Saturday, February 09, 2008
-
LaP hardens
At a special called meeting of the Louisiana Presbytery (LaP) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) today, Feb. 9, 2008, in Pineville, La, the LaP's opposition to the so-called "Federal Vision" theology (defended by its proponents here) solidified considerably.
For the background to this meeting, see my story of the LaP's Jan. 19 meeting. My story is discussed in detail at the greenbaggins blog here. The weekend following
that Jan. 19 meeting, the focus of that meeting, Rev. Steve Wilkins, left, pastor of the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church (AAPC) in Monroe, LA, left the PCA along with his church, rather than face a possible trial of his views before the PCA's highest court, the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC). Their departure from the PCA is discussed by the greenbaggins blog here. After word of the departure of Wilkins and AAPC was duly reported to the PCA's SJC, that body voted not to dismiss the charges against the LaP, over its alleged failure to deal with Wilkins views properly, which charges are, again, discussed in detail in my Jan. 19 story and will not be rehashed here.
When LaP officers learned they were still subject to charges before the SJC, they called the meeting for today. The main purpose of the meeting today was to prepare for a defense to these charges still pending and arrange to appear for the trial March 6 in Atlanta. The SJC prosecutor, Sam Duncan, was a guest at our meeting. He stated that he had taken the position with the SJC that the remaining charge -- of failing to follow proper procedures in dealing with Rev. Wilkins -- was moot and should be dropped, but that he got outvoted when the SJC voted to retain the charge and proceed with the trial.
There followed some interesting discussion about what punishment the SJC might mete out for such procedural failures, if LaP were convicted by the SJC, but no one seemed to have much insight on that. Prosecutor Duncan declined to make a prediction.
Mr. A.C. Christman moved to change the LaP's plea to guilty, to avoid a trial, suggesting the only punishment would be an admonishment. The motion failed by a tie vote of 5/5. A new motion, to send a 2-page summary of the documents showing proper procedures had been followed, to the SJC in support of our not-guilty plea, barely passed by a vote of 6/5. Rev. Dr. James A. Jones was elected to represent the LaP at the SJC trial. Rev. Steven Wright was elected to attend the SJC trial as a defense witness.
Prosecutor Duncan said he intended to resign as the prosecutor, and suggested a more hardnosed prosecutor would likely succeed him.
Also attending the Feb. 9 meeting was Rev. Duane Garner, an assistant pastor at AAPC who had not pulled out of the PCA along with his lead pastor and church. Rev. Garner filed a request with the LaP to "labor out of bounds" at AAPC, now that it is no longer in the PCA. A motion to refer that request to the LaP's Pastoral Care Committee failed. There was a lengthy discussion over the implications of Rev. Garner's continuation in the PCA while presumably continuing to adhere to the "Federal Vision" theology. His request to "labor out of bounds" failed by a tie vote of 7/7. Then a motion passed by a bare 6/5 vote to require Rev. Garner to report by the next stated LaP meeting on the extent of his adherence to the PCA's constitutional standards.
It was a very interesting meeting. However, I was very glad my wife Becky went with me, if for no other reason than that I slept most of the way back with her driving. But we also had a very nice lunch at The Landing Restaurant & Bar, right, in Natchitoches, LA, on the way back. That town name is pronounced "Nakatish," for you non-cajuns.
And, of course, she's always very sweet to be with.
-
recommend
- recs 0
- give stars
- votes 0
-
email
- sent 0
Post a Comment
- Back to HaigLaw's Xanga Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in HaigLaw's local time zone: GMT -06:00 (Central Standard - US, Canada)
Comments (15)
You forgot to mention that part where Mr. Sam Duncan admitted that it was impossible for anyone in Louisiana Presbytery to receive a fair trial before the SJC.
I would think that little item might be particularly newsworthy.It would be more considerate, I believe, to not list e-mail addresses in your blog without their owners' permission. I'm sure they get enough spam already.
Thanks for your blog. That's an astonishing comment in response to Duane Garner's. You're agreeing with Rev. Garner that the SJC appointed prosecutor stated/suggested/implied (which?) that no one from the LAP could receive a 'fair trial' before the SJC? That's awfully hard to reconcile with the way one trusts that things are done.
Since Sam has asked that these comments not be quoted directly, but that his sentiments could be, how would you characterize those sentiments? Is this how others heard this as well?
Many thanks.
Were you at the meeting and were you one of the men voting?
Txs,
Mike
@JT - I apologize for that, and will be happy to remove any links to anyone's email who does not want to be contacted. I had assumed that the presbytery's email directory was public information.
@Camberwellian - Thanks for your inquiry. I posted this reply to a blog from Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church focusing on Sam Duncan's comments, and will re-post it here:
Nice job of converting my blog to a pdf. I have no intention of changing my comment quoted.
The intent of my piece was to document how the LaP has hardened, not whether or how the SJC has hardened.
The comments of Mr. Duncan were couched in terms of referring to published dissents of his.
In legal matters, dissents are not considered highly authoritative sources, much less verbal offhand comments about dissents in speeches at meetings where the comments are not acted upon. In other words -- in case I am not making myself clear -- to quote Sam Duncan in this manner is to grab at straws.
-HaigLaw (xanga.com/haiglaw)
The AAPC blog I refer to is found at:
http://jeffreyjmeyers.blogspot.com/2008/02/pca-sjc-prosecutor-speaks.html
@Mike - Yes, Mike, I was. Thanks for your inquiry.
@Duane - OK, I stand corrected, and apologize to Jeff Meyers for misstating where his blog comes from. I should have said it was a blog defending AAPC, not from AAPC. Apparently, the only way I can correct a mistake in a reply comment is to delete it entirely, and if I were to repost it again, corrected, it would be out of order, and create confusion. So I am leaving the erroneous comment, with this correction.
I have repeatedly stated that I am new to the LA Presbytery, and am back in the PCA after a hiatus of 23 years, because I lived in a place where there was no PCA work nearby.
So I am just getting to know the players in this controversy and will inevitably make mistakes about who is who. Apologies for that.
As for the link to your email, Duane, I have removed it.
As for the significance of Sam Duncan's remarks, anyone is free to judge for themselves. I remain of the view that to quote him in attacking the SJC is grabbing at straws, for the reasons I've stated. He stated an opinion. That does not make it so. I remain hopeful that the SJC will arrive at a fair decision.
Brother, I just want to thank you for your "fair & accurate" reporting.
And for putting your xanga to good use!
Mark, thx for your insightful questions. I meant "hardening" in the sense of firming up its opposition to Federal Vision, but I suppose most of the article is about firming up its defense of its not-guilty plea. So maybe it's a double entendre. I did not mean hardening in the sense of stiff-necked. But maybe that's the way SJC will take it. :)
Oh, as to what to make of Mr. Duncan's comments, I have now read the two dissents he referred to and neither of them says anything about whether a party from LA can get a fair trial at the SJC. I called him today and talked on the phone a while, but I still don't understand all this.
I think "fair trial" is used by the FVers in a different sense than I would use it. They seem to be using it in the sense that the SJC or GA might reconsider and re-evaluate FV from scratch every time a case comes up involving FV theology. I think that's not likely. That's why we have what we call "precedents" in the law.
What if, every time an adultery case came up, the court reconsidered whether adultery was wrong? Obviously, that makes no sense.
Otoh, what you have is a presbytery that for 6 years apparently had a majority vote favoring FV and now has a bare-majority vote opposing it.
How could or should the SJC punish such a presbytery? That is the question over which I'm expecting a "fair" decision. Not fair, in the sense that the members of the court have never considered the issues before. But fair in the sense of applying the law to a new set of facts impartially and consistent with church law and beliefs.