[Vision2020] Gnostic Accountibility in the CREC

[Paul Rumelhart]

Why am I supposed to care about this, again?  I don't care what sorts of 
mental gymnastics somebody has to go through to justify their religious 
beliefs.  I just know that they have the right to believe as they wish 
and to express those beliefs in the community if done in a legal way.  
That's all I need to know.

This anti-Christ Church crusade went too far a long time ago.  They are 
growing in number.  Great, they are allowed to do that.  They are 
starting to change the conservative/liberal dynamic of this town.  So 
what?  They believe crazy things about slavery, women, and gays.  They 
are allowed to believe as they wish.  If you truly believe that 
statement, then you have to concede that they can believe anything at 
all, no matter how much you disagree with it, or are disgusted by it, or 
whatever.

I can get behind keeping them from turning our city's laws into the Book 
of Leviticus, and I can get behind ensuring that everyone in their 
congregation has the ability to leave it if they wish without 
harassment.  But that's not what I'm talking about here.  I'm talking 
about their right to believe as they wish, to express those beliefs, and 
to grow in number without their every move and every tenet of their 
faith being dissected, analyzed, and argued over and over and over.

Besides, from a strategic standpoint, you guys are giving Doug Wilson 
too much power.  By setting him up as Stalin, you're giving him 
legitimacy that he might not otherwise have had.

I wish someone would come out with the Gospel of "Live and Let Live".

Paul

For those who don't know, I'm not a Christ Church member and my 
particular religious views would probably cause your average member to 
hiss at me next time they saw me, just out of reflex.


News of Christ Cult wrote:
>
>
>     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
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================