<div>
<div>
<h3><a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://crec.wordpress.com/</a><br></h3><h3><a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/for-the-record/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to "For the Record"" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
For the Record</a></h3>
<small>
<span>
Published <abbr title="2006-11-13T03:13:39+0000">November 13th, 2006</abbr> </span>
<span> <a href="http://wordpress.com/tag/contemplations/" title="View all posts in Contemplations" rel="category tag" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">Contemplations</a></span>
<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2006/11/13/for-the-record/#respond" title="Comment on For the Record" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">0 <span>Comments</span></a>
</small>
</div>
<div>
<div><p>After
extensive prayer; investigation; deliberation; soul-searching; and
solicitation of godly, outside advice, Church of the King–Santa Cruz (<a href="http://www.cotk.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=89&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
<strong>COTK</strong></a>) has withdrawn from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (<a href="http://www.crechurches.org/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>CREC</strong>
</a>),
of which we have been a part as either a fraternal delegate or full
member since 2000. The present communication explains our action.</p>
<p><font><b>A Little History</b></font><br>
We joined the CREC (then the CRE) with the understanding that the organization is a <b>"confederation"</b>
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 <a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_episcopacy"></a>Episcopacy
(the governance by a single bishop exercising authority over elders or
ministers within local churches as a virtual succession of apostolic
authority). </p>
<p>The CREC constitution defines the organization as confederate, not Presbyterian or Episcopal:</p>
<blockquote><p>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. <em><b>This should in no way be interpreted as a judicial or prelatical authority.</b></em> (emphasis supplied)</p>
<p>The decisions of the assemblies [presbyteries, and the wider council] with regard to the local congregation are <em><b>spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory.</b></em>
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]. (<a href="http://www.crechurches.org/2005CREC-Constitution.pdf" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>emphasis supplied</strong></a>)</p></blockquote>
<p>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, "<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>On the Moderator</strong></a>," (2003 Minutes, pp. 52 ff.), complains that the CREC constitution's view of the role of moderator is "
<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#problem" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>a real problem</strong></a>," and outlines instead a much more active, intrusive role for the moderator,
<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#direction" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
<strong>stating</strong></a>:
"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 "<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#modify" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>modify our constitution</strong></a>" (p. 56) to grant the moderator (explicitly using the title "
<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#bishop" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>bishop</strong></a>") more intrusive authority within churches. <a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_embody">
</a>The report calls for the moderator to be "<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#pe" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
<strong>the personal embodiment of the CRE[C]</strong></a>," and he holds up as a positive example the <a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/2/#pope" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
<strong>Roman Catholic Pope</strong></a>
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 "<a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/1/#exclude" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>bishop,</strong></a>" but in so doing, he is acting contrary to the CREC constitution.
</p>
<p>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. </p>
<p><a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_acc"></a><font><b>A Constitutional Crisis</b></font><br>
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.</p>
<p><a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_two"></a>This fact became painfully clear to us in the last two years. A group of <a href="http://www.cotk.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=80" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
<strong>disgruntled
</strong></a>
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.</p>
<p><a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_pet"></a>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 <b>actually</b> called to oversee our local flock (Ac. 20:28; <a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/1/#pet" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>1 Pet. 5:1–4</strong>
</a>). </p>
<p><a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_tangent"></a>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. </p>
<p>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:</p>
<blockquote><p>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 <b>grievous dishonesty in subscription</b>
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 <b>gross misbehaviour</b> [sic]. . . . The broader assemblies must refuse to hear frivolous or unconstitutional appeals. (IV:M)</p></blockquote>
<p>None of the issues animating the disgruntled group have ever been
considered "grievous dishonesty in [theological] subscription" or
"gross misbehaviour [sic]."</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The CREC constitution clearly places the prime locus of governing authority in the local church:</p>
<blockquote><p>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)</p></blockquote>
<p>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, <a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_ethics"></a>Rev. Wilson did not adhere to courtesies and Christian ethics common among church leaders.</p>
<p>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 <em>that he was not acting in accord with the CREC constitution to which he and we all have given allegiance.</em></p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_stand"></a><font><b>Where Matters Now Stand</b></font><br>
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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><a name="110a79b074ddd7e8_110a424426578d22_dishonest"></a>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 <a href="http://crec.wordpress.com/honest-subscription/#dishonest" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>dishonest subscription</strong></a> to its own constitution.
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><font><b>Our Present Course of Action</b></font><br>
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.</p>
<p>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 <a href="mailto:elders@cotk.org" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"><strong>Elders@cotk.org</strong></a>.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>We pray that this present statement will be helpful for responsible governance for those remaining within the CREC.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div> ...<br clear="all"><br>-- <br><br><br>Juanita Flores<br>Advocate for the Truth from Jesus