Okay, I want to go up the stairs one at a time here. Discussion of the ins and outs of this is continuing over here, for those who are interested.
Let’s begin with first principles — the basic one being the presumption of innocence for the accused. This is not some secular American ideal that I am trying to drag out of our secular courts, imposing it on our church courts. Rather, this is a basic principle of biblical justice, codified under Moses, and reiterated for the times of the New Covenant. Our secular courts got it from us, and we don’t recognize our own legacy anymore. When Scripture says, as it does in multiple places, that every accusatory fact must be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses (Dt. 17:6; 19:15; Matt. 18:16; 2 Cor. 13:1; 1 Tim. 5:19; Heb. 10:28), that the judges in a case must make diligent inquiry (Dt. 19:18), and that they must hold the accusers equally acccountable (Dt. 19:19), certain things follow from all this. Until a fact is established (guilt), it would follow that such a fact is not established (innocence). This means that in the Bible, innocence is the default position. A man is innocent until he is proven guilty. Just as the prohibition of stealing presupposes private property, the prohibition of adultery presupposes the institution of marriage, so the prohibition of conviction when you have too few witnesses, or contradictory witnesses, presupposes the innocence of the accused. This is the bedrock of biblical justice.
Secondly, the fact that the judges must make diligent inquiry means that (as in Dt. 19) they must be openly willing to be persuaded either way. The members of the SJC, in this case, would have to be openly willing to find that Louisiana Presbyery did in fact do everything they ought to have done.
And last, if a false witness comes forward, and his testimony is found to be false, then he is to be punished. But in order to punish him, you have to know his name. He is not allowed to give his testimony from the bushes, even if he is sworn in there (“Yes, I see that hand”). All testimony must be accountable testimony, and if the person giving it is not willing to venture his person, then his testimony is to be utterly discredited. In this unfolding case, to cite one of many examples, an egregious attack blog run by Mark T has been cited as evidence by at least two national leaders of the FV critics. This shows me what they consider to be adequate evidence, what they count as compelling testimony. No, thank you.
Okay, then. The innocence of the accused is a biblical principle, the objectivity of the judges is a biblical principle, and the accountability of the witnesses is a biblical principle.
So how did we get here? Bob Mattes yesterday defended himself by saying that “strong presumption of guilt” was a phrase that he used because it was in the BCO, put there to prevent frivolous charges from being brought. In other words, it was intended to set a high threshhold for indictment. But this just moves the problem back a step. It does mean that Bob is not a lone, rogue accuser in using this phrase, but it also means that danger of a miscarriage of justice is still very high. Why? He quotes the BCO thus:
31-2. It is the duty of all church Sessions and Presbyteries to exercise care over those subject to their authority. They shall with due diligence and great discretion demand from such persons satisfactory explanations concerning reports affecting their Christian character. This duty is more imperative when those who deem themselves aggrieved by injurious reports shall ask an investigation.
If such investigation, however originating, should result in raising a strong presumption of the guilt of the party involved, the court shall institute process, and shall appoint a prosecutor to prepare the indictment and to conduct the case. This prosecutor shall be a member of the court, except that in a case before the Session, he may be any communing member of the same congregation with the accused.
Bob then says,
“You mistake that ‘strong presumption of guilt’ phrase for being a bad thing. Actually, it is intended to protect members from frivolous charges and trials.”
Several things. I have already noted my objections to having such a commission exist in the first place, but given its existence, let’s work with it. Note that this section of the BCO is talking about Christian character issues. This is not to say that heresy charges are not a character issue, but rather to note that it is certainly much more complicated to determine if Wilkins is holding, say, to a non-confessional position on baptism than it is to determine if Rev. Smith ran off with the choir director’s wife. Heresy-character issues are not simpler than personal-character issues.
So if the use of the phrase “strong presumption of guilt” is defended as maintaining a high bar for indictment, then how is it to be explained that the SJC cleared that bar without interviewing Steve Wilkins? He denies the charges. He denies that he denies the Confession. His published views raise the question in the minds of some, sure. So, is his number not in the phone book? There has been great turmoil over all this. It is harder to determine if there is a strong presumption of guilt in such circumstances, right? Why was there not a corresponding higher effort to match the conditions of the case? The phrase strong presumption of guilt is intended, you say, to protect the accused. So why aren’t you protecting the accused? The use of this phrase in a complicated case like this — when the SJC did not interact directly with Steve Wilkins at all — is having exactly the opposite effect you say that it was intended to have. His rights have not been jealously protected by the system.
And this means, in short, that he has a strong presumption of guilt hovering over him, and that Lousiana Presbytery has a strong presumption of guilt also, without, as I have noted, any trials. Not only have there been no trials, there has not been even a cursory, informal discussion between Steve Wilkins and the Commission. Because of this, the presumption of innocence has several large holes in it, regardless of what the language of the BCO intended to accomplish.
Bob Mattes goes on:
“If Louisiana Presbytery pleads ‘not guilty’ it will receive a fair trial. It will have all the time it needs to cross-examine prosecution witnesses and to mount a forceful defense. It will not be prevented by the system from anything less, and in fact, it will be urged to mount the best defense it can. That’s the nature and guarantee of an orderly and open system. And the trial, if held, will be open to the public; it will not be held behind close doors. Justice and equity will rule supreme.
A just and equitable trial takes more than letting the defense say whatever it wants to. A just trial is based, not merely on what the defense is allowed to do on its own behalf, but centrally on what the court is allowed to do. As they hear the case, what can the SJC do in this? The man who tells us here that “justice and equity” will reign is the same man who boasted on his blog about how he leaned heavily on a witness under his authority in the military to get testimony more to his liking. And he openly applies the same tactic to Louisiana Presbytery — “if you know what’s good for you, then throw Steve off the sled.” If this is justice and equity, then it is whole lot creepier than I remember it. The man here who reassures us that justice and equity will prevail is one of the men who publicly accepts the testimony of the anonymous Mark T, contrary to one of the basic principles in Deuteronomy 19. Tell us, then, will Mark T be allowed to testify against Louisiana Presbyter in the upcoming trial, retaining his anonymity? Well, you might say, we don’t know that Mark T knows anything about Louisiana, or the situation. Right — and you don’t know whether he knows anything about Moscow either, but that didn’t even slow you down.
Several other things. As should be plain by now, I do not have an objection to “reasonable cause” thresholds for indictment. But reasonable cause for holding a trial is not the same thing as reasonable grounds for assuming guilt. They are not even remotely connected. In the civil realm, there should be reasonable cause for search warrants. In civil and ecclesiastical realms, there should be reasonable cause for an indictment. Given the circumstances, I do not object to a trial for Steve at all. When a man is indicted, no injustice is necessarily done — but a lot depends on how he is indicted.
The trial should have come from within the presbytery. Steve has opponents there. They should have brought charges. So if the SJC finds against Louisiana, the penalty should actually fall on those members of the presbytery who “knew” that there was a problem and refused to bring charges. The majority of the presbytery did not bring charges because they honestly did not believe they were warranted. But what of those men who “knew” they were warranted, and who refused to do anything, thus dragging the PCA through this interminable swamp? The one who knows what to do, and does not do it, for him it is sin.
Last point, and this is fundamental. Is Louisiana on trial for “failure to indict” or “failure to convict”? If the former, then if the SJC finds her guilty, then the requirement should then be to ensure that formal charges are brought against Steve at presbytery, a trial held, and then, as necessary, appealed. Or, as an alternative, the SJC could assume original jurisdiction, and hold a trial for Steve, starting from scratch, with Steve being given the presumption of innocence in that trial. The problem with this second option is seen in the manifest injustice of how the national leaders of the PCA stacked the study committee — as stacked as Dolly Parton after her new implants. If the SJC is stacked similarly, then Steve will just escorted through the motions of a trial, and in the aftermath, there would be no appeal.
If the latter, Louisiana found guilty of “failure to convict” — and this is the grave danger I have yelling about — then Louisiana will be convicted of “harboring Steve,” whatever that means, and Steve will be considered as guilty, without once having had his day in court. Without once being able to answer his accusers. Without once being allowed to present evidence on his own behalf. Anyone who doesn’t see this as a live possibility is just kidding himself. And anyone should be able to understand why those of us who see it as an unfolding play believe the way we do.
Enough for one morning.