Another chapter in the Doug Phillips/Vision Forum saga

[ColleenInWis]

In a healthy church, people are motivated by love. So the response to the same situation will be entirely different. The organization exists to serve and help the people, whereas in the cult the people exist to serve and protect the organization. The difference is night and day, but it isn't based on Biblical exegesis or any rationally derived philosophy, it's based on raw emotion.

 

I don't know if that makes sense. But that's the only way I know to describe it.

 

Best thing I've read in the last 2 days!  I'll take it a step further:  Leaders of a healthy church are servants...  leaders of an abusive church or cult see everyone else as the servants.

 

Matthew 20:25, 26 for biblical support of this idea:  But Jesus called them to Himself and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think Ellie makes a valid point. Lawyers, like doctors, therapists, law enforcement, etc. are bound to a lot more legal trouble for whistleblowing than other groups. One doctor can hardy speak out against another regardless of offense without ending up talking about something held in confidence by a patient. A lawyer may have a very difficult time finding a way to express a concern about another without evidence to back it up and oft times that evidence is in some way related to a case, someone who sought legal counsel, someone who expects a confidence to be kept, etc. It's a very difficult legal bind to be in and it's easy to sit on the other side and say, We'll he should have said xyz about it before now! Well, that's all fine and dandy for the public who will never answer to a judge for saying xyz. I am no particular fan of Farris but I can sympathize with his situation.

 

Again though, Dip would love it if a bunch of attention was diverted away from him and onto Farris. So I hope the furor over Farris's statement dies down soon in the media and the internet blog world.

 

Actually it isn't a valid point as the criticism would have been directed at DP's ministry and organization, not his abilities as an attorney or DP in a professional capacity as an attorney.  It isn't just that Farris didn't say anything - HSLDA still had financial ties to Vision Forum until 2012.

[Greta]

Leaders of a healthy church are servants... leaders of an abusive church or cult see everyone else as the servants.

So true! That is a very important insight.

[TracyP]

I'm sure this is true in some (many) situations (like this one). But it is certainly not the way in all. The pastors I know who preach "modesty" for women do so because the Bible teaches women should be modest. Specifically women in the church should "adorn themselves in modest apparel." Not everyone will agree on the application of modesty - but that is what the Bible says.

 

You are right that not everyone agrees, but the Bible spells modesty out quite clearly: not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing. I have heard modesty preached a number of times, but personally have never heard braided hair, etc. included in the sermon.

[Word Nerd]

On a related note, last month Phillips' attorney sent a letter to three former friends/associates who confronted him about this mess last October, claiming they orchestrated a campaign of slander and conspired to destroy him, his family, and Vision Forum. The letter threatens litigation but leaves the door open for reconciliation (on Doug's terms, I'm sure).

 

Set Adrift

[PeterPan]

I'm sure this is true in some (many) situations (like this one). But it is certainly not the way in all. The pastors I know who preach "modesty" for women do so because the Bible teaches women should be modest. Specifically women in the church should "adorn themselves in modest apparel." Not everyone will agree on the application of modesty - but that is what the Bible says. I think we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Just because DP advocated modesty does not mean pastor who teach modesty are 'struggling with major lustful sin.' Anymore than b/c DP advocated homeschooling therefore homeschooling fathers are sexual predators in hiding. (I know you said "sometimes" in the 2nd para., but wanted to make that point more clear.) 

 

I was raised by my parents & my pastor to be 'modest' - but I never felt like I would 'burn in hell' if I wasn't. 

 

This is a *very* sad situation here - especially for the Phillips children - and I am very sorry for your experiences as well. But I think we all have to be careful not to use personal experience and all to broad brush Christians everywhere. 

Well I can tell you Benneth Jones (wife of Dr. Bob 3) at BJU said something very similar in her ministers' wives classes.  Her experience was that, over the whole frame of things knowing a lot of preachers, the ones who were most fixated on xyz issue like dress, especially dress, and advocating extremist positions, turned out to be struggling with it.

 

And yes, we were preached growing up that for a woman to wear pants at all meant you were BACKSLIDDEN.  That means you're unrepentant and going to HELL.  

 

Your kids are 5 and under, but my dd is 14.  I'm having to go through modesty issues with her, and it's striking how complicated it has become.  If you're in a church influenced by xyz, when you read their writings they no longer hold water.  (cultural arguments, etc.)  If you read the next thing (say Worldliness by MacHaney, whose chapter on modesty is available freely online) it is oriented toward blame the woman, which doesn't at all fit with what the abuse truth tellers and whistle blowers are revealing about what's going on.  DiP was oversexed on that girl and she was modestly clad.  The problem was in his HEART.  

 

I've never been a man to have any 1sthand knowledge of how dress affects men (one of their arguments), but those kind of contradictions are very hard for me to sort out with church backgrounds that contradict common sense and reasonable biblical interpretation.  There are all sorts of assumptions and pressures going into it.  (if you do this you're backslidden, if you won't do this you're rebellious, blah blah)  Actual Bible exegesis doesn't matter, only the culture they thought up.  And to me, it's all about power, which is pretty much what DiP was showing us.  They can say all they want it's not, but show up at that church in pants and see how their attitude towards you changes.  Show up with a different Bible translation and see how long you stay a SS teacher.  Same person, same heart, but you broke their external rules.  

[Momof3]

You are right that not everyone agrees, but the Bible spells modesty out quite clearly: not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing. I have heard modesty preached a number of times, but personally have never heard braided hair, etc. included in the sermon.

 

Right. The idea (from I Timothy 2) is that women should not be so gaudily dressed as to be a distraction to the worship service. But the application of how this looks in our day will be different from church to church & home to home. 

[*Lulu*]

Actually it isn't a valid point as the criticism would have been directed at DP's ministry and organization, not his abilities as an attorney or DP in a professional capacity as an attorney. It isn't just that Farris didn't say anything - HSLDA still had financial ties to Vision Forum until 2012.

Now that IS interesting......

[PeterPan]

You are right that not everyone agrees, but the Bible spells modesty out quite clearly: not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing. I have heard modesty preached a number of times, but personally have never heard braided hair, etc. included in the sermon.

I guess we're totally rabbit trailing here and could spin off, lol, but you know I've wondered about that.  In context it had a very specific reference to this really ornate, multi-day braiding the cultures with do.  It was a very specific thing, and I'm not sure it necessarily applies to a girl's decision to french braid her hair down the back to be practical, kwim?  It's something thinking people think about though, I agree.  Like is it ok if it's a loose braid but not an ornate/adorned braid?  If it's functional but not decorative?  I think G*d had a point about the heart there that transcends the specific of that particular culture.  

 

There's also the discussion of context, that it was in the context of the church assembly and not drawing attention to yourself.  Some people would argue separate standards for church and every day.  You get so many interesting variants.  

 

Btw, it is stunningly ironic to me that a segment of the must be modest movement *promotes* make-up.  My dh's background is anti-makeup, anti-jewelry.  (like entirely, no wedding rings, nothing) From his background, ANYTHING that draws attention to a woman's body, including make-up, cheerleading or physical demonstrations, tight clothing, etc. is immodest.  People just end up with these interesting interpretations of the same starting point, kwim? And then they develop culture around it and something that creates a check in their heart, something that *for them to violate it* would be WRONG.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Now that IS interesting......

 

I read that on Farris's page on FB.  To be fair, he says he did not realize that HSLDA was still accepting advertising money from Vision Forum at that time.

[Retired]

I'm sure this is true in some (many) situations (like this one). But it is certainly not the way in all. The pastors I know who preach "modesty" for women do so because the Bible teaches women should be modest. Specifically women in the church should "adorn themselves in modest apparel." Not everyone will agree on the application of modesty - but that is what the Bible says. I think we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Just because DP advocated modesty does not mean pastor who teach modesty are 'struggling with major lustful sin.' Anymore than b/c DP advocated homeschooling therefore homeschooling fathers are sexual predators in hiding. (I know you said "sometimes" in the 2nd para., but wanted to make that point more clear.) 

 

I was raised by my parents & my pastor to be 'modest' - but I never felt like I would 'burn in hell' if I wasn't. 

 

This is a *very* sad situation here - especially for the Phillips children - and I am very sorry for your experiences as well. But I think we all have to be careful not to use personal experience and all to broad brush Christians everywhere. 

 

I didn't mean that christen shouldn't consider being modest and sorry if my previous post came across as judgmental 

 

There is a difference in a pastor saying we should all represent God by dressing in a matter that represents Christ and  is the pastor that says you should were long skirt, hair up, panty hoes, no makeup basically make your self homely so not to make a man sin.  The men that I've seen still lust for women even with all the "rules"   The point is that yes we should respect ourselves and the lord in our dress but their is no way this side of heaven you will stop LUST.   I hate these churches put all on women.  I've seen the most conservative dressed wife of a deacon have an affair with the pastor.  The church kept going the pastors wife left with her kids.  I would also like to add that these pastor that I've encounter seem to make every sermon around lust, women modesty.  I do think all pastor should address it but it should not be every sermon and teaching.   

 

I believe your dress should be determine by your personal relationship  with Jesus.  The holy spirit should be the one convicting you of your attitude or modesty.  I

 

The pastor that I've heard  will go on and repeatedly in sermons after sermon eve sin so all women are dirty sinful and trying  to make men fall.   That all sin are on women do to eve dragging Adam into sin.

 

The true pastor preaching modesty will also have the sermon regarding men you are responsible  for your roaming  eye and heart of lust.  

 

I know that sometimes my written words may not conveys all my thoughts.  I'm more of a verbal person. 

 

I will say seeing my SIL and family leave that teaching has been like watching a butterfly open up.  My SIL and niece seem like they are new people.  The are more animated and happy before it was like watching stepford wives.  They would sit at family gathering with legs press like little robots "being meek" and it just dint' seem natural.

 

It was a shock seeing them during the holidays they were laughing and just in general pleasant to be with.  My niece  was just so animated and acting like a teen girl instead of a matron

 

Anyway sorry if my first post wasn't completely clear about my thoughts

 

 

[Joanne]

 

 

There is a difference in a pastor saying we should all represent God by dressing in a matter that represents Christ and  is the pastor that says you should were long skirt, hair up, panty hoes, no makeup basically make your self homely so not to make a man sin.  The men that I've seen still lust for women even with all the "rules"  

 

Awesome typo! :laugh:

[shanvan]

Awesome typo! :laugh:

Oh, my!  Yes, I think DP would be in favor of panty hoes!  (Sorry, I couldn't help myself.)

[TracyP]

I guess we're totally rabbit trailing here and could spin off, lol, but you know I've wondered about that.  In context it had a very specific reference to this really ornate, multi-day braiding the cultures with do.  It was a very specific thing, and I'm not sure it necessarily applies to a girl's decision to french braid her hair down the back to be practical, kwim?  It's something thinking people think about though, I agree.  Like is it ok if it's a loose braid but not an ornate/adorned braid?  If it's functional but not decorative?  I think G*d had a point about the heart there that transcends the specific of that particular culture.  

 

There's also the discussion of context, that it was in the context of the church assembly and not drawing attention to yourself.  Some people would argue separate standards for church and every day.  You get so many interesting variants.  

 

Btw, it is stunningly ironic to me that a segment of the must be modest movement *promotes* make-up.  My dh's background is anti-makeup, anti-jewelry.  (like entirely, no wedding rings, nothing) From his background, ANYTHING that draws attention to a woman's body, including make-up, cheerleading or physical demonstrations, tight clothing, etc. is immodest.  People just end up with these interesting interpretations of the same starting point, kwim? And then they develop culture around it and something that creates a check in their heart, something that *for them to violate it* would be WRONG.  

 

I agree with all your points. It was the ornateness, not the braid itself that made it immodest. And yes, this was directions for church (as was Timothy's further comment that women should be silent while learning - that is a whole 'nuther rabbit trail). So arguably immodesty outside of church shouldn't even be an issue. Maybe?

 

My mom went through a personal modesty movement outside of a church setting. It had nothing to do with cleavage and shoulders, but was instead about adorning herself with "goodness" (for lack of a better word) instead of bright colored clothing and make-up. She went very amish, lol, except for the skirts. That, IMO, is much more biblical.

 

It seems to me that the word modest as used in Timothy has been twisted. What was supposed to be a call to be less material and worldly has instead been used as some sort of way to make women the guilty parties when men "sin".

[Catwoman]

You know, if he had spoken out against DP in the past, he would have been criticized. He's doing it now probably because someone asked him outright, and he's being criticized for not speaking up sooner. Seems he just can't win for losing.

 

HSLDA attorneys are discreet.  More people should be that way.

 

Some people look for any reason to dislike HSLDA.

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Farris and the HSLDA, but this isn't one of them. IMO, it's just another case of people disliking someone so much that they are unwilling and unable to give him credit when he does something decent. If it was a different man from a different organization who had spoken out in the exact same way Farris did, those same people would be applauding him for speaking out.

 

I don't like the way Farris has politicized the HSLDA, but I don't automatically assume that every single thing he says or does is bad.

[bolt.]

Yes, biblical modesty has been twisted. It went beyond not being ostentatious enough to cause visual distraction -- it was the intent to level the playing field with respect social strata. In a highly stratified society like the Roman Empire, class was broadcast through dress: to out-dress your church mates would be a proclamation if superior status... Which was often the truth, but the church was trying to overcome those kinds of things, asserting unity and equality in Christ.

 

It was very difficult for church leadership to not just naturally fall to the highest status male in the group. You detect the highest status male if the group by the way his wife is dressed. Therefore, to try for egalitarian relationships and leadership by spiritual maturity -- women, come without the usual adornments that display your status and riches. Raising yourself up tends to push others down, and we don't do that 'to Jesus' (in our fellow church members).

 

(Since modern churches sometimes show a similar tendency to award leadership or a general sense of respect-worthiness to those among us who are successful, somewhat wealthy, and therefore well-dressed... The real message might be quite a bit more relevant than the one we often get in "modesty" preaching.)

[Joanne]

There are plenty of reasons to criticize Farris and the HSLDA, but this isn't one of them. IMO, it's just another case of people disliking someone so much that they are unwilling and unable to give him credit when he does something decent. If it was a different man from a different organization who had spoken out in the exact same way Farris did, those same people would be applauding him for speaking out.

 

I don't like the way Farris has politicized the HSLDA, but I don't automatically assume that every single thing he says or does is bad.

 

I agree. I am NOT a fan of HSLDA at all but Farris being criticized in this regard doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Guest WilliamB]

Interesting perspective from a non-patriarchal Botkin:

 

In which Lourdes petitions for a lifeboat

 

[Momof3]

Well I can tell you Benneth Jones (wife of Dr. Bob 3) at BJU said something very similar in her ministers' wives classes.  Her experience was that, over the whole frame of things knowing a lot of preachers, the ones who were most fixated on xyz issue like dress, especially dress, and advocating extremist positions, turned out to be struggling with it.

 

And yes, we were preached growing up that for a woman to wear pants at all meant you were BACKSLIDDEN.  That means you're unrepentant and going to HELL.  

 

Your kids are 5 and under, but my dd is 14.  I'm having to go through modesty issues with her, and it's striking how complicated it has become.  If you're in a church influenced by xyz, when you read their writings they no longer hold water.  (cultural arguments, etc.)  If you read the next thing (say Worldliness by MacHaney, whose chapter on modesty is available freely online) it is oriented toward blame the woman, which doesn't at all fit with what the abuse truth tellers and whistle blowers are revealing about what's going on.  DiP was oversexed on that girl and she was modestly clad.  The problem was in his HEART.  

 

I've never been a man to have any 1sthand knowledge of how dress affects men (one of their arguments), but those kind of contradictions are very hard for me to sort out with church backgrounds that contradict common sense and reasonable biblical interpretation.  There are all sorts of assumptions and pressures going into it.  (if you do this you're backslidden, if you won't do this you're rebellious, blah blah)  Actual Bible exegesis doesn't matter, only the culture they thought up.  And to me, it's all about power, which is pretty much what DiP was showing us.  They can say all they want it's not, but show up at that church in pants and see how their attitude towards you changes.  Show up with a different Bible translation and see how long you stay a SS teacher.  Same person, same heart, but you broke their external rules.  

 

Oh, I totally agree. The issue *is* the heart. I'm only saying that the Bible *does* teach "modesty" - and it does emphasize women's dress (I Timothy 2; I Peter 3). And I know a *lot* of pastors who teach that women (and men) should be modest, because it's what the Bible says. 

 

I know of prominent conservative Christian men who teach modesty who have ended up in deep sexual sin - thinking, DP, Bill Gothard, Jack Hyles... Am I missing someone? One common factor is that all these men taught that women should be modest. Another common link is that they all promoted homeschooling. Does that mean that hsing is interrelated to sexual sins? I would say no - no more than preaching on modesty is interrelated to the same. 

 

I think the common thread that is more problematic here (than preaching modesty in women) is the *power* mentality. Like ColleeninWis said, their problem was having too high a view of themselves, and a 'servant' view of everyone else. 

[justasque]

You know, if he had spoken out against DP in the past, he would have been criticized. He's doing it now probably because someone asked him outright, and he's being criticized for not speaking up sooner. Seems he just can't win for losing.

 

HSLDA attorneys are discreet.  More people should be that way.

 

Some people look for any reason to dislike HSLDA.

 

Putting aside the specifics of this situation, since when is being criticized a good reason for not speaking out when someone is doing wrong?  Speaking up, speaking Truth, can have serious fallout for the individual doing so, but in the long run it may be The Right Thing To Do, regardless of the consequences.  People in leadership positions are exactly the people who can gently guide people away from the kind of extreme viewpoints and insular thinking that can be very harmful.  It is *especially* when there is a culture of shunning for those who dare to (respectfully, thoughtfully) question dogma, that things can go very, very wrong, and people of conscience need to (gently, with wisdom and love) push back.

[Momof3]

I didn't mean that christen shouldn't consider being modest and sorry if my previous post came across as judgmental 

 

There is a difference in a pastor saying we should all represent God by dressing in a matter that represents Christ and  is the pastor that says you should were long skirt, hair up, panty hoes, no makeup basically make your self homely so not to make a man sin.  The men that I've seen still lust for women even with all the "rules"   The point is that yes we should respect ourselves and the lord in our dress but their is no way this side of heaven you will stop LUST.   I hate these churches put all on women.  I've seen the most conservative dressed wife of a deacon have an affair with the pastor.  The church kept going the pastors wife left with her kids.  I would also like to add that these pastor that I've encounter seem to make every sermon around lust, women modesty.  I do think all pastor should address it but it should not be every sermon and teaching.   

 

I believe your dress should be determine by your personal relationship  with Jesus.  The holy spirit should be the one convicting you of your attitude or modesty.  I

 

The pastor that I've heard  will go on and repeatedly in sermons after sermon eve sin so all women are dirty sinful and trying  to make men fall.   That all sin are on women do to eve dragging Adam into sin.

 

The true pastor preaching modesty will also have the sermon regarding men you are responsible  for your roaming  eye and heart of lust.  

 

I know that sometimes my written words may not conveys all my thoughts.  I'm more of a verbal person. 

 

I will say seeing my SIL and family leave that teaching has been like watching a butterfly open up.  My SIL and niece seem like they are new people.  The are more animated and happy before it was like watching stepford wives.  They would sit at family gathering with legs press like little robots "being meek" and it just dint' seem natural.

 

It was a shock seeing them during the holidays they were laughing and just in general pleasant to be with.  My niece  was just so animated and acting like a teen girl instead of a matron

 

Anyway sorry if my first post wasn't completely clear about my thoughts

 

You are so right! And I'm sorry if I sounded like I was jumping on you. (Dh says that's something I have to keep working on. ;))

[Joanne]

 

Interesting perspective from a non-patriarchal Botkin:

 

In which Lourdes petitions for a lifeboat

 

 

"Good stuff" from your link:

 

"By her own admission, she did not verbally resist every time, and even says she loved him, but this in no way is an indication of consent; it merely highlights the extent of the abuse."

 

and

 

"She’s outlining a very specific and a very believable train of events, given everything we know about Doug Phillips, the nature of sociopaths, the nature of power and sexuality, and all the rest of it."

[FloridaLisa]

Okay, my first sentence wasn't clear. First came the cease and desist request filed by the family attorney. Then DP tied to climb into her bedroom window.

 

 

There should be a public record of the cease and desist order.  And why in the world would they not report this to the police is there was a C&D order?  Fingerprints and statements from neighbors at minimum would be helpful in any case. Not to mention, such behavior would bleed over to criminal breaking and entering, possibly assault and battery.  

 

Lisa

 

ETA: Some of this was answered as I continued reading through the thread. 

 

Re: Farris -- damned if he did, damned if he didn't.  It's a complete red-herring to the true villain in this case. 

[WishboneDawn]

For some people he is and for others he isn't. It would be logical for a reporter to go the head of the most well known organization related to homeschooling, especially since DP used to work there and they parted ways. See my posts upthread about norms is reporting in the US.

I didn't mean to say anything about how he was seen but how he presented himself and the HSLDA.

 

That sentence is nonsense. Everything you listed is specifically related to LEGISLATION-not about doctrinal issues in one segment of the conservative Christian homeschooling communtiy. It's a VERY clear pattern you listed.

Good point!

 

No, it doesn't get a pass. Who suggested it gets a pass? I said Farris wasn't responsible to make a public statement about his doctrinal disagreement with one small segment of the conservative Christian community when his chosen profession and organization exist to address LEGISLATION related to homeschooling. Farris used his influence and power to make sure DP didn't use the HSLDA metaphorical microphone to promote the patriarchy movment. GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR THAT. Don't snipe at him.

The point has been made that the HSLDA had ties with Vision Forum. It would be interesting to sort out the relationship between the HSLDA and patriarchal Christians. But you're right about him deserving credit for what he's done.

 

ETA: Now I am wanting to know more about what Farris said and thinks but more because I think you may have a point and I overreached, even in the two sentences above this little edit.

 

It does NOT permeate a lot of the homeschooling movement. Are you from a small homeschooling community? It permeates a small, divergent segment of a portion of the conservative Christian community. The vast majority of conservative homeschoolers are not extreme in their patricarchal views. Some conservative Christians don't even hold patriarchal views at all. Most aren't quiverfulls. Most want their girls to get an education and a skill set (college or trade certification) in case their future husbands die, so they can save her income before the kids are born, so they can be debt free, etc. DP's views are not common-they are by far the extreme minority.

I'll disagree with you here. It may not dominate it but it does permeate it. And you're right that most aren't extreme but some of the less extreme views are often informed by those in the more extreme quarters. And as Mrs. Mungo pointed out, a trip to most homeschool conventions can make that evident.

 

Saying so doesn't make me soft on patriarchy and all the problems with it-it makes me accurate about homeschooling demographics.

Again, I used the term permeates for a reason. It's not an issue of demographics, it's one of culture and influence. The Duggars might show up at a homeschooling convention. A small minority of attendees might be familiar with ATI but everyone at the convention is witness to ATI style Christianity. I agree the number of patriarchal homeschoolers is small but their influence is not.

 

There isn't a crisis at HSLDA unless you know of some evidence that shows they were complicit in some way. Please post a link because I've missed it and would very much like to read it. If it exists, I'll chnage mind. The crisis is at Vision Forum, the Phillips family and the patriarchy movement. Please keep careful track of who has evidence against him-that would be DP.

I didn't say it was a crisis at the HSLDA. I was thinking more a crisis for HSLDA many HSLDA members, which is unquestionably going to have a larger portion of patriarchal families then the general population. I should have been clearer about that though!

 

My post was reactionary and I'm rethinking some of what I said. Still, I think some of my point weren't complete nonsense. :D

[ChocolateReignRemix]

For the record, I have a handful of homeschoolers on my Facebook feed who are upset with Michael Farris for "blaming" the patriarchal movement for the "sins" of Doug Wilson *and* the "sins" of the "brazen young lady" who is "blaming him" for "her sin." So, while it may not SEEM very brave of Farris to speak up at this point, I think it actually is. I think it will likely hit HSLDA's pocketbook for him to speak against patriarchy.

 

That is a fair point as most of the criticism directed at Farris has been for his speaking out at all.

[SadieMarie]

This quote from Amanda Marcotte at The Daily Beast sums it up for me,

 

The unpleasant truth is that a culture that teaches that women are put on earth for no other purpose but to serve men is not going to breed respect for women. Instead, these incidents show a world where men believe they can do whatever they want to women without repercussions. Is it any surprise that a subculture that promises absolute control over women will attract men who want to dominate and hurt women? Don’t believe the TLC hype. Biblical patriarchy is a sour, dangerous world for women, and luckily, that reality is finally being outed.

[Moxie]

This quote from Amanda Marcotte at The Daily Beast sums it up for me,

 

The unpleasant truth is that a culture that teaches that women are put on earth for no other purpose but to serve men is not going to breed respect for women. Instead, these incidents show a world where men believe they can do whatever they want to women without repercussions. Is it any surprise that a subculture that promises absolute control over women will attract men who want to dominate and hurt women? Don’t believe the TLC hype. Biblical patriarchy is a sour, dangerous world for women, and luckily, that reality is finally being outed.

 

I don't know for a fact but it would seem like child sexual abuse would run rampant.

 

[TracyP]

I heard a talk one time about the "women should be silent" teaching--it made a lot of sense.  In the early days of Christianity, people from a lot of different backgrounds were at church.  Some of them were from the religions involving the gods we now read about in our mythology books.  Part of the worship of these gods was women (in particular, women) chanting or shouting repetitive praises to the god/dess of the particular temple.  Over and over and over, inducing sort of a mesmeric environment.  "Great is Diana, the goddess of the Ephesians!  Great is Diana, goddess of the Ephesians!" x1,000.  Timothy could very well have been instructing the newcomers from these traditions that this is NOT how we worship as Christians, so please be silent.  

 

Sometimes we have to look at things from the perspective of the culture in which they were written.  

 

As for the braiding of hair and all that, it is possible that this was an instruction to simplify one's beauty routine, not so much because beauty is despised, but when one is spending an awful lot of time on one's hair or clothing, it gets in the way of service to others, or of prayer, or it over-emphasizes the socio-economic differences in the community--"I have time and leisure to fancy up, and you don't!"  Perhaps it was a way of evening out the differences so as to increase peace in the community.  

 

I've been talking a bit on another thread about my struggles with Christianity. I know that one problem I have is that I was raised in an "all you need is you and your Bible" culture. Discussions like this illustrate why this thinking can be so problematic. Understanding the context behind this stuff is huge. If you don't have the context, it is so easy to twist the Bible to support any crazy idea.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I've been talking a bit on another thread about my struggles with Christianity. I know that one problem I have is that I was raised in an "all you need is you and your Bible" culture. Discussions like this illustrate why this thinking can be so problematic. Understanding the context behind this stuff is huge. If you don't have the context, it is so easy to twist the Bible to support any crazy idea.

Good hermaneutics (interpretation of text) tries to find out the intent of the author in his communication.  So this, of necessity, requires an understanding of the times, place and culture where the text was written.  

[ColleenInWis]

 

It seems to me that the word modest as used in Timothy has been twisted. What was supposed to be a call to be less material and worldly has instead been used as some sort of way to make women the guilty parties when men "sin".

 

Yes.  How did "modest" come to mean "not showing any part of your body that men might find sexually appealing?"  The attitudes about a woman's body in the "modesty culture" seem, to me, very similar to attitudes in the Muslim world.  Has anyone read Reading Lolita in Tehran?  Even letting a wisp of hair come loose from a headscarf was considered immodest.  

 

My Better Half taught at our fellowship about 1 Tim. 2, in which modesty is mentioned..  Afterwards, a friend told me she wished he had been more specific about modest dress.  Better Half said, "I can't be more specific than the Bible is."  

[JuanitaL]

 

Interesting perspective from a non-patriarchal Botkin:

 

In which Lourdes petitions for a lifeboat

 

 

That was good.

So interesting that she filed the lawsuit on the anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic; planned? coincidental? Providential maybe? Either way, it brings another little fist-pump her way.

[livetoread]

I heard a talk one time about the "women should be silent" teaching--it made a lot of sense. In the early days of Christianity, people from a lot of different backgrounds were at church. Some of them were from the religions involving the gods we now read about in our mythology books. Part of the worship of these gods was women (in particular, women) chanting or shouting repetitive praises to the god/dess of the particular temple. Over and over and over, inducing sort of a mesmeric environment. "Great is Diana, the goddess of the Ephesians! Great is Diana, goddess of the Ephesians!" x1,000. Timothy could very well have been instructing the newcomers from these traditions that this is NOT how we worship as Christians, so please be silent.

 

Sometimes we have to look at things from the perspective of the culture in which they were written.

 

As for the braiding of hair and all that, it is possible that this was an instruction to simplify one's beauty routine, not so much because beauty is despised, but when one is spending an awful lot of time on one's hair or clothing, it gets in the way of service to others, or of prayer, or it over-emphasizes the socio-economic differences in the community--"I have time and leisure to fancy up, and you don't!" Perhaps it was a way of evening out the differences so as to increase peace in the community.

Well. . . except that's not really what the author says. He says:

 

11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

 

Women are to learn in silence and submission, not because they were being noisy, but because Eve ate the apple. It is a universal punishment for being descended from a woman who was deceived and who happened to be created second.

 

I'm sure there are creative ways to make that all sound a little nicer than it does, but I think it goes beyond a stretch to see that as some sort of advice for that particular situation and for those particular women.

[Ameena]

For the record, I have a handful of homeschoolers on my Facebook feed who are upset with Michael Farris for "blaming" the patriarchal movement for the "sins" of Doug Wilson *and* the "sins" of the "brazen young lady" who is "blaming him" for "her sin." So, while it may not SEEM very brave of Farris to speak up at this point, I think it actually is. I think it will likely hit HSLDA's pocketbook for him to speak against patriarchy.

 

 

I think HSLDA & VF had already started to split last summer, so it may not hit the pocketbook as much as you think. I know at our convention last year VF was promoting their "legal defense" service similar to HSLDA but also :

 

"Protecting families from social services threats which often involve:

~Corporal Punishment

~Sanctity of Life Decisions

~Medical choices like vaccines & Midwifery

~Mandatory Reporters

~Accidents in which children are injured

~Premature Births or special needs children

~Anonymous tips by those wishing to harm families

~Harassment by extended family, neighbors, or mere acquaintances regarding disagreements concerning phiolosophical/religious direction and training of children

~False reports generated by rebellious, disobedient or indiscreet children within the home

~Targeting or Profiling of christian families"

 

 

 

Am I the only one who doesn't think that more girls/women will come forward? I do think there have been other cases of abuse by this perv., but considering the way these girls are taught that men are the authority, and their fathers and brothers are taught the same, is it very likely that they will allow their daughters and sisters from speaking out, or is it more likely they will try and prevent them from coming forward? If no one is telling them it's okay to speak up, chances are they won't.

 

I feel the same about his kids writing a tell all. They have been raised to believe this kind of thing is okay, and not to question the actions of their father. And their mother certainly isn't going to tell them different.

 

 

I agree. I am waiting for one of the Duggar kids to come forward - they are the very persona of "keep sweet" but sometimes when you see them you can tell it's forced, especially for the girls. But I highly doubt it. This type of mock patriarchy has been going on in the homeschooling movement for years. I know when I was a teen there was a family that practiced it, and I know the daughter was abused. Nothing ever happened even though folks offered to help her get away. She was too deeply brainwashed to even consider it.

 

I would hate for the new focus on Michael Farris to distract from Dip's transgressions, but I am afriad that it may very well do that and of clursethe big Dip himself would be more than happy to have a break from the sole limelight in this particular case. A departure from his normal narcissistic attention hog seeking behavior, but a welcome distraction.

 

I hope the public will be able to keep their eye on the ball so to speak.

 

I personally think Beall has probably been in emotional and psychological pain for a while. In this cult, the only valuea woman really has is as a womb...a breeder of new drones for the dominionist army. She hasn't had a baby in a long time and has not been honored at the "Baby Conference". She tried to look happy when DIP was fawning over Michelle Duggar, but she wasn't very convincing from my perspective anyway. With fading fertility at her current phase of life, Doug getting his jollies off on someone else is either relief from childbearing (I could definitely see that) or another nail in the coffin of limited respect she ever had. Since Doug once published his "200 year plan" on his blog...since taken down and boy oh boy do I wish I had saved a screen shot...and had planned for a dozen or more children, she may view herself as a real disappointment to him. Virginia, the youngest Phillips child, is six years old now. If Doug does not take another wife, his goal will not be met and in this worldview, she is entirely at fault for the failure.

 

So very sad and while rage and vitriol at the victim is wrong, it isn't surprising. From Beall's perspective, the victim got out, Lourdes has a life, she is no longer under the thumb, she can move forward and Beall probably cannot and certainly not without serious assistance, something thatnwill not be provided by the people she knows.

 

Now if he great dip can find way to get rid of her and save face within the cult, then I would fully expect him to do so and for some sicko father in the group to offer his young daughter to dip in order to continue the "vision".

 

I wonder if dip and VF will settle out of court. I would expect that if they could pay to get out of a public trial in which even more sordid details come to light and IF that settlement came with a gag order, this would be very lucrative to the sorry lot and worth a good bit of money. I wonder how long it takes for these types of civil suits to come to trial in Texas.

 

This. As a side note, Both Beall & Doug stuck me as "slimy" when I saw them in passing at local homeschooling events. So did most of VF's materials.

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one who sees a parallel between the VF/ DP teachings & the Fundie LDS / Warren Jeffs teachings? You would almost swear they were the same. Minus the vintage clothing & hair, of course.

[Ameena]

Well. . . except that's not really what the author says. He says:

 

11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

 

Women are to learn in silence and submission, not because they were being noisy, but because Eve ate the apple. It is a universal punishment for being descended from a woman who was deceived and who happened to be created second.

 

I'm sure there are creative ways to make that all sound a little nicer than it does, but I think it goes beyond a stretch to see that as some sort of advice for that particular situation and for those particular women.

 

Except this doesn't fly because all MEN are also descended from Eve. So why are women told to be silent & not men?

 

 

Stuff like this makes me glad I am no longer a Christian. Islam, once you get past all the cultural junk that isn't really Islam, is much more fair & respectful of women.

[Unicorn.]

I agree. I am waiting for one of the Duggar kids to come forward - they are the very persona of "keep sweet" but sometimes when you see them you can tell it's forced, especially for the girls. But I highly doubt it. This type of mock patriarchy has been going on in the homeschooling movement for years. I know when I was a teen there was a family that practiced it, and I know the daughter was abused. Nothing ever happened even though folks offered to help her get away. She was too deeply brainwashed to even consider it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Am I the only one who sees a parallel between the VF/ DP teachings & the Fundie LDS / Warren Jeffs teachings? You would almost swear they were the same. Minus the vintage clothing & hair, of course.

I agree w/ you about the Duggars. I keep hoping those girls can escape that life. I also see the parallel w/ the FDLS and Warren Jeffs. I've been thinking about them since this thread started. It's all very creepy and sad.

[livetoread]

I just watched the documentary "Sons of Perdition" on Netflix about some boys who left the FLDS. It is very depressing.

[WishboneDawn]

You know, if he had spoken out against DP in the past, he would have been criticized. He's doing it now probably because someone asked him outright, and he's being criticized for not speaking up sooner. Seems he just can't win for losing.

 

HSLDA attorneys are discreet.  More people should be that way.

 

Some people look for any reason to dislike HSLDA.

 

Some people are suspicious of the HSLDA and tend to assume the worst. I'm one of those. I don't need additional reasons to dislike the HSLDA. :D

 

It's generally up to someone else to talk me down when I'm ready to smack Michael Farris et al. Thankfully, there are people here that do it. I think his Facebook response was genuine and I was glad to see that he wished he had spoken out before. 

[Joanne]

Except this doesn't fly because all MEN are also descended from Eve. So why are women told to be silent & not men?

 

 

Stuff like this makes me glad I am no longer a Christian. Islam, once you get past all the cultural junk that isn't really Islam, is much more fair & respectful of women.

No it's not. Not culturally and not scripturally.

 

Coming back to add that it is very much like Christianity and Christian scripture. The scripture itself inspired a lot of extremism and dysfunction. But the *actual words* speak of inequality, patriarchy, abuse. It's the same as Christian scripture in terms of absurd words about women. Either you have to take it literally, which extremists do. Or you have to pick and choose - which most other adherants do.

 

But, no, please don't contend that either religion, as supported by scripture is egalitarian, supportive of women, or non patriarchal.

 

But I'm not fond of Buddha, either, and the lame apologetics behind him leaving his family.

 

[bolt.]

Well. . . except that's not really what the author says. He says:

 

11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

 

Women are to learn in silence and submission, not because they were being noisy, but because Eve ate the apple. It is a universal punishment for being descended from a woman who was deceived and who happened to be created second.

 

I'm sure there are creative ways to make that all sound a little nicer than it does, but I think it goes beyond a stretch to see that as some sort of advice for that particular situation and for those particular women.

In that particular situation the command was 1. TO ALLOW women to learn, but not to permit the COMBINATION of "teaching" with "superiority" for women (above other people -- not just above male people). Not because men should be doing that (they shouldn't, no one in the church is permitted to use forceful authority in any role, much less a teaching relationship). It is mentioned because it arrose from a specific situation where women were in asserting: not equality, but female superiority, based on a known myth of a sinless first woman.

 

Silence (peaceable behaviour) is considered corrective to this behaviour, just as that word is offered as a corrective to the other two contentious situations addressed by the letter.

 

The reason given for women's non-superiority is that she was a full participant in the fall if humanity, placing her in the same level as Adam. There is no indication that she is considered inferior... Just not superior.

 

She (Eve) "will" be saved due to the coming of Jesus via childbirth.

 

That's not stretching, it's simply taking scripture seriously in a scholarly way: something all Christans should be doing, rather than jumping to conclusions on a first read-through of a translation of an ancient document. That's because it's something we consider scripture. Others are free to be more casual in their approach.

 

If someone is asserting female superiority, or grasping for forceful superiority or authority over others in a teaching relationship: this scripture applies directly. Otherwise, we run with the principles... Neither gender is free to put themselves above others because of our equal culpability in the fall; and, mentorships with forceful accountability or high levels of authority are a bad thing; and, peaceable behaviour through disciplining one's own 'voice' is a corrective to contention.

[Cinder]

Am I the only one who sees a parallel between the VF/ DP teachings & the Fundie LDS / Warren Jeffs teachings? You would almost swear they were the same. Minus the vintage clothing & hair, of course.

 

I thought of them too. Scary!

[FaithManor]

I do see strong similarities to Warren Jeffs and his ilk. To be honest, I think the only thing that stopped DougP, Geoff Botkin, Kevin S. and others of exteme dominionism from taking the position that polygamy is a legitimate Christian practice is that it is difficult to market that message for profit when you need a veneer of acceptability in order to gain market share in the conservative homeschooling community, a difficult thing to accomplish when on the run for violating civil law in all 50 states!

 

If you think about it, polygamy fits very well with the philosophy. The great leaders of the movement want many progeny to carry on their work and do battle for the cause - raise up an army". Most women can not have such large numbers of children and not end up ill or dead. There aren't all that many Michelle Duggar bodies in the female population. Dip and friends idolize, in a very creepy way, the ever pregnant wife. The solution to the issues of health and waning fertility then is naturally, in a worldview in which a woman is only as good as her uterus, is to take on new, youngerwives in theprime of their childbearing years.

 

For a sex perv with a huge libido and no care or concern for the females involved, this is a perfect addition to this worldview. I suspect the only reason he did not publicly embrace it was that he knew it would tank both the ministry and the for profit.

[SadieMarie]

Am I the only one who sees a parallel between the VF/ DP teachings & the Fundie LDS / Warren Jeffs teachings? You would almost swear they were the same. Minus the vintage clothing & hair, of course.

I did. I also thought of women in Arab countries. Patriarchy is the common denominator.

 

So here is a question; what is with the buccaneer outfit? Why is he dressed like that?

[FaithManor]

I did. I also thought of women in Arab countries. Patriarchy is the common denominator.

 

So here is a question; what is with the buccaneer outfit? Why is he dressed like that?

Doug LOVES to play dress up! It's one of his favorite pastimes. He likes to rewrite history to jive with his ludicrous machinations and then reenact them in period clothes and preferably with females in gorgeous gowns,updos, and make-up. If you google dippydo and click on images, you'll probably see his Jamestown outfit, his titanic outfit, and his civil war confederate soldier uniform. He has many of these costumes.

[SadieMarie]

Doug LOVES to play dress up! It's one of his favorite pastimes. He likes to rewrite history to jive with his ludicrous machinations and then reenact them in period clothes and preferably with females in gorgeous gowns,updos, and make-up. If you google dippydo and click on images, you'll probably see his Jamestown outfit, his titanic outfit, and his civil war confederate soldier uniform. He has many of these costumes.

I googled and what an ass (and not in the good way).

[ZooRho]

For everyone following sex trafficking and slavery in the world and in our nation -- Doug Phillips. If this is all true, how he is not one of the many faces of slavers and users in this abomination of our time?

 

He indoctrinated and groomed her, forced himself on her, threatened her, separated her from friends and family, changed her living situation and location, created a culture and paradigm in which his actions were either somewhat normalized or he was idolized to a point that ensured cover-ups to protect him and his world...

 

he saw her as an object. He saw her as less than a person.

 

Don't you see, Doug Phillips is one more person who was on the side of the devil, contributing to sex slavery in the United States in current times. And all the while he was a minister and a family man and someone trying to convert America to dominionism starting with homeschoolers!

 

Ariel Castro going to join the neighborhood search for Amanda Berry while he had her locked up in the attic with other sex slaves.

 

Doug Phillips preaching to believers, taking homeschoolers' money and telling them how to be godly like him, while ensnaring this young girl in his own home as his own personal toy.

 

The only difference I see between these two is that Castro had literal locks on the door and Phillips did not. Which is of no significance when the chains he did bind her with were enough to keep her enslaved.

Reading this makes me want to just say OUCH, so telling.  and so sad.

 

[ZooRho]

Not sure why Farris is now the focus of this thread. :huh:

 

Vision Forum posted a letter of response on its Facebook page (spoiler alert: an attack on the woman's character and denial of all accusations).

now that was interesting wasn't it.  and they FINALLY asked for prayers for the young lady.

[ZooRho]

For the record, I have a handful of homeschoolers on my Facebook feed who are upset with Michael Farris for "blaming" the patriarchal movement for the "sins" of Doug Wilson *and* the "sins" of the "brazen young lady" who is "blaming him" for "her sin." So, while it may not SEEM very brave of Farris to speak up at this point, I think it actually is. I think it will likely hit HSLDA's pocketbook for him to speak against patriarchy.

Wrong Doug I believe, but that will be interesting. HSLDA is big here in VA and with HEAV.   Wonder what people will say about it.

[ZooRho]

Interestingly, when I click on the comments to see what people are saying about the post, they don't show up...

it is interesting isn't it and the comments that are visible are just periods

[Mrs Mungo]

Wrong Doug I believe, but that will be interesting. HSLDA is big here in VA and with HEAV. Wonder what people will say about it.

Ack, I swear I meant DP. I still think Farris is taking a chance, based on the HSLDA-joining/Doug Phillips loving crowd I see talking about it.

[MercyA]

Well. . . except that's not really what the author says. He says:

 

11 Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

 

Women are to learn in silence and submission, not because they were being noisy, but because Eve ate the apple.  It is a universal punishment for being descended from a woman who was deceived and who happened to be created second.

 

I'm sure there are creative ways to make that all sound a little nicer than it does, but I think it goes beyond a stretch to see that as some sort of advice for that particular situation and for those particular women.

 

I actually mostly agree.

 

The author says "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man..."  It is not a command, it is a statement of what he does, and he gives his reasoning.  It is not stated as something that the Church teaches, or as something that was adopted as a position for all local churches to adopt (as were other things, as documented in Acts, regarding Judaizing. 

 

Except that Paul also writes in 1 Corinthians 14, "The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church...If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord’s commandment."

 

The passages are clearly written and are not, for the most part, difficult to understand.