Letters on Covenanting

From: Greg Price

Date: Jan 3, 2007 12:40 PM

Subject: A Final Personal Plea

To: Laura Harr , Darren Harr

Cc: Greg Price < covpastor@yahoo.ca>, Lyndon Dohms , Greg Barrow

Dear Darren and Laura,

This is a rather long personal letter from me and not from the Session. I don’t know what I can add to what we as a Session have already said in our Public Response (October 29, 2006), but I will seek to add what we have already written as well as a little more for your consideration. I cite that section for you to review, and plead with you to reconsider your position.

I do love you both dearly in the Lord and this is most difficult for me, and yet I firmly believe (before the Court of Heaven) that the Oath is both lawful and the Court imposing the Oath is lawful as well.

What follows is the section from our Public Response (October 29, 2006) to which you have not yet specifically responded to our arguments (at least I have not seen it in any of your responses).

——————————————–

The Oath

The Oath that was sent to the Society in Prince George was essentially reaffirming what every member under the inspection of this Session must affirm and did affirm when joining with us initially:

(1) Submission to its lawful authority as the Ordinance of Christ, and

(2) Reception of the Terms of Membership and the Terms of Communion (including all judicial acts and position papers) without any known disagreement. These two points were fundamental to membership in the PRCE (beginning in 1996). These two points were fundamental to membership in the RPNA when we were a greater Presbytery. Furthermore, these two points did not cease with the dissolution of our greater Presbytery, but are presently fundamental to membership in the RPNA (GM) as was made clear in the letter (June 14, 2003) that was sent to the Societies and members after the dissolution of the Presbytery wherein it asks and answers questions related to both membership and government.

We ask [in the letter of June 14, 2006--GLP]:

“Has the dissolution of the Presbytery fundamentally changed the membership status of those persons who were under its oversight?”

We respond:

“In short, we maintain that the dissolution of Presbytery does not change the agreement that each of the members made at the time they became members. Our unity is in the truth of Scripture, and it is in our stated doctrine and practice as summarized in our six terms of communion.

Changing the “form” of organization from a Presbytery back into a state in which one teaching elder and two ruling Elders have the general oversight over the Societies does not alter our membership commitments or change the status of those who have already passed our communion examinations. Those who were formerly members we still consider to be members and those who were allowed to come to the communion table can still do so.”

We maintain that our brethren in Prince George (and it appears many others) have clearly and significantly altered their principles in regard to Church membership, and in regard to their principles of Church government, and we wonder when this change actually occurred and why it took this oath to bring their significantly altered position to light. It is evident that the principles of our recent Position Paper on Sessional Authority were at least practically adopted by the Prince George members approximately 10 years ago, when they extraordinarily covenanted with, and submitted to the rule of an Edmonton Session of Elders (not a Prince George Session). They did not protest at the time of their initial membership, nor did they protest when they were ruled by an extraordinary international Presbytery made up of Pastor Price, Pastor Edwards, Greg Barrow, Lyndon Dohms and David Hart. Are they now saying that their membership with us, even during all that time, was sinful as well? It is difficult to tell, since they have not revealed to us their positive position in any discernable way. By positive position we mean that they must prove it sinful for a Christian to own the authority of a Session that lives at a distance from them. Now that we have reverted back to a Session (albeit extraordinary), what has changed? One change since they covenanted with us initially is that Pastor Price has moved somewhat farther away from Prince George. However, we are still the same three elders to which they originally made promises. We can still communicate with one another just as easily as we could when we were together in Edmonton. We still can (and do) meet regularly as a Session. It remains to be seen what Scriptural argument they might devise to justify their current position—-whatever that might be. To date we hear much criticism of what we, as a Session, positively believe, but what do these disaffected brethren actually believe? Those who appear to be siding with them should take a long, hard look at what they are “not” saying, for they are “not” saying, in any discernable fashion, where they positively stand.

Next, it is stated by the brethren in Prince George that the problem with the Oath is that the Oath imposed by the Session entrapped them because the Session knew they could not swear it.

We testify before God that we did not know with certainty that the brethren in Prince George would refuse the Oath since they had not communicated their thoughts to us about the Position Paper on Sessional Authority even though they were invited to do so by the Session. We affirm, however, that even if a lawful authority knows that one cannot conscientiously swear an Oath that is lawful, it is still not unlawful to impose such an Oath when necessary (especially after the very matter objected to has been carefully explained by arguments from Scripture, history, and reason with sincere invitations to ask questions).

Consider the Solemn League and Covenant. Consider especially how this faithful covenant was imposed within the kingdom of Scotland by lawful authority.

Did that lawful covenant “entrap” those people who could not conscientiously swear it? Did not the lawful authorities at that time “know” that certain people would not and could not swear the Solemn League and Covenant? Was it then sinful for them to impose that lawful covenant upon the people? Frankly, we are astounded that those who call themselves Covenanters would raise such an objection. Such an objection was precisely that found in the mouths of those of sectarian and independent persuasion. It is not entrapment to enforce that which is biblically sound and morally good. Consider the objections offered by those who believed the Solemn League and Covenant would entrap those who could not conscientiously swear it and the answers to those objections by Mr. Gillespie (”Miscellany Questions—Chapter XVI”).

Objection 1 states that no Covenant (or Oath for that matter) ought to be imposed upon men contrary to their conscience:

“The covenant ought not to be compulsory but free. Good things grow evil when men’s consciences are thereunto forced.”

To which Mr. Gillespie replies:

“1. An ordinance enjoining the taking of it under a certain penalty were no other compulsion than was used by King Josiah [in 2 Chronicles 34:32, 33—Session] and others [king Asa in 2 Chronicles 15:12,13—RPNA (GM)], yea by this present parliament upon their own members, and upon ministers to be ordained, as is evident by the passages above expressed….

2. It is no tyranny over men’s consciences to punish a great and scandalous sin (such as the refusing and opposing of the covenant, or a dividing from it), although the offender in his conscience believe it to be no sin [not to take it—Session], yea, peradventure, believe t to be a duty [not to take it—Session, otherwise it had been tyranny over the conscience to punish those who killed the apostles, because they thought they were doing God good service, John xvi.2,3…."

Thus, the imposition of a lawful Oath is not tyrannical even when a severe penalty is threatened and executed against any who refuse to take it.

Objection 4 states that those who are forced to take a Covenant (or Oath) sacrifice their liberty of conscience:

"The army which hath served us so faithfully, and regained our liberties shall by this ordinance [covenant—Session] lose their own greatest liberty, which is the liberty of their consciences.”

To which Mr. Gillespie responds:

“If an ordinance, imposing the taking of the covenant under a considerable penalty, be to the army scandalum acceptum [a scandal taken—Session], the not passing of such an ordinance will be scandalum datum [a scandal given—Session] to the city of London, and to many thousands of the godly and well-affected of the kingdom, both ministers and people, who have faithfully adhered to and served the parliament, and will still hazard their lives and fortunes in pursuance of the ends of the covenant; yea, a horrible scandal to the reformed churches abroad, whose hearts were once comforted and raised up to expect better things.”

In other words, it is not only the consciences of those who take offence at the Oath that is imposed upon them that must be considered, but also the consciences of those who impose the Oath as a lawful Court of Christ (who would by consequence deny the Key of government given to them by Christ if they allowed members to refuse an Oath that acknowledges thel awfulness of the Court and reaffirms their membership agreement) as well as the consciences of those members that would be denied a hearing before the Court of Christ against the private sins of brethren that had passed through the stages of Matthew 18 or against the public sins of brethren. It is not the conscience of man that determines whether an Oath should be taken or signed—-it is lawfulness of the Oath on the basis of God’s Word that determines whether an Oath should be taken or signed. In the particular Oath that has been imposed by the Session, the substance of that Oath has been defended positively from Scripture, history and reason. We ask, who is practicing an implicit faith?

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 (Name) 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, (Name) to repent of her sin, but she has not stated to the Session either her repentance or her intention to repent. Although (Name) 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, (Name) 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 anything 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 ordained of 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)

(Name’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 (Name) 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 OF THE LORD JESUS (1 Corinthians 5:5). We take not this step because we hate (Name), but because we love her and earnestly desire her repentance and reconciliation.

We remind the congregation that our duty toward (Name) is to constantly and humbly pray for her 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 Ecclesiastical Discipline”).

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 Lyndon Dohms

Ruling Elder Greg Barrow

October 4, 2006

Dear (Name),

Please confirm receipt of this document immediately by email to the Members of Session: 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 before the Court, this is a very serious matter that could potentially affect the status of your current membership in the RPNA (GM). Therefore, please carefully and prayerfully consider 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 formal oath be taken by both plaintiff and defendant in which you both, in accord with your membership 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 of Christ.

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 the Court 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 the membership of the RPNA (GM), also, in consistency, require it to remove one who is already 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 of Communion 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 the RPNA (GM) that he/she has no known disagreement with the Terms of Communion of the 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 anything that is good and just, being imposed by 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 in the 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, (Name),  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,(Name), 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 Extraordinary Predictive 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 the RPNA (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 Subordinate Documents 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.

Signed,_________________________________________________________

(Name)

This signed oath must be returned to the Clerk of the Court, Elder Lyndon Dohms in paper copy (51152 Rg.Rd. 215, Sherwood Park, AB T8E 1G7), or by email (in a PDF file with signature),at the following email address, lwdohms@connect.ab.ca, 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 Price, Elder Greg Barrow, Elder Lyndon Dohms

December 30, 2006

Dear Mrs. Greg Price, Mr. and Mrs. Larry Birger, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. Murray Dubitz, Mr. and Mrs. Joshua Price, and Miss Annie Price,

Your public testimony to Greg Price’s faithfulness as a pastor, and Greg Barrows’ and Lyndon Dohms’ faithfulness as elders, was recently forwarded to us.

Your email reminds us of days gone by, especially the year that Josh lived with us, when we enjoyed times of good fellowship with you. When you as a family came to visit him, we were blessed to get to know you all better. We were especially impressed with your diligent and exemplary catechizing of Nate and Annie. Our children enjoyed years of writing back and forth to your children as penpals. When our daughter Debra became so ill, we know you wept with us, and prayed for her recovery. More recently, when our daughter Sarah lived in Albany, Greg and Lonna were like parents to her, and Sarah continues to call Lonna for advice. Thank you, Greg and Lonna, for the love and concern that you have shown to us. We likewise hope that you remember that we joyfully shared our home and hearts with you as well.

Also, like all of you, we at the Taron household have been following the public ecclesiastical events in the “RPNA(GM)” with sorrow.

It is grievous to see friends and relatives who are orthodox in doctrine and godly in life, people who have already suffered much for the cause of Christ, supposedly “excommunicated from the Visible Church” because they refuse to swear an oath that the writings of Greg Price, Greg Barrow and Lyndon Dohms are now to be considered “church subordinate standards.”

One Scripture verse frequently cited by the three elders is 1Corinthians 1:10:

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (Emphasis added.)

The people who are not taking this oath of agreement with the elders’ writings are being charged with committing “a sinful division and schism within the body of Christ” such as the above verse forbids. There are three small problems with this accusation:

1. The writings of Greg Price, Greg Barrow and Lyndon Dohms are unproven and unexamined. Humility alone would restrain godly men from so violently advancing their fallible compositions and making them terms of communion of The Visible Church.
2. The extent of the elders’ claim to authority is rationally open to question. Questioning this matter is evidently the root cause of the wholesale excommunication of the entire Prince George Society!
3. To attempt to force brethren to swear to uphold that which they cannot swear before God, and especially to refuse to answer their concerns prior to any oath-taking, is wicked tyranny, no matter how “kind” and “loving” the men are who are attempting to force their will upon the people.

We finally understand what the elders mean when they say that someone has disturbed “the peace, purity and unity of Christ’s church”. What this translates into is: You must agree with everything the elders say (“Take the oath that our writings are now subordinate standards,” for example) or you are going against “church” unity. What this equals, practically speaking, is elder infallibility. This is an abominable usurpation of Christ’s headship over His church, no matter how kind, warm or sacrificial the men are who are doing this wickedness.

It is the “faithful” elders whom you so commend who are rending this little church group apart. The Covenanters swore to fight against tyrannical church government. Doesn’t this strike you as the least bit ironic?

You have commended Greg Price for his pastoral work in days gone by. However, the fact that he (and most likely the other elders as well) has done well in the past does not mean that he is currently doing what is right. We are informed by God’s Word in Ecclesiastes 10:1:

Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honour.

We also read of the sad possibility of a righteous man turning to evil in Ezekiel 3:20,21:

Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul. (Emphasis added)

We believe the elders may be sincere in what they are doing, and they may be diligent in what they are doing, but it does not necessarily follow that they truly are doing what is right in the sight of God.

The Lord tells us that we know the faithfulness of a man by his fruits (Matthew 7:15-20). One striking “fruit” of the elderships of Greg Price, Greg Barrow and Lyndon Dohms is an astronomical number of excommunications. Some excommunications are of people like us who live godly lives and are in complete agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith, but who think you are mistaken in the way you apply the Solemn League and Covenant to current-day Christians. The most recent excommunications are, amazingly, of folks who agree completely with the Six Terms of Communion.

It is as if the elders are looking for a way to divide the people from one another, in order to . . . What? Bring in new people who are totally ignorant of Presbyterian principles, who won’t question their bid for extraordinary authority? For the elders to force division on people who are in the nearest possible agreement with them is SCHISMATIC. This is to divide the body of Christ. No matter how much you love your friends and relatives, it doesn’t mean that they are currently doing what is right.

You say that people are not being properly appreciative of Greg Price, Greg Barrow and Lyndon Dohms. What reaction do you really expect from people who are being excommunicated on a wholesale basis? Currently, the elders are conducting a Stalin-esque purge of those they claim as their flock, with one wave of excommunications following another. It is worse than naïve to think people will be feeling “warm appreciation” for the elders who they believe are unjustly severing them from one another. Godly Christian men and women, whom the elders have known for years, who should be loved and appreciated by the elders, are being treated as offal, the off-scouring of the earth, and enemies of the gospel. Judge for yourselves the likelihood that brethren find this behavior kind, loving, or caring.

From what we have read, the statements of those who have been excommunicated in this cookie-cutter fashion have been exemplary in the restraint and respect communicated, nor have we read any railing accusations. What we have seen is reminiscent of the contendings of true Covenanters from days gone by, noble Christian men and women. When brethren stand fast against religious tyranny, and will not be bullied into obeying man rather than God, this is to their praise.

Another concern we have is your statement that a godly minister does not need to stand in the court of public opinion. The Bible, in listing the qualifications for elders, certainly tells us otherwise:

A bishop then must be blameless . . . Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.– 1 Timothy 3:2a and 7 (Emphasis added.)

The church of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a secret society. Ecclesiastical business, such as doctrine and discipline and the working out of controversies, is to be open and above-board. The Lord says His ministers are to have a good report. They are not only to be blameless before the church, but also before those who are outside the church. The minister’s life, doctrine and behavior all must be able to sustain public examination. It is not sinful or ungrateful for laymen to examine the faithfulness of their elders’ character and dealings. It is their Biblical responsibility.

As church leaders, the elders are public men, and their current behavior is completely open to scrutiny. Those who once placed themselves under their authority must judge by God’s Word if these men are continuing in the ways of righteousness, or if they have turned aside to go their own way. Some elders rule well, some do not (1 Timothy 5:17). When it is determined that elders have done wickedly, as we believe Greg Price, Greg Barrow and Lyndon Dohms have, their sin is to be rebuked publicly (1 Timothy 5:20). These are extraordinary times for the church, as has often been noted, and we deny the possibility of these elders impartially evaluating their own faithfulness as a supposed “Church court.” Rather, we must turn to the Word of God for guidance.

Please be careful, friends, when you are called upon to swear this oath. If you can swear it with a clear conscience before God, then do so. Beware of swearing it just because you love your relative, for this would be to show sinful respect of man instead of proper fear of God.

May you yet have opportunity to take true pride in your loved ones, when they repent of whatever error or ambition is driving them to persecute the godly. May God graciously grant Greg Price, Greg Barrow and Lyndon Dohms repentance for this hurtful, foolish, and deceived excommunication rampage which is their mistaken effort to “maintain the peace, purity and unity of Christ’s church”.

Sincerely,

Rick and Joyce Taron