Patriarchy, Abuse, and the Bible: Responding to Calvary Chapel Pastor
An abuse survivor and experts confront a Calvary Chapel pastor’s claim that abuse isn’t grounds for divorce, exposing patriarchy in church.
julieroys.com
Patriarchy, Abuse, and the Bible: Responding to Calvary Chapel Pastor
- Thread starter DrHuk&Duck
- Start date
julieroys.com
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 608
- Points
- 113
This transcript is worth reading, even if it did come from Julie Roys. 
Some important points from the interview - the "Patriarchal" emphasis, that God wants abused women to submit to mistreatment by abusive husbands, is very similar to what is taught and practiced in Islam, and would be unacceptable to Christian women who are converts from Islam.
This particular preacher from Boise, Idaho appears to be teaching that in order for a pastor or husband to have effective leadership, there is a possibility for abuse, and this is something that church members and wives just have to be willing to accept and live with. I don't agree with that.
Those who teach that good Christians must accept abuse point to the example of Christ who accepted abuse when He went to the Cross. I don't agree with that application - Christ accepted abuse at that point so that He could die for our sins, but at other times He rejected abuse, and at times, fled from it as necessary.
I don't necessarily endorse everything that these interviewers have ever taught or written, but their viewpoint is worth considering. To the extent that it becomes known that evangelical Christianity teaches and enforces that married women must accept marital abuse and just lump it, it's going to be hard to make women converts. Maybe we can become a men-only religion, like ancient Mithraism.
(Oh, by the way, Mithraism eventually died out).
Some important points from the interview - the "Patriarchal" emphasis, that God wants abused women to submit to mistreatment by abusive husbands, is very similar to what is taught and practiced in Islam, and would be unacceptable to Christian women who are converts from Islam.
This particular preacher from Boise, Idaho appears to be teaching that in order for a pastor or husband to have effective leadership, there is a possibility for abuse, and this is something that church members and wives just have to be willing to accept and live with. I don't agree with that.
Those who teach that good Christians must accept abuse point to the example of Christ who accepted abuse when He went to the Cross. I don't agree with that application - Christ accepted abuse at that point so that He could die for our sins, but at other times He rejected abuse, and at times, fled from it as necessary.
I don't necessarily endorse everything that these interviewers have ever taught or written, but their viewpoint is worth considering. To the extent that it becomes known that evangelical Christianity teaches and enforces that married women must accept marital abuse and just lump it, it's going to be hard to make women converts. Maybe we can become a men-only religion, like ancient Mithraism.
(Oh, by the way, Mithraism eventually died out).
I don’t recall ever hearing or learning about the religion of Mithraism. I did a Google search and oddly enough, it brought me to an academic essay from 1949 by none other than Martin Luther King, Jr.Maybe we can become a men-only religion, like ancient Mithraism.
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/study-mithraismRegarding your main point, this is very similar to what I’ve seen and heard about in the IFB church I grew up in. Though many would deny, there are some similarities between the IFB mentality and Islam in the treatment of women and children. This particular pastor is from Calvary Chapel, which is not IFB. Interestingly enough, the family of the founder of Calvary Chapel is currently suing the church organization for elder abuse among other items: https://www.ocregister.com/2014/09/29/family-of-late-pastor-chuck-smith-sues-calvary-chapel/amp/
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,610
- Reaction score
- 295
- Points
- 83
1Co 7:10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband
1Co 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
1Co 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1Co 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not under bondage (enslaved). God has called you to peace.
Paul is dealing with a subject that Jesus didn’t address in His earthly ministry (“not I but the Lord”). Jesus taught that divorce is only justified in the case of adultery but Paul goes even further and deals with the subject of Christians married to unbelievers. In 1 Cor 7:12 Paul is not disclaiming divine authority but boldly supersedes the command given by Ezra to the Jews (Ezra 10:11). The Christian is commanded not to divorce a non-Christian spouse (contrary to the law given by Ezra), as long as the latter is willing to remain in the marriage. Any man that would physically abuse his wife is obviously not pleased to be with her and he should be counted as an infidel (cf. 1 Tim 5:8), thereby releasing her from being under bondage to the marriage. to the rest. Those not covered by the instructions of verses 10 and 11. This is called progressive revelation.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
The flip side is if he puts away his wife for the cause of sexual immorality, and marries another, he has not committed adultery.
Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
“These two verses are not a complex allegory, but a simple analogy, using marriage law to illustrate the point Paul just made about law’s jurisdiction (V.1). This passage is not teaching that only the death of a spouse frees a Christian to remarry; it is not teaching about divorce and remarriage at all. Both Christ and Paul have fully addressed those issues elsewhere (cf. Matt 5:31-32; 19:2-12; 1 Cor 7:10-15).” John MacArthur
1Co 7:11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.
1Co 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
1Co 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not under bondage (enslaved). God has called you to peace.
Paul is dealing with a subject that Jesus didn’t address in His earthly ministry (“not I but the Lord”). Jesus taught that divorce is only justified in the case of adultery but Paul goes even further and deals with the subject of Christians married to unbelievers. In 1 Cor 7:12 Paul is not disclaiming divine authority but boldly supersedes the command given by Ezra to the Jews (Ezra 10:11). The Christian is commanded not to divorce a non-Christian spouse (contrary to the law given by Ezra), as long as the latter is willing to remain in the marriage. Any man that would physically abuse his wife is obviously not pleased to be with her and he should be counted as an infidel (cf. 1 Tim 5:8), thereby releasing her from being under bondage to the marriage. to the rest. Those not covered by the instructions of verses 10 and 11. This is called progressive revelation.
Mat 19:9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
The flip side is if he puts away his wife for the cause of sexual immorality, and marries another, he has not committed adultery.
Rom 7:2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.
Rom 7:3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.
“These two verses are not a complex allegory, but a simple analogy, using marriage law to illustrate the point Paul just made about law’s jurisdiction (V.1). This passage is not teaching that only the death of a spouse frees a Christian to remarry; it is not teaching about divorce and remarriage at all. Both Christ and Paul have fully addressed those issues elsewhere (cf. Matt 5:31-32; 19:2-12; 1 Cor 7:10-15).” John MacArthur
Last edited:
A bunch of she said he said. I'll never confirm nor deny who said what to who because I wasn't there. It was a big let down when the story broke. Nagmeh got some counseling from Franklin Graham... How much, I don't know. Also, the pastor that was at the helm in Boise at the time is no longer in the ministry. That's all I'm saying.
I also find it interesting that Paul Leboutillier was quoted in this article. Another Paul was referenced by Julie... I don't know what that's about... However, Pastor Paul Leboutillier was pastor of CC Ontario Oregon until this past June when he stepped down. He retired from pastoring and is now living in Meridian. He probably fills in, certainly in places like Boise which would be very close to him.
I also see that this quote is quite short. I'd like to hear what he said in its entirety in order to get the context. Was he speaking of this exact incident? This whole thing blew over several years ago. You know, context all too often gets in the way of a great narrative.
I also see that this quote is quite short. I'd like to hear what he said in its entirety in order to get the context. Was he speaking of this exact incident? This whole thing blew over several years ago. You know, context all too often gets in the way of a great narrative.
Last edited:
“Wives, submit to your husbands” (Ephesians 5:22) gets so much focus, and yet, in the same stroke of the pen, Paul calls HUSBANDS to love their wives like Christ loves the church-by giving up his life for his bride. If someone is to be “led to the slaughter” like Jesus, it is the husband because HE is the be-like-Christ in this matter.
If a man wants to be a “leader” then he should be willing to “lay his life down” like Christ. Imagine being so defensive that you can’t bring yourself to admit this. It seems this Calvary Chapel is just plain wrong here. Sad.
If a man wants to be a “leader” then he should be willing to “lay his life down” like Christ. Imagine being so defensive that you can’t bring yourself to admit this. It seems this Calvary Chapel is just plain wrong here. Sad.
Great commentary on this developing situation: https://thewartburgwatch.com/2025/0...illiers-brain-dead-sermon-statement-on-abuse/
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 608
- Points
- 113
This story documents accusations of Patriarchal abuse of wives at Doug Wilson's Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. (Maybe this is an Idaho thing).
www.vice.com
"Jean’s then-husband’s drinking increased. She says he held her against walls, slammed a lot of doors, pounded the walls, once pointed a loaded gun at her, raped her with a champagne bottle. The pastors at Trinity told her not to go to the police, not to separate. . . .
[Doug Wilson] "has written 'the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.' Instead, he argues that 'a man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants,' while a 'woman receives, surrenders, accepts,' and that 'true authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.'. . .
"A culture that normalizes sexual abuse and harassing survivors is just one manifestation of the authority and control that blends devotion to God with submission to church leaders. For years, Christian blogs, such as Spiritual Sounding Board and The Wartburg Watch, have detailed sometimes anonymous accounts of Christ Church’s spiritual abuse, a phenomenon typically defined as faith leaders creating a toxic culture within a church or community and using their position to shame and control."
Inside the Church That Preaches ‘Wives Need to Be Led with a Firm Hand’
Evangelical pastor Douglas Wilson wrote that men “conquer” and women “surrender.” Christ Church survivors are starting to speak out.
www.vice.com
"Jean’s then-husband’s drinking increased. She says he held her against walls, slammed a lot of doors, pounded the walls, once pointed a loaded gun at her, raped her with a champagne bottle. The pastors at Trinity told her not to go to the police, not to separate. . . .
[Doug Wilson] "has written 'the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party.' Instead, he argues that 'a man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants,' while a 'woman receives, surrenders, accepts,' and that 'true authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity.'. . .
"A culture that normalizes sexual abuse and harassing survivors is just one manifestation of the authority and control that blends devotion to God with submission to church leaders. For years, Christian blogs, such as Spiritual Sounding Board and The Wartburg Watch, have detailed sometimes anonymous accounts of Christ Church’s spiritual abuse, a phenomenon typically defined as faith leaders creating a toxic culture within a church or community and using their position to shame and control."
Hopefully it’s not a “Calvary Chapel thing.” I’m deeply disturbed and concerned by these investigations and reports: https://julieroys.com/investigations/calvary-chapel/
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,378
- Reaction score
- 608
- Points
- 113
Looks like Calvary Chapel has a bit of a public relations problem, to say the least. It's more than a Calvary Chapel thing - it's a Doug Wilson thing, too.
Doug Wilson is very well known, influential, and has lots of followers, including the controversial Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. His Patriarchal teachings are widespread - not just among Calvary Chapels, or IFBs, but also Presbyterians like Doug Wilson. I stopped supporting Illinois Family Institute financially, because they were heavily promoting Doug Wilson. I guess all of us as evangelical Christians have to decide for ourselves, to what extent do we want these folks, who promote abusive and domineering treatment of the ladies, to speak for all of us. It's not just an issue for the ladies only - abusive leaders who get control over the ladies will seek the same kind of control over the men, too, if they can get away with it.
Doug Wilson is very well known, influential, and has lots of followers, including the controversial Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. His Patriarchal teachings are widespread - not just among Calvary Chapels, or IFBs, but also Presbyterians like Doug Wilson. I stopped supporting Illinois Family Institute financially, because they were heavily promoting Doug Wilson. I guess all of us as evangelical Christians have to decide for ourselves, to what extent do we want these folks, who promote abusive and domineering treatment of the ladies, to speak for all of us. It's not just an issue for the ladies only - abusive leaders who get control over the ladies will seek the same kind of control over the men, too, if they can get away with it.
I personally know the pastor who was quoted at the beginning of the article and something doesn't add up between what the article is reporting and what I know of this individual.
Please don't try to lump Doug Wilson and Calvary Chapel together. Polar opposites. I'll reiterate: Julie Roys, a recognized muckraker, is going after Calvary Chapel, in particular, a pastor I personally know and respect. She's presenting what she wants you to see. Again, what I see being reported and what I personally know is not adding up.Looks like Calvary Chapel has a bit of a public relations problem, to say the least. It's more than a Calvary Chapel thing - it's a Doug Wilson thing, too.
Doug Wilson is very well known, influential, and has lots of followers, including the controversial Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. His Patriarchal teachings are widespread - not just among Calvary Chapels, or IFBs, but also Presbyterians like Doug Wilson. I stopped supporting Illinois Family Institute financially, because they were heavily promoting Doug Wilson. I guess all of us as evangelical Christians have to decide for ourselves, to what extent do we want these folks, who promote abusive and domineering treatment of the ladies, to speak for all of us. It's not just an issue for the ladies only - abusive leaders who get control over the ladies will seek the same kind of control over the men, too, if they can get away with it.
I only knew her from the radio. Did she attend a CC church in the past?
I would seriously doubt it.
What is causing me to scratch my head is how Paul Leboutillier is being roped into this manufactured crisis. He recently retired from being pastor of a church and hour west of Boise and has moved to Meridian where one of his kids lives. He now maintains a teaching ministry that includes filling in for various pastors and guest speaking. He was obviously filling in for someone in Boise. Where is any mention of the current CC Boise pastor? The pastor of CC Boise during the time of the abuse is no longer in the ministry.
Pastor Paul faithfully pastored CC Ontario for almost 35 years without a hint of controversy at this level. Naturally, he's caught his share of flak for taking a sometimes unpopular stand on the Word. I would direct anyone to Pastor Paul's website to listen to his teachings in their entirety before taking the word of a known muckraker.
Last edited:
It appears to me that she’s not targeting any particular group, college or denomination: https://julieroys.com/investigations/
I think “muckraker” is a pretty strong allegation if all she’s attempting to do is shed light on hidden darkness. I’m sure the brave Catholics who helped expose the atrocities of the Church were also condemned and derided for refusing to be silenced.
I think “muckraker” is a pretty strong allegation if all she’s attempting to do is shed light on hidden darkness. I’m sure the brave Catholics who helped expose the atrocities of the Church were also condemned and derided for refusing to be silenced.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
I kind of like Doug Wilson. Not so much his ecclesiology or political theology. He's a covenant theologian who was associated for a time with the Federal Vision movement, a radical form of postmillenialist covenant theology (it's complicated; I'll leave you to do some Googling on your own). And as a theonomist, his views have some affinity with the Christian Nationalism that is currently fashionable with alt-right Reformed guys on social media.
On the other hand, when he writes about moral and ethical issues, I think he's right far more than not.
The moral of the story is, Douglas Wilson isn't the devil. But read him with discernment.
This isn't that far off the mainstream Christian view. Compare, for example, what Elisabeth Elliot has written:
Elliot is writing broadly about sex roles--man being the initiator, woman the responder--rather than specifically the sex act, but the general principle is the same: it's built into the anatomy. Function follows form. Masculinity and femininity aren't stereotypes, they're archetypes.
Wilson says much the same thing. Of course, he has this habit of being blunt, sometimes profanely so. He admits as much, that "godly obscenity exists" (Wilson, Fidelity [Moscow, ID: Canon, 1999], 17) and that there's an appropriate time and place for well-placed crude words. I don't happen to disagree as far as it goes: the rhetorician in me recognizes there are situations where a laser-guided F-bomb is the most suitable means of persuasion. Wilson's problem is that he seems to think those situations include, all too often, theological polemics. He's not another Mark Driscoll, thankfully, but perhaps he sometimes goes too far.
The Vice article tends to paint Wilson as an absolutist on female submission. And indeed, he may well be stricter than the norm. But, on the other hand, I've also read (I forget where) where he has said if a Christian man desires to divorce his wife, he is sinning and liable to church discipline; if he refuses to repent, he is subject to excommunication and operationally an unbeliever, which would make the divorce biblically permissible. Doesn't sound so much like "a wife is not allowed to tell her husband no" is an inviolable absolute.
I have no doubt that Douglas Wilson and Christ Church have misstepped, sometimes seriously, when it comes to abusive relationships between husband and wife. I tend to believe "Jean's" story in the main (though I note that the spiritual abuse seems to have come from the elders at the affiliated church plant she and her husband attended, not Christ Church itself nor Wilson personally). Personally, I think when someone tells you "don't go to the police," the local precinct should probably be your next stop on your way home.
I'm sure less controversial churches like John MacArthur's or John Piper's, recently mentioned here as well, have similarly misstepped. Even my own church had a sex-abuse scandal around 30 years ago that made national news.
I do wonder what percentage of the criticism he and his church receive is merited, and how much is just misguided or stirred up by more progressive-leaning opponents such as egalitarian Christian feminists and the like. I am reminded somewhat of the discernment blogs and apologists who were delivered from New Ageism or Wicca, and as a result see occultism everywhere. Similarly, many feminists tend to regard anyone whose views on sex roles are more traditional than their own as agents of the Patriarchy <tm> (which is legitimately a radical feminist conspiracy theory: The Patriarchy <tm> is to radfems what the Illuminati is to the John Birch Society).
Vice is a progressive-leaning, former punk-rock magazine whose primary purpose, it appears, is to be provocative. And we've talked before about how Julie Roys is a muckraker. Which is too bad, because she had a good debate program on Moody Radio, before they fired her when she turned on them.
Vice had its own abuse scandal back in 2017 concerning the old-boys-club culture in the office.
So did Roys--she wrote in her book Redeeming the Feminine Soul about a "dysfunctional relationship" she had with a teenage girl while she was a youth pastor. She's described it on social media as "codependent"; it seems she's sort of glossing over the fact that she was a pastor, apparently, and therefore in a position of spiritual authority. (She was a youth pastor? It's fair to ask whether Roys approaches the Wilson issue from a traditional Christian position or a feminist one.)
In other words, both the cited sources are themselves compromised on this issue, and so it's fair for a critical reader to question their objectivity.
If they're right, they're right. But read _everyone_ with discernment.
On the other hand, when he writes about moral and ethical issues, I think he's right far more than not.
The moral of the story is, Douglas Wilson isn't the devil. But read him with discernment.
This isn't that far off the mainstream Christian view. Compare, for example, what Elisabeth Elliot has written:
People come with standard equipment. Tongue, eyes, ears, hands, heart are usually provided for both men and women. But there is equipment which is radically differentiated: the reproductive system. Its functions are plain enough. Quite unarguably, they are designed for initiation and reception. Is it unreasonable to probe deeper than the temporal function and recognize that these, too, are signs? May we not infer from them, as well as from creation’s order, the meaning of masculinity--initiation; and of femininity--response? (Elisabeth Elliot, The Mark of a Man [Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1981], 58.)
Elliot is writing broadly about sex roles--man being the initiator, woman the responder--rather than specifically the sex act, but the general principle is the same: it's built into the anatomy. Function follows form. Masculinity and femininity aren't stereotypes, they're archetypes.
Wilson says much the same thing. Of course, he has this habit of being blunt, sometimes profanely so. He admits as much, that "godly obscenity exists" (Wilson, Fidelity [Moscow, ID: Canon, 1999], 17) and that there's an appropriate time and place for well-placed crude words. I don't happen to disagree as far as it goes: the rhetorician in me recognizes there are situations where a laser-guided F-bomb is the most suitable means of persuasion. Wilson's problem is that he seems to think those situations include, all too often, theological polemics. He's not another Mark Driscoll, thankfully, but perhaps he sometimes goes too far.
The Vice article tends to paint Wilson as an absolutist on female submission. And indeed, he may well be stricter than the norm. But, on the other hand, I've also read (I forget where) where he has said if a Christian man desires to divorce his wife, he is sinning and liable to church discipline; if he refuses to repent, he is subject to excommunication and operationally an unbeliever, which would make the divorce biblically permissible. Doesn't sound so much like "a wife is not allowed to tell her husband no" is an inviolable absolute.
I have no doubt that Douglas Wilson and Christ Church have misstepped, sometimes seriously, when it comes to abusive relationships between husband and wife. I tend to believe "Jean's" story in the main (though I note that the spiritual abuse seems to have come from the elders at the affiliated church plant she and her husband attended, not Christ Church itself nor Wilson personally). Personally, I think when someone tells you "don't go to the police," the local precinct should probably be your next stop on your way home.
I'm sure less controversial churches like John MacArthur's or John Piper's, recently mentioned here as well, have similarly misstepped. Even my own church had a sex-abuse scandal around 30 years ago that made national news.
I do wonder what percentage of the criticism he and his church receive is merited, and how much is just misguided or stirred up by more progressive-leaning opponents such as egalitarian Christian feminists and the like. I am reminded somewhat of the discernment blogs and apologists who were delivered from New Ageism or Wicca, and as a result see occultism everywhere. Similarly, many feminists tend to regard anyone whose views on sex roles are more traditional than their own as agents of the Patriarchy <tm> (which is legitimately a radical feminist conspiracy theory: The Patriarchy <tm> is to radfems what the Illuminati is to the John Birch Society).
Vice is a progressive-leaning, former punk-rock magazine whose primary purpose, it appears, is to be provocative. And we've talked before about how Julie Roys is a muckraker. Which is too bad, because she had a good debate program on Moody Radio, before they fired her when she turned on them.
Vice had its own abuse scandal back in 2017 concerning the old-boys-club culture in the office.
So did Roys--she wrote in her book Redeeming the Feminine Soul about a "dysfunctional relationship" she had with a teenage girl while she was a youth pastor. She's described it on social media as "codependent"; it seems she's sort of glossing over the fact that she was a pastor, apparently, and therefore in a position of spiritual authority. (She was a youth pastor? It's fair to ask whether Roys approaches the Wilson issue from a traditional Christian position or a feminist one.)
In other words, both the cited sources are themselves compromised on this issue, and so it's fair for a critical reader to question their objectivity.
If they're right, they're right. But read _everyone_ with discernment.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 12,863
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Feh. Roys tried to go after John MacArthur for owning a luxury watch and a million-dollar home in Santa Clarita, the implication being he lives high off the hog. But the watch was a gift, and the property was probably worth a lot less when he bought it several decades ago. (And in the latter case, the median home cost in Santa Clarita is somewhere north of $900,000.)
If that's not muckraking, I don't know what is.
Not sure about the million dollar house part, but the luxury watch issue seems to be not quite accurate. No article was written, just a tweet comparing watches worn by the hipsters vs the old guard: