Accountability in the CREC...

The following comment was left under this post and I wanted to respond to it here on the main page. So here's the comment, followed by a response:

COMMENT: You're missing the irony. Aren't the feminists critics doing exactly what Wilson has done for years - - demonizing people in their blogs while making themselves unaccountable to anyone? Both groups are rebels.


Dear (brother),

First, Doug Wilson doesn't demonize people, and only rarely criticizes them. He argues with them.

Postmodern men have a terribly difficult time seeing this distinction. To a narcissist, every single thing is personal.

Second, Doug has never sought to avoid accountability. Regularly he offers to meet with those publicly opposing him, to answer their charges. He would have been happy to meet with Lig Duncan and his committee. More than once he's publicly offered to meet with that man down at Escondido who flames out now and then. There are others he's sought to answer.

After three decades of membership in PC(USA) and PCA presbyteries, it's my considered opinion that Doug has had more accountability in the CREC than he'd ever have had in either of these two larger Presbyterian denominations. I've attended meetings of CREC presbyteries and their national judicatory and seen accountability far beyond anything I've ever seen in either the PC(USA) or the PCA—and this particularly in the all-important matters of pastoral faithfulness.

The CREC has been inspiring to me precisely at the point where you claim otherwise. Meanwhile, I've been very disappointed in the unwillingness of PCA presbyteries to apply their national commitments on the local personal presbytery level.

Over the next few years, I expect to see more work of correction within the CREC for those tending toward the sacramentalist/Lutheran error than I could ever hope for in the PCA.


Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.



As an OPC Minister I would add that Doug has gone from being an Arminian Charismatic Baptist, to a Reformed Baptist, to a Paedobaptist, to a type of Presbyterian. I happen to like that trajectory. What's really amazing is that the LORD used Doug's leadership to keep Christ Church together and growing through all these changes.

Your brother,



From the standpoint of biblical truth, reformed theology and the Confessionalism that flows from it, this post is disappointing.

Not only do you endorse a leading proponent of the errant 'federal vision' theology, but by unnecessarily putting down a biblical, reformed communion as a means of doing it.

Not only has this man repeatedly been warned and hardened himself (Titus 3:10), but is a signatory of the near heretical "A Joint Federal Vision Profession."

You are right to upbraid the PCA's failure to effectively discipline a few proponents within her midst of this false, unconfessional and harmful teaching.

But you do so without acknowledging the excellent study report it did condemning it. While on the one hand acknowledging the harm of 'federal vision', you defend the ring leader of it.

Nor do you acknowledge that a few, granted not all, have been educated and disciplined about this error in the denomination. Nor do you seem to realize this is not over, there yet will be accountability for this.

As you are aware, the pseudo-communion CREC has been used as an escape from discipline, e.g. such as this individuals writing partner in wrong theology, and co-signatory of "A Joint Federal Vision Profession."

Your otherwise insightful biblical thinking and posts are undermined by associating with, and defending this false teacher.

May God open the eyes of all the brothers in the PCA that they might deal with this threat to the peace and purity of the church.

But may God open your eyes as to what your doing, no doubt with the best of reasoned intentions.


Dear Anonymous PCA Friend,

1. Tim didn't endorse everything that Doug Wilson believes. He simply pointed out that he doesn't demonize people nor seek to avoid accountability.

2. Is remaining anonymous on the Internet by calling yourself "PCA Friend" rather than using your name really an approach that encourages accountability?



Dear brothers,

This anonymous thing is really a pain, but I do see why some choose not to use their names. But only if they stand to lose their jobs, which is the case with one of our men. Not because they want to protect their much-vaunted reputation or influence.

The reason our nation and churches have given in to heterodoxy and heresy, especially concerning sexuality, is that Christian men hide their convictions and that's the very opposite of being prepared to give a reason for the hope that is within us. When this blog first started back in 2004, I knew the question I needed to face was whether I would tell the truth, or hide it. And I knew if I told the truth, I would be excoriated across the Reformed frontier and not be long for "World's" stable.

But truth is precious and the Holy Spirit names the Church the pillar and foundation of the truth. In fact, telling the truth—or rather, proclaiming it—is central to the calling of pastors and elders, so it's what I'm made to do.

So we try to tell the truth, particularly those truths that the political correctness/hate speech intolerants do their best to gag. And that's why you can find such hatred for us among postmodern hipsters, especially those copping a Reformed posture. They can never believe we actually said THAT! Didn't we know we're not allowed to say THAT any more? Have we been in hibernation since the Dark Ages?

My defense is that almost nothing Baylyblog teaches would be anything but boring to former centuries of Reforemed fathers, and especially anything we teach concerning sexuality (which is the area where men hate us most).

Concerning the substance of your criticism, PCA friend, I've promoted it to the main page and responded there. I hope you don't mind.

I've also sent a private e-mail to you at the e-mail address you used for your comment registration. Please respond.

And thank you for your faithful criticism. Some of your points I will ignore since I think them cheap shots (the CREC is a "pseudo-communion"). But the substance is well-said and I'm pleased to have the opportunity to respond.


Add new comment