Are “The Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” Biblical? Part 2

Part Two

This is the second in a three-part critique of The Biblical Tenets Of Patriarchy. If you haven’t read Part One already, please do so before reading this article.

Critiquing The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy has been anything but a pleasurable experience for me. In fact, it’s brought me much sorrow. The reason why is because I’ve been such a strong proponent of Patriarchy. It’s not an easy thing to have to come to grips with the fact that I can no longer subscribe to a belief system that I had long held so dear. This isn’t to say that I now completely reject all aspects of Patriarchy. I still believe that certain elements of it may in fact be useful and even helpful to many families. Perhaps some of it is even biblical. However, I’ve also come to see that many elements of Patriarchy are, at the very least, extra-biblical, and perhaps even errant theology, if not heretical. As Bible teachers, patriarchists should be far more careful in “rightly dividing the Word of Truth.” (2 Tim 2:15)

Patriarchy leaders have pawned off Patriarchy as not merely being “biblical,” which even that is very debatable, but they have pawned off Patriarchy as being a “Gospel centered doctrine.” For a long time, I treated Patriarchy as though it was “Gospel centered” — that it was an essential and indispensable aspect of my walk with Christ. Now I recognize that it’s not “Gospel centered” and may even in some ways be contrary to the Gospel message, especially when it comes to the Gospel message of grace. I’m starting to see that many elements of Patriarchy are legalistic and, therefore, contrary to grace. Elevating any doctrine to a level of being “Gospel centered,” when the doctrine may, in fact, just be legalism, is Pharisaical.

Once again I would ask that any comments you post here only address “The Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy.” The authors have invited feedback on these tenets and I would like feedback on these verses as well. What do you think? Do these verses support these tenets as being biblical? Does the Bible teach these tenets? Which of these verses are on point and actually support a Tenet? Which of these verses are off point? Which of these verses are prooftexting?

When you leave a comment, to help us follow your thoughts, please address the Tenet number and the Scripture reference as well. If you have additional Scripture you would like to add to help Doug support these tenets, please do so. This is NOT a debate about personal beliefs, but only how these tenets can be supported biblically.

Family, Church, and State

8. Family, church, and state are parallel institutions, each with real but limited authority in its ordained sphere. As the keeper of the keys of Christ’s kingdom, the church is the central and defining institution of history. As the primary social group, the family is the foundational institution of society. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18; Acts 4:19; 5:29; 25:11; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.; Eph. 1:22-23; 1 Tim. 3:15)

Matt. 16:19 – “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matt. 18:18 – “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

And this is why it is vital that we take church discipline seriously. I reject the thought that elders have any authority over the status of another believer’s soul to unilaterally and unjustly pronounce them to be worthy of being a “heathen and a publican,” as sometimes happens. However, I do acknowledge that the true church of Jesus Christ is given authority here on earth to exercise the “keys of the Kingdom.” However, the keys of the Kingdom must always be used in such a way as to honor Christ. They must never be used or abused to seek personal vengeance.

Acts 4:19 – But Peter and John answered and said to them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge.

Acts 5:29 – But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

This defines the state. I wonder if it could be used to define when we should obey God rather than an abusive elder or an abusive husband who ask people to sin as well, or who pronounce unjust judgments? I believe it does.

Acts 25:11 –“For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar.”

Here is an example of Paul using his rights as a citizen of Rome, but it is nothing more than an example.

Heb. 13:17 – Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

Again, this is presumably referring to elders and how they are to lead and guide those in their care.

I Pet. 2:13 – Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme,

Eph. 1:22-23 – And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.

I agree that Christ is the head of the church, but I don’t see how this supports this “tenet” of Patriarchy.

I Tim. 3:15 – I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

It’s important that we conduct ourselves right in the house of God, but again, what does this have to do with the church, state, and family being parallel institutions?

Let’s see what’s missing here. Did we find any verses on family? If one of Patriarchy’s biblical tenets is that the family is the foundational institution of society, I would hope to see some verses to support this. And if family, church, and state are parallel institutions, I would think we could find that in Scripture as well. And what do they mean by “the church is the central and defining institution of history”? I thought history was HIS-story, not the church’s. Maybe history that doesn’t include the church is irrelevant. I think this point needs a lot of work.

9. Every Christian father and family ought to be a submitted and committed part of a local church, subject to the authority and discipline of the church through its elders. (Heb. 10:24-25; 13:17)

Heb. 10:24-25 – And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another, and so much the more as you see the Day approaching.

One another. Not father. Not family. Just one another here.

Heb. 13:17 – Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

They sure do like this verse, these three elders who wrote this!

Why do these Patriarchs put words in here like “father” and “family,” when that is not what the Bible says? Is it just to bolster their claims of Patriarchy? I also notice that the discipline of the church is to be done through a plurality of elders, not just one.

10. The church is defined by its orthodox confession and faithful teaching of God’s word; by the presence of the Holy Spirit; by the rule of qualified elders; by the biblical administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper; by regular meetings for worship, instruction, breaking bread, and fellowship; and by the exercise of discipleship and discipline. (Gal. 1:8; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Cor. 12:13; 1 Tim. 3:1ff.; Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 11:20ff.; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 5)

Gal. 1:8 – But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.

Would that include the “Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy”?

I Tim. 3:15 – I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

I Cor. 12:13 – For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

I Tim. 3:1 – This is a faithful saying: If a man desires the position of a bishop, he desires a good work.

There are actually verses that tell us about the role and qualification of elders in the church, but this isn’t one of them!

Matt. 28:19 – Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

I Cor. 11:20 – Therefore when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.

I don’t think I would have picked this one!

Acts 20:7 – Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.

I Cor. 5:7-8 (These verses are not listed, but I heard them every week, so I know they are the ones they are referring to here.) Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

This is the verse that some elders use to use to say that we should have communion.

This section is very disappointing. I would probably agree with this particular tenet, but it is sorely lacking in Scriptural support. These are supposed to be “biblical” tenets.

11. Male leadership in the home carries over into the church: only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church. A God-honoring society will likewise prefer male leadership in civil and other spheres as an application of and support for God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church.(1 Tim. 3:5)

I Tim. 3:5 – (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

The wording of this tenet is quite misleading. Based upon this verse, the first part of the tenet should read something like “An elder must rule his own house well.” This verse is not telling us that if a man leads his family, he will carry that leadership over into the church. This is kind of a weak verse to use to say that only men are permitted to hold the ruling office in the church, but I will give it to them. I would like to see much more Scripture on this point, however.

Now, here is where Patriarchy gets itself into trouble. Where does the Bible say anything about preferring male leadership outside of church or that such a thing makes a God-honoring society? Or where does it say that by having only men being in positions of leadership (in all of life apparently) supports God’s order in the formative institutions of family and church? Proof, men?

Men & Women: Spheres of Dominion

12. While men are called to public spheres of dominion beyond the home, their dominion begins within the home, and a man’s qualification to lead and ability to lead well in the public square is based upon his prior success in ruling his household. (Mal. 4:6; Eph. 6:4; 1 Tim. 3:5)

Mal. 4:6 – And he will turn The hearts of the fathers to the children, And the hearts of the children to their fathers, Lest I come and strike the earth with a curse.

What does this have to do with men working outside the home, or dominion, or ruling his household?

I Tim. 3:5 – (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)

Do you see the heavy pattern of ruling in this document? i am not even going to give them credit for “ruling his household” on this one because this verse is referring only to an elder’s qualification and has absolutely nothing to do with leading in the public square.

What verse tells us that men are called to public squares? To dominion? Beyond the home? That their dominion begins within the home? That prior success in ruling his household will qualify him to lead? That prior success in ruling his household will give him an ability to lead well? This one’s looking real weak.

13. Since the woman was created as a helper to her husband, the bearer of children, and a “keeper at home,” the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home, although her domestic calling, as a representative of and helper to her husband, may well involve activity in the marketplace and larger community. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Prov. 31:10-31; Tit. 2:4-5)

Gen. 2:18 – And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”

Prov. 31:10-31

Tit. 2:4-5 – that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

Notice that this verse seems to be directed at young women.

Although I didn’t list everything in Proverbs 31, isn’t it interesting that in that whole passage and this partial Titus 2 passage, that the only word the Patriarchs choose to use to define a wife’s role is “homemakers” or “keeper at home.” It sure seems that the Proverbs 31 woman is out of the house a lot!

Which verse tells us that the woman is the bearer of children? I know that is true, but these are biblical tenets nonetheless. Which verse states that the God-ordained and proper sphere of dominion for a wife is the household and that which is connected with the home? Which Proverbs 31 verse tells us that a woman’s activity in the marketplace and larger community is as a representative of and helper to her husband?

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)

Gen. 2:18 – And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”

While I agree that most women will get married, this verse does not support that. Patriarchy would have us believe that women were created only for the purpose of “helping” men.

Josh. 1:14 – Your wives, your little ones, and your livestock shall remain in the land which Moses gave you on this side of the Jordan. But you shall pass before your brethren armed, all your mighty men of valor, and help them,

This verse is about the Israelites going to war, not about single women.

Judg. 4 – the story of Deborah

Some patriarchists’ favorite term for Deborah is “non-normative.” And in their book, anything that is non-normative is not biblically supported. It is a word that, to them, means that it goes against the normative pattern of Scripture. Therefore, patriarchists would not support what Deborah did.

Acts 16:14 – Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.

Was Lydia single or married? She had a household; does that mean anything? And what does this verse have to do with the role of unmarried women?
Notice which passage regarding a young unmarried woman’s duties in life is clearly missing from this list.

Which verse tells us that women should not work alongside men? Which verse tells us that single women were created for a domestic calling? This tenet needs a whole lot of work!


15. God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” still applies to married couples, and He “seeks godly offspring.” He is sovereign over the opening and closing of the womb. Children are a gift of God and it is a blessing to have many of them, if He so ordains. Christian parents are bound to look to Scripture as their authoritative guide concerning issues of procreation. They should welcome with thanksgiving the children God gives them. The failure of believers to reject the anti-life mindset of the age has resulted in the murder of possibly millions of unborn babies through the use of abortifacient birth control. (Gen. 1:28; 9:1; 29:31; 30:22; Ex. 20:13: 21:22-25; Ps. 127:3; 128:3-4; Is. 8:18; Mal. 2:15)

Gen. 1:28 – 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.”

Gen. 9:1 – So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

God told Adam and Eve, and Noah and his sons (and their wives, presumably) to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. It looks like He also told Abraham. If I were a Patriarchist, I think I would have used the command to Abraham for this one. But I just don’t see that God gave this command to everyone. There are three distinct circumstances here, three distinct beginnings of a people, three distinct times when it was necessary to “multiply.” I think we should be careful when we claim that a command to someone in the Old Testament applies across the board to all Christians.

Gen. 29:31 – When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren.

Gen. 30:22 – Then God remembered Rachel, and God listened to her and opened her womb.

Ex. 20:13 – You shall not murder.

Some Christians are unaware that some forms of birth control actually cause abortions within hours of conception. This is murder.

Ex. 21:22-25 – If men fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

This verse shows the value God places on the life of unborn child.

Ps. 127:3 – Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward.

I don’t deny that children are a gift and a blessing, but that is not what this passage says. Biblical tenets require biblical words.

Ps. 128:3-4 – Your wife shall be like a fruitful vine In the very heart of your house, Your children like olive plants All around your table. Behold, thus shall the man be blessed Who fears the LORD.

The man who fears the Lord will be blessed with a wife and children. Let’s not read too much into this.

Is. 8:18 – Here am I and the children whom the LORD has given me! We are for signs and wonders in Israel From the LORD of hosts, Who dwells in Mount Zion.

Children. Plural. More than one. Isaiah had more than one child. Is this referring to literal children or the children of Israel? Does this verse tell us to have lots of children?

Mal. 2:15 – But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.

In the Patriarchy movement, there is a heavy emphasis on having lots of children. I just don’t see the Scriptural support for it here. I wonder why they will say that it is the Lord who opens and closes the womb, yet we should have as many children as the Lord allows, and be fruitful and multiply? Which one is it?

209 Responses to “Are “The Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” Biblical? Part 2”

  1. Jean Says:

    Tenet 10: Family, Church and State

    This tenet looks to be like a checklist for what makes a church legitimate. Surely there must be some biblical support for these requirements.

    Gal 1:8 states that the one true gospel should be preached. GOOD! Those silly Galatians were falling prey to all sorts of gospels apparently…certainly sounds familiar. This props up part of the tenet.

    1 Tim 3:15 This verse is weak by itself. You need the whole laundry list of qualifications for leaders (deacons and elders) found in the 14 prior verses for it to make any sense. But at least they got close on this one.

    1 Cor 12:13 The presence of the Holy Spirit is necessary. GOOD! As an aside, the first 11 verses in 1 Cor 12 illustrate that ALL believers are gifted and much mention is made of how EACH receives from the Lord. Fathers and elders and deacons are great, but God works with us individually, too. There is no mediator any more. This verse helps the tenet.

    1 Tim 3:1 states that he who seeks to be an elder desires a noble task. That’s nice. Not everyone is qualified, however. And there are other noble callings. This verse doesn’t do anything to support the tenet.

    Matt 28:19 explains that we are to GO. Make disciples. Baptise. Turn outward, not inward. On this particular point, I think patriarchy falls on its face. I see a very narrow, inward-focused movement instead. Seems like those IN the movement are busy preaching to themselves. I’m a believer and I feel snubbed. Imagine how the lost feel because of their clique.

    1 Cor 11:20. You really have to read from verse 17-34 to understand this one. Perhaps the Corinthians were not minding their manners and meals were becoming opportunities for boasting. Paul commends the Corinthians in all but how they gather together. This verse doesn’t make much sense here.

    Acts 20:7 They gathered on the first day, broke bread and listened to Paul til midnight. HA! So why doesn’t the BCA group do ALL of this? Why is the sermon so short? Just a few hours, right?

    1 Cor 5. Oh my. Did DP really read this whole chapter? I can see a few verses that he might really like to throw around. I wonder if he paid close attention to verses 9 and 10 which clearly (again) state that believers are to GO and be in the world regardless of the ickiness. There is so much in this one chapter!

    So, this tenet, overall, is also super weak. Surprise, surprise.

    Have a pleasant evening,


  2. Jen Says:

    Corrie: “[Doug] defends his belief that a father, alone, has authority over the children and any authority the mother has comes from the father because she is his helpmeet?”

    Corrie, are you trying to say that the Bible says that the father and the mother have equal authority? I’m sorry, but that thought is just mind-boggling to me right now. I’ll have to look at more Scripture to see.

    Corrie: “How does Doug and Co. treat those who disagree with him over some of his assertions concerning patriarchy and how it is fleshed out? If their spiritual standing is questioned, I think it goes to show that he believes that Patriarchy is found at the center of the gospel.”

    Whenever there was a situation that seemed as if it did not match up to Doug’s version of Titus 2 (which was the main Scripture we had thrown at us over and over and over again, every week), the answer was ALWAYS the same: “that the word of God may not be blasphemed.” It certainly appeared to me that if I did not follow Titus 2 to the letter of the law as Doug explained it, that I was blaspheming God’s Word, and then they would say that they “feared for my soul.” I have heard this same story from others as well, who were told that they “feared for their soul” when they did not agree on certain aspects of PATRIARCHY.

    Tenet 14: “The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created.”

    Alisa: “Is the last sentence just code for “single women should still serve a man; their father”?”

    That’s right, Alisa. It doesn’t sound so bad when Doug words it that way, though, does it?

    Jean, I am so enjoying the way you so kindly trash Doug’s tenets! You are clear and forthright in stating what you see. At the rate you are going, I don’t think these tenets stand a chance to your diligent study. I guess the reason no one is responding to your sound reasoning is just that: it is very sound. I’m looking forward to hearing more from you!

  3. Hutch Says:


    To Hutch: Paragraphs are your friends!”

    I was raised by non-believers and sent to public schools! What can I say? Grin.

    What spiritual benefit is there in observing legalistic principles in light of the finished work of Christ? See Galatians Chapter 5.

    How do you know if an individual or an organization who claims to be spiritual actually is? See Chapter 5 of Galatians. If someone says they are spiritual but do not evidence the “fruit of the Spirit”, then they are making a false claim. Application: A teacher cannot teach what he does not know. He cannot teach you to mature, walk-in the Spirit and bear spiritual fruit if he is not doing that himself!

    Regarding Patriarchy, are the leaders of, the members of and their organizations as a whole growing in the following virtues or spiritual fruit?

    22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

    You will know them by their fruit! Can a bad tree bear good fruit?

  4. Lin Says:

    “They must have ripped the book of Acts out of their Bibles…what with all those woman prophesying and all at Pentecost. And you know….seems to me that poor Sapphira got a bum rap. She was only following orders from her husband…”

    You know, we are regularly castigating Phillips in here for twisting scripture. I implore you good people to avoid doing the same thing in order to support your arguments. There is no evidence from scripture for that last statement. All it says is that Sapphira “was privy to” the scheme — and that peter accused her of “planning together” with Ananias to deceive the others.

    What is sauce for the patriarchal gander is sauce for the anti-Phillips geese.”

    Sorry guys…I should have put a tongue in cheek emoticon in there….we all know Sapphira was ‘in on the scheme’. I was being sarcastic as if Sapphira was only following hubbies orders and it fell flat.

    Many apologies. Blogosphere is not a great place for sarcasm, eh, Mike?

  5. Jean Says:

    Tenet 11: Family, Church and State

    WHAT?! Only one teeny verse and we’re supposed to get male leadership in the home, only men ruling at church, male leadership in civil spheres, and other spheres, and an application of God’s order in family and church, and support for God’s order in family and church?!

    For heaven’s sake, the verse has fewer than 20 words. My fifth grader could write more sound tenets.

    Jen, I pledged to evaluate each and every one of these tenets…I had no idea it would be this painful, though. HA! This is all just confirming my original distaste for DP and his teachings way back seven years ago. I just trusted my gut back then, but now my brain is on board.

    As an aside, I guess DP didn’t vote for me when I ran for Hollywood Park City Council, huh? HA!

    Have a pleasant day,


  6. Jean Says:

    Tenet 12: Men & Women: Spheres of Dominion

    Okay. In this tenet, we need some scriptural support for men first exercising dominion in the home and then being called to public spheres of dominion. And “success” at home somehow qualifies men to lead well in public.

    Mal 4:6 has nothing whatsoever to do with dominion.

    Eph 6:4 is a noteworthy parenting verse, but again, not realted to dominion in the home or anywhere else. In fact, it seems like DP reads some kind of promise to the father into this verse since he wants fathers to be qualified to lead well in public. There is no promise for fathers, though. Just a gentle rebuke. The promise is for the children in the previous verse…obey your parents so that it will go well with you.

    1 Tim 3:5. They really like this one! But there is no instruction here to prop up the tenet. Paul really leaves room for interpretation here. Paul (in verse 4) says for men to manage their household well and have submissive children, but gives no particulars. I would like some practical, biblical guidelines…wouldn’t you? But since there are none cited by DP, he gets to make up his own. How convenient.

    This tenet’s got no meat. Like the majority of the others. Where’s the beef?! There’s not even any millk! This dribble is nothing more than water. Filtered water. And I don’t trust the filter.

    Have a pleasant day,


  7. CynthiaGee Says:

    “There’s not even any millk! ”
    You can’t get milk from bull, Jean — er, I mean, from bulls. 😉

  8. Jen Says:

    Jean, it’s good to see you back after your lightning strike! I’m sorry this is so painful for you to go through, 😉 but it seems to be a necessary pain in light of what we are finding. I’m afraid it might get worse before it gets better, but have hope, it does get better in the end!

  9. Jean Says:

    Tenet 13: Men and Women: Spheres of Dominion

    So, this tenet is all about woman and her God-approved role(s). As a woman, I am eager to see DP’s eisegesis on this subject. As a Berean, I prefer exigesis, though.

    Gen 2:18 makes it clear that God knew and wanted Adam to have companionship, that aloneness was somehow less than ideal. God then created all the animals, nothing suitable there. God then creates woman. God himself selected Adam’s companion. And she absolutely was created to be a complement to Adam. This verse makes sense to use as support for a portion of this tenet. As an aside, those in the courtship camp should pay attention. Adam’s dad selected his mate, so why does this get turned around so that dads select mates for daughters (but sons are free to choose)?

    That Prov 31 woman. Why must these patriarchy guys reduce the role of women to JUST the homemaker part? Even then, they don’t get it quite right. I addressed this in a previous tenet (I forget which one), but briefly, in Titus 2, the Greek word translated to mean “homemaker” or “keeper of the home” really means to be a guard of the home, one that is aware and responsible for what comes and goes throught the door. Nothing wrong with baking cookies and sweeping floors, but the responsibilities of the woman are really so much greater.

    And what of ALL the roles listed in Prov 31? I find a consumer, a handiworker, a shopper, a night owl, a chef, a servant, a land owner, a gardener, an athlete, an entrepreneur, a weaver, a spinner, a philanthropist, a seamstress, a fashion designer, an elder’s wife, a dispatcher, a comedian, a homemaker, a bundle of energy, a mother, a receiver of praise, and a superior among peers to name a few. And this is talking about ONE woman! Whew! This is one tough mama! I can see why the partriarchy gang wants to cage her in the home…she might show them up.

    Also, I see nothing in Prov 31 that leads me to believe that she “bore” these children she raises. Isn’t it possible that they were adopted or became part of the household some other way? Sure, birthing babies is admirable, but it doesn’t determine the worth of the woman, does it? What about those who are barren or those able to conceive only a very few children? I am very turned off by the whole quiver full movement…equating worth with births.

    Titus 2:4-5 Nothing wrong with using this verse for this tenet. It’s just interesting to note that one third of Titus 2 is actually written to and for MEN, but you’d never know it. It’s been proof-texted so much that folks automatically think Titus 2 is all for the ladies.

    In reviewing the three verses for this tenet, I didn’t see anything about “bearer of children,” or “proper sphere of dominion for a wife.” I also did not catch where she is to be a “representative of her husband.” Does DP know that little tidbit is in here? Seems like that would cause him indigestion.

    Another marginal tenet.

    Have a pleasant day,


  10. Jean Says:

    Tenet 14: Men and Women: Spheres of Dominion

    At first read, something jumps out at me right away. “…it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of dominion…” Is “public” a key word here? If so, then wouldn’t it be ordinary and fitting for women to be functional equals in the private home? Also, what does DP mean by “ordinary and fitting?” I bet my take on ordinary would be different than his.

    Let’s look at this tenet and it’s scriptural support.

    Gen 2:18 simply teaches that woman was created as a help to man. Sounds like man and woman are supposed to work alongside each other, and no parameters are given (e.g. public or private).

    Joshua 1:14 This verse was spoken directly to the three tribes whose inheritance was east of the Jordan. Women, children and cattle were not to do battle. The men were called out to help their fellow tribesmen secure the promised land. In this particular military example, women are not the functional equals of men. Does that mean anything for us today? Not necessarily. I hold the opinion that it’s not the greatest idea for women to fight in battle. But I don’t see a biblical mandate for it in this one verse in Joshua. I would have to do a more complete study to accurately discern God’s opinion on this. What I see happening here with these tenets is this…a few guys agree on some good ideas. Fine. But when they try to impose their personal convictions on others under the guise of scriptural principles, it becomes dishonest. If they can’t sell their ideas without mishandling God’s word, their ideas probably aren’t worth much.

    Judges 4: In this chapter, I see two strong married women: Deborah, the prophetess, and Jael. Both play a key role in the military scuffle that is described. Deborah is the strategist, Jael is the undercover agent. Why is this chapter used as support for this tenet? Makes no sense whatsoever.

    Acts 16:14 In chapter 16 of Acts, Paul and Timothy are traveling and teaching together. They bump into Lydia, a cloth merchant, outside the walls of Philippi. She and her household were baptised as a result of the Lord opening Lydia’s heart. Again, this is really weak support for the whole of this tenet.

    Tenet 14 is super weak. I found no support for single women having more “flexibility with their domestic callings.” I found nothing that really nailed down what the “ordinary and fitting” role of women should be. And I didn’t read anything that laid out the “God-ordained social roles of men and women.”

    Were the folks at the Jamestown circus treated to a whole week of this unsound, unbiblical, unbelievable patriarchy doctrine? I’d demand a refund.

    Have a pleasant day,


  11. Jean Says:

    Tenet 15: Procreation

    Gen 1:28 Well, of course Adam and Eve were commanded to be fruitful and multiply…there was a big, empty earth to fill! I’m not so sure this applies to us today in the same manner, though. Remember, the OT was not written TO us, but there is much FOR us there.

    Gen 9:1 Once again, the earth after the flood was much in need of repopulation. God had four couples to work with this time.

    Gen 29:31 This verse states the obvious. God is sovereign. He has control of everything, including fertility.

    Gen 30:22 Ditto the above.

    Exodus 20:13 Thou shalt not murder. This would definitely include abortions and would definitely include those methods of birth control that are abortifacients. However, not all birth control methods are abortifacients. By singling out a segment of birth control options here, does DP mean to infer that the others are okay? What is his belief on birth control within marriage in general? My guess would be that he thinks that couples should in no way interfere or plan conceptions. This would be another area where his personal convictions are imposed upon others.

    Exodus 21:22-25 This OT law demonstrates that an unborn child is just that, a child. If the life is taken, there are consequences.

    Psalm 127:3 Children are a heritage and a reward. I’m really nit picking here, but if we read the whole psalm, we learn that the father is blessed for having them. Don’t most folks say “children are a blessing?” The way it reads, the children aren’t the actual blessings, they are a heritage and a reward.

    Psalm 128:3-4 Not every wife will be a fruitful vine, and olive shoots around the table may be numbered because there’s a qualifier, an “if, then” kind of statement that the Lord places here. The man who fears the Lord may be blessed in these particular ways. Perhaps this is the reason for the holier than thou attitude that oozes from some parents with really large families. You know the kind. They flaunt their kids like trophies.

    Isaiah 8:18 In this verse, Isaiah acknowledges that his children are from the Lord. I would agree.

    Mal 2:15 This verse is a remider to fathers that they be faithful to their wives so that their offspring will be godly. Godly offspring please the Lord.

    I detect a glaring absence of NT scriptures for this tenet. Could that be because these “be fruitful and multiply” commands were for another people for another time? I’ll have to spend time studying that this summer.

    So, DP chooses to believe that “be fruitful and multiply” still applies today, but I didn’t see that in the verses cited.

    There is one really good nugget here in this tenet, though. DP states: “Christian parents are bound to look to Scripture as their authoritative guide concerning issues of procreation.” I wholeheartedly agree. But why stop with procreation? Christians should look to scripture on ALL issues!

    Have a pleasant day,


  12. Corrie Says:

    “Judges 4: In this chapter, I see two strong married women: Deborah, the prophetess, and Jael. Both play a key role in the military scuffle that is described. Deborah is the strategist, Jael is the undercover agent. Why is this chapter used as support for this tenet? Makes no sense whatsoever.”


    I wonder if this is proof to them that women should not work alongside men in the public sphere as functional equals?

    Maybe that is what they are thinking? Somehow this proves something? I would like to know how this proves anything but that men and women can work together alongside one another.

    Also, do they feel that all men are over all women? Are we not equals when there is no position of authority involved?

    There were many women who traveled with Jesus and the disciples and worked right alongside of them. The women weren’t along to cook and clean up after them, either. Not that the women never helped with this but that was not why they were there. That was not their purpose. They were there, the scripture tells us, to financially support them out of their own means. Some of these women were married. It seemed that the men were in charge of getting food for everyone and making sure everyone was fed in the bible stories I have read.

  13. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Corrie writes back to Jean: “I wonder if this is proof to them that women should not work alongside men in the public sphere as functional equals?”

    Jen stated yesterday (on one of these patriarchy posts) that Doug liked to look for patterns in Scripture and then selected proofs to prop up his doctrine. Jen contrasted this to Mike’s approach: Read the Scripture, acertain what it says and then interpret doctrine based on what has been said definitively.

    Especially today, on these and the other patriarchy threads, I think that it’s safe to say that Doug will only be convinced by Doug and Doug’s interpretation of any Scripture, as long as the end justifies the means. If a direct statement in Scripture counters his beliefs, he quotes some other obsure reference or promotes cognitive dissonance by quoting someone like Justice Roy Moore. (Someone posted Moore’s interpretation of Gal 3:28 here on one of these threads a day or two ago wherein Moore said that the verse proved patriarchy.)

    This is sociopathic cult leader behavior straight out of Cults 101.

  14. Jen Says:

    Jean, I like your list of what the Proverbs 31 woman does, but could you enlighten us as to which part is the comedian part? 😉

    Jean: “I detect a glaring absence of NT scriptures for this tenet. ”

    Jean, maybe this is part of the problem. Doug holds the Law in high esteem and looks to the Law for how he lives his life. I was taught this for many years, so I understand where he’s coming from. I have recently learned how wrong I was in this area. I pray the same for him. And because of my turning away from the Law and TO grace, I now detect another glaring absence in all these tenets – grace. I’m grateful for everyone here who is helping to show how we should look at these issues through the lens of grace instead.

    Regarding Deborah and Jael, Corrie said: “I wonder if this is proof to them that women should not work alongside men in the public sphere as functional equals?”

    Corrie, this is just another non-normative passage. Doug is saying that this is non-normative for a woman and therefore we should discount this story as having any merit for us today. We should never follow her example since she did not conduct herself according to the proper biblical roles.

  15. Jean Says:


    About the Proverbs 31 woman being a comedian…comedienne to be more proper…in the ESV she “laughs” at things to come. And in the NASB she “smiles” at the future. I just got a mental picture of an extraordinarily happy woman who can always find the bright side. Calling her a comedian was a bit of a stretch, but no more so than most of these tenets. HA! I like a lady with a sense of humor and I bet God does, too!

    Have a pleasant day,


  16. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Tenet # 15: This is perhaps one of my favorite things to think and talk about. From Scripture, it is obvious that God is sovereign. I think that all of the commands in Scripture about being fruitful and multiply must be looked at in 2 ways.

    # 1: By looking at the whole of Scripture, it is evident that people who truly walk in faith reap the benefits of God’s wisdom on this issue. Let me give you an example. My wife and I have committed our children to God: those we have and those yet to be born. We are constantly walking in faith that God will give only what we can handle. He alone knows that limit, not us. So, the focus here is God and not us our even our children. However, the ideals of DP, et al focus on the children and the womb. So, their focus is very earthly, very temporal. Yet, if a couple focuses on God and His wisdom, they then commit that womb to Him, allowing Him to fill it or make it bare. See the difference?

    # 2: As with most everything in the OT, there is an immediate context, and a context yet to be understood. Let me explain. Looking at Scripture from a panoramic viewpoint (we have that luxury) we can see that when God said to some, “Be fruitful and multiply”, there is an immediate context (have children) and a future context, yet to be understood (what Paul often calls a mystery in the NT). As you read and understand the NT, the command of Be fruitful and multiply, and specifically to Abraham is understood in spiritual terms and not physical. In other words, God is not simply talking about physical children and lineage. He is also referring to the future spiritual descendants of Abraham. It must be understood that way, or it truly makes no sense.
    Well, I have a habit of making long posts, so I shall stop here for now, and see if what I said so far sparks any interest to have me continue my thoughts. If not, I shall lurk in peace on this post.

  17. Sarah Says:

    Jean: “I detect a glaring absence of NT scriptures for this tenet. Could that be because these “be fruitful and multiply” commands were for another people for another time? I’ll have to spend time studying that this summer.

    So, DP chooses to believe that “be fruitful and multiply” still applies today, but I didn’t see that in the verses cited.”

    Jean, I posted a comment about this earlier. I definitely think the concept of “replenishment” in the Noahic covenant suggests that the earth will be replenished. Genetic multiplication is not an NT concept. Rather, we are told to go forth and make disciples of all nations (as opposed to population our own nation – heck, that’d be LDS theology there).

  18. Jen Says:

    Micah, I really appreciate your perspective on “be fruitful and multiply.” The focus being on God and what He wills for each family is of far greater importance than counting how many vines or arrows we have. I’m going to really take a while and think about this one, because I am wondering if this perspective might apply to the rest of the tenets as well.

    I am currently studying the role of Israel in God’s Word, so my interest in your second point is piqued. Feel free to tell us more about both points.

  19. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    In response to Micah’s points,

    What can we say then of barrenness? Considering that other texts are drawn to support his ideas about similar arguments, what would Doug say of the Isaiah passage about the children of the barren becoming greater than those of the women with children?

  20. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Cindy said,

    “What can we say then of barrenness? Considering that other texts are drawn to support his ideas about similar arguments, what would Doug say of the Isaiah passage about the children of the barren becoming greater than those of the women with children?”

    I honestly have no idea what Doug would say, so I want to avoid trying to do that.

    Do you want my take on Isaiah 54:1? Well, it is prophecy, not only a foretelling in terms of Christ and the church, but a forthtelling, as well, of Biblical truth. Isaiah 54:1 is not just referring to literal wives, rather there is a deeper, more significant context involved here. The “barren” or “desolate” here is referring to the church (or the Gentiles, really), after the death and resurrection of Christ. The “married wife” is Israel. In Isaiah 53, the prophet just finished declaring the coming death of the Messiah. Here, in chapter 54, he is speaking to the church. What he is saying is that the Gentiles, having been desolate during the O.T. times (because God’s chosen were the Jews) will soon be greater than the fruitful married wife (Israel).

    Well, the NT fleshes this out.

    In the O.T. time, Gentiles were desolate (spiritually) and the Jews were blessed or fruitful (spiritually).

    In the N.T. time and even up to today, Gentiles are fruitful (spiritually) and the Jews have almost systematically rejected Christ and are now desolate before God (spiritually).

    Fast forward to John the Baptist. He (besides Christ, obviously) is my all time favorite Bible character. A spiritual stud! 🙂
    The Jews come to John in the wilderness and say..” Hey! Locust Eater! We don’t need to repent…for we are of Abraham!”
    See, they were doing what DP and Vision Forum is doing today. The Jews were saying…”We are of the covenant! We are the fruit of Abraham! We are of the Godly seed! We have no need of repentance! For we have dominion!”
    What is John’s response? He basically says…”You vipers! You fruitless wonders! God can raise up these stones to be the (spiritual) seed of Abraham! You don’t get it! Repent!”

    In fact, in the Greek, the word we translate as “brood” actually means “fruit” or “generation.” He was dogging on them and they knew it. He was taking them to task!! He was basically calling them “fruitless fruits” of Abraham. In other words, they were fruits of Abraham (lineage-wise) but completely fruitless (spiritually). This is the same group that rejects Christ in Matthew 12 and calls King Jesus…..Satan! Such lunacy!

    So, John is in essence referencing that the “stones” are the Gentiles? How do we know that? Well, every church father that wrote about this verse recognized that, since it had been passed to them, obviously from Peter, Paul (and no, not Mary!) and others. The N.T. fleshes out this idea, as well.

    So, the barren verse does not truly apply to physical barren wombs, but it does have a spiritual interpretation.

    Ugh! Another long post! 🙂

  21. Cindy Kunsman Says:


    Long posts are good things, especially before bed.

    So concerning your point #2, they both support the evangelism component of the totality of the Word, if you will.
    The overriding principle, if you consider fruitfulness and barrenness, both alike demonstrate God’s desire to save the souls of men? The task at hand to all believers no matter what the situation. Both very hopeful.

    I’m still curious to see whether Dougism makes any claims about that verse. It may just get neglected with many other topics. Seeing how off I was about the Abigail thing, I wondered if there might be some weirdness. More non=normative stuff, perhaps?

  22. Micah Gelatt Says:

    I am responding to Jen’s inquiry in regards to my response # 2 which was in response to Tenet # 15. Everyone with me?

    To understand “Be fruitful and multiply” spiritually, start in Genesis 35:11. Here God is speaking to Jacob, and telling him..” I am God; Be fruitful and multiply.” He is here repeating a promise given to Jacob’s grandfather, Abraham (Gen 17:5-6). God promises Abraham a “multitude” of nations and Jacob a “congregation” of nations. Well, what does this mean? If we count them all up, we really only come up with 14 nations that we can trace to today from Abraham and Jacob. 14 is NOT a multitude. So, what is God saying here?

    Well, fast forward to Romans 4:16-17. Paul is saying that the “be fruitful and multiply” promise was always meant to mean that God would raise up a spiritual multitude to Himself, yet all stemming from Abraham’s seed = Christ. Christ was of the line of Abraham physically, yet we are all of Abraham’s line spiritually. Galatians 3:6-7: “Abraham’s faith was accounted to him as righteousness.” We are also of the “faith” so we are spiritually in the “multitude of nations” under Abraham. This is part of what Paul calls the “grafting into the vine” whereby God brings formerly spiritually desolate Gentiles into the fold. Remember when Christ said….”I have other sheep”? What was He talking about? He was saying that there are Gentiles that will hear my voice, and they will spiritually be brought into the fold.

    Well, I may have confused some….and though this is off-post, Jen asked me to elaborate a bit, so I did.

  23. Jen Says:

    Micah, I am going to have to chew on all this a while, but in the meantime, what exactly do you mean when you say “the Jews were blessed or fruitful (spiritually)”?

  24. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Concerning the previous posts by Micah and Jen:

    I would bet that Micah comes from more of a dispensationalist background, just because of some of the language that seems familiar. If that’s the case, it makes sense that Jen would wonder about the blessings of the Jews.

    I participated in some very Zionist-like Pentecostal groups, as well as groups that fell to the other end of the continuum between the restoration of Isreal as significant/Zionism and perceiving the Jews as a group that no longer benefits from any blessings under the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. The flavor of the language is different, as well as the application of many Scriptures concerning the Jews.

    I pray for peace (and should do so far more often than I do), and I pray that the Jews would recognize and embrace Jesus as their messiah. I love the Jewishness of Jesus very much, whether or not that applies to Jews today. It makes for some interesting debates, though.

  25. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Well, I am not sure that I wish to be labeled as falling under any group, except a Biblical one. I firmly believe that blessings can come to the Jews, IF they come to Christ. The problem, as I see it, is the Law. To the Jews, it is a stumbling stone because they fail to realize that the Law was not a way to salvation ever, but instead a teaching tool that pointed to Christ, the only one who could keep the Law and show everyone their need for God’s Grace through Christ (not my words, but Paul’s)
    So, I don’t like to label myself with any group of thought or denomination because Christ did not. I attempt to interpret the Bible through prayer and study.
    I enjoy the Jewishness of Jesus, also but that is part of my earlier points. The Jews are hung up on their “Jewishness”. As Paul said, “not all Israel is Israel.” In other words, your Jewishness will not save you, is what he was saying. Yet, what will? Having the faith of father Abraham, and not the ethnicity. That has always been the case.

    Regarding Jen’s comment, God certainly blessed the Jews throughout the O.T. in many ways, including spiritually (faith). This was all done to show that God is God to the pagan nations surrounding. Yet, with the coming of Christ (a stumbling block to the Jewish Jews) have the blessings stopped? Well, God does not break His side of the covenant, or He would not be God. Yet, I believe that Jews who do not recognize the Messiah are breaking covenant, and the Mosaic covenant basically said, “If you obey, you will be blessed. If you do not, you will be cursed.” Through rejecting Christ, who is God, they are not being obedient to God. Something to chew on.

  26. CynthiaGee Says:

    “….the Mosaic covenant basically said, “If you obey, you will be blessed. If you do not, you will be cursed.” Through rejecting Christ, who is God, they are not being obedient to God. Something to chew on.”

    Yet God is merciful even in His cursing– most of the curse for disobedience lies in reaoing the natural result of ou disobedience, and it blesses us by motivating us to repentance.
    A long time ago I heard a sermon which went like this:

    I was walking down the street and I saw an old man, sitting on his front porch, gently anstroking and talking to his cat. As I came closer, however, I saw that something was wrong: even though the man was gently stroking the cat, the cat didn’t seem to be enjoying itself — it was growling and lashing its tail. As I came closer still, I saw that the old man was petting the cat in the wrong direction, from tail to head, and as I passed the house, I could hear him murmuring,”Turn around, cat.”

  27. CynthiaGee Says:

    Should have been, “reaping the natural result of our disobedience,”……

  28. Micah Gelatt Says:

    I could not agree more that God is merciful. God is mercy. I guess I am not seeing the point of your comment. Help me out here. 🙂

  29. Mike Says:

    “Should have been, ‘reaping the natural result of our disobedience'”

    My long-time pastor — before I became a pastor myself — had a problem with Spoonerisms — as does my wife. This creates great hilarity among those listening, but it frustrated my pastor, because it would often interrupt a serious comment with gales of laughter from a thousand people.

    Once he was trying to explain the natural consequences of sin, and he said: “…ruping the freats of our behavior” — and he lost us all for about three minutes.

  30. Micah Gelatt Says:


    That is too funny. For whatever reason, it reminds me of the church bulletin I heard about that announced that “after the service the church elders would be baptizing the children at both ends.”

  31. CynthiaGee Says:

    I think that reaping what we sow is the “curse” for disobedience, 99% of the time.
    Instead of punishing disobedience directly, God often simply allows us to reap the results of what we sow, and He even protects us from much of that, most of the time.
    Even the unpleasant consequences of our sin can be a blessing, motivating us to repentance — hence the allegory, “Turn around, cat.”

  32. Micah Gelatt Says:

    ~ For those interested (off topic, I know) I have posted some more bloopers on my blog this morning. I can’t stop laughing now. I think it will be a good day, after all.

  33. Jen Says:

    Micah: “God certainly blessed the Jews throughout the O.T. in many ways, including spiritually (faith).”

    Please indulge me one more time, Micah. It really helps me if I understand where you are coming from if I am going to ask you biblical questions. You are saying that God blessed the Jews with faith. Are you saying that was individual faith, or as a nation as a whole? And was that saving faith?

  34. Micah Gelatt Says:

    I believe He blessed the Jews individually with faith, yet as a whole nation they all benefited in other ways. For example, when they were given the promised land, they were told they would be given a land they had not worked, take from grapevines they did not harvest, and so on and so on. Well, that is true, and they did get that. Yet, that truth was also a “type” of things to come, referring to the work of Christ on the cross.

    Abraham’s faith (given to Him by God) was counted as righteousness. So, it was not Abraham’s Law-keeping that saved him, but it was his faith (and obedience flows from that faith) that saved him. Likewise, keeping of the Law did not save, but faith in God and belief in a coming Messiah (for those that knew) was what saved the O.T. Jew.

    Yet, in the time of Christ the Jews (at their lowest point in history up to this time, by the way) had developed a man-made system which distorted and misunderstood what God had been revealing all along. They thought that being Jewish and keeping the Law (plus all the legalistic hooey the Pharisees had tacked on top of God’s Law) was their ticket to heaven. On the contrary says John the Baptist, Jesus and Paul, et al. Faith is what saves whether you be Jew or Gentile. Being Jewish has nothing to do with it.

    Romans 11:19 – 20

    I love these 2 verses. Awesome stuff! It reflects what I am saying here, if what I am saying makes any sense.

  35. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Of course, the verse I quoted was a rebuke, of sorts to the Gentile who thought they were the NEW chosen people, better than the Jews who were broken off the vine. Paul is saying..” I don’t think so!!!” There is a condition for being attached to the vine. What firmly attaches us to the vine? FAITH! So, regardless of being Jew or Gentile, faith saves us. That has always been the case from the time of Adam and Eve.

  36. Jen Says:

    Thanks, Micah. We’re pretty much on the same sheet of music then. Having recently discovered that I sat under false teaching for so many years, I am trying to be real careful about what I listen to now. I really appreciate your willingness to share with us.

  37. Micah Gelatt Says:

    Well, I am Irish, so I have the “gift of the gab,” and love to share and wax eloquent (or not so eloquent). A rare ethnic advantage.

    Those (like DP and others) who go to the O.T., trying to claim the covenant blessings for themselves disturb me. I am a bit of a “watchdog” for that behavior. My other group I watch carefully is the new Word of Faith movement. If I was not secure in my understanding (dim as it is) of the Word, they would unnerve me. They, in essence do the same thing – going to the Word, especially the O.T. and try to take blessings and sayings out of context and apply them today. Sad, sad, sad.


  38. Rayann Says:

    Doug escorted my husband and I up the sanctuary from the fellowship hall lunch and introduced us to Beall. For the benefit of the VF media watchdogs, Beall was standing with a couple of their boys at the back of the sanctuary on the side that faces I-10. I explained how long I had waited to meet them (excited, knowing ….

    That should be “Doug escorted my husband and me… not my husband and I… If in doubt about which pronoun to use then take the other person out. You wouldn’t say “Doug escorted I….”

  39. Mike Says:

    Thanks for the grammar lesson, Rayann. That was extremely important in relation to this topic. And in that same spirit, I think you should realize that since you did not use quotation marks around that first paragraph, it was very confusing, since it looks as if you are writing it and not quoting from someone else.

    Moreover, since it came more than two weeks after the post you are quoting from, with no clue that you were quoting someone, and no clue to whom you were responding or what you were talking about — it was a very confusing beginning. That’s why normal “netiquette” says to tell us whom you are quoting, and to make sure you make a clear distinction between your words and those of others in your posts.

    And last — netiquette also says to correct others’ usage errors privately unless the mistake is germane to the discussion. I figured you would want to know all this since you seem concerned about rules of writing.

    Sheesh — kids these days. Buy ’em books; send them to school; what do they do? Eat the covers off the books!

  40. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Hi Rayann and Mike:

    Checking in on the latest traffic here after a long holiday. I’m the poor speller, good reader, sometimes neglectful of the finer details of the legal rules of grammar when posting via internet communications violator. But you got the point, I think. I hope that the reader gleens the context and can forgive my lack of appreciation for the message. I am admittedly and often flawed.

    If you want, you can use it as an example of the product of public and Christian school education, Catholic college (best choice for my profession, location and cost), and the displacement of critical writing skill by word processing help tools!

    (proof to some that education of women outside the home is sinful and evil….) LOL!!!!

    I’ll continue to aspire and demonstrate greater respect for communication and language however. Please feel free to contact me, especially concerning errors or clarification of content. I appreciate it.

  41. CynthiaGee Says:

    “I’ll continue to aspire and demonstrate greater respect for communication and language however. Please feel free to contact me, especially concerning errors or clarification of content. I appreciate it.”

    Cindy, don’t feel bad… I used to be an almost perfect speller (and I prided myself on it, literally!), — won contests and everything. But, pride goeth before a fall, and a couple of TIA’s later, I make just as many typos as anybody else. I still know HOW to spell, but the fingers tend to do something else entirely — sometimes they leave whole words out!

  42. Corrie Says:

    “That should be “Doug escorted my husband and me… not my husband and I… If in doubt about which pronoun to use then take the other person out. You wouldn’t say “Doug escorted I….””

    Uh oh….I am in trouble!! 😉

    Cindy, I can understand you just fine and I know that it is easy to slip up like this in a discussion. So often I have a million and one things going on and children in and out of my legs while I am typing all the while nursing a little babe that I CRINGE when I go back and read my posts! Thank you for being so humble and willing to have your mistakes pointed out to you.

    And Cookie Monster doesn’t mind when you use the wrong pronoun! Him likes it!

    Besides, I understood perfect what said you.

    If you are looking for fodder, I would suggest you go to my posts! 🙂 They will not disappoint the budding grammarian! Just ask the local trolls! They will attest to this.

    But, that grammar rule is very helpful and it was so good of Rayann to remind us of it. The grammar errors will always be with us. (Think Little Women)

  43. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Thanks, my sisters!

    It’s a very worthy point and relavent. Much new discussion about the effect of informal email and blogging on both the use written language, etc. As it becomes more widely used, it has the potential to flatten our experience of emotion and related brain function. It promotes the relay of knowledge but limits the quality of it in comparison to spoken or face-to-face communication.

    I actually get a big kick out of it. After four years in ACE and the PACE system, I also pronounce things incorrectly. About once or twice a year, I mispronounce some word that I know and write often = often able to spell the Greek derivatives in the original language. Cant pronounce correctly, however.

    I should have kept a book… It hasn’t happened to me during any formal speaking or while teaching adult groups, but it does come up. My husband and I laugh. Perhaps there should be an Accel. Christian Education support group!

    It’s a very funny and enjoyable way to stay humble!
    (Load up on those GRACE points..) LOL!

  44. Rayann Says:

    I would like to apologize for correcting your grammar. I’ve been out of town and haven’t had access to the internet for over a week, so I know this whole discussion is way out of date. To be honest with you I thought this discussion board was moderated and so I figured that my off topic comments about your pronoun usage would be deleted. I was just being a little bit of a stinker. Imagine my surprise when I looked at this thread yesterday and not only was my comment there, but I was throroughly and soundly reprimanded by Mike. Was that a little bit of sarcasm coming through there, Mike, about my comments being germaine to the discussion. I’m sorry if my comments were confusing and didn’t follow proper netiquette. Part of me thinks, since this thread is so long and seems to be pretty much dead in the water what difference does it make. Sheesh, Mike lighten up a little.

    However, I digress. Cindy, my apology to you is sincere. Nobody likes to have their grammar corrected. I did want to say that I’ve read much of what you’ve put out there on cyber space and I agree with you on everything I’ve read (if you’re the same Cindy I’m thinking you are). I have serious reservations about Biblical patriarchy and those tenets, which I might add are neither Biblical nor are they tenets.

    Just to bring this discussion back to the issue of Biblical Patriarchy (Jen, I think your article is right on the mark) I had wanted to put in my 2 cents about the issue of procreation. It just boils my blood when these full quiver people talk about letting the Lord plan your family. They never address the issues of financial problems or health problems. Either you agree with Doug and his tenet about procreation or you are a child hating feminist who’s had several abortions due to your use of birth control.

  45. Micah Gelatt Says:

    “It just boils my blood when these full quiver people talk about letting the Lord plan your family. They never address the issues of financial problems or health problems.”

    I know what you mean as far as the Full Quiver diehards go. Yet, consider this: My wife and I have committed our children (the 3 we have and those yet to be born) to the Lord. We have prayed and “given over” that part of our life to Him, asking Him for wisdom, yes, but essentially allowing Him to prove His word faithful; namely, that He will give us only what we can handle. So, we are walking in faith that He will do that, keeping our finances and health in mind. So, when we walk in faith and wisdom, and allow God to be God, He will honor that, I do certainly believe.

  46. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Thank you, Rayann. This is kind and not really necessary at this late date, so I appreciate your effort to go back and make a point of commenting. Thank you so much.

    Your comment followed just after I received some very nasty, private messages all the way from England that were personal but were in response to my statments on the whole Doug thing on another forum. I half wondered if that person came here to start posting much lesser types of non-content comments, so your apology seems to help mitigate my disappointment over that, too. Thank you for apologizing. I don’t take the form so seriously as the content, so please contact me if I’ve missed anything. I so appreciate your comment.

  47. Jen Says:

    Rayann: “Part of me thinks, since this thread is so long and seems to be pretty much dead in the water what difference does it make.”

    Rayann, I have new people coming to my blog every day. Just because a thread isn’t active doesn’t necessarily mean it’s dead either. I don’t moderate most people because I expect Christian adults to behave as such. If you aren’t sure about putting something up here, it’s probably better to be safe than sorry!

    Rayann: “They never address the issues of financial problems or health problems.”

    Doug does. And his answer is always the same no matter what the issue regarding family planning – the Lord is in control.

  48. Rayann Says:

    Sorry for the incomplete message there. I’m using my husband’s laptop and every so often the thing takes on a life of its own and it sent my message before I’d even had a chance to write. In fact I just scrolled up and saw that it sent it twice.

    I didn’t mean to downplay the aspect of living by faith. I love babies and I think large families are great, especially since I have 7 children of my own.

    It’s the whole arrogant attitude that comes across from much of what I’ve read from the full quiver crowd and Doug’s tenet on procreation that I take issue with. The articles I’ve read seem to suggest that if you limit your family size because of financial concerns then you’re just not walking with the Lord. They’re fond of giving examples of families of 8,10 or 12 children and they stretch one income of say $25,000 or less to take care of their needs. Yes, it can be done, but then again I would not want to try and raise these children on a low income. I’ve also read full quiver articles and Phil Lancaster’s article on birth control that seriously downplay health concerns in women. They take the same cavalier attitude toward health problems that they do with financial concerns. So I guess, that’s why I made the comment I did.

  49. Light Says:

    I wonder what Doug would say about a homeschooling, Christian, quiverfull, headcovering neighbor family of mine. Eight children between the ages of 21 and 3. The mother was told after the fourth one not to have more children because her health was so poor. She continued to do so, and has been hospitalized many times since, almost dying on several occasions. The father is underemployed. The house is one of absolute squalor. The oldest two children couldn’t get away fast enough, joining the military. One of the teen girls ran away a couple years ago with some guy she met over the internet (she was found and brought back before harm was done, praise God.) The children have an air of neglect about them. There is never enough money, time, or energy on the part of the parents to care for these kids. To all appearances, they are faithful, devout, Christians. Neighbors and their church family help out, but the underlying issues persist.

    I have had people on quiverfull Christian discussion boards insist that because God is faithful and meets all our needs, this family must not being doing something right, or must not have enough faith. For it surely couldn’t be underemployment and major medical issues that make it such a struggle for this family!

  50. Jen Says:

    Rayann, I do agree with you that this type of an adamant position does not take practicalities into account. I wonder how often a child from a very large, very poor family will be encouraged to follow suit and have a very large, very poor family himself. That is certainly not the worst thing in the world, to come from a large, poor family, but I can imagine there are many children from homes like that that are anxious to get out on their own someday. And I know some women who have been made to feel unnecessarily guilty because they made certain decisions for health reasons. What good is a sick mom with lots of little ones?

  51. Light Says:

    Here is a blog entry from a woman who was part of the Christian HS-ing movement and has since left and become a radical feminist. Jen, I will understand if you prefer to edit out this link, but I put it in because it shows a side of quiverfull families that some would prefer never be seen.

    [Note from Jen: If you go to that site, be forewarned that there is lots there that a Christian would not want to see. Please use your own discretion. That particular article is quite enlightening, but I don’t recommend the rest of the site in general.]

    Here are some excerpts:
    “They don’t publicize the stories of the women I know– women who have lived in, birthed in, delapidated trailers or shacks without power or running water because their husbands wanted to live “debt-free,” women who have survived on $100 per month for food for seven or eight kids and $25 per month for clothes for those kids, for years, because that’s all their patriarch husbands would allow them. They don’t publicize the many women who have suffered rapes, beatings, and been told by their “elders” they should pray about it, be a better wife.”

    “they don’t talk about the way the lives of so many, many women in that movement have been all but destroyed– women with 5, 7, 9, 11 or more children, women who lived sometimes for decades with abusive men who were then excommunicated, lost everything they had, when they divorced their abusers. Women like my columnist and friend, Carol, a midwife and herbalist, mother of 11, who receives no child support from her ex-patriarch husband, who is now saving for a mail-order bride. She has struggled to support 10 of her 11 children by herself via a greenhouse business.”

    “The full quiver people never talk about the victims of the movement, other than to distance themselves, to explain how it is that the victims are aberrations. They don’t talk about women like Andrea Yates and her children. Yates stoned her kids in her back yard, then drowned them, believing she was a terrible mother and that her children would be better off with God than with her. They don’t talk about women like Kimberly Forder, who with her patriarch husband adopted seven children of color after bearing three biological children. Following the admonitions of some “quiver full” leaders to be sure to properly chastise and discipline her kids, she and her husband abused one of their adopted children so badly that he died. ”

    “Those of us who left that world — we know what happened to us there. We know what happened to our children there. Our grown children know what happened there. We see these articles and know all that they don’t tell, about us, and our children.”

  52. Micah Gelatt Says:

    I wonder something…

    Why do we, as Christians ALWAYS find the need to point out what is wrong…with THOSE people….over THERE….doing THAT…

    Do you notice that tendency in us? Notice I did say, “us”. I have no problem “rooting out” theological error or bad doctrine. Yet, the irony is when we say, “Look at them…” “Look at that family…” “Boy, are they stupid…” “When will they get it right…” “They are a bad example of a Christian…” “They are a bunch of hypocrites…”, we are usually talking about a legalistic of some fashion, who engages in their own finger-waving activities. In essence, we are becoming legalists, in our own right. We may feel we are “walking in the Spirit”, yet every time I engage in the finger-waving episodes, I know God is not honored in that.
    It is so easy to hurl rocks at a group or individual. Though there are some Scriptures that support “rooting out” doctrinal error (from within, mind you), there are not many, in comparison. You know what is hard? Living such “a good life before the pagans” that God’s name may be honored and our lives point people to Him. In grace and liberty, there is no room for finger-waving.
    I have been reminded of that conviction….

  53. Jen Says:

    Micah, I agree that we should not judge others in any way, and I agree that that is hard to do. However, as part of exposing false teaching, I think it is sometimes necessary to either give examples of what we have seen, in ourselves or others, or discuss how this false teaching plays out in real life. I’m willing to be corrected here if you can show us where you think we have crossed the line into being judgmental. I probably do without even realizing, so I am asking in a genuine spirit of wanting to be corrected.

  54. Micah Gelatt Says:


    I appreciate your spirit, and I am not at all trying to be preachy. I have to be reminded of that, as well. Yet, there are many regular people on here that do not desire to be corrected, or convicted. So, I shall not open myself up to that by expressing my thoughts on here. I could e-mail them, but I don’t want to walk down the redundancy path here, having to read through everybody’s “you can’t tell us anything” jazz. It gets really old when people are so “set” in their opinions, and vitriolic with their words. Here is something funny. I wonder if Christ would blog in this fashion? Or Paul? Or Peter?

    I doubt it. Wow, that is convicting. Jen, let me know if you want me to e-mail you.

  55. Corrie Says:

    “Yet, there are many regular people on here that do not desire to be corrected, or convicted. So, I shall not open myself up to that by expressing my thoughts on here. I could e-mail them, but I don’t want to walk down the redundancy path here, having to read through everybody’s “you can’t tell us anything” jazz.”


    Have you already given these “many” people a chance? If not, then this is not a fair statement to make.

    If you could give us examples of this blogging fashion that Christ wouldn’t do, that would be helpful to the many people that do these things but have no desire to be corrected or convicted.

    But, nebulous statements are not helpful.

  56. CynthiaGee Says:

    Well, Micah, Jesus did His share of finger-pointing — when circumstances warranted it, He even called names — just get a load of the 23rd chapter of Matthew.
    And when Paul spoke concerning the Judaizers (who were preaching circumcision and upsetting the Gentiles in much the same way that some Dominionists preach that we are still under the Law today!), he said that they ought to go ahead and castrate themselves! That’s one sharp finger that Paul was pointing there…..

  57. Rayann Says:

    Jen, Sorry for saying the thread was dead. It had been so long since anyone posted anything. I shouldn’t have assumed.

    I would like to respond to Micah’s concern about us pointing fingers at others. The reason I’m interested in this issue is because of a family we knew several years ago. The pastor of the church we were attending was of the full quiver mindset. He was intolerant of any one who did not adhere to that lifestyle. He made a comment to my husband and me one time that was very telling. He said that he was very glad to see other people in the church finally coming around to his way of thinking. At the time we had 5 children and there was one other family with 5. I had never met anyone before who did not believe in using contraceptives. His wife explained to me that they had never taken precautions and that they believed that they should have the faith to accept any blessings God would send them. It was after I met them that I started researching this issue and then came across the term full quiver (they never used the term).

    I think if people wish to live their lives the way these people did then that is great. I admire their faith. However, the thing that concerns me is the dogmatism that accompanies this movement. By being dogmatic in their view and preaching it to others they have created a need for others to examine whether or not this is a Biblical teaching. I’m not criticising the people who choose to adhere to this teaching; just those who try to impose their view on the rest of us.

  58. Micah Gelatt Says:

    as gandalf said to pippin, “the war has begun…”

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: