Gnostic Accountability

Continuing my thread on Douglas Wilson’s so-called “accountability,” today we shall consider his accountability to the denomination that he founded, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CREC), which requires us to examine the CREC Constitution. And whenever you discuss CREC constitutional matters, the first issue you must contemplate relates to honesty and competence. I say this because the CREC Constitution specifically identifies the CREC as a “presbytery” fifty-three times, whereas it only uses the word “confederation” a total of seven — once in the title and six times in the “Preamble.”

Obviously this should concern anyone interested in truthful discourse because these men have front loaded the conversation with false witness before it ever begins and if they don’t have the capacity — moral or mental — to accurately identify their assembly, then at that point the question that all interested parties must answer is whether the CREC confederates incorporated this falsehood into their founding document because they are dishonest or incompetent. I suppose the judgment of charity would argue for incompetence but I am willing to hear other positions.

This brings us to the CREC and the “accountability” clause in its constitution, which you have to read carefully because there is only one article that vests limited authority in the confederates to act in a disciplinary capacity. It states:

Article IV. The Broader Assemblies. . . .
L. After a fair and open judicial hearing at presbytery, a congregation may be removed from membership in the presbytery by a two-thirds vote of the presbytery. Upon such occasions, the removed congregation retains the full right of appeal to council.

M. Issues relating to the local congregation which may lawfully be brought before the broader assemblies are specified in this section. All matters not itemized here must be adjudicated and resolved at the level of the local church.

Before any appeal is made, a matter must be first addressed at the local church level. Appeal may be made (1) when the session of elders is accused by two or more of the church members of participating in or tolerating grievous dishonesty in subscription to the doctrinal or constitutional standards of the local church; or, (2) when the session of elders is accused by two or more of the church members of gross misbehaviour. In any case where at least two witnesses are from the same household, three witnesses are required to hear the case. The broader assemblies must refuse to hear frivolous or unconstitutional appeals.

Appeals to council do not necessarily have to first be heard by presbytery. However, council may choose to remand the case to presbytery.

N. When an appeal comes to presbytery, a simple majority at presbytery is necessary to decide the issue; the decision of presbytery shall be considered settled and binding unless and until it is proved by a council to be in conflict with the Scriptures or the Constitution of the CREC. The matter may be appealed further to the council by the appellant. The council must refuse to hear frivolous or unconstitutional appeals. A simple majority at council is necessary to decide the issue; the decision of council shall be considered settled and binding unless and until it is proved by a future council to be in conflict with the Scriptures or the Constitution of the CREC. Decisions of council can be appealed to a future council, though the future council is not obligated to receive such an appeal.

O. The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory. If the elders of a particular congregation choose to refuse the instruction of the broader church, they may do so without deprivation of property. However, if their disregard of godly counsel is particularly egregious, they may be removed from membership in the CREC, in accordance with Section M and O. (CREC Constitution, Article IV, sections L—O)

Notice the details. Everything pivots on the qualification in section M: “Issues relating to the local congregation which may lawfully be brought before the broader assemblies are specified in this section.” In other words, the CREC Constitution prohibits the confederates from hearing anything other than what section M specifies and, accordingly, the CREC can only hear cases brought by members of a CREC church and those members must bring charges against their entire session of elders. That’s it. No mas. Therefore, if an elder, a session of elders, or even a “presbytery” (the CREC has two, so called) in the CREC took offense at Wilson’s reprehensible conduct or his false doctrine, the CREC Constitution gives them no standing to pursue remedy. And even if they had standing to bring charges, the CREC Constitution grants no authority to the confederates to take disciplinary action. Section O states:

The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory. If the elders of a particular congregation choose to refuse the instruction of the broader church, they may do so without deprivation of property. (emphasis added)

Make careful note of the words “spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory.” This is the sum total of the confederation’s constitutional power. It is purely “spiritual,” which the constitution defines as nothing more than “practical advice,” except in egregious cases when the CREC Constitution authorizes the confederates to expel a member church.

For you CREC monkey boys reading this, here lies the difference between a “presbytery” and a “confederation.” While these sections of the CREC Constitution continually refer to the CREC as a “presbytery” (because of dishonesty or incompetence), the governing document never vests authority in its members to exercise discipline. They are completely powerless to act in any biblical capacity. They cannot censure; they cannot excommunicate; they cannot restore; they cannot comment on standing — good or bad; they can only expel. They have absolutely no authority to discipline. Simply put, they’re Gnostics.

Thank you.