14 responses to “Credenda’s Agenda”

1. 

   Tamara

   Monday, June 30, 2003

   Wow. I haven’t checked out C/A for a while…months upon months… I’ve read online but now I’m thinking I don’t want to! LOL I have some cynical tendancies that make me appreciate his humour but I definitely have to be in a certain mood for it and I guess I haven’t been. Perhaps it’s because it does go on so. Overkill. We enjoy listening to DW sermons online though and we do have the Modesty set. Hmm, does sound like a contradiction… For sure, I’m with you all the way on Kinkade…bleck.

   Reply
2. 

   Douglas Stambler

   Thursday, August 7, 2003

   Doug Wilson’s church is falling, and I’m going to need assistance in helping members of his church move away from that twisted theology of his.

   Please e-mail me if you would like to contribute to a newsletter to his church members, after the church falls.

   Thanks.

   In Christ,
   Douglas Stambler
   (Pullman, WA)

   Reply
3. 

   Des

   Monday, August 11, 2003

   I wonder what the members of “Doug Wilsons church” will say when Mr. Stambler shows up to move them to his church. “We’re going where? Why??”. And what is this twisted theology?

   Des
   (Joliet, IL)

   Reply
4. 

   Marysue

   Monday, August 11, 2003

   Des,

   D. Stambler doesn’t have a church, he has an agenda to take out Christ Church. It’s absolutely NOT the same as anything I have “against” Doug Wilson.

   I have read Doug Wilson’s books for several years now, and have really enjoyed much he has had to say about issues and Christianity, etc. I’ve become a more critical reader of his things since AAPC 2002 though.

   On this weblog I have written quite a few times about Doug Wilson. Mr. Stambler takes this as evidence that I’m on his “side”. I am not on his or anyone’s “side”.

   I do firmly believe that some of his teachings are in error, that his desire to change some of the language we use particularly in Reformed circles is unneccesary –even dangerous. It does not make him a “heretic” to be hedging on Truth’s edge, I sure hope there is a high hedge on it’s edge.

   Doug Wilson just seems, from down in the hinterling areas of the US, to be creating a Mecca in ID. This is subjective and purely not something that we all can understand outside of Moscow. Mr. Stambler is the loan voice of dissent, but it’s not so cut and dry. His agenda goes far beyond “heretical teachings” He’s not fond of the Reformed faith, Calvin, and so much more. He despises it.

   No person that despises the Reformed faith is my close ally. Allies are folk that believe the same things, with differences being in little things. Between D.S. and D.W., who’d be considered my ally? D.W.

   I have seen no evidence that Christ Church is “falling apart”, it may be true, but that will have to wait for better reporting from that part of the Country.

   Mr. Stambler has made some very heavy accusations around the interent, about the personage of Doug Wilson. I have nothing to do with that. I have no agenda against him [D. Wilson] as a person. I have desire for him to stay in the Reformed faith and not have him saying that he is, but that I’m {me} not really “Reformed”.

   That’s in a nutshell, the gist of why I’m more careful with D. Wilson writings and sermons.

   As for the “twisted theology” that D. Stambler refers to: it’s some scandalous stuff “said to be going on in Moscow”, as well as Calvinism, Reformed stuff in general.

   I’d love to hear someone in Moscow truly report on the condition of Christ Church. D. Stambler ain’t the one to do it. Neither am I. I just know that I’ve heard and read “troubling things” in D. Wilsons AAPC 2002 stuff as well as Post AAPC 2002. The sarcasm coming out of Moscow has gotten very stale and moldy as well. Straight talk has a high place in understanding what someone is talking about. I’m waiting for it, still.

   Reply
5. 

   Tamara (AK)

   Tuesday, August 12, 2003

   I’m still relatively new to all this Reformed stuff… As a result, I find this contraversy a tad confusing. What’s your opinion of H. King’s analysis of D. Wilson/AAPC 2002? Also, could you define your use of the term “mecca”? I know what my dictionary says and if you mean “creating a place that people with certain interests are eager to visit” than I’d say he’s certainly done that and as long as he’s on the up-n-up theologically you can count on us stopping in the Kirk the next time we’re visiting relatives in Spokane. If you mean creating a place of worship revolving around *him*, that is obviously wrong and worthy of great concern. If you mean creating a cohesive *community* based on a certain denominational faith, well, I see some definite benefits. It seems there are others out there with the same idea. P. Lancaster/Misty Mtn., RCJr./Highlands Study Center. (Forgive me, I could be associating wrong names w/ wrong places, etc. Like I said, I’m still relatively new to all of this.) In which case, the problem w/ him creating this kind of community is *if* his theology is wrong…correct? I’m probably stepping in where I have no intellectual right to be…

   Reply
6. 

   Marysue

   Tuesday, August 12, 2003

   Tamara,

   I understand that this is a confusing issue. It is for newcomers to the Reformed faith, and for folks in it a long time already.

   There are a few basic issues that are dividing the Reformed into particular camps. Not every camp is unto itself, it’s very mixed up.

   There’s:
   Paedocommunion – and this issue isn’t two-sided, it multi-faceted

   Norman Shepherd or “Sheperdism”
   Kinnard of the OPC

   New Perspective on Paul or “NPP”

   These things are tangled together and not always easy to see clear lines of distinction.

   In 2002 at the AAPC in Monroe, LA, four men, now known as “The Monroe Four” spoke on the relationship of the covenant.

   To put it mildly, it stirred up a hornets nest.

   If you are able to download the Mp3’s from Sermon Audio still, you can find them on Schlissel’s part of that site. There are 13 separate Mp3’s to download.

   In these lectures, things were said that put Justification by Faith Alone aside. New paradigms were introduced. It was troubling to listen to them, and really, worse than that.

   In June of that year, the RPCUS came out with a document against NPP, and a document calling on the authority of the churches the Monroe Four are with, to look into their “heretical teachings”. These documents were released together and caused quite a stir. They were separate documents, but had become glued at the hip by the internet community overnight

   The men were said to be “teaching heretical things” and were NOT called “heretics”.

   Unfortunately sides were drawn and mud began to fly back and forth. Each side claims the other slang the mud only. It was on both sides, but it must be noted that the side the Monroe Four were on got quite nasty, and D.W. continued to issue forth sarcastic writings, instead of serious answers.

   In the AAPC 2002 audio, the Westminster Confession of faith was mocked somewhat, and “Southern Presbyterians” were accused of being nothing more than “Reformed Baptists”. The most noteworthy “Southern Presbyterians” would be the ones in the RPCUS, which is the denomination the church we are members of is in. So we’ve seen this whole thing firsthand.

   The role that faith plays in our salvation, justification and sanctification has been re-worded, at best it’s a re-wording, but clarifications have shown it’s worse than that. It’s a faith + works thing, vhelmently denied it’s meritorious works, but in the end that’s what it shows.

   The New Perspective on Paul shows this
   Sheperdism shows this
   Schillsel shows this
   Wilson shows this
   Barach shows this
   Wilkens shows this

   Paedocommunion is an issue that is at the forefront. It’s not supposed to be practiced in the PCA or the OPC, but some places are allowing it, wrongfully, and other pastors believe in it, but don’t practice it in their churches. The thing about the AAPC and things since that conference, is that paedocommunion is being tauted as being “what the Westminster Confession teaches” what the “Reformers taught” and that it’s a historic tradition accepted all through the Christian age, basically. That’s hogwash.

   As my pastor says: “Calvin’s name can be invoked to have said anything. It doesn’t mean he said it. Context is important. One has to read Calvin to know what he taught. Don’t just believe someone when they say he taught it. Don’t give them the benifit of doubt, look into it yourself.”

   OK now, as for the MECCA stuff, I’m not talking about covenant communties. That’s no problem. I’m referring to a tendancy for everyone to bow to Moscow, ID. Doug Wilson has written some good stuff over the years, taught some good things. He’s straying, but that’s not the point. He’s just a man, and the attitude of “HOW GREAT” it is in Moscow, Christ Church, it’s cult-ish. I’m NOT saying they are a cult. What I mean by “cult-ish” is that he’s reverd by many as if he is doing no wrong, and invoked as much as saying “I’m of Paul”, or “I’m of Apollos” or “I’m Of Cepahs” ect.That’s fully what I mean. Mecca, the place all bow to for prayer in Islam, it’s a reference to that kind of thing. The place to journey to, a pilgrimage … 🙂

   Do you have a link to H. King’s analysis of Doug Wilson? I have seen his critique of the Auburn Avenue July 18, 2002 document. Are you referring to something else?

   The Auburn Ave. document came down as a very unclear statement to me. It confused things, and very much caused more of a stir in the Reformed camps.

   Rewording things is part of this whole thing, giving new names to existing categories. It’s a way to confuse a generation, and gain a step in another direction that will be fully realized in another generation or two.

   Well, that’s just the short of it. I hope I’ve not confused you more! Nor turned you off. The general feeling out there is to read everything critically, when it comes to this controversial stuff particularly, so read this just that same way. 🙂

   Reply
7. 

   Fred

   Wednesday, August 13, 2003

   Just so you know, as a member in good standing of Christ Church in Moscow, I intend to respond to your plea for realistic news sometime today or tomorrow. 🙂

   Reply
8. 

   Marysue

   Wednesday, August 13, 2003

   Fred,

   I’ll be looking forward to hearing more!

   🙂

   Reply
9. 

   Fred

   Wednesday, August 13, 2003

   First off, I should explain my position. I am a student at New Saint Andrews College, and as such I have been away from Moscow all summer. Some things have changed. But I will try to fill you in on how I see things in Moscow, especially with regards to recent controversies.

   The condition of the church. Christ Church continues to grow, in numbers and in understanding of the gospel. Because of the growth in numbers, they have recently started a church plant also in Moscow, headed by Dr. Peter Leithart. The elders recognize the difficulty of effectively shepherding a congregation that was pushing 1000, and they have decided on the strategy of starting a new congregation. Since Dr. Leithart’s plant, Trinity Reformed Church, has only been in operation for a few weeks, the success of their efforts remains to be seen.

   All of the ministries of Christ Church are growing and doing well. God has been blessing them enormously. Notable in this regard is New Saint Andrews with its new building and enrollment of (I imagine near) 150 this fall. I think their website has some information, www.nsa.edu.

   As far as theology goes, I must state that in all my years of church going (which have been varied), I have never heard a preacher emphasize God’s love for his people the way Doug Wilson does. In nearly every sermon, I walk away thinking how wonderful God is to me in everything, from salvation (most of all) and sanctification to grass stains and rubber tires. The church has a solid head on its shoulders, and the worship is becoming more and more Christ-centered as the church works through its philosophy in this area.

   I want to briefly address the Credenda stuff. I admit I have wondered about whether or not Credenda has gone a little far with its recent covers. It’s one thing to defend good satire, it’s another when the cover merely scandalizes. That said, I do not feel that voicing complaints about the magazine on a blog to be the proper outlet. The proper outlet is, as Matthew 18 says, going first to your brother – the magazine itself. Because I have not said anything to Nate Wilson about this, I have no right to voice it on a blog. But even theological greats have had their embarassing moments (e.g., Luther and the book of James). I do not see a pattern in Credenda of over-reaching satirical stupidity. Yet.

   As far as Doug Stambler goes, the church is ignoring him, as should everyone who runs across this lunatic. ‘Nuff said.

   Did I address everything adequately?

   Reply
10. 

    Des

    Thursday, August 14, 2003

    here is Mr. Stambler’s (obviously a christian) letter to me.

    Hello, “MarySue”:

    My beliefs are in The Book of Mormon as prophecy. Jimmy Carter also believes in The Book of Mormon, and that Mormons are Christians.

    I did not do anything but search the web for commentary on Doug Wilson, and found your website. I LEGALLY posted what I thought would help people here in Moscow, Idaho understand more about Doug Wilson’s general reputation.

    I am not using your writing to bolster support for me. Doug Wilson is an evil man, and he will be stopped by God. The more voices against what he does -even though you and I don’t agree on much, it seems- will help the people caught in the trap of his cult get out of his cult.

    I think that you’re a loser for what you posted on your site about me. You should have a lot more integrity, but you don’t.

    And I say to you, FU*K YOU, I AM a Christian.

    Eat your head, and don’t e-mail me again.

    In Christ,
    Douglas Stambler
    (Pullman, WA)

    Uhhhh…. im not mary sue genius, neither is this my site, nor have i emailed you! You have a lot of growing up to do. Is this the word of God you are spreading?? Now im showing your childish email to everyone, but God already saw it. Do you think hes impressed?

    Think before you type
    thanks,
    Des

    Reply
11. 

    Tamara (AK)

    Thursday, August 14, 2003

    Marysue,
    My this comment section of yours sure got busy… 😉

    No, you have not turned me off nor confused me more! In fact, you tied some things together which gave a little more clarity.

    I’ve been meaning to get back to your NPP post on the PPBoard for a while…thanks for the reminder it is there.

    The analysis by H. King was in Foundations [www.littlegeneva.com/foundations.php – that’s the link off the top of my head]#28 (actually began in #27)…I’m not sure of the date. Anyway, there was a “blurb”, a disclaimer if you will, “vindicating” D.W. It was shorter than I remembered. I thought the analysis of the AAPC document very cogent and helpful.

    Listening to D.W.’s “Reformed” series, I picked up on his qualifiers. It leaves me stumped also as to why he continues the association w/ the others in the controversy just as King states. But, as I stated before, I’m new to all this and my opinion can’t carry much weight.

    This is the only thing I’ve seen about Kinnaird:
    [www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH03/08a.html%5D If you have more, please pass it along to me.

    I started to listened to the MP3s a while back but got bogged down with other things and never finished them. I’m feeling up for it again and think I’ll go there today and perhaps my understanding will be expanded some more. 😉

    Whew. It’s important stuff…but so petty at the same time. The Rodney King comes out in me sometimes…”Can’t we all just get along?” Whine, whine. 😉

    Reply
12. 

    Des

    Thursday, August 14, 2003

    This is the first time my computer has shown me the first posting. So now i know whats going on. But first of all marysue, you replied to me. Actually it seems youreplied to my quote. It wasnt my words.
    But going to the main subject of the posting. I dont find the cover of C/A to be shocking i dont think its a big deal at all. Its not something that would turn someone on, or cause anyone to stumble. Sensual? a guy with jumper cables on his nipples is sensual? Lets be realistic, no ones gonna be turned on by this pic. Its just a pic that is goofy. I hope you arent worried your children are going to be sex maniacs now that they have seen a mans chest. A mans chest is not nudity, just as a woman wearing shorts is not nudity.
    I laughed a bit when i saw the cover. And i laugh at C/A’s humor. I like sarcasm. And the humor is not by a long shot the major theme of the magazine. All of their writing is very thoughtfull, and very true to scripture.
    And about their quote, “something honestly filty”. Do you really think that a mans chest is the same as a movie portraying lies about the word of god?
    If you have a problem with their sarcasm. Or if the ghastly sight of a mans chest repulses you to this degree. Then you shouldnt read it anymore. Because, God forbid, the next cover might be a woman without her head covered, or worse!

    Reply
13. 

    Marysue

    Friday, August 15, 2003

    Des,

    Whoa! Sorry you read me wrong. I may be upset by it, but it’s not that it’s going to make someone fall into sin, or is too sensual, it’s a bunch of stuff, not just one idea, except for “sick”. It’s the desire to make the “art” and then pen the “justifying words”.

    It’s not that I can’t handle it, it’s that I sadly expect more out of the Moscow crew. To fall to the level of sick art, it’s just ick.

    It caused curious young eyes in our household to ask weird questions. I don’t blame them. It’s plainly not the cover one’d normally see on a Reformed-ish magazine.

    I love sarcasm … and it’s a dangerous thing to love. It can go too far easily.

    Ok, as for nudity, I’ve even heard christians say that Nude Art is wonderful. So, it’s subjective as to what “nudity” is.

    Adam and Eve needed more clothing. So do naked chests and so on. It’s just the way modesty is, that skin exposed is not normative, if one is modest.

    The less modest one is, the less bothered by more and more skin exposed one is. I’ve been very immodest, so I know what I speak of. I take issue with this since Doug Wilson portrays “modesty” as an issue he cares about.

    This cover may have made you laugh. That’s fine. I don’t know you nor what your life is about. Mine is about honoring God, raising a family, and this is the first time I had to hide a C/A issue in our home.

    Ok then Des, as for what you say first in this last post of yours, what are you saying? What you wrote wasn’t your words? Huh? Your very first post here was directly related to Douglas Stamblers post, and I thought I answered that as to what Douglas Stambler was about and how it related to me and my beliefs about what D.S. is saying about Christ Church and Doug Wilson.

    I’m sorry you are seemingly dissing me now due to the C/A cover issue. Man, that’s too bad. This weblog entry came about due to some really nasty flack that some people ran across when they mentioned reserve about the C/A cover. So, I posted a critique, heavy, and I may talk about naked chests and sensualness, but it’s not all about that, it’s an entire mess of defense and sarcasm gone bad.

    We can disagree on that, of course.

    Thanks for the D. S. letter, sorry it was sent to you. Desperate measures, I guess, since my link is to the website here, and yours was an email link, you won. 🙂 [That’s a tip, put something in the URL field and no one gets your email address on the site.] Silly thing is, I never emailed him either.

    Email is one thing, posting on websites is another thing entirely. — please note that D.S.

    Thank you for your humor Des. I don’t care about an uncovered head of a woman, heck, the woman with the naked chest man had no head covering either. I had no problem with the Ivory Tower cover, or whatever else cover there is in the past. I like to wear hats when I go out, and when I go to church, it’s not a ‘covering’ issue though, that’s not part of “my version” of modesty. It’s nice to wear hats, but not sinful NOT to wear hats. In fact, I don’t wear hats at night, or even every time I go out to shop, or in the garden, or to church. 😉

    a little children’s book humor:

    “Hello, do you like my hat?”

    “No, I do not like your hat.”

    “Goodbye!”

    “Goodbye!”

    from “Go, Dog’s, Go”

    well, unless perhaps you mean a shaved head of a woman … I do think women should have hair, kempt and long, if possible.

    Bye!

    Reply
14. 

    Ashleigh

    Wednesday, September 24, 2003

    Dear Marysue,
    I stumbled onto your site while looking for the new Credenda. Type in C/A at google, and your page comes up!
    I have lived in Moscow my whole life, graduated from Logos School, which Doug Wilson founded, and am very well acquainted with Doug Wilson’s church, though I am merely a non-denominational Christian.
    If you would like to discuss things about Moscow, feel free to write me.
    In Dulce Jubilo,
    Ashleigh.

    Reply