Alone Yet Not Alone: The Tangled Web of the Academy Nomination

With writing and research assistance from T.W. Eston

Quite a brouhaha is stirring over a song that was recently nominated for an Academy Award.  With music written by Bruce Broughton, lyrics by Dennis Spiegel, and performed by Joni Eareckson Tada, this song edged out nominations for original songs performed by Taylor Swift (“Sweeter Than Fiction,” from One Chance), Coldplay (“Atlas,” from The Hunger Games: Catching Fire), and Lana Del Rey (“Young and Beautiful,” from The Great Gatsby). How in the world did the title song from a movie that previewed in only nine theaters for one week last year get nominated for an Oscar for Best Original Song?

Rumors abound online regarding the apparent unethical actions, or at least breach of etiquette, of those involved.  There appear to be conflicts of interest with William Ross and Bruce Broughton, the writer and composer of this original song, and their connections with the Academy.

AloneYetNotAloneLong before the general public heard anything about Alone Yet Not Alone, those like myself who were steeped in all things Vision Forum and Boerne Christian Assembly knew all about the origins of the movie. It began just over ten years ago with the book by the same name, authored by Tracy M. Leininger. We attended church with the Leiningers at Boerne Christian Assembly where Doug Phillips was the pastor. Doug Phillips published and sold the first editions of Tracy Leininger’s books on his Vision Forum Inc. web site, and in the Vision Forum annual catalog.  Doug Phillips capitalized on Tracy’s books by also pairing each book with an American Girl knockoff doll that matched the main character of each book as part of his Beautiful Girlhood Collection.

As this faith-based film went into production, many of the actors and extras cast for parts came from “the community”, the term we use for Boerne Christian Assembly (BCA) and a few other closely aligned churches spun off from BCA in the greater San Antonio area. Others also came from Patrick Henry College. Doug Phillips was cast as “Colonel Mercer.” The close relations between the film’s writers and producers and Doug Phillips continued up until at least the time that Doug Phillips’ San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival announced the World Premiere of the film to be shown on February 8, 2013.

At this same time there was a significant confluence of events going on behind the scenes. Doug Phillips had been caught with his pants down with “Cassandra” in her home in January 2013 by two members of her family. Doug and “Cassandra” were caught again in early February in Doug Phillips’ home, this time by his wife and/or eldest son. Immediately thereafter Doug Phillips stepped down as pastor/elder of his church, Boerne Christian Assembly. Doug Phillips managed, at the time, to contain the knowledge of his sex scandal to a very small group of people. Those who have been following the articles here about Doug Phillips being a religious sociological cult leader are already familiar with how he pulled it off. In spite of his best efforts, however, it ultimately did go public. Doug Phillips resigned from Vision Forum Ministries on October 30, 2013, and on November 11, the Vision Forum Ministries Board of Directors announced the closure of the ministry.

Alone Yet Not Alone is the only movie I went to see last year, yet apparently I am one of the few people in this world who has actually seen it already.  I can’t even remember how I found out about this movie preview, since I had not followed anything Vision Forum related for several years; but when I discovered that Alone Yet Not Alone was previewing here in San Antonio, I asked my daughter, Natasha, if she would like to see a Vision Forum movie with me.

Kelly Leininger Greyson

Kelly Leininger Greyson

Alone Yet Not Alone is the true story of Barbara and Regina Leininger, Tracy’s ancestors who immigrated in 1748 from Germany to Colonial American in order to avoid religious persecution.  The starring actress, portraying Barbara Leininger, is Kelly Leininger Greyson, Tracy Leininger’s sister.  The film’s estimated $7,000,000 budget came by the financial backing of dad, Dr. James Leininger.

Who is Dr. James Leininger?  Besides being one of the richest men in America, his public accomplishments read like a “Who’s Who” of men with many varied interests in life.  His private accomplishments are even more vast.  Dr. Leininger has a very impressive public life, but also maintains a very private personal life, as well.  Unlike Doug Phillips, James Leininger appears to take his Christian convictions seriously and he probably has no scandalous skeletons in his closet.

I will not talk disparagingly about Dr. Leininger, a man who I have nothing but the utmost respect for.  I have many good memories of my time at Boerne Christian Assembly where Jim and his lovely wife and their children also attended, and the many happy memories of the events held at their gorgeous home. The Leininger’s left BCA prior to our “excommunication,” so unlike virtually all other BCA members, the Leiningers never complied with Doug’s orders to shun us.

It’s not much of a secret that James Leininger donated two buildings to Vision Forum Ministries: the warehouse/office building that Vision Forum Ministries and Vision Forum Inc. recently vacated, and the massive Phillips’ family home in Hollywood Park they were recently required by the VFM Board of Directors to vacate (both due to Doug Phillips’ clergy sexual abuse scandal).  What happens to these two pieces of property still remains to be seen, but these were hardly James Leininger’s only financial backing to Vision Forum.

In Doug Phillips’ November 6, 2013 blog article, he stated: “I retain ownership of Vision Forum, Inc.”  Most people didn’t question that at all.  Of course Doug Phillips “owns” Vision Forum, Inc.  Why would we think otherwise?  But “President” does not necessarily mean “owner,” or principal shareholder.  No, the principal is James Leininger.

Vision Forum has two sides, the non-profit tax exempt tax deductible 501(c)(3) ministry side, Vision Forum Ministries; and the for-profit business, Vision Forum, Inc.

The officers and directors of Vision Forum Ministries include:

  • Doug Phillips: Pres, Dir
  • Scott Brown: Dir
  • Don Hart: Dir (and staff attorney)
  • Josh Wean: CFO, Dir
  • Jim Zes: Dir

VFI was incorporated December 16, 1997 and its board of officers and directors have included:

  • Doug Phillips: Pres, Dir (1997- )
  • Thomas W. Lyles, Jr.: VP/Sec, Dir, Reg Agnt, Incorporator (1997- )
  • David Keith: VP/Treas, Dir. (2011- )
  • Charles A. Staffel Treas, Dir. (2002-2011)
  • Josh Weans: CFO (2012- )
  • Kimberly Feltner: VP (2012- )
  • James Leininger, Dir (1997-2002)

Jim Leininger resigned from the VFI board of directors around the same time that he left Boerne Christian Assembly in 2002.  This was also the same time that Doug Phillips started coercing BCA attendees into signing his “Til death do us part” document called “The Church Covenant”. After this point Boerne Christian Assembly quickly morphed from a church into a religious sociological cult.

“Mom, look!  There’s Joshua Phillips and so-and-so and so-and-so.”  We hadn’t seen any of these people in nearly nine years, so watching the movie, Alone Yet Not Alone, was bittersweet for us.  We eagerly searched for glimpses of old friends, and then shed a few tears when we recognized yet another old friend who continues to shun us, ever since our “excommunication” from Boerne Christian Assembly.  “Mom!  Is that Cassandra?  And why is Mr. Phillips fawning all over Kelly like that?”  Having seen this preview less than a month before Doug Phillips’ resignation on October 30, 2013, I couldn’t help but wonder what really went on behind the scenes in Alone Yet Not Alone.  Even the name of the movie ironically seems to be descriptive of Doug’s secret double-life.  We were so caught up in searching for lost friendships that we overlooked the fact that this movie might be about Dominion Theology.

The current release date is now Father’s Day weekend, June 13, 2014.  The newest book version is now being published by Zonderkidz. Originally scheduled to open February 21, 2014, Alone Yet Not Alone apparently required a delayed release due to the need to edit out Doug Phillips as Colonel Mercer, not to mention any credits to Vision Forum.  Toward the end of the film Kelly’s character is rescued from an Indian tribe. She is filthy and disheveled with her hair dyed dark to look like an Indian. After bathing she emerges as a beautiful blond bombshell. Doug Phillips as Col. Mercer fawns all over her, praising her beauty. “If I hadn’t known that you were that same poor creature I saw before I never would have believed it.” He then launches into a classic Doug Phillips sermon, giving glory to God that their faith delivered them from their trials and tribulations.

NormandyFinalFarewellThe film will, no doubt, be helped by the absence of Doug Philips who didn’t stray from his true self in rendering a rousing Patriarchy speech as a key feature of his part. In one sense, however, it’s a pity that Doug Phillips’ Col. Mercer scenes were left on the cutting room floor. Doug is renowned for his costume parties and playing dress up, and even though he’s never served in the military his favorite costumes are military uniforms.

No doubt Doug Phillips’ sex scandal proved to be a huge embarrassment to the film’s producers. They had to scramble to remove any references that might tarnish this Christian film. Up until just prior to Doug Phillips’ resignation from Vision Forum Ministries, the film’s trailer included Doug Phillips. Now he’s nowhere to be seen.

But is that the extent of the Vision Forum connection to this movie?  Alone Yet Not Alone is produced by Enthuse Entertainment, who recently acquired, the media download site of Vision Forum, Inc.  Blue Behemoth’s web site, as of this date, states that the site is “currently offline while undergoing maintenance.” Additionally, “ is under new ownership and management whose vision is to produce and provide God-honoring, faith-based, family friendly media into the future.” However, just prior to that notice being posted “Vision Forum Inc.” had been replaced with “Enthuse Entertainment”. I don’t think they really wanted us to know that Enthuse Entertainment is the new “owner” and “management” of Blue Behemoth because that information quickly disappeared.

Who is Enthuse Entertainment? Just a new name for Mission City Productions that was formerly listed as the production company for Alone Yet Not Alone, and it had exactly the same board of directors.  Alone Yet Not Alone is their first feature film production for nationwide release. Their second feature film release is To Have and To Hold, also starring Kelly Leininger Greyson, scheduled to be released sometime later in 2014.

Enthuse Entertainment also had a very familiar address to me.  The building is owned by one of James Leininger’s many for-profit organizations, DJL Ventures.  That building leases space to many different businesses, with most, if not all, also owned or financially backed by James Leininger.  The personal property in one office space in particular, which means the business itself, is also owned by DJL Ventures.  That is the office for Enthuse Entertainment.

DJL Ventures board of directors is made up of Thomas W. Lyles, Jr., David Keith, Charles A. Staffel, and Kimberly Feltner.

CJL Acquisitions, Inc. board of directors is made up of the same people: Thomas W. Lyles, Jr., David Keith, Charles A. Staffel, and Kimberly Feltner.

Not surprisingly, the same exact people have served as board members for Vision Forum Inc. Interlocking directorships galore. So will Vision Forum and Doug Phillips ever really go away?

These same officers also serve together on several other boards, all backed financially by James Leininger.  (If you want to have some fun, click around on the various names at this site.)

So, the officers of the board for Vision Forum, Inc. are the same officers of the board for DJL Ventures and CJL Acquisitions, Inc., who just “bought” Blue Behemoth from Vision Forum, Inc.  In other words, the officers of the board for one business owned by James Leininger bought that same business from themselves under a different name.

And the public thinks the Oscar nomination for Best Original Song is a little bit fishy?

Alone Yet Not Alone: How did it wind up coming out of obscurity to have it’s eponymous theme song nominated for an academy award? Certainly the Bruce Broughton connection may be significant and shouldn’t be disregarded. But is that all there is to this story? I think not. Super-wealthy men like James Leininger always have powerful connections.

Joni Eareckson Tada did a wonderful job singing the song. But that’s irrelevant. It’s not the singer’s performance that is judged for Academy Award consideration for Best Original Song, or at least it’s not supposed to be. It’s the composers that are being judged. Is the song really Academy Award material? Personally, I don’t think so. I can’t help but think there was a lot of influence peddling going on behind the scenes to secure the nomination. I think that’s really unfortunate because, other than that issue, I really enjoyed this movie. Even the song is good.

I hate to see these sorts of things happen because it just gives the non-Christians another opportunity to mock Christians. We should know better by now.

UPDATE 1/29/14:

Oscar Nominee ‘Devastated’ After Academy Disqualification

The Academy’s board of governors voted to rescind the original song nomination for “Alone Yet Not Alone,” music by Bruce Broughton and lyric by Dennis Spiegel. An additional nominee in the category will not be named.

The decision was prompted by the discovery that Broughton, a former governor and current music branch executive committee member, had emailed members of the branch to make them aware of his submission during the nominations voting period.

“I’m devastated,” Broughton told Variety. “I indulged in the simplest, lamest, grass-roots campaign and it went against me when the song started getting attention. I got taken down by competition that had months of promotion and advertising behind them.”

…In a statement about the withdrawal of the “Alone” song nomination, Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs said, “No matter how well-intentioned the communication, using one’s position as a former governor and current executive committee member to personally promote one’s own Oscar submission creates the appearance of an unfair advantage.”

The board determined that Broughton’s actions were inconsistent with the Academy’s promotional regulations, which provide, among other terms, that “it is the Academy’s goal to ensure that the Awards competition is conducted in a fair and ethical manner. If any campaign activity is determined by the Board of Governors to work in opposition to that goal, whether or not anticipated by these regulations, the Board of Governors may take any corrective actions or assess any penalties that in its discretion it deems necessary to protect the reputation and integrity of the awards process.”

Read more.

377 Responses to “Alone Yet Not Alone: The Tangled Web of the Academy Nomination”

  1. Angela Wittman Says:

    Jen, do you know why Mr. Leininger left BCA? He looks very familiar to me – I just can’t place where I’ve seen him.

    • Jen Says:

      Angela, I do not know why he left. It could be because of the covenant that was instituted at that time, and many families left because of that. It could be that he did not want to drive an extra 45 minutes when we moved WAY out in the country at that time. Or it could be something personal. I do not know.

      • Angela Wittman Says:

        Thanks Jen! Dr. Leininger seems to be a very godly and generous man. I’m not certain, but it could be I saw him featured on television – 60 Minutes maybe? Anyway, thanks for connecting the dots for us. 🙂

        • Jen Says:

          Angela, Dr. Leininger seems to be spending his money to fund and promote many excellent full-feature movies, including Seven Days in Utopia. I pray that he will be able to make a difference in this industry, without the patriarchy influence that Doug Phillips was attempting to insert.

      • Grace alone Says:

        Does Mr. Leininger treat those who left BCA badly or did he seem to escape all the separatism?

        • Jen Says:

          Grace alone, I have never seen Dr. Leininger treat anyone badly. In fact, he has been very gracious.

        • noturniptruck Says:

          he is VERY gracious but he HATES people that commit adultery………and doesn’t put up with it at all. So I am wondering what his response has been to DP and all of this mess?

  2. DesiringToDiscern Says:

    Kelly is attractive and BTW is also in Return to the Hiding Place… which won at SAICFF, yet to date is not on DVD ! 😦 Politics of the business ?
    The board member perusal via your link is believable. This is all business…period. Rough business. I am so thankful that GOD is bigger than all of these people. Him I trust. I choose God’s side !

    • Jen Says:

      D2D, my understanding is that Jim Leininger also funded “Return to the Hiding Place,” but I knew nothing about it until today. So if this film “won” at the SAICFF, then Doug Phillips, via Vision Forum, retains all rights to that movie.

      Let me see if I understand this correctly. Jim Leininger provides most, if not all, of the funds for the winner of the SAICFF, and then his own movie won? So he paid himself?

      • DesiringToDiscern Says:

        ..and yet he seems to have suppressed Returned To The Hiding Place ? I have seen the lesser films come out on DVD.
        RTTHP has been in the making for almost 2 decades, I believe…and now that it is done…it is not available ??? So many *interesting* things that most followers of DP will simply brush under the rug to uphold their fantasies. You have done your homework well, Jen (and T W)

        • Jen Says:

          D2D, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg. Again.

        • DesiringToDiscern Says:

          Agreed ! DP isn’t that smart IMO. He was/is just bloated on his own opinion of himself.

        • jaffamadness Says:

          RTTHP is still on the Festival circuit (having been very successful at the Sundance Film Festival) The dvd’s will follow, after competition.

        • DesiringToDiscern Says:

          jaffamadness, DELIGHTED to hear that ! Hope it is soon to be on DVD. From what we can tell, it is a MUST SEE ! Thank you for sharing that news. 🙂

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        Jen, I’ve had conflicting reports on the whole issue of what happens to the film rights of films that are submitted in competition to the SAICFF. We’ve heard that in the early years of the film festival a film couldn’t be submitted without the producer also surrendering the film rights outright to SAICFF/Vision Forum. Apparently this stirred considerable controversy and at some point this policy was abandoned, or at least became selectively enforced. Obviously, the Kendrick brothers didn’t give up their film rights to Courageous, which won the SAICFF $101,000 grand prize in 2012.

        When a film is submitted for SAICFF competition I believe the producer must grant the right for SAICFF and Vision Forum to use excerpts for marketing the festival, announcing winners and other promotional activities. A number of deals have also been arranged by Blue Behemoth with film producers to resell films for download on their web site for royalties with range from 20-40% of the retail price sold.

        I think it would be very helpful for us to hear from film producers who have submitted their films at the SAICFF and hear what their experiences have been. Comments are welcome here.

        • AsikReruns Says:

          Filmmaker here who has been at the SAICFF every year it ran. Rights have nothing to do with festival submission at almost any festival. Short filmmakers had the option to allow Vision Forum to distribute their films through Blue Behemoth, which was later sold to Enthuse Entertainment to keep the company afloat. It wasn’t turning the profit that they anticipated.

          Films take years and years to get into distribution, even after a huge festival win. Bella won the People’s Choice favorite at Toronto International Film Festival, and is a truly exceptionally made independent film. It was three years before they finally received a distribution contract to their liking. A big festival win usually is followed by dozens and dozens of contract offers from distributors, which then take months in negotiation each. Those are then signed, and it is usually another year before release. So in total, after a huge festival win if everything goes right, it’s at least another 18 months before a film will be released, on average, unless there was a contract in place beforehand.

      • AsikReruns Says:

        SAICFF does not retain rights to any films entered. Filmmakers had the option to include their work on a DVD bundle back when it was short films only. Recently, to distribute on Blue Behemoth, and retain a portion of the profit. But that was up to the filmmaker.

        Please see my post below about distribution times on films that are released.

  3. raswhiting Says:

    Re: “Rumors abound online regarding the apparent unethical actions, or at least breach of etiquette, of those involved. There appear to be conflicts of interest with William Ross and Bruce Broughton, the writer and composer of this original song, and their connections with the Academy.”

    I do not understand the supposed “scandal” of someone asking members of the Academy to give consideration to nominating a movie or a song for an award. This is common, well-known, above-board practice. Studios often advertise their films in trade magazines seeking the awards. How would any independent film get noticed unless it was promoted by those involved?

    And as far as the concern about the film only being shown for a few days, that too is not unusual. Indeed, studios like to receive a nomination or award BEFORE general release, to help build interest in the movie.

    I share concerns about the Patriarchal influence in the movie, but lets not add unnecessary side issues.

    • Jen Says:

      raswhiting, we wrote this in response to the general outcry in the media about this award nomination. My intent was not to write about that aspect, but to shed some light on the film itself and the very close ties to Vision Forum.

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Quoting from The Week: “So how did Alone Yet Not Alone end up breaking through to the Oscar ballot? Deadline pins the movie’s unlikely success to the efforts of two men: William Ross and Bruce Broughton. Ross, who scored Alone Yet Not Alone, happens to be the conductor for the orchestra at this year’s Academy Awards ceremony; Broughton, who wrote the eponymous song, is the former head of the Academy’s music branch.”

      I don’t fault the producers of Alone Yet Not Alone for hiring great talent. However, I can see why this situation is causing such a public uproar. In my view there are obvious, and very significant, conflicts of interest.

      If you’re the judge of the pie baking contest, you don’t allow your wife to enter the contest.

      • Molly Says:

        It is possible that Ross was chosen as the conductor after the campaigns had already begun. And Broughton being the former head of the music branch doesn’t seem like that big of a deal, either. Lots of actors who get nominated are heavily involved in SAG and other organizations. It doesn’t mean they should not be recognized for their work.
        I do agree that it’s super odd that a virtually unknown song from a barely released film made it in, but I’m not sure I’m ready to say there were shady dealings behind it. (Yet). Is the song itself really anything special?

        • Jen Says:

          Molly, it is the public who is in a bit of an uproar over this, so we decided to just add a few facts.

          You can listen to the song here:

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Molly, everyone knows that Alone Yet Not Alone is a “faith-based movie”. The world is now paying close attention to see how Christian film producers conduct themselves. Can the movie’s theme song make it on its own merits, the God-given skills and artistic talents of its creators, William Ross and Bruce Broughton? Or will it have to rely on business connections, influence-peddling, and backroom deals, just like non-Christian film producers rely on? If Christian film producers will now resort to the same compromised Hollywood ethics of you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours to get their awards and recognition then I’m afraid they’ve already lost the battle in their goals of “redeeming the culture”.

          You asked me the question, “Is the song itself really anything special?” Here’s how I evaluated that. I first listened to the song. I didn’t watch it, i.e. I didn’t want to watch Joni Eareckson Tada perform the song. I only wanted to hear the song itself. I’ve seen Joni before and I knew that watching a music video of her performing the song would elicit in me what it does in most people – pity and admiration that she could sing at all. That kind of emotional response throws all objectively right out the window. If the first time you hear the song is from watching this video (which very clearly is a professionally produced promo video), any Christian is likely to think, “Wow! What an inspirational song!” No, it’s not. It’s an inspirational performance of a rather mediocre song. Try listening to just the song here first. Same inspired response? Not likely.

          The Academy Award for Best Original Song isn’t awarded to the performer, it’s awarded to the composers. I have the utmost of respect for Joni Eareckson Tada, but I have a hard time respecting Christians who are thinking what a great thing it would be for this song to win an Academy Award just so it might give Joni an opportunity to perform it at the Awards ceremony. “What a great witness for the Lord it would be”. No it would not be a great witness at all. The only thing it would communicate to non-believers is that Those Christians won the top award for a mediocre composition. With all their supposed morals and ethics it’s pretty obvious they were involved in some shady backroom deals. It’s not worth it.

          In my personal estimation, the song is anything but special. The lyrics have a nice sort of spiritually trite message to it, rather shallow – anything but profound, poignant or inspirational. The musical composition is emotionless, the arranging is unimaginative, and orchestration is bland. Neither the lyrics or the musical composition are a credit to the otherwise considerable talents of their creators. It’s the sort of song I’d expect to hear on the 700 Club, not the Academy Awards ceremony. Quite frankly it doesn’t seem like the composers put much effort into it at all. Perhaps they were under a tight deadline.

        • Angela Wittman Says:

          My first thought when I heard Joni Eareckson Tada performed the song was for her to not be used by unscrupulous people to further their agenda. It is sad, but true that Christians will toss Biblical ethics aside in order to “advance the Kingdom.” Scripture is full of examples of this and how it doesn’t please the Lord and usually backfires. None of us are perfect, and I’ll be one of the first to admit I’ve used poor judgment while “doing the Lord’s work.” Hopefully the folks who have compromised their ethics will learn from this and move on. We aren’t to use worldly methods to advance God’s Kingdom; He can do it just fine without us. But as He delights to use His children, then let’s serve Him by His rules.

        • GMV Says:

          I think what bothered me most about the song was that it could be referring to any god. In a time with so many different religions I believe we need to make a point that it is Jesus Christ who is our light and our hope. I understand that Joni didn’t write the words she just sang them But, if you listen closely she could be talking about any god being our guide.

        • Molly Says:

          I guess my point is that there is no real evidence of back-room peddling and shady deals, other than a few rumors. Just asking people to take a listen to the song to make sure it is not overlooked is not wrong. Nor is it something that Christians should avoid just because the song is from a faith-based film. If there were evidence that the composer sent cash or gifts to guarantee the nomination, then yeah, that would be unethical. But there is no real evidence that that kind of thing happened. (So far).

  4. raswhiting Says:

    Re; Kelly Leininger Greyson

    From the photo above, I do not see how her attire passed muster with the dress code police in the Community/BCA? 🙂

  5. Andrew McDonald Says:

    I had a good chuckle over the book “Final Farewell” with three soldiers and then in the background, wait, whose that? A soldier? A great patriot? Oh no! It’s Doug. Like a rascally youngster ruining all the family photos, there he is. Looking off into the distance… a true visionary! LOL

  6. Tom Says:

    What a pompous jerk Doug Phillips is to put his picture among and even above the pictures of true heroes! Didn’t anyone is his tiny, little world ever dare tell him he was too self-centered and arrogant? Not only does he discredit the uniform he doesn’t deserve to wear, but he shames the very heroes he is purporting to highlight. Good riddance to the great pretender.

    • Andrew McDonald Says:

      Tom, I don’t think that he’s wearing a uniform just ‘uniform like’ in appearance. Having spent over ten years in the Armed Forces I would like to see him in the military. We would give a fellow like him a blanket party. So full of himself. The fact that he puts himself on the cover is just outlandish and I can’t see that anyone would not think it was some sort of joke. I would not assume to be in the photo and I served. It certainly robs our veterans of their dignity.

      • Jen Says:

        Andrew, I agree. I, too, served in the military, and I would never presume to put myself on the same level, let alone put myself at the TOP of a picture, of true military war veterans. “Arrogant” and “pompous” are kind words for this.

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        Andrew, yes he is wearing a military uniform. He dresses up in WWII Army greens throughout the video, including full battle gear as seen below. It’s absolutely appalling to any of we veterans who served our country and actually earned our uniforms.

        • Not Fooled Anymore Says:

          Odd thing is, we publicly heard DP state several years ago that World War II was the last justifiable war. Quite an insult to all those who have and are serving since then and who gave their lives so we can continue to be free. I believe one of his WWII dress up uniforms was a colonel on his European tour from what we understand.

        • Andrew McDonald Says:

          Maybe, once the IRS is done, he can get another uniform and be a manly man. I am only joking, I do not wish any harm to come to him. I just hope he changes his mind and comes to the Lord. But it is very difficult not to laugh and make fun of someone who has so off-handedly mistreated others and been so full of themselves. In spite of this it is still sad when calamity comes because they are seldom alone and they take down others with them.

        • Jen Says:

          TW, I am trying to see if Doug is wearing any rank. That would be the worst.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Well here is Maj. Douglas W. Phillips, Esq.

        • Jen Says:

          Oh, no!!! That is SO wrong!

        • Jen Says:

          And he couldn’t even shave for the occasion?

        • Andrew McDonald Says:

          Well everyone, I take it back, it was a uniform. That is the so astoundingly presumptuous that it defies comment. Yep, time for the blanket party! Is this guy in fantasy land or what!? As my dear mom would say, “Ain’t that the limit?” Time for a wake up call.

        • Anna Says:

          He would not have been able to handle armed services, dress up is as close as he could get. BTW, in TX, does the government tie in driver’s licenses with signing up for the Selective Services? Just curious if his son is old enough and signed up. Huge penalty if he hasn’t. 😉

        • Jen Says:

          Anna, yes, they are tied together.

        • PioneerHomeschooler Says:

          The lighting makes it hard to tell here, but it looks more like the rank of lieutenant colonel than major. Looks like “major self-promotion” 🙂

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          I agree with you. Lt. Col. is what I originally thought too, and it may be. I thought I’d err on the side of caution.

      • Eva Says:

        He probably figured that a Major was as far as he dared go with the charade or he would have had General’s stars.

    • Leslie Says:

      My Dad got a purple heart in WW2 and died in 1952 of war related injuries and PTSD. My brother served in Vietnam and is still mentally messed up over it. DP is a joke and a jerk.

      • Andrew McDonald Says:

        I hope that you’re able to talk with your brother. That war was miserable, I recall marching in a parade where people threw stuff at us. Public sentiment was not running high. God bless your brother and all who served. Not more that 5% of our population have ever served; the ones who have deserve our gratitude. This makes Doug’s donning of the uniform such a shame and sham. I hope that God is able to reach the heart of your dear brother with salvation and freedom. God bless your family!

        • Leslie Says:

          Thank you Andrew. Your comment means a lot to me. My brother has been absent from our family for many years,battling alcoholism and his memories from Nam. I wish I could see him again.

        • Andrew McDonald Says:

          This morning I have prayed for your family. I know God can touch him.

    • OtOLi Says:

      Doug Phillips was wrong to glorify war. Read the following excellent article on the topic of Christians and war: If you search around, you’ll find many other good articles by Vance.

      • Michael Says:

        I agree. The fascination Christians have with war is anything but Godly, and Phillips did the church no favors by glorifying it further.

  7. Eric H Says:

    What a douchecanoe! Where does he get off? He’s dishonoring every one who ever served in the Army. I’d love to run into this guy wearing an Army uniform. After stripping off the uniform I’d give him a little Army motivational training. I’m sure there’s some kind of Army reg that covers that.

    • Andrew McDonald Says:

      Eric, I had to call my wife, laughing, I’ve never heard the term “douchcanoe”, where’d you get that one? Reminds of the Gieco one with the TI counselor calling the guy a “jackwagon”. He is seriously brazen.

  8. MomT Says:

    I think I remember American Family Association doing an article on him and his many past endeavors and contributions as well as his new phase of trying to encourage Christian filmwriters etc. in their AFA journal about a year ago. I don’t remember the name in the article, but it sure sounds like the same man. Does anybody else remember? It was a very inspiring article.

  9. Amy Says:

    Okay I have to ask, “Is Cassandra really just another name for [edited by moderator]”? If so then where are her brother and father in all this?

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Amy, we’re not desirous of outing Cassandra here, which is why we’ve used the pseudonym “Cassandra”. Granted, Cassandra’s actual name is no great secret; but out of respect for she and her family we’re refraining from using her actual name here.

      As to Cassandra’s father and brother, it would seem you likely already know that it was they who caught Doug and Cassandra in the act in Cassandra’s home. It’s hard for me to comprehend how after the family pastor got caught in the act with their daughter/sister Doug Phillips could even still be alive today. Most fathers and brothers would have at least beaten Doug Phillips to within an inch of his life.

      Years ago I had a friend by the name of Rod, who told me what he’d done when he’d found out his wife was cheating with their pastor. It started while she was getting “marriage counseling” from the pastor. She was emotionally vulnerable and the pastor took advantage of her emotional vulnerability, right there in his office. Rod’s wife was guilt-ridden and tearfully confessed all to Rod and begged his forgiveness. He forgave her but found himself unable to forgive his pastor.

      Rod walked into church that next Sunday, just as the pastor had stepped behind the pulpit to preach. Rod walked up onto the platform, pulled a tire iron out from under his jacket and, without uttering a word, proceeded to beat the pastor to a bloody pulp. Rod walked out of the church and no one said a word to him. Needless to say the congregation was totally shocked. They called for an ambulance. The pastor survived, barely. He refused to press charges. Word was quickly out in the church about why Rod did what he did. When the police tried to investigate, suddenly no one in the congregation seemed to have been a witness to what had happened. The pastor resigned and got out of town immediately after getting out of the hospital. His brother Jeff, who was a witness to it all, confirmed the story for me.

      I’m not saying I endorse Rod’s actions. I’m just saying that sort of thing does happen. When any man in a position of trust, such as a pastor (and especially a pastor), violates your trust, it’s the greatest form of betrayal you can ever experience. Cassandra’s family has been betrayed just like that. The fact that they have just passively taken it is clear evidence that they’re under a powerful form of mind control consistent with what people experience in a religious sociological cult.

      • Amy Says:


        I’m sorry about writing the name…thank you for moderating that. I must be honest and say I did NOT know about her father and brother catching the act taking place. This is news to me.

        When I heard DP had an affair the first person I thought of was her. I don’t know why. I don’t even know much about BCA or VF just the “Return of the Daughters” video someone showed me years ago and some vimeo clip of the women traveling with the family… which made me uneasy.

        So when his resignation came, I thought “please don’t let it be that sweet girl…surely she would not do that, surely her father and brother would not allow that!” Shockingly I was wrong and it was sad to hear of all this.

        I hope and pray she seeks help and is cared for and a Godly young man takes her hand and commits to a pure life with her and she may experience true honest faithful love.

      • Amy Says:

        By the way, I don’t fault your friend Rod at all. Kudos to him for having a backbone. Here in rural TX where I live a man was found beaten to a pulp and almost castrated. He survived and wasn’t talking. Come to find out a friend of ours said that man had molested another person’s little girls and well justice was served. The small community knew who did it but no one talked and the case was closed.

        As the justice system starts calling right wrong and wrong right I think we will start seeing more of this.

      • Jen Says:

        Ummm, I am putting you in moderation. I can’t remember the last time I’ve had to do that to someone, but you are welcome to post comments here that actually engage one another with respect.

        • Amy K. Says:

          What did I say that was offensive? I agreed with Eston and how I could understand why that poor husband took his pastor to task and related a story similar. How was I disrespectful? I’m confused.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Amy, Jen isn’t speaking to you but to someone who has posted here before as “Ummm”. She claims to have been a victim of a lifetime of sexual abuse, and also being a former crack addict. One would think that Ummm would know how to show some sympathy and compassion for Doug’s victims. Instead she has mocked and ridiculed commenters here. Jen put Ummm into moderation immediately after she posted 8 comments in quick succession heckling us all.

        • Amy Says:

          Okay…sorry about that. I know this is a PG site and thought the word “castrate” I used was a no-no… Sorry Jen.

      • Jackie Cordon Says:

        T.W., What in the world is wrong with you that after claiming to support the term clergy sexual abuse, you then tell a story of a woman and call it an affair? She was being counseled by the minister and there was a sexual component. Was all the terminology around the Doug Phillips issue simply a way to make him look worse to the world but you didn’t really buy it yourself? You might as well go back and erase those blog entries.

        Jen, you destroy your own credibility when you allow this kind of word usage and don’t call it into question. It makes it look like you lied about the issue when you use it with Doug Phillips then let a co-blogger get away with calling something that was a classic case of clergy sexual abuse an affair. Draw a line or admit you only accepted the term when it’s about making Doug Phillips look as bad as possible.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Jackie, it’s certainly possible that you may be right. The problem is that the wife herself called it an affair, as did her husband. That’s what she confessed to, so I won’t presume to say otherwise.

          While there are some similarities between the two stories, there are also significant differences, including the issue of age and life experience. Cassandra was in Doug Phillips’ home from the time she was 15. That young and vulnerable age, made all the more vulnerable by the heavy emphasis on Patriarchy, is what makes Cassandra’s case a clear case of clergy sexual abuse.

          In the latter case I mentioned the wife was in her mid-30’s, and they’d had several children together in ten or so years of marriage. She confessed to knowing exactly what she was doing, but she did it anyway. She also confessed to being motivated, in part, by a sense of vengeance against her husband for being negligent of her emotionally. One might be able to make a case of clergy sexual abuse in her case even still, but she’d have to be the one to do so, and she never has. Instead she took responsibility for her part in what happened. I’m convinced that her doing so is the thing that saved the marriage. Does the pastor have a greater responsibility? Absolutely he does. Does that mean that the wife should be absolved of any responsibility?

          This then leads into the question that has been raised multiple times in emails that Jen and I have both received: Was there a point in time where the relationship between Doug and Cassandra ceased being one of clergy sexual abuse because it may have transitioned into one of conscious mutual consent? That’s a hard question, and I’m unsure that I have a good answer for that myself.

        • Jackie C. Says:

          T.W., what exactly do you think clergy sexual abuse is? He was counseling her, and you admitted she was emotionally vulnerable. That’s it. She was a member of his church. Your original story didn’t contain any of these other details, but that wouldn’t matter anyway. He was counseling her. She was a member of the church. That’s it. In a power relationship, all the power was on his side. Period. There are no qualifying gray lines. You should get some education on clergy sexual abuse before you start throwing the term around. I get that you aren’t in a denomination that cares about this issue or bothers to educate people on it, but you were the one who shared the Texas definition of criminal clergy abuse. Don’t be a hypocrite. And of course the wife called it an affair. Exactly what do you think happens when clergy behave in this way? Lots of mind games. If you want to use the term elsewhere, then your job becomes clarifying it when it happens in a story you tell. Sorry, but that’s what happens when you write a blog concerning these issues. Otherwise, there’s no purpose in following Jen’s blog because you’ve lost all credibility and appear to be the real voice here.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Jackie, I acknowledge that you may be right that it was a case of clergy sexual abuse. However, given the woman in question, her own confessed motivations, her age and life experience, I do see some “qualifying gray lines” that I don’t see with Cassandra. I view the two cases as very different. Perhaps I’m wrong about this. I am admittedly no expert on clergy sexual abuse, nor have I claimed to be. Perhaps you are an expert? Do feel free to educate us if you are.

          In your view is it always clergy sexual abuse when a woman winds up having sex with her pastor after she seeks counseling from that pastor? Is it always a case of “no qualifying gray lines”, as you say?

        • Jackie C. Says:

          T.W., here’s what you shared on another blog post, in case you’ve forgotten:

          “Sec. 22.011. SEXUAL ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:

          (b) A sexual assault under Subsection (a)(1) is without the consent of the other person if:

          (10) the actor is a clergyman who causes the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman in the clergyman’s professional character as spiritual adviser;”

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Jackie, the legal question of “exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency” is a matter that, at least in part, is resolved by, “She also confessed to being motivated, in part, by a sense of vengeance against her husband for being negligent of her emotionally.” Under those circumstances she’d never be able to make a case for clergy sexual abuse. In the eyes of the law her own motivation would undermine her claim of being a victim.

        • OtOLi Says:

          T.W., from the information presented, it appear to be clear that the pastor in the story you recounted did “cause the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman.” Whether or not the woman herself had her own motivations is kind of irrelevant in that regard. The pastor is responsible to ensure that sexual assault doesn’t occur even if the other party in some sense agrees to it or “wants it” for whatever reason.

          Although the specifics are different, I don’t see how the situation you described is fundamentally any different from that of DP and Cassandra. As you say, “I am admittedly no expert on clergy sexual abuse.” Then please listen to those who are (I don’t claim to be myself) and be sensitive to those who have been hurt.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          “The pastor is responsible to ensure that sexual assault doesn’t occur even if the other party in some sense agrees to it or ‘wants it’ for whatever reason.” I completely agree, but that’s a moral and ethical matter of professional conduct that falls outside the scope of the law. If the pastor in question had been a member of a mainline denomination, hopefully he’d have been sanctioned and lost his ordination. Unfortunately it was a small independent church, so all he has to do is move somewhere else and start another church, never mentioning his prior pastorate. I find this intolerable. As I’ve stated previously:

          These relational imbalances are the reason why various licensed professions, such as Psychiatrists, Counselors, Therapists, Doctors, and Nurses are held to strict professional standards of conduct which govern their relationships with clients and co-workers. In all cases sexual relationships with clients and patients are prohibited. The same applies in the military where superior ranking officers and enlisted personnel aren’t permitted to “fraternize” with subordinate ranking personnel. Numerous professions have such restrictions, including clergymen. One problem, however, is that too many clergymen don’t think such standards should or do apply to them. This is especially true of those in “independent non-denominational” churches where they often have little to no accountability.

          Churches and denominations had better start doing a better job of policing themselves because, if they don’t, they’re just begging for the government to step in and take over what they should be doing on their own.

          “T.W., from the information presented, it appear to be clear that the pastor in the story you recounted did ’cause the other person to submit or participate by exploiting the other person’s emotional dependency on the clergyman.’ Whether or not the woman herself had her own motivations is kind of irrelevant in that regard.” Probably yes, and certainly no. In the eyes of the law it’s very relevant. It’s not as cut and dry as you may think. To make her case the accuser will not only give her testimony before a jury, she will be cross examined before a jury. Sadly this is one of the primary reasons why so many sexual abuse victims don’t file a legal complaint at all. A large percentage of rape victims, for example, choose to suffer in silence rather than file criminal charges because they know what they’ll be subjected to. The rapist hires a slick attorney who puts her on the stand and examines her with all sorts of humiliating questions. What the defense is trying to establish is that there was some measure of “consent”. The entire process, quite often, re-victimizes the victim. There is much I hate about our so-called justice system, and this is one of those things.

          The entire system is at least as messed up when it comes to being able to successfully convict child molesters. It’s bad enough for a woman to have to endure the bright lights of a criminal trial. Just imagine how bad it is for a child. Because of this, and other factors, most child molesters never wind up where they belong – prison. But at least in the case of child sex abuse the question of consent isn’t a factor. That’s all governed by age of consent laws. Fact-based cases are far more straightforward than those that get into questions of consent. Did the adult have sex with the child? Is the child under the age of consent? If the answer to both of those is “yes” then the accused is guilty.

          The process of establishing a legal claim of clergy sexual abuse isn’t unlike establishing rape. If the perp-pastor pleads guilty, he’s only going to do so for some reduced sentence deal – a plea bargain. He might even get probation. This saves the victim the humiliation of a trial, but the perp may get off with a slap on the wrist. If he chooses to fight it in court you can be sure he plans to hire a nasty attorney that will rake the accuser over the coals in Discovery and cross examination. Re-victimize the victim. It’s a horrible system that is in desperate need of legal reform.

          Some cases are not as hard to prove as others, and I believe that to be the case with Cassandra. I don’t see that with the other example I used. If it becomes known to the jury that she was motivated in part out of vengeance for her husband she’s likely to lose her case right there. That’s the way the law works. I’m not defending it, just giving the facts.

        • OtOLi Says:

          T.W. wrote:
          “I completely agree, but that’s a moral and ethical matter of professional conduct that falls outside the scope of the law.”

          I disagree that it is “outside the scope of the law.” From what I read in the law quoted above, it doesn’t matter if the woman “consented” or not. The law states the sexual assault is automatically by definition “without consent” based solely on the pastoral relationship. Again, the pastor is the one responsible. By nature of the relationship, by law it is clergy sexual whether the woman “consented” whatever her own motivations may have been. While they obviously have many practical implications, your comments regarding how the woman would feel being cross examined and what the jury thinks are irrelevant to what the law actually states regarding the crime.

        • Jackie C. Says:

          T.W., you claim we cannot label it clergy sexual abuse because it can’t be proven in a court of law. Yet you have no problem accusing Doug Phillips of manipulation to get an academy award nomination for a song. That is pure speculation. Not that I think you’re wrong. You’re probably right. You and Jen have accused him of spiritually abusive practices, something that also cannot be proven in a court of law, yet when it comes to sexual abuse, you suddenly decide there’s a legal line to draw? Did you know there used to be no such thing as raping one’s own wife? Did that make it not rape? Of course not. By your reasoning, Jen has no ground to stand on when she accuses Doug Phillips of his various activities. Are you trying to imply that?

          The fact is you’ve suddenly decided to hide behind legal terms as your excuse for your behavior. If an 18-year-old boy said he had sex with his 30-year-old art teacher because she was hot, would that make it not sexual abuse? If a client had sex with a therapist because he felt so close to her, would that make it not sexual abuse? Motives on the part of the victim don’t excuse the abuser. If you were wrong and careless in your storytelling, just admit it. If you don’t think you were, educate yourself on clergy sexual abuse. I’ve posted links on this blog before but all you have to do is look up the term on the web and you’ll find plenty. As for your question as to my experience, I have never been a victim myself, but I have listened to the stories of almost 100 women and I have had the fortune to be part of trainings led by the best in the field.

          You are seriously undermining Jen’s credibility with your current argument. And your own – if legality is the only criteria, then why are you saying all these other things about Doug?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          “T.W., you claim we cannot label it clergy sexual abuse because it can’t be proven in a court of law.” I certainly hope I’m not saying that. You were the one who took up the legal argument. So I responded in that context by explaining the law.

          You are reading the statute law without comprehending the intent of the law. That’s as risky as reading the Bible without understanding the intent of the authors and the context in which a passage was written. When it comes to statutory law it’s the job of the courts to work through all that. The courts don’t read the law as something wooden. This is why we have what is known as statutory law and case law, and the two are supposed to work in harmony (although that doesn’t always happen, which is another reason we have appellate courts). The legislature is responsible for the former and the courts for the latter.

          You seem quite confident that the case of Rod’s wife and their pastor was most definitely clergy sexual abuse, even though you don’t know the details. You say the details don’t matter, either legally or in terms of what personal opinion we should hold. I’ve already stated that it may very well have been a case of clergy sexual abuse, but given all the circumstances I’m not willing to say so with the certainty that you seem so eager to hold my feet to the fire with. You place me in the difficult situation of having to disclose more than is appropriate in order to justify my position, and that’s something I’m not at liberty to do. But I’m pretty sure that if you knew the whole story you wouldn’t be so eager to make it out to be so black and white. All I can say is that I knew the couple personally and I know the back story. I can assure you that if Rod had been in a position to make a legal case he most definitely would have done so. Rod is no slouch in the law, but it became obvious to him that he couldn’t make the case for clergy sexual abuse, nor does Rod and his wife even believe it was clergy sexual abuse personally. That’s not out of any ignorance on their part. They do understand the issue.

          I also know a great deal about Cassandra’s case, far more than I’m at liberty to disclose here. In my personal view it most certainly is a case of clergy sexual abuse. I believe that I should have the freedom to express that as both a personal opinion and a legal one. The evidence supports that she would have an excellent chance of winning a clergy sexual abuse legal case against Doug Phillips.

          As to any personal opinions we as individuals may hold about clergy sexual abuse, I think we should have the freedom to call it that if that’s what we believe it to be, or if that’s what a friend tells us happened to them. It’s important to support the victims in every way we can. That comes first and foremost.

        • Jen Says:

          One of the main issues I personally have in patriarchy is the tendency towards not only legalism but also towards pushing the finer points of one person’s opinion upon others. I am here to take a strong stance for personal freedom of opinion. On this blog, I would like to see each of us extend to one another the freedom to think for ourselves and maintain our opinions when it comes to areas of life that are not so clearly laid out in black and white.

          Let us always remember that patriarchy grew to the abusive level it did primarily because the freedom to think for one’s self was not allowed.

          If there are legal issues involved in these stories, we may each conjecture about we think should be done, but in reality, these issues will be decided either within a court of law or settled outside by the parties involved.

        • Jackie C. Says:

          T.W., you missed what I said. I merely quoted you when I brought up the legal issue, showing where you contradict yourself. I’ve very clearly said it is not necessarily a legal issue and that’s not what matters here. My examples of what would and would not be abuse was not to point out that this woman should have taken the minister to court. It was to point out that what the victim’s motives are or what the victim believes happen is not necessarily what happened.

          What matters in all this is your language and contradictions in your language. Now you say there is a huge back story. That may be, but the fact is you shared a story where it is clearly sexual abuse, as you told it at the time, and identified it as cheating. You even labeled her as being emotionally vulnerable and the minister as counseling her. That was the bulk of your story. Don’t be irresponsible if you don’t wish to spread misinformation. Either tell the whole story or don’t tell it at all or don’t label it as cheating or an affair.

        • Jackie C. Says:

          T.W., I am not sure I was clear enough this time. My entire issue has to do with your language. I have no idea who those people were or whether they should have gone to court. That’s not my issue. Words are power and I am pleading with you to use them wisely as you consider your audience. There was simply no reason to use the word cheating in your post.

        • Jen Says:

          Jackie, I would say the same thing to you as I did to Mel. This borderlines on an ad hominem attack, which is not allowed on this blog. If two people have sex and at least one of them is married to someone else, it is called “cheating” or adultery or any number of other terms. If there is sexual abuse involved, that does not negate any “cheating,” unless it is flat-out rape. Certainly there can be both “cheating” and sexual abuse taking place in the same situation.

          The purpose of this blog is not to define terms SO tightly that we continually box one another into corners. Again, opinions are going to vary widely on the use of various terms in these situations, and I am good with allowing people to choose their OWN terms.

          As an example, I do not necessarily agree with TW on the use of all the psychological terms he chooses, but I also am perfectly willing to let him express himself however he wishes. Is it necessary that TW and I agree on everything in order to continue to expose Doug Phillips? Absolutely not. Is it necessary that all the commenters here agree with TW, or with me, on every position in life? Absolutely not. And we would never expect that of anyone here. In fact, I fully expect that, given enough time, we will each find some area where we have a minor, or maybe even major, point of disagreement among one another. That is life. And that is what I LOVE about life! We are free to be ourselves!

          Let’s focus on keeping Doug Phillips’ view of patriarchy from growing and spreading. That is why we are united here.

          Remember that Jesus told us to “love one another,” NOT “love one another only when you agree on every single detail.” The latter was basically what Doug Phillips taught. That is poison and I will preach against that kind of thinking all day long.

        • Jackie Cordon Says:

          Jen, thank you for clarifying your position on this matter. We obviously disagree on when it’s clergy sexual abuse and when it’s cheating or an affair. It helps to know your definition of clergy sexual abuse. I don’t agree so I will leave this blog permanently because the difference is too important to me. But again, thank you for clarifying your position.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Jackie, I’m in agreement with Jen on this. But I also agree with you that words have power. They most certainly do, and it’s for that reason that we need to be careful with our choice of words.

          I’m wondering if you’d be okay with “Clergy Sexual Misconduct”, the term used by Baylor University. I’d have no hesitation in applying this term in the case of the pastor of Rod’s wife. I like that term because it’s more broad in what it may encompass. After reading some of the articles at the Baylor site it seems they put some careful thought into that term.

  10. Dana Forbes Says:

    I was the set educator for the child actors on AYNA, as well as Kelly’s children. George Escobar asked if I would do this, having done the same on an earlier film he had produced. I had no idea Doug and his family were connected with the film, and actually acting in it, when I agreed to accept the position or I would have declined, because of a very distasteful experience with him and VF years before at my property in Colorado.
    When I read the script and saw who the cast was, I believed it was no accident I was there. One day during the shoot I heard Doug’s voice directly outside the “education” trailer. I knew I needed to meet with him. I went over to the meal tent and walked up to him, and said, “Hi, Doug.”
    He greeted me back and knew who I was right away. He turned to his family and asked them if they remembered me from before and we said “Hello” to one another.
    I then asked if he and I could have some time to talk separately. He agreed and asked his secretary to give us a good half hour alone. We walked off the set and began to talk.
    I felt like I needed to avoid looking like I was trying to ambush him, so I started off by apologizing for any unjustified hurt my letters, public and private, regarding his and VF’s actions on my property and what was removed from there and the film following, had caused him, his family, or ministry. I explained to him why I had written the letters. Mainly, the fact that he had refused to meet with me and others to try to work to resolve things, but instead simply taken a position that we and those with us were liars and thieves and anything we said was a lie (and gossip as well), rebuffing all well-intentioned attempts to sit down as Christian men and reason things out, even to the point of threatening letters from the VF attorney.
    Doug, in turn, apologized to me, and said this was the most “manly” thing he had seen anyone do in quite some time. He also said that had he known I was on this film, he would have seen to it that I was booted off. He told me that he thought I was one of a group of vengeful stalkers that would not leave him and his family alone. He also apologized to me and said that he should have sat down at the start, but, he said it probably wouldn’t have mattered. “I tend to be loyal to people to the point of not seeing things and ignoring evidence to the contrary.”
    To be honest, I felt like this was the start of a breakthrough, which I hoped would not only include me but others that had been involved. I found his children to be sweet and well-mannered, and when we ran into one another later in the shoot, everyone was friendly with one another.
    I did not go into anything further with him, as he knew my stance on things that had happened before and there didn’t seem to be much point (and no time either).
    I also found the Leinengers and Kelly’s family to be great people and very humble.

    • Jen Says:

      Hi Dana, welcome to our blog and thank you so much for telling us about this. I am truly sorry for all the hurt you experienced regarding the allosaur. I am glad that Doug seemed to make some effort at reconciliation, but I”m a bit confused: Who is that last quote about? Is Doug too loyal or was he saying that you were too loyal?

      So do you now have a good relationship with Doug? To your knowledge, has Doug attempted to restore any other of his hundreds of broken relationships?

      By set educator, do you mean that you taught the children on the set of Alone Yet Not Alone? That must have been a very interesting experience!

      • Dana Forbes Says:

        Doug was referring to himself in that quote, and I have not heard of anyone else that had any dealings with Doug, though I would probably be out of the loop on that.

        I myself have had no connection with him aside from our meeting on set in 2010.

        Being a set educator is interesting. A lot of different personalities, egos, and agendas in play.

        • Jen Says:

          Dana, I can’t help but wonder who you thought was Doug’s “secretary.”

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Jen, that is too funny! I completely missed that one. “Secretary”. What a great title for the paramour.

          Since when does an actor with such a minor part get his own personal secretary? I hope the film’s producers weren’t dumb enough to put her on the payroll. Oh, never mind. Of course she was on the payroll. She played a minor acting role in the movie too. Doug Phillips had a very minor role in the movie, so minor that the film’s producers had little trouble cutting his little scene and leaving it on the cutting room floor, after his sex scandal went public.

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Hello Dana, and welcome. I’m somewhat familiar with your story and feel very badly about what you suffered at the hands of Doug Phillips. I wish I could say you’re the only one, but many people have been swindled by Doug.

      “He also said that had he known I was on this film, he would have seen to it that I was booted off.” That’s classic Doug Phillips. He’s interfered in the livelihoods of hundreds of people, including costing people their jobs, especially anyone who attempts to hold him accountable. Hold him accountable and you’re the enemy, or as he called his former executive assistant Peter Bradrick, “A destroyer”.

      “He told me that he thought I was one of a group of vengeful stalkers that would not leave him and his family alone.” Again, classic Doug Phillips. He’s the most vengeful man I’ve ever known, which is exactly why he’s so quick to accuse others of being motivated out of vengeance. It’s called “projection”. He’s incapable of seeing that Christians are biblically required to hold one another accountable, and that we can do so out of love, not out of vengeance.

      So Jen is vengeful. Joe Taylor is vengeful. Terry Beh is vengeful. The Gavins are vengeful. Brandon Geromini is vengeful. You are vengeful. Anyone who tries to hold Doug Phillips accountable for his crimes is vengeful.

      “He also apologized to me and said that he should have sat down at the start, but, he said it probably wouldn’t have mattered.” So many have tried so hard for so many years over so many issues to just sit down with Doug and talk things out. I don’t know of a single case where that’s ever worked. With Doug there can be only one outcome – he wins, you lose, and you keep your mouth shut if you don’t like it.

    • Walking in Freedom Says:

      I had a chance to corner DP several years back and ask a few questions regarding the Raising the Allosaur scandal. One of the things he mentioned to me was how evil those involved were and how they had threatened and stalked his family. That’s when I knew for sure that he was a kook.

  11. Amy Says:

    What I don’t understand about all of this is why my husband and I could see through DP after a few friends showed us some VF material but so many godly men who are in areas of authority couldn’t…Scott Brown, Voddie Baucham, Kevin Swanson and etc etc. It just boggles me that so many people couldn’t see his arrogance.

    As for the no gossip rule I know all about that. Some dear friends of mine were heavily involved in another cult, Homestead Heritage, near Waco TX and I too went for a little while. They had a no gossip rule and it was used to keep people in the dark. I too know the unwritten yet so real you can taste it type of social pressure to confirm. It has been over 8 yrs since I’ve been there and I still have issues come up now and then.

    Thank God for my husband who saw it for what it was and has helped me move past a lot of it. Having gone through that I guess I saw VF for what it was. I know distrust anyone affiliated with DP or his “ministry” and that included most of the Reformed folks like Bauchan, Brown and others… of course I won’t even mention Botkin he’s as loopy as they come.

    • Jen Says:

      Amy, Homestead Heritage is my favorite “cult.” 🙂 Yes, I go there every Thanksgiving weekend and LOVE it! I go there often to eat and shop as well. But I also know what you are talking about. The similarities between the two are quite striking, so you have a fairly good idea what Vision Forum was about then.

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        What? Jen, you’re back in a cult? I thought you’d learned your lesson with Doug and BCA. 😉

      • Amy Says:

        I used to go to the fair but my husband says NO! He refuses to give money to an organization that hurts other believers. Just like he won’t buy anything from VF or NCFIC. Homestead Heritage makes VF look like a walk in the park. At least DP isn’t claiming to be Christ in flesh like Blair Adams does in Waco.

        That place has caused divorces, covered child rape/sodomy, domestic violence and suicides etc because the people couldn’t handle the pressure. I know it looks great at the barn, pottery shop or grist mill but let me assure you the underbelly is dark and horrifying. Even I had no idea the damage that cult has done.

        Friends of mine who were raised in it can’t even talk about God or go to church due to the abuse suffered from the leadership. They are poorly educated and find it very hard to function in society and when shoved out of the “community” by their parents and church leaders they usually go wild.

        Oh and did you know Homestead Heritage have the “true light” of God and all of us on the outside are lost and will one day run to them for the truth? Hmm…who knew that kind of perfection could be found here in TX.

        I don’t mean to be rude but how can you love a place that inflicts so must damage on children, women and other believers. If you know a place is toxic and abusive shouldn’t it be exposed for what it is and not financially supported?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Thanks Amy for mentioning this. I knew nothing of Blair Adams and Heritage Homestead until just a few moments ago when I googled it. There are far more derogatory articles online about Heritage Homestead and Blair Adams than there even are about Doug Phillips, BCA and Vision Forum. So it seems you’re not exaggerating when you say this man is very bad news.

          Jen, I concur with Amy that you or no one else should financially incentivize an abusive cult. We don’t want anyone incentivizing Doug Phillips and his abusive associates, so what Amy is asking for is only reasonable. Heritage Homestead sounds every bit as polished in its public image as Vision Forum was, but that polished image conceals a dark side.

        • DesiringToDiscern Says:

          Amy, I agree …We cannot support it at all. It LOOKS so amazing. They do not allow visitors to see the wretched conditions that the lowly members live in. Shabby trailers/mobiles, meager existence. Only those in full obedience are allowed to be seen at that event.
          Having personally encountered Regina, Blair and others years ago, I was thankful not to get fully hooked. The hook is to discover if god is telling you to join them. If god allegedly told you to join then leaving is an outright disobedience to (their) god. So many things are wicked with that place, yet the facade is so *lovely*. It does make VF/BCA look like a picnic…in comparison. Both are from the same spirit…Prideful, self-centered leaders demanding CONTROL and twisting the bible ! 😦

        • Jen Says:

          I would like to be very clear about something. When I first told my story, I never told anyone to not financially support Vision Forum. I certainly never called for boycott. I felt that was a decision each person, each family, needed to make for themselves, based upon the information available.

          I remember a period in my life when I tried to follow a VERY long list of companies to “boycott,” based upon various reasons. I think the list was put out by AFA. Anyway, I soon found myself questioning every purchase I made and wondering where it was made and whether anyone was hurt or laws were violated or moral issues were involved or if cockroaches laid eggs in the envelope glue or if the Mormons owned my grocery store or if a Mexican peed on my green onions. It drove me crazy!

          I finally realized that every person, and every organizations, makes decisions differently than I do. I am not responsible for what goes on behind the scenes.

          However, when I have personal knowledge of something that is harming people on a regular basis, such as the way Doug Phillips treats people and lives his life as a hypocrite, I will say something. And that is why I am here. However, it is still each person’s personal choice as to whether they continue going to an FIC church or try out one of Kevin Turley’s tours or financially support Doug Phillips in some way. I’m not going to try to convince anyone one way or the other on that, but I do want to provide as much information as possible so that each person can make an informed choice.

          While I would never dream of joining Homestead Heritage, and I do warn others who have asked about it, I have no personal experience to speak out against them either. That is not my mission in life. Thank God! One of these experiences is enough!

        • Bbb Says:

          I had never heard of HH so I did some research. I still don’t have a feel one way or another or any personal testimony about them – but I found this rebuttal of the charges well written and concise. Just weighing both sides. I am interested in any other links pro or con about this place. It is the type of place we would have visited w/ our kids had we lived closer. Am I understanding that there are indirect VF ties to this place?

        • Jen Says:

          No, Bbb, no ties that I am aware of, but they are a tight-knit, Christian homeschooling community who has many similar values in life. I felt very much at home there when I was deep in VF stuff. Yes, there are two sides to every story, but when there are a preponderance of similar stories, one must take them more seriously. That is one reason why we want people to tell their stories about Doug. We KNOW they exist, but so many people are still afraid to talk, apparently. Perhaps they do not realize the healing that comes from talking about it.

    • OtOLi Says:

      Not referring to anyone in particular, but many Christian leaders are afraid to call out other Christian leaders for arrogance, hypocrisy, legalism, etc. because they are guilty of the very same things.

      The distrust that you have for anyone affiliated with DP is one good thing that has come about because of what happened. That’s not to say that everyone associated with him is bad (he brought in some reputable people in order to boost his own image), but it would certainly be prudent to thoroughly check people out. Actually, that’s a good policy just in general even aside from DP connections.

      • Amy Says:


        I understand what you mean about making lists…no Disney, no Barbie, no this, no that. I, like you, don’t do lists and don’t care if a company happens to support the gays (which everyone does now) or militant feminism or any other unbiblical cause.

        Why? Because those are secular (aka: unsaved lost folks) companies that support those causes and I expect that from them but as for a “Christian” ministry that purposely deceives those in Christendom and the Waco community into thinking they are godly and love their people but in reality abuse them and cheat them then that’s another story.

        The people that make those nice gifts you buy at the fair or gift shop or the food you eat at the cafe NEVER see a penny of their work. In fact some of the young people work themselves into the hospital to put on that fair you enjoy. All the while making one man wealthy, Blair Adams.

        I know you are defensive about your Christian liberty and I understand why and I support your right to shop and eat where you feel is okay. Just understand that what you see at the fair is planned months in advance, on the backs of children and weary families in order to DECEIVE you to spend money and hopefully get you in…well if they think your an asset.

        You’re past childbearing years and don’t have enough boys to help balance the high number of girls looking for husbands, so that’s two strikes against you…are you musical? If not, then you’ll have a hard time getting in ;).
        Just food for thought.

        • Jen Says:

          Amy, I am sorry that you have had such a bad experience. Truly I am. We sat down and spoke with some people there the first or second year we went (2000, I believe). At that time, I realized it was NOT a place I would EVER join. And this was when they were relatively tiny. So, no worries about me joining another cult!

    • Andrew McDonald Says:

      Amy, You say that Scott Brown is a ‘godly’ man? I wonder if you’d clarify that for me, what has cemented that idea for you?

      • Amy Says:

        I mentioned him in a list of men that have ministries I used to listen to. I personally don’t know him nor have I heard any scandals about him. I used the term godly to say the guy is a Christian and preaches the Bible and isn’t messing around with his secretary;). I’m guessing you don’t find him on the up and up.

        • Andrew McDonald Says:

          Well I keep hoping he is but all that I’ve read about seems to indicate other wise, plus I’ve spoken with an in-law who he is estranged from, read about his history and I am afraid he might not be quite as godly as hoped. But I keep hoping!

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Amy, you really need to read my article about Scott Brown before assuming “the guy is a Christian and preaches the Bible”. Scott Brown doesn’t preach God’s Word. He is a false teacher. As to whether or not he is messing around with his secretary, let’s hope not. Most everyone assumed that about Doug Phillips too, even though he’d been cheating on his wife for a dozen years, all while preaching many times that “The Bible requires that all adulterers be stoned to death.”

          Voddie Baucham probably is a godly man and sincere, or at least we haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary. Kevin Swanson a godly man? I really find that hard to believe. Bombastic self-righteousness and pomposity don’t make for godliness.

        • Amy Says:

          I agree about Mr. Swanson and after the whole rap uproar over at NCFIC I think a lot of people are taking a closer look at these ministries.

    • Keith Blankenship Says:

      Is this the same Blair Adams who wrote the book “Who Owns the Children” with Joel Stein?

      • Amy K. Says:

        Probably…Joel Stein is a big one in the HH circle. If you get further into HH theology you realize they are NOT orthodox Christian. They are extremely work based, belief Adams is Jesus in flesh, a sort of mouthpiece of God type thing.

        Now if you ask them this at the fair or the easter/christmas concerts they will deny it and use common Christian lingo like “grace, salavation, dying to ourselves etc etc” but they don’t hold the same meaning as you and I and most of Christendom does.

        They are also very and I mean very charismatic. Speaking in tongues, jumping around and knocking pictures off the wall in house meeting and laying on hands praying for you to speak in the spirit to prove you have the Holy Spirit….how do I know? Because that’s what happened to me at a Friday night meeting.

        The folks that live there in mobile homes don’t actually own them. If they fall out of favor or are shunned (called disfellowshipped) then you have to move out. They claim they have never had a divorce in the history of their church but that’s because if a couple is having trouble they disfellowship them and after they divorce let the wife and kids back in. It’s so twisted I don’t have enough room to write about it.

        So many folks go to the fair and eat the food, smile as the kids sing and buy the gifts never knowing the abuse behind it. It’s really sad.

        • Keith Blankenship Says:

          I bought the book “Who Owns the Children” back in the late 80’s when I was a member of the Conservative Book Club. It may have been early 90’s. In any event, i have tried to read it a couple of times. It is quite a long book, but I have been able to glean a few items of interest from it. Do you know of the other author, Joel Stein?

          As I have followed the VF situation it has struck me that there are connections between many of the people involved in VF/BCA and other groups. This Bill Gothard keeps coming up as either a direct or indirect commonality. Gothard seems to have had some Plymouth Brethren association at some point, but this has not been verified.

          Thanks you for the description of HH. It sounds disturbing.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Keith, I’ve received several emails from various people expressing concerns over the commonalities between Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard. I share those concerns.

          I wouldn’t just assume that Doug Phillips stole many of his ideas from Gothard were it not for the fact that Doug has been stealing other people’s ideas for most of his life. He’s not an original thinker. Doug is a plagiarist, quick to steal other men’s ideas and not give them any credit. Where he does give credit it’s often been completely misplaced, such as he did in the case of Pastor Robert Gifford.

          It’s rather obvious that Doug Phillips did take some of his beliefs and teachings from Bill Gothard. I haven’t done any kind of in-depth comparison between the two, although I’m sure such a comparison would be beneficial. I’m probably not the one to do it though since I’m no expert on Gothardism. However, I did have some personal, but very brief experience, with Bill Gothard and the kind of wackiness he infects churches with.

          My first cult experience happened as a direct result of Bill Gothard. I was a member of a small non-denominational fellowship, a very normal and healthy church. After being a member there for a year, the pastor and his wife signed up the whole church to go to a Bill Gothard weekend seminar. It was a huge event that filled up a large arena. There were thousands of people there. I kept hearing things that I knew were extra-biblical; but Gothard taught them as “biblical patterns”, and he used other catch phrases that were foreign to me. I found much of the content of his lectures to be problematic. I’d grown up in church, so I knew the Word well and I knew how to study it properly. Gothard did a lot of proof texting and taking verses completely out of context. He didn’t seem to understand the importance of interpreting scripture with scripture.

          I attempted to raise my concerns with my pastor during the breaks in the seminar. The pastor’s wife kept meddling and interfering each time I did so. It was then that I realized that she was the one who really ran the church.

          That weekend Gothard seminar completely changed my nice little church into a wacko cult group, and it was amazing how fast it happened. Within a month the pastor announced plans to purchase several hundred acres of farm land where all the families could build their houses and move in together. There would also be guys and gals dorm buildings for the single folks. It would all be paid for by families selling their homes and turning it over to the pastor. We were encouraged to “share all things in common”. The people who had good paying jobs could keep them, but they were encouraged to turn over their paychecks to the pastor, with a pulpit reminder or two referencing Ananias and Sapphira. Those who had minimum wage jobs would work on the farm property. Almost every family agreed to do it. Many even liquidated their retirement funds and turned it over.

          I was renting an apartment at the time, and I was single. Even though the costs of room and board to live in the guys dorm were a bargain, and the food there was great, there was no way I was going to move into a commune, especially as I started witnessing some very weird things. The pastor’s wife took it upon herself to be the Lord’s messenger to almost everyone in the church. They stopped just short of calling her a “prophet”, but that’s exactly what she was presuming to be. She tried to give me a message from the Lord once. I asked her to show me how her message lined up with the Word of God. She couldn’t, and then I showed her from the Word how her message directly contradicted the Word. That was the last time she ever presumed to have a “Word from the Lord” for me. Needless to say the sweet and charming demeanor of the pastor and his wife toward me changed abruptly after that.

          One of my best friends was engaged to be married to a young lady in the church. They’d made a date for the wedding and had it all planned out. But the pastor’s wife meddled and interfered with their plans. This couple was deeply in love and it was obvious they couldn’t have made a more ideal pair. The pastor’s wife claimed she had “a word from the Lord” that the couple were engaged to the wrong people. She convinced them to break it off and become engaged to two other people in the church, people that the Lord had revealed to her as God’s will for them. She became the prophetess matchmaker. It was as if my friend had been hypnotized, and I told him so. He was functioning as though he were in some sort of a trance most of the time. I noticed this odd change in many of the people there. I even started wondering if they were putting something in the water.

          I won’t go so far as to say that Bill Gothard is 100% responsible for all that. What Gothardism did was to equip a husband-wife team of aspiring cult leaders to fulfill their dreams, while at the same time indoctrinate 120 normal Christian church members into becoming subservient non-thinking cult drones.

        • PioneerHomeschooler Says:

          What became of that group, TW?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          It disintegrated long ago, and as you might imagine, it was ugly. Communes are the worst possible form of cult group, especially those where you “share all things in common”. Once you hand over your possessions, good luck ever getting them back again. Cults like that can hold multiple generations in captivity.

        • Amy Says:

          What you are describing Eston is exactly what happens at HH. The elders decide, based on their “hearing from the Lord”, who should marry. All the money made at the fairs etc. are turned over to the leader and church to do with as he pleases. Scary stuff.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          It sure scared me. My girlfriend was really swept up in it though. I would have left immediately had it not been for her, but I wasn’t about to abandon her there. It took me a couple months to get her out. The thing that convinced her was my going through the Gothard conference materials and showing her all the ways Gothard had twisted scripture. I also took the pastor’s recorded sermons and we went through them together, slowly, analyzing each of his interpretations of scripture. Pretty soon she was able to do it for herself, and that’s when the blinders came off.

          Why was she so reluctant to go? Because it was “family”. Anne came from a very dysfunctional family which, I believe, made her just that much more vulnerable to getting swept up in cult, especially a cult that lived together communally. I’m not saying that everyone that joins a cult, and stays in a cult for multiple years, comes from a highly dysfunctional family background, but I do think those that do are far more vulnerable. When things start getting abusive they may be more willing to overlook it, especially if they came from an abusive family. To them abuse may just be normal anyway.

        • Amy Says:

          You are right on about the dysfunctional family aspect. During the first years of my marriage my husband had to remind me that it was okay to wear make-up, earrings and cut my hair because I still had lingering guilt about such things from HH. Now I don’t think about those much as all but if I see someone that looks like that my pulse does start to race a little. So I can relate.

  12. wakingup Says:

    This morning I read Daniel 11:21, and thought of it after reading about DP the scoundrel dressing up as a war hero: “a contemptible person to whom royal majesty has not been given. He shall…. obtain the kingdom by flatteries.” Thank you, Jen and TW for all your hard work in exposing this wolf and other wolves like him. It may be the most important job you will ever have. I hope many other people will be as brave and as loving as you, for the sake of His name.

  13. raswhiting Says:

    MovieGuide has a review of AYNA, dating from September 2013:

  14. Former BCAer Says:

    Doug always had a hard time getting alone with Cassandra for sexy time. I think that made him a lot bolder and more reckless about getting his nookie when and where he could. I can confirm that there was sexual touching between them on the set of Alone Yet Not Alone.

    • Jen Says:

      Former BCAer, so if it was obviously known in 2010, why didn’t anyone do or say anything about it?

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Thanks Former BCAer.

      We’ve just been informed that Dan Grady, husband of the notorious Jennifer Grady, and their two sons worked on the film set. Dan is a paramedic and probably quite good at what he does. We don’t know if Jennifer Grady worked on the film or not, but she’s well connected so it wouldn’t be surprising if when the film comes out we’ll see her name in the credits too.

      The PDA stuff between Doug and Cassandra would be shocking in a normal, healthy Christian setting, but most of these folks on the film set were steeped in the BCA cult-ure. You don’t question the cult leader and his paramour. Furthermore, years of sexual overtures by Jennifer Grady had softened everybody up to such practices just being the norm.

      • Sarah Says:

        TW this is not JG fault. She has nothing to do with any of this. Again a private citizen who doesn’t deserve to have her dirty laundry aired on an internationally read blog. Doug Phillips is the one responsible here. Not to be disrespectful but you are so freely using JG name but aren’t will to give your own and back up all of your articles with your name. Why exactly is that?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Sarah, you’re making big assumptions yet once again. You’d be astonished to discover just how much Jennifer Grady has had to do with this.

          Everything I’ve said about Jennifer Grady has been fully backed up. Her actions are directly responsible for splitting a church, dividing multiple families, and stumbling young people in their faith. What I’ve said about her on this blog is only a tiny fraction of the testimony I’ve received from the multiple families directly harmed by her. I agree that Jennifer Grady isn’t the focus of this blog, Doug Phillips is, which is why I’ve said far less of her than could be said. Like it or not her life is bound up in the life of Doug Phillips, and that is by her own choice. She latched onto Doug and used him as he used her. The two are difficult to keep separate, but the fact is I’ve deliberately avoided saying far more of her than could be said in order to keep the focus on Doug Phillips.

          Sarah, this is now your tenth comment defending Jennifer Grady, albeit your defense isn’t one that I can work with. This seems to be a hot button issue for you. I’m curious, why do you keep publicly defending her? On the whole your other comments here have been well thought out, but your defenses of Jennifer Grady don’t appear to have been thought out well at all, or perhaps you just haven’t figured out a way to communicate your defense well. If you have something substantive to offer, please feel free; but so far your position is unsupported by anything I can use to justify shutting down all mention of Jennifer Grady here.

          Just so you know, I was contacted weeks ago via email by another lady who asked that we shut down discussion of Jennifer Grady. I respect her for the way she went about doing that. She had some well reasoned arguments and I listened carefully to her concerns. I made her an offer to shut down all mention here of Jennifer Grady if she could substantiate something that she’d been told had happened — that Jennifer Grady had repented. She asked permission to forward our email discussion, which I can only assume wound up being directed to Jennifer Grady, either directly or through an intermediary. I granted her permission to do so. She’d been led to believe that Jennifer Grady had repented long ago. I’m confident, based on the testimonies of the families directly impacted, that Jennifer Grady has never repented. I have yet to hear back anything to the contrary.

          Jennifer Grady’s repentance wouldn’t be the only valid reason to shut down discussion here about her. There might be other valid reasons too. I just haven’t heard one yet. Let me suggest that if you wish to address this in a more substantive manner you might consider emailing me about it where we can have a more fruitful discussion.

        • Turkey Says:

          TW said, “Her actions are directly responsible for splitting a church, dividing multiple families, and stumbling young people in their faith.”
          Directly responsible for “splitting” a “church”?! And this would be a bad thing?! How about partially responsible for multiple people leaving a CULT (which is a good thing)? Dividing multiple families? In what way? And “stumbling” young people in their faith? More than a sociological CULT leader was doing? In what, exactly, were these young people putting their so-called faith?

        • Sarah Says:

          TW I will continue to defend a private citizen. JG obviously has her own issues to work thru. It is really not the publics business weather she has repented or not. Doug Phillips is the one that has to take responsibility and answer for his behaviour. I would also like to point out that you stated Doug had been cheating on his wife for a dozen years. I believe that to be untrue. By the way you didn’t answer my question about why you aren’t using your real name. Why aren’t you willing to put your name on your articles? You are critiquing the statements of other men and yet you aren’t willing to use your real name on yours.

        • Jen Says:

          Sarah, if JG’s actions only took place in the privacy of her own home, or with those she had relationships with; and if no one in the entire church was affected by her actions; and if a dozen families did not feel that her behavior impacted their own families to such a severe degree that they felt they needed to flee BCA for the safety of their own families when the elders refused to protect the flock; and if JG did not use Doug Phillips’ fame in order to continue her own behavior (she knows what we mean by this, but we will not elaborate publicly); and if JG did not openly throw herself at both community and Vision Forum events, causing drama everywhere she went; and if JG had repented at any time before it became necessary to show the extreme hypocrisies of Doug Phillips, then we would not speak about her publicly. But the truth is that she inserted herself willingly into a very public life, entering the public life of Doug Phillips and Vision Forum, and she made herself a very public figure as well.

          There are several families at BCA that I never speak of publicly because they do not make public spectacles of themselves. JG has decided to choose the public life, so she is one who has put herself into this position. I pray for her and her family.

          As for names, on this blog, everyone is entitled to the level of privacy they feel is best suited to them in this situation. There are numerous reasons that most people here do not use their real name, or their full name. TW is no exception. He has his reasons, as does everyone else.

        • Turkey Says:

          “This is a textbook case of the devastation that so often happens at the hands of a religious sociopathic narcissist.” TWE 12/02/13
          I agree with this statement. I would add that devastation also happens at the hands of the fellow-LEADERS who support and enable him.  Yes, followers like the alleged Cougar also support and enable him– but they are expendable and replaceable, and have limited influence.
              Apparently Phillips encourages the alleged Jezebel to act as she does. He gives her a platform. A small platform amongst a few fellow-followers from which she may have harmed dozens. But he could excommunicate and shun her at the drop of a hat. (Unless she’s got something “on” him worse than what he’s already confessed.) If he were to do so today, would we then advise his remaining followers to remain in the alleged cult? Would that mean he’s repented?  Should those who “split” a few years back over the sociopathic narcissist’s HANDLING of the alleged cougar attacks have STAYED if he’d “disciplined” the cougar as he did Jen?
               In like manner, I can think of over a dozen LEADERS, off the top of my head,  who have encouraged Phillips to act as he does. They’ve given him a platform. A public platform amongst a large community from which he’s no doubt harmed thousands. Some now seem to be shunning him. Should we assume they’ve repented? Should we advise their followers to remain with them? 
               I include in their number the wealthy benefactor who provided the start-up capital for the whole mess. AND, who is apparently, to this day, the PRINCIPAL of Vision Forum, Inc. and newly rebranded versions. Is it going too far to guess that said benefactor is now looking for a new front man to push the same old agenda? 
               I don’t care HOW nice these leaders are or HOW many secretaries or cougars or actresses they’ve not been fawning over— what they teach and promote is WRONG and un-Christian and must be opposed by people of good will.

      • noturniptruck Says:

        can you elaborate on what kind of “sexual touching” went on at the set of the film? NO ONE said anything about it?

        • Sarah Says:

          @noturniptruck I think for the sake of Cassandra’s privicy that is all the details you need.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Sarah, as you well know we’ve taken measures to guard Cassandra’s identify here. That’s a separate matter from the sexual behavior that she and Doug Phillips engaged in together, particularly if it happened publicly in front of witnesses, such as on a film set. Kindly refrain from attempting to stifle other people’s comments here. If that becomes necessary Jen or I will step in to deal with that.

        • noturniptruck Says:

          I am involved in the circle. I have met and am personally connected to many within the circle etc. I KNOW Cassandra. I was not there at the time of the filming and the reason I asked was because some might think of hugging as “sexual touching” in some circles……..that’s why I asked for clarification. Not like I thought I HAD to give you more reasoning…….but there you have it.

  15. noturniptruck Says:

    Katie Botkin is the niece of the infamous Geoff Botkin. I have found her blog REFRESHING to say the least. She has an article and things to say about this same subject!

    • Sarah Says:

      @ noturniptruck I just saw your comment above above your request about the contact with Doug had Casandra on the set. I apologize as I thought you were just digging for juicy details. 🙂

  16. Jean Says:

    Jen, why is Kelly using the name ‘Greyson’?

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      It’s a stage name, a common practice among actors, singers, and entertainers in general. We don’t assume it’s to hide her family identity, although that may be the case. It seems to me she could go much farther in her career by using the family name. Many powerful people know the name Leininger, and that’s a name that would open many doors for her. So if anything I respect her more for using a stage name. It could just be that Greyson is easier to spell and remember than Leininger.

      • Jean Says:

        I know the family personally…although it’s been many years. They are a wonderful family. I was just curious –

  17. Lori A Says:

    My father was in DD and the invasion of Sicily, to see this tool wear the uniform and standing above true hero’s is almost to much to bare, this man is a liar, a depsicible adulterer and other things that apparently are being held close to the vest,
    When we give up not caring what goes on (Homestead Heritage) and shopping there, were saying that what DP did is acceptable ,

  18. Bbb Says:

    Why shame on you T. W.! Don’t you know you should emulate leaders of other denominations, continuing to keep JG in the closet hidden from the rest of the world – to protect the good name of the cloth – all the while allowing her to continually feast on innocent young men and soil their lives?!

    Sarah – If I was the mother of one of these BCA young men and hubby and I were foolish enough to continue to hang around bathing in the koolaid, I pray that we would have a friend bold enough like these bloggers to give us a swift kick in the pants and say “Open your eyes! They’re naked you idiot!!!” (My paraphrasing of the “The Emperor’s New Clothes”)

    So – I am registering my semi-public thank you for any REAL names associated with DP and his “ministries” who have also proven themselves to be untrustworthy and unrepentant. Praise God and pass the ammunition!

    • Andrew McDonald Says:

      Today I have written to WORLD magazine asking them to do an expose on the Patriarchal and Family Int. Church movement. I suggest everyone do so. If they see an interest they might do so.

      • Jen Says:

        Interesting, Andrew! Please let us know if you receive a reply.

        • Andrew McDonald Says:

          Are you kidding? When you hear the shouting that’ll be me. I encourage everyone to do so.

        • Andrew McDonald Says:

          Got this today from WORLD: Thanks for your email which was forwarded to Editor Mindy Belz and Editor-in-Chief Dr. Marvin Olasky.” Use this address for WORLD mag: when you write to them. Ask them to expose the VF and NCFIC movements.

    • Jen Says:

      Bbb, I like your style!

      • Bbb Says:

        Jen, thank you for the compliment. I contemplated posting a lengthy response explaining the use of literary devices for the benefit of another blogger, but I decided not to chase the evasive red herring. Que sera sera.

    • Sarah Says:

      Bbb what are you talking about? JG was a member of a cult. I do not consider BCA a church. If families fled a cult because of JG behaviour, bravo. They did the right thing by leaving. They should count themselves lucky they got out when they did. I’m sure JG wasn’t the only one from BCA riding Doug’s coattails. And I’m sure there was lots of other misbehaviour in the BCA culture. We are not talking about a church so please don’t compare it to one. I’m not trying to protect the good name of the cloth because there is no member of the cloth in this situation. I consider Doug an unbeliever. The fruit of his life gives more then enough evidence to show me that.

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        “If families fled a cult because of JG behaviour, bravo.” Sarah, your comments here have suddenly gotten way out of line. You need to back up and regroup. Yours is not a “defense” of Jennifer Grady. It’s just crazy talk. You are so fixated on defending Jennifer Grady that you’ve become calloused and hardened to multiple families that were victims of her predations. You’re giving no thought whatsoever to how your calloused comments here are wounding those families that are reading here.

        All your other comments here have been appreciated. Anything Jennifer Grady related has been irrational, all directed out of your own personal life history. You sympathize with Jennifer Grady because, in your view, she must have the same kind of family history as you do. Maybe she does, but you don’t know her personally so you’re making some huge assumptions, and you could be very wrong about Jennifer Grady. What you’re doing is called “projecting”, and people who project sometimes behave exactly like you’re doing right now. You think you’re helping, but you’re harming the very people who are already the victims. Now you’re badgering too.

        I’ve spoken to Jen about this and she agrees that you can’t be permitted to continue making such harmful comments here. I’ve invited you before to take this offline with Jen and I and discuss your concerns with us via email. Please do so soon. Until that is done please refrain from any further comments here regarding Jennifer Grady.

    • zooey111 Says:

      I agree!!
      Predators need to be exposed, for the safety of those they would prey upon.
      I have been thinking about why it is easier for some folks (& I am NOT picking on anybody here!!) to ignore JG’s predations, is that we have all been culturally conditioned to recognize male predators. Females who do these things are more often given a pass because a lot of us grew up hearing that “boys will be boys”, so we laughed it off. We now know a lot more about how much damage that these women do.
      Honestly, if I had a son of the age that she apparently is attracted to, I would be tempted to slap her face up on a billboard, not simply discussing her on a blog.

  19. oneh20 Says:

    Does anyone know if there is a site for Homestead Heritage survivors?

    • PioneerHomeschooler Says:

      I would also be very interested in knowing about a site for Homestead Heritage survivors. (This is the group at Brazos de Dios, in Elm Mott, TX near Waco.)

      • DesiringToDiscern Says:

        PH, They were also in Crawford, CO…Koinonia Ranch(had their own valley, but left) and had some of their people in an area in rural So. Calif. AKA Emmaus Fellowship. Blair and Regina Adams roots are Pentecostal but they are way over the cliff from there.I wouldn’t call them Christian. I would call them Blairian 😦 Enticing ideas from the outside but deranged belief system on the inside. VERY fear-based.They work intensely to keep up their public image.

        • Amy K. Says:

          DTD, you are so right. They are getting a lot of heat here in TX from the authorties and media regarded their abuse (one guy got 100 yrs in prison for raping children) and so there are attemps to re-establish in Idaho.

          They were in NY, then CO and they have a cattle ranch in Oklahoma (that’s where they raise there grass fed beef) and have bought hundreds of acres in ID.

      • Amy K. Says:

        There is a site. I have to check with my friends who left after being there for 8 yrs. If you google you might find it….factnet that’s what it’s called I think. The have forums and you can hear personal stories on there kind of like Jen’s site.

        Don’t be swayed by HH media team putting out facebook and other media rebuttals it’s all a front. It’s like Doug Phillips manipulation but multiplied.

  20. idontgetit Says:

    You know I saw DP in a video some many years ago in one of his videos with the dress up and manly man routine. I dont like to judge people but I have to admit I really thought he was a tool / talking suit. I was not impressed at all. I felt the same way when I saw bill Gothard at a meeting I lasted about 10 minutes at the seminar and that “toolish” feeling came over me. I felt like I was listening to some type of Ponzi scheme. I know I am not a very “spiritual” person and I am deeply grateful to God for that. I am saddened people are taken in by these company men. God does not expect you to park your brain at the door when you go to a church or Christian meeting.

  21. Andrew McDonald Says:

    I have a new normative biblical pattern, according to Exodus 10.9 God NOT only wants the whole family together at church but all your animals as well. It is very clear in this matter. ‘And Moses said, We will go with our young and with our old, with our sons and with our daughters, with our flocks and with our herds will we go…’ So this sunday, at our NCFIC member church, we will be taking our dog and canary to services.

  22. Andrew McDonald Says:

    Once again I am thankful we don’t have an aquarium.

    • OtOLi Says:

      Don’t the Bradricks have a farm? That would be interesting!

    • JourneyGirl Says:

      Haha! Andrew, that is great! The irony is that just an hour ago, I was thinking through all the things that I was taught by my parents based on “principles, precepts and normative patterns”, and I realized that if we start getting into the nitty-gritty details of Scripture and begin making a principle for living out of everything we read, without applying context and systematics, we will end up doing rediculous and irrational things!

      • Andrew McDonald Says:

        You mean like starting the NCFIC? But wait that’s very rational, you can make tons of money off it especially since the crash of the other outfit of once BFF Doug. Scott is probably dancing a jig.

        • JourneyGirl Says:

          Heh. Right. But I was thinking more along the lines of rational, faith-based Christian living. 😉

  23. Carol Says:

    Wondering if anyone has contacted Samaritan Ministries healthcare organization (per earlier comments), and if so, what the response was.

    • Jess Says:

      Carol, I must have missed any other comments about Samaritan Ministries, so excuse me if I’m making you repeat things. Is Samaritan Ministries a by-product of VF? I know they advertised for them, but didn’t know of any connection other than that. I am a bit nervous because my family made the choice to go with this company recently and didn’t find out about all this DP/VF nonsense until AFTER we were all signed up!

      Anyhow, to answer your question as best as I can, as far as I can tell SM is business as normal. Atleast, as participating members now, we haven’t heard that anything is changing. I am going to start looking more into it now, though. Sorry to chase a rabbit here…especially as a first time commenter! 🙂

    • Geoff Says:

      I called Ted Pittenger, the President of Samaritan Ministries on January 10. Aside from talking about the sex scandal I also brought up Phillips’ extreme views on ectopic pregnancy. Mr. Pittenger said he didn’t know about those things, but I had doubts and thought his ignorance was an act. Here’s my email follow up from the same day.

      Dear Mr. Pittenger,

      Thanks so much for your time on the phone. Per our discussion here is the text from Doug Phillips regarding his sexual affair:

      Clarification on Resignation
      by Doug Phillips, November 14, 2013

      I would like to express my gratitude for the great kindness so many have shown to my family in the wake of my stepping down as president of Vision Forum Ministries. My family has been greatly encouraged by many loving notes we have received. With that in mind, I want to be so very clear about the rightness of this transition, and I want to clear up some matters which have been brought to my attention. My sin has resulted in great pain within the Body of Christ, some confusion, and has given the enemies of God reason to rejoice. This is heartbreaking to me. Some have suggested that my sin was not sufficiently serious to step down. Let me be clear: it absolutely does merit my resignation. My resignation is sincere and necessary given the weightiness of my sin. Some reading the words of my resignation have questioned if there was an inappropriate physical component with an unmarried woman. There was, and it was intermittent over a period of years. The local church, not the Internet, is the proper forum for overseeing the details of a man’s repentance, but I just want to be clear for the sake of peace within the Body of Christ, that the tragic events we are experiencing, including the closing of Vision Forum Ministries are my fault, and that I am sincere that I should not be in leadership, but must spend this season of my life quietly walking a path of proven repentance. Please pray for the Phillips family, the Board, and the men who have made up the staff of Vision Forum Ministries.

      Doug Phillips

      Here are some of the links I mentioned regarding Doug’s position on ectopic pregnancies:

      Please follow up with me regarding my concerns on Doug Phillips’ sexual affair and what the status of your business and client relationship with him will be in the future.

      I couldn’t be more disappointed by Mr. Pittenger’s response. After all the information I gave him he just skirts the whole issue. This company has no integrity.

      Ted A. Pittenger
      Jan 17

      Dear Geoff,

      Samaritan Ministries relies on the leadership of the local church to provide accountability for our members. We do this when they first join Samaritan Ministries, when they sign their annual renewal, and whenever the household submits a medical need.

      Any action we may take regarding a member being in good standing will be based upon the recommendations and actions of their church’s leaders. If a Samaritan Ministries’ member is brought under church discipline, found to be unrepentant, and is excommunicated, we will take appropriate steps to remove them from membership.

      Thank you for your inquiry regarding this matter.

      For The Kingdom!

      Ted A Pittenger
      Founder & President
      Samaritan Ministries International
      [Phone] 309.689.0442

      • Jen Says:

        Geoff, on the one hand, this demonstrates perfectly my position on authority in the church. The church has all the authority to decide “healthcare” status for those who choose to use this type of ministry. That is too much control.

        On the other hand, I cannot imagine a ministry like this looking into each individual situation and deciding whether or not to continue their membership, so they have delegated it to the church.

        I’m too libertarian in all my thinking to approve of either one of these scenarios.

        • Geoff Says:

          Jen, I understand Samaritan Ministry’s policy of delegating such things to the local church. That makes sense to me, so that’s not the problem I have with Mr. Pittenger’s response.

          I wouldn’t have a problem with Mr. Pittenger’s reply if I’d just been asking a general question about some hypothetical layperson. I wasn’t. I was asking about a very public person involved in a very public sex scandal, someone who has a very close business relationship with Samaritan Ministries. I don’t buy for a second that Pittenger was really as ignorant as he acted on the phone. How is it possible that he didn’t know all about Phillips’ sex scandal?

          In his non-answer to me Pittenger just completely sidestepped the issue, putting it in the hands of Phillips’ elders to ignore, just like he’s ignoring it. I can only assume he’s not going to do anything because of all the money that Phillips has brought in to Samaritan Ministries. They call it a “ministry” but obviously the only thing that really matters to Pittenger is the bottom line.

          I’d told Pittenger that I was seriously considering Samaritan Ministries for my own family’s healthcare needs but that this issue of Doug Phillips and how they handled it would be a clear indication to me of their integrity. I got my answer.

  24. Jean Says:

    Jen or TW, is Thomas Lyles – Tim Lyles? Did you see interview with Kelly Greyson that took place in Atlanta where she talks about coming to an understanding of the full impact of Grace about 7 years ago? Not something I remember hearing from that group many years ago. Spiritual growth despite DP????
    Does Enthuse still have ties with the now defunct VF? Is DP completely out of picture now with this group or is he waiting to make a come-back? How much from this movie and the other projects will he financially benefit?
    How can Cassandra’s family and DP family still come together at BCA? Just would be terrible reminder of betrayal. Is she completely out of his life??
    Sorry, my mind is filling up with questions about all outlying areas of VF and all that I remember from years ago.
    Jim L brought Doug to SA for sole purpose of helping homeschool movement…not to start his own business out of the ministry. Is that not a correct statement. DP was and continued to be supported by the generosity of JL. Correct? What is the relationship today.

    • Jen Says:

      Jean, so many questions! I don’t have all the answers, but let me try.

      I do not know specifically who Thomas Lyles is, but if you find out important information, please feel free to post it.

      I have not had time to watch this interview with Kelly Leininger Greyson yet, but here is the link for others to do so. I’m not sure where she learned about grace 7 years ago, but it probably wasn’t at church, since she was still attending a church in the community, as far as I know, and they certainly do not understand grace.

      Enthuse and VF have all the same officers on their boards, so do you think they still have any ties? Doug’s name is nowhere to be seen, but he is here in town still, so I don’t think he’s sitting around feeling sorry for himself. Is he waiting for a comeback? Yep! I’m sure of it. That is why we keep posting articles here. I do not know how Doug will benefit financially from this movie at this time.

      I don’t think that both Cassandra’s family and Doug’s family still attend BCA together. I don’t know where Cassandra’s family is going to church right now, but to lose 15 years of deep friendships like that is unthinkable, so I think they are still heavily connected to the community. We have been told Doug and Cassandra are no longer seeing one another, but what goes on privately, no one knows for sure.

      Well, since Dr. Leininger helped fund both Doug’s business and ministry, it seems like he went in with eyes open. Is Doug still benefiting from Jim’s generosity? I have no idea. I would hope that Jim would not be foolish enough to keep supporting him.

  25. T.W. Eston Says:

    Vision Forum Ministries as far as we can tell was the last owner of Jonathan Park, after it had been sold by Vision Forum Inc to Vision Forum Ministries in 2011 for $670,833. That was a crafty way to skim a significant amount of cash out of a 501c3. Ordinarily it’s very difficult to get money back out of a 501c3 once it goes in because of the tax code prohibitions on “private inurement”. Certainly a 501c3 can purchase certain assets, but it’s very doubtful whether purchasing Jonathan Park could have had a legitimate purpose that benefited VFM in any way. Once the money was transferred to VFI’s coffers Doug would have had considerable discretion to do with it what he wanted.

    That purchase and transfer of ownership, in my estimation, fails the smell test of what the IRS calls a “valid business purpose”. There is no valid business purpose in the the non-profit Vision Forum Ministries purchasing Jonathan Park from the for-profit Vision Forum Inc. VFI was the one who sold all the JP merchandise, both before and after the change of ownership. So how did VFM benefit in any way from the change in ownership? How could VFM’s purchase of JP be legitimately construed as a “valid business purpose” when it doesn’t benefit VFM in any legitimate way? In my view that entire transaction has SHAM written all over it.

    Here’s the info from the Vision Forum Ministries 2011 tax return:

    Form 990, Part III, Line 2
    The organization acquired a program for the price of $670,833
    called the J Park Program which is a fully developed radio broadcast that
    is now on 400 radio stations. Consistent with this organization’s mission,
    the J Park Radio Program promotes and teaches the study of science from a
    Christian perspective. Various products are sold in conjunction with this
    program that should that should make it self-sustaining. This program was
    purchased from Vision Forum Inc. and was purchased for a price established
    by a third party appraisal firm. The acquisition prive [sic] of this program is
    listed as an asset on the balance sheet within, not of amortization.

    I think it’s great if the original creators can save Jonathan Park. I wish them the best. My only concern is in buying Jonathan Park back who or what does the purchase money go to?

    • Bbb Says:

      Listen carefully to the wording in the video. They are working very hard to spell out this exact situation but appear to be taking the high road in how they are handling it. Wow – Tier 1 is $100,000 – DP must be asking a fortune for it. I believe a truly remorseful DP would hand it over. What else would he do with it? Oh – I forgot – the goal is to make money isn’t it? DP would rather gnaw the bones than to give it up. I feel sorry for Pat – I have met and spoken with him several times and he truly seems like a fine Christian man. It’s too bad he was misguided by this crook. Obviously this situation reveals exactly what is happening with the other movies that are not coming out. I still wonder if Ace Wonder factors in here somehow. Return of the Hiding Place. Has anyone else noticed that The Drop Box has not come out also after a whole year? These are all MIA – more war tactics perhaps?

      • Sarah Says:

        Jonathan Park belongs to VFM. The Roys would be purchasing from VFM. Doug Phillips has nothing to do with it. He’s not in the picture.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          “Jonathan Park belongs to VFM.” As far as we can tell, yes, that’s true. The problem is we don’t know what might have happened since 2011, the last year that VFM tax returns are available. Jonathan Park was © Vision Forum Ministries, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it was, by late 2013, still owned by VFM. The entire purchase by VFM of JP was, as I’ve stated, rather dodgy in the first place. As such we have no guarantees that Doug isn’t right in the middle of this latest deal. As such it would be wise to wait for further confirmation.

        • Sarah Says:

          TW I have further confirmation. I simply asked.

        • Jen Says:

          Sarah, what is your confirmation?

        • Sarah Says:

          Jenn I simply asked Pat Roy as well as another insider.

        • Bbb Says:

          That is good you asked. I will say it is just as intertwined to the onlooker who saw jp series connected to vf website, blue behemoth website, and if course their own which linked to vf, not vfm. Do we assume the sales in vf site went back to vfm? What a lot of paperwork! Why didn’t they just sell it on vfm? It is very confusing indeed and I don’t think this is all dp doing looks like. I know when I bought jp c.d.s., I did not receive a partial donation receipt like focus on the family does when their retail is for their ministry. Didn’t the video state…with the closing of vision forum…and not vfm? So confusing! Again, poor pat. He is definitely gifted.

        • Jen Says:

          Bbb, what you have said could be very significant indeed. Please let me ask for some specifics for clarification. When did you buy a JP CD? And there was no tax deductible receipt at the end of the year? Did you also donate to VFM?

          How about anyone else here? Please let me know if you donated money to VFM, and if you received receipts. Did you purchase anything that same year? What kind of purchases? I am looking for categories like toys or books, or anything that was recorded at a conference or Doug Phillips speaking, or JP. I have a theory, but I need some real life examples. Thanks.

        • Sarah Says:

          I would just like to add that Pat Roy emailed me that they have a statement in writing from VFM that Doug Phillips will be receiving zero money from the sale of JP.

        • Jen Says:

          Thank you very much for that. Sarah! I really appreciate that!

        • Bbb Says:

          I was reviewing the Jonathan Park site. It is a shame they will not even link over to Pat’s site from this page. Anyway Jen – found a little more info about the donation vs. retail side of Jonathan Park. Apparently they asked for donations for the projects and radio stations through the VFM site and assumedly purchase of the disks through VF would just be considered retail. I guess we assume it cost much more to produce the series and distribute it than they recoup on the sale of the individual disks?

          Join the Jonathan Park Creation Response Team!
          Help Keep the Creation Adventure Alive
          Your support will:
          Help to us to record, produce and distribute Jonathan Park, The Whispering Sphinx, Volume #9
          Help us to reach more radio stations with Jonathan Park

          Your donation will be processed through Vision Forum Ministries, the umbrella 501(c)3 organization for the Jonathan Park Creation Adventure Drama. Your gift is fully tax-deductible, and will be used specifically for the ongoing work of Jonathan Park. Enter the amount of your donation, and make sure to select the Jonathan Park Fund, to designate your donation.

        • Bbb Says:

          Sarah – you might pass along the word to the Roys that the “what we belive” link on all their Creation site pages is most possibly a misspelling of the word “believe?”

        • Sarah Says:

          @Bbq you are exactly right. The production of JP as well as all the video series, books, ect… were funded by donors. All would have received tax receipts. Brilliant business plan on Doug’s part. Donors covered all the costs aged he pocketed all the profit.

      • AsikReruns Says:

        The cycle from completion to distribution for most independent feature films is 2-3 years. The Drop Box, Return to the Hiding Place, and The Ace Wonder were all completed in the last three years. Drop Box has a distribution deal and will be released soon. Return to the Hiding Place is still being entered into film festivals which means it probably hasn’t received an acceptable distribution contract yet. Ace Wonder announced a Father’s Day release date on their public facebook page.

        • Jen Says:

          AsikReruns, thank you for the information. It is very valuable in helping us understand how this works.

        • DesiringToDiscern Says:

          AsikRR, I know that releases can be delayed in the music industry (been there). The movie industry probably has similar delays. It is interesting to note that AGENDA (SAICFF winner 2010) had a release date of 2010, INDESCRIBABLE (low budget SAICFF semi finalist 2013) was on DVD two months later.THE WIDOW”S MIGHT won in 2009 and came out that year. Interesting business. In earlier VF days many of the films were quickly available in DVD. Some came in a multiple movie pkg. Times change, I guess.

        • AsikReruns Says:

          DTD, Agenda, Indescribable, and The Widow’s Might were all very low budgeted productions, and were released only to a very niche market group. Agenda didn’t receive a formal distribution offer, it was released exclusively through their own website which makes release very fast. Indescribable and Widow’s Might released only to Christian bookstores. Widows Might was produced in 2008 and wasn’t released until the end of 2009. Over a year from production to release, and that’s for a very small film in a very small market.

    • OtOLi Says:

      In addition to wondering who they would be buying from, I also wonder about the following (from

      *Please note that while your contributions will be used to partner with us to save Jonathan Park, they are not tax deductible.

      While it appears that they are looking for donations, any money contributed would not be considered a donation by the IRS. It seems like this is being promoted as a ministry, but is in reality a business asking for free money.

    • OtOLi Says:

      Just thinking out loud here…Would it make sense for someone to release one of the “protected” movies and see what happens?

      • DesiringToDiscern Says:

        So what becomes of the *assets* of a defunct 501c3 (VFM) ? …and when ? and who gets the leftover monies and properties ?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          No individual can pocket the assets. Per the tax code the assets of a 501c3 that is dissolved must be transferred to another like-purpose 501c3. My thinking is that Scott Brown, in particular, would have strong incentive to want to see the dissolution of Vision Forum Ministries. By simple majority vote of the board he could have all the assets transferred to NCFIC. If VFM still owns Jonathan Park the sale proceeds then would also go to NCFIC, as well.

        • DesiringToDiscern Says:

          WOWEEEEE !!!!!! 😦

        • Mobley M. Says:

          Do they even have assets? Or are they in the hole? Wouldn’t they have had contractual obligations?

    • Jen Says:

      Yes, this is simply a business asking for money.

      My question would be, “Is Jonathan Park going to continue to overtly promote extremely legalistic patriarchy or will they go back to the original normalcy found in the first season?

    • Mobley M. Says:

      Does not pass the smell test at all. Do you have any details on how VMI originally accquired JP?

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        The rights to the Jonathan Park program were transferred by Institute for Creation Research to Vision Forum in 2004.

        Quoting from ICR’s May 2004 newletter:

        A recent refocusing of ICR’s projects and priorities led the leadership to seek another home for Jonathan Park and his adventuresome friends, one which specializes in children’s ministry rather than scientific research. Just such a home was found in Vision Forum, under the leadership of popular “Back to Genesis” speaker Doug Phillips.

        Vision’s ministry is to facilitate the restoration of the Biblical family, and creation outreach plays a big role there. They will not only continue the Jonathan Park radio drama but expand it, dedicating to it the necessary resources that ICR couldn’t.

        Mr. Pat Roy, who for twelve years has been ICR’s Director of Broadcast Ministries and “father” of its radio drama will be leaving ICR to join the staff at Vision. He will continue the sound creation content the program has known. We thank God for Pat and his contribution to ICR, and wish him well.

        None of my insider contacts at this point seem to remember the details of the transfer. Was it a sale? Was it a donation? Legally and for tax purposes it matters a great deal. It also matters a great deal what the rights were transferred to.

        What I’d always heard is that the rights were transferred to Vision Forum Inc, and that’s certainly the way that Doug Phillips had treated JP from 2004-2011. But this is where it starts to get problematic: ICR is a 501c3. Vision Forum Inc is a for-profit corp. A 501c3 cannot legally gift an asset (property rights and intellectual property are an asset) to a for-profit business, and I’m doubtful that ICR would have been stupid enough to have done so.

        So if we rule out a gift then it had to have been sold by ICR to VFI. The problem with that theory is that there is no sale of any such asset shown on ICR’s 2004 or 2005 990 tax returns.

        More than likely ICR thought they were donating the rights to VFM, and if that’s the case then that’s the way the paperwork would have been drawn up. But Doug may have played fast and loose with the transfer by handling it internally as if it were functionally owned by VFI. Then in 2011 he sold the JP rights from VFI to VFM for $670,833. That in itself was quite dodgy, but add to that the way the rights transfer likely took place originally and the entire thing is major-league dodgy. Again, I doubt that ICR is in any way culpable. It fits very much with Doug’s MO though.

        From an accounting and financial standpoint the lines have often been blurred between VFM and VFI. When it was to Doug’s advantage the two entities were separate and distinct, but often it was to his advantage to treat them as one and the same.

        I wonder if this could come back to bite Pat Roy later on when he becomes the new owner. Hopefully not. I’d hate to see him get hurt. Anyone reading here who is already in contact with Pat might want to email him a link to this comment.

        Quite frankly I think it’s outrageous that the VFM board is trying to squeeze so much money out of Pat at all. The program is his brainchild in the first place. To me it smacks of greed. For the VFM board to try and offload JP for so much money on the tail end of a sex scandal is just demonstrating even more bad faith. They should just sell it to Pat for $1.00 and be glad to be out of it.

        • Eva Says:

          Have you contacted ICR to see if they will give you the information? My one concern is that John Morris seems to be friends with Doug Phillips and went on a trip to the Galapagos with him. I’m not saying John Morris knew about Dougs problems but it might be harder to find out anything. You could try asking. I’ve been wondering the same thing.

        • Mobley M. Says:

          I entirely agree. Thank you for your reply. How much money are they trying to raise? I think something on this blog say 100k – where did that number come from?

          Was Pat Roy working for ICR from the start of JP or was there an initial transfer there as well?

          More importantly: the transfers you speak of in 2004 and 2011 and the lack of transfer so far in 2014. Let me suggest, that if you are trying to turn public opinion away from DP and Christian opinion in particular, and it certainly looks like you are, then I think it would be highly effective to write lead articles about how DP is holding programs like JP hostage. There are many people who like programs like JP (and there must be others as well, whether book series or other things that people have worked hard on developing and then sold to VF). If DP is holding these things hostage for gain and if this can be shown he will truly draw the ire of Christians who really like programs like JP. You see at first these people might lament not having DP around since he was the one who brought them JP. But if it can be demonstrated that DP is in fact the who is now standing in the way and keeping Christians from the programs or books that they cherish then DP will go from fallen hero to a contemptable villian in an instant. If he persists and allows this to happen he will have no possible recovery in the eyes of his former followers. If he gives in then the little people like the Roys win along with those who enjoy their programs.

        • OtOLi Says:

          Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about this, but wouldn’t it be illegal for the VFM board to sell JP to Pat Roy for less than it is actually worth? I mean, obviously the VFM board has been negligent in their duties already, but don’t they have a fiduciary responsibility? Even if the “ministry” is closing down, they can’t just give away the assets. From what I understand, Roy is trying to buy the rights as a business, not a 501c3 ministry.

          Just to clarify something else as well, is trying to raise $100,000 for a *downpayment* to purchase JP. Who knows what the full purchase price is.

        • Mobley M. Says:

          Otoli, – but it is only worth what someone is willing or able to pay for it. If there is no buyers that can afford a million dollars then they should sell it for less so that people who have enjoyed it can continue to do so. Ideally they would sell it back for the same price they sold it for.

  26. Connie Says:

    Earlier in one of your blogs you stated that DP did not do any sort of outreaches or even believe in winning the lost. I am listening to Family Strategies and on one cd he talks about one of his daughters ministering to the lost veterans which means he does believe in telling the lost about Jesus. Regardless of how aggravated we may be at him for the pain he has caused many there are a few facts that remain that some may not like. His children are being raised to tell the lost about Christ therefore he believes in that AND there is great wisdom and training that can be gleaned from Family Strategies (example: while listening to FS with my son who has a problem with serious self love starts speaking wise and kind and I wasn’t doin ANYTHING but listening to FS and then he opens the door for me which he I don’t think has EVER done). So while you are posting information here you may need to recheck some of the facts to make sure they are indeed accurate and good can still come from things he has taught no matter how much you may disagree. When you post things like I have stated above you begin to look like you are just talking ugly about him because of your bitterness of being shunned. I agree about the dude being a two faced liar but work harder on keeping facts real and true.

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Connie, you seem to be of the opinion that what Doug preaches he practices. You’re wrong if you believe that. Doug Phillips is a master manipulator and a pathological liar. He is also spiritually lost. How can he engage in any kind of gospel outreach when he is lost himself? As Jesus said, “They are like the blind leading the blind.” Just like any other cult leader, Doug Phillips redefines the terms. His definition of “gospel” is no more orthodox than the Jehovah’s Witness definition.

      “When you post things like I have stated above you begin to look like you are just talking ugly about him because of your bitterness of being shunned.” You’re making a huge assumption about Jen (and perhaps me too?). Jen has been accused by many people, and now you too, of being “bitter”. You’re wrong about that as well. I’ve known Jen for years and I can assure you she is anything but bitter toward Doug Phillips.

      Neither Jen or I have condemned Doug for those teachings of his which are truthful and consistent with the Bible (and some of them are). What we condemn is his being a pathological liar, a master manipulator, and a hypocrite. Doug is successful, in part, because he says what he knows people want to hear. He couldn’t be successful without that.

      Jen and her family lived in “the community” for years, so she knows of what she speaks about Doug Phillips.

      • MomT Says:

        TW – First of all thank you for the time you put in helping to expose DP. As I have told others of some of the things you have shared I have been asked – “Who is TW Eston?” I could not remember if you had posted in another article or comment about how you came to be helping Jen with this blog. Were you at BCA, did you know DP personally or were in you in a similar cult-like group before? Do you mind sharing how you are connected to this whole situation?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          MomT, I’ve shared some of my back story previously. I knew Doug Phillips personally from years ago, but I sized him up as someone that I should steer clear of. I was never a member of BCA, although I went through my own religious sociological cult experience in a cult quite similar to BCA. There are many such cults that are heavily influenced and spawned by Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, Scott Brown, RC Sproul Jr, Doug Wilson, et al.

          I’ve known Jen for some years and respect what she’s done to expose Doug Phillips for the wolf in sheep’s clothing that he is. Unfortunately most people chose to ignore her, ridicule her, or assume that her exposés have been motivated entirely out of bitterness. Even if that had ever been true (and it’s not) I’ve always found it remarkable that “bitterness” is the standard excuse Christians use to dismiss the warnings they don’t want to hear. Had more people listened to Jen years ago it would have saved potentially thousands of families a great deal of trauma.

    • Jen Says:

      Connie, I understand what you are saying. Let me explain how I’ve seen this work in real life. Doug will do something, possibly with his family, and then he will tell the world about it. To hear him talk, it sounds like it is something that happens on a regular basis, but in reality, it is often a one-time occurrence. I am not against having a huge repertoire of experiences. In fact, I did the same thing with my own children. But to hear him talk, he does not make it clear that these type of things are not actually regular activities in the Phillips’ family.

      How do you think his children actually meet unbelievers? Doug is a separatist and teaches that we are to separate ourselves from those who are not “like-minded.” This includes even other homeschoolers who may not wear dresses or who might go to Sunday School or some other grave sin. If one of his daughters had an opportunity to speak with someone different once, that is great! But I can guarantee you that there is certainly no pattern of that in his family.

      In fact, it really is just another example of how hypocritical Doug truly is. And I would go so far as to guess that others will confirm what I am saying here.

  27. 2busymom Says:

    Hmmm, this whole fiasco is now chronicled in this week’s issue of ‘Entertainment Weekly”. Raises the question of cronyism.

  28. Joshua Wiley Says:

    This is all pretty interesting!

  29. Brenda Karl Says:

    I agree with you about DP not spreading the gospel…, but I have wondered why did he go to Haiti? I think it was Haiti that had the huge earthquake and he was down there immediately helping out. There were videos all over his blog and it just surprised me? Any thoughts? Also, I was an avid reader of his blog for years. I noticed that the older daughter went from being photographed a lot, to hardly being seen. When you did see her, in my opinion, she looked very unhappy. I know I is speculation on my part, but knowing what we know now, I wonder if she knew. I just remember looking at those pics thinking…she’s not happy and I wonder how long she will make it in this system of abuse…

    • Sarah Says:

      Publicity stunt. Always drawing attention to himself. Plus another free trip paid for by VFM donars. By the way Cassandra and her mother packed all the care packages that they took with them on that trip. So Doug had a few hidden agendas there I’m sure.

  30. Brenda Karl Says:

    Yes, there is no time like the present. 🙂 Seriously, though, when I saw the Haiti pictures and such, I wondered if he was planning to take the “family gospel” to other nations.

  31. Remember the Rules Says:

    All, please remember the rules for posting comments. I realize there’s much to discuss about DP but we don’t need to go to the level of tearing him down or desiring to physically assault him with a “blanket party”. Is that Christlike?

    Jen is starting to become a hypocrite herself. Her own rules state:

    “No ad hominem attacks. For those of you who are not well versed in logic, this means no personal attacks. It is perfectly fine to state facts or ask leading questions, but they must be based on fact and not just meant to tear someone down.”

    • Remember the Rules Says:

      TW, how are you able to judge DP’s salvation?

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        My position is that Doug Phillips is likely unregenerate. I base that upon observing fruits of his life which are consistent with an unregenerate man. Worse yet Doug Phillips is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Again, I base that upon the evidence of his own life.

  32. JourneyGirl Says:

    Hmmm, well. TW, was that comment removed? If so then I guess mine is uneccessary. Lol I must say, I just had to shake my head and laugh at the rediculousness of it! I admit, it was entertaining. (Jen, people who know and love you won’t believe a word of it. Keep on. Grace and dignity. “Always abounding in the work of the Lord.”)

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      I made the mistake of approving a comment from “Jennifer Grady”, but I also posted a reply stating that it may have been an imposter. Jen assured me that it was most certainly was an imposter. I should have spoken with Jen prior to approving it. I’ll do my best to avoid making that kind of mistake again. My apologies for any confusion that may have resulted.

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        We received the “Jennifer Grady” imposter comment at 6:49 PM yesterday. Now a smear job against me this morning.

        Thanks to everyone who sent me emails early this morning expressing concerns over the smear job going on at Spiritual Sounding Board, and elsewhere.

        The imposters (or perhaps it’s only one agent saboteur) are getting active all of a sudden. I do not have a Twitter account. Also, I had nothing to do with setting up I have no idea who did that. Jen seems to think it’s an “admiring fan” but I seriously doubt it.

        No doubt there will be multiple blog comments popping up now using the “evidence” found on a Twitter account I didn’t establish to smear me as a “kinist”. It seems that some are quite eager to do so. From what I’ve seen of Doug Phillips and a few of his close associates this fits his M.O.

        • Grace Alone Says:

          Thank you for clarification. Someone has gone a long way to smear you. Typical of them. Your “website” is glaringly obvious not your style or type of writing. Someone was in a hurry.

        • Jen Says:

          Ha ha ha! TW is so far in the technological “Dark Ages” that I can’t get him to even text me. His “dumb phone,” as he calls it, couldn’t access Twitter to save his life, and I cannot imagine that he would ever actually be capable of saying anything less than 120 characters! Even the thought of him attempting to be that brief is laughable! I tried to get him to use Facebook, but you can all see how well that worked!

          So, I had to actually have an old-fashioned phone conversation with him this morning and he asked me to say that he will respond to any comments here (only) when he gets back home. I told him it was really lame that he couldn’t even monitor WordPress comments on his “dumb phone.”

          So there you have it. That is the “news” of the day!

        • JourneyGirl Says:

          Yes. Also, the author of the supposed TW Eston blog left out a number of words that TW uses all the time. And no offense, but I am very certain that TW is not as young as that dude in the photo. And only ONE Facebook friend? Who is on Facebook with only one friend? (Clearly a guilt by association friend.) The whole thing is cheesy at best and anyone with all their marbles would see through this nonsense. Well, I guess we know what Doug Phillips is up to with all of his spare time!

        • Sarah Says:

          @ Journey Girl The TW Eston Facebook account has been there for months as well as the website. Actually it has been there since TW first started posting here on Jens Gems. I know this because I checked that day. So it is impossible that Doug Phillips has anything to do with any of this.

        • JourneyGirl Says:

          Sarah, oh I see. Well, I wasn’t very clear, but I meant that Doug could be behind the TwEston blog and twitter account, for the purpose of smearing TW. The Facebook account looks bogus, regardless who set it up.

        • JourneyGirl Says:

          Sarah, TW didn’t set up that website. Yeah it probably wasn’t Doug Phillips, but it is highly likely to be someone who follows DP. I guess the only person who can shed some light on this is TW himself.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          I set up the Facebook account in 2011 as a means of communicating with those few companies and vendors who make it difficult to communicate with them any other way. About the only other thing I’ve ever used Facebook for is to message people that I’ve wanted to connect with. That’s happened fewer than a dozen times. The Facebook account seems immaterial to the smear job, at least so far.

          As I’ve already said I don’t have a Twitter account and I had nothing to do with

          I won’t say that I’m entirely confident Doug Phillips’ partner in sabotage Matt Chancey is behind all this, but I won’t be surprised if the next thing that gets created is another Mrs. Binoculars-style smear site. I was impressed with how Jen was able to laugh off Mrs. Binoculars as she did. I learned a great deal from observing her responses to all of Matt Chancey’s libelous guilt by association antics. In the end Matt Chancey was shown to be the corrupt hatchet-man that he is.

          Jen has a great sense of humor and I’ve seen how that has carried her through some otherwise very stressful situations. I’ll do my best to follow Jen’s own good example and not take the bait.

        • Jen Says:

          Sarah, I agree. It is not Doug Phillips doing this.

        • Bbb Says:

          I took fascination with the catalogue cover for 2014 again today. I still say that is DP in the background right of the cover. But I noticed a hieroglyphic message on the ceiling. When translated – it becomes Burma. I did see there was a mystery puzzle in this catalog. Perhaps I solved it? Did I win anything?

        • tgbtg Says:

          If you magnify the cover, the “portrait” on the right has a very strong resemblance to a former intern, Kurtis Amundson.

        • Not Fooled Anymore Says:

          Yes, as far as we know it is former intern Kurtis Admundson in the picture Bbb is speaking of.

        • Bbb Says:

          Mystery puzzle take 2
          Wait a minute! Burma was the country that the king in the “King and I” used to make fun of for being so small. The school children were taught to make fun of the people in Burma to elevate themselves as a country and to feel more significant. The king in the movie loved to wear flashy international attire. The lead actor in the film version yul brenner is amazing at drama, but not really a good singer! Ok, I think I’ve almost got this…

        • Sarah Says:

          @ Jen Are you implying that TW Eston is his real name? In your above comment you say, “I tried to get him to use Facebook, but youcan all see how well that worked.”

        • Jen Says:

          Sarah, I am only saying that I walked him through using Facebook and how to friend me, but he doesn’t see the value in using Facebook, so he’s done nothing with it. If I only had one friend on Facebook, I probably wouldn’t like it much either!

        • Sarah Says:

          @ Jen TW is a fake name as TW has stated himself so why would you help him set up a Facebook account?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Sarah, I’m struggling to see how you could have read Jen’s comment and come to the conclusion you did. Jen in no way helped me set up a Facebook account. I set it up long before she became aware that I had a Facebook account. She’s just encouraged me to use it more than I have. I’ve declined her request.

        • Sarah Says:

          @TW I apologize I misread. She only said she tried to get to use it. My bad.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Thank you, Sarah. Apology accepted.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          “If I only had one friend on Facebook, I probably wouldn’t like it much either!” Other way around. I don’t like it therefore I don’t have any Facebook friends. I’ve received many friend requests, but I’ve ignored them because I have no intention of using Facebook for anything other than what I’ve already stated.

          I’d rather not get into bashing Facebook here because I know that many people love it. I don’t though. Yes, I’m old school. If people want to get in touch they can email me (still very current technology, if you ask me). That’s my preference.

        • Sarah Says:

          @TW I am really confused. You previously stated that TW is a fake name in order to protect your true identity. Now you are saying you set up a Facebook account with a fake name for business purposes. How exactly would that work if TW is a fake name?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          No Sarah, it is you who is stating that T.W. Eston is a “fake name”, and you’ve stated it several times now. You’d be unwise to interpret the fact that I will neither confirm nor deny as an admission.

          There has certainly been some speculation as to whether or not I’m using my birth name or an alias; but as far as this particular blog is concerned it’s a non-issue.

          It’s to my advantage to allow those rumors to persist, including what my true identity is, should T.W. Eston not be my true identity. So I won’t confirm nor deny any of the rumors. You’ve made an issue of that before, but you need to appreciate that I don’t care, just as I don’t care whether or not “Sarah” is your real first name, or middle name, or last name, or your mother’s name.

          Jen has elected to use her birth name here, and that’s her prerogative; but as she’s also stated to you, more than once before, everyone here is free to use their birth name or an alias. Everyone has their reasons, and those reasons will be respected.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Other than the very inactive Facebook account and the gmail account, my only presence on the internet is here at Jen’s Gems, and it will remain such for the foreseeable future.

          Any and all announcements by me about me will only take place here on this blog. I will not be setting up any blogs, Twitter accounts, WordPress, Blogger, or Tumbler accounts (which the account appears to originate from), or any other internet accounts of any kind. If I were to ever change my mind about this I would first inform readers of it here so that you know it’s legit, and Jen will also confirm its legitimacy.

          This also goes for any guest articles that show up anywhere else. If any guest articles were to appear on any other blog or web site you can be sure that they are fakes unless you have first seen an announcement of it here on Jen’s Gems. This also includes comments by me on other blogs, which I rarely post now that I have been active on Jen’s Gems. When I have posted comments on other blogs I have usually made mention of those comments here.

          As everyone can now plainly see, it’s quite simple to impersonate on the internet. But a little bit of common sense goes a long way. I’m grateful the majority of readers here do exhibit a great deal of common sense.

        • Sarah Says:

          @ TW can you clarify your above statement? When you talk about your only presence on the internet being an inactive Facebook account and gmail account, do you mean under the name TW Eston? Or does that include any and all presence you have on the internet no matter the name it’s under?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Sarah, for any and all questions regarding my identity I’ll refer you to my previous response here.

        • Angela Wittman Says:

          In defense of TW Eston – Sorry if this isn’t the correct thread, but yesterday I read that Mr. Eston is rumored to be a “kinist.” Please know for a fact that if he was, there is no way on earth he would even be halfway polite to me. A couple of years ago I took a very public stand against kinism in theonomy and denounced it as an unbiblical, heretical, wicked teaching. I might not know TW’s identity, but I know he can’t be in that crowd or he would shun me like the plague. 🙂

        • Sarah Says:

          @TW You are the one that said TW Eston was alias not me. You wrote it in the comment section on Spiritual Sounding Boards wall under here January 7th article.

        • Mobley M. Says:

 has been up and unchanged at least for the past month (since before Christmas)

        • Angela Wittman Says:

          I had no idea this was happening… I’ll be on the alert and try to stop any rumors that might come my way.

  33. Jen Says:

    For those who briefly saw a comment by “Jennifer Grady,” I have deleted that. It was not really Jennifer Grady and I will not be approving any comments by that person. Sorry for the interruption!

  34. Not Fooled Anymore Says:

    Jen, whoever that was I am so sorry for how they spoke. Wow! I sure hope you will carry on and continue to do what is needed as I have no idea how many such things you are or have been getting that we are not seeing. It is so hurtful and want you to know we support you.Please do not get discouraged and continue you as this blog is very needed for so many of us. Blessings to you this evening.

  35. Not Fooled Anymore Says:

    Sarah, I do wonder who you are and what your MO is sometimes? Not meaning to be offensive but dates can be faked and this group has a history of fake sites like this. If all this was supposedly up for months don’t you think it would have been discovered before now? Yes, the FB account was there, but we do not believe the blog was. We checked back when and saw none of this. We really don’t think this was and feel this is a new thing set to attack this blog. In light of all the other crazy things posted the last weekend by attackers, this, unfortunately is not surprising.

    • Sarah Says:

      @ Not Fooled anymore Who is the we you are referring to above? And my MO is being truthful.

      • Not Fooled Anymore Says:

        Sarah, I am referring to my spouse and myself. We often feel you answer so definitively as though you have it on personal authority that you are certain of things and sometimes like us all it does not turn out to be that way. Thus many of us try preface our comments with things like, ‘from what we understand, ‘ or “in our opinion.” That is why we are wondering how you either know so much or are so certain as if we recall correctly you did not go to BCA and do not live in this community? Please correct us if we are wrong and in no way do we want to pick an argument. We were just curious as to your very precise answers. Thanks!

        • Sarah Says:

          @Not Fooled anymore. Yes I stand by my statements. As with Jen and TW I protect the identify of my sources. No I am not a former member of BCA.

        • Walking in Freedom Says:

          Sarah, you say that you’re not a former member of BCA…what about a CURRENT member?

        • Sarah Says:

          @woman of freedom lol, no I am not a current member of BCA or any other cult 🙂

    • oneh20 Says:

      I’ve been staying quiet lately, but I have to say that Sarah comes across to me as someone who is trying to be objective and level headed, which I appreciate very much. We all need to keep on our critical thinking caps and not be swayed by emotion (which is easy to do when there is pain involved). “Just the facts, ma’am” goes a long way.

      • T.W. Eston Says:

        oneh20, I think I understand where NFA is coming from. To quote Sarah’s earlier comment: “The TW Eston Facebook account has been there for months as well as the website. Actually it has been there since TW first started posting here on Jens Gems. I know this because I checked that day. So it is impossible that Doug Phillips has anything to do with any of this.” That’s an all-encompassing (“anything to do with any of this”) and very authoritative-sounding (“it is impossible”) comment that leaves no room for doubt that Sarah is absolutely certain of what she’s talking about. Yet she is wrong.

        Since I had nothing to do with and the tweston Twitter account, it remains an open question as to who is responsible. Sarah may be right about Doug Phillips’ not being involved in any of it, but it wouldn’t be based on any evidence she’s provided here. If Sarah is right she’s only guessing, unless, that is, she has some solid inside information on who is behind it. I trust that’s not the case though.

        I’m not willing to say what Sarah has alleged with the sort of certainty that Sarah expresses her opinions with, unless I’ve got the evidence and testimony to back it up. If it’s speculative then I’ll say it’s speculative. I think that’s basically all that NFA is asking for.

        We can say with reasonable certainty that Doug Phillips had a great deal to do with Mrs. Binoculars, via his close association Matt Chancey. In other words Matt Chancey wasn’t acting on his own. Doug Phillips may have something to do with this latest smear too. If he does then he’s using someone not nearly as crafty in smear tactics as Matt Chancey is.

  36. Maxwell Says:

    The articles at are dated 11/14/2013 and 11/19/2013 but the domain name wasn’t even registered until December of 2013. Something seems just a bit odd there.

    • Sarah Says:

      Possibly that was a renewal?

      • Maxwell Says:


        Domain Name: TWESTON.NET
        Registrar: GODADDY.COM, LLC
        Whois Server:
        Referral URL:
        Name Server: NS55.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
        Name Server: NS56.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
        Status: clientDeleteProhibited
        Status: clientRenewProhibited
        Status: clientTransferProhibited
        Status: clientUpdateProhibited
        Updated Date: 14-dec-2013
        Creation Date: 14-dec-2013
        Expiration Date: 14-dec-2014

        Creation Date is the date of the original registration.

        • Sarah Says:

          According to Whois there has been a prior owner. You have to pay to see that info tho and I’m not willing to do that. 🙂

        • Maxwell Says:


          Would you mind providing a link to the information that indicates that the domain has had a prior owner? As far as I’m aware, and I’ve been doing this a long time, the creation date on the record sticks with the record even through transfers… case in point,

          Updated Date: 2014-01-17 18:30:58 <— most recent transfer to Enthuse
          Creation Date: 2009-07-17 20:19:04 <— original resistration date

          And I'm also unclear where you would go to pay for access to the information. I get mine straight from my command line: $ whois — but if you're on a Windows machine, you won't have access to that. will show the same thing. The registrant has chosen to remain anonymouns by using the DomainsByProxy service, which is fairly common these days. According to, they will not release the registrant's contact info except 1) When required by law, or in the good faith belief that such action is necessary in order to conform to the edicts of the law, 2) To comply with a subpoena or other legal process served upon [them], or 3) To resolve any and all third party claims, whether threatened or made, arising out of [the] use of a domain name registered by Domains By Proxy on [the registrants] behalf.

          All that said, I think you may be wise to rethink what you thought was so. All evidence says that the domain first came into being on 12/14/13. I'd be more than willing to admit that I am wrong if presented with evidence to the contrary — while I know quite a bit about the inner workings of the Interwebs, there are still things that I don't know.

        • Sarah Says:

          @maxwell Sorry this took so long. I am well aware of the created date. I was referring to the 5 changes that have been made. If you look in who is it gives a little more info then go daddy. All the registrants info on go daddy for TW Easton is a dead end as the phone number and address is a domain by proxy one the is used by anyone who goes thru them. What is possible tho is that someone who already owned a domain or many domains could have changed the name of one of them to TW Eston in December.

        • Maxwell Says:

          Sarah… what 5 changes? Please provide a link that shows them.

          You don’t simply buy a domain and then change it to some other domain. Each domain name is registered as is. If I register, I don’t get change it to at some later date, it doesn’t work that way. You certainly could buy and the transfer the ownership to someone else but that would be reflected in the “updated date”, not the “created date”.

          I don’t want to offend but what you are saying is not making any sense. I’d like to follow along but it’s rather hard without a link to the data that you’re referencing.

        • Sarah Says:

          Not offended in the least. You are helping me to understand.

  37. zooey111 Says:

    I think somebody is trying to make everybody who criticises DP look bad.
    (Before somebody tries to say bad things about this person “zooey”, that happens to have been the name of a very nice person indeed, as I should know: she looked rather like my 😉 avatar in fact).

  38. Mark Says:

    I am not concerned with whether the twitter was set up and run by TW Eston. But perhaps you could tell us whether you are a kinist?

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Mark, after reading the Wikipedia article on “Kinism” I’m confident in saying no, I’m not a kinist.

      • Andrew McDonald Says:

        I had to look it up too. I thot it was someone who studied kinetic energy.

        • Scott Says:

          Well Andrew your initial guess was better than mine, I thought it was someone involved in the kinky side of patriarchy.

      • Sarah Says:

        @ TW Eston I read the definition on Wikipedia and it didn’t mention what I understood kinist believed. I thought kinist were against interracial marriage? That when the bible talks about being unequally yoked it’s talking about race. Is that correct or did I misunderstand?

        • Andrew McDonald Says:

          Sarah it’s about marriage to an unbeliever. Moses wife was dark skinned and when folks complained about it they got in trouble. God don’t care about the color of our skin, He cares about the condition of our heart! Which I’m glad for cause Im as unattractively white as a flounder’s bottom! Never tanned only burned. lol

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Sarah, are you talking about 2 Cor 6:14? “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” I’d always thought being unequally yoked was about Christians not marrying non-Christians. No doubt it might have other applications too, like perhaps in certain business relationships.

          As far as the kinist position on unequal yoking I’m hardly qualified to answer that. You’re right that the Wikipedia article doesn’t seem to address that but, as they say, google is your friend.

        • Sarah Says:

          @andrew macdonald I know what the verse means 🙂 I was simply asking if that’s what kinist believed it ment as that was my prior understanding.

        • Mark Says:

          @TW, so do think it’s okay for blacks and whites to intermarry or have children together, then?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Mark, it’s not for me to judge, and I don’t. I’m good friends with a mixed race couple in my church, a black husband and white wife. They’ve had several children together and they have a very strong and devoted marriage. They go to my church because they’re loved and accepted there, which is more than they experienced in other churches they tried. Another friend of mine from church is Chinese and his wife is white. They too have several children. Nice family.

  39. Amy Says:

    I have a question for those in or previously in an FIC church: Did you experience or hear talk about the ideology that blacks were inferior or the “Sin of Ham” type of stuff?

    I ask because our family visited one tiny reformed baptist that was FIC and there were people who openly used the term “negroes” and talked about the idea of how blacks were cursed in Old Testament. It sent alarm bells off and that’s why we don’t go there but I wonder how common this is.

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Amy, are you describing what is commonly termed “white supremacy”? I’ve only been in one NCFIC church and it wasn’t like that. Neither is my current church, which isn’t FIC. It may be that what you describe is a cultural/regional sort of thing and nothing official in the NCFIC. But there may be some not so subtle influences within the NCFIC that could lead member churches in that direction.

      Some of that influence may come from one or more of the NCFIC leaders. See my comment about Dan Horn, and the several comments that follow. Dan Horn is an elder at Scott Brown’s two churches near Wake Forest N.C. Hope Baptist Church and Sovereign Redeemer Community Church. Dan Horn is a regular speaker at NCFIC conferences. Dan Horn’s Discerning History business sells videos that, among other things, attempt to make for a “biblical defense” for slavery.

      • oneh20 Says:

        Not sure, but there seems to be a lot of trickle down theology from Rushdoony.

        • Mel. Says:

          TW “It is not for me to judge” sounds less than impressive to me. It could imply to me you had to think about the answer or cloak what your real thinking is. Please clarify That it was not said “absolutely, there is neither Jew nor Greek….but all are one in Christ Jesus” and” I absolutely have no problem with racial intermarriage…”is a potential problem. It is like saying 40 or 50 years ago “some of my best friends are….” It IS for you to judge the principle and the only answer that maintains ANY credibility is “absolutely I believe it is okay that black and white people marry and would be delighted if one of my children…. ” IF necessary one could add something like “At one time I was in a different tradition and God has delivered me so I am just getting used to the idea…” or” I am so sorry if anything I have ever done or said in my life implied otherwise…” So I am not going to say you do not believe unequivocally that interracial marriage is no problem or good in your eyes. But your statement said less than that to me..
          Am I wrong in my understanding of what you meant? If so Please tell me and your readers here if so and state unequivocally that there is nothing wrong with interracial marriage….
          This is why it matters-credibility. It would show me that this blog deserves a different type of scrutiny from me.

        • Jen Says:

          Mel, I am approving your comment this one time, but it sounds to me like this borders on an ad hominem attack, which is not allowed on this blog (see the Comment Etiquette page). We also don’t fall for other logical fallacies, such as “guilt by association.”

          Let me make this VERY clear. TW is NOT a racist. I am NOT a racist. TW is NOT a kinist. I am NOT a kinist. We have no obligation to discuss the issue any further than that. We are not falling into the political correctness trap of being guilty of racism until you prove yourself innocent to whatever extent that those accusing you without any evidence may arbitrarily demand.

          If you would like to discuss the finer points of racism and kinism, I would suggest that you, and anyone else who is interested in racism, take it to a blog whose purpose it is to discuss such issues. The purpose of this blog is to expose Doug Phillips. Smearing people with labels of “racism” or “kinism”, without any evidence other than maybe some flimsy guilt by association logical fallacies is acceptable in some circles. It’s not acceptable here because we believe it’s unjust to require anyone to live under a system of “guilty until you prove yourself innocent”. Having seen how the accusations have gone recently, it is my belief that no matter how TW answers your questions about racism, you will just pick up another rock to stone him with.

          This is our final answer on a non-existent issue whose only purpose, it appears, is to deflect from the purpose of this blog.

      • Amy Says:

        What the heck is a “kinist”? Now I’m from TX and the old folks use the term “kin” to describe family but I’ve never hear kinist before.

        Now speaking of the race stuff, my husband saw DP video about “jive talk” and was appalled. He thought it was odd that he would use that term seeing how it is very closely tied to black folks. How many white folks say they talk “jive”? It seemed weird.

        Also my lovely husband said if he didn’t think it was a sin or crime and if he was talented enough he would have liked to have hacked that video on VF and inserted the song “Jive Talk” in the video as DP talked. Of course he didn’t but I do chuckle when I think about it….lol.

    • TammyS Says:

      Amy, I believe this is more cultural than anything. I live in the south and was brought up hearing that junk taught in many Baptist churches. I now attend an FIC and we would never teach that. In fact, our pastor’s family has adopted black children and we would welcome any mixed couples at our church. Another FIC church that we used to attend had several mixed couples. We are all sisters and brothers in the LOrd. So I don’t think that ideology is common at all in FIC churches unless perhaps they are centered in a southern area? Nothing against the south – I love it. But I just think that ideology isn’t so much FIC but southern. Our FIC also does not follow extreme Patriarchy such as DP teaches. We women wear pants, some of us work, our children are in dating relationships, etc. Just wanted to say there are some really good FIC churches out there, not all are in the extreme although it probably seems that way.

      • Jen Says:

        Tammy, welcome! I am actually not aware of any churches that promote kinism, but perhaps they do exist.

      • LHarding Says:

        One small objection. It may be a cultural thing but racism is not a “southern” thing. I have grown up in the south, and I’ve travelled extensively. I know just as many redneck racists from Indiana and Michigan as I do from Tennessee. I am happily a part of an interracial marriage, and the people who object to it come from all over the country…not just the south.

      • raswhiting Says:

        Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis has long spoken out against racism in the culture and in the church. This brief article [ ] shows the Biblical position and links to a free 58 minute audio recording. He also has co-written the book, One Race, One Blood, with Dr. Charles Ware.

      • Amy Says:


        I do think that it was just that certain FIC church and those members. I found it frustrating that members allowed the man to sit around and talk about “negroes” and said nothing but if he said something against Calvinism then well a discussion would need to take place and the man would be straightened out.

        Also the whole head covering thing was taking place. Women would cover their head for meeting together as a church but take it off as soon as we went to eat in the fellowship hall. I never understood that, weren’t we still praying and meeting together?

        Oh and the prepping for the coming collapse. That was another aspect. The church only had 6 families, so 6 head of households and at least 3-4 of them carried weapons at all times. Not opposed to that, I own firearms and it is TX but there was sense of paranoia.

        Is this common in other churches?

        • Tammy S Says:

          Amy, I apologize I did not reply sooner. This forum stuff is somewhat new to me and I did not see this before now. I never really saw any head covering in any of the churches we were in but the prepping for the End TImes was very rampant in our area (several surrounding counties I would say.) This was not FIC churches as these were churches before that whole movement. THese were independent churches. My dad was very much involved in more than one of them. In fact, just this week he handed me a booklet about the end times. I agree that we should watch for Jesus’ return, but these go much further than that. Definitely an extreme focus on prepping for it. But I have to say that the FIC church you reference definitely seems even stranger than that.

  40. raswhiting Says:

    Tangential to this post topic, a one hour interview with Joni Eareckson Tada, .

  41. SeeingTheLight Says:

    Sarah, that was my first thought, also. Why so much secrecy over whether or not it’s a pseudonym?

    Instead of admitting that, he attempts to make you question your grip on reality. AKA, gas lighting.

    Here is a link to the SSB quote:

    • Jen Says:

      SeeingtheLight, considering that the only reason you apparently came to the blog is to attack TW, I would like to let you know up front that that kind of behavior is not tolerated here. TW has given his position on his name multiple times. That is to be the end of it. I will not approve any more comments from you, or anyone else, about his name. You should just be grateful that I allow people like you to come here and use names like “SeeingtheLight” when you obviously do not see any light at all. There are plenty of well-known blogs out there that require full names AND blogger profiles before you can comment. This subject has been addressed in full and this is the last comment I will approve on this topic.

      • SeeingTheLight Says:

        Jen, I’ve been reading here for a long time; I read the story of your excommunication long before Doug’s “affair” came out and you started posting again. I didn’t come here to attack TW. I’m not sure why my comment showed up where it did, but it was supposed to be in response to what Sarah said here:

        If Sarah hadn’t remembered TW’s own words in the comment he left at SSB and I hadn’t said anything, it seems TW would have been perfectly content to let her and others believe that he’d never said that. I call that gas lighting. It is an abusive tactic.

        Maybe you won’t post this comment, but I just wanted you to know that I have defended you in the past. I also find your posts to be really informative.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          STL, please familiarize yourself with the Comment Etiquette page. Accusing me of “gas lighting” and “an abusive tactic” is over the line.

          My apologies for having forgotten what I even said about that issue on SSB, but getting unjustly attacked like I have been on SSB, and to continue being attacked ever since that time, makes it a little challenging keeping some details straight in my mind. It’s made all the more difficult when I’m trying to stay focused on other research projects and writing articles. Please don’t assume that my failure to remember some detail must have some evil motives behind it.

        • Jen Says:

          SeeingTheLight, since this was the first time you posted under this name, I could only assume you were new here. Thank you for your kind words about me.

          May I just say that if you were being falsely accused and attacked the way TW has been lately that you may not remember your own exact words all the time either. As a matter of fact, due to my stroke several years ago, I do not remember the specifics of what I always say in every comment either. Alas, my photographic memory is not quite as sharp as it used to be.

          A little grace on specific words used is always a good policy.

          TW is giving months of his free time to be here and help me. I can assure everyone that he does all this to help other people not get caught up in another cult. It is his strong personality that makes him such a strong writer, and I like that about him. He is not here to be “touchy feely.” He is here to expose wickedness in the church. He is not here to defend why he chooses every word that comes out of his mouth. If we held every commenter to the standard that a few are demanding of TW lately, we would have no one left here.

          This comment morphed into something for everyone, not just directed at you, SeeingTheLight. I’m just asking that everyone treat TW, and one another, the way you would want to be treated yourself.

  42. Mobley M. Says:

    And this all coming right after a post about gossip. If this post wasn’t something akin to a juicy gossip column I don’t know that is. By the way I agree with the critique of the “no gossip” rule and I agree that the “no gossip” rule is cultish. Also, you don’t seem to provide an honest answer in your discussion of the film. Did you actually like the movie as you say at the end, or were you taken back by its “scary” dominion aspects which you seem to be ever so sour against?

    • Jen Says:

      Mobley M, I’m not sure if I should welcome you to the blog or not. It doesn’t look like you come here with good intentions.

      Yes, I very much enjoyed the movie. No, I am not “scared” by dominion theology, but I do think it is an extremely dangerous doctrine, designed primarily for certain people to rule over other people. It is devoid of love and devoid of Christ.

      • Mobley M. Says:

        Regardless of your welcome of lack of welcome thank you for letting me post my criticism of the article. I have read most of your blog (or at least all of the beginning and all of the end) and have very mixed feelings about it. Sometimes agreeing and seeing it as necessary othertimes as seeing the end result play into the hands of humanism and Enlightenment type modernism. Sometimes applauding justice and sometimes wondering at what looks like injustice and a snarky lumping of things together and a blanket criticism that might or might not apply to people like me who love the grace I’ve been shown by the Lord and as a result seek to talk the Bible in all seriousness as the very words of God since it is the only thing on this earth that I can actually trust.

        There are certainly things to disagree about in some of those who you associate with dominion theology today. But I think that the basis of the term dominion in contemporary theological language and the use of it by some, including myself, if I were to use that term, though I don’t, comes from Geneis 1:26-28, the account of where God made man, male and female in his image and then blessed them to replenish the earth and “subdue” it and have “dominion” over the creatures. At least that’s what I think of when I hear the word “dominion” and “theology” use in the same phrase.

        • Jen Says:

          Mobley M, I look forward to seeing that grace you love. 🙂

          Regarding “dominion” in Gen. 1:26-28, let’s look at it.

          “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” … Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

          There are multiple meanings in this passage, which I won’t go into here, but let’s just focus on the “dominion” part. What did God tell mankind to take “dominion” over?

          Creeping/living things (on the “land”)
          “Land” (mistranslated as “earth)

          Please tell me how one gets “movies, music, books, culture, politics, religion, war, education, Sunday School,” etc. out of the above list?

        • Mobley M. Says:

          Jen, people made in God’s image are going to bear that image either in a way that honors God (as is the purpose of their creation) or in a way that does not. So the question is then is it legitimate for a person who was created to bear God image, and who now has been redeemed by God’s love to bear that image aright in Jesus Christ (i.e. a Christian) – is it legimate for such a person to be involved in (I’ll use your list) flim, music, authorship, teaching, etc.? I think it is. If you don’t disagree then the such a person, as they are being sanctified by the Spirit of Christ should grow in God’s grace to do things more and more in a way that they understand from the Bible to be honoring to God. I’ve never use the term “dominion” to describe this, rather isn’t it just how we learn to live and grow as Christians? I have definately not spent the amount of time and frustration that you have under the likes of a tyrant pastor (for if Doug Wilsom is a fraction of what you say, that is what he is), I try to avoid such circumstances so I’m can’t claim to be nearly as familiar with all the potential and actual abuses, and so I may not understand all the angles you are coming from. But I’m thinking that if someone what to honor the Lord by what they do in film or music then I would really think it wrong to make that person out to be a bad person. If it’s wrong to honor the Lord through a career in music or film (this is not what I’m saying, but I’m wondering if this is what you are saying) then it would make sense for Christians to avoid any endeavors in music or film, etc. Those are my thoughts.

        • Jen Says:

          Mobley, I see that you posted this twice. I was at work, so I apologize for not getting back to you earlier.

          I’m guessing that you don’t really know what dominion theology is. LOL Dominion theology is basically the belief that Christians need to take over the world through various means (including those I listed) and RULE the world so that Jesus will come back sooner. It is largely about RULING over anyone who doesn’t believe exactly the same way.

          I am absolutely not opposed to making Christian movies or Christian music, but if it is being done in order to RULE other people, that’s where I draw the theological line.

      • Mobley M. Says:

        Jen, thanks for your reply, again. Let’s set aside this idea of ruling people who don’t agree 100%. Not sure what that’s all about. But do we agree that it would be an answer to prayer to see more Christians and more full churches and more of Chrit’s salt and light in the world around us, and more Christians in God’s grace as we continue to be conformed to the image of Christ? Don’t we pray for these types of improvements in our own life, in others aound us? Things might get worse and very bad and fast – but I don’t think I know any Christians who are praying and working in a way to bring about changes for the worse. Does this make sense?

        • OtOLi Says:


          I agree. We want to see “more Christians and more full churches and more of Chrit’s salt and light in the world around us, and more Christians in God’s grace as we continue to be conformed to the image of Christ.”

          Yes, there are “Christians who are praying and working in a way to bring about changes for the worse”, bizarre as that seems. They believe that Christ will not return until things get “bad enough”, so they try to do whatever they can to speed up the degeneracy of society. Needless to say, that is not a biblical view, although more common than you might think. Much more common though is the view that Christians (or rather, Christ working through Christians) cannot successfully transform this world, so why bother? That view says any efforts by Christians are ultimately hopeless, so let’s just sit around and wait for Christ to return. Still others believe in doing whatever good we can (alleviating poverty, etc.) while we have opportunity. Even others believe in transforming society by Christians capturing positions of influence in government, business, media, etc. (this is what is most often meant by Dominion Theology or Christian Reconstructionism, although many who are called dominionists/reconstructionists are diametrically opposed to such efforts). Finally, there are those who believe in the transformation of society by the preaching of the gospel and the grace of God in people’s lives.

          I believe this final view is the correct one. Of course most people’s views are some combination of the above, and almost any Christian would agree with the final view if asked point blank about it. What tells the tale is how people spend their time/money/etc. That reveals what they really believe regarding these matters.

      • Mobley M. Says:

        By the way I probably posted this is the wrong place again. I didn’t want to respond to myself since I didn’t know if you would see it then. If it is wrong can you fix it? Thanks.

  43. T.W. Eston Says:

    The Academy’s board of governors voted to rescind the original song nomination for “Alone Yet Not Alone,” music by Bruce Broughton and lyric by Dennis Spiegel. An additional nominee in the category will not be named.

    Read the UPDATE in the article, above.

  44. DesiringToDiscern Says:

    Having the nomination rescinded is interesting. Considering the recent debacle at the Grammy awards, perhaps this is not a fitting arena for Christians to play in. It can tend to encourage people to be less than upright.

  45. Angela Wittman Says:

    Not certain if this has already been posted, but here’s a link to the announcement: “Academy Rescinds Original Song Nomination For “Alone Yet Not Alone”‘

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Yes, thanks Angela. I updated the article earlier today to note that news.

      • Angela Wittman Says:

        Thanks for updating the article. I’ve been busy and haven’t been following the comments as closely as I previously had been… Are you hearing from fellow believers that this is some sort of “political correctness” coming out of Hollywood? I posted the link on FB and a dear friend made a response like it was a form of PC, so I brought up it being an issue of ethics. I think we might need to be prepared to point this out to others who might take the knee jerk reaction of it being some sort of religious discrimination against Christianity.

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          It’s possible there may be some religious discrimination going on here. But even if that were the case (and it would be virtually impossible to prove) the overriding issue is that this was a clear cut case of conflict of interest. The song should have never been permitted to be entered for award consideration in the first place. As I said before, “If you’re the judge of the pie baking contest, you don’t allow your wife to enter the contest.”

          The Academy has now done the right thing and I stand by my previous comment.

  46. philip freidel Says:

    Just a heads up, the Academy award was taken back from the film yesterday:

  47. Anew Says:

    Jen, this may be totally irrelevant to the in depth discussions re many things connected to Doug Phillips but I will ask it anyway. Do you or T.W.Eston think another problem fueling immoral sexual behavior in many churches is poor teaching regarding sex OR the sinful nature ,opportunities and failure to deal with such behavior in the eldership.

    The reason I wonder is because it seems there is a plethora of advice out there now for Christian marriages to not only increase frequency but range of bedroom behaviors. This is on various Christian blogs,Song of Solomon seminars and in books. At its most strident ,these materials seem to put the “blame” if things aren’t going well in the bedroom,on the wife (don’t you understand men have NEEDS and since he is only with you it follows you should do XYZ and often). As far as the men they are told to help around the house,romance their wives and listen to her (and all will be well ). I don’t say either situation is untrue but rather it is quite an oversimplification of how to be happy and satisfied in a marriage.
    There seems little knowledge of situations where the man is not interested in sex, or there are other core problems in the marriage that can cause either a disinterest in intimacy with that spouse or a general disinterest in sex. I have seen the hint that if the man is unfaithful it is because his wife is not satisfactory in this area. I have seen the ease of communication with social media blamed for unfaithfulness. I have seen pornography blamed for it. I have seen having “too many” children blamed for it (too much pressure on the couple,supposedly). I have seen wearing denim jumpers, having young secretaries or young nannies blamed for unfaithfulness. We are now seeing an increased interest and possibly judicial support for polygamy as a way , in some twisted fashion,to deal with unfaithfulness by legitimizing it.

    I am old enough to have seen too many cases of adultery in the church,perversion in the church and premarital sex in the church to feel like I now need to have my brain washed with soap just to get the dirt out of the memory banks. Growing up in a conservative faith I was never taught the repertoire of behaviors now being expected of most Christian couples. We were taught a healthy and I think a very happy attitude toward sex in marriage. I could never and can never understand criticisms of Christians in general that they are bound to be very limited and uptight in their marriage re sex and that the women in particular are hopelessly frigid in this regard. I never had that teaching or attitude nor do any of my Christian friends, many who have been married a long time and happily. We all have a twinkle in our eye and are open to further information to enhance our marriages but it is getting to the point that the expectations for securing ones marriage seem to fall into a strange mixture of purity and absolutely anything can and MUST go on after marriage or your marriage is not a full one and possibly could be in jeopardy.

    I can see that some of the ladies commenting here touch on this bit of fear that if such a paragon of womanhood as Beall Phillips can be betrayed for so long and with a younger woman what hope is there for those women that have tried to be good and faithful wives and mothers. It is not even such a man as Doug Phillips that might concern them but the man they are married to, the examples of men in the church that have fallen (and women with them) or the men their daughters marry.
    A young married woman I know who is part of another church asked me in despair ,”What is happening? ” two men in her congregations leadership have been dismissed because of immoral sexual behavior. She has confidence in her husband but it can be quite discouraging.

    My opinion is that this is a bandaid approach to encouraging marital faithfulness by linking it to a certain pressure to perform, or God forbid, actual abuse as a part of that pressure. It ignores all the other factors that go into increasing marital attraction and happiness. It allows a lighthanded approach toward the man ( ah well,he is just a man and we know how men are because we are that way,too) or placing a woman in the frigid woman category (no wonder he strayed sympathy) or the seductress category (no wonder he strayed sympathy). The idea is that the people of the church just need to wake up and hop into bed with their latest handy dandy guide to Christian marital sex and all will be well doesn’t seem likely. Don’t agree.

    As an aside,if this polygamy thing ever got rolling legally or unofficially beyond the ones already doing it I warned my husband I might need a couple extra husbands myself or I would do bodily damage to him if he even thought of adding a wife,concubine or girlfriend .That seemed to settle the question.Maybe,Beall is a better woman than I because I would not be out running, losing weight or keeping the marriage together as had been mentioned as to how she is handling things from what little is known. I would be finding a way to plant my little cowboy boot where the sun don’t shine one kick for every year I believed a lie and yet had his head on the pillow next to mine. The latest marriage manual or seminar my eye!

    • Jen Says:

      Anew, I am on my phone and cannot possibly give your question the answer it deserves until I am back on a computer again, which won’t be for a few days. If I forget to answer this, please remind me. Thanks!

    • New Covenant Pastor Says:

      Although this question was not directed to me I would like to comment on it. I have been happily married for just short of 30 years. My wife and I have five children. I think the answer to your question is that there is not, generally speaking, enough substantive teaching about sin in general, and indwelling sin in particular. The proliferation of books and other Christian media concerning sex is probably more of a problem than a help. Some of it is helpful. There is no real help however for people who are not very earnest about the absolute necessity of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Please don’t take this as a simplistic answer to a complex question. Even if we are Spirit controlled people complexities remain, but there is a liberty and discernment that will be evident to those who humbly and transparently seek the mind of the Lord in this special relational matter.

      Your comments are insightful and germane to the Doug Phillips scandal. In the New Testament there are numerous catalogs (lists) of sins. At the very top of several of these lists, for emphasis no doubt, are sins of impurity. Thus where the Spirit is quenched, grieved, or absent altogether– it is extremely likely that sins of impurity will come to the fore. Doug Phillip’s weird legalism and his egregious pride combined with his proxemity to young attractive women catapult him into a high risk catagory. Those who know the evil potency of the flesh are not too surprised that Doug Phillips has been revealed for what he is. He is really carnal. But your good comments touch more on sex literature that is being proliferated among less weird evangelical people. This proliferation of “handy dandy Christian sex guides” is a symptom of a spiritually impoverished Christian (professing Christian at least) public.

      In his now famous address given to the national Association of Evangelicals in 1995 (obtainable in booklet form from Banner of Truth) THE BLEEDING OF THE EVANGELICAL CHURCH , David Wells pointed out that GOD RESTS INCONSEQUENTIALLY on broader evangelicalism. His arguments are incontrovertible. People are coming to church not so much for salvation, but for a sense of well-being. The church is functioning like a business. We are marketing experiences–including sizzling sex. This is tragic.

      I recently asked my daughter and son in law who have been married for about two years, “what is wrong with Victoria’s Secret’s advertizing at the mall”? Is it that they sell the lotions and perfume, and alluring garments?

      I have never been in Victoria’s Secret so I do not know what all they sell and am by no means endorsing everything they sell. My son in law said, “It is just so OUT THERE.” I agree it is too OUT THERE. The scriptures veil sexual experience more than this chain of stores does. But more to the point– it is out there– “peddling experience that really does not exist in real life, especially family life.” True, sex is a gift from God. True, imagination and lotion, and so forth can add a bit of spice. True, some of the imagery in Song of Solomon is really spicey, but concedeing all that–what Victoria’s secret and increasingly far ranging Christian sex guides tend to propose is that if you had this lotion or that garment or this or that–then you would regularly have the experience showcased in the window or promised on the book cover.

      What I mean by this sex life not existing in the real world is that the pictures (which are really pornographic) do not take into account that life is full of responsibilities; mutual responsibilities if we are one flesh. We are frail creatures subject to bad breath (sometimes–does anyone have good breath all the time?), we have employment that drains our strength, we have aging parents, we have young children, we have dear friends that we don’t want to neglect, we have to get the car fixed, we have to balance the check book, we have things to do at church–and sometimes in real Spirit led lives WE ARE REALLY TIRED. And if we are not walking in the Spirit during the day as we fulfill our obligations–what can two fleshly spiritual weaklings expect at the end of the day?

      Just before my wife and I were married 30 years ago, an older woman told my wife approximately this, “sex is a great thing, but there will be sometimes when you will be so tired that you will say I would rather sleep be touched.”
      We as newly weds were not sure that would happen. It happened. This is real life. God holds all the patents on martital romantic satisfaction. A better option than the latest Christian sex guides would be Walter C. Kaiser’s commentary on Ecclesiates (ECCLESIASTES: TOTAL LIFE Moody press 1979) though there is very little said abut sex in the book, it is a refreshing breathe from soul withering legalism on one hand, and unrealistic narcissism on the other hand.

      Anew: your comments about your early training and thinking are excellent. He who helps with the laundry gets more than clean clothes. I tell our young people at church, it is your kindness and respect for your spouse that is going to carry your marriage–practice being kind and respectful now by the Spirit’s enablement–and you have grounds to expect a pleasant and sometimes spicey marriage.

      • Leslie Says:

        New Covenant Pastor, I am chuckling as I have just finished reading your response. What a breath of fresh air. Common sense and knowing scripture. Amen

  48. noturniptruck Says:

    The Oscars have pulled the nomination for this!

    PS…….I think TW Eston is this person:

    • oneh20 Says:

      noturniptruck, Why do you think that is T.W.?

    • Jen Says:

      I think TW is simply my friend who is here to write awesome articles!

      Speculation about who he is or isn’t runs the gamut and is really not helpful.

      Again, I will state that all the accusations out there are false and designed to defame someone’s good name, which is a detestable thing to do.

      • Angela Wittman Says:

        I agree with Jen. Using a pen name is not uncommon; I think the speculation of TW’s identity is a distraction and really isn’t helpful. My advice to folks interested in the Doug Phillips controversy has been to get their information here. Jen seems sincere and able to keep a confidence and so far she and TW have posted reliable reports that aren’t being disputed that I’m aware of. It was TW’s reports that changed my mind about Vision Forum and the family integrated church movement – they are credible and well researched.

  49. Rebecca Says:

    I didn’t know where to post this, but I just got an email this morning from James McDonald with the subject, “I want you to have this message”. I’m not sure how he got my email but he was peddling a sermon on “How To Make 2014 Your Best Year Ever”. It was signed, “For the fame of His name, James McDonald”. I’m sorry, but this looked so much like something DP has done in the past. I don’t plan to buy the sermon but I imagine it to be more of the “Become a better Christian, just buy my sermon!” talk. I’m wondering if James McDonald is hurting now too as he has been found associated with the likes of DP. Or is he trying to take over where DP left off with his telling closing, “for the fame of His name”? Who writes that kind of closing but someone looking to make a buck? If it weren’t for this blog I wouldn’t have picked up on the similarities of these methods of selling to unsuspecting Christians or realize these guys were connected. My stomach turns again, as this stuff just keeps rolling on out as repackaged lies.

    • Angela Wittman Says:

      Rebecca – There is also a James McDonald who is part of the Mark Driscoll crowd – could this be who sent you the unsolicited email? I ask because I’ve gotten the pastor affiliated with Mark Driscoll confused with the Pastor James MacDonald in Peoria, IL.

      • Rebecca Says:

        Thanks Angela Whitman, I think you’re right, I have them confused. I went back and checked the email and it was sent by a James MacDonald, not James McDonald. I read it quickly and didn’t even notice the different spellings. Too bad for Mr. James MacDonald to be confused with James McDonald. I’m still new to unraveling all the names associated with DP, but I’m praying for God’s wisdom daily to steer us away from all the wrong teachings we had waded into. I still think the email was quite bold, and I won’t ever buy any more sermons from a man. I’m sticking to God’s Word.

    • Eva Says:

      Is this the same James McDonald that has been involved wih the Elephant Room?

  50. Robin in New Jersey Says:

    I don’t have your email or I would have sent this to you via email. This morning I got an email from Scott Brown inviting me to attend his Leadership Conference for Family Integrated Church. I never asked for any email notifications from that organization, so assume he got my email from an old Vision Forum list. I can forward it to you if you want to see it.

    • Sarah Says:

      I got one as well.

    • Jen Says:

      Robin, you will find our contact info under my pic on the right hand column. Thanks!

    • Joel Horst Says:

      I’m one more person who got the email from the NCFIC and never subscribed. At the bottom, a link labeled “why am I getting this?” led me to a page saying that I had signed up for the newsletter or signed up for notifications. I don’t ever remember doing either one.

    • Bbb Says:

      I rec’d 3 identical emails to 3 unique addresses that I had set up for 3 different websites (a little trick I made up that allows me to track who is emailing me and when they sell me out). The email is from Kevin Swanson for Family Economics and Mentorship Conference in Denver. My emails were taken from,, and I had deleted my Vision Forum email account before the fallout so I must have gotten out in time or I would have rec’d one to that email I’m quite sure. You – this is not illegal per se, but it is really stinky. That has to be quite a number of email address to send out notices for your convention without permission. I can easily turn off the faucet because of my little “trick” – but most people will not have this luxury. I am betting these emails are in the hands of anyone who wanted them – probably for a fee.

      • Jen Says:

        Bbb, I am certain that Doug Phillips is currently selling his very valuable email list, and probably not to the highest bidder, but rather to anyone and everyone who is willing to pay for hot leads. Now is primetime for anyone wishing to carry on in Doug’s stead, and it looks like Kevin Swanson is wasting no time in picking up the slack: economics and mentorship, both taken straight out of the Vision Forum playbook.

        • Tammy S Says:

          I also received both emails: the one from Scott Brown a couple weeks ago and the one from Kevin Swanson just yesterday and I do not think that I ever signed up for either of them. And this quote stood out from KevinSwanson’s, “The solution is discipleship in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, teaching our families and the nations to observe whatsoever Jesus has commanded. The solution comes through family discipleship and the re-integration of the family economy.” While the first sentence is absolutely true, the second one is what he is really “selling”. I went online and read the schedule and it’s basically a seminar about family economics, etc. What does re-integration of family economy have to do with the Gospel of Christ? I thought the Gospel was the good news of salvation. I noticed there is also a panel discussion about daughters’ role in the family economics or something to that effect. Sadly, I would have read this a few years ago and not noticed these problems. *sigh*

        • Jen Says:

          Tammy, no, the good news is that you can now recognize them!

  51. Kevin Says:

    Just thought I would make you aware that there is a heated discussion happening on the Recovering Grace website about Bill Gothard’s personal secretary who has come forward to expose inappropriate intimate behavior on his part:

    Like DP, Gothard is a legalist who preached one thing to his cult like followers, but in private, carried on in a completely different manner, violating scores of principles which he condemned others for.

  52. Bbb Says:

    I find it odd the blog moderators are not posting. Anyone know what is up? I hope they have not been silenced somehow.

    • raswhiting Says:

      Good essay!
      And this must be the website that goes with your photo:
      Interesting and beautiful items for sale.

    • T.W. Eston Says:

      Great article Jen! “Racist” has become the cheap and mindless way of smearing an opponent. It’s an extremely serious charge, one which should require some evidence, but often no evidence is furnished at all, other than perhaps some flimsy guilty by association logical fallacy. You must be a kinist, Jen, because you have a kinist friend. You don’t hate your kinist friend so you must be a kinist yourself. That must make me a kinist too because I’m your friend and you’re friends with a kinist. Guilt by association, twice removed!

      You’re doing what Christ commands Jen, which is to love even those you disagree with. That’s grace in action. I think that genuine grace scares a lot of Christians who like to talk about grace, but they struggle with giving it. They find it easier to hate people who hold positions that they find morally repugnant, like racism, and if you refuse to hate the same people they hate then you’re guilty by association, and you deserve to be smeared as a racist too.

      When I speak of grace I’m not talking about cheap grace either, something I disdain, but grace toward those that we may disagree with. It’s easy to show grace toward those we already like, but that’s no grace at all. Racial bigotry and hatred (racism) is something that I found myself on the receiving end of a great deal in my youth, so I know what it feels like. It’s no fun. The proper response isn’t to return hate for hate. As Jesus commands us, “Love your enemies”. That’s grace. That’s how we win over our enemies. I’m trying hard to put that into practice now that we have been smeared as racists and kinists. “A soft answer turns away wrath” is wisdom, indeed.

      This all reminds me of a very inspirational article I saw recently of Daryl Davis, a black musician who has won over multiple Klansmen as friends. Many of them have given Davis their hoods and robes and quit the KKK. Talk about the power of grace!

      • Sarah Says:

        @ TW you state above about showing grace to those that you disagree with, do you really think that you have been doing that?

        • T.W. Eston Says:

          Sarah, I am the first to admit that I have often fallen far short in this, including in my dealings with you. I struggle with grace. Jen has been a good example to me. We’ve had a number of conversations on the phone about this very subject. She’s been far more gracious to me than I deserve. I’m trying to learn, but this is an area of my life where I still have a long ways to go.

    • Jen Says:

      Sarah, I am not approving your comment, but I am replying to it. I have stated numerous times that speculating about anyone’s name here is not only inappropriate, but will simply not be tolerated on this blog. A blog author deserves as much respect and courtesy, if not more so, than anyone else here, and however you choose to state it, I am not going to play the “name” game. In case you missed my comment a few days ago on this subject, here it is again.

      Sarah, while I have appreciated your many good comments here, your attitude towards TW greatly concerns me. I realize that you don’t agree with everything he says or does. Neither do I. But I don’t attack him and I don’t hound him after we have each had our say. In fact, if we were to all hang out here together long enough, I am sure that I could find some area of disagreement with nearly every person here. And that is where we find the true mettle of grace. How do we handle ourselves in light of a minor disagreement (like those we have here)? How do we handle ourselves in terms of something quite serious? We have also seen some serious disagreements, and I addressed one in my article today.

      Speaking of which, was that all you got out of my article, because that was really not what the article was about at all?

      So, Sarah, I am putting you in moderation simply because I cannot trust you to follow our comment etiquette and respect TW’s and my wishes regarding certain subjects. I do realize that we disagree on this, but all we have ever asked for is respect. I don’t think we are asking too much. Thanks.

      • Mary Stephens Says:

        Any prolific writer who is honest will tell you that they don’t even always agree with themselves. I warn people of that sometimes before they visit my own web site. 🙂

        Even the Apostle Paul was permitted to express his opinion in scripture when he wasn’t even *sure* if he was writing under inspiration. 1 Corinthians 7:40 But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

        Just some thoughts that came to mind in reading this.

    • Jen Says:

      Phil, I would like to respond to your comment about my Facebook article, but I would like to do so on Facebook. My Facebook article is public, so if you wouldn’t mind posting your comment there, I will be glad to respond to it there. Thanks!

  53. Rebecca Says:

    I was driving home the other day and the DJ on my local Christian radio station was apologizing for the delay in sending their contest winners out free copies of the new Unstoppable movie by Kirk Cameron. He alluded to a delay that there had been a glitch in distribution. Apparently all the companies who SELL the movie got first distribution while the ones who are GIVING the movie away, well, they had to wait a little longer. Even the DJ was not impressed and thought it should have been the other way around. Are they not Christians after all? I was wondering maybe Kirk Cameron has taken a course in DP economics? Hopefully not, but this DJ sure was trying sound the alarm.

  54. Jen Says:

    Bad publicity is always better than no publicity. The theme song “Alone Yet Not Alone” hit #19 on the Christian Music Billboard charts last week, and Joni Eareckson Tada was featured in the MovieGuide awards last night.

  55. MomT Says:

    I think this is how they arrive at some forms of music being godly and some being “sinful.” I have heard some in these circles (Theonomy and CR) say that music from the Victorian Era is godly because most of society was godly at that time. And anything descended from Rock and Roll is evil – “it has an evil beat and all.” The R&R style originated with the slaves and “Negro Spirituals.” When pressed to give biblical evidence for the criteria for determining if a musical style is acceptable to God or not, they often resort to the argument that if you have enough wisdom and discernment you can just tell. In other words, ” if you are as godly as I am and are not letting your depraved appetites rule your musical choice” you don’t need scripture.

  56. Leslie Says:

    I knew I had heard this tune before with different lyrics, went to church Sunday and there it was .. ” In Christ Alone.”. Google and see if you can see the resemblance.

    • Andrew McDonald Says:

      Some similar chord transitions but not anymore identical than much of the popular music being written today. Studies have shown this trend see: ‘’ and ‘’. I don’t get the going on about this song. This blog should be about Doug Phillips and his ilk. To warn folks about them and relate experiences in groups like his. The situation in the world of ‘worship’ music is admittedly close to abysmal but it is really a matter of taste. When we get to Heaven we’l all be sing the old hymns from my church’s book. 😉

    • Mary Stephens Says:

      I’ve heard “In Christ Alone” and I agree with you that it bears a fairly strong similarity in parts. Considering that the word “alone” is in both as well, it’s a little bothersome. I will say, though, that sometimes someone thinks he or she is actually composing original work and doesn’t realize that it’s really just a “knockoff” of some else’s music which he or she heard somewhere sometime. It would be unfair to say it’s intentional unless it was proven.

  57. Steven Spencer Says:

    Greetings, Jen, Amy, Keith and all.
    Thanks for the interesting comments, especially on Homestead Heritage.

    On this topic, I speak as a former member (earlier names for the fellership, same people) with a slightly different perspective. Different than defenders, different than contras.

    The “fellership” (new yawk accent) in the 70s and early 80s was an incredible experience, and the vision and dedication of those days laid the foundation for the ongoing growth. In a sense by momentum. The homesteading, crafts and sustainable culture emphasis are coming to fruition due to the purity of the early calling and vision. An unusual anointing which attracted folks really dedicated to the Lord Jesus, wanting a true Christianity that is “all in” (even when we were meeting in the NYC pressure cooker or the NJ suburbs.)

    Now, at any time, it should be acknowledged that “orthodox” Christians would find various doctrinal elements, like the non-Trinitarian aspect, unacceptable. However, with so many different doctrines in Christianity today, there will always be points of doctrinal offense. So we have to be careful not to judge superficially simply based on received doctrinal positions.

    Looking back on the early years, those more recent concerns with tragedies, hidden sins, the stuff in the newspaper articles .. they simply were not there. (And to be fair, we should be very slow in putting the onus on the ministry in such cases at any time.)

    And in those early years the fellership was, for the most part, strongly Bible-based. The pulpit would ring with the Bible as God’s pure and perfect word. By contrast, at the Fair in 2009, not a single Bible was for sale, or being given away. The charlatan new age version The Message even started being used in homes, as if it were a Bible. The deterioration of their Bibliology needs a real clear and full documentation, as it has really had a devastating effect on the fellership. And I plan an analysis of their writings, in order to help true and pure Bible believers to understand what happened. (Keep in mind, though, that only a portion of those who left Homestead Heritage remained in strong Christian faith.) One example of the deterioration, Homestead Heritage even wants the versions being read to be seen as having errors, as this forces reliance on the ministry and community. (This is a minor paraphrase from a book they did on the Bible, I think the book is only for internal use.)

    Now, I kept a certain amount of communication with Homestead Heritage up to this year. And earlier, at various times, there had been various considerations of my returning. There was even a period of time where my friends in ministry in Texas asked me to share on a couple of fundamental beliefs, and this stretched over about 7 years. They were examining some issues and thought I could help their studies. (This is a rather sparse outline.)

    Overall, in the last couple of years some of the major issues have been clarified, by the grace of God, strengths and weaknesses coming far more into focus. As an example: I learned a lot more about the spiritual problem of yahwehism and shared with the ministry. And rather than really seeking God, as friends studying iron sharpeneth, the Homestead Heritage ministry circled horses and become cloistered and unresponsive. This is one problem with an insular ministry. And this explains why the Holy Spirit gave me great freedom, and even unction and direction, to share about this publicly.

    Beyond that, there are some real doozie examples of oddball ideas coming into place. (This post though is long enough.) Most of this new error was not, I believe, instigated by Blair Adams, sometimes unlearned men in the ministry would foist doctrines upon the full group. And Blair Adams had too much trust that they were capable and sensitive to the Holy Spirit. In fact, at times writings that were clearly not from Blair Adams were placed under his name, a dubious situation that makes correction very difficult.

    Above, I mentioned how the Bible view went downhill. Also, there was a drift (easier to experience in the prayer rooms than in any public presentation) toward yahwehism. Most Christians do not understand that “yahweh” is the pagan “Jupiter” of Acts. The Latin jove is pronounced yahweh, and jupiter is jove-pater, father yahweh. The scholarship on this has become much clearer in recent years. Yahwehism has become a pernicious influence in Christian circles. This danger is far mroe pronounced when this “yahweh” thing becomes a direct object of supposed Christian prayer and travail and worship. This has occurred among the sacred namers, and in a sense more fervently at Homestead Heritage, even while they kept Jesus in the mix as well (polluted, however, with the absurd “yahshua”.

    It is my belief, even conviction, that these two elements, the drift away from tangible real Bible belief, and the drift towards yahwehism, created a syncretistic situation at Homestead Heritage. These two were the core pieces that led to many other major imbalances. And contributed to the culture of the later problems and tragedies that became a focus of the contra-Homestead-Heritage movement. However, the contras were often seeing the externals, not the root. They would think that Christian ministry authority was ipso facto a bad thing. However, the root problem at Homestead Heritage was actually something quite different. Even their doctrines on “Jesus come in the flesh” applied to Christian ministry are reasonable scripturally, yet this would be the one big point of doctrinal attack, missing the basics.

    And I’m preparing a more public and far more complete public presentation on these issues, by the grace of the Lord Jesus. It is planned for a dedicated platform, easier to read and understand, far more complete.

    And please understand, I do believe that the original core faith and vision of Homestead Heritage was quite pure. And and my major goal in presenting these issues is that they Homestead Heritage will be able to come to a proper repentance and correction on fundamental and foundational Christian issues.

    And, if that change has not taken place, I want to help those considering connection or covenant with Homestead Heritage, to do so with eyes open. Eyes wide open! To know and understand the spiritual underbelly as well as the visible external aspects. Homestead Heritage has become quite skilled in masking certain elements of their belief and praxis.

    Lord Jesus, help the precious brethren to seek and return to the pure and perfect word of God as the final authority. And to be freed to be freed totally, fully, 100% from the pagan yahweh buffeting. Help them to make those two steps, after which so many blessings and your direction could easily follow. Thank you Lord Jesus.

    Psalm 119:140 (AV)
    Thy word is very pure:
    therefore thy servant loveth it.

    Yours in Jesus,
    Steven Spencer

  58. Corrine Jeter Says:

    Jen, thank you for your faithfulness, transparency, and obedience.

What do you think?

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

You are commenting using your 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: