In essence, the way the situation is this:
1. the LA presbytery has a duty to exercise godly discipline;
2. Wilkins' promotion of heretical views has become notorious or at least the allegations that Wilkins has heretical views have become widely known;
3. the LA presbytery's way of addressing the situation has been (in essence) to exonerate Wilkins, or at least not to prosecute him; and
4. so the charge is that the LA presbytery is tolerating serious heresy.
Doug Wilson doesn't seem to get it. He hears:
Wilkins wasn't and isn't on trial. Now LAP is technically on trial for violating the BCO. That said, Wilkins' errant theology does figure prominently in the case. You can read that clearly in the SJC's decisions.And then Doug Wilson objects that Wilkins has never been judged guilty of errant theology! Seriously!
Doug, for example, asks:
How can Wilkins' errant theology figure prominently in the case when Wilkins' "errant" theology has never been established in a trial?I ask myself, does Doug get it? The whole point is that the LA presbytery, as a court, has failed to properly address the Wilkins' situation. Suppose that rather than the issue that really exists, suppose that Wilkins publicly claimed to have ghost-written Cristopher Hitchens' latest book (Mr. Hitchens is a prominent atheist). Suppose that in the same public claim, in writing, Mr. Wilkins had said, "We all know God really doesn't exist, and the Bible is a bunch of baloney." Suppose further that the LA presbytery, prompted by the PCA general assembly, did some kind of investigation and reported back that they concluded that Wilkins' theology is "sound as a pound."
Would Doug Wilson still not understand both why the presbytery could be charged, even though Wilkins' theology had not yet been judged wrong in church court, and why Wilkins' theology would feature prominently in that trial?
I cannot believe that Doug would not get it in that situation. But one will object that this situation is not that situation. The problem is that one could not tell that from Doug's principle objections.
I respectfully submit that Doug's judgment is colored by two salient facts:
1) Wilkins seems to be a friend of Doug's; and
2) Wilkins' errant theology is at least tied in the public eye with Doug's theology, which Doug insists is not errant.