Sorry about the lateness of this reply, I have been incredibly busy of late.
****, what I wrote was not intended to be an ad hom against Wilson. I have nothing against the man personally. Rather it was intended to be an appeal to a wise maxim that your mentor R.C. Sproul long ago taught me when considering an assertion: "consider the source."
As one of the primary promoters and publishers of the Federal Vision, Doug Wilson is hardly an unbiased observer of the current process of church discipline against FV advocates in the PCA, especially given the CREC's "odd" (to put it very mildly) practice of church discipline and respect for the discipline of other denominations. Additionally, as the scorn liberally heaped on your own denomination's report on the FV shows, the advocates of the FV have made clear that any action of any church court that condemns them or their theology will be attacked and vilified and the bona fides and intelligence of those who prepared it shredded. For instance, after the OPC report was released, we watched as the men who prepared it went from being scholars to disingenuous buffoons. Simply put, the only way the FV community will consider a report "fair" and the scholars who prepared it "wise" is if it approves of their theology, or at least doesn't condemn it. So it really doesn't matter what process is used by the courts of the church to discipline FV advocates, the very fact that the process is underway will always be "unfair" because there can never be merit in a case that attacks their orthodoxy. Under normal circumstances, when a doctrine is overwhelmingly condemned by every orthodox Reformed denomination and seminary that studies it and produces a report, you would expect that assertions that the study process is always unfair would begin to sound hollow even to those promulgating them, but instead we still hear all the time from the FV that the real problem is a "vast TR conspiracy" and not their own unscriptural and unconfessional (to use the declaration of the OPC report) theology.
But setting aside the source of the criticism for a moment, and the impossibility of there ever being a "fair" method of condemning their theology (theoretically, if they all condemned themselves, that might be considered fair) let's try to lay out some broad outlines of the case against Wilkins with some background that seems to be frequently omitted, please keep in mind that the following is all from memory:
1) Steve Wilkins is a member of Louisiana Presbytery (hereafter LA Presbytery) a tiny Presbytery of 8 Churches with a great deal of theological affinity and considerable support for both the NPP and FV. For instance, Jeff Steel, former pastor of an LA Presbytery church, went on to become Father Jeffrey Steel (Blogger: User Profile: Fr. Jeffrey) and an assistant to N.T. Wright. Simply put, this is not a Presbytery where an attachment to the FV or NPP is considered odd.
2) Steve Wilkins own attachment to the FV is unquestionable. Before the FV was called the FV it was generally known as the "Auburn Avenue Theology" after Wilkins church which sponsored conferences promoting it. The name Federal Vision was coined by these advocates and used as the title of their manifesto, "The Federal Vision" printed by Athanasius Press, the publishing arm of Auburn Avenue PCA. Wilkins has an essay in this book.
3) Despite the size of the Presbytery attempts have been made to bring charges against Wilkins by members of the presbytery. These attempts have never produced a trial because the Presbytery has consistently refused to do so.
4) In January of 2005 Central Carolina PCA Presbytery wrote to LA Presbytery expressing their concerns with the published statements of Steve Wilkins and requesting that his views be formally examined. This was done by means of questioning Wilkins, and despite giving several answers that either contradicted or substantially revised the Westminster Standards, LA Presbytery determined there was nothing chargeable in Wilkins views.
5) Given that no action against Wilkins was available from within the LA Presbytery, several Presbyteries determined that it was time to use the BCO 34-1 clause, this clause presses the General Assembly to assume original jurisdiction because a presbytery has refused to act in a doctrinal case or a case of scandal. (The clause was written into the BCO at the founding of the PCA because of memories of the old PCUS "rotten presbytery" problem were liberals became the majority in a particular presbytery and did whatever they wanted.) They include written evidence from Wilkins published writings showing where he was manifestly out of accord with the Standards. This attempt to use 34-1 failed because the SJC determined that the investigation by LA Presbytery met the requirement to "act" of 34-1.
6) Central Carolina Presbytery however, in its memorial to the General Assembly also memorialized the SJC (BCO 40-5) calling upon them to look into the actions of LA Presbytery regard Wilkins as matters of important delinquency and/or grossly unconstitutional proceedings. This call was taken up and the LA Presbytery was called to account for its actions in re: Steve Wilkins before the SJC.
7) The LA Presbytery defense of their actions was unsuccessful, and even the representative they sent expressed his own reservations in regard to the incongruities between Wilkin's published statements and spoken testimony. The SJC determined that our memorial was in order, and that LA Presbytery had erred both in the methodology of their investigation and in their decision to exonerate TE Wilkins. The SJC then voted unanimously to redress the situation, instructing LA Presbytery to reinvestigate using the new guidelines they were given by February of 2007. The SJC decision on this point was unanimous.
8) LA Presbytery again examined and exonerated Steve Wilkins by a 13-8 vote in January of 2007. The following month 7 members of LA Presbytery filed a complaint (43-1) regarding the decision of LA Presbytery to exonerate Wilkins. This also went to the SJC.
9) In the meantime, the PCA in June of 2007 overwhelmingly condemned the FV theology at its GA by accepting a study report which judged it to be unscriptural and unconfessional just as the OPC, BPC, RPCUS, RCUS, etc. already had.
10) In October the SJC decision in favor of both the members of LA Presbytery who complained against the decision to exonerate AND the original Central Carolina memorial and have indicted LA Presbytery calling it to appear to explain its actions in this matter.
In short brother, this has been a long and by-the-book judicial dealing with a man who unquestionably holds to the FV - a doctrinal system that both your and my denomination have already overwhelmingly condemned in their published study reports. The idea that this is "unfair" can only be cogent if like most FV advocates you reject all processes that have condemned the FV and utterly reject the idea that the FV could ever be unorthodox. But to turn this GLACIAL, plodding, step by step, vote by vote, reaffirmation by overwhelming reaffirmation process into some sort of modern day Council of Constance is just silly. (Not that its relevant but it strikes me that had the Roman Catholics been using this process during the Reformation, most of the Martyrs would have died not at the stake but of old age.)
Your Servant in Christ,