Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) Report
on Memorial From
Central Carolina Presbytery, 2006-2
(available in PDF format)
|
STANDING
JUDICIAL COMMISSION REPORT ON MEMORIAL FROM This
matter was dealt with by the SJC over an extended period of time and in
several stages. Part I of this report deals with the SJC’s initial
hearing on the matter, Louisiana Presbytery’s subsequent
re-examination of TE J. Steven TE Wilkins directed by the SJC, and
related events (January 2006 through May, 2007). Part II of this report
deals with the actions of the SJC in response to Louisiana Presbytery
re-examination of TE J. Steven TE Wilkins (May, 2007 through October
2007). Part
I Background 1.
On January
26, 2006, Central Carolina Presbytery, pursuant to BCO 40-5,
adopted and sent to the General Assembly the following Memorial relative
to actions of Louisiana Presbytery. The Memorial was referred to the
Standing Judicial Commission by the Stated Clerk. The 34th
General Assembly concurred with that reference (BCO 15-4). Memorial
From Whereas
it is the
obligation of teaching elders to uphold in their teaching the system of
doctrine taught in The Whereas
presbyteries
are charged “to condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or
peace of the Church” (BCO 13-9.f), and: Whereas
TE J.
Steven Wilkins, senior minister of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church in
Monroe, LA, has persisted in teaching and publishing doctrines in
flagrant contradiction to our Standards, to wit: 1.
TE Wilkins
publicly teaches a doctrine of election in flagrant
contradiction to our Standards. Whereas The Confession
teaches that “God hath appointed the elect unto glory” (WCF
III.6), TE Wilkins states that the elect are appointed to a conditional
relationship which they can lose through unbelief. He writes: “The
elect are those who are faithful in Christ Jesus. If they later reject
the Savior, they are no longer elect – they are cut off from the Elect
One and thus, lose their elect standing” (The Federal Vision, p.
58). 2.
TE Wilkins
teaches a doctrine of the church in flagrant contradiction to
that of our Standards, in that he denies the distinction
between the visible and the invisible church. The Confession
states that “The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible,
consists of the whole number of the elect,” whereas “The visible
Church… consists of all those throughout the world that profess the
true religion, and their children” (WCF XXV. 1-2). The sum of
TE Wilkins’ erroneous view is to teach that all members of the church
– without distinction to their actual faith and/or regeneration –
partake of the saving benefits of Christ. Whereas the Standards state
that the visible church enjoys “the ordinary means of salvation and
offers of grace by Christ,” they grant only to the invisible church
that they “enjoy union and communion with [Christ]” (WLC 62-65).
As such, TE Wilkins denies that there is any distinction between
believing and unbelieving members of the visible church, insisting that
all baptized church members enjoy the benefits of union with Christ,
only conditionally. See The Federal Vision, pp. 57-62,
including the following statements: “‘If
God is for us, who can be against us? Christ died,
rose again, and makes intercession for us, who can separate us
from the love of God?’” Clearly,
Paul is not stating promises that are true only for some unknown group
called the ‘elect.’ Nor is he speaking only to a portion of the
congregation whom he judges to be ‘regenerate.’ Rather, he is
applying these promises to all the members of the Church who have been
baptized and united to Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection
(Rom. 6).” (The Federal Vision, p. 57). “The
reprobate may be in covenant with God. They may enjoy for a season the
blessings of the covenant, including the forgiveness of sins, adoption,
possession of the kingdom, sanctification, etc., and yet apostatize and
fall short of the grace of God” (The Federal Vision, p. 62).
Note that TE Wilkins here directly contradicts WLC 69, which
ascribes these blessings only to the elect and denies them to the
visible church. 1.
TE Wilkins’
teaching directly contradicts our doctrine of perseverance. The
Confession teaches that “They, whom God hath accepted in His
Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither
totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall
certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved” (WCF
XVI.1). But TE Wilkins teaches the opposite. See the above quote
regarding the reprobate, who according to TE Wilkins were at one time
forgiven, adopted, and sanctified. TE Wilkins adds, “The apostate
doesn’t forfeit ‘apparent blessings’ that were never his in
reality, but real blessings that were his in covenant with God” (The
Federal Vision, p. 62). In TE Wilkins’ teaching, all church
members share all the benefits of union with Christ, but only
provisionally. He writes, “If they persevere in faith to the end, they
enjoy these mercies eternally. If they fall away in unbelief, they lose
these blessings and receive a greater condemnation than 2.
TE Wilkins’
teaching directly contradicts our doctrine of assurance. The Confession
teaches that we may have a certain assurance of salvation based on
inward evidences of faith and salvation (WCF XVI.1-2). TE
Wilkins directly contradicts this teaching, stating instead that “The
questions of when a man is ‘regenerated,’ or given
‘saving faith,’ or ‘truly converted,’ are ultimately questions
we cannot answer and, therefore, they cannot be the basis upon which we
define the Church or identify God’s people… [The covenant
perspective] enables us to assure Christians of their acceptance with
God without needless [sic] undermining their confidence in God’s
promises (by forcing them to ask questions of themselves they cannot
answer with certainty).” In a footnote defining the harmful questions,
TE Wilkins specifies: “Questions like, “Have you truly believed?”;
“Have you sincerely repented?”; “Do you have a new heart?”;
“Have you been truly converted?”, etc.” (The Federal Vision, 67,
plus footnote 15, p. 69.) But these are questions the Confession views
as pastorally helpful and productive of assurance, not despair. 3.
TE Wilkins
teaches a doctrine of baptism strikingly different from that of
Standards. TE Wilkins states that “When someone is united to
the Church by baptism, he is incorporated into Christ and into His body;
he becomes bone of Christ’s bone and flesh of His flesh (Eph. 5:30).
He becomes a member of the house, family, and But,
while the Confession describes baptism as a sign and seal of
Christ’s blessings – including regeneration (WCF XXVI. 1) –
The Standards do not equate all baptized persons with the elect,
nor do they equate baptism with regeneration. TE
Wilkins teaches that “If
[someone] has been baptized, he is in covenant with God” (The
Federal Vision, p. 67)… “covenant
is union with Christ” (p. 58)… and “being
in covenant gives all the blessings of being united to Christ” (p.
58), which blessings he enumerates by appeal to Eph. 1:3, stating,
“those who are in covenant have all spiritual blessings in the
heavenly places” (p. 58). The
doctrine found in these representative statements from TE Wilkins’
teaching can be none other than that to be baptized is to have all the
eternal blessings of salvation and, by inference, he teaches that all
persons baptized in water must be eternally saved, unless they
apostatize. This is made explicit as TE Wilkins applies all the
blessings noted in Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians to those
who receive water baptism, including the salvific blessings of union
with Christ, reaching all the way back to election from before creation
to final salvation at the end of history. Thus, in contrast to the
Confession’s teaching that water baptism is a sign and seal of these
salvific blessings, TE Wilkins plainly teaches that water baptism grants
actual possession of these salvific blessings. Whereas
the
Louisiana Presbytery has exonerated and approved the teaching of TE
Wilkins as “faithful to the Confessional standards of the PCA”,
contrary to their obligation to uphold The Westminster Standards,
and; Whereas
the
Louisiana Presbytery’s exoneration of TE Wilkins contradicts its own
published declarations regarding the acceptable boundaries of teaching,
to wit: 1.
The Louisiana
Presbytery has declared that “the Confession itself uses the term
‘elect’ to speak of only those who have been unchangeably chosen by
God for eternal salvation… The Confessional understanding of election
does not allow for the view that a person can be ‘elect’ and, later,
‘unelect’” (LA Presbytery Ad Hoc Committee on Federal Vision
Theology Final Report and Recommendations, adopted July 2005). But
TE Wilkins teaches the very doctrine that the Louisiana Presbytery has
forbidden. 2.
In its
teaching on apostasy, the Louisiana Presbytery officially requires
teaching on the visible/invisible church and on perseverance that TE
Wilkins plainly contradicts. According to the LA Presbytery, one must
acknowledge “the reality of apostasy, that a person can be a member of
the visible church and fall away and thus loose the real benefits of
belonging to God’s people, the real loss of external Covenant
blessings claimed through being a member of the visible church through
baptism.” 3.
The Louisiana
Presbytery states that the Confession “does not accommodate a view
that an individual can have a vital, internalized relationship with the
Lord and lose it.” But this is TE Wilkins’ explicit teaching. 4.
The Louisiana
Presbytery admits that TE Wilkins’ teaching on baptism has “led to
confusion,” and has exhorted him “to clarify/reformulate his
teachings to define them more precisely,” but it has specified no
remedy to the harm – potential or real – produced by TE Wilkins’
published teaching. Whereas
a failure
to uphold the doctrines of Scripture as summarized in our Standards
threatens the purity and peace of the Church; Therefore,
be it
resolved that the Central Carolina Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church
in America sends this memorial to the Standing Judicial Commission of
the Presbyterian Church in America to assume jurisdiction over the
investigation of TE Steven Wilkins’ teaching, (BCO 34-1 &
SJC Manual 18), in order to preserve the PCA’s commitment to sound
doctrine, protect our reputation for faithfulness to God’s Word, and
secure peace within our denomination. Additionally,
in the event that the Standing Judicial Committee declines to accept
original jurisdiction over the investigation of TE Steven Wilkins’
teaching, then the Central Carolina Presbytery hereby petitions the
Standing Judicial Commission to cite Louisiana Presbytery to appear per BCO
40-5 and SJC Manual 16. Adopted by Attested by /s/
David Frierson, Clerk of Presbytery 1. The Standing Judicial Commission, at its meeting of March 3, 2006, voted
to cite Louisiana Presbytery to appear in person pursuant to BCO
40-5 and appointed a Committee consisting of TE Paul Fowler, TE Steven
Clark, and RE Frederick Neikirk to organize appropriate materials and
prepare for the hearing on the matter. 2. The Committee received the relevant documents (SJCM 16-3) and provided
the SJC with various relevant writings and presentations relevant to the
matters contained in the Memorial. 3. On August 15, 2006, the representative of Louisiana Presbytery raised an
objection to the SJC’s consideration of the Memorial. 4. On October 19, 2006, the Standing Judicial Commission heard a
presentation from the representative of Louisiana Presbytery relative to
the objection. The SJC voted not to sustain the objection for the
reasons attached at the end of this report. (See Appendix) 5. The Representative from Louisiana Presbytery then responded to the
citation from the SJC and responded to questions from the members of the
SJC. 6. The SJC went into closed session and adopted the following statement of
issues, judgment, and reasoning, opinion, and amends. Statement of the
Issues 1) Does the Memorial
raise questions of sufficient gravity that we are led to conclude that
the allegations, if true, are likely “hostile to the system of
doctrine” and “strike at the vitals of religion?” (BCO
20-4) 2) If so, does the
Memorial sufficiently represent the relevant writings of TE Wilkins on
the matters at hand so as to raise appropriately the concerns that are
alleged in the Memorial? 3) If so, then it is
incumbent on Louisiana Presbytery to show how it investigated those
views; how and on what basis they concluded those views were consistent
with The Westminster Standards and the published
declarations of Louisiana Presbytery; and how, to the extent necessary,
they demanded corrective action and sought to make sure that any
erroneous views that were previously published are clarified, thus
protecting the peace and purity of the Church. Judgment 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) It is the conclusion
of the Standing Judicial Commission that Louisiana Presbytery has not
demonstrated either by formal records or informal recollections that it
has “with due diligence and great discretion” (BCO 31-2)
dealt with the allegations that TE Steven TE Wilkins’ views are out of
accord at key points with the system of doctrine as summarized in the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms,
which are “standard expositions of the teachings of Scripture in
relation to both faith and practice.” (BCO 29-1, 39-3) As a
result, Presbytery has not met its responsibilities under BCO
13-9.f and 40-4, 5, and thus has not adequately protected the peace and
purity of the Church. Reasoning,
Opinion, and Amends I. The Standing Judicial
Commission cites the following as examples of the lack of diligence on
the part of Louisiana Presbytery. a. The committee charged
with investigating the views of TE Wilkins kept no minutes and has no
transcript, or even a detailed summary of its examination of TE Wilkins. b. The Committee, by its
own admission, did not consider a number of TE Wilkins’ writings and
published presentations. During his presentation to the SJC,
Presbytery’s representative candidly expressed grave concerns over
several writings he has reviewed subsequent to the Committee’s final
report to the Presbytery. c. Neither the Committee
nor Presbytery held a face-to-face meeting with TE Wilkins to examine
his views. d. The Presbytery, as a
court, did not examine TE Wilkins. e. The Committee’s
report dealt with the “Federal Vision” generally rather than the
specific views of TE Wilkins. f. The Committee’s
report (which was adopted by Presbytery) contains no explicit rationale
for the conclusion that TE Wilkins “appears to be within the
Confession and the System of doctrine contained therein” and that
“Rev. Steve TE Wilkins be publicly exonerated by Louisiana Presbytery
and declared to be faithful to the Confessional standards of the PCA.” g. Presbytery did not
respond to the specific concerns about TE Wilkins’ views that were
raised in the original communication from Central Carolina Presbytery
(dated January 22, 2005). h. Even in areas where
Presbytery expressed concern about TE Wilkins’ views the Presbytery
did not mandate that correction and clarification be issued so as to
insure there was no harm to the peace and purity of the churches within
the Presbytery or the Church at large. i. The Respondent for
Presbytery conceded that TE Wilkins in his writings and published
presentations uses terms differently from the way they are generally
understood in the Westminster Confession and Larger and Shorter
Catechisms and therefore is required to explain and define his
terms and the usage of terms in this manner is harmful to the peace and
purity of the Church. II. The Standing
Judicial Commission hereby specifies the following amends. That, as Louisiana
Presbytery has not completed an adequate examination of TE Wilkins’
views, the Standing Judicial Commission hereby finds that the matters be
redressed (BCO 40-5, para. 2, clause 1; cf., SJCM 16.9(a); BCO
14-6, a-b) by the following: a. That Louisiana
Presbytery, as a court, examine TE Wilkins on the specific concerns
raised by the Central Carolina Memorial and matters raised herein; that
this examination be conducted in the light of the theology and concepts
of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and
Shorter Catechisms, which are “standard expositions of the
teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and practice” (BCO
29-1, 39-3); and that this examination be conducted after Presbytery has
made itself familiar with all writings referenced by the Central
Carolina Memorial as well as pertinent published materials containing TE
Wilkins’ views on the matters raised herein. b. That this examination
be recorded, and in light of the seriousness of the issues, that the
examination should be transcribed, and that the Presbytery and any
committee charged to help Presbytery prepare for the examination keep
full and accurate records and minutes. c. That d. That Presbytery adopt
formal responses to the specific concerns raised in the Memorial, with
rationale and evidence for those responses. e. That Presbytery
specifically note any area of TE Wilkins’ views or his choice of terms
to explain his views that are inconsistent with the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms (BCO
29-1, 39-3) and how it will require TE Wilkins to redress those
inconsistencies (BCO 21-5, vow 4). f. That these directions
be accomplished and reported to the Standing Judicial Commission no
later than February 16, 2007, for final review. III. Finally, the SJC
reminds Louisiana Presbytery that, should it find that it cannot comply
with the stipulations of this redress, it may request by Reference (BCO
41-3) that General Assembly assume jurisdiction in the matter. All
matters dealing with this opinion were written by the full Standing
Judicial Commission. The decision was adopted
on October 20. 2006 with a vote of 17 concurring. There were 7
commissioners absent. TE
Dominic A. Aquila Absent TE
Howell (Howie) A. Burkhalter Concur TE
TE
Stephen M. Clark Absent RE
M. C. (Cub) Culbertson Concur RE
Perry Denniston Concur RE
J. Howard (Howie)
Donahoe Absent RE
Samuel J. (Sam) TE
Paul B. Fowler Concur TE
William W. Harrell Jr. Concur RE
Terry L. Jones Absent TE
Paul D. Kooistra Concur RE
Thomas F. Leopard Concur TE
John M. McArthur, Jr. Concur RE
J. Grant McCabe Concur TE
Charles E. McGowan Absent TE
D. Steven Meyerhoff Concur RE
Frederick Neikirk Concur RE
Steven T. O’Ban Concur TE
Michael M. Rico Absent TE
Michael F. Ross Absent RE
John Tolson Concur RE
John B. White, Jr. Concur RE
W. Jack Williamson Concur Appendix Response
to Objection Standing
Judicial Commission Presbyterian
Church in In
re Memorial of Ruling
and Rationale on Respondent’s Objections to the Proceedings
In a letter dated August
15, 2006, from the Respondent’s appointed representative, Louisiana
Presbytery raised objections to the proceedings in this matter. These
objections related to (1) materials included in the documents reviewed
by the members of the Standing Judicial Commission in preparation for
the hearing and (2) to the scope of the review being undertaken by the
SJC in response to the Memorial. Following a
hearing on these objections, the SJC ruled as follows: The objections raised by
TE Davis (Respondent’s appointed representative) are not sustained. We
conclude that the published writings and transcriptions of public
presentations of TE Wilkins generated prior to July, 2005, are properly
and necessarily before the SJC. We further conclude that the members of
the SJC have the right to consider broader writings on the matters at
hand should they so desire. We also conclude that the question of how
and on what basis Louisiana Presbytery reached its decisions/judgments
on the matters noted in the Memorial are properly before the SJC under BCO
13-9.f; 40-4, 40-5 and SJCM 16.1. Rationale:
Respondent’s
representative asserted that this matter should be dismissed: (1)
because documents provided to the SJC members for review prior to the
hearing exceeded the scope of documents described as “relevant
documents” under SJC manual 16.3 and (2) because the materials
suggested the SJC would inquire beyond the bare “proceedings” of the
lower court in contradiction to BCO 40-5. We find that neither
contention has merit. 1. When considering a memorial, the documents to be considered by the
SJC are not limited to the “relevant documents” prepared and
submitted by the presbytery. Respondent has asserted
that the only documents the SJC may consider in hearing a memorial are
the “relevant documents” described in SJC Manual 16.3. In support of
this argument, the Respondent equates the hearing of a memorial to the
hearing of a judicial case, in which a judgment may only be rendered on
the basis of the record of the case. However, this comparison is
incorrect, because SJC Manual 16.4 specifically states that the hearing
of a memorial “shall not be conducted as a formal judicial case….” Further, where the
matter alleged is a serious irregularity in the proceedings of the lower
court, there is a high likelihood that its records will not fully
reflect the error. BCO 40-4 anticipates such circumstances,
recognizing that a lower court may …neglect
to perform their duty, by which neglect heretical opinions or corrupt
practices may be allowed to gain ground … or some circumstances in
their proceedings of very great irregularity may not be distinctly
recorded by them. In any of these cases their records will by no
means exhibit to the higher court a full view of their proceedings.
(emphasis added). In such cases, it is
incumbent upon the reviewing court to investigate beyond the lower
court’s records, …[i]f,
therefore, the next higher court be well advised that any such neglect
or irregularity has occurred on the part of the lower court, it is
incumbent upon it to take notice of the same and to examine and judge in
the whole matter as completely as if it had been recorded . . . .” (BCO
40-4). In the matter before the
SJC it is alleged that Louisiana Presbytery failed to fulfill its
responsibility to demand with “due diligence and great discretion” (BCO
31-2) an accounting from TE Wilkins regarding views alleged to be “in
flagrant violation of our Standards.” Further, it is alleged
that this failure threatens the peace and purity of the church. As such,
this matter is squarely within the circumstances contemplated by BCO
40-4, and Respondent’s contention that documents beyond those supplied
by the presbytery should not be considered has no merit.1 2. The review allowed by a memorial brought under BCO 40-5 extends
beyond bare procedural steps taken by the presbytery under scrutiny. The Respondent further
contends that the language of BCO 40-5 limits any review under
the provision to matters of “procedure.” We are not persuaded that
“any important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings”
(BCO 40-5; cf., SJCM 16.1) means the same thing as
“procedure”, if by procedure one means “what steps were taken or
in what order were they taken.” The terms “any
important delinquency or grossly unconstitutional proceedings” must,
in our judgment, go to the question of whether a lower court has
“entirely neglect[ed] to perform their duty” (BCO 40-4) or
has performed that duty improperly. The Central Carolina Memorial
reminds us that presbyteries are charged “to condemn erroneous
opinions which injure the purity and peace of the Church.” (BCO
13-9.f) The Memorial then alleges a number of points at which, in the
opinion of Central Carolina Presbytery, the teachings of TE Wilkins are
at odds with the teachings of the Westminster Confession of Faith and
Larger and Shorter Catechisms which, as BCO 29-1 and 39-3
note, are “accepted by the Presbyterian Church in America as standard
expositions of the teachings of Scripture in relation to both faith and
practice.” The Memorial then points out that Louisiana Presbytery
“exonerated and approved the teaching of TE Wilkins as ‘faithful to
the Confessional Standards of the PCA’.” It is the allegation of
Central Carolina Presbytery that this exoneration was “contrary to
[Louisiana Presbytery’s] obligation to uphold The Westminster
Standards” and in contradiction to “its own published
declarations regarding the acceptable boundaries of teaching.” It is
this allegation that Louisiana Presbytery, in exonerating TE Wilkins,
failed to carry out its duties under BCO 13-9.f and 40-4 that
comprises the alleged “important delinquency or grossly
unconstitutional proceedings” specified in BCO 40-5. In that broader sense,
then, what is before the SJC is about “proceedings.” For
example “How did Louisiana Presbytery reach its decision to exonera TE
Wilkins?” “How and on what basis did Louisiana Presbytery conclude
that the specific teachings of TE Wilkins that were mentioned in the
Memorial (most of which were also mentioned in the communication from
Central Carolina Presbytery to Louisiana Presbytery of January 22, 2005)
are consistent with the relevant sections of The Westminster Standards?”
“How and on what basis did Louisiana Presbytery reach its conclusion
that TE Wilkins’ views are consistent with the specific declarations
of Presbytery regarding the acceptable boundaries of teaching?” “On
what basis did Louisiana Presbytery, having determined that TE
Wilkins’ teaching on baptism has ‘led to confusion’ and thus
having urged him to ‘clarify/reformulate his teachings to define them
more precisely,’ determine it was not necessary to specify any remedy
‘to the harm - potential or real - produced by TE Wilkins’ published
teaching’?” Each of these examples is drawn from specifications in
the Central Carolina Memorial. Each can be answered only in the context
of an understanding of TE Wilkins’ writings, an understanding of The
Westminster Standards as “standard expositions of
Scripture” for the PCA, and an understanding of what Louisiana
Presbytery did and how they did it in reaching their decisions/judgments
on these matters. Part
II Additional Facts October 30, 2006
The decision of the Standing Judicial Commission in Part I of
this report is communicated to Louisiana Presbytery. December 8, 2006
The Chairman of the Examinations and Candidates Committee of
Louisiana Presbytery e-mails to members of Presbytery thirty-seven (37)
pages of written responses from TE Wilkins to questions posed to him by
members of Presbytery. (ROC 31-66) December 9, 2006
Louisiana Presbytery, at a called meeting, conducts an oral
examination of TE Wilkins. The oral examination is led by members of
Presbytery’s Examinations and Candidates Committee. The examination,
lasting approximately three (3) hours, covers each of the major points
raised in the Central Carolina Memorial. Members of Presbytery in
attendance have opportunity to ask questions after each section of the
examination. The entire examination is recorded and transcribed, with
the transcription running one hundred, nineteen (119) pages. (ROC 13 and
68-186) During
this meeting, Presbytery receives a one (1) page statement of exceptions
from TE Wilkins. (ROC 13 and 14) TE
Wilkins is asked if any “writings that were referenced by the Central
Carolina Memorial as well as pertinent published materials containing
your views on the matters raised here” were not available to members
of Presbytery. TE Wilkins replied that he did not know of any. (ROC 186) TE
Wilkins is asked if he has changed his views since his ordination on the
areas specified in the Memorial. TE Wilkins stated that he had not. (ROC
13) The
Examinations and Candidates Committee is charged with preparing a report
based on the examination. The report is to be approved by Presbytery at
its January meeting. (ROC 13) January 20, 2007 Presbytery, at its January stated
meeting, hears the report of the Examinations and Candidates Committee.
The Committee reports it has been unable to reach agreement on a
recommendation to Presbytery. The Committee reports four (4) options to
Presbytery. Presbytery
adopts the following motion. “[T]hat Louisiana Presbytery, after
thorough examination and investigation of TE Wilkins as per the SJC
directives regarding allegations made in the Central Carolina Presbytery
Memorial, finds no strong presumption of guilt in any of the charges
contained therein and exercises its prerogative not to institute process
regarding these allegations.” The vote was thirteen (13) in favor and
eight (8) opposed, with four (4) presbyters asking that their negative
votes be recorded. (ROC 5, 15) Presbytery
adopts as its grounds the written and oral examinations of TE Wilkins on
December 9, 2006. (ROC 15) February 1, 2007
Presbytery, through its stated clerk, reports that Presbytery has
been unable to perfect a final report with regard to its action in
sustaining the examination of TE Wilkins. Presbytery asks for an
extension on the response deadline established by the SJC. February 15, 2007
TE James Jones complains against Presbytery’s action in
sustaining TE Wilkins’ examination and finding no strong presumption
of guilt against him. (ROC 5-10, 11) February 20, 2007
TE Howard Davis files a dissent with regard to Presbytery’s
action in sustaining the examination of TE Wilkins. (ROC 11, 16, 17-23). March 1, 2007
The officers of the Standing Judicial Commission agree to extend
to April 28, 2007, the deadline for Louisiana Presbytery to comply with
the directives of the Standing Judicial Commission. April 21, 2007
By a vote of ten (10) to eight (8), Presbytery votes to deny the
complaint of TE Jones, citing as its rationale the oral and written
examinations of TE Wilkins. Presbytery also adopts a personal resolution
“as the rationale reflecting the basis of a majority of Presbyters who
found no strong presumption of guilt of TE Wilkins being out of accord
with the Confessional Standards.” (ROC 1, 16, 187-206) April 21, 2007
Presbytery receives the dissent of TE Howard Davis and appoints a
presbyter to file “an answer to be recorded to the dissent on behalf
of Presbytery.” (ROC 11, 16, 17-23). April 25, 2007
Presbytery submits the written and transcribed oral examination
of TE Wilkins and the statement of the supporting rationale of
Presbytery to the Standing Judicial Commission in fulfillment of the
requirements set forth by the SJC. May 7, 2007
TE Jones carries his complaint to General Assembly. The complaint
is signed by six (6) other presbyters. (ROC 1-3) May 22, 2007
The answer to the dissent of TE Davis is filed on behalf of
Presbytery. (ROC 11, 24-30) Statement of the
Issues 1) Did Louisiana
Presbytery comply with the directive of the Standing Judicial Commission
that it, “with due diligence and great discretion” (BCO
31-2) deal with the allegations that TE Steven TE Wilkins’ views are
out of accord at key points with the system of doctrine as summarized in
the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter
Catechisms, which are “standard expositions of the teachings of
Scripture in relation to both faith and practice” (BCO 29-1,
39-3) by carrying out the amends specified by the Standing Judicial
Commission in Section II of the “Reasoning, Opinion, and Amends”
portion of Part I of this report? 2) Did Louisiana
Presbytery reach a decision consistent with the Constitution of the
Presbyterian Church in Judgment 1) Yes. 2) No - See the
judgment, reasoning and opinion in case 2007-8, TE James Jones, Jr.,
et al., vs. Louisiana Presbytery, in particular Judgment 2. Amends - Pursuant to BCO
40-5 the Standing Judicial Commission hereby cites Louisiana Presbytery
to appear “to show what it has done or failed to do in the case in
question.” To implement this process, RE Samuel J. Duncan is hereby
appointed to: a) serve as prosecutor in this matter and conduct the
case, which is designated as Case 2007-14; b) select Assistant
Prosecutors from members of the General Assembly to assist him with this
matter; c) draw an indictment to be served upon Louisiana Presbytery,
with the circumstances and specifications therein not being limited to
those raised in 2006-02 and 2007-8; d) prepare a citation instructing
Louisiana Presbytery to respond, in writing or at a called meeting of
the Standing Judicial Commission, to the indictment and to enter its
plea to the matters contained therein not later than February 1, 2008. (BCO
40-6, 31-2, 32-3) If Louisiana Presbytery enters a plea of “not
guilty,” then Louisiana Presbytery is directed to appear, through its
representatives, for trial in this matter before the Standing Judicial
Commission on March 5, 2008 (BCO 40-5, 40-6, 31-2, 32-3). Reasoning 1) The written
examination of TE Wilkins and the transcribed oral examination of TE
Wilkins demonstrate that Louisiana Presbytery carried out the directive
of the SJC that Louisiana Presbytery, as a court, examine TE Wilkins on
the specific concerns raised by the Central Carolina Memorial; that the
examination be conducted in light of the theology and concepts of the Westminster
Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms; that
Presbytery make itself familiar with the writings of TE Wilkins that
were referenced in the Central Carolina Memorial, as well as other
pertinent published materials containing TE Wilkins’ views on the
matters raised by the Memorial; and that Presbytery determine whether TE
Wilkins had changed any of his views on the areas specified in the
Memorial since his ordination. The record also shows that Presbytery
adopted formal responses to the specific concerns raised by the
Memorial, with rationale and evidence for those responses. While some
members of Presbytery took issue with TE Wilkins’ views and/or his
choice of terms to explain those views, the majority of Presbytery found
TE Wilkins to be in accord with the Constitution. As such, they did not
require him to redress any inconsistencies. While not all of the above
actions were finalized by the date originally set by the Standing
Judicial Commission, it is clear that Presbytery made a good faith
effort in this regard, which fact was noted by the officers in their
decision to grant Presbytery additional time to comply. In view of the
above, we find that Louisiana Presbytery met the procedural requirements
established by the Standing Judicial Commission in Part I of this
decision. 2) Whether the decisions
of Louisiana Presbytery are, in substance, in keeping with the
Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in In case 2007-8, the
Standing Judicial Commission found that the record supported a probable
finding that Louisiana Presbytery erred, and thereby violated BCO
13-9.f, 40-4, and 40-5, when it failed to find a strong presumption of
guilt that the views of TE Steve TE Wilkins were out of conformity with
the Constitutional tandards. As such, the SJC continues to conclude that
there is a strong presumption that Presbytery has not met its
Constitutional responsibilities, and thus has not adequately protected
the peace and purity of the Church (see Part I of this opinion). For
these reasons the concerns raised by the Memorial from Central Carolina
Presbytery continue to be before us. Since this case did not
arise under BCO 34-1, and given that Louisiana Presbytery has
declined to request by Reference (BCO 41-3) that General
Assembly assume jurisdiction in this matter, it must be stressed that
what is before the SJC is not allegations against TE Wilkins per se.
Rather, what is before the SJC is whether Louisiana Presbytery has dealt
adequately and constitutionally with those views. The conclusion of case
2007-8 is that there is a reasonable presumption that Presbytery has not
so done. We conclude that the best way to address this presumption, to
preserve the peace and purity of the Church, to bring closure to this
issue within a reasonable time frame, and to give Presbytery the fairest
opportunity to vindicate itself by explaining and defending its actions
is to follow the procedure of BCO 40-5 and BCO 40-6.
It is for this reason that we mandate the amends noted above. The opinion was written
by TE Howell Burkhalter, TE Paul Fowler, TE Stephen Clark, TE Dewey
Roberts, RE Frederick Neikirk, RE Steven O’Ban and RE Tom Leopard October 19, 2007 The
SJC notes that the materials reviewed by the SJC included only the
“relevant documents” provided by the Respondent and writings or
transcripts of teaching of TE Wilkins that the Respondent admitted were
or should have been available to the presbytery as it conducted its
investigation. The SJC does not agree that other materials had to be
excluded from consideration; however, many of the materials objected to
by the Respondent were removed prior to receipt of the objection to
avoid any appearance of prejudice. Further,
to the extent that the SJC’s response to this Memorial turns on
theological and polity understandings, members of the SJC must have the
right to consider various theological materials relevant to the issues
at hand. It is hard to see how they could do otherwise. Even if this
were a formal judicial case we would expect that members of the SJC
would be consulting relevant theological works and bringing the insights
from those works to bear on the SJC’s deliberations.
|