Anglican Watch

Proclamation Presbyterian: another sordid mess in PCA emerges

Proclamation Presbyterian

We are reposting this comment, because it offers valuable insight into misconduct at Proclamation Presbyterian in Bryn Mawr and the larger PCA.


You wanted some tips re Proclamation Presbyterian Church. Here they are:

After this short narrative there is a letter below from February, 2022 that was written to and received by the congregation of Proclamation outlining sexual misconduct of an Elder/Administrator and the cover-up by the Pastors and Elders. The letter was written by a former Elder who left the church when the Session of Elders refused to conduct an investigation. This sordid situation is similar to the one at Tenth Presbyterian with their former Music Director:
Like Tenth, the sexual misconduct went on for years
Like Tenth, it was covered up by the Pastors and Elders
Like Tenth the Elders took no action to protect the congregation
Like Tenth, the sexual offender was allowed to resign/retire
Like Tenth, the Pastors and Elders gave the sexual offender a celebratory reception when he resigned/retired
Like Tenth, the Presbytery responsible for Proclamation (Philadelphia
Metro West Presbytery) reviewed what happened and nothing was done
to discipline or remove any Pastors or Elders for their sinful/incompetent behavior.

Here is the letter from the former Elder to the Proclamation congregation outlining the entire sordid mess:

February 26, 2022

Dear Proclamation Church Members:

We are writing because we feel we can no longer remain silent about a reported sexual misconduct cover-up that has occurred at Proclamation Presbyterian Church in Bryn Mawr, PA. We want to share the details of what reportedly happened and of how we believe it has been mismanaged. This reported unwanted sexual touching was committed by a church elder (who has not attended in over three years), involved what we believe to be at least twelve reported victims including two minors, and spanned at least ten years. We are calling on the leadership to bring in a qualified independent, third party to investigate.

These are the key facts, as we understand them, about the reported sexual abuse. In early 2018 a group of women made statements to the session. (The session is the ruling body of elders in the church.) They brought complaints against an elder who was also a church employee, reportedly saying he had engaged in unwanted sexual touching. Since then we have learned of other reported victims; we can name twelve. The reported touching spanned the course of years; we have learned of previous reported victims going back to around 2008. Collectively, the women reportedly told of a wide spectrum of unwanted conduct by the elder (the hugging and cheek kissing being the most frequent reported behavior): ● Long hugs ● Kiss on the cheek, could feel his saliva ● Kisses on the corner of the mouth ● Kisses close to the mouth and on the mouth when he seemed to “miss” the cheek. ● Inappropriate comments about clothing, “I can see your underwear” ● Touched stomachs ● Zipped hoodies (yes, over her breasts) ● Placed his head on a woman’s breasts ● Rubbed shoulders ● Rubbed back along a bra strap ● Caressed lower backs during hugs (especially to teen girls)

One woman who came forward further explained this elder was the shepherding elder for at least one of the women. He reportedly seemed to time his meetings so they would meet up alone in the church to have “elder meetings” with them where the reported unwanted sexual touching would occur. He reportedly never did this when their husbands were present. Some reported victims described a period of time leading up to the touching in which they were flattered and gossiped to about other church staff, as if he were bringing them into his circle of confidence. There are additional reported facts that we are choosing not to share to protect the identities of the reported victims.

The women who came forward in 2018 were questioned by the session and session elders reportedly found the accounts to be credible. The reported victims say the tone of the questioning was antagonistic, that they were put on the defensive. The women said that the experience of being questioned by the session was even more traumatizing than the abuse. One elder reportedly asked why they had not come forward sooner.

What was the initial response of the church leadership in 2018 when they heard the women’s stories? Two church elders reportedly took the reported offender aside and spoke with him. He reportedly did not deny the touching of the women who came forward (at this time the teens were unknown). The leaders who spoke to the reported offender said they found him to be sufficiently contrite. They reportedly put a letter into his personnel file and asked him to not touch women anymore. The congregation was never informed that reported unwanted sexual touching had taken place or that the reported offender was allowed to continue in fellowship.

We believe the leadership should have immediately asked the following questions and taken action to find the answers: Are there any additional victims? Were any children touched? (Two teen victims were later discovered.) How many years has this been happening? Did this reported offender touch women at any previous churches or in other settings? We believe the session demonstrated poor judgment by not investing further.

We believe the congregation should have been told that multiple women had made credible statements against this reported offender. He should have been publicly removed from our congregation. The leadership should have led us in a time of mourning for the reported damage this man caused. They should have given any additional victims the opportunity to come forward for trauma-informed counseling. The healing of our church would have begun immediately. Instead, we are four years into near-total silence to the congregation on the topic. What does this silence communicate to the victims? What does the lack of transparency tell these women (and all women) about their value to the church? Unfortunately the story gets worse for the reported victims.

After they came forward, multiple reported victims expressed concern to the session about their reported abuser sitting so near them during worship service. One woman reportedly spent services double checking that her skirt was pulled down as far as possible, and that her chest was sufficiently covered. Another reported victim’s relative finally confronted the reported offender directly and asked him to not sit so closely. The leadership finally asked the reported offender to sit in the balcony.

Within weeks of the women coming forward and the elders’ inaction, the reported offender again touched one of his victims. The church leadership “forced” him into retirement. (The reported victims were told he was fired.) They ensured that he was never alone in the building. His keys were taken away. However, the congregation was still not told of the reported abuse in their midst, or that his retirement was forced. He was reportedly allowed to complete his employment so that his benefits would time with his exit. And what the 2018 session did next shows either complete lack of judgment or a total lack of care for the emotions of the victims. THE CHURCH THREW THE REPORTED OFFENDER A PARTY! Yes, the church threw him a retirement party, with cake. Two elders reportedly gave glowing speeches thanking him for his years of service; at least one of the reported victims listened to the speeches in total disbelief. Both of the elders who gave speeches had reportedly been present when the women gave their statements against the reported offender.

Here is a further misstep of the session. The women who came forward were reportedly pressured to “reconcile” with their reported abuser based on Matthew 18. One reported victim met with the reported offender. Two other reported victims refused to meet with him unless he acknowledged wrongdoing in writing. He refused. Victims should NEVER feel pressured (especially under the guise of Matthew 18) to meet with an abuser who is unrepentant. Here is a TGC article explaining that folly.

It was not known that the reported offender had reportedly touched a minor until some weeks after the group of women came forward, and this was kept secret. (The second reported minor was not known yet.) A couple met with the pastor and revealed that their daughter had been touched by the reported offender as a teenager, ten years prior. At this meeting the parents asked to have the reported offender’s eldership revoked. This did not happen. (While the reported offender voluntarily stepped down as elder at Proclamation, he retains his eldership in our denomination.) The pastor neither revealed this conversation to the session, nor did he report it to the police or to social services. The same couple returned to the pastor in 2020 to again ask for the reported offender’s eldership removal. We understand that it wasn’t until January of 2022 that the other church elders were told there were minors among the reported victims. So many questions should have been raised after the first meeting including “Are there more teen victims?” “Could there be even younger minors who were victims?” “Just how bad might the abuse have been?” It wasn’t until the fall of 2021, that we learned of and spoke to another reported teenage victim. (FYI, the abuse was reported to the police in January 2022.) To hear the stories of the women being reportedly touched as teenagers is heartbreaking.

Teenager One – This woman described the reported offender frequently touching her during a two year span when she was in high school. He hugged her tightly, kissed her on the cheek, and placed his hand on her lower back. She told the story of knowing which hallway he frequently stood in, and always walking past quickly to try to avoid him. Yes, one of our youth came to church each week with her mind focused on how to avoid one of our elders/employee and his touches. See Appendix C for this victim’s letter to the session on February 6, 2022.

Teenager Two – This woman described being touched in high school and college. The reported offending elder would hug her and kiss her and place his hand on her lower back. She has memories that his hand seemed to get lower and lower each time. She shared a clear memory of standing in the back of the sanctuary one day, and the reported offender greeting her as usual. But this time she had a moment of realization that his hand was “lower than it had ever been.” She decided from then on to try to actively avoid him. Yes, another one of our youth came to church each week with her mind focused on how to avoid one of our elders/employee who would reportedly engage her in unwanted sexual touching.

Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” (Mt. 19:14 NIV).

In the four years since the women came forward, efforts were made by a few to bring the abuse into the light. Conversations were had in which the leadership was asked to revisit their decision to remain silent. It was pointed out that the sexual abuse should be handled differently. Requests for an independent third party investigation were made. It wasn’t until the fall of 2021 that the leadership took any concrete additional action.

In the fall of 2021, the pastor hand selected a committee (of himself and three other elders) to review the church’s response to the reported sexual abuse in 2018. Of the four men on the committee, three of them were involved in the initial 2018 session which covered up these actions. How could a committee like that remain unbiased? They formed a committee to review themselves? That seems unethical, and certainly unwise. It is a further lapse in judgment. When Sam as a new elder volunteered to join the committee (with the support of another elder), the session voted against adding him.

In the summer of 2021, a church couple told us about the abuse. Over the course of about three months, Becky had heartbreaking conversations with four more reported victims of this reported offender and Sam spoke with a fifth. Two of the women Becky talked with had been teenagers when the reported offender repeatedly touched them. Becky asked some key women in the church to pray about how to make things right. In December 2021, Becky met with the pastor to discuss her concerns. She was accompanied by two women. In January 2022, she met with the committee to share reported victim stories and to ask for an independent third-party investigation.

There is a specific third party organization that a group of us has urged the church to hire. They are called GRACE – Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment. They specialize in church sexual abuse investigations from a Christian perspective. The reason we have mentioned this group by name is because of their outstanding track record. They have also been used extensively by other churches within our PCA denomination (e.g., Tate’s Creek, PCA). They have a full-orbed staff, including pastors, attorneys, counselors, former victims, and investigators. We believe they would come in as unbiased consultants to give the church recommendations on how to proceed. The other reason we recommended GRACE is that there are not really any equivalent organizations that would be on par with this group. The church might find an organization that would work with sexual abuse victims, but GRACE would do both that and look into the church leadership’s actions. GRACE simply stands out in the field. Dr. Diane Langberg is a premier expert on church sexual abuse and here she writes on how to select an organization to investigate and advise when abuse occurs. Also, See Appendix C for one reported victim’s letter to the session on February 6, 2022 where she specifically asks for GRACE to be used.

In January and February of 2022, the session voted down the option of bringing in a third party. They decided to continue to handle the reported sexual abuse themselves. They chose not to tell the congregation at that time. At this point Sam resigned his eldership in protest, and formally withdrew our family’s membership from the church. Becky also resigned as a bible study leader. (See Appendix for Sam’s letter of resignation)

When Sam was still an elder on the session, any discussion he heard of third parties focused on reconciliation and mediation. It is premature to talk of reconciliation. We need a party to investigate the actions of the perpetrator and the response of the session. A reconciliation and mediation group would not thoroughly review the leadership’s response in 2018. The leaders, especially those on the 2018 session, must be open to a fact-finding investigation. While we appreciate that acting somewhere on the spectrum between poor judgment (unintended coverup) and purposeful concealment (intended coverup) puts the session in an uncomfortable place, these actions must be fully brought into the light by the right organization.

We are writing this letter to you with a few goals in mind. First, we believe you have the right to know. Second, we hope that you might join in the belief that a qualified independent third party must conduct the investigation, and make your voice known to the leadership that this is what you want to happen. Lastly, if an independent third party investigation is not conducted in 2022, we pray for a future set of people at Proclamation to have the courage to seek the whole truth of what happened and make proper Christian amends for the church’s past.

Sincere Regards in Christian Fellowship, Dr. Samuel and Becky Jones

Former Proclamation members, elder, women’s Bible study facilitator, adult Sunday school teacher, toddler Sunday school teacher, choir member, and nursery volunteer

P.S. Since this letter has been written, ruling elder Rob Haviland has also resigned over similar concerns. Rob and Marcie have asked that their membership be withdrawn.


  1. This letter to the congregation is excellent!

    BRAVO to those who composed it! I thank you from the bottom of my heart.

    I am a professional writer and advocate for victim-survivors of abuse in Christian contexts. Seldom have I seen such a well-written letter by whistleblowing Christians who are writing to a congregation.

  2. I would like to know if the stipulated paths of appeal were followed before public announcements were made. Were the relevant PCA presbytery and then the PCA General Assembly contacted before this public announcement was made? If so, what were the responses of those bodies? If not, why not?
    Sam Logan
    Teaching Elder of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church

  3. Dear Sam,

    It’s pretty much the Wild West. Individual congregants and those without ecclesiastical affiliation dare to play judge and jury with little to no regard for due process or Presbyterian polity. As I recently stated elsewhere (and was ridiculed for it) the only way to reconcile the restraints of the Ninth Commandment while striving to maintain the peace and purity of the church is to avail ourselves to Matthew 18. In the courts of Christ’s church, under solemn oath, may such allegations be properly stated and cross examined, all in fear and trembling.

    Merry Christmas,


  4. Let’s talk about procedure. Your view of internal church procedure, and my view of the law in PA. The proper procedure for Poclamation Presbyterian Church, because minors were involved – as MANDATED by Pennsylvania law -was for the MANDATED REPORTERS to report any suspected abuse to legal authorities outside of the church. Did they do that?

    1. Agree.

      As for statements about the Wild, Wild West and OP/PCA polity, Proclamation does not appear to have complied with mandated reporting laws.

      Civil law preempts the Book of Church Order (BCO) or any church policy.

      And for that matter, there is little doubt that PCA’s ecclesiastical courts are an abject failure:

      Moreover, we look at the meltdown in accountability at Covenant Nashville, with its false claims that Austin Davis was an active shooter, its in-house pedophile, its refusal to comply with mandatory reporting laws; the refusal of Tenth to do background checks on clergy or to report allegations of sexual assault to law enforcement; and myriad other situations in which the BCO and its policies are being used to keep corrupt systems in power; and we call BS on the whole “let Presbyterian polity work its magic” argument.

      Something about “by their fruits you shall know them.”

      To be clear, we are not singling out PCA. Our own alma mater, the Episcopal Church, has had a complete meltdown of clergy accountability in the Dioceses of Massachusetts, Chicago, Virginia and others.

      For the record, Virginia may be turning around, but even with a much more conscientious bishop, Mark Stevenson, the reality is that clergy who have engaged in criminal conduct are still getting a free pass — and even have church facilities named after them.

      So much for trauma awareness.

      And don’t even get us started on our Roman sisters and brothers or the SBC.

      1. “The proper procedure for Poclamation Presbyterian Church, because minors were involved – as MANDATED by Pennsylvania law -was for the MANDATED REPORTERS to report any suspected abuse to legal authorities outside of the church. Did they do that?”


        Not sure. Perhaps things were deferred to the parents of any alleged minors.

        “Civil law preempts the Book of Church Order (BCO) or any church policy.”

        Anglican Watch,

        In cases in which the two are in conflict and the BCO is an accurate reflection of biblical precept, the BCO trumps civil law for the Christian. (Exodus 1:17; Daniel 6:13; Acts 4:19; 5:29)

        1. @Ron, scripture is clear: Thou shalt not have other Gods before me. The BCO is the work of man, not God. And Jesus is clear on our obligation to protect the vulnerable, particularly children.

          Moreover, we can see the fruits of the BCO: Corruption, abuses of power, perjury and more.

          Apropos the parents, there is no exception that permits parents to opt out of reporting.

  5. Well said, Anglican Watch.
    How well did “Polity” work at Proclamation? Well ,let’s see. The Pastors and Elders knew that one of their own was guilty of sexual offenses to young and mature women in the church. But, they did not report it to the Child Abuse Hotline. They did not report it to the congregation. They did not protect the congregation from him. AND THIS WENT ON FOR YEARS!!! When it became clear they finally had to get rid of him, they let him retire/resign and gave him a going away celebratory reception. After they were forced to report it to their Presbytery, the Presbytery looked into it and did NOTHING to the Pastors and Elders. They are still there, in charge of the “Polity” of the church. Gee…… worked well, didn’t it???

    How well did “Polity” work at Tenth Presbyterian? Well, lets see. The former Senior Pastor, Phil Ryken, knew that his Music Director was sexually abusing young men. He kept that info from the congregation and most of the Elders. He let him work at Tenth for 9 years after that, with access to many young men. Ryken left to become President of Wheaton College and the new Senior Pastor Goligher, after learning of the problem along with the Elders, hid the information for the congregation. Only after being forced to reveal it by a few of the victims, the Pastors and Elders referred it to their Presbytery. The Presbytery rebuked the Pastors and Elders but did nothing to them. No one was disciplined, and no one was removed from their position. Next came an Administrator who made unwanted advances on women in the church. Then came an Elder who was taking upskirt pictures of school girls. Then came the investigative group GRACE and out of the woodwork came others who experienced sexual misconduct by another Pastor. Now we have the scandal of Senior Pastor Goligher meeting a married Tenth Deaconess in a Lancaster, PA Park and being cited for sexual activity in public. The Tenth Elders are all still there, in charge of the “Polity” of the church. Gee…………it has worked well, didn’t it???
    Elders are supposed to be honest men of integrity. If any of them at Proclamation and Tenth were honest men with integrity, they would have resigned a long time ago. But no, that hasn’t happened. And the Presbytery does nothing to them. There is no accountability for anything. The PCA apparently has a different definition than mine of “peace and purity of the church”.

  6. 1 Corinthians 5
    1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife. 2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.
    3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.
    6 Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Let us therefore celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
    9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the sexually immoral of this world, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one. 12 For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? 13 God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.”

  7. Let’s review the bidding…

    Anglican Watch states: “Civil law preempts the Book of Church Order (BCO) or any church policy.”

    Ron states: “In cases in which the two are in conflict and the BCO is an accurate reflection of biblical precept, the BCO trumps civil law for the Christian. (Exodus 1:17; Daniel 6:13; Acts 4:19; 5:29)”

    Anglican Watch states: “@Ron, scripture is clear: Thou shalt not have other Gods before me. The BCO is the work of man, not God. And Jesus is clear on our obligation to protect the vulnerable, particularly children.”

    Anglican Watch,

    It’s hardly a leap in logic to deduce that if the BCO on any biblical precept “is an accurate reflection of biblical precept”, then to obey the man-made BCO on that precept is to obey God’s divine command with respect to that identical precept. Consequently, this blanket statement, which I originally addressed, is terribly simplistic: “Civil law preempts the Book of Church Order (BCO) or any church policy.”

    “And Jesus is clear on our obligation to protect the vulnerable, particularly children.”

    Yes, and no court of law (civil or ecclesiastical) has ruled. Only the high court of Anglican Watch has made its ruling. It’s called begging the question (and quite common here). As I noted in my maiden post: “Individual congregants and those without ecclesiastical affiliation dare to play judge and jury…

    I can sense it’s time for me to move on. Please enjoy the last word and inevitable pile on.

    Thank you for allowing me to be a guest at Anglican Watch.



    1. Actually, a court has ruled. The Pennsylvania Courts accepted pleas of guilty from Elzey and Goligher. Those pleas are now final judgments and no appeal is possible.

      As to the final word, it won’t come from this publication or from PCA. At the end of the day, it is God who judges the “quick and the dead,” and we’re prepared to say this: God condemns abuse in PCA, the OP, the Episcopal Church, and every other. And much like those who drew Jesus’ enmity — those who professed faith, but used it to hurt others — it’s a fair guess that the Bob Malms, Liam Golighers, Susan Elzeys will not fare well when that day comes.

      After all, PCA believes in a literal hell.

      1. Anglican Watch,

        We’ve been discussing the allegations pertaining to minors and Proclamation, not Tenth. That was the context. I know, it must be hard to keep all your sovereign judgments in order.

        See you at the judgement seat of Christ.

        1. Um, it’s judgment here in the US.

          As to issues specific to Proclamation, you’re correct–no court has yet imposed criminal or civil penalties on those allegedly responsible.

          Rest assured though: Many of us are working to rectify that shortcoming.

          As to your comments about blurring the distinction between individual PCA churches, your comments are more telling than you realize.

          1. Again, as Ron bloviates over at The Wartburg Watch about how church courts just need to handle issues in PCA, including his current church of Proclamation, we point readers to

            Been there, done that, got the abuse to prove it.

            To paraphrase Shakespeare, “Methinks Ron doth protest too much.”

            To quote Jesus: “By their fruits you shall know them.”

  8. Ron DiGiacamo’s comments are pretty rich.

    When he was at Tenth, he ignored the church’s abuse of Phil Snyder. He told Phil that if he continued to contact him he’d have Phil arrested for harassment.

    So Ron’s a special kind of hypocrite and his arguments are entirely self-serving. He has played a personal role in the abuse and cover-up at Tenth.

    But hey, those PCA courts are open for business. Try ‘em!

  9. Speaking of logic, DiGiacamo’s argument is predicated on the notion that no church or civil tribunal has ruled. But that’s the conclusion arguing in favor of the predicate. The whole issue is that the church, including DiGiacomo, has sandbagged issues of abuse.

    Every bit as bad as the Episcopal Church. Maybe worse.

  10. No2Tenth states: “When he was at Tenth, he ignored the church’s abuse of Phil Snyder. He told Phil that if he continued to contact him he’d have Phil arrested for harassment.”

    I think much better of Phil. I’m confident he would not have lied about me.

    I never threatened Phil with arrest for sending me letters or for any other reason. How ridiculous would that be?! Indeed, I didn’t even have to request to be removed from Phil’s mailing list. I let him know that I wouldn’t be reading his letters and he was kind enough to remove me and even informed me of such. Specifically, I communicated to Phil on October 5, 2016 at 5:02:51 PM that I wouldn’t be reading his letters. Phil responded three days later (Oct 8, 2016, at 9:20 AM) saying he would remove me from his mailing list. To which I responded the same day (October 8, 2016 at 10:36:37 AM) thanking him and letting him know I was praying for the elders and him.

    This request of mine would not likely have surprised Phil, for when Phil came to my house in August of 2016 he offered to share correspondences, which he brought in his back pack. (He’s very organized!) I kindly told Phil I was not comfortable reading correspondences without permission. (He received that well.) However, I was more than happy to get involved as a mediator of sorts. I don’t recall whether I relayed that part about meditation then, but we exchanged notes on the prospect later that day at his initiative, for which I was grateful. (See below)

    “He has played a personal role in the abuse and cover-up at Tenth.”

    It would be interesting to learn whether Phil would corroborate and if so, how so? In fact, after meeting with Phil at my home, the same day he asked me (on Aug 27, 2016, at 1:27 PM) if I’d be willing to go to meetings (plural) with him and the elders. On August 27, 2016 at 1:52:09 PM, I wrote
    Phil for coming over that day and said if the session would allow me, I’d be most happy to meet with him and the session together.
    Phil and I had over twenty email correspondences from 2016-2019. There’s no need to get into the details. I’m just addressing the two statements regarding my supposed involvement in threatening arrest, and cover-up.

    Although Phil and I didn’t always agree on how he might best spend his Sundays (worship vs picketing), or how he should try to expose injustices and make accusations etc., I never sensed that the lines of communications were broken between us. Accordingly, in February and March of 2019 the correspondences picked-up again; they were not of an ecclesiastical nature but rather pertained to accessing public civil court files and court dates. On a couple of occasions I told Phil I was praying for truth and justice. These emails were always cordial and he was logistically helpful.

    For several months Phil has been attending the church of which I’m a member, sometimes morning and evening. I will ask him next time I see him whether he’s aware that someone has stated that I threatened to have him arrested and played a role in abuse and cover-up at Tenth. I wasn’t on session when the so-called cover ups were even occurring (e.g., Jones), which Phil is also aware. Lastly, I always encouraged Phil to appeal to presbytery and I was also grateful that he got his “day in the court” in Philadelphia. I will continue to pray for reconciliation over truth.

    1. Not reading his letters? Without knowing what was on Phil’s mind, wouldn’t that make it hard to mediate?

      Prayer is good, but it’s typically a poor substitute for action.

      As for not being on Session, that sounds very much like the whole, “That happened before I got here,” routine a la Grace Episcopal Alexandria and virtually every other abusive church out there.

      1. In every case, Scripture supercedes the BCO. The retirement celebration that Proclamation held for the alleged perpetrator was in direct violation of 1 Timothy 5:20.
        Abuse & harassment is a sin regardless of whether the BCO was followed or not.
        These attempts by PCA leaders to hide their sin & failures under cover of the BCO constitute the most repugnant hypocrisy i have ever witnessed. You make a mockery of the holy office of elder. You are white washed tombs. May God have mercy on your souls.

        1. Yeah, for folks who believe in a literal hell, we see a curious lack of repentance by Proclamation, Tenth, Goligher, Elzey et al.

          As to Goligher’s claim he was having a picnic in Lancaster with Susan Elzey, spare us. That is world without end BS and proof, along with his inane lawyer’s letter, that he is unrepentant.

          Apropos Elzey, she is the prototypical bully. Catch her in the act, and she blames Phil Snyder, tries to gaslight us and tell us nothing ever happened, etc. The whole usual church bully bag of tricks.

          As for Ron, his time would be better spent holding elders at Tenth and Proclamation accountable, versus making excuses. That includes his lame thing about how maybe parents didn’t want to report. Sorry, but mandatory reporting is just that —- mandatory.

          1. I couldn’t agree more. I mean… “Holy cognitive dissonance, Batman!” The comment about not reading something without permission is just insane to me. Is this the kind of brainwashed attitude that gets ppl ordained these days? Is the PCA a full-blown cult now?

  11. Speaking of logic, DiGiacamo’s argument is predicated on the notion that no church or civil tribunal has ruled. But that’s the conclusion arguing in favor of the predicate. The whole issue is that the church, including DiGiacomo, has sandbagged issues of abuse.

    Every bit as bad as the Episcopal Church. Maybe worse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *