Heck of a way to start a vacation. Jim Sauer came by yesterday afternoon with a letter summoning me and Sarah to appear before the Session to “hear charges brought against” us.
They managed to get this done just under the wire, as they were about a week and a half short of the one-year deadline for beginning process.
I find it interesting that Jim Sauer has been named as prosecutor. This pretty much disqualifies him from sitting on the court for judgement. I’m a bit confused about who is actually on the Session right now. Sometimes, emails will go out from Jim to everyone on the Session, including Chris Catranis, Rob Miller, and Rich Pyle. Other times, it’s just to Ray Doreian and Rev. Van Ness. I’ve shot an email to Jim asking who is actually on the Session. Here is the letter I sent.
As far as the details of the letter, it’s pretty straightforward. The PCA Book of Church Order almost has a form that they need to follow. However, they seemed to have missed some major requirements on their part.
- The BCO says that along with the indictment, there needs to be included “names of witnesses then known to support it, served on the accused”. We’ve not received this list, even though we’ve been asking who our accusers are for the last year. They continue to refer to a secret list of people, without naming anyone.
- The same section says that the indictment is supposed to be delivered along with the citation. In other words, we’re supposed to have 10 days to consider the charges before we plead. The indictment has not been delivered. I find it amazing that they’re expecting to give us these charges, and expect our plea in one evening.
Anyway, I’m trying to clear this up with the Session before the meeting starts. For anyone who is concerned, we’re not too concerned for ourselves. We know, of course, that all things happen for God’s glory, and do look forward to clearing our name. In the process, I’m looking forward to the Church witnessing this spectacle. It’s obvious that restoration of relationships is the farthest thing from the goals of the Session.
We’ll keep you updated.
UPDATE: I may be mistaken regarding the timing of the delivery of the indictment. The question lies in the interpretation of BCO 32-3, steps 2 and 3. It does not explicitly say that the indictment must be delivered along with the citation… in fact, it doesn’t give any time frame for delivering the indictment to the accused, except when it is to be read to them at the second meeting of the court. However, in Dr. Morton Smith’s commentaries on BCO (which are not authoritative, but very instructional), writes “The citation to the accused must include a copy of the indictment drawn by the prosecutor, thus allowing him to prepare his defense.” So, while it seems that BCO is ambiguous as to whether the indictment comes with the citation, Smith thinks that it is explicit.