A defense against Patriarchy (part 1)

This is an answer to my first request for a specific topic to cover. I'm grateful to finally have a group of steady readers and I hope this proves useful and helpful.

First off, people aren't actually being excommunicated for violating patriarchy. Rather what is happening is that people in very conservative churches and woman that are part of the home-schooling movement are being made to feel unwelcome if they don't support patriarchy. Woman who don't have the same submissive inclinations are having their self esteem undermined as they are being told that the biblically correct way for them to live is in a state which is unnatural for them.

A good introduction to the doctrine, is posted on vision forum ministries:Biblical Patriarchy and the Doctrine of Federal Representation by Brian M. Abshire, and a more "catechism" oriented version Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy. If you are unfamiliar with the topic start by reading those two articles.

Abshire says things like,
"In effect, Western civilization was a ‘patriarchy’ up until recent times and assumed as the normal means of governing not only households, but also entire nations.”

Lancaster

Central to the crisis of this era is the systematic attack on the timeless truths of biblical patriarchy. This attack includes the movement to subvert the biblical model of the family, and redefine the very meaning of fatherhood and motherhood, masculinity, femininity, and the parent and child relationship. ... the church should proclaim the Gospel centered doctrine of biblical patriarchy as an essential element of God’s ordained pattern for human relationships and institutions.

Or David Gray, "Well in this instance drawing the line so that it embraces egalitarian rebellion shrinks the church as it excludes 2000 years of Christians who didn't dream of such folly."[cite].


That is the simplified argument for patriarchy comes down to the following (3) points:

1) That God has command patriarchy
2) That this belief is clear in scripture and there is no room for debate on scripture's meaning
3) That this belief was upheld by the church and understood by all until the 20th century

Again, this blog has a strict no theology policy, so we will not analyze the theology of patriarchy. We will take no position as to whether it is or is not God's position that woman should be silent in church, submissive in the home and unemployed for life. The web is full of this debate and it will not be repeated here. Point (1) will not be addressed.

Points (2) and (3) however are simple questions of fact and history. We don't have to speculate on what the Church believed regarding sex roles and gender they have left us a long written record. Not only are the views of the patriarchy movement not universal, as far as I can tell, there is no point in history until recently where Christians held the views that are being claimed. Which in my opinion is quite logical. Despite themselves, the patriarchy supporter's views are very 20th century, a reaction against 20th century feminism and not ancient at all.

That is we will argue:
People from hundreds (or thousands) of years ago are do not have a position in a modern debate since they don't share our assumptions, nor are they confronted with our issues. We argue that scripture as read through history is highly ambiguous on the nature of gender and sex roles. We will prove that the Christian community has had an evolving understanding of sex and feminism over its 2000 year history, and moreover the commonalities that do exist by and large do not agree with the patriarchal view. Arguments as to what scripture command are made by these early authors and they come to entirely different conclusions about what God desires for the family and from woman.

To actually understand what Christians thought through time would be a book and not just a few web articles. However we will look at a few selections:

We will show that:

1) In part 2 we will look at the In the first 2 centuries (prior to the emergence of authoritative scripture normative throughout the Christian community) Christian views of gender and sex were mixed. These were active areas of disagreement. None of them held views remotely similar to either side of the current debate. We examine works like the Didache, Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the teachings of Valentinus to understand the breadth of the pre 180 CE church's views on gender and sex. By in large the Christian view is very hostile to family, marriage leads to sex and childbirth and lead one away from God. However, fornication is far worse than married sex. Christians are mixed whether procreative or non procreative acts are more damaging to one's relationship with God.

2) By the time there is normative scripture in the early 5th century, the classical view (the supremacy of virginity and chastity) has become the undisputed norm. Part 3 looks at this 5th century Christianity which is mildly hostile towards the family, and mildly hostile towards procreative acts within the family. Augustine and Jerome will be typical sources, though other church fathers will be considered.

3) In part 4 we example the dark ages. In the dark ages the concept of family undergoes a metamorphosis. A family no longer consists of a breeding pair of adults and their children but rather people arranged in bonds of property and status. The issue of legitimacy for children becomes paramount for reasons of inheritance. This configuration where property not descent defines the family last for centuries. The Christian focus shifts as well and this can be seen easily in both normative church law and papel rulings. At this stage we do see patriarchal marriage as a societal norm and the Christian reaction is a rejection of it.

4) Part 5 examples the high middle ages. In middle ages the church begins attempts a synthesis of the two previous views. (Aquinas). As an aside its in this section where the most damning piece of evidence is presented. Aquinas does a survey of previous writers and shows no evidence of ever having heard of anything resembling the current patriarchal view. I can think of no stronger disproof of the belief that the modern patriarchal view is the clear view of scripture and the normative behavior of Christians than the fact that Aquinas is utterly ignorant of this position. We will also examine Dante to see a less academic view on family relations.

5) Within a few centuries of Aquinas, Europe experiences a population boom. As the economic value of chidren decreases while the costs of raising them increase, horrific poverty makes family planning normative. Literature of this time starts to view children as a burden rather than a blessing and the notions of illegitimacy as a source of poverty becomes the majority view. Marriage is seen as destructive for woman leading to poverty and death in childbirth. Reason, industry and chastity are strongly supported by Christianity over family.

After this period we have the romantics. The notion of romantic love rather than property or sexuality being the core of healthy marriage begins to emerge. This romantic view of marriage and its effects is the topic of part 6. Children are associated with purity, innocence and love. Wealth increases and children no longer induce starvation. Fathers begin working outside the home to increase income, and sometimes mothers as well. We quickly arrive at essentially the modern debate. Its at this point we can can potentially argue that the "traditional view" is something even remotely like what the patriarchists are supporting.

Obviously all the above needs to be proven. However it is my hope that understanding that patriarchy is a reaction against capitalism and 2nd and 3rd wave feminism and not a traditional viewpoint at all allows those woman who wish to reject it the support they will need. For those woman who do want to play dress up in 19th century clothes, be silent and submissive; congratulations on finding your own version of Roissy that works for you. Please, however, don't lost yourself completely in the fantasy and fail to educate your daughters.

Does excommunication prevent me from going to heaven?

The short answer is no. The church has differentiated between anathema which is exclusion from heaven and excommunication which is exclusion from the society of the church. They are not the same. For example Calvin in Institutes (4.12.10)

For when our Saviour promises that what his servants bound on earth should be bound in heaven, (Matth. 18: 18,) he confines the power of binding to the censure of the Church, which does not consign those who are excommunicated to perpetual ruin and damnation, but assures them, when they hear their life and manners condemned, that perpetual damnation will follow if they do not repent. Excommunication differs from anathema in this that the latter completely excluding pardon, dooms and devotes the individual to eternal destruction, whereas the former rather rebukes and animadverts upon his manners; and although it also punishes, it is to bring him to salvation, by forewarning him of his future doom. If it succeeds, reconciliation and restoration to communion are ready to be given. Moreover, anathema is rarely if ever to be used.

Other reformers took the same position. Samuel Rutherford makes the same distinction in his Survey of the Survey of that Summe of Church Discipline (1658) commenting on 1 Cor. 16:22 and 1 Cor. 5, as does James Fraser of Brae, on page 210, in The Lawfulness and Duty or Separation from Corrupt Ministers and Churches (1744). In doing so there were upholding hundreds of years of tradition.

For example, Saint Thomas Aquinas in Summa Theologica addresses the issue of an unjust excommunication in 4.21.4

I answer that, An excommunication may be unjust for two reasons.... Secondly, on the part of the excommunication, through there being no proper cause, or through the sentence being passed without the forms of law being observed. In this case, if the error, on the part of the sentence, be such as to render the sentence void, this has no effect, for there is no excommunication; but if the error does not annul the sentence, this takes effect, and the person excommunicated should humbly submit (which will be credited to him as a merit), and either seek absolution from the person who has excommunicated him, or appeal to a higher judge. If, however, he were to contemn the sentence, he would "ipso facto" sin mortally.

But sometimes it happens that there is sufficient cause on the part of the excommunicator, but not on the part of the excommunicated, as when a man is excommunicated for a crime which he has not committed, but which has been proved against him: in this case, if he submit humbly, the merit of his humility will compensate him for the harm of excommunication.

This separation between anathema and excommunication can be dated back to the Council of Tours (5th century) where it was declared that a usurper of the goods of the Church, desires that after three warnings there be recited in chorus Psalm cviii against him he may fall into the curse of Judas, and "that he may be not only excommunicated, but anathematized, and that he may be stricken by the sword of Heaven." . This distinction was introduced into the canons of the Church soon thereafter.

A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii (which was distinct from excommunication). The notion of separation is further reinforced by John VIII (pope 872-882) who wrote in the decree of Gratian (c. III, q. V, c. XII): "Know that Engeltrude is not only under the ban of excommunication, which separates her from the society of the brethren, but under the anathema, which separates from the body of Christ, which is the Church." (See Catholic Encyclopedia -- anathema)

In 1917 the Code of Canon law dropped the distinction and the term "anathema" was no longer used. In the current day the church defines 3 types of excommunication:

• a jure Ferendæ Sententiæ -- excommunication by law with a finding of guilt by an ecclesiastical court (i.e. a mandatory punishment of excommunication)
• a jure Latæ Sententiæ -- excommunication by law without intervention (the act itself excommunicates one). A declaritory sentence may be given which simply confirms to others that the person is already excommunicated.
• ab homine -- excommunication by act of man, that is excommunication by trial as punishment

Finally, the strongest opinion on excommunication was Luther who rejected the effect of earthly excommunication at all:

Let us now consider the matters which should be treated in the councils, and with which popes, cardinals, bishops, and all learned men should occupy themselves day and night, if they love Christ and His Church. But if they do not do so, the people at large and the temporal powers must do so, without considering the thunders of their excommunications. For an unjust excommunication is better than ten just absolutions, and an unjust absolution is worse than ten just excommunications. Therefore let us rouse ourselves, fellow-Germans, and fear God more than man (Luther's Address To The Nobility of the German Nation, 1520)

Or from his Letter to Pope Leo X, "Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church." Of course it should be understood the Luther was excommunicated at the time and died under excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Irene Elizabeth Stroud

Elizabeth Stroud was the assistant pastor for First United Methodist Church of Germantown. Germantown is a neighborhood in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On April 23rd, 2003 she gave a coming out sermon. This sermon is truly touching, and I'm hard pressed to see how anyone reading this sermon can believe that homosexuals are incapable of loving and serving God. She uses this sermon to explain how anti-homosexual beliefs drive people out of the church, and how she was called to the church despite her lesbianism. There are places the sentiments go a bit over the top like when she mentions now defunct The Other Side magazine whose slogan was: "Where justice and peace embrace, where faith and love join hands". A delightful woman if a bit sappy.

Her timing may not have been accidental. At the time she came out PBS was filing a documentary about the changes going on at First United Methodist. More interesting she gives an impassioned defense of not leaving, that is non schismatic views (which in today's protestantism are sorely needed):

When I came out to my parents in 1990, I did not expect them to understand right away. There were tears. There was pain. It was hard. We needed therapy. But I never considered applying for a transfer to another family.

The Stroud trial was a much more clear cut case than the Dammann trial for the United Methodists. Dammann had attempted (and was successful) by winning on technicalities. Dammann combined two of the defenses mentioned earlier:

• Dammann attacked certain aspects of the polity that was charging her, essentially a contest jurisdiction defense
• Dammann refused to self incriminate on the issue of genital sexual content with her partner and the prosecution had no evidence that Dammann was actually having lesbian sex. This is a picture perfect example of the force a more specific charge defense
  

Stroud's was much more of a classic minister trial. Stroud was not just a minister who happened to be a lesbian but rather a very intelligent writer on homosexuality within religious organizations. She freely admitted to engaging in genital sexual acts with her partner and refused to contest the jurisdiction of the prosecuting bishop. She wanted to force a straight up or down trial on homosexual rights. As usually happens with minister trials: Beth Stroud was convicted of violating church law by a 12-1 margin, the church voted 7-6 to terminate her ministerial credentials.

Another thing I have found unique about her is that she (though I imagine she's reject this term) an active apologist (in the sense of apologetics) for the Methodist denomination and Wesleyan thinking in particular. If you read Irene's personal information page what you find is classic defense that Prima scriptura rather than Sola Scriptura is what creates the particular appeal to United Methods for Homosexuals. That is because of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral Methodists are able to have a more nuanced view.

As background Sola Scriptura was Luther's view. It is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

Conversely Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral asserts that a believer should be guided by 4 factors

1. Scripture - the Holy Bible (Old and New Testaments)
2. Tradition - the two millennia history of the Christian Church
3. Reason - rational thinking and sensible interpretation
4. Experience - a Christian's personal and communal journey in Christ

The United Methodist Church, asserts that “Wesley believed that the living core of the Christian faith was revealed in Scripture, illumined by tradition, vivified in personal experience, and confirmed by reason. Scripture [however] is primary, revealing the Word of God ‘so far as it is necessary for our salvation.’”

Stroud continues to speak and her: Loving a broken church addresses the issue of membership for those people hurt by her conviction. (United Methods are willing to support homosexuals as members).

Stroud says on her website, I wish the General Conference would realize that Christ came for all people.

Additional links

• Albert Mohler commentery


• Jamie Stroud (not Irene) runs a website for Gay United Methodists You can find a particularly funny piece by Jamie Stroud on the UMC and the homosexuality issue
  

United Church of Christ

For people reading this blog who have been excommunicated you may want to consider Barak Obama's denomination. They focus very heavily on being inclusive. They have commercials like the 4 below, and slogans like

• We don't sing "come some ye faithful"
• "If Jesus embraced Lepers, Prostitutes, & Convicts, shouldn't we?"
• "Our faith is over 2000 years old. Our thinking is not."

Follow up on Jen's Gems, FPC position and illegality

This article is a follow up to Original article on Jen Epstein. I thought it would be a good choice for independence day since today we celebrate breaking away from invalid kangaroo courts.

While following up on Jen's Gems I ran into a very interesting post regarding her excommunication Church Elders Criticize Epsteins But Offer No Viable Solutions. What's interesting about this case is an abuse of the notion of fraternal relations. As far as I understand it among American Presbyterian churches there can be 3 types of relationships:

1) They are in the same hierarchy. That is if you go far enough "up" you'll find a body which has actual authority over both of them.

2) They have fraternal relations. That means they agree that each other's discipline processes are valid. In the particular case of PCA churches (including FPC) the NAPARC agreement governs this structure

3) They have no formal relationship and there is no obligation to recognize one another's disciplinary processes.

For examples of case 3, a PCA church is not required to have a Mormon who attends their church attempt reconciliation with an LDS excommunication. Technically FPC (the church that is discussed in the above post) and BCA (the excommunicating church) have a relationship of type 3. BCA is not a party to the NAPARC agreement. It does not have an appeals structure and the leadership of the PCA has correctly and wisely ruled that organizations without an appeals structure should not have their excommunications treated with anywhere near the level of deference appropriate for a Presbyterian church. Quite simply, FPC most certainly is empowered to simply ignore what Doug Phillips did. They have the right to overturn it. They have the right to assert jurisdiction. The post above is simply incorrect in its assertion of the seriousness of BCA's actions.

However if FPC wished to recognize the excommunication as valid then the logically the NAPARC agreement would be the governing structure. The NAPARC agreement defines a "Transfer with Irregularities"

a. That upon request for transfer of membership by a person under discipline, the sending session/consistory or presbytery/classis inform the receiving body of the nature an extent of the disciplinary procedure before implementing the requested transfer, thus enabling informal consultation between the pastors and elders of both churches.

b. That such a person not be received officially until the judicatory/assembly of the receiving church has taken into serious account the discipline of and the information supplied by the sending church.

c. That such a person not be received officially until the judicatory/assembly of the receiving church is satisfied that proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.

d. That a "fugitive from discipline" who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been attempted.

Note the key point. FPC is required to
1) Receive a specific report
2) Take into consideration the contents of that report
3) Verify that restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted

However FPC did not choose to do that. What they did do was:
1) Faith PCA verbally and in writing affirmed the legitimacy of the excommunication process of BCA
2) Faith PCA affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of BCA, both to give and to remove the censure of excommunication from the Epsteins, "Knowing that Boerne Christian Assembly is an orthodox evangelical Christian church, we recognize your excommunication of Mark and Jennifer as a valid ecclesiastical act with continuing effect.”

The PCA does not recognize any notion of exclusive jurisdiction. FPC's act here was a blatant violation of presbyterian legal structures.

Breaking away, case study from Xenos

Xenos Christian Fellowship is a mega-church in Columbus Ohio which makes heavy use of strong "home churches" to create a large group / small group feel. The church is very well known and influential. Strange Things at Xenos gives one a feel for their outlook and their distinctives. It also, publishes on its website heavily on the issue of church discipline.

• basics
• leadership and authority

There was an extended discussion of Xenos on Byron Harvey's website and the following is
post 14

I was in the college Ministry.

Now, I would not classify Xenos as a cult per se, but in the college group at least, I saw quite a few cultlike elements in the social structure that the church structure fed. Let me take you on a journey. I will probably tip my identity in sharing this, but I am not too concerned with that.

I moved to Columbus Ohio in the fall of 1996. I was lonely, immature, and depressed, although at the time I would not have said it as such. It was not long till an acquaintance of mine told me about this meeting in one of the dorm study rooms where a bunch of Christians were having a discussion group. At first, I was against it, but he enticed me with the prospect of attractive young females. Being a young man of 18, I went of course.

Over the next few weeks, I became a regular attendee, debating points of the Christian faith, and giving the arguments that were presented to me more creedance than they were worth, for at the time I was not trained to spot logical fallacies. To an impressionable mind, they made extraordinary claims, claims of God’s perfect love, perfect justice and whatnot. Growing up in a blue collar catholic family, I ate this stuff up.

Meanwhile, my class attendance started slipping. I had a lot of evening classes, but was encouraged to attend first CT, and then a homechurch, both while skipping out on classes. My grades plummeted.

Now I do realize I had a choice here, I could have stuck to my studies, and surely my life would have been easier for it, but I was confused, empty, a lost soul, and one of the promises Xenos made to me about God is that with the spirit, you are no longer empty.

I accepted Christ on easter of 1997. A week later I was kicked out of school for failing to meet the conditions of my academic probation.

Now, I am grateful for what came next. Xenos took me in, provided a couch to sleep on till I got a job and an apartment, and when my sublet was up, moved me into a ministry house. By this time, I was attending a homechurch, CT, a cell group, along with myriad prayer meetings.

I was on a spiritual high at the time. I was learning all I could about God, about Christianity, and looking back was starting to be groomed for leadership. My house and homechurch leaders started referring to “when I would be a leader”.

Meanwhile, I was still as depressed and as empty as ever. When I talked about this with other xenoids, I was told to keep to the path, God would sort it out.

I also started seeing things that sat very uneasily with me. All other Christian sects were bashed to one form or another, but particularly Catholics, Jehova Witnesses, and to a lesser extant, Mormons. I won’t even go into the venom reserved for non-Christian religions.

I started missing meetings due to work, or just being too depressed to leave the house. One hear or there did not merit comment, but if you missed more than three in a month, leaders started coming to you to voice thier concerns for your spiritual walk.

Finally, a few weeks before Christmas of 1998, things came to a head. I had been neglecting some of my house chores for a few weeks (as had other members of the house, but I was singled out it seems) and was put on probabtion. No missed chores for a month or I was outs. Three days before the month was up, I had been out late with friends seeing a movie, and forgot to do some cleaning. I did it first thing in the morning, but the house leaders decided to make me leave. At first, they wanted me out immediately. I managed to get a whole week out of them.

Needless to say, a week later I was homeless. I was crushed. Everything I had built my adult life around was suddenly gone. I had no friends outside of the church, as outside friends were not forbidden, but they were not encouraged unless they were outreach. My only support network was two hours away, so I went home to my parents.

The next year and a half were hard. I was removed from any support network, and was slowly slipping into darkness. Only a handful of people kept up with me, I would thank them, but all but one have left that group.

I moved back to Columbus in mid 2000, a mental wreck. Like an abused spouse, I went back to the only thing I knew, Xenos. I puttered on for about 7 or 8 months, never regaining the acceptance I had enjoyed previously. I was a fringe member, and outsider. Being on the edge I saw the truly bad aspects of that group. The cliquishness, the social control wielded over members, the selective enforcement of morality and the unhealthy focus on “Sexual Sin”.

My end with the group came with a woman. We started dating, and she was not Christian. I tried to bring her around at first, but she was offended at the groups attitudes towards other religions. We ended up having sex. Knowing I was violating Xonos’ rules, I removed myself from the group. However, that was not enough. Even though I had left of my own accord, they still instituted their church discipline against me, and the few friends I still had in the group were forbidden from speaking to me “For my own good”.

It was the best thing that ever happened to me.

Since then, I broke away from the false promises of my faith, and found my own way. I conquered my depression, have built true, lasting friendships, and have finally gotten my life back on track, all the things Xenos tells you are not possible without God, with the undertone that to be right with God you must be right with Xenos. Looking back, I see the broken people they pulled into their group, and some have gon on to lead rich, fulfilling lives, I can honestly say as of my last check, there were not that many in the college group that were.

I have overcome any resentment I had towards that group, a process that took many years. Through it I have become a better person, and in a way, am glad they treated me the way they did. I would not be the person I am today without Xenos.

I just hope for all those that go to them listening to false promises of fulfillment and meaning in their life, that they find what they are looking for.

I invite any and all comments to this on my own blog at gothic_oreo.livejournal.com. I will make a public post with anonymous comments aloud specifically for that purpous.

What's interesting about the story is that the person has clearly seperated from evangelical Christianity and is quite happy about the effects of the shunning.

If there are any Xenos people out there:

1. Why discipline on a non member?
2. Why shunning?

_________

Addendum: There is an interview with the lead pastor for Xenos on discipline at a later post Interview with Xenos on membership and discipline policies

Tim Bayly on homosexuality vs. feminism

A little background. The PCUSA is a liberal presbyterian church. The PCA is a conservative church that broke off in the 1970s (actually its a merger of others, but close enough for our purposes). Tim Bayly makes a call for church discipline to be applied to feminists within the PCA and explicitly makes the analogy with the debate on homosexuality within the PCUSA. What's unusual is that he aggressively makes the argument against friendly debate. Pastors who disagree with his view of god/scripture are simply criminals and should be excommunicated not people of different opinions.

I'm curious as to whether this attitude applies to membership and I intend to ask.

7/3/07 As a follow up I did ask. Bayly indicated (see bottom of the comments on link post) that yes the membership can be disciplined for holding this opinion. This is actually one of the most aggressive doctrines of heresy I've encountered. In general if something is disputed you would generally need a church council to rule against it before it became a heresy. Otherwise you would have people excommunicating one another during disputes about things being actively disputed. A process that would throw church discipline into disrepute.

Peggy Penley and Buddy Westbrook

Buddy Westbrook is pastor for Crossland Community Bible Church. He had a member Peggy Penley who decided to start an adulterous relationship and then divorce her husband. Westbrook provided marital counseling and then used this information as part of a discipline case.

What's interesting on this case is the issue of standards. In the secular world people are very careful about confidentiality issues and conflicts of interest. It would be obvious to any counselor thinking secularly that Westbrook would need to get either a general waiver or specific permission to act in a pastoral manner based on information provided in counseling. In fact the commentary on CBNNews.com was that this was a good example of why pastors should not get secular counseling licenses. Liberty Legal which is council for Westbrook sees this as a simple first amendment issue.

What's not mentioned in the story though is that the suit is for violation of the Texas Licensed Professional Counselor Act. She dropped the church and its elders as defendants. Source: Texas Council on Family Violence .

What could make for interesting discussion is the obligations regarding Christians who come into possession or understanding of knowledge through other roles. What should be the process for incorporating that knowledge into discipline related issues?

There is an updated version of this article with the court's ruling

Jen's Gems

Jen's Gems is a blog which is rather unique. It presents a discipline case in full detail including all the associated materials. Jen was a member of Doug Phillips church (Boerne Christian Assembly (BCA)). Doug is also the head of Vision Forum and son of Reconstructionist / Presidential candidate Howard Phillips. Doug (for a reconstructionist) takes a moderate position position on membership (See the August 10th 2005 Honorably Leaving a Church).

Jen holds mainstream evangelical Christian views about the role of woman in family relations and Doug specializes in teaching very traditional gender roles (well beyond the norm even for fundamentalist Christians). They are also very outspoken and so they got themselves excommunicated on what amounts to a bad attitude charge (Jen was accused of being disrespectful, unsubmissive, and rebellious. Mark was accused more along the lines of being angry and unforgiving). Theologically they appear to be mainstream evangelical reformed and so they were in a church well to the right of where they stood. The attraction to this particular church has something to do with very positive experiences in military churches but I'm unable to follow the connection (see chapter 1 of her story).

For the reader though what is interesting in the cite are the examples of real excommunication documents. Also because Jen has written such a detailed presentation of her story the website serves as a useful example of how asking for counseling can lead one to getting disciplined (which is become something of a theme).

Obligation to assume

An older editorial 2nd part by Challies in which he sets down criteria for assuming someone is actually a Christian.

When a person has made a profession of faith and is a member in good standing of a true church, as defined by these three marks: the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments and the exercise of church discipline, I believe that we are under an obligation to assume that this person's faith is genuine. (emphasis mine)

This is a very traditional definition. The article is a good defense for the importance of discipline one considering the unity of the church.