The Opening Statement of the Prosecution

Fathers and brothers, I obviously do not have to remind us all that we are here today under the most solemn of circumstances. I trust we would all agree that it brings us no joy or pleasure to gather for reasons such as this, and that we hardly had situations like this in mind when we first decided to enter the ministry. Nevertheless, here we are, charged with a task that, while certainly not joyful, is a part of the solemn business of the church. Jude wrote that we are to “earnestly contend for the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” and Paul urged Timothy to “guard the deposit that was entrusted” to him. Moreover, every minister in our denomination has vowed before God and witnesses to “be zealous and faithful in maintaining the truths of the gospel and the purity and peace of the church,” and that we “sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this church as containing the system of doctrine taught in the holy Scriptures.” In a word, though we may not relish being here, we need to be here.

It is crucial at the very outset, however, to clear the air a bit, to remove some of the rubble by listing and dismissing a number of reasons why we are NOT here. This is important because, in a case such as this when emotions run high and reputations are on the line, it is all too easy to become distracted by red herrings that would draw us off the correct path. One such question is whether or not Dr. Leithart is a good man, a godly man, and a scholar. No one in this room denies that these things are true. But none of these is the issue.

Another distracting non-issue is whether Dr. Leithart believes the Bible and can cite prooftexts for his theological views. Having read his work and having engaged him in doctrinal conversations personally, I do not doubt that he doesn’t just pull ideas out of his hat, but seeks to conform his own views to Scripture. But of course, this is not enough, since just about all professing Christian theologians do the same, whether they are Presbyterians, Baptists, Catholics, or Mormons. In a word, basing one’s beliefs on the Bible is easy as long as we remain the ultimate arbiter of what the Bible means (in fact, it’s almost tautological and self-evident). But we are not Biblicists who insist on retaining ultimate interpretive authority, but are members of a confessional denomination that is supposed to take very seriously the theological tradition handed down to us. One of the ways this works itself out is by our humbly submitting our own reading of Scripture to the mind of our church, thereby displaying a willingness to try our best to understand the Bible in such a way that is not at odds with the doctrinal standards of the PCA. Thus the claim we will most likely hear from the defense that Dr. Leithart is basing his theological views on Scripture is a non-issue that begs the question, for every text of Scripture needs to be interpreted, and basing one’s own doctrine upon one’s own interpretation of Scripture (apart from being sort of obvious) is tantamount to saying that one agrees with himself, and is hardly a robust defense when the conclusions one reaches are out of accord with the very Confession and Catechisms one has vowed before God to uphold.

Of course, the defense would object at this point and insist that Dr. Leithart’s view are NOT out of accord with the system of doctrine given in the Westminster Standards. Unfortunately for them, however, the PCA’s FV report, which cited Peter Leithart extensively, came to the opposite conclusion, namely, that the views he holds are indeed contrary to the Standards, and that those who hold such views need to recant or be removed from ministry in the PCA. And if this were not enough, the OPC also issued a report on justification which quoted Leithart at length, and it reached the same conclusion as ours did.

This brings me to another red herring, and that goes something like this: “The FV report received at our 35th GA has no binding authority—it is not a part of our constitution and thus does little more than reflect the opinion of that particular assembly at that particular moment in time.” In fact, we may hear some very technical parliamentary evidence to this effect, complete with citations from our Book of Church Order and maybe even from judicial precedent and some constitutional scholars as well. But the thing is, the prosecution does not deny any of this. It is not our position that because the 35th GA received a report that cited Peter Leithart specifically and condemned the theology he holds as outside the confessional bounds, and because that decision was reached by 95% of the commissioners present, that therefore it is incumbent upon us today to reach a similar verdict. Any arguments we may hear against this position will be utterly and completely beside the point since this isn’t even our position in the first place.

Our argument will not be that this court must side with the prosecution because its collective hand is forced by some edict from on high. Rather, our argument will be that this court should side with the prosecution because the evidence we will present will demonstrate conclusively that our charges are true, that Dr. Leithart—his claims to be arriving at theological conclusions based upon his own interpretations of the Bible notwithstanding—very plainly and very publically teaches things that are in direct contradiction to the doctrinal standards we have all vowed to uphold and defend.

Another potentially distracting red herring that will seek to draw our attention away from the main issue at hand onto something else is an argument (or set of arguments) from history. The court will hear the defense argue that this sixteenth-century theologian agreed with Dr. Leithart here, or that Westminster divine agreed with him there. We will hear impressive testimony from well-known Reformed historians that nothing that Dr. Leithart says today has not been said before by older theologians from our tradition, and after all, none of them were kicked out of their churches, so why on earth would we seek to remove him from ours? Moreover, we will surely hear some impressive testimony to the fact that the Westminster Confession and Catechisms themselves are so-called “consensus documents” that were meant to be broad and inclusive enough to make room for a vast diversity of theological views, Dr. Leithart’s included.

Now this one’s a little more tricky, but like the other red herrings I already mentioned, this argument doesn’t prove what the defense wishes it did. On the one hand, we can simply grant the point and say, “So what?” So there was a Reformed theologian 400 years ago who said something similar to what Dr. Leithart says today? I don’t doubt that there was, but what does this prove? Now if it were the prosecution’s case that PCA ministers today are bound to the private musings of all our tradition’s thousands of theologians, or if it were our position that as long as someone said it before we do, then we are free to say it, then this tactic of the defense might work. But as it actually stands, our argument is not affected by this line of reasoning whatsoever. No one in this room has subscribed to the private opinions of any individual theologian, even a theologian who was considered within the confessional pale by whatever church he belonged to four centuries ago. No, we are not bound to some abstract and invisible thing, whether it’s called “the broader Reformed tradition” or “Westminster Calvinism,” nor are we at liberty to pick and choose the handful of teachings from our tradition that we happen to think are most important, such as TULIP or infant baptism, and insist that as long as we adhere to the “confession within the Confession” we are therefore within the overall pale. No, our vows were not to something abstract and malleable, but they were to something in particular, namely, the Confession and Catechisms of this church.

With that said, however, the prosecution will contest the claim that Dr. Leithart is merely echoing what our Reformed stalwarts have been saying all along. While there may be a theologian here or a commentator there who agreed with this or that aspect of Leithart’s overall theology, the defense will not be able to find even one who held to Dr. Leithart’s doctrinal system as a whole (at least, not one who was Reformed). (10 min.) Sure, finding bits and pieces of seeming agreement between Dr. Leithart and a few Reformed theologians of times past is easy, but the problem is that it is too easy. After all, if agreement here or similarity there constitutes identical theological systems, then we are all in big trouble since I’d bet that every man in this room agrees with over half the material in the Catechism of the Catholic Church!

Fathers and brothers, make no mistake here, and do not be lured in by such historical testimony. No Reformed theologian from any century has ever taught that by baptismal regeneration we are united to Christ ex opere operato, that this so-called union with Jesus is provisional and losable, and only as certain as is our own covenant faithfulness. No Reformed theologian from any century has ever taught that those united with Christ are in the same position as Adam was before the fall with respect to our covenantal relation to God, and that this union does not entail or lead to the obedience and satisfaction of Christ being imputed to us. No Reformed theologian from any century has ever publically disavowed the idea, like Dr. Leithart has, that the actions of Jesus are imputed to us, and insisted instead that all we really share in is the verdict pronounced over the risen Son by the Father (which we share not by faith but by baptism, and which can be lost). No Reformed theologian from any century has ever taught that we can receive regeneration, adoption into God’s family, and be married to Jesus Christ only to eventually lose all these saving blessings.

Fathers and brothers, this is Leithart’s system of doctrine, every single point of which will be thoroughly sourced from his own writings. Does this sound like the system of doctrine found in our Standards? Sure, there were Arminians who said things nearly identical to this. There were Lutherans who came very close to this. There were Catholics who would sound a hearty “Amen.” But Reformed theologians? Not a one. It will not suffice, therefore, to cite a quote here or there from this or that theologian unless the defense is able to show that the theologian in question did not just hold an isolated view remotely similar to one of Dr. Leithart’s, but that he held to a similar overall system of doctrine. But again, even if such a feat could be accomplished (which it can’t), it still wouldn’t suffice since it is to the Confession and Catechisms of the PCA that we are bound, and not to writings of various figures, however great may be their standing in our heritage.

But what of the claim that the Confession and Catechisms are merely “consensus documents”? That there were theological differences among the delegates to the Westminster Assembly is not disputed by anyone, least of all the prosecution. The real question is not “Do the WS present a consensus document?”, but rather, “What is the nature of the consensus reached, and of the Confession and Catechisms produced?” In other words, the fact that the WS represent a consensus reached by the divines does not mean that some divines believed some parts of the Standards and other divines believed others. Sure, not every theologian at the assembly got the exact result that he may have wanted, but each and every one could subscribe the Confession and Catechisms in their entirety. As a matter of fact, the CD argument ironically works in the favor of the prosecution, for despite the diversity on smaller matters that existed among the WD, what they were able to agree on is the actual words they produced when they put quill to paper and wrote the Confession and Catechisms. To put it even more simply (and this point is pretty obvious when you think about it), yes, the WS are a consensus document, but it is the actual Confession and Catechisms themselves that are the consensus. In other words, we cannot use the consensus nature of the Standards to then argue that we today are free from adhering to them and the system of doctrine they provide, for the divines themselves, while perhaps disagreeing with one another on some of the finer points of Reformed theology, all agreed completely and wholeheartedly with what they were finally able to write down (even if it may not have represented for each one of them all he wanted to say on a particular matter).

This is extremely important for the court to understand, for our argument is not that Dr. Leithart faithfully subscribes to the WS but privately holds positions identical to those held by some of the WD that go a bit beyond what the Standards affirm (which would not be problematic at all), but rather our argument is, and our evidence will prove, that despite the fact that the Confession and Catechisms represent a broad consensus of the divines’ views, one that said sufficiently little to allow each of them to subscribe wholeheartedly to what was included, Dr. Leithart cannot even do that, but still insists on privately holding and publicly promoting views that are directly contrary to even the mild and watered-down consensus that the Westminster Divines were able to reach.

Yet another red herring that we may hear presented (one that this presbytery has heard before) concerns the danger in which we may place our denomination if we proceed to remove a man like Peter Leithart from our ministry. “Conservative Presbyterians already represent but a minute sliver of all professing believers,” it is said. “Do we really want to erase the tiny circle we have drawn around ourselves only to draw an even smaller one?” This is a compelling argument to make, for who wants to deliberately become more and more obscure, and less and less relevant? Who wants to forfeit the vibrancy and outward-focused evangelistic zeal we so admirably display in the PCA? Certainly not the prosecution (nor anyone else in this room I would imagine). But beware of being distracted by this, another non-issue, and please pay careful attention to what such a line of reasoning is really suggesting. The whole “fear of obscurity” defense would have us believe that putting a man like Dr. Leithart on trial like this accomplishes nothing but contributing to our own eventual demise. But such a position obviously begs the question, for if Leithart’s theology undermines the very gospel of Jesus Christ as understood through the lens of our Reformed system of doctrine, then how can duly and properly addressing this issue in the courts of our church possibly contribute to our eventual demise as a denomination? Wouldn’t it be the case instead that a failure to act on such a matter is what would lead to our demise? In other words, the spine-tingling predictions of the many FV doomsday prophets are only relevant if they are allowed to assume what they should be trying to prove, namely, that their theology is traditional and benign, and that it poses no threat to anyone (despite the official reports of the PCA, the OPC, the URC, the RCUS, and the RPCNA). But until this fringe movement (and that is exactly what it is) is able to convince the rest of the Reformed world, virtually all of which rejects their views, that their views aren’t really what they seem to be, then the appeal to obscurity or the threat of irrelevance is itself completely irrelevant. Lots of things we believe serve to marginalize us in the public square (the resurrection of Christ from the dead is one doctrine that comes to mind), but should our desire to be a broad and big-tent denomination mean that we should just sacrifice truth for unity? There are advantages to the broad way, to be sure, but when it comes to churches and denominations, it is not the concern to preserve the doctrines of grace, but the broad way, that leads to destruction.

“But,” the defense will surely say, “how can Dr. Leithart be expected to be narrower in his views than the Bible itself? After all, isn’t it the Scriptures themselves that are to be our sole infallible authority for faith and practice, with the Standards as a mere general rule that must always bow to the Bible when the two inevitably conflict?” But this approach seems to seek to drive a wedge in between the Bible and the Standards such that there is just no way of avoiding the contradictions that necessarily arise between the two. Now certainly if we were all to uncritically adopt this position—one that expects the Standards to contradict the Bible as a matter of course—then we surely would have no other choice but to follow Scripture instead of the Confession and Catechisms (after all, it is the former alone that is our sole infallible authority for faith and practice).

But is this premise really warranted? While the defense obviously thinks that there are places where the Standards contradict the Bible, that is hardly a position that can be expected to be held by everyone else. It would surely come as a surprise to hundreds of ministers in our denomination, not to mention to faithful Presbyterians across the world and down through history, that the Bible and the WS are at odds with one another and that we need to choose between them. Such a view of the discrepancy between the Standards and the Bible should obviously not be used as a starting point, an a priori, or a major premise. After all, have we not all vowed before God to the effect that we sincerely receive and adopt the Confession and Catechisms of this church as providing us with the system of doctrine taught in holy Scripture? That should be our starting point. We will simply not allow for a wedge to be driven between the Bible and the doctrinal Standards of this church—that is simply a supposition that we do not share and will not entertain or allow to go unchallenged at every turn. Make no mistake: it is not the Westminster Confession and Faith and Catechisms that are on trial here, it is Dr. Peter Leithart. The issue before us is not whether the WS faithfully summarize biblical teaching, for that is something our ordination vows state that we are all supposed to agree upon.

There is a subtle irony in all of this, of course. As we know, it is the defense’s contention that those in the PCA who would seek the removal of FV’ists are narrow and sectarian, unwilling to allow the broadness necessary to preserve the diversity of our Reformed tradition. But when it comes to the various passages of Scripture that seem to call into question our confessional formulations—such as the vine and branches text in John 15 or the apostasy texts in Hebrews—it is the advocates of the FV who insist that there is really only one way to read those passages: their way (hence their constant claims that the confessional formulations need modification or improvement in order to be brought into closer conformity to the language of the Bible). But when we do not presuppose this enmity between Scripture and our Standards, as most in the PCA and throughout our tradition do not, then we find that the so-called difficult passages of the Bible can be legitimately understood in a number of different ways, ways that do not need to contradict our church’s official teachings at all. Therefore it is not we who are narrow, but narrowness belongs to those who act as though the Bible can only be understood one way. And moreover, it is not we who are sectarian, but sectarianness belongs to those who insist that the only legitimate interpretation of the disputed biblical texts is the one that forces them to pit those texts against the Westminster C&C. In a word, no one is forcing Dr. Leithart to adopt a system of doctrine that is so obviously contrary to our Reformed confessional one, least of all Scripture. No, he is simply choosing to write books, articles, and blog posts that undermine our theology when, as we all should know, there are numerous other hermeneutical options available that necessitate no such thing. 24 min.

Fathers and brothers, all the prosecution is asking is that we stay on point here. This trial is not about whether Peter is a good and godly brother. This trial is not about whether he can cite Bible verses to support his views. This trial is not about whether some theologians down through the ages said similar things to what Dr. Leithart says today. This trial is not about what the long-term effect this or that action may have on the course of the PCA as a whole. And this trial is not about whether the WS correctly summarize Scripture. None of these things is the issue, and whatever attention is spent on them will be a waste of the court’s time.

No, this trial is about five things, namely the five charges that have been brought against Dr. Leithart. As you hear various testimonies over the next couple days, just ask yourself throughout: Does Peter Leithart teach a view of baptismal efficacy that contradicts our Standards? Does Peter Leithart teach a conflation of the covenants of works and grace that undermines our system of doctrine? Is Peter Leithart’s insistence that the actions of Jesus are not imputed to us a teaching that is contrary to the WS? Does Peter Leithart confuse justification and sanctification by insisting that justification and definitive sanctification are the exact same thing? And does Peter Leithart’s teaching that by baptism we are ex opere operato regenerated, united with Christ, adopted as God’s sons, and married to Jesus and that we can lose these blessings, contrary to the C&C? These, and these only, are the issues before us.

And lastly, please keep in mind that each of the five charges brought against Dr. Leithart is a distinct charge that must be ruled on separately. This means that unlike for the prosecution, the burden on the defense is to prove that on each distinct charge Dr. Leithart has said, taught, and written nothing that in any way opposes our Reformed system of doctrine. Fathers and brothers, I realize that you have an unenviable job and a difficult task ahead of you. But I pray that, as you listen objectively to the evidence that will be presented to you, the Holy Spirit will give you the ability to recognize error for what it is, as well as the faithfulness and fortitude to deal with it.