I've deliberated whether to even touch this topic, but I think this highlights the sorts of struggles the RPCNA faces with wackos and false teachers and parliamentary issues.
Sam Ketcham was a pastor, briefly, in the RPCNA, who was deposed and excommunicated by the Presbytery of the Alleghenies for posting extremely racist views. There's a Roy's Report article about this where the charges can also be read: https://roysreport.com/reformed-presbyterians-excommunicate-white-supremacist-minister/
Ketcham is unapologetically racist in the form of Arayanist/Kinist. What confuses me is that self-proclaimed Christians would be attracted to the Arayan view. According to the Roy's Report, "During the hearing outside Pittsburgh on Saturday, Ketcham accused Poplin of being “a tool of the Jews,” according to a minister who was present.
So, the thing that baffles me about this is that, if there is a favored race in Christianity, it's the Jews! So it makes no sense that a self-proclaimed Christian could read the Bible and decide that somehow white Anglo-Saxons became God's chosen people.
The Presbytery of the Alleghenies decided not only to depose Ketcham, in light of RPCNA teaching against racism, but also that Kinism was a fundamental rejection of Christianity and no member could be in good standing who held racist views.
Ketcham appealed the deposition and excommunication, and, at least based on his tweet on the matter, the result was that only 6 in the RPCNA thought he should not have been deposed, and 46 to 47 (nearly 50%) of the Synod his excommunication was upheld. I won't link his tweet because it's full of racist rants and not worth discussing.
Proxy wars and Procedures
The thing I really want to discuss is whether elders in the RPCNA want to uphold procedure at all costs, or whether the procedures are a convenient scapegoat for other more pressing matters. In the Bruce Hemphill case, it was pretty clear that the Alleghenies steamrolled procedures to make a statement, and it's likely in this case that procedures were steamrolled. The real question in my mind is whether the 6 are really taking a stand for procedure, or whether they are closet racists themselves, and likewise, do the nearly 50% of RPCNA delegates at Synod want to blindly uphold their Constitution, or do they think that overt racism is okay within the Christian sphere.
Deposition
In specification 1, one man argued that the charges should have had Scripture and one man argued that, in a heresy trial, the doctrines must be listed.
Six men voted for specification 3 which argued for “Injustice in the sentence imposed” wherein I asked the Synod to undo the deposition. (Ketcham tweet)
I find no evidence that "charges should have had Scripture" or "doctrines must be listed". So, these six men are basically inventing procedures that they think should apply and then trying to judge the deposition based on their imaginary procedure. Really suspect.
So, are these men closet racists? I would expect not, but what they are, to me, is boys protecting the other boys in the club. If Ketcham can (if he were a pastor in a church at the time) be fired on the spot for teaching views contrary to the RPCNA, that means than any other false teacher in the denomination can suffer the same fate. So, are these guys really supporting Ketcham or are they trying to protect themselves and their fellow pastors from getting fired without a lengthy process?
Excommunication
In specification 4, only one man ([withheld]) spoke with appropriate force against the excommunication on the ground that I was a Christian. I am thankful for his words. All the others who are argued against the excommunication did so timidly or only on the ground that it was too hasty. Thus, the close vote on this issue (46-47) was misleading.
Again, this is likely a proxy argument. The RPCNA has in the past, and will certainly in the future excommunicate "Christians". The RPCNA excommunicates parents who will not baptize their children. The RPCNA excommunicated a man who decided that his own plan to save his marriage was better than the Session's. I was told by an elder that people are rarely excommunicated for the actual "sin" and are much more likely to be excommunicated for "insubordination" - refusing to follow the commands of the elders. All that to say that there is nowhere in the RPCNA Constitution that says that people must be demonstrated "non-Christians" to be excommunicated.
I do believe that churches should not excommunicate Christians, but I also think it's fair for the church to draw tighter boundaries over what is Christian over time.
For example, the early church had debates over whether Jesus was "fully God and fully man". I think, prior to the settling of that argument, a person could be a Christian and not understand the nuance. Maybe today, someone can be a Christian and not understand the nuance, but a pastor in a church who teaches that Jesus is not "fully God and fully man" should be excommunicated.
In the same way, Christians in the 1800's were split over slavery and split over racial equality. I don't think the nuance was fully worked out, because the Bible can be argued to support slavery, and probably argued to support racial inequity (some point out the curse on Ham). But, in the same sense, a pastor who teaches that slavery is okay and that non-whites are morally and genetically inferior should be excommunicated.
The RPCNA Constitution says, "All possible efforts should first be made to bring the sinner to repentance. (BoD 4:1:e)" (Note that 'should' is not a requirement or procedure, but a recommendation) I disagree that the Alleghenies violated any sort of procedure in excommunicating Ketcham, and I believe that they are actually following the principle that Paul outlines in 1st Corinthians. He says to remove the man. No trial, no restoration committee, no long, drawn out process. REMOVE. This is a case where the man's actions are public (check) and where the man's actions are so contrary to standards of decency that the world would consider it offensive (check).
It makes me wonder why nearly 50% of RPCNA delegates think that Ketcham could be a Christian and/or why his punishment was hasty. Is this trying to defend fellow elders from getting kicked out of the church, is it closet racism, or is it some sort of procedural blindness? I really don't know, but I'm thankful to not be under the authority of any of these men.
Racism is a sin. Defending and approving racism is false teaching, and Paul is clear that we are to shun false teachers. We are not even to eat with them is what Paul says. They are teaching a different gospel - the same gospel that was rejected by the Holy Spirit who indwelled uncircumcised Gentiles when Cornelius and his family were converted.
No comments:
Post a Comment