Violence to History

Our next post addresses the letter that Pastor Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, wrote to the Governor of the State of Idaho during the Southern Slavery scandal of 2003–2004. In the letter Wilson references a Daily News op-ed by Dr. Dale Graden, Professor of History at the University of Idaho, which is worth republishing here for three reasons:

1. First, between this column and the book review by Drs. Quinlan and Ramsey, you can see that the community was still piecing together the big picture surrounding Wilson and this op-ed specifically identified the community’s primary concerns relative to Wilson and the Kult at that time.


2. Second, the existence of the op-ed helps demonstrate the inflamed state of the community at that time. I have noted repeatedly that the Daily News kept the story front and center via headlines, editorials, and letters to the editor for about five straight months, and this op-ed is one more fully documented example of this historical fact.


3. Third, make careful note of this statement from Dr. Graden: “Efforts to have Mr. Wilson clear the record on his views about slavery, misogyny, and homosexuality have met with statements or denials that contradict the opinions clearly expressed in his extensive writings. In Wilson’s spin, the real issues have become obscured.” Does that sound familiar?

The Daily News ran this column on Saturday, December 27, 2003, which means that the News gave it a primo spot since they have no Sunday paper. A second thing you should notice about this column is that (according to my records) this was the first time that the News did not give the Kult (Wilson) a response column, which forced them to respond on their website (I shall not republish it because it has too many fabrications for me to correct).

Finally, a word about Dabney. Some of his writings make me cringe and I understand completely how he would send an academic community over the edge. There’s no escaping his racism and there’s no justification for it either. However high one may hold his Presbyterianism, he’s the farthest thing from an authority on race relations. To be sure, he’s living proof of the old Puritan’s maxim: “The best of men are still men at best.” When this controversy erupted a dear friend of mine, who is a trained historian as well, put it best, saying (I paraphrase from memory), “I understand that Dabney was a product of his culture; his environment engrained his racism into him, making it part and parcel of his theology. But this is 2003 — enough time has passed that everyone should know better.” Indeed. And the very education that Dabney withheld from an entire race of mankind should have enlightened some Southern boys to a biblical understanding of race relations. But this assumes certain people are educated. Moreover, since Wilson and Wilkins have jettisoned completely Dabney’s theology proper, they compel us to inquire exactly what it is that draws them to him.

Here is Dr. Graden’s column:

Coalition says conference undermines diversity
Members of the Moscow-Pullman community have recently raised important questions about pastor Douglas Wilson’s views on racial slavery, women, and violence against gays. In response, Mr. Wilson and some of his supporters have conducted an extensive media campaign to denounce these people as “secular humanists,” “Darwinists,” or “radical progressives” who are driven by “hatred for the historic Christian gospel.” Efforts to have Mr. Wilson clear the record on his views about slavery, misogyny, and homosexuality have met with statements or denials that contradict the opinions clearly expressed in his extensive writings. In Wilson’s spin, the real issues have become obscured. It is necessary that we place the facts before our community and explain our deep concern.

On Feb. 5–7, 2004, Credenda/Agenda’s “Ninth Annual History Conference” will be at the University of Idaho. The event is sponsored by Wilson’s congregation. Some of the featured speakers are:

• Steven Wilkins, co-founder of the League of the South, a group identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a neo-Confederate hate group. In our opinion, this group is dedicated to southern secession and racial separatism. It’s our understanding that, over the past decade, the neo-Confederate movement has recast the anti-civil rights agenda of hate groups like the KKK into religious terms.



• George Grant, of King’s Meadow Study Center in Tennessee. Grant is a major figure in the national Christian Reconstructionist movement, which seeks to subvert the U.S. constitution and replace it with a Christian theocracy. In his 1993 book Legislating Immorality (co-authored by Mark Horne), Grant advocates the death penalty for gays, saying “[t]here is no such option for homosexual offenses” except capital punishment (pp. 186–87).



• Douglas Wilson, pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho. Like Grant, Wilson is a national figure in the Reconstruction movement. He has been active in neo-Confederate networks since 1995. In 1996, he co-wrote (with Wilkins) a short booklet called Southern Slavery, As It Was. The book claims “[o]wning slaves is not an abomination” and alleges that African-American slave emancipation has led to “abortion, feminism, and sodomy” in today’s society (pp. 21, 11).



• Peter Leithart, a fellow at the New St. Andrews facility. In the conservative Weekly Standard (March 26, 2001), Leithart praised Holocaust denier and Reconstructionist J. Rousas Rushdoony as an “American original.” Rushdoony’s writings on the Holocaust and German casualties draw upon views expressed by Nazi collaborator Léon de Poncis and Holocaust denier David Irving. In the New York Review of Books, Joseph Lelyveld identifies Rushdoony as a “religious zealot and Holocaust denier” (June 12, 2003).

The centerpiece of the conference is Mr. Wilson’s talk on R.L. Dabney. Dabney was a marginal religious figure in the antebellum South who has been appropriated by the neo-Confederate and Reconstructionist movements. Dabney was a secessionist, proslavery apologist, and opponent of African-American education and interracial marriages.

We are concerned that this conference could negatively affect the general climate in our community. Several of the conference speakers, moreover, do not simply express intolerant views but actively issue “a call to arms” (in the words of George Grant) for their followers to put them into action. We are concerned because this type of hate speech has led to horror in our local past — most notably with Benjamin Matthew Williams, a Moscow resident and former UI student, who murdered a gay couple and burned three synagogues in northern California in 1999.

While the conference participants have the constitutional right to express their opinions, we feel we have an equal right to voice our disagreement. In so doing, we hope to raise community consciousness and promote a greater spirit of tolerance, diversity, and mutual respect within our community. In our view, the ideas expressed by Wilkins, Wilson, and Grant advocate intolerance, undermine diversity efforts, promote aggression based upon race, gender, and sexual orientation, and do violence to historical accuracy.

We invite you to join our efforts in promoting human rights, diversity, and true toleration in the Palouse.

Dale Graden is writing for the Equality Coalition. Those wishing additional information on these topics or interested in helping may visit the “Not on the Palouse” Web site at www.tomandrodna.com/notonthepalouse or the UI’s office of Diversity and Human Rights at www.webs.uidaho.edu/diversity.

I should note as a follow-up that the 2004 history conference was George Grant’s last appearance in Moscow. To my knowledge he has not stated publicly his reasons for this and I have no knowledge that it’s connected to this scandal, but I certainly couldn’t blame the man for wanting distance from both his past written record and this set of loons.

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.

Sister Booth

Sister Randy Booth, moderator of the CREC, has also issued a press release (here) regarding the CREC’s reception of renegade pastor Steven Wilkins, who fled his covenantal accountability to the PCA and found asylum with the covenant breakers of the CREC. Sister Booth’s statement is similar to Wilkins’ in that its author dwells in a fantasyland that licenses him to shift the blame for this controversy to pretty much everyone else while he ignores his responsibility for not bridling Beelzeblog. Oh, and he really desires peace for the Church.

This line is particularly hilarious:

In any controversy there are those who delight in exacerbating the situation and in fanning the flames with the fuel of vitriol. In such an inferno justice is not well served. Because the internet has provided both anonymity and amplification to any who want them, this tempest in our little teapot has been intense at points. Undoubtedly, both parties in this controversy have been ashamed by the conduct of some ostensible supporters.

Sister, you’re a real treat.

Thank you.

Wilkins’ Excuse

U P D A T E #2:
Former PCA Assistant Prosecutor Lane Keister has written some excellent thoughts regarding Wilkins’ excuses in a post titled “Wilkins’s Rationale”; here’s a keeper: “In any case, he can no longer bear the name of ‘Machen,’ since Machen faced his trial.” Off point, but somehow I just can’t see Machen in a rubber nose.

U P D A T E:
Sean Gerety has written a good critique of Wilkins’ excuse; he titled it “One More Bronx Cheer for the PCA.” His last line says it all: “it would have been nice if he had the dignity to leave without feeling the need to turn around and thumb his nose one last time.”

Steve Wilkins has published his reasons for leaving the PCA (here). It is full of blame-shifting and misrepresentations. If ever a man lived in a fantasyland and refused to take responsibility for his sins, Steven “Machen” Wilkins is that man.

The Day After

By now the whole world knows that after Louisiana Presbytery voted to hand Steve Wilkins to the SJC to face trial, Steve Wilkins fled his covenantal accountability to the PCA by resigning his membership while indictment was in process. Of course, the spinmeisters are quick to add that he resigned as a member in good standing, but that’s like saying RC Sproul Jr. resigned from the RPCGA as a member in good standing. Tax fraud notwithstanding. There’s nothing quite like a hypocrite who stands on the letter of the law in order to kill the spirit.

And no one was surprised that Wilkins found safe haven in the shark-infested waters of the CREC, a federation Congregationalists governed by all manner of thieves, thugs, felons, and outlaws. Wilkins should feel right at home. The big surprise, however, is that LAP voted to throw Wilkins overboard: “We will cover for you no longer, Bubba.” No one saw that one coming, but all the signs were there.

Kevin Johnson wrote a good piece called “Well, At Least They Didn’t Wait Until he had Been Defrocked”; I don’t agree with all of it but Kevin nails the blatant hypocrisy of these high-church buffoons:

The most astounding hypocrisy of this sort of sessional approach to church government is that while these men will endorse the flaunting of judicial action in the denominations of others such as the PCA, they will have no such flagrant violation of their own order in their own circles. Try disagreeing with an elder or session that’s made up its mind in a CREC church and see how far it gets you. Search their by-laws for the sort of protections that ought to afford a layman at the mercy of wicked elders. See if you can catch a CREC elder talking about how their own actions or opinions ought to be put under the scrutiny of the wider Church when a member dares to question their authority.

Yes, indeed. No one dare defy the holy decrees of the Fearless Leader or he shall visit you with fierce wrath and indignation.

I’m still analyzing this historic event; it should be ready soon enough. Until then, here are some excellent comments written by various brethren and posted on sundry websites. Please pay particular attention to the comments by David Gadbois and Andrew Sandlin.

GLW Johnson said,

The sin of sowing schism and division is going to haunt Doug Wilson and his fellow FVers in the CREC til their dying day.

David Gadbois said . . .

If the news (which no one can seem to confirm) is true, and AAPC is leaving the PCA, please do remember this little gem from some time back:

“Perhaps the goal has just been to “make things hot” for Steve, so that he voluntarily leaves the PCA. Then they could explain the heresy in detail to various bought-and-paid-for crowds, with no theological debate necessary, and no robust interchanges in the Q&A. The problem is that Steve is a churchman, and has no plans to make it easy for them by acting the part of a radical individualist. He is going to make them prove what they are saying, and this will prove awkward for them because they can’t. If they could, they would be the ones eager for debate, right?” (“More On Louisiana Presbytery”)

CIB said . . .

Oh my, well, that is just too rich. Tsar Wilson make this comment. One year later, Ol’ “Machen” Wilkins acts the part of a radical individualist & brings his church along with him, with full blessings from the Tsar himself. Not that is hasn’t been seen before. This is the M.O. the Federal Vision. They play the part of the high churchman condemning the baptistic masses, then retreat to the “me and my Bible” mentality when their claims about the Reformed tradition don’t bear out.

Anonymous8 said . . .

I guess then my first post above is a misreading of the Federal Vision character.

Their battle call seems to be: “Run away! Run away!!!”

Mark T. said . . .

Check this out:

“American Christians only know one method of fighting, which is to divide and run off to yet another splinter denomination, the presbytery of the True Flame. This, to use the military parlance, is called retreating. Moderates fraternize with evil covenant members and call it unity. A better term would be betrayal. Conservatives run from evil covenant members and call it purity. A better term would be rout.” (Douglas Wilson, “Judas Was A Bishop,” Credenda Agenda, Volume 13, Issue 2)

P. Andrew Sandlin said . . .

Kevin, kudos to you for a courageous, accurate post. The CREC will continue to become a theological leper colony to the extent that it becomes identified with the Federal Division, which has, rightly or wrongly, been anathematized by a large segment of the American Reformed world. There will be no disciplinary action for those who march in lockstep to the CREC’s theological eccentricities, only for those who wish to assert confessionally and constitutionally legitimate diversity but who object to certain quirky distinctives that increasingly make the denomination the butt of Reformed jokes.

Vern Crisler said,

Hmm, the FV types are always lecturing everyone about submission to the authority of the local visible church, and failure to do so results in damnation. This follows from their raging externalism.

But how do they reconcile this with their actions? Why are they always trumpeting church authority, and submission to the elders, and staying on the vine, etc., but do so from small, obscure denominations? And when they are subject to church discipline in large denominations, the first thing they do is bolt, and take up residence in the same small obscure denominations.

That’s pretty much what happened with the Tyler church back in the early ’80s. It bolted from its denomination when under discipline, then became more high-church and authoritarian under an early version of the Fascist-Vision.

Jordan accuses Presbyterian denominations of being sects, but who has ever heard of Jordan’s new denomination? If the PCA is micro-presbyterian, what are the FV denominations?

It’s sad to see history repeating itself, but when people start denigrating the Reformed faith — as the FV people do — pretty soon they’re on their way to prelacy and beyond.

GLW Johnson said,

Christopher #28

You think the pendulum is swinging and that momentum is on your side?

Actually, what you will discover is just the opposite. The CREC will pay a high price for it’s rogue behaviour. Wilkins’ actions in leading AAPC out of the PCA and into the CREC are not the first of its kind, and mark my words, this ‘raid’ has not gone unnoticed by other Reformed denominations. So smile while you have the opportunity, but you won’t be smiling for long — schismatics always end up out in the cold at the end of the day.

Andy Webb said . . .

What we are in fact seeing is the growth of the CREC as a specifically FV denomination via the division of existing Reformed denominations. Via conferences, books, blogs, and unfortunately in at least two of our seminaries, they mold future CREC pastors who then enter existing non-FV denominations and end up “crash-landing” the particular congregations they go on to Pastor in the CREC. Few, if any, denominations in history have had such a high percentage of pastors who have been deposed from such a wide variety of other orthodox denominations, or who left their original denomination under threat of trial. At this point, their church growth model seems to be almost entirely based on splitting or engulfing existing congregations via FV theology.

And it’s only going to get worse.

Thank you.

LAP

LAP has answered the PCA’s indictment by pleading “not guilty” to count 1 and “guilty” to count 2. Details at Green Bagginses.

Charges and Specifications

1. Louisiana Presbytery has failed to understand properly (and appropriately act upon) what it means to have a “difference” with the Constitution (BCO 21-4 and 21-5 and RAO 16-3(e)(5)), and in the application of the meaning of “difference” in the examination of a presbytery member’s views. For instance, Louisiana Presbytery’s own record of TE Wilkins’s statements establish that TE Wilkins did, at the very least, have numerous and potentially significant semantic differences with the Constitution. (Record of the Case [hereafter “RoC”] 2007-8, pg. 205–206) Further, Louisiana Presbytery demonstrates its failure to exercise these duties by stating, “Thus far, no one has brought forth evidence demonstrating that TE Wilkins has actively denied the system of doctrine” (RoC 2007-8, pg. 187, emphasis added). As the Standing Judicial Commission has ruled, inconsistency with the Confessional Standards is not limited to explicit denial, but may also include formulations that subvert by less explicit means.




Louisiana Presbytery was required to investigate these differences and classify them under RAO 16-3(e)(5). Louisiana Presbytery failed to comply with this requirement.

Louisiana Presbytery should have gone beyond TE Wilkins’s assertions that he did not take exceptions to the Confessional Standards (other than those delineated), that he did not consider his views as being out of accord with the Confessional Standards, that he affirmed the Confessional Standards, and that he did not deny or contradict the Confessional Standards. A fair and impartial court should have recorded and classified all of TE Wilkins’s differences. It was the duty of Louisiana Presbytery to determine what the differences with the Confessional Standards were; and whether the differences were merely semantic, more than semantic (but not out of accord with the fundamentals of our system of doctrine), out of accord and hostile to our system of doctrine or striking at the vitals of religion (BCO 21-4, 21-5, RAO 16-3(e)(5)), all of which determinations Louisiana Presbytery has failed to make.



2. Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution, and thus was derelict in its duty under BCO 13-9, 40-4, and 40-5, and has thereby caused much unresolved pastoral confusion and harm.
   
   

   TE Wilkins’s views, as articulated in the Record of the Case in 2007-8 and in the following examples, clearly constitute a strong presumption of guilt that his views are out of accord with the Constitution and require a fair and impartial court to proceed to trial. (PCA Indictment of LAP)

Cajonroos

I get a lot of comments that I ignore — both from monkey boys and alleged friends. This comment, however, written by one Wesley Simms, is difficult to ignore for three reasons: First, the syntax and style betray an educated writer. Second, the content indicates inside knowledge. And third, I have spoken with several survivors of Steve Wilkins’ ministry who have borne witness to the authoritarianism that dominates his church and all of them, at one time or another, used this line: “The Elders hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.”

If anyone can confirm the accuracy of this comment, I am interested to know if it’s true. As always, I will protect your anonymity on my fully documented anonymous attack blog.

Wesley Sims said . . .

It is only fitting that the Louisiana Presbytery should be charged; they have served as Wilkins’ henchmen and have worked his will in Louisiana for years. They have served as both his personal shield and club long before the Federal Vision controversy erupted. Wilkins and the La. Presbytery took over a church in the Shreveport/Bossier area years ago. They came in and started excommunicating the leaders first, then the members. Older people were running out of the proceedings wailing and crying. When Wilkins and his bunch were through, they controlled the property. One elderly woman came up to one of the genteel La. Presbyters who was present and cried, “Help me! Help me, please!” He said, “I can’t.” They took these peoples’ church and threw them all out. The PCA’s indictment is far too late, in my opinion. I asked one of the La. Presbyters, who sympathized with the many who were excommunicated in La., what would happen to those people. He said, “They can go join a Baptist church somewhere. They’ll never find out.” I told him, “But they’ve been excommunicated. God knows, even if the Baptists don’t. The Elders hold the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. What will happen to their souls?” He said, “I don’t know.” TE James Jones and others went along with all this through these many years. They have now deemed it “safe” (or expedient) to switch sides. They are no better than the rest. There were many excommunications. Someone said there were more excommunications in Louisiana during a five year period than there had been in the PCA since it was founded. That is how they established rule, with the threat of blitzkrieg church takeovers and excommunications. When asked why they excommunicated people so often, they said they did this to reclaim lost souls. When asked how many they had reclaimed, they could not name one.

Wilkins and his de-evangelists have used the kangaroo courts of the Louisiana Presbytery to run roughshod over anyone who dared question them. They are madmen, drunk on power. Jesus told His disciples that they would know a tree by its fruit. You don’t have to come sit under this tree to see what it bears; the landscape is littered with wrecked souls and wrecked lives: theirs is the opposite of The Great Commission.

The PCA has known about the wreckage of damaged lives and souls that Wilkins has left in his wake for over a decade. What is now known as the “Federal Vision” has been the standard fare in many Louisiana churches since the early ’90s. Wilkins preached in the early ’90s that the authors of the Westminster Confession of Faith were wrong and he was going to get the WCF changed. He even suggested many times, in the pulpit, that he might be charged by the PCA! Now he claims he is orthodox and his “nuanced” teachings are “misunderstood,” but deep down he’s got to be wondering, “Where have you been? What’s taken you so long?” This, he believes, is his destiny. He’s been waiting for this a long time. If the PCA prevails (and it’s not over yet by a long shot), theirs will be a Pyrrhic victory. Wilkins and the long line of de-evangelists who have spread out like cancer from the Louisiana Presbytery have made sure of that. The Art of War is right at home beside the works of R.L. Dabney on their bookshelves. They have not studied it in vain.

Thank you.

Theonomic Plagiarist

From P&R News, Volume 6 Number 2, March—April 2000, page 7:

Steve Wilkins: “Is theonomy Reformed? Of course it is, or why would I embrace it? That’s the pro hominen argument.” * * * * Speaking of contemporary civil magistrates: “They are very good at regulating the price of milk, and what should go on a pizza, but they can’t catch a thief and they don’t know what to do with him if they do.”

Two questions:

1. If theonomy is Reformed and “Reformed” is not enough, then is “theonomy” enough? Okay, bad question. Let’s try another:


2. If the civil magistrate can’t catch a thief and wouldn’t know what to do with him if they did catch him, then what should a theonomic presbytery do with a plagiarist in their ranks?
   

Of course, I ask my second question with the assumption that plagiarism is theft.

Thank you.

Chapter Two

I don’t want anyone to think that success has gone to my head after WORLD Magazine reported the stunning revelations disclosed on my anonymous attack blog Fœdero Plagiary. Far from it. Therefore, today we shall resume our series on the literary theft of the first Federal Vision martyr, Steven “Machen” Wilkins, as we consider chapter 2 of his book Call of Duty: the Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee.

The keen observer will notice that this chapter does not have as much yellow highlight smothering its pages, but this is for two reasons. First, I’m too lazy to go to WSU and check out a book and, second, I had a mini-graphic-artist rebellion. So you will see two full pages without highlighted text — the first, page 40, I’m sure Wilkins plagiarized from the book Presbyterians in the South by Ernest Trice Thompson, because he devoted the whole page to the religious history of Lee’s hometown and he stuck a footnote at the bottom of the page, which is a sure sign that he plagiarized most of the text. The second is page 43, which has lots of little phrases pinched from Freeman’s R.E. Lee, but my graphic artist refuses to nickel and dime his time and my bandwidth. Consequently, you’ll have to make do with these few morsels of cherry-picked words, straight from that noble martyr of Federal Visionism — Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Check out Fœdero Plagiary.

Post Script: I just love the words “toddling about” on the last page of the chapter.

Thank you.

“the central importance of church discipline”

In 1998 the CREC held its “first annual” convention of confederates. And true to form, this band of independent churches bound by a constitution that has no mechanism to hold its members accountable called themselves a “presbytery.” Anyway, according to the minutes Steven “Machen” Wilkins attended this meeting as a visiting delegate:

Exhortation by Steve Wilkins
Patch introduced Steve Wilkins, pastor of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. Steve exhorted the presbytery to be a church which is faithful to her calling, acknowledges her sin, preaches with authority, is openly Reformed, seeks biblical, tangible unity, holds to orthodoxy with thankfulness, understands the central importance of church discipline, and is traditional without being traditionalistic. (Minutes, Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals, First Annual Presbytery, January 30, 1998, page 2)

Maybe it’s just me, but this exhortation strikes me as ironic.

Thank you.

Move Over DaFedSez

From the WorldMagBlog:

BY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS 12.08.07 AT 9:43 PM

There is of course an elegant solution to the problem. Cumberland House could simply reissue the book as:

LEE
by Douglas S. Freeman
Edited and Abridged by J. Steven Wilkins

Voila! Problem solved.

Thank you.

Ethically and Morally

From the Biblical Horizons “members only” email list:

May 29, 2003
The Bunny wrote:

Men,

I’m reading through William H. Willimon’s new book Pastor: The Theology and Practice of Ordained Ministry (Abingdon, 2002). So for it’s okay. But I’m repeatedly irked by positive references to all sorts of quasi-orthodox “pastors.” Martin Luther King, Jr., for example. What to do with the guy? I have a hard time taking him seriously. Isn’t there something to the accusations of womanizing and plagiarism (for his doctorate)? Are there any good sources for learning more about him?

PB

check out Ralph Abernathy’s The Walls Came Tumbling Down for confirmation of King’s promiscuity (Abernathy is an honorable man and a Christian, he admired King very much but acknowledged what everyone around him knew. His womanizing was well known among his entourage)

Theodore Pappas is the one who did the work exposing the details on King’s doctorate, his articles first appeared in Chronicles magazine (they may be in the archives on the Chronicles web site). Pappas’ findings have not been refuted though Boston University did try to justify its action in granting the doctorate in light of the revelations.

Whatever you may think of his politics, M.L. King was a mess ethically and morally.

sw [Steve Wilkins]

Steve Wilkins, call your office.

Thank you.

George Orwell, call your office.

“If you want to read an indictment of American academia, as if you needed one, then I recommend Plagiarism and the Culture War. In it, Theodore Pappas documents the wholesale plagiarism committed by Martin Luther King, Jr. in his doctoral work, not to mention the varied and wondrous contortions of the academic establishment as they sought to studiously ignore this indisputable fact. Of course, this particular instance is not the sum and substance of modern academic corruption, but it does provide a wonderful example of how it all works. If you are in any doubt about how advanced our public corruption is, just write a letter to your local paper on how MLK was a plagiarist, and see what happens. Suddenly, mirabile dictu, people like you who believe that a man should be judged by the content of his character and not by the color of his skin will be branded . . . racists. George Orwell, call your office.” (Douglas Wilson, Credenda Agenda, 11-1)

To the Editor

After WORLD Magazine covered the original story of Wilson’s and Wilkins’ co-plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was, Steve Wilkins wrote this letter to the editor:

WORLD’s brief notice regarding “Slavery as It Was” inaccurately stated that sections of the booklet were “stolen.” The portions that were labeled “plagiarism” came straight from my lecture notes which were not referenced and I neglected to go through them carefully and reference them properly before submitting them for inclusion in the booklet. There was never any intent to “steal” anything or deceive anyone, however. I always made plain in lectures that this material was drawn from Time on the Cross and was not my own. Though it may be acceptable to note this orally, it is inappropriate and inexcusable not to make plain your sources when you publish material. Since I did not do this, I deserve all the blame for this sloppy, inexcusable, and unjustifiable action. My negligence is culpable but it was not thievery — and none of this was Doug Wilson’s fault. As far as this story is concerned, the blame is all mine.

— Steve Wilkins; Monroe, La.

Thank you.

Plagiarism Defined

I find it interesting that no one from the Federal Vision camp has stepped forward to defend Steven “Machen” Wilkins. Nevertheless, some might find it helpful to consider the definition of “plagiarism” as defined by his alma maters. According to Auburn Avenue’s website,

Steve Wilkins holds a Bachelor of Science degree (in Pre-Law) from the University of Alabama and a Masters of Divinity from the Reformed Theological Seminary of Jackson, Mississippi. He has been an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church in America since 1976.

The “Code of Academic Conduct” for the University of Alabama states:

Plagiarism

The Code of Academic Conduct in the University of Alabama Undergraduate Catalog defines plagiarism and other acts of academic dishonesty as follows:

• Plagiarism: representing the words, data, works, ideas, computer programs or output, or anything not generated in an authorized fashion, as one’s own

• Cheating: using or attempting to use unauthorized materials, information, study aids, or computer-related information

• Fabrication: presenting as genuine any invented or falsified citation or material

• Misrepresentation: falsifying, altering, or misstating the contents of documents or other materials related to academic matters, including schedules, prerequisites, and transcripts.

Although authors occasionally indulge in plagiarism intentionally, most often writers plagiarize unintentionally. Many do not realize that indirect quotations, which result from paraphrasing and summarizing material, also require acknowledgment of the author and the source of the idea.

A direct quotation of an author’s exact words is the only footnoted material that requires the use of quotation marks, but both direct and indirect quotations must be footnoted. Any idea or statement that is not the author’s own must be documented.

Remember — the following require the use of a citation:

• Any material directly quoted from another’s work

• Any information that is summarized or paraphrased

• Any idea derived from a known source

• Any fact or data that is not common knowledge and is borrowed from another’s work

Material that is common or general knowledge does not have to be footnoted, unless the wording is taken directly from a particular source. A general rule is that if a fact can be found in five or more sources, it is considered to be common knowledge and does not have to be documented.

Anthony C. Winkler

And the Student Handbook for Reformed Theological Seminary states,

Plagiarism. Research papers require borrowing other people’s ideas and words. However, the source of such borrowing must be acknowledged properly. If the source is not acknowledged properly, your work is plagiarism. At issue is your academic honesty.

1. The MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers says “to plagiarize is to give the impression that you have written or thought something that you have in fact borrowed from someone else.”


2. Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines plagiarize as “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own; use (a created production) without crediting the source; to commit literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.”
   

Plagiarism includes word-for-word copying, lifting terms, restatement of someone’s argument or line of thought, copying what the writer of Ten Steps in Writing the Research Paper calls “perfect phrases” — all without acknowledgment of source. Plagiarism also includes giving a source partial credit when more is taken from that source than indicated and quoting or paraphrasing in patchwork fashion. . . .

Plagiarism, whether intentional or unintentional, is considered academic theft. When discovered, it results in loss of reputation or position and other punishments. The academic consequences of plagiarism at RTS are as follows:

1. First offense: The student must rewrite the paper and receive no better than a passing “D” grade for it.
2. Second offense: The student fails the entire course.

I invite Mr. Wilkins to utilize his pre-law degree and defend himself.

Thank you.

Anonymous Attack Blog Makes WORLD!

WORLD on the web, the WORLD Magazine blog, has picked up the Steve Wilkins’ plagiarism story, reporting it in a piece titled “New/old plagiarism scandal.” Hmmm, I wonder what principle of justice WORLD violated. Perhaps Bhagwan Shree Wilsoneesh could inform us.

Thank you.

Fully Documented Anonymous Attack

Continuing our fully documented anonymous attack against Steven “Machen” Wilkins’ plagiarism, we proceed to the next chapter of his book Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee, which he titled “Birth and Lineage” but could have just as well called “Lineage and Boyhood” because he took the vast majority of his text from a chapter of the same name from the book The Life and Letters of Robert E. Lee, by William Jones. To be sure, ol’ “Machen” Wilkins stuck to Williams’ blueprint with little variation, except that he garnished his text with words taken directly from R. E. Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman, who won the Pulitzer Prize for his work in 1935. Of course, the wag in me wonders if we should nominate Steven “Machen” Wilkins for a Pulitzer Prize in plagiarism; perhaps Pastor Wilson could offer his opinion (we know you’re watching, Doug). Wilkins also relied on A.L. Long’s Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, which we fully document on our sister site Fœdero Plagiary as well. Give it a look.

Thank you.

Fœdero Plagiary

With a lot of help from my friends, I now have a sister site called Fœdero Plagiary, which is dedicated to the plagiarism of Federal Vision martyr Steven “Machen” Wilkins, who did not limit his literary theft to the booklet Southern Slavery As It Was (1996).

Now, blogging on this particular subject is a huge undertaking because of the heavy graphics and massive bandwidth involved. But I have the finest graphic artist in the area who has committed a couple of hours a week to helping expose the fraud — and as you will see the amount of fraud is staggering, because ol’ “Machen” Wilkins struggled getting through a single page of his books without lifting large blocks of text from other men’s works.

And if I may take from Beelzeblog’s words, “But I can assure you that it will not occur without a running color commentary from me. After Steven “Machen” Wilkins steals his text, we are all going to watch the replay a hundred times, including the tape of Beelzeblog condemning the sin of plagiarism, and I am going to be John Madden, drawing x’s and o’s all over that thing. And I will have some particularly ripe comments to go with it. It is a subject worthy of my peculiar talents.”

For tonight, however, suffice to say that in 1997 George Grant of Cumberland House Publishing, Inc., commissioned Steven Wilkins to write a biography of Robert E. Lee. Wilkins titled his book Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee; however, he borrowed more words than he wrote, to put it nicely.

Our premier post is taken entirely from Wilkins’ opening chapter — “Prologue” — and as you will see it establishes the pattern for the rest of the book. In this chapter Wilkins took from Lee: The Last Years, by Charles Bracelen Flood (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1981) and Personal Reminiscences of General Robert E. Lee by J. William Jones (New York: D. Appleton, 1875), but by no means did he limit himself to these two resources.

Indeed, as we scan the book one page at a time, you will see that Wilkins took large chunks from R. E. Lee (Douglas Freeman, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1935), which won the Pulitzer Prize. But the bottom line is that Wilkins essentially plagiarized the whole thing. How “noble” of him.

Thank you.


PS: If DaFedSez is still out there, I invite you to apply your peculiar talent to this subject as well.

More PINS

Here’s Presbyterian & Reformed News’ follow-up article to this one and, as before, ironies abound. I’ll simply note two: First, just a three years after this meeting, Drs. Morton Smith and Joseph Pipa participated in the Auburn Avenue Colloquium, contributing chapters to the “cons” side of the debate in Auburn Avenue Theology, Pros and Cons: Debating the Federal Vision. And second, given its current trajectory, it appears that no one can accuse the PCA of “displaying a blatant lack of church discipline.” From the September–October 2000 issue of P & R News:

Louisiana Presbytery Considers the State of the PCA
Pineville, Louisiana (August 12, 2000). Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) held a special meeting today to consider the state of the denomination. The meeting was in response to an overture from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisiana, whose Session has become increasingly alarmed about the direction of the PCA.

The purpose of the meeting was simply discussion and the airing of perspectives, with no action to be taken. The two keynote speakers were the Rev. Dr. Morton H. Smith, current Moderator of the PCA General Assembly and the original Stated Clerk; and the Rev. Dr. Joseph Pipa, President of Greenville (S.C.) Presbyterian Theological Seminary.

Dr. Smith’s presentation, “How Did We Get Where We Are?” gave an overview of American Presbyterian history. He began with a reading of Ezekiel 37:15–28, and applied the passage, which deals with false shepherds of the flock.

The veteran churchman, who is Dean of Faculty at Greenville Seminary, also made reference to Thomas McCrie, the late eighteenth-century Scotsman who argued that church division results in great punishment by God prior to any re-unification.

Unlike some scholars, Dr. Smith draws a sharp distinction between the Old Side/New Side division of 1741, and the Old School/New School division almost a century later. The former, he believes, was over methodology, as well as an evangelistic concern for a converted ministry — a concern which he and others in the Southern Presbyterian tradition share. On the other hand, the 1837 division was definitely doctrinally driven, with the New School being open to various non-Reformed views of salvation.

Dr. Smith noted that although the Southern Presbyterian Church in 1900 was basically sound and committed to Old School principles, a determined thirty-year effort by Ernest Trice Thompson, beginning in the 1930s, to liberalize the denomination succeeded.

Dr. Pipa’s topic was “When Is It Appropriate to Leave?” Using the standard three marks of the church, he stated that a true church can become an apostate church if it denies foundational truths, does not properly administer the sacraments, or displays a blatant lack of church discipline.

President Pipa also maintained that there may be two other occasions when it is appropriate to leave a church, even if it is not apostate. One is if staying would cause a person to sin. (Dr. Pipa applied this point by saying that if presbyteries successfully kept out a man holding to the calendar-day view of creation, “It would be time to leave.”) The other is if a church was hindering edification, faith, and love.

Citing the English Puritans as examples, Dr. Pipa urged patience in the reform of the church. He also encouraged reform from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. Grass roots reform, he suggested, consists of using the pulpit, the press, and personal influence.

After lunch, there was a question and answer time with both men. Following that, the presbyters who had gathered discussed the matter. Well over 50 people were in attendance, including men from at least five other presbyteries. The official church press was present, as the Rev. Don Clements represented PCANEWS.COM.

Tapes of the addresses are available. Those interested may send $10.00 to Louisiana Presbytery, c/o the Rev. Dr. Jim Jones, Stated Clerk, 1605 Melvin Lane, Lake Charles, LA 70605.

Serious Doctrinal Departures

Here’s an article from Presbyterian & Reformed News about Louisiana Presbytery. Seven years ago they started entertaining thoughts of leaving the PCA because it “has begun tolerating serious doctrinal departures from the truth of Scripture as contained in its constitutional Reformed standards.” Steve Wilkins led the charge. “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall” (1 Cor 10:12).

Louisiana Schedules Discussion Regarding ‘Serious Doctrinal Departure’ in PCA
Agenda Will Sound Themes of Separation and Reform
Louisiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), at its stated meeting on January 15, 2000, voted to schedule a discussion regarding “serious doctrinal departure” by the denomination. The discussion has been set for July 15, 2000, in a special meeting which will be held in lieu of the regular summer stated meeting.

Sparking the unusual move was an overture from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisiana, pastored by noted author and Southern scholar Steve Wilkins. The Auburn Avenue proposal not only alleges doctrinal infidelity by the PCA; it also claims that “there is little prospect, humanly speaking, of this troublesome drift away from our standards reversing itself.” The solution proposed by the Monroe congregation was that of discussion of these matters in the congregations of the Presbytery, with a very real prospect of “peaceably withdrawing from the PCA as a presbytery in order that we might continue to serve the Lord in fidelity to His Word” [italics in the original — Ed.].

The Presbytery, however, was not willing to go quite that far. Instead, it modified the overture by eliminating the wording concerning ecclesiastical withdrawal and resolved rather that a special meeting of presbytery be called simply “to discuss these issues.” The Christian Education Committee was directed “to invite speakers to present papers on these issues of Biblical separation and Reform at the called meeting using the funds of Presbytery.”

Forming the basis of the Auburn Avenue overture are the assertions that “the Word of God is truth, and denominational unity must be founded upon truth” and that “the historic marks of the church are the faithful preaching of the Word of God, the faithful administration of the sacraments, and the faithful exercise of church discipline.” Next is a reminder that the PCA, which was formed less than thirty years ago, at its birth “declared to the churches its fidelity to the Scriptures and commitment to the Reformed faith.”

After that is the assertion that the PCA “has begun tolerating serious doctrinal departures from the truth of Scripture as contained in its constitutional Reformed standards; specifically on the issues of creation, the Apostolic gifts and the role of women in the church, which errors will inevitably lead to others.”

Singled out for criticism are “seminaries considered Reformed by many” which “tolerate doctrinal teaching on these issues which are contrary to the Reformed faith and are sending forth candidates for the ministry who have been indoctrinated with these erroneous perspectives.”

Furthermore, the overture declares that “the PCA is increasingly becoming controlled by its committees and agencies with little meaningful oversight from the General Assembly and presbyters, which is creating a dangerous centralization of power and bureaucracy contrary to true, historic principles of presbyterianism.”

Moreover, “there is a growing tendency in the PCA to view missions from a modernistic, church growth perspective and an increasing tendency to tolerate and engage in activities in worship and evangelism, which are more man-centered than God-honoring.”

The overture observes that “there is strong evidence of an increasing antipathy by those in positions of authority in the PCA to those who have more traditional, Reformed views.” The document claims that “private and public efforts have been made for numerous years to address and correct the aforementioned concerns with no discernible success.”

The overture notes that “any church may constitutionally withdraw from the PCA by a majority vote of its congregation at any time it wished for reasons deemed sufficient by it (BCO 25-11).” It also states that the Auburn Avenue Session had, in six separate meetings, presented to the congregation a tentative plan “concerning the willingness of the Session for [the church] to peaceably and with animosity toward none withdraw from the PCA under certain conditions, which tentative plan was overwhelmingly approved in a straw poll held at [the church].”

The document says that “the conditions for withdrawal deemed necessary by the . . . Session include being joined in the withdrawal by a number of like-minded congregations in Louisiana Presbytery to form a new presbytery and the adoption of constitutional standards expressly setting forth agreed-upon Reformed doctrinal standards, including areas where there will and will not be doctrinal deviation.”

The notion of setting forth areas where doctrinal deviation would be allowed in a new ecclesiastical setting is a sensitive issue for Auburn Avenue and several other churches of Louisiana Presbytery, whose elders have adopted the doctrine of paedo-communion (that is, the belief that small children, even before making a conscious profession of faith, should be admitted to the Lord’s table).

The possibility of losing a whole presbytery, or a significant portion of it, would strike a serious blow to the PCA’s efforts to reach much of Louisiana. The state is mostly Baptist and Roman Catholic territory, and Reformed churches do not abound. Southeast Louisiana Presbytery, which covers the population centers of Baton Rouge and New Orleans, has six organized and two mission churches, with a total membership of 1,394, according to the latest available denominational statistics. Louisiana Presbytery, which covers the rest of the state and a portion of southwest Arkansas, has ten churches and about 1,100 members.

The Presbytery also has experienced two recent defections to the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. In 1997, Grace Presbyterian Church, Alexandria, one of the PCA’s original churches, departed. In December, First Presbyterian Church of Oakdale, which had dwindled to a handful of congregants, likewise made the switch.

The other Reformed presence in the state is represented by the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), which has a congregation in Pineville and a mission work in the New Orleans area. The Pineville OPC was begun several years ago by disaffected members from Grace Church in Alexandria, who were upset about the less-than-traditional approach to ministry and worship evident there.

Overture Concerning the Presbyterian Church in America

WHEREAS, the Word of God is truth, and denominational unity must be founded upon truth;

WHEREAS, the historic marks of the church are the faithful preaching of the Word of God, the faithful administration of the sacraments, and the faithful exercise of church discipline;

WHEREAS, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) upon its birth less than thirty (30) years ago declared to the churches its fidelity to the Scriptures and commitment to the Reformed Faith;

WHEREAS, the PCA has begun tolerating serious doctrinal departures from the truth of Scripture as contained in its constitutional Reformed standards; specifically on the issues of creation, the Apostolic gifts and the role of women in the church, which errors will inevitably lead to others;

WHEREAS, seminaries considered Reformed by many tolerate doctrinal teaching on these issues which are contrary to the historical Reformed faith and are sending forth candidates for ministry who have been indoctrinated with these erroneous perspectives;

WHEREAS, the PCA is increasingly becoming controlled by its committees and agencies with little meaningful oversight from the General Assembly and presbyters, which is creating a dangerous centralization of power and bureaucracy contrary to true, historic principles of presbyterianism;

WHEREAS, there is a growing tendency in the PCA to view missions from a modernistic, church growth perspective and an increasing tendency to tolerate and engage in activities in worship and evangelism, which are more man-centered than God-honoring;

WHEREAS, there is strong evidence of an increasing antipathy by those in positions of authority in the PCA to those who have more traditional, Reformed views;

WHEREAS, private and public efforts have been made for numerous years to address and correct the afore-mentioned concerns with no discernible success.

WHEREAS, there is little prospect, humanly speaking, of this troublesome drift away from our standards reversing itself;

WHEREAS, any church may constitutionally withdraw from the PCA by majority vote of its congregation at any time it wishes for reasons deemed sufficient by it (BCO 25-11);

WHEREAS, the AAPC Session in six separate meetings presented a tentative plan to its congregation concerning the willingness of the Session for AAPC to peaceably and with animosity toward none withdraw from the PCA under certain conditions, which tentative plan was overwhelmingly supported in a straw poll vote held at AAPC;

WHEREAS, the conditions for withdrawal deemed necessary by the AAPC Session include being joined in the withdrawal by a number of like-minded congregations in Louisiana Presbytery to form a new presbytery and the adoption of constitutional standards expressly setting forth agreed-upon Reformed doctrinal standards, including areas where there will and will not be doctrinal toleration;

WHEREAS, the AAPC Session desires that there be open and honest discussion and debate among their fellow presbyters and congregations at Louisiana Presbytery over these issues;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church requests the Louisiana Presbytery to encourage the sessions of the various churches to consider these matters to decide whether it is wise and proper for them to present these issues before their respective congregations for consideration.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Louisiana Presbytery call a special meeting of presbytery to discuss these issues and the possibility of peaceably withdrawing from the PCA as a presbytery in order that we might continue to serve the Lord in fidelity to His Word.

Adopted by the Session of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church on January 5, 2000.

RE J.W. Smith, III, Clerk pro tempore TE J. Steven Wilkins, Moderator

Special thanks and a hat tip to Dr. Frank Smith, a Southern TR who wrote History of the PCA and probably misses the beat.