Thread: Update on LA Presbytery

So...? Is there more to come in this case or is that it? That seems to be an anti-climactic conclusion if there is no more to follow. Forgive me if I have missed something.

The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

I would bet that there are folks over in the Carolina's that are cooking something up.

Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Duane Garner is an elder at AAPC. I bet he is probably in the CREC now. To my knowledge he is neither a pastor nor a member of the LA PCA.
http://auburnavenue.org/church_leaders.htm

What is an 'FV sympathizer'? Is it someone who agrees with FV, or someone who does not agree but doesn't think it is that big of a deal?

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.

Originally Posted by KMK

What is an 'FV sympathizer'? Is it someone who agrees with FV, or someone who does not agree but doesn't think it is that big of a deal?

When I was in grad school it was someone who did not pronounce Shibboleth correctly. It wasn't good enough just to say FV was wrong, you had to say they were heretical. Even if you said they were heretical, that didn't count if you also said Bahnsen is good, for example.

Thanks, Lane for your work in this. I feel like you should have your own news show on CBS.

Originally Posted by Romans922

Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.

Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Romans922

Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.

Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.

Several years ago the Pacific NW Presbytery tried Leithart's views, found them non-heretical and thus exonerated him. Andrew's comment has reference to the fact that Peter Leithart was (is? I don't know) in the Pac NW.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

I believe his last name was Peabody.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

I believe his last name was Peabody.

Close enough. Since he is a good friend of mine, and a man of integrity, I don't really want to disclose names nor speak of him in an informal forum. I know who you are talking about. I am sure he went with the church when they switched denominations. But to be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen him in a while.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Romans922

Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.

Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.

Several years ago the Pacific NW Presbytery tried Leithart's views, found them non-heretical and thus exonerated him. Andrew's comment has reference to the fact that Peter Leithart was (is? I don't know) in the Pac NW.

I did not realize this, Jacob. Thanks for the information. You are attending John Knox PCA. Were you there when Jeffrey Steele was still the teaching elder? He is now an Anglican Priest under N.T Wright. It was very sad. I wondered if any of the ruling elders who were on the session with him are still at Knox? Jeffrey left or was defrocked in 2005, I believe.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.

Several years ago the Pacific NW Presbytery tried Leithart's views, found them non-heretical and thus exonerated him. Andrew's comment has reference to the fact that Peter Leithart was (is? I don't know) in the Pac NW.

I did not realize this, Jacob. Thanks for the information. You are attending John Knox PCA.

Yes.

Were you there when Jeffrey Steele was still the teaching elder?

No. I visited there 3 1/2 years ago (or something like that) and that was the current pastor's first sunday. I then moved to Jackson for 2 years and eventually came back to live near Monroe, LA.

Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

I really don't wonder. The FV should have never gotten as big as it did. It is conceptually abstract and represents a microcosm of an already tiny group (e.g., the Reformed church). People should have ignored it from day one and it would have been relegated to obscurity. Instead, everyone wanted to be Luther and Machen and look what we got now.

Also, fwiw, even though I disagree with Dr Leithart on FV, I love most all of his works.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

I believe his last name was Peabody.

Close enough. Since he is a good friend of mine, and a man of integrity, I don't really want to disclose names nor speak of him in an informal forum. I know who you are talking about. I am sure he went with the church when they switched denominations. But to be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen him in a while.

The Stated Clerk of LA Presbytery was a Ruling Elder. He was also clerk of AAPC. He resigned as Stated Clerk of the Presbytery at the same time that the church withdrew and TE Wilkins withdrew.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

I really don't wonder. The FV should have never gotten as big as it did. It is conceptually abstract and represents a microcosm of an already tiny group (e.g., the Reformed church). People should have ignored it from day one and it would have been relegated to obscurity. Instead, everyone wanted to be Luther and Machen and look what we got now.

Also, fwiw, even though I disagree with Dr Leithart on FV, I love most all of his works.

I find it extremely interesting that the "high ecclesiology" of Rev. Leithart permits him to plant a church in another denomination whilst staying in the PCA. When the Committee for the Review of Presbytery Records raised this fact (which would have raised a storm had it been an OPC church that was being planted) the "be charitable" types shouted it down.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

I really don't wonder. The FV should have never gotten as big as it did. It is conceptually abstract and represents a microcosm of an already tiny group (e.g., the Reformed church). People should have ignored it from day one and it would have been relegated to obscurity. Instead, everyone wanted to be Luther and Machen and look what we got now.

Also, fwiw, even though I disagree with Dr Leithart on FV, I love most all of his works.

I find it extremely interesting that the "high ecclesiology" of Rev. Leithart permits him to plant a church in another denomination whilst staying in the PCA. When the Committee for the Review of Presbytery Records raised this fact (which would have raised a storm had it been an OPC church that was being planted) the "be charitable" types shouted it down.

I am not defending all his actions, I just like some of his works on literature, critqques of postmodernity, etc.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I am not defending all his actions, I just like some of his works on literature, critqques of postmodernity, etc.

Jacob,

Never said you did. What you said was perfectly reasonable.

But my objection to Rev. Leithart stands.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

I am not defending all his actions, I just like some of his works on literature, critqques of postmodernity, etc.

Jacob,

Never said you did. What you said was perfectly reasonable.

But my objection to Rev. Leithart stands.

Originally Posted by Stephen

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

You are speaking of my friend M. Dale Peacock. He went with his church into the CREC, and has resigned as stated clerk of the LaP (PCA).

The new stated clerk is Dr. James Jones, a TE, who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the SJC yesterday. The other prosecution witness is our current LaP moderator, Troy Richards, a RE, as I explain in my story, "LaP Admonished," posted today.

Wow, a lot of folks have friends involved in this. This must be tough for the PCA to be going through.

Yeah, if we wrote off all friends with whom we disagree, we'd have no friends left.

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Yeah, if we wrote off all friends with whom we disagree, we'd have no friends left.

Very true. It is just heartbreaking when they once stood and now are gooning up the Gospel.

Last I heard, Leithart re-submitted his views to the NW Presbytery after the decision at GA last summer. A committee was formed...

Originally Posted by turmeric

Last I heard, Leithart re-submitted his views to the NW Presbytery after the decision at GA last summer. A committee was formed...

This is true. There are some posts on TE Stellman's blog.

Originally Posted by KMK

What is an 'FV sympathizer'? Is it someone who agrees with FV, or someone who does not agree but doesn't think it is that big of a deal?

This is an insightful question, and I appreciate the humor with which others have answered it, but I have chosen to deal with it seriously. In fact, I revised my current story on the LaP, to comment on this question.

I think if you read my original story on the Jan. 19 LaP meeting, you will get a sense of how some of the votes were subtly nuanced, with commissioners voting the same way for different reasons. Perhaps I was not subtly nuanced enough, as I got private correspondence from a friend of mine in an FV church, chiding me that there were commissioners at the Jan. 19 meeting voting in a perceivably anti-FV way, who really were pro-FV, but who were voting the way they did in order to protect the LaP vis a vis the SJC. That may be the case, somewhat, but I think not significantly. I think the over-arching point is that groups arrive at truth, or clarify truth, gradually, with different members getting it quicker than others.

Let's take a concrete example. Rev. Wilkins' associate pastor made a motion at the Jan. 19 meeting to disapprove Rev. Wilkins' FV views. He was hoping a negative vote would be construed as a "vote of confidence" on Rev. Wilkins. That motion failed. I voted against it, not because I favored Rev. Wilkins' views, but because I felt the motion was out of order. The moderator had ruled it was in order, and I had not had the presence of mind to appeal the decision of the chair. Probably I would have lost that vote, if I had appealed it.

The point is -- there were subtle shades of issues. We got there gradually. Those of you from elsewhere who are so sure you are clearly pro-FV or clearly anti-FV have trouble understanding why we did this or that. The answer is, I think -- truth is a process, not having arrived fully.

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

I believe his last name was Peabody.

Close enough. Since he is a good friend of mine, and a man of integrity, I don't really want to disclose names nor speak of him in an informal forum. I know who you are talking about. I am sure he went with the church when they switched denominations. But to be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen him in a while.

That is fine, brother. I do not want to put you in a awkard sitution. I have never met him, but knew only of his connection in this.

Originally Posted by fredtgreco

Originally Posted by Ivanhoe

Originally Posted by Stephen

Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

I really don't wonder. The FV should have never gotten as big as it did. It is conceptually abstract and represents a microcosm of an already tiny group (e.g., the Reformed church). People should have ignored it from day one and it would have been relegated to obscurity. Instead, everyone wanted to be Luther and Machen and look what we got now.

Also, fwiw, even though I disagree with Dr Leithart on FV, I love most all of his works.

I find it extremely interesting that the "high ecclesiology" of Rev. Leithart permits him to plant a church in another denomination whilst staying in the PCA. When the Committee for the Review of Presbytery Records raised this fact (which would have raised a storm had it been an OPC church that was being planted) the "be charitable" types shouted it down.

I have real concerns for the PCA when they start doing this kind of thing. We can surmise that issues of worship or women in leadership will split the denomination, but these kind of actions is what led to the demise of the old PCUS. The "be charitable" types are more of a threat to the unity of the church than the so-called TR's (which I am happy to be a member of that club

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Originally Posted by Stephen

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

You are speaking of my friend M. Dale Peacock. He went with his church into the CREC, and has resigned as stated clerk of the LaP (PCA).

The new stated clerk is Dr. James Jones, a TE, who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the SJC yesterday. The other prosecution witness is our current LaP moderator, Troy Richards, a RE, as I explain in my story, "LaP Admonished," posted today.

Thanks, brother. The sad thing in all of this is it puts friends we love on the wrong side of the issue. We all find ourselves in similar situations.

Originally Posted by turmeric

Last I heard, Leithart re-submitted his views to the NW Presbytery after the decision at GA last summer. A committee was formed...

I hope not another committee to find him in conformity with the Westminster Standards. I sometimes wonder why these Presbyteries or members of Presbyteries do not leave the denomination or at least throw out the standards. Little by little they keep chipping away at our confession until nothing is left. I would encourage everyone to read Dr. Morton Smith's excellent book, How The Gold Has Become Dim.

Originally Posted by Reformed Musings

Originally Posted by turmeric

Last I heard, Leithart re-submitted his views to the NW Presbytery after the decision at GA last summer. A committee was formed...

This is true. There are some posts on TE Stellman's blog.

I love the quote from Luther. The older I get the more I crave the beer over the milk

Question for Haiglaw; Did you really mean to say that "truth is a process"?

Originally Posted by turmeric

Question for Haiglaw; Did you really mean to say that "truth is a process"?

Yes, in the sense we are all sinful and fallible and non-omniscient.

Jesus Christ is Truth incarnate, and the Word of God written is inerrant.

But our perceptions of Truth are in the process of sanctification, just like everything else about us. Paul said he had not arrived, he was continuing the course, he was fighting the good fight.

That was what I meant. Make sense?