Sons of Patriarchy

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, totally off topic but can someone explain the graphic on the site? It looks like the back of a man’s head facing a woman who is talking to….a what? Is it making some statement that’s going over my head? That wouldn’t surprise me as I find more and more pop idioms and memes perplexing nowadays.
 
In the case of Chelsea Gondrez in the latest episode, do her parents count as "two or three witnesses"?
Witness what? She made lots of accusations. It’s a mess untangling. She appears to accuse just about everyone in the PCA and the OPC of some sins.

What exactly did her parents witness? Where have they testified to this? What about the biblical process of addressing these? Surely you don’t think a podcast is what God intends to use for justice in such matters?
 
In the case of Chelsea Gondrez in the latest episode, do her parents count as "two or three witnesses"?
I understand the allegations in the last episode, and I'd like you to articulate what you believe her parents witnessed with respect to the *several* accusations levied. I do not want you to be evasive but specific. Serious allegations were made, and I want you to respond as a mature Christian who is concerned that the parties named are rightly named and that the witnesses you articulated are germane.

Her parents followed the teaching of the Vision Forum for a season. Her father was an OPC Pastor. Somehow, however, they are left without personal moral agency in this account, and Dr. Pipa is focused upon as somehow responsible for her trauma based on two reported conversations where he asked questions that made her uncomfortable. Her own parents, however, escape scrutiny.

I don't doubt the sexual abuse that occurred, but do you realize who goes unnamed in this episode? The perpetrators of the sexual abuse as well as the name of the husband who divorced her. The person who is singled out by the podcast author when he asks her who she wants to say something to is Dr. Pipa. Why? He is neither the father of any of the accused nor the Pastor or present at any of the Churches where she was abused. He is not in the state or in the denomination where her session interacted with her in a way she disagreed with.

So, again, demanding that you be specific: What are her parents witnesses to?
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't get my hopes up with Rachel Denhollender the helm.
This isn't the first time I've seen a negative comment about Denhollender. I know her from the Nazar case. What has she been doing since then that has everyone identifying her negatively?
 
This isn't the first time I've seen a negative comment about Denhollender. I know her from the Nazar case. What has she been doing since then that has everyone identifying her negatively?
I deeply feel for her and other people of abuse, many of whom are close friends (not Denhollander but abuse victims). I am equally troubled that the law hasn't even been followed in many cases, if true. That said, so many of these 'parachurch' entities for abuse strike me as having a vested interest to find something, anything, (@greenbaggins posted a report, I believe by GRACE, a little awhile back where they tar and feathered a few people in Philadelphia) and want publicity. I could be wrong about the latter. As for the former, when you're a hammer, everything is a nail; not to mention some have capitulated to certain woke categories. So color me skeptical.
 
This isn't the first time I've seen a negative comment about Denhollender. I know her from the Nazar case. What has she been doing since then that has everyone identifying her negatively?
Progressive, woke. Not as bad as some of the others on the podcast though. Some may disagree. My opinion, I would avoid.
 
Progressive, woke. Not as bad as some of the others on the podcast though. Some may disagree. My opinion, I would avoid.
That's sad to hear. It's also not an uncommon outcome with abuse victims in the church. We simply have to do better dealing with this issue. I don't really understand why it's so hard.
 
Last edited:
I listened to the intro to the series which Peter Bell narrated. He sketched out the plan to lift the lid on CREC and Wilson regarding his racism, Christian Nationalism, removing voting rights for women, reinstitution of Mosaic law and religion, justifiable abuse of women and children, crushing the religious freedom of other faiths, and some other things. Sounds bad. I looked forward to a careful theological analysis of Wilson’s teachings.

Then I listened to the first one in the series, The War on the Evangellyfish. The whole thing was based on an interview with Kristin Kobes du May, She is a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University in Grand Rapids. She viewed Wilson’s activities as being motivated by a strategic marketing perspective, so there was no analysis of his theology. She thinks his cunning plan was to provide an answer for everything, build a homeschooling base, play on people’s fears to build the church, build a Christian school, build a publishing and marketing business, take over the city, and then take over the country. Apparently Wilson believes that well-ordered families lead to a properly ordered society. That did not seem too radical to me. Wilson forged relationships with John MacArthur, Al Mohler and others because, apparently, what unites these sinister people is their strong commitment to Patriarchy. Neither Bell nor du May defined what Patriarchy is, but they both seemed to know what it is and it is a bad thing. I thought that the common denominator with Wilson’s acquaintances was Calvinistic theology, but it seems that the professor has seen through that veneer, and what really unites them is their commitment to patriarchal power. The discussion finished with an exhortation to listeners to read history, recognise different forms of Christianity, cope with the blurred line between good and evil, re-examine all that you have been taught. Seek unity with those we have differences with, stop building walls. I think Bell and du Mez are saying something along the lines of ,“Let us break Their bonds in pieces and cast away Their cords from us”. The strange thing is that I have read a lot of history, and I have explored the beliefs of those with whom I disagree, but the result was I built higher walls and kindly invited my opponents to come inside the walls of the Holy City with me in order to achieve unity. And help maintain the wall height together.

I could not find anything useful in this episode, but I will listen to some more.
 
The whole thing was based on an interview with Kristin Kobes du May, She is a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University in Grand Rapids.
I just looked her up. She's the author of
A New Gospel for Women: Katharine Bushnell and the Challenge of Christian Feminism and Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation. Sounds horrible.
 
I don't doubt the sexual abuse that occurred, but do you realize who goes unnamed in this episode? The perpetrators of the sexual abuse as well as the name of the husband who divorced her. The person who is singled out by the podcast author when he asks her who she wants to say something to is Dr. Pipa. Why? He is neither the father of any of the accused nor the Pastor or present at any of the Churches where she was abused. He is not in the state or in the denomination where her session interacted with her in a way she disagreed with.
This is disturbing. And suggests an agenda of a “take-down” maybe because Dr Pipa is a known public figure in the reformed community.
 
Last edited:
If Wilson was against female education, NSA wouldn't be graduating women. I'm not fan of Wilson, but let's criticize him for the problems he does have, not for the ones he doesn't.

To the OP, who is Peter Bell? The trailer seemed a bit overblown. It gave me no confidence that the podcast won't swing to the opposite extreme of egalitarianism and evangelical feminism.
How would you define evangelical feminism?
 
What is feminism? I am not sure what definition is being used here.
Basically, I think he, and the rest of us, mean that feminism entails that women are only equal if they can do anything a man could do, in an evangelical context, in the church and home.
 
Basically, I think he, and the rest of us, mean that feminism entails that women are only equal if they can do anything a man could do, in an evangelical context, in the church and home.
So if I am understanding, you are saying feminists are people who think and act on the understanding that women are equal to men, and that because of that equality, they should be allowed to teach and lead in the church and not submit in the home. Would it be right to say that you perceive feminists to be people who resist power structures in the church and home based on human equality?
 
So if I am understanding, you are saying feminists are people who think and act on the understanding that women are equal to men, and that because of that equality, they should be allowed to teach and lead in the church and not submit in the home. Would it be right to say that you perceive feminists to be people who resist power structures in the church and home based on human equality?
I'd say that's a fair assessment.
 
I haven't witnessed that personally, although I'm sure it exists somewhere.

Here in Peru men have to get their wives' permission to leave the house. A guy doesn't show up for soccer and the first thing everyone says is "I guess his wife didn't give him permission."
This is late, but, you're in Peru calling the sport soccer?
 
Well we're speaking English here, so yes. In Spanish we say futbol :)
Even here in Rhode Island, many people actually prefer futbol over soccer. At least in Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls anyway.



Interestingly, they made a commercial about this between an American and British person.
 
So if I am understanding, you are saying feminists are people who think and act on the understanding that women are equal to men, and that because of that equality, they should be allowed to teach and lead in the church and not submit in the home. Would it be right to say that you perceive feminists to be people who resist power structures in the church and home based on human equality?

"Equality" is a Christian left-over. As you move through the various social movements of the late 20th into the 21st century feminism morphs. It has been influenced by individualism, existentialism, nihilism, and deconstructionism to name a few. These are all contrary to biblical norms in one way or another.
 
Am I right to understand that as a left-over of various secular social movements, you think the concept of equality applied to male and female is not biblical? As a confessional Christian, you would apply "equal in power and glory" to the three persons of the Trinity (WSC Q6) but specifically exclude the application of that term to image-bearing mankind as male and female, made in his likeness and existing as the tribes, tongues, and nations of this world?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top