Please read the article and watch the video:
I heard about this a few weeks ago, but the details were so vague I guessed it was something that happened between high schoolers at a retreat. I learned today that this is much worse and it is much darker.
- The perpetrator was a relative of the pastor, but the pastor did not recuse himself and influenced the investigation
- The elders allowed the perpetrator to continue attending church (potentially with victims) and did not inform the congregation and did not create a safety plan.
- Information was selectively withheld among elders, away from Presbytery reports, and even from deacons.
- When the matter was finally reported to the deacons and the congregation, the tone was "we have this figured out and we've resolved everything"
- The leadership did not cooperate with investigators, and, in the words of a pastor asked to intervene, "the whole thing was a coverup".
According to the deacon who resigned, "I can rebuild relationships and I can make new relationships. I can't give kids their innocence back." and "... it appeared to me pretty quickly to be predatory and serial in nature". Apparently, the session labeled it experimental and hormone-driven.
Presbytery has brought charges against the pastor and all the elders, and this seems like "we're taking care of this, let's trust our leaders and move on", but keep in mind that Pastor Olivetti, from the start, felt that this was something he could hide from Presbytery and cover up. Why did the family of the victims not feel safe in going to Presbytery, or even worse, did the Session refuse to transfer appeals to Presbytery? Remember that the RPCNA authoritarian practice requires members to GO THROUGH THEIR SESSION when appealing to Presbytery. If the families appealed directly to Presbytery, their complaints could have been considered out-of-order and rejected.
48 comments:
This link also has relevant information: https://6park.news/indiana/indiana-church-sexual-abuse-scandal-a-timeline.html
As addenda to add on top, from the record of the RPCNA Synod:
It seems that when the Presbytery judicial commission presented its report in March, it recommended that the entire session resign, and then the Presbytery voted to proceed to trial when most of the elders refused. But it seems that some in the congregation (including some victims' families) and some in the presbytery felt that the judicial commission had been biased in its investigation and recommendations, and that the presbytery had also acted prejudicially in allowing some victims' families (but not others) to be present at its meeting, and so the Synod was appealed to on those grounds.
The Synod took jurisdiction on June 17, 2021 and appointed its own commission to take over the case, essentially restarting the judicial process within the church. As a result, the presumption of innocence for the elders remains and they have not been suspended from exercise of office. The indictment at the end of the timeline is apparently part of this process by the Synod's commission -- although I'm told that the commission didn't produce the indictment itself (such an action would highly inappropriate for a jury that's going to be hearing the case at trial); the commission did accept the charges as being sufficiently founded to warrant going to trial, and the commission will then conduct the trial and make a ruling.
Not surprising given that RPCNA judicial process is self-contradictory and completely up-for-grabs.
Thanks for the link, though, it was very informative. The IndyStar article was well done, but it was hard to decipher who knew what when. One of the pieces that is clear is that Olivetti shirked his responsibility as a mandatory reporter - he knew in October and didn't report until April, and it's unclear between this article and the IndyStar whether the parents reported or Olivetti reported.
Yeah, I'm not sure why I had to go off the IndyStar site to find the timeline.
Also, not sure if you've seen, but a search of "Jared Olivetti sexual abuse" brings up a blog post / sermon excerpt from 2017 on the exact topic of protecting victims of sexual abuse: https://gentlereformation.com/2017/12/06/dealing-with-sexual-abuse-as-the-church/
I didn't listen to the full sermon, and the quality of the written portion was alternately affirmable and worrisome. I did notice, though, the question of "When will we learn?" recurring throughout the excerpt. Olivetti seems to have provided at least some part of his own answer to this question through his actions: Not when the abuser comes from my house -- sort of a perverse reverse of the last line of Joshua 24.15, I think.
I think it's easy to cast stones. It's hard to take action when it is required, especially when there are personal relationships involved.
But, it is especially troubling when someone fails to live up to the very standard he expects for others. The narrative appears to be rationalized by "hormones" and "curiosity", but that is not his call. That is exactly why the police need to be involved - pastors are not experts at understanding the nuances of abuse. That said, whether or not it's driven by hormones and curiosity, it's still abusive.
Maybe I'm cynical, but I think that the biggest concern at the Synod level will not be the handling of the case itself, but the insubordination and deceit towards the presbytery. Hopefully this will lead to more accountability for sessions at the presbytery level.
I have 0/10 faith in any of these leaders, since they all think they are God's gift to the Church.
This is also what you get when your "elders" are pretty much juveniles themselves.
This is really powerful in understanding how abusive the RP church is:
---
Elders tell a victim’s family, who had expressed concern that the children were still playing unsupervised and that the congregation had not been informed of the child’s identity: “We simply cannot protect everyone from all physical dangers. imaginable. If the statistics are to be believed, there are likely unknown abusers present in most church activities. The way to protect against these dangers is to simply be vigilant and teach children what is appropriate and inappropriate. ”
---
Let's break this down:
1) We cannot protect - we are shepherds who are spiritually gifted, "superior" and called to protect the flock, yet we refuse to do so.
2) Unknown abusers - the fact that there could be unknown abusers means that we have no obligation to disclose when there is a known instance of abuse. Instead, we choose to subtly blame parents of children who were abused for assuming that this was a safe environment for their children.
3) Appropriate and inappropriate - this is grasping at straws to protect themselves. Infants can be victims of sexual abuse, yet the spin is that the parents failed in their responsibility to appropriately discuss and prepare their children for the possibility of abuse.
What parents should teach their kids is that they will be believed and protected and then do everything in their power to do just that. When the church refuses to protect children, leave. If my child were abused, I would expect the church to create a safety plan, inform the church, and take steps to protect and counsel my child. If the church didn't do that, I'd be out the door. This isn't "above and beyond" this is basic safety.
On the one hand, a woman who has been sexually abused is considered permanently damaged goods, yet on the other, if a child beat another enough to cause permanent physical damage, we could be sure that those steps would be taken.
They don't just think it, it's a matter of theology for them. I could point you to sermons on the subject. When Jesus "gave gifts to men" who do you think the RP church believes those gifts to be?
I've said this before. The RP church believes that following the checklist to elect elders guarantees that the elders are called by Jesus, but then it's just a matter of checking the boxes. The session can do everything in their power to inform the congregation who the next elder should be and even call a meeting to vote for that person, but because it "came from the congregation" box checked, we're good. So, then the qualification for elder is simply, the guy who sucked up the most to the session and is expected to toe the line.
And then, I guess we're supposed to be surprised when this swarm of pastoral sycophants does everything in their power to protect their pastor and the RP "brand", even if it means lying, hypocrisy, insubordination, breaking the law, refusing to comply with authorities, and then blaming their congregation for "their part".
Also, I want to stress this. West Lafayette isn't some lunatic fringe church in the RPCNA. This is a well-connected church near the center of the Great Lakes-Gulf Presbytery. The elders I've seen named are well-respected in the presbytery and denomination.
This isn't a few country bumpkins who made an honest mistake. It's men who knew exactly what they were doing, exactly how it would be received by the presbytery if they were caught, but did it anyway out of loyalty to their pastor and because they must have thought they could get away with it. They will probably get the book thrown at them, not for lack of protection and oversight, but for being knowingly insubordinate.
Oh, believe me, I get it. I don't think they are bumpkins at all. I spent years around these guys. One of those elders tasked with the "investigation" is only like 33 years old. These guys are not trauma-informed at all, which would be more the standard for real professionals in a learning institution, which is really what this is.
What these people are is grifting, self-referential, lawyer wannabe's. I have other, much stronger words I could use, but trying to respect your space here. Their "theology" is just what they hide behind to tell others what to do and build themselves up. It's obviously rather unreflective of the bible, which does not tell elders to talk out of both sides of their mouths, like Olivetti. I am glad to see the situation exposed, and hope that many will choose to protect their kids and leave this cult. Maybe it's a vain hope due to the brainwashing and manipulation, but it's about all I can see to hope for here.
It's noteworthy how no concern is expressed by them for the victims of these crimes.
Whatever their phony "courts" do to them doesn't change the fact that they broke the law by not reporting. I'd like to see them answer to the real authorities for that.
Supposing any do have to step down. If they are leaving a paid position, they'll just land somewhere like the seminary. Who knows. I just hope that the real victims get the help they need.
Classic gaslighting response to the victim's family.
No one was asking them to protect from "all imaginable dangers." Vague "teach the children" response that, in no way, is actually possible. Dismissive "yeah, predators are here, get used to it" response. Ignorant, uninformed, out of their depth. In actuality, this is enabling behavior.
This should honestly be a warning to all RPs with kids. Predators exist and when they harm your children, the church will bend over backwards to cover it up and blame you for not protecting them.
For the predators, I bet the RPCNA is now on the radar as a church where they can safely operate seeing what happened.
Well, considering what was essentially the trafficking of Dana McDonald Soma, I'd say it's been on their radar for a while.
It's long been an RP trope that men can wear down a woman until she consents to marriage. Just because the end goal of drafting a woman into marriage or nannying seems honorable, doesn't mean it's not coercive control.
This is what happens when so called leaders make “the (c)hurch” and their power positions within it the centerpiece of the Christian faith. This is what happens when it’s “all about the church.” This is indicative within NAPARC. Now it may not always lead to abuse of this nature, but the undergirding value system, theological system and over realized ecclesiology will to some degree or another lead to a bad unhealthy environment. And these tiny churches are getting away with it flying under the radar. So sad.
People need to stop rationalizing why "yeah there are a lot of bad things here, but there are all these really good things too, so....."
Yeah whatever! Hitler loved his mother too, so what?
Get of the bus/team! Leave NAPARC , embrace Christ alone, not the (c)hurch.
“Groups, individuals or even organizations claiming to be a church who primarily uplift institutional identity and institutional fidelity as a chief value for all its members, instead of primarily uplifting Christ, are engaged in Churchianity more than they are Christianity.
I don't know if this was behind a paywall previously or what, but I've only just stumbled on this, even though it's apparently been up for a week: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2021/12/06/west-lafayette-indiana-child-sexual-abuse-immanuel-reformed-presbyterian-church-jared-olivetti-boy/5600129001/
Not a lot new here, but some details that weren't included elsewhere.
"In early September, according to the judicial commission report, the Immanuel session presented a letter to Olivetti — written with the help of the advisory committee — outlining several recommendations on how to proceed with a 'time of discovery' to identify any additional victims. Among their recommendations: publicly identifying the perpetrator, removing him from official events and placing Olivetti on a two-month leave of absence. They also suggested they send a note to Immanuel congregants encouraging them to 'not pull away or shun the Pastor’s family but to draw near and extend love.'
Olivetti countered their recommendations, according to the judicial commission report, saying naming the perpetrator would promote 'suggestive conversations' within the congregation. He also said not naming the perpetrator could actually be beneficial in that it could expose other weaknesses to correct. He also expressed concerns that it would be difficult to predict how church members would respond to carrying the 'burden of knowledge' only the elders should shoulder.
Instead, according to the report, Olivetti suggested they inform the congregation of the situation, general timeline and location; connect victims with resources and assistance; ask the new ad-interim commission to appoint a 'partial and interim moderator' to help avoid conflicts of interest; provide 'a path of repentance' for the boy and allow his family to work out a safety plan and restitution for victim families.
According to the report: 'The elders chose to take the direction laid out by the Pastor.'
In a Sept. 6, 2020, letter to the congregation, the session informed families of a 'series of acts' of sexual abuse between minors. In that letter, the elders said a Presbytery committee was advising their investigation and safety measures were in place but did not elaborate as to what those measures were. They also encouraged families who suspected abuse had occurred to contact an elder, but did not encourage them to also report to civil authorities, as is required by Indiana law."
Now, I'm not a judge, but doesn't basic ethics tell you that when you're passing sentence, you don't run it by the defendant to see if they approve and then, finding they don't, alter it so that it matches their wishes? Wow! Even if there were nothing else, the fact that "the elders chose to take the direction laid out by the Pastor" ALONE is enough to prove dereliction of duty.
"naming the perpetrator would promote 'suggestive conversations' within the congregation." Truth is actually "suggestive conversations." Who knew?
"not naming the perpetrator could actually be beneficial in that it could expose other weaknesses to correct" What does that even mean?!
"He also expressed concerns that it would be difficult to predict how church members would respond to carrying the 'burden of knowledge' only the elders should shoulder." Leaving aside all the self-service that's the real basis of all of these "suggestions," if there is real repentance on the abuser's part (and evidence for this in the published reports is pretty hard to find), then I think Paul says to "bear one another's burdens" in Galatians 6. This is consistent with the committee's desire for church members to "not pull away or shun the Pastor’s family but to draw near and extend love," which is what should happen in a case of genuine repentance. It is 100% NOT consistent with concealment. If the abuser is NOT repentant, then it's not "difficult to predict how church members would respond": they would -- more than rightfully -- move to protect their children. And this also is not consistent with concealment.
Then again, maybe it's not as easy to predict as I've just supposed, as this excerpt tells us:
"However, not all families involved felt the session acted inappropriately. The father in one family told IndyStar he believes the elders acted in good faith.
'Our family affirms the care and love and shepherding of our elders,' he wrote to IndyStar in an email. 'We were treated with tenderness, care, compassion, love and respect.'
Furthermore, he believes the judicial commission report was not representative of his family's experience and that their story is 'being used to support a narrative that (they) do not agree with.'
'We grieve the events that occurred among minors in our church yet this sadness has been compounded by the accusations on the elders,' he wrote. He continued: 'The people bringing these allegations have hijacked our story and are using it in ways that we don’t approve of and have not given consent to.'"
I believe this is one of the victim-families who wrote a letter to the Synod supporting the appeal after the Presbytery initially determined to follow its judicial commission's recommendations and proceed to trial. In the absence of the mounds of evidence given in the rest of the article, this statement would give me pause and make me wonder if there wasn't perhaps a rush to judgment on the part of the Presbytery and its judicial commission. But in the presence of those mounds of evidence, this father's commentary reduces from a perspective worthy of consideration to one of profound naivete (I won't go cynical and say calculation, though I don't reject the possibility entirely out of hand). It leads me to a bit of bafflement on exactly what angle this guy is coming from. I can imagine a variety of possibilities -- none of them especially encouraging -- but I really can't guess as to which is/are right.
Fathers/families are totally capable of not acting in the best interest of their children. This defense of the elders leaves the victim's feelings out entirely.
This reminds me of how Jimmy Hinton points out that it means nothing for one child to say "He didn't abuse me." That proves nothing. Abusers don't abuse every child they come across. In the same way, sessions/elders probably have to behave decently to at least some people. This blog exists because not everyone gets this arbitrary favored treatment. I wonder if the well-treated family is wealthy or what.
Also, what can one say about this "burden of knowledge" BS? The arrogance is off the charts with these guys. What other secret "knowledge" are these guys "burdened" with?
There are multiple layers of abuse. Part of the authoritarian mantra is that the elders know best, so the father could interpret the actions and rationale of the session as being "in good faith" when it is actually part of the coverup.
The IndyStar article brought up the obsession with "hormones and curiosity", and it's likely that this parent bought into the narrative that the abuser was simply experimenting. That narrative holds little weight in the wealth of evidence to the contrary, but I can understand that someone who was deluded into thinking it was childish curiosity would be upset that their child was the victim of calculated abuse. It might be shameful [it shouldn't] for a parent to think that they allowed their child to be abused.
re: Burden of knowledge, there was a paper brought by the GLG presbytery advocating for closed session meetings. One of the arguments the presbytery made was that session discussions might become "sources of gossip". So, the session, at least, still seems to be operating under the delusion that hiding the truth from the congregation somehow protects them from the possibility of sin.
Also, is this one family wealthy or has the family been gaslighted? The arguments the session is making have the appearance of wisdom and care, but are actually deceit and coverup.
As someone who came from an abusive "unbelieving" home, and was then convinced by these types that hitting my child's butt until it was bruised would "keep them from Hell," believe me, I understand the shame aspect. Some amount of shame is appropriate here, but needs to ultimately be placed on the ones who have claimed to have the God-like authority. The reality here is, though, that some of these children will go on to have suicidal ideation and other mental health issues. This is why I say these guys are out of their depth, and deluded. At such risk to their children, any parent needs to wake up, not be ok with any of this utter crap, get help for their child, and deny these authoritarians any more power.
We have friends whose child was sexually abused. The child has been through counseling and the counselor said that the trauma would resurface at various times throughout life.
I also want to underscore what Diane Langberg says in the article: “Christians say they worship the God of truth. Truth is not gossip,” Langberg said. “Truth is like Him, and He shines the light on all kinds of things that are ugly.”
I'm certain Olivetti and the elders spent years explaining the ugliness "out there" to the congregation. The "burden of knowledge" wasn't about ugliness at all, but about the fact that the church also had ugliness. RP churches have never been afraid of pointing out the ugliness in the world. They've always, on the other hand, been afraid to shine the light on ugliness among their royalty, their non-"mission project" members, and especially their ordained leadership.
Here is another link that has the GLG Presbytery Commission report. https://money.yahoo.com/no-sanctuary-boy-sexually-abused-020013212.html
I'm trying to understand - I heard that the entire session was suspended at the Presbytery meeting, but that they were reinstated because of the pending appeal. That seems incorrect based on my understanding of the appeal process. For example, Bruce Hemphill's suspension was not lifted due to his appeal.
I also see that Nathan Eschelman seems to have taken the role of court defense. I've seen a number of pastor/elders make the claim that the "amount of time devoted" to something is a proxy for the care of the matter and the justice that will be done. I find no such correlation. To me, this is an open and shut case. The presbytery judicial commission, in my opinion, took a very mild approach in their recommendations, and I hope that the Synod commission acts in a way commensurate with the offense.
As the article says, Jared Olivetti is back in the pulpit.
But there is always more to say while this continues. The Church is sick and corrupt. Pastors will continue to rape. It's a career option - The Rapist Pastor. I thought Jesus said feed the flock - not f--k it! Seriously, what's the answer ? May I suggest surgical removal of both testicles - AND the penis. Eunuchs managed to live post-manhood in ancient times. Maybe it's time to reintroduce some ancient customs? I'm sure it would be a deterrent to some, if some were made examples of. And you have the hall to insist "But you've GOT to forgive!" So you can just ignore it all, brush it all under the carpet - and leave me and all others stay victims? "Submit to your leaders!" Why?! So they can ram their despicable members into us again and again?????!!!!!!!!
All you want is to just let these men carry on! None of you will do anything about it because none of you really care! None of you care about me, or those who have suffered far worse. Jesus said "Feed My sheep" NOT F--K them! Consider that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This does happen, and I can only assume it's happened in the RPCNA, but this case is a privileged member of the church (young relative of the pastor) who abused other minors in the church. As far as has been reported, no rape was involved.
The problems in this case are:
- Arrogant and authoritarian elders who refused outside help
- Pastor who "recused" himself, but then manipulated the investigation to protect his relative
- Church leaders who illegally failed to report abuse to civil authorities
- Higher church courts who by all appearances are bungling their internal investigation
- Authoritarian church sycophants like Nathan Eschelman who are trying to silence communication through requests for "humility and respect" (i.e. shut up)
In the "No sanctuary..." Indy Star article, it says that penetration and other acts occured. These would have been felony convictions if the perp was an adult. Children cannot consent to sexual activity. This absolutely was rape.
Thank you for the link. I haven't read the report yet, but I'm going to. Also, does anyone know whether/how the trial transcript will be published?
My understanding from reading the report published by the Synod in June was that the Presbytery commission had recommended resignation for all of the elders and that, when they did not resign, the Presbytery voted to approve the holding of a trial to take place at some later date (it wasn't clear to my reading when that date was supposed to be). Before the trial was held (possibly before it was scheduled?), the handling of the matter by the Presbytery and its commission was appealed up to the Synod, which then voted to take jurisdiction of the matter itself and appointed its own commission. That Synod commission has now voted to move ahead with a trial of the elders on the charges, and the commission itself will sit as the jury to decide the case.
The difference with the Hemphill case, I believe, is that for Hemphill, the Presbytery actually held a trial and convicted him (and presumably suspended him from office). Only after the verdict was delivered and the sentence imposed did the case get appealed to the Synod. That is to say, there was a judicial finding of guilt before the Synod took up the matter, and the sentence remained in place pending appeal. In this case, there has been no judicial finding of.... well, anything. There has been no trial (yet), so there has been no verdict and therefore no sentence of suspension.
As for Nathan Eschelman, do you mean that he has taken to defending the actions of the Presbytery or that he is serving as the defense counsel for the elders at the trial? Or am I just totally misunderstanding that point?
Taking Battered Sheep's statement in its full context, I would suppose that "no rape was involved" was meant to indicate that no rape was committed by the ELDERS, whereas the elders DID commit other forms of abuse (tyranny, denial of justice, concealment, partiality).
On a separate note: I THINK I now understand Battered Sheep's earlier reference to Nathan Eschelman.
Thanks for the info. What happened at the Presbytery level was pretty unclear even with the document, and it makes sense (from an RP perspective, not from any sort of common sense) that they are still in office.
It's pretty standard practice in the rest of the world that a person who is standing trial is put on administrative leave.
Nathan has taken it upon himself to defend the church in the court of public opinion (Facebook).
No, I missed that part entirely - the articles all cover the same ground, so it's hard to pick up the differences: "The incidents occurred on and off church property between spring 2019 and March 2020, church records indicate. Parents told IndyStar the children reported over- and under-clothes touching, oral-genital contact and penetration."
I stand corrected.
"It's pretty standard practice in the rest of the world that a person who is standing trial is put on administrative leave."
That seems reasonable to me, and there's also such a thing as pre-trial detention in judicial cases when there's expectation of re-offense while awaiting trial. On the other hand, it's also not unusual for elected politicians to continue to hold and exercise office even while under indictment or standing trial. (Of course, a court usually doesn't have the power to suspend a politician from office, even after conviction, so the comparison is a little bit apples and oranges. As for the fact that I've had to go to the situation of corrupt politicians to find something even vaguely analogical, well, make of that what you will.)
From Springs Reform church Facebook (RPCNA) out of Colorado Springs Facebook post December 23rd.....Here is how they promote the sermon.
"In the evening service, pastor Jason Ryce preached from Hosea 1, a frightful, living metaphor. God , our loving, faithful husband, wounds us at times to drive us into his arms."
I would say that not only does this reveal a lot in general, but also utterly tone deaf in light of the very recent Pastor Jared Olivetti
sexual abuse scandal in which he helped cover up the abuse of 15 children at their tiny little church. Talk about rationalizing away abuse!
More evidence as to why NAPARC sessions, elders and pastors are pretty much the worst place on earth to seek help or council for anything! 9 out of 10 they will bungle it up worse!
The post can be found here, go to Dec 23 to see for yourself.
https://m.facebook.com/springs.reformed.church.RPCNA/?refid=52&__tn__=C-R
But I guess none of this should surprise us. After all the response to these issue like the one at this link from NAPARC pastor Kim Riddlebarger is indicative of the norm. Namely an insistent theme that because of our precious (idol) form of church government “it can never happen here.” Denial!
Check it out>>
https://www.kimriddlebarger.com/the-riddleblog/here-is-why-elders-matter
These are not one offs folks, this is indeed the systemic culture in the RPCNA and in NAPARC.
Walk away! Christ is enough, don't buy the lie that you need their (c)hurch.
A previous study by LifeWay Christian Resources found that 94% of churchgoers believe “their church is a safe place where children and teenagers are protected from sexual abuse.” Meanwhile, 87% were confident that their church “is likely to report suspicions of abuse or neglect to the appropriate authorities.”
These stats show not only just how blind Christians are to the reality in their midst, but it also reveals the biggest idol in their lives is the church itself. Protect, defend, cover up at all cost.
https://faithfullymagazine.com/jared-olivetti-pastor-hid-abuse/
I agree completely. I think there is a problem with portraying God as actively wounding us. I want to be careful, because I believe that God has appropriate boundaries, and often those boundaries mean that God doesn't helicopter us out of the consequences of our sin. I think that gets described Biblically as both consequence and discipline.
That said, Ryce's teaching is in line with my conclusion that the RPCNA god is narcissistic (abusive) and authoritarian. The fact that Springs would post that on their Facebook for all to see means that this is not some niche doctrine.
I think churches need to be extremely careful in their descriptions of these sorts of both/and - in the same way that predestination does not preclude free will, but those who do not appropriately teach predestination fall into the trap of portraying us as responsible robots.
More accusations have come up regarding Keith Magill as well. https://julieroys.com/church-elder-keith-magill-alleged-history-abuse-cover-up
https://www.christianpost.com/news/indiana-pastor-accused-of-covering-up-abuse-of-kids-resigns.html
This was a good summary of the service on 1/16, which was a self-pity fest for the elders. Magill's prayer is quoted, where he prays for mercy from synod for himself and the others. There was no prayer for the victims and their families or the perpetrator. But Jared has been "wounded." It was an interesting service, to say the least.
I may have to watch this. My initial response is that they are not repentant.
---
He added that the four issued their resignations “very reluctantly.”
“They have done so specifically to encourage the growth and development of this congregation,” he said.
---
Let me say what I think this means. "We didn't do anything wrong, but because everyone else thinks we did and can't get past it, we're removing ourselves from the situation." I also think it means "We are going to fry if this case is tried at Synod, so maybe if we resign, they'll consider this case resolved."
If I read the Julie Roys account correctly, the abusive father "repented" and was still tried and disciplined. If that's the process for individual members, how much more so people whose job it is to protect members and instead spent their time protecting themselves and their pastor.
Okay, I listened to the report and prayers. Here's what is abundantly clear:
Keith Magill - still sees himself as God's ordained. He made a specific point of proclaiming the benediction on the congregation. He prayed that the Synod commission would be "Merciful and Kind" given the events of the last week (their resignations)
David Carr prayed that Jared would reflect on "God's calling on his life" [i.e. he still feels Jared is qualified to hold office!] and talked about the "wounds received". He prayed about the busy elders who were coming alongside them in their difficult time.
What wasn't mentioned... WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN THAT WERE SEXUALLY ABUSED AND RAPED????? Apparently that isn't important enough for Carr and Magill to pray for?
And this is the heart of the issue, and why these men should be disciplined and their ordination removed. They do not care for the children harmed by abuse. They didn't when they first became aware, and they don't now. They are concerned about poor Jared's wounds, and they are concerned about the poor overworked elders who have to come attend their session meetings.
How can I connect with this blogger? Is there an email?
Did you ever find a safe, biblical church? We don’t know where to go anymore.
Hi, appreciate the comment. It doesn't look like there is a good way for us to get in touch off of this blog. If you can airbrush your comments so that they're not personally identifiable, that is a way for us to communicate. I've considered whether it's best to stay anonymous, and at this point, it seems like it's the wisest approach.
I found a church that is mostly safe - much more grace-filled and a place of healing. Leaving the RP community is very hard in many ways. I plan to write an article to talk about how I looked and maybe some suggestions.
Thank you, I just saw your response. My brother is in this church and wants to leave. Can he just send the certified letter and that’s that?
Post a Comment