3/25/07, Stan B.'s Questions on Excommunication

Subject: Stan B.'s Questions
From: Lyndon Dohms
Date: 3/25/2007 6:48 PM
To: [Church List]

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Stan B. has addressed our Members with several
questions which he proposes to answer in separate
public emails in order to defend the unlawfulness of
recent excommunications. We do not intend to engage
in a public debate with him when we believe we have
already provided sufficient public and private
responses to Stan's questions.
If you would like to have a full record of the email
communication that we had with Stan over the past
several months (by which we sought to come to
agreement in the truth, but sadly to no avail), please
write to the Session to request this Word document.
If you have questions that you would like to address
to the Session, please send them to us privately (as
is always the case). We will seek to answer them as
soon as we are able to do so.

For the Cause of Christ,

The Session of the RPNA (GM)

3/25/07, The Effort Emails (RPNA -- GM)

[Cover Email]

Subject: The Sins Committed by the Effort
From: Lyndon Dohms
Date: 3/25/2007 6:45 PM
To: [Church List]

Dear Members of the RPNA (GM),

Attached are two documents from the Session.

Elder Lyndon Dohms
Clerk of Session

[with 2 docs. attached:
Sins committed by the "Effort" and the Steps to Repentance (Mar. 22, 2007) & Effort Emails ]

______________________________________________________


Dear Brothers and Sisters
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list of correspondence that passed between those brethren who were involved in “The Effort”, but is rather a representative list of correspondence accurately documenting in their own words what were their designs, purposes, and actions in the secret meetings and correspondence they had with one another.
We have listed the correspondence below in chronological order and formatted the emails for easier reading (without changing anything in the content of the text). We have also deleted duplicated emails at the end of some of the correspondence that already appeared earlier in its original form so as not to extend unnecessarily the length of this file.
The Session of the RPNA (GM)

_______________________________________________________

From: Shawn A.
To: Shawn A.; Edgar I. ; Stan B. ; Jordan D. ; Bob S. ; Mark C.; Cheryl G. ; Mike G.; Milly S. ; Ben H. ; John P.
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 7:28:45 PM
Subject: Our common concern
Hello All.

We wanted to take a moment to share some thoughts, give an update, and encourage us all.

So you are now explicitly part of an effort to establish and deal with common concerns through mature deliberation. Our purpose, as we have discussed, is to present our concerns to the Elders and the Church with one united voice, seeking to minimize any more casualties, and give courage to our Elders to better employ the kind of order and process that protects Christ's sheep as well as His doctrine.

Those involved presently include (13 households / 6 Societies):
Albany, NY
Shawn & Tammy A.
Edgar & Juana I.
Clemson, SC
Stan & Meme B.
Edmonton, AB
Jordan & Doralynne D.
Taletha, Samantha, Camilla, Hannah E.
Willena F. (not Irene, nor anyone else in her household)
Lynden, WA
Bob S.
Prince George, BC
Mark & Belinda C.
Cheryl G.
Mike & Teresa G.
Rod & Milly S.
St. Louis, MO
Ben & Kathryn H.
John & Holly P.

Now that so many more are involved, it would seem that we collectively need rules of order and operation:
a) to assess the scope of participation we each will have
b) to guide our principles of operation
c) to maintain confidentiality, especially since there is a heightened awareness towards potential common concerns (communicated in public or private correspondences, collaborations, and efforts).

Recently Mike G. (in a letter to one of our participants) sent a principle of scope that was very helpful and positive to our work:
"As a guiding principle, I have found it very effective to
(1) remain open to all ideas, even changes in direction, so long as
(2) all participants recognize the importance of deferring to the collective judgment wherever possible (all things lawful!).
Because this helps to:
(1) permit all voices to be heard and cultivates diversity and original thinking;
(2) constrain the participant from becoming overly defensive or polarizing into an independent action, which would compromise the benefit to one another."

Those in Albany have maintained certain rules of order:
1. In their meetings there is a facilitator and a records keeper.
2. There has to be explicit consent prior to introducing any to the effort.
3. Any new households that are introduced to the effort, are done by 2 delegates. (There were circumstances in which one was sufficient.)
4. Report is given:
a) Have you taken or received an opportunity to speak to others, outside of our company, about our effort?
b) Have you had any conversations (more generically) concerning things that would help us to direct our effort?

We have a hard time as it is now, when there is this perpetual, yet non-substantiated rumor that there are some in the Church that hate the Elders, and want to overthrow them, want their power, etc. There is no fact behind it (in us at least, by God's grace), yet it drives members in our Church to suspicion, defensiveness, and greater disunity. It is best to keep silence in any public context at this time.

We don't want to compromise this opportunity to:
Internally -
1) Know one another's mind that we may collaborate our common concern into a succinct and relevant presentation.
2) Present this common concern in a charitable & compelling way.
Externally -
3) Give those who are confused, some direction regarding issues and background.
4) Provide a positive alternative for considerations between the Elders and the brethren.
5) Encourage the Elders to a fruitful dialogue.

Having differences with the Elders in forms of questions or comments, does not imply cruel intentions, though that's the spin put on it. (see questions below)
The above is said because there is need to substantiate the comment made regarding "heightened awareness".
1. Anyone with a wife in the "LOC" has probably heard the elder-defending, people-bashing that has been going on in there; even after the moderator, Cheryl G., asked them to stop because it was appearing divisive.
2. People who have asked the Elders questions, or voiced to them degrees of concerns as individuals, in regards to their newly stated positions, have much to fear and possibly lose, given the historic track record of the Elders (Too weak to regularly tend to and feed the flock, but strong enough to excommunicate for holding a position apparently contrary).
3. Elders have been asking numerous people in the Church, "So what have you heard others saying about the paper?" assuming those asked are already on their page and in agreement with their doctrine/actions/conclusions.
These are 3 common ones. You may know of more circumstances that show a heightened awareness.

This may or may not have been shared this with you, but our understanding of the weaker brethren is one who lacks discernment, lacks knowledge, or is poor in both. Though one may never have taken a course in logic, God has blessed man with the ability to be rational, and so we suggest it's more likely that of those weaker brethren, 20% of them lack discernment, while 80% lack sufficient knowledge base. If true, this is very encouraging for as we labor to support the Elders and weaker brethren, where knowledge is established, many will be able to work through the material and discern issues at hand.

Hopefully (Lord willing), this preliminary letter will help us begin collaborating and filtering, that we may present common concerns in a timely and orderly manner.
In all that follows and that which has preceded, all are welcome to offer comments, concerns and question. So, let us now consider a few presuppositions to the effort we are beginning:

1. Are we accusing anyone of sin or obstinacy?
At no time in the invitations to participate, was such a rush to judgment (Pv. 29:20; Eccl. 5:2) to have been represented, and it is hoped all are moderate in their judgment to deny the flesh, but rather seeking to establish the matter (Pv 18:13, 25:2).
Righteous judgment does not desire to be driven by fallible hearts and perceptions (Matt. 15:18,19), but to walk deliberately, slow to speak, quick to hear (Jms. 1:19), hoping all things (1Cor. 13:7). We only intend to clarify what we ask that we might be nourished appropriately by the Lord (Jms. 4:3) and our fathers (Matt. 7:9-11), and that none among us misconstrue the Elders public position. We desire to have appropriate answers to our common needs, related in our concerns and questions (Pv. 16:20).

2. Do we have a right to be involved in this effort?
Yes, because:
i. The paper produced by the Elders was widely distributed to our covenanted community, told to the Church (Matt. 18:17), and therefore its content represents public matter, of common concern beyond the scope of private persons, as Paul addresses in Corinth (1Cor. 1:10, ch.5).
ii. As the public positions were represented as judicial positions, therefore it is subject to examination against the only rule of faith and practice, the Law and the Testimony (Is. 8:16,20).
iii. We have a right to seek the counsel of others sharing in common concerns, to help formulate the best questions and to help filter out irrelevant questions and/or presuppositions (Pv. 11:14, 15:22, 27:17; Dan. 1:9-12).
iv. We labor to explicitly dialogue with the Elders as our superiors (Eph. 6:1,2; 1Tim. 5:17; Heb. 13:17), in an orderly way reflecting the public and common nature as they have made it (1Cor. 14:40). Ours is a sincere effort to produce a more effective finished product which will increase clarity and see Testimony built up (Is. 8:16); we are not putting forth effort to thwart, subvert, or usurp lawful authority, but effort to show due care and godly zeal (2Cor. 7:8-11) as inferiors.
v. While the Elder's 'recommendation' (1Cor. 7:25) for the brethren to not talk amongst one another on the subject was of an optional nature (not binding our private judgment), our right to work together in all ways lawful was not denied. Had the Elders meant to restrict our rights to consult one another on matters of common concern (Acts 6:1), they would have clearly articulated such a bold restriction with the appropriate scripture, argument and history from our testimony to support such a thing.

3. Do we have the right to undertake such efforts in a confidential way?
Yes, because:
i. We are private individuals undertaking a private exercise together, albeit in the interest of producing the best results in the interest of all – sheep through shepherds (Esther 4:14). Though some may think us proud, our desire is not to see battle but to see God's name glorified and exalted among us everywhere (1Sam. 17:26-28). Our battle is not with our brethren or the Elders, but together with them, against wickedness (Eph. 6:12).
ii. Those who do not share similar concerns might unnecessarily stumble in the course of our private exercise (Rom. 14:12,13), rushing to judgment concerning our motives, which would only aggravate an already challenging environment.
iii. To advertise our efforts would therefore delay the constructive dialogue we lawfully desire, due to:
a. Interruptions in the nature of having to first defend our right to access a multitude of counselors on this matter of common concern; and,
b. By virtue of our being individually inquired by otherwise well-meaning brethren wanting to 'be in the know' and 'in the loop', prior to our even having fully composed and articulated our questions and concerns.

4. Is this sneaky or suspicious on our part?
Our conscious intent is to share the fruit of our efforts in a respectful and temperate way, once the information is collaborated and constructed into a complete and thorough presentation. Thus, the answer to this question is 'No'.
If we are to manage our own spirits, we must continually recognize man's inclination to rush to judgment, whereas our conscious intent is to maturely deliberate with one another in the interest of articulating: our understanding of their public positions, related questions, and lastly common concerns based on our understanding. Our knowledge of sin in us (Titus 3:2-3,8), along with our weak governmental circumstances, informs us that mature deliberation and caution are critical to a successful exercise.

5. Why should we keep this information "secret" until it is complete?
We must continually remind our consciences that our company of brethren has not chosen to keep our exercise "secret", but rather "private" only for the present time. It is understood that, Lord willing, we intend to share the fruit of our labor as soon as we reasonably can. Participation is voluntary, but if we are to be effective, we must guard our hearts from such vanity or conspiratorial thinking; such fears may be the result of our individualistic tendencies of the past, that have not recognized our concerns as common to all and being of a public nature.
Secondly, we need to process all the information, questions and concerns in an orderly manner to protect weaker brethren, who could easily stumble over it in hasty and reactionary ways, discouraging many and frustrating a worthy public discourse.
Weaker brethren without sufficient knowledge-base to discern these common concerns, if lacking spirits sufficiently sanctified to resist common temptations, could:
i. Be easily offended at the Elders without benefit of a full and balanced presentation (this may include the majority of ourselves as well), or,
ii. See us as presumptuously and unlawfully challenging the Elders, resulting in their embracing an implicit faith in fallen men (the Elders) who are tasked with aiding God's people, and strife further increased among the brethren.
If we are to exercise private judgment with discretion and soberness, we must support all our brethren with the best finished product, in the interest of a full and complete presentation that all can interact with in an intelligent and reasonable way. In other words, we must minimize wherever we reasonably can, the potential for divisions and discouragement.
Lastly, our chosen course also seems most wise because at best, our collaboration at present is still a handful of random thoughts lacking capacity to encourage constructive dialogue, which is the hope of our labors.

6. What is confidentiality?
For our purposes, the following obligations seem appropriate to our voluntary and private exercise:
i. Not voluntarily disclosing any information obtained in confidence in the course of our common effort.
ii. Taking all reasonable efforts to ensure that information relevant to our efforts are only accessible to those so authorized.
iii. Deferring private judgment where relevant, to the whole (i.e. Not extending participation invitations without being tasked by the whole; not advancing private concerns to the Elders without disclosing to and consulting with the whole, where such action may reflect on our collective efforts).

7. What can you do?
Two roles have been contemplated so far:
i. Passive contribution
ii. Active contribution
The concept of the Passive contributor is not one of deferring judgment to the others or of relinquishing responsibility to form a judgment. Rather, the Passive contributor who circumstantially is unable to commit much time to the effort is on occasion required to thoroughly review the developing paper for: clarity of thought, completeness of reasoning, moderation of tone, etc. While not as time intensive as the Active contributor, this feedback plays a massive role in suggesting different directions and constructing a balanced, representative piece that all can support. This participation supports a final product that is sound in speech and reason.
The Active contributors are expected to be fewer, and on them will fall the greater time burden of composing material for review by all. These must rely on constructive, thorough feedback to deliver the very best product that can be. On a cautionary note, their role is in service to the whole, and they are not to impose their particular biases, concerns or issues; their purpose is in interest of accurate and thorough representation.

VIII. Where do we go from here?
i. PARTICIPATION: Confirm the level of participation you see yourself functioning in (Active or Passive).
ii. COMMUNICATION: Firm up channels of communication amongst us as:
a. A whole, who are passive and active contributors?
b. Active contributors working together as a committee and individually
iii. REPORTING: As above, how to implement a reporting function to all
iv. TIMELINE: Active contributors must commit to a timeline of action
Practically, one avenue that has been broached (subject to approval) is for all the Active contributors (passive where they choose) to:

Phase I
i. Review all primary source documents (June 8,14/03; Jan. 1/06, Jun. 4/06)
ii. Review secondary source documents by interest (1994+)
iii. Note individual thoughts on the 'Sessional Authority' paper (SA)
iv. Submit individual notes for collaboration with redundancies removed
v. Identify major themes/patterns requiring address and consult with the whole
vi. Determine how to proceed on the themes, and begin work

Phase II
vii. Weekly or bi-weekly reporting/reviewing by all
Another way might be circulating an initial commentary on the SA paper for review and further addition.
Both have advantages and disadvantages, and suggestions will be welcome. The key now is to ascertain your role, along with concerns you might have in how we proceed. Once lines of communication, delegation and operation are firmed up, we can move forward practically.
Thanks for your participation. May the Lord be pleased in our desire to promote unity in His Church, and grant us further grace to be faithful in all deliberations.


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Shawn A.
To: Ben H.
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:31:16 AM
Subject: draft

Some background

When the Elders sent out their paper, June 4th, 2006, some in Albany began discussing points of concern with their production.

First of all, where was the “Restructuring Paper” that we prayed and fasted for January 21st, 2006?

Second, what has changed circumstantially between January and June (besides an announcement that Elder Barrow would be going part time)?

Third, does it seem odd that most of the quotes and theories represented in the paper don’t seem to address our particular circumstances?

Fourth, what’s up with the Being and Well-being of a General Meeting? And why are there no primary sources or references for that section?

Questions continued and we found that there were common concerns with this paper. The natural response is – “So what do we do?” A few options were discussed.

a) We could go to the Elders as individual families.
b) We could get together and discuss the paper, see how many answers we could come up with and offer the rest of our questions to them.
c) We could forget about the concerns, and go on living our lives.

We decided that all were lawful (except option c), and so considered:
a) The schedule of the Elders: They would be too busy at this time answering other people’s “real” concerns. (The T.s, all the bankrupt marriages, all the potential suicides, all the phone calls, all the papers they need to write before they can move forward in any productive and edifying way… you get the point)
b) The company we found ourselves in: We had been able thus far to promote productive and edifying dialogue amongst us 4 households.

As we began to talk with others about the paper, we found that our initial concerns were further reaching than just within our congregation. At that point we decided to get together and talk about our actual concerns, goals, and options.

In our first meeting we set up some guidelines, explicitly discussing: Principles of Separation/Unity; Definition of the “weaker brother”; Need for confidentiality; Our purpose: to establish common concerns to be dealt with through mature deliberation with the Elders; Our goals; Who would be united in this effort, as opposed to who would stumble over it, and who would simply be hostile to it?; Guidelines we want to follow; How we should approach those likeminded brethren; What we should do in the meantime and when should we meet again.

It was a very productive meeting. And I think that we were all in some ways encouraged. We thought that the Elders would understand that we all had questions, and were motivated by only the best of intentions on our part. We were seeking to promote the peace, purity and unity of Christ’s Church, as well as all our covenanted brethren.

Soon after one of our company found that he could not participate actively due to a personal conflict of interest. At no time did we chastise him for his decision but commended him for his sign of maturity. He has expressed that once something is put together and made public he would most likely be on board (pending the content).

Our first assignment was to collaborate significant announcements/minutes from 2000 and forward, looking specifically to determine how the Elders defined the nature of their court and our organization (Form) and the order in which they proceeded in Ruling and Representing Christ’s Church (Function).

We spent the next 2 meetings (8 hours total) going through these documents as a means of defining what common concerns existed. One question we focused on was, “Is the present position of Sessional Authority consistent with their historic Form and Function?”

We found quite a few inconsistencies that we wanted cleared up. Some were even convinced that we had probable charges. We understood that we needed to facilitate an effort that would be able to establish and work through our concerns in a practical and fruitful way. We understood that there were temptations to either maintain an implicit faith, or just give up and leave. We have had 1/3 of our Church give up and leave, and apparently handed over to Satan for doing so. (We did not commend their actions, but recognizing that the present structure that the Elders have set up can produce such grave results, we found ourselves having a degree of sympathy towards many of those who have left; as well as those who have succumbed to an implicit faith – In fact, we agreed that we had been guilty to degrees of implicit faith as well, to our shame.)

So our company in Albany began to seek to ascertain your concerns and if in agreement, secure your commitments to work together. Of course some of you actually came to some of us asking the same, “So what do we do?”

Some current issues

In retrospect we would say that we did not do the best job at securing privacy and more importantly direction. And for this we regret if we inadvertently put those stumbling blocks before you. We had better intentions and must qualify that we are all new to this kind of effort. We are especially grieved that it has had to be so private, which has a potential to appear as a substantiation of the rumors and suspicions Brian, Nick and possibly others have been circulating out there. Many, like us only months ago, lack the knowledge to discern a worthy effort seeking to promote unity and strengthen our wall, as opposed to an abortive effort.

Be aware there is one effort that is suicidal – the effort that seeks to set up implicit suspicion and divide imaginary conspirators from “the mature and faithful children” – they are the ones seeking to draw lines in the sand, and define our company. Not to mention the tactics of calling those “elder-haters” out, and quoting the General Meeting as if to say, “We are very aware of what our forefathers said, and they agree with US, not YOU!” God will be all men’s Judge, as every word is established in its due time.

And with the latest communication sent out July 10th, here we are.

At present there are concerns among us that this “secret” or private manner may appear as validating the rumors going around, which could cause a Church split. So we must examine, is such a process actually hypocritical of us, desiring a greater transparency of others while employing non transparent methods ourselves? Is it possible that some would put the title “hypocrite” on us, yet we do not require of them an absolute transparency?

Sure it is. We DO desire to put something together that we may be transparent in presentation and common concern, and we do not require of the Elders a universal or absolute transparency.

At the same time privacy is not the ideal way in which to proceed.

We desire a structure that would invite and encourage concerns of the whole to be voiced and dealt with by Christ’s ministry. At this time God would not have that kind of structure (a settled Church) exist for us.

Some options

So we have some options before us (in thinking through these, we need to identify the Risks and Benefits involved in each):

1. We continue to do what we are doing.

2. We make our intentions known to the Elders so that they do not have cause to suspect suspicions about us, and we then continue in an effort to establish common concerns (in an orderly and representative way), so that we can make a meaningful and relevant presentation to the Elders/Church.

3. We do the same as #2, except make it full blown public so that rumors don’t continue or worsen (which unless the Elders intervened privately and/or openly, would seem a likely result).

4. We go to the Elders and remind them of their mention of a “Forum” in their paper. We explain that we would like one set up for us to dialogue with them and each other about common concerns. (We may or may not still continue our effort in this context – if the Elders were even agreeable)

5. We seek to set up a General Meeting in which system we could effectively establish common concerns in a public way, so that we can make a meaningful and relevant presentation to the Elders/Church.

One of the primary objectives in Society and General Meeting communications is to know one another’s minds, so that the constituents may consult one with another. We need to do that now; know one another’s minds, and then consult one with another, seeking a consensus all can support. Otherwise, what as the point? To impose our views on one another, or to maturely deliberate in the interest of blessing one another and walking together in a brotherly way? Let us all carefully consider our next step, so that we can move beyond the present trial (rumor and suspicion). They are a reality, and we ought to deliberate how we want to recognize that, or ignore it. Whatever. Let us start by acknowledging the reality, and deliberating how to move forward.

All suggestions are welcome (let's use The Effort forum for that maybe, or if you prefer, let Mike or Shawn know privately, until we can get our lines of communication clarified). Let's do our best to reason maturely, while guarding our hearts throughout. Let us bless and support one another.


From: Shawn A.
To: Ben H.
Cc: Edgar I.
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 10:12:49 AM
Subject: clarification.
Hey Ben,

Was it your understanding that you, Edgar and I were to collectively come up with some form of communication to John, and share that prior to communicating with John? In other words, is that the motion you seconded? (I clipped the unapproved minutes from our meeting relating to this issue, below)

Thanks brother,
-shawn

CORRESPONDENCE WITH JOHN P.

Suggestion was made to communicate with John P., thanking him for his recent email in which he encouraged the Effort to reconsider whether to notify the elders in order to avoid the appearance of evil. Concern was expressed that communicating with someone outside the Effort might compromise the confidentiality of the Effort. Bob motioned that Shawn, Edgar, and Ben express our thanks to John P.. Shawn modified the motion to require them to share their communication with everyone before sending it to John. Stan modified the motion to require John to agree to confidentiality prior to his receiving the communication. After discussion, Stan retracted this modification. Ben second the motion, with Shawn's modification but without Stan's. Motion passed.


From: Shawn A.
To: Shawn A. ; Stan B. ; Mark/Belinda C. ; Doralynne D. ; Jordan D. ; E. Family; Willena F. ; Cheryl G. ; Mike G. ; Ben H. ; Edgar I. ; Milly S. ; Jody S. ; Bob Sudan
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 1:38:34 PM
Subject: recent post - under Option #6
Sorry for double posting - I noticed I missed a few people in the first one. Sorry

When looking at choosing a procedural option, we are looking at the best way to do two things.
1) Establish common concerns.
2) Deliberate through these concerns with the elders.

Our primary consideration at this time is whether we expose ourselves or not, or communicate with the elders prior to establishing those concerns/solution, or wait until there be “muscle on that skeleton”.

Bear with me, while I make a couple more preliminary comments.
1) If we are to “Go Public” it seems better to speak to all, so that we can speak for ourselves, rather than the elders poisoning the effort, or coloring our concerns (you may already be familiar with this tactic).
2) In my mind, if Renwick wrote a public paper, or something of his procedure/order where in question, the General Meeting would be the organization dialoging with him. But since there are some misconceptions or uninformed consciences in our Church, we need to tread lightly.

I would like to present a model to aid us in choosing the best option. Please engage with the model, it is to benefit us all. It looks something like this. Can you add to any of the columns?

STAY PRIVATE
RISKS
1. Elders will not be impressed/ influenced by this method, but most likely offended
2. Other brethren may be offended by this method as well, because it may appear to validate rumors, they may think that it is a conspiracy
3. The Elders may dismiss this effort publicly on a technicality: “Skipping a step - individually, therefore proceeding in a wrong order”

BENEFITS
1. Some have discussed that we could include those that may be on board (but best to not have them in this present effort), after the project is finished, but right before making it known to the elders
2. Knowing one another’s mind
3. Being able to put together the best presentation/positive position through filtering and prior to unnecessary interruption
4. None of us get pulled apart, or singled out as leaders/instigators

GO PUBLIC
RISKS
1. We can be divided and conquered
2. We may lose sight of the positive position, since we will be caught up in defending our actions
3. They may discredit our reputation/threaten censure prior to having a chance to present
4. There is no format/structure (ie GM) to maturely deliberate through common concerns
5. Elders will not be impressed/ influenced by this method, but most likely offended - Does it decrease defensiveness? Will they take us at our word?
6. Other brethren may be offended by this method as well, because it may appear to validate rumors, they may think that it is a conspiracy – Does it decrease defensiveness? Will they take us at our word?
7. The Elders may dismiss this effort publicly on a technicality: “Skipping a step - individually, therefore proceeding in a wrong order”
8. Some may be compelled to respond to us, possibly prior to us even presenting anything – we know how productive the PRCE group has been

BENEFITS
1. Others with common concerns may get involved with us
2. Opportunity to maintain our reputation, and speak to rumors, clearing any misunderstandings
3. Knowing one another’s minds

[See jpg of same box on bottom if it lost its formatting.]

Follow up Question #1: So which weigh the heaviest? Which option does this lead us to?

I would say the biggest concern that people have is the response of the Elders, “You never came to us as individuals, or privately.”

Follow up Question #2: Any modifications offered to our options to assist the Risks/Benefits?

So considering:
1) the weaker brethren
2) the collective conscience of us in our own effort
3) going the extra mile, doing all to protect the reputation of our elders

I would propose another option following the outline I have already offered as to procedure:

PHASE 1: The writing committee formulates leading/pointed questions that we as individuals can take to them. This serves a few purposes:
a) gets rid of that objection that we never came as individuals
b) allows PG to continue dialogue as a Society
c) maintains a private effort, protecting us collectively, while facilitating a dialogue with the elders
d) holds them from saying we have no written record of complaint about our paper
e) puts it on them to make our questions public with their answers

If they deny posting them publicly, or answer insufficiently, then we can come to them collectively.

PHASE 2: Either in the form of Collective Questions or Petition, we address our common concerns that are in direct dialogue with their public answers to us, or say that we have come privately/individually and you refused that facilitation, so now we come to you publicly with
a) the same questions
b) a “Petition and Plea for your support for a GM”

It again puts the ball in their court.
If they don’t respond in a productive/fruitful way (which could look like a lot of things), then we move to…

PHASE 3: In the form of a Statement, we tell them to disband, and support our formation of a GM. It will happen, Lord willing, either with or without them – though we prefer with them. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

Though it is a longer approach – it better establishes our effort both now, and to our children’s children.

So there it is. I sort of slapped together due to lack of time. Feel free to take anything that works from it.

Thanks for reading through it.
-Shawn


From: Benjamin H.
To: Shawn A. ; Shawn A. ; Stan B. ; Mark/Belinda C. ; Doralynne D. ; Jordan D. ; E. Family ; Willena F. ; Cheryl G. ; Mike G. ; Edgar I. ; Milly S. ; Jody S. ; Bob Sudan
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:50 PM
Subject: Option #7

Greetings,

Last night, Stan and I were discussing the pros and cons of the 6 options for how to proceed collectively, and we came up with a 7th that we thought was worthy of your consideration:

7. We independently approach the elders with our questions/concerns privately.

Some clarification and discussion:

This isn't to be taken as abandoning the effort in any way. Instead, we see it as step #1 of Shawn's 4-point plan. Concurrent with drafting a collective paper for presenting to the elders as step #2, we approach them privately as individuals (or pairs) with some of our questions/concerns.

See, one of the things motivating a desire to notify the elders was that it was supposed that such an approach would increase the likelihood of persuading them due to the multitude of people with similar concerns. But here's the fact of the matter: there is no way to mitigate the inherent shock, frustration, and angst they will likely feel when presented with a paper from 12 or so families who are challenging them collectively. It just is what it is, and there is no getting around it. We believe that this is true even if we approach them in the most non-threatening manner we can imagine, for example, presenting questions to them. Just the fact that we have banded together without telling them first may cause the elders to become defensive, and it may cause some of our brethren to doubt whether we did everything we could to
follow the proper procedure.

The additional benefit is this: we, as a group, will have our own documented history of their obstinancy in the immediate context. This has several advantages. While some involved in the effort have a documented history of obstinancy, not all of us do. This makes some of us reluctant to deal with them in this way because we don't feel like we've got the history to back up the kind of confrontation we're lining up. However, if a number of us can establish -- and document -- that the individual private path has been exhausted, then we will all have clear consciences in presenting ourselves 'in full force' as a group when the time comes. (Not that we're looking to justify such an action however.) Not only that, but we will be able to answer those who will undoubtedly ask us later, "Why didn't you first contact the elders privately, as they asked you to do?" Of course this will require some of us to 'go the extra mile' as it were, in waiting a little longer, but it may be worth it.

Another advantage is that it removes us, to a large extent, from the charge of hiding things from the elders. When and if the time comes for us to present something collectively to them, we can explain to them that (1) we tried the individual private path, and (2) that path led to an impasse.

Suppose we begin such a strategy, and they perceive that a host of families are coming with remarkably similar concerns and begin to surmise that we're loosely associated with one another. As they're wont to do, they go on a fishing trip, and begin to ask us individually if we're discussing this stuff with others in the church. In that case, we just say yes, but they're private conversations, and we do not feel comfortable sharing our brethren's unformulated opinions with them. (Or something like that.) We can encourage the elders to call people up if they want to find out who has concerns, etc. However we look at it, it just seems like there's a way to get around this problem.

OK, that's our idea. Some of us are already pursuing this line, so it won't change much for them. Thanks for thinking it through, and we're happy to entertain cross-examination and amendation if it's not a good suggestion.

From: Stan B.
To: Benjamin H.
Sent: Wednesday, August 2, 2006 2:48:45 PM
Subject: Re: Our Proposal
Hi Ben,

Looks really good. Why don't you email this to everyone to let them know, and also start a new thread called option #7. (Alternatively, you could tack this to the bottom of Shawn's 4-point plan thread.)

I made a few changes. Feel free to keep them or discard them, as you see fit.

Thanks a bunch for doing this. Hopefully it will generate some good discussion.

Stan

=====================

Greetings,

Last night, Stan and I were discussing the pros and cons of the 6 options for how to proceed collectively, and we came up with a 7th that we thought was worthy of your consideration:

7. We independently approach the elders with our questions/concerns privately.

Some clarification and discussion:

This isn't to be taken as abandoning the effort in any way. Instead, we see it as step #1 of Shawn's 4-point plan. Concurrent with drafting a collective paper for presenting to the elders as step #2, we approach them privately as individuals (or pairs) with some of our questions/concerns.

See, one of the things motivating a desire to notify the elders was that it was supposed that such an approach would increase the likelihood of persuading them due to the multitude of people with similar concerns. But here's the fact of the matter: there is no way to mitigate the inherent shock, frustration, and angst they will likely feel when presented with a paper from 12 or so families who are challenging them collectively. It just is what it is, and there is no getting around it. We believe that this is true even if we approach them in the most non-threatening manner we can imagine, for example, presenting questions to them. Just the fact that we have banded together without telling them first may cause the elders to become defensive, and it may cause some of our brethren to doubt whether we did everything we could to follow the proper procedure.

The additional benefit is this: we, as a group, will have our own documented history of their obstinancy in the immediate context. This has several advantages. While some involved in the effort have a documented history of obstinancy, not all of us do. This makes some of us reluctant to deal with them in this way because we don't feel like we've got the history to back up the kind of confrontation we're lining up. However, if a number of us can establish -- and document -- that the individual private path has been exhausted, then we will all have clear consciences in presenting ourselves 'in full force' as a group when the time comes. Not only that, but we will be able to answer those who will undoubtedly ask us later, "Why didn't you first contact the elders privately, as they asked you to do?" Of course this will require some of us to 'go the extra mile' as it were, in waiting a little
longer, but it may be worth it.

Another advantage is that it removes us, to a large extent, from the charge of hiding things from the elders.
When and if the time comes for us to present something collectively to them, we can explain to them that (1) we tried the individual private path, and (2) that path led to an impasse.

Suppose we begin such a strategy, and they perceive that a host of families are coming with remarkably similar concerns and begin to surmise that we're loosely associated with one another. As they're wont to do, they go on a fishing trip, and begin to ask us individually if we're discussing this stuff with others in the church. In that case, we just say yes, but they're private conversations, and we do not feel comfortable sharing our brethren's unformulated opinions with them. (Or something like that.) We can encourage the elders to call people up if
they want to find out who has concerns, etc. However we look at it, it just seems like there's a way to get around this problem.

OK, that's our idea. Some of us are already pursuing this line, so it won't change much for them. Thanks for thinking it through, and we're happy to entertain cross-examination and amendation if it's not a good
suggestion.


From: Bob S.
To: Benjamin H.
Sent: Friday, August 4, 2006 1:07:11 AM
Subject: Re: Option #7/CG paper
Greetings,
1. The 7th option has also occurred to me also this week; that of approaching the elders individually with various questions regarding the June 4 ‘06 paper.
A. That is because of the weaker brethren - and I would include the elders in that group unfortunately - so we could say been there and done that.
The elders have after all broken a promise to deliver a paper on church restructuring. That in part is why people are not talking to them, I think. They are somewhat stunned and unable to articulate their concern, if not disheartened somewhat to the point of why bother? The rest of them are biding their time and if not looking for the door, are talking privately about these things as we are doing.
B. That said, if even the writing committee collaborates on talking points, we will be accused of just that regardless if the problems in the paper are so obvious that all see the same things and come with the same questions. Yet this is an evasion and easy enough to answer. If all come with the same question, you only have to answer it once in public and all the birds get stoned. The problem of course comes, when you can’t answer the question or questions satisfactorily and that ultimately is the sticky wicket before us, that I think we all see.
2.When we get to the stage of doing things as a group, we should confine our concerns at first to the June 4 ‘06 paper because it is wiser to:
A. Keep it simple with a hostile audience.
B. Keep it simple for the weaker/uninformed/undecided brethren.
3.Even futher, the two glaring errors in the paper are in my opinion:
As regards the authority of the "session":
A. When Gillespie and Rutherford speak of a congregation in an island that may take all necessary steps for discipline including excommunication, they categorically did not mean or understand the entire North American continent to be an island, regardless if the Panama Canal came later in 1904-14.
B. When G & R spoke of a congregation, they meant or understood it to be a local body of believers that could conveniently gather once a week at least on the Lord’s Day for public worship. In person and not via an internet provider. The local body of the church is made up of bodies, actual not virtual. This is not a circumstantial. It is non negotiable and G & R would not change their mind if they were alive today.
From this flows all the rest of the position which assumes what it does not prove regarding our "session."
As regards the name of our church and government:
A. Names are for to distinguish, not to confuse or equivocate.
B. The 3rd term of communion explicitly refers to our form of church government, jus divinum or divine right presbyterianism.
C. Those who we claim to faithfully follow and to be the namesake of, clearly distinguished in their name whether they had a plurality of ministers or not. Whether they had what is commonly called a presbytery, ie. a greater one and when they did not, as in the RP or the RP(GM). And no, this was not a mere circumstantial. We ought to go and do likewise. We are Reformed Presbyterian Societies.
D. If only the terms of communion as a whole and not the 3rd term specifically determine our name, then there is no reason, as I told our TE before when all this came up earlier in the year, that the Wash. Society could not change its name to the RP of the GM of the CoS(Protesting). But this is confusion. Likewise our present name.
Thank you,
cordially in Christ
Bob S

From: Stan B.
To: Stan B.
Cc: Shawn A. ; Mike G.; Benjamin H.; Bob S. ; Cheryl G. ; Doralynne D. <; Edgar I. ; Jody S. ; Jordan D. ; Mark & Belinda C. ; Stan B. ; Taletha E. ; Teresa G. ; Willena F. ; Rod & Milly S. ; MeMe B.
Sent: Sunday, August 6, 2006 11:01:58 PM
Subject: Minutes of the Effort

Hi all,

Please find below the minutes of our first meeting, as amended and approved, along with the unapproved minutes of the meeting tonight.

Thanks,
Stan

**************************************************************************

Minutes of the Effort
July 30, 2006

Location: Attendees were distributed at locations (primarily their homes) around the United States and Canada. Conference call was made over the telephone.
Facilitator: Mike G.
Meeting convened at 9:07pm (Eastern time)

Households present:
Mike G.
Rod and Milly S.
Bob S.
Samantha, Camilla, and Hannah E.
Edgar I.
Ben and Kathryn H.
Jordan and Doralynne D.
Shawn and Tammy A.
Willena F.
Stan B. Mark and Belinda C.; Jody S.
Households absent:
Cheryl G.

Opened with prayer.

PRELIMINARIES
Discussion regarding the merits and drawbacks of recording the audio of the meeting. Jordan confirmed that he is not personally recording this meeting. Mike proposed that we defer the decision of whether to record till the next meeting.

Jordan confirmed that a facility for anonymous voting has been set up on the Effort website.

Discussion regarding the amount of detail that should be in the minutes as well as the length of the commitment for the secretary/recorder. Stan had been nominated by Jordan prior to meeting to be recorder. Stan was approved as recorder week to week. Samantha volunteered to be recorder or backup recorder.

It was decided that the moderator be chosen one week in advance.

Agenda was approved as is.

ACTIVE OR PASSIVE PARTICIPATION

Purpose of active/passive participation reviewed and discussed. Individuals were asked to commit to a role, with the understanding that these commitments are not necessarily permanent. Result:
Mike: active
Rod: passive
Bob: active
Jody: passive
Samantha, Camilla, Hannah, and Taletha (not present) E.: all passive
Edgar: active
Ben: passive
Jordan: active
Shawn: active
Willena: passive
Stan: active
Mark: active

PRINCE GEORGE SOCIETY CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Representing the society of Prince George (PG), Mike indicated the society's agreement in principle of Stan's rough draft of July 27, 2006 (Petition and Plea for a General Meeting). Mike noted that this draft was an independent effort on Stan's part, without their input. This was noted to clarify that any similarity between concerns in the draft and concerns that the PG society had raised in the past was not the result of collaboration. This similarity was characterized by the PG society as a potential conflict of interest because of their prior experience in discussing concerns with the elders, and it was asked if others would prefer the PG society to withdraw from the Effort as a result. In the ensuing discussion, all agreed that the potential conflict of interest was a moot point and that the PG society should remain in the Effort.

NAME: "THE EFFORT"

Jordan was thanked for setting up the website. The relevance of the name “The Effort” was clarified, and it was suggested we not spend any more time discussing the name.

NEW BUSINESS

PRESENT INSTABILITY
The floor was opened for discussion of the 6 options regarding the Effort's immediate direction (i.e., continue as is, inform the elders privately, inform the elders publicly, ask for a forum, set up a general meeting, or something else). Suggestion was made to inform the elders privately as a group. Point was raised that "private", as defined by the pastor in a recent sermon, appears to be fewer than 3 people; thus, we appear to be already "public" by that definition. Concern was expressed that failing to notify the elders might affect our chances of winning them over. Risks were pointed out for both notifying the elders and for not notifying them. Bob made a motion to defer the decision for a week. Shawn seconded. Vote by division was unanimous.

WRITING COMMITTEE

The purpose of the writing committee was reviewed, namely that it holds the pen on behalf of the whole, that it needs to be available to the others, and it needs a regular reporting mechanism. Shawn motioned that a thread be created on the website to allow anyone to post priorities or concerns to the writing committee. Edgar seconded. Motion passed.

Milly motioned that the writing committee be formed from those who committed to an active role. Bob seconded. Motion passed.

COLLABORATION EFFORTS (DIRECTIONS TO THE WRITING COMMITTEE)

Floor was opened for suggestions to the writing committee. Agenda was amended to allow discussion of Shawn's recent 4-step plan of establishing obstinacy, in which the first step would be to bring concerns/principles to the elders in the form of questions rather than conclusions. Point was made that we need to avoid being hasty, and that there is merit in establishing repeated obstinacy rather than one-time obstinacy. Concern was expressed that Stan's draft asks elders for permission rather than support. A private email to Bob from Pastor Price on Jan 27, 2006 was mentioned to indicate that the elders do not have a problem if people in the church to set up a general meeting, although concern was expressed that it would be nice to establish points of common concern and get the elders' support before doing this. It was mentioned that a general meeting is not inconsistent with a church court, since the two can coexist. Someone mentioned that the elders are aware that people are trying to form a general meeting and disband the session; and that the elders would not have issue with the former but they would have issue with the latter.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH JOHN P.

Suggestion was made to communicate with John P., thanking him for his recent email in which he encouraged the Effort to reconsider whether to notify the elders in order to avoid the appearance of evil. Concern was expressed that communicating with someone outside the Effort might compromise the confidentiality of the Effort. Bob motioned that Shawn, Edgar, and Ben express our thanks to John P.. Shawn modified the motion to require them to share their communication with everyone before sending it to John. Stan modified the motion to require John to agree to confidentiality prior to his receiving the communication. After discussion, Stan retracted this modification. Ben seconded the motion, with Shawn's modification but without Stan's. Motion passed.

FUTURE MEETINGS

Frequency of meetings was suggested to continue at once per week. Definition of a quorum deferred until next week. Jordan motioned that we do everything we can to limit meetings to 90 minutes in duration. Shawn seconded. Motion passed.

Submission deadline for agenda mentioned as Thursday night. Mike was approved to be facilitator next week. Stan agreed to post minutes within 48 hours.
Closed with prayer.

Meeting adjourned at 11:15pm (Eastern time).

Respectfully submitted,
Stan B.


************************************************************************

(subject to approval)

Minutes of the Effort
August 6, 2006

Location: Attendees were distributed at locations (primarily their homes) around the United States and Canada. Conference call was made over the telephone.
Facilitator: Mike G.
Households present:
Mike G.
Rod and Milly S.
Bob S.
Talitha, Samantha E.
Edgar I.
Tammy A.
Stan B.
Mark and Belinda C.; Jody S.
Households absent:
Jordan and Doralynne D.
Cheryl G.
Willena F.
Ben and Kathryn H.

Meeting convened at 9:27 pm (Eastern time)

Opened with prayer.

Minutes from previous meeting were amended and approved.

FACILITATOR AND SECRETARY REPORTS

Time limitation protocols on lengthy discussions was briefly mentioned. Four forms of voting that are being contemplated were reported: (1) general consent (no objection), (2) audible vote with yeas and nays, (3) roll call, and (4) online voting (allowing for anonymity and time to decide beforehand).

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mike reported, on behalf of the writing committee, the results of that committee’s meeting this past week. It was moved that we follow option #1 working in a collective effort without coordinated private efforts until we have a finished product. Motion carried.

It was moved that we allow up to 15 minutes in our next meeting to discuss private avenues. Motion carried.

The original time limit of 90 minutes having expired, Edgar left. It was moved that the meeting continue for another half hour. Motion carried.

The writing committee moved that we prepare our draft for presentation to the elders within a questioning nature construction. Motion carried.
Nothing to report regarding correspondence with John P..

UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND GENERAL ORDERS

It was moved that we keep the name as is. Motion carried.

It was moved that we make recordings of the meetings for the benefit of those who are absent, to be accessed by members of the Effort only. Motion carried.

It was moved that a quorum be defined as a simple majority of households. Discussion ensued regarding whether this statement should be clarified as heads of households. Motion was amended to reflect at least one representative from each household. It was moved that we table this discussion until the next meeting. Motion carried.

The time limit having expired, it was moved that the meeting adjourn. Motion carried.

Closed with prayer.

Meeting adjourned at 11:10 pm (Eastern time)

Respectfully submitted,
Stan B.


From: Shawn A.
To: Ben H.
Cc: Edgar I.
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:58:01 PM
Subject: Fwd: clarification.
Hey Ben,

I sent this to you about 10 days ago, but haven't received any reply. Maybe you read it, but it got lost in your inbox.

Either way, we were supposed to report on this at last Sunday's meeting, but neither you nor myself were there, and Edgar had nothing to report since you took the initiative to speak with John.

Some may be offended that you did not follow with procedure. I think it best if you respond to that piece of business tomorrow, since you spoke with John.

It may also be good to prepare a possible response (in case someone asks you to speak to it) in regards to your understanding of your motion, our task, and your actions.

***If for some reason you cannot make it to tomorrow's meeting then you should definately type up an report and explanation for me to read at the meeting tomorrow.***

Thanks bro,
-Shawn

Shawn A. wrote:
Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2006 08:12:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Shawn A.
Subject: clarification.
To: Ben H.
CC: Edgar I.
Hey Ben,

Was it your understanding that you, Edgar and I were to collectively come up with some form of communication to John, and share that prior to communicating with John? In other words, is that the motion you seconded? (I clipped the unapproved minutes from our meeting relating to this issue, below)

Thanks brother,
-shawn

CORRESPONDENCE WITH JOHN P.

Suggestion was made to communicate with John P., thanking him for his recent email in which he encouraged the Effort to reconsider whether to notify the elders in order to avoid the appearance of evil. Concern was expressed that communicating with someone outside the Effort might compromise the confidentiality of the Effort. Bob motioned that Shawn, Edgar, and Ben express our thanks to John P.. Shawn modified the motion to require them to share their communication with everyone before sending it to John. Stan modified the motion to require John to agree to confidentiality prior to his receiving the communication. After discussion, Stan retracted this modification. Ben second the motion, with Shawn's modification but without Stan's. Motion passed.


From: Stan B.
To: Stan B.
Cc: Shawn A. ; Mike G.; Benjamin H.; Bob S. ; Cheryl G. ; Doralynne D. <; Edgar I. ; Jody S. ; Jordan D. ; Mark & Belinda C. ; Stan B. ;E.’s; Camilla E. ; Teresa G. ; Willena F. ; Rod & Milly S. ; MeMe B.
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 10:56:15 PM
Subject: Minutes of the Effort
Hi all,

Please find below the unapproved minutes of the meeting tonight, along with the approved minutes of all our previous meetings. There were a few changes to email addresses, so hopefully I got them right.

One item that is missing from this minutes of tonight is whether the meeting was recorded. Mike, perhaps you could confirm this for me by the next meeting, so that the minutes can reflect it. All my notes say is that you recorded and stopped twice, then were attempting to record again.
Thanks,
Stan

**************************************************

Minutes of the Effort
July 30, 2006

Location: Attendees were distributed at locations (primarily their homes) around the United States and Canada. Conference call was made over the telephone.
Facilitator: Mike G.
Meeting convened at 9:07pm (Eastern time)

Households present:
Mike G.
Rod and Milly S.
Bob S.
Samantha, Camilla, and Hannah E.
Edgar I.
Ben and Kathryn H.
Jordan and Doralynne D.
Shawn and Tammy A.
Willena F.
Stan B.
Mark and Belinda C.; Jody S.
Households absent:
Cheryl G.

Opened with prayer.

PRELIMINARIES
Discussion regarding the merits and drawbacks of recording the audio of the meeting. Jordan confirmed that he is not personally recording this meeting. Mike proposed that we defer the decision of whether to record till the next meeting.

Jordan confirmed that a facility for anonymous voting has been set up on the Effort website.

Discussion regarding the amount of detail that should be in the minutes as well as the length of the commitment for the secretary/recorder. Stan had been nominated by Jordan prior to meeting to be recorder. Stan was approved as recorder week to week. Samantha volunteered to be recorder or backup recorder.

It was decided that the moderator be chosen one week in advance.

Agenda was approved as is.

ACTIVE OR PASSIVE PARTICIPATION

Purpose of active/passive participation reviewed and discussed. Individuals were asked to commit to a role, with the understanding that these commitments are not necessarily permanent. Result:
Mike: active
Rod: passive
Bob: active
Jody: passive
Samantha, Camilla, Hannah, and Taletha (not present) E.: all passive
Edgar: active
Ben: passive
Jordan: active
Shawn: active
Willena: passive
Stan: active
Mark: active

PRINCE GEORGE SOCIETY CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Representing the society of Prince George (PG), Mike indicated the society's agreement in principle of Stan's rough draft of July 27, 2006 (Petition and Plea for a General Meeting). Mike noted that this draft was an independent effort on Stan's part, without their input. This was noted to clarify that any similarity between concerns in the draft and concerns that the PG society had raised in the past was not the result of collaboration. This similarity was characterized by the PG society as a potential conflict of interest because of their prior experience in discussing concerns with the elders, and it was asked if others would prefer the PG society to withdraw from the Effort as a result. In the ensuing discussion, all agreed that the potential conflict of interest was a moot point and that the PG society should remain in the Effort.
NAME: "THE EFFORT"

Jordan was thanked for setting up the website. The relevance of the name “The Effort” was clarified, and it was suggested we not spend any more time discussing the name.

NEW BUSINESS

PRESENT INSTABILITY

The floor was opened for discussion of the 6 options regarding the Effort's immediate direction (i.e., continue as is, inform the elders privately, inform the elders publicly, ask for a forum, set up a general meeting, or something else). Suggestion was made to inform the elders privately as a group. Point was raised that "private", as defined by the pastor in a recent sermon, appears to be fewer than 3 people; thus, we appear to be already "public" by that definition. Concern was expressed that failing to notify the elders might affect our chances of winning them over. Risks were pointed out for both notifying the elders and for not notifying them. Bob made a motion to defer the decision for a week. Shawn seconded. Vote by division was unanimous.

WRITING COMMITTEE

The purpose of the writing committee was reviewed, namely that it holds the pen on behalf of the whole, that it needs to be available to the others, and it needs a regular reporting mechanism. Shawn motioned that a thread be created on the website to allow anyone to post priorities or concerns to the writing committee. Edgar seconded. Motion passed.

Milly motioned that the writing committee be formed from those who committed to an active role. Bob seconded. Motion passed.

COLLABORATION EFFORTS (DIRECTIONS TO THE WRITING COMMITTEE)

Floor was opened for suggestions to the writing committee. Agenda was amended to allow discussion of Shawn's recent 4-step plan of establishing obstinacy, in which the first step would be to bring concerns/principles to the elders in the form of questions rather than conclusions. Point was made that we need to avoid being hasty, and that there is merit in establishing repeated obstinacy rather than one-time obstinacy. Concern was expressed that Stan's draft asks elders for permission rather than support. A private email to Bob from Pastor Price on Jan 27, 2006 was mentioned to indicate that the elders do not have a problem if people in the church to set up a general meeting, although concern was expressed that it would be nice to establish points of common concern and get the elders' support before doing this. It was mentioned that a general meeting is not inconsistent with a church court, since the two can coexist. Someone mentioned that the elders are aware that people are trying to form a general meeting and disband the session; and that the elders would not have issue with the former but they would have issue with the latter.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH JOHN P.

Suggestion was made to communicate with John P., thanking him for his recent email in which he encouraged the Effort to reconsider whether to notify the elders in order to avoid the appearance of evil. Concern was expressed that communicating with someone outside the Effort might compromise the confidentiality of the Effort. Bob motioned that Shawn, Edgar, and Ben express our thanks to John P.. Shawn modified the motion to require them to share their communication with everyone before sending it to John. Stan modified the motion to require John to agree to confidentiality prior to his receiving the communication. After discussion, Stan retracted this modification. Ben seconded the motion, with Shawn's modification but without Stan's. Motion passed.

FUTURE MEETINGS

Frequency of meetings was suggested to continue at once per week. Definition of a quorum deferred until next week. Jordan motioned that we do everything we can to limit meetings to 90 minutes in duration. Shawn seconded. Motion passed.

Submission deadline for agenda mentioned as Thursday night. Mike was approved to be facilitator next week. Stan agreed to post minutes within 48 hours.

Closed with prayer.

Meeting adjourned at 11:15pm (Eastern time).
Respectfully submitted,
Stan B.


*************************************************

Minutes of the Effort
August 6, 2006

Location: Attendees were distributed at locations (primarily their homes) around the United States and Canada. Conference call was made over the telephone.
Facilitator: Mike G.

Households present:
Mike G.
Rod and Milly S.
Bob S.
Talitha, Samantha E.
Edgar I. Tammy A.
Stan B.
Mark and Belinda C.; Jody S.
Households absent:
Jordan and Doralynne D.
Cheryl G.
Willena F.
Ben and Kathryn H.

Meeting convened at 9:27 pm (Eastern time)

Opened with prayer.

Minutes from previous meeting were amended and approved.

FACILITATOR AND SECRETARY REPORTS

Time limitation protocols on lengthy discussions was briefly mentioned. Four forms of voting that are being contemplated were reported: (1) general consent (no objection), (2) audible vote with yeas and nays, (3) roll call, and (4) online voting (allowing for anonymity and time to decide beforehand).

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Mike reported, on behalf of the writing committee, the results of that committee’s meeting this past week. It was moved that we follow option #1 working in a collective effort without coordinated private efforts until we have a finished product. Motion carried.

The writing committee through Mike moved that we allow up to 15 minutes in our next meeting to discuss private avenues. Motion carried.

The original time limit of 90 minutes having expired, Edgar left. Tammy moved that the meeting continue for another half hour. Motion carried.

The writing committee through Mike moved that we prepare our draft for presentation to the elders within a questioning nature construction. Motion carried.

Nothing to report regarding correspondence with John P.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND GENERAL ORDERS

Jody moved that we keep the name as is. Motion carried.

Milly moved that we make recordings of the meetings for the benefit of those who are absent, to be accessed by members of the Effort only. Motion carried.

Stan moved that a quorum be defined as a simple majority of households. Discussion ensued regarding whether this statement should be clarified as heads of households. Motion was amended by Mark to reflect at least one representative from each household. Milly moved that we table this discussion until the next meeting. Motion carried.

The time limit having expired, Stan moved that the meeting adjourn. Motion carried.

Closed with prayer.

Meeting adjourned at 11:10 pm (Eastern time)

Respectfully submitted,
Stan B.


*************************************************

Minutes of the Effort
August 13, 2006

Location: Attendees were distributed at locations (primarily their homes) around the United States and Canada. Conference call was made over the telephone.
Facilitator: Mike G.

Households present:
Mike G.
Bob S.
Camilla, Samantha E.
Edgar I.
Shawn A.
Stan B.
Mark and Belinda C.; Jody S.
Jordan and Doralynne D.
Households absent:
Rod and Milly S.
Cheryl G.
Willena F. Ben and Kathryn H.

Meeting convened at 9:00 pm (Eastern time)

Opened with prayer.
Agenda was approved.

Minutes from previous meeting were approved as amended.

OFFICER REPORTS

Challenges in establishing a quorum were mentioned.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. Correspondence with our brother, John P.(Shawn__ Ben__ Edgar__)

Shawn reported that, after the committee conducted an email discussion, Ben took the initiative to thank John P.. Shawn read a statement from Ben indicating that the conversation took approximately 30 seconds, that nothing was compromised, and that he was sorry if his communication was out of line, given that he had not obtained approval from the Effort first.

Upon motion by Shawn, it was decided that communication be made by the meeting to our brother Ben reflecting our concern that order was compromised in a small way, our thanks that nothing further was compromised, and that we happily accept the apology and the good report regarding our brother John. Shawn was appointed to put the communication together, conferring with the secretary, and send it to Ben.

2. Writing Committee (Meeting Chair)

Jordan read the report of the writing committee, containing the two decisions made in the most recent meeting: (1) that the members of the committee would individually go through the sessional authority paper to note themes and scope of the report; and (2) that August 30 was established as a deadline for a rough draft to be sent to everyone in the Effort.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND GENERAL ORDERS

1. Private avenue options (up to 15 minutes)

No one had any comments on private avenues.

2. Quorum (MOTION on the table)

Mark motioned that only heads of households vote. Concern was expressed that we need to think carefully about how to vote about how to vote.

Upon motion by Shawn, it was decided to form a committee of three to discuss the options for a quorum and voting members, and to bring back recommendations in two weeks. Shawn, Mark, and Jordan were selected to form the committee.NEW BUSINESS

1. Officer elections for next stated meeting (August 20, 2006)

Mike was nominated for facilitator but declined. Shawn was nominated for facilitator and accepted. Stan was nominated for secretary and accepted. Jordan was nominated for vice-facilitator and accepted.

2. New Effort membership

Upon motion by Mark, it was decided that a committee of two, consisting of Mark C. and someone other than Jody S., approach Martin D. to ascertain his interest in joining the effort. (Jody was excluded due to potential conflict of interest from her courtship with Martin.) Shawn was selected as the other member.

The original time limit of 90 minutes having expired, Bob moved to extend the meeting by 15 minutes. Shawn amended motion to extend by 30 minutes. Stan moved to adjourn, but motion failed. Upon motion by Shawn, the meeting was extended by 15 minutes.

3. Confidentiality of our meetings and future proceedings

Shawn made a motion to the effect that explicit confidentiality be maintained by asking all attendees at the beginning of each Effort meeting, whether they have communicated about the Effort with others outside the Effort.

Bob moved to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried.

Closed with prayer.

Meeting adjourned at 11:00 pm (Eastern time)

Respectfully submitted,
Stan B.

*************************************************

(subject to approval)

Minutes of the Effort Meeting
August 20, 2006

Location: Attendees were distributed at locations (primarily their homes) around the United States and Canada. Conference call was made over the telephone.
Facilitator: Shawn A.Vice-Facilitator: Jordan
Secretary: Stan

Households present:
Mike G.
Bob S.
Talitha, Samantha E.
Edgar I.
Shawn A. Stan B.
Mark and Belinda C.; Jody S.
Jordan and Doralynne D.
Rod S.
Households absent:
Cheryl G.
Willena F.
Ben and Kathryn H.

Meeting convened at 9:00 pm (Eastern time)

Opened with prayer.

Agenda was approved.

Minutes from previous meeting were approved as amended.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

1. New membership Committee: Mark & Shawn approaching Martin

Mark, representing the committee, indicated that Martin D. was approached by the committee and joined the Effort. Discussion ensued whether the committee had been given the authority to receive a new member.

Upon motion by Mike, Martin D.’s admittance to membership was approved effective August 19. At this point, Martin D. was asked to join the meeting.

2. Writing Committee Conclusions: Meeting Chair – Stan

Stan, representing the committee, summarized the meeting of last Wednesday. Decisions were made regarding the audience, purpose, and length of the paper being drafted for presentation to the elders. Individual members of the committee are drafting different sections of the paper in a rotating fashion, with the second rotation to be completed before the meeting this coming Wednesday.

3. Shawn: Correspondence with our brother, Ben H.
Shawn indicated that he has drafted a correspondence with Ben and hopes to send it in the near future after conferring with the secretary (Stan).

4. Quorum Committee: Reminder of expectation to report next meeting

Shawn, representing the committee, reminded the group to expect a report on the quorum question at the next meeting.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS AND GENERAL ORDERS

Shawn clarified the wording of his motion from the previous meeting to be as follows: We, the Effort Meeting, establish and maintain an explicit confidentiality, on matters related to our common concerns and efforts, by way of a question at the beginning of each of our meetings to this effect, "Has anyone communicated with you, or with whom have you communicated our common concerns and efforts, outside our collective group?"
At this point, Shawn stepped down from being facilitator, and Jordan became facilitator.

Stan amended Shawn’s motion to be as follows: We, the Effort Meeting, in order to establish and maintain an explicit confidentiality, on matters related to our common concerns and efforts, agree not to disclose the existence, members, or products of the Effort with those outside the Effort, until such a time as this restriction is removed.

Further discussion revealed that Stan’s motion was actually a different motion from Shawn’s rather than an amendment. Upon motion by Shawn, it was decided to defer consideration of Shawn’s motion until after considering Stan’s motion.

Stan’s motion passed by an audible vote with no objection. Discussion ensued whether the importance of this motion warranted a more explicit assent from each individual member. At this point Jordan relinquished his position as facilitator, and Shawn became facilitator.

Upon motion by Mark, it was decided that we vote on the Effort website in the polling section on whether to adopt Stan’s motion and, if passed, that each member explicitly agree to it in written form, and to form a committee to speak with all the households not present before the polling takes place to explain to them the details. The committee was formed as consisting of Mike and Mark.

Upon motion by Bob, it was decided that we close in prayer, defer till next week, and adjourn.

Closed with prayer.

Meeting adjourned at 11:03 pm (Eastern time)

Respectfully submitted,
Stan B.
From: Shawn A.
To: Ben H.
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 10:26:46 PM
Subject: recent communication about your talk with John
Hello Ben,

I have been tasked with coming to you in response to your report to the Effort in regards to your talk with John P..

The participants of the Effort would like to express our concern that order was compromised in a small way in your actions, because you were to come to the group first with a decision, that we all could approve. We are thankful that nothing else was compromised and we happily accept your apology as well as your good report concerning our brother John.

Thank you for your services,
Shawn A., on behalf of the participants to the Effort


From: Shawn A.
To: Ben H.
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 5:24:28 PM
Subject: notice
Hey Ben,

You really need to give an explanation for leaving the Effort. Just so that people can be sensative and not vulnerable to you in your situation.

If the Effort affords you the luxury of not being in, yet getting all the info, then so be the decision of the group. But there needs to be an awareness that this is an issue to be addressed.

If you have something tonight that would be great - so that I could share it with the group.

Thanks
-Shawn


From: Bob S.
To: Benjamin H.; Stan B.
Cc: Shawn A. ; Mike G.; Benjamin H.; Cheryl G. ; Doralynne D. <; Edgar I. ; Jody S. ; Jordan D. ; Mark & Belinda C. ; Stan B. ; E.’s; Camilla E. ; Teresa G. ; Willena F. ; Rod & Milly S. ; MeMe B.
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 1:51:15 PMSubject: Re: An alternate proposal

Dear Ben,

I am sorry, but you just don't get it.

This church is already split. We are well with in our rights to read the elders the riot act and separate/split/take off/leave. We don't want to do that and we are trying to work things out in a charitable fashion and believe it or not, save face for the elders with the least possible harm for all parties concerned, however that may "appear" to people, yourself included.
Let me repeat myself. This church is already split. Much more we live as per Durham's comments in his book on scandal, in a day when offences abound, ie. they are unavoidable. Not ideal, but welcome to reality, brother. Consequently I have no problem as a private person getting together confidentially with other brethren and attempting to make the best of it, however much weaker brethren might object or quibble in the mean time. Yes, I am sorry, but that is exactly what it is. There is and will be a record and history of our admittedly imperfect actions (but are we talking about the exception or the rule?), if not the Lord will judge as he is doing even now with this trial and test.

But for all that, the other correct proper ecclesiastical way to deal with all this is what? You offer nothing positive, other than what I would say is the same old same old that has been tried before. I don't know what you have been through, I trust you know a little of what has transpired in PGeo. Personally, I have gone to the elders privately, in person, by phone and by letter and as a society pretty much likewise, in person and by letter at least twice, if not more and even on the same issues covered in the church govt. paper. Basically, they didn't get it and still don't. I don't expect perfection and I am not going to flip out over even a couple of mistakes, but I am not obligated to continue barking up that tree at this late stage of the game. The problem then becomes with this position paper, if not the stupid carnal graffitti paper, enough is enough. Their paper defending the proposition that they are a session, as you should well know, is so full of invalid arguments from the lesser to the greater, equivocation, question begging and suppression of alternative witnesses, even the same that they quote in approval, that it would be inadmissable at a graduate level, if not receive at least a D at the 300 level.

So those of us involved in all this are a Conspiracy, you say? Brother, if we don't recognize extraordinary times and extraordinary excuses for theological hog slop and stupidity, we deserve to keep wallowing in this mire of confusion and ecclesiastical anarchy/tyranny, if that can even be, which if I hadn't seen it, I would have said was impossible.

Even further, my comments have always been less is more, keep it short and simple in an appeal to the elders. The proverbial "twenty five words or less" is best when addressing a hostile, ignorant, indifferent or weak audience. I am on record more than a few times with the writing committee and the big meeting on that, so I welcome Stan's comments and agree a large part with them, but would have some things further to add elsewhere.

Only, as should be obvious, I hope, your comments that you feel morally obligated to go to the elders or the church about all this are premature and mistaken. I do not want to abuse your patience any more than I already have, but I must repeat myself again. THIS CHURCH IS ALREADY SPLIT because it is not of one mind and respectfully the elders as lawful authorities have played the major part in the confusion and must bear as superiors the greater burden on it. Sorry, but that comes with the turf. And believe it or not, some of us would rather not have it go even more gunnybag. Consequently we are doing the best we can under the circumstances and while I appreciate your concern, I think you understand that I for one most strongly disagree with what you seem to conclude about all this, much more, before the Lord, you will bear some responsibility in all the ensuing madness and sadness if you run to the "session" which is no session and speak to them on it.

I am sorry, but that is my mind on it and until I hear something fundamentally more persuasive than what you have offered on it, I will continue to stand on it God willing and enabling.

Yet I am, brother,
still cordially yours,
in Christ
Bob S.

----- Original Message -----
From: Benjamin H.
To: Stan B.
Cc: Shawn A. ; Mike G. ; Benjamin H.; Bob S. ; Cheryl G. ; Doralynne D. ; Edgar I. ; Jody S. ; Jordan D. ; Mark & Belinda C. ; Stan B. ;E.’s ; Camilla E. ; Teresa G. ; Willena F. ; Rod & Milly S. ; MeMe B.
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 4:14 AM
Subject: Re: An alternate proposal

Greetings,

I'm not sure exactly what my status is with respect to the effort - last I knew I was officially a sympathetic outsider. So I'm not sure if I was supposed to get this letter, but I did and if there is any damage, it's been done.

I'm encouraged to see some of the worries Stan has expressed. I share them. FWIW, here's how I see it. Let's just grant that you've got some good arguments and the elders have messed up in a big way in writing this paper. Now, if your professed goal is to win them, instruct them, or help them, why would banding together in a clandestine fashion acheive any of those goals? As someone who is something of an outsider at this point, I can tell you, I view you more as a conspiracy than not - good intentions notwithstanding. I find it funny that you think your approach is going to work on people who you've professed you think are untrustworthy and slippery. So ultimately I'm afraid you're going to cause a church split because of the way you've went about addressing this problem.

And now I'm in a sticky situation.

Depending on how convinced I am that you're going to cause a church split, it may end up being my duty to tell the elders what you're up to. Quite frankly, I'm pretty convinced things will get ugly at best, so if good reasons aren't forthcoming, I'm not going to sit around and wait for the church to split.

I'm not saying this because I don't like you all. In fact, there are lots of you in the effort that I consider friends as well as brethren. And I'm not saying it because I've come to disagree with your criticisms (that I've heard to date) - you've got my full sympathies. It's all about method. Only peacemakers, the meek, and the merciful will be blessed. I don't see your method lining up with these virtues.

One last caveat - I can't get around the 'or else' element in what I've just said, although I wish it didn't have to be there. I'm saying this more because I feel morally compelled to do so. If you feel like you can persuade me from feeling morally compelled to blow your cover, I'm willing to listen.

Respectfully (and irenically) yours,
Ben

13 Sept 2006

Dear brethren,

If I may be allowed to speak freely with you all, I believe that we are at an important decision point. Although we have managed to put together a rough draft that contains some semblance of the concerns that we would like to bring to the elders' attention, many (if not all) of us would be uncomfortable and unwilling to put our names to it in its current form. One choice would be to make minor modifications to the draft (such as adding more questions, removing questions, reordering sections, etc.) to satisfy everyone. Such changes, in my opinion, could conceivably be done in a matter of weeks, but they may or may not result in a document to which we can all sign our names.

Another alternative would be for us to begin Phase II, starting with something like the recent outline, which would involve a significant restructuring, rewriting, and extending of the draft. In my opinion as a writer and as one who contributed significantly to the first draft, it would take several months (at the very least) to produce such a document. (I realize that others have a different opinion on this estimate, but I think that such estimates are based upon unrealistic estimates of the amount of time it took to produce the first draft, which in reality was the product of two months of work, as well as an assumption that we will continue to work at our current pace rather than slow down as we become weary of laboring.) Moreover, because we have such significant variations of opinion regarding the scope and content of the paper, we run the risk of spending a significant amount of time producing a document that, in the end, does not satisfy us any more than the first draft did. We could end up back at square one.

Personally, I think we are in serious danger of not converging. And the longer we continue to operate in our current mode, the more likely it is that our existence will be leaked and cause others to stumble. (Personally, I am not entirely comfortable with our operating in such a confidential manner for an extended period of time; although I have been willing to endure it temporarily, I greatly look forward to our lifting this awkward silence.) In addition, we run the risk of becoming weary from all the hours of meetings and Robert's Rules wrangling, which could cause some or all of us to abandon our project before it has been completed. We have already seen signs of biting, devouring, and infighting among us, and I fear that more will follow if we do not establish a clear direction with a clear end in sight that is agreeable to all. We also run the risk of someone outside our group leaving the church or being excommunicated without having had the opportunity to know that others share their concerns.

Furthermore, there are fundamental drawbacks to presenting a paper (of any form) to the elders. No matter how we phrase it, no matter how careful we are to avoid being accusatory, and no matter how many assertions we turn into questions, just the fact that we have written such a paper is likely to cause a division in the church. Let's be honest: One of our purposes in writing such a paper is to teach those who read it the principles behind our concerns. As a result, it inevitably puts our paper in conflict with one of our stated goals, namely to humbly approach the elders. Not to mention the fact that a paper is going to require hours and hours of labor and meetings on our part to produce something to which we all agree, and its length will make it that much more difficult to solicit the signatures of those outside the Effort.

With all this in mind, I have a positive suggestion. I propose that we abandon our project of writing a paper (at least for our first response to the elders) and instead write a simple one-page email containing a petition / notice of dissent. Because it will be much shorter, it will be much easier for us all to agree to it. It will also be much easier for us to ask people outside the Effort to put their names to it, and those people will be much more likely to actually agree to do so. It will also require much less time to write, so that we can end this awkward silence more quickly and begin to support the other likeminded brethren out there. If we write it correctly, I also think it will be much less likely to cause offense to the elders or to those who would be inclined to be hostile, because the elders have explicitly told us our obligation to express our dissent, whereas they have said nothing of the kind regarding our obligation to teach our brethren. We can defer the decision to substantiate our claims in more detail to the future, as the need requires, depending upon the elders' response.

Below is a sample email for your consideration. Thank you for considering this idea.

Your brother,
Stan

P.S. My apologies for not including Martin, but I do not have his email address. I have uploaded this email to the website under the Forum.


PETITION

Dear Mr. Price, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Dohms.,

After much discussion and prayer among ourselves, we have decided that it would be best to bring to your attention a concern that we have regarding the government of our church. We hope that our bringing these matters to your attention in this way will not cause offense either to yourselves or to our brethren, but you have explicitly said that you regard our silence as consent, and that you believe that we have an obligation to express our dissent to you formally. As a result, we the undersigned would like to state that we cannot in good conscience own the recent paper entitled, "Position Paper: Sessional Authority of the RPNA (GM)," because of the many discrepancies that we see between established Scriptural principles of Presbyterian church government and the arguments and conclusions contained in the paper. We admit our ignorance in many areas and seek your correction in any matter in which we are wrong. However, as long as we hold to our current understanding of church government, we cannot honestly consent to the paper. We humbly ask therefore that you withdraw this paper from its judicially binding status unless and until such a time as we are convinced that it is both faithful and accurate.

Thank you for considering our request. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Respectfully submitted,
John Knox, member, Edinburgh, Scotland
John Calvin, member, Geneva, Switzerland
George Gillespie, member, Kirkaldy, Scotland
John Welch, member, Ayr, Scotland
Donald Cargill, member, Bothwell Bridge, Scotland
David Steele, member, Brush Creek, Ohio



From: Benjamin H.
To: Stan B.
Cc: Shawn A. ; Mike G.; Benjamin H.; Bob S. ; Cheryl G. ; Doralynne D. ; Edgar I. ; Jody S. ; Jordan D. ; Mark & Belinda C. ; Stan B. ; E.’s; Camilla E. ; Teresa G. ; Willena F. ; Rod & Milly S. ; MeMe B.; Kathryn H.
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 9:37:39 PM
Subject: Re: An alternate proposal
Howdy,

Thanks for your prompt replies (Stan and Bob). This is an important issue, so I think expedience is imperitive. Let me reply to both Stan and Bob jointly.

I can understand some of your confusion - 'I thought Ben was ducking out for purely logistical reasons.' That's the official word, but I think I'm on record as being dissatisfied with the overall approach of the effort, especially the privacy and the democratic methodology. I've had several talks privately and at least 1 email publically that made these points plain. That's not to say my preoccupance with school wasn't the primary reason for my discontinuing with the effort - I barely even have the time to write this email. But nevertheless, I've made these concerns plain. I think that since I've come to view myself as less of an 'insider' that I've come to see the importance of my concerns. I hope that helps.

I'm not so sure the church is as split as you (Bob) say. Why do you think that? I thought it was a motivating factor that there are many who see things your way, and many just need education. That doesn't sound like the group is as divided as you indicate.

So here's some questions I have:

What exactly is the effort attacking? Is it the paper? If so, even though the paper says they'd prefer if we'd bring questions to them,(implying we don't have to,) our membership vows commit us to going to them directly if we have problems. How many of us have found them obstinant on issues directly related to the paper? (I can attest that one entire section has been challengened by someone I know, and the elders have admitted that they may in fact be wrong, and didn't do the best research on that section. They've asked for sources and are looking into changing their position.)

If it's not the paper, how exactly have the elders been obstinant? (I am presupposing obstinancy is necessary for us to establish before we go to the next step of looking to others to step in.) If this is the issue, do all explicitly share the same complaints? What if some aren't in the position to know how others have been slighted by the elders?

On a probability calculus, why is your method more likely to promote unity and not division? How is your method going to yield better long term results? What makes the effort's MO that of a meek, peace-seeking group?

Even though I didn't suggest anything in my email as to how to go about effecting change in our church (as Bob pointed out), I did suggest, as did John, alternative methods that could be pursued that are far less confrontational. I'll refer you to them.

Like I said, I don't want to be contentious. I count many of you as my friends, and I don't want to needlessly offend anybody. However, as I see things, I don't know how the effort is going to help. I stand willing to be convinced otherwise.

-Ben


Stan B. wrote:
Dear Ben,

No, you were not supposed to get this. That was an oversight on my part, and I apologize to you and to all for my mistake. However, my understanding was that you bowed out of the Effort based upon your time
commitments, not based upon any disagreement with us. Therefore, I am quite surprised by your threat to
"blow our cover," which was your cover until not too long ago.

My email did not state anything new regarding our intentions as a group. We have always maintained that our purpose is to promote the truth in our church as peaceably as possible. If my email had contained plans to cause a church split, then I think you would be justified in telling the elders of our evil plot. But our purpose is exactly the opposite. The question before us is, How do we best promote the truth while doing everything in our power to avoid a split? My email was intended only to be a suggestion for a possible path to accomplish this end.

Do what you have to do, brother. But if you do decide to go to the elders about this matter at this time, I do not think you will be promoting the peace and purity of the church. Your "blowing our cover" is not likely to lessen the possibility of such a split; in fact it might contribute to it. And, of course, such an action will certainly make me look bad for being so careless, for which (again) I am truly sorry. I sincerely I hope you will reconsider.

Stan


From: Stan B.
To: Benjamin H.
Cc: Shawn A. ; Mike G.; Bob S. ; Cheryl G. ; Doralynne D. ; Edgar I. ; Jody S. ; Jordan D. ; Mark & Belinda C. ; Stan B. ; E.’s; Camilla E. ; Teresa G. ; Willena F. ; Rod & Milly S. ; MeMe B.; Kathryn H.
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:36:37 PM
Subject: Re: An alternate proposal

Dear Ben,

I would prefer not to have to engage in a long discussion over this matter. Nevertheless, due to the importance your impending threat, along with my responsibility in it, please allow me to briefly respond.

Speaking for myself, I think you ask some good questions. For example, will the Effort be successful at promoting unity and not division? Will we succeed in our purpose of supporting the peace and purity of the church? Are we pursuing the most effective means of going about this? I don't think any of us can with certainty answer these questions. Only time will tell whether we are successful. But these are not the questions at hand. Even if you were completely convinced that the Effort would not help, that would not provide guidance for your immediately pressing decision. The question before you is simply this, Are you morally compelled to expose our existence to the elders at this time? Would you be sinning by not doing so?

Each of us (including yourself) agreed to maintain confidentiality when we joined the Effort. On several occasions during your "membership" (so to speak) you honored this confidentiality agreement. When you left the group, we received assurance (via Shawn, who spoke with you directly) that you were willing to maintain confidentiality. If you break that confidentiality now, you will be violating your word. The fact that you have had concerns about the Effort does not in any way nullify this commitment that you have made; many of us share similar concerns as you in this regard, yet we are nevertheless willing to maintain the trust that our brethren have extended to us.

So to me it would seem that the question for you is whether you are morally bound, by God's law, to break your word. You could have exposed the Effort to the elders when you were invited to join. You could have exposed it while you were a part of it. You could have exposed it when you left. You could have exposed it two days ago, before my email inadvertently reached you. Has anything substantially changed in the last 24 hours to compel you, morally, to now expose it?

I am glad to hear that your desire is not to be contentious or to cause offense. If you were to intentionally breach our trust, in violation of your previously stated agreement, I am pretty confident that you will cause offense. Again, I hope you will reconsider, and that we can bring closure to this matter soon. Like you, I am very busy with other duties, and I feel really bad for wasting everyone's time on this subject.

Stan

***************************************************************************************

From: Camilla E.
To: Benjamin H.; Stan B.
Cc: Shawn A. ; Mike G.; Benjamin H.; Bob S. ; Cheryl G. ; Doralynne D. ; Edgar I. ; Jody S. ; Jordan D. ; Mark & Belinda C. ; Stan B. ; E.’s; Camilla E. ; Teresa G. ; Willena F. ; Rod & Milly S. ; MeMe B.; Kathryn H.
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 11:11:48 PM
Subject: Re: An alternate proposal

Dear Ben,

Thank you very much for your thoughts in regard with this. However, I have a few things that I would like to bring to your attention.

When we were told that you would no longer be a part of the Effort, we explicitly asked Shawn what your reaction would be in regard to confidentiality. He conveyed to us that you would in effect tell the elders, if they asked you about the Effort "We'll talk about it in May." (Someone please correct me if I am wrong.)
Therefore, it seems inconsistent with what you told us for you to now go and tell the elders about it. Can you please substantiate your actions with that which you told us you would do? Also, if I may respectfully ask, If you are so busy with school, how do you have the time to actually report us to the elders?

Furthermore, if you will bear with me, could you please consider the following questions:
a) Why do you believe this is your moral duty to inform the elders? Please substantiate it with Scripture as something considered moral needs to be substantiated by the Word of God.

b) What do you hope to accomplish in doing so- reporting us to the elders? Do you think that there is actually some good that will come out of it? Please enumerate so that I can understand.

c) If you believe that we are doing something wrong, do you think that you will help the situation by saying something about it? You must be able to prove that we are wrong in order to do so. Oftentimes, people have different ideas about how something should be gone about, but neither of them have to be wrong.

d) Can you be certain that your method will work?

e) What level of experience do you have with the elders? I can tell you in all honesty that we, the E. women, have had alot of experience with the elders, and have seen firsthand action for several years, which testifies to the fact that those promoting the view of keeping it confidential (for a time!) are not unreasonable, but are prudent.

f) Is it not prudent to first have some idea of what we are doing before going out and thoughtlessly/rashly blurting out what we think?
May I ask, what is our purpose as brethren? Are we obliged to always run to the elders with every concern? We are to help each other out as brethren, and that can mean answering questions, bouncing ideas off of one another, helping each other's knowledge to grow, etc.. Have we not all seen how the method of "running to the elders" about every little question has produced the worn out leaders that we have?


It also appears that you do not believe that the church is as split as it is. In answer to this, I would recommend that those who do not believe this to be so, come to Edmonton, and see what is going on here. Also, if I may humbly say, have not the e-mail forums shown very clearly that there is no unity, even though there is profession that there is unity?
Sorry to say this, but it is very true.

Also, in response to your statement, I thought it was a motivating factor that there are many who see things your way, and many just need education. That doesn't sound like the group is as divided as you indicate, I would like to mention that it is true that there are many who agree with us. However, there are many who do not agree with us and many who we have not spoken with in order to know their views.
I agree with Mr. B.'s idea of sending an e-mail of dissent to the elders and then our next course of action will be determined. But, I definitely do not think that we have sinned or done anything wrong in doing things confidentially for some time. We all needed to get things straightened out and come together to discuss the common concerns that we had so that we can fulfill the command of the Lord to be "wise as serpents and harmless as doves". After all, we need to remember that the elders took 6 months to write their paper, so why are we, who are supposed to be less informed, obligated to get a response done so quickly? Should we not be allowed time to sort through our thoughts, and find proofs for our position? I personally don't/haven't seen any wisdom in times past when people make statements about something before having everything nailed down in their minds. I have seen the disastrous effects too often when that method has been employed, and I prefer not to use that method.

I hope that you will consider the questions above. However, if you cannot see the point of The Effort's confidentiality, I do hope that you will keep you promise to not reveal anything about The Effort to the elders. What will you accomplish? What will you gain? A bigger offence? The probability is high. Oftentimes, when we act in rashness, we actually do that which we intended to avoid. I can see your sincerity, Ben, and for that I commend you; however, I don't see that your plan of action will help the situation.

Your sister in the Lord,
~Camilla

From: Shawn A.
To: Ben H.
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 7:18:15 AM
Subject: Can we talk?
Hey Ben,
I'm looking forward to seeing you and your family this weekend. We've been praying that you'd have a safe trip and profitable time with your family, and with the church here.
I'm hoping that we can get a chance to talk this weekend while you're here, if not before, I know your time here will be limited. Let me know if there is some time this afternoon before 5pm or this evening after 9pm that we can meet up. I'm not sure if you're leaving today or tomorrow.
If you are planning on telling the Elders of the Effort this weekend, will you please please talk with me first?
-shawn

From: Shawn A.
To: Benjamin H.Cc: Shawn A. Sent: Saturday, September 23, 2006 1:22:03 PM
Subject: Re: response
Hey Ben thanks for the response.

While I appreciate your zeal to swear to your own hurt, at the same time I cannot resist critiquing the system we find ourselves in.

First, the questions of topic:

“Will you make inquiries of the Elders when you have questions that concern you in regard to our subordinate standards?”

“Do you agree to obey and abide by the lawful decisions and commands of the Elders of this church insofar as their decisions and commands agree with the scriptures?”

“Since your last interview, have you knowingly, willfully, and publicly spoken against or published opinions contrary to the Subordinate Standards of the Reformed Presbytery in North America (RPNA)?”

The Elders have set up a system where:
1) Concerns remain private, but whether they get dealt with or not is another issue.
2) There is no liberty to even discuss challenges to the positions found in our Subordinate Standards – is there room for free engaging exchange?
3) The reputation of the individual gets slandered or hurt by acts of censure, yet we rarely hear any case, judicating, or why they are wrong – simply that they became fatigued in the process of “secret” deliberations and left.

It is highly questionable, even suspect that the current recommended system will enable and allow us to maturely deliberate through common public concerns at this time. It suppresses legitimate concerns, it stacks issues in the “to do” box, it hinders conclusions, it drags out expedient actions.

More directly, it causes them to neglect their positive duty to tend to and feed the sheep – no time to be Elders, because of all the private individual issues. If they were a local Session over a local congregation they still could not practice in the way that they are presently.

Second, in hoping to ease your conscience, and only as a secondary comment, when I promise to do something I would like to know what I’m promising. When circumstances change so that neither party can maintain their end of the bargain any longer, then I don’t see how you can be bound. There are many levels of challenge to the membership promise.

-We are not the RPNA, that being dissolved in 2003. I’m not, however, in disagreement with any of the RPNA (1840) subordinate standards.

-They came out publicly, declaring this to be a standard. If they neglect to overture the document, or get feedback prior to making it subordinate doctrine – I can’t help the (justified public-for-public) inquiry of the people. They set themselves up.

-While I am looking for feedback from my covenanted brethren, I’m not coming to conclusions yet, but only seeking clarification to ask a better question.

-Ultimately we are trying to get to the root of “what are we?”, and “how ought we to function closest to the ordinary rule?” This is in direct conflict with the assumptions of the membership promise. Circumstantially, though I maintain a voluntary submission to Pastor Price, I’m sincerely not sure what binds me to submission and exclusively private dealings with the “Session”.

Might seem like technicalities, but it appears that when our Elders neglect to re-constitute this organization and simply take silence for granted as consent, we end up with the present mess. As I said before, this is the system they have set up, so if they have issues with the people's inquiry/complaints, I hope they first see their system as the dysfunctional culprit.

All that being said, to approach them about these concerns (regarding the present system in place) would only be a tangent to the issues of the day (being tertiary to their inability to shepherd in the present circumstances, and this most recent position [defense] paper).

Third, I think my second question to you is a priority.

"What do you hope to accomplish by exposing the Effort?"

What purpose would it serve?

It will not serve the Elders, because they will only have their fears appear to be validated and possibly harden their hearts towards us.

It will not serve the Effort, because we will not have the opportunity to soften the blow to them in an inferior posture and charitable manner.

It will not serve those members outside the Effort. Some, who are frustrated with the present circumstances, will be tempted to “join” the Effort without even knowing what the common concerns or questions are. And because it would leak out prior to a proper presentation, they might even mistake our concern and approach as something rebellious and controversial. Not having had the opportunity to talk through the principles that we understand our standards to be teaching, they will go against the Elders without the appropriate tools, and most importantly with the right attitude – Worse case scenario: they just pick up and leave and this would attack the essence of our union and communion.

Others may be tempted to a “sinful love” toward the Elders. They will sympathize with the Elders against those “malicious conspirators”, and the Elders will be tempted to feed on that kind of sympathy. The “Chicken Littles” will then appear to be right – “the sky will appear to be falling”. These brethren will be unwilling to hear us, and even hear your concerns, because anything that sounds like a challenging nature will cause their red flags of “infidel talk” to raise – Worse case scenario: they isolate themselves from any of those with legitimate concerns and this would attack the essence of our union and communion.

Let the Effort seek to handle their business without interference. You chose not to be involved. That opinion is respected, and attempts have not been made to convince you otherwise, nor your time wasted by the changing of your agenda, nor have you been threatened with ultimatums because you have not gone according to the will of others.

Please respect our opinion. We are not sinning here. These are hard days and risky things must be done. No one is comfortable with that, but I’m sure the uncomfortable factor did not stop Joshua and Caleb from speaking against the 10 spies, nor Job against his counselors, or Nathan against David, nor Paul against Peter. And we’re only inquiring at this point.

We must do the hard thing here, but not without charity, thinking of the care involved in manner and matter.

I do appreciate your opinion and concerns. I’m simply wrestling with what will be productive versus unconstructive (for the sake of all of us – Elders included).

Thanks,
-Shawn

Benjamin H. wrote:
You asked me 'what do you do if the Elders don't keep their part of the membership vow'? I never gave you my answer...

I think you need to go to them and tell them that they've not kept their part of the covenant in this area. Wouldn't you want the same courtesy extended to you if you were in their shoes?

That may be adequate for you, I'm not sure. What do you think?