Instead of ruling on the Record of the Case and the Constitution, they ruled merely with regard to the complaint before them. Thus now, according to the SJC, Leithart very well may be teaching heresy against the confession. The PNWP may have erred in exonerating him. However, the complainant didn’t prove that. The SJC, like Arlene Specter, attempted to direct their response to the prosecution/complainant rather than to the defendant, and rule “not proven.”

In March 2013, the Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), made up of elders selected as pastoral and intelligent men, as well as many with legal backgrounds, issued a decision that immediately brought a story of Arlen Specter to mind.

Those old enough to remember the impeachment trial of President William Jefferson Clinton may vaguely remember a brief blip of clever legal reasoning by the then Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter, a Republican at the time, seemly did not want to anger the Democratic constituents of Pennsylvania, but also did not want to alienate his Republican supporters. Specter had a brilliant plan to attempt to make both happy: Scottish common law.

Specter, a brilliant lawyer, found precedent in Scottish common law for ruling in a manner different than “guilty” or “not guilty,” and instead to rule “not proven.” Such a vote would mean that the defendant very well may be guilty, but directed the pronouncement at the prosecutor rather than defendant. Specter would then not be saying the President was not guilty, but not that he was guilty either. Specter must have thought his solution would make both sides happy. However, in declaring their votes, you will not see one vote of “not proven” in the Congressional Records. Specter loudly declared “not proven” when the role was called. But Specter voted in a way that was not Constitutionally available to him because American Law was pertinent, not Scottish common law. Thus, “not proven” was not allowed, instead Specter’s vote was “not guilty.”

Why did the SJC’s ruling bring Arlen Specter to mind? Recently, Federal Visionist Peter Leithart was cleared by the Presbytery of the Pacific Northwest of teaching heresy in regards to teaching baptismal regeneration and justification by works (among other things). A Complaint was filed with the Standing Judicial Commission of the PCA, and the Statement of the Issue was as follows:

A. Are the views of Teaching Elder Peter Leithart out of accord with the Westminster Standards?

B. Did Pacific Northwest Presbytery act contrary to the constitution of the PCA when it determined following his trial that the views of TE Leithart were within the bounds of the Westminster Standards?

The Record of the Case and the complaint went before the SJC that then issued a ruling. If you had seen the complaint, you would be excused for finding the response to be confusing, because the SJC stated the Statement of the Issue as follows:

Did the Complainant demonstrate, based on the record in this Case, that the Pacific Northwest Presbytery violated the Constitution of the PCA when it concluded that the accused was not guilty of holding and teaching views that are in conflict with the system of doctrine taught in the Westminster Standards?

They then went on to explain:

“…nothing in our Decision or reasoning should be understood as rendering  any judgment on any “school of thought” within or without the PCA. Our review could focus only on: (a) whether the Complainant  demonstrated that the Presbytery committed procedural errors in its handling of this matter;   (b) whether the Complainant demonstrated that Presbytery misunderstood TE Leithart’s views; and (c) whether the Complainant demonstrated that TE Leithart’s views are in conflict with the system of doctrine.”

In other words, the SJC, as to the statement of the ruling, did not declare either “guilty” or “not guilty” but “not proven.” And did so ignoring their charge in their Handbook:

“A member shall not render judgment in any matter pending before the commission on the basis of anything other than the Constitution of the Church and the facts presented by the Record of the Case and the other materials properly before him.” (2.4)

Instead of ruling on the Record of the Case and the Constitution, they ruled merely with regard to the complaint before them. Thus now, according to the SJC, Leithart very well may be teaching heresy against the confession. The PNWP may have erred in exonerating him. However, the complainant didn’t prove that. The SJC, like Arlene Specter, attempted to direct their response to the prosecution/complainant rather than to the defendant, and rule “not proven.”

One must view such a ruling as interesting and nuanced. But such a ruling is also unconstitutional, just as was Specter’s vote. In the common rulings of the PCA, the judgment is seemingly always (I have never found a counter example) written as “The Presbytery erred” or “The Presbytery did not err” and that being directed to exonerating or finding guilt with the defendant. This single ruling decided to change the Statement of the Issue, and rule addressing the complainant rather than the defendant.

This is one reason you may see so many items related to the Peter Leithart trial coming up at this General Assembly in the form of the CCB reviewing the case, the Review of Presbytery Records, and 4 Overtures to the GA. The SJC, as an arm of the General Assembly has a responsibility to rule in regards to matter of the Constitution (see Operating Manual of the SJC 2.4, BCO 14-6a, BCO 39-4, etc). The SJC did not do so.

Through one of these measures, the General Assembly must redirect the Standing Judicial Commission to deal with this case. This is not to change a verdict. The issue is to receive a first ruling as to the Statement of the Issue. Guilty, or Not Guilty. Either Leithart’s views are in accord with our Constitution or not, and these views are thoroughly outlined for all to understand and see in the Record of the Case which the SJC is required to use in ruling, and failed to do  you can read the Illiana Overture, or the 700+ page record of the case on Pacific Northwest Presbytery’s website, or the dissenting opinion by TE Aquila and RE Haigler]. These questions require a Yes or No:

A. Are the views of Teaching Elder Peter Leithart out of accord with the Westminster Standards?

B. Did Pacific Northwest Presbytery act contrary to the constitution of the PCA when it determined following his trial that the views of TE Leithart were within the bounds of the Westminster Standards?

We are still waiting for an answer. “Not proven” is not an option, because the General Assembly through the agency of the SJC is not a Scottish Court, nor even an American Court. It is a court of the church, responsible to the care of the sheep. “Not Proven” is understood as “not guilty” and if the SJC wants to say that, they need to say that in clear language. If sheep are being poisoned, the response ought not to be ambiguity and procedural nuance. Guilty, or not guilty. If we do not state our position as a denomination to Leithart’s teaching clearly, as either poison or food, then we are not qualified to be shepherds of the flock and to feed Christ’s sheep. I respectfully request that we in the PCA need an answer in accord with the PCA Constitution to this question. So I encourage those who are going to GA to reject a false appeal to procedure that is not pertinent. We cannot claim ignorance and state “not proven” for our Constitution will not allow it. Our calling does not allow it.

Jared Nelson is Assistant Pastor at Providence Presbyterian (PCA) in Edwardsville, Illinois.