In Part 1 we discussed how the process of handling allegations against a Minister are dealt with in the ARP: http://bit.ly/c6vdAV. In Part 2 we will examine at least one of the key issues at stake, should the process move forward.

In the middle of March, about two weeks after the ARP Synod action concerning Erskine College and Seminary which ultimately resulted in the allegations in the Jay Hering case, Dr. Hering posted a revised paper on the Erskine Seminary website with his exegetical study of the issue of Litigation in 1 Corinthians 6. So everyone involved can be sure they know what Dr. Hering believes about the key issue in this case. (To read the entire study paper, go to: http://bit.ly/bSLFv1)

The Aquila Report sought out an evaluation of Dr. Hering’s study paper from several sources. Two gentlemen were kind enough to respond. Both had no relationship to the case and as far as we know, had never met any of the principals in the possible case.

The first was Professor Vern Poythress, Professor of New Testament at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia, who is also a minister in the PCA.
Dr. Poythress made the following brief evaluation:

Overall, the paper is pretty good. But the difficulties come with the details.

In exactly what kinds of cases may Christians or churches seek out the civil magistrate for adjudication? Paul is laying down principles, and those principles go back to fundamentals with respect to the nature of believers in the union with Christ, their bonds with one another, and the superiority to love.

At the same time, it may take discernment to apply these fundamental principles to a situation. Paul is not deciding beforehand all potential situations through some kind of rule that does not really take into account situations.

I think of cases, for example, where conservative Episcopal Churches are leaving the U.S. Episcopal Church and trying to retain their property. Since discipline and justice according to biblical standards have broken down in the U.S. Episcopal Church to an appalling extent, and since the act of leaving the denomination is an announcement that one no longer recognizes the spiritual authority of the body being left, it seems to me justified in some cases to engage in such fights in civil courts.

But even here one must ask, case by case, whether it is wise.

The paper seems to concede at least that except in exceptional circumstances it is better to settle disputes within the church. But does the author think that there are exceptional circumstances in this case, and if so what?

One of the most looked-to interpretations of this passage among Presbyterian theological over the past 200 years – and one to which Dr. Hering himself referred to in his paper – is the work of Charles Hodge, the well known and respected professor at Princeton Seminary and a leading churchman in the Presbyterian Church of the mid 19thcentury.

Our second reviewer was The Reverend Andrew Barnes, a PCA pastor living in Jackson, MS. Barnes holds a Bachelor of Arts in Biblical Studies from Trinity University, Deerfield, IL and a Master of Divinity from Reformed Theological Seminary, Jackson, MS. Since Mr. Barnes had more time to devote to this project, we asked him to carefully review and compare the two articles, written by Hodge and Hering, and give us his analysis.

Here is his summary paragraph:

Summary: Hodge shows that taking lawsuits between brothers before civil magistrates is an evil. Rather, we should suffer injustice/robbery before ever going to the civil magistrate. In other words, he is emphasizing the need to handle matters between brothers in the Church because of verse 2. The examples of Paul going to the Civil Magistrate is within the general rule because it was not ‘brother against brother.’ What Hodge is truly saying is not that we have to suffer for peace, but that Christians should be able to handle any case between brothers because of v.2. Hering, however, believes that in serious matters a brother has no choice but to take it to the civil magistrate. And, seemingly attacking Hodge’s point, to appeal for peace in the Church overlooks sin. Even if it is a praiseworthy Christian ideal to suffer for the peace of the Church, for Hering it is illegitimate.

To read Mr. Barnes entire paper, click here: http://bit.ly/9Y2Po0

The only real conclusion to draw from these analyses is that, if they decide to proceed to process in this case, Second Presbytery has an important and difficult work of Biblical interpretation to deal with.