Immanuel ignores RPCNA Synod discipline of Jared Olivetti

Interesting tidbit from Dr. Valerie Hobbs on twitter. Apparently, despite being deposed (removed from ordination) and suspended (removed from privilege of communion) by the Synod Judicial Commission, Jared Olivetti was served communion, and pastor Daniel Perrin was unapologetic about this. I wish this were just one bad apple, but I believe that the "structure" the RPCNA has created is reinforcing pastors who promote and use the government of the church to their ends when it comes to abusing their flock, but when the courts of the church take pastors to task for their sin, the highest court of the church carries no weight. Rev. James Faris, consider that you were ready to split the presbytery over this supposed martyr who now has his middle finger squarely in the face of the denomination. EDIT: Apparently James was in full approval based on the transcript here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_raGULwpqWc [1:49:40] The speech is veiled, but he participated in communion with a suspended member. And then overjoyedly talked about "grace" - quoted: "We know most of you. We just want you to know that we're really happy to be able to be here and celebrate God's grace with you today there are a number of other people who are really happy that you are celebrating God's Grace today in this way" Remember that "grace" is a codeword for what wolves get when they pretend repentance. Jared is not repentant. If he were repentant he would be supporting the work of the commission to restore unity and he would be the one acknowledging that his actions led to a lifetime of harm. Instead, he is using his influence to push himself back, front-and-center, into the life of his congregation. Make no mistake. These guys are Presbyterians only when the Presbytery beats their sheep for them. When Presbytery wants to hold them accountable for their actions, they suddenly become Congregationalists. 

Here is what follows the quoted excerpt: "but it came at a price. You see there are a couple of commissions from the denomination that are here to walk us through their restrictions on us and although we have rejected them, nevertheless, they're there and they are difficult. There is a particular commission that is helping Jared walk through his restrictions and one of the things that they did not want was for him to be celebrating the Lord's table, but the session, the four of us, having talked with Jared extensively believed that he should be there, believed that it was necessary for him to be there, and so we invited him to come to the table."

I guess I'm struggling. If these are COMMISSIONS of Synod, why does this church still exist? There is another faithful RPCNA that hasn't coddled pedophiles five miles away. Disband the congregation and transfer all of Immanuel's members to the new church. Then, deal with the elders who have demonstrated their insubordination to the church courts. This is a cancer that isn't going away, and the longer the cancer grows, the more emboldened the other abusive pastors and elders in the denomination will become.

Except ofc Rev Dan Perrin has *many* comments, which he's shared via privilege of the pulpit
Here's one, from 11 Dec:
"one of the significant things was that Jared was invited & participated in the Lord's table. Jared, I am so thankful for that"
≈33:30https://t.co/Xg4PURESgq

— Dr. Valerie Hobbs (@vhobbs5) January 21, 2023

Olivettis, Immanuel and RPCNA Synod face lawsuit

IndyStar published the story here: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2023/01/11/jared-olivetti-former-pastor-at-immanuel-reformed-presbyterian-church-now-faces-lawsuit/69797923007/

This is really intriguing. It appears to be a lawsuit on behalf of a child who was molested by the perpetrator. The lawsuit alleges that the Olivettis knew the perpetrator was molesting children, but still allowed the two to play together without notifying the parents or supervising. They also allegedly failed to report to the police.

The IRPC link is pretty obvious as well. If IRPC had reported, the child would potentially have been protected. Also, according to the Presbytery commission report, IRPC agreed (decided in a Session meeting?) that the perpetrator should not be allowed around children unsupervised, but that the elders failed to implement that plan. 

The Synod link is much more interesting, legally. From a money perspective, very little is held by the Olivettis and IRPC, unless they have insurance coverage. Synod, on the other hand, owns all of the church properties in the denomination, so they are an obvious target. The question, then, is whether Synod is legally liable. At first blush it would seem not, but, did Synod and the Presbytery create a culture where churches could cover up things like child abuse knowing there would be no oversight or repercussions. If that is the case, could they be held liable for allowing such a culture to pervade the church courts.

I have reason to believe that the RP "good ole' boy network" will come back to bite them. Cross-referencing the IRPC Session minutes with the Presbytery minutes, there might be good evidence that Presbytery did not exercise proper oversight - enough to make a case that they are financially liable for the costs to this family.