The final report from the Standing Judicial Commission on the Leithart case is now out, and I just now finished reading through it. The judgment of the commission was that the complaint against the Pacific Northwest Presbytery was “sustained, and the case is sent back to PNW with instructions to proceed according to the Reasoning and Opinion of this Decision” — the Reasoning, capital R, the Opinion, capital O, and the Decision, capital D.
The decision relies on the nine declarations adopted by the 35th General Assembly of the PCA, which have been discussed in this space before. The first requires bi-covenantalism, and I am bi-covenantal. The second requires us to hold that someone’s “election” cannot be lost and, if we are talking about decretal election, of course not. But if they mean something else by putting “election” in scare quotes, we shall have to inquire further. But decretal election cannot be lost or altered in any way. The third requires the view that Christ is a representative head “whose perfect obedience and satisfaction is imputed to individuals who believe in him,” a view which I loudly, consistently, and enthusiastically have affirmed. The fourth requires the language of merit be used when referring to the imputation of Christ’s obedience to us, which I am certainly willing to do, especially when singing hymns. The fifth requires us to reject the idea that union with Christ makes the idea of imputation redundant, a rejection that I have argued in favor of for years. The sixth requires that water baptism and covenantal union be rejected as setting up a parallel soteriological system alongside the decretal system of Westminster, a rejection that would have to be affirmed by anyone who understands that a man can’t go to Heaven and Hell both. I certainly understand that. The seventh says that effectual union with Christ includes perseverance, to which I say, “amen, and amen.” The eighth says that regeneration and justification necessitate perseverance, which I also teach. And the ninth says that justification in the sight of God cannot be based in any way on our works, which I also affirm.
So, what does this have to do with Leithart? I can’t answer questions on his behalf. I am not a member of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery, and I am not the one being brought to trial. Well, just this. I am a leading
spokesman of the FV, and was the one who drafted the Joint Statement of the FV. I gathered substantive input from the other men, and was the editor of that document. In the narrative that is being spun about all this, I am one of the chief culprits. And while I would want some of the nine declarations to be less ambiguous (I would rather affirm election than “election”), I certainly agree with the substance of what they are affirming and denying.
It follows, therefore, as night follows day, that Peter Leithart is being attacked for failing to agree with a leading FV spokesman. I search in vain for any other explanation. This SJC decision that I read through indicates that 17 men voted for this decision, with 2 dissenting. The foes of the FV have been trying to warn the Church for years that this insidious movement was infiltrating the Church everywhere, but to think that they could get 17 of their number onto the SJC is a feat without parallel. Man! Talk about deep cover.
Special note: the previous paragraph was facetious, tongue-in-cheek. I take the precaution of saying this explicitly because years ago Jim Jordan wrote a satirical piece on how to split a church, which was then used against a friend of mine (seriously) in a PCA trial. The charge was not that my friend had a book in his library that contained a literary genre that his accusers failed to understand, but that’s what the charge should have been. I mention this because just within the last week, I saw that same charge about Jordan’s piece floated yet again. I also mention it because I just wrote a facetious paragraph which, to be perfectly clear, was the paragraph right before this one. It will therefore not be to the point to misunderstand my point, and then appeal to a determination by the General Assembly that says the ninth commandment should be honored at all times. So it should, but this includes those who ordinations did not provide them with a magic decoder ring that enables them to understand theology when it gets over their heads.
I don’t know what the Pacific Northwest Presbytery will do. But this is what they were told to do:
“PNW may counsel TE Leithart that the views set forth above constitue error that is injurious to peace and purity of the church and offer him pastoral advice on how he might recant and make reparations for those views or, if he is unwilling or unable in conscience to do so, that he is free to take timely steps toward affiliation with some other branch of the visible church that is consistent with his views.”
If this is not pursued, or if it is pursued and fails to achieve “Leithart’s recanting or affiliating with some other branch of the visible church before Fall Stated Meeting of PNW,” then the presbytery has been instructed to bring charges against Leithart. They only allow for these two options prior to a trial because they have found that, with regard to Leithart’s views, there is “a strong presumption of guilt.”
In other words, the presbytery was not given the option of having Leithart give a satisfactory explanation of how his views comport with the Westminster Standards, or with 9 Declarations of the General Assembly. That is not on the menu anywhere. The SJC (from which there is no appeal, for many come down but few return to the sunlit lands) has determined that there are three possible options: 1. Leithart recants; 2. Leithart leaves, or; 3. Leithart is tried by a presbytery that has been instructed to get a satisfactory verdict. We all know what is meant by “satisfactory,” don’t we, boys? What is that sensation welling up in my throat? Must be envy or something.
“Behold, I have taught you the BCO, even as the General Assembly hath commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. Keep ye therefore the determinations of the 22 member SJC; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the denominations, which shall hear of all these procedures, and say, “Jeepers,” and run for the tall grass. For what denomination is there so great, who hath rules so nigh unto them, as these procedures that in all things we resort unto them? And what denomination is there so great, that hath convoluted procedures so arcane as they which infesteth the BCO, which I set before you this day? Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy rules diligently, lest thou forget the SJC which meeteth in secret, and hath the authority to whack thee upon the mazzard, lest you forget what thine eyes have seen, and lest the fear of these procedures, from which there be no complaint or appeal (BCO 15-5), depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons’ sons, that they might know who to stay on the right side of” (Dt. 4:5-9).