Update on LA Presbytery

Status
Not open for further replies.
So...? Is there more to come in this case or is that it? That seems to be an anti-climactic conclusion if there is no more to follow. Forgive me if I have missed something.
 
The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.
 
The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

I would bet that there are folks over in the Carolina's that are cooking something up. :think:
 
Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.
 
The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Duane Garner is an elder at AAPC. I bet he is probably in the CREC now. To my knowledge he is neither a pastor nor a member of the LA PCA.
http://auburnavenue.org/church_leaders.htm
 
What is an 'FV sympathizer'? Is it someone who agrees with FV, or someone who does not agree but doesn't think it is that big of a deal?
 
Garner has already left LaP

The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.
 
Last edited:
What is an 'FV sympathizer'? Is it someone who agrees with FV, or someone who does not agree but doesn't think it is that big of a deal?

When I was in grad school it was someone who did not pronounce Shibboleth correctly. It wasn't good enough just to say FV was wrong, you had to say they were heretical. Even if you said they were heretical, that didn't count if you also said Bahnsen is good, for example.
 
Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.


Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.
 
The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?
 
The climax was when the Presbytery pled guilty to the substance charge. Of course, there are still two FV sympathetic pastors in the Presbytery (Duane Garner and Mark Duncan). Furthermore, AAPC and Wilkins have left. There is nothing more to come.

Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.
 
Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.


Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.

Several years ago the Pacific NW Presbytery tried Leithart's views, found them non-heretical and thus exonerated him. Andrew's comment has reference to the fact that Peter Leithart was (is? I don't know) in the Pac NW.
 
Actually, Lane, Duane has left.

As of the Feb. 9 LaP meeting, which I discussed in my piece "LaP Hardens," he was there, and the comments on that focus on him taking me to task over whether LaP could get a "fair" trial at SJC.

But he withdrew the next day. The LaP has not met since his withdrawal.

Sorry for not keeping you posted on that.

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

I believe his last name was Peabody.
 
At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

I believe his last name was Peabody.

Close enough. Since he is a good friend of mine, and a man of integrity, I don't really want to disclose names nor speak of him in an informal forum. I know who you are talking about. I am sure he went with the church when they switched denominations. But to be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen him in a while.
 
Can they cook something up for Missouri Presbytery or Pacific NW? Maybe a similar result could happen in quicker and nicer fashion.


Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.

Several years ago the Pacific NW Presbytery tried Leithart's views, found them non-heretical and thus exonerated him. Andrew's comment has reference to the fact that Peter Leithart was (is? I don't know) in the Pac NW.

I did not realize this, Jacob. Thanks for the information. You are attending John Knox PCA. Were you there when Jeffrey Steele was still the teaching elder? He is now an Anglican Priest under N.T Wright. It was very sad. I wondered if any of the ruling elders who were on the session with him are still at Knox? Jeffrey left or was defrocked in 2005, I believe.
 
Is there something happening in Pacific NW Presbytery? I was not aware of anything, but then there are pockets of this everywhere.

Several years ago the Pacific NW Presbytery tried Leithart's views, found them non-heretical and thus exonerated him. Andrew's comment has reference to the fact that Peter Leithart was (is? I don't know) in the Pac NW.

I did not realize this, Jacob. Thanks for the information. You are attending John Knox PCA.

Yes.

Were you there when Jeffrey Steele was still the teaching elder?

No. I visited there 3 1/2 years ago (or something like that) and that was the current pastor's first sunday. I then moved to Jackson for 2 years and eventually came back to live near Monroe, LA.
 
Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.
 
Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

I really don't wonder. The FV should have never gotten as big as it did. It is conceptually abstract and represents a microcosm of an already tiny group (e.g., the Reformed church). People should have ignored it from day one and it would have been relegated to obscurity. Instead, everyone wanted to be Luther and Machen and look what we got now.

Also, For what it's worth, even though I disagree with Dr Leithart on FV, I love most all of his works.
 
If you know who it specifically was, I might be able to help you. Normally if the clerk of the session remained in good standing membership with AAPC, it is likely that he went with them into the CREC and is no longer the moderator of the Presbytery. But I confess a degree of ignorance on these matters.

I believe his last name was Peabody.

Close enough. Since he is a good friend of mine, and a man of integrity, I don't really want to disclose names nor speak of him in an informal forum. I know who you are talking about. I am sure he went with the church when they switched denominations. But to be honest, I don't know. I haven't seen him in a while.

The Stated Clerk of LA Presbytery was a Ruling Elder. He was also clerk of AAPC. He resigned as Stated Clerk of the Presbytery at the same time that the church withdrew and TE Wilkins withdrew.
 
Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

I really don't wonder. The FV should have never gotten as big as it did. It is conceptually abstract and represents a microcosm of an already tiny group (e.g., the Reformed church). People should have ignored it from day one and it would have been relegated to obscurity. Instead, everyone wanted to be Luther and Machen and look what we got now.

Also, For what it's worth, even though I disagree with Dr Leithart on FV, I love most all of his works.

I find it extremely interesting that the "high ecclesiology" of Rev. Leithart permits him to plant a church in another denomination whilst staying in the PCA. When the Committee for the Review of Presbytery Records raised this fact (which would have raised a storm had it been an OPC church that was being planted) the "be charitable" types shouted it down.
 
Yes, Jacob you are correct on Peter Leithart. I checked the current PCA ministerial directory and he is still a member of Pacific NW Presbytery, but he is laboring out of bounds at St. Andrews College with the FV Pope, Doug Wilson. What a shame that the Presbytery never found his views to be problematic. You wonder who is in that Presbytery.

I really don't wonder. The FV should have never gotten as big as it did. It is conceptually abstract and represents a microcosm of an already tiny group (e.g., the Reformed church). People should have ignored it from day one and it would have been relegated to obscurity. Instead, everyone wanted to be Luther and Machen and look what we got now.

Also, For what it's worth, even though I disagree with Dr Leithart on FV, I love most all of his works.

I find it extremely interesting that the "high ecclesiology" of Rev. Leithart permits him to plant a church in another denomination whilst staying in the PCA. When the Committee for the Review of Presbytery Records raised this fact (which would have raised a storm had it been an OPC church that was being planted) the "be charitable" types shouted it down.

I am not defending all his actions, I just like some of his works on literature, critqques of postmodernity, etc.
 
I am not defending all his actions, I just like some of his works on literature, critqques of postmodernity, etc.

Jacob,

Never said you did. What you said was perfectly reasonable.

But my objection to Rev. Leithart stands.
 
former/current stated clerks of LaP

At one time the clerk of the AAPC session was also the clerk of LA Presbytery, so is he still in the PCA?

You are speaking of my friend M. Dale Peacock. He went with his church into the CREC, and has resigned as stated clerk of the LaP (PCA).

The new stated clerk is Dr. James Jones, a TE, who was one of the witnesses for the prosecution at the SJC yesterday. The other prosecution witness is our current LaP moderator, Troy Richards, a RE, as I explain in my story, "LaP Admonished," posted today.
 
Wow, a lot of folks have friends involved in this. This must be tough for the PCA to be going through. :um:
 
Yeah, if we wrote off all friends with whom we disagree, we'd have no friends left. ;)
 
Last I heard, Leithart re-submitted his views to the NW Presbytery after the decision at GA last summer. A committee was formed...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top