PCA and the defrocking of pastors...

[congalocke]

Me and my family are members of the PCA and there was a pastor who, (if I remember the Elders correctly) was "defrocked" several years back.

1)How does one confirm this appropriately?
2)Should the defrocked pastor stay in the PCA as a member until they are reinstated or leave to pastor in another denomination?

I am having to do the primary research on this as our church was rocked by nastiness some years back and the ex-pastor is messaging me on FB due to a post I made on a mutual friends OP.

I have never mentioned the fella outright and would have been really encouraged if him and his family were under the care of a PCA church but this instinctively seems more like a business decision instead of progress.
The coverup was big involving the Elders until it got out of hand and came to light.

Just looking for stability for myself against a very tenacious individual.
Thanks!
eric

 

[Contra_Mundum]

"Defrocking" is a word that came from "frock," the garb of a monk; and by extension the investing of a churchman in ecclesial office. De-frocking is the removal of a man from his office.

It is not merely "firing" a man, but the removal of his ministerial credentials. A man "defrocked" by some church that previously recognized his call, has had their recognition of him rescinded.

The man defrocked may still claim to be ordained, and persons or a church-body still admit him as such. Martin Luther was put under a ban by the Roman Church; but he still continued in the ministry by dint of his protectors and the congregation that called him and refused to acknowledge unjust process. The result was a split in the church. A similar condition was seen in the case of J.G.Machen, and the formation of the OPC.

Record of the process that removed this man from the ministry by his Presbytery would be in the public record of the Presbytery, the minutes. Sometimes, there is a denominational "ministerial registry" containing the facts of service of all men ever ministering in that body. I don't know if you can find such a thing, but it might be faster access to the information; if you can find such, realize it is not the official record itself, but it is usually compiled from the true record and is accurate.

A man removed from ministry may--even should--remain as a member of the church, a layman fulfilling that calling in the church (instead of the one he was disciplined from). There are men who have been restored to their former office by the same church body that disciplined him following his repentance, provided another call is issued to him.

Another church (usually another denomination or independency) has been known to call a man who was disciplined by an earlier body. Depending on the issue, this might be appropriate, or it could be folly. If the removal was arbitrary, unjust, or a simple failure; then God's favor would be with such a man. If the removal was righteous, calling this man after ignoring the disciplining body's sanction is doubtless unwise.

Another presbytery in the original denomination is duty bound to accept the discipline of its sister presbytery, or face a scandal that goes before the whole church (GA). Another presbytery in a sister denomination has no such formal obligation; but don't they owe their own flock due diligence, concerning a man's history?

So, your questions involve several layers: the original substance of charges, evidence, due process, the right of review, and issues of jurisdiction. Hopefully, these general comments will help you sort all that out, without prejudicing a case we here know nothing about.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

See BCO 34 for the process of the Presbytery as well as how a minister who has been indefinitely suspended or deposed may be restored.

[BCO 34 : http://www.pcahistory.org/bco/rod/34/01.html ]

I'm not sure why you're not simply asking your elders the questions being posed here. Why are you accusing them of "covering up"? We don't have any witness beside you at this point that they're guilty of what you're charging them with so you are bringing a charge against your elders without witnesses.

Your elders (if you're a member in good standing) ought to be able to point you in the direction of the Clerk of Presbytery to confirm he was deposed.

 

[Edward]

Leveraging off of Rich's post, it is the Presbytery, not the Session, which disciplines a pastor. The session would be involved only as complainants or witnesses.

It is a painful process for everyone when a pastor comes under discipline. Unless you have personal information relevant to a restoration, it probably would be best not to stir the pot at this point. And if you weren't there when the original offense occurred, I would urge you to neither to solicit nor participate in gossip.

You might want to spend some time looking at the Ninth Commandment (Westminster Confession of Faith Questions 143 - 145).

 

[congalocke]

Thank you for the responses...I am currently in dialog with the individual who is now a pastor elsewhere and want to find out WHY this is so.
A previous Elder, (who is now gone) told me they went down to the church that was installing him as pastor "warning" them about this guy but they didn't listen and (sad but no skin off my back...) That he had pulled the "wool over their eyes."
I'm not trying to convince anybody here that this should be enough for them or that they should do anything but it is enough for me to research to find out what is going on ESPECIALLY with him trying to force my allegiances due to an FB post that didn't mention his name. Be grateful that I'm trying to at least testify to that which True! ;-)

eric

 

[Scott Bushey]

Me and my family are members of the PCA and there was a pastor who, (if I remember the Elders correctly) was "defrocked" several years back.

1)How does one confirm this appropriately?
2)Should the defrocked pastor stay in the PCA as a member until they are reinstated or leave to pastor in another denomination?

I am having to do the primary research on this as our church was rocked by nastiness some years back and the ex-pastor is messaging me on FB due to a post I made on a mutual friends OP.

I have never mentioned the fella outright and would have been really encouraged if him and his family were under the care of a PCA church but this instinctively seems more like a business decision instead of progress.
The coverup was big involving the Elders until it got out of hand and came to light.

Just looking for stability for myself against a very tenacious individual.
Thanks!
eric

This is a malignancy in many circles; Sadly, if one looks hard enough, they will eventually find a denomination to hang their hat on. I can think of a few individuals that have been defrocked and are now actively holding office in another denomination.

 

[Edward]

I am currently in dialog with the individual who is now a pastor elsewhere and want to find out WHY this is so.

Have you tried asking him how he got to where he is?

Second choice would be to contact the clerk of the presbytery where he served in the PCA.
He shouldn't be that hard to find: http://www.pcaac.org/presbytery-information/presbytery-list/

And always keep in mind - the purpose of church discipline is restoration, not punishment.

 

[Jack K]

Depending on the circumstances, a pastor who was once removed and has been restored may signal a good development or a bad one. It's a judgment call. And one presbytery in one denomination may not make the same determination another presbytery in another denomination would make.

For you to make that determination is a hazardous venture. It is unlikely you will ever have all the information those presbyteries had. If you're concerned about being approached for an "allegiance" (whatever that is), you may be right to ask a few questions, especially of the guy who approached you. You may find the circumstances are suspect enough that you want to keep your distance... or not. But try to avoid quick or blanket criticism of either presbytery, as if you, with your limited knowledge having asked a few questions, have more understanding and wisdom than they did.

 

[congalocke]

Edward,
He does have a narrative but he always has had a narrative and is gifted at manipulation. He is honestly so talented and one wants to like him it's just the damage that he has done and the bodies he has left behind in our circumstance that gives me pause about the future of other people. The only reason I'm asking about it at all is our interaction on FB where he is responding when I used the story, (without names) as a warning to the sinful condition that we all have.

My first experience with Elders being "yes men" and obfuscation was [name redacted] Overlake Christian Church situation. Good grief that was rough to go through but it made the news and anybody can search it out. Then [name redacted] [the Mars Hill] scandal. This is a real problem for us as church people and while apart of our story it's almost like one can't swing a dead cat around their head without hitting who can't restrain themselves...It makes me thankful for all the faithful pastors and elders out there struggling to do the mundane work of serving the people of God. ;-)

"And always keep in mind - the purpose of church discipline is restoration, not punishment."
Yes...I get it and thank you for the admonishment towards this. I will say it a bajillion times that I would have been encouraged to see him in the pew. I don't believe that malcontents and snowflakes should have free rain BUT it is a real phenomena that there are types of people that move on from opportunity to opportunity leaving a trail of wounded people behind them.

His last response is as follows:

[Moderation: not putting private correspondence up, even with names and such removed]

Let me ask you this...What would you say if a pastor's advice to another man looking to be restored to ministry after a divorce was, "Tell them what they want to hear." This fella is that guy and it was born out by the elders when they spoke to the congregation about his removal.

Anyway...thanks for the responses and the faithfulness of those here. Especially those of you who aren't being swayed by group think and being wise and outward faced and transparent with your intentions. A congregation should value this kind of mundane faithfulness.
eric

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Brother,
The PB is a place where we can get and give counsel. But some things need to be done elsewhere than in an open-to-the-public forum.

My counsel: PM any remaining questions to men here who you think might be helpful.

I think you've gotten most of the general advice that will be helpful to your situation.

We won't become a grievance forum, and not because people don't have legitimate grievances.

But the PB is about interaction; and not like in the "comments section" of a watchdog-blog, which is an echo-chamber of sorts.

 

[Edward]

What would you say if a pastor's advice to another man looking to be restored to ministry after a divorce was, "Tell them what they want to hear."

That could be taken many ways. Since they should want to hear the truth, it would be sound advice. If they want their ears tickled, it would not.

Context, nuance, tone, all important.

"After a divorce" -- that isn't information enough. I know of at least two PCA presbyteries who have had divorced and re-married pastors; I frankly would be more worried about a Presbytery that had an absolute rule about divorced pastors than I would one that carefully performed an individual examination of the circumstances.

As for the circumstances you outline - I could come up with several scenarios where something unacceptable in the PCA would be acceptable in the EPC; likewise conduct which would be out of bounds in a more strictly subscriptional Presbyterian denomination which wouldn't raise eyebrows in much of the PCA. And keep in mind, EPC isn't a NAPARC denomination.

 

[Dachaser]

Think that it depends on how each denomination would handle this "defroking".

In mychurch, we are under the bylaws of the Great Lake Baptists , who lay out how a pastor is to be either removed, or go on forlouhg to deal with issues.

Once they have decided the Pastor has commited/done something that warrents loss of being certied/ordained, that that party will no longer be able to pastor inany associated churches.

Usually reserved for commiting crimes,preaching heresy now, affairs, and even some of that will be forgiven and him restored before being cast outif they confess/repent/counsel.

Like with Jimmy Swaggart left the AOG, he could have accepted 1 year manditory down time and couseling,but took himself independent.

 

[Edward]

Think that it depends on how each denomination would handle this "defroking".

Well, this is dealing with the PCA, so the PCA BCO would have controled the original process.

Since the PCA is in NAPARC, the 1987 agreement would control (NAPARC Agreement on Transfer of Members and Congregations) if the new church was also in a NAPARC denomination. " (2. Transfer with irregularities).

Since the move here was to a non-NAPARC congregation (EPC), the EPC Presbytery would be bound only by the EPC constitutional documents. The EPC BCO is a document with which I'm not very familiar, but one paragraph does seem to suggest that the EPC Presbytery consult with the PCA Presbytery as part of the process.
https://995cf4d644fcb80e0622-5442b5...e2488955_1379614938_book-of-order-2013-14.pdf

 

[Dachaser]

So the defrocking would be valid within the same church group, but when he travels outside that to another Presbyterian group, then their bylaws would be applicable instead?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

So the defrocking would be valid within the same church group, but when he travels outside that to another Presbyterian group, then their bylaws would be applicable instead?

Think of different denominations as spheres of jurisdiction. Like different states or nations. Someone gets in trouble in one place, and he goes somewhere else where the former laws are inapplicable and unenforceable. The new place may have similar laws to the old, i.e. laws prohibiting or enjoining the same things as the other place; but the man hasn't broken the rules in the new place.

As for the new place: how does this body receive outsiders? What sort of questions are asked about the past? Is there a broader set of regulations to which both old and new have agreed? Do folks ever care about a man's past, even if there's no formal method to hold it against him; or conversely, even if there is no legitimate reason to hold it against him?

Nor should we forget that people and groups ignore or make exceptions to their own standards all the time, some more often (or more outrageously) than others.

 

[Dachaser]

Appeciate your response and explanation, just strange to me that whatever was severe enough to cause a defrocking of a pastor in one church would mean that he would be treated same fashion in any church that was teaching the word of God rightly!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Let's be clear: I'm NOT explaining anything other than hypotheticals, general matters that pertain to any condition. Certainly not specific to a particular case.

Maybe one person (the OP of this thread) knows anything about a certain matter in its original context. And even he readily professes his lack of full information--hence his questions on background matters.

We have on hand NO facts of the matter that was raised; and therefore (and to avoid gossip and charges of prejudice) we will not discuss it.

Charges and judicial cases and discipline are serious and sensitive issues. And after the fact, there are often ongoing disputes about whether justice was done from one side and the other, from prosecution and defense.

Facts and acts are usually part of the public record; but in all cases they must be interpreted. Part of interpretation can be the assessment by the analysts of the presumed theological and practical strength-of-commitment of the containing church body for the case; as well as assessing the stance of another body which acts for itself in light of previous actions by others.

I think it is critical--regardless of the subject that raised the questions initially--that we not be judging any action as "strange" (which sounds pejorative), when we don't have enough information to identify it as such. Action should only be found "strange" after we've obtained as much immediate data as we can, and have sufficient education on background matters, allowing us to say there is lack of alignment (as far as we can see). If we make a snap-judgment about strangeness, we only reveal how easily we privilege our own perspective.

We are obligated to grant a degree of charity to people who have presumably taken into consideration at least as much data as outsiders were able to scrounge up, before making a decision. In addition, we should have a degree of caution regarding our own "righteous instincts." Self-criticism is a virtue, from back in the days when people believed in the ubiquity of sin (less so, in these days of uncritical self-esteem).

In my very first response of the thread, I made mention of 2 historic cases where defrocked men (Luther and Machen) had the severe justice laid against them set aside by a new jurisdiction, as being unjust and unwarranted. The original judicatory was judged "in the wrong." In other words, an event simply happening shouldn't be called "strange;" but a fact waiting assessment on neutral criteria.

Bottom line: since either side in a case could conceivably be wrong--and this in spite of the case' outcome--we distinguish between the merits of any case, and the merits of the trial.

 

[RamistThomist]

Another thing to consider: While I don't know the OP author, nor did he mention the name of said ex-pastor, but I am reasonably sure (90%) who the ex-pastor is (same guy attacks me on FB when I make fun of "safe spaces"). And I am fairly certain of the broad outlines of the case. So anonymity isn't air tight.

 

[Dachaser]

I was just using strange in the sense that if a Pastor had been found doing something serious enough to warrent defrocking, he should be defrocked in any bible believing/teaching church.