# Louisiana Presbytery's Ruling on Steve Wilkins



## Robert Truelove (Jan 24, 2007)

The Louisiana Presbytery was supposed to release a ruling regarding Steve Wilkins on January 20th. Has anyone heard anything about this? What did they decide?


----------



## re4med (Jan 24, 2007)

Yes...the La. Presbytery voted 13-8 on the following motion:



> that we could find "no strong presumption of guilt" on the part of TE Wilkins


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

Where did you attain this information?


----------



## re4med (Jan 24, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> Where did you attain this information?



From a member of the LA. Presbytery.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Jan 24, 2007)

prespastor said:


> The Louisiana Presbytery was supposed to release a ruling regarding Steve Wilkins on January 20th. Has anyone heard anything about this? What did they decide?


 
So, what exactly does *that* mean?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

It means that now the LA Presbytery will send their decision to the Standing Judicial Commission for the SJC to look into the matter further and make a decision regarding the matter.


c. That Louisiana Presbytery formally determine whether TE Wilkins has changed his views on the areas specified in the Memorial since his ordination (BCO 21-5, vow 2).
d. That Presbytery adopt formal responses to the specific concerns raised in the Memorial, with rationale and evidence for those responses.
e. That Presbytery specifically note any area of TE Wilkins’ views or his choice of terms to explain his views that are inconsistent with the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms (BCO 29-1, 39-3) and how it will require TE Wilkins to redress those inconsistencies (BCO 21-5, vow 4). *[THIS HAS BEEN DONE and Said that by a 13-8 vote he is exonerated.]*
f. That these directions be accomplished and reported to the Standing Judicial Commission no later than February 16, 2007, *for final review*.

III. Finally, the SJC reminds Louisiana Presbytery that, should it find that it cannot comply with the stipulations of this redress, it may request by Reference (BCO 41-3) that General Assembly assume jurisdiction in the matter.

All matters dealing with this opinion were written by the full Standing Judicial Commission.


----------



## ADKing (Jan 24, 2007)

Romans922 said:


> It means that now the LA Presbytery will send their decision to the Standing Judicial Commission for the SJC to look into the matter further and make a decision regarding the matter.
> 
> 
> c. That Louisiana Presbytery formally determine whether TE Wilkins has changed his views on the areas specified in the Memorial since his ordination (BCO 21-5, vow 2).
> ...



So...? I assume that the "rationale and evidences" will also be forthcoming in addition to the simple assertion that he is not guilty? What happens when the SJC reviews this? I assume/hope that the Commission will not accept this. Is this then appealed or referred back to the whole GA or does the Commission have authority to reverse this and bring discipline?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

The SJC will review what happened (Written and Oral Responses of Wilkins, and the actions of the LA Presbytery), and make a decision.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 24, 2007)

13-8 is closer than I thought it would be.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

That is a strong minority, the minority might be able to submit something to SJC, I don't want to look it up in the BCO because I'm getting sick of the BCO this week b/c I'm taking Church Polity right now in seminary.


----------



## blhowes (Jan 24, 2007)

I'm curious. If the Steve Wilkins' case goes to the highest governing authority, and he's exonerated, how, if at all, will that affect any of the other churches in the denomination? What would be the ramifications, in any, of such a decision?


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 24, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I'm curious. If the Steve Wilkins' case goes to the highest governing authority, and he's exonerated, how, if at all, will that affect any of the other churches in the denomination? What would be the ramifications, in any, of such a decision?


 Count me as someone else very concerned about the implications of an exoneration in this matter. Where do we go from there? Would there be a mass exodus from the PCA to the OPC, for instance?


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

blhowes said:


> I'm curious. If the Steve Wilkins' case goes to the highest governing authority, and he's exonerated, how, if at all, will that affect any of the other churches in the denomination? What would be the ramifications, in any, of such a decision?



If he is exonerated before the SJC (the highest governing authority), then nothing happens. Everything will stay the same. 

If they don't exonerate him, the SJC will decide what will happen.

If there is a large minority and the minority wants to have it go before the floor of General Assembly, then they can have it go before General Assembly floor and voted on. If the majority at General Assembly vote in favor of the minority, then the minority position will be the position of the GA, if not the majority position is the position of the GA. 

One of the first two options will happen, the third is only a possibility.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 24, 2007)

He is not likely to be exonerated at the SJC. There are no FV sympathetic men on that commission, as far as I know, and Dr. Aquila is the chairman (very opposed to FV).


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

Get your sermon and stuff done Lane, Glad you are here at Puritanboard, hey you have seen a crazy picture of me now.


----------



## re4med (Jan 24, 2007)

greenbaggins said:


> He is not likely to be exonerated at the SJC. There are no FV sympathetic men on that commission, as far as I know, and Dr. Aquila is the chairman (very opposed to FV).



Is Aquila the chairmen of the SJC or the standing moderator of the GA and the one who appointed the Study Committee? Maybe it's both...


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

Yes he is standing moderator and also chairman of SJC


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 24, 2007)

Yes, Aquila is both. The minutes of GA tells you who is on the SJC. I'm working hard on my sermon, as you can see! No, really, I'm doing my work.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 24, 2007)

My guess would be Dr. Aquila was already serving on the SJC and then he got elected subsequently to serve as moderator of GA for a year.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 24, 2007)

This is true.


----------



## turmeric (Jan 24, 2007)

What is up w/ the Louisiana Presbytery? How could they arrive at the decision they made?


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 24, 2007)

turmeric said:


> What is up w/ the Louisiana Presbytery? How could they arrive at the decision they made?



I'm very confused about this actually, although I gather that they are interpreting Wilkins's writings, and conference talks, etc., as methods of communication that do not amount to TEACHING - since by those vehicles he is CLEARLY advocating for paedocommunion. The only way they can (it seems) exonerate Wilkins on the charge of teaching contrary to the standards is to narrowly define "teaching" as actual preaching from the pulpit (although for all I know he might actually have preached pro-paedocommunion sermons from the Auburn Avenue pulpit, which makes things even more mysterious). How did they come to this decision? Beats me.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 24, 2007)

turmeric said:


> What is up w/ the Louisiana Presbytery? How could they arrive at the decision they made?



My understanding is that a number of pastors in the presbytery share Wilkins views.


----------



## Romans922 (Jan 25, 2007)

pastors/ruling elders.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 25, 2007)

turmeric said:


> What is up w/ the Louisiana Presbytery? How could they arrive at the decision they made?



Perhaps they know more about it than us?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 25, 2007)

*Bible Conferences*

What one author has said gets to some of the "why?" The reason is these stealth Bible conferences, where their teaching tries to get under the radar screen of "teaching." I'm not talking about how visible the conference was (obviously). Rather, I'm talking about a forum where new ideas are being discussed; a forum there that is not accountable to any church body. Since they are not accountable, they can invite speakers like N.T. Wright to come and speak at their conference. And presbytery cannot do anything about that, except after the fact, and based on transcripts of something where the damage has already been done.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 25, 2007)

turmeric said:


> What is up w/ the Louisiana Presbytery? How could they arrive at the decision they made?



I would assume there are probably some sympathizers in that Presbytery, but you have to take into consideration that Mr. Wilkins has been in that Presbytery for 18 plus years. There are only a hand full of churches (I believe 7 or so) in that Presbyery and everyone knows everyone else. Its like a family. I would bet that Mr. Wilkins has filled the pulpit of many of these churches from time to time and the other pastors in the Presbytery have filled AAPC's pulpit a few times. These men are friends who have also worked on committes together and have created a strong personal bond. To have them say that his teaching is out of accord with the Standards and that he probably should be removed from the pulpit is probably not an easy thing to do. In fact it would be pretty hard under any circumstances. 

This is not an excuse but is mostlikely the reality of the situation. So why not punt and let the SJC deal with it?


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 25, 2007)

Theoretical said:


> Count me as someone else very concerned about the implications of an exoneration in this matter. Where do we go from there? Would there be a mass exodus from the PCA to the OPC, for instance?



?? wouldn't that be going from the frying pan and into the fire? Have you forgotten the OPC's handling of Shepherd and they're overturning the Kinnaird gulity verdict on heresy charges?


----------



## Theoretical (Jan 25, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> ?? wouldn't that be going from the frying pan and into the fire? Have you forgotten the OPC's handling of Shepherd and they're overturning the Kinnaird gulity verdict on heresy charges?


Hmm. That is true - I had forgotten a couple of those things, but still thought the OPC overall was still much more consistently sound than the PCA was these days. That said, still being quite new to Presbyterianism, I can't say for sure.


----------



## CDM (Jan 25, 2007)

Magma2 said:


> ?? wouldn't that be going from the frying pan and into the fire? Have you forgotten the OPC's handling of Shepherd and they're overturning the Kinnaird gulity verdict on heresy charges?



Provide some links for those who don't know please.


----------



## Magma2 (Jan 25, 2007)

mangum said:


> Provide some links for those who don't know please.



http://www.trinityfoundation.org/kinnaird.php

They can find O. Palmer Robertson's, The Justifcation Controversy and former OPC TE Paul Elliot's incredible book, Christianity vs Neo-Liberalism at the same site if they want more information.


----------

