Heresy trials need to be open to avoid the unfairness, on the one hand, of inquisition or star-chamber proceedings, and, on the other hand, a whitewash that may occur among sympathizers shielded from open scrutiny.

As readers of Aquila Report are aware, a commission of the Pacific Northwest Presbytery (PCA) began a doctrinal trial Friday of Dr. Peter Leithart. The details of the process of that trial have been described in previous Aquila Reports. Briefly, a commission of the Presbytery will try him and report its findings to the Presbytery in October at which time the Presbytery will act to affirm or deny those findings.

It is understandable that, given such a procedure (particularly the several months wait between the trial of the commission and the report of the findings to Presbytery), the PNW has determined that the trial shall be held in executive (or closed) session. There is apparent and understandable concern that the trial not be publicized and discussed in advance of the PNW having occasion to hear the commission’s findings and make its own decision in an atmosphere not redolent with blog discussions and the like.

That the PNW opted to proceed in this fashion, however, I judge to be an error.

The Presbytery should have decided that, whatever process it adopted, it should be one that is not closed but open. Now I should note that I am not in the PCA and am not as familiar with the BOCO as are the officers of the PCA. I can find nothing in the Rules of Discipline that explicitly address the question of open vs. closed sessions of courts when sitting as trial judicatories. I am not alleging that the PNW is violating its BOCO.

I am alleging, however, that the process that the PNW has adopted is at variance with historic Presbyterian polity. Protestantism in general, in fact, has opposed closed trials.

The OPC Book of Discipline, with which I am quite familiar, sets forth the following:

“The judicatories of the church shall ordinarily sit with open doors. In every case involving a charge of heresy the judicatory shall be without power to sit with closed doors. In other cases, where the ends of the discipline seem to require it, the trial judicatory at any stage of the trial may determine by a vote of three-fourths of the members present to sit with closed doors” (BD IV. A.1.b.).

I realize that one may demur that what was just cited is for the OPC and this trial is occurring in the PCA . However, what the OPC Book of Discipline is citing is a general principle widely applicable (other Reformed and Presbyterian churches have like prohibitions). Judicatories, or courts, may close their doors in ethical cases when matters of privacy need to be preserved. Such is not the case in a heresy trial, which this is.

It should be noted that some have raised the question of whether this is a case in which heresy is alleged. The PCA BOCO seems clearly to denominate “doctrinal cases” (33-1) as involving “heresy” (29-3, 30-5, and 34-5; the other category being “immorality” or other adjectives descriptive of behavioral misconduct). The OPC and PCA require that doctrinal offenses be serious enough to warrant trial and affect the system of doctrine (OPC) or strike at the vitals of religion (PCA). If something is regarded as warranting trial under such strictures, it is regarded as heresy (this is a different question as to the distinction between heresy and damnable heresy and like issues; there has not historically been a uniform definition for these terms).

Heresy trials need to be open to avoid the unfairness, on the one hand, of inquisition or star-chamber proceedings, and, on the other hand, a whitewash that may occur among sympathizers shielded from open scrutiny.

If I were charged with aberrant teaching and if I were convinced that I was guilty, I would plead such and, hopefully, repent, so that there would be no need for a trial (though I might be censured, either as one pleading guilty or coming as my own accuser, OPC BD V.1).

If I did not believe myself to be guilty, I would not only want but demand an open trial so that I might be vindicated in my teaching. There is no good reason that anyone should ever be tried for doctrinal aberrations in a closed setting and I know of no heresy trials that have been thus conducted (whether Briggs or Machen—it doesn’t matter whether the accused is thought to be a “good guy” or a “bad guy”).

One defender of the PNW action has noted that an open trial might produce media frenzy and raise the spectacle of tweeting, blogging, etc. going on during the trial itself. I would submit that a court has every right to insist that such does not occur, even collecting recording and e-devices at the door if necessary. The court has every right to insure the integrity of its proceedings and to demand that no recordings other than the official one be made. This is standard in civil and ecclesiastical courts.

That a court should not want bloggers blogging during its proceedings is understandable, but rules can be made and enforced to prevent this. This does not mean that interested parties should be excluded, however, and that those who attended should not be free to write or talk about what they witnessed. An open trial does not mean that anything goes or that the court has no control over its proceedings; it does mean that a shroud of secrecy is not cast over the proceedings, leaving the watching world to wonder why.

I anticipate someone replying and saying that given the mechanism (commission, then presbytery decision significantly later) that such a closed proceeding is warranted, if not mandated. However, I repeat, it is not necessary that this trial proceed in this way. (Perhaps there could be a called meeting of the Presbytery just after the trial completes.)

At any rate, no heresy trial, particularly a high profile one, should proceed with closed doors. It would not happen in the OPC, and I am perplexed that it is happening in our esteemed sister denomination.

Does the PCA have precedents for dealing with doctrinal (not ethical) charges in this way? This trial is of interest not only to the PCA but to all the church, particularly those churches with which the PCA has ecclesiastical relations. This is a prominent and learned teaching elder being charged with aberrant teaching.

The trial of Dr. Leithart should not be closed.

The Rev. Alan D. Strange is a ministerial member of the OPC. He is a long-time member, among other GA committees, of the Committee on Appeals and Complaints (OPC), as well as the Vice-Chairman of the study committee that produced the Report on Justification (that made, among other things, an assessment of Federal Vision). He is also an Associate Professor at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, where, among other things, he teaches Presbyterian History and Polity. He also teaches Presbyterian Polity for the Ministerial Training Institute of the OPC.