Doug Phillips, Constitutional Attorney, Tramples First Amendment

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

Dear Doug,

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,

Jen Epstein

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.

596 Responses to “Doug Phillips, Constitutional Attorney, Tramples First Amendment”

  1. David M. Zuniga Says:

    “Weighing In”,

    I agree that Robert The Sproul and his gang have (more than once) gone too far in extolling the virtues of wine, fine cigars, and feasting till you pop. They are just following the lead of Doug Wilson and the Muscovites, who took up that theme years before.

    These are generally excellent brothers in Christ who sometimes do not know how the weaker believer will take their teachings. They are kicking up their heels and lifting their ale-glasses…and I have seen a great many late-20’s type guys take up the ale-hall chant with gusto!

    This is a very good point, on a very visible sin in the ‘Reformed’ Church of our day. At least in a few circles within the ‘Reformed’ camps. These men do well to heed the damage their silliness has done, and for God’s sake and that of His Church- GROW UP.

    I’m sure RC Sproul Sr. has more than once cringed at his son’s carrying on!

    So. Having said that, you think I support the ministries of RC Sproul Jr and Doug Wilson? Absolutely. I admire these men greatly for their best work (which is the majority of it) and I have (directly to them, via e-mails) excoriated and upbraided these men for their silliness and sin.

    Don’t throw the baby out with the bath-water. I am no longer a Calvinist, but I have learned MUCH of value in ‘Calvinism’. I am no longer a star-struck follower of the Dougs, or RC (Sr or Jr) but I consider them great teachers and leaders, nonetheless. This has been the way with all of the men and women that God has used, as you can read in His Word.

    As for drinking, in se: Christ was a maker of fine wine (ask the guests at Cana), and called on us to, whenever we take up our wine, think of His shed blood. He instituted a memorial for us, His followers, based on wine. So just because your father (or father-in-law) was a drunkard, does not mean that you should not drink wine as often as you have a memorial meal.

    Even in the OT, Scripture is clear that wine is good for the body. We don’t look around us at obese people, and decide to give up eating as “sinful”.

  2. Vik Says:

    I told you why, and your tactic is a low as it gets. Somebody tells you what they believe (as in Jen and her “sinless perfection”) and you close your ears to it because you WANT to believe otherwise–not because it’s true but because it’s just what you want. That is dopey.

    Holiness groups are one of the very, very few groups that preach sinless perfection, and Jen is a 180 of them. But what the heck. Get a reading comprehension course.

  3. Weighing In Says:

    I apologize because I saw an opportunity to turn the tables and I eagerly did it, too eagerly. I was wrong for the way I went about that. It was not proper nor Christ like. Please forgive me. But I still believe that the attitude that Jen had before her elders was one of self-righteousness. I guess I don’t see the difference that you ladies can refer to those in BCA as Pharasees and being self-righteous and not allow me to say the same about Jen if that is the attitude I see. I know what Jen has said about her beliefs, I have read her blog for a while now. I still believe that while she may not believe that she is perfect, she also doesn’t recognize some of her behaviors as sin.

  4. Praying For Revealing Says:

    Kate said, “Answering you is absolutely pointless.” I disagree Kate. There’s very much a point to this. Kate said, “You said I have posted 20 comments on Jen’s youTube, that is a false statement and I am going to hold you accountable for saying it.” So hold me accountable Kate. Really, I want to be held accountable. How are you going to hold me accountable if you won’t just tell us just how many of those 20 You Tube comments are yours? If none of those hyperventilating comments are yours then just tell me so I can apologize. Do you deny that you are “CaptKat3”? Do you deny that you, or another member of your family is “H3r3igns” and “Am1ll3r” and “popc0rnfr3nzy”? Hold me accountable Kate, starting with answering these simple questions.

    “You get to “ad hom” me without restraint here.” And you get to ad hom Jen on your blog without restraint, and you have, many times. You’ve also falsely accused Spunky and Lynn and CJ and JP and others, without restraint. The fact that I’m pointing out what a loose cannon you are hardly qualifies as “ad hom.”

  5. Weighing In Says:

    David, On the wine, no, thank you, we don’t need the stuff, we’ve lived 45 years and have done beautifully without it, unlike others we know who indulge. I’ve done my indepth studies on alcohol, reading Hippocrities, the Ante-nicene writers and Paul’s words from Scripture to Timothy, great Christian doctors like Rex Russel, and I have come to the conclusion that modern day wine is not the same as the wine of the Bible times nor is it used in the same way or amount, nor is it really healthy for us. I have over 100 nutrition books in my library written by many in the medical profession and without fail everyone discourages the use of alcohol. Including my own physican, who has told me never to drink it due to a liver condition I had. Rex Russel says that alcohol is more addictive than heroine or cocaine, so why should I tempt God. We had a pastor once that shamed us for not drinking, this is a sin to encourage someone to do something that would violate their conscience.

    As for Sproul, I agree about throwing out the baby with the bath water, we have many of his excellent books and sermons on tape, however we cannot with a clear conscience support the ministry at this time.

  6. Vik Says:

    All right, Weighing. There is quite a difference between people acting self-righteous and claiming sinless perfection. There is a great difference. I don’t think Jen is either one, although she had done things I wouldn’t do. I probably do things she wouldn’t do. Like say too much. She has an uncanny ability to remain kind no matter what anyone says to her. I have to practice. Anyway, don’t mix up terms, here, it isn’t nice.

    Alcohol–I don’t drink either and I will not. But, I think wine now was wine then. Same stuff; some people got drunk in Bible times and some didn’t. Wine was not “grape juice” that many Baptists like to think it is (and my Baptist church does grape juice, which suits me because my kids at this stage would spit real communion wine or make faces).

    I’ve studied the whole thing too, lots, and it depends what you read and who the author is. Wine can be healthful, and can be harmful. Grape juice can be healthful, and it can be somewhat harmful (LOTS of natural sugar). I stick with things that are healthful and fairly harmless, myself (my idea of good strong drink is black coffee, and not too much of it). Cigars and cigarettes are always harmful and never healthful–I don’t know why people bother.

    In France, even the most religious people drink wine, and people there are healthy and THIN. I don’t make wine a litmus test of Christianity, but I will not even tempt my kids by having in my home (and YES, I do like the taste of wine).

    It’s something that has too much a potential to bring a weak brother down. I’m not going to go there.

  7. Praying For Revealing Says:

    “Lynn, I have seen Jen repeat over and over in her own posts, begging someone to please tell her what sin she committed. She has said herself that she didn’t sin. No on can name a sin committed by her. These are from her very own mouth.”

    If that’s really from her very own mouth, Weighing In, please quote her. I don’t recall Jen ever saying that she’s never sinned, or that she never sinned while she was a BCA member. What she’s said is that if Doug Phillips will just specifically identify her excommunicatable sins, even just one sin, that she’ll repent of it. I do agree with you that “No one can name a sin committed by her”, specifically an excommunicatable sin, and that’s just the problem. How is Jen to repent of the kinds of broad categories of sins that Doug Phillips charged her with, but that he’s obviously unwilling and apparently unable to provide specifics for?

    Like everyone else, Jen is a sinner, and I think she knows that. She’s never represented anything to the contrary. But Jen wasn’t excommunicated for being a sinner. She was excommunicated for unspecific and general categories of sins. That’s unjust. That should leave every other BCA member worried. If the Epsteins could be excommunicated for vague and unspecific general categories of sin then it leaves every other BCA member open to the same kind of Kangaroo Court treatment. The “Phillips treatment.”

  8. Vik Says:

    I threw the baby out with the bath water. Everything I had by Sproul Sr, Sproul Jr, Wilson, Phillips, and a few others went to the city Library sale. There are plenty of other good authors out there (The Maxwells and S.M. Davis, for instance) that I don’t need books written by a bunch of hypocrites.

    That’s my $0.02

  9. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Vikki, that’s more like $0.01 worth, but you’re welcome to read whatever you like. What I’m saying is, if you call the Sprouls, or the Dougs “a bunch of hyocrites”, then you had better never read anything written by…yourself.

    In fact, don’t ever look in the mirror again, lest your own measure be meted unto you. If you think all the work done by these excellent teachers is junk, you have either not read much of their work (and make the sweeping judgment anyway), or you have over-reacted, thinking that this will somehow edify the body. I’m not sure how?

    As for the wine issue, my narrow comment was not meant as a poll on who likes what flavors, or who has read what health journals. Scripture is clear, Old Testament and New. Christ instituted it, served it, and manufactured it. If you think you’re holier than Christ, you’re a legalist of the first water, and self-deceived, to boot.

    Just like the Calvinist gang, the teetotaler Baptists have created a culture of “ickiness” that allows of no moderation, nuance, or plain reading of God’s Word. They’ve made up whole denominations of silly rules and strictures, binding consciences (and harming people’s physical health as well).

    I find the ‘disgust’ for “all alchohol” (notice I never made a pitch for beer, booze, or anything else but WINE?) to be a simple-minded, knee-jerk reaction to the clear teaching and model of Christ and the Scriptures. The epitome of legalism.

    But you all like to think that Doug Phillips is the only legalist, right? Sheeesh. I’d love to have seen you talk to Christ that way at the wedding feast. Bet he’d put you in your place better than I just did.

  10. David M. Zuniga Says:

    No, you didn’t say “hyocrites”, I typed too fast. You said ‘hypocrites’.

    And so did I.

  11. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Incidentally, I am a real wine wimp. I don’t like the taste of it, mostly. The Manischevitz (sp?) fruit wine is overpowering, and all the other ‘regular’ wines are just ugly. I don’t like whiskey, gin, etc, and don’t like beer. They just taste ugly.

    But the Lord liked wine, made wine, and instituted the memorial meal based on it, so I kept looking…finally found Lambrusco wine (either Cella or Riunite) and my wife and I like that. So we’re able to stay in the spirit of Christ’s institution without having to drink ugly stuff.

  12. Morgan Farmer Says:

    I threw the Sproul baby and bath water out about 10 years ago when Junior spoke at my old church. I’ll just say it was awful and hurtful the way he paraded around talking about the subservient role of women.

    David Z actually does not sound as scary as he did at first but hey!!! I’m still clueless!!!! How would I know?

    I keep telling ya’ll:

    Jen will not repent of the sin of disagreeing (and having the audacious NERVE of speaking aginst it/him) with dominionism-patriarchy. Thats her sin..and my sin too.

    As for wine…French…red 2003. Yeah my mom was a drunk too but I happen to like the occasional vodka-tonic and glass of wine. Weeks or months go by…then I decide to have a cocktail or glass…so now am I a drunkard wasting away on skid row? Once again…no time Iam too busy.

    I spent all this afternoon with my heathen accountant loading up new 2007 Quick Books and setting hubbys development accounts up. Since Imade lunch and we haven’t had our shoot the breeze time in ages….he did not charge me.

    Ya’ll have got a help me…..what’s a clueless tax code moron like me gonna do? 😉

    I am going to open up another blog. More later. heh heh heh

  13. Vik Says:

    Morgan said:
    “As for wine…French…red 2003. Yeah my mom was a drunk too but I happen to like the occasional vodka-tonic and glass of wine. Weeks or months go by…then I decide to have a cocktail or glass…so now am I a drunkard wasting away on skid row? Once again…no time Iam too busy.”

    I had/have some alcoholics in my family, and in my husband’s wilder teenage days (many moons ago/preConversion) he got arrested for DUI and was jailed. Was forced to go to AA (don’t get me started on how stupid AA is)… but the vast majority of my drinking family has no problem with alcohol of any kind as far as addiction (lotsa beer guts tho’). You just never know who is going to become a sop and who isn’t. Until it’s too late.

    I love wine, but it makes me sooooo sleeeeepy. I’ve never gotten drunk on wine. Now the EverClear a couple of decades ago… ‘nother story and I ain’t tellin’!

    Hubby and I just stay away from it all now. It’s just coffee, chlorophyll water, and white tea for me.

    (Cook with Golden Delicious Apple wine some time. Great flavor!)

    As for the ladies here, you know, I think many ladies opposed to me here would be shocked out of their wits if they visited me for a day. I bet my household is run just about like theirs. I just oppose controlling, bossy men!!!!

  14. Esther Says:

    “I threw the Sproul baby and bath water out about 10 years ago when Junior spoke at my old church.”

    If you think that was bad you should have read his online ‘memoirs’, Ligoneir Tales. He kept referring to the woman who funded the start up of Ligoneir as a ‘white witch’. (strangly enough, after the defrocking and filing of the blogger lawsuit by Lignonier…Ligoneir Tales vanished for a while)

  15. Esther Says:

    “Vikki, that’s more like $0.01 worth, but you’re welcome to read whatever you like. What I’m saying is, if you call the Sprouls, or the Dougs “a bunch of hyocrites”, then you had better never read anything written by…yourself.”

    Vik, I did not know you were a teaching pastor!

  16. Mark Epstein Says:

    Praying for Revealing said: “…Jen wasn’t excommunicated for being a sinner. She was excommunicated for unspecific and general categories of sins. That’s unjust. That should leave every other BCA member worried. If the Epsteins could be excommunicated for vague and unspecific general categories of sin then it leaves every other BCA member open to the same kind of Kangaroo Court treatment. The ‘Phillips treatment.’”

    EXACTLY! Which is the reason Jen’s blog exists…to warn other sheep about a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

  17. Vik Says:

    Oh good heavens, David Z, what in the sam-hill are you babbling about? Are you sure you’re a GRANDFATHER? You don’t write like one.

    For one thing, you will have to get used to the fact, here, that we women go off on rabbit trails. Deal with it.

    For another, I have read tons of all those men I mentioned, got the good out of it, and got rid of the books. What’s it to ya?

    Also, I practice what I preach. Don’t call me a “hyocrite”.

    Lastly, just when I get to liking you, you write in a manner which makes me not able to stand you. I’ve decided that rather than go back and forth between your friendly/folksy personality and your degrading/nasty personality… to just think the worst of you.

    I don’t think you’re a hypocrite. I think you have a serious case of MPD. Now go away.

    P.S. Yes I KNOW the Lord made wine! Did I not say that wine then was the same as wine now? Get hooked on phonics and read more slowly, will ya?

  18. Vik Says:

    Esther said:
    “If you think that was bad you should have read his online ‘memoirs’, Ligoneir Tales. He kept referring to the woman who funded the start up of Ligoneir as a ‘white witch’. (strangly enough, after the defrocking and filing of the blogger lawsuit by Lignonier…Ligoneir Tales vanished for a while)”

    I read that! Oh my gawsh. I also read just how much he loves his liquor — I mean LOVES it. And it ain’t wine I’m talking about either.
    ———————————-
    Esther said:
    “Vik, I did not know you were a teaching pastor!”

    Aw, shucks. My secret’s out!

  19. Be Sober Says:

    Jen, I have to wonder what kind of influence that Uncle R.C. Sproul Jr had on Nephew Ryan “Partyboy” Dick. All it might take to corrupt an impressionable lad like Ryan is reading his uncle’s Ligonier Tales. I just can’t understand how R.C. Jr. could’ve thought posting such trash could positively influence anyone.
    http://rc-sproul-jr.netfirms.com/ligonier_tales_intro.html

  20. Cynthia Gee Says:

    DZ wrote,
    “Incidentally, I am a real wine wimp. I don’t like the taste of it, mostly. The Manischevitz (sp?) fruit wine is overpowering, and all the other ‘regular’ wines are just ugly. I don’t like whiskey, gin, etc, and don’t like beer. They just taste ugly.”

    All of the above are much better when homemade. Less alcohol, fewer additives (like sulfites) and more flavor.

  21. Jeff Says:

    I was told of this blog and I’m pretty shocked by all this. I spent a few hours over at still fed up and read several posts from this Sword bearing idiot about Natasha. That’s crazy to attack a kid over issues concerning her folks. He she was issues, perhaps Mr. sword waver should pray for her instead of slice and dice. You claim in your profile to be ” a righteous guy”, funny I seem to remember the Pharisees claiming that also. Jenn was actually referred to as a ” Lady of ill repute”. You guys are nuts putting stuff like that in written form on the INTERNET. I’m glad I go to a liberal Bible church where people take the commandment to love one another seriously. Sinners are welcome there, no invitation needed. When I heard of a large Southern Baptist church giving Reformed folks 30 days to transfer out or face disciplinary removal from membership, I thought that was a ridiculous move on their leadership’s part. NOW I realize they were just attempting to protect the church from what often seems to be some of the most self-rightous, mean spirited people I have ever encountered. No wonder most Reformed churches are little dinky, accomplish nothing type churches. Well they do provide a way to keep other normal churches from becoming infected with HATE.

  22. Corrie Says:

    “I want to expound on this excellent post of yours, because you just shed light and made a great case point for BCA.
    Who was BCA more tolerant with Mark in his visabal, admitted sin or Jen who claimed not to have sinned? They were far more tolerant of Mark, and obviously were offended by Jen’s claims of having no sin to confess. Maybe you all will understand a little better their treatment of her. They obviously found her to be a Pharasee, which would account for the stern way they dealt with her. After all didn’t Jesus deal most harshly with those who claimed to need no Physician.”

    Weighing In,

    LOL! Okay???

    I don’t think we are reading the same things because I have no idea where you get the above.

    They were more tolerant of Mark because Jen was a Pharisee?

    If I remember correctly, Jen went to them because of problems in their marriage and they instantly accused her and latched on to an incident in the distant past, before she was even a Christian, and used that as a weapon.

    I would think they would have had the wisdom to work on getting one spouse to see that they must forgive the other spouse instead of igniting and inflaming a spouse’s anger and then FEEDING it. Jen had already repented of a certain sin.

    But, I could be totally missing something here and not understanding how this all started. Did Jen claim she was sinless?

    It seems that they were very quick to jump on things without gathering all the necessary facts. It seems that their view on marriage dictates to them that when you have a problem in the husband, they must focus on the wife. After all, she MUST be doing something to cause it. How often has a woman gone to a religious leader with stories of abuse only to be told that if they would only submit, all their woes would go away? I can’t begin to count how many times I have heard this story.

    I have a problem with the way they handled this situation from the beginning. I don’t think it shows much wisdom or understanding and I think they did much more harm than good.

  23. Cynthia Gee Says:

    So David… I’m intrigued. How DO you get around paying taxes, legally? Quite a number of years ago we loused up our income taxes and didn’t find out about it for a couple of years. By then the bill had tripled due to penalties, interest, etc, and now we are in the middle of a tax amnesty arrangement.

  24. Corrie Says:

    “I said before that people are more accepting of others who have standards equal to or lower than (very tolerant of sins) yet they despise people with standards higher than their own.”

    Weighing In,

    Whose standards? God’s? Man’s? I don’t like when people hoist their own manmade preferences and teach them as the precepts of God. Do you see the difference? If someone despises a person’s “higher standards” it could likely be that the person despises them because they are NOT BIBLICAL!!!

    Stand firm in our liberty and refuse to be yoked and who has bewitched you and all that stuff that warns us against people who want to take away our liberty and freedom in Christ and put us back under the yoke of bondage that Christ has set us free from.

    Oh, and before I get accused of saying that we should sin so that grace can abound….”May it never be!!!”

    Corrie:“I would rather be counted with the wine-bibbers, gluttons, and sinners than feeling like I have to put on a mask and play a part. ”

    “Your quote proves this point. Why would you need to put on a mask and play a part, why not strive to have a happy home and live a life striving to be holy and pleasing to God. No one is perfect and none of these families believe they are, in fact if you will remember, they are the ones who believe that they continually sin, it was Jen who believes she doesn’t.”

    My quote proves no such point. You are not comprehending what I said.

    People put masks on all the time in order to play the game that is necessary in order to survive church systems that are based on having to have a certain appearance.

    Tell me, do these people admit SPECIFIC sins or do they just prattle on about how they are “sinners” and “sin all the time”? Do they ever admit that they have problems in their marriage? Or is is just a “Marriage is difficult at times.”

    You see there is a BIG difference. One is spiritual sounding but a canard used to make one’s self sound righteous. But, when these same “sinners” are confronted with specific sin, they will never admit to it.

    I am still waiting for these constant sinners to admit where they constantly sinned in this situation with Jen. 🙂

  25. Rebecca Says:

    I’m confused. Mr. Z, you wrote:

    “You obviously read almost none of my posts, to be able to call me a stalker. I would sure appreciate an apology for that libelous suggestion, if you feel led to offer it.” This was in the same post that you addressed to me, so I assumed that you were still referring to my post. In which case, I can only reply, “HUH? Did you even READ my post?”

    I didn’t recall calling you a stalker (or a pervert, as you later accused me) so I re-read my post. Twice. I did call you naive and inexperienced. I did say that I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were all bluster. No where did I mention (since I have no reason to think so) anything that would give any hint that you were a stalker or pervert.

    UNLESS…

    Are you making some sort of admission here, Mr. Z? I mentioned being stalked on the internet. I honestly did not have you in mind, nor did I have you in mind when I mentioned a few other instances. I fully believe that I have no encountered you before this discussion. Are you perhaps trying to tell me otherwise?

    Or were you talking to someone else who has accused you of being a stalker? If so, please be more clear in your writing. You gave readers the false impression that I was the one who had made these accusations!

  26. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “People put masks on all the time in order to play the game that is necessary in order to survive church systems that are based on having to have a certain appearance.”

    Sort of the “I refuse to belong to any club that would accept someone like me as a member” syndrome..LOL

  27. Corrie Says:

    “But those who cast aspersions on BCA because of this one badly botched situation, are talebearers and liars of the first water. You are sowing false ideas about a local Christian body without any first-hand experience (other than perhaps having felt ’slighted’ by Doug when trying to get his ear at a national event, or something?)”

    Whoa! Do you know something, David, that I don’t know? I never tried to get Doug’s ear and I am not that immature to be slighted if some conference speaker doesn’t pay attention to me! LOL Talk about “preposterous”.

    Liars of the first water? What do you mean by “cast aspersions”? Why are YOU so quick to cast aspersion based on NOTHING but anyone who makes one little statement based on REAMS of evidence is guilty of being a liar and tale-bearer?

    “Referring to Boerne Christian Assembly’s elders, and presumably/especially Doug Phillips and his defenders, (whether on his staff or just by his side):

    “Mark and Jen, they will not stop until you are destroyed. They do not care about you. They do not have your best interest at heart.”

    If you will read my posts, I have been a defender of both Mrs. Epstein and of Doug Phillips, where warranted. I think your statement is preposterous on its face.”

    Well, don’t hold back what you really think! 🙂

    Instead of accusing, why not ask? You never asked me who the “they” was that I was referring to.

    I will tell you even though you didn’t ask. I meant the SFU gang and Mrs. Binoculars and all those who are behind those sites using fake names and hiding like naughty children playing ding-dong-ditch-it.

    I didn’t mean the members of BCA. Never had them in mind when I wrote that statement. It is is NOT preposterous of me to say such a thing. They will NOT stop and I base this on what I have seen with my very own eyes! It is my plea to Jen to really think about this and really pray about what she should do. It is OBVIOUS that it will only get nastier and uglier.

    And, really, we all know there was only one elder at BCA during this excommunication. There was NO session.

    I have seen no indication that they want to reconcile and stop this nonsense. The more Jen tries to get answers or for those in “leadership” at BCA to retry her in a just manner, the more “they” dig in their heals.

    The problem is that “they” are elusive. Who are they, David? “They” don’t use their real names. “They” don’t sign their names to documents that are written. “They” are ghosts. You are fond of people using their real names. Maybe I am stuck on stupid, as you like to say, but do you really think that SFU is being written by people that are not connected with Doug?

    “We have decided on this because of what we ourselves have seen, NOT because of what the Epsteins have brought up in their many websites that will not give up until they have destroyed Doug Phillips and Vision Forum!”

    Oh! So it is okay for you to assert that the Epsteins are out to destroy VF and Phillips? Can I call you a liar and preposterous, now, too? Don’t worry. I wouldn’t. It is uncalled for, wrong and unnecessary.

    “I feel that Doug KNOWS his weaknesses and sins; being the son of his dad, and both being tremendously gifted public speakers, Doug has followed the way of many well-known national figures, JUST AS YOU WOULD if you had the kind of notoreity and popularity with hundreds of thousands of Americans, that Doug has.”

    Huh? Just so everyone knows, I never made any assertions to the contrary nor do I know what this has to do with what I wrote.

    “But if you for ONE minute think the men of BCA are sitting idly by and NOT dealing with Doug in these matters, you are insane!”

    Really. Do you have to use so many personal put-downs? Insane? When did I say anything of the sort? And why would I be insane to think that he has the full support of all the men in his church? Isn’t that what we constantly hear? That 100% voted to excommunicate Jen? If he is being held accountable, why is Mrs. Binoculars still up and why hasn’t he distanced himself from SFU? There are two good places to start to show just how accountable he is being made by the men in his church. Give us a couple of examples of how he is being “dealt with” by the men in his church concerning this situation?

    “Further: although my wife and I have never been formal “members”, I am SICK of the aspersions being cast at that whole fellowship, based on the sins or ‘unrepentance’ of Doug Phillips. If you have not fellowshipped at Boerne Christian Assembly (and no, I don’t mean just visiting once) then you cannot throw stones at the whole local church. In fact, I don’t believe you can rightfully throw stones at Doug Phillips, the “national star”.”

    First, your use of quotations around “national star” make it appear that I said that. I didn’t. You did.

    Second, I am not throwing stones at the whole congregation. And I am not throwing stones at Doug Phillips. BTW, how come you can throw stones at people even though you never met the person? I am examining the situation and I am voicing my opinion. Why is it okay for you to do but not me?

    “You have not seen the loving, mutually-respectful fellowship; the life lived in Christ; the erudite, meaningful, probing fellowship and discussion among the men and the WOMEN of that body.”

    Did I ever deny it? Again, for everyone else, I never said anything to the contrary.

    “I do NOT say that Doug Phillips does not need to experience a much-needed period of reflection, humbling himself, and re-thinking some of his “PR” style.”

    Okay. So, what is the problem? How far will “they” go before that much-needed reflection takes place BEFORE they realize that they are destroying people in their wake? How about an admission that they didn’t handle everything correctly and they need to re-examine how they counsel people?

    “Why would you say “they will not quit until they destroy you?”, Corrie? Would it not be more accurate to say, “They will defend Doug more tenanciously, the more virulently you attack him online in public.”?”

    Why would you call me so many names without any basis? How do you know when it is righteous to cast aspersions on others?

    Do you call SFU a defense? Do you call Mrs. Binoculars a defense? This is what I was referring to.

  28. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Weighing In wrote,
    “I have come to the conclusion that modern day wine is not the same as the wine of the Bible times nor is it used in the same way or amount”

    WI, could you please explain that difference? Wine is wine. There’s really only one way to make it that I know of. If you ferment grape juice, you will get a liquid with an alcohol percentage of 11-14%

    The only way to change that would be to reinvent either grapes, sugar, or yeast (or re-write the laws of fermentation), and as far as I know, that hasn’t been done.

  29. Vik Says:

    Jeff wrote:
    “NOW I realize they were just attempting to protect the church from what often seems to be some of the most self-rightous, mean spirited people I have ever encountered.”

    I agree. Reformed men are the worst. May as well be married to the devil himself as one of them. No point in trying to make nice because they turn on you at any unpredictable time. They are pretty predictable in their unpredictability.

    I’m thinking that I’m not too fond of “reformed Reformed” men, either. Not sure if it’s intentional, but seems they talk out of both sides of their mouths. Once Reformed, I think many aspects of that personality stay with them forever.

    I’ve seen the friendly side of Reformed men, but as soon as you even slightly disagree — man or woman but particularly the woman — Holy God, take cover.

    The women aren’t nearly as bad as the men, but are usually very snippy and snooty. Guess they have to be in order to live with… you know.

    As an aside, the cult here that I excused myself from is selling the church and the preacher’s leaving town. HURRAY.

  30. Vik Says:

    Cynthia–there are very convincing (but wrong) books and pamphlets put out by some people (generally Baptists but some others) which are very convincing for readers ignorant on wine-making. They insist the wine Jesus made in the Bible is grape juice–or variations on that theme.

    Many of these same people believe that Noah got drunk by eating fermented grapes off the vine because some “canopy” was lifted after the flood, and Noah didn’t know they were fermented, supposedly. But really, the only thing you get when grapes have set too long on the vine is… raisins.

    I know all this because my mother worked hard to cram all this down my throat, along with her big rapture theory (coming any minute now…).

  31. Corrie Says:

    Vik,

    You crack me up. Thanks for making me laugh tonight.

    I needed it.

  32. Jen Says:

    I’m back home now after meeting several new friends this weekend. Let me try to catch up a little. I think I will respond to each person in a separate comment, so the comment will still be readable. There are a LOT of comments to respond to, so if I miss your question, please ask me again. Thanks.

    Let me again ask that we refrain from name calling, any kind of attacking each other, and all behavior that does not reflect Christ. Disagree all you want – charitably. 🙂

    Sorry for the long thread. I’ll try to post something today.

    Vik, I read your soapbox comment about not having anything to talk about with other women at church either. I’m glad you’re here, and the other women who have something worthwhile to say. I’m not saying that all those other things AREN’T worthwhile, but let’s broaden our horizons a little! Men or women, I’m just grateful for a decent conversation. In fact, I like these internet conversations so much, most of the real life discussions bore me now. I have been meeting some internet friends, met several new ones this weekend, so that was great. There really are interesting people still out there! Thanks to everyone here, on both sides, who make the conversation interesting and civil.

    Vik: “Why are there no comments allowed in the latest article? This one takes forever and a day to load because the thread is so long.”

    I’m sorry it takes so long, Vik. I shall try to remedy that soon. But the reason there are no comments on the latest article is that I am not going to have people attack other people’s stories. I want people to feel free to tell their story without being attacked. Attack me all you want, but not my guests here.

    Vik: “I do have grave concerns about colleges in general. Many young adults lose their faith there. I’ve seen it many times.”

    A new friend I just met yesterday said that while going to college is not a sin in and of itself, we should be very careful of anything that might lead us into sin. If going to college might lead us into sin (and sometimes Christian colleges are the worst), then we should avoid that temptation. I think that is very wise advice.

    Vik: “Reformed men are the worst.”

    Vik, you’ve said this several times and I’m going to ask you to please stop. There are some of us here who like Reformed men. 🙂 Actually, that is the fallacy of hasty generalization and I’m surprised my logic friends here haven’t taken you to task for it already!

  33. Jen Says:

    Weighing In: “Jen, I obviously offended you and I’m sorry. You must realize though, that because of what you are doing you are opening yourself and your family up to great scrutiny. This is one reason why it is wrong for you to be doing this. Has the harm to your family been worth it to you?”

    I have always been open on my blog. I realize that this scenario opens us up to greater scrutiny. As for myself, I will say that by my asking nearly every day for someone to show me my sin, I have had my pride stripped away from me. This is a very humbling experience to constantly ask others, strangers even, to point out my sins. I have not, however, asked anyone to point out the sins of the rest of my family. I do want to clearly differentiate between those two. Why is it wrong to open myself up to this kind of scrutiny? And what harm is that causing to my family? If this type of forum also highlights sins in other members of my family, maybe that is needed also. Sometimes we don’t repent because no one calls us on our sins.

    Weighing In: “The Bible says let he who is without sin cast the first stone. You are casting stones at DP while your own household is immersed in sin. Do you not see this?”

    No, I don’t. I am defending myself against a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I am exposing evil deeds of darkness. I am publicly exposing the false teachings and hypocritical actions of a very public teacher. And I am standing here for all the world to see, inviting everyone to cast stones at me, if I so deserve. I am not responsible for my husband’s actions. I am not responsible for my grown daughter’s behavior. I am NOT the head of my household, so those are not my responsibilities. I will do everything possible to fulfill my duties as a wife and a mother, but I will not mollycoddle their sins.

    Weighing In: “Jen, concerning yourself-
    you have severe problems at home, yet you respond to your pastor’s blog and in a condescending tone and publicly shamed him, (I don’t believe you were trying to be funny considering the whole tone of the post), and accused him of being fallacious (being a liar). You were wrong, not to post, but to be condescending and arrogant. I can only assume by what I have seen with my own eyes from you that this was your demeaner all along and what was causing you problems at church.”

    If I am following you correctly here, you don’t like the tone of my letter to Doug about voting. First of all, I did NOT publicly shame him; I sent him a private email. No one ever needed to see it but him. I have apologized for my use of “Shame on you” to Doug. That was not right. I did not mean it the way it sounds, but I will not make excuses. But is that the worst thing I have done? And does my apology count for nothing? Fallacies are not lies, WI. I think maybe it would be a very good idea if you were to take a logic class. Several people here have pointed out that your logic is severely lacking. This is a good example. I was not attempting to be either arrogant or condescending in my letter to Doug. I was debating. He was having a voting debate. Actually, while I was present at church, at BCA, I was mostly very quiet and reserved. Most of the women there would probably be quite shocked that I even have a forum like this. I did not often make my opinions known. And I didn’t have problems at church; I had problems at home.

    Weighing In: “Mark is the one who lied about you to Doug, I’m sure in good faith DP believed he was being truthful, and with your attitude of superiority, it was probably easy to believe. You fault Beall for the counciling, yet I just read that Mark chose the topics for them to discuss with you. Did he lie to them too? Again, who is to blame here?”

    What attitude of superiority? Please show me that attitude. If I had an attitude of superiority, instead of coming here nearly every day asking what my sin is, I would be mocking and ridiculing Doug for not even being able to name one sin. Do you see me having that kind of an attitude?

    Yes, Mark has admitted that he lied to both Doug and Beall. I only asked that I be able to tell my side of the story as well. And when Mark admitted that he lied, I thought Doug and Beall ought to have said something. Since the excommunication is based upon Mark’s lies, I think they have a problem. Who is to blame? Mark, Doug, Beall.

    Weighing In: “Concerning the bed that SFU brought up; Jen I too was shocked that you could take something so hurtful to your husband, something so horrible and use that as a topic for creative writing. It showed a lack a sensitivity and again an arrogance.”

    I wrote that parable with my husband’s full blessing. SFU greatly distorted the truth. The parable was meant to tell the story – truthfully. My husband liked the story.

    Weighing In: “The fact that you rebuked Peter B. when he dared be disrespectful to you, yet you have allowed your own children to be rude and disrespectful to adults here many times also shows the considerable hypocrisy of your family. I see a consistant pattern here.”

    Natasha has not always been extremely respectful here, you are correct. But she is also very hurt by what happened to her. I am walking a very narrow line trying to allow Natasha to be able to express her feelings and also asking her to please be careful with her words. I am not going to ban my own daughter from my blog.

    I also think there is a big difference between Natasha’s hurt and Peter Bradrick’s training by Doug and by his own parents to show honor to his elders. He was acting in an official capacity and he was quite disrespectful. If Natasha were to do the same thing at work, I would hope she would be severely chastised as well.

    Weighing In: “Jen, please, stop passing the buck and keep your eyes within your own household.
    Maybe you can handle the constant feuding because it is something you seem to enjoy, it keeps you in the spotlight. Shouldn’t you be thinking about someone other than yourself. What about Mark’s mental health and his drinking? Don’t you want peace or your family? Forgive and let it go. Please.”

    No, I don’t enjoy feuding at all. I am very much a peacemaker. I suppose that is why I came here at all; I saw this as a way to make peace with Doug. I have no desire to be in the spotlight. I thought I would just my tell my story and go away quietly, but that didn’t happen. I am also not my husband’s babysitter. I have done all that I can to help him in these areas. It is not a simple matter of forgiving and letting go. I am not allowed to go to church, for instance. And if I were to decide to go to another church, we would have to go through this all over again anyway. My point here now is to warn others. It is the pattern of abuse that I am trying to show. It is the wolf in sheep’s clothing that I am warning others about. It is not about me. That is only a very small part of it.

    Weighing In: “Was Natasha’s award mention removed as soon as the excommunication took place or was it removed once she bagan to live an openly immoral lifestyle?”

    I’m not sure why this is an either-or question. This would be another area of logic for you to study. 🙂 I do not know exactly when it was removed, but it was before she began to live an openly immoral lifestyle. It was clearly retaliation. And, even so, I didn’t know it was a conditional award, subject to excommunication as well. Doug not only excommunicates people, now he excommunicates awards as well!

    Weighing In: “Everyone’s big hang-up seems to be the kangaroo court that took place and Jen didn’t get to defend herself. That BCA did not follow proper protocal for excommunication. Can someone please refer me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that has this proper protocal? Is this not also extra-biblical? The Bible says if a person is devisive warn them only twice, and then have NOTHING to do with them. Jen, was accused of being devisive. They stopped having anything to do with her.”

    WI, earlier you said this: “Jen, I do not have a college degree, but I love to read and learn. I think people can be well educated without having degrees.” 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.

    But, to answer your question. No, the Bible does not lay out a clear pattern for an ecclesiastical court. But, do you think that Scripture allows for specific charges or generic charges? Do you think that Scripture allows for witnesses or demands witnesses? Do you think that Scripture allows for appeals or for autocracy? And what do you think the purpose of an excommunication should actually be? To keep us out of church for the rest of our lives? And do you think that Scripture allows for one offended sister to actually speak with the brother who has offended her?

    Weighing In quotes: “But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat . . . Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person’ 1 Cor 5:11, 13).”

    So BCA has accused me of railing. Can you tell me when or the details of that railing? Can you tell me when I was confronted originally with this particular sin? Can you tell me when I refused to repent and the subsequent bringing of 2-3 witnesses? Are you seeing my point?

    Weighing In: “No one is perfect and none of these families believe they are, in fact if you will remember, they are the ones who believe that they continually sin, it was Jen who believes she doesn’t.”

    Oh, really? Let me clarify this for you. Beall believes that she can’t help but sin every few minutes. I believe that we are no longer slaves to sin, and that with the Holy Spirit living in us, we don’t have to sin. We can sin, and I still do sin. But I believe that is a choice I make. No one makes me sin. I do that all by myself. The charge of sinless perfectionism came about because Beall asked me if I had sinned in the last couple weeks or so in my marriage (during a counseling session). I probably tried harder than any other woman at BCA to be a submissive and respectful wife since I had such a difficult marriage. I truly did my part. I did everything I knew how to do. At the time she asked me that question, I could not recall having sinned in my marriage in the last couple weeks or so. That does not mean that I never sin. I was talking only about a particular situation.

    And PFR replied to Weighing In: “Like everyone else, Jen is a sinner, and I think she knows that. She’s never represented anything to the contrary.”

    And PFR was WAY too kind to me. PFR is my friend, but I greatly offended PFR yesterday. PFR was very kind to gently rebuke me, at which time I immediately apologized and PFR then forgave me. I guess I just haven’t reached perfectionism yet!

    Weighing In: “They were far more tolerant of Mark, and obviously were offended by Jen’s claims of having no sin to confess.”

    Yes, WI, this has been a problem for me. Again, I am not claiming sinless perfectionism, but I am saying that I do not have a pattern of sin, and certainly not a pattern of sin that would be of an excommunicable offense. Neither have I committed even one sin that would be in and of itself an excommunicable offense. Let me flip that pancake for you. (Did you use that expression? I like it!) What sin have you committed, that you have not repented from, that you should be excommunicated for? Or what pattern of sin do you have in your life that you should be excommunicated for? If you say, “none,” what makes you any different from me?

    Weighing In: “But I still believe that the attitude that Jen had before her elders was one of self-righteousness.”

    Based upon? What sin do you think I should cop to? Do you think it’s the right thing to do to confess to something just for the sake of peace, even if I didn’t really do it?

  34. Jen Says:

    K: “Education is not the “end all, be all”

    No, you are right. But when the lack of education gives homeschooling a bad reputation, that’s where I draw the line. And I know several of those types of families.

    K: “I agree with the counsel of not getting in the car with him…”

    I think you are missing my point. My husband tried to kill his family. The only counsel we received was to not get in the car with him for 2 weeks. I did not get in the car with him for over a year actually, and I did a WHOLE lot more about the situation myself. Do you think that he was going to be a changed man by not getting in the car with us for 2 weeks? Is that the sentence every judge should hand down to someone convicted of attempted murder? And you agree that Doug was right to just laugh it off? Did you call HSLDA and ask them if Doug did the right thing? I’m anxious to hear about that phone call.

    K: “I feel that if your husband is having these sort of issues then you must leave this blog alone and go to him and help him the best you can.”

    And just what do you think I should do? Babysit him? I have done an enormous amount to help him in this area. Helping my husband and having this blog are NOT mutually exclusive.

    K: “Seems to me as if everyone in your family just likes to blame DP for your family’s problems because they see how upset you are.”

    No, I’m sorry if it comes across that way. I just had a conversation with my son about this. Every person needs to take responsibility for their own actions, for their own sins. That is always first. Then comes the millstone offenses. If someone else is ALSO responsible for causing another to stumble, then God will also hold them accountable for their part in it as well. So, let’s take my daughter, Natasha, for example. Whatever sins she commits is fully her responsibility. She must confess her own sins. They are no one else’s fault. But, whatever Mark and I, as her parents, did or did not do in our parenting, God will hold us accountable for our part in her life as well. And likewise, as her elder, God will hold Doug accountable for the very hurtful way he has treated her, for not helping her when she came to him for help, and for not lovingly shepherding her. I am not blaming Doug for Natasha’s problems, for instance. We are all culpable.

    K: “how can Jen get upset because Doug made her “feel’ bad?”

    Who says I’m upset? And who says Doug made me feel bad? No, I am concerned for others who might be hurt and I am here to warn them about a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

    K: “we are not educated enough or our daughters are not – I saw Jen say this!”

    K, please show me where. I said that I am concerned when I see young ladies who are undereducated. I did not say that about you or your daughters. I did not lump everyone in any group all together and say that about them. I have seen many families where the girls, and sometimes the boys, were not going to be able to hold their own in society and be able to function well. That is a legitimate concern.

    K: “According to their documents there were railings, lies etc. etc. I know that people would be excommunicated out of our church if this happened and told they could come back once they repented and made the changes they needed to make. I do not think this is unreasonable.”

    I agree that it wouldn’t be unreasonable if I just knew what those railings and lies were. Could you enlighten me, please?

    K: “I think your responsibility for you and Mark was to get things right and to truly go back too BCA with a repentant heart and to have your children see that.”

    Repent from what? It just keeps coming back to the same question, doesn’t it, K?

    K: “since BCA excommunicated you, how would it look if BCA continued to talk to your children and basically ignored you . .. how would you feel?”

    Who cares how I would feel? Feelings have NOTHING to do with it. Actually, I would have much rather that my children still had friends, even if everyone totally shunned me. I could’ve handled that much better.

    K: “I am not CONVINCED that SFU is working for DP on his behalf. If you read SFU’s bio I don’t gather that. It is entirely possible DP does not really know who that is. I find it hard to believe he would support it.”

    First of all, SFU is at least 4 different people. And at least 3 of them work for Doug. I believe the other one used to. Doug not only knows exactly who they are, Doug tells them most, if not all, of what to post. He fully supports it, I can guarantee that.

  35. Jen Says:

    David Z: “I think that everyone posting on any blog under a name other than their own is truly a liar. Mendacious. Deceptive. … As Christians, we are responsible for using [the internet] for good.”

    David, may I suggest that you read my comment etiquette? That is kind of like the rules for this blog. That might be helpful to you.

    I agree that the bickering should stop, but not about using the names. Rebecca gave you one example of why some people don’t use their names. Until I started writing about Ligonier, I thought everyone online should use their real names. I found out that there are many legitimate reasons for not doing so, however. One of those reasons is threats. Several commenters here have received threats from Doug’s supporters when they used their real names. There are other legitimate reasons to be anonymous as well.

    David Z: “I know that Doug Phillips and the families of BCA are learning painful lessons from all this; because there is an element of truth in much of what is being charged…”

    I am very pleased to hear that there are some changes being made. I can also testify as to the truth of this. When I heard Doug’s messages last weekend, it was obvious that he had taken many things being written on this blog to heart and had made many necessary changes in his messages. That gives me great hope.

    David Z: “Thanks so much for all the space you have given me, Mrs. Epstein. I pray that you will simply soften your heart and leave these things alone. Write Doug a letter asking his forgiveness for your slander and obsessive-compulsive behavior, and telling him that you will show your forgiveness, too — by leaving him and BCA alone. Will you consider such a thing, my sister? May Christ be lifted up in His Church.”

    David, you are probably slightly older than I am, so please call me Jen. May I ask how I have slandered Doug? Slander means something that is false. Can you please tell me anything I’ve said that is false, or not true, about my story, or about Doug? I would be more than glad to correct it. But that is not the point of my being here. If I just came here and wrote about Doug because I didn’t like him, you would have very good advice. My point is not even about my excommunication, although I believe I have a valid point there, too. I am here because Doug Phillips has a pattern of abuse toward sheep – all over the world. I am here to warn others about him. I am here to protect people just like you. I have offered Doug my forgiveness, willingly. He has yet to accept it; he has yet to admit any wrongdoing on his part. He also has yet to even admit one sin on my part. That is a problem because it is part of a pattern, a pattern of abuse of sheep.

    David Z: “Of course, the Asphalt Lioness (the loud, brassy opposite of the Prairie Muffin) says that Scripture means no such thing at all, and that women can blab all they want when gathered with the saints. They can jabber, and attack, and hold a grudge forever….like a woman scorned! … Like the other Asphalt Lionesses (radical feminists) you do your case no credit by bucking the plain words of Scripture that lay out the rule of public decorum for Christ-following women.”

    I think it has been pointed out a couple times before, but it bears repeating that we are not in a church service on this blog, David. Yes, we ladies should have a gentle and quiet spirit at all times on this blog, and there should be no attacking or holding grudges, etc. Thank you for reminding us.

    David Z: “Or do MEN need to keep silent in the church?”

    And thanks for a great laugh! Who do you think is the elder of this blog-church? Me? I guess SFU thinks I am one, so I must be!

    David Z: “the women because they are mad at men who remind them that God has established an order in the home, the society at large, and His Church — whether they like it or not.”

    You haven’t been here long enough to realize that this is simply not true. Most of the ladies here do believe in God-ordained roles and that wives are to be submissive and respectful to their husbands. The question here seems to be where do we draw the line? Doug’s teaching on this issue appears to be extra-biblical and takes things a little too far. It also helps when the men fulfill their biblical roles of loving their wives as well. As much as I can gather by the comments here, the women who are strong proponents of submission appear to having very loving husbands. I am very pleased for them, but I don’t think they realize how blessed they are in comparison to many other marriages. David, I pray that you are a godly husband who loves his wife the way God intends, which makes it so much easier for your wife to submit.

    I really don’t think any woman here is bucking against God’s ordained roles – just the extra-biblical ones.

    David Z: “Notice that (as a rule, there are exceptions) even unregenerate men can have it out, a total slug-fest…and yet make peace and have a meal together two hours later. Not women…NO MA’AM! When even regenerate women (as a rule; there are exceptions) go at it with one another or with a man (or men generally)…the sore never heals, the battle never ends.”

    What a sad commentary. I hope this is not true of any woman here, but I do know that, in general, women have a harder time with this than do men. Let’s have no grudges here, please. Debate in Christian love and leave here with no hard feelings.

    David Z: “She was quite rebellious sometimes, but an excellent student; received a full ride to Baylor and graduated with a marketing degree…that she has never used. She is home, blissfully raising three gorgeous kids (yeah well, I’m biased) and hoping to train all three of them at home!”

    Having a similar degree myself, I can just about bet that your daughter uses her college training in some way nearly every day. Just having a degree of that kind makes you learn to think more critically. I am very thankful for my degree that I have “never used.”

    David Z: “I really have no truck with women who can hold their own against Philistine men — as long as it’s debate on issues in which the woman is learned, and NOT mere argument for it’s own sake. And no, I don’t believe a woman can do this is the assembly of the saints, because Scripture tells you NOT to do so.”

    Now you’re coming around. No one here is asking to debate men in church. You are absolutely correct. And thanks for showing us that education is important for a woman. I’ll bet your daughter can hold her own in a debate with a man, can’t she? And I’ll bet you’d be proud of her if she did. You can thank that college degree for some of that!

    David Z: “I think to raise up ’spinsters’ or whatever you call them — witless “daddy-servants”, if you will — is cruel and unbiblical.”

    You’d better take a good look around church next Sunday.

    David Z: “Home schooling” is oxymoronic”

    Boy, am I with you on this one! I think Doug is, too. I teach that all life is about learning and that learning takes place in real life. However, we do have to some kind of term for what we do, just so we can communicate with the world on this one.

    David Z: “I can’t see how Doug Phillips spending time with Jen Epstein in serious, mutually submissive repentance, would not be a blessing to the Church.”

    I’m all for it. I keep asking Doug to meet with me. I will even change my schedule to meet with him.

    David Z: “we have decided that we will not ‘become members’ of BCA.”
    David Z: “I am no longer a Calvinist.”

    I put these two together because one explains the other. If you are not a Calvinist, you cannot join BCA anyway. However, before you move your family up there, you might want to see if you will be allowed to continue to attend as a non-covenanting member. Last time I was there, that was not allowed.

  36. Jen Says:

    Kate: “If he read her preconversion sins in front of the congregation (do we factually know this to be the case?) and the congregation wasn’t already aware of the volatile situation in their home, what was the context? Was he showing a list of behaviors that they had been dealing with and that was part of the hurtful “parable of the bed” situation where Jen wasn’t sensitive to Mark’s request to get rid of the bed? Was it shown in an effort to be fair and show a pattern of behavior, or because somehow all those people at BCA enjoyed spreading such a sorry story around, especially Doug himself? It doesn’t make sense. Most people would have been disgusted to have him read a person’s preconversion sin in public and use it to excommunicate a family. That would have produced some sort of congregational reaction to Doug if that were the case.”

    Kate, there was no context. Talking about sins I had repented from 15 years prior had NOTHING to do with anything. It was just added. The bed was not mentioned. It had nothing to do with anything else I was being accused of. You’re right. It just doesn’t make sense. Now, the congregation’s lack of action should tell you something about the church.

    Kate: “The excommunication process was done with the consent of the congregation. Not mindless drones, or cowering, fearful christians. They had dealt with the Epsteins for a while, according to BCA statement.”

    The congregation, as a whole, was shocked when they read that disciplinary action statement. No, they had not been dealing with us. It was all hush-hush and secret. I wasn’t allowed to tell anyone. I won’t use the descriptive words you have, Kate, but they were not the kind of people to rock the boat.

    Kate: “Could you please tell me why the Epsteins were excommunicated from BCA?”

    That’s what I keep asking, Kate. You tell me and then we’ll both know!

    Kate: “She has placed herself as a judge against Doug and Ligonier and yet you say she shouldn’t be equally scrutinized in her family’s life?”
    Kate quotes me: “For that matter, why should any Christian man not hold to those same standards? Are they truly so far out of reach for Christians?”

    Kate, I am not the head of my household. I cannot be held responsible for Mark’s actions. I can help him and I do, but comparing me to RC Sproul by biblical standards is just outrageous. I cannot possibly be held to the standards of elder.

    Kate, you are one of the commenters who is being moderated here. That means that you will have to wait for each comment you post. One of the reasons is that you have chosen to use at least four different names now. Please only use “Kate.” You can probably figure out the other reasons. If I am away from my computer, or the moderator is away, your comments will just sit there and wait patiently. We would ask you to do the same as well, please.

  37. Jen Says:

    Corrie, thanks for the song. Do you have a link to the music?

    Ann quotes from “Biblical Church Discipline,” by Daniel E. Wray: “However, while the person must certainly be excluded from the Lord’s Supper, he is not excluded from attendance upon the ministry of the Word preached and taught, for even non-believers are welcome to the public assemblies.”

    That is very helpful, Ann. Thank you. Do you think this is what BCA should have done with us?

  38. Weighing In Says:

    “WI, could you please explain that difference? Wine is wine. There’s really only one way to make it that I know of. If you ferment grape juice, you will get a liquid with an alcohol percentage of 11-14%
    The only way to change that would be to reinvent either grapes, sugar, or yeast (or re-write the laws of fermentation), and as far as I know, that hasn’t been done.”

    It has been done with the invention of processed sugar which is added to increase the alcohol content. They did not have processed sugar back in those days. Also according to what I have read about the wine in those day’s it was very course and hard so water was added, thus reducing the alcohol content as well.

    David says, “Just like the Calvinist gang, the teetotaler Baptists have created a culture of “ickiness” that allows of no moderation, nuance, or plain reading of God’s Word. They’ve made up whole denominations of silly rules and strictures, binding consciences (and harming people’s physical health as well).
    I find the ‘disgust’ for “all alchohol” (notice I never made a pitch for beer, booze, or anything else but WINE?) to be a simple-minded, knee-jerk reaction to the clear teaching and model of Christ and the Scriptures. The epitome of legalism.”

    David, I do enjoy the God given fruit of the vine, but only when it is not fermented. This is not the epitome of legalism. Remember the Nazerites in Scripture, did God call them legalist or was He pleased with their consecration to Him?

    What about the sons of Jonadab, were they not praised in Scripture for obeying their father when he told them never to drink wine. They were not blasted for being legalist of the worse sort.

    Paul had an opportunity to address this in Romans 14 if it was wrong and he did not call it legalism. He did say that a man who has doubts would be condemned. I have doubts concerning alcohol and therefore would be condemned by consuming. This is not legalism.

    Again you prove the point I made concerning accepting people whose standards are lower or the same (Jr and the good ol boys who are “excellent Christian brothers”) and your reaction towards me because I choose not to drink the fruit of the vine once it is fermented.

    And by the way, the disgust is justified when it comes to Jr and his drinking. I am not disgusted by those who are temperate, who have an occasional glass of wine, if their conscience allows for then to do it, who am I to judge.

  39. Weighing In Says:

    Jen said, “WI, earlier you said this: “Jen, I do not have a college degree, but I love to read and learn. I think people can be well educated without having degrees.” 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.”

    Jen, this is a below the belt comment, but considering, I guess I deserve it. I hope it made you feel better.

    As for educating my children they actually do quite well in the subject of grammer. My daughter scored an almost perfect score in English on her SAT. When I have had them tested they have always scored in the top 95 to 98th percentile. The statistics show that the education level of the mom does not affect the outcome of the child.

    I should be more careful when I post though, and not be in such a hurry. I didn’t know it was that important to you and that my intelligence would be judged based on my internet spelling and grammer.

  40. Weighing In Says:

    Oh, there I go again, dummy me, that should be grammar.

  41. Lynn Says:

    Weighing In:
    “Lynn, I have seen Jen repeat over and over in her own posts, begging someone to please tell her what sin she committed. She has said herself that she didn’t sin. No on[e] can name a sin committed by her. These are from her very own mouth.”

    Wrong. Vic has already answered this. I will add I have seen Jen apologize on this blog, and I have seen her be willing to be corrected. People can name sins committed by her. What Jen wants to know, instead of general allegations of “railing,” what she specifically did that made them ascribe that general label to her.

    Weighing In:
    Lynn just said “think they “continually sin,” they must be some of the most wretched people on the whole planet.”

    Weighing In:
    “I’d much rather people recognize sin and admit they do it than for people to think they can act like you”ladies” and it not be sin. Name calling and such childish behavior. If you disagree tell me why don’t resort to such low tactics.

    Weighing In, I did say why I disagreed with you, and I didn’t call anybody names. Saying I think people are wretched because they are striving for perfection but are continually missing it is not name calling; it is just my assessment that they are miserable people. I find it very ironic that the same people you are defending, whom you claim say they sin all the time, are the ones who are acting like they believe in sinless perfection and won’t even speak to Mark or Jen.

    Meanwhile I have seen Jen, both in this forum, and in our private Bible study, admit to error, and change her mind about some issues. I have seen her ask repeatedly to detail her behaviors that made them believe she should be excommunicated. So far, nothing. That is what this issue is about, nothing more, nothing less.

    Weighing In:
    “But I still believe that the attitude that Jen had before her elders was one of self-righteousness.”

    I’m not sure you fully followed this. When Jen’s disciplinary document was read to the church, it was sprung on her without warning. In fact, Mark and Doug were quietly planning on excommunicating Jen only. Likewise, the excommunication happened without Mark’s or Jen’s presence. They are simply asking for what can be comared to a retrial, where they can be present, and where they can answer their accusers. So far, Doug is hiding from them. The one specific charge of sinless perfection has been denied by Jen.

    Jen wrote:
    “I think you are missing my point. My husband tried to kill his family. The only counsel we received was to not get in the car with him for 2 weeks. I did not get in the car with him for over a year actually, and I did a WHOLE lot more about the situation myself. Do you think that he was going to be a changed man by not getting in the car with us for 2 weeks? Is that the sentence every judge should hand down to someone convicted of attempted murder? And you agree that Doug was right to just laugh it off? Did you call HSLDA and ask them if Doug did the right thing?”

    Jen, they also told you if you saw Mark was doing something injurious to the children to wait to appeal to him in private.

    I always thought that was sick advice, and now it strikes me as being far worse than even I ever thought of.

    Weighing In wrote:
    “Everyone’s big hang-up seems to be the kangaroo court that took place and Jen didn’t get to defend herself. That BCA did not follow proper protocal for excommunication. Can someone please refer me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that has this proper protocal? Is this not also extra-biblical? The Bible says if a person is devisive warn them only twice, and then have NOTHING to do with them. Jen, was accused of being devisive. They stopped having anything to do with her.”

    Weighing In, you just said Jen’s comment to you about this paragraph was below the belt, but your questions indicate a lack of being able to make good inferences from Matthew 18, and many other passages of Scripture. I misspell words all the time and make typos, and my grammar isn’t perfect by any means. I’m also not as concise as I could be, etc..

    But what I am concerned about is the fact that you don’t seem to think that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses everything may be established” means that Jen needed to be present. But the disciplinary action was, as I repeat, sprung on her, and so was the excommunication. They weren’t present.

    The presence of Mark and Jen in these matters, together, was necessary in order for Matthew 18 to be followed properly, and there are at least a couple of instances where this process was breached by Mark’s lies and Doug not going to Jen to establish what the truth was. Nobody is reading any kind of legalistic excommunication protocal in Scripture. If the Bible says you go to the offending person to talk about it, and then bring one or two witnesses, that is what you do. But what happened to Jen was a surprise attack.

  42. Ann Says:

    Jen said:
    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 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. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses in different areas.

  43. Lisa Says:

    Jen…after reading yet another round of questions regarding your excommunication this weekend along with the inaccurate charge that you believed you were somehow “sinless,” maybe you might want to consider putting up a Frequently Asked Questions page. That way, the next dozen or so times that a poster asks one of THOSE questions (the questions that keep coming up, over and over again), you can simply refer them to your FAQ.

  44. Ann Says:

    Jen wrote: “That is very helpful, Ann. Thank you. Do you think this is what BCA should have done with us?”

    I can’t say as to what BCA should have done, as I wasn’t there, and I don’t really know what went on.

    In the situation in a Reformed Baptist church where I saw an “excommunication” take place, the woman was having an affair and was planning to leave her husband for another man. The pastor counseled them for many months and hoped for reconciliation, but the wife still wanted to leave. She did not repent of her adultery, and so she was excommunicated. (This church was congregational ruled.) I was not present at the actual excommunication, just the meeting where it was voted upon. (We were newer members at this point.) She was excommunicated (I do not know if they did it in her presence or sent a letter), and that meant if we saw her, we were to share the gospel with her as if she were an unbeliever. We were not to invite her to our homes for fellowship, and she could not participate in the Lord’s Supper or other church family functions. We did not shun her as in not to talk to her at all, as we were to encourage her to repent. She left the church and moved on with her life. Divorced her husband and remarried this other man. Don’t know what happened to them. The husband and the two children stayed at the church. On occasion, when there was a ladies’ function, this woman would show up to be present with her daughters.

    Now if there would be a person who was very divisive or had a major anger problem causing discord in the church, I’m not sure what this church would have done. I do know that at one PCA church, there was a couple there who were Arminians, and hated Calvinism, and they were going around telling individuals that the church was teaching heresy. They didn’t really understand PCA doctrine did they:) So they were sowing discord throughout this church. The believers were encouraged to try to avoid them, or at least, not get into these types of conversations with them. My husband and I went to breakfast with them one time and tried to explain what the Doctrines of Grace were and that all PCA churches held to those doctrines, as do Reformed Baptist churches. We asked why they stayed, why didn’t they just find a church where they were in agreement with the doctrine. Their reason for wanting to stay at this church was that they had made some good friends there.

    Not long after our breakfast meeting, they did leave to find somewhere else to attend. If they had not left willingly, I don’t know what the pastor’s next step would have been.

    And I have met only one person that knowlingly had a very bad anger problem. He was doing house church, and not successfully. He was scary to be around, explosive at any time. I didn’t feel safe around him. We only visited three times and that was enough for us. I don’t know if he’d ever been excommunicated from a church, but I wouldn’t be surprised if he had. I do know he was arrested for physically hurting his wife.

    I know good pastors/churches try to follow the Lord and preserve the purity of the church.

  45. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Cynthia Gee,

    My family (and 67 million others in America) “get around not paying taxes”, by not listening to liars, and by standing on the law (Tax Code as written).

    I agree with former IRS Criminal Investigation Division agent (now Tax Honesty spokesman) Joe Banister: most Americans do not owe an income tax, and never did. The law itself is fine, but HUGE and Byzantine on purpose, to entrap you into signing promissory notes on penalty of perjury, and to entrap you into self-assessing the amount. Once you do that, you owe what you promised, just as if it were a bank note.

    It’s a fraud. Congress was caught red-handed as far back as the 1950’s (in Vivien Kellums’ excellent book, “Toil, Taxes, and Trouble), but few people read that book.

    Please go slowly over my American Glasnost blog, and see that I am neither a “tax protestor” nor a raving lunatic. I am an engineer that has spent twice as many years studying the Tax Code as I spent studying engineering at the university.

    I have compended my work on the blog site; the introduction to Tax Honesty is admittedly long, but still not nearly as long as a book. Or even a booklet.

    I don’t care much about people who just want to become Nontaxpayers to “save money”; we’re already profoundly spoiled and blessed in this country. Face it, we have a lot more than we need (most of the time). But when you have scoundrels and liars STEALING $2,100,000,000,000 of the total $2.7 trillion annual take (the rest of it is lawfully collected through lawful income taxation, excises, customs duties, and tariffs), you should not continue to allow them to defraud, terrorise, and then regulate you to death!

    I am open to any challenge of any fact laid out on my website. But you must present LAW, not your opinions. Read the site, and see why former IRS Fraud Examiner Sherry Peel Jackson left “the dark side”, and now estimates there are 67 million of us.

    We stopped being stuck on stupid, thanks be to God.

  46. Kate Says:

    Jen,
    I have posted as “Kate” and “choseninhim” (and you forgot to mention that I told you in an immediate comment afterwards it was an accident because I was logged into my wordpress blog at the time, and that I specifically told you it was me). But one was a moniker because I didn’t want to be immediately attacked by those other “monikers” “pfr”, etc., because I was angry that you lied to me about the binoculars. A simple question that you could not even answer truthfully. If you couldn’t answer that small thing without making excuses or outright “telling a less than truthful statement” than it had to make me reconsider everything else you’ve claimed.

    Which one was the 4th that you mentioned? I don’t remember posting as someone else before? How come you also let some of these other commenters “pfr” and even others just make really rude statements like what Vik said, “Weighing, are you brain damaged or is God going to have to knock you over the head?” and “don’t be such a knot head”, and “pfr’s” false accusation to me, also using inflammatory language such as “stop hyperventilating”.

    You know, I could understand why they could get away with it if they were members of your own family that were just trying to defend you , but it doesn’t seem like a fair discussion when you let their comments through and my legitimate questions get moderated.

  47. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Corrie,

    I was not venting at YOU with all those accusations; I was making a compendium of the wash that has been hung out on this blog, and defending the fellowship of families that we have come to love.

    Please don’t think I was talking to you, sister, in every aspect of that post.

  48. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Mark and Jen,

    You have my prayers, as does Doug Phillips. I have learned something valuable from you, all three. Again, Jen, thanks for your willingness to give so much space on your blog to those who openly, vehemently disagree with you. That is unusually graceful for a blogger.

    I know how badly you are hurt, but from my vantage (and ONLY my vantage) it would seem that the whole affair has been blown to ten times its original size by your insistence that a man who has wronged you, publicly repent.

    I understand the point you make, however: this is not just any man, but a man who is looked up to by at least tens of thousands of Americans. Thus you feel he must be made an example, so that others are not “fooled”.

    I suppose that would be a valid point, except that I am willing to bet that 90% of the Christian Life* families sort of chuckle at many of the Vision Forum quirks (Doug in his different costumes; Doug’s kids in every photograph, etc), very much as they can chuckle at the quirks of many visible people with a large following. What you need to realise is that you can easily slough off the silly aspects, and recognise that if Doug was not as “strong” a character as he is, he would not draw kids’ attention, and (to a lesser extent) the attention of parents. I have always seen him more as a teacher of children, than of adults. At this, I believe he is truly a national treasure, warts and all.

    Some of his lacunae — such as lionising a moral monster like Winston Churchill — comes from his own upbringing, and the fact that with a schedule like his, he has simply not the leisure to read some of the more forthright biographies of Churchill. The larger point he makes about heroes is a bit disturbing to me, as well. But the wisdom of this aspect of Doug’s ministry is his acknowledgment that kids WILL have heroes…and most of the folks that Doug offers to Christian Life* families, are excellent role models.

    In all, I think Doug is truly a “great man of God”, in his sphere of influence. No, most American Christians haven’t heard of him; but among Christian Life* families, he is gaining much national attention. I think most of us can sift out the bad (we all sin) and take the good, and have our kids be MUCH better off for the ministry of Vision Forum.

    I have gained much in my conversation with the Epstein family. I have found you do indeed have much to bring the body of Christ, and not all of it has been acrimonious. Much of it, in fact, is exactly what I see with both sides: the more vituperative one side gets, the more the other side will answer in kind! How this grieves the Holy Spirit, surely!

    Blessings on your houses. I have a work week ahead, and as addicted as I have become to this blog, I must make a living. 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 dmzuniga@stx.rr.com (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).

    ******

    *I’m going to start using that handy tag instead of the “Homeschooling” oxymoron. I know it doesn’t sound cool, and I know you really want to have the word “school” in there to prove to your neighbor that you DO educate your kids. People will say, “yeah, but it doesn’t have the word ‘education’ anywhere in it”. To which I can reply, “If life is not the best education you’ve received, then you have a deficient life.”

  49. Corrie Says:

    Jen,

    You can find samples of Todd Agnew’s songs at iTunes. His CD “Grace Like Rain” is very, very good. The song “My Jesus” is on his newest CD “Reflection of Something”. If you have an account with iTunes, you can just download the song.

  50. Corrie Says:

    “K: “I am not CONVINCED that SFU is working for DP on his behalf. If you read SFU’s bio I don’t gather that. It is entirely possible DP does not really know who that is. I find it hard to believe he would support it.”

    First of all, SFU is at least 4 different people. And at least 3 of them work for Doug. I believe the other one used to. Doug not only knows exactly who they are, Doug tells them most, if not all, of what to post. He fully supports it, I can guarantee that.”

    K,

    It seems you are going to believe only what you want to believe and any evidence to the contrary you will just ignore.

    Where does SFU get all that “inside” information? Hmmm? How do they know the about the things they are posting? It really isn’t rocket science. The “men” behind SFU are closely connected with VF/Phillips. Even a casual observer can see that.

    Now, why don’t you publicly ask the “men” behind SFU to come out from behind the curtain and reveal themselves? That would be the honest thing to do, would it not? If they have the truth on their sides, what are they so afraid of?

    Wouldn’t you like to know who writes for that site? How can you be so sure that they are not connected? What do you know that I don’t know?

    “They” remind me of the little man behind that curtain in the Wizard of Oz. “Don’t pay attention to that little man behind the curtain.” This man was a big talker when no one knew who he was. He wasn’t afraid. But, when the curtain was pulled back, he turned out to be nothing like what he projected. He was angry, frustrated and a big chicken.

    So, K, you can keep on believing that these “guys” have nothing to do with Doug Phillips just like you can believe that Matt Chancey is an “independent investigator” and that the Judge just happened to have stumbled across David Linton’s work for Jen without any “help” and that BCA has a session and that there was more than one elder at the time of excommunication. You can choose to believe anything you want and you can continue to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That is your right.

  51. Corrie Says:

    Do we have anyone on this list who could define what “railings” are?

    Jen, it seems to me that they were accusing you of “railing” against your husband when you had initially went to them for help? Am I getting that right? Could they be accusing you of “railings” because you dared to go to your elder for help concerning the problems in your marriage?

    It seems that if a person wants to make an accusation of “railing” against someone, then it would be pretty easy to manipulate almost anything into a “railing”.

    Is Matt Chancey’s church going to excommunicate him for railing against you? Since those at SFU believe so heartily in submission to authority, will they submit their railings against you to their elders for review? How about ALL of us on this list? We are all guilty of railing, depending upon how we define that term.

  52. Corrie Says:

    Vik,

    “I threw the baby out with the bath water. ”

    As one crusty grammarian I know likes to say: it is okay to throw out the baby with the bath water if it is Rosemary’s baby. 🙂

  53. Corrie Says:

    “Weighing In: “Concerning the bed that SFU brought up; Jen I too was shocked that you could take something so hurtful to your husband, something so horrible and use that as a topic for creative writing. It showed a lack a sensitivity and again an arrogance.”

    I wrote that parable with my husband’s full blessing. SFU greatly distorted the truth. The parable was meant to tell the story – truthfully. My husband liked the story.”

    Jen,

    I do wonder why some people refuse to get this? I mean, your parable was meant to correct SFU’s lies. SFU was the one who came out with the whole bed thing.

    If people read what you wrote they will see that SFU’s version is not the correct version. People keep on accusing you of “cruelties” based on the SFU version. SFU was told that version from someone. Someone with inside knowledge. You DID try and do everything you could do to make that situation right in your husband’s eyes. But, everytime you did, it only seemed to bring on a new demand. And, the whole thing with taking it to the workshop was not something you did in order to keep it.

    Am I not understanding something? It seems like this should be so obvious and people need to drop that particular rock because it is a LIE.

  54. Lynn Says:

    Corrie:
    “As one crusty grammarian I know likes to say: it is okay to throw out the baby with the bath water if it is Rosemary’s baby.”

    Mickey Rooney:
    “Are you cracking wise?” 😉

    I like the grammarian’s quip there, Corrie. Another phrase that is used is “chew the fish and spit out the bones.” But that is almost impossible to do with a gar.

  55. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Corrie Says:
    May 21st, 2007 at 8:58 am
    Do we have anyone on this list who could define what “railings” are?

    Morgan says: I can’t ‘define it’, but I know it when I hear it.
    😉

  56. Corrie Says:

    “I was not venting at YOU with all those accusations; I was making a compendium of the wash that has been hung out on this blog, and defending the fellowship of families that we have come to love.

    Please don’t think I was talking to you, sister, in every aspect of that post.”

    David,

    Thank you for clearing that up. It most certainly seemed you were directing those insults towards me since you were talking me to task for the statement I made about people not stopping until the Epsteins are destroyed.

    It would seem the parts about being a liar and being preposterous and insane were directed at me since you were speaking about my statement.

    I won’t hold a grudge, though. 🙂 Grudges make people ugly and they are unhealthy and they cause mental illness and paranoia. With ten children, I don’t have time to be mentally ill or paranoid!

    I guess I just don’t see the need for all the derogatory name calling. I have no problem clarifying something I have said or being told that it is lacking but I don’t understand why you jumped to the immediate conclusion that I was “lying” (huh?) or insane. And what I said was certainly NOT preposterous. It is a feasible conclusion based on the vast amounts of evidence.

  57. Weighing In Says:

    Jen, you have begged for someone to tell you how you have sinned. Here is an example of this:

    “I have only repeatedly asked that they simply give me one example of each sin of which I am accused. I don’t need the exact date, time, place, etc., but at least the circumstances should be easy enough. Everyone likes to tell a story, especially if it’s a juicy one! So, I’m asking them to tell the juicy gossip about me. If I have really done these things, it shouldn’t be so hard to find at least one person to tell a juicy story about me, don’t you think?”

    I know that I am more than likely wasting my time, which is probably why no one else has bothered to do this. It is time consuming as it requires research and reading through mountains of your blog posts.

    Anyway, here is my uneducated attempt at showing you the sin I see in your life. First, let me say that this is only being done because you have asked , as have several others. Secondly, I have never been a member of BCA, I’ve never spoken to a member of BCA about this situation, I don’t personally know a current or former member of BCA; I am just giving my own opinion based on the volumes I’ve read regarding this situation.

    The first sin to address is that of pride and arrogance. Pride is the one of the most offensive sins to God; the Bible states that pride brings only quarrels,.

    For the example of the sin of pride and arrogance , lets first look at the e-mail to Doug Phillips regarding his views on the election.

    Dear Doug,
    (I am writing this only because you challenged us to write you!) I am shocked that a man like you – who so often exposes others who use fallacies in logic – would resort to using such fallacies as the ones you have purported regarding voting in this election (or any election for that matter). You are spreading manipulative propaganda by playing with people’s emotions in a way designed to win them over to your own conclusion without thoroughly thinking around the fallacies you have presented here. By using a weak analogy (claiming that candidates A and B in your example are in any way similar to Kerry and Bush); you are appealing to fear (exactly what you accuse Bush-supporter of voting out of – fear); you have posed a loaded question (by asking what we would do in this situation which you put before us, but knowing full well that is NOT the situation we face at the ballot box today); and by making it seem as an “either-or” choosing of the lesser of two evils (even in your highly unrealistic scenario, there are other choices). Doug, this entire little story is nothing more than a Red Herring, designed to use something totally irrelevant to prove your point. Shame on you!

    Jen, this was your pastor you were writing to. It is obvious that you did not have respect for him by the accusations you made. You are offensive, sarcastic, mean spirited, and harsh. You accuse him of lying by being fallacious. You accuse him of spreading manipulative propaganda and playing with peoples emotions and you shamed him. This is not how you speak to someone with whom you desire to have a good relationship with.

    Jen, I do not have a problem that you voiced an opinion, but you went about this with the same censoring attitude of arrogance that I seen over and over in your writings and dealing with people. You think more highly of yourself, your education, and your opinions that you ought. You ridicule a highly educated man for his views as if you think he is stupid for them and considering that this man is your pastor it’s even worse. Not only that you give your own views in great detail as if they are more superior to his. It is an attitude of great pride and is also divisive, considering that you already knew that he would not appreciate receiving something of this nature from you, (which is the reason for your first comment to him).

    Let’s take a further look into this situation. Here is what you wrote about it:

    “ This did not go over real well, starting with Beall Phillips immediately sending me an email in which she said, “I purposed to bring to your attention those areas of continual sin about which we have appealed to you.” She then listed my five sins in writing this letter: Doug did not give me permission to write to him (?); I had been formally directed not to rebuke or instruct men (not true); I had a mean spirit; I was rebuking my elder; I have a hard heart. The email was so harsh and critical toward me that I simply asked her to refrain from contacting me any further unless she had something kind to say. I also stated, “I sincerely hope that the people in our church do not have to agree with the “elder’s” position in politics; if so, we are no longer a church, but a cult.”
    Two days later, we went to church. In the three counseling sessions, Beall Phillips kept stressing that I had sinned by gossiping about Doug in my conversation with Kathleen. Although I hadn’t considered it gossip, I was willing to apologize anyway. Doug Phillips is hard to get hold of, so this particular Sunday was the first time I had seen him since I spoke with Kathleen. I wanted to take care of the situation before church, but Doug Phillips arrived late, so I went up to him when he came in and asked if I could speak to him before we took communion, as was our practice at Boerne Christian Assembly. He did not want to talk, but I insisted, so we went outside. I apologized for gossiping about him and asked his forgiveness. Doug Phillips wanted to know if I was going to apologize for writing the voting paper as well. I explained that I didn’t see that I had sinned in doing so, so I didn’t see anything to apologize for.”

    Jen, do you not see a lack of humility here? You offend your pastor and his wife, they come to you and say you have sinned against them and in arrogance you deny you have sinned. Your response to Beall was, don’t contact you again unless she has something kind to say to you. No humility in any form at all. Your pastor asks you to apologize and you refuse to even consider the possibility that you may have sinned against him. You rose up in defiance against a pastor that you obviously had no respect for. Jen, you did sin against him and you continue to sin by refusing to acknowledge it. Specifically what was your sin: pride, lack of respect for elders, (remember you just rebuked Peter for this very thing), being unkind, being harsh, ridiculing and mocking an elder, being divisive, lack of humility, insubordination –all issues of the heart, all relating to pride and rebellion.

    Jen you also lie here because you say that you had not been formerly directed not to rebuke or instruct men. Yes, you were. The documents that you were given had instructions from the leadership of the church that specifically said:

    “’Clothe yourself with humility’ and demonstrate respect and honor for Mark by refraining from debating or arguing any issues with any other men, but rather leave that to Mark. Make sure that you allow Mark to be the one who holds discussions with men.”

    Beside this instruction, Jen, you have written in, “Be a doormat.” You had no intentions of following this advise. Given the state of your marriage, you begged for help, but yet spurned the advice given to you. Another example of arrogance and pride.

    Jen, I can’t help but wonder after seeing the e-mail you wrote to Doug and the advise given to you regarding debating and arguing issues with men, if you had a habit of showing scorn and contempt for the views of others, especially the men. I would imagine based on what I have seen from you that this was the case. You said yourself that the women didn’t debate politics with you and offered no stimulating conversations for you. So, I assume this was the reason for this directive, that you took over conversations when Mark was present and gave your views, while showing little or no respect for the views of others, hence the directive to “clothe yourself with humility”.

    You see there are two sides to every coin and I’m certain that BCA wasn’t just giving this directive to cause you to be a doormat. I wasn’t there, but, I believe, based on what I have personally witnessed from you, that you were being divisive and controlling in conversations with men, they were trying to get you to be more reserved to give your husband a chance to speak. To show preference to your husband. Given the state of your marriage, considering that only you could cause change in yourself, (we can’t change anyone else), they tried to help you but you spurned the advice. Shortly thereafter, you sent the e-mail to Doug , doing exactly what you were asked not to do in the directives thereby showing contempt for authority, (which is what they accused you of ).

    See, Jen, you want to make it appear to everyone that you were in no way at all responsible for this, that you are completely innocent of all charges against you. You have said that you loved the church and the fellowship of likeminded families and wanted to stay. Yet with your animosity and arrogance toward Doug and Beall, how could this have worked any other way than it did without causing major division in the church? You despised them both, if you didn’t, then you certainly appeared to by your actions and your words toward them.

    Knowing full well the situation with this home church and their desire to worship only with people of like mind, (right or wrong), you sabotaged your own family’s place in the church by your continual friction with Doug and Beall. The way I see it, BCA is like a family in a home setting, Doug and Beall‘s home, for that matter. When you are invited, (this was by invitation only), into someone else’s home, you do not make the rules, you abide by the rules of the family, whether you agree or disagree. You refused to do this. You were like a rude guest in Doug and Beall’s home, continually bucking the authority of the leader of the “family” and scorning his wife. I do believe them when they say they showed great patience with you and your family, because, considering your treatment of them, I’m very surprised they allowed you into their home as long as they did.

    Jen, I don’t expect you or any one of the other ladies to agree with me on this, but you asked for someone to show you the sin you committed . This is just one of the examples and evidence of the sin I saw from you in this situation. I was not there, I cannot speak for the members of BCA, they may have witnessed other things from you and if asked, they may say something very different. The sins I have mentioned here though do correlate with some of the the sins they said you committed.

    I pray that you will prayerfully consider what I have said and make the necessary amends.

  58. Vik Says:

    Oh geez. I am never going to catch up or keep up with the reading here. Got to leave for a week so guess that’s all for me!

  59. Corrie Says:

    Weighing In,

    I think you made some very good points about the letter Jen wrote to Doug Phillips concerning the voting issue.

    I must have missed the email Beall Phillips sent to Jen concerning the letter Jen sent to Doug Phillips. That was also appropriate to bring into this discussion since it outlines some very specific instances where specific accusations of sin were brought to Jen.

    I don’t think it was a waste of time or uneducated.

    ” I wasn’t there, but, I believe, based on what I have personally witnessed from you, that you were being divisive and controlling in conversations with men, they were trying to get you to be more reserved to give your husband a chance to speak. To show preference to your husband. Given the state of your marriage, considering that only you could cause change in yourself, (we can’t change anyone else), they tried to help you but you spurned the advice. Shortly thereafter, you sent the e-mail to Doug , doing exactly what you were asked not to do in the directives thereby showing contempt for authority, (which is what they accused you of ).”

    What email are you referring to when you say that Jen did exactly what she was told not to do? When was she told not to do whatever it was that you are asserting?

  60. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Vik, Stay safe and have fun.
    Blessings. Morgan

  61. Jonathan Says:

    Wow, this thread is so long it’s crashing my PC…..

    I have a quick question about BCA. Is BCA an invite only church?

  62. T. Reformed Says:

    David M. Zuniga said, “Some of his lacunae — such as lionising a moral monster like Winston Churchill — comes from his own upbringing, and the fact that with a schedule like his, he has simply not the leisure to read some of the more forthright biographies of Churchill. The larger point he makes about heroes is a bit disturbing to me, as well.”

    David, if the Epsteins’ story is to be believed then you should think carefully before joining BCA. In my opinion Jen has several glaring personality traits that make her unsuited for a misogynistic sociological cult like BCA, 1. She is opinionated. 2. She is an opinionated woman. 3. She believes that it’s possible to show respect toward her pastor while not necessarily having to agree with him on all things.

    You sound even far more opinionated than Jen, and even more convinced that it’s possible to show respect for Phillips while also disagreeing with him. The fact that you’re an opinionated male isn’t likely to buy you much with Doug Phillips, especially since you’re so willing to state that Phillips has some serious shortcomings. Even worse yet, you’re doing so publicly. However, Doug Phillips doesn’t agree that he’s got serious shortcomings, or “lacunae” as you say. If he’s read your comments here I’m sure he’s already extremely offended.

    The leaders of sociological cults must be adored and revered. They don’t have “worts,” even in the most general sense, let alone in such specifics as “lionising a moral monster like Winston Churchill.” I predict that, should you join BCA, that you’ll be the next to be run through Doug Phillips Star Chamber. For the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of you and your family I’d urge you to stay away from BCA. Feel free to glean whatever positive things you think you can from Phillips’ “ministry,” but do it from a safe distance.

  63. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Weighing In, you wrote,
    “And by the way, the disgust is justified when it comes to Jr and his drinking. I am not disgusted by those who are temperate, who have an occasional glass of wine, if their conscience allows for then to do it, who am I to judge.”

    I see no legalism there. But you’re wrong about the processed sugar.
    You wrote,
    “It has been done with the invention of processed sugar which is added to increase the alcohol content. They did not have processed sugar back in those days. “

    To begin with, the ancients knew about sugar and honey and they added them to wine. The Greek historian Herodotus knew of the sugarcane in the 5th century BC and Alexander is said to have sent some home when he came to the Punjab region in 326 BC. Before that, honey and date sugar were used.
    As for “processed sugar”, a sugar molecule is a sugar molecule, whether it is processed or not. The yeast organism doesn’t care what kind of sugar it eats, yeast processes honey, white sugar, and turbinado sugar identically; furthermore, adding sugars to wine will boost the alcohol content, but not by much. That is because of how fermentation works: yeast is a living organism, which feeds on sugar and produces alcohol ands CO2 as a byproduct. When the yeast has eaten enough sugar to bring the alcohol in a fermenting mixture to about 14%, the yeast dies off, leaving the remaining sugar to sweeten the wine. Adding less sugar to the fermenting mix will result in a slightly lowered alcohol percentage, of course, but the difference is negligible.

    “Also according to what I have read about the wine in those day’s it was very course and hard so water was added, thus reducing the alcohol content as well.”

    This is simply not true. Water was added to wine to make it go further, but the wines of the ancient world were quite likely every bit as good as those of today, and some were probably better.

  64. David M. Zuniga Says:

    “T Reformed”,

    Another pseudonymous blogger? Sigh. If you’re a man, then use your name; if a woman, at least a first name. All these fakes are just not fitting for a Christian discussion, sorry.

    I already said I had no intention of “joining BCA”; according to God’s Word (and I think that’s authoritative) I am ALREADY a member of the body of Christ…that includes every true church. I am as much under your authority as you are under my authority: we are bound by our Lord and King, to mutually submit to one another in Christian love. We are one Church. Get over your hatered for Doug; I already allowed that he has weak points. So do you and I.

    Are you one of those ‘Reformed’ guys too? If so, I have already issued a National Directive to all ‘Reformed’ churches, clubs, splinters, denominations, factions, and camps: as of today, anyone using the label ‘Reformed’ must immediately follow the four directives given on my “Reformed to the Nth Degree” blog.

    If you are a ‘Reformed’ moderator, elder, presbyter, bishop, knight, or rook…just click on my name to get your marching orders.

    Either get with the program, or your group is anathema.

  65. Jen Says:

    Weighing In: “Jen, this is a below the belt comment, but considering, I guess I deserve it. I hope it made you feel better.“

    No, it didn’t make me feel better; I was only trying to make a point. I am sorry I offended you in doing so. My only purpose in pointing this out is that Weighing In was making a case for how well self-educated she was. I just think your actions ought to match your words. I don’t care if you don’t spell right or use the right grammar or punctuation here. (It does help to use a little good logic, though!) And if you only made one or two errors, WI, that would be fine, too. The point is that you were making my case that you claim you are well educated, but your actions show differently. Now, if it’s just laziness, well… 🙂

    Thank you for letting us know about your daughter’s SAT score. That is again making my point that we do have certain educational standards, don’t we? I think it’s great that your daughter scored so well.

    Ann, thank you for those examples of excommunication. I agree with how things were handled there. If that had happened to us, I would not be here now. I did notice that you gave specific examples of sin. That is all I’m asking for as well.

    Kate, you have posted as “Leilani” as well. You are moderated because I can’t predict what you are going to do or say. First you falsely accused me of many things. Then you apologized. And now you call me liar. Please don’t come to my blog and call me a liar again unless you have some proof.

    And you are right that there should be no name calling here.

    David, I appreciate what you say about Doug’s “warts,” etc. I wish that were all there was to it. Perhaps you haven’t had time to read my whole site. That is understandable. So, let me fill you in on what I am really concerned about. I am concerned that Doug is literally ruining people’s lives. My excommunication alone is meaningless. I would rather be defrauded if it was just me. But when I add to that how Doug has ruined Joe Taylor’s business and health, that concerns me. First he defrauded him, then he threatened to sue him, and then he tried to get him excommunicated as well. And that is the very short story. You should read the nasty letters he sent him.

    And then there are people like my friend, whom Doug was able to get fired just because he was my friend. I know lots of stories that I am not at liberty to share because so many people are still afraid of Doug. I know that Doug threatens to sue people. I know that Doug threatens people’s jobs. I know that Doug threatens church discipline. And I know that Doug has financially hurt many businesses. His dealings with people behind the scenes is simply abominable. There is no way anyone could describe his actions in these many cases as Christ-like. He is hurting people and he is ruining lives. That is a cause of grave concern for me and I hope you will take it into consideration.

    Corrie: “Jen, it seems to me that they were accusing you of “railing” against your husband when you had initially went to them for help? Am I getting that right? Could they be accusing you of “railings” because you dared to go to your elder for help concerning the problems in your marriage?”

    “It seems that if a person wants to make an accusation of “railing” against someone, then it would be pretty easy to manipulate almost anything into a “railing”.

    Corrie, I do think it is one of those generic categories that can be used to justify an excommunication when no other justification exists. It has become a catch-all sin in my case. I looked up “railing” in Doug’s favorite dictionary: To utter reproaches, to scoff, to use insolent and reproachful language, to reproach or censure in opprobrious terms, to clamor with insulting language. Thanks for asking for this definition. This should remind each of us here to be very careful with our words.

    Corrie: “Is Matt Chancey’s church going to excommunicate him for railing against you?”

    No, but I just found out who he’s accountable to. Maybe we should start there.

    Corrie: “Since those at SFU believe so heartily in submission to authority, will they submit their railings against you to their elders for review?”

    But, Corrie, you just got done saying that Doug must be the one telling them all that stuff. You must mean, “Since SFU’s ELDER is feeding them all that info, will they also be excommunicated for railing? And will their elder be excommunicated as well?” 🙂

    Yes, I would think that both Matt and SFU could fairly be charged with railing. And we might even have specific examples and proof!

    Weighing In: “You accuse him of lying by being fallacious.”

    Here we go back to the logic class again. Fallacies are NOT lies, WI. Fallacies are faulty logic. Everyone uses fallacies once in while without even realizing it. I’ve probably used a few here myself. But some fallacies are really glaring and they undermine a good argument (if you know logic, you will understand the appropriate use of that term). Doug Phillips knows logic. He speaks against fallacies on a regular basis. This voting scenario was rife with fallacies SO THAT he could make a point. Therefore, his argument was rendered invalid because he did not use proper reasoning to present it. I wouldn’t have made such a big deal about it if was just one fallacy, unless it was really major. But his fallacious argument here was leading many astray. And that was my concern.

    To say “Shame on you!” is intended to prick one’s conscience. I was only stating that he knew better than to use all those logical fallacies. However, I have also apologized for that, as it was not appropriate for me to say to my elder. And you are probably right about the pride. Looking back now, I can see that I had a lot more pride then than I do now. It kind of takes the pride away to ask people to show you your sins.

    Weighing In: “you already knew that he would not appreciate receiving something of this nature from you, (which is the reason for your first comment to him).”

    No, the reason for my initial statement was that Doug does not take comments on his blog, but that he asked for people’s opinions on this particular occasion.

    Weighing In: “Jen, you did sin against him and you continue to sin by refusing to acknowledge it. Specifically what was your sin: pride, lack of respect for elders, (remember you just rebuked Peter for this very thing), being unkind, being harsh, ridiculing and mocking an elder, being divisive, lack of humility, insubordination –all issues of the heart, all relating to pride and rebellion.”

    Thank you for giving me specifics. I shall take them into consideration.

    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.

    Weighing In: “Jen you also lie here because you say that you had not been formerly directed not to rebuke or instruct men.”

    Those instructions were for the duration of the counseling sessions. By this time, the counseling sessions were over. I agreed to abide by those instructions for a certain period of time, and I did so, even though I did not agree with particular one.

    Weighing In: “I assume this was the reason for this directive, that you took over conversations when Mark was present and gave your views, while showing little or no respect for the views of others, hence the directive to “clothe yourself with humility”.

    Assumptions can get us into trouble, WI. I was usually not in conversations when Mark was present, and if so, I often didn’t say anything. I am not one to take over conversations. I am fairly quiet in real life.

    Weighing In: “you were being divisive and controlling in conversations with men, they were trying to get you to be more reserved to give your husband a chance to speak. To show preference to your husband.”

    I think you have it all backwards here. My husband speaks a great deal more than I ever do.

    Weighing In: “Yet with your animosity and arrogance toward Doug and Beall, … You despised them both,”

    No, I really do love them. I don’t understand them, but I care for them a great deal.

    Jonathan: “Is BCA an invite only church?”

    No.

  66. David M. Zuniga Says:

    BTW, “hatered” is a lot like hatred; just worse. Get over it.

  67. Lynn Says:

    Weighing In, this voting letter had already been addressed. Some of us, myself included, say that Jen should not have said “shame on you.” OK? Jen has already said that she didn’t mean that to come across the way it sounded. I’m sure by now Doug has read that explanation, made MONTHS ago, on Ministry Watchman.

    For this voting letter to be turned into an excommunicable offense is over the top. For one thing, it has nothing to do with church business, unless I’m not in the USA any more. It was political debate.

    Secondly, you posted only a very little bit of Jen’s letter, and what you failed to quote was where Jen thanked Doug for mentioning a point, and why, and her larger point that a vote for the CP was a vote for Kerry, and she knew the reality and did not want to see that happen.

    As a citizen of the United States with voting rights, Jen and Mark have every right to exercise their freedoms, [shouting] INCLUDING POLITICAL SPEECH [/shouting]. Yes, she came on charging like a bull in a China shop, but political debate is political debate, and let’s allow for differences in rhetoric!

    It is a valid political discussion she had with him, and Mark approved of her letter.

    But Jen having political views of her own and discussing them with her pastor goes against Doug’s version of Patriarchy. Doug also knew Jen was no supporter of the CP, so he trumped up charges of sin (Jen had no right to talk to Doug w/out permission, etc.). IOW, he was making sin where no sin was in order to accuse Jen.

    I don’t blame Jen for being confused by that.

  68. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Weighing In said,
    “Specifically what was your sin: pride, lack of respect for elders, (remember you just rebuked Peter for this very thing), being unkind, being harsh, ridiculing and mocking an elder, being divisive, lack of humility, insubordination –all issues of the heart, all relating to pride and rebellion.”

    But did Jen do these things before she was excommunicated, or afterwards?

    Also, you (and BCA) need to DEFINE what is meant whan you say “being unkind, being harsh, ridiculing and mocking an elder, being divisive, lack of humility, insubordination”
    for the words to have any true meaning.
    Jesus was “guilty” of all of these things when He rebuked the Pharisees.
    Was He sinning? Why or why not?

  69. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “For this voting letter to be turned into an excommunicable offense is over the top. For one thing, it has nothing to do with church business, unless I’m not in the USA any more. It was political debate.”

    And the fact that Jen, Mark and their children were excommunicated because a political difference with Doug demonstrates what the REAL agenda is at BCA.

    It’s not even a cult, folks. It’s a political tool masquerading as a cult.

  70. Praying For Revealing Says:

    “How come you also let some of these other commenters ‘pfr’ and even others just make really rude statements… and false accusation to me, also using inflammatory language such as ‘stop hyperventilating’.”

    Kate, for being so hasty to call so many people “liars” without a shred of evidence you sure are thin skinned. As my momma likes to say, “If you can’t stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.”

    You’ve repeatedly called Jen “a liar,” but when you’re challenged to produce the proof you just pretend like you never heard the question. Now there’s this, “I was angry that you lied to me about the binoculars.” How did Jen “lie” to you or anyone else about binoculars? Be specific by providing exact quotes that prove that she lied.

    Kate, I’m still waiting for you to hold me accountable. To do that you need to answer my questions here: https://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/doug-phillips-constitutional-attorney-tramples-first-amendment/#comment-3767

    Please answer my questions Kate. You’ve been very demanding about Jen answering your questions. She hasn’t avoided answering you Kate. Why are you avoiding answering me?

  71. Lynn Says:

    Jen:
    “No, but I just found out who he’s accountable to.”

    A sassy student of the grammar lovin’ theology teachin’ best logic teacher in the world says this:

    Jen, you need to be a little more objective when you write. Sometimes you are entirely too subjective. 😛

  72. Blog Troll Says:

    David M. Zuniga Says:
    May 21st, 2007 at 12:00 pm
    BTW, “hatered” is a lot like hatred; just worse. Get over it.

    Blog Troll: E-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w! mean mean mean

  73. Corrie Says:

    “To say “Shame on you!” is intended to prick one’s conscience. I was only stating that he knew better than to use all those logical fallacies. However, I have also apologized for that, as it was not appropriate for me to say to my elder. And you are probably right about the pride. Looking back now, I can see that I had a lot more pride then than I do now. It kind of takes the pride away to ask people to show you your sins.”

    Weighing In,

    What do you think about Jen’s response? Do you think that the voting letter was a reason for excommunication or for a true leader to exhibit humility and strength and come alongside and use the situation as a teaching tool and to admit that this leader has some faults and to admit where Jen was right about using logical fallacies?

    A true leader is humble when faced with his errors and that leader readily admits when they are wrong even when the messenger isn’t perfectly gracious.

    What I think is a shame is that there are so many pastors who are hung up on their positions and titles. This is NOT the mind of Christ. They are to not be like the Gentiles in their thinking. They are servants who daily gird their waists with a towel and get down on their knees and wash the feet of God’s children.

    There was a pastor who once chastised my husband, who is one of the MOST respectful men you will ever meet, because he dared to use his first name while they sat around a campfire discussing construction (my husband is an expert in the subject of all things concrete). My husband had given up what little vacation time he had with his wife and children to go and serve a little church we were attending. He went down with the head pastor and assoc. pastor to a camp with a few teens from our church. My husband was sitting around the campfire with these two pastors and several other men from many other churches and they were speaking about the new construction on the church building. My husband had lent his expertise to this project and he was relating a story concerning the building and he used the two pastors first names. The head pastor took him aside and told him that he had shown disrespect in front of the other men and that he should never use his first name again because he needed to show respect for this pastor’s office.

    It turned out to be one of many red flags that we were under the authority of a tyrant and my husband was only one of a long line of people who had been chastised for calling this pastor by his first name in a social (away from church) function.

    There are some men who are so full of themselves that any disagreement is proof positive that someone is unsubmissive and rebellious.

    A man of God should not care if someone calls them by his first name. A man of God should be humble and readily heed rebuke as an example for all to follow. If a man of God cannot take rebuke then how can he expect the people in his church to take rebuke?

    I am NOT saying that Doug Phillips is like this pastor in my story in that he demands to be called by a title. I am saying there is a certain attitude in a pastor that should not be there.

    I know that Jen is a woman and her rebuke may be even more insidious because of her gender but God even used an ass to rebuke His prophet. Surely He can even use a woman, right? 😉 Sometimes I think a talking ass would be more readily accepted than a talking woman. After all, the Bible doesn’t instructed asses to be silent in the church. On second thought, that is not such a bad idea.

  74. Jen Says:

    Me: “No, but I just found out who he’s accountable to.”

    And Lynn replies: “A sassy student of the grammar lovin’ theology teachin’ best logic teacher in the world says this:

    “Jen, you need to be a little more objective when you write. Sometimes you are entirely too subjective.”

    I think she’s trying to say that I messed up my grammar. I should have said, “No, but I just found out to whom he is accountable.” Thanks, Lynn! And I thought I was well edukated!

    T. Reformed to David Z: “You sound even far more opinionated than Jen, and even more convinced that it’s possible to show respect for Phillips while also disagreeing with him. The fact that you’re an opinionated male isn’t likely to buy you much with Doug Phillips, especially since you’re so willing to state that Phillips has some serious shortcomings.”

    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. I was told that if Mark had written that voting letter, it would have been just fine. The fact that Mark gave me his full blessing to write and send that letter didn’t seem to matter. The only thing that mattered is that I was a woman. Maybe David will be able to get away with the things he is saying about Doug. I’m sure that if I was still at BCA and I said what David is saying, I would have heard about it Friday when he started posting. Doug’s “bodyguards” keep a close tab on what goes on online. They are following David real closely now.

    Speaking of showing respect to Doug, I remember, Corrie, the first time I approached Doug, I called him “Mr. Phillips,” even though I knew he was younger than I was. I want to give him credit that he immediately asked me to call him “Doug.” Of course, this was in the days when he was really personable and it appeared that he really cared about his flock.

  75. Corrie Says:

    Kate,

    Just answer PFR’s question. How many times did you post over on Youtube and which personalities were you and someone from your home blogging under?

    If you didn’t post 20 times, then it should be easy to tell PFR just how many times you did post and under what names.


What do you think?

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: