Kevin --

In reading your response, we may not be that far apart. I think the difference between you and I is how we classify Wilson. I see him as part of a interesting niche group you see him as heading a potentially serious movement. My evaluation might be a lot more like yours if he were say running for president of the national association of evangelicals. But that's the problem I can't even imagine him in a mainstream position with substantial influence. Everything about him screams small sect: niche theology, attraction to bizarre historical theories, setting up small personal institutions rather than take over larger ones. Then again if I knew Brigham Young 120 years ago...

I'll freely admit you have me beat in terms of personal experience. My personal interactions with Federal Visionaries I've met have always been good. But I generally love meeting people that are out of the mainstream and intellectual and the church seems to draw both. And I'll agree that kind of off beat intellectualism appeals to me. I also like the rebellious spirit of Wilson.

Let take an example. Wilson is a major proponent of the New Perspective on Paul. Basically I see this as coming from Wright who is really doing nothing more than putting a Christan veneer on E.P. Sanders. When I read Wilson I read him relative to other evangelical literature I tend to give him much more slack. He is trying to incorporate modern scholarship into evangelical thought, square the circle. The end result of Wilson will be an evangelical theory of Christian history which is IMHO more defensible than the ones currently in fashion. Wilson also gets points for being fun and original.

When I read Sanders I read him relative to other secular historians and give him no slack, on missing obvious counterpoints. So even though Sanders is objectively a better historian than Wilson I grade Wilson on a curve and give him a higher grade. N.T. Wright is for me sort of a midpoint, taken more seriously as a historian so he gets much less of a curve. Does that make sense.

OK so that explains the difference in tone. Now lets move on to substance. I only know of 2 classes of incidents which are public involving Wilson / CREC. The first is the problems with parking and CREC in Moscow. I've read about that, I'm not sure whose right and I will admit I don't care very much.

The second are the excommunications of various federal visionaries. Sproul Jr, Wilkins, .... Here I see his actions as building his denomination. But if you want my opinion: Sproul deserved his excommunication and Wilson was very very wrong in how he handled it. I also don't believe the OPC/PCA has done a fair or reasonable job in laying the ground work for a heresy trial on FV. The people fleeing for lack of due process are in IMHO justified. Views they openly disagree with are being attributed to them and they are being convicted based upon those views. A heresy trial for FV needs to look a lot like:
X said Y
Y contradicts doctrine Z
X is questioned regarding Z and rejects it.

That isn't happening. Just read the comments on say http://www.baylyblog.com/and you'll get a taste for them being accused of believing things they reject.

Anyway you saw me with Elder argue against theonomy so you know that I think it is complete nonsense. Is there some other incident you referring to which is public?

OK this is getting long. Hope I hit all the major points let me know if I missed anything.

TC,
CD

Kevin --

About 14 months ago I did an "on the record" interview with CREC leadership regarding the collective issues. In this case the focus was on women but it touches on most of the issues you are raising above in a different context:
Part 1 Part 2.

I see both of you coming from a very different view of the role of the church. You are looking for something more along the lines of a universal Christian faith and unity. They are quite self aware in founding a niche denomination for a niche community. In other words, Wilson's outreach is to a certain type of alienated American, while yours is more mainstream. On the other hand both you and CREC share an ecumenical vision about the legitimacy of other Christian expressions which is rare in the evangelical right and in and of itself virtually disqualifies one as a cult.

I agree with you they have a strong doctrine of submission and hierarchy, and this runs through their teachings. From the interview above, "The Bible clearly talks about 3 areas of government (church, family, civil). It also talks about individuals. It is our contention that when the Bible talks about individuals that it always assumes that they are in some sort of relationship to other people. And when those other people are related in one of the particular governmental relationships they are to treat one another in particular ways related to those governments. And these are always loving and submissive.". I agree this is harmful to women.

But it is not like this is a secret doctrine. They have published thousands of pages on these topics, and have openly advocated them. They use logical persuasion towards people who already mostly agree with their positions. So no, I would never accuse Wilson of running cult even though he demands obedience. It is for the same reason I'd would never accuse Doug Phillips of running a cult (and you know how negative my blog is towards him).

Cult leaders aren't interested in how you behave at all, or even what you believe. They are interested in control. Wilson is genuinely interested in what people believe. That is he wants to change their mind, not undermine their ability use their mind. For example CJ Maheney doesn't argue his positions logically rather he used demotivational psychology to undermine people's capacity for rational analysis. The "argument" is a technique using emotion and psychology, it doesn't have to change one bit if Maheney decided to run a Buddhist cult instead. Wilson would have to change a lot. That is key to cultic behavior.

So in summary: mainstream no, harmful yes, biblical ?, and cultic no.