[Vision2020] Does Doug Wilson fit the Presbyterian mold of anordained minister?

[Art Deco]

J Ford provides us with well thought out comments on the lack of Christ Church Cultmaster Douglas Wilson lack of a professional certificate, in this case ordination, even he claims he is 'Presbyterian.'

Her comments include the following extremely revealing information:

"Doug Wilson, Evan Wilson, and several other men were commissioned to the 
work of Faith Fellowship, later to become Christ Church, by the elders of 
the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman at a meeting held in the One-Way 
Bookstore of Pullman, WA in the mid-1970s. The elders of EFC-Pullman at the 
time included Jim Wilson and Doug Busby." (poohsthink.com)

"The four stages or order of ordination were not followed; they were simply 
overlooked or ignored.  The group met in a coffee/bookstore, basically had a 
business meeting and decided "Viola! you are now a "minister."  Or did they?
 
"Were they simply "appointing" Doug as a deacon of the newly formed 
ministry and he took it to be an ordination or anointing as a minister, and 
ran with it?  It has been seen that the EFC have condemned Doug over the 
years for actions "unfitting" of the position he holds himself in, i.e. 
minister."

Various members of the EFC have made numerous comments about Cultmaster Wilson, all supported by documents and other testimony, alleging the lack of honesty, humility, selflessness, compassion/agape, etc on his part.  They have in effect alleged that by character and action, Wilson is unfit to be called a minister of Christ.

However, there are many that do not believe that the EFC are sincere in their charges.

Well, here is a chance for the EFC to clearly demonstrate where they stand.  They can simply revoke the so-called "ordination" they once bestowed upon Wilson and then publicize widely and clearly the good news of such revocation.  With such a revocation, the Cultmaster will have no claim to call himself an ordained minister, barring an attempt by the CCC elders (read "whores") to lay an obviously invalid ordination upon him.

Watching Wilson trying to extricate himself from all the entanglements he manages to entrap himself in is like watching Bozo the Clown -- one cannot help but admire and be amused by his clever showperson antics, but at the same time know that he, like the Bozo character, is only a spiritually vacuous persona.

Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006 3:07 PM
Subject: [Vision2020] Does Doug Wilson fit the Presbyterian mold of anordained minister?


> Ok, I realize this is a bit long, but......
> 
> What Presbyterians Believe about ordination
> 
> What does it mean to be ordained?
> 
> Presbyterian beliefs about ordination have changed significantly over the 
> years
> 
> What Presbyterians believe about ordination has changed--sometimes rather 
> significantly--over time. For example, the ordination of women as ministers, 
> elders and deacons--something considered unthinkable earlier in our 
> history--has become not only acceptable but expected.
> 
> Three unchanging beliefs Presbyterians have remained open to change 
> regarding our understanding of ordination because of three unchanging 
> beliefs:
> 
> 1.) We believe that God is the source and summit of all ministry in the 
> church. For Presbyterians ordination is not synonymous with ministry. We 
> believe all Christians are called by God and equipped by the Spirit for 
> service in the world when they are joined to the ministry of Jesus Christ at 
> their baptism. On the other hand, not every member is called or equipped by 
> God for the exercise of particular offices of ministry within the church.
> 2.) Presbyterians hold the conviction, voiced in chapter 1 of the Book of 
> Order, that "truth is in order to goodness." Truth includes our shared 
> convictions about who should be ordained, to what offices, for what 
> purposes, and with what preparation and standards of accountability. The 
> measure of this truth, however, does not depend upon logical coherence or 
> philosophical argument, but from the character of the fruit it bears.
> 3.) Presbyterians believe that ordained ministry should be collegial (shared 
> with others), non-hierarchical (shared by clergy and laity), and communal 
> (representing the whole church and not merely a congregation). We also 
> believe those called to ordained offices in the church should be subjected 
> to a process in which their calls are tested and confirmed by the church.
> Men and women together?
> 
> In 1789, when the first General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the 
> United States of America met in Philadelphia, all church officers-- deacons, 
> elders and ministers--were, by both custom and church law, male. The very 
> notion of women holding office was considered preposterous. Indeed, some 
> early 19th-century church "worthies" became quite worked up over the 
> possibility that women might lead prayer in "promiscuous assemblies" 
> (gatherings where men would be present).
> Women were prohibited from serving as elders or deacons until the 1930s--or 
> the 1960s in the Presbyterian Church in the U.S. (PCUS). Ordaining women to 
> the gospel ministry took an additional 20-30 years.
> 
> Today, however, the proportion of women and men serving in ordained offices 
> is nearly 50 percent each, a development that is mirrored in the enrollment 
> figures of the 10 Presbyterian theological institutions.
> 
> Whose hands?
> 
> Until the 1830s no one seriously challenged the notion that only pastors 
> (also called bishops until 1957) were permitted to join in the laying on of 
> hands in the ordination of new pastors, elders and deacons. Professor 
> Charles Hodge of Princeton Theological Seminary, who opposed letting elders 
> take part in the process, was fond of quoting an old Latin proverb: Nemo det 
> quod non habet (no one may give what he does not have). Hodge's argument was 
> cast aside by the PCUS in the 1860s, but Presbyterians in the "Northern" 
> stream steadfastly clung to it until the 1950s.
> Today ordination is explicitly defined as an act done by a governing body 
> made up of ministers and elders who jointly exercise the power of 
> jurisdiction, rather than as an act done by persons who possess a power of 
> order only they can transmit.
> 
> Service for life
> 
> For the first century of American Presbyterianism, congregations were unable 
> to change entrenched leadership on the session or board of deacons. Elders 
> and deacons served on their boards until they died (or were convicted of an 
> offense that stripped them of their ordination). Finally, in the middle of 
> the 19th century, churches were given permission to opt out of the lifetime 
> service model in favor of a rotating limited-term service (the PCUS would 
> take nearly a century to provide the same option to its congregations).
> 
> Today, limited-term service is now mandatory, and congregations that wish to 
> be exempted from this requirement must make their request to the presbytery.
> 
> Radical roles for elders
> 
> During the same general era a then-radical notion began to take root: that 
> elders should be able to be moderators of governing bodies above the level 
> of the session. Although the idea eventually carried the day, a debate 
> opened up almost immediately: How, it was asked, could a lay person serve as 
> moderator since the retiring moderator each year was required to preach? 
> Because elders had not been given the power of order needed to preach, any 
> retiring elder-moderator was expected to deputize a minister member or 
> commissioner to preach the retiring moderator's sermon!
> Today elders are not only regularly elected to serve as moderators of higher 
> governing bodies but often serve as commissioned lay pastors, preaching the 
> Word and presiding at sacramental celebrations for congregations without 
> pastors. Moreover, elders are as likely as ministers to be elected to 
> service as presbytery, synod and General Assembly executives.
> 
> More ministry options
> 
> When American Presbyterians adopted their first Book of Order in 1789, only 
> two options existed for those who had prepared themselves for ordination to 
> the gospel ministry. Those with a call from an existing congregation would 
> be ordained by the presbytery as pastors (or bishops). Those without a call 
> would be ordained as evangelists, charged with gathering and organizing a 
> new congregation.
> Today those preparing to serve as ministers of the Word and Sacrament are 
> faced with an array of specialized forms of ministry, many of which have no 
> formal ties or links to local congregations or agencies of higher governing 
> bodies.
> 
> Testing what we believe
> 
> Picture a child's top. When the top is not spinning, all sorts of clever 
> lines and designs can be seen, but once it is set to spinning, we see 
> something altogether different. When we look only at what our confessional 
> and governance documents say about ordination, we can see all kinds of 
> logical connections and easy-to-understand categories. When all of these are 
> put in motion by virtue of applying them to particular persons, with 
> particular gifts, called by particular communities of God's people to lead 
> them at a particular time in history, the lines and the categories begin to 
> blur. The strengths and weaknesses of these provisions come to light in ways 
> that matter to people.
> Some in our church feel strongly that Christian educators ought to be 
> ordained. The church also is deeply divided over the question of whether 
> openly gay and lesbian persons may be ordained to offices of ministry. We 
> may wish these debates would just go away, but they are the way we 
> Presbyterians go about testing what we believe to be the truth. If and when 
> the debates finally come to an end, it will come from putting everything 
> that matters to us into play and then testing the fruits born of each side's 
> understanding and practice of ministry. (By J. Frederick Holper)
> 
> J. Frederick Holper is professor of preaching and worship at McCormick 
> Theological Seminary, Chicago, Ill.
> 
> What is ordination
> 
> The act by which the church sets apart leaders to serve in particular 
> offices. The word ordination is derived from order. In ordination the church 
> orders itself for ministry.
> 
> Q. For what offices is ordination required?
> A. Minister of the Word and Sacrament, elder, deacon.
> 
> Q. Who does the ordaining?
> A. The presbytery ordains ministers. The church session ordains deacons and 
> elders.
> 
> Q. How does the process of ordination work?
> 
> A. Those called to an ordained office in the church are subjected to a 
> four-stage process of admission to that office. Presbyterian ordination 
> rites have always included each aspect of this fourfold process:
> • Articulation of a clear inner sense that God is calling the person to an 
> office of ministry requiring ordination.
> • Testing of that inner call by the church itself. In practice, this has 
> included an examination not only of the person's knowledge and gifts, but 
> also of his or her way of life.
> • Election to office by a particular community of God's people, ordinarily a 
> congregation.
> • Admission to the office (ordination) in the context of public worship, 
> through prayer, with the laying on of hands.
> 
> Q. What kind of leadership does the church need?
> A. The two key words here are gifts and service.
> 
> "Leaders in the church are identified and called to office in terms of their 
> gifts. It is expected that these gifts, coming from God, are to be exercised 
> in the particular tasks and office. It is also to be expected that the gifts 
> of the leader will be cultivated and developed in obedience to the guidance 
> of the Spirit and in the service of the church. Leaders are also called on 
> to empower and enhance the exercise and development of the gifts of all of 
> the members of the community."--A Proposal for Considering the Theology and 
> Practice of Ordination in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), commended for 
> churchwide study by the 1992 General Assembly
> 
> "The purpose and pattern of leadership in the church in all its forms of 
> ministry shall be understood not in terms of power but of service, after the 
> manner of the servant ministry of Jesus Christ."--Book of Order, G-14.0103
> 
> 
> According to the Encyclopedia Americana, ordination is:
> 
> "The CEREMONY by which priests, deacons, subdeacons, candidates for the 
> minor orders and ministers of any denomination are admitted to their 
> specific office in the church."
> 
> While Jesus himself was not ordained by the clergy and religious system of 
> His day John the Baptist baptized Jesus. Christ dedicated Himself to God; so 
> why did Jesus insist that John baptize him? Because Jesus wanted to 
> symbolize in a PUBLIC CONFESSION that He had dedicated Himself to God. The 
> Bible tells us of Jesus' baptism that "immediately on coming up out of the 
> water He saw the heavens being parted, and, like a dove, the spirit coming 
> down upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: 'You are my Son, the 
> beloved; I have approved you."
> 
> After His ordination immediately following His baptism in the River Jordan 
> Jesus PUBLICLY stated the authority of His ordination by reading from Isaiah 
> 61:1, 2: "1 The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has 
> anointed me to preach good news to the poor.  He has sent me to bind up the 
> brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from 
> darkness for the prisoners, 2 to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and 
> the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn."
> 
> In today's world, declaring someone ordained through ceremony is a 
> recognizable way for the ENTIRE community into which the "minister" belongs, 
> to agree with the choosing of him and to greet the newly ordained.  
> Basically, it is a "vote", if you will, of confidence and acceptance of the 
> new minister/leader of their church.  Jesus' baptism/ordination "ceremony" 
> is a model for a church to follow His steps closely; it marks the person as 
> a person that is dedicating his ENTIRE life/world to God and God's people 
> for the benefit of those people and Glory of God.  It is a "token" of the 
> person's willingness to follow God's Word and Jesus' work.
> 
> 
> Comment
> 
> Given all this, the following sheds light on the fact that Doug Wilson is 
> NOT an ordained minister in any given "ministry":
> 
> To answer your question:
> 
> Doug Wilson, Evan Wilson, and several other men were commissioned to the 
> work of Faith Fellowship, later to become Christ Church, by the elders of 
> the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman at a meeting held in the One-Way 
> Bookstore of Pullman, WA in the mid-1970s. The elders of EFC-Pullman at the 
> time included Jim Wilson and Doug Busby." (poohsthink.com)
> 
> The four stages or order of ordination were not followed; they were simply 
> overlooked or ignored.  The group met in a coffee/bookstore, basically had a 
> business meeting and decided "Viola! you are now a "minister."  Or did they? 
>  Were they simply "appointing" Doug as a deacon of the newly formed 
> ministry and he took it to be an ordination or anointing as a minister, and 
> ran with it?  It has been seen that the EFC have condemned Doug over the 
> years for actions "unfitting" of the position he holds himself in, i.e. 
> minister.
> 
> Where, before this and certainly since, does Doug show any kind of gift(s) 
> that would make people say "Hmm, this guy looks like he'd be a good 
> candidate for ordination?"  or "Doug Wilson has a gift for making people 
> understand and follow God's word?" - especially given his penchant for 
> ignoring God's laws and ways (for instance, following the laws of the land 
> he finds himself in?)
> 
> It is my belief that ordination should be required for all men that want to 
> be Ministers to go to a college or Seminary. Otherwise you get these people 
> who become Pastors simply because they "like to preach" and know nothing 
> about correct doctrine or how to even look for the correct doctrine.  I 
> think a church, when thinking of putting a pastor in office should question 
> his doctrine, and if he knows what he is talking about, then and only then 
> should a PUBLIC ordination be committed.
> 
> Because, there are skills and things learned from an experienced and well 
> educated Seminarian that a "pastor" should have; those things simply can not 
> be learned at the local bookstore or as an apprentice.  Granted, a person 
> would be able to learn "about" or "of" them, but you simply can't get a full 
> education like what you get at a college.  Seminaries have experienced 
> professors that have had their own parishes/churches. The reason why there 
> are so many churches full of false doctrine today is because of pastors who 
> have never gone to college and preach their own thing. They have no 
> counseling skills, no communication skills, and no interpersonal skills. It 
> leads to a mess!
> 
> Also, Pastors need to know how to properly interpret, much less educate, the 
> people of the Word. You don't learn how to do this by simply reading a book 
> all the time or even writing them. Most of the Pastors I know have a good 
> handle on Greek and Hebrew and actually go into the original text to get 
> sermons from. Sermons are a lot more difficult then just finding a problem 
> and getting 1 to 2 points out of it to verify their true point. There is 
> much more involved if done properly.  I would say that one should be an 
> "ordained" minister to be the senior pastor of a church, but one must more 
> importantly focus on what it means to be ordained.  I do realize and accept 
> the prerequisites will vary from place to place.
> 
> I believe that one should have a strong theological background in order to 
> be ordained. In almost all cases, this should require the approval of an 
> acceptable degree-granting university or seminary. In some wild and 
> generally hypothetical cases (like Peter and the apostles), one might make 
> an exception.  I realize that Doug is stating (lately) that he is in fact an 
> apostle; but can one just appoint oneself to that position?  Can anyone just 
> say "I am a (*), therefore I am a (*)"? In other words, is Doug a 
> pastor/minister/apostle simply because he says so?
> 
> Accountability needs to be another concern and requirement of an ordaining 
> body.  If someone is not ordained per the steps outlined above, who does the 
> pastor/minister(apostle) answer to?  Especially if they are, in reality, 
> self-appointed?
> 
> Aithníonn cíaróg cíaróg eile. -- One beetle recognizes another beetle (and 
> can accommodate for the lacking of their fellow beetle.)
> 
> Given the actions of Doug and his fellow "deacons" (especially after Dale's 
> repugnant posting this morning), I believe the Christ Church fellowship 
> needs to seriously look at Doug's continued role as "minister".  They need 
> to seriously consider if he is the type of "minister of God's Word" and 
> God's work that they want to represent them in the community.
> 
> 
> J  :]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> J  :]
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
> 
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060215/3964930c/attachment-0001.htm