Monday, December 17, 2007

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.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is the CREC Constitution based on? Did they utilize the E-Free Constitution in drafting the CREC, did they just cut the entire thing out of new cloth?

Mark T. said...

A friend of mine is a former member of the Kult (in fact, he is one of the targets of the imprecatory prayers); he tells me that Wilson framed the CREC Constitution from scratch and bounced it off the men in the Kirk during their Sunday night men’s forums. This is only one witness (and I’d swear by him without batting an eye), but it’s consistent with Wilson’s MO.

Re E Free, I don’t know how much Wilson relied on their constitution when he drafted CEF’s Constitution; but you have to remember that at that time he had three elders who kept him on a tight leash. Of course, that all changed in 1993 when he overthrew their leadership. Regardless, I am confident that Wilson has purged the Kirk Constitution of all E Free remnants and has expunged any clause that could ever threaten his power. Their website used to show how many times they revised it. If you look closely at those dates, each revision represents a power crisis in the Kult that forced him to tighten up the constitution.

I have an extended thread in mind on this whole history, because I discovered some remarkable facts in last two weeks vis-à-vis how this thing began. But I’m still working out some of the details and the best way to present it. Last night’s post was originally twice its size and at the last minute I whacked it in half to not lose my readers. Wilson World is a complex web of deceit that requires much patience to unravel. Bottom line: it’s all a confidence game.

Sorry to blather.

Tim Bushong said...

Hi Mark-

You had left a comment for me yesterday on another site, and I'm the same guy. Here's my comment:

The CREC constitution states:

"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."

Are you suggesting that if property can't be removed, then THAT makes it gnostic? Isn't removal from the CREC enough? Isn't it more probable that what is being advocated by this practice (in section "M") is just an application of the "Principle of Subsidiary"- (that no area of people's social lives should be administered by any larger body than necessary, lest that administration become oppressive)?

Just asking.

Mark T. said...

Hi Tim,

No, I am saying that the founders of the CREC deliberately precluded any kind of mechanism from their constitution that would allow them to practice biblical discipline; hence this clause: “The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory.”

It is profoundly ironic that one of the pretexts for the Federal Vision is its supposed opposition to Gnosticism while the federational home of the Federal Vision is constitutionally Gnostic. The best they can do is offer “practical advice.”

Do you follow?

Tim Bushong said...

But a biblical (1 Cor 5) discipline would look something like "Man 'A' has fling with woman 'B' and refuses to repent, so the church must excommunicate him". Or, "Pastor 'A' teaches heresy and refuses to repent, so broader assembly removes said pastor from their group".

Is it the "spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory" line that you derive the 'gnostic' tag from? Because if an assembly CAN remove a church's lampstand, then it would seem that they have actual 'this-world' spiritual and practical authority.

Am I just not very conversant with traditional presbyterian constitutions?

Mark T. said...

Tim,

Thanks for your comment. Yes, the “spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory” line is clearly Gnostic, at least in the way the FV defines the term. I’m curious how you arrive at the words “remove a church’s lampstand,” because the CREC Constitution is very clear about the limited authority it vests in the confederates to discipline one another, and it certainly does not allow “removing lampstands.”

Tim Bushong said...

That would be the "...they may be removed from membership in the CREC" line. That seems pretty authoritative in a practical sense.

Mark T. said...

Hi Tim,

I don’t dispute the authority of the CREC to remove a church from the confederation. However I do dispute your implication that the CREC removing a church from its assembly is tantamount to removing that church’s lampstand. Removal from the CREC is just that — removal — it makes no statement on standing, contra your implication. Furthermore, the CREC Constitution grants no authority to the confederates to make statements on standing. There are two reasons for this: (1) the CREC is a federation of independent congregations (it is not a presbytery), and (2) the CREC has adopted a Gnostic approach to church discipline, “spiritually authoritative but practically advisory.”

Here’s a test case. Assuming you are still shocked at James Jordan’s wicked conduct, as an elder in the CREC you have no standing to hold him accountable, even though he is in the CREC. Furthermore, no other officer in the CREC has standing to hold him accountable. The only way to Jordan is through his church, which smart money says has an unwritten agreement to grant him immunity for all sin. After all, he’s the Godfather of the Federal Vision. Regardless, Scripture commands to remove him from the fellowship of the saints and there’s nothing you can do about it.

In essence, the CREC is a federation of Gnostic independents who call themselves presbyterians.

Tim Bushong said...

"However I do dispute your implication that the CREC removing a church from its assembly is tantamount to removing that church’s lampstand."

Okay, so it's not "removing a church's lampstand" in the ultimate, Book of Revelation sense. I was using that expression as a metaphor for the idea of a removal from a greater assembly of churches. So don't put too much stock in refuting that part of my argument.

It's not really an argument anyway, and you would do well to avoid ad hominum lines of reasoning- I'm just a guy axing some questions, yo.

I'm still not clear on how that type of authority is radically different from any other Church body- you know, the errent church being removed from that particular assembly, or the errent pastor from being removed from a particular church. It must be radical enough of a difference for you to continue to use the terms "gnostic", "Kult", "Godfather of the FV", etc... in referring to the CREC.

Are your comments based on a lack of conformity with "normal" presbyterian standards, or with Doug Wilson and company? I'm not at all trying to be disrespectful or cavalier in these questions- I just want to know.

Biblically speaking, I wouldn't go to the mat or give my life for presbyterianism per se (as in a church governmental entity), at least not in the same way that I would do the same for the gospel itself or the fact of the Trinity.

Mark T. said...

Hi Tim,

Housecleaning issues:

1. I use the word “Gnostic” in the same way the FVists use it with one exception: I have not created a straw man in order to misidentify others.

2. I didn’t coin the word “Kult,” but it is the word of choice in Moscow to describe the non-Christian cult led by Douglas Wilson. He cultivated the environment that gave birth to the name, and I agree that it fits.

3. P. Andrew Sandlin declared James Jordan the “Godfather” of the FV. This should interest you because Sandlin’s congregation left the CREC in November 2006 after Doug Wilson split the church because he had an axe to grind with Sandlin. You have to read this link: CREC—Papists. Now ask yourself, If Wilson would split Sandlin’s church out of a grudge, what would stop him from splitting your church? Good question. That’s why I noted elsewhere to you, you should speak with men who have left the CREC before you join it. It’s not everything that some would have you believe.

Now, to the heart of your inquiry: Let’s be clear here — the questions surrounding the CREC’s form of government are not “normal” vs. “abnormal” presbyterianism. The CREC is not a presbyterian form of government at all because, in the end, each congregation maintains its independence from the general assembly and the constitution vests no authority in anyone to supersede that authority. This raises the question, “Why does Wilson continually refer to the CREC as a presbytery?” I have already documented my answer. I’m curious how you would answer it.

I agree with you that a church’s form of government is not an issue requiring us to go to the mat, unless, of course, you represent your government as one thing when you know it’s another, which is precisely the case with the CREC.

Tim Bushong said...

"1. I use the word “Gnostic” in the same way the FVists use it with one exception: I have not created a straw man in order to misidentify others."

How can I possibly know that? Am I just to assume that you're not committing the logical fallacy of the "straw-man" simply because you assert it? You have said a LOT of things on your blogs, and the odds of your being absolutely factual in your representation of the entire CREC are pretty slim. And how has the CREC specifically misrepresented an argument in order to defeat that argument?

2. I didn’t coin the word “Kult,” but it is the word of choice in Moscow to describe the non-Christian cult led by Douglas Wilson. He cultivated the environment that gave birth to the name, and I agree that it fits.

Are you using "kult" in the sociological sense or in the theological sense? Sounds like both, but help me out please. How is the CREC non-Christian? Be specific...

"3. P. Andrew Sandlin declared James Jordan the “Godfather” of the FV. This should interest you because Sandlin’s congregation left the CREC in November 2006 after Doug Wilson split the church because he had an axe to grind with Sandlin. You have to read this link: CREC—Papists. Now ask yourself, If Wilson would split Sandlin’s church out of a grudge, what would stop him from splitting your church? Good question. That’s why I noted elsewhere to you, you should speak with men who have left the CREC before you join it. It’s not everything that some would have you believe."

Okay- sounds like there are some issues here- but I certainly won't base my opinion on the very first statement (Prov. 18:17), and one of the things to remember here is that there is always more to these situations than meets the eye. Besides, Doug Wilson simply doesn't have the authority to split our church.

"The CREC is not a presbyterian form of government at all because, in the end, each congregation maintains its independence from the general assembly and the constitution vests no authority in anyone to supersede that authority."

This is where I glaze over- and that's what I meant by "normal presbyterian" earlier, because if we're going to take the Bible alone as our final rule, then there would be some liberty in this area- but I'm just not conversant enough with traditional presbyterian polity to offer a rigorous inquiry. Maybe it's like designating between 'small p" and "large P" presbyterianism.

Mark T. said...

Hi Tim,

Skimming past the rhetorical questions, I’ll take your queries in order:

1. When you ask, “And how has the CREC specifically misrepresented an argument in order to defeat that argument?” please note that I charged the FVists with this. That said, one of the pretexts the FVists have asserted as cause for the FV is that the Reformed church is “Gnostic.” Of course, this is absurd.

2. I use the word “Kult” in the most pejorative sense possible. Christ Church is a non-Christian cult in the theological/religious sense and it is a cult in the sociological sense similar to Jonestown. I am not sure that I ever said the CREC is non-Christian.

3. I am sure that Wilson does not have the constituted authority to split your church or any other church. The point isn’t authority; the point is that he did this behind the backs of the COTK elders. More importantly, he never denied COTK’s statement. As before, I urge you to contact COTK. They told me that they have boatloads of supporting documentation; hence, no one from the CREC has ever denied the accusation.

4. Re presbyterianism, I encourage you to reflect upon the reasons your church has applied for membership in the CREC; this may save you a lot of heartache in the end. Your better off as an independent congregation than an as independent congregation with membership in a federation that calls itself a presbytery and intends to recognize “bishops.” At that point the identity crisis becomes even more comical, but do you really want to be part of that?

Give Sandlin a call. After you speak with him I can put together a list of other witnesses.

Tim Bushong said...

"Skimming past the rhetorical questions, I’ll take your queries in order:"

Well- I've been busy with the usual (Church, family, business...) so the halt in posting.

Those first Q's weren't rhetorical. Seriously- I actually did want specifics- especially when the "FV" (yes, the monolithic, magisterial, lock-step version) supposedly accuses the entire Reformed church of being gnostic- is that not a classic straw man? (No- my bad- that is the "from the part to the whole" fallacy...)

Again- where is the misrepresentation that you were originally thinking of when you used the "straw man" tag?

"I use the word “Kult” in the most pejorative sense possible. Christ Church is a non-Christian cult in the theological/religious sense..."

Okay....GO!

Mark T. said...

Hi Tim,

I’m signing off for the day right now; I’ll catch you tomorrow.

Thanks

Mark T. said...

Hi Tim,

I will take your words at face value and demonstrate that you did ask rhetorical questions:

You asked, “How can I possibly know that?” You can investigate the subject just as I have done.

You ask, “Am I just to assume that you’re not committing the logical fallacy of the ‘straw-man’ simply because you assert it? No, you can study the subject as everyone else familiar with it has done.

You ask, “And how has the CREC specifically misrepresented an argument in order to defeat that argument?” As I answered above, please note that I charged the FVists with this, not the CREC.

You ask, “Are you using ‘kult’ in the sociological sense or in the theological sense?” As I answered above, I use the word “Kult” in the most pejorative sense possible. Christ Church is a non-Christian cult in the theological/religious sense and it is a cult in the sociological sense similar to Jonestown.

You ask, “How is the CREC non-Christian? Be specific. . .” As above, I am not sure that I ever said the CREC is non-Christian, though I recently posted that it is an emerging non-Christian cult.

Now to your other questions.

You ask, “I actually did want specifics- especially when the ‘FV’ (yes, the monolithic, magisterial, lock-step version) supposedly accuses the entire Reformed church of being gnostic — is that not a classic straw man?” Yes, you just framed a classic straw man to misrepresent me.

You ask, “where is the misrepresentation that you were originally thinking of when you used the ‘straw man’ tag?” Here is one example: “Leaning Against Creeping Gnosticism”

The last time I tried answering what I thought was the gist of your questions. I will not make that mistake again. Please be concise and specific. And once again I urge you to contact Andrew Sandlin. He can speak with authority to the issues you face as you enter the CREC.