COTK, CREC, & Tyranny: Part 1
As you already noted, last week the Church of the King (COTK) in Santa Cruz, California, formally broke its ties with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, accusing the denomination’s leadership of “disregard for their own constitution,” acting “radically at variance with its own constituting documents,” and “contra-constitutional activity.” The abridged statement provides no details or evidence to support this accusation, however, the COTK clearly alleges that they [COTK] “have suffered greatly” because the CREC “sanctions injury to [the] flock and its duly chosen leadership.”
The COTK carefully avoided naming names (unless “pope” qualifies as a name), however they used enough adjectives that those people with IQ’s greater than one digit can “connect the dots.” Therefore, the charge of “contra-constitutional activity” is not particularly noteworthy. In fact, it’s downright laughable. Anyone who has followed the history of Douglas Wilson knows that if he couldn’t act at radical variance with his constituted authority, he wouldn’t act at all. But just in case the COTK elders didn’t know this, here’s a crash course in DW 101, with special thanks to Dr. Terry Morin whose fully documented website bears witness to all the variables that constitute Douglas Wilson’s corruption of power.
We begin with the “Rebellion of 1993,” where the word “rebellion” is identical to “contra-constitutional activity” because according to the public documents, in 1993 the elders of CEF (forerunner to the CREC) notified Doug Wilson that they intended to uphold the CEF Constitution by removing him from the Christian ministry pursuant to their biblical and constitutional authority. Their hand-delivered letter to Wilson stated:
You have, within the last year, become unqualified for the primary duty delegated to you, that of teaching the saints, inasmuch as you have adopted paedobaptist doctrine, which is not in accordance with the Scriptures or the CEF Statement of Faith and the CEF Constitution, and do not show any indication of returning to your former convictions. It follows that, in the absence of your return to a baptistic understanding of the church, the ordinances of the church, and the means of entry into the New Covenant, the elders, as the governmental body of CEF, should take the following steps:
1. Obtain your resignation from eldership (to which you have expressed willingness).
2. Make a transition from the present situation to one in which the teaching ministry is once again in the care of baptistic teaching elders.
3. Revise the CEF constitution to better protect against future shifts in theology without concurrence of the elders. Whatever pains, difficulties, and deficiencies are encountered in the transition are secondary to the necessity that the transition be made. . . . (pages 6, 7)
Please note the CEF elders’ reliance on the CEF Constitution for their action (they cited it eight times in eight pages), and note also that two days later, the CEF elders cited the CEF Constitution 11 times in 14 pages when they notified the congregation of their decision to remove Wilson from the ministry:
At present the historical position of the church on the issue of water baptism and membership has been baptistic, the Statement of Faith and Constitution are baptistic, three of the four elders are baptistic, and the great majority of the households of CEF are baptistic. Will CEF be governed by the word of God as understood and applied by the elders of CEF and as expressed in the Statement of Faith and Constitution, or will CEF be governed by the word of God as understood and applied by one gifted and influential man? (page 11)
History tells us that the CEF heads of households didn’t know that this was a rhetorical question and that they answered it by affirming the second option, which made every one of them candidates for elder within a week. Douglas Wilson tells us that, despite the disciplinary sanctions already imposed upon him and the clear language of both letters, he thought that the CEF elders’ decision was “a proposal only,” which means that he is either totally incompetent or utterly deceitful. Either way, his behavior was “contra-constitutional.”
On April 3, 2002, the 14 churches of the OPC’s Presbytery of the Dakotas unanimously adopted a resolution warning the OPC about Douglas Wilson and Christ Church:
A motion, presbytery directed its clerks to send copies of the correspondence read by Mr. Wallace to all OPC presbyteries with the warning that the attached correspondence illustrates some grave dangers with the practices of Douglas Wilson and Christ Church, Moscow, ID. They undermine the discipline of Reformed churches and refuse to support it, assuming that it is unbiblical without even hearing the case. On motion, presbytery will also send the material to the 69th general assembly and overture the assembly to forward it to their denominations and ecclesiastical fellowship.
Please note the words “grave dangers,” “undermine,” “discipline,” and “refuse to support,” which follow the word “warning,” because they summarize Wilson’s behavior in 1993; they describe his conduct relative to the OPC in 2001–02; and you can be sure that they apply to his “contra-constitutional activity” in 2006 at COTK.
On June 22, 2002, the RPCUS unanimously adopted a resolution condemning Douglas Wilson (among others) for teaching heresy:
We therefore resolve that these teachings are heretical. We call these men to repentance. We call upon the church of Jesus Christ to hold these teachings in contempt. We call upon the courts of the churches that are responsible for these men to institute judicial process against them and to vindicate the honor of Christ and the truth of the Christian Gospel by bringing judgment upon them, suspending them from office, and removing them from the communion of the church should they not repent.
And if anything else is true, teaching heresy is the moral equivalent of acting at radical variance with one’s biblically constituted authority. 
In 2003, the two Charlies cited the Christ Church Constitution and the CRE Constitution 70 times in 108 pages of well-documented charges of sin against Douglas Wilson and the Christ Church session, and according to the 2003 CREC minutes, the COTK elders voted to call the charges “frivolous” even though the minutes note that everyone had not read the charges and no one interviewed the witnesses. These are the same minutes that the COTK elders cited in their accusations against the CREC “leadership.”
During the course of this year, you (Michael Metzler) gave daily, sometimes hourly, updates of Wilson’s and Jones’ reckless and unbiblical behavior that culminated in their unconstitutional decision to release you from membership. Between their creativity and their joy, there was nothing more these poor shepherds could do and apparently the COTK elders never thought to question their fellow elders’ reprehensible conduct. 
Not long after the Kirk elders’ unconstitutional amputation of the Metzlers, you meticulously followed the CREC as they committed wholesale violations of their constitutional standards in order to whitewash RC Jr from the RPCGA’s declaratory judgment. Once again, it’s conceivable that the COTK elders forgot to consult the CREC Constitution as they put their hand with the wicked to accomplish this travesty of justice.
Of course, this brings us to last week’s statement from COTK elders, wherein they notified the world that the CREC’s leadership acts “radically at variance with its own constituting documents,” and that COTK has “suffered greatly” because the CREC “sanctions injury to [the] flock and its duly chosen leadership.” Please forgive me, Michael, if I fail to sympathize with their great suffering. Indeed, please forgive my insensitivity as I weigh their “injury” against that of those whom they helped injure, because before I begin to give a rip about the COTK, I would rather they contact Dr. Morin to seek his forgiveness for their participation in the Letter Without Signatures fraud, as well as all of the abuse he has suffered at the hands of Beelzeblog since then. Then they should seek Dr. Morecraft’s forgiveness for their role in sanctioning the abuse Wilson heaped on him. After that, they should seek the two Charlies’ forgiveness for the COTK elders’ role in dismissing the “Solemn Charges,” which if they had prosecuted those charges, then COTK would have foregone their own great suffering from the unconstitutional actions of the CREC. And finally, Mr. Sandlin and his fellow elders should seek your forgiveness for sitting on their thumbs while they watched Wilson and Jones rake you and your family over the coals simply because you happened to be the next poor sap who caught them lying. (Unfortunately, this short list does not begin to document the number of people who have suffered at Wilson’s hands.)
Until then, the injured saints at COTK can take a number and wait in line with all the other abused souls whom the COTK elders helped abuse when they sanctioned Wilson’s anti-Christian actions. And while they wait, they should quash their plan to institute a new confederation of churches because they are no more fit for ministry than the thugs they sat with as recently as six days ago.
 Please do not forget that during this entire period you also documented the Kirk elders’ fraud in the Letter Without Signatures and their extraordinary corruption of justice in the matter of Burke Shade.