I am grateful to be able to announce that Steve Wilkins has been cleared (for a second time) by his presbytery.
“Louisiana Presbytery, after thorough examination and investigation of TE Steve Wilkins as per the SJC directives regarding allegations made in the Central Carolina Presbytery Memorial, finds no strong presumption of guilt in any of the charges contained therein and exercises its prerogative not to institute process regarding those allegations” [Clerk’s note: See BCO 31-2.].
My understanding is that according to the process the PCA has set up for this, the Standing Judicial Commission has the automatic authority to review this decision. They are meeting sometime next month, and we shall see what they decide to do. If they take it up, their focus is to review the action of the presbytery, not the views held by Steve. But there is no way for them to do this without bringing into the picture what some are alleging that Steve teaches and holds. So this action by Louisiana Presbytery is an answer to prayer, but there is still something to pray about.
In this situation, the more public accountability the better. If the tangle is now resolved, then thank the Lord. But if it continues (through parliamentary chicanery, old-boy-network-pressure, or other means), then at some point there will be a stopping point, a trial. At that point, the accusers will have to make a case that depends on more than just bare assertions. If and when that happens, it would be good to have all eyes focused on the accusers, and for said accusers to have the mike turned on, and the tape running. Perhaps they have not thought this far out, but I don’t see why they are pressing for this. Those hostile to the FV have also been equally hostile to any setting where verbal exchange or cross-examination would be possible — debates, etc. Given what some of them have been writing (e.g. Scott Clark, Guy Waters), this coyness is not surprising.
Perhaps the goal has just been to “make things hot” for Steve, so that he voluntarily leaves the PCA. Then they could explain the heresy in detail to various bought-and-paid-for crowds, with no theological debate necessary, and no robust interchanges in the Q&A. The problem is that Steve is a churchman, and has no plans to make it easy for them by acting the part of a radical individualist. He is going to make them prove what they are saying, and this will prove awkward for them because they can’t. If they could, they would be the ones eager for debate, right? And I hereby extend my offer yet again . . .