Things are pretty bad when I have to resort to yiddish.
This was in addition to a letter sent by former friends of Wilkins in the PCA explaining their concerns with his current theology at length and asking that he withdraw from the PCA for the sake of the purity and peace of the church. This is in addition to the times when Wilkins was publicly confronted by men like Joey Pipa in 2003 and told he was in error. The idea circulated by men like Mark Horne, that Wilkins has never been “told to his face” that he was teaching erroneous doctrines is not true, I was at the Auburn Avenue conference in 2003 when that was done. It’s been done both personally and in print many, many, times at this point.
Oh, well now it’s all so clear. My facetious question about the Knox Colloquium is answered, “No, Steve entered into binding extra-ecclesiastical arbitration at the 2003 Auburn Avenue Pastor’s Conference.”
And then, “I’ts been done both personally and in print many, many, times at this point.” Oh yes, publishing an assault accusing a fellow minister a Galatian heresy in a micro-theonomic-denominational journal is exactly the kind of personal confrontation required in due process when pressing charges against a minister. Yes, all my concerns have all been completely answered. Thanks.
Now as to why no charges were pressed from within the Presbytery by the men who later complained or dissented against Wilkins exoneration, I cannot answer for them, but I can well understand their decision. The ordinary means of bringing charges against someone for serious doctrinal error is not to draw up specifications and submit charges oneself but per 31-1 and 31-2 for the presbytery, upon receiving a report or a request, to begin an investigation. The majority in the presbytery had already shown its hostility to such requests, and indicated its substantial agreement with TE Wilkins. For someone in the minority to move forward to make a case as a voluntary prosecutor themselves, when their almost assured failure to win the case would have caused them to be censured (note not charged – but censured) as a slanderer of the brethren (per BCO 31-9) would have been extremely foolish. What would have been the point of such a trial in LA Presbytery, when the majority there had already repeatedly indicated they approved of Steve Wilkins theology? This is why I titled the post The Case of the Missing Kamikaze Presbyters; while theoretically possible, any attempt to personally bring charges in would have been irregular and doomed from the start to crash and burn.
This paragraph is an admission that I am right, with an attempt to use the word kamikaze in the place of courageous. We would at least have a list of charges to consider that could then be used in an appeal to the SJC. Yeah, it is supposed to be tough to accuse a minister of heresy. That’s why the BCO says:
31-9. Every voluntary prosecutor shall be previously warned, that if he fail to show probable cause of the charges, he may himself be censured as a slanderer of the brethren.
That’s the risk you’re supposed to be willing to take.
SJC has invented no-fault accusations, allowing Presbyters to simply jump over due process, escape even the psychological discomfort of arguing a case and actually pressing charges face-to-face with the accused, in favor of another process that is designed to destroy from a distance rather than to uphold truth.
More could be said but I will stop there.
Doug Wilson is right — the more that guys like Rev. Webb go into print with stuff like that, the better. Ditto with Jeff Hutchinson, etc. The whole thing is going to backfire on them. If past performance is a guide, all the warnings in the world are not going to stop those guys from shooting themselves in the foot big time.