Comments on: Heartland Presbytery opposed to pastoring?

By: Randy Curtis

Randy Curtis — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:16:30 +0000

Sheessh! I wished there were a few comments by which to gauge the situation. At face value, this is ridiculous and probably so at any level. If I were a Five Pointer instead of a confused So. Bapt. I’d suggest that these folks will never number among the Elect. Maybe they just haven’t had enough good preachin’ fer it ta take.
I support proper and true Ecumenicalism but there are some things that fall out of orthodoxy and Biblical Truth. Kirk Johnston has received a grace even if it tastes of bitter medicine. Maybe he’ll start a church plant across the street and preach “90% Law and 10% Grace” in the love and admonition of our Lord. That would be unusual in too many pulpits across our Nation. Betcha PCA and EPC have room in their tents.

By: Joseph Cejka

Joseph Cejka — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 19:55:45 +0000

The third point may have been overkill, unless, and I do not know the circumstances, if Mr. Johnston is still billing himself as a Presbyterian pastor. If so, it makes sense. Here’s how: he is divested of ministerial functions; he is deleted from the rolls (not one and the same action, by the way, at least not under the Book of Order); and he is prohibited from acting as a Presbyterian minister, thus meaning he may not serve sacramentally or pastorally in any Presbyterian church. The advantage to the tird motion, given the possibility Mr. Johnston stills bills himself as a Presbyterian pastor or minister, is that Presbyterian churches may not engage his services.

Also, and I have not read the minutes of the meeting and do not know precisely which motions were approved, however, I suspect the order of motions was threefold: divestiture of ordination, removal from rolls, and prohibition from functioning as a minister. Also, and Mr. Berkeley’s comments are devoid of the circumstances and facts surrounding this action.

The danger in comments such as those by Mr. Berkeley is that they are merely new lyrics to the old tune of, “Why I Hate the PCUSA.” And that is simply vitriol.

By: Rich Zimmerman

Rich Zimmerman — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:38:11 +0000

Jim,

Do you know KirK?

By: Bruce Berry

Bruce Berry — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 15:01:13 +0000

Thank you Joe Cejak, I’m glad to know that some folks have read the Book of Order and try to follow it.

By: Viola Larson

Viola Larson — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 16:26:40 +0000

But if pastor Johnson is now or will be an EPC pastor doesn’t that still make him a Presbyterian Pastor? Mr Cejak makes it sound like the PCUSA is the only Presbyterian Church!

By: Viola Larson

Viola Larson — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:04:38 +0000

I’m sorry I just realized I spelt Mr. Cejka’s name wrong. I was looking at Bruce Berry’s spelling as I wrote.

By: Joseph Cejka

Joseph Cejka — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 03:08:40 +0000

Ms. Larson wrote, “Mr Cejak makes it sound like the PCUSA is the only Presbyterian Church!” This is true if and only if you don’t read what I wrote. At the time of the presbytery’s action, Mr. Johnston was a member of the PC(USA). As such, his status as a Presbyterian pastor was dependent upon that relationship. The core of the charges against him–which I have since researched–is that he persisted in a work not approved by his presbytery. In that defiance, he relinquished his ministry as a Presbyterian minister under the aegis of the PC(USA). Mr, Johnston may now be part of the EPC or declare himself to be an independent presbyterian (yes, that may be an oxymoron!). However, he is not now an ordained Minister of the Word and Sacrament in the PC(USA). And as such, the three motions make since.
By the way, no offense taken at the spelling of my name. I do go by Joseph, not Joe.

By: Viola Larson

Viola Larson — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:47:39 +0000

Joseph, This is what you said: “and he is prohibited from acting as a Presbyterian minister, thus meaning he may not serve sacramentally or pastorally in any Presbyterian church. The advantage to the tird motion, given the possibility Mr. Johnston stills bills himself as a Presbyterian pastor or minister, is that Presbyterian churches may not engage his services.” He can’t be prohibited from acting as a Presbyterian minister, just as a Presbyterian USA Minister, and any other Presbyterian Church may use him. I think perhaps you didn’t understand what I was saying.

By: Joseph Cejka

Joseph Cejka — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 16:26:48 +0000

Ms. Larson, I can see how you reached your conclusion concerning my comments. Taken from the context of a discussion concerning a PC(USA) presbytery disciplining a then minister member and in the context of the denomination, PC(USA), my remarks could be seen to support your inference. They don’t. I do not assume the PC(USA) is the only presbyterian denomination. Factually, Mr. Johnston was a minister member of a PC(USA) prewsbytery. I do assume, based on the Book of Order, and freely undertaken membership and ordination vows, that this denomination can discipline its members and officers and take actions for and against them under its government and discipline. I also assume, under its polity, that its decisions and actions are ministerial and declarative. Mr. Johnston is now a free agent. God go with him.

By: Bruce Ludwick

Bruce Ludwick — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:20:48 +0000

As a longtime friend of pastor Kirk and an observer of the presbytery meeting I would like to add an insite. The need for the third motion was questioned by the body at large and the explaination given was that it was necessary because it was a motion of the presbytery itself and not a motion of the COM based on the findings of the administrative commity. Since the formation of the administrative commision has been called into quesition in a suite filed by First Presbyterian Church of Paola Elder Bob Sundquist this final motion becomes very crucial in the apparently vindictive actions of the presbytery. If the administrative commision is indeed found to be improperly formed then all of its action will become null. This would potentially give cause to nullify any actions based on the commisions recomendation including the first two motions. However the third will still stand. A rather amazing end run to make sure you get what you want by the presbytery/COM. And as a final note God definetly has gone with Kirk and the 270 odd previous menders of the FPC of Paola in the formation of the Lighthouse Presbyterian Church (EPC) and its 314 charter members. Yes the charter meember ship is higher in part due to persons who were active at the FPC but refused to join because of its affiliation in the PC(USA)

By: Rick Wortman

Rick Wortman — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:50:32 +0000

Unless either I missed something in the plain common meaning of the words, or else Mr. Berkley misquoted: ‘Heartland Presbytery voted that “any further pastor or ministerial activities by A. Kirk Johnston (G-6.0200) in connection with ‘Lighthouse Presbyterian Church of Paola’ or any other worshipping community within the geographic bounds of Heartland Presbytery – including, but not limited to, preaching, leading worship, or the administration of the sacraments of baptism or the Lord’s Supper – is disapproved” ‘ clearly and specifically purports to proscribe the Rev Johnston’s ministerial activities not only as a PC(USA) pastor, but as the Presbyterian pastor of LHPC, an EPC congregation.

Let’s not parse words, Mr. Cejka. By its declaration, Heartland arrogantly, intentionally, and unequivocally presumed to extend its disciplinary jurisdiction to all Presbyterian denominations. It seems a double standard predominates within the PC(USA). They eschew interest in exercising any form of discipline over clergy or lay leadership who unrepentantly persist in violating fundamental standards of the Book of Order, openly defy the GA, and publicly denigrate orthodox Christology; yet vigorously pursue draconian retribution against evangelicals they consider “schismatic”, even to ends of the Prebyterian universe.

May the Lord rebuke them.

By: dsanger

dsanger — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:38:45 +0000

Poor Rev. Johnston, must have been a conservative.

By: Denisse Dorrington

Denisse Dorrington — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:58:03 +0000

It is a creative idea!