Jen Epstein Ejected From Public Sidewalk For Exercising First Amendment Rights
I enjoy attending home school conferences. It’s always a good learning experience, so I’d like to give a report on a home school conference that I attended this past weekend in Arlington, Texas. The Arlington Book Fair is a large home school conference with several interesting speakers, one of which was Doug Phillips. I credit Doug with teaching me many valuable things. Douglas Winston Phillips was named after Douglas MacArthur and Winston Churchill. Doug does a very convincing Churchill impersonation. I’ve often heard Doug say, “We shall never surrender” in his best Churchill-ish British accent. Doug has taught me a lot of determination and courage in the face of adversity. If it weren’t for Doug’s own regular storytelling of brave and courageous men who refused to compromise their values, I doubt that I would have ever been motivated to go public with my own story of Doug’s ecclesiastical tyrannies. In many ways, it was Doug’s own teaching that gave me the courage to do what I’m now doing.
Attending the Arlington Book Fair was also an opportunity for me to speak with Doug Phillips personally and give him one more opportunity to be reconciled with us. Doug doesn’t make it easy to speak with him. He’s been hiding behind his attorney, Don Hart, for over a year now. Every time we’ve tried to speak with Doug, we’ve been told, “You’ll have to talk to Doug’s attorney.” This is a strange response for a pastor. We’ve never even implied that we wanted to take Doug to court. Ours is an ecclesiastical matter, so why is he hiding behind an attorney? Doug claims that Boerne Christian Assembly has a plurality of elders. If that were true then why doesn’t he say, “You’ll need to take it up with the BCA elders?” The fact is that BCA didn’t have a plurality of elders when Doug ran us through his little Kangaroo Court, and apparently they still don’t have a plurality of elders, although they do have some “elders-in-training.”
Not being one to throw the baby out with the bathwater, I thought I might be able to learn something from listening to Doug speak at the conference, as well. So, with much anticipation and hope that God would work to bring us together this weekend, off we went.
As we stepped through the door at the Arlington Book Fair, we immediately spotted Wesley Strackbein, a longtime Vision Forum employee, who straightaway pulled out his cell phone, presumably to call Doug Phillips. When we arrived, shortly thereafter, at Doug’s first workshop of the day, it quickly became apparent that this was the case. Doug was already on stage when I entered the room but, as I was helping my daughter get situated in her chair, Doug suddenly appeared in front of me, holding out his hand to greet me. “Hello, Jennifer. I thought I would see you here,” he spoke up loudly for everyone to hear. “Hi, Doug!,” I returned his greeting and handshake. As his personal assistants placed themselves strategically on either side of the room, we listened to Doug’s first message about the importance of teaching history to your children.
Concerned about the hypocrisy of Doug teaching his extra-biblical views and promoting them as biblical doctrine, I decided it would be a good time to warn others of some of Doug’s extreme positions. An independent Christian journal that focuses primarily on writing about cults has written an article about Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. They were kind enough to give me permission to pass out copies of this article at the convention. (When this article is officially released by the publisher, I will let everyone know.) So, at Doug’s second session of the day, Joshua began passing this article out to those who were attending this particular workshop for homeschooling fathers. After he had passed them out to approximately half the attendees, a conference coordinator approached him and asked him to stop, apparently in response to Bob Renaud’s request. While Joshua was speaking to this lady, Doug Phillips came by, put his hand on Joshua’s shoulder, and simply stated, “Joshua,” while smiling. When I arrived there a while later, two conference coordinators immediately approached me and asked if I was Joshua’s mother. When I answered affirmatively, Richard Hathman very kindly told me that they had a policy that no flyers could be handed out inside the convention center, but that we were perfectly free to hand them out on the public sidewalk outside the convention center. We were fine with this, so I thanked him kindly, shook his hand, and Joshua went outside to hand out flyers for a while.
Still waiting for an opportunity to speak with Doug Phillips, I went to his third workshop of the day, “The Blessed Marriage,” hoping to gain some insights into my own marriage as well. I sat in the front row by myself (my children had left the convention by this point) so that I could speak with Doug after his speech. In front of the raised stage was a large podium for the projector. I didn’t realize until later that since I was sitting very close to the podium, Doug would have had to walk within a few inches of me to get on stage. Apparently that was not an option for him, since he chose to take a flying leap onto the other end of the stage instead, in his 3-piece suit. It was obvious that he was doing everything he could to avoid me. This struck me as very odd, considering that earlier in the day he went out of his way to greet me. No doubt, though, someone had given him a copy of the article we’d been passing out. Perhaps this resulted in a change in his demeanor toward me?
One of Doug’s longtime personal assistants, Bob Renaud, decided that I must be very lonely in the front row by myself, so he came and sat with me, greeting me as if we were long lost best friends. It was obvious that it was his job to keep me away from Doug, but we exchanged pleasant greetings anyway. He seemed quite fascinated with all the notes I was taking during Doug’s seminar, craning his neck much of the time to read them. At the end of the message, after Doug Phillips invited everyone to come visit him and Beall in his Vision Forum booth, Bob immediately struck up a conversation with me that went like this:
Bob: “Jennifer, I’m so glad to see you here! Are you enjoying the conference?”
Me: “Yes, Bob, I am. I’m really glad to see you, too. Are you enjoying it?”
Bob: “Yes, I am.”
Me: “Bob, I know you are here to keep me from seeing Doug, but I would really like to see Doug; I would really like to talk to him.”
Bob: “I can’t let you do that.”
Me: “Why not?”
Bob: “If you want to talk, you’ll have to talk to Doug’s attorney, Don Hart. You can’t talk to Doug.”
Me: “This doesn’t have anything to do with Don Hart. I would like to talk to Doug personally. Look, Bob, I just have this letter I would like to give to Doug.” I held the letter out for him, but Bob quickly backed away. “Look, Bob, this is a nice letter. I just want to compliment Doug and ask him to speak with me.”
Bob: “I can’t let you do that.”
Me: “Here, Bob. I’ll even let you read it yourself first.” So I opened the letter for Bob, but he still refused to look at it or take it.
Me: “OK, Bob. Do you know why I’m here? Do you know what I’m about? Do you understand my whole purpose?”
Bob: “No, I don’t”
By this time, Wesley Strackbein, the Vision Forum employee who had first spotted me at the convention, had joined us as well, so I addressed both of them.
Me: “This is about reconciliation. This is about being at peace with my brothers and sisters in Christ. I can write about Doug on the internet, and he can write about me, but we aren’t getting anywhere at this rate. This is stupid. We need to sit down and talk.”
Bob: “Jennifer, you can put an end to all this.”
Me: “How’s that, Bob?”
Bob: “Jennifer, you just need to repent. You are excommunicated.”
Me: “What do I need to repent from?”
Bob: “You know what you need to repent from. It’s all in the document we gave you. You can read it.”
Me: “Oh, I know what the document says: gossip, slander, lying, reviling. But what have I done, Bob? What is my specific sin? That list doesn’t tell me what I’ve done.”
Bob: “I don’t have time to tell you all your sins, there are so many.”
Me: “OK, Bob and Wesley, I’ll tell you what. I’ll make you a deal. I promise you that if you can tell me just one example of a sin I’ve committed, I’ll repent right here and now.”
Bob and Wesley turned around and walked away. For being guilty of “so many” sins I was stunned that they couldn’t name even one specific sin.
Somewhere in that conversation, Bob asked me for that letter I had written to Doug. I gave it to him. Here is what the letter said:
May 11, 2007
Mr. Doug Phillips
200 Canada Verde
Hollywood Park, TX
I know that you’re a busy man, and no doubt you’ve got plenty going on here at the Arlington Book Fair home school convention. Hopefully you’ll accept this note from me.
I look forward to what I’ll learn here from the speakers at the conference, and that includes what I can learn from you. I’ve already learned a great deal from you Doug. Not that I’ve always agreed with all your opinions, but you’ve helped teach me some important values.
Doug, I’m confounded over why you keep avoiding us and why you’re refusing to be reconciled with us. Wouldn’t reconciliation be a good thing? It seems like you’re running from me. I can’t understand that. What are you afraid of?
I’d like to extend to you the opportunity to just sit down and talk together for a few minutes. Here at the conference would be an ideal time. I know you’re busy and you could use that as an excuse to avoid me. But I don’t believe that you’re so busy that you couldn’t set aside a few minutes. If it were important that’s really what you should do. This is important Doug, and I think you know that.
Let’s sit down and talk. Okay?
Your sister in the Lord Jesus Christ,
I knew that Bob Renaud would take my note straight to Doug. So I gave Doug sufficient time to receive my note from Bob and read it. Since Doug had issued an open invitation for everyone to come visit him at his booth, I decided to take him up on his invitation. With a friend carrying a video camera, we walked in to see Doug, but neither he nor Beall were at the Vision Forum booth. After looking around for them, we were just about to leave when Peter Bradrick, Doug’s personal assistant, came up and told us to turn off the video. I asked him what authority he had to tell us what to do. He said that we could video any other booth except Vision Forum. I kept asking him, “Under what authority?” I then asked him if he was asking us or telling us what to do. He said he was informing us. Finally, he spoke to me in a quite disrespectful tone of voice. Knowing that Doug Phillips’ main message is about honor, I rebuked Peter for speaking to his elders that way. I am nearly twice his age and my videotaping friend is a good deal older than I am as well. At this point, Peter’s attitude changed and he said he was requesting us to turn off our video, which we promptly did. I then asked Peter where Doug was, and he replied that he was ill and not able to greet his public right now, so we left.
Upon further reflection of this incident, I decided that while Peter was decidedly disrespectful toward me, two wrongs never make a right, and I had been too harsh in rebuking him. So I later sent him a note of apology.
Since I wasn’t getting anywhere in my attempts to speak with Doug Phillips, I decided that day two of this convention should be a day of warning others. I had the article written by the independent Christian journal and I also had the Public Notice Calling For The Repentance Of Douglas W. Phillips printed out as handouts. Joshua and I were standing on the public sidewalk handing out these flyers as people came into the conference when all of a sudden a very angry man shoved Joshua out of the way, grabbed his papers and started throwing the papers all over, yelling and screaming that we couldn’t do this. Very calmly and kindly, I responded, “Excuse me, but what are you doing?”
Dennis Winton, the very angry conference coordinator, continued to yell at us that we could not pass out these papers. I calmly stated that this was public property and that I was standing on my first amendment rights to hand out information on public property. Mr. Winton then threatened us, “We’ll see what the police have to say about your first amendment rights!” Still remaining calm, I said that was fine.
While Mr. Winton was on the phone speaking very heatedly with the police, trying to convince them that I was a criminal, another conference coordinator was standing there with him, watching us continue to cheerfully greet everyone as we handed them our papers. This man was Richard Hathman, the same kind conference coordinator who had, just the day before, volunteered that we could pass out these papers on the public sidewalk in front of the convention center. During this whole time, he just stood there smiling at us. After several minutes, I said to Mr. Hathman, “You know I have every right to do this. I am standing on my first amendment rights to hand out information on public property.”
He answered, “Yes, you do.”
I finally volunteered to Mr. Hathman that Doug Phillips could stop this whole thing if he would just come out and talk to me. I offered to stop passing out the papers if Doug would just sit down and talk to me.
Mr Hathman then said, “You may be 100% right, or you may be 100% wrong, or it’s maybe somewhere in between; I really don’t care. Mr. Phillips is just a tiny part of this conference. This is about so much more than just Doug Phillips and what you are doing here is disrupting our whole conference. As a brother in Christ, I would like to ask you to please stop disturbing this conference so everyone else can enjoy what they came here for.”
I was so impressed with the way Mr. Hathman handled the situation in a Christ-like manner that I told him as much, thanked him for his attitude, shook his hand, and stated that I would be glad to stop handing out my papers, since he asked me to do so out of Christian love and concern. At that point, Joshua and I picked up all our papers and took them to the truck.
Mr. Winton, however, still insisted that the police do something, so they came and talked to all the conference coordinators and Doug’s three “bodyguards” before coming over to speak with my friend, my children, and me. As you watch what happens next, notice Doug’s three bodyguards, Wesley Strackbein, Peter Bradrick, and Bob Renaud, ensuring that I leave the public property. We found out later that the police were called at Doug Phillips’ insistence. I was also later informed that the Vision Forum team had told the police that Doug Phillips was afraid because his life had been threatened, thereby implying that I posed some sort of physical threat to Doug.
While we were waiting, I then waved to Peter Bradrick and said, “Good morning, Peter!” He just glared back at me, so I said, cheerfully, “Come on, Peter. Can’t you even say ‘Hello?'” In response, he just slowly shook his head from side to side.
So then I tried to talk to Bob Renaud: “Hey, Bob! Do you have an answer for me yet?” (meaning from the letter I gave Bob to give Doug). I was treated to another frozen face.
So, in the end, we were issued a criminal trespassing warning for being on public property and told not to return for one year, under threat of arrest. The First Amendment gives us the right to give out this kind of information on public property, so there can be no criminal trespassing of this sort on public property. As a constitutional lawyer, Doug Phillips knew I had every right to be there doing what I was doing. As a conference speaker, though, Doug used his status to have my rights trampled.
I’m still calling Doug Phillips to repentance.
May 21, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Kate only posted 17 times not 20. All 17 of those comments are from Kate. Isn’t that true, Kate? This shouldn’t be a hard question to answer. Just a simple yes will do. If all 17 of those comments are not yours, then which ones are not yours?
PFR is asking for you to hold him/her accountable for making a “false statement” (your own words). What is the false statement? That PFR said you posted 20 comments when it was actually 17?
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. You need to be above reproach if you are going to call people names like “liar”. You cannot lie and turn around and call another person a liar and demand an answer if you won’t even answer a simple question yourself.
Kate, you have a right to your own opinion. I agree with Spunky’s comment on your blog. You have a right to ask those questions about the binoculars but she is also right about you linking to SFU. I am not angry at you and I think you have a lot of intelligent and edifying things to say but you need to answer PFR’s question and stop evading.
May 21, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Weighing In: “You accuse him of lying by being fallacious.”
Jen said,”Here we go back to the logic class again. Fallacies are NOT lies, WI. Fallacies are faulty logic.”
Jen, this is yet another example of your pride and arrogance, this condescending tone of superiority when you deal with undereducated people.
In Doug’s favorite dictionary as you called it, fallacy is deceit, that which misleads, deceitfulness. This is lying. If you accuse someone of deceit or fallicy you accuse them of fraud. Which is what you did to Doug.
May 21, 2007 at 2:19 pm
“In Doug’s favorite dictionary as you called it, fallacy is deceit, that which misleads, deceitfulness. This is lying. If you accuse someone of deceit or fallicy you accuse them of fraud. Which is what you did to Doug.”
Using a logical fallacy does not mean that one is doing so on purpose. So often we do it not knowing that we are doing it. If you accuse someone of logical fallacy you are NOT accusing them of fraud. Where do you get that from?
There must be a logical fallacy in that statement? 😉 It is probably “begging the question” that you are guilty of in making the above statement. You are stating something as true. It could also be labeled “circular reasoning”.
I am sure that there is someone who can explain this better than I.
If you think that Jen is acting arrogant and superior, then I would hate to see what you think about some other theological discussion forums online.
You see, when I read your accusations against Jen and the accusations of others, like K. and her husband, I see 3 fingers pointing right back and the person making the accusation.
What do SFU and Mrs. Binoculars have in common? What does the Bible say about the pupil not rising above his teacher? Jen was also trained in the same environment that hatched SFU and Mrs. B. You can’t fault Jen if the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. If you accuse Jen of having a superior and arrogant attitude, then you must also be indicting the very people you are defending. I have checked out a couple of blogs written by women who follow Doug Phillips and/or go to his church. They are not any less arrogant and prideful and condescending than Jen. What makes one right and the other guilty?
And frankly, I wonder why you haven’t pointed out this attitude of superiority and condescension when it happens to be directed at me or others? There have been many examples of it in the last few days.
May 21, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Weighing In, this is from Wikipedia:
Logical fallacy may refer to:
* Formal fallacy, a flawed pattern of reasoning
* Informal fallacy, a mistake in reasoning
* Fallacy, a flawed component of an argument
We are talking about logical fallacies here, not deceit. I never meant it as being deceitful, and I’m sure that Doug did not take it that way. He understands logical fallacies very well.
I am not trying to be condescending to you, WI. I am very sorry that I was not as patient with you as I should have been. Will you please forgive me?
I do not think you are in any way undereducated. The type of people I was referring to would not be capable of carrying on a conversation online like this. I would recommend that if you are going to participate in online discussions that you might brush up on a little logic, though. I am not at all an expert in logic, but I do enjoy it. And it really helps to keep others from being able to pick apart your comments.
However, I have asked you several questions, and I would now ask you to please answer those questions before you say any more here. That is only fair, I think.
May 21, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Jen, I am working on responses to your questions. Will post shortly time permitting.
May 21, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Kate, on your blog you said, “Here is the latest, Jen or her Moderator for the Day, is censoring my comments”.
Jen’s Moderator explained very clearly why you weren’t “censored.” I think you owe Jen and her Moderator an apology for this false accusation, and you should apologize to Jen on your blog and here on her blog too.
May 21, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I know this was many comments ago, but I think it was “Weighing In” who has asserted several times that people will only accept others whose standards are the same or lower than their own. “WI” said that people tend to reject those whose standards are higher than their own.
This was in the discussion about wine, I think.
Anyway, “Weighing In’s” assertion is a perfect example of why she may have experienced rejection for her “higher” standards. Weighing In, your standards, unless they are God’s specific commands in the Bible, are NOT necessarily “higher” standards. Rather, they’re just MORE RESTRICTIVE standards. Going around thinking that your more restrictive standards are somehow “higher” than other people’s is precisely the same attitude that the Pharisees had.
I Corinthians 8 addresses the whole issue of freedom in non-essential matters. It all comes down to how the Lord has convicted each of us personally. We are to put on the rule of love toward each other in these matters of conscience. If you are convicted that something (like women wearing pants, for example) is a sin, and I’m convicted that I have freedom to wear pants, I have a responsibility toward you, so that I do NOT wear pants around you. My goal is not to offend you.
Likewise, if you are convicted that wearing pants is a sin, you are not to lord your “more tender conscience” over me, thinking it somehow makes you a superior Christian.
Again, wearing pants is just a silly example. But drinking wine is another such issue. If the Lord has convicted you against drinking wine, then you would be sinning if you did drink wine. However, that does NOT necessarily mean that your standards are “higher” than those of at least some of the people who DO drink wine. It just means that your conscience has made your standards more restrictive.
It’s little nuances like this that reveal how Christians with very restrictive lifestyles can slide down the slippery slope into smug self-righteousness.
May 21, 2007 at 5:51 pm
It’s not a cult folks, it’s a political tool masquerading as a cult.
Cynthia, that was too funny and unfortunately a VERY astute observation. I went to a Christian high school with a David GEE, who specialized in one liners like that. Drove the teachers nuts and he spent a lot of time in detention. You guys gotta be related, no doubt.
May 21, 2007 at 6:19 pm
Great post concerning the myth of “higher standards”. Bill Gothard teaches that people who have a problem with his teachings are only reacting because of his “higher standards” and that these people [with the “lower standards] want to keep their rock music or they are divorced or they are bitter or they are using birth control.
I like your blog, too!
May 21, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Aw, Corrie…thanks! I love reading your posts. You somehow know how to keep your cool, stay kind, and still defend your thoughts in exactly the right way. 🙂
May 21, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Jen says, “Now let me ask you something. Do you think that this letter to Doug was a valid basis for excommunication? And if so, do you think that everyone involved should be held to the same standards? If I were to apologize for my “attitude” in that letter, do you think that would cover all excommunicable accusations and that the excommunication should be lifted? And if I were to show you some of Doug’s writings that are far more harsh, unkind, etc., what do you think should be done? What should happen to SFU or Matt Chancey? Just wondering.”
Jen, as I said before, you were defiant when Doug and Beall both approached you. Your response to Beall, who listed specific charges against you, was not to contact you again unless she had something kind to say. You were very rude to say this and not even consider the charges against you. When approached by Doug your attitude was one of disdain, saying that you would not apologize because you had not sinned. Again, kicking against the goads of the leadership, all of this, after being warned just a few days prior that you were in violation of the church covenant for refusing to submit to church authority and counsel of the local church. You were warned that if you did not comply with the church covenant, action would be taken. You were told that if you chose to stay you were bound to live by the church covenant. Yet you were brazenly defiant still.
Jen, I have done quite a bit of reading on your site and I have other evidences of sin on your part. When your ready I’ll post more, if you rather I didn’t, I won‘t. Considering the attitude you had at that time toward Doug and Beall, yes, I do believe that your sin (plural), and that of Mark’s, was an excommunicable offense for this particular congregation. Even in a mega church, when people show such disdain for the pastor, they may not be excommunicated, but they are shown the door. Most churches will not allow trouble makers to stay. Case in point, your last post regarding the divisive family who left the church, no matter who the divisive family is, the church is strengthened when they leave.
As far as SFU, Doug Phillips and Matt Chancey goes, they didn’t ask me about their sin, so I don’t want to go there. I’m not going to sit here and list their sins behind their backs, what good purpose would there be in that? I’ve already stated some of the things I find offensive. Do I think Doug Phillips is without sin in this? No, I do not. All I know is that these men, (SFU and Matt Chancey), are obviously are not bucking the authority and causing trouble by being divisive in their congregation, if they were, I’m sure they would be shown the door too. Jen, I hope you understand what I‘ve said, the problem wasn’t that you sinned one particular sin or even more, it was that you were seen as being divisive and a trouble maker, rising up against the authority in the church. Remember, this is a small community of likeminded believers, you were striving against them and causing dissention in the church. I will show you where you did this if you want me to. When a person does this it quenches not only the Holy Spirit, but also the spirit of fellowship among believers. They did not want this tension that you were causing in their congregation. Again, I can’t speak for them, but this is the gist I get from what has been made public by you and their documents to you and Mark .
One of the problems I’ve seen, Jen, is that you want them, (Doug and BCA leadership), to bow the knee first, you know very well the sinful pride of men . That probably will not happen. You are responsible before God for you. You cannot change other men. Hopefully they have tender spirits and will soon be convicted for their own sin in this situation. The thing is, when you call for someone’s repentance the way you have, you in effect cause their heart to be hardened. I’m sure you’ve dealt with this yourself . As you well know, being called to repentance in a harsh unloving way does not bring it about. Yielding your right to be right, is evidence of true repentance and brings about restoration which should be the goal.
I’m glad that you admitted the pride you had back then. Jen, I think if you can see where you failed in this situation it will go along way in reconciliation. That is definitely a huge start. I don’t think it is just a matter of saying your sorry for the voting e-mail or for saying shame on you. Jen, I think it will require a particular kind of brokenness that only true repentance brings, because these were heart issues involving rebellion and pride and not just a few named sins. I think when you can come to the place where you aren’t justifying your actions you’ll be to the point of humility where God can do this work in your heart.
I believe with all of my heart that God can bring about healing and restoration in this situation, He is bigger than all of this.
May 21, 2007 at 7:19 pm
How do you know that God is bigger than all of this? Jen has just gotten warmed up! She may go on for all eternity, and ‘way past that!! 🙂
May 21, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Although the points you raise would be valid within another set of facts, and although you’ve claimed to have read Jen’s website, please allow me to share some further insights.
First, I approved the private email to Doug regarding the hypothetical voting post on his blog – a post that invited comments. Although Jen has apologized for saying “Shame on you,” since I approved the original email, you should know that I still find nothing wrong with the words. Here’s why:
Doug is an attorney. He knows when and when not to engage in the use of logical fallacies because attorneys use logical fallacies to manipulate juries all the time. Doug speaks at length on logic, and he speaks about the reasons homeschoolers should teach their children to think critically (not to criticize, but to weigh what a speaker is saying). In his original post, Doug used at least seven logical fallacies to support his forgone conclusion. His post was manipulative and disingenuous – the antithesis of what he preaches. Had Doug not asked for feedback, none would have been given. However, the feedback was a private email.
Secondly, had I not been so swayed by Doug’s “blame the wife” manipulation of me, which I used to justify my own sin (more on this in the coming days on my website), then I would have taken decisive action when Doug called Jen a “whore” and a “jezebel” in my presence. Frankly, Jen had every right to slap Doug’s face for such vile and vicious insults that had no basis in truth.
Authority carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility. Doug Phillips has continued to duck his pastoral responsibilities and no amount of obfuscation will ever cloud this issue for a number of critically thinking people who read Jen’s blog.
May 21, 2007 at 8:16 pm
Joan said, “Likewise, if you are convicted that wearing pants is a sin, you are not to lord your “more tender conscience” over me, thinking it somehow makes you a superior Christian.
Again, wearing pants is just a silly example. But drinking wine is another such issue. If the Lord has convicted you against drinking wine, then you would be sinning if you did drink wine. However, that does NOT necessarily mean that your standards are “higher” than those of at least some of the people who DO drink wine. It just means that your conscience has made your standards more restrictive.
It’s little nuances like this that reveal how Christians with very restrictive lifestyles can slide down the slippery slope into smug self-righteousness.”
Joan, you are right about the wording of “higher standards”, I don’t like saying it that way either, I’m just not sure of how else to put it. It is true though, David was a perfect example of this. He was very accepting of those who drank too much to the point of intemperance and foolishness, but not accepting at all of those who choose not to drink, calling me a legalist. I would say that in this case though, the higher ground would be not drinking over outright disobedience to the Word of God.
May 21, 2007 at 8:21 pm
“There are some men who are so full of themselves that any disagreement is proof positive that someone is unsubmissive and rebellious. ”
That is true, on several levels.
We are to submit ourselves to one another, and to God, When a pastor is so full of himself that he “sees any disagreement is proof positive that someone is unsubmissive and rebellious,” the “someone” who is unsubmissive and rebellious (and proud) is usually the pastor.
May 21, 2007 at 8:40 pm
“No, but I just found out who he’s accountable to.”
This refers to Matt Chancey. I ask, then: Whom?
May 21, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Weighing In: “I would say that in this case though, the higher ground would be not drinking over outright disobedience to the Word of God.”
Luke 18:11 “The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other men—extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this tax collector.”
Any position that is not God’s position is wrong. We cannot ADD to Scripture any more than we should blatantly sin.
May 21, 2007 at 8:50 pm
Me: “No, but I just found out who he’s accountable to.”
Mike: “This refers to Matt Chancey. I ask, then: Whom?”
(You could have used my grammatically correct sentence!)
Well, I have decided that this requires a much bigger announcement than just a simple answer in the comment section. Look for a new article about Matt soon!
May 21, 2007 at 9:03 pm
“I was thinking about this, T. and I’m just going to have to disagree with you. I think that my greatest sin is simply being a female.”
Jen, I disagree. I think that your greatest “sin” was completely unintentional: through no fault of your own, you proved BCA and the whole HyperPatriarchal philosophy of marriage and submission to be wrong.
When it comes to marriage counselling, hyperPatriarchy has a very narrow mindset — in general, it holds that when ever there is trouble in a marriage, that trouble can be overcome by the wife behaving more submissively towards her husband: if by faith the wife submits, then God responds by leading the man to be a better husband, in spite of himself — the whole idea is almost Sacramental in nature.
I “submit” the following scenario for your consideration–
A couple has problems in their marriage, and are told that if only the wife will to behave in a more submissive fashion, God will work to change her husband’s behaviour, and everything will come out OK in the end, isn’t that right? They may even use 1 Peter 3:1 as a proof text. So the wife submits, and when the problems don’t go away, she is told that she must be in sin, or else God would do His part and “fix” the husband’s behaviour. So she submits even more, and still, nothing changes. At that point, the couple becomes a threat, because they are were living, breathing, suffering proof that the HyperPatriarchy’s exegesis is flawed, in much the same way as a terminally ill person who fails to be healed through faith is a living (and dying!) refutation of cults such as Christian Science.
I submit that this was your first sin – you proved, through no deliberate act of your own, that the HyperPatriarchal ideology is flawed.
Then you wrote the letter to Doug about voting, and that was the last straw– you had blasphemed the real deity of much of the HyperPatriarchy: the God of Constitution Party Politics. As the son of the High Priest of the Constitution Party, Doug had no choice but to get rid of you. You were becoming an embarrassment, because you and Mark proved to the world that the emperor had no clothes.
May 21, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Sheesh… sorry about all the typos. I wish WordPress had a “preview comment” option.
May 21, 2007 at 9:06 pm
Ann said: “I do medical transcription from home, and in the past, I used to type a doctor’s wife’s (who had a Masters in nursing) college papers. She was going for her doctorate in Psy. She couldn’t spell worth anything, and her punctuation was horrible too. And I currently type for a doc who can’t pronounce some medical terms correctly.”
Yes, yes, yes! I do transcription too, for many doctors with different specialties, and most of them are just awful. Even the transcriptionists don’t see to be able to agree on what’s correct, especially with things like comma usage, which just came up today.
I haven’t had time to read everything on this thread, but I’ve found the discussion about undereducated females interesting. I’m curious (perhaps I’ve just missed it), but has the general thought been that DP and perhaps others around or supporting him undereducate their daughters? I don’t necessarily mean in terms of whether the girls go to college, but rather what they’re taught in their formative years. Jen, do you know what curriculum or method DP and others use? It’s really not at all clear from the VF catalog.
Also, Jen, referring to WI above, said: “Your paragraph above is but one example of what I am talking about. You are a homeschool mom and your logic and spelling and grammar – well, it’s just a good example of my very concerns about women who try to teach their children, but they aren’t very well educated themselves.”
I have to agree that was below the belt. None of us are perfect in that regard, including myself and Jen.
May 21, 2007 at 9:09 pm
And, of course, I include an example of that above with: “Even the transcriptionists don’t see to be able to agree…”
May 21, 2007 at 9:17 pm
“Sometimes I think a talking ass would be more readily accepted than a talking woman. After all, the Bible doesn’t instruct asses to be silent in the church. On second thought, that is not such a bad idea.”
Good one! And Balaam’s ass wasn’t your ordinary jackass, she was a jenny!
Check it out:
Num 22:32 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Wherefore hast thou smitten thine ass these three times? behold, I went out to withstand thee, because [thy] way is perverse before me: Num 22:33 And the ass saw me, and turned from me these three times: unless she had turned from me, surely now also I had slain thee, and saved her alive.
May 21, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Jen, we don’t want an article about some independent investigator with a hidden identity. Leave the little boy alone to play with his secret decoder ring. He obviously has spent a lot of his life running around with his umbilical cord in his hand, looking for a place to plug it in. Doug Phillips mets a need for him, great they deserve each other.
What we want to know is when will your book will be out.
” How I blogged my way out of a cult and through excommunication, and went on to blog again,and again …..
Once you have this all down in book form, you could have a booth at the Christian booksellers convention and even do a few radio interviews. Then there is the Arlington book fair. That would be an easy promotional piece to write, Why was this woman Banned from last years event and removed by the Police . Labeled a woman of ill repute and excommunicated over a political opinion ? Who doesn’t want you to hear her story ? Who has tried to stop her ?
The Chinese intelligence community, ex-KGB agents, disavowed CIA operatives or a few Ex-interns / bodyguards of Texas’s very own drama queen ?
Seriously an original run of 500 self published books, with paperback binders and full graphics is only about $1,000.
I could raise that for you in a few hours by just allowing people to see the dinosaur I discovered in my back yard.
May 21, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Mark said, “…..then I would have taken decisive action when Doug called Jen a “whore” and a “jezebel” in my presence. Frankly, Jen had every right to slap Doug’s face for such vile and vicious insults that had no basis in truth.”
In Doug’s antebellum utopia, you would have been justified, if not honor bound, to have “called him out” for making such a remark. The fact that he styles himself as a minister would not have excused him from having to answer for casting aspersions upon Jen’s (and your) honor.
Prior to the Civil war, duels were fought for lesser offenses.
May 21, 2007 at 9:52 pm
“I could raise that for you in a few hours by just allowing people to see the dinosaur I discovered in my back yard.’
LOL…….I wonder… how much would folks pay to see a Tyrannopatriarchus Tex ?
May 21, 2007 at 10:25 pm
Nice site. 🙂
What do you think about those little collars (I grew up Catholic and they remind me of what priests wear) that some Reformed elders are wearing nowadays? Also, what do you think about members of the church calling the elders with the title “Elder” and then there name?
For instance, “Elder Billy-Bob”.
May 21, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Olivia: “has the general thought been that DP and perhaps others around or supporting him undereducate their daughters? I don’t necessarily mean in terms of whether the girls go to college, but rather what they’re taught in their formative years. Jen, do you know what curriculum or method DP and others use? It’s really not at all clear from the VF catalog.”
No, Olivia, I certainly don’t want to lump anyone together in that kind of a group. I do know several families that seem to greatly undereducate their daughters, to the point of them not being prepared to function in society. I know MANY families where the education is just enough to get by, and I think that’s sad, too. It is obvious that everyone who posts here has a good deal of education. Why should we deny that same privilege to anyone else?
Doug Phillips pretty much homeschools his children exactly the same way I do, which is through real life. We look for lots of real life experiences and teachable moments. Every moment of the day is a potential learning experience. Our children do read lots of good living books as well and do a few traditional academic subjects. We go on lots of “field trips,” and take advantage of every opportunity that seems to fit with our family’s goals at the moment. For instance, my teenage son had the opportunity to go on a real life paleontological dig with some experts in the field at the last minute, and since we are not tied to a school schedule, he was able to just pick up and go. If you want to see what kinds of books Doug’s children read, you will find many of them in the VF catalog. Doug considers his method of educating his children to be the Hebraic method. I call it natural learning. Much of it can be found directly in the Bible. I believe it is the way that God intended us to learn best naturally. The focus is on relationship – that of parent and child.
Olivia: “I have to agree that was below the belt. None of us are perfect in that regard, including myself and Jen.”
Which is why God made sure that I made my own grammatical errors today! You’re right; I shouldn’t have said that.
Cynthia, I write my comments in Word, where they are easy to check and edit, and then cut and paste them into the comment box. That way I can use spell check!
Scott, thanks for a great laugh! I think I’ll rent the booth right next to Vision Forum! No, if you’re that great at fundraising, I’m looking for someone to head up fundraising for Joe Taylor’s legal defense fund. It sounds like you’re my man.
May 21, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Dear Elizabeth, I do need to apologize for lumping you into that comment regarding “recurring themes of anti-patriarchy on your website” – No, you definitely have no sign of that. I am not sure why I thought so – I have been reading so much, and at times, it has all become a blur. Please forgive me for adding your name into that mix.
May 21, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Where is your comment about “recurring themes of anti-patriarchy”? I would love to see the list of names in that “mix” that you wrote about.
May 22, 2007 at 12:15 am
Corrie and Jen,
I would like to tell you that I made 17 comments over their with my families and my identities. Not 20 that PFR never retracted as saying, nor will PFR ever have to be held accountable for their statements it seems. Do you know who PFR is? Jen, does Pfr post using any other identities?
I have my id on the one comment over there, but I shouldn’t *have* to tell anybody — (especially PFR, the one who posted all the inflammatory comments about me before on my blog without knowing who they are (hey, just like everybody’s problem with SFU), even flaunting the idea that I’d never guess who they were. This is someone you call your friend, Jen? And you approve of their comments against me in the past and now and have never publicly held them accountable for their railings against me on my blog in the past, even after we had reconciled? Why do you get to call Doug to repentence but do not tell PFR the same when they come out with such false accusations as “20 commenters” on youtube when that was false?) — which one of the others is me, but I will tell you, Corrie.
I tried posting as another identity other than the “CaptKat3” one with several attempts and a popup came up and said I was posting a URL or email address. I didn’t, but it continued to not let me post as one identity, the others being for other members of my family. So I tried again after several attemps and, but it would let me post with the “CaptKat3” identity. I figured my comment went to spam for some reason, when I noticed there was a spam button. End of story. It’s interesting that it made PFR (anonymous) so itchy (remember the “hyperventilating” comment that — your friend “PFR” — got away with.)
Corrie, I would also like to know the identities of a lot of pseudonym’s here and elsewhere, but I was told in the past it is basically a non-issue because people are sometimes afraid of being identified and attacked in one way or another, or that “it’s no big deal, to let it go” in other words. I’ve had the fear before but see now that it causes confusion when I’ve done it. I also have no desire to do it again because when it was done on youtube, people seem to have a problem with it. That’s why people get frustrated and leave, and stop commenting and even responding to what’s said here because they get feel they have been ganged-up on by some of the commenters here for daring to ask Jen a question that would seem to imply they believe Jen to be in the wrong about any variety of subjects. That’s why it’s causing people who used to post here (when they *were in support* of Jen’s claims) to contact me and let me know they won’t come back to her blog. They are other people I have seen posting here in support of Jen at one time. Then there are the other people who tried to share reasonable, thoughtful comments who I saw getting repeatedly hammered for things that were irrelevant. Vik is allowed to question whether someone is “brain damaged” and tells them to quit being a “knot head”. These comments slide by; moderated right on through, while other’s dissenter’s comments get picked apart for their grammar. The mods let them through. Mine gets moderated for hours because why? One of my comments never went through. It was one that, (I have to be careful so that my comment will go through this time) was dealing with Jen’s own words in the past that dealt with her excommunication. Will my comment get to go through for that statement? I hope so, because Jen — you came to my blog, I posted your comment, and said you would answer my questions, but this one post that didn’t go through before was asking you a question. You invited me, so I took this time out to come over here and answer the questions Corrie had for me. So, my other question would be for Jen: would you allow that other earlier question/comment through that I had with your statements in it?
May 22, 2007 at 12:49 am
Jen, I also just read your comment on my blog and also saw you told me to give you proof of why I have called you a liar. It was in my comment that you or your moderator didn’t let go through the other night. It was also the comments where you denied owning, borrowing binoculars and you told me “no”. The proof of your lie was the link I provided and the comment to me that “yes”, in this blog comment section that “yes”, for some years you have owned some. Then you brushed it off as if it had nothing to do with my very relevant question about the binoculars before. I have shown you proofs every time you have asked me for them in where I have pointed out a lie. You won’t except them as proof. You have set yourself up as the judge and jury and I have even given you what you’ve demanded, even coming over here to your blog when I have brought up a topic on my own blog. Jen that is like the feeling you get when somebody who is really popular in your certain circle has a nice house, fine furnishings and everybody loves to lavish praise on them and get invited to go to their house, but when you invite them to your humble, poor but cherished home they reject your invitation because you are not popular enough and the event won’t make the press. You also have so much control over here, maybe that is the issue.
May 22, 2007 at 12:57 am
Jen, to be more specific, the links are on your youtube video comment section and my blogs. Do you also need the links posted here?
May 22, 2007 at 8:50 am
K. Thank you.
Corrie, the original post was on this thread.
May 17th, 2007 at 9:21 am
May 22, 2007 at 8:51 am
Kate, thanks for finally admitting that you posted 17 comments on Jen’s You Tube video. So I guess I owe you a big apology now for not counting accurately? Okay, Kate, I apologize that I accused you of posting 20 You Tube comments in quick succession, rather than the only 17 that you posted. That was so terribly, terribly wrong of me. To me it seems like hair splitting, but I guess to you it’s really important. So sorry.
Thank you for now “holding me accountable.” Please forget about holding me accountable though for accusing you of “hyperventilating” with posting numerous comments. The fact that you posted 17 comments in quick succession on a single You Tube video is all the evidence I need to make my point. One or two or even three comments wouldn’t qualify as hyperventilating. 17 comments? That in my book qualifies as hyperventilating. Have you calmed down yet Kate?
Some of your hyperventilating is over the binoculars issue. You keep bringing this up as some sort of a significant story Kate, and it’s just another one of those ridiculous things that you’ve accused Jen about “lying” over. But once again it’s easy to prove that you are wrong (you just make it too easy Kate). One of your You Tube comments was:
You left out an important additional question and response, though:
A normal, rationally thinking human being would interpret your question in one way, and only one way, “have you .. in the act of being photographed, a pair of binoculars?” Jen said, “No,” and by that it’s self-evident that what she’s saying is that she’s never been photographed with a pair of binoculars. Jen didn’t say she had never owned a pair of binoculars, Kate. But in the Land Of Kate questions may be freely reinterpreted to mean something altogether different from what the question clearly asked in the first place. In the Land Of Kate you are free to parse your questions at will.
In this case what you want your question to say is, “Do you, Jen Epstein, or members of your family, have or had in your possession, or ever owned or borrowed or ever held, have you, a pair of binoculars?”, leaving out altogether the important qualifier, “in the act of being photographed”. It’s only too obvious why you’re such a big fan of Matt Chancey and the SFU boys. When it comes to parsing and the liberal use of logical fallacies you’ve got a lot in common.
Kate, you are your own worst enemy. One of your biggest problems is your reading comprehension. I realize that you’re going to take this as an insult, but it’s not. Please understand that it’s much better than calling you a “liar,” your own favorite word for insulting Jen. If you work at it you can probably significantly improve your reading comprehension and your cognitive reasoning skills. As a home school mother that should be an important goal for you.
When Jen was earlier talking about her concerns of poorly educated and illogical women home schooling their children, I don’t know if she had you in mind. I’ll assume she didn’t. But when she brought up the subject, you were the very first person I thought of. Your reasoning skills are pathetic, and because of that you’re quick to jump to false conclusions. You’ve repeatedly accused Jen and a number of other women of being “liars.” You’re wrong Kate, and you’re still wrong. The very evidence you quote to try and make Jen out to be a liar only proves that she is telling you the truth. It would be one thing if you couldn’t understand what other people write, but in this case you don’t even seem to understand what you yourself wrote.
May 22, 2007 at 9:15 am
“Corrie, I would also like to know the identities of a lot of pseudonym’s here and elsewhere, but I was told in the past it is basically a non-issue because people are sometimes afraid of being identified and attacked in one way or another, or that “it’s no big deal, to let it go” in other words. ”
So would I!!! But, that is not the point, is it? You are the one demanding people to tell you who they are and then you accuse people who are posting under their real identities of being a fake. I would love to know who all the people are behind Ministry Watchman, SFU and the pseudonymns on this blog. There are people who post on various blogs and I have great respect for them but I still don’t know who they are! Of course I would love to know but I don’t demand to know nor do I think it is that big of a deal.
It is ironic that you have so many different identities that you try and post under but then you turn around and rail against others and accuse them of doing the same thing. I think there is something to that, you know?
“I would like to tell you that I made 17 comments over their with my families and my identities. Not 20 that PFR never retracted as saying, nor will PFR ever have to be held accountable for their statements it seems. Do you know who PFR is? Jen, does Pfr post using any other identities?”
Kate, you have GOT to be kidding, right? Please tell me you are joking? PFR made an educated guess concerning the amount of times you posted over on Youtube. It was obvious that ALL those posts were yours. Now you want to hold her accountable and for what? For not being precise? Right now I am teaching one of my children how to round in math. If PFR is guilty of anything, she is guilty of accurately making a good guess.
The point is that you did post all of the messages at Youtube. That, I think, was her point. She really doesn’t owe you an apology or an accounting and it really doesn’t make sense to demand that of her. Sometimes we all need to take K’s husband’s advice and see if those naughty 3 fingers are pointing back at us.
BTW, I am NOT PFR. I don’t know who PFR is. I don’t even know if it is a she or a he.
But, I would LOVE to know who PFR really is. I won’t demand that she/he tells me, though. If anyone else would like to email me and tell me who you really are, I am open to that, too! Inquiring minds, ya know?!
Kate, do you know whose identity I really want to know? The guys behind SFU? Or, wait. I have an idea. Maybe they are really women? Well, that could be a very real possibility now that I think about it. They do sound angry and bitter now that I think about it. 😉
Kind of like how when men are climbing the corporate ladder they are “successful” but when women are successful they call them the female dog word? Just like when a man gives his opinion and asserts what is right or wrong, he is just being factual. But, when a woman does it, she is bitter and angry and she even has a bad memory because if she didn’t she would have agreed along time ago. When a man speaks forth his opinion, it is just that. When a woman speaks her opinion, she is screaming and railing. You see how that works? It is so easy to discount people who disagree with you, especially when they are women, by calling them names and making condescending remarks about them. Oh, and then pepper on a Bible verse about being “silent”, even though that Greek word doesn’t mean to be “mute”, and you have all the rules to this game we play. There are certain women who don’t have to be silent in church. They are special. This game is hard to figure out at first but after a while you will get it. The rule makers change the rules to fit according to their own preferences.
I am doing a little independent investigating of my own. I have people who know people who know some people. They think they can help me find out who is behind SFU. I think we will all be surpised to see just how independent that site really is!
May 22, 2007 at 9:56 am
“There are certain women who don’t have to be silent in church. They are special.”
They are the ones who can be depended upon to preach the party line, AND they are usually the wives of the movement’s rulemakers. Women are supposed to be silent, you see, but some are expected to be more silent than others.
May 22, 2007 at 10:51 am
“And now, for the record, I will stop posting. My husband – a big mean oppressive Patriarch ;o)
ROFL Lucy – that is what I should have said.
Lynn, Corrie, Cynthia Elizabeth: I am addressing this comment to you since you all have your own blogs. I have noticed a recurring theme of the dislike of patriarchy and all of hte “negatives” of it. I am starting to think the only reason you are at Jen’s blog is to push your own “agenda”.”
Ahh, I thought my name would be in your little list.
You still don’t get it, K, after all this time? Are are you purposefully refusing to really read what people are saying? I think you are purposefully refusing to read what is actually written.
I have consistently made the distinction between patriarchy vs. hyper-patriarchy. I have referred you to patriarchy.org for a great site highlighting the differences. But, you still misrepresent the truth and say that we have a dislike of patriarchy.
It doesn’t surprise me considering how you jump to erroneous conclusions on a frequent basis. I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t understand the difference between exposing false and extra-biblical teaching and still being able to be supportive of the principles of male leadership in the church and home.
If I have an agenda, what is yours? Why not play fair, K? Your agenda must be supporting and teaching a false doctrine of hyper-patriarchy. Right? That is the only logical conclusion I can come to if I am going to be consistent in using your logic.
You keep on making “cute” little quips about your “oppressive Patriarch”. Where did anyone say that all men who believe in male headship are oppressive? K, that is just plain SILLY! If that were true, that would make my husband an oppressive patriarch. Remember, I am also a dour, baby machine according to your own take on what is being said on this blog.
Where is your blog, K? Oh, that is right. You don’t even use your real name. If you do have a blog, I would like to read it. I want to ascertain YOUR agenda, K. Don’t you think that is only fair? You do want to be fair, don’t you?
Instead of accusing people of having an agenda, why not engage them in the real argument? You don’t even have the argument correct. If I have an agenda, it is exposing the teachings that are extrabiblical and that are being taught as the precepts of God. These false teachings are bondage and they hurt people. I have a high regard for scripture and that is what my agenda centers in on. But, because you have stopped up your ears, you don’t hear that. You hear what you want to hear and then you keep on repeated the same misconceptions over and over again as if they were truth, no matter how many times you are told to the contary.
Read the following very carefully, K, and notice that this is my agenda. This is what I cannot tolerate because it hurts the very people that Christ died for and set from from the bondage of these types of religious leaders.
5The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the (F)tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with (G)impure hands?”
6And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘(H)THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7′(I)BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.’
8″Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the (J)tradition of men.”
9He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your (K)tradition.
10″For Moses said, ‘(L)HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER’; and, ‘(M)HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH’;
11but you say, ‘If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is (N)Corban (that is to say, [a]given to God),’
12you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13thus invalidating the word of God by your (O)tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”
1(A)Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2saying: “(B)The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.
4″(C)They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.
5″But they do all their deeds (D)to be noticed by men; for they (E)broaden their [a]phylacteries and lengthen (F)the tassels of their garments.
6″They (G)love the place of honor at banquets and the chief seats in the synagogues,
7and respectful greetings in the market places, and being called (H)Rabbi by men.
8″But (I)do not be called (J)Rabbi; for One is your Teacher, and you are all brothers.
9″Do not call anyone on earth your father; for (K)One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
10″Do not be called leaders; for One is your Leader, that is, Christ.
11″(L)But the greatest among you shall be your servant.
12″(M)Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted……
5″Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one (Q)proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of (R)hell as yourselves…
23″(Y)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
24″You (Z)blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
25″Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For (AA)you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.
26″You blind Pharisee, first (AB)clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.
27″(AC)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness.
28″So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.
29″(AD)Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30and say, ‘If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
May 22, 2007 at 10:55 am
Please excuse my errors. 😳 I never claimed to be highly edumacated. 😉 Nursing a squirming baby and getting interrupted by phone calls and ringing doorbells isn’t always conducive for error-free blogposts. I am sure the grammar police wil be atttending to my crime shortly!
May 22, 2007 at 11:48 am
I told you the reasons I gave for also posting with my family’s id’s on youtube. There is also a 500 character limit to each comment and it was hard to try to post all my “evidences” of mine without having to enter in another comment. The form for comments kept rejecting as spam when I would try to post and so I would have to change users to get my point across.
Pfr, you’re still way to arrogant and condescending to me and you are “Jen’s friend”. that’s all that I need to know. You can rail on me all you want, and you will because you come across as bitter, angry and holier than thou and I’m done addressing you as a moniker. You are irrelevant to me, as is this whole debate on whether Jen is in the right and all her former members of her congregation, Little Bear Wheeler’s congregation, Faith PC, BCA, the Perez’, the homeschool conference leaders in Arlington that day for the youtube video and many others who have encountered the Epsteins have to say about Jen. It’s their words of rebuke that matter to me, not her’s anymore, and especially her “friend” pfr. Mark made a rebuke to someone once for posting anonymously:
“Why don’t you make yourself vulnerable and quit posting using an alias? Why don’t you demonstrate some courage as an example and encouragement to others? Talk is cheap, Interested Observer, it’s time you demonstrated just how “manly” you are in this entire situation, and if you’re not willing to do it yourself, then don’t make demands that others do it for your satisfaction. For just as we know patriotism can be the last refuge of the coward, your demand that others make themselves vulnerable (while you protect yourself) is a classic example of cowardice.”
I would apply the same to the cowardly pfr for using anonymity on behalf of Jen’s cause to demand Doug Phillips to repent. I’ve already posted and commented as to my id’s but pfr still puffs her/himself up in speech.
May 22, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Kate, please stop being such a crybaby.
You are the one who has time and again attacked my friend Jen and called her “a liar.” When challenged to furnish proof to back up your outrageous accusations you engage in a never-ending game of evasion: “PFR said mean words to me. PFR said I was hyperventilating. Boo hoo.”
Grow up Kate. Enough with the pity parties. Get over yourself.
Kate, when are you going to apologize to Jen for accusing her of “lying” about the binoculars?
May 22, 2007 at 1:27 pm
David Z: “If anyone needs help beginning to perform you due diligence against the DC/IRS al-Qaeda, and thus comport yourself as a man of God (I will deal only with men, sorry; send your husbands) and as a steward and patriot, then please don’t hesitate to e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org (and yes, that certainly includes you CPAs, tax attorneys, and even IRS employees who have always thought you might be working for a corrupt organisation).”
Um, David, I think you are making our point for us. Does the Bible say that only men can take care of tax issues? Or is it a sin for women to research government issues for the sake of their husbands? Can a wife not be a good helpmeet to her husband by doing this research as well? Or maybe the wife likes working with figures and money and the husband doesn’t. The point is that the Bible is SILENT on whether this is the man’s or the woman’s responsibility in the marriage. And in my own marriage, this is my job. I know that because my husband told me so! So, are you telling me that you would not deal with me on this issue simply because I am a woman? Is that any different from Doug excommunicating me for writing to him simply because I am a woman? THIS is the point we are trying to make here. I do not go around being unsubmissive to my husband or telling him what to do, but if he asks to take care of the taxes, I do.
May 22, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Whoa, Nellie! How on EARTH did you get from what I wrote, to what YOU wrote?
Look, I don’t want women calling on me because my dear bride runs a tight ship and my little Matriarchy-woman will have my HIDE! 🙂
Seriously, I don’t think it’s fitting to have a bunch of private conversation with a woman not my wife. Maybe it’s just me; it’s different here in a “room with the doors open”. But much more importantly, I have made it my personal life mission to help pull the skirts off of pantywaist ‘Reformed’ guys — in public — so they can get with the program of ACTUALLY reforming.
I’m watching all these guys squirm about “it’s not my ministry”, or “render unto Caesar”, or “I honestly think I need to pay my fair share for paving the streets”…and they know as well as I do that the real deal is that they get the runs whenever they get an IRS envelope in the mail!
They quake and squirm and rationalise, even when I tell them that:
1) Being a Nontaxpayer is 100% legal according to the Tax Code;
2) We’re not “anti-government” or “anti tax”, just anti-terrorist and anti-corruption;
3) IRS can’t show a law making us ‘Taxpayers’;
4) there are an estimated 67 million non-filers;
5) federal govt. only needs 20% of what it now pulls in per year, to exercise ALL powers enumerated in the Constitution;
6) By IRS’s own admission, you’re 4X more likely to be criminally indicted by the IRS as a filer, than as a non-filer!
I think that I truly do have a heart set on the reform of Christ’s Church. Reformed guys, like me, love to see the truth prevail, and corruption get its comeuppance: but so far, Reformed guys are tucking tail in fear in this war. The fearful will not be found in Heaven, and I really think there need to be some Reformed guys in glory, so I’m trying to recruit them!
I have a lot less doubt about their wives, believe me.
May 22, 2007 at 4:13 pm
I said: “Reformed guys, like me, love to see the truth prevail…”
I meant: “Just as the Reformed guys do, I love to see the truth prevail…”
I am NOT a Reformed guy. Certainly trying to reform…but not Reformed. Just plain old “Christian”.
Is that too much of a “label” for you, Jen? I know you didn’t like “Christ-follower”. Is “Christian” OK?
May 22, 2007 at 9:34 pm
David Z: “Whoa, Nellie! How on EARTH did you get from what I wrote, to what YOU wrote?”
Please forgive me if I misunderstood your intentions, David. When a man who is a self-proclaimed Patriarch states that he will deal only with men regarding taxes, that ran up a red flag for me! But we do live in the modern world, David, and men and women conduct business amongst themselves all the time, and are not in sin for doing so. However, I would never suggest that you do anything against your own conscience, so if you don’t wish to email women alone, may I suggest that you merely copy your wife on your correspondence instead?
On to the reformation. I’ve read your views about the Reformation not reforming enough, that we still have plenty of reforming left to be done. Amen! Preach it, brother!
And then I read your views on not paying taxes and I wonder where the reformation went? Isn’t this where we really need a true reformation? Is dropping out of the system “reforming” anything? By flying just under the radar, are you helping to reform our government, or are you just advocating undermining it? Come to think of it, are your views on career military men related to not paying taxes? The government wouldn’t be so adamant about collecting that money if they didn’t have to pay all those soldiers.
You are an activist, David. Let’s look at the big picture here. If you spend your life persuading a few people to stop paying taxes, what have you accomplished? I mean, really. Is it that big of a deal? Will the Lord say, “Well done, my faithful servant? You reaped the benefits of government but refused to pay your fair share.” I know you’ll disagree with my assessment there, but I want you to look at the big picture. How could you take all that enthusiasm and energy and do something important with it? Instead of looking for loopholes (which will get you thrown in jail eventually – I’ve checked out your position), why not try Reformation?
You say, “Reformed guys are tucking tail in fear in this war.” I say you are tucking tail when you duck beneath the radar screen. You are intent on following the letter of the law (although I think you’re a little off there, too) and not the spirit of the law. This country is ripe for a good tax reformation. Just think of how much more powerful that would be than advocating passive resistance. It’s time to make history!
As far as being a Christ-follower, you can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn’t matter to me one whit, but with all your disdain for all things denominational and such, I was a bit taken aback by your use of a label that generally belongs to the emergent church movement. Knowing that you have not been in that movement yourself, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt that you really didn’t know what that label refers to.
May 22, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Sister, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
I OBEY THE TAX CODE TO THE LETTER. IF YOU WANT TO QUOTE A SECTION OF LAW I AM VIOLATING (“under the radar” WITH A 4-FOOT-THICK CORRESPONDENCE FILE OF CERTIFIED MAIL LETTERS TO THE IRS…under the radar!! Have you seen my American Glasnost website, lady!??) I WILL BE HAPPY TO REFORM MY WAYS AND PAY EVERYTHING I OWE, ACCORDING TO LAW.
You have no idea what the issue is, do you, Jennifer? You’ve stated twice some hogswallop about how it’s the money, and how I need to REFORM…when I have spent no less than 20-25 hours on your website (my billing rate is $225/hr) and I’d wager you haven’t spent 10 minutes on mine, before firing off a long diatribe about how I’m “flying under the radar” and not paying “my” taxes!
I’ll try something here, sister. I want you to spend just one-fifth the investment of time that I’ve made defending your sorry rump. You go read my website.
Then you come back here and retract what you’ve said, above.
May 22, 2007 at 11:02 pm
David, I didn’t mean to offend you. I realize that you have spent a great deal of your life devoted to this cause and I admire your being willing to take a stand for your convictions. I have already spent many hours at both your forums and your website, but I will do so again.
My concern is for your family. I went to Kent Hovind’s trial, and I realize that you don’t take his exact same position, but you do take his exact same argument. And that argument is what got him thrown in jail. At first, I wasn’t going to take a position on what Kent did, but merely pray for him. Then I was drawn into it. His main argument was “Show me the law that I have broken.” Judges don’t take kindly to that. They do not consider that their responsibility, right or wrong. In fact, the judges may be 100% wrong in how they adjudicate these tax cases, but in the end, it is the person who merely asks, “Show me the law” who gets their butt thrown in jail. Even if you are 100% right in what you are doing, you do admit that non-filers get prosecuted regularly.
Flying “under the radar” does not mean breaking the law. I am NOT accusing you of breaking the law. I am simply saying that you are not in the limelight, like a tax protester might. If you were “on the radar screen,” that would mean that you were the average Joe Blow taxpayer that the IRS hears from with tax money every year. So, I am saying that non-filers are flying “under the radar” because the IRS doesn’t really “see” them. They know they’re out there, but they can’t see them. I repeat, I am NOT accusing you of breaking the law.
I am very concerned that what happened to Kent Hovind might happen to you as well. I don’t know your form of income to know whether or not you can legitimately meet all the requirements for being a non-filer. I know that it is possible to do and to do so without ever being legally liable, but I don’t agree that it is using your list and finding the loophole to fit in. Do you ever have a W-2 or a 1099, for any purpose? If so, I would think that would trump your list of who doesn’t have to file.
I truly pray that you are right legally and that you never have to go to court. Here’s my question: Would all this be worth it if you had to spend every cent you have now to fight this in court? And would all this be worth it if, by some chance, you did end up in jail? When I went to Kent Hovind’s trial, I sat there and watched him cry like a baby trying to get out of his jail sentence. He wished he could have done it all differently. I am just very concerned for you and your family. I spent some time with Jo Hovind as well. The harm that has come to Kent’s family is tremendous. I’m only asking that you consider every possibility.
As far as the other thing, please forgive me for overstepping the bounds of propriety. I did not intend to offend you there either. I’m very sorry.
May 22, 2007 at 11:23 pm
My blog is much different – I have no agenda except to keep friends and family updated on our family happenings. I don’t discuss anthing controversial – because frankly I am not a logical debater type person – that would probably be my daughter who did three years of that stuff.
Anyhow as I said, I am just too weary. I have health problems and I have not slept well as I have spent entirely too much time here on this blog. Jen does not need me to tell her where I think she is wrong as many have gone before me and attempted. Anyway, I am sorry I am off to bed!
May 22, 2007 at 11:50 pm
My dear Kate, thank you for complying with my requests. How you must be struggling now. It seems that you are causing your own inner turmoil with all this and I just can’t understand why. But let me address the issues anyway.
First, the reason I asked you to bring these things to my blog is that your questions are about me and my story. It isn’t about popularity, Kate, although you will get more hits to your own blog if you post comments on my blog. If I used your own reasoning here, you would expect me to go to Lynn’s blog, and Corrie’s blog, and Thatmom’s blog, and your blog, and Elizabeth’s blog, and Cynthia’s blog, and numerous other blogs several times every day looking to see if anyone had any questions for me. And then everyone else would have to go to these multiple blogs multiple times a day to find the answers. That just wouldn’t be very efficient, would it?
I’ll tell you what. You write about something of interest to you, like when you wrote about women in the church, and I will come to your blog and talk to you there. But wouldn’t you think it strange if I were to read about your baptism, for instance, and then write my comments about it on MY blog? There is a flow of thought that happens in the comment threads and that is why they are there. I just think it works well that way.
As far as using all kinds of aliases, Kate, the point is NOT that you used an alias, the point is that it causes confusion when you post under different names, especially when you post nice comments under your real name, and real nasty comments under an alias. That was quite disconcerting and disingenuous, Kate. If you are going to turn on me, you should at least you the decency to say so instead of leaving me to figure it out. And posting under several different names on YouTube is the same thing. You could have asked me those questions here, where I would have seen them. I know you explained why you used all those different aliases, but you would think that maybe YouTube had a reason for keeping comments the way they do. It appeared to everyone else that you were just trying to run the comment thread on that video.
Also, you will see in comment etiquette that I ask people not to use more than one name. For security reasons, some commenters have emailed me privately to ask if they could change their name and I have always honored those requests. All I’m asking is that you follow the rules, Kate.
Please just ask me questions as Kate, plain and simple.
Kate, I have talked to PFR about how they speak to you. PFR wrote you another comment in reply. Basically, they are so upset about you are continually calling me a liar when I have repeatedly stated that I did not call you or talk to you on the phone and that I never had my picture taken with a pair of binoculars when you asked me the first time. My friend is incensed that you continue to falsely accuse me on these two issues and has expressed to me their great restraint in handling you, Kate. Knowing how upset my friend truly is, all I can say is that I am proud of them for honoring my request not to treat you in the way they really feel like doing.
And so, I am going to moderate you, Kate, until you apologize for both continually lying about me in these two areas and for calling me a liar. There is just no reason for me to continue to have to listen to that.
Don’t you think it’s a bit of a stretch to hear a voice on the telephone in January and then hear another voice in May and think it is the same voice? I don’t have an unusual voice, I don’t think anyway, so it’s not that it was so distinctive that it would have been obvious. Again, I have NEVER spoken to you on the phone.
Kate, I have allowed all your comments to go through on my blog. If there are still some questions that I have not answered to your satisfaction, please direct me to them and I will be happy to answer them, after you apologize for lying and for calling me a liar.
I think that either I or others have answered all your questions, though. It appears that you are trying to make an issue where none exists. I am very sorry that you have been hurt by other people in the past, but you should never use the past to judge others. I am not them. I did not do those things to you. Please separate those hurts from your current life and see each person for who they really are. I’m praying for you, Kate.
May 23, 2007 at 12:17 am
You are losing credibility very, very quickly with me.
My record is here on your blog, for all to read. I asked a simple thing of you: go and READ (i.e., actually read, comprehend…don’t skim and say “I read it!”) by comprehensive introduction to Tax Honesty on the American Glasnost website (click on my name).
The very fact that you have asserted that Kent Hovind and I have the same “position” on the Tax Code, or anything remotely resembling the same fact situation — is not only proof that you did NOT in fact read my web blog as you say you did, but CLAIM to have read it, and still “feel concerned for me”.
I have three points, regarding your concern about my standing for the principled, reformational position on the IRS scam in America (known as the “Tax Honesty” position):
1) Your concern is warrantless; if you are still a filer, you stand a 400% better chance of ending up on the “hit list” at IRS, than I do (that’s from IRS’s own website statistics) so be “concerned” for yourself, not for me.
2) A corollary: as I say on my website, the NAZIs had a law requiring all Jews to wear a big yellow Star of David, marked “JUDEN” on a prominent part of their clothing at all times, so that they could pounce on them, randomly, and suddenly in terroristic fashion. In retrospect, since we know that many of them died anyway, it’s fascinating to us that they would voluntarily wear those marks and make themselves an easier target. But they did, because their grandparents, parents, and neighbors did. And it was “the law”.
That is what you “Taxpayers” do every single paycheck. But you’re concerned for ME? Puhleeeease.
3) I do not fear government-sponsored terrorists. I do not fear corrupt judges, either, because I will take my chances with twelve of my peers any day of the week. My situation is much like most of yours; I am just a regular, self employed person. I don’t file things as Kent Hovind did, and I certainly don’t give the appearance of shiftiness that he did…by having so many large cash transactions, employees, etc…calling them “ministry workers”. He ran a BUSINESS; maybe a Christian business, but still a business. Calling his workers “missionaries” (at a museum/theme park? Um…yeah.)… the list goes on.
The Hovinds seem like wonderful Christians to me, but their “operations” seem like anything but a “ministry”, sorry. So if a corrupt judge wanted to paint them as crooks, they made it easier to do that.
I’m just a plain old engineer. I have a nice long trail of position papers on how the Congress has run its scam. If I ever got hauled into court, probably the first and only piece of evidence I would present is my website’s “Introduction to Tax Honesty”.
Now, you be a nice lady and go read that introduction. Reading time ca. 2.5 hours (with comprehension, not skimming). Then you come back here and tell me that even the most ignorant juror would throw me in jail after reading it.
Better yet, you tell me if any self-respecting federal prosecutor would EVER want twelve more Americans reading that! 🙂
Go on, Jen. No cheating, now. Just do as I asked; I’ve invested ten times as many hours reading and writing on YOUR blog, as I’ve asked you to invest in mine.
Report back here, and give your honest appraisal then.
If you continue to show that you have not actually done what you claim to have done (read and comprehended my Tax Honesty article), I think I will understand why the BCA Patriarch big-wigs refuse to deal with you anymore. You have attempted to make me look like a scofflaw and a fool, when I am convinced that I am representative of the reforming edge of the Church with respect to the IRS scam.
May 23, 2007 at 12:26 am
I also resent the implication that not only am I bucking reform, but I’m a chicken, flying “under the radar” from petty blue-light terrorists.
That’s why I told you about my thick file of certified-mail correspondence to and from IRS. I have perennially asked my employees for answers. Very simple, basic answers. I have received many of the “our dog ate my homework” replies, but NEVER a substantive answer.
I have ALWAYS operated totally in the open, honestly, and without the least fear of my employees: city, county, state, or federal. I am not like the pantywaist pastor or elder that sloughs off Tax Honesty with a facile “render unto Caesar”.
Read my introductory article on the website, to see what I think of such Christian men. I challenge them — especially the CPA’s among them — to come out and play the man.
They usually run…UNDER THE RADAR, and back into the “fair share” line for their turn at the gang-sodomy.
Hardly the Reformed thing to do, I’d say.
May 23, 2007 at 12:29 am
David, first I told you that I had already read your site BEFORE you ever posted here. However, I WILL go read it AGAIN. This time I will take notes. I am not opposed to everything you have there. Not at all. But I am also not in agreement with everything you have there. So when I come back, I will clearly state my points. Sound fair?
Second, I did NOT say that you are taking the same position as Kent. In fact, I believe clearly stated knowing that you are not. I know lots of things Kent did wrong, many of which you have listed, and I agree with your assessment of his ways. (I really like Kent as person, BTW.) My point is that his MAIN argument was, “Show me the law that I’ve broken.” Is that not your main argument as well? THAT is why he is in jail. And THAT is why I am concerned about you. You don’t want my concern; that is fine. But I’ve grown to like you over the last few days and I’m concerned anyway.
So, I will be back after I conduct due diligence. Promise!
May 23, 2007 at 12:38 am
David, one question about Reformed men: Do you think all Reformed men should take your stance on taxes? Why or why not?
I still don’t think you understand my use of the phrase “under the radar.” Maybe it doesn’t directly apply to you and maybe that is our disconnect. I am probably being too broad. I am simply trying to say that non-filers are, generally, those that the IRS does not even know about. “On the radar screen” is your average tax payer. And “in the limelight” are tax protesters. Just my thoughts. Now, considering that as a non-filer, the IRS DOES know about you, I guess you are now on their radar screen, aren’t you? So, I retract my statement that you are flying “under the radar,” although it was never meant in a derogatory way. If I was to be a non-filer (we don’t qualify), I would be “under the radar” as well.
And, yes, I’ll read your site tomorrow. In fact, I will even go there with my real IP so you can check on me! But I still think you ought to consider those two questions I asked about going to court and going to jail.
May 23, 2007 at 12:45 am
You also need a primer in American civics, as relates to taxation. As President Reagan’s “Grace Commission Report” said many years ago: not ONE DOLLAR of what is collected in income taxes goes to any federal function that the average taxpayer associates with government; fully ALL of those revenues go straight to the banking cartel families who own the stock of the Federal Reserve, for interest on the notes payable for the play-money they print (in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution).
Just because you are ignorantly paying those counterfeiters while believing fantasy (“my income taxes pave my streets and get my trash picked up! I do my fair share!”) this makes you ‘reformation’-minded…and I’m “flying under the radar”?
See, Jen…I’m beginning to believe that the Lord in His infinite mercy actually decreed before the beginning of time that you would create this crazy blog, just so that a few dozen Christians would (perhaps) allow me to introduce them to a couple of history’s mega-hoaxes:
1) the IRS check-skimming scam…imagine the aspects of your life that will change for the better when you’re out of the “fair share” queue AFTER DOING YOUR DUE DILIGENCE;
2) the “Reformation” and “Anabaptist” hoaxes, wherein some very smart and pushy guys with PR talent were able to make themselves into the watershed men of history…while killing their fellow believers “for the peace and purity of the true gospel”, creating what we now see was 500 years of division and strife…and having the gall to label themselves ‘Reformed’ in the process!
Hopefully, some folks will not only read my Tax Honesty site; they’ll buy Leonard Verduin’s masterful booklet called “The Reformers and Their Stepchildren”, and/or Thelemann vanBraght’s large tome, “The Martyrs’ Mirror”.
May 23, 2007 at 12:51 am
Should all Reformed men take “my stand” on taxes?
This is my stand, WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN, HAD YOU ACTUALLY READ MY WEBSITE INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE:
– never break laws (i.e., pay every tax you owe by law)
– always tell the truth
– NEVER fear terrorists
So, Jen: do I think every Reformed man should take “my stand” on taxes? Golly, I dunno.
May 23, 2007 at 1:07 am
Presently, based on your response to my queries and challenge, I would say I DEFINITELY feel more sorry now for Doug and the BCA men than I did 48 hours ago, Jen.
You made an injurious remark to me, suggesting (at least to me) that I am either a scofflaw, or at least a foolish man, operating in opposition with ‘Reformation’. I disagreed with you, and informed you that you are not only ignorant of the law and fact situations, but haven’t considered Tax Honesty’s ramifications on American life and reformation.
You were oblivious, Jen; you went right on with another installment of “concern”. Oblivious!
Even claiming to have read my whole website BEFORE I came on here! What a miracle; I guess my site meter is lying to me or something! Not only that, but you read a detailed comprehensive introduction to Tax Honesty that is poles apart from Kent Hovind’s hijinks…yet lumped me in with poor old Kent!
You are not only obstinate and strong-willed; you also tend to ‘preach’ to issues in which you obviously lack basal information to afford the necessary competence to offer such ‘preaching’ or ‘concern’.
Further, you twist the whole scenario to make it appear that I simply “misunderstand” what you are saying, when anyone else reading our exchange I think would agree: I totally DISAGREE with what you are saying, because you are ignorant of the subject and obstinate about making your point anyway. I understand your position perfectly, but you continue making uninformed blanket statements about “Reformation” in the area of Tax Honesty that show you have the precise OPPOSITE of reform, labeled as “reform”!
You’re a hard, hard sister to engage fruitfully. I can’t believe how long I’ve been doing this. It’s absurd. I may come back to hear your “mea culpa” in a few days, or I may not come back at all. I’m sure we all have better things to do with our time.
Doug Phillips, if you ever read any of this: I feel your pain! I think I’ve been as rough on you as anyone, but only in areas that do truly need improvement. And I have not called them sins; only weaknesses in ministry.
I think you should just be a nice brother and “confess your sins” to Jen Epstein; I very much doubt the Internet will ever see the end of this combobulation, otherwise.
May 23, 2007 at 6:59 am
“See, Jen…I’m beginning to believe that the Lord in His infinite mercy actually decreed before the beginning of time that you would create this crazy blog, just so that a few dozen Christians would (perhaps) allow me to introduce them to a couple of history’s mega-hoaxes…”
And here I thought that the sole reason that He decreed Jen’s blog should exist was so that I could show the world the unscriptural basis of the HyperPatriarchy!
CRUSHED, I tell ya!!! 😀
May 23, 2007 at 7:59 am
David Z: “This is my stand, WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE KNOWN, HAD YOU ACTUALLY READ MY WEBSITE INTRODUCTORY ARTICLE:
– never break laws (i.e., pay every tax you owe by law)
– always tell the truth
– NEVER fear terrorists
“So, Jen: do I think every Reformed man should take “my stand” on taxes? Golly, I dunno.”
David, I know VERY WELL this is your stand. You see, I read that VERY LONG thread on the “American View”: IRS and Taxation, just after midnight on May 17, which is BEFORE you started posting here. I also had read your website about a year ago.
But that is not what I was asking you. I was asking if you think all Reformed men, who are eligible according to your list, should be non-filers.
I have never accused you of either breaking the law or of encouraging others to break the law. I fully realize that you strongly encourage everyone to keep the law. My point was merely, will the judge agree with you?
Off to do due diligence.
May 23, 2007 at 8:17 am
“As far as being a Christ-follower, you can call yourself whatever you want, it doesn’t matter to me one whit, but with all your disdain for all things denominational and such, I was a bit taken aback by your use of a label that generally belongs to the emergent church movement. Knowing that you have not been in that movement yourself, I shall give you the benefit of the doubt that you really didn’t know what that label refers to.”
I think we need to exercise caution and not assume that everyone who uses the term “Christ-follower” is part of the emergent church and is an advocate of labryniths and silent meditation, operating under the assumption that one can be a Christ-follower without having any sort of actual relationship with Christ.
Recently I have started asking people why they use the term “Christ-follower” instead of Christian. The answer that I am hearing is:
1. These people do a lot of talking with unbelievers about spiritual things.
2. To many unbelievers, the term “Christian” either carries a lot of baggage OR is so vague as to be meaningless, as in, “I’m a Christian too. My mother took me to churh when I was a baby and, besides, I’m not a Buddhist or a Muslim, so I guess that makes me a Christian”.
3. The term “Christ-follower” stresses discipleship and relationship rather than merely religious affiliation.
4. Jesus said, “Follow me” to those whom He called as disciples. Our task is to make disciples — followers of Jesus, Christ-followers if you will.
Yes, people in the emergent church use that term. Yes, there have been some goofy videos. But I’ve just recently learned, yet again, that there is good reason to refer to oneself as a Christ-follower.
May 23, 2007 at 8:22 am
““See, Jen…I’m beginning to believe that the Lord in His infinite mercy actually decreed before the beginning of time that you would create this crazy blog, just so that a few dozen Christians would (perhaps) allow me to introduce them to a couple of history’s mega-hoaxes…”
And here I thought that the sole reason that He decreed Jen’s blog should exist was so that I could show the world the unscriptural basis of the HyperPatriarchy!
CRUSHED, I tell ya!!! ”
And I thought it was all about me, me, ME — that this blog really existed so that people could read my few but brilliant comments and have their lives utterly transformed by a level of truth and wisdom never before seen in the known universe.
Either that, or so that they would learn the difference between “effect” and “affect”. I’m not sure.
May 23, 2007 at 8:22 am
I am a Black slave. I am 18 years old, and some say I’m real big for my age.
My daddy was brought in chains to Massuh Winthrop’s plantation before I was born. At the plantation…that’s where my daddy met my momma.
Ever since I can remember, I have wanted to leave Massuh Winthrop’s plantation and live like a man. A free man. I don’t understand why in America a white man is a man but a black man is a piece of property. It just isn’t right. This is not what God says about me in the Bible.
This is not what the Declaration of Independence says (yes, I have read it!)…it says “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator…”.
So last night, I ran. I left Massuh Withrop’s plantation. It’s the only life I’ve ever known…but I ran!!
This morning, here I am in chains again. They sent dogs and men with pitchforks and shotguns out by the river. They found me, and now they be haulin’ me to the judge.
The judge, he don’t agree with God. He don’t agree with the Declaration of Independence. The judge says I’m Massuh Withrop’s property, and I gotta go back…in chains.
Golly, Miss Jenny…I sure want to know…do you think I done wrong, in runnin’?
May 23, 2007 at 8:22 am
I will be praying for your health, I mean that. I know how much stamina, strength and energy it takes to raise a large family, teach them, feed them, launder their clothing (Yikes!!!!), keep the house sparkling, etc. I used to be a veritable ball of energy and I never really knew what tired felt like. Now that I am 41, with a newly turned 1 yr. old and my oldest in college, I am beginning to find that I get tired.
I understand that your blog is not controversial but we all do have an agenda, don’t we? But, it would be in the best interest of peace and unity to make sure we don’t give the impression that having an agenda is a bad thing for some and a good thing for others. We need to seek to understand each other’s agendas and then we have to make sure that our agendas are in line with the word of God.
I am just an average woman whose desire is to please God by serving my family and being faithful in the little things. My blog is a place where I can talk about things without pestering all my friends and family. It is a place where I can get all of the “voices” and thoughts out of my head. That way when I am with people, I can talk about “normal” stuff. 🙂 Most people don’t even understand what all this stuff is. They have never heard of it. They think it is “crazy monkey talk”. So, I chatter like a monkey on my own blog and other monkeys who understand my chatter come to chatter, too.
I wouldn’t have understood me 10 years ago. But, that was before I went through some experiences that truly opened my eyes.
My passion is for believers to handle the word of God accurately without ADDING to it or TAKING away from it. Because I have been in the homeschooling movement for a long time, it seems that people are always trying to add to God’s word and this is why I address it. A lot of it is behavior modification and humanism disguised as scripture. Christ is our only answer and when teachings don’t constantly point back to Christ but point to some method or way of living, that is a red flag, or at least it should be.
May 23, 2007 at 8:26 am
Thanks. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I’ve used the term for 30 years, since ‘way before the Emergent Church had emerged from its larval stage.
I claim no affinity with those New-Age nutbags…except that they follow the same Christ and Lord as I do. So while I don’t gotta agree with them, I gotta love them. And I do.
May 23, 2007 at 8:28 am
“Look, I don’t want women calling on me because my dear bride runs a tight ship and my little Matriarchy-woman will have my HIDE! ”
That is the way that I took your comment. 😀
David, I will admit that I am totally ignorant about all this tax code stuff. I mean, I do taxes for our family and for other families (I have a background in accounting, finance) but I know nothing about what you are talking about.
I will read about it, though, since it seems very interesting.
My husband’s best friend is a big lawyer for the IRS.
May 23, 2007 at 8:57 am
Rebecca, thank you for correcting my obvious misperception on the term “Christ-follower.” I appreciate standing corrected. David, feel free to use any term you want.
David Z: “Golly, Miss Jenny…I sure want to know…do you think I done wrong, in runnin’?”
Good to see you in good spirits this morning, David! Thanks for putting it in a context that really touches close to home. You have no idea how close to home you’ve really hit here. In between moderating this blog today, you will see that I am on your site even now.
But in answer to your question above – no. BUT, is there an even better way? That will be my premise in writing to you. You see, in your scenario above, there was a reformation, not just runnin’. And it was the reformation that changed everything, not the runnin’.
But I’m off again to take more notes on your site. You know, I may agree with you 100% on your tax position (and then again, maybe not 🙂 ), but I can still offer you a challenge, can’t I? I will seriously consider all that you have written (and I’m no newbie to this idea, BTW), but all I’m asking is that you consider what I ask you as well.
May 23, 2007 at 8:58 am
HYPOTHETICAL DEBATE ON TAXATION AND REFORM
Jen: I really think you’re putting yourself in danger, being a Nontaxpayer. Do you REALLY think it’s the Reformed thing to do?
David: Yes, I do. And in fact, I am four times safer than you are, as a filer. Even if it WAS more dangerous, it would still be the right thing to do.
Jen: Yes, but isn’t it more Reformed to just pay for your share of public services that everyone enjoys?
David: In the first place, I think ‘Reformed’ ought to mean actually reforming one’s life. If a man stops listening to his CPA brother-in-law (“You’ll go to prison!”) long enough to perform his due diligence on my American Glasnost blog, he will learn that in the civil sphere today, there is no single act that is more “reformed”, than to stop rendering unto a terrorist Caesar. Just stop it. It isn’t right to support terrorism.
Jen: Please, David…you’re being a bit melodramatic. The IRS is not a terrorist organisation!
David: You want to bet? Go read President Bush’s Executive Order on Terrorism. Read that definition, and tell me it doesn’t apply PRECISELY to the current operations of the IRS. It most certainly does. It is no more “serving the public” than the Nazi SS thug was “serving” the Jewish public at Auschwitz.
Jen: But that’s not what the average taxpayer thinks.
David: No, it’s not. In fact, why don’t you go read the definitions section of the Tax Code, and see how the term “taxpayer” is defined: “anyone made subject to any tax…”.
You see, Jen, I’m a “tax payer”; I pay all kinds of taxes for public services at every level. Including federal excise taxes, import duties, and (indirectly) federal tariffs. But I’ve studied the taxing sections of the Code for eight years; though I find hundreds of categories and activities that are taxable, I don’t find engineering in there. So until I self-assess on a Form 1040, and sign it under penalty of perjury…I am NOT a “Taxpayer” as defined in the Tax Code.
Yes, Jen; that’s fraud and entrapment for the IRS and Congress and the whole tax industry to make us believe it’s the law…when actually it’s their income stream and a total scam. That’s why 67 million Americans have walked away from the “fair share” line. That’s why they only get ‘nabbed’ by the IRS al-Qaeda at 1/4 the ‘capture’ rate of their poor “Taxpayer” neighbors.
As long as you have a long prima facie case against yourself (years of filings accepting the legal category “taxpayer”, and not later rebutted for the record by certified-mail, notarised Affidavit rejecting the “taxpayer” status for the record) then they will continue to get away with making you a terror victim.
Jen: But if we all just stopped paying “our” taxes tomorrow, America would collapse!
David: Baloney. All of the federal powers and functions enumerated in the US Constitution require a maximum of $500 billion per year. The other $2.2 TRILLION per year is ILLEGAL. It is nowhere found in the Constitution, and the federal government has no business doing it!
If you want to reform your wild teenager, you have to take away the fast car, the unlimited-balance Mastercard, and the gargantuan allowance.
You see, Jen, as long as the cash is flowing by the trillions, don’t EVER expect to change America via politics, elections, or anything else. The bottom-dwelling character who’s a born politician is planning his estate and retirement plan from the time he’s in junior high school. You know the type.
Today’s federal cashflow from the IRS check-skimming scam is the equivalent, for each member of Congress, of winning (50) major lotteries, each year. Now imagine: how do these guys figure out what to spend it all on? After a while it’s hard to get new ideas; corruption moves in, as it always does when ungodly huge sums of cash are in view.
So Tax Honesty is the ‘Reformed’ view of American citizenship, Jen. Follow the money. Imagine the millions of homes that could have Mom back from the office, working hard to pay Dad’s “tax bill”. Dad has been remiss, and frightened of his own employees. Dad needs to grow a spine, and do some reading. And stop signing promissory notes if he has never seen a law rewuirring him to do it.
Jen: Wow, David. I’m just shocked…you’re so brilliant!
David: No; I probably have an average IQ. I have just read a great deal, and followed up on my reading with serious study. I have prayed a great deal. And I am standing on principle, for the reform of this Church and this republic. It’s the ‘Reformed’ thing to do. All of the conjured-up CPA ‘rocket science’ is smoke and mirrors. The subject is actually about 8th-grade reading and comprehension. That’s why there are 67 million non-filers today, and growing like a prairie fire.
May 23, 2007 at 9:03 am
David, you’re preaching to the choir. You’ve got me all wrong. But I’ll let you say all you want while I continue to research your site.
I will say that you are very creative in getting your message across, though. Maybe I should have hired you to write for me!
May 23, 2007 at 9:20 am
Your husband’s best friend is a big lawyer for the IRS??
Ooooh…excellent! I hope he’s a Christian; if so, see if you can get your husband’s best friend to take this challenge:
Sir, I believe it is every citizen’s duty to be a Nontaxpayer if he does not fall under any of the categories or activities covered by a liability statute in the Tax Code. The vast majority of us do not.
Since you’re an attorney for the IRS, I assume you read law; especially 26USC (the Internal Revenue Code). I’ve read it for eight years and can’t find a taxing statute establishing a legal duty for me (an engineer domiciled in Texas) to keep records, or to file IRS forms, or to pay IRS demands. Can you please show me that section of the law?
Tax Honesty is a mass citizen reformation; an attempt to reclaim our Constitution and rule of law by LAWFUL financial embargo of an UNlawful check-skimming machine.
Sir, I consider it my citizen duty to help restore our Constitution by greatly reducing the federal revenues to only cover the enumerated powers. I think it’s your duty as well; defending and protecting our Constitution is the sworn duty of every public official and employee.
In fact, sir, you have a double duty – as a citizen and as a government employee – to protect and defend the Constitution. It’s your SWORN duty.
If you, a public official or employee, are a Christian then you have a TRIPLE triple duty to obey and support laws. That extra layer of duty is called your Code of Ethics for Government Service.
That Code, sir, requires any government employee or official who obtains evidence of a government violation of law, to report such violation — not to cover it up; certainly not participate as a co-conspirator.
This is why many former IRS agents, having learned the truth about Congress’ IRS scam, left the Service and now work on behalf of Tax Honesty: former pistol-toting U.S. Treasury and CID agent Joe Banister, agents Clifton Beale and John Turner; former IRS Fraud Examiner Sherry Peel Jackson; and former IRS Legal Counsel Paul Chappell. (Did you work with Paul in the legal section when he was still with al-Qaed…I mean, “the Service”?)
Sir, any government official or employee who violates laws is not to be obeyed, but reported for those violations, and removed from office.
Listen to the testimony of Shelley L. Davis before the Senate Finance Committee oversight hearing on the IRS in September 1997:
“Mr. Chairman and Members of the Senate Finance Committee, I am pleased to be able to share a few of my thoughts and experiences with you today as you explore specific issues of IRS abuse of those the tax agency likes to call its “customers” — American taxpayers. For 16 years I worked as an historian for the federal government…the final seven were spent as the first and unfortunately, the last official historian for the Internal Revenue Service.
In my early years with the IRS, a good question to ask was, “Where are the records?” What I learned was shocking. The records had been destroyed. Gone. Shredded. Tossed. …It is as though the IRS assumed that laws which apply to the FBI, to the CIA, to every other part of the federal establishment can be ignored…. No other agency of our government could get away with this. I questioned…why it had taken so long for anyone to realize that the records were not just missing, but destroyed…. the answer is based on fear. As taxpayers, would we ever question the one agency that can truly bite back? … Our fear of being audited has allowed the IRS to theoretically eliminate any potential smoking guns by trashing its own records … How can you prove any wrongdoing when the evidence is …destroyed? The IRS has learned that the privacy protections are its best weapon in its war against its “customers”…
I’d love to get your take on Tax Honesty — with supporting citation of law, for the record, sir. Would you mind telling me what you think, right here on this blog?
My name is David M Zuniga, of Laredo, Texas. I thank you for taking this challenge, counselor.
OK, Corrie. Run this one by your hubby and see if he’ll get his best friend to bite! 🙂
May 23, 2007 at 9:28 am
Since this thread is too long to be manageable, I am going to open comments on the next article for the purpose of continuing this discussion. Please take this discussion there.
May 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm
(Housekeeping knocks on the door…)
Hey! Is there a janitor in the room?
If so, can you erase one of those last two long posts by me to the IRS attorney fellow? I posted again ’cause I thought the first one was zapped…then the duplicate showed up from out of limbo!…two long, identical posts! AAARGH…
After you zap one of those (either one), why not zap this one too, and leave the place a little cleaner than you found it?
(Thanks, janitor. If you’re even there…)
May 23, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I hardly qualify as a janitor! My reading comprehension level is too low for that. I shall notify the moderator on your behalf. It must have been that SPAM catcher again!