Bob Mattes continues to try to explain this thing. We are (possibly) coming up on the first actual trial in this mess, which we will have if Louisiana Presbytery pleads “not guilty.” But Louisiana Presbytery will head into that trial with the body trying her already holding to a “strong presumption of guilt.” Let’s put a couple of Bob’s assertions side by side:
“The PCA Standing Judicial Commission has determined that there is a strong presumption of guilt against Louisiana Presbytery.”
“If Louisiana Presbytery pleads “not guilty” it will receive a fair trial.”
Good luck, boys!
So the Commission already has a strong presumption of guilt concerning Louisiana. This is quite different than saying there are reasonable grounds for holding a trial. You can indict someone and still hold to the presumption of innocence. In fact, that is when it is most necessary that you do so.
And the Commission holds to this strong presumption of guilt because the Commission had seen that Louisiana came up with the wrong answer on Wilkins. The Commission, you see, already had the right answer on Wilkins without trying him, or talking to him, or any of that old-fashioned stuff. So the strong presumption of Wilkins’ guilt (with no trial!) is the basis of the strong presumption of guilt for Louisiana (with no trial!), which presumption will be draped around Louisiana’s neck in preparation for her sacri. . . er, trial.
Bob makes much of the fact that I am not in the PCA. But I am writing under my own name, unlike some of the authorities he cites, and I am doing so as a good friend of many faithful men in the PCA, Steve Wilkins among them. And what kind of friend would I be if I saw this wretched business being conducted in the plain light of day, having the resources to point out what was happening, but refusing for some bizarre reason to say anything? I would be no kind of a friend at all.
So answer the questions. No hand waving. No appeals to thousands of Spirit-led men. No retreating to the refuge of having earned an M.Div. I would be prepared to be more impressed with that, but apparently courses in biblical justice are not required for the M.Div. anymore. You all are conducting a trial with the accused going into it with a “strong presumption of guilt,” and this in its turn is based on a “strong presumption” of Wilkins’ guilt, and all without any trials! Explain that. And if you insist of proceeding with this plate of jurisprudential corned beef hash, then the damage done to the PCA will not be the result of my “acerbic pen.” The real problem you have with my writing is not the tartness that comes from it — it is a simple matter of justice.