HSLDA takes a stand against patriarchy - MERGE

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Someone send this to Lori!

A fundie friend posted this and I nearly cried. She had been a hardcore fundie, letting her babies cry it out and sleep training, spanking them often, homeschooling, family church, said her daughter's should never go to college, etc. But lately I see the spark back in her. She started swimming at the Y and now teaches there. She wears a bathing suit. She just read The Hunger Games and her kids watch movies!

She just posted that the pearls, the Maxwells, Doug Phillips and gothard had been huge influences in her life when she was a young mom. She was told that if she suspected legalism that she was in rebellion and that that was a sin comparable to witchcraft! She says she is over that now and will take a stand against a one size fits all mentality. Afterall, this is a woman who loved her faith but people were focusing on if her kids wore shorts or not! No wonder she is changing. The more you know.

Anyhow, HSLDA posted this:

hslda.org/courtreport/V30N2/V30N202.asp

They bring up Phillips and Gothard

Two prominent speakers on the homeschooling circuit have experienced dramatic falls from favor due to admitted sin. Bill Gothard and Doug Phillips have both been accused of serious sins involving young women. The accusations are sexual in nature. Both men have admitted to some form of sin with regard to these accusations, although each has disputed some of the details. Gothard disputes that his sins were sexual in nature. Phillips admits to an improper physical “relationship†with one young woman.

COMMITTED TO

SERVING YOU

HSLDA has served our members—you and homeschool parents like you—for 31 years. Our mission since we were founded in 1983 has been to defend and advocate for homeschool freedom in the courts, legislatures, and media—nationally and internationally. And that will never change.

We have shared our concerns about patriarchy because of our longstanding passion for homeschool freedom and strong families. But we want to make sure that each and every one of our member families, and each and every homeschool family considering membership, understands that we will always stand ready to defend your right to homeschool.

We serve all homeschooling families—regardless of their religious or cultural views. We will never ask parents if they agree with us before we will defend their fundamental liberty to direct the education and upbringing of their children.

And so whether or not you agree with our position on this issue or any other issue doesn’t affect our representation of you. We will always be here to serve and defend you, your family, and homeschool freedom.

Michael Farris and Mike Smith

Although some people want HSLDA to be the police force of the homeschooling movement—removing those who miss the mark in some manner—that is not our role. Even though I have been uncomfortable with the teaching coming from each of these men for several years, it is not my place to try to remove viewpoints from the homeschooling community just because the HSLDA board or I hold a different view. Our role is to defend the freedom of everyone to homeschool.

But with these recent scandals in view, we think it is now time to speak out—not about these men’s individual sins, but about their teachings. Their sins have damaged the lives of their victims, and should be addressed by those with the appropriate legal and spiritual authority in those situations, but their teachings continue to threaten the freedom and integrity of the homeschooling movement. That is why HSLDA needs to stand up and speak up.

Frankly, we should have spoken up sooner. How much sooner is hard to say. There is a subtle difference between teaching that we simply disagree with and teaching that is truly dangerous. While we did not directly promote their teachings using our own resources, we did allow Vision Forum to buy ad space to promote their products and ideas. We were wrong to do so. And we regret it.

What has changed our minds are the stories we are now hearing of families, children, women, and even fathers who have been harmed by these philosophies. While these stories represent a small minority of homeschoolers, we can see a discernible pattern of harm, and it must be addressed.

Mike Smith and the HSLDA board of directors join me in apologizing for failing to speak up sooner. We intend to change that, starting now.

They then discuss the patriarchy taught and then say

n sum, patriarchy teaches that women in general should be subject to men in general. The Bible teaches no such thing.

Take the voting example. If women should not vote, it means that Vickie Farris is to be in subjection to men like Bill Maher, Dennis Rodman, and Bill Clinton. Nothing in the Bible can possibly be twisted to expand the duties between a husband and wife in a loving marriage to reach the conclusion that Bill Maher can vote but Vickie Farris cannot.

Gothard’s teaching is also unbalanced regarding family relationships and the treatment of women, but he does not specifically promote the patriarchy movement. Rather, it would be more accurate to describe his teaching as legalism. In this sense, legalism occurs when someone elevates his personal view about wise conduct to a level where it is claimed that this person’s own opinions are God’s universal commands. It is not wrong to have personal opinions. What is wrong is to usurp the role of God.

It is not sinful to hold a very conservative view of gender roles or child rearing. If people believe such ideas are wise, then our legal system should protect their choices, provided those choices do not result in abuse. My own views, while certainly moderate within the Christian homeschooling movement, might be considered too conservative by some on the extreme cultural left.

And

Women are not to be the de facto slaves of men. Women are created with dignity equal to that of men. Women have direct and unmediated access to God. Daughters should not be taught that their only and ultimate purpose in life is to be the “helpmeet†of a man. While being a godly wife is a worthy ideal, the only statement that is universally true for every woman is that she should love and serve God as her highest priority. My wife and I raised our own daughters to believe that being a wife and mother was a very high calling but did so in a way that would not crush them if God’s leading had been different.

Now I'm really getting turned on

This particular example is a good way to demonstrate a common error in both men’s theologies. Phillips has stated that daughters should remain in their fathers’ homes until married. His principal biblical citation for this argument is the story of Rachel and Leah in the home of their father, Laban.4

It is a fundamental error of scriptural interpretation to assume that one narrative passage reveals a normative rule that we should all follow. In this same story, we see Laban embracing bigamy, selling his daughter in exchange for labor, and even resorting to sexual trickery. If we believe that one fact in this story reveals a universal rule from God, then all of the facts in this story should create such rules as well. Obviously, it is nonsense to use Laban’s treatment of his daughters to create universal norms. While the story may have lessons for us, the decisions of Laban are not universal commands from God.

A similar kind of imbalance can be found in the area of child discipline. The overuse of physical discipline is causing real harm to children. (I am particularly concerned about the overuse of physical discipline with adopted children. Children need to feel loved in any discipline situation. Using spanking for adopted children poses a very high risk of being perceived by the child as an act of hatred instead of loving discipline, no matter what words surround the immediate act.)

From my understanding of Scripture, I believe the Bible encourages spanking as a form of discipline. But it certainly does not tell us at what age we should start, at what age we should stop, or what offenses deserve such discipline. The application of the general rule requires common sense. And when teachers tell you their answers to these questions, they are doing nothing more than sharing their own personal opinions. They cannot speak for God at this level of detail because the Bible itself does not give this level of detail.

hese teachings. The personal failure of Doug Phillips in the area of marriage and his mistreatment of a young woman bears directly on the legitimacy of his teaching. So does the mounting evidence coming from the women raised in such homes. As a homeschool leader for 30 years and chancellor of Patrick Henry College, I’ve come in contact with many young people who were raised in patriarchal or legalistic homes. Almost none of them are following these philosophies today. Some have rejected Christianity altogether. After all, if they were raised with a false idea of God, it shouldn’t surprise anyone when they walk away—they are rejecting something other than the God of the Bible. But those who continue in Christianity have, for the most part, rejected the extreme views of their childhood for a more balanced approach.

Closing thoughts?

And far too many families, children, and parents have already been harmed. This must change.

[lilith]

Wow!

[August]

It is a fundamental error of scriptural interpretation to assume that one narrative passage reveals a normative rule that we should all follow. In this same story, we see Laban embracing bigamy, selling his daughter in exchange for labor, and even resorting to sexual trickery. If we believe that one fact in this story reveals a universal rule from God, then all of the facts in this story should create such rules as well. Obviously, it is nonsense to use Laban’s treatment of his daughters to create universal norms. While the story may have lessons for us, the decisions of Laban are not universal commands from God.

From my understanding of Scripture, I believe the Bible encourages spanking as a form of discipline. But it certainly does not tell us at what age we should start, at what age we should stop, or what offenses deserve such discipline. The application of the general rule requires common sense. And when teachers tell you their answers to these questions, they are doing nothing more than sharing their own personal opinions. They cannot speak for God at this level of detail because the Bible itself does not give this level of detail.

Hmmm, see what you're doing there, Mikey?

A similar kind of imbalance can be found in the area of child discipline. The overuse of physical discipline is causing real harm to children. (I am particularly concerned about the overuse of physical discipline with adopted children. Children need to feel loved in any discipline situation. Using spanking for adopted children poses a very high risk of being perceived by the child as an act of hatred instead of loving discipline, no matter what words surround the immediate act.)

He's getting there, but just because the non-adopted child has never known any different doesn't mean they have the ability to distinguish the act of hatred and the words of love.

[chaotic life]

Michael Farris is a LIAR. He gave Doug Phillips his platform and his start and when Phillips got bizarro Farris and others at HSLDA encouraged him to go on his own instead of holding him accountable.

Patriarchy is a strong undercurrent at Patrick Henry College to this very day. Not to mention the years HSLDA promoted this very theology and browbeat women who objected.

If HSLDA wants to show real growth and change, then it has to start by acknowledging their culpability and complacency not speaking out as if they were not part of the problem in the first place.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

Michael Farris is a LIAR. He gave Doug Phillips his platform and his start and when Phillips got bizarro Farris and others at HSLDA encouraged him to go on his own instead of holding him accountable.

Patriarchy is a strong undercurrent at Patrick Henry College to this very day. Not to mention the years HSLDA promoted this very theology and browbeat women who objected.

If HSLDA wants to show real growth and change, then it has to start by acknowledging their culpability and complacency not speaking out as if they were not part of the problem in the first place.

But he does, he says they supported Phillips and they're sorry.

It's not perfect, but for who and what it is, I was pretty impressed.

[ILoveJellybeans]

That's a step in the right direction, and I hope they change the minds of fundies so their children can have a good childhood and start living, and reduce the chances their daughters will end up married to an abusive dick and popping out babies every year.

Do they still protect child abusers and teach them how to not have their kids taken into foster care though?

[MissA]

This is all well and good but it's not like it's an accurate representation of the author's beliefs. Michael Farris dislikes the word "patriarchy" but he absolutely believes in:

-Wifely submission

-Allowing church leadership to settle marital disputes

-SAHMotherhood as the ideal to which all women should work

I mean, I guess the fact that he doesn't preach that women should always be under some male authority and NEVER have any profession even before marriage is better than a kick in the ovaries but the rest of it all sounds pretty patriarchal to me.

Libby Ann breaks it down.

patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2014/08/patriarchy-whats-in-a-word.html

[chaotic life]

As of this summer, Farris has not dealt with the sexual abuses and patriarchal excuses used at Patrick Henry College at all. Until Farris cleans up his own backyard, I see this as nothing but damage control.

[DomWackTroll]

The comments on Facebook should be delicious:

facebook.com/hslda/posts/10152621874238419

ETA: Beall's response!

"Well, Mike, your article about Doug was, at the very least, in bad taste, and your representation of what Doug and I believe and what we have taught through Vision Forum was rife with gross error.

I have known you for 23 years. I have seen you in many circumstances, some admirable, some not admirable. For about the last 6 years, you and I have sat around the same table for board meetings. Yes, you and I (a woman) were on the same board. You came to Doug's dad's funeral in April 2013 with some kind words. Somehow I missed the letter of compassion and concern for my family this year. You have my email address and phone number.

I know, it's so much faster and easier and cleaner to publish an article and put it on the Internet for how many thousands of people?

How much courage does it take to kick a man who is out of business, out of ministry, and publicly humiliated?

Your caricature of our views would be humorous if it were not so grossly offensive.

Let me help you with a couple of things. I have voted as my conscience dictated since I was 18. So do my sons and so will my daughters. I'm glad for Vickie that she is not under Dennis Rodman's authority. And I am glad that I am not under your authority. I would choose my husband again any day.

Maybe we can discuss all the other concoctions in your article over coffee sometime. My daughters might want to join us to speak for themselves. If you will sit and listen to them.

Until then, please take my family off your membership list immediately. I do not think you are qualified to represent my children or me in any capacity.

Doug has chosen not to respond, but I will not sit idly by while you use your bully pulpit to malign and misrepresent my husband, my company (yes, I, a woman, was an employee of Vision Forum) my family, and myself.

Please note, this is part one of my response as well".

[RosyDaisy]

If there was an apology in there somewhere, I might be willing to see this as a step in the right direction. There wasn't, and I don't.

[DomWackTroll]

A few responses on FB from familiar names here on FJ:

Debra Yuck: “We believe that this article has the potential to stir up a witch hunt against those of us who maintain that God's Word is unchanging, regardless of cultural trends, that God has called men to be the patriarchs of their families, which simply means, according to Websters, ‘the male head of a family’…But this article plays more into the hands of those who claim ‘abuse’ simply because they've grown up and now disagree with what their parents taught and the educational choice they made for them, than with those who might have truly suffered at the hands of tyrannical and cruel parents. Based upon a great deal of reading I've done of late, it's clear that at least some of them are little more than pouty brats who now seek to vilify everyone with whom they disagree because they reject their parents' teaching, are unhappy with themselves and their lives.â€

Melanie Thomas: “…it is in the misunderstanding and wrong application that a lot of the hurt has come from. When people try to make formula's out of man's opinions. I would say the majority of my friends that have been hurt have had that as the problem, misapplication/understanding of what was being taught and a lack of love and God's grace in the family. What would prevent people doing the same thing with what they learn from HSLDA? People could be hurt by the home school teachings from HSLDA just as much, if they twist what they hear/read.â€

[salex]

I always take heart when I read these infighting things. It reminds me that the Dominionists will fight among themself so much they probably won't take dominion while I'm still alive.

I hope they bloody one another for months over this.

[hoipolloi]

A few responses on FB from familiar names here on FJ:

Debra Yuck: “We believe that this article has the potential to stir up a witch hunt against those of us who maintain that God's Word is unchanging, regardless of cultural trends, that God has called men to be the patriarchs of their families, which simply means, according to Websters, ‘the male head of a family’…But this article plays more into the hands of those who claim ‘abuse’ simply because they've grown up and now disagree with what their parents taught and the educational choice they made for them, than with those who might have truly suffered at the hands of tyrannical and cruel parents. Based upon a great deal of reading I've done of late, it's clear that at least some of them are little more than pouty brats who now seek to vilify everyone with whom they disagree because they reject their parents' teaching, are unhappy with themselves and their lives. Well, they did it wrong but we're doing it right.â€

Melanie Thomas: “…it is in the misunderstanding and wrong application that a lot of the hurt has come from. When people try to make formula's out of man's opinions. I would say the majority of my friends that have been hurt have had that as the problem, misapplication/understanding of what was being taught and a lack of love and God's grace in the family. What would prevent people doing the same thing with what they learn from HSLDA? People could be hurt by the home school teachings from HSLDA just as much, if they twist what they hear/read. Well, they did it wrong but we're doing it right.â€

You're welcome.

[hoipolloi]

And Beall Phillips weighs in:

Well, Mike, your article about Doug was, at the very least, in bad taste, and your representation of what Doug and I believe and what we have taught through Vision Forum was rife with gross error.

I have known you for 23 years. I have seen you in many circumstances, some admirable, some not admirable. For about the last 6 years, you and I have sat around the same table for board meetings. Yes, you and I (a woman) were on the same board. You came to Doug's dad's funeral in April 2013 with some kind words. Somehow I missed the letter of compassion and concern for my family this year. You have my email address and phone number.

I know, it's so much faster and easier and cleaner to publish an article and put it on the Internet for how many thousands of people?

How much courage does it take to kick a man who is out of business, out of ministry, and publicly humiliated?

Your caricature of our views would be humorous if it were not so grossly offensive.

Let me help you with a couple of things. I have voted as my conscience dictated since I was 18. So do my sons and so will my daughters. I'm glad for Vickie that she is not under Dennis Rodman's authority. And I am glad that I am not under your authority. I would choose my husband again any day.

Maybe we can discuss all the other concoctions in your article over coffee sometime. My daughters might want to join us to speak for themselves. If you will sit and listen to them.

Until then, please take my family off your membership list immediately. I do not think you are qualified to represent my children or me in any capacity.

Doug has chosen not to respond, but I will not sit idly by while you use your bully pulpit to malign and misrepresent my husband, my company (yes, I, a woman, was an employee of Vision Forum) my family, and myself.

Please note, this is part one of my response as well.

[DomWackTroll]

Beall put it on her own FB page, too, and the names supporting her are predictable: Keens, Disharoons, Darby Sproul-Stouffer...

[Jasmar]

Michael Farris is a LIAR. He gave Doug Phillips his platform and his start and when Phillips got bizarro Farris and others at HSLDA encouraged him to go on his own instead of holding him accountable.

Patriarchy is a strong undercurrent at Patrick Henry College to this very day. Not to mention the years HSLDA promoted this very theology and browbeat women who objected.

If HSLDA wants to show real growth and change, then it has to start by acknowledging their culpability and complacency not speaking out as if they were not part of the problem in the first place.

Totally true. I don't really believe there's much hope for these guys who have grasped after power for their entire adult lives. But even if it is just rebranding (which it is, IMO), I'm praying enough of the sheeple will start to ask questions that some will find freedom.

[DomWackTroll]

Okay, I’m not understanding why Homeschoolers Anonymous is accusing Farris of creating a “straw man†when he says that Doug taught that women should not vote.

homeschoolersanonymous.wordpress.com/2014/08/28/beall-phillips-wife-of-doug-phillips-accuses-hsldas-michael-farris-of-gross-error-bully-pulpit/

Doug promoted Jennie Chancey’s infamous “Should Women Vote?†article-- in which she argues for “household sufferageâ€-- on the Vision Forum site for years:

“The wise husband seeks the counsel of his wife and enoys hearing her opinions. He is able to represent his household well because he is listening to those he represents. But, in the end, he does the representing, just as our congressmen represent us in the House and Senate on a daily basis.â€

ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/Hot_Button_Issues_21/Should_Women_Vote_12661001266.shtml

Whether Beall votes or not, Doug believes that if our country were what it should be-- a theocracy run by Dominionists-- women wouldn’t have to or want to vote. Perhaps the exact words "women shouldn't vote" have never come out of Doug's own mouth-- in public-- but Farris is correct about what Doug believes and has promoted on his own website. And Farris has had many, many, MANY private conversations with Doug.

[hoipolloi]

Still looking through my PDF archives, but found the following items which were on the old VFM website under an editorial called "The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy:"

Biblical patriarchy is just one theme in the Bible’s grand sweep of revelation, but it is a scriptural doctrine, and

faithfulness to Christ requires that it be believed, taught, and lived. The following are a list of affirmations which

describe the perspective of Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries, Phil Lancaster of Patriarch magazine and

R.C. Sproul, Jr., of the Highlands Study Center. This document, drafted by Phil Lancaster, with the advice and

counsel of others, is offered in an attempt to clarify what we mean by “biblical patriarchy.†We view this as an

accurate working document, and invite feedback from anyone as we attempt to improve this statement over

time.

14. While unmarried women may have more flexibility in applying the principle that women were created for a domestic

calling, it is not the ordinary and fitting role of women to work alongside men as their functional equals in public spheres of

dominion (industry, commerce, civil government, the military, etc.). The exceptional circumstance (singleness) ought not

redefine the ordinary, God-ordained social roles of men and women as created. (Gen. 2:18ff.; Josh. 1:14; Jdg. 4; Acts 16:14)

22. Both sons and daughters are under the command of their fathers as long as they are under his roof or otherwise the

recipients of his provision and protection. Fathers release sons from their jurisdiction to undertake a vocation, prepare a home,

and take a wife. Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection. Even after

leaving their father’s house, children should honor their parents by seeking their counsel and blessing throughout their lives.

(Gen. 28:1-2; Num. 30:3ff.; Deut. 22:21; Gal. 4:1,2; Eph. 6:2-3)

Re: bolded. What's that you were saying, Beall?

Re: Michael Farris. While he's not making shit up about Doug Phillips, VF, et al. (see above), his "white paper" is pretty damned ingenuous given the major water-carrying he's done over the years for people like Bill Got-hard, Doug Phillips Is A Rapist, the Pearls, and so on. All of these people -- Michael Farris included -- are fucking assholes, pure and simple.

[ThisOlGirl]

Well well well, Be-All certainly got her hackles up. Why now though? I don't see her tearing people a new one when they talk about how her husband is a sexual abuser.

[NotALoserLikeYou]

If there was an apology in there somewhere, I might be willing to see this as a step in the right direction. There wasn't, and I don't.

Well he does say:

What has changed our minds are the stories we are now hearing of families, children, women, and even fathers who have been harmed by these philosophies. While these stories represent a small minority of homeschoolers, we can see a discernible pattern of harm, and it must be addressed.

Mike Smith and the HSLDA board of directors join me in apologizing for failing to speak up sooner. We intend to change that, starting now

kind of an apology?

[bea]

Well, sexual abuse of a minor is one thing. But being accused of LEGALISM? Quick, to the fainting couch.

[formergothardite]

HSLDA will take a "stand" for or against anything that will gain them the most followers. This isn't about protecting children or women, this is about making them money.

[Marian the Librarian]

The comments on Facebook should be delicious:

facebook.com/hslda/posts/10152621874238419

ETA: Beall's response!

"Well, Mike, your article about Doug was, at the very least, in bad taste, and your representation of what Doug and I believe and what we have taught through Vision Forum was rife with gross error.

I have known you for 23 years. I have seen you in many circumstances, some admirable, some not admirable. For about the last 6 years, you and I have sat around the same table for board meetings. Yes, you and I (a woman) were on the same board. You came to Doug's dad's funeral in April 2013 with some kind words. Somehow I missed the letter of compassion and concern for my family this year. You have my email address and phone number.

I know, it's so much faster and easier and cleaner to publish an article and put it on the Internet for how many thousands of people?

How much courage does it take to kick a man who is out of business, out of ministry, and publicly humiliated?

Your caricature of our views would be humorous if it were not so grossly offensive.

Let me help you with a couple of things. I have voted as my conscience dictated since I was 18. So do my sons and so will my daughters. I'm glad for Vickie that she is not under Dennis Rodman's authority. And I am glad that I am not under your authority. I would choose my husband again any day.

Maybe we can discuss all the other concoctions in your article over coffee sometime. My daughters might want to join us to speak for themselves. If you will sit and listen to them.

Until then, please take my family off your membership list immediately. I do not think you are qualified to represent my children or me in any capacity.

Doug has chosen not to respond, but I will not sit idly by while you use your bully pulpit to malign and misrepresent my husband, my company (yes, I, a woman, was an employee of Vision Forum) my family, and myself.

Please note, this is part one of my response as well".

Well, Beall has gotten herself into a state of high dudgeon, hasn't she?

Just for fun, I dug up the verbatim transcripts from "The Return of the Daughters" (a Botkin-produced patriarchy extravaganza) I posted on FJ last December. (Find the while thread by searching "ROTD.")

Here's a portion of Doug Phillips' interview, bolding mine:

One of the most interesting chapters in the Bible is Numbers Chapter 30, which is a rich depository of instruction for fathers and daughters. Here in Numbers Chapter 30, we see an interesting legal question arise. What happens if a daughter goes out and makes a contract, or she has an oath or a vow, but she wasn’t approved of her father? What happens? Here’s what the Bible says. If the father discovers that either his wife or his daughter, who still live under his roof and under his protection and care, have gone out and have covenanted or contracted or vowed without his consent in a manner which is inconsistent with the direction of the household, he has the ability to nullify that. On the other hand, if he doesn’t nullify it in the day in which he hears it, he ratifies it and approves it. Now what does this mean, why is this important? It’s important because what it tells you is that the family is a unified whole. That the father is the head of the home, and that both the wife and the daughter are not independent individuals, but they are agents of the father. Now we see this in Proverbs 31. Where the woman is going out, the husband has no need of spoil, in fact he is in the gates of the land, he is a leader because he trusts his wife, who manages the affairs well, and who even is engaged in amazing acts of entrepreneurship. But, if the father did not authorize that, then those contracts and those vows would not stand. Well, the implications of this include some of the following ideas: #1, daughters aren’t to be independent. They’re not to act outside the scope of their father. As long as they’re under the authority of their fathers, fathers have the ability to nullify, or not, the oaths and the vows. Daughters just can’t go out independently and say “I’m going to marry whoever I want,†no, the father has the ability to say “No, I’m sorry, that has to be approved by me.†Or she can’t even go out and represent him on a business level unless the father says Yes, you’re authorized and you’re approved by me. Is this some sort of oppressive patriarchalism? Absolutely not. This is order. This is love. This is integrity, because what it means is instead of a whole bunch of individuals living under one house, you have a unified structure, you have a unified whole, with a God-appointed head. It also means protection for everyone else out there, it means order for society itself, and it’s a great blessing. And so what we see from Numbers Chapter 30 is the presumption, my daughter’s at home under the roof of my house, and protected by the father. What we see from Numbers Chapter 30 is that there are even legal, oath- based, covenant-based implications for this. Daughters need the approval of their dads to marry, unless of course the fathers say “Daughter, get out of here, I release you of my authority.†The problem is we don’t see any examples of that in the entire Bible. We don’t see any principle that leads us to that conclusion, we see no precepts, we see no patterns, and the only examples we see are negative examples where fathers let their daughters out and they find themselves in peril. Dinah would be one example, a daughter that went out unprotected and was raped, and it brought devastation on the family line. That’s not to suggest that that would always happen, only that the Bible is replete with examples of daughters under the roof of their protecting fathers, and it’s completely absent of any examples or principles that lead us to think that it’s normative for a daughter just to go out on her own. Numbers 30 says “Daughters, you’re under the authority of your dads.â€

[CloakNDagger]

Hmm. I wonder if DPIAT wrote what Beall posted. :lol: Also, the women working at VF for pay were all family members (except for maybe Lourdes at VFM I think) and were there to keep the EEOC off of the company, not because they were advertising positions for women.

Also, you take the stuff with the Lord's Table at BCA and other stuff and you do get more of Harris' picture, and less of Beall's.

[Odd1Out]

Hmm. I wonder if DPIAT wrote what Beall posted.

:lol:

I wondered that too, which would be very funny since they stated at least twice 'I, a woman!'

If it is her I can't believe she's defending him. And the 'don't kick him while he's down' statements are crazy. So I guess he doesn't have to take resoonsibilty for what he did? Just admitting wrong is not taking full responsibility.