Vision Forum: God Does Not Allow Women to Vote

Lynn brought this up in a comment and I wanted to show the entire context of this statement on the Vision Forum website that “God does not allow women to vote.”

Until the twentieth century, Americans almost universally held to this doctrine of representation in some form or the other. The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered “inferior” or “too emotional” (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community. By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!

However, by the end of the 19th century, American Christians had largely stopped thinking in theological terms. Instead, an emotive, subjective religious “experience” (called Pietism”) emphasizing individual conversion replaced the comprehensive Christian worldview of the Reformation. As Christians failed to think biblically about all of life, they were unable to withstand either the new philosophies gaining ground in the universities or deal effectively with the changing social conditions of the Industrial Revolution. By the 20th century, American Christians saw the “height” of Christian activism as banning alcohol while at the same time affirming a woman’s right to vote. Both ideas were unmitigated disasters; God has not allowed the civil magistrate to outlaw wine and God does not allow women to vote (cf. 1 Tim 2:11ff). But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families.

In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.

508 Responses to “Vision Forum: God Does Not Allow Women to Vote”

  1. bibliothecaire Says:

    Sooo…women without husbands are just out of luck, then?

  2. HappyMom4 Says:

    WHAT??
    *****************
    But by ignoring God’s law, American Christians both destroyed their own credibility (the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures) and the integrity of own families.
    *********************
    Repealing prohibition set the legla precedent for . .. . and yet he just said that God hadn’t allowed the civil magistrates to prohibit wine?? I am confused–sounds on one hand like he thinks that Prohibition was laughable and NOT from God–and yet he blames the repeal of Prohibtion for the current day state of affairs morally. I’m confused.

    (Hmmm–why is that that it seems to be a famiiliar feeling?? Could it be because I’ve had interactions with men who had similar personalities and attitudes before?!)

    While I don’t feel the need to vote generally–my husband and I are quite in agreement usually on matters–I sure can NOT say from Scripture that it’s not God’s will women vote. And yes, what about the single women?? Oh–probably they are to think exactly like their Father–or brother or Uncle or whichever family male they happen to be residing under his roof for his “protection”.

  3. Alisa Says:

    “By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!”

    Not sure what happened, but they lost me here. WHO is this ONE representative of the Human Race to God?????

    Is this supposed to be a reference to Jesus as covering all humanity’s sins with His blood? If so… I’m just stunned at the stretching being done. Comparing two things such as the sanctity of the Gospel to women voting and USING IT to refuse them a vote?!?!?!?

  4. Mark Epstein Says:

    Happy Mom 4 said: “Repealing prohibition set the legal precedent for . .. . and yet he just said that God hadn’t allowed the civil magistrates to prohibit wine?? I am confused–sounds on one hand like he thinks that Prohibition was laughable and NOT from God–and yet he blames the repeal of Prohibtion for the current day state of affairs morally. I’m confused.”

    What you read in Jennifer’s post is a typical example of Doug Phillips’ forays into the world of logic. This is also a prima facie example of why anyone (not just Jennifer) who is able to follow even the simplest logic trail could and should have taken Phillips to task for his 2004 political analogy on his Vision Forum website. Jennifer sent her delineation of Phillips’ illogic to him in a private email; however, a male peer should have publicly rebuked Phillips for his illogic.

    Instead, I was rebuked for approving Jennifer’s email because Phillips was my elder at the time. I reject this assertion because Phillips was acting in the capacity of a business man at the time, and not a shepherd — despite his attempts to couch his illogic in biblically sounding terms. Moreover, Phillips has consistently done everything within his power to avoid culpability for the excommunication, as well as to avoid dirtying his hands with the vicious behavior of his proxies acting in his stead.

    Phillips can attempt to veil his motives in any manner he wishes, and the congregants of BCA and employees of Vision Forum will give him a pass. At the end of the day, however, Phillips doesn’t want women to vote because of a very public display of his misogyny — a display that is a pattern and one we’ve seen on numerous occassions.

    We must continue to pray that God will remove the scales from Phillips and his followers’ eyes. These people are bound up in legalistic mumbo-jumbo and they are not living lives lead by God’s Holy Spirit, and they certainly cannot be walking in any God ordained way if their lives are filled with fear of Phillips.

  5. Lynn Says:

    Yep, Jen, Vision Forum definitely teaches women are sinning when they vote, because they say God Almighty Himself doesn’t allow it.

    How that idea is got from Paul saying women should learn in silence and should not usurp authority over a man in church is beyond me. Especially considering the whole counsel of Scripture and the references to various women in leadership positions, both in Israel, and outside of Israel, women whom God approved of. I guess God allowed them, and approved of them, but by some twisted, lengthy chain of reasoning, they say that the common woman should not merely be excluded from leadership in government, but that she should have absolutely no say in choosing her leaders, nor any say in how her tax money is spent.

    God doesn’t allow it, after all, based on I Timothy 2:11ff.

    This quote is pertinent to the main subject of this blog. This quote is why Doug Phillips said you’d pay for your ideas on voting. After all, according to Vision Forum, you were in sin when you wrote that letter to Doug, because Doug has it on Vision Forum’s site that God doesn’t allow women to vote. I saw some page on VF where men were debating on voting, and varying views were presented for one particular election. I didn’t read each view, but as I recall your view was presented on that page. So I am guessing Doug said what he said to you (”You’ll pay for this” ;) because he firmly believes that God does not allow women to vote. Well, Brian Abshire, the author of that article, and Doug don’t at least.

    The Bible allows that women may earn money and engage in trade. Money is taxed. Vision Forum states that if a woman exercises a say in how she would like to see government leaders use her tax money, that means she is usurping authority over a man, and that God does not allow it, based on I Timothy 2:ff.

    In addition to being allowed to say how she would like some of her tax money spent, a woman who votes is also being given a say in whom she would like to represent her concerns in government leadership, and Vision Forum says that a woman who does this by voting is in violation of I Timothy 2:11ff, and that God doesn’t allow it.

    Jen and I had occasion to look at this article. It was one of the VF references cited in Don Veinot’s Journal article, and we were discussing it a bit last night.

    It is reasonable to say Vision Forum would think churches that encourage all of its members of legal age to vote are sinning, because according to VF, they are encouraging an activity which God doesn’t allow.

    Well, it is eisegesis of the first magnitude to say that I Timothy 2:11ff is a proof-text for God not allowing women to vote in government elections, if for no other reason because that isn’t what that text is referring to at all. And it is ignoring the whole counsel of Scripture which speak of women leading, being allowed a say in whom they will marry, women engaged in commerce and earning money, passages which, while not on voting either, seem quite incongruous to the idea that it is against God’s law for a woman to be allowed to vote, ever.

    Also, I haven’t read much about the history of voting, but . . . wasn’t it permissable in days gone by for a widow to assume the headship of her household, if she was landed, and be allowed to vote? Do Brian Abshire and Vision Forum also say God didn’t allow that? That those widows were sinning when they represented their households? I mean, there was no exception made to “God does not allow women to vote.”

    Jen, this article is pertinent in discussing the abuse you were subjected to in that church.

    And I obviously don’t believe one can say, looking at I Timothy 2:11ff, that God doesn’t allow women to vote in government elections.

    Gross eisegesis of the highest magnitude, that is. As Mike says, “disrespectful to the Word of God, and to the God who gave that Word.”

    And please don’t think I’m fighting tooth, nail, and claw here to maintain a woman’s right to vote; I’m NOT. Did you hear that??? I’m NOT doing that.

    It’s the blatent Scripture twisting here that is of primary concern.

  6. Lynn Says:

    Midwest Christian Outreach, which is where some of us were made aware of the statement “God does not allow women to vote,” now has this to say about this very subject, among other things of interest:

    http://midwestoutreach.org/blogs/47/examining-the-premises-of-the-patriarchal-promises

  7. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Alisa:
    Is this supposed to be a reference to Jesus as covering all humanity’s sins with His blood? If so… I’m just stunned at the stretching being done. Comparing two things such as the sanctity of the Gospel to women voting and USING IT to refuse them a vote?!?!?!?

    Morgan: Actually Alisa it is much worse…DP/VF minions are elevating the male HOH to god status thereby making the male HOH (head of household) a creator and therefore a person to be worshipped.

    Using 1Tim 2:11 as a cite for women not voting shows what extreme and vulgar liberties DP/VF minions are taking with Gods Holy Word.

    Sickening..disgusting…vile..evil…

    EWWWWWWWWWWWW

  8. cYnthia Gee Says:

    “Vision Forum states that if a woman exercises a say in how she would like to see government leaders use her tax money, that means she is usurping authority over a man, and that God does not allow it, based on I Timothy 2:ff. ”

    Actually, a similar argument could be used to claim that it is sinful for MEN to vote.

    The Bible says that magistrates are God’s servants, placed over us for our good:
    Rom 13:1 ¶ Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

    Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
    Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. …….. Rom 13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

    So they could also say that if a MAN “exercises a say in how (he) would like to see government leaders use (his) tax money, that means (he) is usurping authority”, over a God’s appointed servants, the government, and that God does not allow it, based on Romans 13:1-7.

    Now, heretics though they may be, these guys are no dummies, and I’m sure they’ve already thought of this. Right now, many of them are would-be tax avoiders themselves, (and are being investigated as such), so they aren’t teaching this scripture, but let them EVER get into power themselves, and you’ll see how quickly this turns around.

  9. Jen Says:

    Just to be clear, while this article is posted on Vision Forum’s website and therefore sanctioned by Doug, it is written by Brian Abshire, another proponent of Patriarchy. Brian is not nearly as extreme in most of his views on Patriarchy, but this one was well worth mentioning, and Doug is in full agreement.

  10. Hutch Says:

    Even after we get past the fact that Doug’s statements regarding this issue are unbiblical, and that the scripture cited is taken out of context, Mark’s observation that Doug’s positions are illogical is spot on.

    From what I understand Doug supports third party or independent candidates. He does not support candidates from the big two parties. Third party candidates have historically helped one of the big two parties to prevail in elections. Examples: Perot helped Clinton win by taking some of the conservative and moderate voters away from Bush, when a liberal third party is involved in an election; they siphon off voters from the mainline Democrat candidate. My point is not to debate as to if a Christian should vote for a third party candidate, I believe everyone should vote their conscience before God, but my point is to show how silly Doug’s position is regarding women voting.

    If Doug’s hyper-patriarchy birth rate dominionism is going to succeed, why would he want to cut their voting block in half? If he really wants to have any kind of chance in getting his candidates elected, believe me he needs all the votes he can muster. The only way his logic will work is if everyone adheres to it! Does Doug think that liberal female voters are going to give up their right to vote? His logic ensures his failure! Earth to Doug, if your wife and you are one flesh and in agreement regarding your decision on a candidate, both of you need to vote for that candidate. Duh.

  11. Lynn Says:

    Yes, Hutch, I believe Perot took somewhere around 15% of the conservative vote from Bush Sr. at the time.

    That is a pretty significant number. But I could understand the sympathies at the time, on account of Bush Sr. turning around on taxes.

    “Does Doug think that liberal female voters are going to give up their right to vote? His logic ensures his failure!”

    That is a point Don Veinot brought up in his Journal article.

  12. cYnthia Gee Says:

    Hutch, among other things, God is the God of truth, logic, and common sense.
    When people turn away from Him in order to serve idols, such as hyperpatriarchy, they to some extent have to turn away from truth and God’s other good gifts in order to do so.
    Thus intellectually they eventually end up shooting themselves in the foot:

    2Th 2:10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 2Th 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 2Th 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

  13. Hutch Says:

    However, by the end of the 19th century, American Christians had largely stopped thinking in theological terms.

    This is what my Pastor describes as the Elijah complex. I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me! God said to Elijah, I have seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal. 1 Kings 19:18 Romans 11:4

    Do I think the American church is in deep theological trouble? Absolutely. But intentionally making a statement to make the situations seem worse is the same as lying. The situation Elijah was in was a deeper and more comprehensive apostasy than what we are currently facing. Yet, God saw fit to correct Elijah’s statement and belief.

    These groups always want to make the issue seem worse than it is, the fact is God has thousands of people who are seeking and serving Him in America.

    This idea that only people in our movement are the real believers is one of the benchmarks of a cult.

  14. cYnthia Gee Says:

    “This idea that only people in our movement are the real believers is one of the benchmarks of a cult.”

    Well, yes, and as you said, “…intentionally making a statement to make the situations seem worse is the same as lying.”

    Actually, it IS lying, and that’s not surprising.

    Hyperpatriarchy is idolatry: instead of focusing upon God and His kingdom, the main focus is upon marriage, procreation, and the relationship between the sexes. The whole movement looks a lot like an ancient fertility cult with the extra-marital sex removed. The promiscuity is absent, but the focus is man-ward, upon the creature, rather than God-ward, upon the Creator.

  15. Light Says:

    I have seen hyperpatriachal women admit to ordering an absentee ballot and then handing it over to their husband to fill out along with his. This is against the law (one person, one vote) but apparently obeying the law does not trouble them so much.

  16. Lynn Says:

    Happy Mom 4 said:
    “Repealing prohibition set the legal precedent for . .. . and yet he just said that God hadn’t allowed the civil magistrates to prohibit wine?? I am confused–sounds on one hand like he thinks that Prohibition was laughable and NOT from God–and yet he blames the repeal of Prohibtion for the current day state of affairs morally. I’m confused.”

    Mark replied:
    “What you read in Jennifer’s post is a typical example of Doug Phillips’ forays into the world of logic. This is also a prima facie example of why anyone (not just Jennifer) who is able to follow even the simplest logic trail could and should have taken Phillips to task for his 2004 political analogy on his Vision Forum website. Jennifer sent her delineation of Phillips’ illogic to him in a private email; however, a male peer should have publicly rebuked Phillips for his illogic.”

    Mark, I noticed Happymom’s point as well, but I am also no lawyer, and I am wondering just how, legally, repealing Prohibition set a precedent for immorality. Is there any way it could be said that it did?

    Is this true that it did that, or is this just some kind of “slippery slope” fallacy? Was there something in the terminology of repealing it that paved the way for those who would push an agenda of immorality? Or are these very separate issues?

    I would like some more information about the subject. But still, I agree that repealing Prohibition didn’t also mean a NECESSARY CONSEQUENCE would be that sodomy laws would be taken off the books.

  17. Mark Epstein Says:

    Lynn wrote: “Mark, I noticed Happymom’s point as well, but I am also no lawyer, and I am wondering just how, legally, repealing Prohibition set a precedent for immorality. Is there any way it could be said that it did? Is this true that it did that, or is this just some kind of “slippery slope” fallacy?”

    First, we can safely say that Phillips engages in logical fallacy as a matter of routine. He also engages in the classic “do as I say, not as I do” as it pertains to “proof texting,” particularly in this situation.

    The slippery slope fallacy is probably a great way to view Phillips’ reasoning in this case. Additionally, just as with Jamestown, Phillips conveniently ignores the rise of gangsters (e.g., Al Capone), the murder, the disrupted lives, and the widows and orphans associated with bootlegging during Prohibition.

    Besides the hooligans involved with bootlegging, we can not address this topic without looking at the women who lead the fight to ban booze in the first place. Although there can be no doubt their heart was in the right place, they were actually using a wordly solution to a spiritual problem.

    The drunkeness and broken lives that resulted from alcohol abuse are well documented. However, when the temperance movement sought to involve the government to solve a spiritual problem known as sin, then these well meaning women crossed the line and ignored God’s ways.

    Of course, this begs the follwoing question: Why didn’t Phillips address this reality? Answer: The worldlyness of the women’s temperance movement doesn’t fit his agenda and the illogic he will use to make unsubstantiated assertions that he thinks supports his “vision” and worldview. Obviosly this is the height of disingenuousness, but Phillips is blind to this foible within his behavior and methodology for supporting his unsupportable statements and conclusions.

    BTW, Brian Abshire wrote an article about the Christian Mafia. I’m wondering why Phillips allowed him to post anything on the VF site.

  18. CD-Host Says:

    In most states elections were for people but for property. Persons without property could not vote and property ownership was what entitled you to vote. On the other hand so as to have a middle class society and not an aristocracy all property owning households had equal weight in elections. Marriage dissolved a woman’s separate property into her husband’s. However, either party could represent the property.

    Some states like New Jersey however the vote was actually given to persons not to property. In those cases: woman, resident aliens… had the rights to vote. In the 1820-40s there was a push towards universal suffrage (that all persons had the right to vote). The abolitionists and the poor saw this as a ploy by slave owners to extend their power and so US suffrage was only granted to free men. I see no evidence nor any discussion of a patrio-centric worldview. The debates are in the very familiar language or rights, property, money and left vs. right.

  19. Jean Says:

    Jen,

    I read the entire article cited in this post at VF’s website. I don’t know Brian Abshire and have only now just heard of him, so this article he wrote is the only exposure I have to his thinking. But, from this brief (and painful) introduction I have two comments.

    First…Brian writes: “…what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree…”

    My fifth grader can see the nonsense here. This kind of logic will result in four years of Hillary. HA! Encouraging Christian women to NOT vote. Absurd! Brian actually has it backwards, kind of. If husband and wife disagree, the votes cancel each other out, but still affect the final tally if more than two candidates are in the running. If husband and wife both vote for the same person, the weight of the combined tally is indeed significant. In both scenarios, the votes are meaningful and have practical significance.

    Second…Brian writes later on in this full article: “Thus, we ought to expect that in the process of trying to rediscover biblical patriarchy, some men will struggle with finding the proper balance. Some will confuse their own personal values with Scriptural ones-attempting to bind other’s consciences without lawful warrant.” Now THAT is golden!

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  20. Cynthia Gee Says:

    I wonder if these guys have a problem with grown sons who still live at home voting?

  21. Mike Says:

    “First…Brian writes: ‘…what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree…’

    “My fifth grader can see the nonsense here. This kind of logic will result in four years of Hillary. HA! Encouraging Christian women to NOT vote. Absurd!”

    EXACTLY! The fact is that most married couples are fairly in-tune politically — whether on the left or on the right. This is not universal, of course; we all know folks like that bizarre match-up between Mary Matalin and Old Lizard-head.

    But by and large, a majority of couples votes the same. Giving up half of your side’s potential votes — or even more, if you have voting-age daughters who share your politics — is political suicide.

    Hutch mentioned Perot’s obvious influence on the 1992 election. Also — in 2000, Bush won Florida by less than a thousand votes [and that has been confirmed again and again by recounts over the years, even by liberal entities]; What most people forget is that Ralph Nader got around 10,000 votes in Florida — almost all of which would most certainly have otherwise gone to Gore.

    Think of the impact on this next election if there were enough people with this idiotic approach — only one vote per family. Virtually all of them would be very conservative religious folk. Many of them will be voting third party, anyway. This would only redound, exponentially, to the benefit of those candidates these people adamantly oppose!

    If I were a Democrat, I would do everything I could to encourage these patriarchs in this nonsense. As for me and my house — I’ll drag my wife and daughters over broken glass to the polling booth, if need be!
    I’m also doing everything I can to encourage Nader to run again. LOL!

  22. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Mary Matalin and Old Lizard-head….”

    HUH???????????

  23. Lynn Says:

    “Mary Matalin and Old Lizard-head….”

    “HUH???????????”

    James Carville, CJ. Hope I spelled that correctly.
    Those two are about as right and left as you can get.

  24. Lynn Says:

    I mean, Mike is referring to Mary Matalin and James Carville. Mary worked to campaign for Bush, and James worked for Clinton.

  25. Alisa Says:

    “Alisa:
    Is this supposed to be a reference to Jesus as covering all humanity’s sins with His blood? If so… I’m just stunned at the stretching being done. Comparing two things such as the sanctity of the Gospel to women voting and USING IT to refuse them a vote?!?!?!?

    Morgan: Actually Alisa it is much worse…DP/VF minions are elevating the male HOH to god status thereby making the male HOH (head of household) a creator and therefore a person to be worshipped.”

    Unfortunately, I was fully aware of the husband-in-the-place-of-God status. Funny how its just a little too similar to Mormonism… just another signature of a cult, huh?

    It just sickens me though that someone would go to such lengths as using THE GOSPEL to promote restricting women from voting. I’m actually kind of offended over it; you DON’T use my Savior’s blood to further your agenda. It’s just sacreligious, and can I say blasphemous?

    But further, I know that they cannot be so politically handicapped that the illogic of comparing the Atonement of Sins for all Humanity to a democratic election process would escape them. Am I giving them too much credit here???

    “If Doug’s hyper-patriarchy birth rate dominionism is going to succeed, why would he want to cut their voting block in half? If he really wants to have any kind of chance in getting his candidates elected, believe me he needs all the votes he can muster.”

    I wondered the same thing. Why would a father with a wife and 3 voting age daughters wish to only cast one vote when he could add 4 more to his one??? (And we all know that this scenario is NOT uncommon!!!)

    But then, to use their logic, that would be doing the right thing the wrong way, as the Botkin girls would say about women preaching the Gospel!

  26. bibliothecaire Says:

    “Does Doug think that liberal female voters are going to give up their right to vote?”

    This one sure isn’t! Hi to all, by the way. I got here through Christians for Biblical Equality’s blog, and I’m an egalitarian Christian who tends to vote Democrat. I have a feeling there’s a pretty wide gulf between me and most of the people who are commenting here - please don’t shun me!
    I may disagree ideologically and theologically with a lot of posters here, but I’m happy to see so many conservatives standing up against extremists like Doug Phillips and other patriarchists (Patriarchalists? Not sure of the proper term). To be honest, having grown up in a mainstream evangelical denomination, with parents who I’ve always considered relatively conservative, some of the things being discussed here are very eye-opening to me! I guess I had kind of a general idea that there were some very strange beliefs out on the fringes of Christianity, both on the left and the right, but it’s just hard for me to fathom that someone can hold views like Phillips and others do, in this day and age.

    I praise God for my loving parents, who raised me and my sister to believe that we were strong, capable individuals, whose gender was not a limiting factor but among our strengths. I praise God that I’m able to live happily as a single career woman now, and that I’m not forced to live “under my father’s protection” in his home still, as a late twenty-something! I love my father dearly, but I’m an adult woman now, and my father doesn’t always know what’s best for me anymore. It is my responsibility as an adult and as a Christian to work out my own salvation with fear and trembling - I’m not letting anyone else do it for me!

    Phillips’ ideas about women just seem so infantilizing to me. And considering how little respect he seems to have for women’s judgment and moral capability - why on earth would he want them taking care of children? In his view, women seem like nothing more than children themselves!

  27. Hutch Says:

    Mike said: If I were a Democrat, I would do everything I could to encourage these patriarchs in this nonsense. As for me and my house — I’ll drag my wife and daughters over broken glass to the polling booth, if need be!
    I’m also doing everything I can to encourage Nader to run again. LOL!

    Amen Brother! I just sent Nader an e-mail encouraging him to run! Grin.

  28. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Bibliothecaire:
    “Does Doug think that liberal female voters are going to give up their right to vote?”

    Morgan: Does DP think that conservative women are going to give up the right to vote?

    Probably but then that just shows how WRONG he is…this plain old christian lady sure as heck ain’t a givin’ up her RIGHT TO VOTE…and I know all of my conservative OPC ladies are not going to give up the vote either!!! Talk about open rebellion …ROTFLOL

    BTW…Welcome to you…we are an ecclectic group…we’ll just add you on as one more of the ecclectics

  29. RefCal Says:

    Lynn wrote:
    “Also, I haven’t read much about the history of voting, but . . . wasn’t it permissable in days gone by for a widow to assume the headship of her household, if she was landed, and be allowed to vote?”

    I’m reading as much about the history of voting as I can, which hasn’t been nearly enough, but I can at least address Lynn’s question.

    I have quite a collection of Wills from the Colonial Era, and it is clear from them that widows and daughters could inherit property from their husbands and fathers. However, that doesn’t mean they had the right to vote based on property ownership.

    Only free white males could vote, as I understand American History. Slaveowners actually had a bigger vote in the House of Representatives, based on the collective number of slaves they owned divided by three-halves.

    My grandmother had just turned 21 when she received the right to vote, and reported in her authbiography that she and her mother went to that first coed poll together. Nothing about consulting the man of the family first on how to cast their votes.

    In a recent column, Ann Coulter quotes from a study linking female sufferage to higher taxes:
    “Just in time for the Fourth of July, John Lott, author of the groundbreaking 1998 book More Guns, Less Crime, has released another amazing book: Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t. This book provides studies and analysis proving that your every right-wing instinct is based on sound economic analysis.

    To wit:

    – Women shouldn’t vote: “What changed … that explains the growth of government? The answer is women’s suffrage.”

    As Richard Maybury has pointed out: in the typical American family, although they pay at an equal rate, it basically works out that the husband works to support the family, and the wife works to support the government.

    The end result of women having an equal voice in raising taxes is that women now have an equal responsibility to pay them.

  30. RefCal Says:

    Just a word on the chances of liberal women giving up the vote.

    It’s an interesting study, the history of female sufferage. Just think of the irony: Men, previously answerable only to a male electorate, chose to give over the right of sufferage to women. It was a tremendous coup for the women who pulled it off. But of course turning back the clock would be even harder: women would have to vote to disenfranchise themselves.

    Actually, most women don’t vote now as it is. If all the men who don’t vote stepped up to replace all the women who do vote, there would be a net gain in the number of voters.

  31. Lynn Says:

    Thanks to CD-host and RefCal for your thoughts.

    It is true that NJ was one state that allowed some women to vote (single adults worth over 50 pounds). This right was taken away, not because of theological or moral considerations, but for political reasons, and the decision to take the vote away from NJ women was against NJ’s constitution:

    http://www.nps.gov/revwar/about_the_revolution/voting_rights.html

  32. Lynn Says:

    Let me just throw logic to the wind here:

    The net result of only males being allowed to vote is that racially based slavery was allowed to continue in this country for decades after its birth.

    Therefore, restricting the vote to white males is an evil idea, because race based enslavement is wrong. God does not allow it.

    The net result of the male only vote resulted in the bloodiest war our country has ever fought in.

    Gee, this is fun. If I throw away logic, I can blame all kinds of things that happened on account of the male vote! Just like we can blame all kinds of things happening because of women’s suffrage.

  33. Lynn Says:

    PS, I’m NOT saying race based enslavement is RIGHT, either. I’m just purposely being careless.

  34. Hutch Says:

    bibliothecaire Says: Phillips’ ideas about women just seem so infantilizing to me. And considering how little respect he seems to have for women’s judgment and moral capability - why on earth would he want them taking care of children? In his view, women seem like nothing more than children themselves!

    Hutch says: No, in the patriarchy view women are not children, they are property.

    Sarah Faith Schlissel from “Daddy’s Girl: Courtship and a Father’s Rights”:

    Beyond being an X-chromosome donor, may we think of the “-’s” in “Daddy’s” in the possessive sense, and affirm with legitimacy that Daddy is my owner?

    Any man seeking to beg, borrow or steal a daughter’s hand without her father’s endorsement is seeking to gain, in unlawful ways, “property” not his own.

    Hutch says: I would assume her point is that when the young man secures daddy’s approval her ownership will transfer from daddy to her husband.

    Jen- Do you know who Sarah Faith Schlissel is? I bet she is very popular among the men in these groups. I can hear it now: Now honey, why don’t you go read something by good ole Sarah Schlissel! I bought you her whole library of works for your birthday.

  35. Mike Says:

    Alisa wrote: “But further, I know that they cannot be so politically handicapped that the illogic of comparing the Atonement of Sins for all Humanity to a democratic election process would escape them. Am I giving them too much credit here???”

    I think you are misinterpreting them. The 5-point Calvinists among them — and that appears, to me, to be a majority of them — do not believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all humanity. This is covered in the “L” in TULIP — Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption.

    I think they may be referring to Adam as the “federal head” of the race. Just as Adam, as head of the race, represents all — so each father, as head of his family, represents all in the family. But I would betcha dollars to doughnuts they encourage their sons to vote — even if the sons are still at home.

  36. Mike Says:

    “Slaveowners actually had a bigger vote in the House of Representatives, based on the collective number of slaves they owned divided by three-halves.”

    Could I have a citation for this, please? I’ve never heard of it, and I don’t remember reading it in the Constitution.

  37. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Unfortunately, I was fully aware of the husband-in-the-place-of-God status. Funny how its just a little too similar to Mormonism… just another signature of a cult, huh?”

    It’s just the same old lie : “ye shall be as god”, in this case by virtue of possessing a phallus.
    Baal worship, anyone?

  38. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “If Doug’s hyper-patriarchy birth rate dominionism is going to succeed, why would he want to cut their voting block in half? If he really wants to have any kind of chance in getting his candidates elected, believe me he needs all the votes he can muster.”

    Actually, If Doug’s dominionism ever does succed, not many men will be voting either. Doug and his fellow Patriarchs advocate a return to a type of feudalism, where only property owners vote. Non-property owners would work for the landowners and businessowners, and would contribute to theior employer’s dominion; not being property owners themselves, they would be disenfranchised.
    And, in Doug’s World, property ownership wouldn’t come easily. Economic mobility would be a thing of the past, since most fellows would have all they could handle feeding, housing, and clothing 10-15 kids, especially since the only education that the average man would recieve would have been at home: no one would be better educated than were their parents, ensuring the wealthier, landowning Patriarchs a steady supply of marginally educated peon labor to run their factories and farms.

    Check it out:

    Suffrage As Sacrament: Counting Every Vote
    Rev. Dale K. Dykema

    []Some Votes More Equal Than Others
    The framers of our constitutional government never intended that everyone should vote. This privilege and responsibility was given to those with proven accomplishment. Original requirements included ownership of land, church membership and being a male at least twenty years of age. The framers used a biblical framework for the working machinery of the republic.

    Our wise, political forefathers, clearly understanding the self-centered nature of man, knew that giving the vote to every warm body was the quickest means to destroying the nation. James Madison, in lengthy and frank discussions on the subject said, “ . . . the freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of republican liberty.”2 The likelihood of abuse was perceived as absolute, voting one’s self the largesse a certainty. The wonder today is that we, as a people, have endured so long and so amazingly well. The moral deterioration of the nation having been in decline for so long, we should be thankful that the fathers foresaw the temptation for “property-less” men to “unite against the rest of society.”3 Their foresight has provided a safety zone if Americans were wise enough to use it.

    Spawning Foreign Democracies
    The United States has, too frequently, coerced other peoples into the “democratic mold.” Plain people whose world is no larger than, perhaps, a few hundred acres have been cajoled into voting for strongmen, from rival tribes, hundreds of miles away. Oppression and killing often have been the recurrent fruit. Lives and economies have not been improved, nor has this practice encouraged cultural progress. The structuring and maintenance of a truly representative civil government requires more than American dollars and a U.N. declaration.

    The hasty formation of text-book democracies produces a foolish glee in the breasts of some American politicians. The mere picture of the illiterate, indigenous person making an “x” on a sheet of paper is accomplishment enough to salve their consciences, but there is seldom any lasting development in such third world countries.

    One of the genuine answers to this problem is a unified law structure, the legal and physical guarantees that used to flow from colonial rule. Hernando De Soto, in his The Mystery of Capital, says “Any asset whose economic and social aspects are not fixed in a formal property system is extremely hard to move in the market.”4 Thus, his point is that all of these efforts at democratization fail because of the lack of dependable order, not because the people aren’t afforded the Western concept of suffrage. They fail as well because there is no spiritual base from which the people can formulate a concept of governance.

    The Majority, Its Own Tyranny
    The privilege of voting comes from God and assumes the complementary responsibility of making conscientious preparation. Selfish interests and personal taste are not sufficient grounds. Instead, a reliable standard by which candidates and issues can be evaluated and determined must be in place.

    From colonial times in America the original and primary standard was the law of God. This absolute provided a dependable criterion for evaluating character, ability and experience. It also was the means by which men could determine the suitability and rightness of any political or social issue. The people who established and built this great nation did so by using this perfect measure.

    Apart from the guidance of a reliable standard men make their judgments on the basis of sheer caprice, simple conjecture, personal taste and cynical opinion. The sovereignty of man comes aggressively to the fore, a dangerous and unwise consequence, because a thing is no more accurate or appropriate because of the number of people who hold to it, nor by the same token, is something wrong and improper because of how few believe in it.

    A thousand fools voting for a front seat in hell doesn’t make it into a good idea. Ideas can only be accurately evaluated by the absolute standard of divine law.

    Suffrage And Impotence
    One person voting in a large constituency may feel that his mark has little or no significance. Election returns often confirm this sense of personal impotence. The outcome, of course, is in the hand of God. He is the One who “raises up one and puts down another,” the One who “holds all things in the palm of His hand.”

    The informed voter knows that his ballot is, after all, an expression of faith in God’s sovereignty. Man proposes, but God disposes. The vote is cast in obedience, a responsibility discharged in accordance with revealed models and lawful requirement.

    Humanism, on the other hand, desires with its whole being, not to conform, but instead to generate anew. Its philosophy elects man as source and basis. Every life is precious, not because it is created in God’s image, but because it may reveal the spark that will light the flame of world peace and plenty. Thus, the voting act is made the duty sacrament, the assertion of humanity and its holy right.

    Good men must redouble their efforts to employ the rightful dominion God has given. Wise as serpents and harmless as doves, we work diligently and trust Him who rules all things.

  39. Spunky Says:

    “Could I have a citation for this please? I’ve never heard this”

    Mike, this is known as the 3/5 compromise….

    In the Constitution as originally drafted Article One Section 2 Paragraph 3 on Apportionment in the legislative branch allowed for the three/fifths count for slaves. (Note the portion that I emphasized in bold.)

    “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.”

    The Fourteenth Amendment did away with this provision

    “Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed….”

    The provision of 3/5 for “all other Persons” was removed.

  40. Alisa Says:

    Mike wrote:

    “I think you are misinterpreting them. The 5-point Calvinists among them — and that appears, to me, to be a majority of them — do not believe that Christ atoned for the sins of all humanity. This is covered in the “L” in TULIP — Limited Atonement, or Particular Redemption.

    I think they may be referring to Adam as the “federal head” of the race. Just as Adam, as head of the race, represents all — so each father, as head of his family, represents all in the family. But I would betcha dollars to doughnuts they encourage their sons to vote — even if the sons are still at home.”

    Mike,

    Thanks for answering my question from my post at the top of the thread. I couldn’t figure out who was supposed to be this representative for all humanity.

    While I might agree with many of the Calvinist’s points, just listening to them talk about their “soap box” points discouraged me from really studying them. But I already gave that away, didn’t I? For me, all that focus on 5 points just distracted from actually living out the fullness of the faith. Thanks for enlightening me though!!! I shouldn’t have written Atonement for Sins for ALL Humanity, but rather atonement for those who accept it by faith.

    I’m surprised that I don’t recall hearing about this federal head of humanity in Adam. Sounds a little forced, like most of their arguments. Is there any Biblical basis for it???

  41. Jo Says:

    Jen,
    First let me say, that I have been reading this blog off and on for several months and know your story from the beginning (from reading).
    The only thing I have a problem with is that you won’t leave Doug alone. Now I’m not saying that to defend the jerk-excuse me. I’m saying that because you sound…how can I put my thoughts into words…you sound a little hysterical the way you keep going on and on about him. I mean that in a nice way. In other words, I don’t mean to critisize-you’ve helped me finally cut all ties to the patriarchy movement. I just think that by going on and on about Doug so much you lose credibility.
    For example-why do you read his blog? I gave it up over a year ago. It looks like you just can’t let go and move on. I think there are plenty of other things you can continue to address, such as the women not being allowed to vote thing-you know, patriarchy things itself without seeming to have an obsession about trashing DP.
    Again, I don’t mean to critisize! It’s hard putting into words what I’m trying to say. I believe everything you’ve written and I agree with you. Maybe I’m just trying to help your reputation because it seems to me that you should leave DP in the past and move on. Again, continue to discuss all the other stuff.
    Do you understand what I’m trying to say?
    Please address this for my peace of mind, will you?
    :)

  42. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I’m surprised that I don’t recall hearing about this federal head of humanity in Adam.”

    Adam ISN’T the Head of Humanity anymore — Jesus is.

  43. Alisa Says:

    ““I’m surprised that I don’t recall hearing about this federal head of humanity in Adam.”

    Adam ISN’T the Head of Humanity anymore — Jesus is.”

    EXACTLY. Might have something to do with why I’ve never heard of such a thing and why I immediately thought of Jesus as the only possible representative they could be referring to.

  44. Alisa Says:

    Jo,

    I understand what you are trying to say. I’m not going to speak for Jen, and I don’t personally follow Doug’s blog (my nerves can’t take it), but for those of us who still have friends and people we care about in Doug’s camp, it helps to know what is going on in their world and to know how to pray for them.

    For me, it’s not about not letting go of something… it’s about not allowing myself to become apathetic and complacent about the reality that people I love are entrenched in such deceit. It spurs me to action - to PRAYER.

    I hope that might help you understand one aspect of it.

  45. Mike Says:

    Spunky — I know about the 3/5 compromise, abd I was concerned that this might be what was being referred to — but the statement I responded to does not line up with that. In the first place — 3/5 is a whole different animal than 3/2!
    One reduces representation by 40%; the other increases it by 50%!

    Secondly — the 3/5 compromise had nothing to with how many votes a man could cast in the legislature. It had to do with how many “persons” were in a congressional district, for the purposes of representation and taxation.

    For example — if a Congressional district had 1000 slaves in it, that would count as 600 “persons.” As stated in the original post –multiplying by 3/2 — that would count as 1500. BIG difference.

    I know a LOT of politicians today who would love for THAT to be true when it comes to capitation taxes! LOL!

    But whatever the calculation — it had nothing to with how many votes one got in the legislature. Perhaps there is something else the original poster had in mind?

  46. Mike Says:

    “I’m surprised that I don’t recall hearing about this federal head of humanity in Adam. Sounds a little forced, like most of their arguments. Is there any Biblical basis for it???”

    I’m not an authority on the subject, but I think so. When Paul said, “As in Adam all die” — even Limited Atonement folk agree that this means all humans. The old catechism saying, “In Adam’s fall, we sinned all” carries the meaning. We — all humans — were “in Adam” when he sinned, and as a result, we are all accounted as sinners. We are all sinners by nature, by practice, and by divine decree.

    Some do not accept this doctrine; they believe that we are sinners because we sin. This doctrine says that we sin because we are sinners. The diffence is enormous.

    There’s a lot more to it, but I’m having trouble typing well right now, so I’ll quit. Like I said, I believe it is biblical.

  47. Mike Says:

    I wrote: When Paul said, “As in Adam all die” — even Limited Atonement folk agree that this means all humans.
    ============

    On second thought, I shouldn’t have spoken for LA folks. Perhaps they see that “all” as limited. I dunno. I do know that most non-5-pointers who are not averse to the doctrine of original sin do see that “all” as universal.

  48. Spunky Says:

    Thanks Mike for your clarification. When I read the original quote, “Slaveowners actually had a bigger vote in the House of Representatives, based on the collective number of slaves they owned divided by three-halves.”

    I interpreted the statement to mean the possibility of a larger representation in Congress (over non -slave reps) not a greater number of votes one got in the legislature. But I see how you could interpret the statement the way that you did based on the way it was written. I also saw the discprepancy in three-halves and thought that the poster may have just misquoted the fraction.

    Since you are asking for a citation based on a different reading of the statement (easy to do in a comment box), I’ll leave it to the original poster to cite a reference for the statement as I know of nothing in the Constitution based on your reading to support such a claim.

  49. Jen Says:

    From Brian Abshire’s article on the subject:

    The greatest theologians of the Reformation affirmed the doctrine of “federalism” or “representation” based upon the model found in Genesis. In this view, one man stands for the group. Theologically it referred to Adam representing the entire human race (yet unborn) and therefore when he sinned, we all sinned in him. The corollary to this was Jesus being the Second Adam, standing in for His Elect; if we all died in Adam; we are all saved in Christ. Through federal representation, His death could atone for all His people’s sins (Rms 5:12-19).

    The Reformers applied the doctrine of representation to the social and political realm when battling against the “divine right of kings.” They saw the biblical office of king as simply one of representation; the king as the supreme executive of a nation has a responsibility to those he represents. Hence, the king was not above the law, but under the law as God’s magistrate. Therefore, ungodly kings could be deposed and the people could choose a new representative. …

    Hence, our modern concept of representative government, wherein the people choose leaders for themselves, is a direct application of the Reformation theology of Federal Representation and biblical precedent. Americans in particular are the direct heirs to this theology; the Declaration of Independence is a legal document listing the abuses of the English king and justifying removing him as our Federal “head.” The Constitution of the United States is an attempt to work out this same Federal theology in determining the proper balance between individual, God given liberties with the necessity for sound political government.

    Thus, theoretically, the people elect as their representatives members of congress, the president, governors, mayors, city council members, sheriffs, judges, etc., to rule IN THEIR PLACE. … We even derive our term “federal government” from the theology of representation.

    Now what has all this to do with reforming the Christian family and evaluating “Patriarchy?” In effect, Western civilization WAS a “patriarchy” up until recent times and assumed as the normal means of governing not only households, but also entire nations. The English proverb “every man’s home is his castle” represents the cultural assumption, handed down from antiquity, that the father, as head of his household, WAS the federal representative of his own family to the broader community. …

    Until the twentieth century, Americans almost universally held to this doctrine of representation in some form or the other. The reason why women were not allowed to vote had nothing to do with women being considered “inferior” or “too emotional” (these values arose during the Victorian era and were themselves theologically and socially deviant) but rather because the husband and father was ASSUMED to represent the family to the broader community. By definition, there could only be ONE representative of the family just as there could only be ONE representative of the Human Race to God!

  50. Jen Says:

    Bibliothecaire: “I have a feeling there’s a pretty wide gulf between me and most of the people who are commenting here - please don’t shun me!”

    Welcome, Bibliothecaire. We don’t shun people here! However, since you realize that you do have different views than most of us here, I would ask that you just stick to the issues being discussed. That should give you plenty to talk about and still stay within the confines of the purpose of this blog. Thanks.

    Hutch: “Jen- Do you know who Sarah Faith Schlissel is?”

    Sure, she is the daughter of Steve Schlissel, who is also a leader in Patriarchy. He has several websites, but this one looks like it has the most information on it.

    Jo: “I just think that by going on and on about Doug so much you lose credibility.”

    Welcome, Jo, and thanks for your thoughts. I do wonder where to draw the line. I definitely don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I don’t think the horse is dead yet, either.

    Jo: “For example-why do you read his blog?”

    I don’t read it very often anymore. I used to read it every day. Another person who got burned by Doug pretty badly used to say that it was like a sick addiction to read Doug’s blog every day. But when I did read it, it was for several reasons. I read it first of all because I knew most of the people he talked about or who were in the pictures. It was a connection for me. Sometimes I read it to see how he reacts to me or to see what he’s doing. If I’m going to write about him, it helps to keep current. But, in this particular case, and on several other occasions, other people wrote to me about Doug’s blog. Sometimes people ask me to address something in Doug’s blog as well. Another reason is that Doug sends secret messages in his blog that only those in the know would understand. I’ve tried to identify a few of those for folks who wouldn’t know otherwise.

    Jo: “I think there are plenty of other things you can continue to address, such as the women not being allowed to vote thing-you know, patriarchy things itself without seeming to have an obsession about trashing DP.”

    Jo, you picked an odd article to post this comment on! This article is not even about Doug! If you will notice, I am generally moving toward discussing Doug’s teachings now. I will still have a story now and then, but the focus is definitely changing. However, the blog is about Doug, so the teachings will also be Doug’s.

    I am very open to my commenters’ opinions here. Am I writing too much about Doug? Should I stop? Why or why not? Thanks, Alisa, for your response already.

    I am, however, working on another project which I think you will like. I hope to have it up and ready soon! Stay tuned for what I think you are looking for.

  51. CD-Host Says:

    Jo –

    The purpose this blog is “Exposing Doug Phillips’ Ecclesiastical Tyranny” of course there are a lot of Doug Phillips topics. You can argue that Doug Phillips isn’t important enough to warrant a critique blog, but it seems kind of silly to argue that the critique blog should exist but talk about something else.

  52. Mike Says:

    Spunky sparked: “Thanks Mike for your clarification. When I read the original quote, ‘Slave owners actually had a bigger vote in the House of Representatives, based on the collective number of slaves they owned divided by three-halves.’”

    OOPS! I just realized I made a mistake in my math. DIVIDED by 3/2 is the same as multiplied by 2/3. So — at least for representation and taxation, that would be a decrease of 33%, not an increase at all.

    The actual decrease I stated, though, was correct. Each slave in a district counted as 3/5 of a “person” — thus decreasing those numbers by 40%.

    I can’t recall who made the original statement, but I am still interested in a citation.

    Thanks.

  53. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “….it seems kind of silly to argue that the critique blog should exist but talk about something else.”

    Actually we ARE talking about “something else” most of the time now.

    Doug Phillips and his actions against Jen and her family have been the catalyst for all sorts of discussions about hyperPatriarchy, its doctrines and agendas, as well as all sorts of general discussions about Christianity, both on this list and across the Blogosphere.
    Thanks to the Epstein/Phillips brouhaha, and those who fanned the flames of discussion, the Church as a body is now much more aware of the dangers of HyperPatriarchy, Dominionism, and its various agendas.

    It’s true that we’ve pretty well beaten the Phillips horse into glue, but in so doing, we’ve moved beyond Phillips and into deeper theological waters.

  54. Cynthia Gee Says:

    OT………

    I just got this, and yes, it’s off topic, but :

    There was a painter named Harry who was very interested in making a penny where he could, so he often thinned down his paint to make it go a wee bit further.

    As it happened, he got away with this for some time, but eventually the Baptist Church decided to do a big restoration job on one of their biggest buildings.

    Harry put in a bid, and, because his price was so low, he got the job. So he set about erecting the scaffolding and setting up the planks, and buying the paint and, yes, I am sorry to say, thinning it down with paint thinner.

    Well, Harry was up on the scaffolding, painting away, the job nearly completed, when suddenly there was a horrendous clap of thunder, the sky opened, and the rain poured down washing the thinned paint from all over the church and knocking Harry clear off the scaffold to land on the lawn among the gravestones, surrounded by telltale puddles of the thinned and useless paint.

    Harry was no fool. He knew this was a judgment from the Almighty, so he got down on his knees and cried: “Oh, God, forgive me; what should I do?”

    And from the thunder, a mighty voice spoke…
    “Repaint! Repaint! And thin no more!”

  55. Mike Says:

    Concerning the question as to whether Jen is focusing too much on Doug Phillips — I would point to the Gothard list as a good example of what direction to go. While it is not perfect by a long shot, and while the owner is truly insane — we have gotten hundreds and hundreds of messages — privately — to go with thousands publicly — attesting to the good it is doing.

    People have been caught up in bondage. They have been hurt terribly. They have seen their marriages, families, and churches shattered. Pastors have written, telling me one horror story after another. My heart has been broken again and again, reading all these stories — just as many of us in here have reacted to Jen’s story.

    But hurting, seeking questioning people can find support, and information, and confrontation at times — and solid biblical arguments to help them free themselves. The list is pretty quiet these days — it used to hop more than this blog does — but we still get a steady stream of people seeking help and thanking us for being there with our wealth of information.

    Here are a couple of things that I think we “do right.” I know this will cause offense, but I believe it needs to be said:

    1) We strictly enforce rules about personal attacks and name-calling, and that includes personal attacks on Gothard. I am a vocal critic, but I’ve kicked out several people for their name-calling toward, personal attacks against, and questioning of the salvation of Gothard.

    Nothing does more harm to Jen’s “cause” than all the ridiculous stuff said about Doug Phillips’ mother, father, salvation status, style of dress, hats, frog statues, etc. It’s embarrassing and offensive — and it provides ammunition for Jen’s enemies.

    2) We strictly control off-topic discussions. We allow for friendly banter and a little off-topic stuff — because that’s how people really get to know each other. In fact — we insist on puns! We set up a Gothard Off-Topic list, so members could discuss other issues if they wanted to, without driving away those who were looking for focused, concise information. We reminded everyone regularly that long-term serious discussions should stay focused on Gothard’s teaching and actions.

    For example, if a discussion started up concerning theonomy and patriarchy — we would ask folks to take it to the off-topic list, unless they had something directly related to Gothard. If Doug Phillips came up, we could discuss his connection to Gothard and where he went from there — but full discussions about his teachings, his church, or Jen’s situation would be off-limits. In fact, just recently, one person tried to get an argument started with Jen about Doug, and I nipped it in the bud.

    Some off-topic discussion is fine, but I think that on Jen’s blog we have often gone way overboard on it, and driven some people away.

    3) The last suggestion is the most important one: Send Mike lots of money! Uh… we still haven’t got that one up and running over on the Gothard list.

    Sigh.

  56. CD-Host Says:

    Hi Cynthia –

    OK I see what you mean. I was thinking of Doug Phillips both as a leader of the patriarchal (or patriocentric to use what I think is a very cool term you invented) movement and as a leader of the reconstructionist movement and as the pastor of BCA. So a critique of those movements are a critique of him. Then again I wasn’t active early on when you got involved and when this was just a case of spiritual abuse.

    On that topic, I also think there is a lot to discuss regarding the BCA issue. To be honest I would love to talk more about the psychology, sociology and ethnography of the BCA issue. I think there is a lot to figure out. What causes Sarah Schlissel to happily describe herself as property and advocate that God has command that his relationship with her be mediated through just another fallible sinful person?

  57. CD-Host Says:

    Hutch: “Jen- Do you know who Sarah Faith Schlissel is?”

    Sure, she is the daughter of Steve Schlissel, who is also a leader in Patriarchy. He has several websites, but this one looks like it has the most information on it.

    Salon magazine agreed with Jen (after she mentioned him I did a websearch and sure enough Sarah comes up). Now I’m really confused. Sarah Faith Schlissel has a CPA and an MBA, which is a CFO type program. That has to imply that she intends to enter the corporate workforce and in a position where she will have authority over lots of men. Right now she is a homeschooling mom but her articles on dominion come from when she was in school.

    Steve is active in counseling woman who have been sexual abused which has gotta mean he is having fairly graphical conversations with woman. He’s also does outreach work (Jazz concert series) besides the fact he lives in Brooklyn. That doesn’t sound like a separatist.

    I’m completely at a loss. Can anyone offer insight?

  58. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I’m completely at a loss. Can anyone offer insight?”

    This IS confusing. Maybe, like the 80’s televangelists, these folks are saying one thing and living another?

  59. Jen Says:

    CD-Host, I understand your confusion about the Schlissels. First, I prefer to look at each person as an individual and not necessarily as part of a group. If you were to examine each leader in the patriarchy movement, you would find MANY differences among them even in their beliefs of what constitutes patriarchy. Although the “Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” was written by three men — Doug Phillips, Phil Lancaster, and RC, Jr. — many other leaders in the patriarchy movement do not hold to the same beliefs to the same degree that these three men do. And even in that doctrinal statement, it plays out differently in these three men’s churches as well. For example, Brian Abshire, who wrote the article we are discussing here, takes strong exception to many of the things Doug fully embraces.

    While Doug and Steve Schlissel are good friends and agree on many areas, there are other areas where they part ways as well. Obviously, restricting girls from getting a college education is one of the areas of disagreement, and Brian Abshire also lets his daughter attend college. This puts Doug on the extreme fringe of even the patriarchy movement, which is why we call it hyper-patriarchy.

    I do not know the rationale for why Sarah has such a degree. Perhaps she feels she will best be able to be a helpmeet to her husband by having a degree in business. For those in the patriarchy movement that do allow college for women, it is often encouraged that they learn a skill in which they would be able to be a better helpmeet. There are others who feel that education in general helps better a person. I fall in that category, but I was very much at odds with everyone else at BCA over that issue.

    Steve Schlissel is definitely not a separatist! I thank God for his vision to reach out to those who need help, to the hurting. His church was very close the World Trade Center when 9/11 happened and he and his church members were right there to help with whatever they could. Not all patriarchy is bad and not all those who promote patriarchy harm others. As you can see, Steve does have some extreme ideas as well, such as “owning” his daughter, but even that seems to be different from what Doug is promoting.

    Why would Sarah say such a thing about her relationship with her father? First, she’s been indoctrinated that way for many years, possibly her whole life, and at the same time, it has been pointed out to her how “evil” the other side of the coin is. But second, and possibly the deciding factor for which girls embrace this so fully and which ones turn away from it, is that it appears that her father truly loves her and shows it. A girl will do almost anything for a father who truly loves her. The fact that Steve obviously encouraged her to get her degrees shows that he values her mind and probably her opinions as well. She pleases her father and that, in turn, turns her heart toward him.

    One of the things in patriarchy that bothered me the most, personally, was feeling so demeaned for even having an opinion or attempting to use my brain. I used to always say, “Why did God give me a brain if He didn’t intend for me to use it?”

    CD-Host, if you have questions about my story, from a perspective you feel I have not yet covered, feel free to ask them on any thread.

  60. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Maybe I can shed a little light on this.

    Please remember that the Schlissels are Jewish. Steve was a PCA pastor. Jewish women are not raised to be doormats nor are they raised to be ‘dumbed down’. Sarah gets her understanding of her standing with her father from the old Jewish culture…remember that it does not play well in todays society…

    In certain cultural settings…’this works’ because of the restrictions on the parent and the child laid down by Jewish society customs…..OT rules and laws were specific about familial matters..abuse was never allowed or tolerated. I understand and can agree more with Schissel than Phillips becasue Phillips is so over the cliff.

    Culturally and historically the Jews were the money and banking people in many cultures that they interacted with during the disapora…so for me to hear that she has a CPA and an MBA is in keeping with her cultural heritage.

    Who knows what she will be doing after her children are raised? Shes homeschooling now? I am sure that her children will be well prepared to go into the world ….more power to her.

    She sure won’t be dead and sitting around the house in 20 years (or sooner). Watch out…she may just end up as a CFO of some Fortune 500 company.

    from me to Sarah: YOU GO GIRL…..

    As a Jewish woman who has embraced Christ Sarah knows full well the meaning of love is love and business is business.

  61. Corrie Says:

    “James Carville, CJ. Hope I spelled that correctly.
    Those two are about as right and left as you can get.”

    And, Mary is the conservative and she was George Bush’s assistant and her husband ran Clinton’s PR/campaign.

    And, repealing the sodomy laws naturally flowing from prohibition of alcohol just does NOT compute. It is nonsensical. Just like saying that feminism brings about homosexuality. Homosexuality was rampant in patriarchal culture and it was said by the philosophers in ancient Rome that taking a male lover was far superior than having sex with a woman but that women/wives were a necessary evil for continuing life. Sodom and Gomorrah was a patriarchal society and it was filled with sodomites- right out there in the open. The Benjamite sodomites who came to demand the pleasure of sodomizing the male visitor were also of a patriarchal culture.

    Yes, the prohibition used worldly methods to solve a spiritual problem but so does patriarchy employ worldly methods to correct problems.

    I think we can conclude, based on the vast amounts of evidence throughout history, with just as much logic (if not more) that patriarchy leads to sodomy.

    On another note, I am appalled at how 1 Tim 2:11 was used to say that God doesn’t allow women to vote. CJ is correct. If that is true, concerning 1 Tim. 2:11, then the same is true for men and that God does not allow them to vote.

  62. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “If that is true, concerning 1 Tim. 2:11, then the same is true for men and that God does not allow them to vote.”

    Well, you know….In democracy, it’s your vote that counts; in feudalism it’s your Count that votes!

  63. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I think we can conclude, based on the vast amounts of evidence throughout history, with just as much logic (if not more) that patriarchy leads to sodomy.”

    Actually, in its truest form, unmodified by Judaism or Christianity, it does exactly that.
    Mosaic patriarchy eschewed sodomy, which was widely accepted in the heathen cultures; in those cultures, as in anthropoid ape society, the more powerful males used sodomy as a tool with which to dominate lesser males.
    The story of Sodom, where the townsmen wanted Lot to bring his guests out so that they might “know” them, shows a group of alpha males trying to establish dominance over a couple of foreign visitors, and in so doing declare the superiority of their clan and city over that of the outlanders’.
    Disgusting? You betcha, and it’s pure patriarchal Kinism, unhindered by Christian morality.

  64. CD-Host Says:

    CD-Host, if you have questions about my story, from a perspective you feel I have not yet covered, feel free to ask them on any thread.

    Absolutely. I’d like to go back to that conversation we were having about the woman talking to each other at BCA. You gave the example of a woman being submissive over salad dressing.

    More stories like that. And lots more detail of what people actually said would be useful (kind of like a play). I’m still trying to understand the dynamics at work in the woman “encouraging one another”.

    For example on the salad dressing story I don’t know that I actually understood what was so submissive. From my perspective it looked like:
    The couple was faced with a choice about who was going to be embarrassed. Either he fails to do a church duty or she fails to bring salad dressing. They make a choice that the salad dressing is the less important of the two, and while she thinks they made the right choice she is still a bit upset since it is her friends who will be disappointed. It was my feeing, that this scenario could have played out the same way in even a feminist household. Couples have to constantly make those sorts of choices regardless of their politics.

    But regardless what would be more interesting is exactly what the other woman said in response. Also an issue of more intensity would be better. Something where there was some controversy. For example a husband that gave an unbiblical command, or an area where a wife refused to submit and was being castigated or….

    Anyway thanks, I know I’m asking for a lot with this question.

  65. Lin Says:

    ” This is not universal, of course; we all know folks like that bizarre match-up between Mary Matalin and Old Lizard-head. ”

    This is a sore subject for me. I had to take my husband to Ruth Chris because I lost the bet that they would only last 5 years. BTW: It is ‘Serpent-head’.

    “(the Prohibition era is STILL a matter of public ridicule and repealing prohibition set the legal precedence for pornography, sodomy and the acceptance of other moral failures)”

    Huh? I am going to use my own brand of illogic…the ‘legal’ precedent was set by the Clintons. :o)

    I could not help but think of all the fortunes made during Prohibition…starting with Joe Kennedy. Then the government realized you can’t tax something illegal.

  66. CD-Host Says:

    Morgan and Jen. Are you all saying that its possible that Steve is a patriarch and does think it is acceptable for Sarah to be in a position of authority over men?

    That would be interesting. Because then other than strict ideas about sex (Sarah holds to a no kissing until marriage) Sarah isn’t really that far to the right from many evangelicals.

    Morgan’s insight into Judaism is interesting. Jewish patriarchy works on a form of behaviorism. The husband generally does what the wife wants. He however does have final decision making authority on anything. Any time he overrules her however he gets to hear for months - decades about what a terrible choice he made and how it resulted in . As an aside btw her friends and his family also get to hear about how poor his choice was. The net result is that a formally patriarchal society becomes effectively matriarchal in practice because generally it isn’t worth actually opposing the wife. Conversely husbands have the right to divorce if they become deeply unsatisfied; so that while divorce rates are very low (under 5% among religious jews) the wife has some restraints on her nagging / revenge.

    I don’t know any religious Jew who would be threatened with his wife having a MBA, CPA but then again even the most extreme sects allow (and encourage) woman to work outside the home. They also are opposed to home schooling and generally set up small Jewish schools.

    I’m not sure how this model translates into a Christian / non-divorcing / home schooling approach. Religious Jews have no problems with courtship and courtship seems much more compatible with Jewish expectations for marriage than Christian ones.

  67. CD-Host Says:

    about what a terrible choice he made and how it resulted in .

    That was an html error, it should have read

    “about what a terrible choice he made and how it resulted in [list of bad stuff] . ” except with &LT and &GT signs

  68. Edwin the Calvinist Anglican Says:

    The woman’s suffrage discussion is a little too American-centric for me. Woman’s suffrage in the UK preceded ours by 14 years. And the UK was then largely a merger of church and state. Perhaps we took heart from their example.

    Two of the biggest supporters of women’s suffrage in our country were big time Evangelicals: William Jennings Bryan and Billy Sunday. Even if you have theological differences with them, I wouldn’t call them biblically ignorant.

    Do Evangelicals in any other country embrace Hyper-Patriarchy like we do in the states? Perhaps outside of the this country it’s a hard sell….like the Prosperity Gospel in Rwanda.

    These are just my little musings. I hope they add something to the discussion.

    Edwin, the Kneeling Calvinist

  69. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Seems that CD is going over the cliff and generalizing about the shrewish Jewish matriarch. She would not be a shrew if “THE HUSBAND DID IT RIGHT AND LISTENED TO HER.”

    Seriously though CD..your generalizations are just absurd. There are as many dysfunctional jewish households as there are dysfunctional christian households…this blog actually covered this

    CD..Stop trying to pigeon hole everything. I really do enjoy your comments and your value added to this blog but in this one respect you just drive me to distraction!!!! (nag nag..can you hear me now????) ROTFLOL

    If more men valued their wives opinions and consulted her more often…things may be a lot easier. BTW one of the reasons I married the man I did was that it was evident early on that we ‘were destined to make beautiful business together.’ And we do…

    You have ‘the papa’ and ‘the mama’ …. trust me jewish society behaviorism had it worked out loooong before the rest of us came along. It’s a give and take thing…you would have to be one (jewish) to really understand and appreciate the interaction and banter.

  70. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    It is now obvious to me from your comments that the Schlissel family brand of patriarchy is nothing like DP style door-mat patriarchy.

    I have always thought that I have an almost unfair advantage by having an absolutely brilliant and talented help-meet. What a team!

    Perhaps it would do some of Doug’s BCA people well to be exposed to Sarah’s writings?

    I’m still concerned about the terminology of ownership that she seems to indicate transfers from her father to her husband.

    But, I obviously commented without having all the information.

  71. Corrie Says:

    “It is now obvious to me from your comments that the Schlissel family brand of patriarchy is nothing like DP style door-mat patriarchy.”

    Hutch,

    Don’t forget that Schlissel wrote the article on “piercing” and how he sees that to apply to women. I won’t get into it here but there has been discussion on this in the past. Warning, you will need a mind shower after reading what he wrote. Sarah tells us that God takes a back seat to the father when it comes to the daughter.

    Frankly, I have never heard Doug Phillips teaching anything remotely as bizarre as some of the things I have heard from the Schlissels.

  72. Cynthia Gee Says: