Has this been discussed? Doug Phillips *resigns* from Vision Forum (Ministries)!

[Catwoman]

These conversations always leave me...agitated? I'm not sure that is the right word. I am conservative. I go to a conservative church. Our pastor talks about submission quite a lot. He mentions the words "meek and quite spirit" more than occasionally. But we never hear just one side of it. We always hear how men and women are equal before God. How a husband who does not treat his wife well will not have his prayers answered. How a husband is to know and understand his wife. How each marriage will look different because each couple is different. He takes pains to say a marriage with the woman staying home and homeschooling is no more Godly than a woman working with the kids in daycare, for example.

When I hear "conservative or fundamentalist", I think of churches like mine. The women do not feel beaten down. We don't feel less than. We have strong opinions and personalities. The marriages in my church are not like the ones described in this thread.

Thanks for posting your perspective on this.

I'm not into the whole submission concept on any level, but I would hope that the vast majority of churches who emphasize the concept would have the kind of moderate approach you describe, rather than the incredibly extremist positions I have been learning about in this thread.

Some of this stuff is just plain scary. And it's easy for those of us who haven't been brought up in that kind of environment to tell people to just walk away from it, but I'm sure it's a lot easier for someone like me to say it than it is for someone who has been deeply indoctrinated into that belief system to actually do it.

[Meriwether]

I can't comment on you church or its marriages. But there are many who feel that any submission based on gender is wrong and inherently unhealthy. The words wrapped around it don't matter. And we'll process the relative feelings of the women involved with our own opinions of how and why they don't feel oppressed. No amount of explanation will change that.

And I knew as I was typing that people, including you, would have issues with what I wrote. It is tiresome to have to defend, relentlessly, against these types of posts. Yes, our pastor preaches submission. Submission to God (that's everybody), submission to each other (husband AND wife), and submission of the wife to the husband. You are welcome to feel however you wish about that. I am also free to not care how you feel about it. I am very happy with my marriage.

[Meriwether]

Thanks for posting your perspective on this.

I'm not into the whole submission concept on any level, but I would hope that the vast majority of churches who emphasize the concept would have the kind of moderate approach you describe, rather than the incredibly extremist positions I have been learning about in this thread.

Some of this stuff is just plain scary. And it's easy for those of us who haven't been brought up in that kind of environment to tell people to just walk away from it, but I'm sure it's a lot easier for someone like me to say it than it is for someone who has been deeply indoctrinated into that belief system to actually do it.

I don't characterize my marriage as "I am submissive to my husband". I've been in three churches in the past 10 years (we move with Dh's job). They all taught Biblical submission. We have hung out with dozens of families from the different churches. All the couples we know from those churches have good relationships. The wives technically submit to the husbands, but really they "submit to one another". It is a partnership. I could give examples if you like.

 

In our marriage, I have submitted to Dh only because of being in a submissive role exactly once. He had to decide whether to accept a job transfer (and promotion). He wanted to go. I wanted to stay. We both really wanted what we wanted. He said, "I'm going." I went. Neither meekly nor quietly. :laugh:  But he has also submitted to me in a big way. I said we were never going to Dawson (his company has an office there). The company asked him to go and he turned them down - only because of me.

 

ETA: Dh wasn't a jerk about moving. He knew he was moving me farther from family and away from a support system. He uses 90% of his vacation days taking me and the kids to visit my family. He doesn't fuss if I take the kids down for a week without him. He became much more involved in taking care of the kids in the evening after we moved. He did what he could to make the move easier on me. The decision to move was a good one. It has been good for us financially, and we've met great people who have enriched our lives. I don't like moving but have learned to do it with love.

[Blueridge]

I found this site today and thought it would shed additional light and perspective on this subject. Warning: very controversial and frank material.    http://botkinsyndrome.blogspot.com/p/what-is-botkin-syndrome.html

[Liz CA]

Staggers the imagination doesn't it!

This is why it is hard for me to contemplate why people buy into the insanity.
To borrow a quote from Foghorn Leghorn of Looney Toons fame, "It just don't add
up!"

 

I have a totally unsubstantiated theory about this...but here it goes: Many people, men and women are seeking God, spirituality, guidance, something higher and better than self or human kind and to many of them, the more structure a place has, the more rules are in place, the "safer" it feels. I'd love to analyze (if I could) if many of VF followers had no, confusing or very little discussions about faith while growing up - or they already grew up in a legalistic environment and fell right in step with VF; some may have searched for something better than they experienced growing up, they are looking for something concrete - again a set of guidelines to follow to know they are on the right track - because God's GRACE is so much harder to comprehend than a set of rules. This is often called having "little internal structure," feeling out of control, etc., and those who are looking for a lot of "external structure," found it at the Gothard movement and VF, and other patriarchically minded churches.

 

Ruth Bell Graham said it best IMHO: "I feel many churches set too many rules before people - the original 10 ought to be enough."

 

 

[mommaduck]

I have a totally unsubstantiated theory about this...but here it goes: Many people, men and women are seeking God, spirituality, guidance, something higher and better than self or human kind and to many of them, the more structure a place has, the more rules are in place, the "safer" it feels. I'd love to analyze (if I could) if many of VF followers had no, confusing or very little discussions about faith while growing up - or they already grew up in a legalistic environment and fell right in step with VF; some may have searched for something better than they experienced growing up and figured the more rules the better. This is often called having "little internal structure," feeling out of control, etc., and those are looking for a lot of "external structure," which they found at VF.

 

Yes. 100% agree. And I don't have to wonder...I know.

[JumpyTheFrog]

A commenter at The Wartburg Watch pointed out that Phillips' name has been removed from the list of elders at his church. I saw it still listed there a few days ago. It's gone now. That doesn't tell us when he stepped down (or was removed by the others), just that the website was finally updated to reflect it.

[Guest nss]

This is my understanding too. There have been a number of cases (I remember one that Catholic University was involved in) that were decided in favor of religious employers who did not give equal rights/equal pay to female employees. Looked for the references, but couldn't seem to turn them up.

I am normally just a lurker.

I think you maybe thinking of "equal pay" for priests at Catholic University. There was a movement to pay priests the same salary as lay faculty. The clergy faculty members were fighting for their salary to be increased.

IIRC the case allowed the university to continue paying clergy less then lay faculty members.

http://books.google.com/books?id=m0qHDsqzc20C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA442&ots=Lf8EekRzim&focus=viewport&dq=catholic+university+equal+pay+priest&output=html_text

[Alessandra]

I am normally just a lurker.

I think you maybe thinking of "equal pay" for priests at Catholic University. There was a movement to pay priests the same salary as lay faculty. The clergy faculty members were fighting for their salary to be increased.

IIRC the case allowed the university to continue paying clergy less then lay faculty members.

http://books.google.com/books?id=m0qHDsqzc20C&pg=PA444&lpg=PA442&ots=Lf8EekRzim&focus=viewport&dq=catholic+university+equal+pay+priest&output=html_text

That probably was it. Bit of a red herring for this thread, I guess!

[RanchGirl]

This is sad news for his poor family but it is not at all a surprising result from the disgusting patriarchal systems that some supremely selfish men have set up to take advantage of weak women who are willing to put up with it (sadly in the name of Jesus who came to set the slaves free -- including women!!)  It's just like in government - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Seasider]

Yet another link referencing this thread:

 

http://awomansfreedominchrist.com/are-the-women-to-blame-for-doug-phillips-resignation-from-vision-forum-ministries/

[RanchGirl]

Yet another link referencing this thread:

 

http://awomansfreedominchrist.com/are-the-women-to-blame-for-doug-phillips-resignation-from-vision-forum-ministries/

 

I just read through it quickly and don't know much about this gal or her writing but I love where she says "be a Berean" and read the word ourselves.  Christians don't need leaders to tell us how to think.  God has given us brains and His Word.  If our preachers are not pointing us to the Bible, then they are pointing us in the wrong direction.

 

Also, slightly unrelated, but my husband and I did our pre-marital counseling at a Berean church where we were attending in college.  The pastor was crystal clear to us that if we didn't agree on a decision that needed to be made for our family, the answer was to wait until we did agree.  NOT for the husband to forge on despite the wife's misgivings. 

 

We treat each other with respect and I believe that is 100% Biblical.  Making sacrifices for each other and for our family - yes.  Dividing up responsibilities according to what we're interested in and suited for - yes.  Submission, needing my husband's "permission" for anything, not being able to use my own brain, shaving him, keeping competent young ladies out of the workforce or college  -- not Biblical or even logical.  It's a distorted, ugly, shameful version of the beautiful gift of marriage that God has for us.

[Joanne]

This is sad news for his poor family but it is not at all a surprising result from the disgusting patriarchal systems that some supremely selfish men have set up to take advantage of weak women who are willing to put up with it (sadly in the name of Jesus who came to set the slaves free -- including women!!) It's just like in government - absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I agree with the hatred of partriarchy. However, I assure you the characterization of the women as "weak" is inaccurate and discounts the evil force of brainwashing and cultishness.

[LucyStoner]

I don't think that Doug Phillips fairly represents conservative or fundamental Christianity. He's a nut job outlier, not the mainstream. When I kevetch about his verbal diarrhea and questionable stances , it's about him and his extremism. Not about conservatives as a whole. I don't care how people run their marriages. A lot of marriage dynamics work. But according to people like Phillips, women shouldn't legally have the rights we do- if he could make it illegal for women to work or divorce, he would. That's not regular conservatism. That's extremism and it's dangerous. And when you set yourself out like he has and you fall, you really fall. Like someone else said and it bears repeating: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Kathryn]

How influential are these men/companies? I've never ever heard of them outside of homeschool discussion boards. How many followers do these people claim?

[Word Nerd]

How influential are these men/companies? I've never ever heard of them outside of homeschool discussion boards. How many followers do these people claim?

 

I know who he is only because I used to homeschool in Colorado. Phillips is pals with Kevin Swanson and other dominionists who have taken over the state homeschooling conference—I mean Rocky Mountain Super Conference on the Family. I don't think I know any nonhomeschoolers who know anything about Vision Forum or Phillips.

[mommymilkies]

Juniper, I just want to give you a hug.

[Haiku]

I'm never surprised when these self-proclaimed paragons of virtue end up being just as lowly as the rest of us. They never were any better to begin with, they were just more obnoxiously self-righteous. Their religion does not protect them from being human.

[Catwoman]

I'm never surprised when these self-proclaimed paragons of virtue end up being just as lowly as the rest of us. They never were any better to begin with, they were just more obnoxiously self-righteous. Their religion does not protect them from being human.

I often wonder if at least some of those men ever really believed anything they preached, or if they simply wanted power and money, and came up with a creative way to get it. And what better way to get women to fall all over them and obey their every command? :glare:

I think their egos eventually get so huge that they start believing their own hype, and assume no one will ever rat them out because they are Way Too Important. Some of these idiots seem to think they are some kind of god -- and their followers seem to buy into it, too.

There I go, being cynical again.

[FaithManor]

I often wonder if at least some of those men ever really believed anything they preached, or if they simply wanted power and money, and came up with a creative way to get it. And what better way to get women to fall all over them and obey their every command? :glare:

I think their egos eventually get so huge that they start believing their own hype, and assume no one will ever rat them out because they are Way Too Important. Some of these idiots seem to think they are some kind of god -- and their followers seem to buy into it, too.

There I go, being cynical again.

I think this kind of thing is started by narcissists and attracts more narcissists who help keep it all spinning. That's one reason I think there is a lot more to the story - a lot more than an emotional affair - than was admitted to because he's surrounded by men who will protect him. It's got to be pretty bad for them to not be able to insulate him from the consequences since they are in charge. Given their treatment of women, it is hard to imagine that an offense against a woman would be something worth getting their boxers into a twist about.

 

Faith

[Sara R]

Heather, a formerly homeschooled adult who came out of a patriarchal quiverfull home, shared her perspective on her blog.  She points out that "Doug’s assertion that he did not â€œknow” the woman in question in the Biblical sense, which, as I understand it, is pretty much a Christian version of Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Her point of view is, whatever he has or hasn't done in this "scandal" to hurt his family and church, he has hurt many many more women with the rigid patriarchal culture he and others have implemented, and like other fallen clergy that SWB has written about, he will eventually be back.

[dtsmamtj]

Will Phillips be resigning from being an elder at Boerne Christian Assembly? His letter at VFM didn't mention it.

 

I didn't see him listed as an elder on their site, hmmmm........

[mommaduck]

I didn't see him listed as an elder on their site, hmmmm........

 

Read further on the thread, it was mentioned when it was approx removed.

[LizzyBee]

How influential are these men/companies? I've never ever heard of them outside of homeschool discussion boards. How many followers do these people claim?

 

A few years ago, I was aware of some men/local seminary students starting a new church in our area (NC). Since this brou-ha-ha with Phillips, I found out that one of the men (the lead pastor) is or was Phillips right hand man, and his church is just like Phillips church.  A friend of mine got out of that church (the one here in NC) because her husband recognized the heresy, but she would have dived right in if not for her dh's wisdom.  Every so often, she talks to other women who have gotten out, and it is always ugly and painful.

[mamajudy]

A friend of mine got out of that church (the one here in NC) because her husband recognized the heresy, but she would have dived right in if not for her dh's wisdom.

Ironic...I guess it's a good thing she "submitted" to her husband!

[Juniper]

How influential are these men/companies? I've never ever heard of them outside of homeschool discussion boards. How many followers do these people claim?

 

I wanted to address this a little but. Hopefully what I share will help others to understand how this "might" infiltrate their own church.

No one in our very large, contemporary church would have ever known that our Sr. Pastor and his wife embraced the same ideaologies as Phillips. They were way to image savy to let that out. I only knew, because I was staff. I was steered towards Vision Forum products while being menotred in my PW's home.

There are many slightly more contemporary, evangelical, progressivish books and teachers that complement DP while being just a shade on the more tolerable side for mainstream Christians.

For example (and some of my examples are becoming outdated, because I have been away from this scene for awhile) http://www.amazon.com/Under-Cover-Promise-Protection-Authority/dp/0785269916/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383703794&sr=1-8&keywords=john+bevere

 

http://www.amazon.com/Women-Only-Revised-Updated-About/dp/1601424442/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383703889&sr=1-4&keywords=for+her+eyes+only

 

http://www.amazon.com/Cleansing-Seminar-Complete-Homework-Package/dp/B000PCMAKQ/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1383704121&sr=1-2-fkmr0&keywords=cleansing+stream+seminar+workbook

 

I strongly encourage people to read the 1 and 2 star reviews of these books.

So, how does this play out in non-denominational church? I guess I will explain how we did it. :(

When you came to the church it was your typical Rock band, coffee shop and bookstore church with the AWESOME children's and youth programs. Rock walls...we had them. Flashing lights, smoke machines, scrim sheets, sanctuary that looked like and industrial warehouse with chrome....yup we had it. Super friendly greeters at all the doors, trained to take you to get your free coffee, help you get your kids scanned in and find you seats. There would be a lot of talk about freedom from religion, freedom to have relationship, freedom from controlling pastors and churches. It would look good.

Once you decided to make us your church home the real fun began. We had what were known as the 4 bases. The first base was membership. Super easy to join, statement of faith and get to know the staff a bit. At the end of the series of meetings you would basically be so far invested that when base 2 was explained you probably would not bat an eye.
 

Base 2 was maturity (discipleship). Seems reasonable, right? Now, to become a member you had to agree to complete Base 2 within a year and you could not serve as a volunteer....even in the nursery until you went through. This is where would do book studies like "Under Cover" and "Bait of Satan," because we had to teach you that questioning and being concerned about the leadership (bait of Satan) was tantamount to rebelling against your spiritual authority (Under Cover). Remember, we already got you to join the church at this point.

 

If you were seen to struggle a bit with Base 2 it would be strongly encouraged that attend the next Cleans ing Stream seminar weekend.

Base 3 was ministry. If you didn't do this base the staff pastor you volunteered under would get in trouble. You would be whipped back and forth between being stroked and validated for even being there, encouraged to DO more for God and brought into the secret shared pain of the staff that deal with so few people who really care about God and serving Him. After all, isn't it something like 10% of the congregation does 100% of the work. :p

The last base would be base 4: Mission. From here we would launch you on a local missions event, church mission trip and this was the pipeline from which we funneled the volunteer force for our satellite campuses.

It would take the average person about 1.5 years to make it through all the bases. Of course we made exceptions for people we really wante dinvolved in certain ministries, but within 1.5 years it needed to be completed.

Sounds pretty slick, right? What I didn't see...until my counselor pointed it out...was that it was a trap. We made it look so wonderful, exciting and healthy. We hooked parents on their weakest areas...fear for their children/teens...and by the time you maybe felt a bit uncomfortable or worn out the law of investment came into play. The law of investment is basically when you say, "Well, I have already put some much effort into this," or "But, my kids are so happy with the friends," or "We have made so many relationships, surely all these people cannot be decieved." This is followed by, "I will give it one more chance." By then though, when the next uncomfortable moment happens you are even further invested. You start explaining away what you see, or tell yourself your not being submissive to your spiritual authorities, or that the enemy is trying to give you an offense and if you leave the flock you will be a lone sheep for the wolf to devour.


Can there be churches out there with a similar makeup that are healthy...yes, I am thinking of the one we modeled after. It had a base system. What it did not have was any of the above books or seminars.

I write this out only in the hopes that it helps someone lurking, hurting, reading and questioning their situation. I hope it helps those that have a gut feeling about their situation, but are to scared or shamed to trust that gut feeling.

Trust your gut. God gave it to you for a reason!

[Aura]

Thanks for that post, Juniper. It really spelled out things I dealt with a couple of years ago.

[separateunion]

I linked to this thread via a couple of different blogs regarding Doug Phillip's infidelity. While I found some of this particular post quite interesting and disturbing at the same time, this snippet made me feel the need to create an account and comment.
 

Many of you may not know this, but while Doug Wilson is not necessarily associated with ATI or VF, he does pastor another organization of the same ilk in Moscow, Idaho. He is notoriously known for arranging the marriages of the young people in his church, and got himself in a BIG fire when he arranged for a young woman in his congregation to marry a KNOWN and convicted pedophile (multiple victims and confession)  in order to help the young man "remain on the straight and narrow". The judge presiding over this man's case was absolutely livid and heartbroken that within the law, there was nothing he could do to stop it. I can only imagine what will happen to the children from this union and since "be fruitful and multiply" is the commandment his followers must obey, unless she ends up infertile (believe me, I almost hope this is the case), there will be new victims for this creep.

 

As someone who has had considerable contact with Doug Wilson's group, as well as other CREC communities (CREC is the "denomination" founded by Doug Wilson), I feel that I am probably more qualified than internet bloggers and posters to comment on how his church and churches like it operate. The above comes off as a bit slanderous, so I'd like to offer a slightly different view.

 

First of all, I've never been a fan of Doug Phillips. My mom got really into him probably about seven or eight years ago, well after I was out of the house. Her description of his teachings didn't sit well with me, and I could see the negative impact it was having on my siblings who still lived at home. Thankfully, my mom saw some issues with his teachings and cooled on them after a couple of years. I know several people who are really into Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, and it's been interesting to watch them be extremely defensive of him as this story has gained traction.

 

Secondly, I spent over a year trying to court one of the daughters of a member of Peter Leithart's church (a sister church of Doug Wilson's church in Moscow, ID). This man also works for Doug Wilson's college, New Saint Andrews, and is a former elder in Doug Wilson's church. So, I would like to think that my interactions with someone so ingrained in Doug Wilson's theology qualifies me (at least a little bit) to speak in defense of Doug Wilson.

 

As my last point of qualification, I do not agree with Doug Wilson on several issues, the biggest being Reconstructionism. That's not something I can get on board with, and Federal Vision has other questionable aspects including authoriatian elements. I don't believe that Doug abuses these elements, however, the ease of abuse is very clear in situations such as the myriad of stories that have come out about how Doug Phillips' runs his church. I would hope that this makes me at least somewhat objective in my view of Wilson.
 

In my experience, Doug Wilson and his group do not do arranged marriages. Yes, they practice courtship, but there is quite a big difference between courtship and arranged marriage, at least as practiced by them. While courtship has its flaws and issues, there is no forced marriage involved, at least not the way it's practiced or expounded upon by Doug Wilson in his writings. Here is how their version of courtship works:

 

When a man is interested in a woman, he approaches the father to express interest. The father then vets the man for a period of time. If the father believes the man is qualified to marry, he tells his daughter of the interest. The daughter is then given time to consider whether or not she has reciprical interest. This is important, because unlike many would have you believe, the woman is not forced to choose the man. She can refuse him if she wants to do so. (In fact, in the churches that practice courtship that I've been a part of, this happens more often than you'd think). If she says yes to courtship, they still arent "arranged for marriage." The father or the daughter can end it at any time (and yes, the father being able to end a relationship the daughter does not want to end is one of my contentions with the courtship model). The important point here is, the woman can end it at any time. She isn't forced to marry someone she doesn't like (although I personally know someone who was guilted by her parents into marrying a man she was unsure about).

 

So, the supposed "arranged marriage" mentioned in the quote above was most likely not arranged. The woman could have refused the marriage at any point in time. And I know that at this point, some detractors will say, "Well, she was just too sheltered/brainwashed to know any better." I've met a number of women that are part of the Doug Wilson community, and I can honestly say that not one of them seem daft enough to marry someone in whom they didn't truly have interest. My trips to Moscow, and my subsequent interaction with women who have attended the school there, has left me utterly impressed by their intelligence and smarts. They definitely aren't raising stupid, brain washed girls in that part of Moscow.

Also, while I understand that pedophilia is heinous, so are a host of other sins. I guess I don't get the vitriol with which people oppose a repentant child molester getting married. Does past sin preclude one from marriage? It seems odd that internet bloggers who don't know the man nearly as well as Doug Wilson does are so willing to villify both him and Doug Wilson simply because pedophilia occured at some point. I get that it's a horrible crime, I do, but there seems to be a lack of grace involved here. Could the guy slip back into pedophilia? Sure, but is the possibility of future sin enough that he shouldn't be allowed to marry? Ever? Should my past struggles with pornography prevent me from being married to my wife simply because down the road, I might slip into it again? The woman he married chose to go into that marriage uncoerced, and with full knowledge of his past transgressions. Who are we to judge their choices or slander Doug Wilson for trying to help out a repentant sinner?

[Catwoman]

Separateunion, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I'm not sure why you would join a homeschooling forum simply to defend Doug Wilson, about whom very little of this thread has been concerned, and to defend an admitted pedophile.

[dtsmamtj]

Many, many evangelical churches are falling into the trap of following a "vision-casting" pastor whose plans for the church come from God. Questioning the vision is tantamount to questioning God Himself. Ask me how I know this.
 

 

Please feel free to e-mail me privately - how do you know this, etc.?

[separateunion]

Separateunion, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but I'm not sure why you would join a homeschooling forum simply to defend Doug Wilson, about whom very little of this thread has been concerned, and to defend an admitted pedophile.

And for someone who has "never been a fan of Doug Wilson," you certainly seem to have gone out of your way to defend him. I don't know about anyone else here, but I certainly wouldn't bother seeking out and joining a brand new forum in order to defend someone I didn't particularly admire.

 

Doug Wilson is a big proponent of homeschooling. He produces and sells homeschooling material. I would think that relates. Also, I'm from a homeschooling family (although I mostly went to private schools) and plan on homeschooling my son, so I believe that qualifies me to join a homeschooling community. I'm defending Doug Wilson because he was brought up in a post about another homeschooling figure. I'm not sure what's wrong with that.

 

I'm not defending a pedophile. Defending him would be saying that he didn't do anything wrong. I'm defending his right to get married and questioning why repentant pedophiles shouldn't be allowed to get married just like any other repentant sinner. Since somehow performing the marital rites for a repentant pedophile and his bride is somehow reason to slam Doug Wilson and lump him in with Doug Phillips, I feel my comments are warranted.

[mytwomonkeys]

I don't think that Doug Phillips fairly represents conservative or fundamental Christianity. ...it's about him and his extremism. Not about conservatives as a whole.

 

yes. thank you!

 

i've never even heard of vision forum or doug phillips & i consider myself a conservative christian. i had to google who he was and what he did. my husband hasn't heard of the organization or the man either. before i opened this thread, i thought it was talking about a charity.

[Impish]

Pedophiles are notoriously incapable of change. Period.

 

Putting them in a parenting role? That's akin to putting a lamb, doused in bbq sauce, into a lion's den, where the lion hasn't eaten in wks.

 

And, since Christ Himself stated that 

⁶ â€œIf anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

 

I would think that a pedophile fits into that category, period.

[mommaduck]

Very interesting that a grown male cannot discern the difference between pornography and pedophilia. Let's start with the fact that THE VICTIMS ARE CHILDREN. Should he "slip back into it" who would be potential victims? CHILDREN. His own, others in the church, others in the community, etc. Let me just say that I have NEVER seen anyone "reform" from such. I have seen wives blamed, children blamed, etc. A pedophile reformed? No. And, yes, if one was "reformed", I do believe that the best thing for that person would be celibacy.

 

btw, I also know people have have known DW and have escaped CRECs.

 

As my priest has said, "There are the foolish and then there are fools."

[Catwoman]

I'm not defending a pedophile. Defending him would be saying that he didn't do anything wrong. I'm defending his right to get married and questioning why repentant pedophiles shouldn't be allowed to get married just like any other repentant sinner. Since somehow performing the marital rites for a repentant pedophile and his bride is somehow reason to slam Doug Wilson and lump him in with Doug Phillips, I feel my comments are warranted.

By continuing to use the term "repentant pedophile," it seems to me that you are absolutely defending a pedophile. Are you equating "repentant" with "will never do it again?"

I can't speak for anyone else here, but IMO, a pedophile is a pedophile, and I don't care how sorry he is for what he did, and I would never, ever trust an admitted pedophile around children. If some idiot woman wants to marry him, that's her right, but I sure hope they never have kids.

[FaithManor]

Thank you Cat! And yes, I can tell you that there is no tolerance for pedophiles on this board. Just
because one has been forgiven by grace in the spiritual sense, this does not exempt an individual from
the consequences on earth...in this case, a vile and heinous crime was committed against multiple children
and therefore the criminal must be considered a threat.

I have read the transcripts of the court cases concerning this, the judges' comments, and the young lady's
description of Doug Wilson's deliberate match making in the matter. There is a thread here from a couple
of years ago in which the material was linked and quoted. Since this thread is not specifically about
Mr. Wilson, and he was mentioned as part of a picture of greater whole concerning the subjugation and
demeaning of women from church traditions linked to ATI and VF, I am confused as well as to why you
would search out and join a homeschooling forum in order to bring this up? Do you homeschool or
afterschool a child or have done so in the past? This seems to be a very curious first post.

Faith

[Mrs Mungo]

I linked to this thread via a couple of different blogs regarding Doug Phillip's infidelity. While I found some of this particular post quite interesting and disturbing at the same time, this snippet made me feel the need to create an account and comment.

I am cutting out a lot of your actual post and speaking generally because I am typing on my phone while waiting for a child to finish at theatre. You do realize that WOMEN who were intimately involved with VF (eta: and other heavily patriarchal and/or dominionist groups) and its ministries would have more knowledge of how women are treated than a man who was only tangentially involved? You realize that you claiming to know better than established members of this forum comes across as patronizing...at best? And more likely comes across as an apologist in disguise.

Also, while I understand that pedophilia is heinous, so are a host of other sins. I guess I don't get the vitriol with which people oppose a repentant child molester getting married. Does past sin preclude one from marriage?

WOW!!!! Are you insane? I think most sane, thinking women would eliminate child molestors as potential mates *because of the potential danger to their future children*!!! Child safety comes WAY before sympathazing with a child abuser. I will have to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are extraordinarily ignorant of the psychology of child molestors and children.

The potential to slip back into child molesting is spoken of a little too casually by you for my comfort. It makes me a little queasy and feel that your post here has a very different agenda than the one you claim.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

 

 

 

As someone who has had considerable contact with Doug Wilson's group, as well as other CREC communities (CREC is the "denomination" founded by Doug Wilson), I feel that I am probably more qualified than internet bloggers and posters to comment on how his church and churches like it operate. The above comes off as a bit slanderous, so I'd like to offer a slightly different view.........

 

.........Also, while I understand that pedophilia is heinous, so are a host of other sins. I guess I don't get the vitriol with which people oppose a repentant child molester getting married. Does past sin preclude one from marriage? It seems odd that internet bloggers who don't know the man nearly as well as Doug Wilson does are so willing to villify both him and Doug Wilson simply because pedophilia occured at some point. I get that it's a horrible crime, I do, but there seems to be a lack of grace involved here. Could the guy slip back into pedophilia? Sure, but is the possibility of future sin enough that he shouldn't be allowed to marry? Ever? Should my past struggles with pornography prevent me from being married to my wife simply because down the road, I might slip into it again? The woman he married chose to go into that marriage uncoerced, and with full knowledge of his past transgressions. Who are we to judge their choices or slander Doug Wilson for trying to help out a repentant sinner?

 

 

You are not either more qualified to talk about this than random internet bloggers and posters, because that's all you are, too. Right? You are an anonymous voice posting on the internet without a lick of proof or accountability. It's just a matter of whether people will believe you or whether they'll believe other anonymous voices. In my opinion, the previous posters telling stories should have offered some evidence, and so should you, or why should I believe any of it?

Although my rational mind understands the above quite well, I have my inclinations as to what I can more easily believe, same as anyone. Your defense of pedophilia as just another sin that people should forgive and "get over" to the point of expecting a pedophile to get married and have children (!) makes me not really value your understanding.

 

I'm sorry, but the whole post just cuts no ice with me for these reasons. Logic and intuition both revolt.

[mommaduck]

There are child abusers, cultists, wife beaters, molesters, adulterers, etc that homeschool. We don't defend them simply because they may or may not homeschool, produce homeschool materials, or support homeschooling. 

[FaithManor]

I see that you have further clarified how you came to have an interest in the board. I'm typing on my
kindle and editing is Not easy; the typing is slow. So I didn't see that post before I pushed enter
on my previous response.

[*Lulu*]

I've seen many a study of the rate of recidivism in pedophiles.

Not one about the rate of recidivism in repentant pedophiles.

Is it because there is not a large enough sample group of repentant pedophiles?

Is it because the feeling of remorse is not enough to overcome whatever has gone terribly wrong within these individuals?

Sometimes extending grace to one group of people means inconveniencing another. In the case of potential victims versus known pedophiles, I chose to extend grace and protection to the innocent children every.freakin.time. And if the remorseful pedophile does not understand why it should be that way........

I refer him to any place in the gospels where Jesus speaks of the children.

As for the Dougs........well I'd like to recommend they start re-reading their Bibles. Maybe they should also start with the gospels and spend a little time focusing on the words and actions of the radical, loving, redemptive, barrier destroyer they claim to serve.

[Alessandra]

I wanted to address this a little but. Hopefully what I share will help others to understand how this "might" infiltrate their own church.

Trust your gut. God gave it to you for a reason!

Sounds insidious.

[unsinkable]

http://forums.welltrainedmind.com/topic/297420-douglas-wilson/

http://www.tomandrodna.com/CR_2005_02027/

[Juniper]

 

 

When a man is interested in a woman, he approaches the father to express interest. The father then vets the man for a period of time. If the father believes the man is qualified to marry, he tells his daughter of the interest. The daughter is then given time to consider whether or not she has reciprical interest. This is important, because unlike many would have you believe, the woman is not forced to choose the man. She can refuse him if she wants to do so. (In fact, in the churches that practice courtship that I've been a part of, this happens more often than you'd think). If she says yes to courtship, they still arent "arranged for marriage." The father or the daughter can end it at any time (and yes, the father being able to end a relationship the daughter does not want to end is one of my contentions with the courtship model). The important point here is, the woman can end it at any time. She isn't forced to marry someone she doesn't like (although I personally know someone who was guilted by her parents into marrying a man she was unsure about).

 

So, the supposed "arranged marriage" mentioned in the quote above was most likely not arranged. The woman could have refused the marriage at any point in time. And I know that at this point, some detractors will say, "Well, she was just too sheltered/brainwashed to know any better." I've met a number of women that are part of the Doug Wilson community, and I can honestly say that not one of them seem daft enough to marry someone in whom they didn't truly have interest. My trips to Moscow, and my subsequent interaction with women who have attended the school there, has left me utterly impressed by their intelligence and smarts. They definitely aren't raising stupid, brain washed girls in that part of Moscow.
 

I will let much wiser posters than I deal with the pedophilia issue, but the courtship....yeah, I got that one. The point isn't that the girl can refuse. The point is that she has no ability to initiate. I am a product of the original modern courtship ritual as put forth by Richard Crisco and later adapted by Wilson and ilk. I know it well. It puts our daughters in a powerless and passive position as they wait for someone to approach their father. She is not allowed to initiate or express interest.

I hope that readers can piece together more of my story. I believed in courtship, I lived it out, I was primed for a domineering and controlling church experience, my husband was conditioned to submit to his authorities....even in regards to his bride.

How were we conditioned and set up? Separetunion, you have brought up a foundational contributor to answer that question. The very courtship model you are praising. Intelligence of the women has nothing to do with it. Being allowed to use that intelligence, being trusted with that intelligence, being supported and encouraged in tha intelligence....has everything to do with it.

[mommaduck]

btw, from everything I have read of DW and those that have had experience with him, he only supports homeschooling as a "second best" to his version of a Reformed classical church school. In other words, he would be fine with doing away with homeschooling if this were a theocracy and the schools were all run his way by his type of churches.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

We have so many trained mental health, religious, and medical professionals on this board. Perhaps someone could tell me if I'm wrong in this assumption: Nobody defends pedophiles.

 

Is that right? We all know the recidivism rate. We know that clergy and social workers (and victims and parents and society) have a vested interest in hoping that this type of criminal can somehow be rehabilitated or truly converted but that nobody truly believes it, I think. I have never heard of anyone until this thread who thinks a pedophile is potentially a good prospective parent. Never.

 

Are there new studies or new, legitimate ways of thinking on this topic, or are we hosting an apologist for the potential goodness of child molesters? If it's the latter, maybe we should be reporting that post instead of engaging the poster in conversation.

[Mrs Mungo]

I agree with you, Tibbie.

[separateunion]

By continuing to use the term "repentant pedophile," it seems to me that you are absolutely defending a pedophile. Are you equating "repentant" with "will never do it again?"

I can't speak for anyone else here, but IMO, a pedophile is a pedophile, and I don't care how sorry he is for what he did, and I would never, ever trust an admitted pedophile around children. If some idiot woman wants to marry him, that's her right, but I sure hope they never have kids.

 

In my very first post I stated that he could do it again. I just don't believe that the possibility of commiting a sin should preclude marriage. If so, no one should get married.

 

A murder is a murder. A thief is a thief. A liar is a liar. We're all sinners. If we marry, we all enter marriage with baggage. A know a married guy who used to be a homosexual. Should he not marry because he might partake in homosexual relations? Should he not be trusted around other ment? If past sin is a barometer for marriage qualification, none of us is qualified. Again, I'm not defending his past actions, but if he is truly repentant, there needs to grace.

[separateunion]

**Sorry, double post.**

[Impish]

I have a question about something from an earlier post.

 

The idea of the 200 yr plan.

 

The mention of when his eldest dd would be married, have babies...

 

What ever happened to leave and cleave? Why is DADDY planning her family for her? Shouldn't Daddy get 0 say in ANYTHING after she marries?