This past Thursday the General Assembly Standing Judicial Commission of the Presbyterian Church in America issued their final decision in the case of TE James Bordwine, et al. vs. Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  By a vote of 17 concur, 2 dissent, and 3 absent (with no disqualified, recused or abstaining) the Proposed Decision was affirmed by the full SJC.

This case is regarding the process and conclusions of the investigation and examination of TE Peter Leithart by the Pacific Northwest Presbytery.  (For more details you can check out the enumeration of the facts in the decision or my brief summary when the Proposed Decision came out last December.)  The Commission found:

II. 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?

III. 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.

Then the Reasoning and Opinion Section begins with:

The Record in this matter suggests that there are aspects of the teachings of TE Leithart that are in conflict with our standards.

The section goes on to briefly point out that since a formal disciplinary judicial process had not been carried out in this case the relief requested by the Complainants of declaring his views out of accord could not properly be made.  On the other hand, without the judicial process the Presbytery can not declare that the views are not out of accord.  But there is a strong presumption of guilt, the test for initiating judicial proceedings.

The Decision sets forth a two step process:  1) To counsel TE Leithart concerning his views and to encourage him to either “recant and make reparations for those views,” or “to take timely steps toward affiliation with some other branch of the visible church that is consistent with his views.” 2) Failing one of the outcomes of step 1 to then begin the judicial process.

Having now set out the basic findings of the Decision, I wanted to comment on the significant difference between the Final Decision and last December’s Proposed Decision.  The Final Decision is seven pages long, the Proposed Decision is twenty.  The difference is almost exclusively in the Reasoning and Opinion section.  In the Proposed Decision the SJC wrote an extensive analysis of the documents from the PNW investigation showing where TE Leithart’s views were problematic.  There is none of this in the Final Decision.  In the Final Decision the SJC shortened up their reasoning a bit to simply state that a strong presumption of guilt exists and then leave it to the judicial process, if there will be one, to decently and in order make the decision if the views are out of accord.

The second way that the Final Decision differs from the Proposed Decision is the inclusion of “Step 1.”  In the Proposed Decision the order was to “institute process.”  In the Final Decision the preceding step of non-judicial counsel was added to try to achieve a restorative outcome without the divisiveness the judicial process can bring.

I would also note that the cover letter indicates that the two dissenters to the opinion have not indicated an intent to file a Minority Report so this Decision is final and no decision between a majority and minority report will need to be made by the General Assembly.  (I would also add that there might be a minority opinion floating around out there but not a minority report, and second in my reading of the BCO to send a Minority Report to the GA requires at least one-third of the voting members of the SJC to dissent and the two dissenting votes is far short of that so a minority report would not be appropriate.)

There has been some significant response to the Final Decision including The Aquila Report, R. Scott Clark, and A Profitable Word. But once again I thank TE Jason Stellman at Creed Code Cult for his views on the matter since he is the closest to it, being one of the Complainants.  In addition, I am deeply appreciative of his making the decisions available.  And once again, I leave you with his words about this situation:

Although I do agree with the PCA’s decision (obviously, since I wrote the Minority Report and personally argued the complainants’ case before the SJC panel last Fall), I have absolutely no desire to prosecute a case against a good man and godly scholar simply to prove a point and set legal precedent for other NAPARC churches to follow (which a conviction certainly would do). For the sake of the weak semblance of unity that our Protestant churches have, I would prefer that this case be resolved in some way besides a long, drawn-out (not to mention expensive and time-consuming) court battle. While the confessional side may very well “win” if this thing goes to trial, I can’t help but feel that we’re all losers here. I know I’m supposed to feel a deep sense of satisfaction that, if Rev. Leithart is removed from the PCA, justice has prevailed and the system is shown to have worked, but I just can’t seem to shake the feeling of emptiness—not to mention the bitter taste in my mouth—that this whole process has occasioned.