Doug Phillips Attacks Midwest Christian Outreach Counter-Cult Ministry: Vision Forum Staff Used for Libel Campaign

Misplaced principles

Several years ago I read a very disturbing book. It was so disturbing that I could not read more than a few pages at a time, and I had trouble sleeping every night I read it. The book was an examination of a very popular teacher, and it reported that not only were his teachings far from biblical but that he practiced things that I could not believe that any Christian could do. Even worse, most of my friends and acquaintances hung on every word the man said. That man was Bill Gothard and the book was “A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life” by Don and Joy Veinot and Ron Henzel.

Greatly distressed and wondering what to do to help my friends, I decided to turn for counsel to Doug Phillips, the pastor of my church Boerne Christian Assembly. I told Doug that I had read the book, that I was very concerned that so many members of BCA were caught up in Gothardism, and that I wondered what he thought should be done. I was greatly taken aback by Doug’s answer, as he said that although he didn’t agree with the way Bill Gothard got there, he did agree with Bill’s conclusions, and that was all that mattered. He also told me to just leave the matter alone and not discuss it further with other people. I was puzzled by Doug’s response, since he often taught that the ends never justify the means. I found out a little while later that he was already scheduled to speak and sell Vision Forum products at Gothard’s annual conference that year.

Fortunately, I didn’t let Doug’s response keep me from using my brain to find out that the authors of this book were also part of an apologetics ministry, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., which provided teaching and training to pastors and laymen. At the time, I didn’t see how their work could have anything to do with me, apart from their exposure to Gothardism, which Doug had already forbidden me to speak of, so I filed them away mentally for future reference.

After I went public last December with my story of the years of ecclesiastical abuse my family suffered at the hands of Doug Phillips, I recalled the ministry of of Midwest Christian Outreach. I decided to contact them to see if they knew anything about Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. As it turned out, they had already received numerous inquiries about Doug Phillips and/or Vision Forum and were considering whether to conduct an investigation of them.

After that contact, I generally put MCOI out of my mind. When I didn’t hear anything else for a while, I thought perhaps they weren’t really interested in investigating Doug Phillips or Vision Forum. So when I found out a few months later that they were almost ready to publish a whole article about Vision Forum, I was very surprised. I was particularly curious to find out if they had uncovered and were reporting on another story of ecclesiastical tyranny similar to mine.

I received the article “Who Will Be First in the Kingdom” shortly before the Arlington homeschool conference. I was quite surprised to see that it was about Patriarchy. At that time, I was still in love with Patriarchy and had no intentions of giving it up. When I read the “Top 10 Biblical Ways to Acquire a Wife” in their article, I thought it was funny, but it really rubbed me the wrong way. How dare they make jokes about what I considered to be a sound biblical principle! In fact, the more I read the article, the more sick to my stomach I became. I realized Don Veinot wasn’t talking about any of the issues I had with Doug Phillips and Vision Forum at all. He was talking about areas that were near and dear to my own heart! However, I was not going to complain at all; I was just grateful that someone else was speaking up about Vision Forum.

The timing of publishing this article happened to be the same as when I was already planning on going to the Arlington Homeschool Book Conference to try to meet with Doug. I thought that passing out copies of Don Veinot’s article on Saturday of the conference would be a good back-up plan if Doug refused to meet me on Friday. With that possibility in the back of my mind, I asked Don Veinot if I could hand out copies of his article at the conference. He agreed. As it turned out, Doug did refuse to meet with me, so I did follow my back-up plan. Doug was not happy about that or about the contents of Don Veinot’s article, and you can read about what happened at the conference here.

It turned out that there were others who also didn’t like Don Veinot’s article. Brian Abshire took great offense at Don’s analysis of an article by Dr. Abshire posted on the Vision Forum website. Dr. Abshire and Don have exchanged several letters on the subject, and caused a lively debate. Perhaps because they hoped Dr. Abshire could deal with Don for them, Vision Forum did not contact Don Veinot directly until nearly three months after the article came out and long after he originally contacted them. At that time, Don was sent a 15-page letter describing what Vision Forum had against him and his ministry. Vision Forum subsequently sent a follow-up letter as well.

Personal attacks

A few weeks later, Don decided to send us a copy of this correspondence from Vision Forum because so much of what Vision Forum wrote to Don Veinot consisted of personal attacks against Mark and me, and Don thought we deserved to see them in case we wished to respond. I appreciate this old-fashioned courtesy very much, because the general lack of it is one reason Doug Phillips’ continual whisperings often travel so far without challenge.

When we received our copies of Vision Forum’s correspondence with Don, we immediately saw that it was very typical of the way they deal with critics. First, as usual, the letters are not signed by Doug. He gets someone else to do the dirty work. In the past, it has been a BCA deacon signing an attack on behalf of the non-existent “Session” of BCA, or Doug’s lawyer threatening legal action, or another prominent patriarchal figure such as Kevin Swanson or Dr. Abshire weighing in for Doug. This time, it was Doug’s long-time assistant, Wesley Strackbein.

Something else about the letters to Don that are typical of Doug’s MO is that, while they invoke the name of Christ, they are highly accusatory of the personal character of those they attack. They also employ guilt-by association tactics such as trying to taint what Don says by claiming he is associated with others (Mark and me) that they have already smeared.

Another characteristic of Doug’s MO that you can see clearly in the letters is an effort to avoid facing the main issues by changing the subject. Don’s article was entirely a critique of Vision Forum’s theology of patriarchy. If you don’t believe me, go back and read it for yourself. You will see that it relies for its sources entirely on publicly available information on Vision Forum’s own website. You will also see that it says nothing about me or about Vision Forum’s or Doug Phillips’ treatment of me. In fact, Don did not consult with Mark or me about any aspect of his article before it was published. That being so, isn’t it curious that most of Vision Forum’s 15-page letter was devoted to attacking Mark and me?

I think the reason for Vision Forum’s misplaced attacks is that this is their best (only?) ammo. They have no credible answers to Don’s theological critique. So they have to change the subject. The fact that I handed out copies of Don’s article was just the fig leaf of an excuse they needed to change the subject to what has lately been their favorite rhetorical whipping boy, the Epsteins. When I see this kind of thing I keep asking myself: Do they really think their followers are so stupid that they won’t see through the tricks?

I’m still not sure of the answer to that question. So I’ll write about things I do know. The main purpose of Vision Forum’s letter was to address two issues, what they called “Misrepresentations and Alliance with Renegades.” Since the supposed “misrepresentations” have some connection to Don’s theological critique, I’ll leave them to him to address publicly if he wants to. I’ll address Vision Forum’s effort to avoid the theological debate by claiming Don has allied himself with renegades. I won’t be able to address all of Vision Forum’s numerous errors and outright libels, but I will address a few of the main ones below, enough for you to get the point.

Renegade rhetoric

Vision Forum’s renegade rhetoric begins from the very start of the letter. So before you read further, make sure you’re sitting down and, if necessary, buckled in. You’re in for a wild ride. After identifying himself and thanking Don for taking the time to read the letter, Doug’s mouthpiece, Wesley Strackbein, immediately accuses Don of “join[ing] hands with a lawless couple who have become notorious for their prolonged campaign of gossip, lies, cruelties and deceptions” For stating that the purpose of the letter was to make peace, Wesley was off to a great start!

A few paragraphs further, he affects to soften the blow a bit by saying that “we also realize that unscrupulous individuals may have taken advantage of your good intentions or even sought to curry favor with you by manipulating you into believing that their cause is your cause.” Telling someone that they’ve been duped will probably not win them over either.

After stating that they are willing to disagree on many theological and practical issues, Vision Forum says that “we do not believe that this spirit of equanimity is possible if Christians resort to libel and internet assassinations” I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. The definition of “libel” is to publish in print an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his reputation. The key word in this definition is an untruth. If I have said anything untrue, why hasn’t Doug Phillips posted anything to the contrary? Not only has he not published any documentation disproving anything I have said, he has also not stated any place specifically where I have lied. That is because I have told the truth. Therefore, there is no libel. This line was directed to Don Veinot, but it carried clear implications for every other Doug Phillips critic as well.

The bulk of the letter addressed the issue of the alleged alliances with renegades, which Vision Forum summarizes as follows:

You Have Publicly Aligned Yourself with and Drawn Support from Individuals Who Have Been Excommunicated for Ongoing Unrepentant Sins and Who Have Demonstrated a Pattern of Continued Sinful and Lawless Activities Since their Excommunication, as Affirmed by Several Jurisdictional Entities

and was followed by: “Your active association with individuals whose pattern of egregious, sinful behavior is far-reaching, well-documented, and confirmed by the testimony of several distinct church bodies as well as a presiding Justice of a State Supreme Court.” I am trying very hard to figure out who these several jurisdictional entities are who have affirmed our excommunication. Jurisdictional must mean that they have jurisdiction over us. We have attended two churches since our excommunication for any length of time. We did not join either of these two churches. Does that mean that they still have jurisdiction over us? If so, is two the same as several? If so, how did they “affirm” our excommunication? Did they acknowledge that we were excommunicated? Yes. But we also acknowledge that. No one denies that fact. Did they review the evidence for themselves? One church did and Little Bear Wheeler then spent the next 14 months trying to get Doug to repent from excommunicating us. Faith Presbyterian did not ever review any of the evidence. Did they send us back to BCA? Faith Presbyterian did, and when we asked them what we were supposed to repent from, they had no answer for us. I really see no evidence for this claim that several jurisdictional entities have affirmed our excommunication. This fallacy is a faulty appeal to authority and designed simply to overawe Don with their impressive list of authorities.

As for a Justice of a State Supreme Court confirming anything about me, let alone my sinful behavior, well, Doug is really confused about his jurisdictions here, because although he has threatened to sue my husband and me, he hasn’t yet, so the jurisdiction of the state hasn’t been involved to confirm anything.

While such ignorance, if founded, is inexcusable on your part, it could explain how you were led astray to conspire with these renegades” And now Wesley lists only a “partial summary” concerning the “misbehavior of this embittered couple.” I will just deal with the items that address me, for the sake of brevity here.

Been excommunicated and adjudged to be treated as “heathen and publican” with the unanimous affirmation of a confessional church for ongoing (sometimes public, but always) serious sins, including habitual lying, revilings, and cruelty on the part of both husband and wife directly related to Mrs. Epstein’s past adultery with a Muslim which produced a child out of wedlock.

This is what I was excommunicated for? I was excommunicated for sins I committed before I was a Christian, now 17 years ago, and for which I fully repented a year later? I later put that repentance into writing and Doug Phillips agreed that I had fully repented. And now Vision Forum is stating that my excommunication and all my sins are directly related to my pre-conversion past. I’m pleased to see that Vision Forum has finally admitted in writing what I have said from the beginning. I am also pleased that, although Doug Phillips and Vision Forum do not appear to understand grace and the forgiveness of sins, the Lord did not need their mediation to give it to me.

Been reproved and admonished by multiple ministries, churches, and ministers for their unrepentant sins, spirit of vengeance, deceptions, etc.

The footnote states that these multiple churches are BCA, Faith PCA, and Living Waters Fellowship. I’m not sure who the ministries are, but I assume the ministers are the elders of these respective churches. I understand BCA’s stance on this very well. Faith PCA told us to reconcile with BCA first. When we asked what we should repent from, they had no answer. LWF took our side for a long time. We prefer not to speculate on why they had a sudden change of heart. Even so, when we asked them what “inaccuracies and misinformation” they were referring to, they had also had no answer. I do not believe I have done any of this in a spirit of vengeance. If I had wanted revenge, I could have gone public much earlier than the almost two years we waited, trying to reconcile. I spent much time praying about it and I still do, as I want to make sure my heart is right in all that I do here. I have been very careful with my words as well. If I had a spirit of vengeance, I would think it would be quite noticeable after all I’ve written here. As for the deceptions, I stand willing to be corrected on anything I’ve written on this website and elsewhere. However, in this charge, like the vast majority of such charges, Vision Forum has declined to offer any examples that can be tested or confirmed. Why? Because no such examples exist.

Been formally banned as a vendor from participation in conferences with FEAST, a regional home school organization, because of “unethical practices” including “deception” toward this group in the years 2005-2006.

It is true that Ruth Perez of FEAST issued a letter critical of me. She did not contact me first, however. And, as soon as I learned of the statement, I immediately wrote her a Matthew 18 letter, asking for more information about my alleged sins. She never responded. I don’t know if her long-standing association with Doug is the reason she has followed his example in making broad charges while refusing to back them up with specifics, but that is what has happened here as it did with Doug.

Of course, even if all of these charges against me were true, they would still do nothing to undermine or taint Don Veinot’s powerful theological critique of Vision Forum, which was the only point of the article in the first place.

Worked with “Christian” White Separatists to advance their agenda of gossip and lies against men and ministries.

The footnote here includes a link to a site set up to attack me by long-time Doug Phillips buddy, Matt Chancey. They may call him an “independent investigator,” but it isn’t so. The fact that Vision Forum was willing to lie about Doug’s relationship with Matt in a desperate effort to give the site some legitimacy is enough to know that it’s nothing more than a political damage control effort by this professional political consultant and long-time Phillips pal. It’s called “playing the race card.”

Been upbraided by a State Supreme Court Justice [for] activity which the Justice characterized as “vile schemes.”

Huh? I’ve never met a State Supreme Court Justice, nor have I ever had any dealings with one. Another misplaced appeal to the wrong authority.

Been exposed for their efforts in a conspiracy to destroy the good name of Christian leaders that has involved using the cover of proxy servers, writing under numerous anonymous and pseudonymous names, launching websites which perpetrated frauds, and even conspiring to spy on the homes of pastors like RC Sproul, Sr. and to interview neighbors under false pretenses for the purpose of gathering damaging information to be used in public smear campaigns.

Absolutely not. I have never been involved in a conspiracy to destroy the good name of any Christian leaders. I was a long-time donor to Ligonier Ministries. I felt a moral responsibility to investigate reports that the money I donated was being squandered. I found that to be true, and I posted several blog articles on that subject under my name. I make no apologies for that. In fact, I still pray for R.C. Sproul, Sr., although I no longer donate to his ministry.

Publicly (through the Internet and written correspondences they have widely distributed) called no less than two hundred men and women to repentance before their personal tribunal of justice. To accomplish these ends, they have trafficked in unrelenting gossip, have deliberately posted pictures of the Sproul family designed to humiliate them and have become a clearinghouse for gossip for anonymous internet assassins with an axe to grind. They have not only demanded the repentance of RC Sproul, Sr. and Doug Phillips, but of entire congregations, of multiple ministers of the Gospel, and of no fewer than ten members from their former local church whom they have charged with wrongs against them; and have called no less than three Christian ministries to repentance.

I have publicly called for the repentance of public figures who have sinned against me and refused all private efforts (including independent mediation) to resolve the matter. I’m sorry that this is a sensitive subject for Doug, but I think that’s probably because he has a guilty conscience. At least I hope so.

Been complicit in emailing numerous vindictive and false charges about Doug Phillips to home school leaders, government officials, and friends and business associates of Vision Forum as part of a coordinated campaign to besmirch Doug Phillips’ name and unlawfully interfere with business and ministry interests of which he is a part.

Mark and I wrote a carefully constructed letter that we emailed to homeschool leaders. Everything in it was well documented. Doug Phillips is welcome to provide his own evidence to try and counter any of my claims at any time. He has not done so, because there is no such evidence. So all he has left is this kind of strong rhetoric.

Mass-disseminated numerous outrageous and calumnious articles, including one which accused godly missionaries of complicity in the murder of Christians.

I have to give Wesley credit for variety in his choice of words to attack me, even though he does so in a letter supposedly about an article that I had nothing to do with. I don’t think I have ever before seen “calumnious” used in a sentence. I’m even a little embarrassed to confess that I had to look it up. Seriously, though, the footnotes to this charge keep referring to “Jennifer and other Ministry Watchman co-conspirators.” Clearly, Vision Forum is trying to turn all of its critics into conspirators and blame each act of “conspiracy” on every “conspirator.” I don’t know which logical fallacy that is, but I know it is one, or maybe two or three together.

Have posted offensive and inappropriate photo-shopped images of Doug and Beall Phillips on the Internet as part of their smear campaign.

I’m sorry that Wesley’s legalism has stifled his sense of humor. That’s not good for his health. I really don’t think this picture is that bad:

Have relentlessly ridiculed, mocked, and borne false witness against the women of Boerne Christian Assembly, both individually and collectively.

To the best of my knowledge, I haven’t said anything untrue about BCA women. As far as I know, I have not said anything true in a mocking manner. I have tried to be kind and fair in my portrayal of them, but I have used them as examples for my thoughts on how women are not valued as they ought to be in Patriarchy. I think the problem is that they have been led to a position that attracts the ridicule of the world, and I am being blamed for that.

Have conspired to secretly tape record conversations with the individuals they seek to defame.

Huh? I have no clue about what Wesley is talking about.

Have (between the two of them) operated, founded, or helped to establish no less than five attack-sites against Doug Phillips which have collectively published tens of thousands of words and untold hundreds of lies, while “exposing,” harassing, and defaming Christian ministers.

This charge begs the question. Doug says that what I say is a lie. I don’t agree, and I support what I say with documents. The length of those documents doesn’t matter, except that if Doug Phillips has done as much harm as I believe, then it makes sense that there would be many words needed to report on that harm. The truth is that all that Mark and I have written is far outweighed by the quantity of comments made by others on my blog, who share their own experiences with Doug Phillips or Vision Forum or offer their own theological critiques. In fact, so far there have been nearly 10,000 comments posted on my site. That’s a remarkable number for such a short time. Instead of blaming me for everything, Doug should ask himself why so many people besides me feel the need to express their concerns about him in public.

Staged publicity stunts (using [Don’s] materials), for which Jennifer Epstein was cited by police for criminal behavior.

My son and I passed out fliers on a back sidewalk until the police were called and all the commotion was brought to the front of the building. Standing on my First Amendment rights is not a crime last time I looked, but it is often a right that is trampled on.

Wesley ends this particular list by stating that “the evidence proving Mark and Jennifer’s complicity in unlawful and potentially criminal activity is voluminous, and we are personally in possession of hundreds of pages which document their role in a far-flung Internet conspiracy to discredit Reformed ministers and ministries.” Sometimes Doug gives me so much credit I have to be careful not to get a big head about it. When I take a reality check and realize that I haven’t actually done these things, I just have to shake my head in wonderment.

Wesley goes on to tell Don Veinot why his “alliance with notorious Internet assassins and church excommunicants is irrefutable,” naming all types of “incontrovertible facts.” These include Don giving me his “diatribe article” for me to use as a “publicity stunt” to “facilitate [my] campaign of hatred” and stating that I claimed that I was working directly with Don; I published private letters from Don on my website; and that Don allowed me to comment on his website, among other allegations of proof of our working together against Doug. I am sorry that I caused Don to sin by my posting a comment on his website. Maybe someone can help me find that verse in Scripture.

Finally, Wesley asks Don some questions about his alliances with “lawless individuals,” stating that he has been “in communication with the Epsteins’ small group of Internet malcontents [that’s you, dear reader] (some of which may be Mrs. Epstein under one of her multiple Internet personalities)…” and why would he “team up with unscrupulous individuals?”

Wesley ends his libelous letter by claiming “this letter is an attempt to restore peace. It is an olive branch…

I end this true article by asking you whether Vision Forum’s letter has really extended an olive branch or actually fired both barrels of a shotgun?

241 Responses to “Doug Phillips Attacks Midwest Christian Outreach Counter-Cult Ministry: Vision Forum Staff Used for Libel Campaign”

  1. Maggie Graham Says:

    Jen, I really appreciate your comment that a church’s focus needs to be on the cross of Christ and not on something else, not even something as important as families. I’ve developed a real hunger in the past dozen or so years for helping connect people with Jesus Christ, in a way that genuinely meets them where they are. I think of all the different kinds of people for whom “We are a family church” is a huge red flag: the divorced, the single, those whose family of origin was a living hell, couples unable to conceive…there are many other situations that make “family church” downright unattractive to some people.

    What I’ve learned is that there is one thing–and very few other things–that people hold in common in their deepest heart-of-hearts: their desperate need for a God who loves them. We Christians have no other Way than Christ to connect them with that God. So if we’re tooting our “we’re a big ol’ family here at XYZ Church” horn instead of proclaiming the crucified and risen Christ, we’re not offering people what they truly need. We all need a Savior; we don’t all need yet another institution/group in which we’re going to be ignored because we’re not married, pitied because we’re not parents, or judged because our family isn’t big enough or being educated the “right” way or not structured around the correct human idol (wrong, I mean “around the man”), or whatever else a homogenous, religiously-correct “family church” happens to be promoting as “god’s way” this year.

    I say again, families are very important. They’re simply not as universally important–not nearly so–as our common human need to come to God and remain vitally connected to God through Jesus Christ.

    (And I’m tired of the religiously-popular idea that women aren’t supposed to be teaching that, or anything else of importance. SOMEONE has to.)

  2. thatmom Says:

    Corrie said: “It is also apparent that Mary and Martha teach us another important thing about women that runs contrary to the hyper-patriarchal teachings. Mary chose the better thing and put aside her role in order to pursue her purpose. There is a time and place for everything and she had her priorities right.

    Her purpose and calling in life was not to be a wife and mother but to be a disciple of Christ. In fact, this is the calling and purpose of all believers, whether they be male or female. Martha put her role in front of her purpose and calling. All of us have various roles that we play. Being a mother and a wife is one of the roles, we as women, may take on. Just like being a father and husband is one of the roles that a man may take on.

    Being a wife and mother is very important and if you make that CHOICE to be a wife and/or mother, then you must take your role seriously and you must submit to the biblical mandates for a wife and/or mother. But, that is not the only thing a woman is and that is not her calling or purpose in this life.

    Was every woman born to be a helpmeet/wife? No, apparently not because 1 Corinthians 7 teaches that being a single woman is a very good choice because it frees her up to serve the Lord completely (not to serve her earthly father and be his pseudo-wife) and it spares her from earthly troubles.

    Every believer is a priest unto God. This is something that you rarely hear in these circles because it is dangerous to emphasize such truths.”

    Well, Corrie, you write these things knowing this is what I personally believe needs to be discussed REPEATEDLY as we attempt to challenge the patriarchal wives.

    I am just beginning to flush this all out and look at what the Scripture teaches about these concepts. But this is one thing that I keep seeing over and over again….the wives of patriarchy interchange the definition of a Christian woman’s “purpose” with the definition of “role” and even of “calling,” using them in such a way that teaches that ALL women have the same purpose, that of being housewives, when, in truth, this cannot be true from Biblical example as well as historically within the history of evangelicalism. It is often done subtly, but it IS taught. A “role” is a part you choose to play. A “purpose”, as you point out, never changes and is the same for all men and women, to love and obey God, to obey the greatest commandments of loving Him and our neighbor as ourselves. (There is a specific purpose for a wife, not all women, and that is as a helpmeet to her husband. But that word is terribly misused to mean “an accessory” as the VF websites quotes Calvin. In reality, the meaning is much richer and connotes strength and being a partner in spiritual warfare.) To elevate the idea of “housewife” or “mother” to the same position as our purpose in life is, imho, idolatry.

    Of course, just saying that, to many people, is interpreted that I am devaluing being a wife and a mother but that isn’t the case at all. In fact, I am both and wife and a mother and I love it. But I think it goes back to Christ’s warning that we are to “hate” mother, father, etc. He isn’t telling us to actually hate our family. He is saying that in comparison to our love for Him, it should seem as though we do. And that is the point. Our purpose in life is so much bigger and more important than our role. When we choose to elevate the role we have chosen, no matter what part we decide we want to play, to the same level as “purpose” we are automatically falling into legalism because what God calls one person to He doesn’t necessarily call another person to do. In fact, for some people it is IMPOSSIBLE to be housewives but does that mean that they have no purpose?

    So where does calling come in? Well, I think your calling is what God places on you really without your own say so. It is the leading of the Holy Spirit, it is His irresistible grace that comes upon each believer, but in different ways and according to different gifts of the Holy Spirit or even what He wants and wills to do in the life of an individual. A man may be called to the ministry and be given many ministry gifts but he may not choose to take on the role of pastor. If a woman becomes pregnant, she is obviously called to motherhood (we really cannot control this if we are wives) but that doesn’t mean that she will assume or choose the role of “housewife.” Many of us here might say that that would be the best thing for her to do, under ordinary circumstances. It is what I would say. However, what if she is called to motherhood and then her husband dies and she must choose to no longer be a housewife and must become a secretary in order to feed her family? Many would say that she must depend on the church to support her but if she is young, she is not considered to be a “widow in deed.” Do you see how important it is to be careful when sorting through these different aspects of Christian womanhood? That is the short version of what I am discovering……

    The question I keep asking is “why” is it so important for everyone to fulfill God’s purposes in the same way?

  3. thatmom Says:

    And as far as the “priesthood of the believer” concept, it has puzzled me as to why this is so anathema. I know it is but I don’t understand why. The Scripture is very clear that we all will stand before the judgment seat of Christ and the we have one mediator, Christ Jesus. I so love this verse:

    “But you are a chosen
    people, a royal priesthood,
    a holy nation,
    a people belonging to God,
    that you may declare the
    praises of Him who called
    you out of darkness into
    His wonderful light.”

    1 Peter 2:9

  4. Maggie Graham Says:

    One very common aspect of patriarchy is the demand for conformity. “Complementarity” is limited to female complementing male. The gifts of the Holy Spirit–which are never said in Scripture to be divided into pink and blue–never enter the picture; I frankly have never seen any of the prominent patriarchalists address spiritual gifts. My impression is that there is little or no freedom within strongly patriarchal systems for the gifts of the Spirit to be in operation.

    And I’m not talking about one gift over and above others, such as tongues or healing, I’m talking about all the gifts in operation for the building up of the body of Christ. IMO, “the patriarch” (be he pastor or teacher or husband) ends up being burdend with the responsibilities that rightly pertain only to the Holy Spirit of God.

  5. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “To elevate the idea of “housewife” or “mother” to the same position as our purpose in life is, imho, idolatry.”

    Quite so, and it is typical CARNAL thinking, to boot.
    Prior to Jesus’s death and ressurrection, everyone was carnal, and spiritually dead. Parenthood and marriage, though excellent things, are carnal — as Paul writes, a married person must be preoccupied with the things of this world — and prior to Jesus, these roles were the highest lifework to which the average human being of either sex could aspire.
    AFTER Jesus, all of that changed. NOW, we are alive SPIRITUALLY, in Christ, and a whole new dimension has been added to human existance and endeavor — now, we have a spiritual calling (to follow Jesus), as well as an earthly role.

    Some choose to pursue the earthly role and marry, and they pursue their spiritual calling within the context of the earthly role; others forgo the carnal role, and throw EVERYTHING in with Jesus to follow Him and promote His Kingdom. Jesus says that they have made the better choice, but there are those in Patriarchal circles who effectively call Him a liar.

  6. thatmom Says:

    Maggie, that is exactly correct.
    And not only do they not discuss the spiritual gifts, but they do not discuss the one anothers of Scripture either. And in my opinion, those are crucial for raising children and for building a strong Christian marriage.

  7. Spunky Says:

    Jen said, “Doug would often say that he was called to be a missionary to Christians. “

    This is actually close to the stated mission of the NCFIC, a ministry of Vision Forum Ministries. From their website (empahsis added)

    “NCFIC’s purpose is to correctly understand God’s unified vision for church and family, rightly diagnose the problems that impede this vision, and effectively communicate biblical solutions that rebuild family-affirming churches. It is a ministry to America’s churches by Christian leaders who see faithful fathers and mothers struggling to find a meaningful, family-affirming relationship with their local church. All the men who work with NCFIC believe in biblical church authority and are all under the oversight of their own local churches with regard to their moral life.”

    They feel they are “missionaries” and as such are totally comfortable soliciting donations from churches to support their missions work. Quoting from the website,

    Would You Consider NCFIC as Part of Your Missionary Outreach?”

    WHAT I am asking…

    The Apostle Paul’s method for missionary support was never to ask for himself but rather to ask on behalf of others. That is the intent of this letter: to ask you to consider the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches as part of your missionary outreach. For that is how we view the work of NCFIC-a support and outreach to help encourage and equip the Church of Jesus Christ.”

    “WHO I am asking…

    Are you a local church leader-a pastor, a shepherd, an elder? Is the work of NCFIC your vision for your church? Then please consider whether NCFIC might have a place in your church’s monthly missions budget.”

    This appeal, written by Scott Brown, makes it appear as though he is humbly asking on behalf of others not himself, but is that completely accurate?

    Again quoting from the website,

    Who are the staff at NCFIC?

    “NCFIC is the fruit of many men’s labors — past, present and future — not just one individual. Our present staff includes Doug Phillips as President, Scott Brown as Director, and an informal network of family-integrated church leaders across the nation.”

    The solicitor, Scott Brown is also a recipient, along with Doug Phillips (and perhaps a few others from the past, present, or future.)

    From their 990 Tax Form, which is available for review from the Economic Research Institute website,

    The Vision Forum Ministries Form 990 year 2005, Doug Phillips was paid $42,570 for an average of 25 hours of work per week, and Scott Brown was paid $53,089 for an average of 30 hours per week.

    Doug Phillips and Scott Brown are both pastors of local congregations. According to Ephesians, “Ephesians 4:11-12 says, “he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ..”

    As pastors, it’s not suprising that Doug Phillips and Scott Brown feel called to the minister to the saints for the edicfication of the body of Christ – it’s part of the biblical job description for a pastor. What is ironic is that they fancy themselves as “missionaries” in this role separate from their role as pastor and feel totally at ease soliciting funds from other churches to support them through their monthly missions budget.

    In essence, Scott Brown is soliciting churches for funds for a tax-exempt organization which compensates both he and Doug Phillips to do work they are already supposed to be doing as a pastors of local churches. It’s not illegal obviously, but is it a biblical model for a Christian pastor?

    Shouldn’t the local assemblies be the entity soliciting funds for this important work to the American church and in turn compensate the pastor or other missionaries accordingly?

    However, the money is NOT given to their local church where they are pastors, but to a separate 501(c)3 organization (Vision Forum Ministries).

    So while the men individually believe in biblical church authority, they appear to believe that it’s okay for a “mission to the church” to be under state authority as a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization.

    Why would a Christian pastor go through a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization for a mission to rebuild the church and solicit funds from other churches, instead of simply going through the local church under the oversight of biblical elders?

    While I can’t say for certain why these particular men would choose state oversight for Vision Forum Ministires, many owners/directors decide to become a 501(c)3 to solicit funds tax-exempt and to provide state protection to owners/directors from business debt and liability.

    I am not taking anything away from the work that these pastors feel called to do as missionaries to Christian families in America, but doesn’t it seem odd to claim that your organization’s purpose is to rebuild a framework for the biblical model between church and family and their proper role in our society and at the same place the accountability for that same work under the authority of the state? Remember the stated purpose of NCFIC says they are to “correctly understand God’s unified vision for church and family, rightly diagnose the problems that impede this vision,”

    The state clearly has no jurisdiction in a church/family matter. In fact, some may convincingly argue that the Humanistic state actively seeks to impede the vision of the Christian church in America by judging Christians according to their rules.

    I didn’t have to look very far to find one who worries about the Humanist state’s involvement in ourlives. Dr. Abshire said in his article defending Doug Phillips, “Don Veinot has just opened the door of YOUR home to the Humanist State and invited them to judge your church, your family and your life according to THEIR rules!”

    I think Abshire is rightly raising an alarm about the threat of the state in the life of the Christian in America, but it isn’t Don Venoit who has just opened that door with his article, Pastor Doug Phillips and Pastor Scott Brown not only opened the door, but sent the Humanistic state an invitation to come join them in their mission to the rebuild the Church according to the rules of the humanistic state and with all the legal protection this provides its owners and directors assets from liability.

    Here’s the website where the NCFIC quotes were taken

    http://www.visionforumministries.org/projects/ncfic/

  8. thatmom Says:

    Spunky, this group just keeps getting more suspect by the day.

  9. Lynn Says:

    [I just posted this to Don’s blog, and though it fit over here very well, too.]

    From Wesley’s letter, which I found on Jen’s site:
    Wesley and Vision Forum accused Jen that she:

    “Worked with “Christian” White Separatists to advance their agenda of gossip and lies against men and ministries.”

    Now here’s an interesting link to look at. I found it today when looking searching “Kinism Constitution Party.”

    http://www.pointsouth.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=SEABROOKH-KINISM&Category_Code=&Store_Code=ABS

    Here is some information from the link, and an advertisement in the sidebar:

    “Apologia Bookstore”
    “What is Kinism? – Harry Seabrook”

    “Republicans & Democrats: taking you down the same dead end highway at different paces. Vote for real change! Vote Constitution Party!”

    Lynn:
    Wesley, you know very well Doug Phillips allies with Christian White Separatists too, via the Constitution Party.

    We all know you are guilty of what you accuse Jen of doing, and all she’s done is post a few times on one of their blog sites.

    YOUR ties and alliances with White Separatists, however, run MUCH deeper and have FAR MORE implications for our country and its future than Jen’s comments on kinists blogs would EVER have.

    It’s very clear to me that the reason Matt Chancey, who is employed by Doug Phillips’ brother Brad, wrote the mrsbinoculars site, is to try to divert attention away from just how deep YOUR connections to White Separatists go, Wesley Strackbein!

  10. Lynn Says:

    The Apologia Book Shop really loves the Constitution Party . . . and links such as this one:

    http://www.pointsouth.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=WILKINSJ-SLAVE&Category_Code=&Store_Code=ABS

    “Southern Slavery (Dabney’s Defence of Virginia) – Rev. J. Steven Wilkins
    Was slavery an unmitigated evil? Not according to the Holy Bible. In this lecture, Rev. Steve Wilkins gives an excellent overview of R.L. Dabney’s “Defense of Virginia,” and warns that we can not ignore this issue. If we say that all slavery is evil, then we contradict the Bible and indict our Southern ancestors. Delivered June A.D. 1997 at the 4th Annual League of the South Conference, Biloxi, Mississippi C.S.A. -Lecture Tape”

  11. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Lynn,
    “Southern Slavery (Dabney’s Defence of Virginia) – Rev. J. Steven Wilkins…..”

    Morgan,
    I wonder how Rev Wilkins would look in leg irons with whip lashes across his back….would he be happy because he was being a biblical slave?????

    League of the South issues also contributed to problems at the PCA church I previously attended.

  12. Cynthia Gee Says:

    The Southern Heritage Society has featured both Howard and Doug Phillips as a lecturer — in 1999, Howard and Doug shared the stage with kinist Steve Wilkins:
    http://www.pointsouth.com/southernheritage/9th.html

    And, their bookstore sells Phillip’s materials:
    http://www.apologiabooks.com/

  13. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Anyone see the latest Bodkin teaser video clip yet? More Jennie Chancey on feminism, although she’s not rolling her eyes so much in this clip. Did you know that Eve was the first feminist when she rebelled against her husband and God? I guess that constitutes simple truth in the black and white world of patriocentricity. All women who ever sought liberty in America hated families, marriage, children…. I guess they were deceived (as all women are by means of their first feminist mother) by the message of Marxism.

    I wonder if “inalienable rights” applies to women in the patriocentric paradigm? Maybe they do but not as many apply to women in comparison to men? If they hate Jefferson’s use of Locke’s principles as written and wrapped within the Constitution, why do they love America so much? Or do they just love their own fantasical version of America? Did they think that our founding fathers got all of that equality and liberty stuff wrong? Without Jefferson and some other non-Puritains, could the other founders have done a better job? Should Witherspoon have dictated it all to Madison, and then we’d have a perfect world now?

  14. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Morgan wrote: “I wonder how Rev Wilkins would look in leg irons with whip lashes across his back….would he be happy because he was being a biblical slave?????”

    The leg irons could be temporary. How about Wilkins having his recently weaned infant or 5 year old child taken from him and sold by his master for filtly lucre? Kevin Giles (in the “Trinity and Subordinationism”) presents the selling of children (and at the time with no means of maintaining contact with them in their lowly station) as perhaps the most devistatingly horrible aspect of slavery. Is this not, from their justified view of slavery, a Biblically sanctioned form of kidnapping and child abuse?

  15. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Shucks.

    I see I spelled Botkin wrong again… “Odds bodkins” slip of irony (or freudian slip if I want to run the risk of further proving that I’m a secular humanist feminist)?

    Sorry.

  16. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Cindy,
    Is this not, from their justified view of slavery, a Biblically sanctioned form of kidnapping and child abuse?

    Morgan, from our point of view it is kidnapping & child abuse but from the Wilkins & associated ilk viewpoint it is necessary to promote the biblical slavery…the end… biblical slavery justifies the means (inhumanity towards your fellow man) to achieve its desired end.

    You would not believe HOW MANY PEOPLE in southern presbyterian churches believe in this crazy stuff and I am talking about people in major metropolitan areas!!!! People that are supposed to be educated and have some sort of moral and ethical sense completely lose all sense of morality and ethical and one another behavior after listening to the ravings of people like Wilkins and his minions.

  17. Jonathan Says:

    here is a response to Wilkins and Wilsons brand of biblical slavery from a symposium some time ago. I believe it was about the same time the Wilson’s plagarized book “Southern Slavery as it Was” was first published.

    http://www.joshualetter.org/slavery/index.htm

    Here’s another interesting article. It’s not related to Slavery but it gives a history of what went on at the Reconstructionist church in Tyler Texas. It appears to parallel some of the nonsense that comes out of Vision Forums…..anyway. Enjoy.

    http://theonomists.blogspot.com/

    Jonathan

  18. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “You would not believe HOW MANY PEOPLE in southern presbyterian churches believe in this crazy stuff and I am talking about people in major metropolitan areas!!!! People that are supposed to be educated and have some sort of moral and ethical sense completely lose all sense of morality and ethical and one another behavior after listening to the ravings of people like Wilkins and his minions.”

    I believe it… I lived in Central Florida near Ligonier ministries for over 10 years, and I drove a taxicab in the area. You wouldn’t BELIEVE the stuff I heard, that’s how I started researching these nutcases.
    What’s even sadder is how many people in Southern states have lost faith in the church because of people with belief systems like this. In many places in the South, Christians are looked down upon as a bunch of violent, ignorant bigoted rednecks who are little better than Islamic fundamentalists.

  19. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Now this may seem off topic, but go to this link and listen to Warren Jeffs’ sermon clips. So much sounds so familiar!

    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/flds.rape/index.html?section=cnn_latest#cnnSTCOther1

    (I did notice that it was provided by the Southern Poverty Law Center, and I think that they are actual, legitimate feminists by reputation. They follow the Constitution Party fairly closely.)

  20. Corrie Says:

    “Anyone see the latest Bodkin teaser video clip yet? More Jennie Chancey on feminism, although she’s not rolling her eyes so much in this clip. Did you know that Eve was the first feminist when she rebelled against her husband and God? I guess that constitutes simple truth in the black and white world of patriocentricity. All women who ever sought liberty in America hated families, marriage, children…. I guess they were deceived (as all women are by means of their first feminist mother) by the message of Marxism.”

    Egads!!! This horribly bad theology makes my brain hurt.

    Eve didn’t rebel against Adam. She rebelled against God. Adam rebelled against God. How do they know that Eve rebelled against her husband? What scripture do they get this from? When will these people ever just stick with what the Bible says and stop with the idols of their own making.

    The Fall was ALL about God. For all we know, Adam could have been secretly wanting to see exactly what would happen if that fruit was eaten and seeing the opportunity arise (since he was right there with her), he just stood back and waited. When he saw that she ate it and nothing happened to her, he could have thought that there were no consequences to eating the forbidden fruit.

    We see no rebellion of Eve in her relationship with Adam. That is a ludicrous statement and any theologian worth their salt would start exposing the error and the LIE that is being propagated. That is called eisegesis . They are reading INTO the text what they want it to say so that their misreading will shore up their faulty belief system.

  21. CD-Host Says:

    I wonder if “inalienable rights” applies to women in the patriocentric paradigm? Maybe they do but not as many apply to women in comparison to men? If they hate Jefferson’s use of Locke’s principles as written and wrapped within the Constitution, why do they love America so much? Or do they just love their own fantasical version of America? Did they think that our founding fathers got all of that equality and liberty stuff wrong? Without Jefferson and some other non-Puritains, could the other founders have done a better job?

    Cindy —

    If you are asking these questions seriously, Gary North’s Politicaly Polytheism is a good discussion of these issues from something fairly close to their position. While it was written quickly it is a quick read and quite informative.

  22. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Corrie wrote: “We see no rebellion of Eve in her relationship with Adam.”

    Actually, you could argue that Eve consulted Adam for input….

    Ah, good old primogeniture and subordinationism. My, my… I must be getting better (healing from the condition of patriarchy and patriocentricity) since I’m not getting as emotionally engaged as I did over these things just a few months ago. (Not that I don’t have my moments!!!) It’s a different worldview and it is not orthodox. Granted, mine may not be either, but I aspire to be more orthodox at the end of the race than I was when I started, by God’s great grace. (That’s something you definitely don’t hear from the VF crowd and croanies — the poor in spirit message of “I will consider this for I may be wrong. I trust truth to prove me right.”)

  23. Corrie Says:

    Could someone explain to me, in easy to understand terms (think 5th- 6th grade) what Marxism has to do with feminism?

    I am not really up on my Marxist history and I don’t have the time to do a lot of research to get up to speed on this. But, I heard this claim being made a lot in this group. Feminism came out of Marxism? Why? How?

    Jennie tells us that feminism “goes back to Eden”. What follows is a word for word quote from that film clip Cindy mentioned:

    “Because Eve was the first feminist. Because the heart of feminism is not what God says but what I say. That is the heart of almost any “ism” out there today. Not what God says but what I say goes. “I don’t like this whole idea about women submit and that women are more easily deceived, so forget that, I am going to do my own thing.” That started in Eden but in our country it started in the 1840’s. Right alongside the rise of Marxism in the 1840’s over in Europe. And Marxist ideas came over here, they were built into the womens movement from the very beginning: Let’s get rid of marriage, let’s get rid of child-bearing, let’s get rid of unwanted children through abortion. You won’t realize it goes back that far but it does.”

    Now, I am TOTALLY against abortion. I am totally against the whole “my way or the highway” or “anything goes”. We serve a Holy God and He expects His people to come before Him and serve Him with honor and treat Him as Holy.

    Is she saying that the suffragette movement was born out of Marxism? I thought that the suffragettes were against abortion and mostly God-fearing women?

    It seems to me that feminism is a catch-all for: anyone who disagrees with me and my eisegesis of scripture is a feminist.

    For me, I need to someone in that camp to explain to me how it is that Eve was the first feminist? That would mean that ALL sinners are “feminists” because all sinners (myself included) believe that we know better than God. That is just a silly way to phrase things. What is a male sinner called when he sins and does what he wants to do because he doesn’t want to submit to God or to “one another”? Is that called “pride”? Well, then pride would be the sin of Eve, Adam and the Serpent. Not feminism! I would really like people to use words the Bible uses to describe sin.

    Even was THOROUGHLY deceived. I don’t think she was thinking like Jennie says she was thinking. Being deceived is a different animal than willful sin. Just look at Leviticus. There is a difference between unintentional sin and willful sin and the punishment is different. The first one is remedied by a sin and guilt offering. There was no remedy for the second kind, that I can see. Maybe that is the key to what happened in the Garden and the difference between Adam and Eve? Adam willfully sinned. Eve was thoroughly deceived. (BTW, women are NOT more easily deceived. Look around and take notes throughout history. That should vanish that bit of propaganda.) Surely we recognize the difference between the two? I am NOT saying that Eve’s sin was any less of a sin. I am not making excuses for what happened. I know plenty of men who have been thoroughly deceived and plenty of women who have willfully sinned.

  24. Maggie Graham Says:

    I think they base that whole “Eve rebelled against Adam” because they read a hierarchical relationship into the creation narrative. It might also be tied to the common but false interpretation that when God tells the woman, “Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you,” that it means she desires to rule him. It doesn’t. And note that God doesn’t tell either the woman or the man that the man is commanded to rule over her, only that now with sin a fact of their lives, he WILL (voluntary act) rule over her–and she’ll desire him ANYWAY. Some people say that the man being created first, or the woman being created from the man, means that he’s in a position of authority or leadership over her. That’s not suggested in any way by the text, either. Then there’s the whole “But Adam named Eve.” Hagar named God, too, but that doesn’t make Hagar an authority over God!

    For Eve to have “rebelled against” Adam, Adam would first have had to be in positional authority over her. We simply don’t have anything scriptural to support such an assertion.

  25. Corrie Says:

    “I wonder if “inalienable rights” applies to women in the patriocentric paradigm? Maybe they do but not as many apply to women in comparison to men? If they hate Jefferson’s use of Locke’s principles as written and wrapped within the Constitution, why do they love America so much? Or do they just love their own fantastical version of America? Did they think that our founding fathers got all of that equality and liberty stuff wrong? Without Jefferson and some other non-Puritans, could the other founders have done a better job? Should Witherspoon have dictated it all to Madison, and then we’d have a perfect world now?”

    Cynthia,

    I think the Constitution was only written to men. That
    would be the only thing that explains your answer. 🙂

  26. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    CD Host wrote: “If you are asking these questions seriously, Gary North’s Politicaly Polytheism is a good discussion of these issues from something fairly close to their position. While it was written quickly it is a quick read and quite informative.”

    No, it’s more of a rhetorical statement of incredulity and offense. These fellas desperately love America, but not all of it which makes absolutely no sense to me regarding the egalitarian virtues inherent in our documents from the beginning. In favor of worldview presuppositions that are brought to study of Scripture, I think that due to our human nature, there’s a degree of selective attention. We all do that. Stepping back from one’s framework to see if it’s constructed properly is a tremendously hard thing to do. It’s intensely emotional and often bound to identity as a result.

    In favor of their preferences, I believe that too much emphasis is placed on some of these OT references regarding racial issues (as is the case with patriocentricity). When Jesus united us IN HIM, I believe and interpret the NT to support that many of these race and gender issues were fulfilled in Christ. Jesus consorted with women and dared teach them. Paul did, and apparently allowed women to teach and have authority (depending on how you read all of that).

    I may copy this North reference into a word file and store with some of these other things for easy reference, however. Maybe I’ll learn something new with which I won’t agree?

  27. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Corrie wrote: ” I think the Constitution was only written to men. That would be the only thing that explains your answer. ”

    See, this is proof that our founding fathers never intended for women to vote! I see it all so clearly now….
    (yeah, right.)

  28. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Oh, and of course, that great “egalitarian proof text” which those fellas claim is denouncing egalitarianism and arguing only patriocentricity (CBMW), as there no longer Jew nor Greek, this applies to race. Our civil authority drew upon this concept to give us inalienable rights. Yes, there was still slavery, but Roman law and Jewish law was not based on the principles of liberty and Christian service after Christ’s example. So these OT rules about taking of wives from among the Canaanites were done away with because there is no racial superiority or inferiority In Christ. (We are admonished to not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers and makes no statement of race, so my claim is not antinomian.)

  29. Lin Says:

    “It seems to me that feminism is a catch-all for: anyone who disagrees with me and my eisegesis of scripture is a feminist. ”

    Exactly. Now what is the definition of a feminist? It is kind of subjective, isn’t it?

    Genesis is interesting in that there seems to be a macro account (Gen 1) and a micro account (Gen 2). In the micro account we see lots of detail including Adam being around to see some ‘creating’. He saw the Glory of God in action.

    If we go by creation ‘order’ then what about cows? Why not create man first THEN the animals? (I know, I know..)

    Creation ‘order’ teaching is causing all sorts of heresy out there. Some are even teaching eternal subordination within the Trinity to bolster this point of view. (Some of this is even coming from CBMW) to claim that hierarchies are built into everything.

    Where is the hierarchy in “one flesh”?

    I must be a radical feminist to even ask such a question?

  30. Maggie Graham Says:

    Corrie, it’s just another example of people smearing others through use of the dreaded “f” word (“feminism”) or the “L” word (“liberal”) or the tired old “red scare” (communism). If she accuses people of such dread things, she doesn’t HAVE to substantiate her accusations if she makes them scary enough.

    If Jennie Chancey and the other folks out there who love to smear other Christians with their “dirty” names, would just stop and think about the REAL meaning of the words, they might realize that their attacks just aren’t warranted. Oh, but their whole position is based on the attacks, isn’t it? They’ve got to have their “godless” targeted groups to rail against, even if their accusations are completely false.

    For the record, feminism is the belief that women and men are both fully human and entitled to equal human rights. If they’re scared of the true meaning of feminism, they ought to ask themselves why. Just because some people who hold feminism to be true may well be in favor of abortion, doesn’t make feminists automatically pro-abortion. Just because communism purports to promote equal rights for all people in order, doesn’t make feminists communists. Feminism has always been with us, mostly “underground” throughout history. And as for communism, it can be argued that the first-century church in Jerusalem, who “held all things in common,” were among the first “communists.”

    I could say more, but I have places to go and people to serve. IMO, Jennie Chancey appears to know about as much about what feminism REALLY means as I do about quantum mechanics.

  31. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    Maggie wrote: “If Jennie Chancey and the other folks out there who love to smear other Christians with their “dirty” names, would just stop and think about the REAL meaning of the words, they might realize that their attacks just aren’t warranted.”

    Ah, but they cant. If they stop, look for patriarchy to come crashing down and shattering into oblivion. This is a “milieu control” and “loading the language” thought reform technique. Without it, Jezzie can snach all the women and children away into Canaan! If for some reason this all stops, the patriarchal earth will stop spinning on its axis.

  32. Cindy Kunsman Says:

    I went and listened to Warren Jeffs audio clips again:
    http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/26/flds.rape/index.html?section=cnn_latest#cnnSTCOther1

    Substitute “feminist” for “negro,” and Jeffs sounds like Phillips and almost like Jennie Chancey. And the last half sounds strangely reminiscent of Gothard.

  33. Maggie Graham Says:

    Wouldn’t that be something? People actually ALL having to abide by Scripture’s commands to love and honor and respect and submit ourselves to one another, without those who possess worldly positions of authority wielding their greater power to advantage over those with less?

    We who see through the whole worldly pattern are a definite threat: not to the patriarchalists as people, but to their worldview as biblically untenable. We’re living proof that buying into that worldly pattern doesn’t make one a faithful Christian; faithful obedience to Jesus Christ does.

  34. sarah Says:

    “IMO, Jennie Chancey appears to know about as much about what feminism REALLY means as I do about quantum mechanics.”

    I’m howling with laughter.

  35. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “No, it’s more of a rhetorical statement of incredulity and offense. These fellas desperately love America, but not all of it which makes absolutely no sense to me regarding the egalitarian virtues inherent in our documents from the beginning.”

    That’s because they ignore any facts that are inconvenient, and revise (lie about) those facts that they cannot ignore. The HyperPs have invented a mythic American past , and are trying to create a mythic, totalitarian American future, with themselves at the controls.
    They thoroughly hate the real America, past and present, and would like nothing better than to see it fall.

  36. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Cynthia Gee,

    I believe it… I lived in Central Florida near Ligonier ministries for over 10 years, and I drove a taxicab in the area. You wouldn’t BELIEVE the stuff I heard, that’s how I started researching these nutcases.
    What’s even sadder is how many people in Southern states have lost faith in the church because of people with belief systems like this. In many places in the South, Christians are looked down upon as a bunch of violent, ignorant bigoted rednecks who are little better than Islamic fundamentalists.

    Morgan,
    This is the best summation of it I have heard. When I tell people that I do not believe the wacky stuff they espouse …they look at me like theres something wrong with me. I have distanced myself from the christian right movement and do not even use the word evangelical to describe myself.

    I am just a plain old christian….you know the weird kind…

    Love mercy, do justice, walk humbly with my God,
    To love my neighbor as myself

  37. CD-Host Says:

    Could someone explain to me, in easy to understand terms (think 5th- 6th grade) what Marxism has to do with feminism?

    I am not really up on my Marxist history and I don’t have the time to do a lot of research to get up to speed on this. But, I heard this claim being made a lot in this group. Feminism came out of Marxism? Why? How?

    My guess is that she is sort of right accidentally. I’m covering this in detail in part 6 of patriarchy. But the 3 sentence answer.

    Feminism and marxism are first cousins. Let “->” be is child of .
    Jacobians -> Free Love and Radical Party
    Free Love + Romantics -> European feminists
    Radical Party + Hegelians -> European Marxists

    Of course in terms of America:
    American Feminism came out of the 1800’s and 1820’s european feminism. There is very little cross over after that until the 1950s. Marxism starts as a reaction to 1848.

    I’m not sure what she means. I’m not sure she knows what she means. But…. there are some things that she could mean which happen to be correct.

  38. Maggie Graham Says:

    Over a year ago, I watched in fascinated horror as a very pro-patriarchalist woman accused feminists and egalitarians of being Communists. She did this on Susan Wise Bauer’s blog, in response to an entry Susan wrote about a then-upcoming review she was doing on John Stackhouse’s book, “Finally Feminist.” According to the accuser, it was a fair accusation because Communists believe everyone is equal.

    To me, that’s like saying since my dear late Granny is dead, and King Tutankhamen is dead, and the Boy King was Egyptian, Granny was therefore Egyptian. (Just for the record, my dear Granny was a third-generation American whose grandparents came over from Ireland during the Potato Famine).

    But hey…don’t knock the tactic! How often do you see someone smite her enemies with the double-whammy of the “f” word AND “commie”?

  39. Corrie Says:

    Cindy,

    The Jeff’s audio tapes were quite creepy! Just in time for Halloween! 😉

    Truly, rock music has the “spirit of the black race” and that spirit leads to filthy things and sexual immorality?!? You are right that it does have shades of Gothard but what Gothard says about the connection between the rock beat and African devil worship music pales in comparison to what Jeffs has said about it. It is a wonder, after listening to those clips, that he had as many followers as he did. His voice creeps me out. I would have bolted for the nearest exit. I hope his whole sect comes tumbling down now that he has been found guilty. I pray that someone will set those captives free and deliver those oppressed female CHILDREN from forced marriages to old pedophiles.

  40. Corrie Says:

    One thing that realy makes me chuckle is that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, the founder and co-founder of Marxism, look like patriarchs. They have some very impressive beards.

    Maggie, I like your King Tut analogy. It is very good.

    One thing I am struck with is that one of the tenets of Marxism was its emphasis on class and how class was tied in with the mode/method of production and not tied into one’s wealth.

    I wonder if that might be an issue with why Marxism is hurled at anyone who disagrees with the HyperP’s teachings?

    Also, if one is concerned about the fact that many people in poverty are exploited and oppressed, does that make them a Marxist? It would seem that if we are to look at all things through the lenses of the patriocentrics, we would even be able to accuse God of being a Marxist since there are many scriptures about sharing all things in common and not giving preference to those who are rich or in power and delivering the oppressed.

    It looks like Marxism and Communism are basically first cousins?

    I did read that exhange on Susan’s board and it doesn’t surprise me. I have heard all of that many times before.

    CD-Host,

    Thank you for the lesson on Marxist roots.

  41. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Communism was basically an outgrowth of Marxism.
    Actually, if you set aside Marx’s atheistic teachings, one can’t help but notice that Marx’s sociological teachings have far more in common with the teachings of Christ than do the sociological teachings of the HyperPs.

  42. Maggie Graham Says:

    I don’t know if the “hyper-Ps” (good shorthand, Corrie!) realize how revisionist and elitist their position really is. What they advocate is a past that never really was, based on selective adoption of various practices that the wealthy of past ages did–not because the practices were godly, but because that’s simply what wealthy people of the day did.

    For example, in societies in which people voted, it was only landowners who did so. Yes, it could only be male landowners, but it was the status of landowner, not being male, that made determined one’s eligibility to vote.

    Another example is the model in which women stayed home and taught the children. Two problems with that: only wealthy women stayed in THEIR homes. Poor women often didn’t HAVE homes other than their employers/masters’ homes. Most children were not educated, because their mothers AND fathers were themselves uneducated and they lacked the resources to send their children to school or to engage tutors, governors/governesses, etc. The mothers and the children worked alongside the fathers to keep the family from starving.

    I’m not saying that no woman should ever stay home and/or educate her children. I’m merely saying that those hyper-Ps who say that is THE biblical model are either deceived or deceivers. As for the household voting stuff, that’s not biblical in the least. How many times is voting even mentioned in Scripture? I consider the male-only vote position of the FV-ists to be a slap in the face to those godly women and men who were maimed and killed in the struggle for ALL American citizens to enjoy the right and responsibility to vote. I personally think they all ought to boycott any election that has been organized/administered/facilitated in any way by the League of Women Voters. (evil grin)

  43. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I’m merely saying that those hyper-Ps who say that is THE biblical model are either deceived or deceivers.”

    It’s poetic justice really. As best as I can tell, they started creating this mythic American past back in the early 90’s, at the same time that the US Taxpayers Party (later re-named the Constitution Party) was stirring people up out in California. Pat Robertson smelled a good deal when it came his way, and he jumped on the bandwagon, along with Phil Lancaster and others, who were trying to make a buck speculating on real estate in the face of the Y2K scare.
    The poetic justice comes into play when you stop to consider that many of these guys have come to believe in their own myth, and are in love with an America that never was.

  44. Corrie Says:

    “For Eve to have “rebelled against” Adam, Adam would first have had to be in positional authority over her. We simply don’t have anything scriptural to support such an assertion.”

    Maggie,

    Good thoughts. Also, not only would we have to have positional authority but we would have to have proof that Adam told Eve not to eat the fruit and she went against *him* anyway. We have no such record. In fact, it appears we have the opposite.

    I wonder if they argue this way because God told Adam not to eat of the fruit of that particular tree and then Adam told his wife? Therefore, she didn’t directly disobey God but disobeyed Adam?

    But, this falls apart very quickly. If I tell someone that God has said that we should not steal and they steal, they are not rebelling against me but against God.

    It also reminds me of Gothard’s teaching on this when he says that Eve ate of the fruit in order to be like her husband! But, scripture clearly shows us that Eve was deceived into believing that the fruit would make her like GOD, not her husband, by knowing good and evil. Eve and Adam were exactly the same in their knowledge of good and evil before they ate the fruit, so why would Eve eat the fruit to be like her husband when she was already like him?

    Satan asked Eve specifically if GOD had actually said that she may not eat of the trees in the garden.

    And she told him that GOD SAID they may eat of all the trees except for the one in the middle of the garden and then she added that they cannot even touch it lest they die.

    That means that her rebellions was against God and God alone. I have no idea why they are trying to make this into an issue of wifely insubordination? Well, I do but I don’t agree with it.

    Gen. 1:29

    “And God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food.”

    Notice that this verse says that God gave “you”, Adam and Eve, EVERY tree with seed in its fruit and that they should have them for food. The “you” is plural because at this point God is speaking to both of them about taking dominion over the earth and the animals.

    Gen. 2:15

    The LORD God took the man(O) and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. 16And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil(P) you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat[d] of it you(Q) shall surely die.

    So, here we see God giving Adam the command that he may not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden. This is a singular “you” since he was only speaking to Adam at this point- Eve was not created yet.

    Gen. 3:1
    He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,(B) ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'” 4(C) But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,[b] she took of its fruit(D) and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her,(E) and he ate.

    I don’t know what exactly to make of these verses.

    First, we have it recorded that God told Adam and Eve that EVERY tree was theirs to eat from and there was no qualfication recorded.

    Second, we have God telling Adam BEFORE Eve was formed, that he may surely eat from every tree except from the one in the middle of the garden.

    Third, we have Eve telling Satan that God has said that they may not eat from this tree nor may they touch the tree.

    I don’t know how to rectify the first with the second. I also don’t know who is responsible for adding to God’s word. Was it Adam who added to God’s word when he told her that God had told him that he may not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden? Or was it Eve who added to God’s word?

    Either way, adding to God’s word is a big no-no. God didn’t say that they may not touch it. But, then again, why would they even want to touch it when eating it would cause them to die? It sort of makes sense that they would see touching the fruit as being off limits when eating it would cause them to die. It would be playing with fire. So, maybe it wasn’t adding to God’s word at all but a logical deduction of “one thing leads to another”? Familiarity causes one to let down their guard and letting down one’s guard causes them to view something that was once clearly off-limits as something doubtful. What better way to get familiar with something by touching it?

  45. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I also don’t know who is responsible for adding to God’s word. Was it Adam who added to God’s word when he told her that God had told him that he may not eat from the tree in the middle of the garden? Or was it Eve who added to God’s word?”

    Don’t know about Adam, but Eve obviously did, just as Gothard, Chancey, the Botkins sisters, and Doug are still doing today.

  46. thatmom Says:

    Marxism, French Revolution, women’s suffrage, abolitionism,etc. Why is it that these people never, ever mention that these things happened as a reaction and a response to terrible injustices to human beings at the hands of those who abused others in the name of hierarchy? In fact, how many of those abusers actually did so in the name of Christianity? It is appalling. The reasoning behind this is that ANY egalitarianism equals Marxism equals sin to these people. In fact, how many have intimated that it is a bad thing for women to even blog or express opinions if you outside this particular group?

    As far as the earliest “feminists” in the 1840’s are concerned, the statement that they were pro-abortion is simply a lie. The majority of suffrages and abolitionists were absolutely pro-life and much of their agenda was to protect women and babies, both born and unborn, from the horrors of slavery, the selling of babies who were stolen from the arms of their mothers, and from the secret abortion mills that provided a cover up for adulterous men. Many of these babies were fathered by those within the hierarchy, the “patriarch” of the Old Dominion, sold away at the prompting of the plantation mistresses because they were a constant reminder of their husbands’ adulteries.

    Also, at this time, single women who inherited property lost all their ownership rights if they married. They lost their children, too, if the husband decided to walk away from the marriage. Again, abuses at the hands of an abusive hierarchy. If this is the country the Dabneyites long for, Lord deliver us all.

    I know that “good Christian women” would never read here, but may I suggest http://www.feministsforlife.com as a terrific resource for the original writings of the women who led the suffrage movement? Any honest researcher will not portray these women as radical, bra-burning, baby killers. What Jennie Chancey intimated is a slap in the face to the pro-life movement in this country and the heritage we have from these women, most of whom, by the way, were stay at home moms with large families who wrote books and spoke at conferences in their free time!

  47. thatmom Says:

    oops, that should say “suffragettes” This makes me so mad that my keyboard is smokin’!!!

  48. Maggie Graham Says:

    Thatmom, I see it this way: It’s reasonable to push any popular theory to its logical end. If that end is unacceptable, it’s prudent to at least question the theory.

    The problem is, too many people invent illogical ends to theories they don’t like, but refuse to hear about the logical ones for their own theories. Thus, we have hyper-patriarchs pontificating about the “heresy” of equality, yet promote “federal vision” as though it’s gospel truth.

    I think it irks them no end that some of us have a healthy skepticism and practice discernment. (Just call me “Beetle Maggie”!)

  49. Weighing In Says:

    “Been excommunicated and adjudged to be treated as “heathen and publican” with the unanimous affirmation of a confessional church for ongoing (sometimes public, but always) serious sins, including habitual lying, revilings, and cruelty on the part of both husband and wife directly related to Mrs. Epstein’s past adultery with a Muslim which produced a child out of wedlock.”

    Jen said, “This is what I was excommunicated for? I was excommunicated for sins I committed before I was a Christian, now 17 years ago, and for which I fully repented a year later? I later put that repentance into writing and Doug Phillips agreed that I had fully repented. And now Vision Forum is stating that my excommunication and all my sins are directly related to my pre-conversion past. I’m pleased to see that Vision Forum has finally admitted in writing what I have said from the beginning. I am also pleased that, although Doug Phillips and Vision Forum do not appear to understand grace and the forgiveness of sins, the Lord did not need their mediation to give it to me.”
    ———————————————————————————————————–
    Jen, this is just one of the reasons I have doubts about the things you say. I also doubt whether any of your blind followers really care about the actual truth. I personally see you all as Doug haters, out to destroy rather than restore.

    Jen, your emphasis is on the wrong words. Did anyone notice the words, ONGOING, PUBLIC SINS, RELATED TO?

    Someone should have pointed out this misrepresentation to you, but none of you really care to be accurate in your statements. They are mostly emotional outbursts spewing forth vile venom and mockery.

    It is very obvious to those who read this with an open mind that on this particular statement, the problem was with the continued sin of the present, not the past sin.
    Your husband was threatening to leave your family, you were afraid at times for your life. You guys had serious sin problems in your marriage, anybody remember the bed issue?

    Read the statement again, it is clear that you were not excommunicated for your past pre-Christian sin.

    You were also accused of ongoing habitual lying, that sins continues to this day and this is a perfect example.

    Everything else you say might possibly be true, (they aren‘t because I also see other misrepresentations and lies just like this one), your credibility is damaged, to those who are not choosing sides, but are concerned with absolute truth.

    One reason I quit reading your site for so long was because, while I have some respect for you, I have no respect for those who do your dirty work for you. You may be cool, calm and collected and try to remain “clean” in the midst of this dirty mess, but others are nasty in their gossip and mockery and sinful in their behavior. You will be the one to bear responsibility for their continued behavior on your blog.

    I wish that you had just told your story and kept your blog without the continued comments from your groupies. But, I’m sure that that is exactly what has kept you going all this time.

    So long and farewell.

    Weighing In, for the last time.

  50. CD-Host Says:

    Corrie —

    I don’t know what to make of your point, but just thought I’d point out an issue that’s more noticeable in the Hebrew than in your english.

    In 2:16 eat is alk thakl.

    Normally you would just use the one “you may eat” but by adding the next one he is emphasizing this “you may surely eat”.

    In 3:1 in Eve’s version the emphasis is missing “you may eat”.

    As for your point about the you being singular in 2:16 … well that’s the problem with a modern translation. Its a “thou” in old fashioned translations… yes its singular.

  51. sarah Says:

    My dear Weighing In,

    At least Jen allows herself to be held accountable. That is the major difference in this situation. DP has none, so far as anyone can tell. He even refuses to answer the simple theological questions of respected groups like Midwest Christian Outreach.

    I suggest you go back to doing whatever Vision Forum intern task you’re working on today . . .

  52. Corrie Says:

    Hi CD-Host,

    I am not sure what my point was! 🙂

    Basically, I am trying to reconcile Genesis 1 with Genesis 2 where it says in Gen. 1 that they may eat of all the trees in the garden and that is where God is telling both Adam and Eve that they may eat of ALL the trees in the garden to Genesis 2 where God tells only Adam the prohibition concerning the ONE tree.

    ” In 2:16 eat is alk thakl.

    Normally you would just use the one “you may eat” but by adding the next one he is emphasizing this “you may surely eat”. ”

    Yes, I see in the Hebrew where it tells Adam that he may “eat eat”. That is an interesting point.

    “In 3:1 in Eve’s version the emphasis is missing “you may eat”.

    As for your point about the you being singular in 2:16 … well that’s the problem with a modern translation. Its a “thou” in old fashioned translations… yes its singular.”

    Another interesting point. I did say that the “you” is singular in 2:16 but in Genesis 1 it is plural, right?

    I guess I am trying to get straight what exactly is happening in these first few chapters of Genesis since the patriarchalists tend to add a LOT into these chapters and then teach these additions as things the Bible actually says went on.

    So, in Gen. 1 God told Adam and Eve that the fruit of EVERY tree is as meat to them. In Gen. 2, God told only Adam that the tree in the middle of the garden is verboten. In Gen 3, we have, what it appears, to be the adding of “not touch” to the prohibition and now, as you have pointed out, the taking away of the emphasis on “eat eat” and replacing it with only one “eat”.

  53. Jen Says:

    “Been excommunicated and adjudged to be treated as “heathen and publican” with the unanimous affirmation of a confessional church for ongoing (sometimes public, but always) serious sins, including habitual lying, revilings, and cruelty on the part of both husband and wife directly related to Mrs. Epstein’s past adultery with a Muslim which produced a child out of wedlock.”

    Weighing In: “Jen, your emphasis is on the wrong words. Did anyone notice the words, ONGOING, PUBLIC SINS, RELATED TO?”

    Weighing In, thank you for bringing to my attention an apparent discrepancy in my article. Here is the specific list of sins according to the disciplinary action letter of January 23, 2005:

    We are both accused of:

    1. Unconfessed sin
    2. Lack of repentance
    3. Bitterness
    4. Lack of love
    5. Jurisdictional abandonment and/or usurpation
    6. Using children as weapons against each other

    As individuals, [Mark] is accused of:

    1. Unforgiveness and lovelessness*
    2. Not being under authority
    3. Threats of divorce*
    4. Anger*
    5. Lack of family leadership*

    Jennifer is accused of:

    1. Rebellion against her husband and local church
    2. Gossip spreading
    3. Mean-spirited treatment of others
    4. Refusing to acknowledge sins
    5. Claiming a near sinlessness

    Going back to Wesley’s statement, do you see habitual lying? Revilings? Cruelty directly related to adultery?

    I know where you are going with that last one, and it was addressed in the disciplinary action statement, but it was not listed as one of my sins I need to repent from. Let me refer you to this little story about the bed again, keeping in mind that my husband agrees with this version of the story 100%. If I was not excommunicated for the adultery I confessed to and repented from 17 years ago, then why bring it up?

    Now, was I excommunicated for public sins? No. Have I committed any public sins in the last year of my blogging about Ligonier and BCA? Probably dozens. I am a sinner just like everyone else. However, I have attempted to be truthful, fair, and charitable in all my dealings here.

    I’m sure I have often failed, and maybe one of my failures is in not keeping stricter control on my commenters. However, Weighing In, if I did that, I would have to censure this very comment of yours because it is no more charitable than any of the others you so decry here. So I have chosen to let each one speak according to their own conscience, and I step in only when necessary to bring peace and order. Thanks for weighing in!

  54. CD-Host Says:

    Corrie –

    Yes you did say that regarding “you”. I read it wrong and then repeated in a less organized fashion what you had said regarding you. So agree to all you have written.

    And now that this is cleared up yes she attributes the command to Elohim. I’d say your case is proven. Write it into the FAQ (why not start one an Pineapple pundit?)

  55. Bryan Says:

    Jen:

    Interesting article by Don you linked to. Also interesting is the article Don links to on Battered Sheep called “How Could This Happen In the PCA?”. While the author of that two part article does not name names, he does use initials, and the initials of the pastor involved, “BA”, at a church in the Pacific Northwest, makes for very interesting reading. I wonder if there’s a pastor with those initials who ever pastored a PCA church in the Pacific Northwest (say, uh, Spokane, just as an out-of-the-blue example) ?

    Sounds like the “Christian Mafia” to me.

  56. CD-Host Says:

    Speaking of the initials could somebody provide a guide.

    I’m assuming BA = Brian Abshire from Bryon’s joke. who are the others?

  57. Maggie Graham Says:

    “Blind followers” and “groupies”??

    My pardon, dear Kettle, but black is SO your color!

    (not in any particular hurry to buy a pair of dark glasses and a Bic lighter to wave)

  58. Bryan Says:

    “I suggest you go back to doing whatever Vision Forum intern task you’re working on today . . .”

    Methinks monitoring this blog IS the task du jour…

  59. Maggie Graham Says:

    Hmmm…wouldn’t that be a matter of using an employer’s computer for personal use????

  60. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Not if he’s a VF intern, and he’s been assigned the job of “JenWatch”….

  61. Bryan Says:

    Well, it’s not a government computer, and he’s been given permission by his employer. Therefore, it doesn’t classify as a “vile scheme”.

  62. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Well, it’s not a government computer, and he’s been given permission by his employer. Therefore, it doesn’t classify as a “vile scheme”.

    Yeah, it’s small-time stuff… mere peccant, planned picayune peeping.

  63. Maggie Graham Says:

    Oh, I see.

    It’s bad when somebody who isn’t set on smearing Jen reads her blog on the employer’s computer, but it’s good when the employee IS set on smearing Jen and/or doing the smearing so the employer’s hands are “clean.”

    Why didn’t I see it before? (smacks forehead)

    Maybe I *do* need those dark glasses!

    (grins)

  64. Bryan Says:

    [Quote]: “It’s bad when somebody who isn’t set on smearing Jen reads her blog on the employer’s computer, but it’s good when the employee IS set on smearing Jen and/or doing the smearing so the employer’s hands are “clean.” ”

    NOW you are starting to think like a TRUE VF’er. Have you perchance been drinking any grape Kool Aid lately?

    ***********************************************

    George Orwell, “1984”:

    “You are a slow learner, Winston,” said O’Brien gently.

    “How can I help it?” he blubbered. “How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four.”

    “Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.”

  65. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Sniff sniff… is that the aroma of moral relativism I detect?

  66. Lynn Says:

    NO, no, you all! 😉 You’re forgetting that BCA is a non-profit subsidiary of Vision Forum, as CD-Host pointed out (or, at least, that is how they are acting). So it’s perfectly permissable for them to use the VF computer system to constantly be looking at this blog (hehheh not to mention other blogs, albeit not as frequently).

  67. Maggie Graham Says:

    We who refuse to be fooled must be SUCH an irritation to the chief fool-ers. I could almost pity them…

    I am really disgusted by some of the women’s blogs I’ve read in which they express pride in being VF supporters, supporters of Doug Phillips, and are supposedly paragons of feminine virtue themselves. The gossip and the smears they engage in and repeat are absolutely terrible, to say nothing of untrue. But there again, because it’s against those intrepid souls who dare to declare the emperor naked, it’s all goodness and light to say terribly ungodly things. The hyprocrisy is unmistakable. Apparently, being members of a certain church or buying enough junk from VF or being related to a notorious patriarchal blogger puts these women above reproach in their own minds–and from the silence or even support from the objects of their patriarchal adulation, in theirs as well.

  68. Jen Says:

    I was looking around on CD-Host’s site and I came across a link to an article by Jonathan Edwards, Doug’s favorite Puritan. This article tells when to excommunicate and how to treat an excommunicant. This may explain Doug’s actions.

    (I do NOT recommend the website this particular article is hosted on – peacemakers.net — not to be confused with the real Peacemakers found at peacemaker.net.)

  69. Lynn Says:

    I know this link belongs in another thread — the one about Joe Taylor’s attempt at delivering a letter to Doug Phillips, but as that was way back in the spring, I’ll post this link here:

    Brandon, this is great work, and thanks for the witness of those 5 men at the end who don’t have a thuggish strong-arm arbitration order to not talk about these matters hanging over their head.

    With their testimonies, and with this footage and documentation on your blog, I got a *much* better picture of what *really* went on with that allosaur documentary:

    http://www.simply-christian.org/blog/raising-the-allosaur/raising-the-allosaurus-and-bordering-on-deception/

    I found this easier to follow than other descriptions I’ve read . . . I must still need to read picture books, you know? 😉

  70. Lynn Says:

    Here’s the thread I’m referring to in the entry immediately above:

    https://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/official-public-notice-to-doug-phillips/

  71. CD-Host Says:

    Jen —

    This article tells when to excommunicate and how to treat an excommunicant. This may explain Doug’s actions.

    There is no reason to let him off so easily. Edwards would not approve of:

    1) Excommunicating 3rd parties that the excommunicate is close to get revenge (i.e. Natasha and Josh)

    2) Not having an accountability structure in place for leadership

    3) Excluding non Christians

    4) Promoting contempt for the civil authorities

    etc…

  72. CD-Host Says:

    I am really disgusted by some of the women’s blogs I’ve read in which they express pride in being VF supporters, supporters of Doug Phillips, and are supposedly paragons of feminine virtue themselves. The gossip and the smears they engage in and repeat are absolutely terrible, to say nothing of untrue.

    Maggie could you post some sample links?

  73. Maggie Graham Says:

    If Jen’s OK with that, I’ll be glad to later tonight.


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: