For Which He Cannot Be Forgiven

Posted on | April 16, 2014 | 51 Comments

The sordid details of the Doug Phillips sex scandal have so disturbed me that I am tempted to say some very un-Christian things.

You might want to go read this article at World Magazine — be sure to read all four pages — which references the fact that last month, Phillips had the effrontery to threaten legal action against Peter Bradrick, Jordan Muela, and Bob Renaud, three Christian colleagues who attempted to hold him accountable.

Forgive my un-Christian thoughts about that, OK?

Go read what Doug Phillips wrote about Lourdes Torres in 2003.

Now go read what (allegedly) he did to Lourdes beginning in 2007.

Perhaps you are also having un-Christian thoughts about Doug Phillips now. Extremely violent un-Christian thoughts.

Some of his deluded followers refused to recognize that Phillips “isn’t just an adulterer, he’s an abusive narcissistic sociopath”:

Sadly, there remain thousands of home schoolers who just don’t get it. They’ve learned nothing from the example of the disastrous life of Doug Phillips. They don’t recognize they were conned by a huckster, a carnival barker, a facile manipulator.

Professor Donald Douglas is likewise disgusted with all this, and calls attention to the very worst thing Doug Phillips did: He gave Amanda Marcotte a reason to gloat. Maybe Jesus can forgive that. Not me.

UPDATE: You may want to read Jennifer Epstein’s long but very informative first-person account of what church governance was like under Doug Phillips’ leadership. Let me stipulate that, if I were trying to build a harmonious congregation, I might be reluctant to have Jennifer Epstein as a member. On the other hand, the church governance under Phillips was autocratic and unhelpful to a couple in need. The worst of it was when Phillips had his attorney send Epstein’s husband a letter threatening legal action for slander, libel and blackmail. There is simply no need for such behavior among Christians. If reconciliation is impossible, just walk away and be done with it, but threatening a lawsuit? Crazy.

Category: Religion, Scandal, Sex

Comments

51 Responses to “For Which He Cannot Be Forgiven”

M. Thompson
April 16th, 2014 @ 10:29 pm

Beware of false prophets, and this character seems like one.

Or, be wary of the charismatic.
Mm
April 16th, 2014 @ 10:42 pm

Ah, Amanda, Amanda. “Bill Clinton, democrat and self-proclaimed Christian, accused of sexually assaulting protesting women. Repeatedly.”
Mm
April 16th, 2014 @ 10:44 pm

People always seem to want a charismatic leader. See, e.g., the Old Testament. People:”we want a king!” God: “you have Me. Why do you want a king?” People: “Everybody else has one!”
darleenclick
April 17th, 2014 @ 12:59 am

This guy is scum but Mandy “worked with John Edwards” Marcotte should be wary of her own glass house before casting aspersions on the Duggars by association.
neshobanakni
April 17th, 2014 @ 1:48 am

Part of being a Christian is – you don’t take each other to court. Everyone on your side just leaves the church. Been there, done that.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 17th, 2014 @ 1:48 am

Both Doug and Mandy cannot be trusted.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 17th, 2014 @ 1:50 am

Matthew 7:15
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 17th, 2014 @ 2:06 am

Good to remind Mandy of her blinders. Unfortunately, Democrats and sociopaths cannot be shamed.
Lourdes Torres-Manteufel Rule 5 (the object of Pastor Doug Phillips’ attention) | Batshit Crazy News
April 17th, 2014 @ 2:22 am

[…] Doug Powers Cannot Be Forgiven (or perhaps a better title would be “Karma: It can be a real […]
Evi L. Bloggerlady
April 17th, 2014 @ 2:32 am

The thing is, I am not sure Phillips is even a Christian.
Kirby McCain
April 17th, 2014 @ 3:10 am

Too many men use religion for control. http://www.npr.org/2013/07/16/195193595/a-dark-family-secret-hidden-for-years-in-alaskas-wilderness
RKae
April 17th, 2014 @ 3:21 am

Too many men want control and use ANYTHING to get it. At the moment, what’s the greater worry – religion or science? The amount of creepy gang-stalking that the government is doing on us is all due to scientists giving them the tools and then doing that ol’ scientist shrug: “Hey! We just make the computers! We didn’t intend them to be used for the destruction of Constitutional rights!” No one delivers a lame excuse like a scientist who works for the government.
Kirby McCain
April 17th, 2014 @ 4:58 am

If one wishes to see men using religion to control women the best example is the ‘ religion of peace. ‘ Science is like a gun, it’s good or bad is determined by the person holding it.
Dana
April 17th, 2014 @ 6:41 am

The Lord certainly will forgive the sin . . . if he asks with a truly contrite heart. Sometimes we mortals have difficulty accepting the contrition of others, but the Lord knows when it’s genuine.
ThomasD
April 17th, 2014 @ 6:48 am

When I read that VFM stuff why am I reminded of nothing so much as banal corporate gobbledygook about leveraging efficiencies, maximizing potentials, generating synergies, etc…

Everyone finds their own path to God, but it seems ever more Protestants/evangelicals are only finding a path deeper into the weeds.
Zohydro
April 17th, 2014 @ 7:10 am

You’re thinking about Jimmy “I-Have-Sinned” Swaggart, pravda?
ThomasD
April 17th, 2014 @ 7:15 am

Many, many women use religion for control as well. Religion generally demands things like spousal fidelity, providing for dependents, and parental involvement. That these obligations also coincide with the things a mother needs is no coincidence.
ThomasD
April 17th, 2014 @ 7:20 am

Amanda is only seen as correct this time because her broad brush of hate for all things Christian just happens to overlap with our streak of revulsion at this episode of temptation, corruption, and sin.

Pure chance says this will happen from time to time.

That Doug seeks to make more of it than it is worth is indeed the signal lesson.
Dana
April 17th, 2014 @ 7:41 am

No, just making the point in general.
Rubix's Cube
April 17th, 2014 @ 8:21 am

He’s a Christian? Hmm… smells of bullshit.
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 8:31 am

Here’s something very unancient, or at least sounding unancient, which is kind of fun and in its own way at times useful:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5-7%3A27&

Matthew 7 15-20:

“Be wary of false preachers who smile a lot, dripping with practiced sincerity. Chances are they are out to rip you off some way or other. Don’t be impressed with charisma; look for character. Who preachers are is the main thing, not what they say. A genuine leader will never exploit your emotions or your pocketbook. These diseased trees with
their bad apples are going to be chopped down and burned.”
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:17 am

This is a power issue in the sense of one person wielding more social power than another and using it in ignoble ways. It happens that men are generally endowed with more social power in what is still largely — though thankfully evolving — a patriarchal system but it is of course by no means universally true.

An example that might illuminate this is that of a female boss — male employee situation. The woman might use sex for gratification on a number of levels, not caring much about her employee and even wanting in some cases to humiliate. It is his choice to go along, his “freedom,” but his job may depend somewhat on compliance, so to that extent, it is coerced.

Just so in the case of therapist-client or preacher-congregant or guru-disciple sex. In most of these cases, the therapist, pastor or guru will be male, but it is less an issue of his “masculine sexuality is so powerful that he can overpower womenfolk against their will” than his social power and abuse of trust. A grey issue, not black and white. The “victim” is certainly responsible too but i assign more responsibility to the one who is abusing his position of authority and/or privilege, and judge him for that.
RS
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:18 am

It’s always wise to be leery of shepherds who eschew humility for status.
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:26 am

Some of his deluded followers refused to recognize that Phillips “isn’t just an adulterer, he’s an abusive narcissistic sociopath”:

Some of them have a certain investment in defending Phillips, which is okay, but if the female follower was harmed in any way — and it seems clear that she WAS, long before the affair’s exposure was a factor — and there was cover-up and subterfuge then he SHOULD have been censured. The man was not competent to be leading groups and whatnot with the lives of followers in his hands.
Zohydro
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:35 am

I read some of Jennifer Epstein’s tale… This guy’s a monster!

http://dougphillipsmemes.wordpress.com/
Zohydro
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:35 am

I read some of Jennifer Epstein’s tale… This guy’s a monster!

http://dougphillipsmemes.wordpress.com/
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:52 am

Now go read what (allegedly) he did to Lourdes beginning in 2007.

I read it. There may be some patriarchal garbage mixed up therein, but that need not detract from an honest examination of the ethics of the situation.

If there is to be an honest examination, I will point out:

–no behavior exists in a vacuum
–most if not all behavior is conducted within the context of the conditioning of the actors
–the context must thus include the preexisting conditions, eg, how the participants already view their behaviour, in both these contexts:
–the traditional context, eg, conditioning
–personal context

Some Phillips “supporters” may point out that the personal context is supreme. Stacy makes the opposite point; the will that is done, will be judged in traditional context. So, even though an actor or two wishes the personal to transcend the traditional, it is very difficult for this condition to prevail. In fact, if the (female in this context) actor is exposed (and it is), her default is to comply with tradition and condemn her ‘sex partner’.

Rarely does the woman (as per our story line) take the route of adhering to her original ideals, the ones that opened her way to her sexual adventure.

Upon analysis, it appears that women may try to have it both ways, eg, sexual adventure and if discovered, conversion to tradition, to avoid social ostracism. I believe that if some of Phillips’ “supporters” can develop their POV sufficiently, that they will have at least a semantic model of the better possibilities for all concerned.

If the issue is to be adjudged in court, then we have the problem of precedent. Precedent usually supports tradition, and in fact, is the ‘writing in stone’, the legalistic codification of what are considered to be the best moral and ethical positions for the culture in question. One easy way around this dilemma is for a woman of skill and power, to write a book which is the telling of the story of the changes which occur, in a fictional future context. If the book is competent, it will be converted to a screenplay and then a movie. There is nothing comparable to a compelling movie, one which shows transcendence of such moral issues, as an agent for smooth change of tradition. But think of the current dilemma of women, who must live under Sharia law, esp the Taliban variety. Her position serves to point out how our ‘analysis’ of sexual/social mores, is really a telling of how we have managed to move beyond the overtly authoritarian aspect of patriarchy, and how we are mainly dealing with the inertia of tradition as well as changeable legal precedents. ‘It could be worse’.

Fortunately, ‘our’ tradition of opposition to overt authoritarianism has built-in to our traditions, the possibility of change, even the sort of change which could throw women into being able to claim total responsibility for their own actions. If you think about this, the ramifications are awesome.

–Anamika

PS. Only God can designate which fruit are forbidden… but man can make any fruit too expensive to eat.
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:52 am

Now go read what (allegedly) he did to Lourdes beginning in 2007.

I read it. There may be some patriarchal garbage mixed up therein, but that need not detract from an honest examination of the ethics of the situation.

If there is to be an honest examination, I will point out:

–no behavior exists in a vacuum
–most if not all behavior is conducted within the context of the conditioning of the actors
–the context must thus include the preexisting conditions, eg, how the participants already view their behaviour, in both these contexts:
–the traditional context, eg, conditioning
–personal context

Some Phillips “supporters” may point out that the personal context is supreme. Stacy makes the opposite point; the will that is done, will be judged in traditional context. So, even though an actor or two wishes the personal to transcend the traditional, it is very difficult for this condition to prevail. In fact, if the (female in this context) actor is exposed (and it is), her default is to comply with tradition and condemn her ‘sex partner’.

Rarely does the woman (as per our story line) take the route of adhering to her original ideals, the ones that opened her way to her sexual adventure.

Upon analysis, it appears that women may try to have it both ways, eg, sexual adventure and if discovered, conversion to tradition, to avoid social ostracism. I believe that if some of Phillips’ “supporters” can develop their POV sufficiently, that they will have at least a semantic model of the better possibilities for all concerned.

If the issue is to be adjudged in court, then we have the problem of precedent. Precedent usually supports tradition, and in fact, is the ‘writing in stone’, the legalistic codification of what are considered to be the best moral and ethical positions for the culture in question. One easy way around this dilemma is for a woman of skill and power, to write a book which is the telling of the story of the changes which occur, in a fictional future context. If the book is competent, it will be converted to a screenplay and then a movie. There is nothing comparable to a compelling movie, one which shows transcendence of such moral issues, as an agent for smooth change of tradition. But think of the current dilemma of women, who must live under Sharia law, esp the Taliban variety. Her position serves to point out how our ‘analysis’ of sexual/social mores, is really a telling of how we have managed to move beyond the overtly authoritarian aspect of patriarchy, and how we are mainly dealing with the inertia of tradition as well as changeable legal precedents. ‘It could be worse’.

Fortunately, ‘our’ tradition of opposition to overt authoritarianism has built-in to our traditions, the possibility of change, even the sort of change which could throw women into being able to claim total responsibility for their own actions. If you think about this, the ramifications are awesome.

–Anamika

PS. Only God can designate which fruit are forbidden… but man can make any fruit too expensive to eat.
Dana
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:56 am

What our esteemed host has done, in the past few days, is to call out Republican or (supposedly) conservative public figures who have failed in his regard, and not just the ones on the left. And that sets him apart from so many on the left, who note only the sins of conservatives.

The lovely Miss Marcotte felt compelled to write a blog post on Pandagon — which I can no longer find — in which she had to address the Reille Hunter / John Edwards story since she had so famously, and briefly, been part of the campaign. At least as I recall, she wasn’t nearly as hard on Mr Edwards’ behavior as she would have been on a conservative’s, had he done the same thing.
Dana
April 17th, 2014 @ 9:56 am

What our esteemed host has done, in the past few days, is to call out Republican or (supposedly) conservative public figures who have failed in his regard, and not just the ones on the left. And that sets him apart from so many on the left, who note only the sins of conservatives.

The lovely Miss Marcotte felt compelled to write a blog post on Pandagon — which I can no longer find — in which she had to address the Reille Hunter / John Edwards story since she had so famously, and briefly, been part of the campaign. At least as I recall, she wasn’t nearly as hard on Mr Edwards’ behavior as she would have been on a conservative’s, had he done the same thing.
Bridget
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:04 am

Actually, society needs kids to be brought up by two-parent households; it’s not like mothers are asking for this stuff and everyone else is going to be fine anyway.

You know, kids being the next generation and all…..
Bridget
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:04 am

Actually, society needs kids to be brought up by two-parent households; it’s not like mothers are asking for this stuff and everyone else is going to be fine anyway.

You know, kids being the next generation and all…..
RS
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:18 am

It is imperative that any group police its own, if it desires to maintain credibility. I ceased paying my dues to the Democratic party the moment it didn’t give Bill Clinton the same treatment it (rightfully) gave Bob Packwood. Further, it’s one thing to sin. We’ve all done it. It’s another to repent and accept the consequences. The vast majority of these types of personalities are perfectly willing to “confess” but are unwilling/incapable of accepting the results, most specifically giving up whatever power and status they’ve attained and leaving the public eye. Stated differently, all you need to know about any of these characters you can learn by observing them after they’ve been caught.

The sad thing is, in the context of self-selected Christian spiritual leaders, their supporters have based their faith not on Christ, but on the leader, which invariably leads to some crisis of faith down the road. It is to such leaders that Christ talked about the preference for a millstone around the neck for causing those of weaker faith to have doubts about Christ’s message.
RS
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:18 am

It is imperative that any group police its own, if it desires to maintain credibility. I ceased paying my dues to the Democratic party the moment it didn’t give Bill Clinton the same treatment it (rightfully) gave Bob Packwood. Further, it’s one thing to sin. We’ve all done it. It’s another to repent and accept the consequences. The vast majority of these types of personalities are perfectly willing to “confess” but are unwilling/incapable of accepting the results, most specifically giving up whatever power and status they’ve attained and leaving the public eye. Stated differently, all you need to know about any of these characters you can learn by observing them after they’ve been caught.

The sad thing is, in the context of self-selected Christian spiritual leaders, their supporters have based their faith not on Christ, but on the leader, which invariably leads to some crisis of faith down the road. It is to such leaders that Christ talked about the preference for a millstone around the neck for causing those of weaker faith to have doubts about Christ’s message.
ThomasD
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:22 am

Exactly my point.

The religious demands are implicitly, as well as explicitly good. That is to say, they are not merely what God wants, or commands, they are also what God intends. To that end there use will tend toward success when followed, regardless of motive because that is they way He made the world.

That some people may choose to abide by/or promote those behaviors out of nothing more than venal self interest does not automatically render their actions unacceptable.

Perhaps there is a better way? Yes, but that is a matter of the heart, and much like we sometimes paint a smile on our faces, the external has a way of working itself inward.
ThomasD
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:22 am

Exactly my point.

The religious demands are implicitly, as well as explicitly good. That is to say, they are not merely what God wants, or commands, they are also what God intends. To that end there use will tend toward success when followed, regardless of motive because that is they way He made the world.

That some people may choose to abide by/or promote those behaviors out of nothing more than venal self interest does not automatically render their actions unacceptable.

Perhaps there is a better way? Yes, but that is a matter of the heart, and much like we sometimes paint a smile on our faces, the external has a way of working itself inward.
ThomasD
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:22 am

Exactly my point.

The religious demands are implicitly, as well as explicitly good. That is to say, they are not merely what God wants, or commands, they are also what God intends. To that end there use will tend toward success when followed, regardless of motive because that is they way He made the world.

That some people may choose to abide by/or promote those behaviors out of nothing more than venal self interest does not automatically render their actions unacceptable.

Perhaps there is a better way? Yes, but that is a matter of the heart, and much like we sometimes paint a smile on our faces, the external has a way of working itself inward.
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:34 am

You may want to read Jennifer Epstein’s long but very informative first-person account of what church governance was like under Doug Phillips’ leadership.

Here again we see the instruments patriarchy uses to preserve control. It is not just a sexual issue. It could just as easily be a financial, property or food issue. Disciplinary committees of all types prosecute the male offender, (or that person considered to hold the power. This process in itself is the wielding of patriarchal power. Never once have I heard any such committee tell staff, (or patients or students, or disciples, or parishioners for that matter) that it is forbidden to have sex with their manager, doctor, teacher, guru, or minister. Such committees seem to think they, usually women, are stupid, powerless, or weak, or have no ability to think for themselves. Furthermore, if sex has actually taken place, they are automatically construed as victims, that probably need therapy.
Dana
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:36 am

The (supposedly) interesting thing about Miss Marcotte’s tweet — I don’t know if the embedding will take here — is that she wanted to link it to the Duggar family, and that is what she sees as the real problem. The Duggars, as well as Mr Phillips, believe in large families, which Miss Marcotte linked to Quiverfull, a subject on which she wrote a book. It seems that Miss Marcotte, who (apparently) uses contraception quite well and who supports abortion up to the last second before natural birth, doesn’t believe in freedom of choice, in that she works so hard against the choices made by families like the Duggars.

And that is a seemingly widespread trait of the left: from Michael Blumenthal’s declaration that, if there is a God, he’ll go straight to heaven, to the left’s demand that everybody pay for contraception and abortifacients, the left are pro-choice on exactly one thing, and want to impose state control on people on everything else.

http://t.co/2kaIOkmIWf Friend of Duggar family accused of masturbating on a crying, protesting woman. Repeatedly.— Amanda Marcotte (@AmandaMarcotte) April 16, 2014
NeoWayland
April 17th, 2014 @ 10:59 am

Okay, the guy is a scumbag. No arguments.

But this worries me.

There is simply no need for such behavior among Christians.

Does that mean that Christians can do that junk to non-Christians? Does that mean that Christians expect that behavior from non-Christians?

I know certain Christians believe that they are expected to hold to a “higher standard,” but shouldn’t that be towards all people?
RS
April 17th, 2014 @ 11:10 am

The socialist Left’s demonizing of large families is rather ironic given that they support virtually all social transfer programs, the viability of which are necessarily linked to a large, working population. You cannot have it both ways.
maniakmedic
April 17th, 2014 @ 11:31 am

One thing that I’ve thought about a lot as atheism has made inroads in the country and I’ve had to listen to atheists either imply – or just flat out say – I must be an idiot for being religious, is that if one truly tries to follow one’s moral code (particularly one based on a Christian religion) they can really never go wrong. If one is constantly striving to love one’s neighbor, give service to those in need, follow the law even if it means making a hard choice, and remain faithful to their family and those they’ve made promises to, they will most assuredly not find themselves on the wrong end of the law or most people due to their actions; if they do end up getting in trouble, it’s usually because some douchebag gets them in trouble.

This guy represents all Christians about as well as Harry Reid represents all Mormons or Joe Biden represents all Catholics, which is to say not at all. All people sin. All actual Christians realize we aren’t immune to this aspect of being a living human. But real Christians own up to their mistakes and try to fix them or, barring that, try to make amends and then never do what they did again. A person who claims to be a Christian who doesn’t do those things is not a Christian. A person who commits crimes and then tries to parade their “Christianity” out as proof they are a good person is not a Christian. A real Christian does not have one set of morals to trot out in public and another set of morals in private; their actions whether alone or in a group are consistent.

I don’t know that it is un-Christian to look forward to the day these types of people have to meet their maker. I don’t even think it’s terribly un-Christian to celebrate when a particularly odious person dies. Maybe I’m wrong. And I’ll accept my punishment if I am. For now, I won’t apologize for thinking the world would be better off without this type of scum sullying it.
Dana
April 17th, 2014 @ 11:33 am

I’m sorry, did you think that the left actually thought things through?
maniakmedic
April 17th, 2014 @ 11:38 am

I certainly don’t, but it’s always fun to see their completely insane and illogical policies spelled out in writing. Particularly since it almost always results in them having a public meltdown to rival even the worst tantrum of the world’s most spoiled toddler when told “no.”
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 11:42 am

tweet — I don’t know if the embedding will take here

Hi Dana,

Just post the tweet url–simple–Disqus will automatically handle the “embed.”

Like this (replacing “.” with DOT)
https://twitter(DOT)com/AmandaMarcotte/statuses/456457168125169664

If you post the default embed code, as you can see, it gets messed up.
Anamika
April 17th, 2014 @ 12:00 pm

I kinda identify with this woman…she looks so like me…
http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAKhVtfu0bGHMKiSaOWfje6oaRkUAzRnPF1SUNIuBpSD0fWrQjgg
ThomasD
April 17th, 2014 @ 1:26 pm

Given that much of her ‘complaint’ involves years of her early and mid-twenties I’d say Ms. Torres is banking on the belief that “women, are stupid, powerless, or weak, or have no ability to think for themselves.”

Otherwise she’d have a hard time not apportioning significant blame to herself.
Anon Imus
April 18th, 2014 @ 12:07 am

Sadly, this is not even close to the worst episodes involving self-proclaimed “Christian leaders” and “pastors” I have seen in the last several decades.

It probably ranks in the top 10. But it is not nearly the worst.

Far too many Christians are taken in by hucksters preying on vulnerable people. And far too many who ought to know better defend these vile people who exploit others for personal gain.
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2014 @ 10:33 am

Bloomberg not Blumenthal. But bugs under the same rock.
richard mcenroe
April 18th, 2014 @ 10:34 am

Do these women not have fathers? Have they no brothers? Are there no more baseball bats and axe handles in the world?