Behind the Hyper-Patriarchs (updated)
Lately, there has been a lot of talk around homeschooling/religious circles about Doug Phillips, founder of VisionForum, and pastor of the Boerne Christian Assembly, a hyper-patriarchal non-denomiational group where women are relegated to virtual slavery in their own homes, denied higher education, and are not permitted to participate in prayer in the church services, make prayer requests in church, or even receive communion unless it is served to them by their husband or another male member of the congregation. Phillips stands accused of the abusive treatment of several members of his congregation:
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=50
http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/the-search-for-the-perfect-church/
Other charges last year led to the defrocking of Phillip's longtime associate, R.C. Sproul Jr.:
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=35
A website, Patriarch's Path, formerly owned by James Mcdonald, expounds on Patriarchal views, among them the idea that only landowners should vote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030313092235/patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Suffrage_As_Sacrament.htm
Above is the link to that article, but to get a balanced view of what the Patriarchal Movement is all about, one should read all of the articles on the site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030605154952/www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/SpiritualHeadship.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030514160639/www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/GodlyWomanhood.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030220131656/patriarchspath.org/Articles/Christian+Living.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030220130242/patriarchspath.org/Articles/ChurchAndWorship.htm
But did you ever wonder what is BEHIND the extreme patriarchy movement? It's not limited to the evangelical Protestant churches.
Consider this: traditionally, Calvinists andCatholics don’t see eye to eye (to say the least!!!), but there has been an almost identical movement growing within the Roman Catholic Church since about 1980. These schismatic Catholics do not get along with the Catholic powers-that-be at all — they claim that the Pope is an impostor and that THEY are the only true Catholics left.
http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id52.html
http://www.mgr.org/TraditionIsNotFascism.html
Now for the interesting thing: ideologically, Phillips’ Protestant patriarchalists and their Catholic counterparts are coming to have more in common with each other than they do with either traditional Protestantism or orthodox Catholicism. To begin with, both the Protestant and the Catholic patriarchalists tend to be quite involved with politics and finance. Some of the biggest names in this movement are also big names in finance and politics: think Pat Robertson, Greg Ahmenson, Marion T. Horvat, Anne Coulter, Christopher Ferrara, Roberto Fiore, Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, JimBob Duggar, David Chilton, Howard Phillips, D. James Kennedy, Marvin Olasky, etc. In addition to their conservative stance on politics, they all seem to share rather similar ideas about the role of women, homeschooling, the Quiverfull movement, etc; AND, similar movements have also arisen within Judaism and within the Latter Day Saints. It is this very fact, the fact that the same movement has also apparently infiltrated Catholicism, Mormonism, and Judaism, which leads me to think that something other than religion is at work here, something not particularly concerned religious belief or practice at all — I say this not to cast aspersions upon the beliefs of non-Evangelicals, but the simple fact that Catholicism is very different from Calvinism shows us that whatever is driving this movement is not so much concerned with religious doctrine as it is with working to achieve its agenda through religious channels. The thing is organised like a corporation, or a hydra, and appears to be umbrella group which is trying to absorb MANY denominations, and bring them round to a certain common way of thinking, under the auspices of evangelism. Phillips, et al are merely the corporate heads of the Protestant division.
It’s almost like radical patriarchy is a religious theme in itself, and the Christian, Jewish and even the Moslem versions of it are mere variations on that theme; and, the Unification Church (Moonies) is dancing to this exact same tune, though to be fair, one must admit that the Unification Church has been hyper-patriarchal from the beginning. Check this out: http://www.divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_web_all.pdf
Another thing is that ALL of these “patriarchs” claim to be restoring their respective religions to a purer form that was practiced in the past — with the Evangelicals it’s the 1800’s, with the Catholics it’s pre-Vatican II, etc; but in the past that they claim to be attempting to re-create, their respective denominations NEVER taught the kinds of things that these fellows are preaching now!
Of course, we should remember that at least some, if not most, cult leaders are not deliberately evil men: many sincerely believe they are doing the work of God. Usually they started out by trying their very best to serve God, but got sidetracked somewhere, often by their own egos and by a faulty understanding of Scriptures. We should pray for false teachers, love them, forgive them if they have hurt us or our loved ones, and help them to see the error of their ways and return to God. But until they do repent, we have a grave responsibility to warn our brothers and sisters away from them. Leave a Comment
Untitled Comment
2:54 PM, Jan. 12, 2007 .. Posted by AcceptanceWithJoy Nice synopsis of the issues regarding this movement. Some "fringe" groups are trying to take this to an even farther level. In an effort to complete the reformation movement, I found a group that is supporting "Christian" polygamy. I have been blogging about the beliefs of VF for a coupld of days on my blog. I had not really spent too much time looking at their doctrine until this past weekend. Mommy Life had an entry addressing the controversy involving the founder of VF and a couple that has been excommunicated from the church.
Untitled Comment
6:30 PM, Jan. 17, 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous This was really good and obviously took a lot of time. I've blogged on Rushdoony waaaaay back when I first started AinM... It's all VERY interesting and I appreicate you tying together some of the strands. I linked to you today. :o) Warmly, Molly (from http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com )
A website, Patriarch's Path, owned by James Mcdonald, expounds on Patriarchal views, among them the idea that only rich white landowners should vote:
3:19 PM, Jan. 23, 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous The article does not use the term rich or white. The idea that only property owners vote is sound. When anyone is allowed to vote, the following excess is inevitable: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage. --Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian
Untitled Comment
1:08 PM, Jan. 24, 2007 .. Posted by cynthiagee You are absolutely right. Thank you. This just goes to show that we all have our pre-concieved notions, myself included, and they do pop out at the most embarrassing times. Of course, most landowners were fairly wealthy white men when the Constitution was written, and today things are only somewhat better, however the article does not explicitly say "rich" or "white" and I will amend my blog accordingly. Fraser's article falls flat on its face, however, when confronted with the fact that today, many people CHOOSE to rent or lease homes or apartments. Nowadays, more people live in cities than in rural areas, and they sometimes pay more money each month to rent an apartment, than they would in order to buy a house and land in other areas of the country. Renters in the twenty-first century are a far cry from the poor Scottish crofters of Frasier's day. Most poor people are renters, but they are quickly being outnumbered by middle-class apartment dwellers, who are becoming the backbone of the urban economy. These folks are not likely to vote for a cantidate simply because he "promis(es) the most benefits from the public treasury", however, these are the very folks who would be disenfranchised in Dykema's vision of America, along with older folks who have sold their homes and moved to retirement villages, young people who have not yet bought their first homes, and anybody who for any reason does not currently own land of their own. But, Dykema and his fellow Patriarchs undoubtedly realize this. Their unique view of "democracy" brings to mind a bumpersticker I saw recently (the owner of the car was presumably either a history buff or a medieval reenactor), which said, "Feudalism: It's your Count that Votes." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cynthia
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=50
http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2006/12/10/the-search-for-the-perfect-church/
Other charges last year led to the defrocking of Phillip's longtime associate, R.C. Sproul Jr.:
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=35
A website, Patriarch's Path, formerly owned by James Mcdonald, expounds on Patriarchal views, among them the idea that only landowners should vote:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030313092235/patriarchspath.org/Articles/Docs/Suffrage_As_Sacrament.htm
Above is the link to that article, but to get a balanced view of what the Patriarchal Movement is all about, one should read all of the articles on the site:
http://web.archive.org/web/20030605154952/www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/SpiritualHeadship.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030514160639/www.patriarchspath.org/Articles/GodlyWomanhood.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030220131656/patriarchspath.org/Articles/Christian+Living.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030220130242/patriarchspath.org/Articles/ChurchAndWorship.htm
But did you ever wonder what is BEHIND the extreme patriarchy movement? It's not limited to the evangelical Protestant churches.
Consider this: traditionally, Calvinists andCatholics don’t see eye to eye (to say the least!!!), but there has been an almost identical movement growing within the Roman Catholic Church since about 1980. These schismatic Catholics do not get along with the Catholic powers-that-be at all — they claim that the Pope is an impostor and that THEY are the only true Catholics left.
http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id52.html
http://www.mgr.org/TraditionIsNotFascism.html
Now for the interesting thing: ideologically, Phillips’ Protestant patriarchalists and their Catholic counterparts are coming to have more in common with each other than they do with either traditional Protestantism or orthodox Catholicism. To begin with, both the Protestant and the Catholic patriarchalists tend to be quite involved with politics and finance. Some of the biggest names in this movement are also big names in finance and politics: think Pat Robertson, Greg Ahmenson, Marion T. Horvat, Anne Coulter, Christopher Ferrara, Roberto Fiore, Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, JimBob Duggar, David Chilton, Howard Phillips, D. James Kennedy, Marvin Olasky, etc. In addition to their conservative stance on politics, they all seem to share rather similar ideas about the role of women, homeschooling, the Quiverfull movement, etc; AND, similar movements have also arisen within Judaism and within the Latter Day Saints. It is this very fact, the fact that the same movement has also apparently infiltrated Catholicism, Mormonism, and Judaism, which leads me to think that something other than religion is at work here, something not particularly concerned religious belief or practice at all — I say this not to cast aspersions upon the beliefs of non-Evangelicals, but the simple fact that Catholicism is very different from Calvinism shows us that whatever is driving this movement is not so much concerned with religious doctrine as it is with working to achieve its agenda through religious channels. The thing is organised like a corporation, or a hydra, and appears to be umbrella group which is trying to absorb MANY denominations, and bring them round to a certain common way of thinking, under the auspices of evangelism. Phillips, et al are merely the corporate heads of the Protestant division.
It’s almost like radical patriarchy is a religious theme in itself, and the Christian, Jewish and even the Moslem versions of it are mere variations on that theme; and, the Unification Church (Moonies) is dancing to this exact same tune, though to be fair, one must admit that the Unification Church has been hyper-patriarchal from the beginning. Check this out: http://www.divineprinciple.com/1_10_comm/10com_web_all.pdf
Another thing is that ALL of these “patriarchs” claim to be restoring their respective religions to a purer form that was practiced in the past — with the Evangelicals it’s the 1800’s, with the Catholics it’s pre-Vatican II, etc; but in the past that they claim to be attempting to re-create, their respective denominations NEVER taught the kinds of things that these fellows are preaching now!
Of course, we should remember that at least some, if not most, cult leaders are not deliberately evil men: many sincerely believe they are doing the work of God. Usually they started out by trying their very best to serve God, but got sidetracked somewhere, often by their own egos and by a faulty understanding of Scriptures. We should pray for false teachers, love them, forgive them if they have hurt us or our loved ones, and help them to see the error of their ways and return to God. But until they do repent, we have a grave responsibility to warn our brothers and sisters away from them. Leave a Comment
Untitled Comment
2:54 PM, Jan. 12, 2007 .. Posted by AcceptanceWithJoy Nice synopsis of the issues regarding this movement. Some "fringe" groups are trying to take this to an even farther level. In an effort to complete the reformation movement, I found a group that is supporting "Christian" polygamy. I have been blogging about the beliefs of VF for a coupld of days on my blog. I had not really spent too much time looking at their doctrine until this past weekend. Mommy Life had an entry addressing the controversy involving the founder of VF and a couple that has been excommunicated from the church.
Untitled Comment
6:30 PM, Jan. 17, 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous This was really good and obviously took a lot of time. I've blogged on Rushdoony waaaaay back when I first started AinM... It's all VERY interesting and I appreicate you tying together some of the strands. I linked to you today. :o) Warmly, Molly (from http://adventuresinmercy.wordpress.com )
A website, Patriarch's Path, owned by James Mcdonald, expounds on Patriarchal views, among them the idea that only rich white landowners should vote:
3:19 PM, Jan. 23, 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous The article does not use the term rich or white. The idea that only property owners vote is sound. When anyone is allowed to vote, the following excess is inevitable: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence:from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage;from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance;from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency;from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency;from dependency back again to bondage. --Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist and historian
Untitled Comment
1:08 PM, Jan. 24, 2007 .. Posted by cynthiagee You are absolutely right. Thank you. This just goes to show that we all have our pre-concieved notions, myself included, and they do pop out at the most embarrassing times. Of course, most landowners were fairly wealthy white men when the Constitution was written, and today things are only somewhat better, however the article does not explicitly say "rich" or "white" and I will amend my blog accordingly. Fraser's article falls flat on its face, however, when confronted with the fact that today, many people CHOOSE to rent or lease homes or apartments. Nowadays, more people live in cities than in rural areas, and they sometimes pay more money each month to rent an apartment, than they would in order to buy a house and land in other areas of the country. Renters in the twenty-first century are a far cry from the poor Scottish crofters of Frasier's day. Most poor people are renters, but they are quickly being outnumbered by middle-class apartment dwellers, who are becoming the backbone of the urban economy. These folks are not likely to vote for a cantidate simply because he "promis(es) the most benefits from the public treasury", however, these are the very folks who would be disenfranchised in Dykema's vision of America, along with older folks who have sold their homes and moved to retirement villages, young people who have not yet bought their first homes, and anybody who for any reason does not currently own land of their own. But, Dykema and his fellow Patriarchs undoubtedly realize this. Their unique view of "democracy" brings to mind a bumpersticker I saw recently (the owner of the car was presumably either a history buff or a medieval reenactor), which said, "Feudalism: It's your Count that Votes." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Cynthia
posted by CJ | 11:52 PM
2 Comments:
Cynthia,
Just for fun, you might want to ask me personally why I have posted articles or links on my website, The Patriarch’s Path. You have extrapolated off one article and a few links to paint me as a racist. This practice is not only cavalier with the truth; it is a violation of the 9th Commandment. Although you “corrected” your lie on your homeschoolblogger site with regard to Rev. Dale Dykema's article – falsely accusing Rev. Dykema and me, by inference, of stating that only rich, white landowners should vote. Your link to that article and your insinuation still exists. To quote you, “Interesting, isn't it?” For the record, what you are doing is called libel - a false and malicious published statement that damages the reputation of another.
I would recommend visiting our church sometime - this will help you to visibly observe that I am certainly not a racist. And I can publicly state that neither are those whom you accuse. Have you ever met any of those you so quickly dismiss? Have you taken the time to talk to Gary DeMar, Dale Dykema, Ken Gentry, Doug Phillips – or any of the others you have slandered online? I know many of the men and women you are attacking. They are striving to do nothing more than see the Gospel preached and lives changed for God’s glory. If you are a Christian, how can you shoot at the saints? Have you read Eph 6:12 lately? Have you really read it?
Consider this the first step in the Matthew 18 process. I ask that you remove my name from your posts and publicly apologize for your insinuations.
I pray your comments are simply a result of misinformation. If you could, please send me details on your church affiliation. If this continues, I would like to involve your elders in our discussions. This is biblical procedure, if you are interested in following Scripture.
In His Service,
James M McDonald
Publisher
Homeschooling Today Magazine
www.homeschoolingtoday.com
James, given the folks whose articles you publish -- Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson, for starters, and also Doug Phillips, (whose father courted the votes of the League of the South and other secessionists) -- what should I think?
If you publish articles by racists and liars, or by liars with racist connections, you will be judged by the company you keep, even if the articles themselves have nothing to do with race. There are enough good Christian authors writing articles today that no one need publish material by people associated with secessionists and hate groups.
Try looking at it this way. What if you visited a website, let's say on politics, and found that many of the articles there were written by homosexuals, Communists, and pagans? Wouldn't that lead you to suspect certain things about the owner of that website? And if the people who wrote those articles linked back to the owner of the first website, and promoted the website owner's books, etc, what then? What would you think about him?
Moreover, in my blog, I have not called you a racist. I originally said that Dykema advocated that voting rights be limited to rich, white men. That was an honest mistake, and I corrected it immediately, as soom as somebody pointed it out to me, and I thanked that person profusely. If you want an apology from me for that mistake, you've got it, big time, but the error was an honest one. I make mistakes, but I do try to be truthful and accurate in what I write. Dykema's elitist views are repugnant enough, without painting them as any worse than they already are.
And, if you are not a racist, I am truly sorry that I mistook you for one. However, given what I have seen on your website, I will continue to believe that you are exactly that, for as long as you continue to publish articles by racists.
As touching Matthew 18, I believe that according to the Bible, the first step is to take the matter to your brother (or sister) privately.
The second step is to go to him with a couple of witnesses.
The third step is to air your grievance publically, in front of the church.
Now, you did send a copy of this letter to my mailbox, but at the same time, you posted about it quite publically on here on my blog.
The "blogosphere" is hardly the church, but it appears that you have decided to skip steps 1 and 2.
But if you want to do Matthew 18, beginning with step 3, so be it. I'm publishing this response on my blog and shining the light of day on the whole thing by posting it on other blogs as well.
As John 3:20 recommends, "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sincerely, Cynthia Gee
BTW, James... if you want to prove that you are not a racist, you might want to consider removing the articles written by the co-founder of the secessionist hate group, the League of the South, namely, Steve Wilkins, from your website, and also those by Doug Wilson. Just sayin'.
Post a Comment
<< Home