Another chapter in the Doug Phillips/Vision Forum saga

[SadieMarie]

Oh that poor woman. Prayers for her healing.

 

I too found Farris's comments to be interesting…and although I rarely agree w/him, I'm glad he said what he did.

I don't know. It is pretty safe for Farris to speak out now. I think he knew what kind of man DP was.  Otherwise why was he making such an effort to distance himself? Why didn't he speak out sooner? Has he issued any statements against patriarchy before now? He has a lot of respect among many conservative religious homeschoolers. If he actually has any moral courage why wasn't he talking about his problems with patriarchy before now?

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't know. It is pretty safe for Farris to speak out now. I think he knew what kind of man DP was.

Otherwise why was he making such an effort to distance himself. Why didn't he speak out sooner? Has he issued any statements against patriarchy before now? He has a lot of respect among many conservative religious homeschoolers. If he actually has any moral courage why wasn't he talking about his problems with patriarchy before now?

 

I think that's mixing issues. 

 

From what I read, Farris didn't like this guy's teaching on patriarchy and wouldn't give Phillips the opportunity to speak when it was in Farris's power to choose or discourage speakers.  Does Farris usually publicly argue against people he disagrees with on doctrinal issues? Does he criticize other cults or cultic movements?  I've been homeschooling a long time now, and I don't think it's realistic to expect someone to publicly argue against everything they think is a wrong interpretation of Scripture or call out the nut jobs publicly. Who has the time?

 

That's a different issue that Phillips being a sexual predator.  I didn't see anything in the article saying Farris thought/knew/suspected Phillips was a sexual predator.  If Farris did, then it's a serious problem that he didn't say something.  Did I miss where Farris said he thought/knew/suspected Phillips was a sexual predator back then but didn't say soemthing?  That's a very serious allegation.

[Sisyphus]

Wow. I can honestly say, as reprehensible I have always found Doug Phillips, Vision Forum, etc, I never dreamed he was such a sexual predator. That poor, poor girl- what a hero she is to come forward! I hope she gets every last dime from that predatory, slimy little skunk bag.

[SadieMarie]

I think that's mixing issues. 

 

From what I read, Farris didn't like this guy's teaching on patriarchy and wouldn't give Phillips the opportunity to speak when it was in Farris's power to choose or discourage speakers.  Does Farris usually publicly argue against people he disagrees with on doctrinal issues? Does he criticize other cults or cultic movements?  I've been homeschooling a long time now, and I don't think it's realistic to expect someone to publicly argue against everything they think is a wrong interpretation of Scripture or call out the nut jobs publicly. Who has the time?

 

That's a different issue that Phillips being a sexual predator.  I didn't see anything in the article saying Farris thought/knew/suspected Phillips was a sexual predator.  If Farris did, then it's a serious problem that he didn't say something.  Did I miss where Farris said he thought/knew/suspected Phillips was a sexual predator back then but didn't say soemthing?  That's a very serious allegation.

He is publicly arguing against him on doctrinal issues now that he is going down isn't he?  He has now expressed his past concerns with patriarchy hasn't he?  What if he had done that when DP was at his peak of power/influence?  Might that have had some fund raising ramifications?  Call me cynical, but it looks like a political/financial decision to me, his past silence and his present willingness to speak out.   

[Juniper]

I don't know. It is pretty safe for Farris to speak out now. I think he knew what kind of man DP was.  Otherwise why was he making such an effort to distance himself? Why didn't he speak out sooner? Has he issued any statements against patriarchy before now? He has a lot of respect among many conservative religious homeschoolers. If he actually has any moral courage why wasn't he talking about his problems with patriarchy before now?

As I was reading the article posted originally I saw Farris picture and realized he was the lawyer I spoke to shortly after my assault. It was at a homeschool conference and he seemed very taken aback that a lone woman came up to discuss legal issues with him (not related to the assault, related to homeschooling) he even alluded to looking forward to speaking with my husband further. It was weird and made me feel very sad. 

 

Honestly, I am mixed up about HSLDA's take on this. It sounds good. All the right words, but I just dont know. Anyone know if he has daughters? Have they been encouraged to go to college?

[musicianmom]

Farris's oldest daughter graduated from college, I don't know about the others.

[mamajudy]

I think that's mixing issues. 

 

From what I read, Farris didn't like this guy's teaching on patriarchy and wouldn't give Phillips the opportunity to speak when it was in Farris's power to choose or discourage speakers.  Does Farris usually publicly argue against people he disagrees with on doctrinal issues? Does he criticize other cults or cultic movements?  I've been homeschooling a long time now, and I don't think it's realistic to expect someone to publicly argue against everything they think is a wrong interpretation of Scripture or call out the nut jobs publicly. Who has the time?

 

That's a different issue that Phillips being a sexual predator.  I didn't see anything in the article saying Farris thought/knew/suspected Phillips was a sexual predator.  If Farris did, then it's a serious problem that he didn't say something.  Did I miss where Farris said he thought/knew/suspected Phillips was a sexual predator back then but didn't say soemthing?  That's a very serious allegation.

If Ferris suspected before that Phillips was a sexual predator, he couldn't come out publicly and say so or he would have been sued. You don't just go around making such allegations about people without some kind of proof.

[SadieMarie]

If Ferris suspected before that Phillips was a sexual predator, he couldn't come out publicly and say so or he would have been sued. You don't just go around making such allegations about people without some kind of proof.

But he could have spoken out against patriarchy theology.  And he did not do that until DP was unmasked for the pig that he is. And as he sent at least one daughter to college rather than seeing her married off at eighteen to breed, he clearly did not agree with the crap DP was spewing. It was a politically cowardly decision in my opinion to not speak out sooner.

[HS Mom in NC]

He is publicly arguing against him on doctrinal issues now that he is going down isn't he?  He has now expressed his past concerns with patriarchy hasn't he?  What if he had done that when DP was at his peak of power/influence?  Might that have had some fund raising ramifications?  Call me cynical, but it looks like a political/financial decision to me, his past silence and his present willingness to speak out.   

 

The way I read it, he said so because someone asked him about it specifically, I assume for this article.  Am I misunderstanding that?  Did he contact someone to make a statement after the news broke without being asked why he let the guy go years ago?

 

[Word Nerd]

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).

[SadieMarie]

The way I read it, he said so because someone asked him about it specifically, I assume for this article.  Am I misunderstanding that?  Did he contact someone to make a statement after the news broke without being asked why he let the guy go years ago?

 

So he is not free to speak out unless someone asks him about it specifically?  That is certainly convenient.  How fortunate that someone asked him about it after the news about DP and what a swine he is broke and not before.  

[WishboneDawn]

The way I read it, he said so because someone asked him about it specifically, I assume for this article.  Am I misunderstanding that?  Did he contact someone to make a statement after the news broke without being asked why he let the guy go years ago?

 

I think the issue with Farris is that he has set himself up as a leader in the homeschooling movement. He will speak up about UN declarations, gun control bills, spanking legislation, anything that seems remotely linked to homeschooling if even in the most tangential way. Yet patriarchy, an issue that absolutely permeates a lot of the homeschooling movement, gets a pass? 

 

What tends to get addressed is what appeals to those who send in their dues. Huge issues that might threaten those dues get ignored until there's a crisis.

[Mrs Mungo]

I think the issue with Farris is that he has set himself up as a leader in the homeschooling movement. He will speak up about UN declarations, gun control bills, spanking legislation, anything that seems remotely linked to homeschooling if even in the most tangential way. Yet patriarchy, an issue that absolutely permeates a lot of the homeschooling movement, gets a pass? 

 

What tends to get addressed is what appeals to those who send in their dues. Huge issues that might threaten those dues get ignored until there's a crisis.

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.

[PeterPan]

Why is David Nunnery of Teaching Them Diligently mentioned as part of the patriarchal movement in the filing?  I had seen nothing to indicate this on their website.  

 

And just as a point of discussion, is there any sense in which Lourdes could have resolved this out of court, like through some church-related process?  Someone suggested this to me, saying it was bad for a christian to take someone to court.  It seems to me like the dude broke laws and is an unrepentant reprobate.  He's not part of a church that will discipline him, therefore there's no church discipline to put him through.  Even if there were, isn't a christian justified in taking an unbeliever to court for violating the law?!?!  Is there something I'm totally missing here???  

 

Anyways, that's sick beyond measure.  The idea that this scoundrel was speaking at our conventions is sick.  The idea that people around him hid it is sick.  The idea that his wife is harassing Lourdes is sick.  

[hjffkj]

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).

 

I'm surprised they would say anything.  Generally, in cases like this lawyers advise the accused party not to make a statement unless formally from the lawyer themselves. 

[mamajudy]

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).

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

[bolt.]

Even if there were, isn't a christian justified in taking an unbeliever to court for violating the law?!?! Is there something I'm totally missing here???

Strangely enough, the answer to that question is, "It depends on which of the many Christan hermenutical principles a believer has chosen (or fallen into) based on their subtle theological views and general presuppositions about literature, communications, culture and history."

 

Most people approach scripture either the way they have been taught, or in a way that just seems right to them. Very few people can discribe what they are doing, nor do they notice what others are doing differently to reach different conclusions.

 

This question turns on whether "you" automatically think of the NT epistles as situational/occasional (yet rich with truth and wide in application) or as timeless and direct (with application limited to 'following' in literal and precice terms).

 

If you think, "The Lord said unto Paul, write unto the people in Corinth these things that pertain to them." You think that people in Corinth should carefully avoid the corrupt ancient Roman 'legal' system... And that we should all learn what we can from that.

 

If you think, "The book of Corinthians is in the Bible, which is written directly to us and binding for all time." Then you think that no believer, ever, should use the legal systems of any time or place.

 

There are believers who think of it both ways.

[shanvan]

Why is David Nunnery of Teaching Them Diligently mentioned as part of the patriarchal movement in the filing?  I had seen nothing to indicate this on their website.  

 

And just as a point of discussion, is there any sense in which Lourdes could have resolved this out of court, like through some church-related process?  Someone suggested this to me, saying it was bad for a christian to take someone to court.  It seems to me like the dude broke laws and is an unrepentant reprobate.  He's not part of a church that will discipline him, therefore there's no church discipline to put him through.  Even if there were, isn't a christian justified in taking an unbeliever to court for violating the law?!?!  Is there something I'm totally missing here???  

 

Anyways, that's sick beyond measure.  The idea that this scoundrel was speaking at our conventions is sick.  The idea that people around him hid it is sick.  The idea that his wife is harassing Lourdes is sick.  

I think the first bolded question is answered by your 2nd statement which I bolded.  Someone mentioned the same idea to me too, but upon reading the available statements we both came to the same conclusions you did.  Sometimes I don't think Christians realize how powerful a church structure can be.  

[mamaraby]

And just as a point of discussion, is there any sense in which Lourdes could have resolved this out of court, like through some church-related process?  Someone suggested this to me, saying it was bad for a christian to take someone to court.

 

The short answer is no.  In the vast majority of cases where this sort of abuse has come up the power structures that exist within the church/group will almost always come down on the side of the abuser.  How many times has an organization like GRACE tried to step in and investigate what went on only to be stonewalled, shut out, or labeled as the "evil" to be fought against?

 

Which is not to say that this is true of every Christian or every ministry, but I think the track record almost guarantees that the only way that abusers will be punished and stopped is if the abused seeks redress from secular avenues (in whatever form that might take).  Which is also not to say that secular organizations are exempt from these sorts problems, either.

 

But, really, who thinks this is wise or that she would have gotten a fair shake?

[Word Nerd]

In one of the stories or blog posts I read today, it said that Phillips' (and formerly Torres') church has its own form of court. Given that he preached there and was an elder, that wouldn't have been a real option.

[FO4UR]

Why is David Nunnery of Teaching Them Diligently mentioned as part of the patriarchal movement in the filing?  I had seen nothing to indicate this on their website.  

 

And just as a point of discussion, is there any sense in which Lourdes could have resolved this out of court, like through some church-related process?  Someone suggested this to me, saying it was bad for a christian to take someone to court.  It seems to me like the dude broke laws and is an unrepentant reprobate.  He's not part of a church that will discipline him, therefore there's no church discipline to put him through.  Even if there were, isn't a christian justified in taking an unbeliever to court for violating the law?!?!  Is there something I'm totally missing here???  

 

Anyways, that's sick beyond measure.  The idea that this scoundrel was speaking at our conventions is sick.  The idea that people around him hid it is sick.  The idea that his wife is harassing Lourdes is sick.  

 

 

Spend a few hours reading about DP's history of church discipline at Jen's Gems.  In DP's world, he has no accountability....he IS the accountability.

 

I am betting that there are more victims to surface, and that Lourdes is a brave, Brave woman who understood that speaking out, seeking justice, will mean protecting herself (What was he intending on DOING when he broke into her room!?!) and other girls under his "Ministerial Care."

[Liz CA]

I had a feeling this would get uglier and uglier. Grandma's old saying about "the mills grinding slowly but surely" comes to mind. I am glad DP is being finally exposed and I hope the girl gets professional help - sounds like she is in counseling. And let's not leave DP's own children out of our prayers. They too are innocent and must be suffering from the fallout of their father's behavior.

[HS Mom in NC]

So he is not free to speak out unless someone asks him about it specifically?  That is certainly convenient.  How fortunate that someone asked him about it after the news about DP and what a swine he is broke and not before.  

 

So Farris went to the trouble to make sure DP never had an opportunity to promote the patriarchy movement when he had the power and influence to do so, but you don't give him any credit for that?  Wow. I think he deserves credit for that.  Like I said, unless someone has reason to think Farris knew sexual predatory behavior was going on and ignored it or covered it up, I think you're going WAY too far in being upset about him not taking on the patriarchy movement.  The guy's job is as a legislative watchdog, not addressing extreme doctrinal issues in the homeschooling community.

 

Of COURSE an investigative reporter would follow the background on DP AFTER the story broke and find out he left HSLDA due to sexual misconduct and would ask about it. How could anyone do that BEFORE they story about DP broke? That's what investigative reporters DO.  They interview all the neighbors, extended relatives, former employers, co-workers, etc. when someone commits a high profile crime.  Most of them say something like, "Yeah, the guy was weird, but I had no idea he was a psychopath/ax murderer/pedophile."  Are you familiar with American news?

[Greta]

Strangely enough, the answer to that question is, "It depends on which of the many Christan hermenutical principles a believer has chosen (or fallen into) based on their subtle theological views and general presuppositions about literature, communications, culture and history."

 

Respectfully, I think it is actually something far more basic, emotional, even visceral than that. In a cult, people are ruled by fear. It is so thick in the air that it is almost tangible. It influences everything they do. So when there's an allegation of sexual abuse, they close ranks around the abuser rather than the victim, because it's just too terrifying to imagine that this organization that they have built their lives around, staked their eternal salvation upon, could possibly be so flawed as to have sickos in positions of power. And even if the victim might be telling the truth, it doesn't matter, they should just get over it, because anything else threatens the image and survival of the cult.

 

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.

[HS Mom in NC]

If Ferris suspected before that Phillips was a sexual predator, he couldn't come out publicly and say so or he would have been sued. You don't just go around making such allegations about people without some kind of proof.

 

Neither do you accuse them of failing to speak out about extreme, distorted, doctrinal interpretations in the homeschooling community when they're organization exists to address legislative issues that could affect homeschoolers.  Please show me where, at the time DP was employed at HSLDA, Farris had been addressing doctrinal issues in the homeschooling community. As far as I know, that's not something he had been doing.  When he continued to not do it, it wasn't a failure on his part. Now, if you can show me Farris HAD been doing that but he failed to address the patriarchy movement we'll have a conversation about it his conspicuous silence on the topic.  

 

 

I don't understand the hysteria about Farris right now. They asked him why DP left as part of this article.  He told them.  He explained he did what was in his power to not give DP HSLDA's metaphorical microphone to promote the patriarchy movement.   Give him some credit for that.  It would be great if more conventions followed his lead and chose not to include speakers like DP.

 

Sheesh. 

[Liz CA]

The promises to marry her--was Beale sick??  Beale isn't old enough to just kick off at any time.  I'd sleep with one eye open if I were her.

 

Sounds just like a convenient ruse to make the girl feel more compassionate toward him - IMHO. Hinting that Beall was terminally ill - or wait...was he hinting at something else? Manipulation is the name of the game, and it appears he played it to the hilt.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think the issue with Farris is that he has set himself up as a leader in the homeschooling movement.

 

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.

 

He will speak up about UN declarations, gun control bills, spanking legislation, anything that seems remotely linked to homeschooling if even in the most tangential way.

 

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.

 

Yet patriarchy, an issue that absolutely permeates a lot of the homeschooling movement, gets a pass? 

 

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.

 

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.  

 

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

 

What tends to get addressed is what appeals to those who send in their dues. Huge issues that might threaten those dues get ignored until there's a crisis.

 

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.

 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

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.

 

Errr...I think I am going to have to disagree with this statement. I think the flavor (for lack of a better term this late at night) of people like the Dougs, Ken Ham, etc *does* permeate the "homeschool movement" much like the flavor of patriarchy and misogynism permeate the "modesty movement." It would agree that it doesn't permeate the homeschool *population*, but that isn't the same thing. I would agree that not everyone who cares about being modest is a misogynist, but that is again a completely different statement.

 

I have been to conventions on both coasts and in between and found the same "lifestyle" talks dominate at *most* homeschooling conventions. Yes, I think they are a minority, but that does *not* stop them from trying to take over (and usually succeeding) and claim every aspect of the "homeschooling movement." The people who don't like it try to pick through the few academic talks, look through the vendor hall and find solace and companionship in informal groups or online like in this forum. But, everyone who is left is too diverse to form a "movement" of their own and/or is too darn busy homeschooling to do anything about it.

 

Peace Hill Press's workshops are the only place I have found that focus solely on the professional development of homeschoolers. It is *very* frustrating.

[shanvan]

I had a feeling this would get uglier and uglier. Grandma's old saying about "the mills grinding slowly but surely" comes to mind. I am glad DP is being finally exposed and I hope the girl gets professional help - sounds like she is in counseling. And let's not leave DP's own children out of our prayers. They too are innocent and must be suffering from the fallout of their father's behavior.

This was one of my first thoughts.  Those poor kids.

[Anne in CA]

My thought about the kids is that some of them are almost old enough to write tell all memoirs. I expect at least one of DP's kids to write one in the next five years.

[TammyinTN]

He is a disgusting human being...I agree..may he rot!  

 

[FaithManor]

My response to the issue of using church discipline is two fold. One "render unto caesar what is caesar's, render unto God what is God's." Stalking, unwanted sexual behavior, employer abuse,....these are violations of secular legal code. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the church. They are actually not just offenses against her or offenses against the church body, but offenses against civil government and as such, are caesar's to deal with which in this case is tbe state of Texas. The church should never usurp the role of civil government where criminal acts have occured.

 

Second, on a spiritual level, there can be no church discipline in ths case because Doug was the head elder and up to 18 months ago, the only elder. Since the church operates independent of any historical hierarchy, ther are no other pastors, deacons, bishops, or eldership to report to so asking for church discipline is like asking Emperor Nero to go spank himself. The only way to bring Dippydo to any accountability is trough civil government.

 

All lot of Christians interpret Matthew to mean all offenses are to be handled through the church. However, not only is this never implied in those verses, but Christians are further instructed to obey civil authority. As a matter of legal code, DP's actions absolutely fall under the heading of offenses for the legal system to sort out. Given that Texas even has a clergy abuse statute, there is even more reason forthe church, apart from removing him from leadership and banning him from worshipping at their facility due to his predatory nature, to defer to civil authority in the matter.

 

As for Farris, he's an attorney. He knew very well that talking about the reasons for HSLDA and Dip parting company at the time it occurred was fodder for Dip to sue HSLDA. If you are not convicted of a crime, your employer has to be VERY careful what they say about you. Farris's not wanting to give a microphone to DP to promote a specific theology is NOT any kind of offense that Farris could talk about at the time and not end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. He can talk about it now because Doug is weak, his credibility busted, and his views and beliefs are public knowledge and well documented so not a subjective matter as they would have been at the time of employment. DP could have simply denied he believed xyz as opposed to the abc of HSLDA and it would have been a he said/he said. Now, years later with a huge public voice put to his tripe, DP can't claim Farris is making anything up! If DP had been sexually harassing anyone in te organization, it's pretty likely Farris would have handled that through legal channels. He would not have wanted to leave himself open to a big, ugly lawsuit for a then not very well known grunt attorney for the organization.

 

I'm very troubled about Lourdes marriage so soon after trying to get help. The groom is a young man raised in this movement who has had the good sense to leave. But this kind of thing leaves a lot of scars and baggage and he's going to have some too. Old habits and ways of thinking die hard. I hope and pray that they both attend counseling with a therapist who has experience with those that leave cults. While he may have never been abused in the same way as Lourdes, his training was abusive in the mind control sense and the indoctrination to become the oppressor, soul authority, lord of the house, ruler of women and chidren. So he needs to develop new ways of thinking, new wasy of coping, and new approaches to conflict and decision making. I do hope they get help with that and wish them all the best.

 

Beall, well I too wonder if she shouldn't sleep with one eye open. She hasn't had a baby in a long time so in DP's sickworld, she has kind outlived her usefulness for producing more little Dougs to take dominion of the world, and Dougettes to serve hi and feed his ego. Those "she's going to die soon" statements are alarmig. Frankly, she should never eat anything he prepares, nor leave her food unattended. This guy has acted in a very scary manner. I wish her relatives woud come get her and the minlr children and take them back to Virginia.

[FaithManor]

Forgive the above. I'm typing on my tablet and having a terrible time doing so accurately and editing is NOT easy on this crazy thing!!!!

[Momof3]

Strangely enough, the answer to that question is, "It depends on which of the many Christan hermenutical principles a believer has chosen (or fallen into) based on their subtle theological views and general presuppositions about literature, communications, culture and history."

 

Most people approach scripture either the way they have been taught, or in a way that just seems right to them. Very few people can discribe what they are doing, nor do they notice what others are doing differently to reach different conclusions.

 

This question turns on whether "you" automatically think of the NT epistles as situational/occasional (yet rich with truth and wide in application) or as timeless and direct (with application limited to 'following' in literal and precice terms).

 

If you think, "The Lord said unto Paul, write unto the people in Corinth these things that pertain to them." You think that people in Corinth should carefully avoid the corrupt ancient Roman 'legal' system... And that we should all learn what we can from that.

 

If you think, "The book of Corinthians is in the Bible, which is written directly to us and binding for all time." Then you think that no believer, ever, should use the legal systems of any time or place.

 

There are believers who think of it both ways.

 

Just FWIW, not all believers fit this grid. :)

 

I believe that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (II Tim. 3:16) IOW, Paul wrote Corinthians to the people of Corinth, *and* the things he wrote are profitable for me today. I would say that the *principles* in the books of Corinthians are 'binding for all time' - but the application will be different in different cultures/settings.

 

In I Corinthians 6, Paul writes that Christians should not bring disputes against other believers before a secular courtroom. He is addressing minor issues (disagreements between two people) *not* situations where actual civil law has been violated. If another believer has committed a crime, I would totally support taking them to court (as in the Doug Phillips case). A lot of lawsuits today are over incredibly petty issues - and that would be what Paul is talking about here.

 

Also,

 

several posters questioned the appeal of a Patriarchal view. 

 

I have friends who were big supporters of VF... I think many who follow them are overreacting to a genuine problem of blurred gender lines today. Yes, our society has totally feminized men/boys, and masculinized (I'm sure that's not a word :)) women/girls. That doesn't mean the solution is to move to the other extreme. I think that's exactly what has happened here. 

 

Very sad.

[Momof3]

Yet patriarchy, an issue that absolutely permeates a lot of the homeschooling movement, gets a pass? 

 

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.

 

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.  

 

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

:iagree:  And I might fall under the category of "quiverfulls." (Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I do believe children are a blessing from the Lord, and my personal view is 'the more, the merrier!' :) But my girls will have (at least) as full an education as my boys - and (at least at this point) the plan is for all our kids to attend college.

 

My response to the issue of using church discipline is two fold. One "render unto caesar what is caesar's, render unto God what is God's." Stalking, unwanted sexual behavior, employer abuse,....these are violations of secular legal code. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the church. They are actually not just offenses against her or offenses against the church body, but offenses against civil government and as such, are caesar's to deal with which in this case is tbe state of Texas. The church should never usurp the role of civil government where criminal acts have occured.

Second, on a spiritual level, there can be no church discipline in ths case because Doug was the head elder and up to 18 months ago, the only elder. Since the church operates independent of any historical hierarchy, ther are no other pastors, deacons, bishops, or eldership to report to so asking for church discipline is like asking Emperor Nero to go spank himself. The only way to bring Dippydo to any accountability is trough civil government.

All lot of Christians interpret Matthew to mean all offenses are to be handled through the church. However, not only is this never implied in those verses, but Christians are further instructed to obey civil authority. As a matter of legal code, DP's actions absolutely fall under the heading of offenses for the legal system to sort out. Given that Texas even has a clergy abuse statute, there is even more reason forthe church, apart from removing him from leadership and banning him from worshipping at their facility due to his predatory nature, to defer to civil authority in the matter.

 

I agree! :) (Can't find the emoticon now.) Except that I think church discipline and civil government are two different issues here. DP *should* be church disciplined (addressing the spiritual issues here) - but because he's also broken civil law, he needs to be brought to court as well. 

 

I'm an independent Baptist. If my pastor was caught in this kind of thing I guess the deacons would lead out in the church discipline. In a public issue like this (it's all over the internet, etc.) someone (deacon? or another member of the church) would bring it before the church. And the congregation (members) would vote to view the pastor under church discipline. So it's not that there's no way to church discipline a pastor just b/c there no 'higher up'. It just wouldn't be the pastor initiating & overseeing the discipline. 

 

Edited to add that I *don't* mean at some point we might change our minds about our girls going to college. :) Just that our kids are definitely not old enough to know exactly what will happen 12-15 years from now. 

[shanvan]

My response to the issue of using church discipline is two fold. One "render unto caesar what is caesar's, render unto God what is God's." Stalking, unwanted sexual behavior, employer abuse,....these are violations of secular legal code. They do not fall under the jurisdiction of the church. They are actually not just offenses against her or offenses against the church body, but offenses against civil government and as such, are caesar's to deal with which in this case is tbe state of Texas. The church should never usurp the role of civil government where criminal acts have occured.

 

Second, on a spiritual level, there can be no church discipline in ths case because Doug was the head elder and up to 18 months ago, the only elder. Since the church operates independent of any historical hierarchy, ther are no other pastors, deacons, bishops, or eldership to report to so asking for church discipline is like asking Emperor Nero to go spank himself. The only way to bring Dippydo to any accountability is trough civil government.

 

All lot of Christians interpret Matthew to mean all offenses are to be handled through the church. However, not only is this never implied in those verses, but Christians are further instructed to obey civil authority. As a matter of legal code, DP's actions absolutely fall under the heading of offenses for the legal system to sort out. Given that Texas even has a clergy abuse statute, there is even more reason forthe church, apart from removing him from leadership and banning him from worshipping at their facility due to his predatory nature, to defer to civil authority in the matter.

 

As for Farris, he's an attorney. He knew very well that talking about the reasons for HSLDA and Dip parting company at the time it occurred was fodder for Dip to sue HSLDA. If you are not convicted of a crime, your employer has to be VERY careful what they say about you. Farris's not wanting to give a microphone to DP to promote a specific theology is NOT any kind of offense that Farris could talk about at the time and not end up on the wrong end of a lawsuit. He can talk about it now because Doug is weak, his credibility busted, and his views and beliefs are public knowledge and well documented so not a subjective matter as they would have been at the time of employment. DP could have simply denied he believed xyz as opposed to the abc of HSLDA and it would have been a he said/he said. Now, years later with a huge public voice put to his tripe, DP can't claim Farris is making anything up! If DP had been sexually harassing anyone in te organization, it's pretty likely Farris would have handled that through legal channels. He would not have wanted to leave himself open to a big, ugly lawsuit for a then not very well known grunt attorney for the organization.

 

I'm very troubled about Lourdes marriage so soon after trying to get help. The groom is a young man raised in this movement who has had the good sense to leave. But this kind of thing leaves a lot of scars and baggage and he's going to have some too. Old habits and ways of thinking die hard. I hope and pray that they both attend counseling with a therapist who has experience with those that leave cults. While he may have never been abused in the same way as Lourdes, his training was abusive in the mind control sense and the indoctrination to become the oppressor, soul authority, lord of the house, ruler of women and chidren. So he needs to develop new ways of thinking, new wasy of coping, and new approaches to conflict and decision making. I do hope they get help with that and wish them all the best.

 

Beall, well I too wonder if she shouldn't sleep with one eye open. She hasn't had a baby in a long time so in DP's sickworld, she has kind outlived her usefulness for producing more little Dougs to take dominion of the world, and Dougettes to serve hi and feed his ego. Those "she's going to die soon" statements are alarmig. Frankly, she should never eat anything he prepares, nor leave her food unattended. This guy has acted in a very scary manner. I wish her relatives woud come get her and the minlr children and take them back to Virginia.

So glad you posted about Church discipline, those are my thought too, only you said it better.  I had the same reaction to Lourdes marriage too.  What a mess to come out of!

[Laurie4b]

Two things. First, the neighbors of the Torres family witnessed DP after both Lourdes and her father ssued a cease and desist contact request to DP climbing through her bedroom window. She yelled at him to leave and shouted to her father for help. They chased him down the street WiTH GUNS and only stopped when neighbors came outside either out of curiosity or to assist and recognized him under the streetlights. They did not file a police report, however they did report it to attorney Gibbs who took statements. This lends a lot of credibility in court to her claims that it was unwanted attention.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

He CLIMBED through her bedroom window?!?!?!

Is he a 15 year old boy who's watched too many eps of Dawsons Creek??

What sort of sane GROWN man thinks climbing into ANY window is a good idea??

 

 

 

 

What about that bedroom break-in? Couldn't he still be arrested for that?

 

 

The statute of limitations has not expired by Texas law, and because he was clergy and fullfilled the Texas definition of unlicensed counselor, the clergy abuse statute could apply. I'm not certain about arresting him for the window incident because they issued a legal request for him to cease contact but did not oursue a personal order of protection nor a restraining order so tresspassing law or breaking and entering laws might apply, but I don't know for sure.

 

Neighbors saw it so this is pretty damaging to old Dougie boy.

 

If you read the court document filed by Ms. Torres, it does not say that he climbed through her window. It says that he knocked on her window. Hearing the sound, her father and brothers came outside and chased him. It is still bizarre behavior but not the same as attempted b&e or unlawful entry.

[FaithManor]

:iagree: And I might fall under the category of "quiverfulls." (Not sure exactly what you mean by that, but I do believe children are a blessing from the Lord, and my personal view is 'the more, the merrier!' :) But my girls will have (at least) as full an education as my boys - and (at least at this point) the plan is for all our kids to attend college.

 

 

I agree! :) (Can't find the emoticon now.) Except that I think church discipline and civil government are two different issues here. DP *should* be church disciplined (addressing the spiritual issues here) - but because he's also broken civil law, he needs to be brought to court as well.

 

I'm an independent Baptist. If my pastor was caught in this kind of thing I guess the deacons would lead out in the church discipline. In a public issue like this (it's all over the internet, etc.) someone (deacon? or another member of the church) would bring it before the church. And the congregation (members) would vote to view the pastor under church discipline. So it's not that there's no way to church discipline a pastor just b/c there no 'higher up'. It just wouldn't be the pastor initiating & overseeing the discipline.

 

Edited to add that I *don't* mean at some point we might change our minds about our girls going to college. :) Just that our kids are definitely not old enough to know exactly what will happen 12-15 years from now.

The issue athand is that this congregation has no vote. There is no governing body, nothing was ever voted on, and Doug's word was the only word. Just now they have a new elder. So theydo not presently have an avenue for dealing with it in a formal way. That's why church discipline could not be applied at the time. There just simlly did not exist any mode for addressing the issue at the time. Now they could change their system, hold meetings to discuss creating an internal structure for such matters, become a body that holds elections, take nominations, go through the process, etc. and then finally have some people in place to deal with it. But, it's a little late now for this particular transgressor. Live and learn the hard way about church leadership being vested in one single human being. Hopefully, they have learned from this and will put some protections in place. But I have my doubts because it's been 13 months since he fessed up to the men in the church and there is still only one elder, an that guy has taken over Doug's role. If they meant business, they should have had more people in leadership positions by now to counterbalance the vestment of sole authority again in only one person.

 

So I have to say that I am skeptical that the congregation is being proactive about it which only sets them up for more abuse in the future. Sigh!

[Unicorn.]

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.

[Guest WilliamB]

I wonder if Lourdes' attorney, David Gibbs, is the same attorney that represented Terri Schiavo's family? The phone number on the petition is a 727 exchange which is Pinellas county, where the Schiavo case took place.

[Guest WilliamB]

I wonder if Lourdes' attorney, David Gibbs, is the same attorney that represented Terri Schiavo's family? The phone number on the petition is a 727 exchange which is Pinellas county, where the Schiavo case took place.

Yes. He is the same attorney.

[ColleenInWis]

I spent a good deal of time reading about this yesterday (I was taking a "day off" after the stress of submitting income tax returns...!)  Just a couple thoughts to add from what I've gleaned.

 

Michael Farris posted on FB that he is sorry he didn't speak out against patriarchy sooner.  There is quite a discussion going on in the comments.  His page is public.  Farris is also under fire at the Patheos blog for this issue and for the sexual assault scandal at Patrick Henry College.  Actually, searching for Michael Farris at Patheos gives

10 pages of results...  He is not highly-favored there, so be aware of possible bias in the articles about him.        

 

Nolan Manteufel, newly-wed to Lourdes Torres, also has a public FB page.  He has been posting comments and links about abuse and standing up for victims for a while now.  Sounds like he is on the right track for providing support for Lourdes.  May homeschool groups and the body of Christ similarly wake up to the injustices in our midst and take action.  

  

[Momof3]

The issue athand is that this congregation has no vote. There is no governing body, nothing was ever voted on, and Doug's word was the only word. Just now they have a new elder. So theydo not presently have an avenue for dealing with it in a formal way. That's why church discipline could not be applied at the time. There just simlly did not exist any mode for addressing the issue at the time. Now they could change their system, hold meetings to discuss creating an internal structure for such matters, become a body that holds elections, take nominations, go through the process, etc. and then finally have some people in place to deal with it. But, it's a little late now for this particular transgressor. Live and learn the hard way about church leadership being vested in one single human being. Hopefully, they have learned from this and will put some protections in place. But I have my doubts because it's been 13 months since he fessed up to the men in the church and there is still only one elder, an that guy has taken over Doug's role. If they meant business, they should have had more people in leadership positions by now to counterbalance the vestment of sole authority again in only one person.

 

So I have to say that I am skeptical that the congregation is being proactive about it which only sets them up for more abuse in the future. Sigh!

 

Hm. That is a problem. It's the perfect setup for tragedies like this to happen. 

[FaithManor]

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.

[Retired]

I've attended lots of different churches.  The pastor that preach about women modesty and being under their husband authority are in my opinion the men that struggle with major lustful sin.   They are preaching to themselves and can't control their wondering lust so they put all the blame on women.  I've heard this time and time again.  I've seen these  men commit adultery and the church fall.

 

They are sometimes pedophiles or just plain men that want lots of sex but know sex outside of marriage is wrong according to the bible.  They play around in their heads trying to walk the walk of a Christian while their mind is truly a slave to their physical sin.

 

THen as they take the I'm so holy I've overcome my sexual desires they build their inspire for other men just like himself or women that think their men will become more Christian like if they join this church idea.

 

The women think they are becoming more holy and the men think the same thing..  They fall in to the cult like "this way is the best christen"  or the "only real Christian" whatever the minister is blowing.

 

Then if you a young women raised in it even if you have doubts you've been indoctrinate to thing you will burn in hell if you don't follow the prescribed path.   (I've stated many times that I left at 18 to not follow the path but still felt guilt and depression and telling myself that I'm going to hell because I had sex outside of marriage and attended college)

 

It took me getting a real Christian walk with God to not feel guilt or shame.

 

I feel for these young ladies because the are raised with this and also homeschool so there is not a real way to think for yourselves.  I can only imagine where my head would be now had I not attended public school and saw independent women.

 

I'm glad his stuff is coming out but there is always some other creep waiting to start the same old stuff.   The sin of the flesh has always been the down of men.   The people that are still committed to his ideals will just excuse the whole thing as that the young women is taken over my the devil to take their godly man down.  They will support him and keep going on.  They will still blame the women who wore her  hair to provocative or a skirt to tight or she taught a man something.

 

  Yeah they are big on women not teaching men.  I attended a meeting  with my SIL that attended  this type of church.  The preacher  said the deacon's son died in a car accident because  the deacon  sinned by letting a women teach a sunday school class .   I literarly just started shacking my head and looked the man in the eye.  He wasn't use to a women that would confront him.  I was trying to be respectful  and visited the church cause  my niece  wanted my boys to attend  a homeschool class with them.  He was preaching this stuff to the homeschoolers. 

 

I'm happy to say after 15 years they have finally left the church.  I've seen such wonderful changes.  My 16 year old niece is talking about attending college. 

 

I hope this lady now that she is finally escaping the entrapment of this preaching will find peace and a church that shows that Jesus values all people equally. 

 

 

[Ellie]

He is publicly arguing against him on doctrinal issues now that he is going down isn't he?  He has now expressed his past concerns with patriarchy hasn't he?  What if he had done that when DP was at his peak of power/influence?  Might that have had some fund raising ramifications?  Call me cynical, but it looks like a political/financial decision to me, his past silence and his present willingness to speak out.   

 

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.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

HSLDA often goes out of its way to give people a reason to dislike them.  Starting with pretending to be an organization focused on defending homeschooling freedoms when in reality they often spend a great deal of time dabbling in politics unrelated to homeschooling.  Their tendency to play fast and loose with facts doesn't help either.

[*Lulu*]

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.

I agree. I truly and deeply dislike HSLDA's agenda and the political games they play but I do not see this as something that can or should be laid at their feet.

[FaithManor]

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.

[Momof3]

I've attended lots of different churches.  The pastor that preach about women modesty and being under their husband authority are in my opinion the men that struggle with major lustful sin.   They are preaching to themselves and can't control their wondering lust so they put all the blame on women.  I've heard this time and time again.  I've seen these  men commit adultery and the church fall.

 

They are sometimes pedophiles or just plain men that want lots of sex but know sex outside of marriage is wrong according to the bible.  They play around in their heads trying to walk the walk of a Christian while their mind is truly a slave to their physical sin.

 

THen as they take the I'm so holy I've overcome my sexual desires they build their inspire for other men just like himself or women that think their men will become more Christian like if they join this church idea.

 

The women think they are becoming more holy and the men think the same thing..  They fall in to the cult like "this way is the best christen"  or the "only real Christian" whatever the minister is blowing.

 

Then if you a young women raised in it even if you have doubts you've been indoctrinate to thing you will burn in hell if you don't follow the prescribed path.   (I've stated many times that I left at 18 to not follow the path but still felt guilt and depression and telling myself that I'm going to hell because I had sex outside of marriage and attended college)

 

It took me getting a real Christian walk with God to not feel guilt or shame.

 

I feel for these young ladies because the are raised with this and also homeschool so there is not a real way to think for yourselves.  I can only imagine where my head would be now had I not attended public school and saw independent women.

 

I'm glad his stuff is coming out but there is always some other creep waiting to start the same old stuff.   The sin of the flesh has always been the down of men.   The people that are still committed to his ideals will just excuse the whole thing as that the young women is taken over my the devil to take their godly man down.  They will support him and keep going on.  They will still blame the women who wore her  hair to provocative or a skirt to tight or she taught a man something.

 

  Yeah they are big on women not teaching men.  I attended a meeting  with my SIL that attended  this type of church.  The preacher  said the deacon's son died in a car accident because  the deacon  sinned by letting a women teach a sunday school class .   I literarly just started shacking my head and looked the man in the eye.  He wasn't use to a women that would confront him.  I was trying to be respectful  and visited the church cause  my niece  wanted my boys to attend  a homeschool class with them.  He was preaching this stuff to the homeschoolers. 

 

I'm happy to say after 15 years they have finally left the church.  I've seen such wonderful changes.  My 16 year old niece is talking about attending college. 

 

I hope this lady now that she is finally escaping the entrapment of this preaching will find peace and a church that shows that Jesus values all people equally. 

 

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.