Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC: Part 5

 Hopefully this is the final post on the complaint:

9. Passing judgment without knowledge

On one hand, this seems very straightforward. Synod members should diligently investigate each matter and rule only on what they know from primary sources. The difficulty here is twofold: First, the matter itself had over 10,000 man-hours invested, so then is each Synod member accountable to review all the material and ask any questions about those 10,000 man-hours? Synod would grind to a halt. Second, when contentious issues come before Synod, many of the parties write complaints arguing various perspectives about what was done well and what wasn't. This is not unlike our court system where appeal after appeal is filed when a decision doesn't match what was desired.

The solution that our secular courts have chosen is to choose whether to accept or reject appeals. This is done by the court or a subset of a court. This process is not part of the RPCNA Constitution, and currently, the expectation is that each complain, no matter how ill-conceived or trivial gets the full attention of Synod. This means, since humans are human and don't have infinite capacity to deal with all aspects of each complaint, that they are going to rely on their existing biases whether a complaint is worthy of their attention or not.

Whether this is good or not, it's what happens. In fact, the Bloomington Session does it in their paper:

Ultimately, however, Synod rendered judgment on these complaints without first satisfying the request to be apprised of the charges upon which it was ruling. In conversation with various presbyters after Synod, a recurring theme was trust: Men voted on the basis of whether they had greater faith in the complainant or the men of the SJC or simply the process itself.

Let's dissect this. The authors came to the conclusion that "Synod rendered judgment" based on "conversation with various presbyters". In other words, the authors talked with some subset of the presbyters of Synod and were confirmed in their theory. Did they determine a proper sample size? Did they come up with a scientifically valid survey that would not skew results? If they did, I'm sure the results and statistical analysis would be in the complaint. They almost certainly didn't, but yet, based on their own opinions and confirmation bias, they came to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. They "pass[ed] judgment without knowledge", in the very part of their paper claiming that presbyters have an obligation to fully vet any accusation, they chose to state their subjective opinion as objective truth.

Synod's typical approach of appointing a commission doesn't work, since that's exactly what they did, and I would guess that this is quite similar to the case with Bruce Hemphill. Synod was convinced that overall, justice was done, and that the various complaints about whether policies and procedures were followed didn't really matter to them. Synod gets to do that. They have the rubber band clause that “Under extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary things may be done.”(DCG 8:1) The IRPC matter certainly falls into the category of being extraordinary!

Final Thoughts:

As I said in the beginning, this seems more like re-litigating decisions that went against what Bloomington felt should happen. It borders on insubordination because much of this is an attempt to question decisions that were made. For example, GLG appointed a committee to investigate "Ninth Commandment violations". The committee found no reason to bring charges against people for going to the media. Bloomington doesn't want to accept the counsel of Presbytery, nor does it complain against Presbytery's decision. Instead they want to side-step it and try to get Synod to make ultimatums. If a member did this, it would be considered out-of-order.

My initial thought was that this should be returned to sender, but someone had a good point. This paper represents and abusive and domineering approach, and Synod should appoint a study committee to respond to this paper, and especially, to determine if the writers are within the bounds of their ordination oaths (emphasis mine):

7. So far as you can know in your own heart, is it the call of Christ, the glory of God and the welfare of the church, and not any selfish object, that moves you to undertake this sacred office?

8. That you may perform faithfully all the duties of the office to which you have been called, do you engage to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Do you promise, in His strength, to live a holy and exemplary life, to study and promote the purity, peace, unity and progress of the church

9. Do you promise subjection in the Lord to the courts of this church, and engage to follow no divisive courses from the doctrine and order which the church has solemnly recognized and adopted; and do you promise to submit to all the brotherly counsel which your brethren may tender you in the Lord? 

And their membership vows:

3. Do you repent of your sin; confess your guilt and helplessness as a sinner against God; profess Jesus Christ, Son of God, as your Savior and Lord; and dedicate yourself to His service: Do you promise that you will endeavor to forsake all sin, and to conform your life to His teaching and example?

Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC: Part 4

There are more points to go, and perhaps a summary:

7. Lawsuits and the threats of lawsuits among believers 

I think this is ironic because Bloomington initially claims that lawsuits are immoral:

We affirm the command that a believer should not take another believer to court, especially if they are members of the same church body. 

Then, however, they have to defend their buddy boy Jared for threatening a lawsuit:

Consider, for example: What about threatening a lawsuit where one does not actually intend to follow through with the action threatened?

Okay, so Jared would be immoral if he went before a secular court to litigate a matter, but if he's just threatening to go to a secular court, well, that's probably okay. Huh?

Now this is hard, because I think Paul's purpose in 1 Cor. 6:1-7 is less to make the command of no lawsuits between believers (isn't it interesting how Evangelicals like to turn everything into a command?) and more to point out that the Corinthian church has fallen to a point where there is no person who can be trusted to judge cases rightly. I think this is the case in the GLG, where the presbytery is split over whether enabling abusers, denying the existence of victims and turning the ninth commandment into "thou shalt hide the truth or you're going to get disciplined" is the way the church should operate.

Jared's threatened lawsuit was to claim privacy rights over the church proceedings, because the two Lafayette churches were able to attend. The question that is intriguing, is that, when one joins an organization, they are agreeing to cede certain rights. If the RPCNA Constitution says that trials are public, then being a member of the RPCNA means that you agree to your trial being public. Let's say that I decide to be on the show Big Brother. I will have to sign an agreement that says that I agree to living in a house that has cameras installed everywhere, including my bedroom. I can't subsequently sue because they recorded and aired something I was upset about. I waived my right to privacy. So, when I become a member of the church, I agree that the process of church discipline can involve private information being made public.

I don't think Jared's threats were legitimate in the first place. I can pay a lawyer to write pretty much anything to anyone. Lawyers are going to put in the appropriate asterisk phrases that say - these are the words and thoughts of the client I represent, not my legal opinion. If I want to sue my neighbor for using alien mind-wiping technology on me... I can find a lawyer who will take my money, knowing I will lose, and file that lawsuit.

Back to Paul's argument:

1. The parties are assumed to be believers. Believers love each other and want justice. So, the fact that there is a trial suggests that one or the other believer may not be a believer. Paul says nothing about believers taking unbelievers to court.

2. The church should have people who are wise and judge justly. Paul is implying that cases between believers going to secular courts means that there is no wise, just judge in Corinth.

3. Paul's argument here is not a command against taking fellow members to civil court, but how suspicious it is that two believers can't agree what is just, and they can't find a righteous judge in the church (which certainly had men appointed elders).

8. Internet-based communication platforms and the Ninth Commandment

If you haven't gotten the feeling yet that Bloomington has demonic influence, this point might get you there.

The IRPC case reminds us that the impatience to bring all before the public eye tends to short-circuit pastoral care and a spirit of charity.

So, apparently, the highest goal of the church is not justice, not grieving with those who grieve, but pastoral care. It makes sense, because there is no such thing as a victim, therefore, there is no need for justice, and victims need to immediately jump from being wronged to forgiving. So, I wonder how many milliseconds I have from the point that the fist contacts my face before I need to forgive someone for hitting me. Does the fist even have to break my nose?

So, in Bloomington, "Pastoral Care" means the abusers continue to abuse, the victims accept abuse with no desire for justice and all of this is hidden from public view because the demons would be sad if the light of Jesus shone on their process. The nature of the IRPC matter was that a member (not sure if communicant, but at least baptized) sexually molested and raped a number of children. Bloomington argues, in the name of "Pastoral Care" that the children should patiently wait for the courts of the church to repeatedly suppress their victimhood and continue to make sure that their abuser enjoys all that the church has to offer, while continuing to deny them any sort of protection from their abuser.

Bloomington is proposing a demonic system, where abusers continue to abuse with impunity, are afforded all the benefits of church membership, while victims are ignored, suppressed, blamed and even disciplined for their lack of love and forgiveness. This is called "Pastoral Care".

The enemy of Bloomington's "DemonicPastoral Care" is the light. It's no surprise that the fanbois of Jared and IRPC want to suppress the light of truth in this matter, because they are not responding in any sort of godly way.

For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God. (John 3:20-21)

These verses specifically are talking about the light of Jesus, but Jesus is saying a general truth. People who are doing good have no fear of public exposure. It is those who are knowingly doing evil that are afraid that people will discover their wickedness. "Pastoral Care" is being used as a smoke screen for people who are covering up evil by hiding from the light.

Does Samuel want to hide from the light of public scrutiny?

"Here I am; bear witness against me before the Lord and His anointed. Whose ox have I taken, or whose donkey have I taken, or whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed, or from whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes with it? I will restore it to you.”  They said, “You have not defrauded us or oppressed us or taken anything from any man’s hand.” (1 Sam.12:3-4)

 What about the Pharisees?

Then Jesus said to the chief priests and officers of the temple and elders who had come against Him, “Have you come out with swords and clubs as you would against a robber? While I was with you daily in the temple, you did not lay hands on Me; but this hour and the power of darkness are yours.”(Luke 22:52-53)

Bloomington continues: 

The authors of this site make much of the virtue of truth but forget the corresponding duty of love; rather, they weaponize truth against love.

Echoing Stephen Rhoda, Bloomington now defines "love" as the primary requirement in disseminating truth. Jesus fails this test easily. He says, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" How unloving of Jesus to call out those offering pastoral care! Jesus is simply slanderous (by Rhoda's definition).

So, now Bloomington wants to weaponize church discipline for their desire to cover up sin. If you speak the truth, you must do it on our terms, or it is not loving. By what standard is something judged loving or not. It's easy. Let's look at the Manring case. If Manring questions the qualifications of candidates because of public documents they've signed, he's unloving, because the session doesn't want that information to be known. If the session subsequently sends a letter to the congregation rebuking Manring, that is loving. So, loving is "the image the session wants to portray" and unloving is "what the session doesn't want exposed". Convenient. 

It can be argued that the sole reason this whole issue wasn't covered up was the fact that it was reported to the IndyStar, and sites like PeacePurityProgress are helpful to expose the evil deeds of those who want to cover up their sins.

For example, the image Rhoda (and presumably Bloomington) want to portray of Keith Magill as someone whose "reputation" ought to be "protected". What exactly is the reputation of Magill that must be protected? Is it the person who criminally covered up child sexual abuse at Southside? Is it the person who repeatedly defended his coverup at IRPC? Is it the person who didn't like the terms of his Synod censure and walked out of the RPCNA? No, of course not. Magill's reputation that must be protected is that of a loving, wise saint and spiritually gifted leader, but that reputation is out of sync with what he has done. Magill has repeatedly covered up sexual abuse. That doesn't sound "saintly" at all. The only thing that is preventing Rhoda and Bloomington from their whitewashing of history is the fact that Magill's sinful actions are available for the public to read.

So, who is being loving? Those who want to promote the lie that Keith Magill has done nothing deserving of censure, or those who want to promote the truth that Keith Magill was involved in gross sin and negligence against rape victims?

I believe Synod ought to commend the PeacePurityProgress website for standing up for the truth despite the children of Satan trying to promote lies and falsehood.

This website is the equivalent of hiring a town crier, or constructing billboards along the interstate, to rehearse, in perpetuity, the past sins of a brother in Christ.

The Bible says:

Now when evening came David arose from his bed and walked around on the roof of the king’s house, and from the roof he saw a woman bathing; and the woman was very beautiful in appearance. So David sent and inquired about the woman. And one said, “Is this not Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam, the wife of Uriah the Hittite?” David sent messengers and took her, and when she came to him, he lay with her; and when she had purified herself from her uncleanness, she returned to her house. The woman conceived; and she sent and told David, and said, “I am pregnant.”

So, what exactly is the problem? We "rehearse, in perpetuity, the past sins of a brother in Christ", namely David, a man after God's own heart. We don't call out the Word for rehearsing past sins. We see these past sins as examples that we can, with God's help, avoid. When the report of the commission that reviewed the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster was published, it named names, and those names may be rehearsed. Certainly, those responsible didn't want their reputations exposed to public scrutiny, but it was their actions that caused the deaths of the astronauts. So, part of the purpose of publishing the report was in rehearsing the failures, so that they would not be repeated, but another part of the purpose is to remind decision-makers and leaders that their wrong actions will potentially be exposed to public scrutiny. We as citizens are safer on both accounts, first that we know the physical causes of the explosion and how to better design safety-critical systems, but also that those responsible for disasters will be exposed. Bloomington is proposing the opposite. First, we hide documentation of how the system conspired to deny justice to the victims, so we will repeat the same evil process over and over without correction, and second, we hide the actions of those who contributed to the coverup, such that those who want to repeat the process know that they have the protection of the church systems.

So far, this Bloomington letter reads like a manual of how we protect evil men doing evil in the church, how we prevent anyone from calling attention to the evil to prevent its recurrence, and, if it fails, how we make sure these evil men get to walk away with their reputations unscathed and their livelihoods intact.

Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC: Part 3

 Continuing this series today.

Point 4. Pastoral care and physical proximity

I think there is a lot to consider here, and I don't want to waive this simply due to the fact that it is overconstrained.

"Pastoral" care implies that those providing care must be spiritual leaders, as defined by the RPCNA to be teaching or ruling elders. "Physical proximity" means, as they say, "provisioning them to spend sufficient time physically present among the congregation(s)"

I could propose the same solution as #3 - paying for third-party help to investigate, but that investigation, even if done by an organization designed to deal with these issues within an Evangelical Christian context, like GRACE, still cannot offer the "pastoral care" envisioned by the Bloomington session.

As the PeacePurityProgress blog claims, "more than 30 elders ... have contributed more than ten thousand hours to this matter." So, let's say a three-member committee is appointed and paid for overseeing this investigation and by their attention save half of the effort. That would be a 42 week commitment for each of the three men. These men presumably have their own calling and their own flocks, so this is not a trivial matter. Another option would be calling men to this ministry as a full-time position, perhaps something like an RP Investigator General, but I think the scope of this office would be too broad because part of the objection of the PJC was that the victim-centric approach (i.e. providing pastoral care to the victims) was deemed injurious to their investigation. It would also be expensive. The ministries of the church, Crown & Covenant, RPM&M, the RP Home and even the College and Seminary take a lot of denomination resources, and even then, are expected to be fundamentally self-supporting. Creating a new office with full-time employees enough to handle congregational implosions I would ballpark at $500k - $1m. per year. They would have ample work, judging by the complaints I've seen rise to the presbytery and denominational levels.

I think part of the issue here is that the RPCNA is small and scattered. I think the plurality of elders envisioned in the New Testament worked well when churches were not so fragmented and disjoint. If Beaver Falls had a church per 100 people with 5 elders, there would be on the order of 500 elders within the city limits. That would be plenty to provide both pastoral care and physical proximity to a Beaver Falls church imploding due to rape and coverup.

I believe their proposed wording is flawed because by the time a "judicial commission" is warranted, someone is asking for the church to make a judgment because the parties cannot agree. We see with IRPC that there were immediately calls of prejudice and partiality when the PJC got involved.

Point 6. Repentance and Reconciliation

The case of the former IRPC pastor presents a further question more specifically related to reconciliation: To what extent is repentance to be judged by actual success in reconciliation?

I think they start off with the wrong question, and it doesn't get any better. The real question to ask is to what extent repentance is judged by the subsequent actions of the sinner. Spousal abuse goes in a cycle, where the violence is typically followed by apology and desire for restoration. However, this apology and restoration does not lead to change, because the cycle repeats, and is often more violent each time. Cycle of Abuse So, the easy RPCNA grace of forcing abuser and victim in a room to shake hands and be done is diametrically opposed to the fact that the abuse occurred over months, if not years, and the damage done will take months, if not years to repair. RP sermons bemoan our generation's desire for "instant gratification", but that is exactly what Bloomington wants here. A judicial commission sweeps in, gets an apology, on pain of church discipline, then wants to write in their report that all is fixed, time to move on.

Sessions shall gently and patiently remind those who sin of their duty to repent and seek forgiveness from those against whom they have sinned. Likewise, sessions shall gently and patiently remind those who have been sinned against of their duty to forgive the one who has sinned against them, irrespective of any evidence of repentance on the part of the sinner.

When Bloomington starts with instant gratification grace, we already groan because we know where this is going. If grace is not offered immediately and without qualification, it's now time to blame the victim. A wife who was physically, emotionally and financially abused for decades must be prepared to immediately forgive her abusive husband because the church said so, and now Bloomington wants to amp this up a notch or ten. Forgiveneness requires NOTHING from the abuser. This is heretical and blasphemous. The Bible says repentance is necessary for God's forgiveness from our sin against him. So, what session is going to remind God that it is his duty to forgive those who sinned against him, irrespective of any evidence of repentance? Bloomington, I'm all ears! God does not require something of us that he is unwilling to do himself. That would mean that Jesus failed as mediator because he did not truly understand the human condition, because his human nature and divine nature would be disjoint - his "person" could not forgive by the requirement Bloomington proposes. Either that, or they would have to declare that they are Universalists - that despite all of our sins and lifelong rejection of Jesus and his gift of salvation, we're still saved. That would be consistent, but not in accordance with RP doctrine.

I believe this issue is moot because Jared never actually repented. He made a calculated demand of "instant gratification grace" by apologizing for every infraction. When the judicial commissions didn't wipe the slate clean right then and there and restore him to his former glory, he complained about the whole process. When the commissions continued (with Jared being belligerent and uncooperative) to censure him appropriately, he and his church again used cheap grace and legal loopholes to restore him to the table. When that didn't work, they walked out of the RPCNA. Maybe I'm ignorant, but that sounds pretty flat out unrepentant. If I were a victim, I would certainly not want to be brought into a process where I'm told to "reconcile" with someone whose contrition reeks of "I want my job back ASAP."

It's hard to read this as something other than a treatise on complete lack of accountability for church leaders. So, to understand how this plays out:

Leader abuses member
Member goes through the multi-year gauntlet to prosecute this within the church courts
If leader is acquitted, the abuse is justified. If the leader senses he might be convicted, he fake apologizes, the matter is absolved, and we're back to square one where the leader is free to abuse again.
If the member complains, they are disciplined for being unforgiving
If the member enlists outside help, they are disciplined for being unloving

How exactly does Bloomington claim that their proposed system will get rid of vicious wolves? Do they think that wolves won't fake conciliation to avoid discipline?

This perpetuates the failed ACBC model that suggests that the sinner is never as guilty as one would think, and that the victim is never as innocent as one would think. Like the ACBC, Bloomington wants to promote the psychosis of turning off injury immediately upon words of apology, and then the focus moves to how the former victim has now become the unrepentant sinner. Doesn't this make our Lord and Savior the unrepentant sinner, when wolves fake repentance?

Comment issues

Apologies all around... I got an e-mail from someone who wanted to comment and was not allowed. I tested this myself using a separate account and found the same issue.

Until I'm able to figure out why in-line comments are blowing up, I've set comments to open a pop-up window. This fixed the issue for me, but it is not a pleasant experience. I will try some other stuff, but in the meantime please bear with the pop-up windows and allowing full participation.

Also, I think anyone can comment using Name/URL without posting a URL. That would be helpful, just so I have some continuity - like Black Sheep and Speckled Sheep - I have no idea who they are and I have no ability to figure it out. I'm not going to turn off anonymous, and, unlike Wordpress and other platforms, there are no IP address or any tracking info that I have access to.

Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC, Part 2

Point 3: Third-party help

I don't really think Bloomington really knows what they asking for here, or worse, maybe they do. When there is a case of sexual abuse within an organization, professionals hired will investigate using a victim-centric approach. That is the standard being adopted by criminal investigators. For example, the Larry Nassar case was investigated using a victim-centric approach that led to his conviction, and justice for the victims. When organizations are not interested in a victim-centric approach, they often hire "independent investigators", whose independence is almost certainly in doubt. In other words, organizations who want to cover over abuse, usually hire a reputation management firm, who will bully victims into signing NDA's, threaten them with legal actions if they "gossip" and otherwise work to clear the "good name" of the organization. These can be easily investigated, for example, the GRACE investigation of Bob Jones University was cancelled when GRACE started uncovering patterns of abuse. Other organizations, like Doug Wilson/CREC have hired firms to litigate what they consider to be gossip.

So, yes, third-party help is something that the RPCNA should leverage, but what they need is unlikely what Bloomington would recommend, as we will find in the next point we will cover. Just keep in mind that the key piece that distinguishes a reputable firm is the approach they take - abuser-centric or victim-centric. The abuser-centric approach is about silencing victims and restoring the reputation of the organization, while the victim-centric approach is about understanding the extent of the abuse and those who allowed it to happen and continue.

Point 5: Borrowing the language or forms of the world in place of Biblical Christianity

One of the great ways to make a point that isn't rational or coherent is to revert to logical fallacies. One of the great fallacies in Evangelicalism (not equivocation this time) is the genetic fallacy. So, here, they label a victim-centric approach as originating in the world, and thus distorted and wrong. What they don't say is what they have to offer, which is, most likely, an abuser-centric approach. We see this later as they lament that Jared's "restoration committee" (excuse me while I throw up) was stymied in their efforts by the shocking fact that maybe the victims thought he shouldn't be returned to office.

But, how worldly, exactly, is the victim-centric approach? We see that USA Gymnastics and MSU Police took the same approach as Bloomington seems to suggest, towards Larry Nassar. They took complaint after complaint, went and talked with Nassar (abuser-centric) and after he talked them down, they buried the complaints and went on. Child after child was molested by Nassar because they took the "Good Ole' Boy's approach to investigation. What brought Nassar to justice was a prosecutor whose motto was three words, "Start by Believing". She believed Rachael Denhollander and that led to the investigation and prosecution of Larry Nassar. That is how "two witnesses" is treated in the RPCNA. A single person coming with an accusation against an elder is, at best, ignored. More likely, that person is threatened and silenced.

Who else took a victim-centric approach. Perhaps Jesus? Jesus told Peter, "feed my sheep" - he didn't say build an in-crowd of like-minded people and circle the wagons whenever they are accused. The elders in the Old Testament are warned because they did not protect, heal and feed the sheep. Instead they fed on them.

So, it really bothers me when a session comes in and says that a sheep-centric approach is somehow sinful. Maybe they mean something more nuanced, but given the history of the GLG, I highly doubt it. Roy Blackwood covered over sexual abuse within the Gothard organization for decades and retired a hero. Keith Magill hid child sexual abuse at Southside and was hailed a hero. IRPC would have done the same thing, with Jared, Keith and David likely continuing their untarnished reputation if it hadn't been for public scrutiny.

This quote is flat out shocking!

The term [victim-centric] is freighted with meaning—e.g., that one who has suffered sexual sin should be styled a “victim” and, further, that the desires of the victim ought to be preferred in the process of adjudication; and that normal due process rights might need to be bent, in order to avoid “retraumatization.” Notably absent from the “victim-centered” approach in criminal justice are ideas central to Christianity—e.g., the duty of forgiveness or the sufficiency of God’s grace to wash away sin.

So, let's get this straight. Someone who is a "victim" of sexual sin is not a "victim"? Remember this is the SESSION of Bloomington. EIGHT men signed onto this document that says, there is no such thing as a victim. So, what exactly is someone who had a crime perpetrated against them?

So, this shows the true colors of the Bloomington session. The children who had crimes perpetrated against them, who will, most likely suffer the effects of sexual trauma for the rest of their lives (and I know this because I know a family who is going through the same thing, and yes, this child has ongoing effects of this trauma) are not the central part of this? WAKE UP!

So, let's understand what is central.

the SJC “declined to share [with the Olivetti Restoration Committee (ORC)] names of victim families…citing the families’ unease and hurt during the disciplinary processes of Synod”

Again, let's talk about perverted justice in NAPARC. Tullian Tchividjian uses his spiritual office to groom women towards sexual relationships. He sleeps with at least one of these women. He's deposed by the PCA and in the same breath, the PCA appoints a Restoration Committee to, presumably, figure out how to get poor old Tullian back into the pulpit. So, here in the RPCNA, you have a pastor whose relative raped kids in the church, abused his ordination to prevent accountability, insisted on his relative attending church and youth activities, and the important thing to the most wise and spiritually mature people at Bloomington is why the victims don't want to cooperate with the committee trying to put him back in the pulpit?

Can someone convince me that a victim-centric approach is unjust and unbiblical? I see little but good coming out of a victim-centric approach and little but evil coming out of a perpetrator-centric approach. What about good ole' Jamin Wight? Doug Wilson and Peter Leithart took a perpetrator-centric approach. They got him to confess (good), turned him over to the authorities (good), but then worked hard to get the judge to be lenient. They both sat next to him during parts of the trial, in solidarity. Guess who they didn't sit next to. Natalie Greenfield - the girl he raped. She was a member of Doug's church, and like what Bloomington wants to do, she never got to be the victim. Once he confessed, she was told to forgive him. It was over for her. In fact, like IRPC, Wilson credited this as a "homeschool teenage love affair" vs. "normal teenage hormones".

The approach was super-effective in bringing justice. (sarcasm). Instead of spending time in jail, Jamin went on probation, got married off by Wilson to a lucky woman he then beat and strangled.

So, when Blooming talks about "the duty of forgiveness or the sufficiency of God’s grace to wash away sin." What they mean is easy grace (sweeping sin and its consequences under the rug in the name of the appearance of peace) and telling victims to shove it in the name of God. That sounds so much more Biblical (sarcasm) than standing by those who have had injustices committed against them and expecting that the perpetrators will be assigned necessary consequences for their crimes.

In the course of the IRPC proceedings, one sometimes heard the opinion expressed that where there is truth, there can be no slander. However, this concept belongs to the civil law and is alien to Christianity.

By their claim, Jesus is guilty of slander. He called the Scribes and Pharisees, "hypocrites", "white-washed tombs", "blind guides", "sons of hell". They want to stick "love" in the 9th commandment (which they will get to later) and argue that anything "not loving" is a violation of the 9th commandment.

Of course, we know where this goes. If a Session calls the "Peace, Purity and Progress" website "hateful", that is certainly not hypocritically being 'unloving', because, of course, a Session could never be slanderous when telling their opinion that they believe to be true (i.e. holding the civil definition of slander), but when someone says something they don't like (even if it is the TRUTH that they don't like), then, of course, the civil law is somehow limited and anti-Biblical.

Do we see how all four points swirl around the message that somehow poor, poor Jared was martyred and made an example when he did no wrong, and really, it's all those evil victims and the evil courts of the church that had it out for him?

[Ironically, I believe the civil definition of slander is much closer to what I find in the Bible. How many times did God send the prophets to say an uncomfortable truth to a leader that the leader thought worthy of imprisonment, or death??? Couching this in ambiguous terms (here the ambiguity protects the abusers, not the victims) means that sessions have complete impunity in slandering members (remember that they get to decide what is slander), and likewise, complete impunity in disciplining members for saying things they don't want to hear.

Bloomington goes to bat for IRPC: Part 1

 Just when you thought the IRPC matter was gone and forgotten, the Bloomington, IN session has decided it's time to re-litigate all the grievances IRPC raised under the pretext of "drawing profit" for the future of the RPCNA. I will say that I believe Synod should deal with them because the represent gross misunderstandings of justice that are going to get hashed and rehashed (presumably when victim after victim is abused in the same manner as those at IRPC) to throw stumbling blocks in the way of the saints.

I'm going to work on a point or two in this document (there are nine), explain how it is relevant to the IRPC case and what lessons we can glean from the proposal.

Point 1: "Clarifying the process by which a congregation may voluntarily leave the denomination"

While this is helpful and necessary, it is likely an implication that the RPCNA should have given IRPC the right hand of fellowship (and the keys to their building) on the way out. This is a difficult discussion because IRPC was not merely in disagreement on some tenet of RPCNA doctrine. I think that would be another matter entirely. In fact, the situation here, and why it was so contentious is that IRPC was effectively under discipline. Every member of their session who chose to circle the wagons around Jared rather than justice either resigned at the behest of Presbytery, was suspended from serving in that office, or deposed. Suffice it to say that, even if the RPCNA had a voluntary dissociation of churches, this would still have been a contentious issue.

I believe that member churches should be held to the same standard as they require of members. Members who are "members in good standing" and aren't avoiding judicial proceedings are allowed to leave. Members who are under discipline, charged or on trial have a different standard, and that tends to be left to the governing body.

So, yes, I believe a church that has become convinced of a position that puts them at odds with the RPCNA, yet is still within the umbrella of what the church would consider true Christianity (i.e. a denomination that a local church would transfer members to) should be allowed to leave and keep their property. A church that is protecting domineering and abusive leaders ought not leave the denomination until the matter is adjudicated. Also, RP churches would rather "transfer" members than "remove them from the rolls". Churches need accountability, too, and thus allowing an RP church to leave to become, in effect, congregational, should be equivalent to a member asking to be removed from the rolls - potentially suspect.

By trying to copy the PCA voluntary withdrawal, the Bloomington session is effectively arguing that a local session should be able to abuse their members with impunity, and then when they get caught, they can just move to some new denomination or go non-denominational, taking their property and name with them.

"(including, e.g., a good faith attempt by the denomination to work toward reconciliation prior to dissociation)."

Bloomington wants to paint the Presbytery and Synod concern about the rape of children and subsequent session coverup as a simple disagreement, resolved through "reconciliation." What does Bloomington have to hide?

Point 2: "Repentance and judicial process"

I've dealt with this multiple times, but "I'm sorry" is not carte blanche to commit crimes within the church. There is a lot to unpack here, so bear with me. I will try to address it point by point.

"the claim by the former IRPC pastor to have repeatedly and publicly repented of sins related to failures of communication and leadership prior to any filing of charges ... Whether or not we believe this to be true, the claim is significant in the light of our Book of Discipline (BOD)"

First, just because JARED claims to have repented does not mean that he repented. The PJC and SJC investigated and presumably determined that his claim of repentance did not match the actions. Repentance is a word like belief. Saying "I believe" (as James points out) does not equate to faith, as the demons believe. Faith is belief and action. Saying "I'm sorry" isn't a magic unwind everything back to the starting point. In my opinion, even a cursory reading of the PJC and SJC documents show that "I'm sorry" was played as a get out of jail free card. Seeing the actions of IRPC subsequently, it is obviously true that there was no repentance. Jared treated the censure of the court as a joke and the other session members walked away from the reconciliation process. In their minds, the punishment did not fit the crime. In the minds of the Bloomington session, the punishment did not fit the crime. So, protecting your pastor and his family's privilege to enjoy all the benefits of church membership, like sending a KNOWN SEX OFFENDER to overnight youth conferences, while paying lip service and not following through to protect the victims is okay elder behavior? Would the RPCNA accept Joe Paterno (who knew of Jerry Sandusky's rape of children and did nothing) as an elder? Yet Bloomington thinks it's okay for IRPC elders to do exactly the same thing.

"A formal trial should not be initiated for the purpose of deciding what censure is appropriate for one who has repented."

When Larry Nassar pled guilty to molesting multiple girls under the guise of medical treatment, he never went to trial; however, his victims still had a right to be heard. It was probably "adversarial" in the sense that the victims were allowed to describe what happened to them and ask for justice. I do agree that Synod does not have the depth of judicial process and statutory history that the justice system does, but I don't think hearing the victims was unwarranted.

As to the specific case, I believe that the actions of Jared and the IRPC session (and underscored by the continued rancor among Jared/IRPC fanbois) demonstrated that there was no repentance to begin with. There was only the slapping down of the "I'm Sorry / get out of jail free" card and the expectation that the Good Ole' Boy network within the RPCNA would now circle the wagons to pat Jared and the well-loved IRPC family on the back for being magnanimous and now start re-abusing and re-victimizing those who were asking for justice.

Also consider:

The following rules for the guidance of Synod are those commonly observed by the courts of all churches in the presbyterian system. Insofar as they are applicable they should be followed also by lower courts. It is not to be assumed that they meet every condition, for “Under extraordinary circumstances, extraordinary things may be done.” (DCG 8:1)

The whole Jared/IRPC matter was convoluted and continues to be convoluted. The idea that some neat, tidy set of rules is really going to lay out a perfect process for dealing with sin is naive, at best. Unfortunately, this is exactly what abusers want. They want to stick black and white rules that limit what can be done against abusive leaders, while creating ambiguity and avenues to abuse the sheep with impunity.

The other concern here is that the judicial process for officers of the church must deal both with sin and the administrative principles. The RPCNA doesn't have this spelled out, but it is pertinent. Let's assume that Jared and the elders repented. The matter is still not over - the court can still decide on what censure is appropriate. As in the case of Nassar, the prosecuting attorney, defense attorney, judge and witnesses were still present. It still looked a lot like a trial, but at issue was what the appropriate punishment was for the crime. I'm sure that the complainers would still have complained if the SJC had accepted Jared's statement of guilt and proceeded to meet to listen to victim testimony and decide on appropriate censures. The procedure is not at the heart of the issue. The heart of the issue is that it's okay for the friendly pastors' network in the GLG to cover up sin and re-victimize victims because deep down, they're all "good people" in need of grace. It must sound unloving for anyone to attack one of the "good people" and call their actions into question. If it's ordinary members, then that is unloving gossip, and if it's the church courts, then it is violation of procedure and injustice.

What does it mean that the matter is closed? Again, this is very unloving. There are over a dozen children who were sexually assaulted, from unwanted touching to rape. For Bloomington to proclaim from their bully pulpit that Jared's supposed repentance means that "all's well" must be enforced with the power of church discipline. That is just an excuse to harm and re-harm the victims. If a victim says "this is what happened to me." church discipline. If a victim has a flashback of trauma, church discipline. If a victim isn't neat and tidy sitting in the pew, church discipline. If a victim has a visceral reaction to the presence of the abuser in church, church discipline.

Again, the emphasis on "forgiveness and restoration" is, at best, naive, and, more likely, abusive. Brushing justice and reconciliation with such broad strokes reminds me of elementary school discipline. Yeah, he called me a slug every day for the past month and I finally got upset enough to punch him for it, but now that the teachers forced us to shake hands, everything is hunky dory! Imagine trying to paint all sorts of abuse with the same brush. For ten years, the church did everything in their power to ridicule everything I said and undermine my self-esteem, but they said "we're sorry" and shook hands, so no harm done, it's over! Time to celebrate! It seems all these IRPC shills want to use the process to sweep the victims under the rug so they can celebrate being back to their arrogant, self-righteous, sanctimonious selves.

Here we see Bloomington trying to force black and white procedures to protect abusers and toxic churches:

- If a church decides to leave the denomination, for any reason whatsoever, we should have a process that allows them to leave without consequences. Even if the church wants to become part of a heretical cult, we should extend the right hand of fellowship and give them their property.

- If someone says they've repented, the matter is over. It doesn't matter whether their actions match their words. We must take the words of an abuser at face value, even if he spent months driving a process of deceit and coverup.

We'll see how Bloomington wants to, on the flip side, hurt victims with procedures and ambiguity in subsequent posts.

Abuser alert: James Odom uses Sparta RPC to spiritually abuse his daughter, complains to GLG Presbytery

Just when you thought the RP church could sink no lower... James Odom has written a complaint against the Westminster RPC Session for admitting his ADULT daughter into membership because Sparta admonished her for, get this, refusing to move home. https://glgpresbytery.org/uploads/2024-spring/GLG%2023-34.pdf

(5) Several months prior to September 12, 2023, [miss] Odom, having refused her parents' instruction to return home for the 2023-2024 (high) school year, requested a letter of transfer from the Session of the Sparta Reformed Presbyterian Church.

(12b) “You, [miss] Odom, because of your failure to respect your parents have brought reproach upon Christ and are in danger of drifting further away from the Lord. This Court of the Lord's House admonishes you to put away your sin, to watch and pray, and to walk faithfully with Christ.”

Keep in mind that Odom is an elder in Sparta on a Session of three. The moderator cannot vote, and presumably Odom, a party in the case cannot vote, so one elder gets to decide whether "moving back home because your parents told you to" is disobedience. [edit note: the moderator does get to vote, according to DCG 4.4]

In the paper, Odom defends his stance on adult daughter obedience:

(3) Answer for congregations the “no small dissension and disputation” over the question raised by this action: Whether or not, at the attainment of a particular age determined by Scripture, the civil magistrate, or culture generally, willing obedience to the lawful commands and counsels and submission to their corrections under Ephesians 6:1 and other Scripture, and summarized by the answer to Westminster Longer Catechism Q. 127, is still a duty owed by offspring to the authority of father and mother as governors of families. 

 He's also done it on Facebook:

Note he can't even bring himself to admit what he is doing ("No."), instead framing it in the less abusive "obey wise counsel and instruction" - if it is counsel and instruction, then there is no obedience required, just listening. If it requires obedience, it is not counsel, but command.

I remember a conversation at Geneva around obeying husbands: "What if my husbands commands me not to attend church? Is it really a sin to not attend church? If it isn't a sin, don't I have to obey?"

Thankfully, WLC Q127 can only be understood in light of Q129:

What is required of superiors towards their inferiors?

Answer: It is required of superiors, according to that power they receive from God, and that relation wherein they stand, to love, pray for, and bless their inferiors; to instruct, counsel, and admonish them; countenancing, commending, and rewarding such as do well; and discountenancing, reproving, and chastising such as do ill; protecting, and providing for them all things necessary for soul and body: and by grave, wise, holy, and exemplary carriage, to procure glory to God, honor to themselves, and so to preserve that authority which God has put upon them.

and Q124:

Question 124: Who are meant by father and mother in the fifth commandment?

Answer: By father and mother, in the fifth commandment, are meant, not only natural parents, but all superiors in age and gifts; and especially such as, by God’s ordinance, are over us in place of authority, whether in family, church, or commonwealth.

It should take too long to prove Odom's case by contradiction. Odom defines "lawful command" as:

That is one aspect of lawful, but he conveniently ignores the other part of lawful - "that authority which God has put upon them", and "by God's ordinance". In other words, the Westminster documents don't require me to obey any command from parent, civil magistrate, people born before me, and people who are more intelligent, wise, etc., simply because what they command is not "forbidden by God or forbidding what is commanded by God", but they must have legitimate authority to command it. I can illustrate this by example. What if an older sibling comes to me and says, "give me all your money!" No threat of violence, just the command. Well, he is my "superior in age", and giving him all my money is not "forbidden by God", therefore I must give him all my money?? Of course not! What authority has God given an older sibling to command that from me? NONE! In the same way, Odom misses the requirement for positive authority when making commands. To back this up from scripture, Numbers 30 talks about vows women make, and the idea that a father or husband can override them. The literal translation says "women [802] in her youth [5271]" so, the Bible DOES propose a time when the authority of the parents changes - when the daughter is not "in her youth". The Bible does not say, until married, or even beyond, as Odom claims:

In civil law, the "lawful authority" has been tried and re-tried. I do not have to obey a police officer who commands me to open my trunk, without a warrant. A soldier does not have to obey and order that is not lawful: "Lawfulness. A general order or regulation is lawful unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it." (link) So, a lawful order or command, of necessity, includes the authority of the person giving the command to command it.

This leaves the question of when a son or daughter is no longer "in their youth". The census of Israel numbered "every male, head by head from twenty years old and upward, whoever is able to go out to war in Israel" so, we can set a Biblical limit at 20 years old, which the daughter has attained.

The other question is how Westminster RPC handled the transfer. In my opinion, the "exception" listed on the transfer is clearly out of order, and thus Westminster RPC satisfied themselves that Miss Odom was not failing to respect her parents, but rather trying to honor them while dealing with the fallout of disobeying an unlawful command.

We saw the warning flags that he was abusive when he defended the actions of the abusive IRPC session and now we see his abusiveness of claiming parental authority over his adult daughter and then subsequently using the church to spiritually abuse her further.

I will ask the GLG Presbytery a simple question in light of his current and previous complaints. WHY IS JAMES ODOM STILL AN ELDER IN THE RPCNA?"