Louisiana Presbytery’s October stated meeting

P&R News, Volume 8, Number 4, October–December 2002

Louisiana
October stated meeting
The 72nd stated meeting of Louisiana Presbytery was hosted by the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, Monroe, Louisiana, on October 19, 2002. Mr. Rich Lusk brought a sermon from Isaiah 11:1–10, and the Auburn Avenue Session administered the Lord’s Supper.

Mr. Lusk was examined and approved for ordination as assistant pastor at the Auburn Avenue Church, with a package of $42,500. He noted the following exceptions to the Standards of the PCA:

1. paedocommunion: he believes that baptized children should be included in the Lord’s Supper, contrary to WLC 177 and BCO 58-2;


2. he does not believe that general family recreation is unlawful on the Lord’s Day, contrary to WCF 21-8, WSC 61, and WLC 119;


3. he does not think that the term “covenant of works” (cf. WCF 7-2) is an accurate way of expressing the pre-fall relationship of God with man, and prefers the term “covenant of life”;


4. he believes that the private administration of baptism is permissible in extreme (emergency) situations, contrary to BCO 56-2;


5. he believes that suspension from the Lord’s table should not be differentiated from excommunication, contrary to WCF 30-4, BCO 30-3 and 36-5;


6. he subscribes to Calvin’s four office view (pastor, teacher, elder, and deacon) contrary to BCO 8-1 and 8-4.

The Rev. Dr. Jim Jones, the Stated Clerk of Presbytery, recorded his negative vote on approving the portion of the ordination examination which covered the sacraments. . . . Presbytery elected the following officers for 2003: Stated Clerk, Jim Jones; Treasurer, Volney Pierce; Moderator, William R. Smith.

The Rev. Steve Wilkins gave the closing devotional on Isaiah 64.

Dear Editor

P & R News, July-September 2002

Dear Editor,

I would like to correct an error of “insufficient information” from the article “Presbytery of the Dakotas Takes on Doug Wilson and Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho,” from your April—June 2002 issue. First of all, the CRE did not correspond with Illiana Presbytery, as your article alleges, concerning my deposition. The Session of Christ Church was the body that communicated with Illiana, as you properly state in your May—June 2001, issue, page 18. Secondly, you failed to mention that I came to the CRE via the Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) (properly noted in the May—June 2001 issue), which examined me before my deposition, and which encouraged me to finish my trial in the PCA (in accordance with BCO 38-3a, since Illiana Presbytery would not transfer me at FORC’s request and send the trial on to them). This lack of information in your article makes it “appear” that the CRE has a history of taking in, or shielding men, from denominational discipline, which is not true. You may not have meant to infer this, but your mentioning of my case in close proximity to the CRE within these articles lends itself to being interpreted this way. I came to the CRE a full year and a half after deposition, being a minister in good standing in the FORC that whole time.

On another note, I do want to thank you for mentioning that Cornerstone Reformed Church in Carbondale does practice paedo-communion. Having believed it while in the PCA (an exception approved by Illiana), but not being able to practice it, my convictions, and that of the church, have only been strengthened by its practice and practical outworking in the life of the children of the church. What a blessing for children of the covenant to experience the grace of Christ each week as Christ comes to them in the Lord’s Supper, feeding and loving them as his children: “Let the little ones come to me.”

Sincerely,

Burke Shade, Carbondale, Illinois

Presbytery of the Dakotas Takes on Doug Wilson and Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho

P & R News, April–June 2002

The Presbytery of the Dakotas of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC) has adopted a strong resolution, warning all OPC presbyteries of “some grave dangers in the practices of Douglas Wilson and Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho.” According to the Presbytery, these practices “undermine the discipline of reformed churches and refuse to support it, assuming it is unbiblical without even hearing the case.”

The Presbytery also forwarded the correspondence to its fellow presbyteries, as well as to the 69th OPC General Assembly, asking that the Assembly “forward it to churches with whom we have ecclesiastical fellowship.”

At the center of the controversy is Christ Presbyterian Church, Salt Lake City, Utah, an OPC congregation. The Session at the Utah congregation had already taken the Idaho church to task for counseling a former elder in the Salt Lake City congregation that he can refuse to cooperate with the process of church discipline.

The dispute revolves around charges that were brought against one of the original elders of the Utah church. Shortly after organization two years ago, the newly installed Session tried to prevent the congregation from voting on calling the organizing pastor, Jason Wallace, to be the pastor of the church. One of the objections was that Mr. Wallace was going to be moderating the congregational meeting which would vote on his call. Twelve members of the congregation forced the calling of a congregational meeting to deal with the pastoral call. Eventually, all three of the original elders left the congregation. One of them joined the Reformed Church in the United States, the denomination in which he was raised. Another one is now attending Hidden Valley Presbyterian Church, a newly organized Presbyterian Church in America congregation in Draper, Utah. The other elder, Tony Maneri, “resigned” from the church rather than transferring to another church, although he subsequently joined a local Reformed Baptist church.

Under OPC rules, a person may “resign” from the denomination. However, the church court is not obligated to accept the resignation, but may continue with any disciplinary proceedings. According to the Christ Presbyterian Session, Mr. Maneri was confronted individually and before witnesses before he resigned. The Session decided to proceed with formal judicial charges, because of the gravity and persistence of the alleged charges he was making against Mr. Wallace.

Christ Church in Moscow is well known for its publication of Credenda Agenda, and its sponsorship of other ministries, including Canon Press, Collegiate Reformed Fellowship, Greyfriars Hall, and New St. Andrews College. Its pastor, Doug Wilson, is also well-known for his numerous books, particularly on classical Christian education, courtship, and marriage. One of the faculty members at New St. Andrews College is Dr. Peter Leithart, a minister in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), a sister church to the OPC. Among his several books is Daddy, Why Was I Excommunicated? a defense of paedocommunion.

The Idaho congregation spearheaded the formation of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CRE), a federation of churches. Founded in 1998, CRE seeks to bring together a variety of people who profess an allegiance to Reformed theology. The spectrum is a wide one, encompassing Reformed Baptists and paedocommunionists. Unlike standard Presbyterian polity, a minister’s membership is held in the local church, not in the broader church.

The CRE corresponded with a PCA presbytery over the discipline of Burke Shade. Illiana Presbytery deposed Mr. Shade in 1999. The Carbondale, Illinois, minister was eventually received by CRE, along with the church which he now pastors, Cornerstone Reformed. The congregation, which was started by members from Evangelical Presbyterian Church, the PCA church in Carbondale formerly pastored by Mr. Shade, practices paedo-communion. (See P&R News, May–June 2001).

According to Pastor Wallace, Mr. Maneri was convicted in absentia at a trial on August 22, 2001. Appointed as his counsel was Mr. Mark Hausam. Mr. Maneri was convicted of false witness, being found guilty of having charged Pastor Wallace with false witness, with being morally unfit for office, and with being a divisive man according to Titus 3:10. Pastor Wallace indicated that Mr. Maneri had refused to bring these charges for adjudication, and was instead spreading them as gossip.

Mr. Maneri’s position is that he had joined another church and therefore was not subject to OPC jurisdiction. This was also the counsel of Doug Wilson to him.

As explained in a letter last year from Doug Jones of Christ Church, Moscow, to the Clerk of Session of the Salt Lake City church, “The main point of [our position] is the claim that if one is not a member of the OPC, then one isn’t subject to OPC jurisdiction. Surely, your session does not disagree and claim that nonmembers are indeed subject to OPC jurisdiction.” The email went on to say: “we don’t find him [Doug Wilson] making specific judgments against specific persons or courts on your end but instead voicing strong, well-grounded skepticism about general Reformed patterns of litigiousness, along with long-standing confidence in the character of Mr. Maneri. Mr. Wilson explicitly stated that he was making claims about patterns and appearances as an ‘outsider.’ . . . . If your session is genuinely interested in dissuading Mr. Wilson of his skepticism in your particular case, we recommend that you send us the trial documents which show that you have risen above the contemporary Reformed norm. We would be glad to read them and return our comments back to you.”

The OPC General Assembly is slated to meet June 12–19, 2002. Among the denominations with which the OPC has ecclesiastical fellowship are the PCA, the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and the Canadian and American Reformed Churches.

Another Church Court Vindicates Burke Shade

P&R News, May – June 2001, Volume 7, Issue 3

As reported in P&R News, in spring 1999, Illiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) voted to depose and suspend from the Lord’s Supper the Rev. Burke Shade (see “Illiana Deposes Carbondale Pastor,” March 1999, pp. 25–26). He had been charged with erroneous views on baptism and evangelization; spreading injurious reports against two of the church’s ruling elders; failure to be in subjection to church authority; and “countenancing activity on the part of both some members and some officers of the congregation . . . that disrupted the peace of the church and divided it” (see “Trial of Illinois Pastor Being Held in Executive Session; Illiana Lifts Gag Order, But Still Keeps Trial Closed,” June 1999, pp. 26–27). At the time of the discipline, Mr. Shade had been the Pastor of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Carbondale, Illinois.

Before the conclusion of his trial, he was examined and received by the Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC), a denomination which adheres to historic Reformed creeds but which also practices paedo-communion. The FORC presbytery, after hearing from a presbyter who had personally talked extensively with both sides in the matter, vindicated Mr. Shade. Subsequently, the elders of Covenant Reformed Church of Harrisonburg, Virginia, a FORC congregation, sent a communication to the 1999 PCA General Assembly, asking some pointed questions about the manner in which the Shade case was conducted by Illiana Presbytery.

A significant portion of the congregation of Evangelical Presbyterian Church peacefully left and formed Cornerstone Reformed Church, a congregation which eventually affiliated with the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CRE). This confederation was founded by Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, which is associated with the magazine Credenda/Agenda and New St. Andrews College. When Cornerstone Reformed Church, which is pastored by Burke Shade, applied for membership in the CRE, the elders of Christ Church looked into the matter. As is clear from their report, that church court also has vindicated the minister deposed by the PCA.

What follows is the initial report from the Christ Church elders; a reply from Illiana Presbytery; and a response from Christ Church. Indications are that Illiana has decided not to issue a further response, thereby effectively closing the matter.

Report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade Trial for CRE Evaluation
(Adopted August 17, 2000 by the Elders of Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho)

THE ELDERS OF CHRIST CHURCH, MOSCOW, IDAHO HAVE DETERMINED TO COMMEND Cornerstone Reformed Church, Carbondale, Illinois to the Confederation of Reformed Evangelicals (CRE) for admission into membership. This commendation is noteworthy because the pastor of Cornerstone Reformed Church, Burke P. Shade, was “deposed and indefinitely suspended from the sacraments” by Illiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). Our respect for that body compels us to publish this explanation of our commendation of and support for Pastor Shade. To our brothers in the Illiana Presbytery, we continue to extend the right hand of fellowship. We desire to strive for like-mindedness with that body and to pursue the purity and peace of the whole Church of Jesus Christ. We do so especially in regard to the present matter.

We thank Illiana Presbytery for giving consideration in their January 2000 business meeting to our request for the PCA vs. Shade trial documents and for forwarding those documents to us. Among the materials we received were the transcript of the whole trial and all exhibits that were introduced during the course of the trial. Illiana Presbytery delivered these materials to us in good faith, understanding that we would use them “only for the purpose of adjudicating Cornerstone’s entry into the CRE Denomination.” It was for this very purpose that we studied these documents. In November 1999, Cornerstone Reformed Church asked Christ Church, Moscow, Idaho, to consider recommending them for membership in the CRE. To answer that question, we had to evaluate the trial record. Since we have no formal governmental connection to the Illiana Presbytery of the PCA, we could neither remand the case to them or serve as an appellate court. With that lack of connection, we had to answer the question on the basis of basic principles of biblical justice which all presbyterians share. And since the PCA is a faithful presbyterian church, we began evaluating the case by assuming the correctness of the Illiana decision, with Shade having the burden of proof.

And yet, after examining the case, we do recommend affirming Pastor Shade’s qualifications as a minister of the Gospel. This we could never do had Shade been justly tried and convicted by a legitimate ecclesiastical authority, one such as Illiana Presbytery. But the trial of Shade before Illiana Presbytery fell well short of scriptural standards of justice, as we shall explain below.

We continue in peace with the Illiana Presbytery and with the whole PCA communion, so far as it depends upon us. This bond includes but is not limited to the fact that we accept baptisms performed by PCA ministers, we admit new members on the basis of transfer from the PCA, and we invite PCA members in good standing to sit with us at the Lord’s table and partake of the bread and cup. Yet, we have had to conclude that the Illiana Presbytery of the PCA judged Shade unjustly in its trial of him from December 1998 through April 1999, so we cannot support their judgment in that instance.

Note the following background summary followed by our particular criticisms of the case:

Summary of Events Leading to the Trial
In broadest terms, this trial grew out of a large theological paradigm difference within the session of EPC. On one side stood the pastor, Burke Shade and ruling elder, Mark Akin; on the other stood ruling elders Randy Moore and Joe Kesler. As in most such paradigm conflicts, at various points along the way, both sides started losing personal trust in the other and started reading in or began noticing more malicious motives and moral failings.

For some time before the trial, various disagreements simmered on the session, including a counseling case (January–February 1998) and pay concerns (April 1998), but most of the developing disagreements stemmed from a creeping suspicion with Moore and Kesler that Shade was leading the church away from a more Scottish, regulativist presbyterianism toward a more Roman Catholic/Episcopal expression. From the Shade-Akin angle (though not expressly stated by them), the disagreements stemmed not from a creeping Roman Catholicism but from an attempt to be more richly biblical within the Westminster Confession tradition in contrast to a more intellectualistic, gnostic-leaning American presbyterianism.

Within this broad clash of paradigms, two doctrinal issues finally stood out by the time of the trial, namely, the nature of baptism and eldership. In the session’s attempt to sort through some of these issues in mid-1998, the air between them became especially charged. After the Moore-Kesler side moved to require more ruling elder involvement in worship or exclude the pastor from parts (June 10, 1998), Shade filed a formal complaint against the session which was denied and appealed to presbytery (September 1998). Subsequently, the presbytery denied the complaint (October 17, 1998). In the sessional discussion that ensued on this complaint, the Moore-Kesler portion of the session asked Shade to address the Roman Catholic/Episcopal drift that they perceived. Shade preached a sermon on baptism in July 1998, and Moore-Kesler viewed this as Shade’s response to their questions. This sermon later provoked parts of the final charges.

Drawn into the midst of this controversy were two other teaching elders of the Illiana presbytery, namely, Wyatt George, former pastor of EPC, and Brian DeJong, an EPC-sponsored church-planter in Marion, Illinois. By October, several members of the EPC congregation, with Shade’s knowledge, compiled a petition seeking to ask the EPC session to call a congregational meeting (in their perspective, something in accord with the PCA Book of Church Order) to consider the removal of Randy Moore as a ruling elder of EPC (October 20, 1998). In the midst of all this, George and DeJong became allied with Moore and Kesler, and they all claimed Shade had committed several personal sins which warranted formal charges against him. George and DeJong finally formulated and filed two specifications of sin against Shade. The Illiana presbytery formally received these on November 9, 1998 and proceeded in closed session. By the next meeting, DeJong expanded the initial two specifications into four charges (1. “doctrinal views” in “violation” of presbyterian standards, 2. “spreading injurious reports,” 3. “failure to be in subjection to lawful church authority” [dropped], and 4. “countenancing” schismatic activity) with sixteen specifications.

At the next meeting, November 30, 1998, Pastor Shade pled “guilty” to two of the sixteen specifications, the two dealing with speaking injuriously about a fellow elder. He did this, he claimed, because he had already repented of those sins at a private meeting with another elder and Randy Moore (August 31). At that meeting, according to Shade, Moore declined to grant Shade forgiveness, or according to Moore, Shade “offended in his excuse.”

The actual consideration of testimony for the charges began at the presbytery meeting of December 18, 1998. And there, after denying a complaint from Shade that objected to the presbytery including specifications he had already sought to rectify, the presbytery censured Shade for the specification he pled guilty to by imposing an indefinite suspension from the sacraments and his pastoral office until a commission of presbytery could be convinced of his repentance.

The trial continued through six meetings, ending on April 17, 1999. In the end, the Illiana presbytery, with DeJong as prosecutor, found Shade guilty of ten specifications, acquitted him of one, and dropped the remaining five. Though the prosecution sought stronger language concerning Shade’s view of baptism, the presbytery declined to convict him of theological error, and in effect altered Charge One, saying that Shade “does not presently appear to hold heretical views about the efficacy of baptism.” Nonetheless, they “admonish him for the way in which he has upset the peace and purity of the Church by his teaching in a manner in which he approached the teaching of that doctrine.” After the guilty verdicts, the presbytery imposed the censure of deposition from office of teaching elder.

Critical Failings of the Case

1. The Illiana Presbytery never kept formal minutes of any of the six trial meetings.
   Carefully approved minutes provide a publicly agreed upon basis by which outsiders can examine specific authoritative judgments of a group. Minutes specify such things as the roll of legal voters and the means by which a higher court can review specific judgments, citations, etc.
   
   The PCA Book of Church Order explicitly states that “Minutes of the trial shall be kept by the clerk, which shall exhibit the charges, the answer, written record of the testimony, as defined by BCO 35-7, and all such acts, orders, and decisions of the court relating to the case, as either party may desire, and also the judgment. The clerk shall without delay assemble the Record of the Case which shall consist of the charges, the answer, the citations and returns thereto, and the minutes herein required to be kept” (BCO 32-18; emph. added).
   
   Though the PCA BCO requires minutes as a distinct part of the “Record of the Case,” the Illiana Presbytery and/or its trial judicatory did not do so (or include the required witness citations), though the clerk of presbytery has replied to us that “the trial was conducted per PCA/BCO 32.” Instead of minutes, the presbytery received poorly corrected and incomplete transcripts. But incomplete transcripts are not publicly approved minutes. Moreover, due to technical problems, the transcripts omit various court actions, several testimony blocks, attendance records, many speaker identities, etc. They also reveal a lack of familiarity with some of the basic theological vocabulary in contention (the defendant, for example, is several times accused of tending toward a ‘sasserdodialist’ position, rather than ‘sacerdotalist’). Nevertheless, the presbytery itself received the record of the case and approved it for distribution (January 2000).
   
   Without the protection and authority of publicly approved minutes, an accurate history of the case is simply nonexistent. Even if the defendant had wanted to appeal the case, the higher court would not have had a specific, clear record by which to judge irregularities or even the attendance roll to examine who was voting on the charges.



2. The Prosecutor and the Illiana Presbytery acted in gross haste in bringing and receiving charges of theological error (Charge One).
   The charges concerning doctrinal errors (baptism/eldership) show up at presbytery for the first time at the November 30, 1998 meeting, with adjudication and testimony to follow only three weeks later. The presbytery had no precedent or easy familiarity available to categorize the alleged errors. In addition, the trial testimony revealed that other leading PCA teachers held similar views, views grounded in the language of the Confession, Charles Hodge, and John Calvin. Moreover, the errors were not blatant, such as a denial of God’s omniscience or the reality of hell, and the accused embraced the teaching of the Westminster Confession and openly denied that he held to baptismal regeneration or evangelism-by-pastors-alone.
   
   The charges involved far more subtle background and historical knowledge than any normal individual could grasp in several years, let alone adjudicate within weeks. In fact, the trial testimony revealed a clear lack of historical and theological breadth needed to evaluate the doctrinal questions involved (even the key expert witness admitted as much under cross-examination; see below).
   
   Before rushing to adjudicate such charges, the presbytery ought to have instituted a broad commission to evaluate the claims far more carefully and report back to presbytery before receiving any charges. “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety” (Prov. 11:14).



3. The Illiana presbytery acted rashly at the first trial meeting (December 18, 1998) in imposing the sentence of indefinite suspension from the sacraments as a response to the defendant’s claim that he had already repented for the two specifications in question.
   The trial testimony reveals that the defendant confessed his sin (of saying that an elder had “run off” the former pastor) and sought forgiveness from the elder concerned, as well as those to whom it was relayed. But the presbytery determined that Shade had not given “satisfactory evidence of repentance” and suspended him from the sacraments indefinitely.
   
   The presbytery made this determination upon hearing the prosecutor’s own assertions which failed biblical standards of evidence. It allowed the prosecutor to represent the words of others rather than calling these others to speak for themselves (Joe Kesler, Randy Moore, Wyatt George, Tom Jones, Moore’s and George’s representation of Tom Jones, a tape recording, and even unidentified “reports”). After this, the presbytery heard the prosecutor, who had yet called no witnesses, conclude, “I offered you not merely my personal private opinion, unsubstantiated. That would be inappropriate. I brought this with the testimony of two witnesses, myself, TE George, and in some respects TE Tom Jones” (T2-6).
   
   Instead of accepting Shade’s attempts to seek forgiveness or even investigating the issue more thoroughly before censure, the presbytery immediately suspended him from the sacraments and then from office in January.



4. The prosecutor and the Illiana presbytery permitted unwieldy specifications and testimony of a vast array of events that no court could justly adjudicate, including petty events tangentially related to the specifications, including but not limited to piano playing, movie attendance, church check policy, and sexual annulment.
   By allowing such broadness of testimony and specifications, the presbytery showed such unreasonable sloppiness that it could not have sufficient knowledge to adjudicate all the facts and charges justly — “In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin: but he that refraineth his lips is wise” (Prov. 10:19). At the same time, the judicatory members repeatedly complained about the lack of time, even though they approved such broad array of evidence. Wisdom would have required narrow, specific charges and precluded multiplying the charges just prior to the trial. Even assuming the prosecutor of this case is innocent of “padding the charges,” the presbytery should have been very wary and protective of his reputation, since it is common in conservative presbyterian circles to file as many charges as possible so that at least some will stick.



5. The prosecutor and presbytery acted confusedly in calling church members to testify as to their understanding of Burke Shade’s understanding of various theological points.
   In one of the more bizarre turns in the trial, the prosecution called, and presbytery permitted, numerous witnesses to testify about their understanding of the beliefs of Shade. At times, several presbyters noted the oddness of this process, but it continued and was allowed as evidence in a trial of theological error. Since Shade was the focus, the prosecution needed to limit his proof to relevant testimony, namely, Shade’s testimony and writings, not lay interpretations of the same.
   
   In response to questions from our trial committee, the prosecutor (Brian DeJong) explained that the doctrinal charge “was not about what TE Shade believed but what he taught (past tense). . . . Did he teach it? Yes he did: the fact is established by the testimony of more than two witnesses.” But this response clearly fails to answer the objection of witnesses speaking for the defendant. Whether regarding belief or some “belief-absent” teaching, the lay witnesses are still being asked to explain the subtleties of Shade’s views.



6. The prosecutor and presbytery erred in allowing the trial to turn into a debate over words and individual interpretations of words.
   In charge after charge, the trial descends into a debate over personal meanings and the scope of a word’s meaning. And yet this course was evident upon reading the initial charges. When this becomes the central focus of a trial, the judicatory is forced into countless subjectivities that remove it from sound judgment. A wiser court would demand, up front, better evidence than the testimony of conflicting personal interpretations. Adultery, theft, and property are charges more easily adjudicated in the public realm. A court should only agree to delve into the more vaporous world of words when the case can be made not on the basis of conflicting subjective interpretations but on more easily verifiable patterns of public documentation (not single statements, letters, or sermons). The Illiana presbytery needed to heed the scriptural warning: “charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit” (2 Tim. 2:4; cf. 1 Tim. 6:4).



7. Everyone in the trial assumed that there was no ethical problem in unreflectively subsuming any and all civil rules into an ecclesiastical court.
   The civil realm operates under assumptions of power and the sword. The ecclesiastical realm operates within the context of service in faith, hope, and love. Each realm is important in its place, but to mix them without careful thought invites injustice. To assume civil rules without biblical reflection in a church court allows assumptions of raw civil power into Christ’s courts. Both sides in this trial, along with presbytery, regularly intruded civil principles into church court questions.
   
   For example, at one point (T7A-B), Shade’s counsel objects to the ongoing hearsay evidence, and the prosecutor responds by invoking civil rules about hearsay without any biblical context. Nothing official is done. Similarly, the prosecution invokes the civil rules concerning witnesses to answer a presbyter’s objection (T21A-B). More relevantly to questions of truth versus power, the prosecutor defends his use of deceptive questioning of opposing witnesses by declaring that civil rules admit leading questions (18A-B). Power over truth also comes into play during a deposition of Robert Reymond, the key theological witness for the prosecution. In that deposition, after questioning by Shade, Dr. Reymond says to Shade that “just by the reading of the one sermon, I have not had, I was not given sufficient material to, uh, just your total views and I am, and I was passing judgment simply on the basis of that one sermon. Do you understand that?” This in itself would be quite an admission in a civil court. Shade replies, “Yes, sir, and I appreciate that and I know you have no personal animosity against me.” Immediately both the prosecutor and Wyatt George object and ask to have the last comment from the defendant stricken from the record. But they didn’t object to prior irregularities in questioning, only this one which was closer to determining truth.
   
   These sorts of civil-rule invocations are quite common in conservative presbyterian circles, but it is time to begin challenging this entire paradigm because it is not honoring to Christ’s Church. Much work needs to be done to rethink these power rules, tossing out unbiblical assumptions. It would be better to do that than allow cases of this sort where issues of truth and justice turn on the rules in use. Christ told us not to exercise power but service, and this applies when we unthinkingly assume that civil rules and power plays can automatically work in the courts of Christ: “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matt. 20:25–27).



8. The prosecutor and presbytery acted hypocritically in condemning Shade for spreading injurious reports about an elder (Charge Two) but allowing witnesses and evidence to do the same to Shade without constraint.
   Charge Two (specifications II.A.3,4, and II.B) accuses Shade of spreading injurious reports about ruling elders Moore and Kesler (which included negative comments to the effect that these elders were trying to discredit him and/or were holding views of eldership similar to his). Part of the defendant’s defense was that these comments were made as part of a legal response to a complaint-response given to presbytery by these elders. The presbytery declined to see any special protection for speech in legal documents, thus saying that such language was impermissible even in trial situations. And yet, not only does the Moore paper to which Shade replied contain negative observations about Shade (e.g., suggesting that Shade was unsubmissive, dishonest, stubborn, disingenuous, and tending toward heretical views), but the trial testimony of these two elders is full of very strong negative comments about Shade. Kesler and Moore testified that Shade was a liar, belligerent, destructive, crushing, circumventive, heretical, sacerdotal, and a “hydroheaded monster” [sic] (T25A-B,1-22). This language was also in an unprotected legal context and highly negative, but no member of presbytery objected to these elders’ charges or brought them up on charges. Shade’s language was much milder, and yet he was brought up on charges and censured for saying far less than his accusers did.
   
   Again, consider that point in the trial when the presbytery indulged Moore as he grossly imputed motives to Shade: “One can look at what was the purpose of these statements [of Shade], and one can then draw the conclusion that there is no repentance because he retains the fruit of his sin, . . . which is namely, [speaking for Shade] I want this elder out of the church so that I can proceed with my doctrinal agenda. And, uh, in order to do so I am going to malign his name and engender this petition against him.” Given the charges received against Shade, we should expect charges to be brought against Moore for this “injurious report” about the defendant. And yet, just a moment later (same page in the transcript), presbytery heard Moore speak with a chilling lack of self-awareness, “Some have reached false conclusions, and I don’t know where they get their information. I have totally, I have tried to be very circumspect and keep my mouth shut. . . . I have said nothing bad about Burke” (T 3 A-B, 3).
   
   When our committee asked the prosecutor about such blatant hypocrisy in bringing this charge, the prosecutor responded, “Mr. Shade at no time brought up any of the substance of RE Moore’s response. He did not address him about any sins committed by RE Moore in the paper.” But Shade’s response to this question is quite irrelevant to the issue of biblical justice. The fact that he did not object to being called a “hydraheaded monster” among other things does not remove the reality of the hypocrisy. Those who do the very same thing as the one they charged ought, at least, to be denied their day in court. The Illiana Presbytery failed to rectify a grossly hypocritical injustice.
   
   The presbytery acted in hypocritical incompetence in receiving such charges, and especially in demanding repentance from Shade while the trial participants were freely allowed much more grievous declarations of “injurious reports” against Shade. “So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, ‘He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her’” (John 8:7). And similarly, “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” (Matt. 7:1–3).



9. The prosecutor, witnesses, and several presbyters failed to comprehend basic literary genre in arguing for Charge Four (schism) when they declared a satirical “smoking gun” essay to be advocating church splits, when it does just the opposite.
   At a key turning point in the trial, the prosecutor turned witness and declared that Shade followed a James Jordan essay, “The Effective Church Splitters Guide,” in destroying the EPC. This is a satirical essay written against jobless pastors seeking to divide a church and gain new employment. The prosecutor/witness declared his misreading openly: “it is hard to see the marks of satire. And in reading it you’ll see that this is the agenda and the game plan that was used to try and take out Randy Moore and end up splitting the congregation of EPC” (T31A-B). Kesler and Moore were convinced of this reading, as are several presbyters.
   
   The misreading of this essay is so sophomoric that not only do the accusers fail to see the essay mocking church splitters and jobless pastors on the prowl (Shade was not seeking a church but already served in theirs), but they also fail to see that, at several key points, the essay would indict them. Most ironically, the essay suggests that the would-be church splitter should complain about the church being inclined to Roman Catholicism and that the view of eldership was too tyrannical. These are in fact the two doctrinal charges that the accusers bring against Shade. According to their reading of the essay, they could fit the church splitter portrait well. And yet, this essay (though not listed as supporting evidence under the received charges) is allowed to capture the imagination of the presbyters in such a way that Shade is found guilty on Charge Four. Wisdom demands meditation and careful judgment; Proverbs warns us: “How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?” (Prov. 1:22).



10. The prosecutor and presbytery failed to show that the heart of Charge Four was illegal or schismatic, namely that what petitioners followed was the permissible BCO means of seeking the removal of a ruling elder by petition.
    Charge Four, specifications IV.A.3-6, focus on the proposed congregation petition of October 20, 1998 in which several families ask the elders to call a congregational meeting to consider removing Moore as a ruling elder. Because Shade was aware of the petition and “countenanced” it, the presbytery found him guilty of schism.
    
    The petitioners, however, sought to follow a perfectly legal procedure within the PCA Book of Church Order (24-6): “The ruling elder or deacon, though chargeable with neither heresy nor immorality, may become unacceptable in his official capacity to a majority of the church which he serves. In such a case the church may take the initiative by a majority vote at a regularly called congregational meeting, and request the Session to dissolve the official relationship between the church and the officer without censure. . . .” The petitioners followed this procedure and had more than the requisite number of signatures, and yet Shade is charged with schism for allowing this BCO procedure to proceed. Under the presbytery’s adjudication of this charge, no congregation would ever be able to follow the PCA BCO without falling into the sin of schism. Shade, in other words, is being tried for allowing members to follow the Book of Church Order.
    
    Wyatt George testified that the session ruled the petition “unconstitutional on the grounds that it attempted to remove a ruling elder without process even though charges were in the petition” (T29A-B). Even if there were some technical error in the petition, the elders ought to have returned it for correction instead of leaning on legal technicalities to deny the voice of a legally petitioning body. Nonetheless, the petitioners didn’t believe the petition contained charges of the sort noted by the BCO. They did not charge the ruling elder in question with “heresy or immorality.” But they did find him “unacceptable” enough that they sought help from the elders in the form of a congregational meeting. This perfectly legal process was denied and turned against the petitioners and pastor.
    
    In reply to our committee’s question about this, the prosecutor stated, “If the petition had simply quoted 24-6 without citing the chargeable offenses, it would have been constitutional.” Rather than justifying the session’s action, we find this a direct admission of allowing a technicality to override a legitimate request, a technicality that ultimately helped depose a pastor. “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone” (Matt. 23:23).

Summary and Exhortations:
In sum, the elders of Christ Church find the PCA vs. Burke Shade case of the Illiana presbytery to involve serious biblical failings, serious enough to reject this particular trial as an expression of legitimate ecclesiastical adjudication honoring to Christ. If we were in such a legal position to have such a case appealed to us, we would recommend a complete overturning of all charges and specifications on the grounds of the very basic biblical principles of justice listed above. This case should be seen as an embarrassment to conservative presbyterians across the nation, the CRE included.

Though one would think that such a case should have almost automatically been appealed to the General Assembly, the current state of most presbyterian denominations, including the PCA, precludes the sort of swift decision-making characteristic of biblical justice (Eccl. 8:1; Ezra 7:26; Ps. 31:2, 69:17, 102:2). Appeals to the highest presbyterian courts often take more than a year, while (in this case) denying the appellant any means of family support during that time. Moreover, the higher court will often remand a case back to the presbytery for a retrial, extending the process further in a court that had already shown incompetence on several fronts.

And yet for all the Illiana Presbytery’s failures in basic justice as outlined above, it’s very important to note that we do not find the principal people involved to be malicious or evil. Quite the contrary. We believe the Illiana Presbytery and the prosecutor to be men motivated by godly zeal in protecting Christ’s Church. We can gladly assume that they are wonderful husbands and fathers, with faithful children. We view the men of the Illiana presbytery as those who had tried to be faithful and had grown “weary in well doing” (Gal. 6:9).

But all sides seemed naïve about the power of paradigms to turn opponents into demons, where minor sins get blown into vast proof of malicious conspiracies. Both sides in this clash have demonized the other, and both can tell stories about extra-trial injustices perpetrated by the other. But this is sadly the characteristic of almost every ecclesiastical trial. Anyone who has lived through numerous ecclesiastical trials can see the same patterns repeated over and over, especially in presbyterian circles.

The participants in the trial obviously know much more about each other than a distant third party does (and we can see things that those too close can’t). But like any evaluating body, our committee needed to keep its focus on the trial documents, despite their limits. And in those documents, the Illiana presbytery easily failed to make its case justly. Providence may show our judgment wrong. Providence may show that the Illiana Presbytery was right about the man, but it was certainly wrong in the trial. Both Burke Shade’s current pastorate, as well as future Illiana trials could lend support one way or another. But this trial failed to do that in a just manner.

Our brotherly exhortations to the Illiana Presbytery are found in their failings listed above, well-motivated as that body was. But we need to conclude with three exhortations for Burke Shade (though applicable to all involved in the trial), especially if the CRE receives Shade and Cornerstone Reformed Church into formal fellowship.

Despite the injustices that have occurred to Burke Shade in these events, the fact remains that these things took place “on his watch” as pastor, and so he bears covenantal responsibility for these events, even though he doesn’t bear the guilt for others’ sins.

1. We exhort Burke Shade to walk ever more circumspectly and sensitively when dealing with brothers and sisters (especially those in authority) who have very different paradigms than his. In answer to our questions on this point, Shade explained that he “did not believe that there were large paradigm differences before the summer of 1998.” But paradigm differences show themselves not only in open conflict, but even among friends. And it is in the time of friendship that we must walk more carefully than ever. These paradigm differences should have been seen even before coming on as pastor of that church in 1992. In response to related questions, Shade has said, “I have convictions in most areas, but where they are not direct commands, then I have to be pastoral in my care of others and allow them freedom to grow into those convictions and be happy with them until they do, or if they never do. I am also willing to be patient while teaching, knowing that God brings people along at different rates, even as He has me.”



2. In a related concern, we exhort Burke Shade to train any congregation under his charge in the lifelong wisdom of striving toward one-mindedness. This involves creating an environment where people instinctively bear with one another, don’t take offense so quickly, or impute evil motives.



3. We exhort Burke Shade before coming into the CRE to resist the habits so common in certain conservative circles to resort so quickly to legal solutions for church problems. Biblical wisdom shows us that a “soft answer” (Prov. 15:1), not a formal complaint, turns away wrath. Even in response to legal injustices, a legal reply is almost always hopeless among brothers. It would be better to be oppressed in most cases than to turn to legal solutions. In response to questions related to this, Shade has said, “I do not believe the adversarial model of reconciliation is appropriate between brothers, except for cases of unrepentant objective trespassing. . . . [O]ne of the reasons the F.O.R.C. [Federation of Reformed Churches] appealed to me was their insistence on limiting the content in the BCO so that members automatically have to work from the Scriptures to resolve their disputes, in wisdom and love, rather than from the cold and hard facts of procedure.”

In the end, our prayer is that God’s grace would prevail for His glory and mercy upon us and all those involved in the trial of the PCA vs. Burke Shade.

Illiana Replies

January 7, 2001
Dear Elders of Christ Church,

In response to your report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade trial, we will attempt to heed the words of Proverbs 10:19 that in the multitude of words there is sin and therefore keep our response brief. It is not our intent to question point by point your decision to disregard our discipline of Mr. Shade. We acknowledge the care with which you studied the trial transcripts and the detail of your response. However, we do disagree with many of your conclusions. We will limit our responses to page 2, the first actual page of your analysis.

In paragraph 2 on page two, your analysis leads us to conclude that you received much of your information from Mr. Shade and Mr. Akin since your analysis could not have been gleaned from the court records alone. We wonder why you did not consult the Session before making your recommendation? In every issue, there are obviously at least two sides (Proverbs 18.17). Furthermore, paragraphs 2 and 3 do not really capture the essence of the dispute. Since the trial, further information has come to light that shows covert efforts to undermine and circumvent the elders were well under way as early as 1996. Failure to submit to the brethren has always been at the heart of the dispute (Ephesians 5.21).

Paragraph 4 sentence 2 does not represent the facts accurately. The petition took place with more than just Mr. Shade’s knowledge. Sometime before the petition was circulated, Mr. Shade contacted Dr. Morton Smith, perhaps the foremost authority on our book of Church Order, as to its appropriateness. Dr. Smith told him in no uncertain terms that the petition, as worded, was not appropriate, yet Mr. Shade continued to encourage its circulation. Instead he should have followed the Biblical pattern given in Matthew 18:15–17.

Paragraph 5 on page 2 makes it appear that Mr. Shade’s guilty plea and claim of repentance should have sufficed to warrant his forgiveness and restoration. However, the committee appointed on December 18, 1998 to work with Mr. Shade on repentance and reconciliation discovered that Mr. Shade continued to spread injurious reports about the two elders after November 30 and December 18. The committee found that his equivocations and semantic arguments were not characteristic of genuine repentance. (II Corinthians 7.10–11)

Now, if the first page of your analysis contains these many possible questionable conclusions, we would hope you might revisit your entire analysis and decision. You have intimated that Illiana Presbytery failed to provide an objective trial for Mr. Shade. The presbytery attempted to conduct as judicious a trial as we knew how given our human limitations. Whether serving as witnesses, prosecutor, juror, or defense counsel, each presbyter was fully aware of his accountability before God. Although time restraints were occasionally put in place, they were imposed in such a manner that neither position was given an advantage. It should be noted that at no time did Mr. Shade complain that we were being unfair. If we have unfairly judged Mr. Shade, he had the right, until he withdrew from the PCA, to appeal to the General Assembly. Instead he chose to examine routes of escape even during the trial. Please understand our own concern about your objectivity when we have discovered that at least two leaders from Christ Church were in communication with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE as early as February 22, 1999, halfway through the trial. If the CRE was already interested in talking with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE then, how are we to conclude that you were able to objectively evaluate our records since then?

It is possible to find discrepancies in any trial and we are confident that given the hindsight that you and we now have, we could have done better in some ways. Where we have erred, we are certainly willing to receive correction. Indeed, as James 2:2 states, “We all stumble in many ways. If anyone is never at fault in what he says (and does), he is a perfect man, able to keep his whole body in check.” We do not claim to be perfect and we certainly hope to learn from our mistakes, but we do not believe that we erred in our final larger conclusions concerning Mr. Shade.

In Luke 17.3 Jesus says, “If a brother sins, rebuke him and if he repents, forgive him.” Our presbytery found Mr. Shade guilty of injuring the purity and peace of the church. As far as we can tell, Mr. Shade has not repented but is in fact enjoying the fruits of the division by leading a group that is more to his liking. We would like nothing better than to restore Mr. Shade upon his genuine repentance and bring unity in the Church, all to the glory of God. We had hoped that other sister reformed churches would honor our discipline of Mr. Shade and help him come to repentance rather than offer him escape.

We would note the truth of your statement on Page 9 that “The participants in the trial obviously know much more about each other than a distant third party does.” Indeed, since the trial much more information has come to light that you are not aware that only serves to confirm our discipline. We doubt though that debating those points will be of much value for the broader kingdom to which God has called the PCA or the CRE. Because we are concerned that your fellowship of churches not face the same debilitating division and trail we went through, we encourage you to reconsider receiving into your midst someone who encouraged and worked toward the division of a body of Christ that has damaged the cause of Christ in the community of Carbondale (Titus 3:10). We regard you as brothers in Christ and desire only God’s blessings on our fellowship of churches. Indeed we shall wait to see what Providence will show about our actions and those of Mr. Shade.

For God’s glory by His grace,

L. William Hesterberg, Chairman of the Illiana Commission appointed to Respond

Idaho Responds

April 10, 2001

Illiana Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America
Attention: L. William Hesterberg, Moderator
Concord Presbyterian Church
835 N. Market St.
Waterloo, IL 62298

Attention: Dale Eisenreich, Clerk
2314 Briarcliff Dr.
Alton, IL 62002-6909

Dear Gentlemen,

Greetings from Idaho. Thank you for your recent response to our report on the PCA vs. Burke Shade trial. We’re are sincerely grateful, as well, that through you the Illiana Presbytery declares that “we regard you as brothers in Christ and desire only God’s blessings on your fellowship of churches.” Our own desire from the outset has been to approach these matters in good fellowship with you, and we have genuinely sought to uphold your discipline so far as the scriptures will permit us. Nonetheless, we had hoped for a better explanation of the ten critical failings we pointed out. Instead you chose just to direct several questions against us based on assumptions for which you have no basis:

1. You say that we unfairly gleaned information for our page two, paragraph 2, from Mr. Shade and Mr. Akin regarding the ideological clash in this dispute between regulativist vs. nonregulativist perspectives, since our “analysis could not have been gleaned from the court records alone.” But this is quite false. Our committee did not contact either of these men in formulating anything in that paragraph. You can find the sources for this paragraph in Randy Moore’s “Response to Complaint” (7/7/98) and throughout the trial (see, for example, Meeting March 13, 1999, pages 4 and 10). A more careful look at the record will show you that this was a pervasive feature in the trial.


2. You say that we failed to consult the Session “before making your recommendation.” In fact, before finalizing our report for the CRE we sent it to the men who had brought the charges and had been representing the EPC session in correspondence. In a letter of August 28, 2000, Mr. DeJong declined to make any factual corrections though he was provided with the opportunity.


3. You claim that paragraphs two and three of the same page “do not really capture the essence of the dispute” since “further” post-trial “information has come to light that shows covert efforts to undermine and circumvent the elders.”
   
   Please note that your own Book of Church Order forbids an appellate court from considering anything not in the record. Moreover, we hope that before you spread such reports, you confirm such new charges in accord with the strictures against talebearing. The Presbytery’s admitting of unconfirmed accusations and yet prosecuting Mr. Shade for the same was the prime hypocritical failing of that case (see our Critical Failing #8). In other words, are you sure that you are not guilty, even in your recent response to us, of doing the very thing for which you deposed a teaching elder? The Illiana Presbytery should be most concerned to clear its name concerning this charge of blatant trial hypocrisy.


4. You suggest that paragraph four, sentence two “does not represent the facts accurately” since it says that Mr. Shade had knowledge of the petition, when in fact Mr. Shade had contacted Dr. Morton Smith and been told that the petition was inappropriate.
   
   First, since the claims do not conflict, there is no distortion of the facts; the one includes the other. Second, the declaration of any individual teacher has no binding authority in the Presbyterian system. Dr. Smith is a presbyter, not an archbishop. Third, the prosecutor’s language cited in our report (Critical Failing #10) reveals that the charge was based on an unjust technicality.


5. You claim that paragraph five of the same page suggests that Mr. Shade’s guilty plea should have sufficed, but in fact that paragraph does no such thing. It is a summary of the claims of either side in the dispute. In fact, our report does not make any claim about the sufficiency or insufficiency of the repentance in question; instead we questioned the deeper assumptions that got the Presbytery to that question in the first place (see Critical Failing #3, 4, 6, 7, 8).


6. You say that you have “concerns about our objectivity” since “two leaders from Christ Church were in communication with Mr. Shade about his reception into the CRE as early as February 22, 1999.” As this is false on several fronts we’d be glad to discuss it if it would be any help (e.g., the content of the discussions had nothing to do with the CRE and/or the unnamed persons are not elders here). But even if your charge were true, we have fifteen elders on our session, and none of the elders on our report committee had such contacts (half of the committee had never even heard Burke Shade’s name). In fact, the committee was more disposed to side with the Illiana Presbytery until we read your transcripts. And of course, your attempt to discount our persons does not answer the objective failings we set before you; it only evades them.

For the sake of the national reputation of the Illiana Presbytery, we ask it to formulate some sort of reply to the claims that it (1) never kept the required minutes, (2) acted in haste in receiving charges of theological error, (3) acted rashly in imposing a censure, (4) permitted unwieldy specifications, (5) confusedly called members for subjectivist evidence, (6) allowed the trial to turn into a debate over words, (7) assumed civil rules in an ecclesiastical court, (8) acted hypocritically in receiving testimony which itself was guilty of the charges leveled, (9) failed to comprehend basic literary genre, and (10) failed to show that obeying its own BCO petitionary process was illegal.

Brothers, this is a scar upon your reputation, and your response does not do your name justice. Instead, it tends to confirm our report. We were hoping otherwise. We would sincerely love to be wrong in our analysis, but your reply to us is merely a string of inverted accusations against us. A court of Christ’s church needs to do much better.

For the Christ Church elders,

Doug Jones

FORC Given Answer in Shade Case

P & R News, volume 5, issue 3

Louisville, Kentucky (June 17, 1999) — The 27th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) today answered a communication from the Synod of the Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) regarding a deposed PCA minister received by the Synod. The court declared that the Rev. Mr. Burke Shade “was not transferred as one in good standing as alleged by the Communication but as one who had been found guilty of several charges, suspended from the sacraments and from office, and later deposed from the ministry.” The Assembly also said: “If the Federation of Reformed Churches desires to receive Mr. Shade, it should be with the recognition that he was not a minister in good standing at the time of his reception since his name was retained on the roll of Illiana Presbytery until his trial was completed. This being the case, the Assembly advises the Federation of Reformed Churches that if they have received Mr. Shade, they should take proper steps to deal with the discipline duly imposed by a PCA court.”

The Presbytery of Covenant Reformed Church, a FORC congregation located in Harrisonburg, Va., had sent what it styled a “memorial” to the General Assembly. The communique, which was received not as a “memorial” but as a “communication,” asked questions and raised concerns regarding the handling of the case against Burke Philip Shade by Illiana Presbytery. Mr. Shade was found guilty of “apparently” teaching a particular doctrine, and the FORC communication asked “is this terminology [i.e., of finding someone “apparently” guilty] actually considered appropriate in the Presbyterian Church in America?” The communication also noted that Mr. Shade had been “convicted of spreading injurious reports in a legal document written for the court in response to the denial of a complaint.” The communique then said: “We believe that a reasonable indulgence should be allowed in this type of legal response to a complaint, i.e., if the facts presented are pertinent to the case, they should not be considered a basis for action against the accused. Is this belief on our part counter to PCA policy?”

The Assembly left those questions unanswered, and the concerns regarding the handling of the case unaddressed. Instead, the court declared: “The proper way for a judicial case, that has been settled by one of our presbyteries, to be brought before our General Assembly is either by appeal by one who has been duly tried by the presbytery or by complaint by a member of the presbytery. Since neither action has taken place, the General Assembly declines to enter into a retrial or review of the case on the basis of the Communication from persons outside of the PCA.”

Illiana Deposes Carbondale Pastor

FORC Synod Receives Him, Memorializes General Assembly
P&R News, Volume 5, Issue 2, June 1999

Meeting in the final of six trial sessions on April 17, 1999, Illiana Presbytery deposed the Rev. Mr. Burke Shade from the ministry. The court took the action after finding him guilty on three of the four charges which had been presented against him.

A Request for Transfer
Meanwhile, the Synod of the Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC), which had examined and received Mr. Shade as a ministerial member on April 3, 1999, requested Illiana at its April 10, 1999, stated meeting to transfer him along with the trial transcripts, with the intention of continuing the trial under its auspices. Illiana declined to do so; according to an observer, one of the presbyters stated: “We can’t really transfer Burke to FORC, because General Assembly doesn’t know who FORC is. In their minds, it would be like transferring him to the Klingon Empire.” The court proceeded with the remainder of the trial the next week. The FORC Synod had counseled Mr. Shade to continue to submit himself to the trial, which he did. He was present in person and was also represented by his counsel, the Rev. Mr. John Owen Birkett, pastor of Christ Presbyterian Church, Owensboro, Kentucky.

The Background
Charges had been filed against Mr. Shade following a series of disputes among members of the Session of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Carbondale, Illinois, where he had pastored since 1992. What brought matters to a head were two issues: Sessional action to require that elders other than the Pastor read Scripture in public worship, and a petition to the Session that a congregational meeting be held to consider whether one of the church’s ruling elders should remain on the Session.

In the first instance, the Session had voted 2-1 to require that ordained elders other than Mr. Shade take turns reading the Scriptures. Mr. Shade had complained that action; and, when the complaint was denied, took his complaint to Illiana Presbytery, which also denied the complaint.

In the second instance, the Session had declined to call a congregational meeting, despite receiving a petition from a significant portion of the congregation. (The Book of Church Order, 24-6, says,

“The ruling elder or deacon, though chargeable with neither heresy nor immorality, may become unacceptable in his official capacity to a majority of the church which he serves. In such a case the church may take the initiative by a majority vote at a regularly called congregational meeting, and request the Session to dissolve the official relationship between the church and the officer without censure. . . .”

The Constitution also mandates that a congregational meeting be called when a certain percentage of the communicant members petitions for such.)

The elder in question, Mr. Randy Moore, contended that the petition contained allegations against him, and therefore was inappropriate under BCO 24-6. Complaint was lodged by Mr. Michael Marshall, one of the petitioners, against the Session’s failure to act. After Mr. Shade had been suspended from office in the fall of 1998, the Session voted, 2-0, to deny the complaint. The two ruling elders present were Mr. Moore and Mr. Joe Kessler. Moderating the meeting was the Rev. Mr. Wyatt George, former pastor of the Carbondale church and one of the men who brought charges against Mr. Shade.

The Charges and the Trial
The fact that Mr. Shade had been aware of this petition was one more factor in the decision to bring charges against him. He was accused of the following: erroneous views of baptism and of evangelization; spreading injurious reports against two of the church’s ruling elders; failure to be in subjection to lawful church authority; and “countenancing activity on the part of both some members and some officers of the congregation . . . that disrupted the peace of the church and divided it.”

He pled “guilty” in November 1998, to two of the specifications, believing that he had to do so because he had already privately confessed to these matters before formal charges were brought. The court on that basis voted to suspend him from office and the Lord’s Supper.

The court later found him guilty of “apparently” holding to an erroneous view of baptism, and of countenancing an un-Biblical view of evangelism. He was censured by admonition, and by being instructed not to teach on those matters until a Presbytery committee could counsel with him. At the April 17th session, the Presbytery found him guilty of the fourth charge (“countenancing activity . . . that disrupted the peace of the church and divided it”), and voted to depose him from office. The court dropped the third charge completely (regarding failure to be in subjection to church authority) and ended the trial. It also denied a complaint brought by Mr. Moore, that sought to revise the language in which the censure was couched with regard to the defendant’s views on baptism. Elder Moore wanted the court to rule that Mr. Shade’s baptismal views were “un-Confessional.”

New Congregation Formed
In the meantime, a majority of Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC) decided to leave and form a new church. In January, members of this majority group had petitioned for a congregational meeting to consider withdrawing from the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). By this time, a temporary Session, appointed by the Presbytery, was governing the congregation. The petition was granted, and the congregational meeting was held on February 10th. But by then, many in the majority faction had decided simply to walk away rather than try to pursue either an amicable division of assets, or a withdrawal from PCA jurisdiction. (The threat of a potential civil lawsuit by one of the officers of the minority group was a factor which, according to members of the majority group, intimidated some of them from dealing with the matter any further.) Cornerstone Reformed Church began meeting in February in DeSoto, Illinois, a suburb of Carbondale, in a church building located on property owned by Mr. Mark Akin, who had been a ruling elder at EPC. The first occasion of worship drew about 100 people. Over the past two or three months, average attendance has been around 90. (The total communicant membership of EPC had been 153.) Already the new congregation has more than $40,000 in its bank account.

More Charges Processed
Mr. Akin and Mr. Wayne Sutherland, who had been a deacon at EPC but had also previously been ordained to preach, serve as the governing board for Cornerstone. Members of EPC who wished to join the new church were examined by Messrs. Akin and Sutherland, and a letter was sent to the EPC temporary Session, indicating who had been received and asking that their names be removed from EPC’s roll.

According to members of Cornerstone, the temporary Session at first signaled that everyone had been dismissed except for Mr. Akin, against whom charges had been filed (but no action taken by the court) in December 1998, and Mr. Marshall, against whom charges had also been filed (but again with no action taken by the court as of the time when he was received by Cornerstone). The temporary Session has reportedly more recently indicated that Dr. Dan Doolittle, who had with Messrs. Akin and Marshall sponsored the petition seeking the removal of Mr. Moore from the Session, also is being retained. According to Dr. Doolittle, when the request for his name to be removed was given to the EPC temporary Session, no one had informed him that any charges had been brought against him.

Pastor Will Hesterberg, Chairman of the EPC temporary session, has stated that “our desire more than anything else is to try to bring everyone together at the same table. We want to try to avoid a charged atmosphere. Maybe it’s simply a matter of misunderstanding. Maybe there has to be forgiveness.” He hopes that the matters can be handled in a “less combative” manner than that of judicial process.

The Book of Church Order, 38-3, provides that when a member of the church attempts to withdraw from the PCA by affiliating with some other branch of the visible church,

“if at the time of the attempt to withdraw he is in good standing, the irregularity shall be recorded, his new membership acknowledged, and his name removed from the roll. But if at the time of the attempt to withdraw there is a record of an investigation in process (BCO 31-2), or there are charges (BCO 32-3) concerning the member . . ., the court of original jurisdiction may retain his name on the roll and conduct the case, communicating the outcome upon completion of the proceedings to that member. . . . If the court does not conduct the case, his new membership shall be acknowledged, his name removed from the roll, and, at the request of the receiving branch, the matters under investigation or the charges shall be communicated to them.”

[The question of jurisdiction over Mr. Marshall is perhaps even more complicated. He had taken his complaint against the failure of the Session to call the congregational meeting with regard to removing Mr. Moore from the Session, to Illiana Presbytery. According to the Presbytery Stated Clerk, the Presbytery voted to deny the complaint, and also to rule that he was not a member of the PCA in good standing. The PCA Constitution apparently does not authorize a church court to exercise oversight of a person who is no longer under PCA jurisdiction. — Ed.]

Campus Ministry Sacrificed
The Rev. Mr. Derick McDonald has been ministering at Southern Illinois University (SIU) in Carbondale since his ordination in 1991. Because of the situation that has recently transpired at the Carbondale church, the denominational Reformed University Ministries (RUM) counseled him in March that he should not remain at SIU. He has subsequently been transferred to work with international students at the University in Texas in Austin, under RUM auspices.

Memorializing the Assembly
The Federation of Reformed Churches, several of whose ministers have a PCA background, has continued to try to work through the situation. The FORC Synod has now sent a “memorial” to the 27th General Assembly, which is slated to convene in Louisville, Kentucky, in June. The communication asks the Assembly to explain to the Synod the actions of Illiana Presbytery. The document also petitions the Assembly to counsel the Synod as to whether its actions regarding Mr. Shade were correct; and, if in error, to give the specific answer to the Synod’s concerns in the matter. As of press deadline, Mr. Shade had not given notice of appeal of the judgments against him. An appeal would be heard by a panel of the General Assembly’s Standing Judicial Commission.

What is the FORC?
The Federation of Reformed Churches (FORC) began a decade ago as the Fellowship of Reformed Churches. The notion of a “fellowship” soon proved to be unfeasible, and a federation, patterned much after a continental Dutch Reformed model, was adopted. FORC holds to standard orthodox creeds. It is Calvinistic in terms of soteriology. It also practices paedo-communion.

There are presently six FORC churches: Harrisonburg, Front Royal, and Willis, Virginia; Jupiter, Florida; Williamsville New York; and Akron, Ohio. Two of the churches were in the PCA. The Williamsville congregation (Church of the Savior) withdrew to independency after Ascension Presbytery had determined to dissolve the church. It was out of this church that the “Chen” judicial case, which dealt with the nature of church membership, originated. The Jupiter church withdrew after a series of complaints in which the minister it was trying to call, Dennis Slack of Great Lakes Presbytery, was denied entrance into Southern Florida Presbytery over his alleged “theonomic” beliefs. The next man to fill the pulpit, Dr. Stephen Fast, was licensed and approved as a ruling elder supply. But he was told that unless he changed his views, the Presbytery would never approve him to be ordained as a minister.

The Akron church was formed by some people who had been members of Faith Presbyterian (PCA) in the same city. The Willis congregation is now pastored by a former PCA ruling elder and two former PCA ministers: Richard Telling, Phil Lancaster and Joseph Foreman. Mr. Foreman, who comes from a long line of Southern Presbyterians, is a son-in-law of Dr. Edmund P. Clowney, former President of Westminster Theological Seminary. A long-time pro-life activist who has spent time in jail, Mr. Foreman was one of the twelve defendants in the lawsuit in Portland, Oregon, federal court which resulted in a $108 million judgment rendered against them earlier this year. Until recently, Mr. Foreman was pastor of Foothills Presbyterian Church, San Bernardino, California, and Stated Clerk of Pacific Presbytery. Over the last several months, about half of the California congregation has moved with him to rural Virginia, out of concern over the Y2K problem.

The Memorial to the 27th Assembly
[The following memorial has been sent to Dr. L. Roy. Taylor, Jr., Stated Clerk of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America.]

Dear Dr. Taylor,

Greetings in the Name of our Savior Christ. We trust that our common purpose in declaring the Gospel of the One Who died and rose for our salvation, and Whose Name we bear, binds us together as fellow bondservants of this Lord of Glory.

We are sending this letter to you in accord with Rules for Assembly Operations, 10-1. We hereby bring to the General Assembly’s attention, by way of memorial, the matter of our reception of the Rev. Mr. Burke P. Shade by our Synod. We had informed Illiana Presbytery on April 10, 1999, of our reception of the Rev. Mr. Shade on April 2, 1999. At the same time, we had requested the transfer of Mr. Shade along with a transcript of the trial to date (Presbyterian Church in America vs. Burke Phillip Shade) and the remaining untried charges and specifications. Though we have not received the transcripts to date, we anticipate receiving them.

To the extent that we have been able to learn of the decisions rendered in this case by the court of Illiana Presbytery, we do have some questions about the propriety both of some of the charges and some of the verdicts. For instance:

1. Re: Charge I.A. Mr. Shade was found guilty of apparently teaching an erroneous view of baptism.
   Our question: Though this seems irregular to us, i.e., finding one guilty of “apparently” teaching a particular doctrine, is this terminology actually considered appropriate in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)?
   
   
2. Re: Charge II.A.3. Mr. Shade was convicted of spreading injurious reports in a legal document written for the court in response to the denial of a complaint.
   Our question: We believe that a reasonable indulgence should be allowed in this type of legal response to a complaint, i.e., if the facts presented are pertinent to the case, they should not be considered a basis for action against the accused. Is this belief on our part counter to PCA policy?

Beyond the technicalities it appears to us, from the outside, that there are additional questions regarding the attitude of the court in dealing with these matters. A few of these follow:

1. That a trial of this nature should be held in closed session.
2. That in regards to Mr. Shade’s salary in April, we were assured (even though we did not ask concerning this) that it and his insurance were paid for April, when in fact this was not so.
3. That Illiana Presbytery took no decisive action with regard to the congregation of which Mr. Shade was pastor, Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Carbondale, Illinois, despite being informed by a significant number of people of an attempt amicably to divide the congregation because of the irreconcilable differences. A communication to the Presbytery also indicated that there was even the threat of a lawsuit, if the congregation voted to withdraw from the PCA (which was one of the proposals set forth).
4. That as a result of Illiana’s inaction, approximately two thirds of the congregation at Carbondale left to form a new congregation without taking any of the assets of the old congregation with them, even though that majority could have voted the congregation out of the PCA.
5. That the PCA by these actions has lost most of the largest (in attendance) congregation in the Illiana Presbytery and, as well, the international student ministry at University of Southern Illinois.
6. That in the trial there appeared to be witnesses examining other witnesses.
7. That Mr. Shade was convicted of supporting a view of evangelism which he had preached against on a number of occasions.
8. That Mr. Shade was charged with countenancing and “apparently” countenancing certain views and/or actions of others, rather than being charged himself with erroneous views.

In sending this memorial, we are not asking for reversal or redress by the General Assembly of the PCA of the actions of the court in question, but rather that the General Assembly itself exercise its own authority in reviewing our questions in this matter. We bring before you our action in this matter (noted above in second paragraph) and request the judgment of the General Assembly as to our action in receiving Mr. Shade as a minister in good standing. It is because we respect the unity of the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, and acknowledge that discipline is not a sectarian matter, that we seek your counsel. If the General Assembly has no response to make, we will assume that we have the blessing of the General Assembly upon our own actions.

We thank you for your kind consideration of our memorial and look forward to hearing from you.

In His service,

Dave Shank/Nicholas Kozel
for the Presbytery of Covenant Reformed Church, a member congregation of the Federation of Reformed Churches

Trial of Illinois Pastor Being Held in Executive Session; Illiana Lifts Gag Order, But Still Keeps Trial Closed

Congregation Considered Withdrawing from PCA, But Decides to Stay; Lawsuit Purportedly Threatened if Church Had Voted to Leave
P&R News, Volume 5, Issue 1, March 1999

A long-simmering internal dispute among the members of the Session of Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), Carbondale, Illinois, came to a boil last fall with three significant matters. The first was a complaint by the church’s pastor, Burke Shade, against action by the Session which mandated that elders other than the teaching elder do the Scripture reading every other week in public worship. The second was a petition circulated among the congregation, and signed by more than the requisite number of the communicants to force the Session to call a congregational meeting, asking for a vote on whether one of the three ruling elders should be removed from the Session. The third was a judicial case brought against Mr. Shade, alleging erroneous views on baptism and evangelization, spreading injurious reports against two of the church’s ruling elders, failure to be in subjection to lawful church authority, and “countenancing activity on the part of both some members and some officers of the congregation . . . that disrupted the peace of the church and divided it.” Among the specifications in the last charge is that the pastor had advanced knowledge of the planning process for the petition regarding the ruling elder, and failed to inform the ruling elder.

The Major Players

• Burke Shade — ordained in 1992 by Illiana Presbytery to become Pastor of Evangelical Presbyterian Church (EPC), Carbondale; married to the former Ruth Elizabeth Thoburn; six children; graduate of the Naval Academy and former member of the U.S. Marine Corps.

• Mark Akin — ruling elder at EPC; a widower, married to the former Jane Winecoff, widow of a PCA minister; a total of twelve children between them; employed by the electric company.

• James R. “Randy” Moore — ruling elder at EPC; lawyer.

• Joe Kesler — ruling elder at EPC; President, First National Bank, Carbondale.

• Wyatt George — organizing Pastor at EPC, serving there 1970–87; son-in-law of theologian-philosopher Gordon H. Clark; one of the two persons who brought charges against Mr. Shade.

• Brian De Jong — Assistant Pastor at EPC, planting a daughter church in Marion, Ill.; the other person who brought charges against Burke Shade; appointed by Presbytery as the prosecutor; son of Professor Norm De Jong.

The Prelude
A prelude to the current series of disputes was a resolution of the EPC Session, adopted on January 2, 1998. The resolution asked Illiana Presbytery to investigate alleged complaints which had been received about Pastor Shade’s counseling, “inquire into the validity of the complaints, determine whether it is advisable or appropriate for Pastor Shade to receive training as a counselor, and determine whether, in the interim, he should continue counseling.”

On February 13, 1998, one of the three ruling elders on the Session wrote a letter to the Presbytery, calling its attention to several matters. Mr. Mark Akin, who was Clerk of Session, wrote that no specific complaints had been presented to the Session that night (January 2nd), and that “it appeared that people were mentioned, who had not even complained at all to anyone about Pastor Shade’s counseling.” Mr. Akin also alleged that, in contrast to the statement in the resolution, there had been no “prayerful consideration” of this matter in the Session. “This pious-sounding statement, about the ‘prayerful consideration’, is simply false. How can we pray about something we have not discussed?” At the end of his letter, he concluded: “I would humbly submit that we as a Session should perhaps receive training in the office of Ruling Elder, in order to better perform our duties as shepherds of God’s flock.”

Illiana Presbytery’s Shepherding Committee looked into the matter in February 1998, and apparently the only action it took was to appoint TE Tom Jones to look further into Mr. Shade’s counseling. According to an informed source, Mr. Jones stated at the October 17, 1998, Presbytery meeting that the Shepherding Committee would no longer inquire into this matter.

The Initial Complaint
On June 10, 1998, a motion passed the Session which directed Pastor Shade “to involve a ruling elder in the worship service to lead worship on alternate Sabbaths, from the call to worship to immediately preceding the sermon; that Pastor Shade deliver the sermon and conclude the service on those Sabbaths, and further, that teaching elder, Derick McDonald [campus minister at Southern Illinois University — Ed.], be included in the rotation of ruling elders on those alternate Sabbaths, and that on the alternate Sabbaths when ruling elders or teaching elder, Derick McDonald, were not involved in leading worship, Pastor Shade should conduct the entire service.”

Two ruling elders — Joe Kesler and James R. “Randy” Moore — voted “aye,” and one ruling elder — Mark Akin — voted “no.” The motion would have failed on a 2-2 tie vote, except that the Moderator, Mr. Shade, did not vote because he believed he could not vote since he was named in the motion.

Pastor Shade complained this action; and the Session denied the complaint. On September 8, 1998, he took his complaint to Illiana Presbytery, arguing that the Session’s action prevented him from the full exercise of his ministerial office. On October 17, 1998, Illiana Presbytery denied the complaint, 18-7.

The Petition to Remove an Elder
Subsequent to the October stated meeting of Illiana Presbytery, a petition was circulated which asked for a congregational meeting “to discuss and vote by private ballot on the following request: that the Session of EPC dissolve the official relationship between the church and Elder Randy Moore, without censure, in accordance with the BCO.” Dated October 20, 1998 (three days after the Presbytery meeting), the petition stated:

“It has recently become public knowledge that conflicts leading to an unacceptable tension are present among the members of the Session of EPC, and has progressed to the point that resolution of these conflicts in a reasonable and timely manner is no longer feasible without changing the current membership of the Session. Sadly, the end-result of these conflicts is that Pastor Shade, whom this congregation extended a calling to in accordance with BCO 20-6, believes that his ministry has been greatly hampered by frivolous attacks on his theology, unreasonable demands to elaborate his positions outside of the realm of personal discussion and conflict resolution, and an unwillingness to spiritually and financially support him — so that despite great patience and perseverance on his part during these last several years, his work here has become untenable under the circumstances.”

At the Session meeting on October 21, 1998, the Chair ruled that Mr. Moore could not vote on the matter, since he was the subject of the petition. However, the Session did not take any action, since the Chair believed that a second to a motion could not come from the Chair. (Of the two ruling elders besides Mr. Moore, Mr. Akin supported the petition; while Mr. Kesler, who did not, declined to second the motion to call a congregational meeting.)

Mr. Moore subsequently complained even the receiving of the petition. Among reasons given in his complaint were the following:

• “The Complaint is an attempt to depose the undersigned from office”

• “It was improper for Moderator, TE Burke Shade, to rule on the Petition since TE Burke Shade was one of the initiators of the Petition, and thus a party to it”

• “Moderator, TE Burke Shade, incorrectly rules that the undersigned could not vote on whether the Petition was in order, and made numerous similar erroneous rulings in an apparent attempt to deny the undersigned from participating in the process pertaining to any rulings on the Petition”

• “The principles of Matthew 18 were violated in that the undersigned had no advance notice of the Petition. The only notice given to the undersigned was a vague phone message left with the secretary for the undersigned.”

At a Session meeting on December 30, 1998, his complaint was upheld, 2-0. The meeting was presided over by TE Wyatt George, former pastor at EPC, since Illiana Presbytery had suspended Mr. Shade during his trial on a variety of charges (see below).

At the same Session meeting, the court ruled a complaint from Mr. Mike Marshall out of order. This communicant member had complained against the failure of the Session to call a congregational meeting within thirty days of a request from a sufficient number of communicants. Mr. Marshall subsequently took his complaint against the Session for failure to act to Illiana Presbytery. At its meeting on January 30, 1998, the higher court assigned the complaint to a commission.

The Judicial Case Against Burke Shade
Illiana Presbytery began a judicial trial against TE Burke Shade on November 9, 1998. At that first meeting, the court voted to proceed in closed session, even though none of the allegations involved a morals charge. It also at that time imposed a gag order, forbidding anyone involved in the case from discussing it with anybody else (other than a spouse).

On November 30, 1998, Mr. Shade pled “guilty” to two of the specifications, which dealt with statements he had made. One was before Presbytery’s Shepherding Committee in the midst of his trying to defend himself against allegations regarding his counseling activities. The other statement was made in the course of conversations dealing with problems in the church. He pled guilty because he had already confessed to these matters privately.

After accepting the guilty pleas, the Presbytery, on December 19, 1998, rendered a verdict of suspending the pastor from the sacraments and from his office. The court determined that he had not yet displayed sufficient sorrow for his sins. The matter of restoring him was referred to a commission.

Presbytery has also found him guilty of the specification that he “has apparently taught that in the sealing aspect of water baptism the Holy Spirit initiates, actualizes, brings about, and causes to occur our saving relationship to Christ.” The sentence meted out for his apparently teaching erroneous views was an admonition. The trial continues on the other charges. The proceedings are still being held behind closed doors, but the gag order was lifted, permitting the distribution to the Carbondale congregation of the findings already made.

Congregational Discontent
There has been an intense response by many members of the congregation to the judicial proceedings against their pastor, as well as the internal controversies. A January 6, 1999, letter was sent to Illiana Presbytery by numerous members of the church. Regarding Pastor Shade, the letter states:

“we have been witnesses of his personal integrity, dutiful family leadership, self-sacrificing devotion to his flock, zeal for evangelizing our community at Carbondale and overall love for the Lord.”

The communication continues:

“We are now deeply disturbed by recent developments within the life of this church. Charges have been brought against another Officer [Mark Akin — Ed.] of our church and have been threatened against members of the congregation. Our session has not addressed concerns initially raised by the petition to the congregation in general and has appeared to act in a closed and secret manner. This is evidenced by a recent session meeting which was called on short notice, announced to select individuals only and although dealing in part with the petition itself, members who signed the petition were not specifically invited. . . . We implore you, for the glory of God and the good of this church, to take whatever swift, direct and appropriate measures necessary to restore the mutual love and confidence of this congregation and its courts that must necessarily exist.”

That letter was designed to be received by Illiana at its meeting scheduled for January 9, 1999. But inclement weather forced the postponing of the winter meeting until January 30.

Meanwhile, another request was sent to the Session, signed by fifty-two of the 153 resident communicant members. Dated January 10, 1999, this request asked for a congregational meeting to vote by private ballot on the following matter:

“that the congregation (corporation of Evangelical Presbyterian Church) withdraws and severs any affiliation or connection with the Presbyterian Church in America (Session of Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Illiana Presbytery, and General Assembly of PCA).”

The purpose of this petition was to effect what a previous petition had been unable to do, viz., the removal of one or more of the ruling elders from ruling over the congregation when many members of the congregation have lost confidence in their ability to rule. The petition was also apparently borne of frustration with Illiana Presbytery which, to many of the petitioners, had through the whole series of events also lost credibility.

Holding Out Hope for a Peaceful Solution
Members who have asked for a congregational meeting to consider denominational affiliation have tried to work for an amicable division of the congregation. A January 25, 1999, letter to the Session of EPC asked for such a peaceful solution.

Proposal for Amicable Division
That letter reads as follows:

To the Session of Evangelical Presbyterian Church:

Because we believe there to be significant differences between us and some of our Christian brethren at Evangelical Presbyterian Church, we request that you respect our desire to peaceably separate from Evangelical Presbyterian Church. While we recognize that the unity of Christ’s Church is commanded by the Lord, we believe that in this case unity is best served by this course of action. We also believe that recent events have made this division inevitable. Our express desire is to pursue all avenues for the reconciliation of our differences as a separate local Church in the Carbondale area. We also intend to seek PCA affiliation. Whatever the long term outcome of this action, we hope to continue to enjoy the fellowship and mutual Christian Love of you and all of our Brethren at Evangelical Presbyterian Church.

To this end, and considering the large number of families who have agreed to this, we propose the following:

1. We agree to transfer our memberships to our newly formed Church.


2. We request financial help toward our effort in the form of a cashier’s check in the amount of $70,000.


3. We request one half of the following: Trinity Psalters and Hymnals; Folding chairs; Padded chairs; Tables.


4. We also request: Yamaha grand piano; Computer and printer in Burke’s office.


5. We request that Evangelical Presbyterian Church agree to dissolve its relationship with Pastor Burke Shade immediately, allowing us to call Pastor Shade as Pastor of our newly formed Church. We understand that he would be ministering “out of bounds” pending final decision of Presbytery.


6. We request that Evangelical Presbyterian Church support our plans for affiliation with the PCA.


7. We request that any charges currently pending or being considered against any members of this congregation either in church court or civil court be dropped, and that a commitment be made to not bring any future charges, either in church court or civil court, against any members of this congregation for any perceived or alleged actions surrounding or leading up to this current situation.


8. We request that within the next six months, the group known as the “Peacemakers” be brought in to assist us all in reconciliation and restoration of relationships. The cost will be split by the two congregations.
   

Thank you for your graciousness and desire to consider this proposal in the effort to maintain peace here in our Christian community. The following heads of household have expressed their agreement in this matter as of 1/25/99: Mark Akin; Randy Akin; Phil Bankester; Michael Barber; Rick Davis; Dan Doolittle; Joel Duff; Mary Graff; Shawn Jack; Mike Marshall; Tom Miller; Bob Osinga; Doug Osinga; John Rendleman; Wayne Southerland; Scott White. The following families, though not members of EPC, have also expressed their agreement: Mark Engel; John Bollig.

Efforts Thwarted, Lawsuit Threatened
Efforts to have an agreement in place before the January 30, 1999, meeting of Illiana Presbytery broke down. A January 29th letter from members of the congregation was delivered to the Moderator of the Presbytery at that meeting, which asked the higher court to exercise its power under BCO 13-9 to divide the congregation. The proposed division would have left the minority in possession of the property, worth approximately $250,000, while the majority would receive the money that had been in the bank account, approximately $70,000. (The bank funds were recently reduced by $6,000, when the Session voted on January 13, 1999, to give that amount to the church secretary to help her with a diaconal need: the purchase of the trailer in which she lives. The Session, approximately three years ago, had co-signed with her in order to remove her from government housing and reduce her monthly mortgage costs. This motion passed unanimously.)

The letter noted that a congregational meeting had been set for February 10, 1999, to consider withdrawing from the PCA. The letter states:

“Some members of our congregation are hesitant to pull out of the PCA, but recognize that our church is already clearly divided over various doctrinal, practical, and interpersonal issues. We believe that remaining together as one body will practically engender bitterness and strife that will detract from the work of Christ’s Church in Carbondale. We recognize that divisions are never pleasant but sometimes necessary for the advancement of God’s kingdom, as in the manner of Paul and Barnabas.

“We also believe that a congregational meeting for the stated purpose may be hostile and lead to civil litigation against us. A deacon in our church has stated to us that we would likely be tied up in Jackson County Court with over $100,000.00 of legal fees if we attempt to remove ourselves from the PCA and keep control of the church building and assets!

“We have therefore submitted to the Session of EPC a proposal for an amicable division that would allow us to worship as separate PCA Churches in Carbondale (pending your approval) and thus enable us to pursue the work of the church while continuing the process of personal reconciliation over time. We believe this is a prudent option that will ensure the best opportunity to keep peace in the community. We have tried to make sure that the proposal was more than fair to the minority of the congregation which would stay with the building at EPC, leaving them with the vast majority of the assets. At this point our Session has not given its support of this effort.

“As a majority of the members of the congregation of EPC, we ask you, Illiana Presbytery, to assist us in a prompt and orderly division in accordance with the enclosed proposal that was first submitted to our Session. . . .”

The letter was signed by several heads of households, representing 69 communing members.

The deacon mentioned in the letter, Paul Wood, has stated that the reason why he made reference to civil court was because, if EPC left the PCA, “the lawsuit is the only thing I would have left to have my grievances aired in.” Mr. Wood flatly denied mentioning any figure such as $100,000: “whoever quoted these figures in there didn’t quote me.”

Contacted two weeks after the Presbytery meeting, Elder Moore expressed surprise about the existence of this letter of January 29, 1999. He stated that “the Session was not even aware of such correspondence.”

At the January 30th meeting, Illiana Presbytery did not accede to the request for a prompt and orderly division of the congregation. Instead, without the contents of the letter being read, the court committed the matter to a commission. In referring this matter, Illiana Presbytery was clear that the commission does not have authority to speak and act on behalf of Presbytery. This commission has also assumed original jurisdiction over the church, per the request of the Session. The ruling elders at EPC have not resigned, but merely stepped aside from the active ruling of the congregation. Indeed, the native Session at EPC continues to have authority over its daughter mission church, Providence Presbyterian in Marion, Ill., where Mr. De Jong is the organizing pastor.

Congregational Meeting
Just prior to the congregational meeting on February 10th, three members of Illiana’s Commission — Will Hesterberg, Alan Mallory, and Carlo Hansen — met with some of the members of the congregation who had petitioned for that congregational meeting. Sympathy was expressed towards the idea of the congregation having separate worship services. The commission members were told that some people were already refusing to return to church at EPC — that is, that they did not want to step foot in the doors of the building again.

At the congregational meeting, the congregation voted, unanimously, to remain in the PCA (see below). However, the future of Illiana Presbytery’s largest congregation (in terms of average attendance) remains uncertain, in that a substantial majority appears ready to walk away from the edifice on Oakland Street. On February 14th, Elder Akin and Deacon Wayne Sutherland led in worship approximately 100 people who had gathered for worship at a church building located on property owned by Mr. Akin in DeSoto, Ill. According to members of that group, whether that significant number of people will stay in the PCA will depend in large measure upon how the Presbytery deals with the matter.

The Conduct of the Congregational Meeting
[The following account is based on information supplied by two of the members of the congregation present at the congregational meeting on February 10th. — Ed.]

The Rev. Will Hesterberg convened the meeting and read from several Scripture passages, including verses from Matthew 18, I Corinthians 13, Galatians 5, and I John 4. After a time of silent confession, the congregation turned to Psalm 32, which was read responsively. The convener read Galatians 4:25, and gave the ground rules for discussion. He made the suggestion that children should leave. Upon motion, the body approved that suggestion.

Mr. Hesterberg talked about why the commission, which was acting as an interim session, wanted to secure an interim pastor for the church. He pointed to the need for growth, healing, and reconciliation.

Mr. Hesterberg was elected Moderator, and the Rev. Mr. Alan Mallory was elected Clerk of the meeting. The Moderator then started to go through the proposal for peaceable division. Mr. Randy Moore and Mr. Mark Akin noted that the purpose of the meeting was to vote on whether to remain in the PCA or not.

Almost immediately, the question was called. Voting by ballot, the congregation unanimously decided not to withdraw from the denomination.

The meeting started at about 7:00 PM, and lasted about 45 minutes.

[Editor’s Note: It would appear that preventing communicant members under the age of 18 from voting was improper. Under the PCA’s Book of Church Order, all communicant members have the right to vote on matters in congregational meetings. As a matter of fact, there was a recent attempt to amend the Constitution to allow churches to set a voting age for congregational meetings. The 1996 Assembly approved the measure, as did the requisite number of presbyteries; but the 1997 Assembly voted it down, thus defeating the amendment. — Ed.]

Facts and Figures Regarding Illiana Presbytery

• Located in Southern Illinois, Southwestern Indiana, and three counties in Northern Kentucky.

• Thirteen organized churches and one mission congregation

• Membership (1997 statistics): 1,181 communicants, 219 non-communicants, 23 ministers (1,423 total)

• The only Presbytery which, upon Joining and Receiving with the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod in 1982, contained no churches which had originally been in the PCA

• Three of its ministers are faculty at Covenant Theological Seminary, including its President, Bryan Chapell

Comments by Illiana’s Stated Clerk and Moderator
Mr. Dale Eisenreich, Stated Clerk of Illiana Presbytery, stated that that there had never before been a trial in Illiana Presbytery, from the days that it was in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Evangelical Synod; but that in 1998 two trials of ministers (including the present one) had been held. “It is a sad commentary on the young pastors who are tearing up the church and creating schisms,” he declared. In his opinion, the young ministers are “splitting people”; and he “wouldn’t want to be in their shoes” on the day of judgment and have to face “Almighty God.” When asked about Mr. Shade being convicted of “apparently” holding to an erroneous view of baptism, he replied, with regard to Mr. Shade: “It sure seems funny that people can speak out of both sides of their mouth.”

P&R News asked the Moderator, Mr. Scott Levy, How can someone be convicted of “apparently” doing something (in this case, teaching erroneous views on baptism)? He commented: “Based on what the witnesses presented, it seemed that he preached that sermon, but based on his own testimony he did not believe that.” He said that folks of the congregation “interpreted” Mr. Shade’s views on baptism as being erroneous.

Teaching Elder Burke Shade employed these grounds in his complaint:

1. The motion was unconstitutional. Although the Book of Church Order gives the Session authority over the time and place of public worship (Chapter 12), it reserves to the minister the duties of reading, expounding, and preaching the Word of God and administering the sacraments (Chapter 8). Mr. Shade argued that throughout the BCO, “it is not only assumed but clearly stated that the Pastor is to lead public worship on a regular and weekly basis. That motion that was passed is in direct contradiction to our Book of Church Order and denied me the ability to perform my calling.” He also cited BCO Chapters 18, 19-21, 24, and 52, in support of his making a distinction between ministers and the other church officers.


2. The motion was unconfessional. “Question 156 of the Larger Catechism affirms that all ‘are not to be permitted to read the word publicly to the congregation,’ and in its scriptural footnotes, quotes Deut. 31:9, 11–13, Nehemiah 8:2–3, and Nehemiah 9:3–5, all of which state that it is the priests or Levites who may read the Scriptures.” After citing the Form of Presbyterial Church-Government and the Directory for the Publick Worship of God of the Westminster Assembly, the complainant stated: “The Reformed understanding of worship is that I may use others in the worship service, to read or pray, but the preponderance of the leadership rests upon me, and at my discretion as Pastor because of my office. It is my responsibility to delegate when I desire, but the Session may not delegate for me as they have done in this motion [, which] impedes my ability to fulfill my office. Ruling Elders and Teaching Elders are equal (BCO 8-9) but not interchangeable in function (BCO 8-5).”


3. The motion was unbiblical, violating I Timothy 4:13–14 (“give attention to the public reading of the Scripture”).


4. The motion was improperly passed as a motion, because the Session’s understanding at the time that he could not vote was erroneous.


5. The motion was uncharitable: “It is . . . personally hurtful to me to have my calling, my duty, my responsibility, my desire, taken from me.”