New Paganism?

New Paganism?

I want to draw attention to a blog article written by a ministry friend of mine Don Veinot President of Midwest Christian Outreach. His article is titled Doug Phillips – New Paganism. Several months ago Don contacted me to help him with research on Doug Phillips and his extreme view of women. I think you will find the quotes from Doug’s Phillips Vision Forum amazing to say the least especially since in this day and age. I also recommend you follow the links to Doug’s Phillips articles that Don has linked to. It was amazing for me to do the research for Don and to see that Mr. Phillips does not think that women should be voting, he admonishes women to stay under their father’s authority even as adults until they get married and he says that women don’t need to get a higher education because the money is wasted on them since their role is to be a wife and mother.

Hmmmm….makes me wonderful when he is going to force women to stay indoors confined to their own homes as was the old pagan custom?

I will be continuing our verse-by-verse discussion through 1 Corinthians 11 with more posts coming this week.

9 thoughts on “New Paganism?

  1. Cheryl,

    Thank you for drawing attention to this escalating issue of “patriarchy” and the skewed teachings propagated by Vision Forum and for collaborating with Don Veinot. In retrospect, having grown up attending an Assemblies of God church, it’s difficult to believe that I became subject to this patriarchal school of thought in a Gothard-friendly church. The thought-dulling effects of their teachings subtly became an automatic response to their ideals of gender without me realizing that I’d been influenced. I’m grateful to those who, like you, worked with me to bring me a renewed, deeper level of understanding of “those troublesome egalitarian proof texts.” (See this VF citation of Roy Moore at for a new spin on egalitarianism and complementarianism.)

    In Veinot’s recent article on Phillips in the MCOI newsletter, (available by mail now and online in a few months), I appreciate all the “old pagan customs” discussed. In addition to the “Proverbs 31 Man” Subtitle, I especially appreciate this “old custom”:
    “The point is Vision Forum isn’t going far enough if their objective is to embrace OT patriarchy! If they want patriarchy, they simply cannot pick and choose which elements they leave out. Are tribal fiefdoms really supposed to be the pattern for the Church? Forget about wives submitting to husbands — all our relatives have to submit to Uncle Ned!”

    This example reveals the and logical conclusions and the ethical dangers of selecting Scriptures out of texual and historical/societal context. Who gets to decide the standards of this prejudicial interpretation, and by what standards are those interpretations deemed appropriate for doctrine? These concerns parallel the greatest secular ethical dilemmas of our day.

    We should keep matters of living simple, but not TOO SIMPLE. In doing so, we create new versions of the same old problems of prejudice.

    I look forward to following your subsequent postings on this subject as I continue to endeavor towards a balanced and faithful understanding of the Word of God on the subject of woman. In my search for balance, swinging from a very egalitarian side of the issue of women to the legalistic, Gothard influenced view, I appreciate your perspective.

  2. Under Much Grace,

    A hearty welcome to this blog! I liked what you said about the patriarchal system in that we can’t pick and choose which portions we like and don’t like if we are going to follow it as God’s way. Very insightful, thanks.


  3. I cant take credit for that quote. That was Ron Veinot in the MCOI article.

    It strikes me as the same dilemma of choosing quality of life in medical ethics. Who determines the “whats” and the “hows” of what defines a good life? Patriarchy tries to make those same decisions for Christians about non-essential doctrine. Sadly, the patriarchy peripheral doctrine about the best way raise families and evangelize quickly invaded the essential doctine of God’s work of grace in the life of the believer. Women can ONLY be saved through childbearing through their reckless interpretations.

    Their end (of supporting and bolstering family) does not justify these strange and outrageous means (rigidly deciding how everyone else must live). If you can just cherry pick your proof texts and redefine language, you can justify anything remotely referred to in Scripture. Polygamy is a good, serious example of that. “Uncle Ned” is an ironic one. These things are the first steps toward the “Banality of Evil.”

  4. It seems to be a slippery slope…this Patriarchy. It is felt in many seemingly normative evangelical circles. Such as ‘women can talk in church but not teach’. Or women can teach but only other women and young boys. They can give a testimony but NO teaching. And, so on.

    We have to read into the scriptures to come up with these man made rules. Quite frankly, none of it makes sense to me. Why could women prophesy at Pentecost but not speak in church?

    The questions are endless.

  5. I agree, Lin. Throughout the centuries we have seen many men defending very harsh restrictions on women including the restrictions on a woman’s right to vote. God predicted this in the 3rd chapter of Genesis that man’s tendency would be to rule over the woman. But God’s words said in prophecy to the serpent are amazing. God said that he would initiate an enmity between the woman and the serpent and between her seed and his seed. This is God’s initiative and God has kept his word. There are more women in church than men for a reason. It isn’t because the church has become feminized i.e. the walls and pews are pink and men don’t want to walk into a “pink” church; it is because God said that he would bring the woman into a battle against the serpent. God promised this battle and he fulfilled his words by empowering women especially since Pentecost. Through the Holy Spirit she comes to church and serves and still takes abuse by the men. They blame her for there not being more men in church and they blame her for giving a teaching in her testimony. They want to stop her and silence her. What these dear brothers don’t realize is that when they do this, they are in essence fighting her on the side of the serpent. When men are willing to fight the battle *with* the woman instead of against her, the tide will turn. The church indeed is meant to be triumphant and the battle is meant to be won.

  6. Dear Cheryl,

    I have found the WIM DVDs truly a breath of fresh air. As a male elder in a small local church, I have long struggled with the ideological/philosophical issues that have been crammed into complementarian argumentation; ideologies that are based primarily upon two misinterpreted texts of Scripture (1 Cor. 14:33-35 & 1 Tim. 2:11-15).

    I thank you for your truly Christ-like approach as you have presented this material in a clear, cogent, exegetical, and Christ-like manner. If only other apologists could present their information with the same love, patience, and diligence that you have. I have longed for a good DVD series that I could hand someone and say, “Here is my position on the issue of women in Christian ministry.” Now, not only do I have that information, but you have lovingly, respectfully, and passionately presented this material for all to see and benefit from.

    The next few years may be difficult regarding my ministry since I teach verse-by-verse and will eventually come across these famed passages in an evangelical mileu that is normally very strongly complementarian. However, I have learned to live the famed hymn, “Let goods and kindred go, this mortal life also, the body they may kill, God’s truth abideth still . . .”. May God richly bless your women’s issues studies and your apologetics ministry as you seek to rescue the perishing from the cults!

  7. Pastor, thank you for your encouragement! I too have lived by the thoughts expressed in that old hymn. It is my passion to represent Christ in a thoughtful and loving way and not attack those brothers whose goal it is to shut down the ministry of women. It isn’t always easy but this is the way that I would long for people to talk to me if I were the one in error. What I have learned and am still learning is that the approval of humans isn’t important. If I am diligent to present the gospel and God’s word verse-by-verse in a respectful and honorable way, then God will be honored if I keep faithful no matter how many still trapped in tradition will disapprove of my message to the church. If the cost to myself is great, then I can rejoice because I have been counted worthy to suffer for Christ.

    I find it sad though, that much of the suffering that we experience is through the words of those in the church, not outside the church. I trust that one day God will bind us together in unity so that we will fight side by side, united together against the enemy of our souls. I also believe that our dear brothers in Christ will see us as their “glory” not as a competition or a threat to their ministry. Oh Lord Jesus, bind us together with cords that cannot be broken!

  8. Cheryl,

    I am so excited to see someone else make reference to the portion of the proto evangelian as a major consideration in this issue: the enmity between the serpent and the woman because of the seed.

    In this sense, woman can almost be expected to become the fulcrum of conflict or the object of abuse, especially within the church. I think it is very telling that the same concepts follow with JWs, LDS, SDAs, etc.

    I am deeply disturbed after reading your comments on Moore’s CBMW speech concerning his views that complementarianism gives way to feminism which is essentially open theism and horrible. As Lin comments, it seems like a slippery slope and a new, strong trend. I pray, study… but what else can a good complementarian girl do? I’m very upset that this branches out far beyond Gothard, Lindvall and Phillips!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.