This is really sad.

For an update on what might be actually going on click ...

Please take a look at my comments at my blog after you've read what's been reported at stillfedup blog to be going on at the Epstein home. It's only fair to know after all of the public outrage she has called for the people she's against (Doug Phillips) for months and months with fine details about his life talked about.

This latest situation in a real family should prompt real prayers of help by the Holy Spirit from the saints. Nobody at our home is taking delight in this. This post is only to show that perhaps there is more going on with that situation than is being said.
--------------
Here is the latest, Jen or her Moderator for the Day, is "holding my comments in moderation mode" [I am commenting to Spunky, too, because she posted a good comment in my comment section in both my **blogs* - (it was only this blog), and in a private email; thanks, Spunky]:

Spunky, everyone,
Jen's comment section still won't allow my comment I posted in the 2pm hour (my time)today
Kate Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. May 19th, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Why are you not letting my comment through? I’ve let Jen’s go through on my blog today, why the hesitation? Is it because you are looking for a good answer? I asked “Get a Clue” the question too.Your treatment of legimate questions is troubling to many people, and the list of people is getting longer.
-------------------------
here's another at 7:55pm saturday may 19th my time:

Kate Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. May 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm

I am really disappointed that you still haven’t allowed my comments though. Hours have gone by and many other comments have come through but not mine on the question to “Get a Clue”.Spunky sent me an email and even commented on my blogs, and I had to tell her that you wouldn’t let my comments through. Are you sure you want the public to know about this?This is very wrong, since I have allowed Jen’s comments on my blog.
8:00 PM
-------------

Here is my censored comment that hasn't yet posted to her blog in the 2pm hour today:

"To Get a Clue:
Where in the BCA statement does it state or use as justification that her pre-conversion sins that she had repented of as the basis of the excommunication? It says for habitual lying and other things, but it does not use her pre-conversion sins as the justification. If he read her preconversion sins in front of the congregation (do we factually know this to be the case?) and the congregation wasn't already aware of the volatile situation in their home, what was the context? Was he showing a list of behaviors that they had been dealing with and that was part of the hurtful "parable of the bed" situation where Jen wasn't sensitive to Mark's request to get rid of the bed? Was it shown in an effort to be fair and show a pattern of behavior, or because somehow all those people at BCA enjoyed spreading such a sorry story around, especially Doug himself? It doesn't make sense. Most people would have been disgusted to have him read a person's preconversion sin in public and use it to excommunicate a family. That would have produced some sort of congregational reaction to Doug if that were the case.
The excommunication process was done with the consent of the congregation. Not mindless drones, or cowering, fearful christians. They had dealt with the Epsteins for a while, according to BCA statement.
btw, it *is* hypocritical to point out such sin on Ryan's part and not acknowledge her own beam in her eye. This is splitting hairs. Mark has claimed Christ, Ryan never was going around picking fights with teetoetallers and calling himself a Christian, and yet Jen lumped him in with guilt-by-association with R. C. Sproul. It's illogical for you to not recognize the correlation, regardless of whether she is part of some money-receiving ministry. She has placed herself as a judge against Doug and Ligonier and yet you say she shouldn't be equally scrutinized in her family's life? Doesn't Jesus say something about by whatever judgement you measure out, you will also be judged?"

PROOF

*Drawn and Loved by Him said ... , *Grace abounding said ... , ** and my open rebuke is ...
Go there to read my 3 posts on how Jen lied to me, comments, and especially the Open Rebuke.
Read another Texas Homeschooler's rebuke of the Epsteins here.

*I address by specific points Jen's specific lies that she has told me in this post, and address her questions.

"You want proof of your sin, Jen? You want proof, defenders of Jen? I have shown you her lies. You now have the responsibility to take it before the Lord, because being willingly ignorant will not stand before Him."

Open Rebuke to Jen for Lying to Christ's Bride:
I’ve seen that video you posted on YouTube.

(”Doug Phillips Has Jen Epstein Ejected From Public Sidewalk”)

Me:”Do you, Jen Epstein … or members of your family, have or had in your possession, or ever owned or borrowed or ever held, have you .. in the act of being photographed, a pair of binoculars?”Jen: “Thanks for asking! No.”http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/does-doug-phillips-have-a-mother/#comment-612

Jen: “I have never called you on the phone,”http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:iJvnlkMCACEJ:jensgems.blogspot.com/+Jen’s+gems,+%22I+have+never+called+you+on+the+phone%22,+%22kate%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

JEN admitted to me finally that she does indeed own binoculars.

she said here:

"Do you want to know my whole life story as it regards binoculars? I have owned binoculars for several years." -- Jen Epstein's own words.

Read it here, her own contradicting words to me. This is what I would point out as a specific LIE to me. Yes, it makes me upset, because she said "No" when I asked her before and now she tells me "Yes". Which is it?? The binoculars are hanging around her neck in the video. Now she isn't even letting me defend myself against all her "supporters" on her blog when she has so often told me, if I want to ask her questions, to come to her blog. Then she said I needed to email her. She/her moderator is manipulating the whole conversation over there. There is no fair discussion when I can't bring up these salient points. They are even her own words from her own blogs! That's most likely why she's not letting them though. >>>>>

http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/doug-phillips-constitutional-attorney-tramples-first-amendment/#comment-3622

I am not being treated fairly with my questions. How can I believe her when she has done these kinds of things to people who just question her?

Me: I have heard this voice (Jen’s) in the phone call I blogged about on my blog. I do not know why she would continue to deny it even after I have in GOOD FAITH trusted her to tell me the truth. I feel I have been lied to and manipulated in this situation, even when I have asked very pointed questions. Go ahead, attack my message which is one that is this: EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS MESS: QUIT LYING TO THE CHURCH and Bride of Christ.

Remember what happened to Ananias and Sapphira. They were not lying to men, they were lying to the Holy Spirit/God. Do not tell me what I heard on the phone that day, etched in my memory. Do not attack me for my convictions. Do not trample on my good-faith effort to reach out in compassion and in search of TRUTH. I don’t care what has happened to bring you all (everyone on either or both sides) to this point. Do not abuse the Body of Christ any more. We have prayed and hoped for the resolution to this and it will only come when the truth is revealed. It’s shameful to manipulate Christ’s Bride like this. The binoculars in the video, Jen, are a taunt and a slap in the face to those of us who have asked you about this very subject. You do not display concern for Christ and His Bride in this video. This video reminds me of that awful group that shows up at soldier’s funerals to protest.

This doesn’t convince me of your truthfulness when I’ve asked you before about binoculars (caught on SNAGIt!) and when I’ve asked you point blank about the phone call. I caught H**L for that with all those people that dared to question my reasoning on that. You and I both know you did call me, now that I’ve heard your voice on your youtube sidewalk video at the conference. THIS (your voice) is what upsets me (don’t go there), I will not from this day forward defend any more of your exposure of DP, even if he is just as guilty. He doesn’t correspond with me, but you have, and have continued to refute my very questions about a) the phone call and b) the binoculars. I have prayed for you with all my heart, and poured out tears of reconciliation. Does it even matter to you? I’ve been attacked on my own blog and worldmagblog, and another’s blog for believing you called me. Did it even matter to you? You are that woman in the phone call (that had specifically to do with me changing my blog posts about the Ligonier/Epstein/Ministry Watchman and patriarchy topics).

Did you just buy those binoculars for this event? Why do these little details mean that much to me? Because you have tried to show patterns of “problems” with DP, but here I am pointing out some very glaring problems I have with what you’ve told me in the past.

I wanted so much to have “internet” christian woman friends, and you and a few others were in a battle against me for a short time there, but I laid down my warfare and ran to the cross. And now I risk all my friendship, not only with you, but with all those women who have stood by your side. I really value some of the insights each one brings in various discussions, but now, I realize they may all turn against me because I bring these painful, difficult things up openly, like you have done on your blog. I am persuaded, though, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us(me) from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:38-39
– Kathleen
-----------

Happily Ever After

One of our family's favorite movies is Ever After. We all appreciate the determination of young Danielle (cinderella character) and some scenes, such as when her step-sister steals the gown and slippers Danielle's mother left her, are good stuff. We have the soundtrack; you can sample some of the songs here:

Ever After (Main title)

Utopia

The Homecoming

Walking on Water

Danielle's Wings

The Glass Slipper

The Proposal

Sweet Revenge

Happily Ever After

______________

It's good music to use in ballet recitals. Clicking on these links will bring up a Windows media player.

Are We There Yet?

Are You a Good Person?

I'm just so glad that Jesus came to seek and to save sinners like me and Russell and my children. My past life is certainly not one I could boast about, so what God has directed me to do is boast in Christ alone and His salvation. I will lift up the cross, point to the empty tomb, fix my eyes on my King, and be excited about how He heals the brokenhearted and came to seek me with His love.

"They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. .... I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Matthew 9:12-13
"For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." Luke 19:10

The Sovereignty of God

"For in him we live, and move, and have our being"

___________

This passage of scripture came to mind this morning. It brought to mind the truth that God is in control of all things, including our faith to believe. His grace is sufficient for me, for His "strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me." (2 Cor. 12:9) I love and serve an awesome God.

___________

Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, [Ye] men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

Act 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead. (Acts 17:22-31)

___________

Literature, Life, Pride and Prejudice Lessons

My daughter, Elizabeth, has been participating in a small English Literature class and has been learning some wonderful classics. Some of the stories read were Beowulf, Canterbury Tales, Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing", Milton's "Paradise Lost", and one of my favorites, Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress". She is now reading in the Enlightenment period, or the Age of Reason or Neo-Classical period, and is studying Romanticism. She chose to do a character study on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice on the character Lydia Bennet. She received an A+ on her assignment and I thought she had some very interesting insight into this particular character.

As a forethought, I am starting to recognize in modern literature, and especially modern films and television dramas (LOST) examples of the "anti-hero" or the "Noble Savage" which is an element of Romanticism in these plots. The other elements of Romanticism are "Innocence Replaces Wisdom", which will be discussed in another post, but I want to feature the first aspect today, since I have started noticing this "anti-hero" element as being key to most modern literature and film. Post-modernism is slowly replacing Romanticism, but most people are still drawn to the classic form of story telling. Just look at how successful Indiana Jones was for Spielberg, or Disney's Jack Sparrow of the Pirates of the Caribbean. Even Capt. James T. Kirk has been a beloved rule-breaking galactic hero to many.

I am featuring a part of her assignment here to point out some insights my daughter had into Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice character Lydia, with primarily the concept of The Noble Savage, or anti-hero:
_______________

Pride and Prejudice is a romantic novel. Romanticism is “artistic and intellectual movement [which originated] in Europe in the late 18th century. . . [. It spread] after the English romantic revolution of 1798. . .” (Glossary, p. 18).

Since Romanticism had sprung up in all of England’s literature, we will see if Jane Austen’s character, Lydia Bennet, the youngest and most immature of the Bennet sisters, had any of the concepts we find in the romantic literature of Pride and Prejudice’s time. We will then finish the individual concepts with the true biblical principles.

The Noble Savage: the antihero breaks all the rules. Lydia was described as being “self-willed and careless [, and] would scarcely give [her wiser older sisters] a hearing. [She was] ignorant, idle, and vain,” (chapter 37) along as imprudent, “unguarded [,] and often uncivil” (chapter 23). That being said, it is already clear that her personality would be one to break rules.

Lydia was frequently traveling to Meryton with her older sister, Catherine, to peruse the stores and buy the latest fashions that would be sold there. Much to the disapproval and disgust of her older sisters Elizabeth, Jane, and Mary, their main objective into always going to Meryton was that if ever there was an officer of the regiment in Meryton, “they would flirt with him; and while Meryton was within a walk of Longbourn, they [were] going there forever” (chapter 37).

Lydia’s biggest and most shocking “rule breakage” was when she eloped with the regiment officer Mr. Wickham while away from her family and staying with her friend Mrs. Forster in Brighton with the regiment.

Elizabeth was entirely opposed to Lydia’s staying alone with the regiment, and stated to her father that, “If [he was] aware of the very great disadvantage to [all of the sisters] which [had arisen] from the public notice of Lydia’s unguarded and imprudent manner. . . [she was] sure [he] would judge differently in the affair” (chapter 41).

Despite her significant point, her father did not share her view – least of all her mother who encouraged immature and immodest behavior. That however did not prepare them for the shock and mortification of Lydia’s elopement with Mr. Wickham.

The Biblical principle on “The Noble Savage”:

“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king” (1 Samuel 15:23 ~ KJV).

“He loveth transgression that loveth strife: and he that exalteth his gate seeketh destruction. He that hath a froward heart findeth no good: and he that hath a perverse tongue falleth into mischief” (Proverbs 17:19-20 ~ KJV).
(end of this portion of my daughter's article)
____________________

Another aspect of Romanticism would be "Innocence replaces wisdom", as her paper describes here:
_________________

Innocence replaces wisdom. Was Lydia so “innocent” that the wise seemed foolish?
In romanticism, children are “seen as hapless victims of poverty and exploitation” (Syllabus, Shifting Worldviews, p. 5). As much as we can see that Lydia’s actions were not innocent, some of the characters of Pride and Prejudice thought them only as adolescent fun and games.

Lydia was always encouraged by her mother to continue in immature and reckless behavior, despite Elizabeth’s protesting that Lydia’s irrational actions would ruin the Bennet name and any chance of the older sisters getting decent marriages.
(end of this portion of my daughter's article)
____________________

I'm very pleased with my daughter's attention to her schooling and her critical thinking skills. I'm pleased that her world view is being grounded in scriptural truths.

Permit me to edify my children here: Creative Abilities