3/11/10

The Verdict Is In....

I received word today that the PCA’s Standing Judicial Commission has upheld the initial ruling of the last November’s panel, meaning that, according to the denomination’s highest court, the Pacific Northwest Presbytery erred in failing to receive the Minority Report which documented a number of doctrinal areas in which TE Peter Leithart is out of accord with the core teachings of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The SJC’s recommendation is that presbytery urge Rev. Leithart to reconsider and recant, and if that does not happen, that he transfer his ministerial credentials to a church whose doctrinal standards are consistent with the theology of the Federal Vision. If Rev. Leithart refuses both of these options, then the commission has directed that the presbytery institute the process outlined in the Book of Church Order 31-2, which reads in part:

If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case.
The SJC’s ruling can be downloaded here.

Now I know there will be some high-fives, slaps-on-the-back, fist-bumps, and various other forms of celebratory glee on the part of many in the PCA, OPC, and URC upon hearing this news. I also know that many are secretly (and some not-so-secretly) hoping that the SJC’s first two options to not happen and that this case goes to court.

I do not share this sentiment.

Although I do agree with the PCA’s decision (obviously, since I wrote the Minority Report and personally argued the complainants’ case before the SJC panel last Fall), I have absolutely no desire to prosecute a case against a good man and godly scholar simply to prove a point and set legal precedent for other NAPARC churches to follow (which a conviction certainly would do). For the sake of the weak semblance of unity that our Protestant churches have, I would prefer that this case be resolved in some way besides a long, drawn-out (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) court battle. While the confessional side may very well “win” if this thing goes to trial, I can’t help but feel that we’re all losers here. I know I’m supposed to feel a deep sense of satisfaction that, if Rev. Leithart is removed from the PCA, justice has prevailed and the system is shown to have worked, but I just can’t seem to shake the feeling of emptiness—not to mention the bitter taste in my mouth—that this whole process has occasioned.

So anyway, there you have it. Sorry for the lack of enthusiasm and all....
Posted by Jason Stellman at 11:26 PM
Labels: ,

51 comments:

  1. Jason,

    I don't understand what BCO 31-2 is saying. Will the SJC appoint a prosecutor who will retry the case in PNW? What if PNW comes out with the same 'innocent' verdict?

    Thanks for all your hard work and courage on this. Our confessional churches must have peace and purity in them.
    ReplyDelete
  2. Pastor Stellman

    It is hard to be gleeful in victory when you are praying for those whom you oppose.

    Thank you for your work and also for your example of humility and godliness in this victory.

    John Newton "On Controversy"

    BOQ If you account him a believer, though greatly mistaken in the subject of debate between you, the words of David to Joab concerning Absalom, are very applicable: “Deal gently with him for my sake.” The Lord loves him and bears with him; therefore you must not despise him, or treat him harshly. The Lord bears with you likewise, and expects that you should show tenderness to others, from a sense of the much forgiveness you need yourself. In a little while you will meet in heaven; he will then be dearer to you than the nearest friend you have upon earth is to you now. Anticipate that period in your thoughts; and though you may find it necessary to oppose his errors, view him personally as a kindred soul, with whom you are to be happy in Christ forever. EOQ
    ReplyDelete
  3. As one of Jason's fellow complainants to the SJC, I feel exactly as he does. I was gratified by the 17-2 vote upholding our complaint, but know that there are no winners here. Peter Leithart is a godly man. I hope he recants his unconfessional views and so may remain in the PCA. Barring that, I would hope he would voluntarily choose to minister in another connection for the peace of Christ's church.
    ReplyDelete
  4. Rev. Stellman -

    Thanks for the reminder that church discipline in whatever form it takes is not a joyful matter. May the Lord continue to bless your ministry primarily in the preaching of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments, but also as you labor to maintain the purity of the means of grace.

    Mark Vander Pol
    ReplyDelete
  5. Robin:

    See F.P. Ramsay's commentary on 31-2 for some light on your question (I hope), at

    http://www.pcahistory.org/bco/rod/31/02.html

    [scroll to the bottom of that page to find his remarks, See esp. his last few sentences]
    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  7. "When principles that run against your deepest convictions begin to win the day, then battle is your calling, and peace has become sin; you must, at the price of dearest peace, lay your convictions bare before friend and enemy, with all the fire of your faith." - Abraham Kuyper

    Jason and Bob, it is never pleasant to work to bring discipline to a fellow member or even to your own presbytery. But remember these words of Kuyper and that you took vows to work towards the peace and purity of the Church. Know that God is pleased with your faithfulness to His Word.
    ReplyDelete
  8. Jason — I appreciate your desire to take the high road and not gloat, but you’re dead wrong. Peter Leithart is not a “good man and godly scholar,” he is no less pernicious than his fellow compadres in Moscow, though he is much more cunning in that he likes to play nice & naïve.

    There is nothing good nor godly in Leithart. He deliberately put the PCA through this process knowing that his case was no different than Wilkins’ case, and just as Wilkins let his presbytery take the heat for him despite his several logical inconsistencies, so Leithart let his presbytery take the heat for him despite his inconsistencies.

    That’s why it doesn’t make sense for you to write, “For the sake of the weak semblance of unity that our Protestant churches have, I would prefer that this case be resolved in some way besides a long, drawn-out (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) court battle. While the confessional side may very well “win” if this thing goes to trial, I can’t help but feel that we’re all losers here. I know I’m supposed to feel a deep sense of satisfaction that, if Rev. Leithart is removed from the PCA, justice has prevailed and the system is shown to have worked, but I just can’t seem to shake the feeling of emptiness — not to mention the bitter taste in my mouth — that this whole process has occasioned.”

    He sure didn’t care much about “unity.” And you’re wrong about “losers” as well. The losers in this conflict are the souls who sat under his ministry for the last decade, thinking that he was sound.

    Therefore, nut up and play the man. You did the right thing by pursuing this case, just as the church is doing the right thing by putting him out. There’s no cause for you to hang your head.

    And in case you’re wondering, I am much closer to this situation than you. I am an eyewitness.
    ReplyDelete
  9. I imagine it's hard to take the advice "nut up and play the man" from someone named "Anonymous."
    ReplyDelete
  10. Dear Anonymous,

    Sheesh, you're everywhere in blogdom, you must have a lot of time on your hands.
    ReplyDelete
  11. Tim,

    I spit my coffee on the screen thanks to you.

    JJS,

    If you do not understand a man you cannot crush him. And if you do understand him, very probably you will not.
    --G.K. Chesterton
    ReplyDelete
  12. I would agree with you, Jason, that a court case, while it might be useful in setting a precedent, is not nearly so good for the peace of the church as if Leithart were to recant or leave. You have to hand it to Leithart that he did, of his own volition, go to PNW and tell them his views. Others, not necessarily all FV proponents, would do well to learn from that example.

    In Christ.
    ReplyDelete
  13. Daniel FoucachonMar 12, 2010 11:01 AM
    Rev. Stellman, I appreciate the attitude with which you greet this news.

    Also, may I suggest you disable anonymous comments - Mr. Anonymous' comments, BECAUSE they are anonymous, are despicable.
    ReplyDelete
  14. Given the nature of this debate I will be the last person to fault a man for posting as anonymous.

    I wholeheartedly agree with what my anonymous brother has stated. Undermining the Gospel, no matter what form it takes, is evil, Satanic, and the worst offense a man can give to God.

    Everything is at stake here. It's the Gospel we're talking about. There's no more appropriate time to "nut up."
    ReplyDelete
  15. I too would rather that the FVers in the PCA just move to a denomination that shares their beliefs rather than turn Reformed denominations into a battleground. BUT, perhaps over the long term, a series of consistent rulings in all the courts of our denomination would go a long way to restoring my own confidence in the PCA.
    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon's,

    The only thing the very right reverend is guilty of here is stealing my joke about your blog-ubiquity from the last post. Good one, Jason.
    ReplyDelete
  17. Jesse PirschelMar 12, 2010 12:00 PM
    Double Anon's,

    You believe all is at stake and its time to "play the man" yet you hind behind the skirt of anonymity, cute.
    ReplyDelete
  18. As a friend to ministers and others in "sister" denominations, it has been my experience that the PCA's lack of a tried case on FV gives the impression that we are less than optimally united with those who have been forthcoming and clear on this issue before now, to our shame. To many, unity would be enhanced by such a trial.

    There would also be salubrious results from such a trial within the PCA where the germ of FV continues to spread.

    I cannot help but see FV as "another Gospel" which we are exhorted to stand against, even if preached by an angel from heaven.

    I pray that TE Leithart will repent thoroughly and promptly, or quickly affiliate with another denomination. Failing both of those, it is our Christian duty to go the route of prosecution. I hope that the PNW Presbytery is up to it.
    ReplyDelete
  19. I realize that I’m not as brave as some of you folks, but I’d be curious to know if Peter Leithart ever named you by name with about 10 other Christian brothers, asking the Federal Vision god to maim and/or kill you. It was in this context, and this context only, that I encouraged Jason to “nut up,” because he was hanging his head as though the church suffered the loss of a good and godly man today, when in fact the church enjoyed a tremendous victory and at the same time Peter Leithart received a James Jordan “type” of his eternal state.

    Nuts & bolts aside, if people gathered every day for three months to seek your death through imprecatory prayers (not to mention the accompanying threats), I think your perspective on courage would be a little less bold, though you’re probably not brave enough to admit it.

    The church made straight the way to put out a wicked man today, and Liethart is wicked in the purest sense of the word. It’s not just his false doctrine — it’s the evil life that accompanies it. So I rejoice that Liethart shall soon go the way of Wilkins and, notwithstanding my poor choice of words that have sadly taken the focus off the real subject, I rejoice that he has begun to reap what he sowed.
    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon: So you're scared by imprecatory prayers?
    ReplyDelete
  21. So anonymous wants a trial, but makes his charges of malfeasance anonymously on a blog, instead of bringing charges with witnesses.

    Who is evil again?
    ReplyDelete
  22. Hi All,

    I just got an FB email asking me if I was the "anonymous" poster on this blog, I just want to make it clear I'm not. Jason Stellman can confirm this via IP address comparison if need be.

    You probably don't need to hear this from me, but I agreed with the verdict of the SJC and thought that it was the only conclusion they could coherently have come to. As I posted elsewhere:

    "Given that Leithart's teaching was, if anything, more FV than that of Wilkins - who had previously been declared out of accord with the standards by the SJC - how could they have determined anything else? Now for the $64 question: what about the other guys in the PCA (Garver, Meyers, Horne etc.) who teach essentially the same things as Leithart?"
    ReplyDelete
  23. Whoops, denied I was "anonymous" and then forgot to sign my post:

    Your Servant in Christ,

    Pastor Webb
    ReplyDelete
  24. pduggie — Here is a charge: You are as stupid as you are arrogant. It is only a charge and nothing more.

    Here is a statement of fact: Peter Leithart met every day with a host of other like-minded individuals to chant/pray/poke needles in dolls and/or practice other forms of witchcraft, with the hope that their words and incantations would result in harming/maiming and/or killing me and about 10 to 12 other brothers. This is not an accusation, it is a statement of fact.

    Here is another statement of fact: I do not want a trial and I have not charged anyone with malfeasance. (I don’t think that wanting someone to die so much that you meet every day to pray to that end should be categorized as malfeasance.)

    Here is one last statement of fact: “bringing charges” cannot do anything to amend the historical accuracy of the facts I just mentioned.

    And, no, I am not “scared” of imprecatory prayers, though I fear the packs of men who utter them and the tactics they use to achieve their ends. People who are crazy enough to meet every day to seek/hope for and/or anticipate the painful deaths of others might just be crazy enough to actualize their desires. At least, that’s a reasonable assumption in my opinion.
    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon,

    Tone down the rhetric there, pal.

    So are you seriously saying that they met to pray for your death? Do you have any proof of this?
    ReplyDelete
  26. Contact Dr. Frank Smith. I recall he published a story on this in P&R News.

    And if this surprises you, then you really need to wake up. The Federal Vision is not just bad doctrine. These are really wicked people.
    ReplyDelete
  27. Correction: I wrote that they met to pray that their god would maim and/or kill me, so for the sake of accuracy, you should know that breaking my neck or losing a limb probably would have appeased them.
    ReplyDelete
  28. This is crazy! I had no idea the charges were for Leithart praying the imprecatory psalms.
    ReplyDelete
  29. Here's the report on imprecatory prayers from Frank Smith:

    http://www.presbyteriannews.org/volumes/v10/1/pr38.pdf

    You can find the report on p. 8.
    ReplyDelete
  30. Jason,

    I thought you didn't tolerate Anon-type comments. Can't you get rid of this guy?
    ReplyDelete
  31. "Anon": when you make an aluminum foil hat, do you recommend starting with a square and folding into a triangle, or cutting out a circle and then rolling a cone?
    ReplyDelete
  32. Wow, that pdf really takes me back to my OPC days. I remember when those articles were brand new. It's ironic that the article mentions that that was to be their last issue. They went out with a bang of sorts.


    Kyrie Eleison
    Señor, ten piedad
    Hospodi Pomiluj
    Miserere Domine
    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  34. From Presbyterian & Reformed News accessed from the link above:

    "According to a church official, Christ Church engaged in praying prayers of imprecation last summer against its enemies. At a Heads of Households meeting, Douglas Jones introduced the notion of imprecatory prayers, describing them as seeking God to bring down temporal judgment into a particular situation. Mr. Jones announced
    at that meeting that an imprecatory prayer time would be held every weekday at 2:00 P.M. at Anselm House throughout at least the months of June and July. According to Douglas Wilson, one of the purposes of the prayer meetings was to bring low the men who had brought the charges against him and the Christ Church Session."

    I'm sure TE White and I have been the objects of these sorts of prayers too, both from Moscow and from Minnesota.

    I have to respectfully disagree with both Jason's tone and his sentiments. I'm not for high fives (anymore) but I do not think that losing Leithart (or any of the other FV guys) is a bad thing. I think it's a very good thing.

    These men have infiltrated the church, their views (which are not substantially different than Norman Shepherd's views) have been declared out of accord with the doctrinal standards of every NAPARC denomination. They've had two years to either abandon their views or depart in an orderly fashion. Nobody in the PCA is held here hostage here by property or by insurance/pension concerns as many in the PCUSA are.

    Instead of doing the honorable thing, they lie and hide and cast aspersions and mislead. They force those who wish to uphold the historic Reformed faith go to the church courts. And they behave in the fashion described above.

    Their behavior is simply despicable.
    ReplyDelete
  35. Daniel and Jesse piped down after I clarified my point and pduggie is apparently satisfied, but now J.Kru and Scot want to prove that gratuitous insults and ad hominem arguments are reasonable responses to statements of fact.

    Delete me, Jason, do as you please. The only point that I wanted to make was that the spirit of your post may be admirable but your facts are wrong. Peter Leithart is neither good nor godly, and his removal from the church/ministry, even if it’s for doctrinal reasons, is cause to rejoice.
    ReplyDelete
  36. All,

    Unfortunately there is no easy way to disable anonymous comments without also making it difficult for everyone else to comment.

    Therefore I would ask that no one posts anonymously here. If you do and refuse to afterwards identify yourself, you'll be deleted.

    Thanks.
    ReplyDelete
  37. Brian,

    I have to respectfully disagree with both Jason's tone and his sentiments. I'm not for high fives (anymore) but I do not think that losing Leithart (or any of the other FV guys) is a bad thing. I think it's a very good thing.

    I didn't say I disagreed with those who think Leithart should go, I just said that I lament the entire process. Remember that it was the fundamentalists who left the mainline churches rejoicing, and the Reformed who left weeping.

    These men have infiltrated the church, their views (which are not substantially different than Norman Shepherd's views) have been declared out of accord with the doctrinal standards of every NAPARC denomination. They've had two years to either abandon their views or depart in an orderly fashion.

    Again, I don't disagree with anything you're saying here.

    Instead of doing the honorable thing, they lie and hide and cast aspersions and mislead.

    Here I disagree. I don't know Peter's heart and so I can't comment onhis motives. As far as doing the honorable thing, I feel that he has done just that. The very day the 35th GA received the FV Report, he publically contacted the clerk of the PNWP and divulged his views in light of the specific declarations of the report, and said he would cheerfully submit to a presbytery review of his doctrine.

    Your saying that he lied is out of line. It's not fair to lump him in with other FV'ists who may have been less honorable.
    ReplyDelete
  38. Jason,

    Fair enough. I hereby unlump him.

    Would that the other FV men had the integrity to imitate his example.

    Blessings,
    Brian
    ReplyDelete
  39. Jason — I don’t know how to work the profile thing and I don’t know why other folks can delete their comments and I cannot. I would email you but I don’t see your contact info either.

    I did not intend to instigate a free for all, I merely wanted to encourage you not to mope because today is a good day. God is putting the wicked out, one at a time, according to his good pleasure, and you should rejoice.

    You should also delete my comments because I don’t want them to spoil the party.

    Sincerely,

    Anon, who’s teeth & bones are all in place and who is in very good health, by the grace of God, no thanks to Leithart.
    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous, here's the problem with posting such things 'anonymously' -- you *could* be completely right about everything you say, but it *all* falls flat because of your "speaking untruth" (LC Q. 145) ABOUT WHO YOU ARE. So really, there's nothing else to say -- good Presbyterians don't hide behind 'anonymous' allegations.

    JJS, just curious....I think I asked this question a couple years ago, but to Peter ever say why he intends to stay in the PCA and minister permanently out-of-bounds with a church that frankly has no intention of ever joining and receiving into the PCA? Is it that his call as TE is for his Professorship at NSA College, and his work with the CRE is more just something he does on the side?

    I'm with you on feeling 'mixed' about these deliberations. There's far too much "Let's Stick it Too 'Em"-type attitudes in Reformed denominationalism.
    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.
    ReplyDelete
  42. For what it's worth, Jason, and from the outside looking in, your attitude is precisely the attitude to have, precisely because the errors of Leithart, as you've stated elsewhere, are in conflict with the Confession to which Leithart vowed to uphold—not "another gospel" and therefore anathema.

    If I've read you wrong, please forgive me.

    What we see here in this thread is the conflation of the particularities of Westminsterian dogma (i.e., those things that are particular only to Reformed scholastics of the 17th century) and gospel. Westminster captures only a corner (and, it seems to me often enough, a rather unimaginative one) of the truth. It's in the playground; it ain't the playground.

    Anyway, you got the right attitude, in my opinion. Remember too that Jesus wept
    ReplyDelete
  43. …that Jesus wept over Jerusalem!
    ReplyDelete
  44. Matt,

    JJS, just curious....I think I asked this question a couple years ago, but to Peter ever say why he intends to stay in the PCA and minister permanently out-of-bounds with a church that frankly has no intention of ever joining and receiving into the PCA? Is it that his call as TE is for his Professorship at NSA College, and his work with the CRE is more just something he does on the side?

    Honestly, I have no idea. It seems to me that there should be a rule against a presbytery ordaining someone to permanently minister in a non-NAPARC church. If it's independent, that's one thing (think Sproul or Terry Johnson), but if it's a part of a denomination, then we should insist that the minister be credentialed there, not the PCA.

    What are we, a freelance ordaining company?
    ReplyDelete
  45. No disrespect to Terry Johnson (I use one of his books in a New Members class)....but I have my own doubts even in his case about the purpose of keeping your membership in the PCA if the church your work is in no way under the authority of the PCA. Seems a bit too discombobulated to me!

    I'm not so much thinking of NAPAC per se...but rather the seeming 'permanence' of an arrangement. If Terry or Peter were ministering with the expectation that (a) this is a temporary arrangement or (b) it's to work toward the goal of bringing said church into the PCA, then I'd have no problem with it. I'm just trying to understand the Presbyterian logic of ordaining a guy to work in a church that has no intention of ever coming under your ecclesiastical governance.

    Now, if PL's call was because of his teaching position at NSA, then that would be a little different. I think all NAPARC denominations ordain guys to this end.
    ReplyDelete
  46. Wayne SparkmanMar 13, 2010 03:55 PM
    Conversation is always more substantive if you have the facts in front of you (though I admit it then lacks the thrill of imminent danger!). Here are the relevant sections of the Book of Church Order:

    8-7. A Presbytery may, at its discretion, approve the call of a teaching elder to work with an organization outside the jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church in America, provided that he be engaged in preaching and teaching the Word, that the Presbytery be assured he will have full freedom to maintain and teach the doctrine of our Church, and that he report at least annually on his work. As far as possible, such a teaching elder shall be a member of the Presbytery within whose bounds he labors. (See BCO 20-1.)
    and
    20-1. Before a candidate, or licentiate, can be ordained to the office of the ministry, he must receive a call to a definite work. Ordinarily the call must come from a church, Presbytery, or the General Assembly of this denomination. If the call comes from another source, the Presbytery shall always make a record of the reasons why it considers the work to be a valid Christian ministry. (See also BCO 8-7 and 21-1).
    A proper call must be written and in the hands of the Presbytery prior to being acted upon by a Presbytery. It must include financial arrangements (such as salary, vacation, insurance, retirement, etc.) between those calling and the one called, and assurance that the definite work will afford the liberty to proclaim and practice fully and freely the whole counsel of God, as contained in the Scriptures and understood in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It shall be in accord with the BCO 8.
    ReplyDelete
  47. Jason,

    If you don't think those ordained in the PCA should be ministering out of bounds in non-NAPARC churches, I wonder what you think about Lane Keister ministering out of bounds in two non-NAPARC churches with no signs of moving elsewhere?
    ReplyDelete
  48. That's a good question, Curtis. I just changed the rule to "PCA ministers shouldn't be allowed to minister permanently in non-NAPARC churches unless they are given special permission by me." And yes, I hereby grant Lane permission.

    There, all settled....
    ReplyDelete
  49. Heh, I was wondering the same thing. Glad to hear the SJC (the Seattle Jason Commission) is on the ball.
    ReplyDelete
  50. Hey, if nothing more, I'm at least willing to bend my own rules so that those I like can play, too!
    ReplyDelete
  51. Mr. Stellman:
    "I have absolutely no desire to prosecute a case against a good man and godly scholar simply to prove a point and set legal precedent for other NAPARC churches to follow (which a conviction certainly would do)."
    I was not aware that presbyterian Church courts were authorized by the Head of the Church to rule according to 'legal precedent'; whether that is the case in practice or not, I suppose, is a separate issue. Would you care to comment? Perhaps I am missing the point.

    Further, if discipline is to be carried out and censure to be issued, is it not to be done for the sake of Christ's name, for the peace and purity of the Church, and for the sake of the individual being censured? Paul does not rejoice at having to instruct the Corinthians to hand over a man to Satan for the salvation of his soul. But certainly angels in heaven rejoice over one sinner who repents. I commend your lack of enthusiasm, Sir, as well as join with you in longing to see repentance.

    On another note, the glee that you describe seems to be indicative of the establishmentarian attitude of the Presbyterian Church prior to the expulsion of what would become the OPC. Churchmen whose concern is more for power and their own agendas than for Christ's glory are the those who would take joy at such censures. I do not wish, however, to judge those to whom you refer out of hand, only extend your tone of caution.
    Stephen
    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)