Tuesday, December 18, 2007

Make That “Post-Enlightenment Hypocritical Gnostics”

Yesterday we saw that the words “spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory,” taken from the CREC Constitution, reveal the CREC’s true nature — they’re Gnostics calling themselves presbyterians despite officially naming themselves a confederation. They’re Gnostics because their constitution limits their “spiritual authority” to “practical advice,” which, if you ask me, is not a particularly big bragging point for the confederates — especially when the Fearless Leader regularly parades the decisions of his “presbytery” before the world, as though it actually exists. In fact, the absence of any mechanism in the CREC Constitution to hold its confederates accountable reveals that, in addition to being Gnostics, they’re flaming independents, or individualists, if you will. Yes, that dreaded sin of individualism. They adopted it whole hog into their founding document, all the while calling themselves “presbyterians.”

But just in case you think the absence of any effective accountability clauses in the CREC Constitution is a confederate oversight, please consider the second paragraph of Article IV, section O, which states:

If a complaint against a member session is brought by someone who is not a member of a CREC church, the CREC, in presbytery, Church council, or through its appropriate moderator, can agree to hear the case if all of the following conditions have been met.
  1. The moderator has a letter from the accused session in question declining to hear the case, or a letter advising him that the case was heard and rejected.

  2. The moderator has a letter from the government of the church where the complainant is a member saying that the church affirms the truth of the Apostles’ Creed, and agrees to hold the complainant accountable if the decision goes against him. If the complainant is an independent church, the moderator must have a letter of commitment from that church expressing their willingness to give due weight, respect and consideration to the decision of the CREC, and agreeing not to pursue the matter beyond the CREC decision.

  3. The charges as framed have two or three available and accountable witnesses listed for each specified complaint.

  4. The complainant has not overtly discredited himself in his manner of bringing the charges. (CREC Constitution)
I call this the “retaliation clause” because it demonstrates that the CREC confederates know how to use the principles of accountability to insure retribution. To be sure, while the CREC Constitution confers no authority on its members to hold one another accountable, it positively guarantees that non-members of the CREC cannot bring charges against a CREC church unless their church government agrees to hold them accountable if (when) the CREC decides against them. Furthermore, the complainant must agree to submit to the CREC’s ruling as the final decision if (when) the CREC rules against them. Notice the specifics of subsection (2):

The moderator has a letter from the government of the church where the complainant is a member saying that the church affirms the truth of the Apostles’ Creed, and agrees to hold the complainant accountable if the decision goes against him. If the complainant is an independent church, the moderator must have a letter of commitment from that church expressing their willingness to give due weight, respect and consideration to the decision of the CREC, and agreeing not to pursue the matter beyond the CREC decision. (emphasis added)

Therefore, we may conclude that the CREC confederates affirm the importance of holding others outside of their confederation accountable to biblical authority while they have thoroughly insulated themselves from any accountability to biblical authority, which fits the textbook definition of hypocrisy: “Do as we say, not as we do.” We may also conclude that the CREC confederates are not always Gnostic individualists; they’re only Gnostic individualists when it’s “practically advisory” to protect the Fearless Leader’s best interests, which appears to be at all times.

Thank you

0 comments: