Answers provided to the FAQs are drawn out of the available documentation provided under the documentation page.
Q: What were the dates of abuse?
The IJC reported that to their understanding, and according to the six victim families they were aware of, the dates of sexual misbehavior commenced in the Spring of 2019 until March of 2020. After the leadership was made aware it was agreed “that an individual will keep an eye” on the offender and the offender would not be “allowed in the basement or to have an unsupervised contact with children” (here). The leadership assured the congregation in both letters to the congregation (here and here) that the “instances had stopped.”
According to the investigative reporting of the Indianapolis Star, the abuse began in 2019 but they identified, according to the court documents they obtained, that the end date isn’t clear. They say some documents suggest the abuse stopped in March of 2020, “and in another that the acts continued into January 2021.” The charging document (which contains counts for seven of the at least 15 known victims) notes different time frames for seven victims, with the earliest date being 2017 and the latest January 2021. Documentation from the United States District Court Northern District of Indiana notes a date range of June 2015 through approximately August 2020 with one victim.
The allegations of victims is important because J. Olivetti knew of concerns as early as the fall of 2019, and the leadership at IRCP learned of sexual abuse in April 2020. Victim(s) allege abuse beyond those dates
Q: Was there a cover-up?
The IJC reported to the GLG, “Our investigation did not lead us to believe that there was a cover-up.” However, upon more information being known and the situation being adjudicated by an ecclesiastical trial, the SJC reported to Synod, “Why does it seem to be so hard to really find out what happened at IRPC and why is it difficult to understand who did what and when? At least a part of the answer to that is that there was, for quite some time, an attempt to mislead or conceal the real ugly facts of this case. There were deceptions and incomplete summaries given at multiple points along the way.” The Indianapolis Star also reported that this situation involved a cover-up.
Q: Did the session at IRPC sin in their response to the situation?
Yes. Almost every involved party has recognized there were sins committed. Faith Baptist Counseling were the first to identify and confront sin in the situation. The Advisory Committee warned the session about their shortcomings (here), the IJC identified a pattern of sinfulness (here), the GLG Presbytery adopted a plan of repentance (here), the Shepherding Committee acknowledged some sin and recommended judicial censure (here), and the Slander Committee confirmed sin in the response of the leadership (here).
The Synod Judicial Committee believed there was credible reason to continue the judicial process (here). Even the complaints submitted by sympathetic parties to Synod in 2021 acknowledge sin on the part of the leadership (here and here). The Synod Judicial Commission‘s investigative team brought lawful charges of sin, and the SJC adjudicated J. Olivetti’s charges via a trial finding him guilty on all counts, and the other elders pled guilty to the substance of the charges brought by the ecclesiastical prosecutors (here). It is without question that there was sin in the way IRPC leadership responded to the situation.
Q: Were those sins serious?
Yes. In the context of a known and very serious sexual abuse situation the leadership did not shepherd the flock in a biblical way, they intentionally didn’t communicate to parents known sexual sin against their child, they hindered essential parental oversight, they disadvantaged some victims and their families, they did not show equal care to injured parties, they misled and misinformed the congregation, they acted with partiality, they ignored conflicts of interest, they compromised the integrity and qualifications for the eldership by not being above reproach and maintaining a good reputation, they took advantage of the courts of the church, and they ignored or disregarded good and godly advice given by a multitude of counselors including committees and commissions of the GLG Presbytery and from experienced biblical counselors. As noted in the mediated agreement this resulted in “offenses multiplying, distrust and disunity in the congregation, and a delay in both justice & reconciliation.” See also the IJC report here, and Shepherding Committee report here.
The SJC report to Synod also summarized regarding the sins of J. Olivetti, “He was found guilty, not solely of failure to manage his household, but also of multiple acts of active transgression and pastoral negligence. We concluded that several of the actions proved were sins of persistent neglect and that there were offenses in his conduct that were disqualifying for office; thus the Commission deposed him from office and suspended him from the privileges of church membership.” See also the SJC oral report to Synod (here).
Q: Did the leadership of IRPC repent?
According to the IJC report on January 2, 2021 there was “confession of sin by Session.” The content of that confession was a failure to respond promptly, a failure to maintain all of the steps laid out in the CPP, and a failure to enforce the safety plan. Within the public record this is the only time before the mediated agreement that the entire session confessed sin. On March 6, 2021, Ben Larson read a public confession as noted in the GLG minutes. Zachary Blackwood also read a personal acknowledgement of sin. However, the GLG (as an authoritative court) still determined that whatever had been acknowledged on January 2, 2021 and March 6, 2021 was insufficient. Therefore, to pastorally help the serving elders the GLG adopted a process of repentance.
The Shepherding Committee was supposed to direct the serving elders through a Presbytery adopted process of repentance, including the resignation of their charges. The committee did not do this and instead reported the following: Nate Pfeiffer acknowledged sin on January 2, 2021; Jared Olivetti acknowledged undue influence, disadvantaging victim families, not recusing himself, and not doing what he could to be above reproach; Ben Larson acknowledged sin on January 2, 2021 and March 6, 2021; Keith Magill admitted “mistakes,” and David Carr repented on January 2, 2021. For these things the Shepherding Committee recommended that they be admonished, a recommendation that was not acted on as Synod had assumed jurisdiction of the situation at the time of reporting.
The SJC reported that the framework for mediation they approved included “discussion and performance of appropriate repentance.” However, J. Olivetti refused to engage in the mediation process which is why his charges were dealt with by trial. The SJC also reported, “We acknowledge that Mr. Olivetti has made some public confessions of sin. Yet confession of sin does not exhaust the biblical idea of repentance. Our Confession of Faith notes the wide picture of repentance in its references to seeing sin, sensing sin, grieving sin, hating sin, leaving sin, (15:2). As well, repentance is to be particular and not general (15:5). We therefore properly call Mr. Olivetti, as our Testimony points, to self-examination to true repentance in order to detect specific sins, and repent of them (RP Testimony, 15:6). The trial uncovered much that has not been specific in the matter of his repentance. We must say, with sadness, that we have not yet seen fruits in keeping with Mr. Olivetti’s repentance. In our informal meeting with him on March 30th, he presented himself as combative, not contrite, and maligned the Commission’s authority.”
The other elders who were charged by ecclesiastical prosecutors signed a mediated agreement to continue the process of reconciliation.
Q: Can discipline happen even if someone acknowledges sin?
Yes. Following biblical teaching the Book of Discipline says, “If the sinner confesses and repents, there must be forgiveness and reconciliation, and the matter shall be closed. You have won your brother. Such closure may include counsel or censure appropriate to the circumstances” (page E-4). Confessing and even repenting of sin doesn’t mean that it may not be necessary to discipline an individual, but the circumstances determine if the censure would be appropriate.
In this situation, the elders who signed the mediated agreement in acknowledgment of sin were still disciplined. The SJC minutes record the following adopted censure, “You, David Carr, Ben Larson, and Keith Magill, having been found guilty, by your confession and acknowledged neglect of your Christian duty as an elder and by your own admission of the sins of neglecting to shepherd the flock of Jesus Christ in a biblical way and failing to maintain the integrity of the eldership, this court of the Church of Christ sadly and solemnly judges, censures and suspends you from the office of elder for the greater of one year or until satisfactory attempts at reconciliation have been made, and forbids you to perform any of the duties belonging to it until the court is satisfied with the
outcome.”
Q: Do qualifications for the eldership matter?
Yes. By Apostolic command the King and Head of the Church Jesus Christ requires officers in the church to maintain a high-level of qualifications. Those qualifications are found primarily in 1 Timothy 3:1-7, Titus 1:5-9, and 1 Peter 5:1-3.
Every corner of the RPCNA should take those qualifications seriously. No one should be called to be an elder who doesn’t “evidence the standards of character and conduct consistent with those set forth” in the Bible (Directory for Church Government, page D-6-7).
Who determines if a person has those qualifications? That belongs, in part, to the congregation, “The Lord Jesus Christ has clothed His Church with power and authority. This authority is vested in the whole membership of the Church, which has the right to choose its officers from among those of its own members who possess the scriptural qualifications” (RPT 25.6). For ruling elders it also belongs to the session, “If the elder-elect indicates his desire to accept the call, the session shall meet in constituted court to examine him with respect to his qualifications” (DCG page D-10). For a teaching elder it also belongs to the seminary, “The student shall request the seminary to forward to his presbytery an evaluation of his qualifications for ministry and statement of his academic standing” (DCG, page D-14). Ultimately, for a pastor under ordinary circumstances, the determination rests with the Presbytery, “The examination, ordination and installation of a teaching elder belongs to the presbytery alone” (DCG, page D-18).
In the case of the leadership at IRPC the 2021 Synod assume original jurisdiction of the situation in keeping with provisions of the Directory for Church Government (page D-41) and the Book of Discipline (page E-7). As Synod exercised original jurisdiction charges came against the leadership and because of that Synod, by representation of the SJC, had to determine the qualifications of the leadership.
The SJC determined J. Olivetti was disqualified for office as one who did not maintain the character and/or conduct required by the Bible, and they determined that D. Carr, B. Larson, and K. Magill, who confessed they did not “maintain the integrity of the eldership” (see here) needed to be suspended from the exercise of office for a minimum of one year.
Q: Was it harsh to suspended J. Olivetti from the privileges of church membership?
No. In response to extremely serious and wicked sexual abuse J. Olivetti seriously sinned. As a complaint against the IRPC session pointed out, the Westminster Larger Catechism Question & Answer 168 says, “What is the Lord’s supper? The Lord’s supper is a sacrament of the New Testament, wherein, […] (we) testify and renew their thankfulness, and engagement to God, and their mutual love and fellowship each with other, as members of the same mystical body.” Because the Lord’s Supper is a testimony to mutual love and fellowship, the Larger Catechism also says in Question & Answer 173, “Such as are found to be ignorant or scandalous, notwithstanding their profession of the faith, and desire to come to the Lord’s supper, may and ought to be kept from that sacrament, by the power which Christ hath left in his church, until they receive instruction, and manifest their reformation.”
The Book of Discipline specifies that, “Deposition—This is the disciplinary removal of an ordained officer of the church from his office. It may also be accompanied by suspension from church privileges” (page E-5). According to the SJC report to Synod, the commission unanimously voted to add suspension of privileges to J. Olivetti’s deposition from the office of elder. They added, “He was found guilty, not solely of failure to manage his household, but also of multiple acts of active transgression and pastoral negligence. We concluded that several of the actions proved were sins of persistent neglect and that there were offenses in his conduct that were disqualifying for office; thus the Commission deposed him from office and suspended him from the privileges of church membership.” Further, J. Olivetti’s serious sins resulted in disadvantaging victims in the congregation, the resignation of ordained officers, 50+ people leaving IRPC, and the multiplication of distrust and disunity in the church. There is strong warrant to keep J. Olivetti, guilty of scandalous sin, from participating in the Lord’s Supper until he is repentant. See also the SJC oral report to Synod (here).
Q: Did J. Olivetti cooperate with DCS?
An incident in October 2019 where the offender propositioned and touched the chest of a victim was not reported to DCS. The DCS approved safety plan wasn’t followed the way it was written, and abuse continued and victims have said abuse continued into August 2020, and the possibility that it lasted into January 2021. A congregational letter to IRPC on September 6, 2020 claimed, “Civil authorities have been notified.” There was known sexual abuse at the time that letter was distributed that was not reported to civil authorities. Furthermore, a sub-committee consisting of members of the Advisory Committee, the IRPC session, and a biblical counselor determined in November 2020 that J. Olivetti had hindered a full confession on the part of the offender with DCS. During live-streamed testimony at the trial of J. Olivetti, witnesses confirmed first-hand knowledge of DCS’s distrust of J. Olivetti and his known lies.
Q: Did the IRPC Session withhold information?
Yes. There was a consistent pattern of the session not informing parents of information they had a right to know. According to the IJC report member(s) of the session learned of intentional and inappropriate sexual touch from the offender toward a minor. The parents of the minor were not informed. In that same report, it’s noted that the whole session was informed of this in August, and even then the parents were not communicated with.
The session also withheld information from youth group parents. In July 2020 the offender was allowed to attend a joint youth group swim party where there was not adequate adult supervision, and no parents of the youth were aware of the offender’s presence. In September 2020 the session decided to allow the offender to attend youth group while active discovery of the extent of abuse was still being investigated. The youth group leaders were informed of the offender’s identity and presence at youth group, parents were not permitted to know that a sexual offender was attending with their children. Several people with knowledge of the situation communicated with the session about their concerns for youth group, and these concerns were disregarded.
The SJC in their oral report to Synod (here) said, “Interestingly, when the truth became known, and when the evidence was organized and presented, it wasn’t as complex a case as hyped. That evidence and the accompanying testimony was clear and convincing. I note that EVEN the Immanuel congregation has never been told the full truth about this matter and I believe they would be surprised to learn many of the details that were presented to this court. This is also true for some who signed the complaints without knowing the facts.”
Q: Did the IRPC Session communicate false information to the congregation?
Yes. On September 6, 2020 a congregational letter made several claims that were false. These included claims that safety measures had been implemented to ensure instances have stopped, all parties were receiving pastoral care, all were fully cooperating with the investigation, and civil authorities had been notified.
On October 18, 2020 a second congregational letter made several claims that were false. These included claims that active measures were being implemented to prevent any more instances, an in-place safety plan, and the elders’ support of the safety plan developed by the family. No church-wide safety plan was officially adopted by the session until December 19, 2020, and public testimony at the trial indicated the family safety plan was not being implemented as written.
On January 2, 2021 at a family meeting the session made several claims that were false. They misled the congregation by minimizing an incident from the fall of 2019, claiming involved-parties were recused from discussions and decisions, communicated that the offender was under direct oversight at church and church events beginning in April, stated that there were only 5 victims in the congregation, said that DCS reporting had occurred immediately, that the offender’s family safety plan was put into place, that a deacon gave no reason for his resignation, and misrepresented the advice of the Advisory Committee.
Q: Was shepherding care given to the IRPC congregation after January 2021?
No and yes. The IJC Report, Shepherding Committee Report, Olivetti Charges, and Mediated Agreement all recognize that certain victims and their families did not receive shepherding care at IRPC. They were neglected and disadvantaged, and true and real injury was done to them.
The rest of the congregation, however, received shepherding care. IRPC had an active local session consisting of Pastor Olivetti and elders Zachary Blackwood, David Carr, Ben Larson, Keith Magill, and Nate Pfeiffer. Z. Blackwood and N. Pfeiffer resigned in the spring of 2021, but the others (refusing to resign as requested by GLG) were active until January 15, 2022. After their resignations the congregation quickly moved to elect new elders including Yemi Aladejebi, and soon after him Sam Carr, Josh Karshen, and Matt Wilburn (Adam Soldati was also elected but did not become an elder).
The GLG appointed the IJC in part to “determine what counseling and any help that any perpetrators and victims, along with their families, and the Session and congregation might need.” The IJC also brought an original recommendation to the GLG that a temporary governing body be established “to assist Immanuel RP Church in this time of repentance and renewal.” The congregation did not like the recommendations that the IJC brought to GLG, and the congregation therefore rejected their work and them.
The Presbytery also supplied provisional elders to the congregation from at least March 2021-September 2022 (here and here) with almost a dozen men willing and ready to serve. In his dissent from the congregation’s decision to leave the RPCNA on September 30, 2022, elder Matt Wilburn gave the following as one of his reasons for dissent, “The LORD has answered in the giving of provisional elders and support/wisdom given by others who are related to IRPC members.”
The Synod of 2021 also heard and responded to a complaint from many members of the congregation. This was inappropriately transferred to the court but provision was made via a special resolution to ensure its hearing (see Minutes of Synod 2021, page 16). In response to the complaint the Synod took actions agreeable to those members, e.g. removing the special prosecutors appointed by the GLG and considering the possibility of another investigation.
As their minutes show, in the first meeting on July 8, 2021 of the SJC discussion was had about pastoral care, “While the Book of Discipline focuses on the mechanics of the judicial process, we ought to consider whether giving attention to pastoral care may be needed along the way in our work […] Keith plans to remain somewhat in contact with the Synod’s moderator, and this would enable us to consult him about what might be appropriate for us to do in this regard. In order for us to serve appropriately as a jury, there will need to be limits on how involved we are in hearing concerns directly.” As soon as August 12, 2022 the IRPC congregation began petitioning against the SJC’s work and decisions, and at least one communication to the SJC required “a subsequent letter of apology.”
Early in their work the SJC did seek to engage in a degree of pastoral responses to concerned individuals at IRPC. A discussion with IRPC provisional moderator Ken DeJong on October 7, 2021 reaffirmed the local session’s jurisdiction. In their minutes the SJC showed particular pastoral concern for the well-being of the congregation, and while they required J. Olivetti to refrain from the exercise of office they did not require the charged ruling elders to do the same. On January 11, 2022 the SJC approved a communication to the GLG reminding all of their limited sphere of responsibility. They did this in order to maintain impartiality as trials were pending. On January 18 the SJC had a general agreement that they were “not in a position to render pastoral care directly to IRPC. Moreover, there was some concern that our present posture in possibly hearing judicial charges against the IRPC elders would create an ethical conflict of interest if we were also to assume active pastoral involvement in the congregation.” The Synod of 2022 also appointed a committee to facilitate a meeting between the IRPC congregation and members of the then-former SJC, for the “peace, purity, and unity of the church.”
The courts also shepherded the church by removing from their midst one who was obviously disqualified from gospel ministry. Certain members may not agree with that but in Presbyterianism it is left to the courts of the church, not the opinion of the congregation, to decide if a pastor is or isn’t qualified. Removing one disqualified from the office is a difficult but necessary work of shepherding in protecting the sheep from those who would harm and hurt and J. Olivetti clearly did.
Shepherding, support, and willing help wasn’t lacking toward the congregation even when it is acknowledged and proven that victims and their families were not shepherded. Despite all of this, in a “Letter to the Elders in the RPCNA Issued by Lay Immanuel Reformed Presbyterian Church Sheep” it was specifically noted that the congregation as a whole was neglected and hurt because the denomination didn’t promote their idea of a “gospel culture,” and, in fact, “departed from the gospel.”
On the basis of the public record it doesn’t appear that the IRPC congregation suffered from a lack of shepherding as claimed by their own rants and petitions seeking to control procedure and processes that are left to the courts of the church and not the majority opinion of a congregation operating without information or insight. As expressed in the written record, concern for the well-being of the church was a priority for GLG and Synod, and the commissions and committees appointed for this matter. Disgruntled members can’t force their own narrative against the truth.
Q: Was a lawsuit ever filed against IRPC?
No and yes. In November of 2021, IRPC and GLG received a letter of notice from an attorney representing involved parties. That letter expressed the desire to resolve the matter short of formal litigation through pre-suit negotiations. No lawsuit was ever filed in this situation, and negotiations with legal representation from insurance companies were accomplished in March 2022.
However, on December 9, 2022 Jared and Lisa Olivetti, IRPC, and the Trustees of Synod were served with a lawsuit and subpoenaed (here, here, here, and here) regarding a lawsuit that was filed holding the Olivettis personally responsible, and also IRPC and the RPCNA. The Indianapolis Star broke the story on this lawsuit.
There is no known lawsuit filed by members of the RPCNA against Immanuel.
Q: Was mediation offered to J. Olivetti and the other leadership of IRPC?
Yes. According to the minutes of the SJC the possibility of mediation within the context of the charges was discussed on December 6, 2021, “There was discussion about the possibility of hearing from the counsels on both sides on their willingness to take part in a mediation that would potentially avoid a trial.” On December 21, 2021 the SJC authorized Mr. Rob Keenan to begin dialog about openness to mediation.
On January 4, 2022 the SJC prepared a description of what the mediation process would entail, and a motion was carried to pursue the process of mediation. This was “somewhat rebuffed” on January 10 by the defendants. On January 18, 2022 the SJC noted that they would ask the defendants whether or not they would wish to continue a mediation process. On January 21, 2022 the defendants informed the SJC that their resignations on January 15th from their charges was the last attempt at mediation, which was incongruous with the SJC’s framework.
It was decided by the SJC on January 25th to reemphasize the SJC’s desire for mediation and that “all parties need to resume the mediation process with urgency.” On February 8 it was reported to the SJC that the ecclesiastical prosecution, as required by the SJC, had prepared necessary documentation for mediation and stipulation. On February 15th the SJC pushed back mediation deadlines for J. Olivetti to February 25th, and it was reported the ecclesiastical prosecution was open to the possibility that mediation could lead to a modification or reduction in the charges. It was noted that the defendants had been unwilling, to this point, to engage in mediation. On February 22nd it was reported that all parties would be involved in a mediation dialogue. On February 24th the deadline for J. Olivetti’s mediation was postponed to March 4th. Further, the SJC noted, “There was considerable discussion, reflecting both our desire to provide every opportunity for
mediation to succeed and our frustration that delays from the defendants have seemed to impede the advancement of the ecclesiastical mediation/stipulation process.”
J. Olivetti failed to attend or participate in the mediation process leading to the resolving of charges by trial. The other elders met with the ecclesiastical prosecutors and they crafted a mediated agreement signed by all parties including the SJC.
Q: Has J. Olivetti ever answered the charges brought against him?
No. J. Olivetti refused any mediated process with the SJC or ecclesiastical prosecutors. He also refused to show up to his lawful trial to defend himself against the charges brought. He complained to the 2022 Synod, but in his complaint he has never given an answer or defense to the serious and now proven accusations of sin. As the SJC stated in their response to J. Olivetti’s complaint, “Simply put, Mr. Olivetti does not address the accusations. He disparages slander yet he does not hesitate to accuse many of being unjust, one-sided, biased, unprofessional, unbiblical, untrained, anti-grace, anti-gospel, inadequate, set on vengeance, and divisive. Ironically, he pleads for justice, yet refuses to present his case in the courts of the Church because he deems the Church incompetent in this case. He uses the courts of the Church to make complaints yet refuses to keep his vows to submit to the courts of the Church when it disagrees with him. Mr. Olivetti’s actions are those of a double-minded man. Had Mr. Olivetti’s concern been equal to those harmed, with a sense of contrition and humility, it is unlikely ‘this matter’ would have come to this point.”
Q: Did J. Olivetti participate in the Lord’s Supper after he was suspended?
Yes. J. Olivetti was suspended from the privileges of church membership on March 10, 2022 and even though the Olivetti Judicial Commission did not remove the suspension, the session of IRPC (Sam Carr, Josh Karshen, and Matt Wilburn) decided on December 3, 2022 to allow J. Olivetti to come to the Lord’s Supper which he did on December 4th and again on January 1 and February 5, 2023.
Q: Does J. Olivetti’s local leadership have jurisdiction to lift his suspension from membership?
No. According to GLG 23-4 (here), J. Olivetti told the Repentance Commission that the “IRPC Session (and not the Synod) holds jurisdiction over him with respect to the privileges of membership.” Pastor James Faris also stated in an email (here) he distributed that the session “exercised their rightful jurisdiction over the congregation and admitted Jared to the Lord’s Supper starting in December 2022.” James Odom parroted this line of reasoning in GLG 23-9 (here) saying, “It is the duty from God and the Constitution of Sessions to admit members to the table. The Session (alone) is to fence the table under specific objective criteria, then leave the examination to the observers of the sacrament.”
This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of Presbyterianism and depends on the errors of congregationalism. Within Presbyterianism there is a gradation of church courts. This begins at a local level with a session but as the Directory for Church Government states, “The session is subordinate to the higher courts and shall be governed by their decisions” (page D-29). It is also within the authority of Synod to take jurisdiction of an important matter. Again the DCG says, “Synod, however, may assume original jurisdiction over all matters affecting the purity and welfare of the church, and may, without complaint or appeal, investigate and adjudicate any matter requiring its attention or may direct the lower courts to deal with the matter” (page D-41).
In the case concerning IRPC, in 2021 in response to three complaints the Synod voted to assume jurisdiction. The Synod Judicial Committee’s recommendation passed, “We recommend that Synod assume original jurisdiction in the matter of GLG and Immanuel, and the moderator appoint a seven-man judicial commission to address this matter.” From this point onward the Synod maintained original jurisdiction of the matter including the investigation, trial, censure, and ongoing efforts of repentance and reconciliation. This includes the censures that were imposed on J. Olivetti and the other elders, “Restoration of a person under censure should be made only by the court that imposed the sentence or with its advice and consent” (page E-8).
The Synod of 1926 gives a precedent. The Committee on Discipline said that when a higher court adjudicates a case a lower court cannot take it up and decide, “In the Presbyterian form of church government, the session is regarded as an inferior court, and it is not competent to adjudicate a case which has originated in a Presbytery and has been decided by Synod.” It was also said, “Such action on the part of the session savors of rejection of the Presbyterian form of church government, and adoption of congregationalism. Whether intentional or not, it savors of the spirit of defiance of the authority of superior judicatories, and practically defeats the end of discipline, reversing or setting aside the decision of a higher court, and of the highest court of this ecclesiastical body.”
It is not for ordained officers in the RPCNA (Sam Carr, Josh Karshen, Matt Wilbourn, Pastor James Faris, and James Odom) to reason or act in a congregational way as each has taken a vow that “the permanent form of church government is presbyterian.” J. Olivetti’s suspension from membership is a censure lawfully imposed by the Synod and the IRPC session cannot, without the consent of Synod, decide the matter.
Q: Why does “unity” not appear in the title of this website?
The title of this site For Peace, For Purity, and For Progress, was drawn from the statement made by the SJC, “Mr. Olivetti has not conducted himself in a way that is above reproach, resulting in distrust and disunity within the church and failing to promote its peace, purity, and progress.” This language largely reflects the 8th ordination vow that D. Carr, B. Larson, and K. Magill confessed to violating. The absence of the word “unity” is only stylistic, and does not reflect an intention or motive on the part of the contributor(s).
Q: Does this website break the ninth commandment?
In Reformed circles it’s common (when people don’t want something publicly talked about) to throw out the ninth commandment, “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” (Exodus 20:16). A key word in this commandment is “false.” Things like defamation, slander, and libel aren’t displeasing things that are said or written, or even things someone may personally disagree with. The threshold is whether things spoken or written are false.
The Bible does teach us to think even more carefully. Things that are truthful still need to be spoken in the right way and for the right reason. Gossip is a sin according to God’s Word. But, again, not all that people call “gossip” is actually gossip. This faulty thinking can be used to unnecessarily silence things that can or need to be said. As Pastor Bill Edgar helpfully wrote, “Warning about danger is good; passing the news is harmless; but telling stories to turn people against one another is evil. We should do the first kind of gossip; we may do the second; and we ought never do the third.”
This website is not a discernment blog, an op-ed site, or one that gives running commentary on the situation at Immanuel RPC. This website provides and presents the documentation that ecclesiastical and/or civil courts have decided to make public, or other public information and draws attention to what is publicly available.
The contributor(s) understand this website to only be a place that provides and presents information that is public in nature, and draws attention to what that public information says.
For Peace, For Purity, and For Progress 
