Just to make sure we’re getting this broadcast as far and wide as possible, I’d like to draw your attention, dear readers (all three of you), to the proceedings currently taking place in the PCA.
This denomination (along with a number of others) has recently studied a subject matter referred to as the ‘Federal Vision‘, largely condemned it, and now is in the process of seeking to apply these findings to those pastors and elders in their denomination they believe to be holding these aberrant views. There is of course nothing wrong with carefully studying an issue, deciding that it is outside the pale of a particular confessional heritage, and then judiciously applying those findings to particular people, circumstances, etc. The problem comes when an issue is NOT carefully studied, the so-called proponents of said teaching are not contacted or asked for clarification, a report full of ambiguities and bizarre conclusions which does not accurately describe said teachings of said proponents is passed in the name of ‘justification by faith’, and then certain Mohicans in the denomination get out their war paint and tomahawks and go after these so-called proponents having already decided what they believe, how false, bad, and horrible it is, and whooping at the top of their lungs with fingers in their ears demand that they recant or leave.
In typical Presbyterian polity, the presbytery is the body that holds ministers accountable for their teachings. On this particular issue, one of the ministers under scrutiny is Pastor Steve Wilkins from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in Monroe, Louisiana. The Louisiana Presbytery has been asked on TWO occasions to examine Pastor Wilkins, and TWICE the presbytery has not found him guilty of any aberrant views contrary to the Confession (WCF). The first time another presbytery sent an overture requesting the examination, and the LA Presbytery voluntarily complied. When that exam yielded a not-guilty verdict, an appeal was made to the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA (their highest court of appeal), and the SJC asked the LA Presbytery to conduct another examination on the grounds that the first exam was not sufficiently documented and did not carefully follow the proper procedures. The LA Presbytery complied with this SJC directive, re-examined Pastor Wilkins, and again found that there was “no strong presumption of guilt” in the teachings of Pastor Wilkins.
Now this re-examination report, meticulously documented and complying with all the proper PCA procedures was just fine except that the LA Presbytery did not come up with the correct answer. Now, the SJC has ordered the LA Presbytery to appear in court to answer the charge that they did not do their job properly in examining Pastor Wilkins. That is, because there is a “strong presumption of guilt” with regard to the teachings of Pastor Wilkins, they have not been diligent in preserving the peace and purity of the church. In other words, while there has been no trial of Pastor Wilkins, the SJC is proceeding to take matters into their own hands. What is so unfortunate (and sub-biblical) in this situation is the fact that these proceedings are beginning with the presumption of guilt.
If you have not already seen the recent volley of posts by Douglas Wilson, they are well worth checking out. Beginning here, just start working your way through the posts that follow.
One final comment with regard to why I/you should even care about all this. I have never been a member of a PCA church, but my wife grew up in the PCA, we both attended and graduated from a PCA sponsored Christian School, and I have many good friends in that denomination. In general, all Christians should be concerned about the ‘goings-ons’ of our brothers and sisters, we ought to rejoice with those who rejoice and mourn with those who mourn. In this case, we have brothers and sisters who are near-kinsmen in Christendom, Reformed Presbyterians who claim a similar heritage, similar confessional standards, and a like-mindedness on many significant issues facing the Christian Church today. If the PCA goes through with this trial, and in whatever clinically sterilized, moved, seconded and passed sort of way they come up with, they actually force Pastor Wilkins and/or his presbytery out of the PCA without an actual hearing and fair trail (which is virtually impossible now), a great travesty will have passed for justice. All Christians should be concerned about this sort of miscarriage of justice, but all Presbyterians should be particularly concerned about this sort of fiasco. Secondly, as Wilson suggests, it is important to point out the injustice as it is happening for the benefit of not only those involved but also everyone else watching this happen and/or letting this happen. Finally, Pastor Wilkins and many of the saints at AAPC are my friends, and it is apparent that there are far too few people out there, especially in the PCA who are willing to actually associate with these brothers, even when it is a matter of requiring simple justice.
Jeff Cagle says
Hi Toby,
I’m of two minds in posting this, and perhaps that’s the clue that this process has spun out of control. Under normal circumstances, we could share a virtual beer and chat it up, and then laugh about how people quibble over the smallest things.
As it stands, of course, folk are being asked to take sides. That brings me to my first point: there are no “sides” in the Body. When an angel of the Lord appears to Joshua (ch. 5), he asks “are you for us, or our enemies” — and the angel replies, “Neither. But as a commander for the armies of the Lord, I have come.”
Now, God was *for* Joshua in the deepest of senses, the Covenantal sense. But at the same time, he refused to allow Joshua to dictate the sides. Josh needed to be on His side, not the other way round.
Let me strongly encourage you, even as you act the part of a loyal friend to Mr. Wilkins, to not participate in side-taking in this fight. I don’t mean a position of strict neutrality; that would not be fair or right to Steve.
Rather, I mean to avoid the party spirit, and especially the party spirit that points out the faults of the “other side.”
Second, let me encourage you to take a strongly factual approach to this matter, rather than an interpretive one.
As you present facts to people, it can allow them to change their minds. By contrast, interpretations act as “frames” that force a choice of agreeing or disagreeing with you — and the party spirit intrudes once again.
Here is a fact about this case that did not enter into your written analysis: Case 2007-8 occurred because one of the examiners (James Jones) from the December 9 2006 LAP examination filed an in-order complaint to the SJC. There had to be a ruling on that complaint one way or the other.
And another: The SJC is a proper body to decide issues of Constitutionality, which means that deciding whether Confessional standards have been properly applied is properly within its jurisdiction.
Neither of these facts, by themselves, make the process right; but they do cast a very different light on the process.
I say all of this with great hesitation because I don’t know *how* to say in a way that doesn’t come across as a former teacher. š
But I say it nevertheless because, at the end of the day — at The Day, if not before — you and I will come face to face, and we need to be in charity. And that can’t happen if I’m one of “those” unjust people who hounded Steve Wilkins out of the PCA.
My hope is that the SJC will order LAP to try Steve so that he can properly defend himself. It is my belief that this is also the most likely outcome.
But if I am wrong, and the SJC *is* in fact intent on over-reaching (by, say, convicting Steve without a trial), then, as I told Doug over on GreenBaggins, I will join in the chorus of protest.
Grace and peace,
Jeff Cagle
Toby says
Thanks for the comment, Jeff.
Two things:
First, I re-read the post, and there were a few places that seemed a little shrill, and so I toned them down a touch. I doubt I’ve succeeded in presenting a less “interpretive” approach, but I do think you are right that the facts should be emphasized.
Secondly, with regard to the facts that were not included in my summary, it seems to me that while the SJC had to respond to the complaint (as you point out), there are numerous ways in which they could have done a far more thorough job of investigating the situation and/or even directing the “complainer” to file charges so that a proper hearing might take place.
And again, while the SJC can rightly claim jurisdiction over constitutional and confessional issues, it is still not clear that it has been careful to defend and promote the reputation of a minister in good standing in the PCA. Where is the careful, meticulous interaction with the LAP’s examination of Wilkins?
I do hope that we can meet up before too long, share a beer, and catch up on things. I really have appreciated your level-headed contributions to the various discussions.
Happy Thanksgiving!