Spinderella Sproul: Lessons In Spin With Spinmeister RC Sproul Jr

RC Sproul Jr's Ligonier Tales, Back By Popular Demand

2006-10-18T21:40:00.004-04:00

"It was once my habit in this space to devote some prose to the glories of nostalgia. That habit happily evolved into the Ligonier Tales, a venue I pray I’ll soon get back to. A recent trip back to Ligonier has reignited that fire, but alas, it’s not time yet to go back with my keyboard. But nostalgia is still now in my sights… We are tapping into a homesickness for when we truly were young, for Eden." RC Sproul Jr, Old Men Dancing

For RC Sproul Jr "the glories of nostalgia" and "Eden" is largely about raging hormones, chasing girls and drinking binges. RC Sproul Jr has memorialized his nostalia for the whole world to see in "Ligonier Tales," a seedy and shameless walk down RC Jr's debauched memory lane.

RC Sproul Jr grew up in Ligonier, Pennsylvania, which is also the name from which his father's Ligonier Ministries came from.

It's hard to understand what RC Sproul Jr was thinking when he posted this trashy "novella" on his "ministry" web site, the Highlands Study Center. Some things are just better left in the past. But not RC Jr. No, he seems real proud of his depraved past, and in no way repentant about it either.

Here's a review of Ligonier Tales from "Dabney." The only problem with his review is that it's a little dated since he refers to RC Sproul Jr as "an ordained Presbyterian Pastor." RC Sproul Jr managed to get himself defrocked in January 2006:

The other day I read the Words Of Wit With RC Sproul Jr page at Drinking With RC Sproul Jr. It’s hard to believe that a gospel preacher would actually say that kind of claptrap and then be proud enough about it to publish it for the whole world to see. One of the things quoted from at that site is RC Jr’s Ligonier Tales, a shabby piece of trashy dime store drivel.

As repulsive and degrading as I found the whole process to be, I went to the Highlands Study Center web site and read every one of the eleven chapters of RC’s “novella,” Ligonier Tales (yes, I do deserve the Purple Heart). I don’t recommend that anyone do this right after eating. In fact I don’t recommend you do it on an empty stomach even after taking Dramamine. Why an ordained Presbyterian Pastor would publish such twaddle on his ministry’s web site for the whole world to see is sure beyond me. He ought to be ashamed, but obviously he’s not.

A lot of us grew up doing things that we’re plenty embarrassed about. But most of us have got enough horse sense to not talk or write novellas about it. Maybe what RC Sproul Jr. is trying to tell us all is that just because he’s the son of a famous theologian he didn’t grow up any different than any of the rest of us. But if that’s what he’s trying to say, he could do it without giving everyone the lurid details. RC Jr’s communicating a lot more with his trashy novella than “I’m nothing special, I’m just like all the rest of you.” Anyone who grew up acting as foolishly as RC Jr did ought to be embarrassed enough about it to not memorialize it for the whole world to see. A son who cares to keep the fifth commandment ought to know that publishing his spectacular adolescent moral failures could in no way help his father’s reputation. Not RC Jr! Indeed, all RC Jr is effectively doing is saying, “My dad was a failure as a father.” He even seems to be real proud of his foolish adolescent years. Nowhere does he express any regret, remorse or sense that he has anything to apologize for. If anything he seems to look back with fondness on those good ‘ol days.

In Ligonier Tales RC fancies himself as a rough and tumble hard-drinkin’ beer-guzzlin’ jock, and a regular Casanova ladies-man. My impression about RC from reading Ligonier Tales is that he was horribly insecure and was constantly seeking attention and trying to impress his peers. Not one word is ever mentioned about trying to please or impress his parents or be an obedient son. In fact hardly a mention is made of his parents, other than the fact that they referred to RC Jr as “Precious.” I’ve heard said that RC Sproul Jr is referred to by family by the pet name “Precious” to this day.

His novella ends in an anticlimactic fast-forward a couple decades “here I am today a happily married-with-kids successful preacher-man” non-ending. No lessons are taught, no lessons are learned, no value or benefit of any kind is conveyed by the writer to the reader for expending the time to peruse this literary swill. Reading RC Jr’s novella is much like sitting down to watch a bad movie that a friend told you is actually a good movie. You sit there minute after minute thinking, “At some point it’s gonna get good.” But it never does, and you’ve just wasted your evening. You feel cheated. That’s how it feels to read Ligonier Tales. You can easily reckon that the only reason RC Sproul Jr. wrote it is to cover for some deep seated insecurities. Maybe he wrote it as a personal catharsis, but that doesn’t mean he’s got to punish the rest of us with it.

The part that I kept waiting to read was the part where he talks about his mom and dad — the part where he honors his parents — the part where he obeys the fifth commandment. It never comes. RC’s entire novella is the biggest piece of self-obsessed bilge I’ve ever read. It’s only redeeming quality? It’s short enough that the nausea doesn’t last very long.

Before immersing yourself in Ligonier Tales we recommend that you get yourself good and liquored up, unless liquor makes you nauseated. In that case take some Dramamine instead.

The index page of Ligonier Tales begins here.

RC Sproul, Do Lawsuits Run In the Family?

2006-09-12T20:45:00.000-04:00

Up until recently a lot of people, myself included, didn't want to believe that RC Sproul Jr was the product of some very bad upbringing. Everyone's seen a few Prodigal Son situations, young men who grew up in good Christian homes but who turned out to be bad men.

When RC Jr managed to get himself defrocked I took pity on his dad and mom over their humiliation. It's got to be embarrassing having your own son ruin the family name.

RC Sproul should have called his son to public repentance. But no! He did just the opposite. RC Sproul publicly repudiated his son's defrocking, calling the charges "fraudulent." You can't do something like that without also bashing the denomination that defrocked him, as well as bashing the witnesses that brought testimony against him. That spectacle caused me to start wondering if my assumptions about RC Sproul weren't false.

Of course no one can blame RC Sproul for the way that Tim Dick turned out, and he probably didn't pick the guy for a son in law either. But his daughter Sherrie did, so that obviously begs another question.

RC Sproul did however pick Tim Dick as Ligonier's President, and that clearly is his fault. What were you thinking Dr. Sproul? What are you thinking now that Tim Dick is rapidly ruining your ministry? Why do you insist on keeping a clown like Tim Dick on even after everything he's done? Frank Vance seems to think that Tim Dick is the problem, but after everything I've observed I have to disagree with Frank. I think that RC himself is the problem.

Being the great Bible expositor that RC Sproul is I'd always assumed that he'd exposited the Word to his own children and been a good example to them. Now with Sproul's Ligonier Ministries lawsuit against Christian blogger Frank Vance I'm more than just having second thoughts, I'm convinced that RC Jr must have been the product of a bad upbringing.

Of course this is all now making me wonder if I'm next. Will RC Sproul Jr now be suing me too? Like father like son? If he does sue I wonder will he do it the same way that Tim Dick did it to Frank Vance and not even have the courtesy of sending me an email to let me know about it? Like Ligonier Ministries like Highlands Study Center?

Obviously RC Sproul isn't at all interested in obeying the Bible that he claims to believe, and we already know RC Jr is of the same persuasion, so it's more than just possible that RC Sproul Jr will sue me.

I just hope that all those pro bono First Amendment attorneys will leap to my aid the way they have for Frank Vance.

Another Sproul Family Scandal

2006-08-28T16:09:00.012-04:00

On August 25 I received an email from Ligonier Ministries CEO Tim Dick. All it said was:

From: Tim Dick tdick@ligonier.org Mailed-By: ligonier.org
To: r.c.sproul2.0@gmail.com
Date: Aug 25, 2006 11:46 PM

You my friend are sick, seek help, we will pray for you.

Tim Dick

I responded with:

From: R.C. 2.0 r.c.sproul2.0@gmail.com Mailed-By: gmail.com
To: Tim Dick tdick@ligonier.org
Date: Aug 27, 2006 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: You my friend are sick, seek help, we will pray for you.

Mr. Tim Dick as in the CEO of Ligonier Ministries?

Wow! What an honor! What brings you to my little corner of blogdom?

I saw some of your communications with Frank Vance. Pretty wild stuff there Tim! And you call me the sick one? How did you ever manage snagging the CEO slot at Ligonier?

You'd think that Tim Dick would have learned his lesson after everything that's happened to him over picking a fight with Frank Vance. Now the guy's trying to provoke me too? Not one single time have I mentioned the name "Tim Dick" on my blog. So what's his interest in provoking a fight with me now?

Frank Vance has said that Tim Dick is a paranoid moron and obviously doesn't have enough going on to keep himself busy as CEO of Ligonier. The guy is pulling down a monstrous salary ($250,000/yr) but instead of working for his huge donor-supported salary he spends his days posting weird comments on numerous blogs and insulting people via email who've never even mentioned him.

Well now it looks like Frank is going to keep Tim's hands full for awhile, which I really appreciate, because I don't particularly want to waste my time on the guy. But I will repost part of something that Frank just put up today because it's in the public interest to know, and we're all about fulfilling the public's right to know.

Another Sproul family scandal has just surfaced. Thankfully this Sproul scandal doesn't involve RC Sproul Jr (whew!). We were ready for a change of pace anyway. Variety is the spice of life, and if it involves the dysfunctional Sproul family it's bound to get spicy.

This latest Sproul scandal involves RC Sproul Sr's son-in-law and CEO/President of Ligonier Ministries, Tim Dick. Tim Dick also happens to be the father of Ryan Sproul-Dick (aka "Partyboy"), the "Heir of Ligonier Ministries." Partyboy is also Ligonier Ministries' conference coordinator.

It's being alleged that two years ago Tim Dick ripped off Dr. Don Kistler in Ligonier's "acquisition" of Soli Deo Gloria Ministries. Apparently Tim Dick switched out the contracts at the last minute.

On 22 September 2004 Ligonier Ministries, the ministry of Reformed theologian Dr. RC Sproul acquired Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, the ministry of Dr. Donald Kistler. Soli Deo Gloria was a 501(c)(3) charitable organization, as was and is Ligonier Ministries. As such Soli Deo Gloria was "acquired," not purchased. *

Of the acquisition Dr. Kistler originally stated, "I cut my teeth on the Puritans studying under Dr. R.C. Sproul, and to work under him is a dream come true. I look forward to many years of fruitful ministry together, exposing people to the holy God the Puritans knew and served." However Dr. Kistler's "dream come true" soon proved to be a nightmare.

What few if any people knew at the time, and what Don Kistler certainly didn't realize at the time, is that Ligonier President Tim Dick had perpetrated a grand fraud. The fraud against Dr. Kistler is of such an ugly and shameful nature that of the small number of people that have since discovered it no one has been willing in the two ensuing years to confront it, let alone expose it. Allowing two years to lapse hasn't improved upon Dr. Kistler's prospects for recovering what was stolen from him, quite the opposite.

Dr. Kistler's ministry was stolen from him by, quite literally, nothing more than a cheesy sleight of hand trick. After weeks of contract negotiations a final version of the contract was agreed upon by all parties. However, when it came time for the signing of the final contract, unbeknownst to Don Kislter, Tim Dick secretly switched contracts. The textual difference in that switched contract was small enough to have easily escaped the notice of everyone, yet the implications for Don Kisler were immense.

Contained in the mutually approved contract was a reversionary clause, meaning that at any time Don Kistler could exercise his right to reclaim full control of his ministry, with or without cause, and with no penalty or cost to himself. In the contract that Tim Dick surreptitiously switched at the signing ceremony that clause had been removed. The practical effect of Tim Dick's fraud meant that Dr. Kistler had his ministry stolen from him.

For the complete story see Ligonier Ministries Defrauds Soli Deo Gloria Ministries In "Acquisition"

This is one wickedugly story. If RC Sproul manages this scandal anything like the way that he attempted to "clear RC Sproul Jr's name" don't count on anyone repenting. All we're likely to hear is a bunch of lies and lame excuses.

Jeremy is O.B. with R.C.

2006-08-07T11:02:00.004-04:00

It's safe to assume that if it involves RC Sproul Jr and the Highlands Study Center it's bound to get a little kooky.

RC Jr is also the kind of guy (even if he is defrocked) that's just bound to attract an interesting following.

Some of America's not so best and brightest have imbibed of RC Sproul Jr's Highlands Study Center.

Take for example Jeremy Bunch. In response to our article "Student" Describes Highlands Study Center Jeremy posted not just one but two additional articles.

Here's Jeremy's first response:

Saturday, August 05, 2006

In form, in RCJr form, RCJr has taken my comments on the Highlands Study Center and used them for his own personal gain. Geez, what a guy.

Fortunately, as you can read on his blog, the CREC has cleared his name, one of the largest scandals in American Reformed Presbyterian history in the last couple of years. One of many, this scandal has not surprisingly boiled to the top.

Nonetheless, you can drink of his wine here.

Welcome to the CREC, RCJr, a denom that will accept dippers and non-dippers alike.

posted by Jeremy Bunch @ 10:52 AM

So Jeremy has RC Jr started dipping again? We'd heard that after many years of dipping smokeless tobacco products that he'd sworn off the Skoal. Has RC gone back to chewing and spittin'?

But Jeremy's commentary doesn't just end there though.

Here's Jeremy's second response:

Saturday, August 05, 2006
If you read my last post and didn't get it, don't fret. I'm rather inexperienced when it comes to the use of sarcasm, spin, and satire. The Spinmeister Dr. Sproul Jr. has considerable more talent in these areas than me, and in light of "current events" in American Reformed Presbyterianism, DrRCJr has his own particular spin on things. This blog is linked to the right - Spinderella Sproul. You know, Sproul as in "owl".

(Sorry, the "b" isn't working on my keyboard.)

For those who wonder about the extensive use of alcohol, tobaccy, and who knows what all else at the HSC, I implore you to not worry about such wonders. Those at the HSC have simply succeeded at making the consumption of such things "spiritual disciplines."

Ah yes, I remember the short amount of days spent among those of St. Peter. The fact is I remember them. Sorry, but nope, no blacking out.

I did mention at an earlier time that I would share more on my experiences at the HSC, and now I am reminded of that.

I remember the first evening upon arrival at the Windham home. Conversation started up on the topic of education, not surprisingly, for that is what I wanted to study while there. Joshua Blackburn was there in the living room with Laurence, and his wife Angela. As the conversation continued with smiles and nodding heads, Joshua looked at Laurence and said with a nod, "He's o.b."

This scared me at first. My first and intentionally last experience with those initials happened when I was around eight years old. Watching television, a tampon commercial came on the air, the brandname - O.B. I turned to the babysitter and asked her what o.b. stood for. She blushed and giggled, and I blushed and shut up.

Joshua used the initials to stand for "on board."

posted by Jeremy Bunch @ 2:02 PM

Oh, we don't "wonder" at all Jeremy. We're well past the point of "wonder" about anything that happens at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church and Highlands Study Center. It comes as absolutely no surprise to hear you confirm that "extensive use of alcohol, tobaccy" is "spiritual discipline" in the RC Sproul Jr / Laurance Windham lexicon.

Glad to hear that you were able to handle the "discipline" all right and that you didn't black out. What you perhaps didn't know is that "extensive use of alcohol" while not blacking out is a test of your spiritual maturity, er, discipline. It's also a test of being O.B. with R.C. (and Laurence).

"Student" Describes Highlands Study Center

2006-07-31T23:25:00.003-04:00

We've spoken before about RC Sproul Jr's Highlands Study Center and the fact there is no identifiable functional distinction between the Highlands Study Center and Saint Peter Presbyterian Church. While there is a Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, there is no "study center" of any kind.

When a "student" comes to "study" at the Highlands Study Center all they're doing is visiting Saint Peter Presbyterian Church. There is no "Study Center" and there are no identifiable "students" that "Study" any identifiable curriculum. While there have been numerous testimonies from various "students" of the consumption of substantial quantities of booze and cigars, as far as we can determine that doesn't qualify as "study." Yet in spite of what is a very obvious sham, RC Sproul Jr has managed to turn his so-called "Study Center" into a six-figure fund-raising boondoggle. This only goes to show how gullible some Christians can be.

Now a recent Highlands Study Center graduate Jeremy Bunch confirms all that, and more:

To the right is a link to the Highlands Study Center of Bristol, Virginia. The Highlands Study Center is a ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church. I attended HSC, and found that the center of the Center is difficult to pinpoint. Some say it is RC Jr's basement. Others say it is Laurence Windham's office, the local coffee shop. Some say it is the conversation filled thinktank in the back of the cigar shop next to Pastor Windham's office.

My experience convinced me that the HSC was a rather ethereal sort of entity. There are no schoolrooms, no set of curricula. If there is a line between the church of St. Peter and the HSC, that line seems awfully hard to draw. My experience was that in going to the HSC was really a matter of being plunged in to the life of that church. The learning took place in conversations during car rides. It took place while drinking the post-dinner coffee at a family's house. It took place over a homebrew and a campfire. Attending the HSC is a formal way of saying that you're gonna spend sime time with the folks of St. Peter, and you're gonna learn more than you expected.

Order one of their "Basement Tapes." I dare you. You'll be addicted. And it will give you an idea of what the HSC is. It is conversation, and it is conversation like you hear on the "Tapes."

Spending time with these folks in Virginia was a pivotal point in my life, shaping me in a direction and worldview that has opened my eyes to a life of joy and beauty that I previously had not fully experienced.

I want to share more on my experience there, and of the friendships that I have made there, but I will save that for later. For now, please visit their website, read some fine articles, and order some conversation that is fitting to listen to with a cigar in one hand and a glass of port in the other.

In some respects Jeremy has done a better job of describing the Highlands Study Center than we have. We've just rather bluntly called it "a sham." Jeremy on the other hand very graciously said that "the Center is difficult to pinpoint." Jeremy very politely calls the Highlands Study Center "a rather ethereal sort of entity," which is to say "intangible or relating to ether." In other words the Highlands Study Center is like a bag of gas.

So Jeremy, we're all a bit confused. Don't you have any buds back home in Boise Idaho that you can share in the "joy and beauty" of cigars and homebrew? Haven't you got a pastor to hang out with all day at the coffee shop and cigar store? Sorry, dumb question. We already know the answer to that one. Laurence Windham is the only "pastor" in America (ordained, defrocked or otherwise) whose congregation pays him to "office" all day down at the coffee shop and cigar store.

So moms and dads, send your lasses and lads off to the Highlands Study Center where, rather than studying anything, they can be plunged into the church life of car rides and homebrew and coffee shops and cigar thinktanks. Oh, and don't forget the campfires (kumbaya, kumbaya). While you're at it don't forget to join the tape of the month club. In this way you too can experience a life of joy and beauty.

Doug Wilson Pleads Ignorance

2006-07-27T15:15:00.005-04:00

CREC Pastor Douglas J. Wilson has been a master of artifice for many years. Up until recently he's usually gotten away with it, but ever since he rolled out the red carpet to his buddy RC Sproul Jr it seems to have just blown up in his two-faced face. Wilson probably had no idea what he was in for, nor the number of detractors that RC Sproul Jr has earned himself. In fact Sproul may be the only pastor in the world (defrocked, ordained, or otherwise) who has almost as many detractors as Doug Wilson has (and that's no minor accomplishment).

Surprising only to those who don't know these two very well is the fact that they both glory in any attention they can garner for themselves, even if the attention comes via scandal. In fact scandal can be especially effective because it allows them to play the martyr. Yes, it's a sick and perverse way for pastors to conduct themselves, but it's quite common among sociopaths.

Doug Wilson has written multiple "A Justice Primer" articles since January, many of which have either directly or by inference dealt with the RC Sproul Jr defrocking, made into a debacle not just by RC Jr's duplicity but also the CREC's duplicity. Now the debacle has devolved into a full blown scandal thanks to Doug Wilson's duplicity. RC Sproul Jr teamed up with the CREC to "clear Sproul's name" but all that the CREC and Doug Wilson have managed to accomplish is to turn a personal embarrassment for RC Jr into a public disaster. With friends like Doug Wilson who needs enemies?

In reading Doug Wilson's blog articles people have had no trouble at all deciphering where Wilson has been talking about RC Sproul Jr, even where Wilson broaches the subject in his typical cryptospeak. Some of Doug Wilson's articles have sparked outrage and generated a flurry of questions and requests for clarification. The hottest so far, based upon the number of comments and questions posed, have been:
Arguments and Character (131 responses)
With Wooly Mittens On (217 responses)
Many Thanks And Saint Peter (146 responses)

Blog articles abound on the internet about RC Sproul Jr's defrocking, and most of them have had some reasonably civil discussion, but not Doug Wilson's blog articles. Wilson just seems to have a knack for creating a firestorm every time he brings up the name RC Sproul Jr. No doubt that has a lot to do with all the lies he's told.

Things have just been getting way too dangerous in the RC Jr/Wilson/CREC minefield. So now all of a sudden Wilson is pleading ignorance and attempting to distance himself from the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission:

"One of those presuppositions in this whole thing appears to be that I have been a major player in the CREC commission, and so on. But I was not. In discussion, I agreed with the formation of the commission, and after they had done their work I read their report. For the most part, that's what I know. So I posted my thanks on this blog for the work these men had done, and then the organic matter struck the rotating device."

Too late Doug! You've been running your mouth for seven months and talking about every conceivable angle of the RC Sproul Jr debacle, which by running your mouth for seven months you've now turned a debacle into a scandal. Now you expect to just back away and wash your hands of it? Do you really expect anyone to believe, "For the most part, that's what I know"? You really expect anyone to believe that you weren't personally responsible for orchestrating that sham of a Commission? Come on Doug, that's one tough sell, even for a master of artifice like yourself.

It appears as though Doug Wilson took his cue, and part of the sudden change in his story line, from CREC Pastor Gene Franklin:

Tim:

You are correct, I have not followed it carefully enough, but that's OK, men I trust are watching it for me!

Gene - 7/25/2006 5:44:32 PM

So at 9:39 PM the same day a light bulb goes off in Wilson's head. He takes Pastor Franklin's cue, suddenly deciding that it's time to slip out of the minefield in which he was personally responsible for planting many of the mines. This doesn't mean that he'll be able to slip out safely since he's forgotten where he placed a lot of his mines (liars need to take careful note of all their lies or they'll be easily exposed). So Doug posts:

"Now, why am I content with this approach I have taken? Because I know the men on the commission, and would trust them with my life."

The cover story that Wilson lays down goes a lot like this: Really, you can trust me. I didn't have anything to do with setting up that Commission. I didn't hand-pick those five guys. It just all came together kinda spontaneous like at RC Jr's request to, um, well not me. It was, um, Randy Booth that RC Jr called. I don't really know much of anything about it myself. I'm just trusting the CREC Commission guys that they took care of everything real good. Really, you can trust me.

Let's go back to Pastor Gene Franklin's claim that "I have not followed it carefully enough, but that's OK, men I trust are watching it for me!" Unlike Doug Wilson's newly-found ignorance, which bears striking resemblance to Pastor Franklin's ignorance, there's no reason to distrust Pastor Franklin's claim. Unlike Wilson, Franklin hasn't been blabbing about everything he knows for the past seven months and writing Justice Primer articles and defending RC Sproul Jr. Nevertheless, Pastor Franklin's position is seriously flawed, so let's quickly bring to its logical conclusion Pastor Franklin's operating assumptions.

I don't have to guess about any of this because I've personally seen numerous comments left on a number of blogs, including Wilson's blog, that prove that my concerns aren't just speculative. Let's use an example discussion that's taken place probably numerous times in various forms between two church members. The one is a member of a CREC church and the other a member of a non-CREC church (feel free to also substitute a Saint Peter member every time I say "CREC member" because the same thing applies to them as well). Non-CREC members are asking the following questions of CREC members because they presume (incorrectly so) that CREC members probably know something more than the general public. The reality however is that a lot of CREC members, probably even the majority, actually know far less than non-CREC members (the same goes for Saint Peter members), for reasons which will become apparent in the following dialogue:

"Hey Joe, have you been following the RC Sproul Jr hullaballoo?"

"Sure. As you know I'm a member of a CREC church, and this has become a big deal in the CREC. A lot of people are really interested."

"So what can you tell me Joe?"

"Well I know that the RPCGA defrocked Sproul over some BCO violations. You know, stuff like practicing paedocommunion (roll of the eyes, as in "Pretty silly, huh?"). But that stuff doesn't apply in the CREC, so the CREC Commission said that he's 'considered ordained' in the CREC."

"Well Joe I've heard other CREC members say the same thing. But that's confusing to me because that doesn't square with the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment. Are you just telling me what you've heard from someone else, or have you familiarized yourself with the case documents? Have you read all the RPCGA's documents? Have you read the CREC's Report, as well as all the other CREC Report-related documents that the CREC strangely didn't post on their web site, but that you can easily find for yourself if you just took ten seconds to Google for it?"

"Well not exactly. I know it probably wouldn't take much time to find it all and go through it, but my pastor is a friend of Doug Wilson. Well, sort of. Actually he's said that if they passed on the street they probably wouldn't even recognize one another. But they're still really close, sort of, and my pastor really trusts Wilson and Wilson vouches for the Commission, so that means that everything's cool, which is good enough for me."

"Okay, but Doug Wilson's just said on his blog, 'In discussion, I agreed with the formation of the commission, and after they had done their work I read their report. For the most part, that's what I know'. So he's also claiming that he doesn't personally know much of anything either but he agrees with everything the Commission did because as he's said, 'Now, why am I content with this approach I have taken? Because I know the men on the commission, and would trust them with my life'. I'm just not getting this form of logic which says, 'I don't really know much of anything myself personally because I haven't bothered to study the documents for myself, but I'm going to defend these guys because I trust them.' Isn't that just like assuming that they must be infallible?"

"Well, I guess I hadn't really thought of it that way. I guess I'm just trying to trust my pastor who's put his trust in Doug Wilson who's put his trust in Randy Booth. I guess it's kind of a loyalty thing. That's good enough for me, and you know me. So you should just trust what I'm now telling you too."

Wilson himself has used the illustration, "I know thus and such because I've got an uncle whose cousin has a sister who's mother told her that..." to demonstrate how foolish it is to pay any mind to unverified third-hand stories (commonly referred to as "rumors"). What we have with the RC Sproul/Wilson/CREC scandal is little different; lot's of people with no first-hand knowledge, because they're too lazy to read the primary source documents for themselves, taking the word of people that are four or five layers removed from those who perhaps do know (but even that's debatable).

So what we have is "trust" that's four or five steps removed from the knowledgeable and responsible party. To call that "trust" is worse than ignorant. In point of fact it's not trust at all, it's willful ignorance.

Little wonder that one of the most common criticisms leveled at RC Sproul Jr and Douglas Wilson is that they're cult leaders. All people have to do is look to the willful ignorance of their followers to confirm their suspicions that Sproul and Wilson are cult leaders; perhaps bible-based cult leaders, but cult leaders none the less.

Church members think for themselves, investigate for themselves and ask probing questions when things don't smell right (and real church members have no trouble discerning for themselves when something stinks).

Cult members live in denial and avoid asking their leaders embarrassing questions, which is precisely the behavior evidenced by the followers of Sproul and Wilson. Logical conclusion?

There's a little phrase worth repeating here that President Ronald Reagan stated many times to his cabinet during the eight years of his presidency: "Trust but verify."

RC Sproul Jr Divides Home School Groups

2006-07-24T15:17:00.002-04:00

Among other things RC Sproul Jr is the author of When You Rise Up: A Covenantal Approach to Homeschooling. It's important to say "among other things" because RC Sproul Jr is also a defrocked minister. Being the author of a well-respected primer on homeschooling and also being defrocked makes for an interesting if not highly controversial combination.

If you head up a home school group or some other Christian organization and you'd like to be accused of duplicity and folly, and if you'd also like to cause an acrimonious fight that could easily result in splitting your organization, a surefire way of accomplishing it is to contract with RC Sproul Jr to speak for your group. Also, be sure you don't tell your members in advance of your big event that RC Sproul Jr has been defrocked (a lot of people still don't know, so keep it a secret).

Prior to his defrocking on January 26, 2006 RC Sproul Jr was signed up to speak at several different functions, including speaking for two different home school groups, Christian Home Education Association of Central Texas (CHEACT) and Christian Home Educators of Colorado (CHEC).

The question that loomed large for many concerned Christians was would those groups do the principled thing and cancel RC Sproul Jr and ask that a suitable speaker take his place on their podiums? In both cases they had ample advance warning prior to their June 2006 conferences and could have easily arranged different speakers to take RC Sproul Jr's place. But neither home school group did that. In both cases RC Sproul Jr had close personal ties and friendships with the directors and/or other key players in those organizations, and friendships won the day over principle.

We received several emails from home school families who'd previously intended to attend those conferences. They had the same concerns that we did. They couldn't in good conscience attend a conference where a defrocked minister was teaching biblical principles when he'd been stripped of his teaching authority and told that he was "not qualified." Some of these families were Baptists and independents, yet they seemed to appreciate the ramifications of church discipline and being defrocked better than many Presbyterians do.

One such email we received from a home school family included a copy of a written statement from CHEACT that they'd received as a direct result of expressing their concerns. The interesting thing is that this family was specifically told by CHEACT director Brett Adams that the document was not a public document, but rather was private. So why the big secret?

At least CHEACT attempted to offer some kind of response (poor though it may have been) to people's concerns. We've been told by people who contacted CHEC that their concerns were largely ignored. In point of fact CHEC director Kevin Swanson posted an article on his blog in which he infers that all of RC Sproul Jr's problems occurred as a direct result of "Alexander the Coppersmith" bloggers. No doubt that would include this blog. Yes, you heard it right! RC Sproul Jr was defrocked because of bloggers! That's like saying that Richard Nixon was impeached only because of Bob Woodward and the Washington Post. As an ordained Presbyterian minister Pastor Kevin Swanson should know better, but Pastor Swanson is evidently more motivated by his friendships than he is by biblical principle.

For conference attendees to have concerns over RC Sproul Jr's defrocking, and to express them, they'd first have to be aware that RC Sproul Jr had been defrocked. Many people didn't know that prior to attending CHEACT and CHEC, and CHEACT and CHEC did nothing to inform anyone about it, either on their web sites, or at the time people registered, or even after attendees showed up at the conferences. At no time did CHEACT or CHEC make any disclosures of RC Sproul Jr's defrocking. So how's that any different from a marriage enrichment conference not informing guests as they register that the keynote speaker was recently handed divorce papers because his wife caught him with a mistress?

Many people only discovered that RC Sproul Jr had been defrocked for the first time at the CHEACT and CHEC conferences, much like many folks first learned that RC Sproul Jr had been defrocked for the first time when they attended the Highlands Study Center Generations Conference. But even then they didn't find out by conference staff members. The way they found out was by overhearing it from other attendees there. Needless to say, this came as quite a shock to many. We don't view that as honest advertising. CHEACT and CHEC acted no differently from what the Highlands Study Center did by not informing the attendees of the Generations Conference.

Only those people who already knew that RC Sproul Jr had been defrocked, and only those who specifically contacted CHEACT director Brett Adams, received a written statement (people who contacted CHEC received nothing):

CHEACT BOARD STATEMENT REGARDING DR. R.C. SPROUL JR. AS OUR KEYNOTE SPEAKER FOR OUR 2006 SUMMER CONFERENCE

March 14, 2006

As a preamble, we issue the following disclaimer about resources with which CHEACT partners: "While CHEACT endeavors to assemble speakers, exhibitors and presenters who provide encouragement and relevant resources to home school families, the views and opinions expressed by speakers, exhibitors and presenters do not necessarily reflect those of the CHEACT Board or its members." This is not an abdication of responsibility by our Board, but rather a statement of fact and an acknowledgement that we are a diverse membership with different scriptural understandings. In fact, the Board of Directors of CHEACT takes responsibility to exercise due diligence by following up on every issue brought to our attention involving organizations and people with which we partner to safeguard, promote and encourage home schooling that glorifies God in central Texas families. That has meant researching curriculum, speakers and exhibitors (aka "content"). From time to time, this has precipitated in the removal of specific content from our conferences either by discontinuing the extension of invitations to participate in the future and sometimes by ordering content removed on the spot.

We view all possible content in one of three categories: immoral, amoral and moral. As it is our policy to disallow all content that is "hostile to the cause of Christ," we focus specifically on the immoral category, tolerate the amoral and embrace the moral. To identify what is truly immoral we investigate organization ties ("the money trail"), the background of the principals involved and available comments by others taking into consideration from whom the opinion comes as well.

CHEACT is not a church or affiliated with any particular denomination. In fact, there is representation from just about every major denomination amongst our membership. Even our Board of Directors has diverse background and theological understanding, but that does not preclude us from joining together to advance the Gospel by striving toward our organization's mission. CHEACT cannot and will not be used to advance a certain denomination's agenda or any personal agendas other than those consistent with our mission.

Under my watch as Chairman of the Board for the past seven years, we have not found it necessary to issue a public statement in support of or in opposition to possible conference content. Instead, we have successfully handled these issues quietly, behind the scenes. But because of the relatively high profile of this summer's keynote speaker, and what we view to be an unscriptural handling of personal grievances by individuals using the Internet to sow discord, we would like to offer an opposing view in support of Dr. Sproul and our decision to not dismiss him as our keynote speaker.

For those of you not familiar with the structure of the Presbyterian Church, each local church has a "Session" made up of the pastor(s) and other elders in the church. Each session submits to a "Presbytery" in the church's denomination. There are 35+ denominations that call themselves by the name "Presbyterian." Here is a brief chronology of events:

1. On February 25, 2005, CHEACT contracted with Dr. Sproul to be our keynote speaker long before the initial Declaratory Judgment leveled against him by his own denomination dated January 26, 2006. At that same time, we decided to send every renewing or new member of CHEACT a copy of his book, "When You Rise Up A Covenantal Approach to Homeschooling" as one of the best books we have collectively read that supports our mission to promote Homeschooling that glorifies God.

2. On January 26, 2006, the Westminster Presbytery, Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA), issued an 11page Declaratory Judgment against Dr. Sproul and the session at large of St. Peter Church. It must be noted that this judgment was issued prior to any communication or requests for clarification from the Session. Some took this opportunity to publicly blast Dr. Sproul in a manner completely inconsistent with that found in Matthew 18, highlighting the fact that he was officially defrocked.

3. On January 29, 2006, CHEACT was alerted to the situation.

4. On February 3, 2006 after having taken the opportunity to discuss each alleged violation directly with the deposed Session the Westminster Presbytery issued a 2page letter of acceptance and forgiveness for clarifications and apologies regarding each of the named violations. The letter also formally released the former session members with the following words; "Again, we praise God for your confession and repentance. We pray and exhort all Christians to seek repentance and reconciliation as you gentlemen have professed in your letter because as Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr. has written, '... a true man takes responsibility for his failures. That is why a godly man's best posture in on his knees repenting....' We believe you men have modeled this attitude before all, and we are most humbled by your humility. Be assured that our love and prayers are for each of you." They were released without censure.

In summary, the alleged violations of this particular denomination's rules by the session of which Dr. Sproul was a part have been resolved to the denomination's satisfaction. And as each of these issues pertains to his role as pastor of a flock, and not home school writer and speaker, we see no reason to dismiss him as our speaker. Another cause for concern would have beenif he was acting in a manner resistant to the authority that God has placed over him, but the final letter from the Presbytery absolves him of this potential character issue (see #4 above) to our satisfaction. The RPCGA has moved on and so must we.

So, what steps did the CHEACT Board follow to come to these conclusions?

First, we read everything regarding the issues that we could find. Next, we sought clarification from Dr. Sproul's organization on each of the issues. We sought to understand the relevant portions of the RPCGA's Book of Church Order and to understand what portions of the denomination's rules and regulations had not been disclosed to the session at St. Peter which is openly admitted by the Presbytery in the letter of forgiveness and release. Finally, we sought to understand how these events within a denomination affected our ability to accomplish our mission outside of the denomination. It is not our role to take a position on any of the issues raised or dismissed by the RCPGA, unless they were to impact Dr. Sproul's ability to help us accomplish our mission.

Therefore, we have decided to keep Dr. Sproul as our keynote speaker for this summer's conference. We remain convinced that this brother has a lot to offer the home schooling community in the areas of instruction, encouragement and challenge as we endeavor to home school our children for the glory of God. We look forward to welcoming Dr. Sproul as the keynote speaker at a conference that will be jam packed with the resources and encouragement central Texans need to keep home schooling for the glory of God.

Sincerely,
The Board of Directors,
Christian Home Education Association of Central Texas (CHEACT)
"Homeschooling for the Glory of God" www.cheact.org
(Original signed)

So RC Sproul Jr still "has a lot to offer." Evidently that's all it takes to qualify to be a CHEACT speaker. Personal character and integrity are irrelevant. The fact that RC Sproul Jr abused his office and several church families, broke his ordination vows, and stole the tax ID number of another church denomination is irrelevant. CHEACT's letter is full of sham excuses and pragmatic rationalizing, but comes up short on biblical principle and honoring the church discipline of the denomination that had ordained and then defrocked RC Sproul Jr.

CHEACT and CHEC have acted no differently than what we might expect of the typical public school board. The difference is that public school boards actually know better than to go through with having defrocked people address their conferences.

CHEACT is now being rewarded according to their deeds. The latest word is that numerous CHEACT members are very upset by their board of directors' duplicity. They're troubled that they weren't informed in advance that the keynote speaker had been defrocked. They're troubled that the board made no effort to cancel Sproul and secure a keynote speaker that wouldn't generate so much contention and controvery. A CHEACT split is now in process, and the board of directors has nothing to blame for it other than their own duplicitous principle-compromising friendship with RC Sproul Jr.

We haven't heard anything specific yet about what's going on with CHEC, but it'd be surprising if there isn't a falling out going on with them too. When a board of directors acts duplicitously against its own membership it shouldn't be surprised when that membership shakes the dust off their feet.

Prior to all this both organizations had excellent reputations. Both of these home education groups had accomplished a lot of good things. How tragic and very foolish of them to risk everything on a defrocked Presbyterian minister. Let's all pray that they can recover from their folly. But first they'll need to publicly repent of their duplicity, pride and foolishness.

Open Letter To CREC Pastor Doug Wilson

2006-06-11T20:07:00.008-04:00

Dear Doug,

I've been an admirer of your writings (at least some of them) for some time. I've read a number of your books and found some merit in them, including:

Future Men
Federal Husband
Reforming Marriage
My Life For Yours: A Walk Through The Christian Home
Standing On The Promises : A Handbook Of Biblical Childrearing

In the past I've been blessed by your writing. Not that you've really taught me much of anything. Much of what you've said in these books are things that I've practiced for years anyway. It's just a blessing to find a writer who supports my own worldview (well, at least I used to think that maybe we had similar worldviews). I've been able to recommend your books to others as a means of recommending a worldview which is tragically lacking in the church today.

Sadly, I can no longer recommend your books. It's not that some of your books aren't good and useful. The big problem is one of "guilt by association." Recommending your books is too easily misconstrued as a recommendation of Doug Wilson himself, not just Doug Wilson the author, but also Doug Wilson the Pastor. From what I've been learning about you, you're one of the last men that I should be recommending as an example of godly Christian character. I'm even less able to recommend you as an example of a godly pastor. It's the same problem I now have in being able to recommend RC Sproul Jr's books. It's not that his books aren't good, it's that the man who wrote them isn't good. Like you he doesn't practice what he preaches.

I used to regularly read Credenda Agenda, until the "serrated edge" started slicing the wrong way. Furthermore, your "enemy theology" is the last kind of influence I need in my life when I sometimes already struggle with forgiveness. It's the same problem all over again with my not being able to continue recommending RC Sproul Jr's Highlands Study Center periodical, Every Thought Captive. RC Jr has tried to imitate you in his writing. He long ago acknowledged that he wanted ETC to emulate Credenda Agenda. Bad choice. Reading ETC is every bit as tedious and annoying as reading Credenda Agenda.

In some ways, Doug, you remind me of a man who enjoys petting a cat's fur in the wrong direction -- the cat know's she's being petted, and she knows she should enjoy being petted. But this isn't nice petting, it's malicious petting, so she doesn't enjoy it one bit. It's annoying.

It's come to the point, Doug, where you've become far less of a blessing and far more an annoyance. I can no longer read Credenda Agenda, and I haven't for at least two years. I've got the same problem with reading RC Jr's ETC and RC Jr's blog. I can't read your blog either, Doug. Your books I can understand because they're written in such a way that the brains of normal human beings can readily understand them. You must have a good book editor because all your other writing, especially your blog, causes me to wonder if you were smoking pot. My neurons just aren't wired in that Wilsonian alternate universe sort of way, so trying to comprehend your blog is just a further annoyance. Life is already so full of so much annoyance and noise pollution. You shouldn't be just further contributing to the insanity.

What little blessing that might come from reading your books is more than offset by the curse of your self-righteous, obnoxious, sarcastic, puerile Blog and MaBlog and Credenda Agenda articles masquerading as intellectual mysticism.

On the other hand, reading Blog and MaBlog (or as some call it "Blah and MoreBlah") has provided some folks (who must have better perception than me) with some valuable insight into Dougsworld. For example, Hammerman predicted an imminent sex scandal based on reading between the lines of one of your recent blog articles. Hammer's annoyance-tolerance must be a whole lot higher than mine if he can stomach regularly perusing your blog. Then Hammer's predictions were confirmed. Your eight month cover-up of the Christ Church/New Saint Andrews pedophilia tragedy quickly exploded into a scandal of legendary proportions. Your circle the wagons and play the victim strategy has ensured that this is a scandal that the community of Moscow, ID can't soon forget. You are a stumbling stone to the unsaved and an embarrassment to many in your local community who name the name of Jesus Christ.

That's not just one pedophile scandal, but two, two pedophiles molesting the children of your church members under your pastoral care over virtually the same period of time, and out of a tiny college with barely over 100 students. So what is it about your infrastructure, what is it about what you and your college teaches that serves as a magnet for perverts?

Has it happened in secular colleges? Probably, but we expect secular Christ-denying institutions to attract those sorts. Has it happened in other churches? Occasionally, but I can't say as I've ever heard of it happening twice at virtually the same time in the same Christian college and the same church. One has to wonder if you're actually teaching a biblical worldview at all, or just Dougview. Parents would have to be just plain ignorant or out of their minds to now entrust their kids to you and send them to New Saint Andrews College.

What kind of a shepherd are you, Doug? Shepherds protect sheep, and if a predator, like a wolf, attacks the sheep, the shepherd goes after the wolf and kills it. This point bears repeating, so I'll come back to it again later.

When I first heard about your pedophile scandal, Doug, I felt sorry for you. What an awful terrible thing for a pastor to have to deal with -- ministering to families whose lives have been shattered and forever changed by a pervert who preyed right in their church upon their most vulnerable -- their dear little ones. I'm not exactly sure what you've done to minister to those families. Few will probably ever know that. No one wants to know who those families are. They're entitled to their privacy and no one should encroach on that, and I seriously doubt anyone will.

But what we do know of is your "ministry" to NSA student and child molester Steven Sitler, a predatory pervert who molested multiple children over several years in several states, including in your own church. Your "ministry" to Steven Sitler included writing Judge John Stegner and asking the judge for a light sentence:

"I would urge that the civil penalties applied would be measured and limited. I have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented, and that he will continue to deal with this to become a productive and contributing member of society."

What kind of humanistic claptrap is this, Doug? Who really cares if Sitler ever does "become a productive and contributing member of society" through what you have termed "secular therapy"? Show us where you got that vernacular from. Is it biblical? Freudianism? Skinnerism?

Oh, and let's not forget that you've equated Sitler's crimes to a mere violation of the 7th Commandment! Molesting 2-12 year old children is adultery? Are you really that stupid Doug, or are you obstructing justice by your perverse interpretation of Scripture? Molesting children isn't adultery, it's rape, and as you well know serial rapists warrant something a whole lot more onerous than a one year slap on the wrist in the Latah County Jail (commonly referred to as the "Latah Hilton"), say like the death penalty. You have in no way aided in the process of obtaining justice -- particularly biblical justice. All you've done is derail and pervert justice.

As if pleading to the judge for a light sentence on behalf of a confessed serial child molester weren't bad enough, you obtained for Steven Sitler's legal defense your NSA college's own attorney! What are you thinking, Doug? What possible personal interest could you have in defending Sitler and protecting him from what he biblically deserves? Why are you using Freudian psychobabble to get him off the hook?

What kind of a shepherd are you, Doug? Shepherds protect sheep, and if a predator, like a wolf, attacks the sheep, the shepherd goes after the wolf and kills it. At the very least a real shepherd doesn't plead for light jail sentences. Shepherds don't protect wolves. That's what hirelings do:

But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. John 10:12-13

You claim to be concerned for your sheep, Doug, concerned for the victims. But all you're doing is hiding behind them, using them as human shields, in a vain effort to dissuade your critics from a thorough examination of your dubious actions. Over and over again you and your toadies have cried, "Stop talking about it. Stop. Talking about it hurts the victims. It's just dragging up the past. They don't want anyone talking about it." I wish I could believe you, Doug, but I've seen more than enough evidence of your life to know how much you just use people for your own agenda.

I realize Doug, everyone realizes, that you'd much prefer it if everyone were to just stop talking about the fact that you had two child molesters preying on little children in your little college and church at the same time. Ordinarily you'd enjoy being the center of attention, but being under this kind of spotlight isn't pleasant, and you don't like being held accountable. This is a very volatile subject in Moscow Idaho. It doesn't get any more volative than child molestation. The only thing that could make it more volatile is if there were some appearance of a cover up (which there is). Whether you like it or not it will be talked about, and all your sanctimonious pontificating about how any talk will hurt the victims lacks credibility.

What's even more absurd is how you and your followers have claimed that any talk risks exposing the identities of the victims. Please Doug! Can't you do any better than that? Most of the court record is sealed specifically to protect the identities of the victims, and if anyone besides you were to know the identities of the victims why would they be so foolish as to disclose them? Tragically, if victim identities are known they were disclosed by Steven Sitler himself when he posted all those pictures of so many kids on his family's web site. Thankfully now that site has been password protected, but I have to wonder how many people were able to see it, or maybe even download all the pictures, before public access was blocked.

Doug, did you know that Sitler was operating a "trophy site" of his victims? Did you know that he had uploaded hundreds of photos of little children, many of which were uploaded after he had been arrested, after he had confessed to his crimes, and right before he had been sentenced? You've vouched for Sitler's character, Doug. You told the judge and you've told all of us that Sitler "repented." Yet, he was still uploading kiddie pictures to his trophy site after he'd "repented." Still standing by your story, Doug? Do you still "have a good hope that Steven has genuinely repented"? Are you still willing to go on the record that Silter will "become a productive and contributing member of society"?

If you were genuinely concerned for your sheep you wouldn't have concealed Sitler's actions for eight months. You wouldn't have just expelled Sitler from NSA for some unspecified "criminal" conduct. You would have exposed Sitler publicly as a serial pedophile and admonished parents to speak to their children. You would have been forthright in taking steps to determine if any other children had been molested, and the fact is that it's a very real possibility that others were molested. Instead, in true hireling fashion, you kept it all a secret, no doubt hoping the Sitler affair would never see the light of day.

Now your neighbors in the Moscow community in which you reside are outraged, and justifiably so. They're taking you to task, including on the community listserve Vision 2020, and what has been your response? You mock them as "Intoleristas" with you "serrated edge" sarcasm. You ridicule their just concerns over your negligence at best, or your cover up at worst. They make reasonable inquiries about what you knew and when you knew it and who you told when. Rather than being forthright your smart aleck responses only tend to confirm what appears to be a cover up. I have never witnessed a pastor who is so inept at community relations as you are Doug.

Your latest response is to justify your actions under the guise of "I am a pastor. And I cover up sins for a living." Unbelievable! And all the while you continue justifying your actions with your self-righteous Scripture-twisting subterfuge. You've just become too predictable, Doug.

You're a liar, Doug Wilson, a very big liar. You lie to your church members. You lie to the greater Moscow community. You're a dishonest, contentious, lying annoyance, and you're an embarrassment to those who name the name of Jesus Christ.

It's all starting to make sense now why you'd be so interested in "clearing the name" of a dishonest tyrannical defrocked tax cheat like RC Sproul Jr. You two are peas in a pod. Birds of a feather. You deserve each other, and now I'm actually quite pleased that RC Sproul Jr has found a home with you in your fly-by-night CREC "confederation." Since RC Jr refuses to take the hint of being defrocked and leave the pastoral profession for which he so obviously lacks any qualifications, let him be "considered ordained" in the one and only phony denomination where being defrocked means nothing. Let him carry the title "pastor" in an organization that has no pastoral standards and "considers" men to be "ordained" to the ministry who shouldn't be in the ministry -- men such as yourself, for example.

In spite of the few good and non-annoying books that you've written, I've recently come to much more deeply appreciate how a man's personal honesty and integrity, or a lack thereof, has a profound impact on his theology and doctrinal innovations, and thus, on what he espouses and writes. It's caused me to take a second and more critical look at your "Federal Vison." Though you claim to be "Reformed," though you claim to be a "Presbyterian," it's become all too apparent what a hoax your claims really are. A dishonest man is unlikely to expound honest theology.

For this I can thank you. Your dubious character has compelled me to return to the Bible and to the faith of my Reformed fathers. It's caused me to return to the Westminster Confession and the five solas -- pure and unadulterated by the perverse innovations of dishonest men like yourself.

Doug Wilson, repent of your sins and beg forgiveness of your congregation for having conducted yourself as a self-serving hireling, rather than a sacrificial shepherd.

Who Is Doug Wilson To Clear RC Sproul Jr?

2006-06-08T16:46:00.002-04:00

Only a matter of barely three weeks after the CREC declared that the defrocked RC Sproul Jr was "considered ordained" in the CREC, the CREC's founder Doug Wilson has once again found himself embroiled in another Christ Church/NSA scandal. This scandal is likely to be the biggest one of his scandal ridden career.

The allegations are running hot and heavy on the Moscow listserve, Vision 2020 that Doug Wilson is at the center of a New Saint Andrews student pedophile cover up. First to expose the lurid details of the scandal is former Christ Church member Michael Metzler. Others, including Little Geneva and Hammerman have also picked up on the story. In fact, it seems that Hammerman even predicted that a sex scandal was about to be exposed, based on his read of Doug Wilson's own blog postings.

Yet, in spite of the significance of the story the rest of the blogsphere remains strangely silent. Given some time we're sure that will change.

Convicted pedophile and NSA student/Christ Church member Stephen Sitler was aided in his defense by none other than Doug Wilson. In a letter to Judge John Stegner, Doug Wilson asks that the sentence be "measured and limited." Judge Stegner reduced Sitler's sentence from life to one year.

We don't doubt that it took more than Wilson's letter begging for leniency for Sitler to get such a light sentence. It also takes an excellent defense attorney, and for that Wilson turned to none other than NSA attorney Dean Wullenwaber. The question on many people's minds right now is why was the school's own attorney used to defend a pedophile who, from some accounts, molested over 100 children in several states, including Idaho, Washington, and Virginia?

Now it's come out that Steven Sitler isn't the only pervert in the NSA student body. Recently sentenced also is Jamin Wight, who had sexual relations for some 18 months with a 14 year old girl, the daughter of the Christ Church family that he boarded with.

NSA students are all boarded off-campus in the homes of Christ Church members. "Kirkers" as they are called are opposed to birth control and, not surprisingly, often have large families with lots of small children. With working Kirker dads away from home all day working, and busy moms often not able to pay attention to what's going on at all times, this no doubt makes for easy prey for pedophiles.

Doug Wilson's response so far has been anything but pastoral. No surprise there. Rather than taking responsibility Wilson has gone on the attack against "scurrilous bloggers" (that would include us) and in particular against Michael Metzler.

By his own admission Doug Wilson waited some eight months after Sitler's arrest to notify Kirkers, and he has yet to produce any evidence that he even notified any Kirkers at all. Though Sitler early admitted that he had molested many children, it now appears that Wilson made no attempts to determine how widespread Sitler's victims extended throughout the Kirk, and throughout the greater Moscow community. From all appearances there was a cover up.

Adding to the concerns of Moscow residents is the fact that Sitler remained free for a number of months after he confessed to his crimes, and prior to his being sentenced and incarcerated. Even now that he has been sentenced and jailed he is freed twice per week to drive unsupervised to his sex predator rehabilitation "treatment" center many miles from the jail. Anxieties run high in Moscow that a convicted serial child molester continues to be given so much liberty to travel and opportunities to prey on more victims.

Doug Wilson has shown every bit as much humanistic concern as the Latah County justice system has for Sitler's "rehabilitation." Neither have shown any regard for justly punishing Sitler for his heinous crimes. However, now that the scandal is being exposed, along with Doug Wilson's complicity in it, Wilson's chief concern is for salvaging his tattered image.

So who is scandal-ridden Doug Wilson to clear anyone else's name, like RC Sproul Jr?

Next Article: Open Letter To CREC Pastor Doug Wilson

CREC Tactics 101: Out Of Sight Out Of Mind

2006-06-02T19:42:00.003-04:00

On May 15 the Moderator of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, Randy Booth, posted the following on the CREC web site:

May 15, 2006

The CREC Pastoral Commission for Saint Peter Presbyterian Church in Bristol, TN will post its Report in this location within the next two weeks.

Well, Randy Booth, "within two weeks" was up five days ago. Tick-tock Mr. Booth. What are you waiting for?

Smarting over the fact that Peter Kershaw beat you to the punch and posted your Report on his web site? Actually, the most embarrassing part must be over the fact that Kershaw wrote a Review about the CREC's Report over so promptly reinstating RC Jr after his defrocking, and not a particularly favorable Review.

What's got to be even more embarrassing is that Kershaw posted the CREC's Preface letter to Saint Peter church, along with another Review. We seriously doubt that the CREC ever intended that Preface letter to see the light of day.

The CREC Commission sent its Report to ten Reformed Elders for review, along with a letter that they expected them to sign in support of the Commission's "pastoral" work on behalf of Saint Peter church. No doubt the CREC was planning on parading those signed letters out on their web site to add some credibility to their farce of a "Report."

Could it be that those ten Reformed Elders saw Kershaw's Reviews and started having second thoughts about it all? Could it be that they started to recognize that if they signed the CREC's letter that it could ruin their own reputations? Could it be that the CREC now can't find anyone to rubber stamp their Report?

Only time will tell, but right now the whole thing looks real dodgy. But then a lot of what goes on in the CREC is suspect. With guys like Randy Booth and Doug Wilson in charge of things it's just certain to get weird, and with RC Sproul Jr now safely in the CREC fold it's bound to start looking like a three-ring circus.

So what will the CREC Commission do now? Will they ever post their sorry excuse for a "Report"? Or are they hoping that the whole sordid affair will just tumble down the memory hole and soon be forgotten forever? That would be the classic Doug Wilson/CREC move -- when things get embarrassing just ignore them and hope they just go away.

Out of sight, out of mind.

CREC Says RC Sproul Jr Is "Considered Ordained"

2006-05-30T12:03:00.003-04:00

The CREC Commission report on Saint Peter Presbyterian Church is out. Typical of the jumbletalk of Doug Wilson the conclusions of the report will leave sane people saying to themselves, "Huh?"

Many of RC Sproul Jr fans had predicted that the CREC Commission would "clear the names of the four St. Peter Elders for the whole Reformed world to see". Well, the CREC's report doesn't do that. In fact their report says:

"It is our finding that there were significant pastoral mistakes, errors and sins by the former Session."

Now this doesn't mean that the "significant pastoral mistakes, errors and sins" were "significant" enough to prevent them from rolling out the CREC red carpet. No! Just about any defrocked Presbyterian minister with a pulse and some brainwaves is welcome in the one "Reformed confederation" with virtually no standards at all.

Doug Wilson has trained well his hand-picked Commission members for their difficult task, to make a Presbyterian minister who was defrocked for ecclesiastical tyranny and tax fraud look as though it really wasn't all that bad. But since the evidence against him was incontrovertible, the best way of dealing with it is to just not deal with it at all. Just ignore the evidence and hope that no one notices. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. The great and powerful Wizard Of Moscow has spoken."

In language that only a Wilsonista could concoct:

"Although Mr. Sproul was deposed from the ministry (primarily for violations of the RPCGA BCO which would not apply in the CREC), we have determined that since he had been previously examined for ordination (by three different presbyteries of three denominations ARPC, PCA, and RPCGA), he shall not be required to fulfill the process for ordination and shall be considered ordained within the CREC accordingly."

So RC Sproul Jr is defrocked, but in the CREC he's "considered ordained"! People in their right minds will have a real difficult time sorting this one out. But in the alternate universe of Doug Wilson's CREC it somehow all makes sense. And even if it doesn't make sense it doesn't really need to. After all, it's just the CREC.

Highlands Study Center Generations Conference a Dud

2006-05-11T21:29:00.004-04:00

We've been asked by a number of folks to post an update about RC Sproul Jr's Generations Conference. Given the scant information that's come out about the conference we thought at first we hardly had enough to warrant posting an article. But then that's a significant part of the story -- how little anyone wants to talk about it, including the normally very talkative speakers.

Take for example what Doug Phillips posted on his blog -- pictures, pictures, pictures, and. . . well you get the point. Lots of fluff, no substance. Why isn't Doug telling us anything? He probably has good reason for that.

The only folks who are actually saying much of anything at all is a Highlands Study Center employee and his wife (and of course we can count on them to be honest and objective). They've posted several articles on the Generations Conference. Funny thing is they expend most of their time talking about things completely unrelated to the actual conference, like eating supper with the Sprouls and Phillips in RC Jr's home in Mendotaville. Yet they tell us next to nothing about the actual conference. The most extensive article is by Amy Howard, and the title of Amy Howard's article is (now get this), "Dinner After The Conference... An Historic Event."

We're sure glad that the Howard family had "an historic event" over supper at RC Jr's home. It would've been great if all the conference attendees could've shared in the "historic event" with you. But if you think the conference itself was an historic event you're sadly mistaken. We've heard from more than one attendee how utterly unimpressed they were -- the conference was a dud -- an historic disappointment.*

Around 600 people attended (that includes children), far less than the 1000-plus they had planned for. Considering the Highlands Study Center conference had over 400 attendees last year with just Doug Phillips and RC Sproul Jr, and they only brought the figures up by 200 by adding the legendary Dr. RC Sproul and Howard Phillips, that's not very impressive. We're told they lost quite a bit of money on last year's conference, and it's likely they lost money again. Poor planning (like overinflating your attendee estimates) will do that.

Nothing was mentioned at the conference about RC Sproul Jr's recent defrocking. In fact that was a subject that was carefully avoided. One way to avoid the subject is to prevent anyone from asking any embarrassing questions. We're told that the speakers kept themselves at a distance from the audience, with the exception of when the speakers made brief appearances at their book tables. A number of "ushers" prevented audience members from approaching the speakers during breaks, so it was all but impossible to ask any of them any questions, especially the dreaded, "Sir, what are you doing speaking at a conference with a defrocked minister?"

Oddly enough there's been nothing said anywhere on the internet since the conference. It's almost as if the people that attended were so unimpressed that they're embarrassed to admit they were there. If it had been a great conference we'd expect to see something posted about it somewhere -- anywhere. Well, there is this, which not coincidentally looks remarkably like Doug Phillips' blog content. Doug trains his boys well -- when you're trying to avoid an embarrassing subject, don't say anything of any substance, but post lots of pictures.

The one and only blog article we can find not written by someone who's either a Generations Conference speaker or working for one of the speakers are these folks, and they wrote it before they hit the road to go to the Generations Conference. We saw several people post comments to that article asking them to give a report on the conference when they got back. According to what they're stating they got back from the conference on May 8, but they have yet to post anything about their conference experience. That may not necessarily mean anything, but what's significant is the fact that they deleted the comments of people who had asked them for a conference report, and they've now disabled commenting altogether! Now if that's not sending a message. . .

We have no doubt that if RC Sproul Jr had done the honorable thing and removed himself from the speaker's lineup it could have been a good conference. But RC Sproul Jr's presence there spoiled it for a lot of people.

A number of conference attendees weren't even aware that RC Sproul Jr had been defrocked until they got to the conference and overheard other conference attendees talking about it. Imagine their shock! Now there's a great way to put a damper on a conference that otherwise had high potential. No doubt a lot of folks felt duped and cheated.

As we've already stated:
"In principle the theme of the conference is a good one. There's a very big fly in the ointment though -- RC Sproul, Jr. How is RC Jr in any way qualified to address the subject of "honor" when he's brought so much dishonor to his family name?"
There's not much now that RC Sproul Jr can do about salvaging the family name of Sproul. But he could at least stop embarrassing himself and his family by continuing to draw attention to himself. The right thing to do is to cease teaching and preaching, at least until he can arrange to get his name cleared and get himself reordained. Better still a defrocked preacher just needs to find himself another line of work -- at least that's what those men do who have any genuine regard for honor.

The honorable thing for RC Sproul Jr to have done would have been to remove himself from the conference lineup. If only RC Sproul Jr were capable of doing the honorable thing.

*Now that we've posted this, you can count on Doug Phillips to post a lengthy article on his blog with an over-the-top report gushing about how incredibly wonderful, edifying and warm and fuzzy the Generations Conference was, and what an incredibly honorable guy RC Sproul Jr is. It's part of Doug's MO. He just can't help coming to the defense of defrocked ministers like RC Sproul Jr.

A More Arrogant Way

2006-05-06T10:31:00.002-04:00

"Arrogant" is a term that has often been applied to RC Sproul Jr and his Saint Peter church (now defrocked) Elders. Fellow defrocked Elder Laurence Windham has faithfully followed in the footsteps of his mentor. Those who've known Laurence Windham personally report that he can't seem to resist the temptation of putting himself on a pedestal and lording his "wisdom" and "authority" over others.

Multiple reports have come our way that portray Laurence Windham as a man absorbed with his self-importance. For example, it's been reported to us from more than one source that Mr. Windham has said such self-aggrandizing things as, "I'm like a rock star. People just flock to me. The chicks really dig me." Humility seems a foreign concept to these guys, and one doesn't need to know them personally to perceive how full of themselves they are. There's nothing particularly discrete about their arrogance. All one has to do to see it is read what they've written.

As much as we appreciate Reformed theology, we've often found ourselves embarrassed by the pride exemplified in at least some of our Reformed brethren. We know we're right, and that everyone else's theology is defective, if not just plain goofy. The arrogance with which some Reformed men attempt to proselytize has rarely ever won any converts. Indeed, all that men like Laurence Windham tend to accomplish is to cause the evangellyfish objects of their proselytizing to further entrench themselves in their evangellyfish theology. They say to themselves (and perhaps rightly so), "Arrogant SOBs. If that's the fruit that comes of Reformed theology then count me out." Windham and those like him often spend far more of their time and energies on trying to convert the saved to Reformed theology than they do evangelizing the lost. What Sproul and Windham communicate is that the saved aren't truly saved unless they're also Reformed and paedo-baptist and paedo-communion.

Laurence Windham typifies not only the arrogant Reformed proselytizer, but one who finds gratification in being rejected by the inferior "evangellyfish." In his view, rejection is validation of not only the theology he espouses, but even his tactless and arrogant demeanor. "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man’s sake." (Luke 6:22) So Laurence Windham tells himself, "Jesus said that men will hate me and reproach me for speaking the truth. Men hate me and reproach me, so that must mean that I'm speaking the truth," all the while forgetting that we're commanded to "speak the truth in love," (Eph 4:15) not as arrogant know-it-alls.

In a 2001 edition of Every Thought Captive there appeared an article entitled A More Excellent Way. In it Mr. Windham recounts his self-appointed mission to convert several Bristol-area Vineyard Church Elders to Reformed theology. It's from that article that we hereinafter quote. From the very first line Windham's arrogance shines through:

"The art of persuasion can be a difficult one. Especially when you have won the argument and the other person doesn't know that they have lost."

To the best of our knowledge, winning an argument is predicated upon:

The opposing party's admission that they have lost the argument, or
A disinterested third party (a judge), by pre-arrangement of the two opposing parties, declares a winner (e.g. a formal debate).

In his arrogance Windham assumes the position of both a debater and the debate judge, thereby guaranteeing himself the winner, at least in his own mind. He pronounces that he has "won the argument," therefor, ex cathedra (or rather, by mere fiat), it is so, because I declare it so.

"My motivation was founded on the passages from Scripture regarding Aquila and Priscilla's ministry of teaching the young Apollos what he lacked."

And we have no doubt but that Windham's "motivation" came through loud and clear. God the Holy Spirit isn't capable of showing you what I can. The Word isn't sufficient. You need the Word and Laurence Windham. Our roles and positions are clear. I am the older, wiser, more knowledgeable one (Aquila) and you are the younger, immature, unlearned, needy one (Apollos) who must yield to my authority.

"They love the Lord. And yet when it came to a friendly challenge of what the Word says about worship... they proved to be Thessolonican. They lacked the humbleness of Apollos."

Laurence Windham accuses others of "lacking the humbleness of Apollos"? Unbelievable! Then again, those who know Mr. Windham personally would say, given the size of that beam in his eye it's very believable.

"I began to get an idea of how the Apostle Paul must have felt when dealing with the Corinthians. They doubted his authority."

When we distill it all down Windham's presumed "authority" is the problem. Christians and even many non-Christians recognize real authority when they see it. The Pharisees recognized Jesus' authority, and even the authority of John the Baptist who came before Jesus. They also recognized the authority of Jesus' disciples after Jesus' ascension, and they even had a certain fear of the disciples. But only the most gullible acknowledge a man who arrogantly presumes authority when he has none. Windham's comparison of himself to the Apostle Paul is just further evidence of his arrogance.

"At the conclusion of my last meeting with the Vineyard leadership, I calmly and firmly said, 'Your church's history will from this point on have recorded this event where you were confronted by the Scriptures regarding your beliefs and will also remember that you were challenged by someone who desired to search the Scripture with you in order to show you a more excellent way. And that you refused'."

Sounds almost prophetic, doesn't it? So is Windham a true prophet or a false prophet? As far as we can determine Windham's prophetic utterance proved false. In point of fact, Windham's prophetic utterance was much more applicable to himself than it was to his Vineyard brethren, albeit about five years premature.

Where does Windham's scriptural authority come from in this "more excellent way"? From 1 Corinthians 12:31, the prequel to Paul's famous chapter on love (1 Cor 13), "But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way."

How remarkable -- no, how hypocritical -- that this man who arrogantly presumes authority over church leaders in another church, when in reality he had no authority over them whatsoever, would speak of the "more excellent way" and yet not show them the love of Christ, or even the basic respect they were due as fellow-heirs of the Gospel. Even more amazing is that he would be so insolent as to memorialize his supercilious, haughty deportment in an ETC article for the world to read.

"If anyone can show me my errors, or misconceptions, or fallacies, I welcome them to do so. And they have. And that is why I am where I am today."

And where are you today, Mr. Windham? You are exactly where God has decreed that you be. You are defrocked. The mantle of authority that you used to lord it over others has been stripped from you. Men who had genuine authority over you (your Presbytery), as well as fellow pastors and other believers, (probably also including those Vineyard church Elders) attempted to show you your "errors, or misconceptions, or fallacies." But you wouldn't listen. And so you left your Presbytery with no choice but to discipline you.

May you be humbled. May you repent to God and to those whom you have offended in your arrogance. May you learn to walk in the "more excellent way." But failing that, remember what you have pronounced on others for refusing to pursue "a more excellent way":

"Your history will from this point on have recorded this event where you were confronted by the Scriptures regarding your beliefs and will also remember that you were challenged by someone who desired to search the Scripture with you in order to show you a more excellent way."

Where's that RC Sproul Jr Name-Clearing Report?

2006-04-27T15:10:00.004-04:00

Pastor Shaun Nolan's recent posting, Clearing RC Sproul Jr's Name, piqued a great deal of interest in the Confederation Of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) and its alleged authority (if any) to "clear" RC Sproul Jr's name of the very serious charges that resulted in his being defrocked. If in fact the CREC does so, they'll be making a public declaration that they think of themselves as a superior ecclesiastical court to the RPCGA, and every other denomination, and that they think they have the authority to overturn the judgments of the RPCGA, and any other denomination. In point of fact their past history would show that they believe exactly that.

So now people are really starting to wonder about that CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission and where that RC Sproul Jr Name-Clearing Report is. Why hasn't the CREC gotten it out yet? Will we be seeing it soon? After all, RC Sproul Jr does have that Generations Conference on May 5 & 6. Wouldn't it be best to have his name cleared and get him ordained before then?

Only time will tell, but the more time that passes the more that people will speculate about the obvious delay. Perhaps the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission believes that by withholding the release of the RC Sproul Jr Name-Clearing Report until the last possible minute it'll help to give the impression that the outcome wasn't already predetermined long before they read even one word of the testimony and evidence.

CREC Name-Clearing Commissions have engaged in the very same conduct before, so it's not at all challenging to figure out what they're up to. For example, Doug Wilson and Doug Jones convened a Name-Clearing Commission for defrocked PCA Pastor Burke Shade. Wilson and Jones preapproved Shade for ordination in the CREC even before they had examined any of the Illiana Presbytery (PCA) trial evidence against Shade:

"Doug Wilson reminded the elders that we have already agreed this situation is not a barrier to Burke Shade and his church being accepted into the CRE." (July 13, 2000)

For those not already familiar with the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission situation, here's a little background information. On March 14, 2006 Randy Booth, the Moderator of the Confederation Of Reformed Evangelical Churches announced the following:

"On Saturday, March 4, 2006, the congregation of St. Peter, Bristol, TN, voted to request that a Commission of five pastors or elders, from separate CREC congregations, be constituted to provide pastoral guidance for the immediate needs of the St. Peter congregation. This Commission is not judicial in nature, but rather pastoral. The CREC respects the judicial bounds of the RPCGA and intends to operate within those boundaries. The RPCGA has released both St. Peter and the former session of St. Peter without censure, and the RPCGA is aware that St. Peter has approached the CREC for pastoral counsel and care.

"The RPCGA has not precluded the possibility that some or all of the St. Peter session might be reinstated to office in the future, provided they go through the normal credentialing process. That is not to say that reinstatement is a forgone conclusion, only that the judgment of the RPCGA does not necessarily call for their permanent exclusion from office. Ultimately, these decisions will be made by the congregation of St. Peter and any ecclesiastical body to which they might join themselves.

"Some of these matters have been treated in an anti-ecclesiastical way via web sites on the worldwide web. There is definitely false and misleading information that is being advanced at some of these sites, including false information pertaining to the nature and make-up of the CREC Commission. Self-appointed arbiters of justice do not contribute to a godly resolution of anything and we hereby call upon them to recuse themselves from such public discourse, to immediately remove any material related to these matters from the web, and to pray for all those affected by these matters. It is the desire of the CREC to work to honor Christ and His Church."

You'd have to be really gullible to believe Doug Wilson's hand-picked CREC Moderator Randy Booth when he says, "This Commission is not judicial in nature, but rather pastoral." In other words,

We know we've got zero credibility with any Presbyterian denomination in the world and that we've earned their distrust. We know we've unjustly bashed good and honorable Presbyteries for exercising church discipline and defrocking their abusive ministers. We know that no knowledgeable Presbyterian considers us to be Presbyterian, regardless of what we claim to be, because we don't act like Presbyterians. We know we've been duplicitous in our methods of requesting the case files from legitimate denominations that have defrocked their ministers, claiming we wouldn't use those case files to exonerate them, but then we turned right around and exonerated and reordained them anyway. We know we've acted under color of law and conducted ourselves as though we were some kind of a legitimate Presbyterian appellate court, or arbitration body, when in point of fact we have no legitimate jurisdiction at all over any denomination's judicial proceedings. We know we've been exposed for our show-trials and kangaroo courts and know that no one can trust Doug Wilson any farther than they can throw his fat butt. But this time we're telling the truth. You can tell that I'm telling the truth this time because I've got it underlined. Really, truly, for sure, this time you can really, REALLY trust us.

Some of Randy Booth's lines are just hysterical, like referring to others as "Self-appointed arbiters of justice." What a hoot! These guys have a major case of beam-in-the-eye syndrome.

Or take this line: "The CREC respects the judicial bounds of the RPCGA and intends to operate within those boundaries." Sure. And we're supposed to think that all those slanderous allegations that Doug Wilson made in his "A Justice Primer" aren't directed at the RPCGA? We especially enjoyed Wilson's fair-minded analysis of the RPCGA when he referred to them as "the judiciary from hell." (Believing A Lie) But of course if anyone asks Wilson if he was referring to the RPCGA when he wrote that he'd deny it. However it doesn't require any particularly keen insight to sort out the unnamed parties in his A Justice Primer series.

Doug Wilson has some history behind him with taking in defrocked Presbyterian Elders, holding show trials and then re-ordaining them (e.g. Burke Shade). As low as CREC ordination standards are (pulse and brainwaves are mandatory, however) Wilson can readily find cause to ordain just about any defrocked Presbyterian minister. However, he seems to be especially desirous of ordaining those who were defrocked for (at least in part) "abusiveness toward their flock." In other words, ruling with an iron fist. Doug Wilson has thumbed his nose specifically at the PCA and OPC, unlawfully imposing his own will on their judicatories and "overturning" their judgments which he had not authority to intervene in. In other words, Doug Wilson is a rogue. Furthermore, Doug Wilson has slandered honorable denominations, such as the PCA and OPC. In an effort to "clear the names" of defrocked men, he just can't seem to resist the temptation of bashing the denominations that defrocked the men that he wants to ordain.

"The RPCGA has not precluded the possibility that some or all of the St. Peter session might be reinstated to office in the future, provided they go through the normal credentialing process." About the only way they could have "precluded the possibility that some or all of the St. Peter session might be reinstated to office" is if they had taken them out and shot them. God has decreed that such is not an option (at least for Presbyterians). The RPCGA did, however, make an unambiguous statement about the Saint Peter Four's lack of qualifications to be Elders:

The consistent pattern of actions taken by these men are duplicitous in nature, and demonstrate that they willingly and knowingly act in an arbitrary fashion in violation of their vows of ordination and in violation of our denomination’s Book of Church Order. Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1Timothy 3:1-7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified.

Those lack of Elder qualifications weren't over just a lack of their ability to function within a confessional Reformed Presbyterian denomination, like the RPCGA and their BCO (although that's certainly the case). Rather, their lack of Elder qualifications were also per 1 Timothy 3:1-7.

One of the most laughable aspects of how the RC Sproul Jr Name-Clearing Commission is operating is the fact that Dennis Tuuri is one of the Commission's five members, and it's entirely possible that Tuuri is even heading up the Commission. Patrick Poole noted that Dennis Tuuri

". . .a few years ago had his own ecclesiastical dirty laundry cleaned and bleached by the CREC. Tuuri was recommended for this job by none other than the Great Leader himself. It’s good to see that the CREC has enlisted one of their most experienced scandal-ridden personnel to help Sproul navigate the cover-up process and that the Great Leader has such unshakable faith in Turri to completely cover-up the matter."

Patrick Poole goes on to note:

"For the record, Dennis Tuuri joined the CRE to avoid prosecution in the PCA, charged with 'abuse of the flock'. In fact, CRE records show (Nov. 1998) that the CRE was asked not to admit Dennis Tuuri so that he could be tried. Doug Wilson led the charge to admit Tuuri to the CRE despite over the protests of Tuuri's former congregation."

So what's the holdup with clearing RC Sproul Jr's name? Could it be that Doug Wilson and the CREC are starting to have second thoughts about clearing the names of RC Sproul Jr, Laurence Windham, Wayne Hays, and Jay Barfield? Could it be that they've come to their senses and they're starting to perceive that "clearing" such men and ordaining them is a lot more trouble than it's worth? Could it be that Doug Wilson and the CREC are, uncharacteristic of how they've always operated before, actually beginning to have some regard for their reputations? Could it be that they're suffering from a bout of temporary sanity sufficient in degree to recognize that clearing and ordaining the Saint Peter Four is a no-win proposition for the CREC?

Naw! That would be giving Doug Wilson and his cronies credit for common sense, and that's not something that our own common sense would permit us to do.

Doug Wilson and his CREC cronies have demonstrated that they are rogues masquerading as Presbyterians. Rogues beget rogues, and it's little wonder that a number of CREC ordained men had prior been defrocked, or fled the just discipline of their Presbyteries, to then come and join the roguish ranks of the CREC. Presbyterian Elders can rest easy in the knowledge that should they ever become abusive of their flocks, engage in tax fraud, or any other transgressions that are likely to result in Presbyterial discipline, they've got a safe haven to flee to (just ask RC Sproul Jr how it's done).

To quote what one blog commenter recently said about RC Sproul Jr running off to the CREC for their defrocked-clergy name-clearing services, rather than appealing the Declaratory Judgment to the General Assembly of the RPCGA,
"Dad said I couldn't have the candy, so I'll go ask mom."

See related article:

Clearing RC Sproul Jr's Name

RC Sproul Jr Dishonors Father -- Again

2006-04-21T10:18:00.008-04:00

The recently defrocked RC Sproul Jr and his Highlands Study Center will be hosting the Generations Conference in Abingdon Virginia, May 5 and 6. As we wrote about previously in RC Sproul Jr Speaks On "Honor"? You've Gotta Be Kidding!, the theme of the conference is "Giving Honor To Whom Honor Is Due." So how well does RC Sproul Jr score on keeping the Fifth Commandment and honoring his own father? Has anything improved since the last time we reported on it? Tragically, no. In fact, RC Sproul Jr continues to just prove our point that he doesn't practice what he preaches.

Here's the latest example of RC Sproul Jr dishonoring his father, and it's from the March/April 2006 edition of Every Thought Captive -- the new RC Sproul Jr Top Ten List:

And the number one reason to come to our conference,
to ask R.C. the elder, in the context of child-rearing, "What in the world were you thinking?"

Yes, we realize it's meant to be a joke. But in our estimation this joke isn't funny. It's a slam on Dr. RC Sproul's "child-rearing" skills, and one can only assume that if Vesta Sproul were speaking at the conference, she too would have been slammed as part of the "joke." It's dishonoring, and the fact that it may have been intended to be funny doesn't in any way make it any the less dishonoring.

RC Sproul Jr is 40-years old. He needs to cease these juvenile jabs at his parents. He needs to start keeping the Fifth Commandment. He needs to cease speaking so pridefully and writing so shamelessly of his profligate adolescent years (Ligonier Tales), a rebellious time of his life which likely caused his parents great shame and embarrassment. RC Sproul Jr needs to grow up. But as was recently pointed out on another blog, RC Sproul Jr thinks like and talks like a (quoting RC Sproul Jr himself) "junior high girl."

Having RC Sproul Jr speak at a conference on the Fifth Commandment is like having Bill Clinton speak at a conference on marital fidelity.

Far more relevant than Dr. RC Sproul's parenting skills is RC Sproul Jr's skills at honoring his parents. The pressing question of the moment is:

In the context of being a parent-honoring Fifth Commandment-keeping son, "What on earth were YOU thinking?"

RC Sproul Not Deterring Son From CREC

2006-04-13T13:06:00.002-04:00

Many have assumed that Dr. RC Sproul has advised, or will advise, his son RC Sproul Jr to stay clear of the CREC because:

1. They're not Presbyterian.

2. The CREC has gone off the Reformed rails with their Federal Vision/New Perspectives On Paul/Auburn Avenue doctrines.

Some have gone so far as to predict that "RC Jr. will not end up going into the crec cult: his father and others close will advise against it."

Those predictions should be right, because the prediction is based upon principle. If the principles are valid then the prediction should also be valid. But that's actually where they went wrong -- assuming that principle will rule the day. In this case (and this is where we'll make a prediction of our own) pragmatism will win out over principle. But even more basic than that, many folks don't even have their facts straight.

In the first place, Dr. RC Sproul isn't even a genuine Presbyterian. Sure, he's ordained in the PCA, but that's only because he needs a place to "park his ordination." He's never done anything to insist that his church, Saint Andrews Chapel go into the PCA, or any other Presbyterian denomination. Saint Andrews Chapel is an unaffiliated independent church, and that appears to be the way that Dr. RC Sproul likes having it. It's pretty obvious that Dr. RC Sproul isn't a committed Presbyterian, nor does he want the accountability that comes with it. That's the example he's set for his son, and his son has followed dad's example faithfully.

Rather than administering the church membership vows from the RPCGA BCO, RC Sproul Jr fabricated and substituted his own church membership vows to the Saint Peter parishioners. His failure to administer the correct church membership vows resulted in no parishioner of Saint Peter church ever having joined the RPCGA. Truth be told, Saint Peter Presbyterian Church wasn't "Presbyterian" the entire time of RC Sproul Jr's affiliation with the RPCGA. They ceased being a Presbyterian church when they left the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in 2000 and they haven't been a Presbyterian church since then.

Was RC Sproul Jr's failure to administer the RPCGA's membership vows just due to his own incompetence, or was it a deliberate attempt to keep Saint Peter church out of Presbyterianism altogether, thereby diminishing his accountability to his Saint Peter congregation? Was this all a cunning way of following the example set for him by his own father of pastoring an unaffiliated independent church, and all the while calling himself a "Presbyterian"? Both men claim to be Presbyterians, but they seem to appreciate little of what being a Presbyterian means. How can they be Presbyterians when they both pastor independent unaffiliated churches? They're 'Presbyterian" in name only. They want the credibility that comes from being ordained by Presbyterian denominations, but without the accountability.

As far as the Federal Vision/New Perspectives on Paul stuff goes, while Dr. RC Sproul is widely considered a staunch defender of the five Solas of the Reformation, including Sola Fide, it doesn't appear that Dr. Sproul has in any way expressly condemned FV/NPP or even distanced himself from it (if anyone has evidence to the contrary please correct us). This is troubling given that FV/NPP is a covert assault on the five Solas, and Sola Fide in particular. Dr. Sproul has had FV guys like Doug Wilson, Steve Wilkins and Steve Schlissel speak at Ligonier Conferences and/or write for Table Talk. Could it be that Dr. Sproul just doesn't perceive what a threat to Reformed theology the FV/NPP movement is? Maybe so. A lot of people haven't figured that out yet, and a lot of people haven't figured out yet that the CREC represents perhaps the single most potent force in advancing the Federal Vision.

Some folks have done far more than just speculate that RC Sproul Jr is a closet Federal Visionist. If he is then getting himself ordained in the CREC would be the ideal move -- but only if he's desirous of coming out of the closet. If he's not a Federal Visionist, or if he is but he doesn't want to come out of the closet, then joining the CREC could prove to be a big problem. How will he manage to distance himself from the Federal Visionists when the CREC is made up largely of Federal Visionists? On the other hand, if not the CREC then where else can RC Sproul Jr go?

No bona fide denomination of any kind, let alone any Presbyterian denomination, is going to examine and provide "judicial review" of the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment. Presbyterian denominations respect and honor one another's judgments and allow them to stand unchallenged. The only exception to that is where some gross miscarriage of justice is obvious, and no one is going to be able to prove that in RC Sproul Jr's case. In fact, in many respectable Presbyterian circles the most common phrase being uttered these days about RC Sproul Jr is, "We predicted a long time ago that he was going to wind up getting defrocked. It was never a matter of if, but when." No Presbyterian clergyman who's even just a passing acquaintance with RC Sproul Jr is the least bit surprised that he managed to get himself defrocked.

Getting himself re-ordained means that he's got to find some sympathetic denomination to exonerate him of the charges. But there is no sympathetic denomination, only one lone "confederation" with a bad reputation for exonerating defrocked Presbyterian ministers. And if RC Sproul Jr isn't first exonerated of the charges he doesn't have a prayer of being re-ordained in any denomination. Even the CREC wouldn't ordain him without first clearing RC Sproul Jr's name. On the other hand, if it's the CREC that clears his name no real denomination is going to believe it anyway -- the CREC's credibility is in the toilet. So the only place a CREC exoneration will have any currency is in the CREC.

So here's our prediction: The name of RC Sproul Jr will be "cleared" by the CREC (or at least that's what they'll claim they did, and they'll issue a sham "Commission Report" to make it look "official"). After they "clear" him they'll ordain him in the CREC. This will occur in spite of the fact that the CREC, in practice and teaching, represents the antithesis of what Dr. RC Sproul represents. However, the CREC does not represent the antithesis of what RC Sproul Jr represents. In point of fact they have much more in common theologically than they have differences, and they have much more in common than RC Sproul Jr is comfortable publicly admitting. So he'll just remain in the closet, at least for as long as he can.

Dr. RC Sproul will support his son's move into the CREC because there's no other place that RC Sproul Jr can go. In the end pragmatism will rule the day because supporting one's own son is more important than remaining faithful to the Reformed Christian faith. Blood is thicker than Sola Fide.

Every Spin Captive: RC Sproul Jr the Martyr

2006-04-10T16:10:00.004-04:00

Being the very Savant Of Spin that he is, in 2001 RC Sproul Jr dedicated an entire edition of Every Thought Captive to "Spin."

RC Sproul Jr takes aim at the easiest of targets for the subject of spin, politicians and news media. Needless to say, this doesn't even pose a serious challenge. What a tremendous strategy for deflecting attention away from himself, and his achievements as one of the world's preeminent Parsons Of Prevarication!

No doubt RC Sproul Jr hoped to have his own mendacity pale in comparison to that of sleazy politicians and media mavens. In reality, however, RC Sproul Jr's reputation has easily earned him the title Sultan Of Spin, and in the five years since writing about it extensively in ETC, he's only grown in his prevaricating prowess.

We've included below some quotes from the Sage Of Spin himself. Notice that RC Sproul Jr doesn't particularly condemn the practice of spin. Indeed, his tone demonstrates a degree of admiration for those accomplished in the artful practice of spin. Indeed, RC Sproul Jr "loves good spin."

Spinning Wheels:
"I love good spin for its ability to say much with subtlety, and with few words."

"A good spinmeister feeds you the conclusion in the same way a good magician feeds you the card you thought you were freely choosing. It is the art of making something look like a completely different thing, while making you think this is always as it has been."

"We spin when we choose the safe version to describe our own sin, and when we choose to describe those sins which have been not just committed, but perpetrated against us, in the worst possible light."

"When we spin we are liars, but spin ourselves into believing that we are merely learning to be more effective in our communication, and so lie about our lies. When we spin we treat our fellow image bearers as a bunch of animals that must be manipulated. When we spin we treat truth as a tramp. While we would never treat the Word with contempt, we spit on words daily."

Spinning In Infinity:
"Because we expect it, because we have lived through so many big lies, the little lies fall like so much rain. And so we live in perpetual spin."

"The problem is that once we start to accept the lies, we start to accept the spin. And once we start to accept the spin, then we start to participate in it."

"We should expect the lies, and expect the spin. But we should not accept either. We should speak clearly, forthrightly and call our leaders back to honesty. We should demand the truth, and refuse to be put to sleep. And those 'leaders' who play those games must also be put to shame, and out to pasture."

That last quote is our personal favorite. Of course, RC Sproul Jr apparently thinks it only applies to politicians, since it was in the context of elected political representatives that he wrote it. But it applies equally well to ordained ministers, and anyone else in an office of trust. RC Sproul Jr's demand that we "put them out to pasture," though he didn't intend it to apply to himself, was ironic, if not prophetic. Members of his own church, as well as his denomination, came to "expect the lies, and expect the spin" from Sproul Jr (nothing has really changed, even after being defrocked -- the spin and the lies just go on and on). But they did "not accept either." They spoke "clearly, forthrightly" and called their "leaders back to honesty." Tragically, the Saint Peter Church leaders refused the invitation to honesty. RC Sproul Jr and the Saint Peter Four continued to "play those games" and so they were "put to shame, and out to pasture."

No one should expect that just because a politician is "put to shame, and out to pasture" that they'll stop being a liar. In fact a deposed politician is likely to engage even just that much more energetically in spin. The same is no less the case with RC Sproul Jr. Being put out to pasture (defrocked) has in no way changed his penchant for spin: "We spin when we choose the safe version to describe our own sin."

The most effective tug at the heartstrings story to spin is to make himself out to be the victim. It takes not only a liar, but a sociopath to spin so tall a tale, especially after he's victimized so many others by abusing his power. A sociopathic defrocked pastor will spin tall tales for not only what remains of his church flock, but before that he'll be spinning tall tales for his family:

"When they see Daddy being persecuted for righteousness' sake by former friends who are supposed to be brothers and sisters in Christ, we talk about what love among the brethren should look like. R.C. will also talk to them about... the fact that he and we are blessed when we are persecuted and when others revile and speak all manner of ill against us. We can be assured that those lessons will stick with our children for life." Tending Your Garden, by Denise Sproul, ETC, March/April 2006

Yes, Mrs. Sproul, your husband is certainly teaching his children (and sadly, you too) lessons that will stick with them for life, but they're all the wrong lessons -- lessons in spin, unrepentance, and assuming the role of victim and a martyr complex every time he's rebuked by fellow Christians, including those in authority over him. It goes something like this: "Children, Jesus said that we would persecuted, and that when we are persecuted we are blessed. The fact that Daddy is being persecuted, and that the persecutors even claim to be followers of Jesus, is a sure sign that Daddy is in God's will. Jesus said that men will hate us for serving him. Persecution is a sure sign that we're being obedient to God." Of course, that's a misrepresentation what Jesus said, but that's all part of the spin:

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." (Matt. 5:10-11)

We're only promised a blessing when we've been "persecuted for righteousness’ sake." In other words, for a righteous cause, and when men "say all manner of evil against you falsely." The fact that your own brethren have rebuked you for your sins, called you to repentance for your sins, and then deposed you of your ecclesiastical office, doesn't mean that you're being persecuted. It just means that justice is being served. But in the fairy tale world of Spinmeister Sproul making yourself out to be the martyr can be useful. If successfully pawned off on enough sympathetic ears, the victim becomes a hero -- at least to the most gullible.

"For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience?" 1Peter 2:20

In other words, RC Jr, you need to stop taking credit where no credit is due you.

"For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong." 1Peter 3:17
"But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men’s matters." 1Peter 4:15

Time to get over the martyr complex, RC Jr. You're not suffering for Christ. You're only suffering the consequences of your own sins (like being a thief). You're only reaping what you've sewn. It's time for you to grow up and stop playing the victim. It's time to lay off the spin.

Some may think that the problem with RC Sproul Jr is that he's lacking in introspection. But based on what we've learned about the man he's actually very introspective, and he's been willing to admit some pretty astonishing things about himself, like the fact that he's arrogant and stupid:

"Third, we are known throughout the evangelical realm as the arrogant ones. See, right above there is a Reformed guy saying we’re the smart ones. Our reputation, I believe, fits us. But not all of us. Every now and again God in His judgment gives us stupid, arrogant folk, your present writer being a prime example." Precious In the Lord's Sight

Being introspective enough to admit that he's arrogant and stupid, however, doesn't mean that RC Sproul Jr has made any serious efforts toward pursuing wisdom and humility. In the same way, even if RC Sproul Jr were introspective enough to be able to admit that he's a sociopath and a pathological liar it probably wouldn't help him in the least to become an honest man.

CREC RC Sproul Jr. Cover-Up Committee

2006-04-09T02:28:00.003-04:00

Patrick Poole of Existential Space has been writing articles for Michael Metzler's Poohs Think. Between the two of them they've been doing a valiant work of exposing the Mendacious Mullah of Moscow, as well as the ongoing R.C. Sproul Jr scandal. Both Sproul and Wilson are magnets for scandal and both of them have well-earned the exposure they're now getting.

Doug Wilson has been publicly covering for his pal R.C. Sproul Jr for almost three months, particularly in his "A Justice Primer" series, signaling his intentions to exonerate and reordain the Saint Peter Four.

And now to Patrick:

Just got some word from the St. Peter Triangle about the ongoing Confederation of Reformed Cults (CREC) "not judicial in nature" Official RC Sproul Jr. Cover-up Committee that I thought I should share with the visitors to the Wood:

1) It seems that the "not judicial in nature" CREC Committee has repeatedly visited the area, yet not seen fit to speak with ANY of Sproul’s victims or accusers (though they have expressed their willingness to speak to the committee), thus confirming that any vindication or "Clearing of R.C. Sproul Jr’s Name" (thanks to Shaun Nolan) due to come forth from the CREC Cover-Up Committee is a farce.

2) The committee is being headed by none other than Dennis Tuuri, who a few years ago had his own ecclesiastical dirty laundry cleaned and bleached by the CREC. Tuuri was recommended for this job by none other than the Great Leader himself. It’s good to see that the CREC has enlisted one of their most experienced scandal-ridden personnel to help Sproul navigate the cover-up process and that the Great Leader has such unshakable faith in Turri to completely cover-up the matter. Had Shade been available, Sproul could have gone to trial and THEN ignored their judgment, instead of bailing half-way through the process.

3) The St. Peter Steering Committee that asked for the CREC’s "pastoral" assistance in forming the Cover-Up Committee has gotten noticeably larger; it has expanded from the two original members to now include RC Jr. and the other men defrocked by the RPCGA. While the four new members appointed themselves to the committee without any authorization from the congregation, no one should think for a moment that there is any tyrannical abuses going on in St. Peter, let alone post anything on the Internet about it (at least according to Randy Booth).

4) The Cover-Up Committee’s and St. Peter Four’s ham-handedness has not been received well by some of the members of St. Peter. At least one parish is considering not calling their provisional elder looking to be exonerated by the CREC Cover-Up Committee. Who even mentioned "vote of no confidence"? Not me.

5) One item that has not endeared the St. Peter Four to their congregation is the steadfast refusal by the defrocked session to turn over financial information to members that have requested it. Could this be related at all to the extensive charges of gross financial fraud that were looming over the St. Peter Four if they had continued in the RPCGA and taken the disputed matters to trial? No one knows for sure, but RC Sproul Sr. told Shaun Nolan that it was all OK because Sprout has hired an accountant and tax attorney. Glad to see that he has so much confidence in his son (who was fired from Ligonier’s Table Talk not long ago). Maybe Sprout needs a criminal attorney?

6) Not everyone connected with the CREC Cover-Up Committee has nothing but warm fuzzies for Sprout and his henchmen. I’m told that at least one CREC official has expressed concern about some resistance from two of the St. Peter Four. My source would not identify who the two were, but did say that it wasn’t Jay Barfield or Wayne Hayes, leaving Sprout and Laurence Windham. Speculation abounds about who the other two might be.

Yes, it seems that Sproul is making himself right at home in the CREC. Thankfully, the tireless work of the Cover-Up Committee and its experienced personnel are close to exonerating him. Then he and the Great Leader can swap spit (from the booze bottles, silly) without having to worry about all those Internet intoleristas. All then will be well and right in WilsonWorld. I’ll post more as things develop.

Viva la Revolution!

Patrick

"Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name."

2006-04-06T14:04:00.003-04:00

Our deepest thanks and appreciation go out to Pastor Shaun Nolan for posting this insightful article on his blog. We're reposting it here in its entirety, rather than only posting a link to it, because stuff like this just has a funny way of disappearing.

What Pastor Shaun has done is to give us a play-by-play preview of the CREC's Saint Peter Commission and the items on their agenda for fulfilling their predetermined role, per Doug Wilson's directive, of exonerating the Saint Peter Four and ordaining them in the CREC. Doug Wilson's "A Justice Primer" blog series has only made that too obvious. Thank you Pastor Shaun for now making it even just that much more obvious. Oh, and we love your catchy title, "Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name." That's the exact title we should have come up with ourselves weeks ago!

At this point the CREC is really going to have to move quickly on that show trial, though. In most cases the phrase "rush to justice" has a real bad connotation, but in this case it doesn't really matter anyway. The only thing that matters is the outcome. After all, RC Sproul Jr does have that Generations Conference on "Honor" coming up real soon (May 5-6). It just wouldn't look right to have a defrocked minister behind a pulpit talking about "honor." Much better to have an exonerated defrocked reordained minister talk about "honor." Well, maybe not. You'd have to be real gullible to believe that getting exonerated by Doug Wilson and his CREC could be a badge of honor. Then again, there are a lot of gullible Christians out there, so maybe it'll work after all!

Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name

It was a great privilege to have lunch with R.C. and Vesta Sproul this afternoon. (Some of you may know that Vesta’s brother is our assistant pastor at View Crest. So, lest you think me important, the occasion had nothing to do with yours truly.) During the course of conversation, we turned to a discussion of the recent allegations against R.C.’s son. At the close of our conversation, I asked R.C. if I could share what he had told me via Postscript Posthaste. He said that would be fine.

Please understand that what I am saying here is by no means “official”. I recognize that many of my readers have a deep respect for both R.C. and R.C. Jr., and I want to ease their consciences about this matter. I also understand that there are those out there who find no greater pleasure than to slander another man’s character. For those in the latter group, you’ll want to stop reading now. I will offer you nothing of flammability and I do not wish my name associated with your diatribes. Even when I initially addressed this issue, my purpose was only to remind all of us of the deep necessity of Biblical accountability and not to issue judgment. Further, anything I say here is technically “hearsay” so it won’t stand up in any court. Nevertheless, I trust R.C. and believe he is telling the truth about his son.

So then, what is going on with R.C. Jr.?

Of late we have heard little about the situation surrounding R.C. Jr’s “defrocking” and this is for good reason. I am told that most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent. (I will address some of them below.) In case of point, no trial actually took place before the pronouncement of deposition was issued. This is highly irregular and because of this, the elders of St. Peters have sought to clear their names via examination apart from their former denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA). As I write, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CRE) is conducting a detailed examination of the charges. What this means is that the trial they did not receive is being conducted by a third party. The results, soon to be released, will then be examined by other groups for the purpose of validating conclusions and clearing the name of the men involved.

The Charge of Tax ID Misuse
The elders of St. Peter’s were charged with using the ARP (Associate Reformed Presbyterian) Tax ID number instead of the RPCGA number. According to R.C. Sr., a consultant had been called in to help St. Peter’s with their finances. That consultant discovered the ARP ID number being used (which was there because the church had formerly been ARP) and informed them they needed to fix that. R.C. Jr. promptly called both the ARP to apologize and the IRS to apologize and initiate changes.

The Charge of Lording It Over the Congregation
The elders of St. Peter’s were charged with not allowing members to leave. I am told the members in question were under discipline of the church and were told they would not be allowed to flee discipline. This is the normal process with members under discipline in Presbyterianism. We don’t want folks running from accountability. That people do leave anyway is beside the point. After they did leave, they complained to the General Assembly and their charge was thus included.

The Charge of Planting a Church and Ordaining a Pastor Without Permission of the Presbytery
What the documentation of the RPCGA fails to note regarding this charge is that a separate presbytery of that same denomination did, in fact, do these things. As I understand it, the church that was planted was not within the bounds of the presbytery which St. Peter’s was in. It was only later that the Moderator of the denomination ruled that church “unofficial”. (Please don’t ask me how a Moderator can do this. My understanding is that this is a very small denomination that places a great deal of power in the hands of its denominational Moderator.)

The Charge of Practicing Paedo-Communion
This simply wasn’t the case. Young children were examined by the elders for the purpose of discerning a credible profession of faith and some were admitted, but no infants were allowed to partake. Even the PCA Book of Church Order says that it is up to the discretion of the elders as to the age at which a child can demonstrate faith. This was the process at St. Peters.

In Conclusion
In conclusion, I must say that I am pleased to hear the “other side” of this story and I sincerely hope that justice is served in the most positive sense. I would love nothing more than for their names to be cleared and their ministries continue unhindered. I am making this information available only to do my part in maintaining balance, easing consciences pricked by what they had heard, and to inform you, my readers, of the upcoming report from the CRE.

I urge you to continue to pray for these men and for the Reformed Church at large that is impacted by events like these. May God be glorified even through this.

We're grateful to Pastor Shaun that he would "inform you, my readers, of the upcoming report from the CRE." We know the report isn't quite finished yet, but since the outcome was predetermined weeks ago, all that's left now is to write the report in support of what was already determined from even before when the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission was convened (CREC Moderator Randy Booth has that underlined because when he underlines something it really means that it's really the truth and that you can really trust him -- really). In our opinion, Pastor Shaun has done an excellent job of providing an outline for the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission's Show-Trial Report.

We're also grateful to Pastor Shaun that he would "remind all of us of the deep necessity of Biblical accountability and not to issue judgment." Funny thing about that is he's issuing his own judgments -- calling the charges "fraudulent" is an extremely serious judgment. Of course, in Pastor Shaun's case he'd claim that he's not issuing a judgment, he's just telling us the truth. The truth is that "most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent." Pastor Shaun knows this because Dr. R.C. Sproul told him so. Of course, any pronouncements that Dr. R.C. Sproul would make about his son are entirely objective and must be taken as the gospel truth. However, anyone on the other side of the debate is "issuing judgment," and as we all know "issuing judgment" is bad. It's especially bad that the RPCGA issued judgment. "Touch not the Lord's annointed." Judging--bad. Love--good. "Love covers a multitude of sins," so let's all get busy and get to covering, um, clearing.

We don't really need to spend much time critiquing Dr. R.C. Sproul's analysis of the case, as retold by Pastor Shaun. It's all pretty well summed up in:

"I am told that most, if not all of the charges brought against the session of St. Peters were themselves fraudulent."

We were pretty sure the Sprouls and their true believers were going to use the "Liar, liar, pants on fire" defense. Now it's been confirmed. Alleging now that the charges were "fraudulent" is a real amazing claim, especially since R.C. Sproul Jr confessed to the charges. So what is R.C. Jr going to do now? Claim "temporary insanity" at the time of his confession (or maybe he was just drunk)? If it were true that the charges were fraudulent, that would not only put R.C. Sproul Jr's accusers in the worst possible light, it would also put the RPCGA in the worst possible light for having rendered a judgment based upon alleged "fraudulent" charges. When someone makes an allegation of "fraud" the burden of proof rests squarely on them to prove the "fraud," or in this case the burden rests squarely on the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission Show-Trial. Considering the evidence that the RPCGA has already made public, not to mention all the other things they say that they have in the case file that they have yet to make public, an allegation of "fraud" would be mighty tough to prove.

Pastor Shaun isn't the only one who "would love nothing more than for their names to be cleared and their ministries continue unhindered." Dr. RC Sproul would also love to see his son cleared. No one can blame him for wanting to see his son cleared and reordained, but it's tragic that he can't come up with anything better than just alleging that the charges are "fraudulent." It's also real sad (in fact it's just pathetic) that they can't come up with anything better than Doug Wilson and the CREC to "clear" him with. The pickings must be mighty slim for RC Jr.

"In case of point, no trial actually took place before the pronouncement of deposition was issued. This is highly irregular and because of this, the elders of St. Peters have sought to clear their names via examination apart from their former denomination, the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA)."

Sure. They got screwed by the Westminster Presbytery of the RPCGA, and the Declaratory Judgment was just a hatchet job. That's why rather than appealing their case to the General Assembly, which is what all Presbyterians do when they think they've gotten a bum deal (and you know that, Pastor Shaun, because you're a Presbyterian minister yourself), and demanding the trial that they now claim they were deprived of, they wrote a letter or apology and begged to be released. In that letter they said,

"We want to thank you and the brethren of Westminster Presbytery (RPCGA) for your friendship, kindness, and gracious patience shown to this Session over the past four years."

Yes, it sure sounds like they thought they were getting screwed.

"As I write, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CRE) is conducting a detailed examination of the charges. What this means is that the trial they did not receive is being conducted by a third party. The results, soon to be released, will then be examined by other groups for the purpose of validating conclusions and clearing the name of the men involved."

So as we already knew the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission is obviously judicial in nature -- just not judicial in the legitimate sense of the term. Everyone involved in the CREC Commission, and everyone in the know about the goings on of the CREC Commission (which would certainly include RC Sproul Jr, who can't help but talk to his dad, who can't help but talk to Pastor Shaun, who can't help but blog about it) already knows what the outcome is: "clearing the name of the men involved."

Is anyone really surprised to hear Dr. RC Sproul crowing that his son will soon be exonerated? Naw! We've been able to tell for weeks prior to the convening of the CREC "not judicial in nature" Commission that the only real agenda was to review the case and fabricate some bogus allegations for overturning it, as though they had any legitimate authority to do that. Can you say "Kangaroo Court"?

Doug Wilson's Saint Peter "Groupies"

2006-04-01T02:47:00.006-05:00

RC Sproul Jr and Laurence Windham have long been courtiers of Douglas Wilson. In point of fact they've acknowledged that they're Doug Wilson "groupies."

As "groupies" they've earned currency that they're now in desperate need to spend. The fact is that there's just no other place in Reformed Christianity that they can go to and get themselves exonerated of being defrocked (can you say "show trial"?). There's also no other place where they could go to get themselves reordained as Elders, than Doug Wilson's CREC. No Presbyterian denomination is going to risk destroying their own credibility on two phony Presbyterians masquerading as pastors. So desperate times call for desperate measures, and desperate measures mean that RC Sproul Jr and Laurence Windham are destined for CREC ordinations. Doug Wilson has made his intentions on this transparent in his "A Justice Primer" blog series:

"And finally, on a personal level, Laurence Windham and R.C. Jr. are friends of mine. I wanted readers of this blog to know that nothing has happened that would even begin to alter that." RC Sproul Jr., A Justice Primer

If RC Sproul Jr had any hope of being ordained in a real Presbyterian denomination, such as perhaps the PCA, no one has any doubt but that he'd jump right on it, rather than align himself with Doug Wilson's "confederation." A lot of Presbyterian and Reformed folks, including some Saint Peter members, have for several years speculated that RC Sproul Jr is really a closet Federal Vision guy who'd really like to come out of the "New Perspectives On Paul" closet. But he knows he can't because it would alienate so much of his support base which are TR (Truly Reformed). NPP/FVers like Doug Wilson claim that "Reformed Is Not Enough" and they have every intention of supplanting the essential tenets of Reformed theology (not the least of them being justification by faith alone), indeed, of the essential tenets of the orthodox Christian faith. How will RC Sproul Jr be able to be joined at the hip with Doug Wilson while still claiming that he's thoroughly Reformed? That will prove to be some difficult fence-walking, but at this juncture he doesn't have any other options. No one else will have him, certainly not any legitimate Presbyterian denomination.

RC Sproul Jr knocked on the PCA's door once before (and that was long before he'd ever been defrocked) and they said, "Rev. Sproul had nothing to offer Westminster Presbytery and Westminster Presbytery had nothing to offer Rev. Sproul" (see pg 8). But before RC Sproul Jr had been rejected for PCA ordination, he had the distinction of having first been accepted for ordination. Why did the PCA reverse itself in what was nothing less than an extraordinary "first he's in, then he's out" Presbytery action? It's no secret that RC Sproul Jr isn't respected in respectable Presbyterian company. The problem isn't so much his "controversial" opinions, which many other Presbyterian clergy happen to be sympathetic to. The problem is his unpastoral, self-righteous, arrogant and uncharitable way that he expresses those opinions, and his penchant for going out of his way to create controversy. Presbyterian denominations are justifiably concerned that any Elder who has proclivities for drawing attention to himself is drawing attention away from Christ.

However, Doug Wilson evidently shares no such concerns, as he too has often gone out of his way to stir up controversies. With all the years of sucking up to Doug Wilson, RC Sproul Jr and Laurence Windham have purchased a "friendship" that will now pay back with dividends. For example, in an Open Letter, Laurence Windham says:

To Whom Honor is Due
RC,

Here is the Open Letter to Doug Wilson. I hope that I communicated how much we love and respect him without sounding like we are groupies. (Though we are.) I took the liberty of enclosing possible edits within the text via parentheses. Look over these suggestions and let me know what you think.

Laurence

Dear Doug,

You are one macho stud hombre (Dead on, but perhaps too familiar) I wanted to write you and publicly say that you are one of the few heroes that the church has left. . . There are still some of us that enjoy your writing, understand your vision, appreciate your sarcasm, and think that your wife is pretty hot. (Which I mean in the strictist, neo-puritan aesthetic sense of reformed Babedom.) When disciples years from now search the history of the church, men like you will easily stand out.

Indeed, according to Windham, Doug Wilson will "easily stand out" in the annals of church history alongside men such as Francis Schaeffer. Of course there is one major difference -- Schaeffer was a humble man who avoided the accolades of men. Indeed, Schaeffer distrusted men who attempted to glorify him. Windham continues on in his Wilson adulation for several more paragraphs and then, apparently realizing that his blandishments are bordering on idolatry he pauses for an all-too-brief course correction:

You should know that I gave up hero worship a long time ago. I found out early in my journey that men, all men, have feet of clay. There was a time that I worshiped the Legalist, then despised him. Then I was enamored with the Intellectual, but became bored. I was even seduced for a while by the Mystics, but God told me they were wrong. Yes, I, like many others, have encountered charlatans along the way, as well as the well intentioned, who, without a Reformed, covenantal, and optimistic view of Scripture, have resulted in the near-sighted leading the near-sighted. All the more reason for us to celebrate the gifts that God has given you.

Whew! What a relief to know that Windham and Sproul don't worship the very ground that Wilson walks on! But the mid-course correction lasts only too briefly, and the article quickly continues on with more of the same sucking up.

Both RC Sproul Jr and Laurence Windham have given "Completely Objective Reviews" of a number of Doug Wilson's books and tapes in the Highlands Study Center periodical, Every Thought Captive. In fact from all appearances they've given undue preference to Doug Wilson reviews, all of them not only highly favorable, but excessively favorable. In reviewing Doug Wilson's Fire On the Mountain tape series, RC Sproul Jr states that he's a Doug Wilson "obsequious lick spittle" and a "suck-up":

"Now I may not yet be a computer whiz, but I certainly am better than Laurence at being an obsequious lick spittle. (That's a suck-up, for the 100- dollar-word -challenged). Every Thought Captive

With groveling like that RC Sproul Jr and Laurence Windham hold a Get Out Of Jail Free Card with Doug Wilson. CREC show trial and ordination here we come!

RC Sproul Jr "Deposed Without Censure." Huh?

2006-03-28T23:30:00.008-05:00

Lots of folks have been real confused by the spin coming out of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church. The deluge of subterfuge and obfuscation is just mind-numbing. Part of what we're trying to do here is to help make some sense out of all the spin, and pass along some perspicuity to you, our readers.

Anyone who is working toward the same cause has earned our appreciation. So our hats are off to Peter Kershaw for posting this insightful article.

R.C. Sproul Jr and the St. Peter Presbyterian Church Session "Deposed Without Censure."

Oh, Really?

© 2006 by: Peter Kershaw

For almost two months the phrase "RC Sproul Jr and the Session of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church were deposed without censure" has been broadcast all over the internet. From whence came this phrase, "deposed without censure"? Certainly not from the RPCGA. That phrase originated with RC Sproul Jr and his deposed session, and first appeared in their letter of apology to the RPCGA dated 02-02-06.

"Furthermore, as a result of the Declaratory Judgment of January 26, 2006 having been deposed without censure from the ministry of Westminster Presbytery we request that you dismiss us from the jurisdiction of the Westminer Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly."

On 02-03-06 the RPCGA released from general membership the four defrocked men. Almost immediately thereafter a public statement appeared on the Highlands Study Center web site, which included:

"The presbytery has in turn, with great grace and kindness, deposed us from our offices in the denomination without censure, and has released us from their jurisdiction, as of February 3, 2006."

RC Sproul Jr has since removed the statement from the Highlands Study Center web site, but that hasn't stopped he and his friends from repeating the "deposed without censure"; phrase like a mantra. For example, on March 2, 2006 Laurence Windham emailed a fund-raising letter in which he stated:

"As you may have heard, the elders of St Peter Presbyterian Church have been deposed from the ministry, without censure, by our former denomination."

Is it possible for an ordained minister to be "deposed without censure"? First of all we need to define "deposed":

Depose, v.

1a. To remove from office or power.

1b. To dethrone.

American Heritage Dictionary

Some have objected to the use of the word "defrocked" as it applies to RC Sproul Jr. However, "RC Sproul Jr was defrocked by the RPCGA" is an entirely fitting phrase, and perhaps is even more appropriate by definition than "RC Sproul Jr was deposed by the RPCGA":

Defrock, v.

1. To strip of priestly privileges or functions.

2. To deprive of the right to practice a profession.

3. To deprive of an honorary position.

American Heritage Dictionary

Next, we need to define the word "censure":

Censure, n.

1. The act of blaming or finding fault and condemning as wrong; applicable to the moral conduct, or to the works of men. When applied to persons, it is nearly equivalent to blame, reproof, reprehension, reprimand. It is an expression of disapprobation, which often implies reproof.

2. Judicial sentence; judgment that condemns. An ecclesiastical censure is a sentence of condemnation, or penalty inflicted on a member of a church for mal-conduct, by which he is deprived of the communion of the church, or prohibited from executing the sacerdotal office.

Webster's Dictionary (1828)

The very phrase "deposed without censure" is an oxymoron. No one considers RC Sproul Jr to be a stupid man, so for him to use such an incongruous phrase calls into question his honesty. Have any of the defrocked men deferred to the RPCGA's opinion on the matter? After all, it was they who issued the Declaratory Judgment. Wouldn't it be prudent, and wouldn't it be honest, for RC Sproul Jr and his defrocked session to ask the RPCGA if "deposes from the office of Elder" meant that they "deposed without censure"? Evidently they believe they're better qualified to interpret the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment than the RPCGA is. Evidently they believe it's perfectly appropriate to put words in mouth of the RPCGA.

Because of the blatant misrepresentations being publicly made by the deposed St. Peter session, the RPCGA issued a public statement on February 6, 2006 in which they stated:

"While these men were deposed (defrocked) from office for their continued pattern of actions in violation of the Book of Church Order, they were not brought to trial on personal issues from other allegations that were made. Westminster Presbytery was considering a further investigation of the allegations of personal sinful behavior against them to determine if there was sufficient evidence that a trial regarding these allegations was necessary. The apology letter states 'Deposed without censure' means that these men individually had not yet been dealt with regarding personal sinful behavior at trial and therefore were in good standing as laymen until such trial would take place. The 'deposition' or 'removing them from office' was and is a 'censure' by the Presbytery for their actions as officers in the church."

In point of fact, there's nothing as severe in the way of censures for an ordained minister than to be defrocked. About the only other thing the RPCGA could have done to the Saint Peter session is to excommunicate them. However, given that they submitted a letter of apology (which given their statements since then call into serious doubt the sincerity of their apologies) excommunication probably wasn't an option. Deposition is a censure in all Presbyterian denominations, and it's certainly a censure according to the RPCGA BCO:

D 7:6 Deposition

A. Deposition is a form of censure more severe than suspension. It consists of a solemn declaration by the trial judicatory that the offender is no longer an officer of the church.
D 7: 7 Procedural Considerations

A. The indefinite suspension, deposition or excommunication of an officer or other member of the church shall be announced to the church body in which the officer holds office, or in which the member holds membership. These censures shall always be accompanied by prayer to God, that He may graciously use this discipline for the restoration of the offender, the edification of the church and His own glory.

The RPCGA specifies five specific levels of church discipline that may be imposed, for cause, against an ordained RPCGA minister. All other Presbyterian denominations that I am aware of also recognize these same disciplines. Per the RPCGA BCO they are:

D 7:2 Admonition

D 7:3 Rebuke

D 7:4 Suspension

D 7:5 Excommunication

D 7:6 Deposition

I've been directed to comments on various blogs which state that deposition is just a form of indefinite suspension, when in point of fact they are entirely separate and distinct forms of discipline with entirely different outcomes and purposes. I've also been directed to comments that state that other Presbyterian denominations sometimes "depose without censure" their ministers, one of those denominations allegedly being the PCA. However, not once have I seen any such person offer any specific reference to support their novel theories of church discipline.

Given that the PCA keeps getting raised as an example by various allies of the Saint Peter Four, we'll herein reference the PCA BCO. What does the PCA BCO have to say of being deposed?

36-7. The censure of deposition shall be administered by the moderator. . .

Clearly, being deposed from office is, in itself, a censure -- a very severe censure. Some have also complained that the RPCGA's action of defrocking the Saint Peter Four before taking them to trial was unprecedented, unwarranted and unjust (this in spite of the fact that the RPCGA BCO makes expressed provision for it at D 6:9), and again making comparisons to the PCA. However, the PCA BCO also makes provisions for deposing an ordained minister from office without full process by trial:

34-7. When a minister, pending a trial, shall make confession, if the matter be base and flagitious, such as drunkenness, uncleanness, or crimes of a greater nature, however penitent he may appear to the satisfaction of all, the court shall without delay impose definite suspension or depose him from the ministry.

Could it be that the defrocked Saint Peter session believes that if they repeat their "we were deposed without censure" (a blatant misrepresentation) and "we were deposed without a trial" (implying the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment deprived them of justice) mantra often enough, loudly enough, and widely enough, perhaps it magically becomes the truth? This pattern of continued public duplicity only reinforces what the RPCGA has already stated in their Declaratory Judgment:

"The consistent pattern of actions taken by these men are duplicitous in nature, and demonstrate that they willingly and knowingly act in an arbitrary fashion in violation of their vows of ordination and in violation of our denomination's Book of Church Order. Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1Timothy 3:1-7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified."

As a direct result of the deposed St. Peter session's February 2 letter of apology to the RPCGA, they were released from general membership, and it is only from their status as general members in the RPCGA that it could be rightly construed that they were released "without censure." Given the fact that they'd already been defrocked, that's not much to be proud of.

This kind of "deposes without censure" spin isn't unique to RC Sproul Jr. It also happens to be Doug Wilson's modus operandi. RC Sproul Jr's buddies, preeminent among them Doug Wilson, have been supporting RC Sproul Jr's spin, and in Doug Wilson's case he's been busy spinning a few tales of his own in his "A Justice Primer" series:
DeeplyGrieved.com
RC Spoul Jr
More On RC
Scurrilous Is As Scurrilous Does
Believing A Lie
Discipline and Persecution
Unjust Men
Jurisdictional Justice

Given that Doug Wilson has concocted a definition of "Justice" and "Presbyterianism" all his own, it's perfectly understandable why he would come to embrace RC Sproul Jr's "deposed without censure" mythology.

No one questions but that RC Jr will make a good fit in the CREC given the non-existent standards, their lack of regard for ministerial integrity, and their lack of respect for church discipline and the judgments of Presbyterian denominations, no one should be surprised when they exonerate RC Sproul Jr and the Saint Peter Four, ordain them as Elders, and even attempt to smear the RPCGA in the process. They've done it before, and they're very likely to do it again. Furthermore, no one should be surprised when they smear and slander the witnesses that provided the evidence and testimony that resulted in the defrocking of the Saint Peter Four.

"I just got defrocked. Please send money."

2006-03-02T17:18:00.003-05:00

RC Sproul Jr needs to plug a few leaks, but he appears powerless to stop it. With each new leak comes some new spin, or sometimes it's just the old spin with a new twist. RC Sproul Jr and his minions are true masters of spin. In fact, they know so much about spin they were able to dedicate an entire issue of Every Thought Captive to the subject of Spin. Now that's the kind of dedication that comes from personal experience and expertise.

The latest leak comes courtesy of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church defrocked minister Laurence Windham's email list, and it's couched in a plea for money, while also perpetuating more Saint Peter Presbyterian Church blame-shifting:

Dear Friends,

As you may have heard, the elders of St Peter Presbyterian Church have been deposed from the ministry, without censure, by our former denomination. This action was done without a trial, called witnesses, cross-examination, or opportunity for a defense. The result has plunged our beloved sacred community into the quagmire of congregationalism. The elders have been maligned and slandered incessantly by the cowardly in the lawless realm of the internet. The ensuing gossip and fallacious commentary, even by some misguided good people, have added to the confusion.

We hold out hope that we will soon be exonerated by godly men in another denomination. Even now, plans are going forward that will bring our plight before the entire Reformed world for evaluation. This will be most welcome by the entire deposed session of St Peter. In this interim, I am appealing to you for financial support for my family. The situation has left the church, the session and the Highlands Study Center's viability in question. Each of us who labor in this part of the kingdom is hopeful that things will be back to normal in a few months.

But in the short term, in the spirit of Antioch helping out Jerusalem, any support you could send this way would help us give our attention to rebuilding the walls and preparing ourselves for the regathering of the sheep.

Send all contributions for the Windham family to:

Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
P.O. Box 30315
Knoxville, TN 37930

Thanks for your timely consideration,

Laurence

Laurence Windham's accusations against the RPCGA are the new Saint Peter Presbyterian Church mantra, having now easily surpassed the old mantra of, "Simple, separate and deliberate" in frequency of use:

"The elders of St Peter Presbyterian Church have been deposed from the ministry, without censure, by our former denomination. This action was done without a trial, called witnesses, cross-examination, or opportunity for a defense."

Bunk! Unfortunately, a lot of undiscerning folks who don't know anything about Presbyterian church discipline are buying the Saint Peter bunk. But it doesn't take a serrated edge to slice it to ribbons. There's no such thing as being "deposed from the ministry, without censure." Being deposed is not only a censure, there's no more harsh a censure for any ordained minister than being deposed. The only way it could have been any worse for them is if the RPCGA had also excommunicated them (but since they supposedly "repented" that wasn't an option). As for the rest of Mr. Windham's claptrap we would just refer you to "Addressing Inferences and Innuendos." It bebunks the Saint Peter Presbyterian Church mantra better than anything we could say here.

So much for the Saint Peter Presbyterian Church Session's letter of "repentance." Laurence Windham makes it obvious who he really thinks is at fault for all his cash flow problems -- certainly not himself and his fellow Elders masquerading as Pastors. As Peter Kershaw pointed out in his Open Letter to RC Sproul Jr, the Saint Peter Session's repeated attempts to "repent," but also shifting the blame to the RPCGA and all those malicious and gossipy witnesses, is really no repentance at all. It was just a sham to get out from under the RPCGA's jurisdiction. Laurence Windham's fund raising letter is just more of the same blame-shifting. If they objected to the testimony of the witnesses, why did they plead "Guilty"? If they objected why did they plead to leave the RPCGA rather than stay and appeal the Declaratory Judgment that they now claim to disagree with?

As is noted in the "Austin letter" to the Saint Peter Session, it wasn't the RPCGA's actions that "plunged our beloved sacred community into the quagmire of congregationalism," it was the Saint Peter Presbyterian Church Session's failure to administer the RPCGA's membership vows in the first place. "Since every St. Peter member was compelled by the session to take an unconstitutional vow, and every unconstitutional act is null and void ab initio, it could be argued that no St. Peter member can be held accountable to their membership vows." Failing to administer the proper vows meant that no Saint Peter Presbyterian Church member was ever a member of the RPCGA, and with no RPCGA members, Saint Peter Presbyterian Church could not be a member of the RPCGA and as such Saint Peter Presbyterian Church was never "Presbyterian." The only Saint Peter Presbyterian Church members who ever were RPCGA members was the Saint Peter Session itself. This isn't unlike the actions of RC Sproul, who is ordained in the PCA, but the church that he pastors, Saint Andrews Chapel, is an unaffiliated independent church. Was RC Jr's "failure" to administer the RPCGA's vows just a mere oversight, or was he actually following daddy's example?

After this "failure" was pointed out to the Saint Peter Presbyterian Church Session, the members of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church were offered by the RPCGA in writing the opportunity to take the RPCGA's membership vows. From what we've heard no one accepted the RPCGA's offer. Hmm. Yup, it sure sounds like it all must be the RPCGA's fault.

And so the spin continues.

By Laurence Windham's own criteria list, he doesn't seem to qualify as even a man, let alone a minister of the gospel:

"I am not perfect. But I'm not stupid either. I learn from my mistakes."
"I choose my words carefully."
"I tell the truth whatever the cost."
How To Recognize A Man, by Laurence Windham

Laurence Windham's fund raising letter is certainly the most unique we've ever seen, and the theme goes something like this: I just got defrocked. Well, it just really stinks, and I'm in a world of hurt because we're low on groceries, and the people in my church distrust me so much now that even they wouldn't give a case of tomatoes to their poor old defrocked pastor so I can keep making my world famous salsa. So what I'm gonna do now is bash and lie about the denomination that did all this to me. It's their fault, not mine, and anyone who can't see that is just a fallacious gossiper. And I'm gonna claim that I've already got another "denomination" (well, it's really just a "confederation") just waiting in the wings to vindicate me of all charges (well, at least I'm pretty sure they'll "whitewash" everything). And then they're gonna ordain me, and everyone at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church will trust me again and want to give me that steady paycheck again, and everything will be just peachy like old times. And because of all those really good reasons, all you nice people need to send me your money to tide me over for just a few months. My own church won't help me pay the bills, but that's obviously no reflection on me. So send me your money today. You can trust me with it. And after all, it's just temporary. That's it. The end.

We're not sure what school of fund raising this guy graduated from, but that's just not the way it's done, unless, that is, you're just trying to pull a scam. At the very least you've got to have some kind of credible story, and Windham's story just doesn't cut it. Donors expect some accountability, which means you've got to explain what you need the money for, what specific kind of ministry work you've been doing, what kind of ministry work you'll be doing in the immediate future, and what kinds of ministry successes you've already had.

So right off the bat there's a big problem -- it's pretty hard to convince anyone that you've had any success in ministry when you just managed to get yourself defrocked. Furthermore, Laurence Windham makes no mention of what specific kinds of "ministry work" he's engaged in right now, or what ministry work he'll be doing next week, or next month, which seems to imply that he's doing probably little or nothing. Mr. Windham, please notice here that the operative terms are "ministry" and "work." If you were actually engaged in some "ministry work" there would be some actual evidence of that "work" and something you could actually communicate about that "work." As we understand it, however, your "work" ethic is pretty much on par with RC Sproul Jr's work ethic (that's not meant as a compliment).

Mr. Windham, the body of Christ isn't a substitute State welfare program. From what we've heard you're an able-bodied man. Quit being a burden and an embarrassment to the body of Christ and go get yourself a job. Start practicing what you've been preaching all these years.

"My hands are callused from honest work."
How To Recognize A Man, by Laurence Windham

Other Blogs Covering This Story:
Laurence Windham Blames Others for His Failures
RC Sproul Jr. & Justice in the Kirk, Part 3

RC Sproul Jr Speaks On "Honor"? You've Gotta Be Kidding!

2006-02-27T11:49:00.006-05:00

A very hot topic of discussion in blogland these days is the defrocking of RC Sproul Jr, and for good reason. People are having a hard time recollecting the last time that a well-known Reformed preacher managed to get himself defrocked, and no one can recollect when an entire Presbyterian Session of four Elders managed to get themselves defrocked. The whole thing is just amazing!

It used to be a real shameful thing for an ordained minister to get himself defrocked. As Peter Kershaw noted in his Open Letter to RC Sproul Jr, being defrocked has some similarities to a military officer being court-martialed, stripped of his rank, and being Dishonorably Discharged. But the Christians of today are a lot different from the Christians of yesteryear. Most Christians today don't seem to appreciate the first thing about honor.

To add insult to injury, of the few well-known Christian teachers and preachers that are left today who are teaching the church about honor, some are actually now making a mockery of it. Witness RC Sproul Jr himself who is speaking May 5 and 6, 2006 at the "Generations Conference." Also featured at the conference will be RC Sproul (Jr's daddy), Doug Phillips, and Doug's daddy Howard Phillips. The subtitle of the Generations Conference is "Giving Honor To Whom Honor Is Due."

In principle the theme of the conference is a good one. There's a very big fly in the ointment though -- RC Sproul, Jr. How is RC Jr in any way qualified to address the subject of "honor" when he's brought so much dishonor to his family name? It's really no different than a dishonorably discharged military officer speaking at a conference on honor. There's simply no honor at all in what these men are doing -- it's just shameful. Common sense dictates that only honorable men speak at a conference where the theme is "honor."

Maybe it's understandable that RC Sproul is still speaking at conferences with his son, and even inviting his son to speak at his Ligonier Ministries conferences, including the Ligonier Conference, "Bought With a Price." Dr. Sproul is an honorable man, and that's demonstrated in the loyalty he has toward his son, even if his son is a total embarrassment to the name "Sproul." Here's the interesting thing about the Bought With a Price conference though -- RC Sproul Jr doesn't get to speak at the actual conference. He's just speaking at the "pre-conference". Pre-conferences are like warmup acts. They're sparsely attended. Dr. Sproul may still love his son, but he's not fool enough to give Junior a place of honor on the podium at the actual conference.

But what about Doug Phillips? What's his motivation for not cancelling his appearance at the Generations conference? Is it just personal friendship? And if so, since when does friendship trump the principles of honor that Doug Phillips has been teaching home school families for years? Doesn't Doug realize that when he steps onto a podium with a newly-defrocked minister that he's sending a message? And doesn't he realize that he's putting his stamp of approval on RC Sproul Jr? Doug Phillips is no fool, so it's likely that he's only too aware that his appearance at the Generations conference will have that very effect. We can only conclude that's exactly the effect that he's looking for.

Doug Phillips may, in effect, be honoring RC Sproul Jr, but he's dishonoring Presbyterians everywhere, and he's certainly dishonoring the Presbyterian denomination that defrocked Sproul.

The following was taken from a blog known as Little Geneva, and was posted by "Dabney." It's an insightful post, and because it goes to show just how much RC Jr has dishonored his own father and broken the fifth commandment, and how he's been doing so even long before he got himself defrocked, it's worth reposting here:

The more I think about it the more discombobulated this whole Sproul-Phillips conference thing seems to be. The theme of the Generations conference is "Giving honor to whom honor is due" and "honor your father and mother." It all supposedly comes from the fifth commandment which is something we could all stand some help with. If RC Sproul Jr had something to do with coming up with the conference theme, my hat's off to him. But if he had something to do with putting himself in the speaker line up he needs a good old fashion whoopin'.

From what I've seen with Doug Phillips, no problem. Doug and his father Howard makes sense for the "Generations" conference. Doug has a long track record of honoring his father and mother and keeping the fifth commandment. From all accounts he's also doing a good job with training up his children in the way they should go, so his kids are probably not having a tough time learning how to keep the fifth commandment. Doug's even produced a video or two on honoring fathers of prior generations. Doug's all about honoring others. Doug even honors servicemen and war vets (I don't think we'll ever see RC Jr doing that). Doug's also produced materials on honoring women ("women and children first") and he's spoken on that theme often. Doug's proven himself qualified to speak at a Generations "let's honor others before we honor ourselves" conference.

What about RC Sproul Jr? What are his qualifications? How's he ever honored his father? Or even his mother? Or anybody other than himself? How does he keep the fifth commandment? What's he written or produced? When's he ever preached on it? If he has why's it so hard to find the evidence for it? If you Google on the Highlands Study Center for "fifth commandment" or "honor your father" etc. you'll find precious little. If you do find something more than likely it'll be a squib on why RC Jr's kids should honor him, but not very much on why and how RC Jr honors RC Sr.

The other day I read the Words Of Wit With RC Sproul Jr page. It's hard to believe that a gospel preacher would actually say that kind of claptrap and then be proud enough about it to publish it for the whole world to see. One of the things quoted from at that site is RC Jr's Ligonier Tales, a shabby piece of trashy dime store drivel.

As repulsive and degrading as I found the whole process to be, I went to the Highlands Study Center web site and read every one of the eleven chapters of RC's "novella," Ligonier Tales (yes, I do deserve the Purple Heart). I don't recommend that anyone do this right after eating. In fact I don't recommend you do it on an empty stomach even after taking Dramamine. Why an ordained Presbyterian Pastor would publish such twaddle on his ministry's web site for the whole world to see is sure beyond me. He ought to be ashamed, but obviously he's not.

A lot of us grew up doing things that we're plenty embarrassed about. But most of us have got enough horse sense to not talk or write novellas about it. Maybe what RC Sproul Jr. is trying to tell us all is that just because he's the son of a famous theologian he didn't grow up any different than any of the rest of us. But if that's what he's trying to say, he could do it without giving everyone the lurid details. RC Jr's communicating a lot more with his trashy novella than "I'm nothing special, I'm just like all the rest of you." Anyone who grew up acting as foolishly as RC Jr did ought to be embarrassed enough about it to not memorialize it for the whole world to see. A son who cares to keep the fifth commandment ought to know that publishing his spectacular adolescent moral failures could in no way help his father's reputation. Not RC Jr! Indeed, all RC Jr is effectively doing is saying, "My dad was a failure as a father." He even seems to be real proud of his foolish adolescent years. Nowhere does he express any regret, remorse or sense that he has anything to apologize for. If anything he seems to look back with fondness on those good 'ol days.

In Ligonier Tales RC fancies himself as a rough and tumble hard-drinkin' beer-guzzlin' jock, and a regular Casanova ladies-man. My impression about RC from reading Ligonier Tales is that he was horribly insecure and was constantly seeking attention and trying to impress his peers. Not one word is ever mentioned about trying to please or impress his parents or be an obedient son. In fact hardly a mention is made of his parents, other than the fact that they referred to RC Jr as "Precious. I've heard said that RC Sproul Jr is referred to by family by the pet name "Precious" to this day.

His novella ends in an anticlimactic fast-forward a couple decades "here I am today a happily married-with-kids successful preacher-man" non-ending. No lessons are taught, no lessons are learned, no value or benefit of any kind is conveyed by the writer to the reader for expending the time to peruse this literary swill. Reading RC Jr's novella is much like sitting down to watch a bad movie that a friend told you is actually a good movie. You sit there minute after minute thinking, "At some point it's gonna get good." But it never does, and you've just wasted your evening. You feel cheated. That's how it feels to read Ligonier Tales. You can easily reckon that the only reason RC Sproul Jr. wrote it is to cover for some deep seated insecurities. Maybe he wrote it as a personal catharsis, but that doesn't mean he's got to punish the rest of us with it.

The part that I kept waiting to read was the part where he talks about his mom and dad -- the part where he honors his parents -- the part where he obeys the fifth commandment. It never comes. RC's entire novella is the biggest piece of self-obsessed bilge I've ever read. It's only redeeming quality? It's short enough that the nausea doesn't last very long.

So why is "Mr. Honor" Doug Phillips speaking at a conference that's all about the fifth commandment with a guy like "Mr. Self-Absorbed Doesn't Give a Rip About Honoring Anybody But Himself" RC Sproul Jr? It sure is a head-scratcher.

Thank you Mr. Dabney for your insightful review of Ligonier Tales. It saves us the time and nausea of having to read it ourselves.

They say that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but obviously there are exceptions. How could a tree like Dr. RC Sproul, a man who's so highly esteemed in Reformed theology circles, have produced such a bad apple? What a sad and embarrassing legacy RC Jr now leaves the family name of "Sproul."

But not everyone seems to agree that RC Jr has sullied and dishonored the family name -- Doug Phillips for one, and there are others as well. Doug Phillips is just one among several who are casting aside their principles for pragmatism, and spitting on Presbyterians and church authority everywhere. Home school groups and churches continue to pay RC Jr to come and speak at their conferences, as though being defrocked is really nothing at all.

It speaks to the times in which we live when a defrocked minister can speak at a conference on "honor," and the other men who will be sharing the podium with him have no objections. The Reformed Faith church in America has sunk very low, indeed.

Update 04-11-06: R.C. Sproul Jr dishonors his father yet again.

RC Sproul Jr's Bizarre Pastoral Style

2006-02-13T17:44:00.006-05:00

Former Saint Peter Presbyterian Church attendee, Dennis Cochran (aka Dennis The Poet) has today gone public with the eighteen-page letter he mailed to Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly on December 15, 2005. Mr. Cochran states,

"It's only right for people to be told. The SPPC false shepherds continue in their flagrant rebellion against God. Let their deeds of darkness be exposed and the saints be warned."

Dennis Cochran was slandered by RC Sproul Jr in the May/June 2004 edition of the Highlands Study Center periodical, Every Thought Captive. The article was entitled, The Boy Who Wouldn't Hoe Corn. Mr. Cochran was also caricatured on the cover in a none-too flattering way.

It wouldn't be the first time that Sproul has used the tax-deductible contributions of his financial supporters to engage in malicious and vindictive attacks against fellow believers in Christ Jesus -- truly bizarre conduct for an ordained minister of the gospel.

Mr. Cochran's letter can be found at:
DennisCochran121505.doc
DennisCochran121505.pdf

Some highlights from Mr. Cochran's letter:

I'm a former attendee of St. Peter Presbyterian Church. My stay at St. Peter was only two and a half months. Though brief it was the most horrible church experience of my life.

I believe that these men are in no way fit to be ordained by your denomination, or anyone else's, as pastors or elders.

The trauma of the spiritual rape I experienced while associated with Saint Peter Presbyterian Church and its results will hopefully be made clear by the end of this letter.

When you are already suicidal because two "pastors" messed with your mind and convinced you to go off your medicine, seeing them slander and ridicule you in print before the entire world might have been the last straw for me. Since that time, the Burtons too were the subject of an ETC article. R.C. and Laurence have a long history of publicly maligning and slandering people.

During the first meeting we had arranged to meet one morning after a Tuesday morning men's breakfast gathering at Bonnie's Restaurant. My plan going into the meeting was to tell Sproul and Windham I had decided to not become a member of St. Peter and that I would go check out some other local Reformed church such as Abingdon Presbyterian. I expected to part from them on friendly terms. The other men had departed leaving just Sproul, Windham and I. I very briefly told them my plan and added in a jocular manner, "I bet that was the shortest meeting you ever had." In seeking to justify what follows Windham at a later date accused me of being disrespectful in making this joking comment but I was not. What followed was dead silence and the most utterly cold demeanor I had ever witnessed in any human being. Then the taller block of ice, Windham, spoke. "You are now persona non grata. You are not to speak to my people. They will be told not to speak to you." Earlier in the OL they stated that they had no authority over me since I wasn't a member. Yet Windham just presumed to TELL me I wasn't allowed to speak to "his people."

I was utterly stunned. I honestly didn't see it coming. After another bit of dead silence I stammered, "Isn't that a bit cultish?" That was the first time I ever even considered using any form of the word "cult" in regard to St. Peter. I don't remember what little if anything was said after that. I was too dazed. Sproul and Windham left and I paced around in an area behind the building. As I did the pieces of the puzzle came together in my mind and I saw that I had indeed just escaped from joining a cult.

And this is perhaps the most astonishing revelation in all of Mr. Cochran's letter:

Only recently was I informed of something else that had happened at that meeting which only further confirms to me that St. Peter Presbyterian Church is not a church, but a cult. One of the men at breakfast with R.C. and Laurence just prior to my meeting with them, Rick Saenz, says that he was present when one of the men asked R.C. about the contents of a plastic carrying case R.C. had on the table in front of him. R.C. responded, "Oh, that's my gun. We're having a meeting later with Dennis. I want to be ready for him in case anything goes wrong." I guess I'm just unfamiliar with the practice of pastors taking guns into meetings with them in public restaurants. Does the RPCGA condone this? Considering the fact that it was R.C. and Laurence that told me to stop taking my meds, perhaps they thought that I would be unstable and perhaps even violent (why else would R.C. have had the gun there?). But if that were their concern, why did they tell me to stop taking my meds in the first place?

We're also unfamiliar, Mr. Cochran, with the practice of pastors taking concealed firearms into meetings with them into public restaurants. This raises an interesting legal question. Does RC Sproul Jr have a Concealed Handgun Permit? For any who were planning on having any meetings with RC Sproul Jr they might want to think twice about it. We're also unfamiliar with the practice of pastors giving medical advice to their parishioners. How are Sproul and Windham in any way qualified to be giving medical advice? Such behavior is reckless, irresponsible and completely outrageous. The RPCGA had grounds for defrocking these men just on that basis alone.

It was my responsibility to get away from a couple of dangerously manipulative individuals and warn others about them and their ways.

They in fact have a reputation for cruelty and lack of compassion in general that continues to grow. Even a cursory reading of their materials reveals a disturbing pattern of defensiveness that ought to give one pause.

Thus spake the prophets who receive their daily bread in part by potential criminal fraud and certainly through deceit as they make unwarranted accusations against me in regard to my meager income.

Scripture also tells us that those who hate their fellow believers while they say they love God show themselves to be liars who love neither. Their hateful abuse of members of God's household who threaten their house of cards belies their empty claims toward loving them or God.

"Fairness" is not a trait I readily associate with these two "pastors." They certainly didn't sit me down and say, "Well, here's the deal. We're a pair of cult leaders. We abuse people shamelessly and publicly slander them if we think it serves our purposes. We're egomaniacal charlatans. Sound good to you? Still wanna join?"

At this point, considering their unblushing gossip and slander in regard to me and others and the unremitting arrogance for which their are known among many, one has to wonder if they themselves have ever done an honest day's work in their lives if honest labor does indeed thwart such tendencies as they say it does. And I so far agree with them about the benefits of work.

They're afraid I'll help at least partially knock down their house of cards. I'll gladly destroy the ability of wicked men to ensnare souls and wolfishly wound the brethren. I'll gladly build up those they have victimized by offering my understanding and support.

Free men don't delight in anyone being enslaved to brutal, deceitful dictators. So I've spent hours thinking about, composing and editing this letter. I don't want anyone to go through what others and I have at the hands of these ruthless thugs. I delight in the freedom others and I have gained in escaping them and the freedom to be gained or retained by others by escaping or being warned off them.

And this significant revelation on the real reason why the PCA refused to ordain RC Sproul Jr:

R.C. has long lied about why he was rejected for PCA ordination. A Presbyterian elder by the name of ___________ who was part of R.C.'s examination finds R.C.'s version of the story most amusing. Mr. ________ also finds it amusing that an ex-convict who had served ten years in San Quentin successfully passed his PCA examination on the very same day as R.C. failed his.

R.C.'s lie was one designed to make Sproul seem as if he was being persecuted for bravely standing up for his beliefs. Even if he suspected ulterior motives on the part of any within the PCA, if they cited his educational insufficiencies as cause it is deceitful to simply fail to mention it even if one might hear both sides and question if there really were such motives. True, it is more appealing to be thought of as a brave martyr than someone who had simply been judged as undereducated. But you risk being thought a liar when the truth comes out.

Mr. Cochran closes with:

I'm deeply troubled by the possibility that the RPCGA will allow R.C. and Laurence to continue functioning as ordained pastors within its denomination. I cannot see how any good can come to the RPCGA and, based upon personal experience, I can only see that they will continue to damage and harm many other people, as they did me. The next person they tell to stop taking their meds might just suicide.

That's no longer an issue as it directly effects the RPCGA. They've stripped Sproul and Windham of their ordinations and shown them to the exit door ("Don't let the door hit you on the way out!"). But Sproul and Windham haven't taken the hint and sought out other employment. No, they're still pretending to be pastors. It looks like they're trying to find a way of getting reordained in another denomination, and we feel sorry for the denomination that's gullible enough to put their imprimatur on these clowns.

It's not the prerogative of any pastor to tell someone to stop taking their medications. Who do these arrogant creeps think they are? Sproul and Windham are a walking lawsuit. Any denomination that takes these morons in is just asking to get caught up in some big time litigation.

Our prayers are with you Dennis Cochran.

RC Sproul Jr pulls a Jimmy Swaggart

2006-02-11T14:07:00.006-05:00

It's a source of hot discussion in Mendota. In fact there hasn't been this must jawing in Mendota VA since Sam Johnson's moonshine still blew up back in '53.

On January 26, 2006 RC Sproul Jr managed to get himself defrocked by the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly. No, RC wasn't defrocked over all the partying. His Presbytery put out the word that they would've had to put RC on trial to sort all that other stuff out.

RC managed to avoid going to trial by giving his Presbytery what they were after in the first place -- a letter of repentance. What nobody seems to be able to figure out now is why RC didn't just repent in the first place, before he got himself defrocked. It's just possible that he could have avoided ever getting defrocked. Since RC is a paedocommunionist, and the RPCGA doesn't permit paedocommunion, even if he had repented of everything that came out in the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment he probably still would've had to leave, and probably without his RPCGA ordination. But couldn't he have at least tried to work out leaving on better terms than being defrocked? If only he had humbled himself and repented earlier.

"Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18

The big news now is that RC Sproul Jr has pulled a Jimmy Swaggart. Remember Jimmy? Now we're not about to infer that RC picks up hookers when he's out on the road speaking to homeschoolers and Prairie Muffins. But just that like Jimmy Swaggart, RC Sproul Jr doesn't seem to understand what being defrocked means.

Jimmy is one deviant dude. No sex, mind you, at least as long as we define "sex" with Bill Clinton's "I never had sex with that woman" definition of "sex." Jimmy likes to pick up hookers and, "Just get in the car honey, take off the panties, and we'll drive around for awhile while you entertain me."

Even though Jimmy Swaggart is now just a wrinkley old geezer he just can't seem to stop himself from wanting to help young ladies get a little fresh air. As recently as 2001 he was busted again with a whore. And he even gives them money that he get's from his ministry's financial supporters too (or at least the few he has left). What a charitable guy!

Once the pictures of Jimmy with his lady friends went public Swaggart became an international scandal. Christians everywhere were embarrassed that a preacher of the gospel, and ambassador for Christ, could bring such shame on the name of their Redeemer. Swaggart was defrocked by the Assemblies Of God. Like the RPCGA they have Presbyteries too, albeit tongue-speaking Presbyteries. The AG offered Jimmy a deal where he could step down as head of his church and allow his assistant pastor to take over. All Jimmy needed to do to comply with the AG's deal was take a year off, seek counseling to overcome being a pervert, and then hopefully be restored to his ministry by the end of the year. Jimmy said, "No deal. If I'm not back in my poooolpit by this Sunday people will wind up going to hell." What a godly, honorable, selfless man you are Jimmy Swaggart. Glooorrry! Without men of God like you there'd be a lot more people in H-E-double hockey sticks.

Instead of obeying his Presbytery and stepping down, Jimmy staged a very emotional "repentance" before an international television audience. He figured that by shedding tears before the cameras he was then fit to step right back into the pulpit. But few of his supporters agreed, and it showed in Jimmy's financial support. Jimmy was used to seeing up to $500,000 a day come in from supporters. That dried up to a trickle in no time.

RC Sproul Jr is no televangelist. He probably despises televangelists, and if he does he'd be justified in doing so. But when it comes to doing the right thing RC Sproul Jr is no better than the typical sleezeball televangelist. On January 26, 2006 RC Sproul Jr and his fellow Elders were defrocked and reduced in status to "general membership" where they would remain under RPCGA jurisdiction pending trial. On February 2, 2006 the defrocked elders of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church submitted a written letter of repentance to the RPCGA. On February 3, 2006 the RPCGA, apparently in response to the defrocked elders' letter of repentance, released the deposed elders from the general membership of the RPCGA.

Barely two days after they had been released from the RPCGA, RC Sproul Jr and his fellow defrocked ministers arranged to have themselves voted back into office. The congregation of Saint Peter used to be Presbyterian now Congregational Church put the same bums back into the pulpit that the RPCGA had just declared unfit to be Elders. Pretty amazing stuff, especially for people who claim to be Presbyterians. That must be some serious mind-altering Kool-Aid.

The question we all have now RC is how are you any different from...

Jimmy Swaggart?

RC Sproul Jr.: Scandalizing the Body of Christ

2006-02-05T11:01:00.013-05:00

by: Patrick Poole

Warning: If you're not interested in presbyterian polity or keeping up with evangelical church news, come back later.

Preface: There are MANY who are saying that I don't have the right to publish this article. Some are already writing thinly-veiled screeds directing divine judgement at anyone having the audacity to make reasoned judgments from the well-established facts at issue here. "Touching the anointed of the Lord" kind-of stuff. Even the Moscow Mullah, the Pasha of the Palouse, Doug Wilson himself publicly commented AFTER the RPCGA's recent action to shout down any discussion about his friend R.C.'s defrocking. (Gee, Douggie, why can you publicly comment and none of us allowed to do the same?) Some have also said that ecclesiastical charges should be issued against anyone making the following statements (a position rife with irony, as you will see as you continue to read). At least one individual was bragging earlier this week about having another blog closed down in retaliation for publishing the truth about this ongoing matter (which, thankfully, has reappeared). That's the poisonous atmosphere that has been intentionally created in the wake of this situation. However, the stakes in this matter are not limited to discussion miniscule points of dogma or isolated to a Reformed micro-denomination. At this point, much is already a matter of public record, with all sides having their say. Thus far, at least to my knowledge, none of those self-appointed Reformed "super-stars" who are aware of this situation have been willing to say anything publicly about it, presumably hedging their bets on how this whole affair plays out. Someone has to say, "we must stop this madness, or else it will kill us all." It is a shame to the Church that it has to be left to someone as insignificant and unqualified in all senses as me to say it, but there it is.

As some observers are aware, on January 26th the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA) defrocked R.C. Sproul, Jr. and the entire session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church (link is to the Declaratory Judgment of the presbytery) for a laundry list of violations not in dispute by either the presbytery or the defrocked men. Additional disputed charges are to be brought up for trial by the presbytery.

As you can read in the Moderator's Declaratory Judgment (approved unanimously by the Westminster Presbytery), chief among the reasons for this action are abusive and unauthorized actions taken against members of the congregation, including refusing to allow the family to leave the church over doctrinal disputes, suspending them from the sacraments without trial, and ordering the entire congregation to "shun" the entire family (though only the husband and father was named in the session's censure). R.C. and the session members all agreed that these actions took place and offered their "apologies" (which fell along the lines of, "I'm so sorry your actions made me beat you..."). Additionally, several current and former church members gave written evidence to the same effect, including an apology letter sent to the targeted family from Rick Saenz, R.C.'s longtime and former personal assistant, admitting to not speaking out against the outrageous actions at the time they were occuring. St. Peter member (now former) Peter Kershaw should be applauded as well for being the first to denounce the treatment of the Austin family. You can read the entire documentary and evidentiary trail here.

These former church leaders have also admitted to illegally using the tax EID of another denomination as cover for the church and the Highlands Study Center, a violation of state and federal laws. Evidence has been given that this was deliberate and done at the direct instruction of R.C. himself. In light of this, the doctrinal differences between these former church leaders and the RPCGA noted in the Declaratory Judgment seem slight in comparison.

Again, this is all thus far undisputed and a matter of public record, with the written testimony of multiple witnesses and the confessions of the defrocked men themselves as witnesses against their abusive and illegal conduct.

All of the proceeding is not the cause of scandal to the body of Christ. This is biblical church discipline in process, and nothing unusual in that regard. If these men had shown repentance, it wouldn't be right for me or anyone outside. What is scandalous is the behavior of these men subsequent to their defrocking. At this moment, there is a note posted on the website of St. Peter Presbyterian Church/Highland Study Center that reads (UPDATE - the following quote has been removed from their website):

As many of you have read, Dr. Sproul Jr., along with the entire session of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church, has heard from the moderator of the Westminster Presbytery of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, General Assembly, that they have been deposed from their offices as elders in the church. This action was taken without a trial, indeed without even a conversation. We disagree with the action taken, and are considering our options as to how to respond. What we will not do is take shots against our accusers over the internet, and would encourage you not to do so, either. Please be patient, and please pray for the peace and purity of the church.

Now this is patently Clintonesque. They say that they won't "take shots against our accusers over the internet." Where is this posted? That's right: on the Internet. And what do they say? "We've been wronged by these ecclesiastical fascists who didn't even give us a trial!" Aren't we all glad that they are refusing to say anything in their defense, especially over the Internet?

Now for the truth:

At this time, these men have been defrocked on the basis of their own testimony of their actions, confirmed by multiple witnesses. When a man pleads guilty, there is no trial. For those accusations that are disputed, and thus, still pending, a trial is being arranged by the presbytery.
They would have you believe that they are being railroaded by an out-of-control moderator (as evidenced by the attack on Westminster Presbytery Moderator Ken Talbot this week on WorldMagBlog [posts #37 and #38] by one of R.C.'s friends, David Zuniga), but in fact this action was approved in accordance with the RPCGA's Book of Church Order, which as a member of their presbytery these men have submitted to. The Declaratory Judgment cites the relevant BCO language that allows for summary judgment when the facts are not in dispute.
It is also important to note that the entire Westminster Presbytery approved this action, and approved it unanimously. This is not the decision of a lone moderator.
The claim that this action was taken "without even a conversation" is entirely false. Ken Talbot examined this matter for almost two months, and the Declaratory Judgment even cites conversations between R.C. and the presbytery on this matter.
Another fact is that the Declaratory Judgment cites a December 15th email from R.C. to Ken Talbot asking for swift resolution of this matter: “It appears that at least three of our four elders cannot stay in the denomination... The particular hardship is this. We especially don't want to leave with a cloud over our heads. Could you either, having let us go, hear the complaints against us, and issue a ruling, or barring that, could you forward all those complaints to where we end up? We have had much to repent of these past few weeks. We have done so. We are sorry in turn that our failures have caused trouble for you and the presbytery.” (page 10)

The moral of the story? Be careful what you wish for.

The quote taken from R.C.'s email is quite telling. By this time, the investigation was in full swing, and it was only at this point that the "St. Peter Four" decided that they couldn't stick around the RPCGA on the basis of their "convictions" of practicing paedo-communion--a practice strictly banned by the RPCGA since 1997. But when an investigation is launched on matters much more serious than their views on the Lord's Supper, these cowards suddenly develop "convictions"? Remember that these men took vows before God and their fellow elders in presbytery to be in submission to the system and the judgments of the RPCGA. But using the canard of "convictions", R.C. has asked that they either be tried only after they are allowed to leave the denomination, making any judgment by the RPCGA meaningless (because they will no longer have any jurisdiction), or allow some other as-yet unspecified denomination to examine the evidence (meaning that they might have to Catch R.c. Evacuating Christianity). But one thing is clear--they don't want the RPCGA, the only authorized authority, doing the trial. How's that for accountability? Maybe Doug Wilson will blog on that topic this week. He thinks that having taken oaths and vows before God and men that he can leave the denomination without so much as a "by your leave"? Aren't these the same Federal Vision "men without chests" who endlessly proclaim "the covenant, the covenant, the covenant of the Lord are these" over every minute detail of theology and beat anyone over the head who doesn't agree with their interpretation of it? Covenants and vows apparently now mean nothing to R.C. and his Gang. This is pathetic in-and-of itself, but it gets worse.

Does anyone else but me see the sickening irony that R.C. is demanding for himself what he was ugly reluctant to give to others? The Austin family, who was the subject of malicious persecution by the ordained leaders of St. Peter, were refused when they requested to leave the church for their disagreements over paedo-communion and other doctrinal issues. What did R.C. and the Gang use as justification for their refusal to let the Austin family leave? Their membership vows. Another family states (cited in the Declaratory Judgment, p. 3): “Because of this we became more determined than ever to leave the church. R.C. and Laurence became just as determined that they were not going to let us go. They told us we had taken a vow to the Elders to stay in the church, and we could not leave unless they released us. They told us that we would never be able to join another reformed church if we were not in good standing with St. Peter and we would need their release for that to happen.” (emphasis added)

From the documentary evidence available thus far, we can see that this refusal to let families leave the church was part of an abusive pattern. Furthermore, R.C. and the Gang made all members take vows beyond what was allowed by their denomination (point 5, pg. 7 of the Declaratory Judgment).

But that's still not fully viewing how scandalous this affair truly is. One of the things at issue in the Austin's de facto excommunication was that it was done without any trial whatsoever. At least Westminster Presbytery is willing to let these men go to trial for the matters that are in dispute, they having admitted to the substance of the charges laid out in the presbytery's Declaratory Judgment. That notwithstanding, R.C. and the Gang are still complaining that they were not given a trial before they were defrocked. But when the shoe was on the other foot, they felt completely justified in acting without due process against the Austin family and others in violation of denominational rules.

At this point, if you still feel any pity for these reprobates, remember that the RPCGA is acting in accordance with their Book of Church Order, which the former leaders of St. Peter agreed to live by when they entered the RPCGA. No one put a gun to their head to make them join this denomination, and their rules were not treated as some kind of Masonic secret; their BCO is published on their website. Those who live by presbyterian polity can die by presbyterian polity.

As of this date, the previous statement that the church was part of the RPCGA has now been removed from the church's website, making clear that these men are on the run. And they are looking for a safe haven. Time will tell where they might land, but at least one commentator, Tim Bayly, has provided this week a "hypothetical scenario" in which R.C. and the Gang could justifiably (sic) discuss moving their credentials to the CREC, where Douggie Wilson and his gang of drug dealers and illegal casino operators reside.

The scandal still keeps coming. R.C. has said that he is going to devote his time to the Highland Study Center, which has historically been a ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church (even sharing the illegally obtained tax EID number). However, R.C. incorporated Highland with the state of Virginia on January 10th (in the midst of the presbytery investigation), effectively stealing the ministry from the Church that he is not even a member of (ordained elders are members of the presbytery, not of the church they minister to). Whereas the St. Peter/Highland website used to read that Highland was "an integrated ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church", that is no longer the case. It has been pilfered by R.C. and the Gang.

Make no mistake: these men are spiritual outlaws. No matter how much they want to hide behind their recently acquired "convictions" about the perils of presbyterian polity, they are autonomous religious renegades, and ought to be considered as such. Any ministry that planned to feature R.C. or any of his Gang as speakers at their events should withdraw the invitiation immediately, and anyone previously invited to speak at future Highland Study Center conferences should now decline to speak. Is this what I expect will happen? Not likely. These squibs are going to look for safe harbor, and my bet is that they'll get it. Some wanna-be Reformed micro-denomination would be glad to add R.C.'s name to their roster, regardless of the stench he drags behind him. Certainly there can be restoration with demonstrated repentance, and Lord willing, that will eventually occur. These men could even be restored to ministry at some future date. But as Westminster Presbytery has made clear, these men are currently unqualified and unfit to shepherd any flock:

The consistent pattern of actions taken by these men are duplicitous in nature, and demonstrate that they willingly and knowingly act in an arbitrary fashion in violation of their vows of ordination and in violation of our denomination’s Book of Church Order. Most importantly, their actions manifest that they lack the qualification for the ministry (1Timothy 3:1-7). It would be unwise to allow these men to continue to hold an office for which they are not qualified. They have no interest to govern themselves appropriately within this presbyterian system of government that they vowed to submit and conform to its rules and regulations with conduct becoming ministers of Jesus Christ. (Declaratory Judgment, p. 11)
No one should should be under any illusions. R.C. and his Gang of Thugs will try to paint this as nothing more than a difference over doctrine. They are "suffering servants" for the cause of paedo-communion (what a pathetic hill to die on!). But this is one of the clearest cases of spiritual abuse and reckless leadership the evangelical world has seen in a while (excepting Certain Reformed Evangelical Cults in Idaho). These men are in fact unqualified and unfit for office (and at this point, membership) in any church, and should be regarded and treated as such. The Westminster Presbytery should be applauded for the lawful defrocking of these petty tyrants. Their decisive removal from office in the face of overwhelming evidence is presbyterian polity at its best. Other Reformed denominations have had similar cases where they have refused to act. And the presbytery is lucky to have a man like Ken Talbot (who is both a theologian/churchman and an attorney) to oversee this matter. In light of the present conduct of R.C. and the Gang, hopefully further sanctions will be forthcoming. R.C. and the Gang are a direct threat to the purity of the body of Christ. Their mockery of the Reformed ecclesiology that they have publicly preached but perverted in order to lord over others, will hopefully be put to an end. May this scandal be disassociated with the name of Christ.

Party On! (or you might cause RC Sproul Jr to stumble)

2005-12-25T09:33:00.015-05:00

What does Scripture teach regarding how we are to treat a brother whose "faith is weaker" in a particular area than is our own? For example, what if for us the moderate consumption of alcohol may be a matter of "Christian liberty," but for the "weaker brother" it may be a violation of their own conscience? How are we to conduct ourselves with the brother who is a recovering alcoholic? Do we run the risk of stumbling him by offering a glass of wine when he's in our home for a meal? Do we even consume alcohol in his presence at all? Or what considerations should we show a sister if she'd been raised by an alcoholic father or mother, having grown up witnessing the repeated abuse of alcohol and the resulting destruction of her family? For her witnessing even just a single glass of wine consumed with a meal might cause her great offense.

Do we, for the sake of preserving our own "Christian liberties," disregard the fact that there are Christians who may be not only offended by alcohol because of some bad personal history, but perhaps may even be stumbled in their faith because of it? Is it ever permissible to ignore the tender consciences of our brethren and flaunt our liberties? What sayeth the Scriptures?

So then let us pursue the things which make for peace and the building up of one another. Do not tear down the work of God for the sake of food. All things indeed are clean, but they are evil for the man who eats and gives offense. It is good not to eat meat or to drink wine, or to do anything by which your brother stumbles. The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. Rom. 14:19-21

The notes of the Reformation Study Bible (edited by RC Sproul Sr.) are helpful to us in addressing this issue of the appropriate consumption of alcohol by Christians:

"The believer's responsibility is now stated positively: avoiding the destruction of others is complemented by promoting 'peace' and the things that 'edify' (v. 19). For the 'strong,' (15:1) this includes both maintaining fellowship with the 'weak' and also encouraging them to understand the liberty that is theirs in Christ. When such aims are in view, freedom to eat and drink will be made subservient to them; the well-being of the brother will take precedence over the enjoyment of meat and wine."

Tragically, however, RC Sproul Sr.'s son doesn't share his father's biblical convictions for promoting peace, edifying others, or the well-being of weaker brethren. Rather, RC Sproul Jr delights in flaunting his Christian liberties and causing offense to his weaker brethren. According to RC Sproul Jr, it's biblical, and it's also pastoral, to mock other Christians whose faith might be weaker than our own:

"I try, like most of us, not to be easily offended. I don't like the other idea of other people having to go about on pins and needles because of my weaknesses. But sometimes that's where we end up. We are, after all, all Christians here, and are called to bear one another's burdens. I pray one day my conscience will grow stronger, so that this wouldn't be necessary. But we're not there yet. So here it is. Would you please, so as not to cause me to stumble, stop suggesting that it is wrong to drink alcohol in moderation, or that drinking alcohol in moderation somehow is a failure to love my brothers? Thanks ever so much."
Double, Bubble, Toil and Stumble, by RC Sproul Jr.

This mocking of weaker brethren, through inverting and grossly perverting the clear intent of sacred Scripture, would be bad enough; but it actually gets much worse. According to numerous eye witnesses, RC Sproul Jr has a very perverse understanding of "moderation." By the admission of various current and former Saint Peter Presbyterian Church members and visitors, RC Sproul Jr's definition of "drinking in moderation" includes "church keggers" and the passing around of whiskey bottles at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church functions. "Moderation" even includes serving alcohol at church functions to minors and even little children (such as drinks spiked with grain alcohol).

The prodigious consumption of alcohol by Saint Peter Presbyterian Church members, as well as "students" of RC Sproul Jr's Highlands Study Center, is taught to them as being matters of "spiritual discipline":

"For those who wonder about the extensive use of alcohol, tobaccy, and who knows what all else at the HSC, I implore you to not worry about such wonders. Those at the HSC have simply succeeded at making the consumption of such things 'spiritual disciplines'."

Basically, what "drinking in moderation" means at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church and the Highlands Study Center is that if you haven't blacked out yet you're drinking in moderation. So if that kind of "drinking in moderation" offends you then you'd better just keep your mouth shut about it, because you sure wouldn't want to cause RC Sproul Jr to stumble.

Party on RC Sproul Jr!