A Biblical Justification and Vindication of Church Discipline: Exegeting Matthew 18:15-20
The challenge to me has been issued: On what grounds can I support an accusation against Janet Edwards, a minister member of Pittsburgh Presbytery, if I have never met her or spoken to her face to face in light of Jesus' teachings in Matthew 18 about confronting someone in the church who sins?
This challenge also voices the idea that one who claims to uphold biblical standards for church officers cannot--because of this passage--be a party to a complaint filed half-way across the country because I have not met the requirements that Jesus lays out for the church.
In short, the accusation is that I am a hypocrite. Therefore, I challenge this assertion and now issue a response based on a careful exposition of Matthew 18:15-20. May the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ shine forth in our reading of this passage from God's holy Word.
Here is the text of the passage in question, from the ESV:
If Your Brother Sins Against You
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”
From the initial reading, I derive the following principles of church discipline:
1. False teachings and sins among church members are to be confronted within the church.2. Those committing these acts deserve to hear what they have done wrong.
3. Those who know of these persons who commit known sins must face them in person.
4. Those accused deserve a fair hearing and they also deserve to make their case in the presence of witnesses.
5. Accusations are to be public and in the sight of all.
6. Those who do not repent when shown the error of their acts are to be considered unbelievers.
7. They then deserve and desperately need to hear the gospel and repent of their acts.
8. It is the church's job to call them to account, make a sound decision and not allow their acts to continue.
9. We are to act as a church body in disciplinary cases, not merely individually.
10. Jesus takes church discipline extremely seriously. So should we.
Now to the actual matter of the Edwards accusation. How do my actions and the teachings of our Lord in this passage fit together?
First, it must be clear to you that my brother in Christ, Rev. James Yearsley is the complainant and that he is the one who has confronted Rev. Edwards and the Pittsburgh Presbytery in this matter, both face to face, on the phone and in writing. Those who have signed the accusation, like myself, are those who support his accusation. Though legally we are listed as co-complainants, in actuality we are the supporters of Rev. Yearsley's original complaint in the matter.
Second, my supporting of this accusation insures that the mandates of Jesus' teachings in this passage are carried out. Note that the presbytery in question has done nothing, therefore it was dependant upon brother Yearsley to see this through and for his co-complainants to support him in this work. By adding our names to the accusation we are doing our utmost--and using our names and reputations by putting them publicly behind the substance of this accusation--to make sure that not only Rev. Edwards is told of her errors, but that Rev. Yearsley gets a fair hearing for his complaint.
Third, Rev. Edwards will now get her day in church court. Not in a secular one! She will have the chance to argue before her minister and elder peers how her blatant acts that refute the teachings of the one she claims as Lord and that undermine the constitution of the church that she has sworn to uphold were lawful acts and biblically sanctioned. This accusation brings her before the church and publicly shows that we take the teachings of Jesus with the utmost concern.
Fourth, this case will allow both sides to have a face to face encounter. Jim Yearsley and Paul Rolf Jensen will face Rev. Edwards and her legal team in a court of the church and they all will have to confront each others' arguments and understand each others' attempts to biblically justify where they stand. Please also remember that until this complaint was filed, this was never going to happen in Pittsburgh Presbytery otherwise.
I believe that my act of signing on to the complaint is fully justified for the above reasons. I further believe that this action is not only faithful to the teachings of our Savior, but that biblically endorsed church discipline is our duty for the edification of the church and the preservation of the truth of the gospel.
May God vindicate his Word and show forth his glory in the church, as we fulfill our mutual obligations to one another and to Him!
Posts
59 remonstrances:
Toby, this is an excellent post.
I have two comments;
First, I think the context of the Matthew passage makes it clear that the primary thrust of the teaching is the whole matter of forgiveness, particularly as it works out between believers. Clearly the church assembly has a locus from Jesus's teaching, but to argue as your critic has that discipline can only be carried out by those who have face to face contact is to fly in the face of other scriptures in the NT.
Secondly, from the position over here in the Church of Scotland I rejoice that people like you are willing to challenge such seeming departure from the faith once and for all delivered to the saints. Would that we over here had people who would confront such heterodoxy.
Neil Combe
1 Corinthians 5:
1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you ... 3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
Seems like the "talking points" have changed a little. Before, in relation to the PUP report, the mantra was "trust the system, work within the system. It will all work out through the church courts - you'll see, nothing has changed."
Now, when someone tries to follow the clearly laid out procedures for a complaint within the system, people begin to imply they are acting in an unscriptural and mean-spirited way.
I don't buy it.
You are clearly not the one listed in verse 15. You are also clearly not the two or three witnesses in verse 16 - you are not a witness.
You've violated your own point #3 - to face Janet Edwards in person.
You can be a supporter without being a co-complainant. Given all of the press, I seriously doubt that the presbytery is going to avoid a trial.
Has Paul Rolf Jensen even met her? Or is this just yet another in his pattern of "fly-over" judicial accusations.
You were right in your third paragraph - you are a hypocrite. You are doing this for your own ego. You have been indicating for over a year now that you are practically salivating for a heresy trial.
Toby,
A great example of eisegesis. I would take it a step further and contend that this is a prime example of narcisscistic interpretation.
Bill
And before you get bent out of shape, I am using a friend's computer, hence the name "Chris" at the top of the post.
Toby,
As I mentioned in my 7 reasons for leaving the Mainline. Our connectionalism is a farce. All the same folks who are attacking you now are the same folks (save Mark - bless you) who would condemn anyone for taking their property as "breaking our connectedness".
Breaking our spiritual holiness as delineated in liberty4u's comment is a much more significant issue and afront to God than trying to hold onto the patch of land and building your mom and dad bought to worship God in.
So nothing has changed but don't you dare enforce the rules or we will send out an emotional swat team to ruin you life.
Have a nice day!
"So nothing has changed but don't you dare enforce the rules or we will send out an emotional swat team to ruin you life."
Oh, puh-lease. :) Toby isn't up on charges for anything. He's not the one at risk here. Let's not be too melodramatic. Having witnessed these proceedings up close, I know very well the emotional toll they take on the people who are actually involved, not just watching from the cheap seats several hundred miles away.
Toby, thank you for your answer. In fact, however, I didn't call you a hypocrite, nor did I imply it. I did say that I feel that your sudden desire for connectionalism seems like a contradiction for someone who supports a secessionist movement. And I said that I thought that it was also a contradiction to violate Biblical mandate in order to prosecute someone you believe has violated Biblical mandate. At the very best, your reasoning might work for Mr. Yearsly, but I still don't see how it applies to you. So, contradictory? Yes. Hypocrite? No, I never said that...again, let's not be quite so melodramatic. This is real life, not a soap opera.
One of the things missing from your understanding of church discipline is that, implicit in the Matthew verses, is the notion Church discipline should be the last resort, not the first -- it is the last of a series of steps. I don't think you can claim that this was your last resort if you've never met her. As our Book of Order says, "The traditional biblical obligation to conciliate, mediate, and adjust differences without strife is not diminished by these Rules of Discipline... The biblical duty of church people to "come to terms quickly with your accuser while you are on the way to court..." (Matthew 5:25) is not abated or diminished."
Discipline is hard...and it should be. If you can't take the time to get on a plane and meet with the accused, then it seems like you're not upholding your vow to "be a friend among your colleagues in ministry." You're willing to sign your name to something which could cause someone great hardship, and you're not willing to spend a few bucks to go meet? Sorry, but you may have a good understanding of Matthew, but it doesn't mean you're actually living it out.
Sorry...forget the BoO reference: D-1.0103
Dear Rev. Toby,
You have felt it necessary to defend the stand you have taken. And in what seems to me to be a totally acceptable and traditional way, you have taken a prophetic stance and have found scriptural backing. You find yourself in the shoes of the prophet, praying that God will "vindicate" his word. This is not only your right, it is your calling as a minister.
But Rev. Toby, you are also called to care. In fact, in my experience as a minister, I think that our call to care is more pervasive and needed on a day-to-day basis than our prophecies. I confess before you that I am hurting. This split and argument in the church makes me ache, and I think it makes Jesus hurt as well. I ask you to care for me. Like Janet Edwards, I am someone you have never met, never laid eyes on. But if you can condemn her from afar, then I ask you care for me from afar. I can tell from your blog that you feel pretty comfortable with the hairshirt of the prophet, but what are you going to do to care for me, your brother, who is confused, angry, and despondent about this mess that you suit-makers plus Rev. Edwards are making for all of us sheep. Care for me. Feed me. Be a witness of Christ's love to me.
Your prophetic voice is leaving me hungry and hurting. I know that you must feel as close to me as you do to Rev. Edwards since distance and a total lack of personal relationship does not hold you back. Rev. Toby, please pastor me and others like me.
In Christ's love (and held in his caring arms),
Rev. Brett
1 Corinthians 5
3 Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgment on the one who did this, just as if I were present.
Alan,
I do thank you that you did not call me a hypocrite in this. You have proven to be a conversation partner in all of our disagreements, even when others have resorted to childish name-calling, you refrain from this and you ask tough questions of me. I appreciate that!
But once again we see the 'fault line' in our denomination here so very clearly. We are a divided house and there is plenty of pain to go around.
It's time to end the madness and graciously separate this denomination in a mature and peaceful fashion.
But until that happens, I'll continue to witness for what I believe as, I trust, you will.
Rev. Brett,
I do know of the hurt that all of this causes. I'm a pastor and I'm a person just like everyone else who is involved in these contentions.
But that does not allow us to set aside the commandments of Jesus and the teachings of the Apostles to witness for the truth, refute error and call one another to repentance.
Let us all do as the great hymn begs us: 'Take it to the Lord in prayer'.
May he bless and comfort you in your ministry.
Liberty,
Thanks for the biblical references that also add to my case!
We indeed must always reference the 'whole counsel of God' in these matters. (Acts 20:27)
"It's time to end the madness and graciously separate this denomination in a mature and peaceful fashion. But until that happens, I'll continue to witness for what I believe as, I trust, you will."
Indeed. But if you're looking for a gracious separation, then this seems like a scorched earth action. Recognize that the "madness" of which you speak is partially caused by people making accusations against those they've never bothered to meet in person, when they themselves fully expect to be gone sometime in the future.
I suspect that, if the time were to come where you wanted a gracious separation from the church, you'd be more than a bit put out if I, a complete stranger, filed charges against you because you're breaking your ordination vows. But, what's good for the goose...
Frankly I think these sorts of charges are not only wrong from a Biblical and polity standpoint, but they're also ill-considered from a political (for lack of a better word) standpoint. You and your NW friends could use some allies right about now. And who better to stand with you than those who believe that there are times when it is appropriate to stand for God, even when it is unpopular in the denomination? There are those in the MoreLight and Covenant Network camps who are PCUSA heavy hitters. Seems to me that it wouldn't be a bad idea to see if there is a common ground for gracious separation. Hard to find that common ground when you keep bringing us up on charges.
I have always believed that separation is wrong, and that your reasons are wrong. I have also believed that attempts to take your property are nothing but theft and treason to your ordination vows. However, recently I have begun to question those views and would be willing to hear good discussion about a gracious separation. If *my* mind can be changed (and be assured I'm one stubborn guy) then maybe others can be changed as well. However, your side hasn't spent any time looking for allies. You'd rather rail against Louisville and file charges against us. Play the victim long enough and that's all you'll be.
(And by "us" I mean pastors, but never elders or deacons or sessions. I'd still love to hear the reasons for that!)
God forbid we actually listen to Scripture. How many will continue to ignore Liberty's apt use of the Incestuous man?
Backwoods,
The answer is:
As many as find it expedient to do so.
Alan,
How about this--Your side agrees across the board to stop flagrantly violating our constitution and our side agrees to hold on the property issues as Louisville issues a moratorium on its lawsuits and attempts to eject pastors.
In other words, call a cease-fire.
Then, we all sit down at a convention and hammer out a gracious separation accord, with a 5 year period for all congregations and institutions to choose who they will go with.
Then---its all over.
But you have to stop firing the weapons first, beofore you can talk of peace.
Until then, its just more conflict and it will never end.
"But you have to stop firing the weapons first, beofore you can talk of peace."
Yeah, I didn't think you'd be interested in my ideas. You're the ones filing these basically anonymous charges, and yet we have to accede to your demands. You get to keep filing charges AND you get to keep us out of ministry AND you get to keep your property, if we give you time to work out a deal to go? Nah. I don't think so.
My idea was that you stop filing charges and you get to keep your property. Each side actually compromises a bit. Compromise. Hmm...interesting idea, don't you think?
Instead, by your proposal, what do we get? 5 years of justice delayed until you get around to leaving, and another round of fly-over charges if we don't do as you command.
What I'm proposing is that we recognize that you're going -- maybe sooner, maybe later, but you're leaving. At least that's what you've said in so many words. So, tying the church up in knots when you're leaving anyway is, frankly, pretty immature. Instead of spending time and talents on these charges, why not spend time and talents on figuring out a way for gracious separation?
But winning is more important to you, apparently.
The fact that you don't even recognize that denying people the opportunity to follow God's call to be ordained is violent and is itself a "firing of weapons" shows a distinct lack of compassion as Rev. Brett mentioned.
Unfortunately, as sad and sorrowful as I am about the idea of separation, I strongly believe that those who stand for justice are natural allies and could find a way to convince the moderate middle that peaceful separation is possible. If, that is, they'd stop arguing long enough to figure that out. Your selfish demands to get all the marbles before we even start talking shows that, unfortunately, I doubt anything like a "gracious" separation is going to be possible.
In the meantime, I'm sure you'll find plenty of other charges to file .... against pastors only, of course, because only by getting someone fired do you get any real satisfaction or "justice." You claim to want justice, but you apply it pretty selectively. Where is your Biblical justification for that? Where in Matthew 18 does it say you should only bring Pastors to justice?
1 Corinthians 5
9 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you.
"God forbid we actually listen to Scripture. How many will continue to ignore Liberty's apt use of the Incestuous man?"
Spouting scripture, and nothing else, is not discussion. It's dangerously close to Bibliolatry and proof-texting.
I'll take liberty a bit more seriously when he stops quoting the Bible to my face, and starts TALKING to me.
Liberty,
Wasn't Paul such a mean and hurtful person?
How terribly judgmental of him!
He wasn't obviously as 'enlightened' as modern folks who have such wonderful knowledge that he didn't have. That poor deluded old fool...
Toby,
"Wasn't Paul such a mean and hurtful person? How terribly judgmental of him! He wasn't obviously as 'enlightened' as modern folks who have such wonderful knowledge that he didn't have. That poor deluded old fool..."
What good are such snotty replies? Though we disagree, I have tried to be reasonable. Yet your mocking of a this straw man position no one I know actually holds is juvenile, silly, and unhelpful. Shall I start mocking you for conducing a Salem Witch Trial, Goodman Brown?
"Oh, no! I saw Goody Edwards speakin' with the Devil! Oh Lordy!"
Puh-lease. Is this a site for rational, reasonable, calm conversation, or a site for 2 year olds? Please let me know, because I may have mistaken it for the former.
Let me expand on that.
You try to talk to someone about an issue - in person, face to face. You state your positions.
The other person starts spouting scripture.
"Matthew 7:1 - Judge not lest ye be judged"
If that's ALL that they say, it's not a conversation. It's a recitation.
We've READ those scriptures - as well as others that can be used to support our premises. How about speaking your own words?
"Liberty,
Wasn't Paul such a mean and hurtful person?
How terribly judgmental of him!
He wasn't obviously as 'enlightened' as modern folks who have such wonderful knowledge that he didn't have. That poor deluded old fool..."
Oh, yeah. Sarcasm, and putting words in your opponent's mouths. Some debating tactics!
Alan and Mark,
Bless you both!
(I'm not going to add to the heat by saying anything more on this today, per our instructions in Romans 12.)
Toby,
For my part, I was finding this a pleasant and reasonable conversation between two people who strongly hold definitely opposing views. Just to be clear, there was no heat coming from me, until you started mocking people.
It isn't clear to me how that sort of mocking sarcasm is supported by Romans 12, which seems an unlikely way to outdo one another in showing honor. Hopefully it is just a slip-up, because it seems a bit out of character, from what I've read so far on this blog.
In the meantime, I hope you'll consider my words about how a separation could be truly gracious if both sides try to "outdo each other in showing honor." And, I truly am curious about the tactic of charging only pastors in these proceedings, so I hope you'll consider giving your opinion on that at some point in the future.
Peace.
It is my understanding that when an accusation is filed, the Presbytery appoints an investigating committee. The Presbytery is notified that a committee has been appointed with no details of the complaint, who is accused or who are the accusers. The Presbytery is again notified when charges are filed, again no details. Only if the charges are sustained by the PJC is the Presbytery given the details. This procedure is in line with Matthew 18:15-20.
The use of press releases to announce the charges by the accusers is pure self-aggrandizement, strutting and preening their holiness in public.
There's plenty of strutting on both sides of this case. As it turns out, both the complaintants and the defendant are sinful (surprise!) Both seem to want to make a show of this, and niether seems interested in reconciliation.
kinda bums me out.
I agree that it would be much better if the local congregation, session and/or presbytery would handle such disciplinary stuff and I even agree that all cupible should be equally processed but if the locals don't or won't act, it seems connectional to have others step in. Is that what happened here? The locals weren't, wouldn't, couldn't?
The same ought to apply to all other disciplinary stuff, property, ordination vows, false witness, as well in my opinion.
"Is that what happened here? The locals weren't, wouldn't, couldn't?"
There was an original complaint about Janet Edwards performing a lesbian civil union.
The Rev. Jim Yearsley (then a member of Pittsburgh presbytery - where Rev. Edwards belonged and where the wedding took place) filed a complaint. An investigating committee was appointed.
The investigating committee filed charges 4 days past the deadline. The presbytery PJC dismissed the complaint. Some conservative Presbyterians allege (or at least imply) that the investigative committee dragged their feet in order to miss the deadline - though at least one blogger online has stated that this was not the case - it was an accident.
Now, Rev. Yearsley lives in Florida and has membership in another presbytery. He has refiled his complaint, along with a number of others listed in the next post on this site.
Toby - is this factual? Anything to add or disagree with?
------------------
My personal beef is not with Rev. Yearsley - he was local and the original complainant. My beef is with those who aren't from Pittsburgh, have never even met Rev. Edwards, and who have no direct knowledge of the complaint but who filed as accusers anyway.
Why is it wrong to participate in the legal proceedings of the church's courts in a civil way against someone of whom you have no personal knowledge, but is in flagrant and open rebellion against the order and discipline of said church BUT it's copacetic to prophetically denounce people you don't know for positions they haven't taken, but you suspect they privately hold because of another publicly voiced opinion?
(cf. Glibly tossed condemnations of NWAC; the silencing canards of racist, sexist, homophobe, etc...)
I sympathize with Mark's point (though not with charges of hypocrisy or ill-intent) - I'm not persuaded that a person far removed from the situation can have all the pertinent details.
Had Rev. Edwards sought publicity for her action, then she - rather than any complainant - would have invited, even demanded response - whether from Pittsburgh or any other PC(USA) presbytery. I'm not aware if she did this.
Nonetheless I think Cameron is right. This is our process - even if it is unpleasant. What is the redress when local jurisdictions fail to uphold PC(USA) polity?
"Why is it wrong to participate in the legal proceedings of the church's courts in a civil way against someone of whom you have no personal knowledge, but is in flagrant and open rebellion against the order and discipline of said church"
Well, just to amend that slightly, Chris...I think it is not only wrong to participate in the legal proceedings of the church's courts against someone of whom you have no personal knowledge, but I'd also say that it is also wrong to say that said person "IS IN flagrant and open rebellion against the order and discipline of said church" without a trial [emphasis mine.] You might believe that's the case, but that isn't what you stated. You stated it as if it were already determined. In the PCUSA we presume innocence unless proven guilty. I hope this is not indicative of the sort of "fairness" we can expect in this trial.
Given these sorts of statements, one wonders exactly how folks are going to respond if no charges are brought, or if no discipline is taken. Toby, can you give us an indication of what you'll think/do if things don't go your way? If you're asking Rev. Edwards to abide by church discipline, will you abide by it as well and stay even if this doesn't go your way? Trusting in the process is fine. Unless of course, if you only trust in the process when it goes your way.
Otherwise, I'm not sure at whom your question is directed, Chris. I didn't see anyone call anyone else a racist, a sexist or a homophobe in this conversation. Am I mistaken? Or are you about to paint all of us who are disagreeing with Toby with the same brush as those you've met who throw those words around much too freely? ;) Kinda ironic, dontcha think?
kgbdMark, I guess I knew all of that but didn't realize or had forgotten Rev. Yearsley was in Rev. Edwards presbytery at the original filing.
It only takes "a person" to file an accusation.
So, I guess some of us ought to be ready to do our duty and defend our constitution by filing against those who may be violating trust provisions and other ordination vows in cases where local sessions/presbyteries won't?
Toby,
Are you familiar at all with the teaching of Jesus in Matt 7?
“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.”
Are you so righteous in your own sight that this teaching does not give you at least >some< pause? That you feel so good going so far out our your way to judge someone else?
"It’s bad karma, man. Things like this have a way of coming back to you." They really do.
Jodie
It is one thing to support Rev. Yearsley by joining his compliant. But to be yoked with someone liked Paul roff Jensen is another matter. His motives are highly suspect. his has filed cases all over church and failed to show up at the time of trial. He show up at !st Church-Ashvelle when the presbytery of Western NC was meeting and trying to act on a report from a COM Taskforce on wheathe to continue to vaiidate the ministry of Parker T. Willlianson. Jensen screamed from the balconey at the Moderator and at others who rose to speak during the debate. As for as I could find out Jensen is not ordained and therefore had not right to speak. He does not know how to play by the rules. He is a rich boy with a trust fund and does not have to work for a living. He uses the polity of the church to cause havoc for those he disagrees with. I hope you and Rev. Yearsley aresuccessful with this complaint. I fear that Jansen way of doing business may get in the way/
A Pox on us all!
Toby,
This is why I grow weary and why I suspect Mark and I agree on one thing.
Do we really want to spend the rest of our lives tied up in this meaningless ranting at each other.
Mark,
Just a thought liberty has been posting around here a long time - maybe he's tired of personally opposing those who agree with you so he thought he would just qoute the Word and see how that works? That's how I take it.
It's time for a Barnabas and Paul moment.
As to the property thing. Can any really justice oriented person say that the trust clause is ok? I mean it's only 20 years old and it is only used to intimidate conservative churches that want to yoke with other presbyterians is thta really so radical?
We pay (well used to) per capita every year, and even when we don't have a clergy we are forced to pay into the board of pensions - do we really owe the denomination or do they owe us?
If we want to follow the rules of this world then the denomination and the presbytery owe us back a percentage of its assets.
Let's just part company before this gets even uglier.
Of course Toby lives in a presbytery where if he tried that they would jump on him with both feet (might be the best thing that ever happens to either of us).
I don't think there is any doubt that Rev Edwards publicized her actions with the intent of inviting the charges and having a trial to get a definitive ruling on whether the BOO language that a pastor "should not" conduct same sex marriages was restrictive.
See the story here from the Pittsburg newspaper:
Preacher Welcomes Church Trial for Lesbian Marriage
QG - The stated intent here suggests your interpretation is correct. But do you happen to know if she publicized her Buddhist/Christian same-gender wedding BEFORE charges were brought against her?
My issue is that I personally would be extremely uncomfortable with filing a complaint against someone on another presbytery - UNLESS I were familiar with the situation OR they had publicized their actions as an open violation of PC(USA) polity. In that case they were daring someone to respond. It would be a somewhat different scenario.
Maybe I'm missing something, but there doesn't seem to be anything unethical or hypocritical in what Toby has done: "…Rev. James Yearsley is the complainant and … he is the one who has confronted Rev. Edwards and the Pittsburgh Presbytery in this matter, both face to face, on the phone and in writing.…[W]e are the supporters of Rev. Yearsley's original complaint in the matter."
The only personal knowledge Toby really needs to make this affirmation is something like "I know James Yearsley, and his complaint deserves a hearing because he is not someone to make frivolous or vexatious complaints." I can imagine, especially in light of the "resolution" of his first complaint, why Rev. Yearsley would want people to stand with him and urge the Presbytery to face the substance of his issue and decide it on the merits.
From what I remember of Pittsburgh Presbytery, it has a strong instutitional culture to try to resolve such questions so that no one loses. If something in the form of a complaint would allow it to be disposed of without a definitive resolution on the merits, then technically no one is the "loser," I can understand why that would be an attractive option. But however attractive that is to the "broad middle" of the Presbytery, it that does leave both Rev. Edwards and Rev. Yearsley rather unsatisfied. Neither was condemned, but then, neither was affirmed either.
I can think of another reason why Toby would want to stand with his brother Rev. Yearsley. Disciplinary proceedings are not easy on anyone participating in them. I imagine Rev. Yearsley is facing lots of pressure, from his EP on down the chain of command, to drop the complaint, let the issue go, and allow the church to get on with mission. I've known people in similar positions. It's hard to choose between your conscience and your colleagues. So I can see why Toby would want to be able to say to his friend, "if this is what you have to do, then I want you to know I'm with you."
Of course, I make these affirmations never having met Toby myself... and I don't know if that picture on his blog is an accurate likeness or not... so take these observations for whatever you think they're worth.
(Re-posted because blogger comments don't have a spell checker…)
"QG - The stated intent here suggests your interpretation is correct. But do you happen to know if she publicized her Buddhist/Christian same-gender wedding BEFORE charges were brought against her?"
I'm not QG, but as far as I know, none of this was publicized until the charges were filed. In another, similar case, I know full well that there was no "publicity" prior to the filing of charges by complete strangers (some of whom are the same folks involved in this case.) The fact that Mr. Yearsley happens to have met Rev. Edwards is, as far as I can tell, a rarity for most of these proceedings.
"I can imagine, especially in light of the "resolution" of his first complaint, why Rev. Yearsley would want people to stand with him and urge the Presbytery to face the substance of his issue and decide it on the merits. "
Sorry, but Rev. Edwards ultimately has to stand alone. If Rev. (Mr?) Yearsley isn't strong enough go it alone too, then perhaps he should reconsider filing charges. Church discipline is hard because it is supposed to be hard.
Will,
According to the Presbyterian News Service, the accusations came after a newspaper article announcing the marriage and Edwards' role in it was published in the local newspaper.
Here's the link to the PNS story:
Presbyterian News Service story
That seems to be an invitation to file charges to me.
Just google rev janet edwards and you can find a number of other stories.
Well, what the article actually says, QC, is:
"The accusations came about after a local newspaper announcement informed readers of the marriage of the two women and Edwards’ role in presiding over the ceremony."
Doesn't sound like an "article". It sounds like a wedding announcement. Do folks in our church *really* have nothing better to do than scan the "Just Married" sections of our newspapers looking for charges to file? It certainly doesn't sound to me like they paid for a full page ad just to tick off conservatives in the PCUSA.
Where exactly does that end, I wonder? Since the couple in question had a public ceremony involving other people, does that make the wedding itself an "announcement" meant to invite charges? Does chatting about just having gotten married to a friend constitute an "announcement" if that chat gets back to people who want to file accusations?
I suppose if you're looking for a rationalization about a "public announcement" that is an "invitation" for someone to file charges, you could find that rationalization anywhere.
But the fact of the matter is that tactics used in this case can't be separated from the same tactics used in other cases, since some of the same people are involved. Again, I know concretely that in one case involving some of the same accusers, no "public announcement" meant as an "invitation" to file charges was ever made. (There wasn't even a wedding announcement in the paper.) Instead, as far as I can tell, one of the accusers simply used information he found on someone's personal blog.
Jodie,
How ridiculous and shallow!
No one is judging here. What the complaint is doing is asking the church to investigate the questionable actions of a minister and render a decision.
That's called church discipline.
And in regards to Matthew 7--I've preached it and I sleep fine at night.
Karma's a pagan myth but Christ is risen!
"Instead, as far as I can tell, one of the accusers simply used information he found on someone's personal blog."
There is no such thing as a personal blog :-) If you write something on a blog without password protection, it's public (just like this one.) Or are you saying someone broke into a computer and hacked into information?
Also, I find it strange that you would seem to criticize someone for finding out something happened, whether it was by reading the wedding announcements or hearing it from a friend or in the news and then finding the announcement. Published wedding announcements are public. In my area, you have to submit them to the paper and even pay to have them in. It's not a crime to read the wedding announcements and last I checked, not just something only done by losers :-)
I think this subject is very interesting and some good questions have been asked. The school where my daughter goes requires parents to sign something saying we'll deal with conflict in line with Matthew 18.
Recently the Layman had a link to an article called "Stinkers in the Church" in http://www.credenda.org/pdf/18-3.pdf dealing with roots of conflicts in the church.
I only skimmed it, but it seems to have some good points, but raised 2 questions for me. It seems to assume that people involved in conflict are always stinkers (i.e. assumes challenges are challenges against godly, functional leadership in a church versus challenges to a church with ungodly or dysfunctional leadership ) and that is not always the case.
Maybe that person needs to write a companion article, because sometimes the situation is unhealthy or dysfunctional, and God may lead people to speak the truth in love. That being said, I think the article's admonitions to check your motives are very important.
In thinking of Matthew 18, I sometimes wonder if the issue partly gets blurred because we don't differentiate between conflicts with individuals versus conflicts with or within ORGANIZATIONS, e.g. churches?
I know the same principles can apply, but in other ways the situations are different.
If I have an issue with the way and organization is going, it is not the same as an issue with an individual. I may personally like a pastor or elders but have fundamental disagreements with a policy they implement, for example. So I'm not going to go to them the same way I might if one of them sinned against me. I'm not going to go to just one of them - it's the organization I have the problem with - I'm not angry with someone and they haven't sinned against me.
This is something I think about a lot and have never resolved. Most churches don't have a procedure for organizational - people conflicts, so they tend to view people who bring up issues as troublemakers because they are looking at it from an individual to individual perspective.
Maybe I'm wrong to see it this way?
I do know the PCUSA has a bunch of rules about filing grievances, so if some of the posters don't like what Toby is doing, since it's legal in PCUSA, then maybe your beef should be with the existing procedures. Some are fond of saying "work within the system" so if you think it's wrong for someone who hasn't spoken directly to the person to be part of a case, then why don't you work to change the system?
This site seems to have some nice thought-provoking resources on resolving conflicts in a Christian manner.
http://www.peacemaker.net/site/c.aqKFLTOBIpH/b.958145/k.7ECF/Foundational_Principles.htm
-Cathy
Alan wrote, "Do folks in our church *really* have nothing better to do than scan the 'Just Married' sections of our newspapers looking for charges to file? It certainly doesn't sound to me like they paid for a full page ad just to tick off conservatives in the PCUSA."
Actually, Alan, Rev. Edwards was much more public than that in her advocacy. In fact, a quick search of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette online archives found lots of very public advocacy by her for same-sex marriage in Pittsburgh and across Pennsylvania. And I mean a quick search: these articles were not hard to find. I found them in no more than 10 minutes. Any regular reader of the Post-Gazette, the major daily paper in Pittsburgh, would have seen these regular reports on the activities of Rev. Edwards.
Well before the charges were filed, she admitted to one reporter she knew she was breaking a kind of truce she'd made with Presbytery leaders when she did the wedding. But the cause of justice required the confrontational action. (Some context: the Pennsylvania legislature, like those in many states, was considering a formal ban on same-sex marriages around this time. This was one way she was protesting the proposed legislation.) The Post-Gazette reporter commented her spirit was like her famous ancestor Jonathan, who was run from his pulpit for confronting his own congregational leaders.
It didn't require a detailed scan of the "just married" section of the paper to find out what she was doing. She may not have "paid for a full page ad just to tick off conservatives in the PCUSA", but it wasn't like the wedding was just a small group of Christians quietly minding their own business until out of nowhere these antagonists appeared. She knew what she was doing, and she made sure a wide audience knew what she was doing, and the made sure people knew why she was doing what she was doing.
Toby,
I have noted the various attacks upon you for being a cosigner of the complaint against Rev. Edwards.
The Book of Order is quite clear that actions by one impacts the whole. From: "G-9.0103 Unity of Governing Bodies All governing bodies of the church are united by the nature of the church and share with one another responsibilities, rights, and powers as provided in this Constitution. The governing bodies are separate and independent, but have such mutual relations that the act of one of them is the act of the whole church performed by it through the appropriate governing body."
Larry,
Indeed. But as far as I'm aware, the BoO does not supersede the Bible.
As for wedding announcements... Like I said, if you're looking for a rationalization, you're sure to find it. Is that really the rationalization one can use to be sure they've lived up to their responsibilities described in Matt 18? I don't think so.
Let me be clear on one thing.
If Toby was the ONLY person to know of the Rev. Janet Edwards ceremony who was willing to file an accusation, I would have no trouble with him doing so.
Having more than one person file the accusation, particularly when someone else is more local, seems like political grandstanding and piling on.
If a number of members/parishioners of Pittsburgh presbytery wanted to file charges - fine.
If NOBODY from Pittsburgh presbytery wanted to file charges, but Toby did - fine.
My problem is with Toby's decision to file charges in another part of the country, where someone else was local AND already filing charges, against someone that he'd never met for a situation that he had no personal knowledge of.
Mark. Yup...that's exactly where I'm at too. If the fact that Paul Rolf Jensen's name is on this complaint doesn't make it clear exactly the kind of fly-over accusation this is, then I'm not sure what would.
Toby, you may want to rationalize your involvement as support of your friend Rev. Yearsly. And maybe you believe that's appropriate. But in doing so, you've also associated yourself with a particularly unsavory element in the church, and you'll need to recognize your responsibility for that as well.
I am fully aware of my responsibilities.
This is why I have acted in this manner.
Well, Toby, you know what they say...."When you lay down with dogs..."
But I wonder why your "responsibilities" only include this one instance, and not the other charges that have been brought against other pastors who were also, I'm assuming, unknown to you. I still wonder why your "responsibilities" only include prosecutions against ministers and not other participants. You seem unwilling to answer the hard questions...I wonder if you actually asked them of yourself before you started this?
Alan,
In truth, it's not that I'm unwilling to answer your question, but rather that I don't think that it's important enough to spend any time on.
It should be pretty obvious why ordained, educated clergy are more responsible for upholding the constitution than members.
It's that whole oath thing...
Our members do not swear before God to uphold our church's constitution, do yours?
BTW--This will be my last comment on my blog for a while, per today's post.
"Our members do not swear before God to uphold our church's constitution, do yours?"
Our elders and deacons certainly do, don't yours?! You don't think a single LGBT elder or deacon has gotten married in the PCUSA? If your answer is "No" then you are pretty naive. If your answer is "Yes" then why haven't you charged them? You say you stand for justice...but it seems like pretty selective justice. What about Sessions? Why not file remedial cases against Sessions for allowing the use of the sanctuary.
I've made it clear several times that I was not referring to non-ordained members. (Although, frankly, your dividing of the world up into "ordained" vs. "non-ordained" is smacks of a bit of Catholicism. Are you actually saying that our members are not responsible for adhering to church teachings in the BoC and church discipline and order in the BoO?
It's unfortunate that you're unwilling to answer such a simple question. And, given that you're willing to go to all the trouble of bringing charges against someone you don't even know, it's a bit surprising you aren't willing to address a simple question here on your own blog. I suspect that's because the answer is embarrassing -- you folks only charge pastors because you're looking for the satisfaction of getting someone fired.
Enjoy your blogging break.
"you folks only charge pastors because you're looking for the satisfaction of getting someone fired."
Alan - I was not involved in any way, shape, or form in this action. But, I'd be willing to bet you a great deal this statement is untrue of Toby.
"But, I'd be willing to bet you a great deal this statement is untrue of Toby."
Will, Maybe; Maybe not. I've asked the same question about 10 times in this and previous posts on this matter and Tony refuses to answer it. Obviously he doesn't owe me an answer, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the refusal to provide one is itself instructive. I can't see anything in his "Biblical" justification for piling onto the Edwards charges that would preclude the charging of elders and deacons. And yet, it never happens ... Toby's buddy Mr. Jensen always goes after Pastors, as far as I'm aware. If they really believed this was about justice, then one would think they'd apply it fairly and evenly. So, either they actually believe in justice and are simply incompetent in its application, or they don't actually believe what they're saying and they're only interested in getting people fired. Because the third option -- that there is some qualitative difference between ministers and ordained laity -- is completely un-Presbyterian, and one would imagine that such stalwart defenders of all things Decent and in Order would know that. ;)
Post a Comment