RPNA excommunications, are they biblical?

[BJClark]

I haven't read all of the letters and such yet, but when reading this one...

http://taron.net/letters/?p=23

The pastor seems to address issues that have been discussed here on this board: Hymns other than the Psalms and Infant Baptism.

Dear David,

I heard a report this past Lord’s Day and wanted to confirm whether it was accurate or not. It was reported to me that you and Kathy have not only begun to attend Albany Baptist Church, but that you have begun to sing uninspired hymns accompanied by musical instruments during congregational singing as well. I was so surprised to hear this report that I wanted to verify from you whether this was true or false.

Dear Bob,

We now have sadly heard from 3 credible witnesses who have recently spoken with David Hart (one of them being his own son, Benjamin) that David has embraced the baptistic view of believers only baptism and has renounced infant baptism.

David and Kathy remain in our prayers.

His response:

Dear Greg,

The report that you have heard of us is true. We no longer hold to the exclusive psalmody position.

I didn't see a response concerning infant baptism.

So are they not 'part' of the visable church by some because they hold to Musical instruments being played, and not only singing Psalmody?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I haven't read all of the letters and such yet, but when reading this one...

http://taron.net/letters/?p=23

The pastor seems to address issues that have been discussed here on this board: Hymns other than the Psalms and Infant Baptism.
His response:
I didn't see a response concerning infant baptism.
So are they not 'part' of the visable church by some because they hold to Musical instruments being played, and not only singing Psalmody?

Evidently abandoning any postion of that group is grounds for excommunication.

 

[RiverCritter]

I understand that; as I described, this is like CCRPC. However, if there was a trial, the trial setting would come under the session of the sending church or the governing body. Was the church you were part of a plant? Trials without sessions are not presbyterian.

Not a plant as far as I can remember. I will grant that it was not a formal trial, since it amounted to a meeting between the pastor and me in which I informed him that because he did not deal with the abusive busybody who was running families out of the church, we simply would find another church.

My crime, then, of which I freely admit my guilt, was abandoning the church and refusing to return. The result was erasure.

From one point of view, I was guilty of abandonment and was my own accuser and confessor, and thus there was no need for a trial at all. From my own point of view, it was the church who had abandoned my family and me by failing to discipline a bully. In the interest of protecting my family from that unruly member who seemed untouchable, we left for another church.

The finding of guilt, then, was abandonment of the church, and the sentence was "erasure," which I understand to be an informal form of excommunication.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Not a plant as far as I can remember. I will grant that it was not a formal trial, since it amounted to a meeting between the pastor and me in which I informed him that because he did not deal with the abusive busybody who was running families out of the church, we simply would find another church.

My crime, then, of which I freely admit my guilt, was abandoning the church and refusing to return. The result was erasure.

From one point of view, I was guilty of abandonment and was my own accuser and confessor, and thus there was no need for a trial at all. From my own point of view, it was the church who had abandoned my family and me by failing to discipline a bully. In the interest of protecting my family from that unruly member who seemed untouchable, we left for another church.

The finding of guilt, then, was abandonment of the church, and the sentence was "erasure," which I understand to be an informal form of excommunication.

Robin,
It was not a trial; it was a meeting w/ your (then) pastor, period.

 

[RiverCritter]

Robin,
It was not a trial; it was a meeting w/ your (then) pastor, period.

I believe I admitted that quite clearly in the very message you quoted. No need to rub my nose in it, but you have successfully strained out that gnat. Commendable.

However I think all that nitpicking was beside the camel - uh, I mean beside the point, which was (and remains):

If biblical discipline is one of the necessary earmarks of a true church (Matthew 18:15-17, 1st Corinthians 5), then it may be argued that my former church demonstrated itself to be illegitimate by neglecting to discipline one unruly member who bullied family after family out of that church. Disciplining that one person might have prevented several entire families from departing. That failure attests to the illegitimacy of the former church. Perhaps that was the conclusion reached by the Session of the receiving church.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I believe I admitted that quite clearly in the very message you quoted. No need to rub my nose in it, but you have successfully strained out that gnat. Commendable.

However I think all that nitpicking was beside the camel - uh, I mean beside the point, which was (and remains):

If biblical discipline is one of the necessary earmarks of a true church (Matthew 18:15-17, 1st Corinthians 5), then it may be argued that my former church demonstrated itself to be illegitimate by neglecting to discipline one unruly member who bullied family after family out of that church. Disciplining that one person might have prevented several entire families from departing. That failure attests to the illegitimacy of the former church. Perhaps that was the conclusion reached by the Session of the receiving church.

Robin,
I was not straining the gnat. Your previous post stated again:

I will grant that it was not a formal trial

I then reiterated:

It was not a trial; it was a meeting w/ your (then) pastor, period.

The receiving church actually took this to session based upon what you conveyed? Was your old pastor contacted for this session meeting?

This may sting a bit; forgive me for that.

Let me be perfectly clear here, Something in the above statement you present smells; How did the receiving church come to the conclusion that the sending church was 'illegitimate'? By what you told them? Since when does an ecclesiastical body, one ordained by God in it's placement, question another ecclesiastical body, also ordained by God in it's placement, based upon what one of it's flock says about them??? Since the sending church was never brought up on charges for allowing this 'bullying' member, nor found guilty by trial, they are innocent; as well as the member. It is your opinion, and in light of this, it is you who are sinning, against the eccesiastical body which was originally your church home, the pastor and said member. This is no more than blatant gossip.

If the receiving body made a deduction based upon what you have conveyed without due trial process, they sinned against Christ, the pastor, the church, and the member also.

Bottom line: Just because you believe someone needs discipline does not make it so. Obviously, the God ordained pastor did not agree. I would have to side w/ the pastor here; he is the person God placed in that position to make that decision.

 

[RiverCritter]

Robin,

The receiving church actually took this to session based upon what you conveyed? ... How did the receiving church come to the conclusion that the sending church was 'illegitimate'? By what you told them? Since when does an ecclesiastical body, one ordained by God in it's placement, question another ecclesiastical body, also ordained by God in it's placement, based upon what one of it's flock says about them??? Since the sending church was never brought up on charges for allowing this 'bullying' member, nor found guilty by trial, they are innocent; as well as the member. It is your opinion, and in light of this, it is you who are sinning, against the eccesiastical body which was originally your church home, the pastor and said member. This is no more than blatant gossip.

Brother Scott,

If your assumptions above are correct (that the receiving session jumped to a conclusion based only on my say-so and that they did not conduct an investigation of their own), then so are you conclusions.

However, I think it is unfair and I dare say uncharitable of you to make those assumptions. I give the benefit of the doubt to the Session of the new church, that they wouldn't make auch a judgment based only on hearsay. I have seen the same Session make other such investigations since that time, so I tend to think they did so in this case.

I'm done posting in this thread , and give you the last word on the matter.

Grace and peace,
Robin

 

[Scott Bushey]

Brother Scott,

If your assumptions above are correct (that the receiving session jumped to a conclusion based only on my say-so and that they did not conduct an investigation of their own), then so are you conclusions.

However, I think it is unfair and I dare say uncharitable of you to make those assumptions. I give the benefit of the doubt to the Session of the new church, that they wouldn't make auch a judgment based only on hearsay. I have seen the same Session make other such investigations since that time, so I tend to think they did so in this case.

I'm done posting in this thread , and give you the last word on the matter.

Grace and peace,
Robin

Robin,
You are correct. If my assumptions are correct, my conclusions would logically follow; However, since you have made a public judgment against a fellow RPCGA church, i.e. calling them illegitimate, it warranted a response from me and a defense on your part by providing legitimate proof or retraction. The fact that you did so without actually knowing that there was a trial ( you above make mention to the fact that you 'think so' ) is unwarranted and the judgment should be officially retracted.

If you notice, I did ask the questions:

How did the receiving church come to the conclusion that the sending church was 'illegitimate'? By what you told them?

 

[RiverCritter]

... since you have made a public judgment against a fellow RPCGA church, i.e. calling them illegitimate, it warranted a response from me...

Have a look at my original post. I did not name either the church or the denomination. You quoted the entire original post in your first response (there is no mention of the RPCGA in your quote either - I mention that because my original post was edited - but I can't edit your post in which you quoted it).

Sorry, go ahead and have the last word again... I know it's important to you to have the last word. Didn't mean to mess that up, but with all the assumptions being made here, I just wanted to let the record speak for itself.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Have a look at my original post. I did not name either the church or the denomination. You quoted the entire original post in your first response (there is no mention of the RPCGA in your quote either - I mention that because my original post was edited - but I can't edit your post in which you quoted it).

Sorry, go ahead and have the last word again... I know it's important to you to have the last word. Didn't mean to mess that up, but with all the assumptions being made here, I just wanted to let the record speak for itself.

Robin,
Here is your original post:

I, too, faced excommunication from a Reformed church (RPCGA) on what I believe to be unBiblical grounds. At my "trial" I was finally offered a choice: Transfer my membership to another Reformed denomination or be excommunicated by "erasure."

The awkward thing was that when I finally found another church (PCA), they would not accept a "transfer" from my former church. To do so would lend credibility and legitimacy to a church they considered illegitimate.

And then your edited one from 1/7 in the evening:

The vast differences in application of the same standards from one church to another are just beyond belief.

I, too, faced excommunication from a Reformed church on what I believe to be unBiblical grounds. At my "trial" I was finally offered a choice: Transfer my membership to another Reformed denomination or be excommunicated by "erasure."

The awkward thing was that when I finally found another church (PCA), they would not accept a "transfer" from my former church. To do so, they said, would lend credibility and legitimacy to a church they considered illegitimate.

Your credibility is going quickly down the drain........Either provide the information or retract the charge.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

If I put a post out there, then thought about what I put (maybe I spoke to hastily and I should not have) edited the post, then lied about, or even had extreme memory loss about it, I would 1) retract it, and 2) seek forgiveness about it.

 

[Archlute]

Scott,

It's pretty obvious to all who read this thread you're more offended that a congregation in your denomination has flaws (as do all) than that Robin's statements may have merit to them, and then to sympathize with him accordingly. I have no doubt from my experience that the RPCGA, like most micro-reformed denominations, has problems in the areas of an un-Christlike legalism and authoritarianism, which is a contributing factor to why these split-off-a-split denominations remain small, just in the same way that a larger denomination, like the PCA in which I reside, is often too loose in areas of worship and doctrine, which can be a contributing factor in its growth and popularity. Just admit that pastors don't always have the best interests of their members in mind, have the ability to act according to their flesh, may genuinely be in the wrong, and be done with it. I tend to believe that Robin has a valid complaint, which will never be resolved properly, because I have had firsthand experience with ministers who have acted in this way (and whose sessions were "yes men" who covered up their sins). Everybody who has spent any time in Reformed churches has seen this, and knows that church courts are definitely not always the be-all end-all of true godliness and justice. I'm not asking you to be happy with the issue of a pastor's failure being brought to light, but ease up, it happens. Disputing over proper terminology will not change the reality of what was done. Being ordained does not grant one infallibility in judgment or an ability to be unfailingly correct in action/decisions by any stretch of the imagination. Pastors are just as prone to sin as any other member of the body, and those who forget this will be the first to fall into sin, or to defend actions/decisions that may be indefensible.

I have way too much studying to complete this week to respond to any phrase-by-phrase critique of my statement above that may follow, but I did want to put a plug in for Robin and the right that he has to voice his opinion on the matter. Unless we want to start functioning like little papacies, binding the consciences of all who would disagree with our dogmas in order to keep up the images of our churches, and trying to suppress them in an inquisitorial manner not reflective of Christ's patience and maturity, I suggest we cut the brother a little slack. The great thing about the Gospel is that it allows us to admit that our churches make mistakes in their sinfulness, to pray for their growth in grace and Christ-likeness, take comfort in Christ's finished work and the knowledge that he is still perfecting His bride, and to keep moving forward. I hope to see that same grace displayed here between brothers.

Respectfully,

AJM

 

[RiverCritter]

Retraction

...you have made a public judgment against a fellow RPCGA church, i.e. calling them illegitimate, it warranted a response from me and a defense on your part by providing legitimate proof or retraction. ... the judgment should be officially retracted.

Am I expected to retract the findings of the receiving church's Session? I cannot retract someone else' statement.

Am I being requested to retract my opinion that the former church was illegitimate because they failed to discipline a bully? That would be dishonest. I pray that I'm wrong, but I spent a long time there and witnessed the departure of family after family. I don't know if that church even exists anymore anyway. It was down to one single very dysfunctional (the pastor's own words) family when we left. It has probably self-destructed by now.

I have already retracted the use of the term "trial" to describe my meeting with the pastor and its outcome. Perhaps I should have asked for a trial. Perhaps I was wrong not to. My only thought at the time was to get my family out of there without any long protacted process. We were in pain and chose the quickest and easiest way out.

I confess that I did originally include the denomination of the church in my first post and thought better of it minutes later, editing it to omit that reference. I apologize and ask forgiveness for using the timing of your reply as a weapon.

The legitimacy of my former church is strictly a matter of opinion as far as it's own Presbytery is concerned, since I sought no trial. By doing so I did a disservice to my former church. The ruling of my new church's Session regarding the old church outside their jurisdiction cannot be binding upon any not under their authority, but I cannot change their ruling, nor can I charitably assume they made their ruling strictly on hearsay evidence.

I confess and repent posting in haste, in anger, and with impure intentions. My apology extends beyond the principals in this thread to every reader.

Penitently,
Robin

 

[Scott Bushey]

Am I expected to retract the findings of the receiving church's Session? I cannot retract someone else' statement.

Am I being requested to retract my opinion that the former church was illegitimate because they failed to discipline a bully? That would be dishonest. I pray that I'm wrong, but I spent a long time there and witnessed the departure of family after family. I don't know if that church even exists anymore anyway. It was down to one single very dysfunctional (the pastor's own words) family when we left. It has probably self-destructed by now.

I have already retracted the use of the term "trial" to describe my meeting with the pastor and its outcome. Perhaps I should have asked for a trial. Perhaps I was wrong not to. My only thought at the time was to get my family out of there without any long protacted process. We were in pain and chose the quickest and easiest way out.

I confess that I did originally include the denomination of the church in my first post and thought better of it minutes later, editing it to omit that reference. I apologize and ask forgiveness for using the timing of your reply as a weapon.

The legitimacy of my former church is strictly a matter of opinion as far as it's own Presbytery is concerned, since I sought no trial. By doing so I did a disservice to my former church. The ruling of my new church's Session regarding the old church outside their jurisdiction cannot be binding upon any not under their authority, but I cannot change their ruling, nor can I charitably assume they made their ruling strictly on hearsay evidence.

I confess and repent posting in haste, in anger, and with impure intentions. My apology extends beyond the principals in this thread to every reader.

Penitently,
Robin

Robin,
The above post is received embracingly; as well, I ask for your forgiveness for being so driven on the issue. I pray we can move on past this and seek more edifying things to say to one another.

Scott.

 

[MrMerlin777]

Robin,
The above post is received embracingly; as well, I ask for your forgiveness for being so driven on the issue. I pray we can move on past this and seek more edifying things to say to one another.

Scott.

Pardon my intruding into this thread but this post (and the one before it) is about the coolest exchange I've seen on this board. This is what it's all about folks brotherhood. Loving the brethren.

Cheers.