COTK, CREC, & Tyranny: Part 10
I want to note my mild disagreement with the final application at the end of this post. This is a very important and sound analysis in general, and it would not take much change in the wording at the end to line it up with my own opinion. I do not think we should expect or hope for imprecatory disaster to befall the elders of the CREC; however, if one where to embrace imprecatory dealings, this would be one of the most certain applications.
As we continue our analysis of the latest scandal to emerge from Anselm House, let me remind you of the primary accusation leveled by COTK against the CREC:
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. . . . 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. . . . The chief issue is the CREC leadership’s disregard for their own constitution. . . the CREC leadership is guilty of dishonest subscription to its own constitution. (COTK, emphasis added)
Accordingly, the CREC is not a confederation of churches governed by a constitution; it is an episcopacy ruled by bishops who have no constitutional warrant for their office, and these governing bishops simply took their authority in broad daylight, contrary to the CREC’s founding charter. In short, it was a smash-and-grab job.
Now, it’s important to set this historical development in context. The CREC was founded in AD 1997, which by my count was nine years ago. In 2003 they began the paperwork process that would allow them to shift from a confederacy to an episcopacy (all the while calling themselves a presbytery), but by 2006 they have become functionally episcopal, without bothering to tidy up the official red tape, i.e. without amending the constitution.
Interestingly, the CREC founders contemplated a circumstance similar to this. To be sure, they contemplated a worst-case scenario where future confederates might defy the founders’ intentions by acting contrary to their charter, so they frontloaded a stern warning into the Preamble of the CREC Constitution:
With patterns of church order and confessional standards, one of the fundamental requirements of Scripture is honesty (Ex. 20:16). Consequently, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we charge you, the generations who will follow us in this confederation, to submit to the Scriptures with sincere and honest hearts, and to the standards of this confederation as consistent with the teaching of Scripture. When a portion of our order and confession is found to be out of conformity to Scripture, we charge you to amend it honestly, openly, and constitutionally, as men who must give an account to the God who searches the hearts of men. We charge you in the name of the Lord to abhor all forms of ignoring our intentions in what we have set down through dissembling, reinterpretation, dishonesty, relativism, pretended explanations, presumed spiritual maturity, assumed scholarly sophistication, or outright lying, so that the living God will not strike you and your children with a curse. We charge you to serve Him in all diligence and honesty, so that the blessings of the covenant may extend to your children for a thousand generations. (“Preamble,” CREC Constitution, page 2, paragraph 2, emphasis added)
This charge commands all future confederates to amend their order “honestly, openly, and constitutionally, as men who must give an account to the God who searches the hearts of men,” and it prohibits “all forms of ignoring” the founders’ “intentions.” Furthermore, the men who adopted this charge sanctioned it with a “curse” upon all contraveners — and their children.
I call this to your attention because the very men who ratified these stipulations in 1997 are the same men who flagrantly ignored them in 2003–06, when they changed their form of government from a confederacy to an episcopacy without amending the constitution pursuant to the terms of their mandate. In other words, they violated their own charge.
But let there be no mistake. The CREC leadership didn’t accidentally breach a minor clause in an obscure article that harmed no one. They flouted the very essence of their constituted authority with a high hand and a hard heart, willfully inflicting injury upon a member church in good standing, as though they intended to make a statement.
Michael, if you believe that words have meaning, and if you believe that God intervenes in the affairs of men, then this is not a constitutional crisis as COTK alleged; it’s a covenantal disaster. This is an unspeakable catastrophe for the men who consented to Wilson’s lawlessness and it is an incomprehensible judgment upon Wilson himself. Suddenly the dreadful maledictions of his prayer look like prophetic self-imprecations:
When they have abused offices within Your Church, let other faithful men rise up. . . . Let their children be orphaned, cut off without a father. Let their wives be widows, and we pray that their children would be desolate, having to beg their bread in empty places. . . May strangers and aliens pillage them and leave them with nothing. We pray that when this happens, and Your hand is evident, that no one would show mercy, and that no kindness would be extended to his fatherless children. Cut off his posterity. . . . (“A Prayer of Imprecation”)
The entire membership of the CREC — especially the officers — should anticipate an answer to Wilson’s supplication in their lifetime, if not in their lives. Every CREC elder has the mark of Cain on his forehead, and thanks to them, all CREC church members have a new worldview to complement their new bishops. Now every calamity — poisonous insects, accidents causing near vegetation, STEVEN SITLER — has a new meaning [I agree in an indirect way; given the Kirk’s use of imprecation, it should have more meaning for them]. And the visitations will only get worse [I do not necessarily agree] because the CREC leadership asked for it. “Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God” (Rom. 11:22).
 Once again, please note that neither Douglas Wilson nor any of his brownnosers has denied the accusation of “dishonest subscription,” because they know the charge is true. And you can be sure that COTK has more than enough evidence to satisfy virtually every standard established by Pope Doug’s ridiculous “Justice Primer” series.
 Don’t let the AD fool you; they expect to be around for centuries, but Scripture says otherwise: “The expectation of the wicked is wrath” (Prov. 11:23).
No comments yet.