Expose on Doug Phillips

Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, I don't have a dog in this hunt, but have read some counter-rebuttals

http://www.chalcedon.edu/blog/2007/05/beware-of-agents-of-defamation.php

There was another piece from Chalcedon dated May 8, 1:40 A.M. that should more light. I think Ortiz removed it. If so, then I will not post it (I have it on my google reader). To put it nicely, the sins the lady was guilty of were not just the usual reformed internet sins (e.g., backbiting, libel, slander); they were much worse.

But in honor of Ortiz (and mainly because i really don't care either way), I won't post the expose.
 
"Jen's Gems"....I wonder if this might turn out to be the same "Jen" as the "Jennifer Epstein" who was 'outed' by Matthew Chancey on a blog site the latter called "Who is Mrs. Binoculars?"

According to Chancey, Jennifer and Mark Epstein waged a virtual vendetta against Doug Phillips.

Personally never been much for Phillips', I dunno what you'd call it, worldview, maybe, but I don't think he deserves the treatment he's received from the Epsteins.

The Epsteins were also - apparently! allegedly! - involved in the infamous "Frank Vance" kerfluffle regarding Ligonier several months back.

Point being, if this Jen is that Jennifer, it'd likely be most prudent to avoid her.
 
Last edited:
Gryphonette said:
"Jen's Gems"....I wonder if this might turn out to be the same "Jen" as the "Jennifer Epstein" who was 'outed' by Matthew Chancey on a blog site the latter called "Who is Mrs. Binoculars?"

According to Chancey, Jennifer and Mark Epstein waged a virtual vendetta against Doug Phillips.

Personally never been much for Phillips', I dunno what you'd call it, worldview, maybe, but I don't think he deserves the treatment he's received from the Epsteins.

The Epsteins were also - apparently! allegedly! - involved in the infamous "Frank Vance" kerfluffle regarding Ligonier several months back.

Point being, if this Jen is that Jennifer, it'd likely be most prudent to avoid her.
Click to expand...

That sort of says what I wanted to say (it is the same Jen, If I recall correctly). Still, the blog post that I want post (because the original poster took it down) would be very...unsettling to "Jen."
 
There didn’t seem to be a readily accessible Statement of Faith on the site, so I emailed Doug Phillips to request one. I received a response from Doug’s personal assistant, Bob Renaud, with a link to the Statement of Faith. After looking over this portion of the web site, I e-mailed Bob with several questions:

- Does one have to affirm Calvinism in order to be viewed as a believer?
- If a church holds to dispensational theology rather than reformed theology, would you consider it a Christian church or a false church?
- As you talk about a church teaching the “whole revelation of God,” would that mean that to be considered a Christian Church they would have to agree with your view of patriarchy?
- There are several forms of church government practiced, all claiming to be the biblical form. Are there any that you would regard as not biblical and if a church uses that form of government are they considered to be not a Christian church?

I have sent these questions via e-mail on January 6 and January 25, 2007; and so far, I have not received a response. This increases our concerns rather than lessening them. Is it intentional or do they realize that the language in this section of the web site comes across as implying that if one doesn’t agree with Vision Forum’s position, they are at the very least in rebellion to God’s revealed will?…
Click to expand...


Oh No! Doug is doomed! He is not an ecumenist! How dare he!

Seriously, wait till she gets a load of PB!
 
I don't agree with the emphasis he places on certain things but calling his teaching cultic is pushing it.
 
I posted this article to see what the reaction from the PB community would be. I note that most have said they are not willing to defend Doug Phillips but neither would they want to listen to Jennifer Epstein. Like others, I don't have a "dog in this fight." It sounds like a very complicated situation and I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong. But for me, a lot of red flags go up if this part of her message (a summary of her excommunication) is true:

As a self-appointed, unordained, sole elder of Boerne Christian Assembly, Mr. Phillips pronounced an “excommunication” on a member family of his church in 2005. 2 The “excommunication” was vindictive and appears to have been motivated over a difference in political views. 3 The “trial” was conducted without any due process in what can only be described as a Kangaroo Court. The accused were tried in absentia. No witnesses were called. No defense was afforded the accused. No specific, detailed list of charges was made. No evidence was provided. Any actual valid excommunicable sins had already been repented from, including a pre-conversion sin that had been repented of fifteen years prior. 4 A prominent Pastor has since described the excommunication as “the Salem Witch Trials.” The family has attempted ever since to be reconciled with Mr. Phillips, but he has refused all offers to meet with them, thus confirming his vindictiveness.
Click to expand...

The Chalcedon Foundation is free to say what they want, but I for various reasons, and since by their own admission they have a close relationship with Phillips' family and ministry, do not put a lot of stock in what they say.

The forthcoming article should probably be judged after it is published in full form and read, rather than before. I hope it will be Biblical and scholarly. We shall see.

My main concern with Doug Phillips' ministry, for the record, has to do with charge #4 by Jennifer Epstein:

Doug Phillips is known as a leader in what is known as the “Patriarchy” movement. However, his conduct as a pastor makes it apparent that he is more of a misogynist than a Patriarch. “Let the women keep silent” (1 Cor. 13:34) is taken to such an extreme at BCA that women cannot make prayer requests or even introduce their guests. Women aren’t even permitted to get the elements of the Lord’s Supper for themselves. If their husbands aren’t present, they must be served by another man, or one of her sons, even if that son is too young to take the Lord’s supper himself. Mr. Phillips’ treatment of women is degrading and demeaning, and he does not treat them as fellow heirs of Christ Jesus.
Click to expand...

I know someone who has personally attended that church and observed that fathers are the ones who administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They get to decide who in their family is eligible, and have been observed administering the sacrament to little children and infants. I know that many paedo-communionist churches are affiliated with Phillips' National Center for Family-Integrated Churches. And I'm not clear on the current relationship between Phillips and R.C. Sproul, Jr., but it appears they were pretty close in 2004. I think the Patriarchy movement which has lead to this very warped view of the father being the family priest (not in the sense of lead his family in family worship which is good, but in the sense of administering the sacraments, thus usurping the ministerial office) has led to paedo-communion, which I view as a serious error.
 
Andrew, you spoke well. I am for much of the material VF puts out and their stands on certain issues. I have noticed an extreme misuse in the applications however, that remind me of abusive churches we have attended in the past.
 
Well said Andrew.

For what it's worth Fundamental Baptists have just "taken a stand" against the Phillips "movement". The main issue they have is the unity with people based on your view of childrens church and ignoring other doctrines.

As is often the case the critic (Jen) has as much to be criticised as the target(Phillips). Yet... some of these issues are troublesome.
 
VirginiaHuguenot said:
And I'm not clear on the current relationship between Phillips and R.C. Sproul, Jr., but it appears they were pretty close in 2004.
Click to expand...

Not disagreeing, Andrew, but what does this have to do with anything? Is association with Jr. a bad thing? My wife is a big fan. Is there something I need to know?
 
KMK said:
Not disagreeing, Andrew, but what does this have to do with anything? Is association with Jr. a bad thing? My wife is a big fan. Is there something I need to know?
Click to expand...

R.C. Sproul, Jr. is a noted paedo-communionist who was deposed from the RPCGA on those grounds as well as another scandal he was involved in. There has been some discussion of him in previous threads.
 
VirginiaHuguenot said:
I posted this article to see what the reaction from the PB community would be. I note that most have said they are not willing to defend Doug Phillips but neither would they want to listen to Jennifer Epstein. Like others, I don't have a "dog in this fight." It sounds like a very complicated situation and I am not qualified to say who's right and who's wrong. But for me, a lot of red flags go up if this part of her message (a summary of her excommunication) is true:



The Chalcedon Foundation is free to say what they want, but I for various reasons, and since by their own admission they have a close relationship with Phillips' family and ministry, do not put a lot of stock in what they say.

The forthcoming article should probably be judged after it is published in full form and read, rather than before. I hope it will be Biblical and scholarly. We shall see.

My main concern with Doug Phillips' ministry, for the record, has to do with charge #4 by Jennifer Epstein:



I know someone who has personally attended that church and observed that fathers are the ones who administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. They get to decide who in their family is eligible, and have been observed administering the sacrament to little children and infants. I know that many paedo-communionist churches are affiliated with Phillips' National Center for Family-Integrated Churches. And I'm not clear on the current relationship between Phillips and R.C. Sproul, Jr., but it appears they were pretty close in 2004. I think the Patriarchy movement which has lead to this very warped view of the father being the family priest (not in the sense of lead his family in family worship which is good, but in the sense of administering the sacraments, thus usurping the ministerial office) has led to paedo-communion, which I view as a serious error.
Click to expand...

Andrew,
I believe when you say "they get to decide who takes communion" I believe it would be more accurate to say, they are using discernment as the head of their household as to who should take communion or not - meaning as they lead thier family, they hopefully know their children well enough to know if they will bring judgment upon themselves for taking communion if they are not regenerated believers.

Also, I am fairly doubtful that they practice paedocommunion, as they are credobaptist. Because of this, I think they would only allow those who have made a clear profession of faith to take communion. I could be wrong though.:2cents:
 
Reformed-Kermit said:
Andrew,
I believe when you say "they get to decide who takes communion" I believe it would be more accurate to say, they are using discernment as the head of their household as to who should take communion or not - meaning as they lead thier family, they hopefully know their children well enough to know if they will bring judgment upon themselves for taking communion if they are not regenerated believers.

Also, I am fairly doubtful that they practice paedocommunion, as they are credobaptist. Because of this, I think they would only allow those who have made a clear profession of faith to take communion. I could be wrong though.:2cents:
Click to expand...

What I mean to say is that fathers in that church -- according to a first-hand report by someone that I trust -- determine to whom in their family they will administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and then administer the sacrament to those individuals (ie., it is the father's discretion who in their family they will administer the sacrament to and if age is an issue it is an issue for the father to decide). And according to the report of Jennifer Epstein, sons may administer the sacrament to their mothers when the father is absent.
 
Last edited:
Okay -

VirginiaHuguenot said:
What I mean to say is that fathers in that church -- according to a first-hand report by someone that I trust -- determine to whom in their family they will administer the sacrament of the Lord's Supper and then administer the sacrament to those individuals (ie., it is the father's discretion who in their family they will administer the sacrament to and if age is an issue it is an issue for the father to decide). And according to the report of Jennifer Epstein, sons may administer the sacrament to their mothers when the father is absent.
Click to expand...

Andrew,

Thanks for the follow up. I guess unless I am missing something, I would tend to agree with that (besides possibly the part about the sons administering it to their mothers.) How would you look at that? Would you allow kids to choose for themeselves if they want to take it or not?

I know I have some young kids that if they were given the opportunity, they would surely grab one (or a whole handful for that matter), but if I allowed this, they may bring themselves under judgment. I am not paedobaptist so of course we do not follow paedocommunion. Any thoughts?

Also, I have read a lot about Jennifer Epstein (et al) on various blogs and followed much of her criticism of Doug Phillips. I just talked with Doug Phillips personally last weekend at a homeschool conference here in Orlando and what I know of him and Vision Forum, I would highly recommend. We need to be very careful what we hear, read and we believe from the internet so that we do not judge ourselves. Any thoughts?
 
Mr. Lewis, I had been in a Credo-Baptist church that permitted and was starting up with paedo-communion...beyond professing children.
 
Reformed-Kermit said:
Andrew,

Thanks for the follow up. I guess unless I am missing something, I would tend to agree with that (besides possibly the part about the sons administering it to their mothers.) How would you look at that? Would you allow kids to choose for themeselves if they want to take it or not?

I know I have some young kids that if they were given the opportunity, they would surely grab one (or a whole handful for that matter), but if I allowed this, they may bring themselves under judgment. I am not paedobaptist so of course we do not follow paedocommunion. Any thoughts?

Also, I have read a lot about Jennifer Epstein (et al) on various blogs and followed much of her criticism of Doug Phillips. I just talked with Doug Phillips personally last weekend at a homeschool conference here in Orlando and what I know of him and Vision Forum, I would highly recommend. We need to be very careful what we hear, read and we believe from the internet so that we do not judge ourselves. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

In Presbyterian polity, it is the duty of the session to examine covenant children before they can become a communicant. Parents, no doubt, are involved in the process in various ways, but fundamentally, it belongs to the session to determine who is eligible to partake of the Lord's Supper. And it belongs to the ministerial office to administer the sacraments.

Westminster Confession of Faith, Chap. 27:

4. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.a

a. Mat 28:19-20, 19; 1 Cor 4:1; 11:20, 23; Heb 5:4.
Click to expand...

Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Governement:

Pastors....First, it belongs to his office,...2. That the ministers of the gospel have as ample a charge and commission to dispense the word, as well as other ordinances, as the priests and Levites had under the law, proved, Isa. lxvi. 21. Matt. xxiii. 34. where our Saviour entitleth the officers of the New Testament, whom he will send forth, by the same names of the teachers of the Old....To administer the sacraments.
Click to expand...

Presbyterian Reformed Church, Form of Government:

Unto the pastor alone appertains the administration of the sacraments, in like manner as the ministry of the word, for both are appointed by God as means to teach us, the one by the ear, the other by the eyes and other senses.
Click to expand...

Administration of the sacraments is a ministerial function, which is why I referred previously to the administration of the sacraments (whether by fathers or by sons generally speaking) as "usurping the ministerial office."

As to the issue of believing what we read on the internet, you are quite right that we ought to be slow to believe charges made against a brother. I was very hesitant to even bring this whole issue up. But my concerns about Doug Phillips pre-date the first time I ever heard of Jennifer Epstein. Friends who have attended his church (not the Epsteins, whom I do not know personally) have cautioned me about him based on their observations. There are a number of concerns that I have not even mentioned here.

As for the Epstein case, since she was excommunicated it is a public matter. She has no court of appeal, but has given an account of events and provided documentation publically that provide a reasonable person with grounds to be concerned. Yes, it is wise to remember Proverbs 18.17. This case clearly warrants as much transparency as possible. The spotlight should be shined on all parties because either the Epstein excommunication should be backed up with documented evidence and her charges publically refuted thus showing her for what Phillips says she is, or else this is a case of the abuse of church discipline on unBiblical grounds. Dismissing her as a vindictive person without evidence is also unBiblical. If she is wrong, let it be shown where she is wrong. It ought to be a simple matter, concerning the issues that I have focused on, to prove that Phillips' church follows due process in the matter of church discipline and does not allow fathers or sons generally to administer the sacrament. I am waiting for the evidence. I would be delighted to see Doug Phillips vindicated in these and other matters. What I see instead of transparency is an effort to shun and encourage others to shun someone simply on the word of Doug Phillips without any substantive explanation. This is not a proper exercise of the keys of the kingdom.

Well, I have said my peace, I think. It is possible there is no fire, even though there is plenty of smoke. But there should be light shined on this situation, and lots of it, that the truth of the matter may be known.
 
Last edited:
VirginiaHuguenot said:
As for the Epstein case, since she was excommunicated it is a public matter. She has no court of appeal, but has given an account of events and provided documentation publically that provide a reasonable person with grounds to be concerned. Yes, it is wise to remember Proverbs 18.17. This case clearly warrants as much transparency as possible. The spotlight should be shined on all parties because either the Epstein excommunication should be backed up with documented evidence and her charges publically refuted thus showing her for what Phillips says she is, or else this is a case of the abuse of church discipline on unBiblical grounds. Dismissing her as a vindictive person without evidence is also unBiblical. If she is wrong, let it be shown where she is wrong. It ought to be a simple matter, concerning the issues that I have focused on, to prove that Phillips' church follows due process in the matter of church discipline and does not allow fathers or sons generally to administer the sacrament. I am waiting for the evidence. I would be delighted to see Doug Phillips vindicated in these and other matters. What I see instead of transparency is an effort to shun and encourage others to shun someone simply on the word of Doug Phillips without any substantive explanation. This is not a proper exercise of the keys of the kingdom.
Click to expand...

Is this similar to what happened to Sproul Jr? Is that why you brought him up?
 
KMK said:
Is this similar to what happened to Sproul Jr? Is that why you brought him up?
Click to expand...

I only mentioned Sproul, Jr. because he is known for his paedo-communion views and his (apparently) close relationship with Doug Phillips may be therefore relevant since paedo-communion is one of the areas of concern with Doug Phillips.
 
VirginiaHuguenot said:
I only mentioned Sproul, Jr. because he is known for his paedo-communion views and his (apparently) close relationship with Doug Phillips may be therefore relevant since paedo-communion is one of the areas of concern with Doug Phillips.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I am just reeling. I have benefited greatly from the work of so many that the PB generally holds in disrepute. The writings of Sproul Jr. (who is also on the Amazing Grace dvd), Phillips, Kent Hovind, John MacArthur, Douglas Wilson (I just finished his awesome book, "Fidelity") I guess the HS is able to use these sinful men in spite of themselves.

BTW, does PB take a stand against paedocommunion the way it does FV?
 
FV advocates are specifically disallowed because a further declaration as to its heterodoxy has been declared by the board's overseeing (incidentally) church.

Paedo-communion is simply unconfessional, non-creedal. So, to advocate it is to deny the confessions at that point. We ask people who want to join whether they agree with one of the confessions. They have a duty to be honest at that point, and let the screening fall out as it may. But one will not be allowed to advocate it since it has no creedal/confessional church support.
 
Would Doug Phillips be considered FV?
Is there a connection between the "extreme" patriarchal view & FV?
 
The HS had best be able to....

KMK said:
I have benefited greatly from the work of so many that the PB generally holds in disrepute. The writings of Sproul Jr. (who is also on the Amazing Grace dvd), Phillips, Kent Hovind, John MacArthur, Douglas Wilson (I just finished his awesome book, "Fidelity") I guess the HS is able to use these sinful men in spite of themselves.
Click to expand...

...seeing as how "sinful men" are the only sort available to be our theologians. ;)

I've met and am on a friendly basis with RCJR, though don't agree with him on a LOT of his, um, unique ways of looking at things, but still, in some areas he's aces, as is his father, MacArthur, Wilson, et al.

Just need to be centered with regard to one's own theology, knowing what one believes and why one believes it, and then they may be enjoyed and benefited from through the careful use of discernment. Off the top of my head I can't think of any theologian, extant or otherwise, who can be swallowed whole without chewing.
 
From the link above if this is true, isn't that contrary to the gospel?
Is Doug Phillips church only for believers who are invited?

I started asking around everywhere I went if anyone knew of a home church in the San Antonio area. I asked people at the grocery store, on the street, friends, everyone. We were desperate. Finally, a friend of a friend of a friend told me about a “home” church an hour away. I called, but was told simply, “No.” Crestfallen, we continued visiting various churches in the area, but – nothing.

Several weeks later, I called this lady back, practically begging to be allowed to visit.
Click to expand...
 
Redaimie said:
From the link above if this is true, isn't that contrary to the gospel?
Is Doug Phillips church only for believers who are invited?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but I would take it with a grain of salt.

Someone ignored the chalcedon link I gave because they weren't objective (who is?) and are friends with Phillips. So be it. I still didn't post the other link I have saved in my files which is absolutely damning (to the case, not to the person's salvation) to the other side. I won't post it for ecclesiastical reasons.
 
Draught Horse said:
Possibly, but I would take it with a grain of salt.

Someone ignored the chalcedon link I gave because they weren't objective (who is?) and are friends with Phillips. So be it. I still didn't post the other link I have saved in my files which is absolutely damning (to the case, not to the person's salvation) to the other side. I won't post it for ecclesiastical reasons.
Click to expand...
Mod. I for one appreciate that. All, feel free to discuss if so and so is a paedocommunist or whatever, but as often stated PB is not going to resolve controversial discipline cases, botched or otherwise. Churches hardly do this well, and PB is not a church court with any standing. Please do not rehearse this one here for review.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MichaelNZ
  • Locked
Pastor exposes Coptic Orthodox church as unbiblical
Replies
12
Views
5K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Mathetes
  • Locked
Books on Islam
Replies
25
Views
4K
Mathetes
Mathetes
Pilgrim
  • Locked
Resources on Mormonism
Replies
4
Views
2K
Laura
Laura
JM
  • Locked
JFK on Mormons
Replies
3
Views
2K
SueS
S
Kaalvenist
  • Locked
Resources on Islam
Replies
10
Views
2K
Pergamum
P
Back
Top