“The decisions of the assemblies with regard to the local congregation are spiritually authoritative, but practically advisory.” CREC Constitution
On October 3, 2015, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) posted an “Announcement” to its website, which they titled Inquiry into the Pastoral Ministry of Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho). The reader should pay close attention to the exact language of this announcement, because it clearly states the objective, scope, and terms of the inquiry:
Announcement
Inquiry into the Pastoral Ministry of Christ Church (Moscow, Idaho)
October 3, 2015The CREC began a process a couple of weeks ago aimed at addressing the legitimate questions and concerns regarding some of the past actions and practices of two cases of sexual abuse. We take these matters seriously and seek to address them fully. In keeping with the CREC Constitution and our regular church order, the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID, has invited the presiding ministers of each presbytery to inquire into the pastoral care and counseling ministry of Christ Church, with particular regard to their handling of sexual abuse cases, not excluding the two cases that have been the subject of some recent controversy. In short, are their practices in this area operating within a biblical framework and consistent with the law? Are they operating competently and in good faith?
This invitation means that under the direction of their chair, the committee is invited to ask any questions of members of the Christ Church session and pastoral staff, and they can have complete access to their minutes, records, files, etc. Christ Church is asking this committee to issue a public report in the next few months. Moreover, they have requested that the presiding ministers satisfy themselves as to the health and soundness of their pastoral care in such circumstances, and to provide them with their counsel and advice where they see any deficiencies.
Pastor Douglas Wilson is the current Presiding Minister of the CREC Council, and he has recused himself in this matter. As the current Presiding Minister pro tempore of the CREC Council, I will assume the role of Presiding Minister of Council in these matters and will chair the committee of the seven presiding ministers of our presbyteries, which I have appointed to this review committee.
Randy Booth
Acting Presiding Minister, CREC Council
- “Inquiry” — Not an Investigation
This is an “inquiry” only; it is not an investigation — hence the first word of the title — “Inquiry.” The CREC Constitution makes no provision for investigations and therefore the CREC, which is a confederation and not a presbytery, contra the misleading language of its constitution, has no constituted authority to conduct investigations into any of its churches.
- Invitation Only & “Informal”
. . . the session of Christ Church, Moscow, ID, has invited the presiding ministers of each presbytery to inquire . . . This invitation means that under the direction of their chair, the committee is invited to. . . . (Announcement, emphasis added)
If Christ Church had not invited the CREC to form this committee to conduct this inquiry, then this matter would die because, as noted, the CREC has no authority to conduct an investigation. Presumably, the Kirk elders invited the CREC committee to make inquiry pursuant to this clause in the CREC Constitution:
“Nothing in this section prevents local churches from seeking, or the broader assemblies from offering, informal counsel and advice. To the contrary, it is strongly encouraged as the best way of avoiding needless appeals and referrals.” (Article IV, Section D, Subsection 1)
By inviting this CREC committee to conduct this inquiry, the Kirk elders have sought “informal counsel and advice” from the broader assemblies, which the CREC Constitution encourages. However, please note the word “informal.” The CREC Constitution uses this term to modify the words “counsel and advice.” This committee may only offer “informal counsel and advice.”
The CREC omitted the modifier “informal” in its announcement, stating, “to provide them with their counsel and advice . . .” But this omission does not change the status of the committee’s counsel and advice. It remains strictly informal. It has no official standing. It means nothing.
- Scope
The announcement states the scope of the inquiry, specifying the two questions the CREC committee will seek to answer:“In short, are their [Christ Church’s] practices in this area operating within a biblical framework and consistent with the law? Are they operating competently and in good faith?”
The announcement limits the persons with whom the CREC committee will speak:
“. . . the committee is invited to ask any questions of members of the Christ Church session and pastoral staff. . .”
To be clear, the CREC Constitution does not permit this CREC committee to interview actual witnesses to determine, or corroborate, the veracity of the Kirk elders’ answers. They may only ask questions of Kirk officers.
And the announcement limits the documentation that the CREC committee may review during this inquiry:
“. . . and they can have complete access to their minutes, records, files, etc.”
Again, the CREC Constitution does not permit the CREC committee to double-check the accuracy of the Kirk minutes, records, and files. For example, they may not check with the sheriff’s office to confirm that Steven Sitler was never arrested and that the Kirk elders falsified their minutes. They must satisfy themselves with the Kirk record. This point is important because according to Mr. Wilson, the Kirk minutes documented what he reported to the elders. He wrote:
Every point in this paragraph is taken from a transcript of every reference to Steven Sitler in our elder minutes from 2005 to the present.
Steven was caught in March of 2005. I counseled the father of the victim. . . . The following week I informed the elders. . . . On July 7, I reported to the elders. . . . In October the elders were informed. . . . (A Reluctant Response, emphasis original)
Similarly, on September 29 Mr. Wilson scrubbed hundreds of comments from his blog, so even if the CREC Constitution permitted the committee to consider them as part of the record, which it does not, he has cut off that loose end. Therefore, the committee will not see Mr. Wilson’s written statements that Andrew Sandlin described as “coddling pedophiles, publicly mocking godly critics, and favoring convicted sex abusers over their victims.”
- Doug Wagging
Pastor Doug Wilson of Christ Church, Moscow, successfully wrote the CREC Constitution to insulate himself from accountability while simultaneously creating the illusion that he is subject to denominational accountability. Mr. Wilson has now invited the CREC to form a committee to ask questions of Kirk officers whom he appointed. Likewise, this committee will review the primary record of documentation that he created. Given these facts, only one question remains unanswered: Has Mr. Wilson already drafted the final report that the CREC committee will adopt?
And then there is the example of the right way to do things. Sadly, the CREC doesn’t seem to have any use for the experience and wisdom of Boz T.
“Are abuse survivors best served when institutions investigate themselves?”
Thanks for the link. That’s a great piece by Boz T. Of course, Wilson denies the CREC inquiry is internal:
What a little smart-ass.
The notion that the CREC has put together a fair and balanced committee of inquiry on the premise that four of the men involved are opposed to Wilson is just simply false. Randy Booth is coming to the aid of his good friend, Douglas Wilson, in these matters by moderating such a committee. If the CREC was really interested in a proper and transparent judgement, Booth would recuse himself from this position and a third party would be entertained.
After all, Randy is still advertising New St. Andrews on his blog and is obviously connected personally to both the institutions of Christ Church and Douglas Wilson. In fact, for years, the two men headed up the leadership of the CREC as the senior leaders of the fledgling denomination. Randy Booth was/is also a counselor and ministerial trainer to the men who now serve as presiding ministers in the tiny presbyteries they maintain—the very people on this supposedly unbiased and balanced committee! This is the same Randy Booth whose son was busted for drugs at NSA but never given over to law enforcement by Wilson. The same Randy Booth that just wrote a book with Wilson. They are not merely professional acquaintances but very good friends. Thinking this CREC Inquiry is going to accomplish anything of substance seems very naive to anyone who is actually familiar with the CREC.
Accountability is especially unlikely given that one of the seven committee members is the father-in-law of an elder on the Christ Church Session yet appears uninterested in recusing himself.
“Randy Booth was/is also a counselor and ministerial trainer to the men who now serve as presiding ministers in the tiny presbyteries they maintain”
@Kevin D. Johnson: Where is the documentation for that? That’s post-worthy but I don’t see the names of the presiding ministers on the CREC website.
@Menelaus: Where are the commissioners named?
I know this from personal experience — I spent five years in the CREC. Their notion of patriarchy and ministerial training emphasizes local church training and respecting older and more experienced ministers.
You can find the list of presbyteries here ( http://crechurches.org/churches ). My guess is you’ll have to wait until the 2015 meeting minutes are published in order to find out exactly who presides on each presbytery ( http://crechurches.org/documents/ ). Keep in mind that this is a very small organization overall historically.
Just a little digging from a friend on FB:
Anselm Presbytery
Presiding Minister: Pastor Bogumil ‘Bubu’ Jarmulak
Email: jarmulak@gmail.com
Presbytery Web Site: anselmpresbytery.wordpress.com
Athanasius Presbytery
Presiding Minister: Pastor Rich Lusk
Email: rwlusk@bellsouth.net
Presbytery Web Site: athanasiuscrec.wordpress.com
Augustine Presbytery
Presiding Minister: Pastor Duane Garner
Email: dgarner@christkirknc.com
Presbytery Web Site: augustinepresbytery.com
Calvin Presbytery
Presiding Minister: Pastor Garrett Craw
Email: pastor@christchurchscv.com
Presbytery Web Site: garrettcraw.wix.com/calvin-presbytery
Knox Presbytery
Presiding Minister: Pastor Alan Burrow
Email: PastorBurrow@thekingscongregation.com
Presbytery Web Site: knox.crecpresbytery.org
Tyndale Presbytery
Presiding Minister: Pastor Burke Shade
Email: shade79@gmail.com
Presbytery Web Site: tyndale-crec.org
Wycliffe Presbytery
Presiding Minister: Pastor Todd Davis
Email: tdavis@christchurchsearcy.com
Presbytery Web Site: wycliffepresbytery.org
@Kevin D. Johnson: Thank you!
@Menelaus: Who is the father-in-law?
I don’t know about the other presbyteries, but I believe Eric Sauder is actually Tyndale’s PM now, not Burke Shade.
Obviously I’m not skilled in Newspeak, but how is a CREC investigation of a CREC church, NOT an internal investigation?
Unless, it’s an internal “inquiry,” so technically he’s right?
Hi Rachel — Actually, it’s called “dougspeak,” but you’re close because of its Orwellian dialect. Here’s his argument:
If I understand him correctly, he’s saying that since the CREC is not inquiring into the CREC, it therefore does not qualify as “internal.”
Pretty sure Boz would disagree with that clarification
@Kevin, the CREC website lists different PMs. Not sure which is correct. Click each presbytery to see name (http://crechurches.org/churches/).
@Ulysses, Jeremy Bunch (listed here: http://www.christkirk.com/our-church/staff/) is married to Alan Burrow’s daughter. Burrow is PM of Knox Presbytery.
It’s my understanding that the list I provided is the most up-to-date one.
I think the logical fallacy here is: distinction without a difference.
I work for the federal government, administering a research grant program that funds scientists. We have conflict of interest standards that guide how we conduct peer review, the process where we ask other scientists to evaluate grant proposals.
Under our rules, if Professor A has coauthored anything with Professor B within 48 months, B cannot have anything to do with evaluations of A’s work.
Apparently the federal government has higher conflict of interest standards than the CREC.
Maybe I’m too optimistic, but I think the CREC inquiry conclusions could surprise us for the better. At least I think it’s possible. Two reasons this could turn out to be the case: (1) the announcement spoke of “legitimate questions” concerning Wilson’s handling of the Sitler/Wight matters–I know that sounds thin, but consider this–they didn’t have to use the word “legitimate;” and (2) not every major player in the CREC has rushed to Wilson’s defense–at least one has publicly scolded him. In fact, how many CREC pastors are defending Wilson publicly? This may be their chance to do something right. I’m not expecting anything dramatic, like defrocking he-who-has-never-been-frocked, but I think we may see positive movement here. Not a prediction by any means, but some hope.
You are too optimistic.