May 2, 2007 1:43 PM
The Doug Phillips controversy - Take 3: Why my link was removed from Ladies Against Feminism
[Warning: if you are not interested in self-defeating Christian squabbles, just ignore this entry and go on to the next. This is not a main focus here, just something of peripheral interest]
From a reader:
Hi,Why has your link has disappeared from the Ladies Against Feminism homepage sidebar?
H.
Dear H -Because in regards to the Jen Epstein/Doug Phillips controversy I posted some thoughts about the spiritual abuse and arrogant leadership our family witnessed in a church we attended.
I wasn't directly accusing Phillips of anything or siding with anyone, but my presumption was that there was at least a little arrogance involved.
Jenny's husband is a follower of Phillips and has been his most vocal defender.
It took a while, but someone pointed out my post to Jenny and she informed me that she was removing the link.
barbara
In case anyone else wants to know, here is the email I received on April 26 from Jennie Chancey:
Dear Barbara,I was very dismayed to receive a note from a LAF reader who ran across your article about the Epsteins. I've removed the link to Mommylife for this reason. I do not want other readers to be drawn into the net of ongoing deception and slander put forth by this couple, and I pray you will be willing to investigate the other side of this story. My husband exposed the Epsteins' association with known "kinists" (racists) and fellow ex-communicants and church-splitters on his mrsbinoculars.com blog. Just so you understand how serious this is, one of these men is on his way to jail now for theft and violation of a church elder's trust fund, and another member of the Epstein "Ministry Watchman" team has now fled the country to escape creditors and to avoid having to face charges for participation in what is known as "tortious interference with business"--a federal offense. This information will be public shortly, but I want to give you warning ahead of time that it would be best to distance yourself from the Epsteins, who will likely try to take as many people down with them as possible.
You can read refutations of the Epsteins' lies directly from the elders of two churches (besides Boerne Christian Assembly) at http://www.lwfchurch.org/statement.html and http://www.boernechristianassembly.org/faith.html . My family has known Doug Phillips for 17 years now. We know his strong points and his "warts." This man is no "ecclesiastical abuser." The Epsteins have lumped my husband and me into this ongoing slander war, and they've put words into my mouth that I have never uttered. They have taken statements out of context and twisted them to suit their own agenda. These people are dishonest about their own background and reputation. They have teamed themselves up with other disreputable people who have no qualms about violating the law by stealing, cheating on taxes, and using government-owned computer equipment to participate in this online libel campaign.
I pray you will take the time to investigate the claims of the Epsteins. It has been very sad to see so many homeschool moms jumping onto their bandwagon without carefully checking the other side of the story. My prayer is that, as this mess comes to a head, Christians will see and take note: biblical confrontation does not involve anonymous slander campaigns or even giving the time of day to people who want to co-opt other blogs to further their hate war. I pray the Lord will have mercy on the Epsteins and bring them to true, godly repentance. They have made a mess of their own life, but it is never too late to start over.
In Christ,
Jennie Chancey
I always find it interesting that the people who are quick to hurl Matthew 18 at believers - even when they've exhausted the direct channels of confrontation - are apt to lapse into accusing others to third parties themselves.
Frankly, I don't have the time to figure out - nor am I appointed to judge - this whole ugly mess. However, I did see some patterns typical of arrogant leadership in the way the Epsteins were handled. As I shared in The Doug Phillips Controversy and The Doug Philips Controversy - Take 2, when our family was drummed out of a church where we questioned the legalism and double standards of the leadership, we were also shunned and slandered. No one defended us. Our former friends not only rushed to the leader's defense, but also piled on lies about our family - including one person's testimony that we abused our children (!).
There is something terribly wrong when a person's past before they came to know Christ is also used to demean their character. We are new creations in Christ. All things are new.
If nothing else, I find the Phillips' camp using Jen Epstein's past to damage her character a grievous wrong - and cause to doubt the complete uprightness of her accusers. The Jesus I've known lifts up the wounded and does not try to crush them under his authority.
Posted in Spiritual abuse | Permalink
Comments
This truly makes me want to vomit. I am glad she admitted her husband is behind the mrsbinoculars blog. Have you seen it? It's disgusting to me that her dh would even say/do what he has said on that blog. I'm not saying I agree with EVERYTHING the Epstein's have said, but I believe that prob 90% of it happened. I am so sick of church leaders and their minions not making themselves humble.
Posted by: Kelli | May 2, 2007 2:45 PM
I don't know if you will want to block this or not, but it just so happens I'm dealing with what I think is a similar issue. My son is on staff at a church where the pastor regularly expresses non-christian views and allows no one to question him. Needless to say we are praying that another job will open up soon. I was trying to find some help for my son and found a book entitled, The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, by David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen. It's a wonderful book and shines light on this issue. It's really sad that some people can "dirty" the love of Jesus by going on power trips and exhibiting bad behavior. My parents are ministers and my grandmother was a minister in the 20's. I asked her once why church politics and some members seem to be getting worse. She smiled and said, "When the church was being persecuted from the outside all the members huddled together and we were strong. But then....Satan got smart and decided to join the church. We've never been the same."
I personally like Gloria Gaither's statement. She said the best and most fantastic people she had ever known were Christians. And the worst most awful people she had ever know were Christians.
That about sums it up!
Posted by: Debbie | May 2, 2007 2:49 PM
It seems to me that by removing the link to your blog, Ms. Chancey is sending mixed messages. After all, she spends a great deal of time "encouraging" you to investigate "the other side of the story," and yet is quick to make sure she's put as much distance between you and herself as she can. The latter actions seems me to be a potential hindrance to the former.
I grant you, it's not your place or worth your time to make such an investigation. But all the same, Ms. Chancey's actions and stated goals seem to be somewhat inconsistent.
Posted by: Jarred | May 2, 2007 3:15 PM
Wow, I'm pretty shocked. I truly feel sorry for them, if my husband had the time or the inclination to create a website called MrsBinoculars I would be embarrassed.
It's wrong to bring up someone's past to shame them, just plain unChristian.
Posted by: Katie B. | May 2, 2007 3:27 PM
"The Epsteins have lumped my husband and me into this ongoing slander war, and they've put words into my mouth that I have never uttered."
COME ON! This is false. The "lumping" is legitimate, because the lumping started after her husband's silly mrsbinoculars site went up. Vision Forum linked to it. Matt Chancey and Doug Phillips lumped themselves together, and people just noted it.
Does she think people are evil for noting it, and for expressing their views on it?
I agree with your comments about Doug's breach of clergy privilege -- revealing Jen Epstein's preconversion sins to their congregation -- that occurred in Texas, and from what I read, what he did is a violation of Texas law. Her husband said he pleaded with Doug to not share that confidential information, which had nothing to do with their excommunication.
Posted by: Lynn | May 2, 2007 4:15 PM
Barbara,
I've been kind of following this, as several blogs and sites I visit often seemed to be embroiled in the mess. I don't have "a dog in the fight", though. What is so frustrating, for me an outsider who has never met any of these people, is that there
is no way to investigate the claims. Everything is either on one disputed site or the other, and names are rarely, if ever, mentioned. It's a he said/she said situation.
And yet, it seems, every day I see it pop up on one more site that I know and love!
One question lingering for me, though, is by what authority were they excommunicated from all Christendom? Perhaps, as a Catholic, my perspective is skewed in a different direction, but even Catholic excommunication doesn't go as far as it seems this situation has.
Posted by: Milehimama | May 2, 2007 4:37 PM
Just wanted to add that I appreciate your strength, boldness, and clarity when dealing with this issue. Your past experiences also make your insights all the more convincing and heart-warming.
The Jesus I've known lifts up the wounded and does not try to crush them under his authority.
So true!
Posted by: Sarah | May 2, 2007 4:53 PM
Milehimama, I just wanted you to know that there is extensive documentation on my site, while there is none on Doug's church blog.
Barbara, I thank you for the gracious and kind manner in which you've handled this email. It tells me a lot about a person when I see how they respond in the face of actions that are less than Christlike.
Thank you for reminding me that Jesus is here to lift me up and not crush me. You obviously speak from experience.
Posted by: Jen | May 2, 2007 5:30 PM
"Just so you understand how serious this is, one of these men is on his way to jail now for theft and violation of a church elder's trust fund, and another member of the Epstein "Ministry Watchman" team has now fled the country to escape creditors and to avoid having to face charges for participation in what is known as "tortious interference with business"--a federal offense. This information will be public shortly, but I want to give you warning ahead of time that it would be best to distance yourself from the Epsteins, who will likely try to take as many people down with them as possible."
-- Did y'all read the same thing I did? Just because you've experienced hardship in your own lives with church leaders does not mean that the Epstein's claims are automatically true. How do you know what happened at their former church? How do you verify what the couple is claiming? What will you all say if the Chancey's, the Phillips, BCA, Living Waters Fellowship, Faith PCA, Vision Forum, and even now apparently the feds, all are proven to have been factual in presenting a clear pattern of deceit on the part of this couple? We should give the other side a chance to respond to the numerous accusations against them.
Posted by: Melaenei | May 2, 2007 5:35 PM
What will you all say if the Chancey's, the Phillips, BCA, Living Waters Fellowship, Faith PCA, Vision Forum, and even now apparently the feds, all are proven to have been factual in presenting a clear pattern of deceit on the part of this couple?
I was going to say I would say I was sorry, but I really have nothing to be sorry for. I haven't accused Doug Phillips of anything other than holding a believer's former sins against her and using that to slander her.
Even if all those high and mighty people are right about everything else, Doug Phillips is certainly wrong about that.
And that's a mighty big thing for a Christian leader to be wrong about!
btw - we're not going to get into hundreds of comments here. I don't have the time for that. So let's keep it to the one issue: Phillips and the Chancey's slandering their "enemy."
Posted by: barbara | May 2, 2007 5:56 PM
I don't know who is in the right and who is in the wrong here, but what I do know is that Doug Phillips teaches on honoring and protecting women. I see no honor in the way Jen or Natasha Epstein have been treated by the VF "defense team". That speaks more to me than anything Jen Epstein dishes out.
Are not all women worthy of honor and respect?
Imagine if F would have responded with love and grace here. That is what Christ calls us to do.
Mr. Phillips and his followers talk a mighty big talk, but their actions do not follow suit.
Disheartened
Posted by: disheartened | May 2, 2007 6:09 PM
What will you all say if the Chancey's, the Phillips, BCA, Living Waters Fellowship, Faith PCA, Vision Forum, and even now apparently the feds, all are proven to have been factual in presenting a clear pattern of deceit on the part of this couple?
I will continue to ask if the Chanceys and Phillips behaved ethically. Quite frankly, my answer so far is coming up with a resounding no. For example, I see no valid reason for Ms. Chancey to "reveal" that someone involved with the Epsteins is trying to escape federal prosecution. Even if said claim is true, I find the choice to spread that information to be nothing more than gossip and an attempt to discredit a group of people through ad hominem attacks. If the Chanceys and Phillips truly wished to demonstrate proper morality, they would provide evidence refuting the accusations against them and leave it at that.
So even if the original accusations against Phillips proves to be false, I'd say he still has a lot to answer for just because of how he chose to respond to those accusation.
Posted by: Jarred | May 2, 2007 6:13 PM
Barbara since Mrs. Chancey wrote this letter and you chose to post it, I hope it is okay to comment directly to her since you made the letter public information.
Mrs. Chancey you said, "My family has known Doug Phillips for 17 years now. We know his strong points and his "warts." This man is no "ecclesiastical abuser."
Your extended affiliation, friendship, and loyalty to the Phillips is well known to many in the homeschool community and admirable.
Perhaps then you can understand why some of us were surprised and dismayed to see that Vision Forum called your husband's website, Mrs. Binocular's an "independent investigation" and linked to it as such on the Vision Forum website. Both cannot be true. You cannot be a loyal friend for 17 years and independent at the same time. Vision Forum could have called the site many things, but "independent investigation" isn't one of them.
You said, "It has been very sad to see so many homeschool moms jumping onto their bandwagon without carefully checking the other side of the story."
I agree and attempted to get a clarification of what Vision Forum meant by "independent investigation" and the reply I received was not helpful to explain the obvious conflict of interest on the part of your husband, Mr. Chancey. I have no problem with linking to Mrs. Binocular's if that is what Vision Forum wants to do (I too find the site in poor taste.) but calling it "independent investigation" stretches ALL credibility.
For that reason alone, many in my area of the country have a hard time accepting the Vision Forum rebuttal any more than buying into the Epsteins version. And it isn't because of what the Epsteins have said, but what Vision Forum has said in their own words that makes us wonder. Both sides need to be fully known, so each individual can make an informed decision about this sad situation.
So it is unfortunate that you will no longer link to my friend Barbara (who as regular readers of this blog know I don't always agree with :) ) but mature people can have civil disagreements and still maintain a friendship and even link to each other. After all we are going to be spending eternity together, we might as well learn how to get along now.
By the way, for the record, I haven't taken a side on this issue. I have been a long time Vision Forum supporter, since their original catalog came out. Further, it is my earnest prayer that both sides can reach a Godly resolution and His name be glorified.
Posted by: Spunky | May 2, 2007 6:18 PM
"I haven't accused Doug Phillips of anything other than holding a believer's former sins against her and using that to slander her.
Even if all those high and mighty people are right about everything else, Doug Phillips is certainly wrong about that."
This is the point, How do you know that even is the truth in this matter, the "holding her former sins against her" part? That is not verified, it's been another point of contention frequently used in the debate, but can anyone point to the actual evidence of that being an actual fact? Where is that initially shown that her former sins were being held against her? What is the context of that frequently used accusation against Phillips? I want to see that to verify their claims against him. Did he really do this, in a real setting and just blast her sins to the public, or was it something else that has been misunderstood? Were her former sins exposed in a non-hostile way, like, people give testimony to the change in their lives at an "open mic" format or what? Was this verified by the congregation that Doug willfully broadcast this woman's pre-conversion sins, in a malicious manner? It seems to be a source of debate and I just wanted to know where I could find the actual account of that happening.
Posted by: Melaenei | May 2, 2007 6:20 PM
This is the point, How do you know that even is the truth in this matter, the "holding her former sins against her" part?
For one thing, a Phillips supporter on Worldmagblog said Jen was disciplined for a sin she committed before she was saved, which is not the case. That happened long before they even came to BCA, and was under the blood of Jesus, and was repented of.
For another thing, the blogs which supported Phillips spread this confidential information all over the internet. Where did they get this information???
But the main thing is Jen posted the BCA disciplinary documents on her blog, complete with signatures, and in one of those documents, Phillips expressly stated, and read to the church, about Jen's preconversion sin. This sin was revealed to Doug in private by her husband, and when her husband saw Doug was about to unload that information to the congregation, he pleaded with Doug to not read it.
This document is on jensgems@wordpress.com, and is a primary source of information. Nobody has said this is a false document. Nobody. All Phillips' supporters are trying to do with their silly blogs is divert attention AWAY from those documents, but it isn't working.
Posted by: Lynn | May 2, 2007 7:25 PM
It amazes me that this is such a point of interest and conflict for people in diverse places, most of whom have never met neither party and have no vested interest in the problem.
I do have a comment to make, however. A theorist named Hayden White had this to say about history:
Historical narratives are verbal fictions, "the contents of which are as much invented as found and the forms of which have more in common with their counterparts in literature than they have with those in the sciences." He also said that we do not live stories, even though by casting our lives in the form of stories we give our lives retrospective meaning.
My application of his theory (found in an article titled "Historical Text as Literary Artifact) is as follows. No historical text (and by extension personal narrative) is a perfectly unified representation of the exact events that happened. Unfortunately, humans aren't built like computers--capable of remembering exact details with complete objectivity. This means that trying to find the truth is, in my opinion, an exercise in futility. The truth of the past is too many things to too many people. Only God can see all things in perfect unity, thus only He can judge.
End of story. So thank you Barbara for using this conflict as a teaching moment and moving on. I appreciate your willingness to abstain from the "he said/she said".
I have appreciated using this conflict to further define my own practices of Christianity in daily life.
Posted by: Emily | May 2, 2007 11:34 PM
"For one thing, a Phillips supporter on Worldmagblog said Jen was disciplined for a sin she committed before she was saved, which is not the case. That happened long before they even came to BCA, and was under the blood of Jesus, and was repented of."So, is the person on worldmagblog (Phillips supporter) verifiably identified, or were they anonymous? How do we know what they said to be true? Also, the document would indicate their marriage had come to a state of crisis, the pre-conversion sin being one of the sources of the conflict, amongst other factors.
"For another thing, the blogs which supported Phillips spread this confidential information all over the internet. Where did they get this information???"
Which blogs in support of Phillips spread this confidential information? I thought it was on Ministry Watchman's site first.
I read the BCA disciplinary document on Jen's blog and came away with a different understanding then that Doug Phillips exposed pre-conversion sin of Jen's (Had it become public knowledge within the church, given the couple's hostility toward each other at the point of that disciplinary action? Just wondering what happened). I read the whole thing and saw that, according to that statement, that the couple's sins were affecting not only themselves, but their family and third parties witnessing the conflict between the couple. The leadership tried to work with them, but perhaps it had escalated to the point where more intense disciplinary action was needed, for the sake of the Christian body life there. This document shows a pattern of behavior that had become a "sin-crisis" and the document refers to the couple "misleading" to "cause confusion" amongst the members there, as well as gossip, "efforts to wrongfully manipulate facts and individuals", and hostility toward leadership. It states they were confronted with their sins privately and in the presence of multiple witnesses. Two more couples were mentioned by name who also were in agreement with leadership decisions concerning this matter.I don't know anything other than what the actual document said and what Vision Forum's statement said on how they tried to work with the couple. Besides, Jen's pre-conversion sins stated in that document are posted on her own blog. Why would she post it then? I thought the documents about her pre-conversion sins were on Ministry Watchman's blog first. Weren't they supposed to be sympathetic to the Epsteins? Why would Ministry Watchman post that if it would lead to the world knowing about her pre-conversion sin? If it was read to the congregation, in total, stating her sins without her or her husband's approval, was it because others already knew? I don't know, I wasn't there. Most of the people reading their blogs and commenting probably weren't there either, except for their own family members. The official BCA statement essentially agrees with everything stated in the disciplinary document on Jen's blog, except it doesn't mention her pre-conversion sins.
Posted by: Melaenei | May 3, 2007 12:33 AM
Hi Barbara,
You have done nothing wrong and you certainly didn't take any sides. I so appreciated you telling your story and I am sure that your words were healing to many who have gone through "ecclesiastical" abuse.
I totally concur with Spunky. I also agree that the naming of pre-conversion sins and linking that to the excommunication to be beyond the pale of orthodoxy. Those pre-conversion sins were being held against her by her husband and Doug Phillips and the other "elders" should have been strongly urging him that he must forgive, that is his duty and that his anger is not godly. Instead, the blamed Jen and put more burden on her.
I am all ears. I am still open to hearing the other side of the story. So far, the Mrs. Binoculars site is so farcical, I can't really take much coming their way very seriously. Also the reports that someone is going to jail for stealing an elder's trust fund? When is this going to be made public and what has it got to do with the Epsteins?
There is a LOT of hyperbolic jargon that makes it look very ominous but anyone who has ever been a victim of lies, deceit and treachery on the part of church leadership understands how far they will and can go in order to twist things to make themselves look good.
Whatever happened, I have yet to see BCA take any responsibility for any of this mess nor have they offered any sort of apology for anything. Surely they have done something wrong?
It doesn't appear that BCA is interested in restoring this family to the body of Christ. Whatever they have done it can't be worse than what Aaron and the Israelites did when Moses was up on the Mountain receiving the law of God. And Moses begged God not to destroy them all and God changed His mind. Where are the men like Moses who will beg God on behalf of sinners. It seems that certain Christian leaders have their roles reversed and have put themselves in place of God.
Try a little love and tenderness and understanding and patience and lovingkindness. Model these things because they are the very essence of God. His patience is what led US to repentance. Who are we to turn around and then be impatient towards those who we don't think they are what we think they should be?
Leadership should be setting the example and I just don't see the example that scripture tells us we, the sheep, should see.
Posted by: Corrie | May 3, 2007 12:35 AM
Emily,
You said, "It amazes me that this is such a point of interest and conflict for people in diverse places, most of whom have never met neither party and have no vested interest in the problem."
For the record, I have met Mr. Phillips briefly at a luncheon but not the Epsteins.
Also consider, many who are reading this DO have a vested interested. In fact, many of us have INvested in the Vision Forum ministry. (The room I sit in has at least $500 worth of books purchased from Vision Forum, we have also purchased other items as well.) That investment in the ministry of Vision Forum is how Mr. Phillips is able to feed his family and fund his ministry to homeschool families.
Any person who purchases materials has a vested interest in this situation. We all make purchases based on the credibility of the vendor. So it is with that in mind I watch the responses from Vision Forum to this situation. Credibility is important to me. So it isn't an interest in this conflict per se, but an interest in knowing that the purchases I make are going to credible ministries and organizations.
People are going to disagree, that has never bothered me. A man as bold or outspoken as Mr. Phillip's is going to have people who strongly disagree and want to discredit him. But how people handle disagreement speaks to their Biblical beliefs and the character of the person or the organization they represent. If they handle things in a manner that upholds the values they espouse, the consistency will encourage me to continue to patronize them.
Posted by: Spunky | May 3, 2007 8:27 AM
Barbara, Corrie, and Spunky,
I agree completely with your comments. Unless someone has witnessed spiritual abuse, up close and personal, either themselves or as experienced by someone close to them, they cannot really understand how devastating it can be. If there is anything good about this whole debacle is that it is causing people to read some of the great books that have been written about this issue and is giving some people pause as to what church they will align themselves with or how they will spend their homeschooling dollars.
The saddest part of the whole thing, to me, though, is that the focus has been on Phillips' behavior rather than on his worldview that drives that behavior. His patriarchal views are not Biblical and discussing them should be at the center of the debate. The Ladies Against Feminism site only further promotes Phillips'personal fantasties and paints a picture of "godly" womanhood that is harming both homeschooling mothers as their precious daughters.
Barbara, I say "three cheers for you" for getting kicked off of LAF. I hereby nominate you for some sort of blogger award. I am not sure yet what it will be called, but you get it!
Posted by: thatmom | May 3, 2007 8:28 AM
I read the BCA disciplinary document on Jen's blog and came away with a different understanding then that Doug Phillips exposed pre-conversion sin of Jen's (Had it become public knowledge within the church, given the couple's hostility toward each other at the point of that disciplinary action? Just wondering what happened). I read the whole thing and saw that, according to that statement, that the couple's sins were affecting not only themselves, but their family and third parties witnessing the conflict between the couple.
No. Lay people in the church had no idea of what was going on in the home. But I am sure Jen will see this and will give a more thorough answer.
So, is the person on worldmagblog (Phillips supporter) verifiably identified, or were they anonymous? How do we know what they said to be true?
That doesn't matter. What matters is someone on worldmagblog said Jen was either disciplined or excommunicated for a named preconversion sin, and that is false. It doesn't matter who said it; what matters is Jen was spoken of in this way. What they said isn't true because there are records of why the Epsteins were excommunicated.
Which blogs in support of Phillips spread this confidential information? I thought it was on Ministry Watchman's site first.
The breach in confidence happened in real life first. Confidential information that her husband asked to not be shared, which was not something Jen was being disciplined for, was shared with the local church first. The breach of clergy privilege happened at that time. So people who shouldn't have known were told this information IRL, and when the document was read to the church, Jen said she had no idea that information was going to be shared. This is very serious, this breach of clergy trust, and I agree with Barbara and others for being very concerned. When Mark and Jen went to Ministry Watchman, they didn't use their names at first. But then other blogs started up which DID name the Epsteins, and that is how this information was leaked to the internet. StillFedUp is one site, but there were others. Some are down, now.
I am guessing Jen will want to address some of these things in more detail when she reads this thread.
Posted by: Lynn | May 3, 2007 9:20 AM
No. Lay people in the church had no idea of what was going on in the home. But I am sure Jen will see this and will give a more thorough answer.
Are you willing to look at what Mark said here?
(found on Jen's blog) Mark Epstein said... The Parable of the Bed is a true story. The bed really exists, or rather, used to. I am the master, and the bed was my bed. Unfortunately, I distanced myself from my wife, and the bed was put to new use – a use that nearly destroyed the lives of those who previously slept in the bed together. A long time passed in a spirit of unforgiveness; an unforgiveness that I, as the master instead of a suffering servant, was responsible for nurturing. It was an unforgiveness that demanded more repentance from someone who had already completely repented. Such a demand is legalistic. It is impossible to satisfy. So in my unforgiveness I further sinned by telling others about the bed, and they used the information as a weapon to deliberately hurt a repentant sinner in the name of "church discipline". Now these "Christians," some of them "leaders" of the church openly gossip about and slander this same repentant woman for actions that occurred before she knew a Savior who could and did cleanse her of all past sin. Who is anyone -- whether a pastor, a deacon, or someone who barely know this woman -- to pass judgment on her in light of her Savior's and her husband's forgiveness? These "Christians" defy the living God by directly challenging His forgiveness of me and my wife, and he will judge them for their great presumption.
Lynn, you said, "The breach in confidence happened in real life first." I agree, but it seemed to have been due, in part, by Mark according to his statement. I think their is a discrepency of the details concerning when people found out about her pre-conversion sin. Seems like many, not just leadership, knew of this before this was read before the congregation. By their own admission, according to their document they had been dealing with these issues with the local body for years.
"The decision reflected in this formal act of church discipline has been made only after your Church family has demonstrated great longsuffering and patience over an extended periof of years, and numerous attempts to work with the two of you. The decision haas been made with the unanimous agreement of the BCA Leadership. In addition, the leadership acted with the counsel and the unanimous agreement of your brothers and sisters who have 'been engaged in formal individual counsel with you including the Shorts and the Hubers.'"
A blog that refuted the Epstein's claims on this matter had this to say about how her pre-conversion sins were exposed
"Most people know that after covering up the real issues related to her sins in the first article that Jen Epstein/Charles Fisher wrote and sent around the country, that in her second article she attached documents mentioning her (pre-conversion sin). Do you understand what is happening here---Jen Epstein brought this information to the Internet. Oh, she diminished it and minimized it—but she leaked it to the Internet.Fallacy Slayer wants to point out what some people might not understand. Before this happened, Jen had already spread the news through her own community in Texas. Why did she do this? Because she was angry at her discipline. Just how did she do it? Well, she drafted a seventeen page letter demanding that the men and women of BCA repent to her and then gave guidelines to specific men and women for how they must go about repenting to her. Can you believe this folks??? Is this what the Bible requires of those whose excommunicate someone? That they then repent to the excommunicant? Fallacy Slayer is having a hard time understanding this one.
One of her complaints was that she had been excommunicated for ongoing sins related to her (pre-conversion sin). She thought that was unfair—so she told the world. In fact, she sent the seventeen page letter to many people (that’s how we got a copy of it), passed it around the community, and, of course, it continued to be passed around the community. I have been hearing about this story for a long time and so have others not related to BCA. This meant that more and more people were talking about Jennifer Epstein’s (pre-conversion sin) and the facts of her (pre-conversion sin). Frankly, I can barely believe how restrained those BCA people are. They did not spell this out in their formal statement."
Their own daughter commented (on a blog that was refuting the Epstein's claims) the entire congregation was in agreement to excommunicate them.
Gavino and Ruth Perez had interaction with the Epsteins as well as Doug Phillips. They had this to say about all of them that would seem to validate the BCA statement on this vision forum statement
http://www.visionforum.com/about/issues/ep/feast.aspx
I wasn't there for these interactions and since there's only numerous statements on both sides, that's all we have to go on.
Posted by: Melaenei | May 3, 2007 11:41 AM
Spunky-
I didn't realize so many homeschooling and Christian families have such a vested interest in Vision Forum. It took me a while to realize that Vision Forum (which I've only heard of, never investigated) is so closely tied to the Phillips. Thanks for clarifying that for me.
That makes a whole lot more sense now, as to why this is so important to a large number of people.
I believe that those who are trying to find out the truth are less likely to be successful in their endeavors than those who are simply observing the actions of both parties and drawing conclusions from there.
Posted by: Emily | May 3, 2007 12:06 PM
I thought it would be interesting to point out the discrepencies in Jen's statements about the fact that she claims Mark told no-one but Doug about Jen's preconversion sins here
Jen claimed that no one else was told the details of her pre-conversion sin. That is easily disputed by Mark's own words on her blog following this comment:
"In previous meetings with Doug, Mark, in his anger, had related details of my before-Christ life to Doug, details which he didn’t share with anyone else. When those details started coming out online, we knew they could only have come from one source — Doug himself." (found here) http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/04/29/vision-forum-culture-of-deception-by-doug-phillips-example/#comment-2175
compare that to Mark's own words here
http://jensgems.blogspot.com/2006/12/parable-of-bed.html#comment-807861590887312853 Mark Epstein said... " A long time passed in a spirit of unforgiveness; an unforgiveness that I, as the master instead of a suffering servant, was responsible for nurturing. It was an unforgiveness that demanded more repentance from someone who had already completely repented. Such a demand is legalistic. It is impossible to satisfy. So in my unforgiveness I further sinned by telling others about the bed, and they used the information as a weapon to deliberately hurt a repentant sinner in the name of "church discipline". Now these "Christians," some of them "leaders" of the church openly gossip about and slander this same repentant woman for actions that occurred before she knew a Savior who could and did cleanse her of all past sin. Who is anyone -- whether a pastor, a deacon, or someone who barely know this woman -- to pass judgment on her in light of her Savior's and her husband's forgiveness? These "Christians" defy the living God by directly challenging His forgiveness of me and my wife, and he will judge them for their great presumption.
Posted by: Melaenei | May 3, 2007 12:36 PM
Jen said some things on her blog today about this matter Barbara and some of us are concerned about. I have found a link to a legal site which discusses proper application of Texas law. I will give the link and the pertinent quote from it below, and then provide Jen's quote about how this clergy privilege breach occurred in her situation:
http://www.bwwlaw.com/kycooc/news/qna.htm
CLERGY PRIVILEGE Q: As the pastor of my church, I recently ministered to a young woman who is a member of the church and whose husband has been abusing her, both physically and verbally. The young woman filed charges against her husband with the local police department and now the police have contacted me to ask questions regarding the abuse and the statements made to me by the young woman. What should I do.?A: The church's ministerial staff who provide individual ministering must understand that a privilege of confidentiality attaches to all communications between the ministerial staff member and the persons seeking spiritual advice. The privilege actually "belongs to" the person receiving counseling and that person has the right to prevent the information from being disclosed. In this case, the young woman owns the privilege and can prevent you from disclosing any of the communications to any third party. This privilege applies even when you are questioned by the police or when you are subpoenaed to testify in a court matter. You cannot disclose any of the communications between you and the young woman unless you obtain her consent to do so. To protect yourself, you should obtain the young woman's consent in writing before disclosing any information.
http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/04/29/vision-forum-culture-of-deception-by-doug-phillips-example/
Jen said:
"Let me clarify then. One of the things we are calling Doug to repent from is his serious breach of confidentiality initially when he publicly read, to the whole congregation, my pre-conversion sins, of which I had fully repented nearly 15 years prior and which had absolutely nothing to do with the excommunication. That was the first offense. In that same meeting, Doug also asked Beall to read ALL the counseling notes from our counseling sessions together. Although I had absolutely nothing to hide, that was against the law, and Doug knew that. That is the second offense. In previous meetings with Doug, Mark, in his anger, had related details of my before-Christ life to Doug, details which he didn’t share with anyone else. When those details started coming out online, we knew they could only have come from one source — Doug himself. That is the third offense."
Posted by: Lynn | May 3, 2007 1:03 PM
No. Lay people in the church had no idea of what was going on in the home. But I am sure Jen will see this and will give a more thorough answer.Are you willing to look at what Mark said here? (article about "the bed")
I've read that, but that was written after the breach of clergy privilege. It was Doug Phillips who first leaked this information, and this article you reference is subsequent to that.
Doug had no permission to share what he did to the congregation. That article went up some time after Doug breached confidences to the church, including having Beall read, without permission, counseling notes that were not supposed to have been read without Jen's permission.
Most of the congregation were also Doug's VF employees. And in the trial, the Epsteins were not present, and were not allowed to make a defense, or face their accusers. So you tell me the whole congregation voted to excommunicate them when that kind of trial took place? With VF employees doing the voting? Did you just see how Jennie axed Barbara from her Ladies Against Feminism site? Jennie's site has nothing to do with Barbara's opinions about Doug Phillips' behavior in this instance, but unless you agree with them lock, stock, and barrel, you are booted.
This is frightening, and I am glad people are warning others about Doug Phillips and his behavior, and the behavior of those close to him.
As for the local letter -- that also took place after Doug and Beall's breach of confidence.
Posted by: Lynn | May 3, 2007 2:09 PM
To be fair, I also have first-hand knowledge of people who have personally interacted with David Linton's family and the BCA statement here
http://www.boernechristianassembly.org/faith.html
seems misleading to me based on the testimony given to me by someone who worked within a certain Supreme Court Justice's campaign (who is this the Supreme Court Justice being referenced? - I don't know, it's pretty vague in this statement).
"This conspirator has currently fled the country to a non-extradition nation. At the time of this writing, yet another Jennifer Epstein collaborator awaits formal judicial punishment for behavior directly connected with the Epstein conspiracy." (from BCA statement)
"Fled the country"? Does this involve a South Asian country? Can these facts be verified by contacting a Supreme Court Justice in Alabama? Just wondering; it's very vague.
Posted by: Melaenei | May 3, 2007 2:31 PM
Lynn,
I guess this is just a hard conflict to try to understand the facts as presented by both sides.
Did you just see how Jennie axed Barbara from her Ladies Against Feminism site? Jennie's site has nothing to do with Barbara's opinions about Doug Phillips' behavior in this instance, but unless you agree with them lock, stock, and barrel, you are booted.
This is really unfortunate, but I guess that's seems to be the way this conflict keeps going. It's really regrettable how you were treated that way, Barbara. Thanks for letting me post with my comments. My best to you (and to the others in this discussion), Melaenei.
Posted by: Melaenei | May 3, 2007 3:45 PM
Emily, I'm glad that helped your perspective. Just so that people who may read this understand, Doug Phillips is the founder of Vision Forum. He is also the pastor of the church that this couple attended, Boerne Christian Assembly, and subsequently excommunicated.
Interestingly, no where on the Boerne website can you find out who the pastor of the church is. That seemed odd and uncessarily confusing. Why not? You would think that a church website would include the name of the elders and pastor. Most do. Nor is there any way of contacting them if a reader has questions about what is written there. Pastors and leaders are called to be "above reproach" but how can anyone be held accountable for what is written on the site when the author or contact information is not given? Why the vagueness?
Further, on the Vision Forum statement of explanation you will it isn't apparent there either. For example, quoting from a Vision Forum explanation in regards to the excommunication of the Epsteins it says,
"In early 2005, the Epsteins were excommunicated by their local congregation for habitual lying, revilings, division of the brethren, and cruelty."It is not indicated in that "their local congregation" is actually pastored by Doug Phillips. Many people directed only to that site wouldn't know that he operates in both roles. And this article doesn't make it clear that "their" congregation is also that of some Vision Forum employees as well. Thus leaving the reader to possibly think that the excommunication decision of the "local congregation" was separate that of Doug Phillips. It would seem to be the case that to be above reproach, the conflict of interest between employees voting in a church matter where their boss is also their pastor is a key piece of information that should at least be noted. Even secular corporate boards understand and provide disclosure in such cases. And in most cases if their is such a conflict, recuse themselves from voting in the matter.
Also consider this from the Boerne Confession,
"In cases of difficulties or differences, either in matters of doctrine or administration, which concern the churches in general or any single church, and which affects their peace, union, and edification, or when any members of a church are injured because of any disciplinary proceedings not consistent with the Word and correct order, it is according to the mind of Christ, that many churches holding communion together do, through their appointed messengers meet to consider, and give their advice about the matter in dispute, and to report to all the churches concerned. However, when these messengers are assembled, they are not entrusted with any real church power, or with any jurisdiction over the churches involved in the problem. They cannot exercise any censure over any churches or persons, or impose their determination on the churches or their officers."
If I am reading this part correctly the Epsteins issue would be an dispute of "administration" and they obviously feel "injured." According to the confession, there should be a meeting with other churches and their "appointed messengers." I would assume that is done for the purpose of gaining objective "wise counsel." Has that happened? The Boerne website does not say. Nor do the Epsteins record any joint meetings with other like minded churches. So I will have to assume that it didn't happen.
Also consider that according to the confession NO church has jurisdiction over the churches involved in the problem. So why is Boerne using the statements of these two churches in this dispute without first having a joint meeting together for discussion? And why are the other two churches seeking to impose their determination on this disupute where they have no jurisdiction? And if the churches are not, then why is Boerne Christian using their letters to make it appear as though that is the case? By Boerne's own confession they are irrelevant. Yet, they are being trumpeted as valiation for the actions of Boerne Christian Assembly.
These are just a few more of the things that make me cautious about accepting the response thus far from Vision Forum and Boerne Christian Assembly. It is because of their words, NOT the actions or words of the Epsteins.
So when Jennie Chancey wrote in her original letter that "It has been very sad to see so many homeschool moms jumping onto their bandwagon without carefully checking the other side of the story." many of us actually are checking the other side. And it is what is being found when I check the "other side" that leaves me with more questions than answers.
Posted by: Spunky | May 3, 2007 4:59 PM
Melaenei,
So far as I can tell, David Linton worked for Associate Justice Tom Parker of Alabama. Matt Chancey, confessed author of the disgraceful Mrs. Binoculars site, was his campaign manager. (http://www.wsfa.com/Global/story.asp?S=4952605)
Doug's blog (at this time) shows pictures of Justice Parker and Doug eating together and says (among other things):
"Justice Parker joined us for a special Sunday worship service following the 2005 Father and Daughter Discipleship Retreat held at the beautiful Callaway Gardens in Georgia, after which we met for brunch."
Justice Parker sounds like a good man and a loyal friend, but he does not sound like somebody who stopped to consider the possibility that the Epsteins were not permitted to be present at their own excommunication trial, were not allowed to present a self defense, and were not allowed to question witnesses against them.
Strip away the hyperbolic National Enquirer tone from the links you've share and try to just look at provable, verifiable facts. Then think about whether the facts merit the National Enquirer approach.
What I see is that David was doing something many people do- using work time for a private project. Not ethical, but also not a matter for 'extradition' or National Enquirer style revelations.
I see that he was proof-reading a document that later went up on Ministry Watchman. But since nobody disputes that Jen was sending materials to Ministry Watchman, I am not sure what this proves, other than that David, who once knew and respected Doug, thought Jen was doing something worth doing and that he used a work computer for private business ('misappropriation of government property?' Please). The accusation about email lists is just that- an accusation. No data, no supporting information, no specifics. Those sorts of accusations are not worth my time.
And I see that according to Doug's friends, David had some reason to be disgruntled with Doug, but they do not share what that reason was.
None of the links you've presented (all of which I have read before) do anything other than demonstrate that Doug did reveal very personal information he learned about in private counseling sessions to others to use against the Epsteins.
Fallacy Slayer makes a claim that the Epsteins spread a letter all over San Antonio about it, but you notice shows us no copy of that letter. Why is that, I wonder? That's a rhetorical question. I really don't wonder at all.
And on Ministry Watchman, the first mention of any preconversion sin was quite vague and nonspecific, and the Epsteins made some attempt to shield their identity. I learned about the specifics in very ugly and hate filled words when I read the Still Fed Up site before it changed its name from something like Tired of the Crap.
Posted by: Justice Prima | May 3, 2007 5:02 PM
GOODNESS GRACIOUS! Are we done yet with this? Wow, this has been going on for some time and has been blogged to death. Folks, I feel myself drawn to this issue out of my need for conflict, or for some sensational "feed" all dressed up as information gathering. There is enough info between the two party's personal websites and the rest of us should make a decision about WHAT we will do as a response to our convictions. Let's let this go now and move on to other worthy topics. We certainly don't need to further the divisions between believers and their churches. Frankly, I am one of the first to be convicted that I've fed this beast and I've furthered this issue...and I don't even subscribe to Vision Forum as a materials supplier. Join me and let's move on to other topics and let those directly involved feel our support in prayer and our moving forward in our lives. Can I get an Amen?
Posted by: Imajackson | May 3, 2007 8:00 PM
Imajackson, I know this seems like it's gone on for quite a while now, but I just wanted to let you know that I am here to call a very public Christian leader to repentance for a very serious pattern of sins against his fellow believers. And failing that, I am here to warn other believers about a wolf in sheep's clothing and to expose his evil deeds. I am here to protect and warn others because I care about my brothers and sisters in Christ.
As to a couple details, I see that Lynn reposted the three times where Doug breached confidences: by telling the church about my pre-conversion sin, which was a complete surprise to everyone there, and which my husband begged him not to read; by reading counseling notes, which was against the law; and when Doug's "former interns" starting posting comments on blogs that have since been taken down stating details of my sins that only Doug knew about.
I had forgotten about the story of the bed as well, which is a different story than these three. That was also something Mark told Doug when we met with him. No one else knew. So Doug must have told these same "former interns," who started telling this story. Their story was so convoluted and the real story was not really even note-worthy, so I wrote a somewhat humorous piece about the parable of the bed just to state the facts.
So, in all cases, either Doug or his "former interns," who heard it from Doug, made these stories known to the public first. Then I was forced to address them. That is why I have talked about them. I don't want to hide anything, so I will admit that I have sinned greatly, but I also am grateful for the grace of God when He saved me and forgave me of all my sins.
I will be addressing all of Doug's statements eventually on my blog. Suffice it to say that they are NOT what they seem to be. And to give just one example, Gavino Perez has never met me, and I've only had one short conversation with his wife, Ruth.
One person asked about the statement that our sins were affecting other people. Yes, Mark's anger was greatly affecting me and my children, which is exactly why we went to Doug for help in the first place. His way of helping me was to first laugh at my relating our fears for our lives after my husband tried to kill us, and then he disciplined me. A couple months later, he excommunicated me, because problems in the marriage are always the woman's fault, you know!
Thanks for being so dedicated to the truth, Barbara. I know you can empathize because you've been here before. But it's not about me and it's not about my story. It's about calling a fellow believer to repentance because I truly care about Doug Phillips.
Posted by: Jen | May 4, 2007 1:37 AM
Imajackson -
If you are tired of the issue, by all means stop reading and commenting. But why try to silence others? If it makes you uncomfortable or you've had enough, then let it go. But we are not made from cookie cutters and do not share the same timetable. People who have ideas and want to communicate them should not be told to shut up by someone who's decided "it's time to let it go."
There are numerous instances in the Bible when God blessed peoples persistence. And there are insights some people need to come to through the process of communication.
I am not interested in all the particulars in this case. To tell you the truth, I have only skimmed the material and do not read many of the convoluted comments I've published here (I read Spunky's, though!)
No one will ever be able to arrive at the truth here - it's like witnesses at a car wreck. But I am concerned with the behavior of a Christian leader under fire. And I am concerned with what seems almost like a cult following who will defend their leader to the death. I have seen this up close and personal myself - and the pattern is very, very real.
I am not saying Vision Forum is a cult, but I am saying that organizations centered around a charismatic leader tend to exhibit cultlike characteristics. This is the fault of the followers as much as of the leaders. After a period of time when the leader has become a little too arrogant, God begins to send messengers to bring the leader back to reality. Unfortunately, these messengers are usually treated the way Jen is being treated.
My prediction is that if there is no recognition here on Doug Phillips' [art that this mess is not all Jen's fault - and if there is no recognition that she is God's servant too - then this will not be the last time this happens.
And eventually - maybe 10 or 15 years down the road - we will see the fall of an organization that has inspired and helped many people, but in which the leader began to play God.
This is my theory and opinion, based on my experience and things God has shown me personally about leadership.
Who am I that I should comment on it? Nobody, really. And certainly nobody in Doug Phillips' eyes.
But God has given me a certain kind of vision for these things, and I am supposed to use it whether people hear me or think I'm credible.
I'm just being obedient.
Posted by: barbara | May 4, 2007 6:32 AM
I received an email from a someone closely affiliated with Vision Forum taking issue with my comment regarding Mr. Chancey's ability to be indpendent in this situation.
The reason it is difficult to accept the Vision Forum claim of "independence" on the part of Mr. Chancey in his investigation of the Ministry Watchman/Epstein situation is the following:
Mr. Chancey is closely affiliated and possibly compensated by one of the organizations cited on the Ministry Watchman blog.
One of the articles at Ministry Watchman was about a Sudan video by Persecution Project. It was not a positive article. When I called to verify the truth of the information on Ministry Watchman's site, I was given the name and contact information for their spokesman on that issue. The name I was given was Matt Chancey. On one biography he is listed as a "founding" board member of Persecution Project.
Someone who is responsible for founding and responding to the claims against Persecution Project, cannot at the same time be considered an independent investigator of the same claims for Vision Forum. Can the same person represent an organzation positively and "independently" evaluate and report claims against it at the same time?
It should also be noted that Persecution Project is operated by Doug Phillip's brother, Brad Phillips.
(Would anyone accept President George Bush's spokesman to conduct an independent investigation against his brother Jeb?)
And of secondary importance but worth mentioning:
Anyone spiritually discipled and taught by a man implicated on the Epstein or Ministry Watchman sites cannot be objectively considered "independent." By Mr. Chancey's own admission, Doug Phillips took Mr. Chancey's sanctification as his "special object."
Here is a birthday poem Mr. Chancey wrote in Doug Phillip's honor. One of the stanza's said,
"When I was green as algae on a frog,
My sanctifying was your special object,
You kept me from the evidential bog,
By presupposin’ God in every subject."
Further, Can the self-proclaimed "biggest fan" of Doug Phillips who pledges to "fight" for him, claim objectivity and speak against him in an "independent" investigation? Again quoting from the poem,
So ‘ere’s to you, Dougy Wuggy, at your ‘ome in Texas sand,
Though you’ve n’er fired shot in anger, you’re a first class fightin’ man!
I gives you your certificate, and I gives you my right ‘and,
An’ I’ll fight beside your person, ‘cause I’m your biggest fan!
Obviously, Vision Forum and Doug Phillips do not have a problem accepting a Mr. Chancey's "right hand" in a pledge to fight for him until his foes cry uncle and repent and at the same time calling Mr. Chancey's site Mrs. Binoculars an "independent investigation."
As an outside observor carefully checking the facts as Mrs. Chancey rightly admonishes homeschool moms to do, I find just find it a little hard to accept.
Thanks for asking!
Posted by: Spunky | May 4, 2007 10:39 AM
Barbara, thank you for the admonition... I deserved it! I can see that my comments must have come across in a VERY different way than I desired (entirely my fault). I apologize for any offense to anyone. My hope (though obscured) was to point out my own sin in my heart as I was drawn to the conflict-far past the point that I should have been. Further, I hoped to spur others in my same shoes to take action through prayer and allow those who still need to research the issue the peace to do so from the direct sources (meaning Jen Epstein's site and Doug Phillips (if possible).
After re-reading my comment I can see how my comments read as "let it go" to everyone, and it was really directed at those of us who know enough that we need to DO something about this, mainly pray! I, too, have been in contact with cult churches and similar charismatic leaders. I have nothing but admiration for you two ladies (Barbara and Jen E.) and I realize I have failed to pray for Jen's situation. I am contributing to the problem by my refusal to take it to God. Boy did I make a mess of my trying to communicate that! So, again, I am very sorry for my comment tone, and please forgive my offenses. Lastly, I urge all of us who have followed this story to pray for everyone, for we know that the truth will set us free. Even those who do not wish to be freed from deceit and sin they cannot recognize in their own hearts.
Posted by: Imajackson | May 4, 2007 12:16 PM
They're -- each and every one -- mired deep in their own brand of Christianity.
But the Epsteins are wickedly sly and cunning. Backbiting. Devisive. Arrogant. Mezmorizing. Frightening. Unable to trust the Lord to be their defense. If my path never crosses theirs again, it will be a relief.
I'm anonymous because I'm afraid of them.
Posted by: anonymous | May 4, 2007 1:26 PM
Imajackson -
oh my! maybe I sounded too harsh myself. It's just a subject I feel passionately about - how we believers get caught up in this extra bondage.
You are a regular around here, and I care know you didn't mean any harm
I think you're absolutely right - we need to pray for this all to be resolved in a way that will glorify God. I for one would love to be surprised!
Posted by: barbara | May 4, 2007 10:05 PM
I am new to this post. I have been a christian for three decades primarily fundamentalist churches where a born-again message is preached.( charasmatic non denominational.)
I attend a PCA now primarily because of authoritianism and church abuse in the former so I am a little dismayed that I can see it happening here as well.
Other good books to read are 'Toxic Faith';'Lambs on the Ledge' ( book about abuses in AG Teen Challenge);'Churches that Abuse';'Recovery from Churches that Abuse'; there are others but these come to mind.
Also try www.factnet.org and www.apologeticsindex.org
Also try searches on 'Moses Style Govt and Leadership' at Calvary Chaples on christianitytoday.com
Researching on Latter Rain and Shepherding movement of the 1970's will give a wealth of info. and you will see simliarities to your present situation. I type this with heaviness of heart as after 30 years I have broken off contacts with many people and have sought professional counsling. It is NO JOKE. Be wary of parachurch mission agencies also like YWAM.
Just ask alot of questions if you get involved and don't join ANY church flippantly. In all sincerity psych evals of those in leadership might be helpful as well on a yearly basis although I can think of no gentle way to ask this.If evidence of any mismangement of finances,sexual immorality,marriage problems,legalism,bad theology,within leadership LEAVE discreetly and without fanfare.
Just some thoughts and recommendations.
Posted by: Katy | May 5, 2007 9:22 AM
In my previous comment I said that Matt Chancey was "possibly compensated" by Persecution Project. At the time, I didn't have the link available to substantiate the claim that he was paid by Persecution Project for his services.
Persecution Project has made its2005 tax return. (PDF) available online. It shows Mr. Chancey in the position of Director with an annual salary of $42,500 for 40 hours of work per week.
Even if he is no longer a full time paid employee, I was still given his name as their spokesman, it is reasonable to assume he still works for them in some capacity and cannot be called "independent" in his investigation.
If Mrs. Chancey says that others are twisting their words, it may be because the words that Vision Forum uses are often ambiguous and cause even those that have heavily supported Vision Forum to wonder what they really are trying to say.
Posted by: Spunky | May 6, 2007 5:49 PM
FYI, Matthew Chancey's 2006 compensation from Persecution Project was $62,500. Obviously Matt Chancey isn't so "independent." He's also on the board of directors of an organization that's been accused of an even much bigger film fraud than brother Doug ever perpetrated (as if that wasn't a whopper), Raising The Allosaur. Brad Phillips' film fraud was called Sudan The Hidden Holocaust. I don't begin to understand Matt Chancey's bashing of the Epsteins. It strikes me as a classic case of the pot calling the kettle "Black!"
Posted by: Enough Hypocrisy | March 23, 2008 3:22 PM
