Regular readers know that in spite of my great regard and agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith I prefer the formulation of the Marks of the True Church in the Scots Confession and some other Reformed confessions.  The WCF [25:4] says “Churches… are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.” The Scots Confession puts it thus:

The notes of the true Kirk, therefore, we believe, confess, and avow to be: first, the true preaching of the word of God, in which God has revealed himself to us, as the writings of the prophets and apostles declare; secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, to which must be joined the word and promise of God to seal and confirm them in our hearts; and lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes, whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished. [Chapter 18]

Many people have problems with the idea of invoking “ecclesiastical discipline” since it may conjure up images of heretic trials and draconian punishment.  Regarding this let me make two points.

1. It is important to remember that “discipline” relates to the word “disciple,” as the root of the words suggests.  One online resources tells us that “discipline” derives from the meaning “instruction given to the disciple.” True discipline is instructional.
2. Related to that the intent of ecclesiastical discipline is to be restorative and not punitive.  As the Confession says “whereby vice is repressed and virtue nourished.”  We are not out to “get” someone but to restore them to right relationship with God and the Community.

Finally, I would also emphasize that discipline involves a process and in the Presbyterian sense it encompasses the Covenant Community and may impact on our “reformed and always being reformed” as the community tries to discern how God is calling us to be faithful to Scripture.

With that preface I wanted to summarize two recent events in Presbyterian Church of America presbyteries.  In both cases these are on-going issues and the recent news only represents the latest steps.

The first began as a bit of a “sleeper,” or at least was overshadowed by a higher profile case going on at the same time, but in the last two weeks it has really taken on a life of its own in one little corner of the blogosphere.  Let me say at the onset that much of the reporting on the web comes from one side of this controversy but in reading a lot of the articles the timeline and facts of this case do not appear to be in dispute.

This case began in the Spring of 2008 and involves the examination of a Teaching Elder in the Presbytery of Siouxlands specifically regarding views which are currently referred to as Federal Vision theology.  For a good detailed summary of this case I refer you to a piece last September that TE Brian Carpenter wrote for the Aquila Report.  In the interest of full disclosure I need to let you know that Mr. Carpenter is a complainant in one part of this case, now under investigation in another part, and also has a personal blog – The Happy T.R.   That will become important in a moment.

UPDATE: Wes White has now posted an all-in-one-place summary/timeline on this issue in Siouxlands.  Thanks.

Here is a summary so what follows will make more sense:  In April 2008 TE Wes White and TE Brian Carpenter asked the Presbytery of Siouxlands for an investigation of a member of the Presbytery and whether he was teaching federal vision theology contrary to the Standards of the PCA.  The Presbytery denied the request, White and Carpenter filed a complaint at the next Presbytery meeting and when that was denied a complaint was filed with the General Assembly.  A panel of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) sustained the complaint and the Presbytery was ordered to conduct an investigation.  The investigating committee was created, worked over the Summer of 2009, and by a 4-2 vote brought a report to the September Presbytery meeting that there was a “strong presumption of guilt.”  On the floor of Presbytery one of the dissenting members of the committee, TE Joshua Moon, moved a substitute motion to not accept the report and recommendations and the substitute motion prevailed.  He then made the motion that there was no “strong presumption of guilt” that the views of the member who was investigated were outside the bounds of the Standards and that motion prevailed by a narrow 20-17-1 vote.  New complaints were filed with the Presbytery.  The first summary ends at that point but TE Carpenter writes on his personal blog that at a called meeting at the end of October the new complaint was sustained and a new investigating committee formed.  In addition, a church session sent an overture asking for an investigation of a second TE, that individual answered the charges on the floor of Presbytery, the Presbytery voted to accept that examination as fulfilling the examination and find no “strong presumption of guilt,” and TE Carpenter filed a complaint in that case that the investigation was not extensive enough to fulfill the requirements of the Book of Church Order. A January item from the Aquila Report informs us that one session in the Presbytery found the new overture and other writings and statements of TE Carpenter  to have misrepresented another TE to a strong degree and they overtured the Presbytery to “find a strong presumption of guilt that Mr. Carpenter has publicly sinned…by violating the ninth commandment.”  These writings include his pieces on The Aquila Report and The Happy TR.  That brings us to the stated meeting of January 22…

The Aquila Report brings us one summary of that presbytery meeting, written by the other original complainant TE Wes White.  In the original case the second investigating committee brought a unanimous recommendation that the Presbytery find a strong presumption of guilt that the member’s teachings were outside the bounds of the Standards.  The Presbytery chose to postpone action on the report until September and formed a committee to “instruct and advise that member.”  On the one hand see above abo
ut discipline being restorative, on the other hand confer TE White’s personal blog for his analysis of the make-up of the committee and conclusion that it lacks balance.

The Presbytery also denied the complaint from TE Carpenter that the October examination was not sufficient.  The Presbytery did accept the overture regarding TE Carpenter’s actions and has set up an investigating committee to make a recommendation whether he had broken the ninth commandment by misrepresenting another member.  Part of this accusation has to do with his writing about the previous Presbytery meeting on his blog and the Aquila Report.  In line with the concept of ecclesiastical discipline it is interesting to note that in a completely unrelated item of business “a teaching elder who had previously been indefinitely suspended for a public sin was restored to office and the Presbytery expressed thanksgiving to God for the exemplary repentance God had worked in his heart.”

Still with me?  So here is where this story took on a life of its own on the blogosphere.  Following the meeting TE White and TE Carpenter weighed in on the meeting on their blogs.  In fact, Mr. Carpenter expressed his frustration a number of times in the first few days following the meeting and then felt the conviction of the Spirit, repented of his more sarcastic writing and took down most of his initial postings.  (Yes, I am aware that there are cached copies but to honor Mr. Carpenter’s wishes I won’t link those, you will have to find them yourselves.)  I do wish that at least the original post were available because in spite of the sarcasm I believe it clearly conveys both the passion that TE Carpenter has for the issue as well as the frustration he feels in trying to get the Presbytery to adequately deal with it.  From my saved copy let me simply quote part of the two paragraphs related to the new investigating committee that will be examining his behavior:

Now, I am not in the least perturbed by all of this… I think judicial investigations are fine and good. I am not threatened by them in the least. I didn’t do anything wrong. I did some things that some don’t like. I did some things that some don’t think are right, but they are mistaken. My conscience is clear. And if a fair and competent investigation can convince me that I did do something wrong, I will repent.

I have some good hope that the committee appointed to investigate me can conduct a fair and competent investigation…  The PCA has a fine constitution and I have the right and ability to make use of the provisions afforded by it.