Doug Wilson Weighs in on the Doug Phillips Scandal

"Given that, either his sexual attentions were entirely unwelcome, or they were not. If they were not unwelcome, then the affair appears to have been one of complicated and unconsummated adultery, with two participants. She was an adult, and so if his attentions were not entirely unwelcome, she was a player in the vice, not a victim. The victim in this would have been Beall, with two people victimizing her."

Doug Wilsonhttp://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=74345&picture=two-hands-silhouette

Two Hands Silhouette

Shortly after news broke about the legal action against Doug Phillips, et al, by his alleged victim, Doug Wilson chimed in with a post entitled Vision Forum and Confessing Your Virtues.  Granted, Wilson had some harsh words for Phillips, but he criticized what he described as resorting to the 'unbelieving civil courts'.  As you might imagine, there was a good bit of commentary regarding that post. 

Then Doug Wilson's daughter (who has three daughters of her own) wrote a post on her blog entitled On not being a victim.  Here is an excerpt from that post:

I know that everyone in the world right now is freaking out about the Doug Philips scandal, and to be honest, the whole thing grosses me out so much that I don’t even want to read about it. And given that I don’t even want to read about it, I’m certainly not going to pull up my socks and start writing about it. But the whole situation has given me some food for thought, and that is on the question of how to raise our daughters so that they don’t fall prey to the manipulations of that kind of man – because those kind of men are found the world over, not merely in patriarchal conservative groups. Is your daughter ever likely to encounter more than three men in the course of her life? Then she will encounter this kind of man. So how do we teach our daughters to be submissive but also strong? To be gracious but also quick to say no?

Shortly thereafter, Wilson wrote another post Vice, Victims, and Vision Forum, in which he mentions his daughter's article (referenced above).  That post caused quite an uproar, primarily due to this commentary by Wilson:

Given that, either his sexual attentions were entirely unwelcome, or they were not. If they were not unwelcome, then the affair appears to have been one of complicated and unconsummated adultery, with two participants. She was an adult, and so if his attentions were not entirely unwelcome, she was a player in the vice, not a victim. The victim in this would have been Beall, with two people victimizing her.

But if his attentions were entirely unwelcome to her, and she was freaked out by the creepster, then we have to ask why she wasn’t down the road at the first opportunity — that night or the next morning — with Doug Phillips receiving notification of her opinion of what transpired via the sound of sirens. That’s not what happened, on anyone’s account, and so I don’t think we should identify her as a victim.

We can’t have it both ways. We cannot accuse Vision Forum of treating all women like little girls, and then turn around and treat all women as little girls who can’t be expected to say no to a cad at Vision Forum. Everyone who automatically assumes that Torres-Manteufel was necessarily the victim is ironically buying into a view of the world that assumes that grown women are not responsible for what they say or do.

At the same time, of course, we should make allowances for those situations where an abused girl was never given the opportunity to become a responsible adult. If a trusted spiritual leader starts abusing a girl when she is 14, it is not as though, after 7 years of abuse, a magic moment happens when she turns 21, making it easy for her to now walk away. In a situation like that, the word victim is appropriate. But we ought to reserve the word for situations like it, and not use it in circumstances like this one.

There has been quite a bit of discussion, with comments approaching 200 at the writing of this post.  One commenter, Stacy McDonald (wife of patriarch James McDonald – a colleague of Doug Phillips), chimed in on April 18 with these remarks:

Thank you, Pastor Wilson! You nailed it! I’ve tried to say the same thing and was accused of not having sympathy for the “victim,” which no one can prove she was at this point…

And I still maintain that the truest victims here are his wife and children.

You may recall that Stacy McDonald co-wrote Passionate Housewives Desperate for God together with Jennie Chancey, the wife of another of Phillips' colleagues – Matt Chancey.  Their book was endorsed by Dorothy Patterson around the time that the homemaking program was established at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.  When Passionate Housewives Desperate for God was published by Vision Forum, Doug Phillips wrote about Dorothy Patterson's endorsement on his blog (now defunct).

Several years ago Jennie's husband Matt Chancey was winner of a webzine's "Art of Manliness" contest sponsored by Old Spice.  His selection caused quite a stir, as explained in this article – Gimme That Old Spice Religion.  It includes the following in reference to Doug Phillips:

Key to Chancey’s victory were the efforts of both his wife, who nominated him, and an entrepreneur named Doug Phillips, an important figure in the homeschooling movement, and his large family and network of supporters.

Phillips is an old pal of Chancey’s and a religious and political co-belligerent from their days on the staff of the Home School Legal Defense Association; he heads a Texas-based organization called Vision Forum, which produces and markets books and other materials for conservative Christian homeschoolers.

But to describe Vision Forum as ‘conservative’ does not tell the half of it. Phillips is a follower of Christian Reconstructionism, a movement whose seminal figure is Calvinist theologian R.J. Rushdoony, who died in 2001. Rushdoony’s voluminous, and explicitly theocratic work, (such as the Institutes of Biblical Law) was a pivotal influence in the development of the religious right, and more particularly, the countercultural homeschooling and Christian school movements.

Getting back to Doug Wilson, he got so much commentary under his Vice, Victims, and Vision Forum post that he wrote a follow-up article entitled: Vision Forum and a Season of Meditation.  Here is a portion that is causing a stir:

At the same time, outside observers can and should see that she was not simply a mannikin. Just taking her complaint at face value, it is plain that she is not taking the right kind of responsibility for her poor responses to Doug Phillips’ immoral advances. The complaint acknowledges, “She did not at all times refuse Defendant’s sexual advances, but submitted to them based on the fraudulent statements Defendant had made to her.” Those fraudulent statements would include promises of marriage in the future and so forth. While she objected numerous times to his sexual behavior (according to the complaint), the complaint also uses phrases like she “came to see her situation as abusive,” he “persuaded her,” she continued to work for him for several years “not wanting to disappoint,” and so on. On her terms, she was seduced into a compromised position and conflicted state of mind. But despite her continued presence and availability, the complaint alleges that during the entire time she was “incapable of giving consent.” It says this because it is clear that there were instances where she did give consent, and her attorney wants to say that she was in effect in the position of a minor when she did so.

Her incapacity is allegedly the result of the whole patriarchal world that she was enveloped in. But you can’t have it both ways. The behavior that she did not run from after the first incident was behavior on Phillips’ part that was high hypocrisy according to that same patriarchal world. She was an adult, and she should have identified the hypocrisy for what it was upon the first manifestation of it, and she should have recoiled from it. Recoiling from it is not the same thing as putting up with it for years.

As I was doing research on this topic, I came across a blog post written by Geoffrey Botkin's niece, Katie Botkin.  She was taking Doug Wilson to task in her post entitled Vice, Victims and Doug Wilson.  Here is some of what she wrote:

Doug Wilson thinks that Lourdes Torres-Manteufel is not a victim; that she was a willing participant in an affair with Doug Phillips, and here’s his logic:

1.  Doug Phillips sexually assaulted her
2. She cried and asked him to stop
3.  He did not stop
4.  She didn’t immediately leave his house. Therefore, it must have been consensual. Therefore, it’s adultery, not abuse.

In so doing, Wilson is keen on providing apologetics for even the “wrong” kind of patriarchy, claiming that he has to assign blame to the women who are used inappropriately by the “wrong” kind of patriarchy

Perhaps this kind of pushback is what caused Doug Wilson to post his 'Season of Meditation'.  

It is interesting to reflect back to what Doug Wilson wrote shortly after Phillips resigned.  In his post Doug Phillips' Resignation from Vision Forum, Wilson stated:

I thought I should say something about Doug Phillips’ resignation from Vision Forum, but it won’t be very much. The news was of course tragic, sad, and humbling. That said, I thought his letter of resignation was good, and accomplished what a letter like that needed to accomplish. I am glad he stepped down from leadership, and am glad he cancelled his future speaking engagements, and that is all to the good. Given the sin, that is what should happen. We should grieve over the damage done, rejoice in his repentance, and wish him and his family nothing but the best.

The second observation has to do with the snark shown by those who see such things as an occasion for venting their spleen.

Well, it appears that Doug Wilson is now 'venting his spleen' as evidenced by what he just wrote about Doug Phillips (see below).

I continue to believe that this whole thing should be sorted through by Christians, with a view to our testimony before a watching world. Based on the undisputed facts that have come out thus far, I have no doubt that if this were adjudicated properly, we would all see at the conclusion that Doug Phillips acted the part of a manipulative scoundrel. I met him once, in 2010, and he took the opportunity then to blow sunshine up my skirt.

Now that's a very interesting statement coming from such a patriarch… What are your thoughts?

Lydia's Corner:    Ezekiel 18:1-19:14   Hebrews 9:1-10   Psalm 106:32-48   Proverbs 27:10

Comments

Doug Wilson Weighs in on the Doug Phillips Scandal — 337 Comments

  1. Well, since Doug Wilson cannot even acknowledge the little children who were victims of the member from his own church, I would not expect him to support Doug Phillips' victim in any way. Both men are scoundrels! What happened to Doug Phillips' victim and her ensuing confusion is a direct result of both of these men's teaching.

  2. BTW, my dad's name is Doug Phillips (not the same guy!!) so it is creepy when I read that name associated with this.

  3. Ugh! Women are to blame for being submissive and not leaving or for putting up with sexual harassment and abuse due to the doctrine of submissiveness. Women can’t win in such a system because the submission doctrine is enforced to such a degree that they are to blame for everything. Men are in control at all cost?

  4. Doug Wilson is a misogynistic moron. Like many people, religious and non, he has a picture in his head of what a rape victim is and how she should behave that bears no relationship to reality but that conveniently absolves the rapist and others of responsibility. If she had told after the first assault, he would say she hadn't cried out in the moment; therefore, it wasn't unwelcomed. If she had cried out, it wouldn't have been soon enough, she should have protested his special attention, and must have been flattered and sending mixed signals. If she had expressed discomfort with his attentions, she would have been imagining things, misinterpreting, or flattering herself. Oh, and it must not have been that bad because she didn't become a quivering, post traumatic mess who feared to so much as look at a man. It's the classic nut and slut counter to any woman being inconveniently vocal.

  5. Given that, either his sexual attentions were entirely unwelcome, or they were not.

    So nobody can ever change their mind about a sex partner, ever? And the times when they weren’t welcome are canceled out somehow by the times when they were? And let’s not even get started on how much Wilson’s logic in this piece could be used to blame victims of domestic violence.

    At the same time, of course, we should make allowances for those situations where an abused girl was never given the opportunity to become a responsible adult.

    …even though that’s exactly what Vision Forum/patriarchy does and we have mountains of testimony to that effect from girls raised in the system.

    It says this because it is clear that there were instances where she did give consent, and her attorney wants to say that she was in effect in the position of a minor when she did so.

    Well, if the law in TX states that a counselee/parishioner (i.e., Torres) having an affair with their pastor (i.e., Doug) is not legally able to give consent – and correct me if I’m wrong that that is what that clergy sex abuse statute says – and that’s what was indeed going on, then Torres basically was in the position of a minor in the eyes of the law and there’s nothing Wilson can do about it. A 13yo can give verbal consent to sex too, but that doesn’t make it any less statutory rape legally.

  6. Hester:

    The efforts used by such folks as Wilson to dismiss what happened truly makes me wonder about their relationship with God.

  7. Before I say what I am about to say, let me make it clear that I have no use for that crowd out in Idaho. That said, however, “even the devil can quote scripture” and “even a broken clock is right twice a day.”

    Doug Wilson’s daughter makes some good points. The world is full of people who prey on other people in many ways. Two of the reasons (not the only two) that we are a dominant species on earth is due to our aggression and due to our sexual success. IMO, that is not likely to go away, not when there is such advantage to it for survival. Sooooo, we need to learn how to deal with it, control it, and protect ourselves from the abuses which are possible due to uncontrolled aggression and sexuality. And we need to learn how to do all that whether we are the potential perp or the potential victim or some combination of both perp and victim.

    I am thinking, and here is the point I am making, that anybody (that would be anybody for any reason) who sends anybody (self, child, religious follower, anybody) out to run with the pack unprepared to deal with this aspect of humanity is an enabler of the destructive results of unbridled sex / aggression. We talk a lot about perps and victims, but IMO the enablers also need to take a good look at themselves. The word “sweet” needs to be taken out of our vocabulary when used to describe a grown woman. Instead we might think “kind” or “compassionate” or “understanding” or even “not excessively confrontational.” But “sweet” is better reserved for strawberry pie than for humans. We are better than that.

    So, yes, I think that there were “mistakes” made on both sides here. I will let the legal system decide whether any of it was illegal. My children accuse their father and me of raising them this way–“Hold still while I pull you head our of your ***. This will hurt, but it will not hurt nearly as much as if I have to kick you in your *** while your head is still firmly implanted.” In this case I see two people who have their heads firmly implanted and are now being kicked while in that condition. And there seems to be moral violation of the tenets of christianity by at least one person’s actions and perhaps by both persons’s actions. In this case, there needs to be a lot of repenting and a lot of head re-positioning, apparently some of each on both sides. That is one of the reasons we have lawyers and courts (and blogs.)

  8. What do expect from the Paleo-Confederate Doug Wilson? He teaches that slaves in the antebellum south enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with their masters.

    From his book, SOUTHERN SLAVERY AS IT WAS:

    “Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based on mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.” (pp. 23-24)

    “Slave life was to them [the slaves] a life of plenty, of simple pleasures, of food, clothes, and good medical care.” (p. 25)

    It’s not much of a stretch to see the roots from which this patriarchy movement grew. When someone is not just caught up in a cult (patriarchy), but is one of its chief apologists, the need to justify is unquenchable and the gymnastics required are manifold. Unfortunately Mr. Wilson has two things in his favor, a loyal following and a writer’s sharp wit.

  9. Doug Wilson is deranged. The man has zero empathy which, in my book, disqualifies him from being a Christian. The same goes for Stacy McDonald and the rest of that crowd. It’s just sick how they can ignore or sweep under the rug all the heinous acts that have been committed by those in their crowd.

  10. @ Nancy:
    I understand what you’re saying and there is value in teaching our children to speak out, etc., but at most it will divert some predators to other victims. So long as society’s first response is denial and minimization, with a heaping side of victim blaming, training our children is like bailing out the Titanic with a teacup. Besides which, there is little evidence that it would work in the typical abuse situation. Abuse messes with your mind and abuse victims don’t respond the way we hope tjey will as a result. Things might have turned out better for Lourdes if she’d spoken up sooner (a big MIGHT), but given the dynamics of abuse, there’s no evidence that training her to speak up would have caused her to do so.

  11. @ burntnorton:

    I agree with you on general principles. There is more than one approach to this, however. One is the approach that says we need to change society. That would be nice. The other is the approach of let’s empower and protect as many people as possible. That also would be nice too. Why choose one and not the other? To excuse abuse in inexcusable. To assume the every victim is automatically totally helpless, however, does not seem to be true.

    If the secular courts are tasked with judging correctly, surely we should try to do the same thing–or else quit the field and leave these issue to people who can be objective. This particular case is complicated. Maybe this is one of those bad cases that make bad law. Personally I am going to be cautious on this one.

  12. His views on slavery speaks volumes. Can we just say he us the “Patriarchal David Duke” of the Hyper Reformed camp.With his racist views maybe he can run for Idaho Governor.

  13. @ Eagle:

    Let us hope that hyper-patriarchialism and its cousin dominionism work toward the downfall of hyper-calvinism. What a mess this has all become.

  14. Long time reader, first time commenter.

    “I continue to believe that this whole thing should be sorted through by Christians, with a view to our testimony before a watching world. Based on the undisputed facts that have come out thus far, I have no doubt that if this were adjudicated properly, we would all see at the conclusion that Doug Phillips acted the part of a manipulative scoundrel.”

    According to Julie Anne’s information over at Spiritual Sounding Board, the Christian arbitration thing has been tried before with Phillips (I think it might have been with the Joe Taylor mess). Things fell apart when Doug tried to force the process to go entirely his way. Can there be any doubt at this point that pretty much the only chance to see justice done is in the secular courts?

    “I met him once, in 2010, and he took the opportunity then to blow sunshine up my skirt.”

    Um…not sure I want to envision that…

  15. One last thing before I plunge out for the day. I have been trying to eat a cold bologna sandwich with pepper jack cheese and banana peppers for breakfast. I do not advise it. Spare yourselves this disaster.

  16. Eagle wrote:

    His views on slavery speaks volumes. Can we just say he us the “Patriarchal David Duke” of the Hyper Reformed camp.With his racist views maybe he can run for Idaho Governor.

    If enough of his ilk head for the American Redoubt, he just might get elected.

  17. burntnorton wrote:

    Doug Wilson is a misogynistic moron.

    Sadly, BN, Wilson isn’t a moron. He’s clever enough to convince many reasonably intelligent people that he’s worth listening to.

    And.

    Like many of his ilk, he exhibits many of the characteristics of NPD, especially “Lacks the ability to empathize with the feelings or desires of others.
    And
    Is arrogant in attitudes and behavior.

  18. Clay Crouch wrote:

    “Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based on mutual affection and confidence.”

    So, this is how Wilson views racist slavery? I guess all those whippings and beatings were all affectionate too, huh? (*spit*)

    Why should it be such a stretch for him to view the enslavement of girls and women as “based on affection and confidence”? (Ugh, just typing that made me a bit nauseous.) I’m with you, Clay. Where this man is coming from is as plain as day.

    Doug Wilson is obviously clueless about race, history, gender, theology and the dynamics of abuse. I can’t see why I should listen to him on this subject — or any other.

  19. burntnorton wrote:

    Like many people, religious and non, [Wilson] has a picture in his head of what a rape victim is and how she should behave that bears no relationship to reality…

    Undoubtedly true. It’s only one of many “victim” stereotypes that I’ve encountered, nearly all of which infantilise the target (not the usual word but I prefer it to “victim”).

    …but that conveniently absolves the rapist and others of responsibility.

    I have to push back on this one, though. Wilson does not absolve Phillips of responsibility. What he does do is point out the complicating features of this case. An unwanted sexual advance is not the same as a toxic or inappropriate relationship, which is likely to include many separate unwanted sexual advances. Apparently this was such a relationship.

    But the plaintiff herself has apparently said that some of them were not unwanted, but that she went along with them in return for something. I wish she hadn’t said that. Phillips was not the “victim” in those cases and they do not lessen his culpability for the relationship overall. He misused his influence, workplace position and corporate authority for his own gratification and I seriously doubt whether he was ever interested in the wellbeing of the plaintiff. On the evidence I can see, I think Wilson was wrong to call the relationship “adultery” – the balance of power was far too one-sided for that. But he was right in saying that it was complicated.

  20. I don’t really keep up with these groups, but it is interesting and sad to read about them.

    I appreciate the early fights that were fought by the Amish and Christians like these to firmly and formerly establish what ought to be obvious – the parents have the right to determine the course of education for their children, including teaching them at home.

    But my admiration stops there.

    These folks may get a lot of things right, but what they get wrong, even though it is on secondary points etc., they get so wrong as to create a brand of the Christian faith that has things in it that are completely contrary to what Jesus taught.

    On the legal aspect of this, it is usually not good to predict the outcome of lawsuits unless one knows all of the facts. That should also prevent cheerleading by bystanders. I don’t know Doug Phillips or the woman who has brought the lawsuit. It could be that Phillips did the things she says and that the facts were such that she, although an adult, was not responsible. Or it could be that she is not telling the entire story. I have no way of knowing.

    It is correct that typically adults cannot recover money damages if they were participants in the conduct complained of and if they were competent. Minors, persons of diminshed capacity are another matter. Perhaps those subjected to control with limited or no options (e.g. perhaps an illegal immigrant who works in a situation where the boss provides the job, the living arrangements, the money, the transportation etc.) have a case.

    I am not aware of cases where, for example, adults who join cults, can later sue the cult leader for civil damages because of things that happened at the cult unless those things are crimes or civil wrongs and the adult sued before the statute of limiations ran.

    But one never knows what will happen in litigation because facts have a way of popping up and changing the playing field.

    I, and I believe most people on this blog, are inclined to believe the Plaintiff. Her disclosure of Phillips’ wrongdoing rings true to our ears.

    Yet, it would be wise for us to reserve ulitmate judgment.

    And that is something that Doug Wilson should learn, also.

  21. Wilson always thinks abuse cases are complicated. Just yesterday a commentator called him out on his treatment of a 14 year old girl in his own church who was abused by a 24 year old seminary student staying at her home. In that case, Wilson sat on the abuser’s side of the courtroom and argued for leniency on sentencing. The judge agreed and stated that the 24 year old was immature as a result of being sheltered through homeschooling. The victim was put in church discipline and denied communion.

    The naivety excuse only applies to men though it would seem. Phillips’ victim, a sheltered 23 year old, should have known better. Challenged on his support for the seminary student, Wilson claimed that the case was more complicated and that he knew facts he couldn’t reveal. All I need to know are the ages and that there was a conviction. Not complicated at all.

  22. @ Nancy:
    Nancy, I do not “assume the every victim is automatically totally helpless”. But I do understand from this case, that Lourdes often told Doug to stop it, that she would have derived no personal pleasure from being semened-upon, and that she was the one who finally put a stop to it. The latter is a huge deal, taking great courage because every single thing in her life spoke against it.

    Also I don’t think it’s useful to frame victims as culpable when they don’t get up and leave. We don’t search out flaws in this way for, say, people who’ve lost all in a tornado. This is because we recognize that they’re traumatized and just doing the best they can to get through, whatever that is. Sexual abuse is an attack on the core of a person and it creates shock and massive confusion. Even worse than a tornado, there is intense pressure to put the blame on one’s self—this is done internally as well as by the abuser and often the community.

    Moreover, victims usually do try to do something about it. Maybe change their routines to evade, or mention it indirectly to their best friend or wearing clothing that would make them seem less attractive, etc. These attempts are not known by any but them. I tried all sorts of small things when I was being abused, while also filled with shame and aware that any open attempt would be met with condemnation.

    Finally, for every victim, the process to healing includes understanding what happened, what they did because of it, what they need to change, and how to work towards health. It is a process filled with responsibility, beginning to end. It makes no sense to load more shame onto them before they even get started, and to hand them more responsibility than what’s already contained in having to heal from deep wounds given them through no fault of their own.

  23. In an effort to be gracious I will simply say that because one is a pastor/theologian this does not automatically confer upon you the status of an expert in all fields. We ordinary church members seem prone to idolizing and making celebrities of our pastors, Thabiti Anyabwile referred to this in the panel discussion on celebrity pastors at T$G a few years ago. I have been guilty of this.

    A case in point was the recent interview of Piper on the question of why we love March madness NCAA basketball. What are his qualifications to speak on this, and who besides the Piper fan-boys really care what he has to say on this subject?

    Another case in point is Tim Challiies telling us how to think biblically about everything. Ah, thanks but no thanks Tim.

    I think it is obvious that subjects such as spousal abuse, rape, and sexual abuse are better left to the experts in the field.

    What next – a book by one of the Gospel Coalition celebs on gospel-centered car maintenance?

  24. The patriarch from Moscow, Idaho chimes in on the Doug Phillips debacle…

    Ex Cathedra.
    From his personal Vatican in Idaho.

  25. Stacy McDonald (wife of patriarch James McDonald – a colleague of Doug Phillips), chimed in on April 18 with these remarks:

    Thank you, Pastor Wilson! You nailed it! I’ve tried to say the same thing and was accused of not having sympathy for the “victim,” which no one can prove she was at this point…

    Translation:
    doubleplusgoodthink INGSOC, doubleplusduckspeak INGSOC.
    “LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER! LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!”

  26. Serving Kids in Japan wrote:

    Clay Crouch wrote:

    “Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based on mutual affection and confidence.”

    So, this is how Wilson views racist slavery? I guess all those whippings and beatings were all affectionate too, huh? (*spit*)

    Why should it be such a stretch for him to view the enslavement of girls and women as “based on affection and confidence”? (Ugh, just typing that made me a bit nauseous.) I’m with you, Clay. Where this man is coming from is as plain as day.

    He sees himself in the Big House at Tara holding the whip.

    Or in Topkapi Palace with his locked, eunuch-guarded harem.

  27. Patrice wrote:

    Nancy, I do not “assume the every victim is automatically totally helpless”. But I do understand from this case, that Lourdes often told Doug to stop it, that she would have derived no personal pleasure from being semened-upon, and that she was the one who finally put a stop to it. The latter is a huge deal, taking great courage because every single thing in her life spoke against it.

    And to Douggie ESQUIRE and Douggie Penetrate/Colonize/Conquer/Plant, THAT is the Unpardonable Sin. The Handmaid got Uppity.

  28. @ Anonymous:

    I care less about whether Torres gets monetary damages, than I do about making sure it’s understood by patriarchy supporters that no matter how this case pans out in court, it basically destroys patriarchy.

    1. It cannot be disputed that Phillips did in fact have an affair, because he admitted it himself. So right out of the gate, the prophet and figurehead of the movement has discredited himself. There is no way to rehab Phillips. Even Wilson appears to understand this on some level.

    2. If Torres is telling the truth and Phillips abused her non-consensually, then it means that stay-at-home daughterhood (SAHD) and its promises of lifelong safety and security, is a fraud. It also means that even the holiest of the “anointed” pastors and fathers, are not the paragons of virtue they must be for patriarchal/FIC theology to create the perfect world it promises. Thus two huge cornerstones of the patriarchal house come tumbling down.

    3. If Torres is lying and it was a consensual affair, then SAHD and intensive patriarchal child training cannot deliver the goods (upstanding Christian young people), or at the very least are not the magic bullets proponents promise. The point about pastors and fathers applies equally here too.

    In other words, no matter what, SAHD and patriocentric family structure, have just been destroyed by their own proponents, and patriarchy has finally been revealed to the entire world as a fantasy that cannot fulfill all the empty promises it makes.

  29. Anonymous wrote:

    I, and I believe most people on this blog, are inclined to believe the Plaintiff. Her disclosure of Phillips’ wrongdoing rings true to our ears.
    Yet, it would be wise for us to reserve ulitmate judgment.
    And that is something that Doug Wilson should learn, also.

    I believe you are approaching this with balance, and I can appreciate that. However, some of us who qualify as “cheer leading bystanders” have reason to believe Lourdes’ story. Some of us were entrenched in Patriarchal families, churches, and systems. We are distinctly aware how this ideology infantalizes women and children (and sometimes the young men). I wish I wasn’t so intimately aware of how it all works.

    Also, Julie Anne of Spiritual Sounding Board has been in direct contact with people from Boerne Christian Assebly and/or Vision Forum who can corroborate many of the facts in this story. Doug Wilson simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He has an ideology to protect– plain and simple.

  30. Hello from Moscow Idaho, the community that Doug Wilson longs to control. Here on his home ground we receive frequent reminders that Doug is a sophomoric gasbag who, if he had a modicum of insight or humility, would realize he is a local embarrassment and a disgrace to the gospel. Because he has always been in love with himself neither of these realities dissuade him from kissing his shaving mirror every morning and trotting out to spread his baloney far and wide.

    It is a blessing that Moscow is a small university town where his hateful rhetoric and his almost daily mocking sneers and foul adolescent language targeting gay and lesbian people, marginalize him. We have long since learned that his elders were chosen amongst men who are unable or unwilling to hold him accountable for his words and behavior. The majority of them are tied economically to Wilson’s little empire. None of them were willing to resign when the Christ Church arranged wedding of serial pedophile Steven Sitler to a young woman who attended New Saint Andrews College was celebrated in 2011.

    Despite his best efforts, in my view, Doug is tenuously perched on the third (or lower) tier of Neo-Calvinism big hitters. Those of us who have consistently privately and publicly rebuked Doug will not relent. He offers a dangerous and demeaning theology that has enormous appeal to men with fragile egos and weak self esteem. Nonetheless we are confident and thankful that he will never extinguish the light of the Gospel which is proclaimed with every breath of the folks who follow Wartburg Watch. And God is good.

  31. Anonymous wrote:

    I am not aware of cases where, for example, adults who join cults, can later sue the cult leader for civil damages because of things that happened at the cult unless those things are crimes or civil wrongs and the adult sued before the statute of limiations ran.

    At least one crime is alleged to have been committed here. Even if we think that Lourdes consented (which I don’t), Phillips’ disgusting actions are a violation of the Texas penal code. It’s still considered sexual assault.

  32. Deb
    Great post!! Well done. May I point out that Doug Wilson is beloved by The Gospel©Coalition crowd. Go on over to TGC and put Wilson’s name into the search engine. 64 come up! 64! Perhaps this is the reason that sex abuse was not discussed with any seriousness at the “Sex Summit.” Gotta keep blaming the victim as much as possible and restoring the abuser into his position of authority just as quickly as possible.

    I am fed up with this game of footsies.

  33. Julie Anne wrote:

    Doug Wilson needs to shut his mouth when it comes to abuse and women.

    I’d like to see Doug Wilson shut his mouth, period, and spend some significant time in serious reflection on what his actions and teachings have done to the body of Christ.

  34. Anonymous wrote:

    Yet, it would be wise for us to reserve ulitmate judgment.

    I am currently in the wilds of Wisconsin-40 F and raining. This Southerner is hiding indoors until conference time.

    “Ultimate judgment” is an interesting phrase. Do you mean by the ultimate Judge or the ultimate earthly judge-the courts? If it is the courts, I do not view them as the ultimate judge. Take Casey Anthony as an example. Yes, she was declared “not guilty” by the court but I still believe that she was guilty in part because I followed the case carefully. Yes, she is free but i would never hire her at a day care center.

    I have read about Vision Forum. We have talked with a fair number of people, a couple read here, who were long part of that system and left in recent years. The affair with Lourdes was discussed for quite a long time. People expressed concern about her within this closed community. I have read Phillips writings and those of others who have viewed this closed community from the outside.

    I do believe that people who are raised in these communities are trained from birth to be submissive to “authority,” to not “gossip,” and on and on. For a girl being raised in that community, this lesson hits home since she was trained to believe and follow the leader who “knows better.”

    And, yes, I do cheer for her. She is finally standing up and breaking free. The lawsuit is brilliant. It is being followed all over the world by the international press. We are finally gaining a window into a what I believe is a sad, sad demonstration of patriarchal Christianity. Lourdes, at the minimum, has set off a bomb which will have long standing repercussions. She has won, no matter the outcome of the lawsuit. Yay Lourdes!!!

    Just like Casey Anthony, I believe that Phillips is guilty and it is not based on reading one article in the Huffington Post.

  35. Don’t you just love how Wilson uses “cad” and “scoundrel” to describe a sexual deviant and predator?

  36. Rosmary Huskey wrote:

    Hello from Moscow Idaho, the community that Doug Wilson longs to control. Here on his home ground we receive frequent reminders that Doug is a sophomoric gasbag who, if he had a modicum of insight or humility, would realize he is a local embarrassment and a disgrace to the gospel.

    Thank you for the insights re: Doug Wilson and the Moscow community. It’s challenging for a city to counter the negativity of nearby cults.
    My former cult has been making inroads into Deary for the past few years. I heard they are building the head Patriarch a house there. My sympathies to you.

  37. Hester wrote:

    Well, if the law in TX states that a counselee/parishioner (i.e., Torres) having an affair with their pastor (i.e., Doug) is not legally able to give consent – and correct me if I’m wrong that that is what that clergy sex abuse statute says – and that’s what was indeed going on, then Torres basically was in the position of a minor in the eyes of the law and there’s nothing Wilson can do about it. A 13yo can give verbal consent to sex too, but that doesn’t make it any less statutory rape legally.

    Bingo! That’s the entire case, in my opinion. I understand that Phillips claims the sexual abuse never occurred. She is not telling the truth. It’s kind of like getting stopped by a police officer who claims you were going 45 mph on a 30 mph zone. You say that you were only going at most 30.5 mph and not 45 mph. Guess what? You just admitted your guilt and a ticket!

  38. Rosmary Huskey wrote:

    Hello from Moscow Idaho, the community that Doug Wilson longs to control. Here on his home ground we receive frequent reminders that Doug is a sophomoric gasbag who, if he had a modicum of insight or humility, would realize he is a local embarrassment and a disgrace to the gospel. Because he has always been in love with himself neither of these realities dissuade him from kissing his shaving mirror every morning and trotting out to spread his baloney far and wide.

    You write very, very well. I was enthralled with your whole comment. Thank you!

  39. Been there:

    Thanks.

    I certainly can appreciate and understand that those who have been tied up in this kind of a church setting have very strong feelings. Not meaning to diminish those at all.

  40. Serving Kids:

    I don’t know about the Texas penal code, but it sure sounds like some of his behavior was criminal.

    I suppose there has been no prosecution because of the “beyond a reasonable doubt” issue, but I don’t know.

    Texas is not known for going easy on criminals. If the District Attorney believes facts can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, I would think that charges would be brought.

  41. @ Rosmary Huskey:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    If enough of his ilk head for the American Redoubt, he just might get elected.

    Please comment on this. Are the survivalists who are relocating to the Redoubt like the reconstructionists in Moscow, or are there differences? I ask this because it seems like some of the survivalist women seem pretty capable and tough, in the best sense of the word, if one is to believe some of the things on some web sites about survivalism.

    And no, I have not loaded up to Go West, but about a century ago my father did live in Blackfoot, Idaho for a time, and there are some relatives (whom I have never met) scattered around there somewhere. And I do have an old pickup truck, for what that is worth. Just saying.

  42. @ Anonymous:

    I know you agree. 🙂 I just wanted to point out that in the big theological scheme of things, it doesn’t really matter which way these particular legal cards fall. In fact I may write a post on my own blog elaborating on my brief comment above in light of some things I’d discussed previously about SAHD.

  43. @ BTDT & Nancy:

    Would that be the same American Redoubt that Christian survivalist James Wesley Rawles tells people to relocate to? The same Rawles who, last time I checked, provided a list of survivalist-friendly churches (almost all Reformed Baptist) on his website? Does Wilson use this Redoubt term too?

    I’m very interested in the survivalist connections in patriarchy but haven’t had time to sit down and do the legwork yet. Probably won’t until the Big Box is over.

  44. Hester wrote:

    @ BTDT & Nancy:
    Would that be the same American Redoubt that Christian survivalist James Wesley Rawles tells people to relocate to? The same Rawles who, last time I checked, provided a list of survivalist-friendly churches (almost all Reformed Baptist) on his website? Does Wilson use this Redoubt term too?

    Yes, that’s the one. I don’t know Wilson’s views on this.
    I’ll explain further in another comment.

  45. I’m a sometime-reader of Wilson (complicated reasons why). Wilson’s is an intellect without practical, spirit-led intuition and a logic without love. And from time to time a reader will call out Wilson on this on his blog and then will get blasted by the Wilson fanboys and occasionally by Wilson himself.

    I’m also a sexual assault survivor. Wilson — and many others like him — do not seem to grasp the very real factors often at play in trauma (learned helplessness, spiritual abuse, etc.) or trauma recovery (PTSD, repetition compulsion, depression, anxiety, etc.). Or perhaps they do grasp these factors and simply reject them in favor of their cherished KJV Blueprint. The thing is, and I think another commenter alluded to this: This Book was never intended to be the do-it-all-yourself manual that it’s been elevated to be in this particular camp.

    I’ve learned the hard way that you can logic your way into and out of anything (yes, I’m using logic as a verb here) but it takes courage to live and lead using logic AND love, to marry the head and the heart, and to choose to protect the spirit of the person on the other side of the conversation rather than eviscerate it. This is what it means to use your power for the benefit of the other. I see this quality in the person of Jesus and it’s what helps me to trust Him, little by little. And it’s what warns me to stay away from DW.

  46. Dee:

    I was responding to what was posted about Doug Wilson’s comments. In his comments, I believe that Wilson has pre-judged the case. That is, he has declared the plaintiff not to be a victim.

    How in the world could he know that? Despite the general leanings of the law in this area, until the facts are known, that is impossible to state with certainty.

    I believe that it is very unwise to pre-judge lawsuits. Even if Wilson were not disposed against the plaintiff to begin with, which he is, it is still not a wise thing to do. He has no idea what facts are going to be alleged or determined by a jury.

    I have some beliefs about the weirdness of Vision Forum, and as I said, the feelings I have cause me to believe the plaintiff.

    But I am a cautious person and have read thousands of pleadings in my years of work. Things don’t always turn out as one thought. I have won cases where I thought there was no hope. And I have lost cases that I thought would be easy.

    Until a judge or jury hears testimony from those involved, and the claims are subject to cross examination, we should not invest ourselves in a particular factual scenario coming out.

    I agree with you that the mere expousre of this man has been a really good thing. Obviously, there was a enough there that caused even Phillips to admit to an affair (did he say ‘inappropriate’?).

    But my feeling about that is not dependent on whether the plaintiff can prove whether the contact was consenual or not or whether she was a ‘victim.’

    It is within the realm of possible outcomes that the plaintiff will be found to have consented and that she was part of an affair. She was duped by a cad, and believed his teachings a promises (the worst of which has to be that his wife was going to die soon. That has to be the worst thing I have ever heard.) But that may not give her any legal relief any more than it gives others in similar situations with charismatic religious figures relief.

    I may have hopes about the outcome. But I would not stake out positions, as Wilson has done.

    Hope this makes sense.

    Also, “ultimate judgment” was referencing final judgment by a court. Was not trying to be too profound here.

  47. “I continue to believe that this whole thing should be sorted through by Christians, with a view to our testimony before a watching world.”
    _________________________

    Trying to get into a mind like Mr. Wilson’s, I think this is code for:

    “Silence is the best policy, we ought to deal with the matter internally, the heathen world is watching, and it beshmirches the Cause of Christ, Homeschooling and Patriarchy (not necessarily in that order of importance) for such matters to get a public airing, least of all in heathen courts; it would be far better if Mr. Phillips were rhetorically taken to the woodshed by some other leaders within the Patriarchal World, sent into exile for a year or two, then brought back “contrite”, refurbished and publicly endorsed by the same elders, where he could continue his great ministry, with all detractors, including Ms Torres-Manteufel, accused of bitterness, envy and slander if they refused to go quietly.”

    My best guess at a translation.

  48. Thanks, Hester. I believe you are right here. The disclosure has been the thing, and a lawsuit verdict won’t change that.

  49. Rosmary Huskey wrote:

    Hello from Moscow Idaho, the community that Doug Wilson longs to control. Here on his home ground we receive frequent reminders that Doug is a sophomoric gasbag who, if he had a modicum of insight or humility, would realize he is a local embarrassment and a disgrace to the gospel. Because he has always been in love with himself neither of these realities dissuade him from kissing his shaving mirror every morning and trotting out to spread his baloney far and wide.
    It is a blessing that Moscow is a small university town where his hateful rhetoric and his almost daily mocking sneers and foul adolescent language targeting gay and lesbian people, marginalize him. We have long since learned that his elders were chosen amongst men who are unable or unwilling to hold him accountable for his words and behavior. The majority of them are tied economically to Wilson’s little empire. None of them were willing to resign when the Christ Church arranged wedding of serial pedophile Steven Sitler to a young woman who attended New Saint Andrews College was celebrated in 2011.
    Despite his best efforts, in my view, Doug is tenuously perched on the third (or lower) tier of Neo-Calvinism big hitters. Those of us who have consistently privately and publicly rebuked Doug will not relent. He offers a dangerous and demeaning theology that has enormous appeal to men with fragile egos and weak self esteem. Nonetheless we are confident and thankful that he will never extinguish the light of the Gospel which is proclaimed with every breath of the folks who follow Wartburg Watch. And God is good.

    EVERYONE! As one who has kept tabs on the cult leader, Doug Wilson, for close to two decades now, the TWW community should be aware that Rosmary Huskey is one of the true HEROES of the Moscow, Idaho community. We at TWW should be honored that she has “visited” us here. And boy oh boy does Doug Wilson (and all of his followers) HATE HATE HATE her. The things I have read him say about her, and encourage to be done to her, are so vile they make a person inhuman to even utter them.

  50. LawProf:

    I agree with your assessment.

    Of course it’s important for the witness of Christians to handle these things appropriately.

    But that is said, in Wilson’ case, with a particular slant toward helping his cause and his world view.

    So Wilson’s plea doesn’t have much appeal.

  51. OnlyEleven:

    Hey, I used “cad” but in the really bad sense.

    But sexual deviant and predator are better.

    Consider them substituted.

  52. Dee and Others:

    One thing I have wondered is whether there are other women or girls out there beside this plaintiff?

    It almost always is the case.

    Look at Gothard. Look at Clinton. Look at any number of people who prey on the young or subordinates.

    I will not be surprised if something else comes to light.

    Do any of you have insight on that?

  53. I was thinking that the appropriate way to handle this case is to publicly call Mr. Phillips out for the monster he is, denounce him in the name of Christ, expose evil, and attempt to ensure that every ugly detail about this matter and his pattern of abuse of others is drawn out into the light.

    Mr. Phillips is not a private man keeping to himself, humbly deflecting the attention away from himself. Were that the case, then I could understand pleas for a quiet resolution. I have no reason to know, nor would the general public, if an unknown Mr. Phillips of Nowhere in Particular had committed grave sin and crime against a young woman. Such a matter could be dealt with privately within his church and locally by the civil courts and county law enforcement. We’d have no reason to know or care about a private man’s failures.

    But Doug Phillips has trumpeted himself as something of a Homeschool Messiah, a Beacon of Light and Goodness, a Man Above Men, a man capable of informing the rest of us who’ve been homeschooling and raise huge families for many years about ADVANCED Family Strategies, and making millions off such DVDs, books, conferences, mail order catalogs (with obscenely marked up merchandise), etc.

    He’s lived a lavish lifestyle and basked in the glow of heaps of praise and applause in honor of His Great Goodness and Beneficence. Along with the Duggars, he’s The Face of Homeschooling and Big Families to thousands, maybe millions. And he has done everything he can to keep himself in that limelight.

    This is a matter that needs to be dealt with in the public eye, where Christians stand up and condemn him using vigorous words in vigorous ways. The more public the figure, the more public the rebuke.

  54. @ Deb:

    I read that link and thought it pretty bizarre! I mean — who cares and what does it prove when you win a contest where your wife nominates you and your best buddies advertise to get you votes? That you have rich and famous friends that can help you win a contest? Mrs. C seems to think she and hubbie get kudos for being dressed the best or something. Again, why is dress ‘that’ important? Mr. C looking like a Southern plantation owner sitting next to the African freedom fighter is actually appalling to these eyes. I’m not sure what Mr. C was trying to convey there and I think it was very distasteful on his part. Shaking head about the entire event.

    PS – IMHO Old Spice stinks – no offense to anyone who enjoys the aroma.

  55. @ OnlyEleven:

    Don’t you just love how Wilson uses “cad” and “scoundrel” to describe a sexual deviant and predator?

    Well, they are the more old-fashioned words that such chivalry-obsessed folks would use. He also wouldn’t want to offend the dear ladies’ tender ears with terms like perv and lech. 😉

  56. Rosmary Huskey wrote:

    Hello from Moscow Idaho, the community that Doug Wilson longs to control.

    Thanks for your insider commentary, Rosmary.

    What I find particular sad in all of this is seeing the ossifying results for the church in the Palouse region of another 30 years of what I believe is Mr. Wilson’s unfettered narcissism, fed by fans and, as you put it, especially by “men with fragile egos and weak self esteem.”

    I lived in Pullman-Moscow from 1973-1986. I saw the initial seedling stages of the very toxic system whereof we now witness the bitter fruits borne. Back 30+ years ago, I saw some of my friends harmed by the malignancy of his “ministries” based in legalism, perfectionism, and authoritarianism. We spent hours processing the misbeliefs implanted and the marginalization endured by those of us who didn’t fit his Wilsonian System. In fact, in that era there were a couple of malignant ministries and churches around, and the leader at a relatively healthy church in town once told me that a main part of their ministry was to help the “refugee Christians” who’d been hurt by those other churches.

    Back to the present: In reading the posts and commentary above, it still seems that in Doug Wilson’s world and worldview, God designed people like machines. If only people would get the correct working logic to process life perfectly, and then imbibe the apparently inerrant inputs of his biblical intepretations, they would come to the same [brilliant] conclusions as does Mr. Wilson. Which, it seems to me, indicates he has created a closed, authoritarian system that is not so different from the one he supposedly critiques in Vision Forum.

    I doubt he sees the irony yet. Maybe he will, I pray he will – for his sake, and for the sake of his scotomatous followers. Perhaps some day there will be such catastrophic trauma in his own life — isn’t that what it takes to catalyze deep transformation for any of us? — that it will give opportunity for reflecting otherwise, and for changing his mind about how his logicism and legalism transmogrify people into machines.

    Meanwhile, much of Mr. Wilson’s M.O. may be different from Doug Phillips, but some of the results of his personal cleverness and charisma are the same. He intellectually and theologically seduces people into his orbit, and leaves them ignorant of the loss of personal trajectory as replaced by his system’s bounded choices. Perhaps someday providential trauma will shake them from their happy apathy — and their seemingly lack of empathy for those like Lourdes Torres-Manteufel who were groomed for years to serve an undeserving human master and to override any cognitive dissonance or conflicted emotions about so doing.

    Personally, I find Ms. Manteufel’s lawsuit Petition to make a brilliant case for how systems of patriarchal authoritarianism create “childified adults” who have been conditioned to give faulty consent to the wrong things and precluded from giving true consent to the right things. They’ve been left with volition, but not bolstered by any real understanding of choice, and therefore not with valid “consent.”
    Which to me seems to fit the legal reasoning behind fiduciary responsibility clauses, such as those found in the Texas state criminal code. It legally recognizes that those under the authority of a clergyman cannot be considered as giving true consent to sexual advances received, regardless of their age. See Texas Penal Code, Title 5 (Offenses Against The Person), Chapter 22 (Assaultive Offenses), Section 22.011 (Sexual Assault), Subsection (b)(10):

    (b) A sexual assault […] is without the consent of the other person if […] (10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser.

    http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/22.011.00.html

    But once again, bringing it back to Mr. Wilson — as apparently is the nature of how all things must (hopefully) eventually go, at least in his mini-cosmos of Moscow — I have two concluding thoughts.

    First, I find it ironic that someone who seems so steeped in Mosaic Law and theological legalism as Mr. Wilson does not seem to understand legal reasoning. (But then, that could be because he may believe the state has no right to interfere with the workings of a church or ministry, despite whether it has sought state protection through non-profit incorporation, etc., and so such worldly laws are irrelevant.)

    Second, this anti-freedom gridlock — “bounded choice” and the “psychology of totalism,” glued together with the limiting realities of a “total institution” — creates slaves to the system. And it seems Mr. Wilson does not understand the real nature, inner-workings, or devastating impacts of functional “slavery” … even if, ironically, he gives every appearance of being enslaved to his own desire to be influential. Sad indeed.

  57. Yes, very old-fashioned words. Quaint. My children have run across some local chivalrous teen neocals who like to get into that sort of thing, the old-fashioned knight-errant, adventurous, throwing down cloak for the lady, the type flush with doo-dads and paramilitary gadgets and swords and such from VF, humble–but in such a showy way–servants of God. All that. Of course, all fraudulent. Misogynistic, foul-mouthed when no adults around, slandering ex-girlfriends and anyone who doesn’t get how wonderful they are, ruining reputations.

  58. @ LawProf:

    I found it interesting and revealing that Phillips was quick, and first, to get his face and voice in a news report after the suit was filed. His wife was dutifully sitting by his side.

    I can’t figure out why Beall hasn’t kicked Phillios out of their home. Now whether or not she should divorce him is a private matter, but separation until repentance was evidenced would have been wise. I can’t imagine how her children are processing all of this and what she is teaching her children, daughters and sons, with her actions or lack of actions.

  59. Nancy wrote:

    BeenThereDoneThat wrote:
    If enough of his ilk head for the American Redoubt, he just might get elected.
    Please comment on this. Are the survivalists who are relocating to the Redoubt like the reconstructionists in Moscow, or are there differences?

    Hester is correct about the movement being proposed by James Wesley Rawles. You can read a little more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Redoubt

    I don’t know to what extent this is entrenched in the Patriarchal Homeschooling Movement(TM). I only discovered this after parting ways with my former cult. Several years ago, through a bizarre series of events, they announced that God was speaking to our church to relocate to Idaho. For nearly 40 years they’ve been predicting and preaching the collapse of the American economy and culture. It’s partly why they are very agriculturally based. I now believe they had simply tapped into this American Redoubt movement. Fear is a huge component in these circles– fear of the government, fear of public schools, etc. Gary North was a big part of the whole Y2K scare. He is also a leader in Reconstructionism. Some where in a comment on Julie Anne’s blog, someone mentioned that Doug Phillip’s had warned his church about impending economic catastrophe.

    You won’t find this broadcast out in the open. They’re too smart for that. They know it makes them look like wild-eyed apocalypse types. And I don’t believe all of them are headed for the Redoubt. It may come and go like Y2K did when people become aware of how impractical it is to relocate a full-quiver to an area short on jobs. I don’t know. Fear is unpredictable.

  60. @ Bridget:

    Yours is the kinda reaction I was hoping for. Doug Phillips and gang appear to have been staging their lives to impress those who would follow them.

    The jig is up…

  61. OnlyEleven wrote:

    “cad” and “scoundrel”

    Wilson is fond of using words that make him sound literary. Its an affectation and it drives me nuts.

  62. @ BTDT:

    someone mentioned that Doug Phillip’s had warned his church about impending economic catastrophe

    I know that was reported on Jen’s Gems but that doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It wouldn’t surprise me.

  63. Joe wrote:

    I understand that Phillips claims the sexual abuse never occurred. She is not telling the truth

    My husband often says that Christians have lower standards than the surrounding world. I can assure you, Joe, that Phillips would have been fired in any major corporation. It is considered sexual harassment hen a superior-one who holds the cards” has authority over a lower ranked individual.

    But, we do like our vaunted leaders now, don’t we. Touch not the Lord’s anointed and all that garbage, right?

  64. @ BTDT:

    do you have any idea how big a piece of the survivalist pie Rawles has?

    If I recall correctly his website SurvivalBlog is the most visited survivalist site on the internet, at least according to him. Even if that specifically isn’t true, it’s nonetheless enormously popular.

  65. Hester wrote:

    Would that be the same American Redoubt that Christian survivalist James Wesley Rawles tells people to relocate to?

    I think I am going to start a cult. If these guys can do it, so can I!

  66. Hester wrote:

    I know that was reported on Jen’s Gems but that doesn’t necessarily prove anything. It wouldn’t surprise me.

    You’re right. It would be better to hear this info from someone who knows first hand.

  67. Anonymous wrote:

    But I am a cautious person and have read thousands of pleadings in my years of work. Things don’t always turn out as one thought. I have won cases where I thought there was no hope. And I have lost cases that I thought would be easy.
    Until a judge or jury hears testimony from those involved, and the claims are subject to cross examination, we should not invest ourselves in a particular factual scenario coming out.

    Anonymous wrote:

    But that may not give her any legal relief any more than it gives others in similar situations with charismatic religious figures relief.
    I may have hopes about the outcome. But I would not stake out positions, as Wilson has done.

    I have not been thinking much about the monetary aspect of this case. I have been more focused on the big picture. Even if she does not get monetary relief, I think she will get her day in court. It will be fascinating to hear Phillips trying to weasel out of this. Can you imagine the testimony?

    “Mr. Phillips, please describe in detail what transpired when you were alone with her.” “Mr. P, how did you feel when you were allegedly chased down the street by Torres’ family after attempting (allegedly) to crawl through her bedroom window?”

    This is going to be fascinating testimony from the “Protector of the Family.” It is time he shows just how devoted he is to his vision for the family.

  68. LawProf wrote:

    But Doug Phillips has trumpeted himself as something of a Homeschool Messiah, a Beacon of Light and Goodness, a Man Above Men, a man capable of informing the rest of us who’ve been homeschooling and raise huge families for many years about ADVANCED Family Strategies

    That is why this is fascinating. Some of these guys think that Christians should judge the outside world instead of confessing with humility how they have fallen short. Phillips and humility: two words that should not be in the same sentence.

  69. @ dee:

    I once heard Jill Briscoe speak in person at a conference.  Really enjoyed what she had to say.  I have been reading a book she wrote on prayer.

  70. @ Clay Crouch:

    Clay, I found his book on line in its entirety and just started reading. This is going to turn into a blog post of its own about how dangerous a man Doug Wilson really is.

  71. Bridget wrote:

    Mr. C looking like a Southern plantation owner sitting next to the African freedom fighter is actually appalling to these eyes. I’m not sure what Mr. C was trying to convey there and I think it was very distasteful on his part.

    The South Sudanese in the idiotic photo of Matt Chancey aren’t soldiers, they are policemen, according to their uniforms.

    I lived in South Sudan for almost 4 years, and we correctly referred to the sad sack adventure tourists who slobbered all over themselves to get pictures with armed locals as d*uche bags, period.

    Funny thing is, MANY of Mr. Chancey and his ilk who liked to take such photos were often affiliated with questionable “Christian missions” organization like that of Brad Phillips (Douglas Phillps Esq.’s brother) or this other moron “preacher” with a penchant for self-aggrandizement.

    That picture is offensive on a hundred levels but I’ll leave it be for now.

    Anonymous, FYI on the last TWW thread from last week on Douglas Philips, Esq. both Amy Smith and IIRC AnAttorney posted good links to the relevant sections of the TX penal code.

    Anonymous wrote:

    I don’t know about the Texas penal code, but it sure sounds like some of his behavior was criminal.

  72. Isn’t there a way to pay a settlement without admitting anything just to make it all go away? Maybe somebody has that in mind.

  73. Rafiki wrote:

    but I’ll leave it be for now.

    Actually, I take it back … gotta get a few more things off my chest before I drop it.

    To quote a favorite blog of mine on the subject of pictures such as Chancey’s in active- or post-conflict zones: it demonstrates a “creepy, White Man’s Burden-y saviour complex.”

    And such photos also should make us ask “just who is this about, anyway?” Especially when posted by someone who is ostensibly on a “mission trip.” Oh, could I go on and on … and on.

  74. dee wrote:

    I cannot get onto Doug Wilson’s blog-something about no connection/database error.

    I had problems getting in yesterday. It eventually came back up.

  75. Mara wrote:

    @ Tim:
    Please make an announcement when you get that blog post done.

    Okey doke!

    P.S. Maybe Deebs will want to run it as a guest post 😉

  76. @ Rafiki:

    So I imagine the subtitle under the picture of “. . . with freedom fighter” wasn’t an error since a missionary living there would know he was taking a picture with a policeman and not a freedom fighter. It appears that someone used the photo in a misleading way.

    And, yes, I could have used other words besides appalling and distasteful . . .

  77. Nancy wrote:

    Isn’t there a way to pay a settlement without admitting anything just to make it all go away? Maybe somebody has that in mind.

    You bet, about 90 – 95% of cases filed are settled, and often an NDA is signed by all parties in which the terms of the settlement are kept confidential. No one admits to anything. The problem is the plaintiff is demanding a pretty huge amount, which pretty much negates that possibility unless she’s willing to come way way down. My guess is she wants to go to trial. If she does, it’s likely not going to court for a while, then there’ll likely be an appeal and the final resolution of this matter might not be for years.

  78. @ Bridget:

    Yeah, the caption was way off.

    Always important to learn quick off the bat who wears which uniforms – police, military, special forces, national security, immigration.

  79. Bill Kinnon wrote:

    Wilson isn’t a moron. He’s clever enough to convince many reasonably intelligent people that he’s worth listening to.

    But he’s an arrogant fool. I don’t understand why some find him appealing, other than his elitist, erudite sounding version of theonomist prudery. And why would that appeal to someone? But then, some people do get off on things like imprecatory prayer.

  80. Having learned what I’ve now learned about Wilson, his views on slavery and the like, I now regard him the same way I would regard a Neo-Nazi or other form of white supremacist. Anyone who would come to his defense I’d alsoconsider the functional equivalent of Neo-Nazi, or, in the alternative, an utter fool considering the defense would be of a man who’s position on such matters is available for all to see.

    He’s not worth the time for us to consider him, akin to going online to condemn David Duke, what’s the use?

  81. so many “christians” have posted on blogs about how it is wrong for abuse victims to publicly charge their abusers that I wanted to share a reply I made to one such person who was upset because victims were bringing suit in a “worldly courtroom”
    “(name omitted)you are doing exactly what those that abuse children do so well, blaming the victim and using the bible to gain their silence. the scripture you refer to about not going to worldy courts was written to a church that would not judge its own righteously and therefore allowed sin to grow and not be addressed. A “church” that covers up sexual abuse of anyone (child or adult) is no body of Christ, it is as the Pharisee run temple of Jesus’ day and the Pharisee’s were always publicly rebuked by Jesus. When you tell a victim of sexual abuse done by a church leader to remain silent you allow the perpetrator to abuse again and again, if the church would police itself it would never be necessary to rebuke them publicly. all the cases I have ever read of in the church were first brought to the attention of the church and the churches reply was to do nothing and cover the abuse up. 15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Matt 18:15-17 (KJV) Do you think its ok to inform the authorities and press charges in a public school environment where there is a teacher that is sexually abusing children? a situation that deals with a heathen man in a worldly environment? a non-repentant church member, especially one in authority is the same as that.”

  82. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Second, this anti-freedom gridlock — “bounded choice” and the “psychology of totalism,” glued together with the limiting realities of a “total institution” — creates slaves to the system. And it seems Mr. Wilson does not understand the real nature, inner-workings, or devastating impacts of functional “slavery” … even if, ironically, he gives every appearance of being enslaved to his own desire to be influential. Sad indeed.

    As always Brad, you provide a salient analysis. I would contend though that Wilson fully understands as all tyrants throughout human history have, the successful dynamic required for human slavery to hold sway.
    Solzhenitsyn said:

    “You can maintain power over people as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything and that man will no longer be in your power.”

    Q: What is it that Wilson gives them in return in order to maintain his hold?

  83. @ Muff Potter:

    In debriefing my disastrous theological field education experience at seminary, the following question from my instructor has continued to be a valuable source for reflection on other destructive experiences: “Was there anything in you that made you susceptible to how that leader used you?”

    And when it comes to 40 or so years of Doug Wilson finding a spotlight in Moscow and beyond, at the most basic level, I have to wonder if what he offers truth seekers is this: He is a fairly smart guy whose cool cleverness makes him seem to “win one for our side,” and that gives people an identity by association of being part of the smart crowd that can push back as winners in the midst of a confused and anti-Christ/anti-Christian world.

    Problem is, when that I.V. of infused identity runs out, or contains a slow drip to an eventually toxic dose of poison, the lifeline to personal meaning will be gone. And what will they do then?

    I get that. I’ve been there. I’ve done that. Celebrity is always a temporary fix or just a placebo, and the trauma of withdrawal will take place eventually.

    FWIW, here’s a more technical version of my response: I would contend that Doug Wilson’s apparent penchants toward overvaluing logical consistency and an inerrant-theology legalism find their base more in dualistic Western philosophy than in a holistic Hebraic worldview. So it’s already slouching away from the New Jerusalem … and from that shaky theological GPS, it’s a hop, skip, and a jump toward becoming gnostic in process even if never in outright heretical beliefs of Gnosticism. And here I’d say the essence of that kind of gnostic community is an overfocus on gnosis. Its trajectory, as we see demonstrated by erudite characters from Dan Brown’s *The DaVinci Code,* is to the maxim that “only smart people count.” Or the theological version is, “Spiritual maturity equates to maximum amount of ‘correct’ doctrine.”

    So, Mr. Wilson provides a heroic-seeming warrior figure to follow, a sort of verbal counterpart to Mark Driscoll’s mixed martial arts physical combatant. He also appears to be a polymath of immense intellect capability.

    And so you have a magnet for those whose iron is set toward wanting intellectual consistency, theological validity, and practical guidance for navigating in the wild frontiers of a post-Christendom world. Those who follow may have a genuine and sincere desire to follow God fully in heart and mind, but have mistaken authoritarian leaders and legalism as life-giving, when the New Testament clearly tells us the opposite. Leaders are not the Good Shepherd. And the Law only brings death; it cannot save, sanctify, or sustain. And if followers are content in going to secondary sources to mediate spiritual Life, that means they’ve turned this mere man into their idol.

    My prayer is for the onset of reality … which may involve a bit of providential chaos to shift attention to the Right Source … so people who’ve been magnetically attached to that movement will find eventual freedom as they lose the legalistic, mechanistic model that always squeezes humanity and compassion and grace right out of anyone bound by its constrictions.

  84. @ Tim:

    I look forward to your blogpost. Doug Wilson is quite something. I will check in with his blog once a month or so. I’ve know a couple cult leaders in my time and he certainly bears the marks of one. I do have to give it to him though, he does have a sharp wit. I’m glad cloistered in Idaho.

  85. @ Tim:

    Tim, I’m not sure, but I think he might have nuanced or even backed away from some of his positions a bit since it dead cause a firestorm even among his “gospel buddies”. Please keep digging.

  86. The family integrated church is a movement that has Doug Phillips as one of its advocates has been not been embraced by the BBFI or by influential theologians in the GARBC. The question is in the division between definition of the the church and the family. And in this movements disdain for age graded worship. It is kind of interesting that more theologically conservative baptists are concerned about this trend:

    http://www.faith.edu/resources/publications/faith-pulpit/popup/text/print/842

    I don’t disagree with them on their theological concerns.

  87. @ Clay Crouch:

    Thanks, Crouch. Unless someone can find a complete disavowal, though, the implications in that monograph are frightening. He gets history wrong (and apparently wrote a later edition catching some of those mistakes), he misrepresents slavery in America, he misrepresents Scripture, and he justifies it all on patriarchal grounds. He’s still a patriarchist last I heard.

  88. It just seems that we are dealing with more extreme theological views on the right of theological spectrum without a careful basis in scripture. family versus church, and procreation versus pleasurable sex. Patriarchy versus more egalitarian views. I worry we will see more extreme views as time goes on, even to the point of more extreme patriarchy and views and the slavery issue. Theological views that were considered passe generations ago. And then we have semi Arian and even Arianism rearing its head. Thought that was resolved with the Nicene Creed? When will it end as conservative become radical becomes heretical?

  89. It just seems that we are dealing with more extreme theological views on the right of theological spectrum without a careful basis in scripture: family versus church, and procreation versus pleasurable aspect of sex with some kind of family planning being acceptable; or patriarchy versus more egalitarian view on women in the church. I worry we will see more extreme opinions become doctrine as time goes on, even to the point of discussing the acceptability of slavery or mosaic law. Theological views such as these were considered passé generations ago. And then we have semi Arian and even Arianism rearing its head. Thought that was resolved with the Nicene Creed? When will it end as conservative become radical becomes heretical?

  90. @ Rosmary Huskey:
    Rosmary, you rock. I’ve read some of your stuff online, here/there, and it’s a delight to read because of what you can make words do.

    Of course, there’s also your attitude towards Doug Wilson, which is so clear and unadorned that I find myself grinning every time.

  91. OnlyEleven wrote:

    Don’t you just love how Wilson uses “cad” and “scoundrel” to describe a sexual deviant and predator?

    Late Victorian terminology.
    Though I think “masher” is more accurate Victorian for sexual predator.

  92. Eagle wrote:

    I guess for Doug Wilson slavery in the south can be called “Gospel Centered Slavery” :-p

    HE’s the one holding the whip, so that makes it Godly.

  93. @ Rosmary Huskey:
    Hi Rosemary, I’m another one of your fans. We sent our kids to a Wilsonite classical Christian school for a few years, and after awhile we felt that something just wasn’t right. It wasn’t until after we left that school that I dug into his background, and along the way I encountered your name. You are a hero of the faith. Thank you for standing up to this blustering bully.

  94. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    I would contend that Doug Wilson’s apparent penchants toward overvaluing logical consistency and an inerrant-theology legalism find their base more in dualistic Western philosophy than in a holistic Hebraic worldview.

    I don’t think that Doug cares all that much about logical consistency. He can follow ideas through, but drops them when he gets bored. Because of that, he schmoozes things he’s said before and sometimes contradicts himself. When it’s pointed out, he either ignores it or perhaps adds another trailer of explanation while pouring on the scorn.

    He’s intelligent and quick and has an excellent memory, but he’s not original. Yes, when he bothers to do the work, he falls into the memes of Western philosophy because he is also sloppy. But that doesn’t bother him (unless he’s caught at it) because he much prefers wit to wisdom.

    IMO, Doug’s only constancy lies in his love of power.

  95. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    OnlyEleven wrote:
    Don’t you just love how Wilson uses “cad” and “scoundrel” to describe a sexual deviant and predator?
    Late Victorian terminology.
    Though I think “masher” is more accurate Victorian for sexual predator.

    Yes! I believe the word masher fits here….
    Just wanted to add a tiny bit of something to the conversation, lol, to follow up on HUG…Thank you, HUG, for bringing that fabulously wonderful word up!

    from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/masher:

    Etymology 1[edit]
    mash +‎ -er

    Noun[edit]
    masher (plural mashers)

    One who, or that which, mashes.
    (brewing) A machine for making mash.
    Etymology 2[edit]
    Either[1][2] by analogy with[3] masher (“one who presses, softens”), or more likely from Romani[4] masha (“a fascinator, an enticer”), mashdva (“fascination, enticement”). Originally used in theater,[5] and recorded in US in 1870s. Either originally borrowed as masher, from masha, or from mash +‎ -er. Leland writes of the etymology:[6]

    It was introduced by the well-known gypsy family of actors, C., among whom Romany was habitually spoken. The word “masher” or “mash” means in that tongue to allure, delude, or entice. It was doubtless much aided in its popularity by its quasi-identity with the English word. But there can be no doubt as to the gypsy origin of “mash” as used on the stage. I am indebted for this information to the late well-known impresario [Albert Marshall] Palmer of New York, and I made a note of it years before the term had become at all popular.
    Noun[edit]
    masher (plural mashers)

    a man who makes often unwelcome advances to women  [quotations ▼]
    a fashionable man, a dandy, a fop
    (rare) A man who molests women, as in a subway.
    Synonyms[edit]
    (dandy, fop): dude, dood
    Related terms[edit]
    mash
    mash note
    References[edit]
    ^ Mash Note at World Wide Words
    ^ The City in Slang, by Irving L. Allen, p. 195
    ^ The Barnhart Concise Dictionary of Etymology, as cited at The Grammarphobia Blog: Mash notes, March 16, 2007
    ^ Charles Godfrey Leland in The Gypsies, p. 109, footnote 108; and preface to his poem “The Masher”, where he credits the etymology to [Albert Marshall] Palmer, a Broadway producer.
    ^ Random House Historical Dictionary of American Slang
    ^ Preface to poem “The Masher”, in his Songs of the Sea and Lays of the Land, p. 243 (full text)

  96. @ Patrice:

    he much prefers wit to wisdom

    I know I’ve said this here before, but am I the only one who doesn’t think Doug Wilson is funny at all? Everyone talks about what a quick wit he has, but I swear whenever I read his stuff, not only is it not funny or clever, there’s always at least one thing that I just don’t understand. At all. Frankly I can read academic papers about Greek and Hebrew (which are in alphabets I can’t even read) and get more out of them. Most of the Wilsonisms in question appear to be attempts at jokes that were DOA. Reminds me of Much Ado About Nothing: “This learned constable is too cunning to be understood.”

    But then again, maybe I’m just too stupid to grasp the workings of such a magnificent mind.

  97. Hester wrote:

    @ Patrice:
    he much prefers wit to wisdom
    I know I’ve said this here before, but am I the only one who doesn’t think Doug Wilson is funny at all? Everyone talks about what a quick wit he has, but I swear whenever I read his stuff, not only is it not funny or clever, there’s always at least one thing that I just don’t understand. At all. Frankly I can read academic papers about Greek and Hebrew (which are in alphabets I can’t even read) and get more out of them. Most of the Wilsonisms in question appear to be attempts at jokes that were DOA. Reminds me of Much Ado About Nothing: “This learned constable is too cunning to be understood.”
    But then again, maybe I’m just too stupid to grasp the workings of such a magnificent mind.

    I’m with you, Hester. I think it is C. S. Lewis that wrote about the different uses of humor, and I have never once read Wilson use humor in a redemptive way, that builds up and encourages. Never once. Any fool can use humor to be cruel and self-justifying, which is the only way I have ever seen him use it. And that sort of humor never brings a smile to my face.

  98. Thank you for the kind remarks about my post. I am certainly not the only person who challenges Doug Wilson’s view of Moscow as his own fiefdom. I have many friends who are far more eloquent than I am. However, I do feel obliged to say we are lonely voices in the wilderness. Not one priest or minister will utter a public word against Doug even though they are trained to recognize the danger signs and damaging effects of cults. Many citizens minimize his impact on city zoning laws, ignore his toxic theology, or, are so flattered by a bottle of wine and a dinner invitation that they view him as a community asset. He has a large enough congregation to deliver the necessary votes (and yes, he tells them how to vote from the pulpit) to have a significant impact on local elections. He is quite skilled in superficial social relationships.

    Many people have good reason to fear him. Kirk social life does not include those outside the church. Leaving Christ Church is a painful process which includes shunning. The people who are able to leave often move away – staying in Moscow is not an option. There is a miasma of mean-spirited bitterness that hangs over the Kirk like a thunder cloud which emphasizes their election and our damnation.

    I am retired from the University of Idaho, and enjoy a life that includes a lot of wildlife watching (I leave seven miles east of Moscow in a tiny little valley). Consequently, I am beyond Doug’s malevolent reach and happily assume the role of cranky old lady speaking truth to power with little personal risk. That doesn’t make me any kind of hero. I am a Quaker. I am plain not fancy.

    While there are survivalists folks in the county and certainly further north they are not necessarily associated with Doug Wilson. He does have at least one church member who publicly espouses those sentiments but the fellow has never held a position of authority in the church. There is an outfit about fifty miles north of Moscow who are trying to start a very odd intentional, independent community. I would strongly advise great care in investing any money in the pipe dream, called The Citadel.

    Reading the Wartburg Watch, is for me, like going to Meeting. And now, I must skedaddle. The length and focus of this posting is beginning to feel way too self-centered. Blessings to all of you.

  99. @ brad/futuristguy:

    Thanks Brad! I think also that a wistful longing for the perfection & romance of a past that never was plays into it. In one of the links TWW provided in breaking the Wilson story, he (Wilson) and Torres-Manteufel were in 18th cent. garb and playing their parts with aplomb.

  100. @ Hester:
    I think his wit is wretched because it is mean, snide and self-aggrandizing. Yeah, it’s not funny. He is quick with it, though, and he relishes it.

    Clever? I don’t know, maybe now/then. It’s immature, as he is. Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain were witty; Doug Wilson is a chainsaw.

    But when compared to, say, Gary North, James Dobson, John Piper, Al Mohler…well, at least there’s something going on in Doug W. Maybe that’s it. We have such dowdy dimly-lit leaders that when someone comes along who enjoys playing around, it can seem like brilliance. lol

  101. @ Hester:
    It’s not that he is witty so much as that it’s the only intellectual endeavor he values. I think it’s his best feature, not because he doesn’t have a good mind, but because he doesn’t care about using his intellect with integrity. And snarkiness is better suited to power-hunger, which drives him. I don’t know if that makes any sense at all.

    I have been interested in Doug Wilson because he reminds me of my abusive pastor-father.

  102. Patrice wrote:

    I don’t think that Doug cares all that much about logical consistency. He can follow ideas through, but drops them when he gets bored. Because of that, he schmoozes things he’s said before and sometimes contradicts himself. When it’s pointed out, he either ignores it or perhaps adds another trailer of explanation while pouring on the scorn.

    He’s intelligent and quick and has an excellent memory, but he’s not original. Yes, when he bothers to do the work, he falls into the memes of Western philosophy because he is also sloppy. But that doesn’t bother him (unless he’s caught at it) because he much prefers wit to wisdom.

    IMO, Doug’s only constancy lies in his love of power.

    Some thoughts. Yes, I can see what you’re saying about the logic consistency/boredom drop-out thing. With the idea of logic, I was thinking more about the supposed nature of education at his school and how it’s that “classical” way of thinking yadda-yadda.

    Also, I’ve experienced this underlying appeal in theologically conservative teachings that so liberally use “biblical” as an adjective that they’re trying to capture The Ultimately Biblical System of Truth, which has it’s own internally consistent logic system. (Sorry I didn’t explain that very well earlier.) And then that links right on into the enlightenment idea that if you can “perfectly” capture the nature of something in your language describing it, you have achieved the ultimate philosophy. (For instance, see the description on Amazon for *The Search for the Perfect Language* by Umberto Eco.)

    And I think you’re right about the quick thinking and such like. And I really resonate with the last part, which is what I and many in friend network back in the day of the 1970s-1980s were seeing and/or experiencing from him. Mr. Wilson has been the bearer of bad news for lo these 40 years now.

  103. Patrice wrote:

    It’s not that he is witty so much as that it’s the only intellectual endeavor he values. I think it’s his best feature, not because he doesn’t have a good mind, but because he doesn’t care about using his intellect with integrity. And snarkiness is better suited to power-hunger, which drives him. I don’t know if that makes any sense at all.

    Oh, yeah, that makes total sense, Patrice. The roots in *sarcasm* could literally be translated as “rip flesh.” And since Doug Wilson does seem to enjoy ripping into people’s soul, it fits. There is a particular charisma to it all that draws in some people who seem to find that form of humor awesome instead of gruesome — as you said, it’s more a chainsaw than not.

    And that issue of charisma seems important. In spending much time over the past 7 years analyzing and writing about my experiences in spiritually abusive churches, I keep finding that the malignant leaders inevitably do have some kind of charm or charisma, regardless of whether their usual operating system turns out to be control by compliance/legalism, or control by chaos. Don’t all victimizers have some kind of bait that they use to hook their victims?

  104. This is off topic but you know, I’m really really tired of this stuff.

    Why is it, folks, that having the proper anti-gay beliefs is the most important “Gospel” marker out there? It’s not following Jesus or loving God and loving your neighbor, rather, it’s having the proper kind of hate for fellow human beings who happen not to be heterosexual. I noticed today that the frontman of Jars of Clay, Dan Haseltine, is being kicked out of Christianity “farewell Rob Bell” style by some because he came out in favor of gay marriage.

    Seriously, it appears the major marker of evangelical Christianity today in America is that one has to hate GLBT persons. Yuck. *shakes head*

  105. Oh yeah, they get nowhere without charisma. Wilson’s charisma carries a threat of violence which is titillating for many people, I think. And it physically cows others who fall into orbit. All those war metaphors mean something around Wilson. And his emphasis on classics gives a sophisticated sheen which is hugely attractive, esp within an evangelicalism that has long been anti-intellectual.

    I wrote Hester that Doug interests me because he is like my father was. My father was quieter than Doug, not really that interested in fame, but he had a similar roving mind and sadism that caused the parsonage to be like what Rosemary writes: “Many people have good reason to fear him….There is a miasma of mean-spirited bitterness that hangs over the Kirk like a thunder cloud which emphasizes their election and our damnation.”

    My father loved classical literature and classical music played all day long. We celebrated Mozart’s bday every year lol He also loved being horrid. He modified his abuse to suit the personalities of each of his five children, and he went about it methodically. Doug is like this. He enjoys making people feel like crap. It’s a preoccupation.

    So this is a rare type of malignant leader.

  106. Hester wrote:

    @ Patrice:

    he much prefers wit to wisdom

    I know I’ve said this here before, but am I the only one who doesn’t think Doug Wilson is funny at all?

    I’ve said the same about Jerry Seinfeld:
    “He’s supposed to be funny?”

  107. Patrice wrote:

    Oh yeah, they get nowhere without charisma. Wilson’s charisma carries a threat of violence which is titillating for many people, I think. And it physically cows others who fall into orbit. All those war metaphors mean something around Wilson. And his emphasis on classics gives a sophisticated sheen which is hugely attractive, esp within an evangelicalism that has long been anti-intellectual.
    I wrote Hester that Doug interests me because he is like my father was. My father was quieter than Doug, not really that interested in fame, but he had a similar roving mind and sadism that caused the parsonage to be like what Rosemary writes: “Many people have good reason to fear him….There is a miasma of mean-spirited bitterness that hangs over the Kirk like a thunder cloud which emphasizes their election and our damnation.”
    My father loved classical literature and classical music played all day long. We celebrated Mozart’s bday every year lol He also loved being horrid. He modified his abuse to suit the personalities of each of his five children, and he went about it methodically. Doug is like this. He enjoys making people feel like crap. It’s a preoccupation.
    So this is a rare type of malignant leader.

    Indeed.

    I am so sorry about your father. You sound as though you have somehow been able to process those years of sadistic and methodical abuse with amazing wisdom and strength.

  108. Patrice wrote:

    And his emphasis on classics gives a sophisticated sheen which is hugely attractive, esp within an evangelicalism that has long been anti-intellectual.

    Patrice and brad, I believe you’ve both hit on a central part of the appeal of Doug Wilson. In some ways his whole “scene” was really the antithesis to the empty, saccharine aesthetic of evangelicalism. It seemed, on the surface, to be intellectually robust.

    I recall being particularly interested, myself, in the early 00s when he was putting together a reformed literary journal. At the time, I thought that was a very unique thing to do in the midst of what (for me) was an evangelical cultural/artistic landscape devoid of much substance. It was VERY attractive.

    Patrice wrote:

    But when compared to, say, Gary North, James Dobson, John Piper, Al Mohler…well, at least there’s something going on in Doug W. Maybe that’s it. We have such dowdy dimly-lit leaders that when someone comes along who enjoys playing around, it can seem like brilliance. lol

    Thank the Lord my eyes were opened and I was deeply discomfited by what Rosemary describes perfectly as “miasma of mean-spirited bitterness that hangs over the Kirk like a thunder cloud which emphasizes their election and our damnation.”

    As pcapastor said, Wilson uses his “wit” (and yes, one can debate if thats what it is) to be searingly MEAN. And its not funny, not one bit.

  109. I’ll follow up the above with a quote from the blog of Michael Metzler, formerly of Wilson’s “kirk” and famously referred to by Wilson as a “sucking chest wound.” 🙁

    “Wilson isn’t laboring for an academic tradition, or the glory of God, or love, or out of empathy for his fellow man. Wilson, rather, studied H.L. Menken early in life so that he could get this write-up published in Slate magazine much later.

    Wilson has a plan, he lusts incessantly for attention and control, and, I have come to fully believe after years of painful experiment and research, he has the full capacity to rape and maim any sentient organism that might get in his way.

    This is true, at least, so long as the world would allow him keep his pulpit and halo. In other words, he plans to do nothing he cannot get away with. And, thankfully, the backlash to Wilson has been vehement and loud and sustained enough, particularly from his close neighbors in his small town who actually know enough about him, to all but neuter this old bull.

    But becoming evangelicalism’s new apologist does not change the kinds of biological vestiges our priestly and bloody ancestors have bequeathed to this valiant defender of God’s rule and crown. Wilson could care less whether or not he added anything to the apologetic arsenal for Christians that out live him; he – or at least an important part of his unconscious mind – would burn the entire thing to the ground for some more camera clicks, some more glory, and some higher seats for the males that have sprung from his loins or married within the clan.

    Wilson is some form of sociopath, for sure, but he does at least feel strongly and intensely over the moral virtues of loyalty (to him) and the power and wealth he is able to hand to his covenantal, biological, direct decedents.”

  110. @ Patrice & Brad:

    But when compared to, say, Gary North, James Dobson, John Piper, Al Mohler…well, at least there’s something going on in Doug W. Maybe that’s it.

    Well, if the standard is John Piper, I suppose Wilson is funny. I hate reading Piper too because I always feel like everything he’s written is so long-winded and flowery it could be cut by about 2/3.

    The roots in *sarcasm* could literally be translated as “rip flesh.” And since Doug Wilson does seem to enjoy ripping into people’s soul, it fits. There is a particular charisma to it all that draws in some people who seem to find that form of humor awesome instead of gruesome — as you said, it’s more a chainsaw than not.

    Even sarcasm can be funny if it’s used properly (and probably sparingly). And yes, Wilson does use it in a mean way. But I don’t think that’s what doesn’t “click” in my head with him. I always feel like Wilson intends for his audience to be laughing somewhere in each article he writes and I just don’t see how – even when he intends the piece to be humorous outright. What sticks in my memory was an article about the feminization of church music, in which he made a joke about all worship songs being required to modulate to C minor (or something like that). To this day I can’t figure what he meant, let alone why it was funny. And there’s something like that in every single Wilson piece I’ve ever read. Which is why I’m also bemused when people go on about his wonderful writing/communication skills. If I were a teacher and I got one of his posts on my desk, it would be handed back with this on at least one paragraph. If clarity is central to writing, how good of a communicator (let alone a comedian) can you be when people can’t even understand why your jokes are funny? Or even what you’re talking about?

    In other words, I think Wilson cracks himself up. But something either gets lost in translation, or he really is just delusional about funny he is(n’t).

    I know this is hard to explain. I love laughing and enjoy comedians, satirists, people who play with words (ala Lemony Snicket), etc., but Wilson’s just…not funny. He’s confusing. And that’s before we even get to the meanness and arrogance.

    Please forgive me if I’m making no sense. 🙂

  111. @ LawProf:

    Back to the basics for a minute. People (that would be our species) do not survive well in isolation. Historically it took a hunting party, not just one person, to venture from the cave / village / small nomadic group and deal with finding food / killing the enemy / finding sexual partners. As far as we know humanity has “always” grouped together for survival.

    Groups need leadership. Humans choose what they perceive to be “strong” leadership, be that smart or ruthless or successful or handsome or whatever. That looks to me like a good biological adaptive mechanism. Why would we not do that? This descriptive terminology also describes the people with whom females selectively breed, given the opportunity. Makes perfect sense biologically.

    So we have here a civilization / culture which has drastically changed and which is rapidly continuing to change, and we see large groups of people gathering around what they perceive to be strong people. IMO this urge appears to be a huge driving force in humans. It does not matter if the “strong” leader is “right” so much as that he appears to be strong. It does not matter if the leader’s philosophy leads to the destruction, enslavement or damnation of the “weak” because only the strong survive / only the chosen get to heaven / only those in the group get the food and water and sexual opportunities.

    I think that trying to argue intellectual points is interesting, but that is not really what this is about. This is about the widespread perception that there is impending chaos and destruction and people want themselves / their people / their group / their religion / their way of life to be what survives. You can tell them all day long “love your neighbor as yourself” but they perceive their neighbor to be a threat. You can tell them all day long that “God is love” but if they do not see Jesus as a coming warrior and conqueror they will not follow him.

    So here goes: I think that there is a good chance that things will indeed get “worse” (more primitive) and there will be at least some level of drastic changes (chaos?) in our civilization, and some of that will be self-imposed. If any of “the news” is to be believed, then there is weaponry out there in the hands of people who hate us that could cause real havoc and destruction. We are, they say, rapidly progressing toward the post-antibiotic era and all sorts of pandemics are possible from rapidly evolving pathogens. And “Johnny” not only cannot read, he cannot think either. And we are politically and religiously divided and becoming more so right when we need to pull together. I can understand why people are afraid and why they flock to somebody and anybody who presents themselves as having some answers. “Follow me, I have the answers” still grabs at the core of humans, be it from good or evil.

  112. As a postscript to the above, I will just add that this is why I’m afraid to write comedy. Every writer I’ve ever read says it’s the hardest thing to write and I don’t feel I’m good enough (yet?) to try my hand at it. Does Wilson realize that professional writers agree comedy is hard to pull off? Does he even care? Or does he think like this?

  113. @ Rosemary Huskey:

    I have enjoyed reading your insights! Any time you would like to write a guest post, please let us know! 🙂

    Never thought of the discussion here at TWW as a Quaker meeting (in a virtual sense 😉 ), but you’ve definitely got a point. No one is lording it over anybody – we are all on equal footing, as I would imagine happens in a Quaker meeting.

  114. @ Rafiki:
    Yeah, Metzler’s writings helped me understand why I fell into flashbacks when listening/reading Wilson, and felt a bizarre fascination. I am tres grateful to him. (Plus he’s also a good writer. Something in Idaho water?)

    IMO, Wilson’s “sucking chest wound”, meant as insult, was a Freudian slip. He took a look at the core of the man and found a nasty shriveled heart. w00t

    From your Metzler quote: “Wilson is some form of sociopath, for sure, but he does at least feel strongly and intensely over the moral virtues of loyalty (to him) and the power and wealth he is able to hand to his covenantal, biological, direct decedents.”

    These are not exceptional qualities for a sociopath. He often will be good to those who are loyal to him (as long as they are) since they reflect his glory back to him.

    My father also supported his only biological son (two other sons were adopted, two were daughters). In his mind, his son was him. (This bro is as messed-up as the rest of us sibs, but in a way that sometimes happens with children of famous pastors.)

    Sociopaths should be put away from society. They are destroyers for the length of their lives. Societies need to take responsibility for them. The majority of terrible things that have happened throughout human history have been instigated by such.

    One of the rotten things about them is how they diminish the ethical soundness of the communities they are in. The Golden Rule is slowly trashed as fear and lawlessness creep in. Weird class divisions arise, based only on what the sociopath values: some become held in high regard and others treated with contempt for no reason of their own, except perhaps money (but not always).

    Ah, well, I’ll shut up now. I read into ponerology for a while, but it’s not a healthy pursuit for someone with my history, so I quit.

  115. @ Hester:
    You make complete sense. You have integrity. You use your intelligence to build people up (not to manipulate) because you have an honest and sturdy heart to go with it.

    Wilson loves inside jokes—his own group knows the context and he makes those jokes for them. It further binds them together and for those on the outside who want in, it’s a potent attractor. It’s all very high school that way.

    Wilson’s snark is a corruption of humor like kitsch is a corruption of visual art.

    “I think Wilson cracks himself up.” Exactly. And that’s all that matters because he is all that matters.

  116. Hester wrote:

    @ Patrice:
    he much prefers wit to wisdom
    I know I’ve said this here before, but am I the only one who doesn’t think Doug Wilson is funny at all? Everyone talks about what a quick wit he has, but I swear whenever I read his stuff, not only is it not funny or clever…

    I agree, having read a bit of his writing I’d be more inclined to call him a fraud, a blustering scam artist, a pseudo-wit, neither an intellectual nor theological powerhouse. For some reason people like to heap backhanded praise upon their enemies in this culture: “I may disagree with X, he may be quite dangerous, but he’s quite a [fill in praise here].” I think the archetype of the Evil genius is at work here, people just like to fit enemies into that narrative, even when it’s square peg-round hole.

  117. “…maybe he can run for Idaho Gocernor…”!!!??? I take offense, having lived in Boise for 10 years. I have NEVER met anyone here with such reprehensible views!! There may be some whack jobs in Moscow, but please refrain from hateful stereotyping. The vast majority of Idahoans are not Ruby Ridge militia nuts (can you say, Waco? That’s not in ID) or sickening authoritarian patriarchs protecting child monsters(can you say, Fundamental LDS Church, also NOT of Idaho!) b>@ Eagle:

  118. Hester wrote:

    Which is why I’m also bemused when people go on about his wonderful writing/communication skills. If I were a teacher and I got one of his posts on my desk, it would be handed back with this [linked pic of WT% stamp] on at least one paragraph. If clarity is central to writing, how good of a communicator (let alone a comedian) can you be when people can’t even understand why your jokes are funny? Or even what you’re talking about?

    I completely agree with you, Hester. The first requirement of a Christian preacher is the ability to communicate, but Wilson is primarily concerned with signaling what a smart, witty guy he thinks he is. Wilson seems to think his convoluted sentence structure equals Chestertonian wordplay, and his snottiness equals Mencken's searing wit. Personally, I've always found Chesterton's verbal party tricks overrated, and I suspect his fanboys don't understand some of his famous paradoxes any better than I do. However, his passion for the faith does come through. Wilson is just another pretentious goofball who confuses wordiness with profundity. Like Driscoll and his clumsy Neuro-linguistic programming juju, language for him is just a tool to snow people.

  119. LawProf wrote:

    For some reason people like to heap backhanded praise upon their enemies in this culture: “I may disagree with X, he may be quite dangerous, but he’s quite a [fill in praise here].”

    There’s research suggesting that the sociopaths who make it up the social ladder (most don’t because they can’t keep this side of the law) are more intelligent than the average citizen. That’s why they get as far as they do with such profound flaws. Thus there is something to the “evil genius” stereotype.

    But the stereotype also fails because a person who has no heart loses intelligence. Genuine genius and wisdom require a blend of brain/heart. I think this is why “successful” sociopaths appear both ludicrous and bewildering, insisting on obviously silly ideas even while many people are held under their sway.

    They are dangerous, and part of the reason is that they have gifts, of which charisma is the greatest, as Brad/futurist guy points out. Yeah, there are always people who are secretly enchanted by the sociopath and will use back-handed praise, but it is important to clearly understand one’s enemy. IMO.

  120. Pingback: Lourdes Torres-Manteufel vs Doug Phillips Lawsuit Informational Resource Page | Spiritual Sounding Board UNITED STATES

  121. I just want to weigh in here with regard to the comments about Wilson being an ‘intellectual’.

    Judging by the two books of his that I’ve read, I can’t agree.

    One of them ranked among the worst-written, worst-researched books I’ve had the misfortune to read. It was called ‘Angels in the Architecture’ and was supposed to be about how the Church today has a lot to learn from medievalism. I don’t disagree with the premise, and thought it might be interesting. It was abysmal. At university I studied medieval history for three years, and I was able to see immediately that Wilson’s arguments were pure poppycock: they revealed a complete and utter lack of understanding of the Middle Ages. It was the most pretentious and unscholarly load of drivel I’ve ever come across.

    If Wilson is the ‘intellectual’ wing of evangelicalism, I despair.

    (Try N.T. Wright instead).

  122. Oh, the other book I read was one of his marriage books, which was – to my mind – theologically unsound. It was so patriarchal it put the entire burden and responsibility of the wife’s faith onto her husband. Again, infantilising women.

  123. Patrice wrote:

    “I think Wilson cracks himself up.” Exactly. And that’s all that matters because he is all that matters.

    I’ve run into that with various fanboys. The guy who is so Witty and Clever and Funny — to himself and nobody else. Usually means guy is so wrapped up in Himself (and his obsession) that his Cosmos has room for nothing else.

    “See How Clever I Am! See? See? See?”

  124. Rafiki wrote:

    Wilson could care less whether or not he added anything to the apologetic arsenal for Christians that out live him; he – or at least an important part of his unconscious mind – would burn the entire thing to the ground for some more camera clicks, some more glory, and some higher seats for the males that have sprung from his loins or married within the clan.

    Sounds like Littlefinger (the Pimp) from Game of Thrones.

    “He would burn the whole world if it meant He could be King over the ashes.”

  125. Patrice wrote:

    But when compared to, say, Gary North, James Dobson, John Piper, Al Mohler…well, at least there’s something going on in Doug W. Maybe that’s it. We have such dowdy dimly-lit leaders that when someone comes along who enjoys playing around, it can seem like brilliance. lol

    “In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is King.”

  126.   __

    “A FailureTo Disassociate?”

    hmmm…

      Unreasonable closeness to a member of the opposite sex (who is not family) after a certain amount of time can come in conflict with certain sensibilities, business or otherwise. This we understand. In Christian ministry, it is not “if”, but “when”…

    Mr. Phillips knew this.

    (Seminary 101)

    Safeguards?

    hmmm…

    “How the mighty are fallen…”

    Sopy

  127. May wrote:

    I just want to weigh in here with regard to the comments about Wilson being an ‘intellectual’.
    Judging by the two books of his that I’ve read, I can’t agree.
    One of them ranked among the worst-written, worst-researched books I’ve had the misfortune to read. It was called ‘Angels in the Architecture’ and was supposed to be about how the Church today has a lot to learn from medievalism. I don’t disagree with the premise, and thought it might be interesting. It was abysmal. At university I studied medieval history for three years, and I was able to see immediately that Wilson’s arguments were pure poppycock: they revealed a complete and utter lack of understanding of the Middle Ages. It was the most pretentious and unscholarly load of drivel I’ve ever come across.
    If Wilson is the ‘intellectual’ wing of evangelicalism, I despair.
    (Try N.T. Wright instead).

    Exactly. He DOES represent the intellectual wing of evangelicalism. But I would say, do not despair over American evangelicalism, it died decades ago (if it was ever alive in the first place). The evangel itself, of course, will never die — it lives on in the only place it has ever lived and will ever live — the hearts of the poor in spirit.

    Meanwhile, anyone who looks to/commends the thinking of Doug Wilson (i.e. Justin Taylor and The Gospel Coalition, Christianity Today, Ligonier Ministries, etc.) is part of a long-dead movement.

  128. Rafiki wrote:

    I’ll follow up the above with a quote from the blog of Michael Metzler, formerly of Wilson’s “kirk” and famously referred to by Wilson as a “sucking chest wound.”
    “Wilson isn’t laboring for an academic tradition, or the glory of God, or love, or out of empathy for his fellow man. Wilson, rather, studied H.L. Menken early in life so that he could get this write-up published in Slate magazine much later.
    Wilson has a plan, he lusts incessantly for attention and control, and, I have come to fully believe after years of painful experiment and research, he has the full capacity to rape and maim any sentient organism that might get in his way.
    This is true, at least, so long as the world would allow him keep his pulpit and halo. In other words, he plans to do nothing he cannot get away with. And, thankfully, the backlash to Wilson has been vehement and loud and sustained enough, particularly from his close neighbors in his small town who actually know enough about him, to all but neuter this old bull.
    But becoming evangelicalism’s new apologist does not change the kinds of biological vestiges our priestly and bloody ancestors have bequeathed to this valiant defender of God’s rule and crown. Wilson could care less whether or not he added anything to the apologetic arsenal for Christians that out live him; he – or at least an important part of his unconscious mind – would burn the entire thing to the ground for some more camera clicks, some more glory, and some higher seats for the males that have sprung from his loins or married within the clan.
    Wilson is some form of sociopath, for sure, but he does at least feel strongly and intensely over the moral virtues of loyalty (to him) and the power and wealth he is able to hand to his covenantal, biological, direct decedents.”

    Anyone and everyone interested in a documented, ground-level, first person, insider account of the Doug Wilson cult, PLEASE email Michael Metzler directly (he gives his email address on his blog: michael.p.metzler@gmail.com), and ask him for his 100+ page story. He will gladly email it to you, as he says here:

    http://www.poohsthink.com/to-surf-or-to-blog/

    While there are many aspects of Wilson’s sickening and destructive rule Metzler does not have personal knowledge of (Wilson has been at it a long time, and Metzler moved away from Moscow a few years ago), those aspects he reports on as an eyewitness are sickening. Wilson was violently triumphant in isolating and ostracizing Metzler in Moscow, but TWW represents something of the larger world of normal human beings, and for Michael to be known here might be greatly encouraging to him.

  129. Patrice wrote:

    LawProf wrote:
    For some reason people like to heap backhanded praise upon their enemies in this culture: “I may disagree with X, he may be quite dangerous, but he’s quite a [fill in praise here].”
    There’s research suggesting that the sociopaths who make it up the social ladder (most don’t because they can’t keep this side of the law) are more intelligent than the average citizen. That’s why they get as far as they do with such profound flaws. Thus there is something to the “evil genius” stereotype.
    But the stereotype also fails because a person who has no heart loses intelligence. Genuine genius and wisdom require a blend of brain/heart. I think this is why “successful” sociopaths appear both ludicrous and bewildering, insisting on obviously silly ideas even while many people are held under their sway.
    They are dangerous, and part of the reason is that they have gifts, of which charisma is the greatest, as Brad/futurist guy points out. Yeah, there are always people who are secretly enchanted by the sociopath and will use back-handed praise, but it is important to clearly understand one’s enemy. IMO.

    Perhaps sociopaths are statistically more intelligent than average, but that sure doesn’t necessarily mean “genius” or anything close. I work around people who would qualify for Mensa, I teach some, I married one, and the people I run with (not including myself in that category) could out-write, out-debate, and think spinning circles round Doug Wilson. He would be laughed right out of the room at a legitimate academic conference.

  130. @ May:
    Yeah, being intellectual, having academic rigor/integrity, is quite different than simple academic ability. One is a proven position, the other is what one comes in with. Thus the difference between NT Wright and Wilson, a chasm apart.

    Wilson just doesn’t care—that’s what we need to remember. His intelligence is a tool to be used in his power-games, and by doing so, he trashes it, and that shows in his books.

    I suspect the same for Mohler, although his gifts are not academic but political. ISTM that Piper cares, but has little ability. It’s likely that Piper respects Wilson because he is awed by his raw capabilities and soothed by the “right wording”, whereas much of what is actually being said (via subterfuge) goes over his head.

    My opinion only, outsider looking in.

    We do have NT Wright, among a few others, so all is not lost. We’re at a nasty low but US Christianity is still here and it’ll pop up/out again. Pcapastor has it right, many standing in for Christianity at the moment have nothing to do with it. And how lovely that it’s a pca pastor saying so—he is part of the real thing.

    My daughter is marrying tomorrow! I must get to the church and help. Thanks for listening to me yaw on.

  131. Nancy wrote:

    This is about the widespread perception that there is impending chaos and destruction and people want themselves / their people / their group / their religion / their way of life to be what survives. You can tell them all day long “love your neighbor as yourself” but they perceive their neighbor to be a threat. You can tell them all day long that “God is love” but if they do not see Jesus as a coming warrior and conqueror they will not follow him.

    That explains Rapture Culture, from Hal Lindsay to Hagee and his Four Blood Moons.

    And TurboJesus second-coming as a raging psychopath to DESTROY DESTROY DESTROY everything except His Speshul Pets. (Better get on The Winning Side!)

    And once you’ve been catechized with Jesus-as-psychopath (and He’s Coming SOON!!!!), you can never completely shed that image.

  132. Hester wrote:

    In other words, I think Wilson cracks himself up. But something either gets lost in translation, or he really is just delusional about funny he is(n’t).

    Anyone remember Cee Jay and his “chuckle chuckle” at everything he himself says?

  133. Cindy K wrote:

    But he’s an arrogant fool.

    Yes he is arrogant. No he isn’t a fool. Name-calling may be helpful for one’s spleen but simply serves to delegitimize the important arguments taking place here.

    Those who need to be convinced of the evil in much of Wilson’s worldview are the ones in thrall to his “intelligence”. Calling Wilson names only hardens their support for him.

    And I’ve been every bit as guilty of venting my spleen on the interwebs as most anyone here. 🙂 But this is too important a conversation to have it become lost in a sea of name-calling. Yes?

  134. @ LawProf:
    Ok, one last thing. Yeah, it doesn’t mean genius—I was just referring to the “evil genius” stereotype.

    There are very few geniuses but many good very smart people, the salt of the intellectual earth, really, who I immensely respect. They make me feel better about my humanity, which Wilson doesn’t.

  135. The charisma, that’s another matter. Fundamentally flawed people can possess charisma of a sort, yet lack fundamental reasoning skills and discernment–and mislead many. Naturally the people they mislead are also lack fundamental reasoning skills and discernment. Wilson and Driscoll can pack a room, they are indeed charismatic within a narrow subculture, but the type of people they attract are the exceptions that prove the rule. These are not charismatic people in the larger sense, they are people that the culture at large and most Christians consider repulsive and uncharismatic.

  136. I think part of the dynamic of what drew/draws people to Doug Wilson is the *appearance* of erudition.

    When so much of theological conservatism/fundamentalism/evangelicalism was anti-intellectual in the 1970s and ’80s, if you came from that background but happened to resonate with the idea that the Bible had something important to say to every academic discipline and life domain, then pseudo-intellectual would seem like The Real Deal in the absence of any other real reference to the contrary.

    And if we look at Christian publishing in that era, many books on Christian worldview and academic perspectives were being released. And the Wilson family had significant influence in Pullman, WA, and Moscow, ID, through the Christian bookstores in both towns (the Pullman store located just at the edge of the university campus), Community Christian Ministries — a sort of ecumenical-evangelical parachurch organization, involvement in a number of local churches and other ministries, concerts, etc. etc. etc. But what looked holistic turns out to have lots and lots of holes.

    And then the Christian Right movements got rolling, and that fueled additional explorations of Christianity and politics, law, society, etc., which brought in more interest/credibility to the dominion theology and theonomy approaches.

    So, as I think about all this in the context of the times, not a big surprise that some bluster bloke like Doug could capture hearts and minds that were primed for The Real Deal but settled for a charismatic knock-off. “The appearance of godliness, but … “

  137. @ Sopwith:

    Sopy! Good to see you today. 🙂

    pcapastor wrote:

    But I would say, do not despair over American evangelicalism, it died decades ago (if it was ever alive in the first place). The evangel itself, of course, will never die — it lives on in the only place it has ever lived and will ever live — the hearts of the poor in spirit.

    pcapastor – thanks for this encouragement.

    Hester, what people think is comedy has always been so interesting to me. And I think writing comedy is one of the hardest things ever. I always loved the writer Jack Handey, of “Deep Thoughts” fame from SNL, and last year I was forwarded this fantastic NYT piece on him, “Jack Handey Is the Envy of Every Comedy Writer in America”:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/magazine/jack-handey-is-the-envy-of-every-comedy-writer-in-america.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

    From the article:

    This idea — the notion of real jokes and the existence of pure comedy — came up again and again when I asked other writers about Handey. It seemed as if to them Handey is not just writing jokes but trying to achieve some kind of Platonic ideal of the joke form.”

    “There is purity to his comedy,” Semple said. “His references are all grandmas and Martians and cowboys. It’s so completely free from topical references and pop culture that I feel like everyone who’s gonna make a Honey Boo Boo joke should do some penance and read Jack Handey.”

    “For a lot of us, he was our favorite writer, and the one we were most in awe of,” said James Downey, who wrote for “S.N.L.” “When I was head writer there, my policy was just to let him do his thing and to make sure that nothing got in the way of him creating.”

  138. C.S. Lewis, with three firsts from Oxford, then a fellowship at Oxford, finally a full professorship at Cambridge, and with that great body of literary, theological and scholarly work, was a scholar and a wit. I think it’s sad that the state of American evangelicalism has so fallen that anyone would consider DW either a scholar or a wit. Some of the best of the arts, philosophy literature, music, science used to be focused on Christianity or by Christians. And now, we have to say of music, art, literature, philosophy: “Well, you know, give em a break, it’s only Christian.”

  139. LawProf wrote:

    Wilson and Driscoll can pack a room, they are indeed charismatic within a narrow subculture, but the type of people they attract are the exceptions that prove the rule. These are not charismatic people in the larger sense, they are people that the culture at large and most Christians consider repulsive and uncharismatic.

    (My daughter is late so I have a little more time to blather on.) Yes, charisma is too limited to be universally appealing because it is limited by the individual carrying it. People have different interests and temptations. I find it interesting to consider the various charismas out there, what will take in one person and not another.

    And why is charisms so important to humans, these odd attractions that show up as shallow under examination?

  140. Patrice wrote:

    And why is charisms so important to humans, these odd attractions that show up as shallow under examination?

    I think in the case of charismatic evil (gotta make that clear, because of course charisma in itself is not evil) a lot of it has to do with effectively defining “the Other” and personalizing the threat of “the Other” to individuals very very effectively.

  141. @ brad/futuristguy:
    @ LawProf:
    That’s interesting, brad, thanks. I missed recent history because I fled the church for several decades. Left when Schaeffer was still in ascendance.

    I agree, LawProf. The quality of intellectual activity and art inside US evangelicalism is the bottom. It’s sad. And enraging.

    I suppose it’s to be expected when a group separates itself from the larger world, believing that “out there” is sin and “in here” is safe, assuming that they only have the truth (and the whole truth, too) and anything they don’t know doesn’t really exist except as sin. Eventually it creates a pervasive suspicion, even to the earth itself. A slow strangling of curiosity and imagination. Loss of discernment, too, allowing Wilson et al to bamboozle.

    And when US Evangelicalism got a mission-virus commonly known as “culture wars”, they made awful choices, not having the necessary information, and not having learned the basics of logic (much less practiced it as a skill).

    All the universe is God’s, and everything in it. How I wish we would again understand that so that we could at least set our children free.

  142. @ Rafiki:
    So would you say that most destructive charisma is based in both fear and superiority (flip sides of each other)?

    “If I am better than x, I am ok.” Maybe it appeals to the competitive side of humans, which can result in class structures of all sorts?

  143. Something else about this which I thought about yesterday but edited it out of my initial comments, and that’s the appeal of following “a controversialist.” Some shifts took place in the apologetics that emerged out of those movements in the 1970s-80s toward full Christian worldview and veering off toward dominion theology. One stream was more irenic, Socratic, listening, and relationally engaged … more along the lines of L’Abri. Another stream was more aggressive, agenda-setting, loud, and politically engaged.

    And in light of the increasing marginalization of Christians (especially by those nasty naughty secular humanists!), there was a thirst (especially among younger Christians) to see wins over that nasty naughty enemy!

    Hence, a fallow field ready for replowing and planting by provocateurs and controversialists — like Doug Wilson.

    The problem is, it is very very difficult to separate the raising of controversies in order to do apologetics in the public square, from being just plain contentious. And those who are contentious often seem to be unable to separate that from spewing contempt. And not just the appearance of contempt, but the substance: labeling, name-calling, sharp and over-the-top sarcasm designed to dehumanize, and other forms of minimization and marginalization.

    So, if you have a not-so-discerning follower who strongly believes in apologetics and public engagement of Christianity, they likely can’t tell the differences among legitimate controversy that can be calmly discussed, contentiousness that must debate and dehumanizes, and contempt that curses and dehumanizes.

    I didn’t learn this from watching the antics of Doug Wilson. I learned it when I was part of a pioneering network for Christian ministries to those infected or affected by HIV/AIDS, from 1987 to 1997. There was one particular speaker who constantly got invited to write articles, speak at forums and conferences. Havoc and mayhem *inevitably* followed her. She had quirky ideas about the source and spread of HIV, and what the medical and ministry communities should do about it. Q&A sessions got heated. Her presence brought out the worst in people, in part because her own language was insulting and inflammatory – it was apparently purposeful on her part to give off more heat than light.

    She was invited to a particular professional meeting I planned to go to, and I wrote that group’s board and asked them to consider cancelling her presentation because she was so “controversial” in our community. In retrospect, I realized I used the wrong word. She was “contentious” and “contemptuous.” Where she went, it divided groups, it split people from one another. She was divisive, not into dialog. Oh well, live and learn.

    Anyway, the board thanked me for my input, but thought her input “would be important,” so her session went on as planned. And, as predicted, all attention went to her. The “discussion” decibel level went up, and up, and up in the question-answer session. Finally, she was practically yelling about that crazy dentist Dr. Acer in Florida who’d infected some of his patients and blah-bluh-blah this and BLAH-BLUH-BLAH THAT … and …

    … and suddenly, up stood Lisa Shoemaker. With both her voice and her body shaking, she called out the controversial speaker. In a quiet but agitated voice, she stated something like this: “I am one of those patients of that dentist, and you’re saying all kinds of things that aren’t true about the situation and about me. You don’t know what you’re talking about.” The room went completely still and finally the speaker sort of gulped out a semi-apology using what should have been her “inside voice” all along.

    Sometimes it takes being face to face with the people who can call out the lies in order for others to see the truth — even if the teller of tales doesn’t get it himself or herself, other than knowing that they got caught.

    But then, isn’t that the truly biblical way of things, and why witnesses are important?

    Bringing it all back to the lawsuit filed by Lourdes Torres-Manteufel, assuming the timeline put together with the help of insiders is accurate, Doug Phillips was FIRST confronted about the appearance of improprieties with the then Ms. Torres in 2008, a full five years before he confessed to an improper relationship. (I’m fairly certain that, to date, he’s never said the word “adultery” in relation to this.) It goes to show, some people can often perceive the truth before full evidence is manifested.

    http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/03/29/attempting-to-set-the-doug-phillips-record-straight-part-3-the-timeline/

    My prayer for those under the sway of Doug Wilson is that the Holy Spirit does something to shake them up to see that contempt dehumanizes and is sin, contentiousness divides and is sin, and they need to find other role models who manifest the peace of Christ and the grace of God instead of the idolatry of this substitute.

  144. @ Patrice:

    Yes, Patrice, I really do believe this is the heart of the matter. And as we know, the heart of the Gospel, as Christ radically tore down identities based on tribe, class, gender, etc. Underscore radically.

  145. Hitler was also a very charismatic speaker. It’s a sad commentary on the human race that so many people will buy into so much that is cruel, even evil, based on its delivery.

  146. Mara wrote:

    I think this is the second time I’ve seen you use this word.
    Have you read “Divergent”

    Why yes, I’ve read the *Divergent* series I think three times already.

    But I knew and used the word before then … and actually, I’ve used forms of the word scotomatous before too, in writings about the problems of perception and misperception in understanding paradigms, or some yadda-yadda topic like that.

    Anyway, it’s on-topic to look at Veronica Roth’s *Divergent* series because she demonstrates the down-sides of each of the factions, not just their magnetic attractive points. And some of the key destructive features in the Erudite faction are: an amoral base where knowledge is valued regardless of how it is obtained, contempt, dehumanization, no true value on all human life (sort of people-as-experiments), etc. In the arrogant side of Erudite, they see knowledge acquisition as eventually leading to “the greater good” — a phrase I try not to use in any positive sense, since for me it will forever be associated with eugenics, the Aryan final solution, Gellert Grindelwald’s Wizarding World Revolution, and such like.

    And talk about culture wars! Wow, in Roth’s series we see in high contrast how paradigms clash. But also how alliances can form based on common ground or common good or trickery or the manipulation of leaders.

    It’s a potentially powerful storyline to demonstrate how sociopathology plays out in greater or lesser degree through a wide range of value structures, even some that seem nice and cuddly like Amity — where a stance of neutrality can be self-protective and lack conscience or compassion. And aren’t those key elements of the sociopath’s character?

  147. Patrice wrote:

    @ brad/futuristguy:
    @ LawProf:
    I suppose it’s to be expected when a group separates itself from the larger world, believing that “out there” is sin and “in here” is safe, assuming that they only have the truth (and the whole truth, too) and anything they don’t know doesn’t really exist except as sin. Eventually it creates a pervasive suspicion, even to the earth itself. A slow strangling of curiosity and imagination. Loss of discernment, too, allowing Wilson et al to bamboozle.
    And when US Evangelicalism got a mission-virus commonly known as “culture wars”, they made awful choices, not having the necessary information, and not having learned the basics of logic (much less practiced it as a skill).
    All the universe is God’s, and everything in it. How I wish we would again understand that so that we could at least set our children free.

    Dang that’s good stuff, never once thought of it, but I think that’s exactly right, the isolation leading to mediocrity, best theory I’ve yet heard. You should write a book on it.

  148. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    That explains Rapture Culture, from Hal Lindsay to Hagee and his Four Blood Moons.

    Yes, I had not thought of that, but it fits right in.

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    And once you’ve been catechized with Jesus-as-psychopath (and He’s Coming SOON!!!!), you can never completely shed that image.

    You lost me there. What are you saying?

  149. Hester wrote:

    I’m very interested in the survivalist connections in patriarchy but haven’t had time to sit down and do the legwork yet. Probably won’t until the Big Box is over.

    Wilson may not be into the survivalist stuff, but they seem to like him. Survivalblog seems to be having some server issues, so some of their info is not accessible. Here are two cached pages that you may wish to save for your later research. Rawles gushes about Wilson here:
    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/04/letter-re-another-patriots-boo.html

  150. @ Brad:

    I think part of the dynamic of what drew/draws people to Doug Wilson is the *appearance* of erudition.

    Add in his close association with the “classical education” wing of homeschooling and the image is complete.

  151. @ BTDT:

    Thanks. Not surprised Rawles is into him. Didn’t know Rawles’ doomer porn novel was set around Moscow, ID either.

  152. @ Lisa:

    I’ve read that there are some cultural divides between northern and southern ID – i.e., that the “wingnut” percentage of the population is bigger up north. Is this accurate? I’ve never been to ID so I have no way of knowing. I’ve also heard that the northern panhandle has thought about breaking off and becoming its own state a few times?

  153. brad/futuristguy wrote:

    Something else about this which I thought about yesterday but edited it out of my initial comments, and that’s the appeal of following “a controversialist.”

    Controversy sells. Marketing 101.

  154. Hester wrote:

    I’ve read that there are some cultural divides between northern and southern ID – i.e., that the “wingnut” percentage of the population is bigger up north. Is this accurate?

    Oh, that’s EASY….

    Blame Canada! It’s not even a real country anyway…

    Blame Canada – South Park: Bigger Longer & Uncut (3/9) Movie C
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA

    Blame Canada by Robin Williams @ Academy Award 2000
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjoNucs20Vw

    I’m pretty torn about which version is more funny, but I have heard the same thing about Michigan, that the cows run scared up North, especially around Sault Ste Marie, one of Michigan’s northern most cities….

    from http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sault%20ste.%20marie

    Sault Ste Marie
    Twin border cities; Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada and Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, U.S.A. These two cities of a combined hundred thousand people with the Canadian side housing 75, 000 citizens and share a common border along the St- Mary’s River wich connects Lake Superior and Lake Huron. Both c ities are mostly working class with the Algoma Steel Plant and the St Mary’s paper mill on the Canadian side, but also have three post secondary education centers in the area. Lake Superior State University in Michigan and Algoma University and Sault College of Applied Arts in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario. Though both cities share a natural landscape, the Canadian side has a social advantage with a younger drinking age at 19, better beer and a more leniant attitude and price for marijuana ( a quarter goes for $60- $80 Canadian).
    lets cross the river to Sault Ste Marie Canada and get some cheap weed.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=yooper

    Yooper
    Yooper is a common term for residents of the Upper Penisula of Michigan. It is derived from the initials U.P. which is pronounced you-pee. U.P. stands for Upper Peninsula, as opposed to the lower peninsula of Michigan.

    It is not a derogortory term. It is used mainly by residents of lower Michigan and Wisconsin.
    That person is a yooper from Escanaba, Michigan.

    Yoopers make fun of Trolls. Trolls are from ‘down below’, referring to lower Michigan.
    Yoopers come from above the bridge, referring to the Mackinac Bridge, which separates upper Michigan from lower Michigan.
    Yoopers have a habit of saying ‘youse guy’s’ or often putting ‘eh’ after a statement. ie; Hey,youse guys, we’re proud to be yoopers, eh?.

  155. Hester wrote:

    I’ve read that there are some cultural divides between northern and southern ID – i.e., that the “wingnut” percentage of the population is bigger up north. Is this accurate?

    Oops my lengthy post got into moderation.

    my short answer to your question is “oh, that’s EASY…..Blame Canada!” lines taken from a SouthPark movie….

  156. Nancy wrote:

    Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
    And once you’ve been catechized with Jesus-as-psychopath (and He’s Coming SOON!!!!), you can never completely shed that image.
    You lost me there. What are you saying?

    Er um not to be arrogant here, but I can easily see this analogy, having been around many many creepy psychopath pastors in my lifetime, who have incredible charisma, but are hiding screwy tendencies that could make most people cringe. I interpret this statement to mean that people who follow psychopath pastors often are not aware, it’s like the frog being boiled in water, of how much of an association they are making between a psychopath Messiah who will come and beat the living cr#p out of all the nasty heathen, and Jesus. Once that association is made, it could literally take serious brain surgery to undo it, because the person is entirely unaware that his/her entire identity is tied up in following such a psycho.

    One irony here is that when Jesus was alive, he disappointed many for not being militaristic enough. Go figure.

  157. Hester wrote:

    @ Joe:

    Not sure I understand your reply. Are you saying Torres is lying or Phillips?

    I don’t know who is lying; they both could be lying. The charges could be grossly exaggerated which would mean that Torres is lying, just like the police officer who claims you are going 45 mph in a 30 mph zone. The 45 mph is an exaggeration. But if Phillips tries to explain they are a gross exaggeration (I was only going at most 30.5 mph), he may then be inadvertently admitting guilt depending on how that Texas statute is applied.

  158. Nancy wrote:

    @ Marie2:
    Okay, I see what you are saying. Thanks for the explanation.

    Cool!

    One more thing to add to today’s gratitude list, then, that you have not had extensive experience (in my case, perhaps 30+ years, depending on how I categorize a few experiences, now that I understand this kind of pathology) with BOTH the sick pastors, and the people who continue to follow them, even in the face of very twisted, screwy tendencies….

    And commenting on my own word choice, when I re-read my post, I thought why did I use the word could instead of would, as in “most people WOULD recoil from narcissism up close” vs “most people COULD recoil from narcissism in close proximity” – if I were writing a book I would try to express that distinction better – the modals could and would are not as clear as the determiners/quantifiers most, all, some….Oh well too much analysis for a Friday…

  159. @ Joe:

    Grossly exaggerated?

    Doug Phillips is in full retreat mode. He has resigned from all of his positions of authority, he and his family have vacated the residence in which they lived, and Vision Forum is no longer in operation.

    And what was your point?

  160. Joe wrote:

    But if Phillips tries to explain they are a gross exaggeration (I was only going at most 30.5 mph), he may then be inadvertently admitting guilt depending on how that Texas statute is applied.

    Awesome analogy!!! Ty for sharing!!! When I read your posts on a different thread, I figured that perhaps people were misinterpreting what you were sharing, as being on the perp’s side.

    I see a difference between lying and not telling the full truth. I see lying as intentional, and not disclosing info, or mis remembering a few key facts as something many chronic abuse survivors do. I admire her honesty in admitting that some things were not consensual – for a freaky bio on consensual incest, anyone can read Mackenzie Phillip’s biography for bizarre descriptions of her relationship with her Dad – ok back to the point, often survivors dissociate, and have fuzzy memories, and in the presence of an authority figure, can crumble and most recall.

    But I do see your overall point Joe, or I think I do – that both sides might not be disclosing the full truth of what was going on, but it is possible that Douggie has never had his logical faculties challenged before, and might not be realizing just how much he could be hanging himself by his words…maybe that is a future career path for him, coaching perpetrators on how not to unconsciously insert logical fallacies into their statements?

  161. Marie2 wrote:

    most recall.

    ok, I just dissociated when I proofread – I forgot what I meant here, maybe something along the lines of “lose their basic recall abilities”….

    I am trying to keep my distance for most of this, having my own dissociation daily battle, and I greatly admire this woman for coming forward. Most people could not survive being interrogated under oath anyway, but an abuse survivor who likely has PTSD and tendencies to dissociate? Please….Give this woman a medal!!

  162. Marie2 wrote:

    I admire her honesty in admitting that some things were not consensual

    Correction: I admire her honesty in admitting that some things WERE consensual…Gee whiz I am freaked out by this topic…. 🙁

  163. Joe wrote:

    I don’t know who is lying; they both could be lying. The charges could be grossly exaggerated which would mean that Torres is lying, just like the police officer who claims you are going 45 mph in a 30 mph zone.

    At the risk of being nominated for B!t#h of the universe today, I just wanted to say to Joe that I think I see his point. From what I have read, proving non-consent in ALL cases of er “inappropriate romantic attention” can be difficult if someone admits to one or two instances of consent, in a legal setting.

    I agree that this whole case, in a courtroom, could be interpreted as a girlfriend boyfriend thing gone wrong, and some claims could be seen as exaggerated.

    A good defense lawyer could shred this poor woman on a witness stand in cross examination…a few of her claims could be seen as exaggerated.

    I only say this because I believe that TWW is a wonderful, safe place where people “get” abuse. Outside of this comfy world, there are many many people who just don’t get it…until a tragedy like this one happens close to home.

    But like other people have shared, this lady is a winner, no matter what the outcome. She could be an in-demand speaker, author, or just live like a hermit. I believe ultimately people will be able to hear her cries, wipe her tears, and stand in solidarity.

    Do I believe that that could happen in a public courtroom? Not really. But I hope I am proven wrong.

  164. Marie2 wrote:

    When I read your posts on a different thread, I figured that perhaps people were misinterpreting what you were sharing, as being on the perp’s side.

    Um, yes. No misinterpretation here.

  165. Rafiki wrote:

    Marie2 wrote:
    When I read your posts on a different thread, I figured that perhaps people were misinterpreting what you were sharing, as being on the perp’s side.
    Um, yes. No misinterpretation here.

    Aha!! So I guess he really is on the perp’s side? Must be my dissociation acting up again. I have trouble believing ANYONE could be on such a creep’s side as this one. Many apologies if I appear to be on someone’s side who is on the side of the monster. I hope I did not freak anyone out there. I pray that this woman gets justice, in whatever form she needs.

  166. Marie2 wrote:

    One more thing to add to today’s gratitude list, then, that you have not had extensive experience (in my case, perhaps 30+ years, depending on how I categorize a few experiences, now that I understand this kind of pathology) with BOTH the sick pastors, and the people who continue to follow them, even in the face of very twisted, screwy tendencies….

    Yeah, evidently I have no idea what the people you are talking about are saying about the second coming. The way I always heard the story was that eventually Christ will return as King and will establish a kingdom characterized by peace (the lion lying down with the lamb) and justice and such. The idea of ruling with an iron rod was understood to mean that his power would be such that evil would have no chance to prevail. As in-the ultimate winning of the fight against all the destructive forces of evil. That did not associate in my mind with being a psychopath. But obviously something else is going on in churches that I am not aware of. I don’t know what, but I am sure sorry to hear your description of what is happening to people as a result of it. I am going to have to look into this further.

  167. Mr.H wrote:

    Moderately unrelated comment, but I just had to share this:
    Was trying to find a specific D.A. Carson article on the Gospel Coalition website, and I saw a prominently placed ad for this website on the right side of the page:
    http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/
    Wow!!!

    Ty for that website!! Fun memories of being in a church that had MANY women who were head coverings, some of them stretching 5 feet to the floor.

    This quote is da BOMB!!

    from http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/

    The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…? – R.C. Sproul

  168. Nancy wrote:

    but I am sure sorry to hear your description of what is happening to people as a result of it. I am going to have to look into this further.

    I probably have mis-interpreted my past experiences as being exactly this particular bizarre interpretation of 2nd coming of Jesus. Just meant to say that people have an awfully hard time facing awful truths about their “wonderful” leader. Looking forward to reading your research results.

  169. Nancy wrote:

    The word “sweet” needs to be taken out of our vocabulary when used to describe a grown woman. Instead we might think “kind” or “compassionate” or “understanding” or even “not excessively confrontational.” But “sweet” is better reserved for strawberry pie than for humans. We are better than that.

    I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. I regularly describe my wife as “sweet,” and indeed she is, according to a dictionary definition: “delightful, likeable, engaging, friendly, thoughtful, considerate, charming, enchanting, captivating, lovely.”

  170. @ Marie2:

    PS After all that I have witnessed, I could believe that just about ANY poor interpretation of Jesus’ 2nd coming could exist, no matter how far-fetched. I just feel like there is a big backlash in America against reading, being academically inclined, etc. I believe that one defense of the dark arts is to learn to read the Bible for oneself, but that is a whole ‘nuther topic. Ty for your conversation here. Now BACK TO WORK for me, I promise!!

  171. @ Marie2:

    A good defense lawyer could shred this poor woman on a witness stand in cross examination…a few of her claims could be seen as exaggerated.

    The narratives I’m reading from people close to this case (and without a personal axe to grind like T. W. Eston and Jen Epstein) are extremely consistent with each other, even down to event timing. So for the record, I’m not buying Doug’s attorney’s “contradictory accounts” defense.

    I will grant that information could come out in court that we don’t know, but unless I’m misinterpreting something, that TX statute seems to state pretty clearly that pastor-parishioner/counselor-counselee affairs constitute abuse, period, because consent is too impaired by the imbalance of power. This would seem to include even pastoral and counseling situations outside of a cultic situation like BCA. When we add that in, Torres’ consent gets even more questionable.

    My main fear for Torres’ case is not that the situation will be viewed as an affair gone sour, but that the jury will not adequately grasp how cultic BCA was/is. Most people who’ve never gone to or studied churches like that can’t even conceive of such things.

  172. It seems conservative evangelicalism is going where it has never gone. Complementarianism is evolving into patriarchy. An innovation is that Trinitarianism is evolving into semi- Arianism as an extension of complementarianism.

    Another theological innovation is the integrated family church. It is interesting that champions of integrated family church movement claim it minimizes risk of sexual predation. Some Southern Baptist leadership and some independent baptists have embraced this movement.

    Then there is the innovation of theonomy, or application of mosaic law to modern life. This is an extension of covenantal theology. Conservative Calvinists within baptist bodies and Presbyterianism have embraced this. Death penalty arguments for disobedient children, or adulterers, or homosexuality are some of the controversial conclusions derived from theonomy.

    Probably the theory that slavery is acceptable will be expanded as an innovation to what theorists believe are philosophical unified systems. Could it be inerrancy? Slavery is mentioned in the Bible. During the early 1980’s, a Southern Baptist leader said that slavery was no so bad.

    Some who claim to be conservative are not so conservative. They are innovating and changing theology, a claim theorists deny. They can believe that the very survival of Evangelicalism depends on extending their presuppositions as far as they can.

    Could these presuppositions possibly be faulty? I think all of these arguments speak for themselves.

  173. @ Marie2:
    Defense AGAINST the dark arts…What a total torture I could be to an editor someday…better keep my day job…:-)

  174. Hester wrote:

    My main fear for Torres’ case is not that the situation will be viewed as an affair gone sour, but that the jury will not adequately grasp how cultic BCA was/is.

    Me too, Hester. But based on the referenced statute regarding abuse of pastoral care and the nature of said power imbalance, I have some hope for the plaintiff’s case.

    Should it ever get to a jury, of course.

    I have a thread in moderation, don’t know why, that addressed your earlier musings on humour. Stay tuned! 🙂

  175. LawProf wrote:

    I think it’s sad that the state of American evangelicalism has so fallen that anyone would consider DW either a scholar or a wit. Some of the best of the arts, philosophy literature, music, science used to be focused on Christianity or by Christians. And now, we have to say of music, art, literature, philosophy: “Well, you know, give em a break, it’s only Christian.”

    In Eighties fandom, we were a bit more direct:

    “It’s gotta be Christian — look how shoddy it is!”
    (and the embossed Bible Verse is also a dead giveaway…)

    “It’s gotta be good — all the Christians are denouncing it!”

  176. JeffT wrote:

    Hitler was also a very charismatic speaker. It’s a sad commentary on the human race that so many people will buy into so much that is cruel, even evil, based on its delivery.

    According to the 1942 OSS psych profile, foreign witnesses described the Nuremberg Rallies as “revival meetings”.

  177. @ Rafiki:

    Me three!!!! I’m not sure how much of mainstream America can “get” this kind of emotional mind games/emotional coercion. Looking forward to your post, Rafiki, hope you’re enjoying the coffee in the moderation cafe!!

  178. Mr.H wrote:

    Moderately unrelated comment, but I just had to share this:
    Was trying to find a specific D.A. Carson article on the Gospel Coalition website, and I saw a prominently placed ad for this website on the right side of the page:
    http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/
    Wow!!!

    I believe Dee and Deb have touched on this before – some complementarians are now campaigning for the return of head-coverings for women. From this website, it seems that R.C. Sproul is one.

    I am despondent, but not surprised, to hear that the Gospel Coalition is advertising this.

  179. Something that occurred to me as I skimmed through Wilson’s ridiculously misogynistic post: girls and young ladies in this kooky patriarchal culture are put in a very awkward conundrum: they are brainwashed to unswervingly obey male authority figures in all things, but then when one of these male authority figures has a moral failure, the poor ladies are held accountable for failing to usurp him!

    Let me also just agree the others who have made similar observations: the man is mentally ill. He needs help. It’s glaringly obvious from his numerous statements that he has some very deep seated psychological problems and seriously unresolved issues regarding women.

  180. @ Mr.H:

    I might agree with you if everybody carried a dictionary around with them and confined themselves to dictionary meanings. But “sweet” when applied to an adult female usually carries the meaning of childish, rather simple minded and insipid and somebody on whom the scut work can be dumped and she will let that happen to her. Think compliant doormat among other things. At least, in my subculture it does. Typical sentence using the word, from one adult female to another at church: “Oh, that is so sweet of you, dear. I told (the person in charge) that you would not mind at all coming in an hour early to turn up the thermostat.” Typical sentence behind the “sweet” person’s back, one adult female to another. “Well, you do know that they took her Sunday School class of four year olds away from her after all those years, and gave it to you-know-who. And they never even told her why. But, you know, she never said a word about it. You know how sweet she is.”

    I doubt that men talk like that about women using the word in that way.

  181. Mr.H wrote:

    and I saw a prominently placed ad for this website on the right side of the page:

    Wow. Gag.
    Those women look so submissive and subjugated. Just like TGC likes them.

  182. “The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…?” – R.C. Sproul

    From the head covering site.

    Nice.

  183. Rafiki wrote:

    Marie2 wrote:
    hope you’re enjoying the coffee in the moderation cafe!!
    Too late here for coffee, Marie2!

    Awwww….How about herbal beverage, or a nice sherry?

  184. “The insubordination of an uncovered woman (signifying her refusal recognize the authority of her husband) would offend the angels who observe the conduct of believers in their church gatherings” I peter1:12 according to Charles Ryrie

    Here is what 1 Peter 1:12 actually says according to Bible Gateway:
    “It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you, in these things which now have been announced to you through those who preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven—things into which angels long to look.”
    http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Peter+1&version=NASB

    You’d think if it was that important, they’d at least get the scripture reference right.

  185. Marie2 wrote:

    …From what I have read, proving non-consent in ALL cases of er “inappropriate romantic attention” can be difficult if someone admits to one or two instances of consent, in a legal setting.

    That’s probably true. But you don’t have to show non-consent in all cases of inappropriate romantic attention to have a rape or sexual assault case. Saying “yes” to one activity once does not equal giving consent to every possible activity at every possible time before and after.

    I agree that this whole case, in a courtroom, could be interpreted as a girlfriend boyfriend thing gone wrong, and some claims could be seen as exaggerated.
    A good defense lawyer could shred this poor woman on a witness stand in cross examination…a few of her claims could be seen as exaggerated.

    It would be hard to claim girlfriend/boyfriend gone wrong, for a few reasons. The fact that he is much older, married, and her employer, for one. For another, a boyfriend doesn’t ejaculate onto his girlfriend while she cries and asks him to stop.

    This is also why I don’t like seeing this thing referred to as an affair, or as adultery. It puts blame on her for his actions, by assuming a mutual relationship. And that really makes my eyes roll when it comes from a patriarchy apologist. The man is in charge, except when he isn’t. He’s the leader in his household, except when he isn’t. When isn’t he? When blame for his wrongdoing needs to find somewhere else to lodge – suddenly the woman, who was previously assumed to not have the capacity for spiritually leading herself, let alone anyone else, had enough strength and leadership to overcome the man’s moral compass. How did that happen?

    (I disagree about the wrongness of calling adults “sweet”. Maybe it’s because I’m a southerner, but I don’t see anything wrong with it, and I haven’t seen it used in a bad context at all. Kind of like “bless his heart” – it’s frequently said in complete well-meaning sincerity.)

  186. Mara wrote:

    “The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…?” – R.C. Sproul
    From the head covering site.
    Nice.

    I wish one of these men would ask me if I’m a feminist. “Yes!” I’d happily proclaim. If I have to be a feminist in order not to try to live in the Middle Eastern culture of 2000 years ago, I’ll wear the t-shirt. There’s worse things.

  187. Coming from someone who was involved in a “ministry” for a number of years that was abusive, for Wilson to suggest the girl is to blame, or at least to be considered a co-conspirator, is totally disgusting. The guy doesn’t have a clue. These type of men all operate the same way: egomaniacs with zero accountability who surround themselves with young, naïve, yes men/women (I should know, used to be one!). If you rock the boat, you’re maligned, told you’re out of “God’s will” and black listed…and everyone knows better than to mention your name amidst the flock. And of course it almost always ends with sexual misconduct which comes quite naturally to those who choose to worship the creature (themselves) over the creator. God help us…

  188. @ Rafiki:
    Aw, dude…so sorry that Amazon does not deliver to your fair country. Saw you can order tea in bulk from Amazon.

    I will tell the moderation Barista to order more tea 4 ya..Dear Hubby says that it’s herbal beverage cuz there’s no actual tea… 🙂 🙂 🙂

  189. @ Mara:

    Am pretty sure that the angels are, in fact, deeply offended by blatant scripture twisting for the purpose of shame and control.

  190. @ Rafiki:

    Which means that these crazy Scripture twisters are risking a whole lot….maybe the unforgivable sin (grieving the Holy Spirit…) could have something to do with pissing Angels off…I would NEVER want to upset Angel Gabriel, in any case…Just sayin’…

  191. 7@ Rafiki:
    Awesome! ! I now know something about Yemen besides US drone attacks! Ty 4 geography lesson! #AshamedToBe StereotypicalAmericanWhenItComesToMiddleEasternGeography/Culture

  192. @ Marie2:

    Bezos’ idea for delivery drones is a bit too weird for the US – never mind the fact that as a marketing concept it won’t be at all popular in these parts!

    Been a long, tense week since last weekend’s big op commenced, no end in sight to it, either. Just received news alerts that ops are ongoing this evening as I write this. Average folks are so incredibly exhausted of the continuing insecurity. 🙁

    Glad to have TWW for good conversation and always, food for thought.

  193. Patrice wrote:

    Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain were witty; Doug Wilson is a chainsaw.

    No argument here Patrice. Twain was hilarious! He invented Muff Potter didn’t he?

  194. Rafiki wrote:

    Been a long, tense week since last weekend’s big op commenced, no end in sight to it, either. Just received news alerts that ops are ongoing this evening as I write this. Average folks are so incredibly exhausted of the continuing insecurity.

    Only we Americans in the gated first world privilege zone we call America could find anything remotely funny about drones. With regard to the gritty reality of life and death in the third world, some of us have all the tact and maturity of Justin Bieber.

  195. =”#comment-140951″ title=”Go to comment of this author”>Rafiki:

    hi! So sorry about all of this stress!! If I had a few brain cells available, I would have clarified that I see this more as a marketing disaster…I remember my French teacher having flashbacks whenever the practice emergency sirens went off. She was a little girl in WWII….

    I see the drone idea, in any country, as just as crazy as marketing a Chevy Nova in Spanish speaking countries, and after MP’s comment, far more insensitive. Many apologies, again. Hopefully my 0 hone didn’t wreck formatting

  196. @ Marie2:

    My apology to you too Marie. My comment was in no-wise meant to single you out. It was simply a generic lash out at an ethos that will be our undoing one day if we’re not careful.

  197. “Woman is the glory of the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7

    GLORY.

    “The KJV translates Strongs G1391 in the following manner: glory (145x), glorious (10x), honour (6x), praise (4x), dignity (2x), worship (1x)”

    “in the NT always a good opinion concerning one, resulting in praise, honour, and glory”

    “splendour, brightness”

    “magnificence, excellence, preeminence, dignity, grace”

    “majesty”
    “a thing belonging to God
    the kingly majesty which belongs to him as supreme ruler, majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity”

    ” thing belonging to Christ
    the kingly majesty of the Messiah
    the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ; the majesty”

    “a most glorious condition, most exalted state

    of that condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after he had achieved his work on earth

    the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour’s return from heaven”

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1391&t=KJV

    Looks to me like God created Eve as the crowning GLORY of all creation. (imho)

    btw, the word ‘but’ in that verse can also be translated as ‘and’ or ‘moreover’.

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1161&t=KJV

    Makes sense to me that Christ is most glorified when women shine as the GLORY (read definition) of adam.

  198. Furthermore . . . . . .
    God has crowned woman with honor which far exceeds any other conceivable honor. Woman, not man, bore our Savior.

    (Any surprise that the ‘spirit of this world’ which lurks behind all worldly endeavors — seeking whom he may destroy — instigates virulent enmity towards women at every opporunity?)

    However, the woman could not have brought forth Christ without the man, as the Scripture says,

    “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.”

    ALL things. The woman and the man both belong to God, equally. Abusers do not have “permission” or “rights” to harm man or woman. PERIOD .

  199. @ Patrice:

    Awesome quote, here: (paranoid of being moderated again, trying to trick that thing)

    “Weird class divisions arise, based only on what the sociopath values: some become held in high regard and others treated with contempt for no reason of their own, except perhaps money (but not always).”

    I finally understand what royally pissed me off about a large conference that focused on protecting children from sexual abuse in the church…

    One of the consistent characteristics of all of the cults I have been involved with, including a recent one, is that people earn “street creds” from having squeaky clean lives, with NO complicating issues, and then counseling the “poor misfits” who have er, um ISSUES.

    One couple in particular used to counsel some friends of mine every week. When my friends finally had enough of being kicked to the curb by the narcissistic pastor (the kind pastor told him to “man up” about a recurring addiction he was fighting) the wife revealed to me in private that her husband was struggling with porn, and some other stuff. I had no idea that that was going on. This couple had NO earthly idea of how to counsel an addict, much less anything to do with porn. Yes I believe that there are non-addicts who can use the Bible to help addicts, but only with a certain gift (humility helps), much training, much experience, and a good way to help the addict feel empowered.

    Soooo when I went to a very large conference, and none of the speakers had admitted to being someone who has lived through childhood sexual abuse, I just felt abused all over again. People who have never been through the bizarre, nasty hierarchy of “Look at me!! I’m pure as the driven snow, and I counsel lowly ADDICTS with just the Bible” would not likely understand how insulted I felt.

    I will try to stop now before this becomes a novel. Thank you, Rafiki, for setting me straight on the issue of whether or not people with “correct” shoes can help those with the dysfunctional, ill-fitting ones…Maybe blurting out “I only believe that someone who has been in my shoes can help me!” had wrongly insulted many, but it was said out of extreme hurt and pain. Working on that now. Ty everyone for being here.

  200. @ Patrice:

    Aigh!!! Just got moderated for my novel.

    Thank you very much Patrice, for all of your posts here, and especially this comment. I found it particularly helpful in dealing with processing an “extreme anger management moment” last Fall.

    “Weird class divisions arise, based only on what the sociopath values: some become held in high regard and others treated with contempt for no reason of their own, except perhaps money (but not always).”

  201. @ Muff Potter:
    Oh Phew, I love reading your posts, and everyone else’s here. So glad that you were not upset by what I had said. Jeff Bezos, while a great businessman, might not always understand what horrible things people have gone through. But I do love Prime, lol. Not boycotting him at the moment. Hope I don’t have to in future.

  202. May wrote:

    Mr.H wrote:
    Moderately unrelated comment, but I just had to share this:
    Was trying to find a specific D.A. Carson article on the Gospel Coalition website, and I saw a prominently placed ad for this website on the right side of the page:
    http://www.headcoveringmovement.com/
    Wow!!!
    I believe Dee and Deb have touched on this before – some complementarians are now campaigning for the return of head-coverings for women. From this website, it seems that R.C. Sproul is one.
    I am despondent, but not surprised, to hear that the Gospel Coalition is advertising this.

    Ugh! I can hardly believe the ignorance! Just even simple logic would say that if it’s a shame for a man to cover his head (Christ) because he is the glory of Christ and that would bring dishonor to Christ then for a woman to cover her head (male) because she is the glory of male that would bring dishonor to him! Sheesh! Paul tried to reason with the ignorants with their own logic all which ways and they still can’t figure it out. I think Paul was clear when he said that women should have authority over their own heads because of the angels., meaning they have their own authority, not under any one else’s authority.

  203. @ Marie2:

    YW.

    Here is more fake mutuality, in the New York Times:

    Connecticut Teenager Is Fatally Stabbed by Fellow Student, Police Say

    “Investigators are looking into reports that a dispute over the junior class prom prompted the attack that killed Maren Sanchez, 16. A 16-year-old boy is being held.”

    When you read down into the article, here’s the “dispute”: the killer had a crush on the victim, which she did not return; she acquired a boyfriend; the killer asked her to the prom, she declined, he killed her. This isn’t a dispute. A dispute is one of those things that you look at it and think “it takes two”. What this was (as far as is currently apparent) was a completely one-sided case of sociopathic entitlement. She was supposed to be his girlfriend and go to the prom with him, inexplicably she couldn’t seem to realize that, so he was forced to kill her. This is an extreme example, but I think we can see an unwarranted sense of entitlement in the story this post is about.

  204. Laura wrote:

    Marie2 wrote:(I disagree about the wrongness of calling adults “sweet”. Maybe it’s because I’m a southerner, but I don’t see anything wrong with it, and I haven’t seen it used in a bad context at all. Kind of like “bless his heart” – it’s frequently said in complete well-meaning sincerity.)

    Let me give you a non-southerner’s view on it. I live in the south for my work. I don’t see anything wrong with “sweet” per se, but in all candor, it rankles my strong-willed, masters degree, yankee wife some when she’s referred to by some sales clerk 20 years her junior as “sweetie”. We both have a creeping suspicion there’s something demeaning and passive aggressive in it.

  205. My “sweetie” story took place in Sears hardware dept. when I was about 40 yrs. old. While I was looking for a particular fastener for my lawnmower, two older, gruff looking men were looking in the same area. One of them asked, “can I help you find something, sweetie?” I thought I’d give him a taste of his own medicine and answered, “no, but thanks for asking darlin’.” I thought he’d get the message, but his buddy turned to him and said with a big smile on his face, “how’d she know your name???”

    We all smiled and that was that was the end of it.

  206. @ Rafiki:

    Bezos’ idea for delivery drones is a bit too weird for the US

    All I could picture when that was announced was how congested the airspace would be around major cities at Christmastime. It would look like an army of insects was attacking the suburbs. Creepy IMO.

  207. some complementarians are now campaigning for the return of head-coverings for women

    If I recall correctly, Monergism.com shared an article by some guy who thought women had to wear headcoverings all the time because of the command “pray without ceasing” – i.e., if Christian women are to cover during prayer, and Christians are to pray without ceasing, then headcoverings should be worn all the time. This was 3+ years ago I believe. So the extreme fringe has been pattering around on the supposedly non-extreme sites for some time.

    It makes me sad to see Sproul Sr. endorsing this. Sproul Jr. I would have expected, but Sr. usually seems much more reasonable than other Neo-Calvinists.

    Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, was the ad actually endorsed by TGC (as I expect) or did it just pop up? On some sites ads are chosen randomly or generated by some kind of algorithm and your browsing history. I know my friend once posted a song about shoes to my FB wall and then I got shoe ads in my sidebar for the next week.

  208. Laura wrote:

    The fact that he is much older, married, and her employer, for one. For another, a boyfriend doesn’t ejaculate onto his girlfriend while she cries and asks him to stop.

    They do in PORN.
    I mean, that shtick is straight out of a porn flick!
    This is the first time I’ve heard of it happening IRL!

  209. Hester wrote:

    @ Rafiki:
    Bezos’ idea for delivery drones is a bit too weird for the US
    All I could picture when that was announced was how congested the airspace would be around major cities at Christmastime. It would look like an army of insects was attacking the suburbs. Creepy IMO.

    “Bugs, Mr Rico! Millions of Bugs!”

  210. Marie2 wrote:

    @ Hester:
    PS So glad 2 hear of consistency of accounts. Totally awesome.

    That ups the credibility.

  211. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Marie2 wrote:
    @ Hester:
    PS So glad 2 hear of consistency of accounts. Totally awesome.
    That ups the credibility.

    Yes, and I do believe the plaintiff….I would believe the plaintiff even if all the stories did not line up. I’m sure the consistency will help her case.

  212. @ Laura:

    “(I disagree about the wrongness of calling adults “sweet”. Maybe it’s because I’m a southerner, but I don’t see anything wrong with it, and I haven’t seen it used in a bad context at all. Kind of like “bless his heart” – it’s frequently said in complete well-meaning sincerity.)”
    +++++++++++++++++++++++

    The problem with the word “sweet” is that as soon as a woman can no longer be described with the word “sweet”, she is suddenly disqualified. She has become shrill. Assertiveness, speaking her mind and being to-the-point about it, especially with men or concerning men, is not acceptable.

    The way I see it, a woman being assertive, speaking her mind, and being to-the-point about it is called “shrill” and immediately disqualified. The only way to
    avoid being disqualified is to stay in the realm of being “sweet”.

  213. Rafiki wrote:

    I’ll follow up the above with a quote from the blog of Michael Metzler, formerly of Wilson’s “kirk” and famously referred to by Wilson as a “sucking chest wound.”

    “Wilson isn’t laboring for an academic tradition, or the glory of God, or love, or out of empathy for his fellow man. Wilson, rather, studied H.L. Menken early in life so that he could get this write-up published in Slate magazine much later.

    Wilson has a plan, he lusts incessantly for attention and control, and, I have come to fully believe after years of painful experiment and research, he has the full capacity to rape and maim any sentient organism that might get in his way.

    This is true, at least, so long as the world would allow him keep his pulpit and halo. In other words, he plans to do nothing he cannot get away with. And, thankfully, the backlash to Wilson has been vehement and loud and sustained enough, particularly from his close neighbors in his small town who actually know enough about him, to all but neuter this old bull.

    But becoming evangelicalism’s new apologist does not change the kinds of biological vestiges our priestly and bloody ancestors have bequeathed to this valiant defender of God’s rule and crown. Wilson could care less whether or not he added anything to the apologetic arsenal for Christians that out live him; he – or at least an important part of his unconscious mind – would burn the entire thing to the ground for some more camera clicks, some more glory, and some higher seats for the males that have sprung from his loins or married within the clan.

    Wilson is some form of sociopath, for sure, but he does at least feel strongly and intensely over the moral virtues of loyalty (to him) and the power and wealth he is able to hand to his covenantal, biological, direct decedents.”

    Yes, indeed. You are so correct.

  214. Another interesting item.

    “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9

    Here is the definition for the word, dia, which is translated as ‘for.’
    I. through A. of place 1. with 2. in B. of time 1.throughout 2. during
    C. of means 1. by 2. by the means of

    11. through A. the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
    1. by reason of 2. on account of 3. because for this reason 4. therefore
    5. on this account

    Thayer’s Greek Lexicon has this meaning (among others): III. of the means or instrument by which anything is effected . . . 2. of the instrument used to accomplish a thing

    Vine’s Expository Dictionary says:

    “by, by means of,” when followed by the genitive case, is instrumental, e.g., 2Pe 3:6, RV, “by which means” (AV, “whereby”)

    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1223&t=KJV

    Rather than implying a difference in status, the meaning seems to be just that God created the woman from the man, not the man from the woman.

    Somewhere, I can’t remember where, I read a translation of ‘woman’ as ‘man-ess.’
    Eve is the same substance as Adam — bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. Nothing G ‘sub-quality’ about that. As if God created anything less than excellent.

    Besides, Jesus took on human nature through his mother, and lives “born of a woman” throughout all eternity. God knew when He created Eve that salvation from the effects of the Fall was to be through the woman’s “seed.”

    I’m on a roll thinking about this stuff.

  215. @ Headless Unicorn Guy:
    Er um…yes…Dear Hubby explained some bizarre things that happen in Japanese porn that should remain unexpressed. .. like the women responded in the South Park episode, how come all the men know about this, and Back Door Sluts 9? Cartman ‘ s mother knows about it all, but that’s certainly another story, too.

  216. @ elastigirl:

    I guess everybody’s mileage varies. I am accustomed to speaking my mind at work and at home. I can be pretty direct about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if the folks I work with, male or female, might call me “sweet” on occasion. My husband calls me “sweetie”. (I don’t like that from strangers, so there’s that.)

  217. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Laura wrote:
    The fact that he is much older, married, and her employer, for one. For another, a boyfriend doesn’t ejaculate onto his girlfriend while she cries and asks him to stop.
    They do in PORN.
    I mean, that shtick is straight out of a porn flick!
    This is the first time I’ve heard of it happening IRL!

    In porn, they’re not really boyfriend and girlfriend, are they? I’m guessing – I’ve never had an interest in it.

  218. Ardiak wrote:

    Another interesting item.
    “Neither was the man created for the woman, but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9
    Here is the definition for the word, dia, which is translated as ‘for.’
    I. through A. of place 1. with 2. in B. of time 1.throughout 2. during
    C. of means 1. by 2. by the means of
    11. through A. the ground or reason by which something is or is not done
    1. by reason of 2. on account of 3. because for this reason 4. therefore
    5. on this account

    This is interesting stuff. I read somewhere about the thing about women being saved through childbearing as being about women being kept safe as they gave birth, not the act of childbearing being a thing that saves women.

  219. Ardiak wrote:

    Besides, Jesus took on human nature through his mother, and lives “born of a woman” throughout all eternity. God knew when He created Eve that salvation from the effects of the Fall was to be through the woman’s “seed.”

    I’m on a roll thinking about this stuff.

    Very much agreed Ardiak. To me the genealogies in the Bible read like a centuries long breeding program overseen by the Almighty in order that he might retrieve the least damaged ovum from the fall to bring himself into the world he created.

  220. So how do the headcovering folks handle this part?

    “For long hair is given to her as a covering.” 1 Corinthians 11:15

    The word ‘covering’ here has a meaning of ‘veil’ or ‘mantle.’
    http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4018&t=KJV

    God gave her the long hair — maybe as a sign of His “power/authority on her head” (whcih is she ought to have as the female “adam.”) — a heads-up to the angels that, though somewhat different in form and created after Adam, what goes for Adam goes for her too. ???? ha ha ha Am I spouting heresy?

    And how do they handle this verse that assumes that women pophesy in the public meetings — in like manner as the men? The issue is not her praying or prophesying in public. The issue is that she does so without her head covered.

    “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.”

    And, um, my idea about meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:7 doesn’t work. Verse 6 already says the same thing. Back to the thinking board. lol

    Sometimes in conversation, we do mean the opposite of what we say.
    Kind of like if someone writes me and says, “God says people who wear sandals to church have to stand in the back row.” And I write back and say, “God makes people with sandals stand in the back row. Yeah. Right.”

    I wonder if something like that is going on in this 1 Corinthians Chapter 11.

    Done rambling for the evening.

    God bless us one and all.

  221. Re the consent vs non-consent aspect, I think, once your refusal has been ignored and steamrollered aside repeatedly, it’s no longer worth the fight and the sooner it gets over with, the better. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

  222. Doug Wilson say Lourdes should have let “the church”, not heathen authorities, have judged the case: “I continue to believe that this whole thing should be sorted through by Christians, with a view to our testimony before a watching world.”

    Stacy McDonald echoes it: “..if she had not gone to the media, but instead sought Christian arbitration; and, if her family, her church, and the people in her community all wound up believing her, wouldn’t that be enough? Besides, “everyone” is not going to believe her anyway.
    I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some sort of restitution if her claims are proven true. But the way it is being handled is causing God’s name to be slandered among the heathen (and the church).
    I think if it were me, trying the case in the court of public opinion would hardly be satisfying anyway…”
    But she did go to church authorities! They did not stop it. After years of going to them and them covering it up and choosing Doug – the most powerful man in her church – ‘s side for years, she tried something else.
    And even by the narrowest literal understanding of Matthew 18, it was Biblical.
    15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. 16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
    She told him “no”, which would mean she told him his fault when alone. Doug did not “hear” her. Her parents found out, that did not stop it. (Two or three more.) Doug did not “hear” them. The church found out and covered it up. He neglected to hear the church. At that stage she was right to treat him as a “heathen and a publician.” Since the narrow application of texts say you should not take Christians to court, he put himself in the “heathen and publician” spot where he could be taken to court.
    Even Vision Forum proven they are in the “heathen and publician” spot, by covering for him and ignoring multiple warnings and writings from the church at large that their teachings are unbiblical.

  223. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Lucky you!

    Yes, BTDT, VERY lucky me indeed. I do have to take out my contacts early each day 🙂

    My fervent prayer is that very soon everyone can safely come to this ancient, amazing beautiful place and see it for themselves, and make fast friends. I fully understand that may sound cliché or naïve but I don’t care.

    Here is a link to photos of a recent well-received international street art project (Inside Out) that just made me smile amidst the current dominant narrative about this place:

    http://www.insideoutproject.net/en/group-actions/yemen-sanaa-taiz-hadramawt

    Muff and Marie2: no need for anyone to offer apologies over last evening’s exchange from where I stand. Muff, I was personally pleased by the ruling earlier this week by the 2nd US Court of Appeals, a step in the right direction of desperately-needed transparency:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/21/us-release-memo-anwar-al-awlaki-drone-killing

    And now back to the topic at hand:

    pcapastor – have you been in touch with Metzler directly? I read some of his version 2.0 blog yesterday. His writing is a little dense and academic for me personally, but insightful nonetheless.

  224. Retha wrote:

    Christian arbitration

    Ugh, ugh, double-ugh. What McDonald means by this is “ministries” a la Peacemakers whose leadership has all sorts of formal tie$ to church leaders and clearly has a stake in sweeping everything under the rug.

    As I noted on the Chick-Fil-A thread – after Tony Perkins is finished with that sock, perhaps it can be passed on to Ms. McDonald so she, too, can stick a sock in it?

    Retha, you’ve nailed it:

    Retha wrote:

    The church found out and covered it up. He neglected to hear the church. At that stage she was right to treat him as a “heathen and a publician.”

  225. Laura wrote:

    “The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…?” – R.C. Sproul
    From the head covering site.

    Firstly, I see no evidence for his starting premise. Did all Christians wear cloth on their head to church up to the 20th century? I doubt it. Even the head covering passage say “we have no such practise” and “decide for yourself.”
    Secondly, his question, even if his first premise actually was correct, sets up a false dichotomy. It is like saying:

    “Up until the 20th century, nobody used e-sword. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of computer programs gradually eroded by the modern technology that has infiltrated the Church…?”


    Something isn’t either more Biblical or less Biblical than what went before, it could also be just another way of doing something, equally right as the other way.

  226. Rafiki wrote:

    What McDonald means by this is “ministries” a la Peacemakers whose leadership has all sorts of formal tie$ to church leaders and clearly has a stake in sweeping everything under the rug.

    Did you mean:

    … leadership has all sorts of formal tie$ to church leaders and clearly has a $take in $weeping everything under the rug.

  227. Estelle wrote:

    Re the consent vs non-consent aspect, I think, once your refusal has been ignored and steamrollered aside repeatedly, it’s no longer worth the fight and the sooner it gets over with, the better. I hope that makes some kind of sense.

    Estelle, that makes perfect sense to me. I have worked with a number of teenage girls who have been through various kinds of sexual assault and rape, a lot of which they didn’t realise as such necessarily as although they didn’t actually say yes, they didn’t say no either. They just went along with what happened as it was the easiest and safest way out of that situation (no resistance = no violence etc) Submission can be the ‘safest’ response in those utterly hideous situations, particularly the double bind Doug Phillips had his victim in – damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. But it’s NOT CONSENT, it’s SURVIVAL. Those patriarchal idiots and their wives do not have enough emotional intelligence in their bodies to understand such a nuance.

  228. Laura wrote:

    (I disagree about the wrongness of calling adults “sweet”. Maybe it’s because I’m a southerner, but I don’t see anything wrong with it, and I haven’t seen it used in a bad context at all. Kind of like “bless his heart” – it’s frequently said in complete well-meaning sincerity.)

    Well, let me explain it to you honey. I mean, bless your heart, you seem to have missed what is going on here. I just know you can’t help it because you are just so goodhearted and sweet and all, but it is common in the south here to use words as poorly disguised weapons in just lots of little ways to put other people down and keep them in their place. And “bless your heart” is a verbal pat on the head that one would do to a child, and it can be kind hearted or it can be snotty.

    My aim was to try to get you to take offense at how I worded this comment and get you to perhaps feel the impact of some of this. You, in fact, may mean well. The specific terminology, however, is condescending and offensive, and is frequently intended to be just that.

  229. Retha wrote:

    But she did go to church authorities! They did not stop it. After years of going to them and them covering it up and choosing Doug – the most powerful man in her church – ‘s side for years, she tried something else.

    So really her story follows along these lines rather than what ol’ queen bee Stacy McDonald wants to jam it into:

    Luke 12:2 “In a certain city there was a judge who did not fear God and did not respect man. 3 There was a widow in that city, and she kept coming to him, saying, ‘[a]Give me legal protection from my opponent.’ 4 For a while he was unwilling; but afterward he said to himself, ‘Even though I do not fear God nor respect man, 5 yet because this widow bothers me, I will give her legal protection, otherwise by continually coming she will wear me out.’” 6 And the Lord said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge *said; 7 now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? 8 I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?”

    If VF and the Patriarchy crowd are bound and determined to keep justice away from Lourdes and all other servant-women in their movement, then they all have the right to take it to a higher court. And God is on their side just like He’s on the widow’s side. God is not on the side of the unrighteous judges like Doug Wilson and Stacy McDonald.

  230. Nancy, I was born in Mississippi in 1960 and have lived in the South all my life. Yes, I got the snark in your comment. That is not what I commonly hear when I hear people being called “sweet”.

  231. @ Retha:

    Honestly, to say that people – man, woman, child – should dress appropriately ought to be enough. Putting this much emphasis on this one outward thing that supposedly shows how modest and proper a woman is makes me think “whited sepulchre”. Did Jesus ever say word one about women needing to dress a certain way?

  232. Ardiak wrote:

    …Sometimes in conversation, we do mean the opposite of what we say.
    Kind of like if someone writes me and says, “God says people who wear sandals to church have to stand in the back row.” And I write back and say, “God makes people with sandals stand in the back row. Yeah. Right.”
    I wonder if something like that is going on in this 1 Corinthians Chapter 11.

    Here’s 1 Cor. 14, in the KJV. You can easily read it this way.

    34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

    35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

    36 What? came the word of God out from you [men]? or came it unto you only?

  233. Retha wrote:

    Doug Wilson say Lourdes should have let “the church”, not heathen authorities, have judged the case: “I continue to believe that this whole thing should be sorted through by Christians, with a view to our testimony before a watching world.”

    Stacy McDonald echoes it: “..if she had not gone to the media, but instead sought Christian arbitration; and, if her family, her church, and the people in her community all wound up believing her, wouldn’t that be enough? Besides, “everyone” is not going to believe her anyway.
    I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some sort of restitution if her claims are proven true. But the way it is being handled is causing God’s name to be slandered among the heathen (and the church).
    I think if it were me, trying the case in the court of public opinion would hardly be satisfying anyway…”

    But she did go to church authorities! They did not stop it. After years of going to them and them covering it up and choosing Doug – the most powerful man in her church – ‘s side for years, she tried something else.

    Retha, I think you’ve brought up a very important point. Maybe those you quote didn’t bother to acquaint themselves with a timeline of the alleged events (link below).

    http://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2014/03/29/attempting-to-set-the-doug-phillips-record-straight-part-3-the-timeline/

    But, assuming that timeline is relatively accurate and complete, there apparently were multiple times and various kinds of confrontations of Doug Phillips by Torres family members, by church members, by Vision Forum friends and former workers, etc. In fact, it looks like there was some kind of confrontation once a year minimum in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.

    That serial denial and rebuff of biblical rebuke doesn’t seem to do a lot for a constructive testimony in the community. Perhaps the exposure to the light of day through legal means may give a far more powerful outcome when people have the opportunity to understand the damaging ways that church polity and theology can be contorted in authoritarian systems of total control as we seem to be seeing here.

  234. Rafiki wrote:

    And now back to the topic at hand:
    pcapastor – have you been in touch with Metzler directly? I read some of his version 2.0 blog yesterday. His writing is a little dense and academic for me personally, but insightful nonetheless.

    I have. He is a good man. I owe him a letter, in fact.

  235. @ Retha, Brad & Mara:

    My takeaway, after reading the above quotes, is that Wilson and McDonald are more interested in keeping their patriarchy “brand” unsullied than in seeing justice be done. If that’s not what they meant to convey, then they’re doing a terrible job of communicating.

  236. @ Hester:

    Oh, I’m sure that’s what they want.
    I think the rest of us are just saying that no matter how much they want things to be a certain way, and no matter how hard they try so hard to shame victims into silence with terribly misplaced Bible scriptures, it doesn’t really matter. They ARE NOT the keepers of the truth in this situation. They are on the wrong side of this issue. They don’t give two spits about justice. They are the unjust cover-upper-ers. In God’s economy, the down-trodden with get their day in court.

    I’m hoping that even if the court doesn’t decide in favor of Lourdes, her bravery will cause others to rise and speak out against this unjust and unbiblical system that Doug W. and Stacy M promote and defend.

  237. Anyone know if Doug Wilson is a proponent of ESS?(eternal subordination of the Son).

  238. Marie2 wrote:

    But I do see your overall point Joe, or I think I do – that both sides might not be disclosing the full truth of what was going on, but it is possible that Douggie has never had his logical faculties challenged before, and might not be realizing just how much he could be hanging himself by his words…

    Yes, that is my point. Thank you for stating it so clearly.

  239. @ Nancy:

    I can see from your example how the term “sweet” can be used in a condescending manner. But that says more about the person using the term than it does about the term itself. I guess it just depends on what circles you are a part of. I’m from the south as well, and while I am very familiar with the “bless his heart” phrase and its derogatory connotations, I have never heard “sweet” used in this way.

    In my circles, “sweet” is used of both men and women. Generally, it refers to a generally benevolent disposition – someone who is benevolent, tender-hearted, giving, generous, etc. As in, “Walter is such a sweet man – he mows my front lawn every Sunday afternoon after he mows his own,” or “Theresa is so sweet – she called me just to say ‘good luck’ on the day of my job interview.”

  240. Ardiak wrote:

    Eve is the same substance as Adam — bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh. Nothing G ‘sub-quality’ about that. As if God created anything less than excellent.

    This is an important point in examining Paul’s argumentation and reasoning. Too often Christians seem to misunderstand what Paul is saying and why he is saying it. Eve wasn’t somehow “less” than Adam! Also, the whole “order of creation” argument is a bit silly – if we take the order of Gen 1-2 at face value, Adam was created last, so does that mean that he is somehow “less” than or subordinate to the animals? Of course not.

  241. Thank you, Laura and Mr. H.

    Good points, both. I appreciate your input, which expands my thinking.

    Love the “iron sharpening iron” at this site, and the love which “builds up.”

    Having been deceived, even WITH the Holy Spirit, faith, and the Word, by false leaders, I have much greater empathy and sympathy for Eve who was similarly beguiled.
    I would not have done any better in her situation, nor in Adam’s situation.

  242. Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

    Laura wrote:
    The fact that he is much older, married, and her employer, for one. For another, a boyfriend doesn’t ejaculate onto his girlfriend while she cries and asks him to stop.
    They do in PORN.
    I mean, that shtick is straight out of a porn flick!

    This is the first time I’ve heard of it happening IRL!

    Interesting point. I imagine Doug got the idea from porn, too. Ugh.
    An astounding proportion of pastors are reported to use porn regularly, and I would be highly surprised if Doug Phillips was exempt.

  243. Hester wrote:

    My takeaway, after reading the above quotes, is that Wilson and McDonald are more interested in keeping their patriarchy “brand” unsullied than in seeing justice be done. If that’s not what they meant to convey, then they’re doing a terrible job of communicating.

    Everywhere you find silencing, shaming and shunning for the sake of any sector of the American Evangelical “brand”, all you have to do is follow the money. These folks make their living off this stuff. They couldn’t care less about justice.

  244. @ Beakerj:
    Thanks for your response, Beakerj. I understand not realizing abuse for what it is until years later. It’s something that happened and life goes on and you block it out your consciousness until it eventually resurfaces. Reading here has helped me face what happened to me as a teenager: inappropriate and unwanted attention from my high school archery coach who was old enough to be my grandfather. I remember the anger I felt but didn’t know how to tell him to stop. He knew I was angry but that didn’t make a difference. Nor did it even cross my mind to tell my parents. 25 years later, I have only just told my husband. I have made clear to my daughter and her friends that it’s ok and necessary to speak up if they are uncomfortable about anything. Thanks to the Deebs and everyone for the safe space here.

  245. Marie2 wrote:

    …both sides might not be disclosing the full truth of what was going on, but it is possible that Douggie has never had his logical faculties challenged before, and might not be realizing just how much he could be hanging himself by his words…

    That can happen VERY easily when you’ve surrounded yourself with yes-men praising you with lapdog eyes and trembling lips.

  246. Beakerj wrote:

    Submission can be the ‘safest’ response in those utterly hideous situations, particularly the double bind Doug Phillips had his victim in – damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t. But it’s NOT CONSENT, it’s SURVIVAL. Those patriarchal idiots and their wives do not have enough emotional intelligence in their bodies to understand such a nuance.

    I’ve heard that SURVIVAL traced back to prehistoric times, when tribal warfare was endemic, and one of the ugly sides of tribal-level warfare is raiding the other tribe for their women, like lions taking over a pride. “Rape” has an older meaning of “to carry off” as well as “forcible sexual assault”, and the use of the same word for both suggests the two were once connected. (Remember Seven Brides for Seven Brothers? ( http://homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/sobbin-women-and-a-rubber-duck-ellynns-story/ ) And I understand traditional Gypsy/Roma marriage ceremonies involve a symbolic kidnapping of the bride by the groom, and they’re probably not the only culture to do so.) In such a situation, being able to accept your fate, make the best of it, and maybe even bond to the new guy who’s carried you off to his tribe would be a survival trait.

  247. Estelle wrote:

    Nor did it even cross my mind to tell my parents. 25 years later, I have only just told my husband. I have made clear to my daughter and her friends that it’s ok and necessary to speak up if they are uncomfortable about anything. Thanks to the Deebs and everyone for the safe space here.

    Statistics show that 1 out of 3-4 girls and 1 out of 6 boys are molested by the age of 18 years. 66% of those will never speak about it until they are adults– if ever. Your experience and response falls right within that scope.
    I’m sorry you had this experience. I’m glad you are teaching your daughter something different. This is a HUGE problem, and so little is done to address it.

  248. Joe wrote:

    Yes, that is my point. Thank you for stating it so clearly

    Oh phew, thank you for responding!!!

    This issue is just such a difficult one to discuss, and I grew up in constant chaos and bickering (alcoholic home, live at home sexual perpetrator, almost out of a Lifetime Movie) so I have low tolerance for constant disagreement and misunderstanding.

    I’m glad we got to the heart of what you were saying – being a sexual abuse victim myself, I can see shame or cognitive “malfunction” holding a person back from disclosing every little detail consistently, but the cool part is that this is likely a case where the perpetrator will likely just trap himself quickly, and then things will come to light.

    Thank you for being here and sharing. 🙂

  249. @ Marie2:
    And just to be clear on one thing.

    I DO believe that the strength of a victim’s testimony can put a perp away for a long time. I have heard people speak from this organization 2 times – impressive stories of supporting (NOT coaching) a child to testify….in one particular case, the perp was surrounded by family members who would lose big if he went to jail and the family business went under, but one 10 year old girl told her story, and they guy was put in jail for years….from what I understand there were no inconsistencies…

    I agree with “Anonymous” that these cases are likely difficult to predict. I have NO idea what could be revealed through “discovery” or whatever that is called, and cross examination, etc. But I do believe that the perp is building a trap, kind of like a child building a tinker toy house around him and not being able to get out, by his self-perception that he is a logical genius.

    http://bacaworld.org/
    http://www.yourerie.com/news/news-article/d/story/baca-taking-a-stand-against-child-abuse/20952/EdDOsC1UJ0CvKJj3yjbXhA

  250. BeenThereDoneThat wrote:

    Statistics show that 1 out of 3-4 girls and 1 out of 6 boys are molested by the age of 18 years. 66% of those will never speak about it until they are adults– if ever.

    Yes!!!! Tyfs… I do hope that people will continue to read and comment on this thread. I wish I could hire Paula for her excellent transcription skills, and transcribe some incredibly detailed stats from a lawyer who deals with this kind of thing on a daily basis….I will try to do that as this trial heats up…..

  251. @ Estelle:

    Tyfs… What an answer to prayer your sharing of your story is for me, that many people learn about sexual abuse as a result of this case!!!!

  252. @ Jaysgirl84:
    Sorry your dad has the same name.You should about Gerry Sandusky-when he says his name to places they think he is the same Jerry!Talk about a bad name.

  253. Estelle wrote:

    @ BeenThereDoneThat:
    @ Marie2:
    Thank you, BTDT and Marie2, for your encouragement.

    Ur welcome, anytime.

    Just wanted to shout that YOU ROCK! if you are still reading here. I don’t believe it’s easy to tell one’s story, whether online, in person, or one-on-one in a secure bunker. Just my not so humble, personal opinion on the issue, lol. Kudos to you for your bravery to share here!!!!!!!!

  254. Years ago I found D.Wilson’s blog, “Credendum something or other.” I was looking for a spiritual spot but after a while I thought Hmm., way too bossy and didn’t go back. Last year I see his name popping up on this list. In my opinion he is not humble, sacrificial, or loving. None of the hundreds of blog posts here will change him or make him “feel bad.” The people who might change are the sad women who are in their clutches, but they are probably not reading these posts. Let’s put them in our prayers. I pray they don’t attend the churches/meetings of “leaders” like this.

  255. Nick Bulbeck wrote:

    But the plaintiff herself has apparently said that some of them were not unwanted, but that she went along with them in return for something.

    This victim was groomed by a manipulator, in the same way that victims are often groomed by perps. Don’t victimize her again by suggesting that she ‘went along with them in return for something.’ Children (and victims of abuse by persons who are authority figures (clergy, etc.) are VICTIMS. Normal biological responses that might be seen as pleasureable do not minimize the fact that victims are victims. They should never have been put in a ‘heck if you do and heck if you don’t’ situation by perpetrators. They are trying to survive. Trying to figure out how to make it through the next day. And in the meantime, the perp is saying things like ‘I’m going to marry you when my wife dies’, which would scare the bejeepers out of any young woman.

    The kind of thinking that victims have somehow participated or ‘asked for it’ has been more common than not in the past; but if you find yourself thinking such things, please do some in-depth reading on the subject. If you don’t know of any resources, check out Boz’s website at http://www.netgrace.org for starters.

    No matter what a victim does, no matter how we might see their behavior of somehow having put themselves in harm’s way — they were not the ones who decided to commit immoral/illegal/unconscionable acts. The perps did that. I don’t care how cute, how helpful, a young nanny was in the household, her presence there did not cause any emotional and/or physical maniupulation of her life. The perp did that, and he could’ve have refrained from doing so from day one.

    She is NOT to blame. She is to be admired for trying to survive, and for finally mustering the courage to tell the truth even though she likely knew that she would be blamed.

    I will rejoice when the church stops being the army that shoots its own wounded.

  256. I’ve linked it to my blog.

    You can’t make this stuff up.

    Btw, Piper thinks Wilson is brilliant and everybody around him is dumb.
    Guess what this makes me think of Piper.

  257. @ Hester:
    My prayer is that Phillips will be criminally prosecuted for his abuse of Lourdes. I have been working on a book on his allosaur theft and I can assure you Christian mediation with a non-Christian dishonest man does not work. Doug is the master of ecclesiastical tyranny. We contacted Doug’s board and none of them would even look at the volumes of evidence we had against Doug. One of his board, Don Hart helped protect him from losing his law license and he didn’t have any accountability in his church. He has brought harm to many folks around the country. It is time to stop him from regaining his position.

  258. My prayer is that Phillips will be criminally prosecuted for his abuse of Lourdes. I have been working on a book on his allosaur theft and I can assure you Christian mediation with a non-Christian dishonest man does not work. Doug is the master of ecclesiastical tyranny. We contacted Doug’s board and none of them would even look at the volumes of evidence we had against Doug. One of his board, Don Hart helped protect him from losing his law license and he didn’t have any accountability in his church. He has brought harm to many folks around the country. It is time to stop him from regaining his position.