Sam Powell was a pastor in the RCUS, brought up on charges for teaching "false doctrine", and because the RCUS doesn't appear to have the same procedural protections as the RPCNA does, Sam was found guilty of unspecified charges and told to repent. The Clerk could not tell him what he was supposed to repent of. The whole situation is just a witch trial and kangaroo court. He's essentially the RCUS equivalent of Bruce Hemphill, except that Bruce Hemphill was given specific charges.
Sam talks about the situation in this article: https://myonlycomfort.com/2023/03/22/heres-what-happened/
It comes down to his position on this overture that came into the PCA:
Overture 15: “Men who describe themselves as homosexual, even those who describe themselves as homosexual and claim to practice celibacy by refraining from homosexual conduct, are disqualified from holding office in the Presbyterian Church in America.”Now, I've discussed this before. Sam's response is in this article: https://myonlycomfort.com/2022/06/24/a-sad-day/ which, I think, rightly puts the emphasis back on the position of the church.
56. What dost thou believe concerning the “forgiveness of sins”?
That God, for the sake of Christ’s satisfaction, will no more remember my sins, nor the sinful nature with which I have to struggle all my life long; but graciously imputes to me the righteousness of Christ, that I may nevermore come into condemnation.
Essentially, he's saying the same thing. We will ALWAYS struggle with the flesh. Our struggle with the flesh can take on many different forms, some struggle with greed, some struggle with lust, some struggle with anger, some struggle with sexual sins. What would we say about a pastor who is happily married, has never looked at porn, has never had an affair or dated a woman who is not his wife, but then gets up in front of the congregation and says he "struggles with lust" - well, since that's exactly the premise of "Every Man's Battle", and many churches promote that book, we assume that "struggles with lust" is not a disqualification for pastors.
So, Sam Powell got brought up on charges because the patriarchs of his denomination believe that not all sinful natures are created equal. Some flesh is just too evil for God to work with. Some desires are just unforgivable. If that were the case, don't you think that greed, lust and anger are also unforgivable? Jesus said the person who is angry has committed murder in his heart. The person who has lust has committed adultery. Murder and Adultery are also capital crimes in the OT, so why is same-sex-attraction on a different level than anger and lust? There's no reason, and I would argue that his accusers (e.g. Stephen Carr) have done more than had lustful and angry thoughts. Their whole approach to women in the Geneva Commons has been lustful, angry and greedy. Actions, not thoughts. So, for these men to claim moral superiority over any potential pastor because of sinful flesh which has never seen the light of day, demonstrates exactly where their hearts are - far from Jesus who died so that men could conquer sinful flesh.
7 comments:
I seems like it's less that the RCUS doesn't have the same safeguards as the RPCNA and more that they were apparently allowed to be completely disregarded.
For example, Article 129 of the RCUS Constitution (I'm going to hand-wave the fact that I didn't feel like looking up the election of Geneva College boards but had time to look through the RCUS Constitution): "The charge or charges shall be in writing and shall set forth the alleged offense, and the specifications shall set forth the facts relied upon to sustain the charge or charges. Each offense shall be set forth as a separate charge; and each specification shall declare, as far as possible, the time, place and circumstances of the offense, and shall be accompanied with the names of the witnesses."
Sam Powell: "I asked, 'You have accused me of false teaching. Can you answer this question for me so I know how to defend myself. "Sam Powell is a false teacher because he teaches…what?”'
The same delegate that slandered me earlier got up and accused me of being a 'hyperproceduralist.' He said, 'This is what happened in the OPC. Every time there was a problem, the lawyers would come out with their procedures.'
So the trial proceeded without any specifications."
When your defense against an insistence that the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the constitution should be followed is to label the insister a "hyperproceduralist," it means you don't know the rules and your opinion should be de-weighted accordingly. Obviously, this de-weighting did not happen. (As an aside: when Jared Olivetti tried the "I don't know what I'm supposed to defend myself against and repent of" complaint, the prosecutors pointed not to "hyperproceduralism" but rather to more than 100 specifications that they had given him. Pretty much exploded that one.)
Further, if you're a court member willing to follow the boy crying "hyperproceduralist wolf" so as to override basic points of due process, then it suggests that you don't believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in the case at hand. This appears to have happened in spades.
Not having the case record available to public inspection, I can't comment more. But this looks not okay.
No worries on the Geneva Boards - I didn't have any idea until I saw some list of Trustees and Corporators that had their class - whether they were elected by Synod, Presbytery, or the Corporators.
I wouldn't even say "innocent until proven guilty" as much as it's some sort of "I know it when I see it" accusation. Accusing someone of false teaching might be a pattern, but the pattern should have infractions, or some collection of circumstantial evidence that can be brought together to show a pattern.
I think this also raises the issue of how Reformed churches typically make things right. Best case, the RCUS Synod will agree that the trial was procedurally incorrect and reverse the conviction, but that doesn't recognize the damage to his church, which folded when he was convicted.
This happens a lot in abuse cases, where through some miracle, the church actually listens to the abused and prosecutes, however, when the abuser is found guilty, the church now focuses on reconciliation in the sense of "shake hands and now everything is okay," and they're ready to "move on", but significant damage has been done and invariably, the reconciliation process doesn't acknowledge the need to repair the damage.
Funny how the guilty are always ready to "move on." In fact, especially if it happens immediately after confession (and even more immediately if the confession came because they were caught in their sin/abuse), the desire to move on is a major warning sign that the guilty person is not deeply convicted and repentant. And the sin is almost certain to recur -- and the more quickly to recur the more quickly the pressure is taken off. So, far from being godly, a move to cheap reconciliation is actually a way of confirming the abuser in their sin. And calling it out for what it is would be, I think, an example of following Jesus's command to be wise as serpents but innocent as doves.
Another bit of irony: one of the signs of true repentance and steps toward real reconciliation is a guilty person's UNwillingness to simply "move on." True repentance requires really loving the person you've hurt, and this love in turn wells up as godly sorrow that seeks (among many other things) to repair the the breach and bring wholeness, so far as is possible. Of course, contrition/penitence that leads to a desire to bring healing (in the Spirit) can sometimes degenerate into morose self-flagellation (which is more in the flesh) or a belief that the restitution is necessary to earn the help and love of God (which is also in the flesh). But this is where steady reliance on God, belief in His love, and joy from Him are 100% necessary. This is what Nehemiah 8 is all about.
Worldly sorrow doesn't arise from love at all (correction: it actually does arises from love -- of self) and is not concerned with reconciliation either (correction: it actually is concerned with reconciliation -- of the sinner with his/her own sense of comfort and happiness).
Very we said.
*well said
Yes, the abusers are ready to move on, and for some reason, the church wants to move on, too. That's the sad part. Not only does the victim have to single-handedly get the church to care and act justly, but once the church provides "justice" they've done their part and it's over.
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like the typical reaction is to spend lots of time and effort trying to force an abused person to stay in an abusive relationship, but once "justice" is done, there's no energy left to undo the damage or push for the abuser to change.
Post a Comment