[Vision2020] Douglas Wilson as Quisling

[News of Christ Cult]

 http://crec.wordpress.com/
For the Record <http://crec.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/for-the-record/>
Published November
13th, 2006  Contemplations <http://wordpress.com/tag/contemplations/> 0
Comments <http://crec.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/for-the-record/#respond>

After extensive prayer; investigation; deliberation; soul-searching; and
solicitation of godly, outside advice, Church of the King–Santa Cruz ( *COTK
*<http://www.cotk.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=89&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0>)
has withdrawn from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (*CREC
* <http://www.crechurches.org/>), of which we have been a part as either a
fraternal delegate or full member since 2000. The present communication
explains our action.

*A Little History*
We joined the CREC (then the CRE) with the understanding that the
organization is a *"confederation"* as stated both in its name and its
constitution. A confederation is a "group of confederates, especially of
states or nations, united for a common purpose; a league." This
Confederation in its constitution indicates that its member churches are
joined by theological confession (Reformed, Reformed Baptist or
Congregational) and by agreement with the aims of the organization. The CREC
constitution provides doctrinal and ecclesial accountability without tipping
into standard Presbyterianism (the governance of local churches by all the
churches' elders in their geographic locale) or Episcopacy (the governance
by a single bishop exercising authority over elders or ministers within
local churches as a virtual succession of apostolic authority).

The CREC constitution defines the organization as confederate, not
Presbyterian or Episcopal:

The moderator [whether of presbytery or counsel, and the chief elective
office in the CREC] also has the authority to meet with the moderators of
other broader assemblies to encourage them or to be encouraged, as well as
to inquire about the spiritual and doctrinal health of the churches within
the other assemblies. *This should in no way be interpreted as a judicial or
prelatical authority.* (emphasis supplied)

The decisions of the assemblies [presbyteries, and the wider council] 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 [that is, by a vote of the
presbytery]. (*emphasis
supplied* <http://www.crechurches.org/2005CREC-Constitution.pdf>)

Dissatisfaction has been registered within the CREC with the constitution's
limiting definition of the role of the moderator. A 2003 Constitutional
Review Committee report to the CREC titled, "*On the
Moderator*<http://crec.wordpress.com/2/>,"
(2003 Minutes, pp. 52 ff.), complains that the CREC constitution's view of
the role of moderator is " *a real
problem*<http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#problem>,"
and outlines instead a much more active, intrusive role for the moderator, *
stating* <http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#direction>: "The direction we [the
CREC?] are moving calls for more than this," i.e., more authority than the
constitutionally limited role of moderator. The CREC constitution forbids
that the moderator may exercise judicial authority, but this report seeks to
have that limitation abolished (p. 55), and calls the CREC to "*modify our
constitution* <http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#modify>" (p. 56) to grant the
moderator (explicitly using the title "
*bishop*<http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#bishop>")
more intrusive authority within churches. The report calls for the moderator
to be " *the personal embodiment of the
CRE[C]*<http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#pe>,"
and he holds up as a positive example the *Roman Catholic
Pope*<http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#pope>at this point (p. 53). The
Constitutional Review Committee's argument for
such constitutional alterations confirms their understanding that the CREC
constitution does not grant the moderator this more expansive authority they
desire. The CREC constitution specifies a limited, narrow scope to the
moderator's duties and authority, and the CREC has operated according to
this constitutional standard until the latest unfortunate events involving
Church of the King. A CREC moderator is already now operating as just such a
"*bishop,* <http://crec.wordpress.com/1/#exclude>" but in so doing, he is
acting contrary to the CREC constitution.

As that constitution declares, decisions of the CREC are "spiritually
authoritative, but practically advisory." While the CREC has the authority
to expel a church whose actions they come to regard as "particularly
egregious," its moderators have no constitutional authority to govern within
that church. Any reasonable reading of the constitution confirms that local
churches are not bound to abide by what they deem bad decisions of
moderators.

*A Constitutional Crisis*
Over time, however, it has become clear that one or more leaders in the CREC
have fundamentally redefined the organization's authority from what is
expressed in its constitution, without the due process of discussion and/or
vote by its member churches.

This fact became painfully clear to us in the last two years. A group
of *disgruntled
* <http://www.cotk.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=80>COTK-SC
members — as well as non-members — contacted Anselm (Western)
presbytery moderator, Rev. Douglas Wilson, with their concerns. He advised
them to work with us local elders to resolve their issues. At the same time,
however, he continued working with these dissidents behind the scenes,
leading them to understand him to be in agreement with their negative
assessment of the COTK leadership, thereby validating their negative
assessment. Moreover, and quite early in this process, Rev. Wilson pressed
the COTK elders to support the disgruntled group in forming a new CREC
church, and he irresponsibly assisted that group in plotting a course to
accomplish this goal. He unilaterally contacted another CREC minister to
solicit his assistance in starting this church, despite the fact that this
disgruntled group had not acted responsibly in dealing with COTK, and
despite the fact that we had implored Rev. Wilson not to go over our heads
as the duly chosen leaders of the local flock. Rev. Wilson disregarded
nearly every one of our pleas.

Indeed, throughout this ordeal, Rev. Wilson repeatedly dismissed our
concerns and seemed to assume that, at a far distance, he knew the situation
much better than we elders did — we who, unlike him, are *actually* called
to oversee our local flock (Ac. 20:28; *1 Pet. 5:1–4*
<http://crec.wordpress.com/1/#pet>).

At one point Rev. Wilson communicated to us that the main issue of this
entire dispute was his personal differences with one of our elders, P.
Andrew Sandlin. Though Revs. Sandlin and Wilson do maintain certain
theological disagreements, these disagreements were tangent to the actual
church issues under consideration. Nevertheless, when Rev. Sandlin
repeatedly offered to meet Rev. Wilson privately to address any differences
these highly visible men might have, Rev. Wilson declined each offer.

It is important to understand that none of the issues over which the
disgruntled group was exercised touched on confessional fidelity or on any
grievous sin of the elders, the only two prescribed actionable offenses
according to the CREC constitution. Rather, they were comparatively
secondary issues over local polity and decisions, such as liturgy; two-,
three-, and four-office eldership; so-called "federal headship" and so on.
No issues at COTK met the two criteria for adjudication outlined in the CREC
constitution, which reads:

Before any appeal [to the CREC] 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* [sic]. . . . The broader assemblies must refuse to hear
frivolous or unconstitutional appeals. (IV:M)

None of the issues animating the disgruntled group have ever been considered
"grievous dishonesty in [theological] subscription" or "gross misbehaviour
[sic]."

Again and again we asked Rev. Wilson to notify us whenever individuals from
the disgruntled group contacted him, but he consistently ignored our pleas.
On several occasions he portrayed the COTK elders negatively before this
group, even while we were seeking to work responsibly with them. When we
implored Rev. Wilson to stop his undermining our pastoral efforts with this
group, he persistently ignored our requests and continued to do so behind
our backs. The desires of our local leadership were of little evident
interest to him, in that he ignored us so completely.

The CREC constitution clearly places the prime locus of governing authority
in the local church:

We hold the local congregation has primacy in the structure of biblical
church government (Heb. 13:7, 17) without denying the important blessings
and obligations which come from broader connections and fellowship. (III:A)

By his actions, however, Rev. Wilson shifted much of this constitutional
authority to his own office as moderator — without specific constitutional
warrant, and in conflict with specific constitutional warrant. Throughout
our protracted exchanges, Rev. Wilson did not adhere to courtesies and
Christian ethics common among church leaders.

We understand that viewpoints on church government are widely varied, and we
are aware that most New Testament scholars understand that the Bible is not
unambiguously clear on the issue of church government. Our concern is not
that Rev. Wilson would disagree with our views on this issue but *that he
was not acting in accord with the CREC constitution to which he and we all
have given allegiance.*

In all this, we have not donned the robes of moralism. We have erred in
several points in our actions and have apologized to our congregation and to
others for those errors. But we do not believe that our errors validly
invited contra-constitutional interference by Rev. Wilson or any other
moderator of the CREC.

*Where Matters Now Stand*
As it stands now, Rev. Wilson has determined to start a congregation from a
church split, a split that his actions repeatedly encouraged. The Anselm
presbytery has at this late date retroactively sanctioned his injurious
actions. This is the same split-group congregation that Rev. Wilson has all
along insisted we agree with him in recognizing, and he has finally gotten
his way in starting it as a CREC church. The end was visible from the
beginning.

By these actions it has now become apparent that the CREC, in conflict with
its constitution, has become functionally Episcopal, coalescing around the
office of the moderator as the denominational bishops vested with sweeping
judicial and prelatical authority.

Our church has been damaged by the actions of Rev. Wilson, and we cannot in
good conscience continue in an organization that sanctions such
contra-constitutional actions injurious to our local church. We realize that
denominations desire new churches, but they may not injure our church — or
any other churches — with which they are confederated to achieve this end.

The chief issue is the CREC leadership's disregard for their own
constitution. We cannot remain in an organization that acts so radically at
variance with its own constituting documents. Ironically, the CREC
constitution provides for expulsion of a member church on the grounds of
dishonest theological subscription, but there seems to be no constitutional
recourse when the CREC leadership is guilty of *dishonest
subscription*<http://crec.wordpress.com/honest-subscription/#dishonest>to
its own constitution.

Our responsibility is to the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us
overseers (Ac. 20:28), and this awesome obligation dictates our severance
from an organization that sanctions injury to that flock and its duly chosen
leadership.

*Our Present Course of Action*
Because we are committed to Biblical accountability, we as elders have
requested oversight in this transitional phase by a board of four Christian
leaders, each from a different denominational or church sector (OPC, PCA,
RCA and independent), and these leaders have graciously consented.

Our prayerful interest is affiliation with a group of Protestant churches
who share a genuine confederate structure. Our sentiment is not to have
"just another Protestant denomination." Our concern is for our local body
and what would best suit it, and for a confederacy such as we originally
anticipated when we read their constitution and joined the CREC. Such a
confederacy would be orthodox in creed, Protestant in theology, catholic in
spirit, missional in outlook (the entire Gospel for the entire person to the
entire world), and flexible in non-essentials (spiritual gifts, millennial
views, local church polity, etc.). Its member churches would be bound by a
theological and moral accountability with a wider Christendom that respects
the distinctives, polity and decisions of the local church. We will welcome
discussion with any like-minded church interested in such a confederacy.
Please contact us at *Elders at cotk.org* <elders at cotk.org>.

Finally, we bear no ill will to the many godly sisters and brothers in the
CREC. We wish for them the Lord's richest blessing, we are grateful for
their past fellowship, and prayerfully anticipate we will continue to serve
with them in many endeavors in the Lord's vineyard.

We pray that this present statement will be helpful for responsible
governance for those remaining within the CREC.
  ...

-- 


Juanita Flores
Advocate for the Truth from Jesus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070209/6fc7f40a/attachment-0001.html