This article is a follow up to Original article on Jen Epstein. I thought it would be a good choice for independence day since today we celebrate breaking away from invalid kangaroo courts.
While following up on Jen's Gems I ran into a very interesting post regarding her excommunication Church Elders Criticize Epsteins But Offer No Viable Solutions. What's interesting about this case is an abuse of the notion of fraternal relations. As far as I understand it among American Presbyterian churches there can be 3 types of relationships:
1) They are in the same hierarchy. That is if you go far enough "up" you'll find a body which has actual authority over both of them.
2) They have fraternal relations. That means they agree that each other's discipline processes are valid. In the particular case of PCA churches (including FPC) the NAPARC agreement governs this structure
3) They have no formal relationship and there is no obligation to recognize one another's disciplinary processes.
For examples of case 3, a PCA church is not required to have a Mormon who attends their church attempt reconciliation with an LDS excommunication. Technically FPC (the church that is discussed in the above post) and BCA (the excommunicating church) have a relationship of type 3. BCA is not a party to the NAPARC agreement. It does not have an appeals structure and the leadership of the PCA has correctly and wisely ruled that organizations without an appeals structure should not have their excommunications treated with anywhere near the level of deference appropriate for a Presbyterian church. Quite simply, FPC most certainly is empowered to simply ignore what Doug Phillips did. They have the right to overturn it. They have the right to assert jurisdiction. The post above is simply incorrect in its assertion of the seriousness of BCA's actions.
However if FPC wished to recognize the excommunication as valid then the logically the NAPARC agreement would be the governing structure. The NAPARC agreement defines a "Transfer with Irregularities"
a. That upon request for transfer of membership by a person under discipline, the sending session/consistory or presbytery/classis inform the receiving body of the nature an extent of the disciplinary procedure before implementing the requested transfer, thus enabling informal consultation between the pastors and elders of both churches.
b. That such a person not be received officially until the judicatory/assembly of the receiving church has taken into serious account the discipline of and the information supplied by the sending church.
c. That such a person not be received officially until the judicatory/assembly of the receiving church is satisfied that proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted.
d. That a "fugitive from discipline" who no longer is a member of a church or who is no longer on the roll of a presbytery shall not be received until the former judicatory/assembly has been contacted to determine if proper restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been attempted.
Note the key point. FPC is required to
1) Receive a specific report
2) Take into consideration the contents of that report
3) Verify that restitution has been made and/or reconciliation has been seriously attempted
However FPC did not choose to do that. What they did do was:
1) Faith PCA verbally and in writing affirmed the legitimacy of the excommunication process of BCA
2) Faith PCA affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of BCA, both to give and to remove the censure of excommunication from the Epsteins, "Knowing that Boerne Christian Assembly is an orthodox evangelical Christian church, we recognize your excommunication of Mark and Jennifer as a valid ecclesiastical act with continuing effect.”
The PCA does not recognize any notion of exclusive jurisdiction. FPC's act here was a blatant violation of presbyterian legal structures.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Thank you thank you thank you.
Too many PCA 'groups' have gone over the edge in matters like this.
Best, M
Your welcome M. It makes me very happy that this touched you.
I, too appreciate your concern over spiritual abuse issues. I know you say you are not a Christian. There is a book from a Christian perspective on spiritual abuse that has a big counseling emphasis in it -- it is called The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse, by VanVonderan. I recommend it highly if you are interested in the abuse issues you see within evangelical Christianity. This book speaks for how many of us who call ourselves Christians tend to view what spiritual abuse is, the dynamics of it, and why it is wrong.
simplegifts --
Thanks for the tip. I'll pick that book up. You know its interesting I'm getting this much of a reaction on spiritual abuse issues within evangelical circles. Evangelical churches have the hardest time actually committing spiritual abuse. Churches like the Jehovah's Witnesses coordinate with each other and maintain good records across the denomination. The evangelical churches involved know they are at the fringes and their membership knows they are at the fringes.
I'm going to need to think some about this one.
Evangelical churches have the hardest time actually committing spiritual abuse. Churches like the Jehovah's Witnesses coordinate with each other and maintain good records across the denomination. The evangelical churches involved know they are at the fringes and their membership knows they are at the fringes.
I agree with you except for the very last statement. It is probably true that if you are abused and kicked out of a JW or other type group, that across the board you are gone from that group as a whole, and that if you are abused in an evangelical church, you can quietly begin again somewhere else, but there is another factor to consider here.
And that is if you are abused, it may be to the point where you are not thinking clearly and reasoning clearly about your situation. And that is why I hesitate to agree with you that the "membership knows they are at the fringes."
A person who is functioning fairly well would be able to tell abusive leadership to "eat a rock," and pick up and go somewhere else, shaking the dust off their feet, but when membership is conditioned to view the leadership as between them and God, this is not how I (or the Bible) define "functioning fairly well."
An individual evangelical church can be abusive to the point of conditioning its suceptible members to actually believe if they leave, they are being "cast to the devil," or at the very least, will be going to a place that is substandard in God's eyes.
There is a great deal of cost in leaving. Not to mention mourning over all the time and money and devotion given, and the sense of "wasted years" of time, and the loss of significant human relationships.
So, even if it is just one evangelical (but I would say unbiblical) church that where there is controlling leadership, the abuse is real, and there is great pain and rejection upon being shunned. From the point of view of the one abused, there is no place else to turn to.
I guess what I'm saying, is that in abusive churches which would call themselves evangelical, there is enough psychological damage done, that even though there isn't a network of reporting abusive discipline chuuch to church, the effects on a person exiting such a system can be just as devastating as if there were.
The emotional state and psychological state of persons suffering "spiritual abuse" often make them believe deep down inside that they are not good enough to go some place else. And even if they are aware that they have been abused, that they have not been treated with grace and mercy and love the way the Bible commands, if they know for sure they are being disciplined for things that are not sins, they often avoid church for some time to come, in order to recover from the psychological and emotional devastation.
I think the bottom line of that book I recommended to you is that people in evangelical churches are made to feel as though God has the same attitude toward them as their abusive leadership does. And that is why they call it "spiritual abuse." Because it is devastating to a person's relationship to God (from an evangelical perspective).
Thanks for being concerned about these issues.
simple --
OK so what you are saying is that while evangelical members may be at a fringe they for emotional reasons and as a result of conditioning see themselves as being in a situation not too different than what a JW disfellowshipped/disassociated person is experiencing in actuality?
CD Host said: "...for emotional reasons and as a result of conditioning..."
....
This is absolutely true of the subtle influence of spiritual abuse and thought reform (could almost be a quote from Robt. J. Lifton's Ideological Totalism chapter from his watershed work).
>>>>
CD host said:
"...see themselves as being in a situation not too different than what a JW disfellowshipped/disassociated person is experiencing in actuality?"
.......
Most can't readily see this as true. Especially for those who have recently exited a manipulative group or for those who deny the problems in such groups, most people would deny this due to the overwhelming and disturbing truth of what has happened to them.
However, your logic is absolutely correct. Legalistic and unbalanced groups that resort to so many abusive practices and logical fallacies have the same dynamics as "non-theological cults" and Bible-based cultic groups. It takes a great deal of time, greiving, healing and brutal self-examination to get to the point that a Baptist or a Presbyterian can admit that they essentially not unlike JWs or Mormons or Moonies.
You are right. But, NO: most people will not be able to see themselves this way.
I know from 10+ years of experience after exiting a group, intensive study of the subject and experience exit-couseling others.
Icd-host:
I agree that the situations are the same as you describe in your last comment to me, and I also agree with under-much-grace's comments that the evangelicals will have a hard time seeing it as such.
OK well then given this dynamic what sort of information would be the most helpful in helping people not to feel that way?
-- I've got the defense stuff already worked out but I could do another round of cleaning and organizing
-- I can keep doing cases
-- I can start focusing on law and tradition.
Or are there other suggestions? Can you guys look through the materials and let me know what would have been helpful or what I need to change to make the materials more helpful?
I don't have an answer for your question, but I did appreciate reading your research into how FPC should have handled the situation. Bringing information to light is always helpful.
Getting back to what happened to the Epsteins, one thing I noted here is there are legal Q and As on the internet which are applicable to the Epsteins' discipline at BCA (which was prior to the FPC incident for those who aren't familiar).
The reason I wrote a blog article and cited that legal counsel is because Mark Epstein had shared, to Doug, some issues about Jen -- things which were dealt with many years before they even started attending BCA. This privileged information was not the reason Jen was disciplined or exommunicated from BCA, and it was something she had long repented of. Nevertheless, Doug Phillips read this information to the church, IN SPITE OF Mark Epstein's request that he not read the information to the church.
The legal Q and A I cited on my blog plainly said a pastor is not allowed to disclose confidential information like this at ALL, unless express permission is given.
If we are talking the law here... I think if Marc were to sue he'd lose. I don't see anywhere that Doug indicates he is a licensed therapist. Nor (as far as I can tell) does he make representations to be one.
As far as the law is concerned:
1) Marc and Jen belong to a club
2) Marc tells the club president some confidential stuff about Jen
3) The club president tells a bunch of other club members
Its going to come down to whether
1.5) The club president promises to keep secrets if Marc tells him stuff. Moreover Doug could argue that the disclosure was in response to a public attack and that was an unforeseen circumstance.....
Ethically you could argue (and I think you would be right) that if Doug didn't see the situation as confidential he shouldn't have disclosed that before therapy started. There is a good faith assumption that clergy believe in confidentiality. On the other hand assuming that Doug never says he believes in strong confidentiality and he most certainly does believe in church discipline....
Well I'd hate to be Jen or Marc's lawyer on this one.
Yes Doug is not a licensed therapist but doens't the fact that he promotes himself as a pastor account for some sort of confidentiality between a himself and a member of his congregation?
Thanks
Jonathan
Anonymous --
You have entirely backwards with regard to pastors. Not only to church relations including the pastoral one not carry an expectation of privacy, the state will not enforce privacy violations if the context is is mixed. For example if the pastor is a licensed counselor and is seeing the person as both a pastor and a counselor their actions cannot be tortable even if they violated the standards of conduct for their profession.
Basically you talk to anyone in your church about something you have waved your privacy protections with regard to that thing. The courts continue to hold that church discipline for members is a first amendment protected act and the state's interest in protecting privacy is less than it's interests in maintaining church state separation. See Penley v. Westbrook for an extended discussion.
So in particular with respect to Doug and Jen, Doug's conduct may be unethical but it absolutely not tortable. The only possible way that Jen could win is that Doug is so sexist that he didn't have Jen sign a membership agreement hence she could argue she was not a member and thus had not waved privacy protections. Its a stretch though given how often she has asserted she saw herself as a member.
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get back to you. I have copied your comment from the other thread below, for context. I don’t know if you’ll find my comments appropriate for your blog or not, but I still wanted to respond. Feel free to delete if you wish.
"Sorry I didn’t see this post until recently. I hadn’t checked back. Anyway… post regarding FPC. I’ll try and get in touch with you since I assume you aren’t monitoring. We can discuss it there or here or on your blog. Just post on mine letting me know where you want to discuss it or just start the discussion.
As far as lying about Doug, well you remember another issue where I became upset when I detected the same thing was going on.
As for Jen and Doug. I think there are really 2 totally separate issues.
1) Doug’s public policies
2) Jen’s case and its particulars
By and large most of the criticism of patriarchy has come from Doug’s public policies. My point to Bonnie was those still stand regardless of Jen’s case. And moreover many of the irregularities regarding Jen’s case (like the FPC thing) are irregularities even if Jen were 100% guilty. Heck most of them have been confirmed by Doug’s people.
So yes I understand the point about corrupting her witness, and I don’t disagree. Assuming that everyone agrees the $100k story is untrue Jen should write a post about it details, apology… I don’t think she should take stuff down, just use the strike out, date and link to the explanatory post. As far as this all goes, I actually don’t know and don’t need to know the whole story about this issue."
I can appreciate that Doug's policies should stand on their own as a debatable issue that is separate from Jen's account of her time at BCA. I also appreciate your lack of interest in the sordid details of Jen's private life.
When I encouraged Jen to remove her blog, it was not an attempt to silence all debate about Patriarchy. It was because I believe that Jen is not in a position to participate in that debate due to the inconsistency in her story and how she has handled herself in telling it. My opinion has not been formed merely by what is hidden, but also by the blatant actions that have been proudly displayed before the public eye. She told her readers for months that she loved Doug, and would never do anything to hurt him. She said she merely wanted the truth about Patriarchy to come to light. But there is a piece of information on her blog that is a direct attack on his character, which she has revealed to be a lie, and she has never bothered to correct it. What does this say to the watching world?
As a Christian, I am much more concerned with her witness than with anything else, and while I realize you do not claim Christianity for yourself, I believe you have studied it long enough to understand why her blog would cause concern to those of us that do. I also believe that you take your study of church discipline seriously enough that you would want to consider examples of her deception as you examine FPC and other churches she has mentioned. Remember: we've never actually seen FPC's full statement on the issue. We've only seen snippets. The cracks have been filled in by Doug and by Jen. The problem is, not many people fully trust either of them. So where do we go from here?
I think the discussion about FPC can proceed as long as we accept that we do not have all the information. Perhaps this will temper the tone of the posting and the temptation to speculate. Maybe we'll find that there's very little left to say. I don’t know. At any rate, I do not think it's wise to rely on Jen's blog as a source for any facts about FPC's decisions because of her credibility. This includes the post regarding FPC’s "no viable solutions". It appears that the author of that piece based his assertions on Jen's story, alone. As I understand it, he never spoke with FPC directly. All we really have to go on are bits and pieces of FPC’s statements that BCA posted online. So if we can assume those are real, then let’s examine them.
You stated, above, that FPC's actions demonstrated "irregularities" even if Jen was 100% guilty. In my opinion, if we're presuming that Jen is 100% guilty, then their actions were entirely appropriate. Jen says that FPC only did what they did because they were afraid of Doug, but she accused two other churches of the same thing and never really proved it. So, let's say FPC was convinced (through their own findings) that she was entirely in the wrong. Would their response have been any different? Isn’t it more likely that they were telling the truth about their feelings, rather than cooking up a contrived statement meant to hide the fact that they were acting under Doug’s orders?
I believe that FPC (and others) truly wanted to take the Epsteins in, but saw the condition of their hearts, and realized they could not accept them as communing members for as long as they still harbored this sin of bitterness. In fact, they saw the blog as direct evidence of it:
“[O]ur Session agreed that taking a private matter of church discipline to the court of public opinion via the Internet is at least as great an offense as taking a brother to court before a watching local heathen community.”
“The fact that our Session was asked whether the Epsteins would be allowed to place their allegations against your church back on the Internet as a warning to potential members of BCA once their censure had been lifted (after they had complied with our requests to remove their allegations), indicated to us that we would not be able to aid them in coming to repentance and reconciliation with your congregation.”
If the above statements are authentic, then we already know what FPC thinks of this situation. They believed the Epsteins were wrong. They believed their actions were evidence of sin that must be turned from before they could receive membership in the church, therefore, it was right of them to encourage the Epsteins to repent. When they refused to do so, they were turned away. The Christian church cannot extend membership to people who are blatantly living in unconfessed sin.
Remember, church discipline is a flawed system put in place by flawed people for the purpose of keeping order in a flawed world. It doesn’t always work perfectly, but it is still extremely necessary for the purity of the church body. I’m not saying there aren’t abuses, or that those abuses shouldn’t be discussed, but I think you’ll find that it’s very rare for people under discipline to be as completely innocent as they think they are.
Jen says that she was completely innocent of the charges from BCA. She claimed that her stance on voting was the reason Doug eventually cast her out. She also says that three of the five churches she attended afterwards were all intimidated by Doug Phillips to the point where she was thrown out of the congregation simply because he told them to do it. But she’s provided absolutely no evidence for any of this. Never mind how badly this violates her own rules of leveling charges against another Christian…..doesn’t simple common sense rule out the likelihood that any of this is true?
I’d love to engage in a debate about church discipline. But only if it’s rational. To me, a story like that is not rational, and if we’re debating a lie then I can’t think of a bigger waste of time.
Karen --
(for lurkers the comment being responded to is comment on Let the Women be Silent/Jen's Gems.)
Hi welcome back to the blog! Anyway you have credibility on that not trying to silence debate about patriarchy in general.
I suggest you read the article my problem with FPC is, "Faith PCA affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of BCA, both to give and to remove the censure of excommunication from the Epsteins". My entire debate with FPC has been that that affirmation is contrary to Presbyterian law. It is a serious abuse for Faith to make that statement as it goes against the entire nature of Presbyterian governance and the rights of Christians to due process. This btw is not Doug's sin, its FPC's. It is my belief that FPC's sin in this case came from the patriarchy movement's view of church authority which is contrary to Christian tradition and law.
In my opinion, if we're presuming that Jen is 100% guilty, then their actions were entirely appropriate. Jen says that FPC only did what they did because they were afraid of Doug, but she accused two other churches of the same thing and never really proved it. So, let's say FPC was convinced (through their own findings) that she was entirely in the wrong. Would their response have been any different?
Absolutely. They then note they are acting with appellate jurisdiction in her case. They examine Jen's defense quite seriously. If it turns out that BCA had conducted a lawful excommunication and that Jen had lied about it the entire entire time, they produce a finding of fact and uphold BCA's excommunication. As far as the internet assassin stuff they can argue that constitutes ongoing warfare against the church and elevate the excommunication to an anathematization if they so choose.
Or, they can choose to refuse to act in appellate capacity and then produce no finding. What they can't do is not go on record as an appellate and then indicate she is guilty in NAPARC under BCA's process. They can not unilaterally grant BCA fraternal relations with the PCA (which is the effect of what they did).
Jen is entitled to a trial before a PCA recognized church before being subjected to a PCA recognized excommunication.
Lets take an analogy. You rack up debts in Mexico and are tried by a Mexican court and found in default. Illinois cannot enforce that judgment based on the Mexican court. Now change Mexico to Nevada and they can enforce the judgment. Illinois and Nevada have a different type of relationship than Illinois and Mexico. BCA and FPC have a relationship like Illinois and Mexico and FPC was acting like they have the kind of relationship they have with California.
What is so serious about this is that because Illinois judgments recognized in all 50 states (i.. FPC is part of NAPARC) they are creating a situation where that Mexican court has authority in Alaska, Alabama, Kansas.....
I hope that is clear. You'll notice in this debt analogy I don't actually care whether the debts would be upheld by a US court. Until they are there is no valid judgment. That is Faith either considers this to be a Mexican debt that they cannot enforce or Jen gets a US trial.
Hope the analogy helped.
Thank you. That analogy does help me to see where you’re coming from. And it’s certainly true that we’re dealing with two different jurisdictions as far as earthly matters are concerned. But, it’s important to remember that the touchstone (and final authority) for their jurisdiction is always the Bible. Things like books of church order, denominations, and church constitutions are only mortal creations which derive their precepts from scripture. So, scripture is what the mortals should turn to, first, when they are dealing with matters that effect the church body, and it appears to me that’s exactly what they did.
“I suggest you read the article my problem with FPC is, ‘Faith PCA affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of BCA, both to give and to remove the censure of excommunication from the Epsteins’. My entire debate with FPC has been that that affirmation is contrary to Presbyterian law.”
The words “FPC affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of BCA…” came from Doug, not from FPC. I think it’s important to rely less on Jen or Doug's commentary (and more on FPC's actual words), as we examine the statement from FPC.
Additionally, to say that FPC acted in a manner contrary to Presbyterian law seems to miss the point of where that law comes from. Presbyterian law does not trump scripture. Presbyterian laws comes from a desire to stay in line with scripture, and to ensure that things are done "decently and in order". It reflects only their particular understanding of what scripture says. It is man-made, and not devinely inspired.
However, to answer your specific point:
"What they can't do is not go on record as an appellate and then indicate she is guilty in NAPARC under BCA's process. They can not unilaterally grant BCA fraternal relations with the PCA (which is the effect of what they did)."
"Jen is entitled to a trial before a PCA recognized church before being subjected to a PCA recognized excommunication."
This is very true. But if we're still assuming that the Epsteins were 100% guilty of the charges, and FPC found them to be continuing in their sin, then there is little use in making the distinction that the censure was not only a BCA Excommunication, but became a PCA Excommunication as well. I don't believe FPC ever let it get that far. I don't believe BCA was granted any fraternal relations with the PCA. I believe that it was FPC's understanding of scripture, combined with the stubbornness of the Epsteins, that led them to refuse membership to them in the first place. I believe they would have happily accepted them into their body, despite BCA's excommunication, if they had seen any evidence that the Epsteins were truly repentant for what they were doing. In fact, FPC said exactly that:
“Our desire is not to usurp your act of discipline, but to bring sinners into the care of the local church holding out the Gospel of grace to them for their eternal salvation.”
This tells me that they wanted to let them in. It also tells me that the Epsteins, not BCA, made that impossible.
FPC went on to say, "Christ is the head of our session". He makes the decisions for their church, and that's exactly as it should be. When FPC saw that the state of the Epsteins' hearts prevented communion with the body, then I believe they had an obligation (from scripture as well as the BCO) not to extend membership to them.
Karen --
I actually never your denomination. I had assumed because of the problems with James that you are Presbyterian. In reading the below it appears you have a slightly lower view of the church than FPC would have and Jen would have. So I'm going to contradict you all over the place but before I do let me just clarify I'm not making theological points about what is or is not biblical I'm simply making points about PCA law.
Lets start with the most basic:
But, it’s important to remember that the touchstone (and final authority) for their jurisdiction is always the Bible...So, scripture is what the mortals should turn to, first, when they are dealing with matters that effect the church body, and it appears to me that’s exactly what they did.
Absolutely not. FPC is not entitled to override PCA doctrine if they have a different read of scripture. They are entitled to push for an amendment or leave the denomination. They can be and should be expelled for directly reading scripture and acting contrary to the Book of Church Order. FPC is not a legislative body unto itself. They have representation within the Presbytery and from that to the PCA GA which is the legislative body.
The words “FPC affirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of BCA…” came from Doug, not from FPC. I think it’s important to rely less on Jen or Doug's commentary (and more on FPC's actual words), as we examine the statement from FPC.
Agreed, good point. These are all from FPC directly:
1) Knowing that Boerne Christian Assembly is an orthodox evangelical Christian church, we recognize your excommunication of Mark and Jennifer as a valid ecclesiastical act with continuing effect.
They can't recognize the act they can only uphold it.
2) Consequently, we find that the men in leadership at BCA are duly constituted officers within the Church Visible and that they are worthy of the respect that Scripture requires be due to all those who labor among the flock.
Two problems. First this theology of the church discipline is contrary to PCA theology (interestingly it is consistent with Doug's theology... which is evidence for Jen's claims). Discipline for Presbyterians is from a session not from officers and they cannot recognize the session as valid themselves that is outside their bounds.
Second, (and I discuss this in the article) even if BCA were a valid recognized church (say it were part of the Korean American Presbyterian Church) the rules governing Jen's request weren't followed. In other words they would be entitled to assert that restitution had not yet been attempted with BCA, and thus they are refusing her membership. They are not entitled to assert exclusive jurisdiction of BCA forever as they did.
Again I'll use the debt analogy. The Illinois court can hold the original Mexican debt was valid, they cannot grant the Mexican court ongoing supervisory rights binding in all 50 states of the USA.
3) we concluded that it was important for our Session to honor your discipline and agree that you men alone must determine the circumstances for the lifting of your censure.
I don't see how they could be more clear in denying Jen the due process she is entitled to than that line. No person under PCA law can forever be held hostage by a member church. This is a position called the Mell doctrince PH Mell's text on discipline that some Baptist churches held in the 19th century but it was that has always been completely rejected by Presbyterian churches. That assertion is a serious act of denying core Presbyterian principles in favor of reformed baptist principles. Again this provides some evidence for Jen's assertion about Doug's influence where did a bunch of Presbyterians get this theology from? Abeshire btw quoted the Mell doctrine (in different language) during another debate.
[O]ur Session agreed that taking a private matter of church discipline to the court of public opinion via the Internet is at least as great an offense as taking a brother to court before a watching local heathen community.
Why would they think that? Presbyterian discipline is public to begin with. Presbyterians encourage discussion of trials.
The elders of BCA stand willing to meet with you to hear your expression of true repentance. However, until such time as you are willing to satisfactorily express such repentance and be restored by them and to their congregation, we are not in a position to allow you continue to attend Faith Presbyterian Church.
Again, PCA doctrine is that the excommunicated should be encouraged to attend church and be under the tutelage of the Word. They may be excluded from fellowship but if they are willing to continue to attend they should.
There are churches that don't hold this philosophy; in fact some Reformed Baptists churches require penitence before a person can be readmitted to the church physically for example standing outside the church for 3 weeks begging to be allowed back in. But that is not the position of the PCA nor any NAPARC church.
_____________________
So you see the problem? There are violations in their direct quotes. I skipped a few minor ones and focused on the big ones. Especially the ones that have a Reformed Baptist feel to them. This letter smells like Doug to me. I'm not sure if it is intimidation or persuasion but this evidence is consistent with Jen's story, even if we assume Jen is 100% guilty.
(I'll continue with more in a 2nd post)
Thanks for your response. I will think over what you've said, and construct a reply.
In the meantime, I have few questions (out of curiosity, mostly): Do you believe that Doug actually wrote the letter from FPC? Or, do you believe that he simply influenced it through intimidation?
Karen --
This is very true. But if we're still assuming that the Epsteins were 100% guilty of the charges, and FPC found them to be continuing in their sin, then there is little use in making the distinction that the censure was not only a BCA Excommunication, but became a PCA Excommunication as well. I don't believe FPC ever let it get that far. I don't believe BCA was granted any fraternal relations with the PCA. I believe that it was FPC's understanding of scripture, combined with the stubbornness of the Epsteins, that led them to refuse membership to them in the first place. I believe they would have happily accepted them into their body, despite BCA's excommunication, if they had seen any evidence that the Epsteins were truly repentant for what they were doing. In fact, FPC said exactly that:
“Our desire is not to usurp your act of discipline, but to bring sinners into the care of the local church holding out the Gospel of grace to them for their eternal salvation.”
This tells me that they wanted to let them in. It also tells me that the Epsteins, not BCA, made that impossible.
I think you are misreading the context of that line. In context that line says something very different:
_____
[G]iven the fact that so very few churches today seek to exercise any discipline over their members caught up in sin, we concluded that it was important for our Session to honor your discipline and agree that you men alone must determine the circumstances for the lifting of your censure. It is regrettable that congregations and denominations refuse to honor the discipline of other lawfully constituted churches in an age of individualism and consumer orientation. Our Session is constrained by the Word to stand against this trend.”v Faith PCA
“Our desire is not to usurp your act of discipline, but to bring sinners into the care of the local church holding out the Gospel of grace to them for their eternal salvation
___
That is the local church they are talking about is BCA not FPC. They are not offering Jen membership. Her state of repentance as far as FPC is concerned is irrelevant. BCA has sole authority, they state they don't have the authority to judge. Jen could be mortifying her flesh in the middle of the church and they can't see that as contrition until BCA does. I don't see how they could be clearer that they don't view themselves as having the authority to judge that. What they view themselves as having the authority to do is assist in getting the Epsteins to repent to BCA.
Again this is FPC asserting the Mell doctrine, which is doctrine in violation of their own BCO.
FPC went on to say, "Christ is the head of our session". He makes the decisions for their church, and that's exactly as it should be.
I'm not sure that's true, Christ is the head of the church universal the Presbytery is the head of the session. And that is a key distinction. A Presbyterian does not determine membership in the universal church but only with respect to a physical church. It makes no claims to judge actual membership but rather apparent membership. This is key to the whole Presbyterian understanding of the church universal vs. local. What they seem to be saying here is that the Church universal is a non hierarchical collection of local churches each governed directly by Christ in partnership with Christ for salvation. Which is Doug's theology not the PCA's. Another line sounds Reformed Baptist to me.
When FPC saw that the state of the Epsteins' hearts prevented communion with the body,
You may have been speaking loosely here. And this is your words not their but...
A PCA session doesn't judge the heart it judges acts. They have no authority nor any means to judge the heart. Attempting to do so is good reason for their ordination as elders to be pulled.
That is they can say they engaged in non repentant acts they can't decide whether they are repentant or not. That is between them and God. Again I don't know your denomination but this is something that applies to virtually all the major ones. The only leading Presbyterian I know of in favor of psychic evidence was Cotton Mathar. Every other Presbyterian in history has held that there need to be acts and that evidence needs to be judged based on acts not states of minds.
Karen --
First off I don't know. What I do know is that we have a PCA church quoting Reformed Baptist theology all over the place. This exercise made me realize how much of it there is in those few paragraphs.
If I didn't have Jen's statement I'd would think the issue is isn't authorship or intimidation but influence. Doug is charismatic and smart. I can picture a situation where he talks to them, presents this case and they found it convincing. They may not have thought deeply about the letter. They may have a lot less on the ball than Doug.
Also Jen goes for very right wing churches. Doug and the family integrated movement is influential in Presbyterian churches. He is a successful heretic on many many issues.
Also Jen can make enemies or at least make people very angry with her. They may have been livid, the letter seems like she had threatened them and it seems like felt used. And emotion is not good for intellectual clarity. I'd assume Doug would at least write it with FPC to make sure they couldn't disown it.
But Jen came forward much earlier on, before this letter was written with "intimidation". And while this is not conclusive this is certainly consistent with Doug dictating a letter that FPC needs to stand behind. Doug while smart may himself not be aware of the differences between his tradition and the PCA. He is not open minded and his knowledge of other faiths and other traditions is lacking. It might not even have occurred to him.
So I guess I'm torn. Excluding Jen I'd go for influence, but I do consider Jen more credible than you do. Every time I look at churches involved in her case I see stuff like this.
So now going way back the reason I think this is worthy of discussion is it presents a good case study in how patriarchy influences churches. PCA is a pretty legit denomination. And here is a member church whipping off heresy after heresy after heresy on the issue ecclesiology due I believe to patriarchy. This is a great example of institutional corruption via. patriarchy; in writing, by the church itself, in an official correspondence.
This is great evidence that Jen indirectly brought to light. Regardless of what you think of Jen's moral state, in my opinion there is a lot of this sort of meat inside of Jen's story and on the posts in her blog.
Well, I certainly agree with you that BCA and the Patriarchy movement are troubling at best. This is why I never really had any particular problem with seeing these blogs spring up, here and there, as long as they had valid scriptural challenges to back up their assertions.
My problem with Jen's blog had to do with the tone she set and the comments she allowed. Things got so nasty and disrespectful over there, that I just couldn't shake the nagging feeling that she may have been responsible, in large part, for the way things ended up at BCA. It seemed to me she left the path of rational discourse, and went to a very dark place. This did not strike me as the behavior of a person who is right with God. Or, at the very least, was in a position to criticize another Christian.
Since then, many of my suspicions have been confirmed, which shed a new light on the whole story. If her behavior at BCA, LW, FPC, etc. was anything like what I saw on her blog, then, for me, there was no more mystery. BCA may be way off the mark with their theology, but Jen was not helping the problem.
Nevertheless, your comments on Doug's "influence" were very interesting. I'd like to give that some more thought. I will also finish my reply to your other comments. Thank you for your time.
Ok, there’s quite a bit to respond to, here, but I’ll do my best to be succinct.
Up front, I want to stress that I don’t have a low view of the Church. I just don’t believe that a particular church’s rules should be elevated to a level that is inconsistent with their intended purpose. Scripture is the ultimate authority for everything the church does, even in the PCA, as the BCO states here:
“Godliness is founded on truth. A test of truth is its power to
promote holiness according to our Savior’s rule, ‘By their fruits
ye shall know them’ (Matthew 7:20). No opinion can be more
pernicious or more absurd than that which brings truth and
falsehood upon the same level. On the contrary, there is an inseparable connection between
faith and practice, truth and duty. Otherwise it would be of no
consequence either to discover truth or to embrace it.”
I believe this is precisely what went wrong with the Epstein case. They set the BCO against itself by ignoring scripture in favor of procedure. They felt that their behavior at BCA was irrelevant because of the way they were disciplined, and they used the BCO against FPC as a smokescreen to hide their need for repentance. In essence, they put the cart before the horse, and that defeats the entire purpose of why the BCO was written.
This is why I found your comment about Doug’s “influence” to be particularly interesting. You may be onto something, there. Perhaps FPC was getting it from both sides, and realized (a little too late) that they were neck-deep in some really evil stuff, and didn’t know what to do. We have already seen that Jen has a history of threatening people with ecclesiastical blackmail. Heck, she’s even posted videos of herself doing it. Maybe she did it to them, too. Just something to consider as long as we’re speculating about what may have happened behind the scenes. It kind of makes one feel sorry for the FPC guys, doesn’t it? Perhaps you’re right when you said that they could have missed a step or two by not being on the ball. Exhaustion can do that, I suppose.
Nevertheless, I don’t think it logically follows that refusing membership to the Epsteins automatically means FPC was afraid of Doug, or that he wrote the letter for them, as Jen has claimed. That’s a very serious charge with huge consequences, and I just don’t see how Doug could generate enough intimidation for them to do something like that -- regardless of how many books he sells. At any rate, I also don’t think their decision was an egregious violation of the BCO. At least not one that merited expulsion, as you believe. Of course, outside of my interpretation of the BCO, the only evidence I have for that claim is that FPC is not currently under discipline from their Presbytery, and it’s not from lack of publicity on the matter. Once again, I don’t know. It seems no one really does.
Which brings me to my second point. I think I’ve realized our major problem is that you and I are just reading the BCO differently. Remember, inasmuch as it is man-made, it is also flawed, and the BCO recognizes this fact. It allows for the individual conscience (and for the flaws) in handling these types of matters.
“All church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or by representation, is only ministerial and declarative since the Holy Scriptures are the only rule of faith and practice. No church judicatory may make laws to bind the conscience. All church
courts may err through human frailty, yet it rests upon them to
uphold the laws of Scripture though this obligation be lodged with fallible men.”
The statement above makes it clear that the man-made rules of a church cannot ever overshadow scriptural truth in importance or authority. I don’t think there’s any way around that. So, if we’re still assuming (not speaking loosely) that the Epsteins are 100%guilty, and the session of FPC saw the hardened condition of their hearts (which they’re in a position to do because of the Epsteins’ “fruit”), then to grant membership to that family would be a violation of scripture, and, by definition, the BCO as well.
I realize there’s more to say, and that I’ve not covered all of your points, but I think this post is long enough. As to the question of why the Epsteins would be completely turned away from FPC instead of permitting them to attend, and not take the elements, I can’t answer. That isn’t consistent with any church I’ve ever been to. The only thing I could imagine is that the conversations between FPC and the Epsteins broke down so badly, that they felt like they had no choice. I hope that isn’t the case. At any rate, since FPC isn’t here to clarify, then we can’t really know for sure.
They felt that their behavior at BCA was irrelevant because of the way they were disciplined,
I don't really disagree with Jen here. If she wasn't validly excommunicated then she's not an excommunicate. Doug had an obligation to do it right. I think you and I just disagree on the importance of process. I'd comment since you are citing scripture, God gave only 7 laws to Noah which bind all humanity and James upheld those as the universal laws in Acts 15. One of those obligations is the establishment of courts of justice. God has a very high opinion of due process.
Just something to consider as long as we’re speculating about what may have happened behind the scenes. It kind of makes one feel sorry for the FPC guys, doesn’t it?
Not for me. If they had followed church law and process none of that would have happened. Their role would have been clear, their responsibilities clear and their course of action clear. If they had a hard time it was because of their sin in violating the standards of conduct they are sworn to uphold. They are members of a large well funded denomination. If they had followed the law and thus didn't have to cover things up they could have brought tremendous expertise to bear on this situation if they found it too difficult to handle.
If they had been asking the right questions, like "did BCA prove the essentials of their case in their written documentation and or supplementary documentation" and not questions like "does Jen have a repentant heart" they wouldn't have gotten themselves in this mess. They had a wealth of options depending on the exact scenario.
Judging hearts is very controversial judging documents is much easier work. You and I just see this totally differently. I'm not sure what to say. :-)
Nevertheless, I don’t think it logically follows that refusing membership to the Epsteins automatically means FPC was afraid of Doug, or that he wrote the letter for them, as Jen has claimed. That’s a very serious charge with huge consequences,
I don't think so either. But the content (Reformed Baptist theology) does support Jen's claim. Yes I agree she hasn't proven the case, but the evidence is consistent with her claim.
Again my theory it not books it is Doug's influence over other members of FPC (and possibly elders). It wouldn't shock me if FPC is loosely into or flirting with the whole the family integrated thing. Jen goes for those kinds of churches. And they are pretty active in her neck of the woods.
I also don’t think their decision was an egregious violation of the BCO. At least not one that merited expulsion, as you believe.
I don't think refusing membership is an egregious violation. I think the letter is serious. What I thought would merit expulsion was what you were suggesting regarding overriding the BCO.
Which brings me to my second point. I think I’ve realized our major problem is that you and I are just reading the BCO differently. Remember, inasmuch as it is man-made, it is also flawed, and the BCO recognizes this fact. It allows for the individual conscience (and for the flaws) in handling these types of matters.
Absolutely the BCO recognizes that it may be flawed. In which case FPC should report to the Presbytery that they have a situation where they have to violate the BCO and request instruction. They may be incorrect in their hermeneutic. Now they are entitled to not take action or to take action consistent with scripture if they must. But that wouldn't apply in this case at all.
Just to be clear I'm not objecting to them not granting the Epsteins membership. I'm objecting to their process and their rationale. The outcome is entirely reasonable it is the documentation of the process and most especially the findings regarding exclusive jurisdiction that are deeply flawed. Upholding the Mell doctrine is where I think they are deep error. They could have found that Jen's excommunication was licit without upholding Mell. They could have found the excommunication illicit but upheld it anyway due to ongoing sin. Mell on the other hand there is no excuse for. That is a pure violation of their oath.
Again this would be like a an American court arguing their obligated to extradite someone to North Korea (the USA does not have an extradition treaty with North Korea). A US court can choose to honor an extradition request to NK but they aren't obligated.
Which is why we can take the focus off Jen. Nothing I'm accusing FPC of really has anything to do with Jen at all.
As to the question of why the Epsteins would be completely turned away from FPC instead of permitting them to attend, and not take the elements, I can’t answer. That isn’t consistent with any church I’ve ever been to.
As I mentioned that may be a Doug policy. Here is a good example of the policy from a large denomination, which holds the excommunicate must be "abhorred by the faithful":
After which sentence may no person (his wife and family only excepted) have any kind of conversation with him, be it in eating and drinking, buying or selling, yea, in saluting or talking with him, except that it be at the commandment or licence of the ministry for his conversion; that he, by such means confounded, seeing himself abhorred of the faithful and godly, may have occasion to repent and be so saved. The sentence of his excommunication must be published universally throughout the realm, lest that any man should pretend ignorance. (Scottish Order of Excommunication and Public Repentance (1569)).
Genial dispatch and this fill someone in on helped me alot in my college assignement. Thanks you seeking your information.
That's anon. What was your assignment about?
Post a Comment