Doug Phillips Asks Me to Shut Down My Blog

From Doug’s blog today:

SBC President says Internet “Filled with Character Assassination”

SBC President, Frank Page says new considerations are necessary in the church to discern how to use the internet for the glory of God. This is evidenced by many uncharitable situations like this one: Southern Baptist Convention President, Frank Page was involved in a blog discussing controversial issues, and reports that “the blog degenerated quickly into a personal attack place”

The Greenville News reports, “The bigger issue, Page said, is that members of local churches have taken to using blogs to carry on bitter debates about problems within their own congregations”. Page pleaded, “For Christ’s sake, for the sake of the lost, stop!”

Do you think Doug is trying to send me a message?

Doug, I will stop blogging when you repent. This is not a personal attack against you. This is not a bitter debate that should have stayed within BCA. It should have been settled within BCA a long time ago, granted, but, Doug, you have a pattern of hurting and abusing fellow believers outside of BCA as well. To the extent that a public person’s influence extends in abuse, a public warning is also necessary to that same extent. Doug, your abuse and tyranny have extended around the globe, your false teachings have extended around the globe. This warning now goes out to that same extent. I would like nothing better than to shut down this blog. The ball is completely in your court, Doug. Help me shut this down by repenting.

106 Responses to “Doug Phillips Asks Me to Shut Down My Blog”

  1. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Jen so are you supposed to not excercise your right to free speech here?

    The last time I looked we are supposed to warn others about bad doctrine and we have a constitution that guarantees the right of free speech?

    I am always amazed that no one speaks to whether or not you are speaking the truth about these theological and ecclesiastical abuses, their problem is with these facts being known at all.

  2. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    For Christ’s sake, I’m keeping it up! For the benefit of the lost, I’m keeping it up.

    I know so many people who are no longer attending church and who are still so wounded after half a lifetime. They may have been saved at some point, but to what end? To the end of a compromised Gospel and traditions of men. No one should ever have to endure this kind of misery and rejection when Christ has borne these things for us. The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.

    People should be warned of the dangers of this legalism, the lost included. Especially for Reformed folks! Keep the lost away from this mess!

  3. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Consider also that holding ourselves accountable internally as a group demonstrates our integrity as a group. We are willing to hold our own to the highest standards and not willing to push vile filth under the rug.

    One of the things that others from oppressive countries value about the US and why so many seek to come here centers around our willingness to hold one another accountable. It is one of the greatest symbols of our freedom. We are a nation of liberty and freedom because of principles founded upon Biblical principles and rights/privleges derived from God.

    Hallelujah!

  4. Jean Says:

    Jen,

    I perhaps can give Doug a pass on this Greenville News story…on August 28, 2007 he posted a story from August 27, 2007. Chalk it up to keeping his readers informed.

    What I find revealing is his August 27, 2007 posting of an article from October of 2006. Now there’s an agenda for you.

    Have a pleasant day,

    Jean

  5. Lin Says:

    There is quite a bit more to this story and why Page said this. The blogging is making his life miserable because he ran on a platform of cleaning up the SBC of the old boys network and long time powers to be. He was the ‘mini church’ candidate.

    Well, we all know how that works out. How you run and how you govern are two different things. Page had lots to say when he was running that he won’t say now and some are holding his feet to the fire on blogs. The bloggers are only bringing up issues he was discussing during his campaign.

    For the sake of the lost? Give me a break. For the sake of the lost, quit cozying up with tyrants who are living the high life off tithe dollars. Call them out.

  6. Morgan Farmer Says:

    How come Frank Page did not come to Kathy Sierras’ aid when her picture was posted in a threatening way by a cyber stalker?

    Where was he when Cathy Seipp was being attacked while she lay dying of breast cancer?

    Selective aid..that must be it….

  7. CD-Host Says:

    As one of “the lost” I can attest that seeing issues swept under the rug and having undemocratic structures convinced me that church governments were substantially less godly than secular governments. The church is in a far better position on those areas where it has confronted its abuses: like burning witches and heretics; then on areas it has not: like the fact that those sins which the church disciplines for most ferociously are those that more likely to be committed by people who can’t afford a large tithe.

    Wide open blogs wouldn’t need to exist if or at least wouldn’t get nearly the attention they do now if meaningful accountability structures were put in place.

  8. CynthiaGee Says:

    CD Host says,”the fact that those sins which the church disciplines for most ferociously are those that more likely to be committed by people who can’t afford a large tithe.”

    CD, I find it curious that you describe yourself as one of the “lost.” Based on what I have read in the Gospels, you and Jesus had a lot of views in common.

  9. Patty Says:

    “…. for the sake of the lost, stop!” Thats just a diversion tactic.
    Blogs are great for information. Abusive people and abusive organizations don’t want people getting information other than what they provide.
    People then start to think for themselves and ask questions. If what is being taught can bear up under scrutiny, what do they have to worry about.
    Let the light shine in.

  10. Spunky Says:

    From the Greenville article,

    “The bigger issue, Page said, is that members of local churches have taken to using blogs to carry on bitter debates about problems within their own congregations.

    “It just presents a very poor and very public airing of the dirty laundry in church business,” he said. “I’m trying to tell churches, please, let’s deal with our problems in a more civil and, yes, more private fashion.”

    Then I must as the elders at BCA and Doug Phillips, why are you permitting Faith PCA’s letter to be hosted on your website if the use of the internet for such purposes is wrong? If you repudiate the use of the internet for character assassinations, then surely this document that combines atleast two separate documents along with anonyous commentary is grossly inappropriate for a church website. Especially one that condemns the plague of talebearing and declares, “no judgment without the facts.”

    I’ll believe Doug Phillips is serious about the issue of “internet assassinations” and talebearing when he divlulges the writer(s) or removes the posts which do not have an author from the domains he owns or excercises authority over and removes the allegations of an “anonymous supreme court justice” from his website which he does not substantiate or document.

    He can then turn his attention to the “independent investigator” and ask that he finally document his footnotes on promised last January or remove the allegations from that website. Surely, that site fits exactly the type of site Mr. Page believes should be handled in a more private fashion.

    Finally the men of Vision Forum who are on a crusade to rid the internet of all such vile schemes, need to repudiate the blog Still Fed Up, Tired of this Crap and hold those writers accountable for what they have written. At least Jen Esptein has the courage to put a name and face to her “schemes” unlike the brave patriarchs who write for this site.

    In place of Doug Phillips droning on about the plague of talebearing, I keep hearing the wise words of Andrew Strauch, “No judgment without the facts!” Until this happens, pleas for the internet character assassinations to cease ring hollow in my ears.

  11. CD-Host Says:

    Cynthia —

    That’s a wonderful thing to say. I’m not sure how to respond to that, but thank you.

  12. Morgan Farmer Says:

    CD as lost as you may think you are you can get ‘found’ if you so desire at my dinner table anytime.

  13. Corrie Says:

    “As one of “the lost” I can attest that seeing issues swept under the rug and having undemocratic structures convinced me that church governments were substantially less godly than secular governments. The church is in a far better position on those areas where it has confronted its abuses: like burning witches and heretics; then on areas it has not: like the fact that those sins which the church disciplines for most ferociously are those that more likely to be committed by people who can’t afford a large tithe.”

    CD-Host,

    Exactly!!

    The whole “it is a bad testimony to the lost” is a canard.

    If you Google some of these issues you will see who the lost think of as a “bad testimony”. I visit some of these sites to keep up on what the “lost” think about Christians Not once have I seen any of them having a problem with blogs like Jen’s that seek to expose tyranny and unjustice. In fact, it is a good witness because they see Christians as people who actually think and who don’t go along with everything that comes down the pike. It restores some sense of respect they have for those who claim that they are “religious”.

    CD, as I have said, I know you “claim” to be lost. 😉 But, I agree with you about losing faith in church governments and seeing secular governments as more just. I am not “lost” and I have thought this very thing. I have seen horrendous issues swept under the rug by church leaders while the secular authorities were set on bringing justice for perverse and wicked acts perpetrated against the innocent.

    I also agree that it would cause the “lost” to take notice if we believers would spend more time on exposing the abuses instead of sweeping them under the rug or accusing others of making much ado about nothing.

  14. anon Says:

    If he doesn’t mention you by name, and this is all that was posted on his blog, I think it’s a stretch (and a big one) to assume he was referring to you.
    I would say don’t flatter yourself.

  15. Jen Says:

    Thanks for the advice, anon. I asked you last time not to use that name again, however, so you will need a new name to post here again.

  16. Marsena Says:

    What a bunch of garbage! The nerve of this man to ask you to stop exercising your freedom of speech! Jen, keep posting. Post until the deceived are enlightened. Post until the misguided are led back to Jesus. Post so that legalistic cults like Vision Forum will be exposed for the bondage they desire to bring others into.

    What arrogance! Who do these people think they are?

  17. Sarah Says:

    A wise person once said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”

  18. K. Says:

    I do not see where he mentioned “Jen’s name” – I will have to second the don’t flatter yourself comment.

    Also I have not seen a new entry from Still Fed UP since May . . . Maybe they have decided to let go of the “dog’s ears?”

  19. Jen Says:

    K, Doug is a master at gossiping without appearing to gossip. He never uses anyone’s name, but he clearly gets his point across to those he desires to address. Doug may have had more than one intention in this article, but I was clearly one of his targets.

    As far as SFU goes, I believe they had their come-uppance a while ago. You might want to look for it.

  20. RR Says:

    I find this amusing coming from a man that recently posted an article by Geoff Botkin to his blogg that calls other believers “christians”, infantile Christians, and hatemongers just because they happen to disagree with him. Botkin’s article basically is a whine session about “infantile Christians” using terms like CULT and Cult like in an agenda-driven attempt to “weaken the faith”.
    Geoff Botkin comes off in that article as a really weird, brainwashed, cult member.

    With respect to Mr.Phillips, this is more of the same Hypocritical Bla BLA he is famous for, say one thing & do another, as you point out others sin and ignore your own.

    Doug Phillips & Geoff Botkin deserve each other, and apparently have much in common. I feel sorry for their children and their wives.

    I think the internet exposure is getting to Doug Phillips and possibly hurting Vision Forum’s sales. Some of his recent posts are starting to make him look really silly, like a bratty little crybaby that has to have someone protect him from people doing the same thing to him ,that he constantly does to others. I guess that’s no big shock coming from someone that needs the police called on ONE woman handing out flyers at a public place. Next Doug will be calling up Jen or having his lapdog Bob Renaud call, (much more likely since he is scared to death of Jen) and offering to settle this by having his wife mud wrestle Jen.

  21. Lynn Says:

    “As far as SFU goes, I believe they had their come-uppance a while ago. You might want to look for it.”

    Oh, my, I went there some time ago and remember what they posted about clergy privilege. They said your pre-conversion sin was applicable to your current discipline, and they said it was right to tell it to the congregation about something that you did a long time ago and had repented of, and were not doing at the time.

    They also gave a short list of people Mark had told confidences to.

    They said I didn’t have a clue as to what I was talking about regarding clergy privilege. What a crock! You were not being disciplined or excommunicated for adultery, and it doesn’t matter how many people Mark talked to about it. If he went for counseling, pastoral or otherwise about it, the fact that he spoke to others about it doesn’t give Doug Phillips the right to broadcast it to the entire congregation, unless it was something you were doing at the time, were confronted privately about it, and refused to repent of at the time!

  22. Jen Says:

    I’ve had people ask about the SFU comment. This is one of those “if it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander” type posts.

  23. Lynn Says:

    That was comeuppance, all right. I’m speechless, but that’s OK, because that article speaks volumes.

    I understand why SFU went quiet.

  24. Bryan Says:

    “I think the internet exposure is getting to Doug Phillips and possibly hurting Vision Forum’s sales. ”

    I was thinking the same thing, based on his latest letter to VF supporters, where he is asking for donations to cover a supposed severe economic loss ($90K?) sustained by VF as a result of the Jamestown celebration. He even went so far as to accuse the local newspaper (The Gazette maybe? I tossed the letter) of “labeling you and me as cultists” (quote may not be exact, again, I threw out the letter). As I recall, it was local Christian clergy that labeled DOUG and VF as cultish, NOT the newspaper itself. Seems his “fight” is with other Christians, but he misrepresents it as “The Establishment Secular Media vs. Born-Again Christian Homeschoolers” (my description, not his).

    I hope you will all continue to pray for Doug to repent of his pride and arrogance, as I continue to do. He is a talented individual that the Lord can use mightily in His service (if he remembers to lovingly tend to His sheep).

  25. Lynn Says:

    I agree, Bryan. I have seen some video clips of Doug, and he is quite talented.

  26. CynthiaGee Says:

    I don’t quite “get it”. Does the article somehow link Justin Turley or his father to SFU?

  27. Bryan Says:

    K wrote:

    “I do not see where he mentioned “Jen’s name” – I will have to second the don’t flatter yourself comment.

    Also I have not seen a new entry from Still Fed UP since May . . . Maybe they have decided to let go of the “dog’s ears?””

    Maybe K is right! Maybe Doug is posting these on his blog as a (not so) subtle warning to Matt Chancey, SFU, Mrs. Bino, et al, in the hopes that they are reading his posts and will repent of their sinful behavior. Most telling is his post of the WCF Question 145 (The Ninth Commandment). There sure is an amazing resemblance between the things listed therein and the modus operandi of DP and the VF supporters! Maybe Doug is starting to “get it”, no? Three posts in two days regarding talebearing and gossip?

    *Sigh* We can only hope. In the meantime, I sadly doubt that K is right, and I believe that Jen is correct in her assessment that she is one of the intended targets of those posts.

    With Doug, I see a close parallel to the liberals’ MO: when you cannot logically or factually defend your position or rebut your opponents’ assertions, simply ignore them, or dismiss them through ad hominem attacks and work towards the silencing of the opposition, maintaining an air of moral superiority as you do so. In other words, “Shut up and go away. You are interfering with my ability to promote my morally good agenda free from critical evaulation. Because you dare question me, my methods, and my agenda, your actions are therefore wrong and evil. Thus, not only do your arguments and positions have no credilbility, but they are dangerous and should be eliminated.”

    Can anyone say “pride”?

  28. Lindsey @ ETJ Says:

    Would I be wrong to take this in an entirely different direction?

    Instead of focusing on DP and VF, let me just say I laugh to hear the SBC say they think blogs should be shut down because it is airing the church’s dirty laundry.

    As a long time SBC member (and now exiter) I find this awfully prideful on their part. God forbid anyone “air the sins of the church” especially those of SBC pastors with rigid and vile schemes. Trust me, there are some SBC pastors and churches out there that make even Doug Phillips look mighty tame and sugary sweet.

    I experienced some of this first hand. I was in the middle of something very ugly at my SBC church. My name was drug thru the mud because someone else had wrong information spread by gossip. I later wrote about my experience on my blog NOT using names or anyone’s identity, and lo and behold, the preachers wife calls me to “express her concern.”

    The SBC has too many skeletons on their own closet and are afraid that thinking church goers as myself might blog about it and cause other people to question the ways of the SBC church.

    Mind you, not all SBC churches are bad. Many, many of them are wonderful. But there are enough out there that make me sick and I’m not surprised to hear the SBC calling for blogs to be shut down for “the sake of the lost” (which is really, the sake of the SBC).

    Sorry for taking this in another direction, but I really needed to get that off my chest!

  29. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Bryan,

    VF is giving away a $50 gift card with every $95 dollar purchase until the end of the month. That is like giving a 50% when you spend $100. Also VF always does huge discounts almost weekly now, so I have to believe the margins on his products are not that great.

  30. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Bryan, was the letter something you received in the mail or by email?

  31. CynthiaGee Says:

    Lindsay, you are on the right track. One of the biggest complaints made by unbelievers against the Church is that it is full of hypocrites who sin just like everybody else, and then cover it up. By airing her dirty laundry, confessing her faults and bringing such things to light, the people of the Church show the world that we do not approve of such things and are willing to turn such things around, starting in our own front yard.

  32. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Lindsey wrote: Would I be wrong to take this in an entirely different direction?

    How is this a different direction? Sadly, Doug is just a prototype for people of the day. He differs little from the average non-Christian on the street. He’s very much like our politicians who cannot own up to their faults, failures and foibles. Artifice, semantics and games to dance around ethics… On a grand scale, this website is about men telling us about accountabliity and hierarchy which they themselves circumvent. It is the spirit of the age and it permeats everything it seems.

  33. Bryan Says:

    Hi Brandon:

    It was a regular postage fund raising letter. I got it about a week and a half ago.

    Bryan

  34. Brandon Giromini Says:

    Bryan, as to not further derail this topic, I would like to discuss this issue in more detail via email. Please contact me by clicking on my name in this post. I am very interesting in seeing the letters that VF sends out.

  35. Jen Says:

    Cynthia, we have strong reason to believe that Justin Turley is Swordbearer John. Since he has not posted since that article went up, that lends a little more credence in that direction. If it is not SBJ, then it is a close friend who is not willing to see more of that type of article go up.

  36. thatmom Says:

    Lindsay,

    I believe you hit the nail on the head. Just think about church life prior to the internet. Someone like R. C. Sproul Jr. or Doug Phillips or Rev. John Doe could do whatever they wanted in the name of “church discipline” and trust that no one would every know. Their book sales could remain in tact and the invitations to speak at conferences would keep on rolling in.

    BUT, the beauty of the internet is that there is an opportunity for the other side of the story to come out and spiritual abusers have little or nothing to say about it.

    Of course, not everything you read is necessarily accurate from either side. But I believe, faced with facts, eventually enough people who are discerning will start to ask enough questions and will stop believing everything they hear at a conference or read in someone’s curriculum. And, too, maybe they will start reading Scripture in untwisted and in context. We can only hope.

  37. CynthiaGee Says:

    “Cynthia, we have strong reason to believe that Justin Turley is Swordbearer John. Since he has not posted since that article went up, that lends a little more credence in that direction. If it is not SBJ, then it is a close friend who is not willing to see more of that type of article go up.”

    LOL…. oh, that’s RICH! LOL….. good work, Jen!

  38. CynthiaGee Says:

    Oh, and Jen… does Justin by any chance live or have a close friend in the Cache Valley area of Utah?

  39. TheIronHare Says:

    SFU = Sinful Foolishness Unleashed 😉

    Hey, here’s a great parody pick of DP and Mrs. P.

    http://swordpentrumpet.com/?p=308

    Dennis

  40. Bryan Says:

    I think Doug is really scared of his having been labeled a “cultist”. Check today’s screed on his blog:

    “The “C” Word, The Phantom Abuser and the Modern Home Education Movement: How Professing Christians Threw Their Own Families to the Lions”. Basically, fellow “Christians” (Doug’s quotation marks) are persecuting “the brethren” (i.e., “real Christians”) by using the word “cultic”. And because it was done to homeschooling families back in the 80s and 90s, the parallel is the same today because the world “cult” is being employed. Granted, he doesn’t use the term “patriarchy” but that’s the beauty of his premise: if you are a Christian, and you use the term “cultic” or “cult” in any way to describe practices, beliefs, or behaviors of fellow Christians, you are just as bad as those who falsely accuse homeschooling families.

    Here’s some “gems” (sorry Jen!) 🙂 :

    “As with the modern Internet, these accusers of the brethren did not have to look the families they were condemning in the eye.”

    “There always have been and will be accusers of the brethren, scoffers and unscrupulous individuals who seek to divide the body of Christ.”

    And finally:

    “As we press forward into the 21st century, we should aspire to be like the sons of Isachar [sic] who understood the times, were blessed of God and given positions of leadership. This means marking those who bring false accusations, or who prepare the body of Christ for great persecution by throwing around the “C” word to describe people who may differ on matters which clearly fall within the pale of orthodoxy.”

    That last one sounds like a veiled threat to me. “Marking those…” ? Jen (If Doug is addressing you): be forewarned, the gauntlet has been thrown down. After all, since he has been “given positions of leadership”, this means he has been “blessed by God”. As such, he is to be like a son of Issachar. Watch out!

    I think that he is beginning to feel some pressure. Let’s hope that it will hasten his repentance.

    (And Doug, not to grasp at straws, but you might want to proofread a little better. It is “credibility”, not “credability”; “under the sun”, not “under the son”, “Issachar” not “Isachar”. And Chris spells his last name “Klicka” not “Clicka”. Not a big deal, but I know that you like accuracy. I’ve probably got a few misspellings here too! When I am agitated about something and am trying to type in a hurry, I do not proofread as well as I should.
    )

  41. Bryan Says:

    Gosh, not five minutes after I posted, the spelling errors were corrected! Good job Doug! 🙂

  42. Jen Says:

    Bryan: “Gosh, not five minutes after I posted, the spelling errors were corrected! Good job Doug!”

    ROFLOL! Good job, Bryan! Oh, I am just dying laughing over here! I knew Doug reacts to what he reads about himself online, but this is just too good! I don’t think I’ve ever gotten such a quick reaction before. 😉

    As far as Doug throwing down the gauntlet, that is one of Doug’s favorite phrases. You may be right, Bryan. It will be fun to see what he comes up with next. He seems to be terribly busy writing against me this week. Maybe I shall have to give him something new to write about. 😉

  43. CynthiaGee Says:

    If Doug Phillips is a son of Issachar, then Jen and Corrie and Cindy and Morgan and Lynn and the rest of us here are monkey’s uncles… or more likely, modern day “mothers in Israel”.
    Gauntlet, indeed! We’ll see.

  44. Corrie Says:

    What is a “son of Issachar”? I know he is one of Jacob’s sons (#9) but what is the significance? And, did Doug call himself that?

    About the “C” word…..

    Well, I would think that if they don’t want to be labeled that they would take the lead and stop labeling everyone and anyone who disagrees with them as the “F” word or the “L” word or the “J” word or the “R” word or the “B” word.

    Believing that a woman can be a judge or run for public office falls within the pale of orthodoxy. This little game works both ways.

    It must be that time of the month (a whole lot of blog posts in a row concerning this issue!) or something. There seems to be some major sensitivity. 🙂

    “Sadly, Doug is just a prototype for people of the day. He differs little from the average non-Christian on the street. He’s very much like our politicians who cannot own up to their faults, failures and foibles. Artifice, semantics and games to dance around ethics… On a grand scale, this website is about men telling us about accountabliity and hierarchy which they themselves circumvent. It is the spirit of the age and it permeats everything it seems.”

    Exactly. I went to the website Frank Page spoke of and he was not slacker when it came to his retorts and words.

    These are like the class-yard bullies. They are the first ones to cry when someone stands up to them and accuse them of not being fair.

  45. Bryan Says:

    “I don’t think I’ve ever gotten such a quick reaction before.”

    Let me know if you want the original with the misspellings…I saved them of course. I can e-mail it as a pdf if you like.

    He could have at least thanked me; I did save him from some embarassment.

  46. Brandon Giromini Says:

    If indeed it was Bryan’s post who notified VF of the errors, it was most likely Bob Renaud who saw it and not Doug Phillips, as Bob is the one who watches the Internet for all things Doug.

  47. thatmom Says:

    I wanted to comment on this statement from Doug’s blog today…

    “Our argument usually won the day. It won the day, because it is illogical and dishonest to attack the credibility of individuals with unsubstantiated references to injured third parties.”

    The problem with appliying this concept to what has happened and is happening in some patriocentric homeschooling families today is two-fold.

    The very nature of spiritual abuse drives those who have been abused underground. Some of them hide because they are so wounded themselves and they need advocates who are willing to assist them. Others are not willing to come forward because they still have family members who are caught up in these lifestyles and they want to keep doors of communication open. To claim that there are no problems because those who have been hurt won’t come forward is like saying we are sure that women aren’t ever raped because the haven’t filed charges. Many times, those who have been hurt have weighed the consequences of coming forward and have decided to only tell their stories off record. I know, because I have some of those stories sitting in my e-mail. But compassion and integrity prohibit me from telling all I know. I know this is true for others as well.

    Another problem is that both Scripture and testimonies are so often twisted. Combine that with how misleading people are when it comes to these things, and it is very difficult to address. For example, someone may give you a list of all the things that they aren’t, but it doesn’t tell you what they are. For (a silly) example, someone might tell you “I am not an exotic dancer” but what does that mean? Absolutely nothing other than that she isn’t an exotic dancer. It doesn’t tell you that the woman who said it is a moral woman or that she is committed to one man in marriage or whatever. It only tells you that she is not an exotic dancer.

    Look at the statements “i am not a racist” or “I am not patriocentric.” What do those things mean? Nothing. Just because someone tells you they are not a racist doesn’t mean that they do not believe that slavery in the Old Dominion was wrong. In fact, if they think that owning slaves isn’t racist, then contend they are being totally honest with you, but, in fact, because they know you think owning slaves WAS racist, they are being purposely misleading, thus they are bearing false witness.

    Corrie, you are absolutely correct. The rules don’t apply to everyone. The good news is that more and more people, all the time, are starting to catch on to the “lingo” and are starting to hold teachings up to the light of Scripture. We just need to keep plugging along!

  48. Cindy Kunsman, Monkey's Uncle, Advocate of the use of the terms "Cult" and "Cultic" as descriptor for Spritual Abuse within Biblical Christianity, antinominan, non-normative, "Canaanite" and whatever new moniker can be contrived Says:

    Bryan wrote: “I think Doug is really scared of his having been labeled a “cultist”. Check today’s screed on his blog:”

    Well, hallelujah! It’s encouraging to realize that Doug actually fears something. It’s about time. The hubris he displays in the face of nearly everything else and in confronting others (save Jen and family) demonstrates that he has diminished capacity in this area. He should have thought about the possibility about the applicability of the term “cult” before he started making his hegemonic, brazen declarations regarding acceptable Christian conduct and declaring them orthodox and “Biblical.” Perhaps if he had submitted to peer reviewed training in theology somewhere before he established himself as God’s Janitor (to quote Robin Williams in “Fisherking”), he might have found some wisdom along the way to avoid it?

    Bryan summarizing Doug’s comments: “[Y]ou are just as bad as those who falsely accuse homeschooling families.”

    Oh, but Bryan! You just don’t understand. Doug is above reproach. He’s got all these groups who clearly recognize his superior worth. Look at all of Doug’s marvelous works! He’s not like us filthy, poor, nasty people who only think that they’re Christians. People like me are just “too damaged” to realize his gnostic insights. By making his declarations, he is not speaking hateful words to his brethren, he’s speaking grace unto edification. People like me are clearly need him desperately for my eternal salvation through the message that no one else is enlightened enough or courageous enough to deliver.

    Quoting Doug: “[B]y throwing around the “C” word to describe people who may differ on matters which clearly fall within the pale of orthodoxy”

    I don’t throw the “c” word around. I use it quite specifically and with direct, sincere intent.

    What is more cultic: Pointing out how an individual’s beliefs, claims and promoted practices conform to social psychology’s definition of “cultic”,
    or
    declaring others who profess and adhere to orthodoxy to be “Canaanites” and in sin over intermurall matters? And, in the fashion of those affliated with SBTS, calling anyone who dares to challenge their views “open theists,” monstrous feminists, those who reject God’s Lordship over creation, etc. We’re all probably closet evolutionists, too. After all, I have used terms here that aren’t to be found in the KJV. I’m so unlovable I suppose, that no one rose up to protect me from Jezzie. Oh, but that may be because I dared rebel against my “umbrella” by leaving the Gothardite church for supporting pornographers, etc, ad nauseum. I am therefore apostate and alienated from God’s providencal care, twice fit for hell.

    Thatmom wrote: “The good news is that more and more people, all the time, are starting to catch on to the “lingo” and are starting to hold teachings up to the light of Scripture.”

    Not that this is anything new. This is as original as sin, straight back to the begiling language of the serpent.

    Given to the appeal of (perceived) authority and the anti-intellectualism of so many and the naive integrity of those who sincerely love family, this is perhaps Doug’s most impressive accomplishment. Stick “Biblical” or “Family” on the front or end of some comment, and people just follow like blind sheep. Robert Lifton called this loading the language. Certain terms are associated as unacceptable, and you can manipulate people through connotation and subtle redefinition or through new and semi-related, obscure applications of those terms. Hence all my lovely new names… Who would listen to someone like me?

    So I wouldn’t ever mindlessly throw around the “C” word unless it was appropriate. And who cares about my opinion (or those making the same assertions) if I truly embody the very essence these monikers? Apparently Doug. Apparently many others who have apparently stopped to think twice about Doug before placing their orders with Vision Forum.

  49. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    In consideration of the charge against those who fail to measure up to Doug’s standards:

    Does anyone know specifically how Doug esteems the “non-normative” and the “Canaanite”? It’s clear that this is a very bad thing to be, but does he specifically state what all that means?

    As for “Canaanite,” are we to be utterly destroyed (Num 21)? It’s clear that you are to protect yourself and your family from the “ites” (these being Canaan-) with piety, but is there some other recommended plan for ministry to the Canaanite? Are we just supposed to perish as sinners in the hands of whom we only thought was our own, angry God? Is there any concerted effort to help rescue the Canaanite who dangles from the thread over the fires of hell, or has God just darkened my understanding and hardened my reprobate heart?

    From “Heresies” by Howard O.J. Brown pg. 63
    “Heresies such as Gnosticism do not create churches; what they produce are esoteric cliques within the church. Heretics such as Marcion have the personal energy and organizational talent necessary to set up a rival organization, which some church historians have dignified with the title of a reformed church.”

    pg 391
    “Pietism was not a heresy in any sense of the word, but by stressing personal experience and religious sentiment, it removed many of the obstacles to heresy.”

  50. Jen Says:

    Cindy: “As for “Canaanite,” are we to be utterly destroyed (Num 21)? It’s clear that you are to protect yourself and your family from the “ites” (these being Canaan-) with piety, but is there some other recommended plan for ministry to the Canaanite? Are we just supposed to perish as sinners in the hands of whom we only thought was our own, angry God? Is there any concerted effort to help rescue the Canaanite who dangles from the thread over the fires of hell, or has God just darkened my understanding and hardened my reprobate heart?”

    First, non-normative is the equivalent of sin in Doug’s book. Everything is black and white, right or wrong, so non-normative being outside the parameters of obedience to God must be sin.

    Second, notice how Doug treats those whom he thinks are in sin. Those would be the Canaanites to him. Notice how much of a loving shepherd he is to me, leaving the 99 and earnestly seeking the one lost sheep. From your own stories of how much Doug loved you and sought to share God’s love with you (note: heavy sarcasm), I think we can clearly see that Doug has the same view of modern-day Canaanites as Joshua and the Israelites did back in the day.

    Cindy, I think Doug’s (Geoff Botkin’s) article on the “C” word was written to you and not me. Note that I have not used that nasty “C” word to describe him yet. 🙂

  51. thatmom Says:

    ““Heresies such as Gnosticism do not create churches; what they produce are esoteric cliques within the church. Heretics such as Marcion have the personal energy and organizational talent necessary to set up a rival organization, which some church historians have dignified with the title of a reformed church.”

    Cindy! this is the second time in 4 days someone has referred to Marcion and it must mean I need to look more closely at his beliefs. In the other context, it immediately brought to mind the things we have been reading with the patriarchs!

  52. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Jen wrote: Cindy, I think Doug’s (Geoff Botkin’s) article on the “C” word was written to you and not me.”

    Jen,
    This is great! Funny how no one from VF has sought me out to address this. Although, I’m sure it would result in the same outcome that MCOI’s attempts to corroborate with Gothard (avoidance, false promises, avoidance, propaganda to counter critics, etc.). And God forbid, they catch any sin cooties from me. You did however title two articles about the MCOI article exposing Doug with the “C” word within them.

  53. Bryan Says:

    “Cindy, I think Doug’s (Geoff Botkin’s) article on the “C” word was written to you and not me. Note that I have not used that nasty “C” word to describe him yet.”

    Jen, I think you are right, which makes K right and you and me wrong! Doug (or Geoff or whoever actually wrote the article) was probably responding to Cindy’s excellent article of August 18th. I highly recommend to those reading this blog that you link to the article on Cindy’s name above, or go to
    http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=342785

    Cindy: When you update your article in September, one of the “cultic” practices that you may want to consider is Doug’s amazing ability to covenant with God. In his latest fund raising letter, he proclaims how Vision Forum “covenanted with God” in going to Jamestown. His ability to “covenant with God” at will seems to me to be the opposite of what the Scriptures teach, that God initiates covenants with His people, and not vice versa. This leads into the practice of proclaiming “mini-covenants” with God in the practice of holy living. This re-labeling of legalism as “covenanting” seems to imply a special relationship with God that is somehow not available (or communicated) to the Church at large. but if you are fortunate enough to be in the special group that is chosen to covenant (or is choosing to covenant), well, there you go! Now you are more “super-special” than the rabble because you are “covenanting”.

    Sorry, Jen, if this digression is too far off the topic!

  54. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    thatmom wrote: “Cindy! this is the second time in 4 days someone has referred to Marcion and it must mean I need to look more closely at his beliefs. In the other context, it immediately brought to mind the things we have been reading with the patriarchs!”

    Marcion was one of the first Gnostics, but it seems that his ideas do not correspond as well to patriarchy. (As far as Doug is concerned, the Gnosticism Gothard-style and the motivated, charismatic leader stuff does correspond to Marcion.) From what I’ve read about Origen’s concepts, the modern patriarchy movement seems to correspond more to the CBMW concept of Ware and others whom Doug draws from indirectly (if not indirectly). On a cursory re-read of Athanasius and Arius, I was initially impressed that these ideas (of the ontonolgical issues concerning man and woman) and dynamics of patriarchy seem more like those of early Gnosticism.

    Kevin Giles (Jesus and the Father) states that upon his review (of which I’ve barely scratched the surface) that these concepts do correspond to Arius (concerning the ETERNALLY submitted Christ as synonymous with the permanent subordination of woman in patriarchal marriage). The reading of it has been slow, however, as it is very emotionally disturbing to consider that those who love Jesus could have fallen prey to such heresy — or created it themselves. Either way, he identifies “subordinationism” as a separate heresy resulting from eisegesis (reading your own presuppositions into exegesis) from those who were affectionate to slavery. A subordinate Christ (in both essense and authority but not deity) supports the onotological argument that men are superior by virtue essence (as the Father is over Christ). Initially, this supported the concept of the superiority of one race over another and was introduced into Systematic Theology texts in the 1800s, also dealing with the problem of women. This suggests, granting that Giles is accurate (as he is certainly precise), this whole doctrine of patriarchy is rotten and heretical to the core. It has been taught as solid orthodoxy, with each generation of “Systematic Theology” texts perfecting the argument in the name of Biblical truth. Grudem’s work in ’94 makes the strong connection between Father-man and Son-woman most directly and strongly which was not true of previous doctrine. I’m sure that Dabney is in there somewhere, too.

    So in reference to things cultic, if one defers to Giles, then not only is patriarchy guilty of both gnosticism (the enlightened teachers/followers of non-Canaanites and secret knolwedge) and Spritual Abuse/thought reform, they also meet theological cult criteria.

    I was so impressed with Giles that I ordered his earlier book “The Trinity and Subordinationism: The Doctrine of God and the Contemporary Gender Debate.” It speaks even more directly to both women and slavery, but it is so emotionally heartwrenching, I’ve made little progress. It’s so horrible, that I just keep putting it down like it was Vogon poetry. This is far, far worse than I had imagined.

  55. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Bryan wrote: Jen, I think you are right, which makes K right and you and me wrong! Doug (or Geoff or whoever actually wrote the article) was probably responding to Cindy’s excellent article of August 18th. I highly recommend to those reading this blog that you link to the article on Cindy’s name above, or go to
    http://www.undermuchgrace.com/view/?pageID=342785

    Bryan,

    Thanks for this complement. I can hardly believe that I’ve created that much of a stir. That article has had only about 50 hit and I think half of those were mine while adding the formatting. The whole thing is written, but I’m waiting on my two editors to get back to me on the remainder. (I don’t want to include things that are not faithful to the history of my own group, neither do I want to put my more of my many famous grammatical/spelling errors out there.) Both people who are proofing it state that it is hard to read as it is emotionally disturbing. One said it was like going to the scene of one’s own murder, and the other corrected this and said it was more like visiting the location of one’s own (spiritual) rape. It’s not for the timid.

    I wanna blame it all on Andrew Sandlin for publishing the article in response to the 2003 “Tenets of Patriarchy.” I’m sure he would be quite willing to bear the blame for encouraging me. (It’s pretty funny though, reading the link on the “No Women Voters” thread to Doug’s blog that Jen posted this morning.) Therein, Doug refers to the “baby machine” comment in that link to his blog in response to a series of sermons Sandlin delivered in Houston in 2003 and the article (also on my site) Sandlin wrote entitled “Hegemonic Patriarchy.” The only reason I took up arms against this all was in response to the slings and arrows of the outrageous “Tenets.”

    Although I’ve certainly endeavored to do all I can to expose these things, I can’t be the target of the cult stuff. If I am, then I’m a little David that launched a stone at a giant. To quote the Bard (quoted in Doug’s fundraising letter): “Non Nobis Domine, Sed Nomine Tuo Da Gloria” Thanks be to God and not our strength for it…. God did fight for us. (From King Henry V, which for those unfamiliar is essentially British History’s experience much like 2 Chron. 20.)

    Nice to know that we band of brothers here, we happy few, have made an impact. Little is much when God is in it. And I believe with every ounce of everything within me and according to the Word that He is, otherwise I would not have entered this debate.

  56. Lynn Says:

    http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2006/10/1822.aspx

    “To these individuals, ‘free speech’ means absolute freedom to say whatever they think or feel. Alternatively, they argue that (notwithstanding the fact that they are publishing to the entire world), they should not be held accountable by the same standards that others would be held to account. For these bloggers, the Internet is a place where men and women can be profane, vile, and defamatory; a place were historic rules of journalistic integrity or academic responsibility no longer apply . . .”

    Lynn:
    This reminds me of Matt Chancey and mrsbioculars, and SFU. And Doug links to mrsbino on VF. For every one finger he points at people who do these kinds of things, four more are pointing back at him and his friends!

    Doug goes on:
    “Future articles address the potential legal liability associated with blogs; the tragedy and impropriety of Christians suing Christians under 1 Corinthians 6; the violation of the heart of 1 Corinthians 6 by ‘Christian’ bloggers who seek to prosecute fellow Christians before the world on the Internet; the non-applicability of 1 Corinthians 6 to excommunicants; and the proper and improper place of secular courts to prosecute unlawful behavior where professing Christians lack formal ecclesiastical accountability, and will not submit themselves to such.”

    Now, as Ministry Watchman noted, we can see this being directed to Mark and Jen.

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/honor_as_a_defining_principle.aspx

    “The twenty-first century world of the Internet, instant global communication, and theological pandemonium provides dishonorable men with numerous opportunities to skirt biblical requirements for conflict resolution, to cover their tracks — or simply, to vent. . . . Now dissatisfied congregants can dishonorably vent disagreements with their leaders to the world over the Web. Some actually become Internet assassins — men and women intent on destroying the character of the men with whom they disagree, and justifying their electronic ‘holy jihad’ on the grounds that “the world must be warned.”

    Who is “skirting biblical requirements for conflict resolution?” When Mark and Jen couldn’t be at their trial, and when, as Spunky notes, the minutes of the excommunication are not known, and when Mark and Jen have made numerous attempts to talk to Doug, only to be told to go through his lawyer. Come on!!

  57. Jen Says:

    You know, Cindy, Doug is big proponent of “he who defines (the terms), wins.” Maybe Doug is feeling the heat of the use of that “C” word and is attempting to pre-empt my use of that word as well. If he defines the “C” word as just being an inflammatory term, then it will lessen the impact when (if) I use it. Or maybe he is just a little defensive these days!

    One thing I will say. If I do decide to ever use the “C” word, I will tightly define my meaning. There will be no mistaking what my intentions are and it will not be used in a merely pejorative fashion without evidence to back it up. If Doug is afraid of being on the receiving end of the “C” word, he needs to make sure he has done nothing to deserve the moniker.

  58. Bryan Says:

    Don Veinot’s article may have generated some heat also (or light!)

  59. Bryan Says:

    Cindy: If you didn’t create that much of a stir, and Jen didn’t really use the term either in describing Doug, then the charge had to have come from somewhere. So it may either be Veinot’s article, or perhaps another source.

  60. CynthiaGee Says:

    Bryan, you seldom have one without the other….

  61. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    First,
    I don’t use the term “cult” as a pejorative. I’m faithful to the cult-exit literature in my use of the term. I defer to them and apply it faithfully, based on that established body of knowledge. Those who have come forward to tell their accounts and MCOI’s attention are just validation at this point.

    Also, I think that Doug is probably referring to the Virginia Gazette and the citations of the Gazette in that online article and MSNBC/Newsweek about the Jamestowne Celeberation. In the fundraising letter to which Bryan alludes, he makes reference to that article and that he once worked for the paper at one time in some capacity. As he went on quoting the Bard, I’m surprised that he did not add, “Et tu Brute.” I think it was the Virginia Gazette that “betrayed” him. Maybe he’s getting heat from that.

    Needless to say, we should not break our band of brotherhood here. Let us not fall back from the cause and think ourselves accursed for not having fought here in this particular trench.

    I wish Doug would move on to Hamlet and figure out that patriarchy has more to do with the rot in mythical Denmark than it does with the Bible. Ere we sugar over the devil himself.

  62. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    the devil not being a person in this issue but the ideology believed to be Biblical when it is not.

  63. Corrie Says:

    “Cindy: When you update your article in September, one of the “cultic” practices that you may want to consider is Doug’s amazing ability to covenant with God. In his latest fund raising letter, he proclaims how Vision Forum “covenanted with God” in going to Jamestown. His ability to “covenant with God” at will seems to me to be the opposite of what the Scriptures teach, that God initiates covenants with His people, and not vice versa. This leads into the practice of proclaiming “mini-covenants” with God in the practice of holy living. This re-labeling of legalism as “covenanting” seems to imply a special relationship with God that is somehow not available (or communicated) to the Church at large. but if you are fortunate enough to be in the special group that is chosen to covenant (or is choosing to covenant), well, there you go! Now you are more “super-special” than the rabble because you are “covenanting”.”

    Bryan,

    You are on a roll today. You have had some great thoughts on these various threads. This whole idea that one can initiate a covenant with God at will is very odd. In what authority would someone think they could initiate a covenant? Also, can anyone initiate a covenant with God? Who decides which covenants are the genuine thing and which ones are illegitimate? Does God speak directly to those who get to initiate the covenants like He did in the Old Testament? I don’t recall one instance where any Joe Believer was able to initiate a covenant with God. The covenants that were initiated were from God downward and it involved God speaking audibly to these individuals. The covenants had a purpose, too. When God cut covenant with Abraham, it was in order to establish a godly seed. When God set His rainbow in the sky as a sign of His covenant with Noah, it was to promise that He would never wipe out the entire human race with a flood.

    Doug used this same term in his VT article. He said that part of the reason these tragedies are happening is because Americans have broken covenant with God- the covenant that our founding fathers made with God.

    Is there such a thing? My position is that there is not. God’s covenants are already name for us in scripture.

    I do not recognize this trip to Jamestown as a covenant with God. You are very right about it being a great way to make one’s followers feel like they are very special. Bill Gothard often used similar terminology in his letters to his followers.

  64. Corrie Says:

    I have no problem with the “C” word if it is used properly. The term “cultic” is a descriptive word. I guess if I was accused of being in a cult or being part of a group that had cultic tendencies, I would want to know why people perceived that group that way. In fact, that did happen to me. I was in ATI when someone I barely knew told me that they thought it was cultic. I didn’t take offense. I investigated.

    The scripture does talk about the name of God being blasphemed because of the ill conduct of Christ’s followers. I wonder how often we think about that before we get offended when someone views us as being part of a cult? What are WE doing to give that impression? That is what I would want to know.

    Maybe someone (Cindy K?) needs to repost the indicators of when a group is a cult or cultic. That might help narrow the argument.

    Cindy,

    “I wish Doug would move on to Hamlet and figure out that patriarchy has more to do with the rot in mythical Denmark than it does with the Bible. Ere we sugar over the devil himself.”

    LOL!

  65. CynthiaGee Says:

    “I wish Doug would move on to Hamlet and figure out that patriarchy has more to do with the rot in mythical Denmark than it does with the Bible. Ere we sugar over the devil himself.”

    hmmmmm…………..I wonder if he’s read “King Lear”?

  66. CynthiaGee Says:

    “The scripture does talk about the name of God being blasphemed because of the ill conduct of Christ’s followers.”

    A good many people have a low opinion of Christianity thanks to folks like Fred Phelps, Steve Wilkins, and Doug Phillips. There are a lot of people who have belonged to cultic churches and have so lost their faith, and even more who have never belonged to a church and won’t touch one with a ten-foot pole, because they think that we are all a bunch of racist, misogynistic, hypocritical nuts.

  67. Mike Says:

    “Doug used this same term in his VT article. He said that part of the reason these tragedies are happening is because Americans have broken covenant with God- the covenant that our founding fathers made with God.

    Is there such a thing? My position is that there is not. God’s covenants are already name for us in scripture. ”

    I made this same point with K-Thed, and he got the vapors. He still hasn’t answered my question about the “we” in “we have a covenant with God.” This idea that the “we” refers to the United States because of the language of the pilgrims is far from biblically sound.

    This is the idea behind all this “we have a covenant with God” teachings. I ran into this mindset back in the late 80s, when I had my first rude introduction to Reconstructionists [I think that is the primary way they introduce themselves — rudely].

    I had been sent by my church to pick up a film at a man’s house, and as we put the film in the trunk of my car, the man grabbed me by the arm, fixed me with a bizarre stare, and exclaimed, “We have a covenant with GAWD!”

    I felt like the wedding guest who was accosted by the ancient mariner! LOL! “‘There was a ship,’ quoth he.”

  68. Mike Says:

    “…because they think that we are all a bunch of racist, misogynistic, hypocritical nuts.”

    I am neither racist, nor misogynistic, nor hypocritical. I’m just……… nuts.

  69. CynthiaGee Says:

    “…..the man grabbed me by the arm, fixed me with a bizarre stare, and exclaimed, “We have a covenant with GAWD!”

    Thanks Mike… the fellow you just described is a perfect example of WHY so many of the unchurched think that we are a bunch of nuts.

    Churches used to be nice, normal places where nice normal people went to worship God, not “GAWD!!!”.

    How on earth did we ever get HERE, from there?

  70. CD-Host Says:

    Maybe someone (Cindy K?) needs to repost the indicators of when a group is a cult or cultic. That might help narrow the argument.

    That’s one of the articles I’ve started thinking about. Most of the definitions of a cult take a theological position (our side is good and the people who X are cults). What I’m going to try and do is rewrite this all in neutral language.

  71. CynthiaGee Says:

    Yeah, Mike, but you’re the right kind of nuts.
    You know, the kind like that song (that probably only you and I are old enough to remember):

    Everybody loves a nut the whole world loves a weirdo
    Brains are in a rut but everybody loves a nut
    [ piano ]
    A Columbian man named Frank had a tiger named Hank
    He tried to put Hank in his tank guess what happened to Frank….

  72. Jen Says:

    I found this interesting definition on Wikipedia:

    Conservative Christian authors, especially evangelical Protestants, define a cult as a religion which claims to be in conformance with Biblical truth, yet deviates from it. Walter Martin, the pioneer of the Christian countercult movement, gave in his 1955 book the following definition:

    By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.

  73. Light Says:

    “By cultism we mean the adherence to doctrines which are pointedly contradictory to orthodox Christianity and which yet claim the distinction of either tracing their origin to orthodox sources or of being in essential harmony with those sources. Cultism, in short, is any major deviation from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith.”

    If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck …

  74. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    What typifies a “cult” or things “cultic”?

    “You’ve felt it your entire life, that there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is, but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad.”
    Morpheus, The Matrix

    If Jen would like, I can list this stuff, but it’s probably easier just to link to my webpages.

    There are two approaches to this.

    #1
    If you like to use only terminology in the Bible, then the “Spiritual Abuse” route is best. They don’t throw the “C” word around at all. People who are uncomfortable with technical terminology as a potential capituation to a secular worldview, this list will be quite palatable.

    #2
    Then there’s the more clinical route. I’ve added examples typical of modern churches that correspond with the original criteria per Robert J. Lifton. Other authors have defined similar lists, but this was the first one and my first one. The somewhat clinical perspective (having the background of the book explained to me) gave me a great deal of liberty, as I was familiar with pragmatic clinical psychology from my clinical experience in nursing.

    If you are interested in the characterisics of a cult leader, I’ve taken an excerpt from one of the better writings on the topic. This is quoted from Captive Hearts, Captive Minds, an older version of the newer book “Take Back Your Life.”

    Another good reference, although it’s not a terrific media, is a film about a highschool class that tried to understand the development of Nazism in Germany. I encourage everyone to tough out the low quality video and watch. It’s one of those “every American should watch this” things.
    http://www.xenutv.com/cults/wave.htm


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: