Hope to be back later today with the question of the week.
In the meantime, if you have a little time, read this. This is frightening to me, because I know some people who I think are on their way down the exact same path.
Note: if original link doesn't work, please try the Google Cache.
9 comments:
I'm getting a "403 Forbidden" error trying to access it from work or home.
Google has it cached, though.
Google around for a bit and you can find out pretty quickly who the major characters are here - they include a relatively big name in Reformed circles.
I honestly don't know what to think. This is just one side of the story, of course. I have been blessed by some of their former pastor's work. It's pretty hard to take all this in; I look forward to someday hearing the elders' side of the story. (Apparently the elders have been deposed by their presbytery, and are holding their tongue on their website for the moment.)
I purposely left out the names, not wanting to gossip. Maybe you & I should talk offline, b/c I'm interested in what you have to say. For my part, I'm inclined to believe what is being said, even understanding that it's not the full story.
If you e-mail me, I can send you links to more specific details, including names (if you care).
Sad. Just sad.
I can't find your email address (it's probably on this page or on your profile somewhere, but I'm missing it). I'm csebold at gmail.com. Or Eliezer on #pros, not that I'm there a lot lately. Hard to get work done with that crowd, although I do learn things.
They don't sound very Presbyterian to me, they sound like an aberration in some ways.
For example-
I believe the Prebyterian form of Church government is the most biblical one there is, but it doesn't sound like they practiced it there.
Matt, I can appreciate your not naming names to avoid gossip, but by definition gossip is "personal and private" in nature. The Austin's experience with their then unnamed Presbyterian Elders would have been gossip to discuss in any detail had you named any names prior to January 26. However, after that date everything became a public matter. January 26, 2006 is when the unnamed Elders were named publicly in a Declaratory Judgment in which they were defrocked.
The defrocking of RC Sproul Jr, along with his entire Session of Elders, is all public information and therefore our discussion of it would not, in and of itself, be gossip. It's especially "public" now that Human Events released it as a news article.
It seems to me that it's illogical to propose "We won't name names about a publicly disclosed event, and in so doing we then can't be accused of gossip."
"I look forward to someday hearing the elders' side of the story. (Apparently the elders have been deposed by their presbytery, and are holding their tongue on their website for the moment.)"
Charles, it only took them a matter of hours before the world did start to hear from RC Sproul Jr and his fellow defrocked elders. They posted comments on their web site derogatory of the RPCGA. Thankfully those comments have since been removed, but that doesn't mean that they've stopped bashing the RPCGA. The latest bashing comes in the form of a fund raising letter from Laurence Windham.
It all makes their earlier so-called "letter of repentance" look like nothing more than a ruse to get out of the RPCGA.
Matt,
The only thing vancetribe(the spinmiester and king of cut and paste) appreciates is another chance to perpetuate uncontendinded truth. If something becomes public it does not become our responsibility to crucify someone does it?
Does that sound familiar?
Be ware of somebody that has to define evrything for you, they may be a wolf in sheeps clothing.
Post a Comment