And Ensuing Discussion through 2/5/07
[As below, upon the receipt of the first email, there were a number of brethren who felt that charges of conspiracies (but not the 9/11 variety), oaths, secret societies and the responsibility for a church split were to be laid at the feet of those who had signed the Charitable Inquiry [of the PPSA]. Yet they seemed to be more than willing to swallow the gross contradictions of the RPNA(GM) loyalty Oath and the public Position Paper on Sessional Authority (PPSA). While the church needed to be strained of the former impurities, the latter were enshrined and venerated. Needless to say(?), we find the charges to be overblown and so much hyper ventilation, as well as a lame excuse for turning a blind eye toward the real cause of the church turmoil and "split" regardless of the 30 odd so called "self-excommunications." Much more, the Oath and the PPSA both deserve to be broken at the threshold and stepped on like Dagon much much sooner, rather than later.]
From: shawn a.
[As below, upon the receipt of the first email, there were a number of brethren who felt that charges of conspiracies (but not the 9/11 variety), oaths, secret societies and the responsibility for a church split were to be laid at the feet of those who had signed the Charitable Inquiry [of the PPSA]. Yet they seemed to be more than willing to swallow the gross contradictions of the RPNA(GM) loyalty Oath and the public Position Paper on Sessional Authority (PPSA). While the church needed to be strained of the former impurities, the latter were enshrined and venerated. Needless to say(?), we find the charges to be overblown and so much hyper ventilation, as well as a lame excuse for turning a blind eye toward the real cause of the church turmoil and "split" regardless of the 30 odd so called "self-excommunications." Much more, the Oath and the PPSA both deserve to be broken at the threshold and stepped on like Dagon much much sooner, rather than later.]
From: shawn a.
To: [Signatories to Charitable Inquiry of the PPSA]
Cc: [Church List]
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:49 PM
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 10:49 PM
Dear Brethren,
I am writing to publicly repent for a sin that I have committed. Please bear with my explanation.
You have been made aware that there were people who had common concerns regarding the Elder’s doctrine and practice. You are also aware that some presented a paper with questions to the Elders, as inferiors approaching superiors, seeking to address these public concerns. In our cover letter, we addressed why all the signatures are on it, and why we presented it publicly. What has not been presented is how we came together to present our “Charitable Inquiry”, or how it was drafted, &c.
I should clarify that in this email I do not come speaking for anyone but myself. These are my words, and my thoughts. I am not representing anyone else.
At the beginning of our efforts, there were some involved who went their own way, deciding to talk with the Elders privately. That was respected and they did their thing. Now, it appears that some have gone to the Elders and said that they believe that we have caused division in the Church by our actions, because we formed a “secret society”, and had an “oath of secrecy” and other accusations.
I expect that this “report” will get around quickly, though none of us have been approached by the Elders to make inquiry, or ask our side, let alone establishing facts from fiction. Nevertheless, there is one very troubling comment that could be taken as the sentiment of the whole, regarding the assertion that we sought to be a “secret society”.
To support the assertion that we sought to be a “secret society”, it has been brought up that someone even said that if those, choosing to talk to the Elders in a different manner, were to tell others about our exercise, that such involvement and existence would be denied. I confess that this was said - it was me who said it. However, it was my comment ALONE, and even if only a momentary lapse in judgment, I do agree it was a grievous and sinful statement. I was not innocent.
This was said in private and it is now clear that offense was taken, and the choice made to bring it to the Elders months later. In turn, I understand that the Elders have begun to represent this comment as the intention and practice of all involved and so I want to clarify fact from fiction, as well as sincerely repent for my stupid comment. I do not know how many ‘witnesses’ are alleged, but it is my desire to appropriately confess my responsibility and foolishness in this matter.
I repent for saying something to the effect of, “if you tell others I will deny my involvement and existence”. By those words I was guilty of expressing and contemplating transgression against the 9th commandment.
I was also guilty of sinful pride in an unlawful attempt to persuade this person with words countenancing sin. I repent to God for that and to the one whom I sought to persuade with a sinful proposition.
I was guilty of sinful frustration, and being sinfully impatient with this person’s sincere concerns. I responded in an angry and hasty manner. I repent to God for that and to the one whom I responded sinfully to.
I was guilty of fearing man. My response was partly due to my feeling threatened by this person, and therefore I spoke in fear. I repent to God for my lack of faith.
Please do not let the fact of my sinful private comment prejudice you toward your brethren further, nor tempt you to entertain empty allegations.
To my knowledge, my words DO NOT reflect the meditations, attitudes, practices or intentions of those who signed the “Charitable Inquiry” in any way.
The fact is I said something in sinful fear, and frustration. Please understand:
- This represented a momentary lapse in my weakness, yet I did not lie to anyone regarding our efforts.
- We were never a secret society nor did we ever have oaths of secrecy.
If anyone would like to talk further about this, I suggest that they please consider talking to me privately (at least first).
Sincerely,
-Shawn A.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: John P
To: shawn a
Cc: [Church List]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentence
Dear Shawn,
You say that the group didn't have an oath of secrecy. I'm curious about this. In an email you sent out on 7-10-06, you addressed the 'common concerns' group (hereafter, 'the effort') (mistakenly including me as a part of that group, which I quickly cleared-up in a phone conversation and lengthy email to everyone in the effort objecting to its methods), you wrote the following:
"Now that so many more [people-JP] are involved [in the effort--JP], 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)."
So, you are setting up *rules* in part "to maintain confidentiality." Now, whether or not you are a "secret society", strictly speaking, is (I suppose) an open question. Nevertheless, one thing is clear: the rules you ended up setting up "to maintain confidentiality" either establish a secret society or something like it. You expressly state these rules as follows (in the same email):
"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 [ i.e., invitations for others to participate in the effort--JP] 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)."
Notice that you call these "obligations". You viewed people in the group as "obliged" to keep the above rules of confidentiality.
Finally, you all had formal meetings, much like one would expect a society to have. In the same email, you described the meetings of the participants of this group in Albany. You wrote:
"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 [households--JP] 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?"
So here's what we have, so far: the effort was a group of people that
(1) Had rules of confidentiality (a strict kind of confidentiality, at that),
(2) These rules were considered 'obligations',
(3) The group had meetings, which--from what I understand--happened regularly,
(4) These meetings were so organized that, in Albany at least, they had a facilitator, records keeper, and reports.
Furthermore, no one objected when I said "I can't be a part of this group because I won't swear to keep my mouth shut." Instead, you simply agreed. With all of that in mind, your group with all of its "sincere questions" hardly seems credible. Brother, I would love to see you repent and come back to the church. In the meantime, you are clearly so blind that you still can't see that the approach the effort took was wrong-headed, and *you* (and others in the effort) were the primary contributors to the church split. It really doesn't matter how sincere you claim your questions are, nor does it matter how sincere you claim your motives were for all of this ridiculous behavior. (Incidentally, you told me on a couple of occasions the reason you wanted to keep this "confidentiality" was because you didn't trust the elders, you "know" what they'll do, etc. I only point this out to confirm that your behavior was ridiculous.) So, when people think, "Oh, how could the elders excommunicate people who only have sincere questions?", I suggest they eliminate the "who only have sincere questions" part of the question and insert: "who, despite explicit warnings from John Putz and others, continued on a course that split the church."
While I'm writing this up, I suspect the time might be right for me to mention that your behavior is deemed intolerable even by George Gillespie (you like to quote him).
In his "Assertion of the Government," etc., he writes the following:
"A synod must ever put a difference betwixt those who, out of a real scruple of conscience, do, in a modest and peaceable way, refuse obedience to their ordinances, still using the means of their better information, and those who contemptuously or factiously disobey the same, laboring with all their might to strengthen themselves in their error, and to persuade others to be of their mind." (p. 50)
His point (as is clear from the greater context of the quotation) is that the modest and peaceable brethren can be tolerated under certain circumstances, even if they (modestly) refuse obedience to the ordinances of a synod, while those that behave factiously, trying to persuade others to be of their mind, shouldn't be tolerated. Your group, Shawn, had even developed a strategy--like a sales pitch--for convincing people to join the effort. You had lists into which you grouped households so that you would only approve talking to households that were likely to agree with you. Etc. Brother, I love you and I would love to see your note of repentance go a lot farther than it did. Nevertheless, as it stands, you're still defending indefensible actions. Your excommunication was just, and you are handed over to Satan. You have accused the elders for (possibly) having motes in their eyes, but you have a beam in yours. The track the effort followed was so foolish that it is hard to interpret it in any other way than malicious--despite the claims otherwise.
That said, I should do a little explaining of my own. (This is less for S than for everyone else reading along.) I've obviously known about some of these things for a long time. I didn't know how best to deal with what I knew. In a lengthy email, I told the people in the effort that they should not go about things in this secret (or 'private') way. I even wrote them a template letter for informing the elders of their ( i.e., the effort's) activities. I explicitly warned them that their behavior was likely to split the church. Etc. Once I warned them and made it absolutely clear that I never had been nor was a part of their effort, I was officially "out of the loop". They officially took a stance to not tell me what was going on (and I was fine with that). Accordingly, I didn't tell the elders about their activities because I wasn't sure how they would respond to the letter (one person in the effort did communicate a "thanks" to me for the letter, which I took as an indication that--for a time--they were giving it serious consideration.) I wanted to see *them* approach the elders rather than a third party, since that would be the best way to avoid division.
As time passed, things became more complicated. I caught some hints that they were still up to the ways against which I warned them. Nevertheless, I still didn't approach the elders about this. It was a tricky situation for me, and--at the time--I made the decision that it would still be better for the people in the effort to approach the elders rather than a third party. I suspect any other way would guarantee a division. In hindsight, I wish I would have told the elders this group existed when I had a chance, at least once I began to think they didn't listen to my warnings. I apologize to everyone in the church and also to those who have been excommunicated for this negligence.
That said, if I have left any room for doubt in anyone's mind concerning how I view the current court: I would take the oath in a heartbeat. I had wavered on occasion. In fact, there were moments in which I likely would have rejected the oath. Nevertheless, as it stands, I support the elders, and I hope others who are on the fence will realize that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye. Although I love them as brethren, I take the claims of the people in the effort with a grain of salt: they have done too much behind our backs to trust them. (No, I'm not poisoning the well...*they* poisoned this well.)
Love in Christ,
John P
On 1/24/07, shawn a wrote: . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Edgar ITo: JPCc: List
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentence
January 24, 2007
Dear John, Ben and brethren,
John and Ben both of your e-mails have caused me great consternation and I know that the whole events that have transpired have likewise done with you. But I would like to speak a little to what you both have written, and I hope that we can read each other with some charity and level headedness, though I fully acknowledge how emotionally charged this whole thing is. I speak for myself, not on behalf of or for anyone or any group.
ROOT CAUSE
When the Elders called on Jan 06 for a public fast for the entire church to undertake in beseeching our Lord God to bless us and to guide our Elders in their pursuit of restructuring of the church for their admitted weakness and inability to govern and perform their duties then, many were pleased that the Elders were going to pursue such a step. Some wanted clarification of what sins we as a public and visible church were guilty of that we should pray about and repent of as is called for in any public fast and as the Elders themselves did express that we were to repent of sins, but they did not specify what they were. This e-mail from PGS (& I acknowledge that I may have over simplified the summary of their e-mail as far as the reasons for the fast goes, so please correct me if I am wrong here) was responded, not by the Elders, but by Nick S. This set in motion a whirlwind of e-mails and controversy. When I asked both parties privately to take their dispute privately I was told by all sides that such public acts or declarations need to be addressed publicly. So PGS had the right to inquire into the particulars of the public fast in a public manner and Nick was convinced that PGS had sinned publicly and so had to respond publicly. Finally Pastor stepped in and called for a cease fire. One more shot was let out after words and then all the guns fell silent. In March of 06 the Elders gave an update of the progress of the restructuring. That e-mail was a first sign that it went from a restructuring to a report on the structure, administration, and government of our church. Remember we had prayed and fasted for one thing. When we fast and humiliate ourselves before God to plead to Him for one thing as per the call of those that represent Christ on earth to bless us with a desired outcome and the matter in question that is being supplicated for is later changed and/or abandoned without any notice, without warning, or instruction why it is being done, the fasting that was performed and the supplications that were offered become a mockery and the leaders are chiefly responsible, but if the flock discover this sin they too are responsible to act. This discovery was made by many of us laymen after the PPSA in June of 06 was published by the Elders. This is roughly the same time that the Prince George Society had the gathering in Canada, in fulfillment to an invitation extended to the entire church the year before (Dec 05? I think), all 3 Elders were also invited, but they all refused the invitation for various reasons. So that gathering was not a result of the events transpiring in the church, namely the e-mail debates of the first part of 06, much less of the recently published PPSA. I say this because it was in June and July that BB, after a secret meeting with GB and NS in Colorado, even after GB had declined an invitation to go and see the many brethren gathering PG, B launched a multitude of analogies on the PRCE forum. This lead to another firestorm of posts and heated discussions. B was talking up a conspiracy. Now many of you will now say with the e-mails of J and B that, "ha, ha! you see B was right, he knew" and such. But guess what??? When those analogies went out by B, he was speaking as if there already was some sort of conspiracy going on. However the fact of the matter is that the Effort was barely beginning to be formed at that time and the members that comprised the Effort were mainly in Albany, including BH. When B sent those things out, he definitely did not have the Effort in mind, because the Effort was formed as a result of the PPSA, due to the methods of BB, NS and the defense of those methods on a public scale on the part of the Elders, and more importantly it was in its infancy. Greg Price spoke to me privately during this time of the mass analogies and I told him that I was very upset and concerned that these two brothers were running around like proxy elders and trying to bully everyone into submission and silence. It was crystal clear that to ask questions publicly regarding public interested matters regarding governance and practice was taboo and such was to be beaten down. There can be no dialogue about these things and Proxy Elders B and S were the whips to make sure we were all going to fall in line. No public dialogue to hash these things out and the Elders were totally absent from all of this, when they, not PE B and S should have been in the fore front of dialogue and moderating the discussions that may have led to a more desirable outcome. In many ways B's wailing of a conspiracy was a self-fulfilling prophecy and part of the generator of our alleged conspiracy. I myself will not call it a conspiracy, for we did not seeking to topple the government and replace it with ourselves (we are Presbyterians after-all & know that the power does not reside in the laity but in the Elders), nor were we looking to separate from the RPNA at all. I will flesh all this out below, please bear with me. Remember the status quo and reasoning of the Elders, that if something, especially sin, is public it can and should be addressed publicly. If it is privately, then the steps of Matthew 18 are to be employed and are not to be made public until all of the processes to exhort privately have been exhausted. Therefore, this most fallacious argument by many of you that we that wrote the "Charitable Inquiry" should have gone private has no warrant from Scripture and not even from the standards of the Elders! You see the issues addressed in the "Charitable Inquiry" are of a most public nature because it involves the public testimony of the church in regards to our claimed adherence to Presbyterian Church Polity.
The Position Paper on Sessional Authority (PPSA)
1. The Elders published this because of supposedly publicly circulated questions regarding the method of government being conducted by the Elders. Whether they were a session and etc. I never received such questions nor heard of such before the release of the PPSA.
2. This is the part that really mocks the Public Fast and humiliation that we undertook back in Jan. 06 as we approached God in a superadded obligation to plead unto Him a divine blessing upon our Elders and our Church. The Elders said that they were going to put the restructuring on a back burner so to speak and deal with this (#1 above) first. Since when does such an important pursuit that we called upon God to intervene for, take a back seat to a lesser known discussion or problem that was most likely limited to a few (I am not one of those) and the Elders?
3. The Elders later claimed that the PPSA is a response to the Prince George Society's questions to the Elders. I have been assured by all of the PGS that those questions in the PPSA, were never their questions. These are questions made up by the Elders (i.e. strawman arguments) whose answers to these questions bred more confusion, conflict with received Presbyterian Standards on Church polity, and a serious deviation from our Judicial Testimony of our Covenanted fore-fathers.
4. This PPSA; the recommendation of the Elders to bring questions privately when the matters of concern are of a most public nature, even from their own admittance that the public things ought to be dealt publicly; the manner, methods, and defense of the writings of B and S if not explicitly, then implicitly on the part of the Elders; the history of bullying fellow brothers by others, that is equals trying to be superiors over their equals, into silence (I myself heard this many times, namely a brother here in Albany telling me that people need to "shut up" regarding their concerns of the Elders), and this was before all of the present controversies! All of this basically left us no choice.
Birth of the Effort
Because I do NOT speak for everyone that was part of the Effort, I can only address this on an individual basis and I do hope that my fellow brethren will correct me on any statements I may write that are not accurate. I do not speak as an authority or representative either on behalf of the Effort. Any misstatements or comments are solely my responsibility. Do not be uncharitable and attribute them to my brethren, please.
We at the beginning with BH debated long and hard whether to study many Presbyterian documents, Standards, and Judicial Testimonies to prove whether the PPSA's conclusions and premises were accurate and in accord with Scripture and Covenanted Standards whether in a public manner vs. privately amongst some brethren, limiting our study group to those that shared the same concerns, hence common concerns that we have regarding all of the events that had transpired since Jan. of 06. Taking into consideration the M.O. of the Elders of only wanting to talk to people privately and individually, i.e. divide and conquer (and the experience of others on how the Elders dealt with them behind the scenes to the surprise of others that had gone through the same) and especially the strong arm tactics that had been employed by Proxy Elders and the sanction of such means by the 3 Elders, we truly thought that doing this privately would be more beneficial and in the end bring about a more desirable outcome. Our intention was to study the PPSA and compare it with received standards to see if the PPSA was in accord with Covenanted Presbyterianism and if we were wrong in our earlier assessments, and more importantly to educate ourselves on Biblical Presbyterianism to arrive at an informed conscience. We all did truly read, read, read a lot of Presbyterian writings and poured hours over all of these materials over the span of several months after the publication of the PPSA and the shut down of the PRCE forum. We met and consulted together to compare notes and compose a paper in which we could after mature deliberations present our common concerns in a charitable and respectful manner. Inquiries in which we also were to demonstrate why we are inquiring by referring to Presbyterian Standards and documentations that appeared to totally contradict and disagree with the Elders' conclusions as reflected in the PPSA.
The Excommunications, the Effort, & the Split
Was this a secret meeting? What do you mean by secret? We did meet privately and without the knowledge of many. Do you publicly proclaim every time you have a private phone conversation or get together at your home? Do you publicly comment on your private conversations and content of such concerning doctrine and church matters in such gatherings? If not, why not? Are they secret? When the "Charitable Inquiry" was published we attached our names to it, at that moment we went public. If anyone put any thought into it, it would have quickly become apparent that we all worked on this together without the public knowledge of the entire church. Tell me, is that sinful? Is it sinful for a group of Christians to get together and study, read, compare notes, meet to do these activities with the desired result to come forward with a well thought out, proofread, verified document for the edification, reformation, and promotion of Christ's Church and for a consistent Covenanted Testimony and avoid unnecessary obstacles that may have been placed by self-appointed whips? If it is sinful, pray tell how and where? You and B claim that the Effort led to the split in the church. I believe this is the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. You are getting you timeline all mixed up. The 1st Oath was served before the Charitable Inquiry was publicly published. At this time the Elders did not know about the Effort. When some saw the Oath the first time, some amongst us wanted to stop going to church and just leave. Many others amongst us urged restraint and patience. When the first set of excommunications went out, we all called for restraint and patience to many, both within and without the Effort. When the 1st set of excommunications was unleashed, we in the Effort debated long and hard whether to include their names or not. We were in a lot of deliberations as to the forthcoming publication of our "Charitable Inquiry" whether to do this or that; not this or that &etc. Who cast the first separation us or the Elders? How can you honestly say that we the Effort, the authors of the "Charitable Inquiry" caused the split???? It is a Non Sequitur. Remember the brethren excommunicated in the first wave did not know what sin had been alleged against them, so how can you claim that it was their involvement in the Effort? When I was "excommunicated" by these Elders, I was told it was due to my ecclesiastical partnership with excommunicated brethren, NOT for being part of a study group that has been called the Effort.
So who caused the split? The Elders did. Yes, the Elders did this by their inconsistent and equivocal manner of church polity. SB did an excellent job in pointing out their major contradictions and fallacious reasoning between their June 03 letter and the reasoning they gave in their June 06 paper. They refused to dialogue with us about these matters, unless of course if we swore the oath. Pray tell how can we swear something that we know for certain goes against the Word of God and our Presbyterian Standards? See my full response to their Oath and their "excommunication" of me and my wife. We did not leave the church; we were kicked out, handed over to Satan, exiled. If we went astray it was the responsibility of the Elders to leave the 99 and look for the one. Did they? DID THEY? NO!! They never did! They sinfully failed in their duties as officers in Christ's Church to perform their most basic duty! It is easier to shoot and kill a person than it is to nurture. They took the easy way out.
Proven?
No one has yet to debunk our "Charitable Inquiry". No one. Not that I claim it to be flawless, I am sure there are some errors. But the point is no one has attempted to dialogue with us. What have the Elders done? True to their M.O. they have told those that have stayed to read the Grand Debate and given a few select quotes. They want you to read a 300+ page book and then try to dazzle you with a few quotes. I truly doubt they have read the book! There are words by the Presbyterians in there that debunk them hands down! Where is the teaching, that a TEACHING Elder is supposed to do? Nil. You are supposed to seek out and reclaim and restore an erring brother, no one has even tried to do that with me. Where then is this love that you should be showing to me as one handed over to Satan? Maybe you feel inadequate to do so because you have failed in your basic duty to study and prove all things. It is easier to call me a schismatic or Independent then to actually prove the assertion.
Another fallacy you have committed J is that you will not consider our "Charitable Inquiry" because it came from us who you erroneously believe caused the split. Ever heard of the bad company fallacy ( The form is: Person P accepts idea I. Therefore, I must be wrong. More clearly: Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, vegetarianism is wrong.) ? If you truly want to see us restored and the split healed begin dealing with the "Charitable Inquiry" and ask the Elders why they did not give us a chance or at least attempt to answer our questions before serving the Oath and then "excommunicating" us. I myself gave clear Biblical reasons why I could not swear the Oath and that itself was not even shown to be wrong by them.
You are straining to prove that the Elders did not cause all of this mess and are looking for a boogeyman to blame instead, when you and many know that the Elders caused this split!
I await a well reasoned and proven argument why we are wrong and not just mere assertions.
In Christ,
Edgar I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Ben HTo: Edgar ICc: List
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Edgar,
I'm glad that John wrote what he did since that meant that I didn't have to finish the letter I had begun to similar effect (yet at least). One thing that I added, which J failed to (most likely due to a lack of time I'm sure) was a lengthy introduction recalling many of the fond memories and otherwise amiable sentiments I have towards your family and S's. You both hold a special place in my heart as well as my wife's. When we were in Albany, K had a great friendship with T and J; I regarded you and S as friends. So why would I – given that I have such honest affection for your families – expose your secret society?
Because I think that it is the Elders' right to know what happened. I think the Effort was conspiratial and solidified a church split. I think it serves the purpose of warning others of the duplicitous nature of your paper ("we're just asking questions!") I think you surreptitiously broke membership vows. In short, even though I recall many fond memories of your familes, I think the Effort was sinfully misguided.
Now, you want arguments for the above conclusions. However, I'm not going to give them to you for two reasons. First, I don't have the time to offer the kind of response it would take to answer your CC paper. Second, because I look forward to the possibility of your reconciling with the church and us having a restored friendship, I think a full-scale public debate would be a hinderance to that end. The appropriate means of restoration is through the court, and I'll let them deal with the arguing. I think it will only serve to heighten tensions (and thus preclude restoration) if we debate.
What I will do however, is finish my email giving a fair expose of the Effort so that people don't misrepresent you by making you look better or worse than you were. Perhaps you'd like to give your own account of the Effort as well so nobody can accuse me of misrepresenting you? Just a thought.
Regards,
Ben
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob STo: John P, Shawn ACc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentence
Yo John,
You really could spare us a lot of this if you would first come clean and stop sitting on the fence yourself. As in you did NOT go the elders immediately as soon as you found out anything about the group effort to address the PPSA. Then you might have some credibility to go after S or the group.
Even further, I was part of the group and while I can tell you there was a concern for confidentiality regarding the paper, there was no oath sworn. Yet if there was, I would have taken it over the oath tendered by the elders. That is because above and beyond secret societies, passwords and handshakes, the forest that is really missing for all the trees in your comments is that the PPSA is essentially a fraud and a pretense. The real glaring scandal of the PPSA, as has been mentioned before in part by others, is that there is no real appeal to the RP historical testimony, doctrine, precedent and practice regarding temporary extraordinary sessions, if not that the PPSA contradicts that testimony, which is enough to categorically impeach it on constitutional grounds.
As per the historical practice of our namesake, the RP of A (Steele and Lusk), the elders are free to gather together in one place at one time in person as per Matt. 18:20 and constitute a session, albeit extraordinary and temporary, be that in Albany, Edmonton, St. Louis or wherever. On the other hand, they are not free to constitute a court over the phone or internet as the PPSA seems to assert (p.9) even internationally because that is an innovation and both it and the assertion that distance/personal presence is a mere circumstance, have yet to be authoritatively adjudicated by a General Assembly, if not a real greater presbytery. And no, the arguments in the Q.1 of the PPSA regarding Acts 15 are not sufficient to establish the credentials of the PPSA’s court as a legitimate synod.
Even further the PPSA blatantly contradicts the power of order or office in both Q.1 and Q.3. Yet a court is not necessary (as in the power of jurisdiction) for the sacraments to be administered. So the testimony of the star witness of the PPSA, Geo. Gillespie in Assertion (I:II) and his Notes on the West. Assembly (SWRB, II:18). So the June 14, ‘03 letter from the elders which the PPSA ignores in its selective quotes from it (p.13). The June ‘03 letter also clearly appeals to the "clear historical testimony" of Renwick and Cargill, who had "the right" as does Greg Price according to the letter previously "as Pastors of Christ’s Visible Church to admit or refuse people from coming to the communion table." That is again, nothing more than the power of order/office, as well as an appeal to RP historical testimony in June '03. This is in marked contrast to the PPSA’s June '06 appeal to the inconclusive example of the Privy Kirk in the unconstitutional Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology and the necessity of a court to administer the sacraments (pp.11,12). Hence the supposed argument that the RPNA(GM) session must be lawful, [necessary and in existence] because the sacraments have been administered since the dissolution of the Reformed Presbytery June 6, ‘03 (pp.13,21,30-2).
For that matter, if you can make your way through the morass of the PPSA, Q.2 in particular, compare the quote from the DSCH&T on the "Origin of Presbytery (p.19)" to the PPSA’s previous statements (pp.12,13) regarding the Second Book of Discipline 7:10. The "common elderships" of the SBD of 1578 become 13 ordinary greater presbyteries in 1581, contra the extraordinary "common session" argument of the PPSA regarding SBD 7:10. In other words the two of many historical examples of a "Common Session having oversight over many Congregations" in the PPSA (p.12) leave something very much to be proved, never mind desired.
As for the appeal to the Grand Debate, it too is a grand fraud. The GD argues after all, that a multitude of congregations may be under one presbyterial government in Scripture. (So too the Form of Presbyterial Church Government in the Westminster Standards, the GD being the blow by blow account of the arguments and propositions contained therein.) By this the GD means a genuine greater presbytery with a plurality of ministers. But if it is one thing the RPNA(GM) does not have, it is a plurality of ministers. For that matter the RPNA(GM) does not even have a quorum for an ordinary session in one congregation, in that at least one minister and one ruling elder are required for a lawful presbyterian court according to the good and necessary consequences of Gillespie’s comments in his Assertion I:IV. The hearers in a church have to be represented by ruling elders in order for a court to be legitimate. Neither can that be gainsaid as democratic independency.
Neither is the power of presbytery distributive as the Independents argued it must be in the Assembly contra presbyterianism. Rather it is cumulative or accumulated in the presbytery. Subsequently just because a presbytery is a common court over numerous congregations, that does not mean that so too, a session may be an extraordinary common court over numerous societies. For one, a session is by definition a local court, not a common court. Two, there is not the prerequisite plurality of ministers – or even elders from those societies represented in the PPSA’s common court. In other words the contradictions and omissions, if not suppression of the RP historical testimony indicts not only the PPSA and its arguments, but also the competency and legitimacy of the court responsible for the PPSA. Consequently, it is no wonder that, as in so many other places, orthodox theology and theologians such as the GD are misconstrued or quoted out of context to the application at hand.
As for Question Four, it is in a class all by itself. According to its good and necessary consequences based on having the same terms of communion as the other bodies – as in reductio ad absurdum – the St. Louis Society could call itself either the Church of Scotland (Protesting), the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Israel or even – are you ready for this – the "Session of the RPNA(GM)?" (Even the light of nature tells us that names are to distinguish, even among those who have the same terms of communion, however much that runs contrary to the PPSA in Q.4.) But maybe our desire for consistency is not yet that consistent on condemning confusion such as this? OK, but maybe you can go a little easier on your brethren who don’t quite come up to your high standards on confidentiality until you are ready to bite the bullet and either condemn Q.4 out of hand or follow the good and necessary implications of Q.4 to its ridiculous end. Some of us would certainly appreciate it in the meantime. (That the PPSA’s wholesale whole scale breach of RP historical testimony, needs to be repudiated, once you get squared away on Q.4 also must be said, but one thing at a time, eh?)
In short, however much one might envy the opportunity you have to attend grad school, it does not seem to have done that much for your Biblical discernment or critical thinking skills, if you can swallow the oath and the PPSA as you seem to have so easily done as indicated in your post. A re-examination would be in very good order.
cordially yours,
in Christ
Bob S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob S
To: Ben H; Edgar I
Cc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Greetings Ben,
As below, if you "think that it is the Elders' right to know what happened,"by all means tell the elders.
But the vast majority of us on this list are not elders.
Likewise if "the Effort was sinfully misguided."
As for not giving E "arguments for the above conclusions" because you "don't have the time to offer the kind of response it would take to answer your CC paper," then why did you bring it up in the first place and provoke him to a just defense which you won't answer -- or better yet can't answer?
Again, if "the appropriate means of restoration is through the court," maybe you could apologize to all of us for bringing it up in the "court of public opinion" [and] then beating a hasty retreat when things got too hot.
But then you are going to "finish my email giving a fair expose of the Effort so that people don't misrepresent you by making you look better or worse than you were." You won't answer his questions, never mind debate, but you will be giving us a public expose of the Effort on this list, if I understand you correctly.
Hmmm.
James 1:8 is what comes to mind: "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
cordially
Bob S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Edgar ITo: Ben HCc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
See comments in blue below:
On 1/25/07, Ben H wrote:
Oh, you must mean that we met in private and did all of this work, maturely deliberating, but did not go to the Elders about what we were doing. Again, where is the sin in that? You both acknowledged just how futile public discourse was going. The experience of others has also been that to tell the Elders our desires to undertake such a study and research ends in terminating and discouraging such endeavors. Then it also might get leaked to Proxy Elders and then we would get hit with analogies and affidavits...In our private judgment we decided that such a course of action was not prudent given the environment of the church. Remember we are to go to the Elders privately when the subject is of a private nature. Tell me, is Presbyterian Church Government, the outworkings of the public governance of our church on the part of the Elders a private matter that is not to be brought forward publicly? To say that our Charitable Inquiry should have been brought to the Elders privately and not publicly would be to live up to a double standard. The Word of God is clear that matters/sins that are of a private nature are to be brought to the Elders privately. But matters/sins that are of a public nature are to be made public. Even the Elders have said this, Nick has said this, and Greg Price in a conversation with me said this! Sounds to me like special pleading that is being advocated by you and others that are attempting to defend the Elder's role and activity in all of this. Play fair, people.
You have the burden of proof to prove that we were a "secret society". Let me remind you, you left our study group not to long afterwards so your knowledge of how we did things is very limited.
Oh, but then you might be following the Elders's example of charging someone of sin, without disclosing what that sin is. Again, you follow them to commit sin. Yes, the Elders sinned in not revealing what the sin one had been charged with was. Even Jesus Christ our Lord, when brought before the Sanhedrin was told by the Hight Priest and the scribes the "sins" He was accused of! I highly doubt Christ would have sworn an Oath acknowldeging the Court as lawful. No where in the Word of God is such an Oath given that one must acknowledge the Court as lawful before the trial begins. The court already assume that is the case. No where in Presbyterian judisprudence is that the case as well. Mustard seeds, not even this messed up government tells an allegded criminal to swear an Oath that he acknowledges the Court as lawful, to tell the truth yes, but that is not the same. And even then, the alledged criminal has that right-that the light of nature even tells us-to know the crime(s) he is alledged of committing.
So, you want me to be charitable, then please return in kind.
You do not want to engage, come to the "basketball" court to play? then don't fire off e-mails that are chalk full of assertions and lack substance. Be consistent my brother, please!
Love, charity, and peace must go both ways, they are not a one way street. You are calling for this, then show some yourself.
Forgive my anger as expressed in my words, but the substance cannot be ignored. The parents have provoked the children to wrath and sometimes the siblings feel it.
Yours in Christ,
Edgar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Ben HTo: Edgar ICc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Edgar,
I thought that John's s email answered your objections about the nature of the secret society. In my estimation, his reasoning was sound. Additionally, I think I gave compelling reasons for why I am not going to be involved in any kind of a public debate; perhaps you could contact the Elders and see what they can do as far as answering your concerns.
I encourage you to make the record public regarding the Effort. It's possible that J and I are wrong in our estimation of the nature of the Effort and the role it played in so many people being excommunicated. If you're innocent, let the record bear that out - by your lights, you have nothing to hide. If my limited involvement in the Effort was insufficient for a fair representation as to what you were all about, it would be wise for you to let us all know the details of your organization before I give my relatively uninformed expose.
If I don't respond any more in the future to your emails, don't take it personally. I've honestly got a lot of other pressing duties that take precedence over doing the Elder's work of attempting to answer your questions (some of which I think are reasonable in their own right by the way.)
Regards,
Ben
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob STo: Ben H, Edgar ICc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Greetings Ben,
You may think what you will about John’s email with your self admitted limited involvement and knowledge of the group and the paper, but the facts remain and the record is public, so public it is puzzling that you or others can refuse to "get it."
After seeing how the elders tolerated, yea even encouraged the hounding and abuse on the email lists of those who had legitimate questions about the Public Fast of 1/21/06 or even our extraordinary ecclesiastical limbo land since the dissolution of the Reformed Presbytery on 6/6/03, a number of us got together about the the time the PPSA came out in order to examine it in light of Scripture, history and reason. Having done that, the elders were addressed about it, though they x’ed some people before 11/9/06. Again, that is all a matter of the public record. You were on those lists. You were a member of the church. You got a copy of the paper.
For those who are not so naive or gullible – just how else other than toadyism, does one describe your idea that the group or the paper caused, if not "consolidated" the church split? – extraordinary times are extraordinary times for all parties involved. If you’re the weaker brother, fine, just let it be, in that we all are called to make a right judgement and not one necessarily according to your opinion of what appears to be. Like I told J, while there was a concern for confidentiality, there was no oath, but if there was, compared to the elders' oath it would have been a no brainer.
True, maybe you haven’t been around this church that long, but some of us have.
True, maybe you haven’t been to the elders privately in person or as a society repeatedly, but some of us have.
True, maybe the paper on carnal graffiti wasn’t the last straw for you, but for some of us it was.
( I speak for myself here. As someone who sees more than enough tattoos and none for edifying or indifferent reasons, substituting a kazoo for a clear blast of the trumpet is culpable in my book, all the while we are still waiting for a paper on birth control in the RPNAWhatever. Much more that one comes to find out that TATWOG seemed to be specifically crafted to drum some dear friends of the dear elders out of the Edmonton fellowship is less than encouraging regarding the whole idea of a fair hearing, but that pretty much came after the paper.)
True, maybe the PPSA is legitimate in your eyes, but for some of us the four questions are just a diversionary smokescreen and a red herring to distract one from the notorious absence in its pages of the "honorable testimony of those faithful Church Courts of the Reformed Presbytery which preceded (p.29)" the RPNA(GM) and its session, ie. the RP historical testimony, particularly as regards extraordinary sessions. (But don’t take my word for it, you ought to be able to read the PPSA for yourself and do some digging. Last time I checked the elders would let you.)
In short and in sum, just like the PPSA and the RPNA(GM), don’t claim to be something you are not. Don’t promise something you won’t do. Don’t say what you don’t believe. If the "appropriate means of restoration is through the court" as you say, then why aren’t you letting them deal with it, instead of fishing for information on this list all the time you keep telling us you don’t have time for E’s questions? If the material facts and information regarding the meeting, the paper and the PPSA, much more the overall background and climate of this church are not clear enough to anyone with their eyes wide open and their wits about them, including the "Session of the RPNA(GM)" in St. Louis, then take your own advice and go ask the elders about it. I am sure they would be happy to talk to you.
Thank you.
Bob S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note: forwarded message attached.
From: sa
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.
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 MG (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:
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.
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, CG, 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?
2. Do we have a right to be involved in this effort?
3. Do we have the right to undertake such efforts in a confidential way?
4. Is this sneaky or suspicious on our part?
5. Why should we keep this information "secret" until it is complete?
6. What is confidentiality?
7. What can you do?
VIII. Where do we go from here?
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: John P
To: shawn a
Cc: [Church List]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentence
Dear Shawn,
You say that the group didn't have an oath of secrecy. I'm curious about this. In an email you sent out on 7-10-06, you addressed the 'common concerns' group (hereafter, 'the effort') (mistakenly including me as a part of that group, which I quickly cleared-up in a phone conversation and lengthy email to everyone in the effort objecting to its methods), you wrote the following:
"Now that so many more [people-JP] are involved [in the effort--JP], 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)."
So, you are setting up *rules* in part "to maintain confidentiality." Now, whether or not you are a "secret society", strictly speaking, is (I suppose) an open question. Nevertheless, one thing is clear: the rules you ended up setting up "to maintain confidentiality" either establish a secret society or something like it. You expressly state these rules as follows (in the same email):
"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 [ i.e., invitations for others to participate in the effort--JP] 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)."
Notice that you call these "obligations". You viewed people in the group as "obliged" to keep the above rules of confidentiality.
Finally, you all had formal meetings, much like one would expect a society to have. In the same email, you described the meetings of the participants of this group in Albany. You wrote:
"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 [households--JP] 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?"
So here's what we have, so far: the effort was a group of people that
(1) Had rules of confidentiality (a strict kind of confidentiality, at that),
(2) These rules were considered 'obligations',
(3) The group had meetings, which--from what I understand--happened regularly,
(4) These meetings were so organized that, in Albany at least, they had a facilitator, records keeper, and reports.
Furthermore, no one objected when I said "I can't be a part of this group because I won't swear to keep my mouth shut." Instead, you simply agreed. With all of that in mind, your group with all of its "sincere questions" hardly seems credible. Brother, I would love to see you repent and come back to the church. In the meantime, you are clearly so blind that you still can't see that the approach the effort took was wrong-headed, and *you* (and others in the effort) were the primary contributors to the church split. It really doesn't matter how sincere you claim your questions are, nor does it matter how sincere you claim your motives were for all of this ridiculous behavior. (Incidentally, you told me on a couple of occasions the reason you wanted to keep this "confidentiality" was because you didn't trust the elders, you "know" what they'll do, etc. I only point this out to confirm that your behavior was ridiculous.) So, when people think, "Oh, how could the elders excommunicate people who only have sincere questions?", I suggest they eliminate the "who only have sincere questions" part of the question and insert: "who, despite explicit warnings from John Putz and others, continued on a course that split the church."
While I'm writing this up, I suspect the time might be right for me to mention that your behavior is deemed intolerable even by George Gillespie (you like to quote him).
In his "Assertion of the Government," etc., he writes the following:
"A synod must ever put a difference betwixt those who, out of a real scruple of conscience, do, in a modest and peaceable way, refuse obedience to their ordinances, still using the means of their better information, and those who contemptuously or factiously disobey the same, laboring with all their might to strengthen themselves in their error, and to persuade others to be of their mind." (p. 50)
His point (as is clear from the greater context of the quotation) is that the modest and peaceable brethren can be tolerated under certain circumstances, even if they (modestly) refuse obedience to the ordinances of a synod, while those that behave factiously, trying to persuade others to be of their mind, shouldn't be tolerated. Your group, Shawn, had even developed a strategy--like a sales pitch--for convincing people to join the effort. You had lists into which you grouped households so that you would only approve talking to households that were likely to agree with you. Etc. Brother, I love you and I would love to see your note of repentance go a lot farther than it did. Nevertheless, as it stands, you're still defending indefensible actions. Your excommunication was just, and you are handed over to Satan. You have accused the elders for (possibly) having motes in their eyes, but you have a beam in yours. The track the effort followed was so foolish that it is hard to interpret it in any other way than malicious--despite the claims otherwise.
That said, I should do a little explaining of my own. (This is less for S than for everyone else reading along.) I've obviously known about some of these things for a long time. I didn't know how best to deal with what I knew. In a lengthy email, I told the people in the effort that they should not go about things in this secret (or 'private') way. I even wrote them a template letter for informing the elders of their ( i.e., the effort's) activities. I explicitly warned them that their behavior was likely to split the church. Etc. Once I warned them and made it absolutely clear that I never had been nor was a part of their effort, I was officially "out of the loop". They officially took a stance to not tell me what was going on (and I was fine with that). Accordingly, I didn't tell the elders about their activities because I wasn't sure how they would respond to the letter (one person in the effort did communicate a "thanks" to me for the letter, which I took as an indication that--for a time--they were giving it serious consideration.) I wanted to see *them* approach the elders rather than a third party, since that would be the best way to avoid division.
As time passed, things became more complicated. I caught some hints that they were still up to the ways against which I warned them. Nevertheless, I still didn't approach the elders about this. It was a tricky situation for me, and--at the time--I made the decision that it would still be better for the people in the effort to approach the elders rather than a third party. I suspect any other way would guarantee a division. In hindsight, I wish I would have told the elders this group existed when I had a chance, at least once I began to think they didn't listen to my warnings. I apologize to everyone in the church and also to those who have been excommunicated for this negligence.
That said, if I have left any room for doubt in anyone's mind concerning how I view the current court: I would take the oath in a heartbeat. I had wavered on occasion. In fact, there were moments in which I likely would have rejected the oath. Nevertheless, as it stands, I support the elders, and I hope others who are on the fence will realize that there is a lot more going on than meets the eye. Although I love them as brethren, I take the claims of the people in the effort with a grain of salt: they have done too much behind our backs to trust them. (No, I'm not poisoning the well...*they* poisoned this well.)
Love in Christ,
John P
On 1/24/07, shawn a wrote: . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Edgar ITo: JPCc: List
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentence
January 24, 2007
Dear John, Ben and brethren,
John and Ben both of your e-mails have caused me great consternation and I know that the whole events that have transpired have likewise done with you. But I would like to speak a little to what you both have written, and I hope that we can read each other with some charity and level headedness, though I fully acknowledge how emotionally charged this whole thing is. I speak for myself, not on behalf of or for anyone or any group.
ROOT CAUSE
When the Elders called on Jan 06 for a public fast for the entire church to undertake in beseeching our Lord God to bless us and to guide our Elders in their pursuit of restructuring of the church for their admitted weakness and inability to govern and perform their duties then, many were pleased that the Elders were going to pursue such a step. Some wanted clarification of what sins we as a public and visible church were guilty of that we should pray about and repent of as is called for in any public fast and as the Elders themselves did express that we were to repent of sins, but they did not specify what they were. This e-mail from PGS (& I acknowledge that I may have over simplified the summary of their e-mail as far as the reasons for the fast goes, so please correct me if I am wrong here) was responded, not by the Elders, but by Nick S. This set in motion a whirlwind of e-mails and controversy. When I asked both parties privately to take their dispute privately I was told by all sides that such public acts or declarations need to be addressed publicly. So PGS had the right to inquire into the particulars of the public fast in a public manner and Nick was convinced that PGS had sinned publicly and so had to respond publicly. Finally Pastor stepped in and called for a cease fire. One more shot was let out after words and then all the guns fell silent. In March of 06 the Elders gave an update of the progress of the restructuring. That e-mail was a first sign that it went from a restructuring to a report on the structure, administration, and government of our church. Remember we had prayed and fasted for one thing. When we fast and humiliate ourselves before God to plead to Him for one thing as per the call of those that represent Christ on earth to bless us with a desired outcome and the matter in question that is being supplicated for is later changed and/or abandoned without any notice, without warning, or instruction why it is being done, the fasting that was performed and the supplications that were offered become a mockery and the leaders are chiefly responsible, but if the flock discover this sin they too are responsible to act. This discovery was made by many of us laymen after the PPSA in June of 06 was published by the Elders. This is roughly the same time that the Prince George Society had the gathering in Canada, in fulfillment to an invitation extended to the entire church the year before (Dec 05? I think), all 3 Elders were also invited, but they all refused the invitation for various reasons. So that gathering was not a result of the events transpiring in the church, namely the e-mail debates of the first part of 06, much less of the recently published PPSA. I say this because it was in June and July that BB, after a secret meeting with GB and NS in Colorado, even after GB had declined an invitation to go and see the many brethren gathering PG, B launched a multitude of analogies on the PRCE forum. This lead to another firestorm of posts and heated discussions. B was talking up a conspiracy. Now many of you will now say with the e-mails of J and B that, "ha, ha! you see B was right, he knew" and such. But guess what??? When those analogies went out by B, he was speaking as if there already was some sort of conspiracy going on. However the fact of the matter is that the Effort was barely beginning to be formed at that time and the members that comprised the Effort were mainly in Albany, including BH. When B sent those things out, he definitely did not have the Effort in mind, because the Effort was formed as a result of the PPSA, due to the methods of BB, NS and the defense of those methods on a public scale on the part of the Elders, and more importantly it was in its infancy. Greg Price spoke to me privately during this time of the mass analogies and I told him that I was very upset and concerned that these two brothers were running around like proxy elders and trying to bully everyone into submission and silence. It was crystal clear that to ask questions publicly regarding public interested matters regarding governance and practice was taboo and such was to be beaten down. There can be no dialogue about these things and Proxy Elders B and S were the whips to make sure we were all going to fall in line. No public dialogue to hash these things out and the Elders were totally absent from all of this, when they, not PE B and S should have been in the fore front of dialogue and moderating the discussions that may have led to a more desirable outcome. In many ways B's wailing of a conspiracy was a self-fulfilling prophecy and part of the generator of our alleged conspiracy. I myself will not call it a conspiracy, for we did not seeking to topple the government and replace it with ourselves (we are Presbyterians after-all & know that the power does not reside in the laity but in the Elders), nor were we looking to separate from the RPNA at all. I will flesh all this out below, please bear with me. Remember the status quo and reasoning of the Elders, that if something, especially sin, is public it can and should be addressed publicly. If it is privately, then the steps of Matthew 18 are to be employed and are not to be made public until all of the processes to exhort privately have been exhausted. Therefore, this most fallacious argument by many of you that we that wrote the "Charitable Inquiry" should have gone private has no warrant from Scripture and not even from the standards of the Elders! You see the issues addressed in the "Charitable Inquiry" are of a most public nature because it involves the public testimony of the church in regards to our claimed adherence to Presbyterian Church Polity.
The Position Paper on Sessional Authority (PPSA)
1. The Elders published this because of supposedly publicly circulated questions regarding the method of government being conducted by the Elders. Whether they were a session and etc. I never received such questions nor heard of such before the release of the PPSA.
2. This is the part that really mocks the Public Fast and humiliation that we undertook back in Jan. 06 as we approached God in a superadded obligation to plead unto Him a divine blessing upon our Elders and our Church. The Elders said that they were going to put the restructuring on a back burner so to speak and deal with this (#1 above) first. Since when does such an important pursuit that we called upon God to intervene for, take a back seat to a lesser known discussion or problem that was most likely limited to a few (I am not one of those) and the Elders?
3. The Elders later claimed that the PPSA is a response to the Prince George Society's questions to the Elders. I have been assured by all of the PGS that those questions in the PPSA, were never their questions. These are questions made up by the Elders (i.e. strawman arguments) whose answers to these questions bred more confusion, conflict with received Presbyterian Standards on Church polity, and a serious deviation from our Judicial Testimony of our Covenanted fore-fathers.
4. This PPSA; the recommendation of the Elders to bring questions privately when the matters of concern are of a most public nature, even from their own admittance that the public things ought to be dealt publicly; the manner, methods, and defense of the writings of B and S if not explicitly, then implicitly on the part of the Elders; the history of bullying fellow brothers by others, that is equals trying to be superiors over their equals, into silence (I myself heard this many times, namely a brother here in Albany telling me that people need to "shut up" regarding their concerns of the Elders), and this was before all of the present controversies! All of this basically left us no choice.
Birth of the Effort
Because I do NOT speak for everyone that was part of the Effort, I can only address this on an individual basis and I do hope that my fellow brethren will correct me on any statements I may write that are not accurate. I do not speak as an authority or representative either on behalf of the Effort. Any misstatements or comments are solely my responsibility. Do not be uncharitable and attribute them to my brethren, please.
We at the beginning with BH debated long and hard whether to study many Presbyterian documents, Standards, and Judicial Testimonies to prove whether the PPSA's conclusions and premises were accurate and in accord with Scripture and Covenanted Standards whether in a public manner vs. privately amongst some brethren, limiting our study group to those that shared the same concerns, hence common concerns that we have regarding all of the events that had transpired since Jan. of 06. Taking into consideration the M.O. of the Elders of only wanting to talk to people privately and individually, i.e. divide and conquer (and the experience of others on how the Elders dealt with them behind the scenes to the surprise of others that had gone through the same) and especially the strong arm tactics that had been employed by Proxy Elders and the sanction of such means by the 3 Elders, we truly thought that doing this privately would be more beneficial and in the end bring about a more desirable outcome. Our intention was to study the PPSA and compare it with received standards to see if the PPSA was in accord with Covenanted Presbyterianism and if we were wrong in our earlier assessments, and more importantly to educate ourselves on Biblical Presbyterianism to arrive at an informed conscience. We all did truly read, read, read a lot of Presbyterian writings and poured hours over all of these materials over the span of several months after the publication of the PPSA and the shut down of the PRCE forum. We met and consulted together to compare notes and compose a paper in which we could after mature deliberations present our common concerns in a charitable and respectful manner. Inquiries in which we also were to demonstrate why we are inquiring by referring to Presbyterian Standards and documentations that appeared to totally contradict and disagree with the Elders' conclusions as reflected in the PPSA.
The Excommunications, the Effort, & the Split
Was this a secret meeting? What do you mean by secret? We did meet privately and without the knowledge of many. Do you publicly proclaim every time you have a private phone conversation or get together at your home? Do you publicly comment on your private conversations and content of such concerning doctrine and church matters in such gatherings? If not, why not? Are they secret? When the "Charitable Inquiry" was published we attached our names to it, at that moment we went public. If anyone put any thought into it, it would have quickly become apparent that we all worked on this together without the public knowledge of the entire church. Tell me, is that sinful? Is it sinful for a group of Christians to get together and study, read, compare notes, meet to do these activities with the desired result to come forward with a well thought out, proofread, verified document for the edification, reformation, and promotion of Christ's Church and for a consistent Covenanted Testimony and avoid unnecessary obstacles that may have been placed by self-appointed whips? If it is sinful, pray tell how and where? You and B claim that the Effort led to the split in the church. I believe this is the cum hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. You are getting you timeline all mixed up. The 1st Oath was served before the Charitable Inquiry was publicly published. At this time the Elders did not know about the Effort. When some saw the Oath the first time, some amongst us wanted to stop going to church and just leave. Many others amongst us urged restraint and patience. When the first set of excommunications went out, we all called for restraint and patience to many, both within and without the Effort. When the 1st set of excommunications was unleashed, we in the Effort debated long and hard whether to include their names or not. We were in a lot of deliberations as to the forthcoming publication of our "Charitable Inquiry" whether to do this or that; not this or that &etc. Who cast the first separation us or the Elders? How can you honestly say that we the Effort, the authors of the "Charitable Inquiry" caused the split???? It is a Non Sequitur. Remember the brethren excommunicated in the first wave did not know what sin had been alleged against them, so how can you claim that it was their involvement in the Effort? When I was "excommunicated" by these Elders, I was told it was due to my ecclesiastical partnership with excommunicated brethren, NOT for being part of a study group that has been called the Effort.
So who caused the split? The Elders did. Yes, the Elders did this by their inconsistent and equivocal manner of church polity. SB did an excellent job in pointing out their major contradictions and fallacious reasoning between their June 03 letter and the reasoning they gave in their June 06 paper. They refused to dialogue with us about these matters, unless of course if we swore the oath. Pray tell how can we swear something that we know for certain goes against the Word of God and our Presbyterian Standards? See my full response to their Oath and their "excommunication" of me and my wife. We did not leave the church; we were kicked out, handed over to Satan, exiled. If we went astray it was the responsibility of the Elders to leave the 99 and look for the one. Did they? DID THEY? NO!! They never did! They sinfully failed in their duties as officers in Christ's Church to perform their most basic duty! It is easier to shoot and kill a person than it is to nurture. They took the easy way out.
Proven?
No one has yet to debunk our "Charitable Inquiry". No one. Not that I claim it to be flawless, I am sure there are some errors. But the point is no one has attempted to dialogue with us. What have the Elders done? True to their M.O. they have told those that have stayed to read the Grand Debate and given a few select quotes. They want you to read a 300+ page book and then try to dazzle you with a few quotes. I truly doubt they have read the book! There are words by the Presbyterians in there that debunk them hands down! Where is the teaching, that a TEACHING Elder is supposed to do? Nil. You are supposed to seek out and reclaim and restore an erring brother, no one has even tried to do that with me. Where then is this love that you should be showing to me as one handed over to Satan? Maybe you feel inadequate to do so because you have failed in your basic duty to study and prove all things. It is easier to call me a schismatic or Independent then to actually prove the assertion.
Another fallacy you have committed J is that you will not consider our "Charitable Inquiry" because it came from us who you erroneously believe caused the split. Ever heard of the bad company fallacy ( The form is: Person P accepts idea I. Therefore, I must be wrong. More clearly: Hitler was a vegetarian. Therefore, vegetarianism is wrong.) ? If you truly want to see us restored and the split healed begin dealing with the "Charitable Inquiry" and ask the Elders why they did not give us a chance or at least attempt to answer our questions before serving the Oath and then "excommunicating" us. I myself gave clear Biblical reasons why I could not swear the Oath and that itself was not even shown to be wrong by them.
You are straining to prove that the Elders did not cause all of this mess and are looking for a boogeyman to blame instead, when you and many know that the Elders caused this split!
I await a well reasoned and proven argument why we are wrong and not just mere assertions.
In Christ,
Edgar I
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Ben HTo: Edgar ICc: List
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Edgar,
I'm glad that John wrote what he did since that meant that I didn't have to finish the letter I had begun to similar effect (yet at least). One thing that I added, which J failed to (most likely due to a lack of time I'm sure) was a lengthy introduction recalling many of the fond memories and otherwise amiable sentiments I have towards your family and S's. You both hold a special place in my heart as well as my wife's. When we were in Albany, K had a great friendship with T and J; I regarded you and S as friends. So why would I – given that I have such honest affection for your families – expose your secret society?
Because I think that it is the Elders' right to know what happened. I think the Effort was conspiratial and solidified a church split. I think it serves the purpose of warning others of the duplicitous nature of your paper ("we're just asking questions!") I think you surreptitiously broke membership vows. In short, even though I recall many fond memories of your familes, I think the Effort was sinfully misguided.
Now, you want arguments for the above conclusions. However, I'm not going to give them to you for two reasons. First, I don't have the time to offer the kind of response it would take to answer your CC paper. Second, because I look forward to the possibility of your reconciling with the church and us having a restored friendship, I think a full-scale public debate would be a hinderance to that end. The appropriate means of restoration is through the court, and I'll let them deal with the arguing. I think it will only serve to heighten tensions (and thus preclude restoration) if we debate.
What I will do however, is finish my email giving a fair expose of the Effort so that people don't misrepresent you by making you look better or worse than you were. Perhaps you'd like to give your own account of the Effort as well so nobody can accuse me of misrepresenting you? Just a thought.
Regards,
Ben
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob STo: John P, Shawn ACc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentence
Yo John,
You really could spare us a lot of this if you would first come clean and stop sitting on the fence yourself. As in you did NOT go the elders immediately as soon as you found out anything about the group effort to address the PPSA. Then you might have some credibility to go after S or the group.
Even further, I was part of the group and while I can tell you there was a concern for confidentiality regarding the paper, there was no oath sworn. Yet if there was, I would have taken it over the oath tendered by the elders. That is because above and beyond secret societies, passwords and handshakes, the forest that is really missing for all the trees in your comments is that the PPSA is essentially a fraud and a pretense. The real glaring scandal of the PPSA, as has been mentioned before in part by others, is that there is no real appeal to the RP historical testimony, doctrine, precedent and practice regarding temporary extraordinary sessions, if not that the PPSA contradicts that testimony, which is enough to categorically impeach it on constitutional grounds.
As per the historical practice of our namesake, the RP of A (Steele and Lusk), the elders are free to gather together in one place at one time in person as per Matt. 18:20 and constitute a session, albeit extraordinary and temporary, be that in Albany, Edmonton, St. Louis or wherever. On the other hand, they are not free to constitute a court over the phone or internet as the PPSA seems to assert (p.9) even internationally because that is an innovation and both it and the assertion that distance/personal presence is a mere circumstance, have yet to be authoritatively adjudicated by a General Assembly, if not a real greater presbytery. And no, the arguments in the Q.1 of the PPSA regarding Acts 15 are not sufficient to establish the credentials of the PPSA’s court as a legitimate synod.
Even further the PPSA blatantly contradicts the power of order or office in both Q.1 and Q.3. Yet a court is not necessary (as in the power of jurisdiction) for the sacraments to be administered. So the testimony of the star witness of the PPSA, Geo. Gillespie in Assertion (I:II) and his Notes on the West. Assembly (SWRB, II:18). So the June 14, ‘03 letter from the elders which the PPSA ignores in its selective quotes from it (p.13). The June ‘03 letter also clearly appeals to the "clear historical testimony" of Renwick and Cargill, who had "the right" as does Greg Price according to the letter previously "as Pastors of Christ’s Visible Church to admit or refuse people from coming to the communion table." That is again, nothing more than the power of order/office, as well as an appeal to RP historical testimony in June '03. This is in marked contrast to the PPSA’s June '06 appeal to the inconclusive example of the Privy Kirk in the unconstitutional Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology and the necessity of a court to administer the sacraments (pp.11,12). Hence the supposed argument that the RPNA(GM) session must be lawful, [necessary and in existence] because the sacraments have been administered since the dissolution of the Reformed Presbytery June 6, ‘03 (pp.13,21,30-2).
For that matter, if you can make your way through the morass of the PPSA, Q.2 in particular, compare the quote from the DSCH&T on the "Origin of Presbytery (p.19)" to the PPSA’s previous statements (pp.12,13) regarding the Second Book of Discipline 7:10. The "common elderships" of the SBD of 1578 become 13 ordinary greater presbyteries in 1581, contra the extraordinary "common session" argument of the PPSA regarding SBD 7:10. In other words the two of many historical examples of a "Common Session having oversight over many Congregations" in the PPSA (p.12) leave something very much to be proved, never mind desired.
As for the appeal to the Grand Debate, it too is a grand fraud. The GD argues after all, that a multitude of congregations may be under one presbyterial government in Scripture. (So too the Form of Presbyterial Church Government in the Westminster Standards, the GD being the blow by blow account of the arguments and propositions contained therein.) By this the GD means a genuine greater presbytery with a plurality of ministers. But if it is one thing the RPNA(GM) does not have, it is a plurality of ministers. For that matter the RPNA(GM) does not even have a quorum for an ordinary session in one congregation, in that at least one minister and one ruling elder are required for a lawful presbyterian court according to the good and necessary consequences of Gillespie’s comments in his Assertion I:IV. The hearers in a church have to be represented by ruling elders in order for a court to be legitimate. Neither can that be gainsaid as democratic independency.
Neither is the power of presbytery distributive as the Independents argued it must be in the Assembly contra presbyterianism. Rather it is cumulative or accumulated in the presbytery. Subsequently just because a presbytery is a common court over numerous congregations, that does not mean that so too, a session may be an extraordinary common court over numerous societies. For one, a session is by definition a local court, not a common court. Two, there is not the prerequisite plurality of ministers – or even elders from those societies represented in the PPSA’s common court. In other words the contradictions and omissions, if not suppression of the RP historical testimony indicts not only the PPSA and its arguments, but also the competency and legitimacy of the court responsible for the PPSA. Consequently, it is no wonder that, as in so many other places, orthodox theology and theologians such as the GD are misconstrued or quoted out of context to the application at hand.
As for Question Four, it is in a class all by itself. According to its good and necessary consequences based on having the same terms of communion as the other bodies – as in reductio ad absurdum – the St. Louis Society could call itself either the Church of Scotland (Protesting), the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Israel or even – are you ready for this – the "Session of the RPNA(GM)?" (Even the light of nature tells us that names are to distinguish, even among those who have the same terms of communion, however much that runs contrary to the PPSA in Q.4.) But maybe our desire for consistency is not yet that consistent on condemning confusion such as this? OK, but maybe you can go a little easier on your brethren who don’t quite come up to your high standards on confidentiality until you are ready to bite the bullet and either condemn Q.4 out of hand or follow the good and necessary implications of Q.4 to its ridiculous end. Some of us would certainly appreciate it in the meantime. (That the PPSA’s wholesale whole scale breach of RP historical testimony, needs to be repudiated, once you get squared away on Q.4 also must be said, but one thing at a time, eh?)
In short, however much one might envy the opportunity you have to attend grad school, it does not seem to have done that much for your Biblical discernment or critical thinking skills, if you can swallow the oath and the PPSA as you seem to have so easily done as indicated in your post. A re-examination would be in very good order.
cordially yours,
in Christ
Bob S.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob S
To: Ben H; Edgar I
Cc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Greetings Ben,
As below, if you "think that it is the Elders' right to know what happened,"by all means tell the elders.
But the vast majority of us on this list are not elders.
Likewise if "the Effort was sinfully misguided."
As for not giving E "arguments for the above conclusions" because you "don't have the time to offer the kind of response it would take to answer your CC paper," then why did you bring it up in the first place and provoke him to a just defense which you won't answer -- or better yet can't answer?
Again, if "the appropriate means of restoration is through the court," maybe you could apologize to all of us for bringing it up in the "court of public opinion" [and] then beating a hasty retreat when things got too hot.
But then you are going to "finish my email giving a fair expose of the Effort so that people don't misrepresent you by making you look better or worse than you were." You won't answer his questions, never mind debate, but you will be giving us a public expose of the Effort on this list, if I understand you correctly.
Hmmm.
James 1:8 is what comes to mind: "A double minded man is unstable in all his ways."
cordially
Bob S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Edgar ITo: Ben HCc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
See comments in blue below:
On 1/25/07, Ben H wrote:
Edgar,Again Ben you are asserting that we were a "secret society". Just what makes or qualifies as a "secret society" in your opinion? Did we that wrote the Charitable Inquiry, (in case some of you don't know who they were, go back to it, we all put our names as the co-authors-not secrets there!) do all the necessary research, reading, writing, compiling, collaboration, and study in private and without letting too many people know? Well yes. Is that sinful? Let's see. We researched, we read, we wrote, we compiled, we collaborated to do all of this to see if what the Elders had written was in accord with the Word of God and our common and received Subordinate Standards, I think the Apostle Paul (1 Thess 5:21) would call such a thing commendable. As one of the founding members of the PRCE/RPNA(GM) once wrote a Christian has a duty to private judgment. If private judgment, then why can he not engage in private conversations regarding any matter and present their findings together? Again, you alledge sin, but you have yet to demonstrate how that is sinful. Ben and John in this you are sinning, to accuse and not demonstrate. Somewhere in the OT, the Lord states that such that accuse and do not prove it, are to receive the punishment that was sought against the falsely accused. Reread the Larger catechism please under the 9th Commandment. If you are going to accuse, prove it.
I'm glad that J wrote what he did since that meant that I didn't have to finish the letter I had begun to similar effect (yet at least). One thing that I added, which J failed to (most likely due to a lack of time I'm sure) was a lengthy introduction recalling many of the fond memories and otherwise amiable sentiments I have towards your family and S's. You both hold a special place in my heart as well as my wife's. When we were in Albany, K had a great friendship with T and J; I regarded you and S as friends. So why would I – given that I have such honest affection for your families – expose your secret society?
Oh, you must mean that we met in private and did all of this work, maturely deliberating, but did not go to the Elders about what we were doing. Again, where is the sin in that? You both acknowledged just how futile public discourse was going. The experience of others has also been that to tell the Elders our desires to undertake such a study and research ends in terminating and discouraging such endeavors. Then it also might get leaked to Proxy Elders and then we would get hit with analogies and affidavits...In our private judgment we decided that such a course of action was not prudent given the environment of the church. Remember we are to go to the Elders privately when the subject is of a private nature. Tell me, is Presbyterian Church Government, the outworkings of the public governance of our church on the part of the Elders a private matter that is not to be brought forward publicly? To say that our Charitable Inquiry should have been brought to the Elders privately and not publicly would be to live up to a double standard. The Word of God is clear that matters/sins that are of a private nature are to be brought to the Elders privately. But matters/sins that are of a public nature are to be made public. Even the Elders have said this, Nick has said this, and Greg Price in a conversation with me said this! Sounds to me like special pleading that is being advocated by you and others that are attempting to defend the Elder's role and activity in all of this. Play fair, people.
You have the burden of proof to prove that we were a "secret society". Let me remind you, you left our study group not to long afterwards so your knowledge of how we did things is very limited.
Oh, but then you might be following the Elders's example of charging someone of sin, without disclosing what that sin is. Again, you follow them to commit sin. Yes, the Elders sinned in not revealing what the sin one had been charged with was. Even Jesus Christ our Lord, when brought before the Sanhedrin was told by the Hight Priest and the scribes the "sins" He was accused of! I highly doubt Christ would have sworn an Oath acknowldeging the Court as lawful. No where in the Word of God is such an Oath given that one must acknowledge the Court as lawful before the trial begins. The court already assume that is the case. No where in Presbyterian judisprudence is that the case as well. Mustard seeds, not even this messed up government tells an allegded criminal to swear an Oath that he acknowledges the Court as lawful, to tell the truth yes, but that is not the same. And even then, the alledged criminal has that right-that the light of nature even tells us-to know the crime(s) he is alledged of committing.
So, you want me to be charitable, then please return in kind.
You do not want to engage, come to the "basketball" court to play? then don't fire off e-mails that are chalk full of assertions and lack substance. Be consistent my brother, please!
Because I think that it is the Elders' right to know what happened. I think the Effort was conspiratial and solidified a church split. I think it serves the purpose of warning others of the duplicitous nature of your paper ("we're just asking questions!") I think you surreptitiously broke membership vows. In short, even though I recall many fond memories of your familes, I think the Effort was sinfully misguided.Again yet to be prove that we caused this split. The split was in the workings by the hand of the Elders, see my prior e-mail. As for what we produced, namely the Charitable Inquiry, to say that it should be taken as a grain of salt and cast as duplicitous, becareful because you commit a fallacy here. Hitler advocated drinking milk. Hitler was evil. Therefore drinking milk is evil and we shouldn't drink it. -Bad Company Fallacy-You get the point, right? Ok, so dislike us that wrote the Charitable Inquiry, but what is contained in there does in fact challenge the Elder's PPSA and an honest and candid person will engage the Charitable Inquiry, without having to necessarily join our hands.
Now, you want arguments for the above conclusions. However, I'm not going to give them to you for two reasons. First, I don't have the time to offer the kind of response it would take to answer your CC paper. Second, because I look forward to the possibility of your reconciling with the church and us having a restored friendship, I think a full-scale public debate would be a hinderance to that end. The appropriate means of restoration is through the court, and I'll let them deal with the arguing. I think it will only serve to heighten tensions (and thus preclude restoration) if we debate.Don't have the time? Sounds like others who shoot off accusatory e-mails, slight the characters of their brothers and sisters, and then run away when they are asked to prove their words and accusations. Remember who started this string? It was not I. My words may be strong, some may call it harsh, but it is because I am angry. All of this talk about love those ex-ed out and looking for reconciliation, well where is it? Not one person has yet to show us, me, the error and sin of our ways or the Charitable Inquiry. Not one! Oh, we must first swear an Oath, that by the way is not a restatement of our membership vows, it is acutally a new membership vow-sit down and compare and contrast. Why can I not swear the Oath, my e-mail I sent out after I and my wife were ex-ed is pretty crystal clear as to why. I use the Word of God and our General Assembly authorized standard, the Westminster Confession to demonstrate and prove why I and my wife cannot do so. Please be charitable and go back and re-read that letter. I read everything you and J and others have written 2-3 times before I respond in its entirety and carefully.
Love, charity, and peace must go both ways, they are not a one way street. You are calling for this, then show some yourself.
Forgive my anger as expressed in my words, but the substance cannot be ignored. The parents have provoked the children to wrath and sometimes the siblings feel it.
What I will do however, is finish my email giving a fair expose of the EffortRemember you were with us, what 3-4 weeks...that is all. We have been working on the Charitable Inquiry from about mid-June until release date, how much do you pretend to know? I look forward to seeing you not desire to pursue this publicly due to hopes of reconciliation and at the same time your desire to pursue this publicly in "exposing" our group effort.
so that people don't misrepresent you by making you look better or worse than you were. Perhaps you'd like to give your own account of the Effort as well so nobody can accuse me of misrepresenting you? Just a thought.Remove the double standards and be consistent. Prove all things with the Word of God and our Standards. Just a thought.
Regards,
Ben
Yours in Christ,
Edgar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Ben HTo: Edgar ICc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Edgar,
I thought that John's s email answered your objections about the nature of the secret society. In my estimation, his reasoning was sound. Additionally, I think I gave compelling reasons for why I am not going to be involved in any kind of a public debate; perhaps you could contact the Elders and see what they can do as far as answering your concerns.
I encourage you to make the record public regarding the Effort. It's possible that J and I are wrong in our estimation of the nature of the Effort and the role it played in so many people being excommunicated. If you're innocent, let the record bear that out - by your lights, you have nothing to hide. If my limited involvement in the Effort was insufficient for a fair representation as to what you were all about, it would be wise for you to let us all know the details of your organization before I give my relatively uninformed expose.
If I don't respond any more in the future to your emails, don't take it personally. I've honestly got a lot of other pressing duties that take precedence over doing the Elder's work of attempting to answer your questions (some of which I think are reasonable in their own right by the way.)
Regards,
Ben
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Bob STo: Ben H, Edgar ICc: List
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Note of Repentance
Greetings Ben,
You may think what you will about John’s email with your self admitted limited involvement and knowledge of the group and the paper, but the facts remain and the record is public, so public it is puzzling that you or others can refuse to "get it."
After seeing how the elders tolerated, yea even encouraged the hounding and abuse on the email lists of those who had legitimate questions about the Public Fast of 1/21/06 or even our extraordinary ecclesiastical limbo land since the dissolution of the Reformed Presbytery on 6/6/03, a number of us got together about the the time the PPSA came out in order to examine it in light of Scripture, history and reason. Having done that, the elders were addressed about it, though they x’ed some people before 11/9/06. Again, that is all a matter of the public record. You were on those lists. You were a member of the church. You got a copy of the paper.
For those who are not so naive or gullible – just how else other than toadyism, does one describe your idea that the group or the paper caused, if not "consolidated" the church split? – extraordinary times are extraordinary times for all parties involved. If you’re the weaker brother, fine, just let it be, in that we all are called to make a right judgement and not one necessarily according to your opinion of what appears to be. Like I told J, while there was a concern for confidentiality, there was no oath, but if there was, compared to the elders' oath it would have been a no brainer.
True, maybe you haven’t been around this church that long, but some of us have.
True, maybe you haven’t been to the elders privately in person or as a society repeatedly, but some of us have.
True, maybe the paper on carnal graffiti wasn’t the last straw for you, but for some of us it was.
( I speak for myself here. As someone who sees more than enough tattoos and none for edifying or indifferent reasons, substituting a kazoo for a clear blast of the trumpet is culpable in my book, all the while we are still waiting for a paper on birth control in the RPNAWhatever. Much more that one comes to find out that TATWOG seemed to be specifically crafted to drum some dear friends of the dear elders out of the Edmonton fellowship is less than encouraging regarding the whole idea of a fair hearing, but that pretty much came after the paper.)
True, maybe the PPSA is legitimate in your eyes, but for some of us the four questions are just a diversionary smokescreen and a red herring to distract one from the notorious absence in its pages of the "honorable testimony of those faithful Church Courts of the Reformed Presbytery which preceded (p.29)" the RPNA(GM) and its session, ie. the RP historical testimony, particularly as regards extraordinary sessions. (But don’t take my word for it, you ought to be able to read the PPSA for yourself and do some digging. Last time I checked the elders would let you.)
In short and in sum, just like the PPSA and the RPNA(GM), don’t claim to be something you are not. Don’t promise something you won’t do. Don’t say what you don’t believe. If the "appropriate means of restoration is through the court" as you say, then why aren’t you letting them deal with it, instead of fishing for information on this list all the time you keep telling us you don’t have time for E’s questions? If the material facts and information regarding the meeting, the paper and the PPSA, much more the overall background and climate of this church are not clear enough to anyone with their eyes wide open and their wits about them, including the "Session of the RPNA(GM)" in St. Louis, then take your own advice and go ask the elders about it. I am sure they would be happy to talk to you.
Thank you.
Bob S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: shawn a
To: [Church List]
Cc: [Charitable Inquiry Signatories]
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2007 9:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: Our common concern
John,
In your letter of Jan 24, you quote 3 sections of a 5 page email I sent out to those who desired to maturely deliberate through common concerns with the Elders. This email suggested possible direction and represented the purpose that we in Albany
This email does not contain any conclusions of the group. The end product of the group can be seen in our "Charitable Inquiry".
While I do intend to continue our private dialogue, I thought that it may serve everyone if I forwarded that email in its entirety to give the full context.
I would like to thank those that did respond to me privately.
-Shawn
======================Note: forwarded message attached.
From: sa
To: [Charitable Inquiry signatories]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Our common concern
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 4:28 PM
Subject: Our common concern
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 (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
Internally -
Externally -
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
Posts
