What is problematic or dangerous about the CREC?

[Afterthought]

A post in a currently active thread involving the subject of the CREC asked about what is wrong with the CREC and what would be a way to describe the problems to those who are not as informed. Would those who understand the problems or dangers of the CREC post in this thread to explain? Especially pastors and elders. The CREC seems to continue to grow more influential, especially around internet circles, so a warning about them seems appropriate.

There are plenty of threads about Doug Wilson. Unless it is a clear fact that can be sourced, it would be good to leave that controversy out of here. The goal is for this to not be a another Doug Wilson thread but about the CREC.

 

[Eyedoc84]

The CREC is the home of Federal Vision theology. Not that all churches in the CREC are FV, but I truly believe the ones that aren’t have been duped into thinking exactly what the FV/CREC pioneers wanted people to think: that they are legitimately reformed and adhere to the historic confessions but also have the bonus of getting the cultural issues right, unlike so many of the mainline denoms. But I describe FV as Luthero-Romanism masquerading as Reformed. Underneath the facade of the confessions are definitions that are anything but historically reformed, at least among the movers and shakers.

 

[RamistThomist]

Aside from false teaching, the CREC is plagued by scandals.

 

[RamistThomist]

They also have an incoherent ecclesiology. They simultaneously confess that it is wrong to baptize infants and that it is wrong to withhold baptism to infants.

 

[Jake]

They also have an incoherent ecclesiology. They simultaneously confess that it is wrong to baptize infants and that it is wrong to withhold baptism to infants.

CREC churches can be Baptist, Presbyterian, Continental Reformed, or Anglican in their Confession.

From here: https://crechurches.org/documents/confessions/CREC-Confessional-Statements.pdf

C. Each church will adopt into its statement of faith at least one of
the following:
1. Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)
2. American Westminster Confession of Faith (1788)
3. Three Forms of Unity (Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Cate-
chism, and Canons of the Synod at Dordt)
4. Belgic Confession (1561)
5. Heidelberg Catechism
6. London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689)
7. Savoy Declaration (1658)
8. Reformed Evangelical Confession (see Article XI)
9. Second Helvetic Confession
10. 39 Articles of Christian Religion

 

[reformed grit]

I’ll give my take on some of what’s wrong, though you’ll understandably find disagreement here and those who find me too broad a brushstroker (we’re a Puritan board). Reformed tradition was birthed from both a theological and political base. After 100s of years of European war, the Church pretty much divided Church from State and yielded substantive pragmatic authority in day-to-day life over to political (State) authority (no more “witch” burnings). American church authority of Reformed tradition early and throughout clashed over the spiritual piety of holy living (the day-to-day works and pragmatic State side of life) vs. the theologically pure yet somewhat esoteric or seminarian ivory-tower side of honouring our sovereign King. These two well-meaning groups of conservative Reformers have always been at odds – the pragmatic vs the ideal.

Of recent history, the Postmillennialists have wound up by-and-large in the pragmatic Church Militant camp, while the Amillennialists have wound up more on the side of being theologically pure, logically consistent, and the ol’ Presbyterian’s presbyterian. [Don’t get me started with Premillennials, which is sort of where I am.]

That’s a briefly convoluted and catawampus way of saying we Presbyterians have a conservative disconnect between our practical living and our theology. The CREC (and also Morecraftites, dating back to at least our beloved Rousas Rushdoony) wants to wow our conservative masses with high=worship liturgy, postmillennial hope in the church militant, works-righteousness, and dynamic fly-by-our-seat I’m-in-control discipline. Our Amillennial, theologically pure, by-the-book yet ethereally logical and historically-Reform consistent types urgently want us not to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Once the mud flies between whoever, we’re Scottishly quite disinclined to either reconcile in any substantive way, sort through our differences as reasonable adults, nor spare one another in the blessed love of Christ our King. We’re more the “bombs bursting in air” type of Christians. We DO generally hope to spare maternity hospitals though.

If I've been too long-winded, the CREC problem mostly derives from works-righteousness, which is right out, but which they'd insist is a misnomer despite the wealth of evidences to the contrary.

 

[RamistThomist]

CREC churches can be Baptist, Presbyterian, Continental Reformed, or Anglican in their Confession.

From here: https://crechurches.org/documents/confessions/CREC-Confessional-Statements.pdf

I know. That's the problem. As a whole, they simultaneously confess infant baptism and the active denial of infant baptism.

 

[Jack K]

So, I realize that this characterization won't be true of every CREC church, pastor, or member—and I'm happy for that. But despite my usual reluctance to lob criticism of an entire group of believers, in this case I believe the heart of the gospel is at stake when it comes to the vibe within segments of the CREC. That means it's important to give some warnings and call for those churches to examine themselves.

I attended a CREC-mostly conference, with my family, several years ago before I knew better. My wife and I left very concerned. In conversation after conversation, as we tried to make friends, we found the group's values out-of-sync with the gospel. We got smiles and atta-boys for mentioning our Christian school, family devotions, my wife's white southern heritage, and conservative politics. We got concerned looks, bordering on "you sound dangerous and maybe you're a bad influence around here," when we mentioned my public-school upbringing and the recently-arrived-from-Mexico neighbors we were trying to befriend. And when I admitted a few of my sins and difficulties to some of the other men there, the only "encouragement" I got was to be told that I was a failure who needed to get his act together lest my family go down the tubes.

Perhaps it was a particularly off conference, where the wrong people just happened to show up that year, but it was really bad. There was no sense that we ought to trust in Christ's righteousness or even in his sanctifying strength. Instead, righteousness came from religious performance and holding the correct political/cultural views. I realize this appeals to believers who are dismayed by the leftist drift in our country, because the views those conference attendees admired were strongly rightist/nationalist, and every family looked perfect. But in conversation after conversation, I sensed that it all sounded a lot like the praying Pharisee in Jesus' parable: "I thank you that I am not like other men. I do this. I do that...." To speak like the tax collector, "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner," made one suspect.

That's not the gospel—at least, not in attitude and overall vibe. And in fact, some CREC pastors deny Christ's imputed righteousness outright. Be wary.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

So, I realize that this characterization won't be true of every CREC church, pastor, or member—and I'm happy for that. But despite my usual reluctance to lob criticism of an entire group of believers, in this case I believe the heart of the gospel is at stake when it comes to the vibe within segments of the CREC. That means it's important to give some warnings and call for those churches to examine themselves.

I attended a CREC-mostly conference, with my family, several years ago before I knew better. My wife and I left very concerned. In conversation after conversation, as we tried to make friends, we found the group's values out-of-sync with the gospel. We got smiles and atta-boys for mentioning our Christian school, family devotions, my wife's white southern heritage, and conservative politics. We got concerned looks, bordering on "you sound dangerous and maybe you're a bad influence around here," when we mentioned my public-school upbringing and the recently-arrived-from-Mexico neighbors we were trying to befriend. And when I admitted a few of my sins and difficulties to some of the other men there, the only "encouragement" I got was to be told that I was a failure who needed to get his act together lest my family go down the tubes.

Perhaps it was a particularly off conference, where the wrong people just happened to show up that year, but it was really bad. There was no sense that we ought to trust in Christ's righteousness or even in his sanctifying strength. Instead, righteousness came from religious performance and holding the correct political/cultural views. I realize this appeals to believers who are dismayed by the leftist drift in our country, because the views those conference attendees admired were strongly rightist/nationalist, and every family looked perfect. But in conversation after conversation, I sensed that it all sounded a lot like the praying Pharisee in Jesus' parable: "I thank you that I am not like other men. I do this. I do that...." To speak like the tax collector, "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner," made one suspect.

That's not the gospel—at least, not in attitude and overall vibe. And in fact, some CREC pastors deny Christ's imputed righteousness outright. Be wary.

That sounds dreadful. Which conference was that?

 

[Jack K]

That sounds dreadful. Which conference was that?

I left it intentionally vague so as not to implicate any particular speakers (in fact, the speakers were pretty good). But it was Moscow, ID, mid '00s. Perhaps, and hopefully, things have improved since then.

 

[beloved7]

I know. That's the problem. As a whole, they simultaneously confess infant baptism and the active denial of infant baptism.

CCCC does as well, what results is a false sense of unity and vast confusion amongst the laity in regard to the ordinances. Basic subjects become persona non grata both from the pulpit and Sabbath School in the name of unity. We’re all Christians but there is a reason we all have our own churches.

 

[reformed grit]

It's exactly like the birth date of wee baby Jesus - intentionally vague for a reason.

 

[Eyedoc84]

It's exactly like the birth date of wee baby Jesus - intentionally vague for a reason.

Vague enough consistently enough it sure appears intentional

 

[MChase]

This touches on a lot of the theological issues. The issues go far beyond that, but it’s a great start.

Critique of the Teachings of Barach, Schlissel, Wilkins, and Wilson

By Rev. Michael J. Ericson A major controversy has developed over the past year in the Reformed community. While there are often differences and debates in the camp, I believe, this particular matter, is a watershed issue that could shape the direction of Reformed and Evangelical churches. It...

www.presbyterianreformed.org