Diary of a Pirated Church

C O R R E C T I O N: We discovered a scribal error on the date of point number 12 and have corrected it to reflect the correct date, and I sincerely apologize to Mr. Shade for making him jump through all those hoops as a result of this error. Furthermore, we forgot to note that Shade’s church adopted the Christ Church Constitution as its own in March 1999 (point number 5), which probably explains why he jumped through those hoops.

Yesterday, and again today, defrocked minister Burke Shade challenged my understanding of the facts regarding his lawful deposition from office, which inspired me to apply my fully documented anonymous attack skills to a timeline itemizing the chronological sequence of events that led to Shade splitting his church and crash landing the remains in the CREC. This record contains two staggering contradictions: First, in March 2006, Burke Shade said he never heard of the CRE until June 1999, which contradicts the testimony of Illiana Presbytery who said they were aware that Burke Shade was negotiating his reception into the CRE in February 1999; and (2) the elders of Christ Church represented to Illiana Presbytery that Burke Shade requested membership in the CRE in November 1999, seven months after the Kult voted to bring Shade into the CRE and two months after the CRE received Shade as a delegate.

1. 1998 — Burke Shade, pastor of Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), meets Douglas Wilson on the phone to schedule him to speak at a church conference in March 1999.


2. November 9, 1998 — Illiana Presbytery began a judicial trial against Burke Shade.


3. January 10, 1999 — Shade’s faction in EPC sends a letter to the session asking for a congregational meeting to vote on, among other things, (1) transferring their membership to their newly founded church, Cornerstone Reformed Church (CRC), (2) taking $70,000 with them, (3) taking one half of the Trinity Psalters and Hymnals, folding chairs, padded chairs, tables, (4) taking the Yamaha grand piano, (5) taking the computer and printer in Shade’s office, (6) dissolving EPC’s relationship with Burke Shade. Rest assured that the Fearless Leader instructed Shade to grab as much as possible, when hijacking a church.


4. February 22, 1999 — Illiana Presbytery eventually discovers that as early as this date (February 22, 1999, probably earlier) two elders from Christ Church were in communication with Shade about receiving him into the CRE.


5. March 1999 — Shade’s renegade faction adopts the Christ Church Constitution as its own.


6. April 3, 1999 — Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) examines and receives Shade as a ministerial member.


7. April 10, 1999 — FORC asks Illiana Presbytery to transfer Shade’s membership along with his trial transcripts with the intention of continuing the trial under its auspices. Illiana declines.


8. April 17, 1999 — Illiana Presbytery deposes Burke Shade from the ministry.


9. June 1999 — Douglas Wilson speaks at a conference hosted by CRC.


10. June 1999 — FORC sends a memorial to the 27th General Assembly of the PCA requesting the judgment of the General Assembly as to their action in receiving Mr. Shade as a minister in good standing.


11. June 17, 1999 — The PCA answers FORC, stating, Burke Shade “was not transferred as one in good standing as alleged by the Communication but as one who had been found guilty of several charges, suspended from the sacraments and from office, and later deposed from the ministry. . . . If the Federation of Reformed Churches desires to receive Mr. Shade, it should be with the recognition that he was not a minister in good standing at the time of his reception since his name was retained on the roll of Illiana Presbytery until his trial was completed. This being the case, the Assembly advises the Federation of Reformed Churches that if they have received Mr. Shade, they should take proper steps to deal with the discipline duly imposed by a PCA court.”


12. September 16, 1999 — The Christ Church elders vote unanimously to make a motion to receive Shade’s church in the CRE at the next CRE meeting (the CRE was less than two years old at the time).


13. September 30, 1999 — The CRE votes unanimously to grant fraternal status to Burke Shade and Cornerstone Reformed Church (full membership in the CREC is a two-year process).


14. July 13, 2000 — Douglas Wilson reminds the Kirk elders during their weekly meeting that he informed Burke Shade that the elders already agreed to bring him into the CRE, even though they had not read his trial documents.


15. August 17, 2000 — During their weekly meeting, the Christ Church elders adopt the “Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” which they send to Illiana Presbytery. The “Report” makes a staggering misrepresentation: “In November 1999, Cornerstone Reformed Church asked Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, to consider recommending them for membership in the CRE.”


16. September 28, 2000 — The CRE votes unanimously to receive Burke Shade and CRC into full membership. The CRE minutes do not note that the fix wa in from the beginning.


17. January 7, 2001 — Illiana Presbytery replies to Christ Church’s “Report”: “Now, if the first page of your analysis contains these many possible questionable conclusions, we would hope you might revisit your entire analysis and decision. . . Please understand our own concern about your objectivity when we have discovered that at least two leaders from Christ Church were in communication with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE as early as February 22, 1999, halfway through the trial. If the CRE was already interested in talking with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE then, how are we to conclude that you were able to objectively evaluate our records since then?”


18. April 10, 2001 — The Kult elders respond to Illiana Presbytery’s reply. Illiana ignores it.


19. July-September 2002 — Burke Shade writes a letter to the editor of P&R News: “This lack of information in your article makes it ‘appear’ that the CRE has a history of taking in, or shielding men, from denominational discipline, which is not true.” (ROTFL: Burke Shade, Dennis Tuuri, RC Sproul Jr., Steven “Machen” Wilkins)


20. March 3, 2006 — Burke Shade claims, “I did not even learn of the CRE until Doug spoke at our conference in June of 1999,” contra the findings of Illiana Presbytery that Shade had been talking to two Kirk elders about reception into the CRE in February 1999.


21. March 3, 2006 — Burke Shade states, “Before vindicating me, the committee that Christ Church established to look into my trial not only read all the trial documents supplied to them by Illiana, but also had contact with the elders of EPC.” Apparently the Fearless Leader failed to inform Shade that the fix was in. And it all began with a phone call.

I invite Mr. Shade to comment.

Thank you.

BS

I put this on Green Bagginses last night but it took a while for approval and may have got lost in the shuffle. It’s a response to a string of comments by Burke Shade where he creatively revises the history of his defrockment and his subsequent reception into the CRE:

Mr. Shade,

You are absolutely correct. The minutes for the Christ Church elders’ meeting do not say that you spoke with the pastor of Christ Church before the PCA lawfully defrocked you; they merely say that the pastor of Christ Church made motion to receive you and your congregation as a fraternal delegate in the CRE and the Kirk elders voted unanimously to approve his motion.

Consequently, given your implication and the plain meaning of the minutes, I must conclude that the Kirk session groupthinked to bring you into the CRE even though none of them ever spoke with you and the PCA had not defrocked you because your trial was not finished. Makes perfect sense. The CREC looks even more responsible now.

I’m sure this explains why the Christ Church minutes report that your trial was not a barrier to you and your church being accepted into the CRE:

Doug Jones reported that the ad hoc committee concerning Burke Shade recommends that we should not send out the current letter, and that we should wait while Chris Schlect and Doug Jones continue to work through the trial materials, before they make a further recommendation. Doug Wilson reminded the elders that we have already agreed this situation is not a barrier to Burke Shade and his church being accepted into the CRE, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that, further review of the material, the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions, which would only happen if new, clear information against Burke appears. The elders would like a report from the committee by July 27. This recommendation considered as a motion passed. (Christ Church Elders’ Meeting Minutes, July 13, 2000)

And this certainly explains why they had already brought you into the CRE as a fraternal delegate:

— Motion (DW/GH) to seat Cornerstone Reformed Church, Carbondale, IL (Burke Shade, pastor). After discussion, the motion passed 5-0. (CREC 1999 minutes, p. 1)

Furthermore, you are correct when you note that “the people who left EPC asked for those things, not me.” They asked for the money, the hymnals, and the furniture in the same letter where they requested Illiana Presbytery to dissolve its relationship with you:

We request that Evangelical Presbyterian Church agree to dissolve its relationship with Pastor Burke Shade immediately, allowing us to call Pastor Shade as Pastor of our newly formed Church. We understand that he would be ministering “out of bounds” pending final decision of Presbytery.

I’m sure they did this without your knowledge or approval, just as the pastor of Christ Church motioned to bring you into the CRE without your knowledge or approval. Or perhaps this is an example of the sheep laying down their lives for the shepherd. Either way, it gives you highly implausible cover, which is consistent with the FV MO.

Finally, while your claim that two denominations held your membership simultaneously — one as a defrocked minister and one as a minister in good standing — makes sense to you, it’s more evidence that you and your fellow confederates are under a lot of pressure. Trust me, I understand. It must be positively unbearable. You must feel a little like Roger Clemens and a lot like Hillary Clinton. Like Clemens, the testimony of your closest allies contradicts your story and, like Hillary, the overwhelming votes against you (from seven Reformed denominations) look like a landslide of epic proportions. The truth is surrounding you as the walls are caving in. You’re cornered and crushed. But take hope, Mr. Shade, for as the Congresswoman said to Clemens today, “I’m sure you’re going to heaven.”

PS: The issue of anonymity is not a matter of boldness as you suggest; it’s a matter of the Fearless Leader’s Al Capone-like traits. But for what it’s worth, I could handle you and Jeff Meyers at the same time, with or without his platform shoes.

Thank you.

Think Al Capone Part 3

I want to revisit Douglas Wilson’s ex parte meeting with two Latah County commissioners in April 2005, when he served notice that revoking any more tax exemptions from his empire would be “a very expensive mistake.” As a reminder, here are excerpts from his statement:

If that is the case and if there are people in town who have had a very public vendetta against us for personal or ideological reasons of their own, my concern, which I wanted to express to you all, face to face, is that the mechanism of the law should not be used, or should not be allowed to be used, as a cat’s paw for fulfilling personal, settling personal scores. That sort of thing, it appears to me, would be a flagrant example of applying the law selectively. So in other words the “exclusive use,” the particular interpretation of “exclusive use” that you all decided on in the last go round, is now in appeal. That understanding of “exclusive use” must apply to all tax-exempt entities in Moscow or Latah County and not just to those entities that have me sitting on the board. . . . But I think we should all agree that the law should not just be applied to those who are the brunt of the animosity of a handful of people in town who want to run ’em out of town and who want to use the zoning requirements, the Latah County commissioners, or the Board of Adjustors, the Idaho State Attorney General, there was a complaint filed against me there on another thing. I don’t think that that should be — I think that should be recognized and I wanted to appear before you face to face and tell you face to face that that is my fundamental concern. I think it opens Latah County up to a great deal of exposure if the law is applied selectively in that way and I simply wanted to tell you that. . . . I guess the thing I wanted to say is that monsters don’t shrink when you feed them. And I believe it is your responsibility to not just look at the letter of the law, what’s going on in the law but also to look at the town and see what’s happening in town. The animosity, the ideological agenda that’s directed against us, is open, public; the archives of Vision 20/20 are there for anybody to read and in the last two years our adversaries have been overt about what they want to do; they want to run us out of town and they are using every device that they can get their hands on to do that. . . . But the fact remains that there is a de facto situation on the ground where a year later the tax exemptions that have been removed have been from our two entities; the next two that are threatened are two entities that I sit on the board of and I just wouldn’t want Latah County to make a very expensive mistake. And that’s why I wanted to appear.

First, notice how Wilson set the stage for his monologue by fabricating the existence of enemies in town who had a “vendetta” not against him but against “us,” i.e. the Christ Church Cult, and notice the language he used to describe this so-called vendetta:

. . . there are people in town who have had a very public vendetta against us for personal or ideological reasons . . . settling personal scores . . . . monsters don’t shrink when you feed them . . . . The animosity, the ideological agenda that’s directed against us, is open, public; the archives of Vision 20/20 are there for anybody to read and in the last two years our adversaries have been overt about what they want to do; they want to run us out of town and they are using every device that they can get their hands on to do that.

While this “enemies are out to get me” scenario is a complete fabrication of the Fearless Leader’s imagination, it nevertheless constitutes the warp and woof his worldview. The man cannot exist without enemies, real or imagined, and these enemies — these “monsters” — fuel his constantly growing paranoia. Of course, the truth is that no one ever wanted to run the Kult out of town; two citizens challenged the property-tax exemption of two entities in the kingdom of Doug. But the Great Protector had to fabricate this state of affairs to successfully hornswoggle the commissioners, which leads to the next point.

Second, notice that Wilson’s discourse assumes and concedes that his two entities are violating the tax code, which is why he warned them about “applying the law selectively” and that it “must apply to all tax-exempt entities in Moscow or Latah County and not just to those entities that have me sitting on the board.” In other words he said this: “Sure I’m breaking the law, but so is everyone else!” Unfortunately, he didn’t cite any examples of other churches in violation of the tax code, most likely because they don’t exist apart from his imagination. (BTW: the “you’re singling me out” argument is just more paranoia; try using it the next time a cop pulls you over for speeding.) But the point is that Wilson understood that his entities were violating the law and instead of bringing them into conformity, he saw fit to threaten the Latah County commissioners — “Don’t you dare revoke my exemption!”

On a secondary level it’s clear that he was warning the commissioners that if they held him accountable to obey the law, then in his mind they would be joining hands with the unnamed persons who wanted to run his cult out of town. This is really quite amazing when you think about it. He framed a bizarre circumstance for the commissioners where if Latah County compelled his entities to obey the law, then in his mind they were guilty of participating in the vendetta against him to run him out of town. Talk about paranoid. And remember that this is about property tax — the same tax that his entities would not have to pay if they simply obeyed the law. Nevertheless, this is one example in a long list of examples of the Fearless Leader’s contempt for authority, which he couches as personal animosity against him if he must submit to it. Consequently, he would rather threaten the Latah County commissioners with legal action than obey the law and “lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty” (1 Tim. 2:2).

Third, notice how Wilson twists the purpose of the law from an instrument appointed by God to protect society from evildoers into an instrument used by Wilson’s enemies to harass him, when he said, “the mechanism of the law should not be used, or should not be allowed to be used, as a cat’s paw for fulfilling personal, settling personal scores.” This is so perverted. If Wilson simply obeyed the law then there is no “cat’s paw” to “settle personal scores,” as he put it. But don’t miss this: in Wilson’s scenario he — the lawbreaker — is the righteous man and his enemies — the law keepers — are the evildoers. Now consider St. Paul’s instruction:

Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor. (Rom. 13:2–7)

In his perversion Wilson turned every single principle in this entire directive on its head when he threatened the Latah County commissioners against upholding the law during his ex parte meeting with them. How true are the Apostle’s words: “sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4).

Finally, please notice that according to the CRE minutes, the Fearless Leader did not take exception to chapter XXIII section IV of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

It is the duty of people to pray for magistrates, to honor their persons, to pay them tribute or other dues, to obey their lawful commands, and to be subject to their authority, for conscience’ sake. Infidelity, or difference in religion, does not make void the magistrates’ just and legal authority, nor free the people from their due obedience to them. (“Of the Civil Magistrate”)

Now, it’s no surprise that Wilson didn’t note his exception during his so-called examination, because in the end he recognizes no authority save his own, and since he threatened the civil magistrate with retribution if they opposed his will, what do you think he would do to the monkey boys who examined him if they found him anything other than “robustly orthodox”? The Great Protector had no authority over the Latah County commissioners when he threatened them, which doesn’t remove his intent to intimidate; however, he had absolute authority over the monkey boys who examined him and he could ruin any one of them without notice if they made the mistake of dissenting from the groupthink — or to use his words, “It opens them up to a great deal of exposure.” And if you think about it, someone in Al Capone’s position wouldn’t have it any other way.

Thank you.

LAP Hardens

Our friend HaigLaw has posted a few observations about LAP’s meeting today; he calls it “LaP hardens” and as a member of the presbytery, he’s as close a witness to the source as you’ll find. Check it out, it’s a good post.

Think Al Capone Part 2

True story: A few years ago I received a phone call from one of the contributors of the book The Auburn Avenue Theology Pros & Cons: Debating the Federal Vision (E. Calvin Beisner ed.) I had never met him before and I don’t even remember who referred him to me. But I do remember the point of his call. He and a few others had just locked horns with Wilson over a quotation by John Calvin that the Fearless Leader lifted out of context to leave a false impression. These brothers called him on it and asked him to correct his misrepresentation. I suppose they assumed they were dealing with an honest brother, which is a bad assumption; he is neither honest nor a brother, and true to form Wilson refused to correct the false representation because he insisted everyone else was wrong. And if I’m not mistaken, nothing has changed since then.

So this brother calls me and the second thing I remember about the conversation was that after about an hour I volunteered, “Whenever you think of Wilson, don’t think of a minister of the gospel, think Al Capone. He is not a Christian, he’s a gangster — a thug — and in this respect he’s no different than Al Capone.” I’m sure I developed my point, but it really didn’t matter because the second I said “think Al Capone” I lost my caller. Comparing Wilson to one of America’s most notorious mobsters put him on overload. And to be fair it is a rather large jump from Wilson the habitual liar to Wilson the crime lord (but we only had an hour!).

This brings me to Pastor Dewey Roberts’ answer to my question yesterday on Green Bagginses. Pastor Roberts is a member of the PCA’s highest court — the SJC — and he made it clear that the thought of corrupting justice repulses him when he wrote:

Doug Wilson has tried to get a lot of mileage out of his “charge” against the SJC that we have never talked with Wilkins. Our constitution forbids us to do so! Think Al Capone. Capone wiggled out of several cases which the government brought against him by jury tampering. The members of the SJC are the jury of the highest court in the PCA. Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering? If Steve had remained in the PCA he would have had his opportunity to talk face-to-face with the SJC. He chose to leave instead. So, wise people will take what Wilson says with a grain of salt and consider them to be equal. (emphasis added)

Notice the imperative: “Think Al Capone.” When I read it last night I almost dropped a load on the spot. A member of the PCA’s highest court instructed me to think Al Capone in relation to Wilson’s accusations against the SJC. Déjà vu? Coincidence? Providence? Wire tap? Warp in the Earth’s time-space continuum? You guess.

Then notice the question “Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering?” Presumably Pastor Roberts meant this rhetorically, as a figure of speech where he didn’t want an answer so much as he wanted to make the point that jury tampering defies every principle of justice revealed in Scripture. In law it’s an ex parte (Latin, from (by or for) one party) conversation and it refers to improper contact between a litigant and the judge or a jury member, and Al Capone took his ex parte conversations to new levels — if he couldn’t bribe an official he intimidated them. But rhetorical or not, I want to answer Pastor Roberts’ question because this point cannot be overstated.

In 2004, two local citizens successfully challenged Christ Church’s 501(c)(3) property-tax exemption, based in part on Canon Press’ for-profit status. It’s one thing if Canon Press operates as a nonprofit enterprise for charitable purposes, i.e. the gospel; it’s quite another if the Fearless Leader signs a contract to skim 10% from the “nonprofit” proceeds. At that point Canon Press crosses the line that separates business from charity. The county commissioners had no choice — they had to revoke the exemption, and in doing so they made straight the road for more challenges. Accordingly, in 2005 the same two citizens challenged the property-tax exemptions for two other buildings in the kingdom of Doug — Logos School and the Nuart Theater. This brings us back to Al Capone.

You see, Wilson, like Capone, has a personal aversion to paying taxes, which is probably related to his contempt of lawful authority, and consequently the thought of losing his property-tax exemption, i.e. the thought of the government compelling him to pay taxes, sent him over the edge. In fact, it sent him so far over the edge that he visited the Latah County commissioners to express his concern. Sure, it was a scheduled visit but when he called the county he didn’t state his reason for requesting the meeting, most likely because the County Attorney would not have allowed it — something about ex parte. It’s illegal. Therefore, the meeting took place as scheduled on April 27, 2005; here are excerpts from Douglas Wilson’s testimony to the Latah County commissioners, which he delivered ex parte five weeks before the scheduled tax hearing:

If that is the case and if there are people in town who have had a very public vendetta against us for personal or ideological reasons of their own, my concern, which I wanted to express to you all, face to face, is that the mechanism of the law should not be used, or should not be allowed to be used, as a cat’s paw for fulfilling personal, settling personal scores. That sort of thing, it appears to me, would be a flagrant example of applying the law selectively. So in other words the “exclusive use,” the particular interpretation of “exclusive use” that you all decided on in the last go round, is now in appeal. That understanding of “exclusive use” must apply to all tax-exempt entities in Moscow or Latah County and not just to those entities that have me sitting on the board. . . . But I think we should all agree that the law should not just be applied to those who are the brunt of the animosity of a handful of people in town who want to run ’em out of town and who want to use the zoning requirements, the Latah County commissioners, or the Board of Adjustors, the Idaho State Attorney General, there was a complaint filed against me there on another thing. I don’t think that that should be — I think that should be recognized and I wanted to appear before you face to face and tell you face to face that that is my fundamental concern. I think it opens Latah County up to a great deal of exposure if the law is applied selectively in that way and I simply wanted to tell you that. . . . I guess the thing I wanted to say is that monsters don’t shrink when you feed them. And I believe it is your responsibility to not just look at the letter of the law, what’s going on in the law but also to look at the town and see what’s happening in town. The animosity, the ideological agenda that’s directed against us, is open, public; the archives of Vision 20/20 are there for anybody to read and in the last two years our adversaries have been overt about what they want to do; they want to run us out of town and they are using every device that they can get their hands on to do that. . . . But the fact remains that there is a de facto situation on the ground where a year later the tax exemptions that have been removed have been from our two entities; the next two that are threatened are two entities that I sit on the board of and I just wouldn’t want Latah County to make a very expensive mistake. And that’s why I wanted to appear. (emphasis added)

One of the complainants who was not invited and therefore not present for the ex parte meeting posted Wilson’s testimony to the local electronic bulletin board. Moreover, I’ve heard the tapes (there’s bootleg copies floating all over the Palouse) and every word of this transcription is accurate. Furthermore, Beelzeblog himself confirmed his witness in an evasive post called “How We Handle Words”; but if you read it you’ll notice he offers no interpretation and no explanation. I suppose some words defy comment.

Whatever he meant, I am confident that Douglas Wilson’s ex parte conversation with two Latah County commissioners regarding an upcoming hearing answers Pastor Roberts’ question — “Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering?” Yes, he really would want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering as long as he benefited from the hanky-panky. And if this surprises you then you have been working with a lot of false assumptions about the Fearless Leader.

Let there be no illusion: if you ever have doubts about Douglas Wilson’s moral character; if you ever wonder about all the stories of his ruthless behavior; if you ever ask yourself how far he’s willing to go in order to advance his kingdom, then do yourself a favor — Think Al Capone.

Thank you.

Think Al Capone Part 1

Without a doubt, Green Bagginses is the best resource on the web for understanding the external aspects of the Federal Vision. Whether you want to learn about the nuts & bolts of each point where the FV diverts from orthodoxy or whether you’re interested in the latest development in the Reformed church as it relates to the FV, Green Baggineses is the blog.

For example, in the last few days two members of the PCA’s SJC posted some helpful comments on Green Bagginses regarding the resignation of Steven “Machen” Wilkins. But it’s possible that some people missed them because of the volume of traffic Pastor Lane sees. So I shall repost them here and offer some of my own comments in Part 2:

Bill Lyle said,

It seems to me, from Wilkins own words:

“. . . Presbytery’s decision not to conduct a trial of me was influenced by the stated unwillingness of some to submit to the outcome of a presbytery trial if that trial resulted in a decision in my favor. Some of the members of the Presbytery informed us that they had already decided to file a complaint against the decision of the Presbytery to the SJC if a trial by the Presbytery exonerated me — regardless of what the trial evidence showed. They also acknowledged that the SJC would reverse any decision which exonerated me.”

1. He never took seriously the vows he took before the God and His people — see PCA BCO 21-5. 3, 4, 6, 7. (Could it be that Wilkins crossed his fingers when he took these vows and answered affirmative?)

Now I may be wrong, but for a simple person like me I guess he is stating the following:



Now I will submit to a trial only if the following conditions are met:



• Everyone in LAP must submit to the ruling of the presbytery.




• All members of LAP must forgo their rights to complain and therefore PCA BCO 43 will cease to exist for this trial.




• That in LAP — PCA BCO 14 does not exist, nor does PCA BCO 14-6 a, b, c, g, i.



2. That he, Wilkins, can see into the heart of all 24 men on the SJC and knows beforehand how they will vote on this matter.


3. That he, Wilkins, can see into my heart and knows how I will vote.


4. That he, Wilkins, believes the highest court of the PCA is the Presbytery.


5. That he, Wilkins, would only submit to LAP only if he could control the outcome of the trial and if there was a chance he could not do so, he fled. I guess this means he knows in his heart that his theology may not stand under any kind of examination.


6. That the men on the SJC lied when they took their vows before God and the church RAO 17-1.

Mark T. said,

Hi Bill,

Pursuant to BCO 38-3, do you know if the SJC became the court of original jurisdiction after LAP pled guilty to the second specification of the PCA Indictment? If so, then would this mean that LAP does not have the authority to receive Wilkins’ resignation pursuant to BCO 23-1?

Dewey Roberts said,

Hi Mark T.,

The question you asked Bill would require a comment from him that he can’t give at this time. The SJC has not yet taken up those questions and it will have to be deliberated by that body and a decision will have to be made about such matters. It would be wrong for either Bill or myself or anyone else on the SJC to comment on what BCO 38-3 says concerning the aspects of this case which are still before the court.

I would like to point out to some on this board who often decry the SJC for not discussing matters face-to-face with Steve Wilkins that such a conversation with a party to a case which is either before the SJC or potentially may be before the SJC is strictly forbidden by the constitution of the PCA. Doug Wilson has tried to get a lot of mileage out of his “charge” against the SJC that we have never talked with Wilkins. Our constitution forbids us to do so! Think Al Capone. Capone wiggled out of several cases which the government brought against him by jury tampering. The members of the SJC are the jury of the highest court in the PCA. Would Wilson really want the SJC members to engage in despicable jury tampering? If Steve had remained in the PCA he would have had his opportunity to talk face-to-face with the SJC. He chose to leave instead. So, wise people will take what Wilson says with a grain of salt and consider them to be equal.

Steve Wilkins was one of my best friends at seminary. I have roomed with him at PCA General Assemblies. We have eaten together on many occasions. It gave me no joy that he might be tried before the SJC, but I would have done what I do in every case. I would strictly apply the constitution of the PCA to the record of the case without respect of persons. Wilson called the SJC a kangaroo court. What is a kangaroo court? I think it is a court where the law is ignored and matters are decided by personal favoritism — either for or against someone. The only thing Wilkins or anyone else has a right to expect out of any PCA court is an impartial decision based on the constitution of that body. Personally, I am a strict constitutionalist — and Steve Wilkins knows that very, very well.

Bill Lyle said,

Hi Mark T.

Dewey Roberts answered your question of me. See RAO 17-1 and SJCM 7.

GLW Johnson said,

Bill and Dewey

I do hope people who are echoing Wilson’s line take note of what you two have posted here. DW has, from time to time, lampooned the PCA critics of the FV as being “Baptyrians” — but as Andrew Sandlin discovered, Wilson is not a Presbyterian after all (and his analysis and defense of Wilkins likewise displays that he is woefully ill-informed about the Presbyterian polity) rather — and this is really unique — DW is a “Episcobyterian.”

Bill Lyle said,

GLW,

IMHO — It seems as those who are shooting down the process, have an attitude of “Don’t confuse me with the facts.”

greenbaggins said,

Bill and Dewey, thanks very much for commenting. Your comments are quite helpful.

Dewey Roberts said,

Thanks Lane!

I read your blog frequently. I finally just got tired of Doug Wilson’s campaign of “disinformation” against the PCA and the SJC. I have told friends of mine that Wilson is a prolific writer, but not a profound thinker. Nothing illustrates that better than his disinformation against the SJC. He truly does not know of what he speaks. One of the lost tools of learning is to do “critical” thinking — not criticizing thinking. Critical thinking helps us to look at issues objectively and to be aware of our own biases. The next time Wilson posts something negative about the SJC, I am going to ask him two questions: First, can you show, Mr. Wilson, where or how the SJC acted contrary to the constitution of the PCA? Second, can you show, Mr. Wilson, what constitutional rights belong to members of the CREC to prevent this “travesty” about which you complain concerning the PCA? I hope for his sake that Wilson has the wisdom to lie low because I have taken the measure of a “man of his talents” and have concluded the emperor has no clothes. I won’t let Wilson get by with trying to wordsmith his way out of these questions. He will either have to quote chapter, paragraph and line or he will be exposed as a master of disinformation.

P.S. If Wilson doubts me, I would recommend that he contact James Jordan’s pastor, Mickey Schneider (who is a minister in the CREC), under whom I apprenticed in 1973.

Dewey Roberts said,

Hey Doug,

I have laid the gauntlet down to you (in Wilkins’ Rationale) about all the false accusations you have made about the SJC for these past several months. My basic position about you is that you are a propagandist of disinformation. You artfully weave disinformation about the PCA and SJC into comments about known facts. That is always the best and most effective way to disinform. But your gig is up.

Now my advice to you would be to call Mickey Schneider when you get a chance and ask him about me. After you do so, I think you will probably decide that you don’t want to engage me in a battle of wits. Why? Because I won’t chase rabbits with you and I won’t let you get away with your nonsensical, ill-informed statements about the SJC any longer. I will force you to face the facts of the constitution of the PCA which will effectively cut your comments off at the knee. And I will make you show how the CREC is “better” by quoting from your constitution (that should be interesting!). After all, people who live in glass houses (like the CREC) don’t need to throw stones at those who have a historic Presbyterian constitution (like the PCA does).

Doug, it is your choice. Either go away quietly. Or, I am going to expose you to the blogging world as just a bully who is a propagandist of disinformation. It is your choice.

Thank you.

Front-page Comment

I just received an excellent comment in response to “The Scarlet Letter” that deserves front-page attention. He premised his point on this quote from the Fearless Leader:

I was the editor, and had not read Time on the Cross at that time, and with a topic that inflammatory I certainly should have. My name was on the cover, and the editorial error that I was part of was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious. Is there a magic word I can put in here that keeps it from being Clintonesque? For my part, one thing I will not call it is plagiarism (intellectual theft) because it simply wasn’t.

Here’s the comment:

Anonymous said . . .

The APE. That is hilarious.

But to the point. Your fully documented anonymous attack blog also points out two other issues. First, why is Wilson listed as coauthor, if he was not, as he admits, all that familiar with the contents? Was it to put his good name as a pastor on yet one more controversial project? Was it to fraudulently mislead people into buying a book that, if it had Wilkins’ name alone, might not otherwise have sold as well? Secondly, the APE and his monkey boys love to attach so much value to a person’s name upon his writings that the use of anonymity automatically renders, in their primal minds, the writing false. Yet, the APE is willing to falsely attach his true name as the author of poorly argued plagiarized writings that Wilkins stole, and continues to assert their veracity, because he, Doug Wilson, using his true and given name, says so.

Once again we see that if the Great Protector didn’t have a double standard, he wouldn’t have any at all.

Thank you.

The Scarlet Letter

I want to take a moment from my busy anonymous-attack-blogging schedule to arbitrate a dispute between Dr. Gary Johnson, pastor of Church of the Redeemer, and Mr. Douglas Wilson, pastor of the Christ Church Cult.

The dispute began two nights ago in the combox at Green Bagginses after the Fearless Leader described the scholarship of Drs. Clark & Waters as “slipshod,” at least as it applied to their criticisms of his work. Of course, challenging the competence of those who disagree with him is the automatic default tactic for Beelzeblog. It’s instinctual for him because as God’s appointed authority on pretty much everything in the universe, he can recognize “slipshod” work from afar. It’s one of his gifts and one of the reasons he doesn’t need formal training. Or ordination. He is THE authority.

Dr. Johnson, however, has no such gifts from on high and God has not appointed him THE authority on all things. After all, the definite article “THE” precludes anyone else from holding the title, especially since it’s capitalized. Consequently, Dr. Johnson had to earn his credentials the hard way by doing under- and post-graduate studies in various schools, where he obtained the titles Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) and Doctor of Theology (D. Theo.).

And for the record, I am not sucking up to Dr. Johnson by heralding his credentials. Some men with letters couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag. But Dr. Johnson established his ability to think critically when he endorsed my blog. Clearly he recognizes the difference between a fully documented anonymous attack blog, such as mine, and self-willed autonomous attack blog, such as Wilson’s. Speaking of whom, for all I know he thinks that the letters STD stand for sexually transmitted disease. This probably explains why he, as a so-called minister of the gospel, filed a frivolous police complaint against people in the community who publicly criticized him and accused them of leaving used condoms in his mailbox. Icky. I am sure that in his mind it makes sense. When people commit the unpardonable sin of calling him to repent in public, they have crossed the invisible line that separates decent, law-abiding citizens from lawless felons who commit grotesque crimes. Indeed, the temptation to discard soiled prophylactics in the property of the US Postal Service overwhelms them. Yes, I’m sure it makes sense to the Great Protector.

Back to my point: Yesterday, Dr. Johnson reminded the Fearless Leader that the stigma of plagiarism stains his credentials and it undermines his standing to comment on anyone else’s scholarship. The Fearless Leader, however, denies Dr. Johnson’s premise. Here’s the thread:

Douglas Wilson said,

Lane, Andy, everyone . . . .

So what is the issue? The issue lies with two categories of critic — first, those who are constitutionally or dispositionally incapable of getting it right. Those who cannot understand the professor’s lectures need to show up for office hours. I am speaking here of those critics that have been shown to be guilty of misunderstandings, misrepresentations and distortions. Lest there be any mistake, there has been no response to my demonstrations of the slipshod work by Guy Waters, Scott Clark and others. And if you doubt that I have or could demonstrate this, why don’t you try to set up that debate I keep talking about between me and any of these gentlemen? I don’t keep saying that I am misunderstood, I keep proving that I am misunderstood. In response (with the exception of men like Lane), all I hear are the crickets. . . .

GLW Johnson said,

DW:

Accusing Waters and Clark of slipshod scholarship is rich indeed coming from someone who is permanently tainted with the scarlet letter P hanging around his neck.

Douglas Wilson said,

Gary, the fact that you actually believe that the scarlet letter P has been placed around my neck is yet another example of what I am talking about. I have no more plagiarized than I have denied any of the five solas. Keep trying.

GLW Johnson said,

DW:

The embarrassing fact, and one that you can not escape from, is that you co-authored a book that was chocked full of plagiarism. You bear your share of responsibility by virtue of having your name on the cover. It would be refreshing if you could stop spinning around long enough to acknowledge your capability. But it seems that ever admitting that you are in the wrong is something that constitutionally you are unable to do.

GLW Johnson said,

TP

DW accused Waters and Clark of faulty scholarship but evades his own responsibility for co-authoring a perfectly dreadful book (that in and of itself doesn’t pass the smell test when it comes to what the question of responsible historical scholarship) that commits the cardinal sin of blatant plagiarism. Just to refresh your memory, but DW went to great lengths to “Clintonize” what constitutes plagiarism. It was pathetic. So pardon me, but when DW starts talking about scholarship, I have a hard time believing he knows what he is talking about — so does a hundred or so faculty members at the Univ. of Idaho.

Douglas Wilson said,

First, on Wesley. After my article on Wesley appeared in Antithesis, I received a letter from Arnold Dallimore commending the article, and basically affirming that what I had written about him wasn’t really the half of it. But I do agree in principle — if Wesley had been collaborating with others, had electronic transfer problems, if his editor had been an electronic nincompoop, if he plausibly claimed that the problem in the citations was entirely an accident, and corrected them in the next edition while owning full responsibility for the mistakes and sloppiness, then I would agree that my condemnation of him was far too harsh.

Gary, what you call “Clintonizing” was Steve Wilkins taking full responsibility for the citation problems, which occurred in his sections, and with me refusing to let him do that. I was the editor, and had not read Time on the Cross at that time, and with a topic that inflammatory I certainly should have. My name was on the cover, and the editorial error that I was part of was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious. Is there a magic word I can put in here that keeps it from being Clintonesque? For my part, one thing I will not call it is plagiarism (intellectual theft) because it simply wasn’t. Those who want to read a full account of this can do so in the back of Black & Tan.

Gary, your partisanship is blinding you to issues of basic fairness here. In the past, before all this nastiness erupted, I have contributed to a book that you edited. Suppose — don’t worry! — citation problems are dnow iscovered [sic] in what I wrote and submitted to you, and they somehow got by you. It would be appropriate for you to take responsibility for any number of things editorially, but to demand that you take personal responsibility as though you were a plagiarist (because somebody else made a mistake that you missed) would be a bit thick. And, if someone were out there demanding that you take that kind of responsibility anyway, it would perhaps be a fair conclusion to think that such a one had an axe to grind. Wouldn’t it?

This is really clever rhetoric. Notice that Wilson acknowledges and diminishes his responsibility as editor while he completely ignores his responsibilities as co-author and publisher. Additionally, he gladly points to Steven “Machen” Wilkins laying prostrate on his sword — “It’s his fault!” Furthermore, he muddies the water with the whole “electronic transfer” thingy, leaving it to our imaginations to create a scenario where the electronics magically deleted certain footnote citations at the beginning of each of Wilkins’ paragraphs — but what about the missing citations in Wilkins’ other books? Moreover, he equivocates between plagiarism, which he redefined as “intellectual theft,” and an “editorial error,” which he defined as “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious.” Hmmmm, I wonder what made the editorial error so “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious”? What would the administration of NSA do to a student if he committed an editorial error of this “egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious” magnitude? Perhaps we’ll never know. Finally, after sufficiently revising the historical facts to help him elude accountability for his role in the plagiarism, Beelzeblog concluded that Dr. Johnson has an ax to grind. It all makes perfect sense.

Obviously we have a standoff between the Ph.D. and the wannabe. One affirms what the other denies. Dr. Johnson cast his lot with the 76(?) academics on the Palouse who affirm that Douglas Wilson and Steven “Machen” Wilkins committed plagiarism when they co-wrote the monograph Southern Slavery As It Was; and Mr. Wilson cast his lot with himself, asserting that he “was part of” an “editorial error that . . . was egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious,” whatever that means; but it was “not . . . plagiarism.”

This is our dispute and in arbitrating it I shall not be arbitrary or capricious. To be sure, I intend to apply my fully documented anonymous attack skills to this quarrel and hopefully we can put this controversy to rest once and for all.

The book Southern Slavery As It Was was published by Canon Press, which is a publishing ministry of the Christ Church Cult, subject to the authority of the elders and which uses the same standard contract for all its books, at least during the ’90s. We know this because one of Canon Press’ contracts is a matter of public record and was used as evidence by two local citizens in a property-tax dispute that resulted in the Latah County Commissioners revoking Christ Church’s 501(c)(3) property-tax exemption. (To see the contract, please click here.)

According to the terms of this contract, Douglas Wilson wears two hats — “Author” and “Publisher.” Moreover, according to the book in question he wears a third hat — “Editor,” which combined with the other two makes for the handy acronym APE. This brings us to the question “What covenantal obligations, if any, does the Canon Press contract place on the APE?” And this is a fair question to ask because, in the end, disputes such as this one are one reason men enter into contracts, or covenants, if you will. Accordingly, on page 2 of the contract, beneath the subsection titled “Delivery of Manuscript and Related Material,” it states:

The author shall bear the responsibility for securing all permissions and consents for use, which shall be delivered to the Publisher with the manuscript.

This clause places the responsibility for securing permissions on the Author, while it obligates the Publisher to receive such from the Author. In other words, the APE was responsible to secure, deliver, and receive all permissions.

Further down on page 2, beneath the subsection titled “Editorial Control,” the contract states:

The Publisher shall exercise sufficient editorial control of the Work to assure that the content of the Work is consistent with the doctrinal standards of Canon Press. . . . The Publisher and the Author shall check the proofs meticulously. . . .

This is the only section of the contract that identifies all three hats of the APE — Author, Publisher, and editor, or “editorial control” — and a fair reading of it leaves no wiggle-room for the APE to shrug his responsibility. He had the double responsibility of exercising editorial control and “meticulously” proofreading the manuscript.

Finally, on page 3 of the contract in the subsection titled “Warranties and Indemnities” (which is directly beneath the section “Moral Fitness of Author”), it states:

The Author warrants and represents that he is the sole author of the Work and owns all the rights granted to the Publisher under this agreement; that he has the full power to execute the agreement; that the Work has not been published in any form; that the Work will not infringe any copyright or other proprietary right . . . that he has obtained all permissions necessary for publication of the Work . . . .

This clause closes the deal. There is no safety net or escape hatch for the APE. He entered into a three-way covenant between himself as the Author and himself as the Publisher and himself as the Editor, and as the three-headed APE he bears the brunt of the responsibility. He is the principal party charged with the editorial control of the book as well as proofreading the manuscript, and he vouched for the book’s contents through and through. The APE painted himself into a corner that not even he can spin out of and in the end he made covenantal promises that he could not deliver.

Therefore, as the self-appointed fully documented anonymous attack arbitrator of this dispute, I affirm the opinion of Dr. Johnson and hold the APE accountable and culpable for the egregious, atrocious, embarrassing, and egregious plagiarism in Southern Slavery As It Was. Furthermore, I find the APE in breach of contract, i.e. he is a covenant breaker, and therefore all the convenantal sanctions due to covenant breakers shall fall upon his head.

Thank you.

Anonymity Part V: Chaos in the CREC

“When the wicked arise, men hide themselves; but when they perish, the righteous increase.” — Proverbs 28:28

Yesterday at Green Bagginses a couple of monkey boys made much ado about my anonymity. Apparently it never occurred to them to file their complaints here with me or to interact with my posts that document Douglas Wilson’s pattern of retaliation against those who criticize him in public. This is probably because it’s easier to pressure Pastor Lane and force him to account for me than it is to acknowledge the simple truth that Wilson cannot account for his well-documented history of abuse, harassment, and revenge against those he perceives as “enemies.”

Furthermore, neither he nor his loyalists have ever tried to explain why the CREC Constitution furnishes him with so many different and creative layers of protection from accountability. It reads like an endless maze of obstacles designed to thwart anyone wanting biblical justice, and even if some poor sucker managed to find the appropriate wormhole in the CREC Constitution that would allow him to seek remedy, the confederates appointed to hear his case have proven that they would land against him in a heartbeat rather than act as men who love righteousness by holding their Fearless Leader accountable.

For example, no one from the CREC has ever answered the devastating charges leveled by Church of the King–Santa Cruz against Wilson and the CREC. No one. First they pressured COTK to remove its statement from the web and when COTK refused the CREC brazened it out. They ignored it. As they say, “Out of sight out of mind.” You really have to admire their shamelessness if nothing else: “Please take it off the web because it makes our Fearless Leader look so bad.” Never mind the truth of the statement. Appearance is more important than substance to these scoundrels and the Great Protector must appear sinless. So remove your testimony from the web immediately or you shall force us to ignore it.

This leads me to a column that the Fearless Leader wrote for Credenda Agenda. It’s his vindication of the sweeping charges of wholesale corruption in the Clinton administration that blanketed the Internet during that period and, to be honest, Wilson makes a good case arguing that when men in power subvert the courts, justice finds other outlets to make its case. He titled it “Chaos at the Center”; here is an extended excerpt:

But another breeding ground for rumor exists as well, and this is why we have seen such a remarkable explosion of astounding reports in recent years. This environment for rumor is created when the courts of justice have been hopelessly compromised and corrupted, and have been turned aside from their ordained and appointed use. When this happens, it means that those who have reasonable grounds to make an accusation are prevented from doing so by a conspiracy of factors — awareness of the futility of the endeavor, knowledge of the widespread corruption and bribery, real fear of being dismissed as a crank, concern about physical harm, and so forth. The throne of iniquity has no fellowship with God, and the righteous know that these guys are good at framing mischief through a law (Ps. 94:20). . . . When someone cannot lawfully be charged with wrongdoing — even when plain and evident proof of that wrongdoing exists — then the available information seeks another route. Meantime, the one who is officially “bulletproof” believes he may conduct his affairs with a high hand because he knows he has the official system in his back pocket. This creates an abundant demand for information from those who disseminate it through the new channels. In our day, when the courts no longer settle anything that looks or smells like justice, the new channels are books by alternative publishers and internet newspapers.

When someone is bold enough to mention such things as will be mentioned below, he will be indignantly told that these are all unconfirmed internet rumors, none of this has been established in a court of law, no controlling legal authority . . ., etc. Quite so. We’re sorry. So may we be permitted to present all this evidence in a court of law? No?

Our president is well-known for his sexual immorality and financial corruption. Tragically, this considered by itself does not make him unique among our presidents. But it must honestly be said that he has brought an old game to new levels of performance. In addition, in the minds of those whose understanding goes past what they hear from Peter Jennings, he is also under reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking, cocaine use, obstruction of justice, perjury, and serial murder. These are reasonable charges, with enough evidence to bring a biblical charge in a court of law, provided that the court has not been previously subverted. But here is our dilemma — the courts have been. . . . When an accuser is refuted in open court, we may all rejoice at the defeat of slander. But when potential accusers are found dead in an open ditch, our thoughts turn in another more melancholy direction. . . Lady Justice has taken to sleeping around. (Douglas Wilson, “Chaos at the Center,” Credenda Agenda, volume 10 issue 2)

The parallels between Clinton’s Washington and Wilson’s CREC are striking. Wilson accuses Clinton of subverting justice by corrupting the courts and silencing witnesses; I and many others have accused Wilson of subverting justice by corrupting the CREC court and silencing witnesses. Unlike Wilson, however, I have actually documented my claims.

To be sure, no one has shown up dead yet in Moscow (though a close friend sees murder in the not-too-far distance), but this does not change the truth of Wilson’s observations. It is just as he said, “the righteous know that these guys are good at framing mischief through a law.” Yes, Wilson framed mischief when he drafted the constitutions for Christ Church and the CREC and to his own chagrin things have turned out just as he predicted: “When someone cannot lawfully be charged with wrongdoing — even when plain and evident proof of that wrongdoing exists — then the available information seeks another route.”

Indeed, the available information has sought another route. Welcome to Fœdero Schism, my fully documented anonymous attack blog. And when the CREC monkey boys decide to put away from among themselves that wicked person, I will be glad to identify myself. Until then, however, they’ll just have to excuse me for acting on Solomon’s rule: “When the wicked arise, men hide themselves.”


Thank you.

The Stacked Committee

Earlier this week Douglas Wilson and his toadies repeated their contention against the PCA that it stacked the ad interim committee that was appointed to study the Federal Vision. In fact, the Fearless Leader went so far as to declare the PCA a kangaroo court because of this so-called “stacked committee.” Ironically, he made this declaration ex cathedra, without so much as a trial that granted the presumption of innocence to the accused, which happened to be the entire PCA. Even more ironic, Wilson refused to contact — in person — every commissioner who served on the committee to confirm that they were in fact stacked against the FV. Presumably he relied solely upon his assessment of their written statements.

Anyway, this got me to thinking about the committee of CREC confederates whom Sister Randy Booth appointed to examine Douglas Wilson’s orthodoxy. To paraphrase the questions of a commenter, Who exactly examined the Fearless Leader? Was it an unbiased committee? Were there members of the committee who were on record as being opposed to the FV? Why isn’t there a minority report? These are all great questions and Wilson and the CREC should be quick to answer them. But to my knowledge no one has ever asked them. So in a spirit of good faith and with a sincere desire to help establish the facts surrounding this historic examination, I shall answer these questions to the best of my ability on my fully documented anonymous attack blog.

Now, before answering the question “Who examined Douglas Wilson?” you have to remember that it didn’t matter who was on the committee because no one in the CREC has the ability to touch Douglas Wilson unless two members of Christ Church bring charges against the entire Kult session and successfully prosecute all of them in front of the CREC confederates, who happen to be the same confederates who ran Church of the King–Santa Cruz out of their federation after Wilson put his crosshairs on Andrew Sandlin. So this examination was really a meaningless exercise. Wilson could have revealed that he believes the Book of Nehemiah authorizes him to dissolve thirty-year old marriages (which he really does believe: “Remember him, O God, concerning this, and wipe not out his evil deeds that he has done to the household of God, and the institutions thereof.”) and the confederates would have been utterly impotent to remove him from the ministry, which doesn’t matter because their track record demonstrates they wouldn’t have cared anyway.

Therefore, since the exam had no ecclesiastic value, it was all for show. In fact, it was the ultimate doug and pony show because of all the mileage he got out of it. But can you imagine how humiliating it must have been for those men to pretend as though they had legitimate authority to hold Wilson accountable when they knew all along they were nothing but a bunch of monkey boys pandering to his monstrous ego? How embarrassing. Nevertheless, this brings us to that all-important question, Who examined Douglas Wilson? Obviously they were all CREC confederates; so taking them alphabetically we find:

Jeffrey Niell
Jeffrey Niell, pastor of Emmanuel Covenant Church, Glendale, AZ, has an M.A. from Fuller Theological Seminary. Neither the CRE minutes nor his church’s website reveal anything about his background — how he entered the pastorate, who ordained him, how his church landed in the CREC, etc. But he is the first man on the committee to examine Wilson’s orthodoxy.

Burke Shade
Burke Shade, pastor of Cornerstone Reformed Church, Carbondale, IL, was lawfully defrocked from the ministry by the PCA in 1999. But the interesting thing about Shade’s story is the way Wilson brought him into the CRE. According to the Christ Church Elders’ Meeting Minutes, Wilson promised Shade membership in the CRE while he was on trial in the PCA for teaching false doctrine. Consequently, the Christ Church elders appointed an ad hoc committee to investigate Burke Shade’s defrocking in order “to get to an ordained conclusion.” The hypocrisy surrounding the Kult’s so-called “vindication” of Burke Shade is simply staggering; you can read more about it here and here. These guys really know how to put on a show.

Gregg Strawbridge
Gregg Strawbridge, Pastor of All Saints’ Presbyterian, Lancaster, PA, has a Ph.D. from University of Southern Mississippi (Education & Philosophy) and has a strong resume on paper. However you won’t find the following little fact on his background check unless you contact his former church, because that’s when you’ll learn that while Strawbridge was an ordained officer in a Baptist church, he was teaching paedobaptism behind the backs of his fellow officers contrary to his covenantal vow to his church’s constitution, but pursuant to Wilson’s instruction. He did this for over a year and gathered a small following. When his fellow officers caught him, they terminated his employment on the spot. Think of it as a failed coup for the kingdom of Doug.


Dennis Tuuri
Dennis Tuuri, Pastor of Reformation Covenant Church, Oregon City, OR, has perhaps the most confusing background of all the men examining Wilson. His church’s website states, “Ordained in 1983 as RCC’s first Elder, Dennis’ faithfulness to God’s Word has been a blessing within and without the church.” This statement appears clear — someone ordained Tuuri an elder in 1983 — but that’s all it says. It doesn’t tell us how and when he made it to the pastorate, just as it doesn’t reveal who ordained him or even if he was ordained. The CRE minutes add to this confusion; read it and try to make sense of it:

Motion (DW/BB) to extend the fraternal status of Reformation Covenant Church of Canby, Oregon. Doug described that a concern about RCC had been raised by Westminster Presbyterian Church of at last year’s CRE Presbytery meeting. The concern centered around the ordination of RCC’s pastor, Dennis Tuuri. Doug mentioned many recommendations from pastors of other churches testifying to Dennis Tuuri’s godly character. He believes that reconciliation between RCC and WPC is unlikely apart from RCC becoming part of a larger body like the CRE. Doug made it clear that this motion to extend RCC’s fraternal status should not be misconstrued to reflect negatively on CC. The CRE is not finding fault, but simply needs more time to decide how to proceed. We wish to treat RCC as a church body unto themselves, independently from WPC. Richard Mahar, an elder at RCC, read a statement (see attachment A) which could be summarized as follows: RCC has sought reconciliation in the past with WPC, but WPC has refused further discussions until RCC has become accountable to another ecclesiastical authority. Yet WPC has, in effect, told the CRE not to allow RCC to become accountable to them. This puts RCC in a dilemma. Also, WPC has charged Dennis Tuuri with “abuse of the flock” because of certain actions which he took as a minister, actions which would be correct if WPC would recognize his ordination, which they do not. RCC believes the characterization of Dennis Tuuri is inaccurate, and welcomes the opportunity to be subject to a court outside RCC and WPC. They are concerned that, if the CRE postpones their entrance, the stigma of being denied entrance to the CRE will be added to the accusation that they are not accountable, giving their detractors additional opportunity to continue the accusations. He concluded with an appeal to the CRE to vote in favor of their entrance.

Doug defended Dennis Tuuri’s ordination as being valid, albeit irregular. The delay of one year has nothing to do with Dennis’s ordination. The CRE is not by its actions giving any credence to the ordination charge or any credibility to any other charge against RCC. Doug recognized that there are no formal, judicial charges against RCC. He noted that no such charge could be brought to the CRE unless it was made against the entire session. After a request for further input, the motion passed 6-0. (Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals, Second Annual Presbytery Meeting Minutes, 3–4)

When you consider that the CRE had to put the best possible spin on this narrative, it sure looks as though Tuuri led a small faction out of another church. Whatever he did, this much is true about Dennis Tuuri: the PCA charged him with “abuse of the flock” and his ordination, whoever performed it, was “irregular”: “WPC [PCA] has charged Dennis Tuuri with ‘abuse of the flock’ because of certain actions which he took as a minister, actions which would be correct if WPC would recognize his ordination, which they do not. . . . Doug defended Dennis Tuuri’s ordination as being valid, albeit irregular. The delay of one year has nothing to do with Dennis’s ordination.”

Garry Vanderveen
Garry Vanderveen, Pastor of Christ Covenant Church, Langley, BC, Canada, graduated from Greenville Seminary. Neither the CRE minutes nor his church website reveal anything about Vanderveen’s background — how he entered the pastorate, who ordained him, how his church landed in the CREC, etc.

Accordingly, the committee that examined Douglas Wilson’s orthodoxy was composed of five men and any way you cut it, this was as fair and balanced a committee that Wilson could ever request. Two of them — Jeffrey Niell & Garry Vanderveen — have invisible credentials and consequently we know nothing about them. Gregg Strawbridge is as educated as he is unscrupulous. Dennis Tuuri, whose ordination is “irregular,” received political asylum in the CREC after his former church accused him of “abusing the flock.” And Burke Shade is a defrockee. A minister couldn’t ask for a better combination of men to represent the corrupt federation that he founded.

You can read their report here and since they voted unanimously to affirm Wilson’s orthodoxy, there is no minority report.

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.