# PCA Evangel Presbytery addresses Leithart's ministry status.



## Jash Comstock (Jun 13, 2014)

It seems that the presbytery in whose geographical boundaries Leithart is currently ministering in (Evangel Presbytery) has sent a second letter to the presbytery Leithart is a member of (Pacific Northwest Presbytery) regarding his laboring outside the geographical bounds of his own presbytery. 

PCA Evangel Presbytery Asks Peter Leithart

I have a few questions.

1. If Leithart is a TE at a CREC church, why is this an issue for the PCA presbytery in whose geographical bounds he is ministering in? Restated; since he isn't working in a PCA church, how does this affect Evangel Presbytery? 

2. Why does it seem the presbyteries are more keen to address his unconformity with the Book of Church Order, while still not addressing his unconformity with the WCF (FV)?


----------



## Edward (Jun 13, 2014)

Jash Comstock said:


> 1. If Leithart is a TE at a CREC church, why is this an issue for the PCA presbytery in whose geographical bounds he is ministering in? Restated; since he isn't working in a PCA church, how does this affect Evangel Presbytery?



He's a pastor in the PCA (PNW Presbytery) and the BCO is clear that if you are going to labor in another presbytery, you have only two choices - you either transfer your credentials to the presbytery where you want to work, or you get permission from that presbytery to labor within its bounds. He has done neither (and since the presbytery where he is presently spreading his error is faithful, unlike PNW, they are not going to give permission. )

The practical solution would be for him to transfer out of PNW to CREC, and the PCA would be rid of him. The better solution would be for the General Assembly to do to PNW what they did to Louisiana Presbytery. 

Remember, PNW appointed a crypto-Catholic (Jason Stellman) to prosecute Leithart.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 13, 2014)

*PCA Evangel Presbytery Asks PNW to deal with Leithart's Ministry Status*



> The provision in question is found in BCO 13-2, which says in part:
> 
> A minister shall be required to hold his membership in the Presbytery within whose geographical bounds he resides, unless there are reasons which are satisfactory to his Presbytery why he should not do so. When a minister labors outside the geographical bounds of, or in a work not under the jurisdiction of his Presbytery, at home or abroad, it shall be only with the full concurrence of and under circumstances agreeable to his Presbytery, and to the Presbytery within whose geographical bounds he labors, if one exists.


PCA Evangel Presbytery Asks Peter Leithart


----------



## Jash Comstock (Jun 13, 2014)

I just posted the same item, a bit ago

http://www.puritanboard.com/f103/pca-evangel-presbytery-addresses-leitharts-ministry-status-83692/


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 13, 2014)

Sorry about that. Threads merged...


----------



## Unoriginalname (Jun 14, 2014)

Jash Comstock said:


> Why does it seem the presbyteries are more keen to address his unconformity with the Book of Church Order, while still not addressing his unconformity with the WCF (FV)?



The cynic in me wonders if it is the path of least resistance, PNW already floundered (or refused) to deal with his FV so maybe it is just easier to deal with his BCO violation and get the same net result.


----------



## Jash Comstock (Jun 14, 2014)

Unoriginalname said:


> Jash Comstock said:
> 
> 
> > Why does it seem the presbyteries are more keen to address his unconformity with the Book of Church Order, while still not addressing his unconformity with the WCF (FV)?
> ...



The thing is, PNWP isn't the one addressing the BCO issue. It's Evangel Presbytery. Evangel contacted PNWP earlier about the BCO issue and was promptly ignored. This is the second letter Evangel has sent to PNWP regarding the BCO issue... It seems PNWP isn't eager to deal with any issue.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2014)

I wonder if some of the reticence to "go for the throat" on Leithart means that the spotlight would be put on Confessionalism, and that would raise questions about others' views on the 2nd and 4th commandments.


----------



## Hamalas (Jun 14, 2014)

My understanding is that because Leithart has been cleared by both his Presbytery and by the SJC in terms of his FV views and non-confessionalism that he can no longer be prosecuted on those grounds. It's a case of double jeopardy from what I've been told so all that presbyteries like Evangel _can_ do is to tackle the BCO violations etc...


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 14, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> My understanding is that because Leithart has been cleared by both his Presbytery and by the SJC in terms of his FV views and non-confessionalism that he can no longer be prosecuted on those grounds. It's a case of double jeopardy from what I've been told so all that presbyteries like Evangel _can_ do is to tackle the BCO violations etc...



Sort of like getting Al Capone on tax evasion?


----------



## Hamalas (Jun 14, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Hamalas said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding is that because Leithart has been cleared by both his Presbytery and by the SJC in terms of his FV views and non-confessionalism that he can no longer be prosecuted on those grounds. It's a case of double jeopardy from what I've been told so all that presbyteries like Evangel _can_ do is to tackle the BCO violations etc...
> ...



Sadly, yes.


----------



## Philip (Jun 14, 2014)

Hamalas said:


> My understanding is that because Leithart has been cleared by both his Presbytery and by the SJC in terms of his FV views and non-confessionalism that he can no longer be prosecuted on those grounds. It's a case of double jeopardy from what I've been told so all that presbyteries like Evangel can do is to tackle the BCO violations etc...



More to the point, until Leithart transfers membership, he is technically out of Evangel Presbytery's jurisdiction, which is what prompts to request in the first place.


----------



## Edward (Jun 14, 2014)

Philip said:


> More to the point, until Leithart transfers membership, he is technically out of Evangel Presbytery's jurisdiction, which is what prompts to request in the first place.



Yes, Evangel has no jurisdiction over Leithart - all they can do is ask PNW to follow the rules, which PNW has shown that it is loath to do. 




Hamalas said:


> My understanding is that because Leithart has been cleared by both his Presbytery and by the SJC in terms of his FV views and non-confessionalism that he can no longer be prosecuted on those grounds. It's a case of double jeopardy from what I've been told so all that presbyteries like Evangel can do is to tackle the BCO violations etc.



Of course, what PNW did wasn't a trial, it was a farce. That's why I believe the Louisiana Presbytery solution is the only way justice could ever be done. GA should abolish the Presbytery, and let individual churches and pastors petition for admission to the denomination. (Probably be a good idea to require Westminster Presbytery conduct the review). 

And, of course, the GA could always decided that their time wasn't too valuable to sit as a church court, and actually hear appeals from the presbyteries instead of delegating.


----------

