Accountability In Ministry

Here’s an interesting first-hand account from Caleb Kolstad, who attended RC Sproul’s Ligonier Ministries 5th annual Pastor’s Conference. Originally I posted just a small portion of Pastor Kolstad’s article. However, he soon posted a comment here, requesting that we repost the entire article. I’m only to happy to oblige:

I had the privilege of attending Ligonier ministries 5th annual Pastor’s Conference this past week in Orlando. The primary speakers were R.C. Sproul, Steven J Lawson, and Joel Beeke. The purpose of the lectures was to highlight the significance of having a God-centered ministry that is conducted in humble submission to the Word of God and that emphasizes the glory of God in worship, evangelism, prayer, and preaching. Dr. Sproul picked the right speakers to help communicate these wonderful themes.Now some of you are probably wondering what a limousine has to do with Ligonier ministries? Keep reading and I will evidentially get there…Before I talk about any of the specific lectures per say I want to say what a wonderful job the Ligonier staff did in hosting this conference. The meals each day were unbelievable and the subsidized cost of the conference was amazing ($150 for registration and room/board). The size of the conference was just right (250 pastors), as opposed to the mega conferences (like Desiring God or Shepherds or Together for the Gospel) where 2000 people is considered a small crowd. The smaller venue allowed one to interact with the speakers (especially Dr. Beeke) as well as get to know various pastors from throughout the world.

I had two strikes against me going into this conference seeing I’m both pre-mill and Baptistic (by conviction). I would guess that the vast majority of the men who attended this conference were obviously Covenantal and either Post or Amill. With that said, all the attendees shared a common bond though our personal commitments to the gospel of grace and to a high view of God. All that to say, I enjoyed some great fellowship with various pastors including my father, Kent who came in from Washington state.

Dr. Lawson started off the conference preaching from Psalm 93. The sermon topic was on “the Eclipse of God.” He reminded us that man can build beautiful buildings but only God can build a church. All of Lawson’s sermons during the conference were expositions of various Old and New Testament texts. It was great to have someone model what expository preaching is and to help show everyone why expository preaching is so powerful (Scripture truth in Scripture dress). It’s more and more common these days to have conferences that deal with biblical issues via lectures rather than pure expositions of the Word of God. That is not to say there isn’t a place for great Biblical lectures but personally I’ll take a wonderful exposition of Scripture over a great lecture any day. Lawson concluded his first sermon by reminding us that the greatest issue facing the church today is who is seated above. Who is your God? Psalm 93 is very clear that the God of the Bible reigns!

Dr. Joel Beeke lectured next on hitting your “Target Audience.” This was a very practical lecture. Beeke said our preaching must be both applicatory and discriminatory. He said preaching must not ignore the pew nor be controlled by the pew. He briefly mentioned that in his opinion Haddon Robinson goes too far here. Dr. Beeke then went on to talk about the various people that listen to our sermons in the pew each Sunday: those include the growing believer, the backsliding believer, those who are in spiritual bondage, the open-conscience unbeliever, the indifferent unbeliever, etc. In short, we must remember that we have all kinds of hearers in our congregations. A mature preacher recognizes this and thus will aim his sermon arrows at the various people groups during the course of his expositions. Dr. Beeke reminded us that it would be a mistake to aim for every target in every single sermon. Wisdom and balance are needed here.

Dr. Sproul then gave one of his classic sermons from Genesis 22. He illustrated how we should tackle an Old Testament narrative with power and clarity. Dr. Sproul reminded us that the OT is God’s autobiography. If you want to teach your people about the nature and character of God study the Old Testament.

Dr. Lawson concluded the opening day sessions with a powerful sermon from 2 Timothy 4. I believe that preaching from common passages of Scripture has its advantages and its unique challenges. Steve Lawson eats, sleeps, and breathes this text of Scripture so the sermon was quite amazing to say the least. The first business of the preacher is to preach the Word. As the pulpit goes, Lawson noted, so goes the church. Lawson said there are 8 imperatives that instruct us how we are to preach in 2 Timothy 4:1-5. I’d encourage all you preachers to get this CD. In the mean time PREACH THE WORD!!!

Lawson started off Tuesday’s sessions with an exposition of Revelation 4. His topic was the God-centered worship service. Lawson picked this particular text because he believes that church worship services should be as much like heaven as possible. This thought goes against the contemporary church movement; which is cool, casual, laid back, informal, horizontal, trendy and often very trivial. Lawson asked the following question: If God were to design a worship service what would it look like? Steve encouraged us to examine Revelation chapter 4 if we want to find out. Steve then provided 4 distinguishing marks of a God-centered service from this chapter of Scripture. 1. A high view of God. 2. A deep fear of God. 3. A distinct separation from God. 4. A constant focus upon God. All these marks flowed out of the text of Revelation 4.

Perhaps the highlight of the conference was Lawson’s sermon on God-centered Evangelism from Matthew 7:13-29. All of us are aware of the scary reality that there are many people in every congregation who are born in the church but whom never been born again. This was a wonderful text to preach from in effort to address the following theme mentioned above. I’d encourage all of you once again to get to CD as well…

Dr. Sproul gave a great lecture on “A God-centered view of the Truth.” He went to John 18 and reminded us that we must embrace, proclaim, and contend for the truth! Sproul asked and answered two essential questions from this dialogue between Jesus and Pilate. Question one was what is truth? (Truth is reality as it’s perceived by God). Question two was how can true truth be known (an epistemology question)? Sproul then reminded us that rationalism and rationality are very different things. He also noted that sometimes we reduce apologetics to proclamation of truth instead of giving people a reason for the hope that’s within us. This was a great lecture because we minister to those influenced by post-modern thought.

Now I promised everyone I would get to the Ligonier/Limo connection, so here it is. On Wednesday night there was a Vesper’s service at Saint Andrew’s Chapel (R.C.’s home church). Now for those of you who’ve never been here before it’s really a hard church to describe. The inside of this building is quite spectacular (think stained glass art, massive paintings, exquisite architecture, etc). You preachers will especially appreciate the 8-foot high pulpit that sits on a raised platform…Ligonier ministries provided two large buses for those pastors who did not rent cars during the conference to get to Saint Andrews. For the guest speakers there was a different mode of transportation…you guessed it…a limousine service provided. Now before I go off on this let me say that I’m worried about how some of you readers may use this story. I know there are some pastors who seem to have an issue with every well-known preacher ministering in our day. I believe these men often struggle with envy. They wonder why God chooses to uniquely bless some pastors/churches the way he does? Why them and not me they wonder? It appears men like this often have an over inflated view of their own gifts and abilities and thus see zero value in hearing more gifted and experienced pastor-preachers. On the flip side of the coin, there is a growing (legitimate) concern that we Christians don’t turn our Christian heroes of the faith into some type of Christian “celebrities”. There is a line between honoring and esteeming faithful men and worshipping them. I’ve written about this before so I won’t repeat myself all over again. Now, you probably know where I am going with this already don’t you? I need to give my friends at Ligonier the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps R.C. Sproul has someone from his local church who actually owns a Limo company. Theoretically, this man could have offered free services to the guest pastors during the Pastor’s Conference. Honestly I don’t know. Even if that were the case I must ask the following question, what were you thinking?

Let me paint the picture a little bit better for you. All the pastors are at Saint Andrews Chapel waiting for the start of the Vesper’s service and all of a sudden here comes a white limo. The limo parks underneath the St. Andrew’s Chapel overhang and drops off…the conference speakers. (I would imagine the guest speakers had nothing to do with this decision so I don’t want to indict anyone here unnecessarily). I’m just concerned that this picture sent the wrong message. I know too many solo pastors who have to work another full time job in order to bring home an livable income. If the Christian community wants to work against creating a Christian celebrity community I’d suggest ideas like this be reconsidered. Gospel preachers and limos don’t go together. Save the limousine services for newly weds, professional athletes, and movie stars.

Let us focus our attention back on more important things. All things considered this was both an encouraging and an edifying pastors conference. Drs. Sproul, Lawson, and Beeke were very approachable during this conference. In particular, Dr. Beeke made a special effort to have breakfast and dinner with the men. The sermons and lectures that were given during this conference were clearly labors of love. I’d highly recommend you purchase the conference audio set and consider attending next year’s conference. I’d simple suggest if do come you drive your own car or fly in on a major airline…Let’s leave the limos for the rich and the famous.

This bit of satire is from: Semper Eadem

Hat tip to Ingrid.

I find it so interesting how the funniest satire is also the most truthful, and this is a perfect example of that.
…………………………………………….

New Walgreens commercial:

Tinkling intro. music plays…softens…soft voice speaks:

“Somewhere there is a place called Perfect.

Where parents offer their children anything, from meeting Titanic survivors to buying almost the entire set of G.A. Henty books for only $1,400.00.

And it is only $700.00 when on sale.

Where there is family integrated church.

With a potprovidence meal afterwards.

Where the children are seen and not heard.

And so are the women.

Where, after the sermon, father enjoys debating and discussing issues with other men.

And the women are taught by Jennie Chancey.

Where vile American Girl dolls are banned.

And girls play with the Beautiful Girlhood dolls.

Where the men vote for the household.

And women do not vote at all.

Where the girls are content to let the boys have all the fun; while they sit using their pewter thimbles, sewing scissors, and needle cases.

And then have a tea party.

Where the girls serve their fathers.

And can always recite the words of the Botkin sisters.

Where the young men and women are taught all about courtship and held to the highest standards of Emotional Purity.

And the young women plan their weddings in detail and dream all sorts of swooning romantic dreams, just like Elsie Dinsmore.

Where the pretty girls marry Vision Forum interns.

And the not-so pretty ones stay home with Mother and Father.

Where Doug Phillips officiates.

And gets a bird’s eye view of your first kiss.

Where college for anyone is frowned upon.

And women don’t need schooling at all.

Where people talk and write like a walking 1865 dictionary.

And use words that Shakespeare didn’t.

Where having a baby is referred to as Militant Fecundity.

And you name your child Modeste Perseverance Truth.

Where families must have at least six children.

And only a few exceptions are made.

But since you aren’t anywhere near perfect; there’s Vision Forum. Open every day, sometimes 24 hours. Where you can buy whatever you need to try to make your life perfect and like ours–because we know it isn’t.

That’s life…this is Vision Forum.

A Classic Case Of Too Little Too Late

When Frank Vance retired from blogging, he turned over to me his list of contacts. Some of those contacts are Ligonier “insiders.”

Those sources recently told me that some prominent ministry leaders, including John MacArthur, have attempted to have some behind-the-scenes dialogue with RC Sproul, urging him to take responsibility for the incompetence and duplicity of his senior management, particularly over the Ligonier Ministries vs. Frank Vance lawsuit. For many months RC Sproul has been hiding behind his senior management, and for months some of his closest personal ministry friends have urged him to quit you like a man.

John MacArthur went on the record a long time ago about the folly of Christians suing Christians and, apparently, he still takes what he’s said about it seriously enough to confront his friend RC Sproul about it. However, in spite of the good counsel he’s received, RC Sproul has been slow and reluctant to do much of anything.

Now RC Sproul has decided to do something, but what he’s done can only be described as too little too late.

On July 23, RC Sproul, as Chairman of the Ligonier Ministries Board Of Directors, met with fellow Board members, including his wife Vesta Sproul, to discuss crisis management and damage control.

The past year has been a difficult one for Ligonier Ministries, and as is so often the case, when a company’s bottom line suffers, someone has to pay for it. The sacrificial lamb is Ligonier’s President/CEO/CFO, Timothy A. Dick. On July 24 Timothy A. Dick was relieved from his position as Ligonier’s top exec. An official announcement from Ligonier Ministries is expected soon.

However, no one should be surprised if Ligonier never makes an announcement about Tim Dick at all. No doubt it would be better for Ligonier, and for RC Sproul in particular, if the memory of Tim Dick quickly faded into obscurity. Everything about The Dick has been a colossal embarrassment to RC Sproul, and it could very well be that even just announcing The Dick’s firing would only bring further embarrassment.

It has yet to be determined if Tim Dick will remain on in any capacity at all at Ligonier. If Tim is offered any other Ligonier position at all, even stockroom boy, he’d probably have to take it, since he’s unlikely to be able to obtain employment anywhere else.

From all accounts, Tim Dick was an utter failure in business, prior to being hired by his father-in-law, RC Sproul. Tim Dick never had any business or ministerial credentials of any kind that could have qualified him to do anything at Ligonier (other than perhaps mail-room boy), let alone be Ligonier’s top executive. Clearly, there is only one reason why Tim Dick was ever appointed as Ligonier’s top executive — he married RC’s daughter, Sherrie Sproul. Needless to say, this calls into question RC Sproul’s own judgment. Regardless of family connections, why would RC Sproul appoint such a profoundly inept and unethical man to such an important position?

Just because Tim Dick has lost the position of top exec doesn’t mean that nepotism is still not alive and well at Ligonier. More than likely, a new position will be created especially for Tim, where he can continue to receive a lavish salary for doing what he’s always done — nothing. Since it wouldn’t look right to pay a stockroom boy a $200,000 plus salary, Tim will likely be given a corner office in the back of the building, along with some kind meaningless position with no authority of any kind, so that he can’t cause Ligonier any further injury. He’ll probably be given some kind of nondescript title. The door of his office might soon say something like, “Assistant Executive Vice President of Ancillary Protuberances”.

I haven’t heard yet what is to become of Ryan “Partyboy” Dick. Even though he too has proven to be a major embarrassment to Ligonier Ministries (like goldbrick father, like goldbrick son), grandpa still has a tender spot in his heart for Ryan Sproul-Dick. Just like his daddy, Ryan wouldn’t be capable of finding employment that would pay him anywhere near the generous paycheck he’s come to enjoy, let alone permit him to come in hours late to work each day, just to sleep on his desk. So Ryan is likely to remain on at Ligonier for years to come, drawing a generous donor-funded salary and benefits package, in order to fuel his reprobate lifestyle. Ryan also continues to believe that one day he shall “inherit” Ligonier Ministries.

Tim Dick’s termination as President isn’t likely to affect the employment arrangements of any Dick family members. Sherrie will remain on at Ligonier, as will Tim and Sherrie’s children, Ryan and Kaki, as well as Kaki’s husband, John Cobb. The only thing that will change is that Tim Dick will no longer be President. However, the nepotistic practices will continue unaltered, all with RC Sproul’s blessing. As Frank Vance noted several times, the combined annual Ligonier compensation for the Sproul-Dick families exceeds one-million dollars, and that’s not likely to diminish much, if any, even if Tim Dick is no longer President.

Also left unaltered are the Dick family’s living arrangements. They will continue living in the gated-community manor of RC Sproul. Tim moved into the Sproul home shortly after marrying Sherrie Sproul twenty-plus years ago, and he’s been goldbricking it there ever since. He’s also raised his three children there. Tim is the goldbrick among goldbricks. From all accounts, even when he does “work” at Ligonier, he only makes an appearance for about three hours a day. Much of the rest of his day is spent sleeping at home. When Tim is not sleeping he spends much of his time online, posting weird comments all over the internet. For a man who has been paid a lavish $230K salary, plus a generous benefits package, he hasn’t done a thing to earn it. This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how Ligonier donors have seen their support funds squandered.

The expectation is that the Ligonier board will announce Tim Dick’s departure was due to health considerations. True, Tim Dick does have health problems. That’s to be expected with anyone who has to lug around over 400 pounds of flab. However, Tim Dick had serious health problems long before RC Sproul promoted Tim to President. Tim Dick’s promotion to Ligonier’s senior executive was obviously in no way hampered by his preexisting health considerations, and his removal wasn’t necessitated by health considerations either.

If Ligonier attempts to use Tim’s health problems as a cover story for his removal, as I suspect they will, that’s all it will be, a cover story. Furthermore, if Ligonier puts out a story that Tim Dick resigned, rather than they terminated him, that will be just another cover story. Regardless of how they spin the announcement, no one should expect it to be the straight story.

The truth is that Tim Dick has been an immense liability to Ligonier Ministries, ever since RC Sproul appointed him to be President in November 2004. From all accounts, Tim Dick’s public relations, interpersonal relations, and business management skills are abysmal, not to mention his grievous ethical problems. Tim Dick has cost Ligonier dearly. Because of Tim Dick’s reckless and unethical actions, Ligonier suddenly experienced a dramatic loss in donor support.

Tim Dick is also responsible for personally ruining the lives of many godly men and women who had labored selflessly and sacrificially for Ligonier Ministries for many years. In order to make room for his own family members, The Dick fired multiple godly and gifted Ligonier employees who were vastly more qualified for the positions than those he replaced them with. In one case, a person that he fired had to be replaced with four new employees, in order to accomplish the same work load that that one employee had been doing for over a decade. The Dick also fired a dozen long-term employees, due to “budget shortfalls,” immediately after he squandered $8 million in 2005 on “the Ligonier mansion.”

The Dick celebrated this truly spectacular profligacy, on a property that sits vacant to this very day, by immediately going out and buying himself a new Lexus. Needless to say, all those fired Ligonier employees weren’t impressed with The Dick’s expensive new car. For such squandering of donor funds Ligonier Ministries received a Free Good News “Hall of Financial Fame and Shame Award.”

RC Sproul stood by and watched it all happen, never once intervening to prevent the unrighteous firings of those who had presumed that RC was a just and godly man. Under Tim Dick’s leadership, employee morale at Ligonier has reached an all-time low.

Tim Dick’s single greatest public relations disaster was his suing Christian blogger Frank Vance. Frank had written a great deal about the duplicities of Tim Dick, including his story that Tricky Dick orchestrated the theft by deception of Don Kistler’s Soli Deo Gloria Ministries. Tim Dick and Ligonier Ministries sued Frank Vance for Defamation for, among other things, calling Tim Dick a “nincompoop”.

The lawsuit completely backfired on Ligonier. But rather than admitting how wrong they had been to sue a brother in Christ, they covered up the lawsuit, including with members of even their own Board Of Directors. Not only was Tim Dick at the center of the lies and cover ups, senior manager John Duncan (brother and rap-artist homeboy to Ligon Duncan) also directly participated in and aided and abetted the lies. Ligonier Ministries employees were instructed by Ligonier “senior management” to lie to callers. Ligonier Ministries and its senior management lied, and lied and lied again. Rather than just acknowledging to their donors and supporters that they’d sinned, they fabricated one cock-and-bull story after another. A recap of those events can be found here.

The fact that Ligonier Ministries ultimately got rid of Don Kistler only served to confirm what Frank had been saying all along. Ligonier Ministries “acquired” Soli Deo Gloria Ministries by deception, and when Kistler no longer served a useful purpose to them, they discarded him, and this only a matter of weeks after he’d suffered a serious stroke, no doubt brought on in part by the massive stress he’d been put under by having to work in such egregious circumstances.

The removal of Tim Dick as Ligonier’s President will do little to nothing to salvage Ligonier’s badly tarnished image, especially since it took months for RC Sproul to get around to doing it. Given what an asset that Ligonier had been for so many years to the promotion of Reformed theology, this is all a great tragedy, and one from which Ligonier may never recover.

That will especially be true if all that is done is to replace one unethical man for another unethical man. For example, there has been a great deal of speculation that John Duncan, Ligonier’s Executive Producer, will succeed Tim Dick as President. John Duncan is brother to Mel Duncan, who serves as Ligonier’s Director Of Church Relations. The two Duncans are also brothers to J. Ligon Duncan, pastor of First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi, and a regular speaker at Ligonier conferences.

If John Duncan does in fact succeed Tim Dick, it’s not likely to help Ligonier’s credibility one bit, especially since John Duncan aided and abetted Tim Dick’s lies and cover ups. John Duncan also made at least as many bizarre appearances on the internet as Tim Dick did, posting irrational comments here on Ministry Watchman, and numerous other blogs, as “Passerby,” and under other aliases.

Another possibility could be that J. Ligon Duncan may be asked to take over as Ligonier’s President. Frank Vance discovered months ago that Ligon Duncan is RC Sproul’s hand-picked successor. What this may mean is that when RC Sproul passes on, Ligon Duncan will take over as head minister and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Ligonier Ministries. However, until that happens, Ligon Duncan may be asked to step in as Ligonier’s President. From all accounts, Rev. Ligon Duncan is a very gifted and competent man. No doubt he would be imminently better qualified than Goldbrick Dick. However, it remains to be seen if his ethics are any better than his brother, John Duncan.

Regardless of any shuffling of positions, what really needs to happen is for RC Sproul to do what his friend John MacArthur has apparently been urging him to do — repent and accept responsibility.

“Back in the 1990s, Senior Sproul was an outspoken critic of Charles Colson’s, J. I. Packer’s and Cardinal Cassidy’s cult, Evangelicals and Catholics Together, but in the twenty-first century, he remains silent on the New Perspective on Paul and the Federal Vision, both forms of heresy rife in his denomination, the PCA; and he is silent on Norman Shepherdism, the form of Neo-Legalism rife in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Junior Sproul, while he was editor of Table Talk, the monthly devotional publication of Ligonier Ministries used to advance its theological agenda, made sure that Douglas Wilson appeared in the magazine monthly, and that his friends, Steve Wilkins and Steve Schlissel, appeared occasionally…

“The silence of the shepherds in dealing with the heresies in their own churches stems from their compromised philosophy and theology. They cannot clearly articulate their differences with Rome, or practice what those differences require, because at bottom they agree with Rome.”

The Silence Of The Shepherds, The Trinity Foundation

The Federal Vision / New Perspectives On Paul / Auburn Avenue theology controversy has been raging in Reformed circles for several years now, and especially so since the 2002 Pastor’s Conference at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Monroe, Louisiana, pastored by Steve Wilkins, where the theme of the conference was Federal Vision.

I view Federal Vision as one of the most divisive and dangerous doctrines that has ever been introduced into the Reformed church. Federal Vision is a deceptive assault on the doctrines of grace, and in particular the doctrine of justification by faith alone — Sola Fide. As such, Federal Vision is a pernicious belief system with eternal consequences. It’s made just that much more insidious because of the fact that all of it’s leading spokesmen hold themselves out as “Reformed.” Indeed, it’s not outsiders who have crept into the Reformed church to subvert it and lead it back to Rome, but rather insiders.

All of the key Federal Vision spokesmen have come from Reformed backgrounds, and all of them claim that they are still “Reformed.” They say they still believe in the Five Solas, but they have deceptively redefined them. Many of them claim to adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Yet, Federal Vision doctrine is contrary to the Five Solas, and contrary to the Westminster Confession on some of the most significant issues that the Confession expounds, such as the covenant, election and justification.

We haven’t dealt with Federal Vision here before, mainly because others are far better qualified to address it than we are, and some have. If you’re not familiar with this controversy, let me just say that it’s one of the more important theological issues to have confronted the church in many years. There aren’t many theological issues that can be as significant as soteriology — how man is saved.

Federal Vision has already infiltrated many Reformed churches. I say “infiltrated” because quite often the ringleaders would prefer to operate surreptitiously, rather than openly and honestly. If Federal Vision hasn’t already infiltrated your church, you should be prepared for it, and the way to be prepared is to study the issue for yourself. I’ve provided a list of some references at the end of the article, but this is by no means exhaustive. There is also much more available, both online, and in various books.

Reformed Presbyterian churches and their denominations have especially felt the impact of Federal Vision, particularly the PCA and the OPC. Many of their members, and even some of their pastors and elders, have started embracing Federal Vision, and many more embrace it privately and covertly. Indeed, the covert nature of Federal Vision, and the way that its promoters seek to stealthily infiltrate Reformed churches, is one of the things that troubles me so much about it. Its spokesmen have often shown themselves to be crafty and cunning infiltrators, rather than honest and straightforward about what they believe. They often twist words and meanings in a manner that bears striking resemblance to Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses.

In response to the onslaught of the Federal Vision within it’s denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America determined at their 34th General Assembly to appoint an “Interim Study Committee on Federal Vision, New Perspective, and Auburn Avenue Theology.” The Report was finalized on May 11, 2007 and presented to the PCA at their 35th General Assembly. The Report was overwhelmingly approved by the GA. Only about 50 out of 1400 delegates voted against it).

It remains to be seen what will become of prominent Federal Vision spokesmen who pastor PCA (e.g. Steve Wilkins) churches. For the present things appear to remain in the “discussion” and “recommendation” stages. However, at some point the discussion will need to come to an end and action will need to be taken. The PCA cannot permit heresy in its midst. If it does then it will render itself irrelevant and little better than the PCUSA. The Truly Reformed will have no choice but to leave, and they will leave in droves. The PCA cannot and must not permit its own pastors to be guilty of promoting heresy.

At some point, and hopefully sooner than later, those PCA pastors who are guilty of Federal Visionism will either be required to recant and repent of Federal Vision, or they will be brought up on charges of heresy. Since it’s unlikely that any of them will recant, they’d be wise to flee those Truly Reformed denominations, such as the PCA and OPC, and escape to someplace that’s “Reformed” in name only. Doug Wilson’s Federal Vision boutique, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, comes to mind.

Timing here is crucial. What they don’t want to do is to force their Presbyteries into a position of having to defrock them, and then they have no choice but to flee to the CREC. That’s what RC Sproul Jr did, and that was a big PR mistake. Better to flee before being defrocked.

It’s not that being defrocked makes any difference to the CREC. They have, and they will continue, to gladly welcome defrocked Presbyterian ministers, even if they were defrocked for very serious things like ecclesiastical tyranny and tax fraud (as was the case for RC Sproul Jr). So being defrocked as a heretic surely won’t pose any obstacle to getting into the CREC. Nevertheless, from an appearance standpoint, it would be wise for all the Federal Vision heretics to flee to the CREC before they wind up getting defrocked.

No doubt Doug Wilson is licking his chops now. The PCA’s Federal Vision Report can only mean one thing for Doug Wilson — church growth.

I recently came across an interesting statement on a blog run by Federal Visionist, Mark Horne:

Great stuff from Ligonier Ministries on the Lord’s Supper
Published by Mark, July 2nd, 2007 in Bible & Theology

Here is a an article from Ligonier Ministries’ TableTalk magazine on the Lord’s Supper. It is really good.

Mark Horne’s blog entry directs his readers to an article on the Lord’s Supper, originally published in Ligonier Ministries’ Tabletalk magazine. The article was written by Federal Visionist, and PCA Pastor, Jeffrey J. Meyers. Mark Horne himself has had articles in Tabletalk.

Both Horne and Meyers are PCA pastors, and both pastor at Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, Saint Louis, MO. Jeff Meyers is also the author of The Lord’s Service, a favorite book among the Federal Vision crowd, and considered among many of them to be essential reading.

Jeff Meyers’ article had been written for Ligonier Ministries’ Tabletalk magazine, during the time that RC Sproul Jr was Tabletalk’s editor. RC Sproul Jr not only tapped Jeff Meyers to write for Tabletalk, he also procured writing gigs for multiple Federal Vision / New Perspectives On Paul / Auburn Avenue Theology leaders Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins, and Steve Schlissel. These and other Federal Visionaries appeared in Tabletalk during the time that RC Sproul Jr was editor. RC Sproul Jr also arranged for various Federal Vision spokesmen to speak at Ligonier conferences.

Not everyone would appreciate the significance of a Jeffrey Meyers article appearing in Tabletalk magazine. However, Mark Horne certainly appreciates it, and he recognizes what a coup it was to have a prominent Federal Vision spokesman’s articles appearing in the “devotional” magazine of the nation’s leading Reformed ministry. Others too had no trouble picking up on the message:

Sean Jul 2nd, 2007 at 3:56 pm

I have enjoyed telling people (especially in the last few weeks) that I first discovered both Biblical Horizons and Credenda/Agenda through Ligonier Ministries back in the early 90’s. R.C. Sproul is the reason I’m FV.

I’ve assumed for quite some time that Ligonier Ministries has had a hand in making Federal Vision converts. However, not many people like Sean have been willing to go public with such confessions. So for the Federal Vision converts that converted as a result of the articles that appeared in Tabletalk by Federal Vision authors, we can thank RC Sproul for that. In fact someone else commented on Mark Horne’s blog to do just that:

Mitch Jul 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pm

“R.C. Sproul is the reason I’m FV.”

Sean, I’m with ya bro!

Stop and think about the irony though. The publication of the most Reformed ministry in the country responsible for making Federal Vision converts. Too cool! I knew it was happening. It’s just refreshing hearing someone thank Ligonier Ministries for it.

As much as thanking R.C. Sproul we need to thank R.C. Sproul Jr. I don’t think his old man is FV. I don’t think so, but anyone who’s followed R.C. Jr knows he’s FV. I don’t understand why he tries to hide it. I just wish he’d come out of the closet about it.

However, is it reasonable to just “thank” RC Sproul Jr? Didn’t his father have a hand in his son becoming the editor of Tabletalk? Of course he did, just as his father continues to play a role in ensuring that the defrocked RC Jr continues to speak at Ligonier Ministries conferences. So why would Dr. RC Sproul have permitted his son to invite men who hold to such errant and even heretical theology to publish their articles in Tabletalk?

Was, and is, RC Sproul really ignorant of one of the biggest theological controversies to hit the Reformed world in years? No, he clearly is not. In fact RC Sproul attended the 35th PCA General Assembly, and rose in opposition to a motion to postpone a vote to adopt the Committee’s Report. His speech was compelling. So how could RC Sproul have permitted Federal Visionaries to write for Tabletalk and speak at Ligonier conferences, and yet not also understand that such men deny the doctrine of justification by faith alone? It simply appears inconceivable that one of the most knowledgeable and insightful Reformed theologians of our day could be knowledgeable and insightful, while at the same time being so incredibly ignorant of what those men represent and their attack on a doctrine which is key to the Gospel itself. It’s just not adding up.

RC Sproul is one of the leading champions of the Reformed Faith in the world today. He even wrote a book expounding the Reformed doctrine of justification entitled, “Faith Alone.” Federal Vision is one of the greatest threats to the Reformed Faith today, and especially the Reformed doctrine of justification. One would think that RC Sproul would have a vested interest in speaking out long and loud against Federal Vision. Yet, for the most part, he remains strangely silent. Why? If you search Ligonier Ministries’ web site you won’t find one mention of Federal Vision. Yet, his ministry has given a platform to the Federal Visionists. Why?

And what about RC Sproul Jr? Is he too really that ignorant? How can he claim to be “Reformed” while countenancing the very men who assault the very foundations of the Reformed Faith? How can he claim to be Reformed and yet some of his closest personal friends are prominent Federal Vision spokesmen? And why did RC Sproul Jr jump ship to join the one and only “confederation” that has dedicated itself to advancing the Federal Vision?

I just wish that RC Sproul Jr would start being honest and, in Mitch’s words, “anyone who’s followed R.C. Jr knows he’s FV. I don’t understand why he tries to hide it. I just wish he’d come out of the closet about it.”

RC Sproul Jr has already been defrocked for goodness sake. So it’s not like anyone in the Reformed world respects him anymore anyway. With the exception of Doug Phillips, the only friends he’s got left are in the CREC. Why not just admit to being Federal Vision?

Update, July 10: And Federal Vision Is Responsible For Roman Catholic Converts

I received an email from a gentleman, concerned that it took RC Sproul years to respond to the assault against the Reformed faith by the Federal Vision. However, it could be argued that Sproul’s brief little two-minute speech he gave at the PCAGA could hardly qualify as a genuine and substantive response at all, especially in light of the fact that he permitted his Ligonier Ministries to be used as a platform for Federal Visionaries for so long.

The gentleman had an additional concern — the fact that so many Federal Visionaries have become Roman Catholic converts. I too have heard this very thing, and I even know of several people who have become RC (that’s Roman Catholic, not Robert Charles) as a direct result of first embracing the Federal Vision.

Below is a video clip by a Roman Catholic who gloats over this very thing, and who thanks the Federal Visionaries for helping to make Roman Catholic converts. In his words:

“I rejoice with the Federal Vision because I believe that it’s a golden brick road to Rome… So I thank God for the Federal Vision because it’s a termite within Protestantism, and it’s tearing away at the structure, and everything that’s falling out is coming to the Roman Catholic faith.”

I’m sad to have to agree with this Roman Catholic. However, he’s not entirely correct when he says that “everything that’s falling out is coming to the Roman Catholic faith.” There are also numerous accounts of those who embrace the Federal Vision, and then go on to become Greek or Russian Orthodox. Not that there’s even much of a difference between the RCs and Orthodox.
_________

References

Presbytery Reports On Federal Vision:

• Mississippi Valley Presbytery (PCA) Report on Federal Vision

SermonAudio:

• Review & Critique of the Federal Vision / Auburn Avenue Theology
• Analyzing the Federal Vision
• Federal Vision Refutation
• Refuting the Federal Vision Heresy

Web Sites:

• Paul’s Perspective
• Providence OPC Spring Conference on Federal Vision
• Covenantal Universalism: New Form of an Old Attack on Sovereign Grace

Books:

• The Federal Vision and Covenant Theology: A Comparative Analysis
• Justification And The New Perspectives On Paul: A Review And Response
• Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul
• The Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision

The following article has been republished here with the permission of the author, Don Veinot. The original article appears on the Midwest Christian Outreach Blog.

Don Veinot has also published an exposé about Doug Phillips and his Patriarchy entitled, Who Will Be The First in the Kingdom? The article appears in the current edition of the MCOI Journal. Jennifer Epstein previously posted an article about it entitled, Cult-Watch Ministry Publishes Article Exposing Doug Phillips.

Doug Phillips – New Paganism?

by: Don Veinot, Midwest Christian Outreach, Inc.

A number of years ago Dr. Albert Mohler spoke at an EMNR conference and in his talk shared a story about Bishop John Shelby Spong. According to Mohler, at the Lambeth Conference, Spong had committed a cultural and political boo-boo. He had been pressing for the ordination of homosexuals but was unable to get the majority to agree at the time because the bishops from Africa held firmly against it. In a moment of frustration Spong lashed out with, “The reason the African bishops believe the Bible to literally is because they have been so recently converted from paganism.” To which the Bishop from Uganda responded, “The reason Spong doesn’t believe the Bible is because he has so recently been converted to paganism.”

I have thought a lot about this exchange lately. It is easy for many of us to write off liberalism, the Emerging Church and Postmodernism as an embracing of paganism by church leaders and their followers. And, to be sure, it is. But, do some segments of conservative believers embrace other forms of paganism that may be promoted by some of their leaders? I would suggest this is the case with Doug Phillips and Bill Gothard.

Bill Gothard embraces and promotes the pagan view of authority as being the Christian view of a top down authority based on a misuse of the story of the centurion in Matthew 8:5-10. The story was about who Jesus was and His ability to heal long distance but Gothard makes it a story about authority and wrote in his Basic Seminar Textbook:

After the centurion asked Jesus to come and heal his servant, it occurred to him that just as life was structured around a “chain of responsibility,” so the kingdom in which God operates must have a similar structure of authority.

Jesus directly inverted this idea in Luke 22:25-26:

And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Rather than the leader being less or not accountable and each one below them in “authority” being progressively more accountable to a larger number of people above them Jesus turned it around and made the leader the most accountable. God’s leaders live in glass houses and everyone else has Windex!

But how does this reflect upon or answer the question about Doug Phillips and Vision Forum? There are a number of areas that could be looked at, including his view of authority which, like Gothard’s derives from First Century paganism. We have looked at his promotion of his concept of patriarchy in our current Journal article, “Who Will Be First in the Kingdom?” (Vol. 13, No 2). Another area is Vision Forum’s view of women. How does it compare with First Century paganism?

Moya K. Mason points out in her “Ancient Roman Women: A Look at their Lives.”:

< < Although the role of women in ancient Rome was primarily child-bearing, women also played an important role in raising the children >>

In that culture aristocratic woman may have received some education but that was primarily for use in educating their children. Most women received little or no education. Men were the ones to receive higher education. It was considered a waste of time and financial resources to educate a woman in the same way. After all, her use was to have children and stay at home to care for them. The husband owned the wife and children. If she had a baby girl he had the choice as to whether the female child would live or die. He was more interested in having a son to carry on his name but the son too was property until he attained adulthood. The daughter could be sold or bartered with. She lived with the father until he decided to marry her off, or perhaps not marry her off and she was under his authority until he died.

Alvin J. Schmidt in his book Under the Influence: How Christianity Transformed Civilization points out how the church elevated the status of women by addressing many of these issues. He also comments on the church having to go back and address this issue as various church leaders have reintroduced this pagan view of women back in to the church. As we look at Vision Forum are we seeing yet another attempt at bringing the pagan view of women back in to the church? In their statement The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy we read:

Until she is given in marriage, a daughter continues under her father’s authority and protection

But what of education? Like the First Century Romans, Vision Forum in their article ”Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation” considers educating females a waste of time and money:

And does it really make economic sense to invest tens of thousands of dollars for a woman to get an advanced education (often having to go into debt to finance that education) that she will NOT use if she accepts that her highest calling is to be a wife and mother?

In his excellent book Misquoting Truth: A Guide to the Fallacies of Bart Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” Timothy Paul Jones addresses Bart Ehrman’s claim that some passages were modified to oppose women and Jews:

A handful of changes could potentially relate to the role of women in churches today. It appears that women played more prominent roles in the early church than they did in the later eras. As a result some scribes in late ancient and medieval times seem to have altered texts that seemed to place women in prominent positions.

For example, in the most ancient manuscripts of Acts 18:26, a woman named Priscilla seems to be the primary teachers of Apollos. Centuries later, a copyist switched the order of names, placing the name of Pricilla’s husband, Aquila, first. In Romans 16:7, someone named Junia – a woman’s name – is said to be “significant among the apostles,” but a later scribe turned “Junia” into “Junias,” a man’s name. In Acts 17:4, another scribe changed “prominent women” into “wives of prominent men.” In each of these cases, however, it’s possible to look at the manuscripts and recover the original wording.

Similarly, Doug Phillips’ Vision Forum is clear in their article ”Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation” of the wrongness of a woman having an individual personal view and taking any sort of participation or prominent role which may be viewed as competing with her owner, er, I mean husband:

In regards to a woman’s right to vote; if husband and wife are truly “one flesh” and the husband is doing his duty to represent the family to the wider community, then what PRACTICAL benefit does allowing women to vote provide? If husband and wife agree on an issue, then one has simply doubled the number of votes; but the result is the same. Women’s voting only makes a difference when the husband and wife disagree; a wife, who does not trust the judgment of her husband, can nullify his vote. Thus, the immediate consequence is to enshrine the will of the individual OVER the good of the family thus creating divisions WITHIN the family.

Is Doug Phillips just the latest incarnation of this infiltration? I am not sure but it seems worth thinking about.

Doug Phillips “Utterly Shatters The Nonsense” About Misrepresentations On Patriarchy

Last week was an epic week for Doug Phillips of Vision Forum Ministries. Mr. Phillips was at the center of what was touted to be the most significant event in Vision Forum’s history, the hosting of a 400th anniversary celebration of the founding of the Jamestown Virginia Colony. Doug Phillips promoted his event as a “celebration,” whereas the “official” government sanctioned event last month was called a “commemoration.” The most politically correct called it an “invasion.” Doug Phillips is correct to call it a “celebration” for there is indeed much to celebrate.

Speakers for the event included respected Christian historians and scholars such as Gary DeMar, Marshall Foster, John Eidsmoe, Joe Morecraft, Paul Jehle. And then there was Doug Phillips.

“The Jameston Quadricentennial: A Celebration of Our Providential History was the most significant and far reaching event in the history of Vision Forum Ministries.”

A former Vision Forum intern by the name of C.S. Hayden was gracious enough to post a number of event photos and offer some personal commentary. Some of what Caleb Hayden shares, however, is significant in conveying the fact that Doug Phillips was faithfully checking certain blogs last week to see how he was faring in the court of public opinion. For example, here’s a portion of his account of Doug Phillips’ talk from Saturday, June 16:

Doug Phillips encouraged us throughout the day as he shared stories of God’s Providence in planting and sustaining the Jamestown settlement. At the end of the day, he implored all of us to raise up an army of many children for God’s glory, which aroused great cheers and applause from the crowd (including from yours truly). He also said that we must return to biblical manhood and womanhood, and at this point, he utterly shattered the nonsense that some people falsely propagate about the teachings of the “patriarchy” movement. He said that we need visionary daughters who are capable, intelligent, well-trained, and love being women. Doesn’t sound like Mr. Phillips thinks women are “doormats,” as some misguided souls have suggested. He also said we must have sons of honor who will be raised to become patriarchal leaders of their households, with love, sacrifice, a vision for discipleship, appreciation and honor for their wives, and willingness to lay down their own lives. Doesn’t sound like Mr. Phillips thinks men are exalted as tyrannical dictators over women, as some misguided souls have suggested.

Apparently, this was very significant, or at least it was significant to C.S. Hayden, because it’s one of the very first things he mentions in his article. This appears to be a clear reference to Jen Epstein’s three-part series, “Are The Biblical Tenets Of Patriarchy Biblical?“, and perhaps a lesser reference to my own article, “The Vision Forum: Patriarchy Weirdness Exposed.” Other blogs and forums too have picked up on Jen Epstein’s Patriarchy critiques and, no doubt, Doug Phillips is under some pressure to respond.

Vision Forum’s “The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy” appear to be a vital document — absolutely vital to Vision Forum’s “vision.” As Jen pointed out last week, Patriarchy is central to so many of Vision Forum’s events. Without Patriarchy Vision Forum’s “vision” is no more, and unless Vision Forum can continue to claim that Patriarchy is “biblical” they won’t have any basis to continue pushing it with any legitimate authority.

It’s remarkable that such a significant document could have been posted for several years on Vision Forum’s web site and, apparently, no one has ever publicly challenged it in any substantive way as being extra-biblical and unbiblical. Then along comes Jennifer Epstein, not a biblical scholar but just a simple Berean, and with relative ease she begins to cast serious doubt on “The Tenets.”

How will Vision Forum respond? According to C.S. Hayden, Doug Phillips has already “utterly shattered” Jen Epstein’s arguments. But the problem is that no one has seen any evidence of it. Furthermore, Jen Epstein isn’t arguing against “a return to biblical manhood and womanhood.” In fact it’s apparent that this is exactly what she is arguing in favor of. What she’s arguing against is calling The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy “biblical,” when so much of it appears to be so seriously lacking in biblical support. Worse yet it does appear that Doug Phillips has engaged in a great deal of prooftexting and taking Bible verses out of context to try and make his case. Rather than handling the Word of God with respect and treating it as sacred, Doug Phillips appears to have used God’s sacred Word in a self-serving manner to push his personal and very profitable agenda.

I assume that C.S. Hayden isn’t a Vision Forum employee. However, as a “former intern” he would have been personally trained by Doug Phillips in such things as debate and logic. Therefore, one would suppose that Caleb would have at least some abilities to defend statements that he makes on his own blog. Caleb did receive some comments on his blog. However, Caleb’s “response” was most disconcerting.

Tammy C said….
What a good ending.I am sure we will be reading about this celebration on many blogs for weeks to come.

Enjoy your visit with the family from Mountain Musings.
6/17/2007 7:09 AM

Nate E said…
What? No Jamestown 400 finalist pictures?

Thanks for covering the event. Looks like it was an excellent “building up” time.
6/17/2007 7:45 AM

Joshua said…
I really wish we could’ve gone. I’m jealous. Our family just couldn’t afford it. It sounds like it was awesome.

“He also said that we must return to biblical manhood and womanhood, and at this point, he utterly shattered the nonsense that some people falsely propagate about the teachings of the ‘patriarchy’ movement.”

We need to hear more on this! Patriarchy is definitely under attack, and not from the typical non-Christian feminists, but from Christians who claim that they’ve believed in Patriarchy and practiced it. This has got me worried.

I’ve been following the articles on Jen’s Gems this week critiquing The Biblical Tenets Of Patriarchy. I have to admit that I’ve been very bothered about it because it does appear that there may be some theological holes in some of the tenets. I haven’t seen anybody step up to the plate to defend it. At this point I’m not really sure what to think.

Do you know if Vision Forum will be responding? If Doug can “shatter the nonsense” then I hope he does it really soon where we can all see it, like on his blog. This is really important.
6/17/2007 4:33 PM

Spunky said…
Joshua,

I share your thoughts when you say, “it does appear that there may be some theological holes in some of the tenets.”.

We are a family that believes in Biblical patriarchy. Which at one time we believed was the same thing that men such as Doug Phillips believed. (We were very early supporters of Vision Forum.) However, having read the tenets shortly after they were first published and some recent writings by men within Vision Forum such as Mr. Abshire, we began to see that what they purport as biblical patriarchy isn’t exactly what we see in Scripture. There are places where their scriptural justification is not sufficient for the claims they are making.

Which in and of itself would be fine. This wouldn’t be the first time that disagreement occurs between believers over doctrine. What is troubling to us is that any disagreement is seen by those that ascribe to their viewpoint as an attack on THEM. Those who have supported and encouraged the various ministries over the years are surprised to see that those who disagree are viewed as “the enemy” simply for saying perhaps this isn’t quite right or supported in Scripture. Don’t misunderstand I’m not saying that must see it our way. But isn’t there something between total agreement and total enemy?

Can sensible bible-believing Christians disagree with the tenets of patriarchy as written by Doug Phillips and Phil Lancaster without being considered a effeminate or thwarting God’s restoration of Western Civilization?

The fact that you or others are looking to Doug Phillips for a response which will “shatter this nonsense” is also a troubling thought. Why must Doug Phillips respond? Rather, let each of us, study the Scripture and decide who is actually moving into nonsense. Relying on men such as Doug Phillips to do the work of the fathers only proves that possibly the men who have written the tenets have become more important than the Truth they seek to teach us.

Let each father become a Berean and see that if what is taught by Godly teachers is actually true.

Isn’t that what a true Patriarch would do to protect his family from possible heresy?
6/17/2007 7:33 PM

Joshua said…
“Why must Doug Phillips respond?” He needs to respond because The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy are being accused of being unbiblical and extrabiblical.

We’ve shared The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy with a lot of other families because we want to see a lot of Christian families doing patriarchy. Some have been open to becoming patriarchal too, especially when they see that it’s biblical. It’s hard to argue against something that’s biblical.

Until this week we’d never even heard anyone say that The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy aren’t biblical. We really need some help with this. We believe that God has raised up Doug Phillips as a great teacher. He’s one of the smartest men we’ve ever heard. Even the people attacking patriarchy probably see that he’s really smart. So we’re looking to him to help us with this. He’s been so helpful to our family. Why is it wrong for us to look to him for help with this? We’re really grateful to Doug Phillips. He’s done more for the patriarchy movement than anyone.

6/17/2007 10:17 PM
Anonymous said…
As far as Doug P. not thinking women are doormats, I submit that actions speak louder than words. God bless him for proclaiming otherwise, but how does he behave? That’s far more telling.

I agree with Spunky - I am a women with a graduate professional education, raised in a patriarchy family. Why is it the patriarchy movement condemns me for living my calling, just because it includes higher education and doesn’t fit some kind of cookie cutter mold? Honestly, I’d have fewer problems with it if people would stop telling me I’m going to hell or can’t possibly be in God’s divine will because I think women should be allowed to go to college if it fits in their life plan.
6/18/2007 1:30 AM

Anonymous said…
Joshua,

Your sad comment is exactly why it is an awesome thing that people are starting to sit up and take notice of the heresies being promoted as “biblical truth” in patriocentric circles.

God hasn’t called you to wait around for Doug Phillips to tell you what to believe. Paul commended the Bereans for searching the Scriptures themselves. If all you have to offer your own children is what Doug Phillips thinks or believes, why should they follow you as their patriarch?

I offer this challenge to you….set aside any tapes, books, or writings of any kind written by someone in a patriocentric camp. Pick up your Bible and start reading the Gospels. Take notes as you read, paying particular attention to what Jesus says. Then, compare His writings with those of the patriarchs.

It will take a while to detox…believe me, I was there. But when your patriocentric delerium tremmens have passed, all you will have left is God’ precious grace and you can move on to a living relationship with the Lord, as can your family.
6/18/2007 4:25 AM

Spunky said…
Joshua, you said “Why must Doug Phillips respond?” He needs to respond because The Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy are being accused of being unbiblical and extrabiblical.

I understand that the Tenets are being accused of being unbiblical or extrabiblical. But the question for those of us who believe in Biblical patriarchy shouldn’t be “How does Doug Phillips respond to this?” Instead we should ask, “What does the Scripture say? Are the tenets Biblcial?”

If the Biblical Tenets are indeed bilbical they will hold up to the strongest scrutiny. We have heard from Doug Phillips and what he believes on Biblical Patriarchy, now is the time for every man to examine those tenets as a Berean and see if they are indeed true. Don’t let your supposition be that they are, but test them to see if they are indeed True. Scrutinizing the Tenets is not the same as challenging Doug Phillips personally. It’s obeying the Scriptural instruction to study to show ourselves approved unto God. Paul was scrutinized by the Bereans, surely we are permitted to scrutinize the Godly teachers of our day as well.

You asked, “Why is it wrong for us to look to him for help with this?”

I’m not saying it’s wrong, but troubling when a believer looks to a man FIRST to see what he thinks rather than looking to Scripture to see what God reveals. Doug Phillips is fallible, just like you and I. Yes, he is smart and gifted in many areas. But that doesn’t make him right in all areas. You are free to ask him what he thinks about the criticism. But that doesn’t excuse you from your first obligation which is to search the scriptures yourself to see if the things any teacher teaches are indeed true, that must be done independent of Doug Phillips.

Our focus as believers should be on Truth. Truth will stand up to the toughest scrutiny. It is we who must have the courage to accept what Truth reveals about us and what we believe. Clinging to an idea simply because the messenger has been right in other areas in the past, or his idea has personally helped you, is insufficient to believe the idea is Biblical or that the teacher is consistently right in all areas.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying Doug Phillip’s Biblical Tenets are wrong. He could very well be right, and those that critize need to adjust. But how will we know unless we ALL are studying for ourselves and not relying on someone to study it for us and telling us where the flaws are? Study the Truth of Scriptures and build your own defense for why these Tenets are true. Then when you have exhausted yourself in the effort, petition many great biblical scholars to examine what you have found. And then compare what you have found with the Tenets themselves. See where you agree and where you disagree. Then go back and study some more attempting to resolve the areas of difference.

But of course, that all takes work. It is so much easier to just have someone tell us what to believe. Following someone else who has studied and found what they believe is easier than doing the work ourselves. I’m not trying to be hard on you. It’s true of all of us. But a Christian man or woman will study the teachings of others for the greater good of themselves and their family. And in return, the great teachers will know that they are indeed accountable for the words they teach. And in the end the Body of Christ benefits.

Accountability isn’t to be feared it is to be embraced. For in true accountability, the purity of Truth shines forth. Truth cannot be hidden from view is inescapable. It is we who must have the courage to accept what Truth reveals. That is a harder task than even studying. But in the end it is the right choice.

George Grant wrote recently, “None of us like to hear that we are wrong, that we have to make changes in our lives, that we have to adjust our way of thinking, or that we have to admit our faults. We are loathe to confess that are in need of repentance, forgiveness, or forbearance. And we persist in our pride even when we know the truth.

The truth demands something of us. It may or may not demand something of us as dramatic as what it demanded of the passengers of Flight 93. Though the truth ultimately sets us free, it does so at some cost.”

And that cost is usually our pride. We don’t want to admit that we or someone we admire might be wrong. But the Truth will set us free. And I am glad I have freedom in Christ and not bound to the claims of any earthly teacher however smart or talented they appear to me at first.
6/18/2007 7:31 AM

Spunky said…
Lastly Joshua you said, “Even the people attacking patriarchy probably see that he’s really smart.”

Not all who are examining the tenets are attacking patriarchy. That gets back to my first comment. Joshua, why do you view those who question what Doug Phillips teaches as Biblical Patriarchy, as an attack on patriarchy itself?

Brian Abshire warned in the article Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation, “There is also the danger that some men will over-react against the common emasculated concept of the modern “father” and will overcompensate by denying any authority other than their own; including lawful authority in the church and State. The simple fact is that ALL Men will sin; they will sin against God and they will sin against their families. However, the divinely required methodology of dealing with that sin is by meditating and applying the unchanging standards of God’s law, being humble before Him, recognizing and confessing that sin, and then through repentance, taking the appropriate course of action.”

I believe Mr. Abshire is correct in that regard. There is a danger for any man not correctly defining or applying what the Bible says about Patriarchy. That includes Doug Phillips. The remedy is each of us applying the unchanging standard of God’s Word to our lives and those we allow to teach us. This should not be viewed as an attack or threat by anyone truly seeking God’s Truth and His alone.
6/18/2007 8:38 AM

Spunky said…
Let me clarify, I am NOT accusing Doug Phillips of sin with his tenets of patriarchy. But that ALL men do sin in their lives. We cannot see the words of any man as infallible, the claim of perfect truth is for God’s Word alone. Sola Scriptura. Therefore the possibility exists that in writing his tenets he MAY have erred just as all men are capable of erring. The only way we will know for certainty is by doing what Mr. Abshire exhorts and that is comparing Doug Phillips words against the unchanging Truth of God’s Word.
6/18/2007 8:44 AM

How did Caleb Hayden respond? Caleb “responded” by deleting all but the first two comments. Thankfully, Spunky saved the comment thread and reposted them on Jen Epstein’s blog.

Caleb may or may not know know who Joshua is. Perhaps Joshua’s questions and concerns embarrassed Caleb. Perhaps Caleb just didn’t now what to say. But is that any cause to just delete his comments? Joshua’s comments do appear to be a sincere plea for assistance. Is this how Doug Phillips trains his interns to respond to people who are begging for help?

Spunky, on the other hand, is someone that, if Caleb doesn’t know who she is, he really should. “Spunky” is no obscure unknown figure in the home schooling sector of the blogosphere. Given that home school moms probably comprise at least 50 to 70% of Vision Forum’s business, that was a very foolish thing for Caleb to delete Spunky’s comments. Spunky is a very thoughtful and circumspect lady, and not one to quickly take sides in a controversy or dispute.

It troubles me to see the way that C.S. Hayden treated Joshua. It would be nice if we could all assume that just because Caleb Hayden isn’t a Vision Forum employee that his behavior isn’t a reflection on Vision Forum. But the fact is his behavior is a direct reflection of the culture that is Vision Forum, a culture of Doug Phillips’ creation. Caleb was trained by Doug Phillips. Caleb is just “responding” as he’s been taught, and by what Doug Phillips has personally modeled for him.

Joshua, keep pressing for answers. Contact Vision Forum directly. However, don’t be surprised if their response isn’t any different than Caleb Hayden’s “response.” That will tell you something: You’re permitted to agree with Doug Phillips. You’re not permitted to disagree, or to so much as even ask him questions that might embarrass him. That’s all part of the hyper-Patriarchy package.

Spunky had some very good insight and suggestions. I’d like to suggest, Joshua, that you carefully consider what she said. In fact I’d like to just recommend what she said to anyone who’s now looking for answers about this Patriarchy thing. I don’t believe we’re going to find any answers by looking to Doug Phillips and Vision Forum. I think they’re part of the problem.

If you haven’t been following Jen’s Gems, and the ongoing exposés of Doug Phillips there, you’re missing out on some fascinating discussion. One of the subjects that I’ve personally been following with great interest is “Patriarchy.” Prior to reading about Doug Phillips’ ecclesiastical tyrannies I’ve never really given much thought to the Patriarchy movement. However, in following this story it’s becoming more and more apparent to me that the Patriarchy movement leadership has got some serious problems when it comes to the proper and biblical exercise of authority.

There also seems to be a certain “weirdness” factor about Patriarchy, at least with the leadership of the movement. For example, one of the commenters on Jen’s Gems made mention of some weird goings on at The Vision Forum’s annual Father and Daughter Discipleship Retreats, including “unity” events such as “daughters shaving their daddies” and “daughters dressing their daddies.”

When I first read that comment I thought, “Surely you jest! That’s just too weird!” Unfortunately, the commenter really was telling the truth. It didn’t take me long to find specific references on Vision Forum’s web site to these weird goings on. I’m sure that there are a lot of nice and proper things that happen at these Vision Forum events, and no doubt I’ll get some commenters now telling me how wonderful these events are. But regardless of all the nice and proper things that may happen there, the daddy-shaving and daddy-dressing isn’t proper, at least in my book. It’s creepy.

Some photographs from the Vision Forum daddy-shaving sessions are provided below, and below them are the photo captions from the Vision Forum web site:

And of course after shaving daddy we must also dress daddy:

“It’s not that any of them are inherently opposed to church discipline. No, in fact they love church discipline, so long as it’s them that are wielding it. Tyranny loves company and bullies love other bullies (it’s for good reason that Hilter and Mussolini were pals).” Christian Leaders Ignore Sin (When It’s Advantageous), by Henry Barnes

One of the hottest blogs right now is “Jen’s Gems; Exposing Doug Phillips’ Ecclesiastical Tyrannies.” I don’t mean that Jen Epstein’s blog is hot just in Christian circles. I mean her blog is hot in cyberspace in general. Jen’s blog has gone from obscurity to being listed several times now on the WordPress Blogs Of The Day. May 2nd found her listed #89 out of over 900,000 WordPress blogs! And that was a low point. She’s been as high as #26! The number of comments she’s getting on some of her articles also boggles the mind. For example, her article “Vision Forum: Culture of Deception by Doug Phillips’ Example?” currently has 560 comments! Surely that’s got to be some kind of new blog record!

All the commotion over Jen’s blog has helped to shed some light on some other things beyond just Doug Phillips and his tyranny. In order to better understand Doug Phillips’ ecclesiastical tyranny, and why he refuses to repent of it, it might be helpful to examine some of Phillips’ values and beliefs, especially where any of those values and beliefs are the very thing that may be motivating and justifying (in his mind) his tyranny. For example, there’s the doctrine of “Patriarchy.”

Doug Phillips is a prominent leader of the “Patriarchy” movement. So is RC Sproul Jr. Phillips and Sproul teamed up with the publisher of Patriarch magazine, Phil Lancaster, to produce The Tenets Of Biblical Patriarchy. Though “The Tenets” contain numerous Scripture references, a careful read of those references will in some cases show that those verses do not make their case at all. While there may be some desirable aspects to Patriarchy, given the dubious character of the authors of “The Tenets,” we might want to proceed with great caution.

Both Phillips and Sproul are ecclesiastical tyrants. Sproul was defrocked over it (and some other things too). Phillips can’t be defrocked because he’s never been frocked in the first place (he’s a self-appointed non-ordained “pastor” accountable to no one). Phillips and Sproul are apparently very close friends. Doug Phillips says of RC Sproul Jr, “My heart beats to the same drum.” I’m not surprised to hear it.

Patriarchy is starting to find itself more and more under the microscope, and Doug Phillips’ unjust excommunication and shunning of the Epstein family is a major reason for it. Some folks are assuming that there must be a direct cause/effect between Patriarchy and ecclesiastical abuse. I haven’t yet reached a firm conclusion on this, but I do have some thoughts that I’d like to share that I hope will stimulate some productive discussion here.

A number of people have alleged that Patriarchy is inherently a misogynistic extrabiblical belief system that subjugates women and children to autocratic men. If that were true then the potential for abuse would be high and perhaps even commonplace.

It seems logically consistent that autocratic and authoritarian men may not be content to rule merely over their own homes. They would seek to rule over other people as well. As the scope of such a man’s “authority” increased, and particularly where he actively sought out additional positions of authority, the opportunity for his abuses would grow exponentially.

The office of Pastor would be an ideal position for such a man to seek out. The office of Pastor is a position of trust, and it also carries an inherent authority. The Bible has much to say on the qualifications of pastors and elders (1 Timothy 3, 1 Peter 5) and how they are to govern the church of Jesus Christ as His under-shepherds. They are to be servant-leaders, compassionate, caring, and edifying. But because of sin there will always be exceptions, and sometimes bad men will seek to become pastors who have no business being pastors.

God has ordained that we have pastors. Therefore, the office of Pastor does not create bad men. Usually the opposite is the case. Many less than exemplary men have become pastors, and they have soon discovered that the demands and responsibilities of the office compel them to completely change their lives, and for the good. Either that or they soon realize they lack the qualifications and they leave the pastorate for good.

This isn’t to say though that bad men aren’t occasionally tempted to become pastors. However, they were bad men before they became pastors. They sought out the office of Pastor not because of God’s calling, or because of a desire to humbly serve and minister, but because they crave the personal attention and “authority” that comes with being a pastor. It wasn’t the office of Pastor that corrupted their character; they were corrupt long before they became pastors.

I’m currently unable to say the same thing of Patriarchy. I’m concerned that Patriarchy has great potential for taking otherwise good men and making something bad out of them. Again, I’m not decided on that issue, and I welcome more discussion here. However, one thing I am decided on though is that the influence of Patriarchy is the worst possible thing for a man to get involved with when he already has problems with loving his wife and kids, anger management, etc., or if he already has a tendency to govern his home as a dictator. Entrusting an angry man to be a “Patriarch” is like entrusting rebellious teenage boys with whiskey and the car keys.

I can’t think of a more ego-gratifying position for an autocrat like Doug Phillips to seek out, for the purpose of expanding his “dominion,” and the number of people that he can dominate and abuse, than the office of Pastor. Who appointed, who anointed, who commissioned, who ordained Doug Phillips to the office of Pastor? Doug Phillips did. Doug Phillips is an “authority” unto himself. When you add “the tenets” of Patriarchy to that kind of mix you’ve got the makings for a very volatile situation.

Over on Jen’s Gems, Esther posted an interesting comment, and then she asked a question which got me thinking:

Esther Says:
April 28th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Mark, what I do not understand is the glaring hypocrisy for anyone with eyes to see.

Doug Phillips had no problem with the Sproul, Jr. defrocking. Like Sproul, Sr, he ignored church authority and held teaching a teaching conference with Jr. soon after the defrocking.

Yet, you and Jen are excommunicated and shunned for not repenting but are not told your offense that you must repent?

It really does boil down to Doug Phillips’ opinion…not scripture.

Folks, if that is not a cult, I don’t know what is.

Since I do not come from patriarchal type circles, I was wondering if it is normal to ’shun’ children in these situations?

Esther asked an important question that really needs to be addressed. I don’t come from a patriarchal background either, so I’m probably not the best one to answer her question. However, one thing I do know is that it’s not the first time shunning entire families for the alleged sins of the parents has been perpetrated by a prominent figurehead in the Patriarchy movement. The unjust excommunication and shunning of the Austin family by RC Sproul Jr is another recent example of a prominent Patriarchy leader who’s shown his penchant for being an ecclesiastical thug. Apparently Sproul’s thuggery was a major factor in why he and his entire session of elders were defrocked:

Another significant factor in the deposing of the St. Peter Session is the ecclesiastical tyrannies they perpetrated against several families over several years. Noteworthy among these is the John Austin family because it was the first that had been documented, and the first which had petitioned to Presbytery for redress.

On April 17, 2005 John Austin sent a letter to the Elders of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, informing them that he was withdrawing his membership at St. Peter over doctrinal disagreements, and that he would be seeking out another church in the area more in accord with his Reformed Baptist views. In his letter he stated, “We in no way want to cause problems or divisiveness,” and for his desire to be at peace with the brethren:

StPeterElders04-17-05.doc
StPeterElders04-17-05.pdf

On May 14, 2005 the Session of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church voted unanimously to censure John Austin “for contumacy (failure to repent) by breaking his vows of membership.” John’s punishment included, “The refraining from all contact with your family by the other families in our church.” In other words, the congregation of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church was ordered to shun the entire Austin family, including the Austin’s five children:

AustinCensureLetter.doc
AustinCensureLetter.pdf

The incident with the Austins is an obvious example of an ecclesiastically abusive church. But it might also be fair to refer to St. Peter as a “Patriarchy Church” since its head [defrocked] pastor is a prominent leader in the Patriarchy movement. Are Patriarchy leaders more prone than other pastors to engage in unjust church discipline? There does appear to be a pattern to indicate so.

The Austin family excommunication and shunning sparked debate about the nature of church membership. Doug Phillips had this to say:

Biblically leaving a local church involves transferring covenant duties and privileges from one local body to another. It does not involve breaking a covenant.

To put it another way, the believer’s covenant with the local church can be transferred to another Christ-honoring local church, but it cannot be “resigned,” abandoned, or simply disregarded without the professing believer becoming a covenant-breaker.

But what happens when the pastor refuses to permit a church member to “be transferred to another Christ-honoring local church”? And how can you even have an opportunity to be transferred if your pastor won’t allow you to even check out any of the other local churches so you can figure out which one you’d like to transfer too?

Just how far does a pastor’s authority legitimately extend? Can he actually prohibit you from leaving his church, even when you have just cause for wanting to leave? And if you leave anyway does he really have the spiritual authority and the biblical support to “excommunicate” you, such is in the Austin case, thereby putting you outside the visible church and cutting you off from the grace of God? The RPCGA completely disagreed with RC Sproul Jr about his “excommunication” of the Austins, and he wound up being taken to the woodshed for it.

As the Austin family found out, even though they did their best to leave St. Peter Presbyerian Church “honorably,” and even though they did nothing in violation of the church’s Book Of Church Order, it still wasn’t good enough for RC Sproul Jr and his session of ecclesiastical bullies. The Austins were unjustly excommunicated, and Sproul ordered the St. Peter congregation to shun them, and that included even the Austin children. Punishing entire families by shunning, including even small children, for the alleged “sins” of their parents, is an extremely cruel and wicked thing to do. Punishing children for the sins of their parents is also expressly prohibited by Scripture:

The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. Ezek. 18:20

What was done to the Austin family bears striking resemblance to what was done to the Epsteins. In the name of “church discipline” Doug Phillips abused the Epstein family, the entire family, in much the same way as Sproul abused the Austin family. If ever there could be an act that a pastor could commit that carries with it the risk for causing children to stumble and lose their faith, it would be to punish them for the sins (real or imagined) of their parents. RC Sproul Jr, Doug Phillips, and other Patriarch leaders of their ilk, should take the frightening ramifications of Matthew 18:6 to heart.

Even a pagan knows how unjust it is to punish the children for the sins of their parents. Even cults that are renowned for shunning, like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, don’t shun entire families. When it comes to church discipline, these two “Patriarchs” are guilty of perpetrating more injustice and wickedness than any JW pastor ever has. This isn’t to say that a JW pastor wouldn’t be capable of doing the same thing. But even JW pastors have some accountability that prevents them from getting away with it. Sproul was disciplined for his abuses by the Presbyterian denomination that he was ordained by. Doug Phillips hasn’t been disciplined for his tyrannies because he’s not ordained by anyone, and not accountable to any ecclesiastical authority. Doug Phillips is a law unto himself.

Ecclesiastical thugs are prone to defend and support other ecclesiastical thugs. That’s why Doug Phillips continued supporting RC Sproul Jr after he’d been subjected to the severe church discipline of being defrocked. Phillips demands that all churches honor the “church discipline” that he meted out against the Epsteins, without so much as even being permitted to question him about it. But why should anyone honor Doug Phillips’ church discipline when he openly defies the church discipline that was meted out against RC Sproul Jr? Doug Phillips’ hypocrisy should surprise no one. Ecclesiastical thugs demand respect and honor, but they only give respect and honor to others when it advances their personal agenda. To quote Esther again:

“Doug Phillips had no problem with the Sproul, Jr. defrocking. Like Sproul, Sr, he ignored church authority and held teaching a teaching conference with Jr. soon after the defrocking.”

Only several weeks after RC Sproul Jr’s defrocking, Doug Phillips and his father Howard Phillips spoke at a conference hosted by RC Sproul Jr’s Highlands Study Center, an event directly affiliated with St. Peter Presbyterian Church, the church that Sproul continued pastoring, even though he’d been defrocked. Hypocrisy was manifested in full force by the very title of the conference, Generations Conference, Giving Honor To Whom Honor Is Due.

By speaking at that conference, Doug Phillips sent a message loud and clear. By speaking at a conference on “honor” with the newly defrocked RC Sproul Jr, Doug Phillips thumbed his nose at the Presbyterian denomination that had disciplined his pal. But defiance of church authority isn’t the whole of it. As others have already pointed out, RC Sproul Jr had just suffered the military equivalent of being court martialed, found guilty, and receiving a dishonorable discharge. Then he has the nerve to host a conference on “Honor”? The magnitude of this hypocrisy just boggles the mind!

For anyone who’s read the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment they shouldn’t have any trouble figuring out exactly why the Saint Peter elders were defrocked. The list of charges was very detailed and specific, and apparently there was a lot of evidence to support the charges. Not only that but Sproul even confessed, effectively pleading “Guilty as charged.” Sproul received due process according to the well documented disciplinary procedures of the RPCGA’s Book Of Church Order. Sproul had sworn an oath to obey that BCO, and to be held accountable to it.

There can be no doubt in anyone’s mind that RC Sproul Jr received justice. But oddly enough there is some defiance of the RPCGA’s discipline, at least among a few of Sproul’s fellow Patriarchal ecclesiastical buddies. Aside from Doug Phillips, there is also Doug Wilson. It may not just be a coincidence that Doug Wilson is another prominent Patriarchy leader. Not long after being defrocked, Sproul was welcomed by Doug Wilson into his Confederation Of Reformed Evangelical Churches, a place where other defrocked ministers have also been warmly welcomed. Sproul is “considered ordained in the CREC,” even though he’s defrocked. Go figure. The CREC supposedly has some rules and even makes their ministers swear vows to obey the rules, just like real denominations do. But Doug Wilson appears to be a lot like RC Sproul Jr, in that neither one of them believe the rules actually apply to themselves.

Not that I’m in any way surprised that Doug Wilson has broken his vows to obey the CREC’s Constitution. In fact vow breaking is entirely consistent with how Wilson operates, and he’s very comfortable welcoming into the ranks of the CREC fellow vow breaking ministers who play fast and loose with the rules, including even the defrocked. Witness RC Sproul Jr.

Men of Doug Wilson’s ilk when given any authority at all will always attempt to seize more authority, whether their constitution that they have sworn to obey grants them that authority or not. Doug Wilson, Church Splitter

The disciplinary case against the Epsteins is in stark contrast to the Sproul case. According to the Epsteins, and the primary source documents they posted that back up their story, they were tried in absentia, without any due process, according to procedures that Doug Phillips fabricated out of thin air. The list of charges were vague and unspecific. No evidence was presented. No witnesses were called. The Epsteins weren’t permitted to cross-examine their accuser. The Epsteins pleaded, “Not guilty” and have continued pleading “Not guilty” ever since. The Epsteins have called their “church trial” a “Kangaroo Court” and a “Star Chamber.”

In spite of the sham justice that Doug Phillips meted out against the Epsteins, he demands that all other churches respect his “church discipline.” Yet Phillips has shown no respect toward the church discipline of the RPCGA, a discipline that even he apparently can find no fault with, or at least any fault that he’s willing to make a public statement about. Yet he, just like Doug Wilson, has continued treating RC Sproul Jr as though he’d never been disciplined at all. Yet these Patriarchal ecclesiastics expect and demand that others honor the church discipline that they mete out, even though their own form of church discipline breaks every rule in the book.

Returning now to my original question, “Does Patriarchy Produce Ecclesiastical Tyrants?” Is it Patriarchy that turned men like Doug Phillips and RC Sproul Jr into tyrants, or were they tyrants and bullies all along? Probably the only people who could answer that with some measure of certainty are those who have known these men long enough to know what they were like before they became Patriarchs.

What about at the grass roots level of the Patriarchy movement? Are there a lot of bad Patriarch husbands and fathers? My personal exposure to Patriarchy is somewhat limited, and the only Patriarchs that I personally have known appear to be fine brothers in Christ who treat their wives and children well. They’re true servant-leaders and they’re very biblically minded men. There are probably many godly men involved in the Patriarchy movement who would never be abusive toward their families or anyone else.

Patriarchy, or at least the biblical aspects of Patriarchy (and yes, I believe there are some), has the potential to motivate men to become strong and active leaders in the home, the very sort of thing that many wives often desire that their husbands would be. Weak and ineffective male leadership in the home is an all too common problem and valid complaint among many wives. Someone may yet be able to convince me otherwise, but at least at the grass roots level I don’t think Patriarchy is much of a problem, and there may be many husbands and fathers that have benefited from it. If there is a problem with Patriarchy, the problem is with Patriarchy leaders like Doug Phillips.

The more I look into Patriarchy the more I’m convinced that men like Doug Phillips are giving a movement that has a lot of good potential a bad name. So we should really label them “Hyper-Patriarchs.” Just like so many other extremists, Doug Phillips appears to be hyper about a lot of things, including church discipline. The leadership of the Patriarchy movement are practicing an extremist and extrabiblical form of Patriarchy. Where his Patriarchy touches the church it becomes ecclesiastical tyranny. The church of Jesus Christ needs loving and compassionate discipline, not ecclesiastical tyrants that masquerade as pastors and shepherds. Doug Phillips is an ecclesiastical thug — a brute, a bully, and that’s not the same thing as being a Patriarch.

Doug Phillips has posted a blog article about the Virginia Tech school shootings. Even I could have never anticipated that Doug Phillips was this cold and calloused. Even before the blood had been cleaned from the classroom floors, even before any of the funeral services had been performed, even as twenty gunshot-wounded students still lay recovering in their hospital beds, Doug Phillips was preparing another one of his “See I told you so!” sermons.

Just to ensure that his article received the widest possible exposure, Doug Phillips’ Vision Forum also emailed the article to thousands of recipients. Upon seeing Phillips’ article two days ago I was completely stunned and words failed me. Now that I’ve had a little time to absorb it I’ll try and communicate my thoughts about it.

Others, however, wasted no time in communicating their sentiments to Doug Phillips. One reader wrote in to say:

“Please remove me from your mailing list. The use of this tragedy by any organization to promote an agenda is unconscionable.”

After reading Phillips’ article I had exactly the same sentiment. What he has done is unconscionable.

Phillips entitled his article, On the Horror at Virginia Tech; Finding Eternal Hope in Present Sorrow. But how exactly does Phillips offer hope? He doesn’t. In point of fact his article is a rather gloomy and fatalistic “See I told you so.”

“When people ask: ‘Why does God allow bad things to happen to good people?’ or ‘How can such a terrible thing happen?’, we must point them to the fundamentals. First, all of us deserve death and all of us will die.”

Now there’s some “hope” to offer a grieving mother and father who have just lost their son or daughter in a senseless slaughter! Saying such a thing to grieving families, or even to those who haven’t been directly impacted by the Virginia Tech shootings, like the millions across this land who are questioning, “Where is God at a time like this?”, isn’t a message of hope at all. Phillips’ article is likely to be interpreted by many as a message that God is cruel, unloving, uncaring, judgmental, and only too eager to destroy sinners.

This isn’t to say that I disagree that “All of us deserve death.” While being a valid theological statement, is this a message of hope? Are these words of comfort? Is this the Gospel of Jesus that Christians are to share with the disillusioned and suffering? No, it’s not, nor is it a message of comfort.

Tragedy and “horror” isn’t a time for preaching “fundamentals.” This is a time for mourning and, therefore, this should be a time of “comforting the afflicted”:

Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies, and the God of all comfort; Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God. (2Cor. 1:3-4)

Doug Phillips pastors Boerne Christian Assembly. Pastors are called upon to provide “grief counseling” and even perform funeral services. I cringe to think of the “comfort” meted out by this man to his own church members should any of them ever have an hour of personal crisis.

Phillips says:

“Thousands will be deeply affected, probably for the rest of their lives. The most serious pains belong to the mothers, fathers, and sisters and brothers of the murdered victims. What shall we say to them? What are we to learn from these events?”

Those two questions address very different issues, or at least they should. But it’s clear from his article that Phillips would encourage us to take the practical and theological lessons that he believes we are “to learn from these events” (according to him), and “say to them” those same hard and ponderous theological “fundamentals.” I would submit that to do so would be to beat a wounded person over the head with a message that they’re simply in no position to hear. The harm and injury that could come of it could be catastrophic.

This would be an absolutely horrible time to be sharing any of the things that Phillips talks about in his article with those that mourn at Virginia Tech or, for that matter, anywhere else where unbelievers are present. For Phillips to call these shootings “God’s judgment” is anything but a message of “hope.” However, that’s one of the things that Phillips informs us that they are “to learn from these events