Letters

Dear Frank,

Your request for a copy of the minutes of the Presbytery of Southeast Alabama was referred to the Administration Committee.

At the meeting of Presbytery on this date [October 28, 1997], the Committee recommended that the minutes of Presbytery be made available to ministers and to elders and members of the churches of Presbytery and to the appropriate committee of General Assembly for review, but to no others. (Grounds: Robert's Rules of Order, Section 41). Presbytery unanimously adopted this recommendation.

With warmest personal regards, I am, Sincerely yours,

Henry Lewis Smith, Stated Clerk

[Actually, the reference in Robert's Rules of Order has to be to Section 47, not 41.-Ed.]

Just a note to tell you how much I have enjoyed your publication while studying here at Westminster Seminary. You give excellent and balanced coverage to all the subjects you cover. I trust that you will be blessed and strengthened by our Lord in your ministry and work of publication.

Blessings!

Jeffrey C. Waddington

I am a PCA teaching elder not in a pastoral relationship, but I am not receiving a copy of your paper as is claimed by your stated policy.

My snail mailing address:

Lawrence N. Lunceford, 5902 Blue Ridge Cutoff, Raytown, MO 64133-3728

[We're glad Mr. Lunceford wants to read our paper, and we apologize for the oversight. If anybody knows anyone else who similarly should be receiving our publication and isn't, please let us know.-Ed.]

Dear Mr. Smith:

I was a close observer of the case of the Heartland Presbytery against Grace Reformed Presbyterian Church (GRPC) and Stephen Newton. The essential issue was whether the Presbytery could coerce GRPC to submit statistical reports merely because the Presbytery so ordered.

The essential issue is well illustrated by the events at one Presbytery meeting (this one not done in executive session) when GRPC agreed to send in the reports as long as they were requested for the sake of the peace and unity of the church, rather than as a command of men. A Presbytery member then made a request on that basis, and Mr. Newton agreed to submit the reports without hesitation. The matter appeared to be resolved. The next day, however, Mr. Lunceford said he would quit as the clerk if discipline was not initiated against GRPC. Thus began the long road which would lead to the deposition of TE Stephen Newton, one in which executive session was repeatedly invoked by the Presbytery.

The Presbytery preferred to see the case as a matter of contumacy, and labeled it as such. GRPC argued that the demand to submit statistical reports based on the bare authority of the Presbytery - Heartland did not attempt to ground their request for statistical reports in the Scriptures - was a false view of church polity that violated Chapter 20 of the Westminster Confession of Faith. A dissenting opinion of the Presbytery noted this issue. On this issue, Mr. Newton read a paper to the Standing Judicial Committee. In addition, the General Assembly stated "[t]his leaves only one remaining specification in support of Presbytery's finding of contumacy...The specification deals with TE Newton's failure to provide statistical reports..." The statistical reporting was the sine qua non issue.

As for the use of executive session, it was the Presbytery, not GRPC, that wanted it. GRPC argued strenuously against the use of executive session at a Presbytery meeting in Nebraska. One of the bases of the charge against the GRPC session was its refusal to meet with a committee; this was actually a refusal to meet with the committee in executive session, the session having stated to the committee that it would see them in an open meeting.

It is my hope that this will help clarify the nature of this case and promote the truth so that the Church of Jesus Christ may be advanced.

Mitchell Mahan

Des Moines, IA

[For clarification's sake, it was actually not the General Assembly, but Dale Peacock's Concurring Opinion, which stated that "[t]his leaves only one remaining specification in support of Presbytery's finding of contumacy . . . ."-Ed.]

Dear Dr. Smith:

We, the Session at Christ Presbyterian Church, wish to respectfully express our disappointment with the coverage given by your publication to matters between our body and Stated Clerk of the General Assembly, Dr. Paul R. Gilchrist.

After being made aware of your publication, it was the feeling of the CPC Session that the article in the fall, 1997, edition of P&R News was in violation of the spirit of Christ's teaching concerning the handling of personal offenses as spelled out in Matthew 18:15-18.

It had been, and is a most important matter to our sessional body that the concerns we have since resolved with Dr. Gilchrist be approached with loving, Biblical due process in mind. By definition, the matter is private unless it cannot be resolved through these channels. It certainly does not concern P&R News. Our purpose in seeking the help of the Eastern Carolina Presbytery was never intended to give a public ill report of these personal issues. We were unaware the documents were being distributed to you, and are still uncertain who channeled them your way. P&R News seems to have made no effort to preserve our Biblical intent, but instead appears to be working to undermine our attempt to follow our Christian mandate for handling conflict, the purpose of which is to reconcile, not aggravate.

The article fails to mention that CPC supplied no documents and that the CPC Session supplied no comment on the matter. Indeed, we would have concurred with spokesman for Dr. Gilchrist who-according to the article-"indicated that this matter was between Eastern Carolina and the AC (Administrative Committee)."

While the article may have been a reasonably accurate chronology of actual correspondence, the letters were never intended for public consumption. This does a great disservice to both our church body and Dr. Gilchrist and family.

The accuracy of the denomination's news is not always of paramount importance. In this instance, the information was disseminated without taking seriously the most basic principles of the New Testament teaching concerning matters of discipline. At best, printing such information is inconsiderate, at worst, it may lead to an undermining of the peace and purity of the church. We would encourage you to hold fast to Biblical teaching where it clearly takes precedent over the principles espoused in the secular journalism classroom.

We thank you for the opportunity to share these concerns with you.

Respectfully,

THE SESSION OF CHRIST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, WINTERVILLE, NC

Response from the Editor of PINS to this letter from the Session of Christ Presbyterian Church:

One of the sad facts in this life is that we often are called upon to fight battles-even in the church. It is not a pleasant business, but sometimes it has to be done.

The Session of Christ Presbyterian Church, Winterville, NC, was, in God's providence, placed in a situation where it believed it had no real choice but to take unpopular stances with regard to the chief executive officer of the entire denomination. I personally want to commend these elders for their courage in doing what they believed was right, just, and even necessary. I believe that what we find coming to expression in the letter above is perhaps what we might call a war-weariness, brought on especially in the aftermath of receiving critical and hostile comments. I hope that my response will not be unduly harsh to the brethren in Winterville, while at the same time defending our actions.

In the second paragraph, the letter states the "feeling" of the Session that the article "was in violation of the spirit of Christ's teaching concerning the handling of personal offenses as spelled out in Matthew 18:15-18." We are a bit confused by the presence of this feeling. Matthew 18 spells out three stages in the disciplinary process. The last piece of correspondence which the Session sent to the Stated Clerk prior to bringing the matter to the attention of Eastern Carolina Presbytery specifically states that this is the third step of discipline. The third step is to bring the matter to the church-that is, to press it formally in the courts of the church. The documents of church courts are, by definition, public. Beyond the question of whether the matter was "private", the fact that the Session was concerned about whether or not Dr. Gilchrist was faithfully carrying out his duties as Stated Clerk of the General Assembly makes it hard to understand how these alleged offenses could be considered "personal" rather than "general" (see BCO 29-3).

In the third paragraph, the Session states that it was important to that body to approach its concerns "with loving, Biblical due process in mind. By definition, the matter is private unless it cannot be resolved through these channels. . . . Our purpose in seeking the help of the Eastern Carolina Presbytery was never intended to give a public ill report of these personal issues." As we noted in the paragraph above, taking the matter to the level of a church court-and here we mean the Session-already made it a public matter, by definition, in that the minutes are public documents. And, the action taken by a church court is the action of the entire church (BCO 11-4); presumably, those who have had action taken on their behalf are entitled to know what that action is. Furthermore, it is hard to see how these alleged offenses could be considered "personal" since both the Pastor and the Session were making the case that this matter involved principles about how the Stated Clerk's Office works and how the Administrative Committee functions in relation to local churches.

It is, shall we say, somewhat naïve for the Session to believe that seeking the help of Eastern Carolina could be sought without making the matter "public." The Session distributed throughout the Presbytery copies of the correspondence, and did so, apparently, without making any comment as to the alleged private nature of that correspondence. The Presbytery, having received that correspondence at the April 1997 meeting, did not have time to consider it at the July meeting, and finally took action regarding it at an adjourned meeting in August. This action was reported in the Eastern Carolina minutes. We are incredulous that anyone could seriously maintain that news about such action would not spread. In addition to that, by definition, a "private" offense is known only to a few people (BCO 29-4). The fact that the entire Presbytery was involved means that it was no longer a "private" matter.

In its letter to the editor, the Session states that this matter "certainly does not concern P&R News." Our news service exists to provide information about and of interest to the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). The allegations made with regard to Dr. Gilchrist are certainly of interest to the entire PCA. We make no judgment about the validity of the allegations. However, if it were true that he was failing to carry out his duties as Stated Clerk, that would be very serious. It definitely could affect everyone in the denomination. News about such action is quite germane to what we do, as a news organ that is part of the church and yet independent of the denominational bureaucracy. Moreover, it was inevitable that news about these allegations would spread. Part of what we try to do at our news service is to disseminate accurate information so as to cut down on the spread of rumors and false reports.

Also in the third paragraph, the Session states that "P&R News seems to have made no effort to preserve our Biblical intent, but instead appears to be working to undermine our attempt to follow our Christian mandate for handling conflict, the purpose of which is to reconcile, not aggravate." With all due respect, I believe that the elders on the Session may have short memories. They were rather agitated about this whole matter last spring and summer. They were even willing not only to take this matter to the floor of the Presbytery, but also (potentially) to take it, judicially, to Dr. Gilchrist's presbytery. This is not to say that their purpose was not, all along, reconciliation. However, it is to recognize that sometimes conflict must come before reconciliation can be achieved. Aggravation sometimes works good, not as a goal but as a means to that end. In this regard, we would respectfully note the chronology of events. In late October 1997, at least one member of the Administrative Committee intervened in an effort to resolve the dispute. At about the same time, on October 29, 1997, we contacted the Stated Clerk's Office with regard to this story. Two days later, on October 31, he sent the letter of apology to Christ Church Session. It is at least conceivable that the knowledge that we had the information on this matter may have helped to induce the Stated Clerk to write that letter. If that were the case, then our efforts may have helped to resolve the dispute to the satisfaction of the folks in Winterville.

We cannot help but mention the fact that the Stated Clerk's Office, both orally on the telephone and then via snail mail during the first week of November, refused to comment on this matter. If the Stated Clerk had sent us a copy of the apology letter, we would have been happy to have run it. The story would have had a totally different flavor to it. However, the Stated Clerk failed to provide us with that documentation which, perhaps, could have cleared him. Any aggravation of the situation, it would seem to us, lies elsewhere.

In the fourth paragraph, the Session states that the article failed to mention that that court had supplied us with no documents and had also supplied "no comment" on the matter. The fact of where the documents came from was irrelevant to the story. In the Winter 1998 edition of the newspaper, we do note that the Session was not the direct source of that material.

In the fifth paragraph, the Session states that the letters sent to Dr. Gilchrist "were never intended for public consumption. This does a great disservice to both our church body and Dr. Gilchrist and his family." As we have suggested above, it is naïve to believe that these letters could remain "private." It does not matter what the "intention" of the elders at Christ Church may have been: once the Session took the action it did-particularly involving Eastern Carolina Presbytery-there was no turning back. We believe we have already addressed the question of whether our publication of this correspondence was a "disservice" to the PCA. Merely making such an assertion does not make it so.

In the sixth paragraph, the Session states that the "accuracy of the denomination's news is not always of paramount importance." I take it that what is meant here is that, even if accurate, spreading private information is not in the best interest of the church. With that sentiment, I would agree. Let me say in no uncertain terms that we at the news service have NOT sought to uncover private matters. The point, however, is that the information in this instance could not be considered to be private.

The Session continues in the same paragraph: "In this instance, the information was disseminated without taking seriously the most basic principles of the New Testament teaching concerning matters of discipline. At best, printing such information is inconsiderate, at worst, it may lead to an undermining of the peace and purity of the church. We encourage you to hold fast to Biblical teaching where it clearly takes precedent over the principles espoused in the secular journalism classroom." Well, it's been awhile since anyone has accused me of not knowing my Book of Church Order. I hope that, per the discussion above, I have demonstrated that I have given serious attention to the most basic principles of the New Testament regarding discipline. Even if I am mistaken, I do not think that it can be maintained that I have not "taken seriously" the instruction of Scripture in this matter. May I respectfully suggest that the Session is, without any evidence, attempting to judge my intentions?

As was suggested above, disseminating the correspondence as we did, in our estimation, helped to maintain the purity and peace of the church. (If not, then the problem is principially with the Session of Christ Presbyterian, not with the news service.)

As to principles espoused in a secular journalism classroom, I would not have any knowledge of them, since I have never taken a class in journalism. (That admission is probably going to elicit from across the church a lot of exclamations, such as, "So, that explains it!")

I hope that this response adequately addresses the concerns raised by the Session of Christ Presbyterian Church. We are always ready to receive constructive criticism of our efforts at keeping the church informed of matters of interest and importance to her. As I trust is evident from this response, we are quite comfortable with the coverage we gave to this dispute and continue to stand by our reporting of it.