"In Praise of the CREC" by Uriesou Brito

[Rom]

Are we really equating ordination with credentialism? That seems like a low and secular view of ordination. As though it is a piece of paper earned at an institution. It is not.

I am sorry. The man speaks like he's the genuine article. The defender of the faith and so on and so forth. But he has never been ordained. 1 Timothy 4:14. A man must be called and sent.

If you are willing to disregard this basic tenet of Presbyterian, no, Biblical theology, I would certainly expect the dumpster fire that is Moscow, ID to result.

 

[RamistThomist]

Pr Rom is correct. I mistakenly identified credentialism = ordination when I interpreted the above post. No, I don't put much stock in many seminaries these days. I learned exponentially more Christology from reading on my own than I did at RTS. I'm currently teaching myself Syriac (though to be fair I do have a Hebrew background from seminary).

But in terms of ordination, he isn't a real minister.

 

[py3ak]

Granted, I don't think the credential criticism is the most important. It does have a place. A few weeks ago Wilson said anyone who shared the Vice article on Twitter (which I did several times) is lost and outside the kingdom or something like that. My first response was to laugh at him. As I reflected, I realized he, not being a real minister, has zero judicial authority when it comes to keys of the kingdom.

I haven't seen the Vice article.

The qualifications of Wilson aside, who here has not seen the OP described comradery and edifying fellowship in his own denomination? It is among the elders, deacons and laymen in my own church- though we don't all have beards. Maybe our machismo level is insufficient for many CREC enthusiasts, but just reading the PB over 15 years tells me many of us share the commendable aspects of the OP without as much heresy and excess.

Yes, we should be careful not to criticize as creepy bromance in others what we describe as like-minded fellowship among ourselves.

Yeah, no question the guy's gifted. And I'm also extremely skeptical of credentialism, given the kind of pablum our unis are serving up these days.

My complaint was more focused on the fact that he didn't seem to have done much work in the things he was ostensibly platformed for. He has style and gifts for sure, but seemingly not the substance from rigorous study of the subjects he was debating when I listened. That quality doesn't have to come from an accredited study, but that is one way of certifying that it has taken place.

It seems to me that debates are often performances, with the appearance of substance sometimes being more important than its reality.

Are we really equating ordination with credentialism? That seems like a low and secular view of ordination. As though it is a piece of paper earned at an institution. It is not.

I am sorry. The man speaks like he's the genuine article. The defender of the faith and so on and so forth. But he has never been ordained. 1 Timothy 4:14. A man must be called and sent.

If you are willing to disregard this basic tenet of Presbyterian, no, Biblical theology, I would certainly expect the dumpster fire that is Moscow, ID to result.

I'm not sure who "we" includes here, but for my part the answer is no. The credentialism charge is related to the observation that Wilson didn't go to seminary. But loads of FV and antecedent people did (and also were ordained). I'll take it that you were using "you" generically in the last sentence.

Pr Rom is correct. I mistakenly identified credentialism = ordination when I interpreted the above post. No, I don't put much stock in many seminaries these days. I learned exponentially more Christology from reading on my own than I did at RTS. I'm currently teaching myself Syriac (though to be fair I do have a Hebrew background from seminary).

But in terms of ordination, he isn't a real minister.

Ordination is important; but if it were a sufficient condition for avoiding dumpster fires, the Reformation would never have needed to happen.

 

[Rom]

I'm not sure who "we" includes here, but for my part the answer is no. The credentialism charge is related to the observation that Wilson didn't go to seminary. But loads of FV and antecedent people did (and also were ordained). I'll take it that you were using "you" generically in the last sentence.

Ordination is important; but if it were a sufficient condition for avoiding dumpster fires, the Reformation would never have needed to happen.

Thanks for clearing that up. There seems to be confusion on this point in the minds of some. I was not directly responding to you but the general thought of "credentialism". His lack of seminary is not the greatest problem with Wilson being in the ministry, as seminary is not a Biblical requirement but, instead, a matter of wisdom for the training of men. But ordination is a biblical requirement.

Wolves easily sneak into the sheepfold. Ordination is not the sole guardian of the ministry, but it is an important portion of protecting the sheep as the Church (if it is a true church) must test a man's piety and godliness and orthodoxy before laying hands, which is not to be done hastily. It is a great and valid criticism of a man that exhibits the tendencies he does:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1)​

Friends, let us be clear - the Scripture has a very high standard when it comes to teachers. It is valid to judge him harshly for his lack of ordination as he wants to tell others "how it must be" and chastise them!

"My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation" (James 3:1)​

​

Edit: It is a great sign of ungodliness when a man can write screed after screed against the sins of others while writing pages excusing himself of his own sin.

 

[RamistThomist]

the vice article

It documented a lot of really creepy things Wilson's church was doing, like fathers watching their teenage daughters shower and the elders not going to the police about it. He responded as most serial abusers do: by threatening the people who made the charges.

 

[Charles Johnson]

As far as ordination goes, it does concern me that Wilson entered the ministry by illegitimate and even dishonest means. But let's not forget that as far as presbyterians are concerned, no Baptist has a legitimate ordination. And Wilson did come from a Baptist church. I don't say that to attack Baptists per se, but simply as a matter of fact, that Baptists, or at least the ones I've met, do not practice the laying on of hands of the presbytery.

 

[VictorBravo]

that Baptists, or at least the ones I've met, do not practice the laying on of hands of the presbytery.

True, because we don’t have what is called a presbytery. But in our circles laying on of hands by elders is followed.

 

[Rom]

As far as ordination goes, it does concern me that Wilson entered the ministry by illegitimate and even dishonest means. But let's not forget that as far as presbyterians are concerned, no Baptist has a legitimate ordination. And Wilson did come from a Baptist church. I don't say that to attack Baptists per se, but simply as a matter of fact, that Baptists, or at least the ones I've met, do not practice the laying on of hands of the presbytery.

As @VictorBravo said - not 100% accurate. Reformed Baptists are ordained by the laying on of hands of church elders, even if they do not have a Presbytery. I believe the RPCNA (for one) has respected Reformed Baptist ordination as far as I know (when they have been ordained by elders) when receiving ministers who change convictions to become Presbyterian, not requiring another ordination when their credentials are received. We will examine them as a Presbytery but not re-ordain them when they receive a call.

EDIT: But also - when the man's convictions changed, his practice should have as well and he should have submitted himself to examination and ordination requirements as a good Presbyterian would. I am working with a local man who is a Baptist and wants to enter the RPCNA. He is willing to do whatever Presbytery asks of him. That is godly submission and trust in the Lord.

 

[smalltown_puritan]

Reformed Baptists are ordained by the laying on of hands of church elders, even if they do not have a Presbytery. I believe the RPCNA (for one) has respected Reformed Baptist ordination as far as I know (when they have been ordained by elders) when receiving ministers who change convictions to become Presbyterian, not requiring another ordination when their credentials are received. We will examine them as a Presbytery but not re-ordain them when they receive a call.

I can attest to this - I was ordained as a Baptist (through the laying on hands by other ordained ministers). I served pastorally in an SBC congregation for 3 years, and then in a reformed baptist congregation for another 3 years. As I was brought to Presbyterian convictions through the correction of God's Word, I was received as a minister into the RPCNA. I was certainly examined by my Presbytery, but not re-ordained.

Presbyterians do not re-baptize (if it is a true baptism), nor re-ordain (if it is a true ordination).

 

[py3ak]

Thanks for clearing that up. There seems to be confusion on this point in the minds of some. I was not directly responding to you but the general thought of "credentialism". His lack of seminary is not the greatest problem with Wilson being in the ministry, as seminary is not a Biblical requirement but, instead, a matter of wisdom for the training of men. But ordination is a biblical requirement.

Wolves easily sneak into the sheepfold. Ordination is not the sole guardian of the ministry, but it is an important portion of protecting the sheep as the Church (if it is a true church) must test a man's piety and godliness and orthodoxy before laying hands, which is not to be done hastily. It is a great and valid criticism of a man that exhibits the tendencies he does:

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber." (John 10:1)​

Friends, let us be clear - the Scripture has a very high standard when it comes to teachers. It is valid to judge him harshly for his lack of ordination as he wants to tell others "how it must be" and chastise them!

"My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation" (James 3:1)​

​

Edit: It is a great sign of ungodliness when a man can write screed after screed against the sins of others while writing pages excusing himself of his own sin.

Indeed. This can't be the sole criticism, however, as it would let many of Wilson's associates off the hook.

It documented a lot of really creepy things Wilson's church was doing, like fathers watching their teenage daughters shower and the elders not going to the police about it. He responded as most serial abusers do: by threatening the people who made the charges.

There are some police forces where people get treated that way -- reporting a crime is a bigger deal than perpetrating one. I've heard of such cases in England and San Francisco.

 

[RamistThomist]

Indeed. This can't be the sole criticism, however, as it would let many of Wilson's associates off the hook.


There are some police forces where people get treated that way -- reporting a crime is a bigger deal than perpetrating one. I've heard of such cases in England and San Francisco.

In one sense, true. Reporting on a Kirk member is very dangerous. On the other hand, church leaders are by law mandated reporters.

 

[py3ak]

Oh, I wasn't putting two and two together quite like that. Just observing that there is a widespread pattern in our world where the person who brings attention to the problem is treated as though they created that problem.