<img src="file:///C:/DOCUME%7E1/WAYNEF%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/moz-screenshot-7.jpg" alt=""><br><br><h2 class="date-header">Monday, December 17, 2007</h2>
<div class="post hentry">
<a name="8488247191345157337"></a>
<h3 class="post-title entry-title">
<a href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html">Gnostic Accountability</a>
</h3>
<div class="post-body entry-content">
<p>Continuing my thread on Douglas Wilson's so-called <a target="_blank" href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/more-on-accountability.html">"accountability,"</a>
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."<br><br>Obviously this should concern anyone interested in truthful discourse because if these men don't have the capacity — <i>moral or mental</i>
— 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 <i>dishonest</i> or <i>incompetent.</i> I suppose the judgment of charity would argue for incompetence but I am willing to hear other positions.<br><br>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 <i>limited</i> authority in the confederates to act in a disciplinary capacity. It states:<br></p><blockquote><b>Article IV. The Broader Assemblies. . . .</b><br><b>L.</b>
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. <br><br><b>M.</b> 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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Appeals to council do not necessarily
have to first be heard by presbytery. However, council may choose to
remand the case to presbytery. <br><br><b>N.</b> 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. <br><br><b>O.</b> 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. (<a target="_blank" href="http://www.crechurches.org/infofiles/crecconstitution05rev.pdf">CREC Constitution, Article IV, sections L—O</a>)</blockquote><br>Notice the details. Everything pivots on the qualification in section M:
<i>"Issues
relating to the local congregation which may lawfully be brought before
the broader assemblies are specified in this section."</i> 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. <i>No mas.</i> 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:<br><br><blockquote>The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are <i>spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory.</i>
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)</blockquote><br>Make careful note of the words <i>"spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory."</i>
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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Thank you.
</div>
<div class="post-footer">
<p class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-1"><span class="post-author vcard">
Posted by
<span class="fn">Mark T.</span>
</span> <span class="post-timestamp">
at
<a class="timestamp-link" href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html" rel="bookmark" title="permanent link"><abbr class="published" title="2007-12-17T18:48:00-08:00">6:48 PM</abbr>
</a>
</span> <span class="post-comment-link">
</span> <span class="post-icons">
<span class="item-action">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/email-post.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=8488247191345157337" title="Email Post">
<span class="email-post-icon"> </span>
</a>
</span>
<span class="item-control blog-admin pid-90443309">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-edit.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=8488247191345157337" title="Edit Post">
<img alt="" class="icon-action" src="http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif">
</a>
</span>
</span> </p>
<p class="post-footer-line post-footer-line-2"><span class="post-labels">
Labels:
<a href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/search/label/F%C5%93dero%20Accountability" rel="tag">Fœdero Accountability</a>
</span> </p>
</div>
</div>
<a name="comments"></a>
<h4>
2 comments:
</h4>
<dl id="comments-block"><dt class="comment-author anon-comment-icon" id="c2004960624767802600">
<a name="c2004960624767802600"></a>
Anonymous
said...
</dt><dd class="comment-body">
<p>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?</p>
</dd><dd class="comment-footer">
<span class="comment-timestamp">
<a href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html#c2004960624767802600" title="comment permalink">
December 18, 2007 7:11 AM
</a>
<span class="item-control blog-admin pid-612963951">
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/delete-comment.g?blogID=9097408555576085021&postID=2004960624767802600" title="Delete Comment">
<span class="delete-comment-icon"> </span>
</a>
</span>
</span>
</dd><dt class="comment-author blogger-comment-icon" id="c4268404325472221029">
<a name="c4268404325472221029"></a>
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/09673762599798493263" rel="nofollow">Mark T.</a>
said...
</dt><dd class="comment-body">
<p>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Sorry to blather.</p>
</dd><dd class="comment-footer">
<span class="comment-timestamp">
<a href="http://federal-vision.blogspot.com/2007/12/gnostic-accountability.html#c4268404325472221029" title="comment permalink">
December 18, 2007 7:57 AM</a></span></dd></dl><br>-- <br><br><br>Juanita Flores<br>Advocate for the Truth from Jesus