[Vision2020] Gnostic Accountibility in the CREC

[lfalen]

Paul
Good commintary. Happy new year.
Roger
-----Original message-----
From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 10:35:31 -0800
To: News of Christ Cult news.of.christ.cult at gmail.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Gnostic Accountibility in the CREC

> 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
> > =======================================================
> 
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>