[Vision2020] Gnostic Accountibility in the CREC

[News of Christ Cult]

Monday, December 17, 2007  Gnostic
Accountability<http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html>

Continuing my thread on Douglas Wilson's so-called
"accountability,"<http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-accountability.html>today
we shall consider his accountability to the denomination that he
founded, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CREC), which requires
us to examine the CREC Constitution. And whenever you discuss CREC
constitutional matters, the first issue you must contemplate relates to
honesty and competence. I say this because the CREC Constitution
specifically identifies the CREC as a "presbytery" fifty-three times,
whereas it only uses the word "confederation" a total of seven — once in the
title and six times in the "Preamble."

Obviously this should concern anyone interested in truthful discourse
because if these men don't have the capacity — *moral or mental* — to
accurately identify their assembly, then they have front loaded the
conversation with false witness before it ever begins, and at that point the
question that all interested parties must answer is whether the CREC
confederates incorporated this falsehood into their founding document
because they are *dishonest* or *incompetent.* I suppose the judgment of
charity would argue for incompetence but I am willing to hear other
positions.

This brings us to the CREC and the "accountability" clause in its
constitution, which you have to read carefully because there is only one
article that vests *limited* authority in the confederates to act in a
disciplinary capacity. It states:

*Article IV. The Broader Assemblies. . . .*
*L.* After a fair and open judicial hearing at presbytery, a congregation
may be removed from membership in the presbytery by a two-thirds vote of the
presbytery. Upon such occasions, the removed congregation retains the full
right of appeal to council.

*M.* Issues relating to the local congregation which may lawfully be brought
before the broader assemblies are specified in this section. All matters not
itemized here must be adjudicated and resolved at the level of the local
church.

Before any appeal is made, a matter must be first addressed at the local
church level. Appeal may be made (1) when the session of elders is accused
by two or more of the church members of participating in or tolerating
grievous dishonesty in subscription to the doctrinal or constitutional
standards of the local church; or, (2) when the session of elders is accused
by two or more of the church members of gross misbehaviour. In any case
where at least two witnesses are from the same household, three witnesses
are required to hear the case. The broader assemblies must refuse to hear
frivolous or unconstitutional appeals.

Appeals to council do not necessarily have to first be heard by presbytery.
However, council may choose to remand the case to presbytery.

*N.* When an appeal comes to presbytery, a simple majority at presbytery is
necessary to decide the issue; the decision of presbytery shall be
considered settled and binding unless and until it is proved by a council to
be in conflict with the Scriptures or the Constitution of the CREC. The
matter may be appealed further to the council by the appellant. The council
must refuse to hear frivolous or unconstitutional appeals. A simple majority
at council is necessary to decide the issue; the decision of council shall
be considered settled and binding unless and until it is proved by a future
council to be in conflict with the Scriptures or the Constitution of the
CREC. Decisions of council can be appealed to a future council, though the
future council is not obligated to receive such an appeal.

*O.* The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation
are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory. If the elders of a
particular congregation choose to refuse the instruction of the broader
church, they may do so without deprivation of property. However, if their
disregard of godly counsel is particularly egregious, they may be removed
from membership in the CREC, in accordance with Section M and O. (CREC
Constitution, Article IV, sections
L—O<http://www.crechurches.org/infofiles/crecconstitution05rev.pdf>
)


Notice the details. Everything pivots on the qualification in section
M: *"Issues
relating to the local congregation which may lawfully be brought before the
broader assemblies are specified in this section."* In other words, the CREC
Constitution prohibits the confederates from hearing anything other than
what section M specifies and, accordingly, the CREC can only hear cases
brought by members of a CREC church and those members must bring charges
against their entire session of elders. That's it. *No mas.* Therefore, if
an elder, a session of elders, or even a "presbytery" (the CREC has two, so
called) in the CREC took offense at Wilson's reprehensible conduct or his
false doctrine, the CREC Constitution gives them no standing to pursue
remedy. And even if they had standing to bring charges, the CREC
Constitution grants no authority to the confederates to take disciplinary
action. Section O states:

The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation
are *spiritually
authoritative, but practically advisory.* If the elders of a particular
congregation choose to refuse the instruction of the broader church, they
may do so without deprivation of property. (emphasis added)


Make careful note of the words *"spiritually authoritative, but practically
advisory."* This is the sum total of the confederation's constitutional
power. It is purely "spiritual," which the constitution defines as nothing
more than "practical advice," except in egregious cases when the CREC
Constitution authorizes the confederates to expel a member church.

For you CREC monkey boys reading this, here lies the difference between a
"presbytery" and a "confederation." While these sections of the CREC
Constitution continually refer to the CREC as a "presbytery" (because of
dishonesty or incompetence), the governing document never vests authority in
its members to exercise discipline. They are completely powerless to act in
any biblical capacity. They cannot censure; they cannot excommunicate; they
cannot restore; they cannot comment on standing — good or bad; they can only
expel. They have absolutely no authority to discipline. Simply put, they're
Gnostics.

Thank you.

Posted by Mark T.  at 6:48
PM<http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html>

<http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=8488247191345157337>
<http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=8488247191345157337>

Labels: Fœdero Accountability<http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/search/label/F%C5%93dero%20Accountability>
  2 comments:  Anonymous said...

What is the CREC Constitution based on? Did they utilize the E-Free
Constitution in drafting the CREC, did they just cut the entire thing out of
new cloth?
  December 18, 2007 7:11 AM
<http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html#c2004960624767802600>

<http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=2004960624767802600>
  Mark
T. <http://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263> said...

A friend of mine is a former member of the Kult (in fact, he is one of the
targets of the imprecatory prayers); he tells me that Wilson framed the CREC
Constitution from scratch and bounced it off the men in the Kirk during
their Sunday night men's forums. This is only one witness (and I'd swear by
him without batting an eye), but it's consistent with Wilson's MO.

Re E Free, I don't know how much Wilson relied on their constitution when he
drafted CEF's Constitution; but you have to remember that at that time he
had three elders who kept him on a tight leash. Of course, that all changed
in 1993 when he overthrew their leadership. Regardless, I am confident that
Wilson has purged the Kirk Constitution of all E Free remnants and has
expunged any clause that could ever threaten his power. Their website used
to show how many times they revised it. If you look closely at those dates,
each revision represents a power crisis in the Kult that forced him to
tighten up the constitution.

I have an extended thread in mind on this whole history, because I
discovered some remarkable facts in last two weeks vis-à-vis how this thing
began. But I'm still working out some of the details and the best way to
present it. Last night's post was originally twice its size and at the last
minute I whacked it in half to not lose my readers. Wilson World is a
complex web of deceit that requires much patience to unravel. Bottom line:
it's all a confidence game.

Sorry to blather.
  December 18, 2007 7:57
AM<http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html#c4268404325472221029>
-- 


Juanita Flores
Advocate for the Truth from Jesus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20071228/724da99c/attachment.html