Answering the Chesapeake Presbytery's (CP)

Judicial Commission's Report Referencing

My Complaint Against Severna Park Evangelical

Presbyterianism Church (SPEP)

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

On November 29, 2008 Michael McNeil made a complaint to the Session at SPEP about Sarah McNeil filing for divorce for unjust reasons and for various other actions she has done. Since, them multiple complaints have been filed with the church, and now the issue is before the Presbyterian Church in America's (PCA) General Assembly (GA), and is being adjudicated by a panel of the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC).

What follows here after is a work in progress as to Michael McNeil's response to the CP Judicial Commission Report, which was ratified on September 19, 2009 by member of CP. Again, please realize that this is a work in progress and is not complete, therefor it is recommended to the reader to withhold their judgment until the author has stated that he is done with his response. This information is provide so that the church will be made aware of the directions that the CP gone, and as a fulfillment of my duty to God and his people so that the Church may be edified and be made pure.

Summary of the Facts:

Is Michael McNeil under church discipline?

According to the ratified CP's Commission report, the main reason why SPEP did not have to really consider Michael McNeil's complaint was that they considered him to be under discipline, and therefore they did not error in denying his complaints. However, though in this report states that Michael McNeil is under discipline, CP has reversed it's position, and even SPEP itself has reversed it's position stating that Michael McNeil is not under discipline. However, in the end results, it matters what CP and SPEP do, not what they say. They have continued to treat Michael McNeil as being under discipline even though they state that he isn't.

From CP's Report:

Sarah P. McNeil, member in good standing at Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church, and wife of Michael A. McNeil, Complainant, who is also a member of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church and under discipline, filed a “COMPLAINT FOR LIMITED DIVORCE” with the civil court on November 13, 2008. On this same day, the Session of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (PCA), Respondent, found the Complainant guilty of ‘abusive, selfish, and controlling behavior against his wife and children’ at the end of a trial that lasted several months. The Complainant was inflicted with a censure of admonition, which was delivered to him at a meeting of the Respondent court on November 20, 2008. The judgment of the Respondent is currently under appeal with the Chesapeake Presbytery. The judgment and censure were in affect up until the appeal was filed with the presbytery on December 16, 2008.

Michael McNeil's Response:

Note, CP clearly states that Sarah McNeil is a member in good standing, while they state that Michael A. McNeil is under discipline, and was inflicted a censure. However, since then, Michael McNeil has complained to CP that he was not under discipline by the mere fact that he had appealed the matter, and according to the PCA constitution he was to be granted an automatic stay on such discipline until the matter has been heard by the next higher court.

“BCO 42-6. Notice of appeal shall have the effect of suspending the judgment of the lower court until the case has been finally decided in the higher court. However, the court of original jurisdiction may, for sufficient reasons duly recorded, prevent the appellant from approaching the Lord’s Table, and if an officer, prevent him from exercising some or all his official functions, until the case is finally decided (cf. BCO 31-10; 33-3). This shall never be done in the way of censure.”

Therefore, logic would have it, that since Michael McNeil filed an appeal, that he was still to be considered in good standing. However, CP has not accepted Michael McNeil's point of view, but has instead come up with their own reason why Michael McNeil is still in “good standing” and not under any kind of censure or admonition. And CP apologized to Michael McNeil at the last stated meeting.

However, Michael McNeil did not accept this apology, since CP had informed the GA and other that he was under discipline. The Moderator of CP stated that he would look into that issue, and see about remedying the issue if CP had indeed informed the GA of this. To this day, CP has not issued a formal apology, nor to Michael McNeil knowledge corrected their false statement to the GA, and they have failed to modify this report.

On December 15, 2009, CP held a called meeting to ratify the CP Judicial Commission's report concerning Michael McNeil's appeal form SPEP's judgment. The Commission's Report was indeed ratified according to the Stated Clerk of CP. Oddly enough, on the last page, second from the last paragraph CP declares that Michael McNeil is not under discipline, and states that member of the court were in error in making these statements. However, they don't state that member of the court were in error in treating Michael McNeil as being under discipline. Nor does the Judicial Commission apologize to Michael McNeil for treating him as being under discipline in regards to this very report. Note, in CP's declaration, they stated that the Censor of Admonition was inappropriate and improper for the circumstances and not available to SPEP to administered, according to BCO 30-1.

“BCO 30-1. The censures, which may be inflicted by church courts, are admonition, suspension from the Sacraments, excommunication, suspension from office, and deposition from office. The censures of admonition or definite suspension from office shall be administered to an accused who, upon conviction, satisfies the court as to his repentance and makes such restitution as is appropriate. Such censure concludes the judicial process. The censures of indefinite suspension or excommunication shall be administered to an accused who, upon conviction, remains impenitent.”

Therefore, the CP Commission remands the whole issue for discipline back to SPEP. Since it is obvious that Michael McNeil has never agreed to SPEP's ruling. By doing this, CP has given SPEP the opportunity to fix its mistakes, and perhaps suspend Michael McNeil from the sacraments, or excommunicate him altogether.

However, notice, CP never comments on BCO 42-6. In CP's view, once a court has found you guilty of something, that verdict stands and all discipline is to remain in affect, even if a timely appeal is put forward. And while your appeal is pending, you do not have the same rights as all other member of the church, and if you complain to the GA about your appeal taking too long, they will simply send a note to the GA stating that you are under discipline and to not to listen to you. See CP's Letter to the GA on August 8, 2009, paragraph 2b. Also, note, that CP in their efforts to prevent their unconstitutional practices from getting out, willfully misinformed the GA as to the status of the complaints, pretending that they are adjudicating the matter in accordance with the BCO, and that they are hearing the matter in a timely matter. I guess CP believes that taking almost a year to hear a matter is to be considered timely.

Did the SPEP know that Sarah McNeil had planned to file for divorce?

From CP's Report:

On November 22, 2008 the Complainant informed TE Glenn Parkinson that Sarah P. McNeil had indeed filed a complaint against the Complainant in Howard County Circuit Court. The Complainant gave to the Respondent the docketing information that he found on the county court's web site as evidence. TE Parkinson, in turn, informed other members of the Respondent.

On November 24, 2008 TE Glenn Parkinson sent an email to the Complainant stating that “Sarah's action was not planned with the Session, and [that the Session] did not know about it.”

Michael McNeil's Response:

Notice how the commission specifically stated in brackets that the Session did not know about the fact Sarah was filing for a divorce. This would seem to imply that there were members of the Session that did know about it, but for some reason chose to not share with the rest of the SPEP Session. In any event, the facts speak for themselves. SPEP came to a guilty verdict on November 13, 2009, as stated in the trial minutes and and they freely admitted to that during the hearing. Also, according to the trial minutes, the decided to inform her of the verdict. Also, it is well known that she had been working closely with two elders' wives, Mrs. Wilford, and Mrs. Wolfe. Mrs. Wilford is a lawyer, and has been giving Sarah McNeil legal advice through out her the whole situation. Mrs. Wolfe was the women's church councilor, who has spoken about a dislike for Michael McNeil. It is clear that though the whole SPEP Session may have not known all the detail, it is however equally clear that some did. And SPEP and CP are simply playing parliamentary tricks to avoid responsibility and accountability.

Meeting Agreed to on December 11, 2008. Mrs. McNeil requires that her lawyer be present for a councilman session with the church?

From CP's Report:

On December 11, 2008 TE Glenn Parkinson contacted the Complainant and Sarah McNeil individually, requesting that they meet with the established Commission, for the expressed purpose of working toward reconciliation. TE Glenn Parkinson subsequently sent an email to both the Complainant and Mrs. McNeil, reiterating the same request. Both the Complainant and Mrs. McNeil agreed to such a meeting.

On the evening of December 11, 2008 the Complainant, Sarah McNeil, Elaine Wilford, RE Mark Good, RE Dave Reed, and TE Glenn Parkinson met at the SPEP Ministry Center. There was a brief discussion about Elaine Wilford’s presence and the issue of confidentiality. Following this discussion, the Complainant objected to Mrs. Wilford’s presence in the meeting. It was decided that the Commission would meet with the Complainant and Mrs. McNeil separately, with Mrs. Wilford present for the discussion with Mrs. McNeil.

Michael McNeil's Response:

It was quite evident from the begging that SPEP was in full support of the divorce. If they were not so, then why did they themselves not object to Sarah McNeil's demand that her attorney be present? After all, this meeting was supposed to be an ecclesiastical matter, and the PCA church demonstrates that lawyers should not be part of ecclesiastical matter, for BCO 32-19 clearly prohibits the use of lawyers in cases of process. One would think that this principle of not having lawyers be involved with church discipline would also hold true for trying to reconcile a marriage.

BCO 32-19. No professional counsel shall be permitted as such to appear and plead in cases of process in any court; but an accused person may, if he desires it, be represented before the Session by any communing member of the same particular church, or before any other court, by any member of that court. A member of the court so employed shall not be allowed to sit in judgment in the case.

The Agreement or Lack Thereof

From CP's Report:

During the separately held meetings, Mrs. McNeil and Mrs. Wilford met with the Commission first. The Commission proposed a draft copy of an agreement that could be used to assist the Complainant and Mrs. McNeil in moving toward reconciliation. The Complainant agreed to try to work with the agreement, on condition that Mrs. McNeil withdraws her Complaint for Limited Divorce. Mrs. McNeil expressed willingness to withdraw her Complaint for Limited Divorce upon condition that the Complainant commits to the Agreement. The result was that neither party committed to the proposed Agreement.

Michael McNeil's Response:

This supposed agreement that that the commission put forward was just a simple outline with no meaning that could be widely interpreted. It had no meaning nor force, but would leave Michael McNeil open and would have been the source of even more disputes. In short, it was a farce attempt by elder of SPEP. Michael McNeil stressed that if the agreement didn't include the withdraw of the divorce complaint, that it would only have an overall negative affect. For if the agreement was meant to bring about reconciliation, the first thing that needed to stop was the attacks Sarah McNeil was making against him in civil court. Sarah McNeil had not intention on stopping her attacks, but instead was using the church to assist her in her law suite. It should be noted, that Sarah McNeil has continuously tried to get the transcripts of the ecclesiastical trial into the civil court arena. Michael McNeil was force to get a protection order from the church having to release these documents. It is clear, that Sarah McNeil from day one has been using the PCA ecclesiastical courts in order to obtain a better divorce settlement, and it is equally clear that various elders and their wives are in league with her to do this thing. And it is equally clear, that other elders of CP have also aligned themselves with Sarah McNeil.

Statement of Issues

From CP's Report

The following issues that must be adjudicated are before the Commission:

1. Did the Respondent err in not considering any presumption of guilt regarding the charges alleged by the Complainant on November 29, 2008 against Sarah P. McNeil, until the Complainant’s judicial appeal regarding his church censure had been settled in the higher ecclesiastical courts (per letter from SPEP Session to Complainant‐1/19/2009)?

    

2. Did the above alleged delinquency, if held to be true, promote sin to rule in the congregation of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church?

    

3. Is the allegation that Sarah P. McNeil attacked the Complainant on January 1, 2009 properly before this Judicial Commission?

Michael McNeil's Response

Notice how CP's Commission dodges the real issues at hand? They are ignoring the plain facts that Sarah McNeil has deserted her marriage to Michael McNeil and has filed for a divorce. In the eyes of CP, if a person is not in good standing, and if that person comes to church and if a another member should take a bat to that person's car and destroy it, and then afterwards if that person should complain to the church about that member, CP will refused to hear charges from the owner of the car. They only listen to members in good standing.

So if you are a member of a church that is part of this presbytery, and they should find something about you, bring you up on charges, it is better to keep away from these churches. For any member of these churches can come up to you, and beat you, and do all sorts of terrible things to you, and elders in these churches will not lift one finger to help you. This is how they think, this is where their believe in God leads them.

One must ask, how are the courts of CP more righteous than the civil courts? Corinthians 6 instructs the believer not to take a matter to the civil courts but to the church to be adjudicated. Since the least of those in the church should are far better to settle matters between believers. However, these elders of CP have demonstrated that their judgments concerning this matter is far cry less righteous than any civil court could ever be. At least the civil court in the US would have said that the complaint against desertion is to be heard, and not to be dismissed outright because of any standing the the Plaintiff might have. And they wouldn't have dismissed the assault charge unless there was lack of evidence. But that would have been something for a trial to decide.

More to Follow At a Later Date

Weird Al often times just says it how it really is.  Women that seek alimony for extended periods of time or for life are just plain greedy.

This song really speaks to me.

Should Alimony Be An Entitlement?

Men every day are being stuck with paying alimony after being married to a women who simply just chooses to get up and leave.

Now, I'm not questioning her right to leave. However, I do question her right to receive alimony just because she chose to desert the marriage.

After all, is she not an adult? She came into he marriage knowing what it was, and chose to remain in that marriage knowing what it was.

However, just because she is a women, she feels that she is entitled to alimony because she had to put up with a husband for several years.

Again, I don't have a problem with a woman getting up and leaving a marriage, and her getting her rightful share of he marital assets. However, I don't think just because she was married to a guy that she has a claim on his future income that he earns by the sweat of his own brow. After all, what created this kind of debt? Was it just because she had sex with him for those years? I think these women need to seriously think about what they are doing. For I think that an ex-wife that demands alimony payments needs to justify those payments, other than she just wants to be lazy, while some poor fool is now enslaved to her.

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.

Attachments:

BIA Motion for Interim Attorneys Fees.pdf	[ ]	658 Kb
Defendants Response to BIA Motion for Attorneys Fees.pdf	[ ]	134 Kb
Plaintiffs Response to BIA Motion for Attorneys Fees.pdf	[ ]	136 Kb

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.

Attachments:

McNeil-SPEP cmsn rpt 4 Dec 09.pdf	[ ]	385 Kb
New Years Day Appeal from CPs Judgement on December 15, 2009.pdf	[ ]	384 Kb

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?"

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.

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

Attachments:

Congregational Letter 10-20-2009.pdf

[ ]

74 Kb

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.

You Don't Love God If You Don't Love Your Neighbor

Who is your neighbor?

My Response To A Letter From A Chesapeake Presbytery (CP) Pastor, Who Didn't Want Me to Ask For Help From Members of His Church.

Pastor {REDACTED}:

Greetings. Thank you for replying to my email. I've read your email several times, prayed about it and consulted with others. And have formulated the following response:

Who is your neighbor?

In your email, you made mention several times that because I am not a member of {REDACTED}, that I do no have the right cry out to {REDACTED}members through emails informing them of my plight.

Some how I find your argument extremely flawed, for did not Christ teach us “to love our neighbors as ourselves.” And when it was asked of Christ, who is my neighbor? Christ told the parable of the good Samaritan, demonstrating that every person that we come across is our neighbor and that we are obligated to love them.

However, when I read your email, it seems to me that you are stating that members of{REDACTED}are to consider one another as each others neighbors. Additionally, when I read your request that I should not even call out to the members of the {REDACTED} community for aid and assistance, it seems that your are doing far worse that the Priest or the Levite in Christ's parable. For you have instructed me not to call out so that other might see my distress and come to my aid. Therefore, if I were to put you in the story, you would have found the hurt man in his condition, drug him behind a bush, and then put a gag in his mouth so that no one could come to his aid.

I pray that you will reconsider your words. And know that I have considered mine. I say these things not to anger you, but so that you may see your duty as a believer in Christ.

As to your vows and mine?

You state very clearly that you have vows to your particular church, and that I have not convenient with your particular church. Some how I do see the lack of vows between us eliminates our duty to one another.

I Won't Back Down

(Please, let us just ignore the utters on the bull)

"A strong man stands up for himself a stronger man stands up for others."

— Ben Cow,Barnyard

Many of my critics have claimed that I have slandered my pastor and my wife. This could be farthest from the truth. The fact is that that what I speak is the truth and no one wants to hear the truth, because they can not handle the truth. Meaning, as to my complaints against my wife and pastor, I have complained to both court of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP) and Chesapeake Presbytery (CP). Both of these courts declined to have a trial on the matter, nor did they decide not to charge me with sin of being an accuser of the brethren for making false statements. Nor has SPEP and CP given me the opportunity to prove or disprove my charges even though they have warned me that if I fail to show probable cause that I could myself be censured, in accordance with our church's constitution.

BCO 31-9. Every voluntary prosecutor shall be previously warned, that if he fail to show probable cause of the charges, he may himself be censured as a slanderer of the brethren.