Talk:R. C. Sproul Jr./Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV

It's apparent that the revisions made on 3-28-06 by 68.62.252.9 are little other than non-verifiable interested-party personal commentary in violation of Wikipedia's Neutral Point Of View policies. Furthermore, 68.62.252.9 has failed to provide any sources, in violation of Citing Sources policy, which specifically states, "If you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source."

Therefore, per Wikipedia's Verifiability policy, which states "Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor" I'm deleting the revisions made by 68.62.252.9. Should 68.62.252.9 choose to make further revisions he's encouraged to first review Wikipedia policies and act accordingly. -- Frame-work 18:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The reversion on "Controversy" made on 6th October has been undone. The reverted paragraph had poor grammar and was clearly non-NPOV. -- creative2567 9 October, 2006

What grammar mistakes? How is it NPOV? We worked through changes at length that we thought were fair. Because this is a contentious article, if you have substantial changes in mind, please discuss them here before making them in the article. --Flex 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there was no poor grammar that was being corrected by 202.92.89.133 and then creative2567. The changes they made were content redactions, not grammatical corrections. The changes that I made were done entirely for the purpose of accurately reflecting the primary source documents. I don't know how it could get any more NPOV than quoting directly from the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment, which is what I did. Others including creative2567 have repeatedly deleted significant historic issues including the fact that one of the reasons that Sproul was defrocked was for "ministerial abuse" and "abuse of authority in an inexcusable manner" against several SPPC families. For some reason that keeps getting redacted, even though it was a significant contributing factor in Sproul's defrockment. It appears as though there are those who are deliberately attempting to conceal significant historic facts. If there's a factual error or NPOV violation with anything that I've documented then please point it out. --Frame-work 03:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

First sentence - "Sproul was originally ordained in and Saint Peter Presbyterian Church". Someone tell me that is good English?? And what about some paragraphs? --creative2567

Regarding NPOV, why remove the mention of the denominations apology to Sproul for not informing him of the General Assembly Act regarding paedocommunion? At the moment it presents only one side. Also the final statement "but not without some loss of church members because of the aforementioned controversy." - where is the evidence? This just sounds like a dig. Also, you wrote that he admitted to "certain charges", whereas in fact he only admitted to one charge - that of practicising paedocommunion. Why be ambiguous? --creative2567

Again regarding grammar, read the first sentence. There are about 7 seperate clauses in there, it is very hard to follow. Terrible writing, honestly. Needs to be broken up into about 3 sentences. --creative2567

Re grammar: you omitted the rest of the sentence: "Sproul was originally ordained in and Saint Peter Presbyterian Church (SPPC) was a part of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church." You may dislike the style (and such things can certainly be changed to improve clarity) but there is no grammatical error there.

Re NPOV: Let's work on a compromise here that will satisfy all parties (and WP policies, including WP:NPOV#Undue_weight). Frame-work, do you know of a second source for the documents related to this controversy (e.g., the RPCGA website)? --Flex 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Re grammar: No - this is not correct grammar! The conjunction is, inexplicably, placed in the middle of the first clause. Also, Sproul is the subject of the sentence, making it read like *he* is part of the ARPC. It is poor grammar. Anyway, I have corrected the statement. --creative2567

Re NPOV: I believe NPOV would be preserved by a. stating that RPCGA apologised to Sproul regarding their failure to inform him of GA Act 1997, b. stating that Sproul admitted specifically to practicing paedocommunion and c. removing the unreferenced statement about the loss of members

More on grammar. It is best to eliminate redundancy where possible - this makes for snappier writing. For example, instead of "...and planting a new church without having proper authority to do so" you can write "...and planting a church without proper authority". There is no loss of information in the 2nd sentence, but we have eliminated 5 words. --creative2567

I'm not opposed to correcting grammar or eliminating redundancy. However, I am troubled by the inaccuracies in the historic account, and just as troubling what appears to be a pattern of concealment by repeated redactions from various editors with no explanation or justification. Please see my October 9 edits. Please explain to me where they're wrong, inaccurate, misleading, redundant, etc. and then I'll be happy to tell you why your current version is historically misleading: 1. SPPC never became a member of the RPCGA due to Sproul's failure to administer the RPCGA's membership vows per the BCO. 2. The fact that "ministerial abuse" and "abuse of authority in an inexcusable manner" against several families is a significant element of the history, and that it keeps getting deleted here, is troubling. Why has there been this pattern of concealment of ecclesiastical abuse when it was a significant factor in the defrocking? 3. The Presbytery ruled that "the Session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church comes as it’s own accuser and confessor before this judicatory." Per the RPCGA's Book Of Church Order (BCO) no trial was then needed for those particular charges. Again this is significant, but it was deleted from my October 9 edit with no explanation or justification. 4. The Presbtery by a unanimous vote issued a judgment to defrock Sproul and his Elders from office and remand them to general membership in the RPCGA where they were to await trial on numerous additional charges. Again, significant, but deleted with no explanation or justification. 5. Sproul and his session then offered up a letter of apology asking to be released from general membership in the RPCGA^[1]. Shortly thereafter the RPCGA issued a letter releasing them from general membership^[2]. Again, a significant historic fact that was deleted with no explanation or justification. 6. One of SPPC's three parishes broke away as a direct result of the session's defrocking, taking with them 15 families. Not an insignificant historic fact, yet it too has been deleted with no explanation or justification.

It's inappropriate and it has all the appearance of strong personal bias, and therefore contrary to Wiki's NPOV policy, for significant historic events to keep getting deleted with no explanation or justification. Unless my October 9 edits can be shown to be inaccurate or misleading I believe they should be restored. --Frame-work 23:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to changing the wording of the charges to more accurately reflect the history or to including a reference to the denomination's apology to Sproul. What I am opposed to is giving undue weight to a relatively minor controversy (yes, I know it is very important to a few people, but that does not mean it is entitled to an expansive description here -- compare WP:COI#What_is_encyclopedic?). It should be mentioned, but it should be brief. All the details needn't be enumerated; only the salient facts. Let's work out what they should be here.

Regarding the grammar of that one sentence: the two prepositions share an object. It's not uncommon, or incorrect, even according to the grammar mavens I consulted. While I maintain that there was no error there, I'm not opposed to changing the wording. --Flex 01:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets go through your elements one at a time. "1. SPPC never became a member of the RPCGA due to Sproul's failure to administer the RPCGA's membership vows per the BCO." I don't understand this - are you saying that SPPC was *not* a member of RPCGA? Creative2567

Also, Frame-work's changes seem to assume that the charges against Sproul jr are fact. Here is at least one refutation - http://pastorshaun.blogspot.com/2006/04/clearing-rc-sproul-jrs-name.html. I imagine most people who are bothering to read this discussion are aware that there is now a lot of bad blood between RPCGA and the Sprouls. A number of sites (apparently connected to RPCGA) now exist for the express purpose of criticising the Sprouls and their ministry, Ligonier.

Flex is right - this is a very minor issue and there is no way the "controversy" section should be larger than the biographical section of the page. Given the wiki policy of erring on the side of caution with regards to potential slander of a living person, I'd like to see the section shrunk even further.

Flex, apologies if I insulted your grammar before. I assumed it was written by Frame, and I was in an angry state of mind. I have absolutely no connection to the Sprouls or Ligonier, but I am furious at the campaign being run by some RPCGA members to slander them. It is the internet at it's worst. --creative2567

"...are you saying that SPPC was *not* a member of RPCGA?" Correct. See section 5 of the Declaratory Judgment, to wit: "This fact was also revealed in the letter to the Austin family that they had not given the proper vows of church membership to them, nor to the congregation of St. Peter Presbyterian Church. They therefore failed to properly enroll the church into the jurisdiction of Westminster Presbytery following the procedures of the Book of Church Order B10:9B5 and B2:1D." SPPC never became a member of the RPCGA because Sproul failed to administer the membership proscribed in the BCO, substituting instead membership vows of his own concoction. Therefore, previous article versions that have stated such things as "The church was released from the RPCGA without censure" is just one of numerous editorial misrepresentations that have been made here that could easily be avoided if editors would just read the primary source documents, rather than repeatedly making ignorant speculations, as well as repeatedly redacting the factual chronology that I've posted without any justification or even the courtesy of an explanation.

"Frame-work's changes seem to assume that the charges against Sproul jr are fact. Here is at least one refutation - http://pastorshaun.blogspot.com/2006/04/clearing-rc-sproul-jrs-name.html." The Declaratory Judgment is an historic fact. That's what should be documented here, along with, at a minimum, the charges in the case that Sproul confessed to or that there is overwhelming evidence to support (the fact that Sproul and his Elders were charged with "abuse of office" against the Austins and others, and the fact that Sproul issued a letter of apology to the Austins for abusing them, is an admission of his guilt -- yet that historic fact has been repeatedly redacted out here. Why this pattern of concealment?). Refutations of specific charges by Sproul's father, as reported by Shaun Nolan, don't in any way alter or change the historic fact of the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment. The only thing that might in any substantive way have called into question the facts of the case would be another recognized ecclesiastical body with appellate jurisdiction that Sproul might have gone to after getting defrocked. Even the CREC had no such appellate authority. Nevertheless, even the CREC's Report in no way refuted the RPCGA's Judgment. In fact the CREC's Report largely affirmed the RPCGA's Judgment when it said, "It is our finding that there were significant pastoral mistakes, errors and sins by the former Session." Opinions and conjectures from anyone or anything less than a duly constituted ecclesiastical body of original jurisdiction carry no authority and no weight, and therefore are irrelevant, and that includes the opinions of Sproul's father. Nevertheless, creative2567, if you'd like to link to the Pastor Shaun " Clearing R.C. Sproul, Jr's Name" article you won't hear an objection from me. That article has indeed been discussed many times in this "controversy" so perhaps a link to it would be entirely appropriate.

Being defrocked is no "minor issue." Being defrocked would only be minor if becoming ordained in the first place were insignificant, and I can assure you that no ordained Presbyterian minister takes his ordination lightly, anymore so than any commission military officer takes his commission lightly. It would only be minor if ordinations were commonplace, or if it were commonplace for ordained Reformed Presbyterian ministers to be defrocked. This is a significant historic event that seldom happens in Presbyterian circles. In military terms it's the equivalent of being dishonorably discharged after being court martialed. If it were minor I wouldn't have expended the time that I have reviewing primary source documents and offering editorial input. Furthermore, the goal here isn't to ensure that documenting Sproul's defrocking remains a briefer section than the rest of the article. The goal is to report it accurately, and that can't be done by biased editors who continually insist on redacting out significant elements of the chronology which, in my opinion, appears to have occurred for no other reason but to put the best possible face on an otherwise tragic saga.

"A number of sites (apparently connected to RPCGA) now exist for the express purpose of criticising the Sprouls and their ministry, Ligonier." Perhaps true but the opinions of others and what they've posted elsewhere has no bearing on our ability at working toward our developing an accurate and factual chronology of events, unless that is, creative 2567, you are in any way motivated by being "furious" and "in an angry state of mind." With all due respect, there's simply no place for that as a Wiki editor. --Frame-work 17:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a moment - if SPPC was never part of RPCGA, then surely Sproul's "defrocking" is invalid - how can you depose someone from a denomination they are not part of? How bizarre.

"The Declaratory Judgment is an historic fact". The writing of the document is an historic fact. But the conclusions of the document are not necessarily factual, and indeed, the Sprouls maintain there are significant errors. If I write a "Judgement" on RPCGA, does that become a "fact" that must be reference on the RPCGA site? The fact that RPCGA came to it's judgement without a trial reflects very poorly on the denomination.

At the end of the day, RPCGA have one version of events and the Sprouls have another. Why should I prefer the RPCGA version over the Sprouls? As far as the Austin's go, the elders admitted they didn't handle the situation well and they sent a letter of apology. Every pastor in the world handles a pastoral situation poorly at some point. Should wikipedia document every instance of someone being offended by a pastor? Of course not - the suggestion is ridiculous. From my perspective, I was enormously impressed by the letter the SPPC elders wrote.

As far as the illegal tax id number goes, I find the explanation given entirely plausible. They were using their old denominations TIN. A consultant pointed this out to them, and they made changes. There is no criminality here, just an honest mistake. No objective reader could arrive at any other conclusion.

You keep referring to the allegations that Sproul admitted to. As far as I can see, the only thing he has admitted is teaching paedocommunion. What else do you believe he has admitted?

Also, what is the relevance of the first paragraph about how Sproul was not admitted into the PCA? This does not seem relevant to the controversy to me. --Creative2567

Creative2567 has a point about the two points of view. The primary source documents should be cited, but I don't think they qualify as independent reliable sources by themselves (as such I think they'll have to be qualified with "The RPCGA alleges" and such). That part about the PCA on the other hand does seem to have a more reliable source attached to it. Whether it belongs in the final product or not is something we'll have to decide when we get more of the text ironed out. Why don't you each propose a version of the text you'd like (how about here), and then we can hash through the specifics and the cited sources (n.b., this does exclude blogs, except those of the involved parties) more easily. --Flex 12:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Wait a moment - if SPPC was never part of RPCGA, then surely Sproul's "defrocking" is invalid - how can you depose someone from a denomination they are not part of? How bizarre." If you'd take the time to review the primary source documents you'd understand the history and thus you'd realize that it's not bizarre at all. Membership in any Presbyterian denomination requires the proper administration of membership vows. Sproul was sworn into office as a Teaching Elder by the Presbytery of the RPCGA. Sproul himself then had the obligation to administer church membership vows per the BCO to all SPPC parishioners. He never did that and thus no member of SPPC ever became a member of the RPCGA.

"If I write a "Judgement" on RPCGA, does that become a "fact" that must be reference on the RPCGA site?" "What else do you believe he has admitted?" To even ask such questions only proves your bias, your ignorance, and your refusal to carefully read the primary source documents for yourself. Given such bias (e.g. "I was in an angry state of mind," "but I am furious") and ignorance how can you possibly be qualified to edit (or in your case redact) this article?

"Creative2567 has a point about the two points of view." Perhaps. I've already conceded that if he or you or anyone else thinks it's important to reference any rebuttal then go right ahead and do so. It's not me who's attempting to conceal the facts. What Creative2567 doesn't have excuse for is his repeated redactions without any explanation or justification.

"I don't think they qualify as independent reliable sources by themselves (as such I think they'll have to be qualified with "The RPCGA alleges" and such)." If that's the case then someone will have to then start going through the entire Wiki and inserting such language into every reference to a judicial determination of any kind, e.g. "The U.S. Supreme Court in X vs. Y determined and judged that..." will have to be replaced with "The U.S. Supreme Court in X vs. Y alleged that..." Of course such a notion is preposterous. The RPCGA as a duly constituted church court, that Sproul himself swore an oath to submit to and obey the government of the RPCGA, has every right to pronounce judgment on anyone under its lawful jurisdiction just as does any civil court have the right to pronounce judgment on anyone under its lawful jurisdiction. The only difference is that one is ecclesiastical and one is civil. This is especially the case where a man like Sproul was ordained by the RPCGA, and in judicial determination of the RPCGA that ordained minister was deemed "not qualified" to any longer be ordained. That's not an issue of "it is alleged." It's an issue of res judicata. A duly constituted church court is every bit as legitimate, and its judgments are every bit as real and binding, as is a civil court. The only difference is their jurisdiction and the forms of judgment they can pronounce. --Frame-work 19:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You have a point Frame-work. Let's work out the exact wording and sources here. This discussion is too much back and forth and not enough doing. --Flex 20:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The new version

Very well. I've made a proposed revision that I trust will prove satisfactory to everyone. I'd also propose that the current article External Links be left unchanged. --Frame-work 20:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am comfortable with the revisions, although I believe the section is still far too long for such a brief biography. Still, I suppose this amount of detail is necessary to avoid further arguments.

Frame-work, I reject your suggestion that I am biased. Let me state again that I have no connection at all to Ligonier, the Sprouls or RPCGA. What I am concerned about is Wikipedia being used to push a personal agenda of slander against any individual. --Creative2567

Creative, I was only quoting what you yourself acknowledged about your emotional state of mind. If you're able to be "furious" and yet remain unbiased that's doing better than most. At the same time I trust you're not attempting to infer that I've got some "personal agenda of slander" against Sproul or anyone else. Since it appears that we're in agreement now with these revisions we'll wait another day or two to see if anyone else has any other final input. Flex? --Frame-work 01:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to propose changing the section heading from "Controversy" to either "Defrocking" or "Deposing" as it much more accurately and precisely reflects the history. I'd still much prefer "Ecclesiastical Judgment" but I'd proposed that already and Flex objected to that term on the basis that not many people would know what that meant. The other two terms are far more commonplace and understood, especially "defrocking." --Frame-work 12:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Creative, I think it is too long, but I will disagree with him/her by saying that it must be made shorter to be in accord with WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. This is not the place to try to describe everything in detail (cf. WP:COI#What is encyclopedic?), so I redacted it to a more appropriate length given the length of the article. I'd suggest we title it "Denominational affiliation" or something of that sort since it describes more than just the defrocking. Alternately, since the latest version is shorter, it could just be a part of the regular text with no subheading. I think this version covers the salient points and lets the facts speak for themselves. I'm still open to changing it, but I don't think it should be (much) longer than the current version. --Flex 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

After considerable effort I came to an agreement with Creative. Now I see the process has to start all over again with you Flex. Your redactions are entirely unacceptable and even more drastic than what Creative proposed. Thanks at least for referencing let the facts speak for themselves. It's hard to have facts speak for themselves when you won't even permit the facts to be spoken in the first place. Nice touch on the "Denominational affiliation" suggestion too. That's even more watered down than "Controversy." --Frame-work 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We all need to come to agreement here, not just you and Creative2567, and the end result must be compatible with Wikipolicy. All of us should feel free to propose alterations, but IMO, making this section longer (even if the statements are well-sourced and verifiable) would be giving it undue weight. If we can't reach agreement on the length or the content, we can ask for a fourth opinion, and if that doesn't work we can seek mediation and ultimately go to an ArbCom. But let's hear from Creative2567 on my changes. --Flex 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am more than happy with Flex's changes. They give the essence of the controversy, which is all that should be here. If people want to read the declatory judgement, they can easily do it.

I would certainly object to calling the section "defrocking". The term is loaded with perjorative connotations. Considering that the Sproul's consider the charges against them to be largely fraudulent, "controversy" seems a balanced title. --creative2567

Frame-work, what essential piece of info has been excluded in the new version? I'm glad flex got rid of the long parenthetical comments, as they were somewhat redunandant and interrupted the flow of the paragraph. Flex's new version is tight, snappy and readable. You can't just complain that the section is short. --creative2567

"The term is loaded with perjorative connotations." In this case "defrocked" isn't pejorative, it's an historic fact. Sproul was defrocked. "Denominational Affiliation" is a concealment of that historic fact. It is not "a balanced title" at all. Being defrocked is hardly a case of "I didn't like the RPCGA so I went and changed my denominational affiliation by joining the CREC," which is what such a deceptive heading would imply.

"...what essential piece of info has been excluded in the new version?" What about the reference to "the illegal use of another church denomination's tax identification number"? Why was that deleted? I also disagree with your characterization of important historical facts as "long parenthetical comments" such as his original ordination in the ARP, the fact that after leaving the ARP that he was refused admission to the PCA, etc. Why to concerted effort to conceal historic facts in the name of being "snappy"? This bio article is already quite brief compared to many others (just take a look at R. C. Sproul for a comparison).

Please show me the Wiki policy that requires or even suggests that a "Controversy" section needs to be "snappy" and therefore conceal significant historical elements because the rest of the article is short and certain editors are preoccupied with the concern that the "Controversy" section not become anywhere near as lengthy as the rest of the article. If that indeed is your concern then let me suggest that one of you expand the article, not delete vital historical information regarding Sproul's defrocking (and that's not a pejorative, it's an historic fact).--Frame-work 13:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "denominational affiliation" is too soft. "Controversy" is the appropriate title. Regarding the whole tax identification number, I think that is a complete crock. It was clearly an honest mistake.

And why is the fact that he was refused entry into PCA relevant to this issue? It isn't relevant at all.

As far as "snappy" goes - well, it should be well written. But there is the "undue weight" clause that Flex has referred to many times. Wiki should include a basic summary and links to the relevant references. The revised paragraph by Flex achieves this. It should be accepted. --creative2567

I'm not opposed to including the tax id number if listing that particular charge is very important to you, but it does seem that that was entirely unintentional. As far as expanding the article, I don't know enough about the man to add anything more (e.g., a section on his original thought), but from what I do know, I'm not sure that he warrants a much longer entry (again see WP:COI#What is Encyclopedic?). Not every bit of history concerning RCSJr belongs in this article, and I think the current length gives adequate attention and references to the defrocking. I propose that we insert this text with no section header before the paragraph on his publications. --Flex 14:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The tax id stuff is a complete crock, as is apparent from reading the declatory judgement. They don't dispute that it was an administrative error, but try to suggest that Sproul was engaging in "identity theft"!! Talk about a witch hunt. Regardless, the RPCGA does not have the authority to determine whether something illegal happened or not - only a court of law can do that.

I really think mentioning the tax id number is a red herring. But if it must go in, so be it. Rather than "illegal" though (which suggests willful law-breaking) I propose the phrase "incorrect use of a tax id number". Oh, and I'm happy for the section not to have a header. --creative2567

"The tax id stuff is a complete crock, as is apparent from reading the declatory judgement." It appears that you're having a hard time following the clear language of the Declaratory Judgement: "The Session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church did knowingly and willingly use the Tax Identification number of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church after leaving that denomination in violation of the Federal Income Tax Code." If you don't care for the use of the word "illegal" then please suggest something else that adequately captures the RPCGA's judgment. The tax id number issue is important just as the ecclesiastical abuse of several families is important because those were important charges in the Declaratory Judgment that resulted in Sproul's defrocking. Deleting and concealing either one or both, as has been done repeatedly here, smacks of personal bias, not "snappy" editorializing, especially in light of the fact that no one has yet to redact "practicing paedocommunion and planting a church without authority," BCO issues that most people could probably care less about. It's just the tax id number fraud and ecclesiastical abuse that keeps getting redacted. Repeated attempts to emphasize the two BCO issues, while concealing the other more serious issues, make it appear as though there are those who are trying to make the RPCGA out to be unfair and heavy-handed for disciplining Sproul over nothing more than trivial BCO violations.

"Not every bit of history that ever happened concerning RCSJr belongs in this article." I agree, which is why what I proposed was already so brief and concise. Now you propose eliminating even that. Troubling. I do however agree that a section header perhaps isn't necessary, provided that the other historic information remain e.g. ARP ordination, attempted move to PCA, etc. remain intact. --Frame-work 15:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes that I hope we can all agree on. I re-inserted the part about the transfer and the tax id, and I sorted the charges according to the order of the judgement. --Flex 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"After a failed attempt to transfer into the Presbyterian Church in America,[1] he transferred to the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA)." Sproul did not "transfer" his ordination from the ARP to the RPCGA because the ARP wouldn't transfer it (that in and of itself is significant, but I'm not going to make an issue of it here). Sproul came to the RPCGA without a transferable ordination, and therefore had to be ordained by the RPCGA. It should read, "After a failed attempt to become ordained in the Presbyterian Church in America,[1] he sought and obtained ordination in the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA)."

"Sproul and SPPC then requested pastoral oversight from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and was accepted into that denomination" is vague and ambiguous. It needs to be specific. --Frame-work 16:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the first one (omitting "sought and" since it's obvious that he sought it if it was granted), but what would you suggest for the second? --Flex 16:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

CREC is not a denomination but a confederation. Here's what I'd propose: "SPPC requested pastoral oversight from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) and Sproul applied for ministerial recognition in the CREC. The CREC convened a pastoral commission and issued a Report along with several associated documents, the result being that both SPPC and Sproul were accepted into the CREC." --Frame-work 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The CREC is a denomination according to its FAQs. What do you like better in your text than in the existing text? --Flex 20:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The CREC also says in that same FAQ, "And at the same time, since each independent church is just a tiny denomination..." which only demonstrates considerable ignorance of what constitutes a denomination, "tiny" or otherwise. "What do you like better in your text than in the existing text?" It's precise and non-ambiguous, an accurate relection of the history, yet it's still brief. --Frame-work 22:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Frame-work, I am tired of your snide little comments, and your implication that everyone else is out to "distort" history. Your own personal bias is utterly obvious, but others have been too polite to point it out. Stop with the ad-hominem attacks, ok?

I still completely disagree that the tax id number is a big issue. It was clearly and obviously an honest mistake. If that is the "serious" issue that he was booted for, so much the worse for RPCGA. --creative2567

Flex, I liked your prior version better - this is getting too long. Still, if it must be, it must be. Can you break the new version up into 2 paragraphs, and also break up the first (long) sentence? Thanks. --creative2567

Creative, other than just your personal opinions backed by nothing do you have something substantive to support this repeated claim of yours regarding the tax ID fraud issue, "It was clearly and obviously an honest mistake." Yes, we know that's how you feel about it. Can you offer any proof? The RPCGA says it was "willful" and that's backed by the eye witness testimony of a number of their Elders. Have you read the Declaratory Judgment? If so then I can't understand why you keep failing to see the obvious. --Frame-work 03:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Frame-work, there is the testimony on the link I provided above which explained what happened - Sproul was unaware of the problem until it was pointed out by a consultant. When it was pointed out, he tooks steps to correct the problem. Simple as that. Yes, I have read the Declatory Judgment and it makes reference to "clerical oversight". How can you conclude it was "wilful" when Sproul says it was an error? Surely he knows his own mind. If something illegal really happened, why haven't the police been called? Because the allegations of deliberate wrongdoing are clearly fallacious, that's why. --creative2567

Anyway, far too much has been written about this single paragraph. Flex seems impartial to me, I'm happy to go with whatever he comes up with. --creative2567

The term used by Sproul was "administrative oversight," which the RPCGA's Declaratory Judgment disproves, and it does so by the eye witness accounts of multiple witnesses, some of whom are ordained Elders. Are you prepared, Creative, to call those men liars? "This illegal use of the tax number continues to be of great concern because it is a matter of identity theft under Virginia state law and Federal Statute. It is also a great concern that the Session of St. Peter Presbyterian Church stated it was an administrative oversight by the Session in using the tax number of the ARPC." The fact that Sproul "did knowingly and willingly use the Tax Identification number of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church" but he has attempted to dismiss his fraud as an "administrative oversight" is "a great concern" to the RPCGA. Some like yourself are eager to dismiss the seriousness of this, or to ask silly questions like, "why haven't the police been called?" Anyone who knows anything about the tax code knows that "the police" don't police the tax code. That's what the IRS does, and as a matter of fact the IRS was notified, specifically by the ARP, in writing. Obviously the ARP takes it a whole lot more seriously than you do. If you'd just try and be the least bit objective in your read of the Declaratory Judgment you'd see that this was no "administrative oversight." "Further, at a prior presbytery meeting when someone ask the question about securing a tax number, Dr. R. C. Sproul Jr. jokingly stated that they should use the ARPC number, St. Peter was continuing to use it. At the time, no one really thought much of the statement, thinking it only an off the cuff remark, but we know now that they consciously were using a number not issued to their church, but fraudulently using a number given to a different ministry." --Frame-work 12:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You are wasting your keystrokes. But feel free to keep writing these essays. As I said, I will support whatever changes flex proposes. --creative2567

Back from my 3RR block. Honestly, Frame-work, I don't see why you think your version of the CREC part is more precise. To me, it seems needlessly wordy without adding anything of real significance. Please be more specific in what information you want in there. Otherwise, I propose we go with the existing text (adding a comment for editors not to modify it without taking it to the talk page first). Regarding the CREC's classification as a denomination, they certainly qualify under the definition in Christian denomination, which is good enough for me. --Flex 00:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course there is a controversy or we wouldn't be arguing about this. I like your original idea of having no seperate heading, and just having the text part of the whole biography. --creative2567

In the absence of any further clarification from Frame-work, I propose we insert the text as it stands with no header. It seems to me to meet all the wikipolicies. Objections? --Flex 16:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Because no further objections were raised, I inserted the consensus text. --Flex 00:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bias?

I've been watching this debate for awhile and have been really quite amazed by some of the obvious bias and what appears to be willful ignorance. I speak specifically of Creative2567. [I believe I have read his blog.]

[Creative2567] is a virulent Sproul devotee. In his book it would seem that Sproul can do no wrong and anyone who reports anything negative about him will be fiercely challenged. It shows on his blog and it shows here too, although here he's feigned some alleged lack of personal bias. Frame-work, [Creative2567] spoke very well when he said "You are wasting your keystrokes." It doesn't matter what you say and how well you argue your case, it will not change his mind. Others have done the same right on his blog and gotten nowhere with him. I'd recommend you refer this dispute for arbitration. --Veritasity 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for publishing my real name. I'm not sure if that violates a wiki command or not. Regardless, it is untrue that I am a Sproul devotee. I know none of the Sprouls and I do not donate to Ligonier. I own 1 book by RC Sproul (Essential Truths - an excellent book). Does that make me a devotee?

I became involved in this issue when someone tried to use my blog to attack RC Sproul and Ligonier. I've followed the issue with interest since then. I love the net, but I think it is a vile abuse of it for someone to set up an anonymous web site and spew out slander.

Anyway, I received a letter this morning from the moderator of the RPCGA (published on my blog). They have no interest in any ongoing dispute with the Sprouls - they just want to move on. I suggest we go with Flex's changes. But I'm more than happy to have the "powers" arbitrate in this matter. --creative2567

What would be even better [Creative2567] is for you to just acknowledge that you're way too biased to be involved in this at all. The comments on your own blog prove that. Here's just one example of how either ignorant you are, or how you're attempting to deliberately mislead others, "Charles, from what I've read Sproul requested release from RPCGA, which was granted without censure. So no, he was not 'defrocked'."

With such deceptive comments like that you have no business editing here [Creative2567]. You should just bow out of the process altogether. You're making a mockery of what it means to be a Wiki editor. Wiki isn't a forum for advancing your personal agenda. You're free to do that on your own blog, but there's no room for personal agendas here, and it's all too obvious that's what you're pushing. --Veritasity 03:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not your place to judge who is or is not fit to be a wiki editor, so don't even go there. I have been, and am, objective on this issue. I will continue to contribute to this and other articles whether you like it or not Veritasity. --creative2567

Oh, and thanks for linking to my blog article. It shows exactly how I came to be involved in this affair. Why you think it shows bias, I have no idea. --creative2567

Verasity, your claim that Creative2567 is "a virulent Sproul devotee," publishing his real name, and so forth are personal attacks and are explicitly banned here. Cease and desist these attacks immediately, or I will need to bring your attacks to the attention of an administrator. You must exercise civility and assume good faith when interacting with other Wikipedians (let alone other Christians!).

I believe Creative2567 and Frame-work are both trying to help this article rather than hinder it, and we are trying to find a path that will satisfy the different views. The Wikipedia rule is not that biased people can't edit but that each editor must "[r]ecognize [his/her] own biases and keep them in check" (WP:EQ). Please avail yourself of the policy pages, and let's all contribute meaningfully. --Flex 12:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flex for noting these Wiki policies. I doubt that Veritasity intended their remarks as "personal attacks" but it seems to me they've got a valid concern. However, Creative2567's bias may not be the issue so much as his ignorance of the history of this affair. The fact that he's publicly stated, and very recently so, that Sproul was not defrocked, does call into question how someone so ignorant of the history could be qualified to edit this article. Shouldn't a Wiki editor have some reasonable knowledge of the issues before attempting to edit?

Furthermore a Wiki editor shouldn't be involved in publicly spinning stories to satisfy some personal agenda. I haven't reviewed every article about Sproul on Creative2567's blog to determine if that's the case but if Veritasity is correct then that does raise a valid concern. For Creative to allege that because Sproul was released from RPCGA membership without censure (after he'd already been defrocked) could somehow be logically interpreted as meaning that Sproul was never defrocked causes me considerable concern. That goes far above and beyond being merely illogical.

As Creative has pointed out himself he was just in contact with the RPCGA. Rather than making illogical and unfounded speculations about Sproul's ecclesiastical status, perhaps he should ask the RPCGA if they defrocked Sproul? I agree Flex that "we are trying to find a path that will satisfy the different views," or at least that's what we should be doing. Let me point out though that any and all "different views" must still conform with historic fact and cannot be creatively reinterpreted through the lens of personal bias to satisfy any personal agenda. --Frame-work 13:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Frame-work, it does not matter if Verasity meant them as personal attacks. They are personal attacks according to the Wikipedia policies I cited. I have redacted the comments above to remove the personal information in accord with WP:RPA. Creative2567 may want to have the admins purge the personal information (and perhaps even more, such as the fact of his having a blog) from the history of this page to protect his anonymity. (Creative2567, if you need help with that, let me know.)

As for the substantive matters, the Wikipedia's policy is that one must have reliable sources to prove any assertion. Regardless of what that blog entry may have said, no one is arguing here that the text should read "Sproul was not deposed from office but was released without censure." It clearly says (by all of our agreement) that Sproul and the session of SPPC were in fact deposed. Let's not argue against a case no one is making here. --Flex 14:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Once more, I reject the suggestion that I am working from an agenda here. I have been upfront about how I became involved in this debate. Veritasity's words were all ad-hominem and did not contribute anything of substance to the debate. His intention was to try and "bully me out" of the discussion. Let's play the ball, and not the man.

I've said about 4 times now that I am happy with Flex's latest entry. Framework, is there anything you object to? If not, lets publish it and lock off this debate. --creative2567

Looks good - hopefully we can leave this one alone now. --creative2567

Later comments

The following comments were added well after this discussion ended but interspersed among the comments above in violation of WP:TPG. I move them here to avoid confusion since the commenter was not a participant in our original discussion. Their intended contexts can be found in the page history. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

216.184.68.81 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Part of this page as it exists on April 18th repeats a libelous accusation. Namely, "illegal use of the ARP's tax identification number." While it is true that Ken Talbott's "Declaratory Judgment" accused Dr. Sproul of being guilty of identity theft because SPPC was still using the ARP's EIN, Dr. Sproul has never been found guilty of that crime by a court of law. There are two kinds of written accusations that courts automatically find libelous: publicly accusing a woman of promiscuity, and declaring somone guilty of a crime when no court of law has so found. This is why newspapers and other media are very circumspect when discussing a suspect of a crime. He is always decribed as "suspected" and the crime "alleged" until a conviction has been obtained. Since a church court does not have jurisdiction to determine guilt or innocence with regard to civil law, and it is questionable whether a church court was even convened prior to issuing Talbott's "Declaratory Judgment", the statement that Sproul was found guilty of "illegal use of the ARP's tax identification number" is libelous and should be removed or restated that Talbott "alleged" the point. Furthermore, it is questionable whether SPPC's use of the EIN was "illegal" because it used the number with permission as part of the ARP to begin with. Therefore the EIN in question was legitimate for SPPC to use in the past. The failure to change it in a timely manner was sloppy, but a court would have to find a crime was committed in order to say Dr. Sproul committed a crime.216.184.68.81 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[[[User:216.184.68.81|216.184.68.81]] 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)Actually, are no minutes or other records of the RPCGA showing that any presbytery meeting or other judicial body was called by the RPCGA to handle this matter, or that any votes were taken. This is an undocumented claim in the "declaratory judgment" which seems to have been made on the sole authority of Ken Talbott as Moderator. Inquiries by SPPC members to Clerk of Presbytery, Reed Best, for the minutes of the vote and list of who was present at the meeting were denied, as there evidently is no documentation that any such meeting was called.216.184.68.81 21:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)]

216.184.68.105 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Frame-work is correct that Ken Talbott's "Declaratory Judgment" first stated that the churches in question were not members of the RPCGA, and then proceeded to depose the elders of those churches as if they were members of the RPCGA. It is also relevant that at the time the judgment was issued on Jan 26, 2006, the denomination's website listed fifteen churches, two of which were parishes of Saint Peter Presbyterian Church(SPPC). In the Westminster Presbytery, the denomination website listed eight churches, two of which were parishes of SPPC [Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20050405183109/rpcga.org/index.php?p=churches&sub=no]. So this is a micro-denomination we are speaking of. I personally spoke to the pastors of two of the other churches listed on the RPCGA website as members of Westminster Presbytery, Marion Lovett and James McDonald. Both of them denied to me that they were invited to any presbytery meeting to discuss charges against the elders of SPPC, and were not aware that any such meeting was ever called. Ken Talbott's "Declaratory Judgment" opens by claiming that a "supermajority" of the elders in Westminster Presbytery authorized him to make his declaration. The Book of Church Order of that denomination says that in order to call a special presbytery meeting "all members of the respective assembly must be contacted.." and "Sufficient notice shall be considered to be: thirty working days for the general assembly or synod and ten calendar days for the presbytery." Also, "The stated clerk of the respective assembly will be responsible for effective notification of such specially called meetings, and for certifying that the above quorum requirements are met by the proper recording of written documentation from those absent and those present in the minutes of the special meeting." [Source RPCGA BCO - 2002 Edition, Section E-1.B] Since McDonald and Lovett as well as SPPC were not notified or invited to any presbytery meeting, it would appear that Dr. Talbott's claim to have the unanimous vote of a "supermajority" of the Westminster Presbytery was a mis-statement. At most it was the action of the four remaining churches in that presbytery, meeting in secret. So it would be more accurate to say that Ken Talbott deposed the session of SPPC, rather that to say the denomination did it. The matter was never brought before the Westminster Presbytery, much less the entire RPCGA General Assembly. To prove that I am wrong about this, someone must be able to provide a documentary source that the presbytery was lawfully called and voted to give Dr. Talbott authority to publish his judgment against Dr. Sproul and the other men.216.184.68.105 02:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

216.184.68.153 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Here again, Frame-work wants to refer to Talbott's Dec Judgment as if it is an objective statement of historical facts. I joined SPPC in 2002 and took the membership vow in the RPCGA Book of Church Order. Furthermore, the difference between that vow and the the PCA's vow is only a few words. Talbott's "finding" that the congregation was never sworn in correctly does not cite any evidence or witnesses. I am not asking to be used as an original source, but my point is that Talbott failed to determine the facts because he did not interview members of the congregation or allow testimony from them prior to coming to judgment. He was 800 miles away when he wrote the judgment and did not visit Bristol, VA to determine facts until after the judgment was published. His Declaratory Judgment is highly subjective and uncharitable as it ascribes evil motives to the elders of SPPC and accuses them of crimes of tax law that a church court is not remotely qualified to determine. So as far as this Wikipedia article is concerned, the Dec Judgment is a subjective source whose existence is a objective fact and certainly should be linked to; but the information contained therein does not appear to be well substantiated.216.184.68.153 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

216.184.68.153 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)Frame-work argues that a judgment by the RPCGA denomination has as much weight as a civil court. But the "judgment" he wants to use as an objective historical account was agreed upon by four men, at most. The RPCGA is a micro-denomination started by Kenneth Talbott who formed a 1991 splinter group off of a group (RPCUS) that splintered off of the PCA in 1983.[3] Objectivity would require us to say, ok, these are a very small group of pastors who don't seem to be able to get along with other pastors, as stated on their website, over "purity of doctrine and ecclesiastical practices" [Ibid]. Frame-work is leveraging a declaration by four men as if it is on equal footing with a judgment by a denomination the size of the PCA. If a church court really was assembled and deposed these men, then the deposition was certainly real and the men would require re-ordination to join another presbyterian church as pastors. But Kenneth Talbott's declaratory judgment is not plausible as an "objective statement of facts". It is a subjective document loaded with hyperbole that represents the "weighty opinion" of two or three guys who are proud of their long and glorious history of kicking others out of their sandbox.216.184.68.153 12:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My response to these comments: I have no dog in this fight (unlike you, cf. WP:COI), and you can see that I attempted to find a middle path in the heated discussion above. (I say this only so you know that I'm not trying to push an agenda -- except adherence to WikiPolicy.) Even so, your claims about the declaratory judgment and the presbytery meeting amount to original research which is explicitly proscribed here. You'll need reliable sources to substantiate the claims.

Also, I don't think the article is at all libelous since it merely says Sproul et al. "were deposed ... under charges including ... illegal use of the ARP's tax identification number...." First note that the declaratory judgment explicitly uses this terminology ("This illegal use of the tax number..."). Second note that the sentence is merely discussing the charges under which they were deposed from their church offices, not that they were found guilty in a court of law.

For these reasons, I have reverted your changes, but that is not to say that the current text is immutable. Because of the contentiousness of this section of the article, however, please suggest alternate wording here so all interested parties can discuss it before applying it. --Flex (talk|contribs) 14:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

216.184.68.108 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Fair enough. I'm new at this, but trying to follow the rules.216.184.68.108

My sympathies 216.184.68.153. BTW, I think the correct spelling is "Talbot". Although this page is labeled "Discussion," any discussion still needs to follow certain protocols. This isn't a blog to discuss unverifiable personal opinions, much less irrelevant personal opinions (e.g. "microdenomination" etc.). While your input is welcome (just like anyone else's), it seems to me that making such complaints here just amounts to venting. In other words, nothing you've said, even if you could prove that it were true, and provide source documents for it, would warrant amending the article over.

If I understand the situation with Sproul's defrocking, he did have the opportunity to appeal the Declaratory Judgment, but rather than appealing he asked to be released from the denomination. You've provided a short list of what sounds to be procedural violations. Not that my personal opinion means much of anything, but I have a hard time believing that as smart a guy as Sproul is purported to be that he would have passed up the opportunity to appeal if there had been any real basis for an appeal, such as "reversible error," "procedural violations," etc. If the things you say were true he might have stood a good chance of getting the ruling overturned on appeal for procedural violations. If only what you were saying was true. He didn't appeal though, which probably means he already knew he didn't have any arguments to make an appeal over. Sorry to have to put it like this but, like it or not, that's the end of the story. --Frame-work 00:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Now it sounds like you're venting, FW. :-) You two seem to be more knowledgeable of the particulars of the case, but I will say that I don't think FW's hypothesis about Sproul's motive for not seeking an appeal is persuasive: There could be a number of other reasons why he wouldn't seek appeal, and selecting one arbitrarily is an argument from silence. Anywho, this is not the place for speculations or discussions of these matters except as it relates directly to the article. --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Flex, I qualified my statement by calling it "personal opinion," and I even said that my personal opinion doesn't mean much of anything. There's no intention here to be "persuasive." Sorry if it came across as venting. That's the last thing I intended, especially after I called 216.184.68.153 on that very thing. --Frame-work 17:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic content?

I question whether much of the controversy section should be in the Wikipedia at all. The events described should probably be redacted to a short paragraph since the Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing current events (cf. WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information #5). Two years from now, will the minor details matter? Not likely. Thoughts? --Flex 19:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has responded (despite my additional requests on the previous contributors' talk pages), I will now proceed to redact. --Flex 17:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

In response, I question why this was ever called a "controversy" in the first place. Rather, this was an ecclesiastical judgment, a judgment which was in part decided by the fact that RC Sproul Jr came "as his own accuser and confessor." In other words he plead "guilty" to several of the most serious charges against him. In the civil realm would we permit a civil judgment against a defendant to be called a "controversy," just because the defendant later disagrees with the ruling of the court? Referring to this as a "controversy" impugns and undermines the authority of a legitimate church court to issue judgments against a man who vowed to submit to their authority. The RPCGA's judgment has now been effectively confirmed (and it certainly hasn't been overturned) by the CREC.

If this indeed were all a mere "controversy" then Flex would probably be right. But that's just the problem. These are not just "minor details." Being defrocked as an ordained minister is the ecclesiastical equivalent of, militarily speaking, a court martial and being dishonorably discharged. Such a thing would never be termed a mere "controversy" or a "minor detail."

I would propose changing the heading "Controversy" to "Ecclesiastical Judgment." Furthermore, editors should stop deleting important details of the judgment against RC Sproul Jr. These are not just "minor details" and when various editors continue to make deletions of vital information it just makes it too obvious that their interests are far more subjective and personal than objective. --Frame-Work 14:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the salient facts are still in that section and no "vital information" has been removed. If you disagree, we may need to seek a few more opinions (or even an ArbCom). As for the proposed heading change, "Controversy" isn't great, but since the discussion is about more than just the one denomination's judgement, it is still better than "Ecclesiastical judgement." (BTW, I moved your link on the judgement to be a footnote, and I deleted the CREC report because it is already a footnote also.) --Flex 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The SPPC session defrocking by the RPCGA and the CREC's SPPC Pastoral Commission are related issues in that the one later resulted in the other. However to lump them together under the misleading label of a "Controversy" when in fact there is no "controversy" whatsoever is highly problematic. I'd like to believe that it's not your intention Flex to unfairly characterize and misrepresent the CREC's actions, but by asserting there's a "controversy" when the CREC is in full support and agreement with the RPCGA that's what you're doing. The CREC worked very hard to avoid any controversy in this matter. In fact they worked very closely with the RPCGA to avoid that very thing. See CREC Commission member Dennis Tuuri's own statements on Doug Wilson's blog where he says that very thing, including "But we did NOT set aside the RPCGA’s work! We respected it, did not allow the men to serve etc." The "Controversy" section may indeed currently contain "discussion about more than just the one denomination's judgement" but that's just the problem. It causes confusion to put it all under the heading of the misleading term "Controversy." The RPCGA's defrocking of the SPPC session is uncontested by any party, including the CREC. So where's the "controversy"? The CREC by it's own admission didn't pronounce judgement of any kind in the RC Sproul Jr case by the RPCGA, nor did it in any way seek to impose itself as an appellate judicial body, nor did it in any way reverse any of the judicial determinations of the RPCGA. So where's the "controversy"? The CREC specifically stated that their Commission "is not judicial in nature." The CREC Commission provided "pastoral oversight" and nothing more. There is no "controversy" only the single judgment of the RPCGA, uncontested by the CREC. Therefore the heading "Controvery" is a misrepresentation that will inevitably cause confusion, and I'm quite confident Flex that you're not advocating confusion here. The heading should be changed to something like "Ecclesiastical Judgment" with perhaps a subsequent category "Post Ecclesiastical Judgment" to include the CREC Commission issues. This is a common sense decision which hardly requires arbitration. --Frame-work 17:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the fact that this is matter is controversial is made obvious by a quick google. The "non-neutral evaluation" on hushmoney.org is an example of someone seems to find controversy here. The CREC and RPCGA, it would seem, have generated some controversy even if they did not intend to.

Second, I maintain that the title "Ecclesiastical judgement" is too abstruse for those outside ecclesiastical circles. I'm not set on "Controversy" but I am against "Ecclesiastical judgement." --Flex 18:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Citation

But shouldn't the CREC report citation go to the primary source, rather than a "non-neutral evaluation by an interested party?" --NothingButTheTruth 20:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that the documents on the hushmoney.org site aren't "primary source" even though they were published by the CREC, just because they're not posted on the CREC site? The footnote links to the page where the CREC Commission Report can be obtained. Is that not more than sufficient? Would you prefer that the footnote link directly to the Report and bypass entirely the CREC's Public Statement? That to me would seem unwise since both the Report and the CREC's Public Statement about it are important. Unfortunately only the CREC Commission Report itself may be obtained from the CREC's site, and there are other vital CREC documents directly related to the Report which were furnished to SPPC. An external link to "Additional CREC Commission Report documents" is therefore necessary and the documents are in fact "primary source." --Frame-work 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that *none* of the Hushmoney documents should be considered primary sources. Hushmoney is run by an interested party, Peter Kershaw, who has publicly accused Dr. Sproul continues a running commentary on the Hushmoney website. How do we know that any of the documents on Hushmoney are original and unaltered? We don't!

If the RPCGA, /*www.rpcga.org/*, has not seen fit to publish their own documents on their own website, then the ones on the Hushmoney site shouldn't be linked to as an "original source". Mr. Kershaw is not a member of the RPCGA and does not represent that religious body in any official capacity. The attempt to get his documents linked as primary sources on R.C. Sproul Jr. gives the appearance of an effort to use Wikipedia as a platform to continue his campaign and direct traffic to his own website. --72.254.157.143

Your assertion that we don't have any way of knowing "that any of the documents on Hushmoney are original and unaltered" is speculatative at best. A good Wiki editor should take steps to verify the authenticity of the primary source documents that he's linked to. I for one have done just that, and perhaps others here have as well. If there's any doubt about it in your mind then the thing to do is to not speculate but verify. That can easily be done by calling the RPCGA for yourself. You seem to have a lack of understanding of what constitutes a primary source document, and what would disqualify a document from being considered primary source. The fact that Mr. Kershaw offers his personal commentary in places other than within the primary source documents themselves in no way disqualifies the documents as primary source. However if you can verify and provide evidence from the document authors (RPCGA) that the documents have in any way been altered from their original form then that would tend to substantiate your claim. Otherwise you've got nothing to argue other than what appears to be your personal beef with Kershaw, and this is not the venue for raising your personal grievances. In the future please identify yourself. Anonymous undated comments, especially when they go to challenge credibility, aren't themselves credible. --Frame-work 22:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not say that Mr. Kershaw's documents were altered. However, he could at any point in the future alter them, and there are no other online sources to check them against. My point is that he is clearly a biased source being, as he is, the primary commentator on the "controversy". This is self-evident from his website, and the credibility of this comment is likewise self-evident. --67.95.137.19 (apparently the same person as 72.254.157.143 above)

An alteration of a primary source document is one of the only things that would disqualify it from being treated as a primary source, so you haven't substantiated your argument. Speculating that Kershaw might hypothetically alter a primary source document on his web site in the future is equally specious. If such hypothetical speculating were a valid concern in Kershaw's case then it would have to also be a valid concern in the thousands of other cases where Wiki editors have externally linked to primary source documents that also aren't located on the original author's web sites. Speculating isn't what Wiki editors do, they verify to make their case.

The bias of Kershaw's site isn't a Wiki disqualifying issue either. Many thousands of Wiki external links also link to "biased" sites. Bias in and of itself isn't a disqualifier for external linking. Furthermore any concerns over bias are already addressed in the links with the standard Wiki disclaimer, "(with non-neutral evaluation by an interested party)". Rather than wasting anyone else's time here again with your personal beefs let me suggest that you spend your time familiarizing yourself with the Wiki editorial rules. Editors who know the rules and speak to the rules and who post using their Wiki account name do in fact have credibility. All others are justly disregarded. --Frame-work 17:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your last two sentences, the Wikipedia welcomes anonymous users; it does not "justly disregard" them. (See, e.g., Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?#Reputation_and_privacy.) However, I agree that there is a psychological element that lends more credibility to those who have taken the time to create accounts. --Flex 17:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flex for the clarification on that point. I quite agree. Thanks also for adding the IP addresses to the two anonymous comments above. --Frame-work 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

What's in a name?

His father is Robert Charles Sproul and he's Robert Craig Sproul, yet he's called R.C. Sproul, Jr. Is he actually a "Junior", though?Jlujan69 02:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

He's certainly called "Junior", which just means "younger" and is used to distinguish a father known by the same name (in this case "R.C."). It's not on his birth certificate or anything. --Flex 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually "Jr." in the context of a person's name doesn't mean "younger." "Jr." is in fact a legal name denoting that a son has the same exact name as his father. If "R.C." were a "Jr." it would in fact be on his birth certificate. But obviously that can't be because his legally given name is Robert Craig and his father is Robert Charles. I agree with Jlujan69 but I'm not clear why it would be significant. Further thoughts? --Frame-work 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can say that there are two meanings: the legal one and the colloquial one. For RCS Jr, it is the latter. --Flex 01:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Status in CREC

I would recommend revising "Sproul and SPPC then requested pastoral oversight from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches and were accepted into that denomination." to "SPPC then requested pastoral oversight from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches, and the congregation is now a mission church in that denomination." I think that's a bit clearer and more accurate based on the referenced statement on the CREC website. Kyriosity 16:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, and under ordinary circumstances, I'd say just do it. But, because of the above discussion, I think it is probably best to wait at least a week to allow other interested parties to weigh in. If no one objects, proceed. --Flex (talk|contribs) 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Flex. Sounds like a plan. And perhaps this further revision: "SPPC then requested pastoral oversight from the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC), and a commission of CREC elders was formed for that purpose. The commission recommended that Sproul be considered ordained in the denomination. The congregation is now a mission church in the CREC." That clarifies both the church's status and Dr. Sproul's. And how should all of that be referenced? The first sentence can keep the reference to the commission's public statement, the info re ordination status is from the commission's report (http://www.crechurches.org/SPPCCommissionReport.pdf), and the church status is from the CREC's list of churches (http://crechurches.org/html/church_locator.html). Bleh...this is too complicated...I'm going back to fixing typos! ;-)

I prefer your previous version because, as I said in the lengthy discussion above, we should keep the "controversy" section short enough that it doesn't give undue weight to the matter. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Then wouldn't it be better to note Dr. Sproul's status than the congregation's, since the article is about him, not SPPC? I started fiddling with this in the first place because it seemed odd that the article did not address his current ordination status. Should there maybe be two paragraphs: one addressing his ordination history (ARP, near-miss in the PCA, RPCGA, CREC) and one (even briefer without the ordination info) on the controversy? They would look something like this:

Sproul was first ordained in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church (ARP). After a failed attempt to transfer into the Presbyterian Church in America,[1] he was ordained in the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly (RPCGA) in 2000. The Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC) currently recognizes him as ordained in that denomination.

In January 2006, Sproul and the session of SPPC were deposed from office by the RPCGA under charges including "abuse of authority in an inexcusable manner" against several families, illegal use of the ARP's tax identification number, planting a church without authority, and practicing paedocommunion.[2] The SPPC Session issued a letter of apology and asked to be released from general membership in the RPCGA,[3] and the denomination granted their request.[4] SPPC requested pastoral oversight from the CREC, in which the congregation is now a mission church.[5]

Same questions re sources noted. And I lower-cased "session" in the first sentence of the second paragraph. Thanks, Flex! Kyriosity 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me. Let's see if you get any objections. --Flex (talk|contribs) 21:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Going once, going twice, sold. Kyriosity 00:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

SPPC

What is the SPPC? What does it stand for? All the other acronymns are given and linked, except this one... Fieari 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Saint Peter Presbyterian Church...it's in the 2nd paragraph, really! ;-) Kyriosity 00:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Only because I added it! :-) --Flex (talk|contribs) 11:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh...duh.

Neutrality

I made an edit that seems to me to be a starting point for a *neutral point of view* as a Biography that is civil, does not take a position on any controversial issues and therefore does not appear to resemble a *personal attack* and can help to start building an objective Biography. hopefully nobody is offended, I'm just trying to be civil.TBDdat 01:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the existing article and R. C. Sproul were both in better conformance to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP before, and I approve of Yahnatan's reversions (not least because you also removed much information that had no bearing on neutrality such as formatting, wikilinks, and all categorization). Please describe why you think differently. PS, I moved your comment here because the conversation to which you appended it is long over. Let's just start with your concerns. PPS, I also reverted your curious deletion of information from Image:Jr-copy-for-wiki.gif. What was that about? --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)