Doug Phillips, Vision Forum Family Man Sabotages Marriage
Posted: November 27, 2006 Filed under: Doug Phillips, Ecclesiastical Tyrrany, Vision Forum 257 CommentsIntroduction:
In a day of intense public scrutiny and criticism of nearly all things Christian, Doug Phillips may be the most influential under-the-radar Christian leader that you need to know more about. Best known for his Vision Forum catalog — a colorful collection of apparently innocuous family friendly products mailed to more than a million people each autumn — Doug Phillips uses the wealth generated by his for-profit sales, as well as donations from the public, to promote his vision on controversial issues including education (home education is the only Biblical method), birth control (wrong in all circumstances), politics (a vote for either Kerry or Bush was a sin), and the roles of husbands and wives (hyper-Patriarchy at home and at church). Doug Phillips first came to the attention of those of us at Ministry Watchman when he publicly defended his buddy, R.C. Sproul, Jr., who was defrocked after confessing to ecclesiastical tyranny and the theft and illegal use of a church denomination’s tax-ID number. Our curiosity was further piqued when we learned of Doug Phillips’ behind-the-scenes counsel of Ligonier Ministries in its unbiblical lawsuit against Christian blogger, Frank Vance. These two incidents inspired a Ministry Watchman investigation of Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. Our investigation is still ongoing (please email us with any relevant information), but it has already produced enough information for several compelling articles that you won’t want to miss. The first, an exposé of how Doug Phillips’ family practices have not matched his family preaching, begins below. — MW
______________________
Officially, not-for-profit Vision Forum Ministries exists “to encourage and equip the biblical family and to train and facilitate fathers leading their families….” Doug Phillips’ focus on fathers is not an accident; he is perhaps the most prominent leader in the Patriarchy movement, a growing trend of returning to the biblical role models for men leading their families and submissive women helping their husbands or fathers. Although the inspiration for this movement is understandable — a reaction to the all-too-common problem today of men abdicating their leadership over their families in deference to a radical feminist movement that has pervaded even the church — the danger of reaction is that it can be a pendulum that swings too far to the opposite extreme. While much of Doug Phillips’ teachings on the biblical roles of men and women seems to be sound, some of the applications of those teachings have proven to be very troubling.
Doug Phillips is a “big picture” kind of preacher; he always desires to impart a “vision” for God’s truths, but very rarely delves into the nitty-gritty of day to day application. For example, Doug Phillips promotes a vision of fathers and husbands leading family worship, but many men have difficulty translating that vision into specific action. Similarly, Doug Phillips often talks about the importance of men spending substantial time with their wives and children, but living a typical American lifestyle or having grown up in a pervasive feminist atmosphere, many men don’t even know where to begin. Some men try to lead their families the way Doug Phillips advocates, but if the first attempt doesn’t seem to “work” (and it often doesn’t) they may give up. This can be incredibly frustrating and disillusioning and lead a man who catches this Patriarchy “vision,” but doesn’t comprehend the practical details for living it out, to be swayed to the extreme of the movement. This happened in the case of one family whose marriage and lives were nearly destroyed after they joined Doug Phillips’ home church, Boerne Christian Assembly.
This family agreed to tell their story — which included their “excommunication” by Vision Forum’s Doug Phillips without biblical due process — to Ministry Watchman after working diligently, but fruitlessly, for reconciliation with Doug for nearly two years. They are coming forward to testify to what Doug Phillips has done as an appeal to the church following their public shaming and shunning as a result of his unbiblical and uncharitable “discipline.” They also hope that other families will be warned by their experience and hopefully avoid repeating it. Given the kind of abuse this family has already suffered — including Doug Phillips threatening twice to sue them — I’ve changed their names to reduce the likelihood of retaliation. Furthermore, because the story is sad, and sordid, and long, this installment will only cover their first encounter with Doug Phillips and the suspension from the Lord’s Table. Future articles will detail the unbiblical excommunication and Doug Phillips’ refusal of all attempts at reconciliation.
Submission and the Role of Women at Doug Phillips’ Boerne Christian Assembly
Jared and Mary Jackson and their children arrived at Boerne Christian Assembly with a marriage that was fairly sound, although certainly not perfect. They both agreed they had worked out their respective roles acceptably between them and were functioning well as a family. Mary believed in submission to her husband and taught other women to obey their husbands in a way that she felt was balanced and honored both God-ordained roles. Nevertheless, the Jacksons knew they had more to learn, and they report that, when they first started attending Boerne Christian Assembly, they had been asking God to reveal any and all sin in their lives and in their family. As a result, they were both excited when God used Doug Phillips to teach them many things they simply had not seen in God’s Word before. They were especially grateful for Doug Phillips’ early teaching on seeking the whole counsel of God, using ALL of Scripture to define and direct life, and not trying to use one “pet” verse as proof for what you want to do.
One of these areas that was new to the Jacksons was the teaching on distinctives of the husband’s role in marriage. Doug Phillips was very dedicated to expounding on the roles of men and women, as it related to patriarchy. A common theme of his teaching in this area was that the wimpiness of men and assertiveness of women in the feminist movement are both abominations in God’s sight. Much of the preaching and teaching on men’s and women’s roles may have been biblically accurate at the big picture, macro level, but the lack of proper real life application led to a perversion of the teaching being lived out in the lives of this family and, from all reports, the lives of other families as well.
An example of this is the Bible’s teaching on women speaking at church. In I Corinthians, the Bible says that women are to be silent in church. The historic understanding has been that this restriction refers to speaking as part of the worship service, but hyper-Patriarchy as practiced at Boerne Christian Assembly when the Jacksons were members prohibits women even to introduce guests during the announcement period. Naturally, such wooden literalism causes some awkward situations. For example, when Mary’s father came to visit while Jared was away on business, Mary couldn’t introduce him to others at church. Because Mary’s father was wearing a kilt, one of the deacons took it upon himself to introduce the man as one of the Scottish Covenanters, not realizing he actually was an agnostic who came just to be with his daughter.
In the interest of keeping literally silent at all times in church, women are also not permitted to share prayer requests at Boerne Christian Assembly. If a woman’s husband or father is not present, or she doesn’t have one, a son of any age may speak or a woman can write her request down and give it to a man to read, who sometimes misunderstands and departs from the original intent. Reportedly, such misunderstandings, sometimes embarassing, led some women to avoid sharing prayer requests at all rather than feeling humiliated or having their heartfelt prayer request possibly distorted.
Another example of keeping women within Doug Phillips’ exceptionally narrow version of biblically defined roles is when the Lord’s Supper is served at Boerne Christian Assembly. It is the father’s responsibility to go up front and get enough to serve his whole family, which works well when the father is present. For the unaccompanied woman, however, she may have her young son serve her, even if he himself isn’t old enough to take communion, or she may have another man in the congregation serve her. This demeaning approach toward women, resulting from legalistic interpretations of Scripture, is another consequence of Doug Phillips’ extreme Patriarchy vision and teaching.
On one occasion when the ladies were having some difficulties in their weekly Sunday afternoon ladies’ meetings, Doug Phillips held a meeting after the service for all the covenanting men and women of Boerne Christian Assembly in order for the men to “solve” the ladies’ meetings’ problems. As you may have already guessed, the women were not allowed to speak during this particular meeting — even though it was about them — and they had to reverently sit next to their husbands as their husbands and the other men of the assembly discussed them as though they were not even in the room. On this occasion, when Doug Phillips saw Mary write a note to Jared to clarify the issues for her husband, Doug Phillips severely chastised Jared for permitting Mary’s note. Doug Phillips’ arrogance was such that he thought he could solve all the ladies’ problems by just having the men “lead” with no input from the women. This attitude of the men always knowing what’s best and the women always being submissive to the point of having no opinion is pervasive at Boerne Christian Assembly.
Each Sunday, during the weekly ladies’ meetings, the women are supposed to sign up to bring meals to those who needed them that week. Since most women aren’t allowed to sign up without asking their husband’s permission first, this was often a futile task, resulting in the women running to ask their husbands after the meeting each week if they could take a meal to sister so-and-so. I think you can begin to see from such examples how valued women are at Boerne Christian Assembly.
In the personal homes of some of the members, it was no different. In an effort to follow Doug Phillips’ teaching faithfully, some men started dictating how their wives would spend every minute of their day or ordering them what food to fix for each meal. Doug Phillips’ wife, Beall, carries her cell phone around with her at home in case Doug Phillips calls from the next room and wants a cup of coffee. Although she is often invited to visit other congregation wives in their homes, she turns down nearly all such invitations because she is not sure if her husband might need her for something. Or if one were to ask any of the single young ladies at Boerne Christian Assembly what they do with their time, their answer will always be the same, “I serve my father.” This degree of literally single-minded personal service of daughters to their fathers is taught at Boerne Christian Assembly as practice for such service to future husbands.
Seeds of Sabotage
Given the pervasive nature of this extreme and misogynist form of Patriarchy practiced at Boerne Christian Assembly, it was natural that the Jackson family would be harmed by it. As Jared received a steady diet of Doug Phillips’ version of patriarchal preaching and as he saw the models of its application by other men at Boerne, he became more and more prone to fits of anger, emotional abuse, and even threats of divorce directed at Mary, who never seemed to be submissive enough. Mary became discouraged by Jared’s behavior, and she approached Beall Phillips on three occasions to ask her advice in how to be a godly, submissive wife to such an angry husband. Beall initially seemed sympathetic and offered the typical advice about a gentle answer turning away wrath and that husbands can be won without a word. Although Mary continued to labor diligently to sustain a gentle and quiet spirit at home, things only got worse.
The breaking point was reached one day in the Jackson home when Jared, who had retired from the military, announced that he was leaving the family the next day to take a new job in another state. Having done all she could to solve matters privately with her husband to no avail, Mary prayerfully approached Doug Phillips at church that Sunday to ask for his help. This was the first occasion they had ever spoken, except in passing, so Mary was taken aback when the first thing Doug Phillips asked her was if she had a gentle and quiet spirit and was fulfilling all of I Peter 3 in her behavior and attitude toward her husband. She assured him that she was doing so in every way she knew how to, so Doug Phillips ran after her husband, as he saw him getting into his car to leave.
Catching up with Jared, Doug Phillips proceeded to ask him if Mary was a nag and a dripping faucet. Doug Phillips then suggested that Mary must be “churlish, disrespectful, unsubmissive, and rebellious,” even though he barely knew her. Although he should have seen that Jared was exhibiting anger, bitterness, and unforgiveness toward Mary, Doug Phillips suggested to him that maybe she hadn’t fully repented from her past sins. Up to this point and afterwards, Doug Phillips never once confronted Jared about his own, very visible angry behavior nor his intentions to abandon his family. Instead of helping to resolve the Jacksons’ marital problems, Doug Phillips used the occasion of Mary’s appeal for help to fuel the fire by planting seeds in Jared’s mind of charges against Mary.
Today looking back, the Jacksons agree that the charges made by Doug Phillips had not been problems in their marriage before joining Boerne Christian Assembly, but Jared seized on the charges anyway because he had been looking for a good excuse to justify his own sin. Doug Phillips then persuaded Jared to stay for a few more days so Doug could help the Jacksons work things out. Although this occurred in the early years of both Boerne Christian Assembly and Vision Forum — long before Doug Phillips was as busy as he is now — he still did not make time to meet with the Jackson family for six more weeks, even though he knew full well that abandonment and divorce were imminent.
“Jezebel” at the Kangaroo Court
Unaware of the substance of Jared’s conversation with Doug Phillips, and hopeful that help might at last be at hand, Mary went eagerly to the Jacksons’ first meeting with Doug and Beall Phillips. One other elder and his wife and one deacon were there also, but mostly as figureheads; Doug Phillips ran the show, or as it turned out, “the Kangaroo Court.” Although Doug Phillips permitted the others with him to each say something at the beginning, the focus of the meeting was on the list of questions he proceeded to ask and on what he said. Even though Jared was demonstrably angry to all present (something he readily admits in shame today), and often yelled at and about Mary throughout the meeting, Doug Phillips barely paid any attention to Jared’s less-than-Christlike behavior, choosing instead to focus on a number of questions concerning sins Mary had committed thirteen years earlier, before her salvation, and for which she had repented twelve years earlier. Doug Phillips seemed very interested in the sinful details and kept stressing that Mary hadn’t repented and that the Jacksons’ marital problems stemmed from her sins.
Beall Phillips supported her husband by pronouncing that Mary had been “disrespectful and unsubmissive” the three occasions Mary had approached her for help. Even though he had only met her once briefly when Mary pleaded for help in her marriage, Doug Phillips called her “churlish, a whore, a Jezebel, and wicked.” As if his less-than-honorable behavior was not enough (as typified by this instance of calling an older woman such disrespectful and demeaning names), Doug Phillips then pulled out a fully prepared written statement. Acting as the prosecutor, judge, and jury, Doug Phillips had already determined Mary’s guilt and subsequent discipline. Not knowing anything personally about her, and not bothering to find out, she was presented with a “Guidelines for Accountability” paper that said the following:
Mary may not:
- Ever question, contradict, criticize, correct or end-run any communication or decision by Jared to Jared or to anyone else.
- Speak ill of her husband or family matters to third parties.
- Speak critically of Jared to the children.
Mary must:
- 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.
- Demonstrate genuine reverence and submission to her husband in all things as unto the Lord.
- Examine herself for unconfessed, or inadequately confessed, sins against her husband from any time during their marriage.
- 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)
- Forgive and love one another.
Accountability:
In the case of violations of the “may not” guidelines listed above, Mary will be willing to submit to reasonable accountability reporting guidelines to be determined.
Jared could call Doug Phillips on his personal cell phone 24 hours a day to “tell” on his wife if she ever did anything he felt to fall in the “may not” category. But Doug Phillips never answered. Jared could call a deacon as well, which he did several times. Mary could call Beall Phillips if Jared violated any part of his agreement (which was similar to Mary’s).
To emphasize the gravity of Doug Phillips’ violation of Mary’s due process, all of the accountability guidelines were in writing before the meeting, despite the fact that Doug Phillips knew next to nothing about Mary. In what was apparently an expedient “quick fix” for the overly committed Doug Phillips, he decided ahead of time not only what the issues were but also what the outcome of the meeting would be. During that meeting, Mary was accused of unrepentance for sins which she had committed over thirteen years earlier, before her confession of faith in Christ, and from which she had fully repented the following year. Mary was accused and unjustly convicted of being disrespectful and unsubmissive, even though none of the people present knew her, nor could any of those present testify to even one specific example of her alleged disrespectful or unsubmissive behavior.
Doug Phillips also said that Mary had lied to him three times. The first “lie” was that she said that no one was holding her husband accountable (no one was); the second “lie” was that the other elder was not counseling her (he was counseling her husband, but not Mary). Mary can no longer remember the third “lie” that she was accused of by Doug Phillips, but she does clearly remember calling her a liar, even though she had told him the truth at all times. Doug and Beall Phillips specifically called Mary “wicked, rebellious, and churlish” (because she asked Doug Phillips for help in keeping her marriage from divorce), and “a whore,” and “a Jezebel.”
The outcome of the Kangaroo Court was that Mary and her husband were to be banned from communion indefinitely and Beall Phillips was assigned to help Mary with her marital problems by being available when Mary needed to tattle on her husband. Not allowing her children to tattle on one another, Mary never felt it was right to do so with her husband either, so she never called Beall. Furthermore, Mary was keenly aware that, in all likelihood, anything that she took to Beall as a complaint against her husband would just be used as evidence against Mary that she was an unsubmissive and churlish wife. Mary was in a no-win position. Mary reports that Beall Phillips never once spoke to her about her marriage for the next two years, never asked her how things were going, and never even asked why Mary hadn’t called her about anything yet.
The High Price of Hyper-Patriarchy
Jared and Mary Jackson came to Boerne Christian Assembly with a marriage that wasn’t perfect, but it also wasn’t on the verge of divorce either. What they really needed was some loving and biblically-based pastoral help, but instead they had a “one size fits all” legalistic Patriarchy worldview forced upon them. This can be quite harmful to families where the man tends toward being abusive already. There is no denying that some men will use the Patriarchy movement’s teaching to justify their own anger, personal pride, and personal insecurity as a launching pad for further spousal abuse. That being so, it was particularly damaging to the Jacksons for Doug Phillips to turn a blind eye to these tendencies in Jared and deliberately refuse to confront him for his dishonorable behavior and failure to be a true servant-leader.
In Doug Phillips’ legalistic framework, if Jared was angry at his wife, the problem wasn’t Jared’s unloving spirit. No, Mary must have done something to provoke Jared’s anger — even if that something had been repented of 12 years previously. Is this how a real pastor shepherds his flock? Or is this a mark of a cult? The end result is that rather than helping this couple, Doug Phillips, known for his family values and family-centered teachings, effectively sabotaged their marriage. It’s only by the grace of God that the Jacksons are still married today. They’ve had major family struggles in putting the pieces back together again.
One of the lessons of this story is that hyper-Patriarchy is no less extreme and unbiblical than radical feminism and wimpy men. We should also realize that true shepherds will protect their flocks from both extremes rather than choose one to escape the other. We can be assured that God does call Christian leaders to account for their behavior as leaders or, as demonstrated in this case, Doug Phillips’ lack of a shepherd’s heart and apparently misogynist view of women as indicated by his inaction with Jared and his dishonorable actions against Mary.
May Doug Phillips repent of his sins against the Jacksons and the shame those sins have brought on the church. And may he redirect Vision Forum to teach a more accurate and complete view of the Biblical roles of men and women. Meanwhile, as the next installment of this story reveals, the plight of the Jacksons gets worse before it gets better.
Ministry Watchman 
“Whore”? “Jezebel”? These are words describing a repentant woman for actions committed before conversion? Words from an ordained minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Who ordained this man and why haven’t they defrocked him?
[…] Ministry Watchman is reporting a new story on Doug Phillips; read it here. […]
[…] Ministry Watchman is reporting a new story on Doug Phillips; read it here. […]
His day is coming. The Lord’s judgment will be just and terrifying on those who broke into the sheepfold and abused His lambs. Am grateful for the Jacksons’ freedom and will be praying for them as they heal. Will also be praying for those who are currently drinking the Kool-aid at this and other “reformed” cults. Our King loves us and died for our sins. Praising Him for renewed faith.
When I read this account it felt like I was reading the transcript from a segment from “20/20” exposing the weird doctrines of some fringe cult.
This guy is using scripture to support his own woman hating views. Calling this woman “whore” and “Jezebel”?
Have none of these guys (Phillips, Sproul, etc.) read James 3:1 where it cautions those who become teachers because they will receive heavier judgement?
What also saddens me about this guy and Sproul is that they have surrounded themselves with no real friends/brothers/sisters in Christ who will call them to task on the teaching in Phillips case, behavior in Sproul’s case.
I’ll be praying for Mary and Jared – that God would lead them to a healthy community of believers who will strengthen their marriage with relationships, scripture and leading of the Holy Spirit, rather than use scripture like a rocket launcher to blast holes in their marriage’s very foundation.
Thanks Charles for your excellent article. You’re not going to make any friends with this, but we don’t always make friends by exposing corrupt men. I look forward to seeing more from you.
My daddy always taught me to watch out for any man who talks a lot about honesty or integrity. If a man harps a lot on issues of personal character like (other than maybe to just his own children) that he’s probably someone you want to keep a close eye on, and a hand on your wallet. Well, Doug Phillips favorite character theme is honor, and a man who spends as much time harping on honor is someone I’m going to be cautious about. Worse yet, Doug Phillips peddles honor, and he makes a whole lot of mullah doing it.
I knew that something didn’t smell right when he started writing articles about honor specifically around the time that R.C. Sproul Jr. was defrocked, and he’s continued writing about it ever since. He even specifically mentioned speaking at a conference that R.C. Sproul Jr. hosted just a few months after he’d been defrocked. Of course Phillips nowhere on his blog does Phillips mention that Sproul’s denomination defrocked him. He just talks as though Sproul were a man deserving of honor, and anyone who didn’t honor Sproul was at risk of God’s judgment!
Phillips correctly extends the 5th commandment to other relationships besides just our mother and father:
There’s a big problem though. Sproul had been found guilty by his Presbytery of some very serious charges and stripped of his ordination. He no longer had any ecclesiastical office or special status or any authority that required that anyone give him anymore honor than anyone else was due. But Phillips keeps speaking of Sproul as though the defrocking never happened, and anyone who says anything negative about Sproul is being dishonorable. Phillips is clearly inferring three things in regards to Sproul:
The Saint Peter Presbyterian Church members who brought charges against Sproul were attempting to “undermine him through grumbling and gossip.”
Saint Peter members tried to “seek to create change in their local church through unsubmissive conduct.”
They were unsubmissive and therefore dishonoring and rebellious.
Outrageous! In reality it’s Phillips who’s being dishonorable by ignoring and therefore dishonoring the just determination of a church court that Sproul had sworn an oath to submit to. It’s understandable that R.C. Jr’s father agreed to speak side by side with his son at that conference (it’s not right, but at least we can understand a father’s sympathies for his son). But what does it say of Phillips that he’d agree to make a speaking appearance with a defrocked minister just a couple months after he’d been defrocked? What it says is that Phillips definition of honor is entirely subjective and subject to the whims of his own perverse definition of honor. Amazingly enough the theme of Sproul’s conference was (now get this) honor! Do you know how to say “hypocrisy”?
Now it’s all to easy to figure out what Philips is all about. He defended Sproul, calling him a man of honor, even though one of the reasons Sproul was defrocked was for tyrannizing several St. Peter families. He even stole another church denomination’s tax number. That’s honorable? There’s an obvious common denominator between Sproul and Phillips, both of them are tyrants who lord it over and abuse the souls they’ve been entrusted to care for. Phillips acts just like Hugo Chavez defending Fidel Castro.
In reading again Phillips articles on honor it looks to me like Phillips has been anticipating being publicly exposed for his own tyrannies. It’s all too obvious in his article “Ungrateful Sons, Internet Assassins, and the Spirit of Adonijah.” Anyone who exposes an ecclesiastical tyrant (and that now obviously includes Ministry Watchman) is an “ungrateful son” and an “internet assassin.” Ministry Watchman, you should expect that that’s exactly how Phillips will now respond to this article.
It makes me so sad that people believe like him. These views are sickening and are not biblical. I ache for the Jacksons and the hurt and pain that has damaged their marriage and will pray for them. God calls us to serve each other in love like He did when he was on earth. I will also pray for this man and those he is leading.
This has infuriated me just reading it. It is unbiblical tyranny at its finest. I will surely be linking this article to my blog when I get a chance.
I realize DP is a questionable leader to many, so to the many I say: don’t attend his church. He’s not a dictator, and this is a free country. He is free to interpret scripture as he sees fit; Christians are free to follow this prophet or not. I choose not to. But I don’t deny him or his, the opportunity to worship as they choose.
I also know the “Jacksons.” The account of this episode is not a representation of their lives and witness. There are important nuances missing; this episode does not stand alone — it is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Tim said, “My daddy always taught me to watch out for any man who talks a lot about honesty or integrity.”
Very true, Tim. This also applies to men who focus most on the submission and obedience to ‘man’ position. Something is wrong and beware….no…. run away.
Actually, what they are practising is a variation of the the ‘rules oriented’, check list religion, Islam. They, of course would be appalled at that description but that is exactly what it is. I feel like we need to do an ‘intervention’ for Beall. Poor woman. She probably has no idea what ‘Freedom in Christ’ really means.
To Subjected: You give good advice about being free to worship anywhere. It is amazing how people fall into traps like this instead of searching scriptures themselves. However, if even 1/2 of this is totally accurate, we have an abusive man pastoring a church. (Abusive with scripture, position, emotions, etc.)
Subjected, I don’t doubt that “There are important nuances missing; this episode does not stand alone.” But don’t let anyone think that we didn’t give Doug Phillips an opportunity to provide input to the article. Here’s a copy of the email that I sent to Doug Phillips and to Vision Forum:
I’m not holding my breath waiting for a response.
Subjected, I wanted to email you, but it’s all to obvious that noneofyourbusiness@yahoo.com is a bogus email address and therefore you’re not interested in having a meaningful discussion.
You’re free to communicate your specific concerns about the parties concerned in this article, but your vague and indefinite allegations lack credibility.
The purpose of this article isn’t to take sides with the Jacksons, and against Doug Phillips. We’re not naive enough to assume that the Jacksons were without fault. However, regardless of their faults it became apparent to Charles Fisher in investigating this story that nothing that the Jacksons could have committed warranted the abuse they received.
I completely disagree with your assessment that Phillips “is free to interpret scripture as he sees fit.” No he is not, nor is he free to practice the Christian faith “as he sees fit.” When he starts abusing families and sabotaging marriages he should expect to be held accountable.
“He’s not a dictator, and this is a free country.”
Wait just a minute there Subjected (now there’s a troubling alias). Saying “it’s a free country” implies that Phillips pastors a “free” church. In other words people are free to come and go as they please, or at least without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. But that doesn’t fit Phillips reputation at all. You say he’s not a dictator? If that’s the case then how come the Jacksons wound up being so abused in his “care”?
This isn’t the first time I’ve heard bad things about Phillips. It sounds to me like Phillips has the Christian Mafia view of church membership. From what I’ve heard he makes it real easy to join his church but very difficult to leave. There’s that common denominator again with R.C. Sproul Jr. Didn’t Sproul practice the same thing in his church too?
I partially agree with the previous commenter about the family in question. I don’t know them well and can’t speak to all the particulars of this situation. However, there is more to this story. MW, if you did not investigate this situation beyond hearing their side, you should be rebuked for false public testimony because you did not have two or three witnesses. Regardless of whether these charges are true, you did not proceed appropriately in this matter and can be accused of the very things that you accuse DP of doing.
Furthermore, the witnesses you did have, if they are the “Jackson” family members, are not impartial.
“He that pleadeth his cause first seemeth just; But his neighbor cometh and searcheth him out” (Proverbs 18:17). It is foolish to believe one side of a story, for, “The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going” (Proverbs 14:15). You have discredited yourself and done damage to your own reputation and testimony by posting these falsehoods.
Please do not, either explicitly or implicitly, say that Doug Phillips or Boerne Christian Assembly is Reformed. They neither adhere to the Reformed confessions nor do they believe in Reformed Doctrines either in Ecclesiology, Sotereology, Worship, etc. The vary fact that the Jackson had no appeal process through a presbytery shows a lack of reformed structure and doctrine. At least when R.C. Sproul Jr. sinned, his church could appeal to a presbytery that came to their aid and administered discipline to Sproul Jr. and the other elders. That prompted R.C. to repent and be restored. Prebyterian government worked as it was supposed to. The Jacksons were attending an “Assembly” not a church. The Jackson’s attended this “Assembly” without any protection of a Presbyterian government that would have come to their aid and could have adminstered discipline against Doug Phillips. This would have given aid to Mr. Phillips also giving him the opportunity to repent. Calling Doug Phillips and Boerne Christian Assembly Reformed gives a bad name to the Refomed Faith and Doctrines.
Fascinating article. I would like to make a few comments on the article from the perspective of another former member of the church Doug Phillips pastors and someone who knows both parties personally and was around to observe the events that are detailed above. I no longer attend the church due to other differences and in no way feel compelled to defend either party, only to bring a little more accuracy to the statements above. My comment are directed toward the author of the article above.
As your goal is to shed light on the situation, I am assuming you will not object to hear the observations from someone who actually observed first hand what you are talking about.
From my observation, I agree that the faults of “Mr. Jackson” were not apparently handled in the same apparent way they were displayed. Your portrayal of Mr. Jackson’s character is from what I observed, vary accurate. I often felt for his family and at times tried to give positive affirmation to Mr. Jackson’s young son who struggled with self esteem most likely due to his family environment.
Your article heralds the great error of Doug Phillips’ one sided “Kangaroo Court”. May I challenge whether or not you have avoided committing the same error by only listening to the testimony of the Jackson’s and not personally approaching Doug Phillips?
Your observation that Doug Phillips is a very strong champion of patriarchal leadership in the home is correct. The stand the church takes on women not speaking or leading is also correct. The awkwardness that was mentioned as a result of this stand is something I have encountered firsthand in having to present someone else’s prayer requests on more than one occasion. However, the “household slave” view of women that your article implies is the ultimate outcome of the teaching and view of Doug Phillips is unfortunately an erroneous implication. Any good taken to an extreme can result in evil. This is very true with the teaching of Doug Phillips as well. Phillips’ teaching on the issue of fathers being strong spiritual leaders in their homes and communities is not wrong in and of itself. That view taken to an extreme by men lacking spiritual discernment or struggling with anger, pride, and selfishness as in the case of Mr. Jackson can certainly result in evil and the domination like actions described. A knife is a very good and useful instrument used in numerous applications. That knife is only harmful in the hands on someone who doesn’t know how to use it properly or is intent on using it for evil. The same is true of any teaching that is taken out of context or wrongly applied as in this situation.
This is where I want to make a strong statement to the author as someone who is very familiar with Phillips and his teachings on a first hand bases, use to be part of his church, and knows him personally. I question whether or not you can say the same for yourself and therefore have the right to argue with what I’m about to say till you can. Doug Phillips does not teach men and fathers to dominate and oppress their wives and other women. His goal is to encourage fathers to be biblical and godly leaders in their homes and raise up their children to advance God’s kingdom here on earth. The inaccurate portrayal that you gave of his teachings is understandable considering your source was a very disgruntled couple suffering from the effects of Phillips teaching being distorted and applied by a father struggling with anger and selfishness.
I appreciate your sincere goal of proclaiming truth, but if you want to be the unbiased proclaimer of truth that you attempt to be, I respectfully ask that you would apply more journalistic professionalism in your research and writing.
Am I the only one who sees the one sided and uninformed nature of this article? One of the greatest detriments to truth is inaccuracy. Please don’t make matters worse by spreading gossip under the banner of championing truth.
I hope this article will cause Mr. Phillips to take a very careful look at the view he proclaims, understand the importance of taking care in what he teaches. May God give Mr. Phillips the grace to repent of any errors His Spirit reveals.
We are all human and only here through God’s amazing grace in the first place. In the end, only God’s truth will prevail. I pray for healing and restoration in the relationships of the Jacksons and their three children. In the mean time, please be more careful to make sure the report you give on a fellow brother in Christ is true and accurate in all respects before spreading ill informed gossip under the disguise of championing well researched truth and exposing error.
“Whore”? “Jezebel”? These are words describing a repentant woman for actions committed before conversion? Words from an ordained minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Who ordained this man and why haven’t they defrocked him?
Doug Phillips is far more concerned about a drop in donations and catalog orders over this affair than about being held accountable by a church court in authority over him. That’s because, unlike the pre-defrocked RC Sproul, Jr., Doug does not lead a church that is a member of, and thus accountable to, a denomination. Boerne Christian Assembly is independent, not presbyterian, and Doug runs the show. In that he is much more like RC Sproul, Sr. than the pre-defrocked Jr. So if you want to hold Doug accountable, the only way is to stop the donations and boycott the catalog.
“Doug Phillips’ wife, Beall, carries her cell phone around with her at home in case Doug Phillips calls from the next room and wants a cup of coffee.”
I think this comment is a cheap shot. Anyone who has been to the Phillips’ home knows it is quite large; they even have an indoor swimming pool. So it’s not unreasonable for Mrs. Phillips to prefer a cell phone summons to a loud bellow from the other side of the house.
You have discredited yourself and done damage to your own reputation and testimony by posting these falsehoods.
This comment sounds very familiar. In fact, it sounds exactly like the comments in defense of Ligonier Ministries in the early stages of Frank Vance’s reporting. The skeptics wanted proof of every jot and tittle (which I understand) but as time passed and the proof was supplied (such as the scanned copy of the lawsuit that Ligonier leadership lied and said did not exist) the skeptics went silent rather than admit they had been wrong. I think it highly likely the same pattern will be repeated with the reporting on Doug Phillips. I’d like to be wrong, but I doubt it.
“Regardless of whether these charges are true, you did not proceed appropriately in this matter and can be accused of the very things that you accuse DP of doing.”
Proverbs, I’m not at all concerned about Ministry Watchman being “accused of the very things that you accuse DP of doing” because in his investigative writing Charles hasn’t done anything even remotely similar to Doug Phillips. If you’d like to make a specific biblically-based allegation against us feel free to make your case. Vague, indefinite and unsubstantiated allegations lack merit.
“Furthermore, the witnesses you did have, if they are the “Jackson” family members, are not impartial.”
Please cite the biblical chapter and verse where an “impartial” witness, whether it be the victim or a third-party, is mandated before their testimony can be considered. Then please show me an incident where a victim of ecclesiastical tyranny could ever be considered “impartial.” We would never expect that any defenders of Doug Phillips be impartial, including you, or even Doug Phillips.
I welcomed Phillips’ response here because he’s entitled to defend himself, regardless of the lack of his impartiality (so far he’s failed to respond). Why your unbiblical and illogical standard of impartiality for the Jacksons? Are you willing to impose the same standard of “impartiality” on Phillips before he’s permitted to defend himself against these allegations? I’d consider that unjust if that’s your standard.
“You have discredited yourself and done damage to your own reputation and testimony by posting these falsehoods.”
That kind of pronouncement reminds me a great deal of the very sorts of pronouncements that John Duncan made about Frank Vance’s articles too. But obviously John Duncan was wrong, just as you are wrong.
John Duncan failed miserably in his tactics. Rather than bringing any credible defense of Ligonier he relied almost entirely on “shoot the messenger” tactics. If you really want to help Doug Phillips then let me suggest, Proverbs, that you bring a credible defense of the man. No clear-thinking biblically-minded Christian is impressed or convinced by shoot the messenger tactics.
I don’t pretend to know much about Vision Forum or Doug Phillips, and I don’t know anything about the Jacksons… but I do know a thing or two about reporting. As a professional journalist, I’m afraid that this is one of the most problematic articles I have ever read. At no point is any person directly quoted, despite many inferences to creative scriptural interpretation only one verse is mentioned, and the only footnote or external reference leads to an article on Wikipedia.
Furthermore, the author hasn’t even tried to present or even research the story from any viewpoint other than Mary Jackson’s personal perspective. Again, I obviously can’t comment on the veracity of the assertions that were made, but turning one unsubstantiated report into an authoritative expose is the epitome of bad journalism – particularly if all your information comes from a single source commenting on a highly emotional personal experience, which this obviously was. The author is either extremely gullible, or just very lazy.
And if I’m reading Watchman’s comment correctly, the only contact with Doug Phillips in order to offer “an opportunity to provide input” was to forward the completed article to his company for feedback. Sending such an obviously-biased article to a person or institution for approval before publication does not count as research. Apparently, the “significant effort… made to ensure the accuracy of the article” didn’t include trying to find either corroborating or contradicting evidence during the writing.
Which surprises me, since even the laziest of writers could easily search for direct quotes from Mr. Phillips on the internet. As a pastor and public speaker, I’m sure recordings of his messages are readily available. Many assertions were made about his positions that seem to be strictly hearsay. Judged on quality alone, this article isn’t news, or even an editorial – it’s the kind of filler that you find in publications that have cover stories like “Space Alien to Wed Two-Headed Elvis Clone.”
As far as I can tell, this is Charles Fisher’s first article posted on this site. I hope that he refrains from writing any more until he can do a better job of demonstrating that his stated facts are backed by more than his opinions.
Tyrant Slayer, you asked, “‘Whore’? ‘Jezebel’? These are words describing a repentant woman for actions committed before conversion? Words from an ordained minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Who ordained this man and why haven’t they defrocked him?”
Very good questions! But who ever said Doug Phillips was ordained? Self-ordained, I suppose, but he is accountable to no one, no denomination, no group, not even any other elders, last I heard. Although Phillips and his church, Boerne Christian Assembly, will announce every Sunday that they believe in a plurality of elders, Doug Phillips has been the sole elder at Boerne Christian Assembly for almost four years now. So there is no one to defrock him, no one to hold him accountable in any way whatsoever, no one to hold his feet to the fire. That is why I had to write this article; the church needs to hold Doug Phillips accountable and no one around him is willing to do it. I am doing it because I care for him, his spiritual state, and those who are directly or indirectly impacted by his extreme stance on various issues, such as hyper-Patriarchy.
Is it only me or does the picture of Doug Phillips seem to show him talking out of one side of his mouth?
Ministry Watchman?
You have violated me and my family by sending this tripe unsolicted to our email account. Having thus started in an unethical way, I hardly believe I would be interested in any of your “investigations.” You appear to operate much like those who “investigate” pastors in order to run them off. How dare you ask others to send you gossip or lies in order to complete your “investigation.” You will answer to God for your heresy!
You have violated two rules of internet spam. First, you must identify yourself, and second you must provide an unsubscribe option in the email.
Unfair wrote: I think this comment is a cheap shot. Anyone who has been to the Phillips’ home knows it is quite large; they even have an indoor swimming pool. So it’s not unreasonable for Mrs. Phillips to prefer a cell phone summons to a loud bellow from the other side of the house. >>
Unfair, I do not think you are ‘helping’ your friends by posting this! Perhaps some of our more enterprising readers can find a picture of Doug Phillips’ home.
Sounds like you are defending another minister ‘profiting’ much from his lofty position.
Didn’t Phillips’ Dad run for President years back on the Libertarian ticket?
I don’t know anything about Doug Phillips except what I’ve read here. But, if only a fraction of it is true, then I fear for the members of that church. In case you’re a member of that church, I highly encourage you to learn from others who’ve been through what you’re experiencing. Here’s a very helpful directory of articles on church abuse at: BatteredSheep.com
SubEditor, if you are a professional journalist, I am certainly wondering why you are using a fake email address and trying to cover your internet tracks (you know what I mean). May I ask of what journal you are an editor? I would like to recommend that they hire a new editor if your writing style here is indicative of your editing standards.
But let’s get to the point. As far as I know, none of the authors here have ever claimed to be professionals, but we shall endeavor to incorporate some of your very good suggestions about how to become better authors the next time we write on this blog. While we do try to maintain high biblical standards here, we are bloggers, and as such, we intend to write in a blogger’s format. Should we decide to publish an article for your obviously excellent journal, we shall attempt to write to your standards.
This article was mostly a “story,” and as such, it did not necessarily lend itself to a doctrinal dissertation. We believe that most of our readers are well versed enough in God’s Word that they don’t need to be told every single violation of Scripture within this story. We have deliberately chosen to write ABOVE the average eighth-grade reading level of most “professional” journalism, by not leading our readers to the obvious conclusions. We are grateful for commenters who have learned to think for themselves and, in fact, greatly encourage different perspectives to what is presented here.
The first part of this story took place over several years, and, as you can imagine, not every source recalled what was said with sufficient precision to put it in quotes, so I chose to write in the narrative rather than give an impression of greater precision than was supported by the sources. That’s one way that fewer quotes can produce a more accurate article. It is true that we could have used any number of quotes from Doug Phillips, but the point is that although he preaches with great confidence that the often radical theological positions he promotes are the only way, his actions and the actions of many who have sat under his teachings have included some bad fruit. In such cases, actions can speak louder than words.
I did not mention who my sources were, so I’m not sure why you are jumping to such conclusions. There were actually multiple sources and Doug Phillips was contacted several times. He was provided this information two years ago and has refused to respond at all.
Yes, this is my first article on Ministry Watchman; I shall sincerely endeavor to have a higher journalistic standard the next time I “attempt” to write an article. Until then, I look forward to reading your article on “Space Alien to Wed Two-Headed Elvis Clone.”
Always Batya,
Actually, Doug’s father (Howard Phillips) allegedly left the Nixon administration because it was not conservative enough. He later formed what became the Constitution Party, with Michael Peroutka leading the ticket during the 2004 election (see the intro for the comment concerning voting for Kerry or Bush).
Rumor has it that during a recent spin at hosting a radio show, Doug Phillips had his father and the “recently defeated” Roy Moore (former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court) as guests. Supposedly during this Phillips/Moore “group hug” Doug mentioned something about Roy Moore being ready to run for President of the United States.
As for Phillips “profiting” from his lofty position, you have no idea the “gifts” he has received from wealthy patrons over the years. In fact, it’s been observed that Phillips has enough hubris to bite the hand that feeds him.
BA
There are several things that struck me about these accounts of Doug Phillips, as reported by the Jacksons, that sent red flags up. I am not talking just about their own experiences but a general uncomfortable feeling about his entire ministry that just doesn’t seem right.
For several years I have been concerned about the teachings from Vision Forum, especially how they are interpreted and lived out by his most ardent followers. Doug Phillips is a friend and admirer of Bill Gothard, another quasi-cult leader, who also has rejected authorities in his own life while teaching his “umbrella of protection” view of authority to millions of conference attendees. Various phrases Phillips often uses show that he is a student of Gothard whose teachings are questionable and whose views of women are scarey.
Secondly, the idea that Phillips wanted to know details of a woman’s past sins is just plain creepy. I also think it is believable. In one of his recent blog entries he tells in great detail about the wedding ceremony he performed. One of the highlights of doing these ceremonies, according to Phillips, is being up close and personal to the first kiss a couple shares. Is that a little weird? He also made a comment on one of his recent blog entries about polygamy not being forbidden in Scripture. Is this where all this is headed? Last week’s news article about the Mormon guy who is being tried for forcing a 14 year old girl to marry her cousin sounded way to familar to me, just like something out of a patriarch guidebook. She was told that she would lose her salvation if she didn’t obey her authority. How is that any different than what is taught by Phillips or other patriarchs? And, I might add, that it abuse, whether it is clerical or sexual, is all about control, really.
Also, Phillips has promoted the Gunn brothers’ new movie about feminism which, in its advertisement, impliesthat women should not have the right to vote in civil elections. That is also the view of others who have been promoted by Phillips. No speaking or voting in church, will women’s suffrage be next?
Finally, what is with the Phillips obsession with the Old Dominion? It seems that he has chosen the years just prior to the Civil War as the standard for life….his favorite websites for women include links to dress patterns for modest clothing and they are actually Civil War reinactment clothes. He pushes the 1800’s Elsie Dinsmore books and the relationship between Elsie and her father is bizzare and borders on inappropriate.
When you add all this together, you have to come to the conclusion that his views of women are weird. No wonder Mary Jackson was treated in this way. No accountablity always leads to abuse.
SubEditor,
For someone who claims to be a professional journalist, you ought to know better than to do the very thing you accuse Charles of. You accuse him of relying on a single “unsubstantiated” source for an entire article without first investigating to see if your allegation is true. Just because Charles does not follow the trite formula of modern mass journalism (which rarely goes more deeply than sound bites from opposing sides) doesn’t mean he hasn’t consulting multiple sources or that the testimony from multiple sources that he reviewed wasn’t also judged in the light of documentation.
The fact is that Charles’ investigation was considerably more thorough than that. To give just one example of the level of confirmation of particulars of this article that went on behind the scenes at Ministrywatchman: I now have in my hands a photocopy of the “Guidelines for Accountability” referenced in Charles’ article. On it are several signatures, including Jared’s, Mary’s and Doug Phillips’. The document is real and just as Charles described it. I’m sorry that you don’t approve of his style of writing, but that doesn’t mean the substance of his writing is any less accurate.
The bottom line is that, whatever the merits or demerits of Charles’ style, I do know he does a better job of the independent confirmation of facts that you advocate than your own comment does. He has reported on his investigation faithfully while you have accused him falsely and broken your own standards in the process.
So is this how professional journalists do it? No wonder the public has such a low opinion of them (and professional journalists even readily acknowledge it)!
John
SubEditor,
Did you mean to refer to yourself as a “professional interpretive journalist”? For, as we who DO know something about journalism in America, the journalism schools quit teaching any true “reporting” years ago – opting instead for the emotive approach facilitated by the interpretive journalistic technique taught in our country’s journalism schools. Moreover, your comment “turning one unsubstantiated report into an authoritative expose is the epitome of bad journalism” is the height of disingenuousness, given the “single sources” the Gray Lady (NY Times) and Washington Post adore citing when their duplicitous, disloyal, and treasonous “sources” are providing these “respected” icons of journalism classified government information.
Your attempt to discredit Mr. Fisher’s narrative via journalistic critique displays more of your own ignorance than it does any failure on Mr. Fisher’s part. In the future, might I make a suggestion? If you are going to “play” a role, you should at least know the basics.
CSZ
Unfair wrote: “I think this comment is a cheap shot. Anyone who has been to the Phillips’ home knows it is quite large; they even have an indoor swimming pool. So it’s not unreasonable for Mrs. Phillips to prefer a cell phone summons to a loud bellow from the other side of the house.”
And why can’t Mr. Phillips get up off his fanny and go find his wife if he needs to speak with her? Why should she be summoned into his presence like a servant girl?
Light M.,
I think you may have answered your own question. First, Doug doesn’t get off his “fanny” because he is the “lord” of his household. Secondly, Doug just needs a cup of Joe, not a “convo” with Beall. After all, he’s a busy MAN.
CSZ
[…] I have now read Ministry Watchman’s first post on the Doug Phillip’s story, which will likely expand its territory over time given what we have seen in the Wood so far. The comments up so far in this post’s thread are covering some good ground; I particularly recommend the Watchman’s reply to the common “two or three witnesses” complaint. This complaint is something I have experienced unrelentingly from the leadership of Christ Church; we have covered this terrain a good deal already, and I will not replay it here. However, I did want to note that we have been provided further evidence that this “two or three witness” complaint will only come from tyrants who want to protect the lack of accountability that they enjoy. Those who want to merely silence all criticism use this complaint to silence truth seeking, discussion, or even cogent and sincere replies to allegations. Folks like RC Sproul Jr, Tim Dick, Doug Phillips, and Doug Wilson assume a level of authority that refuses to even straight-forwardly deny allegations. Those who are sincerely seeking truth seem to never be interested in such shenanigans. […]
[…] I have now read Ministry Watchman’s first post on the Doug Phillip’s story, which will likely expand its territory over time given what we have seen in the Wood so far. The comments up so far in this post’s thread are covering some good ground; I particularly recommend the Watchman’s reply to the common “two or three witnesses” complaint. This complaint is something I have experienced unrelentingly from the leadership of Christ Church; we have covered this terrain a good deal already, and I will not replay it here. However, I did want to note that we have been provided further evidence that this “two or three witness” complaint will only come from tyrants who want to protect the lack of accountability that they enjoy. Those who want to merely silence all criticism use this complaint to silence truth seeking, discussion, or even cogent and sincere replies to allegations. Folks like RC Sproul Jr, Tim Dick, Doug Phillips, and Doug Wilson assume a level of authority that refuses to even straight-forwardly deny allegations. Those who are sincerely seeking truth seem to never be interested in such shenanigans. […]
Back atya: Thanks for the history lesson on Daddy. I had the wrong party and forgot about the Constitution party…don’t hear much about them anymore. The only thing Judge Moore will do if he runs is help elect Hillary. By the way, Doug must have gotten money somewhere to fund the start up of all this…Daddy?
But Prairie Girl has it right. I came away with exactly the same thoughts she has about this guy after reading his blog, articles, etc. That is why, subeditor, I have no problem believing this article!
Contrast Doug’s thoughts on women with our Lord’s, Who came to us in a time when women were oppressed, and His subsequent treatment of them. Especially the bad ones who sought Him.
Did He require the adulterous women to recount every past sin? No, He said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more”. As a matter of fact, He had some strong words to say to a certain ‘Pharisee’ who complained about that ‘sort of woman’ who came washing His feet with her tears. He said to her, “Your faith has saved you.”
Shame on you Doug Phillips for distorting scripture as the Pharisees did.
I’m looking forward to Doug Phillips’ response to this article, given his considerable communications talents and the organizational muscle available at Vision Forum. Although I don’t know exactly what Mr. Phillips will do, I would be very surprised if at least part of his response is not some lengthy article posted on, or linked from, his blog that tries to persuade us that we are sinning by reading this site or, even worse, making comments on it. I envision some enlightening topics such as:
“You are the man: Why listening to an internet assassin is to become an internet assassin.” or “Presumed Pagan: A Biblical Basis for Suing Internet Assassins Who Claim to Be Christians.”
Berean says, “I think it highly likely the same pattern will be repeated with the reporting on Doug Phillips. I’d like to be wrong, but I doubt it.”
I take this to mean that the accused are assumed guilty until proven innocent on this blog. Even the pagans in our courts know better than this. Again, you have zero credibility if you think posting one side of a story counts as true “journalism.”
Watchman says, “If you’d like to make a specific biblically-based allegation against us feel free to make your case. Vague, indefinite and unsubstantiated allegations lack merit.”
The allegation is neither vague nor unsubstantiated but clear from the very words of your post. You have posted an article in a public forum based on the statements of one side. This represents the simple-mindedness spoken against in Proverbs, and it is especially egregious when it leads to spreading slander. It’s one thing to personally believe a falsehood; it’s another thing altogether to try, convict, and condemn a man who has not been given a fair trial and the opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf, based solely on questionable testimony from embittered adversaries. And don’t tell me you emailed Doug to ask for clarifications. Have you heard back yet? Have you given him sufficient opportunity — he is a busy man, you know? (Obviously, he doesn’t have time to sit around blogging against his adversaries all day.) If not, you have posted this without giving him any opportunity to clarify the record.
This will probably be my last comment, but I just wanted you to know that your actions don’t line up with teachings in Proverbs concerning discretion and seeking out the full truth before arriving at conclusions and spreading around your ideas for all to see.
“It’s one thing to personally believe a falsehood; it’s another thing altogether to try, convict, and condemn a man who has not been given a fair trial and the opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf, based solely on questionable testimony from embittered adversaries.
Now I’m confused. Did Proverbs just change the subject to talk about how Mary was treated in the kangaroo court?
“I take this to mean that the accused are assumed guilty until proven innocent… Even the pagans in our courts know better than this… It’s one thing to personally believe a falsehood; it’s another thing altogether to try, convict, and condemn a man who has not been given a fair trial and the opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf, based solely on questionable testimony.”
Bravo! I’m very impressed with your personal convictions about biblical justice!
Tell me though, where were you when Doug Phillips was acting as judge, jury and executioner against the Jacksons (and Mary Jackson in particular)? Where was any member of Boerne Christian Assembly to demand biblical due process for the Jacksons?
It would’ve been a very noble thing if you could have expounded those very words to Phillips.
I am just wondering this….all this talk of Phillips’ legal counsel….he often uses “esquire” behind his name. But, has he sat for a bar exam and is he or has he ever been licensed to practice law? I am just curious as the State Bar of Texas has no record of his being a current member according to their website.
Proverbs, thank you for supporting the premise of my story that Doug Phillips conducted a Kangaroo Court against Mary Jackson: “It’s one thing to personally believe a falsehood; it’s another thing altogether to try, convict, and condemn a man who has not been given a fair trial and the opportunity to present evidence on his own behalf, based solely on questionable testimony from embittered adversaries.”
Thank you for substantiating that this was, indeed, an egregious sin on Doug Phillips’ part.
As far as contacting Phillips about this situation, there have been numerous attempts by multiple people involved in this situation for the last two years now. I appreciate the fact that you’re waiting there with bated breath and can hardly wait to get the whole story right now. Sorry, but this is intended as a multipart story, so you’ll just have to stay tuned to hear the rest (yes, there will be a great deal of evidence produced as well). Please try and be patient.
Prairie Girl: I was intrigued by your comment that Phillips is not listed on the Texas State Bar website as a current member, so I did a little digging.
A review of the “About the President” at Vision Forum reveals that Phillips graduated from George Mason School of Law, which is located in Virginia. Further review reveals that for six years Phillips worked with the HSLDA, which is also HQ’d in Virginia. One would assume that DP was licensed in the State of Virginia. Unfortunately, it is impossible to locate an attorney on the Virginia State Bar website like one can on the Texas State Bar website. However, a review of the Martindale Hubbell website (Martindale being THE “go to” source for locating an attorney anywhere in the U.S. or otherwise), only reveals the following “Doug Phillips”: http://www.martindale.com/xp/Martindale/Lawyer_Locator/Search_Lawyer_Locator/search_result.xml?PG=0&STYPE=N&FNAME=Doug&LNAME=Phillips&FN=&CN=&STS=&CRY=&ratind=&bc=1
as being attorneys currently practicing law.
Since attorneys are required to maintain their law license in the state in which they practice (the process for which includes participating in a certain number of CLE activities throughout the year in the state in which the attorney practices law), it makes one wonder how Phillips was “providing legal services” to the folks at Ligionier (who, BTW, are located in FLORIDA), when it appears that good ol’ DP is not even a currently licensed attorney anywhere in the U.S.
But, I guess that’s a “minor detail” in the big scheme of things, huh? Actually being licensed to practice law. Kinda like being ordained to be a pastor.
Unfair wrote: “I think this comment is a cheap shot. Anyone who has been to the Phillips’ home knows it is quite large; they even have an indoor swimming pool. So it’s not unreasonable for Mrs. Phillips to prefer a cell phone summons to a loud bellow from the other side of the house.”
LOL!!! Unfair, are you sure you think this bit of information is helping? Indoor swimming pool? There house is “quite large”? The only other alternative to Mr. Phillips asking for a cup of Joe is by a “loud bellow” from the other side of the house?
I have a 3rd suggestion: When he wants coffee, he gets up and gets himself a cup and then he goes to his wife who is changing dirty diapers, home schooling the other children, making dinner, answering phone calls and putting in the 3rd load of laundry if she would like cream and sugar in hers. 🙂
I don’t find a “loud bellow” or a cell phone call to be the answer to such a problem, especially in light of what the Bible tells husbands- namely, to sacrificially love their wives and live with them in an understanding way.
And, just how big is their home that it can contain an indoor swimming pool? Do they report to a Christian financial institution who deals with 501c3 organizations? I have a problem with Christians who get rich by asking for donations from those who scrape together the little money they do have in order to donate. I know too many good ministries who are doing the work of the Lord who do NOT live like royalty in large palaces fit for kings.
As for the rest of the article, I don’t know what to say. Did Mr. Phillips really call Mary a “whore”? Was that his exact language? Based on what? Something she did BEFORE she was married?
Instead of people hinting about “another side of the story”, could you just provide some things that are helpful and concrete so we can get our facts straight? I have found that when people hint like this in such vague terms, they are really just blowing smoke and setting up mirrors.
Prairie Girl, Doug Phillips used to work as an attorney for the Home School Legal Defense Association, so it’s possible he is a member of the Virginia Bar.
So, Proverbs, is “busyness” as an excuse to be unaccountable found in Proverbs, too? I am really tired of hearing how “busy” some people are when they are obviously NOT busy enough. If they were really “busy” then they wouldn’t have time for all of this nonsense and they wouldn’t be trying to dream up ways to tie up believers in this sort of bondage and unbiblical practice.
Is “busyness” a fruit of the Spirit? Is it a good thing to say that someone is “busy”, especially when it comes to something as serious as this?
I am busy, too, but I can tell you one thing: if someone was accusing me of calling them a whore and a Jezebel and of almost destroying their marriage, I would MAKE TIME to make a statement of clarification.
But, then again, I am not too busy to get my own Diet Coke, so maybe I am not busy enough? 🙂
We have deliberately chosen to write ABOVE the average eighth-grade reading level of most “professional” journalism.
Actually, I think the current industry standard is the sixth-grade reading level.
NOYB, sorry to hear that you received an unsolicited email. Welcome to the internet! Obviously you must be a brand new internet user because anyone who’s been on the internet for a month or more knows that unsolicited emails are routine.
It’s ironic that you would criticize MN for our lack of “investigation” while at the same time you obviously performed no investigation whatsoever before blaming us for receiving an unsolicited email. Are you blaming us merely because there was a link in that email to this site, or perhaps to this specific page? Is that all you have to go on for accusing us of sending you unsolicited email?
Next time please do a little investigation before accusing your brethren. You could start your investigation by replying to the sender of the email and finding out who they are. You might also want to investigate the definition of “heresy” before accusing brethren of that too. In that case you could start your investigation with something like a dictionary.
Watchman: “We’re not naive enough to assume that the Jacksons were without fault. However, regardless of their faults it became apparent to Charles Fisher in investigating this story that nothing that the Jacksons could have committed warranted the abuse they received.”
It seems to me that this is one of the most important points so far. James 3:1 makes it clear that we are not to judge shepherd and sheep with equal strictness; quite the contrary. The Biblical approach is to scrutinize the one in authority more closely and be more patient with the shorcomings of those under authority. So the proper approach in this case is not to focus on every possible error on the part of Jared and Mary but to ask instead, as the article does, what happened to their shepherd?
Given this clear biblical principle, I’m disappionted at how many of the comments so far tend to either blame the victim or shoot the messenger.
It may be possible the Phillips is licensed in Virgina but I am not certain that one must be licensed as an attorney to work at HSLDA as an attorney. That would be an interesting thing to know, though. Especially since Phillips uses the “Esquire” moniker so often.
PG, I doubt that Doug Phillips is doing anything unethical by using the title “Esquire.” It certainly might be a bit tacky, especially since he hasn’t practiced law for quite some time, but it’s not unethical.
As far as Phillips providing legal counsel to Ligonier, he probably doesn’t need to be licensed in Florida or Texas or anywhere else to do that either, unless he was billing them for his services or attempting to represent them in court.
Watchman, I agree that it isn’t unethical but it IS tacky.
🙂
It reminds me of some people I know in my circles of Toastmasters who introduce themselves John Doe, DTM and insist that they are referred to by that name!
Corrie,
Big enough to have a very nice view of a San Antonio golf course, and according to tax records roughly over 5600 square feet. Combining the tax values of the records I found, it is almost roughly $638,000, which is most likely worth more on the open market. The owner is listed as Vision Forum Ministries.
Mr. Watchman, If you have a copy of the Guidelines document that Mr. Fisher refers to, could you scan, upload the scan, and provide a link to it? I want to see it for myself, and it appears that other readers also want to be Bereans rather than just take what your writers say on faith or automatically accept whatever Mr. Phillips says about “internet assassins”.
I’m inclined to believe Mr. Fisher’s story, given this site’s track record of accurate reporting on various Ligonier scandals, but I still want to confirm what I can for myself (as I did before by calling Ligonier and calling the court when the Ligonier rep denied he existence of their lawsuit against Frank Vance).
Grant, by your own admission, you confirm that (1) Mr. Jackson’s actions were known publicly (the faults of “Mr. Jackson” were…displayed) and that (2) the leadership (Doug Phillips in particular, since he is the sole self-proclaimed “elder” at Boerne Christian Assembly) failed to deal with said public faults – dare we say “sin”? – (the faults…were not apparently handled in the same apparent way they were displayed).
As for the heralded “error of Doug Phillips’ one sided Kangaroo Court,” your comments again confirm the basis of the Jacksons’ allegations: Mr. Jackson’s sins were not “handled.” You, sir, as a former member of Boerne Christian Assembly watched this occur. As noted in another comment here, where were you? Why didn’t you hold Doug Phillips accountable? Why didn’t anyone hold Doug Phillips accountable? Why did you and the rest of Boerne Christian Assembly allow Doug Phillips to run roughshod over Mrs. Jackson – a vulnerable and abused woman – in light of Mr. Jackson’s behavior?
Please do not interpret these questions as personal attacks but, rather, understand them in light of the authoritarian pattern of abuse practiced by Doug Phillips. Someone needs to hold Doug Phillips accountable and, from all appearances, it is not going to be anyone associated with him from the dais (RC Sproul Jr, Scott Brown, Geoff Botkin, William Einwechter, etc.), anyone else in the Reformed community (John MacArthur, Joni Erickson Tada, John Piper, RC Sproul Sr), nor is it going to be anyone from Boerne Christian Assembly. In fact, the only individuals we are aware of confronting Doug Phillips over the abuse of the Jackson family are four elders from a sister church that is Arminian! Again, what does this lack of Reformed accountability reflect concerning the state of the Reformed church? Furthermore, what does it say when an Arminian church has a plurality of elders but Boerne Christian Assembly, a Reformed Baptist church, allows Doug Phillips to operate solo? Frankly, it begs the question as to whether Boerne Christian Assembly is actually a cult.
Lastly, if you carefully read the text of the post, you will find that it does not conflict with your statement “that Doug Phillips does not teach men and fathers to dominate and oppress their wives and other women. His goal is to encourage fathers to be biblical and godly leaders in their homes and raise up their children to advance God’s kingdom here on earth.” Grant, there is no argument that your comment reflects Doug Phillips’ goal. However, as noted in the post itself, Doug Phillips is a big picture preacher and rarely delves into the practical application of his “vision.” Furthermore, since it appears Doug Phillips is a misogynist, the result is that Phillips’ orthopraxy does not, and will not, line up with his orthodoxy. Therefore, I will thank you again for confirming many of the points raised in the article.
Charles, I’m amazed at how fast and furious the comments are on this thread. Already almost 50 posts before 24 hours have passed. That must be a record for Ministrywatchman. It seems you’ve hit a nerve.
As the wife of a hispanic I’ve often been a bit uncomfortable with the ethnocentric contents of Vision Forum’s products. I’m also uncomfortable with their strong condemnation of any family planning. I’m not “reformed” in my doctrine at all and I attend an independent church in which ultimate human accountability is given to a member chosen board of elders. Having said that, you can see that it’s very easy for me to believe what your article is accusing Doug Phillips of. It matches the impressions I’ve gotten of him. I’m still not sure you’ve offered enough evidence for me to believe, with condidence, that your narrative is accurate. I hope that future installments of the story will provide me with those assurances.
Blessings
For those who have asked, all the words in quotation marks that Doug Phillips said about me are exact quotes. Yes, he really did call me a whore, a Jezebel, churlish, disrespectful, unsubmissive, wicked, and rebellious at that first meeting with him.
Hi Mary,
Wow! I am so sorry you were called such names but it seems that name-calling is very cool right now amongst those in authority in the Reformed movement. They tell me that it is because Jesus did it and He turned over the tables and they need to be tough on sin. When I quote other verses about humility, love, rebuking in gentleness and out of compassion, I get accused of trying to feminize men because after all, these things are not the stuff of manful religion.
Can I ask you a question? Why were you called a “whore”? Was it because of something you did before marriage with another man? Were you cheating on your husband with other men? Were you prostituting yourself for extra shopping money?
I am assuming it was because you were not a virgin when you married? Just so you know, either was I. I didn’t become a Christian until I was 23 and so I won’t be throwing any stones at anyone.
And, was your husband a virgin when he married you? Was Jared called a “whore” if you answered “yes” to my question about his virginity?
It would really help me understand why Doug Phillips, Esquire, would call a married woman and mother of children a “whore”.
Did he have you submit to the Old Testament test of drinking bitter water (Numbers 5) because a spirit of jealousy fell upon your husband? Did your thighs rot? Did your belly swell?
Did he ever apologize for such name calling? And did he call you a “whore” in front of the other people at that first meeting? Did he go to them and apologize to them? Did any of them stick up for righteous and tell him he was out of line?
Mary, I am very concerned that this goes on in the name of Christ. This is abuse. I don’t know the rest of your story, yet, but I certainly hope you and your family are healing and finding peace in the knowledge that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
That goes for women, too, btw. It seems that there is still the old sinful double-standard where a woman is considered a “whore” for not being a virgin when she marries but a man is never called such things and is never condemned for his sexual immorality before marriage.
I count myself in good company with other famous “whores” of the Bible- Mary Magdalene and Rahab. May you look to them and see that they are some of the finest examples scripture has to offer concerning love, courage and a deep relationship with Jesus.
Trust but Verfiy said: If you have a copy of the Guidelines document that Mr. Fisher refers to, could you scan, upload the scan, and provide a link to it?>>
Watchman, please do not do this. Mary’s confidentiality must be upheld. She has suffered enough. I know it was hard enough for her and even her husband to even allow this to be discussed at all.
And, we have all seen how the victim is accused of being the ‘real’ sinner in these ‘reformed’ circles.
If someone decides not to believe this that is up to them. For me, a thorough reading of Phillip’s website, blog and articles is enough proof for me that this very well could have happened. It fits.
Batya, thanks for expressing your concerns. However, the Jacksons have authorized us to post the Guidelines For Accountability. You’ll now find it linked in the article above.
From the pdf:
“Mary may not *ever* question, contradict, criticize, correct, or end-run any communication or decision by [Jared] to [Jared] or to anyone else.
Speak ill of her husband or family matters to third parties.”
I’m not referring to Mary’s situation, but if a woman should choose to do the above things when her husband is behaving like a “Nabal,” then I wouldn’t call her a “Jezebel,” I would call her an “Abigail.”
Gothard likes to vilify Abigail. I wonder if Doug Phillips does as well.
Abigail was a good woman, but she did all the above.
After a cooling off period, I would like to recant my “God-like” arrogant statement on Doug Phllips’ future judgement as a false prophet. I am not in a position to make that decision, and apologize for this arrogance. Paul himself was a humdinger (as am I). But for the grace of God, I would be back in the pits of darkness, full of hate and hopelessness. His gentle hand took me out of the muck and placed me on solid ground. Doug Phillips is in my prayers for his repentance before our holy, merciful Lord.
I will be praying for the victims of this, and other spiritual abuse as they seek healing and renewed faith in Christ. I appreciate the supportive comments the Jacksons are receiving in this forum.
Watchman, Thanks for uploading the Guidelines document. It does include what Charles reported and does have Doug Phillips’ signature. So far so good, but I look forward to more such documentation in future installments of the story.
Speaking of documentation, thank you also for adding a link to a veritable treasure trove of documents about RC Sproul, Jr.’s defrocking. They are fascinating and compelling — and make me wonder why Doug Phillips went out of his way to defend Jr. from the very beginning.
I don’t want to believe it, but it does seem that the most plausible explanation is the one about birds of a feather …
Mary, I have read and re-read some of the comments made to you, and I am profoundly angered at this situation. Corrie, who wrote to you above — I met her on the Gothard_discussion list on Yahoo some years ago. Someone mentioned Gothard in an earlier comment, and I agree. Gothard has VERY heavy-handed views on human authority. I believe Doug has been to Gothard’s homeschool convention as a speaker. Perhaps they share the same views on biblical authority and have influenced each other.
If they WERE biblical views that would be one thing, but Gothard’s, and Phillips’ views are FAR from biblical. Gothard teaches that getting under human authority means “protection,” but that is never a Scriptural guarantee, although it might be a result. Some fathers abuse their daughters. Paul was beheaded by his authorities. And everything in between. It seems that Phillips has done damage here with this same, exact, teaching of Bill Gothard’s.
Someone wrote:
“If someone decides not to believe this that is up to them. For me, a thorough reading of Phillip’s website, blog and articles is enough proof for me that this very well could have happened. It fits.”
I agree. I have read Phillips’ blog off and on for some time. I have read anecdotes about what happens to women who leave home to go to college, that “protection” of a daughter requires the “proximity” of her father and other such legalistic idealism.
I have read more recent entries where Phillips speaks about “assassin bloggers” who are like church people who go home and have “roast pastor” for lunch.
I do NOT think running down a pastor is a good thing by any means, just for the sport of it, but neither is it good to plaster horrible names on poor people who have EAGERLY come to you for HELP!!!
“Whore, Jezebel.” That is DISGUSTING, and TOTALLY uncalled for. I am writing this so you feel supported, Mary, and know I am praying for you and your husband.
Here are some public records of Doug Phillips home. The tax records for the property are divided into two:
First property record
Second property record
If you have trouble with those links go here and enter “Vision Forum Ministries”.
As you can see from the records a good portion of the property is tax exempt, presumably because it’s owned by a 501c3 ministry.
As is the case with many property tax records the tax figures aren’t an assessment based upon fair market value. The actual fair market value is probably much higher.
I was just reading on another blog that Doug Phillips publicly called Cheryl Seelhoff a “Jezebel” at a home school convention. That was many years ago.
I think I see a pattern here.
I agree with Lynn that this sort of name-calling is disgusting and totally uncalled for. And what is more disgusting is that they are totally baseless and false.
You better have good reason to call someone a whore and as a Christian, I can’t think of any.
Talk about honor! Ha! The only honor due is due to the one who talks about it all the time. Everyone else is fair game to be dishonored.
What makes me even more disgusted is that there were other people who knew better who never said a word in Mary’s defense.
SubEditor,
Here is a quote concerning the problem with today’s journalism:
“Today’s reporters tell us what they think instead of what they saw.” Michael Barnicle, Boston Herald
From my “view” in the grandstand, it appears the narrative by Charles Fisher reports what the Jacksons saw, heard, and experienced, not what Mr. Fisher “thinks” about the Jackson’s experience with Mr. Phillips. I also think it would be fair to categorize Mr. Fisher’s conclusions as predicated on more than the Jackson’s relation of events, for it would appear many of his conclusions have been verified by comments on this thread. My take: Mr. Fisher dotted his “eyes” and crossed his “tees” before posting his article.
A Mike Barnicle Fan
I think Mike Fan is correct. What is also important for me is the credibility that Ministry Watchman has gained up to date. This is precisely why folks trust big media more than typical internet blogging (see Glen Reynold’s essay on free speech on the internet). As time goes on Ministry Watchman will be given a greater amount of default trust, while also held to higher standards. Fisher knew he was writing a check from a reputable bank and a joint account owned by reputable people. In the posts that follow, we will no doubt see further integrity and concern for a judicially tight fit with the available evidence. And I am certainly looking forward to any important clarifications from Doug Phillips (ahem).
I personally blog about events now without as much care of evidential proof, sometimes just vaguely referencing posts I’ve made in the past with evidential proof. In part, this is due to the fact that I’ve gained credibility with my general readership. I think this is also due to something that is in line with Fan’s point here: the history of how my opponents have decided to publicly respond as well as the nature of the comments I get off-line. If Ministry Watchman was irresponsibly spreading lies or rumors, their opponents would have been able to point this out by now! And they already have the kind of confirmation they needed from our friends here in Moscow, Idaho; according to Doug Wilson, this web site is just “vile.” According to elder Patch Blakey, it is nothing but “tripe and slander.” That’s a good start if you ask me.
Keep up the good work.
Michael Metzler
http://www.poohsthink.com
Interesting, as I read about all of Phillips extra-Biblical, specific applications, the thought came to mind “Gothardism.” Gothard is a man of many scandals. “A disciple shall be like his master.” http://www.amazon.com/gp/product//0971700923/ref=cm_aya_asin.title/102-3150174-8503325
Corrie Marnett — “I have a 3rd suggestion: When he wants coffee, he gets up and gets himself a cup and then he goes to his wife who is changing dirty diapers, home schooling the other children, making dinner, answering phone calls and putting in the 3rd load of laundry if she would like cream and sugar in hers.”
Although your suggestion is worthy, it betrays a mistaken presupposition. The reality is that the Hispanic help have done much, if not most, of the housework and the child care for years and even somehow been persuaded that it’s an honor to volunteer such services full time, commuting long distances each way.
Let me be clear: I do not begrudge a busy mother extra help, even full-time extra help, but I do object, and vehemently, to exploiting others (even willing others) to do so. Hopefully, this public exposure will result in a hurried effort to correct this injustice by due compensation at market rates (I’d rather the right thing be done for the wrong reasons than not done at all). We’ll see.
Oh, no, don’t tell the Bayly brothers that Mrs. Phillips has domestic help…after their article about women being required to do their own housework, there could be trouble. (Actually, I believe the Baylys came back and qualified their statements but the general impression their articles left is that housework is women’s work.)
I am a mother of one daughter and 5 sons. My husband gave the greatest gift of all to his future daughters-in-law when he demonstrated his committment to me by helping me in the house. As a homeschooler, he recognizes that I, too, have a full-time job as a teacher and that just to keep up with everything, especially when we had little ones, it required more than one person doing the work. To this day my sons are more than willing to run the vacuum cleaner, wash dishes, or put in a load of laundry. They learned this from a father who wanted to set an example for his sons. The girls thank us for this gift, by the way!
I remember listening to Doug Phillip’s tape on raising daughters. He tells the story that I think explains his perspective. When he was a teenage boy, he visited in the home of a friend of his father. At the end of dinner, Phillips stood up to help clear the table, as his own mother had rightly taught him to do, when the daughters in the household stopped him and told him that clearing the table and doing the dishes was their job, not his. They explained that they were training to be future wives and wives are to do the household chores. So he sat back down and has probably been waited on ever since. He was so impressed that he now teaches that this is what girls are to do, what their training ought to be.
I have witnessed this sort of attitude among Phillips followers….men waiting for the little women to do it all while they sit and pontificate and hurrumph about this or that finer point in the book of church order. Their sons join them and the wives, who were probably up before dawn doing the cooking and cleaning, “put on a real good potluck” stopping only to nurse a baby or corral a toddler. Not all “patriarchs” are this way; there are some men I have seen who are wonderful servant-leaders in their homes. But the point is that Phillips, the Baylys, etc. give license to men to expect, indeed, enforce, the women in their lives to be domestic help, even putting a spiritual spin on it by saying it is their “high calling.” For crying out loud, even the Proverbs 31 woman wasn’t doing it all alone!
I remember one time when Beall had a ladies’ Bible study at her very large home and instructed all of us on what our roles as wives should be. She detailed how often we should clean different areas of our homes, even down to the cobwebs in the corner, she talked about it being our responsibility to take care of the repairs, that we should make sure the yard was always properly manicured, and that all the maintenance and upkeep of the home was the wife’s responsibility, in addition to keeping up with the laundry, cooking three meals a day, running all the errands, home education, and taking care of all the children. This was all secondary to being at our husband’s beck and call, of course. This was how we were to be a helpmeet to our husband so he could work full time on whatever he wanted to do.
So, at the meeting, I asked her how she could possibly manage taking care of 5600 square feet and 7 children, doing all that she detailed. She replied with something about God providing for every need. Now, I realize that God does provide for our every need, but what she left out was the Hispanic mother/daughter team that does most of the house cleaning and child care for her, or the long list of other unpaid “help” from church and various other Doug-ites who were happy to help out just to be with the Phillips family. What an honor to work for free for the Phillips! I think they get paid sometimes by getting to go to Hawaii for free with the Phillips family so they can take care of the children in Hawaii as well. I guess that’s one of the benefits of running a not-for-profit ministry, isn’t it, Ministry Watchman?
Insider:
Perhaps Phillips is of the Doug Wilson/Steve Wilkins persuasion that a good return to feudalism is all this country needs.
In the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that many of these people really do believe that they are of a “priviledged class” and deserve to have life better than others of a “lower class.” The rules just somehow don’t apply to them but they certainly apply to everyone “under” their authority or station in life or race or gender, etc. It reminds me of a comment Thomas Jefferson once made regarding Southerners of his era (a group these guys seem to be obsessed with, I might add). He said “[They are] zealous for their own liberties, but trample on those of others.”
This excellent exchange was found at Indelible Grace.
And Corrie replied:
Prairie Girl, you are right about everything except one small detail. The word “luck” is not allowed at Boerne Christian Assembly, therefore “potluck” is not allowed either. They do have a “pot-providence” meal after church every Sunday, though. I always wondered why ham and donuts were “providential.”
We also couldn’t have “deviled” eggs for the “pot-providence” meal, so we had “angel” eggs instead. Explaining that the word “deviled” was a culinary term didn’t seem to matter.
Insider, is this Hispanic help in the form of illegal immigrants? And, do you know what they are being paid? Is their employer reporting this to the State and does the employer pay social security and other taxes for the employees?
ExBCA member, it sounds like his wife is reading Debbie Pearl’s book. The husband owns everything but the wife is responsible for everything. I just don’t understand how this “wife is responsible for everything” is in accord with the teaching on husbands in scripture. The husband is the King and the wife is the indentured servant at the husband’s disposal to do with what he wills.
It sounds nice but it is thoroughly unbiblical.
I often find women being able to give out such advice so easily because they really don’t have to do what they teach. If she has paid help who do the lion’s share of the work, that just isn’t in line with what she teaches to other women. I have 10 children and I am in a situation where I have to do about 99% of the work until we sell our home and can move closer to where my husband works and I have NO HELP whatsoever. I will tell you that any woman who has help and has people fawning over them asking to do whatever they can would cry “Uncle!” in a very short time doing what I have to do.
I live what these women only talk about. And my husband is totally against this sort of teaching and is praying that this season soon ends for me.
Good for you, Ministry Watchman, for publishing this, and for being a voice for all of the many, many women and children who have no meaningful voice in this world. May your tribe increase. I pray that somehow all of these women and their children will find their way out and into the light, by any means necessary.
Ex-BCA Member: “So, at the meeting, I asked her how she could possibly manage taking care of 5600 square feet…”
Phillips’ house is 5,600 sq. ft?!? If I’m reading the Seminole County Property Records correctly, that’s even larger than John Duncan’s home!
http://www.scpafl.org/web/re_web.seminole_county_title?PARCEL=08203050700000690&cowner=DUNCAN%20JOHN%&cctr=&ctotal=&cfparcel=27213151500000140&cmap=Y&cdor=&crank=2
Prairie Girl: “The rules just somehow don’t apply to them but they certainly apply to everyone “under” their authority or station in life…”
Kinda sounds like them ultra-left liberals, doesn’t it? (Think Babs: “And don’t forget the time Streisand urged everyone to conserve energy by hanging laundry outside on lines, rather than use electric clothes dryers. But when asked if Streisand herself was using a backyard clothesline, her spokesman said: ‘She never meant that it necessarily applied to her.'”)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2002/cyb20021105.asp
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%206:24&version=47
I couldn’t help but notice that the PDF of the guidelines differs from the posted excerpt in a few ways – namely containing requirements and suggestions for Jared as well as Mary, which were entirely ommited. Why is this? Please don’t direct sarcastic ad-hominem attacks against me, since I’m just trying to work out the underlying truth in this ever-growing blizzard of gossip and counter-allegations.
Furthermore, the text of this document has clearly been edited to change the names of those involved. How can we know that other words haven’t been changed? How do we know that this document isn’t entirely original with a DP signature photoshopped onto the bottom? And don’t just say “Because I’m holding the original” because that’s hardly quantifiable.
I am curious about Vision Forum for both personal and professional reasons, and I need to know the facts about this incident.
I’m amazed at the volume of responses to this post. I check Ministry Watchman daily for any new information on Ligonier Ministries but I’ve seen some similarities in both donor funded organizations. In reading about the Phillips’ large home with indoor swimming pool I can’t help but wonder who’s paying for it? What sort of salaries do Phillips et al pull down? How many family members are employed by Vision Forum? I have nothing against large homes or large salaries per se, but I do have a problem with ministry leaders leading lavish lifestyles at donor expense.
I would think that any truly humble leader would want to abstain from even the appearance of evil if indeed their true concern was for proclaiming God’s Word. Who is trustworthy anymore? Perhaps it’s an inevitable end to those who attain a measure of celebrity status. Perhaps I need to stop supporting and promoting those I most admire before they “fall” – just for their own protection.
Ministry Watchman: While I do not necessarily doubt the veracity of the pdf you have posted of the guidelines, Frank Thomas does raise a good point. Having been in the legal field for 20+ years I understand the legalities of his concerns and yours. I also know that it is possible to redact by way of a black marker the real names of Jared and Mary (including their signatures) and then post a pdf of the original guidelines. Would this be possible?
Diane,
The problems lies in there are actually 2 organizations, Vision Forum, Inc and Vision Forum Ministries which caused me some confusion early on. The former is a for-profit corporation, while the latter is the non-profit. In looking at the Vision Forum Ministries form 990 for the year 2004, the ministry doesn’t make a ton of money, and it only showed Doug Phillips making about $59,000, which I would state is a modest salary if he works 40 or more hours a week. It listed all other directors, etc with 0 for a salary. It is hard to see any difference because he advertises ministry conferences on the visionforum.com blog, which could have a post right after it announcing a new product, which is for Vision Forum, Inc.
“Good for you, Ministry Watchman, for publishing this, and for being a voice for all of the many, many women and children who have no meaningful voice in this world.”
Cheryl, you appear to have misconstrued our purpose. Please read our About page.
Perhaps there will be some, such as yourself, who may attempt to use this article to say, “Ahah! Didn’t we tell you all those full quiver, dominionist, right-wing, Christian Reconstructionist, patriarchalists were wicked misogynists that abuse women?” But Cheryl you’re throwing the baby out with the bath water.
While we’re not going to defend these doctrines, we’re also not going to condemn biblical patriarchy, full quiver, dominionism, Reconstructionism, or any other doctrines that you vehemently condemn, Cheryl. There are many healthy (spiritually, emotionally and physically) and wonderful Christian families that believe and practice those things. Many, if not most of the men that head such families are loving and compassionate to their wives and children, employees, church members, etc.
One of their highest goals is (or at least should be) “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her.” (Eph. 5:25) A man who determines in his heart to do that could never be a misogynist, and there are many Christian patriarchists who have determined to do just that. Many gravitated toward patriarchy because they were convicted about what poor husbands and fathers they had been — detached and uninvolved with their families. For them patriarchy has often produced good fruit, and their wives and children have appreciated the change.
None of those doctrines, in and of themselves, necessarily produce bad fruit. They can and often have produced good fruit. The problem isn’t necessarily the doctrine, but even the best doctrine when applied by a man with a corrupt heart can be perverted. There clearly is a problem with the corrupt hearts of the men who misuse and abuse those doctrines to justify abusing their families, and in the case of pastors, who use those doctrines to justify abusing their sheep.
Yes, patriarchy as a doctrine does pose inherent risks, the biggest risk being that it has the potential to attract men of poor character, men who are predisposed toward abusing women, and sometimes their own children too. Corrupt-hearted patriarchalist pastors generally abuse not just their own families, but also their congregations too. But the fact is they generally don’t stop with just abusing the women, they’ll quite often be just as abusive with the men too.
Was it the doctrine that corrupted their hearts? Unlikely. Rather, the doctrine, or their perverse interpretation of it, served to validate their abuse rather than calling them to repentance. Jared Jackson is an example of that. Doug Phillips also appears to be an example of that. The difference between them is that Mr. Jackson has repented, and he’s in full agreement with the telling of this story, and the way it’s been told. Phillips however has not repented.
Unlike you Cheryl, we’re not willing to throw the baby out with the bath water. We’re willing to acknowledge that many, and probably most Christian full quiver patriarchy families are healthy, happy and contented. The fact that your own personal experience with the movement proved to be disastrous, and I truly am sorry and grieve for you that that happened (God will judge and hold accountable those who tyrannized you) doesn’t discredit the good intentions of the majority of Christians in that movement. The fact that it was certain prominent home school leaders that defrauded and tyrannized you certainly doesn’t in any way undermine the rightness of Christian home schooling.
“I pray that somehow all of these women and their children will find their way out and into the light, by any means necessary.” The means necessary could involve fleeing an abusive relationship, particularly where physical violence is involved, such as has been alleged in your case Cheryl. Apparently others condemned you for that — the pharisaical legalistic patriarchy leaders, but I don’t condemn you for that. Having a husband physically abuse you could be a biblically valid reason to flee (if indeed that happened). However, fleeing your Christian faith and turning to radical feminism and lesbianism hardly equates with coming “into the light.”
Does the radical feminist lesbian goddess worshipping paganism that you have turned to since abandoning your Christian faith in any effective way serve to call abusive men to repentance Cheryl? No, only the gospel of Jesus Christ can do that. It is by the authority of that very same gospel by which we now call Doug Phillips to repentance, and at the same time we would call you to repentance, Cheryl. Please Cheryl, return to the Savior you once loved.
No, Corrie, this Hispanic mother/daughter team (the mother does most of the house cleaning, the daughter does most of the childcare) working for the Phillips is not illegal. They are actually a very wonderful family, but they devote so many hours of their life to “serving” the Phillips, with little to no pay. Doug took the daughter and her brother, who does the outside work at the Phillips home, on Faith and Freedom Tour once to “reward” them for all their hard work. He also took the daughter to Hawaii as a “reward,” although they took care of the children full time while on these trips. I don’t know if they pay them anything now, but I know for a long time they paid them nothing. There have been many that Doug violates “the workman is worthy of his wages.”
As a completely legal immigrant here in the United States, I am insulted by the thinking that any Hispanic person here in the US is an illegal. There are many millions of immigrants from Mexico alone in America who are legal citizens, contributing patriotism to this country, and there are thousands of us in Texas. I am an American! You try to make these people look racist because they hire people with dark skin. Would you trust a hispanic with your children? Or are we all dirty Mexicans. You are the racists, to think that any Hispanic person is illegal and exploited. You say you are Christians, but you should be ashamed for this stereotype.
My comment here wasn’t about me. I am very proud of my family, my life, my accomplishments, my herstory– but, that’s not what’s at issue here. My comment here was about this woman who was terrorized by by a very visible member of the Patriarchy Movement. I’m glad you told her story– no matter how deeply my perspectives and ideas about things and yours, and others here, might diverge. It was the right thing to do, regardless. I hope many more women will be encouraged to tell their own stories, because she has told hers, and I have told mine.Peace.
Thank you, Brandon, for your research. It should be pointed out that there is actually only one house on the property, so you will need to add the figures together to get the actual numbers. Also, if you enter just “Vision Forum,” you will get more accurate results and be able to see all about the business as well.
No, Doug Phillips is not an ordained minister, unless you count self-ordination. The “ministries” section of Vision Forum owns both the house and part of the business. That must be for tax purposes!
Watchman,
You have said some excellent things in your letter to Heart. It has wondering if you could please define “patriarchy” as you use the word here. I believe in my husband leading our home, which he does, and I believe the Bible teaches women to submit to their own husbands, as Col. 3 teaches, which I try to do. But I am not sure exactly how patriarchy differs from that. It seems to imply many applications that I am not sure I am comfortable with and, especially in terms of women’s roles, I am not sure are always Biblical. Could you help clarify in light of your response to Heart? Thanks.
“I don’t know if they pay them anything now, but I know for a long time they paid them nothing. There have been many that Doug violates ‘the workman is worthy of his wages.'”
If this is true, it is quite similar to Gothard and the ATI youth and young adults who work at the Training Centers.
In all fairness to Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoof I’ll post a link to her tragic story. Some years back Cheryl was an influential leader in the Christian home school movement. She published Gentle Spirit, which many Christian home schoolers subscribed to, and she was highly sought after as a speaker at home school conventions.
Frank Vance brought an article about Cheryl to my attention recently, and to the attention of the other Ministry Watchman writers. It made us all greatly grieved. I don’t think I’ve ever read a more tragic tale of betrayal.
I don’t recommend reading this before going to bed. That’s what I did and I didn’t sleep well. Interview With Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoof. Of course there’s two sides to every story, but even if just half of Cheryl’s story is true it’s an incredibly tragic story.
I come from a long line of very educated and respected women (especially by their husbands) so I am also having problems with this idea of ‘patriarchy’ as many in the reformed movement subscribe to. My late father received great joy in my mother’s independent successes in life. He was her biggest cheerleader. (She was a musician who performed and wrote music).
I really think the difference is how these men view themselves. I come from a situation where the men were very confident and probably passed this on to their sons so this subject never came up. I can honestly say, I never heard anything on this subject growing up. It was not needed.
Ya know, there is an old saying “If you have to ‘tell’ me you are the leader, then you aren’t”.
It really boils down to mutual respect. These men are trying to force something that is actually earned. Yes, earned.
I can hear the gasps now…that is not Biblical! Oh really? What does submit to one another mean? Mutual respect. Respect will be earned by being obedient to God’s Word.
I have been a supporter of Vision Forum for quite some time and our family has enjoyed many of their materials. However, I began to be concerned about Mr. Phillips when I read that he lied about the “Raising the Allosaur”, “The True Story of a Rare Dinaosaur And the Home Schoolers Who Found It” production that he created. I read accounts from the people who owned the land and others who were on the scene, who were not a part of the Vision Forum team. They said that the homeschoolers did not find the Allosaur and that Doug Phillips lied. The last time I checked, Vision Forum was not offering this DVD on their site. If this is true and he lied about this, he defrauded many including myself. He should have sent a refund to those who purchased this. Does anyone know if there is any truth to this?
I have a hard time believing that he could be so deceptive and cunning. I hope this is not true.
In regards to Cheryl Seelhoof, as a conservative Christian homeschooler, who regularly attends homeschool conventions, I would personally want to know if the speaker I am listening to is currently having an affair. I read the links posted and this is the first I have heard of this situation. I don’t really see much difference in what Ministry Watchman and Mr. Vance is doing to the business of Sproul and Vision Forum than what those in the homeschool movement did to Cheryl.
Truthseeker
Corrie,
If anybody is reading Debbie Pearl’s book, then there’s a good possibility the women reading it are now aware of just how much they are truly responsible for – including taking a “break” from making dinner to “cater” to her husband’s sexual “needs,” which is a lengthy story in and of itself. The real issue is just what you’ve identified, however. Doug has a lengthy list of do’s and don’t’s for his followers that he and his wife don’t necessarily follow – including Beall being a submissive wife. Ah, but that’s another story some of us would like to see the Watchman address.
BTW, I don’t think the Pearls and the Phillips share much common ground besides the “availability” of their women folk.
Cult Watcher
Frank Thomas, that is a very good observation about the “Guidelines for Authority” statement. I can assure you that this is the actual document, with only the names changed. I think the reason my responsibilities were not covered more in depth in the article was because they were ultimately a sham. My own requirements were never enforced, even when Doug Phillips himself witnessed my behavior in violation of this agreement. I can also attest to the veracity of this entire article.
Mr. Thomas,
I appreciate your concerns and your caution. I think both will be addressed as time passes and more installments of this story are posted as well as the other stories that have been promised. By that point, where the bulk of the evidence lies should be much more clear. Why don’t you join me in being patient while these additional reports are prepared?
Better yet, why don’t you read the archives of this site, particularly the whole series on RC Sproul and Ligonier Ministries by Frank Vance. He also started out with only a little visible evidence and many who criticized him for daring to question the famous RC Sproul. It wasn’t long, however, before the critics began to go silent one-by-one because of the weight of the evidence that Vance had assembled and presented.
Something tells me the same thing will happen in this case as well. It certainly can’t hurt to wait and see.
— FVFS
Prairie Girl,
Concerning the story that impressed Doug….when I only had 5 children, our family stayed with a Mennonite farm family. It was very interesting and they were quite hospitable. I had a son and then 4 daughters at the time. My youngest was just an infant. My son got up and took his dishes from the table and started to carry them to the sink. He was quickly and sternly rebuked by the father of the home. He told my son that this is what the “girls are for”. I couldn’t believe it. Here, I was bringing my son up to be a servant and to consider others better than himself and this man totally contradicted everything I was trying to teach my son.
My son was not sure what to do since he was brought up to clean up after himself and to respect adults, especially in their own homes.
I can’t imagine that Doug Phillips was impressed by such an event? It really is perplexing and disturbing. I still remember the father of that family staring at me like I was a horrible mother for training my son to take up his own plate to the sink. He shot me a very stern look of rebuke.
It is one thing for me to serve my husband his dinner and take his plate up to the sink when I get up and quite another for him to expect it and think that is what I was made for. I know he would do the same for me.
My husband and I laughed about it later but it was not an impressive event in the good sense. I am still raising my sons to clean up after themselves and to be responsible around the home. They are not taught to look at their 6 sisters as their servants.
“That is what girls are for”???????
Chapter and verse, please?
Frank Vance…Breaking News…Tim Dick has fired Don Kistler. Since Tim Dick could not find you to sue in court, he now fires Don Kistler right before Chirstmas. That is the thanks Don gets for letting Tim Dick take over his company. Better get on this right away.
Corrie,
Don’t know about carrying dishes, but here’s one about washing….
There you go – washing dishes? “That is what men are for.”
Perhaps not. Unlike some I prefer to view scripture in context and the whole counsel of God rather than pinning an entire orthodoxy on one or two verses.
Good morning to you all. If you are reading this comment in order to hear another person who does not know Mr. Phillips spread slander about him, you are about to be disappointed. I have known Douglas Phillips all my life. He has been a great role model to me in many areas, especially spiritual. I will use my knowledge of him and his family to show everybody here just how wrong your article is. For the record, I do not attend his church, so although I have many friends that do and they have told me about the “Jacksons” I will not comment on that accusation. However, from a journalistic standpoint your article would make a paper like the New York Times, who has made slandering an art form, proud. Not only do you never once quote your source, but you also never quote Mr. Phillips, apart from the “Jezebel” remarks. Also your cheap shots are appalling. Your remark about Mrs. Phillips not being able to go places is obviously a blatant falsehood to anybody who knows the Phillips family. There have been many times I have seen Mr. Phillips at home taking care of the kids while Mrs. Phillips was at an event or somebody’s house. The comment about the cell phone is so preposterous that I don’t even need to respond to it. As to the comment about all the young ladies at Boerne fellowship, yes they do serve their fathers but that is far from all they do. They are involved in many things from sewing to choir to orchestras to going to birthday parties. So all this makes me wonder. Did Mr. Fisher interview Mr. Phillips? Did Mr. Fisher interview some people, besides the “Jacksons” who know Mr. Phillips? Did Mr. Fisher even interview anybody else at Bulverde Fellowship? Does Mr. Fisher even care if his article is valid? Does anybody? After reading this article I am reminded of how many people use journalism to slander people they don’t agree with. I will be honest, I don’t agree with everything Mr. Phillips says, but I respect his opinion. So my advice to the people at MW is this, try and get some facts next time. Now that’s an idea!
The e-mail address I included is a working address and I will readily answer any question here or there, wherever you please. Have a good day and God bless.
Hawkeye, as you can now see, I’ve been on it. In fact I’ve been on it much of last night and this morning.
If you’ve got anything to add to the story feel free to comment.
Abraham Sweet: “Did Mr. Fisher even interview anybody else at Bulverde [sic] Fellowship [sic]?”
Abraham Sweet: “So my advice to the people at MW is this, try and get some facts next time. Now that’s an idea!”
Getting facts straight is, indeed, an excellent place to start for a story. It is also the logical starting point for a comment to a story, as you may want to keep in mind for future reference.
This is the first I have heard of such allegations against Mr. Phillips, so I am refraining from judging the situation myself, lacking any facts to judge accurately. Much of this page seems to be secondhand knowledge.
While the controversial events narrated in this article are not directly quoted due to the years past, those who do seek to condemn or condone Mr. Phillips should, at every opportunity, quote and cite their sources.
One such example, that was easy for me to corroborate:
November 27th, 2006 at 7:50 pm
Prairie Girl states “He also made a comment on one of his recent blog entries about polygamy not being forbidden in Scripture.” While her statement is not inaccurate, it is neither correct.
Mr. Phillips blog (near the middle of the page) states:
I neither champion the cause of Mr. Phillips, nor seek to throw the first stone. I merely ask that we let due process (is there any due process?) take its course before we seek to rain judgement upon him, his ministry, or his church. We must be careful that we do not play a virtual game of telephone and distort the facts, whatever they may be.
I am disturbed by both Mr. Phillips alleged behavior and the manner in which this site (and those who’ve posted comments) seek to expose it. Idle talk will never champion change. Do something.
– Matthew 18:15-17
– 1 Timothy 5:19
And, as far as crying out for a boycott of Vision Forum, do some research on the corporate sponsorship of abortion and buy accordingly. Or try going without anything made in China, a country which “legally” persecutes Christians.
Former VF Supporter,
I apologize for the error. I will keep your advice in mind.
Speaking of Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard:
Glad I got over that phase of my life!
Dear Abe,
I see that you are a young man, just 16, with both the zeal and the naivety common to young men. I am older than you but not too old to remember being young and naive, so I will take time to answer your questions even though you violated your own principles of investigation by not emailing me directly to find out what you could before making false accusations in public.
(1) Did Mr. Fisher interview Mr. Phillips?
No, but as Watchman pointed out above, Mr. Phillips was given an opportunity to have his say before the story was published. He declined to do so. Mr. Phillips has also had a standing invitation for days now to offer any corrections he thinks necessary at any time. He has declined to do so. I am not certain why Mr. Phillips has refused to try and, from his perspective, “set the record straight” (perhaps he realizes there is nothing true he can say that would fundamentally contradict the story I wrote) but the result is that his supporters like yourself would be wise to think twice before trying to defend what Mr. Phillips himself will not defend.
(2) Did Mr. Fisher interview some people, besides the “Jacksons” who know Mr. Phillips?
Yes. Several in fact. Multiple witnesses have confirmed the story as it stands.
(3) Did Mr. Fisher even interview anybody else at [Boerne Christian Assembly]?
Yes. As I said, multiple witnesses have confirmed the story. As much of the story takes place at BCA, the multiple witnesses would include multiple BCA members.
(4) Does Mr. Fisher even care if his article is valid? Does anybody?
You obviously care, or why post a comment? Why, in fact, have nearly 100 people posted comments so far, more than have cared to post on any of the Ligonier stories about a much better-known ministry. You might think for a moment about the implications of all those comments. They mean that the story resonates as true to many people who have had encounters with Doug Phillips, BCA, Vision Forum, etc.
Vision Forum staff, the Phillips, and BCA members also care about this story. In fact, some of them keep their web browsers open all day long, refreshing them over and over, eager to see what is posted next. I’m not surprised: I also care about the truth of this story, which I have found to be fascinating and compelling although also often horrifying.
People do care, very much, about what has been posted already. Yet there is much more to come. So stay tuned.
In Christ,
Charles
“Vision Forum staff, the Phillips, and BCA members also care about this story.”
Thanks to sitemeter, I know they’ve even been looking at my one-lung blog, which is of course, no problem. So has Ligonier Ministries, a while back.
Abraham wrote: >>As to the comment about all the young ladies at Boerne fellowship, yes they do serve their fathers but that is far from all they do. They are involved in many things from sewing to choir to orchestras to going to birthday parties. >>
I cannot help it. I could only think of Metzler’s remark on Pooh’s Think about the submissive women of the patriarchy movement and the ‘white fluffy dresses’. :o)
This should sadden us, and I am glad that you approach it with an attitude of sadness and a heavy heart, instead of gleefully rubbing your hands and crowing “how the mighty have fallen”. This and other things I have read here and elsewhere about high profile men and their sins just drives home to me the fact that my confidence and hope lies not in men but the Almighty God. I wonder if many in the church (and I confess to seeing these tendancies in myself) want to cover things up because they think if the truth comes out the church will fall apart and God will be dishonored etc. But I think that this attitude belies a wrong view of God and Who He is. He can not be destroyed or defeated. And I believe the church is the church triumphant and would be more so with God being exaulted if we righted the wrongs. The church would emerge stronger, purer and many would be saved inside it and outside it. God can handle it all, and through it all draw us to Himself and not a man.
Leigh Ann
P.S. I appreciate your response to C.L. Seelhoff. Looking at her blog and seeing appeals to “the godess”, me thinks she has a much different view on these things.
Ex BCA Member Said:
Prairie Girl, you are right about everything except one small detail. The word “luck” is not allowed at Boerne Christian Assembly, therefore “potluck” is not allowed either. They do have a “pot-providence” meal after church every Sunday, though. I always wondered why ham and donuts were “providential.”
We also couldn’t have “deviled” eggs for the “pot-providence” meal, so we had “angel” eggs instead. Explaining that the word “deviled” was a culinary term didn’t seem to matter.
I would simply observe that this and many other comments are unnecessarily and disingenuously belittling of BCA members. As someone who is familiar with BCA and its members, I can testify that words such as “pot-providence” and “angel eggs” are always used in a light-hearted way. Someone who says “pot-luck” might (or might not) be corrected, but there is no official church policy pertaining to this. Frankly, quite a few baptistic churches avoid the word “pot-luck,” and it’s silly to even point this out as something significant about BCA.
Lots of commenters also betray a profound ignorance of DP and BCA (e.g., speculating about how he got his “gigantic” house, which really isn’t that big in the scheme of things, or voicing concerns about his “Hispanic” helpers, or trying to figure out how he got the money to start VF). I suppose this is to be expected of those who are already opposed to VF’s teachings and are unwilling to consider that nuances might exist and that supposedly evil men might actually be striving to please God, whether all their methods and actions are proper.
This planet and its inhabitants are much easier to understand by those who embrace a mentality that “we” (the defenders of truth and accusers of wolves) are always right and “they” (DP, BCA, VF, et. al) are always wrong. However, in my opinion, this doesn’t do justice to the world that actually exists.
No matter, the internet banter must proceed forth from all ye defenders of righteousness!
I find it interesting that “Interested Observer” is apparently not interested in the plight of the family that is at the center of Mr. Fisher’s story. Instead, he’d rather nitpick various comments in the discussion that follows. I find that his comments are unnecessarily and disingenuously distracting from the main point, that Mr. Phillips, whatever his nuances, has abused those under his care, declines to repent of it, and, therefore, is not biblically qualified to host and preach at “Uniting Church and Family” conferences that purport to call the church to a new Reformation.
Re: 2 organizations
I want to update my post about the 2 corporations. While researching issues relating to non-profits a little bit ago, I came across an IRS publication. It stated that non-profits that want to sell something, i.e. “buy my new book for $19.99” were recommended to setup a regular corporation in order to handle the for-profit aspects, so as to not abuse the obvious non-profit status. I think this is why most radio ministries don’t give a price anymore but usually state that such and such items can be received for a minimum gift of $10 for example. So you get the item sort as a “gift” for the $10 donation, rather then just a simple transaction. Since I do not know which came first, Vision Forum, Inc or Vision Forum Ministries I do not want to imply that there is anything questionable of this specific arrangement. Vision Forum Ministries could have always existed, and then Vision Forum, Inc was setup to handle catalog sales. I will probably do some more research in the near future.
Interested Observer,
As about the “nuances” of the house, having a 5600 square foot residential property registered under a non-profit ministry rather then in Mr. Phillips’ name is not a “nuance” but a legitimate concern. As was stated earlier, non-profits, and anyone please correct me if I am wrong, are free from property taxes on property they own. Hence, when Ligonier bought that huge mansion for $4 million dollars, it is now basically off of the tax rolls, as can be seen on the tax records online. See Hank Barnes’ article about St. Andrew’s paying for Tim Dick’s mistake.
This planet and its inhabitants are much easier to understand by those who embrace a mentality that “we” (the defenders of truth and accusers of wolves) are always right and “they” (DP, BCA, VF, et. al) are always wrong. However, in my opinion, this doesn’t do justice to the world that actually exists.
Mr. Observer, it is ironic that you choose to make this point in your post, as it is exactly what you are doing. Instead of doing justice to the world of Mr. Fisher’s story that actually exists, you have found it much easier to embrace the mentality that you, the defender of nuanced truth, are right and the black and white critics of Doug Phillips are wrong.
But the real truth is more nuanced than that. First, the biggest part of the real truth of this thread is the story that you completely ignore — you know, the one that made the comments you criticize possible. Why do you ignore it? Perhaps becuase it is too nuanced to support your claim that you are the only one who possesses nuanced truth?
It is true that the story shows Phillips in a bad light; that is one of its purposes. But unexpectedly, like real life, it also shows him in a good light; it is the Jacksons, after all, who make a point to praise Mr. Phillips for teaching them to approach the Bible in a whole new and better way — considering the whole counsel of God as Bereans rather than singling out pet verses.
So please reconsider your sarcastic internet banter or, at least, direct some of it to yourself: few targets are so clear. =)
I agree totally with Former VF Supporter.
The advice to Mary is abusive. Not just a little abusive, but extremely abusive.
“Mary may not:
Ever question, contradict, criticize, correct or end-run any communication or decision by Jared to Jared or to anyone else.
Speak ill of her husband or family matters to third parties.”
If a husband were inclined to assault and battery against a wife, this kind of advice could be injurious, or even deadly.
If a man is already demonstrating anger issues, it completely flummoxes me that this kind of advice was even considered for Mary.
Yes, “pot-providence” is a trivial side-issue, and I agree it is a light-hearted, half-serious, joke. Bravo, for you, Interested Observer. I agree with you. You are good at straining out these little gnats.
Unfortunately, you also appear to be swallowing whole camels.
Umm, I am assuming that even though he is sinning DP is a brother in Christ and as such we are to treat him in love while seeking to bring such things to light in order to bring a brother to repentence and back to fellowship (as it seems this website is trying to do). 1 Cor.13 describes such love to us. One of the thing is to “believe all things” and another is to “hope all things”.
DP offense towards the Jacksons seems to be well documented. But as to speculations about the funding for the ministry and the house, until we are offered some proof of wrongdoing, it seem that it would behoove us to look on this in love and believe that there is nothing untoward going on. I assumed this is what IO was referring to in his post–as I am commanded to think the best.
Also it seems as if IO was asking us to direct a spirit of love toward the members of the church as well. I dislike it when I am automatically lumped with someone’s wrongdoing when I agree with some or most of their principles (which I don’t in this case) by those who are supposed to be my brothers and sisters in Christ.
How do we know that he is not concerned about the family or that he is “swallowing the whole camel”? Is this a fact or an assumption?
For what it’s worth,
Leigh Ann
Former VF Supporter said: “Instead, he’d rather nitpick various comments in the discussion that follows.”
It is perfectly legitimate for me to point out inconsistencies and idiocies in others’ comments. I made no statements about the actual post, and I stated nothing about my concern or non-concern for the family in question. Would you care to make a substantial comment about the actual content of my comment, or do you prefer to simply mis-characterize me? Why are you reading into my statements things that I did not write, and why are you demanding from my statements things that I did not intend to highlight?
The same line of reasoning applies to Trust but Verify. Is it wrong for me to point out idiocies in other peoples’ comments? Sure, my statement might have been unjustifiably sarcastic, but does this discredit my statements about other disingenuous comments? Why am I not allowed to point out the serious problems that exist when ignorant people speculate and accuse their fellow believers of sin or other questionable behavior? Or, have we already decided that DP is not a brother, so he doesn’t merit defense against unjustified criticism?
Lynn, why do I appear to be swallowing camels? Have we heard both sides of this story? Maybe I’m not the one who’s swallowing a camel???
Thanks for your sympathetic comment, Leigh Ann. I could state more about issues such as the house and funding for the ministry, but this would not be wise in a public setting. It appears that other commenters have proven many of my points by distorting my statements.
I know that the following comment will wreck any credibility I have in most people’s eyes. Acknowledging this up front, I will state it anyway: Until we have heard both sides of this story, we cannot believe that DP was completely wrong or the other side was completely right. How do we know that one side is not distorting or inventing evidence for its own advantage? I will be crucified, in a virtual sense, for making this statement. However, the very fact that you crucifiers will not accept such a commonsense approach to analyzing guilt and conflicts might just prove my points.
Attackers, take your mark. Ready, set, go! I am poised for the onslaught.
“How do we know that he is not concerned about the family or that he is “swallowing the whole camel”? Is this a fact or an assumption?”
I was the one who used that idiom. Note the words “appear to be,” not “are” in my sentence. It was neither a fact nor an assumption. I was saying what it looked like.
How in the world can anyone think DP had the best of intentions toward Mary, when at their first real session he called her a “whore” and a “Jezebel?” He might as well have thrown in “*itch” while he was at it, but those other words are from the Bible, so I guess that makes it more spiritual name-calling.
Why IO didn’t express outrage at that disclosure of name-calling, in addition to the abusive advice, strikes me as majoring in minors, to say the least about it.
I’m sure there are many good people at that church, and I’m not judging DP’s heart, just saying I think his counseling stinks to high heaven, and what is DP doing calling a hurting wife who wanted help names like that? Didn’t Jesus warn about such behavior in Matthew’s gospel?
Ot does that only apply when you say, “raca?”
“Jezebel,” and “whore” are fair game?
So they get “angel eggs” right, and I agree, that isn’t a big deal, but by comparison it *is* a big deal when the pastor of this church has a field day with a hurting human being — “Jezebel!” “Whore!”
Let’s mind our language about the eggs and potlucks, and say what we like when talking to Mary. I know that wasn’t the point you were making, nor was it IO’s, but it is striking me as very ironic at this point.
A henchman has been assigned to deal with the Vision Forum “Controversy.” Today (11/30/06), Doug Phillips’ blog links to this article, regarding the “spreading cancer” on the Internet:
http://generations.iwebc.net/Blog/Index.html
Charles Fisher: “I am not certain why Mr. Phillips has refused to try and, from his perspective, “set the record straight” (perhaps he realizes there is nothing true he can say that would fundamentally contradict the story I wrote) but the result is that his supporters like yourself would be wise to think twice before trying to defend what Mr. Phillips himself will not defend.”
Croc: “Today (11/30/06), Doug Phillips’ blog links to this article, regarding the “spreading cancer” on the Internet….”
Charles, looks like your little gambit to prod Doug Phillips to respond has worked, with him posting one of his coded messages to the faithful to keep them from reading this site. He doesn’t directly reference this site — that’s part of his MO, copied by Kevin Swanson in his blog post — but even so everyone who’s supposed to know knows what is being said and about whom it is being said.
Another one of these coded insider blog messages comes shortly thereafter. It’s “The Faithful Bride,” a picture of Beall. This is Doug’s signal to her and the world that he is standing with her in a difficult time. If past behavior is an indication, Beall has been in a rage at him all week for letting the problem with the Jacksons get as far as a Ministrywatchman expose, with comments so personally embarrassing to her; if so, another purpose of the Faithful Bride pic is to deflect some of that rage away from Doug and onto Ministrywatchman.
Hope you all have your fireproofing and fire insurance up to date.
Abraham Sweet said “As to the comment about all the young ladies at Boerne fellowship, yes they do serve their fathers but that is far from all they do. They are involved in many things from sewing to choir to orchestras to going to birthday parties.”
Abraham, I read through your website and am impressed that a young man of 16 has such a passion for truth and justice. It looks like God’s calling on your life is for politics, government, or perhaps another area where sound Christian debate is called for.
To that end, I certainly hope you do not settle for a young lady as a helpmeet who spends the bulk of her time sewing, singing, or going to birthday parties. While none of those things are sinful, I believe that someone who would become “one” with you would need to be able to challenge you intellectually.
A number of years ago when my oldest son was 18, he volunteered to work on a political campaign for a man who was quite impressive. A strong pro-life, conservative candidate, he had a sweet family of 6 or more young children. But by far his greatest asset was his lovely wife, herself also an attorney. My son, just beginning his training to become a lawyer and being exposed to all sorts of charming young women, my advice to him was that he would be certain to choose a wife who could hold her own across the dinner table from him as they discussed the events of the day. I knew that he would become frustrated if his wife had spent the day flitting from birthday party to other “accetable womanly events” rather than being the best helper for him, personally,ie a reading, studious, thinking, opinionated woman.
I am happy to report that my son took my advice. His wife of 3 1/2 years is an awesome mother to their two little ones and at the same time is sharp as a tack and is able to discuss politics, current events, and ,dare I say theology, better than most men I know. She also bakes, sews, does pottery, AND will homeschool their children.
Abraham, last Sunday my pastor preached on Colossians 3 “Wives submit to your own husbands.” He made an incredible point that I will long remember. He said that the goal of marriage is “oneness” and that that is what brings God glory. He talked about how many couples attempt to climb the mountain, whose peak is called “oneness” only to never reach the top because they become carried away by the “run-off” that inevitably happens by “going with the flow.” He talked about how oneness is marriage is achieved by being interested in each other’s lives and by having the same goals and objectives and doing things together. Marriage is not simply two people with separate lives who live in the same home. Marriage does not bring forth the fruit of oneness if you are simply roommates.
All this to say that I hope you choose a wife who will be an intellectual match for you and that you will not be intimidated by a strong woman with an opinion. I believe she would be your greatest asset.
Doug Phillips promotes a fantasy, his fantasy, not the fantasy of my own husband or that of many men I know. I have to believe that when all is said and done, if the Phillips are truly building a spirit of oneness in their own marriage so that they have the right and authority to counsel others in their marriages, they have a similar relationship. Given the personality of Doug Phillips, I believe that his wife is really a strong woman. But the outward adorning they promote is not genuine and could not work for all marriages. Fluff does not equal godliness nor will it bring about oneness in marriages where real men are involved.
Oh wait Croc that’s rich. We go from hang Doug and Beall in effigy to calling an ordained OPC of the gospel a “Henchman”?
Folks I’ll be honest with you I’m not exactly an unbiased observer here. However neither are the “Jacksons”.
I am a former member of BCA. I am still on speaking terms with most everyone there…and I am here to tell you that the “Jacksons” account of this whole affair is crapo.
If any of you knew Doug you would know these accusations are entirely out of character to the man you meet in the flesh.
Hey, he left his phone number just like Michael Metzler does! 😉
Actually, Michael had a good turn of phrase in one of his recent blog entries, saying that someone’s rhetoric “thrives in confusion in ambiguity.” I was reminded of that phrase when reading the blog entry linked above.
The blogger said:
“I struggle to understand the agenda behind the negative blogging.”
Evidently so. His whole blog entry did not deal with one substantive issue.
I got some more examples of “negative blogging,” (if you will permit the phrase).
Paul:
“It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife. And you have become arrogant, and have not mourned instead, in order that the one who had done this deed might be removed from your midst. For I, on my part, though absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged him who has so committed this, as though I were present.”
Paul:
“Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds. Be on guard against him yourself, for he vigorously opposed our teaching.”
John the apostle:
“I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who desire to do so, and puts them out of the church.”
Interested Observer:
“Until we have heard both sides of this story, we cannot believe that DP was completely wrong or the other side was completely right.”
IO, this was said in the earlier part of this thread:
“The purpose of this article isn’t to take sides with the Jacksons, and against Doug Phillips. We’re not naive enough to assume that the Jacksons were without fault.”
It *appears* you’re not reading everything thoroughly.
IO writes: It is perfectly legitimate for me to point out inconsistencies and idiocies in others’ comments.>>
But you have not done that. You have purposely been vague. Why not tell us exactly why some commenters are wrong using verifiable facts.
Perhaps you have not read this entire site. If you had you would know that there seems to be a pattern with these tyrannical ministers who live high on the hog. Perhaps his house does not seem that big to you. What are we comparing it to? Other celebrity ministers? The average American family? How many people do you know that have an indoor pool? Perhaps you know many. Perhaps DP is in good company with the Sprouls, Crouches and other celebrity ministers who live very well. We have all seen the property papers online so you need a better arguement. Don’t forget that he gets a tax break for a big part of that house that others do not. Questions are more than fair. He should be an open book…if he has integrity. Or perhaps he should get into another wealth generating ‘business’ besides ministry if he has a problem with accountability.
If his house help is legal is a very logical question considering his stance on women as is inquiring how he got the start up funds for VF since he is a ‘minister’ and should be above reproach. Any honest man of God would welcome inquiries into his lifestyle, business dealings and operation of his church as a witness and one being above reproach. But tryrants hate to be questioned on such things and think they are above accountability.
Your strawman arguement is that we have not heard the other side. Well, we would all LOVE to hear from DP. He refused to answer questions. Perhaps, you, as one of his friends, could influence him to come forward with any information that would refute this article. But, don’t be surprised if we all question his truthfulness. Remember, many of us have been reading his own writings of Biblical interpretations and accounts of others concerning the ‘dig’ and some of us were already questioning the kind of man he is before any of this came out about the Jacksons.
Nice try, IO, but you need to do better to have credibility.
“Let’s mind our language about the eggs and potlucks, and say what we like when talking to Mary. I know that wasn’t the point you were making, nor was it IO’s, but it is striking me as very ironic at this point.”
If that wasn’t our point (and no one else’s) then where is the irony. That is a statement that you have made and is a form of propaganda. When I wrote about IO, I did so because it just struck me as odd that believers on this thread are blasting each other away for every comment that made that does not follow some prescribed form of expressing appropriate outrage and scorn before being allowed to make any other comment. I must not have gotten the memo:-). If the unbeliever saw this I am afraid the first thought in their mind would not be “behold, how they love one another”, but “behold, how they shoot one another down.”
No one is trying to link “angel eggs” with the injustic suffered by Mary as of equal importance. My concern is that as fellow believers we deal with the facts in love (and this means believing all things about Mary and James and others on this thread) and not with assumptions and hearsay.
Toodles,
Leigh Ann
There is one thing that some people seem to be missing…..the accounts given by the Jacksons and others who have been eye witnesses DO match the theology and teaching of Vision Forum. Why should that even be debated? Watchman’s statement in the first articles says it all:
“One of the lessons of this story is that hyper-Patriarchy is no less extreme and unbiblical than radical feminism and wimpy men.”
November 29th, 2006 at 12:22 pm Frank Thomas said:
I couldn’t help but notice that the PDF of the guidelines differs from the posted excerpt in a few ways – namely containing requirements and suggestions for Jared as well as Mary, which were entirely ommited. Why is this? …
How can we know that other words haven’t been changed?..
Great question Frank. I too am really suspicious of a report that is so clearly one side that they have whited out the other signatures from the document. Clearly it is an attempt to make it look like Doug Phillips acted alone in the excommunication of the “Jackson” family. Anyone with eyes to see in this PDF document can see that there were others who signed their name to this document, thus showing that their is a plurality of leadership at BCA, but if the Jackson’s were to allow the public to see that fact, their whole argument would unravel. I can’t believe people are so gullible.
I am not a member of BCA, but I do know many that attend there and know for a fact that Doug Phillips doesn’t run the show alone. In fact, I called a couple of my friends that are members of this church in San Antonio, and they informed me that the excommunication was done with unanimous agreement of the entire BCA leadership and church body. I suggest Ministry Watchman do some more research into this episode before they start making accusations against a local church of Jesus Christ.
Ministry Watchman’s name is written to suggest an impartial observer trying to bring accountability to rogue missions, somewhat like Judicial Watch. Here’s one slight difference: a recent lawsuit against Frank Vance of MW had to be dropped becaue of a thick cloak of anonymity that surrounded him – nobody knows who he is.
Contrast this to JW, who constantly bring lawsuits against the US Gov in an attempt to hold them accountable. The difference?
At JW, they do it in a court of law/a lawful jurisdiction where the names of the players are known, the faces of all the witnesses are seen, and the light of day shines on the whole affair.
Don’t be fooled by MW’s “desire” to bring accountability. They’ve got an ax to grind.
S.J.
“I’m just tired of the crap”
“If that wasn’t our point (and no one else’s) then where is the irony.” As an aside, logic is a very useful thing to study.
It is not true it was no one else’s point. And even if it was no one else’s point, it still doesn’t follow that there was no irony in the situation.
Anyway, it was my point.
If it is true that little eggies must not be called “deviled,” (and that this is standard operating procedure at that church when having meals together, whether done in seriousness or in a light-hearted way), while at the same time a precious human being (made in the image of God, who willingly comes to someone for counsel), who in the *first* session, is called a “whore,” among other nasty names, if that doesn’t strike a person as ironic, I don’t know what will.
Friend of BCA,
The “minor” excommunication (indefinite suspension from the Lord’s table) occurred during a time when Boerne Christian Assembly DID have a plurality of elders. You are mixing apples and oranges by raising a topic that has not been addressed – the “major” excommunication. At the time the “vote” occurred for the “major” excommunication there was NOT A PLURALITY of elders. Any statement to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.
In time, however, Mr. Fisher will write about the “major” excommunication, which will reveal the unbiblical nature of said excommunication, as well as the underlying ecclesiastical tyranny that supported the action.
“Jared”
“. . . they informed me that the excommunication was done with unanimous agreement of the entire BCA leadership and church body.”
Aha! The inconvenient facts start to emerge. I wonder why this has not been mentioned by anyone who wholeheartedly believes the unilateral testimony of the “Jacksons”???
My flesh wants to get into this and “let ‘er rip”. But that would not be pretty or edifing. So “logic” requires that I not pursue this anymore:-). Writing like this is rife for misunderstanding, so I won’t even try.
Praying for the peace and purity of the church,
Leigh Ann
P.S. I am not trying to sound “holier-than-thou”, because I can assure you I am not;-), but my heart is burdened for the unity of the body of Christ.
This thread is full misrepresentation and smells of individuals with a vendetta fraught with bitterness.
Anyone who has visited Boerne Christian Assembly, (or who cares to) knows the level of integrity with which they seek to institute sound application of God’s Holy Word and respect the duty of the local church.
If one desires to know what Phillips espouses regarding Patriarchy, Roles of Men, Roles of Women, why not look at his own words? Why not view the tenets of biblical patriarchy posted on the Vision Forum Ministries website? Why not listen to Women and Children First? Why not listen to the love and patience taught in messages like Building a Family that Will Stand, or Defending the Fatherless?
The intent by watchmen and the like is not to represent Doug Phillips, his bride, or the men women of Boerne Christian Assembly, rather, this group simply seeks to distort, and rewrite a story with doctored documents and verbal puke.
This watchman site is a croc of lies. Only the foolish and unlearned ignoring biblical command not to receive such accusations will be carried away with this nonsense.
Discipline is always instituted with hope of restoration. The bitterness at the heart of such whispering, backbiting, slander, and sewing of discord, as is taking place here, is associated with activity God specifically says He hates, and further reveals unwillingness to receive correction through lawful means. But, humility before God and desire to please Him seems to have no part of the ministrywatchman’s and associates’ effort.
Friend of BCA, I would not hold your breath on a response to your comments:
“I am not a member of BCA, but I do know many that attend there and know for a fact that Doug Phillips doesn’t run the show alone. In fact, I called a couple of my friends that are members of this church in San Antonio, and they informed me that the excommunication was done with unanimous agreement of the entire BCA leadership and church body. I suggest Ministry Watchman do some more research into this episode before they start making accusations against a local church of Jesus Christ.”
It is obvious this group is rogue and they do not submit themselves to a local authority in the form of a biblical constituted church. If they did they would not have been excommunicated.
Are any of these accusers accountable anywhere? Or, are they simply antinomian rebels?
Signed,
Ministry Watchman Watchman
“Aha! The inconvenient facts start to emerge. I wonder why this has not been mentioned by anyone who wholeheartedly believes the unilateral testimony of the Jacksons?”
IO, I am a bit saddened at your cavalier attitude and shoot from the hip approach. The facts of the Jacksons’ story are complicated enough without adding a layer of confusion based on a failure to read carefully.
As Mr. Fisher points out, the story of the Jacksons is “long,” in part because they tried to be reconciled with Doug Phillips by private effort for two years to no avail. In fact, Mr. Fisher felt the story was too long to cover in a single article. That’s why at the end of this first story he promises future installments: “Meanwhile, as the next installment of this story reveals, the plight of the Jacksons gets worse before it gets better.” The simple explanation is that the narrative hasn’t gotten to the excommunication yet. When it does and if the issues that excite you are still ignored, I’ll join you in jumping up and down and hollering “cover up”.
Until then, the histrionics are most premature.
“I am not trying to sound “holier-than-thou”, because I can assure you I am not;-), but my heart is burdened for the unity of the body of Christ.”
My heart is burdened for victims of spiritual abuse, such as Jared and Mary.
As we attempt to draw all the facts out in this case, I believe it is important that we get differing perspectives to help us establish the truth in context –- wether that is the Jackson’s side of the story, or the yet to be fully told Phillips side of the story. Here is a link to a website that has issue with Ministry Watchman, and provides more insight into Phillip’s side of the story.
After all, if Ministry Watchman is going to hold supposed tyrants accountable, I think its only fair that sites like “Fed Up” hold watchmen accountable, or at least provide some insight into the Phillips / Jackson situation:
Tired Of Crap
Also, be sure to read the comments on that site as well. I found them rather helpful and insightful in trying to better understand the issue as a whole.
Oh wait Croc that’s rich. We go from hang Doug and Beall in effigy to calling an ordained OPC [elder] of the gospel a “Henchman”?
Friend of BCA, you may not be aware that Kevin Swanson receives a significant boost to his income from Vision Forum (speaking at conferences, judging the Film Festival, etc.) So not only is he Doug Phillips’ “loyal supporter,” one of the definitions of henchman, but he is also someone who benefits financially from that support and, no doubt, hopes to continue to do so in the future.
This is what is known as a “conflict of interest.” Honorable and professional writers disclose such conflicts of interests when they write articles in favor of, or against, anyone or any organization affected. That way their readers can take the conflict into account rather than be deceived by an expectation of disinterested reporting.
You can probably guess where all of this is heading: No, Kevin did not disclose his financial conflict of interest in his blog post attacking this site and defending Doug Phillips. And no, he isn’t off the hook because he avoided mentioning the name of this site (that was done only so his readers would find it hard to go and see for themselves if what he said was true; he does NOT want them to follow the example of the Bereans).
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about what Kevin’s failure to disclose his financial conflict of interest means for his honor and professionalism, not to mention his credibility.
Anon wrote: I am disturbed by both Mr. Phillips alleged behavior and the manner in which this site (and those who’ve posted comments) seek to expose it. Idle talk will never champion change. Do something.>>
Exposing this stuff is never pretty. That is why it is rarely done. Most Christians think they are above it, or are too scared and will look like ‘sinners’. Or they are concerned with ‘unity’.
But anon, you leave us with an admonition to ‘do somthing’. But what exactly can one do but expose? My guess is that you have not been abused by a tyrant and are not familiar with how these things work. Tyrants do not become tyrants by being an open book and reasonable. They become tyrants by deception and massing power.
Leigh Ann writes: I am not trying to sound “holier-than-thou”, because I can assure you I am not;-), but my heart is burdened for the unity of the body of Christ.
I can relate. But I had to learn the hard way that unity in the Body of Christ is not sweeping this stuff under the rug. It is just the opposite. Spurgeon recommended we get rid of them so ‘grand times can begin’ in the Body of Christ.
Why do we allow this misrepresentation of scripture from pastors? Why are we not angry with their pharisetical behavior which misrepresents our Faith? Why not expose and contend for the Faith?
There is only ‘unity’….. in truth (scipture). Unity in relationships without total truth of scripture is pragmatism and is how most seeker churches are able to grow so big. This is what they promote…unity in relationships. They are also very big on: Never criticize. Never disagree. I know, I have seen how it works. They make anyone disagreeing or questioning feel like a sinner for doing so.
That is how DP keeps his power: Promoting unity in submission and never questioning authority.
The real problem, Leigh Ann, is a lack of godly men who are not looking for power, wealth and celebrity. Those who are willing to lose it all for the cause of Christ.
There are a few. Google Paul Washer and listen to some of his sermons.
Undecided, Not much at that site except a ‘guy’ that keeps repeating a mantra that ‘he is fed up with the crap’. What crap, specifically? He never elaborates.
A bit pedantic and vulgar for my tastes. However, that aside, there are no pertinent facts or information on that site except parroting what he reads here and complaining. Where are all the comments you mentioned? I only saw a few.
Also, there seems to be a lack of understanding about this site from this ‘guy’. I do not think by his posts he has followed the site from the onset and seems to have little understanding of the truths that have been exposed thus far. Nor does he seem to understand the basis for it as he compares MW to Judicial Watch! (???)
If this is as good as DP can do for an apologist, he should be embarrassed.
IO, it seems that you have not read the article by Mr. Fisher very carefully. It is obvious from the article that the facts on the “excommunication” are to come. What has been covered so far is the suspension, or minor excommunication from the Lord’s supper.
“Furthermore, because the story is sad, and sordid, and long, this installment will only cover their first encounter with Doug Phillips and the suspension from the Lord’s Table. Future articles will detail the unbiblical excommunication and Doug Phillips’ refusal of all attempts at reconciliation.”
Undecided, you should point out that “Friend of BCA” — who has already been posting regularly in this discussion thread — supplies the site you mention as his URL. People are certainly welcome to go to his new site, which apparently was established solely to defend certain Christian celebrities who have been exposed by Ministrywatchman, but readers of this site should be reminded that he has already been expressing his viewpoint here with the support of the moderator(s), who are also posting comments by many other defenders of Doug Phillips.
Ministrywatchman’s willingness to hear and publish the other side is in stark contrast to Tim Challies, whose refusal to let Frank Vance post the other side of the story about Ligonier on Challies.com led to Frank launching his old blog, the success of which led to the invitation to group blog at Ministrywatchman, which eventually led to this very story.
Now Kevin Swanson is following in the footsteps of Tim Challies by covering up the name of Ministrywatchman as well as his personal financial stake in the success of the defense of Doug Phillips.
Interesting, isn’t it, how the “anonymous” critics are disclosing more than the supposedly open public figures they are criticizing?
Jared and Mary Jackson have now been outed as Mark and Jen Epstein.
Anyone who reads Jen’s Jems may have already suspected this since she describes therein the very scene that Charles Fisher mentions above.
Continuing to use pseudonyms for “the Jacksons” makes sense up to a point, but that point is rapidly passing.
Mark and Jen, I know you are going through a lot right now–this can’t help any–but may God’s grace be sufficient for EVERY need.
“So they get “angel eggs” right, and I agree, that isn’t a big deal, but by comparison it *is* a big deal when the pastor of this church has a field day with a hurting human being — “Jezebel!” “Whore!””
Good point, Lynn. It is utterly silly in the first degree to correct people about people at DP’s church using “angel” and “providence” instead of “devil” and “luck”. I have been corrected numerous times on the above two counts. I was not raised in the church, so I didn’t understand the offense I was causing by my language. But, little did I know that calling a woman a “whore” and a Jezebel” is perfectly acceptable.
I was raised in a bar and spent much of me early twenties in bars. I swore and never thought a thing about it. But, I would NEVER call such names!!!! Those are fighting words and someone who calls those names is looking for a bloody lip and a broken nose. I am sure Mary’s Scottish father might agree with me.
Why aren’t immoral men called whores by church leaders? Because there is still a sinfull double standard. A male whore is not recognized. I am surprised that IO is majoring on the minors but has NOTHING to say about this name calling and the contract Mary had to sign saying she would never even ask a question to her own husband concerning his behavior or a decision he was making. How is that even biblical? How is that a marriage?
IO you are so worried about being crucified (ridiculous!) but did you give a rip about Mary and how she was crucified and humiliated and denegrated unjustly by her spiritual authority? Give me a break with the drama. What onslaught? Maybe you should be just as ready to defend those who are being treated unjustly. And, if you have something concerning the house and the ministry to quell people’s concerns, why not just state it instead of hinting around about it?
Oh, do you have anything to say about “Raising the Allosaur”? I just read about it and I am a bit concerned about the integrity of those involved in that project.
It’s unfortunate that I’m now having to reject more comments than I’m accustomed to. I moderate all comments here but I still keep a very liberal policy of approving all comments unless they’re in obvious violation of the Comment Rules.
Not everyone here needs to read the comment rules (although I still urge everyone to do so). Many of you already understand and appreciate how to debate your positions logically and civilly. But there have been some blatant exceptions here as well.
I’ve approved some comments, even though they’ve been in violation of the comment rules, because I appreciate how emotionally charged an issue like this is. Ordinarily though I wouldn’t do that, but I have a specific purpose in mind.
Some of those rule-breaking comments appear to be coming from current BCA members and BCA visitors, and most of the rest of them appear to be coming from Doug-devotees who possess much of the same blind devotion that we saw evidenced in the Ligonier devotees. Over time though we’ve seen the shrill and hostile cries of the Ligonier devotees die down to just a whimper. The evidence against Ligonier just became overwhelming, and Ligonier’s firing of Don Kistler is the final nail in the coffin demonstrating the magnitude of Ligonier’s corruption. I’m predicting that Charlie Fisher will soon enough accomplish much the same with Doug Phillips/Vision Forum as did Frank Vance with Tim Dick/Ligonier.
We’re now just witnessing a repeat performance of the knee-jerk blind devotion that inevitably surfaces in the lives of hero-worshippers when the hypocrisies of their prideful unrepentant heroes are exposed. Rather than calling their hero to repentance, a hero worshipper will always, consistently, and very predictably circle the wagons. Not having any good defense of their hero they resort to the oldest and most ineffective response in the book — shoot the messenger.
I think it’s good for everyone to now witness the fruit of Doug Phillips’ “ministry.” We witnessed very much the same kind of fruit of RC Sproul’s ministry by his hero worshippers as well. Doug has expended much of his energies teaching on honor. Are his followers now being honorable in their conduct? Honor is easy to talk about and aspire to, but the real evidence of honor isn’t demonstrated in peacetime. “Where is honour to be won by the soldier but in the hottest fire of the battle?” (Charles Spurgeon)
Even if the Jackson’s story, as told by Charlie Fisher, isn’t 100% accurate (and what story ever is?), even if it doesn’t give both sides of the story (and what story ever does?), what do the comments here by Doug’s devotees say of the effectiveness of his “ministry,” particularly as it applies to their modeling of honor? I was astonished to see the magnitude of dishonor evidenced by the Sproul worshippers, including those acts perpetrated by Sproul’s own staff members and management. I’m fully expecting the same from the Doug worshippers, which obviously includes his staff and church members.
In all fairness though I must also address some of the commenters here posting in support of the Jacksons who, likewise, are in violation of the Comment Rules. Some of those comments have also lacked civility, but I’ve approved your comments because I recognize how emotionally charged a subject like this can be. Some of you have “walked in the moccasins” of the Jacksons. You read the Jackson’s story not with astonishment and disbelief that a Christian shepherd could be so abusive toward his own flock (BTW, if you think this portion of the story was bad, just wait, it only gets worse). Rather, you know from personal experience the truth of Christ’s warning against wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matt 7:15). It’s all too easy for you to believe not just that Doug Phillips abused and deeply wounded the Jacksons, perhaps you’d also like to believe that Doug Phillips is the devil incarnate.
Your response obviously isn’t the sin-condoning “Circle the wagons” reactionism of the knee-jerk blind devotion Doug devotees. But be cautious that you not inadvertently adopt the same sort of extremist reactionism evidenced in the practices of Doug Phillips himself, who became a misogynist as an extremist reaction to radical feminism.
The proper response to the “Circle the wagons!” hero worshippers isn’t “Let me be the first to take up stones against him because he sounds exactly like the wolf in sheep’s clothing who devoured me and my family.”
Friend of BC, it doesn’t mean a thing to me that the whole congregation and elders agree to excommunicate. I have seen corrupt elders give corrupt and false information to the congregation and the sheep just say “Baaaa” in agreement.
For me to be impressed by the 100% in agreement assertion, I need to know the other side of the story. I need to know why Mary was called such horrendous names and why they felt justified (is there ever a justification for such things????) and why they had the Jacksons sign that stupid contract that only made things worse. That contracts shows now wisdom whatsover nor does it even begin to address the problem.
Mary is a whore and a Jezebel because she went to her pastor for help?
Yeah, sounds believable and frankly, I have heard that abusive story one too many times for me to readily just throw out Mary’s story as false. I know way too many women who have approached their pastors because their husband was beating them up or their husband was in deep sin and the wife ended up being blamed for her husband’s problems. “What did you do to make him hit you?” “If you were truly submissive, he would have never hit you.” “If you were a good wife your husband wouldn’t go sit at the bars; he would want to be home with you.” “Were you not sexually available to him and that is the reason he was driven to have sex with another woman, man, or goat?”
So, fill me in. What is the OTHER side of the story, dear “Friend”. What is the problem. Why can’t the people who defend DP’s church actions give us the other side of the story? It should be pretty easy to do.
Croc, this is from Kevin Swanson:
” Some seem a little perturbed at the way a counseling situation or a church discipline issue progressed, and I would bet a dozen donuts to a dollar, they are home-churched homeschoolers, where no church in their right mind would take such rabble rousers, without immediately slapping them on a discipline fast-track. ”
LOL!!! Is he a pastor? This is his attitude towards people who have legitimate concerns? Who is this guy? Is he for real? Who is HE accountable to?
I do NOT home church. And no church in their right mind would EVER support such nonsense or name-calling in the name of Jesus.
So, he is basically denying that abuse ever happens and that anyone who questions anything is a rabble-rouser which in and of itself is an abusive mindset.
But, does he have problems with other churches? Does he ever critique other pastors? Does he support all those goes on in every church and support what every pastor does?
If not, then he should be “slapped on a discipline fast-track” whatever the heck that is.
There are plenty of healthy churches run by true shepherds. If you find yourself in a church run by a pastor with an attitude like the one above, please RUN far away.
For those new to Ministry Watchman there’s a little history behind the story of Kevin Swanson and his obvious angst for Ministry Watchman. This past August Frank Vance exposed Mr. Swanson, a prominent home school leader, for putting his personal friendships with men like RC Sproul Jr ahead of the biblical principles of honor that he claims to live by.
There’s a reason why Sproul and Phillips and Swanson all stick so close. It’s not that they’re really friends or anything like that. It’s just a simple matter of birds of a feather…
Always Batya, I agree with you about what unity is and isn’t, that is why in my first post I wrote that I believed unity would actually be strengthened by exposing things that are hurtful to the body of Christ instead of sweeping them under the rug. Please forgive me for not making myself clear on that in my later posts. Unity is not a bandaid on a festering wound and a declaration of soundness. Sometimes it is a possible amputation if there is a refusal to heal. That’s sound really appetizing, I know. My apologies if anyone is eating while reading this:-).
Hope that clears it up,
Leigh Ann
These blind supporters of DP remind me, too, of those who supported R.C. Sproul Jr. a year and a half ago, about 8 months before his defrocking, when he wrote an article denouncing women bloggers. I remember writing about it on my own blog and being chastised by some men who thought that I had a lot of nerve to challenge Dr. Sproul, etc. Then when he came back and did his quasi-apology, they still stood by him, making them look really dumb for still baking a position that they he had taken back (sort of.)
Then, we saw the same thing when R.C. was defrocked. How dare anyone agree with the judgement of his own presbytery when he,himself, had confessed to the sin? Does this make sense?
What is with this inability to humble themselves and make things right? Of course, at the time, i could see exactly where R.C. was headed, though I was only a foolish woman. But, as has already been pointed out here, once you have had a taste of men lording it over you, putting it in terms Jesus uses, you recognize it right away.
Again, I go back to the basic premise, that of the class system or neo-feudalism, or whatever you want to call it. They act this way because they believe that they are a special class. And that means that not only can they do what they wish but they can also twist the facts and the truth.
Kevin Swanson: “Let me say this as plainly as I possibly can. Any “Christian” blogger, who casts aspersions on another professing Christian in the public web forum, who is not a member of church, accountable to ordained elders/ministers/pastors, and who refuses to provide some means of contacting him personally by phone or in person, is a yellow-bellied blogger, and his blog is not worthy of a second’s worth of attention on the part of any true believer.”
Thank you, sir, for your enlightened commentary. Without your assistance I would never have discovered that in person and phone contact are Biblical but email communication is not worthy of “any true believer.”
As I’m a bit of a dullard, however, and Mr. Phillips declares that you possess “the skill of a master physician of analysis” on this topic, in the interest of “real issues in the real world,” would you please explain just where you found this refined technological distinction in Scripture?
Being a journalist of sorts, I am very interested in hearing all sides of the story at hand. Several here have hinted at having knowledge of the “other” side of the story, but I see no facts forthcoming at present. One of the blessings of writing on blogs is that all sides can be dealt with fairly. If you have specific evidence or documentation that refutes anything I have written, I would be glad to hear about it. If you can follow the comment rules for Ministry Watchman, you are free to post your evidence right here. If you would like to email me instead, you may reach me at chasfish@gmail.com I would be very interested in any proof from Doug Phillips and his supporters; just have something worthwhile to say, rather than vague attacks.
Charles
This Kevin Swanson sure doesn’t know who supports him in his VF “ministry”. Why, doesn’t he know that some of his most faithful supporters and devotees were home-schooled and home-churched at one time or another. I wonder how much he was blessed by all those hard-working homeschooled students at that film festival.
It’s obvious Doug Phillips is desperate! Is the best defense Doug Phillips can “muster” an anti-blog containing “comments” written by someone who obviously graduated from public school (“there” instead of “their”) and Kevin Swanson’s rant concerning “Christian” bloggers attacking Christians (aka “yellow-bellied bloggers”)? Yet, I must admit, Mr. Swanson does raise an interesting point, a point that has been discussed in the thread of Mr. Fisher’s article – the issue of Doug Phillips being ordained. Considering what Mr. Swanson wrote:
“Any “Christian” blogger, who casts aspersions on another professing Christian in the public web forum, who is not a member of church, accountable to ordained elders/ministers/pastors, and who refuses to provide some means of contacting him personally by phone or in person, is a yellow-bellied blogger….”
I don’t think we necessarily have to worry about Swanson’s piece swaying too many solid believers (at least those with critical thinking skills), since Doug Phillips is NOT ordained, which begs this question: Why did Doug Phillips link to Kevin’s article with this glaring issue (http://www.visionforum.com/hottopics/blogs/dwp/2006/11/1955.aspx)?
Frankly, even Swanson’s post verifies what has been stated in the comments of this thread: There is one standard for Doug Phillips and his cohorts and there is another standard for everyone else. In the case at hand, the accusers must be accountable to an ordained elder, but Phillips does not have to be ordained to expect the same “honor.” Once again we see another example of a higher standard for the sheep (instead of the biblical higher standard for the shepherd). Ah, but what else is new with Phillips—Sproul—Wilson, etc.? It really is a never ending stream of hatefulness and blatant hypocrisy on the part of these shepherds who want us to entrust our souls to their care.
From what I can see of these two “gentlemen” (tired of the c*** and Swanson) and the man they defend, it is no wonder men such as Frank Vance maintain their anonymity. Ligonier Ministries displays utter contempt for the biblical admonition not to sue Christians and it is apparent from Phillips’ own posts that he will parse the Sacred Scriptures to find a “reason” to sue other believers. Watchman, keep up the good work and do NOT listen to the likes of Swanson, et. al. – maintain your defenses against these wolves in pastor’s clothing, as your work is having an effect and these tyrants just need to go away and let the church heal. The visible and invisible church could also do very well without shills like Swanson.
Tyrant Slayer
Tyrant Slayer wrote: ”There is one standard for Doug Phillips and his cohorts and there is another standard for everyone else. In the case at hand, the accusers must be accountable to an ordained elder, but Phillips does not have to be ordained to expect the same “honor.”
I couldn’t agree more with the Slayer’s observation. Doug Phillips, RC Sproul Jr., RC Sproul Sr., Doug Wilson, Kevin Swanson, etc. are all dishonorable men. RC Jr. is dishonorable for his actions leading up to his defrocking. Doug Wilson is dishonorable for his contorted support of the defrocked Sproul. RC Sr. is dishonorable for allowing Ligonier’s immoral treatment of Don Kistler and Frank Vance. Kevin Swanson is dishonorable for (1) being a “shill” and (2) failing to tell us of his conflict of interest (relationship with Doug Phillips). And Doug Phillips may be the most dishonorable one of the bunch (BTW, I have yet to read a denial by Doug Phillips that he called Mary Jackson a whore and Jezebel). These men and their actions are more than a thorn in the side of the Reformed community – these men are profaning the name of the community while simultaneously prostituting Reformed theology for their own personal gain.
Regardless of whether Mr. Fisher was 100% perfect in his reporting, we must acknowledge this: These men stand condemned by their own actions and shooting the “Jacksons” for exposing Doug Phillips as a dishonorable ecclesiastical tyrant is beneath contempt.
CSZ
Prairie Girl had some outstanding advice for her son when she told him “to choose a wife who could hold her own across the dinner table from him as they discussed the events of the day. I knew that he would become frustrated if his wife had spent the day flitting from birthday party to other “acce[p]table womanly events” rather than being the best helper for him, personally, ie a reading, studious, thinking, opinionated woman.”
I think it quite interesting that Beall Phillips would fit Prairie Girl’s description of an ideal wife: reading, studious, thinking, a wife could hold her own across the dinner table. Beall Phillips is well educated, with a degree in education, and also went to law school with Doug – and did quite well, I might add. Before marriage, Beall was apparently quite opinionated, but for some reason seems content to give up all her own opinions since marrying Doug. Whatever Doug’s opinions are, Beall parrots. She would be quite capable of holding her own across the dinner table with her husband, but I am absolutely sure that would be forbidden.
I used to get quite irritated with her when I would ask her a question and she would reply, “Well, Doug says…” If I wanted to know what Doug thought, I would have asked him! When talking about the Bible, if it’s an area in which she doesn’t readily know Doug’s thoughts, she would tell me that she would have to ask Doug what he thought about it first and then get back to me. Knowing that Beall is an extremely intelligent woman in her own right, I just don’t understand why she willingly does not use the wonderful gifts of intellect and understanding that God endowed her with! Sometimes I felt like just asking her, “Why did God give women brains?”
If you want a little irony, check out Doug’s opinions on girls going to college – or even young men for that matter.
Another Berean on December 1st, 2006 at 11:30 am
said
“This is what is known as a “conflict of interest.”
To assert is not to prove. Like so many other things in the “article” above and in many of the comments simply stating an accusation makes it no more true than my informing you that the moon is made of blue cheese makes it so.
Even a casual observer can see how much Messirs Swanson and Phillips work together. It is not secret. It is not conflict.
S.J.
“I’m just tired of the cr…er…umm…unjustified sewage being tossed at innocent people”
Wow go and work to work for a day and you miss a bunch.
Jared on December 1st, 2006 at 9:50 am said
“The “minor” excommunication (indefinite suspension from the Lord’s table) occurred during a time when Boerne Christian Assembly DID have a plurality of elders.”
Ole S.J. says ” so suddenly there is more than one elder involved? Jared old man this is startin to sound less and less like a one man show.
Jared ” You are mixing apples and oranges by raising a topic that has not been addressed – the “major” excommunication. At the time the “vote” occurred for the “major” excommunication there was NOT A PLURALITY of elders. Any statement to the contrary is a bald-faced lie.”
S.J. – Two things occur to me on this point old chap
1.) I was mixing nothing. Mr Fisher’s article was ambiguous enough to let the reader believe there was never more than one.
2.)I just don’t have any confidence an army of elders whould have made a difference to you. You were given two chances minor and major to repent and you still persist.
Jared “In time, however, Mr. Fisher will write about the “major” excommunication, which will reveal the unbiblical nature of said excommunication, as well as the underlying ecclesiastical tyranny that supported the action.”
S.J.Oh I’m sure there will be. This is why Proverbs warns Christians away from the “angry man” and pleads with us not to go with a furious man….because once you do the fun never ends
FOBCA,
You are losing any credibility very quickly with those who are following this story. It is always good to go back to the original source; in this case the article that Mr. Fisher wrote. You try to impugne the testimony of “Jared” with your statement that;
“Mr Fisher’s article was ambiguous enough to let the reader believe there was never more than one.” (elder)
Yet in the article Mr. Fisher states the following:
“One other elder and his wife and one deacon were there also, but mostly as figureheads”
So please help me to understand where you are coming from with your comments.
I beleive that most of the readers desire for the truth to be know in this situation.
Straw man tactics will not suffice.
Wolf Hound,
Your comment to FOBCA very astutely underscores a lingering issue with those loyal to Doug Phillips posting in this thread – for some inexplicable reason these individuals have a difficult time following Fisher’s easy-to-read writing style. I sincerely do not believe it is because the article extends beyond two to three paragraphs and you have to remember what you read. Rather, I think those loyal to Phillips are posting their vindictive comments because of the “lens” through which they view the situation. I really think some of them need to take a deep breath and step back from this issue that is obviously rather emotionally charged for some of them. On the other hand, perhaps some of their confusion is a result of following Phillips and the BCA leadership “team,” because it is apparent that a thorough understanding of church polity eludes Phillips, et. al. For example, deacon and elder are not interchangeable positions within the church. To be fair, part of the problem may be Phillips’ lack of any ministry credentials. However, if this is the case, what was Phillips co-elder doing when he was still at BCA?
What does surprise me is the crassness of Phillips’ supporters and the vitriol that emanates from their posts. I don’t see any of that in Fisher’s original post nor do I see this seething hatred evident in those who are attempting to keep an open mind. Based on this observation alone, the Jackson’s testimony becomes more compelling by the post.
CSZ
“Even a casual observer can see how much Messirs Swanson and Phillips work together. It is not secret. It is not conflict.”
That’s exactly the point, Friend Of BCA. Furthermore, Swanson derives financial gain as a direct result of his relations with Phillips. That does in fact constitute a conflict of interest.
Your denial of it, or your assertion that “simply stating an accusation makes it no more true than my informing you that the moon is made of blue cheese makes it so” demonstrates that, at best, you are completely ignorant of the definition of conflict of interest (no surprise there, you’ve already demonstrated a great deal of ignorance here and on your Excrement site), or at worst you are duplicitous. More than likely what we’re witnessing is a combination of the two.
I’m not particularly fond of Wikipedia, but unfortunately there are no genuine online encyclopedias that are free to direct you to. However, Wiki’s definition of conflict of interest is a reasonably good one, so let me refer you there. Note this:
People will have to draw their own conclusions about whether or not Swanson’s conflict of interest has substantially influenced his defense of Phillips, perhaps even to the point of compelling Swanson to act in a blatantly duplicitous manner. No reasonably minded person, however, could read that Swanson article and not perceive that the man isn’t extremely biased, and one doesn’t even need to be aware of Swanson’s conflict of interest with Phillips to perceive that.
For you to argue that there isn’t a conflict of interest between Swanson and Phillips, or that anyone here hasn’t already proven that there is a conflict of interest, is absurd. Furthermore, we already know that Kevin Swanson is a man who will compromise his values to defend his friends, even including supporting and publicly defending corrupt tyrants like RC Sproul Jr who have been justly defrocked.
Watchman,
It is apparent there are some real issues of association with Doug Phillips, Vision Forum, and Boerne Christian Assembly. In fact, I sincerely have to wonder about the author of the new “Tired” web site and question its lack of Christian love and deference.
Is this blog the invention of one of Doug’s former interns? Yes, I am making an assumption that the author is young because certainly no “seasoned” Christian would write the things posted on this vile assault on the Christian community at large and the “Jacksons” in particular. Is Doug associated in any way with the site? Has Doug distanced himself from this offense to the catholic (universal) church? Is this evidence of the disrespectful attitude Phillips teaches his interns? Can you enlighten us?
Wondering in Wyoming
Ex BCA member,
My suggestions to Abraham were based on what I saw about him on his website. I acknowledge that not all men would want wives as I described nor would that be God’s plan for all men.
And that is really the point.
God’s plan is for a helper suitable for each individual man. There is no cookie cutter model. Look at the Proverbs 31 woman. She is a picture of a variety of gifts and talents. And isn’t it interesting that these were instructions given from a mother to a son and were chosen as part of the Holy Bible?
What is offensive and inexcusable to me is that Phillips promotes a type of one-size-first-all womanhood that is not necessarily Biblical nor is it what is best suited for all men. I have to believe that behind closed doors, Beall Phillips is a woman of strength and opinion and she shares it with her husband. That doesn’t mean that she isn’t respectful nor is she unsubmissive. Now, if they could demonstrate that relationship in a genuine way, they could have a much more profound impact on those who have looked to them for inspiration and instruction. This Elsie Dinsmore/southern belle/fluffy white dress fantasy has got to go!
http://www.boernechristianassembly.org/elders.html
What is your response to this link, which I found on “tired of the****site.?”
Lynn, maybe you didn’t see it but here’s our response:
That last question of course was a rhetorical one. There is no due process documentation because there was no due process, nor has there ever been any due process by Doug Phillips at Boerne Christian Assembly. Phillips knows what due process means because he’s a lawyer. He just doesn’t believe that, in practice, anyone under his alleged “authority” is entitled to it. Guaranteeing due process to his church members would make him accountable to specific documented standards of justice, and that would make it impossible to convene his Kangaroo Courts.
What Doug Phillips was counting on is never being challenged for his ecclesiastical abuse and tyrannies. What he was counting on was no one ever challenging him for, “It’s a local church matter. It’s nobody else’s business outside our church how we discipline our members. We say it was a lawful excommunication. We say we gave them due process. We say that it’s binding and that the only way it can ever be reversed is if the excommunicants come back to us and repent fully and unequivocally [of vague, indefinite sins, many of which may have never even occurred], and according to whatever standards that we determine.”
A Kangaroo Court judgment in any venue, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, is never binding and never has any force or authority, other than in the minds of those who believe in Kangaroo Court “justice.”
There will be more, a lot more, this coming week.
Dr. Peter Hammond, of Frontline Fellowship has written a very insightful book on church discipline entitled: Character Assassins, Dealing with Ecclesiastical Tyrants & Terrorists.
There is information in this book that has helped me to understand why situations as the one currently under discussion happen in the first place. All the angles are covered in this book -e.g., persons that are falsely slandered & those who should be brought to justice, but somehow slick out of it or get away with “their situation.”
Perhaps others would find it helpful in lieu of the present circumstances.
That’s a good book Croc. The authors are Peter Hammond and Brian Abshire, with Bill Bathman.
The title is unfortunate though. I bought it thinking that it actually dealt with ecclesiastical tyrants, when in fact it’s dealing with layman tyrants. Adding to my confusion was Rev. Brian Abshire’s name, who’s himself taken a public stance against ecclesiastical tyrants of the very ilk of Doug Phillips and RC Sproul Jr.
Regardless it’s still a good book and I agree with the book’s premise. There are in fact many godly pastors who’ve been unjustly tyrannized by deacon boards and disloyal gossipy church members. You may have a hard time believing this Croc, but I’ve personally confronted a number of such persons myself.
Tyranny comes in several forms and from several sources. It’s not always pastors and ministers that are the perpetrators, anymore so than it’s always the case that an abusive and cruel spouse is always the husband. Sometimes it’s church members tyrannizing their pastors, and wives tyrannizing their husbands. Sin and tyranny can go either way.
Regardless of the source it needs to be challenged and mechanisms need to be put in place to prevent it.
http://christianlibertybooks.co.za/detail.asp?ID=1394
Frank,
Good point; but I wanted to point out what might be the metaphorical use here of “tyrannt.” Literal tyranny is particularly harmful since it is this general abusive behavior that is encouraged and protected from formal positions of power or authority. In terms of the literal bite of the word, for example, Wilson can tyrannize me and I can tyrranize my wife; but I cannot tyrranize Wilson and my wife cannot tyrranize me. It would seem that this word would be metaphorically used to bring out particularly oppresive forms of abuse from those not able to wield power or formal authority. A deacon board’s relation to a pastor might be different however, where the deacon board serves as the real power or established authority. Just my two cents.
Michael Metzler
http://www.poohsthink.com
boernechristianassembly.org was registered November 28,2006. The domain is privately registered, so no contact information is readily available.
WHOIS information for http://www.boernechristianassembly.org
Watchman,
Wow! This is super! Who would have thought your writers would be the impetus for God’s anointed (Doug Phillips) to purchase a website just to refute Mr. Fisher’s first post. I can hardly wait for the next installment. Keep up the great work you and your writers are doing. The church needs devoted servants willing to sacrifice themselves for its purity.
Clark
“This Elsie Dinsmore/southern belle/fluffy white dress fantasy has got to go!”
Prairie Girl, I second that. I tried to read the Elsie series to my girls but we found it wretched.
I found the relationship between Elsie and her father to be very unhealthy. Elsie was not someone I wanted them to emulate.
You are very right about the image being foisted on girls as being a fantasy. It is no different than reading romance novels; it produces the same results. Unrealistic expectations which lead disappointment and disallusion.
The BCA statement is dense and full of details and heavy rhetoric. This makes it harder to figure out exactly what is being said as well as what the author is avoiding saying. In the interest of greater clarity, I have excerpted portions of the BCA statement in quotes below, followed by my comments:
“Boerne Christian Assembly … is a duly constituted local assembly which has, since its beginning, been governed by plurality of leadership.”
Note that they are very careful NOT to claim a plurality of ordained elders with equal authority “since the beginning.” They also obscure which of the “leadership” have been elders (who possess biblical governmental authority) and deacons (who do not).
This blurring of the categories is no accident, for the truth is that for most of BCA’s history Doug has been the sole “elder” and an unordained one at that. Let me repeat: for much of BCA’s history — as well as during nearly all of the time covered by the conflict between the Epsteins and Doug — Doug was the only elder in authority at BCA.
This is important for several reasons. One is that the BCA statement was carefully drafted to give the impression that BCA has always been governed by a plurality of duly ordained elders. That is not true. In fact, BCA has been run for years without even a single ordained elder.
Furthermore, as I have heard first-hand, Doug teaches at the Vision Forum Ministries Uniting Church and Family Conferences that a biblical church must be governed by a plurality of elders. In fact, when prospective church planters at the conferences have asked how to arrange for ordination if they aren’t part of a denomination, Vision Forum Board Member Scott Brown has said he would be glad to perform the ordinations.
In short, Doug preaches and teaches at a conference that condemns as unbiblical the vast majority of existing evangelical churches a standard (you must have a plurality of elders) that he has refused to follow himself for years.
“The article involves numerous fictitious accounts of events, malicious accusations against BCA elder Doug Phillips and his wife Beall…”
Sounds like some of the details of the events that have been reported in the first installment of the series at Ministrywatchman may be slightly off, but notice that although they call the accusations against Doug and Beall “malicious,” they do not deny them directly or supply evidence to the contrary.
“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”
There are several falsehoods there. First, Charles Fisher has already posted at least one document with Doug’s signature on it, and more documents are promised in future installments of the series. So at least some of it is substantiated. Yet notice how the BCA statement itself has ZERO documentary substantiation. Their own standard directs readers to disregard their own statement.
The BCA statement also begs the question by asserting that the couple was actually excommunicated (which would not be true if biblical principles of due process were not followed) and that they are bearing false witness (also at the core of the dispute and what remains to be seen).
Of course, once again, BCA has provided no documentary support of these claims. Furthermore, their own statement is signed by only only one man, hardly a sign that the BCA leadership (the identities of which are carefully kept hidden from public scrutiny) are all in agreement with what has been posted.
“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.”
As Doug Phillips, Esquire, knows full well, you can “defame” all you want so long as it is true. Nothing illegal about telling the truth, even if it is unflattering. This comment seems calculated more as an attempt to generate sympathy for the ladies criticized in the article than to supply any logical refutation.
“the excommunication of the family followed biblical procedure consistent with our doctrine and confession…. 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.”
So BCA believes biblical due process means excommunication without the accused having the opportunity to defend themselves before those who will vote yes or no for the excommunication?
Even pagan courts do better than this! Imagine the outcry that would result from a criminal trial in which the jury was permitted to listen only to the prosecution’s side. It would be international news in a flash. Isn’t it strange, then, how the BCA leadership find such a blatant violation of due process to be so normal they even publicly admit to it in a written statement?
“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.”
In any meeting, it’s common for the person presiding to seek a motion for a planned action from someone else, so the BCA statement doesn’t mean much even if true. The more important issue is who called the “emergency” meeting for the excommunication in the first place? And who failed to invite the “wayward couple” to their own kangaroo court? Could it be the man who refuses to include his name on the official BCA statement? Could it be Doug Phillips? Yes.
“The decision was this: that for the good of the body and the spiritual good of the couple, excommunication was necessary.”
So, as long as church members think excommunication is “good” for the church they don’t have to have a trial before excommunicating someone? And they don’t have to let the accused present a defense before those who will condemn them? By what standard? Not the Bible.
“From its first days as a constituted assembly, BCA has maintained plural and equal leadership in the governance and oversight of the local body.”
Not true. Not even close. In fact, I have heard three different Vision Forum interns (who attend BCA during their internships) offer the same excuse for Doug being the only elder: “The problem is everyone is too intimidated by Doug to be willing to serve equally with him.”
I call on all Vision Forum interns, past and present, who read this to acknowledge the falsehood of the BCA statement and to ask yourselves: If the BCA leadership would lie publicly about something as important as this, what other important things has the leadership lied to you about?
“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.”
Now that’s convenient: a fail-safe way to evade 1 Corinthians 6. First excommunicate, then sue. Very cunning.
“As a part of their most recent actions, they have facilitated the posting of doctored and misleading documents onto the internet.”
Talk about misleading! The “doctored” document had names obscured to protect against litigation without changing any of the substance. What wasn’t obscured was Doug Phillips’ signature on that document. Why would the BCA statement try so hard to divert the public’s attention from Doug’s documented personal responsibility in this affair?
“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.”
Translation: Don’t even consider the couple’s side of the story, especially the part about church “discipline” without due process. Keeping the other side from being heard is the best way for BCA to maintain credibility.
“Bob Sarratt, on behalf of the BCA session”
Why won’t the whole “session” sign their names? Could it be that there is, in fact, no plurality of ordained elders at BCA at all? That is, no real “session”? Yes.
* * *
As you may imagine, there is much more of the same that could be mined from the BCA statement. As this comment is already long and hopefully telling enough as it stands, I’ll stop for now.
http://download.visionforum.com/videos/blog/2005-09-22_monstrousregiment_large.mov
Can anyone tell me if Doug Phillips and the Gunn Bros. are serious in the above? Is it any wonder why people want nothing to do with Christianity and we do have women “rebelling” against such idiotic, juvenile nonsense?
Carol Everett is in the Gunn Bros. film and I am pretty sure that she also is an egalitarian who believes that women should be allowed to be pastors. Wouldn’t they just die knowing that a feminist has infiltrated their film?
A film mocking women? A film rated “M” for Misogyny? That is funny? A film whose premise is based on John Knox’s tyrade against female regents (“The Monstrous Regiment of Women”) and blasts all women has being stupid, insane and incapable of rendering sound judgment and reason.
This is what the San Antonio Film Festival turns out? This is their best? What a joke. This is how we will take back the culture for the Lord? We will be laughing stocks instead.
Maybe the following video is not a spoof?
http://bobhyatt.typepad.com/bobblog/2006/11/women_know_your.html
Clark Kent: “Who would have thought your writers would be the impetus for God’s anointed (Doug Phillips) to purchase a website just to refute Mr. Fisher’s first post. I can hardly wait for the next installment.”
LOL. I can see the response now: A feature film about home-educated amateur sleuths who excavate the truth about Watchman on a dinosaur dig. And why not? “Truth” is stranger than fiction.
boernechristianassembly.org was registered November 28, 2006. The domain is privately registered, so no contact information is readily available.
Looks like another anonymous accuser, another “internet assassin.” Why is this defender of Doug hiding behind a cloak of anonymity? Does he have an axe to grind? Is he afraid that “leadership” might sue him if things don’t work out?
Speaking of “leadership,” BCA’s use of this term reminds me so much of “senior management” from the Ligonier lawsuit saga. There are other parallels: two different statements, one unsigned and one undersigned, and public disclosure of the statements on a Friday after the close of business.
Maybe the “counsel” Doug Phillips reportedly gave to Ligonier wasn’t legal counsel but rather public relations counsel?
Evening folks.
I must have been to vauge in my post…let me sum up my math.
1 minor trial+1 major trial= 2 chances for the Jacksons to repent.
The family at the heart of this stirred up disention until an entire congregation agreed that they were stiff necked and unrepentant.
Now they are trying it again.
S.J
“Just don’t breath too deep”
[…] Ministry Watchman is doing excellent work. The latest piece focuses on Dapper Doug Phillips, who is revealed to be a legalist and a misogynist. How would you women like to visit the "It’s All About Doug" church and be forbidden to introduce your own father or request prayer, since women aren’t allowed to speak in The Church of Doug? No writing notes either, and careful with the expressive eye movements! In fact, you ladies should wear burkas, because a submissive wife is a silent wife. It also helps to have Hispanic housekeeping assistance. As Bad says, "Having two domestic servants leaves a lot of time to sit around reading Titus 2." Be sure to read about the angel-eggs at the weekly pot-providence meal. […]
[…] Ministry Watchman is doing excellent work. The latest piece focuses on Dapper Doug Phillips, who is revealed to be a legalist and a misogynist. How would you women like to visit the "It’s All About Doug" church and be forbidden to introduce your own father or request prayer, since women aren’t allowed to speak in The Church of Doug? No writing notes either, and careful with the expressive eye movements! In fact, you ladies should wear burkas, because a submissive wife is a silent wife. It also helps to have Hispanic housekeeping assistance. As Bad says, "Having two domestic servants leaves a lot of time to sit around reading Titus 2." Be sure to read about the angel-eggs at the weekly pot-providence meal. […]
I find this entire controversy ironic in light of Doug Phillips’ own comments and quotes on his personal blog, his failure to maintain a plurality of ordained elders (ruling and teaching) in his own church, and the blatant cowardice and obfuscation on the brand new Boerne Christian Assembly website (as the sole self-ordained elder, Doug is ultimately responsible for what is on the site, whether someone whose intials are “BS” placed his signature there or not).
For example, Doug quotes George Washington in a May 21, 2005, post titled Washington’s Rule #1: “Every action done in company ought to be done with some sign of respect to those who are present.” Oh, really? Is this the reason Doug called Mary Jackson a whore and Jezebel (among other derogatory terms) in front of her husband, Doug’s own wife, and another man’s wife? What manner of shepherd even uses this type of language?
In a June 2005 post, Doug introduces an article by his father concerning Mark Felt (Deep Throat of the Watergate scandal) stating, “The thing to keep in mind is that most traitors and dishonorable men, though cowardly by nature, are fully convinced of their own self-righteousness.” Trust me, Doug, we will definitely keep this quote in mind for future reference.
Lastly, let’s look at Doug’s comments concerning excommunication: “Excommunication is an official ecclesiastical pronouncement of the local church. When conducted pursuant to Scripture and under the authority of a local church, it carries the authority of Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 18:18). It is an enormously serious determination because the legitimate excommunication of a genuine Church of Jesus Christ binds not only the members of the local church, but all true believers to treat the excommunicant individual as a ‘heathen and a publican.’”
This is an interesting quote in light of some omitted wording and some included wording. For example, the word “legitimate” is exactly one of the issues the Jacksons et. al. have with the excommunication. Additionally, this legitimacy can only be established (as Doug notes), “when conducted pursuant to Scripture and under the authority of a local church.” Well, this statement certainly raises a few questions. How about we begin with what constitutes the authority of a local church? Might it not be a plurality of elders? Don’t Baptists recognize this necessity? What does “pursuant to Scripture” mean? Does it mean we conduct such a serious act in accordance with the Bible? If we are doing things according to biblical admonition, does this mean it is permissible to feign a proper church polity by including the word “session” in a signature block of a deacon who serves in an independent Reformed Baptist church, which is what Boerne Christian Assembly is and has been? As “Not that Gullible” notes above, there are a lot of unanswered questions on the hastily assembled Boerne Christian Assembly website – a website dedicated to defending the indefensible actions of what appears to be the latest in a long line of contemporary Reformed ecclesiastical tyrants. And from what I can determine thus far, this group, which includes Doug Phillips and a “phantom” leadership team, must enjoy listening to Frank Sinatra:
And now, the end is here
And so I face the final curtain
My friend, I’ll say it clear
I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain
I’ve lived a life that’s full
I traveled each and ev’ry highway
And more, much more than this, I did it my way
Yes, from what I’ve read on MinistryWatchMan and the new Boerne Christian Assembly site, I have to say Phillips and the BCA leadership (whoever “they” are) have a lot of explaining to do for doing it their way,, and their new website is not sufficiently addressing the issues. However, the site does do a credible job of spin, obfuscation, and blatant disingenuousness. Doug Phillips, a man of honor? At this point, it does not appear so.
Sickened by BCA
Corrie,
The Gunn brothers have a preview of the movie on their blog now. While I agree with many of the statements made by the women who were interviewed, it is what was missing from the preview that alarms me. The trailer you link to lists “universal suffrage” as one of the evils supported by the monstrous regiment of women. Jennie Chaucey, featured on the film and a frequent speaker at Vision Forum events, has an article on her blog explaining why women should not vote in either public or church elections. (It is hard for me to believe that Phyllis Schaftly, also featured in the film, agrees with that or even knows the Gunn brothers believe it. Would Phyllis be part of the monstrous regiment if she ran a voter registration drive?)
If, indeed, Carol Everett beleives women can pastor a church, then she, too, would be part of the monstrous regiment of women, since another “evil” listed in the trailer is Joyce Meyers. I have tried to understand their criteria but just don’t get it. They are painting with a broad, broad brush.
The truth is that many, many women who end up embracing a radical feminist lifestyle did so because of the treatment they received at the hands of hyper patriarchs, whether in their homes or their churches. Is the target audience for this film church leaders, calling them to action against feminists? If so, their tactics will only strengthen the hand of abusers while turning off the women who desperately need God’s grace demonstrated to them.
Corrie,
They are not trying to take back the culture…they want their own culture.
I remember Doug Phillips saying on his blog that
“Hollywood is irredeemable” so they will have their own arts culture instead, starting with their film festival.
This statement, by the way, was made a few weeks after World magazine ran an article about all the Christians working in Hollywood. As I recall, there are over 10,000 members of a Christian filmakers union there.
I believe in the sovereignty of God, therefore NOTHING is irredeemable. Being salt and light to a dying world means working within the system rather than withdrawing and designing your own system. We are called to bring the Gospel to a dying world, not to create a mediocre subculture that condemns but offers hope based only on man’s works. The Gospel is the Gospel, it changes lives and redeems what was lost.
Is there any way to resolve this situation?
I have some concerns but most of them are with the teachings of DP and how they are practiced in his churc and churces aligned witm him.
They are:
Women cannot receive the Lord’s Supper without a mediator. Young sons are considered to have more spiritual authirity than that of their own mothers. Sons never surpass their mother’s real and God-oradained authority. This authority is NOT doled out or delegated by their husbands, either. It is given to the mother by God, contrary to some teachings in the patriarchal movement. When is a son said to be the head of his mother in scripture?
Women can’t even request prayer on their own behalf with their own voice? James tells us if anyone needs prayer, they are to go to the elders. It never said that women are to go to any male and that male is supposed to ask on her behalf. A woman is a full member in the body of Christ. She is equal with any brother in terms of communion and prayer requests. This unbiblical teaching results in the practice that all males, even male children, are over all females. A woman doesn’t need a representative when she partakes of the Lord’s supper or asks for prayer.
While I agree with male only elders and husbands as the head of their wife, this extra-biblical teaching goes against the actual teachings and the spirit of Scripture. I believe these practices to be a denial of the very fact that women are equal to men in their spiritual standing. It is bondage and a denial of the doctrine of salvation for all who believe.
If someone could show me where these teachings are found in scripture, I could be persuaded.
This is not a place I would go to church nor is it a place that truly practices sound doctrine. It is unedifying for a woman and it displays a lie when it comes to her standing as a child of God. God doesn’t have step-children nor do we see Jesus refusing to hear the voice of women or refusing to minister them apart from some male go-between.
Mary sat at the feet of Jesus in order to be ministered to as a full member of His body in defiance to tradition. Why didn’t Jeses rebuke Mary and tell her to go get her husband or father (where is a father said to be yhe head of his daughter???) and learn from him so he can regurgutate up his own understanding or misunderstanding of what he heard Jesus say?
I truly believe that men who hold to these teachings see women in the church in an unscriptural way and it plays out in their treatment of women.
And then you have some women in the Patriarchal movement who are allowed to be a very public voice both in books, speaking venues and published articles. It seems there is no real consistency on how these rules are applied. These same women criticize Beth Moore for not being at home enough and for neglecting their families because they are out teaching at conferences but they, themselves (the Patriarchal women), are speaking at conferences, writing published articles while others care for their children.
What is the difference?
I know that sinless perfectionism has been leveled as a charge against the Jacksons but it seems to me that DP and his church are guilty of the same claim.
I have yet to see one instance where there has been an admission of any sort of responsibility or failing on the part of the “elders” of BCA. Also, how can they claim to have a “session”? This is misleading. Only presbyterians have sessions. They are reformed Baptists. Having been a Presbyterian and seen how a true session operates, I can say that BCA does not have a session. This situation would have never got to where it was had it really had a session.
What will it take for this situation to be resolved in a godly and edifying way so that unity can be restored? One doesn’t have to agree on every detail in order for there to be unity.
If Mary was not called a whore, why is she saying that? Did someone say that she “played the whore” before she married? Or was the word “whore” never used at all? I am just trying to figure out why someone would pull that one out of thin air.
I am praying that this situation is resolved to the glory of God.
Prairie Girl, I had some of the same thoughts you did about the trailer. As a matter of fact, Schafly has done many things they seem to be against. Has anyone read her bio? Lawyer, worked for Reagan, writing books, Eagle forum founder, six kids. I guess you are part of the monstrous regiment only if you disagree with their politics. But it is ok for Phyllis to be an outspoken working mother. I will bet that Phyllis even ‘talks’ to men at her church.
The woman speaking of John Knox was a bit much if you know anything about history. Knox was totally involved with 2 assassination plots (One for Mary, Queen of Scots) and even wrote sermons exhonorating the murders as doing it in the name of Christ. Knox was a believer in a STATE church and plotted with Elizabeth 1 to take Scotland which would mean bloodshed. All of this done in the name of Jesus. Not exactly salt and light behavior. They have taken some of Knox’ more unBiblical writings to make their point about women.
Why we elevate these bloodthirsty sinners to mystical status, I will never know. We have a Savior to elevate!
But one other thing that bothers me about DP is his worshipful attitude toward historical figures. He seems to know more about them than Jesus. He quotes George Washington about respect but has no clue that the last thing our Savior recieved was respect or honor while He was among us. He was hated.
This whole ‘take back the culture’ or ‘create our own culture’ attitude is really no different than what the emergents and seekers are doing. As Prairie Girl said, we are to be salt and light in the world.
To the extent that any congregation or teacher elevates a doctrine or political view above the Gospel, therein they fall. The Gospel becomes a door to walk through on the road to self-improvement, or to social justice, or to political change. Luther’s theology of the cross has been buried in favor of the works-righteousness motif of building a better culture in a world that John clearly tells us “is passing away.” To the extent that these figures worship that cultural end, they do not worship Him who will bring down the new earth when He alone is good and ready to do so. And that is precisely why they feel free to lie to their denominations (a la R.C, Jr.) and stand up for one another when caught in sin. The goal of reconstructionism is FAR more important than the Gospel. Indeed, it BECOMES the gospel and must be brought to pass by any means necessary. And when they make good money selling this ‘other gospel,’ you have not only attacked their pride, but their treasure as well. They rally their faithful to shout their own version of “Great is Diana of the Ephesians!”
The nature of sin is that we are all desperate to elevate ourselves above everyone else (“I will be like the Most High…”). What these false teachers trowel out is a way for your family to feel better than all those other ‘feminist dominated’ families, for your church to feel better than all those wimpy churches that just want to worship the Lord in Spirit and in truth and don’t care to dominate the culture, for the wife to feel better than other wives, for the husband to elevate himself above other sinners. They sell works-righteousness.
Of course, there is that part of me that reads of this and wants to feel superior to them. Again, works-righteousness. The only cure is the Cross. May we be willing to focus on Christ alone and say with Paul that everything else is (to put it more politely than Paul) dung.
Watchman,
I wish to compliment your site for its gentlemanly conduct, its willingness to protect its sources, and its dedication to church purity. From what I have witnessed, the church is in a crisis, and the Boerne Christian Assembly excommunication of the Epsteins is merely another example of this crisis.
Secondly, I would like to publicly thank Mark and Jen Epstein for their willingness to come forward. I am convinced our Lord and Savior sees their hearts from Heaven, and He knows the pain they and their children have suffered. Their obvious selflessness in the face of ongoing adversity is commendable.
Third, I want to ensure you understand I base my comments on a high degree of knowledge of those involved with this besmirching of Christ’s bride, even though I am outside San Antonio’s four-church community (which is comprised of primarily homeschool families). Furthermore, what I am stating is not hearsay, as I am sure we have viewed some of the same documentation of this family’s journey with Boerne Christian Assembly. Actually, you would be surprised to know how many in the Alamo City (and elsewhere) are “on” to Doug Phillips. Then again, maybe you wouldn’t be, considering the open offer to your readers to contact you with information concerning this situation.
With the first statement apparent to most (there are the exceptional idolaters who do not see this clearly), and the second point completely eluding the idolaters, I will share a small portion of what I know.
The first issue is simple – the so-called excommunication is a joke. Thus far, your site and the Epsteins have kindly refrained from naming certain “players” in this Doug Phillips orchestrated charade. The facts (ah, those troublesome “facts”) condemn a number of people, demonstrate more than one conflict of interest, indict Phillips for his repeated lying about his unbiblical actions toward the Epsteins (particularly Jen), and clearly indicate that some of Doug’s allies in this debacle knew what they were doing was wrong. Let’s start with this last statement.
Reverend Bob Welch participated (at some level) in this so-called “major” excommunication even though (1) he is not an elder at Boerne Christian Assembly nor was he an elder at the time of the “major” excommunication (I think he departed BCA shortly before or after the “minor” excommunication that occurred in October 2002, though he did participate in the “minor” excommunication. Oh, BTW, the Epsteins were restored to the Lord’s Table for more than a year before the “major” excommunication.), (2) he never spoke with the Epsteins about their side of the story, and (3) he has not spoken to them concerning their side since this unbiblical excommunication occurred. This is particularly enlightening given the fact that Reverend Welch spent hours with Jen at the hospital while Mark was undergoing surgery in June 2005. For those familiar with the timeline, June 2005 is four months after the illegal and unbiblical lynching of the Epsteins in the Phillips-led kangaroo court, which resulted in the “major” excommunication over two years after the “minor” excommunication. Furthermore, Reverend Welch did not tell his congregation in Fredricksburg, Texas, to shun the Epsteins. Therefore, we will cite these “facts” as evidence that Doug Phillips and BCA do not enjoy a consensus within the four-church community, as to the churches treating the Epsteins as “publicans and heathens.” With this in mind, I think the following questions require some cogent answers: If the excommunication was biblically sufficient and judiciously conducted, then why did Reverend Welch not personally nor, as an ordained shepherd, tell his congregation to shun the Epsteins in accordance with Phillips’ own statements of Christian conduct towards excommunicants? Is it because he knows he is accountable to God for his role in Phillips’ little “drama” and he wants to minimize his culpability before a Holy God? Did Reverend Welch originally become involved solely out of his friendship with Doug, his own infrequent counseling of Mark Epstein or did Reverend Welch participate because of the “Common Denominator”? An even more interesting question is this: In view of the following public statement by the Vision Forum Board that pertains to your website Watchman, “they certainly do not subscribe to the biblical principle that the accused should be able to confront the accuser,” how is it even conceivable for Reverend Welch to be involved (at any level of participation, before, during, or after) in an excommunication process where the accused did not face their accusers? Am I to understand the Vision Forum Board demands a higher evidentiary standard pertain to the board members than the protection of God’s sheep entrusted to under-shepherds? If so, I sincerely ask these board members to demonstrate the biblical basis for such an aberrant and unbiblical position.
Before moving on, allow me to cite another example of Doug Phillips’ and BCA’s apparent duplicity. Of the four-church community in San Antonio, three churches adhere to Reformed theology and one church to Arminian. The Arminian church is led by an ordained elder and three co-elders which, as anyone familiar with church polity understands, constitutes at least a plurality of elders – a “concept” Phillips and BCA subscribe to in public writings and teachings, but do not live out in practice within their own church body. At one time, the pastor of the Arminian church attended BCA as a congregant, but left BCA to begin his own church plant not long after Reverend Welch left BCA as Phillips’ co-elder. Not only did this pastor and his co-elders discuss the excommunication at length with Phillips, I understand this pastor shepherded a hurting Epstein family for a number of months. From what I know of the situation, the pastor and one other elder spoke with Mark Epstein almost every day during that time period in an effort to hold Mark truly accountable for his behavior in the marital relationship – something Phillips and his cohorts failed to do at all, despite their statements to the contrary.
Let me now address the “Common Denominator” (henceforth referred to as CD – for the time being) and his participation with Phillips et al. First, public records and other sources indicate the following: (1) the CD donated the land and building for Vision Forum’s offices and warehouse in San Antonio; (2) the CD used to own the house Phillips and his family live in, but which is now shown deeded to an entity other than Doug Phillips, namely Vision Forum (I’m still wading through which entity truly owns what, i.e., the “business side” of Vision Forum or the “ministry side”); (3) Reverend Welch lives on a ranch that CD owns in the Texas hill country; (4) CD is one of the largest political contributors in the State of Texas and the country; and (5) CD is or was a member of Reverend Welch’s Fredricksburg church. Therefore, it should be kept in mind that should Phillips and his unnamed “Vision Forum Ministries Board of Directors” (Don Hart? Scott Brown? Jim Zes?) decide to sue Ministry WatchMan and the Epsteins, there is a possibility CD would be Phillips’ “go to man” for financing an unbiblical lawsuit, since he has a history of financially supporting Phillips by one means or another (of course, Beall’s father has a couple “pesos” in the bank too). Again, however, there are a few “troublesome” facts Phillips, Sarratt, the Vision Forum Board, the congregants of BCA, and others must deal with in a biblically accurate manner. These folks can make any claim they wish with respect to the Epstein’s status as excommunicants, but if a plurality of ordained ruling elders did not conduct a biblically judicious excommunication where the accused could face their accusers, then Phillips and his “legion” need to be careful how they attempt to justify a lawsuit – for Phillips and his cohorts (including the money to finance a lawsuit) will only compound their personal sin before an Almighty God. And, since we know Boerne Christian Assembly did not have a “plurality of ordained ruling elders” at the time of the Epstein’s excommunication (something Phillips publicly states on his blog as a “requirement” for biblical discipline), we will refer to BCA’s claim of a “highly defamatory article” on their new website as “Lie #1” and the subsequent “claim” that BCA’s excommunication of the Epsteins “followed biblical procedure,” as “Lie #2”, because Phillips’ own public statements condemn him in this area as a liar. The civil law is clear on two points (and Phillips knows it): (1) No defamation exists if what is said or written is the truth and (2) public figures such as Doug Phillips and CD have the burden of proof when alleging defamation in a secular court. For all of Phillips legal training, this bogus excommunication does not reflect very well on Phillips’ prowess as an attorney. Perhaps that is why Doug became a “visionary” businessman in lieu of practicing law, albeit a businessman who is prone to fits of pontification and hyperbole.
This is already too lengthy, so I will defer the remainder of my comments to a later time. Allow me to close, however, with a few suggestions.
Watchman, make sure you and your writers: (1) Watch your backs. Phillips appears to be (in addition to his status as a businessman) a political operative, a vindictive man, and a charlatan, not a minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ; (2) Start naming names (a despicable and vicious site already “outed” the Epsteins). If I, as one on the far-edged periphery of this issue, am aware of the depth of sin and those who committed the sins surrounding the unbiblical, illegal, immoral, and unethical excommunication of the Epsteins then I think it needs to be public knowledge who sinned against the Epstein family; (3) Expose the women and young women of Boerne Christian Assembly who repeatedly betrayed the Epstein’s eldest daughter – I am sure there is quite a story there, for it is obvious her pain in incalculable and these women and young women are anything but “victims” in this horrible episode; (4) Don’t waver. Phillips is a liar and so are some of his closest allies. Expose Phillips and you will expose his cohorts (e.g., Sproul, Wilson, etc.) for what they are – self-serving profiteers. BTW, you may want to research Phillips’ beliefs on celebrating Christmas and when Vision Forum makes the bulk of its annual income. Very interesting topic indeed; (5) Take time to research the young men who work for Vision Forum. I understand they are a disrespectful and arrogant lot (this statement was determined from multiple sources who have had adversarial relations with Vision Forum). Since many of these young men and interns are under 30 years of age, it certainly makes one wonder what Phillips is teaching these “young men.” It’s obvious from my research that respect and “honor” aren’t among the character traits, despite Phillips’ obsession with honor. BTW, wasn’t Christ obedient in deferring his “ministry years” to the age of 30 for a reason?; (6) Ask Phillips for the names of BCA’s “ordained ruling elders” that supposedly participated in the Epstein lynching, which would then demonstrate the veracity of this public statement by Bob Sarratt on behalf of BCA: “Boerne Christian Assembly (hereafter cited as BCA) is a duly constituted local assembly which has, since its beginning, been governed by plural leadership…” Frankly, I don’t think Phillips will answer, because this group of disingenuous men use the word “leadership” instead of “ordained ruling elders,” and we know there is a huge difference. In politics, this is know as “spin.” In the rest of the world – particularly the Christian community – such a statement is known as a lie, which will make BCA’s opening statement on their new website “Lie #3” (7) Pray without ceasing. Phillips and his “leadership” teams at BCA and Vision Forum masquerade as angels of light.
As for your readers, allow me to suggest some concrete actions they can take as this mess is sorted out: (1) Do not support Vision Forum by purchasing products and do not support Vision Forum Ministries via donation. There can be no guarantee Phillips won’t use customer/donor money to finance a lawsuit against believers – whether they be Watchman’s writers or the alleged “excommunicants” that Phillips states 1 Cor 6 does not apply (sound familiar Mr. Vance?); (2) Pray for discernment. If I can identify a number of outright lies amongst the hyperbole (and much of the BCA and board’s statements are just that – hyperbole), then you can as well; (3) Pray for the Epsteins. As Watchman already noted, the writers are not naïve enough to believe the Epsteins were without sin, but it is known by many that their sin in no way approaches the false accusations of BCA and many are also aware that BCA “savaged” this family like a pack of hungry wolves; (4) Pray for the purity of Christ’s bride. The Reformed community needs to clean house instead of sweeping its dirt under the rug. We’re not politicians, we’re sinners saved by Christ’s grace and we need to always keep this “gift” from the Almighty in the forefront of our minds.
For God’s glory and the purity of His bride – Amen!
Native Texan
Michael Metzler made a reference to VF’s marketing practices.
That raises a question in my mind. It would appear to be a conflict of interest for people that write articles/books for VF to enter the Jamestown 400 contest for the gold coins:
http://mattchancey.blogspot.com/2006/11/what-jamestown-400-treasure-hunt.html
Secondly, I find it curious that VF primes their catalog for the Christmas season, especially since Doug Phillips doesn’t believe in celebrating Christmas. Can anyone else confirm this abstinance from observing/celebrating Christmas???
Yesterday Ian posted Even if the Epsteins are the Jacksons why pick on the kid? He’s since changed the title a bit. Don’t be surprised if Ian’s despicable article soon disappears altogether. I posted a comment, after three others had posted before me. When I checked awhile later there were two other commenters who’d posted after me. Six comments. Then I got an email informing me that Ian had deleted all the comments and closed commenting altogether in that article! Ian is very selective about free speech, especially when things were going as badly for him as they were there. Six out of six comments extremely critical of his “picking on the kid article.” Thankfully I thought to save my comment (and the article, in case he deletes that too):
Just take a look at all the comments here! Obviously this subject has stirred a great deal of interest. The number of visitors here has also been quite impressive. Note also the variety of opinions, everything from “I agree 100%” to “You guys are idiots and don’t know what you’re talking about,” and a lot in between those.
Let it never be said (although our detractors will still allege it anyway, regardless of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that Watchman engages in concealment and censorship. Watchman has a very liberal comment approval policy, unlike certain other blogs that we know of. Tim Challies is an excellent example of a liberal censorship blogger, and he even liberally bans commenters for no other reason than attempting to enter into civil debate with him (Challies motto should be “Agree with me and sing my praises or you’re banned”).
I’ve only been blogging since May. Prior to that I didn’t even know what a blog was. I’ve also posted a few comments here and there on other people’s blogs. It’s interesting what happens sometimes when all you’re attempting to do is enter into a civil debate with a blog owner. If he’s an incompetent debater, or if his position is simply indefensible, and he’s also dishonest, he might just delete your comment altogether rather than admit that he didn’t know what he was talking about. I’ve had that happen too often, and because of that I’ll often save a copy of my comment. Sometimes they become so embarrassed about their article they’ll just delete the whole thing and pretend like it never happened! Because of that I’ve often saved entire articles too.
The newest kid on the blog block is Ian and his Sick Of The Crap blog, started up entirely for the purpose of defending Doug Phillips against the article you see here. Charlie is obviously very flattered! Ian and his pals have alleged concealment and censorship on Watchman’s part. Yet take a look at all of the approved comments above. Given Ian’s concerns for “allowing both sides of the story to be told” we of course would never expect a free speech lover like Ian to delete anyone’s comments from his blog, would we? Actually I would. In my experience the guys who whine the loudest about free speech are quite often the first to curtail anyone else’s speech that they don’t agree with, and today Ian has done that very thing, proving what a hypocrite that he is.
— cont.
I too as a former VF intern want to take this opportunity to weigh in concerning “Not that gullible”, or should I say Mrs. Epstein’s request to comment on this situation. I was attending BCA during the time of the Epstein’s excommunication, and observed on many occasions their divisive and lying ways. The BCA statement is true – there was indeed a plurality of leadership, and the excommunication was far from the “kangaroo court” that the Epsteins and their crowd want you to believe. What I found to be most disgusting of all though is the vitriolic hatred, cruelty, and lies that the Epsteins spewed and have continued to spew at those that sought to help them through prayer, untold hours of counseling, and that loved them enough to confront them when they were wrong.
Another former VF intern
Absolutely, Croc. Doug Phillips does not believe in celebrating Christmas, but he gears up his catalog for the Christmas season specifically, his “special” emails this time of year are festively decorated in green and red, and they all list when is the last day to order to receive your package by December 23. The Phillips home will be full of poinsettias, nutcrackers, and other very festive decorations this time of year as well. But you are right, the Phillips don’t “celebrate” Christmas.
Corrie: If Mary was not called a whore, why is she saying that? Did someone say that she “played the whore” before she married? Or was the word “whore” never used at all? I am just trying to figure out why someone would pull that one out of thin air.
I don’t think Doug Phillips’ critics put the word “whore” into his mouth. I was googling “Doug Phillips” + Jezebel for evidence of a pattern of use of the kind of language attributed to him when I was supplied a link to a website by Jennie Chancey mentioned in an earlier comment by Prairie Girl. At the link on Mrs. Chancey’s site was “A Father’s Day” poem by Doug Phillips in which he used the word “Jezebel”:
http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/article_2071.shtml
That kind of intimate familiarity with an otherwise uncommon word such as “Jezebel” is, in my opinion, strong evidence in support of the couple’s account. And if Doug Phillips said “Jezebel,” why not also “whore?”
Incidentally, further research confirms that Jennie Chancey is the wife of the Matt Chancey linked to in Croc’s recent post. Matt Chancey, who played a part in the League of Grateful Sons film by Vision Forum, also links to the rant by OPC elder (and Vision Forum Film Festival judge) Kevin Swanson against Ministry Watchman.
All of these financial connections, which are probably just the tip of the iceberg, suggest that readers should be very cautious before taking at face value defenses of Doug Phillips that are offered by his friends.
Morning folks,
TRUST BUT VERIFY proves nothing more than that the folks trying to smear innocent people have done their homework.
Notice they are not (as they claim) interested in dealing with church issues. They are happy with nothing less than smearing every facet of Doug, Beall, and BCA’s life public or private.
(I say they because it is my opinion that most if not all of the anonymous comments here on MW against BCA are the “Jacksons” or their “friends”
First we had highly racist comments a few days ago about their friends being the “help,” now we are reaching and stretching to make connections between friends that aren’t members of BCA and don’t live around here. As far as I know the Chanceys aren’t even Baptists. So other than vicious gossip and slander I fail to see what Matt’s blog or the skin color of Doug’s friends has to do with the “Jacksons'” excommunication.
This smacks of Hillary Clinton’s scorched earth politics, NOT honest investigation or inquiry.
Jezebel and whore…..was never used. (gasp) There. I said it. NEVER used. All we are seeing is Mr. Fisher,the Jacksons et al. have been searching the net for a few months collecting material that is negative about VF, and Doug P. The Jezebel accusation isn’t even original and was just as baseless on November 14th as it is today. It was first leveled by another excommunicant rebel with no witnesses to back it up.
TBV said “”Jezebel,” why not also “whore?”” this is known as a non-sequitur . Just because something “feels” right or “seems” right does not mean that it holds up to scrutiny.
Just serving up a helping of truth with breakfast.
S.J.
“In case you’re checking I’m …still fed up!”
Ps. Frank nobody is limiting your free speech…you’re still posting here quite freely!
Frank, I saved a few more from that same thread:
Anonymous said…
Interesting analogy. However, Ryan Dick works for a ministry, expects to take over a ministry, and is the son and grandson of an elder and the head of a ministry, which makes them both accountable to elder requirements.
Natasha, if indeed the Epsteins are the Jacksons, does not have an elder for a father, so your biblical qualifications do not apply here.
Yes, the situation with Natahsa is sad and she really needs prayer and love right now, not this kind of judgment you are proposing. I’m sure that you are doing nothing to help draw her to Christ by posting such venom.
Since you obviously know Natasha, I would suggest you pray for her and show her Christian love instead.
December 3, 2006 7:10:00 AM PST
Anonymous said…
Are you trying to help or hurt Doug Phillips and VF?
We are a hs family w/9 children who has purchased well over a thousand dollars of items through VF’s catalog. We have been supporters of VF but I will tell you how this is handled will make or break our future business dealings with them.
Doug and Beall have always come across as gracious people with class. This Blog is crass and mean spirited. I sincerely hope this is not a reflection of their friends. I would be embarsssed if this was being done in my defense.
I am sure Doug Phillips realizes that those in ministry are often accused of misdeeds. It’s part of the territory. What you do when you are under trials relects who you truly are. I hope this is not a reflection of him.
December 3, 2006 9:43:00 AM PST
Concerned said…
Only a bully who hates the Word of God would post this about a 19 year old girl. Your first inclination should be to protect her during all this madness. Boy, that is some strange ‘church’ you are a part of…
Ryan Dick works for a MINISTRY and is paid by donors who have every right to know that he thinks he is ‘inheriting a multi mill company’ from his dad! (those were his own words!)
Is Natasha working for a ministry and living a double life? No, she is not acting the hypocrite. I do not blame her one bit for being angry. I just hope she will stay away from this blog.
To apply the same standard to Natasha shows how badly you are grasping at straws.
December 3, 2006 11:27:00 AM PST
I also saved the whole blog in case they take it down!
Sniffin’
I’m not surprised Frank. If this is how Ian repays my very liberal comment approval policy then I may have to rethink the policy, at least with regard to approving Ian’s comments, and the comments of his few pals.
Ian has made quite a fuss over “the truth,” but in my estimation part of the process of arriving at the truth is to establish an even playing field. When Ian engages in such disingenuous tactics it’s more than apparent he’s not really interested in the truth at all.
It’d be nice if I could contact Ian about this, but Ian apparently doesn’t want to be contacted, at least that’s the clear impression he leaves by not posting an email address on his blog. This too is just more evidence that Ian isn’t interested in fair and honest debate.
I agree with Frank for thanking you Ian. Let me also issue my personal thanks for your having deleted Frank’s comment and those other comments. Your tactics are doing much to discredit yourself and to bolster the credibility of this story of tyranny by Doug Phillips.
Ian, I left a challenge here earlier asking if anyone had any evidence contrary to anything I wrote. I truly do try to report the whole truth. You have stated that “Jezebel” and “whore” were never used. May I ask if you were there? If so, please identify yourself because I do know exactly who was at that meeting. If you have evidence to the contrary of anything I have written, I will gladly retract anything that is not true. However, anonymous ad hom attacks are not considered evidence.
“Frank nobody is limiting your free speech…you’re still posting here quite freely!” As are you S.J. It doesn’t get any more generous than what Watchman just did by approving your comment, even though mine and others have been deleted from Ian’s blog (or is it your blog?).
I can understand why Watchman did though. Every time you comment you just provide more great material. Now there’s this “highly racist comments” allegation. That’s rich! It doesn’t get anymore desperate than when your opponent has to resort to playing the race card. When that happens you know you’ve won the debate.
As you well know S.J. the point of Ex BCA Member’s comment wasn’t the fact that Beall Phillips’ housekeeper and child care worker is Hispanic (we’re talking San Antonio after all — by now whites are probably the minority there and finding a housekeeper that isn’t Hispanic might be all but impossible). The point is that Beall Phillips’ housekeeper and child care worker isn’t being paid, and numerous others that have worked for the Phillips also don’t get paid. Doug Phillips makes good money. He can afford to pay people and pay them generously. But he evidently works hard at keeping all his money. One of the ways he does so is by oppressing the workman and not paying him. That takes some incredible arrogance for him to think that he’s so special — such royalty — that people should work for him for free.
FOBCA: it is my opinion that most if not all of the anonymous comments here on MW against BCA are the “Jacksons” or their “friends”
I selected “print preview” for this page (the article plus all of the comments) in my browser and found that the current page count stands at 91 pages. Even assuming that that Jacksons did nothing else but research and write comments over the past week, it still strains credulity to attribute to them any sizable portion of the comments here (not to mention comments on other sites).
A more likely explanation for the record-breaking commentary is that more than a few “little people” who were stepped on over the years because they were deemed unimportant have discovered that the internet gives them a big voice to communicate shared experiences of ecclesiastical tyranny. That seems to be the case whether we’re talking of RC Sproul, Jr. RC Sproul, Sr. Doug Wilson or Doug Phillips — although I must say that the pent-up demand for Doug Phillips commentary appears to be nearly as much as all the others put together.
I would like to know who all there “numerous others that have worked for the Phillips” are that Frank Vance claims are not getting paid. Why not just list them, if you actually have proof? Is it because you don’t have proof, and it’s easier to just use a blanket “numerous others” and ignore the facts? I’m sure that the issue of the so-called “housekeeper” and “child care worker” will be addressed more fully by someone who is better appraised of the true situation than I am, but in the meantime I think that MW owes us an explaination.
An angry former VF intern who’s sick of all the lies
FoBCA: I say they because it is my opinion that most if not all of the anonymous comments here on MW against BCA are the “Jacksons” or their “friends”
Nope. Not me. Don’t know either the Phillips or the Jacksons. But I can read DP’s materials and his teacings. If there is any Gospel to be found therein, it is buried under a pile of “do’s” and “don’ts” that rival Rome’s and packaged for sale. Business appears to be good … for now.
“Doug Phillips makes good money. He can afford to pay people and pay them generously. But he evidently works hard at keeping all his money. One of the ways he does so is by oppressing the workman and not paying him. That takes some incredible arrogance for him to think that he’s so special — such royalty — that people should work for him for free.” Frank Vance
As a former VF intern and someone who know Doug Phillips character (which is above reproach), as well as the character of the “Jackson’s” (which is one of lying, gossip, rumor spreading, division, and malicious hatred) I can say for a fact that this claim is nothing but a pack of lies. Doug Phillips is a very generous man, and anyone who knows him or has worked for him (as I have) will tell you that. If you want the truth, why not go to the source instead of listening to an excommunicated couple who has a long history of lying and divisive behavior.
A former VF intern who is sick of all the lies
I was sniffin’ around in that Still Fed Up blog and found an article by a guest author entitled, “Another former VF intern weighs in.” I guess that means more than one Vision Forum intern has had their say of vitriol now.
I also decided to leave a couple comments at Still Fed Up for the Vision Forum interns who have decided to take it upon themselves to defend their idol, Doug Phillips. I had a sneaking suspicion that the authors of this Still Fed Up blog were Doug Phillips’ long-time personal assistant, Bob Renaud, who’s lived with Doug for years and tags along behind him everywhere he goes; and Brian Howell, another longtime Vision Forum employee. They are probably recruiting all their other Vision Forum former intern buds as well.
The comments I left were, “Hi Bob!” and “Hi Brian!” But those comments were not approved at Still Fed Up. They were very nice comments and I just can’t understand why they didn’t approve such nice comments – unless they didn’t want anyone to know who they really are. Even if it’s not Brian Howell and Bob Renaud, I will bet my bottom dollar it is Doug Phillips’ former Vision Forum interns.
If you dare to read the vitriol on their first site, Tired of the Crap, you will see the way Doug Phillips trains his interns to “honor” older men, older women, and wayward children. I’ve had many encounters with these “interns” and I know how “honorable” they really are.
Sniffin’
It is obvious Doug’s followers are desperate. They have failed to provide one concrete “fact” to refute the allegations in Mr. Fisher’s article. All anyone has seen in print are “huffy” denials with numerous modifiers thrown in (adjectives and adverbs). It reminds me of a poorly written television crime drama.
In addition to the denials, however, we’ve seen deliberate smoke screens erected to hide the facts. For example, in Sarratt’s “embellished denial epistle,” we see blatant attempts to skirt around a foundational issue – Doug’s public statement that an excommunication must be conducted by a local church with a plurality of elders.
Now, unless I missed something in Sarratt’s post, the only thing I saw referenced was the word “leadership.” Sorry, BCA, that doesn’t line-up with your un-ordained elder’s public oral and written statements. In addition, I think it important enough to note that a multiplicity or a multitude of “leaders” does NOT somehow miraculously translate to or constitute a “plurality of elders.” Perhaps Sarratt thinks his readers are unable to critically read and assess the contents of his letter or perhaps he thinks his readers are so ignorant they will miss this very salient point. I don’t know, perhaps his BCA readers did miss this sleight of hand, but I can assure you I didn’t miss Sarratt’s little foray into the world of legerdemain. There is a word for this type of deliberate deception, and I am sure Phillips and his followers know that word very well, which leads me to believe the allegations against Phillips ARE true. However, since Watchman has promised more information, I will reserve final judgment until I read the articles in this series.
On a related note, I must agree that Ian is certainly making the case for the Epsteins. I am sure Mr. Fisher and the Epsteins appreciate the assistance from him. Frankly, I only thought Phillips was as mean as Ian displays himself to be. It tells me a lot about Phillips’ mentoring of “young men,” if Ian happens to be one of his current or former “interns.”
Patiently waiting for the next installment of the “facts” to scrutinize,
Joe “Just the facts” Friday
Frank, it sounds like you’re really on to it -and I would advise anyone who wants “the track record,” to copy & save posts for future reference. I think we just might see more posts changed or deleted as time goes on.
To: Sick of the Lies
Since you are a former VF intern, why not set the record straight.
How much were YOU paid during your internship?
I have one request and no comments to make.
I was taught to “consider the source” whenever I heard criticism directed against myself or anone else. My request then, is to ask that you, Charles Fisher, make yourself known. We all have seen pictures of Doug Phillips and his family, we seemingly know all about his house as posted here, we know where he lives, where his church is and have heard much about his church. We have access to much of his teaching and even have some of his family history (from his blog) for quite a few years. On the other hand, I know nothing about you other the small blurb on this website which I can not verify. This makes it very hard for me to consider the source of this report. At least post a simple picture of your family, or let me know what church you are a member in good standing of. I would be much more comfortable believing what you say, if I could consider the source from which it came.
Thank you for your consideration of my request.
“Your wife is your helpmeet, my friend, and not another man’s,
So care for her and keep her far from Mistress Jezi’s plans.
Protect, provide, and give to her your undivided life,
This is the dear one of your youth, your precious bride, your wife.”
This poem was written by Doug, right?
Is this referring to women working? Is this “Mistress Jezzie’s” plans?
I find it curious that many women associated with VF, like Jennie Chancey, have gone through college, worked full-time in challenging and exciting careers and even met husbands at their work but they write against daughters going to college and women working outside of the home. Didn’t Beall even go to college and work in a career before marrying?
They also teach that a woman serves two masters (see the reference in the above “poem”) if she works outside of the home for someone else. If we really look at this, we see how wrong this is and really how illogical this assertion is. Everyone who works for a company works for “two masters” then. The Bible verse is actually talking about serving God or money. It is not talking about being under multiple authorities at the same time. We are all, both men and women, under multiple authorities all at the same time.
Why is it okay for all these wonderfully intelligent women to go to college, work in careers but I am being told that it is wrong to allow my daughters to go to college or to work outside of the home?
“Look not toward worldly goal or gain, or for your liberty,
Look only into their sweet eyes to find your ministry.
Devote your heart and sacrifice and make your manly mark —
There is none so great as he who finds his call as patriarch.”
I don’t know if this poem is proof positive that Doug Phillips is fond of calling women “Jezzies” but I don’t think it is a far stretch to see, from his writings, that he probably does look at certain types of women and thinks of them as “Jezzies”.
Actually, it is kind of “cute” in a gooberish sort of way.
Who were the people in the room when Mary was called a whore and Jezebel? What are their names? Could they give testimony that she was NOT called these things.
To me, since we are all believers, we should be able to solve this one pretty quickly. After all, whoever is lying will have to account for those lies and the truth will be shouted from the housetops. I would think it would be better to admit it NOW instead of waiting for God to reveal it?
I have read through all the posts about Doug Phillips and his wife Beall; all about the products he sells, his speaking engagements, his confrences (Film Fest, History, Father Daughter/Son, etc), and who knows what else.
Our family has purchased and used VF products for years. We love the stuff hands down. Like anything else, we don’t agree with every word spoken or written. We don’t “worship” Doug Phillips or VF or any other ministry. We don’t know the Phillips on a personal level either, but we do know this:
1. We have two beautiful little boys as a result of listening to a CD that Doug Phillips did on the fruit of the womb. God used this to show us that He wants us to have children and to TRUST HIM instead of birth control for family size. Our children are 23, 18, 3 years and 8 months old. (regarding birth control, this is what my husband I feel convicted towards and so this is for US. I am not judging anyone else – ok)
2. Somewhere in this vast reader comment section someone said something about DP and BCA not allowing women to speak in church, and blah, blah, blah. I don’t go there, but…..on one of his CD’s, he even talks about how SILLY this notion is and goes on to speak of a woman he knew that had to basically wave a hanki to get their husbands attention and then write a note to get herself heard.
3. Has anyone who has been bashing them even listened to his CD’s or read what he has written. Do you know the men he surrounds himself with? RC Sproul Jr. is one that is mentioned but what about Scott Brown, S.M. Davis, Micheal Bradrick, etc. I truely do not believe that these men would stand back and even associate themselves with DP IF he were doing ANY of the things he has been accused of here. (Minus the RC Srpoul Jr. guy).
None of us are perfect, and I am sure that if we took a microscope to ourselves like we are VF and Doug and Beall Phillips, we would stand back (if we were honest) in horror at what we see in ourselves.
I is too bad that all of this happened. It is too bad that we are reading about 2 people who obviously had (still have?) problems that led to being tossed out. But is it really any of our business. What GOOD out of all of this has been obtained? Are any of us really innocent since we have all gawked at the gossip and then had our 2 cents worth to add??? What do ANY of us know about this situation that is TRUTH???? Truth as in defined by God’s Word.
If in fact the Jackson’s and the Phillips and the BCA have a problem with each other, then it should remain between THEM and God. I certainly do not believe that Doug and Beall Phillips would go out of their way to shun someone that truely desires reconsiliation.
Instead of fueling this fire even more, maybe we should encourage all parties involved to meet and hash it out and forgive.
Oh and BTW, since Doug Phillips is Jewish, (or shall I say comes from a Jewish background) that is probably ONE of the reasons he doesn’t participate in Christmas or Easter for that matter. We are Messianic Jewish and we don’t observe Christmas, but we do observe and enjoy Chanukah and all the other Biblical Feasts set forth by our Lord.
C.A.,
Many of us have already seen that Phillips “public” statements do not line up with private practice.
Regardless of what you heard Phillips say in a public setting or on a CD, who are you to know or comment on whether the allegations about his private treatment of women (in his church) are accurate or inaccurate? You are attempting to use anecdotal evidence to make your case.
Many of those who you think are “bashing” Doug Phillips have listened to Doug’s products and him personally. Why do you think they see an apparent disconnect between his talk and his walk?
As for the men you mentioned, RC Sproul Jr. was defrocked, Scott Brown allegedly left a church to avoid discipline (still researching this one), Bradrick might fall in the “nepotistic” or “cronyism” category, but I highly respect Dr. S.M. Davis’ ministry. Maybe Dr. Davis is so outstanding because his ministry truly focuses on the family, and he happens to be ordained. Now I realize there are those that don’t think ordination is important, but then we would have to ask Phillips if the State of Virginia allowed him to practice law without passing the bar exam. My guess – probably not.
I completely agree with your assessment of ourselves via an honest look (Saul/Paul said he was the chief sinner). However, one of the issues surrounding this debacle is BCA’s refusal to even speak with the Jacksons. I would imagine it’s pretty frustrating talking to a brick wall.
Despite all the negativity surrounding “going public,” I know enough about Doug Phillips to welcome this accounting of him, a wife that supports his little “fantasy” for men’s “helpmeets,” the gelatinous-spine men attending BCA, the foul-mouthed and disrespectful interns at Vision Forum, and the exposure of what many of us have known for quite awhile – Phillips “shepherds” a church without a shepherd’s “heart,” he operates as the sole un-ordained elder, and though he makes a great “show” of being accountable, he is actually unaccountable in his role as elder or his role as businessman.
Hope this helps you in your search for truth.
Tejano
I was wondering if the specific rules for Mary to follow were not extreme sounding because the situation was extreme? Meaning, Jared was going to leave and divorce her and these injunctions concerning Mary never questioning Jared were only temporary until Jared basically settled down and was less emotional and more willing to work things out?
Could this be the reason that they sounded so extreme? I was thinking about this and then I got an email from someone who was thinking this also and asked for my opinion.
If this was true, was it explained to Mary when she signed the contract? Did she understand that this was only temporary and that it was due to Jared’s imminent abandonment of his family?
Certainly the leadership at VF don’t believe that a wife is never to question her husband or anything he says? That isn’t a marriage. That is more like a slave/master relationship. Do they believe that a wife is to unquestioningly go along with everything her husband says or does and support him in all he says and does?
So, in order to reasonably understand these things that Mary had to agree with, I am trying to make sense of them and this is the only thing that makes sense.
Was this only done for Mary because VF believed she was so out of control towards her husband that they believed she had to take drastic measures to keep him from walking out?
Or, does VF believe this is the will for all wives:
Namely, that wives may not: “Ever question, contradict, criticize, correct or end-run any communication or decision by [their husbands] to [their husband] or to anyone else.”
And, how did they instruct Mary to inform the elders if Jared’s anger ever escalated into abuse and/or violence? I mean, if she was bound to never question his actions to anyone then she could have been placed into a situation that is ripe for abuse, especially if they already knew that her husband had a severe anger problem.
I hope this makes sense to both sides? There are few questions I would like answered here. Was this only for Mary for a short time until things calmed down? Or is this a teaching for wives for all times? And maybe a third, did Mary know that this was a temporary thing when she signed that agreement? And was Jared apprised of his responsibility to treat her with dignity, care, respect, honor and love and not to be harsh or angry with her?
The first sentence should read: “the rules for Mary to follow were extreme because the situation was extreme.”
C.A.,
Hi! Congratulations on your two little ones. That is great. I have ten children, my youngest is now 7 months old.
I have listened to many of Doug’s cds and I have purchased many products from Vison Forum. I do disagree with some of his extreme patriarchal writings that you can get right off of his website.
Also, are you saying that women can share their own prayer requests IN the church service and they can get their own communion without it being served to them by some mediator (i.e., son or surrogate husband for the day) excluding the deacon/elder who is distributing the Lord’s supper?
I am glad that you straightened this one out for me. I am glad that women can speak for themselves in church and share their own prayer requests and take their own communion without worrying about whether or not they have a husband (maybe the husband travels like mine or she is widowed or divorced) or who will get it for them. I just don’t understand where this “husband/father serves his family communion” comes from because I don’t see it in scripture at all. I am glad you think it is all just “blah, blah, blah, blah”. I know you said you don’t go there but could someone else confirm to me if C.A. is right? Can women speak in the church service and share their own prayer requests and can they pray and ask questions in the public gathering?
I also highly agree with your great suggestion. Wouldn’t it be great if all parties could get together and work this out for the glory of God! I am praying for that end. That is always the best. But, sometimes we need to bring mediators into the situation because things have gotten so skewed. Maybe a good, neutral Christian mediator needs to be there? Someone with wisdom and objectivity?
I am glad that you felt free to share and that you understand that we all have different things to bring to this discussion.
I wish someone had saved all the responses on the “fed up” site about the Epsteins. I rather liked what I’d commented. Apparently the person to whom I was writing did not.
I use the name “friend of the family” only in support. I have never met them.
As a friend of the Epstein/Jackson family for the past 9 years, I would like to put in my two cents:
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/Mary, 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/Mary 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.
About Mark/Jared it was stated, “The husband was admonished for his violent anger, his lack of loving leadership, for unrepentant anger and hatred, and for bringing a false witness.”
To which I say, Good! Mark/Jared, for as long as I have known him (until very recently) has been a very violent and angry man. He ought to have been “admonished,” and much more! I have never seen him physically attack, but he can “rail” with the best of them. He has always had (until recently) much anger, bitterness, and hatred. In that, at least, they were correct.
But if the church leadership knew these things about Mark/Jared, why did the leadership not DO something about it?!? This kind of behavior requires much accountability on the part of the men. So their recourse is to tell his wife to tattle on him if he does something wrong?!? Any woman married to a man with anger issues knows that this is NOT a good idea. What better way to bring his anger down on you than to tattle on him to the pastor’s wife.
In defense of Mark/Jared, I need to say that in I can now see a change in him. The anger, bitterness, and hatred have dissipated, and he is no longer given to “railings.” He is learning to be a loving leader to his family. This did not start to happen until almost one year after they were excommunicated.
I would also like to say a little something about Natasha, since she has now been dragged into this. I want to point out that when a teenage girl is excommunicated from her church and shunned by her Christian friends, it does not leave her much to turn to besides the world. I hope and pray that she will now find some Christian friends who will lead her in the right path instead of pushing her away when she needs friendship the most.
Wow – rather than sounding like people want Doug Phillips to realize his errors and repent (if in fact that is what NEEDS to be done) it sounds as if some would like to see him burn at the stake. Gee Whiz!!!!!!!!!!!! Come on!!!!!! For crying out loud!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get a grip!!!!!!!! He is only human!!!! What do you expect out of him if he did do this – and what was it that he is actually being accused of????? I am confused.
As for the interns at VF……we know personally a young man (who actually can use the word “man” in the correct sense) who was an intern in 2003. I have never known him to be ANYTHING but kind, considerate, hard-working, funny, Godly, extremely smart and uses his brains for practical things like education and focusing on his future and preparing himself for a wife and children someday. He has sisters and doesn’t make them “serve” him. I think they do sometimes make dinner and clear the table, but I think his mother also taught him how to do dishes too. I ‘ll check with her on that one. hee hee. I am also sure that he has his faults too, just like the rest of us.
I do know that the interns travel with Doug, some live with him and his family and they receive a very, very in-depth working education on many subjects. Perfect? No. But I would like to challenge anyone to show me and name me a perfect organization, internship, ministry, etc. We are not God – therefore, we sin, make honest mistakes, learn, try again, screw up again, try again, maybe even say a word or two that isn’t Godly……we have all done it and will do it again. That is just our nature. The difference is that some people will honestly ask for forgivness and repent and others will be too prideful and eventually fall on their face. They will also lie, twist, turn, do anything to save their image…..is this what Doug Phillips is doing? I think I’ll call and ask him personally.
You can’t tell me that he has nothing to say and that he is calling on all of his “friends” to circle the wagons and protect his so called duel personality.
I’ll let you know what happens.
Shalom
Corrie wrote:
“I was wondering if the specific rules for Mary to follow were not extreme sounding because the situation was extreme? Meaning, Jared was going to leave and divorce her and these injunctions concerning Mary never questioning Jared were only temporary until Jared basically settled down and was less emotional and more willing to work things out?”
Corrie, I’ve been thinking about this one, primarily because I’ve said in a couple places that it is abusive advice. It could be what you suggest, but it still strikes me as advice with great potential “to be abused by an abuser.”
From what I’ve heard from people such as Dr. Dobson and others, there are two issues a person with a spouse who wants to depart must deal with.
#1. is to clear up any sinful behavior which may be hurting the party that wants to leave. But a body can do that without having to resort to the extreme measures of #1. One can ask for forgiveness, one can be respectful, without having to sign something like what is on that list. Therefore, if Mary were having to deal with some issues of her own, the stipulations could have been worded much differently than that — communicate in a respectful tone, bring problems only to counselors and her female prayer buddy, whatever.
The other part of clearing up sinful, self-centered behavior is having the confidence and regard for the other’s free agency to not clutch and claw and control the other party, whining and begging and pleading for him or her to stay, saying, “you’re killing me” and the like. And again, that can be accomplished without having to sign measures such as what Mary signed.
2. — alongside stopping the sin, begging and pleading, is the firm resolve to NOT put up with garbage the departing spouse may want to heap on the person trying to save the marriage. This means to stop enabling the person. That an affair will not be tolerated while living with you. That you will not tolerate screaming and wild actions, which amounts to assault, or striking with the fist, which is assault and battery. Again, not stipulations screamed at the person wanting to leave, but just calm, rational, boundaries which any sane person would think are biblical (except Bill Gothard, who thinks wives should take physical beatings from their husbands, because their husbands are their authorities).
It is very risky, allowing a departing spouse to leave. But the more I think about it, the more I am not in favor of what Mary was made to sign, and the more in favor I am of what I just outlined above, which in no way requires someone never criticize anything her husband should do to anyone, ever, nor end-run possibly criminal decisions. There are just no proper boundaries in what she was made to sign, and if only for the sake of the children, there should be boundaries of what you will and will not tolerate — again, made clear with gentleness, firmness, and with respect for the other person and for yourself and your children.
Corrie, you asked some good questions, so I checked into it a little more thoroughly. Apparently, these “rules” for Mary were forever rules. When she is allowed to take communion again, as you’ll see in the next article, the deacons remind her at a pivotal part in the story (I can’t tell you yet, but you’ll be able to figure it out!) of her promise to not “Speak ill of her husband or family matters to third parties,” even if her life was in danger.
From multiple sources, it is quite clear that the standard for all wives, according to Doug Phillips, is exactly what you say: “[W]ives may not: ‘Ever question, contradict, criticize, correct or end-run any communication or decision by [their husbands] to [their husband] or to anyone else.’”
That type of doormat theology was constantly taught and expected from all women at Boerne Christian Assembly, not just from Mary.
Mary was not told specifically what she could do if there was abuse and/or violence, but she was told she could call Beall Phillips at any time. The fact that Beall wasn’t really interested in her marriage, as evidenced by the fact that she never once spoke to her about it, didn’t seem to factor into the equation.
In the document, you can see that Jared’s responsibilities included not threatening to permanently leave the family or divorce Mary; not yell in anger at members of the family; not speak critically of Mary to the children; demonstrate sacrificial leadership for his wife; forgive and love one another.
Thank you for asking me to clarify.
Charles
Ok, I called. I spoke with an employee that was PREVIOUSLY an intern in 2003 and I have met him before at a homeschool conference……here is what I asked him:
1. Blog wars – what is up with this? Response: Basically VF isn’t involved because it is a church issue between the parties.
2. Asked about women speaking in church. Response: Couldn’t really comment because he doesn’t attend there and has no first hand knowledge. Referred me to the BCA page. Hmmmm, very good response I think since he has no FIRST HAND knowledge.
3. Interships….are you paid or what? Response: He didn’t know for other class years, but for himself he was paid a stipend that more than enough covered his expenses and was very pleased with the time spent at VF as an intern. If he worked he was compensated. So there you have it from the mouth of a former intern. Also too, he still works there as an employee and as an employee expenses are covered and compensation is provided.
He also stated that he would have done the internship WITHOUT any pay because of the priceless education and attention he received being an intern. And if he wasn’t making any money as an employee, then he would have to work somewhere else because he doesn’t have a rich daddy to provide for him. (I added that part about the rich daddy, but he agreed.)
People are free to think what they want, but I personally think that this is a witch hunt and that if you want to know the truth, then go to the source. Ask.
If I can call and push the correct buttons, so can you to get a live person on the phone.
Lynn, I agree with you on the abuse factor of signing that contract. I think it shows a lack of wisdom to be having people sign things like that.
Charles, thank you for responding. I will read the next installment.
Friend of Jennifer, thank you for your testimony concerning your friend. It is interesting to me since I have heard this thing said about other women who have been accused of being “gossips” and “railers”, too. It seems like that is the “go to” answer for any woman who dares to confront sin in the church or bring a problem to the elders’ attention. I am also having a heavy heart concerning Natasha. I feel like a mother bear. She is being picked on by the very people who drove her out into the world. Shameful behavior and I wonder if this is how people are trained by their leaders to respond? I see no love, no charity, no wisdom from those who claim wisdom and to be leaders. I will tell you, there will be a reckoning for the things that were said about Natasha on the other blog.
CA, I am sorry to say but you have confused me. It seems that you are not sure what it is they do at BCA even after you made those calls.
I really wish someone could authoritatively tell me that they all women to share their own prayer requests without all this speculation and knee-jerk defensives. And, all the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! kind of are distracting. 😉 And before someone takes you to task, “gee whiz” is a euphemism for taking the Lord’s name in vain. Just like I have been corrected for saying “pot luck” and “deviled eggs” and “devil’s food cake”, I have learned to not make these “minced oaths” as Gothard calls them.
I know it is hard. I wasn’t raised in the church, so I am pretty rough around the edges. I am learning though. I just wish someone could zap me and make me the perfect Stepford wife/woman/mother. It would be so much easier for me! I totally feel like a square peg in a round hole when I am around certain types.
“if you want to know the truth, then go to the source. Ask.”
C.A., some of us are a bit jaded here. We did the same thing with Ligoneir and were lied to repeatedly. You think DP and his followers are going to say to a public blog, “yes, we called her a whore and a jezebel’. I think not.
Some things just do not line up. Take the whole intern thing. My former church had hundreds of interns every year. I am telling you right now, if the senior pastor had said jump off the roof, they would have. There are no better sycophants in the world than young male interns who revere their leader. That is not always a bad thing but it certainly can be. They are also a ready made fan club.
I was shocked to hear some interns or employees live with the Phillips. I know quite a few wealthy Christian couples who do some of the same sorts of things. Young seminarians or graduates looking for jobs (girls or guys) live with them, travel with them and act as personal assistants or nannies. The rich couples always say, well they have their own room free and they get to travel and they are learning so much!
So, I know how this works and have seen it hundreds of times.
That has been my impression with the childish and churlish ‘fed up’ blog. I was certain it had to be written by a young man with little discernment. Definitly a blind follower who loves vulgar words. But, he claims not to go to BCA which is somewhat shocking since he seems to know quite a bit of ‘first hand’ information.
His writing sounds like a young intern. He certainly is not helping DP.
Corrie, I think you are asking if any women at Boerne Christian Assembly can share prayer requests themselves or get communion themselves? If that is what you are asking, I can answer that no woman is ever allowed to share a prayer request, except through another man, and that women must always be served communion, usually by their husband or their son, or if neither is available, another man will serve them. I hope that is what you are asking.
BTW, no there is NO time during the service that women may speak at all, unless you consider congregational singing speaking.
Just wanted to clarify that.
Some of what was said to Mary was good in the Guidlines for Accountability. Some of what was said to Jared was good. But I maintain that the list of three things Mary was to do was way too controlling of Mary, and now I just noticed this little stipulation under, “Jared must.” This following makes me understand more the lopsidedness of this counsel to this couple:
[Jared] must:
“Examine themselves for unconfessed, or inadequately confessed sins against her husband from any time during their marriage.”
Really? These guidelines are very one-sided if that is something the husband is charged with doing, making sure Mary keeps confessing and confessing until he feels better, or something.
Are you sure there aren’t any guidelines for Jared to be “examining himself?”
I can see why Jared just got angrier and angrier with a list like this. What a crushing burden to place on a wife! This is saying that Jared’s continued anger is justified, and that the past can’t be the past. He was charged with putting all the sordid stuff the wife did throughout the marriage under a microscope to be “examined.”
I don’t know what kinds of things Mary did, but to be placed under this kind of microscope, which only one spouse is entitled to use, is not right. If you are going to have a stipulation like this, then let both parties be so examined. But better yet, drop this stipulation and let the past be the past. If emotions are still a problem, that is what talking things out and prayer and counseling is for, but hurt emotions are no reason to try to even out the score with ruminating about what else the other person needs to confess to you so you can feel better.
To keep examining a wife’s past for sins that haven’t been confessed, or “inadequately confessed,” who is to decide when that kind of a list is completed? The horrible thing about this is we are all dirty rotten sinners, and there is sure to be stuff that could be examined and confessed from years gone by. Is that how the New Testament counsels us to deal with one another? I don’t think it is.
Thank you, ex BCA member, that is what I wanted answered. So, whatever C.A. is referring to concerning Doug Phillips brinking up a woman who had to resort to hankie waving in order to get her husbands attention and then finally had to write a note is beyond me.
If I had a prayer request and my husband was gone or not available because he was not right at my side at the moment, I would have to resort to hankie waving and note writing to get some male to speak my prayer request to the congregation. I suppose they would accept a 3 year old male who is able to speak putting in my prayer request rather than allowing a grown, adult, full-fledged member of the body of Christ to speak her own prayer request?
So, what was DP talking about in that CD then?
I just understand why these churches go to such a great extent to outdo the scriptures in what it allows women to do. Maybe it is too scary for them to hear a woman’s voice in church. She may actually quote scripture in her prayer request and they would dreadfully learn something listening to her and the end results would be monstrous! Perish the thought!
I thank God for the church I go to and that women are respected and their voices are respected and they are not treated lower than little children. BTW, I go to a strong manly man church with male only elders.
After the Comment of “Best friend of Jennifer/Mary” December 4th at 2:26 P.M., I want to put in my one penny about this couple. Unlike Best friend, I have a much briefer experience with Mark and Jennifer, but a substantive one, and I think I can say helpful things. Best friend’s comments on Jennifer seemed spot on, matching all that I know of her. I have talked with both of them, which many have not, but many can read Jennifer’s postings on her blog-site, which show notable restraint and compassion. Read and see what I mean. She is careful not to go past proven facts, and her love toward the people in Ligonier who have done so badly is real and obvious. Best friend’s comments match so well the lady I have known, and the accusations of railing and lying seem absurd and remind me of a Roman priest describing a Reformer.
I do not know Mark as well, but I think the Lord is doing His true work in him. I have so greatly sinned in anger, bitterness, and unforgiveness, and the Lord has so compassionately worked in me, and still does.
As I think Frank Vance wrote well, this dragging in of their daughter Natasha into this war is unconscienable, and I don’t think Ian is alone in this matter. Anyone reading this, think how YOU would feel if such people pulled YOUR child into such a controversy. Decent people don’t go after their adversary’s young children, especially hurting, needy, vulnerable teenage daughters. Mark and Jennifer have written clearly on Ligonier, and they now have both Ligonier and Phillips against them. One might say to those behind Ian, have you no shame?, but their going after this young daughter conveys no shame at all. Decent people don’t do this. If they would do this, what will they not do? Frank Vance accurately said “below-the-belt punches,” and I am reminded in this of brass knuckles, Nazi brown-shirts, and Mussolini’s fierce men. To go after a wife and a young, vulnerable daughter, is unconscienable. After the apparent counsel of Mr. Phillips to Ligonier in their situation, will Ligonier — the Sproul family and John Duncan — now follow this example against the Epstein family and similarly declare Don Kistler a drug addict, a wild man out of control, possibly schizophrenic, or other such attacks on his character? and will they go after Don Kistler’s wife or daughter as they have done to the Epsteins? Are they searching hard to discover any past failures or sins by Dr. Kistler before his conversion or after his conversion? or to try to find or fabricate such against his wife and children? Whatever Mark or Jennifer may have done in the past, they clearly want to follow the Lord now, and repentant sinners (we are all of us so sinful, all of us so greatly needing the Lord’s mercy and truth) repentant sinners should be shown mercy and truth, the true love of Christ for sinners, to pray for them and help them to follow the Lord, not this remarkable attack. Mark and Jennifer, keep cleaving to the Lord, and ask Him to be your alone only defence. Jennifer has written so well on her blog-site that we should truly love the Sproul family (remember her compassion and desire for Ryan to be converted) and others at Ligonier, that we should be concerned for their souls, pray for them, call them to repentance. She really loves them and wants the best for them. Yes. Let us respond to this cruel behavior with true love toward those attacking. The most important, needful, valuable way that a person can love another is to tell him the truth and point him to Christ.
Dear Brothers in Christ,
I received your unsolicited email this morning. I don’t know how you got my email address, but since you sent it to me, I believe I need to respond in someway.
There are Biblical ways of handling strife and conflict within the Body of Christ. This is definitely NOT one of them. I don’t know whether Mr. Phillips is guilty of these accusations or not. Either way, I see no Scripture that supports slandering an allegedly errant brother (let alone an elder) in Christ before the watching world.
The mark of being a Christian is love, yes even tough love. What you are doing is NOT speaking the truth in love. If you want to do right, delete this thread, go to Mr. Phillips IN PERSON, and deal with your differences face to face. Read Galatians 6:1 for goodness sake. At least use your power and influence to call people to pray for Mr. Phillips.
Airing conflicts within the Body of Christ over the internet is wrong. It is especially wrong for Christians to criticize Mr. Phillips’ personal life; business, marriage, house, or whatever. What he does in his own house or how he conducts his own marriage is his business. If he and his wife, and his employees choose to do things different than you, that’s their prerogative. If members in his church do not like what is happening in his church, they can leave. Whose business is it if he had 10 indoor pools? I don’t see how what you are doing in this blog is “the mind of Christ?”
I doubt anything I said will make a difference. I also suspect it will do nothing but open me to some form of criticism, yet it is worth a try. I will pray for you. Please take me off your email list.
Sincerely,
Pastor Norman Patterson
This is a disgusting display. For the World who might be watching, I say: this is NOT Jesus, this is man surrendering to their flesh.
Every overbearing, controlling, arrogant party involved here deserves one another. They’ve created their own private hell and MW has simply facilitated.
The lion isn’t crouching any longer…he has pounced!
Pastor Patterson, welcome to Ministry Watchman. Thank you for acknowledging that we are your brethren in Christ, and we likewise so acknowledge you.
I thought about not approving your comment, but only because I don’t want to cause a pastor any embarrassment. I thought seriously about replying to you via email (thank you for having the integrity to provide what appears to be a legitimate email address) instead. However, after due consideration to the matter I decided to approve your comment and respond to it. Again, this is not done to embarrass you, but to use this as an object lesson and dissuade others from making similar false assumptions, and making similar false accusations.
Let me recommend that the next time you receive an unsolicited email, regardless of who it might appear to be from, before you go accusing someone that you don’t even know of sending you that email, you should first contact them privately and ask them if they did in fact send it.
It’s not wise to presume that we emailed you anything, or that we ever email anything to anyone, especially unsolicited emails, or that we keep email lists. We’ve been falsely accused of that before. However, ordinarily those accusations come via email, not a publicly posted list of unsubstantiated allegations. After all, if the assumptions upon which the allegations are based are wrong it could get a little embarrassing.
Unlike Doug Phillips, whose self-acknowledged “former interns” have set up attack the Epsteins blogs, and even attack their teenage daughter (thereby only further substantiating the Phillips MO), young men which Phillips clearly does significantly influence, if not still implicitly control, the email that you received is not something that I control.
As I’ve told others please contact the person who emailed you and ask them to remove you from their list. If they don’t cooperate with you then contact your ISP and report it as spam. However, to those who would be tempted to falsely accuse us to their ISP of being the source of any spam, be forewarned. False spam reports can and often do backfire, particularly in the case where a public statement like this has already been posted.
Pastor, I won’t make the same logical error of making assumptions about you as you’ve made of us. It’s particularly grievous to the Lord to judge a man that you don’t know anything about. It’s grievous to jump to conclusions about a subject that you’re ignorant of. I won’t assume that your false allegation of “slander,” and that your criticisms of our methods, are an implicit defense of Doug Phillips. I won’t assume that you’re even attempting to defend Doug Phillips at all. I won’t assume that the reason any pastor would defend Phillips is because they likewise practice tyranny under the guise of “church discipline.” Assumptions are risky business, so I won’t make them about you or anyone else.
If I’m going to make any assumptions I’d much rather just assume that you’re ignorant of the issues, and perhaps a bit naive. I pray that it’s not your intention to remain ignorant though — willfully ignorant. I pray that you will make a point of thoroughly researching the facts, both here, and from Phillips and his defenders (we’ve even posted links to them, unlike Phillips who calls us “internet assassins” but won’t mention us by name), before you accuse us (or anyone else) of “slander.”
At the very least I pray that you’ll pick up a dictionary so that you understand the definition of “slander.” If you have evidence to support that any of Charlie Fisher’s story is “slandering” then please produce it here. If you have no such evidence then you’re bearing false witness against those that you’ve just acknowledged are your brethren.
Please don’t allow my response to in any way dissuade you from commenting again. I would just ask that you, as a minister of the gospel of Jesus, do your homework before attempting to teach and instruct us. We are very teachable, but we’re also very discerning, and we can tell the difference between biblical wisdom and, well, what you just posted.
Your “written to suggest” allegation is to accuse me of choosing a name to imply something that I had never even considered. But then any logically-minded person would be able to determine for themselves what my intentions are, even if they, like you Friend of BCA, never bother to read the About Ministry Watchman page.
Friend of BCA, you’re insulting the intelligence of the readers here with your apples and oranges comparisons.
Actually, “apples and oranges” is only too kind. The comparisons you attempt to strain out are far more removed from one another than, say, two types of fruits. The logical commonality you propose is more like apples and canned tuna — the only thing they have in common is that they’re both food. The only thing in common between Ministry Watchman and Judicial Watch is that “Watch” appears in the names of both.
Pastor Patterson,
Thanks for your admonition. Since you’ve chosen to jump in with your comments, I feel somewhat compelled to respond.
First, I quite agree that the Bible doesn’t condone slander as a tool for biblical conflict resolution. Yet more and more I find that charging others with slander is the most fashionable form of slander there is. You stated that you don’t know the facts in this case, yet somehow you do not hesitate to charge the author of this blog with slander!
Second, I’m somewhat taken a back at your apparent hypocrisy. Do you receive your friend Sproul’s magazine, Every Thought Captive? Have you written him to tell him that slandering the targets of his open letters (such as Dennis Cochran and Harry Seabrook for starters) is not a form of biblical conflict resolution? Have you? Why not? Do you not love him as you do the author of this blog?
Third, perhaps you are unaware of the difficulties that most people (at least those with shallow pockets or who don’t offer sometime of promotional capital to Doug’s business through their position or name) have TRYING to deal with Doug Phillips in person. What he does is drop grenades through his “personal assistants” and continually communicates that we are not worthy of any “face” time with Doug, even those of us that he has taken the time to slander and threaten with litigation. But that really doesn’t apply to the Epstein’s, they claim that they attempted reconciliation for two years, and now they are warning others to beware. I am glad that there are now materials on the internet to warn those that think about relocating their families to be in the churches that these kinds of men (Phillips and Sproul) operate. Better to be forewarned and forearmed.
Hello Stephen,
Thank you reminding me of the Proverb
He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears. Proverbs 26:17
I got an email that said many serious accusations against a Christian brother. It grieves me to see the Body of Christ acting this way, especially before the watching world. You jumped to many unwarrented conclusions about me. I suppose I asked for it.
For those of you on this website. I apologize for posting in the first place. I have taken too many “dogs by the ears” over the years and have been sufficently “nipped” for my foolishness. When will I ever learn. If I thought I could bring any peace or reconcilation, I would press on, but alas, I am bowing out.
May God have mercy on us all!
Pastor Patterson
“Yet more and more I find that charging others with slander is the most fashionable form of slander there is.”
Stephen, I am quite envious that I did not think of this first. :o) It is so very true!
Another irony in this whole episode is that DP loves all this pride, country, flag, war stuff yet has not served. Mark Epstien has. If I remember correctly, he mentioned being in Bosnia once. Not exactly a garden spot. As Croc has mentioned, there are real issues involved there.
But the irony is: One guy wraps himself in the flag for profit…the other defends it physically.
Pastor Patterson, I have found that it is so hard for one in authority to truly understand what it is like to be lied about and/or decieved by professing Christians with influence be it another pastor or influential elder. It is a horror that is indescribable.
The irony is that pastors are the last to understand something like this. Not that they are not maligned but it rarely comes from someone who has control or influence over them. My experience with many churches is that the elders (if they have them) either rubber stamp the pastor or they keep their differences behind closed doors. It is a totally different situation when a congregant is labeled something they are not just because the pastor or someone else in authority does not like them, has bad doctrine or is threatened by them.
With pastors it is no different than any other type of similarity club. Pastors are going to first defend other pastors and use scripture to admonish the person trying to defend themselves. After all, we know how these congregants can be. Right? What amazes me is that rarely do they try for the other side of the story. We have seen this same behavior with the Ligoneir situation. It has actually enabled sin which hurts all pastors especially the ones that defended them.
So I have a question for the pastor. What should one do after implementing Matt 18 to no avail? You imply that they should leave the church. I agree. Does that also mean that they should lie if someone asks them why they left? Should they tell the truth about what happened to them? Do they have a duty to warn others about wolves? I am not asking to be sarcastic. I really would like to know.
Thanks
Charlie might choose to also respond to this, but given my experience I’m probably the best suited to answer it.
So let me see if I’ve got this right. If Charlie Fisher posts a picture of his family you’ll believe what he’s reported here? If he discloses the name of his church you’ll believe what he writes? That doesn’t seem very logical, nor is it likely consistent with how you choose to believe or disbelieve other information sources, whether it be your local newspaper, or another blog, etc. No, in all likelihood you’ve never before asked for this information of anyone else. Why are you seeking it now? Probably only because it’s Doug Phillips who’s being exposed.
There are good reasons for not making personal disclosures, especially to someone like yourself who won’t even give a real name (kind of hypocritical of you isn’t it?). You really expect us to post family photos and list our church memberships with the kind of hostile reactions to this article that we’re all now witnessing?
I’m the poster child here for why that would be a really stupid thing to do. No one ever bothered to ask me such questions until after, several weeks after, Ligonier Ministries had already sued me. Then all of a sudden several Ligonier shills started badgering me for personal information, including the names of my pastor and elders, all under the guise of “church accountability.” Sure.
If anyone wants to sue me, or Charlie Fisher, or Watchman, or Ministry Watchman itself, I’m sure they won’t make that kind of mistake again. No, they’ll know to try and come up with the personal vitals first, then sue. Would Doug Phillips like to sue? Just peruse his blog and you won’t have any trouble finding the answer to that one. Phillips has a lot he’d like to conceal, and he anticipated being exposed, so he started sabre-rattling weeks ago, making his threats known that he would sue any “internet assassins” who dared to out him. He was counting on such bluster to have the desired dissuasive effect.
Obviously Consider The Source you must believe that you have similar concerns for privacy (although you’re motivated for very different reasons) or you’d use a real name. I’d never criticize you for wanting to maintain your own privacy. You’re entitled to it. Nor would I demand to know the name of your elders before I’d believe what you say if you wanted to post a comment here in defense of Doug Phillips. I don’t determine the veracity of the source based upon seeing someone’s picture. That’s completely illogical and we both know it, and because we both know it, the fact that you even asked for it just makes me suspicious.
Because of my own legal tangle with Ligonier I’ve encouraged every writer here to maintain their privacy. If your inquiry is actually a legitimate one, but for whatever illogical and inconsistent reason you believe that you couldn’t even consider as credible Mr. Fisher’s story without first viewing his family photos, then that’s a problem — for you, not for Mr. Fisher. Charlie can’t accommodate you. You’ll just have to disbelieve his story.
Not to be rude about it, but when it comes right down to it why should Charlie even care what a person thinks who won’t even identify himself by name? The reality is that if you’d reject his story over not getting to see his family photo, and then he consented to your illogical request to see his family photo, in all likelihood the next thing you’d want is his home address.
Always Batya,
I would have to respectfully disagree with you in that some of the worst spirtual abuse I have ever witnessed came to pastors and their families. I cannot express the grief and heartache I have seen as children grew up and became embittered as a result of seeing their fathers and mothers beaten upon by congregants.
One of the saddest things I ever heard was the testimony from a young woman whose dad was a pastor. She became pregnant as a teenager and chose to abort her child because she had heard women in her church gossip about similar situations and she also knew that there were people waiting to “get something” on her dad. Rather than see him suffer, she chose to abort. Of course her thinking was wrong and when I met her, she was trying to put her life back together after repenting of her sin and confessing it to her family.
Spiritual abuse can run both directions. In a congregational form of church government, the tyranny of the 51% can bring about that abuse on anyone in leadership as easily as a plurality of elders can bring it to pass on those in their churches. The bottom line is that there needs to be a balance of power within the system and none of it can be more righteous than the character of those involved.
“If Charlie Fisher posts a picture of his family you’ll believe what he’s reported here? If he discloses the name of his church you’ll believe what he writes?”
I did not say I would believe him. I only said it would HELP me to discern.
“in all likelihood you’ve never before asked for this information of anyone else. Why are you seeking it now? Probably only because it’s Doug Phillips who’s being exposed.”
I am seeking it now because a man whom I have benefitted greatly from spiritually is being severely criticized. I have always had what others would consider an excellent marriage, but even so, my marriage has improved dramatically due to his teaching on “A Wise Woman’s Guide to Blessing Her Husbnd’s Vision”
I am seeking it now because my heart is grieved over all the gossipy little comments that are being posted here. When God uses a man to bless you spiritually, it is only right that you seek to verify any criticism directed at him as much as possible. I owe a debt to this man, and it would be unconscienable for me to stand by idly while others carelessly banter back and forth about his family and personal life. Please understand I am not accusing you of anything excepting allowing this to degenerate into a gossip column. Please be more careful about what you allow here. I don’t know the Jackson family and I am sorry for whatever happened to them, but I do know something of the Phillips family and it is hard to see them publicly ridiculed in this way. I’m sure they are not a perfect family, but they are a very dear family nonetheless, and it hurts to see them and their church family treated this way.
“someone like yourself who won’t even give a real name (kind of hypocritical of you isn’t it?).”
I gave you my real email address and I would give you my real name if you asked for it. I am just kind of hesitant to put my name anywhere on the internet, but if I thought it would help, I would do it. I don’t think that comment was very fair to me.
I understand your reasons for wishing to remain anonymous, but it does not enhance your credibility with me. The overall picture I have of Doug Phillips is good but not flawless, and I will continue to think the best of him regardless of what I hear to the contrary.
Thank you for responding to my question. I too remain anonymous for now.
Consider the source wrote: The overall picture I have of Doug Phillips is good but not flawless, and I will continue to think the best of him regardless of what I hear to the contrary”>>
Now that is scary. That is what they call blind loyalty.
“If Charlie Fisher posts a picture of his family you’ll believe what he’s reported here? If he discloses the name of his church you’ll believe what he writes?”
“I did not say I would believe him. I only said it would HELP me to discern.”
This is an interesting statement. Bill Gothard has always taught that you can know the heart of someone by looking at the “brightness of their eyes.” Many times I have heard him talk about looking at a man or his family and, by their eyes, knowing if there is hidden sin.
“The overall picture I have of Doug Phillips is good but not flawless, and I will continue to think the best of him regardless of what I hear to the contrary”
I recently read excerpts from a book that discussed the reasons why the German people were so willing to accept and embrace Hitler’s ideas, even in the face of the terrible atrocities commited under his command. Reaserchers now recognize that in the decades prior to Hitler’s rise to power, German citizens had been taught that to question authority was the same as lacking submission to that authority and that it was a punishable offense to do so.
Rudolph Hoss, commandant at the concentration and extermination camp at Auschwitz where it is estimated that 1.3 million people died in the gas chambers, recalled this about his own upbringing:
“Our guests were mostly priests of every sort. As the years passed, my father’s religious fervor increased. Whenever time permitted, he would take me on pilgrimages to all the holy places in our own country, as well as to Einsiedeln in Switzerland and to Lourdes in France. He prayed passionately that the grace of God might be bestowed on me, so that I might one day become a priest blessed by God. I, too, was as deeply religious as was possible for a boy of my age, and I took my religious duties very seriously. I prayed with true, childlike gravity and performed my duties as acolyte with great earnestness. I had been brought up by my parents to be respectful and obedient toward all adults, and especially the elderly, regardless of their social status. I was taught that my highest duty was to help those in need. It was constantly impressed upon me in forceful terms that I must obey promptly the wishes and commands of my parents, teachers, and priests, and indeed of all adults, including servants, and that nothing must distract me from this duty. Whatever they said was always rights. These basic principles by which I was brought up became second nature to me.”
I belive there is a lesson for us in this account.
Many of us have been taught that we are to obey whatever is handed to us by those in authority, whether it be a parent, a government official, or an officer in the church. The “outing” of the sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has opened the eyes of those who are willing to see the truth….it is all about the abuse of power.
Too often a body of believers will be brow-beaten into submission by this very teaching. They are told that it is a sin to not obey and submit to everything a religious authority instructs them to do. Indeed, they are instructed that this is from God’s hand, not to be questioned. While I heartily agree that God is sovereign in the affairs of men, it is certainly not an excuse to turn a blind eye to abuse.
The truth of the matter is that not only is a Christian putting himself into spiritual danger and not only is he not heeding the entire counsel of God, but he is putting those under his own authority, ie. his family and those in his sphere of influence, in the same sort of danger.
This article explains “why” there are those who will “stand by your man” no matter what.
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/0203/020304tritle.php
Dear Truth seeker,
Obviously, if these things were coming from people I could see, in an unbiased format, I would be much more open to what I am hearing. But I will not change my entire opinion of a man based on a combination of hearsay and one person’s side of a story. Words are very powerful and they can be used to make anything seem true. Documents can also be modified and pictures can too as we have seen the media do recently re: the war between Israel and whoever she was at war with — it just slipped my mind. I would have to have more than this blog to believe such things as I am hearing here, however convincing they may sound. So I guess I shoud modify my words to say, “I will continue to think the best of him regardless of what I hear to the contrary ON THIS BLOG.”
Thank you for having me clarify that.
By the way, I have decided not to read anymore posts as I just don’t have the time. This can really eat up a lot of time and it doesn’t seem to be the most profitable way to redeem the time.
Thank you for allowing my comments to be posted. Surely the truth will prevail in the end and God will bring to light the secrets of all men’s hearts. God have mercy on us all!
Isn’t it blatently obvious that the motivation for this is out of vengence and not concern for fellow brothers and sisters? Had it been for the latter I would believe this would not be the forum. Some points to ponder…
Matthew 7:4-6
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
John 8:7
7So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
We are all sinners, in one capacity or another, but if you feel the above verses do not apply to you then continue to spend your DAYS casting stones at a brother in Christ.
Consider the Source: Obviously, if these things were coming from people I could see, in an unbiased format, I would be much more open to what I am hearing.
As Doug Phillips often says, there is no neutrality. That means there is no unbaised format, only formats that pretend to be unbiased. As Christians we do not have the luxury of finding an “unbiased” authority and putting our trust in it. Instead, we must be Bereans, who were willing to test even what an apostle said by the word of God. That being so, Doug Phillips is not exempt from close scrutiny. In fact, as one who presumes to teach, he should expect and welcome greater scrutiny, as promised by James 3:1.
Consider the Source: But I will not change my entire opinion of a man based on a combination of hearsay and one person’s side of a story.
With all due respect, you are not paying attention. What you have is a combination of two live witnesses, Mark + Jen, and multiple other witnesses in the form of numerous documents, some even signed. Even without the supplemental comments on the internet (perhaps that’s the “hearsay” you refer to, there is sufficient testimony to hear a charge against Doug Phillips, even if we assume his unordained status is legitimate.
Consider the Source: By the way, I have decided not to read anymore posts as I just don’t have the time. This can really eat up a lot of time and it doesn’t seem to be the most profitable way to redeem the time.
If you currently have no connection with Doug Phillips, his businesses, or the ministry he heads, then this approach is probably wise. But if you do have any of these connections with him, I think you must, in the intersest of good stewardship, continue to consider the matter until both sides have had their say and you can come to some basic understanding of the truth.
I realize taking this approach requires time and energy, but, as I am sure you know, there are many things in life that we ought to do that aren’t quick or easy.
Prairie Girl, I guess my experience with spiritual abuse is different coming from the mega church community.
These pastors are flying high enjoying the good life of celebrity and wealth and woe to any who question or critisize behavior or doctrine. I have seen lives ruined for speaking out or even questioning in love. And, they are surrounded with elders and staff who go right along because they love the spotlight, high salaries and power.
I know quite a few of them from my work in this ‘community’ around the country in the past and respect none of them. They are not ‘legalistic’ in the sense of how some like DP can be but they are just as vengeful (not to your face but behind your back) if one dares question them. I know some will think I cannot generalize…but I am, because that is what I ‘generally’ saw ‘back stage’. They are really no different than Hollywood celebrities.
Your analogy of Germany and the awe of authority is right on. I am a bit of an amatuer historian and have read much on what led up to the Holocaust. The main thing is blind devotion to authority and, of course, one needs a common enemy to blame all the failures and woes on.
In DP’s case, it is independent, thinking women.
Prairiegirl,
Excellent article. Thank you for pointing us to that. It was very helpful.
Prairie Girl said: “This is an interesting statement. Bill Gothard has always taught that you can know the heart of someone by looking at the “brightness of their eyes.” Many times I have heard him talk about looking at a man or his family and, by their eyes, knowing if there is hidden sin.”
Please, Prairie Girl, this is not at all what I am talking about. First of all, I have never attended a Bill Gothard seminar and don’t care to. You seem to know more about what he teaches than I do. I would only like to be able to verify that Charles Fisher is a family man as he says he is.
As to wanting to know what church he attends, it would only be to contact leadership to verify that he is a member in good standing.
No neutrality said: “there is no neutrality. That means there is no unbaised format, only formats that pretend to be unbiased.”
You have made a very good observation with which I totally agree. What I would ask for then,is a more objective, controlled venue that would have protocol and boundaries. This free-for-all format where everybody gets their say and can do it anonymously is a breeding ground for gossip.
I really appreciate your careful, reasoned response, No neutrality, and hope you understand where I am coming from.
I didn’t read all of these posts, too tiring. I searched under the name of the church and found the following posting on Doug’s church’s website by the elders in response to these accusations. http://www.boernechristianassembly.org/elders.html
Every church that practices church discipline should have every member sign a statement that it will keep all details of discipline absolutely confidential unless something like this were to come about. Elders need to keep good notes as well in case somethings like this ever happens in your congregation. At this point, I don’t know who to believe. Doug’s explanation seems credible.
You might find a different perspective on my new website, Jen’s Gems. Ministry Watchman only reported on the first part of this story, and I sincerely appreciate their help, but each chapter on my new blog tells more details, which should refute everything you read on BCA’s website.
I’m not sure how you can state a judgment here, admittedly only reading one side of the story. There are at least two sides to every story. Those who don’t take the time to know the truth will only end up hurt in the end.
Blessings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ who died for our sins that we might realize the Kingdom of Heaven. For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God.
I have spent quite some time reading through these many comments with my dear husband and find a some things missing.
It has been pointed out, exhaustively, the shortcomings and wrongdoings of all involved, in some manner or other.
We are not advocating, in any way, the actions of those “in power” as it were. Nor are we belittling the suffering of the victims.
What we wonder is where the Glory is? Where is the honor? Where is the respect? I am not speaking of the situation at hand. Please do not misunderstand. It seems that most, whether in support of or against these folks, are concerned about honoring one another. Honoring man, husbands, families, children, friends etc. But there hasn’t been any real talk about where the honor really belongs. The bible clearly teaches us to honor our Father in Heaven. We do this by our actions and thoughts. These actions and thoughts are what comes from our hearts. No man can know another mans heart. But God can and does.
The bible also teaches us that no one honors God by doing right by lying in His Name. I have known many who profess to be Christians who have fallen in many ways and each of them used the excuse that, right or wrong, they were furthering the Kingdom. Even though they were leading others to Christ through deception. But the bible speaks against this too.
We also read where someone had an unfortunate misunderstanding with a Mennonite family. Although we do know that many of the older order do feel that way about a womans/girls role in a family. But also realize that the men don’t really speak much to anyone outside and they can come across as rather gruff and even unemotional at times. Keep in mind too that many who are not of that mindset may see it as overbearing or wrong but isn’t that because each of us has an individual walk with the Lord? Or in some cases just an individual walk.
Being Mennonite (not everyone is against technology or lives in a cloistered way) we do practice submission. Not to be confused with subservience. It sounds to us like those who are involved were being taught subservience which is biblically wrong. Unless you want to quote scripture about slaves and masters but even the masters are held to a godly standard.
I am not ignorant, stupid, brainwashed, misled or giving women a bad name. It is truly a lifestyle I have chosen not one I was “made” to live. I enjoy serving my husband and sons their meals, cleaning our home, homeskilling our children, sewing our clothing, milking goats, gathering eggs, gardening, canning and all the things in between.
I also enjoy having my husband step in to help as time permits him and to help him out in the fields and doing what I can when I can. Being a “helpmeet” not a servant:)
Our daughters are taught to be keepers at home but they are not uneducated or brainwashed either. Higher education is NOT forbidden:)
Our sons are taught to be godly men and how to take care of their families one day. To love and cherish their wives and to be able to take care of themselves if they choose to be single.
All 8 of them can sew, knit, crochet, spin, weave, garden, can, raise animals for food and fiber, cook, bake, and are not afraid of working for what they have and living without the clutter that the world wants to push into our homes.
The girls and I wear that which pertaineth to a woman and our men wear that which pertaineth to a man. The girls and I wear prayercovers.
My husband does not make “demands” on me. He does not expect me to keep silent in all things. I do not believe that I am to teach or preach at church but I do believe that it is my duty to teach other women and young girls to be good wives and mothers (Titus 2). And yes this might be in a church setting just not before the entire congregation. If prayer requests are asked for my husband asks for them or if I remembered one that I hadn’t talked to him about previously I don’t hesitate to speak up as all the women in our fellowship do. In fact, the womens opinions are asked for in almost all issues pertaining to the church. This doesn’t mean we will get our own way, as it were, but it is all considered before the elders make a decision about and for our flock.
I suppose I went off in a different direction than this original forum. It seems that all the other issues have been touched upon and talked about and I didn’t feel I could possibly add anything to it.
So for all those folks who have pot-providences and eat angel eggs, don’t forget to have a root pop to wash it down:)
God be with thee!
CC
Covered4Him,
Beautiful comments! Your sweet spirit comes across in your writing and is a testimony to the Lord’s obvious work in your life. I loved the homeskilling usage, and I will have to remember the root pop. 🙂
In your wisdom, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head, as you’ve identified the real issue about women at BCA. It is not about submssion — it is about subservience.
I just posted a short primer on criticism that I think was a tad overdue. Your husband’s critique or yours is most welcome.
Mark
Native Texan,
According to county tax records, the home is under “Vision Forum Ministries” and not Vision Forum Inc.
Did you ever wonder what is BEHIND the extreme patriarchy movement? It is not limited to the evangelical Protestant churches.
Consider this: traditionally, Calvinists and
Catholics don’t see eye to eye (to say the least!!!), but there has been an almost identical movement growing within the Roman Catholic Church since about 1980. These schismatic Catholics do not get along with the Catholic powers-that-be at all — they claim that the Pope is an impostor and that THEY are the only true Catholics left.
http://sspx.agenda.tripod.com/id52.html
http://www.mgr.org/TraditionIsNotFascism.html
Now for the interesting thing: ideologically, Phillips’ Protestant patriarchalists and their Catholic counterparts are coming to have more in common with each other than they do with either traditional Protestantism or orthodox Catholicism. To begin with, both the Protestant and the Catholic patriarchalists tend to be quite involved with politics and finance. Some of the biggest names in this movement are also big names in finance and politics: think Pat Robertson, Greg Ahmenson, Marion T. Horvat, Anne Coulter, Christopher Ferrara, Roberto Fiore, Jerry Falwell, Paul Weyrich, Greg Bahnsen, Gary North, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, JimBob Duggar, David Chilton, Howard Phillips, D. James Kennedy, Marvin Olasky, etc.
In addition to their conservative stance on politics, they all seem to share cookie cutter ideas about the role of women, homeschooling, the Quiverfull movement, etc; AND, similar movements have also arisen within Judaism and within the Latter Day Saints. It is this very fact, the fact that the same movement has also apparently infiltrated Catholicism, Mormonism, and Judaism, which leads me to think that something other than religion is at work here, something not particularly concerned religious belief or practice at all — I say this not to cast aspersions upon the beliefs of non-Evangelicals, but the simple fact that Catholicism is very different from Calvinism shows us that whatever is driving this movement is not so much concerned with religious doctrine as it is with working to achieve its agenda through religious channels. The thing is organised like a corporation, or a hydra, and appears to be umbrella group which is trying to absorb MANY denominations, and bring them round to a certain common way of thinking, under the auspices of evangelism. Phillips, et al are merely the corporate heads of the Protestant division.
It’s almost like radical patriarchy is a religious theme in itself, and the Christian, Jewish and even the Moslem versions of it are mere variations on that theme.
AND, the Unification Church (Moonies) is dancing to this exact same tune, though to be fair, one must admit that the Unification Church has been hyper-patriarchal from the beginning.
Check this out:
Click to access 10com_web_all.pdf
Another thing is that ALL of these “patriarchs” claim to be restoring their respective religions to a purer form that was practiced in the past — with the Evangelicals it’s the 1800’s, with the Catholics it’s pre-Vatican II, etc; but in the past that they claim to be attempting to re-create, their respective denominations NEVER taught the kinds of things that these fellows are preaching now!
Of course, we should remember that at least some, if not most, cult leaders are not deliberately evil men: many sincerely believe they are doing the work of God. Usually they started out by trying their very best to serve God, but got sidetracked somewhere, often by their own egos and by a faulty understanding of Scriptures. We should pray for false teachers, love them, forgive them if they have hurt us or our loved ones, and help them to see the error of their ways and return to God. But until they do repent, we have a grave responsibility to warn our brothers and sisters away from them.
Cynthia,
You’ve painted a long list of names with a rather broad brush. I wish you hadn’t made such sweeping generalizations about specific people unless you were willing to provide specific evidence to back up these claims.
Ann Coulter, Patriarchialist? Really, that list of names is pretty funny. Bahnsen and Pat Robertson teamed up together?
I’d like to sign myself Bemused and Amused.
I didn’t say that Bahnsen and Pat Robertson were necessarily teamed up together, and some Reconstructiuonists are more patriarchally minded than others.
But that is the very thing that I was trying to point out in my previous posting: this seeming phenomenon of all of these otherwise disparate people, from different religions and backgrounds, parroting the same things regarding politics, economics, the role of women, child-rearing, homeschooling, etc, all under the guise of religion. As I said, it’s almost like there is an umbrella group which is trying to influence MANY denominations, and bring them round to a certain common way of thinking, under the auspices of evangelism. Maybe this is crazy conspiracy- theorist thinking. I hope so. But why else would Catholics, Calvinists, and Moonies all start spouting far-right politics and begin adopting the same lifestyle, at pretty much the same time and independently of one another? It’s certainly very odd, to say the least.
Valasquez said: “As a completely legal immigrant here in the United States, I am insulted by the thinking that any Hispanic person here in the US is an illegal. There are many millions of immigrants from Mexico alone in America who are legal citizens, contributing patriotism to this country, and there are thousands of us in Texas. I am an American! You try to make these people look racist because they hire people with dark skin. Would you trust a hispanic with your children? Or are we all dirty Mexicans. You are the racists, to think that any Hispanic person is illegal and exploited. You say you are Christians, but you should be ashamed for this stereotype.”
I tried to email you “Valasquez” at the email address you furnished, velasquez547@yahoo.com I’m not surprised that it’s a bogus email address, just like your allegations of “racism” are bogus. You are the only person who mentioned anything about “thinking that any Hispanic person here in the US is an illegal.” Now that you mention it though, there are many millions of illegals in the U.S., aren’t there? And what does that have to do with the topic of this discussion? Nothing. Your “racist” allegations strike me as being remarkably similar to Matt Chancey’s stunts.
Since you raised the issue of being insulted, let me explain how insulted I am that you would insult our intelligence with your silly “racist” allegations.
[…] 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). […]
[…] 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). […]
[…] 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.’ […]
[…] 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.’ […]
[…] (Link): Doug Phillips, Vision Forum Family Man Sabotages Marriage […]