“The views of TE Leithart touching fundamentals of the system of doctrine….set out in the Record suggest a strong presumption of guilt that these views represent offenses that could properly be the subject of judicial process”

In a case that began with the adoption of the PCA General Assembly’s Ad Interim Committee on New Perspectives of Paul, Auburn Avenue Theology and Federal Vision on June of 2007, the denomination’s Standing Judicial Commission (highest court) acted at their recent meeting to make a determination in a case involving Teaching Elder (Minister) Peter J. Leithart of Moscow, Idaho.

Leithart is current serving ‘out of bounds’ (that is, not in a PCA church or agency) as Dean of Graduate Studies and Senior Fellow at New Saint Andrews College and as a Pastor of the Trinity Reformed Church, both in Moscow. The church is a member of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CRE).

He is graduate of Hillsdale College (BA), Westminster Theological Seminary (MAR, ThM) and University of Cambridge (PhD). He was ordained in the PCA by Evangel Presbytery in 1991 and served as the pastor of Reformed Heritage Presbyterian Church in Birmingham from 1989 to 1995. He 1999 he moved to Moscow, Idaho to assume his teaching position and joined the pastoral staff at the church in 2004. He is a prolific writer, including several books and many journal articles.

It is his writing that came to the attention to the members of his Presbytery, known as Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PNW) which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska. After the denomination study committee on NPP, AAT, and FV (see above) was approved, Dr. Leithart wrote to the Stated Clerk of PNW Presbytery in order to lay out his views on specific subjects contained in the 9 Declarations of the study committee report.

At Dr. Leithart’s request, along others in the Presbytery, a Study Committee was appointed and charged with examining Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder in light of the June 2007 actions, especially as they pertain to Federal Vision theology.

In October of 2008 the Committee completed its work and reported both a Majority and Minority Report to the Presbytery, including Leithart’s response to both documents. The Majority Report recommended that the views of Leithart be judged to be not out of accord with the fundamentals of the system of doctrine. The Minority Report recommended that the views be found out of accord. The Presbytery adopted the Majority Report.

At that point several members of the Presbytery, following the instructions in the PCA Book of Church Order, drafted and filed a Complaint (a formal response asking the Presbytery to change their position) which supported the findings of the Minority report.

After a season of bad weather, the Presbytery decided not to meet as a full court, but rather appointed a Commission (a smaller group of members) to act on the Complaint. That Commission met in November and denied the Complaint, maintaining the original decision of the Presbytery.

The full Presbytery was able to act on the report of the Commission at its meeting in April of 2009 and they voted to adopt the report of the Commission.

The Complainants, again following their rights according to the Book of Church Order, filed a Complaint with the General Assembly of the PCA alleging that the Presbytery erred in rejecting the Minority Report, which (they said) contained ample evidence that the differences between Leithart’s views and the denominational Standards were fundamental to the system of doctrine and should have been found out of accord. This Complaint was assigned to the Standing Judicial Commission.

The SJC, meeting in Atlanta earlier this month, met to hear the report of a Panel which heard the arguments in the case, and voted 17 concur, 2 dissent, 3 absent to adopt the following:

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE: Did PNW err in its handling of the Reports from the PNW Study Committee appointed to examine Leithart’s fitness to continue as a PCA Teaching Elder?

JUDGMENT: Yes. The Complaint is sustained, and the case is sent back to PNW with instructions to proceed according to the Reasoning and Opinion of this Decision.

REASONING AND OPINION: The Record in this matter suggests that there are aspects of the teachings of Te Leithart that are in conflict with our standards. These teachings could reasonably be deemed to be injurious to the peace and purity of the church. Further, the Record shows that Complainant and Respondent acknowledge the same. However, without formal judicial process, PNW does not have the authority to render a definitive judgment as to whether those teachings strike at the vitals of religion or were industriously spread. Therefore, Complainants are not entitled to a declaration that these teachings are out of accord with our system of doctrine. Similarly, without the completion of judicial process, PNW could not declare that thee teachings are not out of accord with our system of doctrine.

PNW erred by declaring that TE Leithart’s views were not out of accord with our standards. Further, PNW may not, at this point, (as Complainants have asked) declare that his views are out of accord with our standards. Nevertheless, the views of TE Leithart touching fundamentals of the system of doctrine set out in the Record suggest a strong presumption of guilt that these views represent offenses that could properly be the subject of judicial process.

In light of these findings, PNW is directed to proceed, as follows

(1) Pursuant to BCO 31-7, PNW may counsel TE Leithart that the views set forth above constitute 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.

(2) If said pastoral advice is not pursued or fails to result in TE Leithart’s recanting or affiliating with some other branch of the visible church before the Fall Stated Meeting of PNW, then PNW shall take steps to comply with its obligations under BCO 32-2.

Beyond these directions, we call attention to the responsibility of members of PNW, as those called to rebuke any who contradict sound doctrine, to bring charges in this case, should they find the views in question to be in violation of our Doctrinal Standards.

This matter is remanded to PNW for further actions consistent with this opinion.

The Aquila Report will accept Letters to the Editor or articles of Opinion on these matters. Send your submissions to [email protected]