The drama unfolded in the past month. Jared was tried in absentia and convicted, leading to his deposition from the office of teaching elder and suspension. The elders received a slap on the wrist - a one year suspension from office.
IndyStar has some writeups, but they are currently subscriber-only.
The appeal to the Synod Judicial Commission, written by political heavyweight and more bully than intellectual James Faris, revolves around a few key points, which I'll examine briefly:
1) "Irregularity" of the proceedings:
Olivetti (and Faris) regret not bringing in independent, professional investigators at Immanuel to assist them. I completely concur, but they then use their regret to insist that not hiring professionals is somehow "irregular". In other words, something that the RPCNA church, to my knowledge, has never in its history done, is "irregular". The complaint then cherry-picks from the Book of Discipline, and when that fails, stretches Matthew 18 like silly putty to fill in the gaps. So, according to the complaint, step 2 occurred on Nov 30, 2021. However, what about the meeting between Olivetti and the family of a victim with Faith Church West pastor Joshua Greiner? (Letter dated July 28, 2020). Why does only an RPCNA pre-trial hearing qualify as step two? Matthew 18 says the people are witnesses, not the court. The pre-trial hearing is part of step 3, presumably. There should be charges and an opportunity to negotiate or repent - many criminal trials are settled before the actual trial.
More delusion. "The accusers admitted in their investigation report that they formed conclusions about he facts at issue before speaking with any of the witnesses in these matters, relying only upon the evidence previously obtained by the GLG Immanuel Judicial Commission and supplemental documentation. By any professional standards, this manner of forming conclusions about facts is fundamentally flawed and reflects gross incompetence" To explain this fully, Faris is saying that the entire appeal process in the United States "reflects gross incompetence". The courts recognize that the best source of independent, factual information is the decision of the lower court. This is even in the RPCNA Constitution, that courts review the documents of the lower court. So, why is it "irregular" that the accusers sought out the most likely unbiased account first. But, if this is all irregular, why is it standard practice in the GLG that a committee or commission investigating a complaint against a court FIRST meets with the court.
2) "Bias" of the investigators:
This one is rich with delusion. In the complaint we enter the fantasy world requirement of complete independence and lack of bias. There are two sides to every story, but in the case of abuse, it's often a victim telling the truth and an abuser lying. There is ample evidence of many specific infractions, but also a general pattern of coverup and emotional/spiritual abuse prevalent in the sequence of events. So, perhaps a day of weighing facts, the investigators have a pretty good idea what happened. That's bias?
The police and DA are not the courts and they do not have a requirement for lack of bias. It is the judge's responsibility to provide the level playing field for the trial, and much of the complaint simply ignores that. An investigator discussing punishment is not gah! INJUSTICE!!!
I think it's obvious here that "biased" = "doesn't agree with James Faris." The media called it a coverup, a local pastor called it a coverup, the GLG judicial commission called it a coverup, and now the SJC called it a coverup. So, Faris is right and the church is wrong? Possibly, but highly "irregular".
3) "Bias" of the court:
This one is also delusional. I agree that the court must provide a level playing field. However, if the defendant writes an official letter to the court and says "The SJC's process is fundamentally unfair" can they be expected to be unbiased? So, the defendant rails against the judge and then wants to hold the judge in contempt for admitting that they're not really happy with the defendant at that moment?
[Edit: I don't feel like I explained this thoroughly. If I write a letter to a judge and say, "you're an awful and biased human being," it's not a mechanism to force the judge to recuse himself. If it were so, wouldn't that happen all the time with lawyers seeking a new venue? No, if you send a petition to the court that is unprofessional, accusatory and dare I say, contemptuous, you are just plain stupid. The level playing field has tipped because of the petition. I don't find it out of order at all for Keith Wing to explain the obvious to James Faris, he did something stupid and stupidity has its consequences.
4) Focus on "character defects" instead of transgressions:
I do agree that the Book of Discipline (and the RPCNA documents in general) legalistically focus on behaviors, but I don't see a problem with focusing on character defects. Abuse is a pattern of behavior. The character qualifications for elder are a pattern of behavior. Passing the Presbytery exams on godly character is a point in time, and a brief one at that.
So, an inordinate focus on transgressions misses the point of even the gospel. Jesus says "for out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, acts of adultery, other immoral sexual acts, thefts, false testimonies, and slanderous statements." The problem with character defects is a heart problem. So, if someone has a a wicked heart, and I come up with ten times that person has slandered me, is everything A-OK if he repents of stealing those ten times? What if he has stolen from me 100 times and repents for 10 and now the church thinks we're reconciled?
The fundamental problem here is that these men FAILED TO PROTECT THE SHEEP. That is the job description for elder. Jared can repent of failing to recuse himself, and directing the response to the congregation. He can repent of a few infractions here and there, but the ultimate problem is that the behavior that came from his heart was not in line with the qualifications of elder.
But, Faris wants us to pity Jared because he's checked every box, and then he doesn't forget to throw the victims under the bus for "lack of reconciliation" Abuse is the RPCNA kryptonite. I'm thankful that the SJC recognized, at least in some form, that the combined weight of Jared's actions was proof of something greater. I'm upset that they did not see the actions of the Session in a similar light. They circled the wagons around their abusive pastor and hid the truth from victims.
I guess the point here is that if you disagree with James Faris, you must be wrong. If he attacks your character you must recuse yourself from the court. If he twists scripture to make his case, his logic must be impeccable, and if he has learned his error, you must start from where he left off. In the US court system, a lawyer like this would be held in contempt of court.
23 comments:
I found a concise explanation of judicial bias: "Courts have explained that bias is a favorable or unfavorable opinion that is inappropriate because it is not deserved, rests upon knowledge that the judge should not possess, or because it is excessive. These remarks made by the trial judge, must reveal a high degree of favoritism or opposition making it impossible for the defendant to have a fair outcome." - https://www.robertguest.com/what-is-judicial-bias.html
"Because it is not deserved" - and that's the kicker, since the petition is blatantly contemptuous towards the court, the petitioner cannot have any reasonable expectation that he doesn't deserve the court's bias. It was a huge mistake, and I think, despite that, the verdict was fair and just.
According to this, it sounds like the Synod wasn't impressed with the appeals:
"The second set of complaints were related to the Synod Judicial Commission (SJC) and their judicial actions against the former pastor of the Immanuel Reformed Presbyterian Church. Between Synod 2021 and 2022, the SJC spent over 10,000 man hours investigating the shepherding and pastoral responses to the sexual abuse (again, they were never tasked with investigating the abuse itself). Several complainants against the SJC were concerned with various issues from the investigation and trial, including the accusation that the SJC proceeded unjustly, that the trial of Mr. Olivetti was 'publicly' live-streamed, the investigators were biased, that a professional investigation ought to have occurred, a request to 'annul' the results of the trial, and even against the fact that Mr. Olivetti is currently suspended from privileges of the Lord’s Table. Each complainant was able to present their case, the SJC would respond, and then there was a time of debate and questions and answers. The hearing and answering complaints was approximately 1/3 of our time in session. The votes on the complaints related to the SJC and Immanuel Church were: Olivetti complaint 1 was not sustained 109 to 14. Olivetti complaint 2 was not sustained 117 to 9. The Faris complaint was not sustained 120 to 13. The Bloomington session complaint was not sustained 114 to 16. The Riepe complaint was not sustained 125 to 1. The Dillon complaint was not sustained 89 to 40. The Dillon complaint (asking for Mr. Olivetti’s Table privileges to restored) was clearly most persuasive, but failed to persuade a majority of the synod. Although the church heard of much division over this matter, the synod was clear and united in supporting the work of the SJC."
https://gentlereformation.com/2022/06/25/what-happened-at-synod-2022/
I expected they would fail, but not by those margins. The SJC was careful to follow process, and thus the appeals seemed to center around bias and qualifications (i.e. was it wrong for SJC to not hire outside counsel), both of which weren't going to fly.
seeing the way the elders protected the pastor in this situation was very eye-opening to my family. we thought presbyterianism was supposed to be protective/preventative against these things. there is the way a system is set up, and there is the way it actually functions. what else do we not know that's been covered up?
It's human nature and I don't know of a better system, other than including women in many of the processes as observers and advisors.
Diane Langberg had a great quote on twitter that I can't find at the moment. Something like, "Many people when faced with an uncomfortable truth will choose to ignore it and circle the wagons. This is the beginning of self-delusion."
I think this is the root of a lot of issues in the Presbyterian system, people want to trust the system and those in power. When faced with the truth of abuse in the congregation perpetrated by Jared's relative, they chose self-delusion over and over again. First, "normal teenage hormones + consensual", second "Jared wants to do the right thing", third, "We can handle this internally", fourth, "It's really not as big a deal as outsiders are making it out to be", and finally, "How we conducted ourselves wasn't really that bad."
I can think of many, many other cases where delusion ruled. For example, in Las Vegas, "The presbytery spent so long on your case, they couldn't possibly have abused you." or a former church, "That elder acknowledged that he has been abusive. Trust us, we're taking care of it." Lafayette/GLG, "It's our practice to have impromptu session meetings without notice, but it's not our intent to hide things from members of the congregation."
The fact that the congregation voted to leave the RPCNA also indicates that a super-majority of the congregation is also deluded about the truth and their leadership.
Christians have a new nature. We can ignore that, sure, but we're resisting the Spirit if we do. A system, in a church or anywhere in the world, is not enough to regulate anything. We can have the best system in the world, but systems are run by people, and people must be genuinely converted and in relationship with their Creator. The heart of any person is still what is at work in any system. Bad men will still continue to find ways to live like the old man in any system, so selling any system as a protection is foolhardy. The root of all problems is sin. Yes, we do want to trust, and we do fall to self-delusion (our own faults, I know). It's hard work confronting the truth of anything, especially when heavy losses loom at the forefront of our minds and grieve our hearts. The most important lesson I've taken away from my years in the RPCNA is that I need to trust God! Not trusting God seems to be at the root of all the sin in my life, and I believe if we're honest we will see it behind all our sin. It takes years to see sometimes if we are not trusting God, and it's painful, make no mistake. But God is merciful and forgiving and He will see us through. Facing a lack of trust in God is a crucial step. God help the leaders pushing trust in a system for protection. God help us for giving our trust to men instead of God.
What is the case in Las Vegas?
Las Vegas was wine-only communion and a family that joined abstained from alcohol and felt that the Session should allow split cup. The Session refused and the family appealed to Presbytery and ultimately Synod. I don't have a strong opinion on that, but the Synod paper said essentially, how can you argue that you were abused by Presbytery (in their handling of the matter) when they spent so much time on your case.
In reading the Synod paper, it seemed like they misread the initial decision about Kokomo, IN, which I think required Kokomo to split the cup, and interpreted it as "no one gets to tell the Session what to do". Ironic that Synod would write a paper saying that the Session cannot be overridden by a member's conscience at the same time the choose to override a Session because of a member's conscience, and I don't think that's what the decision said.
It's a new breed of elders in the RP who are going to misrepresent what decisions Synod has made in their never-ending desire to support the hierarchy.
Springs RP (CO) had "Fermented, but de-alcoholized" wine and gluten-free bread and I thought that was an uncompromising compromise that worked for both camps.
I wondered if that was what you meant when you mentioned Las Vegas.
My recollection of the ruling is: the session gets to decide on matters related to communion, but individual members "retain liberty of conscience," I believe was the phrasing used. Which seems like a very traditional sort of response by the Synod: try to split the baby.
Inspection of the underlying report of the Presbytery (which I had never seen before now) also gives a similar impression. The no-wine-for-me folks were told "this committee would like to encourage those who choose to abstain to walk in the liberty of conscience in your personal choices and have the freedom to partake of the sacrament with wine at the direction of the church. This is not hypocrisy, it is not breaking a vow, but it is walking in wisdom in personal life and as one under the shepherding of elders in church life. Please walk in the liberty that Christ has purchased. Please walk as one being shepherded and fulfill your vows of communicant membership."
On the other side, the only-wine-for-everyone folks were told "The RPCNA allows for wine, grape juice, or split cup in the administration of the Lord’s Supper. This is ... a point of liberty according to our Synod. We would encourage you to respect the varying exegesis of the New Testament in this matter, while holding fast to your particular understanding of the New Testament on this matter. The committee is not asking that you change your conviction, but instead asking that you seek the welfare of the church over your own personal opinion on matters that the RPCNA has clearly decided are not regulative principle issues beyond the three above mentioned options for the content of the cup."
And it turns out the actual wording of the Synod's ruling was "All members of the RPCNA maintain liberty of conscience—whatever fruit of the vine is administered by local sessions." That was the whole ruling. It apparently "[met] agreement from all interested parties," and then the complaint was withdrawn. I'm not aware of what happened in the aftermath, since I don't think it's not available in the public record.
Also, I looked up the 2002 decision about Kokomo (which apparently also invoked Sparta and a congregation from the Alleghenies). There were 2 registered dissents when the Synod adopted it, but no formal headcount:
"1) declare that the practice of Sycamore Fellowship to offer the 'split-cup' during communion services is not in itself inconsistent with the law and order of the Church,
2) counsel the Session to strive earnestly for the peace and unity of the congregation by teaching and practicing forbearance on this matter and even considering the use of non-alcoholic wine if need be as a compromise measure that might have the potential to hold together members of the congregation with divergent views on this subject;
3) counsel the members currently not observing this sacrament to seek the peace and unity of the congregation by yielding to the wisdom of the courts of the church on this matter, not making this a test of fellowship, and to fulfill their vows of membership by observing the Lord's Supper on a regular basis; and
4) counsel the Session not to teach that alcoholic wine is a requirement for the Lord's Supper (a position that is not consistent with the teaching and practice of the Church)."
This ALSO sounds like an attempt to split the baby, but it could perhaps more charitably be read as encouraging everyone to compromise and/or work together. (I suppose the same could be said of the Presbytery and Synod rulings in the Las Vegas case, too.) Not knowing the backstory on this one either, I HOPE that the latter is the more accurate reading.
ah, teetotalers. I have at least one in my family. They seem to lack understanding with temperance; I don't see their views problematic though except when they then begin insisting others abstain as well. It's an issue of Christian liberty- of course assuming a person isn't indulging in drunkenness or other actual sin. I personally don't care much for alcohol, having lost the desire for it years ago, but I don't see it as the cause of sins I've committed under it's influence.
Any alcohol I've consumed post-conversion has amazingly had a different effect on me, and I no longer acted like a dummy (to put it mildly). I understand some people wanting to abstain, and I have no issues with that. I don't understand the straining-at-a-gnat with the cup so much though, except that this kind of thinking seems commonplace within legalism. The only people i've known to take issue with the communion cup are also ones that tend to prefer the swallowing of camels, but that's my limited experience. As for the Presbytery reasoning the person wasn't abused because of the degree of time spent on his case (if I understood that correctly), that's fairly faulty logic on their part. For all their talk of suffering and repentance, their espoused principles never seem to apply to them (is that why they're removed from the rolls when they become elders?) If they do spend such a great amount of time on such issues, I'm even more glad I left when I did. The use of time for these things, of course, always displaces time needed on issues of greater importance. I began to realize years ago that some people seem to purposely (including by unthinking habit at some point) busy themselves with minutiae or practically anything that will allow them to avoid the things with which they're very uncomfortable. Following rules is definitely easier than working through heart issues.
In the case of Kokomo, the decision makes sense - the Session is offering the split cup and the abstainers are upset - they want to control other's liberty of conscience in the matter. However, the situation in Las Vegas was different. There was no split cup. The abstainers were asking to participate in communion with liberty of conscience.
So, it's not splitting the baby at all. It's an abusive lie. To the Session, there's no reason to split the cup, continue serving fermented wine. To the members, you enjoy "liberty of conscience", which we define as: "drink what you want to drink, but if you don't take communion you're forsaking your vows of church membership, and communion will be served fermented wine only because we respect the liberty of the Session." How exactly are they not binding the consciences of the members? You WILL take communion, and you WILL drink wine for communion because that is what is offered, or you are forsaking your vows.
Yes, I believe teetotaling is a weak conscience. My frustration with the "Vow 8" debate was that there was a real weak conscience question that was never resolved. The battle lines were between the hard-line WCTU abstainers - trying to force all to abstain, and those who felt there was no prohibition at all and felt it was okay to force (i.e. Las Vegas) all to drink. The weaker brother argument wasn't discussed, because the WCTU faction felt it was disrespectful to name them as having a weak conscience. They felt they had the Bible backing them.
That said, yes, this is very much a legalistic argument. The Regulative Principle backs you into a corner where participating in "unsanctioned" worship is sinful, so my guess is that the situation in Kokomo was abstainers saying it was hurtful to them to have to participate in (in their mind) unlawful worship, but the situation in Las Vegas was members kept from the table due to their weak conscience, with the church refusing to honor that.
Specifically, this is abusive. "this committee would like to encourage those who choose to abstain to walk in the liberty of conscience in your personal choices and have the freedom to partake of the sacrament with wine at the direction of the church."
Read that a few times. You (member who thinks it's sinful to drink alcohol) should use your "liberty of conscience" (the Session and Presbytery telling you it's okay to drink alcohol) and "have the freedom to partake" (drink alcohol in communion) at the direction of the church (or be disciplined for forsaking your vows)
Perhaps the name "A Blind Sheep" will seem more appropriate after this, but here goes:
If they were being disciplined or harangued over not partaking due to a matter of conscience, then that is definitely abuse. This is where the aftermath (and the beforemath too) seems important. I don't recall any mention of discipline, real or threatened, anywhere in the record; in fact, the Synod committee that oversaw the case didn't find that there was even a mandate for them to partake, even though there was "encouragement in the strongest possible terms."
It's quite possible the committee misinterpreted the situation, of course, and if it did, then I'm with you on this. BUT if there's no threat of discipline, then I don't see the abuse. I hasten to add that this also means there cannot be any threat of informal, social/shaming "discipline" -- and I've not seen any mentioned. It might seem reasonable to assume that it was going on, but I don't recall (and maybe my memory is faulty) seeing evidence that it actually was on the ground.
That's why it seems like splitting the baby to me.
From the other side, supposing they had ordered a split cup. Then the wine-or-juice-are-equally-fine-but-Scripture-demands-that-the-sacrament-be-unified folks AND the wine-only folks would be on the outs, and then they would have potentially harsh language coming from the Presbytery too: "The committee is not asking that you change your conviction, but instead asking that you seek the welfare of the church over your own personal opinion on matters that the RPCNA has clearly decided are not regulative principle issues beyond the three above mentioned options for the content of the cup. ... There is great freedom and joy in walking with brothers and sisters in unity. Please seek that unity even at the expense of your own personal opinions and feelings."
In this hypothetical, if they were to be peaceable about abstaining from a split-cup Communion after receiving this message and then got disciplined for it anyway, then that sounds pretty abusive to me. But if they were to be allowed to peacefully abstain without rod or shame, then I don't see the abuse.
I think, in a broader sense, the weak conscience is anyone who narrows what's allowed to go in the cup (or the bread, but somehow yeast in the bread was never as much of an issue historically in the American churches as yeast in the cup) without the backing of Scripture. Wine-only, juice-only, and only-uniformity-in-all-circumstances: all of these qualify as weak consciences.
Where it becomes difficult is when, as you pointed out with the "Make Vow 8 Permanent" crowd, people believe they have Scripture behind them on their narrower scope and therefore it's not a point on which liberty and diversity can be granted. If their scope narrows you out of participating, then, other than seeking the sacrament elsewhere, all you can hope for is that you'll be allowed to abstain freely in deference to your conscience. Or that God changes their (or your) mind.
What I understand is that Las Vegas is a "wine-only" communion church, not a "split-cup". The issue that the Synod had to deal with was whether the church can be forced to split the cup when the Session believes wine is commanded.
So, in this case, and what makes it abusive, is that the Synod is telling abstinent members that they MUST drink wine. Read it a few times again, with the "wine-only" in mind.
- The members have to partake in communion because that's what the vowed (threat of discipline)
- The Session gets to decide the contents of the cup (wine only)
- Therefore "use your liberty of conscience" (DO WHAT THE SESSION SAYS!!!) and drink the wine.
I don't know what was mutually agreed, unless the family agreed not to partake and the Session agreed not to discipline.
From: https://www.lasvegasreformedpresbyterianchurch.com/
"We serve the Lord's Supper seated around a table with a common loaf of bread, using a common cup with real wine."
And that is the debate. I might argue that exclusive psalmody and a capella music are a weaker conscience, but the RPCNA would say that it's a matter of scriptural principle. Paul first acknowledges that "food sacrificed to idols" is not a matter of scriptural principle, then goes on to say, but don't eat it if you might cause someone to stumble.
The Vow 8 debate was many times worse, because, in relation to communion, you had the complete spectrum from abstinence to "no scriptural principle" to wine-only, combined with the practical outworkings of what it would mean to serve wine to a former alcoholic (our modern weaker brother).
"I might argue that exclusive psalmody and a capella music are a weaker conscience, but the RPCNA would say that it's a matter of scriptural principle."
I like that; I think it's an apt analogy.
Maybe you can clarify what the presbytery called "conviction" vs. "opinion". What I read suggested that these were both that the family could not partake in communion when wine was the only option.
The Synod response is in the 2017 Minutes. The Synod committee concluded that "There is no language in the report indicating that participation would be mandatory," yet, they removed the last sentence (from your quote, not theirs) of the Presbytery report: "Please walk as one being shepherded and fulfill your vows of communicant membership"
"Fulfill your vows of communicant membership" is saying that participation is mandatory. Vow 5 says, "do you promise that you will ... observe the sacraments". Who knows what their intent was, and I'm guessing they claimed that their words were not a threat of discipline, but I think reminding a member of vows they took is a threat of discipline. Essentially the Presbytery seems to be saying, your conscience doesn't allow you to drink wine and your conscience doesn't allow you to refuse communion, so let your church pick what your conscience should be in the matter, oh and by the way, you vowed to take communion. You didn't vow to never drink wine.
I first encountered the idea of no instruments in worship on a school bus growing up. I loved God, and knew there was an older kid in the back of the bus who was serious about God- he and I would get to talking. One day I was talking to him about a Christian music tape i was listening to, and he told me he was disturbed by the instruments. I learned that year he was a Mormon.
In the written record, it seems like the "conviction" vs. "opinion" distinction came from the complainants, not the Presbytery. The Presbytery report mostly uses "conviction" and applies it to both/all sides of the debate. "Opinion" shows up twice, both times referring to those holding the wine-only/no-split-cup view. But who knows how the terms were used verbally outside the written record?
Related to that, I missed the fact that the original complaint did list a verbal threat of discipline from the Presbytery committee in the event of abstaining from Communion. That's a real problem.
But then the Synod committee comes back (in fact leads their response to this point) with: "It is difficult to determine what was presented verbally at the meeting of the [Presbytery] Committee with the Las Vegas fellowship." Exactly what this means I don't know: maybe the Presbytery had different intentions from what the complainants heard about abiding by the session's rulings, maybe the complainants didn't hear a vindication of their conscientious objection to alcohol in general so inferred they would be disciplined for abstaining in Communion, maybe the Presbytery got heavy-handed in person and then backtracked after the fact when they were confronted about it. The Synod committee never explains why they found it "difficult to determine what was presented verbally at the meeting."
Instead, they rely on the written Presbytery report and conclude, as we've already noted, "There is no language in the report indicating that participation would be mandatory" and "Nowhere in the document is the language of compulsion used, but the committee’s recommendations argue on behalf of unity in the strongest possible language." So, no compulsion, no problem, no grounds for complaint, overrule it. And if the complainants were initially correct, then the committee was wrong.
But then the final outcome from the Synod is not to sustain or overrule the complaint, but instead to rule that "All members of the RPCNA maintain liberty of conscience—whatever fruit of the vine is administered by local sessions," and the complaint ends up being withdrawn by the people who brought it. Again, this could support several readings: a) the complainants were pressured into dropping their complaint for the peace of the church, b) the complainants were assured they were never going to be disciplined for abstaining and were thus satisfied, c) the Synod said this as a veiled warning to the Presbytery/Session NOT to institute discipline for abstention and the Presbytery acquiesced, d) there was a major misunderstanding that was cleared up and left no need for complaint once everything was clarified.
I don't think all of these readings are equally likely, but depending on how you combine the written (but not verbal) record with reader's expectation/interpretation, I do think they all have at least some air of reasonable possibility about them.
So I personally end up at kind of an agnostic position. If I had been a commissioner having to rule on the case, I would have wanted (and would hopefully have been in a position to ask for) more, verbal information from the people involved.
Post a Comment