Old_castle.jpg

"Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."
2 Corinthians 5:20

REFORMEDONLINE.ORG
Home Page

"The Law is for the proud and the Gospel for the brokenhearted."
Martin Luther

Below is the report of the Westminster Presbyterian church in the United States. This report is in response to a gracious attempt by the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, in an effort to preserve the peace of the church by allowing the WPCUS to deal with charges against Brian Schwertley. Specific criteria was set forth in a proposed agreement by the CRPC in hopes that a proper resolution could be reached between the two denominations.

We had valid disagreements and reservations about this proposed agreement which were spelled out in our letter to the CRPC. Our main concerns centered around issues of jurisdiction and issues of character regarding the leaders of the WPCUS and Brian Schwertley, especially because of his threats of blackmail. As you will see by the response of the WPCUS, our concerns have proved to be true.

Because of the way that the WPCUS has responded to the CRPC, by rejecting the proposed agreement, we believe that it is important to analyze their report, going through it point by point, using the Scriptures to highlight their errors and their misuse of the Scriptures.  Therefore, we will place our response right into their report. Our comments will be in Gray, their comments, will be in Black and the Scripture will be in white. The more we have dealt with these men, the more we see that these men are very deceptive and are trying to hide the truth. Hopefully we can make that case.

One last comment before our analysis. Back in the days when I was studying law, there was an old legal maxim that says, 'when you have a good case, you argue the facts of the case.  When your case is not so good, you argue the law.  When you have no case at all, you slander the opposition.'  It seems in this case that is what Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States is doing because they have no case, no defence, they have no law, and therefore, they are slandering the opposition.

I believe that the real answer to this problem is for us all to take the advise of Robert Murray M'Cheyene and applies it to each one of us.


Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

Advisory Committee Report 2006-2007

Report Adopted by Presbytery, January 13, 2007

Introduction: After review of the documentation, there are certain things that are easily deduced to be clear facts.

1.  In 2005, it was the duty of the CRPC American Presbytery to follow moral judicial procedure (see Prov. 18:13; Matt. 18:15ff; I Tim. 5:19) with the disciplined individuals in question and instruct them to file a complaint to the original Manawa Session; and then there could have been an appeal in that order, even with assistance of Presbytery representatives as needed. The CRPC American Presbytery did not follow Matthew 18:15ff, I Timothy 5:19, and Proverbs 18:13, requiring a complaint by the individuals in question to the original Manawa Session before hearing an appeal or laying any charges (Compare original Manawa Session January 10, 2006 response to charges, and the counter response of the CRPC American Presbytery letter from Rev. D. Gibson, January 26, 2006).

He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.  Proverbs 18:13.

The misuse of the Word of God is a tragic thing. We find that it is the first thing that a cult does, they begin to use the Scriptures improperly.  The issues that were being dealt with here, had been investigated by the presbytery.  The charges had already been brought to the Presbyterian court. In actuality, Brian had said that these were public sins and that they did not need to use Matthew 18.  We would say, that Brian should have used Matthew 18, to deal with this but never did.  This case went to Presbytery, because the church at Manawa, built their entire case on rumors and innuendo without once going to Beverly, never charged Jim or Beverly but instead dropped them from the church roll. Only after that did this case come before Presbytery.  We would also say that the real scripture to be used in this case was Galatians 2:11-14.

The reason why this passage is more appropriate to the situation is this.  Matthew 18 deals with a personal offense and that the person is to be dealt with as a personal offense, however the passage in Galatians, was a ministerial sin.  Like Peter, the sins of ministers should be publicly reproved. And Paul reproves Peter publicly.  Brian set forth himself as a minister of the Gospel and was a part of the CRPC denomination.  And as such should have been publicly reproved.

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.  For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.  And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?  Galatians 2:11-14

     Please note that this was not the only problem in this matter.  There were problems regarding the vows that Brian had sworn when he joined the denomination.  There were also problems regarding the transfer of the Waltho's membership. And the transfer of the Brown's membership.  Then, there was the problem of several lies regarding the withdrawal of the church from the denomination.
    Another issue and more personal is my own case which is recorded in these records.  I found Brian was very good at taking different positions according to the circumstances. He was also very good at  trying to get himself off the hook regarding problems he had created.  Truly, the old adage "oh what tangled webs we weave, when first we practice to deceive." This is very true in this situation.  We can also see this happening, for example when Brian began to work at getting the church out of the denomination months earlier, all because his sins were catching up with him.  It is hard to believe that the WPCUS Presbytery would work so hard at excusing the sins of one of their own ministers.  Perhaps it shows what they are all about?

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
Matthew 18:15-17


Let me ask you, if you have followed the story of what has happened in this case, where do we find that Brian and the session of the church at Manawa ever once followed Matthew 18?
The Westminster Presbyterian Church,  claims that Brian's rights were violated however, this issue came before the Presbytery, because of multiple complaints about Brian.  Many people had tried to resolve this issue over and over again.  Where do we ever find that Brian and the session ever followed Matthew 18?  

Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses. 1 Timothy 5:19.

Did these guys ever read the documents?  Look at all the witnesses that are listed in the charges?

2.  Instead of following Matthew 18:15ff, I Timothy 5:19, and Proverbs 18:13, the CRPC American Presbytery proceeded to charge Rev. B. Schwertley. Therefore, much of the proposed charges were based on hearsay.

See statements above, plus the other statements in both this page and in the home page of  reformedonline.org. HEARSAY? I don't think so, read all the documents and make up your own mind.

3.  The proposed charges related to constitutional vows were not based on definite documented provable departures with all clarity, but alleged discrepancies between constitutional documents (Compare original Manawa Session January 10, 2006 response to charges, and the counter response of the CRPC American Presbytery letter from Rev. D. Gibson, January 26, 2006).

4.  The CRPC American Presbytery did not place the proposed charges against Rev. B. Schwertley on the agenda of the December 29, 2005 Presbytery meeting. Furthermore, the American Presbytery did not review the proposed charges with Rev. B. Schwertley prior to accepting the charges from Rev. F. Smith (Compare original Manawa Session January 10, 2006 response to charges, and the counter response of the CRPC American Presbytery letter from Rev. D. Gibson, January 26, 2006).

I, Fredrick Edward Fleming was there and saw, Brian left the meeting of December 29, 2005 before the meeting was over, without Presbytery's approval. The Presbytery wanted him to stay but Brian and Oly fled from the meeting, knowing that the charges were to be talk about and Brian fled as he has in other times.
The Presbytery of the WPCUS has no jurisdiction over the disciplined individuals in question, nor voluntary submission or required submission from the CRPC American Presbytery, to properly investigate the disciplinary cases involved. The individuals in question have already been encouraged by the CRPC American Presbytery to ignore Matthew 18:15ff and I Timothy 5:19, as well as be disappointed with the Presbytery of the WPCUS thus far with the handling of the dispute (see Rev. F. Smith letter of July 25, 2006 to WPCUS). The individuals in question would first have to repent and make corrections in 9th Commandment violations voluntarily submitting to the jurisdiction of the Presbytery of the WPCUS, before any proper investigation of disciplinary actions could be pursued. The Advisory Committee will be severely hindered and “handicapped” in the investigation, until the CRPC American Presbytery corrects its own errors of judgment in this matter; given this hindrance, the “handicapped” attempted investigation could take six months to one year and no report definitely given prior to June 2007, with little or nothing accomplished in the investigation.

5.  The Westminster Presbyterian Church, Waupaca congregation did secede, and denounce jurisdiction, for failure of the CRPC American Presbytery to follow Proverbs 8:13, Matthew 18:15ff, and I Timothy 5:19, and even their own CRPC Church Constitution in disciplinary cases. This failure of the American Presbytery undermined the inherent authority of the Waupaca Session; and therefore the secession was warranted (see original Manawa Session January 10, 2006 response to charges with letter).

No!! their did not secede, rather Brian and the Session STOLE the church, using lie, deception and fraud and the WPCUS became a means to make it look like they had seceded. Instead their stole a church and about $50,000.00, hurt many sheep of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I. Commend the actions of Rev. B. Schwertley/Waupaca Session

1.  They should be commended for efforts to maintain the stability of the congregation and comfort the sheep with divisive forces, through the necessary secession.

2.  Rev. B. Schwertley should be commended for act of submission to the CRPC American Presbytery (Nov. 1-2, 2005), with correction made concerning the use of a particular Scriptural term (reference to scandalous sins of the 7th Commandment) in the case of Mr. M. Waltho’s daughter. Rev. B. Schwertley submitted even though he did not agree with the American Presbytery.

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!  Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:  Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!  Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel." Isaiah 5: 20-25

3.  The Session should be commended for having changed the congregational meeting location (scheduled for January 8, 2006) after hearing the fears and consideration of communicant members not to attend the meeting, given the disruption of the January 1, 2006 congregational worship; as it turned out, one family still did not attend, because of the fear of continued disruption (see testimony of Elder O. Tauts, Richard Caplinger, and Alex Gullota).

Here we have a Presbytery saying that they commend the session for breaking the law.  Anyone who knows anything about financial institutions, would be  abhorred to hear that a public trust would do this. they could have had the meeting as scheduled and if there was a disruption, they could've called the police department.  The money that was placed in trust was a cumulative amount of the church from several years ago.  Brian, had been there less than one year and had caused so many problems that people were leaving the church.  The session had an obligation both to the church members and also to the denomination, as well as to others that had contributed to the church. 

4.  In accordance with the secession and denouncing of jurisdiction, it was right and proper for the WPC, Waupaca Session to have avoided official correspondence with the CRPC American Presbytery.

II. Commend the actions of the CRPC American Presbytery

1)  The American Presbytery should be commended for finally acknowledging the secession of the membership of the original Manawa Congregation and denouncing of jurisdiction, even though the date of July 2006 was incorrect; the proper date is January 8, 2006.

2)  The American Presbytery should be commended for reconsideration and delaying action against Rev. B. Schwertley, even though the proper consideration for action is censure, rather than a trial for alleged charges.

III. Errors of Rev. B. Schwertley/Waupaca Session

1) Session should have disciplined or granted a disjunction certificate to Mr. and Mrs. M. Waltho, rather than transfer with complaint.

2) The Session did not adequately prepare for the November 1-2, 2005 and the December 29, 2005 American Presbytery Meetings, by sending letters to the clerk in advance, with thorough defence of disciplinary actions citing CRPC Constitutional documents.

3) Given the reasons for separation, including opposing the CRPC American Presbytery for repeatedly violating Proverbs 18:13, Matthew18:15ff and I Timothy 5:19, the Session should not have first attempted to withdraw and then change to secession. The Session should have first lodged a complaint submitted to the November 1-2, 2005 American Presbytery meeting. Without definite correction, the original Manawa Session should have protested at the December 29, 2005 American Presbytery meeting, just before early departure from the meeting. Moreover, a more thorough declaration of separation with defence should have been written and sent to the CRPC American Presbytery immediately following the secession.

IV. Errors of Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, American Presbytery

1) The Presbytery failed to properly warn Rev. B. Schwertley & Elder O. Tauts, and even place on the Presbytery agenda at the December 29, 2005 Presbytery Meeting, of the proposed charges against Rev. B. Schwertley. (Compare original Manawa Session January 10, 2006 response to charges, and the counter response of the CRPC American Presbytery letter from Rev. D. Gibson, January 26, 2006).

2) The Presbytery failed to uphold and follow Matthew 18:15ff in Scripture and in accordance with CRPC Directory of Church Discipline (see DCD ch. 7, sec. 5, 12, 19).

A. Failed to require of Mr. & Mrs. J. Brown to follow the procedure of complaint to the original Manawa Session and then appeal, rather than hearing a hearsay verbal complaint in the American Presbytery and proceeding with alleged charges (also see Proverbs 18:13).

Note: Mr. J. Brown did finally file a complaint to the original Manawa Session on February 19, 2006 on the same day that he entered alleged charges to the American Presbytery, more than 40 days after the secession occurred on January 8, 2006 (see Letter of Mr. J. Brown, Feb. 19, 2006 to original Manawa Session). It would appear that Mr. J. Brown learned of the procedure failure from the rebuttal of alleged charges against Rev. B. Schwertley sent by the original Manawa Session on January 10, 2006 to the American Presbytery. It is un-Presbyterian to both charge a pastor and complain to the same Session at the same time. This is not submission, but essentially adding to the file after the fact, with no intention of genuine submission in the complaint.

B. The Presbytery failed to require of Mr. M. Watho to follow the procedure of complaint to the original Manawa Session and then appeal, rather than hearing a hearsay verbal complaint in the American Presbytery and proceeding with alleged charges (also see Proverbs 18:13).

3) The Presbytery failed to uphold and follow I Timothy 5:19 in Scripture and in accordance with CRPC Directory of Church Discipline (see DCD ch. 7, sec. 7).

A. Mr. F. Fleming is not a credible witness (see Matt. 7:1-5) with no communicant membership in the original Manawa congregation or in the continuing CRPC preaching station, nor any other reformed congregation, in presumptuous violation of Acts 2:47. Mr. Fleming is not in submission to the King and Head of the visible church, the Lord Jesus Christ.

     Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.  Matthew 7:1-5

     Once again we find them using the word of God improperly, this passage of Scripture was Christ's rebuke to the religious leaders of his day.  How they can ever used this passage in reference to an injured party is beyond me.  This is like telling a person who has been mugged that they cannot tell what is happening to them because, they would be judging another.  I was one of the people that was injured in this whole thing and all I have done is set forth the statements of fact.  On top of all this the statements are online and Brian has never replied to them.  Fred's statement, Brian'sunkind reply to my statement. (Just note how Brian deals with people that do not agree with him.) Notice that Brian's reply to me, he never addresses the issue raise in it?  Instead he just rails on me.

    Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.  Acts 2:47

By God's merciful grace, Fredrick Edward Fleming, I was born again into the kingdom of God in the seventies.  And in 1976, I was ordained by a Church of the Independent Assemblies of God.  It was not long after that, but God brought me into the reformed faith.  I have worked in gospel missions, and churches, of various denominations.  However, the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States without any factual basis has said that I am not a credible witness.

B. Mr. F. Fleming further proved, his unacceptable character, by maintaining a website (www.reformedonline.org; note WPC Waupaca congregational website – www.reformedonline.com) in violation of Matthew 18:15ff, I Timothy 5:19, and the 9th Commandment; yet, the American Presbytery has maintained him as a credible witness without correction.



4) The Presbytery glaringly erred in their logic concerning the alleged charges and proceeding to trial without proper judicial review. This is displayed in the charges, ground number 7: “(7) The American Presbytery hereby states that since these matters are public in nature, and since Mr. Schwertley has not been repentant in them, proceeding directly to the institution of judicial charges is warrantable.” (CRPC American Presbytery proposed charges of December 29, 2005). This is a clear violation of judicial procedure, wherein it became public by repeated violations of Matthew 18:15ff and I Timothy 5:19. Also, it is further displayed in the words of Rev. D. Gibson: “Moreover, as we have already noted, these matters are quite public in nature, and therefore all of the steps of Matthew 18 do not have to be followed” (CRPC American Presbytery letter from Rev. D. Gibson, January 26, 2006).

5) The Presbytery fueled the antagonistic actions of Mr. F. Fleming by making him an official server and a “credible witness” of alleged charges against Rev. B. Schwertley. This was a prelude to the disruptive actions of Mr. Fleming at the January 1, 2006 congregational worship, wherein he attempted publicly to serve and humiliate Rev. B. Schwertley in front of the congregation (see testimony of Elder O. Tauts, Richard Caplinger, and Alex Gullota).

“e). Mr. Fleming and I reminded them once more of presbytery's rulings about my standing in the church and communion. Again, Pastor Schwertley said that I would not be allowed to take communion. I then asked him if he would be taking communion after slandering myself, my wife Beverly, Mr. Fleming, Pastor Martin Waltho, Pastor Frank Smith, Pastor Dan Gibson, and Pastor Geoff Donnan on December 20, 2005. Pastor Schwertley could have repented right there, asked for forgiveness, and began the process of reconciliation and healing. Instead he turned to Mr. Fleming and in a very condescending and demeaning manner told him twice to go get a job and threw out Scripture verses at him. At that time Mr. Fleming served Elder Tauts with the papers from presbytery saying very loudly to Elder Tauts, ‘I'm serving you with charges from presbytery for Brian!’” (Letter of Mr. J. Brown with additional charges, Feb. 19, 2006).

“Mr. J. Brown has only attended worship at the Manawa congregation twice since March 2005, the last time being late August 2005. J. Brown did appear at our meeting place on January 1, 2006 with Mr. F. Fleming approximately three minutes before the worship service was to begin. After they were informed by the elders that they would be welcome to attend the worship, but that J. Brown would not be allowed to participate in the Lord's supper, F. Fleming repeatedly shouted insults and threats at the pastor. F. Fleming was repeatedly asked to keep his voice down. After he continued to shout, the two men were asked to leave. After not heeding repeated requests to leave, Rev. Schwertley gently placed his hand on F. Fleming's shoulder. Then, F. Fleming shoved the pastor against the wall. This disorderly behavior delayed the worship service for approximately 20 minutes and was witnessed by the congregation.” (email letter of March 26, 2006 from Rev. B. Schwertley to Rev. F. Smith).

6) The Presbytery failed to uphold discipline of original Manawa Session of Mrs. B. Brown (i.e., the suspension from the Lord’s Table), during any proper and thorough judicial review by the American Presbytery.

7) The Presbytery failed to uphold lesser excommunication of Mr. & Mrs. J Brown (i.e., deletion of names) in accordance with Scriptural authority invested in the session in Westminster Form of Presbyterian Church Government and CRPC Directory of Church Discipline (see DCD ch. 4, sec. 5), during any proper judicial review by the American Presbytery; and they forced the original Manawa Session to regard them as communicant members in good standing with a definite view to voting at the congregational meeting (January 8, 2006) for separation from the CRPC.

8) The Presbytery reinstated Mr. and Mrs. M. Waltho to communicant membership status in the original Manawa congregation, without proper judicial review by the American Presbytery; and they forced the original Manawa Session to regard them as communicant members in good standing with a definite view to voting at the congregational meeting (January 8, 2006) for separation from the CRPC.

Note: Whilst the original Manawa Session should have disciplined and deleted the names of Mr. and Mrs. M. Waltho (lesser excommunication) or granted a disjunction certificate, the American Presbytery should not have forced the reinstatement of the same in good standing, given the long term non-church attendance and failure to meet with the original Manawa Session in accordance with Matthew 18:15ff and Romans 12:18.

9) The Presbytery singled out the actions of Rev. B. Schwertley in the alleged charges, when he acted as moderator of the original Manawa Session in disciplinary matters and in the congregational secession.

10) The Presbytery failed to acknowledge the reality of the secession of the original Manawa Session (Jan. 8, 2006) and properly respond to the reasons for secession, even though it is understood that any given denomination may disagree with the same. Moreover, the July 17, 2006 letter of the clerk of the WPCUS urging the CRPC American Presbytery to at least acknowledge the secession was referenced as ‘unhelpful’ and ‘irrelevant’ by the CRPC American Presbytery (see Rev. F. Smith letter of July 25, 2006 to WPCUS).

11) The Presbytery failed to thoroughly consider the option of censure for the secession rather than receive and act upon proposed charges of a minister of the gospel (i.e., Rev. B. Schwertley, who should have had his name deleted from the roll of the American Presbytery at the first CRPC American Presbytery meeting following the secession of January 8, 2006).

12) The Presbytery received accusations, alleged charges (dated: Feb. 19, 2006), from Mr. J. Brown (under censure of lesser excommunication), with Mr. F. Fleming as a witness (not credible) against Rev. B. Schwertley, without proper judicial review and against a minister no longer a member of the CRPC; moreover, numerous witnesses in the original Manawa congregation (see testimony of Elder O. Tauts, Richard Caplinger, and Alex Gullota) dispute the recounting of the event and accusations.

13) The American Presbytery appointed Rev. Frank Smith, Presbytery representative for proposed charges, Presbytery Judicial Commission convener, Presbytery representative for proposed congregational withdrawal, and moderator of “Temporary Session”. It is contrary to well known principles of equity, justice, and distinctive Presbyterian form of government for one man to be granted so many appointments with reference to accusations against a gospel minister (see original Manawa Session January 10, 2006 response to charges with letter).

14) In 2006, new “witnesses” (i.e., Rev. Thomas Reid and Mr. John Clark) were added to alleged charges in December 29, 2005, who were not witnesses of the matters at hand (see July 11, 2006 correspondence from Rev. F. Smith to Rev. B. Schwertley).

15) The signatures of continuing members were provided on September 11, 2006 (undated), eight months after secession, and only after request of Rev. G. Bancroft, clerk of WPCUS; and there was no distinction made between communicants, adherents, and new members. Furthermore, worship services for continuing the preaching station were finally begun in Manawa not until eight months after secession.

16) Rev. Frank Smith assumed that the WPCUS might simply trust the American Presbytery regarding the alleged charges (see correspondence September 19, 2006); this is contrary to well known principles of Presbyterian judicial proceeding. Furthermore, in that same letter, it was implied that this controversy is a problem of the WPCUS. Yet, it is the CRPC American Presbytery who began the controversy with their own failure to follow Proverbs 18:13, Matthew 18:15ff, I Timothy 5:19, and even their own Church Constitution and Directory of Church Discipline.

IV) Recommendations to Presbytery of the WPCUS

1) That the above Committee Report be adopted.

2) That the proposed agreement (July 25, 2006) be sent back to the CRPC American Presbytery and not taken up.

3)That the alleged charges (from December 29, 2005) or accusations against Rev. B. Schwertley be sent back to the CRPC American Presbytery and not taken up, in full agreement with the original Manawa Session (now WPCUS, Waupaca Session).

4) That the alleged additional charges (from February 19, 2006) or accusations against Rev. B. Schwertley be sent back to the CRPC American Presbytery and not taken up.

5) That it be conveyed to the CRPC American Presbytery that the name of Rev. B. Schwertley should be officially deleted from the role of the CRPC American Presbytery with recognition of the secession on January 8, 2006.

6) It be conveyed to the CRPC American Presbytery that any attempt to proceed with charges and a trial of Rev. B. Schwertley, as if he were a member, will be declared null and void, as he is not under the jurisdiction of the CRPC; and that no member of the CRPC is deemed sufficient or adequate to stand in his stead or as a counsel. Such a trial would be considered a mock trial (i.e., not genuine or real).

7) That the CRPC American Presbytery be urged publicly and specifically to apologize and make amends to Rev. B. Schwertley, WPC Waupaca Session, and congregation for the slander of his good name by the alleged charges, aggravating smaller faults (see LCQA 145), and failure to uphold their own Church Constitution and Directory of Church Discipline in accordance with Scripture.

8) In consideration of the smaller faults of Rev. B. Schwertley and the Waupaca Session, upon definite reconciliation with specific apologies and amends from the CRPC American Presbytery, recognition could be made by Rev. Schwertley and the Waupaca Session of smaller faults even though love is to cover a multitude of our imperfection sins in Christ (see Psa. 19:12; I Pet. 4:8). Whilst the acknowledgment of smaller faults is not ordinary or regular in church relations or even marriages, it may be wise in such cases to assist in reconciliation, upon receipt of definite apologies from the CRPC American Presbytery.

9) That the CRPC American Presbytery consider thoroughly reviewing disciplinary actions of the original Manawa Session during the year 2005 in accordance with the Westminster Standards (see WCF 15:2; 16:2; 18:1; 25:2; LCQA 87, 127, 128, 153, 171, and 173); or alternatively, the Presbytery may drop the matter and acknowledge errors of judgment.

10) That the CRPC reconsider the appointment of a temporary Session; and that they review the profession of faith of the signatories, making sure that they truly want to be members of the CRPC with a preaching station, without any consideration for diverting past tithes from 2005. Such a consideration for diverting and redirecting back tithes is contrary to the principle of tithes and offerings granted for the preaching of the gospel of free grace and ordinances administered; and furthermore, such a consideration could potentially establish a severe unwarranted precedent with no end in sight.

Relevant quotes from CRPC Directory of Church Discipline, chapter 7:

SECTION 5. In the case of public offenses, the court should always seek the least grave effective remedy according to Matthew 18:15-17 or Matthew 5:21-27 or Galatians 6:1.

SECTION 6. Due diligence must be taken by all parties concerned in the matter that no discussion of any of the issues occurs between individuals not involved in the judiciary process. Such discussion may be construed as a violation of Matthew 18 (refusal to “hedge” what privacy remains in the matter) and a violation of DCD 2:12 (obstruction of humility).

SECTION 7. The following parties may bring a charge of an offense before the court of original jurisdiction:

1) the injured party

2) a person who is not the injured party (see Section 23 below)

3) a court.

The offense alleged in the charge should be serious enough to require a trial. A charge against an elder or minister of the Word shall not be admitted unless accompanied by two or more witnesses able and willing to verify their first-hand knowledge of the subject offense.

SECTION 8. If the person who has brought the charge requests the court to assume responsibility for prosecuting the case, the court may prosecute the charge if convinced that judicial process is warranted. However, the court should reluctantly assume such responsibility and only in cases of extreme incapacity on the part of the injured party.

SECTION 9. In the case of a private offense, if the accuser is a member of the court, he must pursue the issue as Matthew 18 specifies and may not do so as a member of the court of judgment. The court must then proceed with its preliminary investigation.

SECTION 12. Every charge of an alleged offense must conform to the following requirements, however the church is encouraged to assist members in forming a proper complaint as necessary:

1) submitted in written form, signed and sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury;

2) explain the alleged offense, providing specifications, which if proved true, support the charge;

3) explain only one alleged offense;

4) support the charge with references to the Word of God; particularly the law of God.

5) support the charge, when appropriate, with references to the creeds and confessions of the church;

6) explain, what damage the complainant suffered, and;

7) explain how the one(s) offended has followed the steps of Matthew 18 in order to redeem the situation, to include a list of witnesses who participated in the Matthew 18 procedures.

THIS IS THE END OF THEIR REPORT.
THE TRIAL HAS BEEN POSTPONED AGAIN!!!
"Justice Delayed is Justice Denied." William Gladstone
Many will say that we are on both sides of the fence.  That we are attacking Brian, and now, that we're attacking Presbytery.  But what we really are saying is that Justice delayed is Justice denied to both parties.  The aspect of a quick trial, was for both the accused and the accuser.  Look clearly at the statement, when we delay justice, those who have been hurt are denied Justice.  Quite often, the hurt that has been done will last for years and years.  Many times a unrepairable hurt.  To denying Justice for them means that they have suffered first at the hands of the injurer, and after that at the trial court.  For those of the injured, they see the person that hurt them getting away.  Even for a short time, the person who has been injured has already suffered and continues to suffer while the person who did the injury is not punished.  What about the accused?  For those that are innocent, they suffer having their name tarnished.  Although we have a presumption of innocence, and innocent person suffers greatly by the accusations being brought against them.  A delay in Justice for them means that they suffer having their reputation tarnish.  For a minister of the Gospel, your reputation is the most important.
Justice delayed is only applicable to the court's.  When the court delays Justice, it hurts the innocent parties.  That is why we have a speedy trial rule.  Let me point out the few things regarding the issue of a speedy trial.
1. Witnesses memories are short and with time become faulty.  Most of us know of someone who has told the story over and over again.  Perhaps it's a story that we were there when it happened.  As we have listened to the story being told the older and over again we have noticed that the story is change.  How often have we seen a small incident become a giant incident?  Statement for often taken by police at the time of the incident when things are freshest in the minds of the person.  But with time we find people who totally change everything that happened at the crime.
2.  Because of the delay in Justice guilty parties are sometimes allowed to go free.  Delay in Justice for a defense attorney is often used to let a guilty party, get away with his crime.  The issue of a speedy trial is best for the innocent person.  Look at the trial system in this country and notice that many defense attorney's use delay to see if they can trap witnesses  to chain or alter their story.
3. Delay in justice for a injure party means added hurt. The first pain of the injury has been by the hands of the accuser.  The second and many times the worst, is when the court delays justice.  The injure party feels the first pain of the assuser and now knows that he will never receive justice.

The Trial of Brian Schwertley is set for September 30, 2006 at 8:00 A.M. at Union Town Hall in Manawa, Wisconsin all interested party are invite. We shall see if Justice will be done.
 
NEWS!!!!
Is the Church being
BLACKMAIL?
See the letters below!
It would get us out of a bad situation, which continues to distract
us and which has the potential to be very damaging for years to come.
This is especially the case because of the threat (read "blackmail")
which Brian has made, that he will publish on the Internet various
"dirt" he has on numerous of the ministers.

Home Page
reformedonline
We understand that the problems of the church and Brian Schwertley are hard difficult issues.  Up till now, I have tried to state the fact of the case.  However, we also have to look at some of the results and also began to look at the fruit of this ministry.  Brian claims that he is no longer a part of the CRPC denomination. But in looking at what has happened, we see that this is not possible. Any body of believers, or government or business has what is called bylaws, rules by which they can change the organization. What do we find in this case? The church at Manawa was set up by Marty Waltho, and was still connected with him. For over five years this church had existed. The church always operated under the bylaws of the CRPC denomination. In those bylaws the rule's for a church leaving the denomination are clearly set forth. These are the rules that were placed before Brian Schwertley and Oly Tauts.
    1. What reasonable person would think that they can take a church out of the denomination without first having both sides saying their arguments to the church?
2. Why would public worship of the church be held in the pastors private residence, without a proper notice to all interested parties being given?
3. Why would certainly parties not be allowed to attend the meeting, when a vote to withdraw the church from the denomination would be held?
4. What church would began to gather and  join a denomination that does not exist?
5. Wouldn't the people of the congregation want to know the background of the other elders/pastors in the new denomination?
6. How can a church make these decisions when there are still charges pending against their pastor?

    As we began to Look at this, we begin to see a lot of deception, lies and subterfuge.  Begin by looking at the charges against Brian.  Brian first took charge of the church by first being examined by the elders of the CRPC.  At the time, that he was examined, Brian made no objections to the standards of the church.  One begins to wonder at what point Brian began to have problems with the administration of the denomination? (remember that Brian was pastor of the church for about one year.)  Is this a proper procedure in any church, (never mind a Presbyterian church,)  For a man to become pastor of the church, have problems with the church, and remove the church from the denomination all in about 1 1/2 years?  However, that is exactly what we find in this scenario.  Brian claims that he is a Presbyterian.  Is this the proper procedure within Presbyterian Circle?  where do we see the church court's in this proceeding?
    Do you think that Brian's real purpose was to steal a church?  Brian was not pastoring a church prior to taking on the Manawa congregation.  In fact Brian's history is a history of leaving from one denomination to the next.  Brian was with the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, and then with the Reformed Presbyterian church US, prior to joining the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church.  Now he is with "Westminster Presbyterian Church US. Wonder how long he will be with them?  And now having obtained a church, he is taken that church out of the denomination and claims that everything is right and proper.  I am sorry, but I don't think so.  By the way, what happened to the $50,000.00 in the church funds?
 

    What can we say about the ongoing ministry Brian Schwertley,

Presbytery will reconvene June 27 to handle the matter of the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church of Manawa, Wisconsin. please pray for this meeting.

Presbytery met and Brian is no longer over the church, Pastor Martin Waltho and Pastor Frank Smith are set up as the temporary session.  There will be a trial of Brian Schwertley to follow later.

SHORT REPORT FROM THE AMERICAN PRESBYTERY

"The American Presbytery reconvened June 27th at 8:10 PM.  Most of the participants joined by teleconference.
There were a number of visitors present, including some from outside the CRPC who are interested in the possibility of joining.
The appeals of Jim and Beverly Brown were sustained, and they were restored to membership in the church.
Mr. Brown's complaint was sustained.  In sustaining his complaint, the American Presbytery declared that the congregational presbytery in Manawa, Wisconsin, had in essence ceased to function as a CRPC congregational presbytery, and replaced it with a temporary Session.
The American Presbytery voted to proceed with judicial charges against Pastor Brian Schwertley; these charges allege violations of the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 9th Commandments, in conjunction with his pastoral activities.
Justin Stodghill was introduced as forthcoming associate pastor at CRPC, Milton, Wisconsin.
Submitted by Jerry Clay June 28, 2006 ."

The following letter was received from George Bancroft, there are several things that we wish to point out regarding this letter.

You will notice that George Bancroft's letter starts off in an attack mode.  He does not deal with the real issues of the problem.  Instead, he makes the issue about secession.  This was NEVER an issue of secession, it was about the unlawful withdrawn off the Manawa church from the CRPC, and the misbehaving of a minister of the gospel.
In this entire letter George Bancroft never mentions the real issues, namely the charges against Brian Schwertley.  This was the real issue,  the issue of secession never even appeared till after the charges were brought.  In fact, the Manawa session lied to the presbytery at the November and December meetings.  On top of that, even the issue of secession would be improper.  A study of the South when they seceded from the Union, will show you that they worked hard at trying to stay in the Union.  They seceded only after other remedies had failed.  In this case, Brian was quickly working to get out of the denomination. In fact Brian was trying to get the church out of the denomination in September before the WPCUS was even in existence, and they said, they wanted to withdrawal.  This writer, has books Brian and Oly, passed out at the church in September 2005.  It was only after charges were brought that the issue of secession was raised.
Brian had joined the Church, had read the documents and had never raised an issue to the other elders.
Common decency requires of those who name, the name of Christ, to set forth a clear straightforward declaration of the issues and to try to resolve them, before leaving a denomination.  Otherwise, you are sailing under false colorers. {See the sermon by Charles H. Spurgeon.) 
"By what tortuous processes of reasoning could it be made to appear consistent with uprightness for an Arminian to accept emoluments upon the condition of teaching Calvinistic doctrines, or how could a Calvinist be justified should he enter into covenant to teach the opposite tenets? Would it be any decrease of the inconsistency of either official if he should, after gaining his position and securing its salary, become a stickler for ministerial liberty and insist upon delivering himself of his own real opinions which he dared not have avowed at his installment, and which, ex officio, he ought to denounce? A church, having a written creed, virtually asks the candidate for her pulpit, "Do you hold fast our form of sound words, and, will you endeavor to maintain it?" On the response to that enquiry, other things being settled, the appointment depends. The candidate's "yea," is accepted in confidence as being sincere, and he is inducted; but if it be a lie, or if at any time it cease to be altogether true, it is only by a sophistry unworthy of an ingenuous mind, that a man can justify himself in retaining his place; he is bound in honor to relinquish it forthwith."

What part of the Presbyterian bylaws of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church, did he suddenly find untenable?  Of course the issue of taking an oath, submitting yourself to the other elders in the denomination, obeying lawful and biblical precepts in dealing with a member, wouldn't be the problem would it?
You will also notice, that one big problem is that this site is publishing what is happening in this case. and apparently they don't like the truth being set forth.

"July 17, 2006

Rev. Frank Smith, clerk of Presbytery
Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (CRPC)
American Presbytery

Dear Brethren,

I am in receipt of your email copy of the hard copy dated July 9, 2006.
I note that it is entitled "urgent ecclesiastical business", and that this is the first time that you have written to us, since the congregational secession of January 8, 2006. It is impossible to make a Presbytery response by extract motion before your July 18, 2006 Presbytery meeting. Yet, this
response has been approved by the ministers and elders in the WPCUS and is expected to be adopted at the next WPCUS Presbytery meeting.

As neither the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (CRPC) nor the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the US allow for dual membership within the two denominations, it must be noted that we have acknowledged the secession of the Manawa congregation from the CRPC and have received the Westminster Presbyterian Church, Manawa congregation and Rev. Brian Schwertley into membership of the WPCUS. Please note that the members of the Manawa congregation of the Westminster Presbyterian Church (CRPC) had petitioned the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the US (WPCUS) at the January 13-14 Synod/Presbytery Meeting of the WPCUS. As you have indicated, we have a significant difference over the basic right of
secession with the CRPC, as I quote below, you wrote:

"We are aware that you regard this congregation as being in full communion with your denomination. However, from the perspective of the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (CRPC), the congregation did not follow proper procedure in leaving our fellowship."

"In our opinion, the question of whether the congregation as such should be considered as having renounced the jurisdiction of the CRPC boils down to two issues. The first is whether or not such a move is legal or proper, especially given the fact that there is an orderly procedure
whereby a church may lawfully withdraw from the denomination. The second is whether proper procedure was followed with regard to the calling of the congregational meeting at which the secession motion was adopted."

We should note most plainly that a secession or declaration of separation is distinct from a withdrawal and is not found under any withdrawal procedure. As you would probably know, we recognize the right of a biblical, legitimate secession over doctrinal or judicial grounds and the
denouncing of jurisdiction. We recognize the secession from the Church of Scotland in 1843, forming the Free Church of Scotland; and the secession from the Free Church of Scotland 1893 and 2000, wherein some members, even elders and gospel ministers were censured for the secession. We also acknowledge the declaration of separation from the PCUSA (1935-36) and the declaration from the PCUS (1974), forming the OPC and PCA respectively. The FCS, FPCS, FCS (continuing), the OPC, the PCA, and the Presbyterian Reformed Church are all secessionist, continuing churches. It is their definite claim and right to existence. In the recent secession from the OPC (2004) over the doctrine of Justification, some members and ministers were censured, yet the names were deleted from the roll of the OPC. The WPCUS is a secessionist, continuing church.

Since we have recognized the secession of the Manawa congregation and the secession of the Rev. B. Schwertley, and received them into membership in good standing, we cannot recognize your claim to continued jurisdiction over the members and even a trial set for Rev. B. Schwertley. Such a trial would be construed in context of censure for the secession. We do not recognize the provisional appointed Session over the congregational members. We recognize one Session over the Westminster Presbyterian Church, Manawa Congregation and, that is, the WPC, Manawa Session. The members of the congregation have even signed a second letter now confirming the
previous rejection of the jurisdiction of the CRPC, and reaffirming their allegiance to the WPCUS.

As other Presbyterian denominations have done in the event of secession, you may choose to censure Rev. B. Schwertley for seceding, disputing the grounds, but the secession and departure have occurred nonetheless. As you desire, we would recommend that you take up the
matter of a formal complaint to the WPCUS at the July 18, 2006 (or August 26, 2006) CRPC
Presbytery meeting to make a precise complaint by extract motion(s). Whilst we have no relations of any sort with the CRPC, nevertheless, the Presbytery of the WPCUS would consider any correspondence from the American Presbytery of the CRPC at our next called Presbytery meeting. As we prepare to accommodate any correspondence from the American Presbytery
of the CRPC, even review of the secession, we urge you to proceed with caution regarding the use of church websites and forums. In the event of filing a complaint before the WPCUS and a censure for the secession, certainly, the official Presbytery Minutes would record a pending complaint before the WPCUS, as well as a censure for the secession.

We conclude urging restraint by deleting the names from the roll of the CRPC and ending the controversy. A comparison between our two respective Church Constitutions reveal definite differences in subscriptionism, church polity, ministerial examinations, worship, fencing of the table, even judicial proceedings.

We put this matter before the Lord in prayer for correction and greater unity in the future. We urge you to do the same.

Sincerely in Christ,
Rev. George Bancroft, clerk of the WPCUS"


  We must say that this site has no connection to the CRPC denomination, although we do have friends in it.  This site is totally maintained by the Antigo Presbyterian Church.  If WPCUS has a problem, you can write directly to us, and your letter will be published on the site.  however, we retain all rights to what we publish here, and the webmaster is the final arbitrator of all articles, letters, pictures and rebuttals.

We have a  letter that was sent out to members of Presbytery, by the committee appointed to resolve the issue.  In the letter is used the word "blackmail."  This writer is sure that the charge of blackmail is a criminal charge under the state of Wisconsin criminal statutes.  a person does not have too use the word blackmail, to be guilty of blackmail.  Any use of threats will suffice.  Although a $50,000 church fund could definitely be used to prosecute this case.


And last of all, we come to the final agreement that is being proposed.

Agreement between the Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States

and the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church

The Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States (WPCUS) and the Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (CRPC) hereby solemnly covenant and agree to the following, in order to settle, in an amicable and peaceable fashion, the dispute with regard to Manawa, Wisconsin:

1. The CRPC hereby dismisses Pastor Brian Schwertley to the WPCUS, per DCD 14:2, subsection 1), with charges pending (i.e., the charges that have been preferred against him), and with complaint.

2. The WPCUS hereby agrees to investigate and try Mr. Schwertley on those charges, in accordance with the standards to which he was bound at the time of these alleged offenses; and also agrees that testimony may be taken from witnesses from a distance via telephone.


3. The CRPC hereby relinquishes jurisdiction over all members who signed the letter (postmarked July 7, 2006), by which they indicated their desire to be in fellowship with the WPCUS.

4. The WPCUS orders the Session of its Manawa, Wisconsin, congregation to grant a copy of all church records up through January 8, 2006, and a proportionate amount of all assets as of that date. The proportion of assets due to the CRPC will be determined in this manner: A – (A X B/C), where A = the total amount of assets; B = the number of communicant members who in the letter referenced above in point 3 expressed their desire to be in fellowship with the WPCUS; C = the number of communicant members who were members as of January 8, 2006 (as recognized to be such by the American Presbytery of the CRPC). These records and assets must be received by the CRPC no later than August 24, 2006. Elder Andrew Duggan will oversee any dispute regarding this point, and his judgment in settling the matter shall be final.

5. The WPCUS Manawa congregation agrees to cease any public or private attack upon, or imprecatory praying with regard to, members of the CRPC or the denomination as a whole.

6. Both the WPCUS and the CRPC agree to assist in the healing of relationships that have been damaged.

These points are not severable, and do constitute a package agreement.



My letter to the committee to deal with Brian Schwertley:

Having heard what was being proposed I sent the following letter.

"Fredrick Edward Fleming, wishes to put forth his two cents worth.

First, let me say that we in no way can transfer jurisdiction of this case to the Westminster Presbyterian Church US because, it would be a violation of the issue of jurisdiction. I've thought about this, and see that this violates every precept of law. The founding fathers of this nation building upon the case law of the Old Testament stated that the place of original jurisdiction is the place where the crime was committed. i.e. If a person commits murder in the State of Wisconsin, and was captured in the State of California, the trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. Such a basic precept of law cannot be violated. With the people of Wisconsin be willing to see the trial of the murderer beheld in California? Know my friends, we cannot transfer the criminal activities of Brian, to another jurisdiction.


Second of all, if we were to ever transfer jurisdiction to the Westminster Presbyterian Church US, we could never take it back. The second part of this would be an issue of double jeopardy. Any decision and I repeat ANY decision that is made by the Westminster Presbyterian Church US, becomes final. To say the least, we would be in violation of issues of law and any action on our part would become null and void. As you also know, the correspondents between the two denominations, becomes evidence against us. Letters wherein the word blackmail are used, will come to haunt us. Everyone will know that we caved in to blackmail. The only honorable way for us to deal with this is to go forward with the trial as scheduled. If we think that the outside world will condemn us because they will think we did it out of spite, I guarantee you we will get more condemnation if they think we turn the matter over to the rag tag bunch of the Westminster Presbyterian Church US. You really think that these are aspects of peacefulness, that will be honored by other churches, when they know that we were blackmail into turning over jurisdiction?


Lastly, the final result of all of this is that we cannot stop the retaliation of Brian and the Westminster Presbyterian Church US.

Do any of us think, that we will stop Brian from fulfilling his blackmail after jurisdiction has been turned over to the Westminster Presbyterian Church US? Remember also, that when Joshua and the people of Israel interred in to covenant they were bound to full fill that covenant even though we are told that it would become a thorn in their side. This will become a thorn in our side.

I believe that the trial of Brian will end out with Jim Brown being the victim. Jim will be portrayed as a weak will, hen peck husband, that his wife where's the pants in the family. The words of Marty, will be used against Jim to show that he should not have become an elder of the church. Lastly Marty, will find the attacks against him increased by Alex. As to the attacks against the denomination, they will continue. The old aspect of I will not hit you, but I can give my information to others that we use it against you and I will stand there with white wash hands. Frank why is it that Brian has preached sermons against musical instruments? I think you know. Brian's claims against me will still stand. However, I do not feel that I have to defend myself against Brian's onslaught. I stand in my Lord, presence and I am washed by his blood. I will continue to labor here in Antigo, Wisconsin.

I strongly caution against us passing on the jurisdiction of this case. I can see no good come of this. It does appear, that Brian, was planning this war over a year ago. The comments he made to me in his basement show us that he was already getting the blackmail ready.

These are the crimes of the worst order. Brian in essence had excommunicated Jim, Beverly and their two children. Even Presbytery acknowledged that it dropping from the rolls was an excommunication. An anathema!!! Do we truly believe in the word of God? If so, would you like to be anathema? These are serious issues and may God make them serious to us, and may we act according to his revealed will."

Maybe We need to see that there is very little difference beween some churches and the Cults, look at the article it batteredsheep.com.



What others are saying,

We quote Barry Hofstetter:

"Now, this won't convince the Paul Elliots and the Brian Schwertleys, who have invested far to much emotion and effort ever to recant of their positions, apart from a major work of the Spirit in their lives. But it does demonstrate that the OPC is a long, long, long way away from the hopeless apostacy described by them. They will continue, no doubt, to moan and bemoan the state of the church, and to continue to criticize, fairly or unfairly, but I do hope that they move on and dedicate themselves to proclaiming Christ in a lost and perishing world, rather than fighting the brethren..."

"Westminster Guardian, cont....

Monday, 29. May 2006, 01:15:45

The Committee on Justification's report was released primarily to the delegates for the next General Assembly for study purposes. The Committee specifically requested that the report not be discussed prior to the official discussion and debate to take place at GA. Apparently the wishes of the report's authors did not weigh too heavily for the WPCUS, and for Brian Schwertley in particular. Now, Schwertley's main point is that the report did not recommend immediate discipline for those purportedly supporting the FV/NPP. While I understand and sympathize with Schwertley's perspective, I have to wonder if he really understands presbyterian procedure? The report makes recommendations, which GA can then amend, modify, add to, or substitute. It's not the final word, but the initial play, so to speak, and one wonders why a little more patience on the part of the critics might not be available. But then again, can one expect patience from those who leave a denomination rather than pursuing due process?"

Just The Way I Like It

"Random Rambling

Well, it looks like we have yet another group of renegade Reformed churches that have started their own denomination: The Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States. Praise the Lord! Now we have a truly Reformed denomination, unlike the other million pseudo-Reformed churches who have actually amended the Westminster Standards over time, or worse, have abandoned Exclusive Psalmody and have even come to celebrate bastard holy days conjured up by the minds of men. I mean, we ALL know that the Westminster Standards can only be interpreted ONE way, and thanks be to God that this new denomination has arrived on the scene to recover the true and unquestionable understanding of the Westminsterian tradition. Thanks be to God that he has revealed his truth to this new denomination, while the rest of the "Reformed" tradition (not to mention the rest of Christendom) has been left in the dark.

This Reformed torch-carrying, truth preserving denomination, founded just days ago, consists of a whopping FOUR congregations, one of which is denomination-hopper Brian Schwertley's church, the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church of Manawa, WI. We thank you, Rev. Schwertley, for your commitment to the pursuit of theological truth, even if you have to fracture the church of God along the way. Your new denomination is a model of how theological disagreement should be handled in the church.

Now, we can only pray that these four elders of these four congregations continue to agree with one another on every single interpretation of every single element of the Westminster standards and Reformed doctrine. What a tragedy it would be for this new group to split because they don't agree on whether or not what the pastor wore last Sunday breaks the Regulative Principle. Then Rev. Schwertley can form another denomination called the Truly Covenanted Westminsterian Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States (TCWRPCUS). Or better yet, how about the the Just The Way I Like It Covenanted Westminsterian Reformed Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (JTWILICWRPCUSA).

Okay, my rant is over."

Craig Sowder

Greg Loren Durand, also claims that Brian Schwertley tells falsehoods. See his acticle by clicking here.