Let me begin this by noting that I am a six-day creationist, so nothing in this comparison should be taken further than a simple illustration. In the Scopes monkey trial, the State of Tennessee won, and the creationist position was upheld. But the creationists had the misfortune to have H.L. Mencken in attendance, filing regular dispatches from the front. The State of Tennessee told their story, and Mencken told his. Guess who came out ahead?
Over at Green Bagginses, Bob Mattes has attempted to answer my posts on the Steve Wilkins affair. “I normally don’t go to this kind of trouble to answer folks outside the PCA, but Doug insisted.” And I appreciate it. So let’s roll up our shirt sleeves, shall we?
Bob starts with a simple review of his own qualifications, with an emphasis on accountability, and then he proceeds to a discussion of mine.
“Doug Wilson, on the other hand, in supporting his role as a pastor never earned an M.Div, is self-ordained, self-installed, self-published, and accountable only to himself (humanly speaking). He created his own independent church, then eventually created his own denomination over which he continues to have complete sway. All these are facts. If you don’t believe me, check out Doug’s bio (if you can find one), Mark T.’s blog, Sean’s blog, or Google on “Doug Wilson Moscow”.
There are two responses here. In the first response, we will keep our eye on the ball, and remember that we are talking about Steve Wilkins, and the presumption of his unproven guilt that is being used against Louisiana Presbytery. Where did this presumption come from? What are some accepted methods for ascertaining the truth about malfeasance, misfeasance, and nonfeasance? Why, Google it, you chump! If you want the goods on someone, just type in their name, and up comes the goods. “All these are facts.” (!!!) And he is not even embarrassed to cite an anonymous attack blog. Jeepers and land of Goshen both. Is this what the Standing Judicial Commission did with Steve? No idea, but we do know that if that is how they came to their “strong presumption” of his guilt, that would be okay with Bob Mattes. Facts is facts. I mean, no arguing with Google.
But secondly, just to show how reliable “the facts” are when obtained by this method, let’s do a little review. Now I know that some of what I am about to recite may not clear the high PCA threshhold of anonymous attack blogs, but you do what you can, you know? Our church was planted by an Evangelical Free Church in Pullman, Washington. The early leadership of our congregation, which included me, formed under their oversight. So no, not self-ordained and not self-installed. Self-published? Let me grant you all the Canon titles, just to make this a little more fun. What about the two books from Crossway, Recovering the Lost Tools of Learning and The Case for Classical Christian Education? What about the different essays I contributed to various P&R books, including Back to Basics? What about three years of writing for Table Talk out of Ligonier? The textbooks I edited for Veritas Press? An article in Touchstone, and a debate with Christopher Hitchens in Christianity Today online? As Paul would say, I am out of my mind to talk like this, but your have forced me to it. But if any of you want to double check this with the critics, go ahead and give Mark T a call — if you can find his number in the phone book. Br’er Mark, he lay low.
“What does surprise me is that Doug finds it necessary to trash the PCA and its orderly processes on a frequent and regular basis. In doing so, Doug sets himself above thousands of duly trained, examined, ordained, and installed church elders submissive to and led by the Spirit. I find that shameful.”
I have no objection to orderly processes. That was not the basis of my objection. I have an objection to unjust processes. And an unjust process can be moved, seconded, and entered in the minutes, with everyone present speaking in calm tones, and thousands at the General Assembly wondering if they are going to get to the ball game in time. I do not hate order, and I do not hate accountability. I hate a lie.
In response to my comment that Steve is a minister in good standing, Bob argues this way:
“I wish that I had a nickel for every time a Federal Visionist used that argument. In Wilkins’ particular case, he has only survived in the PCA because Louisiana Presbytery has failed to do its job correctly. That’s not just Bob’s opinion, but the official position of the PCA as found by our Standing Judicial Commission. Here are their words in Case 2007-8:
2) Does the record support a probable finding that Louisiana Presbytery erred, and thereby violated BCO 13-9.f, 40-4, and 40-5, when it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Steve Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitutional standards?
2) Yes
Now, I don’t know how Doug reads that, but the plain words say that there is ‘a strong presumption of guilt that some of the views of TE Steve Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitutional standards’. That’s not the description of a TE in good standing and was the basis for my comment.”
Great. Now we’re getting somewhere. Where and when was this strong presumption of guilt established? Are the transcripts available? I am particularly interested in the part where the Commission interviewed Steve, got his views straight from him, and gave him an opportunity to defend himself. But maybe they didn’t need to — somebody on the Commission probably has access to Google. Or maybe an anonymous attack blog put up some juicy stuff. You know how — when you are hot on the trail of something — the facts just flow in your direction.
So Bob can’t defend himself by pointing to the Commission, when that Commission is committing the same injustice. “They are doing it too” is not a demonstration that justice is being followed. But this is Bob’s defense: “That’s what the SJC said and what I summarized.” But in presbyterian polity, there is no such thing as presumption of guilt.
Now determining if there is enough evidence on hand to conduct a trial is a lawful thing to do — but what you are in effect getting there is an indictment. And after an indictment, which simply establishes that the prosecutors aren’t hallucinating, the defendant still goes into his own trial with a presumption of innocence, at least for people who have a biblical sense of justice. And as sure as God made little green apples, you cannot use a “presumption of guilt” (pulled from who knows where) to clinch the guilt of another party, in this case Louisiana Presbytery.
But Bob just keeps going.
“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.
Here it is again. Louisiana is technically on trial! Wilkins’ errant theology, established with him not present, don’t you know, is still the basis for bringing Louisiana up on charges. If they are found guilty of their technical violation, then they will be strung up from the invisible sky hook of Wilkins’ guilt.
“It’s that simple. Does the BCO cover such a situation? You bet. From BCO 13-9f says that Presbyteries have the obligation:
‘To condemn erroneous opinions which injure the purity or peace of the Church; to visit churches for the purpose of inquiring into and redressing the evils that may have arisen in them’
But when you condemn an erroneous opinion, and a particular individual claims that he does not in fact hold to that erroneous opinion, the biblical way of getting at the truth is to hold a trial. You guys want to be honest to goodness Presbyterians? Then why doesn’t someone in Louisiana Presbytery file charges, and have a regular, orderly trial, with true accountability? If the trial comes out wrong, then it can be justly appealed. It is not enough for the Standing Judicial Commission to fire up their search engines.
“There is a strong presumption that Louisiana Presbytery has failed to do that in Wilkins’ case, and they now must answer for it. This wasn’t the decision of a pope or any one individual, but the finding of body of properly trained, examined, ordained, and installed church officers elected by the General Assembly and governed by the BCO.
Another strong presumption! This is great, and we haven’t even had to hold one trial yet. Keeps costs down.
Bob then quotes the case summary, under the impression that it helps him.
“In case 2007-8, the Standing Judicial Commission found that the record supported a probable finding that Louisiana Presbytery erred, and thereby violated BCO 13-9.f, 40-4, and 40-5, when it failed to find a strong presumption of guilt that the views of TE Steve Wilkins were out of conformity with the Constitutional Standards. As such, the SJC continues to conclude that there is a strong presumption that Presbytery has not met its Constitutional responsibilities, and thus has not adequately protected the peace and purity of the Church (see Part I of this opinion).
Doesn’t David pray that the Lord would keep him from presumptuous sins? That’s the problem here — not enough psalm singing.
“So LAP will be on trial (if they don’t plead guilty) because there is a strong presumption that they violated BCO 13-9f, 40-4, and 40-5. To be sure, Wilkins’ errant views lurk behind all this, but it is the Presbytery’s own actions that will be on trial.”
So Louisiana Presbytery, which did meet with Steve more than once, and cleared him, failed to do its duty, and the Standing Google Commission, which has not talked to Steve about his views, is in a position to overturn the decision of the lower court without interacting with Steve directly? Surely you jest. This can’t happen, right? Ha. Again I say, ha.
“Well, anyone who has followed Doug, his blog, or his self-published materials are well acquainted with his ‘peculiar talents.’ By all means, check out Mark T.’s blog for some gory details. Sean also has some related material. Doug’s biting sarcasm and ability to spin stories to ridicule his opponents is well documented. Doug has a number of devotees that eat that stuff up, but the almost unanimous 35th General Assembly vote and the votes of six other orthodox Reformed denominations showed how much influence Doug’s self-published acerbic pen has outside his little circle.”
Right. By all means, check out Mark T, and you will find out what passes for evidence around these parts. And while you are there, check out what Bob means by that important word accountability — anonymous accusations are just fine with him, contra Deuteronomy 19, and contra his own earlier dithyrambs in praise of accountability.