A few months ago I posted a copy of the ungodly and unscriptural oath that was administered to me by the so-called church court of the RPNA (GM) (whatever that is). Then I posted the notice of excommunication this "court" issued upon my refusal to sign the oath. I subsequently took it all down on the requests of some of the brethren who were still seeking to charitably work through the issues with the elders in question. However, it has become increasingly evident that the elders in question have hardened themselves in their position and are determined to go down with the ship, even if it means excommunicating everyone except for those who are related to them or are their most ardent loyalists. These elders seem to be developing mass excommunication into a fine art. The first group of people had ten members in it. The latest group contained fifteen, some of which had slipped their collective minds for a number of months and even over a year. But hey ho, nothing like the New Year for making a clean sweep. More are expected soon.
I have not only reposted the original comments, oath, and notice of excommunication, but I have added in the public protest that the Prince George society composed in response to the oath in question.
Why am I putting all of this out here? This is to warn anyone who may be considering joining with the RPNA (GM) of what you could be in for if you join hands with them unless God grants them grace to repent.
Here is my original post, which I had put up on November 5, 2006:
BOING! BOING! BOING! [sound of kangaroos hard at work]
I am going to commemorate 2006 as the year in which I was liberated from domestic and ecclesiastical tyranny.
I'm not going to comment much on the former at this time, but for your edification (or not) I will post information concerning the latter below.
First of all, I have considered myself a Presbyterian Covenanter for the past oh, 10 or so years. Lately, things in our societies have taken a nasty turn. They say that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and my latest experience hasn't done anything to disprove that. A few years ago we had a presbytery. It was dissolved when there was disagreement over the issue of birth control. Some of the elders believe that potential procreation trumps all other purposes, responsibilities and duties of marriage, even if the life/health of the wife is in danger. One of them felt it did not. So, on the basis of something that has never been established in a lawful General Assembly, a prohibition against birth control in all circumstances was made an implicit term of communion and those who disagreed were tossed out. Promises were made concerning a position paper on birth control, but to date, no paper has been forthcoming.
When presbytery dissolved, we were left in limbo. We had clear expressions from the remaining elders of not having an organized session, but now we find out a few years later that it should have been obvious to all of us that saying that we didn't have an organized session clearly means we have an extraordinarily organized session with all the powers of a General Assembly over the entire universe.
Those of us who have had questions about the structure of church gov't that we had and some of the things being done in its name have been drummed out of the societies by these popish presbyterians.
I'm not going to bore you all with all the tedious details, but after more than two years of going back and forth with the elders trying to have some questions answered, we find ourselves on the outside looking in, and with no higher court of appeal.
So here you go, for your information, you have before you the oath that they required me to swear followed by their declaration of my excommunication. Please note that I have been charged with an unknown sin by an unknown person. Matthew 18 procedures have not been followed. By that I mean, that this is the first time I learned that I had offended someone, and they have not come to me privately to get it cleared up. Nor did they bring two or three witnesses. Instead they passed Go and collected $200. Nice, eh?
October 4, 2006
Please confirm receipt of this document immediately by email to the Members ofSession: Pastor Greg Price, Elder Greg Barrow, and Elder Lyndon Dohms.
The Session of the RPNA (GM) has received, reviewed, and accepted formal charges of sin that have been filed with this Court and in which charges you are formally named as a defendant. Please understand that this does not mean that the case has already been tried.However, we do find the charges to be in order. As is true with any case brought beforethe Court, this is a very serious matter that could potentially affect the status of yourcurrent membership in the RPNA (GM). Therefore, please carefully and prayerfullyconsider the following requirements that this lawful Court of Jesus Christ now imposes upon you (as defendant) and upon the plaintiff by lawful authority and out of love for Christ and His Church.
Preparatory to adjudicating the charges filed against you, the Court requires that a formaloath be taken by both plaintiff and defendant in which you both, in accord with yourmembership obligations, bear formal testimony in the name of Jesus Christ that you:
1. Have no known disagreement with the Terms of Communion of the RPNA (GM),and,
2. Formally own the Session of the RPNA (GM) as a lawful and faithful Court ofChrist.
This is necessary, in the judgment of the Court, to ensure that all parties involved in this formal dispute (both the one making the charges and the one being charged) assure theCourt of their continued commitment to adhere to the obligations agreed upon at the time of their membership.
The reasons for the Court making this oath mandatory are as follows:
1. Those doctrinal errors or practical scandals that require the Session of the RPNA(GM), as an authoritative Church Court, to refuse a person admission into themembership of the RPNA (GM), also, in consistency, require it to remove one who isalready a member barring repentance.
Thus, if a person should come seeking membership in the RPNA (GM) and should not positively testify to the Court that he/she has no known disagreement with the Terms ofCommunion of the RPNA (GM), and that he/she positively “owns” this Court as a lawful and faithful Court of Jesus Christ, that one would “not” be admitted into membership. If this candidate for membership should say, “I don’t know (or I am not sure) if you are a lawful and faithful Court of Christ,” that person would be positively excluded from admission into membership within the RPNA (GM).Likewise, if a person who is already a Member of the RPNA (GM)—having already affirmed in his/her membership agreement and by his/her continued membership in theRPNA (GM) that he/she has no known disagreement with the Terms of Communion ofthe RPNA (GM) and owns the Session of the RPNA (GM) as a Church Court that is both lawful and faithful—fails, when called upon to do so by a lawful authority, to positively continue to testify of these things, that one, also, would be excluded (i.e. removed) from membership within the RPNA (GM) barring repentance.
2. Failure to take a lawful oath, when imposed by lawful authority, in matters of great
importance, is scandalous and against God’s law.
Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 22:2,3 states,
“Yet as, in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the word of God under the New Testament, as well as under the Old; so a lawful oath, being imposed by
lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken” (1 Kings 8:31; Ezra 10:5; Nehemiah13:25).“Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposedby lawful authority” (Exodus 22:7-11; Numbers 5:19-21; Nehemiah 5:12).
Thus, failure to take the oath below would, in the judgment of this Court, be a dishonor to God, a scandal to the Church, a violation of your own membership agreement, and a disobedience to and dishonoring of the lawful ordinance of ecclesiastical authority given to the Session of the RPNA (GM) as a Court of Christ. Therefore, all who refuse such an oath (unless of course the oath is demonstrably unlawful) may and ought to be disciplined according to the rule of Christ set down in the Word of God in Matthew 18:17-20.
This oath is not optional, and failure to sign this oath and return it to the Clerk of Session within the stipulated time frame will result in the enactment of Church discipline, and barring repentance, will result in formal and public termination of your membership inthe RPNA (GM). Here then is the oath that the Court now imposes upon you (as defendant) by the lawful authority given to the Session of the RPNA (GM) from Christ who is Savior and Head of the Church:
I, Cheryl Grenon, freely and voluntarily, according to my own conscience and not being induced or compelled by any unlawful external means, by the grace of God and in the name of Jesus Christ, sincerely, in the plain and common sense of these terms, without equivocation or mental reservation, formally testify that I, Cheryl Grenon, in no way knowingly disagree with any of the five Terms of Membership of the RPNA (GM), or any of the six Terms of Communion of the RPNA (GM) inclusive of its published position papers (namely, “A Brief Defence Of Dissociation In The Present Circumstances”, “A Brief Testimony Against The Practice Of Occasional Hearing”, “The Common Cup:Evaluated From A Biblical, Historical, And Medical Perspective”, “The Practice Of Headcoverings In Public Worship”, “A Reformation Discussion Of ExtraordinaryPredictive Prophecy Subsequent To The Closing Of The Canon Of Scripture”,“Reformed Presbytery In North America Deed Of Constitution”, and “Position Paper And Response To Questions Circulated About Sessional Authority Within The RPNA(General Meeting)”), and I formally testify that I own the authority of the Session of theRPNA (GM) in both its extraordinary form and jurisdiction, which is presently comprised of Pastor Greg Price, Ruling Elder Greg Barrow, and Ruling Elder Lyndon Dohms, as that Presbyterian Church Court, which is both lawful and faithful to the true Covenanted testimony of Jesus Christ and is agreeable to the Scripture and to all of the SubordinateDocuments of the RPNA (GM). I further testify, in the name of Christ, that I do and will willingly submit to the Session of the RPNA (GM) (in so far as they conform to the Word of God), and that I will endeavor to conduct myself in this upcoming Court proceeding truthfully, honestly and charitably.
This signed oath must be returned to the Clerk of the Court, Elder Lyndon Dohms in paper copy [address deleted] by 12 AM,Wednesday, October 18, 2006.
Dear Member, the Court appeals to you not only from the authority of Christ, but also from the love of Christ to fulfill this duty incumbent upon you as a Member of the RPNA(GM).
Please confirm receipt of this document immediately by email to the Members of Session: Pastor Greg Price, Elder Greg Barrow, and Elder Lyndon Dohms.
Respectfully submitted in the fear of God and in the love of Christ,
The Session of the RPNA (GM)Pastor Greg PriceElder Greg BarrowElder Lyndon Dohms
PLEASE NOTE THAT I REFUSED TO SIGN SUCH AN ENTRAPPING AND UNGODLY OATH IN WHAT IS A PATENTLY UNJUST AND INEQUITABLE PROCEEDING
Upon being issued this oath, the Prince George Society responded with the following protest:
October 18, 2006
Dear covenanted brethren,
Greetings in the name of our precious Savior. We cherish your fellowship and pray this letter finds you in the joy of the Lord.
In writing you today, it is our sincere and abiding desire to see true Presbyterian government among us,according to Scripture and according to those Subordinate Standards received and acknowledged in covenanted Historical Testimony. Our purpose now is to openly object to a recent effort to divide us and separate us from fellowship with you. This again deferred our hope of over two years to have counsel from Pastor Greg Price, Elder Greg Barrow and Elder Lyndon Dohms on a variety of concerns, as providence and duty permitted.
On October 4, 2006, all our society members were served with demand for an ‘Oath’ (copy below), as a preliminary step to adjudicate unnamed charges brought by an unnamed Plaintiff. As we reflected on this latest step, we realized a line had been crossed demonstrating an obstinacy we could no longer allow to pass over in silence. The result is this public protest and complaint (Eccl 12:14; Lu 12:2).
In July 2004, many brethren gathered in Prince George to celebrate the marriage of _______and ________; that same day, _______was born. In a face-to-face conversation between Pastor Price, Elder Barrow and a 3-member committee of ours in the early hours of Friday, July 2, we related our concern for improved society communication, and shared our plan to distribute a letter that weekend. The purpose of that letter was to ask them and all the brethren to consider what might be of use to us in a historically proven subordinate standard for the promotion of better communication. This was also the first time our society heard Greg Price and Greg Barrow refer to ‘the Session’.
As a courtesy, we shared a draft of our letter with Pastor Price and Elder Barrow (Elder Dohms was notyet in Prince George). Rather than give it out to brethren that Saturday, we were asked to wait 7 daysbefore mailing our letter to the brethren, which would afford them and Elder Dohms a thorough preview.
We agreed to the 7-day window, which would also give us time to review their ‘Session’ claim.
The next day however, Saturday July 3, ‘withdrawal’ of the undistributed draft was made conditional toour being admitted to the Lord’s Table. They refused to speak with us as a society on our commonconcern, insisting they be taken up as individual households. Ultimately, that 7-day window stretched intoan exercise of over two years, of which those July proceedings were but a preview. This was the context of our attempted dialogue with the Elders, during which we honored them with the confidentiality they requested of us, but which they unapologetically did not return in kind.
In the weeks following, we discreetly polled brethren to assess common perception on the ‘is there a Session?’ question, and found we were not alone in our confusion that summer of 2004. We submitted a ‘revised’ draft to each Elder on September 24. As an example of the need for greater communication, it referred to our surprise on the ‘Session’ question back in July. October 7, they put eight questions to us. According to the written record, October 31, 2004 marks their first public reference to themselves by the judicial term ‘Session of the RPNA (General Meeting)’. This was found in the signature of a widely circulated email.
In the course of two years we have been questioned about our motives (Jul./04; Oct./04), told we had separated (July 2005), and that we were causing division among the brethren by not deferring areas of private duty and liberty to them (2006). We have suffered misrepresentation, innuendo, and injury. With many tears and crying out to God, we have guarded our hearts against resentment or bitterness and maintained our desire to see the whole covenanted remnant strengthened. However, any hope we had for meaningful direct dialogue with the Elders effectively came to an end this last October 4, 2006.
The essential problem is that when they served us with this oath, they did so with knowledge of
concerns we had put before each Elder, in escalating degrees no less than six times since July 2004. Their demand, which might be an otherwise lawful and appropriate one, ought not to have been requested or demanded of us until they had taken all reasonable measures to instruct us directly on the relevant questions and outstanding issues. On July 16, 2005, they did comment on our concerns when Greg Barrow emailed email@example.com (cc: Greg Price and Lyndon Dohms):
“We share your concern and agree that the questions you are raising, along with their
attendant implications, warrant our more immediate attention. At the same time we
believe that because your response is questioning the very existence and lawfulness of
our extraordinary Session (and by implication the lawfulness of every member of the
RPNA who presently receives our oversight as faithful), these matters also deserve
careful clarification of your position, further discussion among ourselves, and finally a
carefully written full response to your concerns. This will take time.” (Para. 3b)
From their own words they have demonstrated they understood our concerns had significant implications. Our concerns were also relevant in pre-communion interviews days later in Edmonton, AB, confirming their awareness. Therefore, ignorance cannot be a valid factor in their choice of demand format, which lacks any acknowledgement of our concerns let alone attempt at accommodation.
The demand has five main elements. While all may be cause for concern at different levels, one is completely opposed to any interest in justice. Our hope for justice did not break at:
(1) Their calling themselves a constituted court (nor at the lack of: date of calling and constitution, documented measures to secure informed consent, commencing a confused agenda).
(2) The adopting of practices and doctrinal positions without the beauty of a meaningful, Presbyterian overture.
(3) The requiring us to swear this oath without stating the formal charge and Plaintiff which advantages all other parties have (which appears as potential entrapment contrary to ecclesiastical jurisprudence on ‘informed’ consent).
(4) The right of lawful authorities to impose lawful oaths on those under their jurisdiction (not contested by any among us).
Those four elements might have been considered privately on another day as providence and duty permitted (Deut. 29:29). However, when considered against the two year record, our hope for justice broke upon number five, seeing it as fundamentally problematic to a reasonable hope in their actions:
(5) Putting words in our mouths and by them, constructing commitments we never made
(We have underlined some relevant portions in the oath document itself following our letter)
In choosing to frame the oath as they did, with the knowledge they had, they effectively chose to position us as no members at all of the covenanted community and therefore our unanswered questions will never have to be fully answered. To take the oath would have us own the PPSA, which they claim answers the Session question for us. We are put in a lose/lose situation. Such design stumbles all concerned from fulfilling lawful covenantal vows in good conscience (Solemn League & Covenant, Articles I & II), and is best designed to provoke wrath (Col. 3:21).
Therefore, may God have mercy upon us all as we make known this measure to position us ‘outside the camp’ from covenanted brethren in Christ. This policy of exclusion and “self-preservation” can only be seen as gross incompetence at best, maliciously bearing false witness at worst (LCat. Q.144, Q.145); demonstrating their ‘gift for government’ (1 Cor. 12:28), the facts sustain massive injury in either case. While not a commentary on their personal virtues, which are many, it is an example of governance they claim to fulfill as a judicial court. We might
pass over this out of a misguided desire to ‘live peaceably with all men’ (Rom. 12:18) at all costs, but for the fact it appears the very kind of historical revisionism, linguistic gamesmanship, and tyranny (whether in gross incompetence or willful pride) that the godly have contended against in all ages.
In our documented context, this oath must be seen for what it is: an unlawful imposition contrary to justice, peace and the Presbyterian way. Nevertheless, we have been asked to voluntarily, plainly and firmly testify some things “without equivocation or mental reservation.”
In this context, contrary to the words and commitments imputed to us by Greg Price, Greg Barrow, and Lyndon Dohms October 4, 2006, we publicly testify that:
1. On July 2, 2004, our society committee asked Greg Price and Greg Barrow in person for details corroborating their claim to be members of “a lawful and faithful Court of Christ.”
2. From July 2 until we submitted a revised draft September 24, 2004, we had received no
corroborating details to support the proposition they claimed. We did not and have not denied the proposition, but to this day our concerns remain unanswered, and thus we were not then and are not now in a position to conscientiously own something called, “the Session of the RPNA (GM)”.
3. None of our Prince George society members requested admittance into anything called, “the
RPNA (GM)” which professed body is not now observed existing in the “plain and common
sense” of the words, as established in published covenanted history and Presbyterian polity.
4. Our Society has stated relevant concerns in escalating degrees to each Elder on no less than sixoccasions for over two years since July 2004.
5. In light of our multiple unanswered questions of over two years, to construct our patience and
longstanding commitment to Reformed Presbyterianism (12 years) and the covenanted way (10
years) as tacit consent, and as our having ‘continuing’ “membership commitments” as they frame them, does such injury to the record that we cannot endure further such abuses in silence or patience, lest we sin against our own consciences crying out for peace, charity and reformationbeyond mere words (1 Cor. 13:1). and,
6. We do own approved subordinate standards in the “plain and common sense” of the terms,
however it does not follow that our commitments contemplated the recent public vindication titled ‘Sessional Authority’ of June 4, 2006. We do not own arbitrary claims as settled and binding judicial positions on the whole world without such claims firmly established out of approved argument and example in our covenanted historical testimony, lest in one blow we countenance both independency and prelacy. With the Apostles, we have guarded our consciences from dishonesty (Acts 24:16; 2 Cor. 4:2) and labored to walk faithfully before one Lord (Acts 4:19).
An aggravating problem is that the Elders alleged on August 25, 2006 that some offence exists between our entire society, and one or all of them, on some matter out of our July 23, 2006 email. To date they have refused to identify the matter, let alone substantiate the claim. This does not support their receiving of, let alone hearing of, a case against us, before resolving that fundamental issue which compromises any assurance for justice and equity. Our record of inquiry and entreaty goes back to July 2, 2004; even if they asserted the unspecified ‘charge’ and unnamed ‘Plaintiff’ had a claim preceding our record of inquiry, the conflict of interest is flagrant. Surely it is to put the cart before the horse; surely the resolving
of one must precede the other?
An underlying concern is the reluctance on their part (October 2004; August 25, 2006) to clarify their understanding of confidentiality in our dialogue attempts to date. Is this because the topic of confidentiality is another concept so complex it is beyond the understanding of the average person? We must wonder if the confusion is not so much in the topics as in those claiming such wisdom (Prov. 27:2).
Our concerns may be better highlighted in the Reformation question: “Does the Church exist for the edification of the government, or the government for the edification of the Church?” At this time, we are convinced by Scripture and Historical Testimony that the form of proceedings taken here is NOT proven as Presbyterian by any convention of charity or heavenly wisdom.
[Irrelevant portion edited out concerning our records of correspondance.]
We do hope to see all the Societies established in humble, proper Presbyterian governance in the bond of unity, together serving the Kingdom of Jesus Christ here on earth in keeping our covenantal vows. It is said that words expressing ‘love’ for one another are nothing without humility, repentance, and Truth in action. The Savior also demanded profession before men (Matt. 10:32, 33); may we not be found as Peter on that sad day when the cock did crow (Luke 22:60-62). May we all ’play the man’ (2 Sam. 10:12), not in carnal defense of reputation or party as for Paul or Apollos (1 Cor. 3:4-6), but for Christ alone.
Our hopes and prayers for you all continue, as we beseech the Father for Minister, Elders and His flock.
Society of Prince George
October 18, 2006
Prince George Society members
The refusal to take the oath earned me the following:
Announcement from the Session of the RPNA (General Meeting)November 4, 2006
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
It is our sad but necessary ministerial duty to announce publicly to those under our oversight, that Mrs. Cheryl Grenon of Prince George, British Columbia, Canada, has refused to swear a lawful Oath imposed upon her (October 4, 2006) by this lawful Church Court reaffirming her membership agreement (before being served with charges of sin [filed in good order and received by the Court] by a member of the RPNA—GM), and in so doing has sinfully excommunicated herself from membership and has shown public contempt for Christ and His Ordinance of a lawful Church Court. Not only did the Session give in the Letter of October 4, 2006 (that accompanied the Oath) scriptural citations, confessional support and reasonable arguments consistent with her membership agreement, but also sent the public Letter of October 28, 2006 (and a corrected version October 29, 2006) responding to various objections offered by members in Prince George (and others) to taking the Oath. The Session did in that Letter prove (by way of reference to its Position Paper on Sessional Authority June 4, 2006),accuse of sin, rebuke in brotherly love, and command in the fear of God, Cheryl Grenon to repent of her sin, but she has not stated to the Session either her repentance or her intention to repent. Although Cheryl has not explicitly written to terminate her membership with the RPNA (GM), she has done so implicitly by publicly, actively, and voluntarily refusing to take a lawful Oath that reaffirms her submission to the Session as a lawful Court and her acknowledgement that she has no known disagreement with the Terms of Communion of this Church.
Thus, Cheryl Grenon has sinned against Christ and His Ordinance of Church Government within this lawful Church Court by refusing to sign a lawful Oath and showing public contempt for such a Court.
“Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, everyone of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?” (Numbers 16:1-3)
“Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18:18-20)
“And as they went through the cities, they delivered them the decrees for to keep, that were ordainedof the apostles and elders which were at Jerusalem.” (Acts 16:4)
“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.” (Hebrews 13:17)
Cheryl Grenon’s public, active, and voluntary refusal to reaffirm her submission to our lawful Church Court, and her membership within a faithful Church of Christ is, in our judgment, a sinful division and schism within the body of Christ (Romans 16:17), and without scriptural warrant.
With much grief and sorrow, for the purpose of informing those under our oversight, we declare that the membership status of Mrs. Cheryl Grenon has now formally changed, and we publicly declare her to be placed upon our List of Deserters, and judicially declare in the name of Jesus Christ that she is now in a position of being formally excommunicated from the Visible Church. We do so in hope praying that God may by this action deliver her unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, THAT THE SPIRIT MAY BE SAVED IN THE DAY OFTHE LORD JESUS (1 Corinthians 5:5). We take not this step because we hate Cheryl, butbecause we love her and earnestly desire her repentance and reconciliation.
We remind the congregation that our duty toward Cheryl is to constantly and humbly pray forher reconciliation in the truth, and that each of us ought to be mindful and careful of our respective duties in regard to having familiar fellowship with those who are excommunicated from the Church. We would call to the attention of all who are under our inspection that to practice familiar fellowship with those who are excommunicated is likewise a sin that is censurable and contrary to the Word of God (1 Corinthians 5:11-13) and to our Terms of Communion (_The First Book of Discipline_, “The Seventh Head--Of EcclesiasticalDiscipline”).
Finally, we would remind you that, as members of the RPNA (General Meeting), each time you become informed of, or witness, a judicial action enacted by this court, you have a scriptural duty either to consent to that judicial action (either expressly or tacitly) as that done faithfully by a lawful court of Christ, or to dissent with arguments agreeable to Scripture and good reason (expressly and formally in writing) should you deem this action to be unfaithfully done. Please note, that your consent need not be formally expressed, as we take silence in this matter to be your tacit consent and approval of both the lawfulness of our Court and the faithfulness of the judicial action being enacted. If you disagree with what we have done as a Court, or for some reason believe that we are not lawfully constituted as a Court of Christ to perform such an act of jurisdiction, then it is your duty, according to God’s Word and your membership agreement, to immediately, formally, and honestly express your dissent, reasons and/or questions in writing to the Session.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant,
The Session of the RPNA (General Meeting)
Pastor Greg Price Ruling Elder
Elder Greg Barrow
My concluding remarks: I would hope that those who have read this would not think that this is classic presbyterianism at work. Nor do I think that this is representative of what Covenanted presbyterianism is all about. To be truthful, I am no longer sure what covenanted presbyterianism looks like because I suspect, given the perceived deviations that I see from the standards, that what was dished out is nothing like the real McCoy. (Please note that I am exercising a great deal of restraint and would really like to say some other more forthright things. But I will spare my readers' blushes.)
I have something going in my favor -- I am not the only one who was kicked out. My entire society was on the chopping block and met the same fate. Misery loves company, but I can truthfully say that I am far from miserable and actually delighted to be set free from this whole mess. My next task is figuring out what to do next...