Built from exhibits provided by complainant Yuanfu (Joseph) Juan. References to Exhibit B (removal letter) are drawn from Juan's quotations in the formal grievance — Exhibits A, B, and G have not been directly reviewed. This page does not constitute a finding or recommendation.
Removal letter (Ex. B, ¶7) claims Juan "through various means, refused" to meet. Juan says this falsifies a sequence where he organized, confirmed, and convened the November 1 meeting — which broke down over agenda scope, not refusal.
Spencer conditioned membership withdrawal on pastoral conversations about Juan's marriage — an extra-constitutional requirement not authorized by the BCO.
The removal letter makes specific character verdicts ("pattern of utilizing God's Word rather than submitting to it," "refusal to submit to spiritual authority") while disclaiming these are "not formal church discipline" — bypassing the formal judicial process that would afford Juan notice, a defense, and a fair hearing.
On 09/25, Juan explicitly requested the Biblical / WCF basis demonstrating the link between "wife not wanting to change churches" and inability to withdraw membership. Spencer never provided confessional instruction — labeling Juan's insistence on procedural grounds as a "theological preference" or "misunderstanding of authority."
Two prior couples experienced the same pattern: months after leaving Sanchong, Spencer publicly addressed their exit to the congregation, applied the "refusal to respond" narrative, labeled them "unhealthy" and "harmful to the church," and proactively contacted one couple's new church to "update" that pastor.
Charges 1, 3, and 5 are all grounded in specific paragraphs of the March 24, 2026 removal letter. Currently working only from Juan's quotations. Must read the actual document to verify quoted language and context.
The central factual dispute of Charge 5: did Hong En's Session formally vote or resolve that Juan had "no valid reason to change churches"? One conversation with the stated clerk or Rev. McCafferty resolves this binary question. Spencer's June 7→July 19 language shift requires explanation either way.
Formal record of the Session's deliberations on Juan's membership withdrawal. Would show: (1) whether a formal Session vote denied transfer, (2) whether the removal was formally adjudicated, (3) whether ruling elders were substantively involved or if Spencer acted largely unilaterally.
The content of Spencer's updates to Rev. Chee (announced 11/01, gap until 03/24) is the evidentiary gap for the inter-church communication portion of Charge 5. Request any written communications Spencer sent to Hong En between November 2025 and March 2026.
Juan offers to provide contact info for the couple whose new church Spencer contacted. Their testimony and any written records would establish whether the pattern claim in Charge 6 is supported. Pattern evidence is significant if Charge 1 or 5 is sustained.
Spencer's April 12 shift toward an FCNI / Matthew 18 defense asserts the presbytery lacks jurisdiction. This requires a determination: is Spencer an "Out of Bounds" minister subject to Wisconsin Presbytery discipline, and does FCNI represent a parallel ecclesiastical structure that displaces PCA polity? If so, BCO 34-5 (jurisdiction over OOB ministers) is directly relevant.
The Taiwan Personal Data Protection Act demand in Exhibit I suggests a separate legal proceeding may be underway or threatened. Determine who filed it, against whom, and what data is at issue — this may bear on Charge 5 (unauthorized sharing of Juan's personal communications).