Comments on Kate's Chosen: This is really sad.

Peace be with you Kathleen as well as those readin...

2008-03-06T22:55:00.000-08:00

Peace be with you Kathleen as well as those reading this message.
The time has come.
I am here to bring judgment to the living and the dead.
The harvest is ripe, pass this on to all fellow believers.

The Faithful Witness
Duke

Corrie, you said:"But, if we see that her desire w...

2007-11-05T14:30:00.000-08:00

Corrie, you said:

"But, if we see that her desire was one of relationship with the man in spite of all the pain that goes along with conceiving and bearing and raising children, we will see that God was just stating a truth about a woman- that she desires intimacy in her relationships and her desire for that intimacy will overcome any amount of pain she may encounter."

I agree and would also point out that this puts a woman in the particular vulnerable position (emotionally, physically, etc.) that can set herself up for fear, intimidation and being taken advantage of. That might explain why in the N.T. husbands are exhorted to treat their wives as their own bodies (for protection) and honour even (I think 1 Peter, KJV), being that she is the weaker vessel. "For when I am weak, then I am strong". What a lovely picture of Christ caring for our flesh and emotional weaknesses.

Corrie,I asked my husband what the word desire in ...

2007-11-05T14:12:00.000-08:00

Corrie,

I asked my husband what the word desire in the Hebrew meant (he studied Greek for over 4+ years at Multnomah Bible College, but is good at looking at passages without the presupps.) and he said what you said about that word. "Desire" in the Genesis 3 passage doesn't mean "usurp", as some would say.

Desire, and it's Hebrew meaning in Gen. 3:16, Gen. 4:7, and Song of Solomon 7:10
Transliteration : tĕshuwqah
pronunciation: tesh·ü·kä'

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H08669&Version=kjv

Part of speech: It's a feminine noun
Outline of Biblical usage:
1) desire, longing, craving
) of man for woman
) of woman for man
) of beast to devour
------
Strong's concordance, book edition:
#8669 from #7783 in the original sense of stretching out after; a longing: - desire.

- 7783: (shuwq) a prim. root; to run after or over, i.e. overflow: overflow, water.
---------------

Song of Solomon: "I am my beloved's and his desire is toward me."
(Christ and His Bride, and male/female interaction?)

Matthew Henry (late 17th, early 18th cent. theologian) comments on this passage, and what desire means in various passages:

"Glorying in this, that she is his, to serve him, and reckoning that her honour, she comforts herself with this, that his desire is towards her, that is, he is her husband; it is a periphrasis of the conjugal relation, Gen. 3:16. Christ’s desire was strongly towards his chosen remnant, when he came from heaven to earth to seek and save them; and when, in pursuance of his undertaking, he was even straitened till the baptism of blood he was to pass through for them was accomplished, Lu. 12:50. He desired Zion for a habitation; this is a comfort to believers that, whosoever slights them, Christ has a desire towards them, such a desire as will again bring him from heaven to earth to receive them to himself; for he longs to have them all with him, Jn. 17:24; 14:3.

II. She humbly and earnestly desires communion with him (v. 11, 12): "Come, my beloved, let us take a walk together, that I may receive counsel, instruction, and comfort from thee, and may make known my wants and grievances to thee, with freedom, and without interruption.’’ Thus Christ can walk with the two disciples that were going to the village called Emmaus, and talked with them, till he made their hearts burn within them. Observe here, 1. Having received fresh tokens of his love, and full assurances of her interest in him, she presses forward towards further acquaintance with him; as blessed Paul, who desired yet more and more of the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, Phil. 3:8. Christ has made it to appear how much his desire is towards us, and we are very ungrateful if ours be not towards him. Note, Communion with Christ is that which all that are sanctified earnestly breathe after; and the clearer discoveries he makes to them of his love the more earnestly do they desire it. Sensual pleasures pall the carnal appetite, and soon give it surfeit, but spiritual delights whet the desires, the language of which is, Nothing more than God, but still more and more of him. Christ had said, I will go up to the palm-tree. Come, saith she, Let us go. The promises Christ has made us of communion with him are not to supersede, but quicken and encourage, our prayers for that communion. 2. She desires to go forth into the fields and villages to have this communion with him. Those that would converse with Christ must go forth from the world and the amusements of it, must avoid every thing that would divert the mind and be a hindrance to it when it should be wholly taken up with Christ; we must contrive how to attend upon the Lord without distraction (1 Co. 7:35), for therefore the spouse here covets to get out of the noise of the town. Let us go forth to him without the camp, Heb. 14:13. Solitude and retirement befriend communion with God; therefore Isaac went out into the field to meditate and pray. Enter into thy closet, and shut thy door. A believer is never less alone than when alone with Christ, where no eye sees. 3. Having business to go abroad, to look after their grounds, she desires the company of her beloved. Note, Wherever we are, we may keep up our communion with God, if it be not our own fault, for he is always at our right hand, his eye always upon us, and both his word and his ear always nigh us. By going about our worldly affairs with heavenly holy hearts, mixing pious thoughts with common actions, and having our eyes ever towards the Lord, we may take Christ along with us whithersoever we go. Nor should we go any whither where we cannot in faith ask him to go along with us. 4. She is willing to rise betimes, to go along with her beloved: Let us get up early to the vineyards. It intimates her care to improve opportunities of conversing with her beloved; when the time appointed has come, we must lose no time, but, as the woman (Mk. 16:2), go very early, though it be to a sepulchre, if we be in hopes to meet him there. Those that will go abroad with Christ must begin betimes with him, early in the morning of their days, must begin every day with him, seek him early, seek him diligently. 5. She will be content to take up her lodging in the villages, the huts or cottages which the country people built for their shelter when they attended their business in the fields; there, in these mean and cold dwellings, she will gladly reside, if she may but have her beloved with her. His presence will make them fine and pleasant, and convert them into palaces. A gracious soul can reconcile itself to the poorest accommodations, if it may have communion with God in them. 6. The most pleasant delightful fields, even in the spring-time, when the country is most pleasant, will not satisfy her, unless she have her beloved with her. No delights on earth can make a believer easy, unless he enjoy God in all."
---------------

That comment said nothing about the same Hebrew word "desire" meaning "usurp". Oh, did Christ come to "usurp" us, when He desired us in relationship with Him, His Bride? I don't believe the Bible supports that idea.

"Desire" occurs 111 times in 109 verses in the KJV. In the verse, Luke 20:46, the meaning, for example is similar, but without the intimacy of the Hebrew word for desire in Genesis and Song of Solomon. This is it's interpretation for that passage:

1) to will, have in mind, intend
a) to be resolved or determined, to purpose
b) to desire, to wish
c) to love
1) to like to do a thing, be fond of doing
d) to take delight in, have pleasure

I haven't found a passage yet that it describes "desire" being to "usurp" or some similar concept. It's funny; I use the KJV, people for hundreds of years have used it and yet all along it never changed it's meaning. God's word is faithful and true. It's man's interpretation that should be suspect against the plain language of the Bible.
-------------

The Apostle Paul uses the term desire: "eudokia" (Greek)

"Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." Romans 10:1

1) will, choice
a) good will, kindly intent, benevolence
2) delight, pleasure, satisfaction
3) desire
a) for delight in any absent thing easily produces longing for it
---------------

From the mouth of our Lord Jesus, King of all Languages, came these words in Luke 22:15:

"And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer:"

"desire" transliteration from the Greek: epithymia

meaning:
1) desire, craving, longing, (desire for what is forbidden, lust)

--- (I don't think Jesus was desiring that which is forbidden, or lusting sinfully, as He never sinned)
------------

The Apostle Paul is torn between desiring to go to be with Christ (heaven) and to stay and instruct the Philippians (Phil. 1:23):

For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:"

This is the same kind of longing, yearning to be with Christ, that Jesus had in Luke 22:15 to eat the passover with his disciples.
-------------

I even looked up Genesis 3:16 in the NASB. Desire means desire, the same as the KJV.

To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."

------------
In the ESV:

To the woman he said, "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for* your husband, and he shall rule over you."

So, I looked up the asterisk*
part of that ESV passage of Gen. 3:16 and how this new modern version conveniently treats this particular passage (I don't like how it treats many of the passages, and neither does my husband who has studied Greek for years). It
actually says this about Eve's desire for* her husband:

*Or against (in the ESV footnotes online)

No explanation, just "or against". I need more of an explanation than that for that changing of the preposition "for" to "against". That would change the whole meaning right there. If, according to the ESV passage were true, it would have read:

To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for[fn5] (AGAINST) your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

So, does it mean her desire is "for" or "against" her husband? The problem, according to the ESV editor, isn't the Hebrew word for "desire", it's the preposition either "FOR" or "AGAINST". Wow! It feels like I'm trying to deal with Jehovah's Witness arguments with the Bible passage, John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." There's no article "a" before "was God" toward the end of that scripture, like they like to blasphemously insert in their NWT.

Can't we just speak plainly? Isn't the Bible to be understood by the least of us? "Desire" in the 3 Hebrew O.T. occurences of the same word, means "Desire". Not usurp, not overthrow, not tearing down, not conquer, not mutiny, or any seemingly similar word is likened to it. I will keep looking and investigating, like a Berean, though, to give those who would disagree another benefit of the doubt of Corrie's, my husband's and my own investigation.

"(I believe in complementarian roles between husba...

2007-11-05T10:00:00.000-08:00

"(I believe in complementarian roles between husband/wife, but don't subscribe to some of the presuppositions outlined by some in leadership), and some good iron-sharpening by some there."

Hi Kate,

Thank you for your kind words.

This is what I believe also. I do believe that it is wrong to make bad arguments for a good cause. I view much of these arguments in the same way. Reading INTO scripture what we want it to say because it helps our position is just as wrong as anything the feminists or the Starbellied Sneetches do with scripture.

I think Genesis is key to interpreting the rest of the verses in the NT. If we start out with the assumption that Eve's desire is evil and a want of control over her husband, we are going to view women with suspicion and contempt and we are going to do everything we can to silence them and keep them in their proverbial place.

But, if we see that her desire was one of relationship with the man in spite of all the pain that goes along with conceiving and bearing and raising children, we will see that God was just stating a truth about a woman- that she desires intimacy in her relationships and her desire for that intimacy will overcome any amount of pain she may encounter.

By intimacy I am not talking about "physical" either but about the whole ball of wax. Even though sin came into this world and it makes childbirth more sorrowful and husbands will want to take advantage of their physical, economic and societal strengths to rule over women, women will still desire to have a relationship with man.

We see this to be true in relationships where fathers abuse their daughters. The daughter still desires to have a relationship with her father in spite of the abuse and the pain she has suffered.

If desire means that Eve wants to control her husband, then it would not be her curse but HIS curse and it is in the wrong paragraph. God is talking to Eve in Gen. 3:17 and telling HER the consequences for HER actions. God doesn't talk to Adam about the consequences until the next paragraph.

In order to interpret scripture the way some do, you really have to do a lot of gymnastics to get there.

I guess the real question is if we are afraid to allow scripture to tell us exactly what it means? It might shatter some of our preconceived notions and it might destroy some of our pet doctrines that we have held up has the precepts of God when they are really only the traditions of men.

I am not afraid of my complementarian stance being shattered because I choose not to read things INTO scripture that are just not there. Truth is truth and it will still stand without my "help".

Please do post what you and your husband find in your studies, Kate. That would be interesting.

God Bless!

Please go to truewomanhood.wordpress.com to read s...

2007-11-03T12:43:00.000-07:00

Please go to truewomanhood.wordpress.com to read some very good insights into Patriarchy, presuppositions in the Complementarian theology (I believe in complementarian roles between husband/wife, but don't subscribe to some of the presuppositions outlined by some in leadership), and some good iron-sharpening by some there.

My husband and I are currently doing our own Bible study in Genesis and the New Testament to gain insight into what the Word of God says about how we are to serve each other out of reverence for Christ.

Corrie, Spunky, friends,I hope and pray the Lord's...

2007-11-03T12:37:00.000-07:00

Corrie, Spunky, friends,

I hope and pray the Lord's absolute best and Love for you. I've been so grieved by the contention stirred up in this debate. Some factors have made it extremely difficult to get past the rhetoric and into true discussion of these important Body of Christ matters. Thank you, Corrie and Spunky and others, for determining to not take sides, but to follow Truth.

I'm truly grateful to have interacted with you all who would want to follow Christ. Your insights and worth in the site of God is precious to me. I pray we all would "come up higher" into His presence.

May God Bless His Bride and beloved people,
Kathleen

Yes, CD-Host,I don't usually use this blog at all ...

2007-08-15T15:25:00.000-07:00

Yes, CD-Host,

I don't usually use this blog at all anymore. Its template and formatting is messed up. You probably won't see the comments increasing here, either.

I would strongly urge you to re-consider saying I'm "being a bit misleading", Miss/Mr. anonymous. I've been to your blog and did not see any identity.

I also have been through enough with Jen and the Gang and prefer to not join into that session that continues ad nauseum, year in and year out. People love to gripe and snipe.

Not all people who have the Spirit of God in them because of what Jesus did on the cross, and how He conquered death and sin, have this insatiable need to destroy other christians who have offended them. God is bigger than people's petty grievances.

God is bigger than your perceptions of Him. He's bigger than lies told in order to gain or hold on to power. He is bigger than the hurt that has been inflicted upon His children and even bigger than the perceived slights and offenses we commit against one another.

I don't know how you came across my blog (now that it is pretty defunct), but I have a current one here:
http://kateschosen.wordpress.com

Though you probably agree with Jen Epstein, I do not, as I believe she is not being completely truthful. That is my opinion, but I'm certainly glad you stopped by to share yours on my blog.

Peace,
Kate

Kate -- On my blog I've addressed the issue of Fai...

2007-08-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

Kate --

On my blog I've addressed the issue of Faith PCA on my blog FPC . According to the documents released by BCA, FPC issued a ruling which violates their denomination's understanding of discipline. It was an illegal ruling. I think you are being a bit misleading in treating the FPC ruling as a valid appeal given this violation.

Corrie,I'm not too concerned about the name callin...

2007-05-26T14:07:00.000-07:00

Corrie,

I'm not too concerned about the name calling. My wondeful dad taught me a great lesson in seventh grade when my best friend turned on me because I wouldn't do drugs with her. Her frustration at my lack of participation caused her to resort to anonymous notes and pubic name calling, in an attempt to demoralize me and trash my reputation. Tearful and upset, I went to my dad for a solution, explaining to him that I thought I should confront and demand an apology. My father wisely pointed out that when you stand up for what is right (not always what is popular), people who resort to name calling do so because they don't have a substantive argument to refute you.

How right he was. He taught me to walk humbly and ignore them. If they persisted in their taunts, he encouraged me to thank them for the compliment. It wasn't easy, but I took his advice. After one particularly mean episode in which I thanked one of the hecklers, he sighed and told me that I was no longer any fun to tease! Not surprisingly, the name calling died out and I went on with my life.

My dad wasn't a bible reader at the time, but his advice mirrored the verse from Proverbs,

"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you become just like him."

Corrie, I don't desire an apology. In fact, just as I learned in seventh grade, I take such name calling as a true compliment. It means that the substance of what I have written is compelling and has merit. That is very helpful to know as I continue to watch this situation.

By the way, years later I had a chance meeting with my former friend. The contrast was striking. Although she was slightly drunk, she listened with respect to me as I shared God's love and salvation with her. She left with a seed of hope in her heart and a little bit more respect for me.

Truth always triumphs. It is we who must patiently wait for the complete Truth to be revealed before we make a judgment. It may take years, but the fruit will remain for all eternity.

Hi Kathleen,I would like to see the FPC statements...

2007-05-26T08:03:00.000-07:00

Hi Kathleen,

I would like to see the FPC statements in their entirety before I decide if it was "fair". I also want to know if the elders at FPC sat down with both of them together and allowed the Epsteins to answer each *specific* charge against them. If the FPC elders merely went on BCA's word that the excommunication was done for valid reasons without following up and making sure that the specific charges were accurate, then FPC is merely going on the word of Doug Phillips and not any hard evidence.

This is NOT due process, Kate. This is not how things are done in the secular world, why should we expect it to be done amongst Christians.

So, instead of using the word "fair" we should be using the word "just". Was it a just excommunication? I don't think so and I base that solely on the BCA's statements and the fact that the Epsteins were not there and could not answer the charges against them. Even the "witches" in Salem were there to answer the charges against them. At least the witches knew the specific charge against them. Although the unjust religious leaders didn't care what their answer was and still hanged them by the neck for being "witches". Really, what does it prove when a few religious leaders get-together and decide someone is guilty, especially when those charges are vague and the guilt party wasn't there to answer those charges? It proves nothing. All throughout history we have seen these same kinds of things taking place in the Church. Innocent men and women have been tortured, murdered, banished, excommunicated and shunned falsely.

If you were accused of something, Kate, wouldn't you want someone to defend you and make sure you got a fair trial? A defense laywer doesn't automatically believe that his/her client is innocent but they do believe in justice and a fair trial and innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Hi Kate,I am interested in that phone call you rec...

2007-05-25T21:12:00.000-07:00

Hi Kate,

I am interested in that phone call you received.

When did you receive it? Do you have caller ID? Did the number show up on your caller ID? If not, was it a "Private" caller or "unknown"?

What was your conversation about? How long did you talk to the person (allegedly Jen)? Did it pertain to the whole Epstein/Phillips conflict? How did the conversation end? Did the person identify themself to you? Did they give you a name? Did they tell you what the intent of their phone call was?

If you could help me understand that phone call and what it was all about and whether or not you have caller ID, that would be great.

" Jen continues to send over her sycophants who attack you for pointing out Jen's numerous lies. "

The above quote is by the anonymous internet assassin that goes by the name of "Fallacy Slayer".

You have stated that you respect Spunky. I also respect Spunky. She is always been a fair and level-headed person for as long as I have been reading her blog. I hope that you will take Fallacy Slayer to task for misrepresenting Spunky and cally her an Epstein sycophant.

Here is the defintion of sycophant:

A person who acts obsequiously (obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree) in order to gain advantage; a servile flatterer

Now, what Fallacy Slayer said was uncalled for and Spunky is completely correct. He is not to be trusted or taken seriously because he is an anonymous internet assassin. If he is totally in the right and he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he come out from the shadows he lurks in and face those he accuses like a man?

How are those at SFU any different than the very people they accuse?

And tell me, Kate, doesn't SFU sound angry to you? Yet he points is finger at me and others (Lynn and Cynthia) and labels us as "angry women" because why? Because he knows us? Because he has tried to discuss things with us? No. He labels us angry because we are reserving our judgment and we are watching to see how leaders handle this situation. It is funny how he whines about ad hom attacks when that is all he does. The very word "sycophant" is a big smelly red herring and an ad hominem attack. Not only is it an ad hom, it is an outrageous lie.

I have asked those at SFU to email me and I will give them my phone number and they can find out if I am angry or have a "bad memory". I am more than happy to hear from them, especially if they have something to help me understand this situation. I am a sister in Christ and they have lurked in shadows while falsely accusing me and others without even bothering to find out if what they are saying is true. I would hope they would deal with what I am actually saying without resorting to name-calling.

I guess some people just don't understand how there can be some of us who are actually trying to remain objective and who are truly open to hearing the whole truth. As far as I can see the excommunication was not handled properly. All I want to see happen is for the whole process to be gone over, from the beginning, in a proper fashion. The best way to do that is with a an objective, impartial and independent mediation team.

Kate, I hope you know that I am here because I care about you and as I have told you before, I admire your tenderness towards the things of the Lord. I am not going to take sides. I would just like to understand your point of view and I to do that, I need to know some specific details about that phone call.

There is more comments than the 18 it said at firs...

2007-05-25T17:51:00.000-07:00

There is more comments than the 18 it said at first. Blogger has been buggy lately.

Is Jen or her supporters going to say that there w...

2007-05-25T12:45:00.000-07:00

Is Jen or her supporters going to say that there was no fairness or discernment on the part of Faith PCA and their decision to support the decision by BCA to excommunicate her/family? Why, that just goes against what Ministry Watchman reported Jen to have said here:

Ministry Watchman

"Some of that is probably our own fault for being ignorant of the best way of going about seeking reconciliation. This is all new to us and there have been things that we just haven’t known to do. The elders that we first turned to to help us are very loving and sincere Christians, but they had no formal training in Christian conciliation. That’s not the case with our new elders. We believe that if anyone can help us our new elders can. They’ve been formally trained and they have a lot of practical experience.
As part of demonstrating our good faith intent toward seeking reconciliation, our elders are requiring us to cease blogging, as well as take down any of our existing articles, about anything negative having to do with Doug Phillips and Boerne Christian Assembly. After much prayer and receiving additional counsel, we agree that this would be the best approach. This is a very difficult decision on our part, but we believe that our elders are genuine about seeking what’s best for us, so we’re willing to submit to them."

and here:

"The elders who are helping the Epsteins facilitate reconciliation with Doug Phillips and BCA are certified by Peacemaker Ministries. I’ve read some of the Peacemaker Ministries materials and respect what Peacemaker does. The Epsteins’ prior attemps at reconciliation with Doug Phillips probably didn’t include anyone from Peacemaker Ministries."

---

So, their elders at Faith PCA were "formally trained" and had "a lot of practical experience", as well as the Peacemakers they appealed to, but still could not discern the truth of the matter? They still couldn't do anything but side with Doug Phillips in some sort of conspiracy against the Epsteins? Please. I wouldn't consider them incompetent to discern these matters.

Jen,You'd like to get others to believe that you h...

2007-05-25T11:50:00.000-07:00

Jen,

You'd like to get others to believe that you have been "all about the reconciliation with Doug Phillips" until recently, with your disruption at the Arlington conference. That's a lie. I'm just going to post these things:

{Again, Fallacy Slayer asks "Have the Epstein's told the Faith PCA elders about this letter?" In addition, I wonder if Jennifer and Mark have told the elders that they were working in tandem with Frank Vance to defame Ligonier and Doug Phillips?FS

Jennifer Epstein began taking marching orders from “Vance” himself, as he directed in a September 22 email to her:

Feel free to start writing now. Please just hold off on posting it until further notice. Thanks for everything.46

Jennifer responded to “Frank”:
Out of deference to your request, I will wait to post anything. But I would like to tear those [Ligonier’s] statements apart!47

Here's some more evidence from Matt's article that shows the evil deeds of Mark and Jennifer and how they really had been spending their "time" trying to reconcile with Doug Phillips(FS)

Even as Mark and Jennifer Epstein paid their dues to Seabrook and Vance by joining their cause célèbre, their true motivations for joining the fight against Ligonier quickly surfaced. In a letter written to Michael Metzler of poohsthink.com on September 13—nearly a month before Ministry Watchman was founded and a full two-and-a half months before the first article against Doug Phillips was released—“Vance” wrote:

I’ve been in correspondence with a family from San Antonio. DP was their former pastor. Their story is a repeat of the Austins, excommunicated and shunned and even worse….They’re planning on going public soon.48

Vance would write again to Mike Metzler:

I don't personally have any plans for Phillips. The folks [the Epsteins] that have dialogued with me regarding Phillips won’t be ready to out him for several weeks, so your rip into Phillips could be the warm up act and I’m sure they’d be happy for the help.53

Mark and Jennifer probably never told the elders at Faith PCA that they were working with Internet Terrrorist Frank Vance to take out their former elder:(FS)

Vance” took the Epstein’s bait hook, line, and sinker. In this October 13 email, “Vance” alerted Michael Metzler to plans for the newly-founded Ministry Watchman to target Doug Phillips:

You’re going to see some new contributors on [Ministry Watchman] shortly. Some of the very next articles are going to be focused on Phillips (he’s about to be outed on some very ugly skeletons in his closet). Mr. Phillips is one very bad boy…58

Here's more evidence of the illegal behavior of Frank Vance and Jennifer Epstein. They better watch out that because they could be sued for these actions:(FS)

“Frank Vance” gloated about this underhanded tactic, writing to Michael Metzler:

[It has] [b]een a very busy day for us [at Ministry Watchmen], and no doubt not such a happy day for Doug Phillips. Keep this confidential but someone today sent over 600 emails to key Vision Forum/Phillips supporters with a link to the article. It’s really shown in the number of visitors today too.64}

This has been your motive all along; to tear down Doug Phillips, not reconciliation. You talk out of both sides of your mouth, but don't realize that the more you talk, the deeper you get into your sin. Here's another little bit of information about what your "team", ahem, has been up to:

{97 Metzler Correspondence. In this October 14 e-mail to Michael Metzler, “Frank Vance” explains to Michael how that the Ministry Watchman team hides behind proxy servers to keep from being sued for their activities: “Part of the reason it was so hard for Ligonier to sue me is they can't nail down where I lived, other than that I was emailing Tim Dick from Germany (just imagine what the judge must have thought of that). That's one of the nice things about using proxy servers. If you're not already set up to proxy please do so. It's likely that Watchman will be sued and it's therefore critical that we cover our tracks. That means always accessing Watchman via proxy server. It also means setting up a separate email account (I recommend gmail) again via proxy, and only access via proxy every single time.”}

So, now Jen is going to have to accuse Michael Metzler of lying, like she accused Beverly McCord of lying, like she has accused me of lying, Doug lying, SFU lying, and the list goes on and on. Keep talking Jen.

Hello, Jen,I got your comment. I understand more ...

2007-05-25T11:03:00.000-07:00

Hello, Jen,

I got your comment. I understand more than you think. I'm moderating you because I've caught you in lies and you refuse to allow my proof through on your blog when you "demanded" (it's a demand when you said "on MY blog" referring to me coming to your blog to address the questions). Pretty demanding when you just get to manipulate my comments. Yes, Jen, you know I've pointed out your inconsistencies (even Spunky says she's seen them; read above comments) and you don't like me doing that. It contradicts what you're claiming now about excommunication, et. al. You DO want me to agree with you and it's the one little thing that sticks in your craw that you can't control.

I'm not disagreeing with you just to be stubborn. I've got my proofs I've tried to post to you, but you're trying to distract by demanding I apologize to you. (What, did your spam-dog eat my comment?)

Again, where do you get the idea that forced apologies for opposing views/convictions are biblical?

Jen, you'd like to make everyone "think" I've falsely accused you and that I'm in sin, but you're the one who's been heaping up her sin by manipulating your words and other's words and by continuing to stir up strife against the person who offended you (Doug Phillips). Do a word search on the Blueletter Bible website and look up just the word "forgive", and tell me you are forgiving Doug for offending you. I didn't even say that he sinned against you, but that you are offended by him. You still have an obligation to the Word.

Your exposure of Doug Phillips supposed offenses against you or his teachings does not release you from public scrutiny and your obligation to forgive. Have you just set yourself up as the one to expose Doug Phillips? Your own shenanigans have exposed you for being hypocritical considering your family's state of affairs, by your and their own admission.

Why don't you comment on my Wordpress blog, and bring "pfr" over there, too? Is it because wordpress has a better dashboard than blogger? I wrote this over there:

---
Here I addressed Spunky’s comment to me:

I believe with all my heart that God is Sovereign King over all creation and that none of His shall perish. He has the absolute control over who will turn to Him and who will continue in their rebellion to His Word and Spirit.

God is faithful to draw His people into the truth. I’m not convinced that she has the truth and that all the people who have publically denounced what she has been doing on the blogs and homeschool conference disruption are not telling the truth. Beverly McCord had something to say about her on the video, was she also not to be trusted? I don’t know if God is using Jen to bring Doug Phillips down a notch (where is that evidenced in scripture that a woman and her family, one in need of some healing, should publicly bring to humility and repentence her former elder who, with the consent of the congregation, excommunicated the family?) If it is his business she wants to bring down, there are real laws on the books that, if brought to the point of a lawsuit, she absolutely could get sued. Rico statutes have been used against christians in the pro-life movement and elsewhere. She should really be careful about all this, because the way I have compared what her ever changing accounts of what happened to cause the excommunication (go see for yourselves, she just named a reason why she was excommunicated, after claiming she had no idea why she was - that is a “mis-statement” or in the real people’s world, a lie. She has been demanding anybody, everybody give her one sin, one reason why she/her family should have been excommunicated. People try to show her what BCA said, I have “tried” to post comments where she has stated herself on her Aug 2006 blog post where she said she was excommunicated for a doctrinal difference. Recently is when she was stating she had no idea why they excommunicated her, and wanted her detractors to provide proof. We’ve provided her own PDF statements on her own blog where it is stated, then she will brush them off and say, well, what exact precise sin, at what time; I want dates and times and at least 2 to three witnesses … in other words, she won’t accept any reason as being a legitimate one.

When I tried to post the comment with very little commentary, only pertinant questions pertaining to her actual words she stated over a year ago, when this was just beginning to come out and she hadn’t been identified as Mary Jackson on MW site, she claimed it was for the doctrinal difference she had with them (I suspect this was said to really show how much more spiritual she is — I only say that because of all the other condescending things she’s said on a variety of subjects).

I will post her words here:

[editor’s note: This church being referred to is BCA (Boerne). Doug’s church. Please note her own words why they left BCA]

Church #3 ~ After attending for 5 years, we began to see this church lean in an extreme right direction (as compared to the left leanings of most American churches). We feel that any extreme is extra-biblical, and therefore, unbiblical. When I realized this church was taking a position that we cannot help but sin (every 10 minutes!), I took God’s position that we are no longer slaves to sin, that God has promised that we will never be under more temptation than we can bear, and that Jesus expects us to obey Him.
***** I was excommunicated for this position **** and all those friends I spent hours each week developing relationships with now turn their backs on us in public.
found here:

and having done all, stand

Just today, though, around 1pm my time I noticed a new comment by Jen on her blog. She is now claiming the reason she was excommunicated was in this statment:

Is that any different from Doug excommunicating me for writing to him simply because I am a woman?
found here:

http://jensgems.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/doug-phillips-constitutional-attorney-tramples-first-amendment/#comment-3948

So, it’s a new reason she gives today. She is untrustworthy in her words, is why I don’t believe her. And she has her “attack” dog PFR on me with more and more ungracious, inflammatory language, making demands of me to constantly apologize for absolutely the most ridiculous reasons. pfr asks me this:

Kate, when are you going to apologize to Jen for accusing her of “lying” about the binoculars?

For one thing, Jen has allowed this troll (is it Jen? who knows?) to follow me wherever I have commented concerning Jen, my blog, Lynn’s blog, Jen’s blog - and just rips into me for daring to question Jen with accusations against me.

This troll came to my blog to rail against me in the same fashion here:

“I have requested that the anonymous commenter known by “praying for repentence” address my points, or at least apologize for the vile spew he/she sent me just in my one comment section, encapsulated by me in one revealing format here:

– “your own TERRIBLE OFFENSES”, “HYPOCRISY, unmitigated SELF-RIGHTEOUS hypocrisy”, “but you’re obviously still TOO PROUD”, “your own GUILTY self”, “committed very SPECIFIC SINS”, “all the HATEFUL things you’ve said”, “Kate, you’ve got a really PERVERSE UNDERSTANDING OF JUSTICE,” “You’ve repeatedly ACCUSED,” “Thank God there aren’t “Christians” like you,” “MALICIOUS,” “you seem to have SO MUCH HATRED IN YOUR HEART,” ” Kate, there’s something VERY WARPED about the way you think and perceive things. You don’t think and communicate within a logical framework,” “Why do continually argue in such an ILLOGICAL way?” “you’ve REPEATEDLY SINNED very publicly here by FALSELY ACCUSING your brethren”, ” In all YOUR SIN”, “You’re the one who NEEDS TO REPENT,” “YOU’VE DONE MUCH WORSE”, “Please pay attention.” “YOU NEED TO REPENT”, “bearing FALSE WITNESS”, “breaking the ninth commandment”, “YOU’VE FALSELY ACCUSED”, “YOUR VINDICTIVENESS”, “art of NEVER REPENTING”, “EXTRAORDINARILY small step”, “You just go off, half cocked, guns-a-blazing, accusing”, “Your methods are as UNBIBLICAL and as UNCHRISTLIKE”, “you play the martyr”, “hypocrisy. Unmitigated HYPOCRISY”, “because you’ll never guess who I am”, “regardless of your PARANOID DELUSIONS”, “You seem to thrive on conspiracies”, “Why all the PARANOIA Kate?”, “Please Kate, stop erecting these straw men. The use of pseudonyms does not cause confusion (except perhaps for SOMEONE WHO’S PARANOID), and there is nothing immoral, unethical or unbiblical in my doing so”, ” all the TERRIBLE THINGS you’ve accused your brethren”, ” your MALICIOUSNESS”, ” “Why was I(Kate) SO FOOLISH”, “what a colossal waste of time it is attempting to have a meaningful dialogue with you”
——–

Keep in mind, this was an anonymous commenter defending Jen, who refuses to identify themselves when I have repeatedly asked who they were, so I know who my accuser has been. This same person commented with the same psuedonym against me on Lynn’s blog regarding my post.”

Notice how this person defended (in bold) her/his undefiled right to post anonymously such things and continues even more today on Jen’s blog. Remember, Jen has called this person her “friend”.

... I’m not inclined to apologize to Jen for “accusing” Jen of lying about her having binoculars because that is what she did and pfr is trying to goad me into submitting to him/her. Jen is a master craftsman of twisting words, I am trying to show people with the volumes of posts I’ve linked to and copied and presented. She “redefines” contantly her previous comments and getting a straight honest answer out of her is nearly impossible. I know; I’ve been trying for months. “No” doesn’t mean “no” to her. This is one tiny issue but the important issues, we were not privvy to and that is why my involvement will *soon* cease. That situation with her is dreadful. She can’t be feeling very close to God.

It must be a difficult thing to have to constantly be at war with someone, for years, always being in a position of having “aught” against someone who, incidentally, is probably living quite well, frankly. He has probably moved on, enjoyed his family, enjoyed fellowship and perhaps he’s even learned some very valuable, spiritually growing lessons. He may come to be much more careful with dealing with angry, embittered individuals. He may even have built up some internal checkpoints to know when to nip something early in the bud, before it becomes a very ugly mess. I’m sure he and his family have learned and grown from these experiences. Wouldn’t it be something if he actually started posting something positive about the Epsteins that might encourage them? I suppose that might be awkward, or even something confidential, but at least Jen could really no longer war with him. It probably wouldn’t mean that they would be at BCA, but all involved parties could move on.

I do want to just say, that I believe that God doesn’t need anything. That’s what’s so great and freeing about being His child and co-heirs with Christ. He is so in control of this and we just really need to trust His Word.

----

Jen, you sure go around judging everyone else's actions and beliefs. You sure do want people to think what I'm doing is wrong, but what about your refusal to acknowledge your own sin of unforgiveness. How about dealing with your own family's inconsistencies according to the Bible's commands to not be a drunkard? How can Mark post (did he, or was it someone else?) the demands of Doug Phillips, while having his own issues with sin? The things you didn't deny would be an indication of some real needs that you could have been helping (as in help-meet) instead of chasing after Doug Phillips at a conference, trying to expose him and not reconcile with him, as you have contradicted yourself in the past on your blog. Aren't you being "unchristian" and "wrong" in your refusal to see your own responsibility? I pointed out here:

Was Jen spiritual enough to issue a rebuke and demand for repentance and a warning to homeschoolers at the homeschool conference in Arlington on the video?

Her motives for going to the Arlington homeschool conference are talked about here:

“Jen lied may 14th/blog: You didn’t go to Arlington to “reconcile” with DP. Angela said this, “Vengence is mine saith the Lord, I will repay”. Jen said, “Angela, how is seeking reconciliation taking vengeance? I went there truly seeking reconciliation.”

But you said clearly on 3/7/07 this, Question to Jen: “according to the people who used to be in church with you (BCA). The whole premise of your wordpress blog is one of exposing Doug Phillips. This will be done by you until when?” Jen: “Until Doug repents.”
Question: “You have him groveling at your feet?”
Jen: Repentance would include a hug, probably.

Jen: I have no desire to bring down Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. I think Doug has a lot to offer the Christian homeschooling community and I wish him nothing but the best in his ministry – after he repents. I pray that God would bless Doug Phillips and all that he does – after he repents.

So, you see, she states that she’s calling for reconcilation on one comment, then another comment she states she’s calling Doug to repentence, then her blog is up for the “exposure” of Doug and “warning” others. But she has admitted to openly calling him to repententance. Is she so spiritual that she has the ability to do this, when other leadership(s) and accountable parties are in agreement with BCA’s decision to excommunicate them for a pattern of sinful behavior? Is she spiritual enough to go to the internet to demand Doug to repent in light of the public statments that BCA has issued about the state of her marriage and family at the time of excommunication and even now, as some have reported, but that Jen acknowledged that Mark has a specific, ensnaring sin in his life? His identity posts comments of accusations against Doug Phillips, too. He has a blog that talks about Doug Phillips, too. Jen may think she is above reproach, she may believe herself to be in a position of calling Doug to repentence, but some people are going to scrutinize the character of her household, her marriage, her children before they will consider her demands of Doug as a biblically grounded position to take.

I just wanted to point out another comment I made on my other blog, in case you missed it:

I was just reading the “comment” section over at Jen’s bog, er, I mean blog, and those attack dog’s over there that seem to judge “K.” just keep revealing how “nit-picky” they are about inconsequential things, like “quotation marks” It’s not a “conversation” over there at all. Real questions are “moderated” out, into thin air, and they will not allow new ones from me (I wonder how many other people, too) unless I meet Jen’s “demands” and her “attack dogs’” demands that I “apologize” to her for calling her a “liar” and for me “lying” to her. Hmmm, it’s not gonna “happen”. First off, she is lying, but every time I try to give her the “proof” she demands to see, she/her “moderator” refuses to publish my comment (they are her own words I’ve found for proof). Secondly, she called me a liar for saying she lied to me. Well, isn’t that her “nice” little “out” that she has because it was just she and I in that phone conversation. She’s probably interested in how I can categorically state that. No matter. A seared conscience like Jen must be getting by now will actually start to believe all the lies she has stated.

Dear Kate,I just want to clarify what I am asking ...

2007-05-25T07:16:00.000-07:00

Dear Kate,

I just want to clarify what I am asking you to do, as you seem not to understand. I am asking only that you apologize to me for calling me a liar when, in fact, I have repeatedly answered your false allegations against me. I don't know how many different ways I can tell you that I have never spoken to you on the phone or that I was never photographed with binoculars when you first asked me. To continue to accuse me and to call me a liar, Kate, is WRONG. That is what I expect an apology for.

Kate, here is the difference. I don't mind if you ASK me a thousand questions a day. Attempting to find out information is fine. But to falsely accuse someone is a sin. And that is what you have done to me. I deny your false accusations and request that you apologize for calling me a liar.

I am not asking you to agree with me on anything. I am very disappointed in how you have handled seeming contradictions. You wrote to me privately a couple times with your concerns and I was more than glad to address them. You have asked me a few questions on my blog and I was more than glad to answer them. To attack me in this way now, Kate, is not Christlike. You are showing me no grace.

Again, I am not asking you to agree with me, but I am asking you to conduct yourself in a fair and gracious manner.

When you apologize for falsely calling me a liar, I would be glad to answer any questions you may have.

I'm praying for you, Kate.

Spunky,Sorry for not being able to post your comme...

2007-05-24T19:52:00.000-07:00

Spunky,

Sorry for not being able to post your comments sooner. We had a final literature class/get-together, errands and shopping to complete today. I haven't been online all day.

Kate, I posted a comment on your blog but it may n...

2007-05-24T17:32:00.000-07:00

Kate, I posted a comment on your blog but it may not have gone through. Please let me know if you didn't receive it and need me to repost.

Kate you asked, "How many anonymous identities or ...

2007-05-24T10:25:00.000-07:00

Kate you asked, "How many anonymous identities or pseudonyms do Jen and her family and friends use to sling mud and make accusation without accountability?"

None are without accountability and thankfully our Lord knows all their identities and will hold them accountable.

I'm sure there are those on both sides who are using pseudonyms. But I have not supported Jen Esptein with my words or with my money. I have supported Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. If she is lying and using anonymity to make her case, then she is just confirming the case against her and why she was excommunicated.

But her alleged wrong behavior and lying do not absolve Doug Phillips and the elders at Boerne of their biblical responsibilities. They are called to be above reproach in how they rebuke and excommunicate the Epsteins. They must remain above reproach and do things in proper biblical order. They cannot give in to the tempation to commit the very same sins that they accuse others of doing. They must be accountable and blameless in their words and actions even though others will not.

It is hard to be accountable when others refuse to do likewise. But that is the hallmark of a Godly leader, they must be blameless and above reproach.

It is not above repraoch for Doug Phillips to allow anonymous bloggers to speak on his behalf. It leaves open the possibility that he is participating or encouraging what is written.

Further, it is not above reproach to use a partial letter from an anonymous "Supreme Court justice" to make an allegation against an alleged Epstein supporter. It is of concern to me that Doug Phillips and Vision Forum publish an allegation from an anonymous Supreme Court justice while the accused is named directly. The entire letter signed by the justice should be provided for the creibility of himself and those he seeks to defend. Providing this tale on the Vision Forum website makes them appear no better than the websites that attack them.

Vision Forum provided a wonderful explanation of talebearers in Mr. Strauch's article. Is not this anonymous accusation by a "supreme court justice" an excellent example of the talebearing that Mr. Strauch warned against? It is oddly inconsistent to condemn tale bearing in one spot on the website, yet participate in the very action that they condemn.

Remember again the admonition in Galatians 6:1. It is easy for those who are spiritual to fall into the very temptations that they are seeking to correct in others.

Unless the letter from the Supreme Court justice and Faith PCA are signed and provided without commentary from Vision Forum, it is in my opinion not above reproach.

Mr. Strauch declared in his essay, "No judgment without the facts." And the first fact that must be known are the identity of those that accuse. We know the identify of Jen Epstein, for the sake of credibility and being above reproach it is incumbent upon those that accuse Jen Esptein to display the courage that Doug Phillips so eloquently preaches about, and allow their names to be used so that accountability can be established and Doug Phillips and the fine men of Vision Forum can be above reproach. They seek to use these anonymous allegations in their defense against the attacks of Jen Epstein.

But I say along side Mr. Strauch...

"No judgment without the facts!"

Thank you Spunky, for those reminding words you qu...

2007-05-24T07:57:00.000-07:00

Thank you Spunky, for those reminding words you quoted. We'll all account for our words, to be sure.

I'm just as frustrated with the anonymity involved in this story. Ministry Watchman started out one of the very biggest culprits of the anonymous blog commenting scam of all of them. Jen joined in there as the platform to launch her attacks and continues it on her own blog, and occasionally now still people will comment on MW. No accountability with them either.

How many anonymous people on Jen's blog that support her are actually just using that blog as an avenue for anonymous gossip slinging? How many anonymous identities or pseudonyms do Jen and her family and friends use to sling mud and make accusation without accountability?

To be fair, I've allowed Fallacy Slayer to point out relevant facts on my blog, because the proof has been in Jen's own statements. I chose to allow people to challenge me on my blog without making demands of them (not referring to you, Spunky, but others), holding their comments in moderation until they agree with me. Jen has demanded I talk about this on her blog, but she won't let me until I agree with her and apologize to her for my proofs(?) What kind of manipulation is that? More importantly, the anonymous commenter "PFR" is always allowed to hurl insults at me when I go there. Anonymous unaccountability. Charles Fisher, Frank Vance, Watchman, Jen's blog -- all unaccountable sources, too.

Those accusations are becoming increasingly irrelevant. I'd like to know who everybody is, too.

Fallacy, Given the volatility of this situation an...

2007-05-24T06:52:00.000-07:00

Fallacy,

Given the volatility of this situation and the potential for my words to be misused by any of those involved in this dispute, I will refrain from responding until I know your identity. As I explained previously, it is my contention that cowards hide behind anonymous names. I consider all anonymous bloggers irrelevant to this discussion and will treat them accordingly.

I have addressed my concerns to the people who are responsible for the actions I am most concerned about. Talking to cowardly anonymous bloggers does not serve any useful purpose.

As Alexander Strauch puts it so well on the Vision Forum website in his article The Plague of Talebearing, "Everyone has a burr under the saddle about something, and mine is people passing information about another without the facts. I get so fed up with it."

Wesley Strackbein words are even stronger. He said, "unbiblical behavior in the form of spreading false witness, bringing public charges without even contacting brothers in Christ in advance, publishing gossip and revilings, etc. — all contrary to the Word of God."

The first fact that must be known to give any credibility to the information you pass along is your name. Any witness who refuses to give his name I consider a false witness. You have publically accused the Epsteins, but without knowing your identity you have no standing and your accusation is without merit.

Without knowing who you are, you are just a talebearer passing along information about another without the facts. Like Mr. Strauch, I get a little tired of it as well, and refuse to participate or add any validity to your talebearing. Until your indentity is known, I consider you an irrelevant to this discussion.

You can find Mr. Strauch's full article here,

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/the_plague_of_talebearing_with.aspx

and Mr. Strackbeins here,

http://www.visionforumministries.org/issues/cross_examination/this_month_at_cross_examinatio.aspx

Kate,

Thank you for the discussion. You have challenged my thoughts and allowed me to clarify what is important for me in this situation. Stand strong in your convictions and your passion for the Lord.

Of this we can be sure...

Truth always triumphs, it is we who must have the courage to accept what Truth reveals. The only one who need to fear the Truth are those that have already chosen to believe something else.

Blessings

Kate:Once again I want to thank you for the wonder...

2007-05-23T19:02:00.000-07:00

Kate:

Once again I want to thank you for the wonderful work you are doing on this blog. Jen continues to send over her sycophants who attack you for pointing out Jen's numerous lies. I am so grateful you continue to stand strong. What I want to know about Spunky and her comments to you is why does she get so worked up about Matt Chancey and Vision Forum saying he is an "independent investigator" and not get worked up over his well documented claims over at www.mrsbinoculars.com. In Matt's last article there were a 100 footnotes, none of which Jen has ever refuted!!!! Jen and her cronies can continue to lob ad homs against Matt Chancey and SFU, but that really doesn't matter in the end. People need to deal with the arguments presented. Matt Chancey and SFU didn't start blogs to go after Jen they started their blogs to tell the truth about Jen after she launched her full scale attack against Doug Phillips. There's a big difference. Doug Phillips never made the Epstein's a public issue--the Epstein's made themselves a public issue. The Epstein's even tried to black mail Doug Phillips and when he refused to play by there demands they launched an all out internet attack against him. What's so funny about this is that while they were at BCA they attacked the whole leadership. However, once they went to the internet they just attacked Doug Phillips. It's easier to attack a public figure than it is a whole congregation. This is just a PR move on behalf of the Epstein's. Jen knows that Doug is a man of convictions and a bold preacher so she knew she could get sympathy with all the mommy bloggers out there that don't like biblical patriarchy. Jen's lies just make for good propaganda and nothing more. she is a very good story teller. Jen is women who is so committed to destroying Doug Phillips that she will risk losing her own family in order to take Doug out. She continually belittles her own husband and puts him down in public. Jen has still not denied the fact that Mark was in the hospital for suicide or alcohol poisoning. In fact, when confronted with it she mentioned that "everyone's knows Mark has always had a drinking problem." Well, no where did we ever hear about that from BCA or from Jen??

Well, again Kate, thank you for what you are doing.

God Bless you!

Kate, Just to clarify, when you said,"I don't know...

2007-05-23T10:27:00.000-07:00

Kate,

Just to clarify, when you said,"I don't know, either. If he gets a paycheck from Pers. Proj. then I don't know what to say. Is it that because he works for that ministry he MUST be lying about all that he's presented?"

My point in bringing up Mr. Chancey was not to establish whether he was telling the truth or not. Nor do I mean to say that Mr. Chancey shouldn't or can't say anything about this situation. He is free to do what his conscience allows, but it Vision Forum and Doug Phillips calling what he said on Mrs. Binoculars "independent" that was an obvious twisting of words. I only brought it up as an example that word manipulation is apparent on both sides. (Nor is it said to excuse the word manipulation of the Epsteins.) Mr . Chancey cannot be called independent and for Vision Forum to say that he is is inaccurate. When I called Persecution Project and asked about the video of Sudan, they gave me the name and contact information for their spokesman on that issue. His name was Matt Chancey. One cannot be a spokesman FOR an organization and independently investigate the claims of those that speak against it at the same time. Vision Forum is free to use the website if it chooses to, but calling it "independent" stretches all credibility. And it is the credibility of Doug Phillips that is the issue for me.

Jen Epstein can be the world's biggest liar and she may well prove to be exactly that. Her words and actions are but a tool to reveal the character of a man our family has chosen to support. Has he given in to the temptation to lie in his effort to restore Jen Epstein? That's the question I, as a supporter, would like to know. Has he participated or does he endorse anonymous websites that attack the family he has accused? If so, then he is falling into the very tempation and sin that he has accused the Epsteins of committing. Unless, he renounces those who speak anonymously on his behalf he opens himself up to the appearnace of impropriety.

Want to know that the ministries we support are credible and trustworthy. Doug Phillips is called as an elder to be above reproach in all his dealings. That is the standard by which we are to examine his behavior. Are his words credible and is the way he is responding to this trial above reproach?

As far as Jen being subject to scrutiny. That was inherent in the design of Mathew 18. The accuser goes before the church and makes an accusation. Then the church is free to weigh the evidence and credibility of both the accused and the accuser. Anonymity is NOT allowed. For the very reason that the church can scrutinize both sides thoroughly. But because Jen Esptein apparently was not privy to her own trial of excommunication, she never had the opportunity to meet her accusers and allow the congregation to see both sides together. The congregation, according to the letter of excommunication, met without her there. Even our judicial system, requires the accused to be present at their trial and present to hear the verdict. So while it is true that Jen's explanations at times seem inconsistent, the way that Boerne appeared to handle the excommunication makes her confusion somewhat understandable. She is relying on rumors, an unsigned letter, and her own thoughts to figure out what she why she was excommunicated. (Your own frustration with anonymous commenters who refuse to identify themselves and who fail to provide examples of your sin, should give you an inkling as to frustrating it is not to meet your accuser face to face and why I don't engage in rebutting anonymous accusations by cowards who speak against me.)

All this to say, I make no excuses for Jen Epstein or Doug Phillips in this situation. They answer to God not to me and I don't stand in judgment of either one. But as I have said, it is for the purpose of watching and ensuring that the ministries I support are above reproach and credible that I am concerned more with the behavior of Doug Phillips.

To anyone:Here is Jen's one way she thinks she got...

2007-05-23T09:36:00.000-07:00

To anyone:

Here is Jen's one way she thinks she got out of answering my question truthfully here:

"Do you, Jen Epstein who once served in the U.S. Army, or members of your family, have or had in your possesion, or ever owned or borrowed or ever held, have you .. in the act of being photographed, a pair of binoculars?"

found originally on my blog here.

She made a simple "no" answer, avoiding clarifying that yes, she indeed owned some, but no, she didn't use them in a photograph. Okay, then, we can see that she is just very good at being evasive. That's intellectually, and especially between people who are calling themselves christians, dis-honest. I should not have put that "photographed" statement in there and will need to be much more precise with my words. It wouldn't matter, though to a habitual liar, which is what BCA referred to her as. I don't know, I wasn't at BCA, but I have dealt with her online and have seen her twist words, though, and neglect important, key questions and evade them.

Kate, you said, "Beverly McChord had something to ...

2007-05-23T08:28:00.000-07:00

Kate, you said, "Beverly McChord had something to ... Kate, you said, "Beverly McChord had something to say about her on the video, was she also not to be trusted? "

Where is the statement by Beverly McChord? Her statement is not linked on either the Vision Forum or Boerne website. Did I miss something?

Spunky, I was referring to Jen's outright calling Beverly McCord a liar for her statement that "we don't like to have harrassment ... (and then something I couldn't quite hear)" she said to Jen. Jen asked, "Have we harrassed anyone?" Beverly said, "Yes."

Then Jen went to her blog and stated that Beverly McCord is a liar. Several times. There were other people standing there siding with Beverly and the conference facility guy who didn't deny it in front of officers of the law. Those people, I'm assuming, aren't reading these blogs and getting to defend themselves in the way that Jen has, with all her anonymous support, or at least unidentifiable persons on her side in these issues. But Jen just called Beverly a liar and I wonder what Beverly thinks of that, considering all the people who witnessed what Jen Epstein was doing at that conference. I have a lot to say about that stunt, but will reserve my comments now.

About the meeting together
Confession found on the BCA website it says, "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." *** Have the churches that BCA listed Faith, and Living Waters, along with BCA and the Epsteins all met to discuss the dispute and whether the excommunication was done in biblical order as directed by BCA's own confession?

I think I understand what the Confession is saying, but I was not there at those meetings and what we have are statements from BCA (on Jen's PDF's) and on BCA's website that speak to their involvement, but I'm not sure about the various churches meeting with the Epsteins to discuss the dispute. If the letter of this Confession was not carried through in their excommunication of that family, I am not aware of that.

About the independent investigator:

As for Jen's inconsistencies, again I have seen inconsistencies on both sides. Two that I have cited about Boerne are their apparent failing to follow their own confession and calling Matt Chancey an independent investigator when he is a paid employee of Persecution Project, one of the ministries cited on Ministry Watchman.

Matt Chancey being an independent investigator:

I don't know, either. If he gets a paycheck from Pers. Proj. then I don't know what to say. Is it that because he works for that ministry he MUST be lying about all that he's presented? Is he independent because he writes from his own logical reasonings and gathers all the information that Doug and whoever has dealt with the Epsteins in this matter has given to him and he has put it together himself? Does he do what he has done on mrsbinoculars on his own time? I don't know. One thing I do know; I'm not affiliated with anybody involved and have come up with Jen's own earlier statements to show my proof, that she changes her story. I'm an independent investigator. I wish I got paid ... this is a lot of work to try so diligently to handle Jen's own past words in context, try to present them to her as proof, and then to just have her brush them off -- have her anonymous friends figuratively laugh at me for my proof and then to have her within hours, change her story. Now she is giving a reason (as if she was saying this all along) for her excommunication being because:
Jen says
"Is that any different from Doug excommunicating me for writing to him simply because I am a woman?"

found here:
her own words, except they're different from what she said before about why she was excommunicated, even after claiming she didn't have any idea why she was excommunicated in the same comment section

In a comment to me afterward she is also neglecting everything I said, calling me a liar for my statements about her statements, demanding an apology (I have never demanded an apology from anyone online; it's sort of haughty and wouldn't think it's a biblical response) from me for calling her a liar when I've shown her my proofs of her lies to me. If they were not her lies, as in the binoculars, and she states she was answering my question truthfully by splitting hairs, then fine. That's all I have to go on with her statements and I will just have to be extremely precise about when I ask her about her past statements or clarifying issues with her.

As for the rest of what you commented, I agree with what you said, and I wonder about the silence of Doug Phillips, too. I don't have inside information to be able to know what actually took place at those church meetings, and wonder what the rest of the Faith statements say, too. I also think that Jen is setting herself and her family up for intense public scrutiny for making such charges, for months on the internet and who even knows what she's done in San Antonio area outside of the blogosphere? Her friends and family comment with gladness that her blog has been making it to nearly the top of the Wordpress blogs most read blogs (this is also considered the public, so would that start to make her a public figure? I think it does. Do a google search and you'll see that her name associated with her story and blogs is way up there as a search item). She brought this to the public. She and her family are going to get scrutinized just as hard and carefully.

You are consistently considerate in your fair questions to me, and I really thank you.