Posted by Dr. Jeff Hutchinson
Lane was asked, and has agreed to serve as an Assistant Prosecutor in the PCA’s Judicial Case against the Louisiana Presbytery (Case 2007-14). All may agree that it would likely be a bad, or even ugly thing for him to have been asked were he known “to indulge a malignant spirit towards the accused,” were he “not of good character,” were he “himself under censure or process,” or were he “known to be litigious, rash, or highly imprudent” (Book of Church Order 31-8). But of course–by God’s grace (as Lane would be the first to say)–none of those things are true.
But what about the other phrase in 31-8, that “Great caution ought to be exercised in receiving accusations from any person who…is deeply interested in any respect in the conviction of the accused”?
First, note that even were a prosecutor “deeply interested in the conviction of the accused”–however that may be understood–even then he may still be fit to be a prosecutor, if the court so judges with all due caution.
Second, note that this wise caution comes in the context of references to “VOLUNTARY” and not appointed prosecutors (I am sure all you expert BCO exegetes out there had already noted this). Sam Duncan, Lane Keister, and every other Assistant Prosecutor Sam Duncan may ask to serve with him, did not volunteer, they were asked, and they agreed. This is an important distinction, and it helps to keep uninformed and reactionary charges of “bias” at bay.
Finally, though, being “deeply interested in the conviction of the accused” is not to be confused with having a deep interest in the theological issues or matters of church doctrine or government involved in the case! Our Constitution’s caution is with regard to fleshly motivations that are personal and not impartial, it is not a codified enthronement of the ignorant and indifferent, and only the ignorant and indifferent, to positions of authority in judicial matters! Now THAT would be ugly!
Though Lane is not a member of the SJC, the principles governing that Commission govern Lane’s service as an Assistant Prosecutor. And one of the principles makes this final point crystal clear, “A member is not disqualified merely because he has previously expressed opinions on theological issues or matters of church doctrine or government involved in the case” [SJC Manual 6.2(c)].
Thank you, Lane, for all your clearly expressed opinions to this point! Keep it up! Of course, do not comment to anyone outside the process with regard to the merits of this particular case, Case 2007-14, but please keep preaching and teaching the doctrines and government of our church, even (and especially) those that are “involved in the case.”
Lane Keister as Assistant Prosecutor? Good.
Posted by Jeff Hutchinson
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Jeff Cagle said,
November 15, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I believe “interested” is intended as a technical term, meaning, “will get something out of it.” (such as money, promotion, revenge, etc.), rather than “has a real concern for.”
The only thing I could imagine Lane getting out of a conviction would be vindication of his various posts.
That’s worth considering, but I don’t think it rises to the level of “deeply interested.”
Someone please correct me if I’m misreading the BCO.
Jeff
Keith LaMothe said,
November 15, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Just curious, have any FV folk objected to the appointment of a biased assistant prosecutor? Even though my sympathies would be with the defense, I can’t think of any reason of objecting to the appointment. Lane is certainly knowledgeable on the subject, and if any of the FV-critics have been fair it’s him.
Mark T. said,
November 15, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Lane’s appointment to the prosecution constitutes a brilliant tactical move by Sam Duncan — “brilliant” because of the good relations Lane has fostered with the FVist’s leader — Douglas Wilson — who has been quick to sing Lane’s praise for his ability to understand the FV. Personally, I find it ironic that though every scholar on the planet does not understand FV and consequently misrepresents the poor misunderstood FVists, a young and obscure pastor from the Dakotas who likens himself to a hobbit DOES understand FV, at least according to the lead FVist. But I digress.
Now, since our beloved hobbit has engendered all this good will between himself and Wilson, it will make it difficult — from a PR perspective — for Wilson to suddenly accuse Lane of conspiring in the back room to pull all the levers beneath the desk to insure LAP’s prosecution. In fact, since this is a trial, it will be impossible for Wilson to make this accusation at all, because he has premised this ridiculous accusation on the assumption that everything would take place without a trial, which brings me back to my point.
It was a brilliant tactical move for Sam Duncan to appoint Green Baggins to the prosecution, so that he may help prosecute LAP in a presbyterian trial. Simply brilliant.
Thank you.
reformedmusings said,
November 15, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Nice job, Jeff.
Every step by the GA and SJC has been in strict accordance with the BCO. Everyone involved in the PCA understands how important it is to get this right and ensure that all our BCO processes are followed to the letter. All the “sour grapes” posts on the FV blogs and comments simply show a disdain for our denomination’s orderly processes and accountability to the brothers. Of course, every PCA officer swore to abide by that accountability to the brothers. Education is the best antidote to misinformation.
tim prussic said,
November 15, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Mr. T., you write as though the perpetual misunderstanding of the FV is a badge of honor for those misunderstanding. Quite the contrary, it’s shameful. On the other hand, the mistake made by FVers all too often is overstating or relying on the shock value of a statement. This, too, is unfortunate. I think that Pastors Land and Wilson have done a great job. Maybe the “brilliance” is more than political. Pastor Lane is very clear, calm, and dispassionate in his assessment of the FV. Thus, he’s a great choice.
Mark T. said,
November 15, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Tim,
Please note your first two statements:
Statement 1: Every scholar on the planet (my words that you apparently affirmed) “perpetually misunderstands the FV” (your words).
Statement 2: The FVists all too often overstate or rely on the shock value of [the?] statement (which is presumably the statement, “Our critics do not understand the Federal Vision”).
Now, which one is true? Do the FV critics perpetually misunderstand the FV or do the FVists make this overstatement for shock value?
Regardless, I am certain that Sam Duncan and Green Baggins share an identical understanding of the Federal Vision, which directly contradicts statements made by the lead FVist. Or put in a real-life context, if Lane understands the FV according to their lunar parlance, and if Sam Duncan understands its English version and not the lunar, then this prosecution team will look more comical than a barrel of monkeys. But if they share the same understanding (as is the case), then LAP doesn’t have a prayer. To be sure, LAP should take Bob Mattes’ advice.
Furthermore, I am confident that Sam Duncan and Green Baggins agree that the “No one understands us” excuse is unadulterated sophistry falling from the lips of disingenuous men who know full well that baloney piled high makes for good sandwiches and better spin, but won’t pass muster in a legitimate ecclesiastical court.
Once again, LAP should act on Bob Mattes’ counsel; there’s certainly no sin in admitting one’s error or even confessing your sin, whichever is the case.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 15, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Re #1
Jeff Cagle,
Good point. That is my reading of the BCO as well, but I am glad for someone else to point that out.
GLW Johnson said,
November 16, 2007 at 8:28 am
Keith
Would Calvin have been ‘disqualified’ in prosecuting Servetus because he was a ‘biased’ trinitarian? My reasons for opposing the FV were nicely summerized by John Piper recent address at this year’s ETS entitled ” Justification and the Diminishing Work of Christ” ( Justin Taylor has the link for the audio and manuscript at his blog). The concerns that he raises apply not only to NT Wright, but with equal force to the proposals of Norman Shepherd and FV advocates like Steve Wilkins,Mark Horne, Jeff Meyers and especially Rich Lusk. Wilson, I am sure will , once again protest ,and no doubt pull out his ‘Reformed’ credentials and stomp his feet as he yells at the top of his voice ‘ I affirm, I affirm I affirm…! ‘ But the thing he has not done nor will he do ,is hold his fellow FVers accountable for their errors. Gratefully, the SJC will and Lane is uniquely qualified to serve the church at this critically important juncture.
Keith LaMothe said,
November 16, 2007 at 8:49 am
Gary,
Athanasius and Arius came to mind first, actually.
But I’m not sure I understand why you addressed your comment to me. Was I implying that bias was undesirable?
I was just asking if any of the FVers had actually objected to Lane’s appointment on the grounds of Lane’s bias.
I would be very surprised to see such an objection since it’s hardly surprising that the prosecutor would appoint FV critics and as FV critics go Lane has done very well in balancing zeal and concern for an accurate understanding of those he opposes.
GLW Johnson said,
November 16, 2007 at 8:58 am
Keith
I simply was responding to your use of the word ‘biased’. But I assure you that Lane will not get a free pass from the pro FV crowd. RC Sproul, Guy Waters, Lig Duncan & co. as you no doubt know,all got slammed.
its.reed said,
November 16, 2007 at 9:27 am
Ref. #4:
Bob: the echo of recurring dittos here. Indeed, all the charges of unfairness, of railroading, of injustice are best answered by the quiet, humble, persevering step-by-step according to the BCO we’ve given our vow to abide by. This is walking by faith, and sure to be blessed by God’s use – to the rejoicing of all His children regardless of where they may stand on the issues at present.
We need more such judicious reflections and less hyperbole that impugns the character of others. I for one am grateful to the elders in the PCA who have taken on this task. I pray that their shoulders may be broadened, their skin thickened, and in the end, find that they really didn’t need the extra equipping afterall.
Fred Greco said,
November 16, 2007 at 10:25 am
Actually, in civil legal matters, one would desire a prosecutor to believe that the defendant was guilty. If he did not believe that the defendant was guilty, he should not even be prosecuting (that would be misconduct).
GLW Johnson said,
November 16, 2007 at 10:30 am
For those of you who do not know, Fred Greco, in addition to his BA in classics from the Univ. of Buffalo and a MDiv from RTS Jackson holds a JD degree from the Univ. Of Michigan School of Law.
Keith LaMothe said,
November 16, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Fred,
Thanks for confirming what I was thinking.
That’s why I would be very surprised to see one of the accused (or their theological allies) base an objection to Lane’s appointment on the grounds that he’s biased. They might object for some other reason, but not just because he has a history opposing their position.
I’d make you a wager on that one, Gary, but I don’t know what the stake could be ;)
tim prussic said,
November 16, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Mr. T., #6 – There’s nothing mutually exclusive about either of those statements toward each other. Someone can overstate his case and yet be understood. For example, you overstated your case saying that “every scholar on the planet does not understand [the] FV,” yet I understood it. But enough for petty points.
My point was your attitude revealed in the first paragraph of #3. You seemed a bit too giddy regarding the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of your brethren. Some of the blame certainly belongs to FVers and some to their opponents. There are responsibilities belonging both to the speaker and the listener, no? Case in point, I just got done listening to some wonderful lectures on the Supremacy of Christ by a professor at Greenville. In the midst of all the goodness of his lectures, he took a dig at the FV (and fair enough on that score). The problem was that he (in such a simplistic way that it verged on sheer intellectual childishness) publicly accused Doug Wilson of the denial of doctrine of sola fide justification. Was that a misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Pastor Wilson’s teaching? Has Pastor Wilson not bent over backwards to demonstrate his joyful acceptance of that cardinal doctrine? I read/see that kind of intellectual foolishness going on a good deal. Thus, it irks me when I read glib little comments like yours above. There’s plenty of repentance to be had on all hands, not just from the FV.
tim prussic said,
November 16, 2007 at 3:02 pm
Re. #13 – then we should call him Fred Greco, Esq. – or is it Rev. Fred Greco, Esp.?
Ed Barrett said,
November 16, 2007 at 4:15 pm
I pray that this whole ordeal will result in broken and contrite hearts on both sides. Our goal should be to bring everyone from both sides to the foot of the cross. The PCA leadership should be ashamed that this false teaching has gotten to this point. And, those in the FV camp can find true grace and forgiveness in Christ if they come to Him with true repentance.
I get the impression that this LAP trial is like a championship football game with Lane as a second-string quarterback. You guys are looking for a hero among yourselves. Let’s remind ourselves of what the Lord says: “Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit.”
I have a question: Why did the PCA allow Auburn Avenue to hold these conferences year after year when the doctrine was questionable and divisive? And, when Steve Wilkins came to that church, he had a history of getting kicked out of other churches. He was known to be a divisive man. He was also on the board of a neo-confederate movement. It seems to me there were enough red flags to warn the PCA of the dangers of the FV.
I am wondering if the reason nothing was done a few years ago was because there were several leaders and seminary students that were agreeing with AAP theology and wanted to see it become part of the mainstream of the PCA. If that is the case, they have succeeded.
The FV will not end with this case. God is just starting to peel the outer layer off of this rotten onion. There are pockets of the FV that have spread like booby traps all through the different presbyteries. And, there are presbyteries that are acting like sanctuary cities for these hidden false teachers. When a new person comes into town and wants to attend a PCA church, they have to screen through whatever choices are available – that is if they are spiritually and biblically astute. And, it is pretty embarrassing when a visitor has to ask, “What is going on over there (referring to the other FV church in town)?” So, don’t be surprised when God starts to uncover some of these cockroaches. They are not confined to LAP.
tim prussic said,
November 16, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Mr. Barrett, I agree that contrition should abound, but frankly, beyond that simple sentiment, I find your last post disturbing. Did you get around to listening to the Auburn Avenue conference of 2002? Did you find the teaching to be questionable and divisive? I might grant that a bit of it could be questionable, but the divisiveness came from the responses to and the vicious internet slurring that occurred after the conference. Any cockroaches there?
Further, the PCA is well known in be broader Reformed world for being quite soft and inclusive. I’ve seen first hand semi-pelagianism, “contemporary” worship and seeker-sensitive driven churches and worship. Any cockroaches there? Or, better, any prosecution there?
All that said, if FV men are found to teach contrary to the word of God, then let the church have them stop teaching. I agree. I think there are FV men that the church needs to prosecute. Prosecute not, however, because they’re “FV,” but because on a specific point of doctrine they’re teaching something unbiblical.
Mark T. said,
November 16, 2007 at 4:49 pm
Tim, I had the scholars identified in this post, “On Heretics,” in mind when I affirmed that every scholar on the planet does not understand the Federal Vision. Several other people have made the same point, most likely because it is the primary excuse of the FVists. I did not make an overstatement, as you allege, and I was not giddy.
Months ago I resolved to ignore all comments by you because of your profound inability to follow an argument, your equally profound inability to make an argument, and your penchant for misrepresentation, which compensates for your inabilities. Now I am sorry that ignored my resolution and bothered to answer you.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 16, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Re #17
Thanks, Ed, for your comments. Starting with the incontrovertible, and moving progessively towards personal opinion, I’ll say this.
1. Every communion of Christ’s Church is “more or less pure,” to one degree or another, as measured by how the doctrine of the gospel is both taught and embraced, how the ordinances are administered and received by faith, and how public worship is performed (WCF 25-4).
2. This has always been the case and will always be the case in this present age. Accordingly, we rest in Christ’s finished work on our behalf for our present standing before a holy God, while at the same time striving by faith for greater purity; i.e. we are never to be either despairing or presumptuous.
3. The PCA is more pure than some communions, less pure than others.
4. Within the PCA, our 70-something different Presbyteries vary in their relative purity. Some are more pure than others. Each Presbytery varies in their relative purity from meeting to meeting and month to month.
5. Within each Presbytery, the different particular churches vary among themselves with regard to their relative purity before the Lord.
6. At every level (individual Christian lives, families, churches, Presbyteries, General Assemblies) we are in flux, the flesh warring against the Spirit, the Spirit against the flesh. As such it is always helpful to measure ourselves against where we used to be. Are we growing in godliness or worldliness?
7. And so, without taking a postion regarding some of the specifics you raised, I agree with the general tenor of your comment #17. We have a lot of work yet to do in the PCA. That was true in 1973, it is true today, and it will still be true for as long as God would be pleased to have the PCA continue.
8. As such, my priorities are first for my own family, then my own congregation (Trinity PCA, Asheville, NC), then my own Presbytery (Western Carolina Presbytery), then my denomination. Speaking personally, the officers in my church and Presbytery are sound men, to a man, by God’s good grace alone.
9. If anyone at anytime were to have any concerns about the life or doctrine of the Ruling Elders of my church, or the Teaching Elders of my Presbytery, I stand ready to do my duty in accordance with BCO 34-3 (that is, to be the “some other minister of the Presbytery” that a person with concerns may approach). And I know that most (if not all; you might not want to bother the “honorably retired” TE’s, for example) of my fellow ministers in my Presbytery stand ready to have anyone with concerns about me approach them in accordance with BCO 34-3. We all signed on for that with our ordination vows.
tim prussic said,
November 16, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Mr. T., #19 – Here’s the problem – you can’t seem to interact with the SUBSTANCE of what I write. Over the past months, you’ve persistently nitpicked what I say. You’ve found some small point and drawn the focus there instead of the substance. E.g., I comment on your attitude and the need for care on all side (reread post #5). You respond with a purported inconsistency on my part (post #6), thus effectively you avoid my point altogether. In post #15, I respond to your quibble and the try to refocus the discussion back on attitudes and care on all sides. You respond in post #19 with a defense of you ‘every scholar’ comment, and thus draw the focus aside once again, and conclude by telling me identifying the speck in my eye. I’m not trying to say there aren’t logs in my eye, there are. But the crazy thing is that you want to accuse me of not following arguments when YOU’RE the one taking rabbit trails this way, that, and t’other while not engaging the substance of what I write.
Mr. T., in vast array of conversations I have, the only folks who accuse me of such silliness as you have in post 19, are folks so rabidly anti-FV that they can’t seem even to deal with FV-related topics reasonably. The Triumvirate of such on this site being you, Sean, & Robert. I can write reasonably with Pastor Lane and a score of other folks, but not you. Maybe you have the same experience. Maybe you can reason with other more pro-FV folks, understand and be understood, but not with me. I’ve found some of your posts to be helpful, but I’ve very little of our interaction to be so. You might have noticed that I’ve not posted much of anything over the past two months until very recently, as I was feeling a bit disgusted with the attitudes (mine included) on these blogs. I will strive to be more careful; I hope all will.
David Gilleran said,
November 16, 2007 at 10:23 pm
I doubt Lane will get a chance to do his thing. When all is said and done do not be surprised that there will not be a trial.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 16, 2007 at 10:54 pm
David,
What are you thinking might happen instead? Are you thinking that the Louisiana Presbytery might reconsider, and “come as its own accuser,” pleading guilty? Personally, that is what I am hoping for.
David Gilleran said,
November 16, 2007 at 11:00 pm
No I am thinking that some churches will leave Louisiana Presbytery to form a succeeder presbytery like Ralph and Ebenezer Erskine.
reformedmusings said,
November 16, 2007 at 11:25 pm
David,
Replay of 2000 with a smaller group? I suppose that would be easier than trying to take a whole Presbytery.
David Gilleran said,
November 16, 2007 at 11:35 pm
I am not sure what you mean by 2000? Let me say I do not have any inside information about this.
reformedmusings said,
November 17, 2007 at 10:10 am
David,
Check out this article: When Wilkins was moderator of LAP in 2000, he tried to get the entire Presbytery to leave the PCA. That effort failed.
Ed Barrett said,
November 17, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I would not be surprised if a group of them did leave; that’s the only way they are going to save face. Also, there are other FV churches in other presbyteries that might take advantage of the situation and leave with them. The FV folks may believe that they have enough of a contingent scattered all over the country to form their own denomination or join the CREC. Like Hillary Clinton, they can pull the victim card out and get some mileage out of it. I also believe that some presbyteries will be relieved if the FV elders do leave because they don’t have the moral courage or spiritual conviction to actively discipline these folks.
Jeff, #20
I appreciate your opinions and perspective. Our family spoke out against the dangers of the Federal Vision over two years ago. Let’s just say we were not warmly accepted by either side. All of our supporters have left the PCA, so that leaves us as the lone survivors. We have chosen to stay, to wait, and to trust God for His victory, in His time, and in His way. Since our leadership has chosen to be passive, we have pretty much wiped the proverbial PCA dust off our feet and retreated to our prayer closet and sought out other ministries in the gospel. We realize that unless the leadership has a change of heart, it is pointless to keep raising this issue with them. So, our prayer is that God would send to both sides what one Puritan calls some “providential affliction” to turn their hearts back to Him. For, we know that the battle will not be won by our Presbyterian system of government, but by prayer and repentance – both of which are God’s gift of grace to us.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 17, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Ed,
I am sorry to hear of your experiences (I think I asked about them before at some point). We must all choose a healthy church to give ourselves to, and it is by no means a guarantee that any particular church in the PCA is necessarily healthy. I hope you and your family are being ministered to where you are now.
Could you give me a feel for why you think your church’s leadership “has chosen to be passive”? What would a change of heart on their part look like, from your family’s perspective? Speak generally, of course. I am not looking for inappropriate specifics, but for general principles that may serve to encourage overly passive elders wherever we may be to do our duty before the Lord.