Hopefully the link works out. I want to comment on a few paragraphs.
The Bloomington session asked the presbytery to appeal to synod to “critically review” the work of the current Synod Judicial Commission (SJC) that is overseeing the trials of their former pastor and ruling elders. After much debate, the presbytery decided that such a request would be premature as complaints are against “actions” of a court and the SJC has yet to rule on what is before them. The paper also called for the elders of the presbytery to “join together in repentance for the spirit with which [the GLG has] conducted the work of the church.”
Okay, I don't know who is at Bloomington, but this completely unacceptable, and should have been returned to the authors at best. At worst, this is insubordination and an attempt to hypocritically meddle with church courts. But, when you remove the fluff, I think it's simply a bunch of entitled babies who upset the world has seen their soiled diapers. Oh, and not only is the Synod Judicial Committee prejudiced against presumptive superhero Jared Olivetti, but apparently any elder who took part in anything negative towards Jared should be repenting.
Please, if you are a member of a GLG church leave NOW! This isn't Saturday Night Live. This is a serious GLG Presbytery discussion. If your pastor covers up multiple sexual molestations and rapes in your congregation and you think he's not God's ordained servant, enough GLG elders/pastors to have a debate think you should be repenting. You can't make this stuff up!
Since the court cannot know the hearts of all presbyters and the spirit of each pastor or elder, the court decided to ask the moderator to appoint a day of fasting “calling each elder to self-examination and repentance for personal sins that may have pre-empted our divisions.”
"Divisions". Interesting that the RP Church which rails against weaponizing unity is, wait for it, going to weaponize unity. The divisions exist because there are many presbyters who want to whitewash a session's actions that are so far removed from anything remotely resembling spiritual leadership and pastoring that they've made the RPCNA a public spectacle. Also, of note, the highfalutin word "pre-empted" means "take action in order to prevent (an anticipated event) from happening; forestall." So, we want unity, but we want those who were trying to prevent division to repent?? Hmmm.
Also related to Immanuel, a motion carried that asked the moderator to establish a three man committee to investigate and bring recommendations concerning alleged slander and libel in the media against Immanuel and its elders by RPCNA members.
At this point, we can only pray that Synod has a clue. The presbytery obviously does not. Indiana has Anti-SLAPP legislation, meaning that people who go to the media to protest mistreatment cannot be sued in an attempt to silence them. This is clearly meant to silence those who have bravely come forward. But, if you still are holding onto the fantasy that the RPCNA is a church... THIS MOTION PASSED. A majority of pastors/elders in the GLG Presbytery believe that the Immanuel church was slandered by the IndyStar article and specifically those RPs who came forward. This is scary stuff. A majority of the GLG leadership is circling the wagons around Immanuel's handling of this abuse situation. And, lesson to those who came forward, your church cannot protect you from Presbytery. You are brave! You are strong! But, please, have your lawyer on speed dial and at least read this to understand your rights: http://thewartburgwatch.com/permpage-how-to-resign-from-a-church-whether-or-not-you-are-under-church-discipline/
and another paper by Rev. James Faris (and endorsed by the session of Second Indianapolis), asked for the dividing of the presbytery into two, as early as June 2022. This division sought to “intentionally align to promote healing.” Most of Indiana (except for Lafayette, Marion, and Sycamore) would be in one presbytery, and according to Rev. Faris this proposal “facilitates peaceable co-laboring.” A committee to investigate realignment was established.
To be clear, this is the proposal, split Indiana into two groups based on "healing". The one group is the people who want to support abuse (every RP church in Indiana except three) and the other group is the people that stand in the way of us supporting abuse (the three). So, if you are in an Indiana RP church and not in Lafayette, Marion or Sycamore, your church leadership supports abusers. I don't see how this can promote healing unless the Faris squad subsequently names their presbytery the "Synagogue of Satan" Presbytery. Then, at least people will understand the root of the problem.
I don't know whether to laugh, scream or cry. The enormity and weight of this is... unprecedented in the RP church, and even if Synod does the right thing, it will take years to restore any semblance of the sanctity of the office of pastor or elder in the GLG. The majority of pastors and elders in the GLG, based on their majority votes, need to resign, and if not, they need to be helped out of their so-called offices.
10 comments:
Without using buzzwords, the heart of this matter seems to be the role of pastor/elder in a congregation, and then the role of the higher courts.
What Faris, Magill, et. al. are arguing is that Presbytery and Synod's role is to (1) correct doctrinal errors and (2) vigorously defend the local session/elders, not accountability.
The attempts to hold the session accountable for actions that even the Evangelical church across town says "these man should not be elders" have been fought and railed against.
So, when e.g. James Faris preaches that Presbyterianism is the God-ordained system because it defends the rights of the congregants against an errant pastor or session. He means only doctrinal error. If he teaches 8-day creation, he'll be charged and removed, but if he is a wolf, tearing apart the sheep who enter the church and is friends with abusers, yet holds the pure RP doctrine, the Presbytery ought to protect him from all attempts to correct his behavior.
So, recasting the actions of the GLG Presbytery:
Bloomington:
Any commission or presbyters who tried to hold Immanuel's session accountable should repent.
Presbytery:
Any presbyter who breaks "unity" by trying to create sides (division) against a session's actions (i.e. hold them accountable) should repent
Any person who individually tries to hold their session accountable, through courts or media, should be prosecuted
Faris:
Can't we just divide into the people who want no accountability and the people who want accountability?
And that is it, the whole debate over Immanuel becomes a question of whether sessions can act with impunity (provided they can check the procedural and constitutional checkboxes) and whether the role of presbytery is to hold God's ordained servants accountable, or whether it is just to beat up members who use their voices.
Creating parallel presbyteries for *linguistic* reasons has some precedent. The PCA has a whole separate group of Korean presbyteries, for example. But to divide for reasons of doctrine or practice, or even "healing"(!) and "peaceable co-laboring"(?!?!), is something I've never heard of outside of a denominational split or pre-split.
The plan mentioned here appears to abandon the normal geographical principle so completely that it puts the neighboring towns of Lafayette and West Lafayette in separate presbyteries, one with the rest of Indiana and the other with....the rest of the Great Lakes and the Gulf of Mexico? I guess?
As for the Durham congregation's decision to head for the exits, and its approval by the Presbytery, I don't know whether to read this as a sign that they too are a non-insider congregation or that they are already geographically separated anyway, so it just makes sense to everyone. Maybe the two are related.
One other thing: the decision to investigate "alleged slander and libel in the media" is on one level entirely understandable (if there WAS deliberate lying in an attempt to smear someone's character) and on another level very worrying (if, as seems to my outsider's perspective more probable, there wasn't). In either case, the timing just seems all wrong. It seems markedly premature for the Presbytery to approve an investigation like this when the Synod has a trial on the core issue pending (chalk another point up under "worrying"). Why not just wait till the Synod 's commission has finished and take action, if it's warranted, based on those results?
Completely. A lot of this just seems infantile, but infantile combined with the power that RP churches/presbyteries yield over individual members is downright scary.
Also, found out this morning that Jared Olivetti was deposed and suspended by the Synod Judicial Commission. I'm thankful that they recognized the issues, and hope that it sends a message to the GLG presbytery that their "charges should be dropped / this is a witch hunt" antics aren't going to go anywhere, although it still remains to be seen whether the SJC is appealed.
I would normally tend to assume this will be appealed in some fashion (guilty verdicts typically are in criminal cases, at least). Then again, I think the Star reported that Olivetti didn't even show up to the trial, so..... I don't know what to make of that for the future of this case.
Also, I would suppose that this finding of the Synod's commission would make it harder for the libel/slander angle to be pursued successfully in the Presbytery, at least to the extent that the commission based its verdict on testimony that matched what was given to the media (and to the extent that its verdict is upheld).
After all, members are just tools, and should know their place.
In a way, it's good that Faris, et al, just go ahead and spell out what they really want. I've said for a while now that if we were given a contract to sign at the beginning of our relationship with the RPCNA that told the truth of what we were signing up for, the maltreatment and indifference, and all of it, we never would have signed such a thing.We never would have given up what we earned to support people and an organization that looks upon us with such malice and disdain. There is an analogy about narcissists giving you a turd sandwich and you are supposed to be so thankful. It applies here, and these guys are the sandwich filling.
Yes, I have a lot of hope that Synod is doing/will do the right thing in this case. I feel like the GLG has created an authoritarian bubble/echo chamber and these men are horrified that the church judicial process hasn't simply backed the authorities and ignored the victims. There seems to be a lot of desperation evident in the GLG presbytery discussions. When the Presbytery committee recommended these men resign or be charged, then subsequently when the SJC didn't simply whitewash the matter as asked (charges should be dropped immediately), it seems that the blind submission faction has lost it. Bloomington's paper seems like shaking their fists at whomever upset their authoritarian world.
I can only pray that Synod looks at GLG and wonders, how bad does the presbytery culture have to be that perhaps a majority of the teaching and ruling elders thought that the actions of Immanuel's session were nothing to warrant concern?
I watched an interview of Aimee Byrd recently, and she hit the nail on the head. Presbyterianism is sold as a protection against abuse of authority, but, what we see in practice is that the system protects the abusers. That ends up being worse, IMO, than a congregational system where you know, if the leadership is abusing you, you have to leave and go to the courts/media if you want justice.
This has come across my screen a few times:
"When people show you who they are, believe them the first time." ~Maya Angelou
It's really hard because as RPs, we're essentially groomed to see the "best" of those in the church and the "worst" of those outside, but if I had learned that lesson early enough, I think I would have saved myself from a lot of heartache.
The fallacy of the "God's gift" eldership in the RP church is brutal because on one hand we are to believe that these people are God-ordained to be people we can aspire to be in every way, but on the other hand, when they beat up the sheep, the church is expected to forgive and restore them. Complete cognitive dissonance. If elders are truly "God-ordained", then any disqualifying action should disqualify them permanently. I think that is the lesson about false prophets. If they say anything in God's name that doesn't come to pass, they are not prophets. Period.
And really, my issue is not with the concept that God gifts elders to the church. It is with the deference and obeisance the Evangelical church assigns to the office, and the lack of accountability. Those in office should be telling us the same thing the Holy Spirit tells us in our heart, that is their authority, that they echo the voice of truth and reason within us.
But, it is essential that they have first demonstrated that they listen to the voice of the Holy Spirit in their own lives. I think that is what is ignored. When Jared, Keith, Ben and David demonstrate that they have closed their ears to the Holy Spirit, the message should not be one of forgiveness and restoration, but, "I never knew you", and I think in a significant way, the SJC understands that.
"I watched an interview of Aimee Byrd recently, and she hit the nail on the head. Presbyterianism is sold as a protection against abuse of authority, but, what we see in practice is that the system protects the abusers."
Standard Par for the course in NAPARC and the RPCNA is the worst of the bunch! It is an extremely bad problem and a systemic one within these churches and will never change until the accepted over realized ecclesiology and Protestant Sacerdotalism is dealt with. It is more than just accepted, it is exalted as a great Christian virtue, even as an absolute key to a Christian's Salvation (the gateway to heaven being the session and membership to an institutional church) to adhere to this kind of system and theology is seen as the path of righteousness. So while there is good news in the sense that the SJC in this case is making some right decisions, until the systemic nature of these issues are addressed, it is only putting a band aid on a cancer in terms of what it actually accomplishes. Here is the cognitive dissonance again. Take away with the left hand, that which you just gave with the right, etc. etc.
These RPCNA elders and pastors are revealing why they acted this way, they admit it in their own words even now.....because they theologically really believe that their precious offices have that kind of power/authority. They have twisted the scriptures to a point where why Bible gives them NO such authority. It seems to me this is the fundamental crux of the rotten issues within NAPARC. Until this is dealt with no real change will ever take place.
My family dealt with the same core problem (though specific situation was somewhat different) at our RPCNA church in Colorado. The core issue of the too high a view of the "office" of elder was at issue. three different NAPARC churches involved at one point. A pastor didn't even share crucial info with his own session. No discipline was done to this pastor, if anything it was excused away by the good old boy elders from 3 different NAPARC (one RPCNA) sessions. Classic! And the fact is it is what God's people can come to expect when they are members of any RPCNA church or any NAPARC church.
Leave NAPARC post haste, get yourself and your family out!
In response to this: "I watched an interview of Aimee Byrd recently, and she hit the nail on the head. Presbyterianism is sold as a protection against abuse of authority, but, what we see in practice is that the system protects the abusers."...
I can confirm this firsthand. in sermons at these RPCNA churches, they're definitely selling 'Presbyterianism' as a protection. Mr Olivetti, prior to the fallout of his own debacle, indirectly tried to sell to his own RPCNA church that abusers would not be enabled, and then did exactly the thing he preached against.
These attempts to sell protections against abuses are, I suspect, only attempts to keep people under their spell (at a time when they know many have begun to suspect all is not well in their 'apex' of Christendom. The attempts are a kind of pre-emptive gaslighting. It's wickedness.
Post a Comment