Yes, it is true. I do love analogies. Someone who is aware of this fact suggested a hot one to Lane over at Greenbaggins.
The Louisiana Presbytery’s exoneration of Steve Wilkins is like the Arizona Republican party exonerating John McCain.
In response, someone in the comments asked why we shouldn’t just accept the decision of the Louisiana Presbytery. And Lane answered with this:
Because the denomination has passed the report, the field looks different. Secondly, the presbytery is quite simply not the final court of appeal, the SJC is. This has needed to get to the SJC for ages now. Thirdly, about a third of the LP voted against the exoneration. Fourthly, other presbyteries have challenged the LP’s ruling. The only place this can be settled once and for all is the SJC.
A couple things. So, then, if the SJC comes down with a decision that FV-critics don’t like, then will it be settled “once and for all”? Or does that only work one way? Somehow I suspect it wouldn’t be settled at all. And that means that Lane and I actually agree that the SJC is not the “final court of appeal” — I can think of at least three senior courts off the top of my head. There is the judgment of the broader catholic Church, outside the denomination. There is the judgment of church history (where is Machen’s guilty verdict now? where is Luther’s?). And then of course, there is the judgment found at the throne of Christ at the Last Day. To call the determinations of an unpresbyterian entity like the SJC — “where the PCA GA outsources its justice!” — a “final court of appeal” is overstating it a bit. It is certainly a necessary part of the process because the PCA did decide to abandon historic presbyterian polity at this point, and it was all entered into the minutes and everything. But we still have to put the SJC into context.
And now to the matter of analogies and counter-analogies. You take something like Steve Wilkins being exonerated a couple of times by his presbytery, and, if you are a critic, you set that alongside a comparable situation, one that is discreditable to the object of your scorn. Thus you have McCain playing cozy with the Arizona Republicans. But, if you have a fertile mind, other parallels might spring to mind. Those close to a scoundrel might well have their reasons for maintaining a united front. Old boy networks do exist, like in Mississippi. And it is also true that those close to a godly minister of Christ are in the best position to identify all the lies that are being told about him. So Lane is not really going to fix the problem of “what people might say” about it simply by having Steve tried by his enemies instead of his friends.
And remember that we can just as easily say that the Louisiana Presbytery’s exoneration of Steve Wilkins is like the North Carolina Attorney General exonerating the Duke lacrosse players.