# Louisiana Presbytery update



## Pilgrim

HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
> LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings



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.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Will that be the foundation of their defense?*



SemperFideles said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
> LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

Or will their defense be to attempt to show they _did_, in fact, follow the BCO's approved procedure for an examination?

I'd thought the idea was that the LAP skipped the methodology provided by the BCO, instead substituting their own, and _that's_ why Pr. Wilkins' views got a pass. 

But I've been known to be wrong.


----------



## turmeric

The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.


----------



## BJClark

In some ways, it sounds like Mr. Garner should be respected for not wanting to high tail it and run away from the issues at hand, but be willing to stay and face the charges, it says a lot about his character as a man.

It may be a good time for a man in another Church body within the PCA to offer to sit and really talk with him one on one to discuss his personal beliefs, maybe sometime before the hearing in March. 

It could be He's following after a man he respects and holds in high regard, more than Christ, which certainly would be causing conflict within himself and he may be feeling caught in the middle of it all, because he did help edit the FV book. 

Maybe that should be a question posed to him, are you following after this man because he is your friend and pastor, someone he has known and respected and loved and cared for as a brother for many years, or is this what he really hold's to be true? 

Is he afraid of losing this man's friendship and respect, if he departs from his church body? 

Many of us have had to make similiar choices, even within our own families, do we depart from their beliefs and go with what we know to be true or do we stay because of the relationship we have with them and a feeling of obligation?

I will keep this man in my prayers, and others in the congregation who may be struggling internally with similiar issues.





> 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.



Anyway, that is what I get when I read the above comments...which is why I think it may be a wise decision to have someone offer to walk along side him and really talk to him one on one to find out.

How many men stayed in the PC-USA when the churches split years ago, partly because they held a friendship with those who were staying and feeling as if they would be abandoning their family and friends?

How many men here have had to finally leave the churches they grew up going to, and/or were members of for many years all because of the teaching? And yet, they struggled internally for many years with that decision, not wanting to hurt their pastor, or offend their family and friends? It could be that really is what this man is struggling with and why he wants to stay in the PCA...


----------



## BJClark

What I also find interesting in all of it, is that IF Steve Wilkins really believe's these things to be the TRUTH, why is he running away? Why isn't he willing to stay and be held accountable for what He is teaching by others?

How does one grow (killing off the lies they hold to) if they are running away from the battle?

This seems to be an Iron sharpening Iron issue that needs to be addressed, years ago, they would call them yellow bellies for running away from battle...


----------



## RamistThomist

turmeric said:


> The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.



What was disturbing about it? I just thought he repeated the facts. In fact, I saw little commentary. You could be referring to his story linked elsewhere, but I didn't have time to read it.

Yes, he probably would be sympathetic--most people in LAP, as this thing indicated, are less likely to attack Wilkins, For what it's worth. But I didn't see that in the xanga.


----------



## Pilgrim

turmeric said:


> The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.



He is new to the LaP, evidently new to the controversy and I don't think he has any particular axe to grind one way or another.


----------



## Gryphonette

Let me ask y'all, what do you think of the fact that Sam Duncan is, one, apparently planning upon resigning and, two, commented during yesterday's meeting that he doubts anyone in the LAP can get a fair trial by the SJC?

The FV'ers are all over that last like fleas on a monkey, and I can't say as how I blame 'em. That was a rather stunning comment for the current prosecutor to make, It seems to me.


----------



## greenbaggins

As Sam's (former) assistant, I can perhaps shed some light on this. Sam thinks that charge one is basically moot now that charge two was pled guilty to by the LAP. So he thinks that going on with said prosecution would just be rubbing the LAP's nose in the ground. As to the second statement, he has said this to me as well. I don't know the makeup of the SJC well enough to comment on this, quite frankly. So, I am not going to comment on it. If Sam wants the world to know why he said that, then he will do so.


----------



## greenbaggins

I just got off the phone with Sam. The results are posted here.


----------



## Gryphonette

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?


----------



## Pilgrim

Gryphonette said:


> 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 think Wayne Wylie had mentioned that here on the PB, that the way the LaP conducted the examination was the way it was done when he was in the PCA in TX.


----------



## Gryphonette

I'm awful with names, so most likely you're right. 

Sometimes it's situations such as this one that brings to light existing weaknesses, such as the fact that the handy guide within the BCO concerning precisely _how_ such examinations are to be conducted isn't being followed by some presbyteries.

And it's been my experience that if two groups of people - such as the LAP and that other presbytery - are doing something wrong, the overwhelming odds are_ others_ are doing it wrong, too.

What do you want to bet additional presbyteries have read the LAP's examination and gulped, realizing it bears a strong resemblance to the last one_ they_ conducted?

Oopsie-doopsie.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Gryphonette said:


> 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.


greenbaggins said:


> I just got off the phone with Sam. The results are posted here.



Thanks for this Lane. 



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.


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.

How does one avoid reading the Wilkins' examination, know the Laws of non-contradiction, know the Confession, and come away with anything other than being convinced that he is outside the bounds of the Confession? Oh, I know, such men go by the name of "The Federal Vision"! Everyone else can see it for what it is.

So let the FV advocates lather over this. They're accustomed to a handful of men drawing their firm conclusions about the nature of justification and election. Their leaders, after all, have pulled them out of Reformed orthodoxy in the span of a few years and we have the proverbial Pot complaining to the Kettle that those remaining in orthodoxy are convinced they're just plain wrong. Perhaps the FV advocates ought to ask: Where was the long, well thought out, systematic discussion in a Church council that decided to break off a new denomination and call itself the CREC?


----------



## py3ak

turmeric said:


> The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.



If you follow the link Lane provided in his first post you'll find HaigLaw making this statement as well:


> FV sympathizers who are using this Duncan comment as a way to criticize the SJC are misguided.



Given that, I doubt that he has a bias for FVists considered as a species.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

FYI. Elder Haig is a PB member; you can ask him directly for any clarifications, but I think he has made it clear, as one of the two witnesses being touted, he disagrees strongly with how the statement is being used by some, particularly posting on the blog that cited him as one of the sources.

It is certainly interesting how much a firestorm this has created. Since Lane knows elder Duncan and has it from the horses mouth so to speak, that may be the best blog to watch for good information on this.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Clarification on the 2 charges*



SemperFideles said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
> LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> HaigLaw's Xanga Site - Weblog - LaP hardens
> LAP to Appear Before the SJC « Reformed Musings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


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?


----------



## HaigLaw

*further clarification of the 2 charges*

Well, that's confusing too. If you use logic only, it seems like count 1 is sumsumed within count 2, and therefore to plead guilty to 2, would mean guilty to 1 also. That is, like concentric circles, with 1 inside 2.

But that's not the case. 

Take a simple illustration. Suppose I tell you to take steps 1,2,3,4 & 5, and if you have good sense, you will arrive at step 6. 

But let's assume you diligently go through steps 1,2,3,4 & 5 and you slip up and count an extra finger and arrive at 7 instead of 6.

Did you go though steps 1-5, like I told you? Yeah.

Should you have gotten 6 next? Yeah, but you didn't. You made a mistake and arrived at 7 instead.

Hope this helps. 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.

LaP is saying, yeah, we read his statements, took all those steps, but we just didn't get it. We made a mistake. We get it now. 

This is simplified, like a syllogism. It was much more complicated. 

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?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw said:


> 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 hope you didn't think I was accusing you of anything. I was merely interacting with you. Any comments that seemed directed at you were not intended. I don't consider the whole LAP decision to fall at your feet.

I think your summary is very useful in fact.



HaigLaw said:


> 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.


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.

Let's use your analogy again and assume we have a 6 step process where step 4 is the examination, step 5 is the Presbytery evaluating the answers against the Confession, and step 6 is the verdict.

At this point, you seem to be admitting that the LAP made a "mistake" in step 5. Let's call Step 5: "Comparing Wilkins' answers to the Confession."

I know this is simple but in the interest of clarity the basic failure is that the Presbytery had Wilkins' answers on the one hand and the WCF on the other, compared the two, and concluded there was nothing significantly wrong. I'm not sure if many bought the argument that the WCF spoke narrowly about the idea of election and that he was merely teaching more Biblical data that the WCF left unaddressed.

Either way, though, it seems that this "compare and contrast" step is a major problem. It seems to me that if the Presbytery fails at that point then it has failed in the most significant portion. Coming up with the list of questions is good but the real wisdom had to be applied at the point of determining whether his answers accorded properly.

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?

If you don't want to answer then I understand. My point, again, is not to challenge you personally but I'm trying to understand why the "We made a mistake..." should satisfy people when the members of the Presbytery had a duty to *not* make a mistake at Step 5.


----------



## BJClark

HaigLaw;

I want to thank you for taking the time to post here and share with those of us not in the midst of it all, but in many ways it effects; both as part of the PCA and overall Church body.

I'm sure it is very difficult for you and all who have been involved in this over the past few years, I pray God will sustain you and give all involved wisdom and discernment as they procede on this walk.

I had to chuckle at your take step 1,2,3,4, and 5 and you come to 7, when you should come to 6; sounds like me and algebra..

being so close to the situation and being close to the people involved I'm sure has brought about difficulties in 'seeing' what others were 'seeing' from the outside in order to come to the same conclusion. 

Much like other relationships in our lives, others might be able to see someone is abusive towards say a spouse, it may be subtle abuse, but abuse none the less, but they don't see it because they are in the midst of it all, and when they step away from it for awhile and go back they can begin to see it for what it is..and only then can they begin to deal with the reality.

I pray that God heal the hearts of those hurt through all this, and that they may find comfort in His arms.

And again, thank you for taking the time to share with us concerning this..I just can not imagine all the internal turmoil so many of our brothers and sisters are feeling right now as they go through this.


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pilgrim said:


> 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.



But that would be a separate "indictment" at that point though, right?

Do you see what I'm asking HaigLaw though in my last post? Am I missing something? I'm trying to understand this trial a bit better. I thought I understood it but I want to make sure.


----------



## HaigLaw

*taking the steps*



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?



Lemme offer another analogy. I used to be a Mason, before I came to Christ. I went through all the steps perfectly, or perfectly enough, to become a 3rd degree Mason.

Then I moved to Texas, and got into the word for a solid year.

Then a buddy at work died, and I attended his Masonic funeral, and was horrified at the Satanic symbolism in it, and withdrew from it.

It is still the truth that I took all those steps perfectly. But I now have the discernment that the steps led me to error.

I'm not saying that the steps of church discipline in the PCA are wrong like Masonry. I'm just illustrating how someone can go through steps perfectly, and still come to the wrong conclusion -- which is what LaP is now admitting it did in regard to Rev. Wilkins. 

I think another factor for those outside LaP to consider as they scratch their heads and wonder how we could have judged FV not out of accord -- is the real camraderie here, even brotherly love. I hesitate to speak of it, because I'm new here and don't fully understand it. But I've seen it and it's real. You don't want to believe that a brother you've known and loved for 30 years is theologically wrong. Denial of something that distasteful will play tricks with your mind. 

One commissioner, who apparently missed the last 2 meetings, the only 2 i've attended, and has no clue who I am, read my piece on xanga, bitterly attacked me in private email, and said I should have stayed in "Nackatish" and done street witnessing, instead of trying to explain what was going on in LaP. Go figure!


----------



## HaigLaw

sorry; i thought i knew how to do blockquotes.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

OK. I don't necessarily agree that the steps can be performed "perfectly" and come to the wrong conclusion but I'm not going to press you any harder on it. Thanks for answering my questions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw said:


> sorry; i thought i knew how to do blockquotes.


That's the correct html but here you have to use bbcode like this:



PHP:


[quote] sample quote [ /quote]


Without the space between the [ / on the closing quote.


----------



## HaigLaw

*perfect code*

yeah, thx for the code, the perfect code.

and, yeah, agreed on "perfectly." I should have said, again, perfectly enough, in the sense of -- yeah, we went through all the steps you asked us to take, you agreed in writing at one point we had done so, then turned around and accused us of not taking all the right steps, including some that by their terms did not apply.

E.g. when you ask a TE whether he has any exceptions to the standards, and he says no, then you do not take the next step of categorizing those exceptions as to whether they are fundamental or not. 

The step of saying -- wait a minute, you said no, but from your own writings, you're not telling the truth -- was not a required step in the process. 

And not being required, and not being something those in charge then were able to take on their own, it did not happen. 

Does this help?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

It does. Thank you. I guess that's what will be determined is whether or not, procedurally, the LAP was permitted to stop there or, using the prudence that an Elder should possess, go further and ask the obvious when "prima facia" the answers given contradict the WCF.


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that would be a separate "indictment" at that point though, right?
> 
> Do you see what I'm asking HaigLaw though in my last post? Am I missing something? I'm trying to understand this trial a bit better. I thought I understood it but I want to make sure.
Click to expand...


Yes, it would have meant a separate indictment, but that was going to be the outcome since the presbytery did not conduct a trial. My understanding is that since by pleading guilty on that count they said there was a strong presumption of guilt, but by not conducting a trial they punted the case to the SJC.


----------



## Gryphonette

*Then It seems to me the LAP is correct to maintain its 'not guilty' plea.*



HaigLaw said:


> Lemme offer another analogy. I used to be a Mason, before I came to Christ. I went through all the steps perfectly, or perfectly enough, to become a 3rd degree Mason.
> 
> Then I moved to Texas, and got into the word for a solid year.
> 
> Then a buddy at work died, and I attended his Masonic funeral, and was horrified at the Satanic symbolism in it, and withdrew from it.
> 
> It is still the truth that I took all those steps perfectly. But I now have the discernment that the steps led me to error.
> 
> I'm not saying that the steps of church discipline in the PCA are wrong like Masonry. I'm just illustrating how someone can go through steps perfectly, and still come to the wrong conclusion -- which is what LaP is now admitting it did in regard to Rev. Wilkins.


If the SJC is saying the LAP did _not_ follow the approved methodology provided in the BCO and the LAP is protesting that yes, it certainly _did_ (especially as there are other presbyteries who perform examinations in the same way as the LAP), then this would seem to be a conflict needing to be resolved for the benefit of the PCA as a whole.

Surely it needn't be _unduly_ antagonistic, need it? Wouldn't the LAP simply assure the SJC it had been their intent to follow the approved form and they're sorry if they fumbled the play, and here's what they did and how they sincerely believed it squared with the approved form? Then either the SJC acknowledges that, by gum, it _can _be construed that way, or else kindly points out where and how it doesn't?

Upon which the LAP ruefully apologizes and promises that in future it will perform examinations the way the SJC showed they should be done, the apology is handsomely accepted, some slap-on-the-wrist for form's sake is meted out, handshakes all around, and everyone goes home, now on the same page.

Isn't this at least possible?


----------



## toddpedlar

SemperFideles said:


> It does. Thank you. I guess that's what will be determined is whether or not, procedurally, the LAP was permitted to stop there or, using the prudence that an Elder should possess, go further and ask the obvious when "prima facia" the answers given contradict the WCF.



And this is the step I just don't understand why it wasn't taken. When as a presbytery you are examining a green-horn fresh-out-of-seminary graduate about his subscription to the Westminster Standards, I can see taking his statement "no I have no exceptions" at face value, and accepting the answer, and exhorting him to continue in that full subscription, with the usual commitment to letting Presbytery know if his views change.

However, this was Steve Wilkins - not some green candidate with no track record of teaching. I cannot understand (admittedly not being there when the discussion took place, so my views are probably dismissible on that count alone) why more examination didn't take place. His writings and teaching have been in public view for years, and clearly contradict the confession and catechisms in a multitude of points. I'm glad, though, that LaP finally seems to see this now and admit that they improperly exonerated Wilkins. (I assume this is the proper reading of the guilty plea)


----------



## wsw201

Gryphonette said:


> I'm awful with names, so most likely you're right.
> 
> Sometimes it's situations such as this one that brings to light existing weaknesses, such as the fact that the handy guide within the BCO concerning precisely _how_ such examinations are to be conducted isn't being followed by some presbyteries.
> 
> And it's been my experience that if two groups of people - such as the LAP and that other presbytery - are doing something wrong, the overwhelming odds are_ others_ are doing it wrong, too.
> 
> What do you want to bet additional presbyteries have read the LAP's examination and gulped, realizing it bears a strong resemblance to the last one_ they_ conducted?
> 
> Oopsie-doopsie.



Yep, that was me! As you noted in a previous post, the LAP was indicted for not going far enough in their exam. This is something that goes on all the time. If you've ever gone through the PCA BCO you'll find that you'll think you'll need a canon lawyer to connect all the dots for any particular issue.


----------



## HaigLaw

*sympathetic?*



turmeric said:


> The guy who wrote the HaigLaw blog seems quite sympathetic to the FV. I found his report qutie disturbing.



No. As of the January 19 meeting of LaP, my primary concern was to treat the FVers fairly, in accordance with our rules.

I don't think there is one iota in my January 19 story that indicates sympathy for or against FV theology -- that was by design. 

I have refrained from comments on the conformity of FV to our PCA Constitution, because at one point I might have sat on the LaP court to try the Wilkins case. I have shared my private assessment with a few people.

As for sympathies, I think it interesting that while the LaP's position against FV has hardened, as my Feb. 9 story shows, it voted at the Jan. 19 meeting, and confirmed those minutes at the Feb. 9 meeting, to donate $6,500 to a leading FV proponent in our membership who was going through a job change. So I think it would be hard to charge the LaP of being un-charitable to the FV guys, all the while we are firming up our opposition to their views. 

I think this is an aspect of church discipline that many of the debaters here are missing. Debaters discuss these issues in the abstract. But these are real people on both sides, with budgets to meet, and families to support. And my experience with church discipine over the past 39 years I've been a Christian has been that it must be done in the context of John 13:35 -- brother, I care about you although I think you're dead wrong on some things you are doing or believing, but I really do care about you and want to help you. 

That is more than "sympathy."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw said:


> I think this is an aspect of church discipline that many of the debaters here are missing. Debaters discuss these issues in the abstract. But these are real people on both sides, with budgets to meet, and families to support. And my experience with church discipine over the past 39 years I've been a Christian has been that it must be done in the context of John 13:35 -- brother, I care about you although I think you're dead wrong on some things you are doing or believing, but I really do care about you and want to help you.
> 
> That is more than "sympathy."



Thank you for this note Brother. There is much truth to this.

I don't agree that heterodoxy in a _teacher_ is something that ought to be taken lightly on the basis of budgets to meet and families to support. In one sense my ire is often directed at teachers who ought to be much more sober in what they teach. Part of my ire is having close friends that used to walk in orthodox circles and have been led astray by men who are sincere but so sincerely wrong that they may well be judged for leading many astray.

That being said, in the context of personal interaction things are often more gentle and forebearing. I don't think we ought to excuse their teaching by their circumstances but we can, nevertheless, be forthright in our rebuke without expressing disdain for their person. Insofar as I fall into this sin, I openly and freely repent.

Especially, though, for the sheep of such congregations I have the most patience and forebearance. Of course, many of the leaders have produced a crop of "young Turks" that make patient interaction difficult but there are still a vast array of the "man in the pew" that simply doesn't know better. I have sympathy and sadness for such.

I've worked myself to the bone in a congregation for the past few years with a love for Christ's own - not on the basis of their perfection in doctrine but on the basis of their identification as disciples. It's simply commanded of me to be that way and, by the grace of God, my delight to bear with them and to not snuff out a smoldering wick.

It is my prayer that the sheep in these congregations would find themselves in pastures tended by under-shepherds who will properly care for their eternal souls.

Grace and peace,

Rich


----------



## HaigLaw

*rebuke with charity*




SemperFideles said:


> Thank you for this note Brother. There is much truth to this.
> 
> I don't agree that heterodoxy in a _teacher_ is something that ought to be taken lightly on the basis of budgets to meet and families to support. ...
> Grace and peace,
> 
> Rich



Taking heterodoxy lighly, for any reason, was not the implication of my post responded to above.

I simply cited an example of a context in the LaP in which the LaP was _both_ hardening its position on FV, in its dealings on the Wilkins matter, _and_ showing charity by a $6,500 donation to another FV advocate who just went through a job change. 

In the same context, one influential commissioner pointedly said, while looking directly at the $6,500 donee -- those who continue to advocate the FV in the PCA, their days are numbered. 

This context is not subject to the charge -- being soft on heterodoxy.

Accuse LaP of wasting the Lord's resources on heretics, maybe. And you'd be differing with our actual position.

I wouldn't agree with that assessment, but we could discuss it. 

But "being soft on heterodoxy" is not an appropriate inference from the context I saw and reported on from the Feb. 9 LaP meeting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for this note Brother. There is much truth to this.
> 
> I don't agree that heterodoxy in a _teacher_ is something that ought to be taken lightly on the basis of budgets to meet and families to support. ...
> Grace and peace,
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taking heterodoxy lighly, for any reason, was not the implication of my post responded to above.
> 
> I simply cited an example of a context in the LaP in which the LaP was _both_ hardening its position on FV, in its dealings on the Wilkins matter, _and_ showing charity by a $6,500 donation to another FV advocate who just went through a job change.
> 
> In the same context, one influential commissioner pointedly said, while looking directly at the $6,500 donee -- those who continue to advocate the FV in the PCA, their days are numbered.
> 
> This context is not subject to the charge -- being soft on heterodoxy.
> 
> Accuse LaP of wasting the Lord's resources on heretics, maybe. And you'd be differing with our actual position.
> 
> I wouldn't agree with that assessment, but we could discuss it.
> 
> But "being soft on heterodoxy" is not an appropriate inference from the context I saw and reported on from the Feb. 9 LaP meeting.
Click to expand...


This is the portion I was referring to:



HaigLaw said:


> I think this is an aspect of church discipline that many of the debaters here are missing. Debaters discuss these issues in the abstract. But these are real people on both sides, with budgets to meet, and families to support.


I didn't mean to poke you in the eye with it but I simply don't agree that discipline of a Pastor's teaching should factor in budgets and family support if that was what was intended by the comment. In other words, I interpreted you as stating that the LaP initially didn't sanction Wilkins because of the "budgets to meet, families to support" factor and I was stating that this is not something that should be factored in to soften or modify one's ruling. It seems I misunderstood what you were trying to imply.

In the main, I was acknowledging that discipline is very much different "on the ground" but, at the same time, the hardest thing to do "on the ground" is look the man in the eye with a large congregation, and a budget to meet, and be mentally tough enough in the moment to call it what it is.

Perhaps you can explain what you meant by the "...budgets to meet and familes to support..." in the context of a discussion about an examination and it would make more sense to me.


----------



## HaigLaw

*orthodoxy untained by financial concerns*



SemperFideles said:


> I didn't mean to poke you in the eye with it but I simply don't agree that discipline of a Pastor's teaching should factor in budgets and family support if that was what was intended by the comment. In other words, I interpreted you as stating that the LaP initially didn't sanction Wilkins because of the "budgets to meet, families to support" factor and I was stating that this is not something that should be factored in to soften or modify one's ruling. It seems I misunderstood what you were trying to imply.
> 
> In the main, I was acknowledging that discipline is very much different "on the ground" but, at the same time, the hardest thing to do "on the ground" is look the man in the eye with a large congregation, and a budget to meet, and be mentally tough enough in the moment to call it what it is.
> 
> Perhaps you can explain what you meant by the "...budgets to meet and familes to support..." in the context of a discussion about an examination and it would make more sense to me.



Sure. I will try, again. First of all, I've re-read my story on the Feb. 9 meeting and my story on the Jan. 19 meeting of LaP. There is no hint of being soft on heterodoxy in either story, because of financial considerations or otherwise.

In reaction to my Feb. 9 story, Rev. Duane Garner, an assistant pastor at AAPC in Monroe, LA, published a comment to my story and took issue with the fact that I had not quoted then-SJC prosecutor Sam Duncan on some statements he made at the Feb. 9 meeting. In another published comment, I acknowledged his point. There followed a posting on Greenbaggins, which to date has generated over 680 comments, concerning the significance of Mr. Duncan's comments. 

In comment #8 to the Greenbaggins story linked above, I explained why I thought the FV proponents were misconstruing Mr. Duncan's comments. Comments #29 & 154 there show my interpretation was as I intended.

The Duncan comments had to do with whether the SJC is or can be fair toward people from the LaP. Finally, after several days of back and forth at Greenbaggins on Duncan's comments, I weighed in with comment #654 there with my own view of the kind of fairness to be expected at the SJC. I said nothing there about tempering orthodoxy with financial concerns -- the issue you have raised here. 

Otoh, my comments here on Puritanboard are getting misconstrued.  E.g., #4 thinks I'm an FV sympathizer and finds my comments "quite disturbing."

I have attempted to clarify what happened in January and February 2008 in the LaP meetings; e.g., #18, 20, 29. In comment #25, I introduced the idea of "brotherly love" perhaps influencing LaP in the past to give Wilkins a pass, although as I admitted, that was a speculation, as I was not there then. I am only explaining what has happened at the Jan. 19 and Feb. 9 meetings I attended.

It was not until comment #35 that I introduced the interplay of "charity" towards FV _supporters_, juxtaposed with the new firmness of the LaP against FV _theology_. There is no hint in #35 of going soft on heterodoxy due to financial considerations; in fact, quite the converse is the precise point. That is, to make church discipline work, one must add charity to firmness for truth. John 13:35. To repeat the language I used in #35, saying to the offender, "I think you're dead wrong on some things you are doing or believing," certainly does not leave room for softness on heterodoxy. 

I have clarified my intent in #37. Again, I am not defending LaP's prior failure to find Rev. Wilkins' FV views out of accord. But I think I can defend everything they've done in the Jan. 19 and Feb. 9 meetings. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw said:


> Otoh, my comments here on Puritanboard are getting misconstrued.  E.g., #4 thinks I'm an FV sympathizer and finds my comments "quite disturbing."


This happens in written comm unfortunately.



> I have attempted to clarify what happened in January and February 2008 in the LaP meetings; e.g., #18, 20, 29. In comment #25, I introduced the idea of "brotherly love" perhaps influencing LaP in the past to give Wilkins a pass, although as I admitted, that was a speculation, as I was not there then. I am only explaining what has happened at the Jan. 19 and Feb. 9 meetings I attended.


Yes, I noticed this. I didn't pounce on that idea per se.



> It was not until comment #35 that I introduced the interplay of "charity" towards FV _supporters_, juxtaposed with the new firmness of the LaP against FV _theology_. There is no hint in #35 of going soft on heterodoxy due to financial considerations; in fact, quite the converse is the precise point. That is, to make church discipline work, one must add charity to firmness for truth. John 13:35. To repeat the language I used in #35, saying to the offender, "I think you're dead wrong on some things you are doing or believing," certainly does not leave room for softness on heterodoxy.


I'm sorry but that wasn't clear to me. The way I read the issue of Church discipline was in reference to the original decision to give Wilkins a pass after his examination. I assumed the "budgets and families" reference was to that as you admit above you speculated love toward their brother plaid into this.



> I have clarified my intent in #37. Again, I am not defending LaP's prior failure to find Rev. Wilkins' FV views out of accord. But I think I can defend everything they've done in the Jan. 19 and Feb. 9 meetings.
> 
> Hope this helps.


Thank you. I do appreciate the clarification.

Let me explain a little bit why I seem very hard on this issue from the outside. I realize I have no authority and that these are just my opinons.

I've been a Marine Officer for 18 years. I've certainly softened in my sense of how Church leadership works but I've never quite softened in how accountability of leaders ought to take place. Leadership is a privilege and not a right. I realize it is hard and that men are not perfect. I'm not implying that but I am implying that when men in leadership err there are sometimes very grave consequences.

Perhaps you are familiar with the incident in Haditha where several civilians were killed in Iraq. It had strategic consequences on the war based on the decisions of a number of men who were still essentially in their late teens. {Note: I am not stating that the decision in the LaP is equivalent here but please bear with me as I'm making a point about accountability}

I received an e-mail a few months ago from a friend asking me to pray for the man who had been the Battalion Commander for the Marines there. Keep in mind he was nowhere in the vicinity and thes Marines were violating the LOW that had been clearly prescribed. I was asked to pray because this man had a wife and small children and this friend of mine knew him to be a strong Christian. Soon, he was to find out if he was going the go before a General Court Martial.

Why? Because he was ultimately responsible. He wasn't there but that's the nature of leadership - that you have such things laid at your feet when your people do horrible things. I could give you stories in my own life.

Nobody remembers Robert Kagan, the man who steered the Exxon Valdez and ran it aground in Alaska but everyone always focuses on Joseph Hazelwood - the ship Captain - who was asleep and whose instructions had not been followed by those on watch. Again, it's the nature of leadership.

Why am I bringing this up? Because it's my estimation that the initial "pass" on Wilkins was a grave error. I am glad that there is acknowledgement of error now but I think that some are not reckoning that it is appropriate the leadership take responsibility for their role in this. If they passed Wilkins initially out of friendship and love then that still doesn't remove the responsibility they must face for their error.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the SJC ought to continue contra the shock of some who might be wondering why. There are certain decisions that leaders made (even in good faith at times) that the consequences are so severe that the right thing to do by those in authority over them is to remove them from leadership. But this is just my opinion and that will be up to others to decide.


----------



## fredtgreco

Exactly, Rich. Would that leaders in individual congregations understood this as well!


----------



## HaigLaw

*leadership responsibility*



SemperFideles said:


> I'm sorry but that wasn't clear to me. The way I read the issue of Church discipline was in reference to the original decision to give Wilkins a pass after his examination. I assumed the "budgets and families" reference was to that as you admit above you speculated love toward their brother pla[ye]d into this. ...
> 
> I've been a Marine Officer for 18 years. I've certainly softened in my sense of how Church leadership works but I've never quite softened in how accountability of leaders ought to take place. Leadership is a privilege and not a right. I realize it is hard and that men are not perfect. I'm not implying that but I am implying that when men in leadership err there are sometimes very grave consequences. ...
> 
> Why am I bringing this up? Because it's my estimation that the initial "pass" on Wilkins was a grave error. I am glad that there is acknowledgement of error now but I think that some are not reckoning that it is appropriate the leadership take responsibility for their role in this. If they passed Wilkins initially out of friendship and love then that still doesn't remove the responsibility they must face for their error.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the SJC ought to continue contra the shock of some who might be wondering why. There are certain decisions that leaders made (even in good faith at times) that the consequences are so severe that the right thing to do by those in authority over them is to remove them from leadership. But this is just my opinion and that will be up to others to decide.



Aye, aye, captain! i don't have any quarrel with your points about Exxon Valdeez or Haditha. 

The thing is -- the FV ringleaders are no longer there, for the most part. They have removed themselves -- excommunicated themselves, if you will. The ultimate censure of church discipline has already been imposed.

What you are dealing with is a shifting majority. I too have asked -- how could anyone read what he wrote and not see it's out of line? The most credible answer I've gotten -- and I can't give you a link -- is that out of friendship, probably, certain commissioners just couldn't believe he meant just exactly what he said. I don't think any who previously gave him "a pass," as you aptly call it, did so conciously thinking they were letting him continue in his comfortable lifestyle at the expense of truth and sacrificing the sheep.

But the point is -- the thinking of a bare majority has crystalized to believe that his views were out of line. 

So you, or more precisely, the SJC, is faced with deciding an appropriate punishment for a corporate body whose majority has shifted. The current majority agrees LaP was wrong all along to give him a pass. 

Should you kick a presbytery out of the PCA when the current leadership agrees something is wrong, was wrong all along, and has already substantially purged itself of the error? 

That is the sanction the SJC threatened in the indictment. 

If you do, then you have the issue of men and families who've devoted their lives to advancing the Reformed Faith, opposing error, and will need somewhere else to go if they remain in the PCA. You have their churches that are structured very much around being presbyterian, which all of a sudden, by a stroke of the SJC pen, would no longer be presbyterian, and they would be in limbo for a year or more until some other presbytery took them in.  Some of these churches have building programs, where they are deciding to place a substantial portion of their life savings in a presbyterian church, which all of a sudden may become an independent church.  I know people, myself included, who have already wasted a lot of time and energy on independent churches, where a PCA church was not available to them. 

These are some of the considerations the SJC has before it. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## lwadkins

HaigLaw said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but that wasn't clear to me. The way I read the issue of Church discipline was in reference to the original decision to give Wilkins a pass after his examination. I assumed the "budgets and families" reference was to that as you admit above you speculated love toward their brother pla[ye]d into this. ...
> 
> I've been a Marine Officer for 18 years. I've certainly softened in my sense of how Church leadership works but I've never quite softened in how accountability of leaders ought to take place. Leadership is a privilege and not a right. I realize it is hard and that men are not perfect. I'm not implying that but I am implying that when men in leadership err there are sometimes very grave consequences. ...
> 
> Why am I bringing this up? Because it's my estimation that the initial "pass" on Wilkins was a grave error. I am glad that there is acknowledgement of error now but I think that some are not reckoning that it is appropriate the leadership take responsibility for their role in this. If they passed Wilkins initially out of friendship and love then that still doesn't remove the responsibility they must face for their error.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the SJC ought to continue contra the shock of some who might be wondering why. There are certain decisions that leaders made (even in good faith at times) that the consequences are so severe that the right thing to do by those in authority over them is to remove them from leadership. But this is just my opinion and that will be up to others to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aye, aye, captain! i don't have any quarrel with your points about Exxon Valdeez or Haditha.
> 
> The thing is -- the FV ringleaders are no longer there, for the most part. They have removed themselves -- excommunicated themselves, if you will. The ultimate censure of church discipline has already been imposed.
> 
> What you are dealing with is a shifting majority. I too have asked -- how could anyone read what he wrote and not see it's out of line? The most credible answer I've gotten -- and I can't give you a link -- is that out of friendship, probably, certain commissioners just couldn't believe he meant just exactly what he said. I don't think any who previously gave him "a pass," as you aptly call it, did so conciously thinking they were letting him continue in his comfortable lifestyle at the expense of truth and sacrificing the sheep.
> 
> But the point is -- the thinking of a bare majority has crystalized to believe that his views were out of line.
> 
> So you, or more precisely, the SJC, is faced with deciding an appropriate punishment for a corporate body whose majority has shifted. The current majority agrees LaP was wrong all along to give him a pass.
> 
> Should you kick a presbytery out of the PCA when the current leadership agrees something is wrong, was wrong all along, and has already substantially purged itself of the error?
> 
> That is the sanction the SJC threatened in the indictment.
> 
> If you do, then you have the issue of men and families who've devoted their lives to advancing the Reformed Faith, opposing error, and will need somewhere else to go if they remain in the PCA. You have their churches that are structured very much around being presbyterian, which all of a sudden, by a stroke of the SJC pen, would no longer be presbyterian, and they would be in limbo for a year or more until some other presbytery took them in.  Some of these churches have building programs, where they are deciding to place a substantial portion of their life savings in a presbyterian church, which all of a sudden may become an independent church.  I know people, myself included, who have already wasted a lot of time and energy on independent churches, where a PCA church was not available to them.
> 
> These are some of the considerations the SJC has before it.
> 
> Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


Something that gets lost in this is the impact on those who are never central to the controversy. You may never see them and they may be physically far away but are impacted by the decisions made by LaP. Those who are locally involved are more visible and we have a closer bond with them but we still have a responsibility to the entire Body of Christ to consider. That includes the proverbial struggling young Christian far away who is already being bombarded by errors taught by individualistic self important men. When we allow this thing to drag on they are effected as well. Let me say, had I been involved, I could never presume to declare that I would have gotten it right, but it is critical that the entire Body of Christ learn the lessons inherent in this entire fiasco. My prayers are with the PCA (my former Denom.) and the LaP. May God be glorified even in this.


----------



## JohnTombes

Professing Christians of various flavors often operate by this maxim: 

When in doubt, obfuscate. 

Deal with the issues, brethren and pseudo-brethren. Don't muddy the waters with political rhetoric. This reproaches our Lord and shames him before the world.

I remain, disgusted,

Mike


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry but that wasn't clear to me. The way I read the issue of Church discipline was in reference to the original decision to give Wilkins a pass after his examination. I assumed the "budgets and families" reference was to that as you admit above you speculated love toward their brother pla[ye]d into this. ...
> 
> I've been a Marine Officer for 18 years. I've certainly softened in my sense of how Church leadership works but I've never quite softened in how accountability of leaders ought to take place. Leadership is a privilege and not a right. I realize it is hard and that men are not perfect. I'm not implying that but I am implying that when men in leadership err there are sometimes very grave consequences. ...
> 
> Why am I bringing this up? Because it's my estimation that the initial "pass" on Wilkins was a grave error. I am glad that there is acknowledgement of error now but I think that some are not reckoning that it is appropriate the leadership take responsibility for their role in this. If they passed Wilkins initially out of friendship and love then that still doesn't remove the responsibility they must face for their error.
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the SJC ought to continue contra the shock of some who might be wondering why. There are certain decisions that leaders made (even in good faith at times) that the consequences are so severe that the right thing to do by those in authority over them is to remove them from leadership. But this is just my opinion and that will be up to others to decide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aye, aye, captain! i don't have any quarrel with your points about Exxon Valdeez or Haditha.
> 
> The thing is -- the FV ringleaders are no longer there, for the most part. They have removed themselves -- excommunicated themselves, if you will. The ultimate censure of church discipline has already been imposed.
> 
> What you are dealing with is a shifting majority. I too have asked -- how could anyone read what he wrote and not see it's out of line? The most credible answer I've gotten -- and I can't give you a link -- is that out of friendship, probably, certain commissioners just couldn't believe he meant just exactly what he said. I don't think any who previously gave him "a pass," as you aptly call it, did so conciously thinking they were letting him continue in his comfortable lifestyle at the expense of truth and sacrificing the sheep.
> 
> But the point is -- the thinking of a bare majority has crystalized to believe that his views were out of line.
> 
> So you, or more precisely, the SJC, is faced with deciding an appropriate punishment for a corporate body whose majority has shifted. The current majority agrees LaP was wrong all along to give him a pass.
> 
> Should you kick a presbytery out of the PCA when the current leadership agrees something is wrong, was wrong all along, and has already substantially purged itself of the error?
> 
> That is the sanction the SJC threatened in the indictment.
> 
> If you do, then you have the issue of men and families who've devoted their lives to advancing the Reformed Faith, opposing error, and will need somewhere else to go if they remain in the PCA. You have their churches that are structured very much around being presbyterian, which all of a sudden, by a stroke of the SJC pen, would no longer be presbyterian, and they would be in limbo for a year or more until some other presbytery took them in.  Some of these churches have building programs, where they are deciding to place a substantial portion of their life savings in a presbyterian church, which all of a sudden may become an independent church.  I know people, myself included, who have already wasted a lot of time and energy on independent churches, where a PCA church was not available to them.
> 
> These are some of the considerations the SJC has before it.
> 
> Hope this helps.
Click to expand...


I kind of understand this. It sort of highlights, however, and ought to be a warning to all leaders what the repurcusions are to self, family, and Church when a huge mistake is made.

I don't want to drag this out. It's not my decision to make and I'm quite glad it is not.

As a leader, however, I cannot simply conclude that all the leaders that have to be held accountable have "self-excommunicated" themselves. There was an examination where leaders called Wilkins' views as essentially Confessional. It's just the Marine in me, perhaps, but I think I have some Biblical warrant to say that accountability just doesn't end when a leader who failed to do it right the first time says they're sorry.

Whatever the motivations were that precipitated it are sort of immaterial to the thing at hand. If this case serves one powerful purpose it might serve to remind people of the longer term consequences of a wrong decision when it seems the shorter term consequences of seeming to hurt a brother are staring you in the face.

I can tell you this: that men who are in my line of profession would have been relieved of their duties - regardless of apology. That's tough but that's leadership. There's part of me that wants to not see men's lives turned upside down but then there's the part of me that wants to underline and boldface that Presbyters have got to stand up and face the music for the consequences of their decision. Perhaps self-sacrifice could be in order for men to step down in repentance and bring forward new leadership that had not had a serious lapse in judgment at the time of decision.

Again, just my opinion but this is one reason I've been waiting to accept the call for Elder with two opportunities to accept a call in the past because the responsibilities and consequences are so very, very grave.


----------



## HaigLaw

*Motivations*



SemperFideles said:


> Whatever the motivations were that precipitated it are sort of immaterial to the thing at hand. If this case serves one powerful purpose it might serve to remind people of the longer term consequences of a wrong decision when it seems the shorter term consequences of seeming to hurt a brother are staring you in the face.



Yes.  We can't know the motivations for sure. One possibility is that the SJC indictment itself crystalized some elders' thinking. Maybe they previously thought it was a liberty of conscience issue on FV; that is -- I don't buy into this, but maybe it's OK as someone else's cup of tea. But when faced with being kicked out of the PCA over it, they took a second look and had to agree it was wrong. I think that is more likely than the speculation you had earlier that they were knowingly being soft on error out of financial considerations. 



> I can tell you this: that men who are in my line of profession would have been relieved of their duties - regardless of apology. That's tough but that's leadership. There's part of me that wants to not see men's lives turned upside down but then there's the part of me that wants to underline and boldface that Presbyters have got to stand up and face the music for the consequences of their decision. Perhaps self-sacrifice could be in order for men to step down in repentance and bring forward new leadership that had not had a serious lapse in judgment at the time of decision.



But the marines have unity of command, Rich.  There is only one commander at each level. I don't think the PCA has any mechanism for relieving an elder of his position at the Presbytery level for participating in a bad decision. They just reverse the decision itself at the higher level. Apart from heresy or immorality on an individual elder's part, there is no punishing them other than reversal of the decision, for people voting the wrong way on a bad decision. And I think that is the way it must be, otherwise, you'd never have an end to litigation. 



> Again, just my opinion but this is one reason I've been waiting to accept the call for Elder with two opportunities to accept a call in the past because the responsibilities and consequences are so very, very grave.



Yes, there is the warning to not let many be teachers, but if God is calling you, you need to accept the call, Rich.


----------



## BJClark

Okay, doesn't make sense to me that they would excommunicate IF they are willing to be under accountability, okay, so they are asked to step down from leadership positions, does that mean they feel the NEED to be in leadership positions, merely because they have been leaders in the past? 

one would think it would certainly bring a growth in Christ and an exercise in humilty to step down and remain in a non-leadership position.

However, if they are by my understanding of what your saying, imposing their OWN excommunication and removal from the PCA Church body, what does that tell others in the body if they are faced with Church discipline? That it is a joke and means absolutely nothing, because all you have to do is run to another denomation where you can become an elder or teacher there?? And what does it tell their own children when they make decisions and have need to discipline them? What if their own children fall into false beliefs and decide to leave for say the JW or LDS, what would make them believe they had the right to address them in that and expect they should listen or accept their discipline if need be?

And if they are truly examining themselves, then why walk away? Why not stay and face whatever consequences saying by action and word..."I have and am looking at my heart before God, and in that, there are consequences I must face, even if it means I am removed from leadership." That I believe would speak VOLUMES to not only those in the local body, but the extended body, and even the outside world that is watching.

The running away kind of reminds me of the RCC, where these men have been found molesting children, and they merely send them to another church body allowing them to molest other children, never holding them accountable before God and in there case men, as well for their crimes.

It is truly heart breaking that these men appear to think more of themselves and their "positions" of authority that they do not take the body into consideration and the impact their actions will have for Christ, in either direction, be it to dishonor His name or to bring it Glory.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

HaigLaw,

Thanks again for the interaction.

No question the Marines are a completely different animal but the principle of accountability for decisions and the consequences to those under authority remains the same in the Church (See Joshua 9; 2 Samuel 21:1-14). The structure and the nature of authority is much different but the consequences of leadership are actually more far-reaching and dire in the Church. I'm not arguing, ultimately, that the SJC _must_ set an example here. I simply wanted to uphold a Biblical principle on responsibility and accountability and that, sometimes, repenting certainly is appropriate and should be received but it doesn't releive one of the consequences.

Incidentally, the reason I didn't accept the call wasn't completely fear of the office but knowing I wasn't mature enough yet. It's sort of a thing where I understood the weight of the office and that I needed to grow to be able to serve in it. I do desire the office and am not running from it.

Thanks again for the interaction. I do hope you didn't feel like the Puritanboard was putting you on trial. I was really just trying to talk it out. Please forgive me if it ever seemed I was implying that you were acting dishonorably or un-Confessionally.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## HaigLaw

*slow to get it?*



SemperFideles said:


> HaigLaw,
> 
> Thanks again for the interaction. I do hope you didn't feel like the Puritanboard was putting you on trial. I was really just trying to talk it out. Please forgive me if it ever seemed I was implying that you were acting dishonorably or un-Confessionally.
> 
> Blessings!
> 
> Rich



Not at all, Rich.  But there have been times here I wondered whether I was making myself clear. Either unclear, or some readers may have been slow to get it. Just as some commissioners to the LaP were slow to get it, on the implications of FV. 

Cheers, -Dave


----------



## HaigLaw

*Punished enough?*



SemperFideles said:


> I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that the SJC ought to continue contra the shock of some who might be wondering why. There are certain decisions that leaders made (even in good faith at times) that the consequences are so severe that the right thing to do by those in authority over them is to remove them from leadership. But this is just my opinion and that will be up to others to decide.



Well, now, my friend, now that the decision is in, do you feel enough punishment was meted out? 

I would also point out that many of the ones who conciously defended Federal Vision have already run for cover. Most of the ones left in the majority now in the presbytery are the ones who were trying to deal with the errors all along. 

There is some confusion over at Green Baggins now over the prosecutor trying to read into the official report things that are not there, but I've called his hand on it. 

As one who bears a lot of authority every day of my working life  -- 
as you have -- I fear there are some in our church courts who get a little authority and try to exercise it regardless of what the facts are. We all need to remember the warning -- let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall. 1 Cor. 10:12.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

As it was in the authority of the committee to make that decision, I have no problem with it. I was merely making an observation and expressing an opinion with all the authority that it carried (which was none).

I was happy, in the main, that the LaP "saw the light" but I still believe that there was an error in judgment that ought to be acknowledged as serious whether or not it carries a penalty with it.

Blessings!

Rich


----------



## HaigLaw

I suppose this is old news now and discussed ad infinitim on Greenbaggins, so I won't belabor it further here other than saying "thanks" to Semper Fi again.


----------



## turmeric

HaigLaw said:


> I suppose this is old news now and discussed ad infinitim on Greenbaggins, so I won't belabor it further here other than saying "thanks" to Semper Fi again.


 
Is there an update? I don't see a link.


----------



## HaigLaw

*No update*



turmeric said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose this is old news now and discussed ad infinitim on Greenbaggins, so I won't belabor it further here other than saying "thanks" to Semper Fi again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an update? I don't see a link.
Click to expand...


No; the LaP has not even met since the SJC decision. 

I will keep everybody posted when something happens.

Those of us active with the LaP will probably be focusing on our GA committee work coming up in June in Dallas. 

But thanks for asking.


----------



## HaigLaw

*new thread on LaP*



turmeric said:


> HaigLaw said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose this is old news now and discussed ad infinitim on Greenbaggins, so I won't belabor it further here other than saying "thanks" to Semper Fi again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an update? I don't see a link.
Click to expand...


I started a new thread on PB about the LaP meeting of today, April 19, and discuss it fully on my Xanga blog.


----------

