant theology” and seem to be believe they have found it. And I’ve felt more legalism than grace flow toward those who aren’t yet resonating with the dictates of their doctrinal wavelength.

    Like

  21. Doug Wilson supported the marriage of a person who pleaded guilty to sexual misconduct with a minor is that correct? I have read most of Wilson’s blog and he appears smug, like his ilk. By the way Mr. Wilson your treatment of the Theory of Evolution is incredibly lacking.

    Thanks for all the work you do JA.

    Mod ed: Changed wording p/request.

    Like

  22. Am I wrong in believing that we are no longer held to that law. We do not have to be circumcised, refrain from pork, etc? I have just a really sick feeling that these women would hold someone accountable that is in fear of their abuser. Unless you have been abused you do not realize how much you rationalize in your mind that it must just be you or something you did. And I’m not talking about this case in particular, but it sounds like they would say the vast majority of victims were in sin because they did not tell anyone until decades later. Do they really believe this?

    loveoneanother,

    If you are confused after reading Wilson’s site, then I say good for you – your critical thinking skills are engaged. And yes, it appears they do believe that.

    I had a thought. I wonder of those folks celebrate Resurrection Day because if they did, I want them to tell me who exactly resurrected and for what purpose. Because they sure don’t act like there was Christ who died to abolish the old law. It seems to me that they have created an idol in the Old Testament and have no need for Christ.

    Like

  23. Thanks Julie Anne and Marsha, that means a lot!

    I’ll confess, it’s been awhile since I’ve been moved to debate something online for any extended period of time, but this one feels personal. I once “courted” a young woman trapped in a patriarchal household, until her father turned on me one time too many and I walked out on him, tired of years (yes, years) worth of verbal, emotional, and spiritual abuse. He took that opportunity to turn her against me, and after a piece of hate-mail proving that this 20-year-old woman was still a child inside, I never heard from her again. Word is she left home years later to marry another guy he didn’t approve of any doesn’t have anything to do with him anymore. Anyway, I guess it’s that old wound itching under my shirt, if you will.

    In passing, I have visited your blog frequently in the past, Julie Anne, and it’s been very helpful in my learning about patriarchy and spiritual abuse. Thanks a ton for that. 🙂 And I did not know that about Lourdes’ father, but that certainly is one more fact that should shame those who attack her for not going to him sooner, if they can feel shame.

    Like

  24. Patti (20.6:02pm), I’ve never thought about it that way before. Interesting!

    To reiterate what I think you’re saying: Sexual abuse and rape occur when a person with authority/strength trashes relational boundaries for his own sexual gratification and power/control. The dynamic in the sexual relationship between a patriarchal husband/wife is the same, since it is also a power-over relationship. Even when the woman agrees to the dynamic, her sexual experience will be felt, even if unconsciously, as a corruption. Sex is a meeting of peers and anything other than that damages.

    Because you’ve experienced violent rape, you are exquisitely sensitive to this dynamic, and when you found yourself in that position again, even though hidden under layers of schmooze, you were revolted.

    That makes complete sense! Maybe because my abuse started young, I didn’t develop a good BS sensor. It would have been good to have because I spent 19 years married to a narcissist. Never too late to learn, I guess.

    Huh! Lots to think about. Thanks, Patti!

    Like

  25. Patti, another thought:

    Doug Wilson is very good at understanding power and control. It seems to be the only subject he can address clearly/logically (nothing like self-interest to get a person rolling lol). Thus he unapologetically insists that sex is male conquering, colonizing, etc. It’s a battle because he can win.

    This is the only reason I occasionally read him—he takes pride in “masculine directness” and disdains what he sees as soggy explanations and religious platitudes. Wilson shows us patriarchy butt-naked. It ain’t a purdy sight but at least one knows what one is looking at.

    Like

  26. Tom,

    Thank you for sharing that the blog has been helpful to you. 🙂 I can see how this story would feel personal as you relayed your sad courtship story. So your former girlfriend married someone else, but now has severed ties with her father. There is just no happy ending here, is there? This brand of Patriarchy has now robbed her future children of relationship with grandparents (and maybe it’s better this way), but think of what could have been. In the bigger scheme of things, maybe it was for the best that your relationship was cut off.

    Like

  27. Thus he unapologetically insists that sex is male conquering, colonizing, etc. It’s a battle because he can win.

    I’m trying to think of when all the hoopla on Jared Wilson’s blog came out on Doug Wilson’s conquering/penetrating words. I think it was 2 summers ago. i have the Wayback link somewhere, but it’s interesting that Doug Wilson came to Jared’s blog to defend himself and his words.

    After reading how his words were triggering, harmful, hurtful to women by both men and women, did he apologize, recant, reword anything? Nope. Nothing. Nada. He held his ground and would not budge. I give him credit for tenacity, but his words show he really does not like women.

    Like

  28. @BradFuturistGuy:

    The way I sometimes describe their overall outlook as it comes across to me is that they believe in an “inerrant theology” and seem to be believe they have found it. And I’ve felt more legalism than grace flow toward those who aren’t yet resonating with the dictates of their doctrinal wavelength.

    Just look at their soul brothers in Purity of Perfect Ideology, the Soviet Communists.

    They call it “Inerrant Theology” instead of “Pure Ideology” and invoke God instead of “The Inevitable Dialectic of History”, but there is no difference in behavior towards those who do not yet resonate with their Ideology.

    For a fictional example, remember the Red Priestess and her fire god in Game of Thrones?

    Like

  29. Julie Anne, I don’t think any of the men who practice and advocate patriarchy like women. They may be sexually attracted to them, they find them useful, and they may even love some of them, but they don’t like them.

    Like

  30. JA, I read that hoopla this past winter (still catching up). Learned a lot about various bloggers that way. Hah

    When I heard he went “on tour” with Christopher Hitchens, it made sense to me—neither liked women, both thought themselves exceptionally intelligent and prided themselves on snide wittiness, and both had contempt for general humanity. That last is fundamental, IMO. Doug picks out women and blacks, but they just give focus for his general disdain. He puts up with people who agree with him, but he likes only those who are also obedient and continually snarky.

    Online, he presents without empathy and conscience. He simply doesn’t give a crap. Sometimes he becomes offended and busies himself with revenge but always with the attitude that he is descending from on high to “deal with the idiots”.

    He thinks he’s better than the rest of humanity and that makes him dregs.

    Like

  31. Doug Wilson has a view of Old Testament case law closer to the reconstructionist/theonomist crowd than anything else. I can’t remember where I saw it years ago now, on his blog or in a book, but he once argued against marital sex during a woman’s period based on some verse from Leviticus. It was at that point that I knew the man was a legalist.

    Like

  32. Marsha, I agree. I think that most of them feel threatened by the “other” because they build their identity through competition. “I am nothing if I don’t win.”

    Like

  33. but always with the attitude that he is descending from on high to “deal with the idiots”.

    Exactly. That superiority-in-intellect persona is something I caught on quite early. I actually found Wilson through homeschooling first – with his dealings with classical education and his book, Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning. There was a new rage of the importance of teaching children the trivium, logic, etc. His materials crossed the line of traditional education and infiltrated the Homeschool Movement. At the time, the Homeschool Movement seemed to be against any other form of education than home education for Christians. I remember the negative talk of even sending children to Christian schools, so it was surprising to me that Wilson was accepted into the Homeschool Movement fold so readily. Now it all makes sense.

    Like

  34. Ruth said: ” If I saw a grandfather playing footsie with his 15 year old granddaughter under the dining room table, I’d be calling for intervention”. Ruth, I gotta tell you all, if my grandfather had seen a grandfather acting like Gothard, he’d have shoved his deer rifle in the old reprobate’s ear.
    Just saying…..

    Like

  35. “This is the only reason I occasionally read him—he takes pride in “masculine directness” and disdains what he sees as soggy explanations and religious platitudes. Wilson shows us patriarchy butt-naked. It ain’t a purdy sight but at least one knows what one is looking at.’

    I agree. And I contrast that with guys like Piper, TGC, T4G, etc who are more confusing and play lots of mind games on the same issue. People spend a lot of time :”interpreting” what they think they are saying. Their defenders keep saying we do not understand them. I prefer directness as we know what we are dealing with clearly.

    Like

  36. Brad,

    “inerrant theology”.

    What a great way to describe it. That is exactly it.

    Like

  37. So what is it that attracts people to follow someone like the arrogant Doug Wilson? (I used to read blog/mablog and saw he occassionally hands out kudos and it seemed some lived for that)

    It is the same with so many with narcissistic tendancies. They project a confidence people admire. In the case of Piper, people believe him because he is “passionate”.

    I don’t know why but I find this interesting. You see the same thing play out with political celebrities and now they garner votes. Why people believe them without checking things out.

    Like

  38. That term “inerrant theology” is missing a space, because the adherents are really “in (an) errant theology” aka “in errant theology” !!!!

    Like

  39. A late Happy Birthday to HUG! Unfortunately it is my youngest brother’s birthday and every year the other four of us remind him it is also national marijuana day and Hitler’s birthday :-)! I won’t tease you for that. BTW, I posted a few comments and questions on Stacy’s site three days ago. I kept it tame, and asked her opinion about my questions. I guess I didn’t pass the test. It was in moderation and then disappeared. Nothing. Nada.

    Like

  40. After reading this, and then all your great comments, my mind has a jumble of thoughts I just need to process with someone… You don’t have to answer, I just want to vent with someone else besides my brain:

    Part of me wants to start telling my friends why I will not be going to the CHEC conference-the speakers of patriarchy. (But, my daughter also has dance performances that day, so I can legitimately say I have a conflict and can’t go.)

    Why am I afraid to speak out? I think it is fear. I don’t know of a homeschool group I could join where at least many of the members don’t buy into the whole “patriarchy” thing. Part of me is afraid of losing that fellowship – and a place where my kids can do “presentations/public speaking.”

    I know there are lots of solutions to that problem (starting my own homeschool group – can you add more hours to a day?, not worrying about being ostracised, etc). But, many of these moms also have their kids in other activities that my kids are also in. I don’t wish for my kids to be ostracised, too.

    I feel like a big wimp. I know I should stand up to this, but I don’t know how to without possibly harming these friendships. And these ladies are my friends (though, sometimes I am surprised since I don’t buy into the whole “everyone should homeschool” thing. I do think the state (Federal and State level) should NOT be involved in education – it ought to be local and/or private, but not everyone is cut out to homeschool. Just saying.).

    Then, I was looking around in Timothy & Titus at the passages these patriarchy folks use to oppress women, and came across this:

    1 Tim. 6:3-5: If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching, he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

    That part I bolded – Philips and Gothard and those guys all came to mind when I saw that. I mean, they are using their idea of “godliness” as a means to financial gain.

    Crazy ramblings… More thoughts running around my brain, but my daughter has more dance performances this evening, so rehearsal and stuff keeps me from having more time to post.

    Like

  41. it’s not like Doug Wilson hasn’t had major MAJOR issues in the past, but WHY would ANY person listen to that man. He’s an arrogant jerk……..with his head in the sand. Especially when he supported the marriage between this young lady and a serial child molester.

    I read the comments at Doug Wilson blog and I seriously want to go into a pen with Stacy MacDonald (Mod removed words here)! I am SO SO tired of arrogant, haughty, prideful people like she, her hubby and many others that think that the cure to ALL sin and ills is to be a Reformed Presbyterian. I know WAY more sins and issues going on with the Presbyterians than many of the other denominations. So they are Presbyterian but it didn’t cure she and her hubby of their previous failed marriages……oh wait. I want to take alot of se*ual abuse victims, put her in a ring and teach her a lesson………seriously.

    OTOH, Carmon Frederich (a huge big name within VF) and Valerie Jacobsen are really giving it to those on that list (esp Stacy Macdonald, who needs to be tarred and feathered)………they make me proud!

    Mod note: I get anger, but let’s be careful with our wording. Of course no one is going to go all tar/feathered here, but I’d prefer to not use violent wording. Thanks! ~ja

    Like

  42. notsurprised,

    LOL you made me laugh….I would love to bring the tar and feathers but I am fresh out. I have my opinion concerning Stacy M. but it is not a nice opinion so I had better keep it to my self.

    Like

  43. I Really beleive some of these women commenter’s will regret what they are saying in a few years. I can remember defending things that my church held dear without thought. When I look back I cringe. But I also knew nothing of the love of Christ at that time. I wonder how many of these people are holding to an ideology rather than a savior.

    Like

  44. Wouldrathernotsay,

    Why not give yourself a break? Your eyes have been opened and now might be a good time to be a simple critical observer. You could even use the opportunity to start very subtly teaching your children critical thinking skills. Such by asking them what they think of something they were taught and why they think that way about it. Then simply suggesting other ways to look at it in a very irenic way. Get them thinking.

    You might be surprised at how quickly you grow away from them and branch out with other interests and groups. The one thing you can be assured of in Patriarchy is that it is considered a sin to mention negative truths. So it would not be wise to bring it all up. You already know what they believe, right? A time will come when you will no longer be able to stomach the hypocrisy of the movement and by that time you most likely will find truth more interesting and rewarding. By that time, you won’t miss them as much as you will pity them.

    You never know, you might have more influence by doing the above than you realize. But coming to certain realizations about a group you have adopted can be alarming. Give yourself time to process it all. as one wise sage once said: Something known cannot be unknown. So you cannot “unknow” it. Butyou can certainly manage your response to it that will best serve you and your children.

    Like

  45. Admin note: People have been asking about a way to support Lourdes financially. I have been in contact with Lourdes’ attorney, David Gibbs, today and he is looking into a good way to do that. I mentioned Paypal or “GoFundMe” as possibilities for an easy way to donate $$ online. If you have any other ideas, please post a comment or shoot me an e-mail (spiritualsb@ gmail dot com).

    JA

    Like

  46. BTW, I was referring to the women bloggers on Wilson’s blog, not this one as a follow up to my previous comment. No, I am not one of those that wants to put JA on a desert island:) Although, that could be relaxing for a time.

    Like

  47. loveoneanother
    APRIL 21, 2014 @ 1:21 PM
    I Really beleive some of these women commenter’s will regret what they are saying in a few years.

    I have met Stacy & her husband. I have interacted with them. I have done business with them. I have watched their arrogant comments concerning this situation, since the beginning and it’s terrible. Have you read what’s she’s saying (on Doug Wils blog)? you need to!! As an abuse victim myself, I was mortified. I guarantee you that if this was her daughter, it would be a whole different situation and she would not be saying what she’s saying about Lourdes. The MacDonald’s haven’t really had anything to do with DP/VF in quite a few years so they have been “disconnected” with the situation.

    She has a ton to learn about “grooming”, “abuse”, “se*ual abuse” etc……….a ton!

    The SAD thing is that they thought they were “close friends” with Doug & Beall Phillips. bhwaaaaaaaaaaa!!! They have egg on their faces! They were NOT. Not anywhere close. Doug had very very few people really close to him (Bill Potter is one). They were just his pawn that he used strategically when he needed them. Doug was a user and he used people to get to where he wanted. Most and majority of the people he had for strategic purposes, he could NOT stand………..at all!

    Like

  48. Wouldrathernotay, I remember how overwhelming it felt at first; I remember wanting to run at top speed when I finally began to put the pieces together (this over a different but related issue, facing abusive systems of my family/church). It’s a jumble—let it be so and sort it out slowly. Lydia has a great idea, to use it as lessons in logic and criticism for your kids and thus prepare you all for the future shift.

    It takes courage to see the picture “as is”. It takes courage to face a paradigm shift. You don’t know what you will or won’t end up leaving because you don’t yet know where you’re going. Evaluating friends is a wretched business. So be patient with yourself. It’s not required that you talk about anything until you want to do so. You are not a wimp; people can only do so much at one time.

    I wish you well.

    Like

  49. I am vehemently opposed to patriarchy and Vision Forum. I think this whole thing is disgusting and don’t blame the victim in any way. I should say that I did not read the article by Wilson in its entirety, but I wanted to point out a flaw in your argument against it. In the except that you used, Wilson is not referring to the sexual misdeeds of Phillips or Torres-Mantuefel, he’s referring to the Pauline injunction to refrain from suing other Christians and entering legal battles with them. He references 1 Coronthians 6:1-8, in which Paul gives instructions regarding lawsuits. I am not a fan a Wilson, either, but I like to see arguments that are well thought out. Your argument that Wilson contradicts himself crumbles if you read the scripture he’s referring to in that excerpt. In this excerpt, Wilson was not saying that Torres-Manteufel was to blame for the “affair.” Again, I am not defending Wilson or his philosophies in any way, just hoping to improve your argument so nobody dismisses it based on this flaw. There’s enough evidence against the patriarchal movement to indict it. We don’t need to fabricate anything.

    Like

  50. JA,
    I asked Stacy what if this was one of her girls? with no reply.
    I also told Stacy McDonald she was a IDOT for the comments she was making…but it never got posted…LOL “imagine that”

    Stacy mentioned in a comment as to why Lourdes did not go to a family member, or a church member and so on. Well, I wonder why? Duh….

    Like

  51. “The SAD thing is that they thought they were “close friends” with Doug & Beall Phillips. bhwaaaaaaaaaaa!!! They have egg on their faces! They were NOT. Not anywhere close. Doug had very very few people really close to him (Bill Potter is one). ”

    What about Matt and Jenny Chancy (sp?) Have they been around? They really helped DP go after some people. Jenny also wrote a book with Stacy (Passionate Housewives?) and they really pulled a fast one with Amazon to get negative reviews removed. (You gotta watch that with Amazon it is not as honest as you think)

    I do not visit blogs like Wilson and some of the patriarchal women blogs because I don’t want them to have my IP and I am not going proxy server route to read junk. Saw some real nasty stuff out of that movement years back and don’t trust them one bit. They are desperate people.

    Like

  52. The only thing about the following verses I’m having trouble applying to the proponents of patriarchy, including the editorial heading, is the bit about food:

    Some Will Depart from the Faith

    Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3 ESV)

    Even the part about forbidding marriage is predictive of the plight of essentially enslaved daughters who are required to stay at home for daddy.

    Like

  53. “He references 1 Coronthians 6:1-8, in which Paul gives instructions regarding lawsuits. I am not a fan a Wilson, either, but I like to see arguments that are well thought out. Your argument that Wilson contradicts himself crumbles if you read the scripture he’s referring to in that excerpt….., ”

    Alison, One of the problems we have is reading all NT admonistions through a Western filter and not taking into consideration how a 1st Century Corinthian would have understood it. It was most certainly not meant to protect predators in the Body of Christ from any liability for their long time behavior as cult leaders. If you think it is a blanket admonition that would protect any sins committed against another believer, read the proceeding chapter for a list so you can see that DP is most likely a believer in name only. Not a practicing believer. (I know, GASP)

    DP has excused himself from 1 Corin 6 in the past simply by announcing the other party as not true believers. Would DW understand that same argument from Torres? Is suspect not. The peasants don;t get the same pass.

    Doug Wilson cannot conveniently trot out 1 Corinithian 6 to protect DP and rebuke the victim as not “obeying the bible”. This sort of thinking is ridiculous, non thinking and a lie considering the charges. She deserves his last penny for the years he stole from her and the lies he taught her. And please no sob stories for his family unless you are willing to have a sob story for Torres and her future family, too. The scars from spiritual and sexual abuse are for a lifetime. Evil, done in the Name of Jesus, which is what DP lived out, is the most reprehensible. His own children will have to relearn all they have been taught.

    Doug Wilson gets most of Christianity foundationally wrong but he is so bold and confident people actually give him the time of day. Doug Wilson has also been a protector of predators specifically a pedophile. We won’t even get into his thinking on slavery. So, what does DW get right? How can anyone start from such a wrong foundation and get much right?

    Like

  54. BTW: if anyone is interested, the backdrop for 1 Corin 6 is that some in the Body were taking people to the Roman courts over small matters. Another part missed is that so many ignore that the Body (the entire Body) is to judge these “trivial disputes” and clean it up. So how does that fit the DP/Torres situation?

    Note the words “dispute” and :”trivial”. Check them out. STudy the background of the passage. When Paul says, “judge the angels” this is significant as to who we are to be in Christ. Note, it is also said in 1 Corin 11 which the patriarchs and comps totally ignore when it comes to women.

    What DP did is not a “dispute” nor is it “trivial”. JHe did not “dispute” with Torres.

    Here is the part that Doug Wilson should be focused upon in that passage instead of proof texting to scare other people who don’t do their homework yet listen to the “gurus”::

    9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    So guess what? Those who are true believers do not have a lifestyle of sinning against others. They are being sanctified.

    Thankfully, a lawsuit is a great way to warn the Body of a real wolf and seek any justice. How else do you deal with closed systems where mentioning evil truths is taught as sin in order to protect the predator?

    Like

  55. Somewhere above Lydia asks, “So what is it that attracts people to follow someone like the arrogant Doug Wilson?” I call it narcissism by proxy, although I’m sure there is a different term in the professional literature. Basically, there can be a tendency to try to feel good about oneself by identifying with people or institutions we perceive to be important. It is an attempt to walk in borrowed glory.

    I don’t know if they still do it,but I recall that, even after his fall, Ted Haggard’s former church encouraged people, on their website, to become a part of something bigger than themselves. I suspect this was the dynamic that was in play back when a certain group of people set out to build a city and a tower and a name for themselves. But then that didn’t work out too well either.

    My opinion? Find good, wholesome Christian fellowship, but never, ever become a member of an organized church. It is sufficient to simply be a member of the Body of Christ. All other allegiances verge on, and maybe become, idolatry.

    Like

  56. “I don’t know if they still do it,but I recall that, even after his fall, Ted Haggard’s former church encouraged people, on their website, to become a part of something bigger than themselves.”

    Every single seeker mega out there uses this as a foundational appeal in some manner. It is the glue.
    After a while it dawned on me that Hitler, too, filled the Sportsplatz with those who wanted to be part of something bigger than themselves that they saw as glorious. As we think about it in hindsight we see the evil. But we really should study the psychology leading up to it all. It is quite instructive. And we all think we would never be that gullible. yet millions are everyday with their favorite guru.

    I am with Gary when it comes to institutionalized Christianity. The institutional church can be a very dangerous and soul destroying place. Any group that needs a guru is to be avoided like the plague.

    Like

  57. Lydiasellserofpurple and Patrice, I think you are right. I’ll finish up our school year and decide where to go from here. It’s not that we’ve followed VF or any of the patriarchy stuff ourselves (my hubby let me decide about being the stay at home mom, homeschooling, etc…) – though we have bought a few of the VF toys… I feel weird that I didn’t *notice* it… Maybe it is the same thing with many of these other friends – it’s not been a real “hard sell” on patriarchy at our conventions, just subtle “role” type stuff – unless you buy the books. I just don’t want our money going to support patriarchy any longer… And now I see other names on the list and really need to think it all through. Thanks for your support!

    Like

  58. Lydiasellerofpurple,

    Just wanted to post in regard to the “power of the keys” the reformed churches claim to have….it is indeed true that if your name is removed from the membership rolls, you are outside the church, and are considered not a Christian. I had no idea they really believed this. They do. Which would also mean if I refuse to join a church I am not a Christian. No wonder they refer to people as “unchurched.”

    Like

  59. Lydia, I am on your side–and Julie Anne’s. I am not defending Doug Wilson in any way. I completely agree with your assessment of him. Nor am I suggesting that he is correct in using 1 Corinthians 6 here. Wilson has made it clear that he thinks Torres-Manteufel was at least partly to blame for what he calls an “affair.” I just wanted to bring to Julie Anne’s attention that the excerpt she used was actually not making the statement she was saying it did. She implied that the excerpt was regarding Torres-Manteufel being at fault. At least that’s what I got from the following sentences taken from this post:
    “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?”

    While he certainly has contradicted himself in other articles, the excerpt and the Pauline injunction were referring to the idea of staying out of court. And in this excerpt, he was actually saying that Phillips should not fight the lawsuit, and holds him to a higher standard than Torres-Manteufel. I hope I’m making this clear. I just think a different excerpt would have made the point better. However, at this point I don’t really think it matters as I’ve been reading post after post after post and I’m sure it’s been rehashed exactly how Doug Wilson contradicts himself.

    I am also well-acquainted with the scars from spiritual and sexual abuse. Believe me, my sympathy is fully with the victim, and she is a victim. (I’m assuming her allegations are true. Perhaps I shouldn’t assume, but I can’t imagine anyone wanting to be in the spotlight in this manner just for money.)

    Like

  60. lydiasellerofpurple
    APRIL 22, 2014 @ 5:49 AM
    “The SAD thing is that they thought they were “close friends” with Doug & Beall Phillips. bhwaaaaaaaaaaa!!! They have egg on their faces! They were NOT. Not anywhere close. Doug had very very few people really close to him (Bill Potter is one). ”

    What about Matt and Jenny Chancy (sp?) Have they been around?

    Matt & Jennie Chancey are another set of arrogant people associated with DP/VF. (no surprise). They moved a few years ago to Nairobi, Kenya so have kind of been separated from the situation and everyone. Jennie is pg with #11 soon. Again…….very few people were in that tight inner circle……..

    Birds of a feather…………..

    JA: THANK YOU……..I was about to blow a gasket with both Kelly C & Stacy Mc……

    Like

  61. Alison, I’ve been away for a bit. I will check out that excerpt and try to recall what I was thinking when I put the post together. I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring you. You very well could be right.

    Like

  62. Is it any wonder people emerge from these sort of cults dazed, confused with a false sense of right and wrong? These are people who do not know themselves much less those around them. There is a long hard journey ahead. Few make it. And they need a break from organized/institutional Christianity to think.

    Oh, Lydia, I am confused and disheartened and still don’t know quite where to start. I wasn’t even able to read my Bible for the past six months, though I have started again, a little, recently. I honestly don’t know what to think. All I know is, I question just about everything I’ve been taught for the last 20 years. Maybe even not “just about”, but “everything”.

    Like

  63. Alison, No worries. Thanks for clarifying. I used to read DW a lot a few years back for an exercise on learning how Patriarchs think and communicate. And again he is wrong, as usual. The “Pauline injunction implies to Torres-Manteufel”. I think not. Because this is no TRIVIAL matter.

    Like

  64. Alison – Ok, I think I understand what you are talking about and I think you and I are focusing on 2 separate issues. I am in agreement with Wilson that in general, Christians should try to avoid lawsuits (1 Cor. 6 addresses this issue). That was not my point of the bolded part (although I can see how you could come to that conclusion.) Try reading it again and focus on the use of his word “safety.” Why did he say that she should have moved to “safety.” To me this implies that she was in danger and he’s admitting to that. All the other times he says she is culpable in the “affair.” Does that makes sense?

    Like

  65. “I wasn’t even able to read my Bible for the past six months, though I have started again, a little, recently. I honestly don’t know what to think. All I know is, I question just about everything I’ve been taught for the last 20 years. Maybe even not “just about”, but “everything”.”

    You’re not alone, Refugee. Just take it one step at a time. I get so frustrated wanting the recovery process to go a little faster. But, I promise you it WILL get better.

    Like

  66. “Oh, Lydia, I am confused and disheartened and still don’t know quite where to start. I wasn’t even able to read my Bible for the past six months, though I have started again, a little, recently. I honestly don’t know what to think. All I know is, I question just about everything I’ve been taught for the last 20 years. Maybe even not “just about”, but “everything”.

    Been there, my friend. I would have said Beentheredonethat but she comments here so she owns it. :o)

    Don’t feel guilty about not reading the bible. It is hard not to read it with the man made filter you were taught. And it takes a while to get rid of it. Something that helped me was to only read the Gospels for about 3 years. I focused on Jesus. Who He talked to and what He said to them. How He related to different audiences (i.e, the Pharisees, poor, Roman, etc) What He DID and what He did NOT do. What was the occasion of His speaking? I focused on small things I had not focused on before. And I did this using many different translations just for grins. It was quite the eye opener.

    And you SHOULD question everything! That is so healthy. It was even hard for me to pray so I know exactly where you are coming from.

    I had to get to know Him all over again for the first time. That makes no sense but it is true. Blessings for the “journey”!!!

    Like

  67. “Just wanted to post in regard to the “power of the keys” the reformed churches claim to have….it is indeed true that if your name is removed from the membership rolls, you are outside the church, and are considered not a Christian. I had no idea they really believed this. They do. Which would also mean if I refuse to join a church I am not a Christian. No wonder they refer to people as “unchurched.”

    This is making its way through the SBC. 9 Marks/Mark Dever is a big proponent of this teaching. It is ridiculous.

    BTW: from my perspective it can be a big fat SIN to attend some churches. :o)

    Like

  68. “Matt & Jennie Chancey are another set of arrogant people associated with DP/VF. (no surprise). They moved a few years ago to Nairobi, Kenya so have kind of been separated from the situation and everyone. Jennie is pg with #11 soon. Again…….very few people were in that tight inner circle……..”

    I think I first heard of her with that “Monstrous Regiment of Women” video way back when. The name is taken from John Knox complaining about the female monarchs that made his life miserable. Hee Hee

    So, I take it they are missionaries? God have mercy on the Kenyans, if they are. Did you ever have the chance to see Matt’s work with Doug on the Mrs Binoculars blog? The man is a child man

    Like

  69. Oh, Lydia, I am confused and disheartened and still don’t know quite where to start. I wasn’t even able to read my Bible for the past six months, though I have started again, a little, recently. I honestly don’t know what to think. All I know is, I question just about everything I’ve been taught for the last 20 years. Maybe even not “just about”, but “everything”.

    Refugee:

    You are in good company here. Please don’t be too hard on yourself. There’s a verse in the Bible that talks about others praying for us when we don’t have the strength to pray. There’s another one about God collecting each tear drop. That sounds like a God that understands heartache and pain. I think He’d be okay with you taking your time. And I also think He is probably thrilled that you haven’t abandoned your faith altogether in spite of what you have experienced.

    Like

  70. Hey, folks, let’s be careful about name calling. I get that there is a lot of anger towards people who have allowed evil. Let’s be above that. Thx 🙂

    Like

  71. Sounds like good advice, to avoid organized religion. Regarding why people would want to hang out with Doug Wilson? I remember our old church used to invite him (among others) to give seminars. There was usually a social occasion, a picnic or something. The men of the “in crowd” at church loved to sit around with their beers and cigars and whiskey and discuss theology and other things. There was a lot of laughter and a lot of self-congratulatory thought.

    We were never in the in-crowd. I remember feeling wistful and trying to fit in, but we were never really accepted. I guess in hindsight that’s a mercy. Our children were damaged enough by us living on the periphery, under such teachings.

    We subscribed to “Credenda Agenda” after our first conference, but I stopped reading it fairly early on because the smug, self-righteous tone of the writers was disturbing.

    Like

  72. So, I take it they are missionaries? God have mercy on the Kenyans, if they are. Did you ever have the chance to see Matt’s work with Doug on the Mrs Binoculars blog? The man is a child man.

    Yes he works for the safe water division of Persecution Project with none other than Brad Phillips (Doug’s brother). Matt makes GOOD money in Kenya. Very very good money. Many of our missionary friends would find what he makes laughable……. …….and Jennie lives off of her royalties. They have a FULL staff of nannies, cooks, maids etc……..so they aren’t suffering at all in Kenya.

    Like

  73. from Jennie’s mom’s blog: Our daughter and son-in-law have staff, employed to help them clean, cook, do laundry, plant gardens and drive their van. The staff are lovely people we adopted as part of our family. They are Christians who love working and serving our children and grandchildren, and for that, we bless them. I spent hours with many of them talking about their lives, families and goals for the future. The van driver told me he and his wife pray for our children, and thank God for the opportunity to serve them!

    http://titus2joy.blogspot.com/

    Like

  74. “Yes he works for the safe water division of Persecution Project with none other than Brad Phillips (Doug’s brother). ”

    I vaguely remember another scandal concerning a video and the Persecution Project.

    Like

  75. Julie Ann,

    You are no fun…LOL I resemble that comment and I will try to control my name calling bad attitude, I just could not help myself, the devil made me do it. just kidding around.

    Like

  76. Ok, which comment, Teresa N. Was it YOU who said a naughty naughty? I tell you, sometimes I just do my mod thang and don’t even pay attention to names – lol.

    I get anger, though, I really do. Hey, if some of you want to vent, just shoot me an e-mail. I don’t care if you send me that stuff privately.

    Like

  77. Julie Anne, I’m sorry, it just really sounded to me like you were using the middle excerpt (The one that begins, “Now, with brazen threats of suits . . .”) as an example of Wilson placing blame on Torres-Manteufel for sexual indiscretions. My only purpose was to bring to your attention that that’s not what Wilson was referring to in that excerpt. I realize he has made that point in other places, including the article you reference under the image. My thought was that if someone were to read only this blog post they might dismiss the whole thing because of what appears to be a flawed argument. I’m sorry if it came across as nit-picky. I’m a writer, too, and I would want someone to bring something like that to my attention.

    But thanks for this great space to discuss spiritual abuse and for welcoming everyone into it, allowing all the comments, and treating everyone with respect. That speaks volumes about your character and intent here. Blessings.

    Like

  78. JA: so why is some name calling allowed and others not?


    JA responds: You’d have to give me specifics so I can tell you my logic. In general, it discredits us if we call people names and then question those on the other side of the fence when they do the same. I’m also very careful about attributing negative words to someone and stating them as fact. You can get around this by saying: I believe So-And-So to be ________. It’s a challenging job to moderate. I don’t need any more lawsuits by having someone else use words that can be interpreted as defamatory. Lawsuits are a colossal emotional ordeal, $$ loss, and a waste of time. Feel free to e-mail me if you have concerns. Oh, it just dawned on me that there were some derogatory words used on a recent comment (on another post) and I just blocked them out. If you are referring to that, I only allowed them for the 20 minutes or so that I was busy doing something else and hadn’t seen them yet 🙂

    ~ja

    Like

  79. JA

    I am kind of new to this commenting thing and do not know the laws but I did not say anything naughty, naughty cause I do not use bad language. I will be careful always and tell me if I am crossing a line.

    Like

  80. Here’s one for ya:
    Teresa N.
    APRIL 22, 2014 @ 7:13 PM
    I called Stacy an IDOT, crap I said it again.
    Julie you are the best.

    Like

Thanks for participating in the SSB community. Please be sure to leave a name/pseudonym (not "Anonymous"). Thx :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s