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
— Dr. Valerie Hobbs (@vhobbs5) January 21, 2023
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
37 comments:
There's something else very curious here. One of the defrocked elders was David Carr. If you watch the recent livestreams, you can see that his son, Samuel Carr (Mr. Pony-Tail), has clearly been elected as a new elder. For instance, on the Dec. 4 livestream, Perrin invites the elders up, and (younger) Carr is one of them. In other videos, he can be seen presiding. I'm sure that father-son relationship in no way biases his interpretation of the last several years...
James Faris is no longer listed as a pastor on the Second RP Indy website.
By the looks of it, there are three "elders" in their, perhaps, 20s? [1:13:37] That doesn't bode well when they are supposed to be leading a congregation through a very difficult reconciliation process. It wouldn't surprise me that certain of the former elders, most notably those who only resigned as a last ditch effort to avoid trial, and the former pastor were actually heavily influencing the church using the current elders as a proxy.
I’m a former member of this congregation and I can’t understand why Synod hasn’t taken possession of the building and changed the locks. Jared has led a youth group session in that building recently too. It’s a real liability being that there is a civil suit pending against Jared, Lisa, IRPC, and Synod. Homeschool groups are also meeting in the building. It’s all so disturbing.
Do you notice the abusive tactic in Perrin's words: "You see there are a couple of commissions from the denomination that are here to walk US through THEIR restrictions on US." Wrong! There are two commissions and one is responsible for Jared and the other is responsible for Carr, Larson, and Magill. But that's what the abusive leadership of IRPC has done since day one. They've tethered the whole congregation (at least those remaining) to themselves. If they go down so too will everyone else, and no one there seems to have the discernment to cut the dead weight off. That toxicity has worked its way through the congregation so what is done to the one is done to all. At the spring meeting of the Great Lakes Presbytery, IRPC's interim moderator said everyone was trying to "decapitate" the congregation. He was reminded that Christ alone (and not Jared) is the head of the church and he had to apologize for his choice of words. This congregation has been led to believe this is a THEM vs US struggle. Too bad!
Thanks for the information, it is really insightful. Part of the system of authoritarianism, I believe, is a subtle shift from Christ as head to Elder/Session as head. There is the appearance that serving/honoring the session is honoring Christ, but it becomes more about what the leaders want and less about enabling members to follow Christ. I didn't know specifically what the commissions were for, but it all makes sense given how much authoritarianism has invaded the RPCNA.
If the leaders seem set on restoring Olivetti as pastor eventually, why don't they just leave their denomination and do it? Why go the route of rebelling against sanctions?
I don't get it. Any NAPARC denomination (OPC, PCA, etc.) should respect the RPCNA discipline. If they wanted to leave in good standing, then thumbing their nose at RPCNA discipline isn't going to accomplish anything. Instead it would be to follow the path laid out, get restored, and then leave. Another approach I've seen is to walk out of the denomination and start a new "community" church without oversight. The approach they're taking is just burning bridges with Synod, and the more Synod let's them continue, the more they could be implicated in lawsuits.
He resigned and is now a member of Zionsville Fellowship. Ever heard about them? Check them out in relation to Netflix's documentary "Our Father."
Reality is truly stranger than fiction. He jumped from one sex scandal to another?
https://fox59.com/indiana-news/donald-clines-former-church-responds-to-our-father-why-they-say-he-was-never-disciplined/
Dr. Valerie Hobbs posted a link to a documentation blog. It's extremely thorough and some of the documentation, especially the timeline and how the congregation was lied to, is really helpful in understanding how bad this coverup was. https://peacepurityprogress.com
Typed my name as my comment and then hit Send. Oops.
Moderator/reporter Nathan Eshelman had posted this on Facebook (dated October 9) about Immanuel's status at the last GLG Presbytery meeting. Not sure what has happened since, but it seemed relevant:
Immanuel Church in West Lafayette, IN has also seen difficult days. The first week of October this congregation voted 36-8 (with 5 others abstaining) to leave the RPCNA “effective upon the vote.” One of their ruling elders, Matt Wilburn, dissented from this action. The session, as a result, withdrew their delegate from the presbytery meeting. The ruling elder who was present asked to address the court, not as a delegate, but as a visitor. A motion was made to allow him to address the court. The elder walked us through the minutes of their congregational meeting noting that they remain committed to working with committees that are overseeing repentance and reconciliation of their former ruling elders and former pastor, all of who were deposed or suspended earlier in the year. Following the congregational report, the presbytery extensively debated the status of Immanuel Church. Can a congregation declare themselves not under the jurisdiction of the presbytery, or is there a process that must be followed? After lengthy debate and many speeches around this matter, the presbytery determined the action “to be out of order” and that IRPC “remains a congregation under the oversight of the GLG.” The vote was 28-6 in favor of this motion. A second part of the resolution identifies three options that the congregation can take, one of which is to remain under the jurisdiction of the RPCNA and the other two resulting in either being disorganized or transferred to another Bible believing denomination. This resolution passed unanimously. This has been communicated to the elders and a committee will be assigned to work with this congregation towards one of these ends. Continue to pray for Immanuel as they have suffered much. Pray for their leadership too.
Is the cry that "Help! I'm being abused!" a common one among abusers when they feel the screws beginning to tighten on THEM? It's beginning to seem like it.
No worries, I cleaned up the comment. IRPC can easily leave, they just all walk away and form another church. The issue is that they want to leave and they want to keep the property. So, the real question that GLG had to answer was, can a church just walk away with their property. I think their answer is fair. If they just leave, no, they can't keep their property, but if they stay or transfer to another denomination, then yes.
Remember that most abusers are master manipulators, otherwise they'd be called out for their abuse. So, they've meticulously created a network of supporters and they've poisoned opinions against their targets. You see that in Jared's case, he has almost the entire congregation supporting him, about half of the Presbytery and probably less of Synod. If this weren't "Jared", but a pastor on the fringes, it wouldn't have been 10,000 man-hours of effort to bring him to justice and check all the boxes. The authoritarian system is very deceitful. These men are serving themselves, not Jesus. When the winds are blowing their way, everything is good, but when they are held to account, then they feel martyred because it's ultimately about them, not Jesus. I doubt any of the four convicted at Synod have really, deeply asked the question, "what would really glorify Jesus in this situation?"
When my wife and I left the RP because we did not have a church to transfer our membership to after we left we received a dismissal letter insinuating that our Salvation was on shaky ground because we were not official members of a visible institutional church. The only authority cited was WCF # 25:2 and Hebrews 13:17. Here is part of a communication with an elder at that church. I was ignored. Yet we were slandered behind our backs as I mention in my communication to the elders here.
“”With concern, love, no malice, yet firmness in conviction we would want to respond to the "certificate of dismissal" letter (see attachment) and respond to the subsequent chatter that has been stirred by the very leaders who signed the letter. Although we all trust in Christ Jesus, (all to mixed and sinful degrees) the letter further shows the theological fork in the road. It was our desire to just let things lay and quietly leave after our open discussion with our session and I remind you we were under no discipline upon departure from the church.
The letter we received (despite being very velvet glove nice) is actually so egregious that it distorts the Gospel, because this RP, NAPARC session implies one is on shaky ground with Salvation (Salvation belongs to the Lord, not the church session or a Pope!) except by and through their system of Church polity/ government/ authority, citing only a man written document as their proof and one misapplied scripture verse. So much for Christ alone, so much for sola scriptura, sola fide, Sola gratia. Clearly the systems being protected are idols, built on the facade of untold narratives similar to the likes being spun about us…..IE...."People leave our church who are bitter, angry and who have a problem with authority." It is NAPARC elders spreading this gossip. More important, what systemic tradition is being protected at all cost? Was it Christ or His true church being protected? Or has it been offices and power positions of Churchianity? It is our position that this ALL is indeed indicative, not an isolated case, among a majority of NAPARC leadership, indeed the majority of the modern institutional church. Because this anointed few have been "called" by God they cannot be questioned, I guess? Pope's are for Rome and jumping through hoops is for circus animals. Show me the Biblical text, show us the context, show us accurate translation and then show how that text really states>>> "this is what it should look like." Furthermore the built in bias blinders that assume anyone who disagrees with the tradition is anti-authority or anti-church or causing disunity, or is sinfully angry, bitter etc. etc........This is a sycophant straw man position, a position further cemented inside the echo chamber known as the institutional church. When hyper authoritarianism, Sacerdotalism and an over realized ecclesiology are fed this will always be the case. This is why I say it is a systemic problem within NAPARC and the majority of the modern institutional church. "For there is only one mediator between God and mankind, the man Jesus Christ." 1 Timothy 2:5
As far as authority of a leaders office (which NAPARC clearly thinks is the key linchpin of the church) ---Just one example is John the Baptist from John chapter 1 :19-34 where he clearly delineates between his own (and all others) temporary outward ministry, deferring instead to the internal and eternal one of Christ and The Spirit whom he lays his elder authority at the feet of. John the Baptist , though a prophet & elder is no where found asserting more of himself or blurring the lines between his authority and that of the Spirit or Christ. Indeed this passage and many others show us it is the invisible spiritual church which clearly deserves greater importance. Not saying the visible church has no place. The question is, what is the higher order of things?
Martin Luther was once asked in an utter state of dismay and accusation about his (Luther's) reforms by someone entrenched in the idolatry of Rome. This staunched denominationalists asked of Luther.... "Brother Martin, what will the people have if not the shrines, relics and traditions you are trying to take away?" To which Luther simply replied...."Christ, they will have Christ."
I want to say to my RP and NAPARC friends Christ is enough! Stop Believing the lies of the modern Pharisees.
Abuse of all kinds will always be the norm in environments where the offices, institutions and traditions are high and lifted up. Which they are to a maximum degree in all of NAPARC. NAPARC is a cult.
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’d like to see the scripture verse in an accurate context which justifies this institutional fidelity as chief value? Heck I would like to see the verse which definitively shows a need for church membership, being tied to a persons salvation. It does not exist and this is the crux of the issue we have long been discussing.
Leave the cult! Repent. Embrace Christ Alone.
Amen. If a church equates obedience to the officers of the church with obedience to Christ, that church is a cult, regardless of all fidelity to traditions or doctrines or Scriptures.
I'm so glad to discover that I'm not the only one who sees these things in a church that I loved.
I can give some color to this. One of the areas where the RPCNA is a borderline cult is their belief that they are the pinnacle of the church. It's not just that they practice Exclusive Psalmody, but EP is so crucial to the church that any aspiring leader who does not hold it as closely as the virgin birth is not worthy of being an elder. It's not just one position that is held this closely, but pretty much every historical position represents a mountaintop from which the only direction is down.
So, what that means to the RP mind is that the only reason anyone would ever choose to leave the RPCNA is to descend into some state of sin. It also means other like-minded churches are tainted. The RP church is also tainted, only because she hasn't sufficiently purified their stance (remember the literal six day creation witch trials?) You can call it slander, but that is what is being taught from the pulpits. "The Evangelical church ..." insert pejorative here, whether it's seeker-centered, or allowing theological disagreements, or whatever, every church that takes a different stand on an RP distinctive has abandoned God and is seeking after themselves.
It was somewhat a shock to attend Geneva and see non-RPs and even non-NAPARC students being given positions of spiritual influence over the college. Not that they shouldn't have, but my mind was already sufficiently warped that I couldn't see past the "taint" preached from pulpits.
Your experience is pretty typical. I had an elder who wanted the RP session to meet with my new session, so that they could "properly" transfer me, I suspect like a betrothed daughter or a used couch. It was flatly disgusting to me that this elder thought the RP church owned me in any tangible sense. I've also seen transfers rejected because the destination church wasn't "Biblical enough" (thankfully overturned by Presbytery). But, likely, most sessions believe that they are obligated to put the warning clause in the letter of anyone who doesn't have a destination church already picked out.
I will note that many blue-blooded RP pastors have walked out into churches that don't hold the Regulative Principle, so maybe the belief aspect is not that solid.
I'm not familiar with "the literal six day creation witch trials."
My understanding was that this is a position on which reasonable people could still disagree within the RPCNA (though the younger the minister is, the more likely to be YEC), so long as special creation without evolution, and Adam and Eve as the first humans, are affirmed. Is this inaccurate?
Does the "literal six day creation witch trials" refer to the Lefebvre fiasco?
The trials started with a complaint against an RP elder teaching evolution at Geneva. It led to a few follow-on quests to create a denominational position statement on literal six-day creation (YEC). There have been a few skirmishes since.
Without doing much research, I disagree with LeFebvre, but I don't believe his paper should force him out of the denomination. One of the statements about Adam vs. Christ is that "if Adam can't be our federal head, then neither can Christ" but, I think we see many instances throughout scripture where the "head" isn't synonymous with only. For example, David's census led to a plague against Israel. David was certainly not the parent of all Israelites, yet all of Israel was punished for his sin. So, there is precedent that curses could be against a head who isn't necessarily the top of the hierarchy. In the same way, the Bible calls Jesus our "brother", not our father.
Dean Smith, for example, gave a seminar on "Literary Framework" at an International Conference in the midst of the controversy. Now that I'm out of the RP theological crucible, I find it really odd that denominations completely freak out on certain issues that are pretty unclear. Even ESS (which I believe to be heresy) was not refined until the Nicene Creed of 325AD, and I believe people can be Christians and believe ESS, just like other doctrines that are, in their purest sense, heretical. The main problem I have with ESS is, "therefore it's okay for women to be lesser than men." The ESS formulation creates a "separate, but equal" doctrine that is just as obviously misogynist as the original was racist.
No, see my response to Speckled Sheep.
Thanks. I was unfamiliar with the earlier stuff.
Jared Olivetti is seeking ordination in the PCA? Do I understand this correctly? Is there any evidence of this fact.
I don't think I said that. The congregation, and evidenced through subsequent e-mails by IRPC and supporters (e.g. Rev. Dan Perrin who was preaching for them) seems to want to (1) leave the RPCNA (2) keep their property, and (3) reinstate their former leaders, including Jared.
The bylaws of the RPCNA say that a congregation can either transfer (1) or be disorganized (x). A congregation that is transferred (1) can keep their property (2) which is transferred to the receiving denomination. However, the RPCNA would most likely only allow transfer to NAPARC, which would prohibit (3) because NAPARC denominations agree to accept the discipline of other NAPARC denominations.
Is the moderator N.E.?
"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." This! This is exactly what they are doing in this church system.
re-instate their former leaders? madness!
Read the latest complaints - Odom and Perrin - they both are decrying the actions against the former elders. This situation is incredibly angering. The RPCNA supposedly invested tens of thousands of hours to bring justice, but they really need to set this congregation up on a solid foundation. So, no Carr's, no Perrin's. Maybe they could find a church with a good pastor and associate pastor and pay the pastor to move to IRPC for a year to work reconciliation, and bring in a few elders to visit regularly and shepherd. Otherwise, disband the congregation and make them members of the Lafayette church that's five miles away and sell the property. The current situation of having antagonistic leadership who are poking and prodding the denomination and then playing the martyr before the congregation is not helping anyone.
Here's a quote from Perrin's paper: "The Former elders (FREs) who have been suspended had literally nothing to do wtih[sic] the situation. I am grateful for the work of their commission in working toward reconciliation. The FREs continue to work with their commission, but again there is no good way through their discipline and the congregation has been robbed of their leadership and guidance"
This man is preaching to IRPC every week (I guess he's resigning as of the letter), but what is he telling them. THIS. That Magill, Larson, Blackwood, Pfiefer and Carr had "NOTHING" to do with this situation.
Read the IJC report. These men characterized the sexual abuse as "normal teenage hormones" (IndyStar), considered some of the acts "consensual" (IJC), and then used their status as the AIC of presbytery to pick their own investigators and pretend they were meeting the demands of a local church that was fed up with their inaction and obstruction.
@Stephen. I see why you thought that now. I don't know Liz Sands Crusey - it's just the reply to Valerie Hobbs's comment that Twitter decided to show. If you know how to make that go away, I'd appreciate it. I have heard rumors about directions IRPC might take, but I'm not sure it's helpful to encourage the rumor mill. I think rumors are different than speculation.
@Stephen, I took a look at Twitter. It seems like the mention of the PCA is because Valerie Hobbs was replying to that tweet. I can't find anything further - the original tweet was deleted, so we just have the reply (Crusey) and the reply to the reply (Hobbs). Also, I can't remove the Crusey because that is embedded in the Hobbs tweet, which I think is then replied to in the tweet I think is important (That Perrin is "thankful" that the IRPC Session chose to be insubordinate to church courts and invite Jared to the table)
this letter is very encouraging! This is exactly what my family was seeing when we left!
Post a Comment