Testimony From the Heart

Everyone knows testimony from the heart when they read it. A young lady just left the following comment on “Diary of a Pirated Church”; please read it:

Ophelia Moonstone said . . .

I went to EPC as a child. Michael Marshall is my father. We were part of the renegades that left. I was so young at the time I only knew what my father told me. Burke Shade influenced my father in many dangerous ways. He encouraged what he called “spanking” but what was more like beating with a belt. He approved of this being used even on teens.

I never liked him as a child. He was pushy and disingenuous. Families with children in regular school were put under tremendous pressure to homeschool. Clothing for women had to be unattractive from any angle, or it was looked down upon.

Wives were expected to be mindlessly subservient and obedient. My father had told my mother not to go to the library with me and my younger brother and she went anyway. Because of this, Burke Shade came to my house and “chastised” my mother. He ganged up on her and verbally harassed her. I listened from another room. I was 13 and very very angry.

We finally left due to a disagreement with the Akins and the Bankesters. The Akins were under the impression that I had gotten their teenage daughter, who had been a good friend to me in childhood, into promiscuous sex and drugs. This was not true. Because of the rumors, however, my scapegoat status was secured.

Our departure was an ugly one. I hope Burke Shade melts in a pool of his own excrement. He made me hate church.

I cannot substantiate her testimony but I believe every word of it for two reasons:

1. Everyone in Moscow can confirm the part about Stepford Wives who wear parachutes as they homeschool their children to insure that the colony of mindless clones will walk in lockstep like lemmings to the cliff (most Kult members do not know this, but the Kult elders ridicule home-schooling mothers as “Prairie Muffins” behind their backs; Wilson wants the children in Logos where HE can control their minds).


2. By now everyone knows that the Federal Vision is a euphemism for power-hungry pastors who hold ultra-high views of the sacraments while they split churches and beat sheep — it’s code for “Canis Lupus Vision.” So even though she was in Illinois, Wilson’s boilerplate left the same impression on her as it does everyone else. I haven’t even got near the subject of him driving people from the Church and from the faith. But Ophelia said it better than I ever could.

Thankfully, however, Wilson, Shade, and all the CREC wolves will face that great shepherd of the sheep. And if they had any brains at all, they would realize that all their hateful deeds will come back on them a thousand fold — only then it will be too late. These brutes should expect to reap in eternity what they sow in time.

Thank you.

“Let Them Alone”

This is a follow-up to Patrick Poole’s post “R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ” and it’s more groundwork for a post I’m drafting. I hope you find it helpful.

Everyone recalls how, for about a year or so, Doug Wilson endeavored with all his might to disrupt the PCA’s disciplinary process as it applied to Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Whether raging confident about a “stacked committee” or stirring up strife over a “strong presumption of guilt” or breathing out threats and slaughter when it appeared inevitable that Steve Wilkins would face trial — Beelzeblog established Solomon’s words — “A fool lays open his folly.”

Of course, none of these canards really meant anything to Wilson. He certainly didn’t believe them and it’s not as though he tried to raise honest concerns in an honorable way. Not at all. It was obvious from the beginning that he wanted to knock the process off balance because he knew, as everyone else knew, that neither Wilkins nor any other Federal Visionists could harmonize their theology with Westminster. So he blew the first thing that came to his head and prosecuted the point, however absurd, until he could create more handles by blowing harder. And he creates these handles — these talking points — to give his disciples — those “dumb” folks who will follow him to the ends of the Earth and beyond — something to grasp. Just think of it as doug-opiate for the masses.

At this point I hear all the monkey boys in the land of DUMB screech from their cyber trees — “See, you’re slandering again; you don’t know he doesn’t believe these things! Of course he believes it or else he wouldn’t say it!” But in objecting to the obvious they only prove John Piper’s observation. I honestly cannot understand why no one thought to ask the Fearless Leader why the leaders of the Kult ever put someone on trial. Hello. They put folks on trial in the Kult because they established a strong presumption of guilt, at least by their standard. Well, that’ not true. They put folks on trial in the Kult so that they can point to the show trial to justify the public execution. Trials in the Kult are mere formalities — table dressing for the execution, but that’s grist for another post. Obviously they impute a strong presumption of guilt to the accused before they try them — why else would they try them? You don’t think they hold trials because they presume innocence on the part of the accused, do you? And they certainly don’t have to worry about stacking the jury — the Fearless Leader has already told the elders how to vote, and unfortunately no witnesses are present to do their imitation of John Madden with his Xs and Os and all. They declare the accused guilty of crimes against whatever after an unfair and partial trial (think Jezebel setting up Naboth) and duly execute him before a multitude of witnesses.

Consequently we know that Dougzilla threw monkey clumps and banana peels at the PCA strictly for entertainment purposes. The big gorilla was having fun at the PCA’s expense while simultaneously giving his disciples something to believe — no matter how ridiculous or implausible. And the whole point of this exercise was to run interference for Wilkins (who vowed to uphold the PCA’s form of government) by creating doubt and confusion. Mark that: in the end Wilson’s primary objective was to defend Wilkins by discrediting the PCA. For him, Sin covers a multitude of scoundrels and in the end Wilkins landed in the CREC without a hitch.

Anyone who can think critically knows this is true, but Wilson and the CREC have furnished us with a test case to establish these facts another way: Enter RC Sproul Jr and his three elders — the St. Peter Four. Those of you unfamiliar with the nuts and bolts of this case should read Patrick Poole’s brilliant post “R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ” so that you may begin to comprehend the staggering enormity of these men’s sin.

On January 26, 2006, the RPCGA issued a Declaratory Judgment against the St. Peter Four for a catalog of crimes against the Lord Jesus Christ that is as long as it is shocking. There are not words in the human tongue strong enough to condemn these thugs for the unconscionably wicked, deceitful, and abusive measures they exacted against God’s saints and even now I am at a complete loss to describe it. This may explain why the Declaratory Judgment concludes, stating:

In view of the request made by Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr. and given the authority of this office by the Elders of Westminster Presbytery, the following ruling is hereby issued. Considering the pattern of behavior noted above, the Session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church has proven to be irresponsible in their duties as ministers of the Gospel. They have proven they are not men under authority of this denomination because they are continually acting outside of the Book of Church Order. Their actions, in matters of writing, teaching, articles on their web site, and practice, in each of the issues above demonstrate that they have no interest in preserving the peace, purity, and unity of the Church and its order, which includes conforming all their actions to the requirements thereof. Therefore, in order to protect the Church of Jesus Christ from any further damage and humiliation (WCF 20:4), the Moderator hereby declares the following declaration by the authority vested in this office and the expressed support of the Elders of Westminster Presbytery to carryout their will in these matters.

Judicial Action: Deposition from Office
The Moderator, by the authority of the Elders of Westminster Presbytery, herein deposes from the office of Elder, Dr. R.C. Sproul Jr., Mr. Laurence Windham, Mr. Wayne Hayes and Mr. Jay Barfield and dismisses them to the general membership of Westminster Presbytery. They are to be held for trial pending additional charges, both public and personal, that are currently being investigated. The consistent pattern of actions taken by these men are duplicitous in nature, and demonstrate that they willingly and knowingly act in an arbitrary fashion in violation of their vows of ordination and in violation of our denomination’s Book of Church Order. Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1 Timothy 3:1–7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified. They have no interest to govern themselves appropriately within this presbyterian system of government that they vowed to submit and conform to its rules and regulations with conduct becoming ministers of Jesus Christ. (Declaratory Judgment, 10, 11)

Sobering words. No, more than that. An indictment this damning that the respondents substantiated with unqualified confessions should move everyone to cover their mouths in dread. Face it: the RPCGA had no choice but to pull the trigger on these brute beasts, and if the St. Peter Four had had any spiritual life in them they would have fallen on their faces in fear and trembling. They would have repented in sackcloth and ashes, pleading for forgiveness from everyone they abused and making restitution to them, as true servants, for the rest of their lives. This veritable Rolodex of offenses — which they freely owned as the fruit of their ministry — should not make a man consider his call to the ministry — it should make him consider his relationship to God. (Yes, you must be born again to see the kingdom of God.) After all, a minister cannot be a wolf and a sheep at the same time and true Christians don’t earn livings persecuting the brethren.

Enter Beelzeblog and the CREC. The laundry list of felonies and misdemeanors in the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment is kid’s play for the CREC — it’s the stuff of April Fools’ Day jokes. Therefore, less than a month after (much sooner if you have any street smarts) the RPCGA deposed the St. Peter Four, the CREC set in motion the wheels of ecclesiastical corruption to refrock these defrocked degenerates. Never mind the words “in order to protect the Church of Jesus Christ from any further damage and humiliation.” The Fearless Leader knew they were a perfect fit for the CREC when he read, “They have no interest to govern themselves appropriately within this presbyterian system of government that they vowed to submit and conform to its rules and regulations with conduct becoming ministers of Jesus Christ.” Crooks, knaves, fools — all of them.

But there’s one particularly aggravating circumstance in the CREC’s handling of the St. Peter Four when compared with their handling of Steve Wilkins that you need to see. When the CREC positioned itself to abrogate the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment and refrock the St. Peter Four, they (Wilson) had Sister Randy Booth issue a public statement calling on everyone to butt out of the whitewashing process:

The RPCGA has deposed the former session of St. Peter from office and has also released both the St. Peter congregation and her former session from RPCGA membership without censure. . . . The RPCGA has not precluded the possibility that some or all of the St. Peter session might be reinstated to office in the future, provided they go through the normal credentialing process. That is not to say that reinstatement is a forgone conclusion, only that the judgment of the RPCGA does not necessarily call for their permanent exclusion from office. . . . Some of these matters have been treated in an anti-ecclesiastical way via web sites on the worldwide web. There is definitely false and misleading information that is being advanced at some of these sites, including false information pertaining to the nature and make-up of the CREC Commission. Self-appointed arbiters of justice do not contribute to a godly resolution of anything and we hereby call upon them to recuse themselves from such public discourse, to immediately remove any material related to these matters from the web, and to pray for all those affected by these matters. (“RE: Saint Peter Presbyterian Church in Bristol, TN,”)

These guys really know how to pile the baloney. Stack it high, baby — high and tight. Look at their super-sanctimonious posturing. Such equitable language, such righteous indignation, such holy zeal for the truth — O let all the Earth keep silent, the CREC hath spoken. The only problem is that while this band of rogues in the CREC had absolutely no authority to sit in judgment of the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment, let alone reinstate the St. Peter Four, they demanded the very courtesy of the entire Christian church that they refused to show to the PCA in the Wilkins’ case. And don’t forget that the PCA actually had standing over Wilkins. Oh, I know, the PCA deserved it. After all, the Fearless Leader decreed it. Doug said it. I believe it. That settles it. But this does not remove the stain of hypocrisy from their actions. Rather, it reveals it.

Douglas Wilson taunted and harassed the PCA with obnoxious tirades and petulant tantrums while that communion pursued peace and purity in decency and order. And when the PCA’s disciplinary process finally isolated that rancid scoundrel Steve Wilkins for trial, Wilson and the CREC snatched him from the jaws of accountability under cover of night. But the point is that their MO was just the opposite with the St. Peter Four. In that instance they blew off the Declaratory Judgment as if the devastating facts against those hoodlums carried no weight and stared down anyone who dared question their actions. In fact, they preempted criticism with a blanket condemnation of all objections in advance. But where were the preemptory denouncements in the Wilkins’ case? Where were Randy Booth and his fellow CREC confederates when Beelzeblog relentlessly attacked the PCA for the last year? I didn’t hear any of them say,

Some of these matters have been treated in an anti-ecclesiastical way via web sites on the worldwide web. There is definitely false and misleading information that is being advanced at some of these sites, including false information pertaining to the nature and make-up of the CREC Commission. Self-appointed arbiters of justice do not contribute to a godly resolution of anything and we hereby call upon them to recuse themselves from such public discourse, to immediately remove any material related to these matters from the web, and to pray for all those affected by these matters.

I didn’t see any of them posture in their long flowing robes or flash a collar like a badge. All I heard were the Fearless Leader’s cheerleaders shout hurrah as they waved their pom-poms on the sidelines.

Pharisaical hypocrites — all of them — they say one thing while they do another. They’re dissemblers of the worst order, using pious spin when they refrocked the St. Peter Four and equally pious spin when they attacked the PCA — except they spun it the other way, turning their high and holy standard upside down.

The CREC confederates are like toilets at a rest stop; their porcelain appears pure and white on the outside. To be sure, some of them even have scent bars. But when you lift the cover, look out. The raw-sewage version of Big Foot jumps at you. IT’S ALIVE! You can flush and plunge all day long but he won’t go away. In fact, he keeps growing because an endless supply of waste — starting with Randy Booth and all the other CREC dignitaries — feeds him from the depths. His only purpose in life is to rot, fester, and stink up the joint, world without end, unless, that is, you call his flaming hypocrisy good fruit. And there’s no getting rid of him because the CREC confederates love to have it so.

The CREC deserves RC Sproul Jr and his three pet reptiles for the same reason they deserve Steve Wilkins, Burke Shade, Randy Booth, and all the other rebels against the kingdom of God that Douglas Wilson has gathered unto himself. But this doesn’t mean the Christian church deserves them. No, there’s no reason the Church should receive back the filth it cast out. In fact, we have every reason and all the incentive you could imagine to obey the command of our Lord regarding these Pharisees: “Let them alone” (Matt. 15:14).

Thank you.

Piles of BS

Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. — Romans 16:17–19

I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the damage caused by church splits. I lived through one after I’d been a Christian for about 10 years. I remember at the time I said I would never go through another. Four years later one of the elders in the church we attended began canvassing the congregation behind the back of the man who planted the church, to gather support for his ascendancy. He made his case to me, arguing that he was a better teacher than the pastor; he gave other reasons as well, and I gave him about three minutes before I cut him off, telling him that I’d been through one church split and would not go through another. So we invited the pastor and his wife to dinner to share with him the conversation his assistant pastor had with us. The pastor knew about the problem but didn’t know how to handle it (it was not a presbyterian church). I also notified him that I could not live through another church split because of the long-term damage they cause and that we would not attend there any longer. It’s easier to say goodbye than to pick a side — even the right side — and hang in there as the brethren begin biting and devouring one another. That’s the truth, right or wrong, selfish or not.

For all I know, no good comes from a church split. Think about it. First the leadership must fracture. Then at least one of those two sides, if not both, must make its case at the other’s expense. Young Christians don’t have a prayer because they lack the biblical acumen to address the controversy, but nonetheless they will suffer and depending on the level of vituperation the impression left on them will run deep. Older, more seasoned Christians don’t fare much better. If they’d been in the church for any length of time, then their house of worship becomes a house divided against itself that cannot stand. Of course, non-believers have a field day wagging their finger and mocking the believers. And if you have any heart at all, all of this stays with you the rest of your life. No, no good comes from a church split.

I write these things to set the stage for two very thoughtful comments I received regarding the fruit of Burke Shade’s ministry, after he labored diligently to split the church in his charge. The first person wrote,

These last two entries [“BS” and “Diary of a Pirated Church”] are painful to read. Dear friends of my parents labored hard at EP to plant and nurture it. It was doing so well. I know people who still tear-up with anger when they recall what Burke Shade did to that church.

It’s odd that the two churches are so close geographically. I drive by them both and there is little sign of life in either location. Very, very sad.

Another witness to the incident wrote,

It has been several years since I have caught up on the fallout of the Shade incident way back in 1999. At the time I read the entire case study and knew everyone involved. What struck me was how the impression given was that although these were weighty matter, once the split was over and the dust settled that the long-term consequences were not to be a worry. I remember thinking that whenever you have division that results from serious charges, the repercussions would be impossible to predict other than to say that there would be a legacy that Shade would have to live with and explain through his entire career. That has to impact his ministry, though my impression is that the local congregation may be somewhat shielded from this ongoing controversy.

That sites such as this are still debating what happened shows that the stakes over the doctrinal issues involved were very high. EPC (PCA) and Cornerstone (CREC) are literally two blocks from each other but remain world apart! Going on 9 years that doesn’t look to change, and the fallout of the Shade’s actions are having effects that go far beyond the local church. I wonder if 20 years from now that we may look back and point to these events as playing a large part in influencing the direction of the Reformed-evangelical debate of the day.

Finally, ol’ BS himself documented this gleeful little postscript to his actions, for the record:

You have some false comments on your shaderenegade blog (Thanks for keeping that stuff up; it was like a drive down memory lane! And it’s nice to have it all in one location. If you ever take it down, please let me know so that I can archive it all ahead of time). You have on there, up in the left corner, that I asked for those things (“All he wanted was. . .”). That’s false; the people who left EPC asked for those things, not me. It’s in your other documents, if you care to read them. Of course, it would have been nice if they had given them to Cornerstone, but alas, they didn’t.

Oh, and nice picture, too! Thanks.

Shade’s thoughtless stroll down memory lane demonstrates that he is utterly oblivious to the pain he caused, and I am certain that the joy he receives thinking of splitting his congregation cuts deep in those members who opposed his actions. Men who split churches have no idea how much pain they cause. They’re only concerned for themselves and how they might benefit from dividing the flock, unlike true shepherds who lay down their lives for the sheep.

The Christian church and the PCA are better off without Burke Shade. He crashed his vessel of destruction into the CREC, according to the blueprint, though minus one piano, a building, and seventy grand. It would have been ironic if they gave him the hymnals, however, because then he could have joined his faction in song, singing,

Bind us together, Lord,
Bind us together
With cords that cannot be broken.

Then, perhaps, his soul would be better prepared for that day when the Lord of glory declares to him, “Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness” (Matt. 22:13).

Thank you.

More BS

I want to make a few more comments on Burke Shade’s letter to the editor of P&R News where he wrote:

This lack of information in your article makes it “appear” that the CRE has a history of taking in, or shielding men, from denominational discipline, which is not true. You may not have meant to infer this, but your mentioning of my case in close proximity to the CRE within these articles lends itself to being interpreted this way. I came to the CRE a full year and a half after deposition, being a minister in good standing in the FORC that whole time.

This interesting interpretation of events requires some interpretation. First, when he says that he “came to the CRE a full year and a half after deposition,” he really means that the membership in the CRE is a two-year process (as in two annual CRE meetings) and he did not complete his process until September 2000. Therefore, Shade was technically correct when he said he “came to the CRE a full year and a half after deposition,” but thoroughly dishonest for leaving the false impression that he had not begun the process of joining the CRE and he could not have joined it as a full member for at least a year and a half. The CRE received him as a fraternal delegate at the earliest possible time, which happened to be six months after the PCA defrocked him, and one year later they vested his church with full membership status. (At that time the CREC had no constitutional process for hijacking churches; since then they remedied this problem, which I will address this weekend.)

Second, he states that he entered the CRE as “a minister in good standing in the FORC that whole time.” This may be true, but the evidence suggests its pure fiction. The FORC examined for ministry and received him as a minister in good standing while he was still on trial in the PCA, and two months later they sent a memorial to the PCA’s GA inquiring about his standing. Please notice the language they used to describe their earnest sincerity to honor the discipline of the PCA:

We bring before you our action in this matter (noted above in second paragraph) and request the judgment of the General Assembly as to our action in receiving Mr. Shade as a minister in good standing. It is because we respect the unity of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and acknowledge that discipline is not a sectarian matter, that we seek your counsel. If the General Assembly has no response to make, we will assume that we have the blessing of the General Assembly upon our own actions.

And the 27th General Assembly of the PCA made clear in no uncertain terms Burke Shade’s exact standing and the only way he could remedy it, stating:

[Burke Shade] was not transferred as one in good standing as alleged by the Communication but as one who had been found guilty of several charges, suspended from the sacraments and from office, and later deposed from the ministry. . . If the Federation of Reformed Churches desires to receive Mr. Shade, it should be with the recognition that he was not a minister in good standing at the time of his reception since his name was retained on the roll of Illiana Presbytery until his trial was completed. This being the case, the Assembly advises the Federation of Reformed Churches that if they have received Mr. Shade, they should take proper steps to deal with the discipline duly imposed by a PCA court. . . . The proper way for a judicial case, that has been settled by one of our presbyteries, to be brought before our General Assembly is either by appeal by one who has been duly tried by the presbytery or by complaint by a member of the presbytery. Since neither action has taken place, the General Assembly declines to enter into a retrial or review of the case on the basis of the Communication from persons outside of the PCA.

Talk about raining on someone’s parade. The PCA left the FORC wet all over and a plain reading of this communiqué shows no rainbow in sight. Shade’s standing in the PCA could not be clearer, just as the FORC’s position regarding the PCA’s discipline couldn’t be clearer. They affirmed, “It is because we respect the unity of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and acknowledge that discipline is not a sectarian matter, that we seek your counsel.” And the PCA gave them their counsel. Therefore, it’s difficult to take Shade at his word that he was “a minister in good standing in the FORC that whole time” unless we don’t take the FORC at their word. Someone’s bearing false witness.

In the end, however, I’m not sure that it really matters. Shade comes across as a likeable fellow who’s a tad bit removed from reality. Like the Fearless Leader, he’s always revising the storyline to conform to his fantasy, despite the documented facts. So as for me, I’ve concluded that you can take anything either of them says and . . . well . . . stick a fork in it.

Thank you.

Diary of a Pirated Church

C O R R E C T I O N: We discovered a scribal error on the date of point number 12 and have corrected it to reflect the correct date, and I sincerely apologize to Mr. Shade for making him jump through all those hoops as a result of this error. Furthermore, we forgot to note that Shade’s church adopted the Christ Church Constitution as its own in March 1999 (point number 5), which probably explains why he jumped through those hoops.

Yesterday, and again today, defrocked minister Burke Shade challenged my understanding of the facts regarding his lawful deposition from office, which inspired me to apply my fully documented anonymous attack skills to a timeline itemizing the chronological sequence of events that led to Shade splitting his church and crash landing the remains in the CREC. This record contains two staggering contradictions: First, in March 2006, Burke Shade said he never heard of the CRE until June 1999, which contradicts the testimony of Illiana Presbytery who said they were aware that Burke Shade was negotiating his reception into the CRE in February 1999; and (2) the elders of Christ Church represented to Illiana Presbytery that Burke Shade requested membership in the CRE in November 1999, seven months after the Kult voted to bring Shade into the CRE and two months after the CRE received Shade as a delegate.

1. 1998 — Burke Shade, pastor of Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), meets Douglas Wilson on the phone to schedule him to speak at a church conference in March 1999.


2. November 9, 1998 — Illiana Presbytery began a judicial trial against Burke Shade.


3. January 10, 1999 — Shade’s faction in EPC sends a letter to the session asking for a congregational meeting to vote on, among other things, (1) transferring their membership to their newly founded church, Cornerstone Reformed Church (CRC), (2) taking $70,000 with them, (3) taking one half of the Trinity Psalters and Hymnals, folding chairs, padded chairs, tables, (4) taking the Yamaha grand piano, (5) taking the computer and printer in Shade’s office, (6) dissolving EPC’s relationship with Burke Shade. Rest assured that the Fearless Leader instructed Shade to grab as much as possible, when hijacking a church.


4. February 22, 1999 — Illiana Presbytery eventually discovers that as early as this date (February 22, 1999, probably earlier) two elders from Christ Church were in communication with Shade about receiving him into the CRE.


5. March 1999 — Shade’s renegade faction adopts the Christ Church Constitution as its own.


6. April 3, 1999 — Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) examines and receives Shade as a ministerial member.


7. April 10, 1999 — FORC asks Illiana Presbytery to transfer Shade’s membership along with his trial transcripts with the intention of continuing the trial under its auspices. Illiana declines.


8. April 17, 1999 — Illiana Presbytery deposes Burke Shade from the ministry.


9. June 1999 — Douglas Wilson speaks at a conference hosted by CRC.


10. June 1999 — FORC sends a memorial to the 27th General Assembly of the PCA requesting the judgment of the General Assembly as to their action in receiving Mr. Shade as a minister in good standing.


11. June 17, 1999 — The PCA answers FORC, stating, Burke Shade “was not transferred as one in good standing as alleged by the Communication but as one who had been found guilty of several charges, suspended from the sacraments and from office, and later deposed from the ministry. . . . If the Federation of Reformed Churches desires to receive Mr. Shade, it should be with the recognition that he was not a minister in good standing at the time of his reception since his name was retained on the roll of Illiana Presbytery until his trial was completed. This being the case, the Assembly advises the Federation of Reformed Churches that if they have received Mr. Shade, they should take proper steps to deal with the discipline duly imposed by a PCA court.”


12. September 16, 1999 — The Christ Church elders vote unanimously to make a motion to receive Shade’s church in the CRE at the next CRE meeting (the CRE was less than two years old at the time).


13. September 30, 1999 — The CRE votes unanimously to grant fraternal status to Burke Shade and Cornerstone Reformed Church (full membership in the CREC is a two-year process).


14. July 13, 2000 — Douglas Wilson reminds the Kirk elders during their weekly meeting that he informed Burke Shade that the elders already agreed to bring him into the CRE, even though they had not read his trial documents.


15. August 17, 2000 — During their weekly meeting, the Christ Church elders adopt the “Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” which they send to Illiana Presbytery. The “Report” makes a staggering misrepresentation: “In November 1999, Cornerstone Reformed Church asked Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, to consider recommending them for membership in the CRE.”


16. September 28, 2000 — The CRE votes unanimously to receive Burke Shade and CRC into full membership. The CRE minutes do not note that the fix wa in from the beginning.


17. January 7, 2001 — Illiana Presbytery replies to Christ Church’s “Report”: “Now, if the first page of your analysis contains these many possible questionable conclusions, we would hope you might revisit your entire analysis and decision. . . Please understand our own concern about your objectivity when we have discovered that at least two leaders from Christ Church were in communication with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE as early as February 22, 1999, halfway through the trial. If the CRE was already interested in talking with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE then, how are we to conclude that you were able to objectively evaluate our records since then?”


18. April 10, 2001 — The Kult elders respond to Illiana Presbytery’s reply. Illiana ignores it.


19. July-September 2002 — Burke Shade writes a letter to the editor of P&R News: “This lack of information in your article makes it ‘appear’ that the CRE has a history of taking in, or shielding men, from denominational discipline, which is not true.” (ROTFL: Burke Shade, Dennis Tuuri, RC Sproul Jr., Steven “Machen” Wilkins)


20. March 3, 2006 — Burke Shade claims, “I did not even learn of the CRE until Doug spoke at our conference in June of 1999,” contra the findings of Illiana Presbytery that Shade had been talking to two Kirk elders about reception into the CRE in February 1999.


21. March 3, 2006 — Burke Shade states, “Before vindicating me, the committee that Christ Church established to look into my trial not only read all the trial documents supplied to them by Illiana, but also had contact with the elders of EPC.” Apparently the Fearless Leader failed to inform Shade that the fix was in. And it all began with a phone call.

I invite Mr. Shade to comment.

Thank you.

BS

I put this on Green Bagginses last night but it took a while for approval and may have got lost in the shuffle. It’s a response to a string of comments by Burke Shade where he creatively revises the history of his defrockment and his subsequent reception into the CRE:

Mr. Shade,

You are absolutely correct. The minutes for the Christ Church elders’ meeting do not say that you spoke with the pastor of Christ Church before the PCA lawfully defrocked you; they merely say that the pastor of Christ Church made motion to receive you and your congregation as a fraternal delegate in the CRE and the Kirk elders voted unanimously to approve his motion.

Consequently, given your implication and the plain meaning of the minutes, I must conclude that the Kirk session groupthinked to bring you into the CRE even though none of them ever spoke with you and the PCA had not defrocked you because your trial was not finished. Makes perfect sense. The CREC looks even more responsible now.

I’m sure this explains why the Christ Church minutes report that your trial was not a barrier to you and your church being accepted into the CRE:

Doug Jones reported that the ad hoc committee concerning Burke Shade recommends that we should not send out the current letter, and that we should wait while Chris Schlect and Doug Jones continue to work through the trial materials, before they make a further recommendation. Doug Wilson reminded the elders that we have already agreed this situation is not a barrier to Burke Shade and his church being accepted into the CRE, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that, further review of the material, the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions, which would only happen if new, clear information against Burke appears. The elders would like a report from the committee by July 27. This recommendation considered as a motion passed. (Christ Church Elders’ Meeting Minutes, July 13, 2000)

And this certainly explains why they had already brought you into the CRE as a fraternal delegate:

— Motion (DW/GH) to seat Cornerstone Reformed Church, Carbondale, IL (Burke Shade, pastor). After discussion, the motion passed 5-0. (CREC 1999 minutes, p. 1)

Furthermore, you are correct when you note that “the people who left EPC asked for those things, not me.” They asked for the money, the hymnals, and the furniture in the same letter where they requested Illiana Presbytery to dissolve its relationship with you:

We request that Evangelical Presbyterian Church agree to dissolve its relationship with Pastor Burke Shade immediately, allowing us to call Pastor Shade as Pastor of our newly formed Church. We understand that he would be ministering “out of bounds” pending final decision of Presbytery.

I’m sure they did this without your knowledge or approval, just as the pastor of Christ Church motioned to bring you into the CRE without your knowledge or approval. Or perhaps this is an example of the sheep laying down their lives for the shepherd. Either way, it gives you highly implausible cover, which is consistent with the FV MO.

Finally, while your claim that two denominations held your membership simultaneously — one as a defrocked minister and one as a minister in good standing — makes sense to you, it’s more evidence that you and your fellow confederates are under a lot of pressure. Trust me, I understand. It must be positively unbearable. You must feel a little like Roger Clemens and a lot like Hillary Clinton. Like Clemens, the testimony of your closest allies contradicts your story and, like Hillary, the overwhelming votes against you (from seven Reformed denominations) look like a landslide of epic proportions. The truth is surrounding you as the walls are caving in. You’re cornered and crushed. But take hope, Mr. Shade, for as the Congresswoman said to Clemens today, “I’m sure you’re going to heaven.”

PS: The issue of anonymity is not a matter of boldness as you suggest; it’s a matter of the Fearless Leader’s Al Capone-like traits. But for what it’s worth, I could handle you and Jeff Meyers at the same time, with or without his platform shoes.

Thank you.

The Stacked Committee

Earlier this week Douglas Wilson and his toadies repeated their contention against the PCA that it stacked the ad interim committee that was appointed to study the Federal Vision. In fact, the Fearless Leader went so far as to declare the PCA a kangaroo court because of this so-called “stacked committee.” Ironically, he made this declaration ex cathedra, without so much as a trial that granted the presumption of innocence to the accused, which happened to be the entire PCA. Even more ironic, Wilson refused to contact — in person — every commissioner who served on the committee to confirm that they were in fact stacked against the FV. Presumably he relied solely upon his assessment of their written statements.

Anyway, this got me to thinking about the committee of CREC confederates whom Sister Randy Booth appointed to examine Douglas Wilson’s orthodoxy. To paraphrase the questions of a commenter, Who exactly examined the Fearless Leader? Was it an unbiased committee? Were there members of the committee who were on record as being opposed to the FV? Why isn’t there a minority report? These are all great questions and Wilson and the CREC should be quick to answer them. But to my knowledge no one has ever asked them. So in a spirit of good faith and with a sincere desire to help establish the facts surrounding this historic examination, I shall answer these questions to the best of my ability on my fully documented anonymous attack blog.

Now, before answering the question “Who examined Douglas Wilson?” you have to remember that it didn’t matter who was on the committee because no one in the CREC has the ability to touch Douglas Wilson unless two members of Christ Church bring charges against the entire Kult session and successfully prosecute all of them in front of the CREC confederates, who happen to be the same confederates who ran Church of the King–Santa Cruz out of their federation after Wilson put his crosshairs on Andrew Sandlin. So this examination was really a meaningless exercise. Wilson could have revealed that he believes the Book of Nehemiah authorizes him to dissolve thirty-year old marriages (which he really does believe: “Remember him, O God, concerning this, and wipe not out his evil deeds that he has done to the household of God, and the institutions thereof.”) and the confederates would have been utterly impotent to remove him from the ministry, which doesn’t matter because their track record demonstrates they wouldn’t have cared anyway.

Therefore, since the exam had no ecclesiastic value, it was all for show. In fact, it was the ultimate doug and pony show because of all the mileage he got out of it. But can you imagine how humiliating it must have been for those men to pretend as though they had legitimate authority to hold Wilson accountable when they knew all along they were nothing but a bunch of monkey boys pandering to his monstrous ego? How embarrassing. Nevertheless, this brings us to that all-important question, Who examined Douglas Wilson? Obviously they were all CREC confederates; so taking them alphabetically we find:

Jeffrey Niell
Jeffrey Niell, pastor of Emmanuel Covenant Church, Glendale, AZ, has an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. Neither the CRE minutes nor his church’s website reveal anything about his background — how he entered the pastorate, who ordained him, how his church landed in the CREC, etc. But he is the first man on the committee to examine Wilson’s orthodoxy.

Burke Shade
Burke Shade, pastor of Cornerstone Reformed Church, Carbondale, IL, was lawfully defrocked from the ministry by the PCA in 1999. But the interesting thing about Shade’s story is the way Wilson brought him into the CRE. According to the Christ Church Elders’ Meeting Minutes, Wilson promised Shade membership in the CRE while he was on trial in the PCA for teaching false doctrine. Consequently, the Christ Church elders appointed an ad hoc committee to investigate Burke Shade’s defrocking in order “to get to an ordained conclusion.” The hypocrisy surrounding the Kult’s so-called “vindication” of Burke Shade is simply staggering; you can read more about it here and here. These guys really know how to put on a show.

Gregg Strawbridge
Gregg Strawbridge, Pastor of All Saints’ Presbyterian, Lancaster, PA, has a Ph.D. from University of Southern Mississippi (Education & Philosophy) and has a strong resume on paper. However you won’t find the following little fact on his background check unless you contact his former church, because that’s when you’ll learn that while Strawbridge was an ordained officer in a Baptist church, he was teaching paedobaptism behind the backs of his fellow officers contrary to his covenantal vow to his church’s constitution, but pursuant to Wilson’s instruction. He did this for over a year and gathered a small following. When his fellow officers caught him, they terminated his employment on the spot. Think of it as a failed coup for the kingdom of Doug.


Dennis Tuuri
Dennis Tuuri, Pastor of Reformation Covenant Church, Oregon City, OR, has perhaps the most confusing background of all the men examining Wilson. His church’s website states, “Ordained in 1983 as RCC’s first Elder, Dennis’ faithfulness to God’s Word has been a blessing within and without the church.” This statement appears clear — someone ordained Tuuri an elder in 1983 — but that’s all it says. It doesn’t tell us how and when he made it to the pastorate, just as it doesn’t reveal who ordained him or even if he was ordained. The CRE minutes add to this confusion; read it and try to make sense of it:

Motion (DW/BB) to extend the fraternal status of Reformation Covenant Church of Canby, Oregon. Doug described that a concern about RCC had been raised by Westminster Presbyterian Church of at last year’s CRE Presbytery meeting. The concern centered around the ordination of RCC’s pastor, Dennis Tuuri. Doug mentioned many recommendations from pastors of other churches testifying to Dennis Tuuri’s godly character. He believes that reconciliation between RCC and WPC is unlikely apart from RCC becoming part of a larger body like the CRE. Doug made it clear that this motion to extend RCC’s fraternal status should not be misconstrued to reflect negatively on CC. The CRE is not finding fault, but simply needs more time to decide how to proceed. We wish to treat RCC as a church body unto themselves, independently from WPC. Richard Mahar, an elder at RCC, read a statement (see attachment A) which could be summarized as follows: RCC has sought reconciliation in the past with WPC, but WPC has refused further discussions until RCC has become accountable to another ecclesiastical authority. Yet WPC has, in effect, told the CRE not to allow RCC to become accountable to them. This puts RCC in a dilemma. Also, WPC has charged Dennis Tuuri with “abuse of the flock” because of certain actions which he took as a minister, actions which would be correct if WPC would recognize his ordination, which they do not. RCC believes the characterization of Dennis Tuuri is inaccurate, and welcomes the opportunity to be subject to a court outside RCC and WPC. They are concerned that, if the CRE postpones their entrance, the stigma of being denied entrance to the CRE will be added to the accusation that they are not accountable, giving their detractors additional opportunity to continue the accusations. He concluded with an appeal to the CRE to vote in favor of their entrance.

Doug defended Dennis Tuuri’s ordination as being valid, albeit irregular. The delay of one year has nothing to do with Dennis’s ordination. The CRE is not by its actions giving any credence to the ordination charge or any credibility to any other charge against RCC. Doug recognized that there are no formal, judicial charges against RCC. He noted that no such charge could be brought to the CRE unless it was made against the entire session. After a request for further input, the motion passed 6-0. (Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals, Second Annual Presbytery Meeting Minutes, 3–4)

When you consider that the CRE had to put the best possible spin on this narrative, it sure looks as though Tuuri led a small faction out of another church. Whatever he did, this much is true about Dennis Tuuri: the PCA charged him with “abuse of the flock” and his ordination, whoever performed it, was “irregular”: “WPC [PCA] has charged Dennis Tuuri with ‘abuse of the flock’ because of certain actions which he took as a minister, actions which would be correct if WPC would recognize his ordination, which they do not. . . . Doug defended Dennis Tuuri’s ordination as being valid, albeit irregular. The delay of one year has nothing to do with Dennis’s ordination.”

Garry Vanderveen
Garry Vanderveen, Pastor of Christ Covenant Church, Langley, BC, Canada, graduated from Greenville Seminary. Neither the CRE minutes nor his church website reveal anything about Vanderveen’s background — how he entered the pastorate, who ordained him, how his church landed in the CREC, etc.

Accordingly, the committee that examined Douglas Wilson’s orthodoxy was composed of five men and any way you cut it, this was as fair and balanced a committee that Wilson could ever request. Two of them — Jeffrey Niell & Garry Vanderveen — have invisible credentials and consequently we know nothing about them. Gregg Strawbridge is as educated as he is unscrupulous. Dennis Tuuri, whose ordination is “irregular,” received political asylum in the CREC after his former church accused him of “abusing the flock.” And Burke Shade is a defrockee. A minister couldn’t ask for a better combination of men to represent the corrupt federation that he founded.

You can read their report here and since they voted unanimously to affirm Wilson’s orthodoxy, there is no minority report.

Thank you.

Bag o’ Snakes

Here’s another update from the FVists’ “members only” war room, otherwise known as the Biblical Horizons yahoo group. It’s a rather lengthy email exchange, I’ll let you figure out the context. As you read it, notice that five years ago they were already in an “us vs. them” mode. Also notice the way that they strategize (when they’re not backstabbing) about how to advance their doctrine, and notice who keeps them together as a faction. The FVists are not “teachable,” they have an agenda and they intend to impose it:

From: “John Barach”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 11:58 am
Subject: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

BHers —

Here’s Sproul Jr.’s latest discussion of the Auburn Avenue stuff.

John


From: Jeff Meyers
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:49 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Once again, I ask: what the hell is Jr. saying? He was in a fog all through the conference and he’s still wandering in it, IMHO.

JJM


From: “jeffrey steel”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:03 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I said the exact same thing Jeff about jr. He makes the vein on my forehead pulse so I guess he’s in the same camp since that is how we measure theological validity is by pulsing veins. Does he expect us to take him seriously?

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

E.B. Pusey “Because perseverance is so difficult, even when supported by the grace of God thence is the value of new beginnings. For new beginnings are the life of perseverance.”


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:54 pm
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Guess #1, aside from Robert Barnes’ utter insanity he is has noticed by recent piece by Hodge defending RC priests as Gospel Ministers for the purpose of baptism.

Basically, not only is Thornwell right, but anyone who disagrees is an enemy of the Gospel. Wright is the paper target but Hodge is the intended victim.

Mark


From: James Jordan
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:39 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

RCJr. follows papa in making anti-romanism the sine qua non of true Christianity, IMO. We were talking a few years ago, and he said Romanists aren’t Xians and aren’t saved because they don’t believe in justification by faith alone. I said that we aren’t saved by believing in justification in faith alone, but by faith in God, whether we understand the ins and outs of it or not. This was clearly a new thought, as I could tell by his face. Evidently it was a new thought that he did not accept. IMO the idea that you can only be saved if you understand that justification is by faith alone is heresy. It’s weird for someone who believes in paedocommunion to hold to such shit.

JBJ


From: James Jordan
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Tim is right, and let me remind us that this is a private list and what I wrote below is not to be repeated. And, to clarify, I was not calling RCJr a heretic, just making the point that he really does not in practice believe you have to believe in justification by faith to be saved. I’m mainly disappointed, is all. Barnes refused to sell my Brief Reader’s Guide to Revelation at the Ligonier Conference on Preterism, even though my book was fully in line with their position, simply because I’m “controversial.” I was not too controversial to work for Ligonier for 5 years, but that was before he came on board, I guess.

JBJ


From: Jeff Meyers
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Yeah, sure, but this is a private list and he’s not on it.

Speaking of Roman Catholics, after I spent a few months reading all of Walker Percy’s novels, I’m now most of the way through Flannery O’Conner’s works. I’ve yet to read her letters and I’m just now finishing her wonderful collection of essays and lectures Mystery and Manners. Wow, what a woman! If this RC chick is not in heaven, I don’t want to be there. A sample:

“Today’s audience is one in which religious feeling has become, if not atrophied, at least vaporous and sentimental. When Emerson decided, in 1832, that he could no longer celebrate the Lord’s Supper unless the bread and wine were removed, an important step in the vaporization of religion in America was taken, and the spirit of that step has continued apace. When the physical fact is separated from the spiritual reality, the dissolution of belief is eventually inevitable.”

Every page of Mystery and Manners is full of great stuff like this. See you in heaven, Fannery, baby!

JJM


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:15 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Here’s my off the cuff, unthoughtful analysis:

It seems that things are going to get hotter now that R.C. Sr. has come out against the “evil empire” (Shepherd/Wright/AAPC). It has certainly emboldened Robert Barnes (indeed, seemingly overnight he has been transformed into the theological equivalent of Rambo, no?) and that puts Jr. in a bad spot. I expect he will be forced to side more and more with Pop. (thus, he offers us this mumbled, jumbled “amen” to Robert’s rant.)

R.C. Sr’s opposition has given credibility to the Webbs/Morecrafts of the world and will solidify the doubts of many who up to now have been sitting on the fence. All in all, probably bad news for the good guys.

sw


From: Tommy Lee
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:31 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Sorry to ask something that seems obvious to everyone else, but where would one find Robert Barnes’ rant?

Thanks,

TL


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 4:42 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Tommy,

This is what was sent to me:
sw

From Robert Barnes

The post leading to Dr. Leithart’s blog led me to thinking a bit about the New Perspective on Paul matter.

Every book in the New Testament (except for Philemon, I think) has a concern about false doctrine. And considering the existential situation of persecution, and considering the nature of written communication during that time (the necessary economy of words), this cannot be overlooked and must provide a meaningful nudge to us in this matter — and all matters relating to our emphasis on the purity of our faith.

What the NP controversy has revealed is that I am a disgusting knowledge glutton. If I appreciate some of what you are saying, I will, in an unlimited and non-critical fashion, fill myself with your goods. I will mute my voice against you and your reasoning; just give me a little more. I will pan through gallons of your mud for that one nugget about NT Palestine I didn’t know or some grace-acknowledging rabbi. I will appreciated your defining the boundaries of covenant implications (by error, but still), but your excesses bother me not. I will be happy with a re-aligning the nexus of justification by faith alone from the traditional central Lutheran position to a rightly positioning it as one of several organs feeding our Christology, but I will not be too bothered by your romantic Romanism.

I was wrong. And I think every one of you who continue reading/hearing the Auburn Avenue crowd in a spirit of unmolested charity are wrong, too. I have been guilty (and I suspect many of you are, too) of the same sort of damage to the English language as John Robbins does, only in reverse.

Quoting Jane:

“It would be interesting some time to sit John Robbins down and have him defend, in light of scripture, his implicit working ‘proposition’ that all writings must be analyzed in their most negative possible sense and the most negative possible implications must be drawn from them, in order for ‘truth’ to be served and ‘discernment’ to be exercised.”

I have been doing the same thing in reverse. I have turned away from my duty as a teacher and an elder by allowing the bad AA logic, irresponsible reading of Scripture, and apparent goal of union with Rome (yes, I said it) to go by unmolested by Scripture and reason.

I have to stop grieving the Holy Spirit and start participating with Him in my sanctification in this area by repenting of this sin of intellectual gluttony, of refusing to turn away from a filthy trough and refusing to lovingly make a Big Deal over the bunch of hockey coming out of AA.

I’m not sure if adding more public rhetoric to the situation will help either me or them. But I am sure that I am grieved that better people aren’t making a bigger deal out of this mess. Presbyteries need to swing into action NOW and start discipline against those who publicly boast that they no longer keep the truths to which they have vowed.

If you think about it, just that last point alone should make those who are on the fence concerning NP start to wonder about the integrity (yes, I said it) of those who are pushing the NP agenda.

Regardless, I repent. Let us pray for men like Ligon Duncan, who is reasonably voicing concerns about this movement, that he will be strong and courageous. Let us pray for men like R.C. Jr., who is in an unusual spot of influence, that he will be wise in his counsel to those in the movement. Let us pray that presbyteries will begin discipline, God’s way of cleansing the church of false doctrine.

Robert Barnes

From: “John Barach”
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 5:10 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Maybe I’m behind the times, but where has RC Sr. spoken out against us miscreants?

John


From: “Steve Wilkins”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 8:17 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Well, maybe I’m misremembering but it seems that I heard that R.C. SR came out against us at a recent Ligonier conference . . . . no? or yea?

sw


From: “jeffrey steel”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 8:33 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I believe it was a conference in the northeast somewhere during a question and answer session. I believe he said that the NPP was probably the most dangerous doctrinal error that we are facing today or something like that. I could be wrong. Did he tie NPP to Norm Shepherd then too? Where does AAPC fit into that?

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

E.B. Pusey “Because perseverance is so difficult, even when supported by the grace of God thence is the value of new beginnings. For new beginnings are the life of perseverance.”


From: “Dale Courtney”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 9:14 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

It was Peter’s blog from 19 Dec that set them off:
“Strange Doings”

Pax,
Dale


From: “Dale Courtney”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 9:42 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

See: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bibhorizon/message/25171

Commenting on the Ligonier Conference in D.C. at the end of October:

During questions and answers, he was asked what is the most dangerous doctrine in the Evangelical camp these days, and he answered, “New Perspectives on Paul.” He also named Norman Shepherd too.

Pax,
Dale


From: “dpcassidy”
Date: Thu Jan 1, 2004 12:31 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

There’s no fog there now, judging from what he’s written. He is agreeing with Barnes and suggesting (implicitly) that all should heed his warnings. In addition he is connecting the RCC to AA and that will of course only inflame things further. Generally one doesn’t dog the Westminster Assembly as ‘weak’ and get along well in Presby circles.

I suppose RC Sr. will soon come out with a book highlighting the dangers of the NPP. Since Shepherd used his work as something of a foil at the SCCCS confernce [sic], I hope he will first write on his differences with him . . . which is of far greater significance, at least to little ol me, in the present debate (on the covenant of works, nature of imputation, etc.) than Wright or Sanders or Dunn on Second Temple Judaism. Sproul Sr carries a lot of influence because of his widely used publications and I imagine that such will be the vehicle of choice to take the debate to the ‘public, man and woman in the pew’ level. JMO.

Now if we could just get everybody to read the latest issue of Credenda. . . .

DC


From: James Jordan
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:09 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

One thing that hit me last night, and is probably olde news: These accusations that Wright has left the Reformation isolate the accusers not only from “us” but from the whole evangelical world, as far as I can see. NTW gets asked to ETS, is “answered” by Moo, but neither Moo nor anybody else in mainstream evangelicalism seems to be accusing him of rejecting basic protestantism, of rejecting just. by faith. Not that I’ve read everything coming out of evangelical circles! Are others besides Calvinistic extremists accusing him of departing from evangelical faith, or is this kind of rhetoric 98% limited to the Presby and Ref. worlds?

JBJ


From: burke
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Steve Wilkins wrote:

R.C. Sr’s opposition has given credibility to the Webbs/Morecrafts of the world and will solidify the doubts of many who up to now have been sitting on the fence. All in all, probably bad news for the good guys.

sw

Which means, of course, the good guys are winning.

Burke


From: Douglas
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:06 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Morning, everyone

RCjr was just out here in Moscow a few weeks ago, checking out our Greyfriars ministerial program. They are thinking of doing something like that back at Highlands. We had him to dinner and had a great time, with Nancy even teasing him briefly about his Auburn 03 talk. He is in good fellowship with us. I gave him a copy of the latest Credenda, which had just come out, and he was appreciative (it seemed to me). I agree with (I think it was) Jeff, who said that he is by no means in heresy-hunt mode.

With regard to his Razormouth piece, I differ with him, but we have to be careful not to polarize in predictable ways. TRs can make me nuts, but that is nothing compared to what RC monkeyshines do to me. If we sit around scratching our ecumenical beards in discussions with people who think Mary is a functional goddess, and then slam the door on people who have a few chapters of the Westminster Confession wound tight around their axle, then we are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Three metaphors wound tight around my axle!

My counsel would be for everyone to guard their virginity. NT Wright says lots of cool things that I do appreciate. But at the same time, his applications to the contemporary world outside appear to me to incredibly naive, and right in line with whatever Ted Turner thinks. And when he is Archbishop of Canterbury someday (as I think he will be), what will he do with women priests, and homosexuals? From what I have seen thus far, I honestly do not know. Reading the bottom line on the eye chart is not that impressive if you can’t read the big E.

Be cautious. Be wary. Keep some distance. If BH stuff, and Norman Shepherd’s stuff, and Auburn stuff, and NPP stuff gets all jumbled together in the public mind, and then a high profile guy within that jumble ordains a homo, then the next word we hear will be “checkmate.”

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:55 am
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

I must have missed something. I thought Wright had condemned homosexuality.

In any case, I agree with you on proximaty [sic] and all that but I already know that the maryolators are heretics. I’m just sick of being denounced as one by my own brothers and of witch-hunting judicial process in the PCA. Your assurance about RCjr don’t really explain his column and especially his endorsement his slanderous friend.

As someone who is virtually a nobody in his denomination, and thus feels somewhat vulnerable since I now realize it is all about clout, this stuff looks quite dangerous. I simply don’t view the RCs as that sort of threat.

Well, God is my shield and defender. But that’s the worry that creeps through my somewhat less-than-trusting mind.

Mark


From: “Tim Gallant”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:12 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Doug, a few points:

1. I don’t think you personally are R.C. Jr.’s target; I think he basically sees you as within the pale. But he is questioning the company you keep (i.e. your fellow Monroe speakers). His suggestion is not that the other gentlemen are heretics, but that maybe they are Lutherans and aren’t “coming clean.” (Note: as always this a closed list. This is information that I have received from Sproul Jr in personal communication.)


2. The Roman Catholic issue is much more complex than these sorts of men pretend. One of the supreme ironies in all of this is that it is Rome that theoretically have the infallible tradition, but many of Rome’s leading theologians are bending e.g. Trent every which way in order to be more biblical. (That doesn’t mean they are Protestants, but I think it does mean there are signs of hope.) Meanwhile, Presbyterians, continually shouting about Rome’s infallible tradition, act as if the Westminster Standards are inerrant and untouchable (actually, most of them think that their particular reading of the Standards are inerrant and untouchable). So which tradition is really irreformable? Somebody needs to expose this hypocrisy for what it is.


The whole notion that we need to be sure our theology and exegesis is a self-conscious affront to Rome is a dead end. I happen to believe (very strongly) that the biblical picture is very much opposed to Rome’s received dogmatic tradition. But it is just because of my assurance on that point that I feel no need to construe things just to make sure. When we go that route, we are no longer sola scriptura, we have absolutized our own tradition.

I would also add that the present treatment of Rome is at radical odds with the original view of the Reformers. Anybody who reads Calvin knows that he was deeply appreciative of Bernard. You can’t tell me that Calvin thought Bernard was in hell. Well, big news: Bernard, as Calvin well knew, was one of the most influential medieval figures in the promotion of the role of Mary. He was much more into Mariology than many modern Roman Catholic theologians. But now, meanwhile, we are supposed to measure our orthodoxy by whether or not we can judge whether recent RC saints (like Mother Theresa) are in hell. Give me a break.


3. Tom Wright has been very clear on the issues of both women in office and homosexuality. He is unequivocably [sic] in favour of women in office; we’re well aware of that. On the other side, he is unequivocably [sic] clear that homosexuality is a grievous sin, and I really can’t see him ordaining homosexuals.

Nonetheless, I agree with you on the point that we need to avoid tying everything in to one person. I keep saying this too: my task is not to defend Wright or Shepherd on every point. I task is to pursue the truth of Scripture, the edification of the Church, and the glory of God. Involved in that is calling men to account for violations of the ninth commandment. But mostly my interest in defending Wright is not to show that he is 100% correct, but to show that a lot of his work is legitimately usable.

tim


From: “Rich Lusk”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:15 am
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Glad to hear things are not as bad with Jr. as they seem. I still wonder: he may not be going on a heresy hunt himself, but what will be do with the heresy hunters do get to work? And why is he is so pro-Barnes if he still has an open mind about this stuff (since Barbes [sic] obviously doesn’t)? And why is he making anti-RCCism the touchstone of orthodoxy? Jr. just confuses me time and time again.

I hate to offer a “yeah, but. . .” to your post — since I think I agree with basically erverything [sic] you say. But here I go anyway. . . . .

I don’t know that NTW will ever have opportunity to be Archbishop of Canterbury (though I think he’d be a great choice), and yes, I do wonder if he has the fortitude to do the kind of discipline that needs to be done (and often isn’t done in the PCA and other Reformed circles either!). Nevertheless, if he did someday offer his approval to, say, a gay bishop, it would be easy enough to show how severely he had compromised his earlier position. It would be easy enough to demonstrate he had caved in. As of right now, NTW is firmly on the record as one who oppooses [sic] homosexuality as a proper use of our God-given bodies. If NTW changes his view, I will change my view of him. But I’m not going to distance myself from him just because he might someday disappoint me. That’s just not a healthy way of doing things in the church.

On the other issues, e.g., the ordination of women priests, his fondling admiration of the UN, etc, enough of us who like NTW’s work in other respects have already registered our dissent. I don’t hear anyone (even Jeff Steel! :-) ) simply going along with whatever NTW has said, as though it were handed down ex cathedra. I think all of us are reading him with some degree of critical discernment. And as our own discussions of the Iraqi situation have revealed, some of these are issues conscientious and faithful Christians can and will disagree on. If we made one’s view of the war a test of fellowship, we’d have to disband the BH list. So let’s keep perspective. NTW might not be at his best when it comes to present world politics, but I don’t really know anyone who has that figured out.

Many (like me) have felt the need to defend NTW because his views have been so twisted and distorted and misrepresented in the Reformed world. But defending a true reading of Wright — and the benefits that come from it — is a far cry from buying into his every last word, hook, line, and sinker.

I do agree that the jumble of BH, Shepherd, Wright, AAPC, etc. could pose us problems, since there are a lot of issues that need to be sorted out there and a lot of people who could potentially embarrass us. But I think these links are also inescapable to some extent, and are here to stay for the time being. After all, AAPC has had the cores guys in BH here to speak, we’ve had Shep, and we’re going to have NTW in ’05. The links aren’t imaginary.

RL


From: “cowley”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 12:21 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

Doug, Tim, Rich. . . :

Thanks for these comments. I must be the only one on the list who totally understood RC’s total confusion. While he wandered all over, I think he was expressing the angst of the “TR” in process.

I understand the urge to defend NTW. I’ve done so a bit in private, trying to disuade [sic] folks that are so scared about him to put him in perspective (no pun intended). Generally, I don’t think we need to “defend him.” His project is so massive, and speaks for itself. Anyone who has the right to really worry about NTW needs to have lots more experience looking at his material and taking a shot for themselves at answering not the NPP, but the real radical unbelief that has afflicted the world of NT scholarship . . . up through the Jesus Seminar.

But, the problem is that folks have a sort of “smell-o-meter” alarm. We should always read critically, but USUALLY not unsympathetically. But, there are some we should read with great caution, and others we should read only in order to refute. To refute, we must, however, understand. Some, we should not read at all, without great special reason to do so (think of Dobson’s time on President’s Council re: Pornography! I was looking at a Jesus-Only tract the other day. First I was trying to see if there was some orthodox way to take his statements, as I went on my smell-0-meter when from yellow to red. I decided it was not worth reading further, because I had no just reason to do so. . . I was just dabbling. Now, reading Swedenborg (for me) is a somewhat dangerous task — so I only read it when called thereto for special reasons — to help a Swedenborgian out of it, or to write in refutation. Still, I try to read Sympathetically.

Well, reading Wright is a pleasure, and a joy, and the areas of concern are generally secondary, if not trivial. Most of the time it is a breath of fresh air. Sometimes it’s hard to understand, but my own personal smell-0-meter does not go past general caution. In fact, this whole AAPC has changed my angle on things. . . NOW I read guys like Spoul [sic] and Piper and such with a view to seeing how they are wrong on secondary points.

Doug is right that the guys publically [sic] Identified with AAPC are going to be percieved [sic] as part of a Jumble of issues.

My guess is that this will play itself out a lot like Theonomy. . . Folks will look at the Shepherd/Wright/NPP material with their smell-0-meters in Orange to Red, but then as things play themselves out, I think they’ll start seeing that the TRs are chasing their own tails, and some are trying to save the whole reformed world by following Kline down his own rabbit trails.

Should we “defend” Shepherd? Here is a man in our own “circles” whom I’ve never met. When there is false witness, I think we need to defend him. I’ve oft repeated the “I wish he could be clearer, but. . .” Now I try not to say that. I think unclarity may be one of his points — to make us think, give us a pain in the brain.

Schlissel’s really dangerous in my circles. He’s punched every Sacred cow he can. But, I have met Steve and like him a lot, and I think he’s generally in “prophetic mode” when he goes overboard. And, he’s funny and self-depreciating. How one defends Steve depends alot [sic] on who you’re talkin’ to. He really offends RPW sensitivities! And, they have a hard time taking him seriously due to his tone. Too bad for them.

As for Jordan, guys like Schwertley have no clue what he’s up to. They are only dangerous when they think they understand him, and don’t. “Stream of consciousness exegesis” and such like. . . Didn’t Schwertley call it LSD exegesis once? I’m not sure. I hear Bahnsen wrote against Chilton’s Days of Vengeance for its (what?) finding something like 14 FUNDAMENTAL structures to Revelation. . . I don’t know about that. . . But, Jordan’s project, likewise, is pretty massive, and to have the right to hate him, you must know him first. . . And we all know, that to know, know, know him is to love, love, love him. . .

It “used to be” that the RPW types and the Jordanites were all folks who really cared about worship a lot and wanted to make sure it was done as well as possible. Now they are at loggerheads. Even the Stillwater guys gave semi-positive reviews of Liturgical Nestorianism and Liturgy Trap in Dick Bacon’s BLUE BANNER MAGAZINE.

Anyway, Thanks!

Cowpie


From: “Mark Horne”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 1:04 pm
Subject: RE: [bibhorizon] Re: Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

On another note: Where does RCjr get off simply equating Campbellites with Mormons and simply take it as a given that their trinitarian [sic] baptism is just as worthless? No wonder he thinks Moscow is lacking for not independently consigning Rome to flames; he does it on his own authority at the drop of a hat.

And then this:

“And aren’t the same Reformed folk who wanted to count Romish baptism, at least in the seventeenth century, the ones who called Rome anti-Christ? And yet at Auburn Avenue the Westminster Assembly was deemed not a sufficiently catholic body to have the authority to oust Rome. And so, according to this crowd, we’re stuck with them.”

But that’s the point. They didn’t oust Rome. They accepted their baptisms. The one who denies the authority of the council is RCjr. If they had ousted Rome, they could no longer call them antichrist. They’d simply be another false religion along the lines of Swedenborgianism.

The idea that this massive misreading of the WCF is a result of being TR demonstrates an awful lot static in the actual transmission of the tradition.

Mark


From: “Rich Lusk”
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue; NTW

Maybe I should add something else here. Those of us who “defend” NTW (and I agree that he needs no defense from peons like Horne and me) do so because we can use NTW as a springboard for defending a lot of other things. NTW is useful because he’s an outspoken preterist, he offers fresh BT insights into NT passages, he reads the Bible intertextually, he takes history and the “political” seriously, he has a high view of the sacraments and church, etc. In short, NTW helps us break free from the categories of scholastic, Enlightenmentish Calvinism. In that sense, he’s the ultimate anti-Gnostic theologian. Because he says these things in an unusually clear and provocative way, it’s helpful to hitch our cart to his and ride along. We have to get off the train at certain points, e.g., women in the priesthood, but the benefits outweight [sic] the costs. To this point, I think defending NTW has been a good strategy because so many people have had their eyes opened to things by reading his work with an open mind. People who have read a little NTW are far more likely to receive BHish kind of teaching than those who haven’t. In fact, as Mark has pointed out, a lot of stuff I gleaned from NTW I had already heard from Jim and Peter years earlier. But if the smear campaign against NTW is allowed to continue without challenge, a lot of people will never take the time to hear the good things he has to say — which are often precisely the things the Reformed world most needs to hear. I would say defending NTW is not an end in itself (though I suppose it is part of enforcing the 9th commandment), but really a means to a much larger end. Or, to put it another way, to this point, I’ve viewed defending NTW in Reformed circles as a way of being “against Christianity” and “for the church.” In time, I fully expect some other strategy to become more effective (maybe after Jan. ’05, when he’s had a chance to speak for himself to a Reformed audience).

RL


From: Douglas
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: [bibhorizon] Sproul Jr. on Auburn Avenue

BHians,

Rich, I think we agree also.

Couple random thoughts. Sproul jr. is good friends with Barnes, and, from what I understand, Barnes was squeezed out of Ligonier some time ago by the suits and haircuts. Sproul jr. is no longer the editor of Table Talk, as of this January — another squeeze play. There are wheels within wheels, just like what Ezekiel saw. Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do. That happens on both sides of this fracas, and I think it is happening here.

I am not talking about creating distance with someone like Wright on the basis of what might happen, I am talking about how fast and how cautiously we close the distance — and I do think we should close it. But we have to be careful, and not act like teenaged girls in 1968 about to get a glimpse of John Lennon. I have unfortunately seen some of that.

Tim, I agree that RCjr is nervous about us, including me. Shoot, I am nervous about us, especially me.

I agree that the RC situation is complex. But the men who are bending Trent every which way are worse than the TRs because what they are doing is profoundly dishonest. At least the TRs affirm as the truth what they believe to be the truth. I had an RC friend tell me that the infallibility of the pope simply meant that the pope had the authority to take certain things off the table for purposes of discussion. They could always be put back later. But that is not infallibility, that is authority. More, it is dishonest. And we have to remember that the TR situation is complex also. People are complex — that is one of the sins of party politics, in that it tries to simplify what cannot be simplified.

Also remember N.T. Wright is not just a detached academic, with a right to his own opinions. He is in ecclesiastical authority, and this means that he is in a position to ordain, discipline, whatever. I hope he stands firm with his stated opinions when the time of testing comes. It will come. And he has already missed something important on the issue of women’s ordination. What do we do, for example, when one of the good guys over there, one of us, runs afoul of the CoE on some issue like that?

Anyhow, enough for now.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

PS: Please remember that this is a “private list.”

Thank you.

Burke Shade: Proto-Federal Visionist

One of the common denominators of the Federal Vision is confusion — confusion about what they’re saying, confusion about what they’re writing, confusion about what they believe — it’s just plain old confusion. And in this respect, deposed minister Burke Shade represents the quintessential proto-Federal Visionist.

You will recall that the PCA defrocked Shade in April 1999, for “apparently” holding to an erroneous view of baptism, and when you read P & R News’ account of his trial, it’s clear that Frank Smith was skeptical about convicting a man for “apparently” doing something. And in that limited context, Frank had a point. In hindsight, however, Shade was a FV test case demonstrating the FV’s slippery nature. Moreover, Illiana Presbytery was right.

Shade said that he believed X but members of his congregation testified that he taught Y. Hmmmm. . . . does this sounds familiar? Once again a FVist used the English tongue to communicate something that everyone understood in English, but he meant it in FVish.

The Bible requires elders to be “apt to teach.” So if they regularly confuse the flock when they teach, they do not satisfy this requirement. Unfortunately, this is not the case with FVists. Everyone understands exactly what they’re saying; they simply won’t admit it.

Another Glimpse Inside the War Room

Last week I mentioned the Biblical Horizons group — a private Yahoo group for the Federal Visionist sect to say what’s really on their minds. Here’s a self-explanatory email exchange between Mark Horne and Douglas Wilson, but I want to point out that whenever Wilson says he’ll run it past the elders, he is really saying “no.” They exist as empty holes in space that nod their heads up and down whenever the Little Man Behind the Curtain postulates one of his brilliant ideas or to provide cover for him when he needs a plausible excuse, which ever is more convenient. And in this case, Wilson had no interest in releasing the correspondence between Christ Church and Illiana Presbytery because it was too embarrassing to the Kirk. But just in case Mark Horne is still interested, this website has all of the relevant documentation necessary to know exactly what happened when Christ Church helped Burk Shade split a PCA church and then “vindicated” him after the PCA deposed him.

At 09:37 PM, on February 23, 2003, you wrote:

Since the sons of Belial and their victims are beginning to cite the Illiana case as a triumph over the false Gospel of Norman Shepherd, I respectfully request of Doug Wilson, Burke Shade, and all other CRE members on the list that they consider web-publishing their correspondance [sic] with Illiana presbytery and relevant data.

Mark Horne

February 24, 2003
Mark,

I will bring it up to our session this next Thursday morning. Thanks for the heads up.

Douglas

Thank you.