Ellicott City, MD, May 26, 2010 - A New Light Is Being Shined on Severna Park Evangelical Church (SPEP)

For over a year now I, Michael McNeil, have been shining a light on the activities and goings on of SPEP and the Chesapeake Presbytery on how the elders of the church abuse their athority over members and Teaching Elders like Glenn Parkison and Brial Lopiccolo are allowed to continue on as pastors when they are teaching error and are in themselves in blatant unrepentant sin.  And thus far I have been just one voice crying in the wildernes against these men and the me of Chesapeake Presbytery (CP).  Not to unlike John the Baptist when he cried out against King Herod.

However, I am now not alone.  A new light is shining on the activities of CP and SPEP.  Pam Walker has filed a law suit against CP, SPEP, and former Teaching Elder (TE), Barry M. Smith according to  Court House News.  The law suite was filed on May 6, 2010 in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County and is entitled "Pam Walker vs Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church, et al.  It is categorized as an Intentional Tort according to Maryland Juciciary Case Search. 

With this said, I pray that Pam Walker finds justice in her case against SPEP.  I knew Barry, and I was there when during the congregation meetings we were told of why he was being removed from ministry.  And I know that the congregation was not informed of any sexually battering or him abusing any women in the church's employ.

The congregation was told he was being dismissed because of his drinking problems and that there was some domestic abuse occuring in his home.

Barry confessed to the congregation that he did have a drinking problem, and that it was do to his recent surgery that helped him reduce weight.

From Pam Walker's law suite, it is apparent that a whole lot more was going on than just what was described to the congregation.  And in my case, where Glenn Parkinson and Brian Lopiccolo have constantly misrepresented and/or suppressed the truth of the matter to the congregation about my wife, it is now clear to me that this is how they have decided to "serve" God.

In Pam Walker's case, could it be that the elders of CP and SPEP have worked in concert to surpress the truth as they did with matters concerning Michael McNeil?

It will be interesting to see what is determined in the upcomming months.

Follow this link to see the actual complaint filed by Pam Walker's attorney and read for yourself her complaint provided by Court House News.

Ellicott City, MD, May 19, 2010 – Civil and Ecclesiastical Hearing Date Draws Near Concerning the McNeil Divorce

For well over a year now thousands of people throughout the world have been following the divorce case between Michael and Sarah McNeil. Normally a divorce case of this magnitude between relatively unknown people is not considered news worthy and most people would not give it a second glance.

So what is it that draws people into this relatively insignificant drama?

Simple, this is the first time that a major denomination such as the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) might be endorsing a wife to divorce her husband contrary to its own confession. The wife in this case, Sarah McNeil has already received this endorsement by her local PCA church, Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP), and when Michael McNeil complained about this to Chesapeake Presbytery, Chesapeake Presbytery and all its churches fully supported SPEP's decision on this matter.

After that, Michael McNeil complained to the PCA General Assembly (GA) about this. And the GA found his complaint in order and his complaint is being heard by a panel of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).  [  I've been receiving lots of emails telling me that for some reason the SJC Web Site is no longer available.  Thanks to Google, I'm was able to rescue the information from the link.  Press this link, and you will get a PDF snapshot of the cache for the SJC Web Site.  ]

Michael McNeil and Chesapeake Presbytery have submitted their briefs to the SJC panel, and oral argument are scheduled to occur on May 24, 2010. [ Note, early it was stated the hearing was to be on May 28, 2010.  This was in error.] Michael McNeil will be representing himself before the SJC. Dan J. Smith, the Executive Pastor of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Annapolis, and Edward L. Wright, a Ruling Elder of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church (PCA), will be representing Chesapeake Presbytery on this matter.

From the briefs, it is clear that this particular case will turn on one aspect and one aspect only. And that is the PCA confession of faith and Christ words concerning divorce a teaching that the PCA Denomination as a whole will declare as truth and binding on it's member and all Christians or will the denomination as a whole decide to renounce their own confession of faith, and the words of Christ concerning divorce and as a denomination become in a church who does not adhere to the word of God, nor do they teach their own confession which is part of their church by-laws and constitution. Belows is an excerpt of the PCA Confession of Faith that SPEP, that all the Churches of Chesapeake Presbytery have renounced through there elders who voted against Michael McNeil's complaint so as to not uphold the PCA Confession of Faith:

Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 24, paragraph 6. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

Interesting the trial of McNeil vs. McNeil is currently scheduled to begin the following week after the SJC hearing on June 1-2, 2010. It would be an interesting turn of events if the civil court denies Sarah McNeil on her grounds of divorce, and the PCA church continue to endorse her desertion and divorce of her husband.

I find it amazing in light of the statistics that society and my own church do not believe that children should have their fathers. People wonder why that the American Church is so week, and our society is ripping apart at the seams when the answer so so plainly in front of them.

I still just shake my head when I hear Pastor Glenn Parkinson sermon on "Head of Woman is Man" where he teaches that children need not obey their fathers, and apparently the Chesapeake Presbytery have agreed with this teaching, for they have stated that they do not find it to be heretical. This is quite amazing!!! A pastor in the PCA can preach in direct contradiction to the Ten Commandments and deny the word of God by doing this, and it is not heretical.

Actually, I agree with them. It's not heretical. It's much worse. It's apostasy!!!!

 

And thanks to men like Glenn Parkinson, Satan is able to tear apart families and destroy our children.

 

 

"it implies that God's original will that every husband and every father assume a ceremonial role that reflects the headship of Adam. Ceremonial role, not an authoritative one."

--Glenn Parkinson, Senior Pastor, Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (PCA)

 

 

Ellicott City, MD March 17, 2010 – McNeil Joins RE Lance Acree's Complaint

 

On November 10, 2009 Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) had heard a complaint made by Ruling Elder (RE) Lance Acree, of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP)

The complaint was about actions and/or in action going back over several years.

Michael McNeil first heard of these issue from Teaching Elder (TE) Arch Van Devender, Senior Pastor of Severn Run Evangelical Presbyterian Church. According to TE Van Devender, CP had set up a Judicial Commission to deal with a matter, whereas a wife complained to her session over a period of several years about a husband preference over pornography to satisfy his sexual requirement over her resulted in a childless, sexless marriage.

During the course of the issues of the sexless, childless marriage issue were being brought to light, according to Mr. Warner it was found that there was also viewing of pornography at the church, and that the men involved where also participating in directly caring for children of attendees of this church.

In any event, Mr. Warner, a PCA Deacon at the neglected wife's church at the time, assisted her in bring these matters before the elders of CP. However, do to his attempting to assist this unfortunate member of his church, he was eventually forced out of his position. And to this day according to him member(s) of CP are threatening his employment.

During this process, CP has held several hearings, filed various reports, which resulted in no disciplinary actions towards the husband nor the wife.

However CP did grant to the wife the right to transfer to another church.

The couple since then has divorced, and neither of the two were found guilty of sin for doing so.

Both are member of the PCA in “Good Standing”, which would also seem to imply that both would be thought by CP to be “Good Christians”, even though no one has seemed to have confessed sin or made any kind of amends.

Mean while, during the process Mr. Warner complains that his prior church tolerates sexual morality which is also putting children in danger.

With this said, after looking over the various reports and CP unwillingness to act, or inability to act it would seem that it would be properly said that CP tolerates the following from members of the PCA without question:

 

• Viewing Pornography, even at a church

• Husbands can deny giving their wives sexual relations, deny them children

• Couples can divorce, with CP believing sin has occurred.

 

Unfortunately, do to Mr. Warner's belief that he is to help his neighbor, Mr. Warner did his best not to allow CP to sweep these matter under the rug.

He has stated that he has a real concern that men who are addicted to pornography should not be involved in child care, so that these children are not put at risk.

However, by his pressing the issue, the elders of CP turned on him and started attacking his character and his wife's. And now these matters too have been added issues.

Seeing this, RE Acree rights his complaint on November 28, 2009 after CP ruling that all these matters are now closed at it's Stated Meeting on November 10, 2008. CP by doing this is demonstrating their unwillingness to deal with sin in its congregations.

During CP's February 20, 2010 Stated Meeting, it had before it RE Acree's complaint where it denied his complaint.

Mr. McNeil was at both these stated meetings. And he witness CP's unwillingness to deal with these sinful acts, and was deeply disturbed by CP's declaration that all these matters that obviously hadn't been dealt with are closed.

Unfortunately Mr. McNeil had his own many issues before CP and was not so incline to complaint at that time of the meeting on November 20, 2009.

However, once hearing how RE Acree's complaint from summarily denied with no real consideration, Mr. McNeil desiring that RE Acree's words not be silence decide to insure that his complaint would continue in the process. Therefore he submitted Notice of Complaint on March 16, 2010 to CP. CP will have to hear his Notice of Complaint and either act according to the scriptures and the church's constitution or the matter will be transferred to the General Assembly.

With this latest complaint by Mr. McNeil it should be noted this is just another complaint in a long line of complaints demonstrating where CP is refusing to discipline its members in accordance with the word of God and its agreed upon constitution. Belows are some of the complaints against CP :

 

• CP Permits a Teaching Elder to preach that a husband had no authority over his wife or children.

• CP renounces the words of Christ and their own confession and teaches it is not sin to divorce for reason other than adultery or desertion.

• CP Elders are allowed to publish blatant lies as truth, and are not held accountable.

• CP teaches members in Good Standing are allowed to sue each other in civil court against the teachings of Corinthians 6, and will not be considered to be sinning as to be held accountable for their actions by the church.

 

With all this said, it should also be noted that CP is doing all it possibly can to sweep Mr. McNeil's complaints under the rug. However, Mr. McNeil is not permitting this to happen. In order to prevent this, Mr. McNeil has written to members of the PCA and published these matters on www.spepchurch.com. Needless to say, CP elders have pressed Mr. McNeil to be silent on these matters, and many of the elders and members have asked him to just simply leave the church. Mr. McNeil's response to this is that he can not be silent, for that would give consent, and he can't leave the church.

 

Marriottsville, MD.  February 20, 2010 - What does Chesapeake Presbertery Define Desertion As?

Today Chesapeake Presbertery (CP), a preserbertery in the Preserbertery Church in America (PCA), held it's 33rd Stated Meeting a  Chapelgate Presbertery Church.  During this meeting, many of Michael McNeil's compalints were heard for the second time conserning various sins of the CP and Severna Park Evangelical Church.  All the complaint were denied on the basis that they were denied or ruled out of order at the previous stated meeting.  Additionally, at least two complaints, CP is claiming that it was the first time they have received them, and therefor denied them do to the action that they were complaining about had past 30 days.  Afterwards, Michael McNeil denies that they didn't receive them, however, do to the fact that no made a motion to allow Michael McNeil to speak at the meeting, parlamentery rules do not allow him to take the floor of a stated meeting by his own intiative.  Therefore, Michael McNeil could only set by in silence during he meeting as the CP elders turned a blind eye to wrongs that have been commited.

With this said, one of the most outragious wrongs that has been commited and continues to be commited has to do with a quote from a letter sent to Michael McNeil and Sarah McNeil on October 7, 2009, where a Teaching Elder  (TE) Brian Lo Piccolo bore false witness and taught that Sarah McNeil has not deserted him as his wife.

 

“Mac, as you know, Chesapeake Presbytery ruled to deny your complaint, ruling that the Session “did not err” in withholding discipline against Sarah in 2008. This means that Presbytery has upheld the Session’s opinion that Sarah did not desert you. This affirms your elders’ conviction that Sarah remains your wife.

 

The above statement stand in strong contast to a sworn statement made by Sarah McNeil in her complaint for a "Limited Divorce' dated on November 13, 2008, and her Complaint for an "Absolute Divorce" dated on October 3, 2009.

 

"After the date of the Defendant's desertion, but prior to the date of the filing of this Complaint, the Plaintiff and Defendant did mutually and voluntary agree to live separate and apart from one another in separate abodes with the express purpose and intent of ending their marriage . Said voluntary agreement was the deliberate and final act of both parties.”

 

It should be noted that Michael McNeil has denied that he has ever deserted his wife, physically or constructivly.  The statement above is refering to constructive desertion.  Additionally, elders of SPEP and CP have been well aware of Sarah McNeil's statements.

Additionally, during the meeting Arch Van Devender, Senior Pastor of Severn Run E.P. Church rose to the floor of presbertery informing CP that he was intiment with the case, and that along with denying Michael McNeil's charge against Brian LoPiccolo, since it was beeing said that Michael McNeil was committing sin for even filing the charges that CP should communicated to the Stated Clerk of the SPEP Session that SPEP should charge Michael McNeil for sin for the filing of his various complaints.

With all this said, the statement made by Brian LoPiccolo, and the actions of CP, it is clear that CP does not view a spouce filing for divorce for reasons other than adultry or willful desertion on the other spouce as an act of desertion.  Nor does CP view one spouce refusing to cohabitate with the other spouce as desertion.

One can only speculate, what constistutes desertion in the minds of the elders of CP.

In any event, CP's denial of Michael McNeil's complaints in the view of Michael McNeil a denial the church's confession:

24.6. Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

Ellicott City, MD February 17, 2010 - The Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) vs The Church of England (CoE)

Today, Michael McNeil listen to a sermon by Mark Oden, the vicar of St. Nicholas Sevenoaks church's message about wives submission to their own husband.  His message stands in stark contrast to Glenn Parkison's, a senior PCA pastor, message on the same subject. Apparently, the CoE is not giving into the culture of the world and still preaches that wives are to submit to their own husbands as long as it doesn't lead her into sin.  However, the PCA preaches that a husbands authority over his wife is only ceremonial, and that the husband has no authority in the home.  With this in mind, Michael McNeil stated, "That perhaps his family would have been better served if he were a member of the CoE instead of a member of the PCA, which has been given over to the culture on this issue."

It should be noted, that Michael McNeil filed a complaint on Glenn Parkinson's teachers about a year ago.  The original complaint that contain's a trasncript of the sermon can be found by following this link.

It should be noted, that Michael McNeil's local PCA has found him guilty of long time abusive, controlling, selfish behavior towards his wife and children.  This judgement was appeal Chesapeake Presbytery (CP), and CP denied Michael McNeil his appeal.  Which has led him to appeal the matter to the PCA General Assembly.

Now, one needs to understand the standards that Michael McNeil was judged under.  For his local church and presbytery who has affirmed that a man's authority in the home is only ceremonial and not authoritative.  Therefore if Michael McNeil taught his family otherwise, and if he was persistent at it, it naturally follow that they would also find him guilty of long term abusive, controlling and selfish behavior towards his wife and children.  It should be noted, that the charging of Michael McNeil was brought on by Sarah McNeil who after getting guilty verdict from the church immediately filed for divorce with the church's consent.  In fact she was made aware of the church's decision to find Michael McNeil guilty on November 13, 2008 the same day she filed for divorce, whereas Michael McNeil was not informed of it until November 20, 2008.  However, the elders of Michael McNeil's local church maintain that they had no idea that she was going to file for divorce.

The following is a quotation from Glenn Parksion's message on June 8 , 2008 which teaching has caused Sarah McNeil to believe that her husband is only the figurative/ceremonial head of the home.  Whereas her action have demonstrated that she believes herself to be the head, and she seeks to enslave Michael McNeil by making him pay 3K a month in alimony, and 1068 per month in child support, while he has to keep paying all he bills.

 

"it implies that God's original will that every husband and every father assume a ceremonial role that reflects the headship of Adam. Ceremonial role, not an authoritative one."

Ellicott City, MD.  February 10, 2010 - Michael McNeil release that attached file of a draft response to CP's judgement last made last summer.  In his response, he gives details on how elders of Chesapeake Presbytery have decided to depart from PCA Book of Church Order, the Westminster Confession of  Faith (WCF), and the church catachisms.  Most desturbingly, McNeil demonstartes how elders of CP have decided to support divorce for reasons other than Adultery or Willful Desertion, contrary to WCF 24.6:

WCF 24.6 Although the corruption of man be such as is apt to study arguments unduly to put asunder those whom God hath joined together in marriage: yet, nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the Church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage: wherein, a public and orderly course of proceeding is to be observed; and the persons concerned in it not left to their own wills and discretion in their own case.

Additionally McNeil claims that the elders of CP are guilty of allowing for adultery to continue unchecked within the Presbertyer, and that they themselves are promoting adultery through their own actions.  McNeil states that the church larger catachism says that the sins forbiden by the 7th commandment include desertion and or unjst divorce, and that the elders of Chesapeake Presbytery along with the elders of Severna Park Evangelical Presbertarian Church have allowed his wife to desert him, and file for divorce.  While at the same time she has also persued a church action with the assistance of ruling elders to justify her leaving the marriage for reason other than adultery or willful desertion on his part.

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?

A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are, adultery, fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections; all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life, undue delay of marriage; having more wives or husbands than one at the same time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.

The actions of CP and SPEP seem odd, since most people beleive that church tend to support marriage and highly discourage divorce.  Especially a church that considers itself to be conservative like a PCA church.  However, McNeil has not accepted these actions of his church, and has filed complaint after complaint.  This matter is now at the PCA General Assembly level, and the GA should have a ruling on this matter sometime this Spring or the very latest this Summer.

Ellicott City, MD. January 4, 2010 – Best Interest Attoney files a motion for attoney fees asking for approximatley $17,000.00 and both platiff and defendant responds.

As many are aware, the only ones who win in a divorce are the divorce lawyers. Like morticians who proffit when people die, proffit mightly when people are divorced. And if the divorce is contested, bussiness is good.

During the McNeil vs McNeil divorce trial, all the laywers put in their bills asking to be paid now. It should be noted, that the McNeil divorce trial is now in recess until June 1, 2010. However, all the laywers have put forth their bills, which is to be expected. And in most divorces just the price of the large lawyer bills is enouph to cause settlement to occur.

Currently, the Defendant in this case ows his lawyer approximatley 20K, the Plantiff we believe ows her lawyer approximatly 30K, and now the children's laywer wants his 17K. Right now, it is estimated that the McNeil vs McNeil divorce is going to cost well over 100K in lawyer fees alone.

And who is likely going to end up paying for all this?

In any event, one must ask, why doesn't the Defedant settle this case out of court?

The fact is simple, the terms of settelement far exceed what ever the court will impose on him. Also, once you sign on the line that you are willing to settle for such and such, if you can not actually do such and such, you are no matter what the circumstances held to what you agreed to. Therefore, agreeing to what you can not do contractually will put you in a much worse situation.

Anyhow, attached is the latest Motion for fees with responces. It will be interesting to see what the court orders. For at this time, the Defenant has just barely enouph to live off of, and he can no longer pull monies out of retirement, due to the fact his retirement plan will not allow it.

As it stands, the only way for the laywers to get anymore money, the family home must be sold. Which is a shame. It is also a shame that monies meant for the children's education are going to the laywers instead. One must ask, does Sarah McNeil really hate Michael McNeil so much that she wants to make it impossible for him to pay for their future education? Right now, her montra is that she wants alimony no matter what, and that Michael McNeil ows her a college education, even though he himself does not have one. One must ask, what about the children's college education? Are not the children the more important ones, instead of her intitlement rights of getting alimony.

Ellicott City, MD. January 1, 2010 – Michael McNeil files a New Year's Day Appeal to the General Assembly (GA) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

On December 15, 2009 Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) met at 10 am for a called meeting which took place at Grace Point Presbyterian Church.to ratify the report of the Judiical Commission that heard Michael McNeil's appeal from judgement from SPEP.

Unfortunately, Michael McNeil was unable to attend this meeting because as CP was fully aware, he was scheduled to attend a trial at Howard County Circuity Court to defend himself from his wife divorcing as she stated during a hearing that took place in January 2009 for the grounds of “long-time abusive, selfish, and controlling behavior towards his wife and children”, which the Session of Severna Park Evangelical Church (SPEP) found him guilty of which is the subject of his appeal. It should also be noted that SPEP in their ruling clearly stated in their ruling that his wife was not wrong in living apart from him him, even though this is clearly contrary to the scriptures and the PCA own Constitution.

Now, that CP has ruled on Michael McNeil's appeal, the heart of the men of CP has been clearly revealed according to Michael McNeil. For in their ruling they made declarations that their oaths as elders in the PCA mean nothing. For in their ruling they have declared among many other things:

• Church's of CP believe that it is acceptable for a women to depart from her husband for reasons other that adultery or willful desertion on the husbands part contrary to the church's own written confession.

• A person can set as a judge and prosecutor for the same trial.

• Gossip is Acceptable as evidence and Welcomed in Church Courts, contrary to the word of God.

• Church Elders can judge a man's heart contrary to the word of God.

• A prosecutor is able to make broad open ended and scriptural charges against member of the PCA.

• Church judges are allowed to pass judgment on a person without hearing him first.

• Judges are allowed to limit testimony and put on time limits once on a defendant, even though no such limitations were not placed on the accuser while the accuser was allowed to bring evidence against the defendant.

• PCA courts believe that the leadership of the husband is only ceremonial in nature, and that the husband has no real authority over his family. Any such authority if exercised is determined to be selfish, controlling, and abusive, and if long term, the wife has a right to leave the marriage.

Additionally, CP in their ruling also rebuked Michael McNeil for informing the church and other of the goings on in the Presbertery concerning his various complaints and CP's disregarding the PCA Church Constitution.  This formal rebuke came without a trial or Michael McNeil's permission. And finally, CP stated that the Admonition of Censure was not appropriate and it was improper.  This statement of CP is left open to interpitation.  More than likely, CP really means is that SPEP should have inflicted a harsher sentence onto Michael McNeil, and that they were incorrect for going soft on him.

As stated earlier, Michael McNeil is currently going through a divorce process. The divorce trial was technically underway as of December 14, 2009. However, as of December 21, 2009 the divorce trial is in recess until June 1, 2010. Michael McNeil and his lawyer are of the opinion that the divorce should be granted based off Sarah McNeil's desertion of the marriage as of May 16, 2008 only. Now, that Michael McNeil's notice of appeal has been filed with the GA, the PCA now has an opportunity to make things right and instruct CP, SPEP, Michael McNeil and Sarah McNeil more perfectly on the prescribe will of God, and the written confession of the church.

The question remains, will the elders chosen to hear Michael McNeil's appeal from the judgment of a presbytery that has clearly abandoned the PCA constitution and the Word of God adhere to their own vows?

Or will the PCA go the way of so many churches of today, and abandon God's Word, and embrace the doctrines of the world, and further pollute church doctrines so that people can no longer discern which God calls sin, and that which God calls not sin? Only time can tell.

Anyhow, if you want to learn more how the PCA handles church discipline, and how church elders can abuse their authority over members keep checking out this web site.  Hopefully as these matters are comming into the large community of the whole denomination, that these elders might perhaps see that their practices are unchristian, and call into questions their own profession of faith.

Ellicott City, MD. December 4, 2009 – Stated Clerk of Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) Sends Out Notice For Called Meeting with the reason for called meeting to vote on McNeil Appeal

On November 7, 2009 the CP Juridical Commission form to hear Michael McNeil Appeal from the rulings of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church took place. In accordance with the church's constitution, the Commission submitted their report back to the Stated Clerk of CP, and the Stated Clerk of CP has forwarded the Commission's opinion to both parties in accordance with Appendix H of the Book of Church Order.

In addition, the Commission has asked that a called meeting of the Presbytery meet before the next stated meeting. The Stated Clerk of CP has sent out notice of this called meeting, and it is to take place at Grace Point Presbyterian Church on Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 10 am. Grace Point is located at 615 Donaldson Ave, Severn, MD 21144.

Michael McNeil encourages all members of Church's of Chesapeake Presbytery to attend. And states that these men are acting on the individual members behalf, and that each member should be involved to some extent in this case to ensure that their leaders are acting properly.

Unfortunately, the likelihood of Michael McNeil attending this Called Meeting of CP is unlikely. For as the elders of CP know, Michael McNeil has been order to appear before a civil court magistrate for his divorce trial, whereas CP and SPEP have ruled that is wife is allowed to live apart from him and not sin, and they have denied his complaints against her for filing for a divorce against him and deserting the marriage.

Michael McNeil has also accused CP and SPEP in working concert with his wife to in these actions against him and his family.

Meaning, on

• November 13, 2008, SPEP ruled against him, and declared that it was not sin for Sarah McNeil to live apart from him.

• November 9, 2009 another commission that was erected to accuse Michael McNeil of sin decided to have a hearing on December 10, 2009, days before the McNeil divorce trial. When Michael McNeil complained that he could not meet because he is preparing for a divorce, and that he need to ask his employer for time off and that he needed to ask for this in at least two weeks in advance (Mr. McNeil did not receive his summons until November 29, 2009) the commission graciously offered December 17, 2009 as the only alternative date, even though they knew he would unlikely be able to attend do to the fact he was scheduled to be attending his divorce trial.

• December 4, 2009, CP decided to call a stated meeting on December 15 at 10 am in the morning. Knowing that the likelihood of Mr. McNeil being able to attend was very unlikely, do to he was scheduled to be in court.

With all the the above action of CP, it seems that how CP is treating Mr. McNeil should be a concern for all members of the PCA.

Sorry about not posting much new lately.

I can see by the logs that many of the same people are coming to my web site everyday from all around the county, and some from other countries. And I have received emails from many asking for updates so that they know how they can pray. I appreciate all those emails and letters of support.

On the Divorce Front:

As many of you know, my divorce Trial is scheduled to begin December 14, 2009. I and my lawyer have been working long hours preparing for trial, while at the same time, I try to contact Sarah to see if she want to reconcile, or at the very least work out a reasonable settlement. Thus far it looks very much like we are going to trial.

Unfortunately, one of the things that Sarah is using against me is that fact that no matter what, it is the fruit of my labors that is paying the bill for all this litigation.

My lawyer has tallied up the possible exposure for me if we go to trial assuming the judge rules against me, and I get to pay everyones lawyer. Meaning right now, we are assuming 20K for Sarah's Lawyer, 20K for my lawyer, and 10K for the Children's Lawyer, plus 6 K for expert wittinesses. Therefore, I more than likely will be told that I need to pay 56K. And this is in addition to what I have already paid.

So you can see, because I work and Sarah refuses to work, everyone but me thinks therefor I must pay if I refuse to sign a document giving up my children's right to have their father in their lives.

Realizing all this, I was thinking of one my favorite songs, that says:

“Riches I heed not, nor man's empty praise;
Be thou my inheritance now and always.
Be thou and thou only the first in my heart;
O Sovereign of Heaven, my treasure thou art.”

Yes, I must consider the cost of loosing, lots and lots of treasure. But as some of you know, I in the past have paid much treasure to save my son's life from life threatening disease caused by a gene defect passed on to him by his mother, and I would gladly pay thousand and thousands of dollar more to insure that my son and daughter have a father that loves them in their lives.

On the Church Front:

As Glenn Parkinson promised SPEP, the matters that I poses are going under proper review. Chesapeake Presbytery has continued to not hold him accountable for teaching heresy, and they thus far have refused to hold Brian Lopiccolo accountable for making written false statements. Additionally, the Stated Clerk of CP has continued to neglect his duty on many matters. And to top matters off, CP has decided to charge me with sin stating that I must give answer on December 10, 2009 during my work day. When I complained of this, they gave me an alternative date of December 17, 2009 to appear before them. I complained about this date, since they also knew that I would most likely be in court all that week, and would not be able to appear. I ask you, is CP playing fair? Are they trying to do an end around the Book of Church Order?

Anyhow, after my divorce, I will have much more to write, and much more truth to expose. Keep checking the site. Please spend time reviewing the documents I already have posted. These documents are very telling, and expose the inside story about what happens in ecclesiastical courts and civil courts.  And above all else keep praying.

"Right Or Wrong?"

 

Ellicott City, MD. October 12, 2009 – Is it Right Or Wrong?

Early today Michael McNeil, a member of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP) released a new document called “Morphing of the Briefs”. The briefs have to deal with his appeal from judgment whereas SPEP convicted him of sin and then informed his wife that it was not sin for her to divorce him even though there was not even the allegation of adultry or willful desertion on McNeil's part. McNeil's appeal will be heard by Chesapeake Presbytery (CP), sometime in the next thirty (30) days. The posted document morphs the Appellant's and Respondent's briefs into one, making it easier for visitors of www.spepchurch.com to see what both parties arguments are.

Additionally McNeil asks the readers to use their judgment in deciding the following questions at hand:

• Is it right or wrong for a Prosecutor to also Serve as a Judge for the same trial?

• Is it right or wrong for a judge serving as a Prosecutor to say he doesn't have a conflict of interest in judging the case?

• Is it right or wrong for judges to listen to Gossip/hearsay evidence to convict a man of anything?

• Is it right or wrong for the Prosecutor to have conversations with other judges without the accused present?

• Is it right or wrong for church elders to judge the heart of a man, when God says only He can judge the heart?

• Is it right or wrong for a church elders to inform a man's wife that it is not sin for her to divorce him even though there hasn't even been an allegation of adultery or desertion?

Why Make Complaint? Why Not Just Move On?

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

During my current ordeal, many elders from the church have spoken to me with others and in private. And the message they have been given to me is that I should just move on.

When they are saying this, I am assuming that they are stating that there is Nothing I can do to get my wife back, and that the church will not change its ways and refuses to repent.

To me, this is a tactic of bullies, cowards and those who refuse to do their duty.

Additionally, this advice they are giving me is contrary to their own vows as to their duty to me as a superior, and the 9^th Commandment:

PCA Ordination Vow Q2: Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this ordination vow?

WLC Question 130: What are the sins of superiors?
Answer: The sins of superiors are, besides the neglect of the duties required of them, an inordinate seeking of themselves, their own glory, ease, profit, or pleasure; commanding things unlawful, or not in the power of inferiors to perform; counseling, encouraging, or favoring them in that which is evil; dissuading, discouraging, or discountenancing them in that which is good; correcting them unduly; careless exposing, or leaving them to wrong, temptation, and danger; provoking them to wrath; or any way dishonoring themselves, or lessening their authority, by an unjust, indiscreet, rigorous, or remiss behavior.

WLC Question 145: What are the sins forbidden in the ninth commandment?
Answer: The sins forbidden in the ninth commandment are, all prejudicing the truth, and the good name of our neighbors, as well as our own, especially in public judicature; giving false evidence, suborning false witnesses, wittingly appearing and pleading for an evil cause, outfacing and overbearing the truth; passing unjust sentence, calling evil good, and good evil; rewarding the wicked according to the work of the righteous, and the righteous according to the work of the wicked; forgery, concealing the truth, undue silence in a just cause, and holding our peace when iniquity calls for either a reproof from ourselves, or complaint to others; speaking the truth unseasonably, or maliciously to a wrong end, or perverting it to a wrong meaning, or in doubtful and equivocal expressions, to the prejudice of truth or justice;speaking untruth, lying, slandering, backbiting, detracting, tale bearing, whispering, scoffing, reviling, rash, harsh, and partial censuring; misconstructing intentions, words, and actions; flattering, vainglorious boasting, thinking or speaking too highly or too meanly of ourselves or others; denying the gifts and graces of God; aggravating smaller faults;hiding, excusing, or extenuating of sins, when called to a free confession;unnecessary discovering of infirmities; raising false rumors, receiving and countenancing evil reports, and stopping our ears against just defense; evil suspicion; envying or grieving at the deserved credit of any, endeavoring or desiring to impair it, rejoicing in their disgrace and infamy; scornful contempt, fond admiration; breach of lawful promises; neglecting such things as are of good report, and practicing, or not avoiding ourselves, or not hindering: What we can in others, such things as procure an ill name.

Now that it is well known that do to various actions Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP)'s Session and Pastor Glenn Parkinson,Associate Pastor Brian Lopiccolo they pushed my marriage off a cliff as to destroy it. And then proceeded to instruct me and my wife that my she has not deserted me, even though she has stated very clearly in her divorce complaint that she left me on May 16, 2008 with the intent on ending the marriage, and she has thus far refused to reconcile.

And because the elders of Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) have no desire to hold the men of SPEP accountable for their actions, and have done just about everything to prevent these men from being discipline to include making false statement to the General Assembly about the status of my complaints, these men to are guilty of the same sins of SPEP.

And the men of CP come to me and tell me, just move on, start your life a new. Forget about your former life with your family. Just move on.

I ask you, would it not be cowardly of me to just let these men get away with these sins, when I have been instructed by God to cry out against them?

Would not my consenting to their evil deeds enable them to do the very same things to other?

And if they did, would not I then share in their guilt?

Please note, while I am doing this, I am still fighting for these men's souls. They by doing this, have become ponds of the devil. They too need God's saving truth. So I have a duty to them also.

Therefor, I will continue to publish these things so that other might not be hurt, and that they too might repent and return back to God.

I will not act as cowards and neglect my duty to my fellow believers as these men have done. Nor will I speak about them in SECRET, as they have done about me. I speak about them openly and planely that they know my words, and if they are able to defend themselves then they have opertunity to speak up.

But as it stands, they do not speak, but instead form council against me in SECRET, so that I am robbed of the opportunity to defend my name.

With that said I leave you with the words of John Calvin as to why he wrote the Christian Institutes.

"Observing that the object which these instruments of the court aimed at by their disguises was not only that the disgrace of shedding so much innocent blood might remain buried under false charges and calumnies which they brought against the holy martyrs after their death, but also that afterwards they might be able to proceed to the utmost extremity in murdering the poor saints without exciting compassion towards them in the breasts of any, it appeared to me that unless I opposed them to the utmost of my ability, my silence could not be vindicated from the charge of cowardice and treachery. This was the consideration which induced me to publish my Institutes of the Christian Religion. My objects were, first, to prove that these reports were false and calumnious, and thus to vindicate my brethren, whose death was precious in the sight of the Lord; and next, that as the same cruelties might very soon after be exercised against many unhappy individuals, foreign nations might be touched with at least some compassion towards them and solicitude about them." -John Calvin

 

Ellicott City, MD. November 13, 2009 – McNeil Appeal Still Not Ruled On

On November 7, 2009 Michael McNeil's Appeal from Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP) judgment was finally heard before a Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) Judicial Commission after almost a year of Michael McNeil filing his Notice of Appeal back in December 2008.

McNeil states that CP has been negligent in hearing his appeal, in that CP allowed SPEP's stated clerk to have an unreasonable amount of time to forward the Record of the Case (ROC) to CP.

According to the PCA Book of Church Order (BCO), the stated clerk of the lower court has only thirty (30) days to forward the ROC to the higher court after receiving Notice of Appeal. SPEP apparently refused to meet this requirement which is the reason for the appeal hearing being a year out. And for CP's final judgment to occur a year from the date of the filing of the Appeal.

Additionally, SPEP did not record objections, motions, and challenges in their minutes, which caused Michael McNeil to contest the record until the actions of SPEP was properly recorded in the minutes of the trial in accordance with the BCO.

It should be noted, that SPEP's judgment of him is what Michael McNeil believes was and is the catalyst for Sarah McNeil filing for a complaint for divorce on November 13, 2008. The same date that SPEP according to their own trial minutes declared that after one (1) hour of deliberation that Michael McNeil was guilty. And on that same date, they formed a delegation to inform Sarah McNeil the outcome of the trial.

Now that Michael McNeil's Appeal has been heard by a CP Judicial Commission, the next step is that the Commission must file a report with the ROC which includes both parties briefs to the Stated Clerk of CP. The Stated Clerk will then forward these documents to all members of Presbytery and the parties of the case. After which, CP will have a meeting, the report will be read and a vote taken.

 

It has been learned, that CP will call a special “Called Meeting” sometime before February in order that a vote may be taken, and CP's final judgment will be rendered on this matter.

 

For those who have a interest on this matter, Michael McNeil has made available the Appellant's Brief, the Respondents Brief, the Morphing of the Briefs, and his Oral Argument Notes.

 

Ellicott City, MD. November 10, 2009 – Chesapeake Pres Elders Chasing Their Own Tail – Continued

On October 17, 2009 it was reported on SPEPCHURCH.COM that it looked like Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) was in the process of chasing their own tail. Well, it can now say that it looks like they are about to complete another circle.

Michael McNeil just learned that the Commission who job was to investigate the matter as to whether or not the Credential Committee (CC) made an error in not investigating the matter of TE Glenn Parkinson's heresy is stating that the CC did error in their report which may or may not be adopted by CP. As part of their recommendation, they are stating that the issue be remand back to the CC.

In the same report, the Commission chaired by TE Dan Smith also stated the CP did not error in not going to trial.

Additionally the Commission recommends that the CC report back to CP as to the matter by the February 2010 stated meeting.

Again, here we have a matter where a Pastor is being accused of heresy by a member of his own church, and the body that is suppose to oversee this Pastor's doctrine is refusing to deal with the matter in a timely matter.

Meaning, the charge was submitted almost a year ago, complaints, and follow up complaints were made, and complaint was made to the General Assembly. However, CP believes that they have the liberty to hold on this complaint to the end of time, and they refuse to dispose of the matter by a constitutional means.

Which poses another matters, does CP consider a TE Elder under their oversight teaching heresy to be a light matter that they can continually delay ruling on the matter for perpetuity?

Mean while, Michael McNeil and TE Glenn Parkinson will remain in a pitch debate over the issue of whether a Man is the head of the Wife, verse if the man is only the ceremonial head and has no authority over his wife or family. Additionally, according to Michael McNeil, the church that TE Parkinson is the senior pastor at has made further heretical statements twisting the wording in the Westminster Confession of Faith to make bold statements that according to the WCF his wife has not deserted him. It seems by the statements the TE Parkinson has made, that he is going down the road of relativism and subjective truth. By doing this, he is teaching member of his church to build their houses on sandy ground, and not on the solid rock which is Christ.

Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. - 1 Peter 3 1-2

Since I stood up www.spepchurch.com, I have received many emails, some supportive and some not so supportive from all over the world. Unfortunately, time and tide have not allow me to answers all the emails as fully as I would like. However, the email and the questions that Gary poses to me I believe are questions that the church has failed to address, which is making our church's more secular in nature. Meaning, today, there are many Christians who are very confused as their pastors try to mix secular beliefs in with what the bible actually teaches on a subject. Unfortunately, many pastors and “Christians” are so engulfed into the secular society today, they find what the bible actually teaches on a matter to be repulsive, and therefore they reject the word of God.

Please note, from the below letter, I do not see where Gary holds any particular view. He is simply asking a question, that unfortunately many “Christian Churches” are simply preaching confusion, and I am sure that Gary's questions are on the lips of many, but they are either embarrassed to ask the question, or they may wrongly believe they have the answer.

Greetings.

I read with interest your reformation post contexted in marriage and divorce.  I appreciate you not disclosing particular details.

I did have a question for you, and would be interested in your response.

Males constitute a session.  In the church we can observe that some men habitually treat their wives poorly, rudely, inconsiderately, etc.  As observing males, we see it, and can only imagine what a wife lives with behind closed doors.  As observing males, for whatever reasons, we watch this behavior for years and don't really address the husband about his conduct.  Finally, after 15 years a wife says she's had enough and decides to leave.

My question is this:  Could your remarks be construed as saying a Christian man who treats his wife as he wants, that his wife may not leave him unless he commits adultery or deserts her?  Even a wife who has pleaded for them to get marriage counseling for years or has tried to enlist the efforts of pastors and elders to help?

Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Gary

Gary's questions are question is one that I could go into great detail on. I think 1 Peter 3 is a good verse to think on when considering this matter. However, as much as I would like to, my ability to do so at this time is greatly limited.

With this said, right now I can only point to the PCA Position Papers on the subject that can be found at http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/index.html. Additionally, below give readers that PDF links:

• Chapter 1 - Historical Perspective on Divorce and Remarriage

• Chapter 2 - Scriptural Perspective on Divorce and Remarriage

• Chapter 3 - Pastoral Perspective on Divorce and Remarriage

• Appendix I - The Westminster Divines on Divorce for Physical Abuse

• Appendix II - Divorce Reconsidered, by RE David C. Lachman

Please be aware, when reading this position paper, the authors represent many times both sides of the arguments, and it is not until you see their conclusions do you find the actual posistion of the PCA church.

As to Gary's original question, I think the answer is best explained in Chapter 3 - Pastoral Perspective on Divorce and Remarriage under Section III. DISCIPLINE AS IT PERTAINS TO COUPLES CONSIDERING DIVORCE. There you will find that there is clear direction for the pastor, the elders, and the deacons of the church. All must be involved to some extent, and all are given opportunity to remedy the situation in accordance with God's word. Which by the way, SPEP, my church has neglected to do. They have instead decided to promote the break up of my family by instructing my wife that it is not sin for her to live apart from me after holding a “Kangaroo Court”. Something that the Position Paper which was approved by the PCA General Assembly instructs church's not to do. When I ask TE Parkinson about this Positional Paper about almost a year ago. He informed me that he is not bound by it. I found his remark quite remarkable since it was approved to be the PCA position on the matter.

However, in retrospect, since TE Parkinson does not seems to be bound by the PCA's Confession of Faith, which he gave oath was his own confession when he was ordained now makes since that he is not bound in any way by PCA Positional Papers on any matter.

 

May The King Reign In All You Do!!!

 

 

-Michael A. McNeil

Michael McNeil Instructs His Lawyer to File Contempt Motion Against Sarah McNeil, and he also Files An Emergency Motion Asking for Immediate Access for His Daughter

October 27, 2009 – Ellicott City, MD - Michael McNeil File Two Motions with Howard County Circuity Court in order that his daughter might be able to see him.

For three consecutive Sundays now, Michael McNeil has pulled up to the curb of the Wecker Residence (Home of Dan & Donna Wecker where Sarah McNeil and the two McNeil have been living since May 16, 2008). On each Sunday for three weeks, Michael McNeil has been disappointed in Sarah McNeil's refusal to allow his daughter to visit with her father as the Howard County Court has ordered.

It should be noted, that Sarah McNeil's refusal seems to be part of her continued retaliation against Michael McNeil for wrongs that she “feels” that she has suffered.

It seems that Sarah's McNeil attacks have been going on for several years now which on May 16, 2008 she finally retaliated against Michael McNeil's unwillingness to obey her by deserting the marriage and running off with the two McNeil children to her brother-in-law, Dan Wecker's house in Elkridge, Maryland.

Since that time, Sarah McNeil has convinced the Elders of the couples church to put Michael McNeil on trial for his allege “long term, selfish, abusive, and controlling behavior”. Whereas the couple's elders found Michael McNeil guilty of said charge, and gave there verdict to Sarah McNeil on November 13, 2008, seven (7) days prior to Michael McNeil was to be given the verdict.

She then on November 13, 2008 signed a complaint for divorce. It seems that by doing this, her plan might have been to have Michael McNeil served with divorce papers before he actually received the verdict from his church.

However, do for various reasons, it appears that Sarah McNeil's Process Server had great difficulties in serving Michael McNeil with the divorce papers.

And on January 1, 2009 Sarah McNeil in a fit of rage and frustration assaulted Michael McNeil when he was attempting to visit his children.

After she assaulted him, she called the police, and then obtained a Domestic Violence Protection order against Michael McNeil.

Michael McNeil was then to appear before Howard County Circuit Court on January 13, 2009 whereas Sarah McNeil lawyer served him with the divorce papers in court.

The court at that time decide not to hear the Domestic Violence issues, and is fact NEVER heard the issues thus far, but decide to refer the whole matter to a Master for a PL hearing. (Note, according to Michael McNeil's lawyer, Maryland Law does not allow a Master to sit in judgment of a Domestic Violence Case, therefore technically the Domestic Violence Protection Order ended on January 13, 2009, and the matter is more than likely over.)

After, the hearing, Michael McNeil hired a lawyer, who immediately filed for an Emergency Access Motion so that Michael McNeil's children would be allowed to see him.

In the interim before an Emergency PL hearing, Sarah & Michael McNeil agreed that prior to the Emergency PL hearing that visitation would occur every Sunday from 9am to 5pm.

Unfortunately during the PL hearing, the Master decided that the agreement which was only meant to be a stop gap in order to avoid extensive litigation was appropriate and agreeable to both parties, and that visitation would continue in this manner.

Michael McNeil has continued to contend, that the original agreement was only meant to last a few weeks, not months. But do to Sarah McNeil's unsubstantiated accusations against Michael McNeil, Sarah McNeil asked for the court to limit visitation, and that is exactly what she got.

Additionally, Sarah McNeil in the PL hearing receive an order for Michael McNeil to pay over four thousand dollars a month, and made him responsible for him to continue paying all the family bills. This order has caused Michael McNeil to be in contempt twice do to the amount order far surpass his earnings capabilities.

Therefore, on the first contempt, Michael McNeil was forced to liquidate the whole of his brokerage saving account to pay Sarah McNeil over 20K.

On he second contempt, Michale McNeil was force to go into his retirement account and withdraw a large sum of money to purge the second contempt order which was done in October 2009.

On both contempt orders, Michael McNeil was facing imprisonment until he paid the full amounts ordered.

On October 2, 2009 Sarah McNeil amended her divorce complaint from asking only for a limited divorce to now asking for an absolute divorce.

Then on October 3, 2009, Sarah McNeil assaulted Michael McNeil by trying to force her way into Michael McNeil's residence. Michael McNeil thinking that Sarah McNeil was trying to be alone with him so that she could accuse of raping her, did all he could to prevent her from accessing the home so that she might be alone with him to enable to make such a charge.

During this time Sarah shoved Michael McNeil. The police were called, but this time as soon as the police left Michael McNeil went and filed a Domestic Complaint and obtain a protection order.

This order was served at around 9pm that evening.

Then Sarah McNeil filed for a protection at 1am on October 4, 2009. Michael McNeil was served this order at 2am on October 4, 2009.

At around 8am on October 4, 2009, Michael McNeil called the police to ask them to assist with child visitation. The police arrived at the Wecker house and child visitation occurred.

Also, prior to drop off time, Michael McNeil called the police again so that they could assist with the return of the McNeil children. This was done so that Michael McNeil would not be in violation of the protection order, and that he would still be able to see his children.

On October 5, 2009 the McNeil's are heard in front of a Howard County District Judge. The judge dismisses both cases. Sarah McNeil becomes emotional, ask ask the bailiff to escort her to her car.

And now starting on October 11, 2009 Sarah McNeil has continued to refuse to allow Michael McNeil's daughter to see him, which has forced Michael McNeil to make his file his motions to the court asking that the current ordered be enforced.

Now that Michael McNeil has made two motions in order to force Sarah to allow his daughter to see him, Michael McNeil stand by to see what Sarah McNeil's next move is.

Arise O Sleeper

But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.

-Ephesians 5:13-16

 

Dear SPEP Church Family:

By now, or very soon you will be receiving a letter from Pastor Parkinson which I have attached (This letter was sent to me in advacne via email.  I do not have the signed version as of yet.). I have no problems with him sending this letter, in fact I wished that he would have sent something like it back in November 2008. It is unfortunate that this was not done. Meaning our church leadership has kept the congregation in the dark on matters which every member of SPEP should be aware of.

You may say, why do I say these things? What have I been kept in the dark about?

On or prior to November 13, 2008, our Session at SPEP contacted Sarah McNeil my wife and informed her that it was not sin for her to live apart from me. This was not the first time that the Session had told her this.

She then on November 13, 2008 signed and filed a complaint at Howard County Circuit Court for a “limited divorce” (please note, scripturally you are single, divorced, or married. There is no divorce purgatory called “limited divorce”.)

Note, this action on November 13, 2008 by the Session at SPEP was part of another action against me where SPEP held a multi week trial in such a matter that was contrary to our church's constitution and scripture whereas the prosecutor also sat as a judge, hear say evidence was admitted as evidence, the judges had already predetermine guilt, and the judges had already judged my heart prior to trial. And these are just the irregularities that the Session at SPEP openly admit to as part of a defense in their brief against my appeal from their judgment. As elude to, and as many of you may have already known, I have appealed their judgment to Chesapeake Presbytery (CP).

Now, one thing that Pastor Glenn is not telling you is that I was not given the verdict of this multi week trial until November 20, 2009. In his letter, he eludes to that our Session and Presbytery are handling these matters appropriately. But the fact that the Session rushed to inform their verdict to someone who was not even a party to the trial the verdict, indicates that these men acted against me in a vindictive and deceitful manner.

I'm not asking you to judge these mens hearts. Only their actions. Ask yourself, was it right of them to tell Sarah McNeil the verdict of a trial that was meant to benefit me before I got a chance to hear it for myself? Was it right for the Session to enabled Sarah McNeil to carry out a surprise attack against me in civil court based on their verdict?

Soon after receiving the verdict, by an act of providence, I learned that Sarah McNeil had filed for divorce, and informed the Session at SPEP. They in turn acted surprised, and told me that they had no idea that she was planning on doing such as thing?

Then, soon after I filed a complaint against Sarah McNeil for desertion and filing a civil action against me contrary to Corinthians 6 where believers are instructed to not to a fellow believer to court. As many of you may know by now, the Session of SPEP ruled against me twice on this issue, and refused to hold Sarah McNeil accountable for her sins. Or for that matter to even hear the matter at a trial.

Afterwards, I filed complaint against the Session at Presbytery for allowing sin to rule in the congregation for not finding a “Strong Presumption of Guilt” against Sarah McNeil for her sins. Please note, finding a “Strong Presumption of Guilt” does not mean that she is guilty. In our church form of government it equates to a civil indictment. Also, when being judged, the person is still presumed innocent until guilt is proven. This is something that the Session at SPEP has continually failed to understand. But this is something that they have apparently learned from CP.

Unfortunately, our Presbytery is currently a body of men that do not understand how to rule our church well.

How can I say this?

Even prior to my issues with the church, our presbytery was and is currently struggling with another case where they failed to follow our church's constitution on how they judged another family and a church. At the last meeting in September, there were motions on erasing the minutes from previous stated meetings of acts that presbytery committed so that they would not be open to civil litigation.

One must ask, do men of integrity need to go back into their historical documents and erase their ungodly acts? Or do they admit to these sins, make amends, and move forward? Unfortunately, the men of our presbytery are ones who seek to cover up their sins secretly instead of repenting and making amends.

Back to my case. I have complained to presbytery, about this SPEP's judgment. Presbytery basically stated since I was under admonition (which I am not since I appealed the ruling of SPEP), that SPEP was correct in what they have done. Therefore, their ruling meant that Sarah McNeil is free to desert me because I am under admonition. It does not matter that there has not even been a charge of adultery or willful desertion on my part. What matter to them was that I didn't accept SPEP's ruling, and therefor Sarah McNeil was free to file for divorce.

Since then, I have filed an additional complaint to the General Assembly about this matter.

I could go on and on about the other complaints, and the various things that SPEP and CP have done to avoid judging these matters properly. Also, I could tell you how CP had deliberately made false statements to the General Assembly about this matter, and from another case not related to mine that this seems to be a habit of CP.

But instead, please read the contents of my web site. Do as Pastor Parkinson ask you and ask about these matters to him and other elders of SPEP.  But do not stop there. Ask me also about these matters. Do not just get one side of the story. Get both sides. Compare our words with each other.

Now that you have been awaken to these matters, do not be lulled back into a slumber trusting your church leaders to take care of the matter properly. See to it that they do take care of the matter properly. Hold them accountable, for surly as the Lord lives, He will hold you accountable if these sinful acts continues and you say nothing and simply fall back to sleep.

 

Arise O Sleeper!!

Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

 

 

-Michael McNeil

Chesapeake Presbytery Elders Chasing Their Own Tail

 

 

Ellicott City, MD. October 17, 2009 – Chesapeake Pres Elders Chasing Their Own Tail

On October 16, 2009 Michael McNeil the man who filed a complaint of heresy against Pastor Glenn Parksion was informed by CP what the scope of the Commission to investigate Pastor Glenn Parkinson's alleged heresy was going to be. Apparently according to the Moderator of the Commission, the Commission is to investigate whether or not the Credentials Committee (CC) made an error in not find a “strong presumption of guilt” against Pastor Glenn Parkinson the Senior Pastor of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP).

McNeil states this is just another example of CP not dealing with the matter. It seems to him, if they believe Pastor Parkinson to be innocent of the matter, then they would just have a trial and be done with it. And if he is innocent, then I should be put on trial for falsely accusing him of teaching heretical teachings. However, as it stands, CP is now investigating the investigators, and realistically is just chasing its own tail.

McNeil filed yet another complaint against CP's ruling. It should be noted that CP informed the General Assembly in a early letter to them whereas they informed the GA that they would have a report on this matter as of September 19, 2009. September 19, 2009 came, and there was no report.

Stated Clerk of Chesapeake Presbytery Willfully Refuses To Follow PCA Church Constitution

October 14, 2009 – Ellicott City, MD - Stated Clerk of Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) Willfully Refuses To Follow PCA Church Constitution

On October 8, 2009, Michael McNeil forward a Notice of Complaint to complain about CP's judgment whereas CP ruled that his wife could divorce him for reason other than willful desertion and/or adultery. It should be note that they did not explicitly state that, but McNeil's complaint was for just that and her violation of Corinthians 6 where she was taking a brother to law.

Mr. David O'Steen the Stated Clerk of CP, implied in an email earlier this morning that he was not going to forward the Record of The Case (ROC) until the Stated of Clerk of the General Assembly (GA) requested it.

It should be noted that this is not the first time that O'Steen has refused to forward the ROC to the GA in violation of the Book of Church Order BCO 43-6.  He has done it for three other cases with the support of the Stated Clerk of the GA.

BCO 43-6. It shall be the duty of the clerk of the lower court to file with the clerk of the higher court, not more than thirty (30) days after receipt of notice of complaint, a copy of all its proceedings in connection with the complaint including the notice of complaint and supporting reasons, the response of the lower court, if any, and any papers bearing on the complaint. If the clerk of the lower court shall neglect to send up the proceedings on the complaint, he shall receive a proper rebuke from the higher court, and the act or decision complained against shall be suspended until the proceedings are produced so that the higher court can fairly consider the complaint.

By the acts of the Stated Clerks of both the GA and CP, with their refusal to act in accordance with the PCA constitution, is it any wonder why McNeil has stated that he under went a Kangaroo Trial in one of the PCA lower courts? Unfortunately these Kangaroo Court rules seem to be part of the CP Court as well, and perhaps even extends to the GA Court itself.

Unfortunately, the PCA is in a sad state of affairs when such men our allowed to hold office in the church. They clearly bring shame upon the church, and one wonders how long these men will continue to remain in office deny members of the PCA their rights as members of the PCA to a fair process that all members of the PCA agreed to when they took membership vows.