The Doug Phillips’ School of Yellow Journalism

Regular readers of this website will know that Doug Phillips has made strenuous efforts to stop my husband and me from reporting the truth about his ecclesiastical tyranny. Doug has tried to shut us up and take us down by launching personal attacks against us, spreading rumors, leaking pastoral confidences, and using his lackeys to do his dirty work for him by posting malicious and anonymous websites dedicated to fabricating falsehoods about us. The next step was an even broader smear campaign of employing the logical fallacy of guilt by association to try and taint us with the smear of racism. Doug Phillips’ latest attempt to discredit us involves wild and exaggerated criminal charges against not only my family, but against others who are critical of Doug because of his treatment of us. No one may dissent against Doug. No one may disagree. Or they will pay. Just like Doug said to me after I disagreed with his political views, “You’re going to pay for this.”To make his opponents “pay,” Doug has made lies and wild conspiracy theories part and parcel of his M.O. He has set this example for his friends and “former interns,” some of whom have been eager to join the fray. Matt Chancey, with his “Mrs. Binoculars,” has been posting yellow journalism for months, and Doug Phillips has endorsed it by repeatedly linking to Matt’s experiment in tabloid-style conspiracy theories and falsely characterizing his close personal friend, Matt Chancey, as an “independent investigator.”

Doug Phillips’ recent articles and latest charges have just handed me more to report on, not only exposing his ecclesiastical tyranny, but also exposing his duplicity. There’s so much more, in fact, that it’s getting kind of hard to decide what to write about next. I have several articles in the works, so keep checking in regularly. Today, I want to briefly address Doug’s outrageous accusations against some of my friends, and in particular the accusations that Doug has just made against one friend, David, attacked by name earlier this week on a Vision Forum webpage.

Before attacking David by name on the Vision Forum website, Doug carefully set the stage with an anonymous accusation on the Boerne Christian Assembly blog:

“In at least one case, a conspirator was apprehended and formally punished for helping Jennifer Epstein with an act of public fraud that included the misappropriation of government property and gross violation of cannons of ethics. This conspirator has currently fled the country to a non-extradition nation.”

The anonymous posting was reinforced by a whisper campaign that further set the stage such that, by the time David’s name was released, few would be prepared to consider him in a good, or even neutral, light. Without a name attached, the charges are outrageous; with the name, they are libelous as well. Note how Doug’s choice of language is carefully calculated to portray David in the worst possible light and make him out to appear to be a criminal on the run from the law. Words like “apprehended,” “public fraud,” “gross violation of cannons of ethics”, “fled the country”, “non-extradition nation” sure sound scary. But they aren’t matched by the facts.

To give some background, I was put in contact with David by a mutual acquaintance, who thought he could encourage us during a time we were not going to church. David did encourage my husband and me. He focused on urging us to keep going to the Scriptures for guidance in all that we did. He also urged us not to give up on God’s church but to keep looking for a place we could worship in spirit and in truth and be accountable to godly elders who could help us grow in the knowledge of Christ and in our efforts to be reconciled with Doug Phillips. One of the ironies of Doug’s current attack on David was that David was one of the few people at the time who discouraged us from going public and one of the few people who thought we should give Doug and those involved at BCA another chance. As a result, we delayed going public for longer than would have been the case without David’s admonition.

As I understand it, because David worked for an elected judge, he was an “employee at will” rather than a career public official. That made it easy for David to work flex time, meaning that his schedule could vary some each week so long as he did his work rather than clock in at a specific time. David took advantage of that flexibility to take a family member who has been ill for an extended time for medical care nearly every week and often more than once a week. David also worked from home on occasion when that family member was feeling particularly ill. The downside of at will employment is that it meant David could be dismissed without the level of justification required to dismiss regular government employees. So if you thought David had to have done something as bad as insinuated by Doug Phillips to get dismissed as a government employee, you are mistaken.

So what did David do? Although I have never met David or seen his office and have no inside knowledge of what he did at work (I also have not discussed with David the particulars of why he left the judge’s employment), I do know the limits of my interactions with David. As best as I can tell reading between the lines of the accusations Doug Phillips published on the Internet, David’s “vile” deeds justifying dismissal boil down to communicating with me using a personal email address during office hours and correcting a document from me, part of which was on his office computer. There’s nothing else he did that comes even close to the charges being made against him as the reason for leaving his work for the judge. And yet even reduced to this, the charges make no sense to me.

For example, given the fact that David worked on a flexible schedule, it doesn’t make sense to me to claim “that he edited, on State time.” As long as David did his work for the judge, he could take a personal break at the office and email me or anyone else or edit a non-work document. This is what Doug means by “misappropriation of state property,” the sort of thing that millions of government employees do every day without any criminal infraction. Doug’s “gross violation of cannons [sic] of ethics?” charge is also misplaced. Doug appears to be assuming that David gave me legal advice, but that’s not the case. David was careful in specifying that he would not offer me legal advice, and he didn’t. My husband and I had, and have, our own legal counsel. The “public fraud” charge seems to be a guilt by association tactic. Doug has already accused me of fraud, and now he wants to make David guilty of it as well by liberal use of the word “conspiracy”. The “extradition” claim is just the same: The only reason that no extradition is possible is because no crime justifying extradition has been committed.

So just what was David’s sin for which he had to go? Not for job performance reasons. Even Doug doesn’t try to claim that. No, David had to go because he committed the great sin of befriending me, and I was someone who Doug Phillips had decided to make his sworn enemy. The reality is that what little interactions David had with me from his office did not interfere with his work. The reality is that even if David had never used his office computer to communicate with me, and if he had only communicated from home, he might very well have had to go anyway, once it was discovered that he had communicated with me.

Doug Phillips is out for his pound of flesh, and anyone who in any way communicates with me is a potential target. Doug’s latest attack, his malicious and libelous criminal accusations, against a man who hasn’t even been in contact with me for months, shows just how far Doug is willing to go in harming others out of vengeance against me. It’s apparently not enough to get a someone fired if you can also kick him when he’s down.

But as bad as Doug’s behavior against David is, apparently Doug has been working overtime to make others pay as well. As Doug says on his church blog,

“At the time of this writing, yet another Jennifer Epstein collaborator awaits formal judicial punishment for behavior directly connected with the Epstein conspiracy.”

I’m not entirely clear about who Doug might be referring to. I have several friends and acquaintances who have helped me in this difficult time. Yet whatever they have done — whether prayer, encouragement, or spiritual counsel — Doug calls them “co-conspirators” with me, the “ringleader”. Given how preposterous Doug’s allegations are against David, I would expect him to make the same kinds of accusations against any of these others, too. One thing is certain, though: I know of no one who “awaits formal judicial punishment for behavior directly connected with the Epstein conspiracy.”

So, after filtering out the lies and exaggerations against friends and acquaintances, I’m left with the question: Why is Doug so desperate that he is pulling out all the stops to try and destroy everyone with any connection to me, however tenuous? Is it because his empire of lies is crumbling beneath his feet? Is it because the deceptions are all spinning out of control? Is it because fewer and fewer people will put up with the spiritual abuse anymore? Whatever the case, I’m convinced that Doug’s latest defensive attacks are doing more to undermine the remnants of his credibility than anything I can report about him.

Advertisements

103 Responses to “The Doug Phillips’ School of Yellow Journalism”

  1. ReformedCalvinist Says:

    Let’s see, what topic were we commenting on–Yellow Journalism. No, Christian Politics. No, Illegal Immigration. No, Welfare. That’s right, Welfare: Doug Phillips doesn’t believe in taking away money from people who worked for it and giving it to people who didn’t. That’s one thing I have in common with him that I don’t apparently have with some of my beloved fellow commentators.

    The government has been very successful at making me hand over a chunk of every paycheck I earn (jail gets old real quick), but they’ve almost totally failed at persuading me to participate on the other end of the scheme, by vicariously dipping my hands into the pockets of others. And all the members of my large family feel the same way. The State could take our kids, but they’d have their hands full trying to keep them (Home Alone IV: Escape From Foster Care)!

    So far we’ve cost our local school district over $150,000 just in state funding alone. Wow. For a family living debt-free on less than one income, that’s a pretty powerful amount of leverage.

  2. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Doug Phillips doesn’t believe in taking away money from people who worked for it and giving it to people who didn’t. That’s one thing I have in common with him….The government has been very successful at making me hand over a chunk of every paycheck I earn.. ”

    So if your church asked you to do the same thing, for the same reasons, would you be willing to do so?

  3. Vik Says:

    Cynthia asked:
    “Good heavens, Vik, I didn’t know you lived there– somehow I got the idea that you lived in the PA/NY area.”

    Gosh, do I really write with a New Yawk accent? 😛

    Well, if I did live in NY I’d have troubles of my own there too, namely, blizzards and floods! Did you think I was in PA because of all the plain folk? There are a bunch here, too. Guess I was sheltered or something, because I’d never seen or heard of those kinds of people until I moved here. At first I just thought they were dressed up for a pioneer play (we were at a craft fair here). Color me stupid.
    And, so far we’ve escaped the tornadoes. We are getting a storm shelter ASAP.
    ————————————
    R.C. said:
    “Let’s see, what topic were we commenting on–Yellow Journalism. No, Christian Politics. No, Illegal Immigration. No, Welfare.”

    No, tornadoes and blizzards and floods, oh my! 😮

    I like the idea of the churches taking charge when possible (besides, they won’t make people abandon their little doggies after hurricanes) but one thing I believe we’re missing here is people helping their own families. I am helping my own mother and grandmother, and while that isn’t always possible for everyone, I think people could give up some of their “toys” and downgrade their lifestyles a little and help out their own more. I think THAT should come even before asking a church for help, when it comes to individuals and their families.

    I try not to be a burden to *anyone*.

  4. Jen Says:

    Corrie: “In fact, at one point their behavior was so extreme that a shepherd from a nearby congregation who also had counseled this family strongly advised Doug Phillips to get a court restraining order for his physical protection, a recommendation he declined.”

    “This was from the letter off of the BCA site.

    “Is this supposedly referring to LBW? Why would LBW or anyone else counsel Doug to get a restraining order for his physical protection?”

    Corrie, that is an interesting question. This was the first time I’d ever heard this. I have NO idea what Doug is talking about here. Doug, would you please provide some names and evidence?

    Notice that I have provided names and documentation for my allegations. I wonder why Doug Phillips won’t do the same?

    Corrie: “It should be noted that Doug Phillips did not make the initial recommendation to excommunicate this wayward couple. The motion for excommunication came from another member of the church body, and the BCA congregation voted unanimously in approving it.”

    “Do you know who made the recommendation to excommunicate? It seems that BCA made it a point to let everyone know that this was not Doug’s recommendation. Did this just pop into his head because of what the other person recommended? Doug had no notion of excommunicating you until this guy (I assume it was a guy) stood up and recommended it?

    “Who exactly is the elder (s) in that church and who was in leadership at the time?”

    I am fairly confident that is was Richard Short, Vision Forum’s accountant, who recommended that we be excommunicated. For well over a year before we were excommunicated, we had the Shorts over for dinner nearly every Friday evening. They would usually stay until 2 or 3 in the morning, so we thought we had a good relationship with them. On the Thursday before we were read the disciplinary action statement, Mark called Richard and said he was so fed up with his life that he wanted Richard to help him get his life straightened out. Richard stated that he would not have any time for him until Monday. At that time, we had no idea that they were planning to discipline us on Sunday. Doug, and Richard, were so set on disciplining us on that particular time schedule, that they were not willing to even hear Mark when he was pleading for help and since we were to be shunned after the reading of that letter, Richard never did help Mark. We have since found out that Richard Short had a pattern of shunning people who did not meet his standards. I believe that Doug and Richard planned this for at least three months, since I was counseled by Beall Phillips and Reba Short, Richard’s wife, and I subsequently wrote Doug that letter about voting. I believe they planned it together from that point. In fact, Mark was involved in planning with Beall just MY excommunication during those counseling sessions as well. So, it had been in the works for at least 3 months.

    Doug Phillips was the only elder at BCA at that time, and had been for a long time. Bob Sarratt and Mo Gill were deacons, both of whom admitted they were simply Doug’s “yes” men. So, if you are wanting to know who was truly in leadership, it was only Doug. Doug made every decision.

  5. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Richard Short did not have the authority to recommend that you and Mark be ex communicated. He was not an ordained elder and served no ministerial office. Therefore the ex communication is moot.

    You are free.

  6. Corrie Says:

    Yes, deacons can’t be considered elders and a session is a group of ELDERS. So, Doug was the only elder? And obviously Richard Short was an employee for VF? Boy! No wonder no one will ask any questions or go against what their boss says. Everyone is on the payroll. How can you run a church and be objective and fair and just when everyone is on the pastor’s payroll? Talk about a HUGE conflict of interest!

    Why isn’t anyone seeing this? (I know some of you are but you know what I mean! 😉 )

    Does Sarratt or Gill work for VF, too? It seems like there are so many people who go to BCA who work for Doug. Isn’t this a huge problem?

    At the VERY LEAST, the elders at BCA should have NOTHING to do with receivng a paycheck from Doug. NOTHING. They need to be able to make decisions without having “what if I lose my job because I disagree with Doug” in the back of their minds.

    Does BCA have more than one elder now? Who are they? Do they work for Doug?

    Also, I sure hope that BCA is not confusing elders with deacons but it seems that they are. Who were the multiple leaders at the time of your excommunication? They canNOT include the deacons. After all, it was BCA that made that silly assertion that the session decided to excommunicate you. There is no session at a baptist church and there is no session without a plurality of (impartial) elders.

    Morgan is right. Your excommunication is moot. Short was not in the position to make such a recommendation. And I highly doubt that Richard Short came up with the idea all on his own. I am sure that this was thrown around and not just some afterthought.

    And someone needs to hold Doug Phillip’s feet to the fire and find out just who this pastor is who recommended that he get a restraining order. If it was LBW, Living Waters needs to revise their statement and proclaim that they did indeed instruct Phillips to get one and on what basis.

  7. Corrie Says:

    Maybe this has been brought up before but with Doug being a lawyer and all doesn’t he understand “habeas corpus”? This writ is a great safeguard to injustice and it is to test whether the person has received due process. It does not decide if they are guilty or not.

    The Epsteins were given no option of appeal. FPC and LW did not give them that appeal. They must be present to be able to answer the charges themselves.

    FPC and LW just went on what they were told without the Epsteins present to counter anything that was not true.

    The Church cannot put up with this sort of abuse of authority. If we do, then it will come back to bite us in the backside. Our secular court systems are more fair than our own churches. And, the since most of the “leaders” at BCA are in VF/Phillip’s back pocket, I hardly think any person with a lick of common sense would find that to be fair.

    That is like having the jury members all being the prosecutor’s employees. Not really a fair trial, if you ask me.

  8. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Thats why churches have elders and deacons….accountability and oversight. Doug Phillips seems to be accountable to no one….church members or friends of the pastor have no right and again…no authority to make disciplinary recommendations…certainly no congregation should be allowed to VOTE on ex communication.

    A proper ex communication is only done when the parties involved have been seriously counseled with by the elders or perhaps outside counseling and have refused to repent of the sins that led to them being brought up on charges.

  9. Corrie Says:

    I know you are all thinking, “Boy! That Corrie is a day late and a dollar short!” 😉 But, this is really just “clicking” with me now. These are trained men of the court. BCA’s leaders are so monetarily connected to Doug Phillips that they can’t risk his disaproval. There needs to be some restructuring in leadership so this doesn’t happen again. This is not right.

  10. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “How can you run a church and be objective and fair and just when everyone is on the pastor’s payroll? Talk about a HUGE conflict of interest!”

    Yep…
    Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    Mat 21:12 ¶ And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves, And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves. And the blind and the lame came to him in the temple; and he healed them.

  11. ReformedCalvinist Says:

    I was on my pastor’s payroll, but I was the only one in the church. What made the relationship awkward was not the risk that he would remove me from his employ (he did) but that I would influence the church to remove him from leadership (I did). The reason was that I knew too much about his business practices to be comfortable with him continuing in church leadership. He’s now pastoring another church, as far as I know without any of its members on his payroll (other than his own family).

    We are still friends but it’s been awkward ever since.

  12. Jen Says:

    RC: ““Doug Phillips doesn’t believe in taking away money from people who worked for it and giving it to people who didn’t. That’s one thing I have in common with him….The government has been very successful at making me hand over a chunk of every paycheck I earn.. ”

    Cynthia: “So if your church asked you to do the same thing, for the same reasons, would you be willing to do so?”

    Actually, Cynthia, I don’t think the church should be doing the asking; I believe in cheerful giving instead. And second, money may not always be the best way of helping those in need. While I am not “opposed” to giving money to those who need it, I think there are often more practical methods of helping: giving food (maybe with some fellowship), paying a specific bill, helping them find a job, educating them, cleaning up after a storm or a fire, providing clothing, and a million other practical ways of “loving others.”

    Vik: “I think people could give up some of their “toys” and downgrade their lifestyles a little and help out their own more. I think THAT should come even before asking a church for help, when it comes to individuals and their families.”

    You are right, Vik! I skipped that very important step. I absolutely agree that family should help family first. If we do things in God’s order – family first, then go to the church – we would find much less need for government interference.

  13. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Actually, Cynthia, I don’t think the church should be doing the asking; I believe in cheerful giving instead. And second, money may not always be the best way of helping those in need. While I am not “opposed” to giving money to those who need it, I think there are often more practical methods of helping: giving food (maybe with some fellowship), paying a specific bill, helping them find a job, educating them, cleaning up after a storm or a fire, providing clothing, and a million other practical ways of “loving others.””

    I agree with all of that, but throughout history families and the Church have been notorious for falling down on the job when it comes to helping the poor.
    That’s why we need the government to step in, and MAKE people do what they should be doing willingly. The state “wields the sword” to punish wrongdoing, but wrongdoing can also encompass “crimes” of omission. Besides, many people don’t belong to any church, and they should also do their fair share to help their fellowman — it’s part of the responsibility of belonging to a human community.

  14. Vik Says:

    I think the government could be a little more discerning about who it helps, though. Welfare is meant to help people through transitions or help them until they get back on their feet. So many people just make a lifestyle out of it.

    I am not, of course, referring to the elderly or disabled.

  15. Jen Says:

    Morgan: “Richard Short did not have the authority to recommend that you and Mark be ex communicated. He was not an ordained elder and served no ministerial office. Therefore the ex communication is moot.

    “You are free.”

    LOL! End of story! I wish it were that easy.

    Corrie: “Yes, deacons can’t be considered elders…”

    That is why Doug called them “leaders.” He thought by grouping the ONE elder and two deacons together, he could call it a “session.”

    Corrie: “and a session is a group of ELDERS. So, Doug was the only elder?”

    Yes. I THINK he was the only elder for 4-5 years.

    Corrie: “And obviously Richard Short was an employee for VF?”

    I believe he has worked for Doug for about 8 years or so.

    Corrie: “Does Sarratt or Gill work for VF, too? It seems like there are so many people who go to BCA who work for Doug. Isn’t this a huge problem?”

    No, neither Bob Sarratt nor Mo Gill work directly for Doug. Of course, they strongly support everything Vision Forum, but I don’t think they have a financial relationship with Doug.

    Corrie: “At the VERY LEAST, the elders at BCA should have NOTHING to do with receiving a paycheck from Doug. NOTHING. They need to be able to make decisions without having “what if I lose my job because I disagree with Doug” in the back of their minds.”

    What elders? Doug was the only one!

    Corrie: “Does BCA have more than one elder now? Who are they? Do they work for Doug?”

    I have “heard” that since my story came out, Doug now has some “elders-in-training.” And guess who is training them? I “believe” they are Michael Gobart and Geoff Botkin, both of whom work at Vision Forum for Doug. Don’t hold me to that, but I’ve heard rumors.

    Corrie: “Also, I sure hope that BCA is not confusing elders with deacons but it seems that they are. Who were the multiple leaders at the time of your excommunication?”

    Yes, Corrie, “leadership team” equals one elder plus two deacons who are admittedly “yes” men.

    Corrie: “There is no session at a baptist church and there is no session without a plurality of (impartial) elders.”

    Doug did not start using the term “session” until he found out we were going to a Presbyterian church. It is funny to think of him calling himself a “session!”

    Corrie: “And someone needs to hold Doug Phillip’s feet to the fire and find out just who this pastor is who recommended that he get a restraining order. If it was LBW, Living Waters needs to revise their statement and proclaim that they did indeed instruct Phillips to get one and on what basis.”

    My guess is that it is not Little Bear Wheeler. It may not be anyone, but rather a fabrication.

    Corrie: “Maybe this has been brought up before but with Doug being a lawyer and all doesn’t he understand “habeas corpus”? This writ is a great safeguard to injustice and it is to test whether the person has received due process. It does not decide if they are guilty or not.”

    While I’m sure that Doug Phillips KNOWS this, one of his favorite sayings is “He who defines, wins.” He is redefining what he thinks an excommunication should look like, and he expects to fall in step with him.

    Corrie: “The Epsteins were given no option of appeal. FPC and LW did not give them that appeal. They must be present to be able to answer the charges themselves.”

    Now you’re getting it!

    Corrie: “FPC and LW just went on what they were told without the Epsteins present to counter anything that was not true.”

    Yep.

    Corrie: “Not really a fair trial, if you ask me.”

    That’s what I’ve been trying to say!

  16. Corrie Says:

    Reformed Calvinist,

    “What made the relationship awkward was not the risk that he would remove me from his employ (he did) but that I would influence the church to remove him from leadership (I did).”

    LOL!

    I can imagine that would have been an awkward situation. You did the right thing but there are far too few of “yous” out there in churches today.

    There is big talk about doing the right thing but when the rubber hits the road, we tuck tail.

  17. Vik Says:

    This all reminds me of when my son was small, and he’d tell me something that would fire me up. It would be later that I’d discover that he didn’t tell me the whole story.

    He learned the hard way that “Not telling the whole story is the same as lying.” He also learned about exaggerating. Doug goes beyond not telling the whole story and exaggerating. He just flat makes stuff up!

  18. Corrie Says:

    “Corrie: “There is no session at a baptist church and there is no session without a plurality of (impartial) elders.”

    Doug did not start using the term “session” until he found out we were going to a Presbyterian church. It is funny to think of him calling himself a “session!””

    Jen,

    This little white lie has bothered me from the beginning.

    BCA does not have a session because they are not Presbyterian but Baptist and they have only one elder, and sessions are not made up of elders and deacons. Elders are the authority in the church. Deacons are the servants to free up the elders for governing the church body.

    Do they not understand this form of elder run government? They are not congregational (with just a pastor and deacons) are they? If they are congregational, which it seems to me they are, then they cannot call themselves a session.

    “What elders? Doug was the only one!”

    Exactly. And the reason why I ask these questions is to show people that BCA’s statements are NOT to be trusted because they purposely choose rhetoric to give a false impression. It is double-speak. And, if they just started using the term “session” because of FPC then that is really wrong. FPC does know how Doug basically thumbed his nose at a ruling body of the Presbyterian church when he chose to not honor their ruling on Sproul Jr, don’t they? Is FPC in the same presbytery as Sproul’s former church? If they are, that general session had better put some pressure on FPC to distance itself from BCA.

    “Yes, Corrie, “leadership team” equals one elder plus two deacons who are admittedly “yes” men.”

    They are congregational then. Congregational is a pastor and deacons. Pastor trumps deacons in all cases.

    “While I’m sure that Doug Phillips KNOWS this, one of his favorite sayings is “He who defines, wins.” He is redefining what he thinks an excommunication should look like, and he expects to fall in step with him.”

    Okay. Where does that come from in scripture? God has already defined and He has already won.

    “Corrie: “FPC and LW just went on what they were told without the Epsteins present to counter anything that was not true.”

    Yep.”

    And this is what I was trying to say a while back to Marie and K and Lucy. FPC and LW went by what Doug told them but that is not the way to do things. Someone should have demanded that the Epsteins be there before they even met with Doug. The Epsteins are to be given a chance to defend themselves should Doug make any false charges and claims.

  19. Corrie Says:

    Does FPC know that the congregation voted to excommunicate you, Jen? Do they know that Doug’s church is pastor run and only has deacons and no elders? How can they recognize that form of government when the presbyterian system is thusly name because of their form of government?

  20. Jen Says:

    Yes, Corrie, FPC knows all that. Their pastor has decided that any other church has the right to decide for themselves what type of government they will have. You know, freedom, and all that!

  21. Vik Says:

    Corrie said:
    “They are congregational then. Congregational is a pastor and deacons. Pastor trumps deacons in all cases.”

    This is right, technically. I attend a Baptist church and we only have a Pastor and Deacons. BUT in my town is another Baptist church where the Deacons run absolutely everything and everybody, and they ran the pastor and his family right out of the church (while the pastor was in the hospital recovering from a heart attack, no less; like the Epsteins, he wasn’t there when they did it).

    The pastor and his family now attends our church in a nearby town. But see, it all has to do with power-hungry control freaks. They always win.

    The church I left that was abusive (yet another Baptist church) had no elders, no deacons, no trustees, nothin’.

    Vik
    P.S. The Church of Christ considers itself Congregational, yet it does have a Pastor, Deacons, AND Elders.

  22. Edwin the Calvinist Anglican Says:

    There is currently a movement within the SBC (Southern Baptist Church) calling itself “Sovereign Grace SBC” and those churches have a plurality of Elders. If I wasn’t convinced of Pedo-Baptism, I would probably be comfortable in one of these (Anglican zinger, there).

    I do pray (and I mean pray) that some kind of godly solution can be reached for the pastoral care of the BCA families. I depair for their souls if all they get is a steady diet of legalistic self-righteousness.

    Edwin the Calvinistic Anglican

  23. Jen Says:

    Corrie: “Is FPC in the same presbytery as Sproul’s former church?”

    No, but it is the same presbytery as RC Sr.

    “While I’m sure that Doug Phillips KNOWS this, one of his favorite sayings is “He who defines, wins.” He is redefining what he thinks an excommunication should look like, and he expects to fall in step with him.”

    Corrie: “Okay. Where does that come from in scripture? God has already defined and He has already won.”

    I can’t find it in Scripture either, but he does teach this at his Witherspoon Law School.

    Corrie: ““They are congregational then. Congregational is a pastor and deacons. Pastor trumps deacons in all cases.”

    This is one of the problems. If it was a congregational church, I would have understood the government. BUT, every week they would announce, “We believe in a plurality of elders,” but for literally YEARS, there was only ONE elder. It is the hypocrisy and duplicity that I am decrying.

  24. Corrie Says:

    Edwin,

    Thanks for the helpful information.

    Vik,

    I will pray for that man who is now going to church as he recovers both physically and spiritually from his ordeal at his church.

    I do realize that every church is unique in who holds the keys to power. It is really too bad. I have a good friend whose dad was a pastor and he was run out of his church by some of the deacons. It was very hard on the whole family and the children really suffered becaue of how their family was treated.

  25. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Well, this is just my opinion, but, that’s why it is good for a church denomination to have an established, orderly hierarchy — archbishops, bishops, pastors/elders, and deacons. Deacons are supposed to be under the pastors, as helpers, not the other way around.

  26. Vik Says:

    Exactly, Cynthia. This was the first church I ever heard of where Deacons ran the show. In my church, they are helpers to the pastor, and the Deaconesses are helpers to the Deacons.

    Thanks Corrie for the prayers for that family. As can be expected, the oldest is rebelling badly and his sister is following his lead. Abuse in church is worse than abuse by government. Church is supposed to be a safe-haven!

    Edwin, don’t know how I missed your post before, but you’re exactly right.

  27. Corrie Says:

    Vik,

    That is why it is better for a person to have a millstone tied around his/her neck than it is to cause one of these little ones to stumble.

    But, I suppose, there is always that story of Achan and how his sin, when he kept the forbidden loot, caused his wife and children to all be stoned right with him. Maybe that is how people justify doing what they do to these children?

  28. TheIronHare Says:

    Corrie: “Is FPC in the same presbytery as Sproul’s former church?”

    [Jen:] No, but it is the same presbytery as RC Sr.

    To make it more clear, that would have to be RC “Sr.” (the father of “Jr.”) the individual. Papa Sproul pastors an independent church. He parks his ordination in the PCA.

    Dennis


What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: