Heartland Presbytery opposed to pastoring?
January 4, 2008
I don’t get it.
Heartland Presbytery approved three motions. First, it removed the Rev. Kirk Johnston from its rolls, making him no longer a Presbyterian Church (USA) minister. That’s draconian.
Second, it deleted the just-removed Rev. Johnston from its rolls again, just for good measure, I suppose. Isn’t that like killing a man twice? Once would seem overly sufficient to me.
Third – and this one makes no sense whatsoever – 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.”
Look, the guy is no longer a PCUSA pastor. What in the world is the presbytery doing telling him that he has to “get out of Dodge” and do no more Christian ministry of any kind within the geography they’ve staked out as Heartland Presbytery? The presbytery had absolutely zero authority over Johnston from the time they kicked him off their rolls with the previous resolutions. Following that action, what gave them the right to say, “Don’t preach. Don’t care for people. Don’t help people worship God. Don’t baptize people or serve communion. Cut it out! We can’t have that around here!”?
And why would any presbytery ever want such God-honoring activities suspended? Aren’t presbyteries supposed to actually kind of like that kind of activity to be done, just generally? Isn’t that exactly what presbyteries exist to further, not forbid?
Does Heartland Presbytery now consider itself the sole granter of Christian franchises in the territory, so much so that next it will turn to declaring that Lutheran and Catholic and Southern Baptist pastors and priests must also cease any ministerial activities? Just like Johnston now, none of those pastors stand under the presbytery’s authority either.
I remember reading in church history about the Roman Catholic Church executing people who made the Bible available to the common believer or who preached the Gospel to the masses out in fields and forests. Is this the Presbyterian version of such persecution?
So in the three resolutions, Heartland Presbytery said to Johnston:
· You’re no longer a Presbyterian minister.
· You’re doubly no longer a Presbyterian minister.
· And don’t you even dare do anything minister-like around here any more.
The first two seem painfully harsh and vindictive. The third, however, seems just plain pathetic.
James D. Berkley
Director of Presbyterian Action
Bellevue, Wash.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
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.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
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.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Jim,
Do you know KirK?
January 10th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Thank you Joe Cejak, I’m glad to know that some folks have read the Book of Order and try to follow it.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:26 am
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!
January 10th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I’m sorry I just realized I spelt Mr. Cejka’s name wrong. I was looking at Bruce Berry’s spelling as I wrote.
January 10th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
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.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:47 am
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.
January 11th, 2008 at 11:26 am
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.
January 29th, 2008 at 9:20 am
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)
March 25th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
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.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Poor Rev. Johnston, must have been a conservative.
April 7th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
It is a creative idea!