Posted by Dr. Jeff Hutchinson
Sorry for all the self-referential anecdotes, but here’s another.
When I was in the Navy most of my fellow Junior Officers and I couldn’t wait to be the Commanding Officer one day, but none of us envied the job of the Executive Officer (XO for short). As the Commanding Officer’s right hand man, his duty was to enforce the directives of the CO, making himself out to be the bad guy. The CO would say, “XO, the ship is a mess. Don’t call liberty call until we’re clean stem to stern,” and then the XO would get on the 1MC and say, “Gentleman, I have been inspecting the ship and we are a mess. And so I have recommended to the Captain that we postpone liberty call until the ship has received a thorough sweepdown, and the Captain has reluctantly agreed….”
Man! Sailors in their berthing quarters would SCREAM at the XO! But it kept them from screaming at their Captain. The extra work also kept the troublemakers among them from causing trouble out in town, at least while they were kept busy onboard with somewhat meaningless “busywork.”
If you haven’t heard already, my denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, is in the process of bringing charges against one of its own Presbyteries, laboring by faith to follow our transparent, codified, avowed, and mutually agreed upon procedures at every step. This has been, is, and will continue to be a serious and sober process of loving gospel-driven Christ-centered discipline aiming at restoration to health and strength.
But one former sailor has warned us here at Green Bagginses, with these interesting words:
“One of the things that you all will have to come to grips with is that many in the Reformed world know exactly what play you are running, and have every intention of watching you do it. The fix is in. Biblical justice and due process are clearly not being honored, and it looks to me like the charade will simply be brazened out.
But I can assure you that it will not occur without a running color commentary from me. After you run your play, we are all going to watch the replay a hundred times, including the tape of the referee who hath eyes to see, and seest not, and I am going to be John Madden, drawing x’s and o’s all over that thing. And I will have some particularly ripe comments to go with it. It is a subject worthy of my peculiar talents.”
It is my understanding that this particular former sailor is continuing to yell about the PCA on his blog, and that he now feels compelled to busy himself with what I think might turn out to be the somewhat meaningless busywork of providing a running commentary. It is certainly a free country, and folks are free to spend their time as they see fit.
But, if those interviewed by WORLD magazine, the Presbyterian International News Service, the New York Times (to speak only of the national press), who have made mention of this sailor’s “troublemaking out in town,” are to be believed, at least the PCA will be serving, in this one particular and odd way at least, the inglorious role of an XO.
And, by the way, I can’t remember ever hearing of a time when the sailors yelling in their berthing quarters caused the XO to change his mind. But, as we used to say in the Navy, “A grumbling sailor is a happy sailor.” Perhaps this sailor’s screamings and mutterings will turn out to have been for the glory of God. Actually, there’s no “perhaps” about it. And about that we may all agree.
Christ is, indeed, the Captain of His Ship.
Posted by Jeff Hutchinson
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Keith LaMothe said,
November 20, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Jeff,
I don’t think Pastor Wilson’s commentary is “somewhat meaningless”. I’ve followed it for quite a while now and, while I am still seeking to understand (from anti-FV’ers like yourself) exactly what’s going on with the proceedings against LAP and Wilkins, Doug is pretty convincing. I think he may be glossing over some things like the technical meaning of “strong presumption of guilt” and what Bill Lyle probably meant when he said that LAP would have to prove the indictment to be in error, but even in those cases he’s pointing out the lack of clarity as to where the burden of proof is being placed by the PCA.
This is not merely academic; I’m a reformed Christian, currently a member of a church under a PCA pastor (not a PCA church, he’s ministering out of bounds), and paying very close attention to this whole business. The situation, the division, the strife in the Body of Christ, grieves me greatly. How the PCA conducts itself will factor greatly into any future decisions I may have to make about where to go to church (if we have to move to another city for whatever reason, etc). Right now, if I had to choose between a CREC and a PCA church, the CREC one would certainly get the first visit.
I pray that our Lord will bring us all to a clear understanding, a robust agreement and unity, whatever repentance that may entail, and bring us all the more closer to Him for it.
Grace, and peace,
Keith
Benjamin P. Glaser said,
November 20, 2007 at 2:06 pm
An XO giving a reasonable order would get grumbled at and nothing would be done. But imagine if the XO ordered the crew of his ship to launch torpedoes at another ship because they were traitors
Do you really believe that Lane and others are out to denigrate Rev. Wilkins with no background and even less proof?
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Jeff, you said: “If you haven’t heard already, my denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, is in the process of bringing charges against one of its own Presbyteries, laboring by faith to follow our transparent, codified, avowed, and mutually agreed upon procedures at every step.”
Right. And the question I am pressing is this: do these transparent, codified, avowed and mutually agreed upon procedures grant a presumption of innocence to the accused, and do they allow guilt to be established without a trial? When Louisiana comes to trial, who has to prove what in order for something to be done? Is the burden of proof on the prosecution or on the defense? If the burden is on the defense, how and when did that happen?
Benjamin, I have no “justice issues” with the prosecutors going into a trial believing in the guilt of the accused. They are supposed to believe that — they had betterbelieve that. My problem is with the court believing that already, when there has been no trial of them yet. Scripture says that every fact must be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, and before the witnesses testify, nothing is established yet. That means the accused is presumed innocent going into the trial.
And Jeff, with all due respect, this is not grumbling from a sailor, disgruntled over delayed liberty. These are questions that I believe should be welcomed in all honesty, because they are offered in all honesty.
Jeff Cagle said,
November 20, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Doug, I think you are confused here. In any court case, an appellate court must have probable cause to take up the case. If there is not probable cause, it must defer to the lower courts.
Probable cause — not guilt — is all that has been stated so far in the documents charging LAP. You appear to have confused the statements of probable cause with statements of guilt.
Here is the governing principle stated by the SJC concerning the charges:
The following are examples of areas in which the stated views of TE Wilkins differ from the Constitutional Standards and do so in ways that fairly raise questions as to whether the views are hostile to the fundamentals of the system of doctrine.
Note three points:
(1) The stated views, not the views, are said to be different from the Standards.
This is a declaration that is within the jurisdiction of the SJC.
(2) The SJC has, properly, raised a question about the actual views of Mr. Wilkins. This is the basis for …
(3) The SJC has determined that there is probable cause to believe that LAP did not do its job as thoroughly as it needed to.
The logic is clear:
Stated views conflict with Constitution –> Actual views are in doubt –> LAP had a duty to investigate thoroughly –> record shows it probably did not –> probable cause.
Respectfully,
Jeff Cagle
Thomas Kidd said,
November 20, 2007 at 3:49 pm
As an appellate attorney practicing in both federal and state courts, there is most definitely a right to appeal (short of a written waiver by the defendant) to a reviewing court. You do not have to establish probable cause to have a right to appeal.
Now where you may be confused is that an appellate court reviews certain matters with different standards. For example, findings of fact by a trial court are given great deference by an appellate court while issues of law are reviews de novo, i.e. with no deference to the trial court. As you may guess, the issue of misplacing the burden of proof would be reviewed de novo and would elicit great interest and furor from the appellate court .
Respectfully,
Thomas Kidd
Mark T. said,
November 20, 2007 at 4:10 pm
Mr. Wilson,
Let’s take your “honest question” in its original form. In other words, let’s take it the way that you have been framing it for roughly a year now, i.e. you have accused the PCA of corrupting justice in the matter of the interim committee’s report and the matter of Steve Wilkins.
And in considering your accusation, let’s assume a few things. For example, let’s assume that you have made multiple false representations in public on this matter in various and sundry contumacious posts on your blog. Let’s also assume that you have been extremely disruptive and that you have encouraged your devotees to follow your example. Furthermore, let’s assume that you have assured the public that you intend remind them of it hundreds of times. And finally, let’s assume that your confederation has no constitutional authority to hold you accountable, i.e. you answer to no one.
Given these assumptions, if the PCA’s BCO contained a regulation similar to Article IV subsection O of the CREC Constitution, do you think that the PCA should answer your accusation? It states:
Mr. Wilson, as an accuser of the PCA, have you met the four-point criteria laid down in this article?
Thank you.
Jeff Cagle said,
November 20, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Kidd.
Jeff Cagle
Seth Foster said,
November 20, 2007 at 4:24 pm
The Supreme Court does not take every case that runs across its desk. Only if there is a strong presumption of guilt (the case presented has a strong possibility of being a violation of the constitution), will the Supreme Court choose to take the case. The SJC works in a similar way.
In this particular case, the SJC has the PCA report with the nine declarations before them. When they review Wilkins’ examination in light of the report, they do not see how LAP could come up with their conclusions and exonerate this elder. They see a presumption of guilt on the part of LAP and therefore, need to call this presbytery to account.
The SJC is also concerned about the future of the PCA – its purity and peace. They believe that LAP’s actions, if left unchecked, will affect the purity of the church, allowing these teachings to spread to other presbyteries and infect the entire denomination. A case in point is found in http://www.communitypca.org.
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Mark T, your scenario amounts to this: given the assumption that you are completely in the wrong, how can you possibly be right? I confess myself unable to answer this adequately.
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Seth, but every case the Supreme Court hears or passes on is a case that has previously had its day in court, with both sides heard, a defense mounted, all evidence submitted. My concern is that Louisiana is just now coming before the Supreme Court, and this is its first trial, and they do not have the presumption of innocence. How could this possibly have happened?
Jeff Cagle said,
November 20, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Thomas (#5), I have a couple of questions for you:
(1) I’ve been reading the case document as a statement of cause to believe LAP guity of not doing its job wrt the written works of Steve Wilkins. Do you read it differently?
(2) What level of presumption of guilt do you read in the documents?
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
Jeff Cagle said,
November 20, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Doug, what would a fair process look like, IYO?
Given that Wilkins’ statements appear to the SJC to be out of bounds Confessionally (which is within their jurisdiction to decide), how should they have proceeded, IYO? And what should the documents have stated?
Thanks,
Jeff Cagle
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Jeff, I have no trouble at all with “probable cause.” You couldn’t ever indict someone unless someone had grounds for believing that something was wrong. And the court needs to agree that those who are bringing the charges are not bringing frivolous charges — there needs to be substance and weight to them. But that is a far cry from Bob Mattes’ “strong presumption of guilt,” both for Wilkins and Louisiana, when neither of them have been tried.
If we were talking about probable cause, questions raised, etc., then I have no problem. But nothing like that has been said thus far by any participant on the side of the prosecution. Can anyone therefore assure me that Louisiana has the presumption of innocence going into this, and that the prosecution has the entire burden of proof?
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Jeff, thanks for the question. I grant that there are things in Wilkins’ writings which look like they contradict the standard contemporary interpretation of the WCF. I know for a fact that there are members of LAP who would dogmatically assert that it goes beyond the appearance of a contradiction, and is a genuine contradiction.
I believe an honest process would have been for those in LAP who believed this to have brought charges. The presbytery would then have had a trial, and a verdict. That verdict could have been appealed by the losing party. But the foundation stone of the whole process would have been a trial. As it is, we are at the highest levels of the PCA now, and Wilkins has not yet been given an opportunity to defend himself against those who are accusing him, and once this decision is made, there is no appeal. It is simply wrong.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 20, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Re #3
Greetings, Doug.
You write, “These are questions that I believe should be welcomed in all honesty, because they are offered in all honesty.”
I definitely agree with the first part, not so sure about the second part.
I certainly agree that most every sort of question should be welcomed in all honesty, and I believe the contributors here at the new and improved (improved? okay, the jury’s still out on that) Green Bagginses have welcomed your questions and the questions of others in all honesty, and that we have been doing our best to give good and sound answers.
As for the second part, I’m not sure I believe you that you offer your questions “in all honesty.” Friends of mine, like David and Tim Bayly and R.C. Sproul Jr. trust you, and that certainly means something to me, but other friends of mine don’t. And if you’ve followed every comment I’ve ever made on this blog and the warfield list (what do you mean you haven’t? I can’t imagine that there could be any better use of your time than that!), you might have picked up that the reporting of the Presbyterian International News Service, WORLD Magazine, and even the obviously biased NYTimes (which I read with a BIG grain of salt), has influenced my impressions of you.
Just letting you know where I’m coming from. You are very welcome to keep commenting here (though I assume you caught that your comment on another thread received a Lanien–though 100% Hutchinsonian imposed–strike one). Good progress can be made if we all just accept Lane’s will into our hearts and promise to submit to his lordship here at Green Bagginses.
Seth Foster said,
November 20, 2007 at 5:45 pm
LAP is a church court. As a church court they exonerated Wilkins. That exoneration was brought into question by another presbytery. The only place it can go is to a higher court which is the SJC.
Besides that, to my knowledge, LAP exonerated Wilkins twice. That seems to double the presumption of guilt. How many times does he get to be exonerated before the case is no longer considered frivolous?
As for Community PCA in Louisville- Let the church speak for itself on its own website and you are free to form your own opinion. The PCA report obviously believes that there are elders out there who practice the nine errors in whole or in part. They only recommend that those who hold these views make them known to their sessions and presbyteries. The report does not demand that they be put on trial. But, you would have to admit that there are elders who have not followed through on that recommendation.
I came across this church website the other day. After reading this pastor’s response to the nine declarations, it is my opinion and my concern that his views are very similar to the views of Steve Wilkins. If so, then the concern of the SJC for the purity of the PCA is legitimate. I am not maligning the church or the pastor – I am questioning and expressing concern over his published views. I believe I have the right or privilege to do that. All I ask is for readers on this blog to read those published views and form their own opinions.
Jon said,
November 20, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Re: #10
The Supreme Court is a court of original jurisdiction for certain types of cases.
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Jeff Hutchinson, thanks for the response. I had heard that I had received a strike one, but have not been able to figure out what it was for — couldn’t figure out the link at #33. Would it be right to guess that it was for something I said on my blog? Or was it something that World said that I said?
jeffhutchinson said,
November 20, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Doug,
Not sure if you’re pulling my leg (well, obviously you are with part of your comment), but your “strike one” was comment #33 in this thread, and my explanation was comment #84:
Jeff Cagle said,
November 20, 2007 at 6:22 pm
…and once this decision is made, there is no appeal. It is simply wrong.
Well, certain decisions would probably be wrong. Such as “You should have convicted Wilkins, and we will do so for you.” But that’s an unlikely outcome, I think; it’s not even within the scope of the trial documents.
More likely is that LAP will be censured for not having brought charges against Wilkins, wouldn’t you think?
And in that case, LAP’s remedy will be to have the trial that you wanted after all.
(Additionally, there *is* appeal if the court is sufficiently divided.)
Jeff Cagle
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Jeff H, no, I wasn’t pulling your leg with the question. I hadn’t seen your explanation, and when you first said #33, I went and checked the wrong thread. And now, reviewing Lane’s rules of engagement, I have to confess that my tone in that post certainly wasn’t placid, and so your strike one seems eminently fair. I will reel it in, and thanks.
Josh Follansbee said,
November 20, 2007 at 7:26 pm
I always knew it was the CO, I never yelled from the berthing, I just loathed it silently.
V/R
Josh
Mark T. said,
November 20, 2007 at 8:04 pm
In comment 14, Douglas Wilson says,
Mark T. said,
November 20, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Sorry about that. I did not close my tag at the end of the second paragraph! It needs /blockquote between two brackets.
Douglas Wilson said,
November 20, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Mark T, you said:
“You see, every presbyter of the Louisiana Presbytery affirmed this oath: “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?” This is all that matters. These men voluntarily APPROVED the PCA’s form of government by COVENANT.”
Note the important words “in conformity with the general principles of Biblical polity.” Some fundamental principles of biblical polity would include the presumption of innocence (every fact must be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses, which has not been done in this case. There are other fundamental principles, which I have already addressed elsewhere.
So, I repeat my question, which has not been answered yet. Does Louisiana Presbytery have the presumption of innocence going into her trial? Does anybody even know?
Jonathan said,
November 20, 2007 at 8:46 pm
One cannot be presumed innocent when one cannot define the crime one has committed. Last I checked you cant be accused of harboring a criminal unless first said criminal has been convicted.
anneivy said,
November 20, 2007 at 8:56 pm
Y’know, though, to be fair, Pr. Wilson made a valid point….it would have been better had someone in the LAP brought charges against the aberrant doctrine being taught in some of its churches.
Demonstrating how lacking is my comprehension of the sequence of events regarding how the PCA finds itself mired in this kerfluffle, I’d assumed someone in the LAP did bring charges, which is what led to the investigation currently criticized by the SJC. Based upon Pr. Wilson’s remarks, it sounds as if no one in the LAP ever did bring charges, though from what I’ve read there are certainly those in that presbytery who disapprove strongly of what has come out of AAPC.
However, is a denomination to have its hands tied permanently if no one in a presbytery ever brings charges against a possibly aberrant doctrine existing within its borders? At some point can’t someone else in the denomination bring charges?
I mean, what if Theodore Thicklehymer’s Theological Theory takes a firm hold in a presbytery, to the point there’s no one in the presbytery who could be expected to bring charges about T4? Is the denomination stuck indefinitely with Theodore Thicklehymer’s Theological Theory?
That doesn’t seem right.
Anne in Fort Worth
Jonathan said,
November 20, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Sure someone else outside of LAP could have brought charges but has that even happened either? (Well I dont know if it would be allowed or not but it seems valid to me) However the highest court should not be the one to do so. Also it would need proper direction and aim.
Seth Foster said,
November 20, 2007 at 9:26 pm
First, there has to be an indictment against LAP. The charges have not even been officially written up against them. Then LAP decides on what plea they will enter based on the charges written in the indictment. If they choose to plead not guilty, then a trial begins. It is at that point that LAP is considered innocent until proven guilty.
Steve Wilkins has been examined and that examination is public record. Another presbytery has the right to disagree with LAP’s court decision to exonerate him. It doesn’t matter whether Steve Wilkins’ teaching is heretical or not. He is not being indicted; LAP is. Presumptive guilt has been put on LAP, not Steve Wilkins.
Jonathan said,
November 20, 2007 at 9:33 pm
The problem is that LAP is assumed guilty BecausE Wilkins is assumed guilty.
Seth Foster said,
November 20, 2007 at 9:47 pm
Western Carolina Presbytery brought what is called a memorial against LAP. It was one presbytery disputing the court decision of another presbytery. That can only be settled by the next higher court which is the SJC. The SJC ordered LAP to go back and reexamine Wilkins in a more thorough way which had not been done before. After LAP examined Wilkins, they exonerated him again. This decision went back to the SJC, they reviewed the examination in light of the recent PCA report and came to the conclusion that LAP had erred in its decision to exonerate Wilkins. In other words, they basically sided with WCP. Now it is up to LAP to agree with the decision of the SJC (plead guilty but only after the indictment has been given) or plead not guilty and go on trial to defend their decision to exonerate Wilkins. It is the job of the prosecutors to show justifiable cause that LAP erred in their exoneration. That in a nutshell is where we are now.
Thomas Kidd said,
November 20, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Jeff (#11),
First, I am not well versed in the BCO, am not and never have been a RE, and am not currently a member of a PCA congregation. With those caveats, I read 2007-8 as stating that the LAP applied the wrong standard in interpreting RAO 16-3(e). To me, it looks like the SJC has made that determination for LAP. In our legal system, it is appropriate for an appellate court to clarify what the law is and remand it for application by the lower court.
What is not permitted in our system is for an appellate court to convict someone who has been tried and acquitted by a factfinder. I believe this is Pastor Wilson’s primary objection. (However, it is proper for the appellate court to reverse a conviction and dismiss an indictment at the appellate level.)
As to the presumption of guilt provided for in the 2006-2 and 2007-8, i cannot discern one from those documents. Hopefully, the BCO provides more guidance. It is essential that the presumption be clearly understood by the accused and the adjudicator.
Doubt if this helps much, and back to my lurker status.
Thomas Kidd
Seth Foster said,
November 20, 2007 at 10:09 pm
The SJC decided that there was enough evidence in the examination to show that Wilkins should not have been exonerated; even members of LAP filed a complaint against their own presbytery, disagreeing with the decision. Their complaint was upheld by the SJC. Even though Wilkins’ views are an important part of this case, he is not the object of presumptive guilt; LAP is.
Mark T. said,
November 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Mr. Wilson, I answered your concern here. Please note, however, that I do not pretend to be an authority on the BCO and I welcome correction. I wish you could say the same.
Thank you.
reformedmusings said,
November 20, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Doug wrote,
. But that is a far cry from Bob Mattes’ “strong presumption of guilt,” both for Wilkins and Louisiana, when neither of them have been tried.
I’ve answered this several times already on this blog. Those words weren’t original to me, but are the words of the BCO which were quoted by the SJC in their decisions. Here’s an applicable portion of the BCO:
31-2. It is the duty of all church Sessions and Presbyteries to exercise care
over those subject to their authority. They shall with due diligence and great
discretion demand from such persons satisfactory explanations concerning
reports affecting their Christian character. This duty is more imperative
when those who deem themselves aggrieved by injurious reports shall ask an
investigation.
If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a
strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute
process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to
conduct the case. This prosecutor shall be a member of the court, except that
in a case before the Session, he may be any communing member of the same
congregation with the accused.
You mistake that “strong presumption of guilt” phrase for being a bad thing. Actually, it is intended to protect members from frivolous charges and trials. SJC Case 2006-2 clearly lays out the basis of that strong presumption of guilt.
reformedmusings said,
November 20, 2007 at 11:45 pm
Doug, RE #25,
I’ve already answered this as well in an earlier post. Here’s the applicable paragraph again:
If Louisiana Presbytery pleads “not guilty” it will receive a fair trial. It will have all the time it needs to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and to mount a forceful defense. It will not be prevented by the system from anything less, and in fact, it will be urged to mount the best defense it can. That’s the nature and guarantee of an orderly and open system. And the trial, if held, will be open to the public; it will not be held behind close doors. Justice and equity will rule supreme.
This is reinforce by Bill Lyle’s comment (please don’t trash him again) on the oath taken by SJC members:
I do solemnly vow, by the assistance of the grace of God, in my service as a judge in this branch of the church of our lord Jesus Christ, that
1. I will act as before God, my Judge and the Searcher of hearts;
2. I will judge without respect to persons, and if so tempted, will recuse myself from judgment;
3. I will judge not according to appearances, but judge righteous judgment;
4. I will judge according to the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, through my best efforts applied to nothing other than the record of the case and other documents properly before me; and
5. If in a given case I find my view on a particular issue to be in conflict with the Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in America, I will recuse myself from such case, if I cannot conscientiously apply the Constitution.
This oath is in addition to their normal ordination oaths which I have posted several times on my site from the BCO. I don’t see what more that you could ask for in a judicial system.
its.reed said,
November 21, 2007 at 7:40 am
Ref. #25:
Rev. Wilson, I have strong sympathies for your concerns for justice. I think you continue to err by beginning with the assumption that there is some essential bent towards injustice on the part of those in the PCA who oppose FV teaching. Beginning with this assumption, you see boogey men everywhere you look.
You are a well seasoned churchman. You are also well seasoned at receiving and having to handle in a Christlike manner accusations you believe are spurios and/or frivolous. Finally, you are well seasoned at responding to and/or adjudicating such accusations in according to a pre-agreed upon set of procedures desgined to ensure that justice is not simply the result but even the effect of the process every step along the way.
Take a step back from your concerns for second and consider this. PCA’s BCO is the direct historical descendent of the original Book of Church Order in Presbytyerianism, going all the way back to the first Presbyterians in Scotland. That BCO itself was based on other church order documents, having a heritage that arguably goes back to the beginning of the Church. (If it is still available, David Hall has done an excellent job of tracing the history and the meaning of BCO in Presbyterianism. I think it may still be available at CAPO). Finally, this BCO root is the same root for all the BCO’s used by the vast majority of Presbyterians still today.
The point is not that this heritage should remove your concerns. Rather, if the PCA’s BCO can accurately be described as consistent with this original source (I believe this is true), then your concern for justice (at least in the process) applies to virtually all Presbyterian denominations.
Unless – you make the case that it is PCA specific components of BCO to which you object and are the source of injustice. Even here however, such PCA specific components have been added in specific response to the ongoing effort to ensure that the whole process and the result itself really does acheive justice. In other words, even if for example the words “strong presumption of guilt” are part of procedure that is PCA-BCO unique, the history behind this procedure was to provide yet another degree of protection for innocent parties.
The strong presumption of guilt that the LAP faces is that it APPEARS (emphasis, not shouting), on the basis of Rev. Wilkins’ own published statements (that some of his views differ from the Westminster Standards), that the LAP did not perform the appropriate examination of these views.
This is the QUESTION that must be proved. Please, do you not recognize the justice of this. Is not this similar to the grand jury process, or even the process of an appeal to an appellate court? A judge has to determine that the APPEARANCE, not the FACTof guilt, is present. Accordingly a trial is ordered for the prosecution to proves the appearance is fact, while the defense seeks to prove that the appearance is merely that and nothing more.
This is the essence of the SJC’s action. It is eminently just and reasonable. It neither goes too far nor ignores a valid complaint.
Note that Rev. Wilkins is not presumed guilty (contrary to many wild misunderstandings by many here and elsewhere). Note carefully that his views APPEAR TO DIFFER with the standards. There is expressly no conclusion that not only do they truly differ, but that they do in a substantial and serious manner.
To read anymore into these things, either by hyperbolic assumptive questions or outright maligning the motives of Christian brothers – is just sinful.
Please sir, are you an expert of PCA BCO and its procedures? If not, would it not have been a more circumspect course of action to either spend the time to examine them yourself or question numerous PCA men who have a reasonable understanding of these procedures? Would it not be in keeping with the peace and purity of the Church you are committed to consider carefully such answers as Bill Lyle’s, and maybe even engage him with your serious questions and concerns?
It is a fair observation, Rev. Wilson, to note that you have not done this, but have spoken rashly and unjustly about things you yourself admit you do not have the knowledge to know for sure. As well, you are a leader followed by others. The comments to your exasperations on your blog show that your disciples are following your example and engaging in even greater rashness and unjust observations of their brothers.
I want to be at peace with you and work for the glory of our Lord where and when we can, regardless of any disagreements we may have. How can there be such unity when you rashly and repeatedly insist that men whom you’ve never met are rigorously determined to engage in injustice, and you will do your duty to expose their nefariousness? How can we have any unity when you begin with assuming that the fix is in, and pursue such uninformed opinions.
A blog is not the format to engage in such studies and discussions. Once again many expose not simply their ignorance but even their immaturity. Having done thing similar myself (may God keep me from further) I have sympathy. That does not mean we should continue to behave rashly.
The SJC is a body of godly men, humbly seeking justice through a process rooted in faith that God continues to use His Church as the house of grace. Let not ignorance of procedure lead you to presume wickedness on the part of these men, and foolishness on the part of the rest of us who trust Christ to work through them.
Instead, seek understanding and pray for grace and mercy for all involved. And above all, cease from rash judgements. Surely you can see this is not just.
Mark T. said,
November 21, 2007 at 8:20 am
Douglas Wilson writes,
Mark T. said,
November 21, 2007 at 8:23 am
Apologies; once again I forgot to close a tag.
Douglas Wilson writes,
If we grant Mr. Wilson’s point, then I wonder why he didn’t encourage Burke Shade to appeal the verdict of his trial. Indeed, I wonder why he didn’t play “John Madden, drawing x’s and o’s all over that thing.” Surely, Mr. Wilson could have offered us “some particularly ripe comments to go with it,” for by his own admission, “It is a subject worthy of my peculiar talents.”
Mr. Wilson’s “peculiar talents” notwithstanding, his double standard has me confused. If he truly believes that a trial constitutes the “foundation stone” of “honest process,” then why would he agree to bring Burke Shade into the CREC while he was still on trial in the PCA? And why didn’t Mr. Wilson urge Mr. Shade to appeal his guilty verdict if he really believes this represents “honest process”? I sincerely ask Mr. Wilson to account for his apparent hypocrisy.
Furthermore, I wonder if Mr. Wilson has already cut a back-room deal with LAP to welcome them into the CREC after he’s done interfering with the PCA’s process in this case. I hope I am wrong, but it looks to me as though he’s running the same play as in the Shade case.
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 8:24 am
Ref. #36 – I found Bob’s quote from BCO 31-2 to add even more confusion to this situation (not Bob’s fault of course). .
Here’s what I mean – If I’m reading it right, that BCO paragraph is talking about a disciplinary matter arising in a Session or Presbytery which develops in the following way: Concerns/Accusations arise concerning a certain elder. The facts are investigated. The investigation reveals that there is a “strong presumption of guilt”. Charges are made. A trial begins. Ok, this all sounds fair and logical. I doubt anyone has a trouble with this process.
But I’m left wondering if anything resembling the situation desribed in BCO 31-2 has occured in this whole LAP/SJC case. Here’s what I mean: No one in the LAP brought Wilkins to trial, right? The LAP never dealt with Wilkins under a “strong presumption of guilt”. Right? When they did examine him, it was at the unprecedented request of the SJC. But still, Wilkins was never on trial nor strongly presumed guilty, right?
Putting all of this together, how can the SJC try the LAP for failing to disprove a “strong presumption of guilt” when according to BCO 31-2, that presumption only exists before a trial begins? Steve Wilkins has never been on trial. Right? What am I missing?
Jeff Cagle said,
November 21, 2007 at 8:40 am
Just to add to Reed’s excellent points [aside: Reed, are you in Chesapeake or Potomac?]:
Doug, I have also been in the position to have friends be in danger of judicial process. In fact, I have seen friends unjustly charged, convicted, excommunicated, and later vindicated and restored.
I have had occasion to pray Psalm 17 on behalf of friends before.
So I can appreciate the felt need to be loyal, and to expose the injustice of it all.
I can say this: the wheels of Presbyterian justice grind slow, but exceedingly fine. As much as there are some who might want, out of wrong motives, to use the courts to condemn Steve Wilkins, I have confidence that those involved will resist such motives, and will display their good faith by means of a good process.
And so far, this is a good process. Wilkins brought himself forward for examination voluntarily, to see whether charges should be brought. LAP said No. A member of that panel dissented and appealed. The SJC ruled that LAP did not do its job. LAP will now (if convicted) have to provide a remedy.
That remedy Will Not be an immediate conviction of Steve. It will be a trial.
If I am wrong about this (and I’m not a jurist, so I don’t have full confidence), I will join you in protesting the injustice of the system. Until then, I would join Reed in asking you to consider those who see you as an authority. For their sake, do not “poison the well.”
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
its.reed said,
November 21, 2007 at 8:55 am
Ref. #40:
Ken, the only recourse to those outside of the LAP was this: first bring their concerns to the LAP, and second, if not satisfied with the LAP’s response, complain to the GA. This is what BCO allows and this is what these brothers (Central Carolina Presbytery?) did.
On the second examination, if I have the facts straight, the LAP ‘s action was complained against by one of its own members. This member was not bringing complaint against Rev. Wilkins, but LAP’s examination of Rev. Wilkins. I.e., he objected ONLY to their use of the process, believing it was in error. The only place for his complaint to go was to GA.
No one outside of LAP can directly bring charges against Rev. Wilkins. This is a built in safety to protect elders from spurious and/or frivolous charges. The only actions available to those outside LAP are the actions faithfully followed by Central Carolina Presbytery (and another? whose name escapes me). Be very careful to note this – the agreed upon procedure burdens those bringing such accusations, making it harder for them to prosecute them. This is a protection for the accused.
Someone inside LAP could have brought charges. We can safely say that based their personal interaction with Rev. Wilkins, and the results of the first examination, that none of the elders in LAP saw fit to bring charges against Rev. Wilkins. We should rest in the conviction of their integrity and sincerity in reaching such conclusions, even if we disagree with those conclusions.
Once the issue reached this point, namely the LAP’s first examination being brought into question, the only course of action available was as is the case. Yes, at any point a member of LAP could have, and still can, bring charges against Rev. Wilkins. My guess is that, in the interest of justice, such charges would be tabled until the matter of LAP’s second examination is concluded.
How about we assume this: the SJC is busy communicating with the members of LAP privately, in a gracious and gentle manner, to explain and hopefully persuade LAP why the SJC decided as it did. Let’s further assume that the LAP is sincerely interacting with and considering the SJC’s decision and advice. Let’s also assume the RE Duncan and TE Keister are doing double duty, preparing their case and at the same time graciously working with all involved to see this matter resolved in a just manner without the need to go to trial.
Are not these three assumptions more in keeping with the love Christ says we owe our brothers?
If so, what do we owe our brothers? I would say: 1) repentance of all unkind assumptions of either foolishness or willful sinfulness on their parts, 2) no further baseless speculations, 3) more prayers for God’s grace and mercy on them and us, and – this is the most important – 4) holding our own tongues lest we add to the sinfulness of such speculative conversations.
Keith LaMothe said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:17 am
Bob,
Thank you for your patience in responding (both to myself and others). I hope I do not try your patience by asking this one again:
Question:
If LAP pleads not guilty and the trial ensues, with the LAP be presumed innocent until proven guilty?
I’m looking for a “Yes.”, a “No.”, or an “I’m not sure.”
I’m sorry, I’m dense, it wouldn’t surprised me if I’ve missed the answer to this, but this is a critical question and my dim eyes haven’t seen a clear answer.
Thanks,
Keith
Mark T. said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:25 am
It just occurred to me that it’s a huge leap from “two or three witnesses” to “presumption of innocence.” I am aware that Christ Church regularly conducts trials and excommunications. I wonder how the Kirk elders bring charges against a member and simultaneously presume his innocence, while they also play the role of judge, prosecutor, and jury. Perhaps Mr. Wilson could enlighten us.
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:28 am
Ref. #42 –
Correct me if I’m wrong, but can’t other presbyteries ask for jurisdiction over a particular minister in another presbytery? If so, why wasn’t this allowed? I could have sworn that a couple presbyteries asked for jurisdiction over Wilkins? It seems that allowing this would at least have given us a process we could all recognize.
its.reed said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:32 am
Ken, not at aplace where BCO is handy. However a reasonable response can be given. If your question reflects accurately on BCO, then there were two different avenues available for those outside LAP to take with reference to their concerns with Rev. Wilkin’s teaching. They pursued one with integrity.
Why further speculation?
jeffhutchinson said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:34 am
Keith,
I believe the answer is “Yes.”
The SJC, as was their duty, has already perfomed the BCO 31-2 “investigation” of LAP to determine whether there was a “strong presumption of guilt”–whether the high bar that protects from spurious accusations had been cleared. They determined, NOT that LAP was guilty, but that, in the official and public Record of the two Judicial Cases before them in 2006, there was enough there to clear this high bar.
They then appointed a Prosecutor from among their number (parallel to how judicial cases take place before a Session or Presbytery). It will be his job (together with his Assistants) to indict the LAP with specific charges, and then prove the charges true, coram Deo.
But–and back to your specific question–the rest of the members of the SJC will now judge the case with utter impartiality (by grace through faith), in accordance with the vows they took (which have been referenced and are available on line). So, all that said, that is why I answer “Yes” to your question.
Any critique that says in effect, “Well, how can the same folks who have already investigated, and already considered a high bar of presumption of guilt to have been cleared, really keep an open mind before the Lord?” may be missing the fact that that same critique would have to be leveled of our Presbyterian process on the Session and Presbytery levels as well. The critique reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of Presbyterianism, and the nature of the office of elder-shepherd-judge-prophet-priest-king-bishop; that God equips godly men to wear several hats simultaneously. That’s the theory anyway! It is only by God’s grace that it works out in practice.
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:42 am
Its.reed, I’m not speculating. I’m just asking questions. If others are speculating, it is because the whole process simply looks weird. And here’s why: This is the first time the SJC has ever done something like this (right?). LAP is on trial for failing to disprove a guilt that was never assumed by LAP to begin with (right?). To date, Wilkins has never been indicted by any court. And there were other BCO avenues for getting at this, avenues that have precedence, very clear steps, and that allow Rev. Wilkins to answer those who presume his guilt within a trial setting. These avenues have not been followed. Are we really that shocked that others are questing our judgment on this? I’m not.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:45 am
Thanks, Ken.
You write, “LAP is on trial for failing to disprove a guilt that was never assumed by LAP to begin with (right?).”
Actually, I wouldn’t (and don’t) summarize it that way, so thanks for being open to correction! Reread the actual SJC rulings and reasonings, and you’ll see that is NOT what they are on trial for.
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:50 am
Jeff C., I’m not that smart. Honestly. Please do correct me if I’m wrong. But the concern isn’t over whether or not the SJC has a strong presumption of the guilt of the LAP. Obviously that’s necessary to bring any charges against them. The concern is that the SJC believes in the strong presumption of the guilt of Steve Wilkins. But again, given BCO 31-2 (quoted by Bob above), what legal right do they have to assume this when no one has brought charges against Wilkins in his own or any other presbytery? According to BCO 31-2, this “strong presumption of guilt” thing is a matter to be established by Sessions and Presbyteries. And if one presbytery get’s doesn’t find such presumption, others have the right to petition GA for original jurisdiction.
Jeff Cagle said,
November 21, 2007 at 9:55 am
Ken, you make good points. I guess the next step is to contemplate what other actions could have been taken.
I think the “trigger” here is that members of the Presbytery complained about the LAP — the ones named in the case document. What other options were available for dealing with that complaint?
Jeff C
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:07 am
Too many Jeffs…I’m losing my mind…. ;)
Jeff C, in my mind (for what it’s worth), if I was an SJC member and I had received such a complaint, I would have told those men to file official charges against Wilkins at the presbytery level. If after the trial some felt the outcome unsatisfactory, they could then appeal the matter to the GA/SJC. The higher court would then assume jurisdiction over Wilkins (right?). This would be a process we all would recognize.
Jeff H, as for my summary of the SJC ruling concering LAP, i’ll follow your advice and read the documents one more time. I’ll let you know what I find.
Jeff Cagle said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:23 am
Hm. Point taken. Does the fact that the examination of Jan. 9 occurred as a result of a memorial from another Presbytery make any difference here?
Jeff Cagle
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:24 am
Ref Jeff H. –
You objected to my summarizing things this way: “LAP is on trial for failing to disprove a guilt that was never assumed by LAP to begin with (right?).”
Yet here is how the SJC states the matter:
2) Does the record support a probable finding that Louisiana Presbytery erred, and thereby violated BCO 13-9.f, 40-4, and 40-5, when it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Steve Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitutional standards? Judgment: Yes.
My summary might be crass, but it seems sound. This ruling sounds like a judgment that would be made against a court that exonerated a minister who had been brought to trial because a presumption of guilt was evident. Yet this was not the case in LAP.
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:27 am
Jeff C., good question. Someone with more expertise should answer it.
Mark T. said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:28 am
Ken,
The answer to your question, “LAP is on trial for failing to disprove a guilt that was never assumed by LAP to begin with (right?)” is no. Process is one of the primary issues before the SJC. Here are their words, and please notice the underline; it’s original:
In short, LAP must answer for its methods, not for failing to disprove guilt.
Mark T. said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:29 am
Okay, the word “is” in the first sentence is underlined in the original document.
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:45 am
Ok, I’ve looked at this again and again. In the collective mind of the SJC, what was the LAP supposed to do? It seems that the Central Carolina memorial, in the mind of the SJC, was ample evidence that a “strong presumption of guilt” was already present in the Wilkins matter. So it seems that what the LAP should’ve done (again, according to the SJC), was to either clearly and adequately prove the Central Carolina memorial wrong or to end up agreeing with the memorail and put Wilkins on trial themselves. Is that the gist of, gents?
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 10:54 am
Forgive all the typos. I’m trying to be quick.
Jeff Cagle said,
November 21, 2007 at 11:45 am
That’s how I read it. There was enough evidence for a trial, acc. to SJC, but no trial was held.
JRC
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Thanks JRC – I think I’m finally beginning to wrap my mind around all this. To the rest of the bretheren, thanks for your patience as I played a bit of catch-up.
its.reed said,
November 21, 2007 at 12:41 pm
Ken, no, to be fair to you, I recognize you are asking questions. My concern is that the substance of your questions grows out of speculations on the part of others commenting on these issues – uninformed speculations, rather than doing what you are trying to do, which is ask clarifyling questions.
The Jeff tag-team has done a good job of exposing the basis of my concern that your questions grow out of unproven speculations. Let me try to summarize this further, with the hopes that your response in no. #61 will grow.
1. Speculation: this whole process is about trying to convict Rev. Wilkins of heterodoxy (or heresy) without due process.
2. Speculation: the strong presumption of guilt, directed either towards no. 1 or towards LAP, is a judgement without due process.
Both of these are unjust. Ergo, the PCA is set on giving birth to a great wickedness.
If either of the 2 speculations here had any basis in fact, then a reasonable and humble process of questioning to expose this would be pursuing justice. In point of fact, neither speculation has any warrant. Thus speculation is wrong (others), and reasonable questioning (yours) is inappropriate in that it is directed toward answering invalid questions.
I don’t say this to shame or blame you. Please don’t let my words carry that tone. If I’m getting this even a little better than you, its only grace and mercy poured out over my thick skull.
Points of fact:
1. Rev. Wilkins’ views are not on trial.
2. LAP’s use of the BCO procedures to exam his view (second) is the basis of the trial; to wit, did LAP fail in their application of these procedures?
3. Basis for the “strong presumption of guilt,” (not conclusion of guilt, but appearance) the finding of fact necessary to bring charges against LAP: Rev. Wilkins’ own published testimony in which he gives evidence that his views, in some matters, differ from the Westminster Standards.
4. To differ (Rev. Wilkins’ statement) is not a declaration of contradiction either by Rev. Wilkins or any of his opponents. It is merely that his views in some matter and to some degree differ.
5. The question of whether or not such differences are material (i.e., strike at the “vitals” of our standards) IS NOT before the SJC, nor in view in the matter of the potential trial facing LAP.
Thus, any observations that assume any position contrary to these facts is baseless speculation. To such speculations we owe gentle clarity to show that there are no grounds for them. We do not serve such people by giving credence to their speculations however.
This was the nature of my comment to you, “why any speculation?” I recognize this is not your intention. I should have been more focused in my critique. Please forgive me that lapse.
Hopefully my comments here will help not only clarify my desire to work with you, but indeed the actual reality that I’m doing so.
Jesse P. said,
November 21, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Ken,
I too am concerned about this process. On another list I mentioned to Reed that the PCA’s government is not in every respect traditional and historic from what I can tell. I personally dont understand the SJC at all, I thought that was what GA’s were for but I am an outsider to the denomination so maybe I am slow on the uptake.
Maybe some of the historical types can help me with the precedent for an SJC to be the final court of appeal in Presbyterianism.
All that said, it does seem a cleaner process would have been charges from two in the presbytery, which could have been moved to a higher court of appeal if necessary.
Blessings,
Jesse Pirschel
Jesse P. said,
November 21, 2007 at 12:54 pm
One question that does make me shake my head is this,
What if Northwest Presbytery finds Leithart within bounds? Will this be the process all over again? Is this precedent setting?
Keith LaMothe said,
November 21, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Reed,
Thank you for reminding us to be careful in the speculations and/or questions we engage in.
I follow this matter with great interest, and when the people involved (and those proximate to them) actually take the time to answer my questions (which I greatly appreciate), it can be easy to forget that there is still a degree to which I must “mind my own business”.
Ken Christian said,
November 21, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Pastor Reed – Thanks for your continued attempts at clarification. I think I’m finally beginning to grasp the overall process in view here. I can’t say that I’m becoming happy with it, but I believe I am starting to clearly see what will occur and why. Although, I think everyone needs to admit that some new ground is being broken here. That’s not bad, per se, but it naturally raises the eyebrows, particularly for those who have questioned the fairness of the FV contraversy so far. It also raises questions like the one Jessie posed.
Jessie – I’ve never quite agreed with the creation of the SJC myself. I understand why something like it was perceived to be needed in a denomination our size (and with no delegated assembly). But I still think there had to be better options. I wish we would have tried some of them first.
its.reed said,
November 21, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Brothers, just a general “I get it and share your concerns” expressed in these posts. In response, let me just observe that God is faithful not on the account of the strength of our wisdom, but on account of the strength of His Son. I have found great hope and encouragement, in spite of similar procedural concerns/questions, to put my emphasis in expressing my faith in Christ’s grace and mercy to keep drawing straight lines into eternity with fatally crooked sticks.
The process will produce justice, not because of the men using it, but because of th Lord of the men using. This is where our faith needs to be.
curate said,
November 22, 2007 at 4:55 am
Dr. H, the cozy analogy of the Captain and the XO fails at the beginning. They are the ones who are in violation of their Standing Orders, not the crew. The SO (WCF) states unambiguously and plainly that Baptism conveys the things it signifies. That is the heart of the fight. The rulers of the PCA do not believe that, but Rev. Wilkins does, and they are attempting to remove him. The Sanhedrin of the PCA sits in Moses Chair, but they do not obey him! More than that, they proceed against those who do. All the talk about procedures etc is just a red herring. The issue is unbelief and hypocrisy on the part of the PCA.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 22, 2007 at 8:06 am
Re #68
Greetings, Roger. You are the fellow who was banned from the OPC discussion list, weren’t you? Welcome to Green Bagginses.
I understand your argument, and disagree with it. It also brings you a “strike one” (see my post “Pruning Unnecessary Branches”)–not because your argument, both theologically and materially, is wrong (which it is), but because of your unfounded attacks upon the PCA. We are far less patient with such things here at Green Bagginses than in many other places on the web.
its.reed said,
November 22, 2007 at 8:16 am
Roger, just curiosity, are the you the Roger who posted comments at Rev. Wilson’s blog likening PCA elders who oppose the FV as “bad guys”, i.e., the wicked pirates driving Rev. Wilkins’ off the plank in the scurilous piece Rev. Wilson posted on his blog?
curate said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:20 am
Dr. H, just for the record I was not banned from the OPC list. Not that it matters. No doubt I would have been banned had I stayed. I don’t miss them.
Point 2, I stand by my accusation of hypocrisy, unless you can show me that the PCA leadership has changed its stance on baptism. If I were a member of the PCA I would bring charges, believe me. You say my attack is unfounded. Please support that assertion, if you will be so gracious.
You can expect many more attacks upon the PCA from very many sources. Their actions have caused much repugnance.
And Reed, yes, that’s me. Hypocrisy is a very ugly thing, don’t you think?
its.reed said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:24 am
As well maligning the character of men you do not know. Very unbecoming a man of the cloth, don’t you think Roger?
Shall we look forward to similar Christlike interaction from you?
jeffhutchinson said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:26 am
Re #71
Thank you for being clear that your accusation of hypocrisy against the leadership of the PCA still stands. By repeating that charge, I do think that you have violated Lane’s rules against both attack comments and beating dead horses. So your comment #71 is “strike two.”
David Gray said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:28 am
>As well maligning the character of men you do not know. Very unbecoming a man of the cloth, don’t you think Roger?
Rather a lot of that on both sides, don’t you think?
jeffhutchinson said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:30 am
No, David, those who oppose the FV have achieved a higher level of sanctification whereby we are perfect in all we do or say. Advance the discussion with your comments or you will get a “strike one.”
David Gray said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:37 am
>No, David, those who oppose the FV have achieved a higher level of sanctification whereby we are perfect in all we do or say.
Huh?
>Advance the discussion with your comments or you will get a “strike one.”
Pointing out the sterility of an approach does advance the discussion. Fact is I doubt many involved on either side actually know the people they are attacking. Fact is the “And so it begins” post is clearly in violation of the host’s guidelines. And so would a good deal of what is posted by Pastor Wilson on his blog. What was the comment I responded to?
“As well maligning the character of men you do not know.”
If someone seriously wants to claim that all of that is flowing in only one direction they’d best have some mud placed in their eyes. Better to penalize personal attacks where they occur, on either side, and refrain from them as the centerpiece of a post.
its.reed said,
November 22, 2007 at 11:53 am
No David, I do not. I believe the record falls squarely on those who claim to be FV supporters. Virtually any blog on Rev. Wilson’s site referencing the FV can be found to contain at least one such unChristlike attack on someone(s) who oppose the FV. Sarcastic comments, questioning motive, goal, intelligence, character, even the validity of the obejct of attack’s relationship with Christ are common amongst such people.
And I have yet to see Rev. Wilson’s rule of civility enforced in a manner that even comes close to the standard of Christlikeness that Scripture holds us to.
Shame on any who deny this, either before or after verifying. Do you not care that Christ is watching?
jeffhutchinson said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Re #76
Dead horse beaten, David. “Strike one.”
David Gray said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Not a dead horse?
curate said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Reed and Dr. H, I made a specific accusation which I entirely believe to be true. I have given details. You have said that it is unsubstantiated, offering no counter argument, and I have asked you to support that judgement. Perhaps I am mistaken, and the PCA has changed its stance on baptismal efficacy. What have you said that could make me change my mind? Nothing. I am asking for a scholarly argument that the PCA SJC disagrees with the view of the Rev. Davis of LAP that baptism does NOT convey the things that it signifies. If that is strike three, then so be it.
curate said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:20 pm
Reed, frankly I am puzzled by your remarks here. What has personal knowledge got to do with it? It is public actions that I am referring to. The PCA broadcast its GA and its stance on the FV on the internet. Does that not invite interaction and even criticism from strangers?
its.reed said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Roger, what details? This last post is the first you’ve provide the minimal details necessary to even begin to examine and respond.
Further, what does this specifically have to do with the subject of this thread?
Finally, where did you express yourself in any manner that requested that we support a judgment neither of us made? Even more, why should we respond to what amounts to ranting?
I’ve seen you respond constructively, evenly graciously in the past. Why do I get the impression that you are on a warpath and I didn’t even know I was riding in a covered wagon?
jeffhutchinson said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Re #80
Comment #80 is not strike three, but your question, which is fair enough, will not be addressed on this thread.
its.reed said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Roger, I’m sorry, but I haven’t the faintest idea to what you are referring with reference to “personal knowledge,” hence I can’t tell you what it has got to do with it, whatever it is.
What exactly are you talking about? Your previous post seemed to deal with one specific issue which you seem to believe is the crux of everything in the PCA’s FV debate. This last post seems to broaden the horizon again. What??
Again, how is this connected to this thread? How does it advance the specifics of this conversation, not the conversation you might think we should be having?
curate said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:50 pm
OK Reed, fair enough. Here goes. The thread is about the Captain and XO cleaning up a sloppy ship. I have served in the military and can instantly understand the analogy with the PCA cleaning up its act re the FV. My original point is that the analogy is flawed because in this case the problem lies with the Captain and XO, not the sailor.
I stated why I think that.
You then rebuked me for maligning the character of men I do not know. My remark was intended to answer you on this point, namely, that knowing them is neither here nor there, because they broadcast their GA and their views on the FV to the world at large via the internet. That act makes the “you don’t know them so cannot criticize them” defense null and void. That is the point.
How does it advance this thread? Again, it is the Captain and XO who need to conform to Standing Orders, not the sailor.
During my basic training as a soldier I saw my Officers and NCOs being disciplined for their handling of our training. Sometimes it has to work that way around too. That’s it.
jeffhutchinson said,
November 22, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Fair enough, Roger. You are wrong, but you have made your point plain.
No more on this point on this thread, though, from anyone.
Thanks.