This is a comment I made over at Green Baggins:
And I claim no special knowledge of things BCO. What I do claim to know is that Steve Wilkins is a minister in good standing in the PCA, and hence his bad standing in the PCA cannot justly be used against Louisiana Presbytery. That doesn’t mean the deal won’t still go down — looks like all the gears are in motion to me, and I bet you two dollars that there will be an official looking reference to point to in order to keep people bumfuzzled, and to keep them from looking at what is actually happening.
“Now LAP is technically on trial for violating the BCO. That said, Wilkins’ errant theology does figure prominently in the case.” Your own words make my point for me. Technically on trial? I see. So what are they really on trial for? What is really going on? You gave it away in the next sentence — Wilkins’ errant theology. Okay. So when will that errant theology be legally established so that it can be legally used against Louisiana Presbytery? “Oh, we don’t have to do that because Louisiana is technically on trial for putting up with Wilkins, who hasn’t technically been found guilty, but that, of course, is a mere technicality. We all know in our hearts that he is.” Wilkins is guilty! Where? Down in our hearts!
One of the things that you all will have to come to grips with is that many in the Reformed world know exactly what play you are running, and have every intention of watching you do it. The fix is in. Biblical justice and due process are clearly not being honored, and it looks to me like the charade will simply be brazened out.
But I can assure you that it will not occur without a running color commentary from me. After you run your play, we are all going to watch the replay a hundred times, including the tape of the referee who hath eyes to see, and seeth not, and I am going to be John Madden, drawing x’s and o’s all over that thing. And I will have some particularly ripe comments to go with it. It is a subject worthy of my peculiar talents.