Are “The Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” Biblical? Part 3

Part 3

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

After posting Part One in this series, I came to recognize the centrality of Patriarchy to some homeschoolers’ entire “vision,” referring to Patriarchy as a “Gospel centered doctrine,” when it is nothing of the sort. Much of Patriarchy is just extra-biblical legalism, and legalism is contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Gospel of Christ is about grace, not legalism.

Why then do patriarchists claim that Patriarchy is “Gospel centered”? Certainly, Patriarchy is “centered” to something, but not to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Did Jesus or any of the Apostles ever teach Patriarchy? Did they ever command Patriarchy? No, in fact, the Apostle Paul explicitly warned the Corinthians that they should beware of anyone who came and preached “another Gospel.”

But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it! (2 Cor. 11:3-4)

Paul likewise gave a similar warning to the Galatians:

I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel, which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. 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. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:6-9)

Some claims that Patriarchy is “Gospel centered” when, in point of fact, it is not. Patriarchists, just like the Judaizers that Paul proclaimed to be “accursed,” have added to and perverted the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ.

So what, then, is Patriarchy “centered” to? Patriarchy is “centered” around the family and, more specifically, around the “patriarch.”

Several years ago Rev. Pete Hurst of Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) preached a series of sermons on Patriarchy. Rev. Hurst had good reason to preach on Patriarchy, but that’s another story for another day:

Patriarchy: A New Legalism?
Patriarchy And Education
Patriarchy and the Family
Patriarchy and the Church

I don’t necessarily agree with everything that Rev. Hurst has to say, but as a pastor who almost had his church split over Patriarchy, he does have some good insights about how divisive Patriarchy can be.

Education & training of children

16. Education is not a neutral enterprise. Christian parents must provide their children with a thoroughly Christian education, one that teaches the Bible and a biblical view of God and the world. Christians should not send their children to public schools since education is not a God-ordained function of civil government and since these schools are sub-Christian at best and anti-Christian at worst. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6-9; Rom. 13:3-5; Eph. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:15)

Deut. 4:9 – Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren,

Deut. 6:6-9 – And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

The favorite verses that support home education. While I agree that it is difficult to teach our children these things when they are not with us, I wonder if they fulfill the rest of this verse as well: “You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Or maybe they just pick and choose the parts that they like.

Rom. 13:3-5 – For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake.

I’m trying to see “public school” in these verses. I think that is why they use these verses. It’s mighty hard to see it, though.

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

II Tim 3:15 – and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Since Timothy learned the Scriptures from his mother and his grandmother, this is an odd verse for the Patriarchy camp to use. I am sure that any child, no matter what form of education he has, can know Scripture from childhood. This verse doesn’t prove their point.

While I personally agree with this tenet, I find this biblical support to be very weak.

17. Fathers are sovereign over the training of their children and, with their wives, are the children’s chief teachers. Christian parents are bound to obey the command personally to walk beside and train their children. Any approach to Christian education ought to recognize and facilitate the role of fathers and mothers as the primary teachers of their children. (Deut. 4:9; 6:6ff.; Ps. 78:3-8; Prov. 1:8; Eph. 6:4; )

Deut. 4:9 – Only take heed to yourself, and diligently keep yourself, lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart all the days of your life. And teach them to your children and your grandchildren,

Deut. 6:6-9 – And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.

I agree that this is a command to walk alongside children, but this command was given to Israel. We cannot confuse a command to Israel with a command to us as believers under the New Covenant. And if we are to follow this command, then we must fulfill the whole command: “And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.”

Ps. 78:3-8 – Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children; That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children, That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments; And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

Again, this verse tells us that this law applied to Israel. We must be careful not to take Scripture out of context.

Prov. 1:8 – My son, hear the instruction of your father, And do not forsake the law of your mother;

Eph. 6:4 – And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.

It is the father’s responsibility to bring the children up in the training and admonition of the Lord, and as his helper, the wife does as well. While this tenet is certainly my personal preference, I do not see enough biblical support here to justify saying that parents are the primary/chief teachers of the children.

18. Educational methodology is not neutral. The Christian should build his educational methodology from the word of God and reject methodologies derived from humanism, evolutionism, and other unbiblical systems of thought. Biblical education is discipleship, a process designed to reach the heart. The aim is a transformed person who exhibits godly character and a trained mind, both of which arise from faith. The parents are crucial and ordinarily irreplaceable in this heart-level, relational process. (Deut. 6:5-7; Lk. 6:40; 1 Thess. 2:7-12; 2 Tim. 1:5; 2 Pet. 1:5-8)

Deut. 6:5-7 – You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength. “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up.

Relationship.

Lk. 6:40 – A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone who is perfectly trained will be like his teacher.

If a student becomes like his teacher, this verse is clear support for only using teachers that the parents would want their children to emulate.

I Thess. 2:7-12 – But we were gentle among you, just as a nursing mother cherishes her own children. So, affectionately longing for you, we were well pleased to impart to you not only the gospel of God, but also our own lives, because you had become dear to us. For you remember, brethren, our labor and toil; for laboring night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, we preached to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and God also, how devoutly and justly and blamelessly we behaved ourselves among you who believe; as you know how we exhorted, and comforted, and charged every one of you, as a father does his own children, that you would walk worthy of God who calls you into His own kingdom and glory.

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy treated the church at Thessalonica as a father does his own children. This is a good example, but not a command.

II Tim. 1:5 – when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also.

Timothy also had a good example growing up, but this is not a command.

II Pet. 1:5-8 – But also for this very reason, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue, to virtue knowledge, to knowledge self-control, to self-control perseverance, to perseverance godliness, to godliness brotherly kindness, and to brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, you will be neither barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.

These are good things to teach and I can see that this verse is saying that knowledge should be built upon faith and virtue, but it does not say that there is no knowledge outside of faith and virtue.

I agree that we should be very careful what we teach our children. One thing we should definitely teach them is not to take Scripture out of context. A favorite mantra of some patriarchists is that education and its methodology is not neutral. If it doesn’t fit their description of the biblical form of education, they reject it. I just don’t see that in Scripture. There are definitely some methods that are more effective than others, but this premise is not supported by these verses.

Their Conversion

19. Since the educational mandate belongs to parents and they are commanded personally to walk beside and train their children, they ought not to transfer responsibility for the educational process to others. However, they have the liberty to delegate components of that process. While they should exercise great caution and reserve in doing this, and the more so the less mature the child, it is prudent to take advantage of the diversity of gifts within the body of Christ and enjoy the help and support that comes with being part of a larger community with a common purpose. (1 Cor. 12:14ff.; Gal. 4:1,2; 6:2; Eph. 4:16)

I Cor. 12:14 – For in fact the body is not one member but many. …

Since this verse is talking about the body of Christ, the Patriarchists are saying that if we are going to have others help us teach our children, it should come from the body of Christ.

Gal. 4:1,2 – Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.

This passage has a double meaning. It is talking about the oldest son who is going to inherit his father’s estate when the father deems he is ready. It is also talking about our relationship with the Lord and how we were under the Law before we came to Christ. This passage gives an example of a father using a tutor. So much for home education only!

Gal. 6:2 – Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.

This passage is talking about how to treat a brother who is in sin. This is not about helping teach someone else’s children.

Eph. 4:16 – from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.

Yes, we can help each other out.

Since they used the words “it is prudent,” I will give them leeway on this one. I do not see any Scriptures here that say that parents ought not to transfer responsibility for the educational process to others. In fact, one of the verses in this section talks about a father appointing guardians and stewards. I am pleased that this section at least gives parents a little liberty to delegate.

20. The age-integrated communities of family and church are the God-ordained institutions for training and socialization and as such provide the preferred pattern for social life and educational endeavors. The modern preference for grouping children exclusively with their age mates for educational and social purposes is contrary to scriptural wisdom and example. (Deut. 29:10-11; 2 Chron. 20:13; Prov. 22:15 with 13:20; Joel 2:16; 1 Cor. 15:33)

Deut. 29:10-11 – All of you stand today before the LORD your God: your leaders and your tribes and your elders and your officers, all the men of Israel, your little ones and your wives—also the stranger who is in your camp, from the one who cuts your wood to the one who draws your water—

A good example, but not a mandate for us.

II Chron. 20:13 – Now all Judah, with their little ones, their wives, and their children, stood before the LORD.

Another good example.

Prov. 22:15; 13:20 – Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; The rod of correction will drive it far from him. … He who walks with wise men will be wise, But the companion of fools will be destroyed.

This was preached to us a lot. We were told not to let fools hang out together unless we wanted them to become more foolish. Since foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child, children are fools, and therefore should not hang out together. I always wondered why they didn’t separate the brothers and sisters in large families then.

Joel 2:16 – Gather the people, Sanctify the congregation, Assemble the elders, Gather the children and nursing babes; Let the bridegroom go out from his chamber, And the bride from her dressing room.

Another example.

I Cor. 15:33 – Do not be deceived: “Evil company corrupts good habits.”

I guess the Patriarchists are using this verse to say that all children are evil and shouldn’t be with each other.

Since this is based on Scriptural wisdom and example, I am willing to give them this point. I just don’t know if it is strong enough to be called a “tenet,” though.

21. The Bible presents a long-term, multi-generational vision of the progress of God’s kingdom in the world. Christians parents need to adopt this perspective and be motivated by the generational promises of Scripture, and church shepherds need to promote this outlook within their flocks. By the grace of God, as fathers faithfully turn their hearts toward their sons and daughters and the youths respond in kind, the next generation will build upon the faith and improve upon the faithfulness of their parents. (Ps. 78:1-8; Is. 59:21; Mal. 4:6; Lk. 1:17; Gal. 6:9)

Ps. 78:1-8 – Give ear, O my people, to my law; Incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable; I will utter dark sayings of old,Which we have heard and known, And our fathers have told us. We will not hide them from their children, Telling to the generation to come the praises of the LORD, And His strength and His wonderful works that He has done. For He established a testimony in Jacob, And appointed a law in Israel, Which He commanded our fathers, That they should make them known to their children; That the generation to come might know them, The children who would be born, That they may arise and declare them to their children, That they may set their hope in God, And not forget the works of God, But keep His commandments; And may not be like their fathers, A stubborn and rebellious generation, A generation that did not set its heart aright, And whose spirit was not faithful to God.

This passage could be used to support telling our own children about the Lord.

Is. 59:21 – “As for Me,” says the LORD, “this is My covenant with them: My Spirit who is upon you, and My words which I have put in your mouth, shall not depart from your mouth, nor from the mouth of your descendants, nor from the mouth of your descendants’ descendants,” says the LORD, “from this time and forevermore.”

This is the Lord’s covenant and what He will do. God has a multi-generational vision!

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.

Lk. 1:17 – He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

These are both talking about John the Baptist.

Gal. 6:9 – And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart.

While this is a good verse for perseverance, this is also proof-texting for trying to show support for multi-generational vision.

The problem here seems to be that patriarchists desperately want this vision, as this is foundational to many of their businesses. Look at that last part of this Tenet: “the next generation will build upon the faith and improve upon the faithfulness of their parents.” Anyone see any problems here? As parents, we are responsible to bring our children up in the training and admonition of the Lord, but that is where our authority stops. I am grateful for godly grandparents who care for and love their grandchildren, but this Patriarchy movement is really a power trip at this point.

Let’s think this one through logically. Dad and Mom get married and have ten children. They have this kind of vision. For argument’s sake, all descendants are half boys, half girls. So Dad passes his vision on to his ten children. These five girls, though, marry five boys who also had their father’s vision passed on to them, so the girls give up their fathers’ vision and go with their husbands’. So these five boys all have ten children each, five of which are boys, who now carry on Granddad’s vision. Five boys from the first generation and twenty-five from the next generation. Multiplying this, we would have another 125 boys in the third generation, and another 625 boys by the fourth generation, for a total of 780 boys in just four generations, all carrying on the vision of that first “Patriarch.” And if the Patriarch is the one with the vision, what does that make those 780 other boys? Are they still Patriarchs, too? Do you see why patriarchy is so important to these first generation Patriarchs? Wow! 780 men just following in your footsteps, following your vision. I know one patriarchist who has a 200-year visionary plan for his descendants. He has it all laid out in detail. And 200 years is much longer than four generations.

How does this practically play out when two families marry off their children to one another, but there are significant theological differences between the two families? For example, let’s take one Patriarch who is adamantly opposed to infant baptism (paedobaptism) and another Patriarch who is opposed to believer’s baptism (credobaptism) and anabaptism (re-baptizing paedobaptists as adults by profession of faith). The second Patriarch is a paedobaptist and his children have (presumably) all been baptized. Yet, his oldest daughter has been arranged to marry the first Patriarch’s eldest son. Will Patriarch II’s eldest daughter be required to be re-baptized before she can marry Patriarch I’s eldest son and renounce the paedobaptist beliefs of her father? Will their children not be baptized as infants? Presumably so. But won’t that likely cause serious theological differences between them? How can Patriarch II carry forward his “covenantal” and “dominionist” views generationally when his infant grandchildren aren’t baptized?

A father and his older children

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home, and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection. Even after leaving their father’s house, children should honor their parents by seeking their counsel and blessing throughout their lives. (Gen. 28:1-2; Num. 30:3ff.; Deut. 22:21; Gal. 4:1,2; Eph. 6:2-3)

Gen. 28:1,2 – Then Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him, and said to him: “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.

Here is an example of both a father blessing his son and giving him counsel about finding a wife. Should we use this as an example that men should marry their cousins?

Num. 30:3-5 – Or if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by some agreement while in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and the agreement by which she has bound herself, and her father holds his peace, then all her vows shall stand, and every agreement with which she has bound herself shall stand. But if her father overrules her on the day that he hears, then none of her vows nor her agreements by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will release her, because her father overruled her.

This is a command that Moses gave to the tribes of Israel regarding vows.

Deut. 22:21 – then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

This passage has some alarming implications for how we are to apply it today. Are the patriarchists recommending stoning immoral young women here? Why else would he quote the passage unless he intends that we are to exercise it?

Gal. 4:1,2 – Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.

This passage is talking about the firstborn son getting his inheritance, and how we are no longer under the Law when it comes to Christ.

Eph. 6:2,3 – “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.”

While I am not at all advocating that young people disobey their fathers (or their mothers), I’m not sure that these verses support Patriarchy’s viewpoint that daughters are to remain under their father’s full authority and control, living in their father’s homes, until they are married. If a family decides in favor of such an arrangement, that is not necessarily a bad thing in all cases, but neither is there a biblical mandate to do that. I’m especially concerned, though, with the implications of Patriarchy’s opposition to daughters receiving a college education, especially if it means that in order to pursue that education she must move away from home. Some patriarchists may not necessarily be opposed to distance learning for daughters. However, they still seem to view higher education for daughters as a waste of time, since in their view a wife and mother doesn’t need a degree. Patriarchists are especially opposed to a daughter moving out of the home to go study on a college campus.

In the same way that I haven’t seen the biblical mandate that daughters must live in their father’s home until they are married, I haven’t seen the passages that tell us that fathers are free to release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, and prepare a home to take a wife either. Where does Scripture teach that a father is free to release his sons, but not release his daughters? This tenet seems to be more about control and less about what God’s Word instructs us to do. Also, to be consistent with all of God’s Word, this tenet needs to include mothers as well, since wives are to be their husband’s helper.

23. Fathers should oversee the process of a son or daughter seeking a spouse. While a father may find a wife for his son, sons are free to take initiative to seek and “take a wife.” A wise son will desire his parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process. Since daughters are “given in marriage” by their fathers, an obedient daughter will desire her father to guide the process of finding a husband, although the final approval of a husband belongs to her. (Gen. 24:1ff.; 25:20; 28:2; Ex. 2:21; Josh. 15:17; Jdg. 12:9; 1 Sam. 18:27; Jer. 29:6; 1 Cor. 7:38; Gen. 24:58)

Gen. 24:1 – Now Abraham was old, well advanced in age; and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. So Abraham said to the oldest servant of his house, who ruled over all that he had, “Please, put your hand under my thigh, and I will make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and the God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell; but you shall go to my country and to my family, and take a wife for my son Isaac.” …

Gen. 25:20 – Isaac was forty years old when he took Rebekah as wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padan Aram, the sister of Laban the Syrian.

Gen. 28:2 – Arise, go to Padan Aram, to the house of Bethuel your mother’s father; and take yourself a wife from there of the daughters of Laban your mother’s brother.

Ex. 2:21 – Then Moses was content to live with the man, and he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses.

Josh. 15:17 – So Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife.

Judg. 12:9 – He had thirty sons. And he gave away thirty daughters in marriage, and brought in thirty daughters from elsewhere for his sons. He judged Israel seven years.

I Sam. 18:27 – therefore David arose and went, he and his men, and killed two hundred men of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full count to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law. Then Saul gave him Michal his daughter as a wife.

Jer. 29:6 – Take wives and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons and give your daughters to husbands, so that they may bear sons and daughters—that you may be increased there, and not diminished.

I Cor. 7:38 – So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.

Gen. 24:58 – Then they called Rebekah and said to her, “Will you go with this man?” And she said, “I will go.

This Tenet is about “betrothal,” a system that is far more about a cultural system that was commonplace two thousand years ago, than it is about any biblical mandates. Patriarchists are seeking to reestablish a system whereby the father becomes the ultimate authority and arbiter on making the most important decision that his children will ever enter into — their marriage partners. Two thousand years ago this may have made a lot more sense culturally than it does today. Two thousand years ago sons generally took wives right from within their own communities. Sons also often took wives from among their own cousins. Today we know that such “inbreeding” often produces disastrous results. They also frequently took wives that were in their early teens (e.g. 14 year olds). Betrothals were also often arranged for a young man to take more than one wife. Today we know better than to encourage that. Not everything recorded in Scripture (polygamy, marrying cousins, etc.) can or should be interpreted as a biblical mandate for us today. God gave us an intellect and He expects us to use it.

Under Patriarchy’s system, the objective is not for a son to seek a wife that will please him, but for the prospective daughter-in-law to please and impress her prospective father-in-law so that she might obtain his favor. The father is in charge and the expectation is that he must be pleased with the choice of a spouse and that the spouse lives up to his expectations. If this is the objective before the marriage, why would it change after the marriage? In such a Patriarchal system, isn’t it likely that the father-in-law will continue to exercise control? One of the most common problems in new marriage is that in-laws meddle and interfere in their children’s lives. Patriarchists need to really add Genesis 2:24 to this section as an admonishment to fathers (and mothers) that when a young man does take a wife, he “leaves” his parents and “cleaves” to his wife. This is a reminder to parents that their married children are no longer under their control.

Although there is no clear mandate here of sons taking and daughters being given in marriage, there is a pattern. However, it is a great leap from giving and taking to fathers “overseeing” the process of their children seeking a spouse. If they happen to have a wise father and mother, then certainly they should seek the counsel of their parents. This tenet also attempts to describe what wise sons and daughters will do, although there is no biblical support listed for wise sons desiring their parents’ involvement, counsel, and blessing in that process; or that obedient daughters will desire their father to guide the process of finding a husband (but not their mother). This is clearly adding to Scripture.

The sufficiency & application of Scripture

24. Scripture is the believer’s sufficient guide for all of faith and practice, and Christians must believe and obey whatever it teaches and commands. The Bible provides the Christian — through precept, pattern and principle — all that is necessary to make wise decisions concerning the many ethically complex issues of life. (2 Tim. 3:16-17; 2 Pet. 1:3)

II Tim. 3:16-17 – All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

II Pet. 1:3 – as His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,

When Scripture gives us a clear mandate for how we should live our lives, we ought to obey. We can also gain much wisdom and understand principles from God’s Word as well. What we should not do, though, is take examples from Scripture and put them on the same level as being commands. That is the pattern that is described here. Showing a pattern in Scripture does not make it a command for us.

25. Fathers need to exercise discernment in the choices they make for their families and not simply drift with the cultural tide. Egalitarian feminism is an enemy of God and of biblical truth, but the need for care goes beyond this threat. The values of modern society are often at odds with those that accompany a biblical worldview. For example, fathers need self-consciously to resist the values of individualism at the expense of community, efficiency at the expense of relationships, and material well-being at the expense of spiritual progress. The world and the worldly church will cheer many choices that are detrimental to family sanctification. (Rom. 12:2; 1 Jn. 2:15)

Rom. 12:2 -And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.

I John 2:15 – Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

While this is an important biblical concept, I don’t understand what this has to do with fathers. Wouldn’t these same principles apply to mothers and children and all Christians? This is one of the problems of patriarchy — elevating the father above everyone else. This is simply adding to Scripture. And where is the Scripture that tells us not to be individualistic? I heard that so much when I was into Patriarchy when I had a thought that was different than the norm.

26. While God’s truth is unchanging, the specific application of that truth may vary depending on facts and circumstances unique to each believer. Also, those who are further along in sanctification will see some issues more clearly than those who are less mature. For these reasons great charity must be maintained between believers who have differences of application, and liberty of application must be respected. However, an appeal to the doctrine of Christian liberty must never be used in an effort simply to avoid submitting to what Scripture plainly teaches. Believers should also bear in mind that things which are lawful may not be expedient if the goal is personal and family holiness. The biblical rule in judging behavior is charity toward others, strictness toward oneself. (Gal. 5:2-3 with Acts 16:3; Phil. 3:15; Rom. 12:10; 1 Cor. 1:10; 6:12; 9:27; 10:23; Gal. 5:13)

Gal. 5:2-3 – Indeed I, Paul, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law.

Acts 16:3 – Paul wanted to have him go on with him. And he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews who were in that region, for they all knew that his father was Greek.

This is Doug’s support that specific application of God’s truth may vary depending on facts and circumstances. It appears that he is trying to say that while one verse tells us that becoming circumcised requires one to keep the whole law, that there are also appropriate times to be circumcised as well.

Phil. 3:15 – Therefore let us, as many as are mature, have this mind; and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal even this to you.

Rom. 12:10 – Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;

I Cor. 1:10 – Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

I Cor. 6:12 – All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.

I Cor. 9:27 – But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.

I can’t quite figure out what this verse is intended to support — strictness toward oneself?

I Cor. 10:23 – All things are lawful for me, but not all things are helpful; all things are lawful for me, but not all things edify.

Gal. 5:13 – For you, brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

I’m not sure what following the Second Greatest Commandment has to do with Patriarchy exclusively, but this is important to remember.

301 Responses to “Are “The Biblical Tenets of Patriarchy” Biblical? Part 3”

  1. Mike Says:

    “No, I don’t. K s the one who claimed that her husband called me an ass.”

    “Well, I’m glad to know that there was someone else that felt that way about you, too, Mike.”

    Now, THERE’S the old sweet Kate we’ve all come to know and love. I wondered how long before you would revert to form.

    When it comes to nasty name-calling, I know better than to try to compete with a pro, so I’ll just say thank you — and God bless you, too!

  2. CynthiaGee Says:

    “No, salt is an element….”

    Uh, no — it’s a compound of two elements.

    OOOPPPPS….. and what was I thnking? It’s a compound, of course — sodium and chloride! 😳

    Hey, Mike, is there room in that stable for me?

  3. Kate Says:

    The funny thing is, Mike, I was quoting you, I didn’t call you that word; I said I felt that way about you, too. Another man said that about you, according to your interaction with some people on this blog.

  4. Mike Says:

    “Hey, Mike, is there room in that stable for me?”

    Come on in. I’m not one to rub salt in your wounds. we need e few more horses’ front ends in here!

  5. Mike Says:

    “The funny thing is, Mike, I was quoting you”

    Yes, that is funny, since you ARE I. Sheesh!

    BWAAAA-HAAAAAA!!

  6. Sarah Says:

    Mike: Yep. “Seasoning God’s Way.” Or — if you want the secular version, without all the religious mumbo-jumbo and twisted scriptures — “On Becoming Savor-Wise.”

    Biblical seasoning. Now I’ve heard it all. Doug – er, Bob – er whoever, there’s money in that. Patriarchy Pepper, Prairie Muffin Mix, Non-Normative Nuts, The ONLY Biblical Basil, Salvation Saffron, Reformed Rice, Oy Vey! Olives. . . This could be big.

  7. Mike Says:

    “Biblical seasoning. Now I’ve heard it all. Doug – er, Bob – er whoever, there’s money in that. Patriarchy Pepper, Prairie Muffin Mix, Non-Normative Nuts, The ONLY Biblical Basil, Salvation Saffron, Reformed Rice, Oy Vey! Olives. . . This could be big.”

    Yes — think of the possibilities. WSWJCA bracelets: “What spice would Julia Child add?” Books, t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc., based on “The Prayer of Mrs. Dash.” There could be seminars teaching us all how to discover our own “seasoning” instead of “season.” “Hi; I’m Mike, and I’m an oregano.”

    And while we laugh, we also weep to realize that so much of modern Christianity is caught up in fads that are no less nonsensical.

  8. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Should we all pitch in and buy Mike one of those shirts?
    “I’m not opinionated, I’m just always right?”

    Actually, I bought that shirt for one of my most favorite friends, and it suits him. Stong opinions are enduring qualities. They keep stubborn Irishwomen like me on my toes. And if you think Mike’s tough, you should meet my husband.

    And he’s plenty salty, in the Biblical sense. It’s all part of being serious but not too serious about yourself.

  9. Mike Says:

    “I’m not opinionated, I’m just always right?”

    Everyone’s opinionated; it’s just that some people don’t give their opinions readily.

    Everyone thinks he is always right, except for those matters in which he recognizes he doesn’t know enough to have a good opinion. Unfortunately, many people don’t know that they don’t know enough, and so they spout opinions on the bases of emotion and ignorance.

    But — where we do have an opinion, we always think we are right. Think about it. If one thinks he’s wrong — he changes his opinion, in order to be right! One of the characteristics of a critical thinker is that he has the good sense not to argue about something he knows next to nothing about.

    But I teach my logic students this maxim: The one who is confident that he is in the right should be the most eager to hear challenges and arguments against his position. He wants to hear the best his opponents have to offer by way of refutation. Why? Several reasons:

    1) By seeing the best arguments of his opposition, he can better marshal his own arguments. If he can clearly and accurately refute those arguments, he only increases his confidence in the rightness of his own position.

    2) By hearing about possible weaknesses in his own position, he can work to strengthen it at those points.

    3) Through challenges, he can “hone” his ability to clearly think through the issues, and to clearly face them.

    And most important:

    4) He just might decide he was wrong — and — GASP! — change his mind!

    The one who is confident that he is in the right can ALSO afford to state the position of his opponents fairly and accurately, without deliberate distortion. Once one can state his opponent’s argument in such a way that his opponent would say, “Yes, that is an accurate statement of my position” — THEN, and ONLY then, is he ready to refute it.

    The problem people have doing that is the biggest problem I have found in online discussions. Too many people just take the way outlined by Lenin: “All I have to do is declare that Kautsky is an enemy of the people, and everyone will understand everything.”

  10. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Mike wrote: The problem people have doing that is the biggest problem I have found in online discussions. Too many people just take the way outlined by Lenin: “All I have to do is declare that Kautsky is an enemy of the people, and everyone will understand everything.”

    And if not quite everyone understands, or there are lingering doubts, just keep repeating that Kautsky is the enemy of the people often enough, and eventually it will be true. (You know who said this statment that I apply here, don’t you?)

  11. Mike Says:

    “And if not quite everyone understands, or there are lingering doubts, just keep repeating that Kautsky is the enemy of the people often enough, and eventually it will be true. (You know who said this statment that I apply here, don’t you?)”

    Yes, and I ask, do you know the context? He was not advocating it, but decrying it. He was claiming that his enemies were doing this. Of course, we can see the irony — and the tragedy — of that.

    But it’s okay. If I can use Vlad, you can use Adolf. Just don’t drift off into “argumentum-ad-Hitlerum.”

  12. Corrie Says:

    Mike,

    You silly!

    “4) He just might decide he was wrong — and — GASP! — change his mind!”

    Everyone knows that only women change their mind! 😉

  13. Mike Says:

    “Everyone knows that only women change their mind”

    Of course, when we men tell you to do so.

    [Running for cover]

  14. Jen Says:

    [Totally disregarding these last couple comments.]

    Mike: “One of the characteristics of a critical thinker is that he has the good sense not to argue about something he knows next to nothing about.”

    Hmmm. I’m not quite sure what to make of this, Mike, since you said I argued you blind. Am I not a critical thinker, even though I made you dig deeper than you ever had before? Or did I know nothing about the subject, even though I’d spent the last ten years of my life studying it? Maybe I was just lacking in the good sense department!

    “The one who is confident that he is in the right should be the most eager to hear challenges and arguments against his position.”

    Now I’m beginning to see why you said certain things. But you’re right; I pray that I will always stand ready to be refuted for anything I say. I think this ought to apply to my having comments open to everyone who accuses me vs. all my accusers who refuse to take comments.

    “He just might decide he was wrong — and — GASP! — change his mind!”

    Well, even if it was a man who told me, and even if you ruined my life, I am glad that I changed my mind.

    “Once one can state his opponent’s argument in such a way that his opponent would say, “Yes, that is an accurate statement of my position” — THEN, and ONLY then, is he ready to refute it.”

    Mike, you about drove me nuts forcing me to take a position in the beginning. I should have read your logic lessons first. Then I would have known your tactics!

  15. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Mike and Jen on truth, scholarship and opinion:

    This is really interesting. As was posted yesterday on the Chalcedon thread, I agree that nothing ultimately can overcome truth. We sharpen each other like bits of iron scraping one another, and inevitably throwing lots of sparks. If we’re lucky, our blades of our swords of Spirit meet up with a good whetstone or honing tool. Mike makes for a good whetstone, as do so many others here.

    I suppose also, if you approach conflict among fellow believers, it makes the friction with Phillips very frustrating. He is however, even in this recalcitrance of his, effectively sharpening us as we work through the problems we encounter. In that sense, we owe Doug a debt of gratitude. (He’s building up our heavenly reward, too!) Looking at conflict this way helps me accept and appreciate that all of these things, as in Romans 8:28 through the end of the chapter all work both to make me more Christ-like, works salvation in others and glorifies God. Oh, how I wish that I could fast forward through my failures along the way and just get to the justified and glorified stuff.

    I may look to see if I can find “Today is a Good Day to Die” by Geronimo (I think). If that’s the speech that I’m thinking of, it says many of the same things. It also reminds me of the elements of John Donne’s passage about “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” All these struggles are a goldmine, if we take them and work them into valuable currency. We’ve all been like Doug at some point, and Doug has been like us. It’s just much hard work to get us all together and in agreement on the same page. By the grace of God, we will see God make it manifest and perhaps (like Job confessed) even while we are yet in our flesh.

  16. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Continuning from prior post:

    It may be Sitting Bull who made the “Good Day to Die” speech.
    ~~~~
    Along the way, I did find this good quote from an article by Zimbardo:

    Click to access heroism.pdf

    As our society dumbs down heroism,
    we fail to foster heroic imagination.

    There are several concrete steps we can take to foster the heroic imagination. We can start by remaining mindful, carefully and critically evaluating each situation we encounter so that we don’t gloss over an emergency requiring our action. We should try to develop our “discontinuity detector”—
    an awareness of things that don’t fit, are out of place, or don’t make sense in a setting. This means asking questions to get the information we need to take responsible
    action.

    Second, it is important not to fear interpersonal
    conflict, and to develop the personal
    hardiness necessary to stand firm for principles we cherish. In fact, we shouldn’t think of difficult interactions as conflicts but rather as attempts to challenge other people to support their own principles and ideology.

  17. Light M. Says:

    Cindy said: “I may look to see if I can find “Today is a Good Day to Die” by Geronimo”

    Hey, I thought that came from Klingon culture! Worf says it a lot in Star Trek.

  18. CynthiaGee Says:

    I doubt that he originated the phrase, but it was a Lakota warrior, Crazy Horse, who said to his troops, “Hokahey, today is a good day to die!”

  19. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    No, the plaataach trekkies ripped it off.

    It’s Native American and the whole speech, if I ever find it is very moving and applicable to Christian living.

  20. Mike Says:

    “It’s Native American”

    And so is the great advice: You can’t roller skate in a buffalo herd.

  21. CynthiaGee Says:

    Shhhh…. don’t tell Doug Phillips, Gary North, or Carmon Friedrich! Doug thinks we’re childlike with no concept of property ownership, and Gary North thinks Indians are savages:
    “Liberals have adopted the phrase “native Americans” in recent years. They never, ever say “American natives,” since this is only one step away from “American savages,” which is precisely what most of those demon-worshipping, Negro slave-holding, frequently land-polluting people were…. This was one of the great sins in American life, they say: “the stealing of Indian lands”…. That a million savages had a legitimate legal claim on the whole of North America north of Mexico is the unstated assumption of such critics. They never ask the question: From whom did the Indians of early colonial America get the land? They also never ask the even more pertinent question: Was the advent of the European in North America a righteous historical judgment of God against the Indians? On the contrary, our three authors [Noll, Hatch, Marsden] ridicule the Puritans for having suggested that the Indians were the moral and covenantal equivalent of the Canaanites (p. 33). In fact, if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution, the “native Americans” did.

    Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism

  22. CynthiaGee Says:

    “And so is the great advice: You can’t roller skate in a buffalo herd.”

    But you can be happy, if you’ve a mind to!

  23. Mike Says:

    “And so is the great advice: You can’t roller skate in a buffalo herd.”

    “But you can be happy, if you’ve a mind to!”

    FINALLY! Someone else is old enough to get it!

    HUZZAH!

  24. Mike Says:

    “In fact, if ever a continent of covenant-breakers deserved this attribution, the ‘native Americans’ did.”

    And when they made covenants with the great white father in Washington, who was it that broke every one of them?

  25. CynthiaGee Says:

    Mike there’s no donkey like an old donkey! And I was afraid that nobody here had ever heard of The Court Jester!

  26. CynthiaGee Says:

    “And when they made covenants with the great white father in Washington, who was it that broke every one of them?”

    Yup. If the Europeans who first came to America had behaved as Christians should, many more Indian people would have accepted the Gospel. Instead, even today, many are not Christians, and want nothing to do with Christianity.

  27. Jen Says:

    This is the “tenets” thread, not the off-topic thread. 🙂

  28. Jean Says:

    Tenet 20: Education and Training of Children

    This will be a tough one for me to evaluate because I run the personal risk of discovering that perhaps I have unknowingly placed my preferences of age-integration on a pedestal. Although I do recognize that these are just MY and MY family’s personal preferences and I do not believe a family-integrated church is the ONLY way to worship in spirit and truth, I may be clinging to this practice a little too closely. We’ll see.

    Now that you know where I’m coming from, it will be no surprise that I rather like this particular tenet. I am eager to see if it is truly supported by the scripture cited. I will be studying it more myself later.

    Deut 29:10-11 What I get from this snippet is that God can covenant with male and female, young and old, slave and free, leaders and followers, member or sojourner. Down in verse 15 the covenant is extended even to those not there that particular day. This is only an illustration of a varied group gathering before the Lord. This was not a training or socialization exercise, this was the legal sealing of an agreement between the Lord and his people.

    2 Chron 20:13 Jehoshaphat is in the house of the Lord pleading with him to provide protection for attackers. Sounds like folks in the camp are gathered around watching and waiting to see what will happen. Much like the throng that gathers at the courthouse for a big trial. There were men, women and children in the crowd. I don’t see that this gives defense for a “preferred pattern for social life or educational purposes,” though.

    From first-hand experience, I can tell you that having your children with you in traffic court can be educational. HA! As an aside, it’s how I met Little Bear’s daughter a few years back. Double HA! But I digress.

    Prov 22:15 WITH 13:20 This is the first time I’ve seen this tactic. Having to link verses together to prove something. Is this some sort of math exercise coming? A + B = C? Verse 22:15 says that children are foolish and need discipline. Verse 13:20 says for us to choose companions wisely…rub elbows with the wise, become wise…hang with fools, become a fool. You really have to do some mental gymnastics to arrive at the conclusion that grouping by age runs contrary to scriptural example.

    Joel 2:16 This is a prophetic selection that tells us sometime in the future there will be a gathering before the Lord. Another example of age-integrated assembly.

    1 Cor 15:33 “Bad company corrupts good morals.” Very similar to Prov 13:20. Except that Paul was likely quoting from a popular play his hearers would probably know. Good advice. But I suppose integrating the ages doesn’t magically fix the corruption problem. There are many adults and teens that would corrupt my young children more so than the neighbor’s little kids. Shouldn’t the measuring stick be worldview or spiritual maturity rather than age? Turning 16 doesn’t make you a good driver, turning 18 doesn’t make you a grown-up. Age is not all it’s cracked up to be. There are other, more important and revealing factors at work. Think fruits of the spirit.

    All of the cited verses are sources of good advice. Great memory verses to hide the Word in your heart to be drawn on in trials. They really don’t back up the tenet, though. There have been a handful of tenets like this one…not biblically mandated, but not UNbiblical either.

    Well, after this exercise, I’ve learned that my preference for family worship is just that. My preference. If it went away tomorrow, big deal. I’ve not elevated this preference to the preferred status of biblical mandate and neither should patriarchy.

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  29. Jen Says:

    Jean: “Well, after this exercise, I’ve learned that my preference for family worship is just that. My preference. If it went away tomorrow, big deal. I’ve not elevated this preference to the preferred status of biblical mandate and neither should patriarchy.”

    Jean, I think this is a very significant insight. I see that I have been guilty of taking personal preferences and elevating them to the level of a biblical mandate. I’m going to re-think a lot of my preferences and see which category they truly fall into.

    Maybe if God wrote this as a list of His personal preferences, rather than as a biblical mandate, we would all be willing to accept it more readily.

  30. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Mike writes: “And when they made covenants with the great white father in Washington, who was it that broke every one of them?”

    Oh, heck! Didn’t mean to get us off on a Jamestowne Native American rant here. The “good day to die” reference was meant, for those familiar to it, to be another type of reference to this Christian experience of being “wounded in the house of friends.” We are members of one another, and we inevitably hurt one another in this life.

    Although, as I understand, the only fair deal we gave the Indians was when we bought NY island, and we didn’t pay much for it…

  31. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    While deviating from the tenets, here’s a note that Sandlin asked me to post on the SharperIron thread as many there were angry that his article “Hegemonic Patriarchy” (originally in his newsletter and also now posted on my site) contained no Scripture references. It does discuss patriarchy and is amusing, as he makes an even bolder statement against the twisted elements of “patriarchy.”

    Sisters and Brothers,

    I hope here only to address issues in your copious discussion that, by the nature of the case, could not be more knowledgeably addressed by others.

    I am an elder at Church of the King-Santa Cruz (an evangelical Reformed church), and the web site is here: http://www.cotk.org
    To learn more about me personally, see here: http://www.christianculture.com
    I was executive vice president of the Chalcedon Foundation until Spring 2002 but am no longer affiliated with it in any way.

    The charge that my essay from several years ago “The Hegemonic Patriarchy” was deficient in that it did not cite Scripture is understandable. That article was written for the CCL audience, almost none of whom would question whether its argument was Biblically warranted. I do understand that a wider audience reading that article might arrive at a different conclusion, and one day I may draft a subsequent article on the topic that will carry explicit Biblical evidence.

    I maintain only one actual misgiving about the article “The Hegemonic Patriarchy”: that I did not speak more forcefully and resolutely. I consider the “Patriarchy Movement” a pestilence that should be opposed and exposed, and I am grateful for all Christians who oppose and expose it responsibly. As far as I can tell, the leading opponents of “Patriarchy” on this site are doing that…..

    May God bless each of you.

    P. Andrew Sandlin

  32. Praying For Revealing Says:

    Cynthia, please post the link to that Sharper Iron thread with Andrew Sandlin’s comment.

    Thanks

  33. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Praying For Revealing:

    Here’s the link. As is the path of human least resistance, many found the whole subject offensive (and they should), so some in the forum really cracked down hard on Sandlin, bringing ad hominem complaints against everything they could concerning Sandlin. I didn’t fare much better and opted out of continued participation there.

    Some did support the validity of the threat of this “patriarchy.” The sentence or two that I omitted referenced a minister known to Sandlin who made supporting statements, validating the reality of the problems with patriarchy. God bless all who participated over there on that thread, but especially that man referenced in Sandlin’s letter.

    http://www.sharperiron.org/showthread.php?p=92192#post92192

  34. WOW Says:

    I’m sorry, enough is enough. Look, this has to be said.

    Jen and Mark, you have spent hours and days and weeks and months and yes even years attempting to understand Doug Phillips : (1) what he is at heart , and (2)why he does the things that he does.

    I think that you believe that if you understood why he publicly accused you of horrible things that were already under the blood, attempted to remove you from fellowship with the body of Christ because of grievous sins that he never actually could substantiate but just vaguely yet stridently insisted you commited, and why he violated confidentiality and in fact every known letter and spirit of biblical law that he so proudly says he upholds in full …. I think you believe that if you can at least UNDERSTAND why he has done these things and WHY he has no remorse … if you could just understand, maybe you could entreat him in some way that would make him see the error of his ways, which would stop this from happening to other people. Then you could put it behind you and at least start to move on.

    I don’t blame you, all of us INTPs and INTJs like to know why things happen, and we like closure. We want justice to prevail and will make almost any personal sacrifice to see that it does.

    I can tell you why Doug is what he is and why he does what he does, but you won’t like the answer, because the answer means that Doug will never, and in fact CAN NEVER CHANGE, unless God sovereignly performs a creative miracle and changes Doug’s very nature.

    Doug Phillips is a narcissist. Not in a hyperbolic sense, but in the true medical, mental health, hard wired personality sense.

    Don’t take my word for it, per the DSM, the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder includes:

    At least five of the following are necessary for a diagnosis (as with many DSM diagnoses, they must form a pervasive pattern; for example, a person who shows these criteria only in one or two relationships or situations would not properly be diagnosed with NPD):

    1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
    2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
    3. believes that he or she is “special” and unique and can only be understood by other special people
    4. requires excessive admiration
    5. strong sense of entitlement
    6. takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
    7. lacks empathy
    8. is often envious or believes others are envious of him or her
    9. arrogant affect.

    (see also full list in DSM-IV-TR, p. 717)

    Five are needed to make the diagnosis. Would you agree that all nine are present to a pronounced degree and are in fact pervasive to a startling degree?

    (I would like to remind Mr Phillips that truth is an absolute defense to libel and slander. You can’t get mad at us, Doug, for noticing what you are based on what you do.)

    Jen, narcissists, short of a miracle, never repent and never change. Never. All of your sincere entreaties and logical arguments will have no effect whatsoever except to anger him more. Narcissists are impossible to deal with and wreak havoc on all those that have the misfortune to encounter them in life. This laying waste to the lives of others is never going to stop, the best thing to do is for people to remove themselves from his sphere of influence, and if that is not possible (ie spouse or children) they must eventually withdraw to mitigate their damages, or be destroyed. If they have the strength to withdraw, what Doug did to you will look like nothing compared to how he will make them pay for their betrayal.

    Referencing narcissism on google or in any of the hundreds of books available on the topic of dealing with narcissists would verify everything I have said. Just a little research would be a real eye opener and could potentially save the mental and spiritual life of those associated with Doug Phillips.

  35. WOW Says:

    A good place to start:

    http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/dsm-iv.html

    A few excerpts regarding Narcissistic Personality Disorder, PLEASE PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE FIRST THREE:

    … narcissists never admit to being distressed by their own behavior — they always blame other people for any problems…

    … lying is the most common complaint about narcissists and that, in many instances, defects of empathy lead narcissists to wildly inaccurate misinterpretations of other people’s speech and actions, so that they may believe that they are liked and respected despite a history of callous and exploitative personal interactions.

    …Here is an article about recognizing and coping with narcissism in the workplace; it is rather heavy on management jargon and psychobabble, but worth reading. “The Impact of Narcissism on Leadership and Sustainability” by Bruce Gregory, Ph.D. “When the narcissistic defense is operating in an interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in public. In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness.”

    … While grandiosity is the diagnostic hallmark of pathological narcissism, there is research evidence that pathological narcissism occurs in two forms, (a) a grandiose state of mind in young adults that can be corrected by life experiences, and (b) the stable disorder described in DSM-IV, which is defined less by grandiosity than by severely disturbed interpersonal relations…

    … Narcissists rarely enter treatment and, once in treatment, progress very slowly. We’re talking about two or more years of frequent sessions before the narcissist can acknowledge even that the therapist is sometimes helpful. It’s difficult to keep narcissists in treatment long enough for improvement to be made …

    … Narcissists are very reluctant to open up and trust … Purely anecdotal evidence from correspondents and from observations of people I know indicates that selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors, such as Prozac, aggravate narcissists’ grandiosity and lack of social inhibition. It has also been suggested that self-help literature about bolstering self-esteem and getting what you want out of life or that encourages the feeling of victimization has aggravating effects on NPD thinking and behavior.

    [from Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, 1994, commonly referred to as DSM-IV, of the American Psychiatric Association. European countries use the diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization.]

    … A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy…

    … NPD is characterized by aloofness and avoidance of intimacy. Grandiosity is unique to NPD among personality disorders, but it is found in other psychiatric illnesses. Psychopaths display pathological narcissism, including grandiosity, but psychopathy is differentiated from NPD by psychopaths’ willingness to use physical violence to get what they want, whereas narcissists rarely commit crimes; the narcissists I’ve known personally are, in fact, averse to physical contact with others, though they will occasionally strike out in an impulse of rage. It has been found that court-ordered psychotherapy for psychopaths actually increases their recidivism rate; apparently treatment teaches psychopaths new ways to exploit other people.

    Translation: Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior that shows up in thinking and behavior in a lot of different situations and activities. People with NPD won’t (or can’t) change their behavior even when it causes problems at work or when other people complain about the way they act, or when their behavior causes a lot of emotional distress to others (or themselves? none of my narcissists ever admit to being distressed by their own behavior — they always blame other people for any problems). This pattern of self-centered or egotistical behavior is not caused by current drug or alcohol use, head injury, acute psychotic episodes, or any other illness, but has been going on steadily at least since adolescence or early adulthood.

  36. WOW Says:

    The following link is perhaps the best compilation of NPD traits I have ever seen. This site actually seems to be a complete retelling of the whole experience that Jen and her husband had with Doug, including being banished from his presence and Doug’s tendency glorify and pretend to live in the grander, more adventerous past. It is if the writer were there … but what they have actually written is really just an explanation of a classic case of Narcissism. This is scarily accurate. PLEASE read this and then comment.

    http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/traits.html

    Excerpts:

    Almost everyone has some narcissistic traits, but being conceited, argumentative, or selfish sometimes (or even all the time) doesn’t amount to a personality disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a long-term pattern of abnormal thinking, feeling, and behavior in many different situations. The traits on this page will seem peculiar or disturbing when someone acts this way — i.e., you will know that something is not right, and contact with narcissists may make you feel bad about yourself. It’s not unusual for narcissists to be outstanding in their field of work. But these are the successful people who have a history of alienating colleagues, co-workers, employees, students, clients, and customers — people go away mad or sad after close contact with narcissists.

    … Narcissicism is a personality disorder and that means that narcissists’ personalities aren’t organized in a way that makes sense to most people … Interaction with narcissists is confusing, even bewildering — their reasons for what they do are not the same as normal reasons. In fact, treating them like normal people (e.g., appealing to their better nature, as in “Please have a heart,” or giving them the chance to apologize and make amends) will make matters worse with a narcissist.

    amoral/conscienceless
    authoritarian
    care only about appearances
    contemptuous
    critical of others
    cruel
    disappointing gift-givers
    don’t recognize own feelings
    envious and competitive
    feel entitled
    flirtatious or seductive
    grandiose
    hard to have a good time with
    hate to live alone
    hyper-sensitive to criticism
    impulsive
    lack sense of humor
    naive
    passive
    pessimistic
    religious
    secretive
    self-contradictory
    stingy
    strange work habits
    unusual eating habits
    weird sense of time

    … The most telling thing that narcissists do is contradict themselves. They will do this virtually in the same sentence, without even stopping to take a breath. It can be trivial (e.g., about what they want for lunch) or it can be serious (e.g., about whether or not they love you). … They will contradict FACTS. They will lie to you about things that you did together. They will misquote you to yourself. If you disagree with them, they’ll say you’re lying, making stuff up, or are crazy. [At this point, if you’re like me, you sort of panic and want to talk to anyone who will listen about what is going on: this is a healthy reaction; it’s a reality check (“who’s the crazy one here?”); that you’re confused by the narcissist’s contrariness, that you turn to another person to help you keep your bearings, that you know something is seriously wrong and worry that it might be you are all signs that you are not a narcissist].

    … the surest way I know of to get a crushing blow to your heart is to tell a narcissist you love her or him. They will respond with a nasty power move, such as telling you to do things entirely their way or else be banished from them for ever.

    …If you’re like me, you get into disputes with narcissists over their casual dishonesty and cruelty to other people. Trying to reform narcissists by reasoning with them or by appealing to their better nature is about as effective as spitting in the ocean. What you see is what you get: they have no better nature. The fundamental problem here is that narcissists lack empathy.

    … narcissists can’t judge what will affect them personally and seem never to learn that when they cause trouble they will get trouble back. They won’t take other people’s feelings into consideration and so they overlook the fact that other people will react with feeling when abused or exploited and that most people get really (angry about) being lied to or lied about.

    … Narcissists lack a mature conscience and seem to be restrained only by fear of being punished or of damaging their reputations —

    …Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally.

    …Anyhow, narcissists can’t be counted on not to do something just because it’s wrong, illegal, or will hurt someone, as long as they think that they can get away with it or that you can’t stop them or punish them (i.e., they don’t care what you think unless they’re afraid of you).

    … Narcissists are envious and competitive in ways that are hard to understand. … They are constantly comparing themselves (and whatever they feel belongs to them, such as their children and furniture) to other people. Narcissists feel that, unless they are better than anyone else, they are worse than everybody in the whole world.

    …Narcissists are generally contemptuous of others. This seems to spring, at base, from their general lack of empathy, and it comes out as (at best) a dismissive attitude towards other people’s feelings, wishes, needs, concerns, standards, property, work, etc. It is also connected to their overall negative outlook on life.

    … Narcissists are (a) extremely sensitive to personal criticism and (b) extremely critical of other people. They think that they must be seen as perfect or superior or infallible, next to god-like (if not actually divine, then sitting on the right hand of God) — or else they are worthless. There’s no middle ground of ordinary normal humanity for narcissists. They can’t tolerate the least disagreement. In fact, if you say, “Please don’t do that again — it hurts,” narcissists will turn around and do it again harder to prove that they were right the first time; their reasoning seems to be something like “I am a good person and can do no wrong; therefore, I didn’t hurt you and you are lying about it now…” —

    … narcissists are habitually cruel in little ways, as well as big ones, because they’re paying attention to their fantasy and not to you, but the bruises on you are REAL, not in your imagination. Thus, no matter how gently you suggest that they might do better to change their ways or get some help, they will react in one of two equally horrible ways: they will attack or they will withdraw.

    — narcissists will say ANYTHING, they will trash anyone in their own self-justification, and then they will expect the immediate restoration of the status quo. They will attack you (sometimes physically) and spew a load of bile, insult, abuse, contempt, threats, etc., and then — well, it’s kind of like they had indigestion and the vicious tirade worked like a burp: “There. Now I feel better. Where were we?” They feel better, so they expect you to feel better, too. They will say you are nothing, worthless, and turn around immediately and say that they love you. When you object to this kind of treatment, they will say, “You just have to accept me the way I am. (God made me this way, so God loves me even if you are too stupid to understand how special I am.)” Accepting them as they are (and staying away from them entirely) is excellent advice.

    … The other “punishment” narcissists mete out is banishing you from their glorious presence — this can turn into a farce, since by this point you are probably praying to be rescued, “Dear God! How do I get out of this?” The narcissist expects that you will be devastated by the withdrawal of her/his divine attention, so that after a while — a few weeks or months (i.e., the next time the narcissist needs to use you for something) — the narcissist will expect you to have learned your lesson and be eager to return to the fold. If you have learned your lesson, you won’t answer that call. They can’t see that they have a problem; it’s always somebody else who has the problem and needs to change.

    … though narcissists hate their real selves, they don’t want to change — they want the world to change. And they criticize, gripe, and complain about almost everything and almost everyone almost all the time. There are usually a favored few whom narcissists regard as absolutely above reproach, even for egregious misconduct or actual crime, and about whom they won’t brook the slightest criticism. These are people the narcissists are terrified of, though they’ll tell you that what they feel is love and respect; apparently they don’t know the difference between fear and love. Narcissists just get worse and worse as they grow older; their parents and other authority figures that they’ve feared die off, and there’s less and less outside influence to keep them in check.

    … Narcissists are hostile and ferocious in reaction

    …They have pretty good reasons for their paranoia and cynicism, their sneakiness, evasiveness, prevarications.

    … Narcissists are grandiose. They live in an artificial self invented from fantasies of absolute or perfect power, genius, beauty, etc.

    …Narcissists don’t see themselves doing anything except being adored, and they don’t see anyone else doing anything except adoring them.

    … Sometimes narcissistic fantasies are spectacularly grandiose — imagining themselves as Jesus or a saint or hero or deity depicted in art — but just as often the fantasies of narcissists are mediocre and vulgar, concocted from illustrations in popular magazines, sensational novels, comic books even.

    … These artificial self fantasies are also static in time, going back unchanged to early adolescence or even to childhood; the narcissists’ self-images don’t change with time, so that you will find, for instance, female narcissists clinging to retro styles, still living the picture of the perfect woman of 1945 or 1965 as depicted in The Ladies’ Home Journal or Seventeen or Vogue of that era, and male narcissists still hung up on images of comic-book or ripping adventure heroes from their youth.

    … Grandiosity can take various forms — a narcissistic woman may believe herself to be the very model of perfect womanhood, the standard by which all others are measured, and she will try to force her daughters to be just like her, she will not be able to cope with daughters who are taller or shorter than she is, fatter or thinner, who have bigger or smaller feet, breasts, teeth, who have different favorite colors than hers, etc.

    … Narcissistic men can be infatuated with their own looks, too, (witness John Cheever, for instance; Almost Perfect) but are more likely than women to get hung up on their intelligence or the importance of their work — doesn’t matter what the work is, if he’s doing it, by definition it’s more important than anything you could possibly do. Narcissists I’ve known also have odd religious ideas, in particular believing that they are God’s special favorites somehow; God loves them, so they are exempted from ordinary rules and obligations: God loves them and wants them to be the way they are, so they can do anything they feel like — though, note, the narcissist’s God has much harsher rules for everyone else, including you. [Many readers have questions about narcissism and religion. Here is an interesting article on the Web: “Narcissism Goes to Church: Encountering Evangelical Worship” by Monte Wilson.
    … Narcissists have a weird sense of time. It’s more or less like they are not aware that the passage of time changes things, or maybe they just aren’t aware of time’s passing at all. Years can pass without touching narcissists. Narcissists often look, or think they look, significantly younger than they are; this youthful appearance is a point of pride to them, and some will emphasize it by either preserving the styles of their golden youth or following the styles of people the age they feel they “really” are. That their faces don’t show their chronological age is a good sign that they haven’t been living real lives with real life’s wear and tear on the looks of normal people. The narcissists’ years have passed without touching them.

    … Narcissists are totally and inflexibly authoritarian. In other words, they are suck-ups. They want to be authority figures and, short of that, they want to be associated with authority figures. In their hearts, they know they can’t think well, have no judgment about what matters, are not connected with the world they inhabit, so they cling fanatically to the opinions of people they regard as authority figures — such as their parents, teachers, doctors, ministers.

    …If they get in trouble over some or another opinion they’ve put forth, they’ll blame the source — “It was okay with Dr. Somebody,” “My father taught me that,” etc. If you’re still thinking of the narcissist as odd-but-normal, this shirking of responsibility will seem dishonest and craven — well, it is but it’s really an admission of weakness: they really mean it: they said what they said because someone they admire or fear said it and they’re trying to borrow that person’s strength.

    … Narcissists feel entitled to whatever they can take. They expect privileges and indulgences, and they also feel entitled to exploit other people without any trace of reciprocation. ^
    Some narcissists spend extravagantly in order to impress people, keep up grandiose pretentions, or buy favorable treatment

    …They can be pretty nice, even charming, flirtatious, and seductive, to strangers, and will flatter you shamelessly if they want something from you. When you attempt to get close to them in a normal way, they feel you are putting emotional pressure on them and they withdraw because you’re too demanding.

  37. Jen Says:

    WOW, you are not the first person to bring up the fact that Doug is a narcissist. And based upon your descriptions above, it appears that the term fits him very well. I am not into pop-psychology, however, and will not blame Doug’s actions on a “diagnosis.” I think we can use the above descriptions to help us understand why Doug does the things he does, and to help us to know how better to deal with someone like him, but my God is big enough to handle even these kinds of delusions.

    I do thank you for taking the time to spell this all out. It is helpful to see it in this light. When I saw that Doug refused to even speak with me at Arlington, I knew he had hardened his heart, for whatever reason, and that there would be absolutely no reasoning with him. That is when I stopped calling him to repentance.

    But, if this description of Doug is accurate, and it appears to be, then this is all the more reason for me to continue to warn others about him. The fact that he is unlikely to change, save for the grace of God in his heart, means that he will continue to hurt people, and as long as he does that, I am here to warn them. This blog stays up as a warning.

    When I think about this list of “symptoms,” this gives me a more specific direction in which to pray for him. And I don’t say this very often, but I hope each of my readers here is praying for Doug. God can still soften that hard heart and change all these “symptoms.” It’s not my job to change him; it’s God’s.

  38. Mark Epstein Says:

    WOW said: “…Their moral intelligence is about at the level of a bright five- or six-year-old; the only rules they recognize are things that have been specifically required, permitted, prohibited, or disapproved of by authority figures they know personally.”

    Hmmmm, let’s reflect on whom Phillips talks about as specific influences: The pastor that he studied under and his father, Howard Phillips. Considering Howard thought Nixon was too liberal and that Deep Throat was a traitor, I think we can probably deduce where Doug’s moral boundaries are….

  39. Mark Epstein Says:

    WOW,

    One more thought on your lengthy comments: Not only are these traits scary, I can think of specific examples that delineate the traits of NPD. I guess this somewhat eliminates the “reasonable person” standard the courts apply. 🙂

  40. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    I have seen a number of references on Doug Phillips we-site indicating his friendship with and support of RC Sproul Jr. How does RC Sproul Jr’s teaching and practice on christian liberty as it pertains to drinking alcohol coincide with the beliefs held at BCA? Do they match? Did you ever see alcohol being served at a BCA fellowship? Just curious.

  41. Hutch Says:

    Not sure what a we-site is, that should say web-site!

  42. Jen Says:

    Hutch, the fact that RC, Jr. and Doug Phillips are friends at all often baffles me. And the fact that their children are promised to each other baffles me even more! These guys are SO different from one another.

    With Doug, I don’t think there is any liberty in his life, nor is there room for any whatsoever. Everything was so black and white for us. We were taught that the Bible speaks to every aspect of life, but not only that, but that God tells us every single thing to do, basically. Doug often told us about Stonewall Jackson, who would pray before he did EVERYTHING, asking God what to do. Now I’m not opposed to asking God for guidance, but the way this often came across to us was that God has a specific answer for every single thing we do in life. No liberty.

    RC, on the other hand, takes great delight in his liberty!

    As to drinking alcohol specifically, BCA is a BAPTIST church. No alcohol whatsoever.

  43. WOW Says:

    Jen, I agree with you that with God, all things are possible. Wouldn’t it be glorious if the Lord suddenly burst through all of the chains that bind Doug and he were set completely free? That is certainly a worthy goal to be reaching for in prayer.

    I was just trying to show you why, when you are exposing this folly so that others won’t be hurt, you should try to remove yourself emotionally from the outcome. You obviously care about Doug Phillips and his spiritual state, but caring about a narcissist is just a chain that can be used to draw you back in and hurt you more. Pray, Pray, but don’t count on any outcome.

  44. Jen Says:

    WOW, I see your point about my being emotionally involved. Until recently, I probably was. But God has changed my mind and my heart about so many issues in the last couple months that even if Doug ever repented and there was full reconciliation as brothers and sisters in Christ, I could never sit under his current teachings again. Not only do I disagree with his extra-biblical tenets of patriarchy, but I have parted ways with his theology as well. I am not enamored by him, nor do I desire to be in close fellowship with him. I am called to be at peace with all men, inasmuch as is possible for me to do. That’s my goal, but it will only be by the grace of God that that happens.

  45. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    WOW and everybody:

    I agree that Doug is narcisistic and have stated such here and elsewhere. I take it a step further and say that he is a sociopath. Other good resources to consider are characteriestics of cult leaders, too. I have a page on my site with an excerpt from one of the best books on the topic. Another trait that may be at play with many false leaders is Borderline Personality Disorder. They have tremendous fear of abandonment and cannot store long term memory that they find threatening. Info with high emotional content becomes very altered. Many cult leaders come from dysfunctional homes that fostered these and other personality disorders. (And what one of us has come from a home that was not to some degree dysfunctional, predisposing us to vulnerability to participation in these churches that abuse.)

  46. WOW Says:

    Mark

    I know what you mean.

    “When the narcissistic defense is operating in an interpersonal or group setting, the grandiose part does not show its face in public. In public it presents a front of patience, congeniality, and confident reasonableness.”

    Does this remind you of every contact you have had with the man since you were asked to leave the church? He prefers to withdraw and pretend that you don’t exist, but when he has to face you, he acts as if nothing is wrong, as if you are the crazy one. He maintains a front of being logical and reasonable in public …

  47. Hutch Says:

    Jen Wrote: Hutch, the fact that RC, Jr. and Doug Phillips are friends at all often baffles me. And the fact that their children are promised to each other baffles me even more! These guys are SO different from one another.

    With Doug, I don’t think there is any liberty in his life, nor is there room for any whatsoever. Everything was so black and white for us. We were taught that the Bible speaks to every aspect of life, but not only that, but that God tells us every single thing to do, basically. Doug often told us about Stonewall Jackson, who would pray before he did EVERYTHING, asking God what to do. Now I’m not opposed to asking God for guidance, but the way this often came across to us was that God has a specific answer for every single thing we do in life. No liberty.

    RC, on the other hand, takes great delight in his liberty!

    As to drinking alcohol specifically, BCA is a BAPTIST church. No alcohol whatsoever.

    Jen-

    My question may have seemed strange. And it definitely was not to debate whether a believer should or should not drink alcohol. And I was sure that I already knew the answer. I just knew that you would know for certain. My point was exactly what you said, what do those two have in common? What is the common thread? Why would he tolerate such actions in his asssociates? He speaks of RC Sproul Jr. as a man to be revered and respected. Does that not seem to be a little hypocritical? Would he allow someone in his congregation to drink alcohol at one of BCA’s fellowships? What kind of action would be taken against a member of BCA who followed RC’s example? If he would call a member of his congregation to repentance for drinking alcohol should he not do the same with RC? Seems like he would want to be consistent. Just curious.

    Hutch

  48. Corrie Says:

    “My point was exactly what you said, what do those two have in common? What is the common thread? Why would he tolerate such actions in his asssociates?”

    Patriarchy makes for strange bedfellows?

  49. Corrie Says:

    WOW,

    Thank you for this information. It was very helpful for me to understand and make sense of someone I know.

  50. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    WOW writes: ” Jen, narcissists, short of a miracle, never repent and never change. Never. All of your sincere entreaties and logical arguments will have no effect whatsoever except to anger him more. Narcissists are impossible to deal with and wreak havoc on all those that have the misfortune to encounter them in life.”
    and
    “He prefers to withdraw and pretend that you don’t exist, but when he has to face you, he acts as if nothing is wrong, as if you are the crazy one. He maintains a front of being logical and reasonable in public …”

    Hutch writes: “With Doug, I don’t think there is any liberty in his life, nor is there room for any whatsoever. Everything was so black and white for us.”
    and
    “My point was exactly what you said, what do those two have in common? What is the common thread?”

    This is THE SACRED SCIENCE and DOCTRINE OVER PERSON.
    See “Thought Reform in Christian Churches.” on my site and Lifton on any of the cult resource websites.

    Oh, and the best narcisistic/spiritual abuse correllary is the PARANOIA. If anyone does question or really sees all of these things they keep secret (like the proof they say they have proving that the Epsteins are not honest and truthful), the big sham will be over.

    It is the same with all the garbage in their doctrine of patriarchy and their strange bedfellows. (If you publically agree with militant fecundity, then you can drink all you want with impunity. If you publically agree with voting Constitution party, you can stay in the “glorious warmth of his fellowship.” The science is sacred if all else is forfeit to maintaining the doctrine (over person). What will everyone do when Doug starts changing his mind? If he gets in a tiff with RC Jr, Doug will be the first to launch a new campaign against the evils of drink, along with some maudlin, recognition to Ken Gentry (author of “God Gave Wine”) for his eschatology works.

  51. Corrie Says:

    http://www.operationdoubles.com/narc/

    This link makes some very important points about people who suffer abuse and then others (“do-gooders” come along and tell them that their hurt, anger and outrage at the abuse is sin.

    “The reasoning goes like this: So, the narcissist’s abuse is nothing to get angry about? You are to act as though it didn’t happen? In other words, you are to make nothing of it, right?

    Wrong. For, if it is nothing, then you are nothing. Why? Because everybody knows that if I bash an object, that’s nothing, but if I bash a human being, that’s something. If I step on a bug, that’s nothing, but if I step on a human being, that’s something.

    Yet, no matter what, the do-gooders just don’t get it — till they’re the one that gets bashed. Then they see the degrading value judgment in making nothing of it. ”

    “The holier-than-thous should be criticizing the abuser’s behavior, not the victim’s. There’s a name for people like that, “Job’s Comforters” or “troublesome comforters.” [See The Book of Job.] That’s what I mean when I say that people saying stuff like this do more harm than good. Pound, pound, pound, they all pound you down with that club that says Doing that to you was nothing = You are nothing. And it’s a sin for you to not cover up for him by acting like it didn’t happen. ”

    This link has a lot of good articles. One of them talks about people who had a narcissist for a parent and how that makes them aware. It can also make them vulnerable and a target for predators because they grew up never being able to please their parent. It talks about the narcissistic father, especially a relgious father. He also describes narcissistic mothers.

    I am sitting here in amazement on so many levels.

  52. Joan Hathcote Says:

    Does anyone else find the “betrothal” (which is nothing more than arranged marriage) between Sproul’s and DP’s young CHILDREN (they can’t be much more than 10 or 12 years old right now) simply alarming??

    I mean, I know that Jen confirmed this when another person asked if this were true. But I still find it almost unbelievable. If nothing else screams “CULT,” then this arranged marriage does! After all, isn’t this the very same type of thing that “The Travelers” do, and their customs have been featured on Dateline segments?

    Jen, how was this thing announced? How did you get knowledge of it? Do the people at BCA think this is right and normal? Are there other children from other families already betrothed to each other? I’m sure you’re not making it up, but is it at all possible that it could be a somewhat tongue-in-cheek arrangement? How serious are these fathers? How much room is there for their kids to deviate from this plan in 10 years or so?

    I’m sure my questions are off topic (sorry 🙂 ), but honestly, of all the stuff you’ve discussed on your blog, this one little factoid stands out to me as one of the most bizarre!

  53. WOW Says:

    John Hathcote

    I agree that betrothal in this manner seems strange. I have worked pro bono medically with immigrants, both legal and illegal, and I can assure you that immigrants from many different cultures find it amazing that once they get to this country, kids have rights. You can’t make them marry the person you choose, you can’t beat them at will, you can’t perform female circumcision, etc.

    Hard to believe that apparently some native born uber patriot parents still haven’t gotten the message. : )

    Unfortunately, apparently it is still legal for wrong headed parents to control their children’s behavior as far as arranged marriages (etc) by coercion, either by threatening to turn their backs on them, or by threatening them in effect with hell if they choose to leave and no longer practice the precise proscribed relilgious tenets. The threat of being disowned or excommunicated can keep most children in the fold. Most church members too.

    Check out the story of Fred Phelps some time, if you have time. He is a narcissist that horribly abused his children and wife. About 1/3 left his church/family (church and family were the same) and were excommunicated by him, the other 2/3 have never been able to break away. Very sad story.

    Jen, the thing I have always thought was strangest , correct me if I am wrong, is that Doug’s church was a church that you could only attend if you were invited. No walk ins!?! I have never heard of a church that didn’t welcome all comers, at least in principle. What on earth could be the reason for such a policy? Exclusivity to this degree alone to me proves cult status.

  54. CynthiaGee Says:

    “What on earth could be the reason for such a policy?”

    Invitation-only churches are often that way because they teach screwy things that they don’t want the general public to know about.
    Being part of a group like that is much like being part of an alcoholic family. In an alcoholic household, the main thing is to never let the outside world know what’s going on at home, because outsiders “just wouldn’t understand, and bad things might happen — loss of standing in the community, loss of jobs, even loss of the family unit, with kids being placed in foster care.
    Same thing goes for a cult — outsiders “just wouldn’t understand”, and might do things like tell the whole world what a bunch of nuts the cultists are. In Phillips’ case, this would be doubly true, because his father is the head of the Constitution Party. They court the votes of neoConfederates, secessionists, kinists, and other malcontents; and yet, in order to succeed, they must garner the votes of portions of the moderate constituency as well. To do this, they attempt to project an image of squeaky clean normalcy to the average voter and the press, while keeping their more damning associations and views strictly under wraps.

  55. Joan Hathcote Says:

    I realize that arranged marriages are still the norm in many other cultures. But we’re not talking about “other” cultures, at least not on the surface. We’re talking about what’s mostly the middle class, whitebread American church.

    Although Doug Phillips and Vision Forum espouse “hyperpatriarchy,” VF materials are more widely used in the church at large, even among Christians who might not hold to some of these “Tenets of Patriarchy.”

    I think a lot of people who have enjoyed hearing DP speak at homeschooling conferences would be appalled to learn that he arranged a marriage for one of his young children. While betrothal might be the custom for someone from India, for instance, your average American leafing through the VF catalog would view arranging a marriage between two children as a pretty radical thing.

  56. CynthiaGee Says:

    How old are the kids involved?

  57. CynthiaGee Says:

    Now this will blow your mind: according to Wikipedia, the legal age for marriage in Texas is 18, and 14 with parental consent. Possibly younger with judicial consent or if person under 18 had previously married and divorced.

  58. CynthiaGee Says:

    “While betrothal might be the custom for someone from India, for instance, your average American leafing through the VF catalog would view arranging a marriage between two children as a pretty radical thing.”

    Speaking of India, the legal age for marriage there is 21 for men and 18 for women.

  59. CynthiaGee Says:

    The next thing to consider is this: Say the parents of a 14 year old girl arrange a marriage for her, and talk her into going through with it. Can it really be said that the girl agreed to marry willlingly? Or is she a victim of forced marriage and human trafficking

  60. CynthiaGee Says:

    Hmmm, that’s funny, WordPress cut part of the final sentence off. Oh well!

  61. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    You can get away with a great deal of human trafficking in Texas.

  62. Jen Says:

    I only have time for a quick comment tonight. The boy and girl in question are 14 and 13 years old. I don’t really know any more details and we never discussed it at BCA.

    As far as drinking goes, Hutch, I just can’t even imagine someone trying to drink at a BCA function. That is beyond my comprehension! The drinking aspect, though, is not what is so hypocritical with Doug as is his acceptance and honor of a man who was defrocked, basically ran from further church discipline, and continued preaching anyway. That is far worse than what he drinks.

  63. Mark Epstein Says:

    Jen said: “God has changed my mind and my heart about so many issues in the last couple months that even if Doug ever repented and there was full reconciliation as brothers and sisters in Christ, I could never sit under his current teachings again.”

    Praise God! I always chafed under Doug’s patriarchy nonsense. Call it a “sixth” sense or whatever, it just didn’t give my spirit any peace, which caused a great deal of tension in my marriage.

    I completely concur with Jen regarding sitting under Doug’s teaching — it will never happen (again) in this life.

  64. David M Zuniga Says:

    “WOW”,

    You asked Jen to correct you if you were wrong, regarding Boerne Christian Assembly being “a church that you could attend only if you were invited. No walk-ins.”

    You are wrong. My wife and I were “walk-ins”, and while many/most of the families as BCA did indeed treat us as “outsiders” for the first few Sundays that we attended (only once a month or so; we live 3.5 hours away) Doug was always very nice to me and my wife, and eventually we felt very much accepted there.

    So we were walk-ins. And by the grace of God, we are now walk-outs.

  65. Hutch Says:

    Jen-

    We have discussed Doug’s “tenants” of patriarchy. How about a discussion such as “Are Doug Phillips church practices Biblical?” -or- “Are the patriarchy movements church practices biblical?” You and your husband having actual first hand experience could help peel back the curtain so to speak on the actual practices of the patriarchy movement. I think this would be beneficial as my experience is that many people I speak with about this movement just cannot believe that some of these extra-biblical concepts are being taught and practiced. It would be a very good service to act as a warning to the Body of Christ.

  66. David M Zuniga Says:

    Hutch,

    “Tenets” are principles; “tenants” are rent-paying boarders.

  67. Hutch Says:

    David-

    Indeed you are correct. Thanks for the correction.

    Hutch

  68. Jen Says:

    Thanks, David, for explaining about the visitation policy at BCA. Let me explain further. Although I was told that I needed an invitation to first attend BCA, that is NOT true. I just didn’t know about the church and where it was. That is still kept very quiet. Doug doesn’t even post it on his “Uniting Church and Family” website. It is difficult to find out about it, but you don’t need an invitation to visit. However, David is correct that visitors usually feel out of place for a while.

    Hutch, that is a GREAT idea! Since I won’t have time to write an article this week, I shall consider your suggestion.

  69. Jean Says:

    Jen,

    Years ago when I asked about your church (since we were in need of a church home) you smiled and said that it probably wasn’t what we were looking for. I thought it was because I wore pants. HA! Now I see that it was providential…the Lord was protecting my family. And I don’t think I ever thanked you for spinning me and pointing me in another direction, did I? Well, thanks! Not that where we landed was much better, but the Lord took care of that, too!

    I say let’s organize a field trip to BCA! Carloads of us could descend on them one Sunday and see first-hand what all the hubbub is about. Would we be welcome to stay for the “pot-providence?” If we blew into town on a Friday, we could even take in a tour of VF! And maybe a bus tour of Hollywood Park to see DP’s home could be arranged for Saturday. HA!

    Have a pleasant day!

    Jean

  70. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Hi Micah G:

    Continuing from the latest thread of the Reformed vs Baptist vs non-Reformed Baptist thread, You asked about the authority of the church in the family and the authority in the family. I couldn’t turn up any of the Scriptures that I had in mind, but I’m fogged up with sinus problems. I’ll still pose what I understand to be true, perhaps all flowing from my Assemblies of God upbringing (with all the negative and postitive aspects thereof).

    I draw my understanding from the OT model where the head of the household went to the tabernacle to make atonement for the sins of the family. This implies that although each individual answers for sin, there is a familial authority implied. The man of the home was responsible for carrying out the ritual for his household, so it implies that he was somewhat responsible/an authority for the conduct within his household. You can also derive this partly from honor of parents.

    Even though we no longer need the rituals of family atonement under the law, I think that this still carries some significance. The male head of household is still the priest of the home, and as Paul and Peter spoke is the head of the home. A peripheral implication of this comes from the requirements of an elder wherein his qualification depends partly on the conduct of his family as a witness. (Here’s another standard that goes unrecognized and unreinforced in the church today… Another topic for another day.)

    That said, even Abraham went to Melchezidek as is mentioned in Hebrews. We now, under the preisthood of all believers go to Jesus directly, as our high priest. Jesus fulfilled this law and did not necessarily undo it. The family structure of authority still remains as a standard, but without the need for an intercessor for an individual to receive atonement or mercy or help in time of need.

    As I would stated things then, the authority in the home and the authority in the church outside of the home are seperate structures. The head of the household chooses to submit to a local body, but this is a different system. He can choose to submit to a different local body or a different denomnation if he sees fit. Under grace, a unmarried woman or a widow can go to the throne of grace without a man to cover her based on Hebrews and Galatians, etc. if need be, based on the priesthood of all believers. She can choose to change local bodies or denominations also.

    The church can exercize authority over a family through the head of the household, or individuals can confront individuals about matters that involve conduct, etc. The church does not have unlimited authority over what goes on in the life of the home. They have some, but they are not ever to be any kind of despot. We no longer operate under an interceding party because we have Christ. If the local body has issues with a household, they must examine whether this is an issue of “meat sacrificed to idols” or whether it is outright sin and act accordingly. They do not have ultimate power over the life of the family, however. They must act according to Scripture and follow the standards of discipline, but the individual is free to dissociate himself from that particular local body if he chooses.

    In shepherding and some other similar groups, this is a problem. There is a teaching that states that church membership is a binding covenant which implies great authority over the lives of believers that is tantamount to the authority of the head of household within the home. I do not ascribe to this belief. The covenant teaching of church membership is very damaging and holds itself like unto a marriage covenant. To release self from the vow of membership in a local body is viewed as divorce. Hence there is much pronouncement of curses like unto the Gothard view of stepping out from under the covering of God’s big umbrella of protection. These people fail to realize that God does permit divorce under certain circumstances, but this is used to keep the member in the group by implied fear.

    This could also be viewed practically as a paternalistic view of church leadership where the church is essentially parent over the head of household. This falls through for me too, as God speaks of the process of leaving and cleaving. When the two become one flesh, they become their own household and no longer must answer to the dictates of their parents. Many churches teach that they are intercessors between God and the head of household. If this is true, then they do not account for the leaving and cleaving concepts in Scripture.

    Well, that should be plenty to get us going on the topic.

  71. Rayann Says:

    Jen,
    I have question on the courtship/betrothal issue. To what extreme does patriarchy promote courtship.? Do they adhere to the extreme that Lindvall does with his betrothal teachings? I just wondered because I’ve never read any of these particular writings on this issue. Did I read somewhere that Patriarchy I has arranged a courtship between his son and one of the Patriarchy II’s daughters? Is this true or just a rumor? Will the two young people have any say in the matter when they get older? I can’t imagine my husband deciding who my children will marry, especially while they’re still 12 years old.

  72. Jen Says:

    Rayann, they promote courtship to the extreme that certain patriarchists makes a HUGE deal on their blog every time they gets to witness their first kiss (ever) at their wedding. That is the ultimate goal — that the couple be so pure that they have never kissed, each other or anyone else. To never have touched before the wedding would be good as well. They should never be alone before the wedding either. I don’t know Lindvall’s teachings on this, so I can’t speak to that.

    As far as I know, there is an arranged marriage between Patriarchy I’s son and Patriarchy II’s daughter. They do advocate that the girl has a say in the matter of who she marries, but I don’t know how that will actually work in real life with these two. There are many theological differences between these two families that could be quite significant if they were to marry.

  73. CynthiaGee Says:

    “There are many theological differences between these two families that could be quite significant if they were to marry.”

    Maybe, or the opposite could happen– the differences could become very insignificant. One of the ideas behind courtship seems to be that the families, in a sense, “marry” each other in the person of the nuptial couple. If that happens here, and the two familes base their shared “vision” of Christianity in their similarities rather than their differences, the result could be quite interesting: they may end up throwing out all of their traditional theology, which is what divides them, and concentrate on Patriarchal practice alone.
    Voila, a new denomination!

  74. CynthiaGee Says:

    I meant, “the differences could become insignificant“.

  75. Georgia Says:

    WOW I know it is a few years later that I am responding your post on narcissists. I will save it and post it into one of my folders. You have described an relative in the family who fits your description of what a narcissist is and what these people do to the family. He was very good at his job but to the family he is a terrorist. Because he was an engineer and earned six figures no one stood up to him. Thank you for explaining what we have been dealing with all these years.


What do you think?

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: