A couple things about the Leithart trial....First, you may have noted already that the only comments I am making here or anywhere else online are factual and/or clarifying, and none of them are negative. Trust me, it’s not that I have nothing negative to say (I do), and it’s not that I’m not planning on voicing those opinions (I am). But there’s a proper way for a churchman to go about criticizing a church court. At our meeting on Friday we adopted the following motion:
“Presbytery does not consider blogging or posting a disagreement on the internet to be the most appropriate method for a presbyter or church member to express disagreement with any Presbytery decision. Such public disagreement would most appropriately be expressed by (1) seeking reconsideration and/or higher court review via Complaint or Appeal, or (2) by expressing disagreement in a DPO [Dissent, Protest, or Objection]. Unlike a blog or email, a formal DPO allows the court the opportunity to answer it prior to publicly recording it. To that end, Motion A1 tasks the Admin Committee to web-post any DPO, along with any answer from Presbytery. The BCO recognizes and protects the Church’s right and privilege to have the final word on such matters. After a DPO has been filed, reviewed, answered & recorded, BCO 45-5 stipulates: ‘Here the matter shall end.’”
Therefore until I am ready to register my disagreement with the PNWP officially, I will refrain from any and all statements that could be deemed critical. But I am happy to answer questions or clarify things as best I can.
Many have asked about the trial transcripts and other documents. A motion was adopted to post everything related to the case online, and this process is underway. As soon as everything is uploaded I will let you know.
The PNWP has interpreted the BCO in an attempt to attempt to bind the conscious and muzzle public scrutiny. Blogging and using the Internet IS an appropriate means for a presbyter or church member to express disagreement or agreement with any Presbytery decision. Is it the only one? Of course not. No one, least of all a court, has to respond to a blog post. However, the court does have to respond to an appeal which I hope is forthcoming in this case.
ReplyDeleteJason, at first, I thought that this was reasonable, but, upon further reflection, I would question it.
ReplyDeleteHere's why. Why single out the internet? The internet is not evil. Why not say, we do not consider it appropriate to speak publicly against an action of the church unless under the close scrutiny of the Presbytery? That is a binding of the conscience and prior restraint. The actions of our courts are public actions and open to public discussion.
Also, the interpretation of "here the matter shall end" is incorrect. It does not refer to never speaking about it any public setting. It simply means that this is the court's final decision on the matter.
Further, the idea that the court can write a response is not the same as saying that they get the last word. What it means is this. They must record the protest, dissent, or objection, but they can also add their own reply. It's not a principle of the court getting the last word.
This post is a good example of the problems that you get into. Now, you can't even respond to this statement without violating PNW's policy.
Pastor Stellman
ReplyDeleteBCO 45-5 "If a dissent, protest, or objection be couched in temperate language, and be respectful to the court, it shall be recorded; and the court may, if deemed necessary, put an answer to the dissent, protest, or objection on the records along with it. Here the matter shall end, unless the parties obtain permission to withdraw their dissent, protest, or objection absolutely, or for the sake of amendment."
It appears a narrow reading of the phrase "Here the matter shall end" would make the SJC unconstitutional.
For clarification purpose how would you harmonize this motion with the fact that the SJC has the authority to un-end the matter?
Dean B
Pastor Stellman,
ReplyDeleteI am a member of Trinity Reformed Church and good friends with an Exile member. Thank you for the honorable way you have conducted the prosecution and treated Pastor Leithart. I believe you brought charges out of a genuine desire to pursue the purity and peace of the church.
I pray regardless of the final adjudication that FV Christians and TR Christians will continue in fellowship under one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.
Dean B,
ReplyDeleteA dissent, protest, or objection does not request the court to take any action. It is simply a member of the court registering his concern over an action taken by the court. When the court receives a DPO, they can do whatever they want with it (receive it, reject it, or answer it), but since it doesn't ask any action on the part of the court, that is the end of the matter.
Complaints (BCO 43), on the other hand, are formal declarations that a member of the court believes the court to have acted erroneously and asks the court to reverse the decision. The court has an opportunity to do this, but if they reject the complaint, the person then has the option to take the complaint to the next court (presbytery or GA/SJC).
In my (rather limited) experience, DPOs are usually offered over minor disagreements (like what exceptions to the standards are allowable, within reason) or at the end of a long judicial process when one doesn't want to start another long judicial process over a matter of procedure.
Todd G
Good afternoon Todd G.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the clarification.
Dean B
This motion did not pass without a fight, but in the end it won and I'll abide by it. I can see how so much of what has happened of late is contributing to the suspicion with which people view this presbytery, though.
ReplyDeleteNo problem, Dean B. Hope it was helpful!
ReplyDelete"I pray regardless of the final adjudication that FV Christians and TR Christians will continue in fellowship under one Lord, one faith, and one baptism."
ReplyDeleteImpossible.
Hi Jason,
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm not convinced that your Presbytery's policy on blogging is a good idea long-term, I do appreciate your integrity in this matter.
All too frequently, Ministers and Elders only argue for deference to the court decisions that they agree with.
Your brother,
David
So was Luther wrong in taking his criticisms of the Roman Church directly to the people at Wittenburg, instead of working within the official means of the church's ecclesiastical structure and authority?
ReplyDeleteAnd the decision does, on the one hand, seem to single out blogging/internet, but then on the other hand lists only official complaints/inquiries as the proper means.
What does this mean about writing a book on the subject? Discussing it with others at a Bible Study? Preaching about it? Etc.
I can, in some senses, understand why this decision would be made about presbyters (in the same sort of way that Church Sessions be united about church-level decisions), but to extend it to all Church members seems like a strike at free speech.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteI don't see how that rule would hold up at the GA level if anyone was ever charged under it.
Frankly, it will be interesting to see what PNWP actually posts and what they don't. The trial transcripts and commission report should have been completed months ago. There's no excuse for not making these documents available as soon as the presbytery voted.
This particular ruling just looks like another attempt to avoid broad accountability for a decision they know in their hearts won't stand. It sadly reminds me of a line from an old Uriah Heap song, Paradise:
"Secret hearts and sorry tales
Will never help love grow"
Let me put it this way:
ReplyDeleteThe more PNWP continues to make decisions such as exonerating Leithart by a total commission vote of 45-0 and seeking to keep such firm tabs on trial information and people's disagreement with how things are being handled, the more we will show up on the denomination's collective radar (the rebuke of PNWP by the RPR committee at our last General Assembly is a good example).
The best thing for me to do, given all this, is to vote my conscience, and when I lose, to just smile and take it, and then to register my disagreement through the proper channels.
All I can control is how I handled myself when this is all said and done.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteAny you continue to be an exemplar for us all in how you've handled yourself from the beginning. Hang in there.
The last I checked HOLY SCRIPTURE is THE last word on all matters of doctrine, faith, practice, and church unity. If the PNW and the PCA continues in this direction it might become necessary for another split. That would be unfortunate but biblical truth matters.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the PCA courts do not speak infallibly or without error. Their decisions do not constitute a magisterium on the order of the Roman Catholic Church or ex cathedra. The priesthood of believers calls every believer to blog, speak and preach the truth--even when judiciary councils of denominations try to silence such calls for the reforming of the church.
Peace!
Charlie
Also, since I believe Arminianism is a "damnable heresy", I do not believe it is possible for Federal Visionists and the classical Reformed to remain in fellowship since the FV teaches another gospel (Galatians 1:6-9) and another Jesus (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).
ReplyDelete