The General Assembly's Judicial Commission not only rejected the unconstitutional indictment of the Temporary Session from IPC, but also vindicated the men of all charges. (Part Five)
I might buy some Elders a BCO. It would save them lots of trouble. Thank you so much for bringing this to light. I am sorry that it caused some to leave the PCA in Jonesboro. It also caused some to leave a PCA church in Memphis. I hope this strengthens the PCA over all to desire and seek the purity of Christ’s Bride.
I knew something was up from mission committee meetings at my home church. Then I found your articles through the Aquila Report. Over the first four, I was wondering if there was bias, and that any rebuttal would be in session and presbytery minutes and not publicly available. Then the SJC report in the last article validated what was said in the first four. In light of this I have to wonder if BCO 35-13 can allow for bias in the court when it is judge, jury, and prosecutor, but that it should revert to the original wording that ends at "objection." (36-11 in the original 1975 PCA BCO)
Upon reading these articles on the Jonesboro 7, I find myself shocked by the attitudes and behavior of the temporary session and Covenant Presbytery toward the little startup church in Jonesboro. Happily, the seven stalwart leaders of the little church were ultimately vindicated by the SJC, but in the meantime much that was wrong and harmful, yes sinful, was committed by the supposed shepherds of the little flock.
I would use two words to summarize the attitudes and behavior of the members of the session and presbytery: ignorance and arrogance. The ignorance they displayed in arguing for the guilt of the 'seven', for which they barred them from the Lord's table, was simply appalling. And then to assert that SJC should not take account of the evidence, or lack thereof, in their judgment, only compounded their nonsense.
They were arrogant throughout the whole process but, especially meanfully so when they declared the little church "toxic", recommended it be shut down, resigned and went home, leaving the seven leaders still under discipline and the church shepherdless. Again, appalling behavior.
Dominic Aquila is to be commended for getting involved with this little church, advising them and representing them before the SJC, where the members of the offending temporary session and presbytery were called to account, the session cited for "abuse," and the little church vindicated.
There is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" in Christ's church. There is "oh wretched man that I am, who I'll save me from this body of death?" And, "embrace discipline/Receive instruction."
There is absolute guilt of every sin, far beyond our comprehension.
There is also the work of shepherding, which requires the right use of the rod and staff for comfort, including by discipline.
There is no such thing as deduction or divination or forensics in "preach...in season and out of season," the "whole counsel of God," "rightly dividing the word of truth," or in the keeping of our Lord's command to "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you."
There is "you shall not bear false witness," and "by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
With respect to the wayward Session, there is failure to establish, by two or three witnesses, an event of speech or behavior which God's word calls sin on the part of the J-7 concerning the 5th and 9th commandment.
Therefore, it is not possible that the SJC can authoritatively declare that "there were no transgressions..." with respect to the original case. The SJC has no personal witness to any of the events in the scope of that case. They may declare truthfully that there is not found any admissible testimony of the lawbreaking that the Session was supposed to have punished.
I might buy some Elders a BCO. It would save them lots of trouble. Thank you so much for bringing this to light. I am sorry that it caused some to leave the PCA in Jonesboro. It also caused some to leave a PCA church in Memphis. I hope this strengthens the PCA over all to desire and seek the purity of Christ’s Bride.
I knew something was up from mission committee meetings at my home church. Then I found your articles through the Aquila Report. Over the first four, I was wondering if there was bias, and that any rebuttal would be in session and presbytery minutes and not publicly available. Then the SJC report in the last article validated what was said in the first four. In light of this I have to wonder if BCO 35-13 can allow for bias in the court when it is judge, jury, and prosecutor, but that it should revert to the original wording that ends at "objection." (36-11 in the original 1975 PCA BCO)
Upon reading these articles on the Jonesboro 7, I find myself shocked by the attitudes and behavior of the temporary session and Covenant Presbytery toward the little startup church in Jonesboro. Happily, the seven stalwart leaders of the little church were ultimately vindicated by the SJC, but in the meantime much that was wrong and harmful, yes sinful, was committed by the supposed shepherds of the little flock.
I would use two words to summarize the attitudes and behavior of the members of the session and presbytery: ignorance and arrogance. The ignorance they displayed in arguing for the guilt of the 'seven', for which they barred them from the Lord's table, was simply appalling. And then to assert that SJC should not take account of the evidence, or lack thereof, in their judgment, only compounded their nonsense.
They were arrogant throughout the whole process but, especially meanfully so when they declared the little church "toxic", recommended it be shut down, resigned and went home, leaving the seven leaders still under discipline and the church shepherdless. Again, appalling behavior.
Dominic Aquila is to be commended for getting involved with this little church, advising them and representing them before the SJC, where the members of the offending temporary session and presbytery were called to account, the session cited for "abuse," and the little church vindicated.
I am confused by the continued reference to violation of the 5th commandment. Are they referring to violation of the 5th membership vow?
There is no such thing as "innocent until proven guilty" in Christ's church. There is "oh wretched man that I am, who I'll save me from this body of death?" And, "embrace discipline/Receive instruction."
There is absolute guilt of every sin, far beyond our comprehension.
There is also the work of shepherding, which requires the right use of the rod and staff for comfort, including by discipline.
There is no such thing as deduction or divination or forensics in "preach...in season and out of season," the "whole counsel of God," "rightly dividing the word of truth," or in the keeping of our Lord's command to "teach them to observe all that I have commanded you."
There is "you shall not bear false witness," and "by the testimony of two or three witnesses."
With respect to the wayward Session, there is failure to establish, by two or three witnesses, an event of speech or behavior which God's word calls sin on the part of the J-7 concerning the 5th and 9th commandment.
Therefore, it is not possible that the SJC can authoritatively declare that "there were no transgressions..." with respect to the original case. The SJC has no personal witness to any of the events in the scope of that case. They may declare truthfully that there is not found any admissible testimony of the lawbreaking that the Session was supposed to have punished.