Adam Corkins

I can't speak specifically to the facts with the Nichols. Generally, PCA Elders individually and collectively have a duty to guard the children of the Church, IMO they are always proper recipients of reports of child SA concerns in our churches, even if they deem the report not credible or insufficient on its own to act. Elders can apply wisdom by changing policies or restricting duties to protect children (and leaders), even if they still do not initiate formal process against any individual. We can honor 1 Timothy 5:19 by refusing rumor-driven discipline, while also honoring child-protection laws and our obligations as Christians under the law of love by reporting to proper authorities and taking safeguards. Reporting to authorities is not a conviction. It is the proper path for facts to be investigated. Reporting to responsible authorities is generally not considered gossip.

WRONG! It is the Nicholes (@DrSteveNichols) (Steve, Heidi, and Grace) who owe the students, donors, and partners answers for their actions in bringing unsubstantiated public and serious allegations against an ordained minister in good standing. THIS was at the core of the disruption. "Do not admit a charge against an elder except on the evidence of two or three witnesses." 1 Timothy 5:19

Very good article from World Magazine. Much more could be said, of course. No winners in all this. Ligonier still owes answers to the students, donors, and partners. They didn't give any useful answers to the RBC students at their "family meeting." This isn't over yet. wng.org/roundups/refor…

A form of church multiplication, but not what I would call a church plant (our first site was this ten years prior, an evangelist called to form a new church in a given locale). Over time the site congregations became more independent and distinct. The multi-site phase lasted about eight years.

@acorkins @ZimaInFlorida @jpayne_71 @DavidMRice1967 Would this be more of a church plant rather than an second campus of the the same church?

It's concerning that the Nichols gave this footage to Julie Roys, a woman known for her utter disdain for institutional church leadership, and with a clear ax to grind against any church in the conservative orbit (MacArthur and Sproul were close friends). It's also interesting that Roys put the footage unlisted on her YT channel, hasn't reported on the situation (perhaps because her website is broken), but clearly sent the link to some people. In my view, the footage makes the issue markedly worse for the Nichols.

My question was more aimed at the range of valid expressions rather than the exemplar experience. Spiritual care and discipline is most effective if undershepherds know their flock and are known. As we grew a second site at my last church, local elders and self-sufficient budget were two criteria the elders were reviewing when the site was ready to become a particular church. I would offer if a campus has no qualified elders would be one reason, unable to self-support a second.

@acorkins @ZimaInFlorida @jpayne_71 @DavidMRice1967 I think it's possible, but in order for people to govern together in mutual submission, it's better if they actually gather and worship together. I have yet to hear a compelling case for "campuses" to not instead be autonomous churches who cooperate with one another.

@coconservative7 @ZimaInFlorida @jpayne_71 @DavidMRice1967 I read your earlier tweet as congregational in authority model, but many I know with a congregational authority polity accept a local church can be composed of members who meet in multiple distinct times and places yet remain one local church.

@acorkins @ZimaInFlorida @jpayne_71 @DavidMRice1967 Multi-site churches are, at best, mini-denominations. Usually, however, multi-site churches are simply mini-episcopates. Which is backwards in terms of the exercise of authority.

Do you believe in multisite churches? Or is each particular location and worship service its own local church? If a member subscribes to a body 40 or 50 local gatherings each with local elders but in agreement to govern 40 or 50 local gatherings first under the local elders and appeals to the broader church council of pastors under one profession of faith and rules of discipline decided together..Is that a local church or 40 or 50 local churches?

I'd argue that there are aspects of polity that fall squarly into the category of Christian liberty, so no, not a 1-to-1-to-1 connection to theology proper. But then again, I'm a Baptist who believes that authority flows from Christ -> believer -> voluntary local church membership -> voluntary inter-church cooperation, so the idea of a local church (the only prescribed New Testament institutional gathering) or its members being submissive to a denomination over their church seems foreign to me. I guess what I'm getting at is, considering the Nichols were charged by the Session in July (presumably in accordance with the PCA BCO), and did not attempt to resign their membership until after SAC left the PCA, this seems to indicate that they were following the BCO's restriction on leaving a church under discipline, but felt that once SAC was no longer PCA, the charges were nullified, and so they resigned their membership at that point. Clearly SAC disagreed, as they either charged or continued contumacy proceedings. But they explicitly did not rule on the July charges, correct? The Nichols met with a group of SAC elders in February - was this the first time they met with SAC leaders over this issue? Did they every respond or appear to answer the charges from July, 2025? I'm trying to figure out three things: (1) Were they unresponsive to the initial charges, and (2) is there any precedent to demonstrate that, in Presbyterian polity, charges before a local Session are nullified on account of denominational alignment, and (3) if so, were the Nichols dodging answering the charges brought against them in view of presuming SAC was going to leave the PCA (like, were they running out the clock, so to speak)?

@ZimaInFlorida @coconservative7 @jpayne_71 @DavidMRice1967 Wow.

@coconservative7 @jpayne_71 @DavidMRice1967 I was an elder and member of the session there when this happened and I was never told about any of this.

Teaching Elders and Ruling Elders give vows when installed or ordained to their offices in the PCA. See 21-5 question 3 for TEs and 24-6 question 3 for REs: "Do you approve of the form of government and discipline of the Presbyterian Church in America, in conformity with the general principles of biblical polity?" Part of the Rules of Discipline includes 31-3: "The original and only parties in a case of process are the accuser and the accused. The accuser is always the Presbyterian Church in America, whose honor and purity are to be maintained. The prosecutor, whether voluntary or appointed, is always the representative of the Church, and as such has all its rights in the case. In appellate courts the parties are known as appellant and appellee." SAC Session ceased being a valid court or prosecutor for the PCA when their members and elders resigned from our Church. If we discuss vows, let's start with the elders in determining the validity of continuing process given their approval of the government and rules of discipline. PCA Members, question 5: "Do you submit yourselves to the government and discipline of the Church, and promise to study its purity and peace?"

That's really the crux of the matter in many ways. Presumably, they agreed upon membership to submit to the church discipline process. But if they refuse the process, evidence for or against them cannot be presented in an orderly fashion. So far, I haven't seen a rebuttal to the church's claim that the Nichols were refusing to participate in the discipline process.

@_mattesrj @coconservative7 @swils0608 @CapstoneReport That perspective on the court abandoning indictments when the congregation departed the PCA makes a lot of sense.

@coconservative7 @swils0608 @CapstoneReport Not the case here. All indictments are written in the name of the PCA. When SAC left the PCA, they abandoned all their indictments. Everyone who left was consequently in good standing and accepted into PCA churches. SAC hasn't had jurisdiction for 3 months. Lots of FUD spreading.

Any Presbys close to the situation who can shed more light on all this? I simply reported the known facts so far, but the whole situation is troubling.

Neither "inappropriate" or "abuse" is by itself indicative of sexual or criminal behavior. A lot of vagueness in both the allegations and defenses. We should all take a beat before concluding the allegations are of state crimes. Spiritual abuse (Elders using church authority contrary to Christ's mandate) is always a crime against King Jesus but only sometimes a crime under state law. Examples of inappropriate and abuse behavior that are not state crimes: Pastor encouraging a child to disobey the legit choice of a parent. Spiritual leader having one on one breakfast with an opposite sex student, especially after a parent opposed it. Undermining parental authority. Spiritual discipline of a child to punish a parent's alleged sins. Excommunication without the earlier steps of discipline or a trial.

@PtristicDigital If the accusations were related to crimes as heinous as what's being alleged, this needed to be dealt with in civil courts. The fact that Adams went to them to resolve the issue speaks volumes.

As rumors surrounding Stephen Nichols keep swirling, this is the other side of the story.

@simonateba @realDonaldTrump Yes. The last President and his autopen posse tried to exclude me and 57 million working Americans from the economy because we would take an experimental medical intervention. Many unfulfilled promises but this Presidency is night and day better.

Can we just drop the hypocrisy and partisanship and be brutally honest for once? Is your life really better now that President @realDonaldTrump has been in power for a year? Do you have more money? Do you feel safer? Can you pay your bills? Can you go on vacation? Yes or no?

Friends- This is a tough note to write, but since a bunch of you have started to suspect something, I’ll cut to the chase: Last week I was diagnosed with metastasized, stage-four pancreatic cancer, and am gonna die. Advanced pancreatic is nasty stuff; it’s a death sentence. But I already had a death sentence before last week too — we all do. I’m blessed with amazing siblings and half-a-dozen buddies that are genuinely brothers. As one of them put it, “Sure, you’re on the clock, but we’re all on the clock.” Death is a wicked thief, and the bastard pursues us all. Still, I’ve got less time than I’d prefer. This is hard for someone wired to work and build, but harder still as a husband and a dad. I can’t begin to describe how great my people are. During the past year, as we’d temporarily stepped back from public life and built new family rhythms, Melissa and I have grown even closer — and that on top of three decades of the best friend a man could ever have. Seven months ago, Corrie was commissioned into the Air Force and she’s off at instrument and multi-engine rounds of flight school. Last week, Alex kicked butt graduating from college a semester early even while teaching gen chem, organic, and physics (she’s a freak). This summer, 14-year-old Breck started learning to drive. (Okay, we’ve been driving off-book for six years — but now we’ve got paper to make it street-legal.) I couldn’t be more grateful to constantly get to bear-hug this motley crew of sinners and saints. There’s not a good time to tell your peeps you’re now marching to the beat of a faster drummer — but the season of advent isn’t the worst. As a Christian, the weeks running up to Christmas are a time to orient our hearts toward the hope of what’s to come. Not an abstract hope in fanciful human goodness; not hope in vague hallmark-sappy spirituality; not a bootstrapped hope in our own strength (what foolishness is the evaporating-muscle I once prided myself in). Nope — often we lazily say “hope” when what we mean is “optimism.” To be clear, optimism is great, and it’s absolutely necessary, but it’s insufficient. It’s not the kinda thing that holds up when you tell your daughters you’re not going to walk them down the aisle. Nor telling your mom and pops they’re gonna bury their son. A well-lived life demands more reality — stiffer stuff. That’s why, during advent, even while still walking in darkness, we shout our hope — often properly with a gravelly voice soldiering through tears. Such is the calling of the pilgrim. Those who know ourselves to need a Physician should dang well look forward to enduring beauty and eventual fulfillment. That is, we hope in a real Deliverer — a rescuing God, born at a real time, in a real place. But the eternal city — with foundations and without cancer — is not yet. Remembering Isaiah’s prophecies of what’s to come doesn’t dull the pain of current sufferings. But it does put it in eternity’s perspective: “When we've been there 10,000 years…We've no less days to sing God's praise.” I’ll have more to say. I’m not going down without a fight. One sub-part of God’s grace is found in the jawdropping advances science has made the past few years in immunotherapy and more. Death and dying aren’t the same — the process of dying is still something to be lived. We’re zealously embracing a lot of gallows humor in our house, and I’ve pledged to do my part to run through the irreverent tape. But for now, as our family faces the reality of treatments, but more importantly as we celebrate Christmas, we wish you peace: “The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned….For to us a son is given” (Isaiah 9). With great gratitude, and with gravelly-but-hopeful voices, Ben — and the Sasses

@AshFarms M'Cheyne Reading Plan. Read both new and old testaments. This guy has a number of useful variants. edginet.org/mcheyne/printa…

I'm reading all of the comments (all of them) and it seems like most people suggest starting in the book of John. Why?

If you've been following, you know about my quest to learn about Jesus. We realized we didn't have a Bible and today it arrived. Thankfully, it did not spontaneously combust when I touched it - so we've got that going for us. Where should we start? I think we are going to read a section every evening, we get up at 4:45 and the morning is already rushed. I know the Jesus part is in the second half, but it's going to take a long time to read the whole book. So what is a good starting point? Thank you all for all of the support. It's weird talking about real life on here and not just being completely obnoxious (love you, my boomers). I'm finding a way to still be me and explore this without guilt and shame. Thanks to those of you who have supported that.

@SenRandPaul Agreed.

If you're going to criticize the socialist Mamdani for wanting to own grocery stores, you better criticize Republicans who want a share of Intel, of Nvidia or U.S. Steel. Owning even part of the means of production is a step toward socialism. It's a bad idea and a dangerous precedent.

@ActuallyBarley @drantbradley It looked more like shock than callous. A tragic accident. I suspect he missed an exit and, with many miles between exits on the FL Turnpike, incentives penalizing the driver for the lost time and mileage likely led to the poor judgment to attempt such a U-turn.

The craziest part of this video was at the end when the driver was surveying what he did and showed zero emotion (after killing people). May he never leave prison.

@JenniferSey Its hard what happened. Be grateful for the friends that stick with you.

There are people who used to be in my life who have cut off contact because I’m a fascist. Or something. Then there are those who condescend to still speak with me, and consider themselves quite open minded and magnanimous in doing so. But still consider me fascist adjacent. I don’t know which bothers me more. The number of old friends who still like me and consider me a good human I can count on about 2 fingers.

@Jason @chamath How many of the besties were married and homeowners at 30? I am concerned with each trend individually and most curious about growth of the cohort who are neither at 30.

@chamath Docket

Something is clearly broken. It’s time those of us who were able to live this out, figure out what to do to help the millions who aren’t anymore.

@megbasham @FrankCapraJr @RevKevDeYoung His speech directly suggested Rev Ince was afraid when that was conjecture. Hence the correction.

@FrankCapraJr @RevKevDeYoung I like Kevin DeYoung, but these were perfectly temperate remarks. This man deserves applause for his courage and conviction.

Watch: TE Timothy Brindle’s full floor speech, in which he was chastised by Moderator @RevKevDeYoung for lacking “decorum,” “personally attacking” Irwyn Ince, and speaking with “intemperance.” What do you think? #PCAGA

@justinamash @elonmusk @grok I certainly did not vote for this President to launch an unprovoked unilateral attack on Iran.

One of the most frequently misrepresented federal statutes—often falsely used to justify unconstitutional presidential war powers—is the War Powers Resolution (or Act) (50 U.S.C. §§ 1541-1550). If only more people would read it. Contrary to what you may have heard about the War Powers Resolution, it does not allow the president to take military action for any reason for 60-90 days without congressional approval so long as the president notifies Congress within 48 hours. Section 1541(c) of the War Powers Resolution states clearly: "The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Of the three cited authorities, not one indicates a presidential power to take unilateral (without Congress's approval) offensive military action. The first two authorities allow the president to take offensive military action but only with Congress's express approval (Article I of the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive power to declare war). The third authority allows the president to take defensive military action without Congress's approval in the event of a specific type of national emergency, a sudden unforeseen attack on the United States (happening too quickly for Congress to meet) necessitating immediate action to protect Americans. It's for this last situation (or for situations in which the president introduces forces into hostilities unlawfully) that the War Powers Resolution provides for the oft-mentioned 48-hour report to Congress (§ 1543) and 60-day (up to 90-day) timeline (§ 1544). If there's an attack in progress on the United States (i.e., currently happening), we expect the president to respond swiftly to neutralize the attack and protect Americans—and then we will hold the president to account. The Framers of the Constitution agreed at the debates in the federal convention of 1787 that the president should have the "power to repel sudden attacks" but not the power to otherwise introduce forces into hostilities without congressional approval. The War Powers Resolution does not confer any new authority on the president to take offensive military action without congressional approval—nor could it under our Constitution. It instead checks the president when, as the Framers contemplated, the president introduces our Armed Forces into hostilities to repel a sudden attack.

Please reply to this post with divisive facts for @Grok training. By this I mean things that are politically incorrect, but nonetheless factually true.

@SenAlexPadilla Good manners dictate, wait your turn or hold your own press conference. It wasn't Q&A. You were interrupting her talking to the Press.

If that’s what they do to a United States Senator with a question, imagine what they can do to any American that dares to speak up. We will hold this administration accountable.

@elonmusk Thanks for writing it. Get back to leading innovation. We are going to need it.

I’m sorry, but I just can’t stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.