APPEAL FROM THE SESSION AT SEVERNA PARK EVANGELICAL

Morphing of The Briefs

THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN AMERICA (PCA)

SPEP PCA Prosecutor-Appellee

VS

MICHAEL A. MCNEIL

 

What follows here is a morphing of the Appellant's Brief and the Respondent's Brief. The purpose of the morphing of the briefs is not to tell you which side is right or wrong. The answer to these questions are up to you to decide on which God has taught you from His word. The questions you must answer for yourself are:

• 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?
  

Again, these are things for you to determine. If you are a Christian, take out God's word and study these briefs as they are. Use God's divine measurement stick, and measure both parites word. You don't have to rely on clergy to instruct you which is right or wrong. All Christian have been given the Holy Spirit, and have ready access to the word of God. Study this matter in light of God's word and make a determination for yourself, and then act accordingly.

What follows now is the morphed briefs. Michael McNeil's brief is in BLUE. SPEP's Portion is in RED. Now the rest is up to you.

COMES NOW Michael A. McNeil, the Appellant, a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ, a member of Christ's Church, and a member of the Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian (PCA), comes before Chesapeake Presbytery to hear his appeal of the judgments made by the Session at Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian (PCA) after a long trial, rendered to him on November 20, 2008 making a finding that “as long as Sarah fears for her own welfare and the welfare of her children, she is not wrong to live apart” and finding the appellant guilty of “longtime abusive, controlling and selfish behavior” and given the following admonishments:

• Take to heart the immense love God has for you, demonstrated in Jesus. Make it your goal to allow yourself to be embraced by his grace. Read, pray, seek teaching. Let the pastors suggest a path. Do whatever it takes to be convinced that God loves you even as you are, has cleansed you from every sin, and desires to bring you comfort down deep where no one else can reach.

• Seek focused, experienced counseling to address your heart, broken by the loss of two sons and any other traumas that have afflicted you in the past.

• Stay in fellowship. We hope that SPEP will remain your church home, and that we can encourage you and support you in this journey.

• Make it your goal to win back the trust and affection of your alienated bride. Use your position of headship to cultivate a partnership with her that communicates love and respect. Adjust your behavior to help her feel secure and unthreatened in your presence. Be patient. Use the best resources you can find to work with Sarah to rebuild your marriage.

in the appeal of Michael McNeil to SPEP Session discipline of November 20, 2008

Summary of the Facts

For several years, the Session of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church (SPEP) provided counsel and encouragement to members Michael and Sarah McNeil regarding significant marital disharmony. After formal attempts at Peacemaking failed, and after investigation of complaints made by both parties, the Session found itself compelled to pursue disciplinary action against Mr. McNeil. The issues of conflict in their home were many and varied, with each party sharing responsibility. But in our view, the specified charges focused on behaviors which, if present, most contributed to instability in the home. The trial evidence bore out the charges against Mr. McNeil regarding his behavior toward his wife and his children. We issued a gentle and restorative admonition in hopes that a humble and submissive response would nurture healing in the marriage. Mr. McNeil has rejected our admonition and appealed the case to Presbytery.

 

Summary of the Proceedings

9/11/08 Hearing: Mac pleaded “not guilty,” and made several challenges and objections                  3 hours

10/2/08 Trial: prosecution witnesses examined and cross examined                                                 2 hours

10/9/08 Trial: prosecution witnesses examined and cross examined                                                 3 hours

10/23/08 Trial: defense witnesses examined and cross examined                                                     2½ hours

10/30/08 Trial: defense witnesses examined and cross examined, closing statements                     3½ hours

11/13/08 Trial: deliberations and verdict                                                                                            1 hour

11/20/08 Trial: accused found guilty and formally admonished                                                         1½ hours

 

1.  Grounds for the Appeal

In accordance with BCO 42-3¹ Appellant submits to the Presbytery that there were gross irregularity in the proceedings of the lower court, there was a refusal of reasonable indulgence to the party on trial; and that the the Session did receive improper evidence, that there was a manifestation of prejudice in the case, which all these factors led to a injustice of judgment.

Proposed Statement of the Issues

Mr. McNeil accuses the SPEP Session of gross irregularities as specified in BCO 42-3.

• irregularities in the proceedings of the lower court

• refusal of reasonable indulgence to a party on trial

• receiving improper or declining to receive proper evidence

• hurrying to a decision before all the testimony is taken

• manifestation of prejudice in the case

• mistake or injustice in the judgment and censure

 

 

1.1  The Citation

SPEP charged Michael A. McNeil with “long-time abusive, selfish, and controlling behavior towards his wife and children.”

The Charge: The charge that SPEP had made is wide, open ended, and un-scriptural. In making this charge, SPEP has put themselves in the place of God, in that SPEP presume that they can judge Michael McNeil's heart. Only God can judge a man's heart. And by the language that SPEP used in their charge against Michael McNeil, the elders have indicated that they are going to judge Michael McNeil's motivations for his actions, and they are going to determine if such motivations constitute wither he is being selfish, controlling, or abusive. Also, in SPEP's charge, they did not site any scripture text or any PCA church constitutional reference that clearly defines what constitutes abusive, selfish, and controlling behavior. These terms are subjective inflammatory terms, describing motivations, and are open to a wide degree of interpretation. Therefore, these terms should have never been used as a charge of sin.

The Specifications: The specification except for one does not constitute sin. Meaning no where is scripture is it indicated that a father can not send his daughter to sit outside the house for inappropriate behavior in order for her to gain self control over her actions. Nor, is it sin for a man to expect that his wife be willing to meet his physical sexual needs and to become upset with his wife for showing a clear an persistent pattern of denying him. Nor is it sin for a man to avoid his wife within the home , in order to avoid having to suffer her constant nagging and bickering with him. And finally it is not sin for a man who's wife has left him/divorce him for several months to instruct her to give an accounting of his money that she is spending, non of which did she actually earn, and to impose limits on such spending. These acts in of themselves are not sinful, nor can the elders of SPEP legitimately charge Michael McNeil with sin on these matters. However, prior to trial, Michael McNeil did freely admit that he has been harsh when he out not to, and that he clearly lost control of his tongue with respect to the words spoken to his son, after his son violently assaulted him. Of which he apologized to his son for.

The Witnesses: The list of “witnesses” are no witnesses at all, except one, and the one being Sarah McNeil. This fact became clear during trial that these “witnesses” could not testify to anything in the specifications except that which Sarah McNeil had told them. And since these “witnesses” could not possibly collaborate each other testimony, the King's law informs us that the court can not accept this testimony.² And as this court will find out later on in this brief, none of the specifications can be proved with two witnesses or strong collaborating evidences other than Sarah McNeil making statements against Michael McNeil to others. Also, from Janice Holt's testimony, she testified that she hasn't even seen or spoken to Michael McNeil since 2004. All the specifications occurred after 2006.

Therefore, from the citation alone, the elders of SPEP clearly demonstrated a misunderstanding of the BCO and what the King's law requires in order to charge someone with sin. By this citation, they demonstrate a bias against Michael McNeil that which became more evident as the trial proceeded. The Citation also demonstrates that the elders of SPEP were not going to follow the PCA church constitution, for they charged Michael McNeil of sin that which is not sin, and they didn't have two witnesses to collaborate even that which they charged him of.

 

1.2  SPEP Elders Indicate That There Intention Is To Deal With The Heart

“The elders expressed concern that the court needed to deal with the heart condition of the accused and not allow the court to be drawn into a legalistic argument and thus loose sight of the charges as presented. ” - September 11, 2009 Trial Minutes Lines 281-283

The above quote taken from the minutes clearly indicates that the elders of SPEP were less concerned about following the provisions of our church's constitution, and were more concerned about dealing with Michael McNeil's “heart condition”. The elders by making this statement demonstrated that they have already came to a conclusion on the matter. Therefore, the purpose of the trial was not to determine whether or not Michael McNeil was guilty of any sin, for they had already concluded on that matter. Thus the trial was already unconstitutional, since the reason for the trial was not to determine guilt or innocents, but was to deal with Michael McNeil's “heart condition”.

Additionally, one must ask how did the elders of SPEP come to this ruling on Michael McNeil's “heart condition”? Did someone come to the elders and inform them of Michael McNeil's “heart condition”? Or did they come to this judgment on their own, before even hearing Michael McNeil?

If they did come to this judgment on their own, one must ask, Who are the elders of SPEP that they believe that they can judge another man's servant? God alone can judge the heart. How did the elders of SPEP make this determination? Also, by what authority did the elders of SPEP make such a judgment? By judging Michael McNeil in that matter, the elders of SPEP have overstepped their authority.³ Only God Himself has the ability and the right to judge a man's heart. The elders of SPEP have clearly sinned against God by doing this.

Again, by the elder of SPEP stating clearly that they have already come to some kind of judgment to the state of Michael McNeil's heart, this statement alone indicates that even before trial, the elders of SPEP had already made a determination that Michael McNeil was indeed guilty. Therefore, the purpose of the trial was not to convict or acquit Michael McNeil of any wrong doing or sin, but to deal with his “heart condition”. Since the elders of SPEP had already determined that Michael McNeil had a “heart condition”, which can only mean that he was guilt of committing the sins that they specified in the citation. It is clear from their own words, that SPEP elders were holding a “Kangaroo Trial”, were the outcome had already been predetermined.

 

With regard to manifestation of prejudice in the case:

The Appellant complains that the court attempted to judge his heart. But the Lord Jesus has entrusted the keys of his kingdom to his church. It is precisely the job of church courts to judge the heart and the faith of its members, based upon observable behavior. The Appellant complains that the court had already found him guilty before the trial began. But in church courts, no trial may be commenced unless a prior investigation convinces the court of “a strong presumption of guilt” (BCO 31-2). It would have been inappropriate to institute process unless the Session was, indeed, predisposed to believe the charges. This would be true for all Session members, including the one Ruling Elder the Appellant highlights whose wife served professionally as Women’s Counselor.

The Session did not pre-judge the case, however. The prosecutor and the Appellant had every opportunity to demonstrate whether the evidence  resented against Mr. McNeil was factual, and if so, whether it demonstrated a pattern. The Session made its decision that the Appellant’s behavior was abusive, controlling and selfish only after deliberating the evidence and arguments presented.

1.1.1 Challenge to Prosecutor Setting in Judgment

September 11, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 115-156

After the Appellant became aware that the Prosecutor, TE Brian LoPiccolo would be setting in judgment of the Appellant. The Appellant made a formal Challenged for Cause of the Prosecutor setting in judgment of him in accordance with BCO 32-16 ⁴. Additionally the Appellant argued from basic reason and common sense that a prosecutor can not prosecute a case and at the same time be able to set as the judge. The Prosecutor stated that he could. The session ruled in this matter that the Prosecutor would set in the seat of judgment.

The Session clearly was in error in this ruling in that the ruling was in clear violation of BCO 32-14 ^{5 6 7}. The Session failed to understand that the Prosecutor, representing the church, is a party to the trial and that being a party he was not to partake in any deliberations concerning this case. Which as a judge he would be required too, and in fact he did as the transcript bares out.

Again, the Appellant tried to reason with the Session in stating that allowing Prosecutor to have conversations about the trial with other Elders without the presence of the accused is a clear violation of “ex parte” concept which allows for a fair trial or hearing. Even though this concept makes clear common sense that a judge should not hear a case unless both parties are present, the Moderator states that this concept dose not apply to Church Trials. The Moderator was clearly in error, and in fact the BCO states the concept of “ex parte” very clearly outlined in the BCO 32-14.

By the moderator making this ruling, the elders of SPEP committed a unconstitutional act that by itself invalidated the whole trial. Surely the BCO is clear, that the Prosecutor, who is actively accusing the accused of sin, can also not set as judge. For the elders of SPEP to make the ruling that they made, shows an extreme bias against Michael McNeil, and that they have indeed already prejudged him on this matter.

 

The Appellant believes that having a member of the court serve as prosecutor automatically causes that man to be prejudiced on the court. But in church courts, the Session represents the Presbyterian Church in America as the accuser (BCO 31-3). The PCA does not believe that this automatically prejudices the court. In the prosecution of cases, BCO 31-2 specifically states that normally, “this prosecutor shall be a member of the court.” It should also be noted that, even though it was entirely proper for TE LoPiccolo to serve as prosecutor, out of deference for the feelings of the Appellant, he voluntarily recused himself from final deliberations and judgment.

1.1.2  Challenged of a Ruling Elder Who's Wife is Connected with the Case

September 11, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 158-174

The Appellant challenged the right of RE Dave Wolfe to set as judge based off two facts. One, his wife was being called as a wittiness for the Prosecution, and two it was well known that his wife has accused the Appellant of things in the past which make it difficult to believe that he had not already made conclusions on whether or not the accused was guilty.

The Prosecutor made no opposition to Michael McNeil's challenge, per the transcript. Therefore, the Moderator should have accommodated Michael McNeil on this Matter. Instead the Session was to discuss this matter later with the Prosecutor without Michael McNeil's presence, in a clear violation BCO 32-14, (September 11, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Line 567).

By the Session discussing this matter with the “other party”, and hearing his opposition without the Accused/Michael McNeil being present, the Session also demonstrated that they were indeed biased against Michael McNeil, and they demonstrate a lack of concern with following our church's constitution.

 

1.1.3  Overruling Appellants OBJECTION TO THE CALLING JANICE HOLT AS A WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION

September 11, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 314-324

The specified charges had to do with events that occurred between 2006 and 2008. Janice Holt had not seen or spoken to Michael McNeil since 2004. Therefore there was no possible way she could speak to any of the specifications since all the acts occurred after 2006. The trial transcript bared out this fact, see (October 2, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 859-1626). Thus, the Appellant objected.

The plain fact is, the Prosecutor if he wanted Janice Holt to testify, could have added on additional specifications to his original charge so as to allow the Appellant to be prepared for the additional accusation with little ease. But instead the Prosecution decided to use ambush tactics with the Session's approval, which he clearly did, see (October 2, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 859-1626).

This type of court room maneuvering was unwarranted, uncalled for, and unchristian. The Session's approval of these tactics was not in keeping with their high calling to set to set as judged and this was done in violation to BCO 32-13, ⁸ in that the questioned asked were not pertinent to the specifications. Trials are meant to determine if specifications are valid. Additionally, if in order to validate a charge of current sin, a witness that the accused has not even seen in four years, demonstrate that the Prosecutions case was week at best and that the charges probably should have never been brought.

The Prosecutor made no opposition to Michael McNeil's challenge, per the transcript. Therefore, the Moderator should have accommodated Michael McNeil on this Matter. Instead the Session was to discuss this matter with the Prosecutor without Michael McNeil's presence, in a clear violation BCO 32-14, (September 11, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Line 567).

Again, by the Session discussing this matter with the “other party”, and hearing his opposition without the Accused/Michael McNeil present, the Session showed against that they were indeed biased against Michael McNeil, and were unwilling to follow the requirements of our church's constitution.

The Appellant argues that the Session received hearsay testimony from witnesses, because some testimony concerned observed behaviors relevant to the charges, but outside of the specifications. However, in response to his objections raised at the initial hearing, Mr. McNeil was immediately informed that due to the nature of the charges, the specifications should be considered examples of the kind of behavior in view. Therefore, testimony about such behavior over time would be considered relevant. We also note that the testimony of one witness is acceptable when combined with other testimony and evidence, and this is especially helpful when the testimony concerns a person’s observed character. In any case, our published verdict and rationale focussed exclusively on behaviors acknowledged or implied by the Appellant’s own comments during the trial, making himself a second witness to the charges.

1.1.4  Overruling Appellant's Objections to he calling of Dan Wecker as a wittiness.

September 11, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 326-352

During the examination of Daniel Wecker, the above assertions that the Appellant made, were true. The wittiness did not give relevant testimony to the charges before the Session. His testimony was based off what the Appellant's wife and others had informed him of. And then he testified of his opinion. See Dan Wecker's testimony (October 2, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 1729-1993) and (October 9, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 177-1124). Much later in the trial, even the Monirator seemed to understand this fact, with his later ruling that he would no longer allow this to happen. But the Appellant contends that the jury had already been poisoned with this knowledge, making it impossible for him to get a fair trial.

Also, again the Prosecutor made no opposition to Michael McNeil's challenge, per the transcript. Therefore, the Moderator should have accommodated Michael McNeil on this Matter. Instead the Session was to discuss this matter with the Prosecutor without Michael McNeil's presence, in a clear violation BCO 32-14, (September 11, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Line 567).

Again, by the Session discussing this matter with the “other party”, and hearing his opposition without the Accused/Michael McNeil present, the Session showed against that they were indeed biased against Michael McNeil, and were unwilling to follow the requirements of our church's constitution.

1.1.5  Overruling Appellant's Objections to hearsay evidence.

The Moderator Over-Ruled the Objection on the grounds that the rules pertaining to “hearsay” do not apply to the church court as they do in the civil court. The Moderator also warned the Court regarding the statements that were being made without evidence, and also pointed out that the forementioned statements could be taken up with a subsequent Witness who had first-hand knowledge of the event being discussed. - October 9, 2009 Trial Minutes Lines 463-467

Here, the Appellant agrees whole heartedly with the Moderator. The rules of hearsay as they pertain in civil court do not apply to church courts. Meaning, civil courts have several exceptions to the hearsay rule that is common in Jewish and Christian Courts. According to the bible, hearsay is nothing short of gossip, and convicting someone base off gossip is sinful. Unfortunately, the Moderator meaning is different to that of the Appellant. The Moderator believes that gossip/hearsay is acceptable to be heard before the Session when a member is being charged with sin, as long as they know it is gossip/hearsay and that the statements could be taken up with subsequent witnesses who “had first-hand knowledge”. Therefore, with the Moderator ruling, an Accuser could bring together hundreds of church gossipers, and have them testify hours on end on how someone had sinned, none of them having first “first hand knowledge”, and if the Accused should objected to this ungodly behavior, the Moderator would simply just say that the rules of hearsay do not apply, as long as we all know it is all just gossip, that could be taken up with first hand witnesses. The Moderator's logic is flawed and of itself promotes sinful behavior by witnesses.

Examples of the Moderator allowing hearsay testimony can be found where the Appellant objected to Dan Wecker's testimony on October 2, 2009 (October 2, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcripts, Lines 1814-1819 and Lines 1932-1973) and Dan Wecker's follow on testimony on October 9, 2008 (October 9, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 230-314) . The instruction given to the witnesses was to be clearer on who he was gossiping, and that the accused was not part of the conversations that he was testifying about.

After, the Moderator made his ruling on October 9, 2008 stating the “rules of hearsay do not apply to church courts”, the Accuser solicited “hearsay” evidence from the witness which was objected to and overruled by the Moderator (October 9, 2008, McNeil Trial Transcripts, Lines 368-380).

And finally, during the Prosecutor's testimony against the accused while he was under oath, the Accused objected to the Prosecutor giving “hearsay” testimony, which was over-ruled. The Prosecutor argued that the testimony was based on direct conversations with the person being quoted. Not the accused. Again, more gossip.

1.1.6  Overruling Appellant's Objection to a Ruling Elder wife setting next to the Accused wife during her testimony giving her support, comfort, and virtually testifying to the Session that my wife is right in all her actions.

(October 9, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 1143-1149)

The Appellant objected to the appearance of a ruling elders wife, Flo Wolfe being by his wife side during testimony. This seem to create a conflict of interest with one of the judges, in that now his wife by her appearance is testifying to the rightness of the Appellant's wife actions just by her presents. This act show that there is no way that at least one of the ruling elders was prejudiced against the accused at that time. And the rest of the Session demonstrated clearly there prejudice by allowing this prejudice to be manifested blatantly. There was no opposition, and he moderator overruled.

The Appellant objected to the wife of a Ruling Elder sitting supportively next to Mrs. McNeil while she gave testimony. But it is extremely intimidating to ask a woman to testify about marital intimacies before a large group of male Elders, not to mention undergoing a lengthy cross-examination from her own husband. Mrs. Wolfe served

professionally on the SPEP staff as our Counselor to Women, and was the logical choice to sit quietly with Mrs. McNeil, without speaking for her or giving any testimony.

 

1.1.7  Putting Time Limitations on Examinations After The Prosecution Finished with All His Witnesses.

(October 23, 2008 McNeil Trial Transcript, Lines 8-432)

On October 10, 2008 the Appellant received an email from TE Glenn Parkinson, the Moderator of this trial. TE Parkinson was now making up some “New Rules” that would be applied and enforced during this trial.

The Appellant made it known, that first of all, he understood RE Parkinson's desire that this trial move to completion, and he understood from his email, that TE Parkinson feared that there will be a problem with the availability of the Session, if all the Appellant's questions were asked and answered. He has stated that if the Session should allow the Appellant to examine the witness completely to obtain all relevant information, that this trial would take months. The Appellant believed that his fears were unfounded and are an exaggeration on his part. However, the Appellant did believe that if the Moderator had instructed instructed wittinesses to just answer the question put before them as precisely as they can instead of elaborating as they saw fit, this trial might have come to completion in rather short order.

The Appellant made an appeal to the Session on this matter, that it was unfair for the Moderator to initiate “New Rules”, just as the Appellant was beginning his case. After all, shouldn't the Appellant be afforded the same opportunity as the Prosecution. During the Appellant's appeal, the members of the Session stopped their ears and complained that the Appellant was taking up their time, and force the Appellant to rush through his appeal. The Appellant's appeal was summarily denied.

 

With regard to hurrying to a decision before all the testimony is taken:

The Appellant objects to a ruling of the Moderator to put a time limit on the presentation of his case. But this became necessary in the course of the trial because the Appellant abused his right to cross examine prosecution witnesses. The Appellant persisted in using his cross examination as an opportunity to argue his position, even after repeated assurances that he would have ample opportunity to argue his case after evidence had been presented. The Appellant’s list of questions was so lengthy that several times he lost track of his place and asked the same series of questions again. The Appellant’s cross examinations took hours, and took up the bulk of the time used for the prosecution’s case. Because of this, and because the Appellant main witness was his wife, whom he had already cross examined for several hours, the Appellant was asked to present his evidence in a reasonable amount of time. In every case, before questioning ceased, he was asked if he had additional points to explore, and several times the duration of his questioning was extended by the court. The trial took over 16 hours to complete. The Session believes the Appellant was given ample time to make his case.

2.  Judgment Was Determined by The Session Holding to Doctrinal Error

During the trial two Teaching Elders and one Ruling Elder was called to testify. The first elder to testify was RE Glenn Whaley. In RE Glenn Whaley testimony he explained to the Session his opinions about the Appellant's complaint about his wife and the fact that the Appellant holds to what he viewed to as being hyper patriarchal on how the home should be governed. The Appellant readily asserts that the home is to be ruled in a patriarchal manner if the husband is following God's word. After all, the marriage relationship is symbolic to the Christ/Church relationship. And in the Christ/Church relationship Christ rules as King, Lord and Master. Further the Appellant asserts that if the Husband is not ruling as Lord and Master of his family, that he is not representing the symbolic relationship properly. Additionally, the Appellant readily agrees that the Husband is to serve his family as a type of Savior, and he should be willing to die for his family in order to save it. And again, the Appellant agrees with the Session that he is to be a servant to his family. However, the Appellant just as readily opposes the Session in that they believe that the Husband headship is only symbolic or ceremonial, and that he can not make a decision that his family must abide by, and that the Husbands only authority is to point his wife to Christ.

During TE Glenn Parkinson's examination, the Appellant questioned him on a sermon that he gave during the summer. During that examination, TE Parkinson readily asserted that the husband's authority is only symbolic or ceremonial in nature, which infers that the wife need not obey him if she wishes not too. That is, if she has judged that her husband is not following Christ. He also admitted and affirmed that the goal of the Christian marriage is not patriarchal in nature, and that neither the husband nor the wife is to rule over the other. However, his theology puts the wife as a judge of the husband, and therefore now she is to have rule over him.

Unfortunately for the Appellant, the Appellant was not aware of this teaching of SPEP prior to joining the church. Or the exception that TE Parkison and many of the elders hold concerning Chapter 24 of the WCF. And in fact he did not fully comprehend this teaching until this last Summer. Knowing that he and the church differed on the view on how a marriage relationship is to be conducted, the Appellant reexamined his views on the issue. And now the Appellant still asserts that TE Parkinson and the Session are in error in holding these views, and the Appellant sees that he is in deep conflict with the Session at SPEP with their errors over how a marriage is to work. Additionally, the Appellant questions the leadership at SPEP on their believes as to whether or not the Christ/Church relationship is patriarchal in nature.

The Appellant asks:

• Does Christ still rule as King, Master and Lord? Or is he only Saviour and Servant to the Church?

• If Christ commands us to do something in his word, are we still to follow it, or do we need to sit in judgment of Christ?

The Appellant wonders if the Session at SPEP believes they should follow the Kings commands?

• For did not the King say that the only grounds for divorce is adultery?

• Did not the King command through his Apostle Paul that believers are barred from taking other believers to civil court?

If the King did command these things, and the Session at SPEP is teaching the Appellant's wife that it is permissible for her to live apart from her husband, and that it is permissible to take her husband to law in front of the unbelievers, what does this say about the Session at SPEP recognizing Lord Jesus as King and Master?

Furthermore, TE Glenn Parkinson in his sermon and in his testimony states that the husbands authority over his wife is only symbolic and ceremonial in nature. And that his only authority is to point to Christ. Well enough! The Appellant has pointed his wife to Christ, and what He commands of her. Christ through the Apostles has commanded the wives to obey their husbands. This is a command of the King Jesus Christ. But TE Glenn Parkinson and the Session teaches the Appellant's wife to do otherwise. So one mast ask plainly in light of these facts:

Does the Session at SPEP consider Jesus Christ as their King, Master, and Lord, and are they aspiring to do as He commands?

 

With regard to mistake or injustice in the judgment and censure:

The Appellant makes charges that the Session supports unbiblical doctrine and takes exception to the WCF regarding the grounds for divorce. This is not true. The Appellant argues that the patriarchal rule of the husband in the home is appropriate if the husband is following God’s Word and acting as a servant to his family. But at issue was not whether the Appellant could exercise patriarchy in his home. At issue was whether the Appellant misused his role by treating his wife abusively, with oppressive control and in a selfish manner. TE Parkinson testified under oath that he did not believe patriarchy to be sinful. Rather,

Genesis 3 characterizes patriarchy as a result of the Fall, when obedience to God was rejected and men began to rule their homes as they please. TE Parkinson has repeatedly taught that Jesus embraced and restored the kind of headship originally entrusted to Adam - a form of authority marked by self-sacrifice, gentleness and spiritual nurture. Christian husbands are explicitly called to replace their self-centered rule with a self-sacrificing imitation of Christ that stresses the rule of God in all things. TE Parkinson has called this kind of leadership “ceremonial” because it is not innately granted to all men over all women, but only given to husbands relative to their role in marriage, symbolically reflecting Christ and the church.

 

The Appellant emphatically concludes that making Christ’s rule the goal of a Christian home threatens the leadership role of a husband. But the truth is quite the reverse. The requirement that Christ be Lord of all (including Christian marriage) exalts the significance of a husband’s leadership. Biblical headship is a high calling to not only lift up God’s perfect Law, but also the boundless grace, mercy and compassion of Christ. The Appellant accuses the Session of taking exception to WCF 24 by asserting that a wife’s fear is a proper ground for divorce. But the Session did not state in its ruling that Mrs. McNeil had grounds for divorce. The Session stated that it was not wrong for her to live apart while she feared for her safety. Her decision to move out was consistent with seeking a restraining order against Mr. McNeil.

The trail of this marriage has taken a downward spiral that goes beyond the scope of this appeal. However, in answer to the Appellant’s charges, at no time in this trial did the Session ever consider or discuss grounds for divorce. It was our hope that the Appellant would submit to loving admonition and work to restore peace in his home. Our comment regarding Mrs. McNeil did not represent an exception to the Westminster Confession, but rather an affirmation that “It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretense of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever” (WCF 23-3). We are saddened that the Appellant states in his brief that he cannot find a correlation

between our admonishments and the charges against him. He does not see a connection between a charge of abuse and the admonition to “win back the trust and affection of his alienated bride.” He sees no correlation between controlling and selfish behavior and the admonition to “take to heart the immense love of God for you,” and “seek focused, experienced counseling,” and “stay in fellowship” for encouragement and support. We leave it to the higher court to rule whether our admonition was appropriate.

3.  Analysis

The Appellant is asking the Presbytery to consider his appeal to determine weather or the Session at SPEP held a trial in such a matter that he was denied a fair and impartial trial as required by the churches constitution. The Appellant asserts that there were irregularity in the proceedings of the lower court, there was a refusal of reasonable indulgence to the party on trial; and that the the Session did receive improper evidence, that there was a manifestation of prejudice in the case, which all these factors led to a injustice of judgment. The Appellant poses the following questions for this court to answer:

1.)  Were there Irregularities in The Proceedings of the lower court, and did they error in the following?

• Allowing the Prosecutor to Set as a Judge, and have ex parte conversations with the other judges?

• Allowance of Hearsay/Gossip as Evidence

  • SPEP judges demonstrated prejudice

    • before the matter was heard

    • pointing out that they were concerned about his heart and that he would repent

    • made time constraints that were only applied to the defendent

• The Overruling the following objections:

  • Objections to the calling of Janice Holt as a wittiness due to the fact she hasn't seen me since 2004 and she therefor could not testify to the specified acts which were listed on the citation.

  • Objections to he calling of Dan Wecker as a wittiness due to the fact though I only see him 3 or 4 times a year, he could not possibly testify to the specified acts listed on the citation.

  • Objections to hear say evidence.

  • Objections to wittinesses testify to events that they could not have possibly witnessed themselves.

  • Objections to wittinesses giving their opinions stated as facts.

  • Objections to wittinesses giving their opinions at all.

  • Objections to a wittiness testify as if he were the government and could certify to the court that there was a police record on file, even though this in it itself was hear say from my own wife, and I believe I objected to that.

  • Objections to the adding on of charges that were not made available to me prior to this trial, in so much that the Prosecutor has set an ambush for me so that I might not be properly prepared, and this has left me scrambling to make a defense.

  • Objection to a Ruling Elder wife setting next to the Accused wife during her testimony giving her support, comfort, and virtually testifying to the Session that my wife is right in all her actions

2.)  Was a refusal of reasonable indulgence to the party on trial? As demonstrated in the answer in the first question, the Session demonstrated that they were not willing to make reasonable indulgences to the accused in denying him all is objections. The Appellant also asserts that in the Session rulings on his objections, there was not one ruling where it could be said that the prosecution's argument would be hampered in any way.

3.)  Did The Session receive improper evidence? The answer to this question is yes. They received testimony that was hearsay, and opinions stated as facts. It was obvious that during the Elders questioning of the Appellant that at least one Elder was still considering the committee's report and the Appellant's wife complaint as evidence even though the were ruled to be inadmissible. While, the Session still considered these documents as evidence, they refused to allow the Appellant access to these documents in order that he could mount an adequate defense.

4.)Was there was a manifestation of prejudice in the case? Again, the answer is yes. The Moderator rulings were contently against the Appellant even though the Appellant pleadings wrongly, the Moderator allowed an elder's wife give unfair support to his the Appellant's wife testimony, the Session was still considering the documents that they denied the Appellant access to that were inflammatory to the Appellant.

5.) Did these factors lead to a injustice of judgment? The answer is yes, and no. Yes, because the prejudice and and the fact that the elders had already judged in their hearts and minds that the Appellant was already guilty of much more serious sin than that which they believe they could prove. No, because the other factors only reveiled the Session bias against the Appellant.

6.)Does This Judgment Make Since? The Session at SPEP has ruled and declared to the Appellant's wife that she is not wrong from living apart from him as long as she is in fear. Fear is a very subjective emotion. Most times fear is either unsubstantiated or blown out of proportion. And at times, fear can be very real. But still is fear to be the motivator of our actions, except that of the fear of the Lord? And what is fear, if you believe your salvation is assured and you know that He who saves will save you? Can't He that conquered death, also conquer all your fears? Fear in itself can not be a cause for desertion even if it is substantiated. God's word is to be our motivator, and God's word does not give the wife an option to leave him just because she is fearful of him. Shouldn't the Session instead have reminded the Appellant's wife of these fact that the scripture plainly teaches? Where is the Sessions faith in God and his Word that they must follow fear, other than the fear of the Lord? Also, the session did not state what the Appellant's wife is fearful of. The did not make a finding that the Appellant ever struck his wife. Nor was their any such evidence that she had been the victim of physical violence. So what is this fear that they spoke of, and why did they not specify it?

 

4.  The Admonishments

When the trial was finally over, and the Session had found the accused guilty, the accused is to receive admonishments that should be in keeping with the offenses committed. For example, if the accused was found guilty of breaking the Sabbath, a proper admonishment would be don't do work on the Sabbath, and worship God. And if the accused agreed to do that very thing, then case closed, God's law is satisfied. And in the case where an accused is guilty with maintaining a relationship with a women without the benefit of marriage, a proper admonishment would be get married. Again case closed, and God's law is satisfied. But in the Appellant's case the session has found the Appellant guilty of “longtime abusive, controlling and selfish behavior”. And then gave the Appellant the following admonishments:

• Take to heart the immense love God has for you, demonstrated in Jesus. Make it your goal to allow yourself to be embraced by his grace. Read, pray, seek teaching. Let the pastors suggest a path. Do whatever it takes to be convinced that God loves you even as you are, has cleansed you from every sin, and desires to bring you comfort down deep where no one else can reach.

• Seek focused, experienced counseling to address your heart, broken by the loss of two sons and any other traumas that have afflicted you in the past.

• Stay in fellowship. We hope that SPEP will remain your church home, and that we can encourage you and support you in this journey.

• Make it your goal to win back the trust and affection of your alienated bride. Use your position of headship to cultivate a partnership with her that communicates love and respect. Adjust your behavior to help her feel secure and unthreatened in your presence. Be patient. Use the best resources you can find to work with Sarah to rebuild your marriage.

The Appellant has reviewed this admonishments over and over again and is trying to find a direct correlation between the offense and the admonishment except perhaps that last one. However with the last admonishment, since the Session at SPEP has taken away the Appellant's headship and his bride by instructing her that it is not wrong for her to live apart from him, and in later days giving her the approval she needed to follow up with a civil divorce, it seems that the last admonishment when it was made was moot from the inception, and has made even further moot by the actions of Session.

One must ask, what was the purpose of this trial? What has the prosecution proved that would require these admonishments? The Appellant concedes that the admonishments are pastoral in nature. But are they true admonishments that the Appellant can act upon in order that all may be able to realize that he is longer to be found guilty of what he has been convicted of?

 

5.  Closing Statements

By the rulings and actions by the elders of SPEP, SPEP has demonstrated that the outcome of the trial was already determined by them. In addition, by these actions, the elders demonstrated a complete disregard for our church's constitution, and they showed complete disregard to their high calling as judges.

Though it is proper that the higher court should give difference to the lower courts ruling in accordance with BCO 39-3. However, the upper court is not obligated to the finding of the lower courts when it comes to the interpretation to our church's constitutions.⁹ In fact it has has the duty to interpret the constitution in accordance with its abilities.

The issues regarding this appeal are mostly constitutional issues. Where the Session of SPEP made numerous violations of our church's constitution. The final ruling itself is a violation of WCF Chapter 24, where they informed a man's wife that she can live apart from his even though there has never been a charge of adultery or willful desertion. Just on the basis of this ruling, the Session of SPEP has violated our church's constitution, and our King's commands, therefore this ruling can not stand.

But still, in order to obtain the final verdict, SPEP elders felt the requirement to have:

• The Prosecutor serve as a Judge

• That they needed to listen to Gossipers

• That they needed to listen to Gossipers give their opinions

• To have conversations with the Prosecutor with the Accused Present.

What of the specifications in the charges? Can any of these specifications really be counted as sin towards a man except for one, whereas the man ask for and received forgiveness against those he sinned against?

Therefor, the Appellant asks that the verdicts and rulings of the Session of SPEP be completely overturned. The trial was held in a completely unconstitutional manner, which resulted in an unconstitutional verdict. And due to the gross prejudicial actions of the SPEP elders, presbytery has a duty to make a formal investigation to look into the abuses that occurred in this case, and needs to make further inquirey to see if these kinds of actions are normative at SPEP.

Proposed Judgment and Relief

We ask Presbytery to deny Mr. McNeil’s appeal and issue a rebuke according to BCO 42-12.

We recognize that in such a lengthy and detailed proceeding, errors can be made. We humbly rely on Presbytery to instruct and correct us where necessary. However, we do not believe a case has been made regarding BCO 42-3 that justifies finding for the Appellant. One final note: BCO 42-12 states, “If an appellant manifests a litigious or otherwise un-Christian spirit in the prosecution of his appeal, he shall receive a suitable rebuke by the appellate court.”

During the prosecution of this appeal, Mr. McNeil has submitted multiple formal complaints against the SPEP Session and Chesapeake Presbytery, one of which was found out of order because of intemperate language. We believe he has demonstrated a litigious spirit. Also during the prosecution of this appeal, Mr. McNeil has become nationally known within the PCA for arguing his case through broadcast email and a website that mimics our church’s name. His accusations are open for all to see. We believe that these actions clearly demonstrate an un-Christian spirit, and he should be called to publicly repent of them. Even though Chesapeake Presbytery may pursue other avenues of discipline independently, BCO 42-3 specifically empowers the appellate court to frame a suitable rebuke relative to the manner in which the Appellant has prosecuted his appeal. We believe Mr. McNeil’s behavior in these regards calls for such a rebuke. We ask it not out of any sense of malice for a man we have invested so much of ourselves to help, but out of a growing alarm for his spiritual condition.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 28, 2009

Ellicott City, Maryland

 

 

/s/ Michael A. McNeil

Michael A. McNeil

Respectfully submitted by the Session of Severna Park Evangelical Presbyterian Church, October 2, 2009

< Prev		Next >