All Things Doug Phillips & VF, Including Lourdes's Lawsuit

[socuteyoullpuke]

So, where do the Phillips family attend church now? Or do they just home church.

If Beall wants to forgive Doug and work on their marriage, fine, but is doug still the center of her spiritual guidance? :cray-cray:

[Howl]

Doug Phillips has left Boerne Christian Assembly and advised that he has become a member of another Church without a letter of transfer from Boerne Christian Assembly :shock:. This is a matter of great concern :o to the body at Boerne Christian Assembly and we are attempting to work through this entire situation in a manner that would be honoring to our Lord. We continue to pray for restoration, wisdom and grace as we determine how we should proceed.

Lots of hand wringing at BCA. If the new church that DP now attends does not utilize Letters of Transfer^TM, it is game over for BCA -- do they not see this? They were able to use this Letter of Transfer as a tool of harassment to such good effect in the past, they just don't know what to do now that the Little Emperor (who has no clothes) has ridden away on his dappled pony to conquer a new land and not looked back. And BCA has not yet realized that he left them holding his bag of sh#t.

Not at all shocked that DPIAT changed churches without the required (under his rules, that is) letter of transfer.

The rule was there because he wanted to control other people. Now that he longer has that control at BCA, it means nothing to him.

This not about being biblical, forget all that Matthew 18 stuff, this is about control, pure and simple.

Excellent assessment, right on target.

[nausicaa]

Lots of hand wringing at BCA. If the new church that DP now attends does not utilize Letters of Transfer^TM, it is game over for BCA -- do they not see this? They were able to use this Letter of Transfer as a tool of harassment to such good effect in the past, they just don't know what to do now that the Little Emperor (who has no clothes) has ridden away on his dappled pony to conquer a new land and not looked back. And BCA has not yet realized that he left them holding his bag of sh#t.

Excellent assessment, right on target.

Yeah, as much as Doug is being a hypocritical jackass of the first order, his doing this really frees everyone currently at BCA.

Letters of Transfer. What a load of malarkey.

[Palimpsest]

Yowser!

I think this is good news. It looks to me as though BCA has finally decided to renounce Doug the tool in all his sinfulness. That plus the excerpt from the recent sermon is a public statement that Doug is a hypocrite and a sinner who blames others for his moral failings to BCA. Also an apostate who has failed to follow his own rules re. letters of transfer. The rules that he has applied to others and affirmed several times. Has Jen Epstein/?/Fishburne commented yet?

I also note that the ineffectual Bob Sarratt has resigned (or been pushed out with a vote of no confidence) as an elder at BCA.

Interesting.

[Coconut Flan]

I kind of love that Dougie did that. It shows the congregation what that whole letter of transfer malarkey is worth - exactly nothing. It also finally seems to have shown them Dougie's true colors at long last. How much longer will that congregation try to stay together? It deserves to break up I think.

[Howl]

Has Jen Epstein/?/Fishburne commented yet?

No new blog posts over at Jens Gems since late March. People still actively comment, though.

[Palimpsest]

No new blog posts over at Jens Gems since late March. People still actively comment, though.

I hope she is hanging her head in shame but I think the "Doug breaking his own controlling rules" might perhaps bring her back from retirement.

I wonder where the mysterious (and vile Kinist and Rushdooneyite) T.W. Eston is these days? Neither of them followed through on what they promised on the Doug expose. ::Yawns::

[Maxwell]

BCA also removed, or password protected, the link to all the letters/responses to the Jen Epstein fiasco (About -> Letters) -- good thing I saved copies. :lol: They also password protected the 'Links' link.

Curious.

Anyone former BCA'ers familiar with the whole JensGems situation want to comment on who the StillFedUp blog authors were? Just wondering what they think of DPIAT these days?

[treemom]

Jen has to be peeing her pants at this point

[Maxwell]

visionforum.com seems to have gone away too! Drat, I wish I hadn't waited to download all of the covers. Maybe I can find a DPIAT fan site that still has them available.

[ThisOlGirl]

visionforum.com seems to have gone away too! Drat, I wish I hadn't waited to download all of the covers. Maybe I can find a DPIAT fan site that still has them available.

I wish visionforum.com was for sale. It would be awesome if a certain snark site bought it and filled it with all things DPIAT.

[Howl]

Yeah, as much as Doug is being a hypocritical jackass of the first order, his doing this really frees everyone currently at BCA.

One wishes that BCA could see this, but they seem still bound up in the legalism that is Doug's ugly legacy. Sad.

I wish visionforum.com was for sale. It would be awesome if a certain snark site bought it and filled it with all things DPIAT.

TOG, that is such a very naughty thought. Into the repentance closet! No giggling as you reflect on your wickedness.

[Grimalkin]

One wishes that BCA could see this, but they seem still bound up in the legalism that is Doug's ugly legacy. Sad.

So if someone leaves without a transfer letter what can the church do to them?????

I think what scares me about this is the idea that people just went along with this shizz, perhaps even staying becuase they could not get permission to go somewhere else?!?

Am I not understanding this?

[Palimpsest]

The BCA faithful must be really upset by all of this.

The Grand Poobah and Lord High Everything Else, DPIAT, has completely betrayed their trust and gone against everything he exhorted them to do. His behavior is completely antithetical to Matthew 18.

Also, an educated guess says that BCA members past and present are being deposed on both sides of the lawsuit right now. That can't be pleasant, nor is the concept of testifying if it comes to that.

I'm feeling quite sorry for the rank and file membership of BCA as they finally find out that Doug's hands are so dirty and he has no conscience. I hope they learn from their mistakes and put a much improved congregation together but I really think they should disband. The DPIAT/BCA culture is just that deep-seated and toxic.

I have no sympathy for those still defending him though. As for Bob Sarratt, ex-coElder, yes-man, collaborator and concealer of Doug's sexual abuse, I hope he got firmly dumped by BCA and is busy repenting his own sins.

[Palimpsest]

So if someone leaves without a transfer letter what can the church do to them?????

I think what scares me about this is the idea that people just went along with this shizz, perhaps even staying becuase they could not get permission to go somewhere else?!?

Am I not understanding this?

It sounds ridiculous to outsiders, but for True Believers of this ilk Doug had a blackmail opportunity and a complete strangle-hold over them.

If people didn't like what Doug was doing, spoke out against him, or tried to leave the church, then he would deny them the letter of referral so they couldn't join any similar church. Most people joining BCA in the first place are the type that really want a legalistic church with arbitrary rules and restrictions, and one devoted to Patriarchy in a society (rightly) hostile to the concept.

Jen Epstein is such a good example of the hold Doug had over his congregation. She was turfed out of BCA by Doug, she and her family shunned by the community, Doug tried to blacklist her at other churches -- but she still tried to move heaven and earth to get back into the cult. It's sad.

[gustava]

Which churches would want to receive a BCA letter permitting DPIAT/R to leave Bourne? Wouldn't it have to a another church of similar ilk? I can't imagine most churches would give a damn.

[nokidsmom]

Letters of Transfer^TM

I love this!

[nokidsmom]

Which churches would want to receive a BCA letter permitting DPIAT/R to leave Bourne? Wouldn't it have to a another church of similar ilk? I can't imagine most churches would give a damn.

Also raises the question if these churches would want a letter of transfer for anyone leaving BCA. I would think a lot of churches, even those that are similar, would not require it. Maybe some might like to have it, but whether it's a requirement in order to join? And for all churches? No.

So chances are good that someone wanting to leave BCA could have probably joined whatever church they wanted. Wonder if anyone thought to check if the receiving church required a letter? Or did they just assume because they were too cowed by DPIAT? Why did DPIAT need to blacklist Jen to other churches if a letter of transfer was absolutely necessary for her to join any one of them? The blacklisting (Jen's trying to get back into BCA notwithstanding) is pretty telling.

[Palimpsest]

Also raises the question if these churches would want a letter of transfer for anyone leaving BCA. I would think a lot of churches, even those that are similar, would not require it. Maybe some might like to have it, but whether it's a requirement in order to join? And for all churches? No.

So chances are good that someone wanting to leave BCA could have probably joined whatever church they wanted. Wonder if anyone thought to check if the receiving church required a letter? Or did they just assume because they were too cowed by DPIAT? Why did DPIAT need to blacklist Jen to other churches if a letter of transfer was absolutely necessary for her to join any one of them? The blacklisting (Jen's trying to get back into BCA notwithstanding) is pretty telling.

To the bolded, Jen scampered off to Little Bear and Co to ask for their intervention with Doug. He had obviously refused her the Letter of Transfer^TM, but followed it up with lots more damaging info as she stirred the pot.

OTOH, I believe people on both JensGems and SSB confirmed that Doug refused transfers and sent out nasty letters to various Churches when other people left BCA.

I think Doug pissing on the disciplinary measures (whatever they were) imposed by BCA, breaking his own rules, and buggering off to join another church is very interesting. Is it so that he can still claim to be a Christian man in good standing with his church in court?

Julie Anne says she's mining her sources at BCA to find out which church Doug joined. Supposedly so she can write a letter of warning to the new church, but I can't think how she expects that to make a difference. New church must have known who DPIAT is! Julie Anne may also not spill the beans in public to us ebil snarkers even if she does find out Doug's new church.

As I see it there are 3 primary possible choices:

1) New church is mainstream (Presbyterian/Baptist/Methodist, etc) and non-FIC affiliated enough to not care about Letters of Reference ^TM OR

2) New church is totally NCFIC affiliated and Doug is being rescued by a pal and a sputnik. I doubt Scot Brown would lend him a hand, but wonder whether R.C. Sproul paved the way . . . OR

3) Doug has become a liberal Unitarian or some such ebil thing. :pink-shock:

In either of the first two cases, the new church has brought into a sob story from Dougie, believes that he has truly repented and that BCA is just being very mean and not forgiving him per Matthew 18.

[Grimalkin]

It sounds ridiculous to outsiders, but for True Believers of this ilk Doug had a blackmail opportunity and a complete strangle-hold over them.

If people didn't like what Doug was doing, spoke out against him, or tried to leave the church, then he would deny them the letter of referral so they couldn't join any similar church. Most people joining BCA in the first place are the type that really want a legalistic church with arbitrary rules and restrictions, and one devoted to Patriarchy in a society (rightly) hostile to the concept.

Jen Epstein is such a good example of the hold Doug had over his congregation. She was turfed out of BCA by Doug, she and her family shunned by the community, Doug tried to blacklist her at other churches -- but she still tried to move heaven and earth to get back into the cult. It's sad.

Thank you for your answer.

[Palimpsest]

Sorry to post twice in a row, but thanks to "Anon" at SSB we have Doug's entire treatise on church covenants and leaving a church "honorably" rescued from the Wayback Machine. (I think the "thug" was edited in by Anon. :) Many thanks Anon!) To save everyone time I C&Ped it from SSB. I doubt DPIAT will sue for copyright violations.

Anon

July 8, 2014 @ 2:10 PM

How to Honorably Leave a Church by Thug Phillips

Christians are in a state of covenant with the Lord. One way that supreme covenant finds expression is through the “mini†covenant of their relations and duties to Christ’s local church. Because Christians are in covenant with Christ, they are to be in covenant with a local church. They are not “married†to the local church, but they are to be in a state of formal covenant with it. This “mini†covenant (an extension of our covenant with Christ) carries privileges and responsibilities, and is not to be taken lightly. Furthermore, it is designed as a covenant of blessing and should be viewed with profound gratitude by the believer.

Contrary to what some say, there are sound biblical reasons for leaving one local church to attend another, but the reasons for departure must derive from sound biblical reasons, not personal whims and preferences. Biblically leaving a local church involves transferring covenant duties and privileges from one local body to another. It does not involve breaking a covenant.

To put it another way, the believer’s covenant with the local church can be transferred to another Christ-honoring local church, but it cannot be “resigned,†abandoned, or simply disregarded without the professing believer becoming a covenant-breaker. Furthermore, the way a family leaves a local church is an evidence of their maturity, integrity, and honor as a Christian. Every effort must be made to act honorably. This may take time, effort, and patience. This means candidly sharing your reasons with the church leadership, affirming your desire to avoid schism and division, and asking for their formal blessing for a membership transfer. Dropping off the face of the earth without candidly discussing issues with the elders with whom you are in covenant is simply dishonorable conduct.

Similarly, the willingness of church leadership to work with departing brethren (even discontented and divisive brethren) to transfer membership to other Christ-honoring church works is a sign that the leadership are men under authority, not dictators or autocrats. Membership covenants do not mean that local churches own people. Pastors and elders must never behave as if it is a crime for people to want to leave a church. It is a crime to be a covenant breaker, but it is not a crime to desire and act to honorably transfer your membership. Furthermore, a church member who is genuinely convinced that he should abandon his belief in paedo-baptism for credo-baptism, or credo-baptism for paedo-baptism, has not de facto “departed the faith.†He should not be denied transfer to a church that upholds the foundations of Christian orthodoxy (e.g. justification by faith, sufficiency or Scripture, the Trinity, etc.), because of his view on baptism.

Even in the midst of disagreement and conflict, every effort must be made by the party seeking to leave a local church to work within the God-appointed chain of authority. This means the Christian seeking to depart must sincerely strive to honor the very leaders with whom he disagrees, to honor the terms of his membership covenant with the local body, and to treat all men with integrity. The goal is for the departing believer to leave with the blessing of his elders and to receive from those elders a formal transfer of his covenant membership to a church of Jesus Christ.

Sometimes, sin on the part of either or both members and church leaders prevents these goals from being accomplished. It is my sense of things, however, that most church shepherds are happily willing to grant membership transfers to disagreeing brethren where (1) those brethren are genuinely trying to approach things in an honorable and respectful manner, and (2) where they seek a transfer to an orthodox Christian work (i.e., not into oblivion, or to a church which is at war with the foundations of Christian orthodoxy).

Perhaps the worst thing a disgruntled church member can do is to insinuate that the body with whom he disagrees is “a cult†or simply “cult-likeâ€â€”as some form of a pretext for privately declaring his covenant with the church to be null and void. Cults do exist. They are wretched abominations which rightly should be denounced. But if a people are going to raise the “C†word publicly, they had best be prepared to defend such a charge before the world, and if found guilty of defaming a legitimate work of Christ, they must be prepared to face the consequences which are rightly due to those who divide brethren and slander the servants of the Lord.

Equally problematic is for church leaders to respond with hostility to those who go through the proper channels to raise concerns over doctrine and practice and who wish to peaceably depart because of matters of conscience. I know of one pastor who was so antagonistic to a confrontation and departure by some of his own co-elders, that he engaged in an ongoing campaign of slanders (and was confronted for such) that involved public Internet sermons, wild and unsubstantiated charges of legalism, gross mischaracterization of the views of those with whom he disagreed, and ultimately took the form of a formal Web site ostensibly dedicated to eradicating the cause of the split in his eldership, but clearly focused on his own self-justification. Such behavior divides the brethren, harms the body, is not the sign of mature leadership, and (no matter how carefully couched) is the mark of tyrants. In this case, the one pastor may not like the fact that one of his co-elders (and others in the congregation) fundamentally disapproved of his practice to endorse Christians placing their children in government schools, or promoting youth culture over family culture, or of having the daughters of his congregation join the United States military, but he would have been better served to address individual issues charitably and biblically than justifying irresponsible behavior on the grounds that those who disagree with him are simply pharisees and legalists.

Ninety-nine percent of the time, the problem of amicable membership transfers in the local church (like the problems in marriage, employment, and most of life) is a problem of honor. One or both parties acts lawlessly and dishonorably toward the other. Honor is key. Honor is crucial. Those who have true Christian love will act honorably.

Even as it is wrong for individuals to claim the status of “martyr for conscience and doctrine,†when they have acted dishonorably toward their local church and its leadership, it is wrong for pastors to use Christ’s pulpit for personal vendettas, or to arbitrarily refuse to transfer membership on some pretext of protecting Christ’s church.

The fact is this: Honorable men can disagree and still be friends. Honorable men can disagree and still work through problems. Honorable men can determine that it is necessary that they take separate paths to be truthful to their conscience. Only dishonorable conduct will absolutely guarantee division, discontent, and heartache.

From its inception, the National Center for Family-Integrated Churches and those leaders in association with it in the cause of unity between church and home have vigorously and vocally emphasized these principles and the duties of both shepherds and church members. Neither self-serving shepherds nor radically individualistic believers like this counsel, but it remains our deep abiding conviction.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080705140 ... /2894.aspx

So Dougie, how's your deep and abiding conviction these days? You covenant breaker, you! Are you considering yourself a self-serving shepherd or a radically individualistic believer?

Pffft! I think Doug's just a self-serving con-man.

[Coconut Flan]

Pffft! I think Doug's just a self-serving con-man.

For sure. I absolutely do not subscribe to Dougie's very odd controlling view of church membership. I was well taught by my mother to just walk out smile in place and mouth firmly shut and don't go back. That's how to avoid becoming a divisive force. And yes, by all means leave even if on a personal whim. If the new choir director keeps bringing in music that sets your teeth on edge, go elsewhere rather than seethe or whatever the issue is.

[Hane]

At my advanced age, I find that all this theological hair-splitting just makes me TIRED. SO much of it goes on among men in pissing contests/power struggles and has nothing to do with the perfection of the human spirit/condition. And yet poor pathetic Jen Epstein-Fishburne still wants to get into the He-Man Girl Haters' Club.

[FundieWatcher]

Just to interrupt for a sec...just learned the Phillps girls have blog...operationmeatball.squarespace.com Looks like they to play dress up too.

[Palimpsest]

Just to interrupt for a sec...just learned the Phillps girls have blog...operationmeatball.squarespace.com Looks like they to play dress up too.

OMG! Operationmeatball. Brilliant but depressing find.

Well, I guess we now know how Doug is distracting his daughters from the lawsuit and professional disgrace his vile behavior has provoked. Cos-play, NF visiting, memories of past VF glory days w/ paid vacations, songs, and much revisionist history. The revisionist history is mostly VF with a helping of WWII glorification.

I feel very sad for the Phillips girls.