That leaves us with failure to indict. The SJC can find that in their judgment there was probable cause, and that charges should have been brought. So if that is what they find, what is the appropriate redress in a situation like that? Someone would have to bring charges. When those charges are brought, Wilkins would then be tried in some venue, and he would have the full presumption of innocence in that trial. The prosecution would have to prove that he was not in conformity with the Confession, instead of doing it the Internet way, which is to baldly assert that someone is out of conformity with the Confession, leaving him to try to prove his way back into conformity.
So this would be a real debate, a real confrontation, requiring real arguments. The accused would have the advantage, instead the current slander system, where the prosecution has the advantage. At the same time, genuine theological experts from both sides would be called to testify. It would be the trial of the century. Finally we would have a setting in which we all could define our terms and settle the matter. It would be fantastic. Throw us into that briar patch.
One other thing: bringing to a complaint against one’s own presbytery, for failing to indict, when all one had to do is file charges oneself, makes no sense at all. SJC has painted themselves in the corner of presuming the guilt of a presbyter in good standing because they received complaints from Louisiana Presbytery rather than directing those presbyters to press charges themselves.
If the proper order had been followed, we would have had 1) a bona fide public trial with records and witnesses and the possibility of the accused confronting his accusers 2) a basis for one party or the other to appeal to SJC if necessary.
For whatever reason, SJC has moved into unprecedented and unimagined “space” in which they have no restraints.
Everything about this case shows that Steve Wilkins’ opponents know that Steve would be exonerated by anything but a political machine. This is simply the follow up to the shamelessly biased FV committee. The very process serves as evidence of Steve’s uprightness in this matter.
Mark,
Is there a difference between pressing charges and filing a complaint or dissent?
In the SJC Decision, it says that on 2/15 TE James Jones filed a complaint with LAP about the decision to exonerate, and on 2/20 TE Howard Davis filed a dissent about the same thing.
The complaint was denied by LAP.
If either of these men had filed charges, couldn’t the presbytery have done the same thing and dismissed them? (and wouldn’t it have appeared likely that they would, since they had just dismissed the complaint?)
It does appear to me that the GA is encroaching on the Presbytery’s authority… but I also wonder if actual charges against Wilkins at the presbytery level would have stuck.
And, if they didn’t, wouldn’t going to the SJC be the proper procedural thing to do?
Richard in the PCA a complaint and dissent are formal ways of protesting a vote or to get a vote overturned. To fiel charges begins to the whole judicial process.
Wilson has really done a good job of clarifying the issues. In the end, none of it matters unless the people *on the SJC* can be persuaded in sufficient numbers to vote against conviction in order to set up even the possibility for oversight of the SJC. I think the only way justice can be done is to have some kind of letter writing campaign to the members of the SJC trying to help them understand the nature of what is happening. I’m not impugning their motives or their intelligence, just that there is a social circle that will exert a great deal of power over their interpretation of what is and isn’t plausible.
David,
Thanks for the response. I guess my next question would be if presbytery determines whether or not to indict when charges are filed.
I agree with what Mark said, that charges should have been filed. But if one of those men had issued charges officially in LAP, wouldn’t the presbytery then determine whether or not to indict? Thus, filing charges doesn’t automatically mean a trial will be held?
And, if that is the case, would the next step procedurally be for the accuser to ask the SJC to take a look into the matter?
If the deck is so stacked against the FV, and the SJC political machine so biased as you argue….why would you want to stay and be part of a denomination that’s so corrupted?