A Ecclesiastical Ombudsman?

[JohnV]

Last night I had an idea, a flash of a thought. I am wondering what you would think of this idea? I want to float it around and see if I can either refine it, or, if need be, to cast it aside. Here it is:

After going through what I have been through regarding church discipline (and it isn't over yet) I thought maybe it might be a good idea if people like me had a place or group to turn to in such circumstances. Not only could I not get counsel, but the one sure defence witness that I knew I could count on abandoned me. I was really all alone, with no hope but the recourse of appeal once the trial was over. And this is not such a confidence builder: the OPC is the home turf, so to speak, of Presuppositionalism, and I just don't have much confidence that they will see it as excessive that it be preached from the pulpit as if it were the Word of God instead of the theories of man. Its just that no one has ever done this in recent history, take a church to task for allowing too much freedom from the pulpit, and for imposing supposedly Biblical ideas, for breaking the RPW. Especially the OPC is weak in this area.

In my CRC days everyone thought that it was Women-in-office that I opposed. And though I do oppose it, that was not what I opposed. It was the way the Word was treated to allow the discussion at all. It was said, "Parts of God's Word are temporal and culturally oriented." And this went by without a whimper from the authorities in the church. To me this was ten times the issue of the day than women-in office was. I find the very same type of thing occurring in my present denomination.

What the idea of Ombudsman is meant to achieve is that the little guy in the pew does not get disciplined by the authority in the church when he will not change from the faith the church originally signed her allegiance to. As well, in cases of trial or charges laid, that these be done rightly, so that no trumped up charges or actions from ignorance take away the rights of individual members of the church.

Is this needed?

I believe it is. How many of us are members of an organized church just because we need a place to worship on Sundays? How many of us feel alienated from the body because of the drifting taking place either in the church herself or in the denomination? How many of us are excluded from the "life of the church", the fellowship of faith, because we hold to orthodoxy, to the faith the churches once subscribed to? How many of us have had man's theories 'rammed down our throats' in the interest of making a church after man's image? Women-in office; different creation theories; works righteousness; Christian Reconstruction; these are a few of the issues that were attempted to be taught me from the pulpit. But in reality it is the way the Word is disrespected as the final definitive authority, and not the private interpretations of the men of the church, that is the real issue. Which church or denomination submits to the Word as she should, and does not take out her 'agenda' on the individual covenant members who may stand in the way?

In short, the individual churches and denominations have become authorities unto themselves.

Why this idea?

I will not stand down from my promises, and I will continue to hold to the accusation that the church which taught Christian Reconstructionism from the pulpit, in Bible studies, and which demanded only CR prayers at prayer meetings, is a false church, and the preacher an enemy of the gospel. So I will likely be 'gotten rid of' in one way or another. I don't think they will dare to excommunicate me; but yet they may just do so. In the event of my dismissal from the OPC, I have no where to turn. I am a disenfranchised member of the Covenant. That ought to make the hair on anyone's neck stand up straight; a disenfranchised member of the Covenant; disenfranchised for standing up for the faith. (Of interest here, this has taken place under the auspices of Theonomy, the particularly singular Postmillennial view that the persecution of Christians has ceased, and the motto "For Christ's Crown and Covenant". ) If there ever was a case that needed an Ombudsman, this was it.

Which churches would be included?

It begins right here, of course, in the Reformed setting. But in the thread on the Limits of Church Office I set forth an argument that any church can be held to some kind of regulative principle, whether they have one or not, because they all have the Word, and they all hold that the Word is God's Word, not man's. There is a way of advocacy in any setting that can be ministered to. After all, Christ's children belong to many and various denominations.

I could add more, but I will leave it at this for now. What do you think of the idea? Does it militate against church order? Does this undermine the concept of Church, or does it uphold it against false concepts of Church? And could this be a ministry to those in need?

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by JohnV]

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Congrats, John, on your 2000th post!

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Thinking about the issues you raised...

 

[JohnV]

Wow! I didn't notice. I tried to keep up to Craig and Bob, but hey left me in the dust. So I stopped counting. Thanks Andrew.

 

[Ianterrell]

JohnV,

I don't know your situation in detail but I think you are wrong to call a church that is Theonomic and outspoken about their Christian Reconstructionist convictions apostate. I would not think that a church that was anti-theonomic apostate either. Bible Studies ideally communicate systematic theology, of which I think a biblical view of the civil magistrate and his relationship to the christian is terribly important.

 

[JohnV]

Ian:

I think you take me wrongly. A person or church that is theonomic is not apostate. I did not say that either. I fully support members of this Board or of a church to hold to that opinion if that is what their persuasion is. They do derive it from Scripture, after all. What I object to is the elevation of theory to Biblical necessity based on vulgar consensus. (I do not use the word 'vulgar' in its negative sense here. )

My mentioning of "theonomy" in the context was that a church and persons who claimed to hold to theonomy were prosecuting a person for keeping to their conscientious observance of the faith. It was the contradiction that I observed.

In my particular case I don't think there can be any doubt concerning the status of the teaching. I did not at any time oppose anyone's holding to the positions of Presuppositionalism, Postmillennialism, or Theonomy. What I objected to was that these are the norms for interpreting Scripture, and that they were imposed upon a congregation without anyone's consent; not the OPC's, not the Presbytery's, not even the congregation's. Yet, in not addressing these concerns, these bodies gave tacit consent. In particular, men's theories were raised to the level of Biblical necessity, and bound upon members of the congregation. I was, of course, given the choice of finding another church (denomination) that suited my faith better. (That is a dead give-away, by the way. This should never be an option in this context. )

I did not say that theonomy was a mark of apostacy. Imposing and binding things the Word does not impose or bind is the mark that I referred to.

 

[crhoades]

[stepping into JohnV's shoes]

I think that it is a matter of going beyond the confession itself. To go further than the confession and say that the Bible teaches post-mill. and presuppostionalism is binding the consciences of the congregation.

[stepping back into Chris's shoes]
I don't think it is as much as a matter of the validity of it or not for John although he does have scruples. This is something that he is definitely causing me to think through. Am I convinced that presuppostionalism is a biblical apologetic? Yup. Should I be able to preach it? I dunno. What about when I get to all of the texts in Scripture that I think warrants it? I wouldn't necessarily quote Van Til or Bahnsen but wouldn't I have to exegete it?

One of my hang-ups is how one would preach through a book expositionally without teaching things that are not in the confession. Is it lawful to exposit them with the phrase "It seems to me..." in front of it? Would that relegate a preacher to say that everywhere and everytime that he is not quoting the confession?

Don't get me wrong. I want a full subscriptionist view regarding the confession. There have been abuses from all sides. I have practical questions about it (as does JohnV, especially of a more pressing nature!).

[Edited on 1-12-2004 by crhoades]

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV
What I object to is the elevation of theory to Biblical necessity based on vulgar consensus. (I do not use the word 'vulgar' in its negative sense here. )

How do you define Biblical necessity in regards to what a pastor can preach from the pulpit?

 

[crhoades]

Just in case anyone else was doing some head scratching...

om·buds·man n.
1. A man who investigates complaints and mediates fair settlements, especially between aggrieved parties such as consumers or students and an institution or organization.
2. A government official, especially in Scandinavian countries, who investigates citizens' complaints against the government or its functionaries.

Learned a new word today...thanks JohnV!

 

[Ianterrell]

JohnV,

I understood what you meant the first time around.

Chris,

I think Pastors can teach that Postmillenialism is what the bible teaches, AND teach it from the pulpit. There is room for that in subscriptionism. What John and yourself seem to be positing is saying nothing more than what the confession says, this is a very strange idea. Confessions are summaries, there are critical issues that cannot be handled exhaustively but if they are found in God's word they ought to bind men's consciences.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
Chris,

I think Pastors can teach that Postmillenialism is what the bible teaches, AND teach it from the pulpit. There is room for that in subscriptionism. What John and yourself seem to be positing is saying nothing more than what the confession says, this is a very strange idea. Confessions are summaries, there are critical issues that cannot be handled exhaustively but if they are found in God's word they ought to bind men's consciences.

To clear any misunderstandings, I do not advocate that but am trying to see things from JohnV's perspective. That was why I was bringing up expository preaching to see his response. He has pleaded his case numerous times on this board and is doing so yet again and I want to make sure that I understand him. If things went as bad as they did how can that be handled?

 

[JohnV]

I think we are getting the idea. I am not trying to put up fences around particular views unless they apply.

Chris: How do you know that Presuppositionalism is what the Bible requires? Do you just assume that other apologetic views are less mature, based upon your views, or have to gotten above the differences so as to judge which one is right? Where does the Bible specify that your particular view is necessary?

What is Biblical necessity? I was going to ask that in the other thread, but didn't get that far. I didn't lose interest; I lost stamina (I got sick again. ) How we define that will make a tremendous difference.

If we juxtapose Exclusive Psalmody, for example, with a preacher who preaches Presuppositionalism, (and I don't mean his saying "it seems to me that...", but demeaning the other views as less Biblical and less faithful, based on the authority of his ministerial position and personal interpretations. On the other hand, the person in the pew cannot even sing Amazing Grace. Where do we put the fences? The people are representing their own personal faith in singing praises to God, but the minister of the Word is commissioned to preach the pure Word of God. The marks of the church are not the pure singing of praises, but the pure preaching of the Word. Just an example.

Chris, I too have had opportunity to question my apologetic leanings. I also have eschatological leanings. But these go at the end of my theology, not at the beginning. They are not determinative for theology. That's the key. Theology is too important to subject to my personal views on matters of secondary importance. I would have no difficulty, if I were a preacher, in separating these. And as a common parishioner, I also have no difficulty with ministers who are not ashamed to make known their particular persuasions on such matters. That does not necessitate anything on me. But when a minister goes too far, and demands things that the denomination does not demand, then he has usurped authority that is not his. And no denomination demands Presuppositionalism be taught as being the true apologetic system that the Word demands. Not even the OPC.

A minister has, after all, only rare occasions to mention ether his eschatological/millennial view or his apologetic persuasions. If it is the underlying agenda under all his sermons, then you must admit that there is a problem. But what I am getting at is that all our churches fall prey to the manipulations of due process. What really is to stop your denomination if she decides to ordain homosexuals? Once it has gotten that far that it is even considered, the Bible has already long ceased to be normative for her. How do you hold her to account for the individual member? Just leaving and changing denominations has turned out to be no answer at all. If the little won't stand for the faith, then where will it stop? And where will our churches be? The common parishioner needs help.

 

[JohnV]

Ian:

The Confessions are not the minimum of what may be taught; they are the limits of what may be taught. They are not exhaustive, but everything that is taught must fall within its purview. One may not unilaterally add to it.

Again, I am not putting a fence around what a minister may say from the pulpit concerning his own persuasions, and his reasonings for them. I am only saying that pastors, of all people, should know the limits of such things, and keep to the Word. And again, I am not here calling for a police action concerning this; all I am concerned about here is the common person in the pew, the one who puts in all those hours of work, comes home to a family, and falls asleep if he reads more that fifteen minutes of deep theologal material. Not because he is not interested, or that he thinks its not important, but because his body will not stand up to that after all that. (How many farmers fall asleep in the afternoon service, because they just can't stay awake, not because they are unspiritual. ) We don't want him to get run over by the "intellectually prepared" who push their agendas.

 

[Craig]

John,
Is there anything other OPCers can do to help? I am presuppositional, but I don't think Reconstructionism ought to be dogmatically taught...nay, not merely taught, but imposed on people. When peripherals become central, you're on your way to a cult-like church.

Please let us know if we can help (you are already in my prayers).

 

[Ianterrell]

Craig,

When should a doctrine be imposed on someone? Take the label reconstructionism off and replace it with another teaching, what is teachable and what isn't.

"When peripherals become central you're on your way to a cult like church"

This isn't about peripherals or centrals as I understand it. This is about what should be taught. Is the doctrine of perseverance peripheral? Superlapsarianism v. Infra...that I can see, because it is minute. But to say that a whole view of a Christian's view on government is peripheral is minute? I think we need to be more exact than that. I don't consider my view on eschatology as important as say the Virgin Birth of Christ, but to say that eschatology shouldn't be central is different from saying it shouldn't be taught in the pulpit.

JohnV,

If Christian Reconstructionism fits within the confession why can it not be preached? I think we need to define what "adding to" entails.

 

[JohnV]

Thanks very much Craig.

Right now I don't think there is much that can be done except to pray that the Holy Spirit is not done with these churches, or with me. On the other hand, what you can do is the precise reason for this concern. What can we do to help those who are subject to these types of things. Its not just me. What about Matt? Is he not being railroaded by the 'agenda' of the church? Where can he turn? What recourse does he have? What about all those people I left behind in my former denomination, people for whom leaving the church was not an option. Due process? Why don't we have confidence in due process anymore? Is the church really in the hands of the manipulating intelligentsia?

We all know that the common rules of order are being run over roughshod. This isn't true in every church. But it is true is some churches within our circles. The original authority resides in the elders; and if there is injustice there, then do we rightly have confidence in the rest of the denomination? I'm not talking about mistakes in justice; I'm talking about a blindness to true justice.

 

[JohnV]

JohnV,

If Christian Reconstructionism fits within the confession why can it not be preached? I think we need to define what "adding to" entails.

Belgic Confession, art. VII reads:
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.

One would think it more than daring to add to Scripture and the confessed doctrines. If the Bible necessitates it, that is another matter. But being personally persuaded is not near enough grounds for imposing it.

The denomintation's ruling that, say, CR does not deviate from the Confessions is not at all the same as saying that the Bible teaches CR. All it means is that the denomination accepts this differing view as not heretical. Just think of it a minute: one church teaches that CR is demanded by the Bible because the pastor is convinced of it; and right beside it another church of the same denomination teaching that the traditional teaching of the law is demanded by Scripture. One is saying one thing, the other another thing; from the same Word, from the same set of Confessions, and from the same madate to preach only the pure Word of God. This is not possible without doing damage to the integrity of the Church. Clearly, one of the two, of not both, are adding to the Word, a very serious crime. Especially the Theonomist ought to sensitive to that.

 

[Craig]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
This isn't about peripherals or centrals as I understand it. This is about what should be taught. Is the doctrine of perseverance peripheral? Superlapsarianism v. Infra...that I can see, because it is minute. But to say that a whole view of a Christian's view on government is peripheral is minute? I think we need to be more exact than that. I don't consider my view on eschatology as important as say the Virgin Birth of Christ, but to say that eschatology shouldn't be central is different from saying it shouldn't be taught in the pulpit.

Ian,
I don't think John is simply talking about what can be taught from the pulpit or sunday school...he's talking about agenda inflicting. Pastors who are concerned with their own intellectualized agendas are not concerned so much with preaching the Word, or tending to Christ's sheep as they are about themselves. So it's not as simple as exchanging the term "Christian Reconstruction" with "Infralapsarianism". This is seeking to exchange simple bible teaching (I don't mean simplistic) for something based primarily on particular teachers or intellectuals: whenever you develop an agenda based on personality, you're in trouble. If a preacher is a rabid Virgin Birth advocate and loves bringing Christ's deity and humanity into view on a regular basis...great! That's preaching Christ, which is the agenda of the Kingdom. Christian Reconstructionism is a VERY debatable system...I don't hold to it...I find it questionable at best. I can sit through Postmillennial preaching, I can sit through a sermon with theonomic tendency, but if a pastor wants to inflict his flock with something such as Christian Reconstruction (not merely teaching, but enforcing it), he more than likely is puffed up and is more concerned with inteligentsia than Kingdom building.

 

[JohnV]

Yes, that's right, Craig. I would include any theological subject which is not declared binding in that scope, which a pastor has as his personal agenda.

I sat through a sermon in which a CR minister said that when Jesus said, "Turn the other cheek" He was not exhorting us to turn the other cheek, but teaching theomonically that the punishment should suit the crime. But what if Jesus really did mean for us to have an attitude of humility in turning the other cheek. This could be verified by the verse, "Resist not evil" which immediately precedes it. And if Jesus really meant us to turn the other cheek, then this minister has negated one of Jesus' teachings, and so opposedd the gospel because he was so convinced of his theomomic agenda. If there ever was a preacher, therefore, that ought to be opposed, this was the one. But we are so ready to say, "That is his interpretation of the same Word we all adhere to, including him." Thus faithfulness is not determined by doctrinal integrity, but by confession of adherence to a nebulous Word. Its not just that this should not be happening in a Reformed church; it shouldn't be happening in any church, not even one given to CR.

But that's not what this thread is about. You will not be able to convince me that I ought not to oppose such preaching as a duty to my church and my family. This is all too clear. What this thread is about is what about people like me who want to stay the course, or people like Matt who want to return the church to the course, or like many of us who are pawns in the political workings of any one denomination. The "course" is there in any church, clearly defined. As Christians we ought to have a right to believe the established doctrines freely, and without guilt, and without pressures from the church against our deeply rooted faith. Who will hold individual churches and denominations to their word, their promises, their confessional commitments?

It is the propriety of this that I am concerned about. There is nothing in the Church Orders about this. It seems as is I am suggesting an extra and independent body of authority, one which has no Biblical standing. And I admit that this is so. But yet it is also true that many churches no longer have that status anymore either, being divided into their own particular views and persuasions of peripheral ideas. I am not advocating turning faithful churches on their ears. It is a danger that this can happen, just as a Theonomist can negate one of Christ's teachings, because this too is an agenda. So there needs to be a specified accounting of double strength, so to speak. And there needs to be limitations, to be sure.

But surely we all see the need, don't we? Why do we have to be alienated from the church, splintered into indivuduals who are orthodox, with the only recourse being to form our own groups outside the body, dividing the church even more? Why do we not have someone or something to turn to in our own organized churches when those churches take on agendas which are not commissioned by the denominations, or by the historical church? When the system fails, which happens often now, what is left?

I still believe that we have a powerful help in the truth. One who stands for Christ ought not to be afraid of the truth, to have his own sins exposed in disputes. This ought to par for the course, I would think. Personal sins are forgiveable, but are the ecclesiastical sins of stubbornly leading the flock into infidelity and apostacy?

I am not saying that Theonomy is apostacy, no matter how much I would like to if I believed that. What I am saying is that this one man's theonomic persuasions, certainly, but more his inadequacy and immaturity, were factors in leading him to negate one of Christ's teachings from the pulpit, and that without any restraint from the overseeing Council of Elders. It was not Theonomy per se, it is the excessiveness that came from it; it was not his personal persuasion per se, it was his lack of discernment for the limits regarding his personal views; it was not that he was CR, it was his zeal over-riding the rules of interpretation and the boundaries set for him as minister of the Word. With the churches putting no curtailings on the circulation and propagation of new ideas of peripheral importance, which tend only to the appettites for controversy, and to divide the churches, rather than to integrity to the Word, a body such as an advocacy for the ordinary parishioner is very much needed. There just is no recourse for them except to be victimized, to leave and form yet another church, or to be quiet and acquiesce. Is it not time that believers fought back as a body? Can we reclaim our churches to a faithful doctrinal integrity?

 

[crhoades]

Is this not where the Presbytery and General Assembly fit in? If one has a complaint against their Session, can it not be lodged higher? I need to read up on the BCO etc.

Also, I think the formation of the PPLN in the PCA touches on what you're asking JohnV. I'm not sure about all of the in's and out's of that but Fred might have a strong opinion of the validity of it...

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by crhoades
Is this not where the Presbytery and General Assembly fit in? If one has a complaint against their Session, can it not be lodged higher? I need to read up on the BCO etc.

Also, I think the formation of the PPLN in the PCA touches on what you're asking JohnV. I'm not sure about all of the in's and out's of that but Fred might have a strong opinion of the validity of it...

Usually, the appeal is heard in presbytery and then GA if it goes that far. The problem in John's case is that he stands alone against the session without witnesses. It ends up being a he said/ they said deal without having some documented evidence of the pastor enforcing this teaching in such a manner.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Ianterrell
Craig,

When should a doctrine be imposed on someone? Take the label reconstructionism off and replace it with another teaching, what is teachable and what isn't.

"When peripherals become central you're on your way to a cult like church"

This isn't about peripherals or centrals as I understand it. This is about what should be taught. Is the doctrine of perseverance peripheral? Superlapsarianism v. Infra...that I can see, because it is minute. But to say that a whole view of a Christian's view on government is peripheral is minute? I think we need to be more exact than that. I don't consider my view on eschatology as important as say the Virgin Birth of Christ, but to say that eschatology shouldn't be central is different from saying it shouldn't be taught in the pulpit.

JohnV,

If Christian Reconstructionism fits within the confession why can it not be preached? I think we need to define what "adding to" entails.

An officer in the Church is not permitted to bind the conscience of others in an area in which the Word (as interpreted by the Confession does). An example: one cannot be in a PCA or OPC pulpit and say that amillenialism is heresy, and it is Biblically necessary to espouse postmilleniallism, or vice versa.

Think about it to its logical conclusion, taking another example:

Can the minister preach the substitutionary atonement as a Biblical necessity? After all, it is in the Bible. One could say, well so is postmillenialism (or amillenialism). But there is a difference. In the former case, we can look to the confessional position of the Church, and say that the Church has made a judgment regarding the substitutionary atonement where it has not regarding post- or a-millenialism. It has made such a judgment regarding pre-millenialism (WLC reference to one resurrection).

So if the minister preaches the substitutionary atonement as a Biblical necessity, and member Jones publicly contradicts him, saying that the governmental theory or the exemplary (Pelagian) theory is the Biblical view, what do we do? Why we discipline member Jones. By what standard? The Standards of the Church. That means that we may not do that in the case of post/amillenialism. There is no dogmatic statment by the Church. Where the Church is dogmatically silent (i.e. allowing latitude), the elder must be too. To do otherwise is to violate one's ordination vow to uphold the peace of the Church.

 

[JohnV]

It is one thing to support and justify one's own view from Scripture as to apologetics or eschatology, or women-in-office, or a different creation view; it is quite another to present such views as therefore Biblically binding on others.

In the CRC this got mixed up. People of stature in the denomination first esptablished their right to Biblically hold views on women-in-office and Theistic Evolution; but then they turned that into an equal view along with the orthodox views without redress of the views they opposed (this is very important) and so opened up the denomination to views that were not originally Biblically binding but just mere opinion. They ended up binding the consciences of those who held different and opposing views. But what is most interesting is that all these things were seen as unimportant differences, "not matters of salvation", and the really important issues of implementing and imposing these changes upon the consciences of the believers, with or without their consent, and without a specified significant denominational change in statement of faith, was totally ignored, even by the Conservative camp.

Please do not think that this in any way militates against your favourite ism. If what you believe is true, then it will float to the top, so to speak, and the weight of truth will uphold it. We do not need to rely on devious means. In reality this should give a real forum in which to build up the churches. If, for example, I believed in Theonomy, then I would be insistent that the weight of the teaching itself and of Scripture would sustain it. And at the same time it would separate me from the excesses perpetrated by those who I really should be opposing, and joining me with those who I should be educating and/or discussing with brotherly affection.

In other words, there is a way to implement new teachings within the systems already in place. It can be done in unity instead of unilaterally. If we subvert that unity and peace, then we have to admit that our "new teachings" are suspect at the very least.

It is true that the churches have their proceedures and courts of appeals. But at the very fundamental level of government of the Session all form of justice has been fut off for the common believer, in this case, because he is going against the flow, and he is all alone. Why should this happen at all without help, except for the hope of appeal? And what is to keep the bodies of secondary authority, or delegated authority, to do the same? After all, is it not more expedient to silence the critic and to maintain the peace of the church?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

I guess the only option in an appeal would be to have the session or minister confess that they are in fact enforcing their doctrines in such a manner. That would be the only way the presbytery could rule without other documented evidence.

 

[JohnV]

Patrick:

I can defend myself. I have done so, but with a lot of helpful advice from friends on this Board. I had no other help; none at all, except for one lawyer friend who is not a Christian. It is still somewhat over my head. What about those who are run roughshod over by the intellectual superiority of the elders or ministers who hide their agendas in seeming piety and Biblical backing? They have recourse of appeal, but how many dare not go that route because of intimidation or fear? What about those who just leave the churches, who think it is useless to fight the system, who are overwhelmed by the collossus they have to battle?