September 2007 Archives

“When a girl plays with a doll, she is preparing to be a mommy someday. Her first role model is her own mother, and her first opportunity at role-playing is with her dolls.” Beautiful Girlhood Collection

The way a child plays will influence who that child will become. And the tools of play are an important part of the equation.

Play is preparation for adulthood. Play can prepare a child for maturity or for teen rebellion. Play may breed noble dreams and actions, or it may reinforce dark and unhealthy attitudes. Play may reinforce biblical gender roles (women as mothers and homemakers; men as defenders and protectors of women; etc.), or it may supplant them with the stereotypes perpetuated by modern feminism.

But one thing is certain—play (like the rest of life) is never neutral.

One of the most iconic symbols of childhood play is the doll. Dolls have always served an important role in culture, primarily in preparing daughters to be mothers. At the heart of doll play are two important concepts: identification and imagination. For example, the baby doll in the hands of a girl is a tool that helps her to identify with motherhood. The dress-up doll at her bedroom tea party allows her to imagine her own future role building a culture of hospitality for her family. With the historical doll a young lady both imagines and identifies with the adventures of girlhood past. The point is this: dolls have traditionally played an important role in the social and intellectual development of young ladies.

Dolls as a Tool of Cultural Revolution

Humanists, including feminists of various stripes, recognize the power of play in shaping cultural identity and gender norms. Because doll play has historically been so closely associated with a distinctively Christian understanding of the roles of men and women, the feminist tactic usually takes one of two forms: The first approach is based on the notion that sex-specific play, education, and role modeling are inherently oppressive. This approach seeks to discourage role distinctions by encouraging both parents and manufacturers to accept more of an androgynous and gender-bending approach to the toys. Under this model, parents should not assume that dolls are for girls, or that toy soldiers are for boys—and neither should manufacturers or their advertising agencies.

The problem with this approach is that it does not work. At the end of the day, young girls still want to play with dolls, and boys want cap guns and toy soldiers.

The second approach is what I call the “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” strategy. The idea is to recognize that girls are always going to want dolls. Instead of trying to reprogram girls to disdain dolls, cultural feminists want to let them play with dolls—just not dolls which they believe reinforce the patriarchal stereotypes of Christianity, with its emphasis on certain role differentiation between boys and girls. Instead of taking dolls away from girls, or forcing girls to think in terms of toys traditionally associated with boys, the new approach will be to let the girls play with dolls—politically correct dolls that reflect the values of a post-modern, feminist culture. These dolls will be tools of propaganda—playthings designed to alter societal norms, and subtly advance the feminist agenda.

At Your Local Wal-Mart — Bratz

Today’s secular doll manufacturers wrestle with political pressures, marketing realities, and the bottom line. They also recognize trends, including the present dominance of youth culture, sexual permissiveness, and feminist ideals within the culture as a whole. They have to deal with a media-manipulated culture in which young boys and girls have access to highly advanced technologies, the permissive culture values of the government school, and the moral unrestraint of Hollywood, each of which exposes them to unbelievably mature concepts and experiences at an increasingly younger and younger ages. Frankly, eight-year-old girls who date boys, watch R-rated films, and are exposed to X-rated conversations with their peers are not interested in tea parties or baby dolls.

For the trend-conscious secular businessman, this means that unless they can reach girls using an appeal to more mature and sometimes morally ambiguous themes, they will lose their marketing audience.

That is why much of the doll manufacturing and marketing business appears to be engaged in a self-conscious effort to use dolls to supplant the old vision of daughterhood with the evolving standards and priorities of a culture which no longer prizes virtue, femininity, and homemaking for young ladies. The “hottest” companies appear dedicated to communicating through their dolls the worst elements of modern culture in a quest to fashion the modern girl—liberated, provocative, independent, and tuned into the latest media-driven fads.

Little girls are now to imagine themselves “survivors” in a culture of divorce. In the case of Bratz—available at Wal-Marts across America—girls can identify with dolls that sometime appear little different than streetwalkers.

Greek Goddesses and Feminist Empowerment Toys

The new feminist theology of dolls includes the doctrine of “empowerment.” This is the idea that politically correct dolls are tools of social liberation. Specifically, they are training vehicles to help young girls break free of oppressive social restraints and confidently express their individuality. This means communicating the doctrine of empowerment by training little girls to identify with new role models—including, in at least one case, pagan goddesses.

One example is the Sophia Dolls line, produced by the Nea Matia company which explains that the mission of the dolls is “to educate, inspire, and empower all women, especially girls and their mothers...” Now little girls can seek “empowerment” by identifying with “Goddess Athena: Teacher of Leadership”, “Goddess Demeter: Teacher of Maternal Love,” or “Goddess Aphrodite” (who has no sub-description).

Inexplicably, this goddess-driven collection even includes a Mary Magdalene doll. The manufacturer comments: “We used the color red for the shawl because of its connection to Mary over the centuries and because it increases enthusiasm, stimulates energy, encourages action and confidence, and gives us a sense of protection from fears and anxiety.” The goddess dolls retail for between $99 and $149.

According to Nea Matia, this doll line is “focused on expanding the definitions of beauty for women and girls...to recognize and honor the different sizes, shapes, and attributes of women, paving the way to greater self-esteem and empowerment.” They further explain:

For thousands of years, fairy tales and folklore have continually told stories of the princess, empress or queen. These tales have been the role model of little girls. Each of these role models is a woman in power over others. Each of them demand respect out of fear. As a company dedicated to the teaching of self-esteem, we could not use any reference to a princess, queen or empress. Our goal is to promote empowerment of self, not power over others. In order to accomplish this mission in a visual way, we went back to one of the greatest pieces of literature in histroy, Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey...The assistance to overcome massive obstacles came from Greek gods/goddesses and the experiences were a joint venture between the human and mythological powers. Many modern pyschologists use the names of these goddesses in labeling inherent patterns of human behavior. To us, this type of labeling sounded like a great way to stimulate the imagination and to have fun, while teaching empowerment.

Doll Sales That Promote Abortion and Feminism

Two years ago American Girl company received some well-deserved heat for their subsidization of abortion and feminist ideals. The subsidies came in the context of the American Girl’s “I Can” campaign. At the time, Vision Forum received letters from concerned parents. The Christian community benefited from the commentary of media sources like WorldNetDaily.com. And pro-family organizations like the American Family Association expressed their strong opposition to the use of a doll company associated with historic American girlhood to advance the abortion industry. WorldNetDaily.com reported that: “‘American Girl has refused to sever ties with pro-abortion Girls Incorporated,’ said Ann Scheidler, executive director of the Chicago-based Pro-Life Action League, ‘This leaves us no choice but to call for a boycott of American Girl dolls and accessories for the duration of the 2005 Christmas shopping season.’”

As Agape Press reported, “AFA urged individuals to contact American Girl, expressing their disappointment. ‘[L]et American Girl know they are making a terrible mistake by supporting the pro-abortion, pro-lesbian organization, Girls Inc.,’ says AFA chairman Don Wildmon in the notice. ‘[L]et American Girl president Ellen Brothers know the company’s decision casts a great shadow over their trustworthiness to put the welfare of girls and children first.’”

Reader Expresses Concern Over New Direction in American Girl Company

That was then.

For 2007, the American Girl company’s latest contribution to the cultural “doll wars” is the release of a new doll named Julie. No longer set in the historic past, the message of this doll is contemporary. Julie’s story reflects the ethical conundrums of a humanistic culture at war with God and struggling to find a message that will help girls transcend the sorrow of broken families. The message is communicated in the following text:

For Julie Albright, life after her parents’ divorce holds as many ups and downs as the hilly streets of San Francisco. Julie misses her old bedroom, her pet rabbit, her best friend, Ivy—and most of all, having her whole family together. But Julie begins to see that change also brings new possibilities. By taking charge of her new life, she learns to believe in herself—and that love can hold a family together even when they live apart.

Mrs. Rachel C. writes to Vision Forum with the following comment:

This is their newest “historical” doll—a girl whose home is broken by divorce, whose life has its ups and downs, just like the streets of San Francisco where she lives, who dresses like a hippie, and learns to believe in HERSELF! Wow, what a role model for my kids! Isn’t it sad what our culture has become? We go from Colonial and Pioneering Days where people established this land for the cause of Christ and had to have character to survive, to broken homes where kids are left in the dust. Then on top of it, it’s all glorified by the pretty doll they sell to “go with the times.” Breaks my heart! Maybe Vision Forum needs to offer their “Reclaiming the Culture” dolls and outfits—a mother and father, dressed modestly, with their 10 little “olive plants” surrounding them!

Thanks for the thoughts Mrs. C., and for that kind vote of confidence.

The Beautiful Girlhood Collection

“The Beautiful Girlhood Collection aspires, by the grace of God, to encourage the rebuilding of a culture of virtuous womanhood. In a world that frowns on femininity, that minimizes motherhood, and that belittles the beauty of being a true woman of God, we dare to believe that the biblical vision for girlhood is a glorious vision. It is, in fact — a beautiful vision. It is a vision for purity and contentment, for faith and fortitude, for enthusiasm and industry, for heritage and home, and for joy and friendship. It is a vision so bright and so wonderful that it must be boldly proclaimed. We are here to proclaim it.” The Beautiful Girlhood Collection

Our culture is engaged in a battle for the heart and soul of the family. It is even reflected in the present doll wars. At stake is whether the play life of our children will reflect efforts to rebuild a culture of virtuous boyhood and girlhood, or whether it will focus on training the next generation of me-centered, empowered, feminists.

There is a reason why feminists hate the message of the Beautiful Girlhood Collection. They hate it because so many of the contributions to this collection emphasize a message of holy submission to the priorities of the Lord, and not the feminist empowerment model. They hate it because it represents many of the historic family values of the old era of Christendom. And they hate the constant emphasis that a girl’s play should pave the way for her to better embrace the feminine models and admonitions presented in such Scriptures as Proverbs 31, Titus 2, and I Peter 3. To the feminist, such concepts are the embodiment of oppression. Feminists are accustomed to dealing in simplistic stereotypes and the rhetoric of disenfranchisement. The idea of intelligent, well-trained, entrepreneurial and informed daughters, who view the title “wife” and “mother” as the highest calling to which they can aspire, is enigmatic to them. And they find notions of young mothers-in-training, dressed in feminine attire, and playing with dolls at a tea party to be contrived, unrealistic, and even dangerous.

We disagree with the feminists. We also disagree with any corporate model for success which capitalizes on the most negative influences in modern youth culture to market products to children. And we take seriously our mission to encourage, bless, and promote Christian family culture for the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

In the case of the Beautiful Girlhood Collection, we hope to inspire the next generation of visionary and virtuous daughters to have a big vision of victory in Christ with our own small offerings of encouragement which come in the form of books, audio material, and even play-tools, like dolls. We do not now, nor have we ever believed that the dolls, books, dresses, images presented in our Beautiful Girlhood Collection are “THE WAY,” or “THE ONLY WAY” to communicate femininity or biblical womanhood. But we do believe that it is ONE IMPORTANT WAY to inspire, teach, and fuel hope. And from the thousands of letters, emails, and personal comments we have received over the years, it not only appears that God is blessing this work, but that the message is striking a chord of encouragement with many. For this we give praise to the Lord.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 25, 2007 | Permalink

My father used to say, “Even a broken clock is right twice a day.” That is what I thought when I read the following comment from Luther Gulick, one of the most influential writers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century on the issue of physical exercise. Gulick was one of the founders of the American Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Girls and a leader in the YMCA. But he was also a composite of conflicting and sometimes dangerous philosophical and theological error. This problem was not unique to Gulick. Many thinkers of Gulick’s day struggled with the need to wed the historic worldview assumptions of Christendom with the philosophical presuppositions of Modernity. (In my view, many modern Christians suffer from a similar intellectual schizophrenia—they hope to maintain Christian values and Christian outcomes, while operating on humanistic presuppositions and methodologies.) Thus, Gulick would, on the one hand, advocate sexual morality and involved fathers, but, on the other hand, embrace philosophical assumptions advanced by the unholy trinity of Evolutionism, Eugenics and Feminism.

At one point, Gulick decided that it would be unhealthy for his daughters to play with dolls. This is his account of the failure of that experiment. Note his interesting conclusions about the differences between boys and girls:

If you want to know what a child is, study his play; if you want to affect what he shall be, direct the form of play...Girls have, however, plays which are peculiarly their own. Many years ago, when my first daughter was born, my wife and I planned for her a childhood which should omit dolls. Most of the disorders in my family had been of a nervous type—headaches, earaches, backaches, rather than any organic troubles—and we wished our children to be out of doors a great deal in order to counteract this tendency. So we encouraged our daughter in all forms of boys’ plays, and gave her much opportunity for playing outdoor games. We gave her no dolls, because dolls lead to sedentary occupation. We decided that she should not play indoors with other girls, for we feared that through such association the habit of doll play would be acquired. She was not taken down-town to the shops where dolls are prominently displayed lest she should be attracted by them. The plan seemed to work very well for a few years. But one Christmas she was asked what gift she wanted more than anything else. To the astonishment and confusion of her parents she answered: “Oh, if I could only have a doll.” She received that doll and so did the three sisters who came after her.

Some years afterward I took a doll census and discovered that there were in the house thirty-seven members of the doll family, each with its own name and relationships. That number did not include the clothes-pin dolls, spool dolls, paper dolls, dolls made from acorns, or any other of the great community of ephemeral dolls that come and go. It included only the regularly established members of the household. These girls had no more intense relations to the dolls than most girls have. A remarkable development of domestic feeling was brought about in connection with this doll family. Doll play is essentially girl play. Much of the rich, social life of women and the ready use of the hands come through playing with dolls. The manual skill that boys acquire is different in kind.

A Philosophy of Play, 1920, Charles Scribner and Sons, by Luther Gulick

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 24, 2007 | Permalink

We are pleased to announce our new semi-finalists for the SAICFF Jubilee Awards and our $10,000 grand prize. To view the film title submissions go to the SAICFF website here.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 21, 2007 | Permalink

Special thanks to Jason Longoria for this trailer submission.

(To view this video clip, you must have QuickTime 7 installed.)

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 20, 2007 | Permalink

We are praising the Lord for 35 semi-finalists for the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival Jubilee Awards. All Jubilee semi-finalists have been notified and Vision Forum will be releasing information on each of these films next week. In our view, the collective submissions of these semi-finalists constitute the best overall collection of films in the history of the film festival. In addition to the semi-finalists, a number of young filmmakers were notified that their films were accepted as contenders for our Young Filmmakers Award.

More details to follow.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 19, 2007 | Permalink

Shelby Kennedy was a bright shining light in the Church of Jesus Christ and a favorite daughter of the San Antonio community. Her effervescent spirit, overflowing love of Christ, passion for the Word of God and honor to her mother and father was a model of biblical womanhood. For several years she was a member of the congregation of which I am part, and those who loved her dearly miss her. Shelby is now with the Lord Jesus in Heaven, but her legacy lives on through a new organization dedicated to promoting Bible literacy in America.

The Shelby Kennedy Foundation will sponsor a National Bible Bee for children 7-18, and is seeking an Executive Director to oversee the ‘Bible Bee.’ The Shelby Kennedy Foundation partners with Patrick Henry College and other organizations to expand youths’ knowledge of the Holy Bible through Scripture memorization. Click here to find out more information.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 18, 2007 | Permalink

May the Lord bless you and keep you, this week and always.
—From the families of Vision Forum

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 17, 2007 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 13, 2007 | Permalink

Four thousand friends from around the nation will be gathering in Fort Lauderdale, Florida today at noon to bid final farewell to the most beloved Dr. D. James Kennedy. His unforgettable, mellifluous voice which so often proclaimed uncompromising truth to the nation will be long remembered. And as previously noted, his departure from this earth leaves a gaping leadership hole in the American Evangelical landscape. It is appropriate that Dr. Jim Dobson—perhaps the other most influential Evangelical figure of the late 20th century—will be delivering the keynote eulogy.

Make sure to visit this beautiful site celebrating the life of such a courageous man. You can watch the funeral service live from here.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 13, 2007 | Permalink

This year, the SAICFF appears to have received the best selection of films to date since our founding in 2004. But only one will go home with the $10,000 Jubilee Award.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 13, 2007 | Permalink

Bill Einwechter observes:

When we consider the radical nature of feminism and its agenda to overthrow the family that is structured after the biblical model, we would be wise to pause and ponder how successful the feminists have been in remaking the family according to their own design. The fact is that, in Western society, feminism has been enormously successful in destroying the traditional family. The feminization of the family has already taken place! By the “feminization of the family” we mean the remaking of the family according to the beliefs and goals of feminism. This feminization has occurred in the last thirty years and with little opposition from men. Men have fallen away in fear at feminist charges of sexism, repression, tyranny, and exploitation, as a coward would wither before the charge of a determined enemy on the battlefield. Nothing seems to have terrified men more than the angry glare and words of feminist ideologues.

Read his important article on the subject.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2007 | Permalink

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 9, 2007 | Permalink

Filmmakers Anna and Elizabeth Botkin offer this delightful and controversial clip from Mrs. Jennie Chancey, mother of eight children and hostess of Ladies Against Feminism.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 8, 2007 | Permalink

“All the chastity they [Nuns] pretend is nothing before God, in comparison of that that he hath appointed, that is to say, that albeit it seem but a vile thing, and a matter of none account, for a woman to take pains about housewifery, to make clean her children when they be arrayed, to kill fleas, and other such like, although this be a thing despised, yea and such, that many will not vouchsafe to look upon it, yet are they sacrifices which GOD accepteth & receiveth, as if they were things of great price and honourable.

Therefore let women study this lesson day and night that first of all they may play the housewives: and if women were the most negligent in the world, yet is there here matter enough to awaken them, and to correct this idleness. And how? If we take pains, we serve GOD, and not men. Again, when a man seeth his wife employ herself all the day long to do her duty, let him also consider whereunto God hath called him, that he also for his part may do his duty. For a man is not born to idleness, nor a woman.

Therefore...let women cast their eyes hither, for there is occasion enough to correct their slothfulness, when they shall see that the question is of serving God. And how? When they fall to kneading (as the proverb is) and apply themselves to good use, & flee not the subjection which God hath set them in: for this is to strive against GOD, when a man doth not follow his vocation, which is our true rule, that is to say, that that we have to do, & what God appointeth every one of us, according to the state, whereunto he is called. Therefore let women have this mark to shoot at, & say, well, although the world have no regard of me, yet must I find myself occupied here, for so God commandeth me. And thus much touching the first, how women have to take occasion to be diligent: and moreover also they have to consider, that when they do their duty and execute their office, God accepteth well of it, although men despise it.”

Read more.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 8, 2007 | Permalink

A husband and father is the head of his household, a family leader, provider, and protector, with the authority and mandate to direct his household in paths of obedience to God. (Gen. 18:19; Eph. 5:22 - 6:4) A man’s authority in the home should be exercised with gentleness, grace, and love as a servant-leader, following the example of Jesus Christ. Leadership is a stewardship from God. (Ps. 103:13; Mal. 3:17; Matt. 11:29-30; Col. 3:21; 1 Pet. 3:7) The authority of fathers is limited by the law of God and the lawful authority of church and state. Christian fathers cannot escape the jurisdiction of church and state and must be subject to both. (Rom. 13:1ff.; Eph. 5:21; 6:4; Heb. 13:17; 1 Pet. 2:13ff.) Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy

The Bible rejects the egalitarian doctrine of feminism. It expressly teaches hierarchy within the home, including the servant-like, Christ-honoring leadership of fathers. It expressly teaches differences of roles and responsibilities between men and women (although there are many areas of overlap). (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22-24; Col. 3:18; Tit. 2:5; 1 Pet. 3:1-6)

The Bible does not, however, teach (a) the subjugation of women under the oppression of men; (b) the right of parents to brutalize or dominate children; or (c) the inferiority of women to men.

Nor does the Bible teach or encourage the notion that (a) women are barred from Christian ministry; (b) that the mind of a woman is inferior to that of a man; or (c) that women should not benefit from advanced training and higher education.

Yet the fact that there are no orthodox Evangelical ministries or preachers of note (of whom I am aware) who teach such things does not prevent immature, hateful, or merely misguided individuals from leveling all sorts of fantastical and sometimes humorous charges against ministries who fight for the biblical family and hold to historical Reformation views of male leadership within the church and home. (See the The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy, Marriage and Family in John Calvin’s Geneva, The Role of Women in the Church, An Exegetical Defense of Women as Keepers at Home, Making Wise Decisions About College and Life After Home School, The Blessed Marriage, Discipline: The Biblical Doctrine, etc., etc., etc.)

We at Vision Forum have raised serious objections to: (1) the working-woman philosophy of the late 20th century; (2) the cultural depravity of the modern university; (3) the feministic philosophy of the anti-complementarian, pro-egalitarian household leadership; (4) the culture of death and self-gratification, with its emphasis on closing the fruitful womb; and (5) attempts by liberals or vendetta-driven individuals to viciously mock fruitful mothers as baby machines, etc.

While raising these objections, we have also discussed and published material addressing: (1) alternatives to traditional college for both men and women; (2) the importance of cultivating the minds of both men and women to the fullest (for example, training both to be vigorous entrepreneurs); (4) the necessity of holding abusive husbands (and wives) accountable through the local church; and (5) the biblical imperative that men act nobly and sacrificially for women and children first. (See So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God, The Wise Woman’s Guide to Blessing her Husband’s Vision, Strength and Dignity for Daughters, Defending the Fatherless: How the Body of Christ Can Help Single Mothers, Suffer the Children: The Blessing of Imperfect Children, Raising Maidens of Virtue, etc., etc., etc.)

These positions may be distasteful to some, but they are neither novel nor innovative.

Furthermore, we have stood with those men and women who are part of the growing chorus of concerned Christians who are exposing the deception perpetrated by “Christian” leftists, Marxists and/or feminists of many shades, as well as Internet assassins, dishonorable tale-bearing gossips and blog gangsters who have unscrupulously attempted to silence real debate and lodge their opposition by aggressively bringing a false witness against defenders of biblical principles of patriarchy and by attributing to them views which they do not believe and attitudes which they detest, as part of an effort to objectify individuals by painting Christian mothers as mindless drones and fathers as wife-denigrating tyrants.

Such behavior is nothing new to Bible-based reformation movements. Within the last fifty years alone we have seen similar tactics lodged against six-day-creationists, home educators, advocates of the fruitful womb and parents concerned about the modern birth control ethic, and others seeking to recapture the historical biblical principles of orthodoxy and orthopraxy embraced by Church fathers and Reformers alike.

And we believe that the message of Scripture is as true and applicable today as it was when the words were first penned by divine inspiration:

These six things doth the LORD hate; yea, seven are an abomination unto him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

But Christ’s message is not merely condemnation for the sowers of discord, the gossip-mongers, and the dividers of the brethren. Scripture exhorts a holy boldness for every mother and father who must endure the revilings of the Sandballats and Tobiahs (Nehemiah 4:1-7) of their day, while they as visionary parents seek to rebuild the walls of their family for the glory and honor of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Gospel message:

Be not ye afraid of them: remember the LORD, which is great and terrible, and fight for your brethren, your sons, and your daughters, your wives, and your houses. (Nehemiah 4:14)

Towards the Self-Government of Our Collective Tongues

Cults do exist. They are wretched abominations, which rightly should be denounced. But if people are going to raise the “C” word publicly, they had best be prepared to defend such a charge before the world, and if found guilty of defaming a legitimate work of Christ, they must be prepared to face the consequences which are rightly due to those who divide brethren and slander the servants of the Lord. Doug’s Blog, August, 2005

I wrote that comment more than two years ago, and I stand by it today. I stand by it because as a former attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, I have defended parents whose families and basic parental rights have been placed in jeopardy by reckless, talebearers who throw around such language before the world. (I watched innocent mothers and fathers undergo tremendous persecution at the hands of professing Christians who believed that it was weird and cultic to home educate.) I stand by it because, as Geoff Botkin pointed out, it is the tool of “infantile Christians” to send those brothers with whom they differ to the coliseums of the 21st century. I stand by it because one need only watch the news to see the comparisons that some in the Press are trying to make between Christians who teach role distinctions between men and women and militant extremist groups like the Taliban. Nor do we have to think hard to remember at least one case where American children were sent to their deaths by the Clinton administration because their parents were part of real cult groups.

Finally, I stand by my statement of more than two years ago because our ministry receives too many reports of mothers and fathers who are mocked, belittled, and accused of being “cultic” by fellow Christians, because these parents home school by conviction, or actively desire the fruit of the womb, or spank their children, or educate their college-age daughters at home instead of thousands of miles away at a defiling university, or embrace courtship and betrothal over the dating model when it comes to their children’s marriages, or believe men should be leaders in the church and the home, etc., etc..

This brings me to the heart of the article before you:

For all of the above reasons, I applaud men like Dr. Brian Abshire who help the Christian public understand the tactics of “infantile Christians” who lightly use the “C” word to discredit those Christians with whom they personally disagree.

I applaud him for many reasons, one of which is Geoff Botkin’s point: If men like Dr. Abshire do not take the time to address the reckless public name-calling of undisciplined, professing Christians, tension within the Body of Christ is likely to escalate. If the Body of Christ does not learn to control our collective tongues and be a self-governing household of God for the glory of Jesus Christ, there could be very hard days ahead of us. History is replete with stories of the inhumanity of professing Christians against professing Christians. It may very well be that the immature or unscrupulous “Christians” — filled with self-righteousness, intolerant of differences that clearly fall within the pale of orthodoxy — will be the ones who pave the way for a new wave of statist tyranny and destructive family intervention. And if the Lord is merciful, and none of this ever happens, we would be foolish to believe that there will be no spiritual consequences on a Church so immature that the viciousness among professing members towards each other exceeds anything directed at the world itself.

Dr. Brian Abshire Helps Christian Students, Parents, and Pastors Model a Charitable Response to Tale-Bearers and False Accusers of the Brethren

Enter Dr. Brian Abshire — pastor of Highlands Reformed Presbyterian Church.

Dr. Abshire recognizes that the plague of talebearing is a heartache to the Church, and that those who use the Internet to traffic in tale-bearing, as well as those who receive the tale-bearing, are guilty of breaking the Ninth Commandment.

He finds especially distasteful talebearers who use words like “cult” or “cultic” as a fear-mongering tactic and to attack the credibility of ministries, mothers, fathers, and pastors who reject feminism and hold to historic Reformation doctrines of the family. In fact, he finds their behavior sufficiently distasteful that he has authored a devastating response to one of them.

In the course of his article, Dr. Abshire defends himself, Vision Forum Ministries, and, indirectly, innocent men and women who embrace the same principles of family leadership, honor, and generational faithfulness advocated by the Reformers and embodied in documents like this.

In my view, Dr. Abshire’s article is a charitable, logical, and an accurate response to an individual who has set aside fundamental rules of brotherly conduct and journalistic integrity to traffic in accusations which are characterized by imprecision and falsehood.

And because this sort of behavior is becoming so very commonplace — especially on the Internet — articles like this are instructive. Dr. Abshire has given parents, pastors, and students a helpful model of how to respond to reckless, uncharitable, ungoverned Christian brothers who err by using the Internet and other means to bring a false witness against their neighbor in violation of the Ninth Commandment.

Specifically, Dr. Abshire’s rebuttal is quite instructive because he exposes the numerous basic fallacies, errors in logic, research omissions, unbrotherly conduct, lack of elementary principles of academic and journalistic integrity, and outright falsehoods employed by an individual who was unwilling to retract his accusations after being confronted in writing and verbally. And Dr. Abshire makes his case with manly firmness, but genuine Christian charity, ever willing to give the benefit of the doubt to an accuser who was most certainly not willing to do the same for him.

Below are just a few samples of the categories addressed by Dr. Abshire in his response:

Dr. Abshire on Equating Personal Differences with Cultic Teaching

...you declare Christian brothers to be teaching “false doctrine” when in reality, they are simply teaching something that you may not personally believe. You then imply that they are “cultic” using a pejorative term that you deliberately associate with heretics and false religion. This is NOT fair, equitable or honest; it is propaganda — it is the straw man argument. Simply because YOU disagree with an interpretation of the Scriptures (and as will be shown later, an “application” of the Scriptures) does not necessarily mean that those who propose it are “false teachers.”

Dr. Abshire on Accusation without Attestation

...most of your essay makes accusations without attestation; in other words, you SAY that someone believes “such and such” but provide no actual quotes from essays, articles, lectures, books, etc., where the person actually makes such statements. And since when you DO actually make an attribution, as in the case of my unnamed essay and you leave out important qualifying statements or ignore the context, it leaves me wondering just how accurately you have represented other people’s views.

Abshire on Talebearing, the “C” Word, and Willful Misrepresentation

You take statements out of context, ignore qualifying statements that actually DENY what you say we believe and implicitly call us “cultic” when our views are Right Square in the middle of historic Christian orthodoxy. I am afraid that I must say that it appears you either did not understand the issues, or you deliberately misrepresented our views for some reason...My point is that you declare Christian brothers to be teaching “false doctrine” when in reality, they are simply teaching something that you may not personally believe. You then imply that they are “cultic” using a pejorative term that you deliberately associate with heretics and false religion.

Dr. Abshire on the Duty to Perform Basic Research

There is a recurring problem in your essay; a failure to do basic research...It is basic scholarship that if a statement is controversial, especially critiquing another person’s view, you MUST show that this is what the person actually said. This you fail to do throughout your essay.

Dr. Abshire on the Misrepresentation of Actual Citations

...you write, ‘...women cannot be trusted as decision makers but are at their best when micro-managed by their fathers or husbands.’ You then give a long quote which has NOTHING to do with your assessment. The quote simply does not say what you said it says. In fact, the quote rejects autonomy, especially in regards to a girl following her ‘heart’ and affirms her trust in her father to help her make decisions on some basis other than emotions. Nowhere does this quotation imply, necessarily or otherwise that fathers are to “micro-mange” their daughters or that women are not trusted to make decisions on their own...Therefore, the question becomes this; if when you DO give an actual citation, your assessment is clearly contrary to fact, how can anyone trust your assessments when you do not provide the citations? You either horribly misunderstood the quotation, or you deliberately misrepresented it.

Dr. Abshire on Historic Doctrines vs. Modern Feminist Assumptions

...the view that you propose here is at best about forty years old, originating in Liberal universities and mainline theological seminaries in the late 1960’s and filtering into evangelical ones in the 1970’s...

Dr. Abshire on Tale Bearing, the “C” Word, and the Duty of False Accusers to Repent

Will you repent of your false accusations, or maintain them? Please remember-this is not an attack against you... you have publicly accused us of being cultic and teachers of false doctrine... If we do not believe it, then you have born false witness against us, breaking the Ninth Commandment and slandering the brethren. Therefore, you need to recant here, publicly and confess your sin to your readers.

The War against 1900 Years of Established Church Orthodoxy

Multi-generational faithfulness is not a new concept. Male leadership in the family, church, and state is not a new concept (Ex 18:21ff; Prov. 31:23; 1 Cor. 11:3ff; Eph. 5:23). Biblical femininity(Prov. 31; Eph. 5:22-24; 1Tim. 2:9ff), women as “keepers at home” (Titus 2:5ff) and helpmeets to their husbands is not a new concept. The duty of fathers to protect their daughters until they are “given in marriage”(Dt. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:37-38) is not a new concept. The importance of seeking the Lord for children as His reward is not a new concept(Ps. 127:1-5). All of these are important elements of principles of biblical patriarchy.

These are not new concepts, nor are they concepts rooted in cultural traditions or pagan precedents. We maintain that they are exegetically defensible, biblical concepts rooted in the creation order itself, communicated through the dominion mandate and subsequent law revelations of God, and reflective of His transcendent character and eternal righteousness.

And the weight of church history and biblical scholarship favors these understandings.

Critics of these principles who claim to be Christian within the historical Reformation tradition, but who don’t want to be called “feminist,” have their work cut out for them. Because, in the end, they have to pick a fight with scholars and teachers far more astute than most of the best ones alive today: They have to pick a fight with the likes of John Calvin, John Knox, Martin Luther, and Martin Bucer— just to name a few. (Frankly, the positions adovcated by Vision Forum Ministries are mild and tempered compared to some of the conclusions advocated by these men.)

But these critics appear disinclined to do so. At least no credible individuals have done so to date. True, there is a spate of liberal university scholarship arguing for an anti-hierarchical, anti-patriarchal, anti-complementarian, pro-egalitarian view of Scripture. (And much of it follows the rules of civil dialogue and discourse.) But most of these individuals do not claim to be within the pale of the historic, conservative, reformation or evangelical tradition. They are liberals, and they are honest about that fact. They are honest about their feminism. Some of them are even excellent scholars — like Gordon Fee (Author of numerous books on evangelical feminism). I just happen to disagree with them.

My criticism goes out to those who pretend to be neither feminist, nor liberals, but who have adopted the premises of both and who resort to the type of disreputable tactics, which Dr. Abshire has rightly censured. These are the half-cocked and sometimes agenda-driven commentators. From such we have come to expect an avoidance of documented, confirmable facts, in favor of ad hominum attacks, caricature, and whopper stories which appear designed to present as freaks and cultic those proponents of family reformation who sympathize with the type of ideas summarized in the first paragraph of this article.

At this point, more and more people realize that there is a big difference between a sloppy diatribe, on the one hand, and a real argument marshaled by reputable sources who have done their homework, on the other. Brian Abshire’s exhaustive refutation of an episode of serious talebearing demonstrates that people who resort to shadowy tactics have disqualified themselves from the right to be taken seriously — at least until they clean up their act and turn over a new leaf.

Dr. Abshire’s article accomplishes one other important goal: It brings encouragement to fathers and sons, moms and daughters committed to family reformation — and there are many — who have been subject to unfair harassment or vicious talebearing. It should encourage them, not only because of his charitable spirit and reasoned argumentation, but because his article is a sign of what can be — reasoned, brotherly discourse for the glory of God.

Click here to view the article.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 6, 2007 | Permalink

Once again, the Christian community has lost a giant of the Faith. Dr. D. James Kennedy died at his home just after 2:00 a.m. this morning. His wife and daughter were beside him. He was 76.

More than anything, Dr. Kennedy must be remembered as a preacher of the Gospel and of Christ crucified. But he was also one of the men who left the most significant and lasting influences on the Church in America during the last quarter of the twentieth century. He was the thinking man’s preacher. His messages were well researched, timely, substantial, exegetically sound, and controversial. And though he was not a headline-maker, his preaching reached millions and helped to transform the culture. In fact, before there was a “Religious Right,” Dr. Kennedy was active espousing a solid historical, constitutional, and Christian view of law and liberty.

It has been a great privilege of the Phillips family to know Dr. Kennedy as a friend since the mid-1970s, and I am personally grateful for the opportunities he provided me to appear multiple times on his radio program, Truths that Transform, and to preach from his pulpit at Coral Ridge as a visiting adjunct professor of apologetics with the Institute for Creation Research’s Back to Genesis conference. But my deepest gratitude is for the kindness Dr. Kennedy demonstrated both privately and professionally to my father, Howard Phillips, who co-labored with him in the cause of Christ through many important battles of the 1970s, ’80s, and ’90s.

A Defender of Orthodoxy and a Cultural Warrior for Christ

Dr. Kennedy was unflappable, unflinching, and unwilling to back down from the most important fights of the day. Three examples come to mind:

First, more than any other widely-recognized pulpit preacher of the last twenty-five years, Dr. Kennedy championed the cause of Young Earth, Six-Day Creationism. He recognized the importance of Genesis to every facet of the Christian’s worldview, and he wrote books, preached sermons, and launched ministries, the purpose of which were to affirm the literal, grammatical, historical approach to the book of beginnings and to refute creation compromises.

Second, Dr. Kennedy was an ardent defender of the Christian origins of the United States and a providential interpretation of American history. On a personal note, our staff was deeply touched by the vigorous support we received from the staff of Dr. Kennedy for the Jamestown Quadricentennial: A Celebration of Our Providential History, sponsored by Vision Forum Ministries. While Dr. Kennedy was convalescing and unable to take part personally, the response of his well-trained team was this: “We knew that this is a project that Dr. Kennedy would have been a part of.” Consequently, Jerry Newcombe, co-author of George Washington’s Sacred Fire, and videographer for Coral Ridge Ministries, brought their film team to the event, and produced a special on Jamestown that aired on national television in July as part of the Coral Ridge Hour TV program.

Third, Dr. Kennedy was willing to stand with those who were persecuted for righteousness’ sake within the public square. Notably, the ministry of Dr. D. James Kennedy was among the first to defend and fight alongside former Chief Justice Roy Moore when he refused to remove the Ten Commandments Monument from the Alabama Supreme Court Building; and later, when he was ejected from office for upholding his judicial oath in opposition to an unlawful order, Dr. Kennedy continued to champion his cause. And Dr. Kennedy’s support for Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Moore was substantial. He understood both the scriptural and the legal issues involved and used his ministry to explain them to the nation in print, on the airwaves, and through film.

Dr. Kennedy also played a significant role promoting and popularizing Reformed theology, especially as it applies to the priority that Christians embrace the greatness of the Great Commission which includes a full-orbed vision of the Christian faith and the mandate to teach “all things whatsoever I have commanded” (Matthew 28:30). He certainly believed that the Word of God and the Lordship of Jesus Christ apply to every area of life, and he launched numerous important ministries and schools designed to advance this understanding.

The Impact of Dr. Kennedy’s Life on Families and Leaders

Today, I called my staff together to discuss the passing of Dr. Kennedy. It was thrilling to hear testimony after testimony of how this one man’s ministry affected each of them and their extended families. The stories were significant. Several of the young men on my staff noted that Dr. Kennedy’s preaching had been formulative in the thinking and spiritual growth of their parents, and that as young men, they remembered listening to his messages.

Many of today’s leaders were profoundly and personally influence by Dr. Kennedy. My good friend Alan Sears, president of the Alliance Defense Fund, is one. He made this comment:

Dr. Kennedy is one of my personal heroes... He is a man of unquestioned integrity, great moral courage and vision. As a co-founder of ADF, he has been a constant source of godly wisdom and service to me. His life and testimony have had an incredible impact upon so many people for the Kingdom of God, and he is an example to us all of a good and faithful servant.

I especially appreciate the words of his daughter: “There are all kinds of wonderful things I could say about my dad,” remarked Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy. “But one that stands out is his fine example. He ‘walked the walk’ and ‘practiced what he preached.’ His work for Christ is lasting — it will go on and on and make a difference for eternity.”

A Personal Account

I have two personal memories which really stand out: The first occurred during the Inauguration of President George Bush, Sr. On that occasion, I was serving as a driver for Dr. Billy Graham, whom I had just dropped off at the Capitol to give the Inaugural prayer. Washington was abuzz that day, and crowds were everywhere, but I saw a tall man sprinting across the parking lot behind the Capitol building. It was Dr. Kennedy. I called out to him. He stopped dead in his tracks and kindly took the time to visit with me, inquiring about my mother and father. It was a small thing, but I was impressed with the personalism and charity of this great man.

The second special memory occurred after I was given the honor of delivering a series of messages on Genesis from Dr. Kennedy’s pulpit. After the messages, he invited me to his office; and later we sat in the sanctuary and spent a happy, intense thirty minutes discussing apologetic methodology in the context of the creation debate. It was a great blessing, and it confirmed what my father has always said about Dr. Kennedy: namely, that his intensity for the truth is as personal as it is professional.

Another Great Leader Has Left Us

This year, two of the most influential conservative Christian religious figures of the twentieh century have gone on to Eternity. The first was Dr. Jerry Falwell, and the second, Dr. Kennedy. Others may soon follow. Only the Lord knows.

But we can be sure of one thing: We will either take inventory of the great work of the Lord through the lives of these men, and begin to chart a course of vision, hope, and leadership for the twenty-first century; or an important message will be lost, and the Church in America may be relegated to something even worse then persecution — mediocrity and irrelevance. Dr. D. James Kennedy understood the nature of the battle. He dedicated his life to fighting for the Lordship of Christ. We would be well-served to embrace the best examples of this from his illustrious legacy.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2007 | Permalink

“And if men say, ‘what is this? A woman playeth the housewife, she spinneth on her distaff, and this is all that women can do.’ As in deed there are a number of fools that when they speak of women’s distaffs, of seeing to their children, will make a scorn of it, and despise it. But what then? What saith the heavenly Judge? That he is well pleased with it, and accepteth of it, and putteth it in his reckoning. So then let women learn to rejoice when they do their duty, and though the world despise it, let this comfort sweeten all respect they might have that way, and say, ‘God seeth me here, and his Angels, who are sufficient witnesses of my doings, although the world do not allow of them.’”[i]

[i] As recorded in A Sermon of Master John Caluine, upon the first Epistle of Paul, to Timothie, published for the benefite and edifying of the Churche of God (London: G. Bishop and T. Woodcoke, 1579), excerpted from Calvin’s sermon on 1 Timothy 2:13-15.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 5, 2007 | Permalink

I was delighted to receive word today that our manufacturer will soon be done with a special gift we are making for those individuals who achieved the Order of the Jamestown 400. The gift has been in the works for a long time, and we understand that it will be completed and back in our office by the end of the month, at which time we will send it and some other goodies out to our faithful sleuths. Praise the Lord for each of you.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 4, 2007 | Permalink

“Who puts that system together that says you leave your home for four years..and you get your ticket punched...That [breaking with that system] was the next part of the journey that led to our commitment to Jasmine’s education...not schooling...but her education...something that we oversaw and superintended, all the way through. A lot of people mistake it to mean we are against education for women...nothing could be further from the truth. She is more educated now than I was when I graduated from college...easily...She now serves as my research assistant...and is getting a tremendous education through that process...and we are preparing her for something bigger than getting her ticket punched at the university...She has grasped this multi-generational vision and wants to be a faithful daughter to her father, and a faithful wife and mother to her husband and to her children, and to her children’s children.” Dr. Voddie Baucham

Is There Something Better for the Daughters of Zion?

For more than a decade, a growing number of parents have been asking the question: Is college best for my sons? For my daughters? Many home educating parents have asked: “Should the philosophy of mentoring and discipleship which undergirds home education inform my approach to higher education?”

There are hundreds of reasons cited by parents as to why they are rethinking the question of university education. Here are a few: (1) The expense; (2) The moral bankruptcy of the typical college environment; and (3) The inadequacy of the education itself.

In my view, the education crisis in America is an example of “they meant it for evil, but God meant it for good.” The detestable nature of modern education has been used of the Lord to spark revival and reformation of church and home. It has forced Christians to go back to the drawing board and ask fundamental questions like these:

• “What is a distinctively biblical philosophy of education?”
• “What are the true goals of education?”
• “What are the wisest tactics for implementing a distinctively biblical approach to equipping our sons and daughters for success in Christ?”
• “How do our biblical priorities for raising feminine, noble, intelligent, entrepreneurial, virtuous daughters inform our approach to higher education?”

This last question is especially controversial. It is controversial because Christians have largely embraced the presuppositions of modern feminism which blur biblical distinctions between the sexes—distinctions rooted in the creation order itself.

Whether it’s the acceptance of girl soldiers on the field of battle, lady pastors in the pulpit, or couples that largely reflect the domineering women and weak-minded men of Isaiah 3—this toxic, feminist revolution has poisoned the Church and infected it with a theology of gender virtually unheard of for the better part of the last two millennia of church history.

Dr. Baucham on Why His Daughter Will Not Be Going To College, and Why She is Far Better Educated Because of It

Enter Dr. Voddie Baucham.

Voddie is a dynamic Southern Baptist preacher who has encouraged many through his personal ministry, his bold stands in the Southern Baptist Convention against government school education, and his important messages at Vision Forum’s National Conference for Uniting Church and Family on the dangers of youth-driven church life and the importance of a family-integrated, multi-generational culture built on the biblical model of family life (see The Centrality of the Home in Evangelism and Discipleship, and Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy).

Now Voddie joins other Christian leaders and laymen as part of a controversial, groundbreaking documentary from Anna and Elizabeth Botkin, the ladies who gave us So Much More. Their new film, Return of the Daughters, rejects the sacred cows of feminism in favor of a presuppositionally biblical approach to training noble, intelligent, and virtuous Christian daughters of the 21st century. Voddie argues that the biblical approach produces women of higher education, opportunity, and virtue than the cultural counterpart. A clip of Voddie’s helpful observations from Return of the Daughters can be found here.

Thinking Creatively About Higher Education

For many years, ministries like Vision Forum have been urging parents to think afresh, by asking the types of questions raised by Voddie in Return of the Daughters.

We have, for example, advocated the proposition that parents consider a wide range of alternatives to traditional college. My tape series “Making Wise Decisions About College and Life After Homeschool,” takes the position that there is no one-size-fits all approach to higher education for our sons and daughters, that there are are important areas of overlap as well as areas of differences in the educational objectives of men and women, but that both men and women should be fully prepared, trained, and educated for the glory of God. I raise these concerns because, in my view, the majority of Christians approach the “who, what, when, why, where, and how” of higher education blindly. They are either handicapped by false notions that a college degree is a prerequisite for success, or they unwisely abandon altogether the importance of post-high school education. My goal in this controversial compact disc set is to clear away the intellectual and factual debris and to open a path for parents to use clear biblical analysis to determine whether college is a wise choice for their child. I take a hard look at the realities of the college classroom and culture and examine the strengths and weaknesses of various alternatives to college.

Because there are simply too many unique fact-specific circumstances and issues which should inform a Christian’s decision making, our focus has been on helping others to ask the right questions—to build their grid—and not on coming up with our own one-size-fits all approach. In my view, the battle is won or lost at the level of presuppositions. We must ask the right questions. To quote my father: “If you don’t know where you are going, any train will get you there.”

The beauty of the analysis of Christians like Voddie and others featured in Return of the Daughters is that it gives Christians an insight into the wonderful potential for family reformation that can occur when they begin to ask the right questions!

The Feminist Dilemma

One consequence of the view advocated by Dr. Baucham, or those espoused by Vision Forum Ministries, is that egalitarians and feminists of all different stripes hate it.

They really, really hate it.

They hate it because it does not fit into their little box. In their little box, people fall into one of two categories: There are reasonable, open-minded, thinking folks who want to end all forms of hierarchy and role distinctives within the family, church, and society. And then there are domineering, close-minded, wife-belittling “patriarchalists” who view women as doormats and chattle, disregard the intelligence of daughters, and oppose their higher education.

The idea that wives and daughters could be highly esteemed, highly educated, equal with men before the Lord, fully equipped as agents of societal transformation for Christ, but functionally and practically different from men, is largely incomprehensible to those who have been infected by feminism. An intelligent, wise, esteemed, entrepreneurial, dominion-oriented, keeper of the home, distinctively feminine woman of God does not fit into their feministic grids.

And that is one reason why the whole key to the type of argument martialled by “Christian” feminists of various stripes against biblical patriarchy is rooted in caricature, mockery, scorn, and the perpetual building of strawmen. Lacking arguments rooted in Scriptural logic or fact-intensive analysis of their opponent’s view, they often attempt to turn family reformers into objects of derision, scorn, and hatred—to objectify them (the very thing feminists rightly hate that men often wrongly do to women).

No doubt, that is precisely what the feministas will attempt against Dr. Baucham and the Botkin ladies as news of this groundbreaking documentary continues to spread, ultimately reaching about one-in-forty American homes later this year. In the end, however, I believe the power of the arguments presented by these anti-feminists will win the day. And the precious, Gospel-transformed testimonies of the fathers and daughters united will bring hope to many who are tired of walking in the filth of the sacred cows of feminism.

Cooking the Sacred Cows

The priests and priestesses of the 21st century would have us believe that the most sacred of our cultural holy cows come from the temples of feminism.

One such sacred cow is the notion that truly enlightened, responsible Christian parents should mortgage their homes to send their daughters to the carnival culture of college, to live for four years in co-ed dormitories, and under the tutelage of Babylonian high priests called professors, so that these blood-bought daughters can aspire to become the next generation of independent working women of the world. Another sacred cow is the notion that people either believe in sending daughters to college or they are small-minded, anti-education, woman-dominating bigots.

Incredibly, these mad-cow disease-infected sacred bovines of modern feminism have left the dung fields of their secular temple culture and have migrated in herds to the living rooms of our Christian community. There they dwell—mooing, snorting, and wreaking havoc on the peace of the Body of Christ.

Dr. Voddie Baucham, Anna and Elizabeth Botkin, Vision Forum Ministries, and thousands of Christians from around the country have reached the conclusion that the time has come to clean house and hold a barbeque. Return of the Daughters should prove to be a veritable banquet.

Out with the sacred cows of feminism! In with the holy daughters of Zion!

Return of the Daughters will premiere during the week of the Christian Filmmakers Academy and the San Antonio independent Christian Film Festival.

Posted by Doug Phillips on September 1, 2007 | Permalink