FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30, 2005

R.C. SPROUL, JR. DEVOTES HIMSELF TO MEDITATION

© 2005, Church News Today

Church Correspondent: Terrance L'Enfant

---

Today, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Jr. announced that he is devoting himself to a time of meditation to determine if he should remain in the pastorate. R.C. Sproul, Jr. is the Pastor of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church in Bristol Virginia and nearby Mendota Virginia.

Church News Today correspondent Terrance L'Enfant contacted R.C. Sproul, Jr. at his home by phone, and he was gracious enough to answer questions.

---

CNT: Dr. Sproul, could you please tell us what's prompting your time of meditation on whether or not you should remain in the pastorate?
RC: Well, Terrence...

CNT: Please, Dr. Sproul, just call me Terry.
RC: Okay, Terry. Well, Terry, for a long time we've had a lot of problems at Saint Peter Presbyterian Church; but things really came to a head in my church just in recent weeks. I'm in big trouble with my Presbytery. I don't know if I'll be able to get through this without being defrocked anyway. I finally came to the realization that I am the problem, and that if I want the problem to go away, maybe I should just go away. The health and well-being of St. Peter church is at stake.

CNT: That's quite an admission. Why do you say that you're the problem?
RC: That's a long story, but let me give you the Reader's Digest version. A pastor is supposed to be a shepherd and a leader. A lot of people say that I can't shepherd. A lot of people are really displeased with my leadership style.

CNT: What is it about your leadership style, Dr. Sproul, that they're displeased with?
RC: They like the teaching and the preaching. It's everything else that seems to be the problem. A lot of people moved here because of my teaching, like what they've heard in the Basement Tapes. A good leader inspires people to follow him. I know how to inspire people through my teaching. I can give a good pitch, like the "simple, separate and deliberate" Basement Tapes pitch, and I can convince people they ought to move here. I've convinced people to move to Bristol who've never even met me. A lot of people have moved here just based on nothing more than what they heard in the Basement Tapes. We've even had a few families move here without even bothering to visit and check us out first. We've had people move here from clear across the country. They just listen to the Basement Tapes and get this idyllic image in their heads about what St. Peter church must be like and then, bam! They load up the U-Haul and the next thing you know they're here. Welcome to home school utopia! Now, that makes me a pretty inspirational guy, don't you think?

CNT: It sounds as though you've been actively encouraging people to relocate, even from multiple states away, so they can join your church. I even saw a link on your website entitled, "So you're thinking about moving." I can't say as I've ever seen a church with a web site that actively encourages people to pull up stakes and move just to be a part of a church. Wouldn't evangelism efforts in your local community be the biblical way of building your church?
RC: I'm a popular guy. I've got a lot of fans out there. A lot of people like what I teach. They'd like to be around me all the time, so I'm not surprised if they say they'd like to move here. As a leader I've got the inspirational thing down. I inspire some people so much that they'll quit good paying jobs and leave friends and even family members behind and move from thousands of miles away. That must mean that I'm a pretty special guy! But recently I've started having second thoughts about whether it was a good idea to encourage people to move here. Once you've got the people inspired, what do you do with them? A leader not only inspires people, he leads people, and he leads them to a destination. Paul told the Philippians, "Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us." A good leader is far more than just a cheerleader -- a motivational speaker. A good leader leads by setting a good example -- a godly example. Paul was a good example to the people that followed him because Paul's example was Jesus. My example is supposed to be Jesus too, but I haven't done a decent job of following that example. It's becoming obvious to me that I haven't been the kind of biblical example that others should follow. People do follow me. They follow because the message is appealing, and I also think it's a biblical message. But just because I can inspire people to follow me doesn't mean they should follow me.

CNT: In what ways have you been not such a good example?
RC: I've had folks tell me, or at least imply, that we pulled a bait and switch on them. We bait them in the Basement Tapes with this quixotic romanticized view of St. Peter church. Then they move here and eventually figure out it's not happened -- yet. So then they start thinking, "Well, it hasn't happened yet, but our leaders are going to take us there. We just have to be patient." Eventually, though, they get more and more disenchanted as the stark reality sets in: "Our leaders have this great vision, but that's all they have -- a vision. They keep telling us about Eden, but they have no real leadership abilities to actually get us there." Then they feel cheated. They feel betrayed. A good leader is honest about where he's taking his followers, and he's honest about whether or not he can actually get them there. A good leader sets an example of someone that others want to follow. He's never threatening or intimidating or aloof. A pastor should lead his flock just as Jesus led. Jesus is our example of how to shepherd. Jesus asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" and then he told Peter, "Feed my sheep." I guess I always viewed feeding sheep as just about preaching at them and disciplining them and baptizing their children and giving them the Lord's Supper.

CNT: You mean sacerdotalism?
RC: I guess. But now I'm beginning to wonder if there's not a whole lot more to shepherding than just sacerdotalism. You have to set a good example. I haven't been that to my sheep, and now I'm beginning to wonder if I can ever be that. I just don't have the compassion, and it shows in my life. The Bible shows us how Jesus had compassion on people. He loved people, and it showed. He viewed them as lost sheep without a shepherd, and he shepherded them. He didn't beat up sheep. He didn't condemn sheep. He was Lord, but he didn't lord it over them. He ministered to their every need. He loved them. Sure, Jesus was hard on the goats, like the Pharisees, but he was always compassionate toward sheep, and he knew the difference between sheep and goats. My problem is that I treat everyone the same, just like they're all goats. I've done a lousy job of following Jesus' example. Maybe I'm just a goat herder, not a shepherd.

CNT: But now that you see that, don't you think that you could learn from past mistakes and do a better job? Don't you think that you could learn how to be a shepherd?
RC: I don't know if I'm cut out to be a shepherd, to be a pastor, and there's a lot of other people who have the same doubts. I know that my Presbytery isn't impressed with me. I've been really dishonest with them. I've become a big embarrassment to them and to a lot of other people too. When men like me try to play the part of pastor, but they've got no skills for it, they just wind up hurting people. That's what I've done, and I'm tired of hurting people. I don't want to hurt anyone else, but since I don't know how to love them it's just inevitable that I'll hurt them. I need to learn how to love people before I can ever hope to be a real pastor. I know how to be a pretend pastor. I can graduate from seminary. I can put on the collar. I can put on the robe. I can preach the sermon. But none of that makes you a real pastor. It takes more than that. I think there's a lot of men who carry the title "pastor" who aren't cut out to pastor. I'm a teacher and a preacher, not a pastor, and I've got to figure out ways of doing what God has equipped me to do and quit pretending that I can do things I've got no skills for. Otherwise, I'll just keep hurting sheep.

CNT: You say that there's a lot of people unhappy with you, including your Presbytery, but should other people's dislike of you really be a big consideration for serving in the pastorate? After all, a lot of pastors in history weren't particularly popular with their parishioners, but they usually didn't think they might need to quit just because they were disliked.
RC: It doesn't bother me being disliked. I've often said that God has gifted me with thick skin. I take a lot of heat from a lot of circles. It doesn't bother me to be a lightning rod. What's important is that I get people to think. If they don't agree with me that's their problem, not mine. But being a pastor means that I have to operate differently. I have to wear one hat when I'm out on the road speaking to, say, a home school convention, than the hat I have to wear when I'm at St. Peter. The problem is that I don't know how to wear different hats. I've only got one hat -- my public speaker hat -- and it's a hat that doesn't work well for pastoring. I can wear that hat when I'm in the pulpit preaching, but not when I step out of the pulpit and have to do something other than preaching, say like pastoring. When I'm pastoring I should have some concern for not offending my flock, for not hurting people. Every pastor will occasionally offend his flock, but he shouldn't make a habit of it, and he shouldn't be proud about it. A pastor is primarily called to build up -- to edify, not to wound and tear down. A pastor's habit should be love, not injuring. My habit has been to injure, not to love, and I have to admit that I really do enjoy offending people, even bashing, and I probably always will.

CNT: So you're saying you don't feel qualified to be a pastor?
RC: If I don't know how to be pastoral maybe I shouldn't be called "pastor." Maybe I shouldn't try to fill the office of a pastor. It's a matter of qualifications and abilities. It's been pointed out to me on more than one occasion that I don't meet the biblical criteria for being an Elder. So maybe I've really just needed to step down. The people who've told me this haven't always been friends, but sometimes they have been friends. I decided that it was an important enough issue that I'd better carefully examine my qualifications to be an Elder in the light of Scripture. Just because you can find some denomination that you can pull the wool over their eyes and convince them to ordain you doesn't mean that you should be asking to be ordained.

CNT: Is it really that easy to fool a denomination and get ordained?
RC: Oh, sure! I've got the academic credentials -- the D.Min. I can handle the toughest examination any denomination can throw at me. But how does a denomination examine a man's personal walk? They usually can't. A lot of that stuff Paul addresses is really personal, like, "He must be one who manages his own household well." I've been ordained by two different denominations and, who knows, maybe in the future I might even try to get ordained again. No one ever said, "Hey, RC, before we ordain you we need to spend a few days living in your house to see how you govern your wife and kids." It's just not done. About all that examining Presbyters can do is maybe get some personal letters of recommendation from you. But just about any seminary graduate could get his friends to write letters that say, "Oh sure, RC's kids are obedient, and his wife is submissive, and she's not a gossip, and RC's really temperate, and prudent, and respectable, and he's really hospitable. He has us over for supper all the time. He's not a wino and he's not pugnacious, he's really gentle, he's not contentious, he's got a good reputation with those outside the church, and he's not in a big hurry to make a big pile of dough." Anyone who really knows me knows that a lot of that isn't so, but let's face it, your friends will often lie for you. So the examiners are left in a position where about the only thing they seriously try to figure out is, "Is this guy apt to teach?" So you spend a few hours being examined and answering some tough theological questions that only guys with D.Min.'s are supposed to know. Then after you're done answering all the thorny theological questions, like, "Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons?", you preach a sermon to them. If you sound smart enough they say, "Okay, you're qualified to be a Pastor. We'll ordain you." But in the examination process there's a lot of stuff, biblical Elder prerequisites, they're ignoring, or at least they don't try very hard to figure out. There's a lot of smart men who've been ordained as pastors who've got no pastoral abilities at all.

CNT: So you're saying that you've had to question whether you should be in the pastorate not because so many people dislike you, but because you don't meet the Scriptural standards of an Elder?
RC: Right. I hold to the teachings and traditions of the Reformed Faith. I'm also a Presbyterian. In Presbyterianism I hold the office of Teaching Elder. The Bible has a lot to say about the qualifications for being an Elder, and I'll add to the list of qualifications for Elder the list of qualifications for being a Deacon. Before a man aspires to the office of Elder he should at least be qualified to be a Deacon. It's been pointed out to me that I don't even meet the biblical qualifications for being a Deacon. So how can I be qualified to be an Elder?

CNT: So, as I recall, the list of qualifications for Elder are in 1 Timothy 3?
RC: Right, and also Titus 1.

CNT: Which of those qualifications do you feel you don't meet?
RC: Um, well, that would be pretty embarrassing to have to answer, and, um, it would take way too long. It's probably a lot simpler for me to just say which ones I do meet. Let's see, um, I'm "the husband of one wife." Um, and some people would claim that I'm "apt to teach." At least that's what I was told by the two denominations that have ordained me. But then there's others who'd disagree and say that I'm not an apt teacher. They'd say there's more to being an apt teacher than just putting on a robe and collar and standing up in the pulpit on the Lord's Day and preaching a good sermon. Being apt to teach is also about teaching by the unspoken example of your life. All of those other Elder qualifications given by Paul touch on the issue of teaching by example. There's a lot more to teaching than just expositing the Word of God on Sunday morning.

CNT: So that's two. What about the other qualifications?
RC: Well, ummm... I'd just as soon not have to... er, maybe we could come back to that later.

CNT: Is there anything else you relied on to help you determine your Elder qualifications?
RC: I looked at not only the Scriptures but what other men, men that I respect, have to say. I haven't been a pastor very long. It seemed to me that I should read what other men who'd had a lot more pastoral experience than me had to say. For example, I started reading articles in an OPC publication for elders and deacons, Ordained Servant . Pastor Archie Allison has a great article in Ordained Servant called Biblical Qualifications For Elders . Archie also has an excellent article called, Biblical Qualifications For Deacons . I also read Alexander Strauch's book, Biblical Eldership, An Urgent Call To Restore Biblical Church Leadership. John MacArthur endorsed Strauch's book and after reading it, I can see why. John Calvin also had a lot to say on the subject of Elder qualifications, both in his Commentaries and in the Institutes.

CNT: You've taken a lot of criticism recently over your disciplining of a family in your church, the Austins. Do you think all the criticism is deserved?
RC: Well, ah, ya, I guess the criticism is pretty well deserved. The Austin debacle is a big reason why I'm in so much trouble right now with my Presbytery. My Session is trying to make it out like this brouhaha with Presbytery is over just some minor misunderstanding with our denomination over paedo-communion. But they're just covering for me. There's a lot more to the hubbub than just paedo-communion. I'd rather not get into any of that other stuff right now, but, anyway, I don't think I'd be under the microscope with Presbytery if the whole Austin issue had never happened. The Austin case is what sparked Presbytery's examination of all the other stuff. I admit that we didn't handle the Austin thing real well. I called it "discipline," but it was really retaliation. I was angry at John and Julie and I let my anger get the better of me. My Session should've held me accountable, but they didn't. They never challenged me to prove that I was justified from Scripture, or our BCO, to pass judgment and discipline the Austins the way I did. They just went along with the program. Well, I don't know why I should've expected them to hold me accountable. They've never held me accountable for anything. I can't say as I've ever held them accountable for much of anything either. We've just sort of had that kind of understanding. And it's not like we haven't received a lot of complaints about this lack of Elder accountability stuff long before the whole Austin mess. I wish they'd held me accountable. I wouldn't have liked it at the time, but it's what I needed. If we'd had some real accountability I don't think we'd be in this mess today. I can't blame my Session, though. They just did what they knew I really wanted them to do. They just followed my example. It goes back to that inspirational leader stuff. I inspired my Session, but I inspired them to do the wrong thing. That's one of the dangers of following an inspirational leader. If you're not careful he could lead you right off a cliff.

CNT: Some folks have said that you're autocratic, that you're authoritarian, that you're abusive, and that your treatment of the Austins is evidence of that. Would that be an unfair characterization?
RC: Well, I dunno. That would be kind of a hard thing to admit to, wouldn't it? I guess I could admit that I've often been far from pastoral. I've been the same way with not just my parishioners, but maybe even my own Session too. I like authority. I like being the authority. I just don't like having to submit to authority. I don't like accountability. I like it when everyone else is accountable to me. But I'm not real big on having to be accountable to anyone else. Is that autocratic? Maybe.

CNT: But I thought you said you were a Presbyterian. That doesn't sound very Presbyterian.
RC: Well, ummm... I know that I should be Presbyterian. I know that I need the accountability. I just find it kind of hard to act Presbyterian. Accountability means that you have to be willing to listen to what people tell you, even if you don't like what they say. When anyone tries to tell me that I need to change, I usually resent them for it, and I make sure they know I resent them. I make it uncomfortable for them to confront me, or even just ask me about it. I make sure they think twice about ever asking me about it again. Is that authoritarian? Maybe. I know that I've got a reputation for ignoring what people say to me when it's something I don't want to hear, and there's been a lot of stuff I just don't want to hear. After all, I am R.C. Sproul, Jr. Just tell me what I want to hear, and I'll just ignore all the rest.

CNT: So is that the result of that "thick skin" that you earlier said that God gave you?
RC: Oh! Well, I guess I hadn't quite thought of it quite like that before.

CNT: We saw a letter that was sent by one of your former St. Peter church members to your Presbytery. In it this gentleman says, "After weighing the evidence and being witness to some of the abuses going on at St. Peter, we are sickened by the way this family was treated and feel like we have been mislead by wolves in sheeps clothing." He's talking about your treatment of the Austin family. Do you think he has any basis to be making such serious allegations?
RC: Well, I hope I'm not a wolf in sheep's clothing. I guess it bothers me just a little to know that that's what some people think of me. If that's the kind of impression we leave with our own members then I guess we've got to work a little harder on our image.

CNT: Is it true that you ordered that the Austins be shunned by your congregation?
RC: Well, what we did was mail John Austin a letter of censure. Then we read the letter of censure to our heads of household. The letter didn't specifically say that we were shunning them. What it said was, I've got the letter here, "This censure involves: 1. Suspension from the sacraments. 2. The refraining from all contact with your family by the other families in our church." We never specifically told our members to "shun" the Austins.

CNT: But, "refraining from all contact with your family." Are you saying that's not exactly the same thing as shunning?
RC: I'm saying we never specifically used the word "shun."

CNT: Aren't you just playing semantics? "Refraining from all contact" is shunning, isn't it?
RC: Well... ummm... well, I guess.

CNT: So, "refraining from all contact with your family." Was the entire family guilty of these charges? The children too?
RC: Well, no. It was John and Julie.

CNT: So why did you issue a directive to St. Peter church to shun an entire family? Didn't that include the children too? When we hear of such a thing we can't help but think that your actions must have been spiteful. Why punish innocent people, why punish innocent little children?
RC: Well, I guess we didn't see any practical way of refraining from all contact with just John and Julie, if we still had contact with their kids -- if we let our kids continue to play with their kids.

CNT: So, in your view, it was impractical to strictly enforce a directive of your members "refraining from all contact with" just John and Julie? If they had any contact with the Austin children they would also have had some contact, even if it was very limited contact, with John or Julie? So out of pure practicality you issued the directive to punish not only John and Julie, but also their five children?
RC: Something like that. Except, we didn't really view it as punishment.

CNT: Wow! I'd hate to see what you'd do to any members that you really did mean to punish. So, as we understand it, not only have John and Julie's friendships been ruined, but the net result of your shunning was the friendships of the five Austin children were also ruined?
RC: Well, that's what I've been told. I guess that probably doesn't look too good.

CNT: Are you upset that so much of this is being discussed publicly, like on the internet?
RC: Of course. I'd just as soon it were kept private. No one likes having their dirty laundry hung out publicly. At first I really resented it. I was furious. I'd like to put a stop to it. But people are pointing out that my sins against the Austins, and they say that I've sinned against plenty of other people too, weren't just private sins, but public sins. Paul says in 1 Timothy 5:20 about Elders, "Those that sin rebuke before all." In his Commentaries, John Calvin said about 1 Timothy 5:20 , "...and yet that every one of them who conducts himself badly shall be severely corrected; for I understand this injunction to relate to elders, that they who live a dissolute life shall be openly reproved." John Piper has a short article entitled, Preparing For the Discipline of a Vocational Minister. Piper points out that the public sins of pastors must be reproved publicly. He says, "Therefore the reproof and correction of a public minister extends as far as his influence may carry the harm of his sin." I have to admit that the harm of my sins against the Austins were carried pretty far. A lot of people outside the walls of St. Peter knew what we did to them, and our Session had a lot to do with other people finding out. They knew I accused the Austins of vow-breaking and rebellion. They knew I banned the Austins from the Lord's table. They knew I was moving to have the Austins excommunicated, or at least that's what I told everyone I was doing. They knew that I ordered the entire assembly of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church to shun the Austins, so everyone assumed that the Austins must have been really wicked people. That kind of bad publicity defamed the Austins and ruined a lot of their friendships and relationships, especially in home schooling circles, and that's where the Austins' influence mainly extends. I don't like now having to take the heat publicly for how I sinned against the Austins, but since I committed those sins publicly, and since the Session and the entire congregation went along with my sins, I guess we're now just getting what Scripture calls for -- a good public rebuking.

CNT: So, have you pointed this out to your congregation?
RC: I guess not. Maybe I need to do that. There's folks at St. Peter who've been real defensive of me. Some of them have even gone on the offensive against the Austins, or against anyone who says anything critical about the way I treated the Austins. Before we were just shunning the Austins. But now there's open hostility against them.

CNT: So have you ever apologized to the Austins?
RC: Well, I thought we did, but... well. We sent, that is the Session sent, what we called a letter of repentance to the Austins. We figured by calling it a letter of repentance that would fix everything. But John Austin wrote back and pointed out that our letter was full of excuses and self-justifications and blame-shifting. Looking back on it now I can see that he was probably right. We never did really repent. We said, "We repent." But we never did genuinely repent, and it shows in the attitudes of our congregation toward the Austins to this day. I set the example for my congregation, and now they're following my example by making excuses for me and blame-shifting. Some have even gone so far as to say that we should've never been in a denomination like the RPCGA which makes it hard to excommunicate. They've got all those due process clauses in their BCO. Not everyone likes that. Some people think that we should've been able to excommunicate the Austins without having to answer to any Presbytery.

CNT: Sort of an "excommunicate now, ask questions later," policy?
RC: Something like that.

CNT: You acknowledge that your actions resulted in the Austins being defamed. But that wouldn't be the first time you've defamed someone, would it? It's been pointed out that you've had quite a history of not only defaming people, but doing so very publicly. So is all the internet chatter about you now kind of like getting a taste of your own medicine?
RC: Maybe. I have written a number of Open Letters and accusatory articles for ETC and...

CNT: ETC?
RC: Every Thought Captive. ETC is published by the Highlands Study Center. The Highlands Study Center is a ministry of St. Peter Presbyterian Church. So, I've publicly ridiculed a number of people in ETC and online in the Highlands Study Center Squiblog. I've written "Open Letters" in ETC to different people, and I've said a lot of bad things against them without giving them any opportunity to defend themselves. I guess they've had good cause to not much like what I've done to them. Ya, I guess I'm now just getting a taste of my own medicine.

CNT: Isn't it true that you've even lied about various people in your articles, or at least grossly distorted the facts, in order to portray them in the worst possible light?
RC: Are you talking about that Harry Seabrook thing?

CNT: Harry Seabrook would be just one of several examples I could use.
RC: I wrote an Open Letter to him in ETC and called him to repent of racism. Harry is a racist!

CNT: Mr. Seabrook has gone on the record and said that he's not a racist, and that he's just opposed to multiculturalism and America's open-border immigration policies. He's also opposed to miscegenation, which appears to be the biggest issue over why you call him a racist. While Mr. Seabrook's views are certainly not politically correct, not everyone would agree that his views are racist or sinful. In fact, many pastors seem to be in agreement with Mr. Seabrook. Irrespective, your characterization of Mr. Seabrook as a racist, or being guilty of racism, is ad hominem. My question was have you lied and fabricated stories about various people in order to portray them in the worst possible light? You've already named Harry Seabrook. Feel free to respond to the question using Mr. Seabrook as an example. Were you dishonest in your portrayal of Harry Seabrook in your Open Letter?
RC: Harry is a racist! He needs to repent!

CNT: I take it then from your answer that you believe that once you've put such a label on a man that you're entitled to say anything else about him that you please. If that's how you operate then it's likely that you're guilty of slander. Aren't you at all concerned that you could get sued? Aren't you concerned that you could legally jeopardize your entire church?
RC: Well, I guess maybe I should be. But I've gotten away with it for a long time. So if no one's bothered to sue me yet, maybe I'm not doing anything that I need to worry about.

CNT: Let's get back to the issue of your current time of meditation, and why you're doing that. I'm sure you've given thought to what you'd do if you decided the right thing to do is to leave the pastorate. So could I ask you a few questions about that?
RC: Sure.

CNT: What about the Highlands Study Center? What would become of that?
RC: Even though I started and sort of ran the Highlands Study Center, it was always a ministry of St. Peter. If I weren't there I can't see that much of anything would happen with it in the future. The fact is, though, not much of anything ever did happen at the Study Center. I raised a lot of financial support, but it's not like we ever accomplished much of anything with it anyway. I should've been more honest with our financial supporters. I made a lot of money from it without having to do any honest work.

CNT: And what would become of St. Peter? Would the men of your Session be qualified to take over?
RC: You mean, like, qualified pastorally?

CNT: Yes, qualified pastorally. If you were to leave the ministry because you didn't think you were qualified biblically to pastor, we'd assume that you'd want someone to step in who's qualified to be the pastor, right?
RC: Sure, but, well, that's a really tough question. Maybe one of them is qualified. Well, maybe not even him. If we use the Austin case as a measure for pastoral conduct, I guess all four members of the Session failed pastorally. And we didn't just fail, we failed spectacularly. It would have been hard for any Session to have made a bigger mess of a church discipline issue than we did. I guess none of us were pastoral. Maybe if we had actually ever repented, I mean like confess and repent without any excuses and justifications, then maybe we could have made it out like it was just incompetence. Sort of like a, "Sorry everyone. We really goofed. It sure won't ever happen again. None of you other members need to worry that we might treat you the way that we treated the Austins. We've really learned our lesson, and we're really really sorry." Maybe we could have made it out like we were just stupid, and that it wasn't spiteful. But that's not how we handled it, so I guess people are justified in being sceptical of us.

CNT: Have a lot of people left St. Peter over the way you handled the Austins?
RC: No, actually I've been pretty amazed that most of our members have stayed. I think we did a pretty terrific job of scaring the hell out of everyone. I'd be willing to bet that there's plenty of folks who want out, but no one's got the guts to leave after seeing what we did to the Austins (hee, hee). Who knows -- maybe I'll wind up being the first one to go.

CNT: So if you were to leave, what would you do with yourself?
RC: Oh, well, I've still got plenty of books and articles that I need to write. Hopefully there'd still be some demand for me to do public speaking. The home schoolers at least seem to appreciate what I've got to say. They always like it when I bash the government and the public schools. I may not be much of a pastor, but I'm a good basher. And I still have a few friends out there who'll probably help me get speaking gigs. I'm sure dad will help me out. It's hard to make a living that way, though, and I'm used to making a good living. I'll have to come up with some other fundraising scheme, sort of like what I've done with the Highlands Study Center.

CNT: Thanks for your time, Dr. Sproul. We wish you all the best in however the Lord directs you in the future.
RC: Thanks, Terry.

Home