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

[MamaJunebug]

Sending a matriarch to do a patriarch's job.

Tsk tsk tsk.

These people use excommunication entirely different from the way Lutherans do. In Lutheran churches, if a person is living in unrepentant sin (of any kind, not just shacked-up living in sin), it is believed that he is endangering his soul by continuing to go to the Lord's table to commune while still planning to remain in his a cup ways.

Thus, out of love for him and concern for his eternal soul, he is asked not to go to communion anymore – – Excommunicated. What we call a person who is told he's no longer welcome in the church as a member, I really don't know. I'm not sure there is such a thing, perhaps it would be called… Banning him?

In any case, Boerne's excommunication [sic] of Doug seems more like a disfellowshipping, which seems to me to be saying, this guy is no longer part of us, he's no longer welcome in our church at all. That's why it doesn't surprise me that Beall is all het up about it. Doug started that club, Doug left that club, that club can't tell him he's not a member no more!

[WonderingInWA]

Excommunication is confusing. A man I know in his 40s did something morally questionable in a small town in Idaho and because he was well-known in the community, it hit the papers (no, this isn't Larry Craig, BTW!). And even though this man had never been a Mormon, the LDS church excommunicated him over it. So what does it mean in THAT context?

[lemonhead]

Funny how church discipline was just peachy keen until it was used against Dougie and Beall :evil-eye:

[gustava]

What's the difference between excommunication and disfellowship?

[Palimpsest]

So who believes Beall wrote that herself? :roll:

This is one of those times where Doug should have stayed quiet.

"But when excommunication is used as a tool for retribution, for publicity, to influence a lawsuit, or to retroactively punish someone who is not even a member of that church, it is not only an aberration from the intended Biblical purpose, but also reflects the authoritarianism that has always held a presence in a dark corner of Christianity."

The underlined is a fairly big charge. Rather unwise. As to the rest, I believe Doug did all those things to previous members of his church. So why not have it happen to him?

Lots of wild accusations and claims, but if anything in that pile of self-serving steaming manure has any accuracy at all, then a schism took place at BCA. The Doug supporter side lost and a much smaller BCA is continuing with, one hopes, better management. I still think the Covenant stinks and they should do away with it.

Stop whining, Doug. You too, Beall. You may have decided to stay with the creep, goodness knows why, but stop letting him use you as his mouthpiece.

[salex]

"My Personal Response to BCA

Excommunication is without a doubt the most serious sentence pronounced when a church with jurisdiction over one of its own members, after patiently and carefully following biblical process, determines that the professing Christian who is under their jurisdiction refuses to turn from clear, gross sin. But when excommunication is used as a tool for retribution, for publicity, to influence a lawsuit, or to retroactively punish someone who is not even a member of that church, it is not only an aberration from the intended Biblical purpose, but also reflects the authoritarianism that has always held a presence in a dark corner of Christianity.

Which, btw, Doug taught most of these people!

First, we are happy members in good standing of Hyde Park Baptist Church, a long established city church in Austin, Texas. Our experience at Hyde Park has been uplifting, redemptive, and a genuine blessing to Doug, to me, and to our children. Our pastor gave us the freedom to communicate that he "is supportive of [our] family and does not agree with the actions of these men.â€

Is it wrong of me that my first thought when I read this was to wonder just how big a donation Doug had made when he joined Hyde Park. My second thought was to wonder if he will end up with an associate minister job there or somewhere that he did in fact make a large donation to, as his first step "back" into a ministry.

Today’s announcement comes after we had been threatened with ecclesiastical sanctions if we did not submit privileged information, documents, and legal strategies for their oversight. The new BCA government has been informed of the impropriety of this. It is a significant conflict for someone who has an adverse interest to use a threat of ecclesiastical sanction to gain information and control over someone else.

This sounds like BCA is seeking documents to use in their own defense and Dougy isn't sharing....

Late in November, 2013, two things happened: an internet driven campaign was coordinated with demand letters for twenty million dollars, making false charges against BCA, against the leadership of another church in the area, as well as my family and our business, and threatened litigation against all of those individuals.

Wait, I thought the lawsuit was because her husband was jerking off on the help against their will, not based on some anti doug internet campaing.

Snipped blather here..... including comment about a climax... :lol:

In June, we received a series of threatening letters informing us that a new government had been established at BCA and required that we leave our church and come back to them. They threatened sanctions if we did not. It was disturbing to find that the men who wrote the letters to us, representing themselves as duly elected ordained elders to us, to the community, the internet, and the media, actually were not.

Isn't this an echo of what Doug did to that woman he had the big conflict with a while back... pre nannygate?' Jen or whomever? Again, from Doug's playback if the roles were reversed.

When this became public, they set aside many of the historical BCA election/ ordination procedures, oversaw their own election at the end of July, and assumed their present offices.

Didn't doug and his team oversee their own elections?

Following this election, they began sending letters again. As the harassment continued, a formal offer was presented to them that disputes be resolved through an independent third party mediator like Peacemakers. That offer was rejected.

BCA’s statement has nothing to do with biblical love, with legitimate church authority, with truth, or with the Gospel. I believe it has everything to do with self interest, fear, and a mess of conflicts of interest, many related to a lawsuit.

Just my observation but Did BCA ever stand for biblical love, legitmate church authority, truth or the Gospel, when Doug was running it? Or was it always for money, power, control and money.... did I mention money? And doesn't Beall's response sound as if it has everythnig to do with self interest, fear, a mess of conflicts of interest, many related to a lawsuit?

Beall, as Doug's mouthpiece (here I wrote this, sign it and post it) always seems to be protesting too much. But, she knows where her bread is buttered, I think. I think it is interesting to watch the patriarch hiding behind his wife's skirt. I would think a better strategy would be to simply ignore the Church's statement. Replying to it as she did gives it more credence and fans the fire which may be all that keeps Doug warm lately.

[Burris]

Beall...[Doug's excommunication] is not only an aberration from the intended Biblical purpose, but also reflects the authoritarianism that has always held a presence in a dark corner of Christianity.

Ec-fucking-scuse me?!

Phillips helped create the ecclesiastical court that convicted him, thereby getting a small taste of the "justice" he himself had imposed on others (and for crimes less severe).

He reaped what he sowed. His career - his greedy fantasyland career - died on the very sword he used on his enemies.

A more...Biblical...outcom I cannot image.

[Arete]

What's the difference between excommunication and disfellowship?

In mainstream Christian denominations, excommunication literally means not being able to take/receive communion. The person may still go to church and pray, sing, listen to the sermon with the rest of the congregation.

Disfellowship means that the person is no longer welcome to come to services and pray with the rest of the congregation. They are physically separated from the body of believers, not just spiritually separated as in excommunication.

[Arete]

Just wanted to add that what BCA calls an excommunication is really more disfellowship. When you are "excommunicated" at BCA, the congregation is usually ordered to shun you and you are not welcome at services.

[CloakNDagger]

I think I don't have time to write anything more tonight, but that's pretty juicy, and sounds awfully like Doug's manner of speaking. Plenty of things to snipe / snark at in that quote.

[Marian the Librarian]

Long, long discussion thread about this on the Voddie Baucham Ministries Facebook page. Fix yourself a big snack, pour the beverage of your choice (all in the spirit of our anti-fast - hi, Stevie!!), and settle in for a lengthy read.

[hoipolloi]

And Jen Fishburne (formerly Epstein) has weighed in with a long, long commentary including a number of personal messages, like the following excerpt from her message to Doug (jensgems.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/17332/):

You have not dealt with the pornography problem, you have cheated your customers, you have lied to get what you want including lying about being commissioned to begin this church which has just excommunicated you, you have not honored your parents and you have blatantly dishonored Beall’s parents. You have committed murder and adultery in your heart, many times. You have stolen and lied and coveted ideas and businesses and recognition that belonged to others. You teach the Ten Commandments but you do not live them.

I have no problems in listing the “sins†you have been excommunicated for, although BCA probably has their own list.

[Sobeknofret]

"My Personal Response to BCA

Which, btw, Doug taught most of these people!

Is it wrong of me that my first thought when I read this was to wonder just how big a donation Doug had made when he joined Hyde Park. My second thought was to wonder if he will end up with an associate minister job there or somewhere that he did in fact make a large donation to, as his first step "back" into a ministry.

This sounds like BCA is seeking documents to use in their own defense and Dougy isn't sharing....

Wait, I thought the lawsuit was because her husband was jerking off on the help against their will, not based on some anti doug internet campaing.

Snipped blather here..... including comment about a climax... :lol:

Isn't this an echo of what Doug did to that woman he had the big conflict with a while back... pre nannygate?' Jen or whomever? Again, from Doug's playback if the roles were reversed.

Didn't doug and his team oversee their own elections?

Just my observation but Did BCA ever stand for biblical love, legitmate church authority, truth or the Gospel, when Doug was running it? Or was it always for money, power, control and money.... did I mention money? And doesn't Beall's response sound as if it has everythnig to do with self interest, fear, a mess of conflicts of interest, many related to a lawsuit?

Beall, as Doug's mouthpiece (here I wrote this, sign it and post it) always seems to be protesting too much. But, she knows where her bread is buttered, I think. I think it is interesting to watch the patriarch hiding behind his wife's skirt. I would think a better strategy would be to simply ignore the Church's statement. Replying to it as she did gives it more credence and fans the fire which may be all that keeps Doug warm lately.

:agree:

Or as the Quakers say, Friend speaks my mind :)

[gustava]

In mainstream Christian denominations, excommunication literally means not being able to take/receive communion. The person may still go to church and pray, sing, listen to the sermon with the rest of the congregation.

Disfellowship means that the person is no longer welcome to come to services and pray with the rest of the congregation. They are physically separated from the body of believers, not just spiritually separated as in excommunication.

Thanks.

[silvia]

And Jen Fishburne (formerly Epstein) has weighed in with a long, long commentary including a number of personal messages, like the following excerpt from her message to Doug (jensgems.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/17332/):

Wow, Jen Fishburne's letter(s) practically deserve a whole thread in themselves. So apparently Jen and Lourdes are now BFFs (which is awesome)? And maybe I missed something, but did we know Doug had issues with porn?

[hoipolloi]

From the ongoing convo on Voddie Baucham Ministries' FB page:

Voddie Baucham Ministries: I have not slanted this story in ANY direction, friend. Unless it is the direction of Christ and his glory. Remember, I know all of these people. The other woman included. I take no joy in any of this!

Pablo Herrera: Voddie, what's getting lost here is the fact that this man preyed on this young woman. He was her pastor, and yet he acted in this way. Now he goes and joins another church which goes against the bylaws he wrote at BCA? Does that show repentance on his part, friend? I know you know all of these people. Did you or Scott Brown or others not see this behavior? Did you rebuke him as his friend? Maybe you did. But this woman is getting lost in all of this. She was a victim here. Also, Voddie, I didn't say you slanted the story, I am saying that the statement from BCA is not a complete one. She should be mentioned. He sinned against her and the other "yes" men that were part of his "elder" board. They said nothing. It was men outside of his church that finally confronted him.

Re: Jen's comments. Haven't seen the pornography issue come up before but given DPIAR's alleged behavior, it wouldn't be surprising.

[VVV]

Side note: Unless the SBC has changed more than I would have thought possible since I was last associated with an SBC church, this:

First, we are happy members in good standing of Hyde Park Baptist Church, a long established city church in Austin, Texas.

is nonsense. There is no such status of "member in good standing" in an SBC church. You're either in, a member, or you're out, not a member. She protests too much.

[Palimpsest]

I'm only halfway through the comments on Voddie's facebook. I took a break when the Reconstructionists started arguing about the difference between fornication and adultery. Doug is not an adulterer because Lourdes wasn't married, etc., etc., etc. All together now - let's totally miss the point! Assholes.

I'll have to get to Jen later after I run errands. Should I buy supplies for the rescue ferrets?

[ILoveJellybeans]

I'm only halfway through the comments on Voddie's facebook. I took a break when the Reconstructionists started arguing about the difference between fornication and adultery. Doug is not an adulterer because Lourdes wasn't married, etc., etc., etc. All together now - let's totally miss the point! Assholes.

I'll have to get to Jen later after I run errands. Should I buy supplies for the rescue ferrets?

What in idiot. Doug is an adulterer, because HE was married. Doesn't matter whether the person you are doing sexual things to is married or not, if you do sexual things with someone when you are in a relationship with someone else, you are an adulterer. And he also is a rapist, because it was non consensual.

[apple1]

I'm only halfway through the comments on Voddie's facebook. I took a break when the Reconstructionists started arguing about the difference between fornication and adultery. Doug is not an adulterer because Lourdes wasn't married, etc., etc., etc. All together now - let's totally miss the point! Assholes.

I'll have to get to Jen later after I run errands. Should I buy supplies for the rescue ferrets?

"Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel" comes to mind.

Some people will excuse anything.

[Palimpsest]

What in idiot. Doug is an adulterer, because HE was married. Doesn't matter whether the person you are doing sexual things to is married or not, if you do sexual things with someone when you are in a relationship with someone else, you are an adulterer. And he also is a rapist, because it was non consensual.

No, no, you don't understand! Those of us lacking penises, and who don't take the whole bible seriously just don't get it.

Haven't you read the reconstructionists before? There's a rabbit hole to fall down! Some of these guys are totally cool with polygamy too.

I still had the tab open, so a choice excerpt from Voddie's FB comments, my bolding, some snips for space, but grammar and spelling left intact

Robert Miller

Adultery is and always will be the earthly equivalent of idolatry, replacing your earthly representation of Christ with someone other than your husband or the man that was put in the husband's place. Adultery depends on the martial status of the woman not the man. God divorced Isreal for thethem committing adultery with stones and stocks which was idolatry. To change that puts women as equals in authority. Christ came to make the law more clear not to change the law.

..

Robert Miller Adultery is mentioned 44 times in 33 verses in the OT. Not one mention had adultery dependant on the martial status of the man. Conservative Christians today do not believe this and still lament egalitarianism. The first temptation of Eve was that they would both be gods. That's egalitarian to the core. Marriage should adorn the full doctrine of God and should mirror the Christ to man relationship. We as Christ's brides are his valuable purchased possessions and so are wives. Virtuous ones more so than rubies.

Christopher Conrad Nystrom Mr. Miller is correct. If the "other woman" in question is not married, then it is not adultery. To claim it is would make all of the great polygamists in the Bible from Abraham on down adulterers.

Rooert Miller It's my understanding that the lady Phillips was involved with was unmarried so he is not guilty of adultery. The sub laws in Deut. That help show the essence of adultery are not to plant your Vinyard with diverse seed. This is a picture of multiple sources of seed (men). The other is not mixing linens. Linens are a symbol of coverings just like men are to be to their wives.

Piper Wagner Are you suggesting that this was not adultery on the part of Mr. Phillips because the woman involved was not married? Is that what you are saying? I'd like to know how you interpret Matthew 5:27-28.

Christopher Conrad Nystrom Yes, Matthew 5:27-28 is not creating a new sin. What it is saying is that sin begins in the heart. If a man desires a married woman, even if he does not actually have her, he is committing adultery. It can not possibly mean that all men who desire a woman commit adultery, as that would make no sense. All men are not married, and sexual attraction is a God given gift needed for pro-creation.

..

..

Piper Wagner So, to be clear, you are actually saying that a married man can have a relationship with an unmarried woman and it not be adulterous because she is unmarried. That's the sole distinction.

..

Robert Miller Yes and if he isn't married to the other woman is fornication.

..

Christopher Conrad Nystrom A married man having sex with a woman not his wife or anyone's wife would be guilty of the sin of fornication. If he married her, then he would be a polygamist and there would be no sin.

..

Robert Miller In the law if a man deflowered a virgin he was to marry her unless the father disallowed per Numbers 30. Being already married was not an exemption. In fact there were no exception to this. When God gave a law that had an exception he stated like with divorce only being for a husband in the case of fornication. If you assert that there is an exception or inclusion of anyone without mention of one the burden of proof is on the person making that exception. Palm 19 says the law (torah) is perfect ( complete and in total accord with truth) and converts the soul. His statutes and testimonies are righteous sweeter than honey and the honey comb.

..

Robert Miller Exodus 21:10 On Mount Sinai right after the 10 commandments it says that a husband can't diminish the food, clothing and duty of marriage of an existing wife in order to get another wife. Remember God spent 40 years beating the living Egypt out of His people. Unholliness was so intolerable that you couldn't even relieve yourself in the camp and almost every last one of the original cast of characters had to die before they were given the promised land.

..

Robert Miller I'm a reconstructionist and an ardent anti dispensationalist.

No kidding!

[ILoveJellybeans]

Sooooooooooo if you have a dick, it is totally cool to sleep with anyone you want-your wife's sister, several prostitutes, random woman you met in a bar, your own cousin, a sheep (as long as it is a female sheep, as if it wasn't that would be gay), your boss, a 17 year old, your own adult stepdaughter, your sister.......basically anything with a vagina, as long as they are not married. And it is all okay, nomatter the questionable morality and even illegality of it, its okay because they aren't married.

But fundies say that women might as well be married-women must not do anything before marriage, because she will be married one day and anything she does would be cheating on her future husband who God chose for her before she knew it herself. So why does it matter to them whether a woman is married or not, as Doug was not the person that God chose that Lourdes would marry.

[fundiefan]

It must suck beyond reason to be Beall Phillips.

[Arete]

If I'm not mistaken, Jewish law also defines adultery as sleeping with a married woman, so technically they are correct. However, Christian Canon Law came to define it as any married party sleeping with a non spouse. I guess the original definition is more convenient for Doug's situation right now. Fine. Let me know when they start keeping kosher and growing peyos. Tools, all of them.

Jen's "letters" to different people-holy fuck, they were creepy crazy. Cloak N Dagger, if you have a way of talking to Lourdes or her husbsnd, please ask them to be careful around Jen. She is just NOT RIGHT.

[Mary C Doates]

I'm posting from my phone and can't link easily, but Beall has a post on her public FB about their recent excommunication from BCA. Hopefully, someone with better technology can post the link here.

Oh, and Doug Phillips is still a tool.