Doug Phillips Seduced by “Foxy Bubbles” the Stripper?

On November 13 Douglas Wilson, the controversial and periodically scandal embroiled pastor of Christ Church in Moscow Idaho posted an article entitled Patriarchy, Vision Forum, and All the Rest of It. Like so many other Doug Wilson blog posts, this one is timely, and clearly addressing a current event. In this case the event is the Doug Phillips sex scandal and resignation, and the announcement of Vision Forum Ministry’s closure.

Doug Wilson uses the opportunity to define his own kinder and gentler form of Patriarchy which, he alleges, is nothing more than “Father rule. That’s the good part.” I’ll leave off, for the time being, addressing the numerous manifestations of Doug Wilson’s own ecclesiastical tyrannies and abuses, and various and sundry scandals he’s been embroiled in. After all, this blog is dedicated to Doug Phillips’ Ecclesiastical Tyranny and Abuse. I’ll leave it to someone else to dedicate a blog to Doug Wilson (oh, wait, there’s already been several of those).

What I do want to address is the propensity in what I term “Hyper-Patriarchy” (among whom I count Doug Wilson), that so often have implied that when a great Christian leader falls due to the sin of adultery, it’s the woman’s fault. Clearly, this is what Doug Wilson conveys in this article. In Doug Wilson’s world Doug Phillips isn’t necessarily responsible. More than likely he was led astray by his own masculinity and by a seductive woman’s blandishments:

Conclusion
Testosterone is a good thing, and can be used by God as part of His gifting men for leadership, but it is not one of the fruits of the Spirit. God uses gifts, but He blesses fruit.

A man with lots of testosterone is in a position to start a dynamic ministry that speaks to thousands, that fills conference halls, and that rivets people to their seats. Taking a hypothetical, that very same man is also in a much better position to succumb to the blandishments of a stripper with a stage name of Foxy Bubbles, and all in the settled conviction that his sin will not find him out. How could his sin find him out? He rivets people to their seats.

Samson eventually had his eyes put out, but even before he lost his eyes he was not able to see what Delilah was doing with and to him. The thing that God was using against the Philistines, his strength, was also the thing that Delilah was using in a series of sexual jiu jitsu moves against Samson. It is an old trick, and it still works very, very well.

Quite often these Hyper-Patriarchs will not just blame the other woman, they’ll also blame the wife: She didn’t keep herself up. She should have stayed pretty for her husband. She let herself go. She put on weight. She loafed around the house all day. She lost interest in her husband and didn’t want to do anything with him anymore. She got preoccupied with the kids and left no time for him. She stopped dressing pretty, putting up her hair and doing up her face.  She wore a frumpy denim jumper around the house all day. She stopped putting out.

Now where these problems with a wife are true (and such things do sometimes happen) it’s time to seek marital counseling, or take the wife on a romantic date (or better yet a vacation, minus the kids), not use those excuses to justify seeking emotional and sexual fulfillment outside of the marriage.

Though Hyper-Patriarchs like Doug Phillips would never admit it publicly, and they would certainly never teach it, in practice Doug Phillips has proven himself to be a Victorian in his view of marriage: The wife fulfills her conjugal duties to be fruitful and multiply, but as she ages and has more and more children and isn’t quite so thin and shapely anymore, and because of being consumed and fatigued with raising children, the husband uses these to rationalize seeking out love and affection from a beautiful young mistress. The Victorians, for all their alleged virtue and morality, were notorious for marital infidelity. Victorian men held that you obtained a wife to have your children and secure your family lineage, but you kept a mistress for love. Victorian wives  quietly accepted the arrangement because there was nothing they could do about it. Likewise, the wives of the Hyper-Patriarchs believe they too are powerless to do anything about the injustices in their marriages.

This Victorian pragmatic (loveless) view of sex in marriage is especially well put forth by Doug Wilson: “A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.”
Fidelity: What it Means to be a One-Woman Man (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 1999), 86-87

In response to Doug Wilson’s article I posted the following comment on his blog:

Pastor Wilson, I appreciate the fact that you permit dissenting views, even from those who are less than tactful toward you. I’ll do my best to remain diplomatic. In your article “Doug Phillips’ Resignation from Vision Forum”, I posted several comments, one of which included, “Another article from you is in order, but I hope it will be considerably more circumspect and insightful than this one was.” You’ve done well in clarifying the biblical model of Patriarchy. It all sounds rather benign, and if in practice it really were that benign then I could largely agree with your interpretation. Doug Phillips too would claim to also fully ascribe to your interpretation that “Patriarchy simply means ‘father rule’.” But in orthopraxy it also means far more to Doug Phillips and his ilk.

Doug Phillips runs a power cult and what he preaches is not what he has practiced. The same goes for his fellow Patriarchy movement leaders. The problem you face in championing Patriarchy is that men like Doug Phillips have loaded the term “Patriarchy” with so much extra-biblical baggage that it’s forever tainted, if not ruined. The fruit of Patriarchy is that it’s directly responsible for driving many from the Christian faith. They didn’t stumble because of a healthy grace-filled interpretation of the holy Word of God. They stumbled because of a performance-based interpretation of Patriarchy which claims to derive its authority from the Word of God, when in point of fact it’s just modern day Phariseeism.

Various Christian leaders recognized this several years ago and sought to distance themselves with a more moderate and grace-filled form of patriarchy. They rebranded it with that “squishy” term you appear to dislike, “Complimentarianism.” I don’t believe their efforts have been particularly successful in winning back the stumbled. But it takes more than a polished marketing campaign to successfully call back the many sheep that were driven from the fold by domineering men and prideful manipulative women. Winning back the thousands, likely tens of thousand (and I’m in no way exaggerating here) of lost sheep — “little ones” as our Lord called them — home school kids that grew up under “Patriarchy” (I use the scare quotes deliberately because the very term is scary to them) and are now cynics of the Christian faith, will require a large doses of grace and compassion.

Yet all too often I see comments like ttpog’s: “They obviously have unresolved issues in their lives that has caused them much pain, but their angry insistence that is the fault of someone/something else at this point in their adult lives is quite juvenile. It is past time that they grow up, lay it at the foot of the cross, forgive and move on!” It pains me to see that, and I’ve seen such spiteful comments too often. All such comments serve to do is confirm in their minds that Christians are hateful, unloving, and that their God must be hateful and unloving too. ttpog goes on to ridicule the blog owners of http://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com because they choose to be anonymous. What ttpog and your readers likely don’t know is they, and many others like them, have good reason for their anonymity — Doug Phillips is an attorney, as are others in the Patriarchy movement (such as Don Hart), and they routinely threaten litigation to silence opposition. Doug Phillips’ legal threats have silenced countless victims. The anonymity of those few who are publicly speaking out now isn’t bitter cowardice but prudent courage.

But there are other victims too besides the children who grew up under Patriarchy. I think especially of the mothers who bought into Patriarchy, many with good intentions of wanting to improve family life by obeying the Bible. They struggle as many wives have with coming to a healthy understanding of “Wives submit to your husbands.” Their own pastors usually fall short in explaining, so they look to some Christian guru that claims he or she has the answers. Doug Phillips and his cohorts claim they do, as do others such as Kevin Swanson, James and Stacey McDonald, and R.C. Sproul Jr. Many of these seeking women jump into the Patriarchy movement without any mention of Patriarchy, let alone any coercion, by their husbands. I dare say that the first place many Christian men hear of “Patriarchy” is from their wives.

Doug Phillips himself has acknowledged that well over 80% of his sales come from women. That would be consistent with what all Christian publishers say, including Focus on the Family. The vast majority of family and relational books, CDs, DVDs, homeschool conference tickets, etc., are purchased by women. I’d be interested to know Pastor Wilson what your own sales demographics look like. Women order the books and videos, go to the homeschool conferences and hear the lectures, and before you know it they’re caught up in all the extra-biblical baggage that goes along with it. The heartbreak these women face today is overwhelming as they witness first-hand the ruined lives of their children who have, because of the legalism and performance based acceptance, rejected any and all semblance of Christianity, rushing headlong into carnality as a direct result of Patriarchy.

Next we have the mothers/wives who embrace Patriarchy out of pride. These women cause the most harm of all and, my personal observation informs me that they are more numerous than those men who jump into Patriarchy seeking “biblical” justification for their preexisting entitlement to authoritarianism. I don’t speak as an outsider but as one who was in the middle of a Patriarchal power cult that was heavily influenced by Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, James and Stacey McDonald, and R.C. Sproul Jr. I’ve often heard it said “Women don’t dress for men, they dress for other women.” That same competitive pride drives Patriarchal women to compete in church through “militant fecundity”, submission to husbands through modest apparel (no jewelry, long dresses worn everywhere including while gardening, and headcoverings being the ultimate indication thereof), homeschooling, remaining silent in church, agrarianism, blanket training, breaking the child’s will with daily “discipline” (code language for beatings with welt-raising pain-inducing objects that might even include 1/4″ plastic plumbing hose), etc. Later when the kids go off the rails and rebel, she’ll engage in historical revisionism and blame her husband, telling the children, “It was all your father’s idea. He made me do it. I was just submitting to him.”

This social structure is far more Japanese than American. The public image of Japan is Patriarchal, but within the Japanese home it is Matriarchal. On the typical Japanese street you’ll see wives dressed modestly, walking subserviently behind their husbands, heads bowed low, hands folded in front. She is the very image of an obedient wife. She’s submissive because she looks submissive. But it’s all for show. Enter the home and you’ll see quite the opposite. She rules the roost and wears the pants. Papason comes home on payday and hands her the paycheck. Mamason makes all the family decisions.

This is the reality of many so-called Patriarchy homes, including the McDonald home (albeit not Doug Phillips or R.C. Jr. — theirs are “machismo” as you term it). Prideful women jump in and drag their passive husbands along for the ride, claiming all the while she wants to be biblical and submit to her husband. They boast (ever so humbly) to their friends in their “women’s prayer meetings” about how submissive they are to their husbands, boasting about all their children’s home school science fair accomplishments, and a plethora of other accomplishments. Their husbands are a mere fixture in the home. Everything really revolves around her. The children exist to make her look good through their accomplishments which she takes full credit for. It’s the epitome of performance-based acceptance. The leaders of this system are women like Stacey McDonald and Jennie Chancey.

Then there are the easiest targets of all for the wrath of the “gleeful feminists” — the chest-thumping (“men with lots of testosterone” as you put it) Patriarchs. I would be remiss though in failing to point out that “gleeful feminists” are also your easiest target and one which you habitually stereotype and reflexively throw anyone into who objects to Patriarchy (however it’s defined), regardless of the basis for their objections. To my knowledge, you have never addressed the matter of the women Patriarchalists that I’ve identified above. Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment that “some of the machismo patriarchalists that I described above gravitated to Vision Forum circles, and found what they thought was adequate cover there.” Where else are they going to gravitate to?

Vision Forum attracts many well-meaning people, but it inescapably attracts many unhealthy men (although you failed to mention the far more numerous unhealthy women it’s attracted). Not only is there adequate cover for abusive men, but Doug Phillips himself is such a man, as are his partners in Patriarchy. One needs to look beyond their eloquent home school conference speeches and see it in action to recognize it for how extra-biblical it is, and even toxic and destructive of healthy family life.

Especially problematic are your two paragraphs devoted to Foxy Bubbles and Delilah. Perhaps you didn’t intend to say what it sounds like you’re saying, but the inevitable takeaway is that you believe that Douglas W. Phillips didn’t woo and seduce a young lady (barely of legal age when the affair started), in a power-cult structure Phillips called “Patriarchy” that made it impossible for her to refuse his advances. Rather, in your view, by her female stripper-like “blandishments” and “sexual jiu jitsu“, and because of Doug Phillips’ “good thing” “gifting men for leadership” testosterone, Doug Phillips is an innocent victim of his God-given “strength”, taken advantage of by “an old trick, and it still works very, very well.”

On the whole your article provides ample evidence that you just don’t get it. Worse yet you completely blew a golden opportunity to serve as a peacemaker, calling back to the fold of God the thousands of victims of the Phillips/Swanson/McDonald/Sproul brand of Patriarchy. You fail to follow your own advice: “If you don’t want them whacking you, don’t hand them the stick.”

Doug Wilson on sex

Advertisements

33 Responses to “Doug Phillips Seduced by “Foxy Bubbles” the Stripper?”

  1. nowoolovertheeyes Says:

    did he delete that blog post because I don’t see it (Douglas Wilson)?

  2. Latoya Says:

    Ok, that meme at the bottom of the article is going to give a lot of people nightmares.

  3. Holly Says:

    You say so well what I’ve wanted to say for so long. Our
    family was virtually destroyed on so many levels by Christ Church,
    Cary N.C. because of these very teachings. Thank you for writing
    this so well.

  4. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Check out ‘homeschoolersanonymous’ blog on WordPress. Lots of good info over there as well. Jen was right spot on when she surmised the profile of Dougs victim. So far the young lady has been able to remain unidentofied…let’s hope it statys that way.

    Yes Latoya, that final meme is the stuff of nightmares.

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Actually, Morgan, some of us do know who she is (and we have reason to believe there was more than just the one). So technically she’s not unidentified. I understand though you mean to say let’s hope that no one outs her, especially Doug Phillips. That wouldn’t be right.

      If she wants to out herself and tell her story many, many people do want to hear from her. We know that Doug Phillips is lying and telling half-truths about all of this.

      Doug outed himself in a carefully orchestrated damage control maneuver that he’d set up months in advance. He did not out himself because of any genuine godly sorrow. He outed himself only because he had to. The young lady could authoritatively confirm all this.

      I’m confident that she’d be warmly received and supported. I don’t think any reasonably intelligent person blames her, other than a few of the Hyper-Patriarchs (like Doug Wilson).

      • nowoolovertheeyes Says:

        yes………there are quite a few that know who she is but are protecting her. My Question is why she stayed in the relationship for so long? She had to have known what she was doing was wrong. I can’t believe it went on for THAT long before they got caught. The blame is NOT just on the young woman and Doug. This is on everyone who turned their heads and overlooked red flags that were happening before their eyes. Now Doug is going to loose EVERYTHING……..and his “empire” is collapsing. Unfortunately, his wife and children will go down with him 😦

      • Morgan Farmer Says:

        My wish for her is that she could disappear and try to rebuild her life. Karma caught up with Doug Phillips and that’s all I need to know.

  5. Teresa Says:

    How about “this” type of woman TW…The one who is a
    wonderful Christian woman marries a somewhat controlling
    (Christian!) man (not knowing he is controlling, of course). Due to
    wrong/patriarchal influences (not even in an official patriarchal
    church) the man becomes severely controlling (and angry) and
    systematically (year after year) destroys the true sacrificial love
    the woman has for him. After 20 years, she stops “putting out” for
    him, not because she is frumpy, old, wearing denum jumpers. But
    because her heart has been utterly pulverized by this authoratative
    Christian husband. She is tired of feeling like a prostitute in her
    own home. He doesn’t even seem to mind or even try to “win” her
    back because he thinks he is so right. Sorry, but if these
    controlling men would wake up and lead their wives and family like
    Jesus, they’d have some amazing marriages and sincere love and
    devotion. I personally think that Christian divorces are so high
    because of this unbalanced notion of WOMEN ONLY SUBMISSION!! Men
    are called to submit as well. If each person submitted to eachother
    in the Lord, we would not have this problem. It’s called “love”.
    Christian counseling always focuses on the submission of the wife.
    The wives are always counseling other wives to submit more, more ,
    more. The men never get advised to submit in love toward their
    spouse like they should. Sorry, but abusive men thrive on this.
    They never have to change and then justify affairs, etc, like
    they’ve been justifying all of their un-loving behavior all along.
    And under the guise of Christianity, no less.

    • Teresa Says:

      Just want to add that I think women bought VF’s goods
      because a lot have controlling husbands and are looking for any
      answers possible to alleviate the situation. These patriarchal
      views (chauvenist) have permeated Christian culture. So, even
      mainstream women are looking for the magic solution. When really, a
      lot of the problem is men who are immature in Christ or not truly
      “saved”. Just my two cents as a foolish woman who purchased VF
      goods 😉

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        Teresa, I’m sure I’ve fallen short in identifying all the possible categories and motives for who has purchased VF merch and introduced Hyper-Patriarchy into their homes. Thanks for your help!

  6. Johnny Says:

    Eston lumps a lot of things into “Patriarchy” that have nothing to do with this doctrine, in and of themselves, e.g., home schooling. While there are a lot of things worth considering in the article, one should be careful when painting with such a broad brush, e.g., if you want to call what you believe Phillips, et al, practiced “unbiblical patriarchy”, that would be much more clear and helpful. One needs to avoid the tendency to “throw the baby out with the bathwater” mentality here. True “biblical patriarchy” is a beautiful thing.

    Another thing I have noticed here is a lot of pragmatic thinking as people offer up “disgruntled” folks as justification for throwing out just about everything including a healthy dose of “lets find a scapegoat to blame OUR own unbiblical behavior on”. What you never read about in these forums is folks that have had successful marriages and wonderful, godly, Christian young people that have gone on to marry well, live for Christ, and continue the so-called patriarchal lifestyle of their parents, e.g., my children. Yes, we home schooled and our ladies dressed modestly, etc. There was even a period when my wife and daughters didn’t wear any jewelry or makeup, but we eventually backed off from this position. Our grandchildren are being raised the way we raised our children and we are full of joy to see the next generation embracing what we embraced as first generation Christians. I wonder if some of you “disgruntled” people know how many families there are out here like ours. I believe you undermine your case when you paint with such a broad brush.

    BTW, none of this is stated in any way to support Doug Phillips’ wrong and sinful actions. I know personally many people that he has injured, but in our rush to find a reason for Doug’s sinful actions, lets not throw “biblical patriarchy” out as the all too convenient scapegoat that all too conveniently explains away our own failings and sinful actions.

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      I anticipated receiving just this sort backlash but, at least so far, it’s a backlash born out of ignorance. If I’m to be accused, please at least accuse me for things I’m guilty of. Please inform yourself before presuming the worst of me by at least reading Open Letter To Chalcedon Foundation Regarding Its Defense of Doug Phillips. It explains in some detail the problem of so-called “Biblical Patriarchy.”

      Doug Phillips claims the scriptures as his authority when, in reality, he and R.C. Sproul Jr, authors of The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, have done an atrocious job of exegeting scripture.

      Johnny, for the record I’m a home school father. I also don’t have a problem with Patriarchy as it’s really defined in the Bible. My problem is Patriarchy on steroids, or what I term Hyper-Patriarchy. That is the form of Patriarchy taught and practiced by Doug Phillips and others. Apparently you fail to see the distinction. The anti-Patriarchists (sometimes correctly or incorrectly labeled as “Feminists”) suffer from the same exact problem — they fail to take note of the distinction.

      • Johnny Says:

        No, I am afraid you “fail to see the distinction” because if you did, you would have noted my caution about using the lone word “patriarchy” with no qualifier instead of using the very terms you are using now, e.g., “Hyper-Patriarchy”. Also, you failed to note my statement that I was in no way supporting Doug Phillips’ sinful actions.

        For the record, I read your “Open Letter to Chalcedon…” and you were found wanting in many of your assertions based on the response from Chalcedon. I am asking you to be careful and to not paint with such a broad brush. Whether you realize it or not (go back and read what you said), you lumped home schooling and modest dress, etc. in the same category with “patriarchy”…what you are now referring to as “Hyper-patriarchy” which, BTW, I agree with using this term, or something similar, to describe “unbiblical patriarchy”.

        The fact that you acknowledge that you expected “backlash” should have prompted you to be more careful in what you stated wrongly about Chalcedon, about “patriarchy”, and about my reply.

        You and I probably agree more than you realize.

    • DaMom Says:

      [[Our grandchildren are being raised the way we raised our children and we are full of joy to see the next generation embracing what we embraced as first generation Christians…]]

      Johnny….would you allow your children to raise their children the way they wanted to? What if your grandchildren go a different route in child raising, what will be your reaction? Will you allow it? Will you still be “joyous” as they make their own way/decisions apart from yours?

      • Johnny Says:

        I have absolutely no control over how my children raise their own children. When my children married, they established their own families and they have complete jurisdiction. Now, I am only a chain of counsel to them. BTW, we know many families like our family that have practiced very conservative (what many here would call “patriarchy”) beliefs and all of the children are successful in their walk with the Lord and in their careers, etc.

  7. T.W. Eston Says:

    Just prior to posting my response to Johnny above, I posted a comment to Maribeth at Formidable Courage. Maribeth’s article is, I believe, representative of what a great many followers of Vision Forum and Doug Phillips have been going through since Oct 31st. Perhaps Maribeth will approve my comment there. If not I won’t take it personally.

    Dear Maribeth, I’m so sorry to hear of how this has affected you and your family. I admire your courage in publicly stating what I’m confident so many other families are going through but who, for whatever reasons, are keeping it bottled up.

    You are correct about saying that there are many who are gleeful about the downfall and public humiliation of Doug Phillips. Doug has given the enemies of Christ cause to rejoice. But in my observation, not everyone who is glad of Doug’s public exposure are enemies of our Lord. Everyone has their own reasons because of their own life stories. Your family has apparently been positively impacted by Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, but many others have experienced just the opposite. The worst stories of all come from former members of Doug’s church, Bourne Christian Assembly. Stories of spiritual abuse are the norm there. I try and see past the “venom”, as you say, of the spiritually abused and have compassion for them, as best as I can.

    One of the most stunning revelations in your article was, “My dad said he felt like William Wallace when he pulls off Robert the Bruce’s mask and realizes he’s been betrayed.” There are many of us who have known the real Doug Phillips for a long time, some of us for over a decade. We knew the public persona was the mask of a very accomplished actor. We anticipated the mask would ultimately fall to the ground and shatter. Some of us were attempting to pull it off starting years ago. Why? Is it because we’re hateful, spiteful, feminists, etc. etc.? Hardly. We’re home schoolers, just like you, and are every bit as committed in our Christian faith as you are. We take Christ’s admonishments seriously to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15)

    Doug’s infidelities have been going on for many years, not to mention his numerous other wicked practices. It would have been better if the church had paid attention to the cries from those who had been issuing the warnings years ago, instead of just brushing them aside. The harm and sense of betrayal would have been so much less.

    My hope is that Christians everywhere will learn some valuable lessons from this. It sounds as if you already are. May your faith in Christ increase and be strengthened!

    Betrayal is one of the most intensely hurtful of all human emotions. I take pity on, and have compassion for, the many thousands who have been betrayed by Douglas Winston Phillips. May God comfort them.

    • Latoya Says:

      T.W., your article is on target and your response to Maribeth was truthful and considerate. I’m not one who gives out compliments, but this needs to be republished….everywhere.

    • Monique Says:

      Once again, as many are coming to the defense of these teachings, I noticed no mention of concern for the young woman DP defiled. Maribeth shed tears for Doug Phillips and his family and other disillusioned families, but none for this young woman and her family.

      • DaMom Says:

        I’ve seen a lot of hero worship/infatuation with Doug Phillips from women who are young and old in this movement…..I’ve wondered how many of them would’ve said “no” to his advances if they had been in the other girl’s shoes?

  8. DaMom Says:

    T.W.
    You are “spot on”!
    What you wrote is exactly what I saw of the women in this movement. Only a few men embraced this while a majority of the men went along to appease their wives.

  9. 57chevypreterist Says:

    Okay: I probably shouldn’t ask this, but I’m going to anyway:

    Is “Mrs. Binoculars” really “Foxy Bubbles” the Stripper?

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      That was a closely guarded secret. Your powers of deduction are amazing! How did you figure it out?

      For the longest time Matt Chancey was saying that Jen was Mrs. Binoculars. But everyone knows that Matt is a few strawberries short of a picnic. Little did Matt know that Mrs. Binoculars was actually an ecdysiast.

  10. A discerning look at Biblical Patriarchy and those who abuse it | For Christ's Crown & Covenant! Says:

    […] Doug Phillips Seduced by “Foxy Bubbles” the Stripper? (jensgems.wordpress.com) […]

  11. A discerning look at Biblical Patriarchy and those who abuse it | Christian Liberty News Says:

    […] Doug Phillips Seduced by “Foxy Bubbles” the Stripper? (jensgems.wordpress.com) […]

  12. Steven B. Says:

    Nice slander and gossip you got there, fresh out of truth eh? Why would I expect truth from a place like this, clearly bankrupt of truth. Guess I better head to the Bible if I want some.

  13. David Trounce Says:

    Some good points here, but some unfair characterisations as well. You write, “In Doug Wilson’s world Doug Phillips isn’t necessarily responsible”. But Wilson has said just the opposite.

    Also, your Meme attempts to turn a biological reality in to an issue of abusive patriachy. Even if you don’t like the tone doug uses in saying, “Planting, conquering… surrendering…”, it is still no critisism since many woman enjoy the kind of man who is able to, “Conquer, colonize and plant.” and, in the arms of a loving and godly man delights to “receive, surrender and accept.”

    Wilsons writings are full of nuance nad require careful reading. many poeple don’t have time for this and so instead just grab soem one liners and off they go. You should ring Doug’s wife and ask for an interview.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: