Quote:
Originally Posted by HaigLaw  Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins My guess is that Wilkins simply did not want to come before the SJC. Given that the SJC thought Wilkins should have been charged, it makes sense for Wilkins to leave. This way he does leave as a minister in good standing, with no judicial proceeding against him. I think it was a good decision for AAPC to make, frankly. | It seems to me that the goals of church discipline are either repentance or excommunication, and even with the latter, you still hope they eventually repent.
Given that the goal of the SJC was clarification or enforcement of its view that Pastor Wilkins was out of accord with Reformed standards, what do you brethren feel their disposition of the LaP will be now that Wilkins has effectively excommunicated himself from the LaP? |
Not sure but I would guess that they would look to ajudicate the issues that the LAP pled not guilty on, which if I remember right is the one regarding the process they went through in the examination of Steve Wilkins.
IMHO one of the good things that has come out of all this mess is the clarification of how an examination is suppose to be handled. I know for a fact that in the PCA Presbytery that I use to be apart of, the way the LAP examined Wilkins was the way everyone was examined! And I would hazzard to guess that a number of Presbyteries, much less Sessions, would have (and have done!) held exams the same way LAP did theirs.
FWIW, I would hope that the SJC, GA or somebody would put together a "how to" manual on examinations, versus folks having to connect the dots in the BCO, RAO or SJC manual (or just visit Bob Mattes blog!!
).