Update on SJC Proceedings
March 7, 2008 at 12:16 pm (Federal Vision, Heresy)
The SJC has made trial of the Louisiana Presbytery and wound up dismissing charge 1 of the indictment (which, if anyone still remembers, is the charge that the Louisiana Presbytery failed adequately to record and classify Wilkins’s differences with the Standards), as opposed to coming to a finding of guilty or not guilty. They have also admonished the Louisiana Presbytery for their deriliction of duty as recorded in charge 2 (which was the substance charge of not finding a strong presumption of guilt that should have led to a trial). May God receive all honor and glory.
Update: For more details, go here.
Update on LA Presbytery - The PuritanBoard said,
March 7, 2008 at 12:32 pm
[...] on LA Presbytery Here. __________________ Rev. Lane Keister Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in [...]
Howard Davis said,
March 7, 2008 at 3:05 pm
from http://weblog.xanga.com/HaigLaw/645919108/lap-admonished.html
Rev. Wright continued, “I was very pleased with Dominic Aquila, as SJC moderator; he was very fair. There were times it was not clear what rules were in play, and he gave deference to us (on doubtful points of procedure). His leadership was superb. There were rumors of aggressive treatment or bias against LAP, and I saw none of that.”
“There were a couple guys who were very probing with the presbytery, but others who were more understanding. There was no bias against LAP,” Rev. Wright said.
“I was not entirely surprised, because we were able to present our case clearly. Some of them showed by their questions they were getting our point. There was a constitutional standard they thought we should have applied, and we didn’t know that at the time.
“The SJC asked very good follow-up questions, which we had intended to ask on cross-examination. The moderator was very fair, and asked effective, probing questions to see what the witnesses meant.
“We are pleased there was no rush to judgment,” Rev. Wright continued.
tim prussic said,
March 7, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Good job not splitting the infinite, pastor.
Howard Davis said,
March 7, 2008 at 3:20 pm
BTW, Steven Wright is relatively unbiased, with no strong anti-FV bias, so his comments carry incredible weight.
I am especially encouraged to hear of Dominic Aquila’s fairness, graciousness, and “superb leadership”, along with SJC’s thorough and honest probing in this matter.
I said too much on this very public website. I am genuinely sorry for this. I still believe that serious errors and inappropriate biases and actions occurred, but this is not the place to air dirty laundry. The challenge that I and LAP have faced is that with regards to breaking and bending of rules by the SJC, there is no real place to discuss inappropriate things that they do. I do hope that the GA makes some adjustments to the SJC rules in the future to handle objections regarding constitutional errors that they make (appeals should be possible if they make constitutional errors) and to protect the court more from the appearance of strong bias.
Anyone who has read the dialogue that has gone on at this site knows that I am extremely happly with the SJC’s decision. Yet the future reality sets in that LAP has the very painful and difficult job of addressing the other FV TEs in our presbytery. Please pray for us.
Keith LaMothe said,
March 7, 2008 at 8:51 pm
“Please pray for us.”
Certainly, brother, with diligence.
Michael Metzler said,
March 7, 2008 at 9:28 pm
As far as I can tell, the topic here is the use of a confessional standard within a contemporary constitutional tradition. Why is “Heresy” one of the two subjects this was placed under?
Seth Foster said,
March 8, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Back in the 70’s and 80’s, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) was a seminary full of liberalism. It wasn’t until Dr. Mohler came along with the help of Adrian Rogers (Southern Baptist Convention), that the seminary fired the liberal faculty and replaced them with good solid reformed biblical professors.. It was a very painful, ugly, excruciating time for the Southern Baptists and for the city of Louisville which is also the headquarters for the PCUSA. But it was worth it because the gospel was at stake. And, Southern Baptist churches have been thriving since.
Now the PCA is faced with the same challenge of defending the gospel against the false teaching of the Federal Vision. It seems to me from this latest trial, that the PCA leadership is more concerned with protecting each other’s reputation than they are the reputation of the gospel. LaP got off with a little admonishment. What kind of message does this little slap on the hand send to other presbyteries? They are all probably breathing a sigh of relief that it’s over and they can get back to business as usual. Unless the PCA leadership along with its seminary gets up the courage and fortitude of Dr. Mohler and does some major housecleaning, I predict that in the next five years we will witness a dramatic decline in this denomination’s membership. PCA churches cannot thrive when there are parasites of false teaching eating away at them.
greenbaggins said,
March 8, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Believe me, Seth, we are not finished yet.
Ron Henzel said,
March 8, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Tim wrote:
Yes, it is admirable. However, “failed adequately to record and classify” seems to make “adequately” modify “failed” (”How did they fail?” “They failed adequately”) when I believe the intended meaning is, “failed to record and classify adequately.”
Ron Henzel said,
March 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Michael asked,
For the same reason that “Federal Vision” was the other one.
Ron Henzel said,
March 8, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Tim wrote:
Yes, it is admirable. However, “failed adequately to record and classify” seems to make “adequately” modify “failed” (”How did they fail?” “They failed adequately”) when I believe the intended meaning is, “failed to record and classify adequately.”
Ron Henzel said,
March 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I’m not quite sure how my comment 9 was posted a second time as comment 11, but I apologize if it was caused by anything I did.
greenbaggins said,
March 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Ron, by your own exegesis, connecting “adequately” with “failed” maketh no sense. Therefore, it must modify the succeeding infinitive. :-)
Ron Henzel said,
March 8, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Lane,
So, if you were William Shatner’s writer, you would have had him say, “Boldly to go where no man has gone before”?
greenbaggins said,
March 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
I think it would go better like this: “to go boldly where no man has gone before.” However, that sentence is different from mine in that the adverb would be at the beginning of the entire sentence, which is a bit awkward. In my sentence above, however, the adverb is only immediately preceding the infinitive. That would account for why the proposed Shatner quotation seems awkward while (imo) mine does not.
greenbaggins said,
March 8, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Of course, to say “to record and classify adequately” would work just as well. I think either way is fine.
David Gray said,
March 8, 2008 at 5:50 pm
>PCA churches cannot thrive when there are parasites of false teaching eating away at them.
True which is why the failure of the PCA to address feminism adequately will undo it.
greenbaggins said,
March 8, 2008 at 6:10 pm
David, I think that the PCA is about to address it. It will start with the overture to erect a study committee on whether women can be deacons. Of course, in a way, the PCA has addressed it: they hold to the Scriptures and the Confessions. However, the enforcement of such is another matter, and there are those who are egalitarian in the church who should be disciplined for their false teaching, I agree.
HaigLaw said,
March 8, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Re: #7 - Seth said:
“It seems to me from this latest trial, that the PCA leadership is more concerned with protecting each other’s reputation than they are the reputation of the gospel. LaP got off with a little admonishment. What kind of message does this little slap on the hand send to other presbyteries?”
But have you taken into account the makeup of the presbytery which failed to deal adequately with one FV pastor, when the FV’ers were in a majority, vs. the makeup of the presbytery now, in which those opposed to the FV are in a majority? Why should the SJC have punished a presbytery any further, which has admitted its past error and shown willingness to deal with the problems in the future?
I am no theological liberal, but I do feel that discipleship and spreading the gospel is our primary goal, not just debating the finer points of doctrine and condemning everyone who does not agree with us on every jot and tittle.
Such discipleship would include nurturing people who may have FV leanings and showing them the error of their ways, not running them off at the first drop of a hat.
David Gray said,
March 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm
>David, I think that the PCA is about to address it. It will start with the overture to erect a study committee on whether women can be deacons.
Pastor, I really hope you are right although I doubt I’ll be returning to the PCA (for logistical reasons if no other, there won’t be a PCA church within a hundred miles of our soon to be home). They really need to take a look at By Faith magazine and its promotion of people like Carolyn Custis James.
Seth Foster said,
March 8, 2008 at 9:39 pm
#19
I agree that we need to disciple and nurture those who have FV leanings. But, who are you referring to? I am referring to teaching and ruling elders as well as seminary professors who not only have these leanings but are teaching and propagating these errors. Wouldn’t it make a little sense to first require them to step down from leadership positions before we disciple them?
I really don’t think that there is a “gentle” way of dealing with false teachers. If there is a wolf and a lamb in the field, which do you run to protect? Right now there are a lot of sheep and lambs getting led astray and slaughtered by this false teaching while the wolves get pampered protection and cover by the leaders in this denomination.
Our family left the PCA because we could no longer stand by and watch the sheep get led astray to the slaughter - especially the youth. Since we were not in any position of authority, any time we tried to speak up, we were accused of slander and disturbing the peace and unity. We were told to trust the “system”. This “system” went on for over three years. We were reminded of Paul’s words to stand fast in the liberty by which Christ has made us free and be not entangled again in the yoke of bondage. We now attend a different denomination and church and are so grateful to God for delivering us out from the oppressive spirit of bondage that seems to be hanging over the PCA like a dark cloud. God has restored our joy and peace as we seek to serve Him in His Spirit and in His truth. I don’t think anyone in the PCA realizes how bad things are until they leave. We still grieve and pray for our brothers and sisters that we left behind. But, we trust that God will work out His purpose and good for them in His perfect time.
Scott said,
March 8, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Seth,
I am not familiar with the situation you describe as happening to you. It sounds like you had a bad experience at one church.
Please do not paint our entire denomination with a broad brush with a negative. Federal vision has been a virtual non-issue (nobody even acquainted with it until very recently) in my church and I have never seen evidence of it in any church we have visited in our denomination.
Please understand I am concerned about this and want it to be clearly repudiated- I’m not minimizing its harm or the serious error. There are leaders breaking solemn vows by teaching these doctrines. However, it is not a dominant influence in our denomination and by God’s grace, it looks like it will not be. It’s good we are nipping it in the bud now.
I, too have wondered why it takes so long to address things like this. In this case, more than 5 and half years!
However, as I have watched this process unfold, I have grown to appreciate that the Presbyterian process is “deliberately delibrative.” It is designed for careful evaluation to prevent errors and unfairness. Someone reminded me it took a generation to address Arminianism back around the Council of Dordt.
I’m happy you have found a new denomination where you can submit.
For my wife and me, we have found the PCA not to be a perfect denomination, but a very good one- one that is being used greatly by God. Please pray for our peace and purity, that God may be glorified through it all.
Blessings.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 8, 2008 at 11:29 pm
I think people need to wait on the report of the SJC concerning this case before assuming anything about what happened. I have the report in front of me. The reason the SJC dismissed the first charge was not because it was either moot or because the charge was not true. Rather, the SJC itself had been inconsistent in what it directed LAP to do in the investigation of TE Wilkins and the indictment it brought against LAP in the first charge. In the indictment, the SJC continually referenced RAO 16-3e(5) which specifies how exceptions to the Confession are to be noted. The directive to investigate TE Wilkins from the SJC meeting in October 2006 did not refer to RAO 16-3e(5). That oversight by the SJC meant that the court felt it was better to dismiss the charge than to do something which would appear to be unfair. But… the report of the SJC concerning this trial has a strongly worded reasoning and opinion that the court still is concerned “that LAP failed to make a specific finding with rationale on the constitutionality of TE Wilkins’ views with regard to each of the specific areas raised in the Memorial from central Carolina Presbytery and that they failed to categorize, at least as far as is required by BCO 34-5, any such views found to be out of of conformity with the Constitution.” The report continues with further statements of the same vein.
As far as the Admonition is concerned, it is incorrect to state that the Admonition is on the second charge only. The Admonition touches equally and fully on both charges. It is too lengthy to quote here. The bottom line is that this was not a victory by the defense team of LAP. Though the charge was dismissed by the SJC, the result that would have followed a guilty verdict was still followed. I think the most that anyone on the court wanted to do was admonish LAP concerning the first charge (once TE Wilkins had left the Presbytery). They will still be publically admonished on the essence of both charges by the Moderator of the 36th General Assembly at the GA in Dallas. As the prosecutor of the first charge against LAP, I am satisfied that the SJC’s Admonition of that presbytery covers both of the charges in the indictment. Louisiana Presbytery is being disciplined by the Censure of Admonition respecting both charges. When the full report is posted on the internet, you will understand more clearly what I am communicating in this post.
If the SJC had dismissed the first charge as moot or irrelevant; if the SJC had not strongly asserted in the reasoning and opinion of the report that LAP had failed to execute fully all its responsibilities as a court with respect to the first charge; and, if the SJC had not imposed the Censure of Admonition against LAP concerning the first charge; then, I would agree that LAP won its case before the SJC. But, those things did not happen.
As the prosecutor, I am satisfied with the report because it says everything that I had hoped it would if a verdict of guilty had been reached against the LAP on the first charge. The focus should not be on the dismissal. The focus should be on the reasoning and opinion of the court and the Admonition against LAP.
HaigLaw said,
March 9, 2008 at 6:04 am
Mr. Roberts,
With all due respect, nothing had been said here about LaP winning or losing, until you made this point:
“The bottom line is that this was not a victory by the defense team of LAP.”
You also imply that the discussion here is out of accord with the SJC report:
“I think people need to wait on the report of the SJC concerning this case before assuming anything about what happened. I have the report in front of me.”
I have the report in front of me too, Sir. You say,
“The reason the SJC dismissed the first charge was not because it was either moot or because the charge was not true. Rather, the SJC itself had been inconsistent in what it directed LAP to do in the investigation of TE Wilkins and the indictment it brought against LAP in the first charge.”
That does not appear in the report; rather, that is your interpretation.
But for you to go on and say the LaP was sanctioned for violations of count 1 despite the fact that count 1 was dismissed, is a stretch.
The LaP pled guilty for not timely finding probable cause that Rev. Wilkins views were out of accord with the Constitution of the PCA, and we were sanctioned for that, as we should have been.
But we did not fail to follow the procedures required or requested of us — which was what count 1 was about, and a dismissal of count 1 means it is over, period.
It is you who are creating confusion now, Sir.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 9, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Haiglaw,
You were not at the trial and you were not present for the debate after the trial and before the dismissal. I was. I know what was discussed and why the charge was dismissed. The admoniton says this, in part, which relates to the first charge:
“We further admonish Louisiana Presbytery that, should they be faced in the future with credible reports raising questions about the orthodoxy of the views of a teaching elder (or session) under its jurisdiction (BCO 31-2, 40-4, and 40-5), they must insure they conduct a full, thorough, fully documented investigation, that they demonstrate on each specification how the views in question do or do not conform to the Constitution, and that at each point where the views in question do not so conform Presbytery must carefully consider and document “… whether [the view(s)] strike at the vitals of religion and are industriously spread, or whether they arise from the weakness of the human understanding and are not likely to do much injury. (BCO 34-5)”
You can interpret that admonition however you want to do so, but I think fairminded people who read the indictment will see the obvious connection between that first charge and this admonition.
The bottom line is this. Louisiana Presbytery refused to plead guilty to the first charge even though some members of presbytery urged them to do so because such a plea would result only in an admonition. Louisiana Presbytery chose to go to trial instead. Lousiana Presbytery did not escape an admonition on the first charge, as I have shown above.
I can assure you that, in the future, the SJC will not make the mistake (as they did in October of 2006) of failing to direct a presbytery to conduct a 31-2 investigation of credible reports that a TE is teaching doctrines in contradiction of the Confession by referring that presbytery to RAO 16-3e(5) and BCO 21-4, 5 (Q. 2), etc.
You may think the SJC agreed that Louisiana Presbytery conducted a proper trial of TE Wilkins, but the report says, “Louisiana Presbytery did fail properly to ‘address’ TE Wilkins’ differences to determine whether or not his views were out of accord at key points with the ’system of doctrine’. These errors on the part of Presbytery did injure the peace and purity of the Church.”
The two charges were: (1). Louisiana Presbytery failed to properly address TE Wilkins’ differences with the Confession, and (2). Louisian Presbytery failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that TE Wilkins’ views were out of accord with the Confession. The reasoning and opinion of the report specifies clearly that LAP failed on both counts. The admonition concerns both charges also. I have quoted enough of the report to prove that to impartial seekers of the truth.
The SJC adopted a report which clearly defines what was the meaning and scope of the dismissal of charge one. Your interpretation of what that means is contrary to the report. I know that from having the report in front of me; from hearing all the debate on the issue; and from discussing the matter in detail with those who wrote the report and submitted it to the full SJC.
Howard Davis said,
March 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Dewey,
I am deeply troubled by your post.
You wrote: “The bottom line is that this was not a victory by the defense team of LAP.” “if the SJC had not imposed the Censure of Admonition against LAP concerning the first charge; then, I would agree that LAP won its case before the SJC.”
It seems from your post as if you have been overtaken by an unhealthy spirit of conquering. Surely, that is a occupational hazard of being in the prosecutor role. Your two posts seem to communicate that you were more interested in pursuing a certain outcome than letting the facts come out and dealing with them as they showed themselves.
What is more, the whole idea that you as the prosecutor with a strong desire to see LAP severely dealt with would be present for the discussion reveals that SJC rules need a major overhaul, not to mention the fact that SJC members were actively discussing the case here on this board before it was adjudicated (which breaks the spirit of the law if not the letter). Increasingly I am convinced that Jesus is the only judge I want representing the prosecutor in a case. Oh that we shared more in bearing His Cross!
Overall, I think that the SJC made the decision that will best promote both the peace and purity of the church. We deserved to be admonished strongly for our failure in judgment and not for procedural failures/upheaval. Through this case SJC itself has bent and broke many rules to which they were obliged. As a result, SJC’s reputation has suffered; LAP already had a terrible reputation, though I pray that time and faithfulness will establish a strong reputation for both. I know that at least for us we have a lot of painful and difficult decisions to make in the near future.
HaigLaw said,
March 9, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Rev. Roberts,
I am not interested in arguing with you. I am only interested in understanding what is going on in the PCA regarding the so-called Federal Vision theology, and clarifying and explaining events in which I have had a part.
Toward that end, I am comparing some of your explanations with the actual SJC report itself.
You say, “I know what was discussed and why the charge was dismissed.” You further say, “Lousiana Presbytery did not escape an admonition on the first charge….”
The official report admonishes LaP only on the second charge and gives three reasons why the first charge was dismissed: 1. “We cannot conclude that Presbytery was required by Scripture, the Constitution, or the directives of the SJC to apply BCO 21-4 and RAO 16-3(e)(5) to the BCO 31-2 investigation required by the SJC.” Charge 1 in the indictment said we were required to do those things; so this is a reversal of the SJC’s position. 2. LaP did all it was asked to do procedurally in regard to Rev. Wilkins’ views, and SJC’s official report cites the 2-page rationale we gave explaining that. 3. The dismissal rationale on the first charge cites concerns about the second charge, but in no way says or implies that the admonition was for the dismissed first charge.
In response to LaP’s guilty plea to the second charge, the Official Report says, “We appreciate Presbytery’s admission of guilt on this Specification and do not consider further action beyond the censure of admonition to be necessary to preserve the peace, purity, and unity of the Church.” A fair minded reading of that would be — enough, already.
You further say, “I can assure you that, in the future, the SJC will not make the mistake (as they did in October of 2006) of failing to direct a presbytery to conduct a 31-2 investigation of credible reports that a TE is teaching doctrines in contradiction of the Confession by referring that presbytery to RAO 16-3e(5) and BCO 21-4, 5 (Q. 2), etc.
But again, Sir, you have gone beyond the Official Report, which does not say LaP should in the future invoke BCO 21-4, 5 (Q. 2) in cases like this. Rather, the Official Report says in its warning about future cases:
“We further admonish Louisiana Presbytery that, should they be faced in the future with credible reports raising questions about the orthodoxy of the views of a teaching elder under its jurisdiction (BCO 31-2, 40-4, and 40-5), they must insure that they conduct a full and thorough investigation, which would include specific, documented findings as to “…whether [the view(s)] strike at the vitals of religion and are industriously spread, or whether they arise from the weakness of the human understanding and are not likely to do much injury.” (BCO 34-5)”
BCO 21-4, 5 (Q 2) specifically applies only to “An intern applying for ordination,” not a minister already admitted. If the SJC had asked LaP to apply this paragraph of the BCO to its investigation of Rev. Wilkins, presumably we would have done so, but the SJC did not, and this was the primary reason for dismissing Charge 1, as I’ve quoted above.
In saying as you have that the SJC will not make the mistake of failing to require an examination under BCO 21-4, 5 (Q. 2), among other things, I think, with all due respect to your membership on that court, it is inappropriate for you to speak for the SJC on what it might or might not do in the future, in matters the court has had ample opportunity to speak to and has not done so.
You further say, “You may think the SJC agreed that Louisiana Presbytery conducted a proper trial of TE Wilkins,” and I think it inappropriate for you to speculate about what I might think, beyond what I have said. I never said the SJC agreed the LaP conducted a proper trial. Obviously, no trial was ever conducted, proper or not. All I’ve said is that the LaP has not been admonished for failing to do something it was never asked to do, and over which the charge was dismissed. I was a commissioner who voted with the majority on Jan. 19 to plead guilty to Count 2, and not guilty to Count 1. I have never defended the Federal Vision as consistent with our PCA Constitution. I am fully supportive of the SJC’s Official Report. I published a blog at xanga.com/haiglaw entitled “LaP admonished,” praising the SJC’s fairness. But I must in all honesty take exception to your mischaracterizations of the report. Neither your membership on the court nor your presence in private deliberations qualifies or authorizes you to do that. And I would become a “respecter of persons” contrary to Scripture’s command to fail to speak up on this matter.
Wayne Whitmer said,
March 10, 2008 at 12:25 am
# 4 I’m not surprised at all of Dominic Acquila’s fairness as I wouldn’t expect anything less. I was more surprised with your original accusations Mr Davis against Dominic, but applaud your apology as you look back on your public statements on this blog. But I admire Dominic even more due to the fact that he was aware of your accusations as well as others and yet while on the SJC chose not to defend himself placing the focus on where it belonged on the charges at hand and not on himself. That’s just like him.
Howard Davis said,
March 10, 2008 at 1:26 am
Wayne,
Do not let my apology take away from the reality that Dominic did things that were less than above board in this entire matter. My point was that blogs are not the place to air dirty laundry that is not already on the blog, that is what I am apologetic for.
GLW Johnson said,
March 10, 2008 at 8:44 am
Mr. Davis
Your remark in #29 about Dominic isn’t apologetic enough. It is reprehensible-and you are griding an axe all the while bemoaning this sad state of affairs.
Howard Davis said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:03 am
My point was that all that claims I made had substance behind them…. The problem is that a blog is not the place to discuss these things. But with how the SJC is structured in PCA polity, there is no good place to air grievances with the SJC and the grievances a party to a case has with it.
HaigLaw said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:07 am
Re: #30: Mr. Johnson, may I remind you that Rev. Davis was never the object of any disciplanary action by SJC against LaP. In fact, he was one of the early ringleaders trying to confront the FV within LaP.
He has said LaP deserved the admonishment SJC administered.
But he has certainly earned the spurs for being able to say there are shortcomings with the way SJC operates, and it appears that needs to be looked into. Suggesting that needs to be looked into is certainly not a reprehensible position to take, and I think your comments against Howard are inappropriate. You grind an axe while accusing him of doing so.
GLW Johnson said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:16 am
HaigLaw
If Mr. Davis, or you ,wish to air your beefs about the way the SJC went about it’s business and raise questions, don’t you think you could do so without impugning the character of the moderator of the PCA who was vilified repeatedly for the way he went about appointing the committee to draft the study report? Instead you both have casted aspersions on not only the process but on the men involved by naming names of people-partricularly Dominic- here on a blog. I find that reprehensible.
greenbaggins said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:33 am
Guys, as moderator of this blog, I am going to have to make a ruling. I am not going to disallow criticisms of the Standing Judicial Commission, though I plead for moderation, especially given the fact that the SJC has far more facts in the case, and far more wisdom among its collected membership than most judicial bodies in the world can boast. Nevertheless, the SJC is a fallible body of men, and are therefore not above critique, although I personally would not offer much in the way of critique in terms of how they have handled the case. But, the properties of the individual are not the same as the properties of the group. I will not allow anyone to cast aspersions on individual people within that judicial body. I hope that this ruling will appear fair. Again, people who are on the SJC are not above criticism, either. However, such criticism should be directed at them, in person (or on the phone), not here on this blog. If someone is willing to talk about someone else behind their back, they should be willing to talk directly to them, or else not make the comment. This is final, folks.
Howard Davis said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:34 am
Mr. Johnson,
Sincere but somewhat theoretical question: If a member of the SJC was misusing their power and breaking the spirit of the law if not the letter in many instances and I am a party to the SJC case, how would you suggest addressing those grievances?
I know that I erred in dealing with these on this blog; I sincerely regret this. I did so largely to give Mr. Roberts examples of how SJC was bending and breaking rules.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:51 am
Howard Davis,
Which member of the SJC misused their power and broke the spirit (if not the letter) of the law in many instances?
HaigLaw,
Why don’t you post the entire SJC report concerning the trial on this blog?
greenbaggins said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:53 am
Howard and Dewey, please see number 34.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:13 am
HaigLaw,
The first charge was that LAP failed properly to handle TE Wilkins’ differences with the Confession of Faith. LAP pled not guilty and contended that they fulfilled their mandate in the examination of Wilkins. The report of the SJC (both in the reasoning and opinion for dismissing the first charge AND in the Censure of Admonition) does not agree with LAP’s position on the examination. I have given the quotes in my previous posts. So, please just post the entire SJC report on the trial and then everyone can judge for themselves. As prosecutor, I think the report says everything I would have wanted it to say IF a guilty verdict had been rendered against LAP on the first charge- instead of a dismissal. And what it does not say is also important. It does not say that the first charge was moot. It does not say that LAP was not guilty. It does not say LAP failed ONLY in not finding a strong presumption of guilt of TE Wilkins’ views. It does say that the prosecutor presented evidence that LAP “failed to make a specific finding with rationale on the constitutionality of TE Wilkins’ views with regard to each of the specific areas raised in the Memorial.”
Dewey Roberts said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:14 am
Lane,
I haven’t made statements about individuals on the SJC or on this board. What did I do wrong???
greenbaggins said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:28 am
I am not reproaching anyone yet. I just think that the question offered in 36 might lead us into territory I would rather not tread.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:34 am
Lane,
It is not the question in #36 which is the problem. It is the assertion in #35 which is the problem. I agree that Mr. Davis needs to take up his concerns with the individuals, but he made that assertion after your post at #34. Thus, I asked him to specify what he meant by it. But, I haven’t made any comments about others, with all due respect. Thus, I don’t feel that I violated the boundaries of your post at #34.
HaigLaw said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:38 am
Re: #38 — Rev. Roberts, in view of the moderator’s ruling in #34, I think I will let you win this argument, or at least have the last word, and not appear to be arguing with you further on this blog on this issue.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:42 am
Haiglaw,
Why don’t you just post the full report of the SJC concerning the trial on this blog, if Lane will permit that? Then, everyone will have the full report and each person can judge for himself/herself.
greenbaggins said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:51 am
If Haiglaw desires to post that, either on my blog or his, I would have no objection at all, unless the SJC would have an objection. I don’t think they would, since the ruling is now public knowledge. If he desires to do so, he should email it to me and I will make it a separate post. Howard did email me telling me that his post was made before he saw mine. The time stamps make that a very credible claim. That being said, I have addressed Howard’s question in private, and that is probably where it ought to stay.
Howard Davis said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
Dewey,
I posted before Lane’s ruling posted on my browser (I privately emailed and apologized for this). And in #35, I wasn’t making assertions (though I have done so in the past). I was asking a question of how to address perceived wrongs with individual SJC members if I am party to the case, for it is my understanding that SJC members are not supposed to discuss cases before them with parties to that case. As an SJC member, you have probably considered this, and I would love to hear your answer.
As the case before the SJC is now over, any grievances that I had are now resolved in substance. Though I need to personally apologize to Dominic for making public that which should have been private in nature.
Howard Davis said,
March 10, 2008 at 10:55 am
LOL, it happened again (45–>44).
Dewey Roberts said,
March 10, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Howard,
Let me speak in general terms so as not to violate Lane’s rule with which I agree.
It is true that members of the SJC are not to speak to parties to a case concerning the merits of a case. Also, we have to be careful not to disqualify ourselves by giving advice on matters that might potentially come before the SJC. For instance, if a member of a presbytery comes to me, as a member of the SJC, and asks for advice about a particular case I must remind that person that I cannot give specific advice on matters that might come before the SJC.
Now if a member of the SJC violates this rule, he is obligated to recuse himself as disqualified from judging the case. If a person knows of a member of the SJC who has violated this rule of the SJC manual, then he should so inform the chairman of the SJC of the specifics of the matter.
I have given much thought to this matter and have come to believe that the SJC needs a further rule added to it’s manual which would require members who discuss cases with the parties (apart from due process) to be disqualified also from informally discussing the case with the other members of the SJC. In other words, I think our rules at present are not tight enough. If a member of the SJC violates his duties by discussing the merits of a case with one of the parties, he should not be allowed to influence other members of the SJC through informal channels. I am not saying that has been done by anyone on the SJC, but it is possible under our present rules.
I think tight rules on such matters are good. Rules and laws are not made for the righteous, but for the lawless (1 Timothy 1:9).
Howard Davis said,
March 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Thank you Dewey.
I appreciate both your answer and your perspective on needed improvements to the rules.
Because there is a part of all of us that is lawless, we all need tight rules. I would also add that tight rules are also often needed to guard against misperceptions.
Would it be possible for the SJC itself to suggest specific tightened rules to the GA? That would seem to me to be a good way to get at that, both so that the discussion did not become accusatory and because you and others on the SJC, who have lived in this neighborhood and thus thought about it a lot, would be able to suggest some of the most important improvements to the rules.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 10, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Howard,
That is a good suggestion. The best procedure would be for someone on the SJC to make a motion that changes to the SJC Manual be made. Then, the assembly would need to pass those changes. I will be thinking about how to do that.
HaigLaw said,
March 10, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Being a farm boy at heart, I thought of a parable today involving a pack-mule driver who had 100 pack mules. One night 33 of them ran away.
The next day, he decided to show ‘em who’s boss, so he whupped the 67 remaining pack mules to punish ‘em for the 33 who left.
After the whupping, though, the remaining 67 were too weak to carry the load of the whole 100.
Tom Wenger said,
March 11, 2008 at 12:22 am
HaigLaw,
Can you unpack that for me?
Based on what I’ve seen you write so far, the only concusion I’m drawing from you parable can’t be what you intended.
Thanks
HaigLaw said,
March 11, 2008 at 5:36 am
Re: #51 — alright.
The recent prosecution was not about getting tough on federal vision, as the prosecutor’s posts in this thread indicate he was wont to do — and I have no quarrel with getting tough on actual federal visionists.
Rather, as the former prosecutor who resigned said on another thread here (greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/sam-duncans-letter-of-resignation/) the LaP of today is not the group of yesteryear who sympathized with Rev. Wilkins and failed to find probable cause that his views were out of accord.
Not so — because a third of those mules have now run off.
The current prosecution was against the remaining mules, who actually welcomed the whupping, because of the past neglect by their collective pack.
But only to a point — the remaining mules were not going to agree to things that were not so.
And, for a story about an unjust guilty plea and a just dismissal, you may go to comment 9 on my blog linked to my username above.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:00 pm
HaigLaw,
There is nothing in any of my posts where I said that I wanted to get tough with those in LAP who remained behind after Wilkins left. I personally resent your misrepresentation of me in your above two posts. It seems to me that you are breaking Lane’s rule that he wouldn’t allow anyone to speak in a personal way against the members of the SJC.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:01 pm
HaigLaw,
BTW, why don’t you just send the whole report of the SJC concerning this trial to Lane? He has already said he will print it. This is the third time I have asked you to do this.
greenbaggins said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:42 pm
He has sent it to me. I have just kind of dragged my feet in posting it. But I will post it this week sometime, if I can just get the chance to breathe.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Lane,
Is it fair game for people to make disparaging comments about my motives as prosecutor for the trial of LAP? I think HaigLaw’s comments above are contrary to your rule.
greenbaggins said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Dewey, which comment in particular? Any disparaging comments against Dewey as prosecutor are off limits here.
greenbaggins said,
March 11, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Since Bob Mattes has posted it, I’m not going to:
http://reformedmusings.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/sjc-decision-on-louisiana-presbytery-case/
Dewey Roberts said,
March 11, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Lane,
In #52, HaigLaw wrote, in explaining his parable of #50, “The current prosecution was against the remaining mules, who actually welcomed the whupping, because of the past neglect by their collective pack.” I take umbrage at HaigLaw impugning my motives by characterizing me as being against anyone in LAP. HaigLaw has never met me and certainly doesn’t know my heart in this matter.
greenbaggins said,
March 11, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Okay, I hope that HaigLaw will explain himself, and what he did and did not mean. If he genuinely meant that you were personally against someone in the LAP, then I hope there can be reconciliation between you two. HaigLaw does not strike me as a shrill person. He may only have meant that you were prosecuting the LAP, which is true. Or, it may have been a slip of the pen/finger. Let’s see what he says.
HaigLaw said,
March 11, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Apologies for any apparent impugning or disparaging, which was not my intent. My parable was meant to illustrate the changed makeup of the LaP. Getting tough with FV is the policy of the PCA, with which I agree, but it must be done fairly and in accordance with the rules, which it apparently was done.
The only thing I have questioned about the prosecutor has to do with his interpretation of the dismissal, and I’ve said all I want to on that, and repeatedly have said — let him have the last word on this issue.
Nothing about motives or heart at all. I’m sure he’s a fine man, and serving on that commission is a thankless job. I’m glad they’re there. Church discipline is hard in simple cases, much harder in complicated ones like this. I thank God for you brothers on the SJC.
Again, apologies for hurting your feelings.
Dewey Roberts said,
March 11, 2008 at 3:59 pm
HaigLaw,
I served as prosecutor at the will of the SJC. I have never at any time said or thought that I wanted to get tough with LAP. I never said or thought that I wanted to be tougher than the former prosecutor.
I have already testified what was the discussion of the SJC in deciding to move to a dismissal and to write the report as it is. If the SJC wanted to summarily dismiss the first charge, some parts of the report would be different than they are. The SJC made it clear what were their reasons in doing so. LAP is admonished both for failing to deal properly with TE Wilkins’ differences with the Confession and for failing to find a strong presumption of his guilt. That admontion covers both charges no matter how you try to spin it.
BTW, in my closing arguments, I argued for leniency towards LAP- not toughness. The SJC sincerely tried to temper mercy with justice. And I argued for that. The SJC conceded the point that LAP had not been directed to handle TE Wilkins’ by reference to RAO 16-3e(5), but did not agree that LAP had handled the investigation of Wilkins as they should have. Just read the report again. The truth is in there.
HaigLaw said,
March 12, 2008 at 9:43 am
Rev. Roberts, with all due respect, this is not all about you, but about PCA’s broad policies in dealing with FV. I have apologized to you for all I know to apologize for, in terms of apparent or perceived slights, except perhaps — excuse me for living.
Since I apparently cannot discuss these issues here without offending you, I will content myself to discuss them on my blog, which is linked to my username above. You are welcome to discuss them there too, if you so desire.
RBerman said,
March 12, 2008 at 6:01 pm
The first time my pastor was put in the position to counsel a marriage on the rocks, it was pretty tough going, and he made mistakes that taught him how to do it better. The second time, he did better. And so on.
The saga of Rev. Wilkins and the LAP and the PCA (and in particular the SJC) was in the broad sense a trial for all concerned. One can hope that it will also be a constructive learning experience for all, especially since some sort of “next time” seems inevitable.
HaigLaw said,
March 12, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Re: #64 - amen to what RBerman said.