Doug Phillips Uses Virginia Tech Shootings To Promote Agenda
Posted: April 19, 2007 Filed under: Doug Phillips, Vision Forum 87 Comments
Doug Phillips has posted a blog article about the Virginia Tech school shootings. Even I could have never anticipated that Doug Phillips was this cold and calloused. Even before the blood had been cleaned from the classroom floors, even before any of the funeral services had been performed, even as twenty gunshot-wounded students still lay recovering in their hospital beds, Doug Phillips was preparing another one of his “See I told you so!” sermons.
Just to ensure that his article received the widest possible exposure, Doug Phillips’ Vision Forum also emailed the article to thousands of recipients. Upon seeing Phillips’ article two days ago I was completely stunned and words failed me. Now that I’ve had a little time to absorb it I’ll try and communicate my thoughts about it.
Others, however, wasted no time in communicating their sentiments to Doug Phillips. One reader wrote in to say:
“Please remove me from your mailing list. The use of this tragedy by any organization to promote an agenda is unconscionable.”
After reading Phillips’ article I had exactly the same sentiment. What he has done is unconscionable.
Phillips entitled his article, On the Horror at Virginia Tech; Finding Eternal Hope in Present Sorrow. But how exactly does Phillips offer hope? He doesn’t. In point of fact his article is a rather gloomy and fatalistic “See I told you so.”
“When people ask: ‘Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?’ or ‘How can such a terrible thing happen?’, we must point them to the fundamentals. First, all of us deserve death and all of us will die.”
Now there’s some “hope” to offer a grieving mother and father who have just lost their son or daughter in a senseless slaughter! Saying such a thing to grieving families, or even to those who haven’t been directly impacted by the Virginia Tech shootings, like the millions across this land who are questioning, “Where is God at a time like this?”, isn’t a message of hope at all. Phillips’ article is likely to be interpreted by many as a message that God is cruel, unloving, uncaring, judgmental, and only too eager to destroy sinners.
This isn’t to say that I disagree that “All of us deserve death.” While being a valid theological statement, is this a message of hope? Are these words of comfort? Is this the Gospel of Jesus that Christians are to share with the disillusioned and suffering? No, it’s not, nor is it a message of comfort.
Tragedy and “horror” isn’t a time for preaching “fundamentals.” This is a time for mourning and, therefore, this should be a time of “comforting the afflicted”:
Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. (2Cor. 1:3-4)
Doug Phillips pastors Boerne Christian Assembly. Pastors are called upon to provide “grief counseling” and even perform funeral services. I cringe to think of the “comfort” meted out by this man to his own church members should any of them ever have an hour of personal crisis.
Phillips says:
“Thousands will be deeply affected, probably for the rest of their lives. The most serious pains belong to the mothers, fathers, and sisters and brothers of the murdered victims. What shall we say to them? What are we to learn from these events?”
Those two questions address very different issues, or at least they should. But it’s clear from his article that Phillips would encourage us to take the practical and theological lessons that he believes we are “to learn from these events” (according to him), and “say to them” those same hard and ponderous theological “fundamentals.” I would submit that to do so would be to beat a wounded person over the head with a message that they’re simply in no position to hear. The harm and injury that could come of it could be catastrophic.
This would be an absolutely horrible time to be sharing any of the things that Phillips talks about in his article with those that mourn at Virginia Tech or, for that matter, anywhere else where unbelievers are present. For Phillips to call these shootings “God’s judgment” is anything but a message of “hope.” However, that’s one of the things that Phillips informs us that they are “to learn from these events.”
“Second, we must acknowledge that the rise of community violence is a judgment of the Lord.”
Can you imagine telling a grieving father and mother who has just lost their son or daughter, “What you need to learn from this is that this is the judgment of the Lord”?
Is this what Jesus did to Mary and Martha when their brother Lazarus died? Did he say, “This is the judgment of God. He deserved to die”? No, Jesus comforted them. “Jesus wept.”
Some of the things that Doug Phillips has to say in his article are worth hearing. But why does anyone need to hear them now? Phillips’ timing and his approach are absolutely atrocious. This isn’t the time for lectures or posturing. This is a time for grieving, and grieving people need to be comforted, not beat over the head with “fundamentals.”
______
Update:
I received an email from a home school mother in Virginia about this article. She gave permission for me to post her email.
Dear Watchman,
I’m surprised that more blogs haven’t taken Doug Phillips to task over this. What he’s done is sick. A lot of people got that Doug Phillips’ spam email about the VT massacre. It looks to me like he deliberately sent it to a lot of home school families here in Virginia. Talk about pouring salt in the wound. I know I’m not the only one who’s outraged to get his spam. Just check this out from the Home Educators Magazine Yahoo Group.
RE: [HEM-Networking] Forward to Christian Homeschool leadersIs this online any where?
This is so weird that this has come up now as I had never heard of Vision Forum until they added vahomeschoolers emails to their email list (unrequested) and we started getting spam from them. I then found out that Doug Phillips is a featured speaker at the Home Educators Association of Virginia convention this spring.
As a Va Tech grad, I was absolutely appalled at their response to what happened. Really, really scary stuff… you know that people that think like this are out there, but to actually have it show up in my inbox was eye opening. It is scary that these people are representing homeschooling.
Stephanie
I don’t know Stephanie personally, but she’s saying exactly what I think of this too. Watchman, thanks for what you’ve done. This Doug Phillips is a sick man. He needs to be stopped.
Ministry Watchman 
I was driving in the car and heard Bush’s address. It was good. He reminded them that people all over the nation were praying for them, that their community was strong, and that they would be affected for the rest of their lives. The one Scripture he used, “do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” was said mildly, and not overstated, and would have been something I could have related to, anyway, reflecting on if I had heard that after a (for real) sudden accidental death of someone close to me years ago.
I don’t like this “judgment of the Lord,” either. We can’t say this with certainty. It wasn’t a “judgment” in Job’s case, and that book is a huge hint to the wise that we should not proclaim with certitude the spiritual reasons things like this happen, because we simply don’t know everything.
It seems that Mr. Phillips is addressing Christians not directly affected by the tragedy. Different types of rhetoric are applicable in different situations — I believe his observations are useful to the overwhelming majority of Christians who are reflecting on the horror from afar. I can’t speak for Mr. Phillips, but I’d hope he’d speak differently to the parents and friends of the victims. You have rushed to judgment and not given him the chance to demonstrate that, and the burden of proof is on you to do so before you condemn a Pastor and elder in Christ’s church.
Though this doesn’t really affect the truth of the point you are making, it seems to me that you are using his response to the tragedy to further your own agenda, that of tearing Mr. Phillips down. Your article strikes me as unfair and tainted with hypocrisy.
Finally, I have been a Christian in and out of patriarchal circles for some time, and have heard the same observations in Christian funerals in all types of denominations. Had any other Christian leader said this, I certainly would not have taken notice. Perhaps I’m being insensitive; however, I’ve followed this story with much interest, and have found myself infuriated and profoundly affected from the beginning. I find wisdom in what Mr. Phillips has said.
You are really reaching. CBN aired something similar to this — drawing parallels to the culture of violence, the absence of God from schools, and the abortion pandemic — just the other night. Where’s the outcry there?
This is simply getting ridiculous.
Chris: “This is simply getting ridiculous.”
I agree, Chris, but probably not for the reasons you have stated above. This is about Doug Phillips’ biblical perspective. This is a pattern I have noticed over the years, a pattern of fatalism.
Whenever a new baby was born in our congregation, Doug would introduce him/her as “the newest sinner.”
When I was discussing with Beall, Doug’s wife, the doctrine of total depravity, she kept telling me Doug’s opinions (since she was not allowed to form her own opinions), which were that, as Christians, we could not help but sin every few minutes. What a fatalistic attitude! I tried to explain that Romans says that we are no longer slaves to sin, but they simply would not listen.
And now this attitude that we are all going to die anyway. It is the pattern of such a heavy focus on sin that concerns me. We are born sinners, we can’t help but sin every few minutes for our whole lives, and then we die. For a Christian pastor, I do find that fatalistic attitude alarming.
Is that the main message of the gospel? Is that how Jesus comes across to you? Who would want to become a Christian if that was the gospel they heard?
What has happened to the two greatest commandments here, specifically the second? Where is the love we should show to these hurting families and friends and fellow students? Isn’t this a prime opportunity to share the love of Jesus with them? Shouldn’t we be questioning how we can help? Shouldn’t we be sharing the gospel with them? Shouldn’t we be offering them hope? I’m not talking about artificial hope that all their loved ones went to heaven. They did not. But it is not too late for the ones left behind.
Where should our focus be? Judgment — or mercy?
You know, Watchman, when I read his article, I kept expecting him to equate God’s judgment with the fact that these young people were away at college. That idea of going off to college as being so sinful was drummed into me so much during my time under Doug that I have a distinct feeling that is the underlying motivation toward such a harsh, judgmental article here. I am NOT one to jump to conclusions easily — not at all. I just know Doug’s thought process too well in this area.
James 2:13 – “For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
I agree that certain tact must be demonstrated when comforting hurting people. However, I agree with the last comment. If this is not a time to inform the world, who has forgotten and rejected God, of the evil among us I do not know if there ever would be a time. It is a tragedy no one wishes to go through. You are correct in saying we must comfort those mourners with the same comfort we find in Christ. Much of that comfort comes to me in the Simple Truths of scripture. There is evil among us and we can’t see it, nor can we stop it. Only God has the victory. When we search for truth we can find peace in knowing we will never have all the answers. In closing I will also agree that we cannot give a blanket statement and say this was Gods judgment. His final judgment will come one day. It will be on all sin, and it will be final. Until then we must be careful in assuming certain cases are Gods judgment. I guess I will have to agree with some of Phillips words and some of yours Watchman.
God bless
Having lost a daughter at age ten to the ravages of a brain tumor, I think I can speak with some standing on this issue.
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Chris.
BLOG entries for the public and personal family counseling are two different venues with different purposes in mind. I know of another family who Doug Phillips personally interacted with and counseled that lost a daughter to another dreaded disease in the prime of her young adult life who have nothing but praise for the kindness and empathy shown them when others abandoned them.
Your own presuppositional agenda appears to be driving you to an inaccurate judgment here.
Kurt, I know exactly which daughter you are referring to who died of cancer and Doug helped with the memorial/funeral service. Yes, he was very kind to that family, but it appeared that it was just another opportunity to push his agenda of daughters giving their hearts to their fathers. That was the main message of the service and she was a “perfect” example of what Doug promotes.
I think the point here is that Doug uses whatever he can to promote his own agenda. If a tragedy occurs and it involves violence at a college, he will speak about judgment. If a tragedy occurs to someone who follows his teachings, he will use it to further promote his teachings.
Wouldn’t it be nice if he didn’t have an agenda, but just showed the love of Christ?
I personally talked at great length with this family and, in their mind, there was nothing but “the love of Christ” shown to them (without fanfare) by Doug Phillips.
To impugn a Christian’s motive in an action of love is a morally dangerous thing for an accuser to do.
Kurt, I’ll say here, what I said on Jen’s blog: namely , there is a time to be bluntly honest and a time to be consoling. Though IMO Phillips article is dead right theologically, in that death is the result of human sinfulness, his timing is LOUSY. The theology could have waited a few days — “though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.”
Still, I was almost agreeing with him until he went and ruined it by turning it into a political speech. Honestly–” if even one of the students in that university had been armed, Cho Seung-hui could have been stopped”??
Phillips is actually advocating that students carry guns into the classroom????
Now there’s an agenda if ever I saw one.
Ah well, 2008 is an election year. I guess it’s never too late to start courting support for the Constitution Party.
CJ,
I agree with you. The pandering, power-posturing and using every national tragedy as an opportunity to promote one’s particular agenda is truly disturbing.
Not to mention that the supporters of Doug Phillips mock those who don’t feel comforted by his words. It is one thing for him to be “nice” while doing a funeral for someone in his church but it is quite another to impugn people for sending their kids to government school and saying that this is God’s judgment on the land for doing so. That IS what he said. The people who lost daughters and sons and wives and husbands and girlfriends and boyfriends at VT do not find comfort in Doug’s words. No one is asking anyone to forsake the gospel! That is just nuts. We are questioning the timing and the lack of compassion. We are also quesitoning a man who frequently speaks for God. How does Doug know that God is judging America for government schools and abortion by having this happen at VT? Does he have a special pipeline to God that the rest of us don’t have?
I also find it quite scary that he is advocating students to carry guns into the classroom. Not only students but MALE CHRISTIAN students. He is not advocating that all students carry weapons. Female students are not included. They must depend on the benevolence and quick thinking of a male student for protection. Or, better yet, they can go home to their father’s house where they belong. Can you imagine the ramifications of such an action? More people will be killed with those guns that could be saved. I am not against gun owning at all. I just think this is the most ludicrous piece of advice. A bunch of males packing pistols and those guns will only be used to stop madmen from shooting up schools or raping women? Yep, that makes sense.
It seems that Doug frequently uses national tragedies to further his platform of his view of patriarchy.
Here is what he said on his blog on 9/11/2006:
“The Widows and the Fatherless
On behalf of the families of The Vision Forum, Inc. and Vision Forum Ministries, our very special and heartfelt prayers go out to the widows and fatherless children of 9/11.
Posted by Doug Phillips on September 11, 2006”
Can anyone find what is conspicuously absent from this “heartfelt prayers”????
It leaps out at me. No such sentiments for the widowers and motherless children of 9/11. After all, more than 25% of the people who died on those planes and in those buildings were women- wifes and mothers and daughters. But, it is probably the “latent feminist” in me who sees his glaring omission.
What about all those children who have lost their mother and all those husbands who have lost their wife? Is it because Doug doesn’t believe that those women would have died if they would have been home where they belonged?
He bases his statements on his own personal viewpoints and it colors everything he says concerning these tragic situations.
Good thoughts, Corrie. And another thing. Doug writes,
“Our nation has broken covenant with the God of our fathers. We have forsaken the law of God and have worshipped before false idols. We have sacrificed our children, not only spiritually and intellectually to the high priests of a new secular religion in our government schools.”
READ BETWEEN THE LINES, FOLKS. Doug’s rant is not just about government schools. Doug is calling secular government itself an idol, and he is calling secularism a religion. In other words, if you are not FOR theocracy, you are necessarily against it, and have “broken the covenant”. Doug is preaching against democracy itself, and calling all who do not support his religion idolaters.
Now, I don’t usually call names, but the time has come to call this spade what it is — a dangerous cult run by a dangerous nut who would like nothing better than to bury democracy and establish his brand of theocracy as the order of the day. The rot going on in our country is bad, but the state-church harlotry that is Doug Phillips’ “vision” for America would be infinitely worse, were it ever to be realized.
CJ,
I am only glad that you are brave enough to call a spade a spade. 🙂
Yes, it certainly appears that Doug is preaching theocracy and all of us who do not support it to be idolators. What covenant did the people in America supposedly break? I do not remember what that alleged covenant? I remember God giving the *Israelites* a covenant at Mt. Sanai to be obey while they lived in the land that He gave them.
I do not remember God telling the Founding Fathers that He was giving them this land and then coming down and giving them a covenant? Does anyone have a copy of this covenant that the people of America has broken?
It is all pretty simple to me. We are aliens here. We are strangers. We are to go out and preach the gospel and teach others about Christ. Not everyone is called to be a Christian. And those that are not Christians canNOT obey God’s word.
Why does it seem that the Reformed folk don’t understand their own doctrine? Have they not read Romans lately?
“Female students are not included. They must depend on the benevolence and quick thinking of a male student for protection.”
Corrie, in reading that I couldn’t help but immediately think of Jen’s BCA story and how Doug Phillips prohibits women from getting their own communion. If their husband isn’t there, or for the single ladies their fathers, then “They must depend on the benevolence and quick thinking of a male” to get the communion elements for them.
Prayer requests are treated the same way at BCA. No woman could ever speak in church at any time and, therefore, no woman could even so much as make a prayer request.
I happen to believe in chivalry and protecting women and children. I don’t, however, believe that women are entirely beholden to men. After all, there are many circumstances in which the men aren’t always around to protect them, serve them the Lord’s Supper, or make their prayer requests for them.
Subjecting women like that isn’t chivalry, it’s just misogyny.
“Why does it seem that the Reformed folk don’t understand their own doctrine? Have they not read Romans lately?” Corrie, please don’t make the mistake of believing that just because Doug Phillips calls himself Reformed that he really is, or that he even understands Reformed theology. Based on what the man espouses and what he practices he’s no more Reformed than his defrocked pal R.C. Sproul Jr.
It is because of sin that that men began to rule over women in the first place. And, the next line in Genesis tells us that women will still want to be in relationship with men, regardless of men’s Fall-based “need” to rule over them.”
(It’s *almost* a GOOD thing that women were cursed with the desire to want to be in relationship with men in spite of being ruled, or else the human race might never have survived.)
Luckily for us though, Jesus came and died and rose again, and has undone and is undoing the Curse of the Fall. Women are to be helpmates to their husbands, that’s part of the Creation order — but the word used in the Bible for helpmate refers to an equal, not an inferior.
Many complementarians use an exegesis of the first chapters of Genesis to describe what they believe is the “Holy Spirit’s doctrine of sexuality,” without bothering to properly understand what God meant by “helpmeet” and forgetting that Jesus’s died on the cross to undo sin and the Curse, and compound their error by taking things a step further and teaching that all men are to be in authority over all women.
But, what if those passages in Genesis ARE teaching us to be complementarian in our view of marriage, but egalitarian in our view of relationships between the sexes in general?
When the events described in the first part of Genesis took place, Adam and Eve were the only two people on earth.
The passages describing their relationship are of necessity descriptive of both the relationship of the world’s first married couple to one another, and of the relationship existing between the sexes at that time, because at the time, there was no difference: Adam and Eve were IT. But as other people were born and reached adulthood, other relationships between men and women became possible. It became possible for a man and a woman to interact together as mother/son, brother/sister, cousin/cousin, and eventually, stranger/stranger. To ascribe the same dynamic found in marriage to the relationship between two strangers seems ridiculous at best and perverted at worst.
In other words, many complementarians claim that because of the relationship assigned at Creation to Adam and Eve, a wife should love her husband submissively, AND a husband should love his wife sacrificially.
So far, so good.
But they go on, saying that this also means that all women are to be under – ie, be submissive to — all men in the social order, for all time (I assume that they also mean that all men should sacrificially love all women as well, but somehow they never quite get around to “going there”.)
So, think about it – can the relationship between Adam and Eve be extended to the relationship of all men to all women, married or not? Should all the men in town love every woman in town sacrificially, and should all women submit submit themselves to every man they meet, solely on the basis of gender?
Animals do that, certainly, EXCEPT for those species that are naturally monogamous — there, the picture is quite different — and, this model also comes pretty close to the ideas found behind the “community of women”, as notoriously practiced by Jan Matthys, Jan Bockelson, and their Anabaptists followers in the rebellion at Munster.
But, I doubt that as Christians we want to emulate either cattle or Munsterites.
“I am only glad that you are brave enough to call a spade a spade.”
Thanks, Corrie, but there’s nothing brave about it.
After all, what can Doug do to me, or to anybody else? True, he’s an attorney, but he’s also a public figure making very public statements.
And even if he did try to sue me, you can’t get blood out of a turnip. I rent my house, buy second hand everything, and both of our vehicles are 1989 Fords, held together by junkyard parts and the grace of God, LOL. I got nothin’ to lose…. 🙂
Watchman, you wrote in paragraph six that “Phillips’ article is likely to be interpreted by many as a message that God is cruel, unloving, uncaring, judgmental, and only too eager to destroy sinners.”
Do we see a pattern here? Aren’t the adjectives you used exactly what Jennifer has proven Phillips is (cruel, unloving, uncaring, judgmental, eager to destroy those Doug defines as sinners)?
Frankly, after his rejection of our late July 2006 offer to humbly allow Phillips to have it his way, I was 99% convinced he had no intention of ever being reconciled – even if he was in the driver’s seat.
Now, after my public appeal on your site a few weeks ago and Jennifer’s public appeal on her site a few days ago, I am 100% convinced that Phillips has no interest in any relationship this side of heaven. That being said, I will publicly remind him one more time of the many scriptural dictates to do everything possible to be reconciled to a brother (this includes sisters in the Lord).
Don’t forget Doug, judgment begins at the house of God.
Corrie has posted an article on the Virginia Tech massacre with some thought provoking questions. I’d like to see Doug Phillips address the issues she raises.
Go to VT Massacre.
Corrie wrote: “It is all pretty simple to me. We are aliens here. We are strangers. We are to go out and preach the gospel and teach others about Christ. Not everyone is called to be a Christian. And those that are not Christians canNOT obey God’s word.
“Why does it seem that the Reformed folk don’t understand their own doctrine? Have they not read Romans lately?”
yes! We are aliens here. There is a streak of dominionism inside the false teaching of Theocracy. It is nothing but pride and the need for power and control.
DP has no credibility with me simply because he did not publicly speak out against Mrs. Binoculars and Fed up websites that were total hate and developed to do one thing: Destroy Jennifer. As a matter of fact, he promoted Mrs. B on VF. This told me quite a bit about his true character. Those sites were an abomination. (I am not even mentioning the issue of the Allosaur which really stands out as also showing a lack of character)
DP has missed the most important teaching of all: When we are saved, we are NEW creatures. God takes our heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh. We are cleansed. (Ez 36) yes, we still sin but we are broken by our sin…our ATTITUDE toward sin changes and we cannot stand it in ourselves. We are in daily repentance growing in Holiness.
In the end, DP is nothing but a pragmatist. He will do whatever it takes to gain power, influence and wealth. Those who agree with him will be treated well. Those who do not…well…we have seen the result of that. So, it is easy to see how some will have a totally different view of Phillips. They have never crossed him.
Thanks for the Doug Phillips analysis. I agree that what the man proposes has disturbing ramifications. His timing is even more disturbing.
I posted a link to your article on another blog, http://steeplemedia.com/blogs/son_of_liberty/archive/2007/04/19/26308.aspx
with a brief comment, and then there was a response from a Jim W. I think you’ll be interested in this.
Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:26 PM by Rollyson
That’s one crazy Doug Phillips article. So if Phillips had his way what we’d see is everyone strapping on a six shooter before heading off to school in the morning?
Here’s another interesting take on the Doug Phillips Virginia Tech article.
http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=100
Saturday, April 21, 2007 6:09 AM by Jim W.
Hey Joe, been following the treasure hunt and check your blog every once in a while. I was surprised to see you leave comments like the one above and was just curious if you know whether or not the rules for the Jamestown 400 disqualify you from posting cruel comments about the sponsors of the game by what looks to me to be a professional troll–“Rollyson” (I.e. Jennifer Epstein and team) or links to bone fide hate sites? Just wondering.
Here is what I read that makes me wonder: (i.e.”The Jamestown 400 is an activity designed to bring glory to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is not a forum for encouraging behavior which would be contra-biblical or displeasing to God. Vision Forum reserves the right to exclude from participation in the final stage of the Jamestown 400, any player who has been shown to act in a disruptive manner toward The Vision Forum, Inc., in general, or the Jamestown 400, in particular.”)
Saturday, April 21, 2007 12:21 PM by Rollyson
Hey Jim, Joe didn’t “leave cruel comments.” That was me who left them. Except they weren’t “cruel.” Interesting also that you would accuse me of being part of some “Jennifer Epstien team.” Paranoia issues Jim?
Hey Jim, it looks like between the two of us you are the real “professional troll.” Your knowledge of all things Vision Forum is amazing.
So it looks like in order to play Vision Forum games you have to fully agree with Doug Phillips about everything he writes, and you can’t even link to anyone who disagrees with him about anything? And if you host a blog you can’t permit anyone else to post any comments that might in any way be “disruptive toward Vision Forum, Inc.” (whatever that’s supposed to mean)?
Sounds kind of autocratic and imperious, doesn’t it? Oh, I guess I can’t say that though. That would be cruel.
Joe, if you need to delete my comments so you can play the game I’ll understand. Believe me, coming here and running into Jim has been very enlightening already.
Thanks for the education Jim. It’s really helping to confirm some things that I’ve been suspicious about.
I agree with you that Phillips article is in very poor taste. And the timing couldn’t be worse.
I don’t know who Leslie Armstrong is but she seems to have some personal insights on Doug Phillips, especially with this comment she left at http://www.benedictionblogson.com/?p=2934
This Virginia Tech article of his is an obvious “exertion of hypermasculine power in an extrabiblical manner.” I feel sorry for Mrs. Phillips.
MW,
Thank you for the cautions about equating Reformed theology to the practice of some who espouse it in word only and not deed or thought.
I am convinced about the truth concerning many things that Reformed theology teaches. One thing I am very convinced about is the total depravity of ALL men. That means that we cannot expect the “dead” to do anything since they are dead. A dead man cannot choose to do anything since he is dead.
Instead of railing at the so-called pagan, idol-worshiping colleges and schools, maybe we should try being salt and light in this world and bringing the gospel to those since that is the only power unto salvation.
All this boastful talk and power-posturing and arm-chair quarterbacking only makes us look like fools to a lost world.
If we looked like fools for preaching the Gospel, that would be one thing. But, they are not preaching the Gospel. They are preaching their own flavor of man-made traditions mixed with thinking that just doesn’t jive with the whole of scripture.
I did a search on school shootings and it was interesting what I found. It seems that there have always been massacres in schools. After all, isn’t that the perfect soft target for bullies and tyrants and psychopaths? It is just like Satan to go over those who are more vulnerable and physically weaker.
So, when God was still in our schools and America was living by godly principles, there was still bloodshed and massacre of the “innocents”.
What was the problem then? It is the same problem today. There is nothing new under the sun. There were no “better times” where people were closer to God.
So, while people spout verbage about God judging America, they forget that history is rife with examples of injustice and tragedy.
The only cure is the Gospel of Christ. And that Gospel contains the good news of Jesus Christ who died for our sins, who was buried, who was raised on the 3rd day and who now sits at the right hand of the Father.
It is not the gospel of “patriarchy” and gun-packing school boys.
Also, Doug doesn’t seem to exhibit an understanding of the sovereignty of God in his statements. He thinks that man is in control and if man would just follow his advice, all would be right with the world. That is not what the bible teaches.
[…] Doug Phillips has just expressed his views publicly on the massacre at Virginia Tech in an article entitled On The Horror At Virginia Tech. Though Doug makes some valid theological observations, his timing couldn’t have been worse. Doug is taking considerable heat over how insensitive and calloused his remarks appear to be. Most troubling is the fact that Doug is publicly advocating arming students. This is a classic example of Doug’s reactionary thinking. Because gun control advocates are calling for further gun control legislation, Doug reacts by saying the solution is to permit students to bring guns into the classroom. This isn’t to say that he wants all students armed, though. In Doug’s patriarchal world, only male students would be armed. […]
[…] Doug Phillips has just expressed his views publicly on the massacre at Virginia Tech in an article entitled On The Horror At Virginia Tech. Though Doug makes some valid theological observations, his timing couldn’t have been worse. Doug is taking considerable heat over how insensitive and calloused his remarks appear to be. Most troubling is the fact that Doug is publicly advocating arming students. This is a classic example of Doug’s reactionary thinking. Because gun control advocates are calling for further gun control legislation, Doug reacts by saying the solution is to permit students to bring guns into the classroom. This isn’t to say that he wants all students armed, though. In Doug’s patriarchal world, only male students would be armed. […]
I find it interesting that so many here find the idea of every male college student being armed horrifying.
Why is it horrifying to the average American? Because he has been trained to be horrified at the thought of civilians being as well armed as government agents.
Whom does this mindset benefit?
It also shows an ignorance of history. In the first American colony, men aged 18-22 were required to bear arms and be proficient in the use thereof. It was a crime to do otherwise. Check into the murder stats of that era and you will see that it was a very effective policy.
I for one do not find this idea intrinsically horrifying. In fact, in looking into recent history, I discovered that only five years ago, in the very same state of Virginia, armed students were able to stop a massacre. They could have stopped it even sooner, but they had to go get their guns out of their cars first–they weren’t allowed to carry them on campus, even though both of them were police officers back home. What if there hadn’t been any police officers studying at the Appalachian School of Law?
And why has hardly anyone even mentioned this incident in the current discussion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
Watchman:
What do you make of BCA’s latest comment regarding the Epstein’s and how Faith PCA dealt with them?
http://www.boernechristianassembly.org
I appreciate the insights above. DP’s latest blog is just more proof of the obvious. DP is his own worst enemy. At this point, all of his vile rhetoric only reminds me to pray for him, and for those being misled by him. I fear God’s coming wrath and am grateful for the chance to pray for those who use His name in vain. (something I did learn in Reformed circles!)
What troubles me the most about this current rant, is that it epitomizes what the world thinks of Christianity. Rather than comfort and kindness “we” spew venom and delight in our superiority. Gag. I am grateful to know that DP’s outward representation of Christ’s church is tragically flawed and, in no way, reflects the glory of our Lord. Ephesians 3:14-20 helps me keep all of this in perspective.
Curious,
I’ve been following this unfolding event over in the comments section of Jen’s blog. Very interesting.
I’m troubled by the tone of this public statement of Doug Phillips. It strikes me as being quite hostile. Is this how churches should respond when they’re pastor is being held to account for his bad behavior? Is this kind of response befitting conduct for a pastor?
I’d like to see Doug Phillips post copies on his church web site of the FPC letters he’s quoting from. You see Curious, I’ve got this thing about trusting Doug Phillips enough to believe his version of the story without being able to read the full content of those letters for myself.
I’d also like to know if Phillips obtained FPC’s permission to quote from their letters. My operating assumption is that he didn’t, and I’m also assuming that FPC considers the content of those letters to be confidential.
Curious,
You asked about my take on the Doug Phillips/BCA statement. I don’t have much to add at this time other than to reiterate that I believe that Phillips’ statement is wholly unfitting of a pastor.
I appreciated this biblically-minded comment from Trish:
I am honestly astonished at what is contained in this thread and the comment section here. I have read MW for a while, and I have never seen anything like this.
The sole objection I can find to this DP article is that it was “unkind” “uncaring” “judgmental” (Watchman) and “bad timing” (Claire Thompson)…aw shucks, he wasn’t kind enough at the right times. However everybody, including Watchman, agrees that it is theologically accurate, Phillips made “a valid theological statement” he was elaborating upon “fundamentals;” Cynthia said “Phillips article is dead right theologically” and nobody here objected to saying it was right theologically But some women just got their feelings hurt over it all…this is what passes for Reformed criticism amongst Christians?
I have appreciated what has been written here at MW for sometime now, but I’m am getting seriously turned off from anything you have the say when I read posts like this, and see that just about the only commenters are feminists. For example:
Corrie upbraids Phillips on his 9/11 post because he said “fatherless and widows” and her feminist sensibilities were hurt because he didn’t mention widowers, motherless, aunt-less, uncle-less, nephew-less, niece-less, fairy godmother-less people. This was Biblical terminology that Phillips used…and it *is* the “(not so) latent feminist” in you that would take objection to this.
Cynthia greatly objects to Phillips’ position about Government schools and secular government. Why on earth hasn’t the Christian men take up the cause against such absurd ramblings as “Doug is calling secular government itself an idol, and he is calling secularism a religion. In other words, if you are not FOR theocracy, you are necessarily against it,” Why in the world is this in a pejorative context? A woman attacks “God’s rule” in favor of…what? Man’s-rule? Apparently she hasn’t ever read authors like Francis Schaffer, or *any* other Christian apologist, because every single one of them, starting with Augustine, recognizes that secularism IS A RELIGION! Where were the men to defend against this absurd assertions?
Corrie and Cynthia are appalled that Phillips would even suggest “Not only students but MALE CHRISTIAN students” carry guns into the classroom. What? Since when have Reformed Christians decided that gun-control was ok? Apparently since Doug Phillips believes that we should carry and defend ourselves. Cynthia said “Phillips is actually advocating that students carry guns into the classroom????”…uh, yeah…and the problem with that is…what? Like Reformed Calvinist pointed out, you are apparently severely deficient in your history, because the requirement for men to carry weapons is an ancient one…extending back past the time of 1215 and the signing of the Magna Carta. And you know something else, I grew up in a time boys *did* carry their .22s or .410s to school, and you know what? There weren’t Columbines and there weren’t V-Tech massacres.
Oh, and I think it would be too patriarchal to try and stop a 250lb black guy from raping a girl…maybe we should just forget all that absurd nonsense about chivalry and protecting the weaker sex. But then we can’t have a “gospel of “patriarchy” and gun-packing school boys.” Where are the men here? Gospel of patriarchy? Gun-packing school boys? Where did you grow up at, the Bronx? Is the idea of boys carrying their guns to school so completely foreign to you that you actually think this is a *bad* thing?
I have enjoyed reading MW, but when I come here and all I see are absurd attacks against Patriarchs, against the common-law basis for carrying weapons, not being kind enough, Theonomy, etc, I have to seriously wonder what exactly has Doug Phillips done again? Why is he wrong? This post was such a terrible reach to find just anything that could possibly be “bad” about DP and posting it. Then the feminists run wild, talking about how he hurt their feelings. Phillips has done some bad stuff, I agree, but if one has to resort to saying “ooh, he hurt my feelings…it was truth, but it just wasn’t timely” as a means of attacking him, then I want no part in “exposing” Phillips.
For you to read a published blog post and arrive at the conclusion that Doug is “cold and calloused” is so ridiculous that I thought it was tongue in cheek, when I first started reading it. You have obviously never spent time with the man personally. I can assure you from personal experience that you are making a perfectly irresponsible leap of logic from a blog post to the man’s character.
Of course the whole issue dissolves when we realize that contrary to your repeated assertion that Doug is saying these truths to the grieving family members, we actually don’t know if even ONE grieving family member actually read it.
I find it interesting that MW can barely muster a wimper in response to the devastating FPC information posted on the Boerne site. All we are told is that Doug’s response is “wholly unfitting” for a pastor. Well, if the Epsteins truly are guilty of lying and conspiring with others, it is appropriate for a pastor to firmly and publicly reaffirm the excommunication. His “tone of voice” or use of rhetoric is somewhat beside the point, yes?
Also, it’s interesting that Little Bear and his session posted a devastating statement that “discredits” the Epsteins and puts them to shame: http://www.lwfchurch.org/statement.html. (Notice that this statement does not suffer from the potential problem of being quoted out of context by Doug because it was actually posted by Living Water Fellowship.)
By now, any observer who is even semi-interested in the truth should see this whole conspiracy for what it is. Anonymous internet terrorists, cease and desist for the sake of Christ’s name!
“Corrie upbraids Phillips on his 9/11 post because he said “fatherless and widows” and her feminist sensibilities were hurt because he didn’t mention widowers, motherless, aunt-less, uncle-less, nephew-less, niece-less, fairy godmother-less people. This was Biblical terminology that Phillips used…and it *is* the “(not so) latent feminist” in you that would take objection to this.”
Hi Kriegerwulff,
I was thinking about all the men and children who lost their wife and/or mother in 9/11. My feminist sensibilities were not hurt and I don’t think that any Fairy Godmothers were hurt in 9/11. I don’t think they can die because their fairy dust saves them in those sorts of situations.
You are right, I should stop being concerned about causing the lost to blaspheme the name of Christ because of how we Christians allow our agendas to color everything we do and say. Shame on me for thinking about those MEN who were widowers and those children who were motherless and how excluding them from his prayers might make them feel. I was actually thinking about MEN and children, Mr. Kriegerwulff. They might not understand this so-called biblical language and that it is somehow referring to them, also, since it mentions widows and the fatherless.
“Since when have Reformed Christians decided that gun-control was ok? ”
Who is pro gun control? Just because some of us believe there should be limits, that makes us wrong? You think there should be no limits on who carries a loaded gun?
“And you know something else, I grew up in a time boys *did* carry their .22s or .410s to school, and you know what? There weren’t Columbines and there weren’t V-Tech massacres.”
Really? I am 41. I know we weren’t allowed to bring loaded guns to school. How old are you? Boys carried their loaded guns to school in what era? I asked my dad and he said that boys didn’t carry guns to school. There have been school shootings and massacres dating back to the 1600s, btw. As I said in my post above, I did my homework.
“Like Reformed Calvinist pointed out, you are apparently severely deficient in your history, ”
It depends which version of history.
“Oh, and I think it would be too patriarchal to try and stop a 250lb black guy from raping a girl…maybe we should just forget all that absurd nonsense about chivalry and protecting the weaker sex.”
You lost me on that one. And I don’t want to touch the implication of the above with a 10-foot pole. I don’t have a clue as to why you brought race into this. Do you need a gun to stop a guy from raping a girl? Also, we don’t need people taking the law into their own hands. There was a time in the recent past where black men were hung from the nearest tree without a fair trial because of trumped up charges of raping a white girl.
“Then the feminists run wild, talking about how he hurt their feelings. Phillips has done some bad stuff, I agree, but if one has to resort to saying “ooh, he hurt my feelings…it was truth, but it just wasn’t timely” as a means of attacking him, then I want no part in “exposing” Phillips.”
You obviously are confused or just making up stuff for dramatic affect. This has nothing to do with my own personal feelings. I am not personally affected by this or Phillips’ words. But, the victims’ families and the survivors ARE affected by his words. That is what I was thinking of. My feelings are not hurt at all.
I am not going to call you names like you have called me and CJ but it is obvious you have your own agenda. I don’t think me calling you a name with an “ist” in it would be appropriate. You have no idea what I am but you freely throw about the “feminist” label. Thanks for the laugh.
This is precisely why I do not trust allowing every male to carry a loaded gun. In the days where chivalry and respect for women were a norm, then it was okay but your post makes it clear that those days are long dead. Too many guns are turned on the very ones they are to protect and we have a lot of ill-tempered and mentally ill men running around our society. I do not want just anyone male to be allowed to carry a loaded weapon.
A true gentleman doesn’t go around calling women names even if they deserve it, much less if that gentleman has no grounds to make such accusations.
And since is this a Reformed doctrine? Calvin carried a loaded gun? Martin Luther carried a loaded gun? Knox carried a gun? Wycliffe carried a gun? Why did many of these same men have to hide in order to save their lives if they had all these guns lying around?
As soon as you start accurately representing what was said, I will listen to you and what you have to say. Until then, I can’t really take you seriously.
Chris,
“You are really reaching. CBN aired something similar to this — drawing parallels to the culture of violence, the absence of God from schools, and the abortion pandemic — just the other night. Where’s the outcry there?”
CBN? Are you serious? They say a LOT of goofy things. Are you comparing Pat Robertson to Doug Phillips? If you are putting Doug in the same category of Pat and his theology, then you have a point. I withdraw my complaint about Doug’s letter. I don’t pay much attention to Pat’s prophecies and words of knowledge.
Maybe this is a lost point on everyone here but many of us are tired of opportunistic Christians using every tragedy as a platform for their own agendas. How about a Biblical response without all the political pandering and posturing? It is dishonest. I used to work in politics. I raised money for many campaigns of some big name senators and congressmen. I abhor when Christians spin everything just like a secular politician.
Also, many of us are tired of some men thinking that they speak for God. We do not know why God allowed that horrendous evil in Virginia Tech and either does Doug Phillips. How do we know it wasn’t because of all the porn addicts in America? Maybe God was judging the porn addicts? How about the tornadoes in Texas this past week? Maybe God was judging people who cheat on their taxes?
My point wasn’t pro or anti gun control. My point wasn’t making sure that feminists don’t get their feelings hurt. My point wasn’t that fat men will now be able to rape girls at will if everyone doesn’t pack a loaded weapon.
I received a lot of letters from pastors in my mail box this week talking about the VT massacre. Most of them stuck to the bible and left their own agendas out of it. NOW is not the time to be using people to further our own politics.
We need to remember that we are strangers here, aliens. The answer to evil is not more guns or less guns. That is flesh-talk. The answer is Christ and the change He makes when people become a new creation.
Disclaimer: No fairy godmothers were hurt in the making of this post.
“His ‘tone of voice’ or use of rhetoric is somewhat beside the point, yes?”
Yes, I’ll concede that point. I think Phillips’ tone is a valid concern, particularly when it comes to a pastor’s conduct, but it doesn’t go to demonstrating whether or not there’s any truth to Phillips latest public statement, and I’m not implying that it does. Turnabout is fair play though, and Phillips should be held to an even higher standard than Jen when it comes to “tone,” since he’s a pastor and a teacher (James 3:1) and Jen is not. I’ve seen many complaints on Jen’s blog about her “tone. According to many of her detractors she’s unforgiving, unloving, etc. Those “tone” complaints supposedly go to show that Jen’s accusations must therefore be untrue, as though without the right “tone” the story should be immediately rejected. I don’t buy that logic, but for those who keep trying to apply it to Jen I find them to be hypocritical for defending Phillips when his own tone is even far less gracious than Jen’s has been.
“I find it interesting that MW can barely muster a wimper in response to the devastating FPC information posted on the Boerne site.”
That’s because I hardly deem it devastating. In my mind it raises far more problems for Phillips than it does for the Epsteins, but I don’t think it’s “devastating” to either party. I don’t want to run the risk though of potentially ruining the plot for how I suspect the Epsteins are planning on responding, so I’m not going to say anything about why I think that’s the case. I will say just this though: I don’t trust Doug Phillips enough to believe that he would fairly and honestly quote from that FPC correspondence. He’s cherry picking. The fact that he hasn’t posted the documents in full just makes me distrust him all the more.
I think the Epsteins are very capable of responding for themselves without the impatient prodding of their detractors, IO. They probably won’t respond as rapidly as you’d like them to, but that’s not my concern. What could concern me is if they don’t respond in a reasonable amount of time. Your idea of what’s a reasonable time frame versus mine is probably much different, but again that’s not my concern. If there isn’t a response in a reasonable amount of time you can be sure that I’ll be contacting them about it to find out why.
Such an interesting pattern I’ve observed over this whole Doug Phillips brouhaha. So many double standards. The standards that the Phillips defenders impose on the Epsteins are standards that they’d never apply to Phillips. Standards of “tone.” Standards of forgiveness. Standards and expectations of responses.
The Epsteins spent months documenting their story, substantiated by multiple primary source documents. Phillips failed for months to offer any response at all, and when he does respond on his “church blog” (as the Epsteins are calling it) his response isn’t a point by point rebuttal, but just vague and broad denials. They were excommunicated by a unanimous vote of BCA for lying, unsubmissiveness, etc. That’s it. End of story. If it’d been a just excommunication it would be the end of the story and I would have never agreed to have Charles Fisher present the initial story here in the first place. To me it’s always been obvious that the excommunication of the Epsteins just made a complete mockery of biblical church discipline.
Immediately after being excommunicated by Kangaroo Court they asked for a list of specific sins that were excommunicatible offenses, and they’ve continued asking for it. They’ve never received it, and they’ve never received an explanation for why they can’t have it. The fact that FPC told them to go back to BCA and “repent” of sins that FPC probably can’t even specifically identify only proves how unreasonable FPC was.
With Phillips’ latest posting on his church blog we now have the phenomena of Phillips’ supporters demanding an immediate reply from the Epsteins. I don’t recall ever seeing anyone, including Phillips’ detractors, ever demanding an immediate response from Phillips. The expectation was that if he was capable of offering a point by point rebuttal that it would take him a reasonable amount of time to do so. I think the Epsteins are due the same courtesy.
Hello, Kriegerwulff…
I don’t have time to respond to your whole post, I have too much housework to do, but I just gotta ask you two things.
First of all, where did you grow up? I grew up in northeast Kansas, and I attended classes in a two room schoolhouse that didn’t even have indoor plumbing until I was in 3rd grade. I guess that makes me a hillbilly, albeit an educated one (and yes, it IS possible!), but we weren’t even allowed to carry pocket knives to school, let alone guns. I doubt you were allowed to do so either, if you grew up in the United States at any time after 1940.
And, my second question is simply this:
Supposing I was carrying a knife or a gun ( and that HAS happened, on occasion 😉 )……
……would I be too matriarchal if I were to use it to stop a 250 lb. white woman from raping a black guy?
Oh, and Kriegerwulff, you said,
“Apparently she hasn’t ever read authors like Francis Schaffer, or *any* other Christian apologist, because every single one of them, starting with Augustine, recognizes that secularism IS A RELIGION! Where were the men to defend against this absurd assertions?”
It’s true that I haven’t read Schaffer, I tend to avoid pop-theologians who mix politics with religion in order to sell books. But I would ask you, how do you know that what Schaffer writes is TRUE? Have you checked his writings against Augustine, or Aquinas, or any of the anteNicene fathers? Have you checked them against the Bible???
And, if you would call secularism a religion, what about Kinism?
Sheesh.
Martin Luther on guns:
“Cannons and firearms are cruel and damnable machines. I believe them to have been the direct suggestion of the devil. Against the flying ball no valor avails; the soldier is dead, ere he sees the means of his destruction. If Adam had seen in a vision the horrible instruments his children were to invent, he would have died of grief.
(Table Talk, “Of Spiritual and Church Livings,” DCCLXXVI.)”
“Since when have Reformed Christians decided that gun-control was ok? ”
Wasn’t Martin Luther considered Reformed?
Does the WCF contain instruction on carrying guns? Is it in the Larger Catechism?
Do we have to go through some sort of training to know when we should shoot or how long we wait to shoot? Is there any training involved in carrying loaded weapons? Or is it just a “lock and load” mentality?
Are there any law enforcement people who could speak on this issue? Do you feel it is good for all students on college campuses to be carrying loaded weapons? Would that make your job easier or harder and would it cut down on the number of killings/deaths?
“Also, it’s interesting that Little Bear and his session posted a devastating statement that “discredits” the Epsteins and puts them to shame”
Huh? The statement gave no facts or supporting evidence for anything. The shame is in the statement’s vagueness…perhaps they are worried about losing business since they are so closely aligned with that market.
“Such an interesting pattern I’ve observed over this whole Doug Phillips brouhaha. So many double standards”
Here’s another one: Doug Phillips had NO problem with Sproul Jr. being defrocked…even having a conference with him on HONOR. Yet, he excommunicates the Epstiens but cannot tell them what they need to repent of…
I do not even know where to begin with some of the outrageous theological assertions here so I will address Cynthia’s knife and gun school issue because it is quick, easy and at the moment all I have the time or patience for.
I began attending public school in 1969 at the age of six. From the age of seven I carried a pocketknife as did several of my classmates. This was known to teachers and administration alike. By high school I was working on a farm and when at school had a Buck folding knife with a 4.5″ to 5″ blade on my belt. Many others carried the same regularly. These also were carried with full knowledge of faculty and administration and were perfectly legal for open carry in my state of Texas.
In the high school parking lot (1976-1981) were several trucks with gun racks populated with 22lr, high power rifles, and shotguns, sometimes more than one per truck. These trucks and guns belonged to the students and were in open view. My wife, who graduated from another school in the state, far from mine, verifies similar experience at her school.
Oh yeah, we NEVER had an incident of anyone being knifed or gunned down at the school, not one single time. Although almost everyone carried, pulling a weapon in a fight was not done, period. Again, my wife reports that same from here school. Had anyone tried the wrath of the watching crowd would have been sudden and certain as this behavior was unacceptable and way beyond the pale.
The idea that no one carried after 1940 is ridiculous.
Corrie said,”Are there any law enforcement people who could speak on this issue? Do you feel it is good for all students on college campuses to be carrying loaded weapons?”]
Yes. let’s. I would be especially interested in their view of the Virginia Tech policies that forbid even off duty law enforcement officers from carrying their weapons on campus. Surely an off duty law enforcement officer can be trusted to handle a firearm. Even the most rabid anti-gun person I know does not begrudge the police the ability to carry.
Watchman,
The nom de plume using Interested Observer said this: “Anonymous internet terrorists, cease and desist for the sake of Christ’s name!”
I wholeheartedly agree! When is IO, SBJ and his cohorts at Fed Up/SFU, the anonymous Phillips shills/proxies, etc. posting on your site, Jen’s site, my site, and other sites going to “man up”? When are they going to rid themselves of their gelatinous back “bones” and ongoing cowardice by identifying themselves like Jen and me? How do they expect anyone with an objective mind to take them seriously when we don’t even know with whom we are attempting to dialogue? Perhaps if these cowards identified themselves and opened their sites to comments, then Phillips’ “internet assassins” might engender some credibility down the road.
As I noted on Jen’s blog:
Was Ministry Watchman’s site hacked? Yes.
Was Vision Forum, Mrs. Bino, BCA, Fed Up/SFU, etc. hacked? No.
Has anyone who supports Phillips had someone call their employer? No.
Has anyone who voiced support for the Epsteins had their employment threatened? Yes.
Has anyone threatened a Phillips supporter with church discipline or a lawsuit? No.
Has anyone supporting the Epsteins been threatened with church discipline or a lawsuit? Yes.
The bottom line is the Phillips’ camp and the proxies who do Doug’s bidding are the ones who do not conduct themselves as Christians nor are they courageous enough to identify themselves (so much for Doug’s “talk” of courage and honor). Doug’s supporters engage in multiple logical fallacies (multiple “guilt by association” comments identified by other commenters, ad hominem attacks, etc.), personal attacks (stating that Joe Taylor, Jen, and I are “lying” without one shred of documentation to back up the claim), character assassination (the public reading and internet revealing of pre-conversion sin), and the list goes on.
Yes, IO, it’s time for YOU and your cowardly cohorts to “cease and desist for the sake of Christ’s name.”
Watchman, you and your readers may want to read the latest post on Doug Phillips: Why Home School Leaders were Rightfully Warned
Watchman,
The comment below was taken from Jen’s site. However, I think it is worth repeating on your site.
When we look at the whole counsel of God, we find one inescapable conclusion: The Aaronic Priesthood, Rabbis, Elders (Bishops), Pastors, all must (1) be above reproach and (2) must live their lives to a higher standard than their sheep.
Doug Phillips fails in both areas. And for more reasons than his conduct towards the Epsteins, although his handling of the Epstein excommunication is sufficient to warrant his removal as an elder.
Some may still find this an unfair statement, but let us examine just a couple of known facts.
First, Doug Phillips is a school-trained lawyer. Unlike his pastoral brethren who have not attended law school and, therefore, may have made one or two minor mistakes in the conduct of an excommunication, Phillips is without excuse.
Secondly, Phillips did not make a minor mistake or two. He violated the heart and soul of the biblical canon and the US Constitution, as it relates to due process, when he denied Jen and me the opportunity to face our accusers.
Thirdly, even those with a cursory knowledge of the Bible can point to Jethro’s suggestion to Moses that resulted in the establishment of what we could reference as “lower courts.” Thus, even though Boerne Christian Assembly is an independent Baptist church (and these churches do not have “sessions”), Phillips is well aware of the normative pattern in scripture, which is to say that Phillips knows and understands the scripture provides for appellate level courts. Therefore, Phillips is guilty of two major breaches of biblical judicial conduct in the Epstein excommunication.
Fourth, you will note that I said non-attorney pastors might be forgiven “minor mistakes” in conducting an excommunication. However, no pastor can be forgiven the conduct exhibited by Doug Phillips, for the Bible is the basis of American jurisprudence and, therefore, any member of the pastorate is without excuse for the major breaches committed by Phillips.
Therefore, it is high time the commenters on this blog and other blogs quit putting the cart before the horse. Doug Phillips nullified his position of respect when he violated the biblical mandate in such an egregious fashion. As I noted before in an analogous situation, military leaders do not enjoy the congressional protection found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice when they violate the code in the execution of their leadership duties and responsibilities. Pastors have an even higher degree of responsibility because their “uniform code” is the Bible, not a man-made document.
Again, Doug, please repent. Stop paying lip service, Doug, and honor God by your actions. Doug, perhaps a secular military motto can inspire you to do the right thing before God Almighty – “Deeds, not Words.”
Cynthia, I find your aspersions against Francis Schaeffer breathtakingly wrong.
You might, with just as much accuracy, have said exactly the same thing about C.S. Lewis, honestly, and since you admit you’ve never read F.S. I think maybe you should stop the snarky remarks about him until you have.
Lawrence, I agree that carrying knives was fairly routine when we went to school (I’m obviously the same age as you are) and, in fact, I still carry a knife everywhere I go. My son has carried multiple knives since he was old to handle them safely (6 years old). It is interesting to me that the only place he has to take them off now is at our homeschool co-op! But, don’t you think that carrying a knife and carrying a loaded gun don’t exactly fall in the same category? In a heated moment, while one may cause some damage, the other can kill multiple lives.
As for the guns in the parking lot, I agree that there were some of those as well. But I think the subject in question here is whether or not students should be packing loaded handguns. Again, it is one thing to whip out a loaded pistol when you get a little ruffled, and yet another altogether to walk/run purposefully to your pick-up, load your rifle, and walk back to the scene. The mere amount of time involved would allow for others to escape, if need be. The effort exerted in walking back and forth may also be enough of a cooling off time to prevent what would otherwise have been a mass slaughter.
Lawrence, you and I grew up in a different era than the 20 year olds of today. I am extremely PRO Second Amendment and I think every citizen (who has not been convicted of a crime) should own weapons. However, as a society today, we have almost no self control. I would probably fully trust you with a weapon, and I’m sure there are many who are fully trustworthy, but let’s consider how many 18-22 year olds we would really trust. When tempers fly, what happens? And do we really see much chivalry at universities these days? How many young men are really interested in protecting young women? Or how many would misuse that privilege and turn the gun on the young woman instead, forcing her to do what she didn’t want to do? I can only envision great harm from that scenario.
On the other hand, I would advocate that not only ALL security guards and police officers be fully armed, but I think it would be wise if the teachers and professors were armed as well. Now that might be a workable solution. I am not saying that all teachers are trustworthy, unfortunately, but if we look at the risk/benefit ratio of all these scenarios, I would put this one at the top of my list.
Aren’t you glad our own children can carry guns or knives or bows and arrows to school? Boys will be boys, and I’m glad of it!
JP, I’m sorry, I didn’t mean be snarky or step on your toes re Schaeffer. It’s true, I haven’t read his books, though I know something of him by reputation, and I think I shall read “A Christian Manifesto” over the summer — the fact that Chilton and North are critical of it speaks loudly in its favor, IMO.
But to liken Schaeffer or any of the modern Christian writers to Augustine and the great Christian apologists is to go too far. I greatly admire C. S. Lewis, myself, but I wouldn’t even make that comparison regarding him, and to assert that secularism is a religion simply because Schaeffer some other writer says that it is, is really going out on a limb. Schaeffer, or Augustine, or Lewis, or Aquinas can say whatever they like, but when the rubber hits the road, I prefer to trust the Bible.
You know something? This is unrelated to the article, BUT…
If R.C. Jr’s daughter is gonna marry Doug Phillips’ son, then I guess he’s not gonna have covenant children.
All that emphasis on “baptism”, “the covenant”, and paedocommunion…guess it matters for everyone except the grandkids.
Yep, looks like his posterity will be Independent, Fundamental Baptist. What a legacy for a defrocked paedocommunionist.
And does Doug Phillips want his son to marry that which his hero Gill calls “a part and pillar of popery”, i.e. an paedobaptist? I quote Gill:
That infant-baptism is a part and pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations: I use the phrase infant-baptism here and throughout, because of the common use of it; otherwise the practice which now obtains, may with greater propriety be called infant-sprinkling.
R.C.’s daughter was not baptized, according to Gill, but ‘infant-sprinkled’. Phillips is fine with his son marrying an unbaptized child sprinkled by Antichrist, and ex-Presbyterian Sproul Jr.’s posterity will be making decisions for Christ once they reach the age of accountability.
“High-Church” “Calvinism”? The hoax of the millennium.
JJ…. the practice of paedobaptism pre-dates “popery”, and goes back to at least the middle of the second century. Your biass is showing. Still, what you say regarding RC’s daughter and Phillip’s son IS interesting.
“I have appreciated what has been written here at MW for sometime now, but I’m am getting seriously turned off from anything you have the say when I read posts like this, and see that just about the only commenters are feminists.”
Everyone listen to Kregerwolf. Even if you do have like some MW articles this article is crap. It even liked by feminists and Watchman approves comments from feminists. That mean he must be feminist too. No one ever come to MW again.
Tim, in the above comment, links to Vision Forum. Either you are Tim Horn or you are just a shill for Doug. Of course, you do write on about the same level as Tim Dick, but since you link to Vision Forum, I would not stoop so low as to leap to that assumption.
May I suggest, Tim, that you try to get your facts straight before you post here. Just because a woman does not believe in the hyper-patriarchy that Doug espouses does not make her a feminist. This is not an either-or situation. I would imagine that well over 90% of all females would fall in between these two categories. I think the Bible does as well.
Corrie~
“My feminist sensibilities were not hurt”
Please read what you wrote…
“What about all those children who have lost their mother and all those husbands who have lost their wife? Is it because Doug doesn’t believe that those women would have died if they would have been home where they belonged?”
This is what you refer to as ‘concern about the lost blaspheming Christ’? Nay, only them who didn’t read the context of what you said, and then what you wrote, would buy that it was concern for the lost. Rather, you began by saying that Doug is using tragedies to advance a “patriarchal” agenda, then you proceed to give the example of the 9/11 post, and then express shock that he didn’t mentioned the mother-less, (but yet used Biblical terminology) and because he using a national tragedy to further his “patriarchal” agenda. This is not concern for the lost, and as you yourself said, it is the “latent feminist.” Its an objection to the perceived agenda.
“Who is pro gun control? Just because some of us believe there should be limits”
Do you not see the absurdities of that statement right there? Who is pro gun-control?…you are, you just said it.
“Boys carried their loaded guns to school in what era?”
A mere 20 years ago in some places in this state. I guess living in the country, I’m going to get a different picture of reality.
““Like Reformed Calvinist pointed out, you are apparently severely deficient in your history, ”
It depends which version of history.”
Well, lets try this one on for size…the 1982 Senate Sub-Committee on the Constitution Report on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. They said:
“The right to keep and bear arms as a part of English and American law antedates not only the Constitution, but also the discovery of firearms. Under the laws of Alfred the Great, whose reign began in 872 A.D., all English citizens from the nobility to the peasants were obliged to privately purchase weapons and be available for military duty. This was in sharp contrast to the feudal system as it evolved in Europe, under which armament and military duties were concentrated in the nobility. The body of armed citizens were known as the “fyrd”.
While a great many of the Saxon rights were abridged following the Norman conquest, the right and duty of arms possession was retained. Under the Assize of Arms of 1181, “the whole community of freemen” between the ages of 15 and 40 were required by law to possess certain arms, which were arranged in proportion to their possessions. They were required twice a year to demonstrate to Royal officials that they were appropriately armed. In 1253, another Assize of Arms expanded the duty of armament to include not only freemen, but also villeins, who were the English equivalent of serfs. Now all “citizens, burgesses, free tenants, villeins and others from 15 to 60 years of age” were obligated to be armed. While on the Continent the villeins were regarded as little more than animals hungering for rebellion, the English legal system not only permitted, but affirmatively required them, to be armed.
The thirteenth century saw further definitions of this right as the long bow, a formidable armor-piercing weapon, became increasingly the mainstay of British national policy. In 1285, Edward I commanded that all persons comply with the earlier Assizes and added that “anyone else who can afford them shall keep bows and arrows.” The right of armament was subject only to narrow limitations. In 1279, it was ordered that those appearing in Parliament or other public assemblies “shall come without all force and armor, well and peaceably”. In 1328, the statute of Northampton ordered that no one use their arms in “affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by day or by night in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers.” English courts construed this ban consistently with the general right of private armament as applying only to wearing of arms “accompanied with such circumstances as are apt to terrify the people.” In 1369, the King ordered that the sheriffs of London require all citizens “at leisure time on holidays” to “use in their recreation bowes and arrows” and to stop all other games which might distract them from this practice.”
Guess what, Corrie, that would have included college students.
“I don’t have a clue as to why you brought race into this.”
I’ll tell you what precipitated this statement, it is based upon a real event that I was referring to…the couple in Knoxville, TN who were car-jacked, abducted…she was raped repeatedly over a two day period, her breasts were cut from her body, and while she was still alive, they poured drain cleaner down her throat to attempt to destroy any evidence, and left her for dead…she died eventually; her boyfriend was also raped, had his genitals cut from his body, was taken to the rail road tracks, doused with gasoline, and set afire. He died later. Have we heard about this? Has international news talked about the fact that a gang of black people (men and women) abducted a white couple? No. That is why I mention it. Do I need a gun to stop a rapist?
“Do you need a gun to stop a guy from raping a girl?
Too many guns are turned on the very ones they are to protect and we have a lot of ill-tempered and mentally ill men running around our society. I do not want just anyone male to be allowed to carry a loaded weapon.”
These two statements alone grant enough cause to apply the term “feminist” to you without any hesitation. (Oh, and just so you know, you were the one who first referred to yourself as a “feminist” not I)
Both of these statements belie an underlying mindset that has pervaded virtually every woman in this country…namely the idea that men are no longer needed, that we are unsafe, and they need government to protect us. Government has become the surrogate husband/father…instead of the father/husband shooting the rapist and being thankful for the protection, (as once existed in this society) you now have the police and the “law” to do that for you; “do you really need a gun to stop him?” The point isn’t the gun, if he was walking down the street with a claymore, (not the land mine) you’d have the exact same objections.
You’re a ‘Hobbit’…Thomas Hobbes was scared to death of reality, and of confrontation, and he wanted to have the government there (the supra third entity) to mediate and insure that we don’t hurt ourselves. You used the word “allowed”..this one sentence alone would have sufficed to declare you a Feminist…thereby indicating that you want the government to protect you, that you are scared to death of a husband or father who would be willing to kill immediately to protect you. And you know what…you don’t have that.
“Calvin carried a loaded gun? Martin Luther carried a loaded gun? Knox carried a gun?”
I honestly have no idea how to respond to a statement that uninformed. You actually included John Knox as support for your position. Luther wrote an entire paper which, when acted upon, gave rise to the “Peasant Rebellion” that was later suppressed. He said within this
“…when the murderers and bloodhounds wish to wage war and murder, it is in truth no insurrection to rise against them and defend oneself….Likewise, I do not want to leave the conscience of the people burdened by the concern and worry that their self-defense might be rebellious…. …self-defense against the blood-hounds cannot be rebellious.”
Have you ever heard of Ulrich Zwingly? The Reformer who died in battle?
Cynthia Gee~
If you can provide me with ONE documented case of a white woman raping a black man, then I’ll deal with your question; until such time, I’m not even going to respond to that. Go read about the media black out on the vicious hate crime perpetrated against the Knoxville couple.
“But I would ask you, how do you know that what Schaffer writes is TRUE? Have you checked his writings against Augustine, or Aquinas, or any of the anteNicene fathers? Have you checked them against the Bible???”
Actually, yeah, I have. I’m currently reading Melito, Ignatius, Lactanius, Cyprian, some Clement, Jerome, Augustine, Athanasius, some Boethius, and Aquinas.
“to assert that secularism is a religion simply because Schaeffer some other writer says that it is, is really going out on a limb.”
You’re right, to assert such because Schaffer said so is going out on a limb, but since I never said that, I don’t know what you’re getting at. I said “they recognize” this fact. I do not have the time nor desire to give you an entire world view lesson about the significance of secularism/secular-humanism, it’s relation to religion, and its membership of the category therein.
Oh, and Schaffer’s Christian Manifesto is good, but start with his “How Shall We Then Live” 5-volume set…that is one of his best works.
“If R.C. Jr’s daughter is gonna marry Doug Phillips’ son, then I guess he’s not gonna have covenant children.”
JJ, are you saying that Doug Phillips and RC Sproul Jr are making arranged marriages between their families? I’m asking only out of personal curiosity, and not because I’m going to criticize that if it’s true.
If it is true though you’ve raised a valid theological issue. Isn’t Doug Phillips adamantly opposed to paedo-baptism? Doesn’t RC Sproul Jr strongly support infant baptism?
“I would be especially interested in their view of the Virginia Tech policies that forbid even off duty law enforcement officers from carrying their weapons on campus. Surely an off duty law enforcement officer can be trusted to handle a firearm. Even the most rabid anti-gun person I know does not begrudge the police the ability to carry.”
Obviously there are such begrudgers, Lawrence. That’s why there are college campuses with such silly policies.
Lawrence, it sounds like you were blessed to grow up in a rural community setting. I wish I had been, but I wasn’t so blessed. I can see from your own perspective why having a 22 or shotgun in the rack of your pickup wouldn’t be any big deal.
Where I grew up there wasn’t a farm for a hundred miles around. There wouldn’t have been a place for a hundred miles around to take the kids and plink cans or shoot jackrabbits, etc. I missed out on a lot of fun, and a lot of personal responsibility, that rural kids take for granted.
I attended “integrated” big city schools, which also meant there was a lot of racial tension. I did my best to maintain cordial relations with kids of color, but it wasn’t easy. The Blacks and Hispanics were all pressured to become gang members, whether they wanted to or not. Once they were in a gang, being friends with a White kid was taboo. I don’t recall even a single White gang, but most of the minority boys did join a gang. Fights and even gang scuffles were common. No all out gang wars though. Most of it was just verbal threats. The biggest risk was usually just a bloody nose of a black eye.
I can’t even begin to imagine how bad things would’ve gotten if guns would have been permitted in school, or even in the kids’ cars. Thankfully the kids didn’t even own guns or have access to them, or if they did they never brought them to school.
Times were different and corporal punishment was still commonplace. I got a “swat” once myself in the Principal’s office. I never made the mistake of sassing my teacher again.
Times were also different culturally. There wasn’t a culture of violence. No rap music for one thing. No rap music about gang warfare, glorifying the murder of cops, or the rape of women. Rap music and the violence that it’s breeding isn’t just a Black cultural phenomena. Even though Blacks produce most of the rap, the majority of rap music consumers are White youths. But we can’t just blame the Black culture for violence. Most of the violent video games are produced by White computer programmers of White owned businesses.
Times when we were growing up Lawrence were different. Maybe you could argue that life in rural America today isn’t that much different, and maybe you’d be right. But my concern isn’t for rural America. My concern is about what Doug Phillips is implying and perhaps even advocating — arming college kids. No college campus can be considered to be “rural,” even if it’s in a rural setting, because no college is comprised of rural kids, or even a majority of rural kids. Many and perhaps most of the kids come from suburban and even urban centers, and they bring their world view of “conflict resolution by violence” with them.
Lawrence, I don’t disagree with you. Kriegerwulff, I don’t disagree with you either. You’ve both made some excellent points. In fact I agree with much of what you’ve both said. I just think you both need to try and think a bit more realistically, in the context of our present reality. Do you really believe that the average college kid today is responsible enough to be trusted with strapping on a sidearm and carrying it wherever he goes, including into the classroom? I personally don’t. If you do then I think you’ve been spending way too much time on the farm and not paying attention to all the horrible things that take place on the average college campus now as it is.
I’m a strong proponent for the right to bear arms, and I bear a few myself. But with any right also comes responsibility. Until a kid has been trained and shown to be responsible I think it unwise to trust him with toting a gun in public. You both sound like intelligent men, so I trust that neither one of you are advocating the irresponsible right to bear arms.
I’d like to hear both your thoughts on what should be done to reclaim our culture, encourage kids (and adults, for that matter) to be responsible, and turn the culture away from it’s love of violence and even death. BTW, I agree with Phillips that abortion has been a major factor in our culture’s love of death. Nevertheless, I stand by my position that the timing of Phillips’ article was atrocious. When people are shocked and grieving we should offer them comfort, not “point them to the fundamentals.” The “fundamentals” could have waited until they’ve had time to grieve for the loss of loved ones. The fundamentals could have waited until after the community of Blacksburg had had some time to heal.
Lastly, I think it unfair to refer to Corrie and CJ, and anyone else who thinks it’s irresponsible to arm college kids, “feminists.” It’s equally unfair to call them feminists just because they oppose the hyper-patriarchy of Doug Phillips. As Jen has said, this isn’t an either/or.
Thank you both for your thoughtful comments. This is the kind of dialogue I especially welcome.
” I do not have the time nor desire to give you an entire world view lesson about the significance of secularism/secular-humanism, it’s relation to religion, and its membership of the category therein.”
Kriegerwulff… There are some things in this life which have nothing to do with the practice of religion: the times-table, the Postal service, fried eggs, the county landfill, your digestion, income taxes, running a shoe store — I could go on and on. Now, our religion or lack thereof may affect how honestly we run our shoe store, and it may well determine whether we have scruples about cheating on our income taxes, but the fact remains that a large part of our life is taken up with all sorts of neutral, mundane things that do not directly pertain to the Church or to the worship of God. We call these things Secular, and we distinguish that which is secular from that which pertains to the Divine.
I maintain that secularism (and by secularism, I do not mean humanism, the two are distinct from one another) is not a religion. Rather, secularism is by definition the absence of religion, and the Word of God supports this: the Bible actually DEFINES that which is secular by underscoring the difference between mundane, fleshly, things and Godly, spiritual things.
The Bible says one cannot serve both God and Mammon, and Jesus commands that we are to render unto the secular world -Caesar- its due, while keeping the things of God holy and separate from the things of the world. In other words, churches as institutions, as well as those serving in the ministry, are under orders not to defile the Church’s divine calling by becoming involved in certain kinds of secular things, such as business and politics.
What individual, lay Christians do in business and in the civic arena is another matter entirely – since we are to be salt and light to the world, members of the laity should participate in business and in the civic life of the community, for by living our religion we give silent witness to our faith. Paul does caution that all such participation should be undertaken with the realization that though we must live IN the secular world, we are not to be OF the secular World, and that the fashion of this world is passing away:
1Cr 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing [it]: for the fashion of this world passeth away.
JJ, are you saying that Doug Phillips and RC Sproul Jr are making arranged marriages between their families? I’m asking only out of personal curiosity, and not because I’m going to criticize that if it’s true.
If it is true though you’ve raised a valid theological issue. Isn’t Doug Phillips adamantly opposed to paedo-baptism? Doesn’t RC Sproul Jr strongly support infant baptism?
WOW, that is a hilarious, but excellent, point JJ made.
It’s not only a valid theological issue, but has huge significance as to whether or not either of these men should be taken seriously by the Reformed world. Think about it. Sproul Jr. has been a long-time advocate of infant baptism (some have accused him of believing in baptismal regeneration), and almost incessantly emphasized the centrality of the covenant.
Doug Phillips, on the other hand, is one of the few well-known Reconstructionists that is a Baptist, and, as JJ pointed out, an independent one. He is fiercely opposed to Rome, and like his hero Gill, probably believes paedobaptism to be left over vestiges of imperial/papal Christendom.
If Phillips and Gill are right, then a significant portion of the Church Fathers were outside the Church (as they were infant-sprinkled, never baptized), and the Reformers were not in the Church as well (as they were baptized as babies by priests). So, if baptism is how we enter into the visible church, or in the covenant, then a very significant portion of the “heroes of the Church” were long-ranger Christians (if Gill is right).
But say Gill and Phillips are right. The implications are enormous. Someone in visible communion with Antichrist, albeit perhaps spiritually inclined to God, would be a potential ecclesiastical candidate presently in bondage to popery. That’s a suitable candidate for his son? Someone in the clutches of the devil, and unwilling to receive a valid baptism (I’m assuming R.C. won’t anabaptize her, although it would be something if he became the Independent Congregationalist Anabaptist R.C. Sproul Jr.)?
And R.C.’s just shown to be more of a hypocrite if they get married. Especially because the argument for infant baptism is based on the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, and its fulfillment in the Church. The implication is an inter-generational covenant, to one’s descendants, which God said to Abraham would be numerous. And the man fed his family promoting the truth of the doctrine. But, now it looks like his own baptismal lineage will stop at his grandkids. It won’t be but for one generation.
Funny, because the man was given the closing remarks, indeed, the last chapter, of Pastor Gregg Strawbridge’s, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism.
Looks like he’s taken this ex-Presbyterian thing to heart, eh? Goin’ all the way, R.C.! Party on.
“Lastly, I think it unfair to refer to Corrie and CJ, and anyone else who thinks it’s irresponsible to arm college kids, “feminists.” It’s equally unfair to call them feminists just because they oppose the hyper-patriarchy of Doug Phillips.”
Very true, but I’m starting to get used to the “feminist” label. (It’s funny, too, because for years I’ve been accused of being the opposite, just because I’d rather stay home and keep house instead of having a job.)
But I’m concluding that in certain religious circles, “feminist” has become the new “communist” — in other words, feminist has become the in-thing to call all those folks who don’t agree with the patriarchal viewpoint, regardless of whether they or not they actually espouse feminism. I’d be willing to bet that half of the people who sling the feminist label around have no clear idea of what the word actually means, but they’ve heard their idols, the big shots in the patriarchy, use the term, and so have started using it themselves in the same context.
It’s the church-world version of junior high, with “feminist” replacing “nerd”, “commie”, or (and I’m really dating myself here) “rat-fink”.
Watchman~
I appreciate your comments and observations on the situation. I just have a few things that I have reservations/objections to.
I just think you both need to try and think a bit more realistically, in the context of our present reality. Do you really believe that the average college kid today is responsible enough to be trusted with strapping on a sidearm and carrying it wherever he goes, including into the classroom?
Here is the problem with that. I believe that the 2nd amendment expresses a right granted by God, a right anciently recognized amongst our people, but not granted by government.
Whether the collage age student is mature enough to be allowed (government intervention commonly called tyranny) to carry is not a question for the government, because the second you make that decision, you’ve immediately abridged the rights of others, (the mature 19 year old) and made a purely arbitrary decision that cannot be rationally defended. The government has decided that legal adults are not mature enough to purchase or carry a handgun until they have reached the age of 21 (unless you’re in the military), but I must ask…what actually changed from 11:59:59pm and 12:00:00am in the life of the applicant? Absolutely nothing. But in placing this entirely arbitrary limit, it has done two things: (1) abridged the rights of all people under the age of 21 regardless of their maturity, (2) blatantly violates the 2nd amendment. The moment we start putting qualifiers on the right to “keep and bear” we have violated the entire right.
But the point of what happened at V-Tech is not that some 19 year old college student didn’t have a gun, (though I believe they should have the ability and right to carry) it is the point that anybody, regardless of age, maturity, qualifications, past experiences, position of authority in the classroom, or licenses obtained were prohibited from carrying on the V-Tech campus. Everybody. If only “one of the students in that university had been armed, Cho Seung-hui could have been stopped.”
The problem Watchman is that if you were to go to the V-Tech campus, you would be forbidden to carry. You are treated the exact same as any other 19 year old college student. If you agree that the 2nd amendment expresses a right that we have (and rights, by definition, are not and cannot be granted by government) I would be interested to see how you would suggest the government control or abridge the rights of adults, without it being tyranny. By absolutely forbidding any weapons carried by anybody in the classroom, V-Tech did the same thing that all the 7/11 stores have done: broad casted that only defenseless people are here, and there is going to be almost no way to stop a madman.
I would like to point out the 2002 Appalachian School of Law shooting, where a black man walked into the building and killed three people, and wounded three others. He then walked out, and two students who were packing then subdued him, and prevented any further carnage. All we ever hear about is the mad gun man who gets away with massive killings because NOBODY had a gun; here we see two students who were packing used their weapons for the defense of their fellow students.
I rise to cast doubt on the arranged-marriage rumor. The whole thing carries an aura of the purely hypothetical.
Does either man even have children old enough to be considering marriage?
This is a good time to call for an update on the wikipedia articles for both men (The Doug Phillips article presently contains NOTHING). Those of you in the know, please fill in pertenent information such as names and ages of children.
Cynthia~
“Doug is calling secular government itself an idol, and he is calling secularism a religion.”
You’re equivocating the terms “secular” and “secularism,” and it is the equivalent of saying that “human” and “humanism” are talking about the same thing. Here is an accurate definition of secularism from the Principles of Secularism:
“Secularism is that which seeks the development of the physical, moral, and intellectual nature of man to the highest possible point, as the immediate duty of life — which inculcates the practical sufficiency of natural morality apart from Atheism, Theism or the Bible — which selects as its methods of procedure the promotion of human improvement by material means, and proposes these positive agreements as the common bond of union, to all who would regulate life by reason and ennoble it by service” as quoted by the Catholic Encyclopedia.
This very much is a religion, and it is the religion that exists in government schools and in government. You’re comparing frying eggs to a Humanistic religion, and think that you’ve actually said something. Phillips is dead on in paragraph six of his article…dead on.
Your distinction between secularism and humanism is a semantical one at best, and a nonexistent one at worst. Observe what the Humanist Manifesto II said in 1973:
“We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so.”
If you really think that Phillips was referring to frying eggs, then there is nothing I can say to you, because that is just absurd beyond reason.
“Bible actually DEFINES that which is secular by underscoring the difference between mundane, fleshly, things and Godly, spiritual things.”
This is an absurd distinction, and is frankly gnostic, and has strong hints of Platonism and asceticism. You’re denigrating the Incarnation, and should read Anselm of Canterbury’s Cur Deus Homo for an interesting analysis of the Incarnation. The Creation was redeemed by Christ, and to assert that there is “secular” and “religious”, and the former is bad and wrong and the latter is good and holy is to create a false dichotomy.
Cynthia,
I wouldn’t worry about the “feminist” moniker too much. Seems the Reformed folks have a propensity for name calling, mud slinging, and arrogance. This is not to say I do not subscribe to many Reformed principles. However, let’s just take a look at a smattering of their illogic.
If you hang out in Reformed circles long enough, you will hear someone accuse another of being anti-nomian. However, this is a hoot when you look at the 10 Commandments, because 8 of the commandments are based in moral law, 1 is based in ceremonial law (#4), and 1 is based in civil law (#9). And even though we can trace this delineation to Augustine, we cannot find such a demarcation in the Bible. The law is the law, and it is found in the Pentateuch/Torah (Corrie and Jen are having fun with this Bible study).
Anyway, the point is this, you’re a “feminist” today, but you may not be one tomorrow. However, if you’re a Reformed theonomist, how do they square the Fourth Commandment with tossing out the ceremonial law? Inquiring minds want to know. 🙂
“The Creation was redeemed by Christ, and to assert that there is “secular” and “religious”, and the former is bad and wrong and the latter is good and holy is to create a false dichotomy.”
Who said that everything secular is bad? Not me…. I just pointed out what the Bible says, ie, that the sacred and the profane must be kept separate as pertaining to the Church.
As for Creation being redeemed, please read your Bible. People are redeemed, NOT this world. The physical world is not evil, but it IS temporary, and is passing away. It is most certainly NOT redeemed:
Isa 51:6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be for ever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.
Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens [are] the work of thy hands.
Psa 102:26 They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: Psa 102:27 But thou [art] the same, and thy years shall have no end.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mar 13:31 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
Luk 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
1Cr 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
Need I go on?
Kriegerwulff, I don’t disagree in principle with the point that you’re trying to make about the right to bear arms. I do think though that you’re just playing right into your opponents’ hands by framing the argument the way you have.
“but I must ask…what actually changed from 11:59:59pm and 12:00:00am in the life of the applicant? Absolutely nothing.”
Same goes for purchasing alcohol, driving a car, etc. Age in itself is no guarantee of maturity and responsibility.
“Here is the problem with that. I believe that the 2nd amendment expresses a right granted by God, a right anciently recognized amongst our people, but not granted by government.”
Agreed. But it appears that your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is seriously flawed and that you’re attempting to apply it much more broadly than original intent logically permits.
“The problem Watchman is that if you were to go to the V-Tech campus, you would be forbidden to carry.”
Of course. Do you actually believe that the 2nd Amendment guarantees your right to bear arms on a state college campus? Do you actually believe that it’s not the prerogative of the State Of Virginia to regulate guns on their own state-run state-regulated state-sponsored college campuses? If you say “Yes” then you show your own ignorance of the 2nd Amendment, as well as what the U.S. Constitution guarantees, or what it can impose on the states. Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit any state from imposing regulations which the feds themselves are barred from imposing? Think carefully before answering that.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The 2nd Amendment guarantees that the feds cannot infringe upon the right of the states to secure their own safety through state militias. Obviously, no militia can do its job of securing a state if its citizen soldiers aren’t adequately armed. So who ensures that a state militia is “well regulated”? Obviously the state and it’s own government. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the states that the feds won’t interfere with that right. First and foremost, the 2nd Amendment is a matter of state’s rights, and then secondly a matter of personal rights.
Very few states today have anything like a real state citizen militia anymore. What once was called “State Guard” or “Home Guard” was long ago federalized into the “National Guard.” Because state citizen militias have been replaced with federal Army reservists, this has thrown the whole 2nd Amendment on its ear and into a legal quandary that the courts are still trying to untangle. It may not be long before the USSC reasons that without state militias there is no individual right to bear arms at all.
Here’s the risk I see for folks like yourself, Kriegerwulff, who want to demand your “rights,” but you rely on the U.S. Constitution, and the 2nd Amendment is one of the best examples I can think of to illustrate it. The 2nd Amendment just sets you up for having your “rights” being “well regulated” by your state, and since your state probably doesn’t even have a citizen militia at all anymore you’ve even lost that argument too.
Stand all you want on how the 2nd Amendment protects you from federal interference in your right to bear arms. No argument from me personally on that point, but the courts and their opinion are a different matter (I won’t even digress here on how the feds long ago used the “interstate commerce clause” to take away any genuine right of anyone to bear arms). But what about your state? Have you read your state Constitution to determine what, if any, right to bear arms it guarantees you? Some states do, but many don’t any more.
Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit any state from imposing gun control laws within their own states? No, it does not. Can states impose gun regulations on their state college campuses without violating the U.S. Constitution? Of course they can. If you think otherwise then you’re just showing your ignorance of what the U.S. Constitution does and does not do.
Let’s take it to the different level — Does the U.S. Constitution prohibit any private college from imposing gun-carry regulations on their own campus? No more so than it would me as a business owner from prohibiting my employees and customers from coming onto my private property armed. No more so than it would my pastor and elders from imposing a rule that no one can bring a gun with them into church. On the other, if my pastor and elders wanted to prevent the potentiality of a recurrence of what happened at Wedgewood Baptist Church, maybe the thing to do is to instruct the elders and deacons to come to church packing. But on the other hand if a church had a policy against that there’s nothing the 2nd Amendment could do to contravene it.
MW,
Thank you. You said it all much better than I did. You brought into this whole conversation a very important point about our culture and the differences our circumstances make.
I am not pro-gun control (I own my own guns!) but I to promote every college kid packing a weapon? That, imho, is irresponsible. I have a son who is in college (21 yrs old) and he is very good with guns. He hunts a lot. He is also very responsible with guns.
I think if anyone is going to carry a loaded weapon on a college campus it had better be someone who is very responsible, has been thoroughly trained in all aspects of subduing a hostile person and the gun has got to be the last resort. I don’t think Doug Phillips to be showing understanding concerning this situation. I also don’t think he can speak for God and tell us why it happened.
“But the point of what happened at V-Tech is not that some 19 year old college student didn’t have a gun, (though I believe they should have the ability and right to carry) it is the point that anybody, regardless of age, maturity, qualifications, past experiences, position of authority in the classroom, or licenses obtained were prohibited from carrying on the V-Tech campus. Everybody. If only “one of the students in that university had been armed, Cho Seung-hui could have been stopped.””
Kriegerwulff,
I agree with you. I think there should be trained people who are armed on our college campuses. I would have no problem with some of the teachers having a loaded weapon, either. A teacher who has been trained and who has a proven record and no troubles with the law.
I also think that the Knoxville situation you referred to is so very horrific. I couldn’t believe when I read about it a while back. I didn’t know that there was a media blackout? I know I haven’t heard about it on the news shows that I watch.
Watchman,
Texas and New Mexico both have state militias known as the Texas Guard and New Mexico State Guard that are separate from the Title 32 National Guard that can be “federalized” into Title 10 status. However, in both instances, these militia units are quite small.
Although the respective state’s own their National Guard assets, they receive funding from the feds, and the National Guard Bureau in D.C. has been lobbying for the elevation of Lieutenant General Blum to a four-star billet and a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Thus far, the final review panel’s recommendation is only elevation to a four-star billet, with an “advisory role” to the Joint Chiefs.
Here’s an interesting tidbit. Those of us who were old enough to remember the 101st Airborne Division being ordered to Alabama understand how this may have violated the Posse Comitatus Act. National Guard Soldiers can enforce the law at gunpoint, while federal Soldiers in a Title 10 status are prohibited from doing so under the act. However, this was not the last time federal Soldiers were ordered into a law enforcement situation.
During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, federal Soldiers stationed in California were sent to Los Angeles. Needless to say, the rioting and looting quickly subsided when the feds showed up.
Although the Alabama case may have violated the Posse Comitatus Act, the California case may not have, due to a caveat contained within the act concerning insurrection. Yes, federal troops have an insurrection loophole through which they can deploy and shoot US citizens.
There was a media blackout, but that happens quite commonly in murder cases, especially when the details of such a case are germane to a related, ongoing investigation.
And, this sort of crime is not all that uncommon, though the fact that white people were tortured and murdered by blacks makes it somewhat unusual. More often, it’s the other way around. Torture-murders are committed with much greater frequency by young to middle aged white men — as an example, a similar case occurred in west TN, involving the slaying of Mr. Mickey Wright, a black person who was murdered and chopped up, his truck burned. A white person was the confessed murderer, who was given a plea bargain in exchange for confession and details of murder, he got 15 years.
But, we don’t see Kriegerwulff complaining about that.
Reformed Calvinist: “I rise to cast doubt on the arranged-marriage rumor.”
I thought you were going to give us some proof that this is nothing more than just a rumor. How misleading. I have heard this “rumor” for quite some time now, but I don’t know if it is true or not. What I do know is that is involves Doug’s oldest son, Joshua, who will be 14 in a few days.
Actually, Cynthia’s description of Doug’s views on secularism is right on. Doug literally thinks every aspect of life is religious.
Kriegerwulff, I still think my suggestion of arming all security guards/police officers and staff/professors, after a thorough background check of course, is the most pragmatic solution to this present dark society. I try to live in reality, which gets pretty sticky sometimes. It seems that you are still living in an idealistic world, where we could trust one another with loaded guns. Oh, how I wish that we could!
Maybe carrying a gun could be a privilege earned rather than the right of all citizens. But I suppose that would put me in the gun control category, wouldn’t it? 🙂
Jen, first of all, I agree with your idea of arming security guards and staff at universities, etc.
But, when it comes to the students, we don’t need “gun control” to keep guns off university property. Just because people have the right to bear arms doesn’t mean that they have the right to bear them everywhere, and a university is within its rights to ban firearms on school property.
Students have no business being armed, to have them carrying weapons is a BAD IDEA. Young men especially are notoriously hot-headed, and that didn’t start in this century. Before guns came into vogue, people carried swords, and young men fought over the slightest breach of their “honor”.
Lord Herbert of Cherbury, who was ambassador at the court of Louis XIII, says, ” There is scarce a Frenchman worth looking on who has not killed his man in a duel.” Ben Jonson, in his Magnetic Lady, makes Compass, the scholar and soldier, thus describe France, ” that garden of humanity”: “There every gentleman professing arms Thinks he is bound in honour to embrace The bearing of a challenge for another, Without or questioning the cause or asking Least colour of a reason.”
So it appears that even in age which some misguided folks would describe as less evil than our own, going armed did not lead to a decrease in violent crime.
Cynthia,
Funny how people with agendas spin the facts to shore up their own personal bias.
I also know that serial killers/rapists are by and far mostly white men. I think that black serial killers are very rare. Look at Jeffrey Dahmer. About as white as white can be. (I am from Milwaukee and I actually knew Dahmer, not that well, but I did know him.) Ed Gein, also from Wisconsin, was another well-known serial killer.
So, as far as evil and disgusting acts of violence go, I hardly think black people have the corner on the market. We are all one blood and of one race- the human race. And we are all of one father, our father Adam, from whom we inherited our sin nature. Our skin color doesn’t make us sin nor does it change the degree in how we sin.
It is funny how sin makes us blame other people for our own hatred and personal bias. Some people like to blame gun control advocates, the “feminine culture” because supposedly no one fought back, breaking our supposed covenant with God (which covenant is that?), sending our children to secular schools, etc as the reason for the massacre. It is just plain goofiness. I can go back into history and find massacres and tragedies all throughout.
A simple look at the facts will show us that in most cases that there is very strong evidence that these knee-jerk accusations simply do not make sense. Notice the finger never points back at the ones making the accusations? It is always someone else who is responsible for this present tragedy. It is NEVER the particular agenda of the person doing the finger-pointing that is to blame even though there is plenty of historical fact that these things are nothing new.
CG,
You might expand the depth and breadth of your homework.
All of these crimes mentioned are atrocious regardless of the races involved or the frequency and I doubt any here would argue otherwise. But with that said there are several sources for crimes statistics including the Justice Department and all of them that I am aware of are in disagreement with your statements regarding crime statistics. An alcoholic cannot deal with his problem by denying the nature of the thing and neither can we. Sin is ugly business.
In regards to redemption, the orthodox church has for nigh on 2000 years now maintained pretty consistently that Christ came to redeem men in particular and creation in general. As the fall effects all, so the reversal must have it’s effect as well. It is true that temporally the reversal is most made manifest in the souls of men, but only for the now.
You made and interesting statement on feminism and communism – you should do more homework there too. Here is an excerpt from a recent paper of mine:
[Speaking of redefinitions, current thought in hate crime politics revolves exclusively around Identity Politics, which postulates that groups have a supposed shared identity usually linked in common by some perceived injustice or victimhood. This is the origin of the federally “protected groups” seen today in hate crime, employment, and housing law. It is said in some quarters that the start of Identity Politics came about with the phrase “The Personal is Political,” which was the title of a paper by the feminist Carol Hanish in 1970. In a 2006 introduction to the paper, Ms. Hanish supplies the true origin of Identity Politics:
“It challenged the old anti-woman line that used spiritual, psychological, metaphysical, and pseudo-historical explanations for women’s oppression with a real, materialist analysis for why women do what we do. (By materialist, I mean in the Marxist materialist (based in reality) sense, not in the “desire for consumer goods” sense.) Taking the position that “women are messed over, not messed up” took the focus off individual struggle and put it on group or class struggle, exposing the necessity for an independent WLM to deal with male supremacy. ”
Identity Politics is classic Marxist class warfare redefined for the new era. Many of the organizations that support hate crimes legislation are to the far left of the political spectrum and speak in blatant Marxist terms. Not surprisingly, left leaning groups rarely if ever appear in lists of “hate groups” regardless of what is stated by them. Identity Politics by its nature is not the politics of peace and unity but of group struggle. Identity Politics is not served by a lack of hatred and distrust it is defeated by it and thus must obscure its meanings in high sounding phrases with twisted definitions so as to foment division. ]
And lastly for the record, the US Goverment employees that were accused of being communists in the 50’s and most of the groups and other individuals that were accused of being communists were confirmed to have been exactly that when in the 1980’s when KGB records were opened and the truth was finally told. This is 20 year old news.
Do more homework.
Lawrence, read you Bible. Your are not argunig with me here, you are arguing with scripture. The Bible says that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom, and Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world. Our souls are redeemed, but our mortal bodies are not redeemed, although God will raise them again, as incorruptible bodies, and some will not die, but will be *changed* at His second coming. And most of what we think of as this world will pass away, but God is going to replace it with something better:
Rev 21:1 ¶ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband……………
Rev 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Rev 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new……………
Rev 22:5 And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
But with that said there are several sources for crimes statistics including the Justice Department and all of them that I am aware of are in disagreement with your statements regarding crime statistics.
I agree. Something else to be careful about is comparing numbers rather than percentages.
Blacks account for only about 10 percent of the population, so, if CJ is correct, we will find that they account for only about 10 percent of the sorts of crimes she’s talking about. This isn’t true.
I do realize that we have unjust disparities in enforcement as well as in sentencing. I am opposed to bigotry in all forms- but that includes the form demonstrated in the news which misleads us into thinking more crimes are committed against blacks by whites than the other way around.
I just learned this when all the hollering and shouting started over the white Lacrosse team members who were (falsely) accused of raping a black woman.
Had her allegations proven true (which, again, they were far from ever doing), this would have been the first white on black gang rape ever reported. Surprised? So was I.
Not only that, but it seems that white on black rape is a nearly nonexistant crime. See the National Crime Victimization Survey:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
You want table 42. There you will find that statistically, white on black rape occurs 0.0 percent of the time.
See American Thinker for more:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/democrats_and_the_politics_of_1.html
90 percent of the victims of race crimes are white- according to the survey “Highlights From 20 Years of Surveying Crime Victims,” published in 1993.
Almost 1 million white Americans were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by black Americans in 1992, compared with about 132,000 blacks who were murdered, robbed, assaulted or raped by whites, according to the same survey.
I thought it was odd for Kriegerwulff to bring race up in the first place, it was, or should have been, irrelevant to his point. But CJ’s response was irrelevant to reality, and no less misplaced.
CG,
The whole Bible is the counsel of God. Granted, cherry picking verses and taking a fairly strict dispensational and anti-historical view can make your point, but when taking the whole counsel of Scripture, as well as the historic counsel of the orthodox Church I cannot see that conclusion being sustainable. Even so, this is probably at root a denominational issue that we probably will not get past, but will take up a lot of off-topic space on someone else’s blog.
Justice,
I would see race as relevant if we are judging churches. Judgment begins in the household of God as Peter stated and although the statistics show that as a generalization that blacks may be currently engaged in higher rates of criminality, other studies show that they are far and away the most religious group and the vast majority are professing Christians. This juxtaposition is a scathing indictment for the Church and our failure (yes, OUR, as we are all brothers in Christ) to either minister to these communities or hold accountable those ministering there in the name of Christ. I know the Reformed Episcopal Church in conjunction with the Nigerian Anglican Church are working to address the religious needs in those communities as are the Reformed Blacks of America over and against the plethora of false teachers and greedy charlatans that are such a pestilence on the black community and may God bless them for it, for they are truly doing His work in a time and place of need. But again, we are off topic.
On topic, I have to agree with Phillips that we are being judged. How can we not be when we have killed 40 million of our innocents and yet claim to be a “Christian nation”? How can we not be when our most “Christian” ethnic group which one would conclude by logical extension our most shining examples has the least safe neighborhoods and disproportional criminality? Yes, historically man is bad and there is nothing new under the sun, but we claim the covenant, should we not be held accountable as we break it? That said, in this instance, even the National Rifle Association waited a bit before jumping in and advised others to do so as well.
Watchman,
My apologies for where I was the cause of topic drift, it was not my intent to hijack or divert the thread. Sorry.
Anyone wanting to pursue off topic issues with me is welcome to continue those discussions with me by email so as not to further erode the thread here and I will gladly respond as time permits. Now off to study and finish that sermon I have been putting off …
JP, black men do commit a disproportionate number of crimes.
But I wasn’t talking about crime in general, or even murder in general. I said that torture-murders were committed disproportionately by white males, and I was talking about race-based torture murders — IE, lynching — which is a pasttime “enjoyed” disproportionately by white men.
According to the Bureau of Justice statistics, “among racially-motivated bias incidents, 6 in 10 targeted blacks, 3 in 10 targeted whites, and the remainder targeted Asians or American Indians.”
When it comes to rape, racially based statistics are misleading, because black women are less likely to report being raped in the first place, hence their underrepresentation on the Crime Victimization Survey and in other statistics. Just goes to prove what Sam Clemens said about statistics… 😉
And, as I was responding to Kriegerwulff’s comment on the same topic, I do not find my response to be irrelevant or misplaced in the least, though this whole thread has become irrelevant to the topic of MW’s original posting, “Doug Phillips Uses Virginia Tech Shootings To Promote Agenda.”
I guess that, statistically speaking, black victims of white rapists always get eaten afterward.
“Seems the Reformed folks have a propensity for name calling, mud slinging, and arrogance.”
As one of the “Reformed folk” I am saddened by your characterization of many fellow believers that you have never met and with whom you will be spending eternity. I believe that if you are human you will have a propensity for the above mentioned sins. It’s called depravity and we all have it even though by the grace of God we don’t have to be ruled by it. I don’t think the “Reformed folks” have a corner on the market.
And lastly for the record, the US Goverment employees that were accused of being communists in the 50’s and most of the groups and other individuals that were accused of being communists were confirmed to have been exactly that when in the 1980’s when KGB records were opened and the truth was finally told. This is 20 year old news.
Do more homework.”
I have to agree with this one. The best book of the 20th Century written by the best writer of the 20th Century is Witness by Whittaker Chambers. And that is just the beginning of understanding the depths of this movement in our government and society.
“The point isn’t the gun, if he was walking down the street with a claymore, (not the land mine) you’d have the exact same objections.” ~ Me
Students have no business being armed, to have them carrying weapons is a BAD IDEA. … Before guns came into vogue, people carried swords, and young men fought over the slightest breach of their “honor”. ~ Cynthia Gee
See? I told y”all so.
And you consider all of that duelling over every little thing to have been a GOOD THING, Krieg?
Thanks for making my point for me. Kids, especially adolescent males, have no business being armed at school.
Cynthia: “black women are less likely to report being raped in the first place,”
If they don’t report it, how do we know that they didn’t report it? Sounds PC to me.
They don’t report it to the police. But they do report it to their friends, their relatives, and, sometimes to the counsellors at a rape crisis center (I do know what I’m talking about here.) Sometimes, the woman’s male relatives deal with the rapist themselves, but the police are generally not brought in.
The situation is similar on Indian reservations — the problem is taken care of “in house” — but in cases of white-on-minority rape, the system breaks down, and the woman often just doesn’t report it, except to her friends… or the occasional rape crisis counsellor.
Speaking of crime in general, here are some more interesting statistics.
Based on its latest crime victimization surveys, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 1993 alone blacks committed 1.29 million violent crimes against other blacks—80 percent of all violent crimes against blacks. Blacks also committed 1.54 million violent crimes against whites—18 percent of all violent crimes against whites.
As a number of analysts have begun to notice, blacks are about 50 times more likely to commit violent crimes against whites than whites are to commit violent crimes against blacks. If you divide the total number of black-on-white violent crimes in 1993 (1.29 million) by the number of black males age 20 to 29 in the population in 1993 (3.94 million), you get a ratio equal to 1,013 violent crimes against whites per 10,000 young black males. If you do the same calculation for the total number of white-on-black crimes (186,000) divided by the total number of twenty-something white males (22.9 million), you get a ratio of 17.6 violent crimes committed by whites against blacks for every 10,000 young white males. Thus, the incidence of interracial black-on-white violent crime by young black males (1,013) is 57.5 times the incidence of interracial white-on-black crime by young white males (17.6). Using different denominators (for example, white versus black males age 15 to 29) moves the statistic down a bit (in the example given, to 48 to 1). But it clusters around “50 to 1.”
Now, there are roughly eight times as many whites as blacks; and there are about six times as many violent criminals per capita among blacks as among whites. So, if criminals chose their victims at random, without regard to race, one would expect the black-on-white victimization rate per black person to be 48 times as large as the white-on-black rate per white person. Thus, it does not appear that black criminals take affirmative action to find white victims.
Cynthia, if you are trying to make a point that whites and blacks commit interracial crime at anything near an equal rate then having to admit “there are about six times as many violent criminals per capita among blacks as whites” (your own words) puts you at a distinct disadvantage in trying to make your point. Blacks, even according to your own numbers above prefer white victims (1.54 million whites vs 1.29 million blacks).
Do whites prefer to prey on other races? Well, your own mentioning that there is only a factor of 6 disparity in the races for violent crime overall, while admitting a factor of 48 in interracial crime clearly would indicate that this is indeed the case, making your conclusion totally illogical and mathematically absurd.
The numbers are what they are. I’m not saying they can be used to determine either the causes or solutions for the problem and to do either would be hopelessly naive. The numbers CAN identify that there is a problem as sure as the knowledge some guy down the street comes home from the bar drunk and beats his wife 7 out of every 10 nights indicates that he has some self-control and drinking issues. For solutions, one must look beyond the numbers, but hiding from the significance of the numbers would be analogous to the drunk mentioned above denying he had any sort of problem and you believing it.
It is naive to dismiss the numbers without any serious consideration of what they reflect and what that means for all of our futures, black and white alike. Closing ones eyes and pretending problems do not exist or attempting to whisk them away by manipulating statistics or omitting pertinent data is hardly the most efficient way to start seeking solutions for them whichever race is involved.
oops…
the “clearly would indicate that this is indeed the case”
should read “clearly would indicate that this is indeed NOT the case”
sorry
Although it is easy to argue “statistics,” it is not so easy to argue African-American (black) crime. Despite the rants of such apologists as Al Sharpton, the existence of a greater “black crime” than “white crime” problem cannot be refuted.
Unfortunately, the majority of black crime is “black on black” crime, which mostly goes unreported for fear of being labeled a “snitch.”
Can anyone say “hip hop influence”?
Thanks Ministry Watchman. I’m glad someone has decided to stand up and confront Doug Phillips for this. Shame on him!
Stephanie Elms posted this on the Home Education Magazine group. Lots of other good comments about Doug Phillips there too.
“Is this online any where?
“This is so weird that this has come up now as I had never heard of
Vision Forum until they added vahomeschoolers emails to their email list
(unrequested) and we started getting spam from them. I then found out
that Doug Phillips is a featured speaker at the Home Educators
Association of Virginia convention this spring.
“As a Va Tech grad, I was absolutely appalled at their response to what
happened. Really, really scary stuff…you know that people that think
like this are out there, but to actually have it show up in my inbox was
eye opening. It is scary that these people are representing
homeschooling.”
[…] Doug Phillips Uses Virginia Tech Shootings To Promote Agenda After reading Phillips’ article I had exactly the same sentiment. What he has done is … In point of fact his article is a rather gloomy and fatalistic “See I told you so. http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=100 […]
[…] Doug Phillips Uses Virginia Tech Shootings To Promote Agenda After reading Phillips’ article I had exactly the same sentiment. What he has done is … In point of fact his article is a rather gloomy and fatalistic “See I told you so. http://ministrywatchman.com/?p=100 […]