Hello.... Hi there... I'm Cynthia Gee, and I'm creating this as a mirror of my other CommonSense blog at HomeschoolBlogger. I am copying the first several articles from over there, and moving them here in their entirety, complete with reader's comments. So if you see your comment HERE, and remember posting it over THERE, relax. You're sane.

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Letters, I get Letters: Are we our Brothers' Keepers?

I received a letter in the comments section of "Beyond the Hyper Patriarchs", over on my mirror Commonsense blog at Homeschoolblogger this evening, from a person who chose to remain anonymous. It reads as follows:

Untitled Comment
1:45 PM, Jan. 30, 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous
we should not be discussing what is not our business and involves slander. take it to the person directly and don't involve others. don't you read your bible? how about if i started a web page all about you and how you spend your time blogging about others. and copy and paste everything you write and then comment on it. i just don't understand all this. who is homeschooling your children while you are investing you time blogging about what you feel isyour just cause? where is your husband? who is keeping your home? we are called to mind our own business and let God fix the world.

Really, if Anonymous wants to create a mirror site of mine, and post her comments there, I guess I should feel flattered. Of course, if she does, she won't be "Anonymous" anymore, she'll at least need to blog under a pseudonym. But then, pseudonyms and mirror sites seem to be quite the thing in blogdom nowadays.

As it is, I invited her to visit this site and address her concerns, and I'm posting her letter here, because it raises some interesting questions regarding social accountability, questions that are almost as old as mankind:

When we see something going on which we perceive to be wrong, or when we notice an injustice, what should we do?

When we see such things as child abuse or spousal abuse in the private sector, or, (as has been happening recently), when we become aware of things like fraud, graft, or abuse of power in churches, businesses, or in the political arena, do we address these things, or just move along, hoping God will take care of it all? Do we owe it to our fellow man to confront evil, and shine a light on it?

Are we our brother's keepers?

Sunday, January 28, 2007

Matthew 18, John 3:20: my response

CJ said...
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 one which discussed politics, and found that many of the articles there were written by homosexuals, Communists, and pagans? Unless the website owner included mission statement on his site declaring otherwise, wouldn't the articles there lead you to suspect "certain things" about the owner of that website? And if the people who wrote those articles not only linked back to the owner of that first website, but also 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 to be 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 written by his neoConfederate compadre, Doug Wilson. Just sayin'.

Matthew 18, John 3:20

I guess the folks at Patriarch's Path don't appreciate the publicity they've been getting lately. Late last night I recieved both a private e-letter and an identically worded comment here on my entry, "Behind the Hyper-Patriarchs", from Pastor James McDonald of Patriarch's Path, accusing me of "shooting at the saints" (his words).
In his comment and in his letter, McDonald complains about my recent article, "Behind the Hyper-Patriarchs", saying that in it I have implied that he is a racist, and have slandered Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry, as well as Dale Dykema and Doug Phillips.
Interesting... I wrote "Behind the Hyper-Patriarchs" before the whole Phillips/Kinist/Racist thing really gained momentum, and the gist of the article wasn't about racism or even about McDonald himself at all; rather, the article was an overview of the Patriarchy movement in general. I linked to Patriarch's Path because it contains a good many articles reflecting the Patriarchal viewpoint, including Dykema's, which I held up as an example; and, I linked to both Dykema's article and to the Patriarch's Path main website, and invited readers to visit the Patriarch's Path site and read ALL of the articles there. (The PP website does publish a number of articles by League of the South co- founder Steve Wilkins, and by his associate Doug Wilson, but I made no mention of that in "Behind the Hyper-Patriarchs"; since then, I have done so on several occasions.)
Yet, MacDonald is complaining, saying that "Behind the Hyper Patriarchs" implies that he is a racist, when in fact, the only mention of race in the entire article was my description of Dale Dykema's article on suffrage, where I mistakenly said that Dykema advocated the restriction of voting privileges to "rich white landowners. Someone pointed out to me that my Freudian slip was showing (yes, I have biases, too), and I immediately amended that to read simply "landowners", since Dykema does NOT specifically mention "rich" or "white" landowners in his article.
But most puzzling is McDonald's claim that I have slandered Gary DeMar and Kenneth Gentry, considering that only thing I have ever said regarding either DeMar or Gentry is to list them as being "big names" in the politico-religious movement known as Dominionism. I guess even Dominionists dislike having their names associated with Dominionism.

In keeping with John 3:20 , I have decided to post MacDonald's comment here, in full daylight, followed by my response, in my next blog entry.

James McDonald said...
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 McDonaldPublisherHomeschooling Today
8:50 PM

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Relativists, Revisionists, and Reconstructionists, Oh MY!

On "Dominion Family" blog, , Eva from AZ wrote,
"I grew up in the North, have spent many years in the South, but have decided that both were wrong."
I responded,
Good comment, Eva, but some of them were more wrong than others.The South fought to protect their homes and families, AND a lifestyle that involved owning other human beings. When it looked like that lifestyle was threatened, they seceded as they had said they would, and drew first blood too, by attacking Fort Sumpter.The North’s motives weren’t entirely altruistic either: the Northern politicians fought to preserve the Union, and protect their economic interests. Slavery was a secondary issue, but it was an issue, nonetheless: many Christians in the North were dedicated to the cause of ending slavery, and they helped slaves find asylum in Canada via the Underground railroad.
We call these people *abolitionists*, and when I was in school, we also called them *heroes*.Other people call them other things, and attempt to revise history by portraying all abolitionists as being like that maniac, John Brown:
“From Doug’s Bookshelf: The Secret Six by Otto Scott is the best book on the evil movement known as abolitionism which funded America’s first terrorist, John Brown, and did so in the name of anti-Christian Unitarianism.”
But that’s the trouble with revisionism… it revises and romanticizes historical fact to fit the author’s worldview. Usually this is fairly harmless, and takes the form of lionizing one’s favorite hero. We all do that, I think. For instance, take Robin Hood (my alltime favorite!): if Robin of Locksley ever existed at all, it’s very unlikely that he was anything like the legend that has grown up around him. But, the mythos exists, and as long as we know that it’s a *legend* rather than historical fact, there’s no harm in it.Similarly, the Old South has been romanticized, and that’s not altogether bad. Who DOESN’T love pecan pie, and magnolias, and gallant young men courting girls in beautiful gowns, a la Gone With the Wind?
The harm comes when a romanticized ideal of history becomes popular to the degree that people begin to ignore the reality of what actually HAPPENED; or worse, try to revive and relive a past that never was.Still worse, by far, is when someone comes along and starts writing and publishing revised histories which teach our young folks a skewed version of reality, in order to further the writer’s ideological or political agendas. Secular humanists have been getting away with this for years, and now folks like Steve Wilkins, Doug Phillips, and others are doing the same.
As I pointed out in an earlier blog, to Steve Wilkins and his neo-Confederate followers, LYING is perfectly permissible, and even virtuous, if it advances their Cause. Theonomists justify this strategy with a Biblical story, “Rahab’s Lie,” of a young woman who lies to protect the lives of Israelite spies in Jericho. As I pointed out earlier, Deacon Kevin Branson posted an article on the web site of Wilkins’ church in which he praises Rahab as “a spiritual hero” because “she deceived the wicked who sought to kill God’s own people.”Branson said that “some of us don’t have a clue about honorable and necessary deception of the wicked” and that “sometimes God requires that we offer by way of our right hand a sweeping sword, and from our lips deception, that the wicked might fail, and Christ and His Bride might flourish.”
So if it will serve a good Cause, these fellows see lying as OK.
Let's look at that.
Rahab was a pagan, and she lied to protect the Israelite spies. She lied for a good cause and great good came of it. But does that mean that it is acceptable to lie, or commit any other sort of sin (because that's what this really boils down to: MORAL RELATIVISM, a key tenet of secular humanism) , if doing so will result in good in the end?
Do ends justify means?
Now, mind you, I in no way am condemning Rahab. Personally, I think that Rahab was most likely a very good-hearted, courageous, and well meaning person --"a hooker with a heart of gold", if you will. She told her lie for a noble cause, and since she was a pagan, she had probably never been taught that lying is bad ALL the time. After all, Rahab grew up in a culture which taught that prostitution was a highly respectable profession. She very likely thought that lying for a good cause was OK. For Rahab telling such a lie almost certainly wasn’t a sin, because she was doing what her conscience said was right, and was acting in the interest of virtue; she was doing the best she could without the knowledge of God’s Law to guide her. She simply didn't know any better, and as it turned out, a well meaning person with no knowledge of the Law was just what God needed that night. God's spies survived and the person who saved them did not have to sin to do so. This does not say that morality is relative,however. Rather, as Romans 5:13 says ”until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.” In other words, Rahab's lie was still a "wrong thing", but Rahab herself was not guilty of the sin because she was ignorant of God's law against lying.
But the situation would have been different for an Israelite, and it is completely different for Christians today. We have the Bible to tell us that ALL lies are wrong:Rev 22:15 For without [are] dogs, and sorcerers, and *****mongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever **loveth and maketh a lie**.
And, if we are going to tell ourselves that according to the Bible, lying is sometimes acceptable because Rahab did it, we might as well say that it's OK to practice Rahab's profession too, as long as it advances some noble Cause. After all, Lot's daughters did something similar when confronted with a tight situation, as did Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar. The Bible records these deeds and does not condemn them.
But I doubt that Wilkins, Wilson, Phillips and the rest of their confederates in the homeschooling curriculum business are going to preach THAT to their congregations.

On his blog at , Mark Epstein writes,
"We’ve requested membership at Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA) in San Antonio, Texas. We have fully described our excommunication by Boerne Christian Assembly (BCA) to our Session of Elders. The Session has agreed to work with us toward reconciliation and restoration, and we have agreed to submit to their authority as ordained Elders.
There are certain terms and conditions that the Faith Session will place upon us to begin the process of restoring us to communicant church membership. In fulfilling these obligations, the Session will have evidence we are sincere in our desire to become members of Faith Presbyterian Church under the authority of their Session. The very first of those issues is that we demonstrate a willingness to be reconciled with our brethren at BCA.
Faith Presbyterian Church considers reconciliation and peacemaking to be a Biblical mandate for the whole Body of Christ. Several FPC members are certified Christian conciliators with Peacemaker Ministries. FPC has agreed to do everything possible to assist us in being reconciled with Doug Phillips and Boerne Christian Assembly.
In the view of our elders, the fact that we are unlikely to attempt to become members of BCA again is irrelevant to the necessity for brethren to seek reconciliation with one another. Though we have made attempts at reconciliation before, perhaps with many of you fervently praying toward that end, God will be pleased to unite the injured parties together again in Christ and to demonstrate His peace before a watching and skeptical world. In order to lay the groundwork toward reconciliation, the Session has requested we take offline any of our blog articles, links and feedback comments on any website of our creation, or under our control, that contain accusations against Doug Phillips, members of his family, or BCA. Although Ministry Watchman isn’t under our control, we will formally request that they likewise take offline the articles about us by Charles Fisher.
This request by our Elders was made primarily for two reasons:
Removing accusing words from the public forum greatly increases the opportunity for reconciliation and restoration. Removing the accusations from the Web will allow each side to be heard without the on-going offense of public rebuke while pursuing private reconciliation.
Removing the accusations from the Web will provide evidence that we are repentant, that we are willing to submit to the ecclesiastical authority of the Elders of Faith Presbyterian (PCA) church, and our willingness to allow those Elders to work with the leadership of BCA to restore us to communing fellowship within a local evangelical church.
In submitting to our Session of Elders, we will no longer comment publicly about our conflict with Doug Phillips, or others at BCA, on any website or blog, while the Session of Faith Presbyterian Church seeks the peace and purity of the Church of Jesus Christ through reconciliation.
We ask all our readers to pray for a successful reconciliation. Sin is not absent from any of us in this life, so please pray diligently for the Holy Spirit to move sinners to repentance at the foot of the Cross.
Pray also that the Lord would calm our fears. After what we’ve already been through, it’s not an easy thing for us to submit to church elders. We want to trust these men and to believe the best of them. They’ve shown themselves to be caring and compassionate towards us. We do believe that they’re sincere, and that they intend God’s best for us. But we have to admit that there are times that we still feel intimidated and afraid of a process that we’re unfamiliar with. This is, after all, the very first Presbyterian church that we’ve ever been in, and Presbyterians do things a lot differently from what we’re used to.
Our hope is that we will be able to soon report a complete reconciliation between the Epstein family and the brothers and sisters at Boerne Christian Assembly. At that time, perhaps web sites that once held accusations can be filled with rejoicing and details of revival in relationships, offering hope for others in conflict, and giving honor and glory to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ."

It looks to me like it's Phillips and Co. who need to repent. The fact that PCA is willing to consider these people as Christian brethren at all is unsettling; moreover the Epsteins are not the only ones who have been hurt by Phillips and their like. The Epsteins "outed" a den of heresy and hypocrisy, and did the Body of Christ a favor by doing so. They have certainly done nothing wrong. IMO, the Epsteins deserve a medal, and PCA ought to be ashamed of themselves for sweeping this back under the rug instead of addressing the problem for what it is.
The Bible says,
2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? Hmmmm...........................................

Behind the Hyper-Patriarchs, Part II

Lately I’ve been reading about a still darker side to the Reconstructionist/Patriarchy movement. What I have learned is scary, and bad enough that my conscience demands I warn folks about it.Quite simply, it is this:There are those among the movement who claim that since SLAVERY is not condemned in the Bible, it is a perfectly legitimate thing, and advocate a return to the same.J.R. Rushdooney, the father of Reconstructionism, advocated a return to debtor slavery. So does his son-in-law, Gary North.And so do a number of patriarchal successionist “religious” groups in the south today:
“Key members of a white supremacist organization called the League of the South are moving to take control of conservative churches around the South, prompting a possible split in a major Presbyterian denomination. The central player in this little-noticed drama is the Rev. Steven J. Wilkins, pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, La., and a founder and current board member of the neo-Confederate League.Wilkins has said that the goal of the League of the South is to save America from “paganism” and restore it as “the last bastion of Christendom” — a Christendom that, in Wilkins’ view, sees slavery as “perfectly legitimate.” “:
Sites linking to Steve Wilkins articles and books include Ladies against Feminism (whose owner, Jennie Chancey, is associated very closely with Phillips and VisionForum), and The Patriarch’s Path website, (run by James and Stacey McDonald), which links extensively to articles by both Steven J. Wilkins and Doug Wilson, and Doug Phillips as well.And it seems that Wilkins himself has been a very busy man: in addition to teaching his worldview to his own congregation, he and pastor Doug Wilson, another well-known figure in the Patriarchy movement, have been writing what many would term racist curriculum for a large North Carolina private school:
As printed in The News and Observer, 12/04:“Leaders at Cary Christian School say they are not condoning slavery by using “Southern Slavery, As It Was,” a booklet that attempts to provide a biblical justification for slavery and asserts that slaves weren’t treated as badly as people think. Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.“You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective,” he said.”
The booklet isn’t the only connection its two co-authors have with the school. One of the authors, Douglas Wilson, a pastor in Moscow, Idaho, wrote a book on classical education upon which the school bases its philosophy. Wilson’s Association of Classical and Christian Schools accredited Cary Christian, and he is scheduled to speak at the school’s graduation in May. Some school leaders, including Stephenson, founded Christ Church in Cary, which is affiliated with Wilson’s Idaho church.
The booklet’s other author, Steve Wilkins, is a member of the board of directors of the Alabama-based League of the South. That is classified as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights group.“Doug Wilson and Steve Wilkins have essentially constructed the ruling theology of the neo-Confederate movement,” said Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Intelligence Report.”
More chilling is the fact that to Steve Wilkins and his associates and their followers, LYING is perfectly permissible, and even virtuous, if it advances the Patriarchal cause. From page two of the same article:“An important tool of the movement is stealth. Theonomists justify this strategy with a Biblical story, “Rahab’s Lie,” of a young woman who lies to protect the lives of Israelite spies in Jericho. In an article posted on the web site of Wilkins’ church, Deacon Kevin Branson praises Rahab as “a spiritual hero” because “she deceived the wicked who sought to kill God’s own people.”Branson said he writes about Rahab because “some of us don’t have a clue about honorable and necessary deception of the wicked.” His conclusion is that “sometimes God requires that we offer by way of our right hand a sweeping sword, and from our lips deception, that the wicked might fail, and Christ and His Bride might flourish.”
Doesn't sound very Christ-like to me. These men advocate lying in the name of God, what could be more blasphemous than that... yet we trust the homeschooling materials they sell to tell the truth to our children, the very people they are trying hardest to influence and bring round to their way of thinking. And Steven J. Wilkin's and Doug Wilson's materials are everywhere.Leave a Comment

Untitled Comment
11:20 AM, Jan. 15, 2007 .. Posted by TC Thanks a ton for posting this. People need to be informed. This has been simmering for several years. I have friends who, unfortunately, hang on Wilkins' every word, and are very active in the League of the South. They always invite us to their July 4th festivities (where they fly the confederate flag), but we don't usually go. It's kind of awkward, since we have black children. :/
Untitled Comment
2:58 PM, Jan. 15, 2007 .. Posted by cynthiagee Then spread the word. The children that Wilkins, Wilson, Phillips, et al are influencing will be among the adults who will be running this country in 10-20 years. I have Black children too -- two grown up daughters with children of their own. And I do not want my grandchildren to live in their great- grandparent's racist world.
Untitled Comment
3:20 PM, Jan. 16, 2007 .. Posted by AcceptanceWithJoy Thanks for your research ~ I gave you a hat tip in my entry today.
re: linking to Wilkins
2:08 PM, Jan. 18, 2007 .. Posted by anonymous I am disturbed that Patriarchs Path and LAF links to a person who teaches such things. I know that the McDonalds just moved from the South to the North and those sorts of things will not be accepted here. Thanks for posting this information. I will be doing my homework regarding this subject.

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:
Other charges last year led to the defrocking of Phillip's longtime associate, R.C. Sproul Jr.:
A website, Patriarch's Path, formerly owned by James Mcdonald, expounds on Patriarchal views, among them the idea that only landowners should vote:
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:
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.
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:
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 )
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

Modest Clothing Choices Impossible to find? Nonsense!

At , blogger David Alexander complains,
"Our public schools allow young girls to dress like tramps, and more than a few weenie pastors allow young female lectors to wear their skirts halfway to... well, kingdom come. The desparate-to-be-hip major retailers give little choice for modesty in casual wear, as any set of jeans worthy of fashion must have a waistline that delves ever farther below the navel. "
Predictably, a reader chimes in, citing the imposssibility of finding modest clothing in department stores today:
"I'd post a suggestion of where to get decent clothes for girls ... If I had one ..... if I hadn't just spent two weekends looking for an outfit for my daughter that didn't make us both sick! She's going to play the harp for an Art Therapy reception and I've been reduced to making the stupid outfit myself."
Mr. Alexander's suggestion? You guessed it:
"I'd recommend getting in touch with Colleen Hammond, author of the book "Dressing with Dignity," as well as a weblog of the same name:
Colleen Hammond...sigh...
Lately, it seems as though every Christian blogger on the 'net is bemoaning the impossibility of finding tasteful, modest clothing in today's retail market, and many are linking to Ms. Hammond's website, to which I say ,
Come on, folks, you don't need a ten or twenty-dollar self-help book to teach you the difference between tasteful and trash-full, and, plenty of decent garments are being manufactured and sold today, at every price level. And many of them are also FASHIONABLE!If the pants, sweaters, skirts and shirts on the market this season are closer-fitting than seems ladylike, first, stop whining about how "immodest today's fashions have become", and then, use your noodle!
Think now: what did you do ten years ago when you tried on an outfit and found that the fit was a bit tighter than you'd like?
That's right... you put your vanity in your pocket, hung the too-small item back on the rack, and bought it a SIZE LARGER than you would normally expect to wear!
This still works today, and, the waistline will ride higher too, if the item is low-waisted and you'd rather it were less so.
Are those jeans too tight?... too low-waisted... too ANYTHING? Put them back on the rack, turn around....... and look on the next rack. Try another style, another brand, another store, if necessary. Finding properly fitting pants and jeans CAN be a hassle, Heaven knows, but the results are worth it, and the result of NOT making the effort to do so is....... well, NOBODY needs to see that!
If all else fails, you can always stick to skirts... or a good reducing diet.
Don't want sweaters with low V-necks that show cleavage? No one's forcing you to buy them! The last time I checked, most stores, even Walmart and Kmart, still carry a full selection of turtlenecks, mock turtles, and crew necks, just as they did in the 80's and 90's. And companies like Lands' End and LL Bean are still very much in business. Preppy is alive and well, and as tasteful as ever!
Sleeveless tops and dresses show too much? That's because of poor tailoring and shoddy manufacturing. Once upon a time, dressmakers knew how to design an armhole that concealed a lady's brassiere. One solution is to look for a better quality garment, or, you can buy the top or dress a size larger than you would normally wear and tailor it, snugging up the armhole by adding darts in the armhole-to-bust area.Another tack is to shop the misses department rather than the junior department. Misses size fashions tend to have a fuller fit and more conservative styling than do their junior department counterparts. And thrift and consignment stores offer still more options, often at incredible savings.I applaud writers like Ms. Hammond for wanting to bring back modesty, but the trouble is, Colleen has an agenda. She seems to also want to revive a lot of other rubbish: the phoney, frail, fluttery Victorian image of femininity that is better off GONE. (Hammond even goes so far in some of her lectures as to advise women to feign helplessness, in order make men feel more manly! One woman who attended a recent lecture claims to have heard Mrs. Hammond say that that whenever she travels by air, she always gets a man to fetch her bag down from the overhead rack for her, even though the nearest male may be several seats distant!)
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm certain that Colleen's intentions are quite good; and her goal, the reawakening of men's sense of chivalry through reawakening the femininity of women, is, in theory at least, an admirable thing.
But some of her methods, such as advising women to feign helplessness, etc, are manipulative and leave a bad taste in my mouth. For centuries women have been portrayed as conniving and crafty -- sly temptresses who use their feminine wiles to dupe poor honest males into doing their bidding. Colleen's recipe for eliciting chivalrous, protective behavior in men seems to me to be just one more example of that unfortunate stereotype, albeit for a worthy cause.
Personally, though, I'd rather emulate the woman in Proverbs 31:
Proverbs 31:25 "Strength and honour [are] her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come."
Leave a Comment

Untitled Comment
12:37 PM, Jan. 24, 2007 .. Posted by Anonymous Hi! You make some really good points. I will say that it is hard to find nice dress-up clothing in regular stores (especially if you are a small size). However, everyday clothing (as long as you are OK with women wearing pants) is easy. I think the big thing in a lot of conservative circles is that they think any kind of pant on women is immodest. If you are in this camp, you are going to have a problem. I am not in that camp, btw. I never heard of Mrs Hammond and went and checked out her sight. I love the fashions she promotes, but could never afford to make them my everyday clothes. -Zan


Hi there... I'm Cynthia Gee, and I'm creating this as a mirror of my other CommonSense blog at HomeschoolBlogger. I am copying the first several articles from over there, and moving them here in their entirety, complete with reader's comments. So if you see your comment HERE, and remember posting it over THERE, relax. You're sane.