Another Stacked Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

A Thousand More Words

A quick follow-up post to the previous 1000 words: I’ve already noted that during the summer 2003, serial paedophile Steven Sitler attended the Highlands Study Center and preyed on the lambs of RC Jr’s flock, and I noted that Sitler kept a photo archive of his victims on the worldwide web that he concealed from the authorities. I call these facts to your attention because Sitler took this photograph of RC Jr’s basement during his stay in Virginia.

I count six cases and one six pack of Corona, two sixers of Heineken, two sixers of Samuel Adams, two sixers of Ice, a sixer of Molson Ale, three sixers I can’t distinguish, and multiple empties. Now, I am not a teetotaler, but this strikes me as a bit much. Excessive or not, RC’s basement stash left a strong enough impression on 18-year-old Steven Sitler that he documented it on film. Sitler titled the pic “Bird_214,” but as far as I’m concerned it gives new meaning to The Basement Tapes.


Thank you.

Another New Website

Here’s a new website for you to peruse; it’s called Saint Peter Four, in honor of the four confessed and deposed felons of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, and it contains all of the primary documents regarding this scandal, set in chronological order.

Thank you.

1,000 Words

U P D A T E: archive.org has a real slow connection rate that tends to time out. If you don’t connect the first time, hit refresh and you’ll connect the second (I just checked it).

We’ve been preparing another fully documented anonymous attack blog to furnish the pertinent documentation regarding the St. Peter Four and came across this jpeg at archive.org. Someone from RC’s gang named the photo “RCBooze.jpg”; it’s dated May 27, 2002, which is roughly one year before serial pedophile Steven Sitler arrived in Virginia to prey; and it appears that they uploaded it to the Highlands Study Center website sometime in the middle of November 2006.

If a picture’s worth a thousand words, this one says it all.

Thank you.

“Let Them Alone”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.

R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ

I’ve been working on a rather large post for almost a week now and as it continued to grow, it occurred to me that my fully documented anonymous attack blog has not addressed the RPCGA’s defrocking of RC Sproul Jr and the St. Peter Four, which is important because I reference it in the post I’m drafting. I can’t imagine that anyone in the Reformed world hasn’t heard about this scandal, but I can imagine that not everyone has benefited from Patrick Poole’s keen analysis or from examining the primary documents.

So I asked Patrick for permission to republish this essay that he originally published on Existential Space but deleted after he Kut His Losses on the Kirk Kult. (Please note that Patrick Poole feels safer writing exposés of Islamic terrorists than he does analyzing the Fearless Leader’s brazen hypocrisy; if you do the math this means that in Patrick’s estimation, Wilson’s thugs are much more sinister than the jihadists living in his hometown. I’m sure this is because Wilson loves God so much.) Nevertheless, Patrick may have deleted his blog post, but not before I saved it. After all, I am an information hog.

Anyway, Patrick gave me permission to republish this and I urge you to read it keeping one thing in the back of your head: Douglas Wilson said, “I have known Mr. Poole to act with integrity in the past.”

Sunday, February 05, 2006
R.C. Sproul, Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ

Warning: If you’re not interested in presbyterian polity or keeping up with evangelical church news, come back later.

Preface: There are MANY who are saying that I don’t have the right to publish this article. Some are already writing thinly veiled screeds directing divine judgment at anyone having the audacity to make reasoned judgments from the well-established facts at issue here. “Touching the anointed of the Lord” kind of stuff. Even the Moscow Mullah, the Pasha of the Palouse, Doug Wilson himself publicly commented AFTER the RPCGA’s recent action to shout down any discussion about his friend R.C.’s defrocking. (Gee, Douggie, why can you publicly comment and none of us are allowed to do the same?) Some have also said that ecclesiastical charges should be issued against anyone making the following statements (a position rife with irony, as you will see as you continue to read). At least one individual was bragging earlier this week about having another blog closed down in retaliation for publishing the truth about this ongoing matter (which, thankfully, has reappeared). That’s the poisonous atmosphere that has been intentionally created in the wake of this situation. However, the stakes in this matter are not limited to discussing minuscule points of dogma or isolated to a Reformed micro-denomination. At this point, much is already a matter of public record, with all sides having their say. Thus far, at least to my knowledge, none of those self-appointed Reformed “superstars” who are aware of this situation have been willing to say anything publicly about it, presumably hedging their bets on how this whole affair plays out. Someone has to say, “We must stop this madness, or else it will kill us all.” It is a shame to the Church that it has to be left to someone as insignificant and unqualified in all senses as me to say it, but there it is.

As some observers are aware, on January 26th the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA) defrocked R.C. Sproul, Jr. and the entire session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church for a laundry list of violations not in dispute by either the presbytery or the defrocked men. Additional disputed charges are to be brought up for trial by the presbytery.

As you can read in the Moderator’s Declaratory Judgment (approved unanimously by the Westminster Presbytery), chief among the reasons for this action are abusive and unauthorized actions taken against members of the congregation, including refusing to allow the family to leave the church over doctrinal disputes, suspending them from the sacraments without trial, and ordering the entire congregation to “shun” the entire family (though only the husband and father was named in the session’s censure). R.C. and the session members all agreed that these actions took place and offered their “apologies” (which fell along the lines of “I’m so sorry your actions made be beat you. . .”). Additionally, several current and former church members gave written evidence to the same effect, including an apology letter sent to the targeted family from Rick Saenz, R.C.’s longtime and former personal assistant, admitting to not speaking out against the outrageous actions at the time they were occurring. St. Peter member (now former) Peter Kershaw should be applauded as well for being the first to denounce the treatment of the Austin family. You can read the entire documentary and evidentiary trail here.

These former church leaders have also admitted to illegally using the tax EID of another denomination as cover for the church and the Highlands Study Center, a violation of state and federal laws. Evidence has been given that this was deliberate and done at the direct instruction of R.C. himself. In light of this, the doctrinal differences between these former church leaders and the RPCGA noted in the Declaratory Judgment seem slight in comparison.

Again, this is all thus far undisputed and a matter of public record, with the written testimony of multiple witnesses and the confessions of the defrocked men themselves as witnesses against their abusive and illegal conduct.

All of the proceeding is not the cause of scandal to the body of Christ. This is biblical church discipline in process, and nothing unusual in that regard. If these men had shown repentance, it wouldn’t be right for me or anyone outside. What is scandalous is the behavior of these men subsequent to their defrocking. At this moment, there is a note posted on the website of St. Peter Presbyterian Church/Highlands Study Center that reads (UPDATE — the following quote has been removed from their website):

As many of you have read, Dr. Sproul Jr., along with the entire session of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, has heard from the moderator of the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly, that they have been deposed from their offices as elders in the church. This action was taken without a trial, indeed without even a conversation. We disagree with the action taken, and are considering our options as to how to respond. What we will not do is take shots against our accusers over the internet, and would encourage you not to do so, either. Please be patient, and please pray for the peace and purity of the church.

Now this is patently Clintonesque. They say that they won’t “take shots against our accusers over the internet.” Where is this posted? That’s right: on the Internet. And what do they say? “We’ve been wronged by these ecclesiastical fascists who didn’t even give us a trial!” Aren’t we all glad that they are refusing to say anything in their defense, especially over the Internet?

Now for the truth:

At this time, these men have been defrocked on the basis of their own testimony of their actions, confirmed by multiple witnesses. When a man pleads guilty, there is no trial. For those accusations that are disputed, and thus, still pending, a trial is being arranged by the presbytery.

They would have you believe that they are being railroaded by an out-of-control moderator (as evidenced by the attack on Westminster Presbytery Moderator Ken Talbot this week on WorldMagBlog [posts #37 and #38] by one of R.C.’s friends, David Zuniga), but in fact this action was approved in accordance with the RPCGA’s Book of Church Order, which as a member of their presbytery these men have submitted to. The Declaratory Judgment cites the relevant BCO language that allows for summary judgment when the facts are not in dispute.

It is also important to note that the entire Westminster Presbytery approved this action, and approved it unanimously. This is not the decision of a lone moderator.

The claim that this action was taken “without even a conversation” is entirely false. Ken Talbot examined this matter for almost two months, and the Declaratory Judgment even cites conversations between R.C. and the presbytery on this matter.

Another fact is that the Declaratory Judgment cites a December 15th email from R.C. to Ken Talbot asking for swift resolution of this matter:

It appears that at least three of our four elders cannot stay in the denomination. . . The particular hardship is this. We especially don’t want to leave with a cloud over our heads. Could you either, having let us go, hear the complaints against us, and issue a ruling, or barring that, could you forward all those complaints to where we end up? We have had much to repent of these past few weeks. We have done so. We are sorry in turn that our failures have caused trouble for you and the presbytery. (page 10)

The moral of the story? Be careful what you wish for.

The quote taken from R.C.’s email is quite telling. By this time, the investigation was in full swing, and it was only at this point that the “St. Peter Four” decided that they couldn’t stick around the RPCGA on the basis of their “convictions” of practicing paedo-communion — a practice strictly banned by the RPCGA since 1997. But when an investigation is launched on matters much more serious than their views on the Lord’s Supper, these cowards suddenly develop “convictions”? Remember that these men took vows before God and their fellow elders in presbytery to be in submission to the system and the judgments of the RPCGA. But using the canard of “convictions,” R.C. has asked that they either be tried only after they are allowed to leave the denomination, making any judgment by the RPCGA meaningless (because they will no longer have any jurisdiction), or allow some other as-yet unspecified denomination to examine the evidence (meaning that they might have to Catch R.c. Evacuating Christianity). But one thing is clear — they don’t want the RPCGA, the only authorized authority, doing the trial. How’s that for accountability? Maybe Doug Wilson will blog on that topic this week.

He thinks that having taken oaths and vows before God and men that he can leave the denomination without so much as a “by your leave”? Aren’t these the same Federal Vision “men without chests” who endlessly proclaim “the covenant, the covenant, the covenant of the Lord are these” over every minute detail of theology and beat anyone over the head who doesn’t agree with their interpretation of it? Covenants and vows apparently now mean nothing to R.C. and his Gang. This is pathetic in and of itself, but it gets worse.

Does anyone else but me see the sickening irony that R.C. is demanding for himself what he was ugly reluctant to give to others? The Austin family, who was the subject of malicious persecution by the ordained leaders of St. Peter, were refused when they requested to leave the church for their disagreements over paedo-communion and other doctrinal issues. What did R.C. and the Gang use as justification for their refusal to let the Austin family leave? Their membership vows. Another family states (cited in the Declaratory Judgment, p. 3):

Because of this we became more determined than ever to leave the church. R.C. and Laurence became just as determined that they were not going to let us go. They told us we had taken a vow to the Elders to stay in the church, and we could not leave unless they released us. They told us that we would never be able to join another reformed church if we were not in good standing with St. Peter and we would need their release for that to happen. (emphasis added)

From the documentary evidence available thus far, we can see that this refusal to let families leave the church was part of an abusive pattern. Furthermore, R.C. and the Gang made all members take vows beyond what was allowed by their denomination (point 5, pg. 7 of the Declaratory Judgment).

But that’s still not fully viewing how scandalous this affair truly is. One of the things at issue in the Austin’s de facto excommunication was that it was done without any trial whatsoever. At least Westminster Presbytery is willing to let these men go to trial for the matters that are in dispute, they having admitted to the substance of the charges laid out in the presbytery’s Declaratory Judgment. That notwithstanding, R.C. and the Gang are still complaining that they were not given a trial before they were defrocked. But when the shoe was on the other foot, they felt completely justified in acting without due process against the Austin family and others in violation of denominational rules.

At this point, if you still feel any pity for these reprobates, remember that the RPCGA is acting in accordance with their Book of Church Order, which the former leaders of St. Peter agreed to live by when they entered the RPCGA. No one put a gun to their head to make them join this denomination, and their rules were not treated as some kind of Masonic secret; their BCO is published on their website. Those who live by presbyterian polity can die by presbyterian polity.

As of this date, the previous statement that the church was part of the RPCGA has now been removed from the church’s website, making clear that these men are on the run. And they are looking for a safe haven. Time will tell where they might land, but at least one commentator, Tim Bayly, has provided this week a “hypothetical scenario” in which R.C. and the Gang could justifiably (sic) discuss moving their credentials to the CREC, where Douggie Wilson and his gang of drug dealers and illegal casino operators reside.

The scandal still keeps coming. R.C. has said that he is going to devote his time to the Highlands Study Center, which has historically been a ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church (even sharing the illegally obtained tax EID number). However, R.C. incorporated Highlands with the state of Virginia on January 10th (in the midst of the presbytery investigation), effectively stealing the ministry from the Church that he is not even a member of (ordained elders are members of the presbytery, not of the church they minister to). Whereas the St. Peter/Highlands website used to read that Highlands was “an integrated ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church,” that is no longer the case. It has been pilfered by R.C. and the Gang.

Make no mistake: these men are spiritual outlaws. No matter how much they want to hide behind their recently acquired “convictions” about the perils of presbyterian polity, they are autonomous religious renegades, and ought to be considered as such. Any ministry that planned to feature R.C. or any of his Gang as speakers at their events should withdraw the initiation immediately, and anyone previously invited to speak at future Highlands Study Center conferences should now decline to speak. Is this what I expect will happen? Not likely. These squibs are going to look for safe harbor, and my bet is that they’ll get it. Some wannabe Reformed micro-denomination would be glad to add R.C.’s name to their roster, regardless of the stench he drags behind him. Certainly there can be restoration with demonstrated repentance, and Lord willing, that will eventually occur. These men could even be restored to ministry at some future date. But as Westminster Presbytery has made clear, these men are currently unqualified and unfit to shepherd any flock:

The consistent pattern of actions taken by these men are duplicitous in nature, and demonstrate that they willingly and knowingly act in an arbitrary fashion in violation of their vows of ordination and in violation of our denomination’s Book of Church Order. Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1 Timothy 3:1–7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified. They have no interest to govern themselves appropriately within this presbyterian system of government that they vowed to submit and conform to its rules and regulations with conduct becoming ministers of Jesus Christ. (Declaratory Judgment, p. 11)

No one should be under any illusions. R.C. and his Gang of Thugs will try to paint this as nothing more than a difference over doctrine. They are “suffering servants” for the cause of paedo-communion (what a pathetic hill to die on!). But this is one of the clearest cases of spiritual abuse and reckless leadership the evangelical world has seen in a while (excepting Certain Reformed Evangelical Cults in Idaho). These men are in fact unqualified and unfit for office (and at this point, membership) in any church, and should be regarded and treated as such. The Westminster Presbytery should be applauded for the lawful defrocking of these petty tyrants. Their decisive removal from office in the face of overwhelming evidence is presbyterian polity at its best. Other Reformed denominations have had similar cases where they have refused to act. And the presbytery is lucky to have a man like Ken Talbot (who is both a theologian/churchman and an attorney) to oversee this matter. In light of the present conduct of R.C. and the Gang, hopefully further sanctions will be forthcoming. R.C. and the Gang are a direct threat to the purity of the body of Christ. Their mockery of the Reformed ecclesiology that they have publicly preached, but perverted in order to lord over others, will hopefully be put to an end. May this scandal be disassociated with the name of Christ.

POSTED BY PATRICK POOLE AT 11:01 AM

As I said, Patrick is an excellent analyst. Here are three other essays that he gave me permission to republish in the past; they are outstanding:

• “The Mendacious Mullah of Moscow”
• “Wilsonistas Gone Wild! ! ! !”
• “Kutting My Losses on the Kirk Kult”

Thank you

The Religious Shyster

Pastor Bordow posted another brilliant comment on GB that really nails it. Each paragraph broaches points that deserve entire posts. Please stop for a moment to contemplate these words:

That is why no matter how many churches DW splits, how many disciplined and defrocked pastors he unleashes on people, no matter how many individuals and families formally under his ministry cry out of the pain he causes. . .

Here is a man with a well-known and well-documented record of splitting churches, reinstating defrocked & disciplined pastors, providing cover for pastors fleeing discipline, and abusing sheep so much and with such skill that he wrote a “how to” manual on the subject, which he named after the blade of a knife — A Serrated Edge. And in a sick irony, he predicated his thesis for the book on a tortured interpretation of Galatians 5:12, the very epistle written to warn the Church against the Judaizers. I called it ironic because he is the Judaizer troubling the Church and by his sick standard he is the one who deserves to have his giblets sliced off. Despite these facts — and they are facts — the vast majority of the Christian church treats him as a brother in the faith. Frankly, I don’t know what more he could do to demonstrate any more clearly his utter contempt for the Christian church as an institution and for Christians in general as the people of God than what he has already done.

Here is Pastor Bordow’s comment in entirety:

Lane,

Sorry for the delay. I’m not sure if you are referring to me as a “wacko” — never been called that before! Look, the point is that we in the Reformed community are not immune to our superstitions, just like the Pentecostal or larger evangelical world, and that is what the attraction to DW, Jordan, Sproul Jr., etc., exposes.

Provide an alternative to the often poor education offered in the public schools — wonderful. But scare me into pulling my kids out of the public schools or receive God’s curses, and follow DW’s way of education and receive God’s blessings, that is simply peddling the Word of God for personal gain — no different than what we see Rod Parsley do on television every day (give to the kingdom out of love for Christ — wonderful; give to his station to receive God’s blessings — peddling the Word of God).

DW is all about finding ways to work to secure God’s blessings. How to secure faithful children through “covenantal” nurture, how to secure more of God’s grace by weekly communion and liturgical reform, how to secure God’s blessings on America if the Church only does A, B, and C, etc. . . .

We are not taken in by the Hinns, Olsteens, etc., and we are proud of it. But the prominence of DW types in the Reformed community reveals a similar lack of assurance in the gospel that we find in the broader evangelical community. That is why no matter how many churches DW splits, how many disciplined and defrocked pastors he unleashes on people, no matter how many individuals and families formally under his ministry cry out of the pain he causes, much of the Reformed world continues to treat him as a respected Reformed minister — why? — we are desperate for God’s blessings, weak in the all-sufficiency of the gospel to merit all of God’s blessings, and enticed by a system of blessings and curses based upon our own works.

DW is an old-fashioned religious shyster laughing all the way to the bank as we take him seriously, as we buy his books, etc. If you ever wonder how educated people could sit and listen to these televangelists and their incredible claims of how to secure God’s blessings on your finances, marriage, children, etc., go no further than looking in our own back yard. We are no better; we are no less tempted.

Happy Easter to all! — may you preach the all-sufficiency of Christ crucified and risen to merit all God’s eternal blessings (Eph. 1:3).

Todd Bordow

Thank you.

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.

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.