Protesting Patriarchy: Open Letter to American Vision

PLEA TO AMERICAN VISION: Stop using Doug Phillips on your dias

Cease Donations to American Vision

Please note the following email that was sent when I discovered that MCOI also views Doug's version of patriarchy as cultic. This follows my withdrawl of monthly support of American Vision just a few weeks prior to this email.


It is my opinion that if you support the organizations that give Doug a platform on which to speak, then you help to perpetuate his abuses.


Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:49:27 -0700 (PDT)

From: "Cynthia Kunsman"
Subject: To Gary Demar and Brandon Vallorani RE: Doug Phillips and cultic behavior
To: mail@AmericanVision.org
CC: "jlepstein" "ForTox Consulting" "Andrew Sandlin"


Dear Gentlemen,

At the fundraiser you held in Detroit in Spring 2006, Brandon asked me if I could provide any substantive evidence to defend my strong opinion that Doug Phillips' church in Boerne, TX was undoubtedly a cult. I also faced the same criticism when I spoke to a board member a few weeks ago in response to a fundraising call. It was immediately followed by my email to Gary (on behalf of my husband, Gary) when I also informed you that we chose to no longer support American Vision because of Doug's increasing presence at events, etc. (Sorry that Gary,my dh, missed your call, Gary DeMar, but perhaps it may not be as necessary now, in light of this. We appreciate your effort to contact us.)

We started to prepare a formal letter to you to explain more thoroughly our concerns for withdrawal of support, and I looked on line at Vision Forum's site to make sure that I had my facts straight so as not to unfairly misrepresent information about Doug. Upon looking on a search engine, I discovered this site (detailing the experiences of an excommunicated member whom Doug has stated that he wants to sue), and today they have posted the following @
"Jens Gems"

I would appreciate it if someone could also forward this to the board member that I spoke with who assisted Brandon with phone fundraising calls last month. I mentioned these concerns at some length with him. I encourage you to also explore the website entitled "Jen's Gems: Exposing Doug Phillips' Ecclesiastical Tyranny" @ http://

Respectfully,
Cindy Kunsman

Cynthia Kunsman

"It is one thing to show a man that he is in error,
and another to put him in possession of the truth."
John Locke

Attachment copied from Jen's Gems website:

Cult-Watch Ministry Publishes Article Exposing Doug Phillips
May 30th, 2007 — Jen

Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. is about to release the Spring 2007 edition of their Journal. The lead story for the Journal is an exposé about Doug Phillips entitled Who Will Be The First in the Kingdom?
MCOI’s practice is to post their articles in pdf format on their web site approximately three months after they mail out their Journal to subscribers. If you don’t already receive the MCOI Journal you can contact them and request to be added to the mailing list. They are a faith ministry and you may want to consider sending them a donation or perhaps supporting them on a regular basis.

Midwest Christian Outreach’s focus is “evangelizing and ministering to the victims of cults and spiritually abusive groups.” For over ten years they’ve written extensively exposing Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other cultic and abusive religious groups, including Bill Gothard. Needless to say I completely concur that an exposé on Doug Phillips seems to be in order. In his article, Don also addresses some of the teachings of Bill Gothard (Don has written an entire book exposing Gothardism). This is entirely appropriate as Doug Phillips has been greatly influenced by Gothardism. Among other things this includes Doug’s views on authority, Patriarchy, and courtship.

The author of the article and President of MCOI, Don Veinot, has given permission for me to post some quotes from his article. It’s a lengthy article, so in order to appreciate these quotes in the context of the full article I recommend ordering the Journal from MCOI.

Who Will Be First in the Kingdom? (Excerpts from Article by L.L. Don Veinot)

As most of our readers know, the mission of MCOI is to look at the teachings and claims of popular movements and individuals inside the church as well as the cults, false religions, and false teachers outside of it. This mission arises from Paul’s mandate to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20:28-31 to guard the flock from false teachers who would creep into the church from the outside and from false teachers who arise from within. If they utilize Scripture to support their teachings, we try to determine how they use it, and whether or not they abuse it…

Evangelicals would be generally opposed to using cultic material containing extra-biblical, unbiblical and, at times, outright heretical teachings in our churches’ services, Bible studies or Sunday school classes. That is a good thing, but many churches do not have as good a track record when it comes to recognizing false teachers who arise from within. We tend to have a “black-hat” vs. “white-hat” mentality in this area: Cults, false religions, and false teachers outside the church are the black hats—the bad guys; and we can just tell our people to stay away from them. Evangelicals, on the other hand, are the good guys with the white hats; and what we believe is orthodox. As a result, however, many believers are not prepared to challenge and help cultists outside our doors or to evaluate false teachers or teachings within the church. Discernment, along with a good understanding of the essential, basic doctrinal teachings of the faith, generally is not taught in any depth in many churches. Due to this deficit, and because we tend to view Evangelicals as the “white-hat” crowd, there is a great deal of difficulty evaluating the teachings of teachers and groups who have a fairly orthodox statement of faith and are viewed as being on “our team.”

We ran into this problem when we first began looking at the teachings of Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles in the 1990s. It isn’t his Statement of Faith in essential orthodoxy that is problematic; it is his additions, mis-/re-definitions, and other claims that moves him into “false teacher” category. He presents his teachings as “non-optional” truths that should be accepted by all. Many Christians are completely blind to the problem, which continues to result in division within churches and separation of family members. Many of his followers believe his allegations that all true Christians should unquestioningly follow all of his teachings, rules, and principles for living. After all, if his prescriptions are “non-optional,” are they not just suggestions, but rather commandments? Why do his followers seem to believe failing to obey his ironclad “spiritual laws” will incur the wrath of God? And who wants that? Those who question his teachings are viewed as spiritually inferior and even their status as Christians can be seriously doubted by Gothard’s hard-core followers. The peer pressure on those inside is oppressive, and independent thinking is strongly discouraged which has resulted in the painful devastation of many families and individuals within “Gothardism.” It turns out to be a very cult-like situation for many Christians who are just trying to please God and happen to get caught up with a false teacher.

The Courtship of “Edie’s” Father
Many times false teachers have a Bible verse, or collection of Bible verses, which makes their view sound not only plausible, but also mandated from the very mouth of God! Let’s take courtship, for example. Courtship as defined in these circles is winning the heart of the father who will assist the future son-in-law in bringing about the marriage to the young woman in whom a young man is interested. The idea is strongly conveyed that this sort of courtship or betrothal is found in the pages of Holy Writ and is, therefore, God’s mind and will on the matter. Well, is this concept taught in Scripture? It doesn’t really matter; for if the inspired teacher makes the assertion, then it must be true. Even if an example of this “courtship of ‘Edie’s’ father” was found in Scripture, does that mean it is God’s way for it to be done? Isn’t it true that not everything found in the Bible represents God’s will on a particular matter at all or, perhaps, does not hold true for all time and every situation? A few years ago, Ron Henzel, MCOI’s Senior Researcher, came across a satire of this methodology:

Top 10 Biblical Ways to Acquire a Wife

1. Find a prostitute and marry her. (Hosea 1:1-3)
2. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal. (Ruth 4:5-10)
3. Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she’s yours. (Deuteronomy 21:11-13)
4. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife. (Judges 21:19-25)
5. Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law’s enemies and get his daughter for a wife. (I Samuel 18:27)
6. Become the emperor of a huge nation and hold a beauty contest. (Esther 2:3-4)
7. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock. (Exodus 2:16-21)
8. When you see someone you like, go home and tell your parents, “I have seen a woman; now get her for me.” If your parents question your decision, simply say, “Get her for me. She’s the one for me.” (Judges 14:1-3)
9. Agree to work seven years in exchange for a woman’s hand in marriage. Get tricked into marrying the wrong woman. Then work another seven years for the woman you wanted to marry in the first place. That’s right. Fourteen years of toil for a woman. (Genesis 29:15-30)
10. Have God create a wife for you while you sleep. Note: this will cost you a rib. (Genesis 2:19-24)


We can’t imagine the 200 foreskins idea will actually fly in Twenty-First-Century America. Moreover, grabbing a POW doesn’t sound very practical either. Of course, this is a satire demonstrating how virtually anything can be made to sound right and biblical. First, we start with the false assumption that if something is recorded in the Bible, then it is God’s will on the matter. Next, we abandon the context of the passages and/or the overall context of biblical revelation in order to support our contention. Further, if we add the idea, preferably by implication, that true, obedient Christians will embrace and put into practice (without question) what we have set forth, we can impose our idea while effectively squelching any dissent…

Catching the Vision … Forum
Several years ago, we noticed Doug Phillips of Vision Forum was a speaker at one of Bill Gothard’s conferences. Of course, not everyone who speaks there is aware of Gothard’s false teaching on authority, circumcision, etc. Since then, however, we have received requests for info about Vision Forum via e-mail, regular mail, and phone calls. Suddenly, churches are having divisions and splits erupting as Vision Forum advocates insist that Sunday schools and youth groups be disbanded, and all church functions become all-family events. Anything else is being called unbiblical. Christian parents who do not home school their children are leaving some churches, because the Vision Forum home-schoolers are looking down on them and referring to them as “Canaanites.” We are well aware that followers can distort the teachings of a leader or organization, and they can do and say things that were never intended to be promoted. However, Vision Forum is growing in influence; and with so many requests for information about them, we decided we should probably look at their material that is available to the public. I started with their web site.

At first glance, Vision Forum’s web site looks more like a web site about American patriotism than anything about Christianity. As I read through the opening page, I came across this statement: “Vision Forum Calls for American Christians to Remember the Mighty Deeds of God at the Quadricentennial of Our Founding as Nation.” Well, I am an American patriot, and I do believe God has done some great works in this nation. However, is there a theme here? Is Christianity supposed to be evaluated mostly through the grid of patriotic Americanism? Certainly, this is not stated and may not be intended, but isn’t that how it comes across?

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?…

There are many things within the writings of Vision Forum which are good and biblical. They, like MCOI and many others, see the Church has not been strong in Christo-centric (Christ-centered) teaching for several hundred years, and false world views have captured the imaginations and minds of Western culture and even many in the Church. But as is so often the case, the more reasonable positions they take serve to draw in concerned Christians, and the very problematic teachings are added on top. Although there are constant assurances that women are equal before God, there are also constant reminders that her mind is the least important aspect of who she is and something which must daily be set aside. This is demeaning, and it is an absolute tragedy if a woman becomes truly convinced of this! Does this view ultimately accuse God of making a mistake? Why would He create women with a mind that they constantly have to work at not using?

A Patriarchal Gospel
Is patriarchy, as defined by Vision Forum, part of the “grand sweep of revelation” which Scripture requires to be believed, lived and taught in order to be faithful to Christ? Does Vision Forum practice patriarchy as it was practiced in Old Testament times, for we find no instruction on it in the New Testament? Are those who disagree with Vision Forum truly rebellious believers? These answers have to be “no.” Vision Forum asserts that patriarchy is “Gospel-centered doctrine.” If Vision Forum’s claim about the practice of patriarchy being “Gospel-centered doctrine” is true; then according to this thinking, if one rejects the Vision Forum view, one is rejecting the very Gospel!

It is true the patriarchs were rulers. Not all males were patriarchs, nor did they have the opportunity to become patriarchs. Patriarchs were tribal chieftains. The patriarchal father would typically pass his position of patriarch to his firstborn son. We have instances in Scripture where the family headship was passed to the second born, but the effect was the same. All of the relatives became, in effect, his servants and property. We see an example of this in Genesis 27 when Jacob deceived Isaac into giving him the patriarchal blessing that naturally would have been passed on to his firstborn brother, Esau. The result and full import of what this meant is spelled out by Isaac in Genesis 27:37:
But Isaac replied to Esau, “Behold, I have made him your master, and all his relatives I have given to him as servants; and with grain and new wine I have sustained him. Now as for you then, what can I do, my son?” (NASB)

Sorrowfully, Isaac let Esau know that his hands were tied. The mantle of rulership had been passed on and now all of Jacob’s relatives, aunts, uncles, brother’s sisters, cousins, etc., including Esau, are to be Jacob’s slaves, Jacob’s property. The point is Vision Forum isn’t going far enough if their objective is to embrace Old Testament patriarchy! If they want patriarchy, they cannot simply pick and choose which elements they wish to leave out. Are tribal fiefdoms really supposed to be the pattern for the Church? Forget about wives submitting to husbands—all our relatives have to submit to Uncle Ned!

We find nothing in the Old or New Testament setting up any system of “Christian patriarchy,” nor making patriarchy “Gospel-centered.” If in order to be faithful to Christ we are required to believe, teach and live patriarchy as it was practiced in Scripture; then all brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., would have to submit themselves to the rulership of whomever son the patriarchal father designated as the new patriarch! Simply because a concept can be found in Scripture, does not mean it is ordained by God. And even if something was ordained by God for a certain place or time, that fact does not mandate the same for all eras and times. We have to discern and rightly divide (2 Tim.2:15) when we read Scripture…

The Israelites were allowed to practice polygamy and own slaves. Even though God did not command Israel to practice polygamy or own slaves, He allowed and regulated both. Are these practices mandated or even encouraged today?…
“Submit to One Another”

Most often at the core of these distorted authoritarian teachings is an unbiblical view of leadership. The Scriptures are clear that we are to submit to authority in such passages as Romans 13:1; Titus 3:1; 1 Peter 2:13 and Ephesians 5. But what does that mean?

The biblical patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—had been called out of paganism, and so they continued practicing certain pagan customs. God didn’t change everything all at once. Their view of authority was a rather harsh top down structure. The one at the top was the boss, and all the rest were underlings—basically his servants. The disciples still harbored a similar view, and on several occasions were arguing over who would end up at the top of the authority structure. Who would sit at the right or left hand of Jesus? Jesus set them straight, however, and turned the authority structure on its head…

Christian authority is not merely a circumstance of birth order or gender, which bestows a position of power in the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus Christ, who as God, is the only rightful heir of all “authority” (Matt.28:18) demonstrated by His sacrificial life on how Christian authority is to be attained and wielded. Authority is earned by sacrificial living. We are all to focus on serving those around us. It also means that the higher one ascends to a position of leadership in the church, the more accountable they become to a larger number of people. Those who are truly leaders in a biblical sense live in glass houses, and everyone around them has Windex! It also means that those who follow do so because they are able to observe and trust those who lead (1 Thess. 1:5)…

The world around us is still mostly ordered in a top down structure. We in the western world enjoy more political equality and freedom than most, but authoritarian leadership as a concept is not dead. Our political leaders may claim it is their desire to “serve the people,” but we mostly see them jockeying for positions of good-old-fashioned power. The Church has some of these same problems. Many people seem to desire to be freed from responsibility by being simply “told what to do.” It eliminates the need to have a personal relationship with God and to diligently practice biblical discernment. And although we are aware of the many true servant/leaders in the Church, there seems also to be no shortage of “leaders” who are more than happy to rule like little kings. This type of leader becomes the mediator for his followers, and the followers simply have to hear and obey. God becomes merely the “big stick” the leader uses to keep everyone in line…

Protesting Patriarchy: Corresponding with the Chalcedon Foundation

Open LETTER to CHALCEDON: Why I've Stopped Financial Support

(Thanks to Drinking With R.C. Sproul, Jr. @ rc-sproul-jr.netfirms.com for use of their graphics!)


NOTE: IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE TEN BIBLICAL WAYS TO ACQUIRE A WIFE, I ran out of web pages and moved it.
Find it HERE!. Thanks for your interest and keep laughing!


~~~~~~~~


CORRESPONDENCE WITH CHALCEDON
CONCERNING RECOMMENDATIONS OF DOUG PHILLIPS

Why I No Longer Support Chalcedon Financially

Original post 16Jun07 0600
Addendum posted 20Jun07
* Addendum posted 22Jun07: Substantial editing; redundant content removed: See Jen's Gems web article entitled "Chalcedon Foundation Back Peddles On Defending Doug Phillips" via link noted below.

~~~~~~~~


* UPDATE ON CHALCEDON AND DOUG PHILLIPS

On June 21, 2007, Jennifer Epstein posted all of the Chalcedon Foundation's inflammatory and defaming blog entries made by Chris Ortiz, both the Editor-in-Chief and the Communicatons Director on her website. Link to it HERE.

Although my correspondence with Chalcedon that follows on this webpage primarily addressed the cultic practices of Phillips' perverted patriarchy, much of the discussion that follows here concerns the Epsteins. You, the reader, may wish to read Chalcedon's statements in the web article before reviewing the material here. The Epstein website presents a more direct and concise statement of the events that both triggered and contributed to our decison to withdraw our financial support.


~~~~~~~~


PREFACE:
Please note that my concerns regarding financial support of Chalcedon and other ministries mentioned on this website concern my convictions regarding the fringe doctrine, cultic social practices and history of the aggressive and unchristian responses of Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. Any finances contributed to ministries that support or employ participation of Phillips vicariously support him and his endeavors, also lending my vicarious endorsement of his legitimacy. My support of Chalcedon and other ministries has been an ongoing dilemma because of their support of Doug Phillips, long prior to my knowledge of Vision Forum’s legal dealings with the Epsteins or any of their activities.

Please also note that I make reference to "legal proceedings" in my correspondence. At the time of this writing/post, VF has not formally filed any charges in a court of law (which I refer to the "court of Caesar" in my perspective as a layman). When I make mention of "things legal" I allude to the threatening letter from the attorney on behalf of VF as the first intervention towards the end of filing suit. As fellow Christians in this matter, is there any ethical difference between threatening a law suit and actually filing one? I think not, and the use of the fact that VF has not actually formally filed a suit to defend VF seems manipulative. As I state later in my detailed letter to Chalcedon, to make the distinction is like the Pharisaical straining of gnats and swallowing camels.

Information concerning BCA’s position can be found at both Vision Forum Ministries and on the church website that was created in order to post the excommunication and position statements. The Epstein’s account of their excommunication and their detailed documentation of evidence for their position that these matters were handled irresponsibly can be found on the Jen’s Gems website.

Links to Referenced Info
* CHALCEDON’S SECOND STATEMENT ABOUT DOUG PHILLIPS
* JENNIFER EPSTEIN’S LETTER TO HOMESCHOOLERS

~~~~~~~~

MY INITIAL CONTACT WITH CHALCEDON
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 06:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Cynthia Kunsman"
Subject: Concerns about Chalcedon's position on Doug Phillips and hyper-patriarchy
To: chris


To Whom It May Concern:

My husband and I have regularly supported Chalcedon for many years, so I was disappointed to note a Chalcedon blog from early May recommending that your readers disregard information concerning Doug Phillips. I find this very disturbing, in light of the fact that Doug has initiated legal proceedings against the Epsteins, the excommunicated family from Doug’s church. Your position is equally disturbing considering that the Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc. has announced that they will soon publish an article exposing the cultic aspects of Doug’s hegemonic and extra-Biblical ideology in their upcoming newsletter entitled “Who Will Be First in the Kingdom?”

Andrew Sandlin, once the Vice President of Chalcedon, published several articles countering Doug’s dangerous hegemony and cultic characteristics in 2004. I have posted his article, “Hegemonic Patriarchy,” and an article that I authored “New Cults of Biblical Christianity…” along with other information concerning Bible-based cults online at http://www.ourchurch.com/member/u/UnderMuchGrace/. I urge the staff at Chalcedon to thoughtfully read these articles and to take note of the email also posted on the website that I sent to American Vision following withdrawal of financial support for their regular and repeated use of Doug Phillips at their conferences. This financial support was withdrawn prior to my knowledge of Doug’s recent challenges concerning the “internet attacks,” and was based upon my knowledge of Doug’s practices circa 2004.

I urge Chalcedon staff to reconsider their position concerning Doug, giving special consideration to his false doctrines and strict legalism. Please also consider how Chalcedon can justify Doug’s legal action against fellow believers contrary to God’s Word. Is Chalcedon willing to defend Doug’s behavior in violation of the Scriptural mandate to keep matters between Christians out of the courts of Caesar? Is Chalcedon willing to ignore the growing body of criticism of both Doug’s practices as well as his doctrinal excesses?

Both my husband and I suffered painfully in a similar cultic church in suburban Baltimore many years ago. This fellowship that Charles Simpson played a role in founding was also attended by several followers of Bob Mumford. After these men renounced their cultic shepherding/discipleship doctrines, many of the churches and leaders that they influenced did not follow their recommendations. My former cultic church, in the absence of guidance from the Florida Five, replaced their legalism with the teachings of Bill Gothard. Doug Phillips, the keynote speaker at a recent Gothard conference also perpetuates the same style of distorted doctrines of submission and authority that Gothard and the shepherding movement promoted. Chalcedon could intervene by critically examining these doctrinal abuses and calling for Doug to show himself accountable in both word and deed. Chalcedon could act as a potent agent of positive change, admonishing Doug’s reconsideration of his distorted views of Scripture. Please make a stand on behalf of all who have suffered under the abuses of shepherding and patriarchy so that these legalistic abuses will finally cease.

Respectfully,
Cindy


"It is one thing to show a man that he is in error,
and another to put him in possession of the truth."
John Locke

~~~~~~~~

RESPONSE FROM CHRIS ORTIZ

NOT POSTED PER HIS REQUEST

~~~~~~~~


MY DETAILED RESPONSE TO CHRIS ORTIZ
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 02:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Cynthia Kunsman"
Subject: Open letter to Chris Ortiz and Chalcedon
To: "Chris Ortiz"
CC: "Jennifer Epstein", "ForTox Consulting" , "P. Andrew Sandlin"

Dear Chris,

Thank you for so thoughtfully responding to my email. Clearly, you have invested a great deal of time and effort evaluating my concerns and I am humbled by your efforts. I am grateful that you state acknowledgement of my "genuine appeal" as well.

You say that you doubt that I will find your answers satisfactory: I'm not sure that I find anything satisfactory about the whole affair. It's very nasty from just about every perspective one could take. I'm deeply grieved about it, regardless of whether we see resolution or reconciliation of some sort. I pray that we can somehow, by God's generous grace and great mercy. I would really love to be presented with convincing and solid evidence that Doug Phillips is above reproach, for it would make all of this a simple matter. I will sing his virtues from every "forum" I can find and repent beyond repentance (should there be such a thing). I would rejoice to do so. It is my sober concern that I may not have that opportunity.

I didn't list Chalcedon on my site since it's only existed for about 72 hours! (I still haven't figured out this hypertext language that these blogs and such use. I spent an hour yesterday trying to make that link sight look better! Ugh.) I've corresponded with Andrew and talked with him personally at length about Doug over the past several years, so he was one of the first on my mind. (Actually, I specifically included him because he originally published two of the articles that I posted on my site.) Your suggestion to include Chalcedon is well noted and very appropriate. We support both Chalcedon and CCL concurrently (I would not have misrepresented so in my initial contact with you if it were not currently true), adding Andrew's work to the other ministries that we support when he started CCL.

A bit more BACKGROUND: I do not know if I can parse this in a manner that will soften my language or tone, so I ask that you keep mindful of your esteem of my "genuine appeal." I still have reasonable concerns that Doug makes a habit of threatening his critics with innuendo, negative connotative language and legal action. I also cannot "shake" the money and power motive conveyed through Doug's harsh reactions to his critics. From our introductory meeting with him (and Beall) at Grace OPC in San Antonio (a very sad disappointment for both my husband and me) before he started BCA, we've had serious concerns that Doug espoused ideas similar to that of Mumford's original concept of shepherding. (I refer not to the “elite elder rule” as you mention in your reply but to the preoccupation with authority within patriarchy in exclusion of other doctrines, the exclusivity of a more enlightened manner of living, strong control of the flow of information, and legalistic focus on works/outward demonstrations of salvation.) Hoping to disprove that this was the case, both my husband and I also observed Doug's interactions with the homeschooling families at Grace OPC (and their esteem of his ministry) and became more persuaded that Doug upheld many of the same doctrines that precipitated the abuses that we both witnessed and endured in a former cultic church. (Let me just say that Grace OPC did not "largely favor" Doug's endeavors while we were in attendance there and after Doug left to found BCA formally.)

"DOUG'S EXCESSES": The significance that I find in the Epstein situation concerns the already established pattern that I see in Doug which parallels the dynamics of groups such as Bill Gothard's IBLP (with whom Doug has shared a lectern). The degree of truthfulness of the Epsteins pales in contrast to Doug's aggressive responses to them and other critics. Does Doug's love and zeal for the system of his patriarchy supersede his love and care for family and for individuals, especially those under his care in the church (demonstrated by his aggression)? The utopian qualities of his model of family and ministry to families in exclusion of other groups evidenced in his responses to those who hold to standards that differ from his own suggest the type of intolerance strongly characteristic of totalistic authoritarianism. He does not easily entreat fellow believers through "agreements to disagree", but rather perpetuates hegemonic and very gnostic practices that alienate him and his followers from the larger body of Christ. You may have only entertained Doug’s accounts of his dealings with his critics, excluding other perspectives. You may neither agree nor find these perceptions of mine very satisfying. (Had I not walked the path that I've described, I probably wouldn't either. These are very staid concerns and my evaluation quite trenchant -- one of the traits of Chalcedon's literature that I find so endearing.)

THE ELEMENT OF SECRECY, be it for legal reasons or personal trust makes this a very difficult and convoluted situation to evaluate. This also suggests concealment which may be very true of any or all of the parties involved in this debacle. In consideration of all I've mentioned, prior to any knowledge more current than 2004, I am persuaded by my experience and observations that Doug's BCA is strongly cultic and practices the same abusive dynamics as Bill Gothard, shepherding groups and similar Bible-based cults. Please be mindful that I do not enjoy the benefits of renown within Christendom so I cannot speak from a position of authority. My perspective is lowly in comparison, and as a reasonably good presuppositionalist :), I cannot speak from a different one! I am not influenced by the factors of long-term friendship with Doug and Beall, so I lack that unique insight; however, I fear that you may not be well disposed to appreciate my insights as I've stated them.

On my website, I've posted a second article that you may not have had the opportunity to read entitled "New Cults of Christianity" which CCL featured in the Jun-July 2004 issues of their newsletter (hence my reference to more than one article connected to Sandlin). Doug and patriarchy are not "specifically" referenced in either article, but I wrote mine (with my hubby's editing of the Thought Reform section!) in response to the initial "Tenets" that disappeared from the VF website and were subsequently replaced. My husband contacted Andrew in the wake of the “tenets” and the nasty internet traffic that Doug encouraged via his blog in 2003 and 2004, discretely expressing his (very strong and informed) opinion that Doug was in fact "running a cult." Andrew asked him to essentially write an apologetic suppoting the existence of cultic churches within Biblical Christianity which my husband delegated to me. I embarked on the endeavor shortly before Sandlin's somewhat sarcastic "Hegemonic Patriarchy" was published. Later that year, it was also released by the "Biblical Examiner."

Although you would need to confirm this with Andrew, I believe that Doug is not specifically named in the patriarchy article because at the time, I think that Andrew saw no need. Based on the strong language in the original (soon retracted) "tenets" and the references to criticism in Doug's blog and other such sites that I read over that period, the references were obvious. You may not have seen these original documents I chose to refrain from naming Doug in my writing to capture the many groups that possess cultic elements and thus reach the widest possible demographic. (Doug may have been the impetus for the writing of it, but I also wrote to address the larger issue.) That is to say, I did not want to limit the topic to Doug and the patriarchy issue only, nor did I wish at that time to target him specifically. Three years later and several threats of legal action against his critics however, I am persuaded otherwise and have acted accordingly.

I urge you to read the "New Cults" article that is also displayed on my site (the primary purpose for creating the website). My concerns about Doug are well expressed in that work although he is not specifically named. (I wrote it and you have my word that the article addresses the issues that I have with Doug.) What Sandlin didn't include in that article (due to length) was a table comparing Robert J. Lifton's criteria/techniques of thought reform, paralleled with the similar models described in the Christian literature concerning "spiritual abuse”
(, Johnson and VanVonderan, Enroth, etc.)." I do not have that table on the website (now corrupted floppy disc!) and the text of the article does not discuss these techniques; however, I do have a page on the site that details Lifton's criteria. I believe that all eight of Lifton's criteria (which most groups do not obviously recognize) are employed to varying degrees and manners at BCA. My evidence for my position again comes from the patterns of behavior that Doug has established, and we both may be misinformed concerning the nature of them. I am willing and desirous of evidence to either side, but not from those under Doug’s authority. Essentially, I have the opposite side of the coin regarding opinion about the validity of the evidence. Another page on my site describes a number of characteristics of cult leaders that apply to Doug, without any consideration of the Epstein story (although, I am more strongly persuaded of my opinion based on their claims, even if they are distorted). I base this not on their claims but on Doug's responses to the situation in light of his previous responses to similar issues of which I have first-party corroboration.

CONCERNS WITH OTHER AUTHORS: I noted the announcement of the release of the MCOI article because it establishes that other sources believe that Doug's claimed orthodoxy and claimed orthopraxy of patriarchy in concert with his behavior demonstrate false doctrine and its sequelae. I am familiar with MCOI, probably from my arminian/semi-pelagian background as well as my familiarity with their many expose's on Bill Gothard. They are preterist in doctrine [EDIT ON 28Jun07: they are not specific about eschatology/CMK] and have long standing relationships and affiliations with Norm Geisler, Wheaton College and many others that are available on their site with many more listed in the expose on Gothard (A Matter of Basic Principles by Veinot).

I noted Sandlin's article as a critique of the stranger aspects of Doug's ever evolving patriarchy and for other reasons previously stated. I find the whole representation of "Doug's patriarchy package" to be very unconvincing and the connotative weight and use of the terms (patriarch, Biblical, etc.) very misleading if not fallacious. (This should not override my commitment to my obedience to the Word and the true, individual elements from which Doug draws some of his concepts. My opinion concerns those distortions created by the moral imperatives that Doug intermingles with the foundational and true Biblical standards, thus using the true standard to represent this intermingled product.) Criticism of the label of the "tenets" and the language therein suggests rejection/rebellion against the true great patriarchs, all things Biblical, man's true headship within home and church and the participation of family in the life of the church through the use of this strong connotative language. It exploits both the actual Biblical concepts as well as the emotions of those who read the “package” in a very subtle, insidious and manipulative manner. Although I truly appreciate your thoughtful and detailed responses to elements of patriarchy sardonically referenced in Sandlin's article, I did not intend to debate the finer points. :) (Perhaps after the MCOI article...?) :)

You ask if there are EXAMPLES OF THE EXAGGERATIONS from Sandlin’s article in response to the original “tenets”. (Andrew's article cites extreme, and undocumented, examples of alleged patriarchal abuse. Who is he writing about? Are there names, dates, and times? Does he cite any written documents?) Things have become quite forensic here. The evidence does not come from those in Doug’s confidence, nor does it come from anyone of special authority, so such critics are very easily dismissed by people such as you. It is a great challenge, as you state, to honor the word of strangers on an equal level with those with whom you share relationship. The Epstein’s, many of their supporters that have responded on their site, other people in very patriarchal churches with whom I’ve corresponded relate accounts of cruelty and prejudice. I’ve wept much (on the day that I met Doug and often since then concerning what I knew of his actions prior to 2004). But you don’t know me either, another person of no authority and another would be gossip? Those who are known to Doug from BCA fear making public statements because of Doug’s pattern of vindictive retaliation. I rely on the paralleled patterns of pastors, ministries, families and individuals and their personal accounts found in the Christian literature on spiritual abuse as evidence. Likewise, I rely upon my own experiences. My experiences and observations, criticized because I did not personally attend BCA, corroborate those with similar experiences. To those critics however, I would state that one does not have to enter a burning house to verify that it is on fire or that it presents an obvious danger. Such discounting of critics is highly characteristic of the milieu control of legalistic and totalistic groups. Accusation of lies, exaggeration and other ad hominem arguments provide “damage control” to lessen the credibility of dissents. Loaded language and thought-stopping clichés (connotation of gossip, rebellion, etc.) suspend critical thought by baiting and inciting emotion, manipulating a reasonable person’s tendency towards behavioral consistency. Please consider that these factors may have influenced those who voted in excommunication and people like the Living Waters Fellowship pastor “Little Bear” Wheeler who initially supported the Epsteins.

You state that “Doug has NOT INITIATED LEGAL PROCEEDINGS against the Epsteins.” The Epsteins display several letters on their website including letters from an attorney, documentation that states that all communication with BCA (including attempts to open discussion concerning repentance and reconciliation) flow only through Vision Forum’s attorney and a notarized report documenting non-service of mediation papers to Doug Phillips (following and in response to the letter from the VF attorney). If they employed the services of a lawyer, VF initiated proceedings, even if they have not filed with a court. To say that “legal proceedings” have not been initiated sounds very much like (from my perspective) straining gnats and swallowing camels. Here is a fine example of “patriarchal abuse.”

You ask what was probably a rhetorical question: “With all due respect, HOW DOES ONE RESPOND TO THIS?” By showing “all due respect” to the Epsteins, just as you have shown Doug. Your language, phraseology and references echo those of Doug’s statements, so it is clear that you obtained a great deal of information from VF, etc. It is very clear in your language and in your tone. You state that you have additional information that is not common knowledge, but that does not help clarify anything from my perspective. Again, that raises flags of concern about the necessity for the secrecy and convoluted communication about this whole matter. I suggest that you speak with Jennifer and Mark Epstein personally if you have not already, especially in light of the inequitable weight that you place on the opinions of your friends and those whom you owe duty. If you make statements about the character of people whom you do not know, you have a duty to them and to God as well. You have a duty to those who support and rely upon your ministry for instruction and guidance. Consider that you may have received a great deal of bias from those sources that you trust based on their reputations and affiliations. If you and Chalcedon “put yourselves out there” making statements concerning the character of individuals who appear otherwise cooperative and forthcoming to those who are not involved or unduly influenced, then I believe that you owe “all due respect” to those individuals. The book of James comes to mind, “Be ye warmed and filled. Go in peace.” I pray that out of your duty to Doug that you haven’t said as much to the Epsteins and all those like them. And perhaps to me?

Toward the end of your letter to me and in the epilogue, you rely upon references to your relationship with Doug and family, that you have been “treated marvelously.” You mention Doug’s affiliation with Dr. Joe Morecraft and the “fine leadership of the RPCUS” as if it was evidence of Doug’s behavior in this matter. Could you, for just a moment, consider that just as Doug uses connotative language that he could likewise be relying on affiliation to lend legitimacy to his credibility with you? Could his treatment of you be like that in book of James, where you have been marvelously invited to the front of his forum in the fine regalia of your association with Chalcedon? Credibility by association, like his use of both negative and positive connotative language correlates somewhat with the appeal to authority. I beg that you soberly ask yourself if this has not unfairly influenced your opinions concerning these matters. As I mentioned concerning the concealment of questionable doctrines, could Doug be likewise using connotative connection and vicarious affiliations with reputable public and powerful leaders to fuel and consolidate his own ends?

In closing, we agree on these points: “We can't please everybody. At the risk of violating the Ninth Commandment, I recommend we all handle these matters patiently. Time will bear things out. I cannot rush to judgment when all "evidence" is contained on blogs. I prefer that we err on the side of caution.” I am most certainly glad that Chalcedon is not about the business of pleasing anyone but God (and hopefully, your board). Rush would surely roll over in his grave, as the silly saying goes. I believe also that time bears things out, but leaning to the side of caution on behalf of those who are tormented and harassed, I pray that the matter does not drone on indefinitely. At the risk of violating the second greatest commandment, decisive action should not be spared in favor of patience, if there is any degree of credibility to the claims made by the Epsteins. I hope and pray that I am very wrong, but I’m not persuaded that way at all.

Thank you again for your great forbearance in this lengthy tome and this heart wrenching matter. I am very grateful for your very devoted response to me. Pray, pray, pray for me as I will for you and all concerned herein for revelation, repentance, restoration and reconciliation. Pound heaven as I do likewise.

Sincerely,
Cindy Kunsman

~~~~~~~~



CHALCEDON REFUSES
CONTINUED CORRESPONDENCE WITH ME
For the benefit of the reader, I will post my final communication with Chris Ortiz, Director of Communications for the Chalcedon Foundation HERE near the top of this webpage. All remaining pertinent information will follow this final communication with Chalcedon in chronological order with links to other pertinent information referenced therein.

I copied all those persons who I referenced within the body of my correspondence so as to be open and honest (with the exception of Doug Phillips). As recommended by exit counselors and within the cult literature, I do not correspond with Doug Phillips (who I identify as a cult leader). Because his history demonstrates that he operates a CLOSED SYSTEM that counters all critics with aggressive slander and threatened lawsuits, etc., I did not copy my email to Vision Forum or Phillips.

I did not at any time realize that any of this very public matter or any of the comments made by Rev. Ortiz were personal. At no previous time did he state that our correspondence should remain private concerning these widely known issues. I am also confused by his concern that I have copied certain individuals named within our correspondence seemingly superseding his concern over what I declared to be an “open letter.” According to his wishes stated below, I have not posted what he refers to his “personal” response. I do however include his response to my “Open Letter to Chalcedon” which states that he will no longer correspond with me. (Later that afternoon, my husband cancelled our monthly contributions to Chalcedon.)


From: "Chris Ortiz"
Subject: Re: Open letter to Chris Ortiz and Chalcedon
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:05:41 -0400
To: "Cynthia Kunsman"

Cynthia,

In all honesty, I'm disappointed. Not about your position with the Epsteins, but with your copying these pertinent others with my correspondence to you. I wish you would have consulted with me first. You've now made my personal sentiments public. I won't correspond any longer.

Chris Ortiz
.........................................
Rev. Christopher J. Ortiz
Director of Communications
The Chalcedon Foundation

Editor, Faith for All of Life Magazine

"Proclaiming the Authority of God's Word Over Every Area of Life and Thought"
www.chalcedon.edu


~~~~~~~~



DAMAGE CONTROL EMAIL
UPDATE: 20Jun07
After posting this open letter online, I did hear back from Chris Ortiz in a "damage control" email, thanking my husband and me for our years of support, among other things. Because of Chris Ortiz has concerns about privacy concerning these matters, and because the letter does not portray him favorably, I do not post it here. (Contact him for a copy.)

I will however include this excerpt from that letter:

"I have no intention of attacking either you or the Epsteins."

(Seems like a thinly veiled insinuation that he has considered attack or warns me that he can attack me, doesn't it?) With all probability, this was likely just poorly worded, given the history of Chalcedon. It does not excuse it, however.

For those who have not been manipulated by a highly restrictive and shame-based religious system, this may seem like an absurd assumption. My husband and I have been criticized for this perception, but such back-handed and passive-aggressive threats are very typical of spiritually abusive systems. I understand if you, the reader, find this perception exaggerated or offensive.

Protesting Patriarchy and the Passionate Housewives

April 4, 2008 UPDATE

Well, it has been several months since the release of the book "Passionate Housewives Desperate for God" and the authors' initial promotion efforts. When the authors released information announcing the taping of radio interviews with Family Life Today and Nancy Leigh DeMoss, I wrote the following letter to those ministries to ask them to consider suspending the broadcasts. In March of 2008, Family Life broadcasted the interviews on two different radio broadcasts, featuring both authors. I did receive word from Family Life stating that they do not believe they are responsible for putting featured authors to the level of scrutiny that I assumed they would by screening all the doctrine of such featured guests. I never heard any response from Nancy Leigh DeMoss in response to the following letter. (I am also unaware if she aired the interviews.)

I did not know it at the time, but notable persons at Family Life authored publications and articles for the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. This organization features many sound teachers on the subject of gender and the church, but they also promote many teachers and concepts that I believe teach false doctrines regarding both Trinity, gender and the significance of the connections between the two subjects. Many of these teachers believe that gender issues are not a matter of Christian intramural debate but rather matters that directly relate to Biblical Authority. For some of their board members and featured teachers, CBMW speakers state that rejection of some of the more rigid views about patriarchy and hierarchy are tantamount to "open theism" and a rejection of God's Lordship over all creation, something tantamount to radical, liberal feminism that has gone unrecognized in the Evangelical Church. Though I would probably have still contacted Family Life, I would not have expected a favorable response. I am not surprised that they aired these interviews.

When my husband attended college, at the bottom of all his exams, there was a statement that each student was requried to sign reading "My name is my honor." My great concern for the ministries that have featured these products and guests surrounds the concept that by inviting these guests to share their platform, the ministries are actually putting the honor of their name and ministry at risk. People trust reliable sources, and I believe that these ministries lend the benefits of their own reputations to guests that they feature. It seems that these ministries that have interviewed Mrs. Chancey and Mrs. McDonald deny that they lend their own credibility to their guests. They do not believe that either directly or subtly, they convey the benefit of their names or their honor to them. I maintain that this is a naieve assumption.

So I offer my letter of protest here online as an example for those reading here. Please feel free to refer to this example should you wish to convey this message to a ministry that might feature a teacher or ministry with whom you take issue. Consider that "Your name is your honor."




RESPONSE FROM FAMILYLIFE

(added to undermuchgrace 15Oct08)

Response (FamilyLife) 12/06/2007 02:43 PM

Dear Cynthia,

Please accept our apology for the lengthy delay in our response. We appreciate your patience.

We again want to extend our appreciation for your correspondence. Your concern for God’s word and for the family are commendable, and we are also grateful that you think enough of FamilyLife to share your convictions with us.

Regarding our interview with Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald, and their new book "Passionate Housewives Desperate for God," please be aware that no date has been set for the broadcast. Additionally, as is often the case, we do not endorse all of the personal convictions of our guests and instead strive to confine our on-air discussions to areas of agreement. Rest assured that our interview with these guests does not relate to Doug Phillips or Vision Forum. Nonetheless, we are in the process of reviewing this broadcast before scheduling it to air.

For a complete picture of FamilyLife’s views on marriage and family, we encourage you to read "The Family Manifesto" at http://www.familylife.com/about/what_were_about.asp. Of particular interest to you may be our sections on wives and on mothers. These sections read as follows:

- Wives

"We believe God has charged each wife to fulfill the responsibility of being her husband’s ‘helper.’ We believe a wife will give account to God for how she has loved, respected, and given support to her husband. We uphold the biblical truth that she is of equal value with her husband before God. We reject the notion that a wife should assume the leadership responsibilities of her husband. Likewise, we reject the notion that a wife should passively defer to the dominance of her husband. We believe that her responsibility is to willingly and intelligently affirm, respect, and submit to her husband as the leader in the relationship and in his vocational calling. Therefore, we are committed to exhorting a wife to be in support of her husband by accepting and excelling in her responsibility as his helper. (Genesis 2:18-25; Ephesians 5:22-33; Colossians 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1-6; Proverbs 31:10-12)"

- Mothers

"We believe God has uniquely designed women to be mothers. We believe the greatest way a mother can love her children is to love their father. We also believe God has created a woman with an innate and special ability to nurture and care for her children.

"Therefore, we believe mothers are the primary people who execute the vital responsibilities of loving, nurturing, and mentoring children. We believe these responsibilities should be met before a mother contemplates any other duties. We believe our culture has devalued the role of a mother by placing greater significance on activities outside the home than on those inside the home.

"We realize there are cases where a mother will find it necessary to work outside the home (e.g. financial distress, single parenthood); however, we also believe some couples have made career and lifestyle choices that result in de-emphasizing the mother’s role as nurturer. Therefore, we are committed to presenting a biblical framework through which couples can rightly evaluate their priorities in light of a mother’s role. We are committed to elevating motherhood by rightly assessing its exalted value in God’s economy of the family. We are committed to exhorting mothers to model love for God and His Word, to model love for her husband, and to love her children. (Titus 2:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 2:7; Proverbs 14:1, 31:1-31; Deuteronomy 6:6, 11:19; Ezekiel 16:44-45)"

Thank you again for taking the time to write. May God bless you as you seek to know Him and bring Him glory.

In His grip,

Jim Mitchell

MY APPEAL TO DENNIS RAINEY AND NANCY LEIGH DEMOSS

With the release of Vision Forum's new publication "Passionate Housewives Desperate For God," the authors have interviewed with both "Family Life Today" and "Revive Our Hearts" to discuss the book and their views about housewives, "patriarchy" style. Stacy McDonald anounced that both she and Jennie Chancey will receive airtime on both of these well-known radio broadcasts on her blog, "Your Sacred Calling."

I sent the following response to both organizations, requesting that they reconsider the broadcasts so as not to lend more notoriety to patriarchy and Vision Forum (not to mention financial gain). At the very least, I asked that those who oppose Vision Forum's concepts of patriarchy be given equal airtime. Since the time that I sent off these requests, I've been in contact with Don Veinot who was more than willing to participate in an on-air interview.

Won't those of you who believe that Vision Forum's version of "Biblical Patriarchy" is spiritually abusive consider protesting these broadcasts as well?

Contact Family Life
Contact Revive Our Hearts


~~~~~~~~

11/02/2007 06:02 PM
(original minimally altered to provide direct links from this webpage)


My dear Brethren in Christ,

It has come to my attention that you interviewed both Jennie Chancey and Stacy McDonald concerning their new publication “Passionate Housewives Desperate for God.” Their affiliation with Vision Forum, their publisher, extends beyond the typical relationship between author and publisher. They both enjoy close relationships with the leadership at Vision Forum and zealously embrace the Vision Forum model of “Biblical Patriarchy.” I’m certain that you prayerfully considered featuring this book on your radio broadcast, so I would ask that you also consider presenting the case of those who take issue with their concepts of patriarchy. As I believe that this book represents a legalistic system of religion that is spiritually abusive, I wish that you would consider pulling the interview from consideration for broadcast because of the conferred notoriety that “patriarchy” will receive from inclusion on your broadcast. If this is not a consideration, please do prayerfully consider giving equal airtime to those who have extensively studied their ministries and have followed them for many years within the Homeschooling movement. Many unsuspecting and well-meaning Christians have been culled into their movement and many have suffered terribly.

I would ask that you read a recent publication examining just a few of the many doctrines and teachings of Vision Forum. (I am certain that the author of the article, Don Veinot or perhaps his associate Norm Geisler would be willing to speak on the air.) The Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc., after receiving many calls and inquiries about Vision Forum and its founder (Doug Phillips), researched the issue and published an article entitled “Who Will Be First in the Kingdom?” (It’s featured as the headline article.) MCO also did a series of blog pieces that followed up on the article which also offer some additional insight into the issue. It was the most requested journal issue in MCOI history and the blog pieces concerning patriarchy have received the greatest response of any other.

**Doug Phillips - New Paganism?
**"The Crux" on Vision Forum and Patriarchy
(Blog articles concerning Vision Forum's views on patriarchy and the correspondence between MCOI, Doug Phillips and Brian Abshire.)

Another (brief and easily read) article by Andrew Sandlin (founder of the Center for Cultural Leadership @ www.christianculture.com) entitled “Hegemonic Patriarchy”. This article (and the one listed above it on the website) were written in response to the 2003 version of the “Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy” which declared the education of children outside the home, the employment of women outside the home and the education of adult women to be sins. This version of the “Tenets” is no longer available because of these obvious inflammatory declarations. It is the belief of many who have left this ideology and the VF system that they continue to demand these moral imperatives of their followers even though they have softened their language within their publications.

This movement is very insidious, as they often seek good ends however their means are often very questionable. I myself attended a church that espoused much of the same ideology as Vision Forum, and I came to learn that many of their practices are in fact spiritually abusive. Please see the monograph on Spiritual Abuse on the Watchman Fellowship website. They also feature another article of interest.

“Biblical patriarchy” is much like the legalistic mandates and moral imperatives that characterize the Romanistic teachings of Bill Gothard, however the Vision Forum advocates are much more aggressive with their Christian brethren than those followers have ever been. They have a well established practice of threatening legal action and intimidating critics through inaccurate neologism, pejorative, moniker and other ad hominem attacks from the pulpit, within local communities and online. Their intolerant ideology prescribes rigid practices of preference for the body of Christ, and exacts aggressive measures for noncompliance in their legalistic demand for purity. Not only is there no grace for noncompliance within the body, but there is great animosity projected at the lost within our fallen culture. Rather than a love for the lost, the Vision Forum camp within patriarchy abstains from culture, preferring a neo-tribalistic if not gnostic model of self-preservation. They are taught to withdraw from culture rather than engage it for Christ.

I beg you to contact me or the Midwest Christian Outreach for further information. I’m certain that Don Veinot would be willing to speak with you about these matters as well.

Don Veinot
Phone: (630) 627-9028
donveinot@midwestoutreach.org

Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc.
P.O. Box 446
Wonder Lake, IL 60097-0446


Most respectfully and until we all come into true unity of the faith,

Cynthia Kunsman
www.UnderMuchGrace.com