NCFIC: A Vision Forum Retread

Andrew McDonald has been reading and commenting here for the last year, and partially because of his involvement here, he has encountered his own story of church discipline which he would like to share with us here.  While there have been many, many people and families who have been hurt in various ways through the years by Doug Phillips, Vision Forum, Scott Brown, NCFIC, and others associated with these men and their ministries, most have chosen the easy road of just keeping quiet.  It takes real courage to speak out publicly about what is happening, to warn friends and family that their house is on fire!  Patriarchy, and the abuses within its walls, is still alive and well.  To those who are still in the patriarchy movement, and/or the NCFIC movement: Your house is on fire!  The time to act is now!

Here is Andrew’s story, in his own words:

Some of you know my concerns as I have written on Jen’s Gems a bit. People are still suffering from Doug Phillips’ abuse and speaking out is part of the process of healing. I began thinking about those like him: Men desiring control. I’ve posted about that and gave details of the past and present situations in my own life and church. Some details were specifically about Scott Brown and as a result someone alerted the leader of my church and I was eventually called into a private meeting and confronted. I do not deny that some good has come alongside the wrong teachings, there has been much good done, but the wrong teachings are never justified by adjacent successes. Successes are really God’s department and to His credit not ours. He gets the glory. Justifying the error by mention of the benefit only makes the situation more tragic, it does not validate the error. Since the leader knows I post here I’ve decided to respond here. You may well ask what is my background and how dare I say these things? Glad you asked! I am a great sinner who has a greater Savior, redeemed by the blood of the Lamb and trying to follow after the Great Shepherd who invites us all to follow Him. I say these things not because I am worthy; I say them because the TRUTH is worthy and, lastly, because folks need to be warned.

An Open Letter to my former leader:

When you confronted me about posting on this blog, you showed up with a stack of paper and mentioned over 100 pages written. I thought that seemed like a lot. In order to get an accurate idea of what I said in the posts and the volume of the entries, I went through the site and copied them all. I posted 66 messages, printable in less than 23 pages, not even close to the ‘over 100 pages’ mentioned. Most posts were short and, contrary to your ‘concern’, took little time away from my family. Some were late at night as the matter was heavy on my heart.

No posts were purposefully inflammatory; they were my experiences or opinions tempered with prayer and investigation. That the posts were truthful is bolstered by the fact that they eventually identified me. Most were inquiries about Doug Phillips’ close associate, Scott Brown. Scott Brown was initially my concern. Some posts were sincere inquiry seeking counsel.

I contacted people who knew Scott Brown to confirm that he had problems; the events were confirmed by personal testimony and church records. These events were never cleared up.

As it turns out, your belief that Scott Brown is ‘one of the godliest men’ you know is based solely on your experience with him. I continued to research and began to post in December of 2013. NONE of the posts were made until after I’d spoken with you. My concerns were effectively dismissed. After I told you that the posts were mine, you moved to the old standby tactic of all authoritarian leaders: accuse and intimidate. You accused me of being a gossip and a busy body even though you knew that I came to you with each concern and you also knew I had not broadcast it about the church. Am I a gossip? Like Doug Phillips has said, ‘He who defines the terms wins.’ But my intent was not to get the ‘juicy stuff’ as you said; it was only to get at the truth, to protect against wrong teachings and to warn you.

I am sure that I am not the only one with concerns over these matters. Yet many will say nothing as they understand the reception and repercussions of doing so. This lack of freedom to speak is not surprising to anyone on this blog. It thrives in all cultish environs where perfunctory dismissal of differing opinions seems to be the order of the day. I am not sure who told you about this blog, but it really matters little to me. I imagine it is another concerned person in the church and I am glad they are concerned. I hope they continue to dig into the details. If they do they will discover the truth. I do not regret warning others or checking into folks presented as ‘teachers’ or ‘authorities’; it is the obligation of any follower of Christ and especially one who leads in any capacity to ‘know the well from which they drink.’ We are charged to be Bereans, to see ‘if these things be so.’

I went through the NCFIC site to see just how deeply entrenched you were. It was a task to be sure. I found your presence pervasive and realized your course had been set firmly. I discovered that the beliefs along these lines were nothing new, they began even before you came here. You testified to that in your phone interview on the NCFIC blog. The beliefs were fostered, in part, by and through Doug Wilson and his disciples.

At your first church experience you expressed frustration at trying to ‘replicate the ministries’ of your sending church. You say it caused burn out and ended with the eventual abandonment of Junior Church. In the phone interview with Scott Brown, you said a youth pastor gave you a booklet by Christopher Schlect. The pamphlet explained why people should remove their children from Sunday School and youth ministries and how such activities are anti-Biblical.

When I researched Schlect, I found he was a member of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Christians. (CREC is a denomination/sect started by Doug Wilson in 1998 surrounded by dubious activities and shenanigans.) I saw that he was a teacher at New Saint Andrews College (Doug Wilson’s college). His pamphlet was published by Canon Press (Doug Wilson’s company). Then I recalled your response when I tried to caution you about Doug Wilson, after you gave out one of his books at a men’s retreat. I researched Doug Wilson, and then came to you. I warned you and you said he was a friend. I thought you were just trying to get a book published. Now it makes sense, you were already a follower. My warning was years too late.

After your church plant, you found an established church to implement your newly adopted ideas. In the interview you declare that you came to the church and began your ‘5 year deprogramming’ plan. You followed exactly Paul Washer’s counsel on his You Tube video for ‘Reforming a Church’. Gaining their confidence, by teaching on relevant issues like the family, you moved right along ‘letting some ministries die gracefully’ rather than axing them. Although I’m not sure how any ministry dies gracefully, that is what you said in the interview.

You have also followed the example of Scott Brown. When he got in a tight spot, he called for a ‘vote of confidence’ . I recalled the same ploy used at church when people voiced concern at a congregational meeting just after Scott Brown had been there. You called for a vote of confidence and it worked. In retrospect, that was a sad, sad day. If the vote had been the other way, the church would have been saved from much trouble. The whole event seemed out of place, the timing of the ploy may have been a tad off, perhaps a bit overplayed, but hey, it worked. It was a watershed moment.

Those who knew something was wrong likely knew they’d just lost their church. Trouble was that they lacked the expertise of the better communicator. Mark this, they did not lose because they were wrong, they lost because they were not as articulate, as organized, as winsome and because they got too emotional over the issue. They had the disadvantage because they did not really know what was being played at. Few did. They were colorfully painted as aggressive, arrogant, close minded, slightly ignorant and off base. Some colors were slightly true and that lent credence to the accusations; yet who is perfect, don’t we all have some of these traits? The flesh is hard to capture and, as Christians, we are all in the process.

After this event you, more firmly, established your authority; after all the church is a ‘pastor rule’ church and it was your prerogative. When this all started I wonder if the congregation saw the big picture. I wonder if they knew about the ‘5 year plan’ or about ‘letting ministries die gracefully.’ I am sure the idea of changes for the ‘good’ of the congregation seemed good. Some, in fact, were good; that they were based on an unbiblical foundation was far from their minds. Did they know they were involved in ‘worldly practices’? I doubt it. Scott Brown was the first real clue but it was already too late, the wheels had been set in motion. I have to respect what you’ve accomplished even though the church had to split to get there. I have learned from this: I will NEVER attend a ‘pastor rule’ church again; sadly human nature is just too corrupt for such a rule.

I did consider revealing myself on the blog. I thought it was perhaps even courageous since you implied that to be posting on the blog under a pseudonym was cowardly and sinful. Blasphemous, you said about the site, although I still cannot see that one; I see no contempt or lack of reverence for God on the site. Yet I’ve decided not to reveal myself as it would reduce this to a personality contest. The contest should be the truth against falsehood. It may take awhile but the truth will always win. Some do not think too deeply about much and it is not their fault. If it wasn’t for Scott Brown, I would not have thought more. Not knowing was far more comfortable.

When I first began all this, I did it because I thought you were being charmed or won over by these people. I wanted to warn you. I was wrong. I was quizzical at the reception of the information I had retrieved, for two reasons: first, it is very, very likely true; and second, I thought you’d appreciate the time and effort involved in an effort to warn you. Instead, you told me I should be a ‘spy or a detective’, that I should stay off the internet.

Your challenge to pray about what I was doing caused me to go to prayer and to the NCFIC site again. I combed through it and found the phone interview mentioned, then I knew by your own admission, you had come to the church with a preconceived notion, inspired by the followers of the beliefs espoused by NCFIC. Unbeknownst to the church membership, you began to work it out. They should have known the whole plan, they did not. Doing it this way was wrong. An announcement posted by NCFIC, about the telephone interview you and two other pastors participated in, stated, ‘What these men dared to do was not easy. But, with much prayer, teaching, and faithfulness these pastors have made significant strides in dismantling various worldly practices in their churches!’  I do not think that the church you came to, after a failed church plant, had ‘various worldly practices’ going on. I know you could say, ‘Well, that’s what they wrote; I never said that.’ That fits nicely with the plausible deniability that the NCFIC and all their followers always seem to have.

Your accusation of my demeaning you (by mentioning that you were young) is not fair, as if I am against you personally. I am not. The fact is, you are young, you are just as susceptible to spiritual deception as anyone else, and as a leader you’re even more likely to be targeted than others for deception. On this site, I said you were young and asked people to pray. As I told you, this was not meant as a slam. I still ask that, now even more fervently.

In researching this situation, I can’t tell you how many people sounded like Sgt. Shultz from the old Hogan’s Heroes show, ‘I know nothing!’ or the TV evangelist’s ‘Don’t touch God’s anointed.’ If I did not know the people involved, I might ask, ‘Who has bewitched you?’ Except I know who bewitched you for I was bewitched by the same crowd.

In 2006 the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International said Family Integrated Church practices were ‘errant and schismatic.’ They pretty much sum it up:

• It encourages schism in the local church bodies by encouraging its adherents to change the theology and philosophy of the churches of which they are members.

• It does violence to local church authority, calling on local church members to leave their churches when the church does not bow to the philosophical demands of the movement.

• It espouses an ecclesiology based upon the family that is not based upon the New Testament but rather is an adaptation of Old Testament patriarchy.

• It falsely lays the claim that the destruction of the family in the U.S. is solely the fault of age-graded ministries in local churches. We contend that this is a simplistic and therefore false accusation.

• It espouses a postmillennial theology that is contradictory to a dispensational understanding of Scripture.

• It is oddly inclusive, basing fellowship on a particular philosophy of ministry rather than on the great fundamentals of the faith.

I do not say that anyone involved in the NCFIC is lacking salvation. Salvation does not hinge on these things singularly but the efficacy of the salvation message can be clouded by them, the Christian walk can be hindered by them and unity will certainly suffer from them. I urge you to step down from involvement with these people, as Kevin Swanson has done, and just pastor your church; the people love you, they do not need someone in ‘substantial’ agreement with NCFIC. (Gotta love those nebulous words; they always provide a convenient back door if things get hot!) The people need you to stand for God, for His Word and lead. And be honest with them, if they want to go the direction you intend then great but give them a voice in the matter.

God Bless,

Andrew

For more information about:
Scott Brown look here.
Doug Wilson look here and here.
Doug Wilson’s school.

UPDATE: This letter will certainly identify me as I put it into the hands of church leadership before I decided to post it and parts of it (like the statement from the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International) were given to alert leadership to the hazards of the NCFIC. Already my family has been turned away from by some folks who will no longer come to our home because of, as one dear saint said, some ‘offense.’ Naturally unexplained. Another hung up their phone when we called. We are funny and predictable creatures upon which God has lavished his love. We should do likewise even in the face of shunning. In the end, God will prevail and we will understand, one day, just why we did the things we did and how it was right or wrong; for God’s glory or our own. In the meantime we must continue to look to Jesus.

I was told yesterday that the pastor called a congregational meeting where they were told that I’d posted ‘lies’ on the web about him and the church. That explains the responses we’re getting. Oh well. Funny thing is just before I got the phone call about the meeting I’d told my wife we were probably excommunicated in abstentia; not too far from wrong on that one! Explains the cold shoulders we’re getting.  I wonder why no one is thinking about how so many folks who’ve left could all have been wrong?

Denver Christian Perspectives Examiner: “Doug Phillips of Vision Forum resigns due to affair”

The religious section of Examiner has written several articles on Doug Phillips and Vision Forum.  Here are the links and intros:

Doug Phillips of Vision Forum resigns due to affair

In an online public statement at Vision Forum Ministries, on October 30, Doug Phillips admitted to, and repented of, a “lengthy, inappropriate relationship with a woman.”

He stepped down as president of Vision Forum Ministries and stopped all speaking engagements. It is unclear if he has stepped down as an Elder at Boerne Christian Assembly (his name is still listed on the website).[UPDATE: sometime on November 4 the church website removed his name.]

This article is continued here.

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

Vision Forum Ministries closes its doors

On November 11, a prominent “biblical patriarchy”and family-integration organization, Vision Forum Ministries, announced on its website that they are “discontinuing operations.” The details were picked up by the Atlantic Wire.

In their website page they stated:

“In light of the serious sins which have resulted in Doug Phillips’s resignation from Vision Forum Ministries, the Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interests of all involved to discontinue operations. We have stopped receiving donations, and are working through the logistical matters associated with the closing of the ministry.

Read the rest of this article here.

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

Doug Phillips clarifies details of his repentance and resignation

In a surprising turn of events, Doug Phillips, of the ultra-conservative Vision Forum Inc., posted a Clarification on Resignation, dated November 14, 2013. Desiring to “clear up some matters” surrounding the details of his extramarital affair that he repented of earlier, he wrote:

“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.”

As his previous resignation and repentance noted, the relationship was such that they did “not ‘know’ each other in a Biblical sense.”

This article is continued here.

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

Top five influential claims of Doug Phillips’ defunct Vision Forum Ministries

With the recent resignation of Mr. Phillips and theclosing of his organization, Vision Forum Ministries, there is much speculation on how that will impact the greater homeschooling and conservative Christian communities.

The impact may challenge followers to rethink the practices and teaching taught by this organization. So for those pastors and families unaware of the views of Mr. Phillips and his organization, this top five list will help you evaluate their continued influence.

There are five claims summarized with a short rebuttal:

1. Christians should homeschool
2. Churches should be “family-integrated”
3. Christian should use the “desert-island test”
4. History was full of famous homeschoolers (and your kid could be next)
5. Hope for America is a homeschooling, patriarchy, family-integrated movement

 

To open each of the five claims above, go here to read both the claims and the rebuttals.

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

How to respond to Doug Phillips’ confession and resignation

With Mr. Phillip’s recent public admission of an “inappropriate relationship” with another woman, there has been much speculation on internet websites and blogs.

Not all the speculation is coming from those who disagree with his approach to patriarchy,homeschooling or family integrated churches. Some who think well of him have assumed things not specifically written in his resignation letter. Of course, some who disagree with him have also assumed things not specifically written in his resignation letter.

But it is the local governing body that knows the details.

This article is continued here.

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

This particular news site has written many reviews and articles on Doug Phillips, Vision Forum, and other related ministries and conferences in the last several years, so they are well acquainted with Doug Phillips and his teachings.  I would recommend exploring some of their related stories and links as well.

Vision Forum: Closed

The Closing of Vision Forum Ministries

 

In light of the serious sins which have resulted in Doug Phillips’s resignation from Vision Forum Ministries, the Board of Directors has determined that it is in the best interests of all involved to discontinue operations. We have stopped receiving donations, and are working through the logistical matters associated with the closing of the ministry. While we believe as strongly as ever in the message of the ministry to the Christian family, we are grieved to find it necessary to make this decision. We believe this to be the best option for the healing of all involved and the only course of action under the circumstances.

“Proof” of Doug Phillips’ Repentance

One of Doug Phillips’ followers sent me a link to a bunch of pictures where he wonders if this is Doug’s confession before his church.

First, this is not his church.  This is the San Antonio Independent Film Festival, and Doug Phillips did not confess before 1800 strangers.

Second, these pictures were taken in February.  If there was true repentance in February, why the need to step down in October?

Take a look for yourself, but just in case they come down off the blog, I will preserve them here for others to decide if Doug Phillips is confessing before his smiling wife on opening night of this grand event?

The Washington Post: “Patriarchy proponent Doug Phillips resigns after extramarital relationship”

The Washington Post chimes in today:

Doug Phillips, an outspoken proponent of male “dominion” over women and a leading home-schooling activist, has stepped down as president of his Texas-based Vision Forum Ministries after admitting to an inappropriate relationship with a woman.

After cancelling all planned speaking engagements, Phillips, however, on Wednesday (Nov. 6) said he will still maintain ownership of the affiliated Vision Forum Inc., a for-profit company.

Phillips, who has eight children with his wife Beall, wrote on the ministry website on Oct. 30 that he would step down as a ministry leader.

“I engaged in a lengthy, inappropriate relationship with a woman,” he wrote. “While we did not ‘know’ each other in a Biblical sense, it was nevertheless inappropriately romantic and affectionate.”

Calls to Vision Forum Ministries were not returned.

To read the rest of the story, click here.

Huff Post: “Doug Phillips: The Big Scandal You Didn’t Hear About and Why It Matters”

Huff Post reports this today:

Doug Phillips, the Home School Movement’s leading Quiverful Patriarch resigned from Vision Forum Ministries, admitting a “lengthy inappropriate relationship” with a woman. It appears that while as he has been fighting homosexuality and feminism as threats to marriage, he has actually been the threat.

His supporters are lauding his resignation letter as appropriately contrite repentance and arguing that this has no bearing on the validity of Biblical Patriarchy. But actually it does, making this more important than another hypocritical cheating scandal.

Phillips is a key figure bringing Christian Reconstruction into the larger home school world. Building upon R.J. Rushdoony’s postmillennialism and “Biblical Philosophy of History,” he teaches home-schooling families to “exercise dominion” through 200-year plans, “multi-generational faithfulness” and “Biblical Patriarchy.”

His influence is hard to overstate; there is barely a part of the home-school movement his empire has not touched. He started as an attorney at the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), is a sought-after speaker at home school conventions and Vision Forum sponsors well-attended conferences of its own. Phillips was a founder of the patriarchal Family Integrated Church Movement. He has close partnerships with Henry Morris at Institute for Creation Research, the Duggar family of 19 Kids and Counting and actor-turned-Christian activist Kirk Cameron.

 

To read the rest of the article about how Doug Phillips’ resignation fits into his 200-year plan, read here.

How Patriarchy Itself is the Slippery Slope that Led Doug Phillips to Serious Sin With Another Woman

Speculation is running rampant right now regarding Doug Phillips’ recent admission of a lengthy, inappropriate relationship resulting in “serious sin” with another woman.  Doug Phillips claims that he behaved without proper accountability, but how much do we really need someone else to hold our hands to keep us from “serious sin” in life?  Is Doug Phillips really going to place the blame for his “serious sin” upon the shoulders of dozens and dozens of men who do hold him accountable each and every day of his life?  In his statement of repentance, does he truly take responsibility or is this yet another deflection?

Let’s take a look at Doug’s daily life and see how this could possibly happen.  Is it possible that the lifestyle and rules of patriarchy itself are exactly why Doug Phillips found himself on a slippery slope from which there was no return?  Does patriarchy in fact encourage this kind of temptation?  I believe it does and it did, in Doug Phillips’ case.

First, let’s go to work with Doug Phillips.  Vision Forum’s offices and warehouse are located smack in the middle of San Antonio, TX.  The men who are employed there all hold to Doug Phillips’ strict views and rules of patriarchy.  Any women who work at Vision Forum come to work with their husbands, fathers, or brothers.  There are no unrelated women working there.  There are a dozen or so men surrounding Doug and his office at any given moment.  To reach Doug’s office, one must pass by several other men’s offices.  It is practically impossible for any inappropriate relationship to take place at Vision Forum, and knowing Doug Phillips’ extremely high standards against sexual sin, this simply wouldn’t not happen at the office.

Doug Phillips attends dozens of homeschool conferences, and hosts many fabulous homeschool events put on by Vision Forum.  His family attends nearly event with him, and if his whole family does not go, at least some of his children are always with him at these events.  Doug Phillips is also always surrounded by his Vision Forum interns and staff at each and every one of these events and conferences.  I cannot for the life of me envision Doug looking at another woman while attending these events, and he is never left alone, so I think we can cross this off our list as well.

How about doing errands around town?  Not likely and not often.  Doug Phillips would have absolutely zero interest in the “worldly” woman, so I do not believe that would ever happen.

Counseling?  Doug Phillips was always very careful never to counsel a woman alone.  I am sure that he continued that rule.

So where does that leave us?  I can think of only one situation and it is not only plausible but also nearly inevitable in many patriarchal families.  Patriarchy itself lends itself to this situation.  Large families require a huge amount of work.  Many mothers within patriarchy are worn to a frazzle and if they can afford it, they seek extra help.  There are many types of help available but the most prevalent type is to hire a nanny, another young lady within the patriarchy movement who holds all the ideals of patriarchy, but is patiently waiting to get married, so she “serves” her father by serving another man and his family, taking care of his children.

In “The Return of the Daughters,” a young lady states that she cannot serve in her father’s business so she serves God and her father by serving others in the community (“community” is a codeword for those who belong to Doug Phillips’ church).  The way that she serves the “community” is to be a nanny for Doug Phillips’ eight children.  She is not the only nanny that the Phillips family has employed over the years, but she was featured in this documentary.

Let’s look at the type of “nanny” the Phillips family would employ.

Dresses modestly (long, full dresses

Homeschooled

Obeys her parents, even as an adult

Obeys her elders (at church)

Courtship only (no dating or relationships with men)

Gentle, quiet spirit

Respectful

Resourceful

Has no opinions in her own right

Does not go to college

Good with children

Cooks and cleans

Loves God

Now, this is not your typical 13-year-old babysitter.  This nanny is often a full-time position for a young woman in her late teens or twenties.  This young woman, who most certainly has natural hormones for this age, has no outlet for relationships with men.  This young woman, under the encouragement of her father, idolizes Doug Phillips.  This young woman is the epitome of everything Doug Phillips preaches.  She is the standard that all other young patriarchal ladies wish to aspire to.  And this young woman does so with the full blessing of her father.

And she spends most of her time with the Phillips family.  She is there while Doug is at work.  She is often there when Doug is at home.  She will even spend the night there sometimes.  She is there when the family travels to homeschool conferences and Vision Forum events, where Doug has the opportunity to watch her perform her duties in a fashion that makes Doug Phillips very proud.  She even goes on family vacations with the Phillips, occasionally, to help with the tremendous amount of work of taking care of eight children.  She is like a second mother to the Phillips’ children.

Is it any wonder that she also becomes like a second wife to Doug Phillips as well?  Here is this young woman, in her twenties, beautiful inside and outside, blindly obedient to everything she is told to do, never questioning, and absolutely idolizing this man in his forties.  If this young woman spends several years practically living with the Phillips’ family, are we really so surprised that a lengthy, inappropropriate relationship develops between these two that eventually leads to serious sin?

Patriarchy itself, with all its rules and legalism, is such a heavy burden on a large family that they absolutely do need extra help.  The kind of help that leads to such a slippery slope, however, goes against everything Doug Phillips preaches.  Perhaps we need to go back to square one and decide if this was such a good idea.

I do not blame Doug.  I do not blame this woman. I am not saying that I know who the woman is, but if anyone knows anything different from what I have presented here, I will retract my thoughts.

This is not about needing more accountability in life.  Doug Phillips has more men to keep him accountable than does the president of the United States.  This is not about needing more rules in life.  Rules do not change our heart.  This is about having a change of heart.  This is about coming to realize that keeping a long list of rules just doesn’t work.  No one can perfectly keep a long list of rules and God does not intend for us to do so.

In the Bible, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were the “patriarchs.”  Look at what happened to Abraham when Sarah’s household help was called upon to help progenate Abraham’s descendants.  Look at what happened when Jacob’s wives, Leah and Rachel, couldn’t get along and asked their household help to help progenate their families as well.  Perhaps, in the true sense of patriarchy, this is just a natural extension of patriarchy.

Or, perhaps, we need to reevaluate the value of patriarchy to begin with.

Life in Perfect

I was going to wait a few more days to open my blog back up again, but I just read an article called “Life in Perfect” that is simply too good to pass up! Warning: Don’t read this article while drinking hot liquids. Too much laughter while drinking hot liquids can cause damage to your computer components.

Here’s a small sample from the article:

Where the children are seen and not heard.

And so are the women.

Where vile American Girl dolls are banned.

Where people talk and write like a walking 1865 dictionary.

I don’t want to ruin it for you, so I won’t post any more of it here. What a great satire, “Ingrid”!

Doug Phillips “Excommunicates” Children for the Sins of Parents

Doug Phillips’ Peculiar Interpretation of “Covenant Theology”

When Mark and I were “excommunicated” from Boerne Christian Assembly in 2005, we were “disciplined” individually. In theory, we could be restored individually. In other words, if I were to repent of whatever it is that I’m supposedly guilty of (we’re still trying to figure out what that could be), but if Mark were not to repent, then I could return to membership in BCA and would not have to wait until Mark repents of whatever it is that he’s supposed to repent of. The inverse would also, supposedly, be true. This is born out in Section X of the Disciplinary Action Statement against us from January 23, 2005. It states the following:

X. Individual Discipline
For this purpose of this disciplinary action, both of you are being treated as individuals. Restoration of one spouse is not contingent on the restoration of the other. Your past and future conduct is evaluated on an individual basis. Either or both of you may request restoration of fellowship, and your request will be evaluated on an individual basis.

Mark and I were “excommunicated,” and we were excommunicated as individuals. Our entire family was not excommunicated. Our children were not excommunicated. Our children were not under any form of church discipline whatsoever. In practice, though, BCA has treated our children as though they too were excommunicated. BCA has shunned and punished our entire family. What sin are my children guilty of? None that anyone has ever stated. Only in the past couple months has anyone from BCA said anything about any alleged sins that my children are guilty of, and in both cases those alleged “sins” occurred just within the last couple months.

Joshua’s “sin” is that he assisted me with passing out fliers at the Arlington home school conference. Natasha’s “sin” is that she went to Vision Forum to assist the process server in identifying Doug Phillips, after Doug’s employees had already lied to the process server and told him that Doug wasn’t there. Also, shortly after that incident, one or more of Doug’s employees alleged that Natasha had “flipped them off.” Natasha denies this. However, for the sake of argument, let’s just say that Natasha did “flip off” Vision Forum employees. What does that have to do with the shunning and “discipline” that she’s been subjected to for the two years prior to that incident? The same goes for Joshua. Even if assisting me with handing out fliers at a home school conference were a “sin,” what does that have to do with the prior two years of shunning and “discipline” that Joshua has been subjected to by everyone at BCA? Doug is now grasping for excuses after the fact for punishing my children.

Shunning and punishing my children for my own “sins” doesn’t in any way inspire or compel me to want to repent. Just the opposite. Scripture forbids punishing children for the sins of the parents, and visa versa:

Fathers shall not be put to death for their sons, nor shall sons be put to death for their fathers; everyone shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut. 24:16

But everyone will die for his own iniquity; each man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth will be set on edge. Jer. 31:30

The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Ezek. 18:20

Even if Doug Phillips were capable of complying with my repeated requests to furnish me with a specific and detailed list of my sins, supported by evidence and testimony of witnesses (rather than the vague, unspecific, and unsupported general list of charges that I can’t comprehend how I’m guilty of such things, nor will anyone even attempt to explain the charges), punishing my children for my alleged “sins” only confirms the fact that Doug Phillips is an ecclesiastical tyrant — a bully. Isn’t this exactly what a bully does? Pick on and punish people who are smaller and weaker and unable to defend themselves? Bullies are also cowards, and it doesn’t get any more cowardly than what Doug Phillips has done, but to punish children when they’ve done nothing wrong.

After having spent five years of their young lives totally enveloped in BCA, and all their friends at BCA, and knowing very little outside of BCA, my children suddenly had all their friends and all their social lives ripped away from them. BCA members were ordered to shun Mark and me. However, in practice, they shunned us all. How has that affected my children? It’s been absolutely devastating to them. If my children pull through this with their Christian faith intact, it will only be by the grace of God. It certainly won’t be because of any kindness and compassion of Doug Phillips. There have been many times that I have genuinely feared for Doug and the judgment awaiting him. The Lord Jesus showed a very special care and compassion for children, and obviously he expects His under-shepherds to follow His example:

But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” Matt. 19:14

In a very practical way, Doug Phillips has censured my children for no sins of their own. In so doing, he has hindered and undermined my children’s walk with the Lord. Doug’s unjust punishment of my children has seriously hampered their Christian faith. My children have greatly struggled with the implications of fellow believers treating them so cruelly, all sanctioned by a “pastor.” Unless Doug repents, he may one day pay a very heavy price for it:

“But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it is better for him that a heavy millstone be hung around his neck, and that he be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matt. 18:6

If Doug Phillips would do it to my children, he can and probably will do it to others, as well. But he can only do so if he’s given other opportunities. It is for this, and other reasons, that I’ve gone public with my story. If I can do anything to prevent Doug Phillips from injuring the lives and undermining the faith of anyone else, and children in particular, I believe that I have a moral and a biblical obligation to do so.

Here’s a peek into just one weekend of my children’s lives. First, Natasha:

If there is one thing young ladies love to do, it’s to plan their weddings. For years, girls in their teens and early twenties will giggle and whisper and share secret plans for that special moment — someday. This is often a time of choosing bridesmaids and flower girls as well, and many girls make promises to one another to have each other be attendants in their weddings. This everyday scenario takes place just as often in Family Integrated Churches as well, especially where courtship is taught and practiced. But what they don’t plan on, maybe, is outside interference, outside meddling.

My daughter, Natasha, was very good friends with Little Bear Wheeler’s daughter, Aimee, for seven years. Natasha and Aimee fellowshipped and spoke often. Not only did they plan their weddings together, but Aimee was the one person who was there for Natasha when it seemed that all the other Christians were only interested in judging her. Being a pastor’s kid (PK) isn’t easy. It put Aimee in the spotlight, always under the scrutiny of other church members, both inside and outside her own father’s church. Natasha stood by Aimee through thick and thin. So when Aimee recently announced that she was getting married, Natasha expected that they would go through with the plans they had made for Natasha to be Aimee’s bridesmaid. Disappointed, but not really surprised, Natasha soon realized that Aimee’s attendants did not include her after all, but she was still looking forward to attending the wedding of one of her best childhood friends. However, Natasha’s invitation never arrived.

Seeing how desperately Natasha desired to go to her friend’s wedding, a mutual friend ran interference and was able to get Natasha an invitation to the wedding that was to take place on Saturday, July 28. Natasha was so elated! But that joy lasted only a few hours before being dashed by a phone call from Aimee, uninviting Natasha to her wedding. Devastated, Natasha asked why. It turns out that Doug Phillips’ “influence” (and meddling) reaches a long way. Apparently, some people at BCA read Still Fed Up and they weren’t pleased with the pictures of Natasha that the SFU boys stole from Natasha’s private website and posted on SFU. Then there was the false accusation that Natasha “flipped off” the Vision Forum folks when she was at Vision Forum, assisting the process server. These two incidents seemed to be enough to provoke Doug Phillips into convincing Little Bear Wheeler to not only ban the entire Epstein family from attending Aimee’s wedding, but also to hire policemen to keep us all out, on threat of being arrested if any of us showed up.

Natasha asked Aimee if she had ever given her reason to believe that Natasha would lie about flipping people off at Vision Forum. No, Aimee didn’t have any reason not to believe her, except that certain people from Vision Forum (Peter Bradrick was standing there the whole time) had stated such. Aimee didn’t know who to believe. Natasha asked if she had ever caused a scene before, and if not, why would Aimee think that she would do so at her friend’s wedding? Aimee had no answer except that a certain person had convinced her father that Natasha should not be allowed to attend. In the end, Aimee really had no choice but to submit to the edicts of Doug and her own father.

Natasha felt betrayed by the fact that shortly after our “excommunication,” Doug removed any mention from Vision Forum’s web site that Natasha had won runner-up in a Vision Forum writing contest. This was her first indication that she too would be punished for her parents’ “excommunication.” The punishment has continued to this very day, and from all appearances, she will continue to be punished for the “sin” of being an Epstein.

The fact is that none of the other Epsteins had been issued an invitation, and we wouldn’t have “crashed” Aimee’s wedding. There was no need for Doug to hire police officers to keep us out. Apparently though, he still believed it necessary to hire policemen for the sole purpose of keeping out just one twenty-year-old girl. This goes to show just how fearful Doug really is, and it’s that same fear that caused him to hire police and other “security” for his recent open house at Vision Forum.

Now to fourteen-year-old Joshua:

Joshua has also been very lonely since the whole family got kicked out of BCA. Joshua is very shy to begin with, but he did have a very good friend at BCA. He’s seen him a couple times at various events since January 2005, but averaging once a year to see a friend just doesn’t seem to fulfill those social needs. We have tried finding other friends, but other churches, which don’t seem to last very long either, haven’t had any boys close in age who were willing to be his friend either. He’s quite a likeable guy; we’ve just been stymied in our attempts to find even one friend for him.

So when our recent houseguest said that he would like to visit BCA this past Sunday, he asked if Joshua could come with him to keep him company. Joshua was so excited about seeing his one friend again that he was willing to risk pretty much anything for the opportunity to spend time with a boy his age for a few hours.

I asked Henry Johnson, our friend, why he wanted to visit BCA. Henry is Joe Taylor’s digging partner and works at the Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum with Joe. Henry has witnessed Doug’s treatment of Joe and Henry is also the videographer who was with me at the Arlington Homeschool Conference in May. He saw how I was treated there. So I wondered why Henry wanted to visit BCA. He said there were a couple reasons. First, even though he knew what had happened to both Joe and me, Henry is the type of person to give someone the benefit of the doubt. I had also told Henry of the incredible sense of family (Family Integrated Church) that we felt for the five years we were at BCA. I had explained about how we would stay at church all day fellowshipping after the service. Henry had such a strong desire to a part of something like that all his life that he was grateful if he could just experience it, even for one day. I had described the service to him and it seemed like the type of church service Henry would greatly enjoy. BCA would also line up well with Henry’s own theology. Henry has not been able to attend church for a long time, for various reasons, so he was excited to be a part of a service like this, even if it was just for one day. Living out in the boonies, Henry gets lonely sometimes, so he, too, was looking for church fellowship for the day.

So, with much anticipation for a pleasant day, Henry and Joshua drove an hour to visit BCA. Accidentally parking on the wrong side of the building on someone else’s land, they were greeted cheerfully by Bob Sarratt, who asked them to please park in a different location. After pulling in next to a whole line of white 15-passenger vans, Doug Phillips got out of his van right next to them and Henry greeted him. Doug returned his greeting. When the church bell rang announcing the beginning of the service, Henry and Joshua made their way to the building to find a seat. As they passed the annex building, Joshua noticed Doug Phillips speaking with Mo Gill, one of the deacons. It soon became clear what they were discussing. Walking up onto the porch, Henry and Joshua greeted several of the men and young men there, who also greeted them in return. Joshua knew a couple of them very well and spoke for just a moment with them.

Shortly thereafter, Steve Ringer came up and asked to speak to Henry. Steve wanted to know why they were there. Henry explained that Joshua had a friend there and that Henry had come just to enjoy the service and to be with Joshua. Steve wanted to know if Henry was the man doing the videotaping in Arlington and Henry said that he was. Steve said that Henry and Joshua had “shown an aggressive nature” toward them, but Henry replied that he was only there to listen to the sermon, that he was not there with any kind of aggressive intentions at all. He explained that rather than taking someone else’s word for what church was like at BCA, that he desired just to worship with them for a day. “I have no desire to do anything else except listen,” he said.

At this point in the conversation, Wesley Strackbein joined them and said that Henry couldn’t be trusted to act in an appropriate manner, so he asked Henry to leave the premises. After verifying that he was indeed being asked to leave, Henry asked if Josh could just stay there and Henry would pick him up later. Wesley responded that since Josh is part of the same family that caused a great deal of harm to BCA, that even though he didn’t have anything against Joshua personally, that given Joshua’s family’s involvement, “covenantally, that would not be acceptable.”

The term, “covenantal,” is significant. We can only interpret this as meaning that since Mark and I had been excommunicated, all our children are “covenantally” subject to the same punishment. Unless Mark and I are restored to fellowship, all our children are to be treated as though they, too, have been excommunicated. For all practical purposes, Doug expects, and even demands, that all other churches treat us all in the same manner. An example of this is what happened to us at Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA). We were initially all welcomed there. Later we were all asked to leave together. No option was ever afforded us to just bring our children to FPC, so that just their own spiritual needs for hearing the Word preached, and Christian fellowship, could be met. Just like BCA, FPC punished not only us, they punished our children, too.

Wesley Strackbein introduced Bob Sarratt to Henry as an elder for Boerne Christian Assembly. Although Bob’s name appears on the document that BCA wrote against us when we first went public, he was not an elder at that time, but he was a deacon. I also noted when I wrote my response to that article that even though Bob Sarratt’s name appears on the document that it had to have been written by Doug. It appears that Doug has since appointed Bob Sarratt as an elder.

Henry then explained that he had heard a lot about BCA and he wanted to come and share in their worship. Interrupting him, Bob Sarratt said, “That may have been the pretenses, Sir, but Joshua Epstein has been publicly crying out against this body, handing out fliers, being interviewed on the internet, and saying slanderous things, along with his family, and as such, he is not our welcome guest.” Bob went on to say that if the Epsteins wanted to meet with the leadership and settle all that that BCA would love to have us back. In the meantime, Joshua would not be allowed to stay and he asked Henry to leave as well. He said if Henry were there by himself sometime, he would be welcome to stay. However, since BCA was leasing the facility, they had the right to ask people not to stay if they were seeking to disrupt the meeting of the church.

Henry assured Bob that he was not there to disrupt anything but had only desired to quietly participate in the service. However, he said that he understood what Bob was telling him. Bob continued on that the Epsteins’ actions had proven time and time again that they must be there to disrupt the service. Bob went on to say that Henry was complicit in Arlington as well and Wesley said he had witnessed that as well. Again, Henry said that he understood that they didn’t approve of his videotaping at Arlington.

Then Bob asked where Joshua was. Joshua had been waiting several feet away, on the front porch, during this conversation. At one point, Doug Phillips and his son, Joshua, who is the same age as my Joshua, and who also used to be very good friends with him, passed right by Joshua Epstein, but refused to even look at or speak to him. It wasn’t as if they just didn’t notice; they had to have passed within just a few inches of him, and they had seen him as they walked up. There was no mistaking the obvious shunning of a fourteen-year-old boy. His own father had set the example. Like father, like son?

As Bob Sarratt then approached Joshua, he told him that he had seen him protesting and bringing accusations against BCA. He said he had also seen Joshua “on the interviews and in the commentary.” Bob told Joshua that although he wasn’t personally excommunicated, that Joshua was complicit in the acts of slander and had had a very negative impact against BCA and therefore he wasn’t welcome there until that was settled. But that wasn’t enough for Bob. He continued, “We could call the sheriff’s department and they’ll remove you from this body and we do have the right as leasees. We have the domain of this property right here that you’re on.”

Again, Henry expresses his understanding, “I’m sorry we couldn’t stay, but I understand.”

But Bob Sarratt still isn’t finished with them and tells Joshua that he can’t come back until the excommunication of his parents is taken care of, as well as the issues that have arisen since the excommunication which “pale by comparison.” As Henry once again agrees, Bob has to threaten them one last time: “I’m going to have to ask you to leave or we will be calling the sheriff’s department and have them remove you.”

Henry finally shakes Bob’s hand and tells him he’s sorry and he appreciates it. After Henry shakes hands with Steve Ringer and Wesley Strackbein as well, Joshua puts his hand out to Bob Sarratt as well, who had already put his hand back in his pocket. As Joshua stands there with his hand out, waiting for Bob, Bob finally and reluctantly agrees to shake Joshua’s hand.

As Henry and Joshua walk toward the truck, Joshua remarks to Henry, “That was real Christian love, wasn’t it?” Laughing, Henry simply replies, “No!”

So what did this fourteen-year-old do to be openly shunned like this by Doug Phillips and his son? What did Joshua do to be threatened twice with calling the cops on him? How has Joshua slandered BCA? I seem to recall that slander involves saying something that is not true. When has Joshua protested and brought accusations against BCA? When was he interviewed and what commentary has he provided?

Joshua is my son and that is the real reason he was not allowed to worship at BCA on Sunday. Doug Phillips is the one who taught me to take my children with me wherever I go, so naturally I would have brought them with me to Arlington. I did not go there to cause trouble. I went there to speak with Doug. When Doug refused to meet with me, I used my time there to warn others about Doug Phillips. Since Doug encourages us to “teach our children real life,” that is exactly what I did. Joshua helped me pass out a few papers, legally, to some attendees. He was not interviewed by the police, nor did he protest, slander, or bring accusations against anyone. He has never done anything to cause Doug Phillips to think that Joshua will ever do him any harm. I have never done anything to harm Doug Phillips, nor will I. That is not why I am here. I am here first to call Doug to repentance (which I did for a number of months), and second, to warn fellow believers about a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I have never had any intention of bringing harm to Doug or anyone at BCA or Vision Forum, nor will I ever. These acts of calling the authorities, or threatening to call the authorities, are simply Doug’s overreaction to his own refusal to meet with a woman to discuss the issues.

Doug and BCA’s latest claim that they’re now willing to meet with us is just another ruse. For two years we attempted to meet with Doug. In every case we were told, “Talk to my attorney.” I’ve never heard of such a thing. In the first place, our “excommunication” isn’t an attorney matter. It’s a pastoral matter. Secondly, we weren’t “excommunicated” from Vision Forum, and Doug’s attorney is Vision Forum’s attorney. He’s not BCA’s attorney, nor does he even attend BCA.

Is it appropriate to punish the children for the sins of the parents? Under Doug’s bizarre interpretation of “covenant theology,” yes, apparently it’s totally appropriate, and it’s consistent with Doug’s views on covenant theology. However, it’s not in any way biblical. Perhaps in the future, I’ll do an exposé of Doug Phillips’ strange views of covenant theology.

And by the way, what were those sins again, those sins that I’m allegedly guilty of?

Let’s Discuss Doug Phillips and Family Integrated Church

I’m extremely grateful to so many of my commenters. I’ve learned so much from so many of you. I’ve even learned some things from some of those who came here with no other purpose but to attack me.

Perhaps the single most important issue that I’ve been confronted with is my own legalism. As I’ve said before:

“God has been using many of my commenters to help push me into becoming a Berean. I still have a long way to go, but I’m excited about the things I’m discovering. As a direct result of this blog, I’ve also made some dear friends. By studying the Word together, those friends have also provoked me into looking deep into the perfect law of liberty.”

I’m still making the transition out of legalism-Dougism/Gothardism, but I feel that even just the steps I’ve made so far are a huge breakthrough. Grace isn’t an easy thing to grasp for a legalist, but I’m starting to get it.

Having been under the legalistic teachings of Doug Phillips for five years had a profound impact on my life, and not for the better. I’ve been having to reevaluate everything that Doug taught me. This isn’t to say that everything that Doug Phillips teaches is bad. A lot of what he teaches has merit. Not that much of what he teaches he actually came up with himself. Practically all of it he took from others. That’s part of the problem. A lot of the ideas that he took from others he then wound up taking to a legalistic extreme. Seldom are legalists moderate or biblically balanced.

A good example of this is Patriarchy. I’ve already dealt with that here, and I may come back to it again in the future.

Another area I’d like to address in-depth is “Family Integrated Church.” I’m in the process of writing a critique of “A Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family.” Along with it I also want to critique “The Greatest Untapped Evangelistic Opportunity Before the Modern Church” and “The Sufficiency of Scripture at Work in the Family Integrated Church.” I’ll also have some interesting things to share about how the NCFIC got started, and its director, Scott Brown.

On the face of it, the Family Integrated Church movement doesn’t appear to be legalistic, nor should it be. But in reality, it too often is. I’ve received many reports of how it is divisive to the point of even causing church splits. It’s ironic that a movement that is supposedly rooted in “unity” can actually cause so much division.

What I’d like to do, as I’m writing my critique, is to open up this thread for commentary and input from you, my readers, both good and bad, on the Family Integrated Church. This will provide everyone an opportunity to assist me as I prepare my future article.

Along with this, I want to welcome my readers to submit via email their own articles on issues directly related to Doug Phillips. These can be full articles, or rough drafts and outlines for articles. Please be assured that if you don’t want your name used, I will respect your privacy. I know that many of my readers have some of their own stories to tell about Doug Phillips. I know because I’ve received your emails. I know that most of you don’t want to start blogs of your own. I’m willing to have you tell your stories here.

Please read the Vision Forum Ministries articles that I’ve linked to above and offer your comments about them here.

Doug Phillips Sets the Standard for Family Integrated Church

A Good Idea At Risk Of Breeding Legalism

Among the other things that Doug Phillips promotes through The Vision Forum and Vision Forum Ministries is “Family Integrated Church.” Doug Phillips originally founded the “Uniting Church and Family,” a website and annual conference for training patriarchs to start their own churches, often home churches. This idea, which he originally “borrowed” from Eric Wallace’s book “Uniting Church and Home,” was initially headed up by John Thompson. The name was eventually changed to the National Center for Family Integrated Churches and is currently headed up by Doug’s friend, Scott Brown.

Just what is a family- or age-integrated church? What makes it different from a traditional church with age-segregated programs for adolescents, teens, college-age, adults, etc.? Is it a rejection of Sunday School and youth groups? Are family-integrated churches typically only for homeschoolers? Are they all the same? Is this a new denomination? Is Doug Phillips the new pope of this movement? Do you have to have a personal invitation to get in? And what in the world do you do at a family-integrated church, since there aren’t any programs?

Several of my commenters have asked me these and other questions. I’ve also been asked to write an article describing what the family-integrated church looks like. In order to adequately address all these questions, I’ll probably have to write more than one article. For this first article, I thought what I would do is describe two different family-integrated churches, based upon my own extensive personal experiences with them: Boerne Christian Assembly and Living Water Fellowship.

First, I’ll share my own personal experiences in the family-integrated church that we were members of for five years, Boerne Christian Assembly, pastored by Doug Phillips. Next I’ll share my experiences with Living Water Fellowship, pastored by Richard “Little Bear” Wheeler. The comment section is open for others to share their own experiences, both good and bad.

On the whole, I think that the family-integrated church movement started out as a good thing. I believe that it began with good intentions. One of the reasons it came about was that men like Doug Phillips wanted to address some of the deficiencies appearing in more traditional “programmatic” churches. However, over time, I’ve noticed a troubling trend in the family-integrated church movement. Much like “Patriarchy,” the FIC movement has often proven itself to be legalistic and divisive. I’ve heard numerous reports of it even causing church splits. I’ve also heard that there are smaller churches with limited facilities that embrace the FIC model simply because their limited facilities prevent their being able to have Sunday School classes and other church programs. So they call themselves “family-integrated” merely because that’s what they’ve always had to do anyway.

With this first article on the family-integrated church, however, I’ll limit myself to my personal experiences of what it was like being in an FIC. I have many fond memories of our time at BCA, and I hope that comes out in this article. However, I’ve also come to see that there were many problems, inconsistencies, and even hypocrisies, and that too will be discussed in this article.

The first issue I shall address is the impression that at least some FICs give that they’re not particularly open and welcoming of “outsiders.” Some have gotten the impression that in order to be welcome in an FIC, you first have to meet a certain set of criteria. The criteria may often include:

• Homeschool only
• Patriarchy
• No women working outside the home
• No daughters in college
• Full-quiver
• Dress code: women in dresses only (sometimes with headcoverings), men in suit and tie only
• Courtship only

Those who don’t meet the criteria may be permitted to attend, at least for a time. However, they will often be made to feel that they don’t fit in, and that will also be reinforced from the teachings in the pulpit. They will be expected to conform. Image is very important in many FICs. I might also add to the list of criteria — “family only.” By this I mean that a divorced woman would probably be made to feel uncomfortable in many FICs, even if she had divorced for completely biblical reasons. Again, this is an “image” thing, and divorcees wouldn’t fit the image. Likewise, a college girl, especially if living away from home, wouldn’t fit the image.

Based upon my Doug Phillips’ story, and my prior descriptions of Boerne Christian Assembly, several people have gotten the impression that Boerne Christian Assembly is a “by invitation-only” church. That isn’t exactly the case, although I can certainly understand why so many people would have that impression. My own experience was such that I could not find out any information about BCA without a prior invitation. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that BCA is by invitation only. Practically speaking though, if one of the BCA members doesn’t first extend an invitation to a prospective visitor, it’s highly unlikely that they would ever find their way to BCA at all.

Doug Phillips maintains an extensive list of family-integrated churches on his Vision Forum Ministries website, with a current figure of 524 churches listed there. However, you won’t find BCA nor any of the other churches in what we BCA members called “the community,” the four churches in the San Antonio area that had all come out of BCA, listed there. I always found it odd that Doug wouldn’t list his own church with an organization that he so strongly promotes. So unless you’re extended an invitation to attend, from a practical standpoint, it would make it nearly impossible to find BCA. Even BCA’s own web site provides no contact information or directions to the church. This is a very odd practice indeed for a church to have a web site with no contact information, or even a list of church officers. Indeed, the primary purpose of the BCA web site appears to be as a blog site for posting articles in response to my own articles. Doug Phillips himself told us that he wanted to keep BCA “small.” Failing to provide contact information is certainly a useful way of discouraging church growth.

As he speaks around the country, Doug Phillips often mentions the family-integrated church, and he implies that Boerne Christian Assembly is the “model” church for Vision Forum’s “Family Integrated Churches.” Most people find out about BCA because they hear Doug speak somewhere and find out that he also pastors a church. So they call or email Vision Forum to find out how they might attend BCA, or perhaps they already know someone who attends BCA and ask if they, too, can attend. With such a system in place, it would be easy for people to get the impression that BCA is a “by invitation only” church.

Upon arrival at BCA on a typical Sunday morning, after a lovely drive through the country, you will arrive at what looks like a Hollywood set for “Little House on the Prairie.” The tiny, white, country church has a huge grassy yard with several picnic tables under the oak trees. Across the street is a one room schoolhouse, which hasn’t been used for school for many years. Down the road is Little Joshua Creek, where we all went for baptisms, full immersion-style. Most men wear suits or sport coats. Most of the women wear very modest, long and full dresses. To visitors, it must seem as if they are stepping back in time.

As we’d arrive Sunday mornings, everyone is busy bringing their crockpots into the annex building in preparation for the “pot-providence” (we weren’t allowed to use certain words like “luck,” therefore no “potluck”) that would convene after the service. Many families drove an hour or more each Sunday, so it wasn’t uncommon to see a line forming at the outhouse prior to the church bell tolling at 10:30 a.m. Inside the church building, pews fill the very tiny room, from front to back, and wall to wall, with just enough room down the middle aisle to add a folding chair to the end of each row. Once you were in your pew you needed to plan on remaining there for the duration of the service, which generally lasted several hours (if not put on a schedule, Doug can be very long-winded). So if you needed to get up for any reason, it could prove to be quite a challenge squeezing through the tightly-packed pews. Each family was jammed very tightly into a pew. Large families are common at BCA, so some families took up two full pews. Tightly packed, the church holds about 125 people.

Church services at BCA usually began with about 30 minutes of singing hymns. We would often have several homeschooled young people playing instruments such as flutes, violins, or other stringed instruments. We always had a piano player and some of them were quite good. Three different men took turns leading the worship time. One young man, fresh out of Bill Gothard’s ATI and Alert, would give us the history of at least one hymn we sang each week. Another man, when he was leading worship, would pick one hymn each week to ask the men for biblical support for what was found in the lyrics. The men were on the spot to find Bible verses on the spur of the moment, as they never knew which hymn he would ask for verses for. After a while, I found myself really searching the text of each hymn, wondering what verses this hymn came from. We would usually sing one psalm from the psalter as well. Sometimes Doug Phillips would then lead us in singing Psalm 100, Puritan-style. He would sing a line and we would repeat it back to him. It was really old-fashioned, but I loved that part. Worship was a time of great joy at BCA, as everyone fully participated and sang with their whole heart.

We would have a short announcement time afterward, and it always began with, “We believe in a plurality of elders.” I could never understand that part since we only had one elder for several years, Doug Phillips, and even Doug was only in attendance about once a month at that time. As time went on we saw even less of him. Then we introduced our guests or, should I say, the men introduced the guests.

The men took turns giving the sermon. For most of the time I was at BCA from 2000 until the beginning of 2005, we heard expository preaching through I and II Samuel, I and II Kings, and I and II Chronicles. If Doug was preaching, he might preach on the current topic he was wanting to promote at Vision Forum. They recorded those sermons and then they were sold through Vision Forum. All sermons were recorded free for church members. Depending on who was preaching, the sermon was generally one to two hours in length, followed by up to an hour for the “discussion of the men.” This was my favorite time, even though I wasn’t allowed to participate. The men were allowed to ask questions of the preacher regarding the sermon. Charity was stressed at all times, so if a point of disagreement came up, it was expected that it be handled in a gentlemanly fashion.

For several years, “discussion of the men” was a great time of iron sharpening iron; but around the time of the 2004 elections, the atmosphere of this discussion began to change into a mutual self-admiration club, with the men generally just congratulating one another on a great sermon. This deterioration was a great disappointment to me. It seemed that this small amount of accountability was losing ground. This discussion time was also open for the men to bring up any other subject they wanted to discuss, although this didn’t happen very often. It was also an opportunity for the men to share what they learned from God’s Word that week, what they taught their families during family worship time, or to share a hymn or read some Scripture. Doug strongly encouraged these aspects of the men’s discussion time, but they rarely had anything of this sort to share.

Next came the Lord’s Supper, preceded by the second sermon of the day. One of the men would talk about some aspect of communion, generally lasting about fifteen minutes in length. Communion was limited to those who had been baptized as believers, full immersion-style. Sometimes the men passed the elements down each row, but later on, the fathers usually went forward and got communion for their whole family. The grape juice was served in medium-sized Dixie cups that the whole family could share. The men would take a chunk of matzoh to share with their family as well. It was left up to the men to decide who takes communion in their family. If the father was absent or if a woman didn’t have a husband, one of her sons could bring her communion, even if the boy hadn’t been baptized and wasn’t old enough to take communion himself. If there were no males in the family, one of the deacons would serve the woman communion. If you were not participating in taking communion, it was quite obvious to the whole congregation.

The following hour was for prayer requests and prayer. Every person in every family (except Doug Phillips) came to church almost every single Sunday, unless they were sick or out of town, so this was a time for everyone to get know each family a little better. We knew details of every sickness, updates on difficult situations, and prayed for many outside the congregation as well. This was often a time of just reporting on how God was Providential in our lives that week. Again, the men (and boys) were allowed to speak during the prayer request time. If a woman had a prayer request, she could write it down and give it to another man to read. Then the men all took turns praying for all the requests. The service ended with the Doxology.

There was an annex building next door to the church where all the women would immediately gravitate to get the “pot providence” lunch ready. Visitors were allowed to go first and everyone went through the line as families. There were several picnic tables set up outside (the weather in Texas is nice enough to eat outside almost year round) which were built by some of the boys. There were several tables set up inside as well. Some families ate together, but many didn’t. This was a time when many of the young ladies would take other ladies’ babies and take care of them and feed them, if need be, for the rest of the day. Some mothers wanted a day off and they were glad for the help. Some mothers, however, wanted their older children to take care of the younger children, so the moms could have a day off as well. I thought my children worked hard all week and deserved a day off, so I chose to take care of Alicia, my youngest, myself. My daughter Natasha took care of Honor Phillips nearly every Sunday for three years.

After eating, the children would mostly play outside for the rest of the day. Balls and sports were not allowed on the Sabbath, so the children had to be creative in how they used their time. They made up games and sometimes would bring activities to do together. Some of the young ladies would read books to the younger children or just hang out with the children, trying to keep some kind of order. The adults and other young people would mostly fellowship for the rest of the day. Women were strongly discouraged from discussing theology with men at BCA, although I often did with those men who were willing to do so. While the men would often discuss theology and points of doctrine, the women usually talked about sewing and cooking and child training, when we weren’t talking about how to be more submissive. It was sometimes frustrating to me that the women didn’t even want to talk about homeschooling methods. I almost never felt challenged or stimulated in my thinking during these fellowship times. I usually felt as if I had to park my brain on Sundays. We often wouldn’t leave church until around 5 p.m. Before leaving, we would all pitch in and help clean up.

For a couple years, however, we were given one hour to eat and clean up and then we would separate into a men’s meeting and a ladies’ meeting. The children were free to join us or continue playing, unsupervised. I don’t really know what the men did, other than talk about Scripture and church business. The women would discuss making plans to take meals to those who needed them. However, we also had to first obtain our husband’s permission, so quite often our meal planning didn’t get very far. We would sign up for various clean up duties. Then we would usually talk about how to be a Titus 2 woman or a submissive wife. No matter what the topic was, that was always the angle. We studied Titus 2, word by word. We talked about how “non-normative” Abigail and Deborah and other women in the Bible were. Sometimes women would read passages from books such as “The Excellent Wife.”

Since there was an apparent lack of hospitality among church members during the week (we certainly experienced this), we studied a hospitality book. After we finished the book, we didn’t seem to have much more hospitality than we had before. It wasn’t that hospitality never happened at BCA; it did — a lot — if you were in the right circles. There were certain families that fellowshipped with one another on a regular basis, like we did with the Shorts. But there were other families who never got invited to other members’ homes. If you wanted to eat with the Phillips, you had to be in their inner circle. During the week, however, the women and children often got together for homeschool-type activities and fellowship. Some of these were formal groups and co-ops, but often we just got together with friends.

We did have lots of group activities, however, where everyone was invited. While these do count as showing hospitality and having fellowship, it’s not the same as having just one other family other for dinner. We had lots of baby showers, we had big Fourth of July events, we got together for big events at Doug’s home, often revolving around special visitors. Some people have remarked that some of the events at Doug’s home for his VIPs were just a way of showing off.

A couple events that I especially remember were the “Dinosaur Party,” where Doug showed a National Geographic film about dinosaurs, pausing every few seconds to ask questions such as “Were you there? How do you know what color the dinosaur was? Did you see it change from a bird to a dinosaur?” etc. This picture to the left is when the men got together at the beginning of the year to read the Bible for a whole day. That is my son, Joshua, taking his turn at reading. We had a big party with the DeRosas after they had worked on the Allosaur skull for a while. We had a big party when the Guenther family came to visit from Germany. They talked to us about how extremely difficult it is to homeschool in Germany, legally or otherwise. They worked with HSLDA to set up a kind of legal foundation to help homeschoolers in Germany. As long as Doug hosted these events, nearly the whole church attended.

The Epstein family liked to celebrate the biblical Feasts at that time, and we also invited the whole church several times a year for these Feasts. Everyone came at least once, except the Phillips family. BCA has very much a “not invented here” mentality. Having a successful event meant that you either had to be Doug Phillips, or you had to be part of Doug Phillips’ inner circle. If Doug didn’t come up with the idea, or if Doug didn’t personally endorse the idea, the event generally wasn’t much of a success.

“Family integrated” means keeping families together for the duration of the service. This makes for some interesting challenges now and then. Each family did this differently. Some families worked hard at training their children to sit still for the three to four hour service each week. Others chose to take their children out if they got noisy. This usually took two different forms. Sometimes the mothers would take their babies or young children next door to the annex to feed them or just let them play. Sometimes the older children would take their siblings next door as well. There was no way to hear the sermon while over there, so the women would often sit around and chat while the children played or ate. This was not considered or called a “nursery,” as family-integrated churches don’t have nurseries. And then there were the families that just gave their babies and young children to other people to take care of for them during the service. Beall Phillips, for instance, gave Honor to Natasha to take care of, not just during the service, but for the whole day every Sunday. I used this as an opportunity to teach Natasha how to train babies and toddlers. Honor was a very well-behaved baby while he was in Natasha’s care and we trained him to sit quietly throughout the service.

Family integrated churches are opposed to church “programs,” “age segregation,” and “dividing families.” “Family integrated” implies keeping the family together for the Sunday morning worship service, as well as other church functions. But practically speaking that isn’t often the case, as we experienced at BCA. It was quite common that husbands were divided from wives, such as the “men’s meeting” and “ladies’ meeting.” Children were also often divided from their parents, especially if they couldn’t remain still and quiet throughout a three to four hour service; and the reality is that there are very few babies and toddlers that can. So they would be taken out of the service, often to be taken care of by members of other families. BCA didn’t have an official “nursery” with officially designated “nursery workers.” But practically speaking, if you walked over to the annex building any Sunday, that’s what you saw.

Although there were no rules for being a part of BCA, per se, it was the unwritten rules that were the invisible foundation. It was not a requirement to homeschool, but homeschooling was preached from the pulpit nearly every Sunday. If you didn’t homeschool, you would have felt very uncomfortable at BCA. It was not a requirement for women to never work outside the home, but being a keeper at home was constantly talked about, both formally and informally. If you worked outside the home you would have been made to feel very uncomfortable at BCA (the one exception was that some of the women were permitted to work at Vision Forum, although they apparently were never “hired”). There were no rules about what to wear, but if you are a lady and you don’t wear long, full dresses, you are going to feel terribly out of place. If you visit more than once and you aren’t wearing prairie-muffin dresses, there is at least one woman who will take you aside to teach you how to dress “appropriately.”

There were no rules about how you spent your time during the week or what kinds of activities you participated in, but most families did not participate in any activities outside of BCA-sponsored activities. Our family participated in community activities on a very regular basis and we were always disappointed that others from BCA did not enjoy these activities as well. The unwritten rules even extended to certain words that were not allowed, such as “luck” (as in potluck) and “deviled eggs” (they should be “angel eggs”). As one visitor recently put it, and as I heard from several visitors, “We only visited there one time and felt such an oppression that we knew we had to flee.”

BCA does not have church membership, but they do have a covenant, which in some ways is even more binding than traditional church membership. This covenant was not in place until BCA was about three years old. At that time, the men got together to study the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, which they had to agree with before they could sign the covenant. On Covenant Sunday, Doug preached a message on why covenants were biblical. While we can all agree that covenants are indeed biblical, many people did not see that God was telling us to covenant with one another in that way as a church body and many families left that Sunday. Those men who agreed to sign the covenant all came up to front, one by one, and signed a large scroll-like document with the written covenant at the top and lots of blank space for all the men’s signatures at the bottom, similar to the Declaration of Independence. The man’s signature bound the whole family, although the wives didn’t even know what the beliefs of the church were, unless their husbands chose to share that with them. The women weren’t permitted to read the Covenant, although Doug did read it to the whole congregation. This is consistent with Doug’s view that women shouldn’t be permitted to vote. They were just expected to go along with whatever their husbands decided, even though they may not be permitted to even know the details of what their husbands determined for the entire family.

There are lots of young singles at BCA. Most of these twenty-somethings still live with their parents. A number of young men work at Vision Forum. Some live with other families and some live on their own. When a young lady was asked, “What do you do?”, every young lady was expected to answer, “I serve my father.” What that means in real life is that she lived at home, and cooked, cleaned, and helped with child care, either for her own family or for another family with lots of young children. It was considered quite prestigious to especially be able to do this for the Phillips family. While young men were allowed to work, most of them either worked at home, with their fathers, or for Doug Phillips. Getting a college education for a young man meant doing it by correspondence or through distance learning. None of the young men actually attended college. With approximately 125 people at BCA, about thirty or so were of marriageable age. Yet, weddings were few and far between. Courtship was emphasized and often talked about at BCA. Yet in spite the numerous eligible singles, we never saw much in the way of courtship happening. Perhaps it wasn’t encouraged enough in a practical way because the young ladies were considered too much of a valuable commodity in taking care of other people’s children?

Most people in the church were what we would call “like-minded.” We had the same doctrine, the same lifestyle, the same values, the same convictions. We spent lots of time together, not only on Sundays, but often throughout the week, in various church activities. So with so many eligible young people, we would have expected lots of weddings to take place. But, sadly, there were very few. In the five years we were at BCA, with an attendance peaking at 250 when BCA was about three years old, there was only one wedding within the church and only a couple more who married someone outside the church. Year after year, these young people continue to remain single. Why? Are their personal standards too high?

BCA was a legalistic environment. I have noticed with legalists that when we start with what we perceive to be a “biblical principle,” that principle tends to grow into a “biblical conviction” over time. That conviction grows until it reaches the level of “sin” if not followed exactly. At this point, the details of this conviction begin to become more and more defined, until what started as a good principle is now a long list of dos and don’ts. I have watched this process happen with many young people as well, with the detailed list of rules becoming very prevalent in their lives at an extremely young age. As they grow, they become unwilling to change at all. They are unwilling to make different choices in life in order to accommodate a potential spouse. The list of requirements becomes so extremely tight that it is nearly impossible to find a suitable mate. So we continued to see large numbers of single young people at BCA, year after year, with the number growing each year with more reaching marriageable age than those getting married each year. I still believe that courtship is much “safer” than what so many young people encounter in the dating scene. However, I do have to wonder why, if it’s a “biblical principle,” it isn’t working out any better in a church pastored by one of its leading promoters.

Not all family-integrated churches are alike, however, just as there are many differences among all other types of churches. Even in our like-minded “community” of churches that were all off-shoots of BCA, there are many differences. Since we attended Living Water Fellowship for a while as well, this is a good church to show some of the many differences.

LWF is much more “contemporary,” particularly in its liturgy and form of worship. After we all brought food in for the potluck afterward (and yes, we were free to call it a “potluck”), we began with about 30 minutes of electric guitars and drums and contemporary Christian music. Many of the women and children also participated in a circle of Davidic dance in the back of the school gymnasium, where we met for services. Men were invited to participate, but most were reluctant to do so. Davidic dance is a form of dance that is supposedly patterned after how the Israelites in the Bible, such as Miriam and David, danced to the Lord.

LWF did not have a set pattern of worship after this. There were always announcements, sometimes of classes or Bible studies or prayer times, many of which were often for certain ages or men or women only, or just for couples. They weren’t as concerned about always keeping the family together all the time. Sometimes, Little Bear Wheeler or one of the elders would give a testimony of something God had done in their life that week. Sometimes, other members would have an opportunity to talk about something God was doing in their lives as well. This was not a random testimony time, but usually was planned ahead of time. There were also times when Little Bear would ask someone to speak about something in particular on the spur of the moment, such as when he asked Mark to speak about how God was dealing with his anger. Both men and women were allowed to speak during this time. This did not happen every Sunday, but it did happen often.

Usually, one of the four elders would then give a sermon (LWF believed in and practiced a true plurality of elders). Sometimes it was topical, sometimes it was expository. Little Bear often used video clips or Power Point to embellish his sermons. We also had many guest preachers/missionaries, something which was almost non-existent at BCA. Communion was once a month at LWF, while it was every Sunday at BCA. It was very short and sweet, with each person being served a pre-packaged communion cup of grape juice with a little wafer in a plastic package as the lid for the cup. Everyone was able to decide for themselves if they wanted to take communion. Baptisms took place in the swimming pool at the home next door, which belonged to one of the attendees. I don’t remember any occasion for sharing prayer requests; I think the elders would just announce if there were any needs, which they also list on their website. They did announce prayer requests via email as well. We ended with a short prayer time and another song before getting the potluck lunch prepared.

Since LWF meets in a large gymnasium, there was plenty of room in the back for moms with noisy children or babies. You would often see moms pushing strollers around in the back during the sermon or maybe nursing their babies, but they were always able to listen to the sermon. We were also able to use the school lunch tables for eating our Sunday lunch, so everyone helped put away all the folding chairs from the service and set up everything for lunch. We tried to leave one end of the gym open for the kids to play basketball when they were done eating. It wasn’t unusual to have a ball come flying through your plate at lunchtime! And it soon became quite noisy with approximately 200 people all eating and talking and playing ball. Sometimes, the older girls would organize activities for the younger children. I remember that all the children got together one Sunday and made homemade Mother’s Day cards for all the moms. Some of the young ladies helped the little ones and my disabled daughter make cards as well. There were buckets of toys for the children to play with and there were always children practicing “Heart and Soul” on the piano to add to the delightful cacophony amidst hours of fellowship.

LWF does not believe in membership or signing church covenants. There is no statement of faith that I am aware of. In fact, although at least two of the elders are ordained, one with the Assemblies of God denomination, they don’t have a set of doctrines that I know of. The teaching leans heavily toward Arminianism and dispensationalism. Some families claim to be Reformed; however, I have some doubts that they even understand what “Reformed” means. Although there are many like-minded people at LWF, practicing things like homeschooling and affirming stay-at-home moms, there never seemed to be an emphasis on it. It is just something that most of us naturally did, but not something that we felt obligated by the elders to do, or that we even frequently talked about, the way we did at BCA. It’s entirely possible that there were some who did not homeschool and that there were some women who worked outside the home, at least part-time. College was never frowned on, for either girls or boys. Large families (“full-quiver”) were not idolized, as they were at BCA. Dress was varied. There were just as many women who came to church in jeans and t-shirts as those who wore “modest” dresses. There was no dress code and, for the most part, dress was not an issue.

The four elders made it a point to “smell like the sheep.” I would spend time talking with, and even eating with at least one, if not more, of the four elders and their wives, on any given Sunday. The elders made themselves available. The elders didn’t act like anyone special. They spent time greeting and fellowshipping with everyone who came to LWF. I remember one Sunday when I was sitting at a table with the elders and deacons and a couple other women. We were all discussing theology. I remember even openly disagreeing with their position, but they didn’t condemn me or make me feel uncomfortable for doing so. It was such a joy to be included in meaningful discussions — and with men no less! LWF seemed more “Complementarian” rather than Patriarchal.

These elders were also available day or night. Little Bear and Al both called Mark nearly every single day while we attended there. When there were serious problems, I could call those men even in the middle of the night. I remember one occasion when I was in much fear at home. I called Al (Little Bear was out of town) and he told us to come over in an hour. When we arrived at around 8 p.m., the other elders and their wives were there as well, all prepared to help us, with only an hour’s notice. They stayed with us until midnight that night. They also immediately got us into marriage counseling, with two elders and their wives and another couple who was trained in marriage counseling, meeting with us and another couple every week at Little Bear’s home.

Relationships were a little different at LWF as well. Men and women and children of all ages were able to mingle freely and fellowship with one another. The youth, however, naturally gravitated toward one another, and although there was not an official “youth” group, they definitely hung out together on Sundays, much the way that kids would at any regular church, complete with all the typical bickerings and jealousies. Even though LWF holds itself out as a family-integrated church, in many ways LWF was just a “regular” church, where just about anyone would feel welcome. LWF lacked any of the legalism that we experienced at BCA.

BCA and LWF represent for me two different extremes of the family-integrated church movement. The one was legalistic, authoritarian, and all about image. The other was about grace, with caring and nurturing shepherds, and not at all concerned about image. Looking back on it now, it seems very odd that these two very different churches could be in “community” with one another, especially considering the two very different theologies represented as well.

One of my concerns with the family-integrated church movement is that there are probably far too many of the legalistic churches involved, and too few of the “grace” churches. In fact, by its very nature, the family-integrated church movement tends to attract the former, and the NCFIC’s own Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family is representative of that. The “Confession” is judgmental and condemning of non-FICs. In my next article on the family-integrated church, I hope to address some of those issues.

Pastor Writes In To Say Doug Phillips Is “Incredibly Dangerous”

Hi Jen:

I am a pastor in Colorado and have had the grueling task of “re-discipling” many whose lives (and families) were turned upside down by Doug Phillips and Vision Forum (Tit 1:11). I just wanted to drop you a line and say “keep up the good work.” Men like Phillips must be exposed before they do more harm. My first “red flag” with his organization came the moment I saw (or heard) one of their core beliefs, “the family is the foundational institution of society.”

Nowhere in the Scripture is that ever stated. As a matter of fact, it is blatantly against what the Scripture teaches. Jesus teaches us that it is the church (not the family) which is the foundational institution of society (Mat 16:18; 1Ti 3:15). “It is the city on the hill” which causes the world to sit up and take notice.

Once again–keep being faithful–you are an encouragement to many I’m sure. Men like Phillips rule by intimidation much the same way other cult leaders do, and therefore it takes strong courageous people like yourself coming out against them–before others will be freed also. And let me assure you that what you are doing is biblical. We (as Christians) are to be “exposing the deeds of darkness” (Eph 5). Though there are some things Phillips does which are good–it is the “leaven” mixed in which spoils the whole batch and makes him incredibly dangerous.

Scott Jarrett

Pastor, Sovereign Grace Bible Church

www.sovereigngracebc.org

Note: see Pastor Jarrett’s related article: The Church: God’s Foundational Institution

Church Strengthened When Doug Phillips’ Supporters Leave

I’ve received a great deal of email thanking me for exposing Doug Phillips. Much of it is from people who have personally known Doug. Many of these people would like to be in a position to expose Doug Phillips themselves, but for various reasons, they haven’t.

A common thread running through all of it is intimidation. Many feel intimidated by Doug, and many have good reason to feel intimidated. Doug Phillips has threatened many people, some with legal action, some with ecclesiastical threats such as church discipline or excommunication, even from other churches. In more than one case, I’ve received emails telling me that if they went public with their story of Doug’s unscrupulous dealings with them that he’d use his significant political resources to ruin their business, or in some cases to get them fired.

It’s a common ploy of Doug’s that he demands the names of your church elders and he threatens “church discipline” against you. Some of these people have done nothing more than write Doug to ask him a question about an apparent contradiction in his teaching, and then he threatens them. The Christian thing to do would just be to answer people’s questions. Instead, he uses his employees to shield him and they play games of evasion. The majority of questions Doug does answer are from those who agree with him already. Doug loves his fan mail and has often posted it on his blog, but he hates it when he’s challenged for hypocrisy, and with Doug Phillips there is much hypocrisy. Anyone who disagrees is either ignored, and if they’re not ignored, they’re often threatened. Doug Phillips has even threatened a few pastors.

Doug Phillips’ threats have worked. His formula has worked for years to intimidate people into silence. I know because I’ve now heard from many of them, and I’ll probably be hearing from more. My hope is that some of them will soon muster enough courage to step forward and tell their own stories for themselves. For now what will have to suffice are their emails to me. With their permission, from time to time, I’ll post the emails of those who have known Doug Phillips personally, as well as from those who have personal knowledge of my situation, or personal knowledge of how Doug has threatened others.

The specifics contained in some of the emails I’ve received are sometimes so detailed that Doug would probably be able to figure out who they were authored by. So in order to prevent Doug’s retaliation against them, I won’t post any stories or emails without their permission. I also won’t post their names without their permission. I’ll also give them the option of whether or not comments should be permitted on their email. Even if they don’t want their name used, they still may not appreciate being subjected to the kinds of verbal attacks that I don’t personally mind being subjected to.

The following is an email I received recently and have been given permission to post on my blog.

Jen,

Wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your boldness with this whole Doug Phillips thing. I’m sure you’ve grown weary of hearing everybody’s advice and opinions, especially those with nothing really at stake. We had something at stake, though. This past year, our church suffered a split that just came out of the blue. It really wasn’t until you went public with your experience that we began connecting the dots. Looking back on it, I see that the Lord actually purified our body by removing the families that were causing these divisions. I have noticed that the three elders that left have really become big DP fans. And our remaining elders have made a concerted effort to be very upfront with just what we DO believe and WHY, leaving no room for unbiblical teachings. The solid teaching from our pulpit has benefited. Your boldness has helped dozens of families here!

I have also recognized a growing clique of DP homeschool families (I don’t know what else to call them). Their children sound like walking talking Vision Forum catalogs. My children have noticed and are able to discern the extra-biblical tidbits. Again, your boldness has given us a platform, as a family, to teach some important critical thinking skills and sift everything around us through scripture. As independent-thinking as I tend to be, I recognize that I had become lazy about some things. If you declared yourself Christian, and you homeschooled, you got a pass from me. I think that’s what put DP where he is today. LOTS of folks give him a pass without batting an eye.

So, thanks a million for what you were willing to do. I know your family took some blows, not to mention your marriage, friendships and even your children. Surely the Lord will see fit to restore all the broken relationships. I think you are wise to back off the whole reconciliation thing. And I think you are equally wise to continue to inform the public about this wolf. No more head butting, just investigative reporting.

Home School Leaders Warned About Doug Phillips

The following letter went out to a number of home school leaders across the nation and abroad. A copy was also sent to Doug Phillips asking for his response.

We know that there are many more leaders, home school groups, and home school families out there who need to hear this, so if you would like to forward this to them yourself, please feel free (just be sure the links are included). Or you can send us their email address and we would be glad to send it to them.

Dear Home School Leader,

I’ve been a Christian home educator for twelve years now and have been president of a local home school group for seven years. I’ve been active in the home school community for quite some time and have helped to coordinate numerous home school functions and co-ops in the San Antonio, Texas area and have worked at many homeschool conventions.

Home schoolers have worked very hard for a number of years to earn a good reputation for Christian home education. Our proven track record of educational excellence has largely overcome the criticisms of the government educrats. However, we need to remain ever vigilant to maintain that good reputation. If our reputation is undermined by any among us who have divisive and potentially harmful agendas, we stand to lose much.

It’s vital that the most prominent of our home school leadership be men and women of impeccable reputation and strong moral character. We’re very concerned that one of the most prominent of our home education leaders runs the risk of causing the entire home school movement great damage. We speak of Douglas W. Phillips, the founder of Vision Forum. We believe that Doug Phillips’ intentions may be good for his attempts to shed light on a number of wrongs that have crept into the Christian home, the church, and society on the whole, in recent decades. However, a number of Doug Phillips’ methods and ambitions for correcting these problems are seriously flawed. Rather than working to bring about reformation, Doug Phillips embraces opinions and methods which are reactionary, harmful and even potentially dangerous to the family and the church.

Home schoolers are already considered by many to be “radicals” and “extremists.” Of course, we know that most Christian home educators are actually very moderate and do their best to “live at peace with all men” (Rom 12:18). However, Doug Phillips, even by many Christian home schooling standards, is very much an extremist. We’ve known Doug personally for many years and have spent much time studying and analyzing his opinions, as well as his actions. As a result, we’ve become increasingly concerned that Doug Phillips may be far more a liability than an asset to the Christian home school movement.

There is much to show how unhealthy and problematic Doug’s views are, and in this brief email we hope to demonstrate just a few of those. Our goal is to warn you as a Christian home school leader so that you can take any precautionary steps you deem appropriate to minimize any adverse impact to your own family and home school organization. In order to protect the Christian home school movement, we believe it is important that Doug Phillips be isolated and relegated to the outer fringes where he properly belongs, and where he can do little harm. We believe that it is risky for your organization to be identifying yourself with Doug Phillips, and to give him a platform from which he can promote his views. Please now allow us to explain why.

Doug Phillips has just expressed his views publicly on the massacre at Virginia Tech in an article entitled On The Horror At Virginia Tech. Though Doug makes some valid theological observations, his timing couldn’t have been worse. Doug is taking considerable heat over how insensitive and calloused his remarks appear to be. Most troubling is the fact that Doug is publicly advocating arming students. This is a classic example of Doug’s reactionary thinking. Because gun control advocates are calling for further gun control legislation, Doug reacts by saying the solution is to permit students to bring guns into the classroom. This isn’t to say that he wants all students armed, though. In Doug’s patriarchal world, only male students would be armed.

Doug Phillips is known as a significant leader of “Patriarchy,” a movement which seeks to restore homes and churches to an idyllic antebellum image, a time of chivalrous gentlemen and ladies in fluffy dresses. However, just below the surface of this superficial “Gone With The Wind” veneer lurks a far less honorable side. Doug Phillips often challenges radical feminism, and he’s right to do so. However, the solution to radical feminism isn’t a shift to the opposite extreme. Phillips’ views aren’t “complementarian,” or even just patriarchal, but rather hyper-patriarchal, a world in which women are effectively treated as doormats and not permitted to have any opinions of their own. Phillips’ patriarchy vision is an autocratic pseudo-feudal world in which women are completely dominated by husbands, and daughters are deprived of higher education and careers of any kind.

Doug Phillips’ jaded view of women is no more clearly evidenced than the way that he directs his own church, Boerne Christian Assembly, as its self-appointed and unordained pastor and sole elder. At BCA, “Let your women keep silence in the churches” (1 Cor. 14:34) is interpreted in such an extreme manner that women aren’t even permitted to introduce guests, women aren’t permitted to make prayer requests, and women aren’t even permitted to get their own communion (if her husband isn’t present, she must be served by another man, or one of her own sons, even if that son is too young to partake of communion himself). We were members of Doug’s church for five years, and so our comments about this are based on personal experience.

Doug Phillips takes his low opinion of women into the marriage counseling setting as well. Where marital problems are brought to his attention, he’s known to avoid any judicious examination of underlying issues, but rather immediately side entirely with the husband and seek out any excuse to blame the wife for any problems. We know this not only because of what’s been reported to us, but because of what we personally experienced. Some of Phillips’ more common questions to husbands of troubled marriages are: “Isn’t your wife a dripping faucet and a nag?” “Isn’t your wife rebellious?” “Isn’t your wife a Jezebel?” In Doug Phillips’ world, the wife is always to blame. Doug Phillips is not known to have ever asked a wife, “Does your husband love you as Christ loved the church and gave Himself for her?”

Considering the fact that women quite often are doing the majority of the practical teaching at home, and also making many of the decisions about home school curriculum, we consider it remarkable that Doug Phillips evidences all the tendencies of a misogynist. Since women are probably making many of the decisions about what materials to order from Vision Forum, and women make up such a large percentage of the home school leadership, one would think that Doug Phillips would want to treat women with much more regard than he does.

Doug Phillips is an attorney and claims to have a biblical world view about law and justice. He even sponsors an annual law conference. This is one of the reasons that we recently exposed Doug on the internet for having conducted a Kangaroo Court in his own church, Boerne Christian Assembly. For those who will take the time to carefully examine the facts, they will come away deeply troubled by the huge disparity between what Doug publicly espouses about justice versus what he actually practices when given the opportunity to exercise justice himself. Without any due process whatsoever, Doug Phillips unjustly excommunicated us for sins that we’d already repented of, as well as sins for which there wasn’t a shred of evidence to support. In fact, one of Doug’s charges against Jen was over a sin that she had committed years before she had even become a Christian, and years after she had repented of that sin! The Lord Jesus forgave her of that sin over seventeen years ago, but apparently Doug Phillips’ standards of forgiveness are far higher than the Lord’s.

After leaving Boerne Christian Assembly, we were welcomed into a church led by Richard “Little Bear” Wheeler. Pastor Wheeler’s church is a “sister church” to BCA. Aside from being a pastor, Little Bear Wheeler is a prominent home school leader and the founder of Mantle Ministries. Doug and Little Bear were close personal friends and have spoken from the podium at many of the same home school conferences and retreats. Little Bear Wheeler worked diligently for fourteen months to reconcile our relationship to Doug Phillips and BCA, but Doug refused to make an appearance for any of the numerous meetings that Little Bear arranged between us. Doug rebuffed all efforts at reconciliation. Worse yet, Doug retaliated against Little Bear by terminating their long friendship, and he even removed most, if not all, Mantle Ministries products from the Vision Forum catalog. For his kindness toward us, Doug Phillips shunned Little Bear Wheeler.

Doug Phillips is a significant leader in the “Family Integrated Church” movement. Many churches do indeed segregate family members by age and pressure parents to have their children participate in youth groups which, though often consistent with the values of public school parents, are often at odds with the values of “family integrated” home school parents. While well intentioned, the family integrated church movement, much like the patriarchy movement, has too often shown itself to be extremist, self-righteous and divisive. Rather than seeking to reform churches from within and wean them from being “programmatic,” the Family Integrated Church movement has become a “program” in itself and has caused a number of church splits. Though Doug Phillips has spoken on “how leave a church honorably,” much of the fruit of the Family Integrated Church movement has been anything but honorable.

Most troubling in its ramifications for how it could adversely impact the cause of Christian education is Doug Phillips’ video documentary “Raising The Allosaur.” Some have referred to this video as a “fakeumentary.” Indeed, there is overwhelming evidence that many of the claims made by Phillips in “Raising The Allosaur” are blatant fabrications. Phillips has never been able to provide any reasonable explanations for the glaring inconsistencies and serious allegations that have been put to him as a result of his video production, masquerading as a documentary. Phillips suffered so much negative public exposure for his fakeumentary that he withdrew it from the Vision Forum catalog, without any public explanation, and he did so in spite of the fact that “Raising The Allosaur” had been a very lucrative product for Vision Forum. Phillips’ fakeumentary has greatly harmed the cause of creationism. If even just a few of the allegations against this video are true, then Doug Phillips is guilty of perpetrating a huge fraud against many thousands of Christians, and especially against Christian home schoolers (in the video Phillips falsely credits home schoolers as having been responsible for finding the allosaur). Phillips owes the Christian public either an explanation or an apology. However, after many such demands, he has completely evaded doing either one. There are numerous other issues that call into question Doug Phillips’ integrity, but “Raising The Allosaur” may be the most glaring example yet.

Perhaps the single greatest risk of all though, in associating with Doug Phillips, are the numerous concerns expressed that he may be a closet racist. We ourselves are not prepared to make such an allegation. We believe that some of these allegations are based on the logical fallacy of “guilt by association.” The problem for Doug, though, is that some of the things that he has said and written do tend to cast strong suspicion on his views of race. Many of Doug Phillips’ personal heroes are notorious racists. As just one example, Doug has written a poem about Robert L. Dabney in which he says, “Hail Dabney, defender of the South!” This is an obvious reference to Dabney’s book, “A Defense Of Virginia and the South.” If you’ve read Dabney’s book, you already know that it was written for one purpose only — as a defense of Southern slavery. Dabney was the South’s strongest apologist for slavery. Dabney had an extremely low view of Blacks, believing that their only appropriate station in life was in perpetual servitude to Whites. For Doug Phillips to “Hail Dabney!” seems extremely problematic.

Doug has left himself wide open to scrutiny on the question of racism. This isn’t to say that we personally believe that Doug is a racist. We do believe, however, that Doug has been very foolish by using his close personal friends to make “racist” allegations against others, based on nothing but guilt by association, when his own associations with known racists are so problematic. We haven’t and we won’t accuse Doug being a racist. However, we believe that the allegations against him of racism are potentially very dangerous to the home school movement.

We would ask that you carefully consider the ramifications of your organization’s relationship with Doug Phillips, through his serving as a speaker at your conferences or otherwise, and the great harm that it could cause to not only your organization’s reputation, but to Christian home education in general, by promoting him and giving him a platform to advance his extremist views.

We recognize that some will choose to immediately dismiss our concerns on the assumption that this is some kind of “personal vendetta motivated by unforgiveness and bitterness.” That’s simply not the case. We both worked for nearly two years to privately reconcile with Doug. We attempted to do so by going through appropriate ecclesiastical channels with not just one, but two different different churches and their elders in our area. In both cases, Doug refused their offers of reconciliation. We’re not motivated by vengeance. We’re motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of the Christian home school movement.

Feel free to contact us with any questions you might have.

Yours for Christian Education,

Mark and Jennifer Epstein

_________________________

*Our concern about Doug Phillips’ blog article on Virginia Tech is not that Doug is a proponent of the Second Amendment. We are, too. But we also believe that Doug should be consistent. What Doug advocates is a disparity, based on gender. Men are free to carry guns anywhere, including to their college classes, and they do so allegedly to protect the poor, helpless women, while not allowing for women to carry guns for self-defense as well. What would happen if a public university was full of armed men and unarmed women? What would happen if everyone was armed and a debate ensued in a classroom? How long before the first gun came out? Or maybe we have a problem with the hypocrisy of Doug espousing that only the young men be armed, when we see this video of his daughter?

How Doug Phillips Lost His Vision for the Second Greatest Commandment

“By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:35

Why is it that some churches can have right doctrine, right theology, the right values, emphasize the right Bible verses, have the right world view, and yet after only a short time of doing things right something goes terribly wrong? What starts out as something very special is soon corrupted.

When I first started attending BCA, Doug Phillips had just finished preaching a series of messages on “one another-ing.” The church had studied how to love one another, greet one another, care for one another’s burdens, be hospitable, forgive one another, serve one another, give preference to one another, admonish and exhort one another, among many other commands on how we are treat our brothers and sisters in Christ. We stepped in right as BCA had been saturated with learning the second greatest commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

That first year there, I cannot recall any bickering or fighting or backbiting whatsoever. There was no gossiping and Matthew 18 just wasn’t necessary. There definitely was no judgmental spirit.

On my very first Sunday at BCA, we were invited the next day to a special event that was taking place at an IBLP conference. Lew Sterrett was going to be teaching the Sermon on the Mount by breaking a wild horse, so I thought appropriate attire, in August in South Texas, would be short shorts and a tank top (my values about attire were much different then). When I showed up, it quickly became apparent that ALL the other women were in long dresses, but no one judged me that day. Not one person said a word and many of the women came up and greeted me anyway. We were invited to dinner the next week at a home where the family did all dress very conservatively. Again, no judging.

So what changed? Why today are so many BCA women afraid to be seen in public in pants? Why do some women go out of their way to avoid those they know are going to say something about their choice of clothing? Why do some women feel it is their responsibility to tell everyone else how to dress? Did I miss that verse in the one another-ing list?

I really don’t know what changed, but I can point to some patterns that I noticed. The first situation that stands out in my mind regards leaders setting the example. The first year we were at BCA, Doug Phillips was present nearly every Sunday and he preached at least half the time. Church was held at his home and he would sometimes go down to the end of the road and stand there and greet everyone coming in. He was always a very gracious host and was constantly available. Since church at BCA was nearly an all day event, we were often at Doug’s home from 10 in the morning until 5 or 6 in the evening. Doug would set the example in loving one another during that time and was nearly always mixing with the brothers all day.

And then we moved. Or rather, the Phillips family moved, and so the church moved with them. That conference season, Doug had a sharp increase in speaking engagements, and he was gone quite a bit more than before. When he was home on a Sunday, he would usually still spend time with other members, but he seemed to disappear a while before most of us went home. It was only a matter of time until he would go take a nap on Sunday afternoons rather than stay and fellowship in his own home, or sometimes he would just sleep all day on Sunday.

By the time the church moved again, a couple years later, Doug Phillips was only showing up once a month. Now, I understand his ratio averages once every two months. The last year I was at BCA, on the Sundays Doug would actually show up, he would usually arrive late and would often leave immediately after the sermon, while the rest of us were still praying. Doug is now a Christian celebrity and has very little time to care for his flock.

So how much one another-ing is Doug Phillips practicing now? How much love does he show for the brethren? (We won’t even talk about the sisters in this article!) How much time does he invest in his sheep? It’s not like he’s just another traveling man in the congregation. Doug was our SOLE elder. Where was he? I think of Jesus’ example of being a shepherd when He said, “My sheep hear My voice, and they know Me.”

Pastors are often known as “under-shepherds,” meaning that they care for Christ’s sheep under His authority. Clearly, an under-shepherd should know his sheep and know them well. Did we know Doug? Did he know us? At first it really seemed that he did, and that he really cared for us. But as Doug’s popularity grew, and his travel itinerary intensified, he soon became a stranger to us. Doug not only no longer cared about us, it was apparent that his celebrity status had gone to his head. Doug started treating us as though he was better than us.

A particular speech I really enjoy giving is entitled, “How Do Children Spell Love? T-I-M-E.” As sheep without a shepherd, how does Doug show that he loves us? How can he possibly “one another” us when he’s not there? When he runs out the door immediately after the conclusion of the church service, rather than staying to fellowship and minister to his sheep, how is he demonstrating love?

Do you know how often Doug invited church members over to his home just to fellowship? I’m not talking about just church parties. He was great at putting on a party where he would be the center of attention. I’m just talking about having a family over for dinner. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that part of being an elder? There were 20 families at BCA. In five years, Doug and Beall never invited us over for dinner. They never invited 90% of the church over for dinner or fellowship. Doug talks about hospitality a lot and he has the interns over all the time and he has out of town guests over all the time, but he didn’t have his own sheep over, nor did he accept invitations from church members for dinner. Is that a biblical example of one another-ing?

Could it be that underneath the vision for Patriarchy, the vision for men leading their families, the vision for submissive wives, the vision for age-integrated church, the vision for correct doctrine and theology, the vision for music that glorifies God, the vision for doing “church” God’s way, that somewhere along the way, Doug forgot the most important ingredient – the second greatest commandment? Talking about love is a good first step. Spending TIME with people is living it out. Doug Phillips is so busy with his vision, he has no TIME for people anymore. Time equals love.

Jen Epstein Responds to Doug Phillips / BCA Statement

Is the Doug Phillips / Boerne Christian Assembly statement against me “rife with pure fabrications, dangerous half-truths, malicious innuendo, and vicious personal attacks?”

Read and decide for yourself.

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

Just one month ago, in an article on Ministry Watchman, Charles Fisher introduced to the public the story of my family’s mistreatment by Doug Phillips and Boerne Christian Assembly. Three days later, BCA issued a public response on a brand new church website. Rather than reply to their statement, I decided to first finish telling my story, which I continued on this site after Charles finished a second article on Ministry Watchman. Because my own account is now complete, I will now respond to the BCA statement, section by section. This article is a little longer than my recent posts, so please be patient as you read it, but I do think you will find it well worth the time. Please note as you read that the excerpts of the Doug Phillips/BCA statement are indented, with my responses following.

Boerne Christian Assembly is a ministry whose primary effort is to broadly declare the gospel-good news of Jesus Christ and to teach the full counsel of God, “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Matthew 28:20).

I find it sad that the BCA statement begins with a needless falsehood — the claim that Boerne Christian Assembly is a “ministry.” If BCA is just a ministry, by what authority do they claim to have exercised church discipline on Mark and me?

The distinction between a church and a ministry may seem like a small matter to some readers, but the fact is that the church is a God-ordained institution that lasts forever, whereas a ministry is man-made and finite. So it is not a small matter to blur the distinction.

Response of Boerne Christian Assembly to a Defamatory Attack Circulated by an Anonymous Source Against Church Leadership, Church Families, and Women of the Congregation

BCA (actually Doug Phillips, who has done most if not all of the drafting of this statement) uses the legal term “defamatory” from the first part of its statement to send a message that Doug is still considering suing us and to warn potential supporters of us of possible legal consequences of their support. Doug made clear in a blog post he made just a few weeks ago and before we went public with our story that he feels free to sue us because he excommunicated us. The truth is that such a lawsuit is highly unlikely to get very far, because “defamatory” means an untrue statement, and nothing that Charles Fisher or I have written has been untrue. So the use of the word is little more than an aggressive rhetorical device.

The truth is Doug Phillips has done far more to attack my family than we have done to “attack” him by taking our story public. The road to the present began in 2002, when Doug Phillips refused to help me even as I pleaded with him to intervene on behalf of our marriage. Not long after, Doug Phillips launched his attack on me by promoting a theology that says problems in the marriage are always the woman’s fault, by refusing to forgive me when I apologized for “gossiping,” by retaliating against my personal political belief that it is not immoral to vote Republican, and by refusing to protect a woman and children in his own congregation.

The fact that we are now going public, after exhausting all private avenues for reconciliation under Matthew 18, does not constitute our own attack at all; rather, we are merely warning fellow believers about a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

1. Background: Boerne Christian Assembly (hereafter cited as BCA) is a duly constituted local assembly which has, since its beginning, been governed by plural leadership….

As Doug Phillips knows, the term “plural leadership” does not reflect a biblical principle of church government. The BCA statement uses this term solely to disguise the fact that they are not governed by a plurality of ordained elders. I used to always consider it the height of hypocrisy when BCA would begin services every Sunday with one of the deacons proclaiming that we believe in a plurality of elders, while year after year we only had one unordained elder, Doug Phillips. The Bible is clear that there should be a plurality of elders, not a plurality of “leadership” — as Doug Phillips himself teaches at the Vision Forum Uniting Church and Family conferences that he organizes and hosts. This example of Doug not practicing what he preaches is just the first of many that will be noted in this article.

2. Purpose: We have received notice that a highly defamatory article laced with personal character attacks has been widely disseminated by e-mail from an anonymous source.

My story is true. So by definition it is neither defamatory nor an attack on Doug Phillips’ personal character beyond revealing what that character truly is. Search through Charles Fisher’s or my story for evidence of any name-calling, pejoratives, hyperbole, or use of ad hominem attacks; you won’t find any. And, as our own websites make clear, Mark and I are public, not anonymous, sources for Charles Fisher’s story, although Ministry Watchman did originally refer to us as Jared and Mary Jackson in the interest of protecting us from possible litigation.

We also understand that it has been posted on a website run by individuals acting under pseudonyms.

This statement is deliberately misleading, as though BCA was not informed of the story when it was published and as though they only heard of Ministry Watchman through the rumor mill. This is not true, as Ministry Watchman sent Doug Phillips a courtesy copy of the story to his personal email two hours before the story was posted (and Doug’s personal assistant would have seen it almost instantly on his Blackberry). At that time Doug was invited to supply any corrections or clarifications to the story. He declined to do so. Ministry Watchman also offered a standing invitation for Doug Phillips to set the record straight on any errors he subsequently identified. Doug Phillips has declined to do so for over a month so far.

Although I don’t know if the authors at Ministry Watchman write under their own names or under pseudonyms as alleged in this statement, I do know that RC Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries filed a lawsuit against Christian blogger (and Ministry Watchman writer) Frank Vance. I also know that Doug Phillips has threatened to sue us and others. Under the circumstances — Christian public figures who refuse to obey the command in I Corinthians 6 to refrain from suing fellow Christians — it could be very prudent for Ministry Watchman contributors to write under pseudonyms. I certainly don’t fault them if they have chosen to do so.

Furthermore, we only have to look to the first two “We hate the Epsteins” websites to see that Doug Phillips’ own close associates chose to “attack” us using pseudonymns as well, all while they were exposing our names to the whole world, not to mention revealing pastoral confidences and using foul language in the process. Since Doug Phillips did nothing to stop this, I must therefore conclude that he gives them his implicit approval for what they have done. In my opinion, this is blatant hypocrisy.

The defamatory article has been sent by e-mail throughout our own church community and across the nation.

My true story has been read by many people who have emailed links to friends and associates. There are many concerned readers who are forwarding this important information to others. Doug Phillips uses email himself. I see no special problem with the medium.

The article involves numerous fictitious accounts of events, malicious accusations against BCA elder Doug Phillips and his wife Beall, the families of BCA, and its leadership.

“Numerous,” “fictitious,” “malicious,” and “accusations” are all broad and inflammatory but unsubstantiated words Doug Phillips often uses, which is one reason I know he probably wrote this statement (and not the person who signed it). These words don’t really say anything at all of substance. Why doesn’t Doug Phillips just address even one aspect of my story specifically? Maybe because he can’t refute it? Maybe because if he says anything at all falsifiable that it will be proven false?

The numerous accusations center around the relationship of BCA with a couple biblically and lovingly disciplined for gross, unrepentant sin in the beginning of the year 2005. The purpose of this letter is to offer a brief response.

Actually, my story is primarily about Doug and Beall Phillips individually, not about BCA. Notice how this statement tries very hard to take the focus off these two Phillips family members, where it belongs.

Now that I have completed telling my story (If you haven’t read it, you may want to do so, beginning here, before continuing with this article), it should be clear that the BCA “discipline” was neither biblical nor loving. In fact, the manner in which it was conducted would not even hold up to the much lower standards of the secular justice system, let alone to the higher standards of God’s Word. Doug, do you really think the way you have treated my children and me is loving? While I realize you think that this kind of discipline is meant to produce repentance in its rightful place, since you cannot clearly provide me with anything I need to repent from, you have effectively put me in a lose-lose situation: If I don’t repent, I am forever deemed an excommunicant; If I do confess, it would be a lie.

3. Summary: The article attacking BCA is a work of fiction. It is rife with pure fabrications, dangerous half-truths, malicious innuendo, and vicious personal attacks.

Here are more sweeping and unspecific charges. I have plenty of documentation that supports the truth of my story; BCA has offered nothing to disprove it. This type of language serves only to incite the reader’s emotions, something Doug Phillips taught us never to do. This is more of Doug holding others to a standard he does not follow himself.

It attributes to BCA leaders statements they never made, actions they never committed, and beliefs to which they do not subscribe.

Precisely which statements, actions, and beliefs might these be? I notice that the BCA statement is very careful, for example, to avoid denying that Doug Phillips called me a “whore” and a “Jezebel.” The BCA statement is also careful not to deny any of the other particular facts that I have put forward. Doug knows there are too many witnesses to deny such things. That’s why he resorts to denying, in a morally outraged tone, unspecified things he was not accused of committing.

The article demeans women in so far as it viciously attacks Beall Phillips and presents the women of BCA in a most unflattering and defamatory manner.

Beall Phillips has been a true helpmeet to Doug — helping him place blame where it doesn’t belong, helping him to manipulate my words into something they were never intended to mean, helping manipulate me into a situation where Doug Phillips could excommunicate me for what Beall herself recommended I do. Telling the truth about her role as a de-facto female elder is not “vicious,” unless what she has done is vicious (in which case it cannot be avoided). Furthermore, if the most extreme aspects of patriarchy as practiced by many at BCA appear unflattering, it is because of the subject matter, not because of the reporter. Criticizing Ministry Watchman’s reporting in this regard is merely blaming the messenger.

The article is undocumented, unsubstantiated, and unbiblical in so far as it is the result of a cooperative effort with an excommunicated couple to bring a false witness against Christians contrary to the Ninth Commandment and to the biblical requirements pertaining to those under church discipline.

Here is another example of a boldfaced lie. The original story by Charles Fisher WAS documented. In fact, that document includes Doug Phillips’ own signature (plus the signatures of other witnesses). See it for yourself right here. After that first story many more documents have been released. The first document supports my story, which, in fact, closely tracks the rest of the documentation. I find it very odd that the official BCA statement would find it so easy to lie about something that anyone can easily disprove. So I ask you readers, if BCA’s “leadership” will lie about this, why not about other things as well?

Furthermore, to call us “excommunicated” is to beg the question. That is precisely the matter under dispute. We deny that we were excommunicated, not only because Doug Phillips denied us due process but also because he refused to supply the appropriate grounds for excommunication. In fact, to this day, we have yet to receive any particulars about the sins we allegedly committed to justify the excommunication.

We deny the vicious charges presented in the document, stand by the character of the men and women defamed, and affirm the propriety of the excommunication both as to the substance and as to the procedure.

Which “document” is he referring to? Perhaps Charles Fisher’s original story? If so, I believe anyone would have a difficult time finding anything “vicious” in this rendering of my story. And if BCA has denied anything specific in that report, I would like to see it; a broad, general denial of “vicious charges” doesn’t amount to anything.

4. Excommunication With Due Process and Unanimous Approval of the Voting Church Body: Contrary to the claims made by this couple and the publishers of the defamatory article, the excommunication of the family followed biblical procedure consistent with our doctrine and confession, procedures which we believe to fairly represent the parameters laid out in Scripture.

I believe I made a clear case that this excommunication was both unbiblical and without due process. I have yet to hear one specific charge against me, although there have been very broad allegations without any examples. None of these broad charges, even if true, are an excommunicable offense. I was not provided time to prepare a defense, to gather witnesses, to even have a trial. I was tried and convicted by secret star chamber, and I still don’t even know the charges! There was no place and no person to whom I could appeal. I would like to know the Bible verses that describe using this kind of railroading to excommunicate.

Tremendous patience, longsuffering, and love were shown to the couple even in the face of violent railings, vicious accusations, cruelty and threats on their part directed at each other, other women at BCA, the families coming alongside of them in counsel and prayer, and the church leadership.

I would agree that Doug Phillips was patient with my husband’s anger even to the point that he refused to protect my children and me when our lives were in danger. However, I don’t think that is the kind of patience our Lord advocates. While Doug Phillips certainly had somewhat of a good relationship with Mark, his obvious disdain for me as a woman is what led to his very unloving and unbiblical treatment of me. At no time did I knowingly treat anyone, man or woman, at Boerne Christian Assembly with anything other than Christian charity, even when Beall Phillips tried to back me into corners, or when others told half-truths about me, such as when Kathleen Turley told Doug Phillips that I was gossiping, which was not the full story and certainly not my intent. In other words, to claim that Doug Phillips in particular was patient, longsuffering, and loving toward me is simply not true.

The initial reason BCA intervened with this couple was to prevent their divorce in light of the husband’s constant threats to divorce his wife.

True. It had absolutely nothing to do with me. So why was I punished by being banned from the Lord’s Supper as BCA’s first act of intervention?

Just prior to their formal excommunication, the acrimony and venom between the couple was at such a level that the wife suggested her husband was guilty of attempted murder and of psychological instability, while the husband presented compelling evidence of ongoing cruelty on the part of the wife.

As a former lawyer for HSLDA, Doug Phillips knew that he had a responsibility, both as an elder and as a lawyer specifically trained for these types of situations, to investigate my daughter Natasha’s and my allegations that our lives were in danger rather than laughing them off. I have even spoken to a well-known lawyer at HSLDA about this situation and he verified that Doug Phillips should have known better. Bob Sarratt is the one who suggested that Mark might be bi-polar, but even so, wouldn’t that be a logical concern in a situation like this?

As for the charges against me, I invite you, Doug, to give me even one example of my being cruel to my husband. The truth is that my husband made up charges against me, which you did not test but instead used as an excuse to discipline me. In fact, even after my husband recanted of his false charges in front of the whole church, you still used his false testimony to condemn me! So much for your advocacy of “Biblical law,” which does not permit judgment based on false testimony. Doug, why don’t you practice what you preach?

When confronted for sins, the wife insisted on a novel and unbiblical variation of the doctrine of sinless perfectionism to justify her claim that she had essentially not sinned in her home for close to half of a year.

The question was, “Have you sinned in your marriage in the last 24 hours?” I answered that I could not recall doing so. When Beall Phillips kept pressing, asking me about the last 48 hours, the last week, or the last month, I merely replied that I had not sinned recently in my marriage. In fact, Mark was so rarely home at this point, that I didn’t even have many opportunities to sin directly against him. I was not claiming sinless perfectionism but rather that, although I certainly had sinned in my marriage, as in all of life, I did not have some particular pattern of sin that Beall had been looking for to point to as the cause of our family’s marital problems.

Over a period of years leading up to the excommunication, the elders of BCA and appointed families from the local church logged hundreds of hours counseling both the husband and wife in the Word of God, sometimes with signs of hope, and other times with none.

While Mark was certainly afforded much counseling, although of mixed quality, I was counseled by Beall Phillips and Reba Short for a total of six hours over five years. Mark and I met with Doug Phillips for a total of four hours in five years, but I don’t consider his name calling and kangaroo courts to be “counseling.” Doug knows of this wide disparity, and he knows there is no good excuse for it, so he tries to obscure this to the readers of the BCA statement by combining my situation with Mark’s.

At no time was inappropriate language leveled against the couple by leaders of BCA.

Since there is no denial of using any specific words, I can only assume that Doug Phillips considers it appropriate pastoral behavior to call me a “whore,” “Jezebel,” “wicked,” “rebellious,” and “churlish,” even without supplying any examples of these charges. I guess that’s his view of how to shepherd a member of the flock.

The gradual and patient process involved counsel, appeals, confrontation, admonition, warnings, censure, discipline, and, ultimately, excommunication with the full consent of the church.

Let’s look more closely at each of these alleged steps:

Counsel – The only counsel I received was six hours worth by two women who thought problems in the marriage were all the woman’s fault and therefore could be solved in three weeks by following a list of submission guidelines.

Appeals – When Doug Phillips excommunicates you, there is no one to whom you can appeal.

Confrontation – I would describe my relationship with Doug Phillips as mostly confrontational.

Admonitions – “Jennifer, you are very wicked.”

Warnings – “You’re going to pay for this.” [For disagreeing in a private email that it is immoral to vote Republican]

Censure – When I ask for help in my marriage, I am not allowed to take communion for over a year.

Discipline – The whole church shunned me for something I didn’t do.

Excommunication – In a secret meeting, the whole church (half of which are Doug’s employees and thus had a major conflict of interest and incentive to vote as desired by the man paying their families’ incomes) voted to excommunicate me for submitting to Beall Phillips’ recommendation to put in writing a defense against false charges made against me?

As the final stage of a lengthy disciplinary process, the couple was brought before the church where they were admonished by the body, including men and women.

The disciplinary action in January 2005 was the final stage of discipline? Exactly how was I disciplined prior to this and for what? The suspension from the Lord’s Table in 2002 had been for my husband’s threats of divorce, as was stated just above, and it was supposedly resolved one year later when we were permitted to return to the Lord’s table. The only other “discipline” that occurred was that pre-conversion sins from which I had previously repented were read before the men, women, and children of the congregation, despite my husband’s pleading that they not be.

One other thing readers should take note of in this statement is that Doug Phillips is confessing here that there was no due process in his discipline. Instead of a trial with advance notice at which we could testify ourselves, present our own evidence, and cross-examine the witnesses supplied by the prosecution as a means to better discover the truth, we are presented to the congregation in a meeting at which our discipline which was pre-ordained.

The response of the wife in particular was to bring many hateful railings and false testimonies against women of the church and against the leadership.

My “defense” to this disciplinary action did not include railings, hate, or any false testimony. My defense was similar to what I have written in my story. My husband’s “railings” included confessing to giving false testimony, unsuccessfully pleading with the leadership not to discipline me based on the false testimony, and unsuccessfully pleading with the church leadership to not tell the whole church of my pre-conversion sins. Is this what Doug Phillips means by “railings”?

The husband was admonished for his violent anger, his lack of loving leadership, for unrepentant anger and hatred, and for bringing a false witness.

While Mark certainly confessed to and repented from his anger and lack of love, I can find no record of his being accused of bringing a false witness in the disciplinary action document we have from Boerne Christian Assembly. Certainly, the false testimony was still used by the BCA leadership as grounds for disciplining me, so criticizing Mark for such false testimony would not have been consistent, if it ever happened.

The wife was formally admonished for habitual dishonesty and lying, for railings and reviling against both her husband and church authorities, for cruelty, gossip, and attempted division of the brethren.

On this particular day, of this particular list, I was charged with gossip, of which I asked Doug Phillips for forgiveness but he refused to forgive me. I was not charged with dishonesty, lying, railings, revilings, cruelty, or attempted division. Nor have I done those things. You may check for yourself on page 5 of the Disciplinary Action to see that I was not accused of these things. I am once again mystified that the BCA “leadership” thinks they can get away with a lie that can so easily be caught.

Despite fervent and loving appeals on behalf of individual brothers and sisters, men and women within the body assembled, and the leadership of this church, the couple hardened their hearts to God and defied the admonition of the church.

Mark confessed his sins before the congregation that day and he was still excommunicated shortly thereafter. I merely asked, “What have I done wrong specifically, so that I can repent?” I was given no answer.

After careful prayer and deliberation, and pursuant to the clear commands of Scripture which states, “And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican” (Matthew 18:17), the couple was afterward excommunicated from BCA.

Even though we were told that we had six months in which to repent (I’m still not sure from what), we were suddenly and without notice excommunicated less than two weeks later in a secret meeting to which Mark and I were not invited. All that had happened during those two weeks was that I had written up, as advised by Beall Phillips, and circulated, a defense to members of BCA in response to the charges laid against me, as I had been given no advance warning or opportunity to do so at the previous disciplinary meeting (while my accusers had been informed weeks in advance and been able to prepare written statements). That was my only new offense and one that had been directed by Beall Phillips, the person designated by the “leadership” to counsel me. All I can conclude, then, is that submission to Beall in this was deemed the final, excommunicable offense and that her helpful “counsel” had been a set-up.

It should be noted that Doug Phillips did not make the initial recommendation to excommunicate this wayward couple. The motion for excommunication came from another member of the church body, and the BCA congregation voted unanimously in approving it.

I am very sure this is true. Doug Phillips is quite careful about not putting his name on anything and letting other people take the fall for him when things backfire. This BCA statement is another such example. Doug Phillips wrote nearly all, if not all, of it and as the sole elder of BCA, he should have signed it and taken responsibility for it, not Bob Sarratt. Some of Doug’s defenders who are foolish enough to put their names on their attacks against me would be well advised to follow Doug’s example and keep silent. If he won’t sign his own name to his own defense, why should you sign your name to a defense on his behalf?

5. Tactics Rooted in Dishonesty: The decision to isolate and attack Doug Phillips, both as an elder and also as the head of a ministry unconnected to the local church, is reprehensible.

My story focuses on Doug Phillips precisely because he is the one who was directly responsible for everything that took place. If Doug is isolated as the sole elder at BCA after teaching for years on the biblical requirement of church government by a plurality of elders, that is his personal responsibility, which should not reflect on me. Furthermore, there is nothing dishonest or reprehensible about pointing out that Doug Phillips does not practice in his own church what he preaches about church government at his Uniting Church and Family ministry conferences.

As the Bible says in James 3:1, those who presume to teach will be judged more strictly. Apparently, Doug Phillips interprets this verse as those who presume to teach shouldn’t be judged, or even criticized, at all.

It is a strategic tactic, the goal of which appears to be to confuse uninvolved third parties and to deflect attention from the real sin of the couple and the due process of accountability brought against them by a covenanting body that knows them very well and has walked with them for many years.

My goal here is to warn fellow believers, both those still at BCA and those who are in any way influenced by Doug Phillips, and his teachings through Vision Forum, that the man you see in public is not the same man in private, that you need to be aware of a wolf in sheep’s clothing who preaches due process to others but denies it to those under him. He holds up his own congregation as a national model, and he is seeking to spread that model across the whole country through his Uniting Church and Family Conferences and his National Center for Family-Integrated Churches, which, with more than 500 member churches, is looking more and more like a new denomination every day. It is Doug Phillips who has the strategic ambition to spread what he preaches across the country and around the globe; unfortunately, he does not practice what he preaches. Our response to this hypocrisy is very modest by comparison and comes nowhere near to grand strategy.

The facts are these: There was unanimous agreement on the part of the more than half a dozen families who had been privately involved in helping the family prior to their excommunication, on the part of the church leadership, and on the part of the entire voting body present (around twenty-five families) on what the outcome should be.

There were actually five couples who decided to discipline us initially in January 2005. Of these five couples, two couples and another of the wives had had little to no interaction with us. Beall had not spoken to me for years at this point, except for the six hours of counseling. So, six out of the ten people responsible knew almost nothing of us personally. The one man that did know me best in fact questioned why I was disciplined because he did not see the evidence for it. One couple, who work for Doug Phillips and are very close to him, came over to our home every week for dinner, and that man had counseled Mark extensively. That leaves Doug Phillips as the prime mover by a large margin.

Another odd aspect of this statement is the claim that “families” rather than heads of household decide on church matters. Doug does not believe in women voting, in church or state, and he also does not permit women to speak at all in church, so the claim that families decided is another example of deceptive reporting, as it is designed to give the impression that the women of the church had some formal say in the matter. They did not.

The decision was this: that for the good of the body and the spiritual good of the couple, excommunication was necessary.

While our family certainly has grown spiritually since we were “excommunicated,” I don’t think it has anything to do with being treated as heathens and publicans and the whole family being shunned. Maybe it would have been better for the body to not hide problems of this magnitude and allow others to come alongside and attempt to help us and to hold Mark accountable. In the end, because God is sovereign, I have no doubt that He will turn the evil done at BCA in the name of church discipline into good for purifying His bride. I think that is already happening through this site, as people are being warned to beware the pied piper and his “new Reformation” tune.

Concerning leadership: From its first days as a constituted assembly, BCA has maintained plural and equal leadership in the governance and oversight of the local body.

When BCA first started, it had three elders. About one year later, there were just two. Two years after that, and ever since the end of 2002, there has been only one unordained elder (unless there has been some very recent new promotion in response to the public criticism of the lack of multiple elders). BCA has always had 2-3 deacons, but deacons are not the same as elders. The truth is that it has been many years since anyone with knowledge of BCA could claim honestly that there has been “equal leadership” — unless “equal” is defined strictly as equally unordained to any office.

Even during times of transition, men have always stepped up into leadership.

Other men have preached, but everyone who is a member of BCA knows full well that no decision is made without Doug Phillips’ approval. Besides, leadership roles are not the same as offices. Many men have led in some way at BCA, but Doug Phillips has made sure for years that he was the only one holding the office of elder.

The suggestion that BCA is run by one man, or that the excommunication process was managed or run by one man, is a fraud and contrary to the clear facts.

BCA has long had one elder, one unordained elder – Doug Phillips. As the sole elder, Doug Phillips was solely responsible for the so-called excommunication as well, as he would have been the only one with any biblical authority to carry it out. The Bible does not give the “keys to the kingdom” to the heads of household of a church collectively but rather to a plurality of elders.

The isolation of Doug and Beall Phillips for censure, the connection with Vision Forum Ministries, and the absurd charges leveled against their character are tactics used by a couple who has become notorious for extreme behavior within their marriage and towards others, for gossip in the congregation, and for dishonesty.

My story about Doug and Beall Phillips involves Vision Forum to the extent that our second meeting with Doug Phillips took place in his office at Vision Forum, my three mandatory counseling sessions took place at Vision Forum, and I have been barred from the premises of Vision Forum due to the circumstances surrounding my story. But mostly, I was ultimately excommunicated because I responded, with my husband’s permission, to the open invitation of the President of Vision Forum to present to him my view of politics, which focused on the idea that it is not immoral to vote for Republicans (specifically Bush in 2004). Doug Phillips disagreed with my opinion, and for expressing it and refusing to recant without being persuaded by reason, he promised that I would pay.

If we were notorious for extreme behavior within our marriage, then why were so many BCA members shocked when the disciplinary action document was read in church on January 23, 2005? To any extent that we have become notorious since, it is no doubt due to frequent whisperings, including broken pastoral confidence about exaggerated misdeeds and sins from before conversion that have been confessed and repented of long since.

In fact, at one point their behavior was so extreme that a shepherd from a nearby congregation who also had counseled this family strongly advised Doug Phillips to get a court restraining order for his physical protection, a recommendation he declined.

We have never given any indication that Doug Phillips needed physical protection from us. This statement is designed to create sympathy where none is due. It also ignores the fact that multiple shepherds from other congregations have refused to go along with Doug Phillips’ star chamber approach to church discipline imposed on us and have told him so.

6. Ongoing Sin and Unrepentence: Subsequent to their excommunication, the couple published lengthy defamatory letters and disseminated them widely, bringing numerous false and railing accusations and demands against specific and numerous men and women of BCA.

Actually, before we were excommunicated, but immediately after the disciplinary action statement, at the advice of Beall Phillips, I wrote out a defense and sent it to the five men who decided to discipline me. After that seemed only to bring more shunning upon us, I appealed to the rest of the members of BCA as well, sending them a copy of my defense. We also gave a copy to the elders of the new church we were attending and to Bob Welch, who was involved in the excommunication. We did not take it outside the immediate group of people directly involved in one way or another. As I have already said, the substance of that communication was very similar to what you see on this site. Judge for yourself: Does what you read here sound like the BCA statement describes it?

They also raised the issue of a lawsuit against BCA.

Using correct legal terms in responding to an attorney such as Doug Phillips is not raising the issue of a lawsuit; that is, pointing out that something he said was egregious enough to be “actionable.” Making that observation is not the same as threatening a lawsuit. On the other hand, Doug Phillips did actually retain a personal attorney, Bobby Don Hart, who threatened to sue us. For months, our only interaction with Doug Phillips was through his attorney, and during that time we did not retain our own legal counsel or seek legal advice. That being so, which party — Doug Phillips or the Epsteins — has demonstrated a greater likelihood of initiating a lawsuit?

They further sought and were successful at using the spread of falsehoods to create active divisions within the community.

Not only did we not create divisions within the community, we actually recommended to certain families that they should visit BCA. When asked, we told the truth about our situation, but never in a manner intended to cause divisions. To be sure, the truth sometimes divides, but that is not always a bad thing. For example, being divided from false teaching has been good for my family.

Next, they began to launch hateful and slanderous websites comparing Doug Phillips and Vision Forum to Nazis, among other unkind and defamatory representations.

It is not true that Mark and I have launched such a website, and I certainly have not compared Doug Phillips or Vision Forum to Nazis. Readers are invited to double-check for themselves by reading through my site. But even if there is such a comparison, perhaps expressed tongue in cheek, so what? I’ve had several good laughs at being called much worse things on blogs run by supporters of Doug Phillips, and I don’t see why Doug should be so thin-skinned, unless something hit close to home. A true shepherd should be more tolerant and patient than a member of the flock, not less.

Next, they attempted via letter to blackmail Doug Phillips by threatening to destroy him via the internet unless he capitulated to unbiblical demands.

Mark offered to go to arbitration (such as Peacemakers) and explained that if Doug Phillips refused his efforts at reconciliation, that Mark would then take what we saw as the next logical step, which would be to send an email to several prominent pastors, asking for their help. That is all the charge of “blackmail” amounts to.

The unlawful nature of their behavior was explained to them, as was the fact that they have no protection under I Corinthians 6 against lawsuits should they persist in such behavior.

Mark’s request for arbitration was met with Doug Phillips’ lawyer, Bobby Don Hart, threatening to sue us instead. The only time Doug Phillips addressed his unbiblical interpretations of I Corinthians 6 not applying to excommunicants was when he said as much in his own blog. This was published on October 11, 2006, after Doug’s attorney had broken off all communications to us. I guess this is Doug’s way of admitting what BCA and Vision Forum insiders have known for years — that Doug Phillips uses his blog to communicate to people without naming names but still in a way that those in the know will know precisely the target and the message.

Next, they specifically positioned themselves as Internet whistleblowers against ministries that sue bloggers.

I wrote articles on my blog about the grievous sins of Ligonier, a Christian ministry which had sued a believer in direct violation of I Corinthians 6. I did this as a long-time monthly donor to Ligonier and as someone who believed proper stewardship of those donations required me to investigate the reports of the lawsuit when I heard of it. This was in no way related to Doug Phillips or Vision Forum or BCA — although we did eventually learn that the false church discipline against us, including pre-conversion sin relayed in pastoral confidence, had been brought to the attention of Ligonier senior management by Doug Phillips or his authorized staff during that time. So, to the extent there is a connection, it is one that Doug Phillips himself initiated.

Finally, they worked in conjunction with the website to mass disseminate rank lies and slanders against one of their former elders and to disparage the congregation that loved them.

When Ministry Watchman approached us about telling our story, we prayed about it and checked them out thoroughly. Satisfied that Frank Vance’s reporting in particular was seen to be accurate and well-documented, and impressed with the biblical standards of the website, we agreed to tell our story to one of their reporters, Charles Fisher. We have tried our best to tell the truth in every respect and cannot be held responsible for the fact that Doug Phillips treats any and all criticism of him or his leadership practices as “slander,” “lies,” “defamation,” etc.

As a part of their most recent actions, they have facilitated the posting of doctored and misleading documents onto the internet.

The first document that Ministry Watchman posted in support of our story had our names covered to protect our identity. They also blurred the names of the signatures of some witnesses as well since they were not implicated in the story. Doug Phillips’ signature, however, was not blurred. In any case, if you compare this first document that was redacted only to protect certain names to the second copy that is not altered in any way, you will clearly see that the names were the only thing changed, as was fully disclosed. Consequently, it is dishonest to call the document “doctored.”

By the way, since Doug Phillips drafted that document, and not Mark or me, if it is “misleading,” it is the responsibility of Doug Phillips, not Mark or me. At the time of this BCA statement, we had published only one document on the Internet. It was only later that it would have been accurate to say that we posted “documents.” This is not a big deal by itself, but it does provide additional evidence that the BCA statement was not drafted with scrupulous accuracy being a high priority.

In sum, their ongoing behavior has been consistent with some of the very issues for which they were excommunicated by the BCA congregation without a single vote in opposition.

In sum, you will see that Doug Phillips’ ongoing behavior has been consistently abusive not only throughout my story, but throughout the many lies and exaggerations presented in this very statement. I have already explained the unanimous vote (half of which constituted employees of Doug Phillips) and how it is not, in any case, the place of the congregation to do the work of the elders, so I won’t cover that again.

7. How Should the Church Respond to the Couple: In order to preserve the flock of God from damage caused by railers, extortioners, disorderly, disobedient, unruly, unrepentant and dishonest individuals, as well as to encourage such individuals to flee to Christ while there is yet time, the Bible offers the following directives:

The list of sins here grows to now include us being railers, extortioners, disorderly, disobedient, unruly, unrepentant, and dishonest. It should be clear by now that these terms do not describe us at all and are merely designed to draw attention away from the truth of our family’s five years of ecclesiastical tyranny and abuse under Doug Phillips. If these were true, one would think that given literally years to produce specific instances of these sins, in order for us to fully repent, the fact that he has not done so despite our repeated requests, tells me he either cannot produce such specifics or he will not because he is not interested in giving us any opportunity to be reconciled. My own view is that both are true.

Romans 16:17-18: Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

Mark and I are aware of no divisions or offenses that we have committed contrary to proper doctrine. If we have committed any, we certainly have not been informed of these with sufficient specificity to make repentance possible.

I Corinthians 5:11-13: But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

This new list of “offenses” seems to be added just so Doug Phillips can use another verse to justify excommunicating us. In any case, this list of charges is simply not true.

II Thessalonians 3:6-7: Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;

We do not walk disorderly, but attempt to emulate the apostles and follow their teachings as closely as possible in our daily lives, especially regarding such passages as I Corinthians 6.

II Thessalonians 3:14: And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

I have done nothing for which I should be so ashamed that no one should eat with me. I have sinned, as has every other person in this world, but I am not an unrepentant sinner.

Psalms 101:5: Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.

Slander always involves lies and falsehoods, neither of which have I told.

Proverbs 22:10: Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife and reproach shall cease.

None of these apply to us either.

8. Conclusion: Recognizing that church discipline, like all godly administrations of discipline, is to be an act of love, the families of BCA have for nearly two years been praying for this couple and for their children.

And we have been praying for Doug Phillips and those at BCA as well.

It is our heartfelt desire to see love return to their family, hope to their children, and lasting harmony between husband and wife.

While this is certainly our desire also, I would not have known this was Doug Phillips’ desire by the way in which he treated my children and me. My children are still devastated by how Doug Phillips treated them. Doug Phillips has done far more to undermine harmony in our home than to promote it.

Though we cannot capitulate to their extortions, condone their ongoing destructive behavior, nor remain silent in the face of the spread of divisive falsehoods which they continue to propagate, we remain constant in having a genuine spirit of love toward them and earnestly desire their reconciliation through repentance first with God, and second with the families and loved ones who have poured out their hearts and lives for them.

Requesting first reconciliation, then arbitration, and then mediation is not extortion. I have been very careful to be truthful throughout my entire story. I do believe that in some odd way, Doug Phillips truly thinks he is doing the right thing in all this and that this is the way he is to love us, but by refusing to supply any specifics of our alleged sins he has made it impossible for us to be reconciled, if any true repentance is still needed on our part. His words of love and his deeds do not match.

We encourage those who desire the best for this couple, as well as the peace of the Body of Christ, neither to receive their slanders and false reports, nor to set aside Christ’s commands in dealing with them as an unrepentant man and woman under formal censure.

If I ever slander or give a false report (which are the same thing), I would encourage you not to receive them either. However, since my story is both true and well documented, it should be obvious by now that the circumstances leading up to and including my excommunication, and even our attempts at reconciliation since then are not the actions of “heathen and publicans” deserving formal censure.

Bob Sarratt, on behalf of the BCA session

It is telling that this statement is signed by long-time deacon Bob Sarratt, not Doug Phillips, who more than anyone else is responsible for what happened to my family. So why didn’t Doug Phillips sign his name and take the kind of personal responsibility that he requires of everyone else?

It’s unfortunate that the BCA statement ends as it begins, with a falsehood. This final falsehood is the claim that the statement was issued by the BCA “session,” a presbyterian term for a board of ordained elders that rule a local congregation together with equal authority. BCA is far from presbyterian but appears to seek the sympathy of presbyterians by giving the impression that BCA is ruled by a plurality of equal, ordained elders. It is not. The truth is that Doug Phillips has been the sole unordained elder at BCA for almost four years now, and nothing major is done at BCA without his personal approval (whether he permits his name to be used or not).

***

The above is my personal assessment of the Doug Phillips/BCA statement. I welcome constructive feedback on it, including correction of any errors I may have made. Or if you think I missed something in my analysis, let me know. I’ll be glad to receive correction and acknowledge it publicly. My hope is, with your help, that this article will be the most thorough and accurate, yet concise analysis of the BCA statement possible, to the glory of God and the edification of His people.

Doug Phillips’ Stubborn Silence

We Finally Go Public After Doug Phillips’ Lawyer Mouthpiece Refuses Additional Apologies and Efforts at Reconciliation

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

When Natasha was 15, she decided to enter the Elsie Dinsmore contest by Vision Forum in 2002. Having never written an essay before, she was excited and worked hard on it. She was very pleased when she won first “Runner-up” in her age category (13-18), and that recognition afforded her many opportunities to meet people all over the United States. Inevitably, when we would travel, or especially when we would attend a Vision Forum event, Natasha was often asked if she was the girl who won the Elsie Dinsmore essay contest. Unfortunately, however, Doug Phillips decided that our excommunication should extend to treating Natasha like a heathen and a publican, and sometime after April 1, 2006, Doug dropped her from the list of winners. You can see the cached Vision Forum page of Natasha winning here, and the current Vision Forum page here.

Shortly thereafter, upon receipt of Don Hart’s letter, Mark replied to Don on June 15, 2006, beginning with confessing whatever new sin he was aware of:

There is no doubt I owe your client [Doug Phillips] an apology for the letter sent the week following your client’s deliberate public humiliation of my wife that he, and now you, refers to as “church discipline” followed by excommunication. I should have confronted your client a second time (on a one-to-one level) before sending a letter to every covenanting member of Boerne Christian Assembly. I also owe your client an apology for my actions in November 2005, after previously learning your client, or those vested by your client, related our excommunication to non-members of the covenanting community, which is anything but the “charitable treatment of two excommunicated individuals” you reference in your letter. In each case, I was wrong, it was sin on my part, and I am profoundly sorrowed by my actions. However, though sinful, in neither case do my actions rise to the level of actionable libel or slander.

Mark then gave Don Hart a little history of our situation, giving his opinion that the underlying reason for Doug Phillips excommunicating me is my comment on his blog about voting. Here is why Mark is convinced, as he tells Don Hart:

• Your client [Doug Phillips] refused to accept my wife’s apology for speaking about him behind his back.
• Your client has refused to accept a written apology from my wife in May 2005 for sending out the letter of January 2005 to all of BCA.
• Your client told my wife if I had written the political email, it would have been acceptable.
• Your client told my wife she would “pay” for her email.
• Your client’s “leadership team” and hand-picked “counselors” worked with me to develop the areas of counseling for my wife, none of which included adultery or the bed you mention in your letter.
• Your client personally warned me my wife would be publicly disciplined, which preceded my inclusion in the discipline.

Your client could have been sued for his intentionally tortious conduct, as well as the violation of the counselor/counselee confidentiality relationship violated during the public reading of counseling notes, while your client and members of his leadership team (two deacons) imposed formal church discipline upon my wife and me. However, my understanding of Holy Scripture forbids a Christian from suing another Christian under all circumstances. Furthermore, I wish to underscore that I am referring to man’s lower standard of professional behavior and confidentiality in both the actionable tort-violation and privacy issue – not God’s higher standard of conduct to which an elder must conform.

Mark went on to explain that the excommunication was not only unbiblical, but that Doug Phillips was accountable to no one, and therefore there was no way to appeal the excommunication. Mark listed several verses in Scripture that deal with excommunication and showed that none of them applied to us.

Gal. 1:8 – “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.”

We did not preach a different gospel; at no time did I ever claim “sinless perfectionism” or anything similar. Reading Romans 6 and 8 in conjunction with Romans 7 is not a different gospel; it is the same gospel that Paul preached.

I Cor. 16:22 – “If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed.”

We both love the Lord with all our heart.

I Cor. 5:9-11 – “I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.”

We were not excommunicated for being sexually immoral; we were not covetous, idolaters, revilers, drunkards, or extortioners.

Mark then reminded Don Hart of II Cor. 2:6-8, in which Paul is talking about a man in the church who was previously disciplined:

“This punishment which was inflicted by the majority is sufficient for such a man, so that, on the contrary, you ought rather to forgive and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with too much sorrow. Therefore I urge you to reaffirm your love to him.”

Mark also gave fair warning that Doug Phillips has plenty to lose:

Should your client avail himself of your services in a civil suit, you need to be aware that no matter the result, your client will be tainted with the public image of a pastor, a pastor who is a public figure, suing a parishioner….The media, as well as the majority of female jurors, will be quite interested in a handpicked female counselor’s comments about marital problems always being the fault of the wife.

Another issue Mark clarified for Don Hart on behalf of Doug Phillips was that it was not Mark’s intention at that time to take this story to the internet (push of a button).

If I did not hear from your client, then I would take this issue to the next logical step, that step being sending all the relevant information I had to a minion of America’s pastorate. {Mark is saying that he was going to ask for help from a couple well-known pastors.}

To show how far Mark was willing to go in meeting Doug Phillips’ terms, Mark bent over backwards to effect reconciliation:

It is my fervent prayer and hope that your client and I can be reconciled as brothers in Christ. This is my desired end state, for I love your client, I respect his devotion to God, and I appreciate his ministry to the family. To accomplish this, I am willing to take two steps backward by dropping binding arbitration from the current discussion. If your client is willing to have Rev. Bob Welch function as an intermediary between us, then I am willing to meet with Rev. Welch and your client, even though Rev. Welch gave his approval to the excommunication. I am willing to begin the meeting by humbly apologizing to your client and asking for his forgiveness for the two sins articulated in this letter. I am even willing to keep this meeting private and never speak of it, if we can come to a mutually agreeable outcome, thereby allowing your client to address this issue, as he desires, with the congregants of BCA.

Mark asked three things of Doug Phillips in return: that he drop the excommunication and restore fellowship with Boerne Christian Assembly members, but not restore our membership; that Doug write a letter releasing us to attend another church in good standing; and that Doug Phillips would give his assurance that he would never try to excommunicate someone again without an ecclesiastical court.

Mark ended his letter to Don Hart with this:

Of course, I would prefer your client and I fall upon each others’ necks and publicly apologize to one another in front of BCA.

Following a lengthy phone call with Don Hart a few weeks later, in which Don insisted that the excommunication was biblical, although he could not articulate why, nothing was resolved, so Mark decided to try one last time. This last letter of July 31, 2006, was quite different:

After much prayer and study, … we do not fully understand or comprehend what BCA alleges our offenses to be.

In the disciplinary action letter of January 23, 2005, we are both accused of:

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

As individuals, [Mark] is accused of:

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

Jennifer is accused of:

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

(Note: 4 of 5 of (Mark’s) personal sins are marked with an asterisk (*). I am fully aware of these sins, I have publicly admitted my guilt, and have repented to God, my wife, and my family.)

The following is what we need to know in order to begin to understand the totality of the sin BCA says we have committed, in order to confess said sin and repent:

• What are these biblically defined unconfessed sins that we committed?
• What verses define the behavior as sin?
• When and where, specifically, did the sins occur?
• Who was or were the witnesses to each specific instance of sin?
• What did the witnesses do, for each specific sin, to confront Jennifer or Mark in the spirit of Matthew 18?
• What counseling (by whom, when, where, etc.) was provided for each sin?
• What are the who, where, and when of each specific refusal to repent from each instance of a specified act of unrepentant sin?
• Which specific sins rise to the level of an excommunicable offense?
• What are BCAs definitions of “biblical repentance, restitution, and restoration to the body,” as stated in the excommunication email?

We take this excommunication very seriously, we want this issue resolved, and we wish to be reconciled to our brothers and sisters. However, since our right relationship with God is priority number one, then we need to know the specifics of our … behavior … for which God’s representatives are holding us accountable in order to be reconciled to God and to our brothers and sisters in Christ.”

Mark asked for a reply by August 15, 2006, two weeks later.

When Mark did not hear anything from Don Hart for over a month, he was courteous enough to call him up and ask how the answers were coming along. Don Hart explained that he had been out of town and hadn’t been able to get the letter to Doug Phillips. While it was true that Don Hart was out of town, however, according to Doug Phillips’ own website, Don Hart was out of town with Doug himself, being a speaker at the Vision Forum Entrepreneurial Boot Camp during the month of August, 2006. Even though not delivering legal communications to your client can be considered malpractice, being gracious, Mark asked if three more weeks would be sufficient for Doug Phillips to provide an answer. Nevertheless, the mutually agreed upon deadline of September 29, 2006, came and went with no word from either Don Hart or Doug Phillips. And there has been no word since.

All we were asking was what would be expected in any court of law. Can you imagine a prosecuting attorney going before a judge and accusing the defendant of breaking the law? The judge would ask, “But what did he do?” The attorney would respond, “Well, he is violent and abusive.” Judge: “But what exactly did he do?” Attorney: “Well, he is violent and abusive.” Judge: “Prosecutor, he surely must have committed some crime. On what date, at what time, when, and where did the incident take place?” Attorney: “Well, I really don’t have that information, Your Honor. I just know that he is violent and abusive.” Judge: “Who did he abuse? How was he violent? What exactly did he do?” Attorney: “Well, all I know is that he was violent and abusive.” What judge would ever convict anyone based on that testimony? And yet that is exactly the kind of testimony that was used to excommunicate and discipline me. All I want is specifics. How can I possibly repent if I don’t know what I’ve done in the first place?

We were in a catch-22. We could publicly confess to broad, general sins we were accused of, both real and false, pay restitution, and put ourselves under the authority of a sole, unordained elder who had already abused us for five years. Or we could pretend that this whole situation didn’t exist and go to another church. Or we could just stay home and isolate ourselves. We prayed about what to do next.

It seemed that it was time to ask for help, so Mark asked me to call Dr. S.M. Davis, who had such an impact on our family and was a business associate of Doug Phillips. I called, but Dr. Davis doesn’t counsel people outside his own church anymore, so his daughter spoke with me. She did not understand what “excommunication” meant, so she thought it was merely a case of forgiving and going on with life. While we have forgiven all involved, however, that does not release those responsible from repentance and it does not change the fact that Doug Phillips has a track record of hurting many people and will continue to do so if he does not repent.

Shortly thereafter, a friend talked to us about our need to be in a church. We believed that we were putting ourselves under proper authority by staying home, since we were excommunicated and told that we were to be treated as heathens and publicans, but this friend gently rebuked us that since the excommunication was both unbiblical and without due process, we were in fact under no obligation to Doug Phillips regarding it and he encouraged us to find a church home. We have been attending church for a few months now.

In God’s providence, Ministry Watchman contacted us a while ago and asked if we would be willing to go public with our story, promising us anonymity. After much prayer and checking them out very carefully, we agreed to take the risk of telling our story to the public, in the hopes that we could warn fellow believers about this wolf in sheep’s clothing. As you can see, Doug Phillips immediately allowed others to expose our real names, so the protection offered by Ministry Watchman was no longer of any real use. We are grateful for Ministry Watchman’s continued support of our family, but it has been good for me to write this all out myself.

For the last two years, we have prayed every day about this situation, especially that our hearts would be right before God and that we would forgive Doug Phillips and those at Boerne Christian Assembly. We have forgiven them. We have sought to submit to their judgment even though we knew our treatment was unjust both in the substance of the accusation and in the lack of due process. Because Doug Phillips is the sole (unordained) elder at BCA, he is totally unaccountable in the church as well as outside of it, making a normal appeal to a higher church court impossible. We still tried to be reconciled as the Bible commands, working on an ad hoc basis with four elders from another church for 14 months. We wrote letters of apology for even the smallest offenses that we could think of, but Doug Phillips refused to forgive us of even those offenses. We wrote letters requesting explanations, but Doug Phillips refused to answer our questions. We offered to go to arbitration and mediation, but were met with threats of a lawsuit instead. You can see by Doug Phillips’ personal silence himself on the web that he will not answer us and that he has left us with only two options: slink away silently or go public.

We do not believe that slinking away silently is a biblical option. We are commanded to expose the evil deeds of darkness. And we are commanded to warn others of danger. That’s what we’ve been doing these past couple of weeks. Now the outcome of this situation is, as it always has been, in the hands of the Lord.

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

Although this is where our story ends for today, this is not where this blog ends. I will be providing commentary and analysis on not only different aspects related to our story, but also responding in a Christ-like manner to my detractors, who desperately tried to get my focus off my story.

I welcome questions and comments regarding everything on this blog in my story. I pray that God will give each reader discernment regarding Doug Phillips as you read my story, and I will do my best to clarify anything that is still unclear.

Thank you for your time and consideration in reading my story. May God bless you and your family.

Doug Phillips Threatens to Sue Us

In Response to Mark’s Request for Arbitration

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

When Hurricane Katrina hit, many of the refugees came to San Antonio and we donated many, many items to help get them back on their feet. When Doug Phillips mentioned on his blog that Vision Forum was collecting clothes for affected homeschool families affiliated with Vision Forum, I decided to help out in this way as well. I was going past Vision Forum that day anyway, so I decided to drop off several bags of clothing. I went to the retail store, where I knew Kathleen worked (the same “friend” I gossiped to about Doug Phillips previously) and greeted her warmly as I arrived. This was the first time I had seen her since the excommunication seven months earlier.

She did not know about the clothing drive, so I directed her to Doug’s blog. She then called Perry, who told me to come around back. I went around back, where Ryan asked me if I needed anything. I mentioned that I was waiting for Perry, who thanked me very kindly when I dropped off the bags of clothing. End of story. Or so I thought.

The next day, September 2, 2005, I received an official letter in the mail from Vision Forum Management (not signed). It said:

Dear Jennifer,

We received a report today that you came to our offices without making an appointment with the director of distribution for Project Katrina, and that you proceeded to act in a rude and harassing way to members of our staff.

Given this action, your formal state of discipline with a local church, and your unrepentant slander and criminal charges widely distributed by you against members of the Vision Forum staff, you are officially barred from the Vision Forum property until all above matters are appropriately addressed to our satisfaction.

I can be certain that Perry did not tell a lie about me, since he has never treated me with anything but kindness. Given Kathleen’s previous distortion of our discussion one year earlier (when I “gossiped” about Doug Phillips not protecting my children and me), I can probably guess where this twisting of the facts came into play here. I asked my son, who was with me, if I was in any way rude or harassing, and he assured me I was not. I hope you, my readers, can see by now, that that is not my style. So, now I am officially barred from Vision Forum property because I wanted to help fellow Christians in need.

Not being ones to repay evil for evil, however, as soon as we were released to pursue reconciliation with Doug Phillips and Boerne Christian Assembly, Mark wrote a brief letter to Doug on March 10, 2006:

Dear Doug,

I pray that God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ continues to bless the work of your hands, as well as you and yours.

I am writing today for a very simple reason – to ask you, on behalf of my family, to articulate the specifics of what you deem necessary to effect reconciliation between us. Upon receipt of your list, I will seek to be humble in response and actions, realizing that reconciliation between us will undoubtedly be a process.

Endeavoring for the name of Christ, I await your response.

In His Love,
Mark

PS I thought your piece on Dr. Morris was an excellent tribute to a great man of God.

I was very proud of him for writing such a penitent letter and felt sure we would make progress now. Not hearing anything though, Mark sent him another copy on March 23, and then a reminder again a week later. Still no reply.

Mark then wrote to Bob Welch in April, 2006, asking him to intervene with Doug Phillips. Bob Welch was an elder at Boerne Christian Assembly several years earlier, and we heard through the grapevine that he was present at the excommunication “star chamber,” where all the Boerne Christian Assembly members voted us out. Mark told Bob Welch that while “we do not intend to seek any restoration to BCA as covenanting members, our sole intent is to be obedient to the Scriptures in seeking reconciliation with Doug and the members of BCA, as brothers and sisters in Christ, this side of heaven.”

Shortly thereafter, on May 4, 2006, Mark received a letter signed by Bob Sarratt on behalf of the Boerne Christian “leadership:”

Dear Mark,

On behalf of Boerne Christian Assembly I am responding to your communications to BCA via Doug Phillips. {Notice how Doug Phillips never takes responsibility himself, even though Mark’s letter was addressed specifically to Doug.}

For gross, habitual and unrepentant sin, both you and Jennifer were formally excommunicated from your local church. There was 100% head of household affirmation of the excommunication by the families of the congregation. Since that time the families of BCA have been diligently praying for your repentance.

The issue at hand is not primarily about reconciliation with any man or even with a local church, but reconciliation with God through repentance and submission to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Should you genuinely turn from the sins that have enslaved you, including demonstrating evidence of true conversion through public confession and restitution for wrongs, the people of BCA would joyfully accept your repentance and the leadership would work with you in supervising the restoration process. At present, there is no indication that you acknowledge your sins, let alone have repented from them. Also, your public actions in the community and through your shameful use of the Internet to slander and defame reveal the same pattern of ongoing wickedness for which you and Jennifer were excommunicated. {Mark’s request to Doug Phillips said, “I will seek to be humble in response and actions.” What more proof did they want? This was the most contrite letter I had ever seen from Mark, yet Doug Phillips (who we think really wrote this letter) insists that there is no indication of acknowledgement of sins or repentance from Mark.}

Reconciliation with God and the earthly removal of your status as a heathen and a publican requires evidence of conversion. It is not a matter of negotiations or bargains, but of heartfelt biblical repentance. Please consult with the documents we gave you in January of 2005 for more information on any of these details.

Sincerely,
Bob Sarratt for the BCA Leadership

There were no specifics given for how that repentance was to be demonstrated, so Mark again wrote Doug Phillips a lengthy letter on May 22, 2006. First, he confessed his sins:

My habitual sins included my failure to love my wife, my family, and myself as God commands, as well as failing to lead my family – my gifts from God. Not only have I confessed these sins before God and man, I daily seek God’s grace to remain in a state of repentance by completely turning from sins of anger and selfishness that found their outworking in my failure to love and lead my family.

Mark also stated why we did not want to return to Boerne Christian Assembly:

I do not intend to place myself or any of my family members under the authority of a church whose leader is unaccountable, who has engaged in a demonstrable pattern of abusive behavior toward those who legitimately question some of his specific actions, or who continues to use men too weak to hold him accountable to the duties and responsibilities of biblical eldership. As you are fully aware, Bob Sarratt publicly confessed in the June 2004 men’s meeting to not acting within the parameters of a quasi-elder and, therefore, not holding you accountable as the realistically sole elder of BCA. … I would be less than a God-ordained leader to my loved ones by placing them under your so-called leadership for any “restoration process.”

Mark then offered Doug Phillips mediation:

I am willing to seek resolution of our differences through a mutually agreeable arbitrator from outside the community. Moreover, I am willing to make any public apology for any sin not yet confessed that this mutually agreeable arbitrator would recommend.

Mark explained how unbiblical this excommunication was and how it was without due process, summarizing it thus:

You cannot invoke biblical passages providing you protection as an elder when you conduct yourself outside the God-ordained behavior that constitutes the parameters within which an elder must conduct his office. As an attorney, you know this.

Mark asked Doug for a response:

I suggest a personal response from you by June 6, 2006, regarding a willingness to engage in arbitration. If I do not hear from you by then, I will assume that you desire I take this issue elsewhere. Doug, I will beseech you once more in all humility – as I beseeched you regarding the unmerited and vicious public reading of Jennifer’s pre-conversion behavior – to arbitrate this dispute.

I think Doug Phillips misunderstood this next section:

Doug, you know it only takes the touch of a button to find yourself in a similarly embarrassing situation as RC Sproul, Jr. Ask your IT folks how easy it is to reduce the BCA writings and subsequent USPS and electronic correspondence between us to Adobe files, and then ask yourself if you want Jennifer’s letter of May 2005 seen side-by-side with your response, the tone of which embodies an almost palpable hatred. {At this time, we had no intentions of going public with our story, but were seriously considering telling our story to some other pastors and/or speakers who had a relationship with Doug Phillips, in the hopes that they could help us. Thus, the touch of a button to send the emails.}

He ended:

Lastly, please know that, despite our serious differences, I love you and my brothers and sisters at BCA. Yet, God did not make this image bearer a “yes” man to any man but, rather, a man who seeks to love God, love the wife he received as a gift and the children He chose to bless us with, my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, and the sinners He places in my path. As Martin Luther supposedly said, “Here I stand; I can do no other; God help me! Amen!

In the meantime, Mark and I weren’t the only ones being shunned, though. The shunning extended to our children, as well. Natasha, 17 at the time, suddenly had every friend ripped away from her. Some spoke to her once or twice at a public occasion, but for a social butterfly who was already struggling with her father’s anger, this was devastating. She soon left home. Joshua, a shy boy, lost all his friends as well. And Alicia, now 11, who is severely disabled, but loves to hug and greet everyone she sees, was even shunned. With the mind of a two-year-old, she didn’t understand why people who used to come over to her house every week now refused to hug her and turned their backs on her. The shunning was particularly difficult for all the children, but Mark and I took the opportunity to teach them forgiveness toward those who hurt them and to always take the high road. I taught them to greet those who turned their backs on them, to be kind to those who were mean, to love them unconditionally. We still pray every night for a spirit of forgiveness toward those who shun us and that we would love them as we should.

We never heard again from Doug Phillips, but on June 13, 2006, Mark received a letter from Don Hart, general counsel for Vision Forum:

Dear Mr. Epstein,

This letter is to advise you that I represent Doug and Beall Phillips. It is my view that under Texas and Federal law, your statements about the Phillips and your widely distributed letters of February 2005 and May 22, 2006 constitute actionable slander and libel. Were you convicted in a court of law for libel and slander, damages could be substantial.

{So, in response to Mark’s request for arbitration (Peacemakers, etc.), Doug Phillips “hires” an attorney to threaten us with legal action instead. Not only does he threaten us with a lawsuit, but he already talks about our conviction in the opening paragraph! And lest he forget to cover all the bases, he throws in a potential judgment as well. All this is in response to a request for mediation. Never mind the fact that as general counsel for Vision Forum, this constitutes a conflict of interest legally to represent Doug and Beall Phillips personally as well.}

Your recent letter of May 22, however, goes beyond defamation. You have formally attempted to blackmail my clients. Specifically, I refer to your threat of a public internet attack and your statement that Mr. Phillips will find himself in a “similarly embarrassing situation as RC Sproul, Jr.” unless he agrees to your demands. Like slander and libel, blackmail is unlawful and actionable.

{Blackmail? The legal definition of blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal embarrassing, disgraceful or damaging facts (or rumors) about a person to the public, family, spouse or associates unless paid off to not carry out the threat, but that obviously isn’t the case here. Maybe he is talking about emotional blackmail, which is the stirring up of uncomfortable feelings in somebody, especially sympathy or guilt, in order to persuade that person to do something; but a request for arbitration could not be considered in that category, nor is this illegal. We know that Doug Phillips almost never responds to people unless he is given a deadline. He will put it off and put it off, as you’ve seen time and again just in our own story. This is what Mark said: “I suggest a personal response from you by June 6, 2006, regarding a willingness to engage in arbitration. If I do not hear from you by then, I will assume that you desire I take this issue elsewhere.” Mark then described the power of the internet, the power of email. He did not at any time say that he would do something to attack Doug Phillips if Doug did not meet his “demands.” This was not blackmail or a threat; this was merely an option that Mark reserved if Doug Phillips refused arbitration, which he did. He merely beseeched him to go to arbitration, asked him to respond by June 6, and told Doug Phillips that he would have to assume Doug refused arbitration if he didn’t hear from him. We know Doug Phillips well enough to know that if Mark did not put that clause in, Doug would have drug this out as long as possible, and we would be left dangling still.}

Since you are an excommunicated man under continuing church discipline, … it is not biblically permissible for Mr. Phillips to engage in the private arbitration you demand. Nor will Mr. Phillips be intimidated by your sinful and illegal attempt at blackmail.

{Since there was no ecclesiastical court for either the initial excommunication or for appeal, we offered what we thought was a reasonable alternative under the circumstances – arbitration. Again, there is no blackmail on Mark’s part.}

At this point, I am advising my client to consider practical and legal options.

It is the purpose of this letter to inform you that, should it become necessary to present a public or legal response to your slander, libel and blackmail, it will become necessary for Mr. Phillips and others to squarely and publicly address issues concerning your integrity and character. {This sure sounds like a threat to me.}

1. The accusations by your wife and daughter to numerous witnesses that you are mentally unstable and in need of psychiatric treatment. {First he lies about who said this. Again, Bob Sarratt was the one who suggested that Mark was bi-polar. Then he lumps Natasha in there as saying this as well. Then he says there are numerous witnesses that can testify that I said this. If they do, they will be lying. And now he exaggerates the whole situation into “needing psychiatric treatment.” That is quite a leap from Bob Sarratt first asking if I thought Mark was bi-polar.}
2. The accusations by your wife and daughter to numerous witnesses that you attempted to commit murder against your wife and children, and pose an ongoing threat to the lives and safety of your family due to uncontrollable rage and physical demonstrations of lack of self-control. {Doug Phillips did not take us seriously when Natasha and I brought these charges to his attention, but he will conveniently use them to discredit Mark if it comes down to going to court? He forgets that I made a written memorandum stating that I had come to him and the deacons asking for his help in this situation and he refused to protect a woman and her children then. Now he wants to turn around and “blackmail” Mark with threats of telling the world about what he did.}
3. The decade long battle between you and your wife relating to her adultery which resulted in the conception of a child, and her refusal to remove the bed in which the adultery occurred from the home. This battle continued throughout the time leading to your excommunication and was a continual issue in our counseling of your family. Multiple parties can and will testify if necessary to these ongoing adultery-related sins between you and your wife. {This sounds like more threats, more exaggerations, and certainly a breaking of pastoral counseling confidences in telling this highly inaccurate story to his lawyer and threatening to tell it to the world, which as we see, he already did.}

It is a violation of both the civil law and the law of God to seek to coerce a man to set aside a biblical, lawful act of church discipline by threatening to defame him. Your libel and slander, which has been both private and public, has done much harm to the families of BCA and my clients. Despite this fact, Mr. Phillips and the leadership of BCA has chosen to suffer your harm and to continue to limit their conversation about your excommunication to a “need to know basis” instead of making widespread dissemination of those facts which prove your lack of credibility and the validity of your excommunication. This charitable treatment of two excommunicated individuals will not continue if you proceed on the course you have described. In any trial, the credibility of the witnesses is of paramount importance. For the good of your family I strongly urge you to reconsider your position.

{Don Hart needs to understand that the excommunication was both unbiblical and unlawful, so Mark was not violating either civil laws or the law of God. He did not seek to coerce Doug Phillips to set the excommunication aside; he merely asked to go to arbitration. Mark did not threaten to defame him, but merely stated the facts of what he would do if Doug Phillips refused arbitration. And now he is ending by threatening us with the possibility of a lawsuit again (in any trial).}

Sincerely,
Don Hart, Esq.

The overall tone of Mark’s letter was pleading with Doug to do anything to move forward on this, but Doug Phillips’ reply was to hire an attorney and threaten Mark with legal action instead, refusing his offer of arbitration.

But we are not put off by these threats and continue in our pursuit for reconciliation.

Doug Phillips Ends Friendship Rather than Admit Excommunication Error

Elders From Another Church Wash Their Hands of Him for His Refusal to Repent

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

The elders of this other church were quite eager to help us and quickly set up a phone call to Doug Phillips on Wednesday of that week, February 9, 2005. Although Doug Phillips talked on the phone with these four elders, it was only to accuse them of violating Matthew 18. Despite the fact that Matthew 18 is a passage about how Christians should seek to resolve personal offenses and does not prevent elders in one church from trying to reason with an elder in another church over a disagreement about a church disciplinary matter, Doug Phillips was insistent that this church was sinning by harboring “heathens and publicans.” Doug Phillips insisted that these four elders should have come to him alone first, then to some larger group apparently, and then to all of Boerne Christian Assembly. Since these other elders were not the ones offended, but were merely trying to be peacemakers between brethren, Matthew 18 clearly did not apply in this situation. Although some of these elders were long-time friends with Doug Phillips, Doug was willing to break off these precious friendships rather than work together on this issue of our excommunication. He was only interested in them admitting that they had sinned by allowing “heathens and publicans” into their church. These four elders worked hard to get an appointment to actually meet with Doug Phillips but, as usual, Doug was too busy and could not meet with them for eight or nine more months. One of the elders expressed it this way: “A priority issue of this nature did not receive the attention it should have.”

Meanwhile, a dear friend suggested that I write a letter to Boerne Christian Assembly asking forgiveness for anything I could think of, so I prayed about it and decided to apologize for defending myself in writing, when Mark had already come to my defense by taking full responsibility at the congregational meeting for discipline. While I still maintained the truthfulness of my original letter, I did apologize for inadvertently hurting the five men involved and their wives by writing about them, but emphasized that my main intent was only to help prevent others from being hurt. I offered them my forgiveness, my love, and my fellowship, asking them to forgive me in return. This letter was written under the authority of the four elders as well, and sent with their blessing.

The next morning, May 20, 2005, the Boerne Christian Assembly “leadership,” which consisted of one unordained “elder,” Doug Phillips, and two deacons, sent an email to us (and copied to the whole congregation), reminding us that we were excommunicated and stating, “The excommunication took place according to Holy Scripture” {I’m still waiting for the verses that say I did something serious enough to warrant excommunication}, “with the 100% approval of the household heads of BCA” {I know this is not true, because at least one family didn’t know about it for months. Of course, even if it were true, it wouldn’t mean much, as fully half of the families who are members of Boerne Christian Assembly are employed by Doug Phillips, creating quite a conflict of interest}, “and only after the church which loved you and cared for your soul had demonstrated tremendous longsuffering and patience to you and Mark after five years of working with you, and in the midst of your longstanding and grievous sin” {For some reason, I think Doug Phillips truly believes he did the right thing, but I hope seeing it all here in writing will prick his conscience.}

“As you know, the Bible requires that excommunicants are to be treated and understood as ‘heathens and publicans.’ This is your status. All faithful believers of the Lord Jesus Christ will honor Christ’s command neither to eat nor fellowship with you as long as you remain excommunicant.” {Note what he is saying between the lines about the other church that took us in, as we had a potluck meal with them each Sunday. He is also warning the members of his own congregation that they will be regarded as faithless if they have any interaction with us.} “Though you may not understand this, your formal disfellowship and excommunication is an act of true love.” {In cases of true rebellion, this would certainly be true. But I was now in a lose/lose situation, and rebellion did not factor into it at all.} “Your life will in large part be defined by the way you respond to God’s discipline in your life through His local church.” {This is very true; our lives have in large part been defined by this situation, especially the lives of our children, who had every friend suddenly taken away from them.}

“When a person has been formally adjudicated ‘a heathen and a publican,’ and cast out of the body in the hope that they will flee to Christ under His kind discipline, the only way for such a person to be restored is to demonstrate true repentance by humbly returning to the local church, publicly and genuinely repenting for all sins which were the basis of the excommunication and seeking restoration under the oversight of the church leadership…” {In other words, my letter wasn’t good enough; I had to come in person and confess to all the false accusations in the original excommunication, and do whatever Doug Phillips wanted me to do. My husband has a favorite saying: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” I had already foolishly gone into that second meeting with Doug Phillips when I knew what had happened in the first meeting with him. Doug Phillips refused to forgive me when I asked for forgiveness, both for gossiping the first time, and now for this very letter. Doug Phillips called me names, lied about me, falsely accused me, preached against me, refused to protect my children and me, and looked down on me just for being a woman, in addition to not allowing me due process in any stage of discipline, and now he expected me to seek restoration under the oversight of the church leadership, which I know means Doug Phillips. Not only do I have no desire to be in an abusive situation like that again, but I hope to warn others of the potential abuse of Doug Phillips if they find they ever need help from him or they even disagree with him. I do not think it would be in anyone’s best interest to be under the oversight of Doug Phillips at this time.}

Something else that Doug Phillps’ comment here reveals is the claim that the local church is an absolute authority in matters of church discipline and that the leaders of that local church need not themselves be under any authority or accountable to anyone else. This is in direct contradiction to what Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, and others teach at the Vision Forum Uniting Church and Family Conferences. But imposing limits on others that he refuses to submit to himself is something Doug Phillips does all the time.

“Today, members of our local church received a letter which claims to offer some qualified repentance.” {I was extremely careful to ensure that my apology was without excuse, summarizing it thus: “I am sorry for responding when I should have kept quiet. I am sorry for saying hurtful things about others, especially the leadership. I am sorry for responding in less than a gracious manner. I was wrong to fight back in the manner in which I did, even though my intentions were to help others. Will you each forgive me?” I think that is a completely unqualified apology. However, what Doug Phillips is probably referring to here is when I say, “I will not be apologizing for the accusations brought against me. I am not seeking to be in covenant with BCA anymore…” Rather than accepting what I do apologize for, he is expecting me to apologize for things that I did not do.} “The letter continues to justify your sinful behavior” {doctrinal differences?} “and fails to address the issues for which you were excommunicated.” {I am still waiting for Doug Phillips to specifically address these issues as well.}

“Moreover, the fact that you would bypass the local church leadership and urge members of the local church to disregard the judgment of the local church is evidence of continued unrepentance.” {I said in my letter to them: “I consider each one of you brothers and sisters in Christ and have already forgiven everyone involved. I hold no bitterness nor grudge toward anyone and pray for you often. I hope that when we see each other, which we will, it will be with open arms and joy! … I know that Christ would be glorified if the world knew we were Christians by our love for one another.” And this is how Doug Phillips believes that I urged BCA members to disregard the judgment of the local church, by extending an offer of Christian love to them. Even though I knew that they were turning their backs on my children and me in public, I was offering them love instead.}

This is another example of Doug Phillips trying to have things both ways. He claims that the excommunication was decided by a unanimous vote of the heads of household at Boerne Christian Assembly. That means they exercised the disciplinary authority. Now he says I cannot repent to them and they cannot consider my repentence because they aren’t the church leadership? Make up your mind, Doug: If you want democratic church government (i.e., the heads of household voting for discipline), then they also get the right to independently evaluate a letter of repentance. But if you believe in republican church government (i.e., as in a presbyterian church where the elected and ordained plurality of elders decides on discipline), then the “leadership” at Boerne Christian Assembly needs to stop avoiding responsibility by hiding behind a heads-of-household vote. That kind of abdication of masculine responsibility goes straight back to Adam. It is unworthy of any self-respecting patriarch, let alone anyone who claims to be a church shepherd.

“Since defying the church discipline” {I still don’t know what that refers to}, “you have continued to lie and to slander as well as cause division within the community of believers, thus adding to the sins for which genuine repentance and restitution would be necessary.” {I have not lied or slandered, but I did tell the truth of the situation to the elders of the other church. I guess that attending another church is causing a division. Actually, it was Doug Phillips himself that was causing division within the “community,” by requiring the other churches to treat us as “heathens and publicans,” and coming against them when they refused to treat us that way, embracing us as Christians instead.}

“Should you truly repent for your sins, turn to the Lord, submit yourselves to Christ’s authority, and in humility seek restoration through the proper channels of the local church, we will welcome you with open arms.” {In other words, if I agree with everything Doug Phillips says, and I admit to doing things which I didn’t really do, and come crawling back to BCA and pay restitution (see above), and keep my mouth shut forevermore, then I can get back into this spiritually abusive church.} “Until that time, no true believer is to treat you as a Christian.” {For anyone who has treated me as a Christian, I fear for your soul, as Doug Phillips would say that you are not a true believer. I wonder how Jesus would treat me, if He were here.}

The timing of Doug Phillips’ email was somewhat significant, again, as it was sent at 12:32 a.m. on Friday. That particular weekend was the annual homeschool conference in San Antonio and we both knew that I would see many BCA members that weekend for the first time since the excommunication. I had a booth there selling an algebra program, which is the only homeschool business activity I have ever engaged in. My booth was very close to Vision Forum. The day before the conference (the same day I sent the letter to everyone at Boerne Christian Assembly), while we were all setting up for the conference, Vision Forum deliberately blocked my truck so that I couldn’t leave for an hour. Some teenage boys who used to attend Boerne Christian Assembly came over and helped me unload my truck and carry boxes to my booth. Upon seeing this, some Vision Forum employees made some very snide comments to these teenagers about helping a “heathen and a publican.”

The next day, several of the Vision Forum young ladies, when they had to go past my booth during the conference, would start running at full speed in their long skirts when they reached one edge of my booth, and then sprint to the other end of the booth, where they would then resume walking. That was my comic relief for the day. Most others would just turn their head away as they passed so they wouldn’t have to see me.

Due to significant doctrinal differences, we left the church at which the elders tried to assist in dealing with Doug Phillips after the requested six months, yetwe willingly remained under their authority in the area of the excommunication as they continued to try and reason with him. These four elders had requested that we let them take the lead in dealing with Doug Phillips on behalf of the Epsteins. Having a true desire to submit to authority, we both felt that since we were excommunicated, by biblical standards the church was to treat us as “heathens and publicans,” so we thought the best way to submit was by staying home on Sundays, as unbelievers would, while the elders of this church continued pursuing reconciliation with Doug Phillips and Boerne Christian Assembly. We recognize now that such submission was not necessary, but I point this out to stress that we were willing to go to great lengths to try and submit to church authority, even when we believed it was wrong.

We were blessed to be able to watch sermons each week on video from Dr. SM Davis, who deals extensively with solving family problems. Not long after beginning to watch these videos, Mark decided to fully repent from his sins toward our children and me. The more counsel we received from Dr. SM Davis’ sermons, the closer we began to grow as a couple and as a family. Even though we do not recommend home video or TV sermons as a legitimate substitute for church membership and regular attendance, we do believe that God honored our intentions in doing the right thing in our special circumstance, and He used the biblical teaching in the SM Davis videos to transform our family for the better.

In the fall of 2005, Doug Phillips and some other Boerne Christian Assembly “leadership” finally met for the first and only time with these four elders from the other church. Doug Phillips’ main concern still appeared to be that he wanted these four elders to admit they had sinned by taking excommunicants into their church and that they had violated the “letter of the law” of Matthew 18. Even if Matthew 18 had applied in this situation, which it did not, the “spirit” of Matthew 18 was never violated. These four elders were gracious and patient with Doug Phillips, going to him privately to work things out. By the close of the meeting, these four elders told Doug Phillips and the others present that they still love the Epsteins and would do the same thing if they had it to do over again. In fact, they told Doug Phillips that they would do the same for any other person from Boerne Christian Assembly if they were hurt by Doug as well, taking in the wounded family and loving them as Christ would.

Unfortunately, this resulted in severed long-term relationships on the part of Doug Phillips and the other elders, and between Boerne Christian Assembly and this church. There are now many divisions in what used to be a very tight-knit community. This is probably what distresses me most about this whole situation – that other relationships had to be torn on our account. I would never have wanted that. Of course, the division was not my choice but that of Doug Phillips, after he insisted on maintaining his autonomy and refused the loving admonition and wise counsel of elders from another community church.

In March, 2006, nearly 14 months after this other church began attempting to work with Doug Phillips and Boerne Christian Assembly on our behalf, and having repeatedly pursued reconciliation with Doug, they finally gave up and washed their hands of any further responsibility in attempting reconciliation on our behalf, leaving us free to now pursue the matter ourselves.

Doug Phillips Excommunicates by Star Chamber

Submitting to Beall Phillips is an Excommunicable Offense

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

After no one in the congregation could give me even one example of the sins for which I was being disciplined, I had a long chat with Beall Phillips outside. She apologized for not speaking to me all those years, for which I immediately forgave her. (It was, however, necessary to bring it up again in this story in order to show the proper context of the whole scenario.) When I tried to explain to her that I just didn’t see anything I had done wrong, Beall Phillips encouraged me to write my concerns to the five men who put the disciplinary action document into place.

The next day, following Beall Phillips’ counsel, I wrote my “defense.” It was similar to what I had said in church that Sunday, but better organized, more detailed, and better presented, as I actually had time to work on it. I mailed it to Doug Phillips, the sole (but unordained) elder; Bob Sarratt and Mo Gill, the deacons; Rick Huber; and Richard Short, the new member; and all their respective wives as well, since I was informed that all ten of these people were in agreement with disciplining me (I’m not sure how this occured since women are supposed to be literally silent at BCA, but this is what I was told). I believe they would have received it that Friday, January 28, 2005.

That Sunday, January 30, I noticed that several of these people brought my letter to church with them. After the service, everyone except our family had another meeting. I don’t know what happened during that meeting, only what happened afterward. We ate our lunch in the truck, since we were not allowed to fellowship with anyone anymore. When people started trickling out nearly an hour later, I had a present from a baby shower I was unable to attend and so I tried to give it to my friend with triplets. She refused to take it, however, and turned her back on me.

Confused, I went into the building to locate my children. As I approached the building, everyone started backing away from me, as if I were a leper. As I entered the building, everyone not only backed off, but also started turning their backs to me as well. Apparently, “how to shun the Epsteins” had been one of the topics of the meeting.

Seeing that the letter of defense Beall Phillips had advised me to draft had not softened the hearts of those five men, I decided to appeal to the congregation as a whole as well, sending each covenanting member a copy of my “defense.” I did this because the BCA form of government was something like a democracy, with the heads of household being called to ratify sensitive decisions by Doug Phillips, rather than a church ruled by a plurality of elders, the biblical norm as taught by Doug Phillips at his Vision Forum Uniting Church and Family conferences. My naive hope at the time was that some head of household might be considerate enough to read the defense and try to intervene on our behalf. Each family would have received it the following Saturday, February 5, 2005.

Although it usually took Doug Phillips about six weeks to find time to meet with us, even when it was a life or death matter, somehow he managed to pull together an emergency meeting of the whole congregation of Boerne Christian Assembly that Saturday afternoon when everyone received my “defense” in the mail. Everyone was required to come to the Star Chamber except the Epsteins, who were neither invited to, nor informed of, the meeting.

Because Mark had decided that we would not attend where we were obviously not wanted (a public turning of their backs to us gave us a clue), we went to another church that Sunday, February 6, 2005. We arrived early in order to speak with one of the four elders there, informing him that we were under discipline at Boerne Christian Assembly. He immediately invited us to come worship with them anyway, saying he would find out more later. Although we had significant differences in doctrine with this church, we were amazed at the love we were shown as we walked in the door, with many people excited to see us. We knew about half the congregation already from other associations we had with them. We met afterward with the one elder and his wife, telling them our story so far, and with Mark again taking full responsibility for everything that happened.

I don’t often read email on Sundays, so it wasn’t until late that evening, after Mark was already in bed, that I saw an email from Boerne Christian Assembly, written at 8:15 that morning. Curious, I opened it up to discover that Mark and I had been excommunicated.

I was informed that my “sins were very clearly and specifically spelled out” (in the discipline document) and that “the truth of the charges (against me) were confirmed not only through multiple witnesses and written documentation, but through your highly self-incriminating testimony which consisted of railing accusations against the local church and multiple examples of slanders and falsehoods which were then refuted to your face.” {Instead of answering my question of what specific sins I had committed, because it is already supposedly in the discipline document, Doug Phillips again makes broad charges that I testified against myself and railed against my church with “slanders and falsehoods.”}

My best friend of nine years responded to the charge of railing in a recent comment on Ministry Watchman:

“First, I want to say that I was shocked when I read this on BCA’s statement. ‘The response of the wife in particular was to bring many hateful railings and false testimonies against women of the church and against the leadership.’

In all of the many years I have known Jennifer, I have NEVER ONCE heard her “rail.” In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever heard her so much as raise her voice! She is NOT a person to be given to much emotion, as anyone who knows her can attest.

I have also NEVER known Jennifer to tell any sort of lie. She is extremely honest—sometimes brutally honest, which I’m sure was her REAL fault. Add her honesty to the fact that she is both outspoken and opinionated, and you can see why a controlling man would have a problem with her.”

I stay at her home for about a week each year, so she’s seen me at my best and at my worst; if I were a railer, she would have seen it.

The excommunication letter goes on to say, “Since that moment (of the discipline letter two weeks prior), you have comprehensively defied the discipline of the local church, and you have both promised to do so.” {I am still trying to figure out how I either defied their discipline or promised to do so.}

“You have both actively waged a campaign of division among your body.” {This must be the letter of defense that Beall Phillips encouraged me to write immediately after apologizing to me.}

“You have both born false witness and disseminated slanders horrible and numerous.” {I try very hard to be 100% truthful in everything. This is a slick way of not addressing the specific allegations regarding Doug Phillips’ behavior. Note that I did not bring charges against an elder, but rather my story was completely wrapped up in the words and deeds, or lack thereof, of Doug Phillips. I could not possibly tell my story without relating the facts of his involvement in it. Rather than refuting my accusations with clear testimony, as a lawyer normally would do, Doug Phillips chooses instead to broadly accuse me of “slanders horrible and numerous” and bearing false witness in general. Blackstone defines slander as “a false tale or report maliciously uttered.” There is not one thing I said, or have written here, that is false; therefore, there are slanders neither numerous nor horrible; there are no slanders at all.}

“You have tolerated and even encouraged similar unruly behavior from your eldest daughter.” {I told Natasha that I was proud of her for taking a stand against lies from the pulpit when she got up and walked out of the sermon that Sunday in December 2004. I hope she always stands against evil. Why is this being brought up in an excommunication letter?}

“You have both railed against your local church, and again violated God’s Holy Word which prohibits you from bringing accusations against your church leadership without two or three witnesses to substantiate your claims. {I think it’s time for a Webster’s 1828 definition of the word “rail:” to utter reproaches, to scoff, to use insolent and reproachful language. Using this definition, I would have say that although Doug Phillips railed against me in both meetings, rather than attempting to restore me in a spirit of gentleness, I don’t believe I have ever railed against anyone in my life, and certainly not my church elder. Again, I did not choose to bring accusations against Doug Phillips, but I could not give my “defense” without specifically refuting his false accusations against me. At least I gave specific details, dates, and examples of that which I “accuse” Doug Phillips.}

“You have made implied legal threats and raised false criminal charges against your local church.” {The last time I checked, using precise terms such as “character defamation” and “slander” to describe falsehoods is not the same as implying legal threats. If that were so, this very excommunication letter would constitute a legal threat against us as well. Neither is it correct for Doug Phillips to call them “criminal charges.” Defamation and slander (verbal defamation) are fundamentally torts, not crimes, as Doug Phillips would have learned during his first year in law school. Thus the fact that he calls an observation of an offense in tort an outright “criminal charge” can only be interpreted as hype to make him look like a poor victim of wild accusers.}

“In short you have despised the chastening of the Lord and His Love as demonstrated through the counsel and discipline of the local church.” {Therefore, although the only thing I did in the previous two weeks was to put my “defense” in writing, at the suggestion of Beall Phillips, that act alone constituted “despising the chastening of the Lord.” Notice how the local church demonstrated His love to us by publicly turning their backs on us as well. Notice also how Beall Phillips was silent as our discipline was upgraded to excommunication, even though I wrote my defense at her suggestion.}

Doug Phillips then relates the secret star chamber meeting of the evening before, in which all the Boerne Christian Assembly members voted to excommunicate us, without our being present, because of our “defiance of discipline, implied legal threats, acts of division, and continued slanders.” {You may read my “defense” for yourself and see if it was defiant – on the 4th page of this document, in the 3rd full paragraph, I state: “Frankly, I think you expect the Epsteins to leave and not to submit to church discipline; however, we are people under authority.” Again, proper use of legal terms does not constitute a legal threat. This “defense” was not intended to divide, but rather simply to tell the truth, none of which was told in the disciplinary action against me. I did not slander anyone in the first place, nor I did continue to slander anyone in my “defense,” as all I did in it was to tell my side of the story as accurately as possible.}

Based upon these manipulations of the facts, “effective immediately, you are excommunicated from fellowship, and according to Holy Scripture, are to be treated as heathens and publicans. … The members no longer are in fellowship with you.”

“The Scripture explicitly calls upon the body of Christ to mark those which are unruly and have nothing to do with them. Accordingly, you are strictly prohibited from attending the meeting of the church of the Boerne Christian Assembly, setting foot on the BCA church building or grounds, or attending any functions sponsored by the assembly.” {It is our opinion that, given the timing of the email at 8:15 on a Sunday morning, and knowing that we attend services every Sunday morning faithfully, and knowing how long it takes us to get to church, that Doug Phillips fully expected us to show up at Boerne Christian Assembly that Sunday morning, February 6, 2005, only to be publicly humiliated by surprise discovery of our excommunication in the presence of the whole congregation. But, in the Providence of God, He led us to another service that fateful morning.}

“Mark and Jennifer, only through biblical repentance, restitution, and restoration to the body can you hope to have any fellowship ever again with the local body. But more importantly, you must fear for the state of your souls.” {Ordinarily, a biblically accurate excommunication would indicate such rebellion that the status of the person’s soul should be in question. However, since I have not refused to repent from any sin, precisely because I have yet to be told of any specific sin I need to repent from, I cannot be in rebellion, so I will trust in the Lord for the state of my soul. I will not let this be a scare tactic to admit to doing something I haven’t done.}

“Your only hope is to repent and flee to Christ. Should that day come, we will welcome you back with open arms.”

When I met with the elder of the other church the following morning to give him copies of all the documentation, and showed him this excommunication letter, all he could say is, “This is just like the Salem witch trials in which several innocent women were accused of being witches. Those who lied and confessed to being witches were spared. Those who told the truth and denied being witches were executed.” This elder then, on behalf of the four elders of his congregation, asked us to stay at his church for the next six months and let him and the other elders try to handle this situation with Doug Phillips.

The problem was that matters had been arranged in such a way that neither of us could qualify as sufficiently “repentant” and also maintain our integrity. In my case, I was being called to repent for unspecified sins that I had not committed. In Mark’s case, the charges against him were true, but although he confessed and repented of them, he was still excommunicated. Apparently for both of us there was just no way to avoid excommunication by Doug Phillips: Refuse to repent of sins that you’re not guilty of and you’re excommunicated. Confess and repent of sins that you are guilty of and you’re still excommunicated.

Given the manner in which the substance of the charges was handled, it is no surprise that the procedure for the discipline was equally unjust. In fact, not only was there no actual trial prior to excommunication, but there was also no due process whatsoever, despite the fact that Doug Phillips, as a former practicing attorney, was very familiar with the vital necessity of due process for any trial.

In the end, the decision to excommunicate was ratified by “mob justice,” with the men in the congregation itself (half of whom were employed by Doug Phillips) being called to vote to excommunicate us without us being permitted to be present to hear the charges against us or to defend ourselves. Even if all the charges against us had been true, it’s not clear that any of them were grounds for excommunication and, in any case, there was no due process to test and prove the charges.

Tomorrow, we will examine what it is like to be treated as heathens and publicans attempting reconciliation.

Doug Phillips: “You’re Going to Pay For This”

Voting For Republicans is an Excommunicable Offense

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

Knowing that I was at a loss as to how to biblically respond to Mark by this point, a friend had loaned me a book about submission and how it relates to wives who are abused, either emotionally or physically. Ironically, the foundation of the book was the story of Abigail and Nabal when David and his men wanted food. The book clearly exposited, verse by verse, how Abigail was still a submissive wife to a very angry husband. It was ironic to me because about one year earlier, Doug Phillips had preached on that very passage. In our ladies’ meeting after the service, I had asked if we should emulate Abigail’s behavior if we ever found ourselves in a similar situation. Beall Phillips immediately responded that this was a non-normative situation and that Abigail was not being submissive.

Greatly encouraged by this book, however, I shared it with Kathleen at church that Sunday after the second meeting with Doug Phillips, since Kathleen worked for Vision Forum and often counseled women with abusive husbands. In the course of the conversation, Kathleen stated that we were so blessed at Boerne Christian Assembly because if we ever had problems like that, Doug Phillips would help us. I didn’t know how to respond to that. I couldn’t agree with her because I knew it wasn’t true. Yet, I didn’t really want to tell her what was going on either, since I was forbidden to talk about Mark with anyone (other than Beall, who refused to speak to me anyway). Sensing my hesitation, she kept pushing for an answer. Thinking that someone finally cared, I eventually told her a bit of my situation, explaining that Doug Phillips refused to help us even when our lives were in danger. After listening for a while, she informed me that she was going to talk to Doug Phillips. I thought that she meant she was going to ask him to help, and pleaded with her not to talk to Beall about it. However, Kathleen told both Doug and Beall Phillips about it, not in a way that was helpful to me, but rather accusing me of gossip.

The next day, I received an email from Doug Phillips accusing me of broad sins again such as being unwilling to be under authority or counsel (requesting not to have Beall present in the meeting), to repent for sinful attitudes and spreading of untruthful gossip (Kathleen). I had asked repeatedly at that second meeting: “What exactly have I done? How can I change if I don’t know what my sins are?” I was accused again of being unsubmissive, disrespectful, and unloving. These seemed to be catch-all terms Doug Phillips often used in dealing with women. Then I was told that I was building a public case against my husband, when all I was doing was practically screaming for someone to help us!

Unbeknownst to me at the time, Mark was working behind the scenes with Doug and Beall Phillips to discipline me. Now their plans included three mandatory counseling sessions at Vision Forum, two hours each, with Beall Phillips and Reba Short, the two women who had already made it known to me that problems in the marriage were almost always the woman’s fault. They were going to help me work on the sin issues in my life in regard to my marriage. Beall Phillips had not spoken to me for two years, so I knew she didn’t know anything about me personally. Reba Short came over to my house nearly every Friday, but I don’t recall ever talking to her about our marriage, except for that one hour phone call, in which she attempted to get me to take all the blame.

Not trusting the motives of these two ladies, I asked if I could bring a friend. Beall Phillips replied to my request that “the terms of the meeting are not subject to debate. If you are formally refusing to follow the direction of the church leadership, then I will communicate that to them and they will take appropriate action.” I agreed to meet on their terms.

Nothing was done regarding Mark after that second meeting.

At the first counseling session with Beall Phillips and Reba, Doug Phillips had written a memo of understanding that Beall read aloud to me first, outlining why I was in breach of the covenant of the church for talking to Kathleen. The second document I was given was called:

Ways to Make My Husband Successful
Ways to Demonstrate a Submissive Heart
Ways to Bless My Husband

I was not told at the time that these fourteen items were mandatory, but rather I thought they were suggestions for how to be a submissive wife. Nevertheless, I took them home and read them aloud to my children, asking them to please evaluate me honestly in light of each of the fourteen items. I asked them to tell me whether or not I did each of those things on the list and to give me specific examples of how I was either submissive or unsubmissive according to this list. I did not have the conviction that women couldn’t speak to men about theology, and told Beall Phillips and Reba Short this in the first counseling session. Other than that, my children both agreed that I already did everything on that list anyway, to a degree. Although it was not clear to me at the first counseling session, by the third session I was told that it was mandatory that I completed them exactly. Nevertheless, I had fulfilled them in what I considered to be the spirit of the matter, including not talking to men about theology for the duration of the three counseling sessions.

Another issue that came up in the first counseling session was the doctrine of the total depravity of man. It soon became apparent that Beall Phillips and I did not agree on this point. In talking about sin in the marriage, Beall Phillips kept insisting that I must be sinning rather constantly. I explained to her that I believed in verses where Jesus said, “If you love Me, keep My commandments.” I don’t believe that Jesus would have told us to do something He didn’t expect us to do or that was impossible to do. I found this pattern to be consistent all throughout Scripture. These verses impacted my life greatly and I tried to obey the Lord daily, with the Holy Spirit’s help. Beall Phillips, on the other hand, said she believed that we couldn’t help but sin, and that she sins at least every 30 minutes, or more, in her own marriage. This was quite confusing to me, as I couldn’t understand why we were bothering with marriage counseling then, if we couldn’t help but sin all the time anyway. In fact, why we were bothering raising our children in certain ways if they couldn’t help but sin anyway. This defeatist attitude about life made me feel real sorry for Beall Phillips. I cannot imagine going through life as a Christian, thinking that I am doomed to sin every few minutes, whether I want to or not. What is the point of salvation then? Eternal security? We left that counseling session with me volunteering to go home and study this in the Scriptures.

I spent about 20 hours that week studying certain words and seeing what the whole Bible said about this subject. I also studied what Boerne Christian Assembly’s statement of faith said about it, and finally I looked at a commentary by Matthew Henry that I know Doug Phillips uses as well. I discovered that Beall Phillips seemed to be basing her beliefs on Romans 7, so I looked extensively at Romans 6 and 8 as well, to put it in context. While Romans 7 explains our fallen nature, Romans 6 and 8 give us hope as Christians, clearly showing that we are no longer slaves to sin, having victory through the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. Excited, I went to the second counseling session eager to share several hundred verses on this topic, and firm in my convictions that we no longer have to sin as Christians, with the power of the Holy Spirit, although we are still fully capable of choosing to sin. After listening to several verses on the topic, when I came to Romans 6 and 8, Beall Phillips absolutely refused to listen to me, stating that I was preaching a new doctrine of “sinless perfection.” At no time did I ever claim that I had never sinned or that I was perfect.

Beall Phillips then began to question when was the last time I had sinned in my marriage. In the last 24 hours? 48 hours? Week? Month? I only answered that I didn’t remember sinning recently in my marriage, with the power of the Holy Spirit in my life. While I do still sin, I emphasized that I do not have a pattern of sin in my marriage.

After the first counseling session, Beall Phillips wrote me a summary email of her perspective of how it went. It was filled with many exaggerations or total falsehoods and was quite harsh. Here is an excerpt of that email:

“You said that this new belief in sinlessness might change. I pray that it does. If it does, will you still emphatically assert that you have not sinned recently in your marriage and that you did not sin in the meeting with the men last week? You must realize the implications of the beliefs you espouse. If your doctrine changes, will you start to sin again? Will you then realize that you did sin during the time you held to this doctrine of perfectionism? Or will you have stopped sinning only while you held to this doctrine?”

By the third counseling session, I was getting tired of being treated like dirt, so I read the verse in Galatians to Beall Phillips that says, “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness.” I asked her how I could respond cheerfully when she was constantly backing me into a corner. She softened up for a few minutes, but still continued to insist that I was preaching “sinless perfectionism.” I tried to explain that I had to walk on eggshells in my marriage anyway and that I would do almost anything not to invite more anger, that I tried very hard not to sin in my marriage or in life. We were at an impasse by the end of the third counseling session.

The next day, October 29, 2004, I read on Doug Phillips’ blog about a voting scenario that he had written about candidates A and B in the land of Baal, actually inviting his readers to respond, which he normally doesn’t request. He also had a voting debate going on between Dr. Ken Gentry and William Einwechter. These two articles were designed to show that voting for either Kerry or Bush was a sin for a Christian. Since this was just days before the Presidential election, and since I was growing tired of hearing from the pulpit each Sunday how we needed to vote for Peroutka, the Constitutional Party candidate, I was glad for a chance to respond. Since Doug Phillips sometimes points out logical fallacies of other Christians, I took this opportunity to carefully point out seven logical fallacies in Doug’s little voting scenario as well. While I was at it, I responded to Bill Einwechter’s article on why we should vote for Peroutka as well. Not wanting to embarrass Doug Phillips by sending it to his personal assistant, I sent it privately to Doug’s own email instead, with my husband’s full blessing. This did not go over real well, starting with Beall Phillips immediately sending me an email in which she said, “I purposed to bring to your attention those areas of continual sin about which we have appealed to you.” She then listed my five sins in writing this letter: Doug did not give me permission to write to him (?); I had been formally directed not to rebuke or instruct men (not true); I had a mean spirit; I was rebuking my elder; I have a hard heart. The email was so harsh and critical toward me that I simply asked her to refrain from contacting me any further unless she had something kind to say. I also stated, “I sincerely hope that the people in our church do not have to agree with the “elder’s” position in politics; if so, we are no longer a church, but a cult.”

Two days later, we went to church. In the three counseling sessions, Beall Phillips kept stressing that I had sinned by gossiping about Doug in my conversation with Kathleen. Although I hadn’t considered it gossip, I was willing to apologize anyway. Doug Phillips is hard to get hold of, so this particular Sunday was the first time I had seen him since I spoke with Kathleen. I wanted to take care of the situation before church, but Doug Phillips arrived late, so I went up to him when he came in and asked if I could speak to him before we took communion, as was our practice at Boerne Christian Assembly. He did not want to talk, but I insisted, so we went outside. I apologized for gossiping about him and asked his forgiveness. Doug Phillips wanted to know if I was going to apologize for writing the voting paper as well. I explained that I didn’t see that I had sinned in doing so, so I didn’t see anything to apologize for. He then said that he would not forgive me for gossiping either and, glaring at me, said, “You’re going to pay for this.”

After we went back inside, Doug Phillips began to preach. His two hour sermon that day was to read my voting paper, refuting it point by point. Although Doug Phillips and I did not see eye to eye on voting ethics, his main concern seemed to be that a woman in his congregation had written him this paper. I looked on his blog and could not find anything that said women couldn’t respond or that Boerne Christian Assembly women couldn’t respond, but Doug Phillips made it clear that if Mark had written that paper instead of me, it would have been all right.

Two months later, Doug Phillips decided to preach about me again, although I was home sick that day. Doug Phillips began talking about an unsubmissive woman in the church who was under church discipline (if I was, I didn’t know about it) and her repentant husband. My daughter, Natasha, then 17, was so frustrated by the lies emanating from the pulpit, that she got up and left in the middle of the sermon. When she told me about it afterward, I wrote Doug Phillips and asked him if he was preaching about me, knowing full well he was. Doug Phillips replied, “The Bible says that if any woman has a question about the preaching of the Word she is to ask her husband at home.” Doug Phillips then stated that he had already talked to Mark about this, but Mark denies talking about this subject with Doug.

Wanting to hear this message, I asked for a copy of that day’s sermon and I was told that everyone at Boerne Christian Assembly would receive it in the mail. While this was odd, I waited, but it never came. I called and asked for it several times, but although it was promised, I was never given a copy of that tape.

I was soon to find out just what “being under discipline” meant.

Doug Phillips Refuses to Protect Woman and Children

Former HSLDA Attorney and Founder of the Christian Boys’ and Men’s Titanic Society Knows What His Duty Should Have Been

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

Reserving Matthew 18 for only very serious offenses, I had only officially used it once, with Doug and Beall Phillips. Things were becoming so bad at home, however, as the emotional abuse escalated to new heights and we began fearing for our physical safety, that I decided to formally approach Mark in March 2004 in the spirit of Matthew 18 as well, pleading with him to repent from his anger and to turn his heart toward his family again. My words fell on a cold heart, however, so about six weeks later, I asked two witnesses to stand with me while I asked him again to repent. Richard and Reba Short, close friends with Doug Phillips and who both work at Vision Forum with their children, agreed to stand by and listen.

This attempt backfired as well, though, when Reba called me the next morning, strongly pressuring me to admit that it must all be my own fault, since problems in a marriage are almost always the woman’s fault. Although Richard agreed to counsel Mark after that, I later found out that his counsel was mostly along the lines of: “If you show Jen that you love her, then Jen will see how wrong she is and she’ll stop sinning.” Again being given an opportunity to blame the wife, Mark only continued to grow even worse.

By August, 2004, he had moved into the spare bedroom. Since Mark came to church every Sunday when he was in town, one family noticed that he wasn’t there that particular day and asked me where he was. Still not wanting to violate the rules laid out for me in that first meeting, I evaded answering them, several times. Finally, grateful that at least someone cared, I replied that Mark didn’t want to be a part of our family anymore.

Somehow this got back to the deacons, who pulled me aside to talk to me after church, reminding me that I promised not to say anything negative about Mark. By this point, Beall was refusing to speak to me at all, Doug Phillips was totally inaccessible, and I felt like no one cared. The deacons began asking some questions about the situation, apparently not realizing that anything was wrong. In a small church like that, when we would spend ALL day together every Sunday, they didn’t know anything was wrong. Although it took us an hour to drive to church, as it did most everyone when Boerne Christian Assembly moved to its third location way out in the boonies, not one person asked why Mark and I started driving in two separate vehicles each week. After almost one year of Mark leaving early after the service, one man did ask where Mark went after church. I replied that he went to the same place Doug Phillips did each Sunday after church.

But I digress. Upon finding out about Mark’s anger, Bob Sarratt, one of the deacons, asked me if I thought Mark was bi-polar. Not being fond of pop-psychology myself, yet being at a total loss for what to do, I had asked the other deacon, a medical doctor, if he knew if the term “bi-polar” was accurate biblically. He did not know. I told both deacons that I did not know what was the source of Mark’s anger: if it was mental illness, if it was demonic, or if it was just plain sin. Bob Sarratt then suggested that we get Doug Phillips involved. Not wanting a repeat of that first meeting, I declined. The deacons persisted, however, so I agreed as long as Beall Phillips was not going to be present. They both agreed to those terms. When they asked Mark to attend the meeting, he also emphasized that Beall Phillips not be present.

In the interim, however, two weeks before this proposed meeting, Mark nearly killed his whole family, late one Saturday night. Screaming for Mark to stop, my children were absolutely terrified. At church the next day, we attempted to ask for help. One man was greatly concerned and tried to help both my daughter and me, although since he was not in “leadership,” there was nothing he felt he could really do. When my daughter went to ask Doug Phillips for help, he did not believe her and laughed it off. Bob Sarratt merely suggested that we not get in the car with Mark for two weeks (the situation involved road rage, of sorts). Even when our lives were in danger, nothing was done.

Six weeks after suggesting a meeting, on October 7, 2004, Doug Phillips agrees to meet with us for precisely two hours in his office at Vision Forum. After greeting the two other men in attendance, we walked into Doug Phillips’ office and saw Beall sitting there as well. I did not say anything until Doug Phillips gave me an opportunity to speak. Then I kindly asked why Beall Phillips was present, when it was made clear all around that she would not be in attendance at this meeting, because of her refusal to speak with me for the last couple years. Doug Phillips assured me she was there to help me, so I asked Beall what her intentions were. When she assured me she only wanted to help me, I agreed to let her stay. Sensing the tension, Doug Phillips asked Beall to leave anyway. Not off to a very good start, I was then given an opportunity to talk. Knowing that I wasn’t prepared for the first meeting, I had taken the time to gather some evidence for this meeting. I shared with Doug Phillips about how Mark had nearly killed his whole family two weeks prior, but he just laughed at me. I brought an email where Mark was describing in detail how he would kill someone in a particular group. I brought the lyrics to a song Mark would sing about killing people, but Doug Phillips refused to let me read the lyrics. I described how he would attempt to teach the children specific methods for killing “enemies,” which had nothing to do with war. I described his constant talking of killing, especially around the children. I told how we each would greet Mark at the door when he came home from work, only to have him shove us out of his way. This was all in addition to the tremendous amount of screaming and yelling and constant false accusations we endured. I also told Doug Phillips of my attempts at following Matthew 18 so far, and asked for the church to please step in now. Doug Phillips listened, but he didn’t say anything.

After Mark spoke, Doug Phillips started asking Mark why he thought there were problems in the marriage, giving Mark plenty of opportunities to put the blame on me again, even though Mark was extremely angry in this meeting as well. I was not given another chance to talk. In the end, Doug Phillips said, “Mark is an angry man, and that is wicked; but you, Jen, you are very wicked, you are rebellious, and you are a Jezebel.” I still couldn’t figure out what I was doing wrong.

There were no decisions made, no instructions given. No plan was discussed, no protection offered. I went home with no hope left, fearing for my life.

Doug Phillips in the Eye of the Storm

Lulled into a False Sense of Security

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

The first meeting with Doug Phillips seemed to only make things worse at home. Mark did not leave us, but still threatened divorce nearly every day. Outbursts of anger were frequent and prolonged. Adding to all this, Doug Phillips’ suggestions to Mark that I had never repented just fueled the fire all the more.

Always trying to be a peacemaker, I asked a friend for help in knowing what true, biblical repentance was. She told me of a sermon by Dr. SM Davis about true repentance, so I bought the tape and listened to it several times, praying for wisdom. Concluding that I had already done everything possible, I determined to write Mark a letter of repentance. Although there was nothing new in that letter of February 2003, it seemed to salve his wounds at the time. Delighted, he brought the letter to church and showed it to Doug and Beall Phillips, who were both so moved by its contents they had tears streaming down their faces, assuring Mark that this was truly evidence of full repentance. I thought things might be on the mend; surely I could take communion now. But communion was not restored, and within a week, life was back to extreme anger again at home.

That June, 2003, Mark had been talking to Beall Phillips about something that bothered him. Wondering if something she’d done bothered me as well, Beall emailed me asking me that very question. I replied that, yes, she had offended me (at the first meeting) and requested that we get together that day, if possible, to talk about it. She did not think that was possible, so I suggested getting together as soon as possible, even offering my oldest daughter to watch her children so we could go out somewhere together. Beall Phillips then professed to be “afraid” of me, although I had never given her any reason for that, so Doug decided that both couples should meet. Feeling that the situation was getting out of control, I finally agreed to meet with both Doug and Beall Phillips after church one Sunday, which meant that my severely disabled daughter would need to be with me.

It was six to eight weeks later, however, before we finally met, which, you will see, is a pattern with Doug Phillips. Knowing that she offended me, I began the meeting by asking Beall Phillips why she had continued taking communion during this time. There was no answer. Doug Phillips did give me an opportunity to say whatever was on my mind, then, so I confronted both Doug and Beall about their behavior toward me in that first meeting. I asked them why they called me names such as “whore,” “Jezebel,” a liar, churlish, wicked, disrespectful, and unsubmissive, when in fact, there was not only no basis in fact for those terms, but they were also totally unnecessary in a counseling setting. I also confronted them for their three lies about me in that meeting and asked that they consider using a gentler counseling technique in the future.

Doug and Beall Phillips’ first reactions were quite vehement in denying everything, but Doug soon regained his composure and calmed down. Although we had a pleasant talk for the most part, in the end, we agreed to disagree. Not realizing at the time that this appeared to be a pattern for Doug and Beall Phillips, I didn’t think any more of it. Doug Phillips continued to greet me when he saw me, but Beall Phillips refused to speak to me at all after that meeting.

Since the Lord’s Supper is a weekly ordinance at Boerne Christian Assembly, the minor excommunication (being denied communion) was ever before me. I really had no idea how I was to prove all those things in the “Guidelines for Accountability” document, but I just continued trying to be a godly wife. Some people might think that in a small church, I could just ask Doug Phillips any Sunday about it, but that was not the case. Each year, Doug Phillips’ speaking schedule took him away from church on Sunday more and more often. By this time period, he usually showed up about once per month, and when he did, he rarely stayed for the fellowship time, often leaving even before the service was over. Since he usually arrived just when the service was starting, this didn’t leave much time to talk to him, and there was usually a crowd vying for his attention anyway. As a woman, I had no opportunities to speak to him, about communion or about much else.

However, Mark did have a relationship with Doug Phillips and had a long walk with him one fine autumn afternoon. Mark came home one Sunday in the fall of 2003, just over one year since that first meeting, and told me I could take communion again. There was no proof of my “repentance” (other than my letter nine months earlier), no meeting to settle the matter, no questions, no anything. Just, communion restored. Although the situation appeared dire enough to Doug Phillips initially to warrant a minor excommunication (suspension from the Lord’s Supper), and although there was no proof of any change whatsoever, communion was just restored. In reality, things were no better at home and in the next few months even grew drastically worse.

Doug Phillips’ Kangaroo Court Cancels Communion

Convicted of Pleading for Help

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

When Mark and I arrived at Boerne Christian Assembly in 2000, our marriage was the best it had ever been. We had seemingly put the past behind us and were spending a lot of time praying that God would show us all the sin in our lives, both individually and together as a family. We were listening to dozens of sermons on topics that related to family life and theology, repenting together as we learned so many new things. When we arrived at Boerne Christian Assembly, Doug Phillips continued teaching us many incredible things about what the Bible says regarding families and daily life.

And while I appreciated much of what he taught us, I began to notice that he used very little Scripture and a lot of “vision,” very little practical application, but lots of theory. Some people can easily translate vision into reality, but in my own teaching experience, I’ve found that most do much better learning from actually doing it themselves, from demonstrations, and from stories or examples. For example, Doug Phillips often preached about men leading their families in “family worship.” I am in full agreement with that, and think it is a vital teaching. However, in my five years of listening to Doug Phillips, I cannot recall one specific example, one demonstration, one story about the specifics of “family worship.” I know there are many different methods and ways of carrying that out, but if you have never seen it done, it is a scary step for a man to attempt to try something he’s not only never done, but really has no clue about how to do it anyway. Mark described this as “frustrating.”

While much of what Doug Phillips teaches regarding Patriarchy sounds biblical, because of the lack of practical application, his teachings are often taken to extremes. Sometimes, men just hear his vision of men always “leading,” and they become domineering and demanding, causing undue stress on the wife. I know of one family that divorced precisely because of hearing this teaching and not understanding what it really should be. Sometimes, men will try to emulate what they see in Doug Phillips, and start requiring their families to have all the same rules as the Phillips. Unfortunately, if there are no personal convictions behind the rules, they soon become extremely oppressive and smother the family. Some men just have no clue about how to “lead” their families; they just know that it’s being constantly preached at them from the pulpit. Having come from a home without a godly leader, these men need lots of practical examples.

As Mark sat under this teaching, knowing the right thing to do, but not knowing how to do it, he began to get frustrated and angry. Our marriage began to deteriorate. I went to Beall Phillips on three occasions, in their new home now, asking her help in how I could be a submissive wife to an extremely angry husband. She reminded me of a gentle answer turning away wrath and how wives can win their husbands without a word. On each occasion, I went home and tried even harder, but to no avail.

Mark continued to grow increasingly angry, threatening divorce almost daily, until one day it seemed as if it would become a reality. Retiring from 20 years in the Army, he had a job offer in another state and decided to leave us for good. Standing by the pool that Sunday at church, I briefly closed my eyes in prayer, asking God for help. When I opened them, Doug Phillips was walking past me at that moment so, sensing that this was from the Lord as I never had occasion to really speak to him before, I asked if I could talk to him for a moment. Explaining that Mark was going to leave us the next day, I asked if Doug Phillips would be willing to talk to him. Doug Phillips then started asking me if I was fulfilling I Peter 3: “Are you submissive? Are you trying to win him without a word? Do you have a gentle and quiet spirit? Do you obey him?” Why was I getting the third degree when all I did was ask for help? Assuring Doug Phillips that I was doing all these things to the best of my ability, Doug then went outside after Mark.

Finding Mark just getting ready to leave, Doug Phillips approached him by his car and started peppering him with questions as well: “Is Jen a nag? Is she a dripping faucet? Is she disrespectful and unsubmissive to you? Is Jen rebellious and churlish?” Desperate to justify his own actions, Mark clutched onto these inappropriate adjectives and agreed with Doug. Rather than trying to find the root cause of Mark’s obvious anger that day, Doug Phillips immediately jumped to the conclusion that it must all be my fault for causing Mark to be so angry. Then when Mark starts spewing forth bitterness and unforgiveness about my past sins before I was a Christian, Doug Phillips suggested that maybe I hadn’t fully repented after all, and that must be the problem. Although Doug Phillips convinced Mark not to leave the next day, he did not use this occasion to even speak to him about his own sin in threatening divorce.

Doug Phillips is highly inaccessible, even to his own small congregation, but I did think that imminent divorce and abandonment might be cause for at least some quick intervention. Six weeks later, however, in October 2002, Doug Phillips was finally available to meet with us. Bob Welch was also there, but I believe it was his last official duty as an elder because he left right about that time, if I remember correctly. There was also one deacon present, as well as Doug’s wife, Beall, and Bob’s wife. When I entered this meeting, I had no clue that Mark and Doug had this conversation previously, so I came with hope that someone was going to be able to help us.

After giving an appearance of being fair by letting us each tell what was going on, Doug Phillips then quickly turned to an obviously prepared line of interrogation, bombarding me with questions about my pre-Christian behavior thirteen years earlier and from which I had already fully repented in 1990, when I came to know the Lord. Doug Phillips kept wanting to know details about what had happened, (which he has since told some of his supporters, who have posted them online for everyone to see – although the online versions are greatly distorted and untrue). Doug Phillips kept pressuring me to admit that I had not repented from my sin, behaving very much like a prosecuting attorney trying to get the witness to plead “guilty,” calling me a “whore” and a “Jezebel” (which to Doug means a woman who tries to rule over her husband in rebellion). Beall Phillips chimed in by totally misrepresenting our three conversations in which I asked her for help in being a submissive wife, and instead she said that I was disrespectful and unsubmissive in my attitude toward her. Shocked at her total change of attitude, I could hardly believe it when Doug Phillips joined her in calling me name again and added his own terms of endearment such as “churlish.”

Doug Phillips then proceeded to tell three outright lies about me as he totally ignored Mark’s extreme outbursts of anger right in the middle of the meeting turned Kangaroo Court. Doug Phillips stated that I said no one was counseling me; no one was, although Bob Welch was counseling Mark at the time. Doug Phillips stated that I said no one was holding Mark accountable; although Bob was counseling Mark, he was clearly not holding him accountable in any way. Although I cannot remember the third lie, I clearly remember Doug Phillips calling me a liar while he sat there and falsely accused me himself. Although Doug and Beall Phillips accused me of being unsubmissive and disrespectful, they could not give me any examples of that in my life when I asked for them. The truth was that because of Mark’s extreme anger, I tried extremely hard to do my best at all times to be a godly wife. I had enough anger from my husband as it was; I didn’t need to invite anymore.

As if playing the role of prosecuting attorney instead of shepherd and counselor wasn’t enough, Doug Phillips then declares himself to be the judge as well, deciding that it must be all my fault, and pulls out my sentencing papers, which he already prepared before the “court” began. Although Mark is listed on the “Guidelines for Accountability,” this was mostly a sham, as Mark was never held to these standards. Because there are so many spelling errors in the paper, I will list my requirements here for you, but you may see the original document with all signatures here as well to verify it.

Jennifer may not:

1. Ever question, contradict, criticize, correct or end-run any communication or decision by Mark to Mark or to anyone else.
2. Speak ill of her husband or family matters to third parties.
3. Speak critically of Mark to the children.

Jennifer must:

1. Agree to submit to the guidelines for accountability of the leadership of the local church with a full heart as unto the Lord, recognizing their goal is to facilitate obedience to the Lord and help rescue a marriage.
2. Demonstrate genuine reverence and submission to her husband in all things as unto the Lord.
3. Examine herself for unconfessed, or inadequately confessed, sins against her husband from any time during their marriage.
4. Not take communion until love is once again restored in the family, or on an individual basis, until the spirit and letter of the above is followed, and deemed such by the leadership of the local church. (Minor excommunication)
5. Forgive and love one another.

Accountability:

In the case of violations of the “may not” guidelines listed above, Jennifer will be willing to submit to reasonable accountability reporting guidelines to be determined.

These “reasonable accountability reporting guidelines” consisted of each of us being assigned people to whom we could call 24 hours a day to “tattle” on each other if there was a problem. Mark was told he could call Doug Phillips on his cell phone, although Doug never answered. Mark did talk to Jeff, the deacon, a couple times. I was assigned to call Beall Phillips, but since I don’t let my children “tattle” on each other, I did not feel it was right to “tattle” on my husband either, so I never called her. In turn, Beall Phillips never once asked me how my marriage was going or why I hadn’t called her.

Making himself prosecutor, judge, and jury, Doug Phillips orchestrated the whole Kangaroo Court in a fashion that seemed designed to be a quick fix to a serious problem. As one friend commented, Doug Phillips liked putting bandaids on open, oozing wounds. The outcome of this Kangaroo Court was that Doug Phillips determined that I had not fully repented for sins committed thirteen years earlier, before I was saved; that it must be my fault that Mark was so angry and wanted a divorce; that I now had strict “rules” to follow; and that I could no longer take communion each Sunday — indefinitely.

These guidelines were not temporary guidelines, something that would go away when communion was restored. These guidelines turned out to be what is generally expected of every wife according to Doug Phillips’ hyper-Patriarchical view. Men are in charge, and as such, wives are never to question them. There is the occasion for an appeal, as if we were little children, but these guidelines were never intended to be temporary in nature. Even after communion was restored, and even though my family was in danger, I was reminded that I could not speak ill of Mark to anyone. But that’s another story for another day!

Doug Phillips: Muzzling Women

Well, most of the them, at least.

(Start with chapter one, if you are new here.)

On our second Sunday at Boerne Christian Assembly, Doug and Beall Phillips introduced us to a special guest – Jennie Chancey. After the meeting of the church (the worship service), Doug invited Jennie Chancey to formally meet with all the women and talk to them about college. Jennie Chancey began relating why it was so evil for women and girls to go to college, especially outside the home. She related some of her own experiences at King College, where she received a BA in English, but in a way that was intended to warn others not to let their daughters attend institutes of higher learning. On her bio page, (since removed) very near the top, Jennie Chancey lists her educational qualifications for the business she runs out of her home. I guess that degree wasn’t so bad after all!

I was bold enough to ask the obvious: “What do unwed young ladies do all day?” Jennie’s answer, and the answer of every young lady in that congregation was, “Serve her father.” Some had family businesses and that was a great answer. They were working hard all day, learning skills, and helping the family to earn a living. But I know many that don’t fall into that category. Don’t get me wrong, nearly all the young ladies at Boerne Christian Assembly are wonderful young ladies, and would make great stay-at-home wives. But are they prepared to homeschool sons someday? How are their sons going to learn to do great things for the Lord if the moms aren’t educated enough to be able to teach them?

Beall Phillips also has a bachelor’s degree in education from William and Mary College, where she met Doug. From there, she attended law school classes with Doug Phillips at George Mason. I understand she did quite well. I asked her once if she ever regretted her higher education and she said that God can use every experience we have in life. I am grateful for my degree and am currently studying (dare I say it?) to be a naturopath. Doug did tell me once that I would make a great lawyer; maybe I’ll take him up on that suggestion as well!

Several months later, we had another guest, Jeff Pollard, come to speak to us about his new book, “The Public Undressing of America.” Since I was very new to the study of modesty, I asked Doug Phillips if the women of the church could meet together after the service to discuss the practicalities of the sermon and how it related directly to us. Doug’s terse answer was, “That would not be biblical. Women are to be silent in the church.” As some of you may have guessed by now, I wasn’t satisfied with that answer, so I reminded him that it was going to be after the service, like Jennie Chancey had done earlier. But, no dice.

(Some of these stories will be repeats for those who have read Ministry Watchman, but I want to put it all together in one place, so bear with me as I retell my whole story.)

Boerne Christian Assembly tends to have some extreme views regarding what it means for women to be silent in the church. I’ve had several occasions where I wished I could introduce visitors who were friends or family. When my mom came to visit once, and my husband was out of town on business, another man tried to introduce her to the congregation, except that he didn’t know who she was. He couldn’t ask her, because women are to be silent in the church. Flustered, he finally introduced her as “Jen’s mother.”

A similar situation happened when my dad came from Scotland, and since he was wearing a kilt, and one of the men tried to introduce him as one of the Scottish Covenanters. My father used to be a Baptist pastor before he turned atheist, and he knows both church history and Scottish history extremely well, so he was not at all pleased by that label.

On another occasion, I had some friends come to visit. Although I was friends with the whole family, but Mark had never met them. Mark was there that day, however, so he introduced them (leaning over to ask me their names). Afterward, the husband (friend) told me how uncomfortable he was when Mark introduced them and he didn’t even know them.

Prayer requests are also a time for women to be silent in Boerne Christian Assembly. This was a major chunk of the service, sometimes lasting up to an hour. The men give all the prayer requests. If my husband wasn’t there, my son could give it, even though he wasn’t old enough to take communion. If you don’t have a husband or a son there, you can write it out and give it to another man to read to the whole congregation. After a few attempts at that, I finally just gave up and would tell my friends about my prayer request privately. It wasn’t worth the humiliation.

So, women being silent in the church at Boerne Christian Assembly includes not being able to introduce your own guests, not being able to ask for prayer yourself, not being able to have a discussion after the service, and not being able to make announcements – unless your name is Jennie Chancey.

Join me tomorrow for the first Kangaroo Court.

(For a humorous version of this episode, watch this video.)

The Search For the Perfect Church

Beginning at the Beginning

When Mark and I met, we were both living quite wicked lifestyles as unbelievers. We were both soldiers in the US Army stationed in Germany and we ran off to Denmark on a “Darling Denmark” tour to get married in 1985, just four months after we met. Getting married does not change a wicked lifestyle, however, and we continued on in our wickedness. One of the ways in which I was wicked was in committing adultery against my husband, and that sin led to a child, who was given up for adoption. Still, our marriage survived, and I repented of my adultery when I became a Christian not long afterward. It was in the midst of all this wickedness, at the bottom of the barrel for both of us, that God reached down and saved us both in 1990, Mark first, and then me six months later. Although Jesus’ blood atoned for all our sins, there were still many consequences, some of which are life-long, that needed to be dealt with.

During most of the 1990s, we were stationed in Germany for the second time. Although there were a few difficulties here and there, for the most part our marriage was very sound. We were in a wonderful church there for over six years, and it was there that God taught us to be Bereans and search His Word for ourselves.

We moved to San Antonio in 1999 and searched for a similar church, but there is nothing like a military church, and only those who have been in a military church can understand the closeness of the family we had in our church in Germany. We so desired those close relationships again, but we ended up in a mega-church instead. After only a few months, not being able to tolerate the rampant sin in that church, we left and began an intense search for the “perfect” church in 2000.

I had never heard of a home church before, but for some reason, that term kept coming to my mind. I started asking around everywhere I went if anyone knew of a home church in the San Antonio area. I asked people at the grocery store, on the street, friends, everyone. We were desperate. Finally, a friend of a friend of a friend told me about a “home” church an hour away. I called, but was told simply, “No.” Crestfallen, we continued visiting various churches in the area, but – nothing.

Several weeks later, I called this lady back, practically begging to be allowed to visit. She was immediately apologetic, explaining that she had met several friends of mine in the meantime, who all vouched for me. (I later learned that another lady, whom I did not know, in a homeschool group I belonged to had attended one of these two home churches — the Wednesday church — for a while and caused lots of problems, so she was hesitant to invite others from that homeschool group.)

As she was describing the church to me, she let me know of their conservative values. “If they insist that I can’t wear colorful clothes,” I thought, “I’ll be content to wear tan and gray. If I can’t wear make-up or jewelry anymore, I’m willing to give them up, if only I could find the right church. I might even be willing to wear one of those “head coverings” if it came down to it. This church was such a well-kept secret, it must be quite remarkable!” Desperate enough to give up just about anything, we wore our most conservative clothes that Sunday, arriving at this country home way out in the Hill Country of Texas. With goats and chickens in the front yard, as well as swings, a large wooden deck, and lots of grassy areas for the children to play, it seemed an ideal location for a family friendly church.

A bit anxious, we arrived early while Beall Phillips was still painting her nails red. She greeted us warmly and asked, “Do you home educate? Do you belong to HSLDA? Have you heard my husband speak?” It was a bit unusual, I thought, but we settled down in our seats for the service. After some worshipful hymns, Doug Phillips began to preach. And preach and preach. We took an intermission after two hours and came back for more. Even though it was long, we loved every minute of it and the hour-long discussion of the men that followed.

As we had a “pot-providence” meal and fellowshipped for hours afterward, we knew this was home. The perfect church at last! Beginning this church plant with a series on “one anothering,” the fellowship was indeed sweet our first year there. I do not recall any bickering or gossip amongst the fast growing group of believers, all like-minded in so many ways.

Shortly before we found Boerne Christian Assembly, Mark and I had been praying together that God would show us all sin in our lives, as we desired to be pure before Him. God was so faithful in answering that prayer, bringing several preachers into our lives through audio tapes and radio. After every sermon we listened to, God refined another area in our lives. On a long trip, sometimes we would listen to several a day. Feeling purged, we returned to Boerne Christian Assembly only to have God use Doug Phillips and Bob Welch to reveal more areas in our lives that were not pleasing to the Lord.

By the time we started attending Boerne Christian Assembly in 2000, our marriage was the best it had ever been. But that was soon to change.

Next Chapter