Pooh’s Think

… with comments

COTK, CREC, & Tyranny: Part 13

Dear Michael,

One month ago today COTK officially withdrew from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, charging Douglas Wilson with a vast array of sins, such as

  • Surreptitiously undermining COTK’s duly constituted government
  • Encouraging disgruntlement among its members
  • Railroading peace talks between the gruntled and the disgruntled
  • Acting in violation of his legitimate authority pursuant to the CREC Constitution
  • Splitting the Church of the King, and
  • Not adhering to courtesies and Christian ethics common among church leaders

Furthermore, COTK accused the CREC leadership of “dishonest subscription” to its constitution after the CREC retroactively sanctioned Wilson’s sinful conduct, contrary to their bylaws, directly meting out injury to Church of the King.

COTK delivered its statement 30 days ago, and thus far no one from the CREC has denied a word of it. Put another way, the CREC leadership concedes the veracity of COTK’s testimony and sees no need to correct the record or apologize to the saints that they harmed.

Given these facts, let me call your attention to a fascinating quote from Mother Kirk:

This leads us to the third point, which is the requirement of unity. Christ prayed that His disciples would have true love for one another, and that their unity would be obvious to the world. This unity certainly includes the warmth of Christian fellowship, and can be displayed when members of separate denominations can transcend their differences to fellowship together. (“With a small p,” emphasis added)

These three sentences, taken at face value, demonstrate that Wilson knows his obligation to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, by overlooking disagreements he may have with another believer so that they may enjoy warm Christian fellowship.

To be fair, however, we cannot argue that the CREC leadership (or the Kirk elders) understands this “requirement.” After all, Wilson didn’t handpick his sycophants based upon their ability to think critically. He picked them according to their desire to approve — nay, fawn over — his every word, apart from its obvious falsity or its flagrant lack of charity. They must needs say yes.

I note these facts not to denigrate the CREC leadership. We must recognize that God created them, warts and all. And if an Ethiopian cannot change his skin nor the leopard his spots (Jer. 13:23), then it follows that a toady cannot remove his excrescent slime. The CREC leaders cannot help themselves when they accommodate Wilson’s iniquity; they are merely acting according to their nature (though this does not remove their responsibility).

These facts concentrate our focus on Douglas Wilson, the man who committed the crimes against COTK despite his clear delineation of the requirement for Christian leaders to “transcend their differences to fellowship together.” Wilson’s apparent inconsistency becomes even more glaring when compared with this quote:

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. (“For the Record,” emphasis added)

This twist puts Wilson’s sin in a new light. We don’t need to speculate on his motive (as he does to everyone else); he admitted it. Douglas Wilson’s personal grudge against a CREC pastor in good standing moved him to split that man’s charge rather than “transcend their differences to fellowship together.” That’s it. There are no other facts to consider. There are no mitigating circumstances — only aggravating. Wilson orchestrated his subversion of COTK — for two years — while he continually declined Sandlin’s entreaties to resolve their differences.

These facts — and they are facts — force the question, “Why would Douglas Wilson let his personal resentment for a fellow elder compel him to split that man’s church when he knew this would require violating the biblical mandate to maintain unity?”

The answer is simple and requires no further thought. Douglas Wilson is a vindictive hypocrite.


December 14, 2006 - Posted by | Uncategorized

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: