[Kathryn] Joyce aims her arrows …, but her principal darts are for yours truly and Vision Forum. Her un-footnoted work draws from the bizarre and inflammatory testimonies of a former homeschool mom turned lesbian-feminist activist [Cheryl Lindsey Seelhof]; from a disgruntled excommunicant with an exposure “ministry” whose personal behavior led her to be criminally cited, cuffed by police, and ultimately lose custody of her children; to pseudononymous individuals operating anti-pastor hate sites. These “reliable” sources help Joyce to present a case that some “quiverfull” families are made up of fathers who abuse their wives, enslave their daughters, or worse. (Frankly, some of the other charges and insinuations are too repulsive to mention.)

“Un-footnoted work.”  Perhaps “yours truly,” the author of the above quote, otherwise known as Doug Phillips, should have bothered to check the accuracy about the “disgruntled excommunicant” with some “facts” and “footnotes” of his own first before gloating over what he must think is my just due.  Oddly enough, under any other circumstances, Doug Phillips would probably still be writing about me, but from the other side of the fence.  

But now seems like a good time to present a couple hypothetical scenarios.

Let’s take two Christian families with teenage boys.  Family A has both a father and mother who diligently work to instill the principles of the Fifth Commandment to their children.  One teenage son, as teenagers are often wont to do, shows disrespect by forgetting to open the door for his mother (or something similarly inocuous).  The father responds by disciplining the teenage, possibly with a spanking.  Teenage son A grows up to not only honor both father and mother but also to teach others to do so.

Family B has a mother who works diligently to instill the principles of the Fifth Commandment to her children, unconditionally.  After leaving the family, the father has different values.  The mother tells the teenage son to accomplish a common task.  The son refuses to obey and uses vulgarities to mock and ridicule his mother.  The mother again patiently repeats her request.  After another refusal and round of filthy, highly abusive language, the mother gives the son one swat and again asks him to comply.  This scenario plays out several times until the son finally obeys his mother.  Afterward, the son leaves the house and goes to a pay phone to call his father, who tells him to go to the police.  The father encourages the son to press charges of abuse against the mother. 

The police, being under lawful obligation to investigate all claims, handcuff the mother and take her away from her crying children, leading her down the street in front of all her neighbors and put her in jail.  After questioning, despite the father’s pleading with the law enforcement officers to keep her overnight, the mother is released without being charged.  Not only does the police department refuse to charge her with any wrongdoing, but also the DA and Child Protective Services both find that she has not broken any laws nor done anything worth further pursuit.  The feminist, anti-homeschooling judge wasn’t so kind.  I wonder how teenage son B will turn out.

Perhaps teenage son A will be an advocate of the Fifth Commandment in all families.  Or maybe just in those where both the father and mother live by the principles of the Fifth Commandment.

Of course, the above scenarios are not meant to be real stories who happened to real people we know.

 Old Spice is having a contest for their “Art of Manliness Man of the Year” award for 2008 and Matt Chancey is one of ten finalists!  As of this writing, he has recently slipped down to second place after holding a strong first place until another blog decided to write about this particular contest.

Each of the contestants’ bios seem to be written up from their wife’s perspective, so check out why Jennie Chancey thinks Matt should be named “Man of the Year” and company spokesman for this apparently gay-friendly organization.  And while you’re at it, feel free to vote for your choice of the “Art of Manliness Man of the Year.”

UPDATE:  On December 15, the polls were officially closed and Matt did indeed win “Man of the Year” for Old Spice.  Enjoy!

I’ve been thinking about the primaries lately, since Texas votes on Tuesday.  Texas doesn’t always have a chance to make our vote count, but maybe we do this time.  There are a few other states that still have a chance as well.

Now, I know I got in big trouble for not voting for the “biblical” candidate last time, but I think Doug Phillips and I are on the same sheet of music in who we want to vote for this election.  Although I’m not 100% in agreement with Ron Paul, I did come to the conclusion several weeks ago that I am a Ron Paul supporter.  When you look at what else is out there, what choice do we really have?

But last election, I took a strong stance on not throwing away a vote.  So should I just throw away my vote this election?  Is there any way I can make my vote count?  After giving this some serious thought, I want to propose what will probably be a little bit controversial.

First, is a vote for Ron Paul this campaign throwing away my vote?  No.  I don’t think so.  I do think a vote for Ron Paul, even knowing there’s no way he can win this election, is really a vote for the values he’s proposing — taking us back to our foundation.  That’s a good thing.  And the more his message gets out this year, the better chance we have of taking that message forward in the future.  But, is that the most important thing I can do this election?  Perhaps not.

So, what choices do I have?  Huckabee?  or McCain?  I think we already know what the outcome is going to be, so does my vote really matter?

Maybe we should step back a little further and look at the big picture.  What’s going to happen in November?  McCain vs. Obama.  Or McCain vs. Hillary.  Those are really the only two viable options left, are they not?  So, of those three candidates, which one is, unfortunately, the lesser of three evils?  Oh, I know God is Sovereign and He already has the president picked out, but He still expects us to use our head and act.  If I was forced to choose, I guess I’ll take McCain.  So what does that have to do with Tuesday of this week?  Or the rest of the primaries?

Well, who does McCain stand a better chance of defeating in November:  Obama or Hillary?  The LA Times ran this article that shows that if McCain were running directly against Obama, McCain would just barely edge him out by two percentage points.  However, if McCain were running against Hillary, he would possibly beat her by 6 percentage points.  So, my end goal is for McCain to get in.  The odds are pretty even with Obama, but he’s got quite a bit of playing room with Hillary, so it would be better for McCain to run against Hillary.

In Texas, we have what are called “open primaries,” which means that no matter which political party we are registered under, we can choose any political party to vote for on primary day.  Only on primary day.

So, if my goal is for McCain to win the presidency in November, my best bet is for Hillary to win the democrat nomination now so that McCain has a better chance of beating the democrat candidate in November.

I never thought I would be saying this, but this Ron Paul supporter is voting for Hillary Clinton on Tuesday.  Go, Hillary, go!!

Pragmatic?  Yes.  But I really don’t like wasting my vote.

After much lively discussion on the “Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” in general last week, let us continue to dig into each one separately.  I will examine specifically what the verses say that Doug Phillips uses to support his “Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” and discover whether his tenets are indeed biblical or not.  This article is focused on the second tenet.

The Image of God and Gender Roles

2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character) and they are both called to exercise dominion over the earth. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption. The man is also the image and glory of God in terms of authority, while the woman is the glory of man. (Gen. 1:27-28; 1 Cor. 11:3,7; Eph. 5:28; 1 Pet. 3:7)

Gen 1:27-28 – So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

While I am glad to see that Doug acknowledges that both men and women are created in the image of God, I fail to see how this verse shows that our human characteristics therefore enable us to reflect His character. Surely this is probably true, but since these are “biblical” tenets, I would have liked to see some Scriptural support for this. Perhaps something like “Be holy, for I am holy” would at least give us an example of this.

Now this next part may seem like a small issue to some, but when it is developed into a full false theology, it is anything but minor. Here Doug says that both man and woman are called to exercise dominion over the earth, but what does the text tell us? We are to have dominion over the fish, the birds, and every living thing that moves on the earth. Let’s look at the other dominion verses as well, to see this in full context:

Ps. 8:6-8 – You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, All sheep and oxen— Even the beasts of the field, The birds of the air, And the fish of the sea That pass through the paths of the seas.

All the other verses about dominion seem to focus mainly on kings having dominion, on Christ having dominion, and on sin, death, and law no longer having dominion over us. So if we summarize the “Dominion Mandate,” as Doug is trying to use to lay a foundation in these “Tenets,” by looking solely at Scripture, we find that we, that is, both man and woman, are commanded to have dominion over the animals. I really don’t see much else in these verses, although you could possibly stretch it to include all of creation as well. So what does God’s Dominion Mandate really tell us? We are to take care of, and control, the animals, and possibly take care of the earth. No more. We are not commanded to have dominion over the culture. We are not commanded to take dominion in politics. And men are not commanded to have dominion over their wives, which is where Doug wants to take this.

I Cor. 11:3 – But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.

I agree that God created man and woman in His own image. This isn’t said of any of God’s other creatures. Mankind also is unique in that we are the only created beings of God’s creations with a soul. Mankind therefore has a special obligation to bring glory to God. I can only assume that these verses are included to show that the man is the image and glory of God in terms of authority. I’m not sure I understand the need to talk about authority structure in the section on being created in the image of God, but I don’t think this is a strong enough passage to biblically support Doug’s assertion that man is the image and glory of God in terms of authority.  Putting these two passages together in such a way is a bit of reach for me.

This is a hard verse for me to understand.  In Genesis, we are told that both man and woman are created in the image of God, but here we are told that man is the image and glory of God, while woman is the glory of man.  It seems clear to me that this passage is talking about a husband/wife relationship and not just men and women in general, but I do struggle with understanding this verse.

Eph. 5:28 – So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.

This is a good verse, but I don’t see how it relates to being created in the image of God. To me, this seems confusing to speak of mankind being created in God’s image, while at the same time talking about “gender roles.” Are we trying to say that since a man was created in the image of God, that he should love his own body, and therefore he should love his own wife? If so, this should be stated as such. This verse probably belongs in a different category.

I Pet. 3:7 – Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered.

This verse seems to support the statement that they share an equal worth as persons before God in redemption, that we are heirs together of the grace of life.  So when we get to the part about men being priests in their own home, we will revisit this verse.  Let’s add this one to bolster this statement just a bit:

Gal. 3:28 – There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

So, in this tenet, we find clear biblical support for nearly everything except the clause (their human characteristics enable them to reflect His character), which is probably meant to be a logical inference of what it means to be created in the image of God, although I find no clear Scripture listed for this. I wonder if Doug is trying to say that men and women have different character traits based upon our being male or female.  I have to assume so, since this is the category on separate gender roles.  However, I don’t find anything in Scripture to support us having different, or as Corrie says, “pink and blue” character traits. Surely some of our character traits are a reflection of God’s character, but not all of God’s character traits are reflected in us, though.  This is really a tenuous statement at most and needs to be dropped or clarified.

Doug is building a foundation for his premises for patriarchy here, attempting to show that creation sets the pattern for patriarchy.  I believe that is why he has asserted that man is the image and glory of God in terms of authority right from the start.  The problem is that we just simply don’t find that authority in the creation story.  Eve was created to help Adam, which seems to be a position of strength, not of weakness.  There is certainly no indication of authority in Genesis.  So I would remove this as well.  Here is what we have left in Tenet 2 in terms of biblical support:
2. Both man and woman are made in God’s image and they are both called to exercise dominion over the animals. They share an equal worth as persons before God in creation and redemption. The man is also the image and glory of God, while the woman is the glory of man.

David McCrory’s thoughts on Tenet #2:

This is very important to comprehend from the outset because it often serves as a criticism to Biblical patriarchy in the form of saying Biblical patriarchy places men ahead of women in God’s created order. This is a false notion. God created man (generically), both male and female (meaning mankind). As a reflection of God, and being in His expressed image, BOTH men and women resemble Him in this manner. As a result, both men AND women are of equal worth, value and dignity as image bearers of God. In theological categories, we would say men and women are ontologically equals. In this sense then, we heartily affirm men are not “superior” to women.

Both are to exercise dominion over creation. But even here we find an economic distinction between the genders. Men are to serve God in a position of authority over all creation (even women), but the woman is to serve God by serving her male authority (usually her father or husband), in helping him fulfill God’s established mandate for him. It is in this sense, by helping to support and compliment her head, a woman is the glory of man, while at the same time, bringing glory and honor to God.

David McCrory, of “The Reformed Puritan,” is beginning a new series attempting to show that Doug Phillips’ “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” are indeed biblical.  I will be continuing my series attempting to show that they are not.  I encourage my readers to comment on both sites.  This should be fun!

Although the stated reasons for my excommunication were quite vague and broad-brushed, with no evidence given whatsoever, I believe the main underlying reason why Doug Phillips excommunicated me really had to do with politics. Well, that was the outward circumstance for an inward attitude. Four years ago, as we prepared for the presidential election, Doug Phillips took a very strong stand on why Christians should vote for Michael Peroutka, a virtually unknown candidate for the Constitution Party, the party of Doug’s father, Howard Phillips. For weeks and weeks before the election, we heard political propaganda pounded into us from the pulpit and through the discussion time of the men after the weekly sermon.

Now, I have nothing personally against Peroutka, and he may have been a very fine candidate, but there were many reasons why I was not going to vote for him. And since we live in a free country, and since Jesus bought our spiritual freedom as well, I certainly thought I had the freedom to vote for any presidential candidate I thought best. Little did I know at the time that by reason of my being born female, I was not to be afforded the privilege of freely choosing whom I wanted to vote for.

Now that I’ve had time to reflect on everything, it seems that one way that Doug Phillips can promote his political agenda is to keep women from participating, not only by stating that it is a sin for women to be in politics, but also that God does not allow women to vote. In Doug’s world, women are not allowed a college education where they might be exposed to political issues. In Doug’s brand of hyper-patriarchy, women are not allowed to have an opinion or a belief that is not their husband’s as well. When it comes to politics, that is a subject that is verboten to women and should only interest men.

A quick review of the last election run-in with Doug Phillips

Although Doug Phillips does not normally allow comments on his blog (which should be a huge red flag already — no dissent allowed), on this one particular occasion, he did actually solicit his readers’ opinions to a voting scenario he laid out between candidates A and B. Having previously spoken with one of the Vision Forum employees about my concerns regarding Doug’s views on politics, this particular employee had encouraged me to write Doug and express my own thoughts on the matter. I did not feel at liberty to do so at the time, but when this blog article came out just a few days before the election, I immediately jumped at the chance to participate. Of immense interest to me was a voting debate hosted by Doug Phillips and posted at the same time. I chose to respond to both.

Could I have responded any better? Of course! First, emotions were running high on both sides. Second, this was my very first attempt at taking a side on any issue, so I was not versed at all in the skill of debate. Third, as I look back at where I was spiritually then, I wince when I read that I wrote things like “Shame on you” to my elder. Although I meant it lightheartedly, it was not appropriate to say, and I was wrong for saying that. But was I wrong for writing it in the first place? Was I wrong for having an opinion? Was I wrong for voicing my opinion? No.

But I wrote my response and sent it off with my husband’s full blessing to Doug’s private email address so that no one else need know about it. Why did my response that Friday generate such a riposte then in return on Sunday? When Doug arrived at church that Sunday, shortly after the service had already started, I asked to speak to him outside. Very reluctantly, he agreed. As I apologized for gossiping about him a couple weeks earlier, I asked if he would forgive me. Rather than doing so, he qualified his forgiveness by asking if I would also apologize for writing him the voting letter. I did not see that I had sinned in doing so, and said as much. Refusing to forgive me for gossiping then, Doug threatened me instead, “You’re going to pay for this!” I had no idea at the time that this was a threat of excommunication. As I found out later, though, my sin was not in writing and sending the email, but in being a woman. I was told that the letter would have been fine if Mark was the one who had written it, even though his name was included and it was sent with his full blessing.

Much to my surprise, Doug then went inside to preach, but it was not the next chapter in I Kings this week. No, he pulled out my letter and began to read from it. As he would read each point, he would preach against it, point by point. He did not say my name, but I found it quite comical to see him so incensed by my letter that he chose to preach against it two days before the election. That was my first indication that BCA was no longer a church, but a cult.

Doug Phillips’ “Biblical” Principles of the Ballot Box

Super Tuesday is almost upon us now and Doug Phillips has released a new CD called “Biblical Principles of the Ballot Box,” available for a donation of any amount. I have not listened to it, but I do wonder if it is that sermon where he preached against my letter, point by point. Whatever it is, I am quite confident that I know the basics of what it contains. There is one thing I have noticed about Doug Phillips over the years: his positions do not change at all, but they do grow more and more extreme. So, I will relay his position according to the last election four years ago, but I wouldn’t be surprised to see even more extremes as we continue building up to the elections this November.

Is Doug still upset about my voting letter? In his blog entry last Monday, January 28th, he talked about Christians who are “fearful” of voting according to the Bible. Look at some of the hyperbole he uses in that article:

At stake is far more than the presidency. We can “win” an election, and yet sell our spiritual birthright.

As I have gotten into the habit of highlighting unnecessary language in Doug’s writings, it has become clear that much of his “vision” is fear-driven propaganda. Let’s strip away the rhetoric and see what he is telling us. First, if we don’t vote for the “biblical” candidate, we are like Esau, selling our “spiritual” birthright. And that is more important than the election itself. Wow. I don’t remember Esau selling his birthright for a vote for the wrong presidential candidate. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. But it’s kind of scary to think that we might end up like Esau, especially when we think about what God said about him: “Jacob have I loved, but Esau I have hated.” Talk about a heavy burden. I thought this was the land of the free. I thought we were free to vote for any presidential candidate. When Jesus said He came to set us free, I wonder if He meant freedom except that He would lay upon us the burden of selling our spiritual birthright if we voted for the wrong candidate for president of the United States of America. That’s a pretty heavy fear tactic.

[W]hat matters the most is that the Church remains faithful to her Bridegroom by following the only infallible standard ever written for the selection of civil magistrates.

I suppose I would have to listen to the CDs to find what these verses are that detail exactly how we should vote in the upcoming elections. I agree that there are certainly principles we can find in Scripture, such as being careful of voting for those who promote murder through abortion, but most of the principles Doug is espousing here are certainly extra-biblical and have little-to-nothing to do with how we are really to vote. Perhaps this is the section where God does not allow women to vote either. However, if we look at Doug’s reasoning here, we will soon be quite fearful that we would be unfaithful to our Bridegroom if we vote for the wrong person. Now our vote is raised to the level of spiritual adultery. The fear level continues to grow.

Some believe that the Bible is silent on the question of what standards should govern the selection of a civil magistrate. But to reach this conclusion is to deny the sufficiency of Scripture, and to substitute autonomous human reason for biblical revelation.

Does the Bible tell us how to vote? Or are we given liberty in this area? Is this an area where God expects us to use wisdom or must we follow the dictates of Doug Phillips in our private voting booth? If I vote for a different candidate than Doug Phillips does, am I denying the sufficiency of Scripture? That sounds as bad as saying that every woman who works outside the home is blaspheming Scripture. That’s pretty serious stuff. Autonomous is a word Doug likes to use in conjunction with antinomianism, so this statement is effectually saying that if you don’t vote for the right “biblical” candidate, you don’t believe the Bible and you are an antinomian. More fear tactics.

Others are so fearful of certain outcomes, that there is little reasoning with them.

But nobody really likes to be called “fearful,” so let’s attack those who use logic and reason to sort through the issues and win them over with lots of honey instead!

They want to condemn their brethren by saying that a vote for X, is really a vote for Y.

Aha! This is taken straight from my letter to Doug! He does remember! In this case, I said that a vote for Peroutka was really a vote for Kerry, in that it took votes away from Bush. When an election is as close as the last presidential election was, if voters who would otherwise have voted for Bush ended up voting for someone who didn’t have a snowball’s-chance-in-hell of winning, that was one less vote for Bush for each person who voted for Peroutka. Simple math shows that taking votes away from Bush increases Kerry’s numbers proportionately. But is it really condemnation to point out the obvious? Or is it just more fear tactics to use a trigger word for Christians like “condemn”?

Their election fears seem sometimes to rise to a self-righteous hysteria, governed more by emotions than objective standards.

Self-righteous hysteria! I can’t say for sure, but if Doug is speaking of me here, my hysteria was rather calm in that I didn’t let anyone else know about it except for Mark and Doug. Of course, telling others that they are reaching the level of being hysterical is certainly going to win them over to your point of view. And then we have emotions versus objective standards. I listed objective standards all throughout my paper in opposition to Doug’s emotional stance for Peroutka. In fact, I don’t believe he liked it when I suggested that perhaps Peroutka supporters were so heavenly minded that they were no earthly good in this election. I had a very difficult time finding any objective standards in Doug’s position. This is just more fear mongering on Doug’s part.

The Bible has the answer to the ethical chaos of fear-driven voting, pragmatic voting, “ends-justifies-the-means” voting, and “lesser-of-two-evils” voting.

Fear, fear, fear.

It explores the blessing presented in Scripture to all who will enter the ballot box with supreme confidence that the Lord sovereignly reigns, that He is more pleased with our obedience than with our rationalistic, extra-biblical voting strategies, and that the greatest hope for America is not found in the outcome of any one election, but in the persevering witness of the Church as God’s representative in America, to uphold his non-negotiable standards and righteousness.

Perhaps Doug Phillips and I will vote for the same candidate this year, but it will be with two very different motivations. I am not driven by fear that I will lose my spiritual birthright if I vote for the wrong candidate. I do not think I will cease to believe in the Bible if I vote for the wrong guy. I won’t get hysterical or self righteous, but I might use a little logic and reasoning and seek to understand the issues.

I don’t think God has promised me any blessings for voting for “God’s” candidate. God is sovereign and He will put the person He wants as president in office, with or without my vote. But Doug does have one statement right here: “He is more pleased with our obedience than with our … extra-biblical voting strategies.” We haven’t looked at any verses in this short article on Doug’s extra-biblical voting strategies, but we will continue to look at his political ideas this year and we will find that they are, indeed, very extra-biblical. Jesus gave us freedom. We live in a free country. Please do not be under the bondage that you must follow Doug’s voting strategies or God will not be pleased with you. You are free to vote for whomever you choose this year.

But in the end, it probably doesn’t really matter what my opinion is on the matter because I am, after all, only a woman, and God doesn’t allow women to vote!

We went to a rally in Victoria, Texas today. We were told that the Constitution guarantees us certain freedoms. It was good to see people enjoying their freedom today.

Artifact’s sale may save Crosbyton fossil museum

Friday, January 25, 2008

A week after filing for bankruptcy and selling his prized mastodon skull, the owner of the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum in Crosbyton says he should be able to stay in business.

“We think we’re going to be able to continue business as usual and get this thing straightened out,” Joe Taylor, the museum’s owner, said Thursday.

Two weeks ago, Taylor, 63, was facing the possible closure of his museum due to a legal battle that left him in a financial strait jacket. The sheriff’s department was on the verge of forcing Taylor to sell his museum, which he opened about a decade ago.

Taylor’s only hope was to make enough money by selling his mastodon skull to pay his legal bills and settlement costs.

The mastodon skull, the largest ever found, was sold for $191,200 last week at an auction in Dallas. Of that money, Taylor will get to keep about $128,000 – almost enough to pay the $136,000 he is required to pay in damages stemming from a disagreement with a former colleague over discovery rights to an Allosaurus skeleton.

“This whole thing should have never happened,” Taylor said.

The $128,000 from the sale was enough to call off the sheriff’s sale,

though Taylor still has a few details to work out and still owes the remaining $8,000.

The ordeal began after a landowner outside Dinosaur, Colo., contacted Taylor in 2001 and asked him to oversee a joint dig involving a group of aspiring home-schooled junior archaeologists. The team found the Allosaurus skeleton, but soon afterward a debate began over who should be credited with the discovery of the fossil.

In April 2004, the two sides agreed to a settlement, which ensured Taylor would be paid $124,843 for his share of the Allosaurus, which was sold to a third party for $200,000.

Part of the agreement also stated neither side could disparage the other without facing a fine.

Between June 2005 and January 2007, Taylor made at least 20 attempts to explain what happened at the Allosaurus dig near Dinosaur through various posts on the Internet, letters and e-mails.

A mediator later found each of Taylor’s public postings regarding the dig constituted a disparaging comment, which in the end cost Taylor more than $130,000 in damages owed to the group he had formerly settled with.

When I first set out to write a series of articles about “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” last June, I considered myself to be a patriarchalist, although I thought that Doug Phillips was a little extreme in some areas. When I first wrote the series, what stood out most to me was the fact that while most of the tenets looked sound to me, Scripture simply didn’t back them up. Since these were “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy,” it seemed imperative to me that they be backed up by the Word of God. That was my first shock.

As I began to process the comments, however, I wasn’t prepared for the onslaught that followed. As subject after subject was addressed first here, and then on other blogs and forums, God started exposing my own heart and I was forced to examine if all that I held dear was what God held dear as well. So many of my deeply treasured beliefs were slain on the altar of truth. Sacrifice hurts. This was not merely a sacrifice of my mind, but my whole life has been greatly altered as I’ve walked this path.

It seems that there has been nearly a relentless attack against patriarchy since I posted that series, and it has caused me to go to God’s Word, time and time again, to see what the truth is in these areas. However, the conversations that have ensued since then seem to be somewhat haphazard and focused on attacking patriarchy without providing any definitive alternative. My goal is not to offer an alternative, necessarily, but to dig even deeper and see what God truly has to say about this subject of the Biblical family. Doug Phillips presented us with a false dilemma of patriarchy vs. feminism or patriarchy vs. egalitarianism, but these are not our only options. In this series, I would like to examine what God really has to say about the Biblical family.

The first series about “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” was a very broad sweep of the Tenets as a whole, with a scattershot approach to examining them. As I sought to find a way to address those who desire to live only by God’s Word, and especially those who now see that this form of patriarchy is not actually God’s Word, I prayed for months about how to approach the whole subject. I think we shall go back to the beginning and take a good solid look at patriarchy first, finding what is worth keeping and rejecting what is extrabiblical. We will do this by examining each of the tenets, again, in more detail, one by one. Not only will we examine the verses used, but we may add some of our own. Then, I would like to be your interpreter for this journey. On the surface, much of what is written in the “Tenets” sounds good, but I know what it looks like in real life for Doug Phillips. That is the perspective I will bring. Others of you know what a particular tenet looks like from the viewpoint of other patriarchalists. That will now be welcomed here.

As you can see, I have changed the name of my blog to reflect a more general viewpoint. My story about Doug Phillips is still the foundation of this blog, but this blog grew in ways I never imagined one year ago, and I would like to be able to address the broader angle of patriarchy now. The underlying reasons for Doug’s behavior are his beliefs. Those beliefs are the root of what appears to be rotten fruit. But Doug Phillips is not the only one with those beliefs that end up putting believers into the bondage of legalism, or the false doctrines of theonomy and reconstructionism and dominion theology, or elevating areas of freedom and wisdom to that of absolute commands. I have noticed, however, that everyone who claims the name of “patriarchy” does not necessarily believe the same things. So when you post a comment, I would ask you to try to use more direct, attributable quotes and fewer general statements of “all patriarchalists” believe such-and-such. Feel free to give your opinion, but please state it as such. I think some unnecessary damage has been done by painting with too broad a brush at times. In order to make this a credible debate, we need to be careful to always be fair.

Even those who have stated that they believe in Doug’s version of “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” sometimes don’t realize that they really have a different point of view altogether. Probably the most significant aspect of this would be those who have personal preferences for certain aspects of patriarchy, but would never say that it is a sin if another believer did not adhere exactly to these areas of personal preferences. One of the main objectives of this series will be to clearly delineate which areas are strictly biblical and which are personal preferences and why. I am not at all opposed to someone having a personal preference that is different from my own, including those who call themselves patriarchalists.

Another goal of this series will be to show that we can believe and adhere to God’s Word in the area of the Biblical family without being a patriarchalist, and that there is no need to be called names such as “feminist” for believing the Scriptures. Although many on both sides of the issue have claimed to be complementarian, there are just as many who are quick to pull away from that label as well, stating that complementarians are really patriarchalists cloaked in less offensive language. I propose that we put all these labels aside now and focus on where we should be, as the Biblical family. Will we all agree? Probably not. But rather than just attack patriarchy here, I would like to now examine what God thinks. As stated in “The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy”:

As Doug invites feedback to his document, I also invite feedback to my thoughts on digging deeper into these issues.

After we have thoroughly examined each of these tenets, I will move on to address any other areas of the Biblical family that have not been addressed in these tenets. If there is an area you would like to see covered, feel free to leave me a comment about it and I will put it on my list. Let’s begin with the very first tenet.

God as Masculine
1. God reveals Himself as masculine, not feminine. God is the eternal Father and the eternal Son, the Holy Spirit is also addressed as “He,” and Jesus Christ is a male. (Matt. 1:25; 28:19; Jn. 5:19; 16:13)

When we examined this tenet the first time, I was really caught off guard. I have been so far to the right in my biblical thinking that I didn’t realize there were those who would disagree with this statement. Now that I’ve had time to think about it, I do agree that God does reveal Himself as masculine. Jesus did not tell us to pray to “Our Mother, who art in heaven,” but He constantly referred to His Father. As the Son, Jesus is obviously masculine also. And John 16:13 clearly delineates the Holy Spirit as being masculine as well. If we believe in the trinity, then it seems to follow logically that the triune God-head would be not only the same gender, but that there might even be a purpose for declaring that gender to be masculine.

Doug Phillips, and and certain fellow patriarchs, apparently believe that the purpose of God stating His gender to be male has to do with it being the foundation of patriarchy. If Doug can establish that God Himself is masculine, and I agree with his basic assertion here, then we all know that God is superior, God is the head of all, God is in charge, God is the authority, and that God has many other characteristics that Doug will attempt to attribute to men only on the basis that God is masculine. This is a red herring. Doug is attempting to assert that patriarchy, in having the family centered around the man, is biblical because God is masculine. Nowhere in Scripture are we given this foundation for the family. Nowhere in Scripture are we told that because God is masculine, anything having to do with patriarchy follows. My whole excommunication got started because I called Doug on some logical fallacies. Now I will attempt to show that Doug is basing his whole belief system on logical fallacies as well.

It is my personal opinion that God refers to Himself as being masculine, in triune unity, because our relationship with God is mirrored in our marriages. God had a chosen people in the nation of Israel. He was married to them. Since marriage is between one man and one woman — God’s idea — God chose to take on the masculine role and had the nation of Israel take on the feminine role. This in no way emasculated the men of Israel at all. Then God divorced them. Now God has a bride, and that bride is the church. A bride is feminine, so God needs to be masculine. God planned this from before time was created, so He chose to take on the male aspect of marriage and gave us the feminine aspect of marriage. I hope to develop this more fully as we work our way through each tenet.

So, my conclusion regarding this first tenet is that while God is indeed masculine, this is superfluous to our understanding of the biblical family as a stand-alone proposition. However, I would allow for something like this:

This is definitely a working document, so I welcome any and all feedback on this statement as well.

Defining Patriarchy

Since this is not as controversial as some of the other tenets, I would like to examine the use of the word “patriarchy” here as well. Since Doug always taught us to use only biblical terminology, I decided to look at all the Scriptures which use the word “patriarch.” Most versions only use it four times, but I did find that the ESV uses it six times, so we will use that version here:

Putting these passages together, we can clearly see that Abraham, David, and the twelve sons of Jacob are called patriarchs in Scripture. The patriarchs belong to the Israelites (Rom. 9:4-5) and the promises of the old covenant were given to the patriarchs (Rom. 15:8). I will confess that I at least thought Isaac and Jacob were patriarchs! Just for argument’s sake, we will include them as well. So, the Bible is clear that the patriarchs were all Israelites and the only Israelites that God calls patriarchs are Abraham, possibly Isaac and Jacob, the twelve sons of Jacob, and David.

If “the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy [is] an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions,” then why don’t we see the term “patriarchy” being used more frequently in Scripture? If even all Israelites were considered to be patriarchs, why don’t we see it? It is interesting to me that the only verses that use the term “patriarchy” are New Testament verses, all referring back to certain leaders in the Old Testament. The New Testament does not in any way affirm that “patriarch” was a current cultural term for men in the New Testament. If the New Testament is gospel centered, and it is, and biblical patriarchy is gospel centered, as Doug Phillips asserts here, why don’t we see any verses connecting the gospel with patriarchy? Likewise, if patriarchy is an essential element of gospel centered doctrine, where are the verses proclaiming it as such? I have listed all the verses in the entire Bible having to do with patriarchy and I just don’t see it. If patriarchy is God’s ordained pattern for human relationships, where is this taught in the Scriptures? If patriarchy is God’s ordained pattern for institutions, where can I find this? This statement: “Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions” appears to be without any biblical foundation at all. Although this is not one of Doug’s official “tenets,” it is stated as a foundation to why he even has these tenets of “biblical” patriarchy to begin with. I find his foundation to be on extremely rocky soil here and wonder how he can hope to build a whole doctrine upon a statement that has absolutely no basis in Scripture whatsoever.

But Doug believes that he who defines, wins, so let us give him a little slack and examine his use of the word “patriarch” a little further. I always use Webster’s 1828 dictionary when I define anything from Doug’s perspective because I know that is his favorite dictionary. So let’s check out the old Webster’s:

Well, the first definition might apply to what Doug is attempting to define here, except for the fact that Webster mostly agrees with the biblical use of it. I don’t think the second definition is something Doug is wanting to encourage in the least. And knowing how much Doug detests anything remotely Catholic, I am laughing at the third definition! But let’s look at that first definition a little closer. Let’s pretend that Webster doesn’t agree with my biblical use of the term and let’s just examine the first sentence of definition number one: “The father and ruler of a family; one who governs by paternal right.” A ruler. One who governs. When we get right down to it, isn’t that what Doug is proposing here? Doesn’t patriarchy really empower men to rule and govern their families? As we examine each tenet in turn, let’s refer back often to this term and see if Doug did actually choose the correct term after all, and then let’s see if that is truly what men as New Covenant believers want to be known as — rulers.

Or maybe this is all just a propaganda appeal to tradition. We like hearing the heroic stories of the Old Testament saints. If we could just be like them …

And Doug Phillips is here to help you do just that.

[Update: One of the pastors who was interviewed for this article, Hershael York, has written about how his interview was taken out of context.  That is one of the reasons I refused to do an interview in the first place.  Whether the interviewer took my position or Doug's position out of context, neither possibility was acceptable to me.]

I mentioned earlier that the Wall Street Journal had contacted me to tell my story about Doug Phillips. I refused to tell my story to the public, considering this to be a church matter, so they chose a different story, but wrote an article on the recently renewed practice of church discipline and shunning. Here are a few quotes from the article, but I highly encourage you to go read the entire article, by clicking on the title below.

Banned From Church
Reviving an ancient practice, churches are exposing sinners and shunning those who won’t repent.
By ALEXANDRA ALTER

On a quiet Sunday morning in June, as worshippers settled into the pews at Allen Baptist Church in southwestern Michigan, Pastor Jason Burrick grabbed his cellphone and dialed 911. When a dispatcher answered, the preacher said a former congregant was in the sanctuary. “And we need to, um, have her out A.S.A.P.”

Half an hour later, 71-year-old Karolyn Caskey, a church member for nearly 50 years who had taught Sunday school and regularly donated 10% of her pension, was led out by a state trooper and a county sheriff’s officer. One held her purse and Bible. The other put her in handcuffs.

The charge was trespassing, but Mrs. Caskey’s real offense, in her pastor’s view, was spiritual. Several months earlier, when she had questioned his authority, he’d charged her with spreading “a spirit of cancer and discord” and expelled her from the congregation. “I’ve been shunned,” she says.

Her story reflects a growing movement among some conservative Protestant pastors to bring back church discipline, an ancient practice in which suspected sinners are privately confronted and then publicly castigated and excommunicated if they refuse to repent. While many Christians find such practices outdated, pastors in large and small churches across the country are expelling members for offenses ranging from adultery and theft to gossiping, skipping service and criticizing church leaders.

Scholars estimate that 10% to 15% of Protestant evangelical churches practice church discipline — about 14,000 to 21,000 U.S. congregations in total. Increasingly, clashes within churches are spilling into communities, splitting congregations and occasionally landing church leaders in court after congregants, who believed they were confessing in private, were publicly shamed.

In the past decade, more than two dozen lawsuits related to church discipline have been filed as congregants sue pastors for defamation, negligent counseling and emotional injury, according to the Religion Case Reporter, a legal-research database.

Courts have often refused to hear such cases on the grounds that churches are protected by the constitutional right to free religious exercise, but some have sided with alleged sinners. In 2003, a woman and her husband won a defamation suit against the Iowa Methodist conference and its superintendent after he publicly accused her of “spreading the spirit of Satan” because she gossiped about her pastor. A district court rejected the case, but the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the woman’s appeal on the grounds that the letter labeling her a sinner was circulated beyond the church.

(Quoted with permission.)