James White Responds to Jason Stellman

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

James White of AOMIN responded to the "Two Year Review" posted by Jason Stellman since his apostasy to Rome.

Sad.

Jason Stellman’s Unmitigated Disaster | Alpha and Omega Ministries

 

[SolaScriptura]

What part are you saying is sad? Stellman's informed apostasy or White's firm response?

Though I will say, I pray that the chastening rod of our Lord would so break Jason's stubborn rebellion that he would return to the true Gospel before it is all said and done.

 

[earl40]

May I ask why anyone would deny anyone "entrance into a church"? This is the way I read it in that his old church will not let him even attend a service which is supported by Pastor White saying that even his physical presence would disrupt the congregation.

 

[Pilgrim]

In the comments, a former Ligonier employee chimes in with this:

I trust this isn’t the first in a series of posts ending in skepticism, not unlike those early posts digging deeply into the questions revolving around authority and sola scriptura that ended in Catholicism.


I’m just saying I don’t need the company, is all.

 

[SolaScriptura]

May I ask why anyone would deny anyone "entrance into a church"?

You're thinking as a sheep who is not responsible for the welfare of a congregation. You're not thinking like a leader. To protect the congregation, I'd make the same decision made by the leadership of his former church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Jason wonders to himself why he posted his two year review. Well, apart from what I find to be a general narcissism about this whole train-wreck, clearly he is lonely, miserable and looking for some kind of reinforcement of his apostasy and sympathy for his general financial plight. That he supposes that those he scandalized and hurt should be filled with glee simply adds to the offensiveness of this sad saga. You warn a child not to touch the hot stove-top burner. When the child, attracted despite all warning, does so and cries out in pain, is the parent gleeful? At least the child let's go of the burner. Generally, excommunicants should not be barred from the public worship services. This is not that simple and the session may have reason to do so. Stellman has apostatized. Would Paul and Barnabus have allowed those preaching "another gospel" into the services of the churches those heretics had troubled while they are still persisting in their error and capable of leading others astray?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What part are you saying is sad? Stellman's informed apostasy or White's firm response?

Though I will say, I pray that the chastening rod of our Lord would so break Jason's stubborn rebellion that he would return to the true Gospel before it is all said and done.

1) Jason's Apostasy

2) The article Jason wrote.

 

[VictorBravo]

I was surprised, and not a little encouraged, that his family apparently has not left the faith. What a strange situation.

 

[Justified]

He states that he is miserable and lonely since his apostasy, but be stated that [Roman] Catholicism is true. Don't you think maybe the Lord would bless him if such a thing were true? Don't you think he wouldn't suffer such misery and bankruptcy from "converting" to the true religion? What a sad, deluded estate.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The misery is space for repentance; if all his financial woes were rather financial riches, he'd be confirmed in his apostasy. While there's life there is hope for his repentance; though he has done a terrible thing for a undershepherd.

 

[arapahoepark]

I was surprised, and not a little encouraged, that his family apparently has not left the faith. What a strange situation.

He's certainly not a good spiritual leader for his family...

 

[earl40]

May I ask why anyone would deny anyone "entrance into a church"?

You're thinking as a sheep who is not responsible for the welfare of a congregation. You're not thinking like a leader. To protect the congregation, I'd make the same decision made by the leadership of his former church.

I hear and agree with the general sentiment expressed that vocal apostates are indeed very dangerous to us sheep. Just wondering was this a judgment excommunication? In other words, words I thought (probably incorrect) that we as a church invite all to hear The Word, even those who are excommunicated, and would not allow them to The Lord's Supper.

 

[VictorBravo]

He's certainly not a good spiritual leader for his family...

Very true. I was recalling how early in his public career as an RC advocate, he was talking about his family's "conversion" to Rome. That's why I was surprised that this apparently did not actually happen.

From a distance, I'd say some pastors and elders are doing a pretty good job of shepherding their appointed flock.

 

[SolaScriptura]

The misery is space for repentance;

This clause is both beautiful and profound.

 

[SolaScriptura]

He's certainly not a good spiritual leader for his family...

Given where his leadership would direct them, in this instance let us praise God that he's not leading well!

 

[SolaScriptura]

Don't you think maybe the Lord would bless him if such a thing were true?

Not necessarily. When one thinks of the troubles incurred by our brothers and sisters who come to a knowledge of the True Faith, we see that temporal blessing does not necessarily attend true belief.
I don't want to use his material poverty as "proof" that God has testified against Jason because that argument is based on fallacious reasoning. Besides, that logic was the error of Naomi in Ruth 1.

 

[RamistThomist]

What is the title of Jason's original post? I realize we shouldn't post links from C2C on here, but if I can find the title that should suffice.

I was aware of something like this when...people I know...were looking into Romanism and EO. A lot of convertskii think that each service will be a bunch of Charles Martels and Alexander Nevskys defending Christendom from Muslim and secular hordes, and at least with regard to Rome, the Muslims are invited for prayer services

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Google his name and anniversary and you'll get it.

 

[Justified]

Don't you think maybe the Lord would bless him if such a thing were true?

Not necessarily. When one thinks of the troubles incurred by our brothers and sisters who come to a knowledge of the True Faith, we see that temporal blessing does not necessarily attend true belief.
I don't want to use his material poverty as "proof" that God has testified against Jason because that argument is based on fallacious reasoning. Besides, that logic was the error of Naomi in Ruth 1.

I didn't mean bankruptcy and prosperity in the temporal sense. I meant it more in the spiritual sense. It appears he feels very empty. You would think he'd at least feel spiritual nourished in some sense.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

White's remarks were spot on. Jason's ennui is but the byproduct of his apostacy. When I left Rome well over thirty years ago all I felt was jubilation coupled by repentance for my stubbornness in waiting so long to do so. The least of my worries were about my financial security. Jason focuses upon storing up riches on earth. Woe be unto him. I left a post at his navel-gazing screed that may or may not be approved for public posting praying that he would see the error of his ways.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This may seem off topic, but I want everyone to pause and notice what we're saying about Jason and our response to him. Also notice what we're not saying.

Why do I want us to pay notice? Because yesterday I had a run-in with some of those "fundamentalist Christians are no different than fundamentalist Muslims" types. There are more of them than we'd care to admit.

My response was in line with what's happening on this thread: When faced with the lost, or someone who we deem an apostate, we lament their situation and we pray for them and urge them to repent. When a conservative Muslim is faced with an apostate or an infidel, well, you can turn on the news and see how they respond.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Great post by James White.

I find it particularly sad that Jason doesn't see in himself the condemnation of a Demas by Paul. When a man has laid his hand to the plow of the Gospel ministry, it is a particularly harsh sentence that awaits the man who has turned from the proclamation of the Gospel to a false Gospel. He ought to understand that the lack of contact form his former friends is owed to a real sense of betrayal as well as a profound warning to him of the real judgment he faces. Even the excommunicant in Corinth was to be shunned for his conduct much less the former Gospel worker who now has turned his back on the faith and, not only so, actively battles against that same faith. I just don't understand how he would not understand the purpose of the shunning. He's a traitor. He has taken up the banner of an enemy to the Gospel. Of course he's not welcome among those he tries to destroy by persuasive words. We're not talking about a "publican" coming into the presence of the temple of the living God or even someone seeking the grace of God but a self-confessed enemy of the Kingdom.

 

[earl40]

We're not talking about a "publican" coming into the presence of the temple of the living God or even someone seeking the grace of God but a self-confessed enemy of the Kingdom.

We are talking about a sinner who needs the Gospel preached to him at church from a preacher by the ordinary means to salvation. So do we physically bar him from entering the doors of our churches? Now of course one should NEVER allow him to have any voice within our church but to shun him? I am wondering how does one exactly do this today...or in the past? Is the presenting of The Gospel to be only done behind closed doors to this kind of person?

 

[VictorBravo]

We are talking about a sinner who needs the Gospel preached to him at church from a preacher by the ordinary means to salvation. So do we physically bar him from entering the doors of our churches?

Earl, I think there are various approaches one may take, but the elders of this church seem to be exercising wisdom.

Jason was a pastor there, and he publicly announced his enmity toward his own--the ones he was charged with overseeing. Now he wishes he could come to "sing hymns" with his family.

Sorry. He caused great damage to this church. His presence would be a disruption. And he is not expressing any interest in hearing the gospel. He's just moping because he's lonely.

Yes, the elders and deacons can meet him at the door and ask him to leave. My guess is that they let him know well beforehand not to come back unless he has repented. That's looking out for the flock.

 

[earl40]

We are talking about a sinner who needs the Gospel preached to him at church from a preacher by the ordinary means to salvation. So do we physically bar him from entering the doors of our churches?

Earl, I think there are various approaches one may take, but the elders of this church seem to be exercising wisdom.

Jason was a pastor there, and he publicly announced his enmity toward his own--the ones he was charged with overseeing. Now he wishes he could come to "sing hymns" with his family.

Sorry. He caused great damage to this church. His presence would be a disruption. And he is not expressing any interest in hearing the gospel. He's just moping because he's lonely.

Yes, the elders and deacons can meet him at the door and ask him to leave. My guess is that they let him know well beforehand not to come back unless he has repented. That's looking out for the flock.

Of course I would submit and trust the leadership to do what is right here. I only asked because I view the public proclamation of The Gospel to all, and if they show up I would have thought we would allow them to come to hear, without distinction, while understanding that just because he is present in no way means we consider him a believer.

From what I read on "shunning" it was a term to be used as to not allow the one shunned to be encouraged to think he is a Christian, thus the fencing of the table, but not the fencing of the preached word publicly which appears to me being advocated here.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Earl,
I wonder if this is not a good opportunity to think of what JS needs, specifically in terms of the church-catholic, i.e. the real thing. This former pastor's previous auditory might conceivably be the BEST place, maybe overall, for a generic man to hear the gospel in that neighborhood, under whomsoever fills the pulpit at present. But it surely is not the only place in the neighborhood. If he desired the Word preached accurately for his nurture, he could probably find a venue where his presence was innocuous. His identity matters.

Here's an analogy: If a man has been found guilty of some form of child abuse, and been served with a restraining order pertaining to his own home and family; we might be able to find some rationale why the "wholesomeness" of his domestic situation would serve as a place for him to learn proper parenting skills. But while many of us learned new parenting skills in that very context ourselves, which generally is the best place to learn and practice them; there are likely other even more reasonable grounds for insisting that this man acquire those skills elsewhere than among those who recently suffered at his hands.

There are scars from JS in his old haunt. Leaders there are trying to manage the hurts he left there when he abandoned his post. Now is not time to have him back, in their considered opinion. Certainly, to note his own testimony, JS doesn't seem to be in any attitude of listening or penitence. God knows whether hearing a great sermon will harden him further, rather than soften him. So the choice of whether or not to admit him to the public gathering is not only about getting the Word into his ears, but is a complex matter.

 

[earl40]

Earl,
I wonder if this is not a good opportunity to think of what JS needs, specifically in terms of the church-catholic, i.e. the real thing. This former pastor's previous auditory might conceivably be the BEST place, maybe overall, for a generic man to hear the gospel in that neighborhood, under whomsoever fills the pulpit at present. But it surely is not the only place in the neighborhood. If he desired the Word preached accurately for his nurture, he could probably find a venue where his presence was innocuous. His identity matters.

Here's an analogy: If a man has been found guilty of some form of child abuse, and been served with a restraining order pertaining to his own home and family; we might be able to find some rationale why the "wholesomeness" of his domestic situation would serve as a place for him to learn proper parenting skills. But while many of us learned new parenting skills in that very context ourselves, which generally is the best place to learn and practice them; there are likely other even more reasonable grounds for insisting that this man acquire those skills elsewhere than among those who recently suffered at his hands.

There are scars from JS in his old haunt. Leaders there are trying to manage the hurts he left there when he abandoned his post. Now is not time to have him back, in their considered opinion. Certainly, to note his own testimony, JS doesn't seem to be in any attitude of listening or penitence. God knows whether hearing a great sermon will harden him further, rather than soften him. So the choice of whether or not to admit him to the public gathering is not only about getting the Word into his ears, but is a complex matter.

Indeed it is complex, and is the responsibility of our elders to inform how much shunning is to be done by the sheep. I simply have not run into such an extreme situation which has me scratching my head.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

This is a fascinating thread, brothers and sisters.

I've been giving a conference over this weekend and just now come upon this. Chris, you are so right about space for repentance. May God graciously grant such to Jason. And Ben, you are so right about the distinction between the Christian faith and Islam.

Earl, folks here have interacted in many helpful ways with your question about "why is Jason forbidden any physical presence in his old church?" Here's something that I've not seen anyone precisely say, however, and it's this simple: there's no reason to question what the local elders have done with respect to this matter. It is indeed the case that those who are deposed and/or excommunicated are not forbidden from attending public worship in a general way. It is not uncommon, however, to ask that such a one not do so in his former place for a whole host of reasons, some of which have been adduced herein. In this case, it is not hard to imagine all the reasons that the elders in the church in which Jason was pastor do not want him in attendance.

At any rate, the general rule of church discipline is to respect the decision of local elders unless there is some compelling reason to the contrary not to do so. No such reasons have been produced in this case. This is a PCA church and it is likely that if Jason were somehow wrongly treated by the elders that someone would complain and appeal to presbytery if the session denied the complaint. My point is just that as a matter of principle we really have no grounds to question what the elders here have done, especially when we can easily think of many reasons that they would have for taking such steps.

Peace,
Alan

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Let Alan's post be the summary and final point on this.