Showing posts with label Vision Forum. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vision Forum. Show all posts

Saturday, March 2, 2013

What is Multigenerational Faithfulness? Code for Conformity

An Introduction and Review of Multigenerational Faithfulness

(Associated with patriarchy within Christian homeschooling)

  

(From a series of posts at Under Much Grace in 2008)


undefinedWhen I decided that to examine the loaded language term of “multigenerational faithfulness,” describing how Vision Forum and her affiliates refer to the term, I anticipated covering the concepts in just a few blog posts. Really... The ambiguous and nebulous term itself actually lacks substance in and of itself, so I did not anticipate that the term was indeed as loaded as it proved to be when I looked at exactly what they taught. I realized that the term was misleading, but I did not fully realize just how they used it to encapsulate so much of their core doctrine. Upon reviewing the downloadable sermons and written material available, I was quite surprised to realize just how much the term “multigenerational faithfulness” represents for Vision Forum and their affiliate teachers and supporters.

Even considering small sections of specific teachings became far more complicated that I anticipated, because of the subtlety of it all. That’s why the system works as well as it does. 

Monday, June 7, 2010

Will You Die for a Cause, or Will You Live for It? Ectopic Pregnancy and Ideas about Honoring Life

A Response to the Invited Speaker List for Vision Forum’s 2010 Baby Conference

Note:  In the summer of 2008, Vision Form started a campaign to advance their idea that pre-emptive surgery for a woman with a tubal pregnancy constitutes murder of the unborn as an elective abortion.  Individuals who were outspoken or quoted in that discussion have been included as invited speakers at VF’s July Baby Conference (which will also host the famed Duggars of the TLC/Discovery Channel).  I believe that VF will use this vehicle to further advance what I find to be their very dangerous and distorted position concerning tubal pregnancy.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The Family Integrated Church (FIC)



What is the FIC?


The FIC is the Family Integrated Church, an “affinity group” or a “special purpose religion” for homeschooling families, something that emerged from the Christian homeschooling movement. These churches cater to families that homeschool, as apparently, not all churches have a history of being supportive of this population of believers. However, in the FIC, anyone who does not fit the typical ideal of the homeschooling family does not feel welcome in these churches. Therefore, there are no elderly people or people who do not fit the ideal of a traditional, nuclear family. In order to participate in the life of the church, anyone without a husband/father must be “adopted” by a “normative” family. If worship is that complicated for the “non-normative,” then why would anyone who didn’t fit their standard want to attend?


The unique feature of these churches is that they oppose age appropriate education and groups, maintaining that anything that divides the family as a group presents a harm to children and the family itself. Sunday School, Vacation Bible School and youth groups are basically “outlawed.” Most of these churches do not engage in much evangelism, but they do direct their evangelistic efforts to those who are already Christian, proselytizing them into patriarchy and the FIC concept. Many of these churches do not have a senior pastor, but rather observe a plurality of elders, even though a pastor is essentially a “teaching elder” in many denominations. Many suspect that the avoidance of a senior pastor position seeks to avoid the development of an unequal balance of power within church leadership.


The documents produced by Vision Forum give the most organized explanation of what typifies the FIC in unique belief and doctrine. This author understands that the registry of FICs maintained by Vision Forum grew out of a list of churches that did not offer Sunday School, a list originally developed by Phillip Lancaster. Vision Forum also organized a National Center of Family Integrated Churches that offers seminars and calls itself a church planting organization. Another denomination that observes family integration is the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly, the group that defrocked R.C Sproul, Jr. a few years ago. Many of these churches observe many socially and culturally based doctrine as well as some other aberrant beliefs including what they have termed “Biblical patriarchy.” The “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” and “Biblical Confession Uniting Church and Family,” as they appear on the Vision Forum website, define these belief systems in an organized fashion. What seems to be more problematic are the unwritten rules and those ideals that are communicated through social pressure and the negative reinforcement that seems to typify the exclusive group.


Other denominations have experienced the FIC phenomenon, and in the short history of the group, the ideology basically produces church splits and schisms. Families desire to change the structure, doctrines and practices to conform to the FIC standards, and many churches (such as Trinity Baptist Church in N.C.) have suffered greatly and experienced church divisions. This has been a problem in many denominations, though I am most familiar with the issues in Presbyterian and Baptist denominations. Thus, it is noteworthy to examine the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International’s 2006 Resolution concerning the FIC movement. This is very telling about the growing and well-attended FIC’s in the United States.



  • The Family Integrated Church Movement was deemed "errant and schismatic" because....
  • * It encourages schism in the local church bodies by encouraging its adherents to change the theology and philosophy of the churches of which they are members.
  • * It does violence to local church authority, calling on local church members to leave their churches when the church does not bow to the philosophical demands of the movement.
  • * It espouses an ecclesiology based upon the family that is not based upon the New Testament but rather is an adaptation of Old Testament (Blog host note: ? or pagan Roman ?!) patriarchy.
  • * It falsely lays the claim that the destruction of the family in the U.S. is solely the fault of age-graded ministries in local churches. We contend that this is a simplistic and therefore false accusation.
  • * It espouses a postmillennial theology that is contradictory to a dispensational understanding of Scripture.
  • * It is oddly inclusive, basing fellowship on a particular philosophy of ministry rather than on the great fundamentals of the faith.

The Family Integrated Church Model and Spiritual Abuse


In prior posts, we've defined spiritual abuse as "the misuse of a position of power, leadership, or influence to further the selfish interests of someone other than the individual who needs help. Sometimes abuse arises out of a doctrinal position. At other times it occurs because of legitimate personal needs of a leader that are being met by illegitimate means." (David Henke: Watchman Fellowship, Inc.) We've also defined the hallmarks of spiritual abuse: authoritarianism, image consciousness, supression of criticism, perfectionistic demands, and unbalanced views (clearer and truer grasp of truth than other groups).

The Family Integrated Church (FIC) model represents the practices of many within the patriarchy movement such as presented by Vision Forum and those who participate with its family centered mission. A growing number of Evangelical Christian denominations include patriarchy as a central practice and model for their affiliates. Consider this example from the website of one such denomination, the Covenant Presbyterian Church:
It is in such a place that God chose to reveal Himself in the hearts of men and fathers. Our founding churches formed as God opened the truth of the Scriptures to elders who up to that point had been held in sway by modernity and compromise. God showed this group of men that victorious Christian living can come when the Bible is embraced in its fullness. This includes a trust in the historic faith, presbyterian polity, a commitment to the Biblical Creation model, biblical gender roles, and family-integrated worship.

Take special note of the phrase "God opened the truth of the Scriptures to elders..." This statement does not state that their insights are the only possible insights (the only insights that transcend "modernity and compromise)," however, the means by which many "patriarchalists" carry out their convictions suggests otherwise. They (patriarchalists in general) are intolerant of other interpretations, declaring that their interpretation is the only possible conclusion concerning the meaning of Scriptures pertaining to gender roles, family and implications for conducting corporate worship. Bear this in mind when considering this element of spiritual abuse (per Henke), considering the addition of patriarchy as an additional example of "majoring in minor issues":

Unbalanced: Abusive religions must distinguish themselves from all other religions so they can claim to be distinctive and therefore special to God. This is usually done by majoring on minor issues such as prophecy (? and patriarchy ? per Blog host), carrying biblical law to extremes, or using strange methods of biblical interpretation. The imbalanced spiritual hobby-horse thus produced represents unique knowledge or practices which seem to validate the group's claim to special status with God.

Could this "opening of the truth" to the elders and founders of the Covenant Presbyterian Church Presbytery possibly be an example of the "unique knowledge and practice" giving this group a "special status with God" that typifies spiritually abusive ideology?


Vision Forum’s endorsed non-optional moral imperatives
which defines their specific view of complementarianism and family,
including concepts pertaining to the FIC:

Keep in mind that “non-normative” connotes sin
and compromise of God’s Holy Word
  • Homeschooling only (Noncompliance once stated to be sin, now is a strong recommendation as "normative") "Tenets"
  • No secular curriculum for children “Tenets”
  • Fathers as Prophet, Priest and King of the Home Voddie Baucham
  • Women are to function only within the sphere of home unless at the workplace of and with the patriarch (Noncompliance once stated to be sin, now is a strong recommendation as “normative”) “Tenets," McDonalds, Bodkins
  • Equivocation on the issue of Women's Suffrage. (See NOTE below. VF previously taught that women should not vote, but on election day 2008, they altered their documents and published that the founder's wife voted and always has. Documentation of their previous teachings disappeared from the website.)
  • Women to remain under the roof of the father or husband (or family home) at all times (in compliance with the concept of the sphere of home which makes attendance of a school outside of God’s “normative order”) “Tenets,” McDonalds, Botkins
  • No education of women outside the home (Noncompliance once stated to be sin, now is a strong recommendation as “normative” and suggested to be a poor investment because of no chance of return on money spent on education because of work limited to the sphere of the home) “Tenets,” Botkins
  • Sons bear the duty of spreading the glory and fame of the father Brown
  • Daughters are the helpmeet of the father and remain in his service until marriage "Tenets," McDonalds, Botkins
  • Father is keeper of his daughter’s heart until marriage Phillips, McDonalds, Botkins
  • Militant fecundity (evangelism preferred via godly seed/womb versus evangelizing the lost) Phillips and Brown
  • Christian complementarians are essentially egalitarians which makes them feminists which makes them open theists Russell Moore
  • Non patriarchal complementarians compromise the Bible as "white washed feminists" and "unruly and filthy stray dogs on washday" Stacy McDonald
  • Patriarchy and complemenatianism as a “plumb line” for determining that which is truly Christian (and other views as less or possibly sub-Christian) Commonly held belief
  • Non-VF homeschoolers are "Canaanites" Commonly held belief
  • “Multi-generational” worship setting, etc. (family remains together during worship and vilifies segregated, age-appropriate groups) BCUCF
  • Pessimistic view of leadership within the church (vilification of group leaders and pastors that usurp the patriarch) BCUCF

These matters are widely debated issues of controversy within and among Evangelical Christian groups. However, it is important to note that many Christians believe that the debate regarding gender is inseparable from the doctrine of God and is thus a matter of sola scriptura or Biblical Authority. They assert that those who view gender as an intramural debate are critically compromising the Word of God and thus, by extention, deny God's Lordship over all creation. It appears that groups that do not advocate subordinationism of Christ as related to gender still carry over the same zeal and emotional engagement conscerning this issue as those who share their view of gender.


NOTE About the VOTE:

Vision Forum -- a group that teaches that women should not/cannot vote according to the Word of God -- boasts on its website that the President and Founder's wife, Beall Phillips, voted yesterday.

The Vision Forum Ministries article that taught that women should not vote, “Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation” by Brian Abshire, has miraculously disappeared from http://www.visionforumministries.com/.

In case you don't recall all the hubub about this article, link HERE.






.

Feedback on the Midwest Christian Outreach Article Critiquing Doug Phillips


Following Patriarchy with MIdwest Christian Outreach




Following the Patriarchy Debate
with Midwest Christian Outreach


22Jul07; updated 5Nov07


EXPOSING THE TRAPPINGS OF DOUG PHILLIPS' CULTIC PATRIARCHY!




An evaluation of a few of the problematic teachings of Vision Forum and the intolerant ideology called "Biblical Patriarchy."



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

MCOI ONLINE BLOG TOPIC:

"DOUG PHILLIPS --NEW PAGANISM?"

Link to it
HERE! Make sure to read the replies and comments following the original post.
Please also note more commentary following the blog article and feedback at the bottom of this webpage!




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


MCOI Follow Up Discussions of

"Who Will Be First In The Kingdom?"


Visit "The Crux"
(The official blog of the Midwest Christian Outreach.)



* Examining the Premises of the Patriarchal Promises

* Letter From a Patriarch - Pastor Brian Abshire

* Answering Vision Forum

* What Gives You the Right to Declare a Teaching False?


Read Doug's polemic blog entry

"How to Respond to a Tale-Bearer: Dr. Brian Abshire Models an Apologetic of Sound Reasoning and Christian Charity
for Family Reformers."

(Oh, doesn't that just sound like a classic, Gothard phrase?)


06Mar09 Addendum:

Vision Forum -- a group that teaches that women should not/cannot vote according to the Word of God -- boasts on its website that the President and Founder's wife, Beall Phillips, voted on election day, 2008.

The Vision Forum Ministries article that taught that women should not vote, “Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation” by Brian Abshire, has miraculously disappeared from http://www.visionforumministries.com/.
In case you don't recall all the hubub about this article, link HERE.


Vision Forum also altered the "Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy" sometime after December 2007 and prior to December 2008, changing the concept of the church as "a family of families" into a statement that now reflects that the church is "a family of families and singles."

The original "Tenets" that reflects "a family of families" appears HERE on the Internet Archive.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



FEEDBACK
ON "WHO WILL BE FIRST IN THE KINGDOM?"


Dear MCOI,

We appreciated your good article on Doug Phillips and the Vision Forum crew. He used to run the National Center for Home Education under HSLDA, the homeschool legal 'insurance' group.

This patriarchy run amok stuff is everywhere in homeschooling unfortunately and the so-called Christian Reconstructionists are driving the bus with many homeschoolers in it unknowingly. Many people have swallowed Gothard and then taken it another step. Some of the prominent names in the homeschool movement are involved -- Jonathan Lindvall (in Calif.) espouses betrothal taking courtship yet further. Many of the people have either gone through Gothard training, used his curriculum or are fellow travelers. Another one is the guy who edits Credenda Agenda, a journal of reformed theology. Cannon Press, and New Saint Andrews College all of which are run by hard nosed Calvinist Douglas Wilson. He has published a number of books on the family all of which are of the "keep the women at home and don't let them do anything" persuasion. Unhappily we have seen Gothardites split churches and now his spiritual descendents are doing the same.

There is also a strong anti-church movement among homeschoolers that want no church organized youth activities and the fathers to decide everything for the family, effectively neutralizing pastors. The Pearl Family is an example of this tribalistic approach. They wrote a book To Train Up a Child. There are other couples traveling around homeschooling circles promulgating the same sort of teaching. Don't forget the 'never any birth control', submit even to committing sin at your husband's request (because God will blame him not the wife they say) and other allied teachings.

Keep up the good fight for sound exegesis and application.

P. M.

~~~~~~~~~~


Dear Don and Joy,

My good friend Cindy Kunsman sent a hard copy of your fine article on Phillips and "patriarchy." Kudos to you for your concepts, courage, clarity and convictions. This movement is a fine example of overreaction and the cure's being nearly harmful as the disease. I pray that the article gets wide distribution.


In Him,

P. Andrew Sandlin
www.christianculture.com



~~~~~~~~~~

Dear MCOI
Just want to express my gratitude for your recent article, "Who Will Be First in the Kingdom". Pages 6 and 7 contain the best explanation of true biblical submission that I have ever read in my 35 years of being a born-again Christian. This sentence just blew me away, "It also means that those who follow do so because they are ABLE TO OBSERVE and TRUST those who lead." Man, does the church need to hear that. I'm sick to death of hearing the "blind submission" doctrine. I've seen SO MUCH damage done because folks didn't consider the consequences of the decisions made by those "over them in the Lord". The article is such a call to transparency in all of us. Praise the Lord for your courage.

Thanks so much,

B.Y.

~~~~~~~~~~


Dear MCOI
I'm leading a study of love between a man and a woman with a post-highschool group utilizing Prov. 31:10-31, Ruth, Song of Solomon and Eph.. 5. Thanks for the material on pages 6&7 of your article in the Spring issue of the MCOI Journal, which I have incorporated.

P.G.



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




MORE LINKS TO GOOD FEEDBACK AND COMMENTARY


* From E. Steven Burnett

* From Cheryl Schatz of McGreggor Ministries


** Link to the previously noted "Doug Phillips - New Paganism" @ the Midwest Christian Outreach Blog. Link to it HERE! Make sure to read the replies and comments following the original post.



Christians Near Jamestown STAND AGAINST VISION FORUM





NOTE: IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR CHARACTERISTICS OF A CULT LEADER
, Find it HERE.


CHRISTIANS NEAR JAMESTOWN, VIRGINIA
STAND AGAINST VISION FORUM



Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:23:24 -0500
From: "Carter, Rusty"
To: "Cynthia Kunsman"

Ms. Kunsman,
Below is the letter that was published June 9.

Rusty Carter
Editor
The Virginia Gazette
216 Ironbound Road
Williamsburg, VA 23188
Phone: (757) 220-1736 or (800) 944-6908
Fax: (757) 220-1390
www.vagazette.com


~~~~~~
We are the members of the Charles City Clergy Conference, an ecumenical association of ministers from the churches of Charles City. Recently, we learned that Charles City will be the site of an alternative Jamestown 400th celebration, to be held June 11-18 at Fort Pocahontas.

This greatly concerns us. The alternative Jamestown Celebration is hosted by Vision Forum, a Texas-based organization. According to the Vision Forum website, www.visionforumministries.org, the festival is intended to highlight the role of the Jamestown settlers in bringing Christianity to North America, because Vision Forum feels that the official commemoration spent too much time apologizing for the treatment of African Americans and Native Americans, and not enough time celebrating God’s work at Jamestown.

We applaud any attempt to give God glory. But we take a stand against Vision Forum’s attempt to tie its own political and social agenda to the Gospel. Its website shows that this organization associates the message of Jesus Christ with a blanket condemnation of all public schooling, women with careers, public assistance to the poor. Vision Forum also insists that the Native Americans of Jamestown were “happy” to turn over land to the settlers because they did not possess “Western and biblical concepts of property ownership.”

It would be tragic if the media coverage of this event implied that the churches of Charles City were in agreement with this. In fact, our churches have not been involved at all in this celebration. It is not a Charles City festival, but a weeklong celebration by an out-of-state political organization, with its own particular political agenda.

Rev. Peter Bauer, Secretary

Charles City Clergy Conference
New Vine Baptist Church
5100 John Tyler Memorial Highway
Charles City


Link to an additional reference to the Vision Forum Jamestown Celebration reported by
Newsweek/MSNBC online.

Patriarchy Uses Legal System To Silence Critics



Posted 10Jul07; UPDATED 18Aug07,29Aug07

PART I:
THREATENED LAWSUIT AGAINST THE
SOUTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR CHRISTIAN STUDIES

PART II:
THREATENED LAWSUIT AGAINST A HOMESCHOOLING FAMILY
(previously under the “shepherding”/eldership of Doug Phillips)

Part III:
MEDIATED LAWSUIT AGAINSTJOE TAYLOR
(an archeologist with whom Vision Forum collaborated on a creation science project)




PART I:
SCCCS


DOUG PHILLIPS INITIATES BLOG CAMPAIGNS


Entry A:  Andrew Sandlin's Reference to Phillips' Legal Threats

Bahnsen on Phillips
David Bahnsen’s incisive 2004 response to Doug Phillips is once again available here.  [Blog host:  Text appears below on Under More Grace.]
My own brief comments on the situation surrounding that article are posted here (scroll down).

One Response to “Bahnsen on Phillips”

  1. Ben House Says:
    David Bahnsen has proven once again to have brilliant political insight and faithfulness to his father’s spiritual, theological, and political worldview. I talked with Dr. Bahnsen enough times about politics to know that he had a calm, rational, postmillennial view of the political order. (And this often means voting for a conservative Republican in the hopes of stopping a liberal from taking office.) Many of us who were attracted to his ideas wondered how we could establish a theonomic order immediately out of Washington. Dr. Bahnsen was more concerned with believers having theonomic heart for God and His Word.

Entry B:  Bahnsen's Blog Post (Referenced in Entry A)

Greg Bahnsen and Third Party Politics: A reply to Doug Phillips
 August, 2004

It appears that one of the constants in my life is the ability of people with substantial abilities and gifts to just floor me at times with their audacity, impulsiveness, and general lack of restraint and Christian love. I believe part of my hyper-sensitivity in this arena comes from my commitment (imperfectly executed) to reading one Proverb per day (coinciding with the calendar of the month) for the rest of my life. I am so continually convicted, challenged, and devastated by the way the Proverbs speaks to me that it humbles me. Nonetheless, it has also created a particular sensitivity to those who demonstrate a contentious spirit, who do not conceal a matter in love, who do not pursue unity, who stir a pot prematurely, and who exercise a complete lack of wisdom.

Of course, I also am particularly sensitive to anything that I consider a poor witness to the world, being personally committed to a Christian culture and being emotionally involved in seeing unsaved folks come to know the Lord. In my particular circle, which is by no means exhaustive or impressive, no single factor has been a larger impediment to people’s views of the gospel than this charge (paraphrased): "My goodness, you people are a nasty, cantankerous bunch. I thought you guys were supposed to get along?"

I do not believe that one person’s sin, or even the sin of 5 billion people, ought to keep someone from coming to know the Lord. Nevertheless, when a Christian continually fails to show the fruits of the spirit, or demonstrate a spirit of peace, maturity, wisdom, etc., it is inevitable that such failure by us will impede gospel progress. Indeed, Pastor Joe Morecraft says of such folks, "The world will look at you, and it will laugh" [his emphasis].

I could not agree more.

Doug’s Diatribe

So, with these thoughts and emotional undertones in view, allow me to reply to the gifted Doug Phillips’ recent blog attack on the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. Indeed, whether it was unbeknownst to him or not, his attack was much more than an attack on SCCCS. Here is Doug’s quote in its entirety:

"One of my favorite unsung heroes of the home school movement in attendance this last week is Kevin Swanson, pictured above with his wife Brenda. Kevin is a man of many talents. He serves as a pastor in a family-integrated assembly which is part of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), the host of a radio show called Generations, and the leader of one of the most influential home school organizations in America, the Christian Home Educators of Colorado. Kevin is simply off-the-charts fantastic. A man of tremendous creative energy, indefatigable optimism and passion for biblical patriarchy, he and the outstanding men and women of CHEC are helping to craft one of the most influential and Christ-honoring state home school movements in America. (Kevin reported that he recently returned from keynoting at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies (SCCCS) conference, a conference which sadly spent much of its time besmirching the legacy of its now-deceased founder (Dr. Greg Bahnsen) by disparaging those Christians standing for presuppositionally biblical methods of political activism in the gates of our land through organizations like the United States Constitution Party. I guess Kevin -- an advocate of biblical methods of political activism -- was the skunk at the garden party.)"

I should start by concurring with Doug’s assessment of Rev. Kevin Swanson. A graduate of the SCCCS’ seminary program, in my brief time with him throughout last weekend, and particularly as I listened to his presentation, I found him to be a man of action, a man of principle, and a man committed to Christian unity and faith. I will quote from Kevin later in this article as a means of contrasting him with Doug Phillips.

So, Doug and I share the same view on Kevin Swanson. But let’s look at the rest of this quote:

"... SCCCS, which sadly spent much of its time …."

Excuse me, Doug. In the spirit of academic honesty (not to mention that thing called the 9th Commandment), would you mind putting up on your website right now the answer to this question: How much of the SCCCS conference tapes have you heard (or had you heard when you’d written this)? Tell your readers and adoring fans how you got your information that preceded this statement. If you got an advance copy that I, the conference coordinator, do not know about, and have been able to do a wise and patient critique of what we "sadly spent much of our time" talking about, please clarify. If, on the other hand, you are lying about what we spoke about, or rather, making it up out of thin air, please protect the credibility of your own writing and teaching by saying so. I am sure that people, myself included, would love to know what you have heard that tells you what we spent "much of our time" talking about. Since you were not at the conference, and I turned down CNN’s offer to broadcast it live on cable television (kidding), I would like your readers to be made aware that you either (a) Got tapes before they have been made public, or (b) Are speculating, or sharing gossip, as opposed to actually writing with a sense of credibility and honesty. The 9th Commandment is still in effect.

"... besmirching the legacy of its now-deceased founder (Dr. Greg Bahnsen) by disparaging those Christians standing for presuppositionally Biblical methods of political activism"

Herein lies the rub. This is the line that rubs me right where I hate being rubbed. I am Greg Bahnsen’s middle son. I am on the Board of SCCCS. I was the individual conference coordinator. I emceed the event. I approved the speakers. I assigned the speaker topics. And I take offense at such an outlandish, preposterous, and inaccurate accusation. I take great pains to protect and uphold the reputation of my late father. He is my hero, mentor, and Dad. If I were going to "publicly besmirch his legacy," it would require a great deal of meltdown in my own life. Indeed, if someone were to publicly accuse me of something as this, they have an awfully high burden of proof. I will even add that someone else such as Doug Phillips writing such a thing has a particularly great need for caution here: no one knowing a public figure whom they deeply respect ought to throw around reckless words like this about him unless they are prepared to back it up. As it turns out here, Doug’s comments are not only patently false. They are antithetically false.

Doug Phillips likely does not need to apologize for what he said SCCCS did to Greg Bahnsen’s legacy; he simply needs to cross Greg Bahnsen off his list of "approved scholars," and move on. Allow me to explain ..

What the Speakers Really Said

As someone who was at the conference, allow me to break down for you what was presented at the conference. I will compare this to the publicly-held viewpoints of my late father.

Jeff Ventrella opened the conference with a brief apologetic for the way in which the pulpit and the world of politics do mix. He stated that Christian leadership can and should participate in the civil realm, and that the first amendment never precludes ministers and congregations from exercising their faith in the town square. So far, the people who agree, are: SCCCS, Doug Phillips, and Greg Bahnsen.

Steve Wilkins (the actual keynote speaker, by the way) proceeded to provide an outstanding address on problems in the conservative "movement," faulty expectations many politically active Christians have, and the desperate need for reformation in the church. He scolded those who believe salvation can be found in politics, and challenged the church to "get our affairs" in order. So far, the people who agree, are: SCCCS, Doug Phillips, and Greg Bahnsen.

Andrew Sandlin opened our Saturday morning dialogue with an outstanding talk on the need for a Christian culture before a Christian political society is achieved. He reminded us that our battles are fought in a multitude of arenas (media, education, entertainment, etc.), but that politics is "but one of many" forums for Christians to exercise dominion in. Now, for some unbeknownst reason to me, Doug Phillips may very well disagree with the view of Christian culture Andrew Sandlin holds to, but I doubt very seriously that any objective person could state that the basic premises of Andrew’s talk contradict the philosophies we all hold to. I am once again willing to confidently declare that SCCCS, Doug Phillips, and Greg Bahnsen are all in agreement with this talk.

Kevin Swanson went on to argue for the need for "localism" in our political struggles. He shared some of the success stories his organization and efforts are seeing in his home state of Colorado. He exhorted us to place 99.9% of our political efforts in city and state causes. He pleaded with Christians to begin their efforts in their families and in the church. It was just a fantastic reminder. My tally: SCCCS, Greg Bahnsen, and Doug Phillips -- in unison.

Jeff Ventrella brought us back from lunch with a "down and dirty" synopsis of the attack on marriage we are seeing. He provided strategies to fight such an attack, exposed us to some of his involvement with secular liberals on the subject matter, and provided a practical and legal explanation for how we ought to respond. I do not hesitate to take inventory and say, SCCCS, Doug Phillips, and Greg Bahnsen -- in unison again!

So now, we get to the heart of the matter: the "much of our time" Doug refers to ... My dear friend, the extremely talented lawyer and politician, the splendid Reformed Baptist activist -- my dear Christian brother, Rod Martin. He was assigned to speak about the current state of affairs, and provide some guidance and principles as it pertains to this year’s election. He spent his 45-60 minutes explaining some of the Constitutional realities of partisan politics, provided in-depth summary of our system vs. that of a parliamentary system, and gave extensive defense of our President George W. Bush as a splendid choice of a man to vote for as President. Rod’s talk was preceded by my own carefully and clearly crafted words, "Not all speakers necessarily speak for each other, or for the personal opinions of the Board members of SCCCS" (of course, you would have to hear the tapes to have heard that). Rod is not a third-party advocate, and he is deeply involved in Republican politics. Some probably dislike that (as Rod himself said humorously in his talk, "Some of you are probably ready to kill me”).

Having provided a summary of this concluding talk, I will provide the vote count again: Doug Phillips (opposed), SCCCS and Greg Bahnsen (supportive).

The Assessment

So herein lies the rub: Doug Phillips brashly accuses the Study Center of besmirching my father’s legacy because one out of six lectures did not agree with Doug Phillips’ teachings, while six out of six lectures agreed with Greg Bahnsen’s. If Doug Phillips would like to publicly make the argument that I am lying, and my father was a closet third-party advocate, I dare him to do this! It is an outlandish lie; it is nonsense; it is directly in the face of what my father always wrote, talked about, and advocated. As it pertains to this "Constitution Party" that Doug is referring to, he specifically found their view on criminalizing drugs and destroying free trade to be abhorrent (shouldn’t we all?). But even apart from those differences, he simply found third party votes to be throw-away votes. I do not even feel a need to argue if that position is a good one, or a bad one. My own views of partisan elections are known, and publicly available. My father could be completely wrong, or completely right. That’s irrelevant. He was very, very sympathetic to the ideology of someone like Howard Phillips (with a few issue-by-issue disagreements), but his exact words were that they were "throw-away votes" and that we were perfectly within ethical boundaries to cast a vote for "the relevant good," and if need be, "the lesser of two evils." In his case, that meant twice voting for Ronald Reagan, and twice voting for George Bush, Sr. (keep in mind, in 1991 he publicly lectured against the first Iraq war, yet in 1992, still voted for Bush I).

What Doug Phillips Needs to Do

I really hope people do not miss my point: I do not care if someone wants to dispute the arguments that people like myself, Rod Martin, and Greg Bahnsen put forward for voting within a two-party system (at least not in this forum). It is a different subject for a different day. But, given the words of Doug Phillips, he either needs to retract his statement about SCCCS and Greg Bahnsen, or he needs to add my late father to his list of "branded" scholars. I hate to disappoint people, but sometimes we make someone to be something they are not (I think of last summer’s SCCCS conference, after which I received e-mail correspondence and read chat room postings from a few Internet junkies determined to separate Norm Shepherd’s views from those of my father, no matter how much indisputable evidence was provided to the contrary).

Kevin Swanson was not the "skunk at a garden party." This conference was a group of Christian men, who fight similar battles, and wage similar wars, in different parts of the country, and in different forums and platforms. Most of the men mostly agree on most issues. Where we do disagree, it is not an assault of anyone’s legacy. It is not an assault on anyone’s father. It is acceptable and common Christian disagreement. Doug Phillips and the 22-member Constitution party (it could be a few more now) do not have an exclusive market on good ideas, or presuppositional political activism. Sorry, they just don’t. Christians can disagree on matters of application. They can even discuss these disagreements (I will let readers of this article guess how much effort Doug Phillips expended as far as contacting anyone in SCCCS before posting his absurd blog). [Since this article was first written SCCCS has gone to great pains to deal with this conflict; he has completely ignored us, prompting the unarchiving of this article].

Contrast Kevin Swanson with Doug Phillips

Kevin Swanson said this recently:

"Those who disagree with me on the issue of third party are good brothers in our band of brothers. I look at this as a tertiary issue. Why? Its strategy. Application is tricky, and requires wisdom, which requires character. That’s our challenge today. BTW, a little graciousness, hoping all things, oil down Aaron’s beard, and that sort of thing... between those that pick slightly different strategic approaches, I think should be in order.

As I see it, the first generation of reformers brought some great ideas to the table. The second generation is having a harder time making application, because application requires wisdom, which requires character. Ultimately, we will make the most progress as we raise children of faith and character who can carry these ideas to fruition. This will be a generational project, friends. Buckle up. It’ll be a long, hard ride."


I, for one, prefer to be buckled into this ride with like-minded folks who know how to treat each other. I am tired of the world looking at certain Christian people, and being able to laugh. If we want to advocate the King of Kings and Prince of Peace in the hearts and minds of men (let alone in the political sphere), it is high-time we start acting like we care what He taught.

"Peace" begins at home ...

Entry C:  Sandlin's Comment (Referenced above)

2007 Comment on Jen Epstien's blog
P. Andrew Sandlin Says:

June 11th, 2007 at 11:13 pm

It is encouraging to see more sites calling these ecclesial tyrants publicly to account. There is room for reasonable disagreement in the church, of course, and many divisive church issues won’t — and shouldn’t — be settled this side of Heaven.

But certain men like Phillips have a history of ecclesial bullying and autocracy. David Bahnsen and I experienced first-hand his and his boy-staff’s bullying when we publicly exposed his erroneous statement uttered about a conference hosted by the Southern California Center for Christian Studies that both David and I attended and supported.

Phillips wrote that a true apologetic presuppositionalist (like Bahnsen’s late father Greg) must be a third-party supporter (as in Phillips’ own father’s Constitution Party) and that SCCCS was betraying its legacy by not endorsing third parties.

When David responded publicly that his father was a true apologetic presuppositionalist and a dedicated Republican his entire life, calling Phillips to account for his misleading comments, Phillips threatened to sue the Study Center.

One of the SCCCS trustees, a godly and patient man, asked us to remove David’s response to Phillips so that the matter could be privately settled, a course on which Phillips had agreed.

No sooner had Bahnsen’s exposé of Phillips been removed than he lost interest in pursuing the matter and simply slammed the door in the face of this godly trustee, who sadly acknowledged to Bahnsen and me, “You and David were right about Phillips.”

Make no mistake: I respect principled third-party supporters.

I have no respect for Phillips, in my opinion an unprincipled and unethical man.

Too many churchmen refuse to speak out against such tyranny; thank God for the faithful few who stand with God’s law-word against such ubiquitous evils.

(When I engaged Ms. Epstein, I was completely unaware of Kinism or her association with that whole belief system which is popular among a contingent of Theonomists and Christian Reconstructionists.  For a time in the past, while I believed in error that their approach was decentralization of the federal government through libertarianism and not theocracy, I identified with with this general group.  I never identified with kinism or racism of any variety, though it was often difficult to discern.

~~~~~~~~~~

PART II:
HOMESCHOOLING FAMILY


Doug Phillips Attorney Sends Threat Letter
to Improperly Excommunicated Family


This article refers to matters widely discussed on this website under Open Letter to Chalcedon. You may link to it HERE for a more detailed account and additional links to pertinent information.


Doug Phillips who serves as the sole elder at the Boerne Christian Assembly (BCA), a church that neither has nor seeks a senior pastor, excommunicated a family that he/they deemed as “non-normative.” The family maintains that they were wrongly charged with confabulated and exaggerated offenses and recalcitrance to all counsel. In the process of all of this, even their pre-conversion sin was offered as evidence against them. As an independent denomination (a blend of Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian ideals) assumed to operate under the
Family Integrated Church group also run by Phillips as a ministry and project of Vision Forum/Vision Forum Ministries, Phillips operates without accountability as an elder, a role that he calls “shepherd.” He denies that this is a pastoral role, however.

Some local churches, one in particular, helped to mediate and reconcile the family and the BCA leadership, giving the appearance that Phillips submits to a local presbytery. [Update 5Jul07: Refer to new documentation at the end of this post and link to the main article for a critique of one of the two churches acting as presbyters for BCA.] After working with the family for some time, Phillips allegedly met with this
pastor and leadership privately, and then all mediation mysteriously stopped. Phillips is not accountable to this group either but actually manipulates them as well.

Because the family had no legitimate recourse to pursue mediation or to challenge the legitimacy of the excommunication, they took matters to the
internet at www.jensgems.wordpress.com. They also sent a letter of appeal to many homeschooling families to appeal to them to reconsider their support of Doug Phillips and his associated organizations (?some type of "holding companies?"). As a result, Doug Phillips conferred with an attorney to write the famed “threatening letter” to the family to intimidate them. Find the ORIGINAL PDF FILE HERE! Please read the following excerpt from that letter:“It is my view that under Texas and Federal law, your statements about the Phillips and your widely distributed letters of February 2005 and May 22, 2006 constitute actionable slander and libel. Were you convicted in a court of law for libel and slander, damages could be substantial.

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


The letter goes on to threaten the Epsteins that if they do persist in their public exposure of Doug Phillips, their alleged lack of character and integrity will be publicly exposed. The letter goes on to enumerate several specifics concerning the alleged misconduct and sin.

I assume, that like the “Local Church” and the followers of cultist Watchman Nee, Mr. Phillips believes that it is appropriate to sue fellow Christians under such circumstances. I Corinthians 6 states that we should refrain from suing fellow Christians, but it does not address suing excommunicated Christians who have been deemed publicans. Matthew chapter 18 speaks about excommunicating those who refuse to hear and respond to reason, but it makes no reference to lawsuits against those people. Phillips apparently uses these passages to build his argument from silence to defend his actions.

Which believer will he sue next?
~~~~~~~

UPDATE 5Jul07 from the "CHURCH DISCIPLINE" WEBSITE:

Note the key point. FPC [
Faith Presbyterian Church] is required to
1) Receive a specific report
2) Take into consideration the contents of that report
3) Verify that restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted

However FPC did not choose to do that. What they did do was:
1) Faith PCA verbally and in writing affirmed the legitimacy of the excommunication process of BCA
2) Faith PCA affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of BCA, both to give and to remove the censure of excommunication from the Epsteins, "Knowing that Boerne Christian Assembly is an orthodox evangelical Christian church, we recognize your excommunication of Mark and Jennifer as a valid ecclesiastical act with continuing effect.”

The PCA does not recognize any notion of exclusive jurisdiction. FPC's act here was a blatant violation of presbyterian legal structures.

Link to the full posting at Church Government
HERE.
~~~~~~~

TEXAS SUPREME COURT CASES THAT MAY WEAKEN VISION FORUM CLAIMS AND CASE AGAINST THE EPSTEINS
(UPDATED 18Aug07)

**Woman permitted to sue Pastor for breaking confidentiality:
*Attorney's
summary of the case HERE. (Note links to Vision Forum's distorted report of the court's ruling via links embedded in this summary at the Church Discipline site.)
*Link to original information
HERE.


**Court rules in favor of Harvest House Publishing against "The Local Church" (followers of Watchman Nee) libel and slander charges for inclusion in the "Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions"
-Link to Havest House petition "Call to Keep Theological Disputes Out of the Courts"
HERE.
-Link to Norm Geisler's Statement
HERE.
-Link to the Appelate Court Documentation
HERE.
-Link to Living Stream/The Local Church's press release in response to the Appelate Court Decision
HERE.

~~~~~~~~~~
PART III:
ARCHEOLOGIST JOE TAYLOR



VISIT HELP JOE TAYLOR.COM,

and visit Raising the Truth.com
for the in-depth account of the Allosaur dig.





Link tho the ORIGINAL PDF FILE
HERE!

Synopsis:Cindy: “I’m not sure how he justifies suing Joe Taylor”

Lynn: “but just to clarify it was binding arbitration, and Doug was not one of the parties the first time around.”

Cindy: “It was a legal matter requiring arbitration wherein Doug actually avoided service of legal documents (per Jen’s documentation.) The services of an attorney were employed to deal with matters among Christians.”

Actually, Doug repeatedly threatened to sue Joe Taylor, but he did not. He did set up a mediation, which was really a sham, and was a gross conflict of interest for all those involved except Joe Taylor. Joe was coerced into agreeing to something that he never should have agreed to. Doug’s name was on that mediation agreement, but Doug REFUSED to sign it. Later on, there was an arbitration ruling as well.

The episode that Cindy is talking about involved Joe’s request to Doug Phillips to take this to Peacemakers, since Doug refused to sign the mediation. However, Doug also refused to go to Peacemakers with Joe, just as he refused to go to Peacemakers with us.



April 20, 2007

Joe Taylor
Mt. Blanco Fossil Museum
124 W. Main, P.O. Box 550,
Crosbyton, TX 79322

Douglas W. Phillips
Vision Forum, Inc.
4719 Blanco Rd.
San Antonio, TX 78212

“Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” Matt. 5:23-24

Dear Doug,

I apologize for this request being served to you during your busy schedule, but you are gone a lot, and hard to reach.

In addition, the recent judgment from arbitration with the Pete DeRosas and myself has only served to heighten the unresolved conflicts between you and me.

In 2003, you wrote me to complain of my privately exposing your “documentary” video, “Raising The Allosaur.” This review was not actually made public then. However, why shouldn’t it be? Every film that comes out is reviewed and often very negatively.

In your letter to me of January 20, 2003, as well as other correspondence, you have taken the position that my exposure of your video somehow makes me guilty of “slander” and that what I have done “would be actionable defamation in any court of law.” You have accused me of “speaking evil of brothers without working through the biblical guidelines for conflict resolution.” You have accused me of many other things as well, all without any supporting evidence. For example, you’ve accused me of “blackmail.” You’ve even accused me of “anti-Semitism,” a truly outrageous allegation. I have many hundreds of pages of evidence, not to mention hundreds of photographs and many hours of video tape that I believe unequivocally makes my case.

You accuse me that, “You have consistently and willfully refused to follow any biblical guidelines for conflict resolution, notwithstanding our repeated recommendations to you to do just this.”

Yet, many of the very things that you have accused me of are the very things that you yourself are guilty of. And contrary to your accusations, I tried many times to meet with you and practice Matthew: 18, which you so often and loudly demand.

I agreed to mediation with you and Pete DeRosa both. You agreed as well. The problem is that while Pete and I made an appearance and signed the mediation agreement, you never even showed up. And you, Doug, the one who was so insistent, never signed the agreement. Needless to say, nothing has truly been “resolved” by the alleged “conflict resolution.”

It appears to me that the mediation was more a means to silence me and prevent further exposure of un-Christian deeds than it was to resolve conflicts.

I’ve attempted to resolve my differences with you many times. The fact that you evaded signing the mediation agreement doesn’t mean that our issues are resolved or that these problems have just gone away. I’m sure that you’re more than aware of the need to address our disputes. The Word tells us, “If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.” (Rom. 12:18)

Many friends and associates in the past several years encouraged me to sue you, but I did not because I thought you were a Christian brother. (I Cor. 6:1-8)

Your January 20, 2003 letter states, “We are committed to following biblical guidelines of conflict resolution, arbitration and church discipline.”

I’d like to give you the opportunity to prove that you are sincere about that by extending the offer to you to discuss biblically-based Christian conflict resolution with me.

I’m told that Peacemaker Ministries claims that both their mediation and arbitration are biblically-based. Decisions can also be binding, and it is recommended that we agree to the details of this in advance.

All I’m asking you for at this time is a simple written “yes, I will discuss this with you,” or “no, I will not,” answer. The details would be worked out later. Please have a written response in my hands by May 5, 2007.

My offer is genuine, and made in the interests of the whole creationist as well as the home school community.

Doug, there has been entirely too much strife between us. It should be put to an end. “Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.” Phil. 2:3

In the bonds of Christ Jesus,

Joe Taylor


* Doug Phillips refuses to accept mediation documentation from Joe Taylor. See the notarized document of non-service
HERE!

* Read the whole story
HERE and HERE!

* Vision Forum posts their documentation
HERE.

What Does Patriarchy Have In Common With Other Bible-Based Cults?


** WHAT PHILLIPS HAS IN COMMON with Watchman Nee, Rev. Moon and JW's


WHAT DOUG PHILLIPS HAS IN COMMON

with
Watchman Nee,Reverend Moon and Jehovah's Witnesses:

THE NEW FACE OF SPIRITUAL ABUSE



Copyright 2007, UnderMuchGrace.com
May not be reproduced without permission from CM Kunsman

Preliminary Introduction posted 10Jul07;
Updated but incomplete article posted 18Aug07.

**FULL ARTICLE ANTICIPATED BY December 1, 2007,
(continuing with exploited male headship, "militant fecundity," aggressive response and legal action taken against critics).

One of my two editors is MIA. Don't want to post without their input!

COMMONALITIES OF DOUG PHILLIPS’ DOCTRINE AND PRACTICE
WITH BIBLE-BASED CULTS:

POTENTIAL WARNING SIGNS AND MARKERS
FOR LEGALISTIC AND ABSUIVE PRACTICES


From my recent study of Doug Phillips and the doctrines propagated by his many, intertwined branches of ministry (Boerne Christian Assembly, Vision Forum, Vision Forum Ministries, National Council of Family Integrated Churches, National Center for Home Education under the Home School Legal Defense Association, and others), I note a trend of practices and philosophical similarities common to other legalistic Christian denominations and movements. Although, to my knowledge, these trends have not been documented by the counter-cult movement as diagnostic for cults and cultic groups, there are common “markers” and “red flag” symbols that tend to follow legalistic and cultic practices.

These aid in the identification of groups for whom legalism is a central doctrinal tenet. These are by no means suggested as criteria for determining either theological cults (groups denying the deity of Christ, per the
“traditional Walter Martin definition”) or psychological cults (groups practicing techniques which dull critical thought through manipulation without the knowledge or consent of the subjects/followers). It has been my experience, however, that noting these trends in churches or Bible-based groups serve as a potential indicator of legalism and of cultic doctrine and/or behavior.

Preferences and traditions differ from expected standards within churches, however over the course of the histories of many religious groups, preferences and traditions can become requirements. Many groups follow this pattern as they respond to the pressures exerted by their church leaders by means of the legalistic focus on reasonable standards, subtly shifting them into essential doctrines on the same level as the fundamental, essential doctrines of the Christian faith. Cults, by nature and definition are also legalistic, but not all legalistic religious groups may be qualified as cults. There are also times and seasons in both the life of the individual and in the life of the church when the focus on specific doctrine(s), in response to particular pressures and events, does not constitute the type of legalism described above. Used properly, they preserve an acceptable trend and temporary means of sustaining vigilant contending for the faith. However, the continued employment or exploitation of such a sustained and narrowed focus on less essential concepts to the exclusion, addition or even replacement of the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith poses a potential threat to the healthy, balanced Christian life of both individuals as well as entire groups.

The criticism brought
against the Kansas City Prophets presents a valuable example of such a sustained focus beyond reasonable and edifying use. Within this movement, the work and experience of (what was understood by that group as) the manifestation of the Holy Spirit supplanted the value and potency of Scripture. This aberrancy of the Kansas City Prophets demonstrated by views about the working of the Charismata within the lives of believers became a “theological innovation.” Vision Forum and the teachings of Doug Phillips represent a theological innovation very comparable to this Charismatic example. Promotion of family and legalistic interpretation of Biblical ideals of family displace and redefine the central, orthodox doctrine of grace and also the evangelism of the unbeliever through avenues outside of the life of the family. Standards of family become tantamount to the essential doctrine of Christian liberty through grace, serving as “markers” of salvation within Doug Phillips’ patriarchy doctrine.


COMPARISON OF PRACTICES AND DOCTRINES OF DOUG PHILLIPS WITH OTHER LEGALISTIC CHRISTIAN GROUPS.

Symbols of Christ.
Many Christian groups focus on symbolism of elements that represent Jesus Christ. For example, the doctrine of transubstantiation concerning the Lord’s Supper maintained by Roman Catholicism represents one of the most obvious and well known references to religious and cultic symbolism as an exploitation of the Biblical model. Other more obvious examples of such symbolic concerns can be demonstrated by Jehovah’s Witness doctrines concerning blood products and their specific teachings about the cross. Both of these symbols (per Watchtower Society teaching) become a focus of their skewed doctrines, in concert and keeping with their false teachings denying the Deity of Christ. This unbalanced focus on the symbols provide us with more obvious “markers” of legalism, however many groups practice more subtle forms of unbalanced focus on symbolism.

Eucharist or “eucharisto”, (deriving from the Greek term for “grace” and often translated as a celebration of “thanksgiving”) is commonly referred to as “communion” in evangelical Christian circles. The Greek word for “communion” (koinonia) translated as “fellowship” is reminiscent of the Apostle’s Creed reference to the “communion of the saints,” describing the church as a unified body. Connotation subtly suggests that the eucharist (also referred to as “communion”) implies communion with the group rather than simply a symbolic ritual of communion with Christ. Manipulative groups capitalize on the term and the ritual, using it for the benefit of group cohesiveness.

Thought reform, a psychosocial dynamic at work in cultic groups, dulls critical thought by stressing one of the three primary aspects of the self: thought, emotion and behavior. Because manipulation of just one aspect of the self is so stressful, the mind will automatically seek immediate resolution of the psychological stress by conforming the other unaffected aspects to maintain self-integrity. The eucharist, a demonstrative ritual of doctrine (thought concerning soteriology) involves much emotion (thanksgiving for salvation for Christ offering Himself as mans’ propitiation) and behavior (through ritual and social interaction) serves as a most powerful ideological solidification technique within both orthodox and cultic groups. In this fashion, legalistic groups and cults exploit the potency of this religious tradition.

At Boerne Christian Assembly (BCA), the local body that formed from a home based support meeting for homeschoolers hosted within the home of Doug Phillips, no woman may partake of the elements of the eucharist independently. The elements must be served to a woman by a man or boy. She may not reach to directly receive the elements herself. Within BCA, practice is a reinforced standard. Here is an
account of a former member of BCA:

“Although there were no rules for being a part of BCA, per se, it was the unwritten rules that were the invisible foundation….Next came the Lord’s Supper….fathers usually went forward and got communion for their whole family. The grape juice was served in medium-sized Dixie cups that the whole family could share. The men would take a chunk of matzoh to share with their family as well. It was left up to the men to decide who takes communion in their family. If the father was absent or if a woman didn’t have a husband, one of her sons could bring her communion, even if the boy hadn’t been baptized and wasn’t old enough to take communion himself. If there were no males in the family, one of the deacons would serve the woman communion. If you were not participating in taking communion, it was quite obvious to the whole congregation.”


As this personal account describes (within the BCA group), communion with Christ is both a family and a very social experience, the practice of which reinforces the interconnectedness of the group, the symbolic requirement for an intercessor between Christ and the believer and a distorted interpretation of male headship. Any male family member, independent of age or maturity in the faith can become the symbolic patriarch in the father’s absence. With in the BCA group context of promoting the family, these variants within the traditional practice of communion may not seem of great concern, their true significance as aberrant variants in practice take profound import when examined within the context of both BCA’s written and unspoken doctrines concerning women.

Within my own shepherding group with ties to the Charismatic Ft. Lauderdale Five, the communion was often a strange practice. Members of the church would partake of the elements themselves and reserve a portion of the bread to serve to other church members. As the BCA example stressed the doctrine of male headship, my group focused on a utopian unity. (Much of this doctrine was based upon the statements in Acts 2:44 and 4:32 where believers shared and “had all things common.”) Another odd (but much less significant) practice arose in this church following the installation of new carpet which created much controversy—that of the change from red to white grape juice for use in communion. My departure/exit from this group coincided with this change to white grape juice, provoking some sadly cynical comments about switching to “Kool-aide” in a shade that matched the carpet, reminiscent of the cyanide laden drink used by the Peoples Temple in Jonestown. I must admit that I am equally disturbed by the reference to “Dixie cups” contained in the preceding quote, considering that they were also touted to be used to serve the Jonestown “Kool-aide”. Note that it is not any campaign against these manufacturers as “markers” but a harrowing reference to the history of the events of the Jonestown ‘suicides.’

Holidays.
Celebration of holidays within non-liturgical, Bible-based groups often poses matters of legalistic concern. Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, reject the celebration of all traditional holidays, even including the specific celebration of the birthdays of their followers. Seen as legalistic and pagan practices, Jehovah’s Witnesses likewise reject consideration of the many feasts of the Jewish tradition practiced throughout the lifetime of Jesus. Scripture makes no condemnation of the observance of these traditional celebrations, and Jesus himself made no such protests in reference to their practice. Per the accounts of his life in the Gospels, at the least, Jesus observed both Passover and Pentecost. Many such cultic groups make an argument from silence that such traditions are not mandated by Scripture, but neither are they condemned within Scripture. Many groups generally go beyond the belief that they are not mandated to state that such practices and participation denote sin.

Although many doctrinally sound Christians take issue with the celebration of Christmas, this particular holiday presents an interesting example of another potential marker of both religious control and manipulation. Some Christians maintain that the celebration of Christmas ranges from questionable to pagan, originally deriving from adaptations of pagan holidays into Christian tradition. Some cite 1 Cor 11:23-26 as a Scriptural proof that Christians should not observe a celebration of Christ’s birth, but to only focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Another criticism concerning the holiday surrounds the symbolism of Christmas trees as a violation of Scripture. Old Testament proofs supporting this interpretation include but are not limited to Lev 14:37, Deut 12:2, I Kings 14:23, Psalm 37:35; -- all passages that reference green trees. Following a desire to yield the utmost honor to God, some Christians decline celebration of Christmas with decorations and, as previously stated, many decline celebration of the holiday altogether.

Doug Phillips
does not observe Christmas personally, stating that it is a Catholic holiday. Christmas was not formally observed at Doug’s local church per the statement of a former member of BCA:

“The congregation was split about half and half on the Christmas issue. There were definitely NO Christmas programs or any talk about Christmas, but it really depended on who was leading worship as to what hymns we sang. Sometimes we did sing a Christmas hymn or two, but they were VERY limited, as most of them contained words that many in the congregation did not agree with….There was one family at BCA who had a Christmas party every year and everyone was invited, although not everyone attended. On the other hand, if you went to the Phillips’ home in December, you would find lots of poinsettias, nutcrackers, and green and red decorations. Beall decorates quite festively for someone who doesn’t celebrate Christmas.”


This does not identify Phillips as a cultist, but it certainly serves as a possible marker for legalism. It is another “red flag” that often accompanies both very legalistic and unbalanced churches in addition to many Bible-based cults. Within my former spiritually abusive, cultic church, I was surprised at the many questions about whether my family decorated a tree. It was one of those strange, frequently asked questions that did not initially make sense. The odd nature of what seemed like a strange obsession with Christmas trees was soon followed by many other “unwritten” and informal ideals maintained by our Shepherding/Discipleship Movement group, another spiritually abusive system practiced by many denominations. In their attempt to be holy (literally “set apart” in the original Greek) and perhaps more importantly, in an attempt to appear holy, these legalists often demonstrate inordinate focus on avoiding or eliminating non-essential (not profound doctrinal or salutary significance) aspects of the Christian life such as celebration of holidays. They may even spend more time, energy and resources denouncing something like Christmas than most people expend in the celebration of such holidays. Such over focus and fixation clearly demonstrates legalistic behavior, thus expanding into control leading into manipulation, abuse and exploitation.

Upon leaving the aberrant group where we met, a dear friend of mine (not yet accepting of the concept of cultic Spiritual Abuse model) joined a similar Shepherding group that completely rejected the celebration of the Christmas holiday. Among these mentioned arguments, this church’s leadership maintained that they did not recognize Christmas because the date discrepancy. (Many sources state that Christ’s birth and/or conception did not occur in December.) In contrast, this church did honor all the major Jewish holidays and traditional feast days celebrating them in worship services and with other activities. (I greatly enjoy these types of observation personally, finding them helpful in the pursuit of understanding the Jewish aspects of Jesus’ life.) Perhaps Vision Forum’s honor of
certain patriotic events could be interpreted in a similar way, with their quadricentenial celebration of the Jamestown settlement providing a similar example. Celebrated occasions demonstrate the groups’ preference or prejudice rather than a strict observation of Scripture. Celebration of such events or preferred traditions may reinforce the cult of personality, thus promoting the perceived unity both inside and outside the group. It is another display of the outward appearance of intimacy and unity among group members through superficial practices. These traditions serve as a demonstration of the cohesiveness of the group.

To be continued....

All Rights Reserved

Please feel free to use original material presented here on this blog, attributing the site.

Copyrighted works are made available here under the 'fair use' exception of U.S. copyright law, for research and educational purposes only.