The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Lawyer for ‘Patriarchy’ Pervert Says Accuser ‘Is Just After a Paycheck’

Posted on | April 19, 2014 | 34 Comments

Doug Phillips and his wife Beall (left); Lourdes Torres (right)

The Doug Phillips sex scandal has reached a new low, now that the disgraced homeschooling leader and “biblical patriarchy” advocate has unleashed his lawyer to smear Phillips’ accuser Lourdes Torres-Manteufel as a dishonest money-grubber:

Long time home schooling leader and former Boerne church official Doug Phillips is fighting back today against allegations raised by his former nanny that he ‘groomed her to be his sex object.’
“This more seems like an attempt to kill a Christian movement than it does just as an attack against Doug Phillips,” Jason Jakob, who is Phillips’ attorney, tells 1200 WOAI’s Michael Board. . . .
“Mr. Phillips was gone all the time with vision Forum ministries,” he says. “He is not a pastor who would be with her on a daily basis.”
Jakob says Torres “is just after a paycheck.”

This attack on Torres is part of a pattern with Phillips: He claims that criticism of his actions are attacks on Christian belief, and threatens legal action against his critics. You can read how Phillips had his attorney send a disillusioned church member a letter threatening legal action for slander, libel and blackmail in 2006. I also strongly urge you to go read this article at World Magazine — be sure to read all four pages — which describes how Phillips threatened legal action against Peter Bradrick, Jordan Muela, and Bob Renaud, three Christian colleagues who attempted to hold him accountable.

That article points out that Phillips did not threaten Rev. Joe Morecraft, another pastor who sought to hold him accountable, for which I suggest a simple and obvious explanation: He wouldn’t dare.

People who know Rev. Morecraft will tell you he is a mighty man of God, one of the most respected Calvinist preachers in America. Doug Phillips could not possibly win a showdown with Morecraft. So the silence of Phillips in that regard is quite telling: Doug Phillips is a bully, who only picks fights with people he views as vulnerable. This fits with the narrative of Phillips’ behavior alleged in Lourdes Torres-Manteufel’s lawsuit, and in the telling of the scandal by other informed sources.

It is by no means surprising that these “other informed sources” are critics of the “patriarchy”/”quiverfull” doctrines that Phillips advocated, even though one might discern that (a) there are other advocates of the same doctrine who have not been stained by scandal, and (b) Phillips’ alleged behavior is similar to sexual abuse cases involving many other offenders, including lesbian hockey coach Heidi Ferber. Good luck blaming that scandal on “biblical patriarchy” doctrine.

What did Phillips (allegedly) do? You can read the sordid details: “Douglas Phillips used Ms. Torres . . . as a personal sex object. . . . Douglas Phillips repeatedly groped, rubbed, and touched Ms. Torres’s crotch, breasts, and other areas of her body; rubbed his penis on her; masturbated on her; forced her to watch him masturbate on her; and ejaculated upon her,” et cetera.

The question that arises is, “How did Phillips convince her to tolerate this?” And the answer is rather simple: He groomed her, he took advantage of his leadership status to impress her, he isolated her in a situation where she was vulnerable to his influence and, perhaps worst of all, he strung her along with a false promise of marriage. Here we will quote “other informed sources”:

Doug told Victim they were soul mates. He told her he loved her and had promised they’d eventually get married and have children together. During these years, the relationship with Victim ebbed and flowed. Doug worked very hard at keeping prospective courters away from his victim. Victim also affirmed her affections towards Phillips.

You see? If the “biblical patriarchy” movement is to survive this scandal, young Christian ladies need to be warned to avoid any man who speaks this “soul mate” language, especially any married man who tries to justify an adulterous relationship with such language.

What should outrage Christians — especially homeschooling adherents of “patriarchy” and “quiverfull” doctrines — is how this married man allegedly manipulated this girl, discouraging potential suitors, so as to keep her romantically available for himself.

This beautiful young woman, who might have long since married and had children of her own, was instead (allegedly) kept in a condition of romantic limbo because of Phillips’ sinful and deceptive manipulation, so that she only married this month at age 29.

Never mind whether Lourdes Torres “affirmed her affections toward Phillips.” There’s an old country song about that:

It wasn’t God who made honky-tonk angels,
As you wrote in the words of your song.
Too many times married men think they’re still single.
That has caused many a good girl to go wrong.

Sure, it takes two to tango, and if Lourdes Torres developed some kind of crush on Doug Phillips, she wouldn’t be the first “good girl” to make herself vulnerable by admiring a married man. However, Doug Phillips was a grown-up, a married father in a position of authority and influence and, rather than avoiding this temptation, he seems to have become pathologically obsessed with the girl.

What the Doug Phillips scandal has done is to expose all Christian conservative traditionalists to renewed accusations that their doctrines of marriage and family life are aimed at wrongfully oppressing and exploiting women. As someone who has been fighting against feminist propaganda on almost a daily basis lately, I take this kind of embarrassment quite personally  The one thing a Christian conservative leader should never do is give Amanda Marcotte an excuse to gloat.

Not only is Marcotte gloating over Phillips’ downfall, but she’s even trying to drag the Duggar family down with him:

Amanda Marcotte just couldn’t resist a dirty jab at the Duggars.
In her scathing article at the Daily Beast [Thursday], the feminist blogger predicted the end of the Duggar Dynasty.
The popular TLC show “19 Kids and Counting” follows the semi-chaotic, but strangely normal and splendidly wholesome lives of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar and their nineteen children. Their oldest son is married and has three children of his own; one daughter is engaged and another has a serious boyfriend. . . .
[T]hey aren’t the women-hating, female-abusing psychos Marcotte presents them as.
Her accusations stem from the shameful fall from grace of Doug Phillips, the leader of Vision Forum ministries. . . .
Marcotte’s accusations that somehow this means the end of the Duggars is simply ridiculous. Yes, the Duggars were part of the ministry and have ties to the homeschooling movement Phillips led, but that doesn’t mean the Duggars themselves abused women or had affairs.
In fact, Jim Bob’s and Michelle’s marriage appears tender and loving. Marcotte’s attempt to stamp Phillip’s indiscretions on nineteen other people has no merit.

You can read the whole thing by The American Spectator‘s Natalie deMacedo. It is an incorrect and perverse distortion of biblical teaching to claim that Christianity teaches women should be weak, helpless and dependent creatures. The biblical concept of sexual complementarity certainly leads to a vision of  cooperation, rather than competition, between the sexes — a vision at odds with the power-oriented radical egalitarian doctrines of feminism.

However, it is an error to have a legalistic (and, we might even say, idolatrous) attitude about sex roles, so that what should be a voluntary cooperation in the spirit of Christ instead becomes a burdensome compliance with a rigid set of rules. And quite honestly, when I see a Christian man who seems to be constantly lecturing about male “headship” and wifely “submission,” I suspect his motives to be rooted in a fearful sense of personal inadequacy.

“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her . . . She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. . . . She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. . . . Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.”
— Proverbs 31:10-30 (KJV)





 

 


 

Category: Family, Feminism, Marriage, Religion, Scandal, Sex

Comments

34 Responses to “Lawyer for ‘Patriarchy’ Pervert Says Accuser ‘Is Just After a Paycheck’”

  1. ariyadesai01
    April 19th, 2014 @ 1:44 pm

    RT @smitty_one_each: TOM Lawyer for ‘Patriarchy’ Pervert Says Accuser ‘Is Just After a Paycheck’ http://t.co/YiPLcTPI0W #TCOT

  2. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 19th, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

    Of course his client is a jerk…

  3. Lourdes Torres-Manteufel Rule 5 (the object of Pastor Doug Phillips’ attention) | Batshit Crazy News
    April 19th, 2014 @ 1:54 pm

    […] Alleged Jerker and admitted philanderer Doug Phillips’ Attorney says she just wants a pay chec… (of course the attorney gets a pay check for saying […]

  4. Jackie Wellfonder
    April 19th, 2014 @ 2:08 pm

    A sad and sordid tale.

  5. trangbang68
    April 19th, 2014 @ 2:15 pm

    Woe unto you that offend one of these little ones that believe in me. It’s better that a millstone were tied around his neck and he were cast into the sea.

  6. Anamika
    April 19th, 2014 @ 2:56 pm

    Men and women both have an ulterior motive for sex — for men it is power, and for women it is love. If there is a case that the spiritual leader is not actually enlightened, then chances are he could be manipulating the women to bolster his ego. What i think is more common however, is that the women he sleeps with, may be secretly hoping he falls in love with them, and that they become his one and only. When this doesn’t happen, it can lead to all the messiness that we find in everyday, romantic encounters!

  7. Zohydro
    April 19th, 2014 @ 2:57 pm

    Matthew 18:6! This verse is the sole exception to my personal disdain for citing the Bible in defence of family, marriage, and children… Though I’ve only deployed it against those who presume to use Christianity to endorse homosexuality, it works really, really well here!

  8. Quartermaster
    April 19th, 2014 @ 3:23 pm

    Why should you hold a disdain for using scripture in any situation?

  9. Quartermaster
    April 19th, 2014 @ 3:23 pm

    To assume anything else is to engage in a very naive assumption.

  10. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 19th, 2014 @ 3:28 pm

    Of course when I assume, I make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”

  11. Evi L. Bloggerlady
    April 19th, 2014 @ 3:30 pm

    The primary motivation is it’s fun.

  12. Anamika
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:05 pm

    Come on, let’s get serious here — sex is, fundamentally, weird. Especially the way we do it.

  13. Adjoran
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:07 pm

    – said every Anamika partner, ever.

  14. Mm
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:07 pm

    I acknowledge and concur with most of your observations about this case. It is a disgrace. Nevertheless, it still doesn’t pass the smell test in some ways.

    The sexual advance began when she was 23, not 15, according to her Complaint. This church has a strong patriarchal element, which means that the daughter remains under the direct supervision of her father until she marries. Her parents actually lived with the Phillips family for a time and vacationed with them. Let me emphasize that last sentence – they lived and vacationed with the Phillips family. Exactly how was the “grooming” going on under these circumstances? This is not the case of, oh, say, a 24 year old taking a 10 year old on unsupervised vacations, just the two of them.

    Something is really off here, and I would not be surprised to see counterclaims against the woman and her parents.

  15. Adjoran
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:12 pm

    As soon as a preacher starts to believe he is “a mighty man of God,” he is in danger of succumbing to the failings of the ego. Thousands of people would have sworn on the Bible that Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggert was a “mighty man of God” up until the moment they got caught. And so it surely was for Phillips. So be careful what you say about Morecraft, you may jinx him.

    As soon as any clergyman begins to tell you what God’s specific plan for you is, get suspicious. And if the plan he describes involves something more intimate than praying together, call the police.

  16. Badger Pundit
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

    Stacy, if you’ve done anything of value today, it’s informing the world (including me, a long-time country music fan) that there once was a song titled “It Wasn’t God Who Made Honky Tonk Angels”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKleTa94dC8

  17. Anamika
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:29 pm

    Sex is fun to teenagers like carrying around disneyland in your pocket. Put another way, sex to a teenager is like the ‘last hard on’ of a hanged man, he really doesn’t know why it arose. Unless you call hanging an erotic experience, perhaps it is…

  18. trangbang68
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:29 pm

    Speak for yourself Spanky

  19. trangbang68
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:32 pm

    The problem with the leaders of some of these parachurch independent groups is they’re not accountable to anyone. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  20. RS
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:51 pm

    You may be correct. I would note, however, Mr. Phillips placed himself in a position where these allegations could be made, even if the allegations are specious. In my professional life, I never am in a position where I’m alone with a female client. I always have my secretary with me “taking notes.” As our host notes, it is the ego of these types of men which allow them to think they’re immune from these things, and it’s their ego which causes them to believe they’re somehow entitled to behave this way.

  21. RS
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:56 pm

    This whole “Patriarchal Christianity” business is based on a bizarre misreading of Scripture. As I told my pastor during my premarital counseling over a quarter century ago, I don”t care what Ephesians 5:22-24 say about wives; that’s my wife’s obligation. I’m too busy trying to make sure I can comply with verses 25 – 33, which is daunting enough.

  22. Julie Anne
    April 19th, 2014 @ 4:59 pm

    Grooming is a continuum. It didn’t start at age 23. It happened over time and was gradual. It is my understanding Lourdes was connected with the Phillips family at the age of 15. He was her employer, friend, and pastor (why his attorney says he was not is ridiculous. The church doesn’t call them “pastors,” but “teaching elders” – – same difference. This is the common family-integrated church practice. Phillips was one of 2 spiritual authorities at Boerne Christian Assembly.)

    It’s very important to note that even if she did consent to any kind of sexual relationship (*if*), even as an adult, it was still illegal according to TX law:

    Texas. Penal Code Chapter 5. (22.011)

    Title 5. Offenses against the person.

    Chapter 22. Assaultive Offenses.

    Sec. 22.011. Sexual assault.

    (b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:

    10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser…

  23. Julie Anne
    April 19th, 2014 @ 5:04 pm

    That was disturbing.

  24. Mm
    April 19th, 2014 @ 5:17 pm

    Again, I agree. I have personally seen the exploitation of vulnerable middle aged women by a charismatic guru-type man. All I am saying is that I think there is more to this story. Also, this is not a criminal case.

  25. RS
    April 19th, 2014 @ 5:23 pm

    The problem is, unless the person you’re dealing with acknowledges the Bible as authoritative, Scripture doesn’t help. That doesn’t mean that Scripture is untrue; rather, God’s Truth can be demonstrated independently from admonitions in the Bible. For example, the failure of the War on Poverty demonstrates the truth of the injunction, “Thou shalt not covet.”

  26. Zohydro
    April 19th, 2014 @ 6:12 pm

    Briefly, because I don’t see appeals to Biblical authority winning enough hearts and minds for common-sense family values in a secular world, particularly in the courts and legislatures!

  27. Quartermaster
    April 19th, 2014 @ 8:44 pm

    The question posed was sincere, not to nail him. IN the final analysis, however, it matters not if they acknowledge the authority of scripture or not. The day is coming when they will, but it will be far too late if it is not in this life. Part of the duty of the Christian is to warn of that fact.

    The problem with your position is that they kick against that truth no matter what form it comes in. There is an urge in fallen man to kick against anything that demands they look outside themselves.

  28. WarEagle82
    April 19th, 2014 @ 10:04 pm

    Wow! That brings back memories.

    I didn’t realize Kitty was gone. Billy Joel warned us “only the good die young.”

    Waylon and Jessi covered it too a little later http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H66MfHE8Zow as did Dolly, Loretta and Tammy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEbeblykyzw and Patsy Cline too http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XEnxou-_80.

    How’s that for a trip in the “Way Back Machine?”

  29. ThomasD
    April 20th, 2014 @ 12:56 pm

    IANAL but was raised by one. Allow me to translate what the hired gun said.

    Attorney Speak: Torres “is just after a paycheck.”

    Vernacular English: Torres “is just after a paycheck larger than the one we were willing to cut her.”

  30. ThePaganTemple
    April 20th, 2014 @ 1:19 pm

    Of course this is bad, and I don’t suggest for a second that all conservative Christians are like this, but it is an unfortunate fact that too many of them adhere strenuously to that traditional view of women, that they should stand by their man, shouldn’t make waves, should content themselves with being “the good wife”, have their babies (the more the merrier) do all the cooking, cleaning, etc., and as they should “honor and respect” their men as “head of the household, of course they should stay way the hell away from the Oval Office. As a result, we have-President Obama.

    It’s easy to see then why men such as this Douglas character can very easily make that transition to serial sex abuser. After all, he’s doing God’s will, and this kind of thing is just one of the perks he’s entitled to. Before long, when he sees that the jig is up and nobody is buying his idiotic excuses, we’re going to be hearing how it’s all Satan’s fault for leading him astray.

  31. kryon77
    April 20th, 2014 @ 3:48 pm

    RSM has no idea what happened between the plaintiff & defendant, and if keeps it up at this pace, he risks venturing into Nancy Grace territory. E.g., he seems to be suggesting that any defense, i.e., any response at all other than raising one’s hands and admitting “I did it” amounts to Blaming the Victim – including the classic alibi (actually, the definition of “alibi”): I wasn’t there.

  32. Michael Bates
    April 20th, 2014 @ 11:40 pm

    Not only was there such a song, it was an answer to another hit — Hank Thompson’s “Wild Side of Life”: “I didn’t know God made honky-tonk angels…” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5y5jWv2xQw

  33. rather be anon
    April 21st, 2014 @ 3:50 am

    It’s true that we can only know in the fullness of time, but right now every last one of Phillip’s responses are NOT what a righteous man would do.

    The thing that drew me to this blog was the proprietor’s battles with another sociopathic, litigious, creepy guy who now lives off of his hypocritical involvement with charities. Credit goes to some of those around Phillips for stopping him from taking further advantage, but it seems later than it should have been.

  34. Julie Anne
    April 22nd, 2014 @ 2:01 pm

    Sometimes civil cases end up criminal after all of the depositions are done. I have heard enough rumblings that it could indeed head that way.