Update: After publication of this article, former Saint Andrew’s Chapel elder Stephen J. Adams released a public statement on Facebook and X outlining his account of the dispute that ultimately led to the church discipline involving Stephen Nichols and his wife, Heidi Nichols. Adams alleged that the conflict began in 2024 and accused the Nichols of conducting what he described as a prolonged campaign of harassment and slander against him. Adams wrote that he filed a police report in January 2025 and said the session of Saint Andrew’s Chapel began disciplinary proceedings against the Nichols in the spring of that year. He also stated that the matter was unrelated to the congregation’s later decision to withdraw from the Presbyterian Church in America. Protestia has not independently verified Adams’ allegations, and the official charges referenced in the church’s excommunication letter have not been publicly disclosed.
A series of developments over the past year has drawn growing attention to the institutional network historically associated with the late theologian R. C. Sproul. Events involving Saint Andrew’s Chapel, Ligonier Ministries, and Reformation Bible College have raised questions in Reformed circles following a denominational discipline case, the chapel’s withdrawal from the Presbyterian Church in America, and the recent excommunication of a prominent ministry leader.
The developments center on senior pastor Burk Parsons and Stephen Nichols, two figures closely connected to the institutions Sproul founded.
Ligonier Ministries was established in 1971 as a teaching ministry devoted to advancing historic Reformed theology through conferences, publications, and media outreach. In 1997, Sproul founded Saint Andrew’s Chapel in Sanford, Florida, which became closely associated with the ministry’s teaching work. In 2011, Sproul also launched Reformation Bible College, an undergraduate institution dedicated to theological education and located adjacent to Ligonier’s headquarters. Because of overlapping leadership, faculty, and physical proximity, developments affecting one of these institutions often draw attention across the entire network.
In early 2025, the Central Florida Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in America initiated a judicial process against Parsons. The case reportedly involved more than forty-five hours of proceedings and testimony from fifty-five witnesses. According to reporting from several outlets, the presbytery’s judicial commission unanimously found Parsons guilty on several charges related to leadership conduct. Those findings included allegations that he had been harsh and unkind in interactions with others, that his leadership style had been domineering or autocratic, and that he had slandered or demeaned other servants or churches. The commission indefinitely suspended Parsons from the office of teaching elder within the PCA pending evidence of repentance and pastoral reflection. Reports emphasized that the charges did not involve criminal conduct or moral scandals such as sexual or financial wrongdoing.
Parsons announced plans to appeal the decision through the denomination’s judicial process. In the months that followed, the case became a source of tension within Saint Andrew’s Chapel. In December 2025, members of the congregation voted by a reported margin of 669 to 108 to withdraw from the PCA. The decision returned the church to the independent status it had held for most of its history prior to joining the denomination in 2023. Because Presbyterian polity places congregations under the authority of regional presbyteries, leaving the PCA ended the denomination’s jurisdiction over the church and its leadership.
The situation escalated in March 2026 when the session of Saint Andrew’s Chapel announced the excommunication of Dr. Stephen Nichols and his wife, Dr. Heidi Nichols. Nichols serves as president of Reformation Bible College and as chief academic officer and teaching fellow at Ligonier Ministries. In a letter distributed to members of the congregation, the church stated that the Nichols had been formally indicted on unspecified charges in 2025 and summoned to appear before the session. According to the letter, the Nichols initially did not respond to the indictments or appear for the proceedings. Church leadership later met with the Nichols, as the letter described, in what it called a final pastoral effort to address the situation. According to the session’s account, that meeting “did not produce repentance.” Because of the continued refusal to submit to the disciplinary process, a condition described in Presbyterian polity as contumacy, the session proceeded with excommunication. The letter emphasized that the action was not a judgment on the underlying accusations, which were not publicly disclosed, although the Nichols and the family of David Zima reportedly resigned from the church following its vote to leave the PCA.
The day after the church announced the Nichols’ excommunication, Reformation Bible College announced that Nichols would step down from the presidency after twelve years of leadership during what the school described as a season of transition. The announcement thanked Nichols for his years of service and stated that the leadership change will take effect in May. The statement did not reference the recent disciplinary action taken by the session of Saint Andrew’s Chapel.
It is important to note that Ligonier Ministries and Reformation Bible College are separate nonprofit organizations from Saint Andrew’s Chapel. Although the three institutions share historical roots in Sproul’s ministry and have long maintained close relationships in leadership and location, the church operates as an independent congregation responsible for its own membership and disciplinary decisions. Neither Ligonier Ministries nor Reformation Bible College has publicly addressed the recent church discipline involving Stephen and Heidi Nichols.
For decades, the institutions founded by Sproul have been widely respected across the evangelical and Reformed world for their commitment to confessional theology and biblical teaching. The events of the past year, however, have introduced a period of uncertainty within that institutional network. With several key developments still unfolding and many details remaining unclear, observers across Reformed circles continue to watch closely as the situation develops.
Note: As the recent letter to the church has been leaked on the internet and confirmed authentic, we have included it below in the interest of transparency and context.
Text of March 12th, 2026 letter:
Statement to the Members of Saint Andrew’s Chapel
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
We write to inform you of a solemn and grievous action taken by the Session of Saint Andrew’s Chapel regarding Dr. Stephen Nichols and Dr. Heidi Nichols. After a prolonged process of pastoral engagement and ecclesiastical discipline, the Session has determined that excommunication is necessary due to their contumacy, that is, their willful refusal to submit to the authority of Christ exercised through His church.
In 2025, the Session issued formal indictments against Dr. Stephen Nichols and Dr. Heidi Nichols. These indictments required them to appear before the Session, the court of original jurisdiction, to answer the charges brought against them. Despite repeated attempts to secure their participation in this process, they did not appear nor respond to the citations issued by the Session.
In January 2026, due to their refusal to appear and answer the indictments, the Session suspended Dr. Stephen Nichols and Dr. Heidi Nichols from the Lord’s Table and the fellowship of the church. At that time they were admonished and urged to repent and submit to the lawful authority of the church.
In February 2026, a committee of elders met with Dr. Stephen Nichols and Dr. Heidi Nichols in a final pastoral effort to address the matter and seek reconciliation. According to the Session, this meeting did not produce repentance.
Because Dr. Stephen Nichols and Dr. Heidi Nichols have persisted in their refusal to submit to the authority of the church and have not repented of their contumacy, the Session has determined that the next step of discipline prescribed in Scripture must be taken.
On March 10, 2026, the Session of Saint Andrew’s Chapel therefore pronounced the sentence of excommunication against Dr. Stephen Nichols and Dr. Heidi Nichols. This action removes them from the sacraments and from the fellowship of the church.
This action is taken in obedience to the commands of Christ as given in Matthew 18:17–18 and in accordance with the teaching of 1 Timothy 5:20 and 2 Corinthians 2:5–11. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches that church discipline is necessary for the reclaiming and gaining of offending brethren, for deterring others from the like offenses, for purging out that leaven which might infect the whole lump, for vindicating the honor of Christ, and for preventing the wrath of God from falling upon the church (WCF 30.3).
We take no pleasure in this action. The purpose of church discipline is always restorative. Our earnest prayer is that Dr. Stephen Nichols and Dr. Heidi Nichols will repent and be restored to fellowship with Christ and His church.
As members of Christ’s body at Saint Andrew’s Chapel, we urge you to receive this announcement with sobriety and humility. Please pray for the Nichols family, for the elders of this church, and for the peace and purity of Christ’s church.
This communication is for the members of Saint Andrew’s Chapel alone.
In Christ,
The Session
Saint Andrew’s Chapel
32 responses to “UPDATE: What’s Happening Around the Ligonier Network?”
Don’t know much about this, but I’ll say if they’re not telling anybody the reasons for the disciplinary action, they are neither honoring Matt. 18:17–18 (ekklesia) nor 1 Tim. 5:20.
In particular 1 Tim. 5. The reason for the rebuke is not so that all will stand in fear of the leaders, like some sort of cult, but that all will stand in fear of the Lord. By not telling anyone what the rebuke is for, they are essentially saying that they are the ones who should be feared, which is little short of trying to take the Lord’s place.
Regardless of organizational structure, in the body of Christ all are accountable to all. Iron sharpens iron. I.e., we sharpen one another. None are above another. There is no place for such “lording over” in the body of Christ (Matt. 20:25-28, and also 2 Cor. 1:24, what Paul said leading up to 2 Cor. 2:5-11).
If this is what they’re doing then they need to discipline themselves fro their own bad leadership conduct. When you rebuke or correct someone, you have an obligation to give the specific reasons why, and to substantiate it with scripture. So that all will fear the Lord, not so that all will fear you …
All power and authority belong to the Lord (Matt. 28:18). There is one and only one mediator (1 Tim. 2:5).
Never should anything we do set us between someone else and the Lord. That’s not our job. Our job is to direct them to the Lord, not to put ourselves between the two.
There is no hierarchy in the body of Christ. And to claim that there is a need for one is essentially to claim that He is incapable of leading His church without our assistance. Essentially to claim that His work is incomplete. When you boil all that down, it’s denial of the Gospel.
Considerations such as these are why there was a reformation in the first place.
It can easily become yet another way of “denying the power thereof”. There has to be some structure and leadership organization for reasons of avoiding chaos and so on, but there is a point at which it begins to deny the power of the Holy Spirit, and to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, when it reaches the point of “lording over”. The church is not supposed to be a structure of imbalanced, unidirectional authority (such is not a church, it’s a cult). When it is turned into such a monstrosity, the implication is essentially that they believe the Holy Spirit can’t do His job, or that He won’t do his job, which is to call God a liar.
It’s critically important that the reasons for a rebuke be given. The sins and justification for the rebuke, according to scripture, must be made known, so that all are compelled not to submit to or fear an organization of mankind, men or the commandments of men, but to submit to and fear the Lord Himself … the significance of this distinction cannot be overstated.
What’s also weird about the Nichols situation is that they were not disciplined for whatever the initial accusations were for, but rather for not showing up to answer. In secular law, nobody is to be compelled to speak in his own defense, or to be required to prove his innocence. The burden of proof is on the accuser. These principles, presumption of innocence, due process, and so on, are drawn directly from scripture, such as Deut. 19. But in the church, it’s a bit different in that one might be called to answer when there is already proof of guilt, and that’s because our emphasis is on repentance to the Lord. We want to give them an opportunity to repent. If, on the other hand, the purpose for a summons is to have him prove his innocence, then at that point the authorities are out of line. To my knowledge, such a concept is nowhere to be found in scripture. And we all know and understand that there are many instances were it would nearly be impossible for one to prove his innocence. Right? “prove you weren’t at the bank when it was robbed”. Well, if you were alone somewhere, that would be a bit difficult to prove would it not? As far as I can recall, there are no instances where the accused were made to answer, except when guilt was already known. Ananias and Sapphira, for example.
But if guilt were already known, in this case, then they would’ve been disciplined for whatever those sins might’ve been, rather than for failing to appear.
Something is just not quite right. If they weren’t guilty of whatever they’d been accused of, then they’re basically being kicked out of the church for failing to show up to prove their innocence. And I could be wrong, though I’m fairly certain nonetheless, that it is sinful to make accusations against someone and then to demand that they prove their innocence. We don’t call people to answer and repent for what they’ve done until and unless there is proof that they did it.
So did they rebel against the Lord, or did they just rebel against the sinful commandments of men?
If the purpose was to have them prove their innocence, then their rebellion was against the sinful commandments of men. And understand, once anyone in authority steps outside of the Lord’s authority, at that point they have no authority. If the authority of the church is not under the authority of the Lord and His word, then it’s not a church at all …
I’m just outside looking in, and know very little about this. But just based on what’s been made known in this article, something just doesn’t quite smell right about the entire mess …
That’s what they did to Jesus in His trial. Demanded He prove His innocence.
That’s what they did to the Apostles. Peter and Paul were accused of involvement in starting the fire in Rome. The only “proof” was that they were preaching about the world next being destroyed by fire. They were brought in and made to prove their innocence.
How in the sam hill do you prove you didn’t do something? “Prove you didn’t light a match” – can’t be done. And there is no such concept in scripture.
In the case of Jesus and the Apostles, it was just an excuse. And so it is always an excuse. Show me someone who’s been accused, who’s being compelled to prove his innocence, and I’ll show you someone who’s been targeted for some other reason.
If this is not descriptive of the truth of the situation, then who’s fault is that?
I know, posted too much again. I too will be relieved when I’m done speaking.
Reading Deut. 19 again, it says that both parties should appear if the witness is malicious. I.e., as I understand it, if proof cannot be determined by the testimony of two or three witnesses. At that point, then the inquiry is to determine whether or not the accuser falsely accused, and it references intent. Apparently allowing for situations were accusations may be made without any malicious intent. If that understanding is correct, then it would be an instance were the accused were summoned, but not for the purpose of himself answering for anything, but rather to be present for the inquiry as the accuser is summoned to answer as to why he has no proof to substantiate his accusations.
So that would mean if the allegations against the Nichols were that they falsely accused someone, or something along those lines, then it would be in line with scripture to summon them. However, in that case, it should be noted in Deut. 19 that the malicious accuser is not directly accused or charged, but rather there is to be an inquiry as to whether or not that is the case. I.e., there should be no indictments prior to that inquiry.
I certainly don’t know the scriptures as well as I should, and I may be wrong about some things. But something is not quite right with the whole mess, it seems to me …
… No that’s not correct either. In the case of a false accuser, one who has made accusations without any proof, that is yet again dealing with someone who’s already guilty. The fact that he accused without proof makes him a “malicious” accuser, which is already established. And the inquiry would, apparently, then be about whether or not he blatantly falsely accused. And I say “apparently” because I’m not sure I completely understand it.
I just don’t know of any instance where anyone should be summoned to prove their innocence.
If the Nichols were accused without proof, then according to Deut. 19, they should be summoned. But not to “answer” for anything. Given the language used by the presbytery, which implies accusations of wrongdoing on the part of the Nichols, that could not be the case.
Something is not right … can’t put my finger perfectly on exactly what, but something isn’t right.
All good points. One thing you are missing is the institutional ease of convicting for “contumacy” rather than hearing a full case on the underlying charges. The lack of submission becomes more important (but covers up the original offense).
You don’t have to prove innocence, but you should accept an opportunity to answer charges and present exonerating evidence. That is the reason for due process.
It is most shameful because they leave outsiders to think the worst of them all. Nichols should report the facts. Adams covered them up.
Both Nichols and Parsons (and his church) have now fled Biblical accountability. Won’t end well.
Thanks Don. I don’t know much about the Presbyterian church. But I do know that it is not sinful to not avail oneself of such an opportunity. The burden of proof is on the accuser. That particular fact is true in the law of both God and man. If there’s no sin involved, then they should not be kicked out of the church. If there were enough evidence to prove the original allegations, then they should’ve been kicked out for that sin, not for failing to bow down at the feet of men.
If the presbytery is out of line, then no one fled Biblical accountability, because it’s not Biblical accountability.
It very well could be that such institutional ease is the direct result of institutional rules that are not in line with scripture.
We should remember, Jesus Himself did not mount a defense in His trial. He spoke only a few words. Nor did He voluntarily turn Himself in. He waited to be arrested. And that’s how it needed to happen.
I’d be careful about even saying anyone “should” mount a defense. We don’t know the particulars of every case (or this case).
There is no commandment of God that says that one must mount a defense against charges. No such commandment. And it is not a sin to opt not to mount a defense (else Jesus would’ve sinned).
What then is the Biblical justification for the summons?
If there is none, then it is the Presbytery that sinned.
Making up rules, changing rules, ignoring rules, adding rules of mankind is exactly what Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for doing. Right. God never commanded that people could only take a certain number of steps on the Sabbath, or that nobody could pick a few pieces of grain to eat on the Sabbath. Those were commandments of men. The pharisees demanded everyone submit to the church, but the church wasn’t submitted to God. AS it pertains to Jesus dealings with teh scribes and pharisees, hammering home that fact was pretty much the entirety of that part of His ministry. Pretty much telling them “you’re not God!”
This is very important. When we start making up sins that God hasn’t said are sins, we’re in very dangerous territory. 1 Tim. 5:20 says what? … one who persists in what?
Yep, there’s no getting around it. The particulars of the initial indictments are relevant, and are necessary to evaluate whether or not the subsequent discipline was justified. That information is necessary in order to determine who failed to submit to the Lord, and whether or not their was a conflict between what the presbytery required vs what the Lord requires. So by concealing that information, the presbytery has essentially deprived the church of the ability to hold them accountable.
Without that information, the only fear their rebuke has instilled is fear of themselves. It’s an empty rebuke, because nobody has any way of knowing exactly whether or not they were at fault. It’s an empty rebuke because it’s not necessarily sinful to disobey the summons of men, even men in positions of authority in the church. They’ve only instilled fear of themselves, and that’s not what 1 Tim. 5:20 is about. It’s about fear of the Lord, not fear of the church or authority of the church.
If they haven’t done anything wrong, then they should have no problem at all with making the particulars of those indictments known.
Since I’m now back where I started, to the relief of all, including myself, there should be no need for me to post on this article further.
I was powerfully born again through the ministry of RC. He feels like a grandfather I have never met. Sad to see this going on and will be interesting to see what comes…
Thanks for the update. It still doesn’t make much sense to me, though. The charges aren’t very specific. A “campaign of harassment” could mean anything. I myself was accused of “harassment” and “attack” for making one single post on facebook, which simply stated the truth of scripture, that the pastor needed to either repent or be fired. There was no bullying or harassment of anyone of any kind. On the contrary, I and my family are the ones who were bullied. Naturally I’m going to be skeptical of anyone who alleges a “campaign of harassment”. If you’ve been wronged, then you have every right to speak and keep speaking for as much and as long as as necessary, until things are made right. And naturally the wrongdoer will not like hearing it, and especially won’t like others hearing it – which is why the “pastor” in my case did what he did. He was trying to intimidate me into being silent about his sins and the sins of the prominent member against my family and I.
What was the supposed harassment about? What was the slander about? What’s the actual sin?
It would seem odd to me for anyone to engage in a “campaign” for no reason at all. What was the reason? Was it justified? Was it not?
There’s not enough information.
The question is whether or not they sinned. And it’s not a sin to simply say things people don’t want to hear, sending messages they don’t want to receive, and so on. “harassment” is not very well defined, and by itself would not necessarily be a sin (it’s also not always a crime). These days it could be as sinless as sharing the Gospel with someone who didn’t want to hear it, or saying something that hurt somebody’s feelings. Or speaking the truth – these days if you speak the truth to someone, it’s just about a given that they’re going to feel harassed. There’s no specific sin in scripture, that I know of, that would indicate a campaign of saying things people don’t want to hear would be sinful. In fact, that pretty much describes the ministry of every Prophet, of John the Baptist, of Jesus, of the Apostles – a campaign of saying things people didn’t like hearing. Further, feeling harassed and being harassed are two different things. Mere inconvenience is not sinful. If you are a leader in the church, patience is a required qualification, in fact. It’s your job to be inconvenienced. So why mention harassment, if there was false accusation? Considering slander, spreading lies and false accusations, would be sinful.
Generally scripture is only going to consider it sinful when it is false. How much it’s said, how often, to whom, and so on, is not generally a sin – I can’t think of any instance where it would be.
If there was false accusation (i.e., actual sin – the spreading of falsehoods), then Deut. 19 could indeed require them to appear (both parties to appear). But I’ve said too much on this already, and said my peace. Just stick with scripture. That’s all I’m saying.
The reason I stopped back in was to say that looking at 1 Tim. 5:20-21, it seems possible to me that when chapter and verse were later added, as they were not in the original manuscripts, that the phrase “in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus and of the elect angels” could possibly belong at the end of verse 20 rather than the beginning of verse 21. Seems to me that it would be unusual for Paul to precede a statement like “I charge you” with such language. But it would not be unusual to state that they should “fear in the presence … “. It’s been 35 years or so since I took greek, and I was a bad student even then. I don’t remember it containing any punctuation. We know chapter and verse were added later. And it could be that phrase was meant to refer to who they should fear. I could be wrong. Just a thought.
Reading his statement on X, it certainly sounds and appears to be genuine. I certainly have not meant to do any wrong to anyone by posting what I’ve posted. The purpose is out of concern for the Lord’s church, and to make sure we’re following scripture. I have no way of knowing who’s guilty, or of exactly what they might be guilty of. I’m more interested in how things should be handled according to scripture.
People don’t typically engage in any such “campaigns” for no reason, just randomly singling out and targeting someone. But people do, on the other hand, get angry about one thing and then start slinging wild accusations all over the place about everything under the sun. It happens. Seems to me there’s got to be some more to this story. Maybe not. Who knows.
I may be biased here because of what has been done to me. And therefore need to recuse myself from posting on the matter further. In my case, defrauding us of $194,000, I’m not exactly about to listen to the anybody bellyache about the fraudsters feelings being hurt, or my speaking on the matter being an inconvenience, and so on. I have every right to speak, and to keep speaking, until there is repentance for the sins, justice for my family and I, and the matter is rightly settled. If they don’t like it, that’s too bad. If they hadn’t sinned as they did, and bullied us as they did, then they wouldn’t now be “harassed” for it.
[…] UPDATE: What’s Happening Around the Ligonier Network? […]
There are so many misrepresentations in Adams’ post. The initial accusations didn’t come from the Nichols. The police poked Adams’ report full of holes, concluding that there were no threats, stalking, or harassment. The video that Adams’ says he has doesn’t show what he alleges.
When SAC left the PCA, they abandoned all indictments, which were necessarily made in the name of the PCA. Therefore the Nichols did not flee discipline, but left SAC as members in good standing when SAC left the PCA. The Nichols remain in good standing in the PCA. SAC has not had jurisdiction over the Nichols for 3 months, so the excommunication letter is moot and of no effect. The PCA doesn’t recognize SAC as a legitimate ecclesiastical court.
Well now. Why am I not shocked. It appears the presbytery is indeed full of pharisees, and this has been correctly discerned from the start. If there was no proof to substantiate Adam’s accusations, then the presbytery outright sinned against the Nichols by demanding that they appear. It’s smelling to me like they were on a fishing expedition.
Presbytery did not demand that the Nichols appear, that was St. Andrews. The Nichols hadn’t been members of St. Andrews for 3 months and had no obligation to appear. St. Andrews has no jurisdiction over them. The Nichols remain members in good standing in the PCA. The St. Andrews excommunication is illegitimate, moot, and irrelevant. So, your description doesn’t apply to the presbytery, but to the governing board of St. Andrews. And the Nichols weren’t the only ones excommunicated on that day. As for Ligonier, their leadership made very poor decisions.
Appreciate the corrections, Bob. I don’t know much about the Presbyterian church, and it seems to me like the organizational structure is fairly complicated. I apparently got it mixed up with Parsons, since in his case it was the presbytery, and that was mentioned in the article.
Unlike how SAC session declared the trail against Parsons a witch hunt by the CFP and have now committed to a witch hunt campaign against Nicholes. They hold no power over him because he isn’t a member of their church anymore but instead of a faithful PCA church, so the only way that they can retaliate is act as if they do to the hundreds of remaining members of SAC (by remaining vague in their language in the letter nor disclosing that the Nicholes family left) and influencing Ligonier. As someone who left at the time of the first votes, and am convinced that they have schismed and who knows the Nicholes family, I trust nothing from a church in sin who holds no communion with the universal church because of the pride of their leaders.
It sounds to me like there’s been a lot of accusations back and forth, without anybody at any point being able to substantiate their claims. It’s important to consider where it all started. But at the same time, Deut. 19 does not say “the initial accuser”, but rather says “a witness” – any witness. In other words, repeating false accusations is just as bad as originating them. And so the Nichols, if they repeated unsubstantiated accusations, are not off the hook. Likewise, if Adams accusations aren’t substantiated, then he is not off the hook.
We all care about justice for those who’ve been wronged, and want to get to the bottom of it. Many of us have ourselves been falsely accused, and know what it’s like. It’s not some sort of soap opera sideshow, or whodunnit movie. It’s people’s lives we’re talking about.
Apparently Adams was accused, by someone(s) unknown, of something(s) unknown. And even that may not be the beginning of the mess.
I’m going to correct myself a bit here, and say that if the Nichols’ repeated the accusations against Adams, whether they originated the accusations or not, then they do have an obligation to the Lord to cooperate with the investigation (the diligent inquiry). The most obvious cooperation being to tell the investigators where they heard about the accusations against Adams, so the investigators can follow that lead back to whoever originally falsely accused, and get to the bottom of it all.
Just as they are not required to prove innocence, neither is Adams required to do so. If he was accused, then the burden of proof is on those who accused him.
It’s odd though, that he has accused many of slander, when nobody seems to know what he was allegedly accused of. Hard to claim you’ve been publicly falsely accused when the alleged accusations are not publicly known to anyone. But having been falsely accused myself before, of all sorts of mess, I know that whether or not it is publicly known is very little consolation. You don’t want anybody believing the lies about you, regardless of how public the accusations might be, and you also have no way of knowing exactly how widespread they are. Right, just because all us interested guys on the internet don’t know, doesn’t mean that the accusations weren’t widespread, at least within the church. Who knows.
So this brings it to the point of considering whether or not the accusations against Adams were substantiated.
However, it’s clear that the presbytery did not merely request the cooperation of the Nichols. In their own words, there were “indictments”, and they were being called to “answer”. Now they very well could be guilty. It would depend. Merely conveying information that accusations have been made, would not necessarily indicate that the one conveying that information believes those accusations are true. So repeating false accusations is not necessarily sinful. It depends. (and in saying this, I’m correcting something I said earlier, that wasn’t clarified properly – it is not always sinful to repeat false/unsubstantiated accusations – it would depend on several factors, and the context, beginning with the reason for doing so – which could even be to assert the innocence of the accused)
It seems to me, at least at this point, that the presbytery, in the best case, jumped the gun. Generally, you’ve got to get to the bottom of things before you can start indicting people. You’ve got to complete the diligent inquiry, to a sufficient degree, before you can start trying to charge and punish. Yes, if the Nichols repeated or even heard the accusations against Adams, then they do have an obligation to cooperate with the investigation. But it’s apparent that the indictments against them were severely premature, if not outright malicious.
Rather than diligently inquire to get to the bottom of things, the presbytery essentially joined in all the drama of slinging unsubstantiated accusations all over the place, back and forth.
I started out to make one post to point out one thing pertaining to the scripture, and ended up getting farther into this, as many have. We care, and we want to see justice done. We want to see the church honor the Lord and abide by His word. So we get drawn into it.
As it stands right now, there is not going to be any justice. The inquiry that should be occurring has been abandoned. The presbytery has created an unnecessary and sinful conflict between justice and church governance.
Justice is being denied, and that is a sin. God’s word doesn’t merely suggest that we might want to think about possibly not depriving others of justices. No, it’s an outright commandment – we SHALL NOT deprive others of justice.
And so what needs to happen here, it seems to me, is to get the priorities back in order, set aside all the mess that has nothing to do with getting to the bottom of the matter, and to focus on getting that investigation done rightly and completely. Get to the bottom of it first. First see that justice is done rightly, in a manner that is not sinful. Then if charges need to be made pertaining to other matters, the presbytery could do so.
It should go without saying that when I refer to justice, I’m talking about what God says is right and wrong, not what the world says is right and wrong.
One example is “wishing death”, as Adams references in his post. Many may not want to hear this, may have a knee-jerk reaction, may balk at this, but it is not a sin to wish death, or to cry out to the Lord to rid you of the wicked. It’s a sin to carry that out, without due process, of course (murder).
“May his days be few; may another take his office!” (Psalms 109:8) Which Peter references in Acts 1:20.
There are many examples in scripture where righteous men cried out to the Lord to vanquish the wicked.
I’ve said this about the man who has severely wronged my family and myself. We’d all much rather he repent. But if he doesn’t, it’ll be a joyous day the day he is dead and gone. Frankly, we should rejoice more when the wicked are removed. And I’ve also noted to him that certain sins of his, such as enslavement, are by God’s standards death penalty offenses. These are not threats. They’re just the truth. And warnings and reminders of the severity of the sins, as well as the eternal consequences of dying with unrepentant sin. I’d much rather he repent. But if not … there’s always a “but if not …”
Admittedly I might be biased, but it would be highly unusual for Christians to “wish death” on anyone for no reasons. There’s got to be a reason. And that reason very well may not be sinful.
The investigators need to get back to the matter of justice, and work toward getting to the bottom of things. Scripture is fairly clear, when justice is at odds with church governance, then justice wins. When church governance is in conflict with the commandments of God, then God wins. They need to focus a lot more on honoring His commandments, and a lot less on whether or not somebody was insubordinate to them.
That’s leadership.
Back to Matt. 20:25. If they will focus first on the commandments of God, focus first on seeing that justice is done (as servants), then they won’t have to assert any authority, or go about punishing the insubordinate (as masters). Because people will willingly follow. But if they are more focused on asserting their own lordship and authority, then people will be insubordinate, and rightfully should be. This diversion away from the pursuit of justice only shows that their priorities are backwards.
And quite a bit of the reason for those backwards priorities very well could be the result of post-millennial views. It may lead them to over-eagerly try to assert the authority of the church, to advance the church, to essentially try to create heaven on earth, and in the process of that, the commandments of God, including the most basic pursuit of justice, get tossed aside in pursuit of what they believe their goals should be. The focus may tend to be more on creating the “perfect” structural organization and governance, and less on just simply honoring the commandments of God.
It will not be over until justice is done. For whoever was wronged, Adams, Nichols, whoever. They need to follow through until the job is done. They must remember, their calling is not to lord over, but to serve.
Our job is not to conquer and lord over the world. Our job is to lead the world to Jesus. And that is done first and foremost through leading by example. Nobody’s going to follow a bunch of dictators obsessed with their own authority. They will follow those who point to and submit to the Lord, to whom all authority the Father has given, following His commandments first, who have priorities in proper order.
The Lord’s government, the millennial government, only has one employee. And it only needs one employee. The Lord Himself, who sees all, knows all, is perfectly just in all ways, can immediately do justice, in an infinite number of cases simultaneously, without the help of anybody else, and be done with that day’s work quicker than the blink of an eye.
That man who sinned against us said he didn’t like the “threats”. I responded right back to him and his lawyer both, “enslavement absolutely should be a death penalty offense”.
And it should be …
I did not make any threats, or indicate that I would carry out any such sentence as some sort of vigilante. But I did say that it is, by God’s commandments a death penalty offense, and that it should be the same by secular law. When you swindle and defraud a man into working for you for free, trying to change and dictate terms of agreements after the fact, such as unilaterally switching from loan to lease, it absolutely should be a death penalty offense. And even if one disagrees, I have a right to voice that opinion.
He looks for any and every excuse to try to get away with his wrongdoing. Waiting for somebody to do something wrong after the fact, in response to what he did, and then to try to claim some sort of justification for what he did. When the truth is that it wouldn’t matter what I or anyone else ever did, he’d still be guilty.
I give this example because I smell similar things happening in this mess going on in the Presbyterian church.
No, it is not always sinful to “wish death”. If someone goes out and commits murder, it’s proved in a court of law, is it wrong to “wish death” on them?
Absolutely not. The law needs to be carried out. They need to be removed from the land of the living. And I, for one, do not pity them. No, I rejoice upon their removal. I rejoice with the family of the victim. I rejoice when justice is done. I rejoice for the innocent. I might pity their families, and other innocents affected by the sins. But I don’t pity the wicked, who have received the justice the Lord requires.
All involved, including Mr. Adams, need to stick to scripture and to God’s standards of what’s right and wrong. What’s sinful. That’s the concern. And that mostly includes the presbytery. It’s not just focus on their own authority and church governance, eschatology and so on, it’s also a matter of “teaching for doctrine the commandments of men”. Such diversions are why this mess is a mess. And they need to get back on track with the right and proper pursuit of justice, as is their job.
As a general rule of thumb, it’s very likely that those who are appealing to the commandments of men, are the ones who violated the commandments of God.
Those who didn’t sin have no need to appeal to any standard but the Lord’s.
Many don’t understand or know the difference, so it is not true in all cases, but it’s a good starting point for any investigation or exercise of discernment.
Well did anyone ever do a full examination as to whether Stephen Adams sexually assaulted Grace Nichols? That would be kind of relevant.
Understatement of the year. Darned right it would be relevant. I did not know that was what it was all about when I posted all the above on this article.
If the slander and other charges against the Nichols are related to that, then the church sinned against the Nichols even worse than I suspected. In many cases, there is no way to concretely prove such abuse. But you don’t turn around and hold the witnesses accountable for false accusation in such a case. Deut. 19 accounts for such circumstances, if we read it very carefully. If there is no concrete proof, then a diligent inquiry is to be done in order to determine whether or not there was blatant, intentional false accusation. It’s not automatically false accusation just because the case cannot be proved.
Such examinations, when there wouldn’t be any witnesses, are never going to be perfectly 100% accurate. It’s a situation where we have to evaluate beyond a reasonable doubt.
Either Grace Nichols, or Adams have been severely and badly wronged. And it very likely is humanly impossible to know, with certainty, which one.
But in the case of Grace’s parents, it is wrong to hold them accountable for bearing false witness. We live in an imperfect, corrupted, and falling world. We ourselves are far from perfect. And in such a case as this, at worst it would be bearing unknown witness, rather than blatantly bearing false witness.
And I’m correcting myself here, concerning some things I’ve said about false accusations in the past, for lack of myself reading Deut. 19 carefully enough. If we read it carefully, we’ll see that when there is not sufficient evidence to concretely prove the charges, THEN a diligent inquiry is to be done in order to determine whether or not there was blatant false accusation.
Looking into it further, there are two different words used. In the Hebrew. In verse 15, the word translated in ESV as “malicious” means “unjust”. I.e., the accusations weren’t proved. And the word in verse 18 translated as “false” means “deception”.
We don’t know what all transpired, but it could’ve been very wrong to charge the Nichols with wrongdoing.
We’ve got to remember that the law handed to Moses was handed to a fallen and corrupt world, to imperfect human beings, how to best govern ourselves, but it is not perfect justice. There will not be perfect justice until the Lord judges on the day of judgment. Many times we just have to accept that He will repay, because He’s the only one who knows what really happened, if anything.
Of course the irony here, and lesson for the post-millennial eschatology of the Presbyterian church and relevant aspects of reformed theology, is the fact that they’ll never achieve anything near perfect justice, anything anywhere near what it will be like in the Lord’s millennial kingdom, where HE rules. They could follow the law of Moses to the letter, and still fall short. Jesus taught this in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5). In Matt. 19, he said the law fell short, that Moses allowed divorce for other reasons, but that it was not so from the beginning. And we’ve also got to note that in every case, for obvious reasons, He said that the law was not strict enough. It’s not just enough. It has to be somewhat lenient because we are imperfect human beings. (and it is lenient, giving tremendous benefit of the doubt). So God did not make a mistake. He’s perfect. But we are not. So He set the law by which we govern ourselves, establishing what is and is not sinful, accordingly. We’ve got to remember this.
[…] to swirling questions, speculation, and conversation sparked by St. Andrew’s Chapel’s announcement of the excommunication of Stephen and Heidi Nichols, affected parties released adversarial […]