The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America is a Presbyterian denomination. This means that the denomination is committed to the Presbyterian form of church government, and holds to the Westminster Standards and the Testimony of the RPNCA. Together with that, the RPCNA has a Book of Discipline. That book contains the agreed upon processes for dealing with sin and judicial procedure.
Presbyterianism and Leadership
Every member of the RPCNA publicly affirms the Covenant of Communicant Membership. That covenant includes the promise, “In case you should need correction in doctrine or life, do you promise to respect the authority and discipline of the church?”
In addition to the covenant, all those ordained in the RPCNA also agree to ordination vows. In those vows they promise, “Do you promise subjection in the Lord to the courts of this church, and engage to follow no divisive courses from the doctrine and order which the church has solemnly recognized and adopted; and do you promise to submit to all the brotherly counsel which your brethren may tender you in the Lord?”
Both the covenant and ordination vows are made only with consent. By them, elders bind themselves before God and men to do what they have committed themselves by covenant and vow to do. If they don’t, they have promised as members and elders to respect and be in subjection to the discipline of the church.
Presbyterianism and Congregationalism
According to the RPCNA ordination vows, every ordained persons agrees “that the permanent form of church government is presbyterian.”
Presbyterianism is a government of elders. Because the power and authority Jesus has given the church is given to the whole body, the membership “has the right to choose its officers from among those of its own members who possess the scriptural qualifications” (Reformed Presbyterian Testimony 25.6).
But the membership (no matter how loud and demanding) doesn’t rule, the elders do, “Christ has appointed in His Word a particular form of government for the visible church. It is government by elders (Greek: presbyters) and is therefore called presbyterian. Each congregation should be ruled by a session of ordained elders, elected by the membership of the congregation” (RPT 25.7). The elders exercise their authority in courts, “The elders are organized in courts (the session, the presbytery and the Synod) to which is committed the power of governing the church and of ordaining officers. This power is moral and spiritual, and subject to the law of God” (RPT 25.10). Within the Presbyterian system, the lower courts are subject to the higher courts, “The session is subordinate to the higher courts and shall be governed by their decisions” (Directory for Church Government, page D-29).
This is very different than Congregationalism, which usually lets the membership participate in the government of the church through the advice of elders, and it’s different than Independency which has no unity of government outside of the local church.
Through this situation IRPC has demonstrated a congregational and/or independent mindset rather than Presbyterian. The congregation demanded that the courts of the church do what they expected them to do, and when this didn’t happen they decided on September 30, 2022 to sever their relationship with the RPCNA. On December 4, 2022 the IRPC session allowed J. Olivetti to participate in the Lord’s Supper contrary to and in defiance of his discipline by the Synod of the RPCNA.
Presbyterianism and Committees and Commissions
In addressing the matters at IRPC both the Presbytery and Synod utilized a number of committees and commissions. The basic distinction between the two is that a committee doesn’t have real authority, and can only work in an advisory capacity. A commission, on the other hand, has the authority of the court it represents and may authoritatively act.
The involved committees that could only work in a non-authoritative way included the Advisory Committee, Shepherding Committee, and the 2021 Synod Judicial Committee. The commissions that had authoritative involvement included the GLG Ad Interim Commission, the Immanuel Judicial Commission, the Synod Judicial Commission, and the ongoing Olivetti Repentance Commission and the Reconciliation Commission for the Former Ruling Elders.
When a church court (including a commission) makes a determination, Presbyterians believe those decisions are to be respected. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, “Which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word” (31.3).
Presbyterianism and Jurisdiction
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.”
Presbyterianism and Complaints
Throughout the situation at IRPC, at least eight “complaints” were filed with the Synod. For two consecutive years, these complaints took a lot of time on the part of Synod to hear and adjudicate. This is an important part of Presbyterianism. The Book of Discipline says, “A complaint is a written statement made to a higher court by one or more persons aggrieved by an action of a lower court. It may be made by the parties concerned, by members of the court, or by any interested persons” (page E-15).
Those who filed complaints with Synod against the GLG IJC were well within their rights to do so. Also, those who filed complaints against the SJC with the full Synod were permitted to do so, as the Directory for Church Government says, “A complaint or appeal against the decision of a judicial commission of Synod may be made to the Synod itself” (page D-41). But a complaint does not need to be sustained, and the Synod was within its rights to not do so however aggrieved individuals may feel.
Presbyterianism and Ecclesiastical Trials
According to the RPCNA’s Book of Discipline, there is a way to confront sin in the church by means of a judicial trial. In to the minutes of the SJC, the commission desired to resolve the charges without a trial, but as J. Olivetti refused to engage in a process of mediation a judicial trial was inevitable.
While several complaints alleged J. Olivetti’s trial was unjust or inappropriate, Synod did not sustain any complaints that alleged it was unlawful for the SJC to progress with a trial, and upheld by wide margins both the process and the results. It may be the personal opinion of some but it is not the ruling of the court of the church.
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 