I tried to make this point in the comments section over at Green Baggins, but it got lost somewhere in cyberville. So I’ll just amplify it, and make the point here.
There is a very deft move being made in the strategy against Louisiana Presbytery, and I would like everyone to be looking at it closely while it unfolds. Reformedmusings said this:
“Wilkins wasn’t and isn’t on trial. Now LAP is technically on trial for violating the BCO. That said, Wilkins’ errant theology does figure prominently in the case. You can read that clearly in the SJC’s decisions.”
Now here is the question. How can Wilkins’ errant theology figure prominently in the case when Wilkins’ “errant” theology has never been established in a trial? A trial, for those just joining us, is a quaint practice that Presbyterians used to employ, back before they learned the squeeze play.
Steve Wilkins is a minister of the PCA in good standing, and so nothing concerning him can justly be used against Louisiana Presbytery. In order for that good standing to be reversed, charges would have to be brought against Steve, a trial held, prosecution and defense both there and everything, a decision reached, and appropriate appeals made. But for an outside body to come against Louisiana Presbytery, and use as one of the points of prosecution against that Presbytery the fact that they declined to convict Wilkins of certain errors, with the outside body simply assuming that he is in fact guilty of those errors, is enough to make a cat laugh.
Water does not rise above its own level. Louisiana Presbytery cannot be guilty of covering for a guilty man — at least under Presbyterian polity — unless the guilt of that man has first been established in a trial. You cannot use what you have not first established. You lay the foundation, and then you build the house. You cannot haul out of your lusty syllogism a conclusion that the major premise containeth not, nor doth the minor.
The current proceedings are therefore about as presbyterian as Rowan Williams’ druidic beard. They are about as presbyterian as Bella Abzug’s nightgown. They are about as presbyterian — warming to the theme as I am — as Britany Spears, although, come to mention it, if you rearrange the letters of her name, it does spell Presbyterians, although it seems to me that you have to use the e twice. But since we are talking about the kind of Presbyterians who don’t mind fudging process, let us not quarrel about the double e. It is the result that matters!
The current proceedings are about as presbyterian as any thing we might do in our day at the zoo that gets all the chimps jumping. They are about as presbyterian as trying to pick up a turd by the clean end. They are about as presbyterian as some juke joint Jezebel trying to pick up a drunk salesman from Toledo. They are about as presbyterian as the fruit of the month club selection, with all the cherries.
I don’t want to belabor this point, or take it to extremes, so let us just leave it there. No, wait . . . I’ve got it now. This whole thing is about as presbyterian as a Standing Judicial Commission. Geez, maybe now I have gone too far. I’ll have to sleep on it.