Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Or will their defense be to attempt to show they did, in fact, follow the BCO's approved procedure for an examination?
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.
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.
The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.
The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.
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. In other words,, 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.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. In other words,, 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 just got off the phone with Sam. The results are posted here.
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.Lane's Blog said: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.
The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.
FV sympathizers who are using this Duncan comment as a way to criticize the SJC are misguided.
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.
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
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 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.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.
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.
SemperFideles said: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?
That's the correct html but here you have to use bbcode like this:sorry; i thought i knew how to do blockquotes.
[quote] sample quote [ /quote]