Excommunication and the PCA.

[raderag]

Anyone knowledgeable on PCA discipline would be greatly appreciated here.

http://new.carmforums.org/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=107&topic_id=201841&mesg_id=201841&page=

Registering is easy.

 

[fredtgreco]

Brett,

I'm not going to register or get involved there - frankly I don't have the time - but there are a couple of things:

1. There has to be some formal procedure involved, or else the judgment would be overturned. There does not HAVE to be a trial, but there must be notice. The BCO has a provision for this:

38-4. When a member of a particular church has willfully neglected the
church for a period of one year, or has made it known that he has no intention
of fulfilling the church vows, then the Session, continuing to exercise
pastoral discipline (BCO 27-1a and 27-4) in the spirit of Galatians 6:1, shall
remind the member, if possible both in person and in writing, of the
declarations and promises by which he entered into a solemn covenant with
God and His Church (BCO 57-5, nos. 3-5), and warn him that, if he persists,
his name shall be erased from the roll.
If after diligently pursuing such pastoral discipline, and after further
inquiry and due delay, the Session is of the judgment that the member will
not fulfill his membership obligations in this or any other branch of the
Visible Church (cf. BCO 2-2), then the Session shall erase his name from the
roll. This erasure is an act of pastoral discipline (BCO 27-1a) without
process. The Session shall notify the person, if possible, whose name has
been removed.
Notwithstanding the above, if a member thus warned makes a written
request for process (i.e., BCO Chapters 31-33, 35-36), the Session shall grant
such a request. Further, if the Session determines that any offense of such a
member is of the nature that process is necessary, the Session may institute
such process.

2. Of course someone who leaves the PCA for EO is a heretic. Even the EO recognizes that by declaring Presbyterians heretics. The differences are monumental.

3. It is a sad fact that Christians believe that they can simply "leave" a church for no reason, or a bad reason (i.e. to accept heresy). There are only three ways to leave a Church: death, transfer or excommunication. Would we allow someone to simply leave a marriage because they had unilaterally decided that bigamy was right? I'm guessing that most of the people on that board would not allow that.

(By the way, the Wesleyian thing is a red herring. Wesleyians are heretics according to the EO also.)

Feel free to repackage my remarks for that forum (with or without attribution).

 

[raderag]

I was a bit incredulous that they claimed to be PCA, and were surprised that the denial of TULIP was heresy. I just hope that the Pastor and elders told them of the gravity of the situation before they left rather than using only discipline to communicate the seriousness of the situation. My guess is that they probably did.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
In regards to transfering one's membership. What is the protocol?

 

[raderag]

Thanks Fred.

I copied and Pasted this, credit given of course.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Fred,
In regards to transfering one's membership. What is the protocol?

Scott,

46-1. When a church member shall remove his residence beyond the bounds of the congregation of which he is a member, so that he can no longer regularly attend its services, it shall be his duty to transfer his membership by presenting a certificate of dismission from the Session of the church of which he is a member to the church with which he wishes to unite. When the church of which he is a member has no Session, or for other good reasons it seems impossible for the member to secure a certificate of dismission, he may be received by the Session upon other satisfactory testimonials, in which case the church of which he was a member shall be duly notified.

38-3. a. When a member or officer in the Presbyterian Church in America shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with some other branch (BCO 2-2), if at the time of the attempt to withdraw he is in good standing, the irregularity shall be recorded, his new membership acknowledged, and his name removed from the roll. But if at the time of the attempt to withdraw there is a record of an investigation in process (BCO 31-2), or there are charges (BCO 32-3) concerning the member or minister, the court of original jurisdiction may retain his name on the roll and conduct the case, communicating the outcome upon completion of the proceedings to that member or minister. If the court does not conduct the case, his new membership shall be acknowledged, his name removed from the roll, and, at the request of the receiving branch, the matters under investigation or the charges shall be communicated to the

b. When a member or minister of the Presbyterian Church in America shall attempt to withdraw from the communion of this branch of the visible Church by affiliating with a body judged by the court of original jurisdiction as failing to maintain the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity (BCO 2-2), that member or minister shall be warned of
his danger, and if he persists, his name shall be erased from the roll, thereby, so far as the Presbyterian Church in America is concerned, he is deemed no longer to be a member in any body which rightly maintains the Word and Sacraments in their fundamental integrity, and if an officer, thereby withdrawing from him all authority to exercise his office as derived from this
Church. When so acting the court shall make full record of the matter and shall notify the offender of its action.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by raderag
I copied and Pasted this, credit given of course.

No problem. But you might want to edit it - I'm a ruling elder now, not a teaching elder. Although at least I have always viewed my elder work as "pastoral"

 

[Scott Bushey]

Fred,
46-1 is where I was going............How many churches do this?

 

[Scott]

Fred:

I am sympatehic with you. But I don't think that the PCA constitution treates church membership as binding as marriage. The BCO provides that members may transfer to another branch of the visible church without discipline. Further, entire congregations participate in the PCA solely at their own discretion and have the absolute right to leave whenever they want and for whatever reason they want.

Now, a transfer to something other than a branch of the visible church does warrant discipline per the BCO.

Scott

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott
Fred:

I am sympatehic with you. But I don't think that the PCA constitution treates church membership as binding as marriage. The BCO provides that members may transfer to another branch of the visible church without discipline. Further, entire congregations participate in the PCA solely at their own discretion and have the absolute right to leave whenever they want and for whatever reason they want.

Now, a transfer to something other than a branch of the visible church does warrant discipline per the BCO.

Scott

Scott,

That's because the Christian is covenanted to the Church, in its local expression. When one transfers to another portion of the visible Church, he does not cease to be "married." That is why I said that there are three ways to leave a church: excommunication, death and transfer. The particular situation in reference is a problem because EO is not a true branch of the visible church.

Now I'll wait for the inevitable castigatin on RefCat for excluding our EO "brothers."

 

[Scott]

I see what you are saying. So, is there anything to limit a person's jumping around to different congregations of the visible church?

BTW, the covenant with with the particular congregation, don't you agree? You are agreeing, among other things, to submit to the elders of that particular congregation.

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by Scott
I see what you are saying. So, is there anything to limit a person's jumping around to different congregations of the visible church?

I don't think so, other than the Church itself. For example, if I had a person come to my church with the story that they had been members of 4 churches in town, the first thing I would do is contact those churches - even if they were Arminian or whatever. The problem is that many churches are more concerned with adding a few numbers than oversight.

BTW, the covenant with with the particular congregation, don't you agree? You are agreeing, among other things, to submit to the elders of that particular congregation.

Yes, I agree. But the local congregation is also a part of the larger Church, hence the lack of divorce. Otherwise, we would have a real problem everytime someone moved. And wouldn't the same be true of ministers? They would be prohibited from changing Presbyteries, since the Presbytery is the minister's church. I don't think we disagree here. The problem is not with the ecclesiology, but with the lazy application by individual congregations.

 

[fredtgreco]

Brett,

Someone responded:

There is a 4th way to leave a church. It may not be recognized by the PCA, but it is called a "release". Basically a release is a way of telling the new parish (which you are not in fellowship with) that the person is not a troublemaker. A release comes after a request and counceling, but if the person really wants to do so, the release is the proper method.

This is false. Release is always conduct in concert with acceptance into a new church. So transfer is technically release + acceptance.

Otherwise we have a situation where a Christian is cut off from the visible body of Christ. Just because it happens does not make it right.

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Brett,

Someone responded:

There is a 4th way to leave a church. It may not be recognized by the PCA, but it is called a "release". Basically a release is a way of telling the new parish (which you are not in fellowship with) that the person is not a troublemaker. A release comes after a request and counceling, but if the person really wants to do so, the release is the proper method.

This is false. Release is always conduct in concert with acceptance into a new church. So transfer is technically release + acceptance.

Otherwise we have a situation where a Christian is cut off from the visible body of Christ. Just because it happens does not make it right.

That particular poster is a very conservative Lutheran (WELS I think). Their ecclessiology is a bit hard to understand. Only confessional LUtherans are the Church, but there are plenty of other Christians.

 

[Scott]

Are they Pipkoernians?