Joe Taylor Invites Doug Phillips To Peacemaker Mediation
This past Saturday, April 21, 2007, Joe Taylor attempted to have Doug Phillips served a letter at Vision Forum’s offices. Joe didn’t want to give Doug an opportunity to ignore a letter in the mail, or refuse a certified letter, so a legal process server was hired to ensure that Doug would receive Joe’s letter.
Vision Forum’s web site had advertised their annual open house was taking place on April 21. Vision Forum also announced that Doug would be available from 2:00 through 4:30 PM for a book signing. This was the obvious logical time to have the process server come to Vision Forum. But Doug never received Joe’s letter.
The entire incident of the process server’s story is in itself very intriguing and was, at least for me and several others who now know the story, quite humorous. But to hear it, you’ll have to come back Monday.
Here is Joe Taylor’s letter to Doug Phillips, posted here as a Public Notice.
April 20, 2007
Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum
124 W. Main, P.O. Box 550,
Crosbyton, TX 79322
Douglas W. Phillips
Vision Forum, Inc.
4719 Blanco Rd.
San Antonio, TX 78212
“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt. 5:23-24
I apologize for this request being served to you during your busy schedule, but you are gone a lot, and hard to reach.
In addition, the recent judgment from arbitration with the Pete DeRosas and myself has only served to heighten the unresolved conflicts between you and me.
In 2003, you wrote me to complain of my privately exposing your “documentary” video, “Raising The Allosaur.” This review was not actually made public then. However, why shouldn’t it be? Every film that comes out is reviewed and often very negatively.
In your letter to me of January 20, 2003, as well as other correspondence, you have taken the position that my exposure of your video somehow makes me guilty of “slander” and that what I have done “would be actionable defamation in any court of law.” You have accused me of “speaking evil of brothers without working through the biblical guidelines for conflict resolution.” You have accused me of many other things as well, all without any supporting evidence. For example, you’ve accused me of “blackmail.” You’ve even accused me of “anti-Semitism,” a truly outrageous allegation. I have many hundreds of pages of evidence, not to mention hundreds of photographs and many hours of video tape that I believe unequivocally makes my case.
You accuse me that, “You have consistently and willfully refused to follow any biblical guidelines for conflict resolution, notwithstanding our repeated recommendations to you to do just this.”
Yet, many of the very things that you have accused me of are the very things that you yourself are guilty of. And contrary to your accusations, I tried many times to meet with you and practice Matthew: 18, which you so often and loudly demand.
I agreed to mediation with you and Pete DeRosa both. You agreed as well. The problem is that while Pete and I made an appearance and signed the mediation agreement, you never even showed up. And you, Doug, the one who was so insistent, never signed the agreement. Needless to say, nothing has truly been “resolved” by the alleged “conflict resolution.”
It appears to me that the mediation was more a means to silence me and prevent further exposure of un-Christian deeds than it was to resolve conflicts.
I’ve attempted to resolve my differences with you many times. The fact that you evaded signing the mediation agreement doesn’t mean that our issues are resolved or that these problems have just gone away. I’m sure that you’re more than aware of the need to address our disputes. The Word tells us, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” (Rom. 12:18)
Many friends and associates in the past several years encouraged me to sue you, but I did not because I thought you were a Christian brother. (I Cor. 6:1-8)
Your January 20, 2003 letter states, “We are committed to following biblical guidelines of conflict resolution, arbitration and church discipline.”
I’d like to give you the opportunity to prove that you are sincere about that by extending the offer to you to discuss biblically-based Christian conflict resolution with me.
I’m told that Peacemaker Ministries claims that both their mediation and arbitration are biblically-based. Decisions can also be binding, and it is recommended that we agree to the details of this in advance.
All I’m asking you for at this time is a simple written “yes, I will discuss this with you,” or “no, I will not,” answer. The details would be worked out later. Please have a written response in my hands by May 5, 2007.
My offer is genuine, and made in the interests of the whole creationist as well as the home school community.
Doug, there has been entirely too much strife between us. It should be put to an end. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Phil. 2:3
In the bonds of Christ Jesus,
If you don’t know the story behind this letter, you may read it here.
April 28, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Mark, what I do not understand is the glaring hypocrisy for anyone with eyes to see.
Doug Phillips had no problem with the Sproul, Jr. defrocking. Like Sproul, Sr, he ignored church authority and held teaching a teaching conference with Jr. soon after the defrocking.
Yet, you and Jen are excommunicated and shunned for not repenting but are not told your offense that you must repent?
It really does boil down to Doug Phillips’ opinion…not scripture.
Folks, if that is not a cult, I don’t know what is.
Since I do not come from patriarchal type circles, I was wondering if it is normal to ‘shun’ children in these situations?
April 28, 2007 at 12:20 pm
John with the ‘sword’ wrote: I kinda like Switchblade Juanito.
“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”
April 28, 2007 at 12:22 pm
While you are at it, please note this quote from Justice Prima:
“One of the most disturbing allegations to me in all this, and one proven by the nastiness at Fed Up and Matt Chancey’s blog, is Doug’s breach of pastoral confidence, his revealing to the congregation (and his pals) of Jen’s pre-conversion sin….[a]nd…not one single Doug defender has denied that he did this, let alone offered any _evidence_ in his support.”
Since this event occurred before Doug unbiblically and unjustly excommunicated us, how about offering a defense of Doug for his egregious behavior in this instance. Also, may we have an explanation for why this aspect of Phillips’ pre-excommunication behavior is no longer on your blog?
Furthermore, please address the July 2006 letter to Doug, which was sent to his attorney (Don Hart) because Doug made it clear this was the channel to use in order to contact Doug.
In addition to the 10 points you say will be discussed on your blog and the three points I raise above, how about some primary source documents to back up the excommunication? Perhaps you have some written witness statements that will support Doug’s unbiblical actions instead of the generalities contained in Doug’s statements on his church blog.
However, there is a caveat. Please focus on the issue: The unbiblical excommunication. Everything else is just a smokescreen to divert attention from this issue.
Thanks in advance,
P.S. I’m glad you enjoy the Switchblade Juanito moniker. 🙂
April 28, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Esther I couldn’t have said it better myself. I was actually quoting Mark’s bad joke from a comment he made on his blog.
April 28, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Who in their right mind starts calling it a “thong” or a “g-string”?”
I called it a G-string because that’s what you call something that rides up your ****. K. Theodore made up the “thong underwear”. I never mentioned underwear.
If that’s standard fencing duds, fine. But if men can have their picture posted on the internet like that (because the floss part is, after all, functional) then can women wear their lycra workout pants and post their photos on the internet? They are, afterall, stretchy, cool, and functional.
But now, I’ll let the subject rest. I contend that that flossy string thing should have been tucked in for the picture and not advertising body parts. Same rules as for women.
Fencing DOES look fun, I admit. If girls can hunt deer, then girls can fence!
April 28, 2007 at 4:09 pm
“Esther I couldn’t have said it better myself. I was actually quoting Mark’s bad joke from a comment he made on his blog.”
It’s only childish when you say it. 😉
April 28, 2007 at 5:19 pm
SBJ: “Four churches, two homeschool leaders, a few lawyers and lots of regular folks agree:
“Mark and Jen are wrong and need to repent.”
“John,” and what, exactly, are we wrong about? Have you seen that in any of these statements? I keep asking what exactly have I done? Let me give you an example of what you should be saying. “On October 29, 2004, Jen sinned when she wrote in response to Doug’s blog to express her opinions on why she didn’t vote for Peroutka, because women in Doug’s church shouldn’t have the right to an opinion, let alone the right to vote.” And then you can provide chapter and verse to support that that was an excommunicable offense. OK. Your turn.
But don’t worry, I shall address each of these people mentioned above biblically, logically, and charitably. And just because you say I am lying does not make it so. If I were to make a list of those who have libeled* me, your name would be on an ever-growing list. While you ought to be grateful that I do still hold to I Cor. 6 and am not looking for loopholes to sue a fellow believer, the Lord is watching every word that is written on this site, your site, and Doug’s church blog, as well. As a Christian, I am much more concerned with what the Lord thinks.
*Libel: to publish in print an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation. Libel is the written form of defamation, distinguished from slander which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact, and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue.
Again, I am not going to sue anyone, but there is a lot of libel going around lately, and I think God might have something to say about that. Let me encourage you to think a little more carefully, SBJ, before you call me a liar again without providing any proof.
April 28, 2007 at 5:26 pm
“Esther I couldn’t have said it better myself. I was actually quoting Mark’s bad joke from a comment he made on his blog.”
It’s only childish when you say it. ”
Everyone…to set the record straight….I was referring to the silly names the Fencing team on the VF site gave to themselves. Then we have “swordbearer John”. They like to give themselves pretend names and play pretend. It is very bizarre behavior for grown men…
Who in their right mind starts calling it a “thong” or a “g-string”?”
I never asked…I was quoting someone else…
April 28, 2007 at 5:43 pm
“I was referring to the silly names the Fencing team on the VF site gave to themselves. Then we have “swordbearer John”. They like to give themselves pretend names and play pretend. It is very bizarre behavior for grown men…”
Well….. only if they take their playtime and pretending seriously, like “Swordbearer John” seems to be doing by choosing a moniker like that. After all, men have been playing “let’s pretend” for ages — one look at Lodge costumes will tell you that. And then there are the reenactment groups– I live near Gettysburg, PA, and those Civil War reenactors have a BLAST on the weekends, and I’m not just talking about the cannon crews, LOL.
But the difference between normal and bizarre is knowing where reality ends and fantasy begins. I think that a lot of the hyper-patriarchal crowd are trying to re-create and relive a past that never existed, 24/7 and not just for fun on the weekends; worse still, they are adulterating their faith by using Christianity to justify their fantasy retro-world. That is very dangerous– of all the things in life, religion should be the most real of all, and should NEVER be adulterated with make believe.
April 28, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Soooorry Esther. I meant to write,
I know you responded asking if the names came with the outfits.
April 28, 2007 at 6:24 pm
To date, I’ve known it as “historic revisionism,” but I really like your term “fantasy retro-world” far better. It certainly is applicable to those adhering to hyper-patriarchy, frilly white dresses, etc.
I am beginning to believe that those in this close-knit circle sincerely believe because they have spoken it, “it” therefore exists. I think this is taking the so-called dominion mandate to the next level…for, now, they speak things into existence! Frankly, I think the behavior is bordering on blasphemy. What’s really bad is they do it in public:
“We, God’s anointed, declare Mark and Jennifer Epstein to be liars, therefore, they are perpetually branded liars until such time as we deem they have sufficiently repented. It has been spoken, so let it be written!”
No proof. No sworn statements. No due process. Just, we have spoken, therefore, believe us, it is true.
BTW, did you coin the “fantasy retro-world” or did you read it elsewhere? If it’s yours, do you mind if I borrow it in the future?
April 28, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Sure, go ahead….I coined it just now, but I’ll bet I’m not the first to call it that.
April 28, 2007 at 8:06 pm
I am studying 1 Peter right now and this seems appropriate for the situation concerning elders (ministers)
1 Peter 5
1So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly;
3not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.
4And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
April 28, 2007 at 8:35 pm
1 Peter 3:4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
April 28, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Jer 23:1 ¶ Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the LORD.
Jer 23:2 Therefore thus saith the LORD God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the LORD.
Jer 23:3 And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all countries whither I have driven them, and will bring them again to their folds; and they shall be fruitful and increase.
Jer 23:4 And I will set up shepherds over them which shall feed them: and they shall fear no more, nor be dismayed, neither shall they be lacking, saith the LORD.
April 28, 2007 at 11:06 pm
I Tim. 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless…
Blameless implies not merely acquittal, but the absence of even a charge or accusation against an elder (bishop). (Vine’s dictionary)
April 29, 2007 at 6:28 am
When we look at the whole counsel of God, we find one inescapable conclusion: The Aaronic Priesthood, Rabbis, Elders (Bishops), Pastors, all must (1) be above reproach and (2) must live their lives to a higher standard than their sheep.
Doug Phillips fails in both areas. And for more reasons than his conduct towards the Epsteins, although his handling of the Epstein excommunication is sufficient to warrant his removal as an elder.
Some may still find this an unfair statement, but let us examine just a couple of known facts.
First, Doug Phillips is a school-trained lawyer. Unlike his pastoral brethren who have not attended law school and, therefore, may have made one or two minor mistakes in the conduct of an excommunication, Phillips is without excuse.
Secondly, Phillips did not make a minor mistake or two. He violated the heart and soul of the biblical canon and the US Constitution, as it relates to due process, when he denied Jen and me the opportunity to face our accusers.
Thirdly, even those with a cursory knowledge of the Bible can point to Jethro’s suggestion to Moses that resulted in the establishment of what we could reference as “lower courts.” Thus, even though Boerne Christian Assembly is an independent Baptist church (and these churches do not have “sessions”), Phillips is well aware of the normative pattern in scripture, which is to say that Phillips knows and understands the scripture provides for appellate level courts. Therefore, Phillips is guilty of two major breaches of biblical judicial conduct in the Epstein excommunication.
Fourth, you will note that I said non-attorney pastors might be forgiven “minor mistakes” in conducting an excommunication. However, no pastor can be forgiven the conduct exhibited by Doug Phillips, for the Bible is the basis of American jurisprudence and, therefore, any member of the pastorate is without excuse for the major breaches committed by Phillips.
Therefore, it is high time the commenters on this blog and mine quit putting the cart before the horse. Doug Phillips nullified his position of respect when he violated the biblical mandate in such an egregious fashion. As I noted before in an analogous situation, military leaders do not enjoy the congressional protection found in the Uniform Code of Military Justice when they violate the code in the execution of their leadership duties and responsibilities. Pastors have an even higher degree of responsibility because their “uniform code” is the Bible, not a man-made document.
Again, Doug, please repent. Stop paying lip service, Doug, and honor God by your actions. Doug, perhaps a secular military motto can inspire you to do the right thing before God Almighty – “Deeds, not Words.”
April 29, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I was wondering if you’d mind going into a bit more detail about your statements concerning due process in excommunication trials. Specifically, you have made assertions about clear biblical justification for appellate courts, and you seem to be defending the position that the US Judicial model is the model the Church should use for disciplinary decisions.
I am asking this question out of sincere curiosity. I do not have a very developed theology when it comes to such things, but I will say at the outset that I am frustrated with much of the judicial system as it stands today in America. I disagree with rules of evidence, and it seems that we have gotten ourselves into a situation similar to that of Ancient Rome — the better rhetorician wins.
If you chose to take the time to respond, you may do so here in the comments section or on your own blog, and I’ll be able to find it.
April 29, 2007 at 5:32 pm
You ask some very good questions and you’ve made an excellent observation concerning the frustrating state of America’s judicial system. Please allow me to address this latter issue first.
I had one professor that referred to the legal profession as nothing more than “sophisticated whining,” which dovetails nicely with your observation that “the better rhetorician wins.” In many cases, this is the ground truth. As an apparent logical offshoot of this problem, the rules of evidence oft times do not favor the state. However, this is also why the state must be prepared to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Having been on the receiving end of an ecclesiastical case that wouldn’t make it in the back door of any reputable DA’s office (for lack of real evidence), I certainly adhere to the principal that allows a guilty man to go free rather than imprisoning an innocent man by mistake.
As far as “defending the position that the US Judicial model is the model the Church should use for disciplinary decisions,” I apologize for writing something so confusing that you would draw that conclusion.
My intent was to demonstrate that (1) the US model can trace its roots to the Bible, (2) the Bible clearly shows the appellate system the US model has in place, and (3) the Bible always articulates a higher “standard” than any man-made system, whether legal or otherwise.
With these three points in mind, my argument is simple: Doug Phillips, Bob Welch, and the BCA congregants had a duty before God to do better in its conduct of an ecclesiastical trial than any court in America. And this would be true even if Doug Phillips was not an ABA school trained lawyer.
As for the due process issue, this is the core problem I have with the trial Phillips, Welch, and the congregants participated in. First, the accused were not even present. Secondly, since they were not present, they could not face their accusers (one commenter wanted to invoke Deuteronomy 19:15 as proof that the Epsteins were convicted appropriately). Third, since they were not present, could not face their accusers, could not cross-examine witnesses, and ostensibly the congregation voted unanimously to excommunicate (including Doug’s employees that did not recuse themselves), what “evidence” did Phillips and Welch need to provide the “court”? Furthermore, since the accused were not present, how do we even know if the “witnesses” took an oath? How do we even know if there were any witnesses?
The point is this: Phillips conducted a Kangaroo Court proceeding despite (1) his duty before God and (2) his legal training. As you can see from the questions, we don’t know anything about what evidence was presented at our trial, and Phillips has yet to post any evidence to support the Star Chamber excommunication.
At the end of the day, my expectation is that Christians must do a better job than the secular attorneys steeped in what Phillips refers to as evolutionary law.
I hope this answers your questions. If it doesn’t, please let me know.
April 29, 2007 at 6:26 pm
Thanks for clearing up the reason for the delay in the release of information.
May 6, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Your use of the phrase, “Official Public Notice” is misleading (whether intentionally or otherwise).
“A public notice or notice of intent is information directed to citizens of a governmental entity regarding government-related activities. Public notices have traditionally been published in specified governmental publications and in local newspapers, a common source for community information.
A public notice typically possesses four major characteristics:
A public notice is published in a broadly available forum, such as a local newspaper.
A public notice is capable of being archived in a secure and publicly available format.
A public notice is capable of being accessed by all segments of society.
The public and the source of the notice must be able to verify that the notice was published, and its information disseminated to the public. ”
Since you are not a “governmental entity” and you’re not informing your “citizens,” it is neither Official nor Public in any meaningful sense.
Why are you involved in making a public disclosure of a matter in which you are not involved?
May 6, 2007 at 10:21 pm
Also from that same Wikipedia link:
The final type of public notice consists of notices by non-governmental entities which use public powers or institutions in some way.
(Institutions – Institutions are structures and mechanisms of social order and cooperation governing the behavior of two or more individuals.)
Goal of a public notice – to ensure that the public is adequately informed of the actions of its government and other entities in their communities.
Well, I am definitely non-governmental and I am using an institution in some way. My “institution” is the visible church, or rather, those of the visible church who are reading this blog, who are interested in governing the behavior of Doug Phillips and those he has offended. The goal is to inform the public of the actions of those involved.
And I’m grasping at straws! I admit it.
I’ll tell you what, Theophilus, if you can come up with a better title, I shall consider it. I did not misuse that title on purpose; I simply did not check it out. Thank you for doing some research for me. I appreciate your bringing this to my attention.
As far as why I am involved in this, it is because this blog is about exposing Doug Phillips, it is not necessarily dedicated to just my story. Joe Taylor felt this would be the most effective way of ensuring that Doug Phillips would read his letter, since Doug reads my blog.
May 7, 2007 at 1:44 pm
I think there has been a gross lack of wisdom by all involved in this situation.
Unfortunately, your response here is more obfuscation. “The final type of public notice … entities which use PUBLIC POWERS OR INSTITUTIONS in some way.” So, the Gas company, the phone company, etc. must give public notice of their intent to raise rates or run a new pipeline.
Also, you suggested that this posting was in anticipation of some subsequent posting (your daughter even chuckled about what you were going to post. So, this was not merely “inform(ing) the public of the actions of those involved.”
A more appropriate title would have been “An Open Letter to Doug Phillips.” Of course, this still does not address my question as to why you, as a non-party to the dispute between Joe Taylor and Vision Forum, would be posting such information, however you entitle it.
May 7, 2007 at 2:00 pm
You said “Frank, this is an official public notice. You will find out why this is not only ethical, but is legally necessary, when the next article comes out. You are in for a big surprise!”
“an official public notice … legally necessary.” What is the legal necessity?
May 7, 2007 at 3:29 pm
“Of course, this still does not address my question as to why you, as a non-party to the dispute between Joe Taylor and Vision Forum, would be posting such information, however you entitle it.”
She is exposing Doug’s bullying of people in general. As she said before, if it were *only* the Epsteins that had been treated badly, she’d have shaken the dust off their feet. But Doug bullies anyone in his way, or uses them for any purpose he deems fit.
She’ll have a more thorough answer, I’m sure.
May 7, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Thank you Vik, but I wasn’t asking you.
“He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like on that taketh a dog by the ears.” Pro. 26:17
May 7, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Theophilus, this comment section is a kind of forum, so that Scripture reference you just gave strikes me as a little arrogant. Both Vic and you are allowed to comment here.
One could just as well say you yourself are meddling with strife not belonging to you just by asking Jen the questions you are asking, and just by participating here.
May 7, 2007 at 5:39 pm
“Thank you Vik, but I wasn’t asking you.”
You’re welcome smarty, but sometimes if the Epsteins are gone awhile, you don’t get a response right away WHICH WAS WHY I SAID: (ahem)
“She’ll have a more thorough answer, I’m sure.”
Anyway, around here people respond to each other’s comments. Get used to it.
May 7, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Oh, thanks Lynn. After I posted I see you answered him Theo already.
May 7, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Gawsh, now that’s grammar for you. Let’s try again.
“Oh, thanks Lynn. After I posted I saw You had answered Theo already.”
I suspect it’s another one of those Reformed men; tends to give my fingers a mind of their own. 😉
May 7, 2007 at 5:48 pm
ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!! Understood completely….. ;D
May 7, 2007 at 8:38 pm
“One could just as well say you yourself are meddling with strife not belonging to you just by asking Jen the questions you are asking, and just by participating here.”
One could certainly say that and I considered it myself. However, I (along with many “homeschool leaders”) were involved in this dispute when the Epsteins sent an unsolicited letter warning about Doug Phillips.
So, where is Jen’s “more thorough answer?”
May 7, 2007 at 8:40 pm
That should have been “I (along…) became involved, etc.
That’s the problem with using parenthetic phrases.
No way to edit here.
May 7, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Mr. Theo, not that you care, but do you see now why I went ahead and gave a brief answer? I do that at times for “newbies” because I don’t want them to think they are being ignored. You essentially thanked me with an insult.
My brief response was given because (I’ll say it again) Jen is not always available to comment whenever we like! She is AWAY from her computer and probably out with her family. She spends a lot of time on this blog, but she doesn’t live on it.
“No way to edit here.”
I hear you. I was told if I went through “Foxfire” that it underlines errors as you type. I haven’t tried that yet.
May 7, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Well, considering it has been months since Mr. Chancey promised us a new installment where he would make known who Frank Vance really was and all the players in this cabal, conspiracy or what have you, I would say Jen is pretty quick to put out articles.
I also want to hear the whole story about David Linton. Maybe Mr. Linton is lying on a beach somewhere trying to evade the authorities? I know sometimes our government can persuade those countries who do not extradite to do just that. I hope that he has time to tell his story between Pina Coladas and having his BMW outfitted with the latest spy equipment.
I love stories with lots of action, intrigue, suspense and conspiracy.
Something just sounds fishy with VF’s version. I think it is the National Enquirer (as some people have described it) style of writing. I wonder if some other judge can review this whole silly mess to see if he merited the accusations leveled at him? I also want to know if his boss was tipped off and told to look into it or if, as VF alludes, his boss just happened upon his involvement in this conspiratorial cabal. I know it is redundant to use those words together but they seem to go together on the SFU, BCA and VF sites. I also see that other church members and employees are now publically saying how thankful that Jen’s fellow conspirators are being caught and are facing punishment.
That word “cabal” just packs a punch! I love it. I use it a lot now. My children often form a cabal and sneak into the garage to get freeze pops for all the neighbor children. I have caught them in their plot and they have been formally punished for their vile deeds. 😉
Sometimes having a sense of humor is the only way to approach these sorts of things. I would probably have been persuaded to take BCA’s statements more seriously if it were not for SFU and Mrs. B and all the inflated and sensationalistic rhetoric. I was educated in the public school system and I took several classes that taught me to look at things like this and use critical thinking skills to see through what is being said and to be wary when you see a pattern.
May 7, 2007 at 9:30 pm
“Maybe Mr. Linton is lying on a beach somewhere trying to evade the authorities?”
Better that, than lying on a blog while trying to evade the truth… or the process servers.
Just sayin’. 😉
May 8, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I have wasted a good deal of time reading through the postings by the various parties involved and my original judgement has been confirmed; that there has been a gross lack of wisdom by all parties.
That being said, I cannot help being amused at what “the other side” considers as “refutations” of the charges made by this site.
Having read through the postings at the BCA website, I cannot discern that they contain any “refutation” of the Epstein’s complaints (that does not mean such refutations don’t exist), not are they really even thrid party statements about the complaints.
The “statement” by FCA is really a recapitulation by BCA with a handful of quotes thrown in (apparently the readers are too stupid to interpret what FCA is saying).
The statement from LWF simply says that there are no “issues” between them and BCA.
All that can be concluded from the various statements is that they “recognize” BCA as an independent church with a right to excommunicate (when I was growing up, we called it “disfellowshiping” – not that it was done much) recalcitrant members.
I cannot see anywhere that they endorse or confirm the basis of BCA’s action.
So, why am I posting here? Because none of “their” sites allow comments. It’s what I call “hit and run” bloging (two Gs?) or, as we say in So. Cal, “drive-by blogging” )two Gs looks better).
May 8, 2007 at 9:09 pm
This is a personal not to Mark and Jennifer.
I don’t know you and I don’t know the details of what did or did not take place. I do know that there is an impulse to vindicated when you believe you have been wronged: I know this from personal experience. I also know that things are seldom, if ever, made right by what you have done and are doing.
A couple of years ago, after being dumped by a Christian organization to which I had given faithful service for nearly 20 years, I wanted everyone to know what had happened. I spent hours drafting letters outling what had happened (much like you have done here); I did this as recently as last week.
Upon reflection, I realized that no one could make things right, except the other party and that is not going to happen.
The writing is a form of catharsis; the publishing would profit nothing.
I delete the letters and try to get on with things. That is my counsel to you. Otherwise, you become possessed by the grievance.
May 8, 2007 at 9:21 pm
“I’m not an intern (nor have I ever been)
I’m not Doug Phillips (or a member of his family)
I’m not R.C. Sproul (or a member of his family)
I’m not a member of BCA (although I’ve attended there)
I’m not an employee of Vision Forum (but yes I know a few)
I’m not Matt Chancey (or a member of his family)”
Assuming all this is true, I am compelled to ask (Vik, please note) “then why are you acting as an advocate for these people?”
Is Doug not capable of speaking for himself (his signature is not on any of the documents I’ve seen).
Do the postings at BCA not “speak” (or “not” speak) for themselves?
Do the attorneys not speak for themselves?
Who are you?
May 9, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Theo., people aren’t checking this thread anymore and I don’t think anyone realizes you’re posting here. I checked it in case you had. I would like to invite you to join the latest thread about “The Doug Phillips’ School of Logical Fallacies” and jump right in. And ask the same questions you’ve been asking even if they only pertain to this thread.
Now, why did you want me to note that? I noted it, but I can’t see where I said anything about it. I might have.
I left an abusive situation also, and just went on ahead to “shake the dust off” my feet and move on with my life. Doug… is a very well-known public figure and Jen is trying to prevent tyranny against others. She notes things in detail in order for others to see Doug’s duplicity and histrionics, and vague statements. He loves big words and theatrics, and uses them whenever he gets a chance.
Anyway, join us in one of the newer threads, if you’re so compelled.