Westminster Guardian, cont....
Monday, 29. May 2006, 01:15:45
The Committee on Justification's report was released primarily to the delegates for the next General Assembly for study purposes. The Committee specifically requested that the report not be discussed prior to the official discussion and debate to take place at GA. Apparently the wishes of the report's authors did not weigh too heavily for the WPCUS, and for Brian Schwertley in particular. Now, Schwertley's main point is that the report did not recommend immediate discipline for those purportedly supporting the FV/NPP. While I understand and sympathize with Schwertley's perspective, I have to wonder if he really understands presbyterian procedure? The report makes recommendations, which GA can then amend, modify, add to, or substitute. It's not the final word, but the initial play, so to speak, and one wonders why a little more patience on the part of the critics might not be available. But then again, can one expect patience from those who leave a denomination rather than pursuing due process?
WIDGETIZE
followerofhim2001 # 30. June 2006, 05:45
www.reformedonline.org The trial of Brian will be soon.
Fredrick Edward Fleming
BarryHofstetter # 1. July 2006, 12:06
This reveals to me on of the powers of the Internet, the ability to present one's point of view without any contradiction. As I read this, I couldn't help thinking "How is Christ being honored by so presenting these problems in the church to the world?" This is not to dispute the facts as you present them (nor is it to support them), but simply as a caution to take care to glorify Christ above all. BTW, this is one reason why I never delete posts contrary to my presentations in this blog. I will delete anything with objectionable moral content, but not simply because a person disagrees...
I think in general it is a very bad idea to publish details of church discipline cases currently under adjudication, particularly when the issues are personal and relational rather than doctrinal. There may even be legal difficulties: the courts have generally ruled that such details may be published only on a need to know basis, and "need to know" is defined by the fact that one is a member of the church, however defined by the church. Again, I urge caution!
I will be in much prayer over this tragic situation.