THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS
A Public Response to Brian Schwertley
by Greg Loren Durand

Exhibit N:
Greg Durand's 26 December 2007 Letter to Presbytery of Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

Greg Loren Durand
Crown Rights Book Company
Post Office Box 386
Dahlonega, Georgia 30533

26 December 2007

Dear Rev. [same letter sent to all members of the presbytery],

       I am writing to you in your capacity as a member of the presbytery known as the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States to ask for your assistance in resolving a controversy which has arisen between myself and Rev. Brian Schwertley, pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Waupaca county, Wisconsin. Five years ago, I wrote a critique of the so-called Christian Reconstruction movement which I entitled Judicial Warfare: The Christian Reconstruction Movement and Its Blueprints For Dominion. At the time, I was a member of Chalcedon Presbyterian Church in Cumming, Georgia (Joseph Morecraft, pastor), which is a member congregation of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (a Reconstructionist denomination), and I felt compelled to attempt to explain to the session there why I was requesting a transfer to another church. I did not expect to publish the manuscript as it then existed, but after giving it to several Reformed pastors and elders for review over the next year and receiving nothing from them but positive feedback, I decided to release it in book form, as well as post it as an e-book on the internet.
       On 2 September 2007, I received notice that Rev. Schwertley had begun a lecture series on 26 August 2007 entitled “A Reformed View of the Judicial Law,” in which I was mentioned by name and my book was described as promoting a “modified Dispenationalism.” I immediately contacted Rev. Schwertley and informed him that I believed his interpretation of my position was inaccurate. From that date until 14 October 2007, he proceeded to deliver a total of eight lectures in which he repeatedly misquoted me, took statements from my book and private emails to him out of their intended context, and attacked me for a position that I do not even hold. Per his request, I spent a great deal of time documenting his misrepresentations and contrasting them to what I had actually written, as well as clarifying those statements which were unclear (see enclosed documentation). Rev. Schwertley acknowledged receipt of this documentation on 26 October 2007, and yet, on 16 December 2007, he resumed the same public attacks upon me, claiming that I had “refused to respond” to him.
       Contrary to what Rev. Schwertley has asserted in his series, I do not believe that the moral principles, or general equity, contained in the Mosaic judicial laws are not binding on the nations of the world and that the civil magistrate may not use them as a guide for just laws. I do not believe that the Ten Commandments, taken individually on their own merits and outside of their immediate Old Covenant context, have been obliterated and are not binding on all mankind. I do not believe that the Old Testament should be ignored and that it may not be used for personal sanctification. Although portions of my book were not as clear as they would be if I were to write it today, I fail to see how anyone reading it in its entirety, and without any preconceptions of my position, would come to these conclusions. I also fail to understand how a minister of the Gospel can in good conscience continue to assert these conclusions after being so carefully corrected.
       After the publication of my book in 2003, I put the subject of Reconstructionism and Theonomy aside and moved on to other matters of interest. I had not studied or given much thought to the subject since that time, so the present controversy caught me off-guard and completely unprepared. My position on the Mosaic covenant is no different now than when I wrote my book, but it has certainly matured and I believe that, after having recently immersed myself in the subject, I am able to express it in clearer terms than I did five years ago, or even four months ago, and I am now able to clearly see the root of this present controversy between myself and Rev. Schwertley. Please allow me this last opportunity to explain.
       The Mosaic law had both typological and antitypological aspects which Covenant theologians in the past have described in terms of the legal and gracious elements present in the Sinaitic covenant. In other words, the Sinaitic covenant assumed the pre-existing Abrahamic covenant of grace, but added to it a legal arrangement which echoed the Adamic covenant of works. As I have outlined in the enclosed document entitled “Different Views of the Mosaic Covenant Within the Reformed Tradition,” many Covenant theologians have noted the striking similarities between the Adamic and the Sinaitic covenants and have concluded that the latter is a typological restatement of the former while being careful to teach the impossibility of the actual re-institution of the Adamic covenant. A few, particularly Samuel Petto, have gone further to state that the Mosaic covenant was more than merely typological, but that it was an actual covenant of works put in place for Christ, as the true Israel, to fulfill.
       In opposition to classic Dispensationalism, all Covenant theologians who fall into the above categories are agreed that the legal element of the Sinaitic covenant was subservient to, and therefore did not abrogate, the Abrahamic covenant. This legal element stands at the forefront of the covenant and has reference primarily to possession of the land of Canaan and to temporal blessings and cursings, but, as indicated by the New Testament writers, this temporal element was merely typological in nature and found its spiritual fulfillment in Christ and the eternal blessings which He merited in behalf of and bestowed upon His people, the Church. Second Temple Judaism confounded the typological and antitypological dimensions of the Mosaic covenant, and, failing to see its true pedagogical function, the Jews changed it from a system of geo-political works-righteousness into a system of spiritual works-righteousness in which salvation itself could be attained through the works of the law. The Judaizers with whom Paul later contended, though accepting Jesus as the promised Messiah, likewise had this mistaken view of the law, and thereby insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and submit to the Mosaic economy in order to be justified. It is my contention that the Reconstructionists of today, following the writings of R.J. Rushdoony and Gary North, commit the same foundational error when they transfer the typological elements of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant, and teach law-keeping as a condition for entrance into God’s Kingdom as it is manifested on earth through the dominion work of the Christian Church. Thus, Second Temple Judaism, First-Century Galatianism, and modern-day Reconstructionism are all variations of the same heresy, despite their superficial dissimilarities. Ironically, classic Dispensationalism also commits this same error when it fails to interpret the Old Testament land promises typologically and therefore teaches a future resurrection of the Jewish theocracy and a reinstitution of the Mosaic covenant during an earthly millennial period.
       In my book and in my correspondence, I have focused almost exclusively on the typological aspects of the Mosaic law, which have been abolished in Christ, while in his series, Rev. Schwertley has focused almost exclusively on the moral aspects of the law, which are not, and cannot be, abolished. I have attempted to explain this difference of approach to him on several occasions, but he has refused to consider it as the foundation of our dispute. As a result, every time he has criticized my typological arguments from his moral perspective, he has committed a categorical fallacy and thus has completely misrepresented my position as a “modified form of Dispensationalism,” which it certainly is not. I have already approached Rev. Schwertley according to the first two steps of Matthew 18:15-17 and thus far, I have been unsuccessful in resolving this matter with him. I am therefore bringing it to your attention.
       I have enclosed a copy of my book as well as the documentation relating to my dispute with Rev. Schwertley. Please understand that, as a member of another denomination, I am not interested in bringing formal charges against him at this time. My only concern in this matter is to have my good name restored to me and that my views be accurately represented before the public.
       In that light, I trust that you will do all that you can to convince him of the moral necessity of deleting his series from Sermon Audio and posting a retraction at the earliest possible date. I understand that you are no doubt busy with your own duties, but given the public nature of this controversy, and the potential harm that it may bring to both myself and to the denomination which Rev. Schwertley represents, I do request that this matter be resolved quickly.
       I may be reached at the above physical address or by email. Thank you for your time.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Greg Loren Durand
Crown Rights Book Company
www.crownrights.com

cc:

Rev. George W. Bancroft, clerk
Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States
Post Office Box 1038
Ocean City, New Jersey 08226

Rev. Adam King
Westminster Presbyterian Church
Post Office Box 252
Gilman, Vermont 05904

Rev. Brian M. Hanley
Grace Presbyterian Church
PMB 112
123 E Main Street, Suite 2
Denville, New Jersey 07834

Rev. Anthony Dallison
Westminster Presbyterian Church - Piedmont
Post Office Box 403
Yanceyville, North Carolina 27378

Rev. Brian Schwertley
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Waupaca County
East 2230 Aasen Road
Iola, Wisconsin 54945

Elder Olev Tauts
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Waupaca County
East 1575 Johnson Road
Iola, Wisconsin 54945

Elder Dwayne Riendeau
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Waupaca County
North 3021 County Road South
Wautoma, Wisconsin 54982