I wish I didn't have to do this. But somebody must. If we had people at our PCA presbytery meetings that would report on the events and debates, we might get some objective reporting. But we don't.
I have two witnesses that were at the Louisiana Presbytery (LAP) Meeting on Feb. 9, 2008, in Pineville, LA.
Ruling Elder Sam Duncan, a member of the PCA's Standing Judical Commission (SJC) and the man appointed to prosecute the case against LAP, was a visitor at the meeting. He was there to help them understand the situation.
At the meeting, the possibility of an LAP trial before the SJC was discussed because LAP pleaded not guilty to one of the charges SJC made against them. Sam Duncan said that the SJC would not let the matter go and there would be consequences if there was a trail.
SJC member Sam Duncan said, "No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trial before the SJC." Everybody heard him say it.
Duane Garner, one of the pastors of Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church, was there and heard him say it.
One of the presbyter's at the LAP meeting, RE Dave Haigler (and no friend of FV or Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church from what I can tell from his blog), confirmed this in the comments section of this post on his blog. After giving a general report of what happened at the meeting, Pastor Garner asked him why he didn't report on what Sam Duncan had said. He responded:
actually, I didn't forget. but he asked that comments like that not be quoted directly, but the sentiment could be quoted from some of his dissents. i decided to respect that wish, and didn't have access to his dissents.Sorry, but you don't say something like that at a public meeting and expect everyone to protect you by keeping it quiet.
2/9/2008 10:06 PM HaigLaw (message) reply
Just in case he removes his comment, I've made a pdf of the page for the record.
Posts
12 comments:
There seems to be a typo in the title of the blog post you copied in .pdf. Someone needs to inform the writer that the initials for the standing judicial commission are "SJC," not "LaP."
I didn't think that could get any harder. Amazing.
Nice job of converting my blog to a pdf. I have no intention of changing my comment quoted.
The intent of my piece was to document how the LaP has hardened, not whether or how the SJC has hardened.
The comments of Mr. Duncan were couched in terms of referring to published dissents of his.
In legal matters, dissents are not considered highly authoritative sources, much less verbal offhand comments about dissents in speeches at meetings where the comments are not acted upon. In other words -- in case I am not making myself clear -- to quote Sam Duncan in this manner is to grab at straws.
-HaigLaw (xanga.com/haiglaw)
Well, that's the problem with conservative Presbyterianism...its run by lawyers.
I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" "is?"
Mr. Haigle,
I don't understand your point. How does what you say about Duncan's "dissents" qualify or even negate his statement "No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trail before the SJC"? What am I missing?
Thank you.
On another note, I find the idea that, if LaP pleaded guilty, they would be punished lightly, to be highly improbable. Someone with great clout with the current crop of SJC members has decided that they want to destroy LaP. It is hard to believe that it would make any difference if LaP stopped defending their innocence.
Destroying LaP and then inviting churches to apply for PCA membership in a decimated "new" LaP allows SJC to, in effect, depose a group of people all at once from office in the denomination. Why mess with individual trials when you can launch a massacre?
What are you missing? I don't know. Your whole story is about an opinion about what might happen in the future. My story at xanga.com/haiglaw is about what actually happened Feb. 9 at the LaP meeting.
I obviously did not think the opinion was important enough to even include in my original story, and didn't, but when Duane Garner asked about it, I acknowledged the context.
It seems that FV defenders enjoy jumping on anything that they think puts the SJC in a bad light.
I am not interested in participating in that. I am in hopes the SJC will make a fair decision on March 6.
-HaigLaw
Mr. Haigler,
I'm not sure who you refer to when you say that FV defenders are interested in "jumping on anything that they think puts the SJC in a bad light." I've not done that.
Pastor Steve Wilkins and his church decided to leave the PCA because they feared they would not get a fair trial before the SJC. The men on that commission had made it clear in many ways that they already considered Wilkins guilty. They twice refused to accept the conclusions of LaP's investigation of Pastor Wilkins. Sam Duncan's comments confirmed what Pastor Wilkins and the church feared was the case - they would not have received a fair trial before the SJC.
Sam Ducan's "opinion" was not simply a off-hand statement made in the bar between friends. He was invited by LaP to speak for the SJC.
Hoping that the SJC will "make a fair decision" on March 6th is not the same thing as wanting a fair trial.
"No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trial before the SJC."
As a member of LAP and one who has genuinely wrestled to understand FV and take positions coram deo that were made without regard to what others have thought, let me go on record to say that SJC has not given LAP a fair hearing on muliple occasions and that FV proponents have often been unclear at best and duplicitous at worst and uncharitable to others while demanding charity for themselves. FV proponents are often all about spinning in a way that makes their case and that minimizes their own faults, to a degree that makes their case incredulous. Jeff, I have no idea whether any of the former charges apply to you. But this last charge, Jeff, fits many posts that I have read from you, this one being a great example.
Surely, this same charge should be leveled at the many who spew their vile on the opposing side of this argument as well, but I have addresed them previously.
All the while, most young pastors that I know just want us to deal graciously with one another and to have honest dialogue, but the constant power plays make this desire seem like a pipe dream. But then again this was (and I envision it to still be) the prayer of our High Priest (John 17:21-26).
What is more, Sam Duncan asked that his comments be kept within the presbytery and you have been party to compromising his request in a way that is less than honorable. You have even PDF'd the comments that show your eagerness to nail someone to the wall--excessive actions like that reveal unhealthy obsessions.
With grieving heart and a longing for unity in the Church for the glory of Christ,
Howard Davis
Pastor, Grace PCA Shreveport
Mr. Davis,
Whether or not Sam Duncan asked that the comments be "kept within the Presbytery" matters not. Was the Presbytery in executive session at the time of this comment? If they were not then everything stated on the floor is a matter of public record. Revealing what was said is not dishonorable. It is simply reporting the facts as they happened.
Howard,
All I did in my post was report what was said. I made no arguments. I did not give my own spin on it.
As for "power plays," I agree with you. But I have no power to play with. As far as I can tell, Pastor Wilkins and others are quite willing to have "honest dialog." It sounds like that is just what happened in your presbytery before the power brokers intervened and twisted everyone's arm with threats.
With all love and respect for my brother, Howard Davis, and sharing his sentiments wishing for more peaceful discourse - I have to disagree with him about whether Duncan's comment should be made public and in fact be published far and wide.
Howard was not at the Presbytery meeting, or else I would ask him to remind me of the part where Duncan asked for his comments to be kept private.
I honestly do not recall him saying anything of that nature.
Yet, this all is really beside the point, since it has come to light that he has made similar statements in other venues to other people. So even if you throw out the comment on the floor of LAP, he has said this in other places and has not retracted it.
"No one from Louisiana Presbytery is going to get a fair trial before the SJC."
Duane Garner
I want to clarify what was intended (and not intended) by my post today. Due to my locale, my comments may have been interpreted as being directed toward Steve Wilkins. Be assured, they ARE NOT! While I disagree with Steve at places and believe he departs from the Westminster Standards in significant places, particularly regarding the "Christian" experience of apostates, I believe that he has sought to be forthright and charitable. Clarity and charity are difficult to sustain with these issues and with a charged environment, but Steve has sought to pursue the honorable route, as far as I can ascertain. I believe that in the end he sought an honorable solution for the peace of the church in a messy situation, and it both angers me and grieves me when I read the blogs that imply a lesser motive.
Those active on the blogs often have not. It is the pro-FV bloggers that my comments were directed towards. In my comment on Jeff Meyers blog, I was referring almost exclusively to how the discussion has unfolded on the internet and primarily on the blogs. A clear example of what I was referring to comes from James Jordan and examples of this from him can be seen at Green Baggins site under the post for "Context of Sam Duncan's Remarks".
My comment was not driven primarily by what I have seen in our presbytery, though the lack of clarity and uncharitableness would fit at times (and at times within our presbytery I have been guilty of both, though I have sought to be fair and just).
For the most part I try and stay away from reading controversial blogs, as Dante said about the Traitors in hell (Achan/Potiphar/etc) who were arguing, listening to them too much will soon lead us to fight.
But today someone recommended I look at a few. So after reading an anti-FV site (Green Baggins) and a pro-FV site (J Meyers), I posted some challenges toward the primary audience of the blogs.
I do believe that pro-FV sites are often spinning things, always pointing out what they perceive as problems and injustices by others and never admitting and revealing problems and injustices that FVers are guilty of. Guys like Jeff and Doug Wilson have been tended to be tempered, but they often seem to be in "spin" mode. That is why I challenged Jeff today, he is selective on what comments he includes, including comments from "the other side" that strengthen his argument and ignoring comments from "his side" that work against his argument. At one level, this can just be good persuasion, but after a while it develops into spinning.
Hope this clarifies where I was coming from.
Now ducking to take cover...
Howard
Post a Comment