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.

Pastor Ghoul: Brazen Indeed

Please allow me to call your attention to Pastor Douglas Wilson’s response to the editorial in the Intelligence Report that covered his pedophile problem:

The father of the girl in the second incident told the Intelligence Report that church officials tried to keep that quiet as well. At one point, he said, they threatened to bring him under church discipline for failing to protect his daughter.

Let’s just say that I have never seen quite so striking an example of a father neglecting his daughter. But this is not one that you have to take my word for. Just look at the previous paragraph. This is a father who was willing to talk to Intelligence Report about this particular incident because he doesn’t believe his daughter has been through enough. And the ghouls at SPLC were willing to print it. (“Brazenly Lied About”; emphasis original)

If you can cut past the utter contempt dripping from Wilson’s fingertips, notice his argument.

(A) Wilson has never seen so striking an example of a father’s neglect.

(B) Talking to the Intelligence Report proves the father’s neglect.

I hope someone lets me know if I missed something here, because the unstated premise of Beelzeblog’s argument appears to be one of two points. It’s either (A) Giving media attention to the crime constitutes a form of paternal neglect, or (B) Talking to the Intelligence Report about the crime constitutes a form of paternal neglect. I think that for the argument to be consistent the premise has to be (A) because the point appears to be that any public attention to the crime constitutes harm to the victim. Of course, Beelzeblog fails to observe that the interview in the IR did not identify the father or the victim, just as he failed to note that the father limited the scope of his comments to Wilson’s pastoral abuse after the crime occurred — threats of church discipline.

These facts notwithstanding, there’s only one point that’s relevant to the argument here. If we grant premise (A) that giving media attention to the crime constitutes paternal neglect, then what should we conclude about Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, after he wrote about the incident on his blog? Put another way, Wilson condemned the father for talking to the IR and he called the folks at the IR “ghouls” for printing the interview; so if they were “ghouls” for printing it, what does that make Wilson for reprinting a large excerpt from the interview and linking to it?

I believe these are fair questions. After all, Wilson blogging on the incident is infinitely worse because of the targeted audience. I don’t know anyone who reads the Intelligence Report, but I know lots of people who read Blog and Mablog. And if media attention causes harm to the victim, then why would the alleged pastor who was overseeing the incident aggravate the victim’s pain by blogging on the subject?

Take it to the next step. If publicity to the crime is drop-dead proof of neglect because it harms the victim, then the CREC (or whatever entity that holds Wilson accountable) should initiate disciplinary proceedings against him immediately, because it’s clear that when he brought even greater publicity to the crime he acted with malice of forethought. As he said, “But this is not one that you have to take my word for. Just look at the previous paragraph.” It’s self-evident.

Thank you.



HT: Anon

A Time to Speak

Pastor Kevin Johnson has written a heartfelt post about his experience dealing with the undisciplined rogues of the CREC, which he titled “The Time for Silence Is Over”:

There have been times when I’ve been absolutely enraged by these things — but the one thing I come back to after all that emotion is the people who are under the care of men like this. Even if you don’t agree with anything I’ve written above — I ask you to pray for the people in the congregations of men who behave this way. They are the ones in need of real ministerial care and I pray our Lord will provide it.

This post is especially timely after last weekend, which is another story, but people really have no idea the damage that Wilson and his thugs cause in people’s lives because most folks don’t understand the magnitude of the problem. And I think one of the reasons for this is that Wilson has conditioned the Church to accept his reprehensible conduct. “Oh, that’s Doug.” And then they move on.

But if you give it a second look, you’ll discover that Wilson and his pet reprobates are not wolves in sheep’s clothing — no, they’re wolves in wolves’ fur. They don’t even try to hide it anymore, unless it’s a particularly grievous offense that won’t pass muster with everyday Christians. They just do their thing, however lawless it may be, and ridicule anyone who dares to challenge them.

Please read “The Time for Silence Is Over” because Pastor Johnson is correct.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part VI: “Anonymous Accusers”

I wrote this for GB but understandably Pastor Lane has shut down the combox. Hopefully the few clones who need to read it will muster the courage to violate the Fearless Leader’s command to avoid my blog:

I really appreciate Pastor Lee’s tone and his comments, but everyone needs to understand that all this wringing of the hands over “charges” and “anonymous accusations” is really beside the point. It’s a big fat red herring put on the table by someone who needs to elude accountability for his ministry to survive.

Please let me prove my point. In 2003 the elders of the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman, Washington, notified the moderator of the CREC that they discovered (by an investigation that the Kirk elders demanded they conduct!) the elders of Christ Church, Moscow, were using a forged document and an illegitimate document to smear the reputation of one of their officers on the worldwide web. This is a documented fact, so let me repeat it: The elders of Christ Church produced a forged document (bogus minutes) and a letter that they claimed the E Free officer signed (which he had not, the letter bore no signatures at all and the Christ Church elders knew it), to impeach the testimony of an E Free deacon. They were not satisfied with impeachment, however, because they poured it on, calling him a liar, a false witness, etc., etc., etc., on the worldwide web, for the space of about 5 months.

The E Free elders pleaded with the Christ Church elders to remove the false witness from the web, including all the references to the falsified evidence, but they refused. Therefore the E Free elders contacted the CREC Moderator for remedy. Mind you, E Free does not think in terms of church courts or church trials or bringing charges — they think in terms of right and wrong — so they did not bring “charges”; but that didn’t matter anyway because the CREC has no biblical mechanism to hear accusations against its officers. The point is that they sought remedy. The CREC Moderator, however, said he would not get involved. Period. (BTW: that moderator was converted under the ministry of E Free and the man who appealed to him for justice was his first pastor.) He told them that it was for the Christ Church elders and no one else. He saw irrefutable proof that the Christ Church elders knowingly relied upon falsified evidence and he blew it off showing the same contempt for E Free that you know who and his disciples shows for “anonymous accusations.”

The same thing happened when the OPC’s Presbytery of the Dakotas contacted the CREC to inform them that they had false witness in the minutes on the worldwide web. The moderator said he would not get involved and the Kirk elders left the falsehood in place for about six months.

Let’s be honest here. It’s not about biblical requirements for making accusations. These people strain at the most ridiculous gnats while they swallow corruption by the camel load. Both the E Free elders and the Presbytery of the Dakotas brought lawful accusations in a biblical, brotherly way, and the CREC told them to take a hike. Get real. It’s not about biblical requirements for accusations. It’s about sin and iniquity in the CREC’s highest offices. They forge documents and publish them on the web: “Oh, we’re not going to get involved.” They bear false witness on the web: “Oh, we’re not going to get involved.” They destroy reputations like they’re playing with marbles: “Oh, we’re not going to get involved.”

So let’s get a little perspective here. I am not an “anonymous accuser”; I present facts with color commentary. I republish newspaper articles, blog posts, emails, newsletters, etc. and I expose falsehood, inconsistency, and hypocrisy; and all I hear from these people is weeping, gnashing of teeth, a few threatened lawsuits, and “ANONYMOUS ACCUSER,” while they don’t give a rip about the content. I have no interest in accusing anyone in the CREC because they have no adequate mechanism to address sin in their ranks, let alone protect those who are not in their ranks. Even worse, they established precedent in two separate cases that they would rather wink at a false report than give justice to the stranger (see Exodus 23).

So I encourage the handful of clones on this thread who have repeated the absurd mantra “ANONYMOUS ACCUSER” to reconsider their words. Someone fed you a sound bite and it satisfied your appetite, but your sound bites are completely meaningless. Those very people whom you quote have made a career out of corrupting justice by spreading false reports, and when church authorities sought redress the CREC put its hand with the wicked.

Thank you.

On Liars

CREC elder Sean Mahaffey, the author of this article, posted this comment on Green Baggins:

Kyle,

My point, which was clearly stated in the article, was that even if the traditional arguments against marijuana do not hold up then it’s use is still wicked. My position is that there is some conceivable level of use of marijuana that would not automatically be drunkenness or dissipation. This level of use is not the “high” that marijuana users are looking for. It is far lower. It could not be any greater effect than a cup of coffee, a beer, a cigar, or a benadryl. If such a mild use in not possible, then any use is sinful.

I don’t know of anyone who has used my article as justification for this sin. I do know several who were rebuked by it. If anyone has been tempted to sin by what I have written, or has used what I have written to try to excuse their sin then all I can do is ask forgiveness, but I have not heard of a single case of this happening.

If my article was foolish, unclear or unpersuasive then I apologize. But I know why I wrote the article. I wrote the article in an attempt to persuade Christians away from even flirting with the idea that marijuana use might be acceptable. I repeatedly told Mark T this and he repeatedly called me a liar.

Blessings,

Sean Mahaffey

Please note: Everything is true in this comment except for the impression that Mr. Mahaffey deliberately left with his closing line: “I repeatedly told Mark T this and he repeatedly called me a liar.” Yes, he repeatedly told me those things and, yes, I repeatedly called him a liar; but I did not call him a liar about this point. In fact, I gladly conceded his point, with a hard dose of reality, commenting:

Everyone who read the article understood your conclusion, the difference between you and normal people is that normal people are not so stupid as to believe that your conclusion removed your article’s substance, which is the argument you’re trying to make now.

I called him a liar because he continually shaded his facts in a false light and spoke in half truths, which always left false impressions. I noted his pattern of leaving false impressions, which he continually refused to recognize.

But Sean Mahaffey is a waste of time; the only reason he is relevant to any conversation is because he is a living example of how the Fearless Leader corrupts his disciples. If Wilson didn’t teach Mahaffey how to leave false impressions, he certainly confirmed their use as an acceptable form of communication. If Mahaffey never knew that deception is wrong, Wilson never taught him otherwise. And if Mahaffey doesn’t understand that advocating for two diametrically opposed positions in the same article so that he could claim one or the other at different times is the essence of duplicity, then the Fearless Leader’s rhetorical tactics have only served to make Mahaffey twice the son of hell.

Mahaffey is not the problem any more than marijuana is the problem. Wilson is the problem. Mahaffey’s deceit is a direct fruit of Wilson’s ministry, just as widespread alcohol and drug abuse in the CREC are a direct fruit of Wilson’s ministry. His love of deceit and his contempt for authority teach his disciples more than anything he writes or says. And as long as he has a platform to shape other minds, the problem will only spread. Wilson is the problem.

Thank you.

Another Stacked Committee

Today we need to examine the committee deployed by the CREC to nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment that deposed from office the Saint Peter Four — Laurence Windam, Wayne Hayes [Hays?], Jay Barfield, and R.C. Sproul, Jr. — and then attempted to legitimize their so-called ministry, at least as far as it concerns the CREC.

To refresh your memory, on December 15, 2005, when reality finally dawned on the Saint Peter Four that the RPCGA might actually sanction them, they dropped a note to the RPCGA Moderator, Dr. Kenneth Talbot, stating,

It appears that at least three of our four elders cannot stay in the denomination. Given that reality, we would likely look for a denomination where we can not only believe in paedocommunion, but be free to practice it. If we as a church do so, we cannot then have one elder who cannot serve the sacrament. We don’t want to go, but we can’t change our convictions. The particular hardship is this. We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads. Could you either, having let us go, hear the complaints against us, and issue a ruling, or barring that, could you forward all those complaints to where we end up? We have had much to repent of these past few weeks. We have done so. We are sorry in turn that our failures have caused trouble for you and the presbytery.

I call this “dropping a note” because these words, more than any others, demonstrate the Saint Peter Four’s complete ignorance of the magnitude of their sins, which is no surprise. Men seldom repent of abusing the flock apart from divine intervention of the Damascus Road variety. The same principle applies to criminals; they seldom turn over new leaves to become model citizens unless God gives them new hearts. In this case, these men confessed to rampant abuse of their ordained authority; they confessed to at least one felony, perhaps two if you count the perjury; and they confessed to multiple violations of the RPCGA BCO, which constitutes “covenant breaking.” And despite these facts, RC Jr casually states on behalf of he and his fellow sots, “We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads.”

Please read that again: “We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads.” Let’s see, they committed multiple egregious and grotesque crimes against the Lord Jesus Christ and against His sheep, and the only thing on their mind was withdrawing from the RPCGA without having a cloud over their heads. They actually called it a “hardship.” These men were so detached from reality that they acted as though they were negotiating a settlement. Clearly they had no grasp of their sin or of the gravity of the situation, which accounts for their expectation — “the expectation of the wicked.” It also accounts for their sense of privilege and entitlement. Notice how they acted as though they deserved to remain in the ministry, just in another denomination where they could serve communion to infants. “We confessed, we repented; now cut us loose so that we may practice paedocommunion and commit felonies elsewhere.” Whatever else is true, this is not the posture of a broken spirit and these are not the words of a contrite heart. But it’s consistent with their pattern of sin and it explains the immediate appeal that rose between them and the CREC. Thieves prefer the company of thieves — beats lawful accountability any day.

So the CREC appointed a “pastoral commission” to duly nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment and welcome the Saint Peter Four into their thieving fraternity, which brings us to the composition of the committee — the men whom the CREC appointed to duly nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment against the Saint Peter Four. And the first thing that we should note about this committee is that the CREC failed to appoint any representatives from the RPCGA, which would be the most obvious pool of men to select a body of commissioners from because . . . well . . . because the RPCGA happened to be the denomination that was the most familiar with the facts of the case. The second thing that we should notice about this commission is that the CREC neglected to appoint any representatives from the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, which is the denomination that the Saint Peter Four defrauded in an identity-theft scam to commit tax fraud. (I also noticed that the CREC didn’t appoint anyone from the federal government to the commission, probably because it would have resulted in an indictment.) And finally we have to notice that the CREC was remiss in appointing to this commission any representatives from the families that were abused by the Saint Peter Four. Call me a cynic, but everything in me says that these oversights were not accidents.

Nevertheless, these facts establish who wasn’t on the commission, but they don’t tell us who was on the commission. According to the “Report from the CREC Pastoral Commission for Saint Peter Presbyterian Church,” however, we see that the CREC sat five men to serve on this commission, and taking them in order of their appearance, we see —

1. Randy Booth
   Randy Booth holds the office of Moderator of the CREC and he chaired the “Pastoral Commission,” which means that he was the principal nonentity whose strings the Fearless Leader tugged to accomplish the deed. The other commissioners simply had to nod their heads. But despite his nonentity status, Booth has the most unique qualification to hold any office in the CREC because he’s the only man on record whom another church officially identified as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Don’t let the collar fool you — he’s lupine to the bone. But Booth has another unique qualification for this position that we’ve never explored, he wrote a book titled Children of Promise, published by P&R. I’m pretty sure he wrote it before his teenage son began selling mushrooms and marijuana to the students at Logos School and NSA, as well as violating the daughter of a certain Kult elder. But if it’s any consolation, at least they were all children of promise in a covenantal sort of way.



2. Patch Blakey
   Patch Blakey is a ruling elder at Trinity Reformed Church, Moscow, ID, which means that he reports for Kult duty about thirty minutes after Christ Church meets and about 100 yards from Christ Church’s meeting place. It’s a long story, but the Kult doesn’t plant a church in Moscow in order to meet the needs of the community; they do it to circumvent a potential Kult split. Nevertheless, Blakey was uniquely qualified to serve on the Saint Peter Four pastoral commission for two reasons: First, he was one of the Kult elders who helped stage the April Fools’ Day joke of 1999 — he countenanced the whole thing — and, second, one of his teenagers intimately participated in Randy Booth’s aforementioned drug ring. These two events — the April Fools’ Day joke and the drug ring — took place during the same year and I’m sure that Blakey has convinced himself that there is no causal connection between his illegal activities and his teenager’s illegal activities. After all, recreational drug abuse is commonplace in all covenantal homes, isn’t it?



3. Virgil Hurt
   Virgil Hurt, pastor of Providence Church, Lynchburg, VA, was uniquely qualified to sit on this pastoral commission for four reasons: First, he obtained his religious training at Wilson’s Greyfriars Hall, where like a good clone he wrote a paper on the all-important subject of marijuana. Second, he was the Kult deacon who used his office as manager of Kinkos to stonewall the police after the Kult’s April Fools’ Day joke turned into a criminal investigation. Third, the RPCGA named him in the Declaratory Judgment; at best he was a witness and at worst he was an accomplice to the Saint Peter Four breaking covenant with their presbytery. And fourth, this guy’s really dumber than a box of hair, take a peek at his blog.



4. Gene Liechty
   Gene Liechty is pastor of Christ Church, Carey, North Carolina, where you’ll notice that the church website states,
   
   

   Although this is Gene Liechty’s first pastorate, he is well on his way to being a model pastor. . . Mr. Liechty studied theology at Greyfriar’s Hall in Moscow, Idaho. . . Before entering the ministry, he worked as a marketing professional in a wide variety of fields.

   
   This brief bio conceals as much as it discloses. First, note that he attended Greyfriars, which means that he can bob his head up and down better than most monkey boys and make it look solemn: “Yes, Doug, I agree wholeheartedly.” But then notice the clever copy: When it says, “he is well on his way to being a model pastor,” it really means that he was (is?) a professional model; and when it says, “Before entering the ministry, he worked as a marketing professional in a wide variety of fields,” it really means that he was a professional model. You should look for him the next time you see a Fruit of the Loom ad. (This is not a fabrication; to be fair, however, he’s a great looking guy — even better looking than my dashing avatar!) But Liechty’s unique qualification to serve on the CREC’s pastoral commission was the unflagging loyalty he showed to the Fearless Leader when he refused to distance himself from the Kult after the public discovered that his church-associated school used Wilson’s & Wilkins’ trashy little booklet Southern Slavery As It Was to indoctrinate children. Generally speaking, most normal people have a problem when adults deliberately teach falsehoods to children so that they can grow up to admire the Fearless Leader, but not in the CREC or the ACCS. Liechty didn’t have a problem with it either; love for the truth didn’t compel him to break ranks with the Kult, so he’s a natural choice to serve on any committee appointed to arrive at a predetermined decision.



5. Dennis Tuuri
   No CREC committee is complete unless Dennis Tuuri is present to guarantee that abusive ministers have fair representation, which appears to be a primary means employed by the CREC in order to achieve growth. Of course, Tuuri is the renegade who fled from the PCA rather than answer charges for “abuse of the flock.” Interestingly, his ministerial credentials bear a remarkable similarity to the Fearless Leader’s. You will recall that Wilson described his act of self-will as an “irregular ordination”; similarly he described Tuuri’s ordination as “irregular,” which leads me to believe Tuuri has less credentials than Wilson, if that’s possible.

These are the men who composed the CREC’s so-called “pastoral commission”: one (1) wolf and one (1) brown-nosing toady — both with tainted households and equally tainted values; two (2) illegitimate Greyfriars — one a misdemeanant, the other a loyal airhead; and one (1) irregularly ordained yet abusive minister. I kid you not.

For the record, I am advancing an ad hominem argument, but it’s not fallacious. First Timothy 3:1–7 requires elders to be “above reproach,” along with other specific obligations such as ruling their households well, having children in submission with all reverence. Most of these men, however, couldn’t meet the basic requirements for church membership in a legitimate (“law-abiding”) church, let alone the high standards for leadership. Indeed, any church foolish enough to bring them in would have to initiate disciplinary proceedings against them the moment they administered their membership vows. They are no less rebels against the kingdom of God than the Saint Peter Four whom they were appointed to refrock.

In the end, Wilson hand-picked this commission to accomplish his will and there’s no way he would leave this job to anyone he had not already corrupted. Therefore, every one of the five commissioners was an insider. Every one of them sat under his tutelage to one extent or another, learning to call evil good and good evil. All of them were as dirty as the Fearless Leader. And this gang of misfits and thugs successfully achieved his decree, which was to nullify the RPCGA’s Declaratory Judgment and bring the Saint Peter Four into the CREC so that they could resume persecuting God’s saints with impunity and break covenant at will.

But it won’t end well for these rebels because Scripture pronounces a woe on them (Isa. 5:20), and though the Fearless Leader may be able to blow off a Declaratory Judgment written by man so that his fellow hoodlums can wreak havoc in the Church, he cannot invalidate the Word of God, for the Lord Jesus Christ declares, “the Scripture cannot be broken.”

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.

New Website

U P D A T E : Sean Mahaffey has written several comments that he wants posted on this website but since he has been consistently rude and deceitful I have exercised my editorial prerogative to censor him. Nevertheless, here is a shortened version of his claims quoted directly from his comments; please check the comments section to learn about my two witnesses who furnished me with their narratives:

I wrote the article in an attempt to dissuade people from smoking marijuana. . . . I have never smoked, inhaled, ingested, bought, sold, handled, condoned or recommended marijuana. . . . The Squire was not a school or church newsletter. . . . I started the Squire mailing list from names from the CWSC [Christian Worldview Students Conference] in Virginia. The intended audience was college students and other 18–30 year olds. . . We added the names of friends and family and other names that were sent to us. We only had a mailing list of 400–500. . . . The Squire was under the general oversight of the pastors of the church — at our request they read all the issues before they were published. . . . Pastor Booth was on the school board and taught one class a year at the school (usually Logic). . . . Randy Booth was instumental [sic] in establishing Veritas. Without Randy Booth . . . the school would never have been established. . . . I am not drop-dead certain that no student at Veritas ever received or read a copy of the Squire. . . we printed about 500 copies of each issue and there were some church families on the mailing list. . . . Aaron Booth . . . fell into sin while he was in college. . . . The article was written before the drug scandal. I’m not sure if Aaron read the article, but I know it was sent to a lot of NSA students. . . . I don’t have a copy of any letter about Pastor Booth and I wouldn’t send you anything if I did.

Here’s a new fully documented website named Ganja Vision, which is dedicated to an article written by CREC elder Sean Mahaffey on the biblical arguments for smoking marijuana. Although Mahaffey was not an elder when he wrote this column, he was a teacher at one of the Fearless Leader’s classical Christian schools in the ACCS. Furthermore, I suspect that the incredible irresponsibility he showed in writing this piece for the school paper was the deciding factor in making him an elder.

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.

Think Al Capone Part 1

Without a doubt, Green Bagginses is the best resource on the web for understanding the external aspects of the Federal Vision. Whether you want to learn about the nuts & bolts of each point where the FV diverts from orthodoxy or whether you’re interested in the latest development in the Reformed church as it relates to the FV, Green Baggineses is the blog.

For example, in the last few days two members of the PCA’s SJC posted some helpful comments on Green Bagginses regarding the resignation of Steven “Machen” Wilkins. But it’s possible that some people missed them because of the volume of traffic Pastor Lane sees. So I shall repost them here and offer some of my own comments in Part 2:

Bill Lyle said,

It seems to me, from Wilkins own words:

“. . . Presbytery’s decision not to conduct a trial of me was influenced by the stated unwillingness of some to submit to the outcome of a presbytery trial if that trial resulted in a decision in my favor. Some of the members of the Presbytery informed us that they had already decided to file a complaint against the decision of the Presbytery to the SJC if a trial by the Presbytery exonerated me — regardless of what the trial evidence showed. They also acknowledged that the SJC would reverse any decision which exonerated me.”

1. He never took seriously the vows he took before the God and His people — see PCA BCO 21-5. 3, 4, 6, 7. (Could it be that Wilkins crossed his fingers when he took these vows and answered affirmative?)

Now I may be wrong, but for a simple person like me I guess he is stating the following:



Now I will submit to a trial only if the following conditions are met:



• Everyone in LAP must submit to the ruling of the presbytery.




• All members of LAP must forgo their rights to complain and therefore PCA BCO 43 will cease to exist for this trial.




• That in LAP — PCA BCO 14 does not exist, nor does PCA BCO 14-6 a, b, c, g, i.



2. That he, Wilkins, can see into the heart of all 24 men on the SJC and knows beforehand how they will vote on this matter.


3. That he, Wilkins, can see into my heart and knows how I will vote.


4. That he, Wilkins, believes the highest court of the PCA is the Presbytery.


5. That he, Wilkins, would only submit to LAP only if he could control the outcome of the trial and if there was a chance he could not do so, he fled. I guess this means he knows in his heart that his theology may not stand under any kind of examination.


6. That the men on the SJC lied when they took their vows before God and the church RAO 17-1.

Mark T. said,

Hi Bill,

Pursuant to BCO 38-3, do you know if the SJC became the court of original jurisdiction after LAP pled guilty to the second specification of the PCA Indictment? If so, then would this mean that LAP does not have the authority to receive Wilkins’ resignation pursuant to BCO 23-1?

Dewey Roberts said,

Hi Mark T.,

The question you asked Bill would require a comment from him that he can’t give at this time. The SJC has not yet taken up those questions and it will have to be deliberated by that body and a decision will have to be made about such matters. It would be wrong for either Bill or myself or anyone else on the SJC to comment on what BCO 38-3 says concerning the aspects of this case which are still before the court.

I would like to point out to some on this board who often decry the SJC for not discussing matters face-to-face with Steve Wilkins that such a conversation with a party to a case which is either before the SJC or potentially may be before the SJC is strictly forbidden by the constitution of the PCA. Doug Wilson has tried to get a lot of mileage out of his “charge” against the SJC that we have never talked with Wilkins. Our constitution forbids us to do so! Think Al Capone. Capone wiggled out of several cases which the government brought against him by jury tampering. The members of the SJC are the jury of the highest court in the PCA. Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering? If Steve had remained in the PCA he would have had his opportunity to talk face-to-face with the SJC. He chose to leave instead. So, wise people will take what Wilson says with a grain of salt and consider them to be equal.

Steve Wilkins was one of my best friends at seminary. I have roomed with him at PCA General Assemblies. We have eaten together on many occasions. It gave me no joy that he might be tried before the SJC, but I would have done what I do in every case. I would strictly apply the constitution of the PCA to the record of the case without respect of persons. Wilson called the SJC a kangaroo court. What is a kangaroo court? I think it is a court where the law is ignored and matters are decided by personal favoritism — either for or against someone. The only thing Wilkins or anyone else has a right to expect out of any PCA court is an impartial decision based on the constitution of that body. Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist — and Steve Wilkins knows that very, very well.

Bill Lyle said,

Hi Mark T.

Dewey Roberts answered your question of me. See RAO 17-1 and SJCM 7.

GLW Johnson said,

Bill and Dewey

I do hope people who are echoing Wilson’s line take note of what you two have posted here. DW has, from time to time, lampooned the PCA critics of the FV as being “Baptyrians” — but as Andrew Sandlin discovered, Wilson is not a Presbyterian after all (and his analysis and defense of Wilkins likewise displays that he is woefully ill-informed about the Presbyterian polity) rather — and this is really unique — DW is a “Episcobyterian.”

Bill Lyle said,

GLW,

IMHO — It seems as those who are shooting down the process, have an attitude of “Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

greenbaggins said,

Bill and Dewey, thanks very much for commenting. Your comments are quite helpful.

Dewey Roberts said,

Thanks Lane!

I read your blog frequently. I finally just got tired of Doug Wilson’s campaign of “disinformation” against the PCA and the SJC. I have told friends of mine that Wilson is a prolific writer, but not a profound thinker. Nothing illustrates that better than his disinformation against the SJC. He truly does not know of what he speaks. One of the lost tools of learning is to do “critical” thinking — not criticizing thinking. Critical thinking helps us to look at issues objectively and to be aware of our own biases. The next time Wilson posts something negative about the SJC, I am going to ask him two questions: First, can you show, Mr. Wilson, where or how the SJC acted contrary to the constitution of the PCA? Second, can you show, Mr. Wilson, what constitutional rights belong to members of the CREC to prevent this “travesty” about which you complain concerning the PCA? I hope for his sake that Wilson has the wisdom to lie low because I have taken the measure of a “man of his talents” and have concluded the emperor has no clothes. I won’t let Wilson get by with trying to wordsmith his way out of these questions. He will either have to quote chapter, paragraph and line or he will be exposed as a master of disinformation.

P.S. If Wilson doubts me, I would recommend that he contact James Jordan’s pastor, Mickey Schneider (who is a minister in the CREC), under whom I apprenticed in 1973.

Dewey Roberts said,

Hey Doug,

I have laid the gauntlet down to you (in Wilkins’ Rationale) about all the false accusations you have made about the SJC for these past several months. My basic position about you is that you are a propagandist of disinformation. You artfully weave disinformation about the PCA and SJC into comments about known facts. That is always the best and most effective way to disinform. But your gig is up.

Now my advice to you would be to call Mickey Schneider when you get a chance and ask him about me. After you do so, I think you will probably decide that you don’t want to engage me in a battle of wits. Why? Because I won’t chase rabbits with you and I won’t let you get away with your nonsensical, ill-informed statements about the SJC any longer. I will force you to face the facts of the constitution of the PCA which will effectively cut your comments off at the knee. And I will make you show how the CREC is “better” by quoting from your constitution (that should be interesting!). After all, people who live in glass houses (like the CREC) don’t need to throw stones at those who have a historic Presbyterian constitution (like the PCA does).

Doug, it is your choice. Either go away quietly. Or, I am going to expose you to the blogging world as just a bully who is a propagandist of disinformation. It is your choice.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part V: Chaos in the CREC

“When the wicked arise, men hide themselves; but when they perish, the righteous increase.” — Proverbs 28:28

Yesterday at Green Bagginses a couple of monkey boys made much ado about my anonymity. Apparently it never occurred to them to file their complaints here with me or to interact with my posts that document Douglas Wilson’s pattern of retaliation against those who criticize him in public. This is probably because it’s easier to pressure Pastor Lane and force him to account for me than it is to acknowledge the simple truth that Wilson cannot account for his well-documented history of abuse, harassment, and revenge against those he perceives as “enemies.”

Furthermore, neither he nor his loyalists have ever tried to explain why the CREC Constitution furnishes him with so many different and creative layers of protection from accountability. It reads like an endless maze of obstacles designed to thwart anyone wanting biblical justice, and even if some poor sucker managed to find the appropriate wormhole in the CREC Constitution that would allow him to seek remedy, the confederates appointed to hear his case have proven that they would land against him in a heartbeat rather than act as men who love righteousness by holding their Fearless Leader accountable.

For example, no one from the CREC has ever answered the devastating charges leveled by Church of the King–Santa Cruz against Wilson and the CREC. No one. First they pressured COTK to remove its statement from the web and when COTK refused the CREC brazened it out. They ignored it. As they say, “Out of sight out of mind.” You really have to admire their shamelessness if nothing else: “Please take it off the web because it makes our Fearless Leader look so bad.” Never mind the truth of the statement. Appearance is more important than substance to these scoundrels and the Great Protector must appear sinless. So remove your testimony from the web immediately or you shall force us to ignore it.

This leads me to a column that the Fearless Leader wrote for Credenda Agenda. It’s his vindication of the sweeping charges of wholesale corruption in the Clinton administration that blanketed the Internet during that period and, to be honest, Wilson makes a good case arguing that when men in power subvert the courts, justice finds other outlets to make its case. He titled it “Chaos at the Center”; here is an extended excerpt:

But another breeding ground for rumor exists as well, and this is why we have seen such a remarkable explosion of astounding reports in recent years. This environment for rumor is created when the courts of justice have been hopelessly compromised and corrupted, and have been turned aside from their ordained and appointed use. When this happens, it means that those who have reasonable grounds to make an accusation are prevented from doing so by a conspiracy of factors — awareness of the futility of the endeavor, knowledge of the widespread corruption and bribery, real fear of being dismissed as a crank, concern about physical harm, and so forth. The throne of iniquity has no fellowship with God, and the righteous know that these guys are good at framing mischief through a law (Ps. 94:20). . . . When someone cannot lawfully be charged with wrongdoing — even when plain and evident proof of that wrongdoing exists — then the available information seeks another route. Meantime, the one who is officially “bulletproof” believes he may conduct his affairs with a high hand because he knows he has the official system in his back pocket. This creates an abundant demand for information from those who disseminate it through the new channels. In our day, when the courts no longer settle anything that looks or smells like justice, the new channels are books by alternative publishers and internet newspapers.

When someone is bold enough to mention such things as will be mentioned below, he will be indignantly told that these are all unconfirmed internet rumors, none of this has been established in a court of law, no controlling legal authority . . ., etc. Quite so. We’re sorry. So may we be permitted to present all this evidence in a court of law? No?

Our president is well-known for his sexual immorality and financial corruption. Tragically, this considered by itself does not make him unique among our presidents. But it must honestly be said that he has brought an old game to new levels of performance. In addition, in the minds of those whose understanding goes past what they hear from Peter Jennings, he is also under reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, cocaine use, obstruction of justice, perjury, and serial murder. These are reasonable charges, with enough evidence to bring a biblical charge in a court of law, provided that the court has not been previously subverted. But here is our dilemma — the courts have been. . . . When an accuser is refuted in open court, we may all rejoice at the defeat of slander. But when potential accusers are found dead in an open ditch, our thoughts turn in another more melancholy direction. . . Lady Justice has taken to sleeping around. (Douglas Wilson, “Chaos at the Center,” Credenda Agenda, volume 10 issue 2)

The parallels between Clinton’s Washington and Wilson’s CREC are striking. Wilson accuses Clinton of subverting justice by corrupting the courts and silencing witnesses; I and many others have accused Wilson of subverting justice by corrupting the CREC court and silencing witnesses. Unlike Wilson, however, I have actually documented my claims.

To be sure, no one has shown up dead yet in Moscow (though a close friend sees murder in the not-too-far distance), but this does not change the truth of Wilson’s observations. It is just as he said, “the righteous know that these guys are good at framing mischief through a law.” Yes, Wilson framed mischief when he drafted the constitutions for Christ Church and the CREC and to his own chagrin things have turned out just as he predicted: “When someone cannot lawfully be charged with wrongdoing — even when plain and evident proof of that wrongdoing exists — then the available information seeks another route.”

Indeed, the available information has sought another route. Welcome to Fœdero Schism, my fully documented anonymous attack blog. And when the CREC monkey boys decide to put away from among themselves that wicked person, I will be glad to identify myself. Until then, however, they’ll just have to excuse me for acting on Solomon’s rule: “When the wicked arise, men hide themselves.”


Thank you.