Some Answers to Questions about the Leithart Trial

As you can imagine, responding to every comment and charge I have received is not possible, but I hope to clarify some things in the days and weeks ahead.

One of the questions that keeps arising is how to understand my resignation in light of the Leithart trial. I'll do my best to explain my own thinking in this regard.

Most of you who have followed the PCA's Federal Vision issues know the basic timeline with respect to Leithart and the PNWP, so I won't rehearse it all here. My own involvement with the Leithart case began in 2007, shortly after the Memphis GA received the FV Report. My very first questions regarding Sola Scriptura began arising in the summer of 2008, but at most they were little nagging stones in my shoe that I assumed would either go away or be resolved with a bit of study. Obviously as time went on, these questions (together with ones about Sola Fide) became more pronounced.

The question, then, is this: Why did I prosecute Leithart when I was inwardly wrestling with issues that, if embraced, would disqualify me from the ministry?

There are a few things I would say to this. First, anyone familiar with church polity understands that the wheels grind slowly, and that one cannot simply "get out" of a process when he is mired in the middle of it. The first real opportunity to extricate myself was after the trial was over and a Complaint needed to be written against PNWP's decision. At that time I opted to issue a Protest instead, while at the same time aiding those who desired to complain behind the scenes.

But to get to the core of the matter, here's the difference between Leithart and me: The doctrines that Leithart publicly embraces are, in my opinion and that of many others, outside the pale of Reformed orthodoxy as outlined in the Westminster Standards. Thus from my perspective, any PCA minister holding such views ought not to be allowed to continue ministering in the PCA.

Leithart obviously sees his situation very differently, and so far, the PCA agrees with him.

When I realized that the questions I had been wrestling with privately were not being resolved, I had a choice to make. I could have done nothing, taught these things, and waited for someone to complain about it. Once they did, I could have asked PNWP to form a study committee to investigate me and hopefully clear my name. If they did so but found me guilty, I could have then appealed to the SJC, which would have eventually, after many months, instructed presbytery to try me. Then I could have gathered a defense team and spent countless hours and money on my defense. Then, when it was all over, I would have lost, and I would be exactly where I am today, but it would have taken several years to get there.

Instead, I opted to take the approach that I believe my ordination vows demand of me (and Leithart, and all PCA ministers), namely, I informed my session of my struggles, was granted a sabbatical during which I could pursue answers, and when those answers didn't come, I informed presbytery that my views were no longer in accord with the Confession and Catechisms of the PCA.

For the record, I do not regret prosecuting Leithart (even though I hated every minute of it). I have always considered myself a churchman and a confessionalist, and therefore I still think he is out of accord just as I know I am, and I stand by everything I said in my opening and closing arguments during the trial.

Hope that helps clear a few things up.