Sproul, Jr
Well, I suppose it’s public enough that I really won’t be breaking the news to anyone. Dr. RC Sproul, jr, has been defrocked by Westminster Presbytery of the RPCGA.
I don’t really have any comments on the whole thing… I’d prefer to just stay out of it entirely.
But that’s just my problem now, isn’t it? I got an email Monday night from a friend, informing me that on page 9 of the Declaratory Judgment, I am quoted. They used a portion of this post. I was not asked or notified about this.
I sent an email to Dr. Kenneth Gary Talbot, Moderator fo Westminster Prebytery of the RPCGA, Tuesday morning around 10 o’clock. I still haven’t heard from him. Here’s my letter:
Dr. Talbot,
Greetings.
I am writing to you regarding the Declaratory Judgment against the session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church dated January 26, 2006. I was notified last night that I am referenced in this judgment on page nine. I have just a few comments about my quotes in the Judgment.
Let me preface my remarks with a request to remove my name and comments from this judgment. It is my preference to stay out of this ordeal entirely. In addition, my comments do not supply any necessary evidence to support your case, and are therefore superfluous. Half of the subject matter is in regard to something not even in view in this Judgment (the pastoral oversight to a congregation outside the RPCGA, and ordination of officers to said congregation), and the other half deals with a topic (paedocommunion) which is admitted by the session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church. I see no need for my name and words to be included in this Judgment.
About the actual quotes, first, let me point out that there is an error. My comments are dated in the Judgment as 11/24/2004. That actual date is 11/24/2003.
Next, I did not mention it in my post, but Laurence Windham announced, before the service began, that there was some question about the admittance of young children to the Table. I do not recall his exact words, nor do I recall everything that he said, but what I do remember is that he said if a child had been brought to the Table by the session that had authority over him/her, then the session of St. Peter did not have the authority to deny their access to the Table. Since my session had judged my daughter as qualified to come to the Lord’s Table, I allowed her to come. Laurence Windham (or anyone else, for that matter) did not speak one way or the other about the qualification of my child.
Let me again make known my request in no uncertain terms. I wish to have nothing to do with this Judgment one way or the other. I am not associated with St. Peter Presbyterian Church, or even particularly friendly with them. I ask that my name and comments be stricken from the Judgment as well as any other record of this trial, and not be associated with this Judgment in any way.
Peace of Christ,
Richard Okimoto
What’s more, one must ask why they even use an internet blog post in an official document like this. What credibility do I have? Who am I? Am I really who I say I am? Do I really do all the things I say I do? One thing is for sure… Westminster Presbytery of the RPCGA doesn’t know the answer.
If you think anyone would care to know what I’ve said here, please share with them.
![[caedmonscall.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/ccneticon.jpg "The official unofficial fan site of Caedmon’s Call.")
![[derekwebb.net]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/dwneticon.jpg "The official fansite of Derek Webb.")
![[rmfo-blogs.com]](http://rmfo-blogs.com/images/rmfoblog.png "About the [rmfo-blogs.com] service.")
15 comments
[...] >>Note: Please see current post related to this. [...]
So, can I print this out and send it to you for you to sign?? In all seriousness, it is very strange for them to cite a blog from a member of another denomination…
Wow, so sorry to hear your name was brought up in this brother.
I’m not without bias in this thing, but that’s just wrong.
Richard,
Be patient with everyone during this. There are good men on both sides of the issue. I am sorry you were brought into it at all. Blessings,
Christo
Christo,
I’m not making any comments about the actual judgment. I don’t know enough details even if I were in a position to give an opinion on that (which I’m not).
I’m just talking about their use of my name and words in this declaration. I’m bothered by it, and I think it is very inappropriate for a number of reasons.
agreed
So let me see if I understand this. You publicly post comments on your blog memorializing the fact that your small children are served communion in what, from all appearances, is the practice of paedocommunion. Your children who, from all appearances, are far too young to give a credible profession of faith, nor are they even asked, are served communion by a minister who is forbidden by his denomination from practicing paedocommunion.
Then when that denomination quotes you, you cry “Foul!”
If you don’t want to be quoted about your church practices then don’t blog about them. Once you post it on a blog you’re fair game for quoting.
“So let me see if I understand this.”
I’ll be happy to help you along…
“You publicly post comments on your blog memorializing the fact that your small children are served communion in what, from all appearances, is the practice of paedocommunion.”
In the blog post in question, only one of my children (out of two at the time) were served communion. Only one had been approved by the elders that had authority over her to eat at the Table.
“Your children who, from all appearances, are far too young to give a credible profession of faith,”
It really depends on what is meant by ‘credible profession’. But I’ll go ahead and grant the point that my daughter would not have been brought to the Table if we were members at, say, Dr. Talbot’s church.
“nor are they even asked,”
I wasn’t asked about a profession of faith either. Is that troubling to you?
The fact of the matter is that all those baptized and admitted to the Table by those that had authority over them (i.e. the session of their home church) were welcomed to the Table.
“are served communion by a minister who is forbidden by his denomination from practicing paedocommunion.”
My child was served communion at St. Peter Presbyterian Church, yes. Forgive me for being pedantic here, but it was actually the elders of the CREC church that served communion to her. So it wasn’t a minister “forbidden by his denomination from practicing paedocommunion” that served her. I’ll leave it to you to answer your question, though.
“Then when that denomination quotes you, you cry “Foul!—
Not at all. I don’t have any problem whatsoever with Westminster Presbytery of the RPCGA disciplining Dr. Sproul and the session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church for practicing paedocommunion. If they were outside the standards of their denomination, then they should be disciplined.
I have a problem with Westminster Presbytery using my name and quoting my blog, though. I don’t see any reason for my name to be dragged into this. First off, my comments add nothing whatsoever to the case against the session of St. Peter. Just like I wrote to Dr. Talbot, the quote is superfluous. Next, what credibility do I have with Westminster Presbytery? They don’t know me from Adam. They don’t know if my account is accurate, or if I’m just making it up. They also don’t know the whole story of what happened that evening. My comments should not be considered testimony in any way. That wasn’t the purpose of them, and they shouldn’t be (mis)construed as such.
“If you don’t want to be quoted about your church practices then don’t blog about them. Once you post it on a blog you’re fair game for quoting.”
Actually, my church practices weren’t quoted. If they were, you would have read about my pure delight in my child being brought to the Lord’s Table, feasting on Him with the rest of His people.
I have a problem with a presbytery quoting me without my consent or knowledge in an official declaratory judgement. It is simply inapprpriate.
Richard, this not being my fight, I haven’t bothered going through the document in detail. But since you were quoted, my question is if there is any evidence that the accused parties were asked about your comments and that they stipulated to the accuracy of your account. I don’t see, if no one cross-examined you, how they could possibly be used as evidence in a court case unless this was done.
I may be mistaken. I’m not a lawyer.
Richard, looking at the hsc site it seems that things have been resolved in a way. I am very grateful to God for this outcome.
Mark, the truth is… there was no court case. Richard and others’ testimonies were included in the Declaratory Judgment, many without the consent or inquiry of the person quoted. In most cases, the person quoted was never contacted or questioned by Westminster Presbytery. Their “testimony” was reported from alleged conversations with Peter Kershaw. It appears many folks believe the Peter Kershaw “cannot tell a lie” and believe every word he says.
Thank you, Richard, for pointing out that you were not questioned on this situation, and certainly not asked for your clear testimony as to the facts of the case. I, likewise, have heard Laurence ask visitors if their children are welcomed to the Table by their governing session. Far from fathers deciding when their children have a credible profession of faith, the standard is, “Is the father going to tell us the truth regarding his session’s ruling regarding his child?”
Sorry, to get off the topic, Richard. I know your point wasn’t to take sides, but simply point out that you were quoted out of context without consent.
…back to your regularly-scheduled waiting for feedback from Westminster Presbytery. Hope you don’t have to wait long (and that you’re not holding your breath).
Perhaps you should also write to Mr. Kershaw who has your “quote” posted on his website. And a note to the deposed session of St. Peter would probably also be encouraging.
“Mark, the truth is… there was no court case.” Yes, and what’s your point? There was no trial because RC and his elders confessed to the charges.
“Richard and others’ testimonies were included in the Declaratory Judgment, many without the consent or inquiry of the person quoted. In most cases, the person quoted was never contacted or questioned by Westminster Presbytery.”
You speak as though the Presbytery was engaged in some judicial misconduct. Is that what you’re accusing the RPCGA of Ned? If so you are seriously ignorant of due process and unqualified to speak on the matter. Sproul and his elders confessed to the charges. Why then would the Presbytery have any need for interviewing witnesses? If Sproul had denied the charges it would have come down entirely different. Presbytery would have had no choice but to take them to trial, and in order to make a case they would have had no choice but to interview witnesses, including Richard.
“Their “testimony†was reported from alleged conversations with Peter Kershaw. It appears many folks believe the Peter Kershaw cannot tell a lie and believe every word he says.”
It sure sounds like this Kershaw guy must be a man of incredible integrity if everyone believes every word he says. It appears that even RC Sproul Jr “believes that Peter Kershaw cannot tell a lie and believe every word he says.” Sproul never challenged any of Kershaw’s testimony against him. He confessed, repented, asked forgiveness, and asked to be dismissed. Sproul came as his own “accuser and confesser.” And then rather than appealing the decision of Presbytery to General Assembly, he begged to be released from the RPCGA entirely.
So blame the RPCGA and say they were unfair. Call Kershaw a liar (even though Sproul himself confessed to the charges). But don’t admit to the obvious. Just evade entirely the fact that Sproul plead “Guilty as charged.”
read this article:
http://kevinswanson.com/Blog/Index.html#1141012366125
This tempest is a non-issue in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It reminds yet again why I’m glad I became Eastern Orthodox.
No one attempts to explain the divergence from Old Testamental hermeneutical principles. Children were circumcised without their permission. They were also participants in the passover or paschal meal. I see no differences between this and paedobaptism or paedocommunion. Nor do the Early Fathers of the Church, who could check their hermeneutics with the Apostles. I would ask Talbott one question: what is the nature of evidence that would indicate to you that you’re wrong?
Leave a Comment