“It’s a son’s task in life to spread the fame and the glory of his father in the same way that the Lord Jesus Christ spread the fame and the glory of His Father in heaven.”
A friend recently asked me this seemingly odd question: “Does Doug Phillips have a mother?” I had to laugh because I understood immediately what my friend was really asking me. Doesn’t everyone have a mother? Yes, and of course Doug Phillips has a mother. Why then does Doug so seldom ever speak of his mother, or even publicly acknowledge her?
Doug Phillips is known for his teachings about honor, a subject which he seems to take extremely seriously. It’s also a subject that he’s used to make tremendous profits from.
The subject of honor is much needed in both the world and the church today. In fact, before I sat under Doug’s teaching and preaching, I didn’t know much at all about honor and the 5th Commandment. It was a foreign concept to me. I learned a lot about honor from Doug Phillips’ teaching and from what I saw lived out in his life… at least with his father. My friend is well justified, though, in asking about Doug Phillips’ mother. Doug seldom ever mentions her, whereas he routinely “spread the fame and the glory of his father.”
There’s no question that our culture has lost interest in honoring parents, elders, and others that Scripture instructs us to honor. Doug Phillips is rightly challenging a culture of dishonor. However, sometimes in their enthusiasm to right a wrong, Christian leaders have a tendency to swing the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. In other words, they become extremists. I believe that is the case with at least some of Doug’s teachings, and this includes what he teaches regarding honor. When does honor become adulation? When does honor place practically as much value on men as on God or His Word? When does honor cross the line into becoming idolatry?
Doug has set a good example for us in showing us how we should honor our military veterans, our fathers, our pastors and teachers, and others who have positively influenced our lives. But I had to cringe when Doug teamed up with his father, Howard Phillips, and the elder and younger Sprouls, for a conference on honoring parents last May. It was bad enough that Doug Phillips was obviously honoring a man who had just been recently defrocked by the RPCGA for ecclesiastical abuse and tyranny, tax fraud, breaking his ordination vows, and other serious things. Doug Phillips took a public stand with RC Sproul, Jr as a speaker when RC, Jr had just been severely disciplined by his presbytery. Rather than submitting to the RPCGA, Sproul publicly dishonored the Presbyterian elders that he vowed to submit to by publicly disparaging them.
I looked at my own excommunication by Doug Phillips and saw that he had required that ALL Christians not only treat me as a heathen and a publican, but never to even eat with me, as Doug would consider that a sin. Doug Phillips expected everyone to uphold what he tried to pawn off as a biblical excommunication. But did he follow that same biblical pattern when his own good friend, RC Sproul Jr, was justly disciplined and that he’s never repented of? At least RC, Jr. admitted to some of the accusations leveled against him. But he has not repented, and he is currently preaching in open rebellion to the presbytery that disciplined him. But Doug Phillips chose to honor a defrocked minister, and he insists that others honor him too.
Then Doug Phillips went on to speak about honoring his father. Anyone who knows the least little bit about Doug Phillips will agree that Doug obviously honors his father. No one can dispute that. And we can learn some things from his example. But has that sense of honor gone a little overboard? Does Doug Phillips go on and on and on in talking about his father to the point of making those around him uncomfortable? Has he elevated his father to a level that is above honor? Does it border on idolatry? When I compare his honor of his father to that of his mother, I certainly have to wonder.
Which brings me back to my friend’s question: “Does Doug Phillips have a mother?” Well, of course he has a mother, but what my friend was really asking was if Doug Phillips preaches so much about the fifth commandment, and we see his constant and extreme honor of his father, did he forget the other half of the commandment? Why don’t we see Doug honor his mother?
If you look through Doug’s blog, for instance, you will see Doug write about his father over and over and over again. That’s good. But, now go look for his mother. If I remember correctly, Doug has only mentioned her three times. I may be off in my total, but not by much. Why the disparity?
From personal experience, I remember several occasions when Doug’s father would attend BCA. Although he had been several times previously, and everyone already knew who Howard Phillips was, Doug always made a point of introducing his father each time anyway. It was never a nice, simple introduction, but was usually an elaborate occasion, another opportunity for Doug to “honor” his father. I wouldn’t have minded if I hadn’t seen how he “honored” his mother when she came to visit. I only remember her coming to visit once while I was there (she may have come on a Sunday when I was not in attendance; I am not saying that she only came just once.) But I do clearly remember the lack of any introduction of his mother that Sunday. That is how I remember Doug “honoring” his mother.
When I went on a tour with Doug Phillips once, and his mother was in attendance, I do not recall him paying her any special attention, and this is in stark contrast to the considerable attention that he never fails to give his father. Whenever we had the opportunity to observe Doug’s interaction with his parents it was always apparent that Doug’s treatment of his father was vastly different from that toward his mother.
Again, why? Does Doug’s mother not deserve as much honor as his father? Did she do something horrible to Doug growing up? Doesn’t the fifth commandment include both father and mother? I could speculate, but I’d rather not do that. However, something is terribly wrong and even hypocritical about the glaring disparity between the way Doug honors his father and the way he doesn’t honor his mother.
One thing is obvious though; if Doug Phillips were one to honor his mother, it’s unlikely that anyone would ever ask the question, “Does Doug Phillips have a mother?”
March 28, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Lynn –
1) I don’t believe Mark and Jen have fabricated anything. I meant to address their current actions.
2) I didn’t realize I hadn’t dealt with Paul and Alexander as completely as you wanted me to, and I don’t think I called it ‘biblically wrong’. I did acknowledge your example, but I was on a different track at the time. I’m happy to give it some more thought.
3) I have qualified just about every one of my posts by saying they were only my opinion, based on my interpretation of scripture.
4) I realize you’re talking about Phillips. But that doesn’t mean he’s the sole issue. It was a psychology-based suggestion.
5) I think the scripture commands lots of things that I fear Jen may have ignored because of her past hurt.
6) ….I know she’s been deeply hurt
7) I did lay out a biblical case for my opinion. It’s a few posts up on this thread.
March 28, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I’m sorry you’ve made the decision to ban me. It’s probably a wise decision since your last post shows me what a horrible communicator I must be…. I meant to address your options in light of the scriptures, but it has translated as me aligning myself with DP and BCA. This was not my intention and I would only be contributing to the confusion if I addressed his decision of excommunication.
I said early on that only the people involved in the excommunication knew the full circumstances, and I think it will always be that way. I never wanted to address that, here.
Again, I apologize for whatever it is I did to get banned. However, I will respect your decision.
God’s peace to you Jen.
March 28, 2007 at 4:34 pm
I have been getting so much out of these comment conversations here. I may not contribute, but I am very glad for those who do.
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control
Jen, I don’t see you violating any of these. Just wanted you to know that.
And you have been a big blessing to me. The truth really does set you free. Keep up the good work.
March 28, 2007 at 4:40 pm
If we are to realize your above statement, Paul should have never called out Peter BY NAME IN PUBLIC, because “knowledge should temper your willingness to talk about what anyone else does wrong.”
Lucy, please show us where Jennifer has at anytime claimed to be guiltless? I await your answer.
“Obviously he doesn’t respond well to being goaded into formal arbitration or “called out” online. ” Show if DP doesn’t like being “called out”, we should stop because it he might be offended?
Lucy, this man punished the Epstein family by having Natasha removed as a runner up in the Elise Dinsmore essay contest on vision forum’s website. I will tell you with all of the knowledge I have that is utterly reprehensible behavior and is 100% WRONG.
March 28, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Lucy, I did not ban you. You have made an accusation against me and I would like you to support it. If you run now, you will have lost all credibility. If you cannot support it, simply admit it. Here is your accusation:
“You need to realize 2 things:
1) You are not guiltless in this matter.
2) That knowledge should temper your willingness to talk about what anyone else does wrong.”
This is what I am asking you to support. Plain and simple. Tell me my sins. Maybe you should tell me which matter as well. If you are not talking about the excommunication, then please show me my sins on this blog, with Scripture.
March 28, 2007 at 5:01 pm
Lucy:
“Lynn, I hear what you’re saying, but please understand that the point doesn’t change with Jen’s supposed intentions. The point is governed by the commanded overall goal as compared to the current results.”
Lucy:
“I’m simply questioning whether Jen is driven by Christ’s example, or by her own hurt and bitterness because of her experiences at BCA.”
Elizabeth:
Lucy, I’m confused, is it about Jennifer intentions and what drives her or not?
Lucy:
“Elizabeth – You’ve taken my comments out of context and apparently not read them very well. They are not contradictory in any way. They need to be read in light of the post they were directed towards.”
I’ve read both posts, and Elizabeth has taken nothing out of context, and yes, those statements are contradictory.
In the first case, you made it out that *I* was the one talking about intentions of the heart, and I had to correct you, because that WASN’T what I was talking about. In your mistake, you said this situation is being governed by what the ideal results would be compared to the present results. I disagree with that, too. Just think “Jeremiah.”
So you did, indeed, say to get off of intentions of the heart and onto some kind of objective measure. I just think Scripture is the measure, not desired results.
Your second question, which is simply wanting to know if Jen is being driven by Christ’s example, or by her own bitterness, IS about intentions, and is NOT one that can be answered in this forum, and IS contradictory to your first statement that Elizabeth copied in.
Here’s a demonstration. I will give your second statement frist, and then answer it with a corrected paraphrase of your first statement:
Lucy:
“I’m simply questioning whether Jen is driven by Christ’s example, or by her own hurt and bitterness because of her experiences at BCA.”
Lynn (borrowing an argument from Lucy):
“Lucy, I hear what you’re saying, but please understand that the point doesn’t change with Jen’s supposed intentions. The point is governed by what Scripture teaches we should do when we are dealing with pastors who are accountable to nobody, when we firmly believe they exhibit a pattern of behaving unjustly towards us and others.”
Jen, I agree with you. Unless Lucy can pony up with a biblical argument, or else show you specific sins, please don’t let this illogic go on.
March 28, 2007 at 5:06 pm
First, I would like to thank everyone for their candor, civility, and concern for the purity of Christ’s bride – His church, both visible and invisible.
Secondly, for the record, Jennifer is helping me, her husband, by exposing Doug Phillips for what he is – a lawsuit-threatening, ecclesiastical tyrant that is a hypocrite. Therefore, Jennifer is my “helpmeet” in this endeavor.
Third, we have both taken great pains to limit our focus on certain issues and to refrain from naming names. However, these self-restrictions are nearly at an end. I can no longer sanction moral cowardice.
Fourth, it is fundamental to everyone’s understanding that one approaches my wife’s blog with the realization that Jennifer is a woman under biblical authority. Furthermore, it serves equally to understand that I expressly prohibit and forbid any unbiblical “repentance.” Doug Phillips and his attorney did not answer my July 31, 2006 letter asking for specific clarification regarding alleged sin. Therefore, the matter is closed. If Phillips cannot answer legitimate questions from someone whom he expects to repent, then he is no longer entitled to any further submission from anyone in my family – period.
With these items noted, here is my two cents regarding some of the statements I’ve read.
Unbelievers read the Bible; does this mean we have to remove all verses that pertain to inter-believer squabbles?
What is more important – the purity of the church or Doug’s reputation? From what I read in Holy Scripture, I agree with a previous writer: Paul names names for the sake of Christ’s bride.
I disagree with Jennifer regarding her opinion that Phillips and members of BCA believe they are “right.” Nobody who has the living God present in their lives by the power of the Holy Spirit can believe that employees “voting” in an excommunication, an excommunication devoid of the defendant’s presence, can sincerely believe this was “right.” Even the Roman Catholic Church allowed Martin Luther’s and Joan of Arc’s presence at their respective trials. Thus, the RC Church sets a better example then the Baptist lawyer Phillips!
Just so we can truly understand the context, the extreme form of patriarchy is little more than, in practical application, biblically sanctioned misogyny. Instead of being liberated by Christianity, these modern women are, as Jen noted, coming full circle to a former place of pre-Christ liberation and, therefore are, in practical application, baby machines expected to endure all manner of physical discomfort in order to fulfill their “pharisaical-mandated roles.” As Cynthia noted, “These women…to be treated as though they do not have minds reduces them to the level of CATTLE — soulless, mindless breeding stock.” Exactly, Cynthia, exactly!
Regarding Jennifer’s “pre approved” apology. I had and still have some very strong thoughts on this subject. Phillips owes Jennifer, our daughter Natasha, me, and everyone present that Sunday an UN-qualified, “will you please forgive me,” apology for reading about Jennifer’s pre-conversion sin. There is only one word that describes Phillips’ actions in having these FORGIVEN sins resurrected – contemptible. Christ and His blood paid for Jennifer’s pre-conversion sins. Who does Phillips think he is to defy the Living God in this matter?
Jennifer and I have both taken down our blogs – to no avail. Is it inconceivable to some that Phillips does NOT want reconciliation? Could it be he only wants humiliation for the Epsteins? Based on his arrogant actions, lack of accountability, lack of due process, conflict of interest associated with his employees voting, etc., I am inclined to believe the Machiavellian outlook driving an affirmative answer to the second question being more plausible.
Lastly, I can assure everyone that Jennifer is NOT a bitter and unforgiving woman. You need only read what I did in the marriage to realize this fact.
March 28, 2007 at 5:31 pm
“See, this is a good example of my point above. I would have said that the overall goal was the UNITY of the Church… not in a way that ignores heresy, but with the understanding that while there are differences of opinion, the body is more committed to peace than to being right, or drawing attention to themselves. There isn’t a church body on the planet that doesn’t have the slightest bit of theological diversity, but we have to focus on the importance of peace amongst the saints… especially if the issue at hand is not essential for Salvation (which is often the case). Otherwise, we are no different than the rest of the world. ”
This comment says it all about where Lucy is coming from. A false unity. There can be no unity without truth. Perhaps Lucy does not understand what constitues heresy. DP is a false teacher (wolf) and I am glad to be warned. I base this not only on Jen’s consistent account over a long period of time…but on reading DP’s own writings.
He is a Pharisee. Sorry, Lucy, but he really is and if you are under his teaching, I hope your eyes will be opened.
March 28, 2007 at 6:44 pm
Oh, so much to say, so many points:
1. Jen explained that in over two years since their unbiblical excommunication, in over two years of seeking resolution and reconciliation, they have never heard from Doug himself once. And Lucy’s reply:
Obviously he doesn’t respond well to being goaded into formal arbitration or “called out” online. So, maybe what God is telling you is that he wants you to spend a little more time learning what He wants to teach “you”, rather than what He wants you to do about Doug.
Lucy, I am sorry, but your chronology is wrong and you are now blaming the victim in a classic ploy. You’re saying that somebody’s actions in 2006 are responsible for somebody else’s choices in 2004. He wasn’t ‘called out’ online until quite recently, so that can hardly be his reason for refusing to talk to them two years before, now can it?
As for your claim that Doug is being ‘goaded’ into formal arbitration- that’s another accusation that I think you need to back up. Requesting arbitration from elders or peacemakers (particularly when you’ve already been judged by a kangaroo court where you were denied self defense, or even presence) is reasonable, and I hate to think what sort of a machiavellian mind could term that as ‘goading.’
And the horribly petulant removal of young Natasha’s award for her Elsie Dinsmore prize- was that also a pre-emptive response to ‘goading’ for reconcilation?
(Natasha, Darlin,’ if you are reading this, please know that what you went through was poisonous, and is not Christian at all. I have ached for you and your siblings in reading all of this).
2. Lucy also says this: Prima, your points are well taken — and would be more relevant if we served a God who relieves us of Biblical responsibility if the actions of others are bad enough — but we don’t.
Indeed, you’re right about the God I serve, but you are demonstrably (from scripture, not opinion) in error about the relevancy of my points. My points are relevant precisely because the God we serve requires us to warn the visible church- with public rebukes in certain circumstances, and to expose the deeds of darkness. If your opinions were correct, then Paul was in sin when he confronted Peter, Euodia and Syntyche, Demas, and others. Jesus sinned by calling the Pharisees whitewashed tombs. John the Baptist sinned by preaching on the sins of Herod. Your way leads to unchecked tyranny, not the Gothardite ‘umbrella of protection,’ and thankfully, it is not God’s way.
I also find it interesting that you back up your claim for a vague biblical standard with your far more specific personal opinions. Your opinions, and anybody else’s here, really don’t matter. What matters are the facts of what happened and what the Bible says about that behavior.
3. Joining a DP’s church isn’t the only reason a warning is a good thing. He teaches in the homeschooling community by tapes, books, and conferences, and as a member of that community with DP materials constantly being foisted on me I am glad to know what I have learned about DP’s hypocrisy and dishonesty. I am always glad to know more about how to be a good steward of my family’s funds.
4. You rebuked Elizabeth (quite unnecessarily) for ‘not reading well.’ That’s rather ironic, isn’t it, in view of your strange response to Jen’s warning that if you did not support your accusations of her with scripture and facts you _would_ be banned. Since you have now been reassured that you misread Jen, I hope you will be backing up your accusations with specifics.
March 28, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Lucy, you are right in this respect — I wasn’t there. But I have seen the primary documents, and I have read the BCA statement.
Both the ex-communication statement and the BCA statement are woefully lacking as far as specifics. The charges are couched in vague, general terms, and the “sinless perfection” charge Jen denies.
There really does need to be an answer for breaching pastoral confidentiality, and the mockery of justice done here. And since Doug and BCA are not explaining this, I am glad Jen is warning us in the homeschool community about this.
March 28, 2007 at 8:11 pm
If your opinions were correct, then Paul was in sin when he confronted Peter, Euodia and Syntyche, Demas, and others. Jesus sinned by calling the Pharisees whitewashed tombs. John the Baptist sinned by preaching on the sins of Herod. Your way leads to unchecked tyranny, not the Gothardite ‘umbrella of protection,’ and thankfully, it is not God’s way.>>
Let us not forget Diontrephes! Called out by John publicly in a letter to the church for all to read for the last 2000 years.
I fear Lucy has fallen into the trap of following men and their opinions above the full counsel of God. Many of us have done the same thing and it is hard but God has a way of forcing us to draw closer Him in total dependence that can be painful but also very freeing.
Isaiah 2:22
March 28, 2007 at 8:18 pm
I need to make a correction. I misread what Lucy had said, in regard to her 2 points. The “knowledge” in point 2 was referring to Jennifer’s guilt in this manner, not a general knowledge. Sorry Lucy for not having better reading skills. So basically my point isn’t fully in context.
I do believe that even if Jennifer is not entirely guiltless in this manner, that she can make a judgment on another’s wrong, as long as she is not being hypocritical and has examined herself. Jesus calls us to righteous judgment.
March 28, 2007 at 9:24 pm
“I do believe that even if Jennifer is not entirely guiltless in this manner, that she can make a judgment on another’s wrong, as long as she is not being hypocritical and has examined herself. Jesus calls us to righteous judgment.”
Exactly, Brandon. And it was was partially to illustrate this very point that I asked Lucy what she thought would comprise a proper”biblical” response to DP’s excommunication .
You see, it looks as though Lucy believes that it is the Epstein’s Biblically mandated duty to take the moral high ground and withhold righteous judgement — to instead accept their excommunication, “repent”, and restore the “unity” that has been broken, regardless of whether Phillips and his theology are right, wrong, or somewhere in between.
Lucy wrote,
“Prima, your points are well taken — and would be more relevant if we served a God who relieves us of Biblical responsibility if the actions of others are bad enough — but we don’t. My questioning of Jen has nothing to do with Doug Phillips or his behavior. Furthermore, nothing he does now or for the rest of his life will ever change how Jen is commanded to respond to it. ”
Lucy also writes, “I would have said that the overall goal was the UNITY of the Church… not in a way that ignores heresy, but with the understanding that while there are differences of opinion, the body is more committed to peace than to being right, or drawing attention to themselves.”
By those lights, Paul should never have excommunicated Alexander, and should have rolled and consented to the demands of the Jewish Christians, when they were insisting that Gentile converts obey the Law. Martin Luther should have repented of having nailed his 95 Theses to the Castle Church door, and the whole Reformation should never have taken place. Actually, it would have been NICER in the short run if all those things had happened differently, and it would have maintained church unity, but at what cost? Sometimes the NICE is the enemy of the Good. When it becomes apparent that a church or its leader is practicing heresy, it is our duty to separate ourselves from that group, if changing it or bringing it to repentance from the inside is impossible. In the Epstein’s case it looks as though God used Phillips’ own pride to eject Mark and Jen from an abusive situation, in much the same way as Pharoah finally ORDERED his Hebrew slaves to leave Egypt and be free.
As I see it, any “repentance” towards DP on the part of the Epsteins would effectually be a sign of their tacit approval of Phillip’s false teaching, heresy, and SIN.
March 29, 2007 at 6:47 am
I agree with the last few comments, which basically say we shouldn’t equate “unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” to “let’s all just get along; I’ll roll over and agree to everything you say and no waves will be made.”
We see open debate and discussion in the NT — and sharp disagreement, rebuke, and more from the apostles. Names are named, and charges are made. At one point the civil authorities wanted to quietly deal with Paul, and he, using his privileges as a Roman citizen, said, “NO!”
Yes, Cynthia, Martin Luther didn’t *leave* the Catholic Church. He was thrown out and hunted down.
What a tragedy it would have been if everybody back then treated Luther the way Boerne Assembly is treating the Epsteins! And what a tragedy if Martin Luther would have done like Phillips wants the Epsteins to do and “repented.” It wasn’t the case back then, thankfully, and it isn’t the case now, amongst Christians who are not part of that church, whose leadership appears to be accontable to no one.
March 29, 2007 at 7:36 am
“In the Epstein’s case it looks as though God used Phillips’ own pride to eject Mark and Jen from an abusive situation, in much the same way as Pharoah finally ORDERED his Hebrew slaves to leave Egypt and be free.”
Cynthia, spot on! HA!
Following this thought…there isn’t a single life vest that will save VF when the Lord churns it in the sea. I know at this moment it looks as though the sea has been parted to allow DP to have his way. I can’t help but think about all the many homeschool conferences across the nation that will welcome this pharoah and his teachings into their midst. Perhaps the Lord is orchestrating some sort of major, visible fall for DP. He is sovereign, after all!
Best wishes to you, Mark and Jen!
Jean
March 29, 2007 at 8:37 am
This has been quite a windfall —
I must have misunderstood when I thought I had been banned. But, as I said, it may not have been such a bad idea, because the responses here are getting chaotic, and I’m only contributing to the confusion I sought to avoid.
The comment flurry after my last post contains accusations so confusing, I hardly know where to begin. In some cases, conclusions have been drawn from statements intended completely differently when they were posted, and in others, I’ve had my arguments twisted to suggest things I don’t even think.
Here’s a few clarifications:
1) I do not, nor have I ever, sat under Doug Phillips’ teaching… neither in his church nor through the purchase of his internet Vision Forum materials. I do not know or support him in any way.
2) I do not believe that Mark and Jen have lied about their story.
3) When I mentioned DP being called out online or goaded into arbitration, I was referring to the original article from Ministry Watchman and Mark’s letter to Doug (sent several times, as I recall). These weren’t received well by him, so I simply meant to suggest that she try other methods… perhaps ones that included periods of silence. e.g. – “Let go and let God.” They were only suggestions.
4) I do not believe in false church unity through merely being nice. That was a rather unfortunate comment. I do, however, believe that God will protect the purity of His church from heresy, through his believers. Sometimes that manifests itself through questioning the pastor, and sometimes through excommunication of a member. The examples of Paul and Timothy would certainly apply…(the example of J.T.B. and Herod is a bit off, but mainly because they aren’t really comparable to a pastor and a church of believers). If God has revealed to Jen that DP is a heretic and is dangerous (in the manner of I Tim.1, for example), then power to her….she’s the one of the few involved here who’s actually met him, and in any position to lay that claim. I just wanted to be sure she was being careful. It’s a dangerous claim to make.
5) My logic was simple: Attitudes determine intentions. Intentions drive actions. Actions affect others. Jen is responsible for the state of her heart and the outpourings of her attitude. If Christ is her guide for all of this, and these are the results, then, ok. If not, then what “drives” her becomes of utmost importance…. and at the same time, makes DP’s behavior irrelevant. I don’t know how much more clearly I can state this: DOUG’S ACTIONS DO NOT CHANGE JENNIFER’S RESPONSIBILITIES AS A CHRISTIAN. My whole point has been to question Jen as a sister in Christ as to the state of her attitude…. a subject God is very serious about…yet, so many here just want to keep talking about what Doug has done, as though you expect me to defend him, or something. I’ve already said that I can’t, and I won’t even try. He is NOT the focus of my point.
6) Why it should frustrate anyone that I use words like “my opinion” and “my perspective”, is beyond me. A true understanding of Phil. 2 and Titus 3 shows that God deals with his followers in different ways. When dealing with issues that have nothing to do with salvation, I have to be allowed to qualify my statements this way. I have to be permitted to have a different interpretation of scriptural “non-essentials” than Jen. I extend the same courtesy to Jen, and the same courtesy should be extended to Doug. If you’re looking for black and white answers from me, I can’t provide them. I’m sorry. I am only here to provide the way in which I read the scriptures. I can’t speak for Jen or Doug the way some of you have tried to speak for me.
In one of my first posts (on another thread for those of you who are new), I said that if God had laid this mission on her heart, then there would be little point in trying to argue her out of that. I attempted to catalyze a shift in her attentions for the purpose of self-examination. She assured me that she had been well examined, and furthermore, was confident in her present course. Perhaps I should have left it at that….as it has become evident that all we really have, here is a difference of opinion. Jen has stated she is no longer interested in reconciliation. Her stated purpose is to warn. So be it. If God is in this, I wish His best for her.
Finally, for those of you who want a few scripture references that have molded my viewpoint on peace, humility and unity:
Ecclesiastes 5:2
Proverbs 11:2
Galatians 5:22-26
Colossians 3:15
Philippians 2
Titus 3
I Peter 5
Mark 9:50
Romans 8
Romans 14:19
Ephesians 4
James 3:17
I do not belie the warnings against false teachers, but I see a much greater emphasis on other things. This is the crux of my point.
Jen, I’m sorry you believe I will have lost credibility by not posting here anymore. But I feel that I’m only repeating myself and causing confusion in the process. I hope you understand.
March 29, 2007 at 9:33 am
For what its worth….
I had a visit from 2 elders last evening to address some preaching questions I had with the pulpit supply. (We do not have a called pastor yet). We also discussed at some length the situation at the previous church that the founding members came from. One of the elders visiting was a part of that group also, one was not.
The elder that came from that church with me pointed out the previous church we were in had NO LOVE. Yes there was doctrine and high worship and hymns but no love. Somehow that jelled all my emotions and everything came together for me as to ‘why’ certain things happened. Before and for the last 2 1/2 years I had been so thoroughly confused as to the why of it all….no love for one another.
Elder #2 pointed out that southern Presbyterianism was also very ‘cerebral’ I think is the word we agreed on. (hes from California).
So there maybe in a nutshell is the why of all of this.
My elders stressed that our church is going to be first a loving church…after all they were SO THERE to help me understand a lot of the background noise thats’ going on and to reassure me that all was well. Our little group is SO blessed to have these precious godly men with servants hearts to serve and shepherd the frightened scarred sheep.
Churches that have lots of doctrine and teaching but have no love are predisposed to abuse because any ‘love’ is conditioned upon the contextual behavior (within the guidelines of the doctrines & teaching of that group) of the members.
I would also offer to Lucy that just because there is peace within the church does not mean that there is love. For peace to be a reality in the church there first must be love…peace naturally follows. Everyone is SO worried about the peace of the church and no one cares about the love…peace and love are sometimes used together to mean the same thing….they do not mean the same thing.
I Cor 13 certainly has a new meaning for me now.
Reading and re reading all of Jens posts I find ‘love’ the main ingredient missing from BCA and Doug Phillips’ camp.
For Mark & Jen to pursue reconciliation with BCA and Doug Phillips even after time and blogging have since passed to me shows that they are certainly more mindful of love and forgiveness than I have been.
Now I understand….
Best, Morgan
March 29, 2007 at 9:56 am
Lucy, I am not saying that you will have lost credibility if you choose not to post here anymore. I am saying that you have made rather serious allegations against me, against my character, and I have asked you to back them up, and you have failed to do so.
Thank you for clarifying some of what you have said here, but you still have not supported your allegations that I am sinning here.
Here is the first time I asked you this:
“So, Lucy, I am going to ask you two things: first, that you specifically spell out what underlying issues or sins you see in me; and second, that you show me the verses where I am sinning by what I am doing here. Does that sound fair?”
You responded that this was fair and that you would do so.
Here is the latest time:
Lucy: ““You need to realize 2 things:
1) You are not guiltless in this matter.
2) That knowledge should temper your willingness to talk about what anyone else does wrong.”
Jen: “This is what I am asking you to support. Plain and simple. Tell me my sins. Maybe you should tell me which matter as well. If you are not talking about the excommunication, then please show me my sins on this blog, with Scripture.”
Lucy, if you make allegations against me in public, you need to back them up in public. Am I being fair? Or am I asking too much? If you cannot back them up, simply say so. An apology would probably then be in order.
I don’t care if you agree with me or not, Lucy. That is not the point. And I am opening myself up wide here, asking for you to show me my sins. If you don’t think I should go public with this, you are entitled to your opinion. But if I have sinned, that is an entirely different matter.
So, Lucy, I am telling you that you have an obligation to support these charges you have made against me.
Thank you for helping us all think through these matters. It was a good exercise and a good discussion.
March 29, 2007 at 10:15 am
Lucy, you’re entire argument boils down to one assumption, that Jennifer has a bad attitude. You have not backed up this assumption with fact. You have not given us examples of a bad attitude. You simply say it is there. If Jennifer does not have a bad attitude then your entire argument falls apart and you need to apologize. Please prove your assumption.
March 29, 2007 at 10:16 am
Well, that was the point, Jen. Originally, I was referring to the ways you offended Doug. I believed it needed to be dealt with — not AGREED with, necessarily — but more thoroughly dealt with, and that this might be done in ways you had not yet considered. You assured me that it had, and you were confident in God’s directives. Case closed.
Additionally, I suggested the very existence of this blog was the guilt…that it was contrary to God’s (ultimate) desire for his children and his church. You disagree. You’ve presented scripture for your case and I’ve presented scripture for mine. We just disagree. I’ve said nothing about your character. I don’t even know you. I was just concerned about the blog and it’s usefulness. However, now, I am convinced that you believe what you are doing comes from God. There’s very little left for me to say, and in the spirit of Ecclesiastes 5, it seemed wise for me to stop.
I do find it interesting that you’re still requesting apologies….
March 29, 2007 at 10:32 am
Lucy, I’m sorry I did *not* see your comment to me in the line-up here, of 28 March 8:56AM. I missed it, and now I want to respond to it.
The last thing you said in that comment was about Doug not honoring his mother. I have already expressed my disagreement with Jen on some of the article, and was done with that aspect of it. But I will summarize what I said again.
My basic argument was Jen wants to base her views on Scripture. Scripture mentions men and the fathers far more than it does mothers. One of Jen’s points was that there are many articles up about Doug’s father, but only a few up honoring his mother, and Jen noted this because (implication) it indicates Doug does not honor his mother.
I said this reasoning doesn’t make sense to me. So you can see that I do have differences with Jen, and this particular article is one of them.
I said:
“I never claimed to know Jen’s intentions. I wanted to convey the point that when you are on the side of truth, if you cause divisiveness, then tough toenails to people who say, ‘You are divisive!’”
Lucy replied:
Lynn, you’re presuming too much about truth. I’m not claiming that Jen is lying, here. What I’m saying is that, in certain parts of this story, there’s obviously a misperception of the facts (on both sides), combined with varied translations of the same scriptures. This is described as an “opinion”… not truth. It doesn’t boil down to fact or fiction. It’s just not that simple. When you have two people who are convicted differently on the same point, one cannot be content to cast off the other person with a sentiment no more useful than, “tough toenails”. You have to have the humility and maturity to consider what your words/actions are going to cause. God tells us to “Guard our tongues”… He didn’t say, “Go announce your version of ‘truth’ no matter what you might stir up, because I sure do like noise.” Prov. 10:19 is useful here. ”
If all this blog was was about Doug Phillips and his mother, I would agree with you, but it isn’t. It’s about ecclesiastic tyranny, and in this case how one views women, what women are permitted to do and not do, how women are treated, IS a significant issue. Jen has come to some realizations since putting up the article, and has expressed how Doug’s overall view of women causes him to treat his mother the way he does.
Jen’s blog started after so much effort at reconciliation and efforts at peacemaking that I think, if one were inclined to write comments about somebody not breaching confidences and spreading things around that shouldn’t be spread around, that it is *Doug Phillips* who ought to be dealt with first and foremost. I can only hope you are writing to Doug Phillips as much as to Jen about this kind of thing.
Lucy:
“See, this is a good example of my point above. I would have said that the overall goal was the UNITY of the Church… not in a way that ignores heresy, but with the understanding that while there are differences of opinion, the body is more committed to peace than to being right, or drawing attention to themselves. There isn’t a church body on the planet that doesn’t have the slightest bit of theological diversity, but we have to focus on the importance of peace amongst the saints… especially if the issue at hand is not essential for Salvation (which is often the case). Otherwise, we are no different than the rest of the world.”
What you are saying has to be true, while at the same time pastors who do things like what Doug Phillips did, you *don’t* tell his victims in the interests of peace to keep their mouths shut.
I wrote:
“Reconciliation with Phillips is over, for the foreseeable future. They aren’t motivated by it.”
Lucy replied:
“They should be, Lynn…. How it manifests itself is up to God, but the motivation should be there.”
Lucy, I meant they were willing to reconcile, but now that this has been spurned, and spurned down to the nth degree, they want to warn the church about what happened to them, so they reposted their blog articles. The motivation to post the articles was to isssue a warning, according to them. They can’t continue to be motivated by reconciliation when it is very clear Doug doesn’t want to reconcile. If and when Doug shows a genuine interest it it, they can be motivated by it again. I’m not saying because they aren’t motivated by it, that it still isn’t something desirable. It’s just that once a course of action, motivated by a desire to reconcile, has been spurned and spurned and spurned, and you think other people might get hurt by this person, you are then free to be motivated to warn others about him.
Lucy quotes:
“Say ‘Thank You’ to Those Who Have Invested in Your Life
[I] cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers. (Ephesians 1:16)
Whatever happened to the man who first opened to you the words of life from the Scripture? Where is the comrade, coach, or instructor who believed in you and helped you to accomplish a great goal? What about the Bible teacher whose careful handling of the Word opened up new vistas of understanding? Where is the friend who stood with you through thick and thin? Most importantly, what have you communicated to the mother who carried you in her womb, loved and nurtured you, or the father who labored to provide for and shepherd you?”
“It just seemed to be a fair reminder to those of you on this thread who are under the impression that Doug does not acknowledge his mother.”
I already expressed my thoughts about this to Jen above. Lucy, I am truly sorry I missed seeing this. I hope this clarifies things.
March 29, 2007 at 11:05 am
It does. Thank you, Lynn. I appreciate that.
I don’t have much to say on the subject of women in the church, but I appreciate your point of view. I had only quoted Doug’s blog in the interest of being fair to him.
March 29, 2007 at 11:16 am
But Lucy… how HAS she offended –ie, SINNED against– Doug? I believe that Jen has apologised repeatedly for any transgressions she may have committed against him. Please note, too, that it is not always necessary to offend (sin against) someone in order for them to feel offended — after all, whenever folks do bad things (or even innocent but dumb things!) they hate to have their embarrassing deeds exposed. I’m sure Doug does feel offended that Jen has come out and told the whole world about BCA’s dirty laundry, but that doesn’t mean that it was wrong of Jen to air out Doug’s altar linens. A lot of other people will now know to avoid VisionForum and the heresy from which it originates, thanks to Jen and Mark. The Epsteins have no obligation to apologise for exposing a false shepherd.
Whistle-blowing takes courage, and that’s VIRTUE, not a vice.
March 29, 2007 at 2:10 pm
Lucy said:
The point is, I have a hard time seeing how this information is useful. It may be informative, but I’m not sure to what end. Warnings? No. It just sounds more like gossip to me.
Indeed, useful. We bought a lot of VF resources in past years. They had an effect on the way we did things. I confess we weren’t very Berean in our understanding at first. The more we’ve studied the Scriptures lately, the less we’ve honored DP and RC Jr. in our choices. Jen’s blog, its documentation (read through everything a few days before it was all taken down), and the name-calling rather than thoughtful, grieved discourse–for the most part–by the “other side” has given us reason to re-examine our library, to discard some materials, and to decide to spend our money elsewhere in future. I for one am grateful for the warning of a false prophet in sheep’s clothing. The time is never wrong to examine the messages we are being encouraged to swallow, in the light of Scripture, to check for spiritual cyanide.
It is no wonder that Mr. Phillips (Dr. Phillips?) might be eager to see these voices stifled. This controversy, among others, has begun to have an economic impact on his business, just from word of mouth among homeschoolers I know, in addition to our own decision.
Personal opinion, perhaps not relevant to the discussion here. Disregard, if so. I have long felt as if VF is manipulating and exploiting Christian homeschool families, offering expensive “toys” to reinforce the qualities we’d like to see in our sons and daughters. I don’t have to pay nearly $100 for a “liberty doll”–I can get something like it at Target for $30. I guess we can sew our own clothes if we want old-fashioned costumes. How do single-income homeschool families afford these luxuries? I know that we can’t, and it fosters discontent in our children when they see others playing with them. If it were truly a ministry, prices would reflect the desire to serve rather than amass a large income. And one other thing: the quality seems to me substandard. Just a small example: I thought that video about honoring our fathers was stilted and poorly done, albeit heartfelt. A lot of the material I’ve read/heard/seen from them is sentimental schlock. Sorry to go off on a tangent.
Back to the subject: I was shocked when I first read about this conflict, though not surprised. I’ve known super-strict legalistic conservative churches, and I’ve known the other extreme (a different sort of legalism, where for example the requirement to be loved and accepted in the church body is to embrace and promote the gay couples there).
Any time a man (or woman) is given a great deal of power, influence, and access to wealth, there is a great deal of necessary responsibility and accountability that goes along with it. It’s not a sin to be rich or powerful, but our Lord was right when He talked about the difficulties such “blessings” would bring.
Having seen other ministries brought down by the growing arrogance of a charismatic leader, I can only shake my head and grieve in advance for those who will be disillusioned if things keep on going as they have been.
Who was it that said “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”?
March 29, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“I can’t help but think about all the many homeschool conferences across the nation that will welcome this pharoah and his teachings into their midst.”
I must admit I am troubled by this fact, knowing that just such a conference is to take place locally this summer. I have always supported the local homeschool conference, but this may be the first year, since we started homeschooling, that I give it a miss.
March 29, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Jean said,
“Following this thought…there isn’t a single life vest that will save VF when the Lord churns it in the sea. I know at this moment it looks as though the sea has been parted to allow DP to have his way. I can’t help but think about all the many homeschool conferences across the nation that will welcome this pharoah and his teachings into their midst. Perhaps the Lord is orchestrating some sort of major, visible fall for DP. He is sovereign, after all!”
Perhaps. And I have a feeling that like Pharoah, DP himself will be the deciding factor in whether, when, and how that fall finally occurs. I tend to believe that Pharoah had hardened his heart so many times, that when the final moments of decision came, he was unable to choose to do otherwise (and thus it can truly be said that God hardened his heart), and so, locked into a course of action by his own deliberately repeated sin, Pharoah strode proudly to his own downfall.
March 29, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Jen,
I just read through again the “2004 submission guidelines” and thought, “Good grief! I’ve been transported back in time to somewhere around 1955! Where’s Marty McFly and the Doc when you really need them?” Except that it’s not in a DeLorean. In all seriousness, though, I think that what you probably had to deal with under that church’s teaching/mindset must have seemed next to impossible, coming from a sort of real-time world like the rest of us. While I have really had my disagreements with you and my doubts to certain aspects of this whole drama on the web, in all the shouts from both sides, I am ready to say here and now that I am terribly sorry for all the pain you have publicly and privately endured, my words included, (God being Sovereign and good always), I have had enough of the finger pointing and want to desperately follow Christ. I do not know whether you have been 100% truthful or the other people have been 100% truthful, God knows. I can not try to satisfy my flesh in this debate. Christ died for the unjust. That’s me, that’s you, that’s Doug. I have clinged to that blood-soaked cross in my walk and have wept tears of joy for what He has done for me. I have been really, really debating in my mind to either leave all my posts up, put up a marker on my blog showing my grief over all the words exchanged, stating something to the effect of, “Here stands a marker of a great battle where blood was shed, and testimonies shredded and the cross was not glorified”. But maybe I should just delete all that was said, because I just can not keep the destruction rolling on, not when I think of you as a mother and wife, and your family suffering in the bondage of sin (the bondage of sin in your PAST, not today or the present, like all of us whom the Father has been kind enough to show us our need for the Savior. His promises are for today and forever). I can relate to your pain and loss and shame (in your past) and can truly see the victory won for His saints, and it is necessary for me to encourage people to only look to Christ and His sacrificial love for them to cover their (mine, yours, His elect) sins. We will celebrate His resurrection here pretty soon (well, I do all the time) and I hope there is true fellowship and eyes captivated by His glory.
I am being sincere, and even though we’ve disagreed, I do not want to cause you any more grief. I would much, much rather find the things we have in common, and even swap funny movie quotes or some such light-hearted thing. I also love, just love to talk about God’s wonderful Word, and lately I’ve liked talking about eschatology. I even have some guilty pleasures such as a prime-time tv show on ABC that Corrie has even said she likes on her blog.
I am the last person to ever, ever claim sinless-perfectionism
and just wanted to let you know these things.
May the Name of Jesus Christ be exalted and lifted up,
Kathleen
March 30, 2007 at 3:45 am
Can someone please help me here? Lucy wrote, “My logic was simple: Attitudes determine intentions. Intentions drive actions. Actions affect others.”
My question is this, since when do attitudes determine intentions? My understanding is that the “heart,” and how it is related to God, ultimately drives our thoughts from which intentions and attitudes are derived (take every thought captive is what the Bible says).
Although I agree with Lucy’s statement that “DOUG’S ACTIONS DO NOT CHANGE JENNIFER’S RESPONSIBILITIES AS A CHRISTIAN,” I briefly want to share the biblical and secular view on leadership.
Jennifer wrote an earlier article regarding the expected leadership traits and behaviors associated with being a student at the United States Military Academy (West Point). That article is a good summary of the secular viewpoint.
At my office, I have posted the traits of a Christian leader. The two areas that Christian leadership and military leadership have in common are (1) servanthood and (2) the expectation that leaders will be wrongly maligned but must respond in love.
If Doug’s allegations against Jennifer and me were true, it is his responsibility as a self-proclaimed and unordained elder (i.e., a leader) to respond in love – as mandated by the Bible.
Lucy is correct, Doug’s actions are his and his alone, and he bears full responsibility for his failure to respond in love, conduct a biblical excommunication, ensure no conflicts of interest existed, provide a fair and impartial trial of the accused, and respond to humble letters seeking clarification of what needed to be repented of. Doug failed to do all of this and, as a leader, the Bible holds him to a HIGHER STANDARD than Jennifer and me, and we just cannot change this biblical reality.
March 30, 2007 at 6:18 am
Wow, Kate, that is something to read!
You wrote:
““Good grief! I’ve been transported back in time to somewhere around 1955! Where’s Marty McFly and the Doc when you really need them?” Except that it’s not in a DeLorean. In all seriousness, though, I think that what you probably had to deal with under that church’s teaching/mindset must have seemed next to impossible, coming from a sort of real-time world like the rest of us.”
Kate, if 1955 were a better time than now, because people were beleiving and following the truth of Scripture more than now, then nothing else matters for God’s people. We *should* go back to 1955. But that’s not the case here.
The real trouble with some of what is on those guidelines is that it was feeding right into the problem they came to Doug for help for in the first place, and they went beyond what the Bible teaches. If you forgive a person, you don’t continually examine that person for all kinds of past unrepented of sins to make them repent and ask you forgiveness for — over and over again.
And this was a one way street. It was Mark who was told to do this with Jen.
And the guidelines really gave Jen no recourse for talking about serious issues with competent people, if the case ever arose.
March 30, 2007 at 7:27 am
Lynn: “And the guidelines really gave Jen no recourse for talking about serious issues with competent people, if the case ever arose.”
Which it did, Lynn. Time after time after time. That is the whole point. It is not just that these guidelines were not helpful in restoring my marriage, but because I was under those guidelines, Doug set me up for years of abuse. And I had no recourse, no place to go, except to an abusive authority as well.
March 30, 2007 at 9:15 am
Lynn,
I didn’t mean anything with my attempt at “tension easing” with my thought about the 1950’s. I just meant that I got a taste of the perhaps idealized perspective Jen must have been dealing with in that congregation’s persuasion. The ’50’s may have been a great time for God’s Word being proclaimed and lived out, I don’t know, I wasn’t there. God’s Truth wil be proclaimed and lived in the lives of His saints in every era, ’till He returns, in my understanding. Idealized (or even imagined) lifestyles that show good works may be people’s convictions, but they will still not be good enough to place them at the feet of a holy God and His finished sacrifice. Hope that made more sense.
March 30, 2007 at 9:44 am
Marie,
” A woman’s children should be her greatest earthly accomplishment. This bio speaks volumes of the priorities of this woman. She always put her family first. There were no “side ventures”- no situations where she wanted to say “look at me,” she totally and completely devoted her life to her husband and her children. ”
What about a man’s greatest earthly priority? Shouldn’t that be his children, too? I do read in the Bible that it tells us that a married man will be concerned about how to please his wife and a married woman will be concerned about how to please her husband. I don’t see that a man’s greatest earthly priority is different than that of a woman’s, at least according to the Bible which I base the reason for believing anything I believe. I know the extreme patriarchal movement has gone way too far in defining things and has sliced and diced up things beyond what scripture does.
As disciples of Christ, we have the same priority. If a woman’s greatest priority is her husband and children then a man’s greatest priority is his wife and children.
And I wonder why it is a good thing for a woman to quietly serve and give her life up in service for others and a bad thing to be in the spotlight but a man can grab that spotlight? In fact, the Bible instructs men, specifically, to love their wives in a sacrificial way. Basically, marriage is not about them. It is about their spouse.
Why would it be okay to give a man glory and public praise for his accomplishments but not okay for a person to give a woman public praise for her accomplishments? Or that a woman is only known by the accomplishments of the males in her life? Why not give a tribute to the woman? To her loving, self-sacrificial ways?
March 30, 2007 at 10:21 am
Kate, I knew the comment about the 50s was not the main point, but I do see your point better because of your reply to me. The fluffy dresses for the women and the 50’s look for the men, and all the behaviors that go along with it, still will not effect a heart change that only the blessed Savior can provide. Is that right?
He is faithful to us when we are faithless toward Him!
http://graceindelible.blogspot.com/2006/02/gods-faithfulness.html
March 30, 2007 at 11:20 am
Yes, Lynn, I believe any time someone tries to rely on their outward appearances or convictions of what they believe as their standard of God’s approval is under a false understanding of what the Bible states is the natural state of man, and Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection that was needed to satisfy a Holy God, who sees only what Jesus did on the cross for the elect, the chosen, those for whom He loved and paid their sins in full. The heart-change that only God can do in a person will manifest it’s fruit in the life in that person, and the fruit is the fruit of the Spirit.
Convictions can be quite varied amongst believers, and are subject to our own preferences, culture, plain old flesh, etc., and it takes great discernment, and maturity (something I pray God continues to grow me in) to live out your life with grace toward others who differ from you (in general) in your convictions. Some things are very basic, such as marital fidelity, or public modesty, or rebellious children, etc., (just for some top-of-the-head examples), and The Gospel/Cross/Resurrection of Jesus Christ should be quite evidenced in our lives and/or speech. I’m in agreement with you on God’s faithfulness and our unfaithfulness, and our encouragement and instruction from Him in guarding our message of His Hope from His Word in our daily lives.
March 30, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Corrie wrote, “Why would it be okay to give a man glory and public praise for his accomplishments but not okay for a person to give a woman public praise for her accomplishments? Or that a woman is only known by the accomplishments of the males in her life? Why not give a tribute to the woman? To her loving, self-sacrificial ways?”
The Bible agrees with you, Corrie. Lemuel’s mother, the OT prophetess, taught her son all about that.
Lemuel’s mother taught him,
Pro 31:23 “Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.”
AND,
Pro 31:28 “Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband [also], and he praiseth her. Pro 31:29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Pro 31:30 Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
Pro 31:31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. “
March 30, 2007 at 9:11 pm
A couple of days ago, Corrie wrote,
“I do wonder why an education for the Phillips women is so important and mentioned so many times but when it comes to other women, it is forbidden and not something that we need to concern ourselves with?”
Well, call me a cynic, but I think it’s a case of “Do as I say, not as I do.” Quite a few of the wives of the men in the patriarchal movement are very well-educated. Remember, patriarchy is not just about relationships within the home, it’s about social hierarchy, too — in fact, patriarchy is all about who is in authority over whom.
In a stratified society, a few well educated people always are on the top running things. Some folks are in the middle, and a LOT of people are at the bottom. If the children in such a society are homeschooled, they will tend to stay at the same social and educational level as their parents. The fellows at the top of a patriarchal society MUST have well-educated women as their wives, if their families are to retain their social position from generation to generation, because these are the women who will socialize and educate their sons.
March 31, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Cynthia,
You are NOT a cynic – you are a realist.
I fail to see any difference between the “Vision of the Anointed,” whether it be from the left, right, atheist, secularist, or Christian worldview. Whenever one believes a society’s stratified “classes” need “leadership,” we enter the realm of feudal lords and fiefdoms instead of a constitutional republic.
Unfortunately, we will always have those who lust after such power despite the country’s political system and laws. Christians are not immune from this idolatrous view of power, which is why Patrick Henry’s refusal to serve in a more centralized Federal government is an example to all wannabe politicians and voters.
April 3, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Maybe BCA should put a sign on its door saying “People who feel obliged to be Bereans NOT WELCOME! Slavish man worshippers VERY WELCOME! Rank hypocrisy encouraged within” Something like that. Then blogs like this wouldn’t be necessary.
Mark, remember that mobs can be tyrannical too. A righteous people under a righteous earthly king wouldn’t necessarily be SO bad, right? And in the history of Israel at times the king was better than the people and held evil in check more than a ruler they would have elected. I would guess this has happened outside of biblical history as well. Don’t put too much stock in politics including forms of gov’t. If a people seek the Lord in earnest (as a result of his sovereign work in their hearts) proper biblical forms and modes will result in time whatever they happen to be.
Dennis
April 3, 2007 at 2:56 pm
The last line in her bio says “…Alexandra is an active recitalist and a student of ashtanga/vinyasa yoga.”
That last would explain why there is virtually no mention of her by the Phillips men, as it places her outside the Christian church.
God bless,
Laurel
April 3, 2007 at 5:24 pm
So glad to hear she escaped the cage they would put her in. And she may well still be a Christian, who knows? (Just not in Howard and DP’s eyes.)
August 26, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Although this thread is quite old, there was some speculation earlier on as to the religion of Doug’s children. Reading through the bio on Howard Phillips page, the youngest son, Sam attends a Catholic college. It is a very conservative Catholic college, so unlike Notre Dame, it would be unusual for a protestant to attend.
August 26, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Sarada,
About Sam Phillips attending a Catholic College: What is his major? Is it a school known for excellence in his chosen field, or did he go there to study theology.
I went to a small, mostly female RC college because they had one of the best schools in the area that offered a two year program with easy transition into a four year program. They also accepted all of my transfer credits from community college (since my parents were not too hip about sending their 16 year old off into the world from a small, Christian school). There was only one Christian college in our state at that time, and their Nursing program was not accredited by the American Nurses Association which would create a lifetime of problems in licensure outside of the state (which I’ve now done five times in 22 years). My other fiscally attainable option at the time (in a 4 yr college) was Penn State which seemed to my parents like sending me out into Sodom or Babylon, from classes of 20 to 60 people into classrooms accomodating near 1000 students in one sitting.
My fellow Assemblies of God churchgoers drove me nuts asking me millions of times why I would go to a Catholic school (where I was granted permission from the Dean to take all religion classes in Judaism –where I figured I would be theologically safer). I would not have Catholic doctrine slipped in under another guise that way.
Does that make me Roman Catholic in any way?
Until one considers the field of study chosen by Sam Phillips, it is hardly fair to ascribe religious affiliation to him. I have heard of this same problem from other Protestants attending Catholic schools (some from in my program at the RC school). It can be a very unfair and painful experience bringing about rejection owing to “guilt by association.”
It’s grossly unfair, especially since on the floor of my tiny dorm, I was considered to be the expert on matters Christian, even from the perspective of my Catholic schoolmates. They knew better than anyone that I was not RC, especially after a Q&A session after a visit from our off campus priest (when I publically compared his insights that evening to standard secualr humanistic thought). I never watered down my faith or capitulated to Cathlolic teaching while in attendence there: quite the opposite was true.
August 27, 2007 at 6:37 am
Sarada, I went to a small, conservative Catholic college, and lots of Protestants attended there — in fact, it’s where I met my husband, who was raised in an AME church.