L' Enfant Terrible

Perfect, Mr. T! Just beautiful! I salute you, Sir!

A picture's worth a thousand shots! (shot glasses that is)

Now we know why he had to be a hero of the faith, rather than a giant.

Your forgot to mention the open bar, paid for by the Highlands Study Center.
http://geocities.com/rc_sproul_jr/rc_sproul_jr_Highlands_Study_Center.html

I love how you guys love to attack others while remaining anonymous. Why not post your real names and take responsibility for your words instead of being "keyboard commandos"?!?!?

Mike Patrick

David is my real name.

Thanks David. I appreciate it. Just out of curiousity, is there a reason you did not give a last name? Not trying to pick a fight at all. There is a history here of people making rude comments and not standing up and identifying themselves...

Also, I wonder about the names of the others on here. None of them have used even a first name, much less a last name.

I know R.C. personally. I wonder how many of you all making these posts know him very well?

I find the comments extremely
offensive being under the tutelage of such a great pastor. I have learned more from teh elders of St. Peter than I learned in years under other pastors.

So many people make jokes about things they know nothing about, or have only heard second-hand. Gossip is gossip.

BTW, who is the author of this blog?

Sounds like Mike is the only non-coward of the bunch. It's easy to criticize someone while hiding behind a keyboard isn't it? Whatever R.C. Sproul Jr. is, it is obvious you have far less character than him.

The fact of the matter here is that anonymous charges aren't even worth the time to answer. If the name isn't signed, no attention should be paid to it. This includes all the posts by "Jim", "R.C. 2.0", or the owner of this blog "L'Enfant Terrible".

It is a cowardly bunch that are attacking St. Peter. I'm sure they would all appreciate this sort of behavior shown toward them. The idea that, if their real name is used, the big, bad session of St. Peter might come after them, is asinine, a line of reasoning that the owner of this blog has used before.

Peter Kershaw has consigned myself, Mr. Forrester and Mr. Patrick as the attack dogs of St. Peter. Mouthpieces for the "four-headed-dragon", if you will.

Peter likes to quote songs, especially ones by 70's bands that take their name after the national bird. I have a song that I'd like to quote. I'm sure Peter knows it. He's familiar with most of those washed up, one-hit-wonders...

"You ain't seen nothin' yet. B-B-B-Baby you just ain't seen nothin' yet."

Cheers,
Matt Clement, Bristol VA.

So here's the situation. We've got Mike and his employee Jeff who take turns posting from their computer at work, and a yongster named Matt that lives in Laurence Windham's basement. They want everybody to know their full names, and I'm happy to give them the opportunity to do that.

If argumentum ad homenim is a weak and desperate measure, argumentum ad psuedonym has to be pretty pathetic. You guys haven't bothered to counter a single one of the posts or comments in any way.

Don't bother talking about cowardly hit and runs - RC is the master of it through his "closed" and "open" letters - take the one where he libeled Harry Seabrook for instance.

First, I don't live in Pastor Windham's basement. I lived in a studio apartment that he had constructed above his barn for students and travelers for a time, but that is no longer my residence.
Nice display of getting your facts right. Is this the kind of "reasoning" that I should be "rebutting"?

Second, it isn't like anyone here is posting any argumentation to "counter". Pastor Sproul is not a drunk, neither are any of us. We like to drink (in moderation) and we like to smoke. I believe it was Charles Spurgeon who defended his cigar-smoking habits by telling his opposition that he only smokes "one at a time". Most of what's gone on here (and elsewhere) has been sheer rhetoric, not something that really can be responded to.

Third, the point is that anonymous accusations (be them rhetoric or not) are cowardly. The freedom to face your accuser is an important and biblical one, a freedom that, thanks to the internet and other faceless mediums, is rarely able to be availed upon.

We can disagree whether or not the "Hit and Run" and "Open Letter" collumns in Every Thought Captive are cowardly. I don't really care to defend them one way or the other. The idea that "your Pastor does it so it's okay that we do it" is silly (although, we should keep in mind that ETC is not anonymously published). I would hope that people would hold themselves to a higher standard than allowing what they consider sin to justify their own. If those collumns in ETC are sinful, then show yourself to be better people by signing your name. It's really quite simple.

Matt,

If indeed this hubbub was merely a matter of unnamed accusers making charges against RC and the St. Peter session, it would actually be quite fitting. RC and the crew regularly take potshots at people without having the courage or conviction to name them. If the trampled unmentionables were indeed rising up to bite them in the rear, it would be quite an appropriate reward for such men to reap. In fact, they would deserve it.

However Matt, what you fail to acknowledge is that none of the charges discussed in this post have been made anonymously. Follow some of the links, or links given elsewhere, and you will find these charges being made in a public forum by real people with real names, and the RPCGA has been copied on most, if not all, of them.

In my previous response I mentioned RC's libelous remarks concerning Harry Seabrook. In an earlier post I linked to several articles written by the Austin family. Follow the link to Peter Kershaw's letter. Read Rick Saenz's letter. Read Brent Fontenot's letter. All these charges are being made by real people with real names, Matt, and if you insist on painting this situation as merely a bunch of anonymous accusations, then I shall insist that you serve me some dill sauce with your red herring, for it just isn't the same without it.

I like to drink as well and even occasionally smoke a cigar from time to time. These are not the issues, the Matt. If that was all there was to it, then the RPCGA would not be convening and they would not have required RC and the Session to repent and make restitution. Don't demean your own Presbytery and General Assembly by suggestiong that they would rebuke your elders over nothing substantial.

I am glad to hear that you are moving up in the world and have moved out of the Windham's barn.

Thank you Matt. It is obvious that the people making these statements do not have the nerve to sign their names to them, much less say these sorts of things face-to-face to anyone. My definition of being a man involves standing behind what I say and having integrity. This is obviously lacking here.

We are trying to debate with a faceless and apparently nameless entity that cowers in fear of anyone knowing who they are! That is true cowardice!!

Name who you are and take credit for your charges and then you will receive the respect of reply.

It is hilarious ot me that so many of those attacking St. Peter do not have the guts to identify themselves. They say that they are afraid?!?!? Afraid of what?

Ar ethey afraid of physical retailiation? Surely not.

Perhaps they are afraid of coming under discipline of the church? Let me address our accusers as directly as I can.

If you do not accept the session of St. Peter as a Godly group of men with authority given by Christ, then surely you should not be afraid of their discipline. I personally do not accept the authority of the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church; therefore, I have absolutely no fear of any discipline he would ever try to exercise over me. I would not see it as binding. By the same argument, surely those of you making these statements should have no fear of a session to which you do not submit. The fact that you are afraid to answer with your name(s) is proof of your acceptance of the authority of the session of St. Peter. If you disagree, prove me wrong by saying who you are!

For the second time, what was your name again?

By the way, the "moving up in the world" comment is a real Christian sort of thing to say!! I assume you profess faith in Christ, yet you speak to a "brother" in such a demeaning manner. This is the sort of thing that turns many off to "Christianity." Are you that materialistic or are you just seeking to take cheap shots at others.

So we are to "move up in the world?" Funny. I thought we were called out from the world and to live separate from it. Interesting...

I find it commendable that Pastor Windham is willing to provide a place for students and guests to stay. I also find it commendable to Matt and others who choose to forsake financial affluence for the opportunity to prepare for the ministry and to spread the Gospel. I, for one, am thankful for men like you, Matt, who are willing to make such a commitment. More of us need to be willing to do the same...

It is saddening that the professed body of Christ continually seeks to divide the church and personally attack other members of the body rather than to promote the unity and peace of the church.

In reference, to Harry Seabrook, I have read the posts on that and see nothing libelous about RC's remarks. If they were, then I could not argue for/against that. I can only state my opinion.

As far as the Austin family, I must say that I am most assuredly disappointed about how they have handled themselves in all of this. They have tried to look innocent in the matter while publicly causing derision within the body and have caused a number of brethern to stumble. I have personal opinions in this matter as well. I call for their repentance for their sins as well as others.

I do not agree with Mr. kershaw, Saenz, or Fontenot in the least. In fact, I am in total disagreement with their acusations. All I can speak from is from my experience and it does not agree with what they say. In fact, Mr. Kershaw has "quoted" people who claim that they never said such things. This naturally causes me to question these things especially when there are other witnesses opposing his statements.

I will at least say that these people have had the nerve to sign a name to their attacks. Though I do not agree with them, I thank them for their guts...

We could debate until we are blue in the face about whether the session should have repented or not, or if they were guilty of sin. The fact is that they submitted to the presbytery and did indeed repent to those involved and asked forgiveness. The really sad thing is that their call for forgiveness was rejected and has been by so many jumping on the Austins' bandwagon. What kind of brotherly spirit is this that spits in the face of those who seek reconciliation?

I was there when RC read his letter of repentance and I can assure you that he meant what he said. Our session is not perfect, only working on it as many of us are. Did they sin? Of course. They are human. They sin each and every day just as all of us do.

Are they are a Godly session? Absolutely. While I can only speak for myself and not the session of St. Peter, I have learned much by their example of humility and service.

It is very interesting to see how polarized the presby. community has become on this issue. FYI I am not a member at St. Peter. I do know people who have attended. I have read all the information posted on this site and others. I am amazed at how poorly both sides have dealt with this issue. I don't know how much RC Jr. drinks. If he does drink in moderation and doesn't lord it over people then go ahead and enjoy. This does not seem to be the case base on his comments on his blog. The issue on church order seems to be a most serious charge with the most evidence. I have heard a lot of back bitting and boiling off at the mouth on this and other blogs but not much on addressing of the actual issues. Was shunning actually called for? Is shunning legal by church order? Have the Austins, Rc Jr and other acted in accordance to the Word? Mike stated that the Austin family has not handled themselves well in all this. What is it that they have done wrong according to the Word? Remember RC Jr. is the Pastor leading sheep......He is to lead as a servant. Ultimately within the physical church setting he needs to take responsibility for what is happening. Does a shepherd blame the sheep for wandering off?

philupot,

How has St. Peter acted poorly in all of this? A few of the members and myself have called for accusers to identify themselves. I see no problem with that.

As far as how much RC drinks and what is apparent from the blogs, that is an illogical statement. How can one ascertain how much a person drinks based on comments? You would have to observe it yourself to come to a conclusion. I can say that I have never seen anyone from the church drunken.

As to the shunning issue. The Austins were never shunned. The congregation was not told to shun them. They were under church discipline for refusing to meet with the session. I never head the word "shun" used in reference to them.

The Word does not tell us to slander the bride of Christ and to make accusations against them. The Austins have continually insulted our session in a public forum. They published letters that should have remained private without notifying the session. That is uncalled for. Then when, the session asked forgiveness, they rejected it. This is not acting in accordance with Scriptural command to receive the brethern. Instead, they published that letter and continued the assault, even so far as using the apology to continue their attack on RC and the rest of the session. That is why I think they need to repent. They should accept the apology and show compassion; instead they continue to attack.

The matter should have been dropped a long time ago. Instead it has been propogated and caused division and resentment.

I want to make one thing very clear. The session did not allow the sheep to wander off. That is the whole point. The Austins were under discipline for wandering off and refusing to meet with the session to discuss matters. The session was making every attempt to bring them back into the fold. I believe they did all they could. Whether this accords with the RPCGA's BCO or not is up for debate, but I would argue that the church has the authority, as well as the responsibility, to exercise discipline over wayward members straying in doctrine and practice. The BCO states that it yields to Scripture in cases where it may be wrong. I personally think that its understanding of church discipline is one area in which it should yield to God's Word... Just my $.02.

I think the BCO of the RPCGA forces pastors to release members too easily. If someone disagrees in doctrine, it seems that the BCO just recommends letting them go. At least that is the way I read it. The Bible is clear the shepherds are responsible for the sheep. They can not do this if they allow them to wander away freely.

How can a session keep sheep from wandering if it is stripped of its power to discipline when the members refuse to meet and discuss the Bible's teaching?

This post has been removed by the author.

Mike says:

I find the comments extremely
offensive being under the tutelage of such a great pastor.

Mike, are you the one that sewed the pillows?

If the gang of thugs, er, the Session of St. Peter did nothing wrong, then why did they feel the need to apologize (however poorly) when they were busted?

Mike,
“How has St. Peter acted poorly in all of this?” The very fact that they wrote letters of apology shows that they have acted poorly by their own admission. The accussers have identified themselves…. John and Julie Austin. My comment was not specific to the session. It was addressing people such as yourself who are defending them. Your comments in your address to me indicate exactly what I was referring to.

Your comments about RC Jr and how much he drinks surprise me. I simply stated that if he drinks in moderation and doesn’t lord it over people then he should enjoy himself. The point I was getting to is the lording over not the drinking. Why so quick to attack my comments? As a side point I don’t necessarily need to see something to know it’s true.

What was the church discipline?

So, we should not question gods “anointed”? Is the session above reproach? You don’t seem to have a problem judging the Austin Family. The problem is if the session is in the wrong, how would it ever come out if it wasn’t brought to the presbytery? The letter from the session certainly didn’t sound like an apology. RC Jr’s letter did. Maybe the session should show some compassion? We can go round and round like this and it gets us nowhere. This is why it would be better to stick to the evidence for and against the parties involved.

You say that the session didn’t let the sheep wander off……what did they do to stop them? I was under the impression that the session didn’t want to discuss anything with the Austins but simply wanted them to come before them and repent over a matter of conscience. I am confused on the whole issue of bringing the Austins before the session to “exercise discipline over wayward members straying in doctrine and practice.” If the Austin's didn’t believe as the session and want to leave as a matter of good conscience why would you want them to stay? Does everyone at St. Peter have to believe the exact same doctrine and practice? What do we call groups of people that won’t let you leave when you don’t agree with them? We call them cults.

“I think the BCO of the RPCGA forces pastors to release members too easily” Then you disagree with the doctrine and practice of your denomination.

I think If we use Christ as our example for shepherding the flock we will let the ones go that want to go. There is nothing man can do to bind their conscience……other than loving them.

“How can a session keep sheep from wandering if it is stripped of its power to discipline when the members refuse to meet and discuss the Bible's teaching?” I think meeting and discussing The word of God is what we are all to do but in the end if the two sides can’t agree, what then?

It is sad when these types of things happen in the realm of Christianity. Everyone involved gets soiled. I find no joy in any of this. My hope is that truth be revealed and that brothers and sisters in Christ can be at peace.

About the pillows...they were a joke, hello??? I didn't sew them but I did see them. I also saw "JIM" take a picture of them.
There was ONE set and it was sewn by a member of the church and was NOT sold by the church.

Harry, "Jim", Terrible etal. love to slander by using soundbites, jokes and lies to make others look evil. For example about the grain alcohol, I believe I am the only mixer of the stuff. And JIM your son drank some because he lied and said he had permission. And by the way, "JIM" the final concentration was 6%, the strength of Mike's Hard Lemonade. Maybe you can't do the math to make that happen "JIM" but I can, because as you always said..."You're very clever Mrs. _____, very clever."

Has anyone considered that "JIM" is doing tricks like Mel Gibson in the Patriot and posing as all the other terribles out there so we think there are more? Has anyone considered that "Jim" might have a bee in his bonnet? Bitterness reeks and it permeates all the "Jim" websites.

I have come to realize that in "debating" this in a public forum with individuals who refuse to indentify themselves is futile. If anyone sincerely wants to discuss these issues in a spiritually edifying way that brings honor to Christ and His bride, I will be more than happy to talk with you. Please contact me and I will provide my contact information. Otherwise, I am finished posting private matters publicly.

Though many people have made these matters public, exposing details and openly discussing these things on the World Wide Web only amounts to the sin of gossip. The Lord will deal with all in accordance to either His judgment or His grace.

I am sure many will accuse me of not being "able" to defend my church or other such non-sense. My previous posts as well as my sincere offer to discuss things in another medium are real and speak for themselves.

When we discuss these private matters publicly, we are speaking about, and for, individuals and commiting the sin of tale-bearing which Scripture admonishes us not to do.

Leviticus 19:16
'You shall not go about as a slanderer among your people, and you are not to act against the life of your neighbor; I am the LORD.

Proverbs 17:9
He who conceals a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates intimate friends.

How would the Lord have us act? Would He have His bride participating in such slander and attack? Of course not! He would have us to live at peace with our brethern as much as possible.

Romans 12:18
If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

With such Biblical admonition in mind, I will not continue to expose private matters here and further add fuel to the flame. I encourage my brethern to do the same in honor to our King. I repent that I have stated things that should have been kept private and seek the Lord's forgieness for such. I hoep that others who have done the same may do likewise.

We who are blessed to call St. Peter home must recognize the grace God has shown as in allowing us to be among giants. Those of us who come from different backgrounds can surely attest that there is peace within the body at St. Peter, regardless of what others think. When I attend service, there is no division or hostility. We are of one mind. That is truly amazing given the level of intense attack we are under!

For those of you who attack us and do not even know anything about us first hand, I hope that you will not be so quick to jump to conclusions and trust in vain words and accusations. You may one day see the deceptions exposed and realize that you have participated in attacking the Bride of Christ. If that becomes the case, I hope you will repent of your hastiness and learn a valuable lesson.

If the church is in fact guilty (and given that hiumans are prone to mistakes), then God will deal with them and the rest of us in His manner. Our session has and does make mistakes. How they conduct themselves is the real testament to their position in the Lord and I am amazed at how they have taken the high road in this matter.

For those of you who know us and yet attack us, all I can say is that there was a time that you called St. Peter home and loved the pastors and members there. Whatever the circumstances of why that changed, God still expects you to love your brethern and forgive whatever wrong-doings either occured or you perceived -- either way. I cannot act as judge in your inidividual cases or any other. I will leave that between you and the Lord.

As I have stated before, I have been in other churches and have never been under the authority of such wonderful men as we gave at St. Peter. The pastors are truly dedicated to their sheep and love them as Christ loves His church. Let all of us take comfort in that. St. Peter is built on the solid foundation of God's Word and nothing can change that or shake it.

We have Eden in our homes and we enter into the garden each and every time we are among our Pastors and our families. Satan can only fill our garden with his lies and deception when we allow him. (I am not accusing anyone on here of such, but merely stating that lies and accusations come from the one accuser who accuses the Saints.). Let us shut the gate to the Garden and spend more time loving our wives and children, building the kingdom of God in our midst.

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord...

Dear Mrs. get real ________,

I won't harass you to identify yourself by first and last name the way that Mike Patrick and Jeff Forester and Matt Clament (did I forget anyone?) are harassing everyone else who doesn't want to identify themself. But it's obvious why you wouldn't want to identify yourself, Mrs. ________. That's OK. I still believe what you say. Sometimes people have good reasons for not wanting to identify themselves.

Take me. We visited your church because we heard about it through some friends that are Saint Peter's members (after what we witnessed it's hard for us to understand why they don't leave). I started reading RC's blog and ordered a few Basement Tapes. We liked what we heard, but what we heard and what we later saw were very different things. We're disappointed that our friends didn't tell us more than they did about Saint Peter's before we went all the way out there. But I'd rather not give out my name and risk hurting their feelings.

Aside from the booze problem, we know that Saint Peter's is a very gossipy church so I'm sure that if I used my name here it would only take you a few phone calls to sort out who our Saint Peter's friends are and ruin our relationship with them. Probably Mike and Matt and Jeff won't think that's a good enough reason and they'll harass me like they're harassing everyone else, but I hope that you understand my concern Mrs. __________. I think it's safe to assume that the Saint Peter's folks who keep pushing hard for real names must be part of that whole Saint Peter's gossip chain.

Their sniveling is just so juvenile and it's only confirming in my own mind what I've already heard and personally seen about RC Sproul Jr. He's doing a terrible job of pastoring his people, and it shows in their character as well as his own.

I don't have a cat in this fight, other than to say that I wish we had known what we know now about Saint Peter Presbyterian Church. We never would have gone out there. We're deeply offended by what we witnessed. The Sunday service was beautiful, but it was the only bright spot of our visit. It was everything else that troubled us. We stayed plenty long enough to know that Saint Peter's was not the church for our family. We came away from your church confused and even a bit shocked.

Please know that we're not abstainers. We do have an occasional glass of wine, so we're not offended by the consumption of alcohol, as long as it's in moderation. We're also not offended by men smoking their cigars and pipes. Our family doesn't smoke, but we do consume alcohol in moderation, and we know what moderation means. RC has a definition of moderation like nothing that we've ever seen, at least nothing that we've ever seen outside a sports bar. For us it was like going back to our wild college days and Spring break keg parties. Those aren't times that we want to relive and we sure don't want our children exposed to it. For us, seeing men pull whiskey flasks out of back pockets and passing them around at a church function is not our idea of moderation. To us it's shocking.

For my part I'm glad that some of these things are getting out on the internet about your church. People need to know what they're getting in to before they come to visit Saint Peter's, or worse yet before they become members. If what they want is a party church then that's they're business. Had we known Saint Peter's was a party church we wouldn't have driven those many hours that we did just to feel like we'd had our time wasted.

I've read some of the things on the internet about liquor being served by Saint Peter's members to minor children. Thank you Mrs. _________ for now correcting everyone, especially Jim, over the fact that "about the grain alcohol, I believe I am the only mixer of the stuff." I'd like to point out though that a church the size of Saint Peter probably only needs one "mixer" of grain alcohol, in the same way that a small bar only needs one bartender. I've heard that your church has grown a bit since we were out there, so you might want to train another "mixer" or two to keep the drink lines short at your church functions.

Thank you Mrs. __________ for also pointing out that you only serve alcoholic beverages to minor children if they say they have permission. We all know that boys would never lie about such things. I don't know if you have children Mrs. __________ but I do. I'm embarrassed to have to admit it, but sometimes my children lie. I know that probably reflects badly on me, but it's important that I'm realistic about what my children are capable of so I can protect them from environments that might corrupt them. I'm afraid that if an adult offered them liquor they might accept it, and I'm afraid that if all they had to do to get it was lie, they might lie to get it. It's just that much more likely that they would lie if they were offered liquor at a "church" function where they saw an adult mixing drinks for children, especially when those other children are saying, "It's OK. My dad gave me permission."

All of this now just confirms why we could never be members of your church. We home school not just because we want our children to have a superior academic experience, we home school to keep our children away from peer-group pressure elements, especially the elements that could corrupt their morals. Unlike children in public schools, ours don't have to be exposed to other children their age partying. But by your own admission the children of Saint Peter's are witnessing other children their age consuming liquor, and all they have to do to get it is lie. That's the kind of morally corrupting peer pressure we don't need and we don't want.

Thanks for also pointing out that the alcohol content of the drinks you serve to children is only 6%. I'm now very relieved. I was starting to have concerns that you might be serving children vodka martinis.

I don't agree with Jim, "You're very clever Mrs. _____, very clever." About the only thing you're being clever about right now is not using your real name.

You've all vented your anger at Jim, and I guess there's some others your angry at for exposing your alcoholic practices, and I can easily understand why you'd be so angry over being exposed. But let's be honest with everyone, Mrs. ________. Is it really Jim who's got the problem with bitterness? What I've read here by you and Mike, Matt and Jeff sure sounds real bitter to me.

I'm not real concerned about whether Jim or anyone else is bitter or not. I'm just glad for what Jim's done, and what the others have done. I wish we had known those things before we went all the way out there to find it out for ourselves. If Jim is bitter I pray that the Lord ministers to his bitterness and helps him to forgive you. But Jim isn't the only one that you've hurt. You and your church have done a lot of things to offend a lot of people. Your concern shouldn't be for Jim's bitterness or unforgiveness but for your own need to repent.

I'll say the same thing for the Austins. You people have a lot of repenting to do to that family and it's real obvious that you haven't repented. You don't need to worry about whether the Austins have forgiven you. That's not your problem. Your problem is that you need to repent.

A presbyterian church that shuns. And you shunned them even though they'd never been excommunicated? That's incredible! What a thing to be know for. I've heard of "Those shunning Jehovah's Witnesses" but this is the first time I've heard of "Those shunning Presbyterians." Even after your pastor admitted he sinned against the Austins, you Saint Peter's people are still attacking them? Don't you have any shame at all?

You Saint Peter people have a big problem with bitterness but your problem isn't just your bitterness. Your problem is your pride. May God deliver you.

How is this a private matter? I guess you could consider it a church matter but certainly not a private matter. I would agree that it should be addressed by the authorities within the RPCGA. What happens if they fail? Ultimately our accountability is to God thru our conscience and convictions given to us by The Word.

“As I have stated before, I have been in other churches and have never been under the authority of such wonderful men as we gave at St. Peter.” Why did you leave the other churches?

“For those of you who know us and yet attack us, all I can say is that there was a time that you called St. Peter home and loved the pastors and members there.” I don’t remember reading anything about the church being attached. I thought at least for the Austin’s part they had some good friendships there.

“quick to jump to conclusions and trust in vain words and accusations” The conclusions I am drawing are stated in the letters of apology from the session. One of the questions I have is if the original censure letter was ever signed by the session. Please, can anyone answer this? If it was it is very clear that the session violated the church order. Also in this letter the session seems to over step its jurisdiction with Julie by side stepping John’s authority over his family.

“If the church is in fact guilty (and given that humans are prone to mistakes), then God will deal with them and the rest of us in His manner.” Isn’t this the point of being in the RPCGA…accountability.

“We who are blessed to call St. Peter home must recognize the grace God has shown as in allowing us to be among giants.” Who is it you worship? I understand it if you think Jr is a good teacher but how is he any different than yourself in God’s eyes.

I still don’t see how knowing the names of the people you are discussion the issues with helps anything. If we deal with the evidence available then what should it matter. If I give you my name you still will not know me. When you continue to harp on desiring the names of the people you are discussing this with it may get people thinking you have other motives at hand…….I did NOT say that you have any other motives. This is why these things need to be dealt with with a sincere desire to know the truth.

“solid foundation of God's Word and nothing can change that or shake it.”

1Ti 3:7-10 But he must also have a good report from those on the outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the Devil. Likewise the deacons are to be reverent, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of ill gain, having the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be tested, then let them minister without reproach.
Tit 1:7 For an overseer must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not full of passion, not given to wine, not quarrelsome, not greedy for ill gain;


Leviticus 19:16 What exactly is the slander involve here? Are we talking about the drinking again?

Proverbs 17:9 This is between two - a private matter. In a larger setting a transgression covered up can hurt others.. Mathew 18 is the process for dealing with a private offense. The love is for the brother not to go public it and cause undue embarassment. This assumes it is resolved at that point.

Romans 12:18 This applies to both sides and should have been followed from the beginning.

The last post was for Mike if he is still reading these

Prairiemuffinmom,

It sounds to me like you're a long-tongued Jezebel that is guilty of all the things you are condemning us for - gossip, drinking, and bitterness. So you might ought to look at yourself before pointing fingers.

And yes, I would like to know who these cowards are because I would like to speak to them face to face, or by phone. That's an impossibility since they are too afraid to entertain an idea. I guess there's good reason for them to be afraid considering what they have said.

As I said, I will not discuss particulars of the Austins or materials that should have been kept private between the family, the session, and ultimately the presbytery. No matter how much something has been made public, to continue to discuss matters of this nature is still nothing more than gossip and I will not participate in spreading it. Instead, I will deal with some of the other issues mentioned.

As to the question of why I left the other unbiblical churches, I left over MAJOR doctrinal issues. I grew up in the Church of God and left that denomination as a teenager due to taching that many would consider heretical. Though I was young, I knew that the teachings did not line up with the Word of God and I wanted to a solid church.

I then became a Southern Baptist and attended a large church in my town where my friends went, thinking this was the right place to be. As I continued to study the Scriptures, I found MANY doctrinal differences between what they taught (and did not teach) and the Scripture. I went to the pastors and tried to reconcile the issues. They told me "they were not going to take the time to respond" to my questions and suggested I do elsewhere. Naturally, I left because I had no shepherding and no real pastors. My family was psiritually starved there. To stay would have been sinful in my eyes.

After much prayer and consideration, I begain to visit St. Peter. I did a lot of research and had many discussions with the pastors and other members to be sure that I was taking my family to a Godly church. I found, and still do, that St. Peter was such a church.

For a church that is accused of being a cult and easy to join, I can tell you from my experience just the opposite. I had several meetings, phone calls, and emails with the pastors before joining to make sure that I understood what the church believed and what I was joining. Church membership vows were discussed in great detail.

It was never cultish and easy to join. For a while, I feared that we might never get through it all and actually become members! :-) That was a joke, for those of you not sure. lol

Looing back, I am thankful for all of that concern and attention that was shown to us. I know that they had our best interests at heart and still do. Their concern and caring nature was most evident throughout the process. They were deeply concerned that our joining be biblical.

While being at St. Peter, I have foudn that the pastors have an unbelievable heart for the sheep. The encouragement and guidance that I have received are unparalleled! I know that my pastors and brothers in Christ are a family to me. They have embodied the Word and made it incarnate in their actions.

I have nothing but respect for these men. I had NEVER had a real shepherd before and now that I have four, I am indeed thankful...

AS far as jumping to conclusions, it is obvious that many here and elsewhere jump to conclusions because they were not present at numerous other discussions, phone calls, meetings, etc. To simply read a few letters and then form opinions without knowing all of the facts, is jumping to conclusions plain and simple. No one here, including myself, has complete knowledge of all details.

RC (as well as all members of our session) is a man just as me, but I honor him in his calling. We are to respect our elders and submit to their authority. They have a high calling and I believe Scripture is clear in teaching that we should honor them. I am NOT saying that we turn a blind eye to sin at all. But, that "he that is without sin" should "cast the first stone." There is a lot of stone-casting going on and none without sin.

As to knowing the names of people, I think it forces people to stand behind their word. This is obviously lacking in this arena. If you speak the truth, then you should be glad to attach a name to statements. Only those who will not stand behind their words, do not want to identify themselves.

To know ones accuser(s) is a basic premise of law. Show some intestinal fortitude and use a real name. It is laughable that I and others are considered as harassing for wanting to know names. What is harassing about that?

I have no problem with the session being examined at all. It is indeed Biblical for a session to have a presbytery in authority over it. They are not above reproach.

So many people want justice upon the session of St. Peter, while seeking mercy for themselves. For those who pray for justice for the sins (real and perceived) of others, be careful. As Dr. Sproul (Senior) said in his book, The Holiness of God, God may just show justice and not mercy upon you for your sins. Please be careful that your words are intended to bring God's pleasure in dealing with this and not just trying to provoke His anger. Allow God in His providence to decide the matter. But, please pray for the repentance of those who have sinned, that God may turn His anger from them.

Unless there are edifying questions for me, I hope you will excuse me. I have a 'garden' to tend...

This post has been removed by the author.

FACT:I gave 4 oz of a 6% alcohol lemonade to one 225 pound minor whom I had seen consume beer, wine and liquor in larger quantities than I was giving him, in the presence of his father. I therefore believed him when he said his father permitted such consumption.

EXTRAPOLATION (lie) by Prairiemuffinmom: I gave the same to all the children present.

THOUGHT: People love to believe evil and will extrapolate on the truth and believe the extrapolations rather than thinking the best of others.

CONCLUSION: I've wasted all the time I'm going to waste on this virtual life. I have a God to worship and people to love and serve in a real world.

Goodbye!

Mike,

"As to the question of why I left the other unbiblical churches, I left over MAJOR doctrinal issues."

The Austins should have had that same freedom at St. Peter.

So sheep should be able to wander off at any time without shepherds attempting to watch over them? Sounds like sleeping shepherds or as Jesus said, hired-hands...

Mike,
At what point then in your understanding is it okay to leave?
What should the pastors/elders of the other churches you left done with you?

Mike,
Do you believe the Austins initialed sin in some manner and needed to be put outside the church? Or was it a disagreement in doctrine/practice?

1Co 5:11 But now I have written to you not to associate intimately, if any man called a brother and is either a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one not to eat.

Jeff Forrester wrote:

"Prairiemuffinmom,
It sounds to me like you're a long-tongued Jezebel"

Mr. Forrester,

Before posting my comments I spoke with my husband about these things and obtained his permission to post. A "long-tongued Jezebel" wouldn't do that.

He's in full agreement with what I posted. So I guess next you're going to accuse my husband of being an Ahab, since you've already accused me of being a Jezebel?

We've heard that you Saint Peter's men have a low view of women. With your hateful comments here you've done an excellent job of demonstrating that for the whole world to see.

Tell me, Mr. Forrester, is this how your pastor RC Sproul Jr. teaches the men of his church to speak of women? Are all women who disagree with your drinking and shunning practices "long-tongued Jezebels?"

My husband is not at all pleased with you, Mr. Forrester. Lucky for you we don't live close by or I think it likely he'd pay you a visit and teach you some manners about how to speak to other men's wives.

philupot,

My past pastors had a responsibility to sit down with me and discuss these major doctrinal issues. The fact that they did no such thing, nor even care that members leave, is proof positive of their error. They are not pastors. At best, they are teachers. A pastor cares for his flock and watches over them. These men did no such thing. I am not attacking them personally as they are fine men. Rather, they are poorly trained for the ministry.

If I were attempting to leave St. Peter, I would know that my elders would not just say "there's the door don't let it hit you..." I know they would be eager to sit down with me and discuss matters. That is the job of an elder. Their concern would be in making sure I was not making a grave mistake.

Many people either don't know or forget that there is a history of the church releasing members who transfer to other churches. But, they require that someone be moving, or have a biblical church to transfer to. There is contact with the church to which they are transferring to ensure that the shepherding is transferred and that the family is cared for.

When someone stops attending and refuses to speak with the elders then I can say with 100% certainty that they should then come under discipline.

prairiemuffinmom,

Of course we are not taught to speak harshly to women. But, remember that you posted some really insulting and ridiculing statements towards several members of St. Peter, our elders, and myself. When such things are said in such a medium as this, it is easy to become infuriated; it has happened to everyone at some time.

You attacked me personally and yet I assume you have never met me. And yet, I have said nothing rude to you nor do I intend to. You know absolutely nothing of me and my household. You do not know my heart or anyone else's on here. Yet, you did not hesitate to hurl insulting remarks. It seems that either you are misinformed, lost your temper, or you attempted to draw fire. I do not know which.

You say that I, as well as others, have no character. That is an unfair assessment! Character is extremely important to me. Ask anyone who knows me and they will attest that I am VERY concerned with character. You do not know me to make such a judgment. Obviously Scripture teaches that we should not be making such judgment of our brethern. You read a couple of comments and then decided everything you thought you needed to know to judge someone you had never met. That is not Christ-honoring. Nor, has been most of what has been said here.

Your comments (and those of some others) were in my opinion out of line. While I am NOT condoning any embittering statements made by anyone, please remember that when insults are made, retalliations usually follow. That is the unfortunate nature of the internet and such mediums as this.

I strongly believe that if people were sitting face-to-face the discussions would be much more hospitable by all parties. Or else all the guys would fighti it out and feel better. (I am joking -- sorta. lol) That is why I have decided to not engage in argument. It proves futile and only serves to fuel the flames of such discussions. My only responses in here are to answer direct questions relating to abstract issues and not directly pertaining to persons or events. I do not wish to engage in arguing or gossipping as it does not honor our Lord.

While I cannot speak for Mr. Forrester, I find it impossible to know who is male and female on this site. Only the members of St. Peter have used their real names. Everyone else uses aliases to conceal their identity. Dr. Sproul has been attacked over the "prairie muffin" thing and with so many people mocking that, it would not surprise me to see a male using such an alias in jest.

We at St. Peter hold a VERY HIGH opinion of women. We love our wives and daughters greatly. My wife does not engage in such forums as this, but I am sure that she would speak with you directly and confirm this if you so desired. I know that Mr. Forrester loves his wife completely as well. I have been over to their home on many occasions and seen how they interact with one another. I have seen how our elders are with their wives and it serves as a great model to all of us members. They love their wives as Christ loves the church and so do we. We honor our wives as gifts of grace from the Lord.

The problem that exists today with liberalism running rampant as it does, is that is thought that to act as a federal head of the family is to act as a chauvenist pig. This is completely against Scriptural teaching. I think to not take responsibility for the health of the family is to show unlove towards your family. A man who will not act as the appointed head of the family is not living up to his God-given responsibilities.

I have heard Dr. Sproul teach from the pulpit as well as by example that if anything goes wrong in the home, it is the man's fault. The man must answer to God for the failings of his wife and children. As such, the men of St. Peter recognize that it is their duty to make sure that their wives and children are sanctified with the Word or they will answer to the Lord for their failings.

I have seen women in other churches where the men did not act in such a manner and they looked very unhappy! The divorce rate was high in those "churches." The women were trying to do those tasks that their husbands were called to do. Instead of being help-meets they were doing almost all of the work themselves. Their husbands had placed heavy burdens upon them. The man thought that to work was all he had to do and often he thought the wife was to also work outside the home and still get everything done there. That is not how a husband is to act and you will not find that at St. Peter.

You will not find degraded or sad women at our church. You look around the sanctuary and you see them sitting close to their husbands and smiling. It is obvious that their home-life is God-centered and they are fulfilled in their marriages.

BTW, I do not consider it harassment to ask for names. To say that someone is cowardly for not revealing their identity is not harassment either. People make statements about events that would require us knowing the context in which it happened, and yet will not reveal to us who they are so we can have all of the information.

It is not a gossip-chain as you have said to seek to know one's accusers. It is only fair. It is sad that to simply want to know who it is that is saying these things is considered to be harassing them. Have we not been harassed? Yes, we have. We only wanted to know who it was that was doing the harassing.

There are some major logs in many peoples' eyes these days. I am asking as one redeemd of the Lord that other brethern tend to their own homes and not engage in any more bickering.

We should all rest in the grace of God and strive to honor Him. I wonder if we really considered who we are and Whose we are if we would engage in so much argument.

prariemuffinmom,

You are correct that if your husband contributed to your comments then he is an allegorical Ahab.

We are taught to treat women with the respect they deserve. Firstly, I don't know if you're a woman. Secondly, don't engage in heated conversation if you don't want to get burned. Thirdly, don't condemn others if you don't want it returned to you. Fourthly, if your husband is a man at all, he would be posting himself and not allowing you to post. There wouldn't be any problems with you not being treated like a lady if you would act like one and allow your head to do things a head does instead of poking your nose in and then claiming injustice when it gets bitten.

I would love to meet your husband face to face, but he is probably a coward like the others and is afraid to give his name. A phone conversation would even be fine with me.

Dear Mike,

Thank you for being a gentleman. You seem like a man of peace. Your trying to restore peace to a church that's under fire. You replied very politely to me, and to everyone else. Your friends could learn a thing or two from you.

You have good manners, but you're still not giving answers. You've failed to speak to any of the things I brought up and that anyone else brought up. You're a man of many words, but your many words are just your personal opinions. But without quoting the Bible your opinions are just your opinions and at least for me your opinions aren't very convincing.

You keep defending your Session and the way they victimized the Austin's. From what I can see there is no defense. You say "I do not agree with Mr. kershaw, Saenz, or Fontenot in the least. In fact, I am in total disagreement with their acusations."

From what I've read Mr. Kershaw did the most writing and the most accusing against your Session. It looks like he didn't just write a bunch of opinions like you are. His letter to the Saint Peter's Session was backed up with a lot of Bible verses and other things like the denominations BOC.

I'm not real interested in your personal opinions Mike. That's not meant to insult you, it's just a fact and I'm sure you'd say the same thing about my opinions. I wouldn't be interested in what Mr. Kershaw's opinions are either accept for the fact that he backed up his opinions convincingly from the Bible and Saint Peter's BOC. You should be honest with yourself and realize that no one really cares what Mike Patrick thinks. What Christians care about aren't the opinions of other Christians, and especially Christians like you that I don't even know but that defend the actions of pastors that are indefensible. What we care about is God's opinion. I hope you've been a Christian long enough to know where you can go to find out what God's opinion is on things. If you answer "RC Sproul Jr" your church has got a much worse problem than we thought.

You're wasting an awful lot of time with all your lenthy writing here and not really saying anything that anyone cares about. If your going to say something make it count. Why don't you quit wasting your time. Put your time to good use and go through Mr. Kershaw's letter to the Session and refute it. Then post it somewhere and let us know where to find it. Since your "in total disagreement with their acusations" you really should make the effort to refute them. But don't just waste your time and our time by saying silly things like "I'm in total disagreement." That's not a refute. Mr. Kershaw accused your Session using the Bible and the BOC. If your going to refute him you need to refute him with the same things. Since your in "total disagreement" you'll have not trouble finding lots of things on ever page to refute.

Maybe you should talk to your Session first about it though. Didn't they write a letter of repentance to the Austins? If you compare Mr. Kershaw's letter with the Session's letter to the Austins wasn't the Session agreeing with many of the things that Mr. Kershaw accused them of? So are you saying that not only are you in "total disagreement" with Mr. Kershaw's accusations, you're also in disagreement with your Session that they're in agreement with Mr. Kershaw's accusations against them?

We don't know much about the Austin situation other than what we've read. You criticize Mr. Kershaw and the Austins and Mr. Saenz but you fail to mention just how effective their writing was. Wasn't it just a matter of days your Session wrote letters of repentance? Doesn't that speak for itself?

Your Session repented, Mike. Or at least that's what they called it. At least they admitted they made a lot of mistakes with the Austins, even though they have a lot of excuses. Is it because your Session has all kinds of excuses that you now are coming up with all kinds of excuses for them too?

Your own writing Mike hasn't helped your Session, but at least it hasn't damaged them nearly as much as Matt and Jeff and Mrs. ________. I guess it's a good sign of some kind of loyalty to your pastors what your doing. Maybe you think your scoring points with them. But you still shouldn't be posting on the internet because you're not helping your pastors one bit. If you want to keep hurting them then go ahead and keep posting.

We may not know the Austins but we're not just ignorant outsiders. We've been to Saint Peter's. We personally witnessed things in your church that we find terribly offensive, and we're not alone.

Something I didn't mention before is we also witnessed a group of men at a Saint Peter's church function passing around a large whiskey bottle. This was going on in a public place, out of doors. RC Sproul Jr and your other pastors were right there. They saw it happening. It wasn't being done secretly and they weren't trying to hide it. They even seemed proud of themselves.

We spoke with our Saint Peter's friends about it and they told us it happens all the time. When we later started hearing about Saint Peter's beer keg parties and children being served alcohol we called our friends and they said that was not uncommon. Our friends told us that at first it really bothered them, but they got used to it. I asked them if joining Saint Peter's has desensitized their Christian convictions. They say it doesn't bother them anymore, which seems really strange to us because there was a time when they would have been really offended by whiskey bottles being passed around at a church function.

We can't understand how your pastors support that kind of behavior. But it's their church and it's your church. If that's what you all want so be it. We just think you should openly say what your church is all about. Put it on your church web site. Let people know before they go all the way out there like we did. "We're a drinking smoking church. And when we say drink we mean beer kegs and whiskey bottles. If that offends you then don't come." That would at least be honest.

Better yet stop doing it. Grow up. Act like Christians. Start being a witness for Jesus instead of just gratifying your own flesh.

What do non-Christians think of you when they pass by your "church" parties and see men passing around whiskey bottles and flasks and spitting tobacco juice and drinking out of beer kegs? Do you think that's a good testimony for Jesus? What do other Christians think of it? I'll tell you what we think. That's NOT moderation. There's more to moderation than just not getting falling down drunk.

If you want to drink do it in the privacy of your own homes. Have the common decency to not be having keg parties and passing around whiskey bottles for the whole world to see at your church functions.

This post has been removed by the author.

prairiemuffinmom,

There for a minute, I thought you
were going to be cordial to me. I find it difficult to remain graceful to one who makes such statements. Perhaps it will be better to speak with your husband so that you will not become offended if I say something out of line. While I take a very different approach than Jeff, I agree that these type of discussions should be among the men. I find it disrespectful for a lady to speak to any man in such a manner and then claim that a man has no right to respond strongly to her.

You contradict yourself by saying that I am doing no harm to my session and then saying I am. That is as illogical as many of the accusations.

I will not get into details. I have said before that I will not spread gossip and I still refuse to do it.

My point in commenting is to simply say that the church is not the evil "church" that people call it.

I guess on the alcohol thing we feel much like Jesus when he was accused of being a wine-bibber." No one has ever tried to hide anything about drinking alcohol and smoking. I for one, drink VERY little and don't even smoke but I am NOT bothered by it because I don't see that it violates Scripture to drink or smoke. I guess I have to agree with Paul that it may bother my weaker brothers though...

Mr. Forrester,

After your post yesterday we were hopeful that we wouldn't be hearing from you again. Your comments are provocative, and with your new post you are provoking a lot more than just a verbal fight. If you saw my husband you'd think twice before calling him a coward.

We checked with our friends. We didn't say anything about this blog, but we did ask them about Jeff Forrester. Your reputation procedes you Mr. Forrester. According to our friends your one of those hard drinking whiskey bottle men.

Now things are becoming clear and now we understand why your so angry and hostile when anyone says that Saint Peter's church has a drinking problem. Now we don't know if what you said about me and my husband was just the liquor talking, or if that's the way your pastor trained you to talk to women that say things you don't like.

We're sorry, Mr. Forrester, for any unkind comments we made against you. We should have assumed you had a drinking problem and shown you more compassion. Our prayers will be with you and with your family.

We also asked our friends about Matt Clement. They know some things about him too. They're almost positive that he's not 21, but they've seen him drinking booze heavily as church functions. The legal drinking age in Virginia is 21 http://www.abc.state.va.us/facts/legalage.html

This is all so tragic. Saint Peter's church has a lot of repenting to do and it all starts with RC Sproul Jr.

prairiemuffinmom,

It is true that I am quite fond of Scotch and Bourbon, something I would never deny. I also like beer and even brew my own. I think alcohol is one of the most blessed things God ever gave man. I have also NEVER been drunk in my entire life, preconversion or postconversion. You can check with your "friends" about that also. Let them name one time when they have ever seen me abuse God's gifts. So how, pray tell, does this warrant me having a drinking problem? I believe it is you who has the drinking problem. You have a problem believing people can drink socially and even at church functions without becoming drunk. And why do I drink at church functions? Because that is where my friends are and I like to socially drink with my friends. Get your mind out of the gutter and stop thinking the worst of everything you hear.

prairiemuffinmom,

Your comments are AGAIN out of line. You know NOTHING about Jeff. He has NO drinking problem and I have never seen him even with a hint of drunkenness. I suggest you get your facts straight before hurling such insulting statements. Do you think the Lord is pleased with your tone and your insults?

You say you are sorry mockingly! Indeed you should repent of your sinful statements (as should others). I mean this honestly and sincerely. I can almost hear the hissing of the serpent in your words. At first I thought the comment about the long-tongued Jezebel was over the top, but now I am beginning to rethink that...

You may be a woman, but you are acting like no lady...

We have yet to even hear from your "head" which makes us all wonder if there even is one... And if there is, why does he allow his wife to make these statements? Is he not the one that should be fighting the "battles?"

If you want to disagree, that is fine. But have some decency and act like a Christian.

Let me ask you the same question I have asked others: What was your name again?

Mike, I certainly agree that an elder should sit down and dialogue with a person wanting to leave. Ultimately if there is a disagreement as to what scripture says concerning doctrine and practice that person should be free to leave.

"there is a history of the church releasing members who transfer to other churches."

I am not much interested in church history other than what is in scipture as a basis of doctrine.

"they require that someone be moving, or have a biblical church to transfer to."

Who determines what is a biblical church? If they are leaving because of doctrine and practice it is likely that the will go to a church that more closely fits with their understanding as you did when you left your former churches.

I was under the impression that John was not going to be allowed to dialogue about why he wished to leave. Only that he should repent. Please correct me if I am wrong.

"When someone stops attending and refuses to speak with the elders then I can say with 100% certainty that they should then come under discipline."

Does the sesion believe this also?

I cannot speak for the session as I am just a member and would not feel comfortable stating what they believe. I hope that is understandable.

Without heading down a trail into personal details. I have heard that John was asked repeatedly to meet with the session.

Refusing to meet with elders under whom you have voluntarily placed yourself is wrong. Vows are taken at St. Peter where members agree to submit to the authority and government of the church.

A biblical church is defined in my opinion (and not necessarily by the session) is a church that holds to the clear teaching of the Bible. I think it is also important to adhere to the Westminster Standards unless one can prove them in error. Moreover, I think agreement with other historic creeds and catechisms are good although not necessarily required. There is much to determine about what makes a biblical church and I am sure that the above comments can and probably will be twisted by some people in a way that I did not mean. These are just some examples. Ultimately the shepherd(s) in charge of the sheep must decide this. This can be done while meeting to try to workout doctrinal issues. I must assume that the shepherds have greater understanding of theological issues than the sheep under most circumstances. Those under the care of a shepherd should give the elder(s) every benefit of the doubt unless they are in fact in error and it can be shown that the position of the church is in direct violation of the teaching of Scripture.

I mentioned the history item simply because I expect few people realize that things are not always handled this way at our church and that previous members have been released with no issues. Those people, to the best of my knowledge, did so after meeting with the session and talking in a civil manner. I have also been told that they were transferring to churches that would be considered my most people to be Biblical.

Thank you for responding in a gracious manner. Without knowing you or even who you are, you seem to be a man of sincerity. I honestly appreciate the tone of your questions and feel that such discussion is indeed honoring to the Lord. I hope more people will follow your example. While I am sure you and I will likely end up disagreeing on some specifics, I pray that we could find many other areas of agreement in some of the most important things of our faith. It is so easy for us people to focus on our differnces when hopefully we have much in which we are in agreement.

Perhaps those of us who truly love the Lord, should speak to one another more as family than as enemies. If we can't get along now, I'd hate to see the next 1,000,000+ years... :-)

Thanks again for the tone of your questions.

Mike,

"I have heard that John was asked repeatedly to meet with the session." Based on the letters from the session the only meeting they wanted to take place was a meeting in which John repented of breaking his vow with the church. Initial it appears that the session was not at all concerned with doctrine but then on May 14, 2005 the refusal to meet for discussing doctrine and vow breaking were given as reasons for refraining from contact and suspension of sacraments.


"Vows are taken at St. Peter where members agree to submit to the authority and government of the church." This should also be the case for the session under the presbytery.

"Ultimately the shepherd(s) in charge of the sheep must decide this." Which shepherds of which denomination.....I believe this is why we are to read scripture ourselves. Yes learning from others is important but ultimately we as individuals are responsible to Christ. We are all prone to wander even what some might consider to be the best shepherds on earth. Analogies can only paint parts of pictures. In life people who are sheep may eventual for a time become shepherds and visa versa.


"When someone stops attending and refuses to speak with the elders then I can say with 100% certainty that they should then come under discipline."

Does the session believe this also?
After re-reading some of the letters I think the session did believe this but now doesn't? (The letter releasing the Austins)

"Thanks again for the tone of your questions."Mike, I truly do believe if we are actually searching for the Truth of what Christ wants us to know and understand that we can approach things in a calm manner with brotherly/sisterly love. My interested in this matter is not personal in the direct sense with RC Jr. for me. I am separated from the passion that these types of things can ignite and the hurt that follows. My interest is in helping a friend with understanding and discernment thru these issues.

I would like to apologize to all in that I tend to write very blunt questions and answers which in this media can sometimes be misconstrued. My wife tells me I need to use emoticons/smiles :)or:(

It is interesting that someone posting as "Mike" is asking why people aren't using thier last names.

Well, if you look at this you'll see why using real names and giving out too much info over the web can get people killed.

Someone told me that the pseudonym "prairiemuffinmom" was being used in the comments here. Because of that and because my blog is linked in the sidebar, I want to say for the record that I am not that person. I have never left an anonymous comment on the internet *ever*, and I hope to have the intestinal fortitude to never make an excuse to do so. In the meantime, I will not be commenting on this issue as I am not personally involved in the events which occurred. If anyone is interested in Bible verses rather than opinions, here's one for you:

"The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him." (Proverbs 18:17)

And that's *all* I have to say.

Carmon Friedrich

journeyman,

Obviously you have not read this thread or looked at my profile. I have identified myself repeatedly and even from the very first post I made.

I hardly doubt that the people on here refusing their names are scared of physical harm. Rather, they are afraid of being held accountable...

Mike Patrick

Mike,

Obviously you didn't click on the link I posted on my previous comment. There are wackos out there like Anthony Bradley (a professor at a reformed seminary no less) who will make personal information that he's privy to available for pub