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.

It Happened Again

Last week, after going postal on the worldwide web and hurling invectives at everyone in his path, James Jordan promised, “So, please forgive me for having troubled your waters, and be assured that it will not happen again.” Unfortunately, it happened again.

Just two days ago James Jordan posted this in the combox of the Biblical Horizons blog:

They had the right doctrine, but they were mean as snakes, with the Snake as their Daddy. They way Steve Wilkins and others have been treated in the micro-presbyterian world shows us that the same kind of people are around today.

Even more unfortunately, one of the Federal Visionists (most likely Braveheart) edited these two sentences out of existence so that no one can see them (you can find it here), presumably to contain the damage. Can’t have another episode like last week — not good for the FV PR. More importantly, they had to keep Jordan from looking like a dishonest hypocrite. After all, he promised it wouldn’t happen again.

Once again this demonstrates how the Federal Vision family sticks together, tailors its message to their audience, and has one standard for public statements and another for in-house private statements. In other words, they’re hypocrites.

Thank you. (HT: Machaira)

News Flash for Barlow

I was working this into another post, but Jimmy Jordan’s recent worldwide meltdown took precedence and that post will probably go the way of all flesh. Therefore:

The Federal Vision Nimrods have opened up another blog, this one called Biblical Horizons. It appears that this blog will be an ecumenical effort within the schismatic camp, where they all get to blow and pontificate on whatever enters their minds at any given time. Jeffrey “Braveheart” Meyers wrote their first post on January 17 and today they gave the helm to the one and only James Jordan. You have to read his “analysis” of Psalms 23–29; it looks like a cross between the DaVinci Code and an LSD flashback, which may account for his recent hallucinations. This is too rich. And it only costs $25.

Attention DaFedSez: If you are out there, your pupil needs you. This is beyond me.

Thank you.

A Question for Braveheart

I have a question for Dr. Jeffery “Braveheart” Meyers:

According to this brother, you affirm that your rubber-nose photos were just an attempt to not take yourselves too seriously. Given this premise, I have a hard time understanding why you (or your “spy”) named the photo of Steven “Machen” Wilkins “NotTheArchHeretic” and it’s difficult for me to understand why the caption above the photo says, “But this does look suspiciously like Steve Wilkins, the arch-heretic himself”; because the words “arch-heretic” sure sound like someone’s thumbing their nose at the PCA. Therefore, could you please explain to me how this is not an attempt to not take the PCA’s indictment too seriously?

By the way, you have to love my graphic artist; if you ask me he’s honoring your wish that no one take you too seriously!


Thank you.

Pastor Braveheart: “not very fun to be around”

Pastor Jeffery “Braveheart” Meyers has visited my fully documented anonymous attack blog to leave me a love note, writing:

Please remove the photo of Jordan that appears in this post. That image is MY PROPERTY and I did not give you permission to use it here. You have stolen what belongs to me. You are clearly in violation of copyright laws.

Thank you.

Jeff Meyers

Dr. Braveheart,

You may not know this, but Jimmy Jordan put me through this same exercise two weeks ago after he saw my widely acclaimed fully documented anonymous attack post “Bag o’ Snakes” and while I did not post my attorney’s counsel at that time, he concluded that James Jordan violated the Ninth Commandment when he accused me of violating copyright law. So rather than wait until Monday for me to contact my lawyer again, can you please point me to the exact US Copyright code that I violated and demonstrate how my use of the photograph (which you have not established belongs to you) does not conform to the Fair Use clause thereof? (I suggest you remove your Bozo mask before you read the code; methinks the funny glasses may have impaired your vision, if not your judgment.)

And when you discover that you, like Jimmy, are blowing smoke, I urge you to reflect on the words that you penned three days ago, which I cite pursuant to the Fair Use clause of US Copyright code:

People who take themselves too seriously should not be trusted. Besides, they’re not very fun to be around.

Far from being evidence of hubris, mocking one’s self and whatever “movement” one might be associated with is quite healthy. (“Humility & Humor”)

You see, Pastor Braveheart, your comment about “MY PROPERTY” leaves me with the distinct impression that you take yourself too seriously and that I should not trust you. Even worse, it persuades me that you’re not very fun to be around. So I encourage you to join me in mocking James Jordan, the Godfather of the Federal Vision “movement” you’re associated with, because it (mocking) really is quite healthy.

Thank you.

“Meet the Theonomists”

Earlier today I re-read “Meet the Theonomists” for the first time in many a moon and was blown away at Dr. Roche’s keen analysis and incredible foresight. Eight years ago he identified the key players in the Federal Vision — Wilson, Jordan, Leithart, Wilkins, Meyers, Schlissel, Smith, Bledsoe (I deleted his emails from “Bag o’ Snakes”) — before they ever had their Vision. He also identified their “high-church ecclesiocentrism,” their aberrant covenant soteriology, their depreciation of the new birth for “covenant children,” and in Wilson’s and Wilkins’ case, their absurd revision of Southern history (he even smelled plagiarism). Moreover, he saw from afar the rivalry between Wilson and Sandlin (if you don’t know how that one ended, read this), and back then he affirmed James Jordan’s “bizarre” hermeneutic.

Of course, since there was no Federal Vision when Dr. Roche wrote this essay (he wrote it two years before the 2002 AAPC), he categorized his analysis under “theonomy.” Nevertheless, it’s interesting to see how the theonomists have recast their message since then and how events have unfolded. Take the time to read “Meet the Theonomists” by Dr. Thomas Roche. He saw the Federal Vision in its germ state long before the Auburn Avenue clowns saw its infectious value and hatched it into their disease.

Thank you.

The Unjust Knows No Shame

The LORD is righteous in her midst,
He will do no unrighteousness.
Every morning He brings His justice to light;
He never fails,
But the unjust knows no shame. — Zephaniah 3:5

You know, if seven Reformed denominations of the Christian church thoroughly repudiated my theology, I hope I would have the humility to take a few moments for self-examination. I know, I know, morbid introspection is so gooey and pietistic, and pietism is a byproduct of the Gnosticism that infected the modern church during the post-Enlightenment period, making it Baptistic, revivalistic, and lots of other bad istics, I am sure.

But I’m also sure that the apostle Paul wrote, “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?” (2 Cor. 13:5.) And if there’s ever a good time to examine yourself, it’s after your denomination indicted your presbytery because you allowed them to run interference for you instead of urging them to try your theology and prove it in the broad daylight of a court trial. Seriously, if you really believe you know (ginosko) the Westminster divines’ original intent, then prove it. Otherwise we must conclude that you’re just another twenty-first century Gnostic who claims his own peculiar higher knowledge.

I note these things because last week the Cajonroos turned their Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference into another occasion to demonstrate exactly how seriously they take their faith, which is to say, not at all. If you look at Pastor Jeffery “Braveheart” Meyers’ blog, you’ll see that the high-church Bozos baptized their conference gumbo with a little duck soup. According to the photographs on Braveheart’s site, the Federal Visionists donned cheap Groucho Marx look-alike masks to complement their dog collars during the Federal Visionist pastors’ conference. Braveheart called the post “Masters of Disguise”; pretty funny, eh?

But the most obvious thing about this so-called prank is that it assumes, and therefore concedes, the pranksters’ guilt because of its reference to a “spy,” which alludes to my fully documented anonymous-attack post “Bag o’ Snakes” where I republished an email thread from their yahoo group Biblical Horizons — a public group that posts top-secret emails on the worldwide web. Yahoos, indeed.

Either way, the FVists once again showed their profound inability to blush for their sins and at the same time they exemplified their contempt for decency. Even worse, they demonstrated their resolve to corrupt everyone within their reach by distributing masks to all of the so-called pastors who attended the conference, so they could join hands with the wicked in thumbing their noses at the world they claim to be “reforming.” Great message: scoff at those who expose your hypocrisy. But as always, even hypocrites prove the Scripture true, for the prophet said, “the unjust knows no shame.”

Thank you.

What Doug hath joined together

Today marks the first day of this year’s Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference. Of course, the Federal Vision controversy began at the 2002 AAPC where the Monroe Four objectively announced their doctrinal innovations. Six months later the RPCUS resolved the doctrine heresy and called up the heretics’ respective church courts to hold them accountable. Unfortunately, two of the Monroe Four, Wilson and Schlissel, are essentially Congregationalists with no formal ties to any legitimate ecclesiastical authority; the third, John Barach, read the writing on the wall and abandoned accountability in the URC by joining the CREC; and the fourth, Steven “Machen” Wilkins, learned a couple of days ago that the PCA doesn’t “quibble” about the Westminster Confession of Faith. The PCA Indictment of Louisiana Presbytery cites Wilkins’ 2002 AAPC lecture “The Legacy of the Half-Way Covenant” no less than seven times.

The theme for this year’s conference is “Liturgy and Life” and the church website describes it thus:

It is our great privilege to announce our Tenth Annual Auburn Avenue Pastors Conference January 7–9, 2008. This year our topic is “Liturgy and Life” and the speakers will explore the importance of worship not only for the church but for all of life. What is the role of liturgy in the life of the child of God? Why is the particular order of the service important? What is the relationship between liturgy and pastoral care? How do you bring liturgical reform in a congregation that has been heavily influenced by American, revivalistic Christianity? These and other questions will be addressed by our four main speakers in our conference this year: Dr. Peter Leithart, Pastor Douglas Wilson, Pastor Jeffrey Meyers, and Dr. James Jordan. . . . The purpose of the conference is to provide encouragement and instruction to pastors and church officers but we encourage all interested laymen to attend as well since the issues covered are of wide interest to all who are concerned for the well being of Christ’s Church. . . . We look forward to having you with us!

Steve Wilkins
Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Pastor

Reading this, you can’t miss the bugaboo “American, revivalistic Christianity,” which is probably an early descendant of that other bugaboo “post-Enlightenment Gnosticism.” But the remarkable thing is that these men think themselves authorities on liturgy at the very moment the PCA indicted their host’s presbytery for failing to hold him accountable for the false doctrine driving his form of worship. It’s surreal. I am honestly surprised that none of them had the nerve to address the question, “What is the relationship between liturgy and contempt of constitutional standards?” or “What role does flaunting church discipline play in the life of the church?”

However, the magnitude of Louisiana Presbytery’s dereliction of duty is even more remarkable than these clowns’ hubris. The PCA has never indicted an entire presbytery (and to my knowledge no presbytery has ever pushed their communion this far). This is an historic event. But these clowns don’t care. They are the people and wisdom shall die with them. They believe that their high-church liturgy, which includes a stiff middle finger at the Christian church and a thumb on the nose directed at ecclesiastical authority, will reform the world. Ironically, they don’t see what everyone sees, i.e. their real message: “Reform as we say, not as we reform,” which means that their new Reformation must end in chaos.

Like begets like, whether the FVists like it or not, and their ecclesiastical defiance can only produce yet more defiance. The apostle Paul put it this way: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). But Mark T. puts it this way, “What Doug hath joined together, not even God will put asunder.”

Thank you.

Bag o’ Snakes

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

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

BHers —

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

John


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

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

JJM


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

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

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

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


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

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

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

Mark


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

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

JBJ


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

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

JBJ


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

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

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

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

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

JJM


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

Here’s my off the cuff, unthoughtful analysis:

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

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

sw


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

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

Thanks,

TL


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

Tommy,

This is what was sent to me:
sw

From Robert Barnes

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

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

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

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

Quoting Jane:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Barnes

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

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

John


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

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

sw


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

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

Jeff

The Rev. Jeffrey H. Steel+

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


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

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

Pax,
Dale


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

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

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

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

Pax,
Dale


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

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

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

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

DC


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

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

JBJ


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

Steve Wilkins wrote:

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

sw

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

Burke


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

Morning, everyone

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

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

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

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

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson


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

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

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

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

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

Mark


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

Doug, a few points:

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


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


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

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


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

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

tim


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RL


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

Doug, Tim, Rich. . . :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, Thanks!

Cowpie


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

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

And then this:

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

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

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

Mark


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

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

RL


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

BHians,

Rich, I think we agree also.

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

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

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

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

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

Anyhow, enough for now.

Cordially,

Douglas Wilson

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

Thank you.

Deception Is Reality

Anyone with access to Google can ascertain the facts regarding Louisiana Presbytery and the PCA with three clicks of the mouse. And just as easily you can obtain any number of opinions about the LAP case with as many clicks of the mouse as your index finger can tolerate. This brings us to poor Jon Barlow, who has lived happily in the land of DUMB for many years. Of course, DUMB stands for “Doug’s Universe of Make Believe,” which is a very real alternative universe to our own that is populated by countless monkey boys and their offspring whose sole purpose in life is to pay homage to their king — Douglas Wilson.

Unfortunately, most of the inhabitants of DUMB don’t know that only one physical law governs their universe — i.e., deception is reality — for without deception DUMB would spin wildly out of control into the blackness of darkness forever and all of its inhabitants would perish hopelessly in oblivion, having no reason to live. Consequently, the King of DUMB maintains the law of his universe with the utmost fidelity, regularly deceiving his citizens to insure that their lives remain happily uninterrupted. Indeed, the King of DUMB loves to deceive because he knows it brings such joy to his citizens.

Case in point: Steve Wilkins and the PCA. For months the King of DUMB has maintained consistently that the SJC has unlawfully tried Steve Wilkins without charges, testimony, witnesses, evidence, or process. To be sure, King Doug has described in vivid detail the evil doings of wicked men in the PCA who have conspired in the Back Room to pull all the levers hidden beneath their desks to screw Steve Wilkins to the uttermost. Indeed, King Doug believes that the PCA has violated so many principles of presbyterian polity that he recently declared, “Steve Wilkins is today’s Machen,” which is a stretch even for King Doug’s mentally ill imagination.

Making matters worse, many of King Doug’s court jesters have helped maintain DUMB’s solitary physical law by telling a few tall tales of their own. For example, Jeffrey Braveheart Meyers has deceived his followers into believing that the PCA instituted a Star Chamber and an Inquisition to torture confessions from PCA ministers who hold the Federal Vision. Pastor Braveheart even bore witness that the Inquisitors were ripping out the ecclesiastical entrails of certain Federal Visionists. It was really quite frightening, which brings us back to poor Jon.

Yesterday poor Jon wandered outside of DUMB’s borders to post a comment on Green Baggins in defense of the Federal Vision champion Steven Machen Wilkins. But poor Jon didn’t have his facts straight because he learned them from King Doug and his court jesters. So poor Jon, thinking that the PCA Inquisitors would soon draw and quarter Steven Machen Wilkins in the town square, mustered the courage to post a comment on Green Baggins, far away from the land of DUMB, hoping to alert the non-citizens of DUMB to this awful miscarriage of justice. He wrote,

Wilkins was never on trial, was he? I thought the LA Presbytery was conducting an inquiry to see if there was any good reason to put him on trial. A trial would consist of evidences, charges, prosecution, witnesses, etc. Correct me if I’m wrong on that. I thought, in essence, that someone asked LA Presbytery to look into Wilkins. They conducted a friendly inquiry and said he was okay. Someone objected, the SJC said that the presbytery was lax procedurally, so they redid it with the proper procedure but came to a conclusion that was unacceptable both to the SJC and to a few LA Presbytery people. If Wilkins was on trial, can someone point me to the charges and the transcript of the witnesses, etc.?

Of course, Steven Machen Wilkins is not on trial and he never has been on trial, which probably explains why the post that generated poor Jon’s comment never states, hints, implies, or suggests that Steven Machen Wilkins was ever on trial. In fact, no one is on trial, not even Louisiana Presbytery, and anyone with access to Google should know this because the official record is posted all over the web. It states:

Amends — Pursuant to BCO 40-5 the Standing Judicial Commission hereby cites Louisiana Presbytery to appear “to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in question.” To implement this process, RE Samuel J. Duncan is hereby appointed to: a) serve as prosecutor in this matter and conduct the case, which is designated as Case 2007-14; b) select Assistant Prosecutors from members of the General Assembly to assist him with this matter; c) draw an indictment to be served upon Louisiana Presbytery, with the circumstances and specifications therein not being limited to those raised in 2006-02 and 2007-8; d) prepare a citation instructing Louisiana Presbytery to respond, in writing or at a called meeting of the Standing Judicial Commission, to the indictment and to enter its plea to the matters contained therein not later than February 1, 2008. (BCO 40-6, 31-2, 32-3) If Louisiana Presbytery enters a plea of “not guilty,” then Louisiana Presbytery is directed to appear, through its representatives, for trial in this matter before the Standing Judicial Commission on March 5, 2008 (BCO 40-5, 40-6, 31-2, 32-3).

But the citizens of DUMB, such as poor Jon Barlow, don’t understand the record because it contradicts the utterances of their King, whose word is never wrong and whose decrees fail not. After all, he’s the King. Unfortunately, this leaves these sad souls in a constant state of confusion because they cannot reconcile their King’s word, which is grounded in fantasy, with the truth, which governs the real universe.

So I want to encourage poor Jon and his fellow citizens to abandon the land of DUMB and to join the rest of us who live in the real universe. This will require a good amount of humility and a greater amount of repentance, though this is a small price to possess your souls.

However, if they don’t forsake their wicked king and his evil empire, then they may take comfort knowing that that the God of all truth has arranged to preserve the land of DUMB and all its inhabitants in their preferred state of deception for all eternity, because Scripture says, “For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth” (2 Thess. 2:10–12). And at that time deception shall be reality for those lost souls for ever and ever, amen.

Thank you.

The War Room

The Federal Vision sectarians have a private email list called Biblical Horizons, which operates as a “members only” war-room club for the members to regularly let their hair down and say what they really think and what they really believe. All of the usual suspects are on the list — Wilson, Leithart, Wilkins, Meyers, Horne, Jordan, Barlow, Shade, etc., and if it’s at all possible I encourage the opponents of Federal Vision to join this list and see what they say about you behind your backs. In fact, the Inquisition that Jeffrey Meyers loathes so much would do well to subpoena some of these emails — it would probably save the trouble of cleaning up all those entrails scattered on the floor of the Star Chamber. Get it straight from the heretics’ mouths.

Here is a post that Douglas Wilson wrote a few years ago. Please note his use of the phrase “principles of war.” This is not a casual or accidental reference; he is dead serious. This is how he conducts all of his campaigns — through the principles of war — and he has systematically advanced the Federal Vision according to the rules laid down by Sun Tzu and Niccolò Machiavelli. And his favorite principle is deception.

January 27, 2003

Gentlemen,

Sorry about filling up everyone’s box. I know I am the new kid here, and shouldn’t be doing this, but the exigencies of the case demand it. Actually, come to think of it, Burke told me that new kids had to post at least ten times daily.

Just a few brief comments about what I am seeking to do with the series of posts.

1. The most important thing in this fracas is the naming. By this I do not mean calling names, but naming in the biblical sense. Jesus was not calling the Pharisees names, He named them. And two thousand years later, His naming stands.


2. Another important thing is to refrain from fighting their fire with their fire. In other words, orthodusty loves prebyterial machinery, and knows where all the levers under the desk are. We must fight this primarily with word and sacrament. That word includes naming, and see above.


3. I also believe it is important in every conflict to observe the principles of war. In this case it is pursuit, but there are many other principles and factors to keep in mind as well. Strategic thinking is not the same thing as tactical thinking. Jim’s post on the big picture was important in this respect.

Cordially,

Douglas

Tortured Churchmen

Every time I tried posting this on Green Baggins it gives me an error message. But since Jeffrey Meyers is dialed into Google, I’m sure he’ll catch it and I’ll keep trying.

Dr. Meyers,

I sincerely apologized to you for misrepresenting your behavior because I hold the Ninth Commandment dearly. And in my apology I made clear that I believe you misrepresented the truth with your self-righteous, self-serving indignation. You see, I can’t bring myself to believe that words such as “injustice,” “irresponsible scholarship,” “the mob,” “lame,” “climate of suspicion that is being cultivated,” “star chamber-like trial,” and “committee was stacked” reflect the heart of a true churchman. To be sure, elsewhere you described your brethren in the PCA as “a Reformed inquisition” who “are ripping out various ministers’ ecclesiastical entrails.” If I’m not mistaken, this casts you as a martyr/victim suffering at the wicked hands of your brethren, the evil persecutors.

Consequently, I believe these accusations betray more than you know, because if the PCA was a corrupt as your describe, then you have an absolute obligation to reform it from within or leave it. Instead, you have chosen to pelt it with insults on the Internet and, incredibly, you describe your behavior (in between torture sessions, I presume) as that of a “good churchman” — “the farthest thing from an individualist.”

Perhaps you think this kind of loaded rhetoric honors your promise of “subjection to the brethren.” I do not. Or maybe you think your incendiary language upholds your vow “to be zealous and faithful in maintaining the . . . purity and peace and unity of the Church.” I do not.

In fact, I think that your conduct represents the complete opposite of the spirit and intent of your vows. You are free to disagree with me, but I don’t know how you account for your “subjection to the brethren” when you gnash your teeth at them. And I don’t know why you think your incessant boohooing advances purity, peace, and unity. As I wrote here, if you were a minister in the CREC and you criticized those ministerial rejects the way you criticize the PCA, they would call a “council” of churches together to oversee your immediate dismissal, in bad standing, from the confederation, for violation of your vows — i.e. “covenant breaking.”

So please don’t let my apology confuse you, Dr. Meyers. Yes, I misrepresented your actions based upon my false assumptions. I am responsible for this and I am truly sorry for it. But don’t think that in apologizing I must vindicate your irresponsible language and behavior. They are two separate issues. And just as I am accountable for my words, so you are accountable for yours.

Thank you.

Faces of Schism

My self-appointed mentor, DaFedSez, has criticized my blog for its deficiency in snide and smug. Hopefully this post will remedy that want, with a hat tip to the sick flick Faces of Death.

Here are the faces of the men who signed “A Joint Federal Vision Statement.” These are the men bent on disrupting the peace and purity of the Reformed church because they believe they understand better than anyone the true meaning of the Three Forms of Unity and the Westminster Confession of Faith. They claim they are teachable, but they refuse to learn. Seven Reformed denominations and a host of micro-denominations have repudiated Federal Vision for error, but the men behind these faces know better.

John Barach appeared out of nowhere when he was a last-minute replacement for Norm Shepherd at the 2002 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference, landing him in the middle of the Monroe Four and the worst doctrinal disruption to disturb the Reformed church in years. Barach received his training at MARS, which recently joined the swelling ranks of Reformed seminaries repudiating the Federal Vision, and he held his ministerial credentials in the URC until January 2006, when he found safe haven with the covenant breakers of the CREC.

Jon Barlow did not sign the Joint Federal Vision Statement, but you’ll notice his name on the pdf in Acrobat under “File”, “Document Properties”, “Description”, which means he served in a monkey-boy capacity for the Federal Visionists by generating their joint statement on his software. Additionally, Barlow runs the Reformed News — a lame attempt to put FV in a favorable light.



Randy Booth is the moderator of the CREC, most likely because Wilson has more dirt on him than on any other CREC minister (let’s just say the word “joint” carries special meaning for Booth), and dirt in this case translates into strings. According to Wilson in Mother Kirk, “Randy and I got to know each other by phone as we fell down the paedo staircase together, hitting our heads on every step” (page 95). This being interpreted means that when Wilson successfully split his church (CEF) in 1993, Booth failed in his attempt to split his church. Consequently, his elders sent a letter to the congregation identifying him as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” probably because he didn’t sport a habit then.

Tim Gallant cut his teeth with John Barach in the URC and, like Barach, he attended MARS. This means that, while the FVists insist that no one in the Reformed world understands them, it’s safe for everyone else to insist that at least two FVists did not understand what they learned in seminary. From his bio, it looks like Gallant ditched the URC in April 2006, seeking refuge in the CREC. (Note to Tim: take heed to what you heard one week ago; it is a cult and there’s still time for you to get out.)


Mark Horne is an ordained elder in the PCA, but no one knows why.









Jim Jordan is a minister in the ARC, holds his membership in the CREC, and is identified as “the Godfather of Federal Vision.” However, I think DaFedSez got much closer in his analysis when he called him Magister Contradictus, and “big river” or “flumen magnus.”





Peter Leithart is a Roman Catholic who has not figured out that the PCA is a Protestant & Reformed denomination. Currently, he practices theology in the CREC where they have no standards, while the PCA contemplates how to uphold theirs.



Rich Lusk executed the Federal Vision agenda with perfect precision by hijacking a church out of the PCA and crash-landing it into the CREC.










Jeff Meyers spent a night in morbid introspection and discovered the offensive nature of “Reformed snobbery.” Now he’s a FV snob, which apparently is better. Recently he mistook theological defiance for “FREEEEEEDOM!” citing the movie Braveheart as his inspiration. Unfortunately, Pastor Braveheart had no courage at the PCA GA; he never screamed “FREEEEDOM” to the appropriate audience when it really mattered.


Ralph Smith got sucked into the CREC from Japan, where he pastors a church and writes books that tamper with the Trinity for Canon Press. Apparently he believes that his heretical position on justification by faith alone qualifies him to cast new light on the Godhead.



Steve Wilkins . . . well, I heard the man speak once at UI and it’s clear to me that he’s dumber than a sack of wet mice (I know, I know, everyone calls him “a gentleman”), and then I read “Covenant, Baptism, and Salvation” in Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons and I realized that the sack could be empty.



Douglas Wilson, also known as Beelzeblog or the Little Man Behind the Curtain, is the founder of the CREC, a sower of discord among the brethren, and a son of Belial (“SOB” — a primary subset of “NECM”). If he repented today or dropped dead tomorrow, the Federal Visionists would perish for lack of vision because the answer to the prophet’s question — “Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?” — is “Yes.”

Promise Them Liberty

Yesterday I posted a question to Jeffrey Meyers on Mark Horne’s blog, Once More With Feeling. Horne deleted it, as is his right; it’s his blog he can cry if he wants. But I still want to engage every FV PCA officer before they jump ship to the CREC, because they clearly do not realize that the CREC will not grant them any of the principal liberties they currently enjoy in the PCA. Not at all; in fact, just the opposite.

I raise this point because of an essay that Jeffrey Meyers posted on De Regno Christi during the “Federal Vision Controversy” discussion, where he made an impassioned plea for Christian liberty to free him from subscribing the doctrine of Imputation of Christ’s Obedience. Here are some excerpts:

It is part of our Calvinian heritage to refuse to be bound by extrabiblical categories and terminology. The Bible has absolute priority over all traditional formulations, the Westminster standards included. . . . Beautiful. Freedom! . . . .

Calvin refused to subscribe to the ancient creeds . . . solely because he was determined to preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men, subject in matters of faith to no other authority than that of God speaking in the Scriptures. (The Works of B.B. Warfield, vol. 5, pp. 207) . . . .

But one thing we are doing, in good Calvinian fashion, is exegeting the Bible with the freedom that the Reformers won for the liberated churches of Protestantism. . . . If we are not careful, we will out do Rome in our Romanizing traditionalism. 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.

As the traditionalists are ripping out various ministers’ ecclesiastical entrails, perhaps a loud cry of “freedom!” now and then might be appropriate. Calvin would be proud. (“Subscription & Freedom”)

This is certainly compelling rhetoric and other men, more qualified than me, have already addressed the issues that Meyers evades. The point I want to address is the one essential liberty — that one critical freedom — that allowed Pastor Meyers to make this post in the first place. I refer to freedom of speech.

Last week I wrote about a Christ Church member in good standing — their minister of music — whom Douglas Wilson obligated to sign a loyalty oath under pain of termination. Here is the oath:

Commitment to Loyalty
I pledge to conduct myself in such a way that no one could ever question my loyalty to the peace and purity of Christ Church. This includes refusing to speak to any unauthorized person about grievances I might have, and includes refusing to hear any such criticisms as well. If commitment to this standard in any way compromises my conscience, then I understand that my resignation will be accepted, without notice, and without prejudice.

ATTENTION Jeffrey Meyers, Mark Horne, Steve Wilkins, and the all the other PCA malcontents to whom Wilson has promised liberty in the CREC, please read these words carefully and apply them to your current situation. If you join the CREC, then you will voluntarily unite yourself to an organization that deprives its membership of the very freedom that allows you to weep and gnash your teeth daily, on the worldwide web.

Think this through. Did you notice the terms of the oath? — immediate termination, “without notice,” if anyone even questions your loyalty. Had you signed such an oath prior to joining the PCA, then by now you would be unemployed (as in no paycheck) because of the way you have recklessly abused your freedom of speech to denounce your denomination.

Sure, you may argue, “That’s Christ Church, not the CREC,” but that’s shortsighted. How would you have voted if the members in good standing pursued remedy through the Confederation? Would you have voted against Wilson? Would you have cried, “Freedom! Beautiful freedom!”? Would you have quoted Calvin who sought to “preserve for himself and his colleagues the liberties belonging to Christian men”? I doubt it. Somehow your monkey-boy behavior persuades me that you would put your hand with the Confederate Inquisition to rip out the brethren’s entrails as you shouted down anyone who disagreed with the Little Man Behind the Curtain, just as you have shouted down your current detractors.

Think it through even further. If you presently held your membership in the CREC and you believed that your fellow confederates railroaded you, how long do you think they would let you throw temper tantrums on the worldwide web before they cut you loose? — plus or minus two weeks? I say two weeks max.

They would call an emergency “council” of churches to rule that your conduct “disrupted the peace and purity of the church” (sound familiar?) and they would toss you out of their confederation with a well-worded press release rebuking you for deliberately bypassing the decency and order commanded by Scripture, very much unlike the way the PCA has treated you. And, quite frankly, they would be right. You would deserve it, which brings us back to your current dilemma.

The CREC may promise you liberty, but as Scripture says, they are slaves of corruption who will bring you into bondage (2 Peter 2:19), and you need to consider this fact carefully before you ditch true Christian freedom so that you may chain yourselves to Wilson’s tyrannical oppression.

Would Jeffrey Meyers Sign This?

On a more serious note, I want to substantiate my testimony that Douglas Wilson applies economic sanctions against those who disagree with, criticize, or oppose him. And while I have several accounts to cite, I want to isolate one in particular, which I referenced earlier on Green Baggins.

Two years ago the professor of music for New Saint Andrews College voted against promoting Nathan Wilson to full fellow. Unfortunately, he didn’t know the unwritten rule that voting at Christ Church is like voting in the former USSR — never vote no. So Roy Atwood took him behind closed doors to explain the importance of loyalty in the voting process, but still the professor refused to change his vote. In fact, he said, “Nate Wilson’s arrogance is the reason I would never allow my children to attend NSA.” Roy replied with the standard “loyalty” lecture and the man answered, “Why do you ask me to vote if you don’t want me to vote my conscience?” Roy informed him that they used the vote to determine the conscience.

The professor, who also served as the Christ Church minister of music, then met with two elders and, after offloading his truck to them, asked, “So, am I going to go the way of Brian?” (long-time Canon Press manager whom Jones terminated after he questioned his wife’s loyalty to Christ Church). Both elders blushed and answered, “No, this is nothing that we can’t work out.”

Then the professor and his wife met with Pastor Wilson on two occasions, but they resolved nothing except that Wilson said he planned on sending a letter to the congregation in about a week. One week later the members of Christ Church received this letter, and a week after that Doug Wilson asked the minister and his wife to sign a contract that contained the following clause:

Commitment to Loyalty
I pledge to conduct myself in such a way that no one could ever question my loyalty to the peace and purity of Christ Church. This includes refusing to speak to any unauthorized person about grievances I might have, and includes refusing to hear any such criticisms as well. If commitment to this standard in any way compromises my conscience, then I understand that my resignation will be accepted, without notice, and without prejudice.

The Christ Church minister of music refused to sign the document and immediately resigned his membership from Christ Church, but Wilson refused to accept his resignation and sent an email to the church announcing it. The man said, “You don’t have a choice, I’m out of here,” and the rest is history.

Now, I believe that the “Commitment to Loyalty” clause constitutes an economic sanction against the minister of music, who derived half of his salary from Christ Church (the other half from NSA). Douglas Wilson disagrees with me. Therefore, rather than argue the point with him, I want to bring this full circle.

If the “Commitment to Loyalty” clause contained initials the “PCA” instead of the words “Christ Church,” would Jeffrey Meyers and Mark Horne be willing to sign it? or would they scream, “Freeeeeeedom,” with Mel Gibson in the movie Braveheart?

Let’s see what kind of tyranny the Federal Vision sanctions.

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!”