Tyranny in Tyler Update:
Jim Jordan's Continued Ad-Hominem and Defense
of the Indefensible in Maintaining the Validity of
the ARC Excommunications.
Copyright 1999 © First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett
In the July/August 1995 issue of First Presbyterian Rowlett's newsletter, The Blue Banner, an article appeared entitled, Tyranny in Tyler. This was a review of the ecclesiastical abuse (see Ecclesiastical Megalomania offsite) of the defunct Association of Reformation Churches (ARC), which took place twelve years earlier in 1983. It was written in response to an ad-hominem attack by James B. Jordan who had called FPCR a synagogue of Satan for refusing to recognize the excommunications of the ARC. Mr. Jordan was responding to some reviews of his books (Liturgical Nestorianism, Theses on Worship, and Liturgy Trap) which had appeared earlier in the March/April 1995 newsletter. Rather than interacting in a credible way, Mr. Jordan chose rather to name call and claim these reviews had simply not advanced the discussion of worship. Rather it was pointed out that it was he who had repeatedly raised up straw-men and had failed to address the real issues.
The post reproduced below was in response to a similar attack by Mr. Jordan made in January 1998 on the OPC discussion forum hosted by the Christian Observer. Mr. Jordan was writing in response to an OPC pastor's praise of Rev. Richard Bacon's book on paedocommunion, What Mean Ye by this Service? As in the earlier case, Mr. Jordan did not address the issues raised in this book contra paedocommunion, but chose rather to engage in a classic example of ad-hominem.
Mr. Jordan continues to defend the indefensible. This is clearly outlined in Tyranny in Tyler. In the following post by Chris Coldwell, a letter from Dr. Greg Bahnsen is quoted which also outlines this evidence.
OPC Forum:
Regarding Jim Jordan's comments about Dick Bacon and FPCR, I trust most of you know an ad hominem attack when you see it. FPCR has already defended itself in this matter of the ARC excommunications (http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/tyler.htm) which has nothing to do with the issue under discussion, or the brilliance or stupidity of Bacon's "What Mean Ye." Yet I trust the moderator will permit a brief defense, since Jordan has slandered Bacon and First Presbyterian Rowlett as "renegades."
Jordan wrote:
(I should add, in case you don't know it, that Bacon and his church are a pretty renegade bunch. Many of the members are people excommunicated from other conservative Presbyterian churches in the Dallas area, including at least one of his officers. If you really agree with what Bacon wrote in his booklet, at least be aware that touting his name is problematic.)
No, Jordan shouldn't add. 1. Jordan is misrepresenting the facts. There are not "many" excommunicants from other conservative Dallas area "churches" at First Presbyterian Church of Rowlett. FPCR does have a ruling elder who was one of those excommunicated from the defunct Tyler ARC. North Dallas Presbyterian Church (PCA) overturned his excommunication back in 1983. He was elected elder at FPCR about seven years later. Other Tyler excommunicants have joined the OPC. I suppose according to Jordan's "logic", that makes those OPC churches renegade? Evidently, "few" means "many", "church" means "churches," and "Tyler", several counties removed from Dallas, is the "Dallas area."
2. Even if Jordan were not misrepresenting the facts, it has very little to do with the point at hand, and is mere abusive ad hominem. (1) What does it have to do with Bacon's anti-paedocommunion arguments? (2) Bacon was not a member or even in Dallas, when the excommunications were overturned, nor was he on session till five years afterward. (3) And if FPCR is "renegade" because she left the PCA, Bacon originally wrote "What Mean Ye?" in 1989, before FPCR left that communion. The brilliance or stupidity of Bacon's arguments against paedocommunion should be based on the content, not circumstantials or praise of him from others that may chap Mr. Jordan, who evidently finds it difficult to restrain himself from attacking authors (and churches) who disagree with him.
Should we follow Jordan's logic here? Should anyone listen to his arguments for paedocommunion? Is touting Jordan's name in this regard "problematic" because he practically stands alone in defending ecclesiastical tyranny (the Tyler ARC excommunications)? And so he descended into mere ad hominem, which seems to be the way of much email discussion.
As far as the ARC excommunications are concerned, there is no reformed denomination that has let these sentences stand. PCA and OPC churches overturned the sentences and allowed these folks to become members in good standing. In fact the ARC itself apparently nullified them. I close with the following from the late Dr. Greg Bahnsen, summarizing this ecclesiastical mess that was the ARC. He is discussing the fact that the ARC's judicial commission admitted to partiality and sin in their handling of the cases. This letter of confession is posted at the URL mentioned above:
[quote]
Now then, as for the "official" response of the ARC to the Chilton confession, I would not be surprised that Jordan's interpretation is that the excommunications were not lifted. He is, after all, desperate to defend the sordid affair and his involvement -- in which case he must continue to perpetuate the verdicts, as though they ever had legitimacy. Another indication (to me anyway) of the incompetence of the ARC court is precisely that its response to this candid confession of injustice was left in a state of sufficient ambiguity that people could take from it whatever suits their preconceptions. Thus Jordan's quixotic and continuing promotion of the alleged verdicts. However, I believe the historical facts are against him, nonetheless.
I have a copy of the presbytery response to the Chilton letter (Oct. 22, 1986), over the names of the three elders who (also) constituted the body, which heard the appeal against the judicial commission originally. It is a disappointing and embarrassing display of extended rationalization -- so that the three elders might continue to plead that "we believe our original evaluation to be accurate" (that is, the sin and error was not their own).
I had counseled and argued with two of these men extensively that their original upholding of the judicial commission was turning a blind eye to the obvious prejudice and injustice of that commission's actions. They did not wish to concede that the known facts "proved" that prejudice and injustice, and their later presbytery response to the confession of it is largely an attempt to vindicate themselves in this matter.
But then after four pages of this kind of thing, they finally come to face the awful music: "Therefore, UNTIL the above mentioned letter from Chilton and Nelson was received, the Presbytery believed that the judicial commission was acting with full balance and objectivity. We NOW have incontrovertible testimony that this was not the case...." Moving quickly to their conclusion, they "nullified" any and all actions of the judicial commission, in which case the session was to "carefully review" the verdicts which were based upon the judicial commission's decisions.
You can see the fine ambiguity here. I suppose Jordan would argue that this "review" did not overturn the verdicts -- even though (1) there could be no other basis for those verdicts except the NULLIFIED decisions of the judicial commission, and (2) any further accusations against the parties which left the ARC would have required judicial process (which never took place as far as any of the accused is aware). But there is some good reason to dispute Jordan's hopeful interpretation of the effect of the presbytery's report.
I have a copy of a letter (March 5, 1987) from Tom Shiffler, one of the men who produced that report and who heard the appeal against the judicial commission originally (who is now deceased). He is responding to a critical letter from Vern Crisler in which Crisler assumes the interpretation of the presbytery's action which is given above. Based on a very precise (overly so?) reading of the exact words of his own report, Shiffler states that the "ground" of the excommunications has been removed and that review must be made of "subsequent" cases.
Shiffler is quite to the point: "The bottom line is this: If the plaintiffs were excommunicated on the ground of the contumacy judgment against them by the commission (and this is the clear statement of the Nelson-Chilton letter) then those excommunications are disemboweled." Shiffler has the humility to admit he (like others in the ARC) is a novice at presbyterian judicial procedure, but says that this is his "letter of clarification."
The best we "outsiders" can do in this murky situation, it seems to me, is to accept the "clarification" offered by a man who had authority, right and actual involvement in the decision made -- none of which can be said of Mr. Jordan (no authority, no right, and no actual involvement in the official decision). He says the excommunications were nullified.
[End quote. From email from Greg Bahnsen to Chris Coldwell, 31 Aug 95 12:36:45 EDT]
Chris Coldwell
Page Last Updated: 01/17/08 01:01:25 PM