What's up with the Aquila Report...

Once upon a time, I used to check the Aquila Report, daily, to see what was up in the Reformed World. But now, something has changed over there and I'll check it no more.

You could almost hear the squeals of delight when Doug Phillips issued his apology for his moral failure. Several articles have been posted saying, “I told you so—that’s what you get with patriarchy.” All that was missing were emoticons of shaking heads, clucking sounds, and "meows"....

Most of the articles commit some variation of the post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Doug the patriarch fell morally and his failure is because he was a patriarchalist.

How does that follow? The only way you can get there is to make a caricature of patriarchy—that it's the view of misogynist men who lack confidence and gravitas, and hope to gain such by regarding women as inferior and themselves as little kings. The women married to these patriarchs are pitied as little better than one of the multiple wives of a Mormon polygamist.

Why are links like this being posted on the Aquila Report? Why are so many of the articles by women? Is Dominic Aquila trying to turn his site into a slightly Calvinistic Christianity Today?

Something’s going on over there, but what is it?

David Wegener

David is an ordained Teaching Elder (Pastor) in the Central Indiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America. He currently lives in Lusaka, Zambia with his wife, Terri, and serves as the dean of the Seminary at the African Christian University. He is a career missionary with Mission to The World in Zambia.

Comments

Maybe because Doug Phillips was a legalist who majored in minors and encouraged people to live by an increasingly strict set of man made rules? Maybe because the sheer volume of bitter wives and daughters who turned feminist in rebellion deserves attention? I am not gloating over the fall of Phillips, but I am not going to miss him much either. He has a law degree and obvious charisma and business sense. He will land on his feet.

There has been a personnel change in the organization within the last year and though it does not mention a change from what was the original focus of the web site, to be "an independent web-based magazine with news about the PCA along with her smaller sisters...", it does seem like focus is much broader in scope now.

http://theaquilareport.com/may-the-wine-of-friendship-never-run-dry/

It's just a matter of time before they come after you folks here. 

"The group also advocates against access to birth control and abortion."

"militant fecundity movements"

From the November 11th Aquila Report article Freida quotes above, here's the title and byline:

Thinking Thoughtfully About Doug Phillips’ Resignation: It is past time to challenge the church to clearly examine the teachings within the patriarchy, family integrated church, and militant fecundity movements and warn each other of their dangers"

by Karen Campbell.

If they're publishing the gossip-monger Karen Campbell, they've lost it, completely lost any sense of discernment. 

Run! Run the other way as fast as you can. 

Kamilla, that was one of the main implications of the post. Something has changed with the Aquila Report and what I used to regard as a friendly site, is friendly no longer.

Bev, I'm not sure what you mean by a personnel change. Can you be more explicit?

Why are so many articles written by women? I'll throw a few questions your way:

Why are no women on your Theology & Ministry list?

Why are no women on your Pastors list?

Sure David. Please forgive me for being so obtuse in the first place.

On the page linked in my first comment the following statement can be found (fifth paragraph from the bottom of the article):

"Late last year, after 4 1/2 years of working with the magazine, it became clear to me that I needed to step back and to focus on my own small church revitalization ministry, which had fallen off greatly in both client churches and giving.  The first step back was to bring on a different News Editor, Rachel Miller, while I remained as Executive News Editor with limited daily attention to the site."

The "I" in the quote is Don Clements, author of the article, and the linked article is dated April 29, 2013. The article announces his resignation as Executive News Editor of the Aquila Report.

The new News Editor is a woman and she is not exactly a fan of 'patriarchy' as one could tell from even a cursory reading her personal blog posts.

In the past she had been an occasional contributor to Wes White's blog speaking mostly to the creation debate.

Hope this helps some.

Why are no women on your Pastors list?

There are no women pastors.  There are some women pretending to be pastors.  Not the same thing.

I'm confused.  Doug Phillips does something really wrong.  The Aquila Report posts some articles about it.  And your takeaway is that they are somehow wicked in their response?  And then to make it worse, there is a woman working at the Aquila Report.  Those pesky women.  They should all be kept barefoot and pregnant and never, never allowed near a computer.  It seems to me that when a man is afraid of what a woman can do, his trust in God has faltered.  Men do not become better leaders of followers of Christ by degrading women.  Christianity has been one of the very few voices that has elevated women above property status.  Don't fall back into the Taliban mentality that they are the sources of evil.  Sin lives in our hearts.  The only solution for that sin is the humble submission to our Lord and our brothers and sisters in Christ.

Thanks, Bev. So maybe these changes in the Aquila Report can be traced back to Rachel.

Thanks for commenting, Jon. Your views on patriarchy are pretty similar to those who wrote about Doug Phillips and had their articles posted on the Aquila Report (Karen Campbell, Abby Ohlheiser, Rachel Miller). In other words, you hold the caricature of patriarchy that I mentioned in the post.

I'm not sure if you have an honest misunderstanding, but let's assume so. My problem is with the takeaways of Karen, Abby and Rachel. It wasn't a Christian leader did something really wrong, though he had taught against it in the past. It was, he did something really wrong BECAUSE he held to patriarchy and so used his sin as an occasion to attack patriarchy ("Do ya see what patriarchs do? Pretty awful stuff, huh?").

Let me compare it to a stalwart defender of justification by faith alone (a doctrine I'm guessing you hold). Pastor so and so has an extremely good grasp of this doctrine and has been used by the Lord in proclaiming it far and wide and defending it against all comers, especially Roman Catholics. Then pastor so and so falls morally. What happens next? The papists come out of the woodwork saying, "Aha, aha, he fell BECAUSE he held to sola fide. If he had only held to the teaching of Trent on justification, he wouldn't have fallen. So many Protestants fall morally and it is because they hold to false doctrine."

In other words, the Catholics are delighted Pastor so and so fell. In the same way, Karen and Abby and Rachel are delighted Doug fell, though they might feign grief. ("Honestly, it just breaks my heart what happened to Rev. Phillips.")

To clarify, I've written absolutely nothing about Doug Phillips' resignation or the circumstances surrounding it. I am not rejoicing over the man's sin or his resignation or the fall out. 

David, You have no idea what my views are about patriarchy.  You make a huge assumption leap based on my suggestion about your concern that a woman could ruin the Aquila report.  you are right that I am not really confused, except that you are complaining at the wrong spot.  Patriarchy must stand or fall based on its faithfulness to scripture, not the misunderstandings of its views.  This is my first viewing of your blog, so I don't know what you have posted before.  Did you post anything about Mr Phillips' fall?  Did you notice that there is nothing in his own declarations about the woman he abused or her family?  I am impressed that he recognized the irreparable damage to his ministry and I pray that like David, God will give him some place of humble service in the future.   But I suggest defending patriarchy by attacking a woman merely give evidences that what people say about patriarchy may be correct.

Jon,

I wonder if you understand that your initial remarks above are ~so~ yesterday. We've all heard the same baiting from religious feminists for decades now. Puh-leeze don't bore us with the same claptrap. 

And, yes, you're a religious feminist. It's the walk like a duck, act like a duck, and ~especially~ talk like a duck sort of thing.

But Rachel (Miller?), that is exactly what you've published. 

And David, I'm surprised that you were unaware that I am the News Editor for the Aquila Report. You wrote Dom to complain months ago.

I guess Rachel isn't willing to respond about the propriety of publishing gossips. 

Proverbs 26:4, Kamilla

Why am I not surprised that is your response?

Yep. You're the one publishing a flying gossip and I'm the fool for calling you out.

indeed, I am a fool.

A fool again for not keeping an eye on autocorrect :-)

Rachel,

In all sincerity, I pray you never become a target of Campbell. It's not a pleasant experience. 

"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Mt 23:24).

Yes, Rachel Miller, you've written absolutely nothing about the resignation of Doug Phillips or the circumstances surrounding it.

You've written against Doug's views on patriarchy (your post on 31 May 2012) and your disdain for patriarchy is well known. You've also posted links to several articles about Doug's resignation on the Aquila Report. But let's be clear: you've written nothing on it. Absolutely nothing. 

I've impugned your motives, claiming that you are secretly happy about Doug's fall. And you deny any pleasure at his fall. So let's follow this one through. 

You hate patriarchy. You hate Doug's teaching on patriarchy. You write to instruct the church and warn us against the evils of patriarchy and of Doug's exposition of patriarchy in particular. Now Doug has sinned. And you've linked to several articles that address his resignation and draw lessons from it and blame his sin on the fact that he holds to patriarchy. And your links to these articles go out to the whole Reformed world for our instruction. These articles find it very convenient that Doug has fallen into sin. Yet now you tell us you take no pleasure in Doug's fall. And you're offended (if I can read between the lines) that someone would even entertain such a thought.

Not sure how to put this delicately. I'm a fairly direct person, especially when dealing face to face. I try to be less direct online, but I can't figure out how to do it and still be clear. So I'll just say: I don't believe you.

The evidence points in a direction different than the one you claim. Your words say one thing but your actions show me that you are glad Doug has fallen and you don't want to let this occasion pass without making sure that we all draw the appropriate lessons from this sin.

And so I'm calling you to account.

I hope you do not take offense at this Rachel, but it seems to me that being News Editor of the Aquila report is a position of much greater influence to teach and instruct men than that of a pastor. Ergo...

Out of respect for God law and for the health of your own soul I would encourage you to willingly step down from such a position. I do not say this as an enemy, and hope that instead of leading multitudes further from God's ways you would devote your life to good.

//Maybe because Doug Phillips was a legalist who majored in minors and encouraged people to live by an increasingly strict set of man made rules?//

With an eye to the reputation Bill Gothard got for himself, is this comment about Doug and the Vision Forum ministry a fair one? (I don't know, honest).

Mr. Bayly,

I would like to correct Freida's statement that implied that I am not "against abortion." What she quoted did not come from my article. I am absolutely pro-life. I also advocate that people "see children as a blessing" and challenge them to welcome all children in Jesus' name. Am I gleeful that Doug Phillips has committed adultery? No, this is heartbreaking. And I continue to pray for his complete repentance.

Ross, I can’t really say whether that description is accurate. What I can say is that I’ve noticed that many of his followers seem to have a cartoon version of patriarchy. I often felt they had little true understanding of biblical sexuality.

Warmly,

Dear Ms. Campbell,

Freida quotes both you and Abby Ohlheiser.

Now, for clarity, here is Abby's quote, which you apparently object to others possibly thinking you said: "The group also advocates against access to birth control and abortion." 

Of course, I can't figure out why you wouldn't agree with that statement, since I'm guessing it is a true statement about VF. I'd assume that you're upset because, unlike Abby, you are actually in agreement with VF about these things, but what you've written precludes that possibility. After all, you implied that abortion is good and necessary in certain circumstances. And I sincerely doubt you are opposed to access to birth control. Am I wrong? 

As for the rest, you are the one wrote the quote attacking "militant fecundity," and it was then cited in context and appropriately attributed to you. If you think that quote is going to make people think you don't view children as a blessing, you're right. Maybe you should think about issuing a retraction of your article, rather than accusing others of misrepresenting you. No comments on this page have mis-represented you at all. They have simply given direct quotes. Now you come on and give new quotes that are in direct contradiction to what you've written elsewhere. You are your own worst enemy when it comes to people understanding you.

If you want to correct yourself, feel free. Don't come and try to "correct Freida." She hasn't implied anything about you.

-Joseph

Ross, I've posted a response to your question here.

Love,

Mr. Bayly, maybe I do not understand what you mean by militant fecundity. Maybe you don't understand what I mean by the term. I see a big difference between welcoming children into my home and "loving them simply for the preciousness of their souls," as Joni Eareckson Tada once said, and the militant fecundists' views of attempting to have as many babies as possible in a quest to fulfill some man's 200 year plan. Do I believe in using birth control? I believe married couples should prayerfully consider their motives for seeking to limit family size and for me to tell them what that looks like is inappropriate and a defilement of the marriage bed.  I know of more than one grieving young mother who has barely survived childbirth in life-threatening circumstances and chose to have no more children and I believe they were wise. I do not believe abortion is acceptable for any reason other than saving the physical life of a mother. If a baby cannot be saved, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, then saving the life of the mother should be attempted and with great caution. My views are shared by every right to life organization and legitimate bioethicist. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. 

Mrs. Campbell careful to not "defile a marriage bed":

I believe married couples should prayerfully consider their motives for seeking to limit family size and for me to tell them what that looks like is inappropriate and a defilement of the marriage bed

Mrs. Campbell militantly defiling marriage beds:  

I see a big difference between welcoming children into my home and "loving them simply for the preciousness of their souls," as Joni Eareckson Tada once said, and the militant fecundists' views of attempting to have as many babies as possible in a quest to fulfill some man's 200 year plan.

Dear Ms. Campbell,

As I already said, you're the one who used the term "militant fecundity." Now you complain about being misrepresented. Until you were quoted, that term had never appeared on this blog. The only question is what do you mean by it.

You've taken a pejorative term and used it to attack people who actually believe what you claim to believe. Your meaning is clear enough.

But just to clarify further, there has never been any way to obey God's command to "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;" without militant fecundity. The fruitfulness (or fecundity) is a prerequisite for subduing the earth, which is a very militant thing to do.

That's not "some man's 200 year plan." That's God's eternal command.

Sad to say, given your dishonesty, I don't believe your statements about abortion either. Maybe I'm wrong, but the ectopic pregnancy "problem" is a well-practiced horse with abortion proponents. It was prancing around earlier this year while the riders sought to legalize abortion in Ireland. Now you're on the same horse. Maybe I'm wrong, but you look like a duck and quack like a duck. I don't need to see more. If others who have a penchant for honesty would like to correct me and tell me that you are indeed opposed to murdering pre-born babies, then I'm sure I'll hear from them. I'd be happy to be wrong about that.

I notice that Rachel has still not responded to Mr Wegener calling her to account. It is quite a serious thing for a woman to be called to account by an elder in God's church, and it is incumbent on her to answer these charges in truth and honesty before God.

But it is beginning to appear her mouth has been stopped by words for which she has no answer. I hope I am wrong.

This is a tiny foretaste of what will happen to all excuses and obfuscation when we stand before Jesus Christ on the day of judgment. Many mouths will be stopped. Better to pay the price of confession and repentance now and engage in honest speech rather than face the wrath of the Lamb.

Henry~ you are wrong. David Wegener is wrong, though I realize he doesn't believe so. I am continuing to do my work as News Editor of the Aquila Report with the full support of my husband, my father, my pastor, and my Editor in Chief, Dominic Aquila.

>>I am continuing to do my work as News Editor of the Aquila Report with the full support of my husband, my father, my pastor, and my Editor in Chief, Dominic Aquila.

Reminds me of debating Jill and Stuart Briscoe in a chapel service at Moody Bible Institute and having Jill tell me there in public that the reason she preached was her husband and his male elders made her do it.

It's so hard to tell when women are full moral agents and when they're playing peekaboo from behind their husband's skirts.

What a day we live in.

Love,

Mr. (Joseph) Bayly, what I see within the homeschooling community in many situations is women trying very hard to have as many babies as possible, not nursing them because they are afraid it will prevent them from becoming fertile quickly after a delivery, neglecting toddlers and giving over the raising of their children to older children because they are so exhausted from pregnancy. Their husbands talk about racing to have more and more children and it becomes a test of godliness to have a bigger family than someone else. I LOVE large families….I have 6 children and would have willingly had more if the Lord had chosen to not close my womb. We did nothing to prevent having babies once my husband and I were convicted to not use birth control. It is a heart attitude and one of being willing to be used by the Lord. 

Its really too bad you don't believe I am pro-life. I don't know how to persuade you. Does it matter that I helped found the first crisis pregnancy  center in my county 23 years ago? That I have an amazing adoption story to share about my 14 year old birthmother and her 56 year old step father who raped her resulting in my conception? That God graciously spared my life in the midst of such a horrible story and I take every chance I get to share this with people, especially those who proclaim Christ, who are still holding on to the foolish rape and incest exception? I am not sure what kind of proof you desire. That is all I can say.

I want to add that the reason I even mentioned ectopic pregnancy in the first place is that Doug Phillips has gone on record as saying that a woman who has had an ectopic pregnancy removed from as fallopian tube prior to a rupture has committed abortion and I take issue with that.

Rachel,

Because you continue to avoid addressing Mr Wegener's charges it makes it look like you don't have anything to say in defense. It would be so easy for you to be specific with each of the points he raises.

I'm not going to belabor the point any longer, but for your own sake, these words of rebuke from Mr Wegener are actually a kindness to you if you would only receive them:

"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Mt 23:24).

Yes, Rachel Miller, you've written absolutely nothing about the resignation of Doug Phillips or the circumstances surrounding it.

You've written against Doug's views on patriarchy (your post on 31 May 2012) and your disdain for patriarchy is well known. You've also posted links to several articles about Doug's resignation on the Aquila Report. But let's be clear: you've written nothing on it. Absolutely nothing. 

I've impugned your motives, claiming that you are secretly happy about Doug's fall. And you deny any pleasure at his fall. So let's follow this one through. 

You hate patriarchy. You hate Doug's teaching on patriarchy. You write to instruct the church and warn us against the evils of patriarchy and of Doug's exposition of patriarchy in particular. Now Doug has sinned. And you've linked to several articles that address his resignation and draw lessons from it and blame his sin on the fact that he holds to patriarchy. And your links to these articles go out to the whole Reformed world for our instruction. These articles find it very convenient that Doug has fallen into sin. Yet now you tell us you take no pleasure in Doug's fall. And you're offended (if I can read between the lines) that someone would even entertain such a thought.

Not sure how to put this delicately. I'm a fairly direct person, especially when dealing face to face. I try to be less direct online, but I can't figure out how to do it and still be clear. So I'll just say: I don't believe you.

The evidence points in a direction different than the one you claim. Your words say one thing but your actions show me that you are glad Doug has fallen and you don't want to let this occasion pass without making sure that we all draw the appropriate lessons from this sin.

And so I'm calling you to account.

Mrs. Campbell,

What you describe in the homeschool community I've never witnessed and we have in our small church three families with five children and a younger couple with three.  All nurse and nobody has an attitude even vaguely like what you describe.  And I'm a tad skeptical that you spend much time in the presence of large homeschool families and wonder where you are deriving your anecdotes that are the basis for your assertion.

I was baptised, nurtured and converted in a conservative, Scottish, Presbyterian Church. I'm a mother of six children and grand-mother of seventeen. When one of my daughters expressed dismay at some of the teaching ,coming from the Home-schooling movement through organisations such as Vision Forum and was concerned about the effect it was having on families and churches, I researched it thoroughly. Karen Campbell's blog was a voice of sanity especially as she was a Home-schooling mother herself. I often forwarded her very balanced articles to my daughters and the views she expressed were no different to mine as someone who had been very involved in the pro-life movement for many years.

I am deeply troubled by the legalism that is indeed driving many women,not just to rebellion but to despair.Karen Campbell is a courageous woman.The predictably vicious rhetoric that is evident in this thread makes many of us afraid to engage in these debates but I'm convinced that God is calling us to speak up.

Well it is true that this thread has seen some homeschooling families with many children described in rather vicious terms.  That is what is bothering you, right?

To the mad the sane sometimes do seem insane.

Mr. Gray, are you a homeschooler yourself? If not, I can understand your ignorance of these teachings. Have you ever attended a homeschooling conference where this sort of discussion is overheard around lunch tables? Your "small church three families with five children and a younger couple with three" is not exactly an accurate test sample. Let me encourage you to expand your knowledge of the movement. I have been in it since the early 80's and just this morning a homeschooling mom who, along with her husband, worked long and hard to secure homeschooling rights had this insight: "Doug Philips and his ilk have shut down one of the most exciting, lively and energetic Christian revivals I had ever seen." It's a shame you cannot see how powerful and destructive it has been and watched the fallout.

Yes, we homeschool and I've not witnessed what you described.  My sample may be small but it is actually a sample as opposed to pure anecdote. 

And I wouldn't confuse homeschooling, great as it is, with revival.  Nor did Mr. Philips have nearly enough influence to shut it down or even influence more than a pocket of such a movement.  We found Vision Forum helpful as a source for a handful of items.  I wasn't crazy about all the context there but on the other hand it didn't embody the sort of anti-God rebellion in its presuppositions that most of the culture did and that was refreshing.  Rejecting feminist and agnostic rebellion doesn't inoculate you against error but it is a fine thing to do on the merits.

I just inserted a correction and apology in the middle of the text of my post, "Why Evangelical and Reformed gnostics hate Doug Wilson, RCJR, and Doug Phillips..." because a brother in Christ wrote informing me that it was Doug Phillips himself who coined the phrase "militant fecundity." This is the text of that correction and apology:

(NOTE FROM TB: A brother in Christ just sent me a message telling me that it was Doug Phillips who quoted Scott Brown's use of the phrase "militant fecundity." I insert that information here, but haven't changed what I've written above because it would not make this correction as clear if I did. So I apologize to Dominic Aquila and Karen Campbell for not accurately identifying the source of this phrase, and specifically that the source is not those writing and editing the Aquilla Report, but Doug Phillips himself. PS: I have searched Scott Brown's web site and find that "militant fecundity" is simply a title Scott gave to a post providing a link to another blogger's post on fruitfulness.)

Love,

No ,it's not what is bothering me, Mr Grey.

There are many areas where Vision forum has rules that I never heard in my own church.

1) That women were to have as many children as possible even if their lives were endangered and that saving the mother's life in an ectopic pregnancy was murder.

2) That women were not to be educated and stay home until their father's found a husband for them. The culture I grew up in Scotland encouraged me to obtain an education. In the  Victorian era they seek to emulate, my godly grand-mother brought up a family of seven and took care of the croft while her husband was away in his fishing-boat from Monday morning until Saturday. My mother was widowed and left with seven children under twelve years old and had to eke out a living before their were any social programs. At the age of 24, I was an orphan and had to support some of my siblings.

But the area that disturbs me the most is that there seems to be a denial of the necessity of the new birth and people are given the impression that if they follow the rules, they will have a godly family.

Dear Ms. Compton,

Without making a judgment about whether your description accurately describes any particular ministry, let alone Vision Forum, your description does not describe the doctrine of Scripture nor what historic Christian faith has taught; and therefore, it is not what the pastors, elders, or Titus 2 women of Clearnote Church, Bloomington or its sister churches teach.

Love,

It is interesting to me to see how people feel empowered to call others into account without being willing to embrace the mutual submission among brothers and sisters in Christ.  It makes me sad that you have ascribed sinful motives to people who are working with the Aquila report without either evidence that is incontrovertible or without first discussing with them the basis of your concern.

It is sad that you use uncharitable labels as clubs against those who have the temerity to disagree with your assertions  or conclusions.

It is also sad that you cannot seem to grasp that your uncharitable attacks against women who choose to do things that you don't find profitable works against your claims that your views protect women and treat them with respect.  I can't find anything in the things that you have posted on this site that treat Rachel Miller with respect or Christian Charity.  Even your rebukes are condescending and demeaning. 

Our Master spent a lot of time talking about loving one another in sacrificial ways.  What I see from you is a willingness to crucify those who disagree with your views.

I have read and re read the articles published by the Aquila report that deal with the recent confession of sin by Mr. PHillips.  I challenge anyone who can show one sentence that can be construed as taking pleasure in his sin or the effect of that sin on his ministry. 

Are there articles that challenge some of the fundamental principles of the so called "Patriarchy" movement?  Yes.  But certainly it is acceptable in the Christian world to disagree with one another over the interpretation of God's word.  We live in an age of grace where patience with one another while speaking the truth in love rules our conversation.

I'm sad to report that I can find no such kindness in your attacks on Rachel Miller or on me for defending her.

Dear Mr. Green,

Did you have incontrovertible evidence of the fact that we have not discussed our concerns with the Aquila Report before you accused the author and numerous commenters of sinful motives?

I'm so saddened at your obvious lack of Christian charity.

Sarcastically yours,

Speaking of Mr. Green's assumptions, several of us have expressed our criticisms of his publication to Dominic Aquilla privately, long before this post was published.

And such private work behind the scenes is often the case with those who post on this blog as has recently been demonstrated in the matter of the Christian Medical and Dental Society's betrayal of its highly vaunted pro-life commitments and Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship's promotion of sodomy on the campus of Indiana University.

Keep in mind, though, that when errors are broadcast or published, corrections ought also to be broadcast or published as broadly as the errors themselves were. And such errors are not a matter of personal offense, nor are they bound to an engineer's view of the proper implementation of Matthew 18. Martin Luther didn't go to Rome and confront the Pope personally before posting his 95 Theses, and no one then or now faults him for it. Jesus didn't speak to each of the scribes and Pharisees personally before He called them whitewashed sepulchres publicly and no one then or now faults Him for it.

Which is to say, public criticism is not sinful if private consultation has not occurred first. Thus, as Joseph points out, we are not whining about Mr. Green not speaking to us privately before criticizing us publicly.

Love,

Dear Ms. Campbell,

Please allow me to take my father's correction about the origin of the term "militant fecundity" as my own as well.

As to abortion, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. As I said, that would be happy.

I could talk for hours with you about things we agree about. I've seen a number of terrible home-school tragedies like you describe. I also have little love for the FIC movement. I've even known of women who were not allowed by their husbands to leave the house while they were gone to work.

The difference between us is that you believe these sad situations are caused by those teaching men to be men and women to be women according to God's commands to the sexes. On the other hand, I believe that proper teaching on the nature of man and woman prevents this sort of thing.

I know you would object, claiming that you also believe proper teaching is what is necessary. That's your whole goal--to counteract false teaching with good teaching, particularly to women in the homeschool community. 

Your teaching insists that patriarchy is old and in the way. You try to disguise it by paying lip-service to Abraham as a patriarch, but it rings hollow since you refuse to learn from Sarah, who called him "lord."

Homeschooling women need this sort of teaching like they need rat poison in their bread flour. 

The only logically tenable option besides patriarchy is full-blown feminism which refuses to make any distinctions between men and women, including in sexual intercourse. There is a reason that people who read your blog assume you must be pro-homosexual. It is the logical conclusion of your positions.

-Joseph

Pages

Add new comment