Louisiana Presbytery Decision on Steve Wilkins
For those who are searching...
Louisiana Presbytery of the PCA recently posted the following on its web site:
Personally I am not surprised by this decision, though admit I am disappointed.
Louisiana Presbytery of the PCA recently posted the following on its web site:
On January 20, 2007, Louisiana Presbytery, exercising its authority and prerogative under BCO 31-2, passed the following motion pertaining to TE Steve Wilkins:
"Louisiana Presbytery, after thorough examination and investigation of TE Steve 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 those allegations." [Clerk's note: See BCO 31-2.]
"Grounds: See the written exam and oral exam of TE Steve Wilkins on December 9, 2006."
Personally I am not surprised by this decision, though admit I am disappointed.
I have no idea where this controversy will go from here, but will be surprised if it isn't a major issue at our General Assembly later this year.
I may write more later, but one quick thought: I don't understand why people whose views are (it seems to me) clearly out of alignment with historical Presbyterian doctrine would want to stay in a Presbyterian denomination. Why not leave peaceably? The PCA has no claim on their property. Why prolong the controversy, and how does doing so conform with the vow all elders take to uphold the peace and purity of the church? Baffling...
It wouldn't be baffling if you listened to what people said rather than what other people claim that they said.
Posted by
Mark |
1/29/07, 8:39 AM
Hi Mark,
I actually have read a very great deal of material from the Federal Vision camp.
Also I am actually very sympathetic to many of the concerns they have, in such areas as believers actually living and behaving like believers should.
The problem, as I've read their materials, is that instead of relying on the answers that are already there in our confessional standards they come up with new (but not really new) answers and then read them back into the confessional standards, so as to make the standards say something that they really don't.
The right thing to do is either petition through the proper church courts to have the standards re-written, or leave. I don't begrudge them either option.
Elders in my denomination, the PCA, who hold to Federal Vision views, but take neither of the above options are in violation of their vows to uphold the standards and to protect the peace and purity of the church.
Posted by
Martin |
2/1/07, 11:31 AM