Not Even a Mutt

Last November, Dougzilla blogstomped all over Bob Mattes and, by extension, the PCA for plugging my fully documented anonymous attack blog. I believe that at the time Reformed Musings speculated about the Fearless Leader’s ministerial credentials as well, which compelled the Great Protector to give this account of his ordination to the ministry:

Our church was planted by an Evangelical Free Church in Pullman, Washington. The early leadership of our congregation, which included me, formed under their oversight. So no, not self-ordained and not self-installed. . . . (“Standing Google Commission”)

Not much, I know, but those are his words and that was his story; but I’m not sure if he’s sticking to it because today he posted the following comment on Green Baggins in response to a few hecklers who noted that he has no ministerial credentials:

And, joking aside, I actually have been ordained. I tell the story of that in the back of Mother Kirk, for those who have a need to follow up on it. I was not ordained in accordance with any regular Reformed protocols, and I would describe my ordination as irregular, but there.

The demand for regular ordination (in an all or nothing fashion) coming from Presbyterians is kind of funny. With Calvin, we simply have no record of his ordination one way or the other. But with John Knox, the father of all presbyterial-apostolic-successional ordinations, we know exactly how it happened. A rag-tag “congregation” with no formal identity as a church, holed up in St. Andrews Castle after the assassination of Beaton, called him to the ministry, and so then, Bob’s yer uncle. So in order to be legitimate, you have to be able to trace it back to that, as though the ministry were a line of pure-bred spaniels. I say it again. Heh.

The Fearless Leader’s tip inspired me to rifle through the piles of doug poop in my doug kennel for my copy of Mother Kirk, in order to transcribe the account and save the three people who might actually care about this fairytale the trouble of ordering the book and losing 20 bucks. I found the book beneath a load of doug manure. Here is his story as he told it in 2001:

EPILOGUE

Having written this book, I must now apologize, at least in part, for how the book came to be written by someone like, as the Victorians used to say, the present writer. At the time of writing, I have been a minister of the Word for twenty-three years. But how that came about contains more than a few ecclesiastical irregularities.

I came to the University of Idaho in the fall of 1975, fresh out of the Navy, and ready to study philosophy. My intention was to study various unbelieving philosophies and to then get involved in some kind of evangelistic literature ministry in a university town somewhere. Right around the same time, a church was being planted in our town by an Evangelical Free Church in a nearby community. The fellowship was successfully planted, but this new church never affiliated with the Free Church. This was not due to any doctrinal or personal differences; it was due mostly to the fact that it was the seventies. I was at the organizing meeting for this church and wound up as one of the guitar-playing songleaders. The best way to describe this would be to say that it was some kind of “Jesus people” operation.

After about a year and a half of meeting, the man who had been doing the preaching (ordained by a Baptist denomination) announced that he had gotten a job elsewhere and that he was moving. We were on our own the following Sunday. As I said, it was the seventies. The idea of going into pastoral ministry had not occurred to me, but when it did, I didn’t like it very much. Nevertheless, as things turned out, I was up in front with the guitar. That was my call to the ministry; I knew all the chords. I began to preach.

Our church had been planted by an established denomination, but we had no constitution, no doctrinal standards, no established leadership. I started what we called a “responsible brothers” meeting to fill the void of leadership — ad hoc elders. We knew from the Scriptures that we needed to be governed by elders, but we didn’t have any. We received some teaching on elder qualifications from the pastor of the Evangelical Free church that had established our church, and as a result different men among the responsible brothers removed themselves from consideration. In this situation, I presented myself to the congregation and asked them to bring forward any objections to my holding office of elder within the next few weeks. If no one did, then I would assume the office. As it turned out, no one did, and I have been working with this congregation of faithful and longsuffering saints ever since.

All this, as I said earlier, was highly irregular, and I would rather be dead in a ditch than to go back to that way of doing ecclesiastical business. . . . (Douglas Wilson, Mother Kirk [Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001] 267–268)

No honest man could call this act of self-will “an ordination” — not even irregular. Indeed, if that’s ordination then Toto was a flying monkey. Nevertheless, this trail of doug droppings should help everyone understand that words have no meaning to Douglas Wilson. They’re just gusts of hot air blown out of a bottomless pit of deceit whenever the evil one needs to correct another inconsistency.

And the moral of this story is found in St. Paul’s letter to the Philippians: “Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.”

Thank you.

More Speeding

I’m not sure if Mark Horne can read, but if he can I wonder if he reads Cleaning House. Check out his speedy little parable and compare it to Rose Huskey’s below.

May 3rd, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Mark says:
I was caught speeding the other day, but the cop was Presbyterian. I showed him my official Real Human Being card and he apologized and waved me on by.

I chatted with him at church later and he confessed he didn’t always read the radar right. He had in my case (not that it mattered), but some foreign cars just distracted him and he would jump the gun — pull out with lights flashing before realizing they weren’t speeding. He shrugged and said in those cases he had to follow through and issue a citation. Otherwise no one would respect the law.

I confess I had been a little put out by the inconvenience, but I saw him writing an Anglican a speeding ticket this morning and it made me feel better.

Just so long as everyone knows their place and we treat our real family with the proper respect.

Memo to Mark:
When do you intend to show respect to your brethren in the PCA?

Thank you.

The Worst Lot of All

Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy. — Matthew 26:65

No one knows how to wax indignant better than a self-righteous Pharisee, and the greater the audience, the greater the show. Take Caiaphas, for example, who put on a real-life show before the Lord Jesus Christ and actually tore asunder his priestly garments in righteous indignation when he witnessed the Son of God’s good confession.

Or take Douglas Wilson, for another example, who recently put on an indignant rhetorical spectacle, waxing furious at the PCA for its treatment of Federal Visionist Steve Wilkins:

In the old days, defenders of the faith used proclamation, argumentation, and apologetics. These days, the defenders of the faith use all the bureaucratic levers they have hidden under the desk. If the SJC goes the way I suspect it might, that would mean that Wilkins would be condemned in the PCA despite two vindications by his own presbytery, despite the fact that no charges were ever brought, despite the fact that no trial was ever held, and despite the fact that he was never given an opportunity to defend himself in open court. Don’t talk to me about proof. We don’t need no stinking proof.

In the old days, the prophets of God would thunder the word. These days, they resort to Machinations and Back Room Deals. You don’t think so? Then look at what happens to Wilkins. Look closely. Look at the procedures. Look at what was done, and what was not done. And imagine yourself trying to explain the polity ramifications of all of that to Samuel Miller. The whole thing would be a joke if it were only funny. (“We Don’t Need No Stinking Proof”)

Setting aside Wilson’s obvious ignorance of the issue pending before the SJC, this was not the only time that time he raged furious at the PCA. Consider this one:

To call the determinations of an unpresbyterian entity like the SJC — “where the PCA GA outsources its justice!” — a “final court of appeal” is overstating it a bit. It is certainly a necessary part of the process because the PCA did decide to abandon historic presbyterian polity at this point, and it was all entered into the minutes and everything. (“I Love Analogies”)

Of course, these quotations from the Prince of Blog and Mablog leave the impression that the very thought of dirty back-room deals designed to circumvent presbyterian polity horrifies him. Indeed, these quotes leave the impression that Beelzeblog longs for the old days and that he esteems the historic presbyterianism taught by Samuel Miller so much that he would never violate its principles in such a way that he could not justify it to the Princeton hero.

Unfortunately, Pastor Wilson isn’t as scrupulous as he would have us believe because if you compare his outrage at the PCA in the matter of Steve Wilkins with his treatment of deposed PCA minister Burke Shade, you’ll see exactly where Wilson’s scruples lie.

On April 17, 1999, Illiana Presbytery (PCA) deposed Burke Shade from the ministry after declaring him guilty on three of four charges against him, in a trial that began on November 9, 1998, and lasted six sessions. P & R News covered the whole story.

But while Illiana Presbytery conducted itself pursuant to the PCA’s BCO, which contains a good measure of presbyterian polity, Burke Shade and Douglas Wilson busied themselves working the Machinations of a Back Room Deal. We know this because “it was all entered into the minutes and everything.” Accordingly, the Christ Church Elders’ Minutes state,

Doug described the situation with Cornerstone Reformed Church and Burke Shade. Motion (DW/PB) [Doug Wilson/Patch Blakey] to authorize Doug to make a motion at CRE to receive Cornerstone as a fraternal delegate. All approved. (April 17, 1999)

Admittedly, this doesn’t say much but it shows that Shade made his case to Wilson before the PCA deposed him, and it lays the foundation for this revelation taken from the Christ Church Elders’ Meeting minutes dated July 13, 2000:

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. (emphasis added)

Now, I know these minutes are legitimate because I know my sources. But don’t take my word for it, take Wilson’s who confirmed it a few months ago at Green Baggins (cf. this comment). The point here, however, is not the minutes’ legitimacy. The point is Wilson’s illegitimacy.

Here is a man who, for all intents and purposes, wants us to believe that he reveres presbyterianism proper and that he abhors back-room deals. But “Look closely. Look at the procedures. Look at what was done, and what was not done. And imagine yourself trying to explain the polity ramifications of all of that to Samuel Miller,” because here is also a man who, like Caiaphas, tears his garments at the PCA for their handling of Steve Wilkins and, just like Caiaphas, thwarts church polity by pulling the levers under his desk with Judas, the covenant breaker.

Yes, indeed, Wilson was right when he wrote, “Don’t talk to me about proof. We don’t need no stinking proof,” because this event took place in the visible church, or as the Federal Visionists would say, in the Covenant. To be sure, this event could be photographed or fingerprinted, for as noted, “it was all entered into the minutes and everything.” Sadly, “The whole thing would be a joke if it were only funny.” But it’s not.

So how do we account for Pastor Wilson’s staggering hypocrisy? How do we reconcile his righteous indignation in one instance with his cunning conniving in the other? — We don’t. Rather, we let his words speak for themselves, because by his own testimony he has the worst lot of all:

The opposing error is that of straight hypocrisy. This is the idea that mere covenant membership can replace covenant faithfulness as the one thing needful. The lips draw near while the heart is far removed from God. But such snakes within the covenant have the worst lot of all. (Douglas Wilson, “Reformed” Is Not Enough, “Judas Was A Christian?” [Moscow: Canon Press, 2003] 21)

Fat as Grease

Douglas Wilson’s personal assistant Mike Lawyer (who is also an elder at Christ Church) has commented here, which I cut and pasted below, to explain why the Federal Visionist covenant breakers in the CREC have not called upon their fellow covenant breakers in the PCA to keep their vows and honor their baptisms. Lawyer’s explanation may also explain why the PCA covenant breakers have refused to fulfill their obligation to inform their presbyteries that their doctrinal views are out of accord with the Westminster Standards. Lawyer wrote,

The answer to your question is that none of the FV proponents who are members of the PCA are out of step with the Westminster Confession. Steve Wilkins has been examined twice and Peter Leithart has been examined at least once. The truth is that the finding of the GA was in error. . . . The PCA GA needs to go back and re-examine their errant findings and start all over. (emphasis added)

Therefore, when the PCA GA adopted — by an overwhelming majority — the ad interim committee’s report affirming this statement:

That the General Assembly recommend the declarations in this report as a faithful exposition of the Westminster Standards, and further reminds those ruling and teaching elders whose views are out of accord with our Standards of their obligation to make known to their courts any differences in their views.

Mike Lawyer unilaterally declared the findings of the 35th General Assembly of the PCA “errant.” He may call himself “Fat Souls,” but other texts come to mind — “They are inclosed in their own fat: with their mouth they speak proudly. . . . Their heart is as fat as grease.” (Ps. 17:10; 119:70).

You said:

I wonder why CREC founder Douglas Wilson has not berated his fellow Federal Visionists in the PCA for “despising their baptism the way they do!” Indeed, I wonder why CREC moderator Randy Booth has not called upon the PCA to honor the baptisms of his fellow Federal Visionists in the PCA by excommunicating them from the Church for covenant breaking? These inquiries are fair enough given how much the Federal Visionists hector us about “covenant keeping.”

The answer to your question is that none of the FV proponents who are members of the PCA are out of step with the Westminster Confession. Steve Wilkins has been examined twice and Peter Leithart has been examined at least once. The truth is that the finding of the GA was in error.

There is no need to “excommunicate” those who are not in error. The PCA GA needs to go back and re-examine their errant findings and start all over.

Thank you.

Federal Flashback

A couple of years ago R.C. Sproul made the mistake of inviting Douglas Wilson to speak at the Ligonier big jamboree. Of course this was less than a year after the RPCUS unanimously adopted its resolution, not “charges,” declaring the Monroe Four heretics (whatever else is true, the RPCUS got the ball rolling and essentially every Reformed denomination has followed in their footsteps to one degree or other).

After the conference ended, Wilson sent the following email to the Christ Church membership, to assure them that his Reformed bona fides were still intact and that he “got along famously” with all the major players. Please note, however, that whenever there’s bad news for Wilson in the Reformed world, such as this summer’s PCA General Assembly disaster, the master of PR never notifies the congregation (most of whom are too busy or ignorant to follow these events closely). Regardless, I wonder how many of these names Wilson could drop today as men who share his convictions.

From: Christ Church
Date: Monday, March 17, 2003, 9:03 AM
To: christkirk@moscow.com
Subject: Conference

Dear kirkers,

Thank you for praying for the trip to Orlando, and thanks to the many people at church yesterday who asked about the conference there — with particular reference to the implications for the heresy charges of the RPCUS. The trip was greatly blessed in a number of ways, but I just wanted itemize some of the answers to prayer with regard to this issue.

1. The conference was a great conference in its own right. The other speakers — RC Sr. & Jr. John MacArthur, Sinclair Ferguson, Al Mohler — gave outstanding talks. I believe there were about 4,000 people there. It was hard to tell.


2. In my talk I had the opportunity to make a passing reference to the controversy, in order to affirm my commitment to sola fide, and to urge some Presbyterians to do what the pagan magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly and the New Yorker do (in their employment of fact-checkers to review articles) before they go into print.


3. This caused the subject to come up in the Q & A, and I was able to summarize how off base the charges had been. One gentleman from Ligonier told us that they had gotten quite a number of emails about my appearance there, and they would now be able to simply say, “Get the tape.”


4. Behind the scenes, there was no tension or weirdness from the other speakers. We all got along famously.


5. Some time ago I had been asked to contribute to a festschrift for RC Sproul Sr. The book was a surprise to him, and was presented to him at the conference. The book is entitled After Darkness Light, and is subtitled Distinctives of Reformed Thought. The book is structure around the five solas of the Reformation and the five points of Calvinism. I contributed the chapter on Irresistible Grace. Other contributors included Michael Horton, Robert Godfrey, Jay Adams, Keith Mathison, Sinclair Ferguson, John MacArthur, O. Palmer Robertson, et al. Given the nature and subject of the book, and even with the differences between the contributors (which are not insignificant), it is now going to be very difficult to charge us here at Christ Church with being outside the Reformed pale.


6. The end result of all this, it appears to me, is that the charges of the RPCUS, marginal from the beginning, are now way out on the periphery. This does not mean controversy will disappear — it looks to be taking other forms in other places — but I do think it means that the attempt to settle the issues by means of a papal fiat from a tiny denomination in the South is an attempt that has failed.

We still have a lot of work to do, but it is work from within the Reformed world.

Thanks again for your prayers,

Cordially in Christ,

Douglas Wilson

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Chris LaMoreaux, Administrative Secretary
Christ Church - Anselm House
205 East 5th Street P.O. Box 8741
Moscow, ID 83843
christkirk@moscow.com
Voice: (208) 882-2034 Fax: (208) 892-8724
Credenda/Agenda: (208) 882-7963
www.christkirk.com

Thank you.

Horne Blowing

Mark Horne responded to me here, writing,

I can’t condemn every single thing in this since he lists maybe a couple of things I’ve apologized for. As for the rest, well, feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

But I’m not sure why he writes that he “apologized for” a couple of these things because I didn’t see any apologies appended to the offending posts and, quite obviously, if he had apologized for the offenses, common courtesy would require him to replace the offending post with the apology — not leave the post in place and say, “Well, I apologized for it.” In fact, the absence of apologies in the face of so much insolence combined with an obvious hard heart and a stiff middle finger leads me to wonder why this man remains in the ministry at all. What Bible is he reading?

Mr. Horne, I think it’s time to rethink your calling because, from this layman’s perspective, you blew it.

Federal Defiance

Yesterday Jeffery Meyers posted an essay called “Subscription and Freedom” on De Regno Christi, explaining the reasons he repudiates imputation of the active obedience of Christ by appealing to chapter 20 of the WCF, “Of Christian Liberty, and the Liberty of Conscience,” and comparing him and his fellow Visionists to (a) John Calvin, (b) the martyrs whose blood the Inquisition spilt, and (c) Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart. Darryl Hart nailed Meyers for appealing to Westminster, writing,

JMyers, thanks for the answer. But I have to admit I’m stunned that the debate over active obedience comes down to freedom of conscience. Isn’t a tad odd to cite the doctrines and commandments of men (WCF 20) to proclaim liberty from the doctrines and commandments of men? I would have also thought that concerns for the unity and peace of the church might keep one from insisting on his own interpretation as opposed to those of his brothers in the church.

So I wonder if more is involved here. Surely, Pastor Myers, wouldn’t you concede that your response has more the ring of rebellion than pastoral concern for the good of the church. That is, if truth is at stake, what is that truth (re: active obedience)? Or is it simply a case of your rights?

This is the sum total of the Federal Vision movement — defiance. They postulated the objectivity of the covenant and the Reformed church found them wanting. Now, rather than submit to the truth in honesty, they have played every trick in the book, including the final one — liberty — for as Johnson said, “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.”

But this is not Mel Gibson opposing tyranny in Braveheart; no, not even close. It’s James Dean smoking cigarettes, acting cool, and playing chicken (debate) in Rebel Without a Cause. I say this because two months ago Jeffrey Meyers signed a statement that affirmed, “we do want to be teachable, willing to stand corrected, or to refine our formulations as critics point out ambiguties [sic], confusions, or errors.” Now he says, “The real reason I deny it [IAOC] is because I’m being told that I must affirm it. . .”

At least we know the real reason he denies it. We also know that he isn’t as teachable and willing to stand corrected as he affirmed in writing. I wonder, did his fellow Federal Visionists force him to sign their “Joint Statement” under pain of torture? or was it another misleading statement from the FVers designed to leave a false impression? I suspect the latter because every time you turn around, the Federal Visionists are just as James Dean described, “You, you say one thing, he says another, and everybody changes back again!”

Tolerating Heretics

Ironies abound as De Regno Christi continues its discussion of “the Federal Vision Controversy.” Jeffrey Meyers complains,

In some circles the Westminster standards seem to have become the infallible voice of the Reformed magisterium. If you deviate from the exact words, definitions, and formulations therein, or if you suggest that they might be corrected by the Bible, you may be hauled before a Reformed inquisition.

And the irony is that, for all intents and purposes, Meyers has aligned himself with the CREC who is led by Doug Wilson, the chief visionist for New Saint Andrews College whom the New York Times Magazine covered this week in an article. And I quote:

The college handbook forbids students to embrace or promote “doctrinal errors” from the 4th through the 21st centuries, “such as Arianism, Socinianism, Pelagianism, Skepticism, Feminism.” If drawn to such ideas, they must “inform the administration immediately and honestly in a letter offering to withdraw from the College.” Cultural revolution cannot tolerate heretics.

Jeffrey, perhaps you should write a letter to your presbytery offering to withdraw from your denomination so that you may join the cultural revolution in the CREC. Apparently they tolerate heretics in the pulpit, just not in the classroom.

Thank you.