Another chapter in the Doug Phillips/Vision Forum saga

[WishboneDawn]

I actually mostly agree.

 

 

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

 

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

 

There's some suspicion that 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 may have been a marginal gloss, a note written by a scribe copying 1 Corinthians and later copied into the text by another. this because it "wanders" a bit in ancient copies, appearing in one place in one copy and another in a different copy. It's also a contradiction to earlier verses in 1 Corinthians that command "all" and "everyone" to pray and prophesy, activities which couldn't be accomplished if some were supposed to remain silent. It the context of Paul's letters that verse, is a little more puzzling. Paul is a man who works with female leaders in the Church: Euodia, Syntyche, Phoebe (a deacon), Priscilla, and Junia ("outstanding among the apostles"). Glosses and changes to fit with current church teachings weren't unusual: Junia had to deal with a sex change herself because of it. 

 

Remove a verse from all context and it is always rather easy to understand. Wrestle with it as it is presented to us, part of a much larger collection of verses, letters, books, etc. in the Bible and it becomes more difficult. It almost seems as if the Bible is intentionally presented to us with the challenge of interpreting it, arguing with it, coming up with different views and challenging our notions of what it should be saying. It certainly doesn't seem like a clear cut guide with easy-to-follow instructions. I'm generally suspicious of those who say it IS easy because as often as not they've got a book or webinar to sell me.

[FaithManor]

I'd also like to point out that if the reason women are supposed to be silent is that they are descendants of EVE who ate the apple, then the men must remain silent as well. There is not a man alive that didn't exit a daughter of Eve's womb nor carry half her DNA save Jesus Christ and even then, there is no indication that He was not formed from his mother's egg. Genetically, men too are her progeny and so if the problem is one of punishment related to inheritance, then they get to partake of the punishment as well. Since this would make church an impossibility because no one could pray, prophesy, sing, read scripture aloud, etc., there would be no point in the assembling of ourselves together.

 

All references to the early church indicate that the believers all met together to do EXACTLY that and at no time is it referenced that ONLY the men met to do these things. Jesus had more female disciples than he had male, and the females were with the future apostles together waiting for the Holy Spirit to come. Why bother if these women, by virtue of gender, are automatically exempt from participating in the fullness of worship?

 

Seriously, one has to look at the ENTIRETY of the New Testatment as the context of any verse and see how it relates. In this case, there is more indication that Paul and Timothy were dealing with very specific situations in which there was trouble with the women in specific fellowships, than making a worldwide announcement. Otherwise, just strike out all of the times that Paul commends females for their participation in the life of the church, the commandments that were for ALL of the believers, the references to Christ's female followers, the fact they received the Holy Spirit along with the 11, and the reference to deaconesses who I am sure really can't do their job at church if they can't speak. There is so much of the NT that would have to be altered in order to make sense with just these few verses that it makes more sense to look at these admonitions as for a specific circumstance and not to the worldwide body of believers.

 

We also have to wrestle with the Gospel as presented by Christ Himself, in His own words. If women are saved through childbearing and that is NOT a reference to the birth of Jesus through Mary, then Jesus was wrong when He said "For God so loved the world, He gave his only begotten son that whosever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." He was saying what? Referring only to men? Is Paul claiming that childless women can't be saved? I doubt it given that the first monastery and convent had sprung up in Egypt before the death of the Apostle John who could have easily admonished those women to go get married and pop out some babies lest they suffer eternal damnation!

 

I believe Christ was not pontificating on the fly and made an error! If I had to say there was an error, it would be on the part of Paul, and I don't believe it's an error. Logic and the practice of the New Testament Church as whole taken as "So great a cloud of witnesses" indicates that Paul was speaking to a very specific problem at that time, and did not mean to negate the words of Jesus, the practice of other churches that he as well as other apostles had already established, or even himself in other letters to other bodies of believers.

 

And again, men descend from Eve as well, so something else had to also be at work in the background for this to make any sense at all.

[LucyStoner]

We can't be surprised to find patriarchy in a patriarchal religion that rose from a patriarchal culture. DP, may he rot, is hardly the first or the last or one of a very few people in Christianity to espouse thinly disguised misogyny as religion. I don't dispute that Corinthians says what it says but, bluntly, I reject it as much as I reject DP.

[MercyA]

It's also a contradiction to earlier verses in 1 Corinthians that command "all" and "everyone" to pray and prophesy, activities which couldn't be accomplished if some were supposed to remain silent.

 

I don't believe there is a contradiction, as praying and prophesying need not take place in church.  I think Paul is entirely consistent, especially since in those earlier verses he instructs women to wear a covering when praying and prophesying, partly to display the Biblical order of headship.  But that's a whole other thread, and I don't wish to further derail this one.

 

Remove a verse from all context and it is always rather easy to understand. Wrestle with it as it is presented to us, part of a much larger collection of verses, letters, books, etc. in the Bible and it becomes more difficult.

 

Read all of 1 Corinthians, and I believe the meaning is the same.  I found that for me, *personally*, I "wrestled" most when I was unwilling, for whatever reason, to accept Scripture as written.

 

I'm generally suspicious of those who say it IS easy because as often as not they've got a book or webinar to sell me.

Nothing to sell here.  :)

 

We seem to have very different views of Scripture, and I've no desire to argue with you, or with FaithManor.

 

Regarding Vision Forum, I was given one of their catalogs years ago, and as I recall, just looking through it gave me an negative impression, in spite of the fact that I am theologically conservative.  I know I didn't like their hunting toys and their militaristic items, but maybe it was more than that.  Praying for everyone involved. 

 

Peace!

[JumpyTheFrog]

http://www.kens5.com/news/KENS-5-Exclusive-Religious-leader-speaks-out-after-allegations-he-kept-a-woman-as-a-sex-object-255556621

 

Doug and Beall did an interview with someone in San Antonio. He admitted to "emotional" communication over the internet that "did cross the line in other areas." Beall said their marriage is better than it was before. (Guess she's not leaving him then.)

 

And like the slimebag that he is, he's talking about it all as part of God's plan. "I think God wanted to draw us together and do something much bigger than us or our family's story." Well, Doug, maybe you are right, but not like you think. Maybe God will use you as an example of what can happen to people who choose to heinously sin in this manner. Maybe he will use it to show that the fruit of the patriachy movement is rotten to the core,

[JumpyTheFrog]

The spin just never ends with him.

[livetoread]

FWIW, many scholars now think Paul didn't write Timothy. A few years ago when I still believed, I attended a rigorous SS class taught by a Pauline scholar. He agreed that Paul probably didn't write it.

 

I think different Biblical authors had different opinions about things, similar to theologians today. The more authoritative you want to make all of the writings in the Bible, the more of a problem those different opinions can be. I think whoever wrote 1Timothy had a dim view of women. He wasn't alone, either then or now.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't believe there is a contradiction, as praying and prophesying need not take place in church.  I think Paul is entirely consistent, especially since in those earlier verses he instructs women to wear a covering when praying and prophesying, partly to display the Biblical order of headship.  But that's a whole other thread, and I don't wish to further derail this one.

 

 

Read all of 1 Corinthians, and I believe the meaning is the same.  I found that for me, *personally*, I "wrestled" most when I was unwilling, for whatever reason, to accept Scripture as written.

 

Nothing to sell here.  :)

 

We seem to have very different views of Scripture, and I've no desire to argue with you, or with FaithManor.

 

Regarding Vision Forum, I was given one of their catalogs years ago, and as I recall, just looking through it gave me an negative impression, in spite of the fact that I am theologically conservative.  I know I didn't like their hunting toys and their militaristic items, but maybe it was more than that.  Praying for everyone involved. 

 

Peace!

 

I don't mean to argue or maintain that I'm right or wrong although it probably did come off that way. I get geeky with the Bible and scholarship around it is all. :)

[JuanitaL]

http://www.kens5.com/news/KENS-5-Exclusive-Religious-leader-speaks-out-after-allegations-he-kept-a-woman-as-a-sex-object-255556621

 

Doug and Beall did an interview with someone in San Antonio. He admitted to "emotional" communication over the internet that "did cross the line in other areas." Beall said their marriage is better than it was before. (Guess she's not leaving him then.)

 

And like the slimebag that he is, he's talking about it all as part of God's plan. "I think God wanted to draw us together and do something much bigger than us or our family's story." Well, Doug, maybe you are right, but not like you think. Maybe God will use you as an example of what can happen to people who choose to heinously sin in this manner. Maybe he will use it to show that the fruit of the patriachy movement is rotten to the core,

 

She (Beall) also said she's had almost 16 months now to work through this with him (DP) - that's around last January. Yet the biblically wronged wife was willing to go along with his ministerial charade for nearly a year? Of course, realistically, she does also have a financial interest in his ministry.

 

 

[MercyA]

I don't mean to argue or maintain that I'm right or wrong although it probably did come off that way. I get geeky with the Bible and scholarship around it is all. :)

 

I appreciate that. :001_smile:  Have a good rest of the day!

[ColleenInWis]

We seem to have very different views of Scripture, and I've no desire to argue with you, or with FaithManor.

 

 

I think the discussion here about how different ones of us interpret scripture differently brings us full-circle back to the topic of this thread--Vision Forum and patriarchal beliefs--because VF, DP, and their ilk take scripture and come up with some very specific applications of it, then teach that all truly godly christians will follow their applications.  

 

After years of reading and thinking about these teachings, I can only conclude that each of us believers needs to wrestle with God, alone or as a couple if possible, to find our own personal applications for our own lives.  Our way of "fleshing out" the scriptures is going to be influenced by a number of factors:  our background, our personality, our spouse, our view of inspiration, our circle of friends, etc.  Primarily, though, it should be an outgrowth of our individual relationship with our heavenly Father through Christ.  

 

So, why should I be listening to some leader thousands of miles away about how to be the person God created me to be?  This is one of my main beefs with patriarchy--not only that they have such extreme views, but that they insist that theirs is the only viable view.  Come on, believers, God is bigger than that. 

 

So, I'm thankful these issues are coming to light to force christians to discuss them.  Discussing the things we don't agree on should be a good thing--iron sharpening iron--so we can grow in our understanding and living out the truth.  

[WishboneDawn]

FWIW, many scholars now think Paul didn't write Timothy. A few years ago when I still believed, I attended a rigorous SS class taught by a Pauline scholar. He agreed that Paul probably didn't write it.

 

I think different Biblical authors had different opinions about things, similar to theologians today. The more authoritative you want to make all of the writings in the Bible, the more of a problem those different opinions can be. I think whoever wrote 1Timothy had a dim view of women. He wasn't alone, either then or now.

 

Wikipedia has a decent rundown:

 

There is wide consensus, in modern New Testament scholarship, on a core group of authentic Pauline epistles whose authorship is rarely contested: Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians,Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon. Several additional letters bearing Paul's name lack academic consensus: Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus. Scholarly opinion is sharply divided on whether the former two epistles are the letters of Paul; however, the latter four - 2 Thessalonians, as well as the three known as the "Pastoral Epistles" - have been labeled pseudepigraphical works by most critical scholars.^[1]

 

[Joanne]

http://www.kens5.com/news/KENS-5-Exclusive-Religious-leader-speaks-out-after-allegations-he-kept-a-woman-as-a-sex-object-255556621

 

Doug and Beall did an interview with someone in San Antonio. He admitted to "emotional" communication over the internet that "did cross the line in other areas." Beall said their marriage is better than it was before. (Guess she's not leaving him then.)

 

And like the slimebag that he is, he's talking about it all as part of God's plan. "I think God wanted to draw us together and do something much bigger than us or our family's story." Well, Doug, maybe you are right, but not like you think. Maybe God will use you as an example of what can happen to people who choose to heinously sin in this manner. Maybe he will use it to show that the fruit of the patriachy movement is rotten to the core,

 

God wanted him to masturbate and ejaculate on a young woman who was not his wife for the "greater good."

 

Awesomesauce.

 

Best.spin.ever.

[JuanitaL]

God wanted him to masturbate and ejaculate on a young woman who was not his wife for the "greater good."

 

Awesomesauce.

 

Best.spin.ever.

 

:smilielol5:

Seriously though, it sounds like dude is a sex addict and needs to start working the steps.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

God wanted him to masturbate and ejaculate on a young woman who was not his wife for the "greater good."

 

Awesomesauce.

 

Best.spin.ever.

No change at all. She's still an object, not just for him but now for his god, to bring about the glorification of Doug Phillips and the god he invented.

 

Dude should be locked up.

[FaithManor]

Joanne nailed it. Oh.my.word. So he abuses another woman, fornicates by the Biblical standards he says he believes so ardently, deceives, lies, and slanders her and it's all so good because aren't they a happier little unit now???????

 

Of course, there will be people who drink that cool aid.

 

SWB could write a sequel book just on this guy alone!

[ColleenInWis]

DP is a narcissist and sociopath, according to those who've known him.  http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2013/12/06/doug-phillips-portrait-of-a-religious-sociological-cult-leader/  

[CAMom]

Homeschool Mom in AZ said:

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.

 

I do agree with the last sentiment here. :) Why do homeschool events not focus primarily on education? That is frustrating!

 

On the earlier statements, though...I have been very surprised at how many Christian homeschoolers I've personally talked to who have had no idea at all who DP is and have never heard of the patriarchy movement.

[FaithManor]

CAmom, I have a theory, and that theory is that homeschooling is promoted by this minority as a front for propaganda that has nothing to do with education.The homeschooling movement is a ruse to cover up the real agenda and the real agenda is to deliberately under-educate and isolate their kids from everyone who believes differently. The Dominionist philosophy is not one that embraces diversity, discourse, or debate. So, suppressing actual education workshops that focus on academics and specifically as the students get older and need more challenging work is the name of the game. They want to peddle their worldview as a homeschooling issue even though it is a lifestyle/worldview topic. In this regard, they've been very effective because they've managed to disenfranchise the speakers and attendees that would disagree with that worldview.

 

Even speakers like Ken Ham - no fan at all by the way...just bringing him up since he is popular at these conventions - who is a proponent of higher education, more rigorous academics - doesn't actually speak out against this because his own agenda is to spread his worldview and that isn't an education topic. He is never going to call the "kettle black" because he's guilty of doing the same thing...using homeschooling as an avenue to indoctrinate others on his personal, religious views. So though a big fan of higher education, he's willing to "look the other way" at the increasing lack of educational topics addressed and the lowering of standards, the increasing take over of the vendor halls by not-even-remotely-related-to-education businesses, as long as he has an audience. The net result is the squeezing out of education speakers.

 

Now, I can tell you that if Dr. Sellers of Penn State - who is the lecturer for The Great Courses Algebra 1 & 2 series - were invited to speak on "how to teach mathematics effectively" or "how to evaluate math curriculums" or "how to make graphing make sense to the struggling math student" or whatever, then people who really care about education would probably show up in DROVES. If Professor Linwood was invited to discuss "the importance of teaching world history in chronological order" (which could also easily be accomplished by SWB, but while I love Susan, there is just nothing like seeing this guy in period costume lecturing in one of his sad fake accents to make history come to life, LOL :lol: ) or any number of historical topics, or Professor Vandiver came and taught a workshop entitled "Making Shakespeare accessible to the reluctant literary student", or "Sonnets, not as bad as you think", or....that is a convention that I think parents who have middle school and high school students that they are worried about preparing for good trade schools and college would sign up for in record numbers. I would travel 3000 miles for a convention like that, even though by now we've finally fleshed it all out just to be with other like minded educators. It can be so isolating to be surrounded mostly by homeschoolers who deliberately under-educate because they've bought the cool aid that the last thing you want your kids to develop is independent thinking skills.

 

I think even some publicly schooling parents might attend, at least a few. I get asked quite a lot about college prep and admissions because the schools are not helping the students and parents with that. Many of them are completely in the dark and searching for help.

 

However, I don't see it happening because the people with the microphones right now are the ones with an anti-education agenda and dominionist worldview, and they have the big bucks. It takes a lot money to pull off something like this and because of our diversity, there isn't any one organization we can get behind who has the money to pull off such a feat. We should probably all pray that SWB and Peace Hill Press strike it filthy rich somehow. If they have the bucks, we would have the collective brains to help her pull it together and get it advertised. I know I'd pay serious money to show up and volunteer for such an event.

[Ameena]

FaithManor - you nailed it. I totally agree. I've seen it hundreds of times locally, including every time I go to the local homeschool center or FEAST convention.

 

I don't call them homeschoolers - I call them Bias-schoolers. Because they only teach their one biased view of life, and everything else gets tossed out the window.

[TranquilMind]

I agree with all you said, bolt, but the part I've marked is, I think, a key piece of the woman's case.

 

I found it interesting that DP apparently told Lourdes that his wife would die. Horrid.

Yes, what the heck?  I looked to see if she were currently seriously ill, but the article did not mention it.  So what....was he planning to whack her? 

 

So crazy how someone starts out well-meaning (I believe), and then goes off the deep end. 

[TranquilMind]

I actually mostly agree.

 

 

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

 

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

The ellipses here tell the story. You removed a critical part of the verses.

 

In verse 36, Paul is expressing sarcasm.  He is actually refuting the previous couple of verses about the women learning in silence because they contradict the earlier part of the chapter where he makes it clear that they can ALL prophesy one by one, or in reference to verse 26, that they can all come together with a hymn, lesson, revelation, tongue, or interpretation. 

(Sorry about strange formatting below)

 

 

1Co 14:34

the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

 

1Co 14:35

If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

 

1Co 14:36

What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

 

1Co 14:37

If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord

[WishboneDawn]

God wanted him to masturbate and ejaculate on a young woman who was not his wife for the "greater good."

 

Awesomesauce.

 

Best.spin.ever.

Oh my. The use of the term Awesomesauce in the context of your post is...evocative. :D

[WishboneDawn]

I do agree with the last sentiment here. :) Why do homeschool events not focus primarily on education? That is frustrating!

 

On the earlier statements, though...I have been very surprised at how many Christian homeschoolers I've personally talked to who have had no idea at all who DP is and have never heard of the patriarchy movement.

The idea that so many don't know who he is (and Iagree, many don't) strikes me as a little dangerous. So much of the stuff that come up on message boards, conventions and such is junk that's trickled down from the patriarchal and dominions segments of homeschooling. If you know DP and his ilk you will know to steer clear.

[FaithManor]

The idea that so many don't know who he is (and Iagree, many don't) strikes me as a little dangerous. So much of the stuff that come up on message boards, conventions and such is junk that's trickled down from the patriarchal and dominions segments of homeschooling. If you know DP and his ilk you will know to steer clear.

I do know a fair number of homeschoolers around here that don't know him per se. Oh, they used to get his catalog of, as one mother put it, "overpriced toys that I can't afford and am not inclined to buy", but they've also never been able to afford to attend a convention so they haven't heard him speak. I actually know more people who are acquainted with Veritas Press and Doug Wilson than DP and that's probably because DP does not actually peddle a curriculum. If he wrote a curriculum, they would likely know more. Even though many are of the under educating, bias educating worldview, they are isolated enough by virtue of spending priorities, that they haven't been around the convention circuit, nor do they have the extra cash to buy a lot of his books and videos. Some have tangentially heard of him, yet couldn't pinpoint necessarily his specific views. Others, just simply eschew the internet for anything but email or amazon.com and christianbook.com so they aren't frequenting any boards.

 

The homeschoolers that I know that just LOVE the homeschool circuit are the ones that know who he is and what he is about. I do not know of a single homeschool family in my area that frequents these boards beside moi. I only have ONE homeschooling friend who is all about the education, but her husband is a high school math teacher and kind of mapped out junior high and high school with traditional texts so she hasn't hung out around the WTM since we went to that infamous Midwest Convention many moons ago and were not impressed. So, I can see it. There are just simply people who don't get the exposure to him due to not investing in his high priced stuff nor being able to attend his events. Many of these families are definitely exposed to heavy fundamentalist theory if not outright dominionism due to the curricula they buy, but it's other authors or publishing companies they get it from, not DP's stuff. Some of them are only aware of what they see in the christianbook.com homeschool catalog because that is really popular around here for the discount prices and what is written about the authors and companies who produce this curricula is very limited.

 

The Michigan convention is not well attended by homeschooling families in this area.

 

ETA, that I absolutely agree that it is a bit dangerous that more people within homeschooling and Christianity are not aware of this guy because he's a wolf! I am willing to admit that the villagers need to grab their "pitchforks and torches" and fine the beast! ;) He needs to be exposed to the community at large for exactly who he is in order to lessen the chance that he can re-group from this and gain stature again.

 

[SadieMarie]

So what....was he planning to whack her? 

 

Only if it was part of God's plan.  Who knows, maybe the victim coming out saved the wife because he needs her now, the faithful wife standing by her remorseful man (gag).

[Mrs Mungo]

Another thought on the Corinthian verse? Some scholars believe that the admonition for women not to speak prophecies in church is a "time and place" instruction based on a desire to separate the early Christian church from pagan temples with female oracles.

 

I think the discussion here about how different ones of us interpret scripture differently brings us full-circle back to the topic of this thread--Vision Forum and patriarchal beliefs--because VF, DP, and their ilk take scripture and come up with some very specific applications of it, then teach that all truly godly christians will follow their applications.

I agree.

 

I do agree with the last sentiment here. :) Why do homeschool events not focus primarily on education? That is frustrating!

 

On the earlier statements, though...I have been very surprised at how many Christian homeschoolers I've personally talked to who have had no idea at all who DP is and have never heard of the patriarchy movement.

 

Hm, I agree and disagree. I *do* know plenty of homeschoolers who don't know anything about Doug Phillips or the Patriarchy Movement (with capital P, capital M). *BUT* I have been at lots of meetings where a homeschooling mom might be leading a devotional and will say something like, "I am not speaking to the men in the room, I know I can't teach to men" or something like that. Which leads to this...

 

The idea that so many don't know who he is (and Iagree, many don't) strikes me as a little dangerous. So much of the stuff that come up on message boards, conventions and such is junk that's trickled down from the patriarchal and dominions segments of homeschooling. If you know DP and his ilk you will know to steer clear.

I agree. They are absorbing bits and pieces of the Patriarchy Movement without even knowing from whence these ideas spring. It *IS* dangerous; it is reckless; it is applying information without sourcing it or thinking deeply about it. It makes me crazy.

[FaithManor]

If I keep it up today, y'all will be able to add me to the ranks of "whoring out my likes". I've never had it happen, but I wonder if I'm not in the danger zone! LOL :D

[Mrs Mungo]

Many of these families are definitely exposed to heavy fundamentalist theory if not outright dominionism due to the curricula they buy, but it's other authors or publishing companies they get it from, not DP's stuff.

 

 

I agree. Dominionism and patriarchy are *heavily* endorsed in a lot of different homeschooling programs. I think it is entirely possible that people are being indoctrinated into those beliefs without realizing it (including the many untruths that typically come with preaching dominionism).

[SadieMarie]

Have any of you read "Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement"?  It was written by a sociologist and one of the things I remember most was how the more extreme wing of Christian homeschoolers were able to become the public face of homeschooling because they were so much more comfortable operating in hierarchies.  He describes the differences in just the meetings of what one might call the crunchy secular folks with the meetings of the conservative Christians.  It was kind of funny.  Even the way they sat, the crunchy (my term btw) folks in a circle and the conservative Christians in rows with a leader who could mobilize them quickly and without too many questions.  The secular homeschoolers were not going to have one person speaking for them let alone calling to mobilize them.  Anyway, it is an interesting read about the early homeschooling movement and its politics.

[FaithManor]

Sadie, I've never read it, but it sounds very interesting.

[Mrs Mungo]

Have any of you read "Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement"? It was written by a sociologist and one of the things I remember most was how the more extreme wing of Christian homeschoolers were able to become the public face of homeschooling because they were so much more comfortable operating in hierarchies. He describes the differences in just the meetings of what one might call the crunchy secular folks with the meetings of the conservative Christians. It was kind of funny. Even the way they sat, the crunchy (my term btw) folks in a circle and the conservative Christians in rows with a leader who could mobilize quickly and without too many questions. The secular homeschoolers were not going to have one person speaking for them let alone calling to mobilize them. Anyway, it is an interesting read about the early homeschooling movement and its politics.

This makes a lot of sense and fits with my experiences with lots of different groups over my homeschooling career.

[livetoread]

Have any of you read "Kingdom of Children: Culture and Controversy in the Homeschooling Movement"? It was written by a sociologist and one of the things I remember most was how the more extreme wing of Christian homeschoolers were able to become the public face of homeschooling because they were so much more comfortable operating in hierarchies. He describes the differences in just the meetings of what one might call the crunchy secular folks with the meetings of the conservative Christians. It was kind of funny. Even the way they sat, the crunchy (my term btw) folks in a circle and the conservative Christians in rows with a leader who could mobilize them quickly and without too many questions. The secular homeschoolers were not going to have one person speaking for them let alone calling to mobilize them. Anyway, it is an interesting read about the early homeschooling movement and its politics.

I read that back when I was first starting to homeschool. I thought it was a fascinating view of power, hierarchy, and discipline and how various groups use them based on their philosophies. I think I'll read it again now that I'm ten years into the process and might recognize more of the names.

[SadieMarie]

I read that back when I was first starting to homeschool. I thought it was a fascinating view of power, hierarchy, and discipline and how various groups use them based on their philosophies. I think I'll read it again now that I'm ten years into the process and might recognize more of the names.

I think I am going to pick it up next time I go to the library too. I remember thinking that on one side was the proverbial shepherd with a faithful flock and on the other was a herd of cats lol. I have no interest in being part of a flock myself, but still it was pretty clear who was going to be taking charge.

[*Alyssa*]

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

 

 

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

 

Your comment doesn't make sense.  :confused1:   Can't you say the exact same thing about Christianity?  Men adding to God's words and making a belief system that isn't His?   I could say the same thing in reverse, "Stuff like this makes me glad I'm no longer a Muslim.  Christianity, once you get past all the cultural junk that isn't really Christianity, is much more fair and respectful of women."  I can very easily make that argument, except the part about being a Muslim.

 

 

[MercyA]

 

The ellipses here tell the story. You removed a critical part of the verses.

 

In verse 36, Paul is expressing sarcasm.  He is actually refuting the previous couple of verses about the women learning in silence because they contradict the earlier part of the chapter where he makes it clear that they can ALL prophesy one by one, or in reference to verse 26, that they can all come together with a hymn, lesson, revelation, tongue, or interpretation. 

(Sorry about strange formatting below)

 

1Co 14:34

the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.

1Co 14:35

If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

1Co 14:36

What! Did the word of God originate with you, or are you the only ones it has reached?

1Co 14:37

If any one thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that what I am writing to you is a command of the Lord

 

I've heard that interpretation once before (from someone with a woman pastor), and I don't buy it, especially considering the similar instructions in 1 Timothy 2. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any Bible commentator in the first 1,900 years of Christianity who espoused the view that Paul was being sarcastic in these verses.

[CAMom]

CAmom, I have a theory, and that theory is that homeschooling is promoted by this minority as a front for propaganda that has nothing to do with education.The homeschooling movement is a ruse to cover up the real agenda and the real agenda is to deliberately under-educate and isolate their kids from everyone who believes differently. The Dominionist philosophy is not one that embraces diversity, discourse, or debate. So, suppressing actual education workshops that focus on academics and specifically as the students get older and need more challenging work is the name of the game. They want to peddle their worldview as a homeschooling issue even though it is a lifestyle/worldview topic. In this regard, they've been very effective because they've managed to disenfranchise the speakers and attendees that would disagree with that worldview.

 

<Snip>

 

 

Very good points....the whole post. I have a very education minded daughter who cannot wait to leave home and go across the country for college.

 

I would definitely go to an education convention that you planned! :D

 

The idea that so many don't know who he is (and Iagree, many don't) strikes me as a little dangerous. So much of the stuff that come up on message boards, conventions and such is junk that's trickled down from the patriarchal and dominions segments of homeschooling. If you know DP and his ilk you will know to steer clear.

 

Hmmm...I never thought of it that way. You make a good point.

 

Hm, I agree and disagree. I *do* know plenty of homeschoolers who don't know anything about Doug Phillips or the Patriarchy Movement (with capital P, capital M). *BUT* I have been at lots of meetings where a homeschooling mom might be leading a devotional and will say something like, "I am not speaking to the men in the room, I know I can't teach to men" or something like that. Which leads to this...

 

I agree. They are absorbing bits and pieces of the Patriarchy Movement without even knowing from whence these ideas spring. It *IS* dangerous; it is reckless; it is applying information without sourcing it or thinking deeply about it. It makes me crazy.

 

You're probably right. Something to think about.

 

I had a toe dipped into some patriarchal circles years ago. I know some of the really good people involved who truly want to serve God.

 

However, I took some real heat within those same circles. You wear pants? You wear your hair short? You allow your daughter to pursue upper level education? I even had my very salvation questioned by some of them.

 

And, some of the discussions I've seen as this thing has unfolded have left me dumbfounded. The blame shifting and denial that someone can be manipulated leaves me scratching my head.  :001_huh:

[ColleenInWis]

Homeschool leaders with an agenda?  Who ever heard of such a thing.... :(   I just found a heart-breaking story of Chandra Hawkins-Bernat, who grew up in one of the prominent homeschool families in the CHEF support group in Missouri.  This is her view of what their goals were:  

 

 

Within three years after having first began our homeschooling journey, my parents had become good friends with the Grandparents and writers of Missouri’s state homeschooling law, Jim and Laura Rogers; best friends with the couple that would later take our state homeschooling organization to the next level, Jon and Candy Summers; and became leaders serving directly underneath this same couple. Quite astonishing really. My parents were no longer doing this simply because they wanted to raise Holy Roller children. They were doing this because they believed in perpetrating religious dogmatism onto the next generation. They believed, with our whole heart and mind, that the homeschoolers were “God’s chosen people, His remnant, His choice to save and reclaim America.†This mantra was recited far more times than I care to remember at every single homeschooling function or support group meeting. The support group meetings, over the course of time, came to resemble worship services where the people of God could go and become stirred up and motivated to go out of the doors and militantly take over the world through having more children and homeschooling them. In many senses, the homeschooling movement mimics radical Islam and their views on populating the earth and militantly reclaiming it for Ala. Homeschool conferences and conventions around the nation encourage militia sign-ups, hoarding of illegal weapons, and survival and world-collapse techniques and survival methods.

 

This is from Part 1 of Chandra's entire story here.  

[I.Dup.]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

[*Lulu*]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

I don't know what was more nauseating, the article or the majority of the comments.

 

THIS is why the patriarchy movement in evangelical Christianity is so disturbing. The extra-biblical practices infuse themselves in more subtle forms than practiced by the Gothards and Wilsons of the world and so more moderate congregations allow these ideas a pass. But, exactly as discribed throughout the New Testement, a little leavening can and will permeate the whole of whatever it is introduced into.

[WishboneDawn]

I don't know what was more nauseating, the article or the majority of the comments.

 

THIS is why the patriarchy movement in evangelical Christianity is so disturbing. The extra-biblical practices infuse themselves in more subtle forms than practiced by the Gothards and Wilsons of the world and so more moderate congregations allow these ideas a pass. But, exactly as discribed throughout the New Testement, a little leavening can and will permeate the whole of whatever it is introduced into.

Honestly, I'm sort of leery about condemning extra-biblical stuff because it I'm not keen on the trend of people labeling themselves or their churches biblical as if that's some useful measure of proper Christianity. All of Christianity was extra-biblical for several centuries.

 

WBC is, in a defensible sense, biblical.

 

My own church, the CoE, has a deep tradition it draws from that many could argue is extra-biblical.

 

The real issue is the way people look for guarantees and absolute answers, the way they want to be free of any doubts, want a faith they can buy, unwrap and wear instantly and want to be sold that faith by a specific personality. People want an easy faith with clear boundaries and strict rules, even if the rules are stifling. They're like the ancient Hebrews in the OT wanting a king. Sooner our later a huckster steps into the gap and they get what they asked for.

 

And it's not going to change. It's not a Christian thing, it's a human thing.

 

Rant over.

[*Lulu*]

Honestly, I'm sort of leery about condemning extra-biblical stuff because it I'm not keen on the trend of people labeling themselves or their churches biblical as if that's some useful measure of proper Christianity. All of Christianity was extra-biblical for several centuries.

 

WBC is, in a defensible sense, biblical.

 

My own church, the CoE, has a deep tradition it draws from that many could argue is extra-biblical.

 

The real issue is the way people look for guarantees and absolute answers, the way they want to be free of any doubts, want a faith they can buy, unwrap and wear instantly and want to be sold that faith by a specific personality. People want an easy faith with clear boundaries and strict rules, even if the rules are stifling. They're like the ancient Hebrews in the OT wanting a king. Sooner our later a huckster steps into the gap and they get what they asked for.

 

And it's not going to change. It's not a Christian thing, it's a human thing.

 

Rant over.

I agree.

 

I suppose my two biggest issues are when it becomes a "mine is better than your's" situation and those who do not conform to the standard du jour are now not as worthy of the title Christian and the fact that quite frequently these extra-biblical requirements are presented as scriptural mandates.

[LucyStoner]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

Well isn't that special.

[CAMom]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

 

I read that. I even tried to comment on it. At first, I could see my comment with a note at the top that said it was awaiting moderation. It's been several hours and I no longer see it at all but there are several comments posted later. Not sure if it's still in moderation or if it got tossed.  :confused1:

 

Basically my comment asked Wilson what his perspective was regarding Phillips's actions being criminal under Texas law (if the allegations in the complaint are found to be true) and whether or not that would justify a lawsuit.

 

My understanding is that TX law makes it a crime for someone in the clergy to engage in a sexual relationship with a congregant. Does anyone know any different than that?

 

Honestly, from everything I read in the complaint, it sounds like Phillips was engaging in "mark your territory" behavior. Very degrading.

 

There are too many people out there that don't see the possibility of psychological manipulation. :glare:

[liber]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

 

What an a$$.

[FaithManor]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

I don't envy Doug Wilson 'cause someday he's got some 'splainin' to do!

 

He gets NO opinion in the matter. He's a slime ball, sleeze bag himself! Just google Katie Travis and Steven Stitler. Dear Dougie W. arranged a marriage between a girl in his church and a convicted pedophile that only NARROWLY avoided a life sentence for his reprehensible deeds. He received a much reduced sentence in exchange for giving the court the names of all of his victims and there were a lot! So, DW needs to shove any thoughts he has on this subject where the sun does not shine. His actions in covering for Stitler when he was a student at St. Andrew's should have landed him a one way ticket to the state penitentiary as an accomplice and especially since he's a mandatory reporter. If DW came near my kids, I'd treat him like any other offender on the list because my assumption is that if he has that much vested interest in aiding and abetting a pedophile, then he must harbor some mighty sicko thoughts of his own!

 

Strong words? Yes, I know. But I'm done with the use of the Gospel as a shield to coddle criminals and perverts.

[PeterPan]

Not sure if anyone's shared this little gem yet: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vice-victims-and-vision-forum.html

Since I can't use the term *like* for this (barf), I'll just have to say thanks for the info.  

[PeterPan]

Homeschool leaders with an agenda?  Who ever heard of such a thing.... :(   I just found a heart-breaking story of Chandra Hawkins-Bernat, who grew up in one of the prominent homeschool families in the CHEF support group in Missouri.  This is her view of what their goals were:  

 

This is from Part 1 of Chandra's entire story here.  

Thanks, I got sucked into reading this, and it's a fascinating expose...

[Little Women]

 I get that, but I always find it ironic that people in these positions screw up so royally and do exactly what they preach against.

 

I am reminded of the Bible verse that talks about making legalistic rules about various things, then says, "these things have an appearance of godliness but have no power to restrain the flesh."  (My paraphrase.)

[Little Women]

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.   

 

I read an article speaking about this, and it said one of the problems is that everybody around an abuser only has one piece of the puzzle.    People may be profoundly uncomfortable about whatever piece they can see, but they do not know how it all fits together, they cannot see the whole.  It's not until there is more information available that they are able to put together the rest of the pieces, and see how what they thought was not good and uncomfortable was really a part of something deeply evil.

 

I have not been fond of Farris or HSLDA for years, but I do think it would be fair of us to give him the opportunity to learn and grow, just as we would appreciate it for ourselves.     It seems to me that the magnitude of what has been learned about DP (and also Bill Gothard) would be enough to make someone seriously rethink what their role should have been, and what they should go on to do about it now.    

 

 

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?

 

Yes, Farris's daughters have gone to college, and he is president and founder of a college at which roughly half of the students are women.  It seems obvious to me that he does not buy into the no-education-for-women part, at least.     I think he is a complementarian rather than a patriarchal person.