Christ Church’s Acceptance of Shade, Part 2

Pooh,

Last week we all received yet another dictate from Doug Wilson on his understanding of “biblical” justice. I noted this passage:

So the rule of thumb ought to be this. If someone comes to you from another Christian church, and they are under some kind of cloud, admonition, rebuke, suspension from the Table, or excommunication, what this should mean is that the burden of proof has shifted. An individual in your own church is innocent until it is proven that that they are guilty. Guilt has to be established, and it has to be established beyond any reasonable doubt. But if another church has taken disciplinary action of some sort against one of their members, and then that member comes to you, the burden should be on him to demonstrate and prove that an injustice was done to him. . . (“Jurisdictional Justice: A Justice Primer,” 3/8/06, emphasis added)

But then Pooh dropped this bombshell in the Wood a few days later:

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, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that, further review of the material, the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions [to vindicate Burke — P], which would only happen if new, clear information against Burke appears. The elders would like a report from the committee by July 27. This recommendation considered as a motion passed. (Christ Church Elder Meeting Minutes, July 13, 2000, emphasis added)

When it came to defrocked PCA minister Burke Shade, the burden wasn’t on the convicted; from the word of his mouth alone, Doug Wilson shifted the burden to the court that had lawfully convicted him. (So let it be written! So let it be done!) Thus, Wilson subverted even his own version of “biblical” justice.

But I can already hear Wilsonista’s court eunuchs pulling up their keyboards to accuse me of failing to quote the following line of the Great Leader’s dictate, which will allegedly clear him:

If he can do so, and all the principles of justice outlined in this series are remembered (with the former body is given full opportunity to present its reasons), then there is no problem (in principle) with a receiving body overturning a judicial decision by another church.

They will try to obfuscate the matter by saying that Burke Shade’s receiving body (the CREC) did overturn a judicial decision (the propriety of which I will leave for another time), so there’s no hypocrisy involved on Wilson’s part. The fact is, however, when you read the cited Christ Church Elder Meeting Minutes, we discover in the sentence preceding the one quoted above that the Session members charged to look into the matter had not even finished reading the trial materials, let alone arrived at a final recommendation, and urged caution about acting on what they had at that time:

Doug Jones reported that the ad hoc committee concerning Burke Shade recommends that we should not send out the current letter, and that we should wait while Chris Schlect and Doug Jones continue to work through the trial materials, before they make a further recommendation. (Christ Church Elder Meeting Minutes, July 13, 2000, emphasis added)

There is a problem (in principle) with a receiving body overturning a judicial decision by another church without first having examined all of the evidence and having agreed in advance to clear the convicted. It seems that Wilson’s court jesters had a better sense of true biblical justice than Wilson himself. Yes, those are not the bells of justice we hear ringing over Anslem House, but the clanging cymbals of hypocritical autonomy:

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. (Matthew 23:27)

Patrick

Christ Church’s Acceptance of Shade, Part 1

Pooh,

You discover two alarming contradictions when you compare the Kirk elders’ private statements about Burke Shade with their public statements. First, they contradicted themselves regarding who had the “burden of proof.” Second, they contradicted themselves regarding the precise nature of that burden. The Christ Church Elder Meeting Minutes dated July 13, 2000, state:

Doug Jones reported that the ad hoc committee concerning Burke Shade recommends . . . that we should wait while Chris Schlect and Doug Jones continue to work through the trial materials. . . 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, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that . . . the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions. . . (Emphasis added)

Read it this way:

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, and that he has communicated this to Burke. The elders agreed that . . . the burden of proof is on the committee to overturn our previous decisions [that on September 16, 1999, they agreed to recieve Shade and his church into the CRE, and they agreed this situation — the PCA’s discipline — is not a barrier to Shade and his church being accepted by the CRE].

However, one month later, on August 17, 2000, the Christ Church elders adopted their “Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” which they sent to the PCA’s Illiana Presbytery and to the CRE. You will note that, in addition to misrepresenting who carried the burden of proof, they neglected to declare their pre-existing agreement to receive Shade:

Illiana Presbytery delivered these materials [PCA vs. Shade trial documents] to us in good faith, understanding that we would use them “only for the purpose of adjudicating Cornerstone’s entry into the CRE Denomination.” It was for this very purpose that we studied these documents. . . And since the PCA is a faithful presbyterian church, we began evaluating the case by assuming the correctness of the Illiana decision, with Shade having the burden of proof. (“Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” emphasis added)

The contradictions are apparent. In the first document they admit cutting a deal with Shade to ignore the PCA’s discipline, so that he could join the CRE. In the second they conceal their agreement with Shade, so they could dissemble by stating that they assumed “the correctness” of the PCA’s discipline and that Shade had the “burden of proof.” In other words, the Kirk elders tailored their message to fit the expectations of their audience; they were Shade’s legal defense team, but they represented themselves as judges who agreed with the PCA.

Now, given Wilson’s & Jones’ penchant for sophistry, they may equivocate, arguing, “What’s the difference? We still proved Shade’s innocence.” But that’s not the point. The point is that the Kirk elders tainted their conclusion by agreeing to receive Shade before examining the evidence against him. The point is that they stained their conclusion with duplicity.

And according to the CRE minutes, on October 19, 2001, the Kirk elders induced the CRE to unanimously adopt the “Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation,” falsehoods et al. They did this in capacity of their office as ministers of the gospel.

Closing Statements From Patrick on Shade

Pooh,

Here are a few modest thoughts in reply to Mr. Shade:

Dear Pooh (Patrick and Michael),

After reading through Patrick’s rejoinder, I have several comments and clarifications to add, and then I’ll be finished.

First, Patrick makes much ado about members of EPC leaving and forming a new church, and doing so as peacefully as possible. Because the elders of EPC would not follow the BCO and call a congregational meeting, after having been petitioned to do so by two-thirds of the congregation, that same two-thirds believed the session to be without accountability and no longer desired to be under their leadership. Leaving a church is accounted for under BCO 38-3a the members left and formed another church, much as the PCA did at her initiation. The BCO acknowledges this right, even referencing BCO 2-2, which establishes that the visible body of Christ is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians.

To begin, Mr. Shade has underscored how his supporters left EPC peacefully. In his prior response, he said:

Again, CRC was not renegade. Two-thirds of the church left on February 14, and formed another church. They left peacefully, taking no money or building or furniture or anything at the time. They left everything to EPC, though they were the clear majority.

This is an unfortunate representation when you note that Mr. Shade’s faction formed Conerstone while they were still members of EPC, at which time they sent a letter to the EPC session dated January 25, 1999, requesting, among other things:

• A cashier’s check for $70,000 (every dime in cash the church had in the bank at the time).


• One half of all the of the hymnals, psalters, tables and chairs of the church.


• EPC’s Yamaha grand piano, along with other computer equipment that had been used by Burke Shade (but, of course, he had nothing to do with their leaving, wink, wink; more on that later).

Mr. Shade’s faction tried to grab as much as they thought they could from EPC as they ran out the door. The acting EPC session prevented them from doing so. Further, when those efforts were not successful they went over the session’s head and petitioned Illiana Presbytery on January 29, 1999, for them to split the property of the church on their same stated terms. It was later discovered that this petition was sent to presbytery without so much as copying the EPC session on the letter. The presbytery, refusing to aid and abet the faction’s plundering of EPC, declined to divide the church as they requested.

In the meantime, Mr. Shade’s faction engineered a petition for another congregational meeting, this time to secede from the PCA altogether. Watch this: while they claimed membership in a new congregation, they still exercised their rights as EPC members to try to seize all of the church property and overthrow the session that had resisted them. The congregational meeting was held on February 10, 1999, in accordance with the rules of the BCO. But when the vote was taken, Mr. Shade’s faction lost the vote to take EPC out of the PCA. Having their position put to a vote, they lost. And having lost, instead of working to restore the church they had rent apart, they walked away, leaving EPC, Illiana Presbytery, and the PCA to cure the devastation left in their wake. The first service of Cornerstone Reformed Church (Mr. Shade’s faction) was held four days after the failed congregational vote on February 14, 1999. This is quite a different picture than what Burke Shade paints for us of peaceful dissenters voluntarily walking away, choosing not to take anything.

Burke also had this to say previously in his defense:

First of all, I did not lead out a splinter group. Cornerstone Reformed Church left EPC on February 14, 1999, over two months before I was defrocked in April. Two-thirds of the congregation left, not really a “splinter” group. I never attended Cornerstone until after I was defrocked by the PCA.

He would have your readers believe that he had nothing to do with their departure. In fact, he argues, it was months after before he was involved with their breakaway faction. Again, this is an unfortunate representation because the truth is that the breakaway faction had tried to dissolve Burke Shade’s call with EPC to have them as their forming pastor. The January 25, 1999, letter from the splinter group to the acting EPC session made the following request:

We request that Evangelical Presbyterian Church agree to dissolve its relationship with Pastor Burke Shade immediately, allowing us to call Pastor Shade as Pastor of our newly formed Church. We understand that he would be ministering “out of bounds” pending final decision of Presbytery.

This indicates complicity, and two weeks later, after losing the vote that they had needed to seize control of the church leadership and property, they abandoned the PCA altogether. I cannot see a clearer case of a group violating the peace and the purity of the church than Mr. Shade’s faction that established Cornerstone “Reformed” Church. They were bound by their membership vows until they were released. They formed another church, while still bound to those vows, without the permission of the EPC session. Appealing to BCO 38.3 doesn’t absolve them — it indicts them.

When Cornerstone formed, it became its own denomination of one, and requested the transfer of its members from EPC, to which the Presbytery oversight session agreed (they did not transfer two men). A person may have qualms with Illiana’s interpretation of the BCO, and Cornerstone’s, but it was done in good order and with cooperation from Illiana, as its representatives met several times with the newly formed church, even before my trial ended.

Burke Shade would have your readers believe that the few men appointed by presbytery to operate as EPC’s session agreed to transfer the faction. This is another unfortunate representation. The truth is that the commission appointed by Illiana Presbytery to act as the temporary session of EPC was specifically charged that they DIDN’T have authority to act on behalf of the presbytery on any matter; they could act no further than the session would otherwise. An article in Presbyterian & Reformed News reported the matter this way:

In referring this matter, Illiana Presbytery was clear that the commission does not have authority to speak and act on behalf of Presbytery. This commission has also assumed original jurisdiction over the church, per the request of the Session. The ruling elders at EPC have not resigned, but merely stepped aside from the active ruling of the congregation.

They did, however, have authority acting as the church session to release the members that had already abandoned the church. Rather than bring the entire faction under charges, they let all but two go — the two former EPC officers that assumed leadership of and provided a meeting space for their breakaway faction.

To be sure, the splinter group was so concerned about the implications of their conduct, in their January 25, 1999 letter to the acting EPC session, among their demands was this:

We request that any charges currently pending or being considered against any members of this congregation either in church court or civil court be dropped, and that a commitment be made to not bring any future charges, either in church court or civil court, against any members of this congregation for any perceived or alleged actions surrounding or leading up to this current situation.

They were clearly concerned about coming under discipline for their actions; rightly so.

Secondly, BCO 38-3a does allow for a minister to attempt to transfer even during trial, and that’s what I attempted to do. In order to do so, you have to speak with the other body first, and I did so and was sustained in my examination. FORC then asked Illiana to transfer my trial to them, attempting to follow the PCA’s own Book of Church Order, section 38-3a. Illiana turned them down on April 10 or 11, and then proceeded with my last trial date of April 17th (if I remember correctly). At that trial date, they deposed me for “countenancing” actions that led to division. I came to the trial as a member of the PCA, and sat under 14 hours that day of testimony, etc. While FORC has sustained me, I was still in the PCA. They were attempting to get me transferred. Illiana instead deposed me I did not flee the PCA. The Moderator, upon the deposition, told me publicly that I was no longer in the PCA. Illiana has not contacted me since, nor did they assign me to a church as according to the BCO, in cases of deposition. I did not act dishonorably I am out of the PCA and have abided by their censure.

When Illiana Presbytery denied Burke Shade and FORC’s request to transfer him into the new jurisdiction, all discussion of BCO 38-3 became irrelevant: they did not release him from his covenantal obligations to his presbytery, especially since he was in the middle of a trial. Whatever FORC wanted to do, claimed to do, or asked Illiana Presbytery to do, made no difference whatsoever. Shade was under the jurisdiction of the PCA, not FORC. Even FORC admitted so; they charged Shade to remain in the PCA. But being deposed from office did not free him from his obligations to the PCA; this was not an excommunication. For members deposed from office, they are transferred to the general membership of the presbytery. The Moderator could not have told him, contrary to what he states, that he was “no longer in the PCA,” unless they had dealt with his membership, either by excommunicating him (which they didn’t) or allowing him to complete his transfer to FORC, which to my knowledge there is no record of. These are not Masonic secrets that were kept from Burke Shade during his 11 years in the PCA. They are printed clearly in the BCO.

But Shade’s story changes at this point. Remember in his last correspondence he said that after he was deposed from office he “chose not to go back.” Now he assigns blame to Illiana. Even worse, he says: “I did not act dishonorably I am out of the PCA and have abided by their censure.” In fact, he acted dishonorably by refusing to abide by the censures of the church, ignoring his deposition from office, and pastoring the breakaway faction weeks after his deposition. In what way does he think he abided by their censure?

Thirdly, Patrick seems to think that a censure is forever binding. But our own confession, the WCF, chapter 31.2, admits that synods and councils may err, and that those decisions “are not to be made the rule of faith or practice.” I do believe that Illiana’s censure is still binding, and I have not attempted to act as a minister in the PCA since, having been stripped of that right in the PCA. But as only one branch of the church, Illiana’s decisions are only regulative for that branch. Other branches believe it to have erred, and I concur with those believing that. By acknowledging that councils may err, and have done so, the WCF opens up opportunities for reviews of past decisions. And that is exactly was Christ Church did they reviewed Illiana’s decision and came to the conclusion that Illiana erred. Just as the Westminster divines judged about councils of the past, as well as the PCA itself when it formed.

As a Calvinist and an Augustinian, I certainly understand the depravity of man; and because of depravity, I admit that councils may err. But the leap in logic he wants to make is this: church councils err, therefore he can ignore censures of the church. However, he just can’t join another denomination and believe that those censures are of no effect. But that’s exactly what he claims:

But as only one branch of the church, Illiana’s decisions are only regulative for that branch.

The Bible, however, takes a different view. It does not contemplate that Christians, let alone ordained servants, can jump from jurisdiction to jurisdiction to avoid the lawful censures of the Church. Take for example the man excommunicated by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 5. When it comes to 2 Cor. 2, Paul doesn’t say, “Well, darn it! That rascal ran off to Antioch, and we don’t have any jurisdiction over him anymore,” or, “Well, he’s part of Barnabas’ denomination now, so our censures are of no effect.” Nor does the Apostle John say about Diotrophes (3 John), “Well, he’s ordained in another jurisdiction, so you have to follow his instructions not to receive Demetrius. And I guess you have no other option but to treat him as a brother in Christ. I wish I could help.”

And the micro-denomination Burke fled to (FORC) speaks against his view of church government. Even after he by his own admission “chose not to go back,” FORC sent a communication to the PCA General Assembly inquiring about his transfer. In a damning admission (at least for Shade), the FORC memorial states:

In sending this memorial, we are not asking for reversal or redress by the General Assembly of the PCA of the actions of the court in question, but rather that the General Assembly itself exercise its own authority in reviewing our questions in this matter. We bring before you our action in this matter (noted above in second paragraph) and request the judgment of the General Assembly as to our action in receiving Mr. Shade as a minister in good standing. It is because we respect the unity of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and acknowledge that discipline is not a sectarian matter, that we seek your counsel.

Now read that last sentence again:

It is because we respect the unity of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and acknowledge that discipline is not a sectarian matter, that we seek your counsel.

According to FORC, church discipline is not a sectarian matter. But what does Burke Shade say? “But as only one branch of the church, Illiana’s decisions are only regulative for that branch.” How many witnesses does he need before he admits his rebellion to the discipline of the Church?

Let me make one additional point here: If the censures against Burke Shade stopped at the doors of the PCA, how is it that Christ Church needed to “vindicate” him? According to Shade, the censures went no further than the PCA? Then how was Christ Church able to supersede their judgments, because, after all, they only applied to the PCA? Christ Church has no jurisdiction over the PCA? How could they overrule their judgment even according to his thinking unless church censures do not stop at the limits of a denomination’s jurisdiction? Burke Shade falls into his own trap.

Fourthly, Patrick believes that I broke my vows to attempt to transfer. Nowhere in the vows does it forbid transferring out, and I did submit to my brethren until they removed me. I even was faithful to the PCA amidst persecution and opposition: who has ever heard of charging someone for a sermon preached three years earlier, and it wasn’t even his own sermon? And it was by a missionary that the church supported at the time (and continued to support until my trial), whom I had never met until he preached it! Lastly, I did not appeal. My membership vows did not require me to do so. Instead, I followed 1 Corinthians 6 and allowed myself to be defrauded. I believed I was wronged, and I let it stop at that for the peace of the church. For Illiana and for Cornerstone and for Carbondale. Illiana was under great pressure to end my trial, for it had dragged on for 5 months, and had been petitioned already once to end it by Brian Chappell, President of CTS and a member of Illiana.

His vows nowhere forbid transferring out; however, the BCO states in the very section he cites (38.3) that permission is required from the presbytery to transfer out, especially if the member is currently under trial, which in fact Shade was. The presbytery denied his transfer request. I don’t think that he broke his vows by “attempting” to transfer; he broke them by transferring over to FORC when he had not been released by Illiana Presbytery. Even in his initial correspondence to you, Pooh, he admitted this fact that Illiana had the authority to not release him to FORC when the request was made:

The Federation appealed to Illiana Presbytery, after receiveing me, to end the trial and let them finish it, to which Illiana declined, as according to their rights according to the BCO. I remained in the PCA until my deposition.

Why is he so reluctant to admit that he di dn’t have the right to leave without the permission of his presbytery now? With their refusal (which, again, he previously admitted they had the rights to), any options he had under BCO 38.3 were closed to him. And his deposition from office did not automatically free him from his vows; he was not excommunicated. He still needed permission to leave; instead, he “chose not to go back.” He was back in the pulpit just weeks after his deposition from the ministry, preaching to the faction that split EPC. He helped engineer this church split, and the CREC whitewashed it (Matthew 23:27, 28). Even worse, he accuses his Presbytery of “defrauding” him. I fail to see the honor.

Personally, I loved the PCA and was distraught over being dismissed from it but I was not in control. I had been in it for eleven years total, and still think it is a good denomination. I wish it well, have many friends who are pastors in it, and hope it continues to prosper. I do not put upon it the failings of Illiana.

I hope this explains my perspective on the events to any who want to hear. It is impossible to review all these things conclusively, since we don’t have omniscience and access to all the goings on. Those looking from the outside weren’t in the church for the two years leading up to the charges, and cannot know and understand the “body language” nor the personalities that fed into the total mix. Those considerations are real and determined the various paths the conflict took, but are invisible to those outside.

I hope, Michael and Patrick, that you will read this and try to understand some of my actions. Having not been excommunicated, I am still your brother in Christ. I am not the enemy, nor is Christ Church for that matter. Unbelief is the enemy. To that end I do not wish to “haggle” anymore about this affair, having done so quite thoroughly while in it and since. Feel free to respond, but I will be moving on to other endeavors. I do appreciate the opportunity to make my points, even if not accepted.

Sincerely in Jesus Christ,

Burke Shade

Pooh, it seems that almost seven years after he was deposed from the ministry, Burke Shade can’t tell the difference between the truth and the alternate universe he created to justify his rebellion and his continued defiance to the lawfully imposed censures against him. And again, this man is a minister in good standing in the CREC.

Pax,

Patrick

Closing Statements From Burke Shade

Dear Pooh (Patrick and Michael),

After reading through Patrick’s rejoinder, I have several comments and clarifications to add, and then I’ll be finished.

First, Patrick makes much ado about members of EPC leaving and forming a new church, and doing so as peacefully as possible. Because the elders of EPC would not follow the BCO and call a congregational meeting, after having been petitioned to do so by two-thirds of the congregation, that same two-thirds believed the session to be without accountability and no longer desired to be under their leadership. Leaving a church is accounted for under BCO 38-3a:[1] the members left and formed another church, much as the PCA did at her initiation. The BCO acknowledges this right, even referencing BCO 2-2,[2] which establishes that the visible body of Christ is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians. When Cornerstone formed, it became its own denomination of one, and requested the transfer of its members from EPC, to which the Presbytery oversight session agreed (they did not transfer two men). A person may have qualms with Illiana’s interpretation of the BCO, and Cornerstone’s, but it was done in good order and with cooperation from Illiana, as its representatives met several times with the newly formed church, even before my trial ended.

Secondly, BCO 38-3a does allow for a minister to attempt to transfer even during trial, and that’s what I attempted to do. In order to do so, you have to speak with the other body first, and I did so and was sustained in my examination. FORC then asked Illiana to transfer my trial to them, attempting to follow the PCA’s own Book of Church Order, section 38-3a. Illiana turned them down on April 10 or 11, and then proceeded with my last trial date of April 17th (if I remember correctly). At that trial date, they deposed me for “countenancing” actions that led to division. I came to the trial as a member of the PCA, and sat under 14 hours that day of testimony, etc. While FORC has sustained me, I was still in the PCA. They were attempting to get me transferred. Illiana instead deposed me I did not flee the PCA. The Moderator, upon the deposition, told me publicly that I was no longer in the PCA. Illiana has not contacted me since, nor did they assign me to a church as according to the BCO, in cases of deposition. I did not act dishonorably I am out of the PCA and have abided by their censure.

Thirdly, Patrick seems to think that a censure[3] is forever binding. But our own confession, the WCF, chapter 31.2,[4] admits that synods and councils may err, and that those decisions “are not to be made the rule of faith or practice.” I do believe that Illiana’s censure is still binding, and I have not attempted to act as a minister in the PCA since, having been stripped of that right in the PCA. But as only one branch of the church, Illiana’s decisions are only regulative for that branch. Other branches believe it to have erred, and I concur with those believing that. By acknowledging that councils may err, and have done so, the WCF opens up opportunities for reviews of past decisions. And that is exactly was Christ Church did they reviewed Illiana’s decision and came to the conclusion that Illiana erred. Just as the Westminster divines judged about councils of the past, as well as the PCA itself when it formed.

Fourthly, Patrick believes that I broke my vows[5] to attempt to transfer. Nowhere in the vows does it forbid transferring out, and I did submit to my brethren until they removed me. I even was faithful to the PCA amidst persecution and opposition: who has ever heard of charging someone for a sermon preached three years earlier, and it wasn’t even his own sermon? And it was by a missionary that the church supported at the time (and continued to support until my trial), whom I had never met until he preached it!

Lastly, I did not appeal. My membership vows did not require me to do so. Instead, I followed 1 Corinthians 6 and allowed myself to be defrauded. I believed I was wronged, and I let it stop at that for the peace of the church. For Illiana and for Cornerstone and for Carbondale. Illiana was under great pressure to end my trial, for it had dragged on for 5 months, and had been petitioned already once to end it by Brian Chappell, President of CTS and a member of Illiana. Personally, I loved the PCA and was distraught over being dismissed from it but I was not in control. I had been in it for eleven years total, and still think it is a good denomination. I wish it well, have many friends who are pastors in it, and hope it continues to prosper. I do not put upon it the failings of Illiana. I hope this explains my perspective on the events to any who want to hear. It is impossible to review all these things conclusively, since we don’t have omniscience and access to all the goings on. Those looking from the outside weren’t in the church for the two years leading up to the charges, and cannot know and understand the “body language” nor the personalities that fed into the total mix. Those considerations are real and determined the various paths the conflict took, but are invisible to those outside.

I hope, Michael and Patrick, that you will read this and try to understand some of my actions. Having not been excommunicated, I am still your brother in Christ. I am not the enemy, nor is Christ Church for that matter. Unbelief is the enemy. To that end I do not wish to “haggle” anymore about this affair, having done so quite thoroughly while in it and since. Feel free to respond, but I will be moving on to other endeavors. I do appreciate the opportunity to make my points, even if not accepted.

Sincerely in Jesus Christ,

Burke Shade

---

[1] “When a member or officer in the Presbyterian Church in America shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with some other branch (BCO 2-2), if at the time of the attempt to withdraw he is in good standing, the irregularity shall be recorded, his new membership acknowledged, and his name removed from the roll. But if at the time of the attempt to withdraw there is a record of an investigation in process (BCO 31-2), or there are charges (BCO 32-3) concerning the member or minister, the court of original jurisdiction may retain his name on the roll and conduct the case, communicating the outcome upon completion of the proceedings to that member or minister. If the court does not conduct the case, his new membership shall be acknowledged, his name removed from the roll, and, at the request of the receiving branch, the matters under investigation or the charges shall be communicated to them.”

[2] “This visible unity of the body of Christ, though obscured, is not destroyed by its division into different denominations of professing Christians; but all of these which maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity are to be recognized as true branches of the Church of Jesus Christ.”

[3] “3. Church censures are necessary, for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring of others from like offenses, for purging out of that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honour of Christ, and the holy profession of the Gospel, and for preventing the wrath of God, which might justly fall upon the Church, if they should suffer His covenant, and the seals thereof, to be profaned by notorious and obstinate offenders.

“4. For the better attaining of these ends, the officers of the church are to proceed by admonition, suspension from the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper for a season; and by excommunication from the Church, according to the nature of the crime, and demerit of the person.” (WCF XXX, “Of Church Censures”)

[4] “All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”

[5] “3. Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity?

“4. Do you promise subjection to your brethren in the Lord?”

Patrick Responds to Burke Shade

I appreciate Burke Shade addressing my previous comments (aka my “falsehoods”) because he not only vindicates what I had said, he also makes some damning admissions and very curious equivocations. Here’s the play-by-play beginning with Shade’s comments (my rejoinder in brackets):

Dear Pooh,

I would like to respond to several items of interest to me from Patrick’s letter of 3.3.06. Actually, several items of falsehood held on his part. I will intersperse my comments throughout Patrick’s letter. He says:

I should also note that this is not the first time that the Great Leader, Christ Church and the CREC have lawlessly overruled the lawful verdict of another denomination in order to admit a defrocked minister and his renegade congregation into the CREC. In 2000, the session of Christ Church “vindicated” a defrocked PCA minister, Burke Shade, and sponsored a splinter group he lead out from his previous church, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Carbondale, Illinois, for admittance into the CREC.

First of all, I did not lead out a splinter group. Cornerstone Reformed Church left EPC on February 14, 1999, over two months before I was defrocked in April. Two-thirds of the congregation left, not really a “splinter” group. I never attended Cornerstone until after I was defrocked by the PCA. Before I was defrocked, I was accepted in early March of 1999 after examination by the Federation of Reformed Churches, after they had looked into my ongoing trial, contacting parties on both sides extensively. The Federation appealed to Illiana Presbytery, after receiving me, to end the trial and let them finish it, to which Illiana declined, as according to their rights according to the BCO. I remained in the PCA until my deposition.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: There are really two different claims in the section of my post that Shade quotes: 1) that the CREC admitted a man still under censures by the Illiana Presbytery (to my knowledge, they have never been repealed); and 2) that Shade also led a splinter group from the PCA church in Carbondale into the CREC. When he attended Cornerstone is really immaterial and in no way diminishes those two claims: yes, the CREC admitted Shade while he was still (and still is) under censure; and yes, he did lead the splinter group out of the PCA and into the CREC. As Shade admits later, the members who left EPC and formed Cornerstone did so without being released from their membership vows to EPC. By his own admission, that came later. In presbyterian polity, there are few greater violations of the peace and purity of the church than that. Shade also admits that he was received by FORC while he was still on trial by Illiana Presbytery, who (by Shade’s own admission here) did not allow him to be dismissed. Again, in presbyterian polity, there are few greater no-nos than that. It’s really hard to think of a situation in church government where the term “jumping ship” qualifies more. Nowhere does Shade explain the patently bizarre situation of having been received by FORC and still remaining in the PCA. He just asks us to take it for granted that this is a perfectly acceptable option, but it is a contradiction in terms; he cannot have been received by FORC while he was still under covenantal obligations to the PCA. Furthermore, no matter how furiously FORC looked into his ongoing trial; no matter how extensively they contacted the many parties involved; and no matter how fervently they appealed to Illiana Presbytery, they had no authority to judge his ongoing trial and had absolutely every reason NOT to receive Shade into their care (which, in fact, they did). That they did so was to “flip the bird” to their brothers in Illiana Presbytery. That Shade even contemplated the move during his trial demonstrates the utter contempt he had for the lawful jurisdiction of the presbytery.]

As the correspondence between Christ Church and the Illiana Presbytery (PCA) shows, the session of Christ Church “vindicated” Burke without ever contacting the presbytery that had defrocked him or the session of the church he had previously served (see the respective letter exchanges in this issue of P&R News, pp. 18–20, 22).

Again, another falsehood. Before vindicating me, the committee that Christ Church established to look into my trial not only read all the trial documents supplied to them by Illiana, but also had contact with the elders of EPC.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: Again, in terms of presbyterian polity, how bizarre is the bait is that Shade offers us to swallow. If all Christ Church did was ask for the trial documents, that hardly meets the standard of biblical due-diligence required. How about at least a conversation with someone in the presbytery (and not just sending them a letter)? I’m not the only one to raise this point about Christ Church’s “black-box” handling of the matter; Illiana Presbytery itself speaks to Christ Church’s blind vindication of Shade. In Doug Jones’ reply to Illiana Presbytery, the best he can conjure for due-diligence is sending a letter to the prosecutor in the case, who had no authority to respond for the presbytery (since the Christ Church elders represent their prowess in church government, Jones should have known that Mr. DeJong would have no authority to respond, yet he Jones says, “Mr. DeJong declined to make any factual corrections though he was provided with the opportunity”.) If the shoe was on the other foot, and the PCA was being so cavalier in examining a case conducted by the CREC, Doug Wilson and his goons would be howling in protest. And as for contact with the session, Jones says he sent a letter to them. Yep, the Christ Church session really covered all of their bases, didn’t they. But even more than that, my original point still stands: who authorized the session of Christ Church to review the case, let alone issue a “vindication”? Why would Illiana Presbytery and the session of EPC be under any obligation to respond to Christ Church’s investigation? Even if they had responded, it would not have made Christ Church’s “vindication” of Shade any more legitimate.]

Furthermore, who appointed the Christ Church session to review this case? From whence did they derive their jurisdiction? Cornerstone Reformed Church (CRC), asked to join the CRE.

Christ Church was the natural sponsor, since Doug Wilson had spoken to our church at a conference in June of 1999.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: We finally get to the heart of the matter, and all Shade has to offer in explanation is this colossal non sequitur?! I’m really trying to be charitable here, but is Burke Shade really asking your readers and I to believe that because Doug Wilson once spoke at the renegade Cornerstone “Reformed” Church that Wilson’s mere presence empowered Christ Church to wipe Burke’s censure slate clean?! SURELY HE MUST HAVE SOMETHING BETTER THAN THIS!! Just as a reminder, we’re talking Reformed polity here. Didn’t Shade just make a big deal above about how he was in FORC at the time? What did they think of his intended jump to the CREC? Is he admitting that FORC was just a pitstop for him (which it is clear now that it was). How exactly does Shade get from Doug Wilson speaking at his church to a full frontal assault by the Christ Church session on the discipline administered by Illiana Presbytery on Shade? This is not just a question for Shade, it is a question for the Christ Church session and Wilson in particular. Inquiring minds want to know!]

Most telling is this statement from Illiana Presbytery’s response to the Christ Church session:

“Please understand our own concern about your objectivity when we have discovered that at least two elders from Christ Church were in communication with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE as early as February 22, 1999, halfway through the trial.”

This is not true. I did not even know that Doug Wilson had formed a denomination, nor had ever met Doug at this point, only having read several of his family books. I did have phone contact with him as far back as 1998, in order to arrange for him to speak at EPC’s annual theological conference. He was scheduled for March 1999, but in light of the church difficulties, the elders of EPC cancelled in February, not knowing if we would have a church by that time. I was still pastor of the church, though suspened from office, and handled this correspondence. I did not even learn of the CRE until Doug spoke at our conference in June of 1999.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: How this is my supposed falsehood is beyond me. My apparent crime is citing an official letter from Illiana Presbytery, written by a committee charged to respond to Christ Church’s “vindication”. I have to assume that the presbytery made this statement in good faith and on the basis of confirmed evidence. We need more than just Shade’s say-so before we start calling Illiana Presbytery liars.]

If the CRE was already interested in talking with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE then, how are we to conclude that you were able to objectively evaluate our records since then?” (p. 20)

Again, a false assertion by Illiana. Actually, a straw man.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: How does he get a straw man out of this? If Shade was talking to the CRE about jumping ship while he was still on trial in the PCA (which we know from his own mouth that he was trying to jump ship into FORC during his trial), that would be a real man, not a straw man. And in fact it would call Christ Church’s objectivity into question.]

According to the CREC’s own website, it shows that it admitted Shade and his renegade Cornerstone Reformed Church in 2000,

Again, CRC was not renegade. Two-thirds of the church left on February 14, and formed another church. They left peacefully, taking no money or building or furniture or anything at the time. They left everything to EPC, though they were the clear majority. They were subsequently released from membership by Illiana, acting through its borrowed session. Is that the action of a renegade congregation? If so, then Illiana Presbytery is complicit and approving.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: In response to Shade’s query, yes, it is a renegade congregation. It’s hard to think of a more appropriate case for that label. Here Shade admits that the splinter group from EPC formed Cornerstone BEFORE they were ever released from membership. The fact that they left the money, the building, the furniture and Sunday’s leftover cake to EPC does not obscure the cold, hard fact that they were in open rebellion to their membership vows. These were renegades and defiant rebels. And the attempt by Shade to make the presbytery complicit in their treachery makes his calumny even worse. Illiana Presbytery (acting on behalf of the remnants of the EPC session — the two men Shade admitted to slandering) was no more complicit in this rebellion by later releasing those who by their actions made it clear that they had no regard for the authority of the EPC session by leaving and forming another church without a dismissal than the RPCGA is complicit in the Slandering Sproulites present rebellion of publicly renouncing the censures of Westminster Presbytery and efforts to jump ship when they dismissed Sproul and Windham. How did Shade ever get into a position of authority in a presbyterian church, being so plainly ignorant of presbyterian polity?]

even before Christ Church received a response from Illiana Presbytery (which was dated January 7, 2001). If you read the documents from PR News, Christ Church asked for the trial papers earlier than January 2000, because Illiana in January 2000 released them to Christ Church. Christ Church gave a response to them, dated August, 2000.

CRC was admitted to the CRE in October of 2000. Illiana did not respond to the August report until January, 2001. But during all that time Christ Church had been in contact with Illiana and the prosecuting attorney, Brian DeJong.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: Contrary to Shade’s assertion, sending a letter to the prosecutor should not be construed as “being in contact” with Illiana. As I stated earlier, DeJong was not authorized to speak for the presbytery (nor do we know that he even pretended to be or responded to Christ Church’s demands), and it took less than five months for the presbytery to meet (which I assume only meets quarterly, as most PCA presbyteries), to form a committee to respond, and to agree on a formal response. Five months for a presbytery to respond is lightning speed, not painfully slow. What exactly was the pressing need for Shade to jump ship from FORC into the CREC before Illiana could respond? If it was important enough for Christ Church to “vindicate” Shade, surely it was important enough to at least wait for Illiana’s response before he and his renegade congregation were admitted into the CREC. For all we know, Illiana may not have even had their Fall stated meeting before the CREC admitted them in October. Sure the ham-handed authoritarianism of the CREC results in quick action (much like Mussolini made the trains run on time), but it is hardly reflective of the deliberate biblical justice.]

In Shade’s case, he plead guilty I plead guilty to three charges of a personal nature, out of 16 total. and never complained about any unfairness in the trial until AFTER the presbytery had issued its censure,

For Patrick’s benefit, the trial was conducted behind closed doors, and everyone in the trial was muzzled until it was over. Even the congregation of EPC was barred from attending the trial unless they were a witness, and then only on the witness stand.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: This is really rich. I was aware that the trial was in executive session before Shade believed he was making me aware of it. I know how to read. If the trial had been conducted openly, Shade would be complaining now that the presbytery had allowed him to be openly slandered. Trials in executive committee are not unusual in the PCA, or in any presbyterian system, nor are they star chambers, as he seems to intimate. A trial conducted in executive session is intended to protect the reputation of the accused. His trial was not presided over by Judge Roy Bean. Shade would have been examined upon entering the PCA on his knowledge of the BCO (as is required of candidates). When he took his vows, he should have known that this was a possibility. From the charges he faced, Shade should be thankful that his trial was in executive session. There was no abuse here. He also ignores the fact that his suspension from office and suspension from the Lord’s Supper before the trial was done of the basis of HIS OWN ADMISSIONS. He pled guilty to those two charges. He should have faced the music and taken responsibility for his sins. As the presbytery’s letter states, it was Shade’s continued rebellion after the discipline was imposed that made their censures all the more valid.]

which in this case went beyond defrocking and also included a suspension from the Lord’s Supper. Mr. Shade jumped ship from the PCA and was admitted to the CREC,

If Patrick would read his own references, he would see that I was admitted to the FORC first. Also, I did not “jump ship,” but stayed in the PCA throughout my whole trial until being deposed. I did not flee. The PCA kicked me out I did not jump ship. And yes, I chose not to go back.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: I’ll overlook the patronization here, but say that I did read the references thoroughly before I commented on them. Here Shade tries to have it both ways: he was in FORC, but he stayed in the PCA — a contradiction in terms. If there’s one sure rule in Presbyterianism, it’s that you can’t serve two masters. You can’t be in FORC and still be in the PCA. By his own admission, Shade says that he was received into FORC while his trial was still ongoing in the PCA. That he allowed FORC to receive him when he knew he was still under the authority of Illiana Presbytery demonstrates his rebellion, not clears him of it. Asking to be received into another denomination while a trial is still ongoing in another is one of the most fundamental breaches of his membership vows. How could that be considered anything but “fleeing”? And defrocking from office does not constitute the PCA “kicking him out” as he claims. Nowhere does he say that he was ever released from membership in the presbytery; he “chose not to go back”. How’s that for accountability. As I said before, these factors should have been cause for Christ Church to be MORE cautious about having any dealings with Shade, not LESS.]

abandoning any appeals he might have had to the PCA General Assembly.

As for appeals, I spoke with several members on the SJC, and they all acknowledged that if I appealed, they would not rule on the substance of the trial, but only on the procedures, assuming that the lower court was right on the substance. So my best hope was to have the trial remanded back to Illiana! I chose not to go that path because I would not be able to support my family as a minister, since I couldn’t hold office while on appeal. Also, I chose not to go that way so as to not drag CRC through another trial, maybe 18 months to two years later. It was also clear I was not going back to EPC, while I had a congregation willing to have me as their minister.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: Shade’s alleged SJC hearsay is irrelevant. If he didn’t like the justice the PCA administered, he shouldn’t have joined in the first place. He made his choices voluntarily.]

Today Shade is a minister in good standing with the CREC, as is Cornerstone Reformed Church.

Yes, this is true. I am very grateful to Christ Church for all the time the commission spent reading through my trial documents, assessing them, and spending time with Illiana Presbytery in helping them understand the situation. In conclusion, I have been exonerated not only by Christ Church and the CRE, but also the FORC and CRC. I lived my life before the eyes of the people of CRC (and while they were members of EPC), and they wholeheartedly approved of my teachings and life. Additionally, PEF had to look into this whole situation, as some men tried to remove a PEF evangelist who went with CRC. PEF rejected any removal, thus exonerating CRC as well.

[Patrick’s rejoinder: This gets us to the heart of the matter. How can Shade be a member in good standing in the CREC while he is still under lawful censure by another denomination? By what authority did Christ Church exonerate him without receiving any official word from Illiana Presbytery. In yet another way, Shade wants to have it both ways: because he tried to jump ship and was unlawfully received by FORC while he was still bound to the PCA (an in fact, was still in the middle of a trial), he believes his censure slate was wiped clean. But FORC couldn’t have overruled the PCA censures. And making yet another leap from FORC into the CREC not even two years later removes that stain. Christ Church was aiding and abetting Shade’s outrageous rebellion by receiving him while he was still under censure. Just because Shade “chose not to go back” to Illiana didn’t nullify the discipline they lawfully imposed on Shade. He had very clear avenues of legitimate appeal. He forsake those and retreated further into rebellion. How Christ Church was able to “vindicate” Shade, based solely on Doug Wilson’s attendance at a conference at the renegade Cornerstone “Reformed” Church, is still an open question begging for some kind of answer.]

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Patrick, and if he would like to call me up on the phone and talk about this, I would be happy to do so. He can find my phone number on our webpage, cornerstonecrec.org. Please print my comments in whole, and you might italicize them if that would help clarify my answers.

Sincerely in Christ,

Burke Shade

[Patrick’s rejoinder: In conclusion, Shade has not clarified the matter, but obfuscated it even more. I’m glad to help bring it all back into focus for your readers, Pooh. Nowhere has Shade been able to identify any “falsehood” on my part. Saying so does not make it so. Furthermore, my original point still stands unanswered: how did the session of Christ Church arrogate unto itself to “vindicate” a man who at the time was still not a member of the CREC from standing censures imposed by another lawful spiritual authority. Just because you’re a friend of Doug Wilson does not mean you get an ecclesiastical “get out of jail free” card if you come banging on the CREC’s door (though it appears that many believe this to be so — including the Christ Church session). At least they should have pretended that they were acting on some sliver of authority by admitting Shade into the CREC first before “vindicating” him. Instead, they chose naked aggression and deliberate harrumphing. If anything, Shade’s response to my earlier post VINDICATES me, not discredits me. The session of Christ Church had no more authority to clear Burke Shade than the Tooth Fairy. That they allow this rebel to remain in good standing in the CREC is an open scandal. If they had the slightest bit of credibility, they would send him back to Illiana to clear up the matter. That, however, isn’t likely. If there was any frontier justice done in this matter, it was by the session of Christ Church, not Illiana Presbytery.]

Response From Burke Shade

Dear Pooh,

I would like to respond to several items of interest to me from Patrick’s letter of 3.3.06. Actually, several items of falsehood held on his part. I will intersperse my comments throughout Patrick’s letter. He says:

I should also note that this is not the first time that the Great Leader, Christ Church and the CREC have lawlessly overruled the lawful verdict of another denomination in order to admit a defrocked minister and his renegade congregation into the CREC. In 2000, the session of Christ Church “vindicated” a defrocked PCA minister, Burke Shade, and sponsored a splinter group he lead out from his previous church, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Carbondale, Illinois, for admittance into the CREC.

First of all, I did not lead out a splinter group. Cornerstone Reformed Church left EPC on February 14, 1999, over two months before I was defrocked in April. Two-thirds of the congregation left, not really a “splinter” group. I never attended Cornerstone until after I was defrocked by the PCA. Before I was defrocked, I was accepted in early March of 1999 after examination by the Federation of Reformed Churches, after they had looked into my ongoing trial, contacting parties on both sides extensively. The Federation appealed to Illiana Presbytery, after receiving me, to end the trial and let them finish it, to which Illiana declined, as according to their rights according to the BCO. I remained in the PCA until my deposition.

As the correspondence between Christ Church and the Illiana Presbytery (PCA) shows, the session of Christ Church “vindicated” Burke without ever contacting the presbytery that had defrocked him or the session of the church he had previously served (see the respective letter exchanges in this issue of P&R News, pp. 18–20, 22).

Again, another falsehood. Before vindicating me, the committee that Christ Church established to look into my trial not only read all the trial documents supplied to them by Illiana, but also had contact with the elders of EPC.

Furthermore, who appointed the Christ Church session to review this case? From whence did they derive their jurisdiction? Cornerstone Reformed Church (CRC), asked to join the CRE.

Christ Church was the natural sponsor, since Doug Wilson had spoken to our church at a conference in June of 1999.

Most telling is this statement from Illiana Presbytery’s response to the Christ Church session:

“Please understand our own concern about your objectivity when we have discovered that at least two elders from Christ Church were in communication with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE as early as February 22, 1999, halfway through the trial.”

This is not true. I did not even know that Doug Wilson had formed a denomination, nor had ever met Doug at this point, only having read several of his family books. I did have phone contact with him as far back as 1998, in order to arrange for him to speak at EPC’s annual theological conference. He was scheduled for March 1999, but in light of the church difficulties, the elders of EPC cancelled in February, not knowing if we would have a church by that time. I was still pastor of the church, though suspended from office, and handled this correspondence. I did not even learn of the CRE until Doug spoke at our conference in June of 1999.

If the CRE was already interested in talking with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE then, how are we to conclude that you were able to objectively evaluate our records since then?” (p. 20)

Again, a false assertion by Illiana. Actually, a straw man.

According to the CREC’s own website, it shows that it admitted Shade and his renegade Cornerstone Reformed Church in 2000,

Again, CRC was not renegade. Two-thirds of the church left on February 14, and formed another church. They left peacefully, taking no money or building or furniture or anything at the time. They left everything to EPC, though they were the clear majority. They were subsequently released from membership by Illiana, acting through its borrowed session. Is that the action of a renegade congregation? If so, then Illiana Presbytery is complicit and approving.

even before Christ Church received a response from Illiana Presbytery (which was dated January 7, 2001). If you read the documents from P&R News, Christ Church asked for the trial papers earlier than January 2000, because Illiana in January 2000 released them to Christ Church. Christ Church gave a response to them, dated August, 2000.

CRC was admitted to the CRE in October of 2000. Illiana did not respond to the August report until January 2001. But during all that time Christ Church had been in contact with Illiana and the prosecuting attorney, Brian DeJong.

In Shade’s case, he plead guilty I plead guilty to three charges of a personal nature, out of 16 total. and never complained about any unfairness in the trial until AFTER the presbytery had issued its censure,

For Patrick’s benefit, the trial was conducted behind closed doors, and everyone in the trial was muzzled until it was over. Even the congregation of EPC was barred from attending the trial unless they were a witness, and then only on the witness stand.

which in this case went beyond defrocking and also included a suspension from the Lord’s Supper. Mr. Shade jumped ship from the PCA and was admitted to the CREC,

If Patrick would read his own references, he would see that I was admitted to the FORC first. Also, I did not “jump ship,” but stayed in the PCA throughout my whole trial until being deposed. I did not flee. The PCA kicked me out I did not jump ship. And yes, I chose not to go back.

abandoning any appeals he might have had to the PCA General Assembly.

As for appeals, I spoke with several members on the SJC, and they all acknowledged that if I appealed, they would not rule on the substance of the trial, but only on the procedures, assuming that the lower court was right on the substance. So my best hope was to have the trial remanded back to Illiana! I chose not to go that path because I would not be able to support my family as a minister, since I couldn’t hold office while on appeal. Also, I chose not to go that way so as to not drag CRC through another trial, maybe 18 months to two years later. It was also clear I was not going back to EPC, while I had a congregation willing to have me as their minister.

Today Shade is a minister in good standing with the CREC, as is Cornerstone Reformed Church.

Yes, this is true. I am very grateful to Christ Church for all the time the commission spent reading through my trial documents, assessing them, and spending time with Illiana Presbytery in helping them understand the situation. In conclusion, I have been exonerated not only by Christ Church and the CRE, but also the FORC and CRC. I lived my life before the eyes of the people of CRC (and while they were members of EPC), and they wholeheartedly approved of my teachings and life. Additionally, PEF had to look into this whole situation, as some men tried to remove a PEF evangelist who went with CRC. PEF rejected any removal, thus exonerating CRC as well.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to Patrick, and if he would like to call me up on the phone and talk about this, I would be happy to do so. He can find my phone number on our webpage, cornerstonecrec.org. Please print my comments in whole, and you might italicize them if that would help clarify my answers.

Sincerely in Christ,

Burke Shade

The Kirk Kult Playbook

Pooh. . . .

I should also note that this is not the first time that the Great Leader, Christ Church, and the CREC have lawlessly overruled the lawful verdict of another denomination in order to admit a defrocked minister and his renegade congregation into the CREC. In 2000, the session of Christ Church “vindicated” a defrocked PCA minister, Burke Shade, and sponsored a splinter group he lead out from his previous church, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Carbondale, Illinois, for admittance into the CREC. As the correspondence between Christ Church and the Illiana Presbytery (PCA) shows, the session of Christ Church “vindicated” Burke without ever contacting the presbytery that had defrocked him or the session of the church he had previously served (see the respective letter exchanges in this issue of P&R News, pp. 18–20, 22). Furthermore, who appointed the Christ Church session to review this case? From whence did they derive their jurisdiction?

Most telling is this statement from Illiana Presbytery’s response to the Christ Church session:

Please understand our own concern about your objectivity when we have discovered that at least two elders from Christ Church were in communication with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE as early as Febrary 22, 1999, halfway through the trial. If the CRE was already interested in talking with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE then, how are we to conclude that you were able to objectively evaluate our records since then? (p. 20)

According to the CREC’s own website, it shows that it admitted Shade and his renegade Cornerstone Reformed Church in 2000, even before Christ Church received a response from Illiana Presbytery (which was dated January 7, 2001). In Shade’s case, he plead guilty and never complained about any unfairness in the trial until AFTER the presbytery had issued its censure, which in this case went beyond defrocking and also included a suspension from the Lord’s Supper. Mr. Shade jumped ship from the PCA and was admitted to the CREC, abandoning any appeals he might have had to the PCA General Assembly. Today Shade is a minister in good standing with the CREC, as is Cornerstone Reformed Church.

Is any of this sounding familiar to anyone? Does the Kirk Kult ever revise its playbook? How low can the CREC go? Apparently, they are sinking rapidly and aren’t anywhere close to reaching bottom yet, though this is familiar territory for them. They have been here before. Will the members of Christ Church ever put a stop to the Mullah’s madness and mendacity? I’m not holding my breath.

Patrick

REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE PASTOR DOUGLAS WILSON

APPENDIX F
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO EXAMINE PASTOR DOUGLAS WILSON

November 3, 2004

Christ Church
PO Box 8741
Anselm House
Moscow, ID 83843

Dear Congregation,

Greetings in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit!

We are writing you on behalf of the 2004 Presbytery of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. In late August, your session requested that our Presbytery examine Pastor Wilson “in the broad areas of soteriology and sacramentology — especially as they connect to the recent controversy among our reformed brethren.”

We want you to know that the elders of Christ Church did not initiate this examination. The session did not have suspicions about his orthodoxy. They did not think that he needed to defend himself or prove to the world that he was a faithful minister of the gospel. Rather, Pastor Wilson himself brought the matter to their attention. Given the recent controversy over the objectivity of the covenant, he was convinced that such an examination would contribute to the peace of the churches. The session agreed with his assessment, and filed the request with Pastor Randy Booth, moderator of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. It should be clear, therefore, that this examination was not a trial in any way, shape, or form. At his own initiative, Pastor Wilson voluntarily put himself forward to be examined by his fellow presbyters.

In response to your session’s request Pastor Booth assembled a committee to examine Pastor Wilson. Pastor Booth also put together a list of questions. Pastor Wilson answered these questions in writing. At the presbytery meeting, we gave him an oral exam which included questions from the list, as well as many follow-up questions. All of his oral and written answers can be found at http://www.crechurches.org/.

The purpose of this examination was not to determine whether we, as a committee or as fellow presbyters serving in the CREC, agreed with all of Pastor Wilson’s formulations of various points on doctrine. Furthermore, we did not seek to examine his personal views on which the Reformed Confessions are silent. Our purpose was narrow in scope: Are Pastor Wilson’s views on the covenant, salvation, church, and sacraments consistent with the Reformed Evangelical Confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, and the Three Forms of Unity? Does he believe anything which contradicts the fundamental system of doctrine contained in those confessions?

Before the examination began, Pastor Booth reminded the delegates of presbytery of the purpose of the examination:

I want to make a few things clear from the outset of this examination:

1. Pastor Douglas Wilson, having already been properly received by this body as an orthodox, ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is presumed to be such unless proven otherwise. There have been no charges brought against him, thus this is not a judicial trial. It is a voluntary examination requested by the Christ Church session.


2. The CREC is a broad confederation of Reformed churches and thus it represents a variety of views within the scope of historic Reformed thinking. In this examination, it is the goal of the presbytery and her examiners to evaluate, determine and declare whether Pastor Wilson’s views are within that historic scope. Members of the CREC may disagree with Pastor Wilson’s answers at various points and yet both views might still be within the pale of historic Reformed theology.


3. While Christ Church of Moscow, ID, and her pastor Douglas Wilson are members of the CREC, and are thereby entitled to the care and service of our confederation of churches, nevertheless, the particular views of Christ Church, Moscow and her pastor do not represent all the views held by the other member churches and pastors of the CREC. Our constitution and confessions define the parameters of our confederation.

The Preliminary and General Report of the Committee
Following the examination the committee met and discussed Pastor Wilson’s answers. We judged that his views are in complete harmony with the teaching of the reformed tradition. At presbytery we read our preliminary finding which reflects our general conclusion:

Having noted Pastor Wilson’s exceptions and clarifications to the Westminster Confession of Faith, we find him to be fully orthodox; that is, we find him to be in agreement with the system of doctrine contained in the Reformational confessions. We find his teaching to be in conformity to the Reformed Evangelical Confession, the Westminster Confession, and the Three Forms of Unity, which are faithful statements of the doctrine taught in the Scriptures.

Pastor Wilson’s Confessional Views and Exceptions
Since Pastor Wilson, as your minister, is in the process of subscribing to the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Three Forms of Unity it may be helpful for you to know that his exceptions to the Westminster Confession of Faith clearly fall within the pale of orthodoxy. It is important to be reminded that given the historical circumstances of the Reformed confessions and new circumstances and insights into doctrine, exceptions often need to be taken (E.g., the pope is the antichrist). There is a longstanding tradition within American Presbyterianism, including the PCA, that officers may in good faith take exception to certain particulars of the Westminster Standards, if such particular exceptions are not inimical (i.e., hostile or injurious) to the more comprehensive system of doctrine. For example, the PCA’s Book of Church Order (21-4) permits a man to state the specific instances in which he may differ with the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their statements and/or propositions. The court may grant an exception to any difference of doctrine only if in the court’s judgment the candidate’s declared difference is not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine because the difference is neither hostile to the system nor strikes at the vitals of religion.

While our committee is not such a court, we see that our task is somewhat analogous. We are to judge whether these exceptions or clarifications “strike at the vitals of religion.”

Clarification on the Covenant of Works
Pastor Wilson stated that “the ‘covenant of works’ was not meritorious.” In answering Question 44, Pastor Wilson wrote that his concern is not with the word “merit” but with certain medieval conceptions of merit. He denies a “treasury of merit” as a container of a merit substance. If merit is “defined by the terms of the covenant,” he whole heartedly embraces the notion. Technically speaking, Pastor Wilson’s understanding is not an exception but a clarification of the Westminster Confession of Faith. He is willing to speak of merit and the covenant works so long as these concepts function within the context of God’s grace and favor. In his written answer, he pointed out that he is in agreement with Calvin’s statement in the Institutes, where he said, “I ask, what need was there to introduce the word merit, when the value of works might have been fully expressed by another term, and without offence?” (3.15.2)

Furthermore, even if Pastor Wilson had explicitly rejected the Westminster Confession’s teaching on the Covenant of Works, we would not necessarily find him to be outside the reformed tradition. Prof. Jelle Faber was a professor theology at the Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches. He noted that the Covenant of Works is not essential to Reformed theology. The Covenant of Works is absent from the Three Forms of Unity, the confessional standards of most reformed churches in the continental tradition. Faber wrote,

But the question must arise: Can man ever earn anything in relation to God? The Belgic Confession states in Article 24, speaking about man’s sanctification and good works: Therefore we do good works, but not to merit by them (for what can we merit?); nay, we are indebted to God for the good works we do, and not He to us, since it is He who worketh in us both to will and to work, for His good pleasure. Would this confession be valid only for the life in the covenant of God’s grace and not also for the covenant in the Paradise situation? The question “For what can we merit?” is a strong and striking rhetorical statement concerning the basic structure of the relation between God and man, Creator and creature. Each and every breath was a gift of God of life, and the creation of man as the image of God was fruit of God’s favour. (http://spindleworks.com/library/faber/cov_works.htm).

Justification
This committee is aware of the widespread misrepresentation of Pastor Wilson’s adherence to the cardinal doctrine of justification by faith alone. Pastor Wilson took no exceptions to the Westminster Confession of Faith on justification, and readily insisted that justification is by faith alone. He was clear in his affirmation that no works or merit enter into our standing before God. The work of Christ alone is the ground of our justification, and faith is the alone instrument.

The Sabbath
Pastor Wilson took a very minor exception to the Westminster Confession’s view of the Sabbath. In answering Question 3, he stated that he does not believe “that the intention of Scripture was to exclude recreation, especially in the context of the fellowship of God’s people.” Again, this exception falls well within the stream of reformed thought. Many within conservative Presbyterian denominations have taken a more substantial exception to the Westminster Confession of Faith’s exposition of the Fourth Commandment.

Further, it is interesting to note that the reformed tradition allows for differing views on the Sabbath. For example, the Hiedelberg Catechism does not prohibit recreation,

103. Q. What does God require in the fourth commandment? A. First, that the ministry of the gospel and the schools be maintained and that, especially on the day of rest, I diligently attend the church of God to hear God’s Word, to use the sacraments, to call publicly upon the LORD, and to give Christian offerings for the poor. Second, that all the days of my life I rest from my evil works, let the LORD work in me through His Holy Spirit, and so begin in this life the eternal sabbath.

Also, the lesser known Genevan Catechism, written by Calvin, states just as clearly that “the observance of rest is part of the old ceremonies, it was abolished by the advent of Christ” (Q 170); “it is ceremonial” (171); and that what is “beyond ceremony” is that it is “to figure spiritual rest; for the preservation of ecclesiastical polity; and for the relief of slaves” (172–173). This is the very three-fold purpose discussed in the Institutes. In answer to the question (181), “What order, then, is to be observed on that day?” He says merely, “That the people meet to hear the doctrine of Christ, to engage in public prayer, and make profession of their faith.” He maintains strongly, “In regard to the ceremony, I hold that it was abolished, as the reality existed in Christ (Col. 2:17).” Finally he asks (185), “What of the commandment then remains for us? Not to neglect the holy ordinances which contribute to the spiritual polity of the Church; especially to frequent sacred assemblies, to hear the word of God, to celebrate the sacraments, and engage in the regular prayers, as enjoined.”

Pastor Wilson’s view of the Sabbath is clearly within the bounds of the reformed confessional tradition. Indeed, his view only slightly differs from the Westminster Confession.

Visible and Invisible Church
Is Pastor Wilson’s understanding of the visible/invisible church distinction true to the Westminster Confession? It should be noted that Pastor Wilson did not take an exception to the Confession on the language of visible/invisible Church (Westminster Chapter 25). His only exception on Chapter 25, “Of the Church,” is found in paragraph 6:

Though we believe the Pope of Rome to be anti-Christian, we do not believe him necessarily to be the Anti-Christ, Man of Lawlessness, or Beast of Revelation, etc.

This is not a controversial exception and is often taken within conservative Confessional presbyteries.

In the oral exam, Pastor Wilson made clear that he accepted the Westminster distinction on the visible/invisible Church. He embraces the theological reality that all the elect from all ages are an invisible church.

His concern, however, was with absolutizing the distinction between the visible and invisible church to the point that we view them as two different entities. This division leads to many practical and pastoral aberrations. He repeated that a distinction between the visible/invisible distinction should not lead to a disparaging of the visible church. He did not deny the theological reality of all the company of the elect as an invisible Church, but that we cannot by believing in that deny the reality of the current/visible/actual church.

In this he is simply following the thought of Prof. John Murray of Westminster Seminary (Philadelphia) who warned against the dangers of turning a legitimate distinction into an absolute separation. There are not two churches, visible and invisible. There is one church with visible and invisible aspects (Murray, Collected Works, 2:231–236).

Pastoral wisdom must admit great abuse of this distinction which has now become a division. Many evangelical Christians are not, de facto, members of the visible church. They waft from church to church with no stability. The Westminster Confession clearly states that “the visible Church . . . is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation” (WCF 25:2). Moreover, to the “catholic visible Church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God . . . and doth, by His own presence and Spirit, according to His promise, make them effectual thereunto” (25:3). The abuse of our own day is that many believe the effectual working of the Spirit is outside the visible Church.

Pastor Wilson’s clarifications suggest the need for additional distinctions, such as the historical and the eschatological church. The eschatological church and the invisible church have the same roster. The one church, insists Pastor Wilson, has visible, invisible, historical, and eschatological aspects which we can distinguish. The Confession acknowledges an eschatological dimension of the Church saying, “there shall be always a Church on earth, to worship God according to His will” (25:5).

In light of the Confession’s full teaching (chapter 25), we judge that Pastor Wilson’s clarifications and pastoral admonitions are not only consistent with the Westminster Confession, but are quite consistent with the early Reformed Confessions (Belgic Confession, Second Helvetic Confession, etc.) that know no visible/invisible distinction. Moreover, the cautions of Pastor Wilson are a helpful reproof in light of the denigration of the visible Church. The Bible makes plain, there is “one body” (Eph. 4:4, 1 Cor. 12:12).

Paedo-Communion
Pastor Wilson clarified “that the ‘worthy receivers’ of the Lord’s Supper may include all baptized covenant members who are able to physically eat and drink the elements, including very young children being raised in the discipline and admonition of the Lord (provided that they are not under discipline.) He holds to a form of paedo-communion. Many of the churches of the CREC not only hold this view but also practice it.

It is interesting to note that many presbyteries in the OPC and PCA allow ministers to take an exception here to the Westminster Confession. Though neither of these denominations allow children to partake of the Eucharist in virtue of their baptism, many of their churches allow young children to commune at the table. Although we recognize that few Presbyterian and Reformed Churches practice paedo-communion, the members of this committee are convinced that it is an obvious application of Covenant Theology. Communion is a sign and seal of the covenant for all covenant members.

Conclusion
Brothers and sisters, we want you to know that Pastor Wilson is a faithful minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He loves Jesus. He loves the church of Jesus Christ. We have personally witnessed his dedication to gospel ministry. We are pleased to serve our Lord together with him within the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. We are delighted to call him our brother. All of us can say — without any hesitation — that Pastor Wilson’s teaching has greatly influenced our ministries. He is a great blessing to us all.

Congregation, receive Pastor Wilson with all joy and thanksgiving. We encourage your continued confidence in Pastor Wilson as he watches over your souls with the other elders of Christ Church. He is a minister in good standing in the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and he is robustly orthodox. We are convinced that Presbyterian and Reformed churches can learn much from him. “Remember those who rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct. . . . Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive to them, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must given account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you (Heb. 13:7, 17).

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be upon you!

Yours servants in Christ,

Jeffrey Niell, Pastor of Emmanuel Covenant Church, Phoenix, AZ
Burke Shade, Pastor of Cornerstone Reformed Church, Carbondale, IL
Gregg Strawbridge, Pastor of All Saints’ Presbyterian, Lancaster, PA
Dennis Tuuri, Pastor of Reformation Covenant Church, Oregon City, OR
Garry Vanderveen, Pastor of Christ Covenant Church, Langley, BC, Canada
(Minutes of the 8th Annual Meeting of Presbytery of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, 86–92)

CREC Minutes Regarding Wilson’s Examination

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2004
Presbytery reconvened at 8:00 am. . . .

The presbytery meeting opened the day with a special examination, requested by the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID, of their pastor, Douglas Wilson, by a committee comprised of Jeff Niell, Burke Shade, Gregg Strawbridge, Dennis Tuuri, and chairman Garry Vanderveen. The examination was opened with an introduction and prayer by Moderator Randy Booth and continued with questions, primarily concerning issues of soteriology and sacramentology, from the committee directed to Pastor Wilson. The following introduction was read by Moderator Booth:

Welcome

At times, presbyteries have taken on a life of their own, losing sight of the fact that they exist for the purpose of serving both their member churches as well as the broader Church. In governing and serving the Church of Jesus Christ, presbyteries are ministers of God. Moreover, their service encompasses both ordinary and extraordinary tasks. From time to time a particular need arises in the Church that calls for special action on the part of a presbytery. These actions are important because they offer assistance in a variety of forms including, but not limited to, assessment, judgment, guidance, discipline, affirmation, and declaration.

This confederation of churches, the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals, has received a specific request by one of her member churches to assist her in a controversy. No church is immune from controversy. God’s people take seriously their faith, and thus they do have differences and their differences are often seen by the world. We cannot make light of the smallest truth. As a result, we find that conflicts arise among us, whereas the ungodly differ little over religious things because there is little to differ about. This is not a unity or a peace that is to be desired. Church historian William Cunningham observed:

It holds almost universally true in the history of the church, that until a doctrine has been fully discussed in a controversial way by men of talent and learning taking opposite sides, men’s opinions regarding it are generally obscure and indefinite, and their language vague and confused, if not contradictory. [William Cunningham, Historical Theology (Carlisle, PA, Banner of Truth Trust [1862], 1979). 1:179.]

There is a current controversy that has been brewing in Reformed circles for several years. It involves numerous people with a variety of views and motives. Like most controversies the waters are quickly muddied with accusations, misrepresentations and shrill voices being raised. Thankfully, most of Christendom is blissfully ignorant or willfully ignoring this “tempest in a teapot.” Nevertheless, it is our teapot and our desire is to see the tempest calmed, if possible. We are not so naive as to think we can stop all the troublers of Israel or satisfy every possible concern. However, it is our hope and prayer that perhaps we can answer some questions and bring greater clarity to the issues at hand and in the end be of genuine assistance to Christ’s Church.

One of the principle persons involved in this current controversy is the pastor of Christ Church, Moscow, ID. Douglas Wilson has not only been a prominent pastor in his own church and community, but has also gained a much broader following across the country by way of his writing, speaking and many other ministries. As a result, his influence and reputation impact many. He has recently been under attack from a variety of quarters, including those on the other side of the current controversy known as “The Federal Vision.” He was a speaker at the 2003 and 2004 Auburn Avenue Pastors’ Conference in Monroe, LA where a variety of speakers addressed a number of topics related to the covenant. Pastor Wilson has subsequently written and spoken extensively on these subjects.

Therefore, the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID has formally requested that our “Confederation conduct an examination of Douglas Wilson, a minister in good standing, before presbyters, in the broad doctrinal areas of soteriology and sacramentology — especially as they connect to the recent controversy among our Reformed brethren.” The Christ Church session offered, as part of their rationale for such an exam, the following:

“. . . our brothers in the RPCUS Presbytery have formally requested that we, the Christ Church session, charge Pastor Wilson before a tribunal. The RPCUS has also denounced Pastor Wilson as a heretic. (We believe their grounds for this charge are badly justified and their pronouncement ill-founded, based upon their neglect of basic biblical norms of inquiry and process. Nonetheless, the RPCUS is a communion with whom we want to enjoy fellowship.)

The RPCUS pronouncement has led to a deplorable situation. Their pronouncement has circulated widely and has bred a culture of misinformation and ungodly suspicion against our Pastor. Now there are some who have followed their lead and have taken up the cry of heresy. It has reached a point somewhat analogous to what Paul faced in his ministry, and we believe Paul’s example justifies our request. When Paul arrived in Jerusalem he was informed by James that, among God-fearing Jews, false reports were circulating about his teaching (Acts 21). Though it would have been permissible for Paul to let the matter lie (he is innocent until proven guilty), he still followed James’ counsel and went out of his way to vindicate himself against false reports. On several other occasions Paul defended his ministry even though the accusations against him were frivolous (e.g., Gal. 1:11ff., 1 Cor. 9, and 2 Cor. 11; he says in another place, “We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed, but in all things we commend ourselves as ministers to God. . .” — 2 Cor. 6:3–4). . . . Paul did not remain silent. Instead, Paul mustered positive evidence that would clear his name and his ministry in the face of accusations against him.”

I want to make a few things clear from the outset of this examination:

1. Pastor Douglas Wilson, having already been properly received by this body as an orthodox, ordained minister of the gospel of Jesus Christ, is presumed to be such unless proven otherwise. There have been no charges brought against him, thus this is not a judicial trial. It is a voluntary examination requested by the Christ Church session.


2. The CRE is a broad confederation of Reformed churches and thus it represents a variety of views within the scope of historic Reformed thinking. In this examination, it is the goal of the presbytery and her examiners to evaluate, determine and declare whether Pastor Wilson’s views are within that historic scope. Members of the CRE may disagree with Pastor Wilson’s answers at various points and yet both views might still be within the pale of historic Reformed theology.


3. While Christ Church of Moscow, ID and her pastor Douglas Wilson are members of the CRE, and are thereby entitled to the care and service of our confederation of churches, nevertheless, the particular views of Christ Church, Moscow and her pastor do not necessarily represent all the views held buy the other member churches and pastors of the CRE. Our constitution and confessions define the parameters of our confederation.


4. The committee’s questions have been compiled by the moderator and the examining committee, drawing from a variety of other sources and points of view, including some from those hostile to the Federal Vision. Moreover, several prominent opponents to the Federal Vision were invited to offer questions but declined to participate in this process. Our desire is to be thorough and fair.

We have no illusions that this will satisfy everyone. Nevertheless, it is our hope that by Pastor Wilson’s willingness to submit to his ministerial peers and also by establishing a record of his responses to the various questions of the committee, that many will be helped and that the peace of Christ’s Church will be advanced. (Minutes of the 8th Annual Meeting of Presbytery of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, 7–9)

Louisiana Presbytery’s October stated meeting

P&R News, Volume 8, Number 4, October–December 2002

Louisiana
October stated meeting
The 72nd stated meeting of Louisiana Presbytery was hosted by the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisiana, on October 19, 2002. Mr. Rich Lusk brought a sermon from Isaiah 11:1–10, and the Auburn Avenue Session administered the Lord’s Supper.

Mr. Lusk was examined and approved for ordination as assistant pastor at the Auburn Avenue Church, with a package of $42,500. He noted the following exceptions to the Standards of the PCA:

1. paedocommunion: he believes that baptized children should be included in the Lord’s Supper, contrary to WLC 177 and BCO 58-2;


2. he does not believe that general family recreation is unlawful on the Lord’s Day, contrary to WCF 21-8, WSC 61, and WLC 119;


3. he does not think that the term “covenant of works” (cf. WCF 7-2) is an accurate way of expressing the pre-fall relationship of God with man, and prefers the term “covenant of life”;


4. he believes that the private administration of baptism is permissible in extreme (emergency) situations, contrary to BCO 56-2;


5. he believes that suspension from the Lord’s table should not be differentiated from excommunication, contrary to WCF 30-4, BCO 30-3 and 36-5;


6. he subscribes to Calvin’s four office view (pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon) contrary to BCO 8-1 and 8-4.

The Rev. Dr. Jim Jones, the Stated Clerk of Presbytery, recorded his negative vote on approving the portion of the ordination examination which covered the sacraments. . . . Presbytery elected the following officers for 2003: Stated Clerk, Jim Jones; Treasurer, Volney Pierce; Moderator, William R. Smith.

The Rev. Steve Wilkins gave the closing devotional on Isaiah 64.