Posted by Bob Mattes
I posted the indictment itself over on my blog. I did this to keep the documentation separated from Lane and his blog. However, I think that discussing it here would be within bounds. I have not discussed any of this with Lane as that would be inappropriate.
The indictment brings essentially two charges. These should not surprise anyone as they were the findings in the Standing Judicial Commission’s (SJC) case summaries here and here. This is a landmark case in the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), the likes of which one nobody wanted to see but one which has become absolutely necessary for the peace and purity of the church. As such, the SJC is being absolutely scrupulous with its procedures, following their guidance to the finest detail.
The first charge starts out:
Louisiana Presbytery failed properly to handle TE Wilkins’s differences (some of which are evidenced in the Appendix)
to determine whether or not his views are out of accord at key
points with the system of doctrine summarized in the Confessional
Standards, which are “standard expositions of the teachings of
Scripture in relation to both faith and practice,” and as such has
failed adequately to protect the peace and purity of the Church.
Please note that the term “differences” as used above does not
assume pre-adjudication of the case. The term “differences” is
being used as defined by RAO 16-3(e)(5).
What exactly does RAO 16-3(e)(5) say?
5) Minutes of presbytery relating to examinations must list all
specific requirements and trials for licensure and/or
ordination which have been accomplished, including that
each candidate being examined for ordination was required
to “state the specific instances in which he may differ with
the Confession of Faith and Catechisms in any of their
statements and/or propositions” (BCO 21-4). This does not
mean that a separate vote on each item must be recorded.
Presbytery minutes shall record ministers’ and ministerial
candidates’ stated differences with our Standards in the
following manner. Each presbytery shall record whether:
a) the candidate stated that he had no differences; or
b) the court judged the stated difference(s) to be merely
semantic; or
c) the court judged the stated difference(s) to be more than
semantic, but “not out of accord with any fundamental of
our system of doctrine” (BCO 21-4); or
d) the court judged the stated difference(s) to be “out of
accord,” that is, “hostile to the system” or “strik[ing] at
the vitals of religion” (BCO 21-4).
Rather than follow this explicit guidance, Louisiana Presbytery (LAP) chose to instead rule concerning TE Wilkins’s views: “Thus far, no one has brought forth evidence demonstrating that TE Wilkins has actively denied the system of doctrine.” As the PCA prosecutor points out in the indictment and anyone with the ability to read can see, this is not the standard for evaluating or classifying views, not resembling any of the four choices in RAO 16-3(e)(5). That’s like taking a multiple choice test with possible answers ‘a’ through ‘d’ and marking the answer as ‘e’.
Therefore, the indictment says:
Louisiana Presbytery was required to investigate these
differences and classify them under RAO 16-3(e)(5). Louisiana Presbytery failed to comply with this requirement.
That’s simple and straightforward, not to mention obvious to anyone watching the proceedings thus far.
Of course, this first charge indicates that TE Wilkins has differences with the Standards. That takes us to the second charge, which starts:
Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption
of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of
conformity with the Constitution, and thus was derelict in its duty
under BCO 13-9, 40-4, and 40-5, and has thereby caused much
unresolved pastoral confusion and harm.TE Wilkins’s views, as articulated in the Record of the Case
in 2007-8 and in the following examples, clearly constitute a
strong presumption of guilt that his views are out of accord with
the Constitution and require a fair and impartial court to proceed
to trial.
We’ve discussed the phrase “strong presumption of guilt” ad nauseum on this blog, mine, and elsewhere, so I won’t get into that again. These statements in the indictment are followed by over three pages of quotes from TE Wilkins writings and examinations to back up this point–that he has differences with the Constitutional Standards. Further, the indictment contains a 14-page Appendix consisting almost entirely of quotes from TE Wilkins contrasted with both the Westminster Standards and Scripture.
This case does not suffer from a shortage of evidence concerning TE Wilkins’ views. I suspect that the reason the appendix is only 14 pages is because of the limited time to get the indictment proofed and then sent to LAP to meet the plea and possible trial deadlines. Wilkins answers to the questions from the Central Carolina Presbytery Memorial alone runs about 29 pages when pasted into OpenOffice.org Writer. That doesn’t count the book essays, papers, Sunday school lessons, etc.
The underlying theological issues won’t surprise regular blog readers, as they have all been dealt with in one way or another on a number of blogs, including this one. I’m sure we’ll see the reruns coming soon.
Of course, TE Wilkins isn’t on trial here, Louisiana Presbytery will be if they plead “not guilty.” However, it is LAP’s incorrect handling of TE Wilkins’ examination at the core of this case, which naturally involves his views in a major way. TE Wilkins doesn’t have to be on trial for his views to play a major role in the case.
I find the Amends in the indictment particularly interesting:
Louisiana Presbytery, by neglecting its duties to handle
properly TE Wilkins differences and by not finding a strong
presumption of guilt on the part of TE Wilkins, and thus either
embracing his views or refusing even to being open to considering
his guilt therein, has evidenced its refusal to deal with the views
of TE Wilkins that differ from the Confessional Standards and
Scripture; thereby creating an impasse that can only be resolved by
Louisiana Presbytery either repenting (and showing its repentance
by bringing TE Wilkins to trial in a fair and impartial way or by
referring the matter pursuant to BCO 41), or failing which, having
the ecclesiastical connection between Louisiana Presbytery and the
Presbyterian Church in America dissolved by the General Assembly,
with the geographical bounds of neighboring presbyteries being
expanded to cover the geographical area of Louisiana Presbytery,
with said neighboring presbyteries, after due examination of elders
and deliberation, being responsible for receiving any elders and
churches desiring to be reunited with the Presbyterian Church in
America.
The first interesting point is that they only see two possible reasons for LAP’s failure to deal with TE Wilkins’ examination correctly: 1) that LAP either embraces TE Wilkins’ views; or 2) LAP refuses even to being open to considering his guilt therein. Neither of these are good for a body that is responsible for overseeing teaching elders under its care.
As you can read, LAP has two options open to it:
1. LAP can repent of its errors and demonstrate this by conducting a fair and impartial trial of TE Wilkins; or
2. LAP can leave the PCA with the churches that agree with TE Wilkins’ errors.
That’s pretty strong stuff. Of course, TE Wilkins tried and failed about eight years ago to get Louisiana Presbytery to leave the PCA. Interesting turn of events.
According to the Citation, LAP has until February 1, 2008 to decide what it wants to do. If it opts for a trial, that will happen starting March 5, 2008. It will be interesting to see what they decide.
I can already hear the Federal Vision spin machine cranking up. The beauty is that all the Federal Vision spin counts for less than nothing. Providentially, the PCA has an established orderly and just process that doesn’t bend to the spin, rants, or “peculiar talents” of Federal Visionist bloggers, nor is it intimidated by them. Just the facts, ma’am.
Posted by Bob Mattes
greenbaggins
glwjohnson
jeffhutchinson
davejes1979
reformedmusings
Reed Here
Andrew Webb
RSS - Posts
David Gray said,
January 6, 2008 at 8:38 pm
So peace will be had if the LAP tries Wilkins, uses appropriate procedure and then finds him not to require discipline?
reformedmusings said,
January 6, 2008 at 8:50 pm
David,
It depends if: a) the trial itself is found to have been conducted properly IAW the BCO; and/or b) if someone files a complaint after the trial alleging irregularities. So far, LAP hasn’t even gotten past conducting a simple examination correctly. One step at a time, eh?
David Gray said,
January 6, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Brother Mattes,
Just clarifying that nobody hear is going to require a given result from LAP.
reformedmusings said,
January 6, 2008 at 9:25 pm
David,
The phrase used in the indictment is a “fair and impartial” trial. That speaks for itself and is the way we do judicial business in the PCA.
I’m sure that TE Wilkins can call TE John Wood over in TVP on that issue to get reassurance. Oh wait, TE Wilkins wasn’t happy with the way that “fair and impartial” turned out in that case.
David Gray said,
January 6, 2008 at 9:47 pm
>That speaks for itself and is the way we do judicial business in the PCA.
Hopefully we can all say that when these events have run their course.
Benjamin P. Glaser said,
January 6, 2008 at 10:01 pm
This will be interesting to watch for all of us.
reformedmusings said,
January 6, 2008 at 10:06 pm
David,
On the flip side, if LAP repents, provides a fair and impartial trial for TE Wilkins and convicts/deposes him, will FVers be satisfied, assuming that all appeals support the verdict?
anneivy said,
January 6, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Dollars to donuts the point y’all are debating will be rendered moot by the LAP choosing to cut its ties to the PCA, thus avoiding a trial.
Only sensible thing to do, really.
David Gray said,
January 6, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Brother Mattes,
Procedurally at any rate they ought to be.
Al said,
January 7, 2008 at 9:32 am
Anne,
I don’t think so (not PCA here so I may be way wrong)… I think the desire is that there be a trial of some kind and then allow the chips to fall where they may. It could very well be decided that the PCA has no room for Wilkins et al, but that should be decided at a trial; not simply because a good number of folks just want to see them leave.
Again, I could be wrong about how folks in the LAP desire to proceed.
al sends
Alan Stout
Elder, Providence Church (CREC)
http://providencepensacola.org
http://afterthebasket.wordpress.com
anneivy said,
January 7, 2008 at 9:49 am
I don’t believe I said anything about the LAP leaving the PCA “simply because a good number of folks just want to see them leave,” Al.
I meant “sensible” from the LAP’s vantage point. What on earth have they got to gain by going to trial?
its.reed said,
January 7, 2008 at 10:14 am
Ref. #12:
Anne, from one perspective, it would also be an honorable thing to do. Some in LAP might decide, “we don’t think the FV disagrees with the Westminster Standards, but many of our fellow elders do. They appear to be conscious bound to push the issue via the juridical process. For the sake of peace in the Church, let us quietly leave and trust our doctrinal differences to the Lord’s great assize.”
Of course, it is also honorable to stay and defend what one believes is truth. If that is the case, let me simply remind everyone not to take their expectations of what this matter will resolve too fair. Last time we discussed this there was far to much presumption and unkind observations.
Peace, peace, peace … (let’s all demonstrate we believe Jesus is Lord :) ).
Al said,
January 7, 2008 at 10:16 am
Sorry Anne, did not mean to put words in your mouth. I was thinking of others I have read.
What do they have to gain? If there is no trial then this whole thing will be repeated in a year or two. I think they would be willing to take the hit so that no one else has to go through what they have been through. Maybe?
I do not think that Wilkins is out of bounds by the way; and believe that the PCA will be hurt if he is forced out. Doubly hurt if he is forced out without a trial, but hurt either way.
al sends
Sam Steinmann said,
January 7, 2008 at 10:17 am
I’m seconding David Gray’s question. Let’s suppose, for this purpose, that #1 is true–the LAP thinks Wilkins’ views ARE in accordance with the appropriate standards.
Can the LAP plead guilty to getting the paperwork wrong (which is basically what the first charge is), hold a formal trial, exonerate Wilkins, and this whole argument be over? Or would that be impossible?
anneivy said,
January 7, 2008 at 11:06 am
Fair ’nuff, gentlemen. The tone of my mind is relentlessly practical, so that’s the default lens through which I look at things like this, meaning I – most regrettably – tend to overlook the, well, nobility angle.
If the LAP is willing to undergo the rigors of a trial for the denomination’s greater good, then that’s certainly admirable.
I, for one, wouldn’t think ill of them were they to decide to forgo a trial, however. ISTM they’d read the PCA GA’s findings on the FV, plus the indictment, and reasonably conclude “Hey, y’all don’t have to drop a toaster on OUR feet! We can tell when we’ve outstayed our welcome.”
Guess we’ll just have to be patient and see what they decide.
reformedmusings said,
January 7, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I find listening again to the beginning of the last examination of TE Wilkins by LAP enlightening. Particularly enlightening is TE Mark Duncan’s (and others) comment that only LAP had the ability to judge TE Wilkins’s theological views in light of the totality of their 18 years knowledge of his faithful membership of that court for 18 years. That seems to be a prevailing attitude in LAP as I review the exam–that one must personally have known Wilkins for many years to adequately judge his teachings. That flies in the face of thousands of years of how theology has been done (how many of us have personally known Polycarp, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or Arminius for example?), and doesn’t bode well for LAP, in my opinion.
anneivy said,
January 7, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Mercy Maud, Bob, does the LAP hold that to be a categorical imperative (i.e. needing to personally know someone for years and years before one may be allowed to judge the soundness of their theological views) or is that rule applicable solely to Pr. Wilkins?
If it’s a general rule, it’d play wiley-beguiled with any newbie who shows up and starts to spout heterodoxy, ISTM. Can’t think how one would muzzle ‘em.
Mark T. said,
January 7, 2008 at 12:51 pm
David and Sam,
The answer to the first part of your question is in the Amends section of the Indictment:
The answer to the second part of your question depends on what the meaning of “is” is. In the real universe where real words have real meanings and honest men don’t “quibble” over definitions, then Wilkins is cooked. And he should thank his pals in LAP for helping to cook him when they abdicated their COVENANTAL responsibility to put him on trial.
Now, should they repent for not putting him on trial (which is the wisest course of action), their repentance will call into question either their competence or their integrity. Choose your poison. Either way, they will almost certainly have to refer the case to another presbytery where no one will doubt the court’s honor. But if they don’t, then the whole world will be watching the accused “quibble” with the Westminster Confession of Faith (even though he holds to the divines’ original intents).
Had honest men conducted themselves honestly, then none of this would have happened. Unfortunately, these men impaled themselves on the horns of a dilemma and not even John Madden with all his Xs and Os can save them.
Al said,
January 7, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Come on Mr. Mattes… that is bit unfair isn’t it? I think he intended to say that the LAP has more than just a few paragraphs, pulled from a few sources, by which to judge him.
Of course as you go further into the audio you find that there is concern (by Howard Davis) that those in the SJC questioned the actions of the LAP in the worst light instead of the best. I see that it continues.
One more thing… the glee of anonymous scoundrels reflects poorly on this forum and the Church. IMO.
Al sends
reformedmusings said,
January 7, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Al,
Actually, it was a speaker on the opposing side from TE Duncan that made the latter point, saying that they had the body of TE Wilkins’ writings from which to judge. A speaker after that returned to TE Duncan’s point which I virtually quoted in #16. I therefore think that my assessment was accurate.
Worse possible light? Can you see a positive light to thinking and stating for the record that to evaluate someone’s theological views it takes 18 years of personally interacting with them? Sounds a bit like gnosticism to me–must one possess the secret FV knowledge to evaluate FV? No court system could reasonably operate under that condition.
Al said,
January 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Mr. Mattes,
Perhaps a new trial would be in order. We actually have scriptural support for that heresy…
al sends
reformedmusings said,
January 7, 2008 at 5:53 pm
OK, enough of the anonymity and CREC shots back and forth. Let’s stick to the topic. Further comments on either anonymity or the CREC constitution will be deleted as soon as I see them.
UPDATE: The original comment author in the string requested that I delete his comment, which I have done. I also deleted the response to his comment as it had no reference anymore. Thanks for all in advance for staying on topic.
Scott said,
January 7, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Thanks Mr Mattes for keeping us posted on these proceedings.
It is remarkable to see the wisdom inherent in the system we do have which I understand goes well back in history.
Some questions if you are free to answer:
The RAO 16-3(e)(5) requirement to record exceptions of a teaching elder:
1) Does that apply only to the first time a candidate is examined to be ordained as a teaching elder?
2) Does it require the presbytery to state its reasoning, on the record, in “granting” the exception?
3) Does it require each exception to be explicitly recorded on the record or only the conclusion that the exception is “merely semantic,” etc.
4) Is it possible for the Presbytery to plead guilty and then ask General Assembly to assume jurisdiction (appoint a tribunal)?
Thank you.
reformedmusings said,
January 7, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Scott,
Good questions.
1) It applies every time a TE or TE candidate is examined, including initial ordination, transfer to another Presbytery, coming from another denomination, or any other reason.
2) No, not by the literal rule. That would usually appear in the Credentials Committee minutes, but there’s no reason that a clerk could not include it in the Presbytery minutes of the commissioners approve. If such a ruling is anticipated to be controversial, it would be in the Presbytery’s best interest to record its reasoning.
3) Our Presbytery takes it to mean that each exception will be explicitly recorded with the required conclusion, which I believe is the intent of the language. However, exceptions aren’t required to be voted upon individually but are taken as a group for voting purposes.
4) According to BCO 11-3, a court may refer a matter to the next higher court for adjudication. There may be any number of reasons, but usually because the lower court doesn’t feel that it can dispose of the case properly or adequately at its level. The way that the indictment reads, this is a possible course of action for LAP. FWIW, the comments I quoted earlier from TE Duncan were made against a motion to refer the Wilkins matter to the SJC rather than handle it at LAP. That motion failed.
I hope that I answered your excellent questions adequately.
Jeff Moss said,
January 7, 2008 at 9:24 pm
A more general comment, drawing on C. S. Lewis in That Hideous Strength:
“‘Have you ever noticed,’ said Dimble, ‘that the universe, and every little bit of the universe, is always hardening and narrowing and coming to a point?…. If you dip into any college, or school, or parish, or family — anything you like — at a given point in its history, you always find that there was a time before that point when there was more elbow room and contrasts weren’t quite so sharp; and that there’s going to be a time after that point where there is even less room for indecision and choices are even more momentous. Good is always getting better and bad is always getting worse: the possibilities of even apparent neutrality are always diminishing. The whole thing is sorting itself out all the time, coming to a point, getting sharper and harder.’”
As applied to the Federal Vision controversy: No matter what view you hold on the LAP case or the “Auburn Avenue theology” generally, it’s clear that the Reformed world can never go back to being what it was before. Before Arius and Athanasius fought their titanic battle, most of the Christian world was somewhat vague on the deity of the Son; but no one afterward could afford to remain ignorant. The Cappadocians’ doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Augustine’s proclamation of Divine monergism in salvation likewise pointed the Church forward on a path from which there was no returning.
What the Federal Vision controversy shows us is this: Many of the latent differences among the Reformed are being brought into broad daylight to be settled decisively — whether they be differences over the ancient covenants and the New Covenant, or the nature of the true Church, or the relationship between faith and works, or the efficacy of the Sacraments, or paedobaptism and paedocommunion.
May the Lord be pleased to resolve this controversy in a way that glorifies Him, honors His Word, and promotes the unity and purity of the Church.
anneivy said,
January 7, 2008 at 9:52 pm
[admiringly] Wonderful post, Jeff! Really stellar.
As they say, from your mouth to God’s ear.
Mark T. said,
January 7, 2008 at 9:58 pm
As Robert K. used to say, “Self-awareness level: minus zero.”
And, Anne, you are a riot.
Seth Foster said,
January 7, 2008 at 10:31 pm
This indictment is just the tip of the iceberg. What will be more interesting to watch is what takes place in other presbyteries. This is the time of year when many hold their presbytery meetings. They are all scrambling to approve their own version of the GA report, while many elders are scurrying into hiding like cockroaches. The FV elders can hide behind their presbytery overtures and claim that they are something they are not. But, now with this indictment against the LAP, they have to also devise some clever schemes to silence and intimidate those who might try to do the same thing to them.
its.reed said,
January 8, 2008 at 6:39 am
Ref. #28:
Seth, a gentle admonishment: let’s not broadly label (many) unnamed elders as coackroaches, inferring things about annonymous men that can only be understood in the worst light.
Bringing attention to known facts relevant to this post is probably the place to stay.
Reed
PCA (te) elder,
apart from Christ, much much less than a cockroach
Landy Ligon said,
January 8, 2008 at 7:57 am
Let me briefly introduce myself. I’m an RE (not currently on the session) at Redeemer Pres Austin (PCA). I’ve genuinely appreciated the tone and light that Reed (and others) has brought into the debate on this blog.
There are several of points in favor of LAP moving forward with a trial.
1. Personal interaction over an extended period should provide context that may not be obvious from one’s writings.
2. Personal interaction over an extended period should give TE Wilkins a sense that he is being heard with a judgement of charity.
3. Personal interaction over an extended period should help TE Wilkins to have a more open ear towards criticism.
4. Practically speaking, we have made oaths to submit to the BCO when it comes to the point of formal discipline.
5. Since we have acknowledged, in our form of church government, that even courts are fallible (being composed as they are of Christian men this side of heaven) there is recourse to a higher court, should the lower court err.
Such a process should serve to provide the proper sharpening and hardening that our denomination needs.
Now back to lurking…
Landy
David R. McCrory said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:05 am
“Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption
of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of
conformity with the Constitution, and thus was derelict in its duty
under BCO 13-9, 40-4, and 40-5, and has thereby caused much
unresolved pastoral confusion and harm.”
~ Just so I’m understanding rightly, the LAP was supposed to find TE Wilkins presumably guilty and this is one of the the charges laid against them?
My question would then be 1) Was the possibility of presumed innocence a viable option and 2) who (the SJC?) has established that TE Wilkins should in fact have been indicted with a presumption of guilt?
kjsulli said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:21 am
David,
On “strong presumption of guilt,” read this post by Bob: http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/history-of-strong-presumption-of-guilt/
Al said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:25 am
I think Seth’s post shows why there needs to be a trial, complete with a verdict, in order to put this to rest. If he is guilty then a court needs to say that Wilkins has not fulfilled his vows and if anyone else expresses their understanding of the church, election and imputation in the same manner they are guilty of the same. Anything short of a trail is injustice.
al sends
reformedmusings said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:32 am
#30,
Google is your friend. When googling the phrase “strong presumption of guilt”, the post Kyle linked in #31 is the first entry that comes up. This post is the second. Below that are a host of legal sites that cover the concept and its use. A little homework never hurts when trying to add to a discussion.
Mark T. said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:35 am
David,
You can’t separate the second specification from the first because one follows the other. Look at it this way. The PCA’s examination process is designed to weed out problems; failure to follow process can lead to disaster, depending on the circumstances. In this case, TE Wilkins stated his differences with WCF. This obligated LAP “to investigate these differences and classify them.” They did not; hence the first specification, and the first led to the second, which is where your premised your question.
Wilkins’ differences with WCF were so many and so eggregious, and the mountain of evidence that he compiled against himself to establish his manifold differences with WCF was so large, that LAP absolutely “failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution.” A court can’t look at a suspect with two hands stuck in the cookie jar and say, “We have the ability to judge him based upon the totality of our 18-year knowledge of him.” At that point LAP made it clear that they had a back-room deal to pull all the levers in TE Wilkins’ favor.
Al,
If LAP cuts loose from the PCA without a trial, choosing the path of injustice to use your words, will you vote to receive them into the CREC?
David R. McCrory said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:39 am
kjsulli and others,
I read the post. It appears if after accusations are made, that an investigation is to be made concerning the validity to the accusation. And only after that intial investigation could a possible presumption of guilt be found.
There is nothing to suggest that a strong presumption of guilt MUST be found. After an investigation there very well may be no warrant justifying a preliminary verdict of strong presumption of guilt. Right? The party of interest may very well be innoent.
This leads me back to my first queston,
The way the indictment against the LAP is stated, it seems to suggest that the LAP is itself guilty of not finding TE Wilkins with a “strong presumption of guilt”.
“Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption
of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins…”
So, could it not very well have been that after due diligence in investigating TE Wilkins views the LAP simply can to the verdict that his views did not warrant a strong presumption of guilt?
David R. McCrory said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:43 am
Mark T.,
Ok. I think I understand. The LAP is being charged with not earnestly considering the evidence against TE Wilkins and as a result having (whether intentionally or not) letting him off the hook.
I think the charge would be better labled derlict of duty, or something.
In short, a higher court is charging a lower court with failure to judge rightly.
Right?
kjsulli said,
January 8, 2008 at 11:35 am
David, re: 35,
A “strong presumption of guilt” is not a verdict (“guilty” would be a verdict), but a finding that there is enough evidence of guilt to institute process. The ruling of the SJC is essentially that the LAP did not properly investigate the evidence, and had they done so, they would have found that it constituted a “strong presumption of guilt” that Pr. Wilkins was out of accord with the Westminster Standards and they should have instituted process.
its.reed said,
January 8, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ref. #38:
Kyle, might the insertion of the word “possible” or “potential” help what you’re saying?
“… but a finding that there is enough evidence of “potential” guilt to institute process.”
kjsulli said,
January 8, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Reed, re: 39,
Fair enough. I suppose I find it a bit redundant when we’re speaking of evidence, which is usually “potential” in terms of what it may prove rather than “definite.”
its.reed said,
January 8, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Yeah, just trying to bend enough that FV advocates won’t misunderstand and react to something you’re not saying. Been down that road too much.
RBerman said,
January 8, 2008 at 4:20 pm
What portions of BCO govern the dissolution of presbyteries? I found the discussion of Presbyteries dissolving churches (13-10) but no comparable section discussing the dissolution of presbyteries.
reformedmusings said,
January 8, 2008 at 5:09 pm
RBerman, RE #42,
There is no such discussion in the BCO. I’m guessing that the Federal Visionist churches in LAP would just collectively leave the PCA for the CREC, leaving the orthodox churches to reform the presbytery. LAP is a small presbytery with just 8 churches.
reformedmusings said,
January 8, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Landy, RE #30,
First, welcome to GreenBagginses. I hope that you will feel comfortable coming out of lurking on a more regular basis. I”m sorry that I somehow missed your comment earlier.
That said, I respectfully disagree with several premises behind your comment.
TE Wilkins has been heard plenty. He’s published books and essays, written statements on his church’s website, spoken at conferences, answered two examinations, written answers to the CCP Memorial and the PCA’s Nine Declarations. We read authors every day without needing their “in-person” additions. Having read nearly everything Wilkins has publicly written since 2002 and some from before, I don’t think that TE Wilkins’ theology could be any more obvious.
Although I hope that TE Wilkins understands that he has been heard loud and clear, I don’t think it necessary that he feel any particular way at all. People interacted with Norman Shepherd for over 7 years at WTS-E, and he simply became more intransigent with time, soft-peddling what he had clearly written. After he left the OPC for the CRC, he openly published the very ideas he denied while at WTS. The truth is what matters, not how people feel.
That’s a personal issue on which I will pass, as anything I say on this topic will be off-topic.
True enough, but Federal Visionists routinely choke whenever I say that. If TE Wilkins is ever tried, convicted, and deposed in the PCA, I’ll bet you a steak dinner that he’ll jump right to the CREC and be accepted without question like Burke Shade, RC Sproul, Jr., and others have been. That’s not a pejorative against the CREC, but the facts of what they have done in the past. Federal Visionists only seem to believe in church discipline if they are using it against others (like TE John Wood, for example). The PCA’s almost unanimous passing of the FV Study Committee’s recommendations, including the nine declarations, has been met only with contempt and defiance from most FVers. Dr. Leithart seems to be the sole exception, and although I disagree with him in many areas, I respect him for his integrity.
On this we agree. Six months ago I would have disagreed, but given what I said about your point 4 above, I think we need to run the process to conclusion with at least one FV officer before others will take the hint that the 35th GA (and 6 other Reformed denominations) was serious in rejecting FV as out of conformity with our Constitutional Standards.
Blessings,
Bob
Lara Butler said,
January 9, 2008 at 12:34 am
Re: 44
Elder Mattes, you quoted another elder and then gave your own assessment as follows.
“2. Personal interaction over an extended period should give TE Wilkins a sense that he is being heard with a judgement [sic] of charity.
Although I hope that TE Wilkins understands that he has been heard loud and clear, I don’t think it necessary that he feel any particular way at all. People interacted with Norman Shepherd for over 7 years at WTS-E, and he simply became more intransigent with time, soft-peddling what he had clearly written. After he left the OPC for the CRC, he openly published the very ideas he denied while at WTS. The truth is what matters, not how people feel.”
Am I allowed to comment on this or would I get points for going off topic? Many thanks,
Mrs. Butler
Landy Ligon said,
January 9, 2008 at 8:36 am
ref #44
The first order of business is an apology for the typos. The submit button is very unforgiving.
My intended premise was that men who are more familiar and interact more frequently with another man should in a better position to judge a man’s written words by his actions (both favorable and unfavorable) as well as by the standards of our denomination. A judgement rendered by such a court normally should result in exoneration or repentance. Our hope is that in the abnormal cases, the judgement rendered on appeal will be respected that much more because of the earlier spadework. Again the hope and prayer is that the process softens hearts, rather than hardening them (though that does occur).
I did not intend to give the impression that I thought the LAP should have been exonerated for not conducting a trial because they’d known Pastor Wilkins for 18 years. I also didn’t intend to give the impression that there should be an 18 or 7 year period of interaction before acting on the SJC judgement. To the extent that I did so, please accept my apology.
I do agree with you that the discipline process will practially be more to the point than the study committee hints at the 35th GA.
While I thank you for the welcome, I’ll continue to lurk and learn. I don’t have the background or depth of knowledge (much less the penmanship) to contribute to the actual advance of the discussion.
Blessings,
Landy
Mark T. said,
January 9, 2008 at 10:00 am
David M,
Yes, the higher court has reviewed the lower court’s process and determined that they failed at numerous points in the process. Furthermore, the second specification does use the words “derliction of duty”: “Louisiana Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitution, and thus was derelict in its duty under BCO 13-9, 40-4, and 40-5, and has thereby caused much unresolved pastoral confusion and harm.”
Mark T. said,
January 9, 2008 at 11:27 am
ReformedMusings,
I just noticed this. You misstated the second option presented to LAP in the Indictment when you wrote,
The Indictment does not give LAP the option of “leaving”; rather, it says barring repentance, LAP must face “having the ecclesiastical connection between Louisiana Presbytery and the Presbyterian Church in America dissolved by the General Assembly,” which looks like a wide-open option that does not comment on the terms of that dissolution.
The word “leaving” suggests a laissez-faire resignation, whereas “ecclesiastical connection . . . dissolved by the General Assembly” leaves no room for autonomy and holds them accountable to the GA.
Is this correct?
reformedmusings said,
January 9, 2008 at 5:22 pm
Mark,
I was simply writing a short sentence summary. I agree that I could have stated the point more clearly, but I was trying to keep the post readably short. I’m not sure what mechanism the indictment has in mind for the dissolution of bonds.
Don Hogan said,
January 9, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Mr. Mattes:
Re. Post # 44
>>The PCA’s almost unanimous passing of the FV Study Committee’s recommendations, including the nine declarations, has been met only with contempt and defiance from most FVers. Dr. Leithart seems to be the sole exception, and although I disagree with him in many areas, I respect him for his integrity.
<<
Is there a link or anything on the net that I can read on your statement above about Dr. Leithart?
Thanks!
reformedmusings said,
January 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Don,
I have a post on it here. You’re welcome!
reformedmusings said,
January 9, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Landy, RE #46,
No apologies necessary. This is an imperfect medium at best. I appreciate your clarifications. Please feel free to chime in at any time.
Blessings,
Bob
reformedmusings said,
January 9, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Lara,
I’m not sure what you mean. You are welcome to disagree with what I said, as that would seem to be within the scope of discussing the indictment. Is that what you meant? If you meant Norm Shepherd, I’ll give you a freebie since I took one.
Gabe Martini said,
January 10, 2008 at 12:25 am
LAP would’ve left years ago but was counseled to stay by the very men now wanting these churches removed. Lots of adjectives could be employed in regards to this.
reformedmusings said,
January 10, 2008 at 5:58 am
Gabe,
No one I know WANTS churches removed. We all pray for their elders to repent and return to orthodoxy. The indictment is clear that is the desired outcome. However, if they won’t repent, then removal may be necessary for the peace and purity of the church. In the latter case, there will be no rejoicing but a great sadness that brothers could not be returned to the orthodox fold.
its.reed said,
January 10, 2008 at 6:03 am
Ref. #55:
Bob, amen. No rejoicing in these things. No creating an argument for the sake of arguing. No trying to get our way.
This has been about seeking to keep our vows, vows given to Christ to, with the best of our frail abilities, serve him in loving His Bride as He loves her.
Great sadness indeed. May God grant repentance.
Dave Sarafolean said,
January 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Bob Mattes,
Just a quick question about the SJC Citation of the Louisiana Presbytery: where can I find this posted other than on your blog?
Perhaps it is only me but it seems odd that I cannot find any notice of this on the PCA website. Likewise a Google search shows no SJC website where this is posted for the benefit of the entire PCA.
Is the SJC constitutionally bound by the BCO not to post or disseminate such things even for information sake? I see that per BCO 15-5-b the SJC must report its judgments “on the minutes of the General Assembly and shall be reported by the Stated Clerk to the next General Assembly.” Since we are several months away from General Assembly I’m curious about how this came into your possession?
I’m not alleging wrong behavior on anyone’s part. I’m just a lowly teaching elder who is trying to figure out how our church works.
TE Dave Sarafolean
Christ Covenant Church PCA
Midland, Michigan
reformedmusings said,
January 10, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Gabe,
I already posted one warning in #22 about proper content of comments here and you felt free to violate it. I deleted your offending post. Don’t post another one like it or you will be gone.
reformedmusings said,
January 10, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Dr. Johnson,
Since I deleted Gabe’s comment, your response no longer had a reference, so I deleted it. I didn’t see the point in leaving it hanging out there without the comment to which you replied. This is no reflection on you, just housekeeping.
reformedmusings said,
January 10, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Dave S., RE # 57,
The SJC does not maintain a website to the best of my knowledge. You’d have to ask the PCA webmaster about that site’s contents. I will only say that they do a great job providing valuable resources for their committees, us officers, and the general membership.
The indictment and citation were sent to the appropriate officers at LAP, from where it was distributed around pretty freely. Once sent to LAP, it became public information as part of the process. As far as I can tell, Doug Wilson, who is not connected with the PCA in any way, was the first to post about the indictment’s specific contents on the web. As for BCO 15-5b, it merely describes the required output from SJC cases upon completion and where such will be published at a minimum in the interest of an open process.
I think that your last question was rhetorical, but I’ll answer it anyway for the benefit of others reading here. Our church, the PCA, works under the open and transparent guidance of our constitutional documents (WCF and Catechisms & the BCO) together with its supporting guidance in the RAO (for its ecclesiastical functions), SJC Manual (subordinate to BCO and RAO), and Corporate Bylaws (for its civil corporate functions).
Jeff Moss said,
January 10, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Don (#50),
In case you haven’t seen it yet, Peter Leithart’s letter to his presbytery is here:
http://www.leithart.com/archives/003074.php
Dave Sarafolean said,
January 11, 2008 at 10:49 am
Bob Mattes,
Thanks for the explanation.
I agree, once it was disseminated to LAP it became a matter of the public record. I didn’t know that Doug Wilson was the first to put this out for the world to see.
Again, I’m not alleging any wrong-doing. My comment had to do with being a bit off the beaten path of the PCA and as such, we always hear about things second hand. It would be nice if SJC, the stated clerk’s office or even ByFaith Magazine acted to keep the entire denomination up to date with such things. However I’m not holding my breath…
Thanks for your faithful service.
TE Dave Sarafolean
Christ Covenant Church PCA
Midland, Michigan
Bill Lyle said,
February 6, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Dear Bob,
Please contact the PCA Stated Clerks office ( rtaylor@pcanet.org and/or info@byfaithonline.com) and make your request known. From my lilited vantage point, there is no place for the PCA as a whole to know/learn about what is going on in the PCA.
I have heard many such comments like yours and I believe the “powers at be” need to know what he church is thinking.
Bill Lyle said,
February 6, 2008 at 12:24 pm
REF #63
That should read, Dear Dave