COTK, CREC, & Tyranny: Part 12
Dear Mr. Metzler,
I felt compelled to drop you this line after I read Princess Sushitushi’s interpretation of COTK’s declaration of withdrawal from the CREC, which she/he/it posted on Vision 20/20 last week, because I believe that the Christ Church leadership may have misled this person and possibly many others in their congregation, concerning the COTK incident. Therefore, for their enlightenment, I pass this information along to you.
First, on December 6, Taro Tanaka (aka Princess Sushitushi) wrote,
Metzler’s refusal to accept at face value Andrew Sandlin’s statements concerning his church’s decision to withdraw from the CREC and his willingness to publicly entertain slanderous speculations about various individuals and their motives in connection with that, including the clear implication that numerous leaders in the CREC are thoroughly corrupt and little more than yes-men to Wilson. . .
I am not aware that you have refused to accept at “face value” COTK’s statement. In fact, COTK’s summary of Douglas Wilson’s prelatical behavior is simply priceless and I believe that you have valued it accordingly:
Throughout our protracted exchanges, Rev. Wilson did not adhere to courtesies and Christian ethics common among church leaders.
Furthermore, I believe that it could be possible you have undervalued COTK’s condemnation of the CREC because it “retroactively sanctioned his (Douglas Wilson) injurious actions.” But don’t take my word for it. Below, I cut and pasted snippets from an email exchange between COTK and myself for the benefit of your readers, which apparently includes members of the Christ Church leadership.
On November 17, I wrote the following to COTK:
I am writing to inquire why you did not pursue this issue more vigorously along internal lines, i.e., seek to check the “contra-constitutional activity” via biblical discipline, rather than publicly breaking from the confederation. I ask this because you affirmed positive harm to your flock — “suffered greatly” — when you cited your biblical responsibility as overseers to protect your sheep; and if you have suffered, then presumably this “contra-constitutional activity” could cause others to suffer. In other words, does not your charge as shepherds obligate you to protect the whole flock of God within your sphere of ministry, to whatever extent possible? Obviously, a public statement with this kind of language is, in essence, a warning to the broader church to beware; but is it a sufficient warning given the words “suffered greatly”?
And on November 30, COTK replied:
I am one of the elders at COTK, and I wish to thank you for asking the questions and having the concern for the body you have exhibited below. I’d like to briefly respond to you.
- We did pursue “vigorously” and internally to check the “contra-constitutional” actions, over a protracted time of nearly 3 years. We simply did not choose to publish any of that. We share your eagerness for such a diligence. It is simply that in the end it was not accepted. At that point it became necessary to “publicly break” from the CREC.
- Exactly because this “contra-constitutional” activity “could cause others to suffer,” we chose to publish what we did, in the interest in putting before those “others” the information they would need to be fully and responsibly informed, for their own future protection and choices. That WAS our intention, to seek to “protect the whole flock”, as you have so rightly put it.
- We are convinced that words to the wise are sufficient. . . .
Don Broesamle, Elder
Church of the King
I pass this information along with the hope that your readers, which apparently includes the Princess and others like her/him/it, will see that COTK fully intended the “face value” language of their statement to “protect the whole flock.” More specifically, COTK sought to “protect the whole flock” from Douglas Wilson and the CREC because they sanctioned “actions injurious to [the] local church.”
No comments yet.