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.