Thread: Louisiana Presbytery update

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings

Interesting. I naturally assumed the trial would proceed since the purpose of the trial was to have the Presbytery answer the charges that it didn't properly discharge its duties in examining Wilkins. I don't know why folks would think that Wilkins leaving the PCA would somehow eradicate the fact that when he was examined that they either did or did not perform due diligence in the task. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense they offer in demonstrating that they thought Wilkins' answers were Confessional.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings

Interesting. I naturally assumed the trial would proceed since the purpose of the trial was to have the Presbytery answer the charges that it didn't properly discharge its duties in examining Wilkins. I don't know why folks would think that Wilkins leaving the PCA would somehow eradicate the fact that when he was examined that they either did or did not perform due diligence in the task. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense they offer in demonstrating that they thought Wilkins' answers were Confessional.

Or will their defense be to attempt to show they did, in fact, follow the BCO's approved procedure for an examination?

I'd thought the idea was that the LAP skipped the methodology provided by the BCO, instead substituting their own, and that's why Pr. Wilkins' views got a pass.

But I've been known to be wrong.

The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.

In some ways, it sounds like Mr. Garner should be respected for not wanting to high tail it and run away from the issues at hand, but be willing to stay and face the charges, it says a lot about his character as a man.

It may be a good time for a man in another Church body within the PCA to offer to sit and really talk with him one on one to discuss his personal beliefs, maybe sometime before the hearing in March.

It could be He's following after a man he respects and holds in high regard, more than Christ, which certainly would be causing conflict within himself and he may be feeling caught in the middle of it all, because he did help edit the FV book.

Maybe that should be a question posed to him, are you following after this man because he is your friend and pastor, someone he has known and respected and loved and cared for as a brother for many years, or is this what he really hold's to be true?

Is he afraid of losing this man's friendship and respect, if he departs from his church body?

Many of us have had to make similiar choices, even within our own families, do we depart from their beliefs and go with what we know to be true or do we stay because of the relationship we have with them and a feeling of obligation?

I will keep this man in my prayers, and others in the congregation who may be struggling internally with similiar issues.

More interestingly, Duane Garner, assistant pastor at AAPC, which bolted to the CREC last month rather than have Steve Wilkins face trial in the PCA, apparently wants to stay in the PCA and labor in the CREC at AAPC. He was turned down by LAP, who tasked Garner to appear at the next meeting to report on the extent of his adherence to the PCA’s constitutional standards. That should be interesting.

For those who don’t know, Duane Garner coedited the book The Federal Vision with Steve Wilkins. As such, one may assume that he holds tightly to the Federal Visionist errors that have been declared out of conformity to the Westminster Standards. I can’t imagine why he wouldn’t flee with the rest of AAPC to the CREC which welcomes and actively advocates these errors.

Anyway, that is what I get when I read the above comments...which is why I think it may be a wise decision to have someone offer to walk along side him and really talk to him one on one to find out.

How many men stayed in the PC-USA when the churches split years ago, partly because they held a friendship with those who were staying and feeling as if they would be abandoning their family and friends?

How many men here have had to finally leave the churches they grew up going to, and/or were members of for many years all because of the teaching? And yet, they struggled internally for many years with that decision, not wanting to hurt their pastor, or offend their family and friends? It could be that really is what this man is struggling with and why he wants to stay in the PCA...

What I also find interesting in all of it, is that IF Steve Wilkins really believe's these things to be the TRUTH, why is he running away? Why isn't he willing to stay and be held accountable for what He is teaching by others?

How does one grow (killing off the lies they hold to) if they are running away from the battle?

This seems to be an Iron sharpening Iron issue that needs to be addressed, years ago, they would call them yellow bellies for running away from battle...

Originally Posted by turmeric

The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.

What was disturbing about it? I just thought he repeated the facts. In fact, I saw little commentary. You could be referring to his story linked elsewhere, but I didn't have time to read it.

Yes, he probably would be sympathetic--most people in LAP, as this thing indicated, are less likely to attack Wilkins, fwiw. But I didn't see that in the xanga.

Originally Posted by turmeric

The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.

He is new to the LaP, evidently new to the controversy and I don't think he has any particular axe to grind one way or another.

Let me ask y'all, what do you think of the fact that Sam Duncan is, one, apparently planning upon resigning and, two, commented during yesterday's meeting that he doubts anyone in the LAP can get a fair trial by the SJC?

The FV'ers are all over that last like fleas on a monkey, and I can't say as how I blame 'em. That was a rather stunning comment for the current prosecutor to make, ISTM.

As Sam's (former) assistant, I can perhaps shed some light on this. Sam thinks that charge one is basically moot now that charge two was pled guilty to by the LAP. So he thinks that going on with said prosecution would just be rubbing the LAP's nose in the ground. As to the second statement, he has said this to me as well. I don't know the makeup of the SJC well enough to comment on this, quite frankly. So, I am not going to comment on it. If Sam wants the world to know why he said that, then he will do so.

I just got off the phone with Sam. The results are posted here.

This is obviously coming straight from the peanut gallery...which is overstating the case, actually, seeing as how I'm not even in the building, not being a member of the PCA....but do you PCA'ers think perhaps it might be a good idea to have a workshop or a video class or something on The Correct Manner Of Conducting An Examination?

I don't recall whether it was here or at Greenbaggins, but someone mentioned that the way the LAP conducted its examination of Pr. Wilkins was pretty much the way the commenter's presbytery conducts them, too. IOW, apparently the Official PCA Manner Of Conducting An Examination Per the BCO doesn't appear to be as uniformly used as one would wish.

I wonder if that might not be a valuable topic at this year's GA? Does it allow for workshops and so on?

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

This is obviously coming straight from the peanut gallery...which is overstating the case, actually, seeing as how I'm not even in the building, not being a member of the PCA....but do you PCA'ers think perhaps it might be a good idea to have a workshop or a video class or something on The Correct Manner Of Conducting An Examination?

I don't recall whether it was here or at Greenbaggins, but someone mentioned that the way the LAP conducted its examination of Pr. Wilkins was pretty much the way the commenter's presbytery conducts them, too. IOW, apparently the Official PCA Manner Of Conducting An Examination Per the BCO doesn't appear to be as uniformly used as one would wish.

I wonder if that might not be a valuable topic at this year's GA? Does it allow for workshops and so on?

I think Wayne Wylie had mentioned that here on the PB, that the way the LaP conducted the examination was the way it was done when he was in the PCA in TX.

I'm awful with names, so most likely you're right.

Sometimes it's situations such as this one that brings to light existing weaknesses, such as the fact that the handy guide within the BCO concerning precisely how such examinations are to be conducted isn't being followed by some presbyteries.

And it's been my experience that if two groups of people - such as the LAP and that other presbytery - are doing something wrong, the overwhelming odds are others are doing it wrong, too.

What do you want to bet additional presbyteries have read the LAP's examination and gulped, realizing it bears a strong resemblance to the last one they conducted?

Oopsie-doopsie.

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

This is obviously coming straight from the peanut gallery...which is overstating the case, actually, seeing as how I'm not even in the building, not being a member of the PCA....but do you PCA'ers think perhaps it might be a good idea to have a workshop or a video class or something on The Correct Manner Of Conducting An Examination?

I don't recall whether it was here or at Greenbaggins, but someone mentioned that the way the LAP conducted its examination of Pr. Wilkins was pretty much the way the commenter's presbytery conducts them, too. IOW, apparently the Official PCA Manner Of Conducting An Examination Per the BCO doesn't appear to be as uniformly used as one would wish.

I wonder if that might not be a valuable topic at this year's GA? Does it allow for workshops and so on?

Someone will have to clarify this issue for me. I don't believe the issue is the nature of the examination itself but the conclusions that were drawn. It is apparently obvious, to the casual observer, that Wilkins' answers are un-Confessional. The transcript makes that very clear. It seems to me, at least, that the most egregious issue is that when they checked all his work they said that all his answers were substantially confessional.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I just got off the phone with Sam. The results are posted here.

Thanks for this Lane.

Originally Posted by Lane's Blog

I don’t currently have access to the second case. Sam was referring to the fact that the SJC has made up its mind against the Louisiana Presbytery. What is important to note here is that Sam does not mean that the (unofficial) conclusion the SJC has come to regarding the Louisiana Presbytery is incorrect. Sam agrees with the SJC that the LAP was wrong. Otherwise, he would not have accepted the position as prosecutor! I fear that some are taking Sam’s statements as implying that the SJC is wrong. The issue can be clarified by reference to a normal court case. In a normal case, the facts of the case are not divulged to the judge and jury prior to the case. In fact, people with a knowledge of the case are usually not allowed to serve on the jury, for fear of being biased. In the LAP case, just about everyone in the PCA knows about it at least somewhat. It would be well-nigh impossible for the SJC to find anyone who hadn’t heard a thing about it, and hadn’t formed any opinions about who is right. This is what Sam means. Sam is a lawyer. In comparison to a normal civil case, the LAP could not expect to receive a fair “clean-slate” trial. The evidence has been before us and before the SJC for many months. This is what Sam means. He told me.

Nor would we want to necessarily find people who are somehow completely ignorant of the case. I fear that, ever since the O.J. trial, America has this idea that true Justice demands that you obfuscate facts and only those things that were not tainted by the "fruit of the poisonous tree" are admissable in trials. I served for about 3 years in Command billets where I was, essentially, in a magisterial position and, let me tell you, the Church would be destroyed if we had to follow the rules of evidence that we're so used to seeing on Law and Order and CSI. That's not to say that we have to be careless but it's also important to note that modern jurisprudence is not the standard.

How does one avoid reading the Wilkins' examination, know the Laws of non-contradiction, know the Confession, and come away with anything other than being convinced that he is outside the bounds of the Confession? Oh, I know, such men go by the name of "The Federal Vision"! Everyone else can see it for what it is.

So let the FV advocates lather over this. They're accustomed to a handful of men drawing their firm conclusions about the nature of justification and election. Their leaders, after all, have pulled them out of Reformed orthodoxy in the span of a few years and we have the proverbial Pot complaining to the Kettle that those remaining in orthodoxy are convinced they're just plain wrong. Perhaps the FV advocates ought to ask: Where was the long, well thought out, systematic discussion in a Church council that decided to break off a new denomination and call itself the CREC?

Originally Posted by turmeric

The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.

If you follow the link Lane provided in his first post you'll find HaigLaw making this statement as well:

FV sympathizers who are using this Duncan comment as a way to criticize the SJC are misguided.

Given that, I doubt that he has a bias for FVists considered as a species.

FYI. Elder Haig is a PB member; you can ask him directly for any clarifications, but I think he has made it clear, as one of the two witnesses being touted, he disagrees strongly with how the statement is being used by some, particularly posting on the blog that cited him as one of the sources.

It is certainly interesting how much a firestorm this has created. Since Lane knows elder Duncan and has it from the horses mouth so to speak, that may be the best blog to watch for good information on this.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings

Interesting. I naturally assumed the trial would proceed since the purpose of the trial was to have the Presbytery answer the charges that it didn't properly discharge its duties in examining Wilkins. I don't know why folks would think that Wilkins leaving the PCA would somehow eradicate the fact that when he was examined that they either did or did not perform due diligence in the task. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense they offer in demonstrating that they thought Wilkins' answers were Confessional.

This has been confusing to many. There were 2 charges:

1. Failing to follow proper procedures in handling the Wilkins matter.

2. Failing to find a presumption of guilt that Wilkins' views were out of accord with PCA's Calvinistic Constitution.

We in LaP pled guilty at our Jan. 19 meeting to count 2, but not guilty to count 1.

That is because we had in fact followed all the procedures we had been asked to follow, and had it confirmed in writing from the SJC that we had done so.

We pled guilty to count 2 because Wilkins' writings on their face support a presumption of guilt, and the commissioners in LaP gradually came to that view. This was a shift from prior meetings, where LaP essentially found he was sincere and didn't mean to violate the standards. Or, he really thinks he does not violate the standards.

The shift came to the point of -- he may be sincere, or he may not believe he violates the standards, but his words clearly indicate he probably does. My story of the Jan. 19 meeting tries to explain that -- HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - Federal Vision

The "presumption of guilt" is PCA lingo for what the courts call "probable cause." The "presumption of guilt" is what the PCA court has to find before they conduct a trial. Then they hold a trial to see if the person really is guilty. This is confusing too, but that's apparently the way it is in the PCA.

Hope this helps.

-HaigLaw

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings

Interesting. I naturally assumed the trial would proceed since the purpose of the trial was to have the Presbytery answer the charges that it didn't properly discharge its duties in examining Wilkins. I don't know why folks would think that Wilkins leaving the PCA would somehow eradicate the fact that when he was examined that they either did or did not perform due diligence in the task. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense they offer in demonstrating that they thought Wilkins' answers were Confessional.

This has been confusing to many. There were 2 charges:

1. Failing to follow proper procedures in handling the Wilkins matter.

2. Failing to find a presumption of guilt that Wilkins' views were out of accord with PCA's Calvinistic Constitution.

We in LaP pled guilty at our Jan. 19 meeting to count 2, but not guilty to count 1.

That is because we had in fact followed all the procedures we had been asked to follow, and had it confirmed in writing from the SJC that we had done so.

We pled guilty to count 2 because Wilkins' writings on their face support a presumption of guilt, and the commissioners in LaP gradually came to that view. This was a shift from prior meetings, where LaP essentially found he was sincere and didn't mean to violate the standards. Or, he really thinks he does not violate the standards.

The shift came to the point of -- he may be sincere, or he may not believe he violates the standards, but his words clearly indicate he probably does. My story of the Jan. 19 meeting tries to explain that -- HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - Federal Vision

The "presumption of guilt" is PCA lingo for what the courts call "probable cause." The "presumption of guilt" is what the PCA court has to find before they conduct a trial. Then they hold a trial to see if the person really is guilty. This is confusing too, but that's apparently the way it is in the PCA.

Hope this helps.

-HaigLaw

Wow. I completely missed that the LAP pled guilty to point 2. I haven't been following every single development. Is the trial at all proceeding on the basis that, if you're pleading guilty to point 2 that the LAP should also be pleading guilty to point 1? In other words, wasn't the purpose of the examination to determine whether his views wer confessional and I would think that the LAP's decision not to censure him for his views would have been part of the procedure. Hence to admit he's in error (point 2) is a tacit admission that there was a procedural breakdown in the "verdict" and the fact that Wilkin's remained unmolested for his views by the LAP.

In other words, the examination and determination are both part of the procedure, correct? If so then is the SJC trying the LAP for both the examination and its determination or is it just one of the two?

Well, that's confusing too. If you use logic only, it seems like count 1 is sumsumed within count 2, and therefore to plead guilty to 2, would mean guilty to 1 also. That is, like concentric circles, with 1 inside 2.

But that's not the case.

Take a simple illustration. Suppose I tell you to take steps 1,2,3,4 & 5, and if you have good sense, you will arrive at step 6.

But let's assume you diligently go through steps 1,2,3,4 & 5 and you slip up and count an extra finger and arrive at 7 instead of 6.

Did you go though steps 1-5, like I told you? Yeah.

Should you have gotten 6 next? Yeah, but you didn't. You made a mistake and arrived at 7 instead.

Hope this helps. What SJC is saying in their indictment is -- you should have read Rev. Wilkins statements and found presumption of guilt that his FV views were out of accord.

LaP is saying, yeah, we read his statements, took all those steps, but we just didn't get it. We made a mistake. We get it now.

This is simplified, like a syllogism. It was much more complicated.

So, let's not have anybody accuse me of oversimlifying to the point of accusing someone wrongly. I'll plead guilty to that in advance and save you the time.

OK?

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

So, let's not have anybody accuse me of oversimlifying to the point of accusing someone wrongly. I'll plead guilty to that in advance and save you the time.

OK?

I hope you didn't think I was accusing you of anything. I was merely interacting with you. Any comments that seemed directed at you were not intended. I don't consider the whole LAP decision to fall at your feet.

I think your summary is very useful in fact.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

What SJC is saying in their indictment is -- you should have read Rev. Wilkins statements and found presumption of guilt that his FV views were out of accord.

I was simplifying myself and it seems to me that, on the surface, that you're agreeing that the SJC's trying of the process is on the basis that a sound process would have included a sound verdict.

Let's use your analogy again and assume we have a 6 step process where step 4 is the examination, step 5 is the Presbytery evaluating the answers against the Confession, and step 6 is the verdict.

At this point, you seem to be admitting that the LAP made a "mistake" in step 5. Let's call Step 5: "Comparing Wilkins' answers to the Confession."

I know this is simple but in the interest of clarity the basic failure is that the Presbytery had Wilkins' answers on the one hand and the WCF on the other, compared the two, and concluded there was nothing significantly wrong. I'm not sure if many bought the argument that the WCF spoke narrowly about the idea of election and that he was merely teaching more Biblical data that the WCF left unaddressed.

Either way, though, it seems that this "compare and contrast" step is a major problem. It seems to me that if the Presbytery fails at that point then it has failed in the most significant portion. Coming up with the list of questions is good but the real wisdom had to be applied at the point of determining whether his answers accorded properly.

I guess what I still don't get, then, is that the LAP has admitted that they failed at step 6 to render a proper verdict then how can it not admit that it failed at step 5?

If you don't want to answer then I understand. My point, again, is not to challenge you personally but I'm trying to understand why the "We made a mistake..." should satisfy people when the members of the Presbytery had a duty to *not* make a mistake at Step 5.

HaigLaw;

I want to thank you for taking the time to post here and share with those of us not in the midst of it all, but in many ways it effects; both as part of the PCA and overall Church body.

I'm sure it is very difficult for you and all who have been involved in this over the past few years, I pray God will sustain you and give all involved wisdom and discernment as they procede on this walk.

I had to chuckle at your take step 1,2,3,4, and 5 and you come to 7, when you should come to 6; sounds like me and algebra..

being so close to the situation and being close to the people involved I'm sure has brought about difficulties in 'seeing' what others were 'seeing' from the outside in order to come to the same conclusion.

Much like other relationships in our lives, others might be able to see someone is abusive towards say a spouse, it may be subtle abuse, but abuse none the less, but they don't see it because they are in the midst of it all, and when they step away from it for awhile and go back they can begin to see it for what it is..and only then can they begin to deal with the reality.

I pray that God heal the hearts of those hurt through all this, and that they may find comfort in His arms.

And again, thank you for taking the time to share with us concerning this..I just can not imagine all the internal turmoil so many of our brothers and sisters are feeling right now as they go through this.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Interesting. I naturally assumed the trial would proceed since the purpose of the trial was to have the Presbytery answer the charges that it didn't properly discharge its duties in examining Wilkins. I don't know why folks would think that Wilkins leaving the PCA would somehow eradicate the fact that when he was examined that they either did or did not perform due diligence in the task. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense they offer in demonstrating that they thought Wilkins' answers were Confessional.

This has been confusing to many. There were 2 charges:

1. Failing to follow proper procedures in handling the Wilkins matter.

2. Failing to find a presumption of guilt that Wilkins' views were out of accord with PCA's Calvinistic Constitution.

We in LaP pled guilty at our Jan. 19 meeting to count 2, but not guilty to count 1.

That is because we had in fact followed all the procedures we had been asked to follow, and had it confirmed in writing from the SJC that we had done so.

We pled guilty to count 2 because Wilkins' writings on their face support a presumption of guilt, and the commissioners in LaP gradually came to that view. This was a shift from prior meetings, where LaP essentially found he was sincere and didn't mean to violate the standards. Or, he really thinks he does not violate the standards.

The shift came to the point of -- he may be sincere, or he may not believe he violates the standards, but his words clearly indicate he probably does. My story of the Jan. 19 meeting tries to explain that -- HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - Federal Vision

The "presumption of guilt" is PCA lingo for what the courts call "probable cause." The "presumption of guilt" is what the PCA court has to find before they conduct a trial. Then they hold a trial to see if the person really is guilty. This is confusing too, but that's apparently the way it is in the PCA.

Hope this helps.

-HaigLaw

Wow. I completely missed that the LAP pled guilty to point 2. I haven't been following every single development. Is the trial at all proceeding on the basis that, if you're pleading guilty to point 2 that the LAP should also be pleading guilty to point 1? In other words, wasn't the purpose of the examination to determine whether his views wer confessional and I would think that the LAP's decision not to censure him for his views would have been part of the procedure. Hence to admit he's in error (point 2) is a tacit admission that there was a procedural breakdown in the "verdict" and the fact that Wilkin's remained unmolested for his views by the LAP.

In other words, the examination and determination are both part of the procedure, correct? If so then is the SJC trying the LAP for both the examination and its determination or is it just one of the two?

It was the guilty plea on count two that was the cause for Wilkins and AAPC withdrawing since it meant the SJC would try Wilkins.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

It was the guilty plea on count two that was the cause for Wilkins and AAPC withdrawing since it meant the SJC would try Wilkins.

But that would be a separate "indictment" at that point though, right?

Do you see what I'm asking HaigLaw though in my last post? Am I missing something? I'm trying to understand this trial a bit better. I thought I understood it but I want to make sure.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I guess what I still don't get, then, is that the LAP has admitted that they failed at step 6 to render a proper verdict then how can it not admit that it failed at step 5?

Lemme offer another analogy. I used to be a Mason, before I came to Christ. I went through all the steps perfectly, or perfectly enough, to become a 3rd degree Mason.

Then I moved to Texas, and got into the word for a solid year.

Then a buddy at work died, and I attended his Masonic funeral, and was horrified at the Satanic symbolism in it, and withdrew from it.

It is still the truth that I took all those steps perfectly. But I now have the discernment that the steps led me to error.

I'm not saying that the steps of church discipline in the PCA are wrong like Masonry. I'm just illustrating how someone can go through steps perfectly, and still come to the wrong conclusion -- which is what LaP is now admitting it did in regard to Rev. Wilkins.

I think another factor for those outside LaP to consider as they scratch their heads and wonder how we could have judged FV not out of accord -- is the real camraderie here, even brotherly love. I hesitate to speak of it, because I'm new here and don't fully understand it. But I've seen it and it's real. You don't want to believe that a brother you've known and loved for 30 years is theologically wrong. Denial of something that distasteful will play tricks with your mind.

One commissioner, who apparently missed the last 2 meetings, the only 2 i've attended, and has no clue who I am, read my piece on xanga, bitterly attacked me in private email, and said I should have stayed in "Nackatish" and done street witnessing, instead of trying to explain what was going on in LaP. Go figure!

sorry; i thought i knew how to do blockquotes.

OK. I don't necessarily agree that the steps can be performed "perfectly" and come to the wrong conclusion but I'm not going to press you any harder on it. Thanks for answering my questions.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

sorry; i thought i knew how to do blockquotes.

That's the correct html but here you have to use bbcode like this:

PHP Code:

[quote] sample quote [ /quote] 


Without the space between the [ / on the closing quote.

yeah, thx for the code, the perfect code.

and, yeah, agreed on "perfectly." I should have said, again, perfectly enough, in the sense of -- yeah, we went through all the steps you asked us to take, you agreed in writing at one point we had done so, then turned around and accused us of not taking all the right steps, including some that by their terms did not apply.

E.g. when you ask a TE whether he has any exceptions to the standards, and he says no, then you do not take the next step of categorizing those exceptions as to whether they are fundamental or not.

The step of saying -- wait a minute, you said no, but from your own writings, you're not telling the truth -- was not a required step in the process.

And not being required, and not being something those in charge then were able to take on their own, it did not happen.

Does this help?

It does. Thank you. I guess that's what will be determined is whether or not, procedurally, the LAP was permitted to stop there or, using the prudence that an Elder should possess, go further and ask the obvious when "prima facia" the answers given contradict the WCF.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

It was the guilty plea on count two that was the cause for Wilkins and AAPC withdrawing since it meant the SJC would try Wilkins.

But that would be a separate "indictment" at that point though, right?

Do you see what I'm asking HaigLaw though in my last post? Am I missing something? I'm trying to understand this trial a bit better. I thought I understood it but I want to make sure.

Yes, it would have meant a separate indictment, but that was going to be the outcome since the presbytery did not conduct a trial. My understanding is that since by pleading guilty on that count they said there was a strong presumption of guilt, but by not conducting a trial they punted the case to the SJC.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Lemme offer another analogy. I used to be a Mason, before I came to Christ. I went through all the steps perfectly, or perfectly enough, to become a 3rd degree Mason.

Then I moved to Texas, and got into the word for a solid year.

Then a buddy at work died, and I attended his Masonic funeral, and was horrified at the Satanic symbolism in it, and withdrew from it.

It is still the truth that I took all those steps perfectly. But I now have the discernment that the steps led me to error.

I'm not saying that the steps of church discipline in the PCA are wrong like Masonry. I'm just illustrating how someone can go through steps perfectly, and still come to the wrong conclusion -- which is what LaP is now admitting it did in regard to Rev. Wilkins.

If the SJC is saying the LAP did not follow the approved methodology provided in the BCO and the LAP is protesting that yes, it certainly did (especially as there are other presbyteries who perform examinations in the same way as the LAP), then this would seem to be a conflict needing to be resolved for the benefit of the PCA as a whole.

Surely it needn't be unduly antagonistic, need it? Wouldn't the LAP simply assure the SJC it had been their intent to follow the approved form and they're sorry if they fumbled the play, and here's what they did and how they sincerely believed it squared with the approved form? Then either the SJC acknowledges that, by gum, it can be construed that way, or else kindly points out where and how it doesn't?

Upon which the LAP ruefully apologizes and promises that in future it will perform examinations the way the SJC showed they should be done, the apology is handsomely accepted, some slap-on-the-wrist for form's sake is meted out, handshakes all around, and everyone goes home, now on the same page.

Isn't this at least possible?

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

It does. Thank you. I guess that's what will be determined is whether or not, procedurally, the LAP was permitted to stop there or, using the prudence that an Elder should possess, go further and ask the obvious when "prima facia" the answers given contradict the WCF.

And this is the step I just don't understand why it wasn't taken. When as a presbytery you are examining a green-horn fresh-out-of-seminary graduate about his subscription to the Westminster Standards, I can see taking his statement "no I have no exceptions" at face value, and accepting the answer, and exhorting him to continue in that full subscription, with the usual commitment to letting Presbytery know if his views change.

However, this was Steve Wilkins - not some green candidate with no track record of teaching. I cannot understand (admittedly not being there when the discussion took place, so my views are probably dismissible on that count alone) why more examination didn't take place. His writings and teaching have been in public view for years, and clearly contradict the confession and catechisms in a multitude of points. I'm glad, though, that LaP finally seems to see this now and admit that they improperly exonerated Wilkins. (I assume this is the proper reading of the guilty plea)

Originally Posted by Gryphonette

I'm awful with names, so most likely you're right.

Sometimes it's situations such as this one that brings to light existing weaknesses, such as the fact that the handy guide within the BCO concerning precisely how such examinations are to be conducted isn't being followed by some presbyteries.

And it's been my experience that if two groups of people - such as the LAP and that other presbytery - are doing something wrong, the overwhelming odds are others are doing it wrong, too.

What do you want to bet additional presbyteries have read the LAP's examination and gulped, realizing it bears a strong resemblance to the last one they conducted?

Oopsie-doopsie.

Yep, that was me! As you noted in a previous post, the LAP was indicted for not going far enough in their exam. This is something that goes on all the time. If you've ever gone through the PCA BCO you'll find that you'll think you'll need a canon lawyer to connect all the dots for any particular issue.

Originally Posted by turmeric

The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.

No. As of the January 19 meeting of LaP, my primary concern was to treat the FVers fairly, in accordance with our rules.

I don't think there is one iota in my January 19 story that indicates sympathy for or against FV theology -- that was by design.

I have refrained from comments on the conformity of FV to our PCA Constitution, because at one point I might have sat on the LaP court to try the Wilkins case. I have shared my private assessment with a few people.

As for sympathies, I think it interesting that while the LaP's position against FV has hardened, as my Feb. 9 story shows, it voted at the Jan. 19 meeting, and confirmed those minutes at the Feb. 9 meeting, to donate $6,500 to a leading FV proponent in our membership who was going through a job change. So I think it would be hard to charge the LaP of being un-charitable to the FV guys, all the while we are firming up our opposition to their views.

I think this is an aspect of church discipline that many of the debaters here are missing. Debaters discuss these issues in the abstract. But these are real people on both sides, with budgets to meet, and families to support. And my experience with church discipine over the past 39 years I've been a Christian has been that it must be done in the context of John 13:35 -- brother, I care about you although I think you're dead wrong on some things you are doing or believing, but I really do care about you and want to help you.

That is more than "sympathy."

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

I think this is an aspect of church discipline that many of the debaters here are missing. Debaters discuss these issues in the abstract. But these are real people on both sides, with budgets to meet, and families to support. And my experience with church discipine over the past 39 years I've been a Christian has been that it must be done in the context of John 13:35 -- brother, I care about you although I think you're dead wrong on some things you are doing or believing, but I really do care about you and want to help you.

That is more than "sympathy."

Thank you for this note Brother. There is much truth to this.

I don't agree that heterodoxy in a teacher is something that ought to be taken lightly on the basis of budgets to meet and families to support. In one sense my ire is often directed at teachers who ought to be much more sober in what they teach. Part of my ire is having close friends that used to walk in orthodox circles and have been led astray by men who are sincere but so sincerely wrong that they may well be judged for leading many astray.

That being said, in the context of personal interaction things are often more gentle and forebearing. I don't think we ought to excuse their teaching by their circumstances but we can, nevertheless, be forthright in our rebuke without expressing disdain for their person. Insofar as I fall into this sin, I openly and freely repent.

Especially, though, for the sheep of such congregations I have the most patience and forebearance. Of course, many of the leaders have produced a crop of "young Turks" that make patient interaction difficult but there are still a vast array of the "man in the pew" that simply doesn't know better. I have sympathy and sadness for such.

I've worked myself to the bone in a congregation for the past few years with a love for Christ's own - not on the basis of their perfection in doctrine but on the basis of their identification as disciples. It's simply commanded of me to be that way and, by the grace of God, my delight to bear with them and to not snuff out a smoldering wick.

It is my prayer that the sheep in these congregations would find themselves in pastures tended by under-shepherds who will properly care for their eternal souls.

Grace and peace,

Rich

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Thank you for this note Brother. There is much truth to this.

I don't agree that heterodoxy in a teacher is something that ought to be taken lightly on the basis of budgets to meet and families to support. ...
Grace and peace,

Rich

Taking heterodoxy lighly, for any reason, was not the implication of my post responded to above.

I simply cited an example of a context in the LaP in which the LaP was both hardening its position on FV, in its dealings on the Wilkins matter, and showing charity by a $6,500 donation to another FV advocate who just went through a job change.

In the same context, one influential commissioner pointedly said, while looking directly at the $6,500 donee -- those who continue to advocate the FV in the PCA, their days are numbered.

This context is not subject to the charge -- being soft on heterodoxy.

Accuse LaP of wasting the Lord's resources on heretics, maybe. And you'd be differing with our actual position.

I wouldn't agree with that assessment, but we could discuss it.

But "being soft on heterodoxy" is not an appropriate inference from the context I saw and reported on from the Feb. 9 LaP meeting.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Thank you for this note Brother. There is much truth to this.

I don't agree that heterodoxy in a teacher is something that ought to be taken lightly on the basis of budgets to meet and families to support. ...
Grace and peace,

Rich

Taking heterodoxy lighly, for any reason, was not the implication of my post responded to above.

I simply cited an example of a context in the LaP in which the LaP was both hardening its position on FV, in its dealings on the Wilkins matter, and showing charity by a $6,500 donation to another FV advocate who just went through a job change.

In the same context, one influential commissioner pointedly said, while looking directly at the $6,500 donee -- those who continue to advocate the FV in the PCA, their days are numbered.

This context is not subject to the charge -- being soft on heterodoxy.

Accuse LaP of wasting the Lord's resources on heretics, maybe. And you'd be differing with our actual position.

I wouldn't agree with that assessment, but we could discuss it.

But "being soft on heterodoxy" is not an appropriate inference from the context I saw and reported on from the Feb. 9 LaP meeting.

This is the portion I was referring to:

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

I think this is an aspect of church discipline that many of the debaters here are missing. Debaters discuss these issues in the abstract. But these are real people on both sides, with budgets to meet, and families to support.

I didn't mean to poke you in the eye with it but I simply don't agree that discipline of a Pastor's teaching should factor in budgets and family support if that was what was intended by the comment. In other words, I interpreted you as stating that the LaP initially didn't sanction Wilkins because of the "budgets to meet, families to support" factor and I was stating that this is not something that should be factored in to soften or modify one's ruling. It seems I misunderstood what you were trying to imply.

In the main, I was acknowledging that discipline is very much different "on the ground" but, at the same time, the hardest thing to do "on the ground" is look the man in the eye with a large congregation, and a budget to meet, and be mentally tough enough in the moment to call it what it is.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by the "...budgets to meet and familes to support..." in the context of a discussion about an examination and it would make more sense to me.

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

I didn't mean to poke you in the eye with it but I simply don't agree that discipline of a Pastor's teaching should factor in budgets and family support if that was what was intended by the comment. In other words, I interpreted you as stating that the LaP initially didn't sanction Wilkins because of the "budgets to meet, families to support" factor and I was stating that this is not something that should be factored in to soften or modify one's ruling. It seems I misunderstood what you were trying to imply.

In the main, I was acknowledging that discipline is very much different "on the ground" but, at the same time, the hardest thing to do "on the ground" is look the man in the eye with a large congregation, and a budget to meet, and be mentally tough enough in the moment to call it what it is.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by the "...budgets to meet and familes to support..." in the context of a discussion about an examination and it would make more sense to me.

Sure. I will try, again. First of all, I've re-read my story on the Feb. 9 meeting and my story on the Jan. 19 meeting of LaP. There is no hint of being soft on heterodoxy in either story, because of financial considerations or otherwise.

In reaction to my Feb. 9 story, Rev. Duane Garner, an assistant pastor at AAPC in Monroe, LA, published a comment to my story and took issue with the fact that I had not quoted then-SJC prosecutor Sam Duncan on some statements he made at the Feb. 9 meeting. In another published comment, I acknowledged his point. There followed a posting on Greenbaggins, which to date has generated over 680 comments, concerning the significance of Mr. Duncan's comments.

In comment #8 to the Greenbaggins story linked above, I explained why I thought the FV proponents were misconstruing Mr. Duncan's comments. Comments #29 & 154 there show my interpretation was as I intended.

The Duncan comments had to do with whether the SJC is or can be fair toward people from the LaP. Finally, after several days of back and forth at Greenbaggins on Duncan's comments, I weighed in with comment #654 there with my own view of the kind of fairness to be expected at the SJC. I said nothing there about tempering orthodoxy with financial concerns -- the issue you have raised here.

Otoh, my comments here on Puritanboard are getting misconstrued. E.g., #4 thinks I'm an FV sympathizer and finds my comments "quite disturbing."

I have attempted to clarify what happened in January and February 2008 in the LaP meetings; e.g., #18, 20, 29. In comment #25, I introduced the idea of "brotherly love" perhaps influencing LaP in the past to give Wilkins a pass, although as I admitted, that was a speculation, as I was not there then. I am only explaining what has happened at the Jan. 19 and Feb. 9 meetings I attended.

It was not until comment #35 that I introduced the interplay of "charity" towards FV supporters, juxtaposed with the new firmness of the LaP against FV theology. There is no hint in #35 of going soft on heterodoxy due to financial considerations; in fact, quite the converse is the precise point. That is, to make church discipline work, one must add charity to firmness for truth. John 13:35. To repeat the language I used in #35, saying to the offender, "I think you're dead wrong on some things you are doing or believing," certainly does not leave room for softness on heterodoxy.

I have clarified my intent in #37. Again, I am not defending LaP's prior failure to find Rev. Wilkins' FV views out of accord. But I think I can defend everything they've done in the Jan. 19 and Feb. 9 meetings.

Hope this helps.