The Serial Pædophile

Today marks the third anniversary of the day when Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, learned that a serial pædophile ravaged the lambs in his charge, for 18 months, during the years 2003–2005, as he prosecuted his war against the Christian church.

SURVEY
In fall 2003, a promising 19-year-old student named Steven Sitler moved to Moscow, Idaho, to attend New Saint Andrews College and to worship at Christ Church. No one knew at the time, however, that Steven Sitler was also a serial pædophile who preyed upon boys and girls, ages 2–12, and who left a trail of victims in at least two other states prior to his arrival in Moscow. The facts of this case are well documented and easy to follow.

As far as we know, Sitler’s history of pædophilia began in his hometown of Colville, Washington, where he attended Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), and violated several children of the congregation. One public record, which the court has since sealed, explicitly describes his rape of a two-year-old girl in Colville and from this document we conclude that Sitler felt comfortable enough with his crime to commit it even while parents and adults visited each other in adjacent rooms. Furthermore, we know that Sitler kept a photo album on the worldwide web that contained photographs of hundreds of children, including many of his victims. (The authorities did not learn about this photo album until a blogger linked to it about a year after the court sentenced Sitler.) From this photo archive we know that Sitler spent the summer of 2003 at R.C. Sproul Jr.’s Highlands Study Center, where he violated more children. However, public records do not document any of Sitler’s crimes in Virginia because according to the Latah County Prosecutor, none of the victims’ families returned his phone calls. Sitler arrived in Moscow in September 2003 and immediately began assaulting Christ Church children. And on March 11, 2005, the parents of one victim notified Douglas Wilson of their discovery, which is where he took control of the loop.

REPORTED TO AUTHORITIES
On March 11, 2005, Wilson advised the victim’s family to retain longtime Christ Church attorney, Gregory Dickison, who was a member of Christ Church (you may recognize him as a contributing editor to Credenda Agenda), to accompany them to report the crime to the authorities. (For the record, Gregory Dickison is an utterly incompetent and unethical attorney; in fact, he recently terminated his law practice to begin a career selling real estate.) Unbelievably, while the victims notified the authorities, Steven Sitler whisked his way back to Colville, WA, where his family retained NSA’s attorney, Dean Wullenwaber, who was also a member of Christ Church. (For the record, Dean Wullenwaber is one of the finest attorneys on the Palouse and certainly one of the most powerful; please see the photograph of him posing with President George Bush.) Sitler remained in Colville until his ultimate incarceration on September 26, 2005.

WILSON BECOMES STEVEN SITLER’S CONFESSOR
Steven Sitler began confessing his crimes to Douglas Wilson sometime after March 11, 2005, and before July 2005, when Sitler pled guilty to one count of “Lewd and Lascivious Conduct With a Minor Under the Age of Sixteen.” According to his letter to Judge John Stegner, Wilson had a total of six counseling sessions with Sitler during that five-month window. This fact is critical because we have no way of identifying Sitler’s victims apart from his confessions, which he originally limited to Douglas Wilson. Therefore, read it again: Wilson had only six counseling sessions with the serial pædophile during the time he lived in Colville and the court knows no more about Sitler’s crimes than what he confessed to Wilson. This fact is critical for another reason: We know that Sitler didn’t confess everything to Wilson, such as the existence of his photo archive in cyberspace. Even worse, we know that Wilson didn’t relay all the information he learned from Sitler regarding the extent of his crimes to the OPC elders in Colville, who held Steven Sitler’s church membership. For example, when Sitler confessed to Wilson that he violated children in Virginia, Wilson withheld this fact from the Colville session.

Nevertheless, after six counseling sessions with a serial pædophile, Wilson wrote a glowing letter to the judge informing him that Sitler “was completely open and honest with me.” Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing how Steven Sitler convinced Wilson of his open honesty, just as we have no way of knowing how he persuaded him that he told the complete truth when he identified his victims. To be sure, we don’t know how Wilson could know that Sitler kept no secrets and suffered no memory lapses, but I suspect this was a case of one sociopath outsmarting another. Regardless, Wilson placed such confidence in the serial pædophile’s apparent candor that he freely told the judge of his “good hope that Steven has genuinely repented.” These facts are disturbing enough. But setting them aside, perhaps the most compelling proof of Wilson’s total incompetence to address this awful providence lies in his admission to Judge Stegner that he believed Sitler’s perversion was rooted in “underlying issues of his discontent.” How deep. Wilson solved the vexing problem of serial pædophilia after six visits — it’s all about discontentment.

SITLER LEVERAGES THE COURT
Court documents make clear that the only known victims in this case are those whom Steven Sitler identified and that apart from his confessions, no one knows anything. Court documents make equally clear that Sitler leveraged the court with his intimate knowledge of the victims to plea bargain his charge to one count — “I’ll tell you everything if you only prosecute me for one.” This defense tactic clearly contradicted the “objectivity of the covenant” standard advanced by Wilson in this post regarding a similar serial offender, but it also minimized potential PR damage for NSA and the Kult by insuring no scandalous headlines if the story ever leaked, which appears to be the only objective standard that matters to Wilson. In the end, however, we believe that Sitler confessed to violating 13 to 18 children in 3 different states. The bottom line is that we’ll never know. The court sealed the records. Perhaps Sitler’s attorney put it best in one of his briefs that refers to “the volume of Steven’s offenses over the years.”

On July 7, 2005, roughly five months after his discovery, Steven Sitler stood in court and pleaded guilty to one count of “Lewd and Lascivious Conduct With a Minor Under the Age of Sixteen,” and on September 26, 2005, Judge John Stegner sentenced Steven Sitler to life in prison, which he knocked down to about a two years in jail and lifetime probation. Currently, Steven Sitler lives in Moscow, free on probation.

WILSON FAILS TO WARN THE FLOCK OF PREDATION
In November 2005, two months after the court sentenced Steven Sitler, Douglas Wilson decided to communicate some information about a pædophile to some of the Christ Church “heads of households,” which he did via a written statement read by an elder to whomever attended the various parish meetings. In other words, Doug Wilson waited eight months to inform his congregation that a serial pædophile lived among them, and even then he never notified the entire flock — only those who happened to attend the monthly meeting. Moreover, when he finally decided to notify the flock, he never warned anyone about the possibility that unknown predation may have occurred, i.e. there may be other victims. Rather, he framed it to leave the impression that this matter concerned a sex offender returning to the covenant community and not the damage he wrought and the constant danger he posed. Afterwards, when called to account for his dereliction of duty by the general public, Douglas Wilson dismissed his abdication as his enemies’ failed attempt to get handles on him, which probably did little to comfort the kirker parents who learned from a web blog that their pastor never warned them about a serial pædophile. Additionally (and quite obviously), Wilson never notified anyone in the community that a sexual predator preyed among them for 18 months, which is another way of saying that he esteems the locals slightly less than his congregation, but not much.

Wilson’s pastoral response to this crisis was the exact opposite of the elders overseeing Emmanuel Orthodox Presbyterian Church, who kept their congregation apprised of the situation, in writing, from beginning to end. Indeed, they immediately declared Steven Sitler a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”; they banned him from the church property; and they notified the flock of God of his egregious violations of the Seventh Commandment. Furthermore, the OPC session resolved that if Sitler ever returns to Colville, they will purchase a full-page ad in the local paper to publish Sitler’s photograph next to the warning “Convicted Pedophile” (I doubt they know that Sitler’s never leaving Idaho).

CONCLUSION
Steven Sitler represents the most horrible judgment visited upon the Kult to this date, at least the most horrible that has leaked out. You can be sure that if Wilson had his druthers, no one would know about this providence because of his sinful need for good publicity. He believes his kult is the one true almighty kirk that shall reign for ever and ever, and consequently he has no capacity to reflect upon the fruit his ministry — whether it’s teenagers smoking weed and committing immorality; or young adults getting liquored up and gambling away thousands of dollars; or a sexual predator devouring the lambs of his flock; or another sexual predator (a Greyfriars student) devouring a thirteen year old; or a deadbeat dad (another Greyfriar) defrauding his children and their mothers (plural) of food, shelter, and income. These scandals all took place during the years 1999 to 2005, in a church of about 700 souls, which is counting the hundreds of children in the congregation. These wrecked and damaged lives are the fruit of Douglas Wilson’s ministry, whether he admits it or not, and I intend to blog on each of them as time permits, with the hope of warning others to beware of this sadistic beast and his evil influence.

Thank you.

The Federal Vision Family

“Never tell anybody outside the family what you’re thinking again!” — Don Corleone to Sonny

“Fredo, you’re my older brother, and I love you. But don’t ever take sides with anyone against the family again. Ever.” — Michael Corleone to Fredo

“Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.” — Douglas Wilson to the Federal Vision Family

A week has passed since James Jordan suffered his complete mental breakdown on the worldwide web and as of today none of the Federal Visionists has said boo about his vitriolic tirades, let alone repudiated him for his reprehensible behavior. And if you don’t understand the reason why none of the Federal Visionists have denounced Jordan for his cataclysmic meltdown, then you don’t understand the Federal Vision. I know, I know, the Federal Visionists coined the mantra “No one understands us” as excuse to maintain their hard hearts; but in this case it’s actually true, though you can be sure none will admit it in public.

The reason that no FVist broke ranks with James Jordan for his sweeping judgments and disgusting railings against the Christian church is because the leading FVists are not Christian ministers; they are a family of ecclesiastical gangsters in the middle of a turf war with the Christian church and years ago, Douglas Wilson — the FV mob boss — established the first rule of the FV family: “Remember that loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.” In this respect the FVists are no different from any other crime syndicate. Loyalty to the family is paramount — it is the greatest virtue. Indeed, they place a higher premium on allegiance to one another than fidelity to anything biblical — whether the Scriptures, the gospel, sound doctrine, or even the Savior. Loyalty to the family at all costs — “even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

Wilson understands the importance of a united front. He belongs to the school of thought that says, “Appearance is more important than substance,” which is another way of saying he is well schooled in hypocrisy. This explains why he requires unanimity among his elder board even in absurd circumstances and it accounts for the silence from the FVists whenever one of their own crashes and burns, as Mark Horne has done at least once a month for the past three years. “Loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

But the point here is neither the loyalty nor the silence. The point is the FV family — the FV racket — that the loyalty and silence represent. These men are not Christians endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace; they are a very well-disciplined crew of thugs who recognize that they cannot achieve their objective unless they maintain family discipline. And we can’t forget the FV objective either, which is to raid as many healthy churches as possible and bring them under CREC dominion.

The FV is Wilson’s turf war and it’s no different than the zoning controversy in downtown Moscow. Grab as much land as possible — legally or illegally — and call yourself king. Hence his prediction that the CREC will “be bigger than the OPC in a decade”:

Wilson also has a big-picture view of the future. He sees the CREC being a player in the Reformed world in the next few years, and I have to agree with him. His prediction was that it would be bigger than the OPC in a decade. With this in mind, he urged that we cultivate a vision of peace. He urged that we try to work with as many people as possible and that we not try to simply fill our niche. (“Doug Wilson”)

This remarkable statement from the blog of a second-year seminary student. But Wilson can’t realize that kind of growth without pirating a few churches along the way and pirates capture vessels by utilizing the principles of war.

The Federal Visionists intend to pad the CREC by infiltrating healthy churches and splitting them, if they cannot seize them altogether, just as they did to COTK and Living Word Church. And this cannot happen unless they deploy a well-disciplined team of ecclesiastical terrorists who understand the importance of loyalty. Therefore, none of them discusses family business in public and none of them takes sides against a family member.

So when James Jordan unraveled on a global platform, spewing venom and spite right and left, the FV family stuck together. Business as usual. Just another day in the FV mob because “loyalty to good friends is important even when you wouldn’t put it the way they do.”

Thank you.

Where does he get this stuff?

A friend called the other day to ask if I was interested in pursuing the scandal where Douglas Wilson and the Kirk elders used fraudulent documents to “vindicate” Wilson from wrongdoing (Dr. Gier alluded to these two incidents in his post). I replied, “We have enough documented scandal here to blog for an entire year without invoking the phony minutes or the letter without signatures.” And that’s not hyperbole.

For example, I just noticed that someone on the Warfield list asked for a church referral in Salt Lake City to which a brother recommended Christ Presbyterian Church, OPC. Of course, Christ Presbyterian Church is just one more assembly of Christians in a seeming endless parade of believers who caught Wilson playing fast and loose with the Ninth Commandment. This particular false witness involves the case reported in this story by P&R News. The letter was written by CPC’s clerk of session in response to falsehoods that Christ Church uploaded to the web.

May 27, 2003

The Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals
C/o Brett Baker, Moderator
P.O. Box 1158
Woodinville, WA 98072 1158

Dear Brothers:

Our attention was recently brought to the minutes of your 2002 meeting as they appear on your website. In those minutes is a false report from Christ Church, Moscow, concerning their controversy with Christ Presbyterian Church, Salt Lake City, and, the Presbytery of the Dakotas (OPC). There are several misrepresentations, but the most serious is that, “some time after [Mr. Maneri] left, charges were brought against him in the OPC.”

We have attached the text of the correspondence between our churches. As you can see, we have repeatedly told the elders in Moscow that Mr. Maneri was charged individually and before witnesses while a member and an elder. Mr. Maneri had attended worship on the previous Sunday and was leading a meeting of the pulpit committee when he was charged before witnesses. After being charged, but before a trial could commence, Mr. Maneri resigned his office and asked that his name be erased from the rolls of the church. The Book of Church Order he vowed to receive does not allow a resignation to automatically stop a discipline case. We went forward with a trial to protect the church and in hope of restoring our brother.

When Mr. Maneri was publicly circulating advice from Doug Wilson not to appear at his trial, we contacted Mr. Wilson and then his session. Our hope was that their goals would be the same as ours. As you can see in the attached correspondence, our complaints have been met with sophistry and word games that should be an embarrassment for elders of a Church of Christ. Our goals in all of this have been to shepherd the Church of Jesus Christ and to restore a brother whom we love. We have continued to pray for him with tears, even after his excommunication. It is our hope that despite the interference of Mr. Wilson and the Moscow session that he will yet be restored.

We ask that you read the attached correspondence and remember that no one on our session had previously communicated with Mr. Wilson. A friend of Mr. Wilson was accused of grave sin. Mr. Wilson made no attempt to determine the facts of the case from us before advising him not to attend his trial. When we challenged that advice, we were told that we would have to prove that we had risen above the contemporary Reformed norm” before Mr. Wilson would reconsider his advice. We do not accept that our discipline should be presumed defective. It is up to Moscow to demonstrate its illegitimacy before they counsel our members to reject it. We understand that at the time, Moscow had the same provisions against unilateral resignation. How can Doug Jones state in a recent letter to the Moscow church that “in the covenant bond of membership, both sides are obligated to agree to severing membership covenants,” but then portray us as disciplining a “nonmember”?

We have been told that we have no standing to appeal to your court, but we ask that you remove this false report from your website. We send this directly to you, because you are perpetuating a false report. We do not believe we can do anything more to prevent Moscow’s misrepresentations, but we ask that you not join them. We would be happy to detail the other errors, if you would like. Though we have no official standing before you, we do implore you as Christian brothers to deal with the larger situation. We do not believe that you would want us treating your churches as Doug Wilson and the Moscow session have treated us.

Sincerely

Lou LaBriola, Clerk of Session

And on this fully documented note of yet more fœdero-schismatic activity, I want to wish everyone a Happy New Year, hoping that next year the Church will have put away from among us that wicked person and his Federal Vision.

Thank you.

Self-Deceit

A couple of weeks ago Prince Blog wrote an extended post that appeared to wave a truce flag at his “enemies.” Of course, he only calls a truce when he needs time to reload, but that’s not the point here. The point is that he closed his post with these words:

In short, I want to be active in this controversy to the extent I need to be — I don’t want to shirk — but neither do I want to be defined by this. If any my friends out there see that definition forming, please feel free to say so. (“All Wolves, All the Time,” emphasis original)

This statement is interesting for a number of reasons; I want to consider one. After the post went up, it moved a friend of mine (who knows Wilson very well) so much that he called to say, “For the first time in my life I actually feel sorry for the man.” Not having read the post I said, “Okay, you have my attention — why do you feel sorry for him?” My friend played off Orwell, saying, “By the time a man turns fifty, he has the reputation he deserves. Doug has systematically defined himself over the last decade with one scandal after another, particularly this Federal Vision mess and his hostile disruption of the PCA’s process. It’s as though he specifically intended to make a spectacle of himself all these years and despite this, he wrote, ‘neither do I want to be defined by this.’ I pity him. He is so self-deceived that he has no idea he is defined.”

This leads to another interesting quote, which I took from Dr. Clark who quoted an article written by Dr. Darryl Hart on the Federal Vision in the Nicotine Theological Journal. Dr. Hart wrote,

Never before have such heavy guns as the church’s highest courts and multi-year study committees been used to defeat a meagre and frivolous theological novelty.

Consider this. Dr. Hart is Adjunct Professor of Church History at Westminster Seminary California and he probably has more letters after his name than all the CREC ministers combined. In other words, he’s not a popular story teller. He doesn’t imagine historical revisions and self-publish his fantasies in book form calling them factual accounts. Moreover, he’s not an anonymous attack blogger who fully documents each of his posts. And as long as we’re on it, he isn’t even a self-willed autonomous attack blogger who pretends his federation of marionettes holds him accountable. Dr. Hart is the real deal with real credentials, and he wrote, “Never before have such heavy guns as the church’s highest courts and multi-year study committees been used to defeat a meagre and frivolous theological novelty.”

This leads to yet another fascinating quote from Prince Blog, who just the other day posted this comment on Green Bagginses:

All the refutations of FV I have read that maintain an FV/Westminster contradiction generally get that result by misrepresenting what FV is saying, or Westminster, or both.

Of course, we all know that these words have served as the FV party line since the beginning, but the remarkable thing is that (1) they still repeat it, and (2) it’s possible that Wilson actually believes it, which is an extremely frightening thought for him. Read the two quotes back to back:

Never before have such heavy guns as the church’s highest courts and multi-year study committees been used to defeat a meagre and frivolous theological novelty. (Dr. Darryl Hart)

All the refutations of FV I have read that maintain an FV/Westminster contradiction generally get that result by misrepresenting what FV is saying, or Westminster, or both. (Douglas Wilson)

A church historian (who is also an officer in the church) observes that the Church has never used such heavy guns to defeat such a deficient theological novelty, and Wilson cavalierly accuses every one of these big guns of misrepresenting his doctrinal frivolities and the Westminster Confession of Faith, as if the two stand side by side.

On my sidebar to the right there’s a section called “A Great Cloud of Witnesses: Fœdero Links.” Beneath it there’s a long list of articles and official reports published by various Reformed denominations, presbyteries, federations, and seminaries. Every one of them, without exception, repudiates the Federal Vision in unmistakable terms. More specifically, five denominations — the BPC, the OCRC, the OPC, the PCA, and the RPCUS — identified Douglas Wilson by name in their reports, yet he steadfastly maintains that all of them, without exception, have misrepresented the FV and/or the Westminster divines.

These facts lead me to believe that my friend is on to something. Douglas Wilson really is pathetic. Self-deception can’t run much deeper than this — can it? He pays magnificent lip service to Mother Kirk with grand, exalted language, but when Mother Kirk replies to him — by name — condemning his doctrine with overwhelming judgments of breathtaking proportions, he accuses her of misrepresentation instead of repenting of his sins. And yet he does not want this to define him. Yo mama.

Prince Blog of the land of Mablog may deceive himself, esteeming his “meagre and frivolous theological novelty” greater than the unanimous opinion of the Church’s highest courts. Indeed, he may delude himself by thinking that this monumental folly — this catastrophic error in judgment — has not defined him. To be sure, he may even fix his madness in stone by mocking the Church and her ministers all day long to his heart’s delight. But the future does not bode well for Prince Blog because all his self-deceit cannot change the one simple truth that these things are defining moments and they have defined him. Even worse, Scripture offers no cure for his definition, or condition, as the case may be, for Solomon warns, “He, that being often reproved hardeneth his neck, shall suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.” Just ask Saddam Hussein.

Thank you.

Feliz Navidad

Heres’s another excellent comment from Dr. Johnson, which is worthy of front-page exposure:

GLW Johnson said,
December 24, 2007 at 9:11 am

Roger:

I find your reply completely and totally unconvincing and your take on Calvin is just spin and nothing more. Furthermore your defense of the FV and the “outrage” they feel when dealing with critics like yours truly is highly ironic, and I’ll tell you why. We have heard ad nauseam the refrain from the FV that we “constantly” misinterpret, misrepresent, misread and so end up distorting them. Here the rich irony — I, and a great many others, see the FV doing this very thing when they appeal to Calvin and others in the Reformed tradition to substantiate their views!

Equally egregious is the way that many in the FV have throw distain on anyone and everyone who dares to raise questions over their claims that they are recovering the REAL Reformed tradition. I sat on the sidelines when this controversy first erupted. I made no public comments and, as stated here before, I attempted to resolve the concerns that I had with the FV in general and with Doug Wilson in particular, by direct correspondence — which, as I have also rehearsed here, proved fruitless. However, after watching the assault on my friend Guy Waters (for his book on the Federal Vision) and the abuse he was subjected to — including having the wrath of God invoked against him for daring to write such a book — I entered the fray.

May I point out that at no time during this controversy have I singled out for criticism (here or elsewhere) Peter Leithart, who all would consider one of the more prominent names associated with the FV. Why, you ask? Peter and I graduated in 1987 from WTS (Phil.) with our ThM degrees. Peter went on to Cambridge and I entered the PhD program at WTS. I have over the years read with much appreciation Peter’s writings in Credenda/Agenda and even though I didn’t always agree with what he was saying I appreciate his tone and the matter in which he wrote. He didn’t make snide or inflammatory remarks about those with whom he disagreed (he was the only FVer who acknowledged that Waters had indeed correctly represented his views and interacted with Guy’s book in a fair and courteous fashion). He didn’t insult them and call them names and he most certainly did not suggest that his views were the only ones that really were true to the Reformed tradition. As such I respect Peter. In this way, and in so many others he stands in sharp contrast to his colleague Doug Wilson, who revels in ridiculing his opponents and delights in heaping derision on any who would dare disagree with him (don’t take my word for it — just pick up practically any past issue of C/A and see for yourself or read his recent response to Andy Webb on his blog where he, the preeminent presbyterian, relishes calling the FV critics “Baptyrians”). Regrettably, Wilson has had far more influence of the FV peanut gallery than has Leithart.

Witness the way Stellman, Kline, and Piper were recently vilified as hopeless nominalists by a greenbehind-the-ears seminary student (when Wilson declared that this was “a battle for the hearts and minds of second-year seminary students” then he has at least one recruit he can claim). In particular the late Meredith Kline, one of my most cherished professors at WTS, has been subjected personal abuse — being called, among other things, “hateful” on this blog by one of the more scurrilous defenders of the FV. Kline was one of the most significant OT scholars of the 20th century and for him to be treated this way is positively contemptible — but he isn’t the only one to be on the receiving end of the FV scorn. Go back and read the nasty assessments the FV threw at the study committees of both the OPC and the PCA, as well as the faculties of MARS and Westminster Seminary, Calif. But I have come to expect this from the FV — since they take their cue from their fearless leader who had the hubris to denigrate one of the most significant Reformed theologians of all time — BB Warfield — as falling into “refried Gnosticism” because BBW clearly saw the difference between sacramentalism and sacredotalism — something that DW lacks the ability to see, which should not come as any big surprise since DW’s formal theological training could be listed on the back of a postage stamp.

I share Pastor Reed’s perspective — I am weary of dealing with this and I see no use in constantly having to restate the obvious over and over again. The FV and their sympathizers are convinced, despite being overwhelmingly rejected by multiple Reformed denominations, that they will prevail and that their enemies (which is the language Wilson uses to describe his critics) will be routed in due time (they are after all rabid postmils). It does not matter to them one bit that among their critics are men of great theological stature and deserving respect. They will disregard them simply because they are not sympathetic to the FV and only people who are sympathetic to the claims of the FV are true scholars. This is the mindset of sects. Adios.

Merry Christmas!

The Christ Church Cult

Pastor Todd Bordow nails it again, this time outlining two common traits of cults. Before you read his comment, however, please note that Beelzeblog now uses his blog to openly recruit people to move to Moscow. He has lost all credibility with the locals; he couldn’t evangelize them even if wanted to. So he must keep his base in tact by recruiting souls to move to Moscow. Also note that about two years ago folks in Moscow gave a new name to the local sect, calling it The Christ Church Cult. The name sticks to this day. I republish this comment on my anonymous attack blog without permission:

A number of you are uncomfortable describing the DW/FV movement as cult-like, but if you have worked with cults you will recognize the two similarities listed below, and don’t worry, you will see as you read that this is on topic.

1. People quitting their jobs to relocate to Moscow, ID, not because DW preaches the gospel clearly, but for other reasons; i.e., joining the law-abiding spiritually “elite.” This elitist feeling of being among the faithful few is intoxicating and addicting.


2. Once committing emotionally to the movement, whether because you need the guarantee of faithful children unstained by the world, or DW’s antagonistic and critical outlook toward unbelievers and the majority of churches resonates with you (both common cult characteristics), you are forced to justify and explain away the most ridiculous claims made by the leaders — anyone remember Harold Camping?

For example, consider the claim by DW that God not only justifies and sanctifies individuals, but justifies and sanctifies his visible church, even though some within it might not be inwardly justified and sanctified. Think about how irrational and nonsensical that is. How is an entity “forgiven and declared righteous” while people within it not really forgiven and declared righteous? How do you take this stuff seriously? You do so when you are emotionally attached to the movement, and since in this movement a clear gospel message is not valued, followers are willing to allow the gospel to be obfuscated for the sake of continuing the movement and justifying its leaders. That is why no matter the logic or facts used to correct the statements of the FV leaders, the FV supporters continue on unabashed. Most true Christians in this movement need to crash first before they are courageous enough to walk away from the movement and still know they are okay spiritually.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)
Fort Worth, TX

Thank you.

Wilson and Liberalism

Last week Pastor Todd Bordow wrote some insightful comments on Green Baggins that I republished here. In that thread someone challenged Pastor Bordow on a comment he made affirming similarities between Douglas Wilson and the liberals described in Christianity and Liberalism by John Gresham Machen, but he deferred to Pastor Lane’s strict posting rules. Nevertheless, I appreciated Pastor Bordow’s analysis so much that I contacted him off list for permission to publish his answer here, which he kindly granted. Here it is:

Machen and DW

When I did a careful study of the liberalism of the early twentieth century, I found that the differences between liberalism and true Christianity were often subtle in nature. Not all liberals denied the fundamentals of the faith, at least not outwardly. Many conservatives saw little threat from the liberals because of this. That is why Machen felt the need to write his book Christianity and Liberalism, because liberals too often made use of Christian terminology, but assumed subtle yet deadly differences in the meaning of traditional words and phrases.

As you read Machen’s book, I could not help but see the similarities with the DW/FV movement and those liberals. Now of course, DW does not deny supernaturalism, as many liberals did. The more liberal liberals, if you will, denied some basics, like the deity of Christ and the virgin birth, which DW does not. But I believe there are many similarities between the DW/FV movement and the old liberalism; I will note three.

First, Machen noted that the liberals used traditional words such as salvation and faith, but stripped them of their biblical meanings. This abuse of language is common among FVers. DW states how the salvation Christ came to bring is not only the salvation of souls, but salvation of governments and cultures. How is a culture “saved?” What did Jesus mean then when he said he came to “save” the world? Is the “saving” of the soul the same as the “saving” of a culture? If so, what is the “saving” of the soul? Did Jesus have two definitions of salvation in mind? In FV speak, it is not even clear what “salvation” means.

The same is true with faith. Does saving faith include works? Listen to an FV answer that question and you hear twenty qualifications before the explanation even begins. The traditional understanding of saving faith apart from works is deconstructed to mean, well, who knows what? This misuse of traditional words with different meanings is as common with FV’ers as it was with the old liberals.

Machen understood that many liberals still wanted acceptance in conservative circles. Instead of admitting their differences with traditional Protestant theology, they simply kept the old phrases, while subtly changing their definitions. Machen also knew many conservatives would not discern this and accuse him of making a mountain out of a molehill, yet he knew he needed to write his book for that reason. Machen writes,

Only too often that desire [to avoid giving offense] has come perilously near dishonesty; the religious teacher, in his hearts of hearts, is well aware of the radicalism of his views, but is unwilling to relinquish his place in the hallowed atmosphere of the Church by speaking his whole mind. (pg. 17)

That is why someone should not be overly impressed when men like DW offer a bone to the greater Church with a sermon or statement that affirms traditional theology. One needs to carefully read DW’s material elsewhere as to how those terms are explained and applied to people, and see if this matches the traditionally believed understanding of these concepts.

Secondly, Machen noted that liberals and legalists both equally assaulted justification by faith alone. Machen noted that to the Modern church, the difference between the Galatian Judaizers and Paul seems a mere theological subtlety. Note how Machen speaks of liberals and Judaizers in the same breath. In other words, he does not see legalists on one end of the spectrum and liberals on the other. He sees them all as legalists; as guilty of the Galatian heresy.

The FV emphasis on bowing to Jesus as Lord in defining salvation (read Steve Schlissel), their attempts to place a wedge between a Reformed and Lutheran understanding of faith as an instrument (there is no wedge), and their redefining saving faith to in some way include obedience is actually an old liberal ploy. Machen writes,

Faith, then, according to the Christian view, means simply receiving a gift . . . the man who believes in Christ simply accepts the sacrifice which Christ offered on Calvary. The result of such faith is a new life and all good works. . . Very different is the conception of faith which prevails in the liberal church. According to modern liberalism, faith is essentially the same as making Christ Master in one’s life. . . Such teaching is just a sublimated form of legalism. . . In this way the whole achievement of the Reformation has been given up, and there has been a return to the religion of the Middle Ages. (pg. 143)

One may note how DW and the FVers have used Galatians, especially Gal. 5:6, to argue for the inclusion of obedience within the definition of saving faith. Machen noted this devise among the liberals when he wrote, “But modern liberalism has returned to the old interpretation of Galatians which was urged against the Reformers. . .” In other words, today’s FVers use the same arguments from Galatians to contest the Reformers who argued for sola fide from Galatians. Machen continues, “The grace of God is rejected by modern liberalism. And the result is slavery — the slavery of the law. . .” (pg. 144.) Later Machen refutes the liberals’ notion of faith with the words, “faith is the exact opposite of works.”

If one reads DW’s literature carefully, one notices a common theme; it is the theme of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. DW is unabashed in his love for this truth. What DW fails to understand, and it is truth most five-year-old believers understand, is that this is a principle for law, not gospel. DW sees Deuteronomy 28, the blessings for obeying all the law and curses for disobeying all the law, and he sees a principle enforced under the New Covenant. The liberals could not distinguish law and gospel so basic to theology, and neither can DW. His Credenda Agenda even speaks of Christian parents who send their children to public schools as “breaking covenant” with God and being under a curse. Whether he defines the curses eternally or in this life, this is still a denial of the gospel, where Christ takes upon himself the curse of the law for us fully. To DW the curse of the law is still in effect for the Christian. Thus DW’s views are simply a subtle reworking of the old liberalism.

Thirdly, Machen noted that though not all liberals deny the immortality of the soul, they downplay its importance. What is important is the reformation of society. Machen writes,

The Christian life views this world under the aspect of eternity; the fashion of this world is passing away. . . Very different is the program of the modern liberal church. In that program, heaven has little place, and this world is really all in all. The rejection of the Christian hope is not always definite or conscious; sometimes the liberal preacher tries to maintain a belief in the immorality of the soul . . . practically, the liberal preacher has very little to say about the other world. This world is really the center of all his thoughts; religion itself, and even God, are made merely a means for the betterment of conditions upon this life. (pg 148)

Again, anyone familiar with DW’s writings knows how commonly DW mocks those concerned with the soul’s eternal salvation over against the reformation of culture and society, labeling them “Gnostics.” DW is fully aware what a Gnostic really is, but this is a common scare tactic to draw true Christians away from the biblical Great Commission to preach the gospel to every creature. DW tries to squirm out of this accusation by redefining the gospel and salvation in such a way as to include his vision for politics and culture. Thus everything DW teaches about how society should be formed and how you should act is included under “gospel,” a classic liberal ploy. Both liberals and DW find their passion in reforming the cultures of this world, though their specific agendas to attain this goal may differ somewhat.

Ironically, in my opinion, the old liberals, though dangerous to the faith, were at least more useful to society, while DW holds the delusional idea that if the Church would reform its liturgy and be more obedient, then the whole world will become Christianized. DW sees his church leading the way in this “new reformation,” a common delusion among cult leaders. Ironically, DW ends up doing practically nothing for society. At least the old liberals got their hands dirty and served people. Not that the liberals were truly expanding Christ’s redemptive kingdom, but while DW is doing his best to antagonize the unbelievers in Moscow, ID, the old liberals at least tried to serve their fellow man. One does not have to read DW very long to see his true passion is defeating unbelievers and their ideologies for this life, by replacing it with his own, instead of reaching sinners with the love and message of the gospel. How far from Machen’s own heart when Machen wrote:

You cannot expect from a true Christian church any official pronouncements upon the political or social questions of the day, and you cannot expect cooperation with the state in anything involving the use of force. . . The function of the church in its corporate capacity is of an entirely different kind. Its weapons against evil are spiritual, not carnal; and by becoming a political lobby, through the advocacy of political measures whether good or bad, the church is turning aside from its proper mission, which is to bring to bear upon human hearts the solemn and imperious, yet also sweet and gracious appeal of the gospel of Christ.

So while there are some obvious differences between the old liberals and the DW types of our day, such as their belief in supernaturalism, I believe the similarities should not go unnoticed, specifically, the deconstruction of traditional theological language, the assault on justification by faith alone apart from works, promoting a legalistic view of a relationship with God (as opposed to grace centered), and an earthly agenda that mocks heavenly-minded believers and true gospel concern for lost people. Machen’s fight continues.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)

Thank you.

Cardiphonia

I queued up this post under the title “influence and control” because this brother clearly nails it, but as I reread his comments last night, its tone struck me as identical to John Newton’s Cardiphonia: The Utterance of the Heart (which I have not read in years, so forgive me if my memory’s off!).

Keith LaMothe is an extremely confused Wilson devotee who, on a regular basis, can’t reconcile his teacher’s teaching with his teacher’s actions. Despite this, he still submits to his teacher’s instruction. For example, he posted elsewhere that he won’t visit this site because I am an “anonymous accuser” and “not accountable,” which demonstrates that he doesn’t know the difference between a statement of fact and an opinion. It also demonstrates that Wilson has hornswoggled him into believing that he is accountable.

Nevertheless, Pastor Bob Bordow has gently and patiently addressed some of Mr. LaMothe’s concerns vis-à-vis the Bhagwan, and as an eyewitness to the Wilsoneesh’s anti-Christian gospel, his hostile pubic relations with the local community, and his hardcore recruitment of outsiders to move to Moscow, I bear witness that his statements are true.

Todd Bordow said,
December 6, 2007 at 6:26 pm

The FVers love baptism because it enhances their desire for control. DW and his ilk are all about control and influence. Talk of sola fide and pointing people directly to Christ takes control out of their hands. Talk of the sacrament’s efficacy places control back into the hands of the clergy who administer the sacrament, and into the hands of legalists who want to control their own salvation. Why do you think on his blog DW points more people to the Supper and its blessings than to Christ himself through faith? RC’s love the Supper because it enables them to control people and keep their churches full. That is why the RC’s banned the Word but baptized all day, to protect their power and influence. It is no coincidence that FVers are also theonomists of some sort and paedo-communionists. Theonomy justifies their desire to speak rabbinically on every issue, whether the arts, history, literature, cooking, etc. . . thus promoting themselves and your need to heed their wisdom on every possible issue — control. And paedo-communion is a way to say to all true Christians: “Leave your churches and come to us, your churches are not truly feeding your children — we will feed them so they do not starve”; thus the cult mentality of influence and control. Men like DW will always write statements that can be orthodox only to keep their influence. Only the naïve fail to see through the charade. The “covenant” is their newfound means to sound orthodox but keep people bound — when questioned on anything, say it is “covenantally true” without needing to clearly define its meaning. But those who deny the covenant of works in the front door simply want to bring it in the back door. In this system Christ does not fulfill the demands of the covenant for us as our representative, he only helps us fulfill the conditions ourselves, thus the RC position. At least the RC’s are honest about it. In all the FV’s books about Christian living, the underlying principle is still one of law — blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience — not of true grace. They simply don’t get the gospel. Yes, the Pharisees were correct about the resurrection opposed to the Sadducees, but so what? they were still enemies of the truth. DW may be right on a few cultural issues and the Trinity, but so what? a Pharisee is a Pharisee and dangerous to the sheep.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)

Todd Bordow said,
December 7, 2007 at 9:44 am

Keith,

In answer to your question about a particular sermon of DW affirming sola fida or “looking to Christ,” consider the words of Machen as he summarizes the problem with the Judiazers in Galatia, and that may answer your question. Remember you must look beyond certain words to the whole system a man is propagating, including how faith is defined and how blessings come from God in this system, realizing that inconsistencies are par for the course with false teachers.

The Judaizers agreed with Paul about many things: they agreed in holding that Jesus was the Messiah; they seemed to have no quarrel whatsoever with the deity of Christ; they believed in the resurrection of our Lord from the dead. Moreover, they even held, no doubt, that a man must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ if he is to be saved. But their error lay in holding not only that a man must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ if he is to be saved, but that he must also do something else, namely, keep at least a part of the law of God.

The really essential thing about the Judaizers’ contention was not found in those particular “works of the law” that they urged upon the Galatians as being one of the grounds of salvation, but in the fact that they urged any works in this sense at all. The really serious error into which they fell was not that they carried the ceremonial law over into the new dispensation whither God did not intend it to be carried, but that they preached a religion of human merit as over against a religion of divine grace.

Salvation according to those Judaizers is attained partly by the grace of God and partly by the merit of man. So the error of the Judaizers is a very modern error indeed, as well as a very ancient error. It is found in the modern Church wherever men seek salvation by making Christ master in the life instead of by trusting in His redeeming blood. This is just a different way of exalting the merit of man over against the Cross of Christ, it is an attack upon the very heart and core of the Christian religion.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)

Todd Bordow said,
December 7, 2007 at 10:45 am

Keith,

Not pretending to know what’s in your heart, Christians are drawn to DW types for a variety of reasons. Men naturally tend to like the emphasis on male headship in these movements, thus all the marriage difficulties I have counseled from men who think of their wives in OT categories, and women with a poor understanding of submission. Christian parents love their children, and DW sells his anti-public school, paedo-communion classical model as a way to ensure that your kids grow up unstained and faithful. It doesn’t work that way, but it’s a good sell. Some are just political conservatives who despise liberals, and desire a conservative law-abiding society, so they are drawn to DW’s post-mil vision of one kingdom in this world. The pride in Christians is always drawn to movements who speak of the majority of churches as churches in declension and under God’s judgment, except them, that is, thus the desire to be counted among the law-abiding faithful blessed by God, explaining how many pack up and move to Moscow to be among the truly blessed and faithful. All cults cultivate this mentality. As a young, sincere, zealous Christian I was also drawn to these movements and these leaders, until I grew up and saw it for what it was and how it hurt so many people. Since the gospel is so simple, and since the gospel is the power of God to save and sanctify, and since all true churches preach this simple gospel to some extent, why the draw to Moscow? The gospel, or something else?

Blessings,

Todd Bordow
Pastor — Covenant Presbyterian Church of Fort Worth (OPC)

Todd Bordow said,
December 7, 2007 at 5:57 pm

To see behind the DW movement you must see a love of this world and a dissatisfaction with suffering for Christ and waiting for glory. Like the Pharisees, the DW crowd wants a different Christ than the one who appeared on the earth. The true Christ rejected the desire to make him an earthly king; the true Christ rejected the plea to settle a legal dispute, Jesus stating that was not his ministry. The true Christ loved sinners and was respectful to them; only antagonistic toward the Pharisees. The DW crowd is antagonistic toward unbelievers, seeking their defeat, in the name of course of the Lordship of Christ, but a type of lordship that Christ himself rejected for this age.

The DW crowd mocks suffering for Christ and waiting for glory, using catchphrases like “Gnostic” and “escapism” for those whose passion is saving souls opposed to changing this culture into DW’s vision. The DW theology, like classic liberalism, does not deny individual salvation, but lowers its importance; individual salvation becomes a means to an end, earthly victory and influence; mocking the true Christ and his spiritual kingdom.

If you want to know the difference between true Christianity and this pseudo-Christianity, read anything by DW and then read Geerhardus Vos’ sermon on heavenly-mindedness. See what Vos says about those who see salvation as a means to an earthly end. I would also recommend Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism and so how much in common DW has with the old liberals.

Blessings,

Todd Bordow

Memo to Pastor Bordow:
Don’t let yesterday’s love fest fool you. You have publicly identified the Bhagwan’s modus operandi and his false teaching, which means that he will retaliate against you.

Thank you.

Response to Doug Wilson

Ol’ Beelzeblog responded to Andy Webb’s post from the BB Warfield list by utilizing his well-crafted art of deception. I would link to it if reading it was worth your time, but it’s not. Just read Pastor Webb’s answer and appreciate the absence of fast moves, cutting insults, deliberate misquotations, clever word games, or other devices from hell.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I really didn’t want to get into a direct exchange with Doug Wilson over the matter of discipline concerning Steve Wilkins and Louisiana Presbytery but given that he has responded to me directly on his blog and both asks questions and implies that I made groundless assertions, I don’t really feel like I have much of a choice but to reply. I’m going to go ahead and post Wilson’s reply, but I should point out that Doug’s post quotes my original very selectively, and at times it’s unclear where what I wrote ends and how he responds begins. For that reason, I’d recommend reading my original post first if you haven’t already done so:

Andy then argues that FV advocates by definition will cry procedural foul so long as our views are not upheld, which is manifestly false. He says, “the only way the FV community will consider a report ‘fair’ and the scholars who prepared it ‘wise’ is if it approves their theology.” Oh, I don’t know. My threshold is much lower than that. I would have considered a study committee report procedurally fair if they had not, for example, stacked it with all opponents, nothing but opponents, opponents all the way down.

Manifestly false? Ok, I’ll bite. Show me a few examples of when a denominational or seminary report that labeled the FV a serious error (if not a heresy) was not attacked by FV advocates on procedural grounds (“they didn’t contact the authors personally,” “the committee members were . . . (you may choose more than one) biased, incompetent, disingenuous, hypocritical, ignorant, sloppy,” etc., etc.) Also by Wilson’s criteria, the Canons of Dordt were procedurally unfair because the council was “stacked” with Calvinists.

Substance and process are different issues. I have repeatedly named FV critics who are obviously fair-minded and judicious men. I know they are out there, and I pray that some of them are on the SJC. So there is a difference between a decision with which we differ and a decision which is obviously a judicially-coated bum’s rush.

It’s at the point that I almost want to break off the dialogue. “Judicially-coated bum’s rush”? We have men like Sean Lucas, the Dean of Faculty from our denominational seminary on the committee and it’s to be assumed that these men are closed-minded, sinister, unfair, and incapable of accurately assessing a theological movement? Given that the FV has been discussed to death via books, papers, conferences, debates, colloquiums, DVDs, the internet, etc. for at least five years (longer if one includes contributing movements like Shepherdism and the NPP), and that its proponents have had ample time to present their case and have only been able to persuade a tiny minority, I find it bizarre that they would demand that we look for people who either haven’t been exposed to the FV and come to decision or some of its open proponents to populate the committee. Where is the requirement that a study committee have active proponents of the issue being studied on it and how does a lack of them nullify the validity of the conclusions of such a study? Historically the reformed have not felt constrained to put proponents of a position suspected of being in error on the commission studying it, rather they have sought Christian men who were qualified to judge and render an assessment. Is Wilson asserting that this committee and the OPC committee that drew the same conclusions were unqualified to assess a system of doctrine? For instance, was the old PCUS study committee report that determined that Dispensationalism was not compatible with the Standards in error because the assembly did not take care to make sure Dispensationalists were well-represented on the committee? Are we to assume that we can’t come to a fair assessment of whether having foxes in the henhouse is a good idea unless we have foxes represented on the committee?

If the position “PROPONENTS MUST BE PRESENT ON THE COMMITTEE AND A MINORITY PAPER MUST BE DELIVERED” is really a rule to be followed are we going to follow it when it comes to studying issues like Women’s ordination, Open Theism, Same-Sex marriage, etc?

Then Andy gives a summary of the whole Wilkins’ deal. I will follow the numbering of his summary, and add comments as we go.

1. Wilkins is a member of Louisiana Presbytery, which has only 8 churches, and has in the past harbored other malefactors. “For instance, Jeff Steel, former pastor of an LA Presbytery church, went on to become Father Jeffrey Steel and an assistant to N.T. Wright. Simply put, this is not a Presbytery where an attachment to the FV or NPP is considered odd.” Wilkins is suspect because another pastor in his Presbytery went Anglican? I wonder how many presbyteries in the PCA are suspect on this interesting basis.

I sense Doug is not getting my point. Steel is more than just an Anglican, by his own confession he’s an Anglo-Catholic, the type that includes posts like “Most Holy Theotokos Save Us!” on his blog. None of this is brand new to his theological perspective, and yet there was never a thought of investigating his theological views when he was in LA Presbytery because Anglo-Catholic and NPP views, while they would be incredibly alarming in most PCA presbyteries, are no big deal in LA Presbytery. LA Presbytery didn’t view Wilkins’ views as out of accord precisely because they are fairly common in that particular Presbytery.

In fact, while the SJC was very careful about their wording, they as much as admit that the critical problem is that a controlling majority of Presbyters appear to agree with the FV and the NPP and therefore that no trial that seriously questions the truth of those convictions will be forthcoming. After pointing out the places where Wilkins’ answers deviated from the teaching of the Standards, the SJC decision notes: “Indeed, Presbytery’s citation, without any caveats whatsoever, of the written and oral examinations of TE Wilkins as part of its grounds for denying the complaint of TE Jones gives the appearance that Presbytery is supportive of views such as those noted above.”

“2. Steve Wilkins’ own attachment to the FV is unquestionable.” Okay, I’ll give him half of this one. FV and Auburn Ave Theology (named after Steve’s church) are interchangeable, and Athanasius Press, the publishing arm of Auburn Ave, published a book entitled The Federal Vision, which had an essay by Steve in it. But unquestionable attachment to the FV is a very different thing than asserting that the opponents of the FV are representing it accurately. Wilkins is FV, all right, but if FV is what some people say it is, then he is not, and neither am I.

Again we see that no one can define the FV except the FV and they reserve the right to assert that they don’t mean what we think they mean when they do and don’t necessarily affirm what the other FV guy said he meant at the time. In the end, no one has understood the FV if they condemn it, and if an FV proponent ceases to agree and leaves the movement, that only proves they never really understood it. And this is an improvement over the “Old Perspective?” If I went around arguing that a majority of Reformed people disagree with me because — even after they’ve read my copious writings on the subject — they don’t understand what I’m saying, after a while I might begin to wonder if the problem wasn’t me.

3. This next one is astonishing. “Despite the size of the Presbytery attempts have been made to bring charges against Wilkins by members of the presbytery. These attempts have never produced a trial because the Presbytery has consistently refused to do so.” Oh? Every day I learn something new about PCA polity. I did not know, for example, that charges can only be filed if Presbytery allows it. Or let’s suppose another suppose. Let us assume that the men who objected to Wilkins did file charges properly, and the Presbytery, in defiance of the BCO, refused to act. So why wasn’t Louisiana Presbytery brought up short on charges for that?

Excuse me. How is this possible? Is Andy making an accusation here that Louisiana “consistently refused” to act on charges properly submitted? Is he able to prove this? Is he able to bring charges? If Louisiana really did something like this, that really would be actionable.

On two separate occasions motions where made at the Presbytery to begin investigations into Steve Wilkins’ teaching which is the necessary precursor to a trial. The following is from the minutes of the 72nd Stated Meeting of Louisiana Presbytery at Auburn Avenue PCA on October 19, 2002, on page 5:

“In reference to Item # 4 (Attachment F.) TE Jim Jones moved that the presbytery establish a committee to investigate the theological issues raised by the RPCUS in their communication received at the July 2002 meeting of Louisiana Presbytery and by a member of this presbytery.

The vote was: 6 for, 7 against, 4 abstentions.
TE James Jones records his positive vote on this matter.”

The context of this discussion and vote was the teaching of Steve Wilkins and the Auburn Avenue declaration.

Later in 2004 when Rich Lusk, Wilkins’ Associate Pastor at Auburn Ave, was attempting to transfer to Evangel Presbytery (Evangel’s Candidates Committee declined his transfer on theological grounds and Lusk subsequently brought that church into the CREC) at the meeting that year at Lafayette, LA, Jones again made the motion to examine both Rich Lusk and Steve Wilkins. The presbytery was unwilling to hold up Lusk’s departure for Evangel or examine Wilkins but did establish a study committee to look at the FV theology in general but declined to investigate Wilkins in particular.

On both occasions there was considerable negativity in the Presbytery expressed towards those in favor of examination and it was clear (as the SJC noted) that no trial would likely appear as that would amount to a trial not just of the beliefs of Wilkins, but the bare majority of the presbyters. As I noted before, this is a problem endemic to theological affinity presbyteries — everyone has the same Ox so a strict “No Goring” rule is in force.

4. In January 2005 Central Carolina Presbytery asked Louisiana to examine Wilkins’ formally, which they did, deciding that there “was nothing chargeable in Wilkins’ views.” No comment here.

5. This one takes us back to #3. “Given that no action against Wilkins was available from within the LA Presbytery, several Presbyteries determined . . .” Okay, humor me. Let’s go over this assertion again, for it has been made two times now. “No action against Wilkins was available from within.” That is a substantive assertion, one we ought to be able to hang our hats on. So where is the peg? What happened? Were there not enough members of the Presbytery to file charges? Did they file charges and the Presbytery kept losing the paperwork? Can charges only be filed if the charges themselves are approved by a majority vote of the Presbytery? Or was it some other thing I haven’t thought of? Notice Andy’s curious circumlocution here: ““No action was available . . .” What is that supposed to mean?

See above answer to #3. No investigation, no trial, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what the verdict would be when a theological affinity Presbytery tries the majority view.

6. Although one appeal from the outside presbyteries was rejected, another one based on BCO 40-5 was taken up. This memorial charged that Louisiana was guilty of “important delinquency and/or grossly unconstitutional proceedings.” This is how Louisiana first found itself having to answer to the SJC. Another Presbytery asserted that they had done wrong, and the SJC considered it.

Not really. As demonstrated, several attempts including requests from other denominations had been made to get LA Presbytery to try Wilkins views. Complaints were also filed by members of the presbytery over Wilkins’ exoneration. Even Howard Davis, a man no one can seriously label “Anti-FV” or “unfair,” filed a dissent over Wilkins exoneration. The fact is that because of the composition of the Presbytery, it was only POSSIBLE to deal with the problem by exercising the BCO’s review and control methods. Emergencies like this is what they were written for in the first place.

7. “The SJC determined that our memorial was in order, and that LA Presbytery had erred both in the methodology of their investigation and in their decision to exonerate Wilkins.” Emphasis there is mine. I have to assume that this cannot be understood as a finding of Wilkins’ guilt, but rather a determination that exoneration was premature or improperly grounded. Louisiana was told to reinvestigate, using new guidelines. Notice that all these are inquiries, investigations, reinvestigations, sets of questions, and so forth. No trial yet. No charges (to this day) have been filed, and the procedures that a trial would call for have not yet been applied.

8. Louisiana examined Wilkins again and exonerated him a second time (Is that the word we want, exonerated? He is not on trial). The vote was 13 to 8, and 7 of the dissenting votes filed a complaint with the SJC.

Ah, now you are complaining about Louisiana’s Presbytery’s own language not mine. I agree it was over the top. I quote: Louisiana Presbytery Report on Federal Vision Theology — found him to be “publicly exonerated by Louisiana Presbytery and declared to be faithful to the Confessional Standards of the PCA.”

9. In the meantime, the GA assembly overwhelmingly approved a study report which condemned what they considered to be FV theology. The runaway train aspect of this whole affair is summed up nicely by R.C. Sproul’s statement on why there was no minority report, why it was okay for the committee to be stacked. You don’t put the defendents on a jury, it appears. Right, but it was a study committee, not a jury. And if it were a jury, you don’t put avowed opponents of the accused on a jury any more than you put friends, employees, or cousins of the accused on a jury. Either way you go with it, that was all screwed up. If a study committee, why no minority report? If a jury, why were adversaries of the accused allowed on it?

See my answer above regarding the study committee. Also, Doug’s objection neatly disregards a few salient facts. As mentioned before, for FIVE YEARS at least, the proponents of the FV have industriously spreading their message, it has reached and affected churches as far away as Eastern Europe. In order to become the report of the PCA the study committee paper had to receive a favorable vote. Now, if the majority of PCA presbyters liked the FV, you could have had the most negative report in history and it wouldn’t have made a difference, they still wouldn’t have voted in favor of the report. The fact that over 90% of the PCA voted for the report is not due to the fact that we all like RC Sproul (and who doesn’t?), but that the vast majority of presbyters exposed to the FV have responded negatively because IT ISN’T SCRIPTURAL OR CONFESSIONAL AND THEY KNOW IT. The FV men would like us to believe that the PCA is entirely filled with gullible twits who know nothing about any issue and will automatically adopt anything that a study committee sets before them and that the same is true of the OPC, BPC, RPCUS, RCUS, and every other denomination that has condemned the FV. The actual fact is that wherever it is presented, the FV fails the “smell test” hands down. Now, given that the clear indication is that one must either repent or leave, the FVers instead choose option three, attack the church as being shepherded by a bunch of politicking ignoramuses.

10. This last October, the SJC approved the complaints against Louisiana, and have indicted Louisiana to appear and explain itself. We are all now waiting to see how that turns out.

Got all that? And so now we return to the original question, the one that Andy was replying to. Andy made all these points without interacting at all with the points I have been raising. So here they come again, in short form, in just a minute.

But first, let us by-pass the mysterious failure of charges to appear from within Louisiana. Let us wonder no more about it. Let us pretend that that didn’t happen, and let us pretend that the PCA really is dealing with an anomalous situation, where charges from within are impossible, and yet something absolutely must be done. A big pretend, but let’s do it, shall we? After all, we can put out of our minds the fact that seven members of the Louisiana Presbytery were able to file a complaint with the SJC, but somehow their ability to file charges from within the Presbytery was beyond their ken. Look, I am not asking you to believe it. Let’s just pretend that we are okay with how the SJC got this mess on their agenda.

See the above explanations detailing WHY and HOW no trial was able to be brought against Steve Wilkins from within LA Presbytery. Additionally, please note that Doug is speaking as though it is impossible for a Presbytery to act to screen a member they like or agree with from valid charges. The PCA’s own experience in the PCUS flatly contradicts this, that is precisely what happened again and again to thwart conservatives from dealing judicially with notorious liberals. BCO 34-1 and 40-5 were actually good rules generated by actual historical circumstances, namely a Presbytery consistently voting not to investigate a member clearly out of accord with the Standards, or if an investigation occurred, deciding again and again that there was nothing meriting a trial.

Now, given this, the questions I have been raising are basic, and Andy’s claim that the PCA has been moving at glacial speeds does nothing whatever to answer my concerns. Glacially slow injustice is still injustice. So here are my questions again.

Will Louisiana be charged with failure to indict Wilkins, or failure to convict Wilkins?

If the former, then a full trial for Wilkins, not Louisiana, will have to be held in some venue, and Wilkins will have to go into that trial with the full presumption of innocence, right? I am asking Andy here. Right?

To tell the truth Doug, at this point, I don’t know what the SJC will do in regards to Louisiana and Steve Wilkins. Personally, I am content that judicial action has finally begun to deal with a highly active and industrious proponent of a theology that both the PCA and OPC have overwhelmingly declared to be contrary to our Standards. My hope is that by this process God would be glorified, the purity of His church would be defended, and that ultimately the advocates of the FV would hear the church and abandon their attempts to promulgate an erroneous theology. I also hope that unlike so many denominations in the past when it came to discipline and who allowed error to thrive and grow by failing to cast it out, we will not grow weary in well doing, and would strive to continue until there are no longer ordained men teaching FV theology within the PCA. I hope that all the denominations that have condemned the FV will do likewise.

If the latter, if the charge is a failure to convict Wilkins, then how can this be sustained when Wilkins has not yet had his day in court? And when every setting where he has been able to answer questions (not in a trial setting) has been dismissed? So when will the SJC arrange for a trial for Wilkins, with the full presumption of innocence, so that they can then charge Louisiana with a failure to convict him?

It seems to me that two distinct issues have to be dealt with: 1) Louisiana’s decision not to indict Wilkins when his written materials clearly indicate that he is out of accord with core doctrines in the Confession (admittedly not to the satisfaction of the FV which alternately redefines the meaning of the Confession, declares their theology an improvement on the Confession, or declares the Confession out of accord with the teaching of scripture). 2) Then at some point, if he continues in maintaining the FV, Wilkins will have to be tried.

I will not attempt to speculate how the SJC will deal with these matters, but the “mess” you describe is the making of the FV and Louisiana, not the SJC or the PCA. The fact that we won’t tolerate the continued presence of serious theological error in our denomination is a good thing, even when dealing with it is difficult.

And last, as Louisiana comes to appear before the SJC, do they have the full presumption of innocence, and is the burden of proof on the prosecution? Does the prosecution have to demonstrate beyond the shadow of a doubt that Louisiana was negligent in their second interview of Wilkins? Or does Louisiana have to prove their innocence, as one member of the Commission (at least in part) thought?

These are basic questions, and Andy has given us a history lesson covering the whole saga. But he has not answered the questions. So, Andy, is Louisiana innocent before the SJC until the prosecution proves them guilty in open court? And are they judicially innocent of a charge of “failure to indict,” or are they judicially innocent of a charge of “failure to convict?” And if the latter, when will Wilkins have his trial? And does he have the presumption of innocence?

Or are you of the conviction that obviously guilty people shouldn’t have fair trials?

See above. LA was clearly found to be in error in not indicting Steve Wilkins given the overwhelming evidence of a serious departure from the Standards. That problem is being dealt with via our judicial process spelled out in the BCO. Trials should be as fair as they can be this side of the final judgment, I am reasonably sure that if it comes to a trial, Steve Wilkins will get a trial that is equitable and follows the BCO. But the FV doesn’t want any trial that concludes that one of their advocates is teaching a serious error, they want a trial that maintains their ability to go on teaching the FV or whatever the next theology is we begin “claiming” our FREEDOM! to teach. It’s interesting to me how the post-theonomic FV community is now screaming for their right to theological autonomy, a very popular and up-to-date American position.

When it comes to the FV, from the very beginning we’ve been hit with “so prove it’s an error” arguments, we’ve done that and they are never satisfied, all we hear is “doesn’t prove it” and then later “you’ve never proved it.” There is no court, no trial, no debate, no colloquium, no paper, no book, no sign we can perform that will ever meet their standard for proving the FV is an error. In that respect, the whole process reminds me of past dialogues with Roman Catholic apologists. There is a wall of infallibility that simply cannot be scaled.

Anyway Doug, since you asked me my opinions of fair trials, please allow me to ask a couple of questions about your opinions on the matter of church discipline:

1) Do you believe that not only church members but church officers have a right to scrupulously fair trials conducted strictly according to an established written procedure, including the ability to face their accusers, see and present their own evidence etc. before any sort of verdict is rendered or censure administered?

2) Do you believe that the judicial decisions of other denominations should be respected, particularly in regard to excommunication or deposition from office, and that the practice of receiving members or officers who are currently being tried is unsound?

Thanks in advance,

Andy Webb


Re: Response to Doug Wilson

Hi Andy:

I don’t know; our denomination has ruled his messed-up paradigm out of bounds. Do you really think that you need to dignify his idiocy with an answer anymore? To what end? It’s just throwing pearls before swine now.

It’s all just the same garbage over and over from those guys now. They’ve been marginalized, so old Doug feels that he doesn’t have a shot at the golden ring now. His chances of getting the “Reformer of the Year” are diminished somewhat, so he screams. So what? Did anyone expect anything else?

I certainly wouldn’t feel led to an exchange, but dear sir, you probably have more patience than I.

Have you set a limit on the exchange? This would be prudent, I think.

In Christ,

Dan Landis

Thank you.

Re: “Attack from Moscow”

I lifted this post from an exchange addressing the recent “Attack From Moscow” from the The Warfield List. I rejoice to see that the number of Christians who see through Wilson and his Kirk Klux Klan appears to grow everyday.

Hi Jeff,

I’m currently in NJ visiting with family and trying desperately to get the evening sermon finished before drive-time tomorrow, so technically I shouldn’t even be writing any non-essential email, but I did want to add a few quick comments.

For several years after I became Reformed, I was an avid reader of Doug Wilson’s books and Credenda Agenda. I particularly appreciated his and his wife’s books on marriage and family, and recommended them to others. I frequently got a good chuckle (usually at the expense of others) from his witty but acerbic letters and columns. In time, the chuckling became something I began to feel guilty about, and I became more and more concerned about the acid and the trajectory of his overall theology. In particular, his veneration of all things medieval began to really bug me, and even though I am an opponent of federalism and a fan of southern Presbyterian theology, the pro-slavery kick was much more than I could bear. The various public scandals and then private conversations with ex-Christ Kirkers were the icing on the cake (for documentary and audio evidence of what I’m referring to, please see dougsplotch). “Reformed” is Not Enough only serve to confirm my growing concerns. Today, I neither recommend his ministry or his writings to others.

I have no doubt that a minister in a connectional denomination that had effective oversight, review and control would have either been removed from his position or caused to resign a long time ago. Had not Wilson worked hard to ensure that he is functionally accountable only to himself, that might have already happened. Additionally, the current practice of growing the CREC by “crash landing” (to use another blogger’s apt phrase) churches from other denominations and ministers who have either been or are about to be or have been disciplined by their mother denominations is hardly a safe or advisable practice. Obviously it’s hard for a Reformed church to become cult-like, but sadly Christ Church has already accumulated many of the marks. Unfortunately, Jeff, your comments and the comments of others pointing out the obvious and growing problems with Wilson’s ministry and denomination will only garner you more “attacks from Moscow,” experience has shown that infallibility is merely one of many RC doctrines that Wilson has co-opted.

Anyway, I’m saddened by the recent beyond-the-pale lashing out at Mattes, but not surprised, there is much more where that came from, I just hope that this might precipitate the moment where we finally have the public equivalent of the McCarthy/Welch exchange. Mattes’ best response to Wilson’s libelous blog post might simply be Welch’s famous rejoinder, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

Your Servant in Christ,

Andy Webb


Hi Andy, all:

First off, I wanted to post a short (1:56) MP3 of an arrangement/orchestration of Bach’s Brandenburg No. 4 in G Major (up until the violin [or harpsichord, depending on which version one prefers] solo) I arranged to offer to the list for a happy Thanksgiving. I’m not sure how to this, or even if I have access to do so. I’ll take a shot at it, bit if you or anyone has sage wisdom as to how to do this before I descend into the time-consuming abyss of the Yahoo cyber-maze, I’d appreciate it. If anyone wants to request it, I’ll send it directly to you. I hope that you enjoy it.

But what you and Jeff write is not a surprise is it? For years now, it has been apparent that the FV really is just the Reformed equivalent of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Check out the parallels between the agenda of the main cult leaders and Wilson and you can get the flavor (Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults is great for background on these leaders). This is one small reason why, as helpful as the liberal model is in helping to understand the FV (particularly as it affects established conservative denominations), the cult model, with its ability to analyze integrating the post-modern theological syncretism (the FVaries demonstrate with no regard at all for systematic context), will inevitably be more helpful in understanding the error of the FVaries.

Wilson, I have heard, is absolutely irate about having his views marginalized. We can certainly expect more rants from him and his buddies. So far (until the series of reports condemning the FV from conservative denoms and seminaries), the FV existed being viewed by many as somewhat akin to an eccentric cousin within the Reformed family. Now, it is outed as simply a bastard son pretending to be THE heir, a self-deluded pretender to the throne. This is the fount from which the venom spews.

In Christ,

Dan Landis
Church of the Covenant OPC


I find it interesting that the response to Wilson is to attack and discount him rather than even attempt to deal in any serious way with the substance of his arguments. I thought his questioning of basic fairness and burden of proof were troubling and would welcome meaningful interaction with them rather than personal attacks and name-calling.

Jack Wilson
Covenant OPC
Pittsburgh


Hi Jack,

Sorry about the lateness of this reply, I have been incredibly busy of late.

Jack, what I wrote was not intended to be an ad hom against Wilson. I have nothing against the man personally. Rather it was intended to be an appeal to a wise maxim that your mentor R.C. Sproul long ago taught me when considering an assertion: “consider the source.”

As one of the primary promoters and publishers of the Federal Vision, Doug Wilson is hardly an unbiased observer of the current process of church discipline against FV advocates in the PCA, especially given the CREC’s “odd” (to put it very mildly) practice of church discipline and respect for the discipline of other denominations. Additionally, as the scorn liberally heaped on your own denomination’s report on the FV shows, the advocates of the FV have made clear that any action of any church court that condemns them or their theology will be attacked and vilified and the bona fides and intelligence of those who prepared it shredded. For instance, after the OPC report was released, we watched as the men who prepared it went from being scholars to disingenuous buffoons. Simply put, the only way the FV community will consider a report “fair” and the scholars who prepared it “wise” is if it approves of their theology, or at least doesn’t condemn it. So it really doesn’t matter what process is used by the courts of the church to discipline FV advocates, the very fact that the process is underway will always be “unfair” because there can never be merit in a case that attacks their orthodoxy. Under normal circumstances, when a doctrine is overwhelmingly condemned by every orthodox Reformed denomination and seminary that studies it and produces a report, you would expect that assertions that the study process is always unfair would begin to sound hollow even to those promulgating them, but instead we still hear all the time from the FV that the real problem is a “vast TR conspiracy” and not their own unscriptural and unconfessional (to use the declaration of the OPC report) theology.

But setting aside the source of the criticism for a moment, and the impossibility of there ever being a “fair” method of condemning their theology (theoretically, if they all condemned themselves, that might be considered fair) let’s try to lay out some broad outlines of the case against Wilkins with some background that seems to be frequently omitted, please keep in mind that the following is all from memory:

1. Steve Wilkins is a member of Louisiana Presbytery (hereafter LA Presbytery) a tiny Presbytery of 8 Churches with a great deal of theological affinity and considerable support for both the NPP and FV. For instance, Jeff Steel, former pastor of an LA Presbytery church, went on to become Father Jeffrey Steel and an assistant to N.T. Wright. Simply put, this is not a Presbytery where an attachment to the FV or NPP is considered odd.


2. Steve Wilkins own attachment to the FV is unquestionable. Before the FV was called the FV it was generally known as the “Auburn Avenue Theology” after Wilkins church which sponsored conferences promoting it. The name Federal Vision was coined by these advocates and used as the title of their manifesto, The Federal Vision printed by Athanasius Press, the publishing arm of Auburn Avenue PCA. Wilkins has an essay in this book.


3. Despite the size of the Presbytery attempts have been made to bring charges against Wilkins by members of the presbytery. These attempts have never produced a trial because the Presbytery has consistently refused to do so.


4. In January of 2005 Central Carolina PCA Presbytery wrote to LA Presbytery expressing their concerns with the published statements of Steve Wilkins and requesting that his views be formally examined. This was done by means of questioning Wilkins, and despite giving several answers that either contradicted or substantially revised the Westminster Standards, LA Presbytery determined there was nothing chargeable in Wilkins views.


5. Given that no action against Wilkins was available from within the LA Presbytery, several Presbyteries determined that it was time to use the BCO 34-1 clause, this clause presses the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction because a presbytery has refused to act in a doctrinal case or a case of scandal. (The clause was written into the BCO at the founding of the PCA because of memories of the old PCUS “rotten presbytery” problem were liberals became the majority in a particular presbytery and did whatever they wanted.) They include written evidence from Wilkins published writings showing where he was manifestly out of accord with the Standards. This attempt to use 34-1 failed because the SJC determined that the investigation by LA Presbytery met the requirement to “act” of 34-1.


6. Central Carolina Presbytery however, in its memorial to the General Assembly also memorialized the SJC (BCO 40-5) calling upon them to look into the actions of LA Presbytery regard Wilkins as matters of important delinquency and/or grossly unconstitutional proceedings. This call was taken up and the LA Presbytery was called to account for its actions in re: Steve Wilkins before the SJC.


7. The LA Presbytery defense of their actions was unsuccessful, and even the representative they sent expressed his own reservations in regard to the incongruities between Wilkin’s published statements and spoken testimony. The SJC determined that our memorial was in order, and that LA Presbytery had erred both in the methodology of their investigation and in their decision to exonerate TE Wilkins. The SJC then voted unanimously to redress the situation, instructing LA Presbytery to reinvestigate using the new guidelines they were given by February of 2007. The SJC decision on this point was unanimous.


8. LA Presbytery again examined and exonerated Steve Wilkins by a 13-8 vote in January of 2007. The following month 7 members of LA Presbytery filed a complaint (43-1) regarding the decision of LA Presbytery to exonerate Wilkins. This also went to the SJC.


9. In the meantime, the PCA in June of 2007 overwhelmingly condemned the FV theology at its GA by accepting a study report which judged it to be unscriptural and unconfessional just as the OPC, BPC, RPCUS, RCUS, etc. already had.


10. In October the SJC decision in favor of both the members of LA Presbytery who complained against the decision to exonerate AND the original Central Carolina memorial and have indicted LA Presbytery calling it to appear to explain its actions in this matter.

In short brother, this has been a long and by-the-book judicial dealing with a man who unquestionably holds to the FV — a doctrinal system that both your and my denomination have already overwhelmingly condemned in their published study reports. The idea that this is “unfair” can only be cogent if like most FV advocates you reject all processes that have condemned the FV and utterly reject the idea that the FV could ever be unorthodox. But to turn this GLACIAL, plodding, step-by-step, vote-by-vote, reaffirmation-by- overwhelming-reaffirmation process into some sort of modern day Council of Constance is just silly. (Not that it’s relevant but it strikes me that had the Roman Catholics been using this process during the Reformation, most of the martyrs would have died not at the stake but of old age.)

Your Servant in Christ,

Andy Webb

Andy Webb and Dan Landis, to you I wish to say,

Thank you.