In the Matter of
Presbyterian Church in America
v.
TE Peter Leithart
________
Judgment and Reasoning of the Standing Judicial Commission
To the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest
October 7, 2011
Presbyterian Church in America
v.
TE Peter Leithart
________
Judgment and Reasoning of the Standing Judicial Commission
To the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest
October 7, 2011
________
Summary:
The prosecutor filed five charges against Dr. Leithart.
The Standing Judicial Commission reached the following verdicts, with the Commission vote on each charge noted.
Charge 1 Regarding Baptism: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 2 Regarding the Covenant of Works: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 3 Regarding Imputation: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 4 Regarding Justification/Sanctification: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 5 Regarding Union and Apostasy: Not Guilty, 9-0
The Standing Judicial Commission reached the following verdicts, with the Commission vote on each charge noted.
Charge 1 Regarding Baptism: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 2 Regarding the Covenant of Works: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 3 Regarding Imputation: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 4 Regarding Justification/Sanctification: Not Guilty, 9-0
Charge 5 Regarding Union and Apostasy: Not Guilty, 9-0
________
So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen: 45 votes were cast, and they all went in the same direction without even a single exception.
The report was received by the PNWP.
More to come.
The report was received by the PNWP.
More to come.
*** Update ***
Concerning the voting, the commission's verdict on each of the five charges was voted on separately, with votes like 33-3-2 or 33-5 (in favor of the commission's not guilty verdict) being pretty representative.
Interestingly, there was a motion to delay the vote until January that was roundly defeated. The purpose of this motion was to give the presbyters sufficient time to consider all the evidence (we only received the report and trial transcripts a few days ago, and to my knowledge none of the defense's or prosecution's exhibits or briefs have been made available to anyone). So basically, the only data that those who did not attend the trial (which is most presbyters) had to work with was the commission's report, th epurpose of which was not to explain the prosecution's case, but instead to give the rationale for its rejection.
Jason,
ReplyDeleteSo he's not guilty of holding heretical views on these subjects? Is this an affirmation of federal vision, or do I have it completely backward?
Any more context you can provide would be helpful for those of us not immersed in Presbyterian goings-on.
No time to elaborate now, but yes, Leithart is not guilty of holding views outside the PCA's standards.
ReplyDeleteDevin, this means nothing changes, he isn't a heretic (declared by the Church), and he continues working out of bounds as a member of the presbytery in the CREC.
ReplyDeleteWas this the vote of the same GA SJC that told you to press charges?
ReplyDeleteNo, this is the verdict of the PNWP's SJC, the recommends of which were approved by the presbytery.
ReplyDeleteThank God for the sanity of the PNWP. Now Don Clements and Dominic Aquila will begin working to sway the SJC. It should be a fun GA for those in the PCA.
ReplyDeleteThank you Jason for your work as well as your grace and humility in treating Peter as a believer, though, in your view, outside the confessional standards. Though I am somewhat on the fence (raised PCA but currently in a CREC church), I too have grieved for the lack of peace and other damage that the controversy itself has caused the Church. I pray that God's kingdom would be advanced through this series of events, regardless of what either of us think the outcome should have been or how that advancement should be accomplished.
ReplyDeleteJason: I know there is more too presbyterian parlimentarianism than at first meets the eye. I remember my first few years, things which seemed so straightforward appeared different after some time batting it back and forth on the floor of presbytery.
ReplyDeleteWith that as caution to both myself and others, I must say that your presbytery seems to have acted precipitously with regard to giving the fathers sufficient time to digest this.
The trial occurred in June. As much as I wanted things to happen faster, I was grateful that y'all were moving with such patient deliberation. This is, after all, a very serious matter.
But to give that little time for digesting the commission's finding? And to not allow the elders to at least review the case?
This concerns me.
I'll not ask you to respond, out of respect for your relationship with your fellow elders. I would ask as their fellow elder, was this the wisest way to proceed?
Why not wait till January? Why the apparent rush now?
Sorry, that was Reed Here. The Google sign in won't let me change the display name.
ReplyDeleteJJ,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your faithfulness and diligence in this matter. I know that it's been a long road for you and your team. You probably cannot say, but I will assume that this isn't the end of the trail for this case. I see lots of room for complaining against this vote. Ps 46:10.
Bob
Question from a concerned PCA layman:
ReplyDeleteThe results from both the PNWP and Souixlands are highly disturbing, and seemingly at odds with the GA, not to mention the other NAPARC denominations that have rejected FV as within confessional bounds.
For those able to answer without causing problems, what does this mean for the PCA as a denomination? At what point does being a "big tent" begin to infringe upon the consciences of those who hold the confessions in high regard and see the FV as not only an infringement of confessional boundaries, but also a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel? Is there a time for a peaceful, amicable parting of the ways, or do we hang in and watch presbytery after presbytery get this issue wrong and hope for some change?
so troubling for us in the PCA.
ReplyDeletePaul Ekk
Jason,
ReplyDeleteJust curious....did Leithart ever provide any sort of response to that lengthy and telling quote you dug up from James Jordan? Or does the pupil in this case not want to criticize the master?
It's never been entirely clear to me *why* he wants to stay in the PCA, if he is happy ministering out of bounds and has no plans to bring his CREC congregation into the PCA.
~Matt
jedpaschall,
ReplyDeleteI don't hear the fat lady singing. This is not the end of the process. Anyone in NWP can complain against this mistake. If that complaint is denied, then anyone in NWP can complain to the GA SJC.
We've been here before with Louisiana Presbytery. God is still on His throne, and He loves the pure gospel.
Matt,
ReplyDeleteJust curious....did Leithart ever provide any sort of response to that lengthy and telling quote you dug up from James Jordan? Or does the pupil in this case not want to criticize the master?
I have not asked him about it directly, and I have not heard him ever address it. My guess is that he would just say he disagrees with Jordan on that issue.
Does Leithart know or care about this result? I looked at his blog (at least I think it's the same guy) and fb page and he didn't post anything about it.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I had heard that Leithart's whole reason for letting it go to trial was because he wanted other FVers into the PCA to have precedent and thus be able to remain in the PCA. Given what I know, this seems more of a victory for other FVers in the PCA than it is for Leithart.
ReplyDelete"Is there a time for a peaceful, amicable parting of the ways"
ReplyDeletePossibly. If so, NAPARC awaits you with open arms.
I would like to read the trial transcripts. Can you make those available?
ReplyDeleteThis judgment of the SJC of the PNW Presbytery indicates to me that sensibility is returning to micro-Presbyterianism. Instead of putting Leithart's thoughtful, helpful, and carefully constructed theology in the worst possible light, people are beginning to recognize the important nuances, the proper qualifications, and thus judging it more accurately. As far as why Leithart himself initiated this investigation, is it perhaps because he loves the church of Jesus Christ? Others were claiming he was violating his ordination vows, and Leithart took that seriously. He didn't think he was, but he also realized that whether he was in breach of his vows is best determined, not by his conscience, but by an ecclesiastical court. As far as why he says nothing about this on his blog, is it perhaps because his blog has a wide readership that extends far beyond the world of micro-Presbyterianism? His blog, after all, is hardly personal. Perhaps he assumes the cyberworld would profit more from his reflections and readings and theology than information about his personal life. Either way, let's give him the benefit of the doubt!
ReplyDelete@Bill DeJong. What a crock. Leithart is a detestable schismatic.
ReplyDelete"@Bill DeJong. What a crock. Leithart is a detestable schismatic."
ReplyDeleteWhatever one thinks about Leithart and the trial outcome, one Presbyterian (I'm assuming that's what you are) calling another Presbyterian "schismatic" is just funny.
Pastor Stellman
ReplyDelete"[A]nd to my knowledge none of the defense's or prosecution's exhibits or briefs have been made available to anyone)."
It is my understanding that the SJC can only examine the evidence at the trial. When/if this case makes it to the SJC will the SJC be allowed access to the prosecution's exhibits or briefs or will they be limited to the documents available to the Presbytery? If the SJC will have access to all the documents then why would these documents not be shared with every Presbyter?
There are difference between the courts of the church vs the state. However, think of how odd it would be if a defendant appeared in court, but a majority of the jurors only received a summary brief from a small committee of jurors. How could the jurors really render a verdict with only partial information?
The problem I see is what information will the be available when/if this decision is appealed. My understanding is that the SJC only have the information the jurors have, but what jurors are they referring to?
Dean B
>Leithart is a detestable schismatic.
ReplyDeleteConsider the source.
No anonymous posts, people. Add your name or get deleted.
ReplyDeleteJason, your handling of this matter that you disagree so strongly on has been a Godly example for me. I used to let GB and Aquila get me cussing mad and I'd sometimes write in that mood, which I sincerely repent of. Thank you for holding strong views and maintaining Christian character. I hope I can grow into Godly patience as you have. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I was the anonymous who said "I would like to read the trial transcripts. Can you make those available?" I was on my mobile device and I usually fill out as little as possible on that thing.
ReplyDeleteAny chance the Transcripts will be made available? I just think it would give me more of a feel of what the issues were and how they were discussed. So far, I just don't have much of a handle on what was really on trial here - Peter is a creative thinker and his relational ontology is really the thing that seems like it would/should generate the most discussion. - barlow
All the documents from the trial, including the transcript, should be available any day now. Once they're released I'll let you know.
ReplyDeletethanks - barlow
ReplyDeleteI don't know the sensibilities of all the different presbytery's on the matter of FV(maybe someone out there does) but certainly from what we've seen so far where the issue has gone to trial, there doesn't seem to be a desire to find the FV out of accord(maybe it's also a function of like-engaged men unwilling to ultimately dis posses a man of his profession, a hard thing to do when you begin to consider his family and the fraternal relationship you share, maybe a little too much GOBN as well.) But my concern is other than that, if we find in our presbyterys a majority who don't consider FV out of accord, what's the populist legitimacy of having the SJC overturn all these rulings and finding or requiring the originating presbytery to find a presumption of guilt. At some point the PCA may be forced to admit, we've done such a poor job ordaining and training our elders and pastors that we've effectively inculcated this error and outside of a very top-heavy intrusion we've lost this battle. The failure to win this argument at the presbytery level has become very troubling and a reflection of the sentiments of the 'rank and file' and that ultimately is more disturbing than whether or not Leithart should've been found out of accord.
ReplyDeleteSean,
ReplyDeleteGood point. I keep muling this around in my head. I come from a line of work where, like in PCA polity, the goal is to restore and help those who run into issues. But failing that and apparently unlike the PCA, if they don't recover/repent, then we send them on their way without delay. I once had to terminate a personal friend for conduct, and though I did so with a heavy heart, I also didn't hesitate. I notice that Jesus didn't hesitate, either, in similar situations. Perhaps I expect too much from people who apparently don't have the same level of whatever it takes to put the mission ahead of personal feelings.
"maybe it's also a function of like-engaged men unwilling to ultimately dis posses a man of his profession"
ReplyDeleteI doubt that's an issue in this particular case. It should take about 30 seconds for the CREC to issue Leithart a call to pastor the CREC church he is already pastoring.
Rube,
ReplyDeleteI'm sure you're right, which leaves us with agreement, GOBN and desire for a wide berth if they should find themselves in like situation. It's hard to put a positive spin on it anyway it goes. Maybe a technical hangup on specificity of charge or other such unfortunate 'rock to hide behind', but I find such things to be just so much dishonest brokering, and a moral failure. The PCA really seems to be struggling to draw a line in the sand on this issue in spite of GA declarations otherwise.