24 April, 2010

Matthew Colvin
300 Cox St.
Mason OH 45040

Consistory
Oceanside United Reformed Church
4318 Forest Ranch Way
Oceanside, CA 92057

Dear Pastor Hyde and the consistory of Oceanside URC:

Greetings in the Lord. I am a member of Trinity Reformed Episcopal Church in Mason, OH (Rev.
Peter Manto, rector). I am writing to bring to the attention of your consistory some writings of one
of your number, Dr. R. Scott Clark. These writings are below:

1. When a book to which he contributed, The Law is Not of Faith, was reviewed unfavorably by
Kerux, the journal of the Northwest Theological Seminary, Clark responded by impugning that
seminary:

Second, when a review of such length (150 pages) is being prepared, it is common courtesy for the reviewers to
contact the authors or editors of a volume under review to provide comment and feedback. This is the usual
procedure when the intent is to help or to get at the truth. If, however, the intent is to stir up controversy and throw
sand in the air and gain fifteen minutes of fame for an otherwise obscure study center built around a single colorful
personality, well then, this is the way to do that!

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/sometimes-one-has-to-consider-the-source/

Is this a godly attitude for a doctor of the church to have?

2. In responding to the editors of Kerux, Clark also suggested that donors should cease giving
money to NWTS:

As I read through this remarkable piece it strikes me that it is a useful thing that these folk have stepped out of
the shadow of the Cascades and into the light of day. There are good, faithful orthodox congregations who have
given financial support to NwTS (and thus to endeavors such as KERUX) with the thought that its another good,
faithful seminary helping to bring the Reformed faith to the West. Dear donors, let me ask you a pointed question:
Lets say, for the sake of discussion, that the doctrine of republication is mistaken and that all those 16th and
17th and 18th and 19th and 20th century orthodox Reformed writers who taught versions of it are mistaken. Its
possible that they are. Even if they are,in light of the several and gross misrepresentations of the position held by
the authors/editors of the volume under review and their patent disregard for common courtesy and and even
scandalous attempts to defame the authors/editors of this volume, is this really the sort of enterprise you should be
supporting? As they say, Im just asking.

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/26/considering-the-source-5/

(In a similar manner, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, Clark also sent a
letter to various URC ministers urging them not to donate to Steve Schlissels church in Brooklyn,
 NY, which was coodinating relief efforts in the wake of the tragedy.)

Is it appropriate for a minister of the gospel to try to take bread away from other ministers?

3. When asked by a friend to amend his tone, Clark refused:

A friend wrote to remonstrate gently with me about the rhetoric of the first part of what I think may now become
a series. So, to be sure that I got it right, that I was not too harsh in my response, I spent 90 minutes today
tracking down a copy of the review of the volume, The Law is Not of Faith. After re-reading ONLY the first
breathless page of the review I do not and cannot repent of anything I said earlier.

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/considering-the-source-2/

Is Dr. Clark right to refuse this remonstration and rebuke?

4. In the comments of a blog belonging to Jim Witteveen, a minister in the Canadian Reformed
Churches, Dr. Clark said the following about Bill DeJong, another minister in the Canadian
Reformed Churches, and formerly a minister in the URC:

The truth is that Bill is a smart-aleck. He was a smart-aleck in the URC and now he's a smart-aleck in the
CanRCs. I say that because I've been arguing with him for about 8-9 years and it's discouraging to see that he still
doesn't get it.

http://www.jimwitt.ca/?postid=332

Does Christ approve of embittered name-calling displayed on the internet?

5. On March 14th, Dr. Clark made a post and several comments on his Heidelblog site. This post no
longer appears in the archives of his site. I have therefore appended a printed version of a saved
PDF from March 17th, 2010. Note my comment at the end. I would like the Consistory to judge
whether Dr. Clarks comments about FV theology teaching that one can become elect
constitute slander.

I am writing to ask you to consider this pattern of behavior, and to take corrective action against
Dr. Clark if you believe it to be warranted. I believe it would be appropriate, and in keeping with
the law of love, if he apologized publicly for the offenses he has committed publicly, especially
those that have publicly undermined the ministry of fellow Reformed ministers.

Yours in the Lord,

Matthew Colvin
(513) 204-5623