The Vision Forum: Patriarchy Weirdness Exposed
Posted: June 6, 2007 Filed under: Daddy Shaving, Doug Phillips, Patriarchy, Vision Forum 88 CommentsIf you haven’t been following Jen’s Gems, and the ongoing exposés of Doug Phillips there, you’re missing out on some fascinating discussion. One of the subjects that I’ve personally been following with great interest is “Patriarchy.” Prior to reading about Doug Phillips’ ecclesiastical tyrannies I’ve never really given much thought to the Patriarchy movement. However, in following this story it’s becoming more and more apparent to me that the Patriarchy movement leadership has got some serious problems when it comes to the proper and biblical exercise of authority.
There also seems to be a certain “weirdness” factor about Patriarchy, at least with the leadership of the movement. For example, one of the commenters on Jen’s Gems made mention of some weird goings on at The Vision Forum’s annual Father and Daughter Discipleship Retreats, including “unity” events such as “daughters shaving their daddies” and “daughters dressing their daddies.”
When I first read that comment I thought, “Surely you jest! That’s just too weird!” Unfortunately, the commenter really was telling the truth. It didn’t take me long to find specific references on Vision Forum’s web site to these weird goings on. I’m sure that there are a lot of nice and proper things that happen at these Vision Forum events, and no doubt I’ll get some commenters now telling me how wonderful these events are. But regardless of all the nice and proper things that may happen there, the daddy-shaving and daddy-dressing isn’t proper, at least in my book. It’s creepy.
Some photographs from the Vision Forum daddy-shaving sessions are provided below, and below them are the photo captions from the Vision Forum web site:
The Father and Daughter Retreat was not only a time to serve (and shave) Daddy, but to dress up pretty as a picture.
And of course after shaving daddy we must also dress daddy:
In a video from Vision Forum’s web site highlighting their Father-Daughter Discipleship Retreat, with commentary from Doug Phillips’ daughters, they say, “Our weekend began with Father-Daughter unity games. Each of the games was designed to teach us a principle about our relationship with our fathers.”
What, pray tell, does shaving daddy have to do with teaching principles about a daughter’s relationship with her father? What has this got to do with “discipleship”? I guess I must not be a “Patriarch” so I’m having a hard time with grasping all this. In fact the whole thing just seems creepy. But it doesn’t end with just daddy-shaving. It also includes daddy-dressing, and that seems even more creepy.
I’ve got daughters and I’ve never, ever, had the notion that they should “serve” me by daddy-shaving or daddy-dressing. I wouldn’t even ask my wife to do that! Apparently all this shaving and dressing stuff is supposed to prepare a daughter for marriage:
“Hearing and seeing the example again this weekend confirmed in their hearts that this is the direction they want for their lives. They have both given their hearts to me and I intend with all my (and the Lord’s) strength to guard them and nurture them until such a time as I give them to a godly man in marriage.
“My older daughter is already taking the initiative to learn more on the domestic front and her spirit is noticeably softer now that she has a direction in life that coincides with the way God naturally wired her as a woman. My younger daughter is watching intently the example of her older sister. And both have turned to me as their Dad and their head. It is a beautiful and lovely thing to be a father of daughters when we do things according to Scripture.”
I’m having a hard time seeing how daddy-shaving and daddy-dressing prepares a young lady for marriage. Apparently this is all part of Vision Forum’s Patriarchy package. To me all this appears to do is to prepare a young lady for a life of obsequious bondage to a master, not marriage to a husband.
Apparently, this is supposed to create some sort of a “bonding” experience between daddies and daughters. Why not then have a Vision Forum Mother and Son Discipleship Retreat? And what sort of “unity games” might it include? What about moms shaving their sons? What about moms dressing their sons? Weird? Yes, that would be weird. But to be logically consistent about it we’d need to have sons shaving their moms, wouldn’t we? Daughters shave daddies, so sons shave mommies? So would sons shave mom’s legs? Creepy, right? Of course it’s creepy! And what about sons dressing their moms? So what makes it acceptable for daughters to be shaving and dressing daddies? The only answer is Patriarchy. Only in Doug Phillips’ Land of Patriarchy could such weird things be going on, year after year.
When men want to be shaved they go to a barber. When women want the hair removed from their legs they go get a “wax job.” Fathers don’t solicit their daughters (or even their wives) to shave their faces anymore than do mothers solicit their sons (or even their husbands) to shave their legs.
Fathers should not be soliciting their daughters to dress them, anymore than should mothers be soliciting their sons to dress them. It’s weird and creepy, and it says something about Doug Phillips’ notions of “unity” and “discipleship.”
To me this is just more evidence with what’s wrong with the Patriarchy movement, or at least the direction that Doug Phillips and Vision Forum are taking the Patriarchy movement.
Ministry Watchman 
“To me all this appears to do is to prepare a young lady for a life of obsequious bondage to a master, not a husband.”
Did you know that in Hebrew, the word for “husband”, in the sense of husband-as-master, is “baal”?
From an excellent article by John Piper:
Fifteen times in the Old Testament (Baal) simply means “husband,” but husband in the sense of owner and lord. The Baals were Israel’s hard masters as well as her lovers. In 7:14, for example, the people gashed themselves to try to get benefits from the Baals (just like the prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel in 1 Kings 18:28). When Israel chose a Baal for her “significant other” she chose a cruel and merciless lord. So the other (and I think primary) meaning of Hosea 2:16 is: “Relate to me as a loving husband, not as a harsh master or owner. In that day, says the Lord, you will call me ‘My husband’ and you will no longer call me ‘My Baal.”‘
The good news at the end of 1982 is that God wants you to love him warmly as your husband, not just serve him dutifully as your Lord. When you think of your failures in 1982; how little you have read his word, how burdensome prayer has felt, how many other things of this world have give you more kicks than God, God wants you to remember that his desire to have you back is not based on a naive estimation of your character. The point of Hosea is that God exalts his mercy by not giving up on his wife of harlotry. The good news of Hosea — and of the parable of the prodigal son and of Christmas — is that God knows we have sold ourselves for a song in 1982, yet he is wooing us into the chambers of his love.
But, please take special notice of this, especially you who tend to keep God at arm’s distance from your emotions. According to Hosea 2:16, God does not want you to return to him and say, “Yes, Sir” and set about your duties. He wants you to come into the wilderness, to listen to him speak tenderly and to respond to him, “My husband.” God wants your heart, not just your hands, because if he has your heart he has everything.
That’s the nail on the coffin for patriarchy as presented to us by Doug Phillips.
If I were Doug, I’d be losing a lot of sleep tonight over this one.
I agree with what has been called “the ick factor” in what you describe above. A few weeks ago I caught a couple minutes of the “Dr. Phil” show, and he was doing a segment on “purity balls.” Those are galas where daughters dress up in formal gowns, their fathers take them out, and they spend the night dancing together and taking pledges of sexual purity. The girls entrust their purity to their fathers.
There was just something way off about the way some of the girls were describing their relationships with their fathers — too much gushing and romantic talk.
Gothard and the IBLP have this thing about fathers giving their daughters “engagement” rings. The girls are “engaged” to their fathers until he releases them to pursue courtship, and there are vows pledging purity and to protect purity.
I am in great favor of purity, and I like speeches on abstinence and conferences on such for youth and singles, and it surely is an important issue that should be talked about frankly in the home, but there is just something in your VF example, in the purity ball examples, and in IBLP that is carried way too far.
You take something totally innocent and sweet and turn it into “ick?”
Shame on you.
Mr. Jenkins: Why should he lose sleep? Nothing has been done wrong except the misuse and abuse of our daughters in this article.
Is there a reason my comments are awaiting moderation?
OK since no one else will ‘go there’, I will. Someone needs to do it…
My first reaction to the ‘father-daughter discipleship-weirdness-purity-ball-engaged-to-daddy-thing’ was the fact that these young girls are being prepared for their fathers sexually as well.
“Gothard and the IBLP have this thing about fathers giving their daughters “engagement” rings. The girls are “engaged” to their fathers until he releases them to pursue courtship, and there are vows pledging purity and to protect purity.”
This is incest just waiting to happen.
Even worse….it’s incest sanctioned by ‘the church-cult-of-whoever-it-is.’
Ladies, I have to disagree with you about the “incest waiting to happen” allegations. My own wife said that very thing to me about this article, and I corrected her about it.
Vision Forum has taken on many of the attributes of a cult, but I seriously doubt that it will ever be a sexually exploitative cult. “Creepy” and “weird” does not mean incestuous. Girls pledging their purity would be completely inconsistent with incest. If there’s anything “waiting to happen” it’s “Spinster waiting to happen.”
I’m all in favor of girls pledging to remain chaste until marriage. I think that’s a good idea. But such pledges should be made to the Lord. Perhaps it’s healthy for parents to receive that pledge, as witnesses, from their children, both boys and girls, and the pledge should be received by both dad and mom, not just dad. Again I’m seeing some inconsistencies. Are these same people encouraging their sons to pledge their purity to their mothers? Where are the purity balls for sons?
There’s something weird and creepy about girls being “engaged” to their fathers. The Roman Catholic church receives vows from nuns in which they are “betrothed” to Christ, and they wear a wedding ring to signify their pledge. It’s extra-biblical, but there’s nothing weird about that. But not only is it weird and extra-biblical for fathers to be “engaged” to their daughters, it’s creepy. It’s also likely to foster an unhealthy “romantic” relationship with daddy, a romance that may not so easily end when daddy gives her hand in marriage to another man.
This sets up an unhealthy “romantic” system in the home in which daddy is the girl’s worshipful hero in such a way that later on she could easily become disappointed and disillusioned in the husband that she later marries when he doesn’t live up to the idealistic image that her own father has created for her. Even in the courtship process, this could easily create serious problems. Any young suitor would have to attain to a standard that few young men could likely achieve. What young man could compete with a man who’s twice his age? What young man would even want to try to compete with the affections of such a man? He’d be a fool to even try. “Spinster waiting to happen.”
Peculiar Person, read the Comment Rules. Then you won’t need to ask peculiar questions. All comments are moderated. I review them and approve them as I’m available to do so.
I grow ever more embarrassed that I used to financially support Vision Forum Ministries and purchase books and tapes from The Vision Forum. I won’t even mention all the other silly things I’ve bought from them. Why didn’t I see these things sooner? I’m getting more and more convinced that Doug Phillips is running some kind of a cult. The MCOI article on Jen’s Gems seems to confirm it, http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/cult-watch-ministry-publishes-article-exposing-doug-phillips/
Aside from Jen’s Gems there’s also some discussion going on at http://fcnforums.christianity.com/m_2426323/mpage_1/tm.htm
A Peculiar Person said to me:
You take something totally innocent and sweet and turn it into “ick?”
Shame on you.
I say:
I think you need to realize I was talking about the purity balls and the Gothard engagement of daughters to fathers as well. Having a retreat to teach little girls how to shave Daddy and put on his tie is something a little less sexy than what Gothard promotes and Dr. Phil was describing, but it is still just a weird thing to do on a Daddy-daughter retreat. Why not games where Daddy and daughter are on the same team? Why not a project they can work on together, so she really learns some useful skill (the vast majority of women don’t shave their husbands)?
I DON’T say what was described on Dr. Phil was healthy, let alone sweet and innocent. The girls dress up in formal gowns, some strapless, eat dinner with their fathers by candlelight, make these vows to each other, and then spend the night dancing, and neither one of them is supposed to be thinking about sex, because it’s all about purity.
If you want to keep your mind off of sex, that isn’t a good way to do it, IMO.
Here are some comments from my blog. The ones in quotes are from other people; the rest are mine:
“But by changing the name from father/daughter dance to Purity Ball you change everything, starting with making your little girl’s body and sexual behavior the central focus of the event. YUCK.”
I agree. Too much focus on sex. Let’s all get together and commit to these ravishing beauties remaining virgins. In order to do that, we have to focus our minds on other things . . . but how can you do that with those sexy gowns and all that dancing?
Don’t think of a blue horse!
So these girls dress in strapless gowns, make this purity pledge, dance with their fathers, and it’s all about not having sex.
“The girl (about 18 or so) told how there was nothing better than being in her father’s arms all night long. Also, when she has a bad day, she goes to her dad and tells him to hold her and tell her how beautiful she is.”
Ministry Watchman,
Good work.
Until tonight, I had no idea about Doug Phillips’s younger brother and the horrible debacle in the Sudan. My heart goes out to the poor families of those that were killed after a ‘Christian ministry’ helped the Muslim bombers perform accurate target ID and acquisition!
The past month’s unraveling of the whole Vision Forum situation — of my brother Doug Phillips’s repeated and apparently egregious lapses in judgment (to put it as mildly as possible) are nothing compared to some of the strange revulsion I get to the “shaving Daddy” situation…or the horror of the younger brother Phillips’s criminal acts.
It’s all so unreal. Devastating to the spirit.
MW, I gave you a hard time about your 501c3 comment not long ago (on my first visit to your site) and I ask your forgiveness for my harshness on that occasion. I think this work, while surely thankless, is vital to the Church.
Thank you.
Why would a theonomist want to emphasize shaving a patriarch’s beard, anyway? 😉
Ducking,
Lynn
David,
Thanks for the apology. You’re forgiven.
I’ve been following some of the comments over on Jen’s Gems, including yours. You certainly kept things lively there! Because of your comments I now know that you had attended BCA for some time.
“It’s all so unreal. Devastating to the spirit.”
I can’t tell you how sorry I am for what you’ve had to go through because of this. What a terrible disappointment. I know what it’s like to have held a pastor in such high regard, only to discover that he’s not the man that you thought he was. It is “devastating.”
Unfortunately, we here at Ministry Watchman have been the bearers of bad tidings to many, many Christians. Perhaps the best example of that was Frank Vance’s exposés about Tim Dick and Ligonier Ministries. I was as personally devastated by that situation as anyone. I won’t say that I “idolized” RC Sproul, but I did esteem him too highly. It hurts to have to be confronted with the cold hard facts about one of your personal heroes. Still, I would much rather know the truth about a brother in Christ than to continue wearing my rose-colored glasses.
David, I wish you and your family all the Lord’s best in your quest for a suitable church.
Okay, thanks for really creeping me out now. I read this and couldn’t help thinking about another really creepy thing that also involved shaving, the Navy’s Tailhook scandal The Tailhook scandal complete with leg shaving “contests” made the whole Navy look real foolish. Some bright Navy Officers got the bright idea that shaving women’s legs at an annual function for Naval Aviators would promote unity. Who’s to say that it didn’t promote unity? Maybe it did, but it was still a really stupid idea and public relations disaster for the Navy.
Maybe Vision Forum’s daddy shaving contests help promote unity too. Hard to say. But is that the kind of unity any Christian should want to see?
Vision Forum had better hope the Press never gets a hold of this.
“Why not a project they can work on together, so she really learns some useful skill (the vast majority of women don’t shave their husbands)?”
Of course, if these daughters get married off to much older men, as happens in a traditional patriarchy, or if they end up as spinsters, they WILL end up shaving either their husbands or their fathers, when the guys are in their dotage. So, I guess that they’d better learn to do it right. Cutting toenails is a useful skill, too.
And changing diapers.
Big difference on the other end of the life expectancy.
Forgive me for rushing to judgement into church sponsored incest. One would hope that would never happen…..but what if…
HOWEVER…..as Cynthia pointed out…this practice is incest waiting to happen
and…..
“The girl (about 18 or so) told how there was nothing better than being in her father’s arms all night long. Also, when she has a bad day, she goes to her dad and tells him to hold her and tell her how beautiful she is.”
so I rest my case and go for really really creepy!!!
….ick and yuck!!!!
“If there’s anything “waiting to happen” it’s “Spinster waiting to happen”.
Thanks a lot, MW. I just spewed my Earl Grey all over the keyboard.
But if you think about it…maybe that is daddy’s intention all along. Who wants to get rid of free labor?
“It is a beautiful and lovely thing to be a father of daughters when we do things according to Scripture.”
Huh? Can they cite chapter and verse in the Holy Scriptures? Perhaps the DP followers view the Talmud as scripture?
Watchman,
As for the Ligonier thing, d’accord.
I was seven years in the Calvin camp; learned so much there! Alas, I kept reading history and learned one of the best-kept secrets in Church history: “the Reformation”, WASN’T.
As is so common in history, Luther and Calvin were great guys (just like we have now in the ‘Reformed Faith’) but they went only for a politically expedient level of reform, keeping hierarchical man-made “court” structures, robes, wetting babies and calling it Christian baptism…and so much more.
But the most masterful PR stroke of “the Reformation” was what the Calvinians and Lutherians devised against the “second front men”:
As is always the case, the 16th century saw plenty of fruitcakes running around with visions and end-time theories and “icky” practices. The Calvinians and Lutherians named themselves ‘Magisterial Reformers’, and created an opposing ‘brand name’ for everybody else who wasn’t Roman Catholic: ‘Anabaptists’.
Followers of Luther and Calvin killed hundreds and hundreds of Christians, BESIDES the real nut-flakes that broke laws and did bad things; gave hundreds of people their “third baptism” (drowned them) for refusing to baptise infants or insisting on baptising only those who first believe on Christ.
‘Ministry Watchman’ on steroids: does your denomination have clear New Testament support for its traditions, or are these practices of Pagan and Roman Catholic origin?
Want to know where YOUR ‘Reformed Faith’ church, group, club, or denomination stands?
http://www.reformedtothenthdegree.blogspot.com
David, what are the historic references that you have relied upon for this theory that “Followers of Luther and Calvin killed hundreds and hundreds of Christians”?
Mr. Zuniga can’t even spell the word, “Lutheran”. He’s a ranting lunatic, plain and simple. On Jen’s sight, he called John Calvin a “mad beast”. Now he’s saying, “Luther and Calvin were great guys”.
Can someone so unstable properly determine who and what is good or bad?
Of course not. Zuniga, always believing he has “the truth” that no one grasped until he came along (this “truth” changes as Zuniga “uncovers” more from “history”), simply wanted to go with the “persecuted righteous”, as he has this belief in his head, held by many right-wingers, that if Rome hates something, it must be good. Seeing as there were various sects condemned by Rome throughout the Middle Ages, Zuniga has thus decided they were righteous, and that Protestants didn’t do enough purging of the leaven.
He has thoroughly baptized his brain in Americanism, and is so illiterate in regard to historical Christianity as practiced prior to the Reformation, that these factors, combined with his dedication to the deceased U.S. Constitution and the fabled myths pertaining to the framers, have created the ever-changing belief system of David Zuniga. A belief system that changes not on truth, but by becoming hated by the whole world, who he has mistakenly confused the church with.
Mr. Zuniga, the church is not the world. Mr. Zuniga, why are you avoiding the website? Is it just because you like chatting with women?
Two corrections:
1. Jen’s site, not sight
2. Include this link over where it says, “He called John Calvin a “mad beast”:
http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/05/30/cult-watch-ministry-publishes-article-exposing-doug-phillips/#comment-4652
Oh Kevin, Kevin, Kevin…
On Jen’s blog, I told you what you needed to do: put a towel on your head with a sweatband, and go join Islam. I said you’d fit right in, champ.
But on further consideration, I realised that you’re just an historic Calvinian, doing what Calvinians do best.
You’re perplexed about pretty much everything, Kevin; but let me try to clear up your perplexity at my consistent nomenclature convention (no, it’s not “misspelling”, Kevin). Viz: since Calvinians LOVE putting labels on straw men and claiming the laurels of Church history, I thought I’d start making one consistent labeling system to get all the teams straight.
CHRISTian is the basic nomenclature for all the people on earth who are followers of Jesus the Christ.
These folks stop believing lies, and follow Christ (not men) in faith, repentance, Christian baptism, and sanctification. This team does NOT include those who use false advertising but don’t fit the above description.
(Hint: this is the team to be on, Kev. Looks like you’ve missed it so far, champ. But you can still repent your Calvinian toothless hayseed outlook on life; hang up your plastic sword and give your heart to Jesus. It sure looks doubtful — you seem to love what you do now! — but I’ve seen stranger things happen.)
LUTHERian is a follower of the first big-time salesman of “the Reformation”, Martin Luther. Although he hung on to many Roman rites from his younger years and training, old Dr. Luther really sounds like a fun guy. Picture Doug Wilson with darker hair and a little more weight, and a fuzzy beret on his head. Old Dr. Luther was probably a hoot; his followers were not. They were murderous Paedopapist half-reformers. Today, they don’t do the murder part, so I say give them all the rope they want, and more power to them!
CALVINian is a follower of the SECOND big-time salesman of “the Reformation”, Jean Chauvin (John Calvin). Old Dr. Calvin didn’t hang on quite so tenaciously to old Roman rites, but did hang onto some of them (like Kev’s favourite, wetting babies and calling it Christian baptism). Calvin had a real hankering to run civil governments of towns and such; he had visions for utopian government, just like most of today’s politicians had. Except Calvin was a better Augustinian than Ross Perot or Bill Clinton. And we all know Augustine…he was one of those Early Church Fathers.
(You know, the ones that came down from the mountain with a glow on their faces…the Newest Covenant. They had seen the Federal Vision!)
BAPTISMian is a follower of Church Programs, Teetotaling, and The Committee on Committees. He is very numerous in America, far outnumbering the Calvinian (which is on the endangered species list). His religion was born in blood, to be sure…or in water, if you want to put it that way.
After the Lutherians and Calvinians had burned, tortured, and drowned a few hundred folks that wouldn’t do Paedopapist rites, they noticed the one thing they all had in common: their victims didn’t like wetting babies and calling it baptism. So they decided to call them ‘Anabaptist’ as a masterful PR move (‘Reformed’ guys are WAY good at PR moves) and after a while, these wall-eyed and persecuted Christians who lacked political pull, went right along. They even started referring to themselves as ‘Baptist’ instead of the former word that worked perfectly well for centuries (‘Christian’).
LORD’s SUPPERian is a fine name that is still available; please call for instructions on setting up your own new denomination just like the Baptismians, but using Christ’s other institution.
Anyway, I’m really happy to have cleared up this conundrum among all us Ministry Watchmen. Somebody has to keep all the scorecards honest, line all the nametags up, and help Kevin wipe that dumbfounded look off his face!
(MW: You can start by reading Thielemann van Braght’s “The Martyrs’ Mirror”.)
BTW, if you can’t be a Christian, then be a Baptismian, because they are more righteous than Jesus Christ.
You see, Baptismians frown on demon wine, and that is a VERY righteous thing! They’re just like good Muslims in that respect.
That darned old Jesus, boy! He MADE wine, and He DRANK wine, and then He even had the gall to institute a whole, lasting memorial for His followers to repeat…using wine!
I am shocked — SHOCKED! But we can just thank God that He sent the Baptismian religion to exorcise those spirits…with a heck of a good fellowship meal (burp!) following. Pass the gravy, brother Merle.
I’m late to the party, I guess. I’m a home school Dad and had heard some rumblings about Sproul, Sproul Jr, and Vision Forum. So, I decided to check it out for myself.
Before sharing my conclusions, let me emphatically state that I am no fan of either Sproul Sr. or Jr. The father because he is making himself rich off of ministry (check the 990s for Ligonier. Not that the salary does not include royalties). I’m not a fan of the son because of the ministry abuses which were confirmed by both his previous denomination and the current one. Also, I am a classic 5 point Remonstrant (Arminian). Thus I have issues with a couple of doctrinal points of theirs.
With this said, I think you (and a couple like you) are on nothing short of a witch hunt. It is one thing to want to be a watchman over the flock, but to do so, you must first be a prophet . God set Ezekiel as the watchman, not us.
As Christians we are to encourage one another while its still today, and those in overseer positions are to reprove when necessary. Jr. went to extremes, and the overseers of two congregations addressed it. From all I can tell, he has submitted to their authority. Let it go. All you are doing is airing dirty laundry and are disgracing the name of Christ.
As far as the “weirdness” of daughters shaving daddies and dressing them up, you are completely off of your rockers. I’ve never been to one of these events, so I can’t attest for what they teach. However my daughter loves to shave me (she wants to be a hairdresser when she grows up), and loves to pick out clothes for me to wear. She also finds neckties fascinating. I take extreme umbrage at you calling this ‘weird’. Its simply bonding with daughters. Having a good, healthy relationship with one’s father is very important in developing a correct view of God. In the case of girls, it has been shown time and time again that girls who bond with their fathers have more successful, lasting marriages than those who were distant from their fathers.
So from one person who holds his nose at some of the Sprouls’ stuff, I implore you: LET IT GO! Move on with your life. Join your church’s Pioneer Clubs and help mold and lead kids. If the church doesn’t have one, start one. Start an elderly ministry; a ministry to divorcees…. whatever. Just stop wasting time playing God. The Sprouls et al are my brothers in Christ. Sometimes brothers don’t get along, but let the Biblical process go forward. God doesn’t need you to help him bring about repentance, unity, or what have you. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. He’ll do his God appointed job, you do yours. (Thankfully God still works whether we do or not)
PS: Yes the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Catholics slaughtered anabaptists by the hundreds. Look on line for a copy of Martyrs’ Mirror.
Doug Phillips and Jerry Falwell
Dan’s post reminded me of something I read on a blog not long ago. Seems Ligoneir made some paperback copies of the Reformation Study Bible available to a prison ministry.
Others heard about this and wanted very badly to purchase this much cheaper copy. But they are only avaiable to prison ministries.
http://reformedevangelist.com/?p=416
Dan wrote: As far as the “weirdness” of daughters shaving daddies and dressing them up, you are completely off of your rockers. ”
Sorry, Dan…it is weird…and a bit too intimate. Why not teach the sons to shave and tie ties, etc?
Take your daughter to lunch instead.
Dan,
I respectfully disagree. After going over to the thread about RC Sproul Sr, I am just as crestfallen as you. Until a month ago, my wife and I attended Sunday meetings at Boerne Christian Assembly on an intermittent basis, and were planning to do so regularly. Knowing what I now know, we will not be doing that, nor would we recommend anyone else do so unless and until the “Biblical process” is honored there.
The reason I think it will most likely NOT be honored there — or at St. Andrews Chapel, or wherever a church is “led” by one man (of any theological persuasion) especially when that man is the founder of a national (however small) ministry or outreach — is that there is simply too much invested, and too much to lose, if the “leader” is shown to have sinned.
When the stock price falls, not just the company but all its investors lose.
Not only that, but consider the alternative “watchman” mechanisms available to the Church today. Surely, given the average half-life of denominations, and the panoply of now-institutionalised folly and sin in some of them; there is no “Biblical process” to be expected from that quarter!
Historically, the written word has served the reforming and enlightening function for Christians (and those of all religious systems). First it was the handbill and hand-pamphlet; then the incunabulum, then the mass press, and now this printing press on steroids, with wings: the Internet.
I might have thought it’s a matter of the egregiousness of the sin, or the “value of the message”. In other words, I wouldn’t have minded the fall of ten Jimmy Swaggarts (or Jim-and-Tammies) if I could have my one RC Sproul preaching from the highest rooftops, undisturbed! But if I was being asked to pay off an $8 million debt after my hero is gone — especially if that debt was absolutely extraneous to the message — and I could have known a few things before those notes were signed…I would want to know.
I might still end up being sold on the deal(s), but most likely, I would not.
I, too, was defensive about the aspersions being cast by these blog sites regarding Sproul, Sproul, Phillips, and Phillips. But having read in some depth, for weeks, the underpinnings to the allegations, I no longer consider them allegations (especially, of course, RC Jr’s sins, which he openly admitted).
Dan, as hard as this is to believe, this IS “the Biblical process” transpiring (Luke 8:17) using modern technology.
I no longer subscribe to the extraneous books of the ‘Reformed Faith’ as I once did, but I do agree that not only is nothing secret that shall not be made manifest; but “God ordaineth whatsoever things come to pass.”
This blog does serve a useful purpose; on balance, I believe its owners (from the threads I have perused) have sometimes been too heavy-handed (as we all do on occasion) but for the most part have taken care to wield its power with due circumspection.
RC Sproul has nothing to do with Boerne Christian Assembly; I should have made my first paragraph above, two separate paragraphs.
What I meant to say was that it was terrible enough spending the last 3 weeks learning of the insincerity (to use a mild term) of more than a few of Doug Phillips’ and Vision Forum’s statements, positions, products, actions, etc.; today, I also learned of the financial situation with Ligonier/St Andrews…the other shoe fell.
Like many who will hear of this, I’m crushed. The lesson we should all learn is, “do not follow men, follow Christ”. In practical terms, don’t get too hung up on your “favorite teacher”.
Unless He is Christ.
Dan… The Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholicas and Anabaptists all slaughtered each other. The Anabaptists were some pretty rough customers, til Menno Simons came along and started preaching non-resistance.
As for this being a “witch hunt”, it may look that way at first glance, but you should see some of the unScriptural garbage these guys and their ilk are preaching. Check out these sites, from Behind the HyperPatriarchs :
http://www.covenanthome.com/document_detail.asp?document_id=51
http://www.natreformassn.org/statesman/03/stndisob.html
(scroll to the bottom of the page for the text)
http://www.bibletopics.com/BIBLESTUDY/92b.htm
http://www.preterism-eschatology.com/Daughters%20and%20Marriage.htm
http://www.vision-harvest.com/articles/CollegeAtHome.php
and this one is a real eye-opener:
http://www.biblicalexaminer.org/w199709.htm
Dan,
How do you bond with your sons? Do they also shave and dress you? If they don’t shave and dress you, why not? What is the difference?
How does your wife bond with your daughters? Do they shave her and dress her, too? Do your sons groom your wife in order to “bond” with her? Do they apply her lipstick and curl her hair and give her pedicures? If your daughters or sons don’t also groom your wife as part of the important bonding process, why not?
Look at the VF activities for father/daughter and compare them with the activities for father/son. Why are they polar opposites? Girls don’t like doing the Blob and archery and the like? Sure, have a tea party but girls like horseback riding, archery, bowling, swimming in the lake, etc every bit as much as boys like it. Why would we think that girls like doing domestic duties and being blindfolded and commanded around so they can learn how to blindly follow their father’s voice but we don’t do these same activities with our sons? Aren’t sons supposed to serve their fathers and obey their voice, too?
And why don’t we see the fathers, in turn, brushing their daughter’s hair and braiding it or putting it up in a pony tail? Why don’t we see the fathers serving their daughters when that is the example Christ left for all those who call themselves “leaders”?
Why not have the elders blindfold everyone in the congregation and then have the members follow the commands of their elders to they can learn how to obey their elders’ voices?
Why not have husbands blindfold their wives at marriage retreats?
Why don’t we have employers blindfolding their employees?
Why are we thinking that these things are good for our daughters but not also for our sons when the Bible NEVER delineates between a daughter’s duty to her PARENTS and a son’s duty to his PARENTS? Where does the Bible put so much emphasis on the father above the mother? Aren’t sons told to obey the law/word of their mother? Why aren’t mothers blindfolding their sons and ordering them around?
And where is this all found in scripture?
I think your daughter would very happily bond with you on the golf course or in a boat while fishing for musky and going with you to Home Depot to pick out wood for your latest project or making poor man burgers in the kitchen while you squash one of the patties under your armpit and say that this particular one belongs to your daughter! That is how I bonded with my father! He never expected me to attend to his needs like a Geisha under the guise of a “bonding” experience but that is how VF would like us to see it. I am not saying you are doing this but VF has built in this exercise into their father/daughter retreat but no such exercise exists in the father/son retreat. They are teaching daughters how to “serve” their fathers. This isn’t about bonding with them. How will this help them to have a healthy relationship with their father? This is about behavior modification. This is about an agenda. This is about focus on man instead of putting the focus on the Lord. They should be teaching their daughters how to listen to the Lord in all things and about devoting themselves fully to the Lord. The Bible never teaches that the way a daughter shows devotion to the Lord is losing herself in her father.
I’m late to the party, I guess. I’m a black-smith and a father of eight. Heard some rumblings about Pope Leo, Tetzel, and the Franciscans. So, I decided to check it out for myself.
Before sharing my conclusions, let me emphatically state that I am no fan of either Leo X or Cardinal Cajetan. The Father because he is making himself rich off of ministry (check the relics in Saxony. Not that the salary does not include royalties). I’m not a fan of the cardinal because of the ministry abuses which were confirmed by both the Albigenses and the Waldenses. Also, I am a classical student of Aquinas. Thus I have issues with a couple of doctrinal points of theirs.
With this said, I think you (and a couple like you) are on nothing short of a witch-hunt. It is one thing to want to be a reformer, but to do so, you must first be a ordained. God set the pope as the watchman, not us.
As Christians we are to encourage one another while its still today, and those in overseer positions are to reprove when necessary. Tetzel went to extremes, and the overseers of two congregations addressed it. From all I can tell, he has submitted to their authority. Let it go. All you are doing is airing dirty laundry and are disgracing the name of Christ.
As far as the “weirdness” of prostrating oneself before a kitchenette statue of Our Lady of San Domingo, and dressing them up, you are completely off of your rockers. I’ve never been to one of these events, so I can’t attest for what they teach. However my girl loves to do it (she wants to consecrate herself to the Immaculate Heart when she grows up), and loves to pick out clothes for the Queen to wear. She also finds rosary beads fascinating. I take extreme umbrage at you calling this ‘weird’. Its simply bonding with the Blessed Virgin. Having a good, healthy relationship with one’s Mother is very important in developing a correct view of God. In the case of girls, it has been shown time and time again that girls who bond with our Lady have more successful, lasting marriages than those who were distant from her.
So from one person who holds his nose at some of Teztel’s stuff, I implore you: LET IT GO! Move on with your life. Join your church’s monastery and help mold and lead kids. If the church doesn’t have one, start one. Start a new fraternity; a ministry to divorcees…. whatever. Just stop wasting time playing God. Tetzel and C. Cajetan are my brothers in Christ. Sometimes brothers don’t get along, but let the biblical process go forward. God doesn’t need you to help him bring about repentance, unity, or what have you. That’s the Holy Spirit’s job. He’ll do his God appointed job, you do yours. (Thankfully God still works whether we do or not)
PS: The Greeks are a bunch of stuffy, self-appointed judgmental goons that need to submit to the Holy Pontiff!
Wow. You guys are worse than the ones you criticize. At least they asked for forgiveness of sins and submitted to Biblical authority. You’re just a bunch of rugged individualistic, lose cannons (no pun intended). What you are doing (in the case of Sproul Jr) is called “triumphalism”. Look it up in the American Heritage dictionary.
I don’t have any sons – just the one daughter. If I had them, I would do the same thing with them. Who are you to tell me how I should raise my kids?
If there is cult like behavior going on, you rank right up there with the ones you criticize. You think you have some kind of secret, inside knowledge of right and wrong (ex the “weirdness” issue), and you think that you have some kind of Biblical right to tell the whole world about someone’s sins – sins that have been forgiven by God the Father. You know… those same ones he removed as far as the East is from the West?
I wonder what you would think if you screwed up in your walk. Lets say you occasion porn sites (50% of evangelicals do). After having individuals come to you privately about your sin and refusing them, the congregation you are part of convinces you that you have sinned. You repent. Then, your brothers and sisters in Christ put up a “Joe Watch” website.. constantly rehashing the sin you committed, and how you are still a pervert. Once a pervert, always a pervert right?
Or how about those of you who are divorced, yet are dating or…worse yet.. remarried. Perhaps you and your first spouse were both believers when you divorced. Do you want a “Jen Watch” page warning the world of your adultery?
Or, as long as we’re on the scarlet A topic, how about those of you who actually have done the dirty deed with someone other than your spouse in your lifetime? Maybe it was 20 years ago when you were 16. You repented of it at the time, and committed with the Lord and perhaps an elder in your church not to allow such temptation to rule your life again. But then, someone finds out about it. And ooooh….. it turns out your boyfriend took some pictures while you were asleep. Suddenly those pictures appear on a webpage as evidence of the slut you are. Many blog posts fly back and forth referencing the many verses you violated, and even interviews old friends who relay their dismay with you. All in Jesus name, mind you.
Chose who you are going to be: Someone who lives like there is forgiveness available, or like a judgmental accuser. As for me and my house, we’ll celebrate forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit to remind us how to live in His righteousness. And then, I’ll let my kid fire up the Norelco and buzz my face. Who knows… maybe I’ll even let her trim the back of my neck.
Have fun gathering stones.
Hegemonic Patriarchy
Dan,
Who told you how to raise your children?
“Or, as long as we’re on the scarlet A topic, how about those of you who actually have done the dirty deed with someone other than your spouse in your lifetime? Maybe it was 20 years ago when you were 16. You repented of it at the time, and committed with the Lord and perhaps an elder in your church not to allow such temptation to rule your life again. But then, someone finds out about it. And ooooh…..”
You are kidding, right? This is exactly what was done to Jen Epstein.
“Chose who you are going to be: Someone who lives like there is forgiveness available, or like a judgmental accuser. As for me and my house, we’ll celebrate forgiveness and the gift of the Holy Spirit to remind us how to live in His righteousness.”
That is exactly what many of us are saying. It is interesting how you turn the tables.
“And then, I’ll let my kid fire up the Norelco and buzz my face. Who knows… maybe I’ll even let her trim the back of my neck.”
Obviously you aren’t really getting the point.
We were discussing the differences betwen the father/daughter retreats and the father/son retreats and where that basis for the difference is in scripture.
It sounds like you are upset. It is obvious you are reacting to the postings with emotion. It would have been nice to hear, from scripture, why you think that VF has such a different emphasis on daughters and sons when the Bible teachs that all children are to obey their parents.
Corrie,
What I’ve witnessed on this forum is simply unconscionable. I have read people dredging up R.C. Sproul Jr’s sins, and continue to make him guilty day, after day, after day. In a way its like a film negative of the Mass: Jesus gets re-crucified day, after day, after day. Jr. is a sinner saved by grace, just like I. I thank God that Jesus only died once for my sins, and that I don’t have to be reminded by God of my sins day, after day, after day. So who are you to remind him of forgiven sins day, after day, after day? This is where I find fault with you (plural). In continuing to remind someone of their past sins, you tacitly imply that Christ’s atonement wasn’t good enough for what they did. That’s the blasphemy of the mass. Which is it? Does Jesus blood cover Jr, or not?
I think it is perfectly worthwhile to hold a Christian organization financially accountable. ECFA doesn’t seem to be. Just look at the 990s for Insight for Living, Ravi Zacharias, Ligonier, you name it. I think Chuck Swindoll should tell his listeners how much his wife earns as President of IFL when he’s begging and pleading for money in the “slow months of summer”. Having a watchdog group over an independent (ie, no formal denominational ties) group -especially one with an inbred board of directors- is vital.
I also think it is perfectly acceptable to have discussions – vigorous but respectful- on the theology and implications of various Christian teachers/groups. Thus, while I take complete umbrage at your inferring that I am weird because my daughter likes to pick out shirts for me, fix my tie, and buzz my face.. its ok. I would strongly suggest you rethink your slap at your brothers in Christ* I especially encourage you to re-think the mind numbing implication that this is akin to raising geishas. Think about what you are implying: You are linking people like me who raise their daughters to be whores. How can you even *THINK* like this?! But whatever…Its a free country. Everyone is entitled to their opinion – as erroneous, debased, and stupid as it may be.
Again, my point is strictly with how you (again plural) love to drag up sins which have been covered by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. From everything I have read, the Biblical process of restoration is in full swing. Thank God that he doesn’t leave us in our train wrecks. At least Jr. saw fit to confess of his abuses. You continue in them. You just try to hide behind a thin, floppy veneer of protection. Do you really think that the same repentance and restoration from sin doesn’t apply to you?
As far as the examples of other sins I gave: I know absolutely about how those very things may have happened to other people. They are analogies, and perhaps painfully accurate ones. So be it. The point is “do unto others as you would have done unto you”. Maybe the self-righteous on this board that sneak away to commit mental adultery all over some megapixels need a wake up call. Perhaps those who cheat on their income taxes need to think real hard before lobbing that rock over the EIN number. Or, we could look at it your way and say that those who had old naughty pics distributed had it coming. You know.. all that stuff hidden in the dark will come out to light, right? Its only Biblical. That we we can refer to the nudie photos and cry “slutwhore” day, after day, after day. Wouldn’t that be fair?
As far as your request for Biblical references, I think anyone with a 6th grade Sunday School knowledge of the Bible will recognize the undeniable Truth that I am proclaiming. I have found that people who just want to engage in proof-texting often do so because they can’t see the Word of God due to the log stuck in their eye.
Hopefully some of you on this site will wake up and stop being so triumphantly minded that you are absolutely no earthly good.
Dan
* (I am supposing you are part of Christ’s family.)
“Thus, while I take complete umbrage at your inferring that I am weird because my daughter likes to pick out shirts for me, fix my tie, and buzz my face.. its ok. I would strongly suggest you rethink your slap at your brothers in Christ* I especially encourage you to re-think the mind numbing implication that this is akin to raising geishas.”
Dan,
LOL! Well, thanks for that footnote! That was kind of you.
I didn’t slap anyone’s face. I think that is overly dramatic.
I didn’t call you weird. Can you find the exact quote? I was speaking directly about VF’s father/daughter training session. I just reread my post and you are taking a personal offence where there was none.
I don’t think it is weird that your daughter likes to do these things with you. I am sure she also likes to fix her mom’s hair and put on her make-up and pick out her clothes, too. My sons like to fix my hair when they are small, too. So do my daughters. But they grow out of that. My 22 year son old no longer wants to fix my hair and my 16 year old daughter will tell me if my hair is messed up but they don’t do those things for “fun” anymore. I still have a bunch of little ones who like to apply make-up and fix my hair in “gorgeous” ways. But, they will grow out of that.
I was specifically asking about these retreats and the purpose of these activities. VF states that it is to train daughters to serve their fathers. It isn’t for fun. It is for training in how to SERVE their fathers.
Also, a good study on geisha would be appropriate since you don’t seem to understand what they are. They were not whores. They didn’t have sex with their clients like hookers do. Their job was to make men feel important and the center of attention and that didn’t include sex. They were skilled at music and the arts and all sorts of culture. They were interesting to men BECAUSE they were highly educated.
Here is a little blurb on geisha:
“Geisha are frequently depicted as expensive prostitutes in Western popular culture. Geisha are entertainers, their purpose being to entertain their customer, be it by reciting verse, playing musical instruments, light conversation. Geisha engagements may include flirting with men and playful innuendos; however, clients know that nothing more can be expected. In a social style that is uniquely Japanese, men are amused by the illusion of that which is never to be. Geisha do not engage in paid sex with clients.”
It is obvious to me that this is personal with you and that you are reacting to things not even meant to you. Please go back and read what was actually written before jumping to conclusions. I think I am pretty much done conversing with you since it seems to be going in circles.
Corrie,
As I said in my last post, you are free to think and say whatever you wish on theological, financial, or personal opinions. Thus I don’t particularly give a flying rat’s patootie at your opinion on a girl shaving a father’s face, a boy shaving his mother’s legs, or if the mother has any reason to bother shaving her own legs. Nor do I really care about your justification for the disgusting and depraved inference you draw to the geishas, nor the pathetic defense of it you offered. As I previously said, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion no matter how erroneous, debased, or stupid it might be. I just think its a shame that such a potentially useful forum ends up being little more than exhibit ‘a’ in total depravity.
Where I’ve seen the Biblical line crossed on this forum is in refusing to accept that someone has been forgiven of his sins by the Lord. As I have stated very clearly, it is unconscionable that a professing Christian would still hold a person’s sins over his head, and/or mock a process of restoration. Those who engage in this unacceptable behavior are actually worse than those they would accuse. The body of Christ is well by being cautious in assuming such an accuser is actually a brother or sister in Christ. Why? Because the accuser implies that Christ’s blood is not sufficient to cover the one who asked for forgiveness. Thus, the accuser not only sets himself or herself higher than the accused, but Christ himself. No proof texting is required to illustrate the profound truth of my assertions for someone with a remedial, sixth grade Sunday School education.
As for this five point Remonstrant, I readily and willingly call R.C. Sproul, Jr. a brother in Christ. As for you… have fun chucking stones.
Have you read the Hushmoney site? Because Sproul’s alleged repentance looks to more a lot more like an abuser saying something like, “I’m sorry, but you made me do it” than genuine repentance. His subsequent behavior (berating the Presbytery for not giving him the trial that he made moot by requesting to be released from the Presbytery’s authority, for just one example) looks like more of the same (I’m sorry, but you made me do it and besides what I did wasn’t all that bad). The apology he made is so poor that I wouldn’t accept it from one of my children as genuine.
That’s not setting myself up higher than the accused or than Christ himself. Sproul’s subsequent actions have also been contrary to what he has required of others in the past (the submission to authority he demands is not the submission he demonstrates, for one thing).
Contrary to holding myself up as higher than the accused or my Savior, that is using my Savior’s standards.
“Why? Because the accuser implies that Christ’s blood is not sufficient to cover the one who asked for forgiveness”
You have lost me, Dan. You are all over the place in your posts.
When did RC Sproul, Jr., step down as a pastor/elder? I must have missed that. I thought he ran over the CREC to get ordained there after his defrocking?
See, according to scripture in Timothy and Titus, he is not qualified because he is not above reproach. So, how are you getting around this? Are you forgetting that RC. Sproul is an elder?
“Nor do I really care about your justification for the disgusting and depraved inference you draw to the geishas, nor the pathetic defense of it you offered. As I previously said, everyone is entitled to his or her opinion no matter how erroneous, debased, or stupid it might be.”
Dan,
So you are just going to continue to call me names instead of actually reading what I wrote. This is the example you want to set about forgiveness? You don’t seem very forgiving to me nor do you seem very reasonable.
You are ignorant about geisha and it shows. If you knew anything about them you would know that it is not a disgusting reference. I was speaking merely to the training the receive and that they are here to serve men and boost their egos. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX SO GET YOUR MIND OUT OF THE GUTTER AND EDUCATE YOURSELF BEFORE YOU START SPEAKING FROM YOUR OWN IGNORANCE.
But, since I assume you are a man, then you had better prove you are. You inferred that I was disgusting, depraved and stupid. You do not conduct yourself as a gentleman at all, especially since you can’t read a word that anyone has written nor can you get the point being made straight.
“Thus I don’t particularly give a flying rat’s patootie at your opinion on a girl shaving a father’s face, a boy shaving his mother’s legs, or if the mother has any reason to bother shaving her own legs.”
A son shaving his mother’s legs????? HUH?? Yes, I may have stupid opinion on that (it is inappropriate) but it appears you think it is okay?
Moderator, I thought we were talking about the VF activities and the difference between the ones for daughters and the ones for sons?
How long is this abuse by “Dan” (the man) going to be tolerated? He obviously isn’t reading what I wrote, since I explained to him in a very nice way that I was not referring to him but to the VF activity. I have tried to explain it to him but he keeps on railing away at me in a maniacal fashion making no sense at all.
What does RC Sproul JR have to do with this?
“How long is this abuse by “Dan” (the man) going to be tolerated? He obviously isn’t reading what I wrote, since I explained to him in a very nice way that I was not referring to him but to the VF activity.”
Corrie, there’s nothing new about the “Dan’s” that show up here regularly to defend The RC Jr, The Dick, The Doug, et al. I used to get annoyed by them, but now I’m just entertained. With defenders like Dan who needs enemies?
Dan said, “Again, my point is strictly with how you (again plural) love to drag up sins which have been covered by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. From everything I have read, the Biblical process of restoration is in full swing.”
Dan, please show us some evidence that Sproul Jr has repented. While you’re at it, show us some evidence of “the Biblical process of restoration is in full swing.”
Watchman,
It is not up to me (or anyone else) to judge a person’s repentance. It is only up to God. This is the point Jesus was making when he said “judge not lest ye be judged”.
There are two common errors made with that verse. The first is to think that we aren’t to make judgements about issues, or people. We clearly are to make such judgements. The second error, which is related to the first, is to assume that our judgements may include speculation on the state of another’s heart before God. Only God knows that, and it is this second error that Christ condemns.
As far as the other comments, requests, etc. I repeat what I have said before: The main thrust of my comments are readily and easily understood by someone with a remedial, sixth grade Sunday School education.
Have fun throwing your stones. I hope the logs don’t blur your vision.
“It is not up to me (or anyone else) to judge a person’s repentance. It is only up to God. This is the point Jesus was making when he said “judge not lest ye be judged”. ”
Dan says we can ignore the Biblical qualifications for elders! They no longer have to be above reproach. They can sorta kinda, in a back handed way, ‘repent’ after being defrocked, go get ordained somewhere else and get right back in the pulpit!
And to think…no one was judging the ‘heart’ just verifiable actions. I guess we should start ignoring the behavior…it tells us nothing.
After further reflection, I have decided to reverse course and address one particular request that has been made of me. Normally I don’t bother with these sorts of things – I rather keep focused on the central point (In this case the inappropriateness of rehashing someone’s forgiven sins).
However upon reflection, I believe another important, although secondary, point should be made and illustrated. This lesser point is, “The ‘Ministry Watchman’ site is full of self-professed experts who have no clue what they are talking about. Thus let the reader be wary”.
I have weighed the importance of making this point against a maxim I have: “Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent”. My conclusion is that the enlightenment that should result outweighs the ungentlemanly behavior which is necessary to make the illustration.
This brings me to one ‘Corrie’ and her disgusting link of Japanese geishas to the father daughter events of Vision Forum. In her two retorts to my profuse objection of her debased comments, Corrie has tried to make herself an expert in Japanese culture claiming that the geisha were simply cultural entertainers, and not prostitutes.
Some of us believe that being a well-read individual involves more than a passing knowledge of Wikipedia, which appears to be the outer limits of Corrie’s cultural knowledge base. As an aid to understanding who the geisha were, and why Corrie’s analogy is so disgusting, I include two scholarly references to set the record straight.
The first comes from The Journal of Asian Studies, August 1992. Chieko Argia discusses the geisha in 19th century Japanese history and literature, especially as it appears in the classic work, Ryikyo Shinshi. Argia writes:
“Geisha (the term literally means “artiste”) became popular in the late Edo period. Skilled in singing and dancing, they were originally both male and female entertainers who attended the licensed brothels, such as the noted Yoshiwara (Dalby 1983: 15). When town geisha (muchi-geisha or sato-geisha) started appearing in the mid-eighteenth century, the distinction between prostitutes and geisha was blurred and geisha began to practice prostitution as well. Geisha and prostitutes differed in their styles, but in their status as entertainment women who sold their bodies to men, there was no difference between them.5 Since only official prostitution at licensed quarters was allowed, control measures were taken from time to time by the shogunate government to limit the activities of geisha, but in reality these measures had little effect. It was after the revised rule on prostitutes in 1878 that geisha were officially redefined as “those women whose profession it is to play musical instruments and dance at parties” (Nakano 1968: 178-80).”
(Ariga, Chieko. “Dephallicizing Women in Ryukyo Shinshi: A Critique of Gender Ideology in Japanese Literature”. Journal of Asian Studies, vol 51 no 3, 565-586).
Reference number 2 is from The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization:
“Antropologist Liza Dalby studied the lives of the licensed entertainer-prostitutes known as ‘geisha’… The geisha, she writes, lived decent lives only compared to ordinary licensed prostitutes lived: ‘Dreadful as life was for the geisha, they were better off than the girls who were sent not to the geisha houses, but to brothels.’ In part that dreadfulness that dreadfulness resulted from the way the geisha house used indentured contracts to tie the women to it. Like many scholars of prostitution elsewhere, Dalby suggests the Japanese house owners manipulated the contracts to turn prostitution into debt peonage – and keep the women working beyond the original term. Trapped with unscrupulous owners who charged the inmates exorbitant rates for room and board, intentionally keeping them in a state of dependence, the geisha worked in “virtual captivity”
(Ramseyer, Mark. “Indentured Prostitution in Imperial Japan” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, vol 7 no 1, 89-116)
In conclusion let me reiterate my point: People like Corrie love to hold themselves out an expert in order to excuse their rage. The Body of Christ is well served to treat such individuals with extreme caution in light of the overwhelming evidence which demonstrates their pathological ignorance.
Corrie, your linking of those fathers and daughters to the geisha was completely and utterly disgusting. You should be ashamed.
Dan,
I’m very impressed with your knowledge of Japanese history and the great significance of whether or not geishas were whores. You’ve obviously put a tremendous effort into such a “secondary” issue. The problem is, Dan, that it’s not “secondary.” It’s completely irrelevant. Corrie is entitled to her opinions and you’re entitled to yours. But from my perspective, Dan, it is you who is primarily responsible for taking this thread off topic. It is not Corrie who needs to be ashamed, but Doug Phillips.
Like I said before, “With defenders like Dan who needs enemies?” If we could put the focus back here on events specific to our own continent that would be helpful.
You were the one who tried to change the subject to (among other things) RC Sproul Jr. In this case I’ll allow it, but only if you defend your own assertions. To reiterate:
Without engaging in any more Japanese hooker history lessons, please defend your earlier assertions about Sproul Jr’s repentance and restoration.
Wow, Dan, I guess you put me in my place! BTW, my real name is Corrie, so no need for the quotation marks.
And, while you get as many digs as you can in concerning my intelligence, I hope it makes you feel manly?
I didn’t know you were an expert on Geishas? Then you must know that it was usually their father who sold them into that lifestyle?
I have tried to explain over and over again to you what I meant by that reference. Contrary to your bold assertions and your assault on my intelligence, my knowledge does not come from Wikipedia. Yes, I quoted from that source but that was only AFTER I made the comment. I have read several books on geishas and their history.
It was not I who held myself out as an expert, Dan. It was you. And, now YOU are acting like the expert after doing 15 minutes of Google searching on the internet.
I reread my original post and there is nothing in it that would have made you react the way you have. It seems like daughters shaving their fathers is a golden cow for you and I struck a nerve and then you lashed out. I understand that you want to protect your rights as a father but this was NEVER about you, Dan. This was about a mindset that uses odd exercises to teach little girls how to “serve” their fathers when those little girls would probably want to be out at the lake playing and bonding with their fathers. It is about an AGENDA.
You could have just answered my questions? I assure you there was NOTHING disgusting in my reference to geisha. In my research, which I have already explained is not limited to Wikipedia but to several books, Geisha were not hookers and it was not about sex. There were other tiers of women who did that stuff.
In fact, your OWN “research” backs me up! 🙂
“When town geisha (muchi-geisha or sato-geisha) started appearing in the mid-eighteenth century, the distinction between prostitutes and geisha was blurred and geisha began to practice prostitution as well.”
In fact, you are totally missing the point with the “research” you presented. These girls had NO choice, Dan. They were sold into that lifestyle because they were the property of their father to do with whatever he so wanted. Their job, as a female, was to serve men and make them happy. They were trained in that art. (Are you getting the point I was trying to make?) My point has NOTHING to do with sex. It has to do with the mentality and the attitude towards daughters. Instead of having so much reactionary disgust for the geisha, you should feel much sorrow for them! Apparently, you have not read the invidivual accounts from some of these women from hundreds of years ago, like I have? If you had, you would temper yourself and stop referring to these women as hookers.
Do you also refer to the women who have been sold into sexual slavery, against their will, in our modern world as prostitutes and hookers, simply because they were women and they could be exploited?
I was referring to the ancient practice that did NOT involve prostitution. You see by your OWN astounding research that geisha were NOT always prostitutes. They BEGAN to practice in the mid-eighteenth century.
The early geisha were trained in flower arranging, singing, classical dancing, musical instruments, tea ceremonies, calligraphy, conversation, and more. They were professional hostesses. A successful geisha was to possess charm, impeccable etiquette, eloquence, beauty, elegance, artistic talent, and refinement. As you can see, there is NO SEX in that list. They weren’t trashy hookers, Dan. No, Dan, that sex-for-hire was for other women, not geisha.
Everything I have read, Dan, insists that geisha were NOT prostitutes before the 18th century. In fact, the ancient geisha were not allowed to have sex with their clients and they were also not allowed to fall in love and marry. They were SOLD into this life as young girls and their families were paid money for them. You see, back then, girls were the property of their families to do with what they wanted. If a little girl couldn’t make it during the training process of a geisha, she was turned over to the brothel.
If a man wanted sex, he would pay for a woman who was selling sex- prostitutes. Geisha were beautiful women who served tea, danced (not trashy), sang and played musical instruments at the tea houses where wealthy merchants gathered.
So, while you rant and rave and insult and show YOUR ignorance, you still haven’t answered any of my questions.
I apolgize for causing you so much distress. You have totally mistaken what my intentions were and you have turned them into something that they were NOT. You, sir, have your mind somewhere that never crossed my mind.
And every disgusting insult you make to me just exposes your own problems.
Dear self professed ‘Watchman’:
Your request that I provide evidence that Sproul, Jr. has repented is, on its face, absurd. You know full well that Sproul Jr. did apologize and repent. He just doesnt’ meet your god-like approval. If you are unaware of the facts of this case, you should relinquish the domain and save the world some bandwidth.
However, for the sake of those who want succinct facts, and to help refresh your fevered brain, I will indulge your gambit. In the RPCGA judgement of 1/26/06, under point 1 of “Session Violations”, we read that the session (which, by definition includes Sproul Jr) “confessed and apologized for their abusive behavior”.
The same Moderator acknowledged in a letter that he had received a letter from the deposed session dated Feb 2 2006 that Sproul had repented. To quote verbatim, “We appreciate your sincerity in apologizing to the violations recorded in the Declaratory Judgment”. The letter then specifies areas of offense, acknowledges the request for forgiveness on each of the items and then declares, “Your confession and repentance are received and you are forgiven”. The Moderator then quotes from one of Jr’s works in which he declared, “a true man takes responsibility for his failures. That is why a godly man’s best posture is on his knees repenting”. The moderator states “We believe you men have modeled this attitude above all, and we are most humbled by your humility”.
On May 15 2006 the Pastoral Commission of the CREC issued a report of their investigation of the actions of the deposed session. I have read several posts online (not necessarily from your site) from that time period in which it was surmised that the CREC would simply whitewash the issues. They did not. In their report, they affirmed the previous judgment. They wrote that they found “significant pastoral mistakes, errors, and sins” (p. 3). The CREC placed the church pastoral ministry under their direct supervision to provide accountability, and said that they anticipate “evidences of godly repentance” from Sproul Jr. and the other members of the session. The report also stated that if the sin persisted, the men would be publicly rebuked. Given that no such action has taken, a rational individual may conclude:
(a) The sin is not continuing,
(b) the sin is continuing but is unknown to the CREC,
(c) The sin is continuing and is known to the CREC, but the CREC is not following through as pledged.
These men are too highly scrutinized for the sin to continue without being reported. There is no evidence that ‘c’ is taking place, thus the logical choice is a.
So called “watchman”, you need to come to terms with your hardened heart. I would hope that the word of God would be enough to convict you of your sin in this matter. That is between you and God. However, the testimony of godly men from two denominations testify against your claim that Sproul Jr is not repentant.
As for Ms Connie, please don’t forget: My point was not the historical facts of the sex-for-hire geishas. My point was to prove that Connie, and hate mongers like her, are not the experts that they want the readers to believe. She made a foul-mouthed, disgusting implication that those dads in the photo, as well as others, are nothing more than hooker breeders. For that she should repent publicly for lying given her professed knowledge of geishas. If she wasn’t lying, she should admit to ignorance, and apologize for the inference she made.
In conclusion, I remind the reader that I have no connection in anyway, shape, or form with Sproul, Phillips or any of the other crazy calvinists mentioned on this board. I remind the reader that I have serious misgivings of the doctrines espoused by Sproul Jr (and Sr for that matter). I have serious doubts about the appropriateness of the salaries paid out by Sproul Sr (and other radio preachers) to themselves and their families in what appears to be nothing more than inbred nepotism.
I also find Phillips view of history to be more myth than history. Furthermore, I have strong doctrinal and practical disagreements with the Patriarchy movement. In short, I share many -if not most- of the same concerns articulated in your statement of purpose.
HOWEVER, none of my opinions about these men or the ministries gives me the right to sit in God’s judgment seat as you are doing. He is my brother in Christ, and I look forward to spending eternity with him. As I have previously articulated, you are worse than Sproul Jr. At least he repented and placed himself in submission to the elders. You, however, are still sinning.
Keep throwing rocks.
Dan, you can call the Geisha whatever you want, but before you start throwing insults around and calling people on this board “pathologically ignorant”, perhaps you should do a bit more reading. The Geisha’s profession was and is based upon preserving the traditional arts such as dance, singing and music and entertaining in a non-sexual manner.
The confusion as to whether Geisha are prostitutes or not seems to have stemmed both from the close proximity of Geisha to courtesans in the Edo era, coupled with the fact that they did technically originate from the red light districts. The main culprits who spread this misunderstanding appear to be the post-World War II occupation servicemen. Many U.S. servicemen came home from Japan with wild and raunchy stories of “Gee-sha Girls” who for the most part where not in fact real Geisha, but rather, ordinary Japanese women or prostitutes masquerading or calling hemselves “Geisha”, largely because it was easiest for the servicemen to understand.
Oh, and Dan, you also wrote,
” I have weighed the importance of making this point against a maxim I have: “Never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent”. My conclusion is that the enlightenment that should result outweighs the ungentlemanly behavior which is necessary to make the illustration.”
Any true gentleman is quite capable of enlightening an “opponent” without resorting to insults and ungentlemanly behaviour; you, however, are obviously either unwilling or incapable of doing so. In light of your insults to Corrie, I’d say that it it YOUR rage that is being excused, in your rather transparent attempt to “enlighten” her.
Dan, I’m aware of the Saint Peter session’s letter of apology to the RPCGA. I’m also aware of the RPCGA’s response. In their letter of apology, the Saint Peter [defrocked] session says:
They weren’t charged with “mishandling” their office. They were charged with “abuse of authority of the office of elders”, “abusive behavior” and “ministerial abuse”. How many times, Dan, in the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment is RC Sproul Jr judged as being abusive? Multiple times, and in multiple instances against multiple families. RC Sproul Jr confessed in the most general terms to “our offices and authority have been mishandled,” but not to “abuse.”
Where is the evidence of any confession and repentance to those families that he abused? Dan, I can only hope that you will now cite RC Jr’s letter of repentance to the Austins. Taken by itself it seems very sincere. Here’s the problem though. RC Jr had also signed the Saint Peter session’s letter of apology to the Austins, and that letter is full of excuses, self-justifications, and in several places they even blame the Austins! With one letter RC Jr repented, and with the other letter he took it all back. John Austin was right to question the so-called “repentance” of the Saint Peter session. As he says in his letter:
Dan, you are at least partially correct for raising the concern that we not attempt to judge another man’s motives, or attempt to read the intentions of their hearts. However, we can read their letters, and when a man calls a letter a letter of “repentance,” and yet that letter is full of excuses, self-justifications, and anemic “confessions” then it is certainly appropriate for us to question that man’s sincerity. I agree with John Austin’s read of the Saint Peter [defrocked] session’s “repentance.” It was an “utter sham” and, at least as far as I know, nothing has changed. Therefore, to this very day, RC Sproul Jr’s “repentance” is and remains an utter sham.
Did RC Sproul Jr ever confess and repent to all those families named in the Declaratory Judgment? In his Open Letter to the defrocked Saint Peter session, Peter Kershaw says:
That letter was dated a week after the defrocked Saint Peter session was officially released from general membership in the RPCGA. So as of that date RC Jr still had not repented to all those families. Dan, are you aware, either personally, or through any testimony of anyone you know, whether or not the defrocked Saint Peter session has ever repented to those families?
Watchman, I’m having a hard time figuring out how Dan could come onto your site and hi-jack this thread about Doug Phillips and his “games,” which may be intended to break down natural barriers to the point that the daughter trusts her father unconditionally, a potentially dangerous situation, to RC, Jr.? Is your site about Jr.? Maybe I missed all those posts.
What I didn’t miss were all his accusations about me. Dan, although you are sincerely confused about RC, Jr.’s repentance (or lack thereof, actually), you came on here blasting everyone for basically everything that happens not only on this site, but on my own. I’m glad you finally got down to specifics about RC, Jr., but just what exactly is it that Ministry Watchman has done that irritates you so? And likewise, what have I done that irritates you as well? Maybe you just don’t like it when Christians are willing to hold others accountable and expose their evil deeds when they refuse to repent? That’s what we usually hear. Then I would ask you if you have a better way? What would you recommend? Should we just allow these wolves in sheep’s clothing to continue devouring the sheep? Is that how we love our neighbor?
You have really succeeded in taking this conversation far away from where it belongs. Please reconsider the real purpose for these blogs. We all wish they didn’t have to be here in the first place, but I am grateful that God has provided a method of “taking it to the church” when the church refuses to deal with sin.
BTW, Watchman, I wasn’t convinced when I first saw your article, but the more I think about it, the more I realize that these games aren’t just for fun. Teaching a daughter to serve her daddy and to become blindly obedient can put a daughter in a potentially dangerous situation. While I am certain that most of these men are there because they love the Lord and desire to have a godly family, these things can gradually change over the years to the point where the relationship becomes totally inappropriate, in various ways. I heard that this shaving game is specifically described in a book that details how to break down natural barriers in order to get children to do, well, certain things they wouldn’t do otherwise. I’m sure that was not Doug’s intent here, but this game seems to be a little over-the-top for certain ages, at least.
Jen,
Do you know what ages or if there is an age limit on the girls who participate in this shaving game and the blind obedience game?
“As for Ms Connie, please don’t forget: My point was not the historical facts of the sex-for-hire geishas. My point was to prove that Connie, and hate mongers like her, are not the experts that they want the readers to believe. She made a foul-mouthed, disgusting implication that those dads in the photo, as well as others, are nothing more than hooker breeders. For that she should repent publicly for lying given her professed knowledge of geishas. If she wasn’t lying, she should admit to ignorance, and apologize for the inference she made.”
Dan,
My name is Corrie not Connie.
I am not a foul-mouthed hate-monger nor did I make any disgusting implication that those dads are “hooker” breeders. I am not going to publicly repent for lying or for being ignorant.
You seem to have your mind bent on seeing something foul that is not there. To the pure all things are pure? It also seems you “doth protest too much”?
You obviously are not reading what I wrote nor have you read your own “research”. I never claimed to be an expert but your very own research even proves that what I was saying was correct. It is clear that you are an unreasonable and irrational man filled with anger which is ignited by the least little provocation and you refuse to even accept a reasonable explanation or have a cordial debate. You are personally offended and have blindly lashed out making yourself look as ignorant as you have claimed me to be. In fact, Dan, you are the one with your mind in the gutter, not me.
Even though I tell you what I meant by that comment, you refuse to even listen but still insist that I was speaking of hookers! Please, Dan! Your slip is showing!
So, now I am a hate-monger because I don’t feel that teaching daughters that their job is to serve daddy by grooming him is appropriate? That qualifies me as a “hate-monger”? LOL!
Okay. You win. I cannot out-do your intelligence or rational reasoning capabilities! You have proven that you are the source of all knowledge and wisdom and that you are not hateful but an understanding, wise, kind, gentle and not easily angered teacher of God’s word.
Hello. I’m Dennis Cochran and R.C. Sproul “Jr.” has never apologized to me. I’m good friends with the Burtons and if he had apologized to them I likely would have heard about it (unless it was ten minutes ago or whatever). I’d have probably heard about any apology to the Kershaws unless it was very recent.
Like Jen I’m having trouble seeing that much benefit in the likes of Dan hijacking the discussion.
So, back to the original topic: do the daddies at the Duggy Wuggy deal sing to their lil’ gals? How ’bout
My darling little Electra
I’m your daddy here to protect ya
According to the ways of Doug
The hyper-patriarch slug
Now shave me a little closer
To make this a little grosser
Don’t tie my tie too tight
And we’ll grow clooooose tonight
(use whatever tune you feel is appropriate)
Dennis
Dennis,
I think you are a poet!
Thanks for letting us know that other information, too.
My feeling about the whole daddy-shaving and blind-fold/command training session is that this is a father/daughter retreat and these are billed as training sessions on teaching a daughter how to serve her father and how to obey is commands.
Now, there is nothing wrong with serving and obeying one’s father and mother. I think it is important for children to grow up to appreciate their parents by serving them and obeying them. After all, mom and dad serve their children everyday of their lives.
But, I think that when you look at the father/son and the father/daughter retreats you see a glaring inconsistency. Since sons will one day have to shave, wouldn’t the shaving training session be better with the sons? Unless the daughters will one day be educated, she will never have to shave her face and usually grown men don’t require maidservants or their wives/daughters to shave them. They do it themselves. Even in the old days, manservants shaved the faces of the men. Everyone knows that educating women causes beard growth, premature aging and craziness. 🙂
I think it would be a cute thing for little kids to do to their father at some sort of event. But, it is the REASON behind it that bothers most people. It is the disparity.
A girl may bond with her father through real life events. My husband takes our daughters to nature places, museums, business trips, to Home Depot, etc. He spends time with them. He doesn’t have an agenda in that he is training them to serve him, to obey him and make his every need their only need. He is just being a father. There is a difference between bonding and bondage. Bonding is important. Bondage is a whole other animal. Bondage is when we make a man-made system and foist it on others and if they don’t hold up under it, they are judged as less-than-spiritual.
I think the tea party is great. I think the girls would enjoy going to the lake with dad and bouncing on The Blob. I think they would love an afternoon fishing in a boat with dad. Why does it always have to be about training girls to obey and serve? Why can’t it just be about having a good relationship with one’s daughter without the agenda? It seems rather self-serving to me.
I speak as no expert. These are just my thoughts as a daughter and as a female. There is nothing wrong with a little girl wanting to help daddy shave once or twice but little girls grow up and they no longer want to do that. It is something different when a father expects his daughter to shave him.
I have hesitated to get into this discussion, but feel compelled to do so. Perhaps an opinion from a woman who does NOT see this type of bonding with a father as a horrible exercise in bondage (no quotes made there, just a basic inference based on many of the above comments) would add some kind of balance to this “attack” on the VF Father/Daughter retreat.
IMO I think it is sad that an attack would come on this at all, especially one with the angle that has been taken. I’m sorry, but when did it become weird for a little girl to help her “daddy” put on his neck tie? Women are nurturing by nature (generally speaking) and we like to do things that help others. My daughter loves to do things to help her daddy get ready for work, much the same way that my sons like to help dad out by raking the lawn or helping him do things around the house. My daughter likes to brush mommy’s hair or help me clean the house, while my sons like to hold the door open for me and help me carry in the groceries. My daughter would no more enjoy a trip to Home Depot or fishing than she enjoys going to the dentist! Her way of bonding with my husband is being “nurturing” – something that we are forgetting or deliberately leaving out of the training and upbringing of little girls in our society. To think of these activities as any more than fun bonding, nurturing activities is to make something exist that doesn’t.
Granted, there may be some little girls who would do differently. There may be some that would rather go fishing, but they are not the norm. It is not instilling bondage into these little girls by allowing them to show love to and nurture their fathers in a way that comes natural to them. This is not the prepare them for the actual act of shaving their fathers or husbands. It is bonding that encourages a girl to be nurturing. Why is that wrong in the eyes of so many that have responded here?
In the same way that my daughter enjoys doing those things for her father, she also takes care of her “babies” and plays house and tea party. She is preparing herself for the role she will one day take on of wife and mother.
Of course fathers bond differently with their sons than they do with their daughters. Men bond differently with each other than they do with women. It is obvious. My sons would much rather play a good game of football with their dad than go to a tea party or play follow the leader. God made us to be different, men and women. Recognizing those differences and applying that knowledge to the raising of our children is not “weird”.
When to serving another become wrong? Or should I ask, when did serving your husband become wrong? Or training a girl to serve her father wrong? My husband serves me – my sons are trained to serve me and their sisters – I serve my husband – my daughters are trained to serve their father and their brothers. Why is this so wrong in the eyes of those posting here? As Christians, we are called to this.
Good, solid relationships are important in the family, but for more reason than just having a good relationship. We, as parents, are guiding the types of relationships our children will form when they are grown. It helps the child. When we foster the nurturing instincts of a young girl we help her grow into a nurturing young woman that will one day be a nurturing young wife and mother. We don’t need to have an agenda for every single thing we do, but a general idea of the direction we want to go is greatly helpful.
Corrie you said,
“Bondage is when we make a man-made system and foist it on others and if they don’t hold up under it, they are judged as less-than-spiritual.” While this may be a good description of bondage (although I may understand a different meaning for the word), how exactly does this relate to the father/daughter retreat? All of these girls and fathers looked to be enjoying themselves. It doesn’t appear to have been “foisted” on anyone. A if one was not able to attend one was not considered “less-than-spiritual”. So, although it may sound like a nice bit to throw out, I can’t see how this would relate. I do not mean to pick apart your post, this just stood out to me.
Briefly, before I end this longer-than-intended post, I want to remarks on these comments that keep being used pertaining to women and higher education. A good quote to serve my point is this: Corrie said “Everyone knows that educating women causes beard growth, premature aging and craziness.” You know, I just don’t understand how so many people can completely miss the mark. No one has said that women should not be educated. In fact, it is quite to the contrary. The point is education to what end. Is it higher education for the sake of educating the mind for future endeavors such as homeschooling your children, or is it education with the purpose of pursuing a career. There is a difference. I am a highly educated woman and would have my sons and daughter to be educated as well. However, we have already discussed the opportunities on online education with all of our children for many reasons. My sons will take degrees enabling them to pursue a career; my daughters would like to pursue courses that will enable them to be more familiar with and learned in areas that they will be teaching to their own children. There is no problem with higher education, but higher education to what purpose. I get so tired of seeing these quips thrown around that those who follow patriarchy somehow believe in the under educating of daughters. Please! While there may be a FEW select individuals who adhere to that belief the greater percentage of us do not. I try to be careful of generalities, so should those posting those types of comments.
Marie said,
“There may be some that would rather go fishing, but they are not the norm.”
Can you back that up with facts? I grew up in the country, and nearly all of my cousins, male and female, liked to go fishing.
“No one has said that women should not be educated. In fact, it is quite to the contrary. The point is education to what end. Is it higher education for the sake of educating the mind for future endeavors such as homeschooling your children, or is it education with the purpose of pursuing a career.”
WHAT??? Marie, lying is a sin!
Most of the leaders in your movement say that it’s a SIN for women to pursue higher education, go to college, or to pursue any career other than homemaking, AND they claim that God calls ALL women to be mothers and homemakers. Some even claim that it is wrong for women to remain unmarried in order to serve in the missions field!
This notion is worse than false, it stands in direct contradiction to Holy Scripture:
1Cr 7:32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
1Cr 7:33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please [his] wife.
1Cr 7:34 There is difference [also] between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please [her] husband.
The Patriarchal movement is in grave danger of falling into idolatry; they have replaced God with the Golden Calf of marriage and procreation, and are replacing Scripture and orthodox Christianity with their own manmade doctrines.
In my opinion, the Patriarchal movement may already be reaping the results of their idolatry and heresy, as seen by the current storm of controversy surrounding Patriarchal teaching.
Marie, I would agree with your observations, if I didn’t know more about Vision Forum’s teachings, which I have been looking at on and off again for several years as I have been studying Bill Gothard’s teachings.
What I have said on my blog is if all this was was a little exercise at a Father-Daughter retreat, it is kind of cute.
BUT when you look down the road to Doug causing church divisions over the age-integrated/age-segregated SS classes issue, his teaching that girls should not go away to college, but must live in close proximity to her father or nearest male relative for protection (including providing anecdotal scare stories of women who went away to college who were raped, ignoring that most sexual abuse of women occurs in their homes), when you look at Doug’s church documents where Jen Epstein was counseled to only appeal violent abuse of their children not report it to the police, that her then teenage daughter who went to Doug because of violence and threats of violence and was only laughed at, THEN you see how autocratic and controlling his philosophy actually is toward women.
Ministry Watchman, Midwest Christian Outreach, and bloggers such as myself have been paying attention to many things coming out of Vision Forum and Boerne Christian Assembly for quite some time, and we know some of the philosophy behind these exercises and where it is leading. And that understanding changes how we view this event, dramatically.
“The point is education to what end. Is it higher education for the sake of educating the mind for future endeavors such as homeschooling your children, or is it education with the purpose of pursuing a career.”
Running around in the circles I have run in, including having been to two pro-life female doctors who are also mothers (one with four children), having a friend who homeshcools and is also an emergency room physician on weekends, a friend who is a nurse whose children are grown, I think you are creating a false dilemma here with the career thing.
Btw — that comment from Corrie about education and beard growth — that was from a funny video clip called “Women, Know Your Limits” which many of us have seen and had a good laugh at.
Corrie: “Do you know what ages or if there is an age limit on the girls who participate in this shaving game and the blind obedience game?”
Not that I am aware of, Corrie, but since I am a woman, I never went to these retreats. 🙂 My daughter went when she was 16 and she participated in all the games and she loved them. But she was already well indoctrinated by that point as well. She did say that the Father/Daughter retreat was the best thing she’d ever done with her father. My guess is that what she really meant is that it was the most amount of time her father spent with her.
Marie, how old are your daughters? They sound young. You are absolutely correct that young girls will naturally desire to “take care of” their daddies. But what about older teens and young adults? Do you still consider this appropriate behavior?
Marie: “when did serving your husband become wrong? Or training a girl to serve her father wrong? My husband serves me – my sons are trained to serve me and their sisters – I serve my husband – my daughters are trained to serve their father and their brothers.”
Again, Marie, I agree with you here. I taught ALL my children to serve others. The point of this particular shaving game, however, is to teach girls to serve Daddy. The focus is all one way. Girls are to serve their fathers (and brothers) growing up, and when they get married, they are to serve their husbands. After five years of sitting under this teaching at BCA, I never once heard anyone talk about a man serving others in any capacity. THAT is the whole point of this article.
As far as education for women goes, I’m not sure what it has to do with this thread, but I do want to make it clear that it does not apply across the board to Patriarchy. In the circles I came from, there were some families that did not believe in educating women to even the minimum requirements. That was a problem. Doug Phillips is opposed to girls going to college, even at home. That is what I oppose. God gave me a brain and I fully intend to use and develop it. I have a college degree but I don’t use it to develop a career. Rather, I have found that the education I received helps me function to a higher degree in my everyday life as a wife and mother. When my children are grown, I may choose to be educated for the purposes of a career as well. I see nothing in the Bible preventing me from doing so. In fact, what I see the Bible telling women is to be sure we are busy at all times so we don’t get into trouble. Education and a career after children is certainly one possibility for fulfilling that.
>>“The Vision Forum’s annual Father and Daughter Discipleship Retreats, including “unity” events such as “daughters shaving their daddies” and “daughters dressing their daddies.”
I looked at the pictures. It looks like they are all having fun.
I think the problem is that for most people – especially most conservatiuve people, comments like “daughters shaving their daddies” and “daughters dressing their daddies” have no double entendre – they are truely just a form of family bonding.
But for liberals – everything has a double meaning – usually about sex. Because that’s all liberals have to think about – their sex organs.
The people you portray in this post are just innocent people – and Ministry Watchman isn’t.
Tom has spoken eloquently.
Tom, first I’d like to commend you — unlike most Phillips supporters, you do use your full name. You also have a really nice blogsite.
Second, I’d like to ask you a question. Whatever makes you think that the folks who post here are liberals? Based on your site, I’d say I’m probably at least as conservative as you are, maybe moreso (I’m a conservative Anglican), and many of the other folks who frequent MW are more conservative than I.
Third, I’d like to address your statement, “But for liberals – everything has a double meaning – usually about sex. Because that’s all liberals have to think about – their sex organs.”, and ask you a question —
have you ever heard of Bill Gothard?
🙂
“Tom has spoken eloquently.” No, sorry, Tom has spoken foolishly, as have you Dan.
Cynthia Gee has just given a good example of a “conservative” whose brain just can’t stop thinking about women’s body parts. Rather than acknowledging his own sinful heart, he blames it on “eye traps.” Gothard even believes that by merely being in the presence of other men who are thinking about women’s body parts that their sinful thoughts can be telepathically transferred to his own brain and cause him to sin.
Speaking of “conservative” perverts, we also have the wonderful example of Ted Haggard. Tom, would you like for me to rattle off a litany of “conservative” perverts for you? If you’re so misguided as to believe that liberals are sinners but conservatives are righteous, I’d be happy to set the record straight. The fact of the matter is, Tom, that they’re all sinners.
When it comes to the condition of their hearts, the only real difference between conservatives and liberals is that liberals aren’t ashamed of their sin. I’ll grant you that’s not a good thing. They should be ashamed. Conservatives have the good sense to be ashamed of their sin, but as in the case of Ted Haggard, he apparently was only ashamed that he got caught. This obviously calls into question the sincerity of his repentance. Conservatives like Haggard, rather than confessing and repenting before they get caught, hide their perversions in the closet, while pretending to be righteous.
So Tom, doesn’t that just make them Pharisees? Did Jesus think that the Pharisees were better people than the “liberals” of that day?
Tom, you may now return to your Rush Limbaugh. BTW, did that drug rehab center ever help him kick his OxyContin addiction?
Another difference between ultra-conservatives and ultra-liberals — liberals often don’t recognise sin when it’s staring them right in the face, slapping them upside the head and screaming, “Look at me!!!”, whereas conservatives tend to see sin in situations and in other people where no sin exists, and if they sin themselves, they tend to hide it or blame it on outside influences, a’la Gothard, in order to avoid the condemnation of their peers.
Jesus criticized hypocrites far more than He did libertines, but it’s best to be neither one.
“Suggested Ages
We leave this to each family. We have had, and expect, daughters as young as five and as old as young ladies in their twenties.”
http://www.visionforumministries.org/events/fdr/005/details.aspx
Thanks to whomever changed the layout so my song lyrics were easier to read. 🙂
Also, as far as I know R.C. Sproul “Jr.” hasn’t apologized to anyone else that was listed in the relevant post.
Now, looking at the shaving daddy pics and considering that Doug Phillips is a lawyer (albeit one even lawyers might be ashamed of) I’ve gotta wonder about something. “Go on, little Susie. Don’t be nervous. Daddy’s not afraid…GAAAACK!!!” Permanent facial scars. Jugular veins gushing blood. Massively traumatized little girls. So…you think having young CHILDREN press RAZOR BLADES to the FACES and NECKS of their FATHERS might be a bad idea from a legal liability standponit? Don’t bother about a *pastoral* and/or *fatherly* standpoint. I can’t think of sharks like Doug that way.
Please, someone, tell they only *pretend* shave. No sharp metal edges. Some hope? Looks like maybe plastic forks here: http://scottbrownonline.com/blog/archive/2006_04_01_archive.html#114394518504384494
More stuff http://scottbrownonline.com/blog/archive/2006_03_01_archive.html#114389391043033540
http://happyfeminist.typepad.com/happyfeminist/2006/04/feminism_has_gr.html No, I’m not a feminist. You get links where google dishes ’em out. lol
“But for liberals – everything has a double meaning – usually about sex. Because that’s all liberals have to think about – their sex organs.”
ROFLOL!!!
Oh, yeah, liberals are the only ones who think about sex and sex organs all the time!
Oh, my aching sides!!
Who said anything about sex? Oh, I remember. It was the conservative. I am assuming we, who find these training exercises to be odd and sexist to be the liberals?
In fact, Tom, you just proved that you can’t lob stink bombs and never really have to deal with the actual point and still pat yourself on the back for being so much more spiritual than everyone else.
Have you guys ever read the “Sins of Bathsheba” written by a very conservative “brother”? You should, if you haven’t. You might need to give your brain a good scrubbing with bleach and hot water after you read it but you would at least be enlightened as to what many conservatives are thinking about- sex and sex organs.
That should be “you CAN lob stink bombs”.
I want you to know that I never saw a double meaning to any of it. Sex didn’t enter the conversation until Dan brought it in, no matter how many false accusations he makes.
“I think the problem is that for most people – especially most conservatiuve people, comments like “daughters shaving their daddies” and “daughters dressing their daddies” have no double entendre – they are truely just a form of family bonding.”
So, anyone that thinks there is something not quite right about it, has a dirty mind?
Daughters being trained to serve their fathers by shaving daddies and grooming daddies and being blind-folded by their daddies in order to learn how to blindly follow their every command is just a “form of family bonding”?
I would recommend that you rethink what you said. We live in a very sin-sick world and the same sins that are on the outside of the church are on the inside of the church but just well-hidden.
There is nothing wrong with bonding with one’s children. No one has ever said anything to the contrary.
In many parts of this world, especially Asian cultures, families bathe together and not just when the kids are little. Fathers bathe with their 8, 9, 10 year old daughters and mothers bathe with their sons. They do this as naturally as they would when they eat and sleep together. In fact in many places of the world, families all sleep in one room. Mothers and fathers sleep in close proximity to their children of all ages. Without going into detail, there are activities that take place with mother/father right in the same room as all the children.
Would you say that is appropriate? Would you say that is just a time of family bonding? If you don’t think these are bonding activities and appropriate, why not?
Marie,
I had an answer all written up but then decided not to send it.
Your whole post is a strawman. No one has said that children serving parents is bad. No one has said that every activity has to be the same.
You are not addressing the actual arguments.
It isn’t about bonding. VF says it is about training daughters to serve their fathers. So, please let us not mix up these terms.
It is about flirting with idolatry. It is about unbiblical and extra-biblical doctrine.
It is about an agenda. It is about the whole big ball of wax.
It isn’t about fathers bonding with their daughters and having a great time with them. It isn’t about playing silly games. I train my children to serve all the time. But, I don’t call it bonding. I also don’t expect them to be my little servants and I don’t expect them to be putting all their focus and attention and hopes and dreams and wants and desires aside and exchanging them for mine. I am not the center of their universe and neither is their father.
If my Awana club had the children line up to shave their dads and tie their ties and comb their hair, I would be the first one laughing and rolling about on the floor. It would be a hoot.
But, when you look at the reason and the agenda and the unbiblical teachings concerning daughters, you get a different picture concerning these exercises.
I’m with Tom Blair. Why do you people have to make everything sexual? When I sleep with the children, it’s just love.
Why does everything have to be so sexualized?
>
Wow! How nasty can we get, folks? What does that have to do with anything?
“Wow! How nasty can we get, folks? What does that have to do with anything?”
Hi Mike,
What are you referring to? I think part of your post got cut off?
To all,
This isn’t about having a dirty mind or being liberal or even fun and games.
If they offered a mother daughter retreat with an agenda I would be equally against the activities. Children are intelligent. Let us not insult them with all these training and indoctrinating activities under the guise of “fun”.
If a mother/daughter retreat including sessions where mothers trained their daughters to serve mommy by fixing her hair and giving her a pedicure, I would not want to go.
Also, I don’t know why it was said that boys wouldn’t want to play follow the leader but girls do? Is that some new politically correct thing in patriarhcal circles? I grew up playing follow the leader with boys and they seemed to enjoy it as much as we did. But, we were not blind-folded and it was just a GAME. It didn’t have some agenda behind it.
If I am going to go to a retreat with my children, I want it to be about the Lord and growing together in Christ. I don’t want my children to be trained that their lives revolve around me and that I am to be the center of attention. I don’t want to train my daughters that their purpose is to serve me and please me and make me happy. I want it to be a time of true bonding and a time to get to know one another and the Lord together.
I also think that most fathers would be very uncomfortable with any teachings that would make them the center of their daughter’s universe and that would cause their daughters to think it was their job to wear the right colors and serve them through grooming them.
Little kids love to take the initiative and do silly hairstyles on mom and do goofy things to dad. But, children grow up and boys start to identify with dad and girls start to identify with mom and then there is a line that develops as the child develops.
If anything, I want to take that time to serve them and to show them that I love them for who they are and that they please me for because God allowed them to be in my life and not for what they wear or the color of their dress or how well they can show their subservience to my via grooming me.
I would feel very uncomfortable with the idea that I am to train my child that serving me is their highest goal.
All children are to serve their PARENTS and obey THEM. But, we don’t find that emphasis at VF, do we? We don’t even find that emphasis at the father/son retreat. Add the Botkin book and Mr. Botkin’s lectures at the father/daughter retreat and there is a clear agenda for daughters. That is what is disconcerting here.
I don’t know how to explain this any better. I reread my posts and I repeatedly state over and over again that there is nothing wrong with training our CHILDREN to serve their parents.
If we take the whole ball of wax concerning VF’s patriocentric emphasis, especially when it comes to the daughters, it should concern us all, especially when we can’t find any of this stuff in the Bible.
For the father and son retreat it is about discipleship. It seems the emphasis is at least on God and not on daddy.
“Fathers and sons will hear thought-provoking messages that are designed to instill vision, to instruct, and to strengthen the relationship between the father and his son or sons. (Malachi 4:4-6)
Along with the edifying messages, the fathers and sons will participate in organized outdoor activities, and will have free time to walk the hiking trails together and enjoy the excellent facilities which include an outdoor swimming pool, hot tub, indoor full court basketball, Indoor volleyball court, 18 hole Frisbee golf course, ropes course, a lake which includes a Blob, outdoor full court basketball, an unbelievably stocked snack bar, and a game room with pool tables, ping pong, air hockey and foosball.”
Where do we see any of these games that show sons their duty to obey their fathers and games that train them to serve their fathers? It looks like just a bunch of fun activities to help strengthen the relationship between father and son.
Why can’t it be the same EMPHASIS with the daughters and fathers? Some great teaching times, high tea, picnic on the lawn and fun activites without the agenda? Just have some fun and play games without all the double meanings?
I am just as disconcerted with mothers who treat their daughters as surrogate mommies and junior housekeepers. There is nothing wrong with all the children in the family helping out. But, there is something very wrong about using our children, especially our daughters as free labor and expecting them to do OUR jobs. I have seen this way too much in the homeschooling movement.
Dads are not surrogate or practice husbands. They are dads. The Bible tells us that a woman who is MARRIED is concerned how she may please her HUSBAND but a woman who is SINGLE is free to devote all of her time in pleasing GOD. No where do we see that a single daughter is to practice her devotion and desire to please on her father until/if/when she gets married.
And, I have contacted NOW to become their July feminist of the month but they have rejected me. They told me that because I am a Republican, pro-life, stay at home mother of 10 who quit her career in order to support her husband, I am disqualified.
It doesn’t seem like I belong any where. I am too liberal for some and to conservative for others. Maybe it is that I try to avoid all extremes?
It is kind of like the joke about drivers. The people who go faster than you are “crazy” and the people who drive slower than you are called “idiots”.
Michael Jackson:
“I’m with Tom Blair. Why do you people have to make everything sexual? When I sleep with the children, it’s just love.
Why does everything have to be so sexualized?”
I don’t know, but it seems that a lot of commenters are not reading what MW said when a couple women thought this exercise was “incest waiting to happen.”
Ministry Watchman said, and I agree with him:
“Ladies, I have to disagree with you about the “incest waiting to happen” allegations. My own wife said that very thing to me about this article, and I corrected her about it.
Vision Forum has taken on many of the attributes of a cult, but I seriously doubt that it will ever be a sexually exploitative cult. “Creepy” and “weird” does not mean incestuous. Girls pledging their purity would be completely inconsistent with incest. If there’s anything “waiting to happen” it’s “Spinster waiting to happen.””
OK?? This isn’t about foul play in regard to sex; it’s about teaching young girls that until they marry their lives are to be about serving their fathers, with a lot of legalistic caveats about what they can do and can’t do as adult single women — can’t go to college, must always live in close proximity to father, etc..
In all honesty, do fathers need all this orchestrated help? I had a great relationship with my dad that grew into a wonderful and very deep relationship into my adulthood. (He would have done anything to get out of going to a retreat like this.) And I hope I never have to shave him (as this would mean he would be incapable of doing it himself). Let it never be.
Its more about conforming to the cult of personality and compliance with someone else’s idealized standard.
Many outward signs are orchestrated to mimic the outward appearance of intimacy, but it is just a superficial show. Did it foster close relationship? Hopefully it did some good for some folks, but it looks more like it was a Baby Buster exercize for more Vision Forum sensational photo ops.
Personally, if I was VF’s “PR” person, I would have them drop the word “woo” so as to not confuse people and CAUSE people to get the wrong impression. Look up “woo” in the dictionary (to try and gain the love of someone, typically a woman, with the view to marriage).
Just do a Google search on this and you will run across all sorts of people getting the implication that this is “icky” and many people get the idea that it does have sexual overtones because of the word “woo”. That is a word best kept to describe what lovers do to one another or what politicians do to their constituents in order to geth their vote and money.
Couple the description of “fathers wooing their daughters” with grooming activities and it has a high potential to give people the wrong impression.
Shouldn’t we, especially as believers, try and avoid all appearances of evil? Isn’t the burden on us as believers to accurately and clearly portray the gospel without clouding it with gobbley-gook?
In this day and age where the topic of incest and molestation is out on the table and is not forced into secrecy where no one is allowed to speak of it, we need to be aware.
In fact, I would like to see the church and especially the patriarchs addressing the serious topic of incest and molestation since so many young women and even young boys have been a victim of this. Folks, it is not just something that happens in the world. It happens right under our noses in our churches and it is in happening in very normal appearing homes with people who would be the last ones you would ever suspect.
I think the world would take us more seriously if we addressed these issues instead of using questionable language to describe parent/child relationships.
I am sorry but when is the last time you heard a patriarch teaching that mothers need to woo their sons with songs and sonnets? That moms need to date their sons since sons will grow up to marry women and the sons need to know how to have a relationship with a woman? When is the last time you saw a teenage son dressed in a tux slow dancing with his mother decked out in a sexy evening gown after they make vows to one another in a mock marriage ceremony? Most people would be creeped out by that image. Why aren’t we when it is reversed?
I think there is a way to promote healthy parent/child relationships with out the “ick” factor. I think Cindy K. is right. We are forcing things that don’t need to be forced.
Watchman, I am very shocked that you would publish that comment by “Michael Jackson.” I think that is way out of line for a Christian blog.
“Couple the description of “fathers wooing their daughters” with grooming activities and it has a high potential to give people the wrong impression.”
Corrie is right, and you needn’t have physical incest going on in order to develop a full-blown Oedipal complex — quite the contrary in fact.
http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/news_and_reports/rich_fellowship_and_renewed_vi.xml
“My personal favorite moment came on Saturday evening when eight daughters volunteered to bring their daddies on the stage to “help” them get ready for their day — in front of 570 people! Each daughter helped her daddy put on his shoes, tie his tie, comb his hair, and ‘shave’ using LOTS of shaving cream and plastic knives. Some other courageous fathers volunteered to publicly serenade their daughters. It was a great time of fun for all!”
WHEW! THAT’S a relief. I was pretty sure they weren’t quite bonkers enough to hand real razors to lil- girls, etc. But it’s good to have confirmation.
I meant to say “plastic knife” not “plastic fork” earlier.
Still doesn’t eliminate major gashing by a non-pro young female razor wielder on another occasion at home. “I need practice shaving for *real*, don’t I Daddy?” Although some crafty pervertriarch might respond, “Well, practice on your mother’s legs.” Not so big a deal if the chattel, er, esteemed co-heir in Christ gets hacked up.
Dennis
Corrie, I’m so glad you and I are not the only ones who find this whole unBiblical patriarchal view of father/daughter relationships wholly inappropriate. We are to raise our children to obey their parents while minors, and to honor us for life, but we are also to raise them into adulthood. That means that they are SUPPOSED to leave home when they are grown!
Honoring our parents does not mean letting them make decisions for us as adults while single. It does not mean making vows to fathers (or mothers) that should only be made to spouses. In fact, these behaviors indicate that they are not ready for adulthood, much less for marriage and raising a family. There are other ways to show love for your parents without crossing that line. The purpose of parenting is to launch Godly young adults into the world who choose to follow Him and let Him guide their lives. When these people expect their grown daughters to live at home with them, they have demonstrated lack of trust in God to do His job in their lives.
The whole thing is indeed creepy and is a major ick factor! How is a grown woman supposed to love, honor, submit and cherish her husband if she is joined at the hip to Dad? That is a recipe for disaster and (as one brother stated) spinsterhood. No man in his right mind wants to marry a young lady who will forever compare him to her father.
The “shaving” daddy and “dressing” daddy event you are talking about was a RELAY GAME. I’m sure you have seen “Christian” youth participate in relay games where they pass a balloon under their chin, or between their legs from one hormonal teen to another, yet you would laugh at that and think it hilarious. This game, which you took out of context, was just a chance for the daughters to experience what their fathers do every day. They “shaved” their fathers with popsicle stick, combed their hair, and tied their ties. It was a fun game, not some training session to teach the daughters to perform some inappropriate service for their fathers…as you have suggested. It’s just another attempt by your group to turn something innocent into something evil, just because you disagree with it.
D.
It’s fascinating to see the creative ways in which defenders of Doug Phillips will attempt to explain away the obvious. Yours is an equally fascinating attempt, albeit not a very good one.
Nowhere in any of Vision Forum’s materials, including Doug Phillips’ blog, do they refer to the daddy shaving and daddy dressing as a “Relay Game”, and the reason they don’t is too obvious. It’s not a “relay” at all.
I used the term that Vision Forum itself uses, “Unity Games.” Vision Forum also uses the phrase, “Getting Daddy Ready For Work.” Several other blogs I’ve seen by people who have personally attended the Retreat refer to the daddy shaving and daddy dressing as “Intimacy Games.”
No one but you has ever called it a “Relay.” Nice try, but you might want to consult a dictionary before posting any more comments.
Looks like people who have been concerned about Doug for years have finally been vindicated. His affair is sad and shocking, but might be a good end to Vision Forum and hopefully a strong blow to patriarchy.
I was shocked to see how little some of those girls who were shaving and dressing their fathers. Not a one of them in the photos I saw even looked ten years old. One of them only looked six or seven years old. Also, it sounds like to me some of the men in doug phillips’s crowd are more intimate with their daughters than their wives.
Daughters shaving their fathers and helping them dress is weird enough in itself, but I was even more shocked to see how little those girls were in the pictures. Most healthy able bodied men don’t even depend on their wives for their grooming and hygiene. Those men must expect to be waited on hand and foot like they’re invalids.